REPORT of Select Committee on Indian Affairs.

The select committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred "the circular of the Hon. T. Hartley Crawford, from the Bureau on Indian Affairs of the War Department, suggesting the passage of a law for the more effectual prevention of any traffic in ardent spirits with the Indian tribes," have, according to order, had the same under consideration, and have directed their chairman to report: That they have seen, with deep regret, the pernicious effects of that traffic upon the unfortunate Indians. In every contest between aboriginal intellect and physical appetite, the latter has uniformly obtained an easy victory. Excluded as the Indian is, from any community of interest with the whites-prohibited from becoming a citizen by the existing laws of naturalization, and by our State constitution-with slight inducement, and still less inclination to make any considerable advances in civilization or the arts, he stands isolated and alone, beyond the reach of moral suasion, and incapable of personal effort, he falls an unresisting victim of strong drink.

Your committee, then, have entered upon the consideration of the matters submitted to them, with an anxious desire to carry out the philanthropic views entertained by the author of the circular. Starting upon the hypothesis, that wherever the Indian title had been extinguished by the action of the general government, that each State sovereignty possessed plenary powers over every portion of territory within its acknowledged limits, so far, at least, as to control its internal police and to prescribe the rules of trade and intercourse; they had supposed, that both Indians and citizens must abide such legal enactments, or such want of them, as may result alone from State_legislation. They, therefore, endeavored, first to ascertain what provisions were already made by the laws of Michigan, for the prevention any traffic in ardent spirits with the Indians.

of

By reference to our session laws, they found that by an act to provide for the protection of Indians, and for other purposes, approved April 9, 1841, ample provision was made for all the judicial rights and privileges of Indians. The same law contains most stringent enactments against selling, exchanging or giving, bartering or disposing of any spirituous liquor, wine, mixed liquor, or other strong and intoxicating drink to any Indian or Indians, male or female. Thus, they discovered that the Legislature of Michigan had anticipated, by the enactment of a law, all the suggestions contained in the circular substantially, excepting the one in reference to the “introduction of ardent spirits, beyond the precincts of the white settlements," &c., and giving all persons in the employ of the government or of the State, full power to seize, confiscate or destroy the article.

This suggestion induced the committee to enter upon an investigation fraught with the dearest interests of the people of Michiganan investigation that has ferreted out and foisted up to view, a pefect anamoly in the history of our country-a divided sovereigntykind of joint stock, or partnership jurisdiction over the territory of the upper peninsula of Michigan.

The entire action of Congress in reference to the rights, boundaries, jurisdiction, and even State existence of Michigan, affords an ample field for conjecture and speculation. The first act of the general government, asserting their eminent domain, was to carve off a valuable portion from our southern border, and with it to endow a more powerful neighbor. The next act contained a virtual acknowledgment of the injustice of the first, by giving us in exchange, the Indian country of the upper peninsular. Then came the crowning act, in the exercise of an unconstitutional and despotic right of exacting from the people of Michigan, as a fundamental condition of the admission of the State into the Union, a conventional assent to her boundaries, thus arbitrarily altered and established by Congress.

But, when that assent was given, although under protest, we might have supposed that the question of sovereign jurisdiction, as a State, would have been readily yielded by the genernal government pari passu with the extinguishment of the Indian title within those boundaries. Such, however, has not been the fact.

As early as March, 1836, the Chippewa and Ottawa tribes, ceded to the United States, all that portion of the peninsula which lies west of Thunder Bay, and north of Grand River, extending to the straits of Michilmackinac ; and also, the country situated between Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior, from the latitude of Point Detour, on the Ste Marie, to the mouth of the Chocolate river, on Lake Superior. The Indian title was then extinguished pro tanto, and yet under color of an act of Congress, "to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and to preserve peace on the frontiers," and an act "to provide for the organization of the department of Indian affairs," passed June 30, 1834; a most stringent license system was enforced by the general government, until December 31, 1839, in perfect contravention of State Sovereignty, and the individual rights of our citizens. It cannot be contended for a moment, that the exercise of that jurisdiction over an integral portion of the state, did not contravene the provision of the act of admission, placing us "upon "an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatever,' and the further provision "that the said state shall consist of and have "jurisdiction over all the territory included within the following boun"daries, " &c., encircling the tract in question.

But in order that the jurisdiction thus asserted may be understood, in its full scope and tendency, the committee feel constrained to cite a few of the provisions of the law referred to.

