The Kansas herald of freedom., 1859-04-09
IContinued from first page. !

day from the House to make provision for
the pay mcnt of the money. That is the
proper and the honorable mode of dispos-
ing of the question, and there will be no
difficulty in doing it with all the rest of
the Indians, and saving the rights Of all
parties. From my knowledge Of the par
ties, ali sure there need be no difficulty
in inducing them to do that but whether
that be SO or not, it is an obligation Of the
United States TO do that under treaty, and
the Indians have the right to ask that
their rights. under the treaty, whatever
they are, shall be complied with
will not take up the time OF the Senate
by reading the long preambleof the trea-
~ which sets forth the fact that these
Indians had purchased with their own
means, apprehending tie accumulation Of
white people would compel them to seek
other lands for their hunting grounds,
right to live with the Menomonees; and
by an arrangement with the United
States, at period anterior to 1888, this
right, thus purchased by these Indians,
was arranged, and the New York Indians
were given FIVE hundred thousand acres
Of land in the neighborhood of Green
Bay. At the time the New York Indians
obtained these FIVE hundred thousand
acres, they were in a wild country, COM
paratively yalueless. Matters stood in
this way until the lands at Green Bay be-
came valuable and desirable for settle
ment. Then the United States, in 1888,
made another treaty with these Indians,
and gave them lands further west. In
1888, when the treaty was made, their
FIVE hundred thousand acres of land in the
neighbOrhood of Green Bay, would have
sold in the market for four times what
the lands, which the Indians obtained for
it, would have sold for. They exchanged
at great disadvantage, so far as value in
the market was concerned, though, per-
haps, the western lands were more useful
to the Indians if they would have gone
there. Thus the Indians paid for this in
terest ; it was not gift or gratuity by the
United States to them.
AS said before, this matter turns, to
some extent, onthe fact whether formal
notice, an appointment of a day that the
Indians might understand that they must
proceed to occupy this land or would lose
their rights, has ever been given. Ac-
cordiDg to my understanding-aud that is
the understanding of the commissioner
who negotiated the treaty, and who is
here-no such notice has ever been given.
That efferts have been made, from time
to time, to get them to remove, am
aware: but that is not the notice of the
treaty, which was to forfeit their rights
unless they complied with it.
Mr.. GREEN. shall not consume time.
/ shall ask for the yeas and nays on the
proposition of the Senator from New York,
and will, in the mean time, remark that
the treaty does not say that the notice
given to the Indians to remove shall, at
the same time, contain anything like a
warning that if they do not 90 they shall
forfeit their rights, because that notice is
contained in the treaty to which they are
aparty. The treaty to which they are
party, says they shall go ;-and says if
they do not 60 when notified, they shall
forfeit their rights. They were notified
time and again, and efforts made to get
them to go. No other notice was re-
quired.