Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

unusual or extraordinary cases, or in disputed cases which could not otherwise be settled.

Reverend Peres Forbes, in his description of the town of Raynham (1793), says that lands (8 by 4 miles) originally known by the name Cohanat, "in the colony of New Plymouth," were purchased of Massasoit by Elizabeth Pool and her associates.

According to Drake,' the following purchases were made of King Philip: "In 1665, he sold the country about Acushena (now New Bedford,) and Coaxet, (now in Compton.) Philip's father having previously sold some of the same, £10 was now given him to prevent any claim from him, and to pay for his marking out the same." In 1662 Wrentham was purchased of him by the English of Dedham. In 1669 an additional purchase was made by Dedham. In 1667 he sold to Constant Southworth and others all the meadow lands from Dartmouth to Matapoisett;" also to Thomas Willet and others "all that tract of land lying between the Riuer Wanascottaquett and Cawatoquissett, being two miles long and one broad."

He sold and quitclaimed several other tracts, viz, "eight miles square," including the town of Rehoboth; an island near Nokatay; "a considerable tract of land in Middleborough;" land lying "near Acashewah in Dartmouth;" a tract "twelve miles square" south of Taunton, and a few days later "four miles square more.”

These examples are sufficient to show that to some extent at least the lands as occupied by the colonists were purchased from the Indians; yet the lack of evidence, absence of records, and even want of tradition in regard to some of the towns lead to the inference that possession of the lands was otherwise gained, as at Boston, Salem, and other places.

In 1643 an act was passed by the Plymouth colony prohibiting all traffic in land with the Indians; and in 1657 and 1662 the general court took measures to protect the natives' fields and grounds from the stray cattle and swine of the English.

Among the articles of the confederation or alliance of 1643 between the four colonies-Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven-was the following:

It is also by these confederates agreed, that the charge of all just wars, whether offensive or defensive, (upon what part or member of this confederation soever they shall fall,) shall both in men and provisions, and all other disbursements, be borne by all the parts of this confederation, in different proportions, according to their different abilities, in manner following, viz. That the commissioners for each jurisdiction, from time to time, as there shall be occasion, bring account and number of all the males in each plantation, or any way belonging to or under their several jurisdictions, of what quality or condition soever they be, from sixteen years old to sixty, being inhabitants there; and that according to the different numbers, which from time to time shall be found in each jurisdiction, upon a true and just account, the service of men, and all charges of the war be borne by the poll. Each jurisdic

Indians of North America (1833), bk. 3, chap. 2, p. 14.

tion or plantation being left to their own just course or custom of rating themselves and people, according to their different estates, with due respect to their qualities and exemptions among themselves; though the confederates take no notice of any such privilege, and that according to the different charge of each jurisdiction and plantation, the whole advantage of the war, (if it pleased God so to bless their endeavors,) whether it be in land, goods, or persons, shall be proportionably divided amongst the said confederates.'

As "offensive" as well as "defensive" wars are alluded to, and the "advantages gained in lands, goods, or persons" were to be divided. proportionately, Mr Oliver declares this "must have had reference to an absorption of the whole territory of New England." Though the provisions are curious and seem to embrace somewhat covertly the right under certain conditions to wage an offensive war and appropriate the territory thereby gained, Mr Oliver's inference is not fully justified. Moreover, it seems to be forbidden by the ninth article of the agreement.

The only reference in this agreement to the treatment of the Indians is the following brief paragraph in article 8: That the commissioners appointed are to see "how all the jurisdictions may carry it toward the Indians, that they neither grow insolent nor be injured without due satisfaction, lest war break in upon the confederates through miscarriages." These references are given as furnishing some indication of the theory of the colonists of Massachusetts in regard to the rights and title of the natives, for it must be understood that this agreement was in truth the expression of Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island being refused admittance and Connecticut being virtually a silent factor.

Another episode in which the question of primary title was brought forward was that caused by the abrogation of the charter and the course of Governor Andros. The history is too well known to need repetition here. It is necessary only to say the theory accepted by the Crown was that, in consequence of the abrogation of the charter, no claim based on a grant from the Massachusetts Company or on a purchase from the Indians was valid, and that no New England settler had ever acquired a legal title to his lands. The real object of this bold move appears to have been to force contributions from the people by compelling them to pay for new grants and new confirmations of their purchases. Indian deeds were declared to be "worth no more than the scratch of a bear's paw."

