by securing from Ben Uncas releases of all rights accruing under the 1705 
judgment and of all other claims to the controverted lands. 83 
On May 24,1738, the commissioners, consisting of two New York councilors 
and the governor, and six assistants of Rhode Island convened at Norwich, 
Connecticut. 84 Although acting as a commission of review, the former judgment 
was allegedly not taken into consideration or read by the commissioners 
85 Furthermore, neither the Indians nor Samuel Mason, the son of 
the late John Mason and their alleged guardian, were granted a hearing, on 
the ground that Ben Uncas was the rightful sachem. S6 The New York members, 
dissatisfied with such proceedings, filed their protest against them, and 
withdrew. 87 The Rhode Island commissioners proceeded in the hearing, de- 
Ben Uncas appear before the commissioners, 
disclaim the petition upon which the commission 
was issued, consent to a reversal of the 
former sentence, and desire judgment in 
favor of Connecticut (ibid., 46-47). 
83 Case of Respondents (Governor and Company), 
16-17; 2 Talcott Papers, 36, 40-44, 
67, 485-88. 
8i MS Conn. Archives, 1 Indians, $173; 2 
Talcott Papers, 53. An earlier meeting took 
place at Greenwich on May 10, only five New 
York members being present. At this meeting 
a clerk was appointed, and the Governor and 
Company, the chief sachem and principal 
heads of the Mohegans, and the landholders 
were ordered to appear. For the representation 
made to the commissioners by William Bollan, 
counsel for the Mohegans, see Chalmers MSS, 
1 Conn., 42-47. For the pleas of the colony 
see ibid., 36-40, 48-49. See also ibid., 50-58, 
59-64, for notes of the colony's argument. 
85 3 APC, Col., #392; 2 Talcott Papers, 152. 
Compare ibid., 197. Connecticut had again 
insisted that the Dudley Commission had 
acted without authority in making its judgment 
(ibid., 151, 197). Agent Wilks wrote 
that he found "the Council [of the Board of 
Trade] clear in opinion that if the sentence 
of the commissioners in Queen Ann's time 
had been produced and made part of the 
record, no doubt would have remained of 
getting the last judgment affirmed" (ibid., 
226). To similar effect, see ibid., 262, 282, 
328-29. When the colony attempted to show 
by supplementary evidence that the former 
judgment had been read before the commissioners, 
although omitted from the record, 
Wilks wrote that such evidence was not admissible 
to support the sentence, being outside 
the transmitted record (ibid., 327). For 
the petition of Wilks to the Committee alleging 
that the omission was due to the mistake 
or negligence of the clerk, see Chalmers MSS, 
2 Conn., 32. 
86 On May 27 the commissioners demanded 
the appearance of the chief sachem, if any 
existed. Counsel Bollan and Shirley for Mason 
declared for John Uncas; the colony counsel 
declared for Ben Uncas. Upon Commission 
proposal to determine, as a preliminary, who 
was chief sachem, it was agreed on May 29 
to examine witnesses in writing and to allow 
cross-examination. After some such evidence 
had been taken, on May 30 Mason's counsel 
moved that the Mohegans present be admitted 
to declare whether there was any sachem 
present; if so, they were to tell who he was; 
if none, who ought to be. This motion was refused, 
Horsmanden of New York dissenting. 
On May 31, after further examination, Mason's 
counsel moved that the Indians present be 
heard as to the sachemship; this was also refused, 
Horsmanden dissenting. But each side 
was given leave to bring in six of the principal 
Mohegans to inform the commissioners who 
should be sachem. On June 2 Ben Uncas was 
adjudged sachem and was granted leave to 
have the colony counsel appear for him. A 
motion by Mason's counsel that Mason be 
allowed to appear as guardian for the Mohegans 
was denied, Horsmanden dissenting 
(MS Conn. Archives, 1 Indians, #173). Cf. 
2 Talcott Papers, 55-61, 106-114. 
87 MS Conn. Archives, 1 Indians, #173; 2 
Talcott Papers, 153-54. The main ground of 
withdrawal was that the defense presented 
was collusive. The rump Commission desired 
Mason to present any evidence he might give 
in behalf of die tribe, but Mason's counsel had 
already withdrawn. Cf. ibid., 182-83, on the