■Hi 
 
 ■Hi 
 
 iisNmn 
 
 ■HnH 
 
 IBfiaK 
 
 llii 
 
<Jfr& "rtmHvfc 
 
 'John Winthrop, Governor of Connecticut. Born Feb. 12. 1606, in Groton, in County ok Suffolk, England. 
 Died in Boston, Colony of Massachusetts Bay, April 5, 1676." 
 
 Copied from original portrait in the possession of Mr. Robert Winthrop of New York. See page 20. 
 
THE 
 
 BOUNDARY DISPUTES 
 
 CONNECTICUT 
 
 CLARENCE WINTHROP BOWEN 
 
 " Sunt certi denique fines, 
 
 Quos ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum " 
 
 Ba, 
 
 BOSTON 
 
 JAMES R. OSGOOD AND COMPANY 
 
 1SS2 
 
Copyright, 18S2, 
 By James R. Osgood and Company. 
 
 AH rights reserved. 
 
 University Press: 
 John Wilson and Son, Cambridge. 
 
 / 
 
For suggestions offered and information received, the author wishes to 
 express his warmest thanks to Charles J. Hoadley, Librarian of the State of 
 Connecticut ; to Daniel J. Pratt, Assistant Secretary of the Board of Regents 
 of the University of the State of New York ; to John R. Bartlett, Custodian 
 of the John Carter Brown Library at Providence ; and to William Hayes 
 Ward, D.D., of New York. He is also under obligations to Mr. Robert 
 Winthrop of New York, for permission to copy the original portrait of Gov- 
 ernor John Winthrop. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 INTRODUCTION . 9 
 
 PART I. 
 
 CLAIMS TO THE SOIL OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 I. Historical Statement, and the Controversy with the 
 
 Dutch 13 
 
 II. The Woodward and Saffery Survey of 1642, and the 
 
 Necessity for a Colonial Charter 19 
 
 III. The Duke of Hamilton's Claim 21 
 
 IV. The Controversy with New Haven ...... 24 
 
 V. The Mohegan Claim 25 
 
 VI. The Controversy concerning Long Island .... 27 
 
 PART II. 
 
 CONNECTICUT'S BOUNDARY DISPUTES WITH RHODE ISLAND. 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 I. The Claims of Connecticut and Massachusetts to the 
 
 Territory of Rhode Island 31 
 
 II. Disturbances and Disputes up to 16S5 ..... 37 
 
 III. The Appeal of Connecticut and Rhode Island to England 43 
 IV The Disputes between Connecticut and Rhode Island 
 
 from 1700 to 1840 45 
 
vi CONTENTS. 
 
 PART III. 
 
 CONNECTICUT'S BOUNDARY DISPUTES WITH MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 CHAPTER PAGE 
 
 I. The Controversv concerning Windsor, and the Survey of 
 
 the Inter-Colonial Line 53 
 
 II. The Memorials of Massachusetts and Connecticut to the 
 
 Crown, and the Boundary Settlement of 1713 . . 57 
 
 III. The Controversy concerning Woodstock, Enfield, and 
 
 Suffield ........... 60 
 
 IV. Points at Issue between Massachusetts and Connecticut 
 
 from 1774 until 1826 . 65 
 
 PART IV. 
 
 CONNECTICUT'S BOUNDARY DISPUTES WITH NEW YORK. 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 I. Disputes between New York and Connecticut from 1664 
 
 until 1 73 1 69 
 
 II. The Claims of Connecticut to Western Lands and to 
 
 Islands in the Sound ........ 75 
 
 III. Disputes between New York and Connecticut from 1855 
 
 until Final Settlement in 1880 78 
 
 INDEX. . . . 83 
 
MAPS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 I. Dutch Map of Connecticut in 1616 14 
 
 II. Indian Map of Connecticut in 1630 16 
 
 III. The Western Boundary Lines of Connecticut .... 17 
 
 IV. The Woodward and Saffery Survey of 1642 19 
 
 V. Map of New England by President Stiles of Yale College . 22 
 
 VI. The Mohegan Country 26 
 
 VII. Connecticut in 1720 41 
 
 VIII. Rhode Island in 1728 4S 
 
 IX. Pawcatuck River and Pond . . -47 
 
 X. The Chandler and Thaxter Survey of 1713. . .' . -57 
 XI. Survey of 1S22 of the Northern Connecticut Line from the 
 
 Connecticut River, Eastward ....... 59 
 
 XII. Survey of 1759 of Woodstock 61 
 
 XIII. Survey of 1804 of Northern Connecticut Line from Connecti- 
 
 cut River, Westward 63 
 
 XIV. Southwick, Granby, and Suffield 65 
 
 XV. Survey of 1826 of Northern Connecticut Line from Connecti- 
 cut River, Eastward 66 
 
 XVI. Explanation of Connecticut's Western Boundary ... 74 
 
 XVII. Connecticut in 1882 79 
 
THE 
 
 BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 /^NE would hardly suppose that the boundary lines of what is now 
 called the State of Connecticut had been a subject of dispute for 
 nearly two hundred and fifty years. Islands on the south have been 
 claimed and reclaimed, only to be lost again. How the boundary on 
 the east was ever fixed seems a puzzle, in the light of the bitter quar- 
 rels extending through several generations between the people of 
 Connecticut and Rhode Island. The northern boundary of Connecti- 
 cut was thought to be settled three or four times, but almost a hun- 
 dred years passed before the question was finally determined. The 
 western line, which at first extended to the Pacific Ocean, and the 
 southern boundary were established at last about a year ago by Act 
 of Congress. The State, too, has been subdivided, each portion 
 claiming an independent jurisdiction of its own. The boundary 
 lines have been in perpetual motion since the founding of the Colon}', 
 — a strange inconsistency for " the land of steady habits." The in- 
 definiteness of the lines during the early history of the Colony is 
 well illustrated by the ridicule employed by Rufus Choate when he 
 appeared before the Legislature of Massachusetts as counsel for 
 the remonstrants against the boundary between Rhode Island and 
 Massachusetts : — 
 
IO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 " Why, gentlemen, the Commissioners might as well have" decided 
 that the line between the States was bounded on the north by a 
 bramble-bush, on the south by a blue jay, on the west by a hive of bees 
 in swarming-time, and on the east by five hundred foxes with fire- 
 brands tied to their tails." 
 
 A detailed account of the boundary disputes would crowd many 
 folios. References to boundaries and jurisdiction fill a good share of 
 the history of the Colonies and States, and especially is this true 
 of the State of Connecticut. After so much vexation it is a source 
 of congratulation that Connecticut possesses all the territory she 
 now has. 
 
PART I. 
 
 CLAIMS TO THE SOIL OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 HISTORICAL STATEMENT, AND THE CONTROVERSY WITH THE DUTCH. 
 
 T7NGLAND and Holland at first claimed with equal urgency juris- 
 diction over the land now called Connecticut* England's claim 
 rested upon the discoveries of the Cabots in 1494 and 1497, and upon 
 the discovery of portions of the New England Coast, including Cape 
 Cod and Martha's Vineyard, in 1602 by Bartholomew Gosnold, an 
 Englishman. Henry Hudson commissioned by the King of Eng- 
 land was the first to see Long Island and the Hudson River in 1609,! 
 and the following year he revisited the same in the employ of some 
 Dutch merchants and afterwards sold his rights to the Dutch. 
 
 Upon the validity of this sale and upon the voyage which the 
 Dutchman Adrian Block took in 1614 through Hell Gate, along the 
 coast of Connecticut to Fisher's and Block Islands and Cape Cod, 
 rested the claims of the Dutch to Connecticut. For some years the 
 Dutch merchants visited the coast of Connecticut and traded with the 
 Indians4 On account of the prior claim of the English, a protest was 
 made against Hudson's sale to the Dutch. The sale conflicted, too, 
 with the grant which James I. executed in 1606, of all the land from 
 what is now the southernmost bounds of North Carolina to the 
 Canada line, or from 34 to 45 north latitude, which was divided 
 into two parts called Virginia and New England. 
 
 Virginia was given to the merchants of London, and New Eng- 
 
 * Trumbull's History of Connecticut ; Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts ; Palfrey's 
 History of New England; Bancroft's History of the United States; Hollister's History of 
 Connecticut; Brodhead's History of New York; Smith's History of New York; Daniel 
 Neal's History of New England; Caulkins's History of New London; Dwight's History of 
 Connecticut; Douglas's History of North America ; etc. 
 
 f Such is the generally accepted fact. The claim that Giovanni da Verrazzano, a Florentine 
 navigator, entered New York harbor in 1524, is disputed. See "Voyage of Verrazzano, a 
 Chapter on the Early History of Maritime Discovery in America," by Henry C. Murphy. It 
 is also claimed that the Dutch visited the harbor in 1598, and therefore saw the Hudson River 
 at least eleven years before Hudson. See " The Discovery of the Hudson River," by Rev. B. 
 F. De Costa, D.D. t See Map I. of Connecticut in 1616, on next page. 
 
H 
 
 THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 fi? 
 
 PEQVATS . $! 
 
 £=? 
 
 DUTCH MAP OF CONNECTICUT IN 161. 
 
 land, to the merchants of Plymouth. In the additional reasons of 
 actual possession and purchase of the territory from the Indians 
 also rested the rights of the English to the soil of Connecticut. 
 
 From 1607 to 1620, several feeble attempts were made by the 
 English to settle New England, but the first permanent one was 
 effected by the Pilgrims at Plymouth in 1620. The same year a 
 patent was granted by the King for incorporating settlers in New 
 England, under the name of the " Council of Plymouth for the 
 affaires of New England," which conferred on the Council all land 
 from 40° to 48°, or from the middle of the coast of New Jersey almost 
 as far north as the mouth of the river St. Lawrence, and west to the 
 Pacific Ocean. This grant was all important, for upon it depended 
 the future grants in New England. In 1627 the land about Salem 
 was sold by the Council of Plymouth to John Endicott and others, 
 and included the land between three miles to the south of the south- 
 ernmost point of the Charles River, and three miles to the north of 
 the Merrimack River, and from sea to sea. This was the Massachu- 
 setts Patent, afterwards confirmed by Charles I; and the difficulty in 
 
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 15 
 
 subsequently determining exactly where the southern boundary began 
 was the cause of the long-contested dispute between Massachusetts 
 and Connecticut. In 1631, Robert, Earl of Warwick, granted to 
 Lord Say and Seal, Brooks, Sir Richard Saltonstall, and others, the 
 territory between Narragansett River and southwest towards New 
 York for a hundred and twenty miles and west to the Pacific Ocean, 
 or, according to the words of President Clap of Yale College, " from 
 Point Judith to New York and from thence a west line to the South 
 Sea, and if we take Narragansett River in its whole length the tract 
 will extend as far north as Worcester. It comprehends the whole of 
 the Colony of Connecticut and much more." This was called the old 
 patent of Connecticut and had been granted the previous year, 1630, 
 by the Council of Plymouth to the Earl of Warwick. Yet before the 
 English had planted settlements in Connecticut the Dutch had pur- 
 chased of the Pequots land where Hartford now stands and erected a 
 small trading fort called " The House of Good Hope." Governor Win- 
 throp of Massachusetts protested against this settlement as conflicting 
 with the rights of the English ; yet, if he had acted upon the advice of 
 a Connecticut Sachem who went to Boston for settlers, the claim of 
 the Dutch to Hartford would have been anticipated. In 1633 Wil- 
 liam Holmes of Plymouth sailed up the Connecticut River, and, 
 despite the protests of the Dutch at Hartford, continued eight miles 
 farther, where he planted a building at Windsor, said to have been the 
 first house erected in Connecticut. 
 
 In 1635, under authority of those who held the Connecticut Patent, 
 a fort was erected at Saybrook; and about the same time settlements 
 were made at Hartford, Windsor, Wethersfield, and Springfield by 
 immigrants from Massachusetts Bay, to be followed in 1637 by the 
 settlement at New Haven. The Dutch becoming alarmed tried to 
 prevent the settlement at Saybrook, and also prohibited the English 
 from trading at the House of Good Hope. The Connecticut towns 
 held courts of their own, yet were supposed to be under the authority 
 of Massachusetts; but finding themselves outside the charter of that 
 Colony they established a local government. In fact there were two 
 governments, — the Colony of Connecticut and the Colony of New 
 
i6 
 
 THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 Haven. Springfield allied herself with Connecticut for two years, but 
 beino- included within the chartered limits of Massachusetts she fell 
 under the jurisdiction of that Colony. Her neglect to pay taxes for 
 the support of the fort at the mouth of the Connecticut caused much 
 hard feeling towards her among the other River towns. In her vic- 
 tory over the Pequot Indians, Connecticut gained actual possession of 
 the territory of Eastern Connecticut * and this right by conquest was 
 soon followed by the chartered right from the Council of Plymouth ; 
 for in 1644 the River towns purchased for £ 1,600 the old Connecticut 
 Patent from Colonel George Fenwick at Saybrook, and thus assumed 
 jurisdiction over the territory included in that important grant. If 
 Fenwick had sold his patent to the Dutch, as he threatened to do, 
 the whole history of Connecticut might have been changed. On 
 account of outside dangers, an attempt was made about this time to 
 form a union between the governments of Massachusetts and Con- 
 necticut; but the dispute over the jurisdiction of Springfield and 
 Westfield somewhat delayed the project. At a meeting of the Com- 
 missioners of the United Colonies held at Hartford, Sept. 5, 1644, the 
 claim of Massachusetts to the above-named towns was sustained ; but 
 by a still later decision Springfield was required to pay to Connecticut 
 the impost tax before alluded to. In the following year, 1645, Con- 
 necticut thought of uniting with New Haven to solicit a charter from 
 the King ; but owing to the rebellion in England the question rested 
 until after the Restoration. The claim of the Dutch to the coast of 
 Connecticut was raised in 1646 by Governor Kieft, who wrote to Gov- 
 ernor Eaton of New Haven threatening war if Connecticut did not re- 
 spect Dutch rights. The offer to settle the dispute by arbitration was 
 refused by the Dutch Governor, and the territorial claims of Connecti- 
 cut and the fact that the Dutch traders at Hartford were in arrears to 
 citizens of Connecticut were contemptuously denied. Another annoy- 
 ance to Connecticut was John Winthrop's claim to the country of 
 the Western Nehantics.t But this claim conflicted with the Colony 
 
 * See Map II., page 16. Copied, by permission, from John W. DeForest's History of tlie 
 Indians of Connecticut. 
 f See Map II., page 16. 
 
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 17 
 
 mass: 
 
 Patent and was not pressed. Winthrop was also warned against mak- 
 ino- a contemplated purchase of Long Island, as that also would inter- 
 fere with Connecticut's jurisdiction. The troubles with the Dutch 
 continued until a provisional treaty was made at Hartford in 1650, 
 between the Colony and Peter Stuyvesant, Governor General of 
 New Netherland. The Dutch 
 Governor claimed all the 
 lands on the Connecticut 
 River by right of purchase 
 from Indians, and Connecti- 
 cut appealed to her right 
 by possession, purchase, and 
 discover}'. The settlement, 
 September 19, 1650, was 
 left to Commissioners, who 
 agreed : — 
 
 " Firstly, that upon Long 
 Island a line run from the 
 westernmost part of Oyster 
 Bay; so, and in a straight 
 and direct line to the sea, 
 shall be the bounds betwixt 
 the English and Dutch there ; 
 the easterly part to belong 
 to the English, the western- 
 most part to the Dutch. 
 
 " Secondly, the bounds 
 upon the main to begin at 
 the west side of Greenwich 
 Bay, being about four miles from Stamford, and so to run a northerly 
 line* twenty miles up into the country, and after as it shall be agreed 
 by the two governments of the Dutch and of New Haven, provided 
 the said line come not within ten miles of Hudson River, and it is 
 
 * See Map III., "Line of 1650," on this page. This map is copied, by permission, 
 from Rev. Charles W. Baird's History of Rye, p. 105. 
 
 THE DIFFERENT BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN 
 CONNECTICUT AND NEW YORK. 
 
jg . THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 ao-reed that the Dutch shall not at any time hereafter build any 
 house or habitation within six miles of the said line. The inhabi- 
 tants of Greenwich to remain, till further consideration thereof be had, 
 under the government of the Dutch. 
 
 " Thirdly, that the Dutch shall hold and enjoy all the lands in Hart- 
 ford that they are actually possessed of, known or set out by certain 
 marks and bounds, and all the remainder of the said land on both 
 sides of Connecticut River to be and remain to the English there." 
 
 Before the treaty was ratified between the parent States in Europe, 
 a war broke out between England and Holland, and the treaty never 
 went into effect. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE WOODWARD AND SAFFERY SURVEY OF 1642, AND THE NECESSITY 
 FOR A COLONIAL CHARTER. 
 
 Xli 7HILE Connecticut's quarrels with the Dutch were progressing, 
 a controversy equally bitter had arisen with the Massachusetts 
 people on the north. Beginning with the impost which the towns 
 down the river demanded of Springfield for the support of the fort 
 at Saybrook, the question soon covered the jurisdiction of some dis- 
 puted territory. Massachusetts had caused in 1642 the Colony line 
 to be surveyed by Nathaniel Woodward and Solomon Saffery, said to 
 have been " obscure sailors," and sarcastically called " the mathemati- 
 cians." They started the line * from the point they thought was three 
 miles to the south of the southernmost point on the Charles River; 
 and instead of extending the survey across the country they sailed 
 round Cape Cod and up the Connecticut to the place they supposed 
 was in the same degree of latitude with the starting-point, but which 
 was in fact seven or eight miles to the south of it. What therefore 
 Massachusetts meant by calling these surveyors " skillful artists " 
 seems a matter of conjecture. Connecticut protested against the line 
 as run, and at the meeting of the Commissioners, 1649, of the United 
 Colonies refused to consider the boundary as settled. She thought 
 that according to the limits of the old patent Springfield should be 
 subject to her authority. As the boundary disputes began to thicken, 
 Connecticut wished to secure a charter with clearly defined bounda- 
 
 * See Map IV., page 19. This Map is copied without reduction from an old parchment 
 copy in the Massachusetts Archives, vol. iii. p. 1. The only other copy of the survey is a 
 small photolithographic impression in the "Historical Collections" of Holmes Ammidown : 
 vol. i. p. 294. 
 
20 THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 ries, but the time did not arrive until Charles II. became King. In 
 1 66 1, Connecticut declared her allegiance to the King, voted ,£500 for 
 securing a Charter, and appointed John Winthrop to go to London as 
 agent to secure the same. Winthrop was favorably received in Eng- 
 land; and on April 23, 1662, was granted to the colony of Connecti- 
 cut her royal charter, which included the land " bounded on the east 
 by the Narragansett River commonly called Narragansett Bay and on 
 the north by the line of the Massachusetts plantation and on the 
 south by the sea," and so west to the South Sea or Pacific Ocean 
 with the adjoining islands. Full power of government was likewise 
 granted, and thus Connecticut secured the document she had so long 
 coveted and now so highly prized. 
 
 To Winthrop more than to any one else was Connecticut under 
 obligations. Had it not been for the marked favor * with which he 
 was regarded in England it is doubtful if the colony could have ob- 
 tained a charter with such liberal provisions. As the first Governor 
 under the new charter he proved an invaluable friend to the colony. 
 His services will never be forgotten.t 
 
 Explicit as were the terms of the Charter and supreme as was the 
 authority that conferred it, it was nevertheless claimed that it con- 
 flicted with several previous grants. Regarding these intra-territorial 
 controversies a few words should be said. 
 
 * The story is told that when Winthrop returned to Charles II. the ring given by Charles I. 
 to Winthrop's grandfather the heart of the Sovereign was touched and the charter at once 
 granted. 
 
 t See frontispiece. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE DUKE OF HAMILTON'S CLAIM. 
 
