law were given to commissioners for particular purposes, those powers should 
be strictly pursued and in no manner enlarged by implication. Since no express 
power was granted over rights of freehold of particular persons other than 
the Governor and Company of Connecticut and the sachem and tribe of Mohegans, 
the court ought not to assume such power. Inability to provide an 
adequate remedy offered no justification for enlargement of power. 110 
However, upon motion by the colony it was agreed to postpone hearing the 
tenants unless, after presentation of the defense of the Governor and Company, 
it should be found necessary. 111 Several days of argument then ensued, 
following which the landholders pleaded possession by virtue of lawful Indian 
grants for valuable consideration and submitted proof in support thereof. 112 
After several adjournments, three commissioners on August 15, 1743, delivered 
their opinion upon the merits of the cause, consistently upholding the 
Connecticut contentions and stating that the Dudley decree ought to be reversed 
and declared null and void. Commissioners Morris and Horsmanden 
dissented from this opinion. ll3 On August 16 a new decree was accordingly 
made, to the effect that the August 24, 1705, determination of the commissioners 
be repealed and declared null and void, excepting that part of the decree 
which concerned the "sequestered lands" confirmed to the Mohegans by a May, 
1721, assembly act, which was affirmed. Copies of the decree were ordered 
served upon the parties, with notice of a further meeting at Norwalk on October 
25. 114 On October 26, 1743, before the commissioners assembled at Norwalk, 
counsel William Bollan, on behalf of the Mohegans, entered an appeal 
from the recently rendered decree. Exception to the order of the court allowing 
the appeal was taken by the Connecticut agents, on the ground that Bollan 
lacked authority. 115 Horsmanden, delivering a partial opinion, requested its 
Indians fall short of that Character. It is true 
indeed, that the English have taken Infinite 
Pains to Civilize and Christianize the Indians, 
and they sometimes flattered themselves with 
hopes of success, and that they should by degrees 
make them Men and Christians, but 
after all their Endeavours (except in a very 
few Instances) they remain but little superior 
in point of Civilization, to the Beasts of the 
Field. This Notion of their being free States 
is perfectly ridiculous and absurd. Without 
Polity, Laws etc. there can be no such thing 
as a State. The Indians had neither in any 
proper sense of the words. It is also Inconsistent 
with their own Ideas that they were always 
under the Guardianship of the Mason's" (MS 
Conn. Archives, 2 Indians, #277 a, b). Cf. 
the February, 1767, opinion of Richard Jackson 
on the status of the Indian tribes (Pitkin 
Papers, 19 Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., 68-69). 
John Bulkley advanced an argument against 
the Mohegan right to the controverted lands 
based upon John Locke's philosophy of a 
state of nature; see Wolcott, Poetical Meditations 
(1725), Preface xv-lvi; 4 Mass. Hist. 
Soc. Coll. (Ist ser.), 159-81. 
110 Proc. Conn. v. Mohegans (1743), 127-28. 
111 Bid., 128-29. 
112 Ibid., 130-37. 
11S Ibid., 137-42; 1 Law Papers, n Conn. 
Hist. Soc. Coll., ioi-ii. 
114 Proc. Conn. v. Mohegans (1743), 143-44; 
1 Law Papers, in. Horsmanden and Morris 
signed the "judgment" to signify that it was 
the "judgment of" the court, viz., the majority 
of the commissioners (6 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. 
N.Y., 257). 
115 Proc. Conn. v. Mohegans (1743), 279-80.