548 INDIAN LAND CESSIONS IN THE UNITED STATES [eth.ann. 18 



exact obedience from all the yjeople of said Countries, inviting them by all the most 

 lenient means possible to the knowledge of God, and the liglit of the Faith and of 

 the Catholic Apostolic and Roman Keligiott, and to establish its exercise to the 

 exclusion of all others; to defend the said Countries with all his power; to main- 

 tain and preserve tlio said people in peace, repose and traminility, and to command 

 both on sea and laud ; to order and cause to be executed all that he, or those he will 

 appoint, shall .judge fit and proper to be done, to extend and preserve said ])laeea 

 under Our authority and obedience. 



It will be seen from this that the King's reliance in accomplishing the 

 end he had in view was on force rather than on fair dealing with the 

 natives. Nowhere in this commission or in any of the grants is there 

 any direct recognition of the Indians' possessory title, or an expressed 

 desire that they be secnred in possession of the lauds they occupy, or 

 that are necessary for their use. It is well known to all who are familiar 

 with the history of French dominion in Louisiana and Canada, that 

 resort was often made to the policy of secretly fomenting quarrels 

 between Indian tribes, and thus, by wars between tliemselves, so weaken 

 them as to render it less ditticult to bring them under control. 



That no idea of purchasing or pretending to purchase the possessory 

 right of the natives had been entertained by the French up to 1G8G, is 

 evident from a passage in the letter of M. de Denonville to M. de 

 Seignelay, May 8, 168G,' where he states: "The mode observed by the 

 English with the Iroquois, when desirous to form an establishment in 

 their neighborliood, lias been, to make them presents for the purchase 

 of the fee and i)roperty of the land they would occupy. What I con- 

 sider most certain is, that whether we do so, or have war or peace with 

 them, they will not sutler, except most unwillingly, tlie construction of 

 a fort at Niagara." That the war policy was the course adopted is a 

 matter of history. 



How, then, are we to account for the fact that the relations of the 

 French with the Indians under their control were, as a general rule, 

 more intimate and satisfactory to both parties than those of other 

 nations? Parkraan has remarked that 'The power of the priest estab- 

 lished, that of the temporal ruler was secure. . . . Spanish civilization 

 crushed the Indian; English civilization scorned and neglected him; 

 French civilization embraced and clierished him.'' Although this can 

 not be accepted as strictly correct in every respect, yet it is true that 

 intimate, friendly relations existed between the French and their Indian 

 subjects, which did not exist between the Spanish or English and the 

 native xjopulation. However, this can not be attributed to the legal 

 enactments or defined policy of the French, but rather to their practi- 

 cal methods. 



Instead of holding the natives at arm's length and treating them 

 only as distinct and inferior people and (]uasi independent nations, the 

 Fi'ench policy was to make them one with their own people, at least in 

 Canada. This is expressly declared in the following extracts: 



'New York Colonial Documents, vol. ix, p. 28! 



