The New York Assembly immediately ordered agent Robert Charles to 
oppose royal approbation of the act, 235 although Governor Clinton wrote that 
neither crown nor provincial interests were involved in the boundary dispute, 
but only those of individual patentees. 230 Paris petitioned for approval of the 
act at the Board of Trade in February, 1748/9, but the Fabian tactics of Charles 
combined with administrative preoccupation to delay any definitive actions 
thereon until 1753. 23T Following elaborate hearings with prominent counsel 
participating, 238 in July, 1753, the Board of Trade represented that New 
agreement between Lord Baltimore and the 
Penns had prevented a commission in the 
Maryland-Pennsylvania boundary dispute 
(Paris to James Alexander, Jan. 9, 1748/9 
[Paris MSS, Ff 1]). He compared the immediate 
situation to that between the crown and 
Lord Fairfax, grantee of Northern Neck lands 
in Virginia, where a commission was sent to 
settle the extent of the grant with liberty to 
appeal from exceptions to the commissioners' 
returns (Paris to Alexander, Jan. 17, 1748/9 
[ibid., H 2]). For this commission see 3 APC, 
Col., #281; Bond, The Quit-Rent System in 
the American Colonies, 68-71; Groome, 
Fauquier during the Proprietorship (1927), 
58-69. The Kennebec Company endeavored 
to use this commission precedent in its dispute 
with the Massachusetts government, but 
Attorney General Murray stated that "as the 
questions do not arise between distinct provinces 
they cannot be determined nor the 
boundaries setded in this case, by King in 
Council originally. As the question is not 
merely with and against the King, but between 
the Kennebec Company and Massachusetts 
Bay; it cannot be determined upon the submission 
of the Kennebec Company by the King 
in Council originally as was the case of Lord 
Fairfax, but the matters must be first tryed 
in the courts of the province and before the 
ordinary jurisdiction there and afterwards for 
final determination they may by appeal come 
before the King in Council" (Add. MS, 
15,488/111). 
234 Paris questioned by what means an appeal 
could lie from the newly erected court, 
if either side felt itself aggrieved by the sentence 
given. Any two parties in the colonies 
might go through the several courts there and 
appeal finally to the King in Council for 
setding the rights to a few acres. Was it fit 
that where many acres were settled between 
two provinces there should be no appeal? 
The King might be deprived of lands and 
quit-rents; subjects might be transferred from 
one jurisdiction to another. Were neither King 
nor subjects to have any appeal whatsoever 
in such case? (Paris to Alexander, Feb. 27, 
1748/9 [Paris MSS, H 3]). 
235 2 Journals General Assembly N.Y., 251; 7 
Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., 120-21. For the 
Assembly's petition against the act see John 
Chambers MS Commonplace Boo\, 335-60 
(Columbia Univ. Law Lib.). The Assembly 
resolved in 1750 that the expense o£ opposing 
the act should be assumed by the province (2 
Journals General Assembly N.Y., 282). 
238 6 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 454-55. For 
New Jersey support of Clinton's contention 
see 7 Doc. Rel. Col Hist. N.J., 153-54; for 
Lewis Morris' support see ibid., 163-65. 
237 7 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., 126, 168-69, 
226-30, 235—36, 240, 297-300; 8 ibid. (Part 
I) 218-19; JCTP, 7741/2-49, 433, 440; ibid., 
'749/50-53, 37°> 393-94- 
238 JCTP, 1749/50-53, 428, 430, 432-36. Two 
procedural objections to the act were met 
with multiple answers by New Jersey. The 
first objection was that by the act New Jersey 
could run the line ex parte and so be judges 
in their own cause; secondly, the commissioners 
and surveyors, being East New Jersey 
proprietors, were interested parties. To this 
New Jersey answered: (1) The present act 
followed the language of the 1719 New York 
act for settlement of the Connecticut boundary 
(1 Col. haws N.Y., 1039), which act had 
received the royal assent (3 APC, Col., p. 849); 
(2) interest was no objection, since every 
person in both provinces had an interest, 
however small, as the settlement might increase 
or decrease taxes; (3) the commissioners 
and surveyors appointed by New York 
in the case of the Connecticut boundary were 
interested as receiving a share in the lands 
gained from Connecticut, yet an amicable 
setdement was reached; (4) even if the commissioners 
were all East New Jersey proprietors, 
they lacked judicial power in the case; 
the surveyor general or deputies were the