53G INDIAN LAND CESSIONS IN THE UNITED STATES [eth.ann. 18 



lands of the natives under tlieir caie and ])rotectioii. Bozmau,' who 

 expresses this doubt, bases it on the following considerations: 



First, it is not a clear propositinii tliat savages can. for any consideration, enter 

 into a contract obligatory upon them. They stand by the laws of nations, when 

 trafficking with the civilized jiart of mankind, in the situation of infants, incapable 

 of entering into contracts, especially for the sale of their country. Should this be 

 denied, it may then be asserted that no monarch of a nation (that is, no sachem, 

 chief, or headmen, or assemblage of sachems, etc.) has a power to transfer by sale 

 the country, that is, the soil of the nation, over which they rule. 



That the Indians of the United States have been and are still con- 

 sidered wards of the Government must be conceded. It also must be 

 admitted that, as a general rule of law, wards cau not divest themselves 

 of their title to land except through the decree of court or some prop- 

 erly authorized power. But in the case of the Indians the Government 

 is both guardian and court, and as there is no higher authority to 

 which api)Iication can be made, its decision must be final, otherwise 

 uo transfer of title would be possible, however advantageous it might 

 be to the wards. 



Bozman's theory seems to overlook the fact that Indians, except per- 

 haps in a few isolated cases, never claimed individual or exclusive 

 personal titles in fee to given and designated jjortions of the soil. 

 What, therefore, is held in common may, it would seem, by the joint 

 action of those interested, be transferred or alienated. 



However, it is not our object at present to theorize as to what should 

 or might have been done, but to state what was done in this respect, 

 and thus to show on what jjolicy the various territorial cessions ^nd 

 reservations mentioned in the present work are based. 



The correct theory on this subject appears to be so clearly set forth 

 by John Quincy Adams in his oration at the anniversary of the Sons 

 of the Pilgrims, December 22, 1802, that his words are quoted, as 

 follows : 



There are moralists who have questioned the right of Europe.ans to intrude upon 

 the possessions of the aborigines in any case and under any limitations whatsoever. 

 But have they maturely considered the whole subject? The Indian right of pcsses- 

 sion itself stands, with regard to the greatest part of the country, upon a tjues- 

 tiouable foundation. Their cultivated fields, their constructed habitations, a space 

 of ample sufficiency for their subsistence, and whatever they had annexed to them- 

 selves by person il labor, was undoubtedly by the laws of nature theirs. But what 

 is the right of a huntsman to the forest of a thousand miles over which he has acci- 

 dentally ranged in quest of prey? Shall the liberal bounties of Providence to the 

 race of man be monopolized by one of ten thousand for whom they were created? 

 Shall the exuberant bosom of the common mother, amply adequate to the nourish- 

 ment of millions, be claimed exclusively by a few hundreds of her offspring? Shall 

 the lordly savage not only disdain the virtues and enjoyments of civilization him- 

 self, but shall he control the civilization of a world ? Shall he forbid the wilderness 

 to blossom like the rose? Shall he forbid the oaks of the forest to fall before the 

 ax of industry and rise again transformed into the habitations of ease and elegance? 

 Shall he doom an immense region of the globe to perpetual desolation, and to hear 



' History of Mar.vland, p. 569. 



