who found it. This stone is exactly such a one as the Emperor of China and the highest grades of his officers now wear suspended around their necks, as we are informed by a person belonging to the suit of the British Ambassador. The Emperor we are told wears three, officers next in grade two, and those of a lower grade one, which are there called "Yu stones." It will be recollected that the present reigning family in China are of Tartar extraction. What further proof does a candid inquirer after truth require at my hands, as to the origin of these people? Were they not some of those vast hordes of wandering Scythians who continually roamed about with their families in carts, as Horace tells us, with their bows and arrows, driving before them their numerous flocks? Having gone into the inquiry, from whence did this people emigrate hither, let us next inquire, whither did they migrate, and what became of them? This inquiry will be less pleasing than the preceding, because I am met at the very vestibule, by an opinion, which has been advanced, by a gentleman of erudition, piety, and patriotism, whose character I revere, and whose virtues I esteem-I mean Dr. Hugh Williamson, formerly, and for a long time, a member of congress. In his valuable work on climate, in substance he gives it as his opinion, that these ancient works were raised by the ancestors of our present race of Indians that the continual civil wars in which they were engaged, thinned their numbers and so scattered them abroad, that they lost those arts which once they knew, and they reverted back from the shepherd, to the hunter state of society. His book is not by me, but I believe, that the above is the substance, the multum in parvo, of what he has said on this subject; if not, I hope he will correct me. In justice to Dr. Williamson, permit me here to premise, that he never saw these works himself, but derived all his information on the subject from others, and that nearly every circumstance on which I found my opinion must have been entirely unknown to him at the time he wrote. These ancient works, we must remember as we go along, are not found east of the Alleghany mountains; but the Indians were not only found on that side of those mountains, but were as much more numerous along the very shore of the Atlantic Ocean, in proportion to their settlements in the country back from the sea, as our present population is now. If those inhabiting the sea coast, were the same kind of people, why did they not raise forts and mounds similar to ours? Did they do so? No, sir, the few mounds which are found on the other side of the Alleghany, are as dissimilar to ours, as our Indian cabin is to the President's house at Washington. Regular forts like ours, the Indians had none. That nations who are acquainted with the fine arts, may, by being involved in long and destructive wars, be led to forget them to a certain extent, I do not deny; but, that they will entirely forget those arts on the cultivation of which, their preservation, nay, their existence depends, I cannot admit. And here, let me ask, why shall we resort to conjectures the most improbable, while those are rejected which are highly probable, nay, almost certain to the contrary? My opinion is, that the people who built our forts, migrated from hence to the Mexican gulph, crossed it, and were the first settlers of the West Indian Isles, and the whole of South America-that our Indians came here long before them, crossed the Alleghanies and settled all along the Atlantic coast in the present United States; that when at a far later period, those who erected our old forts came here, they were pressed upon every side by the first settlers-that, finding the navigable waters all leading south, few or no inhabitants to oppose their going in that direction-finding also the climate much milder, the soil generally better, and of course the greater ease in supporting themselves, they followed the water courses downward, and settled themselves in Mexico and Perir, long before Columbus found their posterity in those countries. This opinion of mine is founded on what I will now proceed to state. Some year or two since, in exploring a great saltpetre cave in Kentucky, com. monly called the mammoth cave, the skeleton of a female was found, which the nitrous quality of the earth where it lay had preserved, so that it appeared somewhat like an Egyptian mummy. She was dressed with what no doubt, in her lifetime, was considered in the very height of the fashion, in clothes manufactured out of the bark of either trees or vegetables, and adorned with a profusion of gay feathers. Sometime since, three mummies were found in a similar cave in Tennessee, dressed in a similar manner. Now, sir, how did the Mexicans and Peruvians. dress when the Europeans first found them? and how do the aborigines of those countries now dress? Almost exactly as these were here. They manu the statuary has polished? An owl carved in stone to be sure was found in a mound at Columbus, and we sometimes find stone axes. We find occasionally what had once been iron, and a very little silver and brass, and cloathes manufactured from bark and feathers. We find a light kind of ware made of shells, but where do we find a mill site, which had once been occupied? Factories of wool, of flax, of hemp they had none. If they had any of glass why use ising-glass for mirrors? Babel, Tyre, Zidon, and Palmyra were built in the early ages of the world, and is it probable that the descendants of those who built such cities, would have forgotten arts so necessary as those employed in erecting them? I think not; but the Scythians had no cities, they lived in a shepherd state long after those cities were built, and their eastern border is divided from our western one by merely a narrow strait. They might therefore have come