being considered in foree until the conscnt of both parties its abrogation had been given-or by a distinct avowal on the part of one nation of its intention no longer and to take, thercfore, ite chances of being made war upon in conscquence. Neither of these eourses Ihas been pursucd by the United States Goremment in its treaty-breaking with the Indians

to to abide by it, Vattel says, on the dissolution of treaties: "Treaties may be dissolved by nutual consent at the free-will of the contracting powers."

Grotius says: " If either party violate the League, the otber party is frecd ; because each Article of the League lhath thc form and virtue of a condition."

Kent says: " The violation of any one article of a treaty is a violation of the whole treaty

"It is a principle of universal jurisprudence that a compact cannot be rescinded by one party ouly, if the other party does not consent to rescind it, aud does no act to destroy it. *

"To recommence a war by breach of the articles of peace, is deemed much nore odious than to provoke a war by sone new demand or aggression; for the latter is simply injustice, bat in the former case the party is guilty both of perfidy and injustice." It is also said, with unanswerable irrclevancy, by seek to defend or some who palliate the United States Government's continnous violation of its treaties with the Indians, that it was, in the first place, absurd to make treaties with them at all, to treaty-making powers or nations. The logic of this assertion, made as a justification for the breaking of several hundred treaties, concluded at different times during the last hundred years, and broken as fast as concluded, seems almost equal to that of the celebrated de- fence in the ease of the kettle, which was erackcd when it was consider them in any sense as lent, whole when returned, and, in fact, was never borrowed at