only to give pre-emptive rights to the colony, not to surrender the property 
in the lands. The 1659 conveyance in trust to Mason and his heirs, the 1681 
treaty, and many repeated acts of the General Assembly were so many recognitions 
that the ownership of the soil remained in the Indians. 134 Next, the 
Court, ours was recorded as soon as we had 
occasion to use it at the Court in 1738. Their 
Deed 1661 was not recorded till 1714. 2d. 
Objection. It was found in an old File of 
Musty Papers, and never made Use of or 
mentioned till 1738. Answer. It was found in 
the Archives of the Colony, the proper Repository 
of such Evidence. It is implicitly owned 
by Uncas in 1658 when he Petitioned the 
Court to Confirm the Land to Horton. It is 
implicitly referred to in the recital of the 
Charter in 1662. It is expressly Confirmed by 
Oweneco in his Deed to Samuel Mason in 
1684. It is recited also almost verbatim, in 
Sir Henry Ashursts Petition in 1705 and a 
Copy of it given from the Files of the Generall 
Court by Secretary Kimberly before 1708. 
When should it have been mentioned? At 
the Court in 1705 they say, but the Answer 
is obvious, we denied its Jurisdiction and 
would make no defence. 3d. Objection. That 
it was meant to keep out the Dutch and other 
Settlers who were meditating settlements there, 
and must be Construed only to give a right 
of Preemption. Answer. What Right it meant 
to give, must be determined by the words of 
it. It has been already Observed that it Imports 
to be an absolute Grant of all his Lands not 
then Planted. 2ly. Admit it was made to keep 
out the Dutch and other Settlers, yet it is 
equally Conclusive both against him and them; 
as a transfer of all his Right, it must keep 
them and all others out as Claiming under 
him, on the other hand the best means to 
keep them out, if he wished to do it was to 
Transfer all his Right as he did by this Deed, 
but 3ly. There is no Evidence that the Dutch 
or any others wished to make settlements in 
this Country, at that Time. The Object of 
the Dutch was Trade, not Colonization, and 
for that purpose they had only a Trading 
House on Connecticut River, and never Attempted 
to make any settlements there. They 
were in possession of a better Country on 
Hudson's River, and yet did very little towards 
making any settlements, being Attentive 
only to their Trade. Their Deeds of 1661 
and 1665 are in the same stile of Covenant 
not to sell to any other than Mason, and we 
might as well infer that they too were meant 
to keep out the Dutch. 4th. Objection. That 
the subsequent transactions shew they had 
Property. Answer. None Inconsistent with this 
Deed, the Indians planting Ground was reserved 
by this Deed. In 1659 they Conveyed 
that also, but were afterwards to be provided 
with Planting ground by the Assembly, and 
were admitted to a right to receive some 
farther Recompence by the League 1681 so 
that they had all along some kind of Right 
to Transact about, but still Consistent with 
this Deed. Even if they had none such subsequent 
Transactions could never divest a 
Title so clearly Conveyed. The Title once 
Conveyed by Deed, could never be revested 
but by Deed, or Act of equal Import. sly. 
They Ask. Did they ever make a Grant under 
this Deed? And Answer Never! It is replied 
All the Grants to Lebanon, Bolton, Wyndham 
etc. were made under this Deed, and they had 
no Idea that they needed any farther Deed 
till they were about to apply for their Charter, 
when it was thought proper to buy in the 
Planting Land reserved by this Deed, and to 
Extinguish the whole Native Right" (MS 
Conn. Archives, 2 Indians, #277 v-x). 
134 Case of Appellant, 24. To this William 
Samuel Johnson retorted: "The Deed to Mason 
in 1659, they Insist was in Trust for the 
Indians, and this is the foundation of their 
whole Argument. If this Deed was not in 
Trust their whole claim is absolutely without 
foundation. Now we Insist Ist That by the 
Act which they themselves set forth it could 
Enure only to the use of the Colony, that 
Law rendering it void to every other purpose. 
2ly. That it was usual at that time and long 
after, for Individuals to take Conveyances in 
their own Names for the Use of the Colony 
and particular Town's etc. Most of our first 
Indian Deeds are so, and no wonder Mason 
who was Deputy Governor should so Purchase 
for the Colony. 3ly. It was taken at the time 
they were about to apply for their Charter, 
and by the Words of it, all our Lands with 
all the Corn and corn hands wheresoever 
plainly appears to have been Intended to 
Convey the Corn or Planting hands exempted 
out of the Deed 1640, and to extinguish the 
whole Native Bight, so that they might be