Decree of Trenton - 1782

The Decree of Trenton

Pennsylvania v. Connecticut · December 30, 1782
A binding interstate judgment under Article IX of the Articles of Confederation

The Court of Commissioners sitting at Trenton resolved Pennsylvania’s territorial controversy with Connecticut on December 30, 1782. Its decree rejected Connecticut’s claim and awarded Pennsylvania jurisdiction and pre-emption within Pennsylvania’s charter boundary. The judgment bound the two states in their interstate controversy; it did not adjudicate each settler’s private title to a farm or other parcel.[1][2]

The legal distinction: Article IX made the interstate judgment “final and conclusive.” Pennsylvania’s later proclamation recognized and implemented the result; it was not a ratification needed to make the decree binding. Private land claims remained a separate and difficult question.[3]

The Klos Yavneh manuscript

The manuscript exhibited here is described by the Klos Yavneh Collection as a contemporary clerk copy in John Neilson’s hand. Neilson served as clerk of the Trenton Court. This identifies the nature and attributed handwriting of the document without establishing where this particular copy was sent or who first received it.[4][5]

Recto of the Klos Yavneh contemporary clerk copy of the decree
Contemporary clerk copy of the Trenton decree, identified by the collection as written in John Neilson’s hand. Image courtesy of the Klos Yavneh Collection.

The supplied collection description records a single sheet, approximately 7.25 × 9.5 inches, on hand-laid paper with a watermark read as “J Bassuet.” The verso docket is provisionally transcribed:

Decree of the Court of
Coms. 30 Dec[r] 1782

“Coms.” likely abbreviates “Commissioners.” This reading remains provisional. Neither the docketing hand nor the state or office that applied it has been established. The docket does not presently justify an attribution to John Dickinson, Timothy Matlack, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, or any other recipient.[4]

Verso of the clerk copy showing the docket and folded sheet
Verso of the Klos Yavneh copy. Provisional docket reading: “Decree of the Court of Coms. 30 Dec[r] 1782.” Image courtesy of the Klos Yavneh Collection.

Provenance research is ongoing. The commissioners’ transmission of a copy to Dickinson and the court’s return of its proceedings to Congress are documented events. Neither identifies this particular sheet. The former claim that the Klos Yavneh manuscript was delivered to Elias Boudinot on December 31 and distributed to delegates is therefore withdrawn. Further work should compare authenticated Neilson manuscripts, contemporary receiving dockets, paper and watermarks, and the source manuscripts behind Egle’s printed decree and the Dickinson correspondence.[1][6]

What the court decided

The decree contains a short judgment, not an explanatory opinion. The following reading text follows the published proceedings, with capitalization and spelling normalized. It is not a diplomatic transcription of the exhibited sheet; in particular, the operative word is “charter,” not “Chester.”[1]

This cause has been well argued by the learned counsel on both sides. The court are now to pronounce their sentence or judgment.

We are unanimously of opinion, that the State of Connecticut has no right to the lands in controversy.

We are also unanimously of opinion, that the jurisdiction and pre-emption of all the territory lying within the charter boundary of Pennsylvania, and now claimed by the State of Connecticut, do of right belong to the State of Pennsylvania.

Trenton, 30 December, 1782.
William Whipple · Welcome Arnold · William Churchill Houston · Cyrus Griffin · David Brearley

“Jurisdiction” concerned governmental authority. “Pre-emption” concerned the superior or exclusive right asserted by the state to acquire Indigenous land interests. Neither term meant that this court had tried and decided every competing private conveyance. Connecticut sought to bring private claimants into the proceedings, but the commissioners rejected that request as outside the authority conferred on this tribunal.[2][7]

Article IX also provided a distinct route for certain disputes over the private right of soil under grants of different states, subject to specified conditions. The existence of that provision helps explain why the interstate decree and the unresolved settlers’ claims must be kept separate.[3]

From judgment to official implementation

Documented chronology, December 1782–January 1783
DateEvent and evidentiary basis
December 30, 1782The court pronounced its unanimous judgment and adjourned without day.[1]
December 31, 1782The commissioners wrote an advisory letter to Pennsylvania President John Dickinson. Hoyt describes it as accompanying the award; Harvey explicitly records forwarding a copy of the decree.[6][8]
January 2, 1783According to Harvey, Dickinson had received the advisory letter and filed it with the Supreme Executive Council on this date. Separately, Pennsylvania’s agents dated their report enclosing the decree January 2; Council’s minutes record reading that report on January 6. These are distinct documentary statements, not proof of the destination of the exhibited copy.[6][9]
January 3, 1783Congress recorded the court’s return of its proceedings, final sentence, and decree, and ordered them lodged among the acts of Congress under Article IX. This is the documented congressional receipt/recording and lodging date; it does not establish the physical dispatch date or distribution of the Klos Yavneh copy.[1]
January 6, 1783The Supreme Executive Council received and read the agents’ report and the commissioners’ letter, adopted a proclamation under President John Dickinson, and ordered it published.[9]

The commissioners’ advisory letter

Writing as private citizens after completing their commission, the commissioners urged restraint and protection of the existing peace while private titles were resolved. Their letter was advice, not an additional judicial decree or a binding award of settlers’ land. Its central passage reads:[8]

“Their individual claims could, in no Instance, come before us, not being within the line of our appointment.”

They recommended measures to prevent violence, disorder, and misunderstanding and to preserve peace until proper proceedings could determine private soil rights. They also suggested an early executive proclamation. This advice explains the immediate post-decree concern for the settlers without converting that concern into a judicial confirmation of their individual titles.[8]

Pennsylvania’s January 6 proclamation

The proclamation recited the judgment, required settlers to obey Pennsylvania law, prohibited attempts to seize their lands through force or violence, and directed magistrates and peace officers to protect obedient settlers pending legislative action or judicial decisions. It was signed by John Dickinson and attested by Secretary Timothy Matlack. Council then ordered publication.[9]

This was an official recognition and implementation of a judgment already final under Article IX. Neither Pennsylvania’s acceptance nor the later United States Constitution supplied the decree’s original legal authority.[3][10]

Private titles and conflict after the decree

Finality between the states did not bring immediate peace to the Wyoming Valley. Pennsylvania claimants and settlers claiming under Connecticut continued to contest possession and ownership. The renewed Penninite Yankee conflict included the forced removal of settlers in 1784 and further armed resistance. The establishment of Luzerne County in 1786 and later efforts to accommodate established settlers were stages in a prolonged settlement, not provisions of the Trenton judgment.[11]

