rights," and that these were now to be protected by law. Ah, no, look at
it as you will, it is a black page, a raw deal. The officers of our
frontier army know all about it, because they saw it happen. They saw the
treaties broken, the thieving agents, the trespassing settlers, the
outrages that goaded the deceived Indian to despair and violence, and
when they were ordered out to kill him, they knew that he had struck in
self-defense and was the real victim.

It is too late to do much about it now. The good people of the Indian
Rights Association try to do something; but in spite of them, what little
harm can still be done is being done through dishonest Indian agents and
the mean machinery of politics. If you care to know more of the long, bad
story, there is a book by Helen Hunt Jackson, A Century of Dishonor; it
is not new. It assembles and sets forth what had been perpetrated up to
the time when it was written. A second volume could be added now.

I have dwelt upon this matter here for a very definite reason, closely
connected with my main purpose. It's a favorite trick of our anti-British
friends to call England a "land-grabber." The way in which England has
grabbed land right along, all over the world, is monstrous, they say.
England has stolen what belonged to whites, and blacks, and bronzes, and
yellows, wherever she could lay her hands upon it, they say. England is a
criminal. They repeat this with great satisfaction, this land-grabbing
indictment. Most of them know little or nothing of the facts, couldn't
tell you the history of a single case. But what are the facts to the man
who asks, "What has England done in this war, anyway?" The word
"land-grabber" has been passed to him by German and Sinn Fein propaganda,
and he merely parrots it forth. He couldn't discuss it at all. "Look at
the Boers," he may know enough to reply, if you remind him that England's
land-grabbing was done a good while ago. Well, we shall certainly look at