, 1877-02-03

new and more effCCtual measures are EN-
ployed in their behalf.
On the other hand, to destroy their
tribal relations and make them indiyid-
ualy responsible to the laws, would be TO
expose them to the antagonlstic forces OF
society winch would speedily annihiatc
them. As they cannot, Orm0rc correctly
speaking, will not become civilized, some
of the strongest elements Of civilization
are 50 many agencies to destroy them.
Our industrious thrift conflicts with
their stocal improvidence, our enterprise
with their Incidence, our continuous et.
forts to improve our condition with
their contentedness in the midst of ig-
norancc, filth and poverty. The very
civilization of which we are so proud is
their deadly foe. they fall on it they
are broken. If it falls on them it grinds
them to powder.
1t is often said, and multitudes attach
convincing force to the assertion, that
the whites are deprivinG the Indian OF
their lands. This alleged criminaity Of
the whites is sometimes used to account
for the present and growing demoraIi2a-
ton of the Indians. But the impossi-
bihty of lessening this evil Gf it be true
and is an evil arrests our attention.
We must accept the fact that the tide of
immigration is flowing westward, both
from Europe and the older States. We
must also accept the fact that the laws
which govern immigration are, like those
which govern commerce and the indus
trial pursuits, almost beyond the reach
of legislative action; that Congress, Par
Lament and Diet may slightly influence,
but fail to control the movements.
When we fully understand these facts
we are better prepared to understand
the questions at issue in the Indian prob.
lem. These immigrants, flying from
oppression and poverty, anxious to be
come free and independent citizens, must
have land. They see an unoccupicd ter
ritory, more extensive than the "thirteen
original colonies" and there they make
themselves bones. Until their occupa-
ton OF the land it was useless, The In
dians were strictly carnivorous before
the arrival of the whites. The use of the
land for occupancy or agricultural pur'
poses, never occurred to them.
And in view Of these statements, we
ask if it be true that the Indians are de-
prived OF their lands Did they ever
really own them If they did, where
are the ''metes and bounds" OF their pos
session? What sign of ownership can
they make that will be recognized by any
court of equity or law2 Whence are
their titles Until some of these ques-
tions are answered, in accordance with
the principles OF law, public morality or
political economy, the whites should not
be accused of depriving the Indians of
their lands Even in the most civilized
communities, abandonment for series
of years will destroy the title to proper
ty. Continuous renewal Of title can on
ly insure its continuous perpetuity. In
the absence of this renewal it becomes
the property of the State or the occu-
pant. This is a good law, alike for the
civilized and the savage.
But admitting that the land belongs to
the Indian, that it lie his by inheritance
and conquest, but not occupancy, still,
we ask, is it right for few wandering
nomads to monopolize territory a
dozen times larger than the State of
New York, while our eastern cities and
all Europe has surplus population ?
Should not the dog be driven from the
manger that the OK may eat his corn. :
1t is a recognized principal of law that
the State can take private property for
public uses,-the good of the few must
yield to the good of many, And on the
same principle it's unjust in the general
Government 10 take possession of these
vast regions for the benefit tine nation2
II the question of rendering fair equiv
alant is raised, before an answer is given
we reply that the equivalent is seen in
the annuities paid to the different tribes
with which treaties have been negotiat-
od and in tho nrnmisas Of nrntnrtion