THE WHEELWRIGHT DEED.    639

granted? There is nothing strange in this, especially in those early
days. The Indians had begun to grow uneasy about white intrusions on
their territory; aud doubtless Wheelwright and his people thought they
would be more secure to take a new grant from this Chief, as he pretend-
ed to hold control of all that wild land. These deeds, under the law,
were never considered worth the paper they were written on, except as
evidences of priority of occupation of territory, which was important in
deciding who first occupied certain territory claimed by the Masonian
heirs.

Gorges and Mason had a grant of this same territory, as can he seen, in
1622, but November 17, 1629, they applied for a new grant of the same
territory they had purchased in 1622, as they also did of territory now
comprising the land from Naumkeag River at Salem, Mass., and the
whole of Cape Ann. With much more propriety could the question be
asked, Why did Gorges and Mason require new grants of land purchas-
ed seven years before ? In the first volume of the New-Hampshire Pro-
vincial Records, in speaking of these grants, it says, “ the inference is
that all the other grants had failed through some defect; especially was
this the case of the grant of August 10, 1622.” Was not the Wheelwright
deed, made six months previous, the cause of their investigations as to
the validity of their deed of Aug. 10, 1622?

The Wheelwright deed first came before the courts and the public in
the case of Allen vs. Waldron, in 1707, and 1708. The heirs of John
Wheelwright, at that time, were living in York County, Maine, and this
deed was doubtless in their possession. How long it was in their hands
before it was placed on file in the York County records is not known, but
a certified copy of this deed was used as evidence in this case; but still it
was not recorded till 1713, in this county, and in the Rockingham Rec-
ords in 1714. Mr. Savage requires to know, why the original deed was
not produced instead of a certified copy? In all of our early settlements,
legal papers were placed on file, as no books were provided at that early
date to record them in, and copies of these files were suffered to go out
of the office, but not the originals. Doubtless this must be the case of
this deed, for it was not recorded in the books till five years after the
copy was used in the courts. By inquiry any person will find this to bo
true of the early provincial records of New-Hampshire.

In reference to the signatures of the grantors of this deed, Mr. Savage
says. “ But the signing is a remarkable point. All the six marks arc
“ different yet not one is an Indian mark. These who are conversant
“ with the habits of the ahoriginees in this particular know their pride
“is exhibited by animal or other devices on the same principal of human
“ nature that led civilized men to the “ host of heraldry” to put family,
“ or fancy arms and mottoes on their seals.”

In this respect Mr. Savage again makes a presumptuous statement, not
warranted by the true facts in the case. The original deed and the le-
gal copies did or do have the animal or other devices affixed to the res-
pective signatures of the grantors, notwithstanding other statements to
the contrary.