[371] Doyle, _English Colonies in America, The Puritan Colonies_, ii, p. 68. In 1708, Governor Dudley made a report on slaves and the slave trade to the Board of Trade, in which he stated that there were 400 negro slaves in Massachusetts. No mention was made of Indians. _Historical Magazine_, x, p. 52. [372] _American Antiquarian Society Proceedings_, 1885–1887, new series, iv, p. 216. [373] _American Statistical Association Collections_, i, pp. 208–214; _Massachusetts Historical Society Collections_, series 1, iv, p. 199. [374] Livermore, _A History of Block Island_, etc., p. 60. [375] _New England Courant_, June 17, 1723—A Spanish Indian runaway from Newport; _Boston Gazette_, October 28, 1728—An Indian runaway slave from Warwick, Rhode Island. [376] Channing, _The Narragansett Planters_, p. 10, in _Johns Hopkins University Studies_, iv. [377] _Ibid._, p. 10. [378] _Colonial Records of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations_, viii, p. 359. [379] Bradford, _History of Plymouth Plantation_, p. 342, in _Original Narratives of Early American History_. [380] See pp. 130–131, 150. [381] Caulkins, _History of New London_, pp. 330, 335, mentions Indian slaves in 1711 and 1735; An Indian woman slave lived in Westbury until her death in 1774. Steiner, _History of Slavery in Connecticut_, p. 21, in _Johns Hopkins University Studies_, xi. [382] Steiner, _op. cit._, p. 12, in _Johns Hopkins University Studies_, xi. [383] Sanborn, _New Hampshire, an Epitome of Popular Government_, p. 137. [384] Sanborn, _op. cit._, p. 151, states that in 1720, hardly an Indian remained in New Hampshire, except, perhaps, an enslaved captive. [385] The _Boston Postboy_, May 2, 1743, advertises a runaway Indian slave from Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The same paper, July 25, 1743, advertises another runaway Indian slave from New Castle, in the same colony. [386] “In theory, at least, the Hollander considered the Indian a man like himself, with analogous rights to life, liberty and possessions.” Consequently, “Indians were not enslaved in New Netherland.” Van Rensselaer, _History of the City of New York in the Seventeenth Century_, i, p. 63. These statements are rather difficult to prove. Holding Indians as slaves who had been enslaved elsewhere and then brought into the colony, and making slaves in the colony and then sending them out of it, were practices that unquestionably existed, even if on a small scale. The declaration of the governor and council of New York in 1680 that “all Indians here have always been, and are, free, and not slave, except such as have been formerly brought from the Bay and Foreign Ports,” (Brodhead, _History of the State of New York_, first edition, ii, p. 331), shows the presence of some Indian slaves in the Dutch colony.