The Vancouver independent. (Vancouver, W.T. [Wash.]) 1875-1910, 1877-01-20


arians, while pointing to bright future
for the negroes, look with sorrow on
the Indians, unless new and more sffec.
tual measures are employed in their
behalf.
On the other hand, to destroy their
tribal relations and make them indi-
vidually responsible to the laws,
would be to expose them to the an
tagonistic forces of society which
would speedily annihilate them. As
they cannot, or more correctly speak.
ing, will not become civilized, some
of the strongest elements of civiliza-
ton are so many agencies to destroy
them. Our industrious thrift con-
flicts with their stoical impovidence,
our enterprise with their Incidence,
our continuous efforts to improve our
condition with their contentedness in
the midst of ignorance, filth and pov.
erty. The very civilization of which
we are so proud is their deadly foe.
If they fall on it they are broken. If
it falls on them it grinds them to
powder.
1t is often said, and multitudes at
tach convincing force to the assertion,
that the whites are depriving the In
dams of their lands. This alleged
criminality of the whites is sometimes
used to account for the present and
growing decentralization of the In
dians. But the impossibility of less
ening this evil (f it be true and is an
eviD arrests our attention. We must
accept the fact that the tide of emf.
grafton is flowing westward, both
from Europe and the older States.
We must also accept the fact that the
Aws which govern emigration are,
like those which govern commerce
and the industrial pursuits, almost
beyond the reach Of Legislative ac-
ton; that Congress, Parliament and
Diet may slightly influence, but fail
to control the movements. When
we fully understand these facts we
are better prepared to understand the
questions at issue in the Indian prob
lem. These emigrants, flying from
oppression and poverty, anxious to
become free and independent citizens,
must have land. They see an unoc-
cupied territory, more extensive than
the "thirteen original colonies" and
there they make themselves homes.
Until their occupation of the land it
was useless. The Indians were strict
ly carnivorous before the arrival of
the whites. The use of the land for
occupancy or agricultural purposes,
never occurred to them.
And in view of these statements,
we ask if it be true that the Indians
are deprived of their lands? Did
they ever really own them? If they
did, where are the "metes and bounds"
of their possession? What sign of
ownership can they make that will be
recognized by any court of equity or
law! Whence their titles? Until
some of these questions are answered,
in accordance with the principles of
law, public morality or political econ.
envy, the whites should not be accused
of depriving the Indians of their
lands. Even in the most civilized
communities, abandonment for . se.
ries of years will destroy the title to
property. Continuous renewal of Il.
tie can only insure its continuous per-
petuity. In the absence of this re.
newal it becomes the property of the
State or the occupant. This is good
law, alike for the civilized and tho
savage.
But admitting that the land belongs
to the Indian, that it is his by inherit.
ance and conquest, but not occupan-
cy, still, we ask, is it right for . few
wandering nomads to monopolixe .
territory . dozen times larger than
the State of New York, while onr
Eastern cities and ell Europe has .
surplus population? Should not ths
dog be driven from the manger thaE
the OK may eat his cornY
1t is recognized principle of NV
that the State can take private prop
erty for public uses,--the good q IL
few must yied to the good Of many.
And on the same principle its uniusG
in the general Government . iahs
possession Of those vast rsgions ~
the benefit of the uationf II ~
question Of rendering fair equiva-
lent is raised, before m answer s ~.
en- we reply that the eouiynlenf =