of another race, is not probable. So precocious appeared the Indian in council, had he chosen, might he not become equally astute in commerce? The common tradeinstinct of the one nation was, however, an unknown faculty to the other. The reason of this is apparent in the communistic life of the Indian race. A sense of

value is learned in individual possessions. But the attitude which the Cherokee Indians took in regard to their rights as land-owners, when desired to remove from Georgia in 1831, shows that they had discovered themselves to have been victims of a greedy power whose benevolence was similar to that displayed by a Jesuit Father, of whom the Indian said: "When our beaverskins are all gone, he has no more prayers for us."

He had, by bitter experience, learned what the mercenary instinct of the white man is.

Remarks Mr. Peters, in the celebrated suit of the Cherokee Nation :

They have understood that some of their white brethren, citizens of the United States, have sometimes indulged in speculative objections to their title to their lands; on the ground that they are mere savages, roving over the surface of the earth in quest of game, having never appropriated the soil to themselves by incorporating their own labor with it, and turning it to the purpose for which the God of nature intended it, of supporting the greatest practical amount of human life. Even if this hypothesis of fact were true, how such an objection could stand with those solemn treaties, by which their boundaries have been designated, and their lands within those boundaries guaranteed to them by the United States, they find themselves utterly unable to comprehend. Nor have they yet been informed how their white brethren have ascertained that this earth was designed only for the

purposes of agriculture, and that no other title could be acquired to any portion of it in any other manner than by actually digging into its bowels; nor how digging into one part of it can give a title to hundreds and thousands of miles at a distance from the part thus dug. They are still more confounded in attempting to reconcile this theory of a title, derivable only from cultivation, with the alleged title by discovery, arising simply from sailing along the coast, at several miles distance from the shore, without even touching the land; and finally, they are equally perplexed in reconciling this theory with the title which the United States itself asserts to the untouched millions of acres which lie between their settlement and the Pacific Ocean, over which their people have never chased their game, nor seen them from the distant mountain-tops. But whatever there may be for this theory, so unintelligible to your complainants, and so entirely inconsistent with the title which they see asserted against the aborigines of this country, it is no longer true in point of fact with regard to these complainants; for they are no longer savages nor heathen in the hunter state. Under the promised "patronage, aid, and good neighborhood" of the United States, they have become civilized, Christians, and agriculturists, and have no more land than is sufficient for their subsistence and that of posterity; and this land they hold under repeated, solemn, and still subsisting guarantees by treaty with the United States. They do not mean to allege that they have all become civilized, nor all public professors of Christianity, nor all agriculturists; but in all these respects they are willing that a comparison shall be instituted between them and their white brethren around them, and they are very little apprehensive of suffering by such comparison when instituted before this honorable court. If practising justice, and the doing to others as we would have them do unto us, be the tests of civilization and Christianity, and the proportion of the cultivators of the soil to the whole number

of the population be the test of the agricultural character of a nation, with reference to the theory in question, they apprehend that they have at least as little reason as their white brethren around them to shrink from such tests.1

It is evident that the Indian's perception of the varied influences of sound, was as keen as his observation of the distinguishing characteristics of things. Not only were his eyes clear, but his ears were accurate. The one was a mirror, as perfectly receptive of images as the untroubled Awana of the Yosemite; the other was a sounding instrument of the most delicate organization. Both were as clear and keen as are those of some species of animals. Of the former it is stated by Mr. Powers, in an interesting chapter upon Aboriginal Botany : “He takes careful note of the forms and qualities of everything that grows on the face of the earth: his perception of individual differences is nice and minute, and his nomenclature remarkably full."

An illustration of their perception of the effect of sound, is seen in the langage infantin, or, as named by Mr. Cuoq, langage diminutif. It is principally employed by mothers to their infants, and consists in a change of pronunciation, and in possessing the labials b, p, m, letters unknown in the language of the adult. The tone of voice is sweet and the articulation more gentle. Surd consonants are modified, or disappear altogether. The Indian mother believes that sentiments of affection and tenderness are inspired in the object thus addressed. The lexicographer says:

Même, sans comprendre les paroles, on devine ces doux sentimens du cœur, à l'air seul du visage et au movement des

1 The Cherokee Nation versus the State of Georgia, by R. Peters.

lèvres qui se serrent alors et s'arrondissent de manière à former une petite bouche, ce que les Latins ont nommé osculum, diminutif de os, oris. Ainsi, pour ne citer qu'un exemple, une mère témoin des douleurs de son jeune enfant malade, dira avec une touchante émotion, et donnant à ses lèvres la position que je viens de décrire, lo-no-wa-tia-ni lien-a, au lieu de dire purement et simplement, rononwaktani rienha, "mon fils est malade." Une mère. Algonquine, pour dire la même chose, changera les sibilantes en autant de chuintantes, a-ko-ci nigui-cic, au lieu de akosi ningwisis.

Heckewelder remarks:

In Indian language, inflections of their nouns, which we call genders, are not, as with us, descriptive of the masculine and feminine species, but of the animate and inanimate kinds, including trees and plants. The former were of the masculine and the latter of the feminine gender.

Says Mr. Hale of a similar fact in the Iroquois : --

There being no neuter form, the feminine gender was extended and made to comprise all other beings. These classes, however, are not indicated by any change in the noun, but merely by the forms of the pronoun and the verb.

It would seem that the Indian's religious beliefs ruled not only his transactions in daily life, but also his language. The ruling divinity of the earth being feminine, the plants and trees were also made feminine.

According to Worcester:

The word a-gi-lo (my sister) denotes the mutual relation of sisters to each other, and can be used, of course, by women only; and v-gi-ni-li (my elder brother), v-gi-no-tle (my younger brother), with their varied forms, denote the relation of brother to brother, and so are used by men only; while v-gi-do denotes the relation of brother and sister, and so in the mouth of a

man, means, “my sister," and in the mouth of a woman, “my brother," a distinction that implies a third form, equivalent, perhaps, to a neuter gender, or it may be an example of the langage diminutif.

66

The same author (Mr. Worcester) gives, as an example of the longest word he had found in Cherokee, wini-do-di-ge-gi-na-li-sko-to-ta-no-ne-li-di-se-sti, They will by that time have nearly done granting [favors] from a distance to thee and to me." This word was analyzed by him in the following manner:

Wi conveys the idea of distance; ni, that of time; do denotes that the favors are conferred on each person separately, not both collectively; di, plurality of things granted; ge, plurality and third person of agents (they); gi-na, duality and second person of recipients (thee and me); li-sko-to, radical; ta is di in the simplest form of the verb, variously inflected in different tenses and relations; no, completion, done granting; ni, sign of dative (to or for); li-di, nearly; se-sti, sign of future tense.

Says Dr. Worcester on this subject:

The name of God is a verbal noun, and therefore cannot be changed into a verb by a verbal prefix, having that already. In saying "I am God," we use no verb, but change the name from third to first person, and add the pronoun I, — aquana-la-no-hi a-yo. There are but few interjections. There are no labials except m, and that appears to be modern, w having been formerly used instead. The sounds of j and of ch are not expressed, ds or ts being used instead. R is not used by the majority of Cherokees, though a rolling r seems to have been the original sound instead of l. Those who use r do not use 1, except as dialects are confounded. Y is not used, nor

z, but w and 8 instead. The number of consonant sounds is not great.