 FHE terms of the old Patents of Massachusetts and Connecticut 
 as granted by the Council of Plymouth were sufficiently distinct, 
 yet the Council made other confusing grants. In fact some of the 
 territory was granted twice and thrice over. Before surrendering their 
 patent to the Crown, the Lords composing the Council of Plymouth 
 determined to divide the sea-coast of New England* among them- 
 selves. There were eight grants.t and the partition was made on the 
 third of February, 1635, so as to absorb nearly all the previous grants, 
 including the old Patent of Connecticut. But the first settlers of 
 Connecticut were never troubled by any claims which the Duke of 
 Lennox, or the Earl of Carlisle, or Edward Lord Gorges made to 
 their lands. The grant to the Marquis of Hamilton,^ however, after- 
 wards occasioned much solicitude to the Colony. On the twenty- 
 second of April, 1635, the deed from the Council of Plymouth to the 
 Marquis of Hamilton was dated, and included that portion of terri- 
 tory beginning at the "entrance of the River of Connecticut and 
 from thence to proceed along the sea-coast to the Narragansett River 
 or Harbours, to be accounted about sixty miles, and so up to the 
 western arm of that River to the head thereof, and into the land 
 
 * See Map V., page 22. Fac-simile of pen and ink sketch by President Ezra Stiles pre- 
 served among his manuscripts in library of Yale College. 
 
 f President Stiles's MSS. in Yale College Library, entitled: "The right of the Crown 
 of Great Britain to lands in America and the assignments therefore," March 31, 1762; and 
 " History of Grants under the Great Council for New England," by Samuel F. Haven, A.M. : 
 Lowell Institute Lectures, January 15, 1869; and Bancroft's History of the U. S., i. 408. 
 
 t This was the Marquis of Hamilton, who was sent with troops by Charles I. to Germany 
 in 163 1 to help Gustavus Adolphus in the Thirty Years' War. Ranke's History of England, 
 vol. ii. 15. 
 
22 THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 nothwestwards till sixty miles be finished, and so to cross our land 
 southwestwards to meet with the end of sixty miles to be accounted 
 from the mouth of Connecticut up northwest, ... to be called by 
 the name of the County of New Cambridge." * This claim, as 
 the Commissioners of the United Colonies say in a letter to Con- 
 necticut,! was a " grant of sixty miles square on the eastern side of 
 Connecticut River." Seven weeks after the above deed was signed, 
 the Council of Plymouth went out of existence. In the following 
 year (1636) the Marquis sent over an agent to survey the country; 
 but the civil war in England and the death of Hamilton prevented 
 a settlement. The claim was revived, however, when the Royal 
 Charter was given to Connecticut. In 1664 his wife, now made the 
 Duchess of Hamilton, petitioned the King, asserting that the Charter 
 of 1662 conflicted with the Hamilton grant of 1635. The petition 
 was referred to the Commissioners for settling the affairs of New 
 England, and in 1665 the claim was denied. Again, in 1683, the 
 Hamilton title to Eastern Connecticut was considered by the 
 Royal Commissioners who met at Boston. Edward Randolph, 
 having received power of attorney from the heirs of the Marquis 
 of' Hamilton, claimed the title to the Narragansett country on ac- 
 count of the deed of 1635. But the Colony of Connecticut replied, 
 doubting if the deed were ever ratified or sealed by the Council of 
 Plymouth, but even if it were the deed was of little value, as it 
 was dated just before the dissolution of the Council. Moreover 
 the Duke had neglected to propagate the gospel, plant colonies 
 and take possession of the territory granted him according to the 
 terms of the King's Charter to the Council of Plymouth, and there- 
 fore the deed was void. Connecticut had engaged in the Pequot 
 war without help from the Duke; and, if the title were good in 1635, 
 it failed by the Statute of Limitations, as for twenty years the title was 
 not claimed. Such was the reply made by Connecticut. The pro- 
 prietors of the Narragansett country likewise sent in a claim, and all 
 
 • Copied from MSS. in the John Carter Brown Library at Providence. Original deed in 
 State Paper Office, London, 
 f Dated March 25, 1665. 
 
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 23 
 
 the papers pertaining to the controversy were sent by the Royal Com- 
 missioners to London for the decision of the King. Though the 
 claim was again renewed, it was never prosecuted. It was referred in 
 
 1696 by the Privy Council to the law officers of the Crown, and Sir 
 Francis Pemberton and others were of the opinion that the title was 
 not good. Yet the Duchess of Hamilton again asked the King that 
 she might have jurisdiction over her territory, and that the inhabitants 
 might pay her such quit-rents for her lands as might be thought fit. 
 This last petition was referred to the Council of Trade, April 22, 
 
 1697 ; and much to the relief of the Colony of Connecticut the case 
 was definitely decided against the claimants, and the title became 
 obsolete. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE CONTROVERSY WITH NEW HAVEN. 
 
 A NOTHER dispute that Connecticut had on the receipt of the 
 "^ Charter was with the Colony of New Haven.* The New 
 Haven people had a government of their own, and did not wish 
 Connecticut to have jurisdiction over them, as was now her legal right 
 according to the terms of her new Charter. From 1662 to 1665 
 letters passed back and forth, and there seemed no way out of the 
 dead-lock, so determined was New Haven to keep its government. 
 Southold on Long Island, and Guilford, Stamford, and Greenwich, 
 which had been under the New Haven jurisdiction, yielded to Con- 
 necticut, and on the arrival of the English, who came to claim the vast 
 possessions of the Duke of York, including all of the so-called New 
 Haven territory, New Haven quickly joined the Connecticut Colony ; 
 and thus was happily ended a controversy that seemed most seriously 
 to threaten the chartered boundaries of Connecticut. 
 
 * Atwater's History of the Colony of New Haven and New Haven Records. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE MOHEGAN CLAIM. 
 
 A THIRD intra-territorial dispute that years after threatened the 
 chartered rights of the Colony was the claim of the Mohegan 
 Indians * to the jurisdiction of a portion of Connecticut. It seems 
 that as far back as 1640 John Mason, the Deputy-Governor, was com- 
 missioned by. the Colony to purchase the Mohegan lands,t which 
 included the old Pequot country and (dependent upon which by right 
 of conquest) the Wabbaquassett or Nipmunk country on the north. 
 The jurisdictive power which Uncas, Sachem of the Mohegans, 
 granted to Mason, in 1659, was by Mason surrendered to the Colony 
 in 1660. Yet from an informality in the deed and the illegality of 
 the surrender to the Colony the celebrated Mason or Mohegan case 
 arose. The heirs of Mason admitted that the right of jurisdiction, but 
 not the right to property, was surrendered. In consideration of ser- 
 vices rendered the Indians by Mason, his heirs now claimed this 
 Indian territory. The case was tried before Governor Dudley in 
 1705, but as the rights conferred by the Royal Charter were indirectly 
 questioned, the colony protested. The court, however, proceeded 
 ex parte, and decided against Connecticut. A map of the Mohegan 
 country % produced at this court shows that the boundary began at a 
 rock in the Connecticut River in Lyme, thence to a pond in the 
 
 * DeForest's- "History of the Indians in Connecticut," "Connecticut and the Mohegan 
 Indians," London, 1769; Beardsley's Life of William Samuel Johnson; Trumbull's History 
 of Connecticut. 
 
 f See Map II., p. 16. 
 
 J See Map VI., p. 26. Fac-simile of original map published in London in 1709, and copied 
 from book entitled " Connecticut and Mohegan Indians " in State Library of Connecticut. 
 
2 5 THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 northeastern part of Stonington, thence northeast to Mahmunsqueeg 
 in the Whetstone country near the centre of the present town of 
 Killingly, thence southwest a few miles to the falls of the Ouinebaug 
 River at what is now known as the borough of Danielsonville, thence 
 a little north of west through Pomfret, Ashford, Willington, Tolland 
 to Bolton Notch, and thence southerly through Bolton, Hebron, East 
 Haddam to the Connecticut River ; or, more concisely, the Mohegan 
 country included the northern two-thirds of New London and the 
 southern two-thirds of Windham Counties. After this adverse deci- 
 sion, Connecticut forwarded the true circumstances of the case to her 
 agent in London, the honored Sir Henry Ashurst, who petitioned her 
 Majesty Queen Anne. A commission of review was appointed, and 
 the affair was kept in agitation down to the days of the Revolution, 
 and had that war never occurred the celebrated Mohegan case might 
 have appeared in some form in our own century. That the Indians 
 had a good right to their own territory cannot be denied ; but it must 
 be said that the heirs of Mason in contesting the rights of the colony 
 were acting from selfish and not, as they claimed, philanthropic 
 motives. The case was several times decided in favor of the colony, 
 but was appealed to the Crown by the Mason heirs. In 1767 William 
 Samuel Johnson went to London as agent of the colony, and the final 
 hearing of the case was on the eleventh of June, 1 771 . 
 
ft? 
 
 ^Si- 
 te J 
 
 S**$Y*iik 
 
 
 Pi 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE CONTROVERSY CONCERNING LONG ISLAND. 
 
 TN returning to the year 1662, it should be noticed that the boun- 
 dary quarrels broke out afresh when the Charter was granted.* 
 Long Island was now the southern boundary of Connecticut. In 
 1635 Charles I. granted a patent to the Earl of Stirling for Long 
 Island, and for some years the island was named after Lord Stirling. 
 The towns on the western end were Dutch, while the towns in the 
 centre and eastern part of the island were settled by the. English. 
 Southampton in 1644, Easthampton in 1657, Brookhaven in 1659, 
 Huntington in 1660, and Oyster Bay in 1662, were settled under the 
 patent of the Earl of Stirling. Being troubled by the Dutch and 
 Indians, these towns sought the jurisdiction of Connecticut. By the 
 Dutch treaty of 1650, it was seen that the old Connecticut line on 
 Long Island was the present boundary between Queens and Suffolk 
 Counties. When the charter was granted most of these towns re- 
 newed their allegiance to Connecticut and sent deputies to. Hartford, 
 and in the following year the towns on the west end of Long Island 
 likewise asked to belong to the Colony. As the charter included all 
 islands, the request was granted ; and in the spring of 1664 all of Long 
 Island was claimed by Connecticut, and officers were appointed at 
 Hempstead, Jamaica, Newtown, Oyster Bay, Flushing, and the other 
 towns at the western extremity of the island. But that very year the 
 Duke of York purchased the patent of the Earl of Stirling, and laid 
 
 * Thompson's History of Long Island and Histories of New York, before mentioned ; 
 also Colonial Records of Connecticut. 
 
2 8 THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 claim to the entire island according to the terms of his new patent. 
 Though Connecticut had an undoubted right to Long Island, and 
 should have held it to this day, she was forced to forego all claims 
 to it that she might hold her other possessions, which the Royal Duke 
 was likewise threatening. Ten years later, however, when the Dutch 
 again took possession of New York, Long Island asked to become a 
 part of Connecticut, and the petition was granted. Captain Anthony 
 Clove, the Dutch Governor, requested the towns on the eastern part 
 of the Island to submit to him, which they refused to do. When 
 threatened by a naval force, they sent delegates to Connecticut, and 
 help was promised; but when in the following year (1675) the English 
 recaptured New York, Long Island was lost to Connecticut forever. 
 
PART II. 
 
 CONNECTICUT'S BOUNDARY DISPUTES WITH 
 RHODE ISLAND. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE CLAIMS OF CONNECTICUT AND MASSACHUSETTS TO THE TERRI- 
 TORY OF RHODE ISLAND. 
 
 ' I "HE interminable disputes between Connecticut and Rhode Island 
 with reference to the eastern boundary of Connecticut* should 
 now be considered. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, 
 all contended for the territory through which the present eastern line 
 of Connecticut runs. The claim of Massachusetts rested on the fact 
 that she had rendered material assistance to Connecticut in the ex- 
 termination of the Pequots in 1638. As a result of the Pequot war, 
 Massachusetts demanded in 1644 a portion of the Pequot country, and 
 wished Connecticut to make a division of the territory with her; and 
 when, a few years later, the Parliamentary Charter was granted to 
 Rhode Island, Massachusetts was more anxious than ever to extend 
 her government into the Pequot and Narragansett- countries. In 
 1649 William Cheseborough settled somewhere between the Mystic 
 and Pawcatuck Rivers under the sanction of Massachusetts, and about 
 the same time and place Thomas Stanton likewise settled. As a 
 citizen of Massachusetts, Cheseborough denied the right of authority 
 to a constable from Connecticut. In the following year, 1650, Cap- 
 tain Atherton of Massachusetts made a visit to the Narragansett 
 country, and demanded of the Indians the customaiy payment of wam- 
 pum. But Massachusetts really had no valid claim to the Narragan- 
 sett country, as it was without her chartered limits and as it conflicted 
 with the first Charter of Rhode Island. Roger Williams in a letter 
 
 * Colonial Records of Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts ; Arnold's History of 
 Rhode Island ; Colonial Boundaries of Connecticut : Hartford MSS., vol. i., etc. 
 
32 
 
 THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 which he wrote some years after to Major Mason stated that when he 
 went to England to get Rhode Island's first Charter he conscientiously 
 believed that Rhode Island's west line began at the Pawcatuck River, 
 and that Massachusetts could have no jurisdiction east of it on 
 account of her Pequot war claim, because the Pequots lived west of 
 the Pawcatuck River. But the tract between the Mystic and Paw- 
 catuck Rivers continued to be claimed by Massachusetts and Con- 
 necticut, and an agreement did not take place until September 18, 
 1658, when the Federal Commissioners decided that the Mystic River 
 'was the true boundary between Massachusetts and Connecticut, all 
 the territory on the east side to be under Massachusetts and on the 
 west side to Connecticut. Thus Pawcatuck became a Massachusetts 
 town, and was called Southerton, which name was in a few years 
 changed to Stonington. 
 
 While Massachusetts held jurisdiction over this part of Connecticut, 
 some Rhode Islanders came here to settle, and bought their lands of 
 the Indians ; but their title, of course, was not good, and two of the 
 settlers were arrested by order of John Endicott, Governor of Massa- 
 chusetts, and letters were sent from Boston to Rhode Island reiterat- 
 ing the rights of Massachusetts. But when Connecticut received her 
 Charter in 1662, she set aside the agreement of 1658, and ordered the 
 inhabitants of Mystic and Stonington to refuse to acknowledge the 
 authority of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Massachusetts at first 
 objected to being ousted by Connecticut, but was willing to leave the 
 dispute to arbitration, according to the instructions of His Majesty 
 King Charles. But nothing came of this. While the Colonies were 
 trying to settle the controversy, the Commissioners of the King 
 stepped in, March 20, 1665, and took away the disputed territory, call- 
 ing it " King's Province." The Pawcatuck River was declared to be 
 the western boundary; and the Atherton Company, a party of Massa- 
 chusetts gentlemen who owned a slice of territory here, were told to 
 relinquish their lands. Yet Connecticut immediately claimed not only 
 the disputed tract, but all the land to the Narragansett Bay; according 
 to the explicit terms of the Charter. Fifteen months after the Charter 
 had received the Royal Seal, a second Charter was likewise granted 
 
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 33 
 
 to Rhode Island. As both Charters embraced the Narragansett 
 country, they of course clashed. It seems that Dr. John Clarke, the 
 agent of Rhode Island who went to London to procure her Charter, 
 had made an arrangement with Connecticut's agent, John Winthrop, 
 whereby the jurisdiction of the Narragansett country was changed. 
 Winthrop and Clarke left their differences to be decided by arbitrators 
 in London, who agreed that Pavvcatuck River should be the boundary 
 line between Rhode Island and Connecticut, that the Ouinebaug pur- 
 chase should belong to Connecticut, that the people on the Atherton 
 purchase should choose to which Colony they should belong, and that 
 the right to property should not be altered. In accordance with this 
 agreement, the Charter of Rhode Island contained these words: — 
 
 "Any graunt or clause in a late graunt to the Governor and Com- 
 pany of Connecticut Colony in America to the contrary thereof in any 
 way notwithstanding ; the Pawcatuck River having byn yielded after 
 much debate for the fixed and certain bounds between these our sayd 
 colonies by the agents thereof, who have alsoe agreed that the sayd 
 Pawcatuck river shall bee alsoe called alias Narragansett river, and to 
 prevent other disputes that otherwise might arise thereby, forever here- 
 after shall be construed, deemed and taken to be the Narragansett 
 River in our late graunt to Connecticut colony mentioned as the 
 easterly bounds of that colony." * 
 
 But the above agreement was repudiated by the Colony of Con- 
 necticut, which said that Winthrop's instructions had been to procure 
 the Charter, and having done that his authority ended. Any subse- 
 quent action of his was therefore void. Yet the Atherton Company, 
 before referred to, who had settled on the West of the Narragansett 
 Bay, had expressed a willingness to be subject to the jurisdiction of 
 Connecticut when it was first asserted that Winthrop had gone abroad 
 to secure a Charter, and subsequently, according to the terms of the 
 Winthrop-Clarke agreement, this Company formally allied itself to 
 Connecticut. Connecticut at once, July 10, 1663, called Narragansett 
 Wickford, and appointed town officers ; and the people of Wickford 
 replied, July 17, by asking Connecticut for the usual privileges of new 
 
 * Colonial Boundaries of Connecticut, Hartford MSS. 
 
34 
 
 THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 plantations. This claim of Connecticut to the Narragansett country 
 was called by Rhode Island " a legalized robbery," and had been " pro- 
 cured by an underhand dealing." The Governor of Rhode Island 
 wrote, March 10, 1664, to the Governor of Connecticut about the 
 above aggressions, and proposed that the line between the Colonies be 
 run. The same month, March 25, the Wickford people complained of 
 encroachments from Rhode Island, and Connecticut at once gave them 
 magisterial powers. Yet Rhode Island persisted in making arrests in 
 Wickford, and, May 4, summoned one Richard Smith to answer certain 
 charges. Smith wrote, May 14, to Captain Hutchinson in Boston on 
 the subject, and Hutchinson in turn wrote, May 20, to Governor Win- 
 throp for advice and direction. Within a few months the Rhode 
 Island Governor again wrote, July 8, to Connecticut, and asked for an 
 answer to his last letter, at the same time asserting jurisdiction over 
 the Narragansett country, and saying that warrants had been issued to 
 arrest those exercising authority in the disputed country under Con- 
 necticut. At the same time, July 12, was received another letter from 
 Boston from Captain Hutchinson, Richard Smith, and a Mr. Hudson, 
 detailing the resistance of authority and conflicts with Rhode Island, 
 and asking that some one might be sent by Connecticut to the 
 disputed country to demand what was included in the patent. 
 
 These communications no doubt induced Connecticut, July 20, 1664, 
 to answer Rhode Island, suggesting the appointment of Commissioners 
 by each Colony before running the boundary, and desiring Rhode 
 Island to refrain from all jurisdiction in the Narragansett country. 
 The Commissioners of the United Colonies who met at Hartford on 
 September 9, sustained the claims of Connecticut and requested 
 Rhode Island to come to some settlement. The next month Com- 
 missioners were appointed by each Colony with full powers to settle 
 the boundary disputes, and Pawcatuck was suggested as the place of 
 meeting ; but no agreement was concluded. The following year Governor 
 Winthrop, Major Mason, Samuel Willis and Captain John Winthrop 
 were empowered by Connecticut to meet his Majesty's Commissioners 
 to discuss the boundary question. The common arguments* used 
 
 * Arguments, October, 1666, by Mr. Harris. Colonial Boundaries, Hartford MSS., vol. i. 
 
