Mohegan case (1704), it was justified on the ground that in the absence of 
excluding charter provisions the King might erect a court within the colony, 
reserving an appeal. 5 There was, furthermore, the possibility of directing that 
actions be brought in provincial courts to try titles and allowing the causes 
to come before the Council in the ordinary course of appeal. Finally, the 
Council could allow the colonies to negotiate directly, reserving a power of 
ratification. 6 
It should be observed that as to the general question of boundaries no single 
method of settlement became of course, for in a number of instances the 
problem did not reach the height of real controversy capable only of judicial 
settlement. 7 Moreover, even the existence of three early precedents—the 
Pennsylvania-Maryland settlement and the Pawtuxet and the Mohegan commissions—does 
not seem to have settled the minds of British officials respecting 
the proper mode of justiciation. Thus, in 1724, when Attorney General 
Philip Yorke was consulted concerning the settlement of the long-standing 
boundary dispute between the Baltimore and Penn proprietaries, he failed to 
enumerate the commission with appeal reserved as a possible procedural device. 
Yorke conceived that the Privy Council could only take cognizance of 
causes concerning the plantations by way of appeal, that it possessed no original 
jurisdiction. Since the controversy in question was between the proprietors 
of different provinces, he did not see how it could be brought before the Council 
by appeal. Complaint to the King in Council of encroachment and adjustment 
before the Board of Trade was suggested as a possibility. As to proceed- 
5 See infra, p. 425. 
6 See 2 Brodhead, History State of New York. 
(1874), 388, 412; 4 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 
628. As early as 1701 it was proposed, "that 
by some General Law, to be binding on all the 
Colonies on the Continent, a certain method be 
established, 1. To decide all Controversies between 
Colony and Colony." See An Essay upon 
the Government of the English Plantations on 
the Continent of America (ed. L. B. Wright, 
1945)> 47- 
7 A Connecticut-Massachusetts boundary dispute 
was settled in 1713-14 by commissioners 
from both colonies (Bowen, Boundary Disputes 
of Connecticut [1882], 58). A New York- 
Connecticut controversy was terminated by passage 
of a 1719 act in New York settling the 
boundary (1 Col. Laws N.Y., 1039); this act 
was confirmed by the King in Council (2 
Report of the Regents of the Univ. on the 
Boundaries of the State of N.Y., comp. by 
D. J. Pratt, 1884, 299-300) without objection 
from Connecticut (fCTP, 1722/3—1728, 41). A 
Connecticut—Rhode Island controverted boundary 
was settled by 1727 crown approval of 
an agreement between the colonies (3 ABC, 
Col., #4). In the same year a Virginia-North 
Carolina dispute was settled by ratification by 
the King in Council of an agreement between 
the governors of the respective colonies {ibid., 
ifioS). The boundary between North and 
South Carolina was also settled in 1729-30 in 
the same manner (3 Col. Rec. No. Car., 124- 
25; 2 Labaree, Royal Instructions, ff 976-79). 
Of. Skaggs, The First Boundary Survey between 
the Carolina!, 12 No. Car. Hist. Rev., 213-32; 
15 ibid., 341—53. Despite several appointments 
of commissioners, die boundary between Massachusetts 
and New York never was settled prior 
to the Revolution (2 Rep. Reg. Bonn. N.Y., 88 
et seq.). The dispute between Pennsylvania and 
Connecticut over the Susquehanna lands also 
remained unsettled (Boyd, The Susquehanna 
Company: Connecticut's Experiment in Expansion, 
Pub. Tercentenary Comm. Conn. 
[1935]. 35-42).