granted the same powers as possessed by the quondam quorum of five. 268 A 
single commissioner appeared at the New York City meeting on the appointed 
date, and with no prospect of additional attendance, adjourned the meeting 
until the following May. 269 However, in the meantime the provinces had decided 
to accept the judgment of the commission, so that further meetings were 
unnecessary. 270 In New Jersey legislative approval of the judgment was obtained 
in an October, 1770, act containing a proviso for reciprocal action by 
New York. 271 Since the act passed in the latter colony in February, 1771, 272 was 
not in all respects equivalent to the New Jersey act, it was necessary for New 
Jersey to pass an additional act in September, 1772, to match the New York 
act. 273 In May, 1773, the Board of Trade, in advising confirmation of the two 
acts, represented that both colonies had entered appeals from the commission 
determination. But no petitions of appeal having been presented, it appeared 
that the acts disavowed any intention of appealing. The two acts were accordingly 
confirmed on September 1, 1773. 274 
Several features of this controversy are significant. In the first place, there 
was an evident desire to substitute some other method of settlement for a royal 
commission sitting in the colonies. Correlative thereto was the insistence of 
the Board of Trade upon the utilization of such procedure, whether motivated 
by theories as to the royal prerogative or by pecuniary gain. 270 Secondly, the 
necessity of financial co-operation by the legislative branch for effective operation 
of commission and appeal procedure was demonstrated. 276 From this and 
2«5 5 APC, Col., #17; 2 Rep. Reg. Boun. 
N.Y., 774-75- 
269 3 N.Y.-N.J. Boundary MSS, 785; 27 Doc. 
Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., 199. 
270 10 ibid., 194; 2 Rep. Reg. Boun. N.Y., 
775-76. William Smith, Jr., wrote that the 
New Jersey proprietors, having reason to fear 
the unfavorable issue of an appeal with attendant 
heavy costs, proposed to the New 
York managers an agreement to supersede the 
necessity of proceeding further with the appeal. 
Hopes of success were conceived from 
Oliver Delancey being a proprietor and the 
Delancey family's control of council and assembly. 
Difficulty in settling the accounts of 
the colony managers was designed to prevent 
further meeting of the commissioners and 
prosecution of an appeal, thereby causing the 
New York managers to fall in with the New 
Jersey aims. Thus, the province was to be 
duped for the benefit of New Jersey under 
terror of bringing the future costs upon the 
New York patentees (4 Wm. Smith MSS, sub 
March 10, 1770). In a March 12 statement 
of the New York managers a proposed compromise 
was termed prejudicial, yet privately 
was preferable to the expense of an appeal. 
But as trustees for the crown and for many 
individuals the managers felt it their duty 
not to facilitate a compromise, but to prosecute 
an appeal; see the statement bound in with 
A State of the Demands and Pretensions of 
New York (1769), (NYPL). But by March 
16 it was reported that a compromise agreement 
had been reached (4 Wm. Smith MSS, 
sub March 16, 1770). 
271 Acts General Assembly N.J. (ed. by Allinson, 
1776), 342. 
272 5 Col. Laws N.Y., 185. 
273 Acts General Assembly N.J. (ed. by Allinson, 
1776), 368-73. 
274 5 APC, Col, #17. 
275 see Paris to J. Alexander, Jan. 9, 1748/9 
(Paris MSS, Hi). 
276 In regard to the alleged inability of the 
crown to force New York to share in the 
commission expenses for settlement of the 
New Jersey boundary see Paris MSS, E 13/3; 
Paris to J. Alexander, June 24, 1755 (ibid., 
K 22); Paris to J. Alexander, June 26, 1755