Philip had by some unknown means escaped. With grief and shame we record that his wife and son were sent to Bermuda and sold as slaves, and were never heard of more.

Princess Wetamoo, King Philip's brother's widow, was ambuscaded by the colonists in 1673. Of this affair the historian says:

The heroic queen, too proud to be captured, instantly threw off her clothing, seized a broken piece of wood, and plunged into the stream. Worn down by exhaustion and famine, her nerveless arm failed her and she sank beneath the waves. Her body was soon after found washed upon the shore. As faithful chroniclers, we must declare, though with a blush, that the English cut off her head and set it upon a pole in their streets, a trophy ghastly, bloody, revolting.

Mr. President, it is no wonder that after this introduction to the Anglo-Saxon race the American Indians have resisted the encroachments of the whites upon this continent-their children captured, sold into slavery, killed, ambushed, assassinated without the least reluctance or remorse. It was the common practice of the people of New England in their dealings with the Indians to sell into slavery all those they took prisoners of war. They said the Indians made bad slaves; ( that they were willful and stubborn, and so they traded them in the West Indies for negroes. They traded them in Cuba and the other islands of the Caribbean Sea for molasses, and returning home with the molasses, made it into rum, and sent the rum to Africa to trade for slaves in order to stock their plantations. So I say that the blackest page, not alone in our history, but in the history of the world almost, is that of the treatment of the Indians by the people of Massachusetts and the conduct of the early inhabitants of those provinces.

Here is another extract:

In 1643, Emanuel Downing, the foremost lawyer in the colony and a leader of commanding influence as well as high connections, made a written argument in favor of a war with the Narragansetts. He did not pretend that any wrong had been done; but he had a pious dread that Massachusetts would be held responsible for the false religion of the Narragansetts. "I doubt," says he, "if it be not synne in us, having power in our hands, to suffer them to maynteyne the worship of the

devil which their powwows often doe." "If," says he, "upon a just war, the Lord shall deliver them into our hand, wee might easily have men, women, and children enough to exchange for Moors (negroes), which will be more gaynefull pilladge for us than wee conceive; for I do not see how wee can thrive untill wee get in a stock of slaves sufficient to do all our business."

This is Downing's letter, in Moore, on page 10.

In a book written by Du Bois on the Suppression of the Slave Trade I find the following:

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut were largely engaged in the slave trade, and New Hampshire to some extent. This trade declined very little till the Revolution. Newport was a mart for slaves offered for sale in the North and a point of reshipment for all slaves. It was principally this trade that raised Newport to her commercial importance in the eighteenth century. Connecticut, too, was an important slave trader, sending large numbers of horses and other commodities to the West Indies in exchange for slaves, and selling the slaves in other colonies. Owners of slaves carried slaves to South Carolina, and brought home naval stores for their shipbuilding; or to the West Indies and brought home molasses. The molasses was made into the highly prized New England rum, which was shipped to Africa and traded for more slaves. * Massachusetts annually distilled 15,000 hogsheads of molasses into rum. Although in earlier times the most reputable New England people took ventures in slavetrading voyages, yet there gradually arose a moral sentiment which tended to make the business somewhat disreputable. not until 1787-88 that slave trading became an indictable offense in any New England State.

**
*

It was

I thought this related to the sale of Indians, but I see that it relates simply to the slave trade generally. I did not intend to read it, and will read no further.

I had often wondered why we had heard so much from New England in regard to the wrongs of the Western Indians. The Indian Rights Association are most active about the Indians who are most distant from them. This inquiry led me to look up the early history of the people of the colonies in connection with their treatment of the Indians, and it revealed to me the reason why tradition, carried from one to the other, crossed the continent and made the Indians so jealous of the

encroachments of the white and so earnest that the contact should not be near or close. I am not surprised.

Neither do I object to the philanthropy of New England I wish it would bear fruit sufficient in some measure to compen sate for the wrongs of the past in their conduct toward these people.

APPENDIX III

THE BOER WAR

Whereas from the hour of achieving their own independence the people of the United States have regarded with sympathy the struggles of other people to free themselves from European domination: Therefore,

Resolved, That we watch with deep and abiding interest the heroic battle of the South African Republic against cruelty and oppression, and our best hopes go out for the full success of their determined contest for liberty.

Μ'

R. PETTIGREW. Mr. President, it is my opin

ion that the Senate should pass this resolution of sympathy for the people of South Africa. If we do not, it will be the first time in our history as a Republic that we have failed to express our sympathy and interest, in emphatic terms, for any race or people whatever who were striving to maintain free institutions.

We are parties to the agreement resulting from the conference at The Hague last year; and while I do not believe that America should take up the quarrels of other nations or become complicated in European controversies, it does not appear to me that the Administration has made an honest effort in good faith to comply with and carry out the terms of The Hague agreement. For that agreement provided

ART. 2. In case of serious dissension or of conflict, before the appeal to arms, the signatory powers agree to have recourse, as far as circumstances will permit, to the friendly offices or to the mediation of one or of several friendly powers.

ART. 3. Independently of this resort, the signatory powers think it to be useful that one or more powers who have no part in the conflict may offer of their own volition, so far as circumstances may make it appropriate, their friendly offices or their mediation to the states en1. Speech in the Senate April 14, 1900.

gaged in the conflict. The right to offer these friendly offices or mediation is absolute in the powers which take no part in the conflict even during hostilities. The exercise of this right shall never be considered by either of the parties to the contest as an unfriendly act.

ART. 4. The duty of a mediator consists in conciliating the opposing claims and appeasing the resentment which may have sprung up be tween the states engaged in the conflict.

ART. 5. The duties of a mediator cease from the moment when it is officially declared by either party to the strife, or by the mediator himself, that the methods of conciliation proposed by him are not accepted.

I can not learn that we have proposed any method of conciliation. It is reported that, in a perfunctory way, our Government asked Great Britain if it could do anything to settle the quarrel. Our plain duty was to have acted before the first gun was fired, and then, if refused, to have at once expressed our disapproval of England's course by passing resolutions of sympathy for the South African Republics.

Instead of taking the most American course our Adminis tration has allowed the world to believe we are in full sympathy with Great Britain. Even if there is not a verbal understanding between Mr. Hay, our Secretary of State, and the English Government, approved by the President, it is evident that as long as Mr. McKinley is in power England will have at least the moral support of the United States in whatsoever she may do. I believe that there is such an understanding, for in no other way can I explain the course and conduct of the President.

There is strong corroboration of this view in the visit of the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Hanna, to England last year, and his great admiration for the English Government, expressed on his return.

The struggle going on in South Africa is between the same despotic power, intensified a hundred fold, that over a century ago endeavored to destroy liberty on the American continent and a republic weaker in numbers than we were when we made our triumphant resistance to British tyranny.

Who can say that the Boers are not prompted by as lofty a patriotism, by as ardent a desire for freedom, as inspired