The arguments used by the Cherokees are unanswerable; but in what will that avail them, when injustice is intended by a superior power, which, regardless of national 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 Jackson says, “this emigration should be voluntary;” and in the very same paragraph, with a single sweep of the pen, he annihilates all the treaties that have been made with that people—­tramples under foot the laws of nations, and deprives the Indian of his hunting-grounds, one of his sources of subsistence.  He says,—­“But it seems to me visionary