Coronado’s men cared for those Indians who, in trying to escape, were overcome by wounds and cold.[145] Special cases of cruelty occurred. Strict vigilance and severe punishment were necessary to prevent treachery on the part of the slaves. The cruelty of the age was expressed by throwing a lying and treacherous Indian to the dogs,[146] by cutting off the hands and noses of some,[147] and by keeping others in chains.[148] On the whole, however, the treatment of the slaves was probably no more cruel than that shown slaves elsewhere, nor than would be expected considering the tendency of the age, the nature of the owners, largely soldiers and adventurers, and the incapacity and disinclination of the natives for many kinds of labor. The manumission of slaves depended partly on the individual owners, partly on the leaders of the various expeditions. An instance of the latter kind we have already seen in the case of Moscoso freeing the slaves when quitting the scene of Soto’s expedition. But such an incident was the exception rather than the rule, for slaves were the personal property of their individual owners, and subject to their action. By the law of 1543, the Spanish government intended to end Indian slavery in its American dominions,[149] but the law was ineffectual. The American possessions were too far removed for thorough control by the home government. When Spain took final possession of Louisiana, in 1769, O’Reilly discovered that the French held many Indian slaves, and in a proclamation, which he issued in 1770, declared this to be “contrary to the wise and pious laws of Spain.” While not at once declaring these Indian slaves to be free, he ordered that the actual proprietors should not dispose, in any manner whatever, of those whom they held, unless it were to give them their freedom, until the orders of his Majesty on the subject should be received, and further, that all owners of Indian slaves should make a declaration of name and nation of the Indians so held in slavery by them, and the price at which they valued such slaves. This proclamation was generally understood by the French settlers of upper Louisiana as emancipating all the Indian slaves; yet the latter remained in slavery, either voluntarily or otherwise. They obtained some benefit from O’Reilly’s decree, however, for when they escaped they were not returned to slavery, and when they sued for their freedom they received it. Thus, in 1786, Governor Miró, in a case that came before him from St. Louis, rendered a judgment that liberated several such slaves. This judgment reminded Lieutenant Governor Cruzat that the ordinance of O’Reilly was not being obeyed, so in June, 1787, he issued a proclamation that Indians could not be held in slavery under the ordinance of 1770, and declared that he “judged it expedient to repeat the aforesaid ordinance, so that the public might know its tenor in order to conform to it.” Accordingly the said