all. It would be a waste of words to reason with minds that can see in this position any shelter for the United States Gov- erument against the accusation of perfidy in its treaty relations with the Indians.

The statement is undoubtedly a true one, that the Indians, having been placed in the anomalous position as tribes, of "do- mestic dependent nations," and as individuals, in the still more anomalous position of adult "wards," have uot legally pos- sessed the treaty-making power. Our right to pnt them, or to consider them to be in tiose anoalous positions, miglt be successfully disputed; but they, helpless, having accepted such positions, did, no doubt, thereby lose their right treated with as nations. Nevertheless, that is neither here nor to be there now as soon as our Goverument was established, it pro ceeded to treat with them as nations by name and designation, and with precisely the same forms and ratifications that it nscd in treating with other nations; and it continned to treat with them as nations by name and designation, and with continually inereasing solemnnity of asseveration of good intent and good faith, for nearly a century. The robbery, the eruelty which were done under the eloak of this hundred years of treaty making and treaty-breaking, Neither mountains nor deserts stayed them; it took two scas are greater than can be told. to set their bounds.

In 1871, Congress, either ashamed of making treaties only to break them, or grudging the time, money, and paper it wasted, passed au act to the effeet that no Indian tribe should hereafter be considered as a United States might contract by treaty. There seems to have been at the time, in the minds of the men who passed this aet, a certain slhadowy in treaties; for they added to the act a proviso that it should not be construed as invalidating any treaties already made Bat this sense of obligation must have been as short-lived as foreign nation with whom the sense of some obligation being involved