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 35 
 
 against Rhode Island were that Connecticut's boundary extended to 
 Narragansett Bay according to the terms of the Patent, and that Rhode 
 Island's claim only rested upon the agreement between Winthrop and 
 Clarke ; but Connecticut held that Winthrop was not appointed to arbi- 
 trate away what was included in the Patent, and therefore that the said 
 agreement was void, and that the Pawcatuck River could not be the 
 Narragansett Bay, and had never been so named until the London 
 arbitration ; and moreover the Narragansett River ran by Providence 
 and not by Stonington. In 1667 some Rhode Islanders tore down the 
 houses of Indians who refused to pay rent, and who thereupon sought 
 the protection of Connecticut. In the following year, May, 1668, 
 Wickford and Stonington again applied to Connecticut for help 
 against the aggressions of Rhode Island, and received in return, 
 March 9, 1669, a promise that something would soon be done for 
 them. Connecticut now appointed two Commissioners, May 14, 1668, 
 to demand her proper chartered rights of Rhode Island. They wrote, 
 June 3, claiming that Connecticut people were molested, that Connec- 
 ticut had a right to all the lands included in her Charter, that measures 
 would be taken to defend these rights, and that a specific answer 
 should be returned.' Rhode Island replied, August 20, that though 
 the disputed territory was likewise included in her own Charter she 
 was willing to leave the result to a legal tribunal ; and, secondly, that 
 His Majesty's Commissioners had determined in 1662 that the boun- 
 dary should be the Pawcatuck River and from thence a due north line 
 to Massachusetts, — which conclusion she dared not now neglect. 
 Connecticut made a concession, October, 1668, by proposing to draw 
 up a mutual treaty with Rhode Island, which proposition was ac- 
 cepted, May 14, 1669, but not carried out. At the same time claims 
 and counter-claims were made by each Colony. Connecticut ordered 
 the Rhode Islanders in Westerly not to trespass upon Stonington. 
 
 On the eleventh day of April, 1670, Harvard College and" a company 
 of gentlemen represented by Daniel Gookin of Cambridge sent a peti- 
 tion to Connecticut, asking for protection in the possession of their 
 lands on the east side of the Pawcatuck River, and complaining of the 
 annoyance given them by John Randall and other citizens of Westerly. 
 
36 
 
 THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 They asserted that the lands in question belonged to Connecticut and 
 Massachusetts as a result of the Pequot conquest, and, by the agree- 
 ment of September 16, 1658, had been given to Massachusetts; that the 
 Indian proprietors had consented to the deed of sale ; and that posses- 
 sion was taken in 1658, 1659, and 1660. The petition further com- 
 plained of the trespasses, and demanded justice and a confirmation of 
 the title to the lands from Connecticut. This same month these 
 Massachusetts gentlemen who had lands in the Narragansett country 
 again wrote* to Connecticut for protection, and Stonington also asked 
 a hearing. Anxious to settle the controversy, Connecticut proposed a 
 conference May 12, 1670, to be held at New London, to which Rhode 
 Island agreed. Three Commissioners were appointed by each State. 
 The firm ground upon which Connecticut stood was somewhat shaken 
 by the position of Winthrop. On account of his agreement with 
 Clarke in London, he now said, May 17, that he could not as Governor 
 of Connecticut consistently exercise jurisdiction east of the Pawcatuck 
 River until His Majesty's pleasure was known. But the Colony held 
 that Winthrop's action was not legally binding, and so the meeting was 
 held in New London on the fourteenth of June, 1670. The proceed- 
 ings were conducted in writing. The exact meaning of the Narragan- 
 sett River was discussed. Connecticut claimed Westerly on account 
 of the priority of her old Patent. Rhode Island wished to run the 
 boundary from the Pawcatuck River as her own Charter indicated. 
 Otherwise she threatened to appeal to the King. Each State de- 
 manded that the other should withdraw from the Narragansett country. 
 With such widely different views it was no wonder that the conference 
 broke up in two days. 
 
 Perhaps it might here be stated that John Richards, the Treasurer 
 of Harvard College, made a declaration, June 21, 1670, to the Con- 
 necticut Commissioners at New London, that Stephen Wilcox had 
 taken possession of the five hundred acres of land in Wickford 
 belonging to the College. 
 
 * Dated, Boston, April 25, 1670. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 DISTURBANCES AND DISPUTES UP TO 16S5. 
 
 A FTER the New London Conference the contention broke out 
 "^ afresh. Governor Benedict Arnold, July 1 1, 1670, forbade Gov- 
 ernor Winthrop to extend the authority of Connecticut over the dis- 
 puted territory, and demanded the delivery of John Carr, a notorious 
 villain. Rhode Island, too, made encroachments. She also gave 
 refuge to a murderer, and imprisoned a constable from Connecticut. 
 Connecticut in return resolved to arrest any one exercising authority 
 under appointment of Rhode Island in the Narragansett country. 
 The Lieutenant-Governor of Connecticut, John Mason, tried* to dis- 
 suade the colony from committing any violence at this time against 
 Rhode Island, and urged a peaceful solution of the controversy ; and 
 Rhode Island a little later, October 15, 1670, sent a letter explaining 
 the great trouble and expense of appealing to the King as she had 
 threatened to do at the New London Conference, and urging that new 
 efforts be made for a mutual treaty. Connecticut accepted, October 
 18, the proposals, but with certain conditions, among which was that 
 the Commissioners should have full powers. Rhode Island again 
 wrote, May 6, 1671, and referred to her proposed appeal to the King, 
 and Connecticut at once, May 17, appointed Commissioners to meet 
 the Rhode Island Commissioners. But a settlement seemed distant in 
 view of continued disturbances. A constable and a posse of fifty 
 men t from Stonington had just broken up a Court which Rhode 
 
 * Letter to Connecticut, dated August 3, 1670. 
 
 t Letter of Thomas Minor et al. to Connecticut, May 17, 167 1 : Colonial Boundaries of 
 Connecticut, vol. i. 
 
38 
 
 THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 Island had established on the east side of the Pawcatuck River, and 
 the Court of Justices at Westerly complained of such proceedings, and 
 asserted that Rhode Island would continue to maintain her authority. 
 To a threatening assemblage which had collected in Westerly, some 
 Stonington constables asked the reason of the gathering, and were 
 encouraged in this assumption of authority by the State of Connecti- 
 cut. Rhode Island now proposed * a mutual reference to the King, or 
 a friendly conference at which the agents who had procured the Char- 
 ters might be present, and at the same time asserted her authority over 
 the disputed territory until the final decision of the King was received ; 
 but Connecticut deferred action t for a few months, though still claim- 
 ing jurisdiction as before. She, however, was willing to make a treaty^: 
 if plenipotentiary Commissioners were appointed, or she would allow a 
 mutual reference to gentlemen in the Massachusetts and Plymouth 
 Colonies. She appointed Commissioners with full power on the fif- 
 teenth of October, 1671, and told them if unable to agree to leave the 
 dispute to arbitration. But Rhode Island still maintained § that she 
 had no power to change the boundary line which had been established 
 in the Royal Charter, to which Connecticut angrily replied || in these 
 words: "We must needs say if in your former letter you had dealt as 
 plainly we should never have given ourselves the labor and trouble we 
 have had on that account, and now indeed we cannot but see you 
 never intended any composure or compliance in the thing in contro- 
 versy." The question in dispute, further added Connecticut, was not 
 title to lands, but the right of jurisdiction and the settlement of the 
 boundary. Connecticut, however, a little later, May, expressed a will- 
 ingness to leave Westerly alone. A few years afterwards Connecti- 
 cut issued, October 8, 1674, a commission for a Court to be held at 
 Stonington to try cases in the Narragansett country, and received a 
 communication from Jonathan Atherton of Boston^ asking for a 
 release from the administration of his lands at Narragansett ; but while 
 King Philip's War continued no headway was made toward settling 
 
 * Letter to Connecticut, June 14, 1671. § Letter to Connecticut, November 4, 1671. 
 
 t Letter to Rhode Island, July 29. || Letter to Rhode Island, January 29, 1672. 
 
 t Letter to Rhode Island, October 12. If Dated, Boston, March 4, 1676. 
 
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 39 
 
 the boundary dispute. Rhode Island protested * because some Con- 
 necticut people had settled upon lands which Rhode Islanders had 
 deserted during the war. As King Philip was now dead, an attempt 
 was made to reclaim these lands. But the proprietors of the Narra- 
 gansett country who resided in Massachusetts favored the authority of 
 Connecticut; for they wrote to that Colony, March 16, 1677, requesting 
 that encouragement be given to settlements in the disputed tract. At 
 the same time they sent a petition to the King desiring him to restrain 
 Rhode Island and allow Connecticut to govern the territory ; and the 
 Hon. John Saffin, the agent of these Narragansett proprietors, likewise 
 sent a petition to Hartford giving twenty reasons why Connecticut 
 should maintain her jurisdiction. Among them were the Indian deed 
 to Edward Hutchinson and others in 1660, the Winthrop-Clarke 
 agreement whereby the Atherton Company chose to be under Con- 
 necticut, the letter from the Commissioners of the United Colonies to 
 Rhode Island not to disturb the proprietors of the Narragansett coun- 
 try, and the order of the Commissioners for redressing the injuries 
 clone on these lands by Rhode Island. But the Governor of Rhode 
 Island posted up a proclamation, October 27, 1676, at Wickford, to 
 warn off any officials from Connecticut, and again complained to Con- 
 necticut t and made another threat to appeal to the Crown. Connecti- 
 cut, while still maintaining her rights, offered | as a compromise that 
 Cowesett, now East Greenwich, should be her eastern boundary. But 
 Rhode Island, still dissatisfied, voted to send agents to England to 
 present the appeal, and sent a letter to Connecticut, May 24, proposing 
 an equal division of the unpurchased lands. This proposition was 
 rejected, § and Connecticut resolved to continue her government east 
 of the Pavvcatuck River. In the summer of 1677 Massachusetts, Ply- 
 mouth, Rhode Island, and Connecticut appointed deputies to settle the 
 claims in Narragansett, and on August 22, the Court was opened at 
 "Patuket;"|| but as Rhode Island failed to appear there was a delay 
 till October 3, when the Court again assembled and rendered a verdict 
 
 * Letter to Connecticut, October 15, 1676. J Letter to Rhode Island, May 10. 
 
 f Letters to Connecticut, April 21, and § Letter to Rhode Island, June 27. 
 
 May 2, 1677. || Pawtuxet. 
 
4Q 
 
 THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 in favor of William Harris of Connecticut, the agent of the Pawtuxet 
 proprietors. In 1679 each Colony wrote to the other* complaining of 
 trespassing and forbidding the extension of government over Narra- 
 gansett. John Saffin, above referred to, was thrown into prison for 
 refusing to submit to Rhode Island, and appealed, May 23, to Connecti- 
 cut. Connecticut replied, July 7, 1679, that if Saffin should person- 
 ally apply to the King she would sustain part of the expenses. The 
 King, who was thought to have a design of taking the Narragansett 
 country himself or giving it to some courtier, now asked f that the 
 disputants should appeal to him. Somewhat fearing the King's re- 
 quest, Connecticut desired a meeting ^ of the Commissioners of the 
 United Colonies for mutual protection against the aggressions of 
 Rhode Island. William Harris, of Pawtuxet, was appointed the agent 
 of Connecticut to go to London ; but, being taken prisoner to Algiers 
 and dying soon after, Connecticut sent a statement of her case to Eng- 
 land, saying that her Charter was granted before Rhode Island's, and 
 was confirmatory of the old Patent issued thirty years before ; that she 
 also should possess the Pequot country by right of conquest ; that 
 Winthrop's agreement was void, and that in King Philip's War Rhode 
 Island had given no help to the inhabitants of Narragansett. Rhode 
 Island also petitioned Charles II, August 1, 1679, for the territory 
 included within her Charter. At the same time letters § passed 
 between Governor Leete of Connecticut and Governor Cranston of 
 Rhode Island with reference to the encroachments of Rhode Islanders 
 at Stonington ; and Rhode Island proposed || that the Colony line 
 should be run. This proposition, however, the Governor of Connecti- 
 cut declined,^ on the ground that the case had been referred to the 
 King. In the year 1680** Rhode Island issued warrants for the arrest 
 and imprisonment of Stephen Richardson, a constable of Connecticut, 
 
 * Connecticut to Rhode Island, April 7. Rhode Island to Connecticut, April 21. 
 f Dated, February 12, 1679. 
 } Connecticut to Massachusetts, July 5, 1679. 
 
 § Connecticut to Rhode Island, September 16, 1679. Rhode Island to Connecticut, Sep- 
 tember 17. 
 
 || Rhode Island to Connecticut, October 29. ** May 15 and July 6. 
 
 If Connecticut to Rhode Island, December 11. 
 
p^ 
 
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 41 
 
 acting in Westerly. Connecticut demanded his release, July 6, and 
 Rhode Island replied, July 9, that she had done perfectly right. Con- 
 necticut at once, July 15, forbade any official under the protection of 
 Rhode Island to assume authority at Stonington, and in retaliation 
 refused* to release Joseph Clark, of Westerly, who had been arrested. 
 The Stonington people, too, on both sides of the Pawcatuck River 
 were ordered, August 23, to send representatives to the General Court 
 at Hartford, to make a schedule of their property and to present their 
 arms for inspection. Connecticut complained t that not only the 
 right to govern but the right of private property had been interfered 
 with. Her military preparations and her firm attitude seemed to 
 silence all contention for the next two years. 
 
 Commissioners to settle the boundary disputes at Narragansett, 
 having been appointed by Charles II, April 7, 16S3, met at Wick- 
 ford, August 23, and proposed to examine all claims to the territory 
 in question. But Rhode Island forbade the Court to sit within her 
 boundaries, and so after a two days' session an adjournment was taken 
 to Boston, where the Commissioners again assembled, September 3. 
 Rhode Island did not appear, but Connecticut handed in her deeds 
 and" proofs. The Court concluded, October 20, that Wekapang 
 Brook, £ f° ur miles east of the Pawcatuck, was the boundary of the 
 Pequot and Narragansett countries ; that Plymouth's claim to the said 
 country was based upon the identity of the Pawcatuck and Narra- 
 gansett Rivers ; that as these rivers were not the same Plymouth's 
 claim was groundless; and that in consideration of the Indian deeds to 
 Winthrop, Atherton, Hutchinson, and others, and the settlement of 
 
 * Letters of Rhode Island to Connecticut, July 23 and September 13, asking for release of 
 Clark. 
 
 f Letter to Rhode Island, August 23. 
 
 J See Map VII. opposite page. The original of this map is in London State Paper Office 
 and is in a poor state of preservation. See letter written ten years ago to Mr. Charles J. Hoad- 
 ley, the State Librarian at Hartford, who procured a copy of the Map. The " Dukes Trees " are 
 properly at the angle near the Byram River, but in this map they are also, through mistake, 
 indicated at the angle twenty miles to the west of the Hudson River. The twenty-mile line 
 is shaped to correspond with the Hudson River, which was supposed to be twenty miles from 
 the western line of Connecticut. The curves in the river make like curves in the boundary. 
 In the original of this map in London were also red lines marking Woodstock, Enfield, and 
 Suffield, but they are now worn away. 
 
42 
 
 THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 these lands by them at great expense, the final decision was that the 
 government of the Narragansett country should belong to Connecticut 
 and that Rhode Island should not interfere. The Commissioners for- 
 warded the above report to England to be confirmed by the Privy 
 Council. But as the Privy Council took no action, the report was not 
 considered legally binding by Rhode Island.* Therefore the boun- 
 dary quarrels were continued. 
 
 * Palfrey's History of New England, vol. iv. 234. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE APPEAL OF CONNECTICUT AND RHODE ISLAND TO ENGLAND. 
 
 A N attempt was made in England in 1685 to deprive the Colonies 
 of their liberties. The effort to take away Connecticut's Char- 
 ter was not successful ; but Rhode Island's Charter was actually sus- 
 pended, the names of her towns were changed, a despotic government 
 continued for several years, and confusion reigned in the Narragansett 
 country. Sir Edmond Andros, the Royal Governor, repudiated Con- 
 necticut's claim to Rhode Island, and " for the third time * " Rhode 
 Island's right of jurisdiction over the disputed district was guaranteed 
 to her. Stonington meanwhile again sought t the protection of Con- 
 necticut, and to this petition the General Assembly $ asked the consent 
 of Rhode Island. The only reply § was the claim still upheld by 
 Rhode Island, and a complaint, June 21, 1694, against the encroach- 
 ments that Connecticut was in turn making. Connecticut in another 
 letter regretted any disturbance, and hoped |[ that Rhode Island would 
 make no claims west of the Pawcatuck River. This letter, however, 
 was not " a virtual concession of the points in dispute," as has been 
 claimed;^" for the very next year Connecticut attempted** to collect 
 rates of the people in Westerly, and a constable of Stonington while 
 
 * Arnold's History of Rhode Island, vol. i. 505. -f May 9, 1692. 
 
 J Letter of Connecticut to Rhode Island, May 20. 
 § Letter of Rhode Island to Connecticut, June 19, 1692. 
 || Connecticut to Rhode Island, October 19. 
 IT Arnold's History of Rhode Island, vol. i. 530. 
 . ** Letter of Westerly to Connecticut, March 19, 1695. Colonial Boundaries of Connecti- 
 cut, Hartford MSS., vol. i. 
 
44 
 
 THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 trying to do so was threatened with imprisonment and asked* the ad- 
 vice of Governor Treat. The Attorney-General of England, to whom 
 the whole question of jurisdiction was referred, decided, October 28, 
 1696, in favor of Connecticut's claim, and two years later, June, 1698, 
 an attempt was made by the two Colonies to settle the line, but with- 
 out avail. When the Earl of Bellamont, requested by the Board of 
 Trade to make a friendly settlement, arrived September, 1699, a t New- 
 port, the points in dispute were presented to him. But as no agree- 
 ment could be concluded the Earl required, September 26, each 
 Colony to send agents to England to settle the controversy. Con- 
 necticut would have liked to end the quarrel without appealing to 
 England, but as that seemed impossible she applied to her agent, Sir 
 Henry Ashurst. Captain Joseph Sheffield acted as the agent of Rhode 
 Island, and had as his colleague, Brenton, who already represented 
 Rhode Island in London. 
 
 But the quarrelling went on at home while the agents were busy 
 abroad. A Rhode Island sheriff was instructed t to collect the rates 
 due in Westerly, and a Connecticut sheriff named George Denison 
 received a warrant :t to arrest any Rhode Island officers who should 
 attempt to seize goods in Stonington on account of the non-pay- 
 ment of taxes, and bring the men to the Governor at New London. 
 Under this warrant a Rhode Island sheriff, named Mallett, and four 
 assistants were arrested. It was afterwards proved that Mallett did 
 distrain goods, that he was armed, and had snapped his pistol when 
 arrested. On the other hand it was asserted that the occurrence was 
 in Westerly. Yet Mallett was fined fifteen pounds and the others 
 five pounds each. 
 
 * Letter dated April 12, 1695. 
 
 f Warrant from Governor of Rhode Island, dated April 4, 1700. 
 
 f Dated April 5, 1700. 
 
^e5 . -/. /&6*-**^ J&^^-oCs' /Si '£_ 
 
 The Seliotypt Printing Co, MTremontStBostim^ 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE DISPUTES BETWEEN CONNECTICUT AND RHODE ISLAND 
 FROM 1700 TO 1840. 
 
