OCR Text |
Show 52 TBOMAS] MASSACHUSETTS' POLICY TOWARD THE INDIANS 603 under the qualifications of right to the Indians) is, and shall be accounted the just right of such English as already have, or hereafter shall have grant of lauds from This Court, and the authority thereof, from that of Gen. 1. 28, and the s t a t i o n of aS«od2a nJn<! it is ordered, That no person whatsoever shall henceforth buy land of any Indian, without license first had and obtained of the General Court; and it any offend herein, such land so bought shall be forfeited to the country. Subsequently (1665) the court, in explanation of the last clause of this act, declared as follows: This Court doth declare the prohibition there exprest, referring to tho purchaso of Indian land without license from this Court is to be understood, as well grants for term of years, as forever, and that under the same penalty as iu the said law is exprcst. The first clause of this act certainly accords with the theory of restricted rights as above set forth. However, the words " and the invitation of the Indians," in the fourth clause, are significant, especially in view of the fact that the settlement at Charlestown was made by "consent" of the chief, Sagamore John. In a paper bearing the title, " General considerations for the plantation iu New England, with an answer to several objections," written by Winthrop, according to the copy in the Massachusetts State Papers, answers the objection, " But what warrant have we to take that land which is and bath been of long tyme possessed of other sons of Adam ? '" Thus- That which is common to all is proper to none. This savage people ruleth over many lands without title or property; for they inclose no gTound, neither have they cattell to maintayne it,'but remove their dwellings as they have occasion, or aa they can prevail against their neighbors. And why may not christians have liberty to go aud dwell amongst them in their waste lands and woods (leaving them such places as they have manured for their corue) as lawfully as Abraham did among the Sodomites? For God hath given to the sons of men a two-fould right to the earth; there is a naturall right and a civil right. The first right was naturall when meu held the earth in common, every mau sowing and feeding where he pleaded ; Then, as meu aud cattell increased, tbey appropriated some parcells of ground by enclosing and peculiar mauurauce, and this in tyme got them a civil right. Such was the right which Ephron tho Hittite had to the field of Machpelah, wherein Abraham could not bury a dead corpse without leave, though for the out parts of the country which lay common, he dwelt upon them and tooke the fruite of them at his pleasure. This appears also in Jacob and his sons, who fedd their flocks as bouldly iu the Canaanites land, for he is said to be lord of the country; aud at Dothaiu and all other places men accounted nothing their owne, but that which thoy had appropriated by their own industry, as appears plainly by Abimelech's servants, who in their own conntrey did often contend with Isaac's servants about wells which they had digged; but never about the lauds which thoy occupied. So likewise betweeno Jacob and Laban; he would not take a kidd of Laban's without special coutract; but he makes no bargaine with him for the land where he fedd. And it is probable that if the conntrey had not becu as free for Jacob as for Laban, that covetous wretch would have made his advantago of him, and have upbraided Jacob with it as he did with the rest. 2dly, There is more than enough for them aud us, 3dly, 'Pngcs 39-31. |