here ignorant, as they evidently must have been, only two thousand years ago. But let us as often as possible recur to facts. I counted the annulars of a large oak standing on a mound in this place, and they amounted to upwards of four hundred and fifty, and from appearances, this tree was, at least, the third growth on the spot since it had been deserted. Should this communication be favourably received, I shall devote a few hours, at a season of more leisure, to the geology of this country, and in so doing, combat some opinions thrown out by Monsieur Volney in his travels. I am sir, with sentiments of the highest consideration, your very humble servant. factured not only a great part of their clothing from several kinds of bark, but even bridged their streams with a kind of matting made from the same materials. Montezuma and his splendid retinue were thus dressed and adorned with a profusion of birds' feathers of a gay plumage. The dress then of our people being like that of the South Americans, let us not forget another circumstance, and that is the Indian ware, as it is called. It is very light, and manufactured out of a kind of shells, and is frequently found in nitrous caves in Kentucky and Tennessee, and in many places in this western country, but no where else in the United States. This too is exactly such ware as the Mexicans and Peruvians formerly and still manufacture and use. I refer to Robertson and Clavigero, as to what I have said concerning the Mexicans and Peruvians; the facts I have stated as to what has been discovered in this country, I can establish in any court of justice. I shall endeavour to answer one more inquiry which naturally presents itself, and conclude, my already, perhaps too lengthy epistle: and that is, at what time did these people migrate hither? That it was at an early age of the world I infer from the rude and imperfect state of the arts among them. If we go to Italy or Greece, we behold in every direction the splendid ruins of a once polished and mighty people. We see the remains of roads on which millions have trodden: of aqueducts which once supplied populous cities with water; of amphitheatres, where thousands of admiring spectators once listened to the voice, and beheld the graceful gestures of some favourite actor. Among the ruins of some unhappy town, we find the bust of the hero or the god, which the chisel of some Praxitiles has To the Editors of the American Monthly polished; and the canvass which the painter has made to glow with almost real life. There too we find the parchment on which the poet, the orator, or the historian has written, conveying down to us exalted ideas of their genius, their eloquence, their learning, their grandeur, and their glory. But where, in these vast regions of the west, do we find the remains of an "Emilian way," or roads dug through hills? where find the moss-grown column, the ruins of baths, or even cellars and wells? Where do we find the mouldering ruins of stately edifices, of lofty domes, or even the smallest vestiges of any building of stone? Where do we find the canvass whereon the painter has exercised his inimitable art? Where the bust which the chisel of CALEB ATWATER. Magazine. REMARKS ON MILITIA LAWS. The safety of our Republic, and the personal interest of every citizen demands a careful and sober investigation of the question-what is the best means of disciplining, and maintaining a MILITIA? It is a fact that notwithstanding the humiliating disasters which grew out of the ill-regulated militia, both of the revolutionary and the late war-all the exertions and influence of Washington, and of the statesmen who have followed him, have not as yet succeeded even so far as to organize a tolerable system of national defence. The constitution, with all the solemnity and dignity due to so interesting a subject, declares that "a well regulated militia is the safeguard of a free 2 State." Our United States presidents, and our state governors, with the same kind of gravity, have echoed the truth from Georgia to Maine, but, notwithstanding, we are still without that "safeguard." And it may be said, with great apparent truth, that for the want of that safeguard," we did not take the two Canadas in 1812, but for the same reason our national capitol was taken and burnt in 1814, whereby our country lost millions of money, and the national character was greatly disgraced. Let us suppose for an instant that our militia in the moment when war was last declared against England had been "well regulated"-that every general had learnt his lesson of skill-and every soldier his duty of obedience and valour-they would have swept through the enemies' country with out opposition, and the end of the first campaign would have found them in front of the walls, perhaps in the actual possession of Quebec. The novel and expensive WAR OF SHIP-BUILDING," on Ontario might have been spared-and the bloody but useless battles of Fort Erie and Bridgewater could never have happened. 