 "\^7ITHOUT waiting for the decision of the Board of Trade, and in 
 the fear that their chartered rights might be withdrawn, the 
 Colonies determined to agree themselves upon the boundary line. In 
 1702 Connecticut and Rhode Island appointed Commissioners for this 
 purpose, and upon the twelfth of May, 1703, the following important 
 agreement was made at Stonington : — 
 
 " That the middle channel of Pawquatuck River, alias Narragansett 
 River, as it extendeth from salt river upwards till it comes to the mouth 
 of Ashaway River, where it falls into the said Pawquatuck River and 
 from thence to run a straight line* till it meet with the south west 
 bounds or corner of Warwick Grant purchase, and then in a due north 
 line till it meet with the south line of the Province of the Massachu- 
 setts Bay in New England, forever be the boundary."! 
 
 The southwest corner of the Warwick purchase was twenty miles 
 due west of a rock at the extremity of Warwick Neck. This was the 
 boundary for which Rhode Island had so long contended, and which 
 
 * See Map VIII. opposite page. The original of tin's map is in England, a copy of which 
 the State of Connecticut has in Colonial Boundaries, vol. i. p. 240 (Rhode Island, 1662-1742). 
 In this map is the pond indicated in Map VII, due north from which Connecticut wished to 
 extend her bounds. The line ABC by the survey of 1S40 was made nearly straight instead of 
 with an angle at B, so that Rhode Island now has more territory than is indicated on this map. 
 There are two maps of the survey of 1840: one at the State House in Providence, and 
 the other at the State House in Hartford. The eld line from B to C, and from A to B, varied 
 east and west of a meridian line. 
 
 f Rhode Island Colonial Records, vol. iii. 474. 
 
4 & 
 
 THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 she claimed was in accordance with the terms of her Charter. Yet the 
 line was not actually surveyed at this time, though Rhode Island twice 
 appointed Commissioners for that purpose. In 1 714 Connecticut 
 authorized her Governor to appoint Commissioners to unite with 
 Rhode Island in surveying the line and setting up monuments, but 
 nothing was clone until April 18, 1720, when the Commissioners met, 
 but disagreed in the preliminaries. The Connecticut deputies refused 
 to go forward, and so Rhode Island ran alone the twenty-mile line from 
 Warwick Neck, and gave notice, July 7, of an appeal to the King. 
 Connecticut was told * that Rhode Island had appointed agents to go ■ 
 abroad, and Governor Saltonstall replied that a new dispute would not 
 have arisen after the settlement of 1 703, had not Rhode Island set up 
 a new claim t on the west of the Pawcatuck River. This letter, how- 
 ever, differed from the official letter ; which the Governor of Connecti- 
 cut sent to the Board of Trade in London, in which the entire Narra- 
 gansett country was claimed and the assertion made that Connecticut 
 could prove that she was entitled to it. A map of Connecticut was 
 enclosed with the letter, and is now in the State Paper Office in Lon- 
 don. A look at it § shows that the eastern boundary of Connecticut 
 from a Connecticut standpoint, extended to the Narragansett Bay. 
 But believing that it would be impossible to extend her bounds to 
 Narragansett Bay, Connecticut claimed || that the line should run north 
 from one of the ponds ^[ in the western part of the present town of 
 South Kingston, which she said was the head of the Pawcatuck River. 
 According to the terms of Rhode Island's Charter, by which Connecti- 
 cut now seemed willing to abide, Rhode Island was declared bounded 
 by the middle channel of Pawcatuck River, " and so along said River 
 as the greater or middle stream thereof reacheth or lies up into the 
 north country northward under the head** thereof," and so in a line 
 
 * Letters, dated July 7 and 27. 
 
 t Arnold, vol. ii. 67. Rhode Island Colonial Records, vol. iv. 280-2S3. 
 f Dated, New Haven, September 14, 1720. § See Map VII. p. 41. 
 
 || See Acts and Resolves of General Assembly, Rhode Island, May, 1840. Report of 
 Boundary Commissioners of Rhode Island and Connecticut. 
 U See Pond on Map VII. and Maps VIII. and IX. 
 ** Charter of Rhode Island, 1663. 
 
-to^t 
 
 t-Ad-t 
 
 .Afr/fc-tcJ/scwfmc aj2cd Scvcy Je-irtt. ftrrsv *p?/6/7itc ^Sr.a/rJj!' aas? Jer& mr *au* 
 :: /DJt4* Jlatcc/a/ aA*3 fcfa ^irf« rstfa/^&t/ Xaat/a/, ansa ,rc.'/Sy ///iu &a«w— 
 Jjec/sii- .y£m,&j "ffat^ei ayul fcriSy/t,v<- bt<rocj tttfs&utt /fuee/trii GtccAtfrfcat <f*cJ - 
 J'ccUccl Mcc*. 1ieu«£j y&j/^fit- , ./Atv/. f/u/, u*£f /tmxfs/u. Jtc/vt f!o»»Hir/i6 ra.Cfrtt cwcc" /& - 
 v& Xttftc/L cy/A/ 'IraiM.at'J'ZuLica&'a^ A/4re4.<HtUi /C^wtU'/ui faZ-t/j n/<//c/ti!ir, 6v, acta, 
 'w'cjfcity Canity ym ~Jit G*aM4.t//&ty-n / /7iM & -litatf ai a tract -%J ^a„Ai tV'jfs J "bftt^i *<S 
 cUi tue& ' a/y,/a,'i<£j£ fr.v//i Mi eotcuu tfcZju>?t/6 VnoaT?? V^ efface */• ' (m/i/t*> £&stf 'w4 
 Mr JoccmA) tn- JtctV 7/ccZit. an . JtTu- Jcra-^C a^/ ^< tf£cuc'i tteOSCvaaC tui~/hvjl£ if*x*rar/Ua£- * 
 Cfyt'ct/t VUCVt /urn >& ItrJZ CtctVeScf/fecc'/cu^ a,«J^„ <ZM7&t jfcclci. dXjtLW^fcA^ty #«f 
 
 t£/lZitmni& a*to7fici Ceulfee WevetS&ve*. and Zntn /i a- &&to<? S^-si^? .Ss-ee*ru<f Jam «-7&i 
 ifytffj: Ucy a£t O-iwma fnt,rTM*. fyautrii #■£<-/( S<%,s/ cj c-rCcYi-cS fy c 
 
 OetulcV \a/ucc,iM /y/Plc Ccass tZie OrtoWtff fltrrTM*. Qlc/S/C .. $&*(■ fm*£ & c-<-Cr7c// Sy /^, 
 
 &?ycc*A. Me 7uaX 'c/ir?iu t tcaZita6 'Jdcvei. cceetf'tij 4ee&- /Sutmi. eeece} CJ^Swaf^a/eOt., •^/jrd 
 7Ha/ fitly H/eUty /(Jiow 7itc ^lZa^6 ,wl %W%f crf/etc J ' "Jetc'ivi ec/i /? tfci dfiuJccet*. 
 Jfyeitt 77ic tftecxj/ afjri d'e&i tfez-cttt <r* mcj /Ja/it-t, t/ert. a#ta. ctiS£ //a 
 
 Oncjfca /c 7/{c fat// 
 
 /£- S']Peo,ct ct cC a^CreO* 
 
 czcc-eccZcc* 
 
 ^ci^^^a^a«^^ei(^/ y ^tK^^>^L 
 
 cyfyfes Myyo^L €crO~y °jf (%HV&ecJL JlLcUecct. 
 
 jytfujt KerttccT. Jac^U^. w!xt^~.,A-te«*itt .fe£*- 
 
 a^ct^^vruf (%Lc/^ cf-O&Sn. /<<^«/!/*S<»^' ***- 
 
 <^5w£i"^ Qf^Jc &&L tttmL )tt«J*L ^f^L 
 
 'itzm- Jd nines' 
 
 ■2a 
 
 /BW/Vw«i Sir 
 S& ^y/iczcv£. edt 
 
 ■to^j-u* 'itruCin.* Je*c£c**-*-ny , 
 OcuJlc Ml S&U cf/?L J & &H^r /& dc cjfiyct ~ 
 
 •62/tefe, ^OZ 
 
 i r 
 
 "tar^ffi 
 
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 47 
 
 due north to Massachusetts. A map * showing the pond in question 
 was drawn up, and the oaths of several old citizens were taken to prove 
 that the pond was really the head of the Pawcatuck River. The allow- 
 ance of such a claim would have left but a strip of territory to Rhode 
 Island on the west of the Narragansett Bay, and therefore she pro- 
 tested t against allowing the pond to be the head of the Pawcatuck. 
 She, however, was willing to let the King decide, and asked Connecti- 
 cut not to make settlements east of said pond until after His Majesty's 
 pleasure was known. The Board of Trade, after hearing all the testi- 
 mony, reported £ to the Privy Council that Rhode Island was morally 
 if not legally right, and suggested that the charters of both Colonies 
 be taken away and the Colonies be annexed to New Hampshire ! 
 Such an idea, no doubt, scared Connecticut into a willingness at once 
 to obey whatever decision the King should make of the boundary 
 dispute. But, before the King's purpose was known, Connecticut and 
 Rhode Island, 1724-26, once more appointed Commissioners with full 
 power to run the Colony line. As usual they accomplished nothing. 
 Meanwhile the business proceeded in London, and the Board of Trade, 
 January 25, 1726, recommended to the Privy Council that the line be 
 run as agreed in 1703. The Privy Council accepted the recommenda- 
 tion and reported to the King. February 8, 1727, the line was so 
 settled. The 1703 line had been run ex parte by Rhode Island, and 
 now remains a boundary for farms in portions of that State under the 
 name of the Dexter and Hopkins line. In 1728 the line was surveyed 
 again and settled. It seems that Governor Jenks of Rhode Island had 
 written to Governor Talcott of Connecticut, § April 12, 1728, saying 
 that as citizens of Connecticut had been cutting timber on Rhode 
 Island land, and that the inhabitants might be quieted in the lawful 
 possession of their lands, he hoped the unhappy controversy would 
 end. Commissioners were therefore appointed. The Connecticut 
 
 * See Map IX. opposite page. This testimony concerning the head of the Pawcatuck River 
 is a correct copy of original in vol. i. of Colonial Boundaries in the State Library of Connecticut. 
 
 t Rhode Island to Connecticut, July 7, 1720. See Colonial Boundaries, Hartford RISS., 
 vol. i. Nos. 207 and 209. 
 
 % 1723. February 15. See Arnold, vol. ii. 72. 
 
 § See Report of Commissioners of Rhode Island and Connecticut, 1S40. 
 
4 g THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 Commissioners wished to run the twenty-mile line from Warwick 
 Neck, but the Rhode Island Commissioners claimed the southwest 
 corner of Warwick had already been established. But, fortunately for 
 Rhode Island, she allowed the line to be run, and, owing to a mistake 
 in a former survey, gained a piece of territory.* After sixty-five years 
 \ of quarrelling, the Colony line was finally settled, September 27, 1728. 
 From the joint report made by the Commissioners, it is seen that a line 
 twenty miles due west from Warwick Neck ended in a cedar swamp, 
 which was the southwest corner of the Warwick purchase. The 
 western boundary of Rhode Island was formed by running a line from 
 said corner north seven degrees east, twenty-three miles and ten rods 
 to the Massachusetts line, and from said corner south, eleven degrees 
 twenty minutes west, fifteen miles and ninety rods to where the Asha- 
 way falls into Pawcatuck River, and thence following the Pawcatuck to 
 its mouth. Monuments were erected along the line, and, owing to a 
 reputed tampering with one of the monuments, the line was not con- 
 firmed by both States until 1742. The stone heaps that formed the 
 boundary monuments becoming somewhat effaced by time, a new line 
 was drawn by Commissioners of both States! in 1840. The line 
 was found to be crooked, and it was thought best to straighten 
 it from one town corner to another, so that now any deviation in 
 the line can hardly be detected upon the map4 An attempt to change 
 the northwest corner of Rhode Island a few rods to the east was not 
 allowed, and the line was run as follows : — 
 
 " Beginning at rock near the mouth of the Ashawage River where 
 it empties into Pawcatuck River, and from said rock a straight course 
 northerly to an ancient stone heap at the southeast corner of Volun- 
 town, and from said rock southerly in same course with aforesaid line 
 until it strikes Pawcatuck, from the southwest corner of Voluntown 
 in a straight line to stone heap at the southwest corner of west 
 Greenwich, thence to the southwest corner of ancient Warwick, which 
 is now the corner of the towns of Coventry and West Greenwich, 
 
 * See Map VIII. p. 45. 
 
 t See Report of Boundary Commissioners of Rhode Island and Connecticut, 1840. 
 
 % There is now no angle as at B in Map VIII. 
 
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. ^q 
 
 thence in a straight line to the northwest corner of the town of 
 Coventry, thence in a straight line to the northeast corner of Stir- 
 ling, thence in a straight line to the southwest corner of Gloucester, 
 thence to southeast corner of Thompson, and southwest corner of 
 Burrillville, and to a stone heap upon a hill in the present jurisdiction 
 line between Massachusetts and Rhode Island." * 
 Monuments were erected at all these town corners. 
 
 * Copied from Report above indicated. 
 
PART III. 
 
 CONNECTICUT'S BOUNDARY DISPUTES WITH 
 MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE CONTROVERSY CONCERNING WINDSOR, AND THE SURVEY OF 
 THE INTER-COLONIAL LINE. 
 
 r I ^HE boundary disputes between the Colony of Connecticut and 
 the Province of Massachusetts should now be described. Refer- 
 ence has already been made * to the quarrel that Springfield had with 
 the towns lower down the river. But as the country became settled, 
 the plantation of Windsor was the scene of conflict. Massachusetts 
 crowded upon Connecticut, and Connecticut crowded upon Massachu- 
 setts. The point at issue was the position of the joint boundary line 
 at Windsor. Massachusetts said the old line t was correct, and com- 
 plained % because Connecticut encroached upon her territory. She 
 proposed a resurvey of the Woodward and Saffery line, and on com- 
 plaint of Connecticut was willing to compromise § by allowing the 
 north line of Windsor to be extended up to the falls in the river within 
 forty rods of the great island, and thence east of the river for four 
 miles, and thence south to the 1642 line. In the Woodward and 
 Saffery map || are indicated the falls and island alluded to. But Con- 
 necticut would not accede to such a Colony boundary, yet she, some 
 years later, May 9, 1678, appointed Commissioners to unite with Mas- 
 sachusetts. If Massachusetts refused,][ Connecticut threatened, 1680, 
 to proceed alone in making the survey. About the same time, 1678, 
 
 * See pp. 16 and 19. f Line of 1642, p. 19. 
 
 % See Letter of Massachusetts to Connecticut, June 6, 1671. Colonial Boundaries of Con- 
 necticut, Hartford MSS. vol. iii. 
 
 § Massachusetts to Connecticut, May 15, 1672; vol. iii. Hartford MSS. 
 
 || See Map IV. p. 19. ^ Trumbull, vol. i. 356. 
 
54 
 
 THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 Windsor made a complaint to the General Assembly at Hartford, be- 
 cause Enfield had been separated from Springfield, and incorporated 
 under the government of Massachusetts, and asked to have the boun- 
 dary question settled. Suffield was another town that Connecticut 
 claimed was within the boundaries of her Charter, and therefore the 
 inhabitants of Windsor and Simsbury considered that they had a legal 
 right, as citizens of Connecticut, to settle within this town. Suffield, 
 1686, and, a few years later, Enfield, 1693, complained of these en- 
 croachments to the authorities at Boston, but before Connecticut made 
 answer, she deemed* it of more consequence that the boundary line 
 between the Colonies be first settled. Colonel John Pynchon of 
 Springfield, in a letter! written to Governor Treat of Connecticut, was 
 of the same opinion. In her anxiety to have the controversy ended, 
 Connecticut determined to survey the line herself, and directed the 
 Commissioners! to proceed according to the terms of the Massachu- 
 setts Charter without reference to any previous survey. Massachusetts 
 also was invited but failed to send any Commissioners with the survey- 
 ing party, and so John Butcher and William Whitney, appointed by 
 the Connecticut Commissioners, made the survey, and handed in their 
 report on the twentieth of August, 1695.1 They made observations 
 at two ponds three miles south of Wrentham Pond, in latitude 42° 3', 
 at the place from which the 1642 line had been started, though Wood- 
 ward and Saffery at that time falsely said that the same place was 
 41° 55' north latitude. The north line of Connecticut is to-day in 
 latitude 42° 3', yet Butcher and Whitney said that the true line was at 
 Dedham Tree, in latitude 42° 4', for this was the point that according 
 to the terms of the Massachusetts Charter was three miles to the south- 
 ward of the southernmost part of Charles River. Other observations 
 were made by these surveyors, — at Woodstock in latitude 42 1'; at 
 John Bissell's house in Windsor, in latitude 42° ; and at Hartford, in 
 latitude 41° 51'. Massachusetts objected to the above report. She 
 
 * Letter to Massachusetts, October 14, 1686. Colonial Boundaries, Hartford MSS. 
 vol. iii. 
 
 f Dated March 8, 1694. Colonial Boundaries, vol. iii. 
 
 J Letter to Commissioners, July 6, 1695. Colonial Boundaries, vol. iii., Hartford MSS. 
 
 § See Massachusetts Archives, vol. ii. p. 237. 
 
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 55 
 
 said that the starting-point was too far north, that Connecticut* was 
 unreasonable, and that the old line should not now be disturbed. 
 Connecticut made no answer, and continued to settle upon lands in 
 Enfield and Suffield, to which Massachusetts again objected.! As 
 there was not yet a mutual settlement of the question, Connecticut 
 appointed $ Commissioners with full power, to agree upon the boun- 
 dary. These Commissioners proposed to Massachusetts to run the 
 line, as in 1642, to within twelve miles of the Connecticut River, thence 
 north a mile, and thence due west to the river. The proposition was 
 rejected by Massachusetts, and is crossed out in the Colonial Boun- 
 dary Manuscript Records of Connecticut, but Massachusetts afterwards 
 said that if the Suffield line be continued sixteen miles west of the 
 river, and the Enfield line eight miles east, and thence south to the 
 ancient line, she would make such an agreement, provided the grant 
 at Woodstock § should remain valid. It seems that part of the 
 Woodstock grant was south of the Woodward and Saffery line,|| and 
 Massachusetts did not wish her claim to jurisdiction over it ques- 
 tioned. She had severely censured Woodstock some years before for 
 daring to ask Connecticut to confirm the grant of such lands of the 
 town-as fell south of the line.^f Connecticut yielded all claim to these 
 Woodstock lands, and then proposed to go to the Woodward and 
 Saffery station in latitude 42 3', and run the inter-colonial line due 
 west, agreeing that the right to jurisdiction over towns along the line 
 should belong to the government that had first settled them. Conse- 
 quently in 1702 James Taylor of Massachusetts, and Messrs. Pitkin 
 and Whiting of Connecticut, made observations similar to those made 
 by the surveying party of 1695. The Connecticut officials reported, 
 1702, that the real line should be seven miles north of John Bissell's 
 house in Windsor. But, as Massachusetts had failed to give Taylor 
 full power, Connecticut was obliged to again insist ** that the contro- 
 
 * Letter to Connecticut, December 12, 1695. Colonial Boundaries, Hartford MSS., vol. iii. 
 f 1696; vol. iii., as above. f May 9, 1700; vol. iii. as above. 
 
 § Settled under Massachusetts in 16S6. 
 || See Map. X. p. 57. 
 
 1" Miss Larned's History Windham Company, vol. i. 37. See also Map X. 
 ** Letter of Connecticut to Massachusetts, October, 1702 ; vol. iii. as above. 
 
