of a remedial character. And that this demonstration of the incorrigible nature of the Indians should have come from that quarter, where they are now obliged to look for protection-is not very encouraging to them.

CHAPTER IV.

SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

"THE maxims of jurisprudence, applied and enforced by wise and learned men, and practically adopted by the rulers of the old world for the government of the new, may fairly be presumed to be founded on the just and relative rights of the parties. If the christian and civilized governments of Europe, asserted jurisdiction over the aboriginal tribes of America, and under certain limitations a right to the country occupied by them, some peculiar circumstances must have existed to vindicate a claim At first sight revolting to the common justice of mankind. And if these circumstances were not then, and are not now sufficiently powerful to justify such pretensions, THEIR interference was culpable, and so would be OURS.

The

Indians are entitled to all the rights, which do not interfere with the obvious designs of Providence, (!) and with the just claims of others. (!!) Like many other practical questions, it may be difficult to define the actual [exact?] boundary between them and the civilized states, among whom and around whom they live. But there are two restraints upon ourselves, which we may safely adopt:-that no force should be used to divest them (the Indians) of any just interest they possess; and that they should be liberally remunerated for all (the lands) they cede. cannot be wrong, while we adhere to those rules." -North American Review.

We

What rules, in the name of conscience? A rule for so delicate and so responsible a procedure, should have a form and palpability not to be mistaken; which those to whom it is to be applied may understand; and that they who are authorized to employ it, may have a guide. "Just?" And who is to define it? "Liberal?" And what is the measure?

"There can be no doubt, and such are the views of elementary writers on the subject, that the Creator intended the earth should be reclaimed from the state of nature and cultivated; that the human race should spread over it, procuring from it the means of a comfortable subsistence,

and of increase and improvement." And when a civilized people approaches barbarous tribes, it is a dictate of nature, that the territories of the latter "should be occupied for permanent improvement, whenever they are necessary to one party, and can be spared without injury by the other."

"The mode of acquiring the possessory right of the Indians is a question of expediency, and not of principle." "We are prepared to expect, that many worthy and benevolent men will be shocked at a proposition, which would leave it to one party to judge what extent of territory should be yielded by the other, and what consideration should be awarded."-Ibid.

The above are all extracts from the writer already alluded to in the North American Review for January 1830, on the Removal of the Indians, the influence of which it is supposed gave a small majority in Congress for the appropriation called for to commence this responsible and momentous measure. And here, if I mistake not, I have grouped the sum of the doctrines of the writer on this subject. In the last chapter but one I hinted at the infinite and endless mischief, accruing from the original and absurd claims of European powers over the American continent. I do not think it necessary to my

purpose to burden these pages with copies of the royal charters and patents, by which America was parcelled out from time to time, and section after section. I admit all that this writer, or any body else may choose to claim for them in this particular, viz. that they asserted jurisdiction over barbarous countries, "unoccupied by any christian prince or people," and conveyed to the privileged party, or parties, in whose favour they were granted, a full and absolute property in the soil of those countries-all without regard to any rights of the native tribes. And if this authority is sufficient to establish the relative rights of the present American government over and against the Aborigines, there is nothing more to be said. Doubtless those charters did assert, in the letter, and probably in their intent, what the morality of the present age will hardly accord; and the terms, in which they were expressed, have evidently embarrassed elementary writers on international jurisprudence; inasmuch, as it was their duty, rather to expound, than to make law. Hence the reasoning of Vattel, before noticed.

But after all, it is a dictate of common sense, that the only justifiable construction of those regulations is the mutual convenience of the parties making their descent upon the new