.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 man has a hundred acres of wild land. He tells his neighbour 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 & fencing 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 some kind, did barely assent to the payments according to the above article, while the whole nation comparatively viewed it as a direct act of robbery, how could we possibly receive the money with the last expectation of ever doing any thing 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