230 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



and supplies; and for the sake of those, and for the support, they sub- 

 mit themselves to the reguhitions under the Government. But on the 

 Pacific coast the Indians are iiractically as free as the whites. 



Senator Morgan. I speak, Mr. President, if you will allow me to 

 explain my statements, of the power exercised. If it is exercised in a 

 single instance by Canada or the United States, of course the whole 

 power is necessarily implied. When we speak of a treaty with an 

 Indian tribe, we do not speak in the sense of treating' or making an 

 engagement with a foreign government or foreign i)ower. The Indians 

 are entirely witliin the limits and dominion of the respective govern- 

 ments in America. A treaty that is spoken of is a mere agreement for 

 the purpose of jiacifying them, and not based upon the idea that they 

 have any sovereign right to treat at all. They are the subjects of the 

 general local governmeut, and more particularly so, I think, than can 

 be found any where else in the Avorld. That is the universal history of 

 the North American continent. In the decisions in the United States, 

 the Indians are called the wards of the nations; and the United States 

 are their guardian. 



Sir John Thompson. I might say, in addition to what Mr. Tupper 

 has said, that the only penalty for roaming contrary to the j^rovisions 

 of the treaty is the withholding of the beneiits of the treaty from the 

 Indians. Tliere is no law in any part of the country to prevent an 

 Indian going where he pleases. In justice to Mr. Carter's position, 

 perhaps I ought to add this: that in establishing close seasons for fish- 

 ing and hunting, the Indian is included as well as the white; but an 

 exce])tion is made in favor of such as may take by fishing and hunting 

 for his own sustenance. 



Mr. Carter. Tlie survival of barbaric conditions in civilized life is 

 a perfectly familiar problem, both to Great Britain and the United 

 States, in many parts of the world. It presents its diiTiculties, no 

 doubt. They are dealt with as they can best be dealt with. It has 

 been stated, and sometimes with truth, that at times cruelty has been 

 shown to the native inhabitants, and that at other times perhaps too 

 much generosity is shown to them. The iiroblem is a difficult one; but 

 the difficulty does not dispense with the necessity of a proper dealing 

 with it. How is it to be dealt with? Here were thousands and thou- 

 sands of Indians in the western part of the United States, living 

 upon the buffalo, living upon herds of buffalo that roamed over a 

 boundless area of territory; and here was a vast population pressing 

 in that direction all the time. What are you to do? Are you to 

 station an army along the boundary, along the frontier, to protect 

 these savage lands from invasion, and say that civilization sliallnotgo 

 on beyond this point? Are you to protect these Indians and the buffalo 

 in their wild condiriou forever, and say that this part of the fruitful 

 earth shall renuiin forever a forest and a waste? Is that what you are 

 to do? Is that the dictate of civilization? No; you cannot do it ii^you 

 would. Civilization will press forward and will drive out the Indians 

 in some way or other. The only thing you can do is to deal with them 

 gently and gradually, and protect them from violence and secure them 

 a subsistence as best you can. 



Lord Hannen. Was there ever any law in the United States for the 

 preservation of tlie bison except in the Yellowstone Park? 



Mr. Carter. No; none that lam aware of. I think not. 



Senator IMorgan. No; there never was any law of that sort except 

 in that i)ark. 



Mr. Carter. No; none of that kind. The consequence was that the 



