it seems to me visionary to suppose that, in this state of things, claims can be allowed on tracts of country on which they have neither dwelt nor made improvements, merely because they have seen them from the mountain, or passed them in the chase." It certainly may be unphilosophical to permit any man to possess more ground than he can till with his own hands; yet surely arguments that we do not admit as regards ourselves, we can with no sense of propriety use towards others, particularly when our own acts are directly in the very teeth of this principle. There is more land at present within the limits and in the possession of the United States than would be sufficient to support thirty times the present population--yet to this must be added the hunting-grounds of the Indians, merely because "it is _visionary to suppose_ they have any claim on what they do not _actually occupy!"_ I have now before me the particulars of thirteen treaties[15] made by the United States with the Cherokee nation, from the year 1785 down to 1819 inclusive; in all of which the rights of the Indians are clearly acknowledged, either directly, or by implication; and by the seventh article of the treaty of Holston, executed in 1791, being the first concluded with that people by the United States, under their present constitution, all the lands not thereby ceded are solemnly guaranteed to the Cherokee nation. The subsequent treaties are made with reference to, and in confirmation of this, and continually reiterate the guarantees therein tendered. To talk of justice, and honour, would be idle and visionary, for these seem to have been thrown overboard at the very commencement of the contest; but I would ask the American _people_, is their conduct towards the Indians politic?--is it politic in America, in the face of civilized nations, to violate treaties? is it politic in her, to hold herself up to the world as faithless and unjust--as a nation, which, in defiance of all moral obligation, will break her most sacred contracts, whenever it becomes no longer her interest to keep them, and she finds herself in a condition to do so with impunity? is she not furnishing foreign statesmen with a ready and powerful argument in defence of their violating treaties with her? can they not with justice say--America has manifested in her proceedings towards the Cherokee nation, that she is faithless--that she keeps no treaties longer than it may be her _interest_ to do so--and are _we_ to make ourselves the dupes of such a power, and wait until she finds herself in a condition to deceive us? I could produce many arguments to illustrate the impolicy of this conduct; but as I intend confining myself to a mere sketch, I shall dwell but as short a time as may be consistent on the several facts connected with the case.