From the New York Advertiser.

The following passage is taken from an editorial paragraph in the Washington Telegraph-

The truth is, the Indians if let alone, would present no obstacle to that march of civilization in the south which is, and has been practised (sic) from time immemorial in every section of the United States. Why should a fair portion of the original United States- a portion not less fertile than any other of this Union- be suffered to remain, unsettled and unproductive. Why should the aboriginals be persuaded, by unprincipled whites located among them for the purpose of speculating on their wants out of the money furnished by the government, to deny to this government the use of that soil which can be of no more value to them than so much soil westward of the Mississippi? The reason is simply- these speculators will not have as good an opportunity to make money out of the necessity of the Indians, and the money furnished by the government in the new position as they would in the old.'

Some friend of the Administration, who has some even imperfect notions of what logic is, (if indeed there be any such individual) should tell the editor of that paper never to attempt to reason. It is not his forte. His genius runs in another channel. His talents lie in making bold and unfounded assertions, without hesitation, and without blushing. In that department of editorial labour (sic), it is no more than just to say he has no rival; and it would be extravagant to expect that he will ever be surpassed.

The foregoing citation from his paper, furnishes a specimen of his imprudence and adventuring upon ground that he is unacquainted with. 'Why, says he, alluding to the Indian lands in Georgia, 'should a fair portion of the original United States- a portion not less fertile than any other in this Union- be suffered to remain unsettled and unproductive?' 'Why' says a highwayman to a person whom he has met in the woods, in the night season, and from whom he has demanded his purse- 'why should you retain the money in you pocket, which I want, and you can do without? In your purse it will be useless;- in my hands it may become productive.' If the man thus assailed could do it with safety to his life, he would probably say-'It would remain in my possession because it is mine; and if you take it from me IT WILL BE ROBBERY.'