These principles, in their application to a primitive society, just taking possession of a new territory, seem to be indisputable. They are the principles on which the land of Canaan was divided among the Jews, by the authority of God himself, and on which the colonists in this country generally proceeded, in dividing the territory which they acquired from the Indians. In the progress of society, however, the balance soon becomes disturbed. Other modes of subsistence than agriculture are adopted, and various causes produce an accumulation of wealth in the hands of some men, while others are reduced to indigence. The peace of society requires, that the rich should be protected in their lawful possessions; though every civilized nation still acts on the principle, that every member of the community is entitled to a subsistence. He ought to earn it by his labor, but if sickness, or want of employment, or other reasonable causes, prevent, he is entitled to assistance from the community, and the rich are taxed for his support. The most strenuous opposer of poor laws will not deny, that a man, who cannot maintain himself, has a right to aid from his fellow citizens. Thus the original law of nature comes into operation, and the inequalities which arise are, in some measure, compensated. But a fundamental principle of civilized society is, that every man is to be protected in the enjoyment of the property which he lawfully acquires. He may use it as he pleases, if he does not injure others; and he cannot be deprived of it, or of any part of it, without his own consent. It is not easy to see, why the same principle should not be applied to the Indians. They had regular, though simple, governments, and the territories of each tribe were defined by boundaries sufficiently precise for their purposes. They had the best of all titles to their lands, actual possession. Why, then, might not the Indian claim to be protected in the enjoyment of his property? Why might he not make use of that property as he pleased, while he did not trespass on the rights of others? If the law of nations did not reach him, was he out of the pale of the great law of justice and reason? If it were said, that he had no right to appropriate to himself miles of forest, for a hunting ground, he might reply, that he had as good a right as an English nobleman has to appropriate to himself a vast space, for parks and fish ponds; and, indeed, a better right, by the law of nature, for every other Indian could enjoy as much land as himself, while the nobleman must see hundreds around him in abject poverty.