
ka 
850 The American Naturalist. _ [September, 
eggs, which were nearly hatched and very dirty. I did not see any 
remains of birds or mammals either in or about the nest,” 
May 9th.—A communication was read from Mitchell’s Book Co., 
830 Broadway, N. Y., stating that they had the original deed of sale 
of Staten Island by the Indians, in 1670, and inquiring if the associ- 
ation desired to purchase or copy it. The corresponding secretary 
stated that he had requested Mr. E. C. Delavan, Jr., to examine the 
document, with the following result : 
56 Wall Street, New York, May goth, 1891. 
ARTHUR Ho.tick, Esq., New Brighton, N. Y.: 
Dear SIR :—I have examined the conveyance in possession of the 
Mitchell Company, 830 Broadway, referred to in their letter to you. 
While the document presents many internal evidences of authenticity, 
two points strike the professional reader as odd. In the recital of parties 
the names of the grantees are first written, followed by the names of 
the grantors. The grantees are Governor Lovelace and James Duke 
of York, the former representing the latter, The grantors are various 
sachems. 
The second point that seems to me unusual is that no totems have 
been drawn by any of the sachem grantors, and in their place are the 
ordinary marks that would likely be adopted by any illiterate. 
Granting the authenticity of the document, what is its value? The 
price placed on it by the company is $600. Its highest interest 
attaches when it is viewed from a purely antiquarian standpoint. 
Historically its interest is secondary. The first grant of Staten Island 
to Michael Pauw (1629-1630) was conditional on his ‘acquiring the 
Indian titles, which we must assume that he accomplished. Pauw 
subsequently reconveyed to the West. India Company (see Gay’s 
History). After the English ousted the Dutch authorities a conveyance 
by the Indians of Staten Island to Governor Lovelace, before 1760, 
is said to have been made, followed by a deed of confirmation in 1760 
(see Clute). The latter is probably the same instrument now under 
consideration. 
From the lawyer’s standpoint Indian deeds are now of little or no 
practical importance. It has been held that the Indians had no title 
which would be recognized in the courts of this country. The only 
legally recognized title was that of discovery and conquest. (Trustees 
of the Freeholders and Commonalty of the Town of eS 
respondents, vs. The Mecox Bay Oyster Company, 116 N. 
Johnson zs. McIntosh & Wheat (U. S.), 543- Martin vs. Waddie 
16 Peters 367.) _ Very truly yours, 
7 Epwarp C. DELAVAN, JR. 
mae a cathy Prete Can em nd OE LA Mer S ITEA EEE ekg E Meas As A IY fon ee UN ead Sea Mg aPC par Ror mek, nS Pep Race Be pay EREE AE en RS ES Seat aro Yt any SURI, TRE Me eR a 


a EE EE 







