THOMAS] MASSACIUJSKTTS' roiJCY TOWAKM) THK INDIANS 003 



under Iho iiiiiililiciiliouH oC n;//i/ to llie IiidiiiMH) is, .iimI kIkiII \n\ iiccoiiiitcd tlio Just, 

 riflht of such KiikHsIi as alicail.v have, nr IniialliM' sli.ill liiivc Ki'mit of l.'iiiils I'lom 

 this Court, ami thi; authority tlioreof, IVoiii that of (icii. 1. L'S, and the iuvltatiou of 

 tlio Indians. 



Sni.'. 2. .hid it IN ovdcred, That no person wliatsocviir shall henceforth Imy Imul of 

 any Indian, without lli'duso lir»t had iind ohtainod of tho (frnornl Court; iiiiil il any 

 oflVuid horuin, hucIi land so houfiht sliall b(^ Ibrfcitod to tlio country. 



Bubseiiiicntly (1(>()5) the court, iii oxpliiiiation of the last; clause of 

 this act, (Icchirecl as follows: 



This ('ourt doth doclarc the iiroliibition lliorooxprost, rcfurrinji to the piir(dMiH(i of 

 Indian land witliout !io(^nso IVoni this Court is to lio undorstood, as well grants for 

 term of years, as forever, and that iiinlor the same jienalty as in the said law is 

 expn^st. 



Th»i lirst cliuisc of thi.s act certainly accoids with tlH^ theory of 

 restricted rigiits as above set fortli. However, tiie words "and the 

 invitation of tlie Indians," in the fourth clause, arc si}jni(icaiit, esi)e- 

 cially iu view of the fact that the settlement at Charlcstown was uvmW, 

 by "consent"' of tlie ciiief, Sagiunore .lohn. 



In a paper bearing the title, "(Jcnerjil (considerations for tlie jilauta- 

 tion in New 10nf;land, with an answer to several obJe(;tions," written 

 by Winthiop, according to the copy in the Massachnsetis State Papers, 

 answers the objection, " But what warrant liavci we to take that land 

 which is and haHi been of long tynie possessed of other sons of Adam?"' 

 Tims— 



Tliat which is common to all is proper to nouo. 'I'his sa\ane people rnleth over 

 many lands without title or property ; for they im'lose no ground, neither have tliey 

 cattoll to inaintayne it, Iiut remove their dwellings as tliey liave oc<asi()n, or as tbey 

 can ]irovail against their neighbors. And why may not (dii'istians havo lilierty to 

 go and dwell amongst tliem in their waste lands .arid woods (leaving thorn such 

 places as thoy have inanured for their come) as lawfully as Abraham did among the 

 Sodomites? For God bath given to the sons of men a two-fould right to the earth; 

 there is a natiirall right and a civil right. The lirst riglit was mitnrall when men 

 liidd the earth in common, every man sowing and feeding where lie pleased ; Tlien, 

 OS men and <'attell increased, they appropiiiit(al .soiiio parcolls of ground hy enclosing 

 and iioculiar maniirance, and this in tyiiie got tlicm a civil right. Such was the 

 right which ICpliron the Hittite had to the lield of Machpelah, wherein Alpraham 

 could not liiiry a dead cor|)so without leave, tliongli for the out parts of the country 

 which lay common, lie dwidt upon them and looUe the friiit(Mif them at his pN^asure. 

 This appears also in .Jacob and his sons, who feild their llocUs as Itoiildly in tho 

 Cauaanites land, for he is said to be lord of the country; and at Uothani and all 

 other places men accounted nothing their owne, but that which they had appro- 

 priated by their own industry, as appears ]ilaiiily by Abimelecdi's servants, who in 

 their own couiitrey did often contend with Isaac's servants about wells which they 

 had <ligged ; Init never about the lands which they occui>ied. So likewise lietweene 

 .Jacob and Laban; ho would not take a kidd of Laban's witliout special contract; 

 but ho makes no bargaine with him for tho land where he fedd. And it is probable 

 that if th(^ (umiitrey had not been as free for.lac'ol) as for I,abaii, that covetous 

 wretch woiilil liavo made his advantage of him. an<l llavl^ iipbr.aidcd .laeoli with it 

 as h(^ di<l with the rest. 2dly, There is more than enougli for them and us. Sdly, 



' I'ligcs ao-81. 