These items are sufficient to give a general idea of the policy and methods of dealing with the Indians in regard to their lands, adopted and practiced by the colonists of Massachusetts in the early days of their history while under Puritan control. In closing this brief examination of the period of Massachusetts history alluded to, the decision given by Doyle, who appears to be a fair and unbiased authority, may be adopted if the words "New Englanders" are limited to Massachu

Collections Massachusetts Historical Society, vol. v, 2d ser., p. 469.

2 Hubbard, General History, chap. 52.

setts: "Whatever may have been the failings of the Puritan settlers, they cannot be charged with wanton and purposeless cruelty. Greed in despoiling the natives of their land, unreasonable and unjust suspicion in anticipating attacks, harshness in punishing them, of none of these can we acquit the New Englanders."

As the province of Maine was abandoned by Gorges in 1651, and by consent of the people taken under control of Massachusetts in 1652 and made a part of that colony by the new charter of 1691, a brief reference to some dealings with the Indians in regard to the lands of that province is made here.

The following items are from the Collections and Proceedings of the Maine Historical Society.

In a letter by Governor Shuts to the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, March 13, 1721, it is stated that—

Those lands which the French Government calls the Indians' land, are lands which the English have long since purchased of the Indians, and have good deeds to produce for the same, and have also erected some Forts thereupon. And that the said lands have been at several gen'. meetings of the Indians and English confirmed to them, and once since my being Governour of these Provinces; as will appear by the inclosed treaty of the 19th August 1717.

In another letter to Marques de Vaudreil (1722) he says: "Arowsick is a small island at the mouth of one of our chief rivers, purchased by good deeds from the natives near seventy years agone, and settled with a good English village about fifty years since." The following important item relating to one point in the method of treating with the Indians in this eastern province is also contained in the same letter: "Now it is notorious that, at all times when this government accepted the submission of, or treated with these eastern Indians, their delegates or some of their chiefs were present and produced their powers or credentials from the tribe."

In a letter from Governor Dummer to the same party it is stated that "the Penobscot Indians, Norridgewalk Indians, and many other tribes had in the year 1693 at a treaty of Sir William Phipps governor of this Province, not only submitted themselves as subjects to the crown of England, but also renounced the French interest and quitted claim to the lands bought and possessed by the English."

In volume IV, second series, page 303, of the collections cited occurs this remark: "Levett's probity was as marked as his sagacity, and instead of seizing upon the land by virtue of his English patent, he procured from Cogawesco, the sagamore of Casco, and his wife, permission to occupy it, recognizing them as inhabitants of the country, and as having a natural right of inheritance therein.' This is in marked contrast to most other patentees of lands in New England."

These items, to which others of similar import might be added, indicate a just policy in regard to that part of the territory which came under the authority of Massachusetts. They are sufficient to show

that the people of this district recognized the Indian title of occupancy and respected it.

It seems that after the close of Puritan control and the grant of the new charter, the authorities gradually drifted into the theory and policy held by most of the other colonies and adopted subsequently by the United States. Brief reference to some items indicating this fact is all that is necessary here.

In the plan of a proposed union of the several colonies, drawn up in 1754, in which Massachusetts took part, is the following section:

That the President-General, with the Grand Council, summoned and assembled for that purpose, or a quorum of them as aforesaid, shall hold and direct all Indian treaties, in which the general interest or welfare of these colonies may be concerned; and make peace or declare war with Indian nations; that they make such rules and orders, with pains and punishments annexed thereto, as they judge necessary, for regulating all Indian trade; that they direct and order the ways and means, necessary and beneficial to support and maintain the safety and interests of these colonies, against all their common enemies; that they make all purchases from Indians, for the Crown, of lands not now within the bounds of particular colonies, or that shall not be within their bounds, when the extension of some of them are rendered more certain.'

Here is a clear recognition of the Indian title and the necessity for extinguishing it by purchase.

