594 INDIAN LAND CESSIONS IN THE UNITED STATES [eth.anx. 18 



The following- supplementary article was signed August 1, 1682: 

 Wee, irhose names are imdenvrittcn, for our Selves and in name and belialfe of 

 tlie rest of the within mentioned Shackamachers, in respect of a mistake in the first 

 bargaine lietiiYixt ns and the ivithin named AVra. Peun, of the nnmber of teun gnnns 

 more than are mentioned in the ■within deed when we should then have received, doe 

 now acknowledge the receipt of the saide teun guuns from the said AVm.Penn; And 

 whereas in the said deed there is certaine mention made of three hundred and fifte 

 fathom of AVampum, not expressing the quality thereof, Wee yrfore for our Selves, 

 and in hehalfe also do declare the same to be one halfe why t wampum and the other 

 halfe black wampum; And we, Peperappamand, I'yterhay aud Eytepamatjietts, 

 Indian Shaohaniakers, who were the first owners of ye Land called Soepassincks, & 

 of ye island of ye same name, and who did not formerlie Sign and Seal ye within 

 deed, nor were present when the same Was done, doe now by signing and sealliug 

 hereof, Eatefie, approve and confirm ye within named deed and the ye partition of 

 ye Lands within mentioned writen and confirm thereof in all ye points, clauses, and 

 articles of ye same, and doe declare our now sealing hereof to be as valid, efi'ectual 

 and sufficient for ye conveyance of ye whole Lands, and of here within named to 

 ye sd. Wm. Penu, his heirs and assigns for evermore, as if we had their with the 

 other within named Shachamakers signed and sealed in ye same. 



As there was no change of policy in this respect during the colonial 

 history of Pennsylvania, a brief reference to some of the more impor- 

 tant purchases, and a few of the laws bearing on the subject, will 

 suffice for the purpose at present in view. 



As remarked by Smith in a note to his Collection of the Laws of 

 Pennsylvania,' "The early Indian deeds are vague and undefined as to 

 their boundaries and the stations can not be precisely ascertained at 

 this day." This is true of the one given above, and is certainly true 

 of some of those mentioned below. However, according to the same 

 authority, "the deed of September 17"' 1718 seems to define jn-etty 

 clearly, the extent aud limits of the lands acquired by the several pur- 

 chases to that pei'iod." 



The lauds granted by tlie deed of June 23, 1683, were those "lying 

 betwixt Penimapecka and Neshemineh creeks, and all along upon 

 Neshemineh creek, and backward of the saine, and to run two days 

 journey with an horse up into the country, as the said river doth go." 

 By another deed of the same date, two sachems who had not joined 

 in the first, released to Peun the same territory, omitting the "two 

 day's journey." "The extent of this purchase," says Smith, "would 

 be considerable, and greatly beyond the limits of the subsequent deed 

 of Sept. 1718." 



Another deed by a single sachem, one Wingebone, dated June 25 of 

 the same year, grants "all my lands lying on ye west side of ye Skol- 

 kill river beginning from ye first Falls of ye same all along u])on ye 

 sd river aud backward of ye same as farr as my right goeth." 



July 14, 1683, two " Indian Shackamakers" claiming to be the right 

 owners thereof, granted to Peun the lands lying between Manaiunk 

 (Schuylkill) aud Macopanackhan (Chester) rivei's, "beginning on the 



'Vol, u (1810), pp. 106-124, footnote. 