Pennsylvania’s Confirming Act of March 28, 1787 sought to confirm qualifying Connecticut claims in Luzerne County through a statutory process and provide compensation for affected Pennsylvania claimants. The act was suspended in 1788 and repealed in 1790. It must be distinguished from the 1782 decree: the statute addressed private land rights that the interstate court had left unresolved.[12]

In Vanhorne’s Lessee v. Dorrance (1795), Justice William Paterson, sitting in the federal Circuit Court for the Pennsylvania District, instructed the jury that the Confirming Act violated constitutional protections of property; he also examined whether its statutory conditions had been satisfied. This was a separate private-title case, not a Supreme Court ratification of, or appeal from, the Trenton decree. Pennsylvania’s later compromise legislation, including the 1799 act, continued the work of resolving land claims.[12][11]

Griffin’s often-quoted retrospective statement that private soil rights were not to be affected comes from his September 15, 1796 letter to Barnabas Bidwell. He also recalled an agreement to withhold reasons and announce the determination unanimously. That recollection qualifies what can be inferred about the judges’ reasoning; it does not change the formally unanimous judgment in the court record.[13]

Constitutional significance: Article IX to Article III

Pennsylvania v. Connecticut appears to be the only interstate controversy under Article IX that proceeded through a duly constituted Court of Commissioners to a final judicial judgment. Other disputes, including Massachusetts/New York and South Carolina/Georgia, entered the Confederation’s interstate-settlement machinery but were resolved by agreement rather than a comparable final judicial judgment. The claim is about this particular category of interstate adjudication.[14]

The Confederation also had prize and admiralty adjudication, notably the Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture, established in 1780. Trenton therefore was not the first federal judicial decision of every kind, nor was it the only exercise of national judicial authority under the Confederation.[15]

The Trenton tribunal was an ad hoc national court exercising authority delegated by Article IX. Its importance lies in a binding judicial resolution between states, even though enforcing peace and resolving private land ownership remained difficult. The decree should not be described as conclusively adjudicating the property rights of the states “and their peoples.”[3][2]

Article III of the Constitution placed controversies between two or more states within the federal judicial power and supplied a permanent Supreme Court, with original jurisdiction in cases in which a state is a party. This continued the principle of national adjudication of interstate disputes within a new judicial structure. The Constitution did not “ratify” the Trenton decree: its binding force arose under the Articles of Confederation.[10]

Background: competing charters and settlements

Connecticut relied on its 1662 royal charter and its claimed westward extension beyond New York; Pennsylvania relied on William Penn’s charter of March 4, 1681. The overlapping claims encompassed the Wyoming Valley and other northern Pennsylvania territory. The dispute involved governmental jurisdiction, charter interpretation, claimed Indigenous purchases, and competing colonial and private grants. The Susquehanna Company promoted Connecticut settlement, while Pennsylvania proprietors and claimants asserted their own rights.[7]

The 1768 Fort Stanwix purchase invoked by Pennsylvania was a transaction with the Six Nations, not a purchase of New York State’s interests. Claims about British approval of Connecticut’s position must likewise be distinguished from a final royal adjudication of the interstate controversy. The evidence reviewed here does not establish the former page’s claim that George III conclusively upheld Connecticut’s charter against Pennsylvania in 1771.[7]

Historical exhibit map of competing Pennsylvania and Connecticut claims
Map retained from the original exhibit illustrating the Pennsylvania–Connecticut territorial controversy.

Thomas Paine used the Pennsylvania–Connecticut dispute in Common Sense (1776) to argue for a continental authority capable of dealing with continental matters. His passage, retained in the source appendix, illustrates the political problem to which Article IX later supplied a judicial procedure.

The tribunal and its counsel

Pennsylvania petitioned Congress on November 3, 1781. The states’ agents subsequently agreed on commissioners, and Congress issued the court’s commission on August 28, 1782. Proceedings began at Trenton on November 12 with David Brearley and William Churchill Houston present. A quorum assembled on November 18; John Neilson was appointed clerk that day and sworn on November 19.[5]

  • William Whipple, New Hampshire: president of the court; a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a Revolutionary military and political leader.
  • Welcome Arnold, Rhode Island: a Providence merchant and legislator.
  • David Brearley, New Jersey: the state’s chief justice; later a signer of the Constitution and a federal district judge.
  • William Churchill Houston, New Jersey: a College of New Jersey professor, lawyer, and congressional delegate; later a participant in the Annapolis and Philadelphia conventions.
  • Cyrus Griffin, Virginia: a judge of the Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture (1780–1787), later president of Congress in 1788 and federal district judge in Virginia (1789–1810).

These five commissioners heard and decided the case. The commission’s seven prospective appointees should not be confused with the five who sat. Nathanael Greene and John Rutledge had appeared on an earlier proposed list but did not participate.[5][16]

Connecticut was represented by Eliphalet Dyer, William Samuel Johnson, and Jesse Root. Pennsylvania’s counsel and agents included William Bradford, Jr., Joseph Reed, James Wilson, and Jonathan Dickinson Sergeant, with Henry Osborne as solicitor. The surviving record preserves procedural motions, competing statements of claim, testimony, and the sequence of argument through December 24, followed by the December 30 judgment.[1]

Manuscript comparisons and educational exhibits

Signed decree reproduced in the original exhibit as the National Archives exemplar
The decree identified in the original exhibit as the signed National Archives judgment. The published congressional record locates the signed judgment in the Papers of the Continental Congress, no. 77, fol. 81. This is distinct from the Klos Yavneh clerk copy.[1]
Trumbull Papers manuscript copy reproduced for comparison
Another manuscript copy, identified in the supplied exhibit as belonging to the Trumbull Papers: Connecticut Colonial Official Papers, 1631–1784 (supplied shelf mark: Main Vault 974.6 fT76). Its handwriting is not attributed here; the repository identification and shelf mark await direct catalog confirmation.
Ranger Patricia Jones holding the manuscript at Independence Hall in 2016
Ranger Patricia Jones with the Klos Yavneh decree manuscript at Independence Hall during the collection’s December 2016 visit connected with National Collegiate Honors Council Partners in the Park. This modern exhibit photograph documents the visit, not the manuscript’s eighteenth-century chain of custody.
Partners in the Park students beside the historical-document exhibit at Independence Hall
The National Collegiate Honors Council Partners in the Park class of 2017 with a primary-source exhibit on the second floor of Independence Hall. The supplied exhibit description identifies the decree alongside congressional journals and documents associated with Owen Biddle, Henry Laurens, Elias Boudinot, Arthur St. Clair, and Thomas McKean. Partners in the Park exhibit information.
Honor the Forgotten Presidents – The Founders Who Led Before George Washington
Related educational video retained from the original exhibit

The exhibit images and videos are retained as educational material. Interpretive or provenance claims in older media should be read alongside the source-based distinctions on this page.

