he was formed; subject to infirmities, which no wisdom can remedy; to weaknesses, which no institution can strengthen; to vices, which no legislation can correct.  Hence, it becomes obvious that separate property is the natural and indisputable right of separate exertion; that community of goods without community of toil is oppressive and unjust; that it counteracts the laws of nature, which prescribe that he only who sows the seed shall reap the harvest; that it discourages all energy, by destroying its rewards; and makes the most virtuous and active members of society the slaves and drudges of the worst.  Such was the issue of this experiment among our forefathers, and the same event demonstrated the error of the system in the elder settlement of Virginia.  Let us cherish that spirit of harmony which prompted our forefathers to make the attempt, under circumstances more favorable to its success than, perhaps, ever occurred upon earth.  Let us no less admire the candor with which they relinquished it, upon discovering its irremediable inefficacy.  To found principles of government upon too advantageous an estimate of the human character is an error of inexperience, the source of which is so amiable that it is impossible to censure it with severity.  We have seen the same mistake, committed in our own age, and upon a larger theatre.  Happily for our ancestors, their situation allowed them to repair it before its effects had proved destructive.  They had no pride of vain philosophy to support, no perfidious rage of faction to glut, by persevering in their mistakes until they should be extinguished in torrents of blood.

As the attempt to establish among themselves the community of goods was a seal of that sacred bond which knit them so closely together, so the conduct they observed towards the natives of the country displays their steadfast adherence to the rules of justice and their faithful attachment to those of benevolence and charity.

No European settlement ever formed upon this continent has been more distinguished for undeviating kindness and equity towards the savages.  There are, indeed, moralists who have questioned the right of the Europeans to intrude upon the possessions of the aboriginals in any case, and under any limitations whatsoever.  But have they maturely considered the whole subject?  The Indian right of possession itself stands, with regard to the greatest part of the country, upon a questionable foundation.  Their cultivated fields; their constructed habitations; a space of ample sufficiency for their subsistence, and whatever they had annexed to themselves by personal 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 accidentally 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