We published in our last a copy of a letter from the Secretary of War to the agent of the Creek Nation, and which was forwarded to the agent of the Cherokees, as a document applicable to them. It is indeed applicable to the people of this nation if the criterion which Mr. Eaton sets forth is to be taken as correct. In his letter to Col. Ward, accompanying a copy of the same communication, he says: 'The opinions and arguments contained in it being applicable to every tribe which shall decline the liberal terms proposed by Congress' 'c. We will apply this logic in the form of a syllogism, that the reader may the better understand it.

The opinions ' arguments contained in it are applicable to every tribe which shall decline the terms proposed by Congress:

The Cherokees have declined the terms proposed by Congress:

Therefore, the opinions and arguments contained in the communication are applicable to the Cherokees.

It is for the candid reader to say whether such logic is worth anything, or in other words, whether the refusal of the terms contained in Indian Bill will make an Indian a perfect savage, and put him beyond the possibility of reform; for the whole communication is but a series of false premises and arguments to prove that an 'Indian will still be an Indian' -- that he cannot be civilized. We have so often endeavoured in this paper to confute similar reasonings, and to give a correct statement of the condition, improvement and prospects of the Cherokee people, that it would, at this time, be a mere waste of words to enter into any examination of the Honorable Secretary of War's letter. We can freely commit his doctrines and arguments to the candor and good judgement of the reader. They will there undergo a rigid and just examination, and receive the sentence of an impartial tribunal.

As a document emenating from a high officer of the General Government, it is highly undignified, and perhaps, silly in the extreme. We know of no document from that quarter which can be compared with it. His allusions to the wild turkey, and the

Leopard ' Ethiopian (the latter borrowed from Scripture) are very unbecoming. There is a lack of correct taste in the former, ' in the latter perhaps a little of impiety -- or it will at least be so considered, by one who believes in the revelation of God ' in its power to reform mankind, as reprehensible. But we leave the document in the hands of the public -- we are willing that its merits should there be fairly weighed without our saying another word. We only beg a particular attention to it.