66 But as the advantages of a "well regulated" militia are not denied, no more need be said on this head; the past is gone-let us gather a lesson from it for the improvement of the future-and do what we can to awaken statesmen to a consideration of the subject in question. There are two good reasons why the whole militia system as it now is should be abolished for ever. The first is-that it wholly fails in its objects, and the law relating to it is, indeed, the most useless law that ever was ingrafted into a national code. And the second is, that instead of being a "national defence," it is a national curse." Of all the disasters that befall the husbandman, the mechanic, or the gentleman, under the administrations of the Federal and State government in the "piping times of peace"-there is nothing so humiliating to the pride of the latter, and so distressing to the interests of the other two classes, as the dreadful "training days." In town and in country they may properly be called days of little vexations and little miseries-when the poor are distressed and the rich disgusted-when the militia man wastes a precious season of time, gives much labour and trouble for nothing, and perhaps spends the earnings of a week in drowning his chagrin. They are the only days in the year when old men and cripples congratulate themselves VOL. II. No. v. on their incapacities, which permit them to stand by and see the hale and the young hag-ridden by our militia law. But we will proceed to prove our first position that "the militia law fails in its objects." We live in an age when the art of war has ceased to be simple. In the first ages of society, and perhaps until the time when gunpowder was invented, our present militia exercises might have been so far useful as to have fitted men for the ordinary purposes of war. At the present day, when other nations have regular standing armies-with officers and soldiers deeply skilled in all the various arts of modern war-and also have extensive navies to hover about our coast, and land their armies; no sound statesman can believe that our militia should be relied on as a "national safeguard"— because any militia, however well disciplined, must necessarily be inferior to a regular army. The soldier who is exercised every day must have more skill than the militia man who is exercised only five times a year. Nor is our present militia any protection against even the Indians on our frontiers-for it is an admitted fact, that, until the militia have been so much exercised as to become regular soldiers, they cannot stand against any thing like an equal number of Indians in battle. The reason is plain. The daily occupation of an Indian is that of a warrior. He is inured to hardship, and familiar with danger. The militia-man is unused to privations, incapable of bearing fatigue, and shy of encountering death. In all wars between barbarous and civilized nations, history proves that wherever the civilized nation has relied on its militia it has been conquered. The frequent conquests of the Tartars over the civilized nations of Asia demonstrate this truth. If then the regular troops of all nations may be placed on our coast by means of navies, in time of war, and our militia cannot oppose them, and if the Indian militia is superior to ours in the field, and both these suppositions can be demonstrated not only by logic-but by all history and experience, is our government. wise in placing any reliance on that militia, which must surely fail in the day of trial? Is it not certain that in all wars our first campaigns must be expensive, deadly and disgraceful? The republics of Greece fell before Philip of Mace don by relying on militia-from the same cause Carthage fell before Roman soldiers;-and when the regular armies of Rome dwindled into undisciplined militia-they were subdued by Germans and 43 Scythians. Suppose the holy league of European crowned heads should pour in Russian, Prussian, French, English and Austrian troops upon our land with a fixed determination to destroy the only republic which they dread, might not history in recording the fall of the American government have to relate another instance of the fatal error of relying on militia? And what do we need of any "national defence," unless it is one able to cope with those very standing armies of Russia, England, Prussia, and Germany-and with the Indians! Whoever wishes to understand the vexations and the plagues, the faithlessness and cowardice, the hopelessness and curses of a militia, should read the letters of Washington to our war congress. After that patient and immortal hero had made the most thorough, fair, and perfect experiment that ever was or ever will be made in any State, to test the metal of militia, he pronounced it DROSs; and officially declared that it is not in the power of statesmen and warriors to discipline militia sufficiently well to be relied on in the hour of trial with modern armies. One would suppose that the experience of past ages, the lessons of history, and the final testing experiment of Washington, ought to shut the mouth of that man who should deny that our militia is and will be useless and that reliance on it is hopeless-dangerous-fatal. My second position is, that our militia law, taking into consideration its effects and consequences, is a national evil. I have already described its vexations and appalling power on those "training days," when it drives away all the little felicities of every class of the community-when it comes, not in the shape of any affliction that demands and calls forth the dignity of fortitude-but, like bed-bugs and moschettos, to worry and pester man, woman, and child out of all possible patience and to make every one ask, in a pet, "where is the use of such plagues-and what are they made for ?" What officer or soldier in the militia feels his pride in any way gratified, by the awkward, beggarly, and mortifying display which an unequal law calls upon it to make? What man of sense does not despise-and what woman does not laugh at it? There are some little mean men, who, to gratify the vanity of putting on uniform, and of being called a major in the militia, would wade through all troubles, and run the gauntlet of contempt itself. God never designed such men for patriots or heroes, and that officer who has an ambition low enough to be gratified, or not exalted enough to be cut to the soul by the best appearance of our best regulated militia, may not fear contempt, but be assured he will run away from a cannon. He is not made for the times in which we live; he does not me rit the honour of a commission-he is a man of epaulets and facings, whose most exalted hope