Mr. BURLEIGH. It was with the greatest reluctance that I undertook to question the propriety of thisbill, or to raise my voice against it in the presence of so many able men in opposition to a measure which I deem so entirely at war with the best interests of the Territory whichl have the honor to represent. Iwas aware that I was to be brought in contact with able men and statesmen, well versed in legislation and in logic. But I will say that there is one thing that my friend’s logic cannot do. It cannot change error to truth any more than it can change truth to error. I hold in in hand these treaties for the completion of which this appropriation is asked. Iask if they were not completed, signed, and witnessed before they were sent to the Senate for ratification. If they were, what necessity is there for a further appropriation to complete them? If they were not completed, or cct, valid treaties in law and in fact, why, ask, were they ratified. I am as much in favor of pace with the Indian tribes in Dakota as any man can be; my interests are all there; our people are anxious for peace. Butl ask the honorable Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. Ramon) to tell me what a treaty is. Will he proten to state to this House that these 9 instruments ofwriting whichI hold in my hand are treaties? If the Senate has a right to modify or amend these treaties without the consent of the Indian tribes, who are parties to these negotiations, which are made for the avowed purpose of securing peace with those tribes, what occasion is there for sending commissioners at all to negotiate them? Why not make them here, and avoid the expense of the negotiation? Why do lets the Treasury for such a needless underta ting? Mr. Speaker, I feel confident that this House does not fully understand the importance of this question. It is one of vital interest to those of our people who reside n on the frontiers; and I suggest for the consideration of the House whether it would not be better for the Government to adopt a new system of treaty making with our Indian tribes, and show them and the world that it will act justly with them, regard less of cost or consequences. The gentleman states that these tribes were fully represented. What does he mean? Does he pretend to say that the Ogalalas, a tribe numbering 2100 souls, were fully represented, when it appears from the treaties themselves that there were but 3 members of that band present when they were made and signed? Does he pretend to saythe Uncpapas, numbering as they do 2700 souls, were fully represented, when it up cars from the record which I hold in my hon that there were but 14 members of that tribe present? The truth is, these tribes were not fully represented; and if my information is correct, the great majority of them will not recognize these transactionsas binding. They may keep the peace until they receive what goods and presents the Government has sent them this spring; but I greatly fear that all of their provisions will then be disregarded by the Indians. I have recently seen General Connor, who has been in the country occupied by these tribes, and he assures me that nearly all of the Indians belonging to the Sioux nation are hit terly opposed to any treat of peace with the Government whatever, an that these negotiations will prove a failure.