Historical source appendices

The following material preserves the useful documentary content of the original webpage in a more readable form. Pleadings and counsel’s arguments state the parties’ positions, not findings adopted by the court. Historical terminology and substantive assertions in those documents are preserved; evident webpage transcription errors have been corrected. The cited editions remain the reference texts.

Article IX: the interstate-dispute procedure

Interstate-dispute clause; the separate private-soil provision follows it in the full Articles.[3]

The United States in Congress assembled shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting or that hereafter may arise between two or more States concerning boundary, jurisdiction or any other causes whatever; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following. Whenever the legislative or executive authority or lawful agent of any State in controversy with another shall present a petition to Congress stating the matter in question and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order of Congress to the legislative or executive authority of the other State in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question: but if they cannot agree, Congress shall name three persons out of each of the United States, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven, nor more than nine names as Congress shall direct, shall in the presence of Congress be drawn out by lot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges who shall hear the cause shall agree in the determination: and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons, which Congress shall judge sufficient, or being present shall refuse to strike, the Congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each State, and the secretary of Congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judgement and sentence of the court to be appointed, in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence, or judgement, which shall in like manner be final and decisive, the judgement or sentence and other proceedings being in either case transmitted to Congress, and lodged among the acts of Congress for the security of the parties concerned: provided that every commissioner, before he sits in judgement, shall take an oath to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the State, where the cause shall be tried, 'well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgement, without favor, affection or hope of reward': provided also, that no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States.

Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776): continental authority

Passage retained from the supplied webpage.

In almost every article of defence we abound. Hemp flourishes even to rankness, so that we need not want cordage. Our iron is superior to that of other countries. Our small arms equal to any in the world. Cannon we can cast at pleasure. Saltpetre and gunpowder we are every day producing. Our knowledge is hourly improving. Resolution is our inherent character, and courage hath never yet forsaken us. Wherefore, what is it that we want? Why is it that we hesitate? From Britain we can expect nothing but ruin. If she is once admitted to the government of America again, this Continent will not be worth living in. Jealousies will be always arising; insurrections will be constantly happening; and who will go forth to quell them? Who will venture his life to reduce his own countrymen to a foreign obedience? The difference between Pennsylvania and Connecticut, respecting some unlocated lands, shows the insignificance of a British government, and fully proves, that nothing but Continental authority can regulate Continental matters.

The parties’ statements of claim, November 1782

Statements reproduced in JCC, XXIV, pp. 14–24. These historical pleadings include disputed and sometimes inaccurate assertions about early exploration and colonial events; they are not a modern factual chronology.[7]

Pennsylvania’s statement

1st. That King Charles the Second, then king of Great Britain, on the 4th day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred and eighty-one, by his letters patent, dated on the same day and year aforesaid, did grant to William Penn, the first proprietary and governor of Pennsylvania, his heirs and assigns, "all that tract or part of land in America, with the islands therein contained, as the same is bounded on the east by Delaware river, from twelve miles distance northwards of Newcastle town, unto the three and fortieth degree of northern latitude, if the said river doth extend so far northward; but if the said river shall not extend so far northward, then by the said river so far as it doth extend, and from the head of the said river the eastern bounds are to be determined by a meridian line to be drawn from the head of the said river unto the said forty-third degree; the said land to extend westward five degrees in longitude, to be computed from the said eastern bounds; and the said lands to be bounded on the north by the beginning of the three and fortieth degree of northern latitude, and on the south by a circle drawn at twelve miles distance from Newcastle, northward and westward unto the beginning of the fortieth degree of northern latitude, and then by a straight line westwards to the limits of longitude above-mentioned." By which letters patent the jurisdiction and right of government within the limits aforesaid, and also the right of soil were conveyed, and under which Pennsylvania hath been held, settled and possessed.

2d. That the said William Penn, and the succeeding proprietaries of Pennsylvania, at different periods, purchased from the native Indians their right of soil within different districts of the limits aforesaid, and received deeds from them for the same, and particularly on the twenty-fifth day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and thirty-six, the said Indians conveyed to Thomas Penn and Richard Penn, the then proprietaries of Pennsylvania, the full and absolute right of preemption of and in all the lands not before sold by them to the said proprietaries within the limits aforesaid.

3d. That the southern bounds of Pennsylvania, so far as the same adjoins on Maryland, have been long since settled; and the same, so far as the State adjoins upon Virginia, have also been settled of late by a line, called Mason and Dixon's line, continued to the end of five degrees of longitude from the river Delaware; that the northern bounds have always been deemed to extend to the end of the forty-second degree, where the figures 42° are marked on the map, the river Delaware being found to extend so far north, and farther; that the said river, pursuing the east or main branch thereof above the forks at Easton, hath ever been deemed to be one boundary of Pennsylvania, from twelve miles above Newcastle, on the said river, to the said end of the forty-second degree, and that a straight line, from thence to the place where the same shall intersect another straight line, drawn from the end of the said southern line of boundary of Pennsylvania, commonly called Mason and Dixon's line, continued to the extent of five degrees of longitude from the river Delaware, is another boundary of the said State of Pennsylvania.

4th. That the late province of Pennsylvania, on the fourth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-six, did join with the other twelve, late provinces, now states, in the Declaration of Independence, and soon after established a constitution and government founded on the authority of the people, which they continue still to exercise and enjoy; and they did also join in the Articles of Confederation of the United States; and that being so independent and sovereign, on the twenty-seventh day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-nine, they did by an act of their legislature, consisting of the representatives of the freemen of the said Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in general assembly met, duly made and passed according to the directions of their frame of government, vest the right of soil and estate of the late proprietaries of Pennsylvania in the said Commonwealth; and that by means thereof, and of the several matters and things herein before set forth, the said Commonwealth, or State of Pennsylvania, is entitled to the right of jurisdiction, and right of soil within all the limits aforesaid.