of glory-is, to wear a feather. Yet by the natural course of our militia laws, such are the very men who, by the fatal principle of military priority, will command our militia in the emergencies of war. And is not this an evil? Look back only three years, and you will remember instances in which men were led to disgrace and death-in which national honour and happiness were jeopardized, by militia commanders saddled upon the nation's back in consequence of our militia system. Nor was it in the power of our war department to shake off these dangerous pests; because while all men cursed them in their hearts, all men admitted their right to their station on the principle of routine. When the militia of some of the states, during the late war, were called into the field against British invasion, it was at once laughable and appalling, to behold what odd geniusses and queer figures had crept into command, and under the blessed influence of militia laws, were about to march to discomfiture and disgrace. Filth, disease and mutiny followed their banner, while valour and patriotism shuddered at their very physiognomy. It was not, until such bear-herds were whipped out of the field at the expense of much good blood and treasure, that the militia was lessoned into the shape of any thing like a defence. The ghosts of murdered citizens, and ravaged towns, should haunt the dreams of every statesman, who in these days preaches in favour of one particle of confidence in any militia. No-it is not on them that a nation should rest its defence, nor is there any use in them in the present refined mode of warfare.—We must have numerous and extensive military schools, where our youth shall be bred to the science and the art of war-and the only purpose of a militia law should be to num ber and regiment our strength-and to supply it with arms. Nor is it just or fair that the class of people who compose our militia should be oppressed as they are by our militia laws. The tax falls on them heavily, and it is the more heavy because it is unequal Allowing the militia system to be use ful, what gives government the right to tax a labourer five or ten days in a year, and, at the same time, to exempt all civil officers from that tax, although it is intended for the common defence? And where is the fairness of taxing persons under 45 and over 18 all alike-the poor as much as the rich, and exempting all other descriptions of people without regard to their revenues? By the oppressive inequality of these militia taxes, he who has not any property whatever pays as much for the common defence, as he whose possessions are of the value of millions. It was agony to every benevolent heart, in the late war, to see poor men torn from their homes, and dragged from a great distance down to the city of New-York, to defend the vast property of our bank directors and land-holders-who for a fine of 50 dollars, (amounting to nothing compared with their possessions) remained at home at ease. This inequality of taxation cannot be Justified. The common defence should in all cases, as well in the militia, as in the army, be paid for by the commonwealth; and every man, whether civil or military, and every society or corporation, whether religious or commercial, should be taxed in proportion to its revenues. Every tax of an unequal character, being oppressive, must in a republican government be admitted to be a national evil. The militia of the United States is said to amount to the number of 800,000. They are called into the field, say, five times in every year. Estimating the services and sacrifices of each man at the labour prices of a dollar a day, the militia in ten years pay a tax of 40 millions of dollars, besides their equipments, which amount, at 20 dollars per man, to 16 millions more, which is supposed to be for the common defence, although no other class pays any thing for it. It would be well for the people to know, and for statesmen to reflect, that this tax is a monster-raising a fund for defence to throw it away, and levying from militia men an enormous contribution over and above their other taxes, and actually amounting to more than all the rest. If, therefore, in the face of wisdom and experience, the militia must still be depended upon for the common defence, let no man be called on to spend a day of his time in this degrading service, without being paid for it out of the common revenue by the property of the nation. As it now is, the poor are made miserable by a system of defence towards which the rich pay comparatively nothing-and that system is the subject of universal ridicule. A good statesman cannot be its advocate. He will boldly avow that in as much as it fails in its object, and is a national curse, it ought to be swept from the national code, with its squalid train of calamities, and a glorious system of military schools adopted in its place. VOX COMMUNIS. ART. 2. Crystalina. A Fairy Tale. By an American. THO Aut famam sequere, aut sibi convenientia finge Let the poet construct his fable from Amidst all the various and great beauties of Spenser, there is a want of interest and excitement. The moral of his fables is not readily understood. We are pleased, and often greatly so; but the queston; what then? or, what is the consequence? so frequently occurs, and so frequently is unanswered, that we become wearied of the descriptions of events, the objects of which remain unrevealed, Hence, how few in Britain or America are the readers of his Fairy Queen. The Fable of Crystalina is founded in Spenserian imagery. To give a brief outline of it, and to afford the reader occasional evidence of the poetical talent of the author, we shall make our remarks as we proceed with the poem. The poem is divided into six cantos; each of which begins with a stanza in the manner of Spenser. The object of this |