decree of the 1704 commission was praised as constituting the result of much 
deliberation and as founded on unexceptionable evidence, viz., the testimony 
of living witnesses. 135 On the other hand, the determination of 1743 consisted 
of conclusions not warranted by the premises or directly contrary to their plain 
import. The charter of Charles II granted no rights not supported by conquest 
or fair purchase for valuable consideration. The conveyances of trustee 
Mason could not prejudice the claims of the tribe consistently with principles 
of natural equity. As to grants made by particular Indians to particular subjects, 
acts of assembly had declared many of them null and void. 136 Finally, 
no argument could be drawn from length of possession in the instant case. 137 
The respondent Governor and Company prayed for confirmation of the 
decree appealed from for several reasons. In the first place, at the time of the 
issuance of the 1704 commission the appellants had no remaining native rights 
—all such rights having passed to the colony under the 1640 and 1659 grants 
and the 1660 surrender of Mason. All rights gained by the Indians since issuance 
of the charter ought to be made out in courts of justice established under 
the charter. The lands reserved to the Indians were never expressly delimited, 
for they were to have only sufficient planting grounds at the discretion of the 
colony. Such grounds had always been supplied the Indians, and furthermore 
pecuniary satisfaction had been made for the remainder of their lands. Even 
admitting that the colony derived no title from the above transactions and 
that the Indians were entitled to certain reserved lands from which they had 
been dispossessed, yet the suggestions on which the 1704 commission was obtained 
were not made out unless it were shown that the disseisin was by some 
public act of the colony, and no such act was shown. Further, if any private 
person had disturbed the Indians in their possession, redress should have been 
sought in the ordinary courts of justice of the colony. 138 
fully qualified to take a Grant from the Crown. 
4ly. There arc no Words in it Importing a 
Trust for the Indians, it is an absolute Conveyance, 
and nothing said of a Trust till long 
after. sly. If it was in Trust yet at least it 
Conveyed all the Native Sight, and thenceforward 
the Indians, whatever Rights they 
had must hold under the English. They could 
at most have only an English Title founded 
upon and determinable by English Law, which 
equally Confounds their present Claim, and 
subverts the Argument for the Appellants in 
every branch of it" (MS Conn. Archives, 2 
Indians, $277 c, d). 
135 Case of Appellants, 24. Agent Johnson remarked 
that "it is absurd to pretend they 
had Lights to found their Judgment upon 
which can't now be obtained, when the Book 
of their proceedings is before the Court, and 
we know that the Commissioners in 1743 
had every Article of the Evidence they had 
and infinitely more. The Commissioners both 
in 1738 and in 1743 were, if that can have 
any weight, Men of much greater Consideration 
in the Colonies than those in 1705, particularly 
Mr. Colden the present Lieut. Gov. 
of New York, a Native of Scotland and one 
of the most considerable Men we ever had 
in America" (MS Conn. Archives, 2 Indians, 
#277 P>- 
130 Case of Appellants, 24. 
137 Ibid. 
138 Case of Respondents (Governor and Company), 
35-