Page:Oregon Historical Quarterly volume 23.djvu/256



208 VERNE BLUE

some degree of encouragement to settlers. It was felt that there was no necessity yet for civil government. This, it should be reiterated, was always a definite line of cleavage: The transportation of a machinery of gov- ernment versus a laissez faire policy. Mallory, of Ver- mont, while twitting his colleagues on boasting of Amer- ican enterprise and then fearing to occupy America's own territory, is definitely opposed to any colonial sys- tem. "It could never be adopted by our government; it was abhorrent to our principles."

Following this debate the House disposed of the bill temporarily by laying it on the table, but Friday, January 24 (1823) it was again taken up. 27 Mr. Mallory, alluded to above, had offered an amendment which is only im- portant because Floyd offers as a substitute for his origi- nal bill the first three of the amendment's six provisions. 28 All through the years of struggle Floyd is conspicuous as willing to compromise, to be content with half a loaf, to accommodate the ideas of others, while holding tena- ciously to his central purpose.

By the change (1) the President was not only author- ized but required to occupy the country, (2) by a military force and fort, (3) for which a tract of Indian country not to exceed thirty square miles was to be secured. A dispute arose over the words "and required" but they v/ere retained. (Vote, 55-50.) What Floyd gave up by this substitute was his scheme for the regulation and reorganization of Indian affairs. It is admissible to suggest that much of the opposition to the original bill had come from powerful interests (existing even then) to whom the reconstruction of the Indian affairs would have been distasteful. This part of the bill, which it will be remembered was the major part, was ignored in the debates and then dropped without even a word from its author. Evidently he did not wish to jeopardize the

27 Op. cit., pp. 678-691.

28 Op. cit., p. 601.