56 
 
 THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 versy be settled. Massachusetts now maintained that the old Colony 
 line was well understood before Connecticut* received her Charter in 
 1662, and that if the boundary were now changed, and if molestations 
 were continued on Suffield and Enfield by the people of Windsor, an 
 appeal to Queen Anne would be made. Governor Winthrop t de- 
 nied i any reports of violence on the borders, and likewise threatened 
 to appeal to the Crown if the true line as run by Taylor and others 
 was not consented to. Massachusetts § yielded a trifle in allowing 
 Windsor to give grants and assume jurisdiction up the river over the 
 borders, but not over the entire towns of Enfield and Suffield, which 
 were claimed by Connecticut. In other respects the line was allowed 
 to stand as before. But this concession was of short duration, for in 
 the following year it was declared || that the inhabitants of the in- 
 dented T[ towns had been insulted, and jurisdiction down to the ancient 
 line was again claimed. Governor Saltonstall of Connecticut, in reply, 
 promised to have the charges investigated, and also hoped that the 
 general boundary dispute would be speedily ended. The people on 
 one side of the line were no better than those on the other side. If 
 persons in Connecticut had insulted persons in Massachusetts, men 
 from Enfield and Suffield had crossed into Windsor and Simsbury to 
 steal timber and turpentine, and even to imprison some whom they 
 found. To end these disgraceful proceedings, the General Assembly at 
 Hartford, appointed, May 25, 1708, Commissioners with full power to 
 meet the Massachusetts Commissioners, and determine the boundary 
 according to the Massachusetts Charter, telling them to begin the sur- 
 vey at the point settled by Taylor in 1702, and thence run due west. 
 If Massachusetts should agree, the old grants should remain good, 
 and meanwhile no action should be taken regarding the lands in dis- 
 pute. If Massachusetts should refuse to make the joint survey, an 
 appeal to the Queen would follow. Massachusetts refused, and memo- 
 rials on the subject were then sent to London by both Colonies. 
 
 * Letter of Massachusetts to Connecticut, 1705 ; vol. iii. as above. 
 
 | This was Fitzjohn Winthrop, Governor of Connecticut from 1698 until 1707, the son 
 of Governor John Winthrop of Connecticut, and grandson of Governor John Winthrop of 
 Massachusetts. 
 
 t Letter of Governor Winthrop of Connecticut to Massachusetts, 1705 ; vol. iii. as above. 
 
 § Letter of Massachusetts to Connecticut, 1707; vol. iii. as above. 
 
 I Massachusetts to Connecticut, 170S. 1" Suffield and Enfield. 
 

 
 /9 A ^3/*c «W Fojr#&££jf"i ?"T9r**-*t ~«yA3-**-£. 
 
 
 C^^/^/,4-^ ^^'■■'■/■■"■"'t.'f^' /-^ / '"' f"- '"■■/""■■J"' 
 
 .„, „a »a w~ ih-i~*JiM 3 -» -t "■**£» _■•/;■■/■- 'f eg* ;■■ ■ /, 
 
 To Wrenfham 
 Woodward 
 
 Saffreu 
 
 Providence 
 
 Hartford 
 
 Podunck 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE MEMORIALS OF MASSACHUSETTS AND CONNECTICUT TO THE 
 CROWN, AND THE BOUNDARY SETTLEMENT OF 1713. 
 
 TV l\ ASSACHUSETTS, in her memorial* forwarded to England, 
 told how her line was run in 1642, that Woodward and 
 Saffery's observation was in latitude 41 55', and that Taylor's obser- 
 vation at the same point in 1702 was in latitude 42 2' 30". "Artists 
 alike skilful may differ in a point or some minute thing, but it is very 
 improbable and unlikely the difference can be so great."! She there- 
 fore wanted to let the old line stand, as the one was as likely to be as 
 right as the other, and the old one had been the established line for 
 sixty-six years. Connecticut's memorial was addressed to her agent, 
 Sir Henry Ashurst,:t and gave a full history of the question, and 
 asked that the boundary be fixed as ordered in the Massachusetts 
 Charter. Governor Gurdon Saltonstall also sent a letter to Sir Henry 
 in support of Connecticut's claims, and gave the following facts regard- 
 ing the observations of Woodward and Saffery in 1642, and Taylor in 
 1702 : 
 
 _. _ . f Woodward and Saffery 41 ((' 
 
 First Station j y * " 
 
 ••Taylor 42° 2' 30" 
 
 Bissell's House j w °°dward and Saffery 4>° SS' 
 
 *■ Taylor 41 56' 30" 
 
 Bissell's house in Windsor was therefore 6' or almost seven miles 
 farther south than Woodward and Saffery's first station ; or, in other 
 words, seven miles south of what the true Colony line should be. 
 
 * Massachusetts Archives, vol. iii. 115. + Memorial as above. 
 
 i Colonial Boundaries, Hartford MSS., vol. iii. 
 
s g THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 But the idea of appealing to the Crown to have Connecticut's 
 wrongs righted was not encouraging. The Colony's trusted agent 
 soon died.* The expense of appealing was great. The Court party in 
 England desired the revocation of the Charters of the Colonies.! The 
 Mohegan controversy was distressing Connecticut, and Connecticut 
 was poor. Circumstances therefore combined to urge the Colony to 
 make peace direct with Massachusetts and avoid the appeal. 
 
 Connecticut, in 171 3, appointed plenipotentiary Commissioners to 
 meet the Massachusetts Commissioners and come to an agreement.:}: 
 William Pitkin and Wiliiam Whiting were the Commissioners, and 
 John Chandler and Samuel Thaxter the Surveyors. They made, 
 July 13, 1713, a report which was approved February 13, 1714, by each 
 Colony. By the agreement Massachusetts was as before to have juris- 
 diction over her old border towns, though they fell to the south of the 
 new Colony line. For this privilege of jurisdiction Massachusetts 
 agreed to compensate Connecticut. For as much territory as Massa- 
 chusetts governed south of the true line, she agreed to give the same 
 amount of territory to Connecticut in unimproved lands in Western 
 Massachusetts, and in New Hampshire,§ and a further allowance was 
 made by a promise to sell the more distant lands at a cheaper rate. 
 These unimproved lands were therefore called equivalent lands. The 
 small disputed tract at Windsor fell to Connecticut. The lands in 
 Connecticut that Massachusetts governed by the above agreement 
 were as follows : || — 
 
 In Woodstock 30,419 acres 
 
 In Enfield 3 6 . 180 " 
 
 Part of Springfield east of Connecticut River . . . 640 " 
 
 Part of Springfield west of Connecticut River . . . 287 " 
 
 InSuffield 22 > l l 2 " 
 
 In Westfield 5.549 " 
 
 Governor Dudley's lands i,5°° 
 
 Honorable William Stoughton's lands 818 "' 
 
 * Sir Henry Ashurst died in 1710. t Trumbull, vol. i. 446. 
 
 I Colonial Boundaries, Hartford MSS., vol. iii. See also Map X, opposite. This map is 
 a copy of original map on parchment in the State House, Boston. 
 
 § Trumbull; vol. i. 447, and vol. iii. as above. 
 
 II Colonial Boundaries, Hartford MSS. vol. iii. 
 
Longmeadow 
 
 , Munson I Soufh Bnmfield 
 
 Stafford 
 
1 Mas sac r : u s e,t t s 
 
 * 1 Holland J Srurbrid 
 
 Union 
 
 ■I s South | 1 J bridg 
 
 Hd£her/Pond Muddq fy-ojok Pond 
 
 WOODSTOCK i\ 
 
 c Ch&ubu'oMlunEr&mug Pond 
 
 t DudlzL) \^Mord Gore 
 
 Thompson 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 Plan of Sun/eq made bu, Moses Warren Esq 
 of Connecticut and S.las Holmak of MassAchusetls, fn 
 June and October last of the Line between fhe'5tate 
 of Massachusetts and Connecticut under direction ol 
 Commissioners from each Shale wiii Hon George BUs 
 Nahum Mitchell and Edward H.Robbins EsqfT* of Ma: 
 ■' srfs and Hon Zaphaniah Swiff, Daniel Burrows a 
 zer Sloddard of Connecticut 
 
 Scale of Rods 200 roan inch. 
 
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. eg 
 
 Robert Thompson's lands 2,000 acres 
 
 Colonel William Dudley's lands 2,000 " 
 
 Colonel William Whiting's lands 1,000 " 
 
 The half of Sir Richard Saltonstall's ) 
 
 > 1,000 " 
 
 tract on borders of Enfield * J 
 
 And other smaller lots, making in all 107,793 " 
 
 The equivalent lands were sold by Connecticut in April, 1716, for 
 ^683 New England currency, or #2,274, and the money was given to 
 Yale College. 
 
 The north line of Connecticut, west of the Connecticut River to the 
 New York line, or to within twenty miles east of the Hudson's River, 
 was settled by Commissioners of Massachusetts and Connecticut in 
 1717.1 
 
 * See Map X. t Vol. iii. as above. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE CONTROVERSY CONCERNING WOODSTOCK, ENFIELD, AND 
 SUFFIELD. 
 
 ~T*HE next controversy Connecticut had with Massachusetts was 
 with regard to the border towns above alluded to. They de- 
 sired to change the jurisdiction to Connecticut. In 1724 Enfield 
 (March 9) and Suffield (March 12) asked to be brought under Con- 
 necticut. The General Assembly appointed a Committee to examine 
 the question, but they reported that the agreement of 171 3 with Mas- 
 sachusetts would prevent, and Connecticut should now stand by her 
 agreement.* In 1732 Massachusetts appointed a Committee to peram- 
 bulate the boundary as fixed in 171 3, so that its position might not be- 
 come doubtful. In the following year Connecticut did the same. In 
 1734 the Commissioners made reports to their respective governments. 
 A mistake had apparently been made in 1 7 1 3 at the northwest corner 
 of Woodstock. In 1739! Ashford and Union complained to the 
 General Assembly of the mistake alluded to, and so Commissioners 
 were appointed by both Colonies to examine the case. They reported,:}: 
 making the northwest corner of -Woodstock eighty-seven rods east of 
 course named by the Committee of 1734, and forty-four rods south of 
 the Colony line. The northeast corner of the town of Union was, 
 therefore, farther north than the Woodstock corner, and the Colony 
 line continued to be crooked at this point.§ 
 
 The town of Woodstock had been settled by -Massachusetts people 
 
 * Vol. iii. as above. 
 
 t See Colonial Boundaries, Hartford MSS., vol. iii. Nos. 72 and 73. 
 
 J May 3, 1740, ib. ; and also " Town and Lands," Hartford MSS. vol. viii. 234. 
 
 § See Map XL p. 59. 
 
^ f **.*-*> 
 
 «/shwk> !(<*Ca.*tc& faff. ' /rYs?- 
 
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 5 1 
 
 from Roxbury, and as their associations had always been friendly with 
 the mother town * and the government at Boston, they were satisfied 
 with the agreement of 171 3. Trumbull t seems to have made a mis- 
 take in calling this agreement a " great grievance " to Woodstock and 
 the other indented towns, and Hollister^: has made a similar error in 
 copying Trumbull. In fact, though not consulted about the agree- 
 ment, the people were contented enough until some years later they 
 thought that their taxes, which had been increased owing to the 
 French and Spanish wars, § would be lighter, and their privileges 
 greater, if they followed Suffield, Enfield, and Somers, "in trying to 
 get off to Connecticut." So on March 31, 1747, Woodstock ap- 
 pointed Colonel William Chandler, " to lay the affair before the Gen- 
 eral Assembly of Connecticut," || and at the May session following the 
 towns in question sent in a memorial.^ They asked that they be 
 admitted within the Patent of Connecticut, denied the right of the 
 State to transfer the jurisdiction conferred by the Charter, and claimed 
 that the agreement of 171 3 had been made without their consent. A 
 Committee was appointed to investigate and report at the next session. 
 At the same time Commissioners were appointed to meet the Massa- 
 chusetts Commissioners, but Massachusetts refused to open the con- 
 troversy. Encouraged by Connecticut, Woodstock appointed, May 7, 
 1747, Thomas Chandler and Henry Bowen to proceed with the work, 
 and if not successful at Hartford to "send to ye great Court of Eng- 
 land."** They addressed, October, 1747, the General Assembly, 
 urging that as the agreement of 171 3 had not received the royal 
 confirmation in England, it was void, and the Colony had no right 
 to transfer towns within her chartered bounds to the jurisdiction of 
 Massachusetts. The towns were persistent, and Connecticut was 
 
 * Woodstock when first settled in 16S6 was called New Roxbury. 
 
 f Benj. Trumbull's History of Connecticut, vol. ii. 295. 
 
 t Hollister's History of Connecticut, vol. ii. 463. 
 
 § See Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts, vol. iii. 6-8 ; vol. ii. 363-396 ; Historical 
 Collections of Holmes Ammidown, vol. i. 297, and Miss Larned's History of Windham County, 
 vol. i. 48S. || Woodstock Records. 
 
 If Memorial dated May 20, 1747 ; vol. iii. as above. 
 ** Woodstock Records. 
 
6 2 THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 anxious to secure them. R. Bradley the Attorney-General, William 
 Smith and Richard Nichols sent a written opinion from New York* 
 stating that Massachusetts and Connecticut had the power of deter- 
 mining the right to lands, but could not change the limits of govern- 
 ment without consent of the Crown, and therefore the jurisdiction 
 of the towns south of the boundary belonged to Connecticut. In view 
 of this opinion, and after mature deliberation, the Colony voted May 
 1749, to receive the towns, declared the agreement of 17 13 not 
 binding, and appointed Commissioners to unite with Massachusetts 
 in determining the line, and in case of refusal to appeal to George II. 
 Massachusetts sarcastically answered, June 28, 1749, that the pro- 
 ceedings of their Legislature had been regularly sent to the King, 
 and if anything had been done contrary to the royal will, it was to 
 be presumed that such an act would be noticed. As Connecticut 
 surmised that Massachusetts had written to her agent in London to 
 have the agreement of 171 3 confirmed, she asked her own agent 
 to have the confirmation delayed until a full statement of the case 
 could be forwarded. Woodstock was delighted at being received 
 into Connecticut, and at a memorable town meeting t made Thomas 
 Chandler and Henry Bowen the first members of the General Assem- 
 bly. Massachusetts became indignant at such action, and in a letter 
 to Connecticut maintained her authority over the disputed towns.! 
 But Governor Law replied that he did not see how Massachusetts 
 could maintain her authority outside of her colonial limits. Massa- 
 chusetts now proposed that Commissioners be appointed by both 
 Colonies, and asked Connecticut not to encourage the revolting 
 towns, but Connecticut insisted upon a settlement according to 
 the Charters. Petitions, letters, threats, and even the violence that 
 followed on the part of Massachusetts, seemed useless. An appeal 
 to the Crown was thought to be the only remedy. Rhode Island, 
 whose northern boundary was likewise unsettled, offered to join 
 Connecticut in the appeal. A Committee that was appointed by 
 
 * Dated April 13, 1749; vol. iii. as before. 
 
 t July 2S, 1749. 
 
 J August 7, 1749; vol. iii. as above. 
 
SHEFFIELD 
 
 NEW MARLB( 
 
 SALISBURY 
 
 CANAAN 
 
 N 
 
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 63 
 
 these two Colonies, April 4, 1752, to look up evidence, reported that 
 the Woodward and Saffery first station was seven miles and fifty-six 
 rods, instead of three miles, south of the southernmost part of the 
 Charles River, and therefore, Massachusetts held a tract of over four 
 miles which did not belong to her, the whole length of the line. 
 This report with other facts about the case were sent to England in 
 1753* Within the next two years, Massachusetts and Connecticut 
 each made surveys of the line, which, with other evidence, were sent 
 abroad. Lord Mansfield, at that time the Attorney-General, said 
 regarding the dispute : — 
 
 " I am of opinion that in settling the above bound, the Crown will 
 not disturb the settlement of the two Provinces in 1713." 
 
 But England was engrossed in the Seven Years' War, and there is 
 no evidence to show that the controversy was ever brought before 
 the Crown. Though Massachusetts would not openly recede, Con- 
 necticut continued to govern Enfield, Suffield, and Woodstock. Mas- 
 sachusetts continued until the Revolution to levy taxes without 
 collecting them, and to send notices of fast days and elections to 
 the three towns; and as late as 1768 claimed that she had not 
 given up jurisdiction, and warned the towns not to pay taxes to 
 Connecticut. Woodstock f sent a petition May 2, 1 77 1 , to the Gen- 
 eral Assembly, stating that her north line or the Colony line should 
 be about four and a half miles farther north, according " to the 
 manifest intent of the Province Charter," and asked that the boun- 
 dary might be fixed. But as Connecticut had the towns, she refused 
 to reopen the question.^ The strip of land§ in Woodstock north 
 of the Colony line, as fixed in 171 3, was lost after Woodstock revolted 
 and became Province territory of Massachusetts. It was known as 
 
 * Miss Lamed, vol. i. 493. j Woodstock Records. 
 
 J In the Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston, is a copy of a map of New England 
 published in England by Thomas Jeffreys, in 1774, in which the towns of Suffield and Enfield 
 are represented to be within the bounds of Massachusetts. This error was owing to the fact 
 that the map of "Koneknikut" was taken chiefly from the survey of Gardner and Kellock, 
 made in 1737, at which time the above-named towns belonged to Massachusetts. 
 
 § About 3,000 acres. See Map X., page 57. 
 
SHEFFIELD 
 
 SALISBURY 
 
 NEW MARLBOROUGH 
 
 50UTHF1ELD 
 
 CANAAN 
 
 NORFOLK COLEBROOK 
 
 ThlHillolJp Pilntfnj <i> m'VKMfi S.8W*n. 
 
 
 
 # 1 
 
 
 < - ru p„, 
 
 
 *^*— - 1 
 
 i 
 
 D 
 
 
] 
 
6 4 
 
 THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 the "Middlesex Gore," for forty-five years* and in 1794 was annexed 
 to Dudley and Sturbridge. 
 
 Connecticut has been blamed for taking back the towns for which 
 Massachusetts had paid her. But, as Massachusetts had settled the 
 towns when she had no right to do so according to her Charter, it was 
 right that she should pay Connecticut for the advantages accruing to 
 her from such settlements, and it was perfectly right for Connecticut 
 now to assume jurisdiction over the towns, for they had always strictly 
 belonged to Connecticut. 
 
 * Holmes Ammidown's Historical Collections, vol. i. 304. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 POINTS AT ISSUE BETWEEN MASSACHUSETTS AND CONNECTICUT 
 FROM 1774 UNTIL 1826. 
 
 T N 1 774 Connecticut attached land in Southwick, south of the Colony- 
 line * and ten years later a Committee was appointed to establish 
 the bounds at this point ; but it took a score of years to settle this tri- 
 fling matter, so tenacious was each Colony of every inch of territory. 
 In 1793 both States appointed Commissioners to ascertain the bounda- 
 ries of Southwick, Sandisfield, New Marlborough, and farther west to 
 the New York line ; and four years later, joint Commissioners were 
 appointed to examine the line east of the Connecticut River. They 
 reported that the line was nearly all t correct except a tract of about 
 two and a half miles square at Southwick, which Massachusetts thought 
 she should have to compensate for the towns she had lost. Connecti- 
 cut refused, 1801. Massachusetts, however, 1803, was willing to com- 
 promise. So, in 1804, it was arranged that Connecticut should keep a- 
 slice of Southwick,!: and Massachusetts should hold the land west of 
 the pond in Southwick, § the same indentation into Connecticut she 
 holds to-day. 
 
 In May, 18 10, Connecticut appointed another Committee to examine 
 the line east of the Connecticut River, but no report can be found 
 
 * See Map XIV., opposite page. Copied from Colonial Boundaries of Connecticut. Hart- 
 ford MSS., vol. iii. p. 171. 
 
 t " Nearly all " probably refers to the jog at Union and Woodstock corners. 
 
