Since it was found that certain Indian villages harbored fugitive Indians, the Confederation, September 5, 1646, decided that such villages might be raided and the inhabitants carried off, women and children being spared as far as possible, and declared that “because it will be chargeable keeping Indians in prison and, if they should escape, they are liable to prove more insolent and dangerous after, it was thought fit that upon such seizure ... the magistrates of the jurisdiction deliver up the Indian seized to the party or parties indamaged, either to serve or to be shipped out and exchanged for negroes, as the cause will justly bear.”[789] In the same year the commissioners of the United Colonies sent a letter to Governor Kieft of New Netherland demanding the return of an Indian captive “fled from her master at Hartford” and “entertained in your house at Hartford and, though required by the magistrate, ... under the hands of your agent there denied ... and said to have been either married or abused by one of your men”. “Such a servant,” they declared, “is part of her master’s estate and a more considerable part than a beast.” Kieft refused to give up the Indian woman, and replied: “as concerns the barbarian handmaid”, it is “apprehended by some, that she is no slave, but a freewoman, because she was neither taken in war, nor bought with price, but was in former times placed with me by her parents for education”.[790] By the intercolonial treaty of September 19, 1650, the provision of the articles of confederation concerning fugitive slaves was extended so as to include the intercourse of the New Englanders and the Dutch.[791] Another fugitive slave law similar to that of 1643 was contained in the articles of confederation of the United Colonies in 1672.[792] Similar events involved New York and Pennsylvania. In 1723, some Seneca Indians trading in South Carolina carried away an Indian slave boy belonging to an Englishman there. The governor of New York charged the Seneca with the act and demanded that the slave boy be returned. The Seneca acknowledged that they were among the party who took the slave boy, said that he had been given to some Susquehanna Indians, and requested the governor to ask for him there.[793] An undated letter of William Penn to the Susquehanna Indians regarding some Indian slaves taken from the people of New York by them, refers to a similar incident. In it Penn mentions the people of New York having twice appealed to him regarding an Indian woman and boy, both slaves, bought in New York from the governor of Carolina, which the Susquehanna Indians had taken away. Penn urged the Susquehanna to deliver the slaves to his messenger that they might be put on board a vessel and returned to New York.[794]