.MTA2MA.NzE2OTY

question how it not been urged and almost forced upon them. Therefore it appears to me altogether improper to use that article as an instrument of taking money from the national funds again. suppose a mann has a hundred acres of wild land. He tells his neighbor if he will clear and fence it, he shall have the use of it three years, but after that if he occupies it he must pay rent. Now we have occupied Cherokee lands many years without care or rent, and now after all " (when the land & fence are nearly worn out in our service)" must the Cherokees be obliged to pay us in cash for clearing & farming their land"(as if the improvement were new and just made) "Would not this be an unheard of act of injustice? But suppose a few individuals in order to get a treaty of same kind, did barely assent to the payments unclear to the above article, which the whole nation comparatively unclear it as a direct act of robbery, how could we possibly unclear the money with the last expectation of ever doing any thing more more for the instruction and salvation of the poor Cherokees would not our own churches despise us and mark us as villains? (Here follow the remarks as in the letter to Mr. J. Ridge, considering pay for mission improvements in the light of a tax of one Dollar or more on each individual in the nation.)

                                                                                                                     Respectfully etc.
                                                                                                                                    D. S. Butrick