ment. This was for a royal direction for the issuance of writs of intrusion by 
the New York courts, with Massachusetts pleading to the jurisdiction, so that 
the matter might be determined upon appeal in England. 19 Settlement by 
appeal to England from judgments in local ejectment actions was regarded 
as the proper method for settlement of conflicting Pennsylvania and Connecticut 
Susquehanna claims. 20 Adjudication in this manner would depend 
upon the action of the parties, 21 but it was advanced that as a matter of prerogative 
a commission could issue for settlement of any intercolonial boundary 
dispute, regardless of the volition of the parties. 22 In no case, however, was 
this alternative procedure actually employed to definitive settlement. In conclusion, 
it can be said that of the procedural alternatives available to the Counci 
—original adjudication by the King in Council, conciliar appeal from the 
judgment of a colonial court, and issuance of a commission under the Great 
Seal with an appeal reserved to the King in Council —only the last was important. 

THE MOHEGAN INDIANS V. CONNECTICUT 
With this discussion of the jurisdictional basis, let us examine the specific 
cases. The first cause to occupy our attention is the prolonged controversy between 
the Mohegan Indians and the colony of Connecticut. 23 To understand 
the issues involved in this dispute it is necessary to trace at some length the 
relations of the Mohegans and the colony. In 1637 the English, settled in Connecticut 
with consent of the Indians, conquered the indigenous Pequots with 
the assistance of renegade Uncas and his followers. Allegedly as a reward for 
this aid, Uncas was recognized by the English as sachem of a distinct tribe, 
the Mohegans. The colony later asserted that by this conquest the English 
became possessed of an absolute property in the lands of the subjugated abo- 
19 CO 5/1070/OO 35. This solution was also 
urged for conflicting New York and Quebec 
claims (A State of the Right of the Colony of 
New Yor\ with Respect to Its Eastern Boundary 
on Connecticut River [1773], 27). 
20 10 MS Penn Letter Books, 13, 19, 27, 33. 
But Connecticut was advised by counsel to apply 
for the appointment of commissioners with 
the usual power of appeal (Wm. Smith, An 
Examination of the Connecticut Claim to Lands 
in Pennsylvania [1774], 89). It therefore 
pressed for this method of solution of the problem 
(n MS Penn Official Corres., 1772-75, 
in). 
21 In this connection see Jones, Vermont in the 
Maying (1939), 205-8. 
22 See Ferdinand John Paris to J. Alexander, 
Jan. 8, 1756 (Paris MSS, K 27); Paris to J. 
Alexander, March 13, 1756 (ibid., K 29); Paris 
to William Alexander, Feb. n, 1758 (2 MS 
N.Y.-N.J. Boundary Papers, 15). Cf. W. Alexander 
to Governor Bernard, Feb. 12, 1758 
(ibid., 18). 
23 The history of the controversy has been 
inadequately related in several places; see 
J. W. De Forest, History of the Indians of Connecticut 
(1852), 303-42, 447-64; 1 Trumbull, 
History of Connecticut (1818), 412, 421—27; 
Beardsley, The Mohegan Land Controversy, 3 
Papers New Haven Col. Hist. Soc, 205-25; 
Washburne, Imperial Control of Administration 
of Justice, 103-6; Burns, The Colonial 
Agents of New England (1935), 75-79.