 J I.e., portion marked B in Map XIV. 
 
 § I. e., portion marked A in Map. XIV. See also Map XIII., page 63, which is a copy of 
 Map LI I., in State House, Boston. This survey is similar to the survey that Nathaniel 
 Spencer made in 1803, a copy of which is in the State House, Hartford. 
 
65 THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 until May 13, 1822* when Commissioners agreed in all points, as in 
 1 71 3, with the exception of the Gore at Union. As the northeast 
 corner of Woodstock had extended into Massachusetts one hundred 
 and twenty rods, and the northwest corner forty-eight rods,t a jog had 
 been left in the Colony line between Woodstock and the corner of 
 Union. This was the only point at issue in the report. The jog was 
 corrected in 1826, November 3,$ when a report was agreed to by both 
 States, and the long-contested controversy with Massachusetts was 
 ended. 
 
 * See Map XI., page 59. Copy of Map L., in State House, Boston. This survey is similar 
 to the survey made by Silas Holman in 1821, a copy of which is in State House, Hartford. 
 
 t See Map XII., page 61. Copy ot plan of Woodstock, in Connecticut State Library in 
 " Town and Lands," vol. v.'ii p. 237 (1762). This map is similar to the map of Woodstock 
 in the State House, Boston, made in 1713, when Woodstock belonged to Massachusetts. See 
 " Ancient Plans " (Town Plans), vol i. 244. 
 
 J See Map XV., opposite page. Copy of Map LIIL, in State House, Boston. 
 
£?S£S5":v3L?4*&" 
 
 ■^T-VfA- 
 
 Enfield 
 
 Somers 
 
 [if rHTHf^H-+i^H r H!li^^ 
 
 Staffed 
 
 f 
 
 ft-Hg . 
 
 Wood stock 
 
 & * \\ '«. 
 
 i 
 
 1:.- A ^/-|1 
 
 \ii 
 
 ■ 
 
 I fiompson 
 
Sraffcrd 
 
 w 
 
 
 i 5 MS 
 
 ifi 
 I 
 
 IV HolioiynPnn&w 0> illTraiumt St.Bosta 
 
M, 
 
 Sh&KerVill&ge Bit 
 
 Enfield 
 
 Som ers 
 
PART IV. 
 
 CONNECTICUT'S BOUNDARY DISPUTES WITH 
 NEW YORK. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 DISPUTES BETWEEN NEW YORK AND CONNECTICUT FROM 1664 
 UNTIL 1731. 
 
 ' I "HE boundary dispute that Connecticut had with New York was 
 very long, very tedious, and very bitter. The early quarrels 
 with the Dutch, and the provisional treaty of 1650,* have already been 
 spoken of. Soon after the Royal Charter to Connecticut had been 
 granted the King gave, March 12, 1664, a Patent to his brother, James, 
 Duke of York, of an extensive tract in North America, which included 
 " all that island or islands commonly called by the general name or names 
 of Meitowax or Long Island . . . and all the land from the west side of 
 Connecticut River to the east side of Delaware Bay," &c. The receipt of 
 this intelligence filled New England with fear, and especially alarmed 
 Connecticut. A fleet was fitted out in England, and under the command 
 of Colonel Richard Nichols sailed across the ocean and surprised the 
 Dutch. New Amsterdam surrendered, August 27, and the settlement 
 was called New York in honor of the Royal Duke. At the next meeting 
 of the General Assembly, Connecticut t thought it expedient, October 
 13, 1664, to send Commissioners to New York to congratulate His Maj- 
 esty's Honorable Commissioners, and to establish the boundaries between 
 the Colony and the Duke's Patent. One agreement was written out and 
 very nearly made, declaring that Connecticut should not come within 
 twenty miles of the Hudson River,:}: but as it did not receive the signatures 
 of the contracting parties it had no force. New York historians, like 
 
 * Ante p. 17. 
 
 t Connecticut Public Records, 1636-1665, p. 435. 
 
 t November 30, 1664. New York Colonial MSS., vol. Ixix. 4. 
 
7o 
 
 THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 Brodhead, are therefore wrong when they declare : " It was well known 
 that it had been settled in 1664 that the boundary should be everywhere 
 twenty miles from Hudson's River." * The agreement actually made t 
 declared that Long Island belonged to New York, and " that the creek 
 or river called Momoroneck which is reputed to be about thirteen miles 
 to the east of West Chester, and a line drawn from the east point or 
 side where the fresh waterfalls into the salt at high water,^ north-north- 
 west to the line of the Massachusetts, be the western bounds of the said 
 Colony of Connecticut ; and all plantations lying westward of that creek 
 and line so drawn to be under His Royal Highness' government, and 
 all plantations lying eastward of that creeke and line to be under the 
 government of Connecticut." It has been stated § that the boundary 
 line should have started near Stamford, or twenty miles from the Hud- 
 son River, and run due north to the Massachusetts line, but there was 
 no phrase about twenty miles written in the agreement really signed, 
 and it appears that Connecticut has been unjustly criticised for the part 
 she took in the agreement of 1664. Yet she yielded everything and 
 gained nothing. The line running north-northwest crossed the Hud- 
 son River near Peekskill and touched the boundary of Massachusetts 
 near the northwest corner of Ulster County in New York State. But 
 the boundary was never surveyed, though Connecticut asked New 
 York to join her in 1670; || and in 1674 appointed a Committee "to 
 runn the lyne . , , from Momoroneck River to Hudson's River." *\\ 
 Though a few settlements were made up the Hudson by Connecticut 
 people in virtue of the treaty of 1664,** yet the agreement was never 
 confirmed by the Crown, and New York refused to abide by it. When 
 the English by the treaty of Westminster again took possession of 
 New York a new Patent was granted to the Duke of York, June 29, 
 1674, like the one executed ten years before, and he 'Seemed deter- 
 
 * See Brodhead's History of New York, vol. i. 253. 
 
 f December 1, 1664. New York Colonial MSS., vol. xxii. 5 and vol. lix 5. 
 
 t See line A B, Map III., page 17. 
 
 § Brodhead's History of New York, vol. ii. 56. 
 
 || Connecticut Public Records, 1665-1677, p. 144. 
 
 IF lb., p. 242. 
 
 ** Connecticut Public Records, [67S-16S9, p. 100. 
 
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 71 
 
 mined to preserve the utmost limits prescribed in his charter.* A copy 
 of the new Patent was sent to Connecticut, and, when submission to it 
 was asked, reference to the 1664 arrangement was made. But this 
 agreement — so the Governor of New York said — was not binding; 
 for even if it had been confirmed the new Patent would set it aside. 
 Connecticut was now said to be in a state of "rebellion." When, a 
 few years after, May 11, 1682, a settlement was made above Tarrytown 
 by a New-Yorker, and warrants for arrests had been issued by the New 
 York Governor for people in Rye, Greenwich, and Stamford, Con- 
 necticut objected, and the boundary question was revived.! The Gov- 
 ernors of the respective States in long letters to each other explained 
 their rights. New York claimed twenty miles east of the Hudson 
 River, and said the Royal Commissioners had been verbally told by the 
 Connecticut Commissioners in 1664 that the Mamaroneck River was 
 " twenty miles everywhere from the Hudson's River," as credible wit- 
 nesses could testify.:]: If Connecticut would not allow this, New York 
 threatened that all the territory as far as the Connecticut River would 
 be claimed. The issue of the correspondence was the appointment of 
 Commissioners by each Colony in 1683 to settle upon the line. 
 
 They met and concluded an agreement November 28. The Byram 
 River, between the towns of Rye and Greenwich, was established as 
 the westernmost bounds of Connecticut ; or from Lyon's Point, at the 
 mouth of the Byram River, up the stream to the wading-place, thence 
 north-northwest eight English miles, thence twelve miles eastward 
 parallel to the Sound, and thence in a line parallel to and twenty 
 miles from the Hudson River north to the Massachusetts line.§ As 
 the first part of the above bounds brought a part of Connecticut less 
 than twenty miles from the Hudson River, it was further agreed 
 that New York should receive from Connecticut along the remainder 
 of her western boundary as much territory as Connecticut took from 
 
 * " Boundaries of the State of New York : " letter of Duke of York to Governor Andros ; 
 New York Colonial Documents, vol. iii. 230, 235, 236, 238. 
 
 t Report of New York Boundary Commissioners, 1857, p. 42, 43, 105, 106. 
 
 X Connecticut Public Documents, 1678-89, p. 329. 
 
 § New York Colonial MSS., vol. lix. 10. Connecticut Public Records, 1678-89, p. 330. 
 See Map III., page 17, and Map XVI., page 74. 
 
7 2 
 
 THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 New York at Greenwich and along the Sound. This agreement 
 deprived Connecticut of Rye, a fact that was severely felt by the 
 inhabitants of that town. In the tract along the Sound, Connecti- 
 cut to-day has Greenwich, Stamford, Darien, New Canaan, Norwalk, 
 and part of Wilton, to which New York yielded all claim. In 
 return, New York received a strip of territory a mile and three 
 quarters and twenty rods wide along the side of Connecticut, which, 
 as before stated, was parallel to and twenty miles distant from the 
 Hudson River. This land was called the Oblong or the Equivalent 
 Tract,* and was estimated to be about 61,440 acres. 
 
 It was perfectly right for Connecticut to continue to exercise juris- 
 diction over Greenwich and adjacent towns, for she had settled them 
 and they were within her chartered bounds. The fact that they came 
 within twenty miles of the Hudson River allowed Connecticut no less 
 to govern them. What virtue was there, therefore, in the quitclaim 
 that New York gave of these towns, and what right had she to demand 
 in return the Oblong ? For giving away something she never possessed 
 she received something to which she had no claim. The so-called 
 "Equivalent Lands" seem then a misnomer. 
 
 Part of the survey, as far as the Ridgefield Angle, was made 
 according to the terms of the above agreement, and the Commissioners 
 referred it to the two governments for confirmation and ratification, t 
 Connecticut wished the entire line surveyed, and appointed Surveyors 
 for that purpose,:): but there is no evidence that it was at that time 
 done. The Governors, however, signed the agreement ; but there was 
 a fifteen years' delay before the Crown confirmed it. Meanwhile 
 disorders occurred in Rye and Greenwich.§ Rye was settled by the 
 English, but by the agreement of 1650 was governed by the Dutch. 
 It was claimed by Connecticut in 1662, and formally became a Con- 
 necticut plantation in 1665. Until 1683 it was under the jurisdiction 
 of that State, when it was transferred to New York. From 1683 until 
 1697 Rye's submission to New York was not loyal; and in January, 
 
 * See Maps III., page 17, and XVI., page 74. 
 
 f October 10, 1684. New York Senate Documents, 1857, No. 195, p. 114. 
 
 t May 8, 16S4. Connecticut Public Records, 1678-S9, p. 141. 
 
 § Charles W. Eaird's History of Rye. 
 
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 7, 
 
 1697, the town revolted to Connecticut, under whose protection she 
 continued for nearly five years, or until the agreement of 1683 was 
 confirmed * by the King, when Connecticut, much against her own 
 inclination and the wishes of the people of Rye, again gave the town 
 up to the State of New York. It might be added, that, as late as 
 October 12, 17 10, Captain Clapp, of Rye, asked Connecticut for a 
 patent of land in the town bought of the Indians, but was refused on 
 the ground that Rye belonged to New York;t and, in May, 1717, Rye 
 petitioned the General Assembly of Connecticut in reference to the 
 boundary dispute between Rye and Greenwich, £ and was answered 
 that the line had been already settled. 
 
 The town of Bedford had also belonged to Connecticut, and by the 
 agreement of 1683 would have been transferred to New York had 
 not the King's death occurred soon after. § In 1688 Bedford voted 
 to raise money to take out a Patent under Connecticut, which she 
 received in 1697. When Rye and Bedford were threatened by New 
 York, in 1696, Connecticut agreed to protect them, and even assisted 
 in the following year with fifty armed men. But the old agreement 
 having received the approval of William III., Connecticut ceased quar- 
 relling, and proposed, October, 1700, that New York should join with 
 her in "running said' line and erecting boundmarks." j| 
 
 But New York was dissatisfied with the boundary, and refused. 
 After several applications ^[ Connecticut finally appealed to the King. 
 New York yielded, and on June 25, 17 19, appointed Commissioners 
 to survey the line and erect monuments. The following year, 
 April 2, 1720, Connecticut appointed Commissioners to survey the 
 line " with all convenient speed," ** but as New York delayed to 
 " join them upon that service " Governor Saltonstall again wrote, 
 March 11, 1723, saying that Connecticut "is very desirous [the 
 survey] may not any longer be delayed, since it's necessary for the 
 
 * March 28, 1700. 
 f Bolton's History of Westchester. 
 
 J Towns and Lands Hartford MSS., vol. iii., document 106. 
 § Charles II. died, February 6, 16S5. 
 || Connecticut Public Records, 16S9-1706, p. 335. 
 
 If 1713, 1718, &c. Connecticut Public Records; Hollister, vol. i. 348. 
 ** Connecticut Public Records, 1717-25, p. 170. 
 
74 
 
 THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 quiet of the Borders and improvement of their lands." But a long 
 and tedious correspondence continued between the two States until 
 1725, when articles of agreement were made and concluded at Green- 
 wich, April 29, which were substantially the same as the old agreement 
 of 1683* The survey was partly made when a disagreement arose. 
 The Connecticut Commissioners said that the Oak Trees t marked in 
 1684 should be considered as a bound-mark, but the New York 
 Commissioners held that the line should be resurveyed to correct 
 mistakes if any had been made.ij: In consequence of this dispute the 
 party broke up after the survey along the Sound had been finished, 
 and the work was left incomplete. 
 
 But in 1 731 a joint survey was made; and the controversy seemed 
 at last to be settled. The survey was continued from the point 
 where it was left unfinished in 1725, but in marking off the Oblong 
 a mistake was made which has never since been corrected. Instead of 
 surveying the line IK, § the line PG, twenty miles distant from the 
 Hudson River, was surveyed, and from this line surveys were made at 
 right angles at 47, 42, 40, 37, &c, eastward a mile and three quarters 
 and twenty rods, where monuments were erected. A line drawn 
 through these monuments was fixed as the boundary between New 
 York and Connecticut. But owing to the hilly nature of the country 
 and the variations of the compass, the line was a crooked one and 
 bulged still farther into the State of Connecticut instead of being 
 straight from / to K as was intended. Yet for the next hundred and 
 twenty-five years there was no dispute respecting this crooked boun- 
 dary line. The Oblong, according to the agreement of 1731, was 
 formally ceded to New York. The very day after the agreement 
 was ratified, a Patent was passed in London for the purpose of 
 giving the whole tract to parties in England. || But the right to 
 hold the lands continued with the old owners, though the British 
 patentees brought a bill in Chancery to uphold their claims. 
 
 * New York Colonial MSS., vol. Ixix. 51. Connecticut Private Laws, vol. ii. 1527. 
 
 t Or Duke's Trees. See Map VII , page 41. 
 
 t New York Colonial MSS., vol. Ixix. 53. 
 
 § See Map XVI., opposite page. Copy of diagram in State House, Hartford. 
 
 || Bolton's History of Westchester County. 
 
(Jffice, J fir-re/a ry of, ffa/c 
 
 'jOf/S AT OS/Of. -S/777('/5i. (f 
 
 '/}/e> £?z> /His f////r# . 
 
 mvcWnjn' 
 
 >f»*"W 
 
 Scale of Miles 
 
 J31A€rRAM iilusl-rttti ng IrJne- pur ueus made in 172A" 
 and 1731 to establish Vr\c.Bou«\cVuTyLint teVwteii. JfeW 
 YotK auk C(mnwV\&\xY ; UY\kstawv\^ Vht'uujjvAo^ 
 \V\es s\ V\\t Vjtmw&tvruoA ftw en\arafc& scuta. 
 
 ThelieliotyfePnntms Cb lllTremoiit St.Bostar 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE CLAIMS OF CONNECTICUT TO WESTERN LANDS AND TO ISLANDS 
 IN THE SOUND. 
 
 TT should be distinctly understood that Connecticut did not mean by 
 the agreement of 1731 to give up all claim to Western lands 
 which according to her Charter extended to the Pacific Ocean. As 
 the Duke of York had claimed as far east as the Connecticut River, 
 it seemed politic to effect a compromise as far as New York was con- 
 cerned. In the letter that Governor Saltonstall sent to the Board of 
 Trade in London in 1720, referred to in the dispute with Rhode 
 Island, he said : * " On the west New York have carried their claim 
 and government through this Colony from south to north and cut tcs 
 asunder twenty miles east of Hudson's River." t This is proof that 
 Connecticut's claim to lands west of New York was not, as has been 
 said, a new claim asserted in 1754 in connection with the "Susque- 
 hanna Company," an association that planted a new Colony with the 
 approval of the General Assembly west of the Delaware River in the 
 Wyoming Valley 4 Connecticut, despite the protests of Pennsylvania, 
 assumed the jurisdiction of the Wyoming settlement, which was incor- 
 porated under the name of Westmoreland, and annexed to Litchfield 
 County. Titles to these Connecticut lands were afterwards con- 
 firmed § by the State of Pennsylvania, though Connecticut had been 
 obliged to give up || the right of jurisdiction. 
 
 * Dated New Haven, September 14. See copy of letter in Colonial Boundaries, Hartford 
 MSS., vol. i. The original is in State Paper Office, London. 
 
 f See also in Map VII. that the so-called western line of Connecticut was claimed by New 
 York as the eastern line of New York ; but such claim was not allowed by Connecticut. 
 
 % Hildreth's History of United States, vol. ii. 445. 571 ; vol. iii. 471. 
 
 § March 28, 17S7. || November, 17S2. 
 
76 
 
 THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 The tract in Ohio on Lake Erie known as the " Connecticut Re- 
 serve " also belonged to Connecticut under the terms of her Charter, 
 but was sold in 1795, for $1,200,000, which sum has since been a fund 
 for supporting the Common Schools of the State. A quitclaim deed 
 given by Connecticut to these lands in 1800 also ended a long dispute 
 regarding a piece of territory along the southwest part of New York 
 State called the " Connecticut Gore." 
 
 There has been some controversy between Connecticut and New 
 York regarding the jurisdiction of a few islands in Long Island 
 Sound. New York said that the southern boundary of Connecticut 
 extended along the shore and no farther, and therefore islands along 
 the coast belonged to New York. Fishers' Island, discovered by the 
 Dutch in 16 14, was granted by Massachusetts to John Winthrop in 
 1640, and the grant was confirmed by Connecticut the following year. 
 But the island was included in the Duke of York's patent in 1664, 
 and has ever since belonged to New York. New York attempted 
 about the year 1750 to grant letters-patent for Calves Island near the 
 mouth of the Byram River, but the owner, Joseph Banks, a citizen of 
 Greenwich, protested, and Connecticut now holds the island.* From 
 1761 to 1765 there was a lawsuit respecting the jurisdiction of Great 
 Captain's Island, and Little Captain's Island,! also near the mouth of 
 the Byram River, which was decided in favor of Connecticut. 
 
 It seems that John Anderson, a citizen of New York, owned these 
 islands under a New York Patent, and was sued for trespass by Justus, 
 David, and William Bush, and by John Gregg, all citizens of Connect- 
 icut. Cadwallader Colden, the Lieutenant-Governor of New York, 
 asked X Governor Fitch of Connecticut, to settle the dispute by refer- 
 ring it to George III., in his Privy Council. Connecticut refused. 
 But meanwhile the suit against Anderson had proceeded, and the final 
 judgment § was that the islands belonged to Connecticut. Yet the 
 
 * September 29, 1750. New York Land Papers MSS., vol xiv. 85. 
 
 f See Map XVII. page 79. 
 