The first paragraph of section 2 reads as follows:

"And be it further enacted, That no person shall be permitted to "trade with any of the Indians (in the Indian country) without a li"cense therefor from a superintendent of Indian affairs, or Indian "agent or sub-agent, which license shall be issued for a term not ex

ceeding two years, for the tribes east of the Mississippi, and not ex"ceeding three years for the tribes west of that river."

66

The first paragraph of section 3 is as follows:

"That any superintendent or agent may refuse an application for

a license to trade, if he is satisfied that the applicant is a person of "bad character, or that it would be improper to permit him to reside in the Indian country." &c.

Again, section 4 reads as follows:

"That any person other than an Indian who shall attempt to reside

“in the Indian country as a trader, or to introduce goods, or to trade "therein without such license, shall forfeit all merchandize offered "for sale to the Indians, or found in his possession, and shall moreo66 ver forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars." By section 10 it is enacted,

"That the superintendent of Indian affairs and Indian agents and "and sub-agents shall have authority to remove from the Indian coun"try all persons found therein contrary to law; and the President of "the United States is authorized to direct the military force to be em"ployed in such removal."

Under the above and similar provisions in the laws of the United States, a most sweeping official "ukase" was issued from the war department, and is to this day acted upon, prohibiting the citizen from visiting the Indian country without a pass from the superintendent, Indian agent or sub-agent, and that such pass shall be utterly withheld from any person who chances to be connected in business with a house dealing in ardent spirits in the city of New York, or elsewhere. Without stopping to inquire how far the above comports with the prevailing idea of state sovereignty and individual rights in a territory where the Indian title has been extinguished, your committee will simply remark, that they have brought it to notice here, in order that the public may be enabled the better to judge of both the conduct and the motives of those who were engaged in negotiating and ratifying the last Indian treaty, under date of October 4th, 1842, at a period too, when the general government, impelled by their own somewhat tardy convictions of justice towards Michigan, had fully abandoned the further maintenance of their jurisdiction over the Indian territory covered by the cession of March, 1836.

On the 4th of October, 1842 then, a further treaty was concluded, by which the Chippewas and Ottawas ceded all the balance of the Indian country, within the limits of Michigan, to the United States. Public attention had been previously called to the conflict of jurisdiction between the state and national governments, and the people were disposed to canvass freely, and scrutinize closely any provisional treaty for further cessions that might be negotiated. Early in January, 1843, therefore, the committee on federal relations of the House of Representatives of Michigan, called upon Robert Stuart, Esq., the Superin

dent of Indian Affairs, who negotiated the last treaty, and who was then in the city of Detroit, and requested a perusal of the treaty.Their request was disregarded, and the treaty withheld. That committee however, with what information they could glean elsewhere, became satisfied that there was an objectionable feature contained in that treaty, and they reported the joint resolutions of instruction in relation thereto, found on page 224 of the session laws of 1843. Notwithstanding, the treaty was ratified, and now we find it contains the following stipulation:

"Article 2. The Indians stipulate for the right of hunting on the ceded territory, with the other usual privileges of occupancy until "required to remove by the President of the United States, and that the "laws of the United States shall be continued in force in res"pect to their trade and intercourse with the whites, until otherwise "ordered by Congress."

Now then the committee would ask and the people of Michigan have a right to know why that clause was inserted, and why the treaty containing it was ratified? If a Superintendent of Indian Affairs, who had been, and was a resident of Michigan, could, for any motive, so far, either forget or despise the jurisdictional claim of his state, as to insert such a clause in the treaty, where, we ask, were our Senators in Congress, who must have either sanctioned or slept over the obnoxious provision? Where, we repeat, was Senator Woodbridge, who for years has been perfectly "au fait" as to all the grounds of objection? And, who, as Governor of the state of Michigan, on the 7th day of January, 1841, transmitted his annual message to the legislature containing the following statement and opinion:

866

"How far the exclusive jurisdiction of the State authorities over a district of country within its undoubted limits, but over which the "Indian title has not been extinguished, can rightfully be maintained, "is a question which has been much agitated in the national coun"cils; but no doubt remains but that the State posseses plenary pow"ers over that part of it of which the Indian title is extinguished; "and the decision alluded to, by which it would seem that penalties provided for in the Act to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes,' &c., cannot by law be enforced over a country of "which the Indian title is extinguished, are unquestionably correct."

66