In 1758 the following act was passed by the governor, council, and house of representatives:

That there be three proper persons appointed for the future by this Court, near to every Indian plantation in this province, guardians to the said Indians in their respective plantations, who are hereby empowered from and after the twenty-third day of June, A. D. 1758, to take into their hands the said Indians' lands, and allot to the several Indians of the several plantations, such parts of the said lands and meadows as shall be sufficient for their particular improvement from time to time, during the continuance of this act; and the remainder, if any there be, shall be let out by the guardians of the said respective plantations, to suitable persons, for a term not exceeding the continuance of this act; and such part of the income thereof as is necessary, shall be applied for the support of such of the proprietors in their respective plantations as may be sick or unable to support themselves; and the surplusage thereof, if any there be, distributed amongst them according to their respective rights or interest, for providing necessaries for themselves and families, and for the payment of their just debts, at the descretion of their said guardians; and that the respective guardians aforesaid be hereby empowered and enabled, in their own names, and in their capacities as guardians, to bring forward and maintain any action or actions for any trespass or trespasses that may be committed on the said Indian land; and that any liberty or pretended liberty obtained from any Indian or Indians for cutting off any timber wood, or hay, milking pine trees, carrying off any ore or grain, or planting or improving said lands, shall not be any bar to said guardians in their said action or actions: Provided, That nothing in this act shall be understood to bar any person or persons from letting creatures run upon the said Indians' unimproved lands that lie common and contiguous to other towns or proprietors.

And be it further enacted, That from and after the twenty-third day of June aforesaid, no Indian or Indians shall sell or lease out to any other Indian or Indians any of his or her lands without the consent of the guardians, or a major part of the guardians

Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, vol. VII (1801), p. 205.

of the Indians of the plantation wherein such lands do lie; and all sales or leases of land for any term or terms of years that shall at any time hereafter during the continuance of this act, be made by any Indian or Indians to any other Indian or Indians, shall be utterly void and of none effect, unless the same be made by and with license of the respective guardians as aforesaid.'

In 1780 an act was passed appointing commissioners to examine all sales of lands previously made by any of the Indians of the Moheakunnuk tribe residing in Stockbridge which had not been legally confirmed, and to confirm those for which payment had justly been made.

Another act was passed confirming the agreement with the Penobscot Indians, by which said Indians released their claims to all lands on the west side of Penobscot river, "from the head of the tide up to the river Pasquatequis being about forty-three miles; and all their claims and interest on the east side of the river from the head of the tide aforesaid up to the river Mantawomkeek took being about eighty-five miles, reserving only to themselves the island on which the old town stands and those islands on which they now have actual improvement." As the records show purchases of but a comparatively small portion of the territory of the state, and no assertions are found in any of the numerous histories that the lands, except in the bounds of Plymouth colony, were generally purchased, the reasonable inference is that they were not, or at least that a large portion of them was otherwise obtained. This conclusion appears to be confirmed by statements which have been quoted above. That Massachusetts made an earnest effort to christianize the Indians is certainly true, but it must be admitted that the treatment of these natives by the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay in regard to their lands will not compare in the sense of justice, equity, and humanity with the policy of Connecticut, Rhode Island, or Pennsylvania.

CONNECTICUT

The policy of the settlers of Connecticut in their dealings with the natives regarding their lands forms one of the brightest chapters, in this respect, of the early history of our country. It is perhaps not without justification that the author of one of the histories of the state2 makes the following statement:

The planters of Connecticut proved by their conduct that they did not seek to obtain undue advantage over the Indians. Even the Pequod war was not undertaken for the purpose of increasing their territory, but only in self-defense; for they did not need their lands, nor did they use them for a considerable time. If they had wished for them, they would have preferred to pay several times their value. They allowed the other tribes all the land they claimed after the destruction of the Pequods, and took none without paying a satisfactory price. Indeed, in most cases they bought the land in large tracts, and afterward paid for it again in smaller ones, when they wished to occupy it. In some instances, they thus purchased land thrice, and, with the repeated presents made to the sachems, the sums they spent

'Laws of Colonial and State Governments Relating to Indian Affairs (1832), p. 16.

"Theodore Dwight, jr., The History of Connecticut from the First Settlement to the Present Time (1841), p. 89.

« AnteriorContinuar »