5th. That, nevertheless, sundry persons pretending to claim under the late colony, now State of Connecticut, before the Revolution, have violently settled themselves within the limits aforesaid, and the colony of Connecticut by an act of their legislature, made and passed a short time before the Revolution, have encouraged the said violent settlement and intrusion, and asserted their claim as a colony to a large part of the lands within the limits aforesaid, as well in point of jurisdiction as territory; and that since the Revolution, the said intrusions are continued and daily increased by the said persons pretending to claim under the State of Connecticut, and the claim of the said State is by the said State still continued and persisted in, and the jurisdiction of the said State actually asserted and exercised, within a part of the State of Pennsylvania, in defiance of all law and justice.

Wherefore the said agents do humbly pray, that this honorable court taking into consideration the premises, as well as all other matters and proofs that may be alleged and shewn on the part of Pennsylvania and of Connecticut before you, you will proceed agreeably to the tenor of the ninth Article of the Confederation, to determine and decide in the premises according as to right and justice shall be found to appertain.

Connecticut’s statement

The state of the case on the part of Connecticut, exhibited to the honorable court of commissioners at Trenton, November, A. D. 1782.

A. D. 1497. Sebastian Cabot, a subject of England, was employed by Henry the seventh, King of England, to discover a north west passage to China, and in that service, in or about the year one thousand four hundred and ninety-seven, he discovered all the north east coast of America, from Cape Florida, in twenty-five degrees north latitude, to sixty-seven degrees and an half, by which the crown of England became entitled thereto, so far as the right of first discovery could entitle. A. D. 1620, King James the first, in the eighteenth year of his reign, by letters patent, under the great seal of England, gave the name of New England, in America, to all that circuit, continent and limits in America, in breadth, from forty degrees of northerly latitude from the equinoctial line to forty-eight degrees of said northerly latitude, and in length, by all the breadth throughout the main land from sea to sea, with all the rivers, seas, &c. within the same degrees of latitude and longitude; and incorporated the Duke of Lenox, and divers other persons, by the name of the council established at Plymouth, in the county of Devon, for the planting, ruling, ordering and governing of New England, in America; and to them and their successors, grants all the lands, &c. viz. that aforesaid part of America, lying and being in breadth from forty degrees of northerly latitude, from the equinoctial line to forty-eight degrees of the said northerly latitude, inclusively, and in length, of and within all the breadth aforesaid throughout the main lands, from sea to sea, together also with all the firm lands, soils, grounds, &c. and all and singular other commodities, jurisdictions, royalties, privileges, franchises and pre-eminences, both within the said tract, upon the land upon the main, and also within the said islands and seas adjoining: Provided always, that the said islands or any of the premises herein before mentioned, and by these presents intended and meant to be granted, were not actually possessed or inhabited by other Christian prince or state, nor within the bounds, limits or territories of that southern colony heretofore by us granted, to be planted by divers of our loving subjects in the south part. And did further command and authorise the said council and their successors, or the major part of them, to distribute, convey, assign, and set over such particular portions of said lands, tenements and hereditaments, to such subjects, adventures and planters, as they should think proper, respect being had as well to the proportion of the adventurers as to the special hazard, exploit or merit of any person to be recompensed, advanced or rewarded.

March 19, 1628. The said council of Plymouth granted to Sir Henry Roswell, &c. their heirs and assigns, and their associates forever, all that part of New England, in America aforesaid, which lies and extends between a great river, there commonly called Monomack, alias Merrimack, and a certain other river there, called Charles river, being in the bottom of a bay, called Massachusetts, alias Massachusetts, alias Mattatusetts Bay, and all and singular those lands and hereditaments whatsoever, lying within the space of three English relies, on the south part of the said Charles river, or of any or every part thereof, and also all and singular the lands and hereditaments whatsoever, lying and being within the space of three English miles to the southward of the southermost part of the said bay, called Massachusetts, alias Mattachusetts, alias Mattatusetts Bay, and also all those lands and hereditaments whatsoever, which lie and be within the space of three English miles to the northward of the said river, called Monomack, alias Merrimack, or to the northward of any and every part thereof, and all lands and hereditaments whatsoever, lying within the limits aforesaid, north and south, in latitude and in breadth, and in length and longitude of and within all the breadth aforesaid, throughout the main lands there, from the Atlantic and Western sea and ocean on the east part, to the South sea, on the west part, and all the lands and grounds, &c. March 4, 1629, King Charles the first, by his letters patent, under the great seal of England, did grant and confirm unto the said Sir Henry Roswell, &c. their heirs and assigns, and their associates, all the said part of New England, in America, lying and extending between the bounds and limits in the said indenture expressed, &c. Provided always, that if the said lands, islands, or any the premises before mentioned, and by the said letters patent, last mentioned, intended and meant to be granted, were, at the time of the granting of the said former letters patent, dated the third day of November, in the eighteenth year of the reign of his late Majesty, King James the First, actually possessed or inhabited by any other Christian prince or state, or were within the bounds, limits or territories of the said southern colony then before granted by the said king, to be planted by divers of his loving subjects in the south parts of America, that then the said grants should not extend to any such parts or parcels thereof, so formerly inhabited or lying within the bounds of the southern plantation as aforesaid. But as to those parts or parcels so possessed or inhabited by any such Christian prince or state, or being within the boundaries aforesaid, should be utterly void.

March 19, 1631. Robert Earl of Warwick, president of the council of Plymouth, by his deed, bearing date the 19th day of March, Anno Dom. 1631, did give, grant, bargain, sell and confirm unto the right honorable William Viscount Say and Seal, &c. their heirs and assigns, and their associates forever, all that part of New England, in America, which lies and extends itself from a river there called Narraganset, rver, the space of forty leagues upon a straight line, near the seat shore, towards the south-west, west and by south, or west, as the coast lieth towards Virginia, accounting three English miles to the league; and also all and singular the lands and hereditaments whatsoever, lying and being within the lands aforesaid, north and south in latitude and breadth, and in length and longitude, of and within all the breadth aforesaid, throughout the main lands there, from the Western ocean to the South sea, and all lands and grounds, havens, rivers, waters, fishings and hereditaments whatsoever, lying within the said space, and every part and parcel thereof, and also all the islands lying in America aforesaid, in the said seas or either of them, on the western or eastern coasts, or parts of the said tracts of land by these presents mentioned to be given and granted; to have and to hold, unto the said William Viscount Say and Seal, &c. their heirs and assigns, and their associates, to their only proper use and behoof for evermore.

