[1239] Cotton Mather, _Magnalia_, edition of 1820, ii, p. 507; _Diary_, in _Massachusetts Historical Society Collections_, series 7, vii, pp. 22, 203; Increase Mather, _Ibid._, series 7, viii, p. 232; The Reverend Mr. Brown of Haverhill (1723), Chase, _History of Haverhill_, pp. 239, 248; The Reverend Mr. Thacher of Milton (1674), Earle, _Customs and Fashions in Old New England_, p. 84; the Reverend Mr. Callicott of Dorchester, Tooker, _Cockenoe-de-Long Island_, p. 12; John Winthrop, _Records of the Court of Assistants, Colony of Massachusetts Bay_, 1630–1692, ii, p. 91; Daniel Gookin, _New England Historical and_ _Genealogical Register_, viii, p. 272; Governor Berkeley of Virginia, _William and Mary College Quarterly_, vi, p. 214; Colonel Pollock, acting governor of North Carolina, _North Carolina Colonial Records_, ii, p. 52; Governor West of South Carolina, Hewat, _op cit._, i, p. 74; and Governor Moore of South Carolina, Hewat, _op. cit._, i, p. 140, are important cases in point. [1240] Sylvester, _op. cit._, i, p. 293; Drake, _Book of the Indians_, ninth edition, bk. ii, p. 107. [1241] _Massachusetts Historical Society Collections_, series 4, vi, p. 95. [1242] _Massachusetts Historical Society Collections_, series 4, vi, pp. 195–196. [1243] _Ibid._, series 4, vi, p. 65. [1244] Hening, _op. cit._, ii, p. 267. [1245] Ballagh, _A History of Slavery in Virginia_, p. 50. [1246] Hening, _op. cit._, iii, p. 468. [1247] Tucker, _A Dissertation on Slavery_, p. 35; Wheeler, _A Practical Treatise of the Law of Slavery_, p. 19. [1248] See Ballagh, _op. cit._, p. 50, for a discussion of the disappearance of this act. Not until 1806 was it discovered that the act of 1705 was a repetition of that of 1691. [1249] Ballagh, _op. cit._, p. 51; 1 _Washington_, pp. 123 (Jenkins _v._ Tom), 233 (Coleman _v._ Dick.) [1250] Wheeler, _op. cit._, p. 19, (Hudgins _v._ Wright). [1251] 2 Hening and Munford, p. 149 (Pallas _v._ Hill); James, _English Institutions and the American Indians_, p. 47, in _Johns Hopkins University Studies_, xii. [1252] Wheeler, _op. cit._, p. 18. [1253] If this interpretation of the acts of 1691 and 1705 be the true one, then they belong in the same class with the acts of the northern colonies which were passed at the time of the Tuscarora War for the purpose of putting an end to the importation of Indians, but which did not aim to put an end to the status of slavery as applied to Indians. [1254] _The Statutes at Large of South Carolina_, vii, p. 397. By previous acts of 1712, 1722 and 1735; South Carolina had specified who were to be slaves. _Ibid._, vii, p. 352; vii, p. 371; vii, p. 385. [1255] 3 _Spears_, p. 128 (The State _v._ Harden, 1832): 1 _Richardson_, p. 324 (Nelson _v._ Whetmore, 1844). [1256] O’Neall, _The Negro Law of South Carolina_, p. 5. [1257] _Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations_, i, p. 243.