Jersey in its separate capacity could not decide differences arising from construction of ambiguous royal grants. Only two methods of deciding such controversies were available —by concurrence of all parties in interest or by the regular forms of judicial proceedings. In the latter case the method must be derived from the immediate authority of the crown, signified by commission under the Great Seal. The commission of subordinate officers and of derivative powers was neither competent nor adequate. As to the former case the parties in interest were the two provinces and the crown; royal interests consisted of sovereignty, seigniory respecting escheats and quit-rents, and property in the land itself. Although sovereignty might not be affected by a settlement of the boundary, seignorial rights would be, tenure in New Jersey being proprietary and in New York royal. Since the crown did not participate in the proceedings under the 1719 joint legislation, such proceedings were a nullity with respect to crown interests. There was no royal acquiescence in the settlement by approbation of acts relating thereto; furthermore no definitive settlement had resulted under the joint action. 239 Upon the whole the Board of Trade important figures; (5) all the commissioners were not such proprietors, i.e., Morris, C. J.; (6) James Alexander, an East New Jersey proprietor, was also a New York proprietor; (7) the amount of interest of the commissioners and surveyor general was no argument against assent to the act; its force was to obtain a royal direction for examination of the matter and replacement of personnel if found prejudiced. (Paris MSS, E 3/Objection #7). Paris had earlier objected that the New York-Connecticut settlement was no precedent, for there the act was passed by the royal province; in the instant case it was passed by a province whose lands were in vested proprietors (Paris to Alexander, Feb. 27, 1748/9 [ibid., H 3]). Cadwallader Colden had also asserted that the precedent was insufficient because approbation was not contested and because the act was made in the behalf of a royal government against a chartered one (Alexander to R. H. Morris, Oct. 16, 1750 [ibid., H 34]). Several answers were forthcoming to the proposition that a commission should be used to settle the boundary, not an ex parte act. It was advanced that: (1) issuance of such a commission in effect voided the 1719 triplicate indenture without giving the West New Jersey proprietors chance to be heard; it was even questioned whedrer the King could directly or indirectly declare void that indenture which was supported by provincial acts; (2) where commissions had been previously issued, intricacies which wanted factual examination existed, but here none existed; (3) the New York-Connecticut line was settled by an ex parte act, although a more intricate question was presented; (4) New York would never take out a commission, but would procrastinate; (5) nothing existed for commission inquiry; the instrument errors of 1719 were not fit subjects for commission inquiry {Paris MSS, E 3/Objection #10). For the list of evidence to be read in favor of the act see Paris MSS, E 5. Alexander Forrester for New York argued that the boundary dispute was analogous to that between two feudal vassals which the King alone could determine, citing Craig, Jus Feudale, Book 2, Ch. 8, Sec. 1; Vaughan 404, 407. Co-counsel Charles Pratt argued inter alia that the King could not be bound by this assembly act (Paris MSS, E 3/1-2 [dorse]). Robert Henley for New Jersey was alleged to have mismanaged the argument by letting opposing counsel enter into the merits of the 1719 transactions without interposing or making any reply (R. H. Morris to Paris, April 27, 1754 [ibid., I 7]). 239 8 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., Part I, 144-50. It was asserted in New Jersey quarters that the representation that the crown was interested was made upon the bare suggestion of New York counsel (R. H. Morris to Paris, April 18, 1754 [Paris MSS, I s]). Cf. 2 Rep.