The Associates with Lord Say and Seal, &c. Connecticut people established government, and soon after proceeded to settle on the land aforesaid, upon the right and as associates of the lords Say and Seal, &c. under the patents aforesaid, which lands they were afterwards vested with; having obtained the native right by purchase and conquest, and having settled many towns in the eastern part of said patent, and as far west as the Dutch possessions near Hudson's river, they as early as A.D. 1650, extended their claims and possessions on the west side of Delaware river, and made purchases of large tracts of lands of the Indians there.

In 1635, the said Plymouth company surrendered their patent to the crown.

April 23d, 1662. King Charles the second, by his letters patent under the great seal of England, bearing date the 23 day of April, Anno Dom. 1662, ordained, constituted, and declared John Winthrop, John Mason, Samuel Wyllis, and sixteen others by name, and all such others as then were or thereafter should be admitted and made free of the company and society of the colony of Connecticut, in America, should, from time to time, and for ever thereafter, be one body corporate and politic, in fact and in name, by the name of the governor and company of the English colony of Connecticut, in New England, in America, with certain powers, privileges and authorities; and therein granted to them and their successors, all that part of his dominions in New England, in America, bounden on the east by Narragansett river, commonly called Narragansett bay, where the said river falleth into the sea, and on the north by the line of the Massachusetts plantation, and on the south by the sea, and in longitude, as the line of the Massachusetts colony, running from east to west, that is to say, from the said Narragansett bay on the east, to the South sea on the west, with the islands thereunto adjoining, together with all the firm lands, &c. to have and to hold the same unto the said governor and company, their successors and assigns for ever, upon trust, and to and for the use and benefit of themselves and their associates, freemen of the said colony, their heirs and assigns, to be holden of the king, his heirs and successors, as of his manor of East Greenwich, in free and common soccage, and not in capite or by knights' service.

Whereby the said governor and company became vested with the right of jurisdiction over, and seized of the crown title, and of the exclusive right of pre-emption to all the lands within the boundaries in said patent mentioned and described, excepting only such part of the same as was then actually in the possession of the Dutch: and in fact the lands in controversy, between the states of Pensylvania and Connecticut, in this case, are contained within the said limits of said patent, viz. within a line drawn from the east side of a creek or river, called Momaroneck, where the fresh water falls into the salt, at high-water mark, west parallel to the south line of the patents to the Massachusetts aforesaid.

March 12, 1664. King Charles the second, by his letters patent, under the great seal of England, bearing date the 12th day of March Anno Dom. 1664, gave and granted unto his royal brother James, Duke of York, all that part of the main land in New England, beginning at a certain place, called and known by the name of Saint Croix, next adjoining to New Scotland, in America, and from thence extending along the sea coast, unto a place called Pennequie or Pennequid, and so up the river thereof to the furthermost head of the same, as it tendeth northward, and extending from thence to the river Kenebequie, and upwards, by the shortest course, to the river called Canada, northward; and also all that island or islands, commonly called by the several name or names of Mattowacks, or Long Island, situate, lying and being towards the west of Cape Cod and the Narragansetts, abutting upon the main land between the two rivers there called and known by the names of Connecticut and Hudson's river; together also with the said river called Hudson's river, and all the land from the west side of Connecticut river to the east side of Delaware bay; and all the several islands, called or known by the names of Martin's Vineyard and Nantucks, otherwise Nantucket, together with all the lands, soils, islands, &c.

The Dutch and Swedes were at that time possessed of the lands belonging to the late colonies of New York and New Jersey, and had made considerable plantations and improvements there; which settlements aforesaid of the Dutch, &c. they contended were begun as early as in the year 1614, prior to the patent of the council of Plymouth.

April, 1664. King Charles the second, in April, 1664, made a conquest of the Dutch at New York; and a settlement of the line between the Duke of York's government, eastward, and the colony of Connecticut, became necessary.

April 26, 1664. His majesty having constituted and appointed Colonel Richard Nichols, Sir Robert Carr, knight, &c. his commissioners to visit the New England colonies, with full power and authority to hear, receive, examine and determine all complaints and appeals, and proceed in all things for providing for and settling the peace of said country; they did accordingly settle and determine as follows, viz.

November 30, 1664. By virtue of his Majesty's commission, we have heard the difference about the bounds of the patent granted to his royal highness the Duke of York, and to his Majesty's colony of Connecticut; and having deliberately considered the reasons alleged by Mr. Allen, senior, Mr. Gold, Mr. Richards and Captain Winthrop, appointed by the assembly held at Hartford, the 13th of October, 1664, to accompany John Winthrop, esq. the governor of his Majesty's colony of Connecticut, to New York, and by Mr. Howell and Captain Young, why the said Long Island should be under the government of Connecticut, which are too long here to be recited. We do declare, and order the southern bounds of his Majesty's colony, is the sea; and that Long Island is to be under the government of his royal highness the Duke of York, as is expressed by plain words in said charters respectively. And also by virtue of his Majesty's commission, and by the consent of both the governors and the gentlemen above named; we do also order and declare, that the creek or river which is called Monoromock, which is reputed to be about twelve miles to the east of West Chester, and a line to be drawn from the east point or side where the fresh water falls into the salt, at high-water mark, 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, shall be under his royal highness's government; and all the plantations lying eastward of that creek and line, to be under the government of Connecticut.

To this the commissioners therein mentioned from Connecticut, subscribed in the words following, viz. "We underwritten, on behalf of the colony of Connecticut, have assented unto the determination of his Majesty's commissioners, in relation to the bounds and limits of his royal highness the duke's patent, and the patent of Connecticut."

June, 1673. In June, 1673, New York and its territories were recovered by the Dutch, and their government revived again. In 1674, on a treaty of peace between the English and Dutch, signed at Westminster, the English government was restored. June, 29, 1674: June 29, A.D. 1674, the Duke of York obtained a renewal of his patent. The duke's governor being uneasy at the former settlement of the line, claimed a resettlement of the same; and after various negotiations and agreements, between November 23d, 1683, and 1733, the line between the duke's government, and the government of the colony of Connecticut, was finally settled, beginning at Biram river, at the sea, a few miles east of the former settlement of said line, and to extend northward to the line of the Massachusetts, as in said settlement is expressed.

