ational faith, has determined on taking possession of their
lands? The case stands thus: the executive government enters into an
agreement with Georgia, and engages to deliver over to the state the
Indian possessions within her claimed limits--without the Indians _having
any knowledge of, or participation in the transaction._ Now what, may I
ask, have the Indians to do with this? Ought they to be made answerable
for the gross misconduct of the two governments, and to be despoiled,
contrary to every principle of justice, and in defiance of the most plain
and fundamental law of property? It puts one in mind of the judgment of
the renowned "Walter the Doubter," who decided between two citizens, that,
as their account books appeared to be of equal _weight_, therefore their
accounts were balanced, and that _the constable_ should pay the costs. The
United States government has made several offers to the Cherokees for
their lands; which they have as constantly refused, and said, "that they
were very well contented where they were--that they did not wish to leave
the bones of their ancestors, and go beyond the Mississippi; but that, if
the country be so beautiful as their white brother represents it, they
would recommend their white brother to go there himself."

Georgia presses upon the executive; which, in this dilemma, comes forward
with affected sympathy--deplores the unfortunate situation in which it is
placed, but of course concludes that faith must be kept with Georgia, and
that the Cherokee must either go, or submit to laws that make it far
better for him to go than stay. It is true Jackson says in his message,
"This emigration should be voluntary; for it would be cruel as unjust to
compel the Aborigines to abandon the graves of their fathers, and seek a
home in a distant land." But General Jackson well knows that the laws of
Georgia leave the Indian no choice--as no community of men, civilized or
savage, could possibly exist under such laws. The benefit and protection
of the laws, to which the Indian is made subject, are entirely withheld
from him--he can be no party to a suit--he may be robbed and murdered with
impunity--his property may be taken, and he may be driven from his
dwelling--in fine, he is left liable to every species of insult, outrage,
cruelty, and dishonesty, without the most distant hope of obtaining
redress; for in Georgia _an Indian cannot be a witness to prove facts
against a white man._ Yet General J