 % See letter written February 12, 1765. 
 
 § Justus Bush et al. v. John Anderson. Decided in favor of plaintiffs, February 23, 
 1765. See Records of Superior Court of Connecticut, and Boundaries of the State of New 
 York. Also Blatchford's Circuit Court Reports, vol. ix. p. 41. 
 
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 77 
 
 dispute again arose, for the Commissioners appointed by New York 
 in 1855 say: " There is also a controversy respecting the jurisdiction 
 over Captain's Island." But Connecticut has never yielded the claims 
 she had to these small islands in the sound near her shores. In 1871 
 the question was raised regarding the jurisdiction of Goose Island,* a 
 small island lying a mile off Nonvalk and about two miles to the east- 
 ward of Captain's Island. As a stench had proceeded from the island 
 to the house of John H. Keyser, on the main land, Enoch Coe the 
 owner of the island was sued. The defendant held that the island 
 belonged to New York, and that therefore the Connecticut Judge had 
 no jurisdiction in the case. But New York in fact had never claimed 
 Goose Island, and the judicial decision was that the island belonged 
 to Connecticut.! 
 
 * See Map XVII., page 79. 
 
 t See Blatchford's Circuit Court Reports, vol. ix. p. 32. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 DISPUTES BETWEEN NEW YORK AND CONNECTICUT FROM 1855 UNTIL 
 FINAL SETTLEMENT IN 18S0. 
 
 A FEW words more should be added about the boundary line 
 between New York and Connecticut. In 1S55 as most of the 
 old bound marks had been removed or destroyed, and as the people 
 along the line had been evading the payment of' taxes to both States 
 on the ground that they did not know to which State they belonged, 
 it was thought best by Connecticut to appoint Commissioners " to 
 ascertain the boundary line . . . and erect suitable monuments* " 
 New York appointed Commissioners, and a joint line was run to the 
 last angle,! but from this point fifty-two miles north to the Massachu- 
 setts line a difference of opinion arose. The New-Yorkers, differing 
 from the Commissioners of 1725 from their own State when a similar 
 point was raised, thought the old or traditionary line should be found 
 and new monuments placed thereon. But the Connecticut officials 
 said that the old landmarks could not be found, and a new straight 
 line should be surveyed. A straight line was accordingly run, which 
 differed considerably from the traditionary line. The amount of land 
 between the two lines i: was found to be about twenty-six hundred 
 acres, and the tract at its greatest breadth was forty-two rods wide. § 
 If the mistake were corrected, Connecticut would gain several hundred 
 inhabitants and a small village, called " Hitchcock's Corners," on the 
 borders of the town of Sharon. New York refused to yield, and the 
 
 * Connecticut Resolves and Private Laws, vol. iv. 841. 
 t See Map XVI., page 74. 
 
 t Between black and dotted lines from I to K, Map XVI. 
 § Report of New York Commissioners, April 10, 1857. 
 
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 79 
 
 matter rested until 1859, when new Commissioners were appointed by 
 each State. The survey was again made, but Connecticut insisted 
 that the straight line should be the boundary, which was not allowed, 
 and the party broke up as before. The following year New York em- 
 powered the Commissioners of 1859 "to survey and mark with suit- 
 able monuments the line between the two States as fixed by the survey 
 of 173 1." The Connecticut Commissioners refused to join them unless 
 her claims as above stated were allowed, and so New York ran an 
 ex parte line, erecting monuments a mile apart. 
 
 Still unsettled, the question again came up by Connecticut threaten- 
 ing to contest her claims, and in 1878 and 1879 both States appointed 
 Commissioners to establish the boundaries. An agreement * was made 
 whereby the western boundary of Connecticut was fixed as the ex parte 
 line surveyed by New York in i860, which was the old line of 1 731. 
 Connecticut therefore gave up her claim to the twenty-six hundred 
 acres in dispute, in exchange for which her southern boundary was 
 extended into the Sound.t — " beginning at a point in the centre of the 
 Channel, about six hundred feet south of the extreme rocks of Byram 
 Point, thence running in a true southeast course three and one quar- 
 ter statute miles, thence in a straight line northeasterly to a point 
 four statute miles true south of New London light-house," thence 
 through Fisher's Island Sound, and on " so far as said States are coter- 
 minous." The above agreement was ratified by the Legislatures of 
 both States, and Congress, during the session of 1880-81, confirmed 
 the ratification. 
 
 * December 5, 1879. Report published by New York in 1880. 
 
 f See Map XVII., opposite page. This is the first published map showing the complete 
 boundary lines of the State of Connecticut. 
 
INDEX. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Acres claimed by New York, 78. 
 
 Acres lost to Massachusetts, 63. 
 
 " Affaires " of Plymouth Council, 14. 
 
 Aggressions of Rhode Island, 34. 
 
 Agreement of 1713, 61. 
 
 Agreement, the Winthrop-Clarke, 39. 
 
 Agreement with New York, 74. 
 
 Ammidown's Historic Collections, 19, 61, 64. 
 
 Ancient Plans, 66. 
 
 Anderson, John, 76. 
 
 Andros, Sir Edmund, 43, 71. 
 
 Angle with New York, 74. 
 
 Anne, Queen, 26. 
 
 Annexation to New Hampshire, 47. 
 
 Appeal of Connecticut and Rhode Island, 
 
 (ch. in.), 43- 
 Appeal to the Crown, 62. 
 Arbitrators for Winthrop and Clarke, 33. 
 Archives, Massachusetts, 19 
 Arnold, Governor Benedict, 37. 
 Arnold's History of Rhode Island, 31, 43, 
 
 46, 47- 
 Arrest in disputed territory, 44. 
 Arrests by New York in Connecticut, 71 
 Arrests in Wickford, 34. 
 Ashawage River, 48. 
 Ashaway River, 45. 
 Ashford, 26, 60. 
 
 Ashurst, Sir Henry, 26, 44. 57, 58. 
 Assembly, General, of Connecticut, 43, 46, 
 
 °9- 73- 
 
 Atherton, Captain, 31. 
 Atherton Company, 32, 33, 39. 
 Atherton, John, 38. 
 Atherton, Mr., 41. 
 Atherton purchase, 33. 
 Attorney-general of England, 44. 
 Atwater's History of the Colony of New 
 Haven, 24. 
 
 Baird's History of Rye, 17, 72. 
 
 Bancroft's History of the United States, 13, 
 
 21. 
 Banks, Joseph, 76. 
 Bartlett, John R., iii. 
 Bay, Delaware, 69. 
 Bay, Greenwich, 17. 
 Bay, Narragansett, 20, 32, 35, 46, 47. 
 Bay, Oyster, 17, 27. 
 Beardsley's Life of Johnson, 25. 
 Bedford, 73. 
 Bellamont, Earl of, 44. 
 Bissell's House, 54, 57. 
 Blatchford's Circuit Court Reports, 76, 77. 
 Block, Adrian, 13. 
 Block Island, 13. 
 
 Board of Trade, London, 44, 45, 46, 47, 75. 
 Bolton's History of Westchester, 73, 74. 
 Bolton Notch, 26. 
 Boston, 61. 
 
 Boston State House, maps in, 65, 66. 
 Boundaries, movable, 9. 
 Boundary Commission, Connecticut and 
 
 Rhode Island, 46. 
 Boundary disputes with Massachusetts, 
 
 (Part III.), 51. 
 Boundary disturbances with Rhode Island, 
 
 (Part II.), 29. 
 Boundary of Rhode Island, western, 48. 
 Boundary of 1728, 48. 
 Boundary, southern, 15. 
 Boundmarks, 73. 
 Bowen, Henry, 61, 62. 
 Bradley, R., 62. 
 Brenton, 44. 
 
 Brodhead's History of New York, 13, 70. 
 Brookhaven, 27. 
 
 Brooks, Lord, grant made to, 15. 
 Brown, John Carter, 22. 
 
Burrillville, 49. 
 
 Bush, David, 76. 
 
 Bush, Justus, 76. 
 
 Bush, William, 76. 
 
 Bush lawsuit, 76. 
 
 Butcher, John, 54. 
 
 Byram River, 17, 41, 71, 76, 79. 
 
 Cabots, the voyagers, 13. 
 
 Canada line, 13. 
 
 Calves Island, 76. 
 
 Captain's Island, 77. 
 
 Carlisle, Earl of, 21. 
 
 Carr, John, 37. 
 
 Carter-Brown library, 22. 
 
 Caulkins's History of New London, 13, 
 
 Chancery, Court of, 74. 
 
 Chandler, Colonel William, 61. 
 
 Chandler, John, surveyor, 58. 
 
 Chandler, Thomas, 61, 62. 
 
 Channel of Long Island Sound, 79. 
 
 Charles I., 14, 20, 21, 26, 27. 
 
 Charles II., 20, 40, 41. 
 
 Charles II., dead, 73. 
 
 Charles River, 14, 19, 54. 
 
 Charter of Massachusetts, 54. 
 
 Charter of Rhode Island, 33, 43, 46. 
 
 Charter, ,£500 for, 20. 
 
 Charters, revocation of, 58. 
 
 Cheseborough, William, 31. 
 
 Choate, Rufus, 9. 
 
 Circuit Court Papers, Blatchford, 76. 
 
 Claims, Narragansett, 39. 
 
 Claims of Connecticut to islands in Long 
 
 Island Sound, (ch. 11. ), 75. 
 Claims of Connecticut to Western Lands, 
 
 (ch. 11.), 75. 
 Claims of Connecticut upon Rhode Island, 
 
 (ch. 1.), 31. 
 Cliims of Massachusetts upon Rhode Island, 
 
 (ch. 1.), 31. 
 Claims, the Mohegan, (ch. v.), 25. 
 Claims to Connecticut soil, (Part I.), 11. 
 Clapp, Captain, 73. 
 Clap, President of Yale College, 15. 
 Clarke, Dr. John, agent of Rhode Island, 
 
 33- 
 Clarke, in London, 36. 
 Clark, Joseph, 41. 
 Clove, Captain Anthony, 28. 
 Cod, Cape, 13, 19. 
 Coe, Enoch, 77. 
 Colden, Cadwallader, Lieutenant-governor, 76. 
 
 " Colonial Boundaries," 31, 33, 34, 37, 43, 45, 
 47, S3. 54, 57, 58, 60, 65, 75. 
 
 Colonial Charter, necessity for, 19. 
 
 Colonial Records of Connecticut, 27, 31. 
 
 Colonial Records of Rhode Island, 45. 
 
 Commissioners, Federal, 32. 
 
 Commissioners for Connecticut, 54, 74, 75. 
 
 Commissioners from New York, 73, 77. 
 
 Commissioners of Massachusetts and Con- 
 necticut, 61, 65. 
 
 Commissioners of Rhode Island and Con- 
 necticut, 36, 47. 
 
 Commissioners of the United Colonies, 19, 
 22, 34, 39, 40. 
 
 Commissioners of 1702, 45. 
 
 Commissioners of 1793, 65. 
 
 Commissioners of 1859, 79. 
 
 Commissioners of 1878, 79. 
 
 Commissioners of 1879, 79- 
 
 Commissioners, Rhode Island, 46. 
 
 Commissioners, royal, 22, 23, 41. 
 
 Commissioners sent to New York, 69, 71. 
 
 Commission of 1713, 38. 
 
 Commission of 1719, 73. 
 
 Commission of 1724, 47. 
 
 Commission of 1725, 78. 
 
 Common Schools of Connecticut, 76. 
 
 Company, Atherton, 39. 
 
 Compensation to Massachusetts, 58, 65. 
 
 Conference at New London, 37. 
 
 Congress, final decision by, 79. 
 
 Connecticut and Mohegan Indians, 25. 
 
 Connecticut claims in Rhode Island, (ch. I.), 
 3°- 
 
 Connecticut, " Colonial Boundaries," 65. 
 
 Connecticut Commissioners, 54. 71, 74, 79. 
 
 Connecticut compensated by Massachusetts, 
 58. 
 
 Connecticut, Eastern, 22. 
 
 Connecticut, General Assembly of, 43. 
 
 Connecticut ''gore," 76. 
 
 Connecticut Patent, 15. 
 
 Connecticut Patent, old, ,£1600, 16. 
 
 Connecticut Plantation, 72. 
 
 Connecticut " Private Laws," 74. 
 
 Connecticut Public Documents, 71. 
 
 Connecticut Public Records, 69, 70, 71, 72, 
 73- 
 
 Connecticut refusal in 1801, 65. 
 
 Connecticut Reserve, 76. 
 
 Connecticut Resolves, 7S. 
 
 Connecticut River, 17, 19, 26, 59, 65, 69, 
 71, 75- 
 
 Connecticut River Falls, 53. 
 
85 
 
 Connecticut River Island, 53. 
 
 "Connecticut, River of," 21. 
 
 Connecticut River Rock, 25. 
 
 Connecticut, royal charter granted to, 69. 
 
 Connecticut sheriff, 44. 
 
 Connecticut State Library, 66. 
 
 Constables from Connecticut, in Massachu- 
 setts, 31. 
 
 Constables of Stonington, 43. 
 
 Controversy concerning Windsor and the 
 Intercolonial lines, (ch. I.), 53. 
 
 Controversy concerning Woodstock, Enfield, 
 and Suffield, (ch. in.), 60. 
 
 Controversy, long standing of, 9. 
 
 Controversy of Connecticut and Massachu- 
 setts, 1774-1826, (ch. tv.), 65. 
 
 Corners of towns, 49. 
 
 Council of Plymouth, 14, 21, 22. 
 
 Council of Trade, 23. 
 
 Council, Privy, 23. 
 
 Coventry, 48, 49. 
 
 Covvesett, 39. 
 
 Cranston, Governor, 40. 
 
 Danielsonville borough, 26. 
 
 Darien, 72. 
 
 DeCosta's discovery of Hudson River, 13. 
 
 Dedham Tree, 54. 
 
 Deed, Indian-Atherton, 41. 
 
 Deed, Indian-Hutchinson, 39, 41. 
 
 Deed, Indian-Winthrop, 41. 
 
 DeForest's History of the Indians in Con- 
 necticut, 16, 25. 
 
 Delaware Bay, 69. 
 
 Delaware River, 75. 
 
 Denison, George, a Connecticut sheriff, 44. 
 
 Dexter & Hopkins line, 47. 
 
 Disputes with Massachusetts, (Part II.), 51. 
 
 Disputes with New York, from 1855 to 1S81, 
 (Part IV.), 67, 69, 78. 
 
 Disputes with Rhode Island, from 1700 to 
 1840, (ch. iv.), 45. 
 
 Disturbances with Rhode Island till 1865, 
 (ch. 11.), 37. 
 
 Douglas's History of North America, 13. 
 
 Dudley, 64. 
 
 Dudley, Colonel William, 159. 
 
 Dudley, Governor, 25, 58. 
 
 Dudley, Governor, his Connecticut lands, 58. 
 
 " Duke's Trees," 41, 74. 
 
 Duration of controversy, 9. 
 
 Dutch at Hartford, 15 
 
 Dutch, controversy with, 13. 
 
 Dutch in Western Long Island, 27. 
 
 Dutch map, 14. 
 
 Dutch merchants, 13. 
 
 Dutch, purchase of, 15. 
 
 Dutch quarrels, 69. 
 
 Dutch, the, 19, 72. 
 
 Dwight's History of Connecticut, 13. 
 
 Eastern boundary, 39. 
 
 Eastern Connecticut, 22. 
 
 East Greenwich, 39. 
 
 Easthampton, 27. 
 
 Eaton, Governor, 16. 
 
 Eight grants, 21. 
 
 Endicott, John, 14, 32. 
 
 Enfield, 41, 54, 58, 59, 60, 63. 
 
 England's claims, 13. 
 
 English interest in Connecticut, 14, ) 
 
 " Equivalent Lands," 72. 
 
 " Equivalent Tract," 17, 59, 72. 
 
 Erie, Lake, 76. 
 
 Falls, Connecticut River, 53. 
 Falls, Ouinebaug, 26. 
 Federal Commissioners, 32. 
 Fenwick, Colonel George, 16. 
 First house in Connecticut, 15. 
 First Rhode Island Charter, 31, 32. 
 Fisher's Island, 13, 76. 
 Fisher's Island Sound, 79. 
 Fitch, Governor, 76. 
 Flushing, 27. 
 French War, 61. 
 
 Gain from New York, 78. 
 
 Gardner survey, 63. 
 
 General Assembly at Hartford, 54. 
 
 General Assembly of Connecticut, 43, 54, 60, 
 
 61, 63, 69, 73, 75. 
 General Assembly of Rhode Island, 46. 
 George II., 62. 
 George III., 76. 
 Gloucester, 49. 
 Gookin, Daniel, 35. 
 Goose Island, 77. 
 " Gore, The," at Union, 66. 
 " Gore, The Connecticut," 76. 
 Gorges, Lord Edward, 21. 
 Gosnold, Bartholomew, 13. 
 Grants, eight, 21. 
 Grants, Haven s History of, 21. 
 
86 
 
 Grant, the Hamilton, 22. 
 " Graunt," Rhode Island, 33. 
 Great Captain Island, 76. 
 Greenwich, 24, 71, 72, 73, 76. 
 Greenwich Bay, 17. 
 Greenwich, East, 30. 
 Greenwich, inhabitants of, IS. 
 Greenwich, West, 48. 
 Gregg, John, 76. 
 Gubernatorial letters, 71. 
 Guilford, 24. 
 Gustavus Adolphus, 21. 
 
 Haddam, East, 26. 
 
 Hamilton claims, (ch. III.), 21. 
 
 Hamilton, Duchess of, 22, 23. 
 
 Hamilton grant, 22. 
 
 Hamilton, Marquis of, 21, 22. 
 
 Hamilton title, 23. 
 
 Harris, arguments by, 34. 
 
 Harris, William, 40. 
 
 Hartford, 15, 16, 17, 18, 40, 54, 61, 65. 
 
 Hartford, General Court at 41. 
 
 Hartford MSS., 31, 34, 53, 73. 
 
 Hartford, State House at, 45. 
 
 Harvard College, 35, 36. 
 
 Harvard College land in Wickford, 36. 
 
 Haven, Samuel F., 21. 
 
 Haven's History of Grants, 21. 
 
 Hebron, 26. 
 
 Hell Gate, 13. 
 
 Hempstead, 27. 
 
 Hildreth's History of United States, 75. 
 
 Historical Collections of Holmes Ammidown, 
 19, 61, 64. 
 
 Historical statement about the Dutch contro- 
 versy, 13. 
 
 History of Connecticut, Dwight, 13. 
 
 History of Connecticut, Hollister, 13, 61, 73. 
 
 History of Connecticut, Trumbull, 13, 25, 53, 
 58, 61. 
 
 History of England, Ranlce, 21. 
 
 History of Grants, Haven, 21. 
 
 History of Long Island, Thompson, 27. 
 
 History of Massachusetts, Hutchinson, 13, 
 61. 
 
 History of New England, Neal, 13. 
 
 History of New England, Palfrey, 13, 42. 
 
 History of New Haven, Atwater, 24. 
 
 History of New London, Caulkins, 13, 
 
 History of New York, Brodhead, 13, 70. 
 
 History of New York, Smith, 13. 
 
 History of North America, Douglas, 13. 
 
 History of Rhode Island, Arnold, 31, 43, 46, 
 
 47- 
 History of Rye, Baird, 17, 72. 
 History of the Indians, DeForest, 16, 25. 
 History of United States. Bancroft, 13, 21. 
 History of United States, Hildreth, 75. 
 History of Westchester, 73, 74. 
 History of Windham County, Larned, 6r. 
 Hitchcock's Corners, 78. 
 Hoadley, Charles J., iii., 41. 
 Holland's claims, 13. 
 Holland, war in, iS. 
 
