OCR Text |
Show -71*- Various ineffective attempts to come to an agreement were made during this period. 15 . Finally in 1739 Rhode Island refused to appoint any more commis- sions and determined to submit the dispute to the King* Royal commissioners were then appointed to settle the controversy, ' and the claims of the two provinces presented before them* Their decision1-5' was appealed from by Massachusetts* Agents were appointed to prosecute the appeal before the Privy Council in England* •*¦ The hearing upon the appeal was delayed for several years* but the judgment of the commissioners was eventually affirmed on Kay 23, 1746 .22 Rhode Island in the same year appointed commissioners to run the line in accordance with this decision* 3 This ex parte act was never assented to by Massachusetts, *^- and in 1792 objected to as an unwarranted encroachment upon its boundaries *^5 it was one of the points left for deter- mination by the Supreme Court in the suit by Rhode Island against Massachu- setts, -which was finally settled by a compromise between the attorneys-general of the two States.26 (3) -New York and New Jersey Boundary Controversy of 1771* The boundary line run by a joint commission of New York and New Jersey in 1719 ^7 was affirmed by the Privy Council in 1756 as a provisional line until the true line of division should be determined by royal commissioners. 28 Such a commission was appointed in 1764. and the boundary was determined by them 29 Although an appeal was taken from their decision, 30 New York during the pendency of this appeal, on February l6 1771 passed an Act l confirm- ing the line announced by the commissioners on condition that New Jersey would pass a similar Act. This was done by New Jersey in 1772 ^ and both 15 For appointments of boundary commissioners by Massachusetts, see 9 Mass. Prov, Acts, 680, 681; 10 ibid. 19; 12 ibid. 129, 572, 601, 660. For appointments by Rhode Island, see 4 R. I, Col. Rec. 431, 445, 453 546» 559' See J. Noble An Incident in 1731 in the long Dispute of Massachusetts and Rhode Island over their boundary line (1905) 19 Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc. 20* !6 See 4 R« I* Col. Rec, 562, 17 See 4 R* I Col. Rec. 586, note. l See 12 Mass. Prov. Acts, 723, 726, 732. 19 see Mass. Sen. Doc. 1848, No. l4, Appx* 8» 2OSee 13 Mass. Prov. Acts, 2i+. 2ISee 13 Mass. Prov. Acts, 75, 76, 77* 166, 232; 5 £• I- Col. Rec. 35, 116, 121. See also Acts of Privy Council (Col. 3er. Unbound Papers) sec. j+70. 22s©e Mass. Sen. Boc. 181+8, No. ll+, pp. 19, 1|3« 23see Mass. Sen. Doc. 181+8, No. ll+, Appx. 10. 2!*-See ibid. Appx. 9. ^5see ibid. Appx* 11. 2&see supra Appx. A, III, (7) 2£see N. J. Acts, 1719* 105. 23See k Acts of Privy Council (Col. Ser. ) 21J+, 301* New York had sub- mitted the controversy to the King for determination by the Act of Dec. 7* 175k' See 3 IU Y. Col. Laws, IO36. 2^See 1+ Acts of Privy Council (Col. Ser«), 686. 3C>See Act of Feb. 6, 1768, h N. Y. Col* Laws, 1003* 3^See 5 N. Y. Co]. Laws, I85. 3^See II, J. Acts, 1772, 12. |