There is, however, evidence of a certain fairness of dealing, in the friendly relations which subsisted between the two races on Cape Cod even through King Philip’s war. We have spoken of an old block-house, built in 1644. There were, nevertheless, no Indian forays on the Cape, and the tribes that lived there seem to have been well disposed to the white men. The Indians figure prominently in legislation. It was forbidden to furnish them with firearms; for it had been “found by experience that the Indians, who are naturally perfidious, are abundantly more Insolent and Proud when they are furnished with English Arms.” Even so dignified a man as Mr. Leverich, the minister of Sandwich, was brought before the court for lending a gun to an Indian. It appears that there were, even in those early days, evasions of law; for complaint being made that certain persons provided Indians with guns upon the pretense that they were their servants, it was forbidden for the future to hire Indians and furnish them with arms, an exception being made in favor of such as “have been servants for divers years, and are in a good measure civilized and approved of by the Governor and assistants.” It was forbidden to sell wine or strong water to an Indian, except in case of illness. It was also unlawful to sell Indians boats or casks. Idle children of the Indians were to be bound out to service. Indians, “especially young men,” were to work out their debts. Indian captives were in some cases to be sold; a runaway Indian servant was to be returned and whipped; it was unlawful for an Indian to remove from one place to another without a written permit. These provisions present the aborigines in Plymouth Colony in the position of a subject race at an early day. There were, however, humane provisions in their favor. An act of 1643, reciting that it has been held unlawful “from our first beginning” to purchase or hire land from the natives without the magistrates’ consent, prescribes a penalty for making such purchases without permission. And in 1663 it was enacted “that no man shall make any particular use of any Indian’s land without leave of the court.” In 1659 is a curiously suggestive provision standing incomplete upon the records: “The Court understanding that some, in an underhand way, have given, unto the Indians money or goods for their lands formerly purchased according to order of Court by the magistrates, thereby insinuating as if they had dealt unjustly with them, it is enacted by the Court that some course be taken with those whom we understand ----” Were their tender consciences disturbed about these purchases?