all Indian children who had been obtained by the planters with the assistance of Indian kidnappers, or who had been procured from their fathers directly by means of fraud, and then held, on the claim that they had been purchased for an adequate consideration, were to be returned to the place to which they belonged within ten days after it had been shown that they had been wrongfully acquired.[1] The master of a young Indian was not permitted to carry him out of the country until the local court had received satisfactory evidence that the consent of his parents had been obtained.[2] Youthful servants of this race were ordered to be brought before that body to have their age inquired into and adjudged, so that they might be included among the tithables, if they had reached the degree of maturity prescribed.
In his relation to his master, the Indian servant stood upon precisely the same footing as the white;[3] he too was held strictly to the observance of his obligation to work, and he also could not be retained longer than the legal period. In some particulars, the law was more unbending in the case of an Indian than of a white person, since it was desirable to avoid all causes of conflict with the neighboring tribes. No servant of aboriginal blood could be owned without a special license from the Governor, and his master had to place himself under bonds to be responsible for all injuries and damages which he might
- ↑ Hening’s Statutes, vol. I, pp. 481, 482.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 546.
- ↑ The master was required, as in the case of white and negro servants, to supply the Indian with proper clothing, food, and shelter. The provision in the matter of garments made for one of the Indian servants of William Randolph of Henrico County, in 1696, was one leather and one cotton waistcoat, one pair of leather breeches, one pair of shoes, and one pair of stockings. Original vol. 1677-1699, Orders, Oct. 1, 1696, p. 124.
