was also to contain a clause giving liberty to any aggrieved party to enter an 
appeal to the King in Council within a limited time. 95 
This commission of review did not pass the Great Seal until January 8, 
1742/3. It contained a provision for a meeting of the commissioners within 
three months of the commission determination to receive appeals from any 
aggrieved parties; appellants were to declare what part of the judgment was 
appealed from, and no appeals, exceptions, or further commissions of review 
were to be afterwards received or granted. 86 The Court of Commissioners, six 
in number, convened at Greenwich, Connecticut, on May 4, 1743, and ordered 
the various parties to appear before the court at Norwich on June 28. 97 After the 
return of summonses on that date, the court immediately avoided the error 
of the earlier commissioners of review by ordering entered in the minutes the 
proceedings of the Dudley commission. 98 An attempt was then made to 
represent Ben Uncas and the tribe by counsel other than Mason appointees; 
when this was objected to, the court reserved consideration until the nature 
of the cause was laid open before the court. 99 Upon motion of Connecticut 
that the Indians state the nature of their complaint, the motion was denied, 
and the colony was ordered to file reasons for reversal. To this ruling President 
Colden dissented, stating that the commission proceedings were in the nature 
of a rehearing de novo as in a chancery review, rather than of a superior court 
on error, and that therefore the complaint should be set forth as prayed. 100 
Following this ruling, the Governor and Company of Connecticut, on 
July 9, exhibited a "defense" against the Dudley commission decree. 101 On 
July 13 counsel for the Mohegans presented an answer to this defense; 102 on 
the following day a reply was exhibited and a rejoinder thereto. 103 The parties 
then proceeded to their proof, being directed to offer evidence in support of 
all facts respectively alleged, even as to matters not expressly traversed by the 
95 PC 2/96/194, 246, 248, 255, 297, 319, 346, 
376; JCTP, 1734/'5-41, 344, 361-63; 2 Talcott 
Papers, 214, 279-80, 332. For the protesting 
petition of agent Wilks see ibid., 314; for the 
answering petition of the Masons see ibid., 
320-24. Wilks felt certain the Connecticut 
objection would be futile, being "pretty certain 
the Lords of the Committee will never 
surfer any out of charter governments to sit 
in judgment any more upon appeals of this 
nature" (ibid., 330). Cf. Wm. Samuel Johnson 
MSS, Mohegan Indians, $19. For the 
Board of Trade report see Chalmers MSS, 2 
Conn., 35. 
96 Proc. Conn. v. Mohegans (1743), 8-9. The 
colony appointed a committee to effect a 
compromise with Samuel Mason in October, 
1742, but the attempt was abortive (MS Conn. 
Archives, i Indians, $200-201). 
97 Proc. Conn. v. Mohegans (1743), 3, 9. 
98 See ibid., 23-68. Some dispute arising as 
to which party should produce the original 
judgment and proceedings, a copy produced 
by counsel for the Mohegans was ultimately 
admitted (ibid., 14, 20-22). 
39 Ibid., 70-73. 
100 Ibid., 73-75. 
101 Ibid., 76-86. 
W2 lbid., 87-97. 
103 Ibid., 97-98. See also the papers in Yale 
Vniv. Lib. MSS., Z 117.0047.