King Charles the second, by his letters patent, bearing date the thirty-first year of his reign, gave and granted unto William Penn, his heirs and assigns, all that tract or parcel of land in America, with all the islands therein contained, as the same is bounded on the east of Delaware river, from twelve miles northward of New Castle town, unto the three and fortieth degree of northern latitude, if the said river doth extend so far northward, but if the said river doth not extend so far northward, then by the said river so far as it doth extend; and from the head of the said river the eastern bounds are to be determined by a meridian line, to be drawn from the head of the said river unto the said three and fortieth degree. The said lands to extend westward five degrees in longitude, to be computed from the said eastern bounds; and the said lands to be bounded on the north by the beginning of the three and fortieth degree of northern latitude, and on the south by a circle drawn at twelve miles distance from New Castle, northwards and westwards, unto the beginning of the fortieth degree of northern latitude, and then by a straight line westward to the limits of longitude above-mentioned: to have, hold, possess and enjoy, unto the said William Penn, his heirs and assigns, &c., the northern part of the bounds and limits of which grant interferes with and spreads over some parts of the western lands before granted to the colony of Connecticut, and confirmed by the renewed charter or patent aforesaid, from King Charles the Second, for about the space of one degree of latitude through the whole breadth of the said grant, being nearly the forty-second degree of north latitude, which occasions the present controversy; of which interference the said William Penn had notice at the time of taking out his patent aforesaid.

The colony of Connecticut, in A.D. 1753, having located and settled all their lands within their patent east of New York, and being in a condition to extend their settlements on the other part of their patent aforesaid, to the westward of Delaware river which lay in a wilderness state, and possessed only by the Indians; certain companies of adventurers, chiefly from said colony, agreed together to purchase the native right to said lands of the Indians, and to extend the settlements of the colony of Connecticut on the western parts of said patent, and accordingly did, under countenance of the authority of said colony, at different times, make sundry purchases of large tracts of lands of the Indians, native proprietors of said lands, on the Susquehanna and Delaware river, within the limits and bounds of the patent to the governor and company aforesaid; and in A.D. 1754, said companies of adventurers proceeded and made settlements on said lands so purchased as aforesaid, and ever since have, though with various interruptions, continued to hold and possess the same under the title of the colony of Connecticut. And the legislature of the colony of Connecticut have approved of the purchases and settlements of the adventurers aforesaid, and have actually erected and exercised jurisdiction in and over said territory, as part and parcel of said colony.

All which rights, powers, privileges and jurisdictions aforesaid, of the colony of Connecticut, on the late happy Revolution, remained as before, vested in the State of Connecticut.

And thereupon the agents for the State of Connecticut pray the judgment of this honorable court in their favour, that they may be quieted in the jurisdiction and property in and over the lands in dispute aforesaid.

Procedural motions and evidence: selected court-record extracts

Selected extracts retained from the original page, arranged in the order of proceedings. JCC, XXIV, pp. 10–31.[1]

Connecticut’s motion concerning private claimants, November 19

At a court of commissioners for the trial of the cause between the States of Connecticut and Pensylvania, relative to the jurisdiction and property in certain lands lying west of Delaware river, within the charter boundaries of said States. The agents for the State of Connecticut, saving to themselves all advantages of other and further defence in said cause, beg leave to suggest, inform, and give the court to understand that there are many persons who are tenants, in possession of the lands in controversy, holding, improving and claiming large quantities of said land, under titles from the States of Pensylvania and Connecticut respectively, particularly the two large companies of Delaware and Susquehanna, consisting of more than two thousand persons, many of whose people are in, possessing, improving and holding large tracts of said lands in controversy, under title from the State of Connecticut, whose titles under said States respectively will be materially affected by the decision in this case, yet have not been cited or any way legally notified to be present at said trial to defend their titles respectively, which, by the rules of proceeding in a course of justice, ought to be done before any farther proceedings are had in said case; and thereupon said agents move this honorable court to cause said companies of Delaware and Susquehanna, and other tenants in possession, holding under title from either of said states, to be duly cited in some proper and reasonable manner, to appear and defend at said trial, if they see cause, before any farther proceedings are had in said cause; and of this they pray the opinion of this honorable court.

The parties on postponement

The agents of Pennsylvania, apprehending that the agents of Connecticut design to move the court to postpone or put off the determination of the cause now depending before them, do give notice to the said agents for Connecticut, in the presence of the court, that they, the said agents of Pennsylvania, will oppose any motions of that nature being made after the evidence on the part of Pennsylvania has been opened, or the merits of the cause entered upon; and if the said agents for Connecticut propose to make any such motion, the agents for Pennsylvania do express their willingness that time be given them for that purpose.

And now the agents of the State of Connecticut, unwilling to give any unnecessary delay, but considering the magnitude of this cause, its length and intricacy, and the high importance that it should be thoroughly investigated, and not only justly determined, but in a manner satisfactorily to the parties concerned; and the State of Pennsylvania, not having yet filed any declaration or state of their claim in this court, whereby the agents for Connecticut can know what the demands of Pennsylvania are, or what they have to answer to, and knowing that there are many exhibits and proofs which will be essentially necessary in the course of said cause, which we have not, nor hath it been in our power to procure, viz. a certain original deed from the Indians, of a large parcel of the lands in dispute, obtained from their chiefs and sachems at their council fire in Onondaga, in A.D. 1763, which is now in England, left there before the commencement of the present unhappy war, and which we have never since been able to obtain; and other necessary evidence and proofs, which on examination we find we are not at present possessed of, which may be wanted in the course of said trial, and not yet knowing what concessions may be made on the part of Pennsylvania, do consent to proceed in the trial of said cause; at the same time reserving to ourselves the right of moving in any stage of said trial, to have the same postponed, as the nature and exigencies of the case may require, and that the agents for Pennsylvania have on their part the same advantages, and that this motion be made parcel of the files of this honorable court.

The agents of Pennsylvania, in answer to the written motion preferred by the agents of Connecticut, do say, that they are now ready, and have been for some time, to exhibit their claim on the part of Pennsylvania, but have been delayed by the expectation founded on the promise made in the presence of the court by the agents of Connecticut, to file their claim at the same time. Yet they say in answer to that part of the said motion which claims the right of moving in any stage of the trial to have the same postponed, that the court ought not to hear and admit any motion to postpone the trial after the same has begun and proceeded to a hearing of the merits of the cause; and of this they pray the opinion of the court.

