THOMAS] Maryland's policy toward the Indians 571 



up the laiiils of St. Mary's, as the Indians of Shackamason were to givf uii tliose 

 where Philadelphia stands. 



The foregoing remarks -would, perhaps, not have been made, had they not Ix-en 

 drawn forth by a part of a speech, which the before-mentioned biographer of AVil- 

 liam Penn has dressed up for him, on the occasion of this celebrated treaty, entirely 

 from " tradition," as he acknowledges, in which lie make.s him to say to tlie Indians ; — 

 "that he would not do as the Marylandcra did, that is, call them children or 

 brothers only; for, often parents were apt to whip their children too severely, and 

 brothers sometimes would differ: but he should consider them as the same flesh and 

 blood with the Christians, and the same as if one mau's body were to be divided 

 into two parts.'' 



By section 3 of the act of March !!•, 1G3S,' it was decreed that — • 



No subject of his nuijesty's the king of England, or of any other foreign prince or 

 state shall obtain, procure, or accept of any laud within this province from any 

 foreign prince or state, or from any person whatsoever, (the natives owners of the 

 land excepted,) other than from the lord proprietary or his heirs or some person 

 claiming under him or them. — Neither shall he obtain, procure, or accejit of any land 

 within this province from any Indian to his own or the use of any other than of " the 

 lord proprietary or his heirs, nor shall bold or possess any laud within this province 

 by virtue of such grant, upon pain that every person ofl'ending to the contrary hereof 

 shall forfeit and lose to the lord proprietary and his heirs all such lands so aeeejited 

 or held withoiit grant of the lord proprietarj' or under him.'' 



It is probable that this hiw was enacted at this time because of the 

 fact that Lord Baltimore's title to some of the lauds of the province 

 was disputed by William Clayborne and those who claimed under him. 

 This claim was based upon a royal license he had obtained to trade 

 with the Indians aiul au alleged purchase from the Indians (Susque- 

 hanocks'?) of the Island of Kent. As it does not appear that the 

 Indian title to this island was subsequently purchased or extinguished 

 by the Maryland government, the inference is that, altliough the lords 

 commissioners of the plantations decided the dispute in Lord Balti- 

 more's favor, the purchase by Clayborne was accepted as an extinguish- 

 ment of the Indian title. This is confirmed by the fact that in the 

 treaty with the Susquehanocks in 1652 (mentioned below) it is expressly 

 stated that " the Isle of Kent and Palmer's Island belong to Captain 

 Clayborne." 



Ou April 21, 1619, an act entitled "An act concerning purchasing 

 Lands from the Indians" was passed, which Bozman says was, as to 

 principle, a law of general utility even up to his day. The substance 

 of this law as given in Bacon's Collection (unpaged) is as follows: 



Whereas divers Persons have heretofore purchased or accepted of lands, &e. from 

 the Indians, and made use of and possesed the same, without any lawful Title and 

 Authority derivi'd from the Lord I'roprietary, neglecting also to take out Grants 

 from his Lordship, under the Great .Seal, for such Lands as have been due to them 

 by virtue of his Lordship's Conditions of Plantations, or other Warrant from his 

 Lordshij), which Proceedings are not only very great Contempts and Prejudice to 

 his Lordship's Dignity and Rights, but also of such dangerous Conseiiuence. if not 

 timely prevented, that they may hereafter bring a great Confusion in the Govern- 

 ment and public Peace of this Province. Be it therefore Enacted etc. 



I Bozman, Histnry iif llarylaiul (1S37), vol. n, pp. 112-113. 



