.MTA2NA.NzIzNDQ

own principles, the same vested right to the use of their soil, which we have to ours. This view of the subject, however, though it is manifestly the true view, is no where brought out in full light in the whole of this long essay, but is kept industriously out of sight, and the author takes for his great rock of refuge, the primitive right of discovery, as if this right had never been modified, but the Europeans had just stepped upon this continent and the question were now before us in all its freshness and integrity. But let us indulge him in his career & see what he makes of it. The author insists on the right of the civilized communities of Europe to disregard the title of these nomadic tribes, as he learnedly calls them, to restrain them within narrow limits, which he explains in his conclusion, to mean to take to themselves just so much of the country as they pleased; and, consequently, to take the whole, if they pleased; because these civilized communities were cultivators of the earth, and these nomadic tribes were hunters and warriors. Nomadic, in its etymology, means pastoral, and nomadic tribes are tribes of shepherds, who, in the second stage of human society, wander with their flocks wherever pasturage can be found. It is not for the purpose of verbal criticism that we make this remark, but for the purpose of shewing that the author's argument applies as well to the expulsion or subjugation of shepherds as hunters: the paramount right which he asserts being found on the actual cultivation of the earth as an employment, which cultivation is no more the employment of men in the shepherd than in the hunter State. The argument is, therefore, just as conclusive with regard to the one state as the other. Is it true as to either? This earth, it is true, is the common gift of God to man: but it is for the great Donor, alone, to prescribe the