Evidence and depositions, November 23–25

The agents for the State of Connecticut, sensible that in the course of this trial they will have occasion to make use of many depositions, taken before a justice of the peace according to the laws of the State in which they were taken, respecting the purchase of the Indian sachems, native proprietors of said lands, their deeds and the execution of them, the settlements that have been made on said lands and sundry other matters which will be necessary in said trial, beg leave now to move for the opinion of the court, whether such depositions, taken as aforesaid, will be admitted as evidence in the case.

The agents for Pennsylvania, anxious for the speedy determination of this cause, and desirous that the agents for Connecticut may have no reason to complain of hardship or surprise, do hereby, in the presence of the court, give notice to the said agents for Connecticut, that they shall conceive it their duty to oppose the admission of any ex parte depositions, as evidence in this cause; and that they shall object to any application for a commission to take the examination of witnesses, and to any motion for delaying this cause on the account of the absence of witnesses, unless such motion or application be forthwith made, so as to avoid unnecessary delay.

Now the agents for Connecticut, in answer to the notice given them by the agents for Pennsylvania on the 23d instant say, that they being desirous of a just as well as a speedy decision of this cause, and that they, relying on the wisdom, equity and justice of this honorable court, that all questions and motions which shall come before them will be righteously determined, are ready to proceed. And that the agents for Pennsylvania may not suffer any disadvantage by first disclosing their exhibits and evidence, the agents of Connecticut are willing, and now offer to go forward in their exhibits and proofs.

Pennsylvania’s renewed commission, produced December 3

In the name and by the authority of the freemen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: The president and supreme executive council of the said Commonwealth: To William Bradford, jun. esquire, attorney-general of the said Commonwealth, Joseph Reed, James Wilson, Jonathan Dickinson Sergeant, and Henry Osborne, esquires.

(L. S.) We, reposing especial trust and confidence in your prudence, integrity and abilities, do by these presents constitute and appoint you, the said William Bradford, jun. Joseph Reed, James Wilson and Jonathan Dickinson Sergeant, our counsellors and agents, and you the said Henry Osborne, our solicitor and agent, in the cause now depending before the honorable the commissioners and judges, appointed by virtue of the ninth Article of the Confederation of the United States of America, to hear and finally determine the controversy subsisting between the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of Connecticut: hereby ratifying and confirming all, and whatsoever you our said counsellors and agents, or any two of you, shall lawfully do or cause to be done, or heretofore have lawfully done or caused to be done, touching the said cause between the said states of Pennsylvania and Connecticut.

Admission of attestation to the 1754 deed, December 4

The agents for the State of Connecticut, having offered in evidence the proofs or attestation annexed to a certain deed, signed by Kahick Toton and other Indians, dated 11 July, 1754; which deed had yesterday been admitted to be read; the agents for the State of Pennsylvania objected to the reading of the said proofs and attestation, alleging that they contained sundry circumstances relating to the manner of obtaining the said deed, which were improper to be given in evidence; whereupon, after argument, the court ruled that the same be read.

Order for alternating argument, December 10

The proofs and exhibits, on the part of Pennsylvania, and on the part of Connecticut, being finished, Ordered, That the agents proceed in the arguments alternately, and that one conclude on the part of the State of Pennsylvania.

The record identifies Reed as concluding Pennsylvania’s argument on December 24. On December 26 the commission for taking the Earl of Stirling’s deposition was returned with the deposition annexed and ordered filed; the court did not itself take that deposition on December 26. The final judgment followed on December 30.

James Wilson and William Samuel Johnson: arguments recorded by Cyrus Griffin

Arguments before the Court of Commissioners, editorially dated December 14–23, 1782. The manuscript is in Cyrus Griffin’s hand in the Thomas Jefferson Papers; these are notes of advocacy rather than a verbatim stenographic transcript.[17]

The first proposition’s “Gabot … 1594” is an error preserved in the manuscript, as the scholarly edition notes. It should not be read as the date of Cabot’s voyage. Archaic spellings and the advocates’ claims about discovery, Indigenous ownership, and colonial power are retained as historical evidence.

James Wilson, for Pennsylvania

We have the pleasure to meet your honors upon a very important Contest. You are now to decide a territorial controversy, which with other nations would have been decided by the sword. This being a court of the first impression in any part of the Globe and the present subject of litigation being of considerable value, I hope the honorable Court will pardon the tedious discussion I am now to make.

On the part of Pennsylvania, I will lay down this first position.

1. “That N. America being discovered by Gabot [sic] in 1594 [sic], the Crown of England assumed the Right of Granting the property and Jurisdiction thereof to its subjects by letters patent.” I apprehend this position is so evident from the General tenor of history that no contradiction will arise concerning it. However, proofs to this purpose may be exhibited in the examination of a second position which I am now to make.

2. “That in 1681 the Crown of England justly considered all the lands in America westward of Delaware River and Northward of lord Baltimore’s Grant, as ungranted lands and open to a new Grant.” A Right of discovery is common to all nations. The English had not a preference.

