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