 Hollister's History of Connecticut, 13, 61, 73. 
 Holmes, William, 15. 
 Hopkins (see Dexter), 47. 
 House, first in Connecticut, 15. 
 " House of Good Hope," 15. 
 Hudson, a Mr., 34. 
 Hudson, Henry, 13. 
 
 Hudson River, 13, 17, 22, 41, 69, 70, 72, 74. 
 Hudson's River, 59, 70, 71, 75. 
 Huntington, 27. 
 Hutchinson, Captain, 34. 
 Hutchinson, Edward, 39, 41. 
 Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts, 13, 
 
 61. 
 
 Indentation of Massachusetts in Connecti- 
 cut, 65. 
 Indented towns, 61. 
 Indian Patent in Rye, 73. 
 Indians in Connecticut, history of, 25. 
 Indians, land bought from, 14. 
 Indians, Mohegan, 25. 
 Indians, Pequot, 16. 
 Indians, trade with, 13. 
 Island, Block, 13. 
 Island, Calves, 76. 
 Island, Captain's, 77. 
 Island, Connecticut River, 53. 
 Island, Fisher's, 13, 76. 
 Island, Goose, 77. 
 Island, Great Captain, 76. 
 Island, Little Captain, 76. 
 Island, Long, 7, 13, 17, 24, 27, 2S, 69, 70. 
 
 Jamaica, 27. 
 
 James, Duke of York, 69. 
 
 James I., 13. 
 
 Jenks, Governor, 47. 
 
 Jeffreys' map, 63. 
 
 Jeffreys, Thomas, 63. 
 
87 
 
 Jog of Woodstock in Massachusetts, 66 
 Johnson, William Samuel, 26. 
 Joint survey, 74. 
 Jurisdiction, Colonial, 43. 
 
 Kellock survey, 63. 
 
 Keyser, John H., 77. 
 
 Kieft, Governor, 16. 
 
 King Philip, 39. 
 
 King Philip's War, 38, 40. 
 
 King's Commissioners of 1665, 32, 34> 
 
 King's Province, 32. 
 
 Killingly, 26. 
 
 " Koneknikut," 63. 
 
 " Land of Steady Habits," 9. 
 
 Lands of Colonel William Dudley, 59. 
 
 Lands of Colonel William Whiting, 59. 
 
 Lands of Governor Dudley, 5S. 
 
 Lands of Hon. William Stoughton, 58. 
 
 Lands of Robert Thompson, 59. 
 
 Lands unimproved in New Hampshire, 58. 
 
 Lands unimproved in Western Massachu- 
 setts, 58. 
 
 Larned's History of Windham County, 61. 
 
 Latitudes, 57. 
 
 Law, Governor, 63. 
 
 Lawsuit, Bush versus Anderson, 75. 
 
 Lawsuit, Mason versus the Mohegans, 26. 
 
 Lawsuit, "stench," 77. 
 
 Leete, Governor, 40. 
 
 " Legalized robbery," 34. 
 
 Lennox, Duke of, 21. 
 
 Letters between Connecticut and Massachu- 
 setts, 53. 
 
 Letters between Rhode Island and Connecti- 
 cut, 38, 39, 40, 43. 
 
 Library, Carter-Brown, 22. 
 
 Library, Connecticut State, 66. 
 
 Limitations, statute of, 22. 
 
 Line north of Connecticut, 54. 
 
 Line of Dexter & Hopkins, 47. 
 
 Line of 1664, 17. 
 
 Line of 1703, 47. 
 
 Line of 1713, 62. 
 
 Line of Woodward & Saffery, 53. 
 
 Litchfield County, 75. 
 
 Little Captain Island, 76. 
 
 London, 20. 
 
 London arbitration, 35. 
 
 London board of trade, 44, 46, 47. 
 
 London merchants, 13. 
 
 London, Rhode Island represented in, 44. 
 
 Long Island, 7, 13, 17, 24, 27, 2S, 69, 70. 
 Long Island annexed to Connecticut, 28. 
 Long Island, controversy concerning, (ch. VI.), 
 
 27. 
 Long Island lost to Connecticut, 28. 
 Long Island Sound, 17, 71, 72, 74, 76, 79. 
 Lyme, 25. 
 Lyon's Point, 71. 
 
 Mahmunsqueeg, 26. 
 
 Mallett, Rhode Island sheriff, 44. 
 
 Mamaroneck River, 17, 71. (See Momoro- 
 neck.) 
 
 Mansfield, Lord, 63. 
 
 Maps in Boston State House, 65, 66. 
 
 Martha's Vineyard, 13. 
 
 Mason, Deputy-governor John, 25, 26, 37. 
 
 Mason heirs, 26. 
 
 Mason, Major, 32, 34. 
 
 Massachusetts agent in London, 62. 
 
 Massachusetts, Archives, 19, 54, 57. 
 
 Massachusetts Bay, emigrants from, 15. 
 
 Massachusetts Bay, Province of, 45. 
 
 Massachusetts Charter, 54. 
 
 Massachusetts claims upon Rhode Island, 
 (ch. I.), 31. 
 
 Massachusetts Colony, line, 19. 
 
 Massachusetts, compensation to, 63. 
 
 Massachusetts, disputes with, 15. 
 
 Massachusetts Historical Society, 63. 
 
 Massachusetts lands in Connecticut, 58. 
 
 Massachusetts Patent, 14. 
 
 Massachusetts Province, 53. 
 
 Meitowax, 69. 
 
 Memorials of Massachusetts and Connecti- 
 cut, (ch. II.), 57. 
 
 Merrimack River, 14. 
 
 Middlesex "gore," 64. 
 
 Minor, Thomas, 37. 
 
 Mohegan claims, (ch. v.), 25. 
 
 Mohegan controversy, 58. 
 
 Mohegan Country, 25. 
 
 Mohegan lawsuit, 26. 
 
 Momoroneck River, 70. (See Mamaroneck.) 
 
 Monuments, boundary, 48, 49, 78. 
 
 " Morhicans," 14. 
 
 Murderer sheltered in Rhode Island, 37. 
 
 Murphy's "Voyage of Verrazzano," 13. 
 
 Mystic, 32. 
 
 Mystic River, 31, 32. 
 
 NarracTansett, 34, 40, 41. 
 Narragansett (Wickford), 33, 38, 40. 
 
Narragansett Bay, 20, 32, 35, 46, 47. 
 
 Narragansett claims, 39. 
 
 Narragansett Country, 22, 31, 33, 36, 37, 38, 
 
 39. 4'. 42- 
 Narragansett River, 15, 20, 21, 33, 35, 41, 45. 
 Neal's History of New England, 13. 
 Nehantics, Western, 16. 
 New Amsterdam surrendered, 69. 
 Newburgli, 17. 
 New Cambridge County, 22. 
 New Canaan, 72. 
 New England coast, 13. 
 New Hampshire annexed, 47. 
 New Haven, 15, 16, 17. 
 New Haven, colony of, 15, 24. 
 New Haven, controversy with, (ch. IV.), 24. 
 New Haven Records, 24. 
 New Jersey coast, 14. 
 New London, 26, 36, 37. 
 New London conference, 36, 37. 
 New London light-house, 79. 
 New Marlborough, boundary of, 65. 
 New Netherland, 17. 
 Newtown, 27. 
 New York, 15, 28. 
 New York boundary, 76. 
 New York, captured by English, 28. 
 New York Colonial MSS , 70, 7r, 74. 
 New York, disputes with, 67, 69. 
 New York land papers, 76. 
 New York line, 59. 
 New York named, 69. 
 New York Patent, 76. 
 New York, report published by, 79. 
 New York Senate Documents, 72. 
 New York strip of territory, 72. 
 Nichols, Colonel Richard, 62, 69. 
 Nipmunk, 25. 
 North Carolina, 13. 
 Norwalk, 72, 77. 
 
 " Oak Trees," 74. 
 
 " Oblong, The," 74. 
 
 Oblong Tract, 72. 
 
 Observation by Taylor, 57. 
 
 Observation by Woodward & Saffery, 57. 
 
 Oestcr Riviertjen, 14. 
 
 Ohio, 76. 
 
 Old landmarks, 78. 
 
 Oyster Bay, 17, 27. 
 
 Pacific Ocean, 9, 14, 16, 20. 
 
 Palfrey's History of New England, 13, 42. 
 
 Parchment map, 19. 
 
 Parliamentary Charter, 31. 
 
 Patent, Connecticut, 15. 
 
 Patent granted, 70. 
 
 Patent, Massachusetts, 15. 
 
 Patent, New York, 76. 
 
 " Patuket," 39. 
 
 Pawcatuck, 32, 34, 41, 46. 
 
 Pawcatuck River, 31, 32, 33, 35. 36, 38, 39, 
 
 41, 43, 46, 47, 48- 
 Pawquatuck (Narragansett) River, 43. 
 Pawtuxet, 40. 
 Pawtuxet Proprietors, 40. 
 Peekskill, 17, 70. 
 Pemberton, Sir Francis, 23. 
 Pennsylvania protests, 75. 
 " Pequats," 14. 
 Pequot Conquest, 36. 
 Pequot Country, 31, 40, 41. 
 Pequot Indians, 16. 
 Pequots, 15. 
 Pequot War, 22, 31. 
 Philip, King, 39. 
 Pilgrims, the, 14. 
 
 Pitkin, William, commissioner, 58. 
 Plymouth, 14, 39. 
 
 Plymouth, Council of, 14, 16, 21, 22. 
 Plymouth merchants, 13. 
 Point Judith, 15. 
 Pomfret, 26. 
 
 Posse from Stonington, 37. 
 Poughkeepsie, 17. 
 Pratt, Daniel J., iii. 
 Privy Council, 23, 42, 47, 76. 
 Proclamation, Rhode Island, of 1676, 39. 
 Providence, State House at, 45. 
 Province charter, 63. 
 Province of Massachusetts Bay, 45. 
 Public Records of Connecticut, 69, 70. 
 Pynchon, Colonel John, 54. 
 
 Quarrels with the Dutch, 69. 
 Queens County, 27. 
 Quinebaug Falls, 26. 
 Quinebaug purchase, 33. 
 Quinebaug River, 26. 
 Quitclaim deed of 1800, 76. 
 Quitrents, 23. 
 
 Randall, John, 35. 
 Randolph, Edward. 22. 
 Ranke's History of England, 21. 
 
Rebellion in England, 16. 
 
 Rent refused by Indians, 35. 
 
 Report of Boundary Commissioners of Rhode 
 
 Island and Connecticut, 47, 48, 49. 
 Report published by New York in 18S0, 79. 
 Reserve, Connecticut, in the West, 76. 
 Restoration, the English, 16. 
 Revocation of Charter, 5S. 
 Revolution, the American, 26, 63. 
 Revolutionary taxes, 63. 
 Rhode Island and Connecticut, letters of, 
 
 40, 43- 
 Rhode Island Colonial Records, 45. 
 Rhode Island Commissioners, 48. 
 Rhode Island line, 33. 
 Rhode Island's demands, 35. 
 Rhode Island sheriff, 44. 
 Richards, John, 36. 
 Richardson, Stephen 40. 
 Ridgefield angle, 17, 72. 
 Ring given by Charles I. to Winthrop, 20. 
 River, Byram, 17, 41, 71, 76, 79. 
 River, Charles, 14, 19, 54. 
 River, Connecticut, 17, 19, 26, 59, 65, 69, 71, 
 
 75- 
 River, Delaware, 75. 
 River, Hudson, 13, 17, 22, 41, 59, 69, 70, 71, 
 
 72, 74, 75- 
 River, Mamaroneck, 17, 70, 71. 
 River, Merrimack, 14. 
 River, Narragansett, 15, 20, 21, 33, 35, 41, 
 
 45- 
 
 " River of Connecticut," 21. 
 
 River, Pawcatuck, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 
 
 41, 43, 46, 47, 48. 
 River, Ouinebaug, 26. 
 River, St. Lawrence, 14. 
 Rivier van Siccanemos, 14. 
 Robert, Earl of Warwick, 15. 
 Rock, Connecticut River, 25. 
 Roxbury, 61. 
 Royal Charter, 22, 25, 38. 
 Royal Charter granted to Connecticut, 69. 
 Royal Commissioners, 41, 71. 
 Rye, 71, 72, 73- 
 
 Saffery, Solomon, 19. 
 
 Saffery & Woodward, 57. (See Woodward.) 
 
 Saffin, Hon. John, Narragansett agent, 39, 40. 
 
 Salem, 14. 
 
 Saltonstall, Governor, 46, 73. 
 
 Saltonstall, Governor Gurdon, 57. 
 
 Saltonstall letter, 75. 
 
 Saltonstall, Sir Richard, grant made to, 15, 
 
 59- 
 Sandisfield, boundary of, 65. 
 Say and Seal, Lord, 15. 
 Saybrook, 15, 16, 19. 
 Schools of Connecticut, 76. 
 Seal, Royal, 32. 
 Second Charter, 32. 
 Settlement of 1713, (ch. 11.), 57. 
 Settlement with New York, (ch. in.), 78. 
 Settlers arrested, 32. 
 Seven Years' War, 63. 
 Sharon, 78. 
 
 Sheffield, Captain Joseph, 44. 
 Simsbury, 54. 
 Sing Sing, 17. 
 
 Slice of Massachusetts in Connecticut, 65. 
 Smith, Richard, 34. 
 Smith, William, 62. 
 Smith's History of New York, 13. 
 Somers, 61. 
 
 Sound, islands in the, 77. 
 Southampton, 27. 
 Southerton, 32. 
 South Kingston, 46. 
 Southold, 24. 
 South Sea, 15, 20. 
 Southwick, 65. 
 Spanish War, 61. 
 
 Springfield, 15, 16, 19, S3, 54, 58. . 
 Stamford, 17, 24, 70, 71, 72. 
 Stanton, Thomas, 31. 
 State House, Hartford, 45. 
 State House, Providence, 45. 
 State-paper Office, 22, 41, 46, 75. 
 Stations of Woodward & Saffery, 63. 
 Statute of limitations, 22. 
 " Steady habits, land of," 9. 
 Stench, lawsuit about, 77. 
 Stiles, Ezra, 21. 
 
 Stiles's MSS. in Yale College Library, 21. 
 Stirling, Earl of, 27. 
 Stirling Island. 27. 
 St. Lawrence River, 14. 
 Stone heaps, 48. 
 Stonington, 26, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 43, 44 
 
 45- 
 Stonington, constable of, 43. 
 Stoughton, Hon. William, 58. 
 Sturbridge, 64. 
 
 Stuyvesant, Peter, Governor-general, 17. 
 Subdivisions of Connecticut, 9. 
 Suffield, 41, 54, 56, 60 6t, 63. 
 Suffolk County, 27. 
 
go 
 
 Superior Court Records, Connecticut, 76. 
 
 Survey by Connecticut, 53. 
 
 Survey, joint, 74. 
 
 Survey of 1731, 74, 79. 
 
 Survey of 1737, 63. 
 
 Survey of 1859, 79. 
 
 Survey of 1S60, 79. 
 
 Surveys in general, 74. 
 
 Susquehanna County, 75. 
 
 Talcott, Governor, 47. 
 Tarrytown, 71. 
 Taxes evaded, 78. 
 Thaxter, Samuel, surveyor, 58. 
 Thirty Years' War, 21. 
 Thompson, 49. 
 
 Thompson's History of Long Island, 27. 
 Thompson, Robert, 59. 
 Tolland, 26. 
 
 " Town and Lands," Hartford MSS., 60, 73. 
 Town corners, 49. 
 Town Memorial, 61. 
 Trade, Council of, 23. 
 Treat, Governor, 43, 44, 54. 
 " Trees, Oak," 74. 
 
 Trumbull's History of Connecticut, 13, 25, 
 53, 58, 61. 
 
 Ulster County, New York, 70. 
 Uncas, sachem of the Mohegans, 25. 
 Unimproved lands in New Hampshire, 58. 
 Unimproved lands in Western Massachu- 
 setts, 58. 
 Union Corner, 65. 
 Union (town), 60, 65. 
 United Colonies, commissioners of, 40. 
 
 Verrazzano, Giovanni da, 13. 
 Versche Rivier, 14. 
 Virginia, 13. 
 Voluntown, 48. 
 Vriesche Rivier, 14. 
 
 Wabbaquassett, 25. 
 
 Ward, William Hayes, D.D., iii. 
 
 War, French, 61. 
 
 War in Holland, 18. 
 
 War, King Philip's, 38, 40. 
 
 War, Pequot, 22, 31. 
 
 War, Seven Years', 63. 
 
 War, Spanish, 61. 
 
 War, Thirty Years', 21. 
 
 Warrant from governor of Rhode Island, 
 
 in 1700, 44. 
 Warwick grant, 45. 
 
 Warwick Neck, 45, 46, 48. 
 
 Warwick purchase, 45, 48. 
 
 Warwick, Robert, 15. 
 
 Wekapang Brook, 41. 
 
 West Chester, 70. 
 
 West Line of Rhode Island, 32. 
 
 West Point, 17. 
 
 Westerly, 35, 36, 38, 41, 43, 44. 
 
 Westerly, letter of, 43. 
 
 Western Nehantics, 16. 
 
 Westfield, 16, 58. 
 
 Westminster treaty, 70. 
 
 Westmoreland, 75. 
 
 Wethersfield, 15. 
 
 Whetstone country, 26. 
 
 Whiting, Colonel William, 59. 
 
 Whiting, William, commissioner, 58. 
 
 Whitney, William, 54. 
 
 Wickford, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 41. 
 
 Wickford, or Narragansett, 33. 
 
 Wilcox, Stephen, 36. 
 
 William III., 73. 
 
 Williams, Roger, 31. 
 
 Willington, 26. 
 
 Willis, Samuel, 34. 
 
 Wilton, 72. 
 
 Wilton angle, 17. 
 
 Windham County, 26. 
 
 Windsor, 15, 53, 54, 57, 58. 
 
 Winthrop, 41. 
 
 Winthrop, Captain John, 34. 
 
 Winthrop, claims of, 16. 
 
 Winthrop-Clarke agreement, 33, 39. 
 
 Winthrop, Fitz-John, 56. 
 
 Winthrop, Governor, 15, 34, 37. 
 
 Winthrop, John, 17, 20, 30, 33, 76. 
 
 Winthrop, portrait of, iii., iv. 
 
 Winthrop, Robert, iii. 
 
 Woodstock, 41, 54, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66. 
 
 Woodstock Corner, 65. 
 
 Woodstock Records, 61, 63. 
 
 Woodstock Revolt, 63. 
 
 Woodward, Nathaniel, 19. 
 
 Woodward & Saffery, 54, 57, 63. 
 
 Woodward & Saffery's line, 53. 
 
 Woodward & Saffery's map, 53. 
 
 Woodward & Saffery's survey, 19. 
 
 Wrentham Pond, 54. 
 
 Wyoming Valley, 75. 
 
 Yale College, 15, 21, 59. 
 York, Duke of, 24, 27, 70, 71, 75. 
 York, James, Duke of, 69, 70. 
 York Patent of 1664, 69, 76. 
 York Patent of 1774, 71. 
 
 J 928* 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 007 550 097 A 
 
 mm 
 
 II 
 I 
 
 Hi 
 
 nMwlMlinlil 
 
 1HI 
 
 llHi 
 H Bi 
 
 m Mr 
 Wm 
 
 shh m 
 
 BfiHtsiiil 
 
 ™BB8§a 
 HUE 
 
 ml 
 
 ism