192 
Indiana. University 
saw the importance of extending settlements to the prairies of 
Assiniboia and Saskatchewan, but Lower Canada was opposed 
to a westward expansion policy, and the Canadian govern- 
ment declined to institute proceedings in English courts to 
determine the validity of the Hudson Bay Company’s charter 
— because the proposed litigation might be protracted. So, 
Lytton decided that the annexation of the Winnipeg basin to 
Canada was impracticable, and that the exclusive occupation 
of the Hudson Bay Company could be removed only by organ- 
izing a separate colony. The attitude of Canada in 1860 was 
expressed by the Toronto Leader: 
We think that all sensible persons will agree that the conclusion 
come to was the right one. We have explored a small part of this 
country, and the operation has cost us $70,000. What would it cost to 
make roads and to extend the jurisdiction of our government over this 
territory? Canada for a single government is large enough — so large 
that the opposition policy, if they have any, is to split it up into two or 
three governments. If it be too large already, on what principle is it 
that the same party now assails the government for not adding it to 
the Red River country? If any of our people want to go to the Red 
River we may bid them Godspeed, but it is not our business to follow 
them with our political institutions. 
In the meantime a trade was increasing between the United 
States and Selkirk south of Lake Winnipeg. Red River carts 
went down twice a year to St. Paul, taking with them the furs 
and robes collected in that country, and returning with vari- 
ous kinds of merchandise. From Minnesota many American 
settlers crossed to the Red River country to found new 
homes.-® The temptation to annex the country to the United 
States was great.^® In 1860 the legislature of Minnesota sent 
E. D, Neill, History of Minnesota. 
The Nor-Wester, a paper printed in the Red River settlement at this period, spoke 
stronR-ly in favor of annexation to the United States. In 1860, it said: 
“The peculiar system of .government which prevails in this country bids fair to drive 
us into annexation to the United States. What is the use of being connected with 
Britain when the connection is merely nominal ? It is a mere name, an empty sound, 
a meaningless design. In Canada, Australia, Vancouver’s Island or any other colony, 
the British name represents all that is valuable in government, and all that is glorious 
in history. And yet for years the home government has looked on us with indifference. 
It is surely no matter of surprise that public sentiment is in favor of annexation to the 
United States. The Red River country is the center of a most valuable British ap- 
pendage. Is it the interest or duty of the imperial authorities to alienate the 
sympathies and chill the loyalty of the people here by such careless neglect? We are 
indebted to Americans for the only route that there is to and from this country. 
The difficulties, uncertainties, and delays that formerly beset our intercourse with the 
world have almost disappeared. Commercial activity has been infused into our system. 
Home industry is stimulated, and all this brought about by Americans. In fine, why 