  • A Tittle from discovery was certainly of some force and especially according to the Ideas which prevailed in those early times. In consequence of this we find a Grant from the Pope Alexander the 6th. to his Catholic Majesty in the Year 1493.
  • 2 Harris voyages. 15. 16. 17.
  • Also a Grant by Henry 7th. of England to the Cabots
  • 2 Harris. 190.
  • Also a Grant to Monsr. d’ Ossions
  • 4 purchas pilgrim. 1609. 1620.
  • King James the first divided America into two Colonies, South and North Virginia. The first charters could only extend 100 miles upon the coast and the same distance into the Country.
  • 1 Neal history. 17. Stiths history of Virginia. 10
  • In 1608 Henry Hudson in the service of Holland penetrated so high up the Hudson’s river as Albany about 43°. N. L.
  • Smiths history N. York. 2. 3. 4.
  • Smith’s history N. Jersey. 19.
  • The dutch settlements in North America were called Nova Belgia or New Netherlands.
  • The extent of them
  • Hielans1 Cosmography 957.
  • 2 British Empire in America 237.
  • 2 Harris 280. 5 atlas Geog. 732.
  • Ogil. America 168.
  • The Dutch possessions acknowledged as just by England at the Treaty of Breda 1667. and the Treaty of Westminster 1673. From these authorities we have a right to conclude that Nova Belgia or N. Netherlands covered all that Territory at least which is now in dispute.
  • The Great Plymouth patent constituting N. England from 40°. to 48°. N. L. passed in 1620.
  • This patent we contend could pass no Territory westward of N. Netherlands. It was bounded or estopped by the possessions of the first Christian prince.
  • 1 Douglas history N. England 114.
  • 2 Douglas 391.
  • Lord Hardwick’s opinion in 1 Vezey 451.
  • The Geography of the Country on this period but little understood and therefore unreasonable and extravagant that Grants should extend to the south seas.
  • 3 Purchas 852. 853.
  • 4 Purchas 1786. Virginia valued—pamphlet
  • The surrender of this Great patent was in the year 1635.
  • The Charter to Connecticut was Given in the Year 1662.
  • New Haven colony united with the Colony of Connecticut 1665.
  • That charter meant only to cover the two Colonies and could never mean to extend westward of the Dutch settlements. All Geographers and writers have proceeded upon this Idea.
  • Douglas, Hutchinson, Neal, modern un. history, British Emp. &c. &c.
  • The Title set up by Connecticut ought to be considered as a dormant title. Nothing is mentioned of this western Territory from the year 1662 to the year 1754 and not regarded by Government until 1773.
  • The line drawn by the King’s commissioners in 1664 and assented to by Connecticut as a good issue, decisive as to the western bounds of that Colony.
  • New York Records. 20.
  • Connecticut Records. 30.
  • In 1680 and 1730 Connecticut acknowledges herself bounded west by the province of N. York.
  • Considerations ought to be commensurate with every Grant. The King was deceived in this Grant to Connecticut as no exception was made to the Dutch possessions. We must discover the thoughts of those who make Contracts
  • 2 Blacstone 295.
  • 2 Vattel §270.
  • 2 Hutchinson history Massa. 387.
  • Interpretation must be rational
  • 2 Rutherford—chapter Interpretation.
  • 1 Blacstone 59.
  • 2 Bacon abrid. 661.
  • The power of explaining charters, &c. must remain with the Crown.
  • 2 Vattel §282. 287.
  • Puffendorf 541.
  • Grotius 365.
  • Restraining the words of laws, patents &c.
  • 2 Vattel 292. 293.
  • 2 Rutherford. 339.
  • Puffen. 545. 554.

3. I state as a 3d. position “That King Charles the second granted to William Penn his heirs and assigns all that Tract of land in America bounded by Delaware River on the East unto the 43°. of N. latitude, the said land to extend westward five degrees in longitude &c.”

  • This position is proved by the charter of Pennsylvania dated 4 March 1681.

4. A fourth position is “That this charter was considered by the King with attention and caution and was granted in consideration of debts due from the Crown, and also in consideration of the services of Sir William Penn the father of the Grantee.”

  • Passed with great caution. Proceedings of the privy council in
  • 1 Votes assembly 7. 12.
  • The Grant not extravagant.
  • 2 Douglas 306.
  • The Grant was for debts and services
  • 2 Harris. 293.
  • 9 Biographical dict. article Penn.
  • Such Grants of the King ought to be construed favorably
  • 4 Bac. ab. 212.

5. A fifth position “That, to prevent any claim which the duke of York might have upon Pennsylvania, William Penn obtained a release from the duke of all such his right, title, and Interest.”

  • This deed of release bears date 21 of August 1682.
  • 2 Douglas 305.
  • This right, title, or Interest, vested in the duke.
  • The Dutch had the right of pre-emption as possessing N. Netherlands. N. Netherlands was cede[d] to England and afterwards granted to the duke.
  • Colden’s history five nations 52. 53. 54. 104.
  • This makes the foundation of the cession made by the state of N. York to the united states.

6. We state as a sixth position - “That upon the faith of this Grant to Penn Great numbers came from Europe to Pennsylvania, extended the settlements already began, and together with the Proprietor exercised Jurisdiction over all the lands within the bounds of the said patent until the revolution in 1776.”

  • Many laws of Pennsylvania, the Council Books of Pennsylvania, and Colden’s history, page 115. 131. were adduced in proof of this position.
  • Also a proclamation of the Pennsylvania Government dated 24th. of February 1768. and another dated 10 July 1771.

7. A seventh position is this “That Penn not content with the Title which the patent gave him to the soil, he and his successors purchased the lands from the Natives for a valuable consideration.”

  • The Indian Right to dispose of their lands. Colden. 106.
  • Also in page 77. 78. 79.
  • Dummer’s defence. 18. 1 Douglas. 5.
  • Indian deeds and papers exhibited from No. 2 to No. 41.
  • Treaty of Albany 1754.
  • Pennsylvania does not mean to abandon her Crown title by these exhibits. But she means to strengthen her right to the lands in controversy by combining her Indian title.

8. We advance as the eighth position - “That the Indians of the six Nations in a public and solemn manner conveyed the Right of pre-emption to the proprietors, and covenanted to sell all the lands within the limits of the charter of Pennsylvania to none but to them, their heirs and assigns.”

  • This deed of pre-emption dated 25th of October 1736.
  • Colden history five nations.

Position 9. - 9. “That at a subsequent period a second deed of the same kind was made in the same manner and the former deed recognised.”

  • Deeds of ratification and confirmation in the years 1754. 1758.
  • Also the great deed at Fort Stanwix in the year 1768.

Position 10. - “That actual settlements were made by the Inhabitants of Pennsylvania and under rights derived from the proprietors, on the lands in dispute, for more than 20 years, before any claims or settlements on these lands were made by any persons under Connecticut.”

  • To prove this position several exhibits were adduced from letter A to letter G. and also parole testimony.

Position the last. 11. “That by an act of the General assembly, Pennsylvania being a free, sovereign, and Independent state, all the Estate, title, and Interest, of the then proprietors is vested in the Common wealth of Pennsylvania, in consideration whereof the sum of £130,000 sterling money is granted to the said proprietors.”

  • The act in proof of this position is dated 27th. of November in the year 1779.
  • Not just to extend these south sea claims—these unlocated lands ought to be in common as being acquired by the common blood and common Treasury of America.

William Samuel Johnson, for Connecticut

I shall state this as my first position.

1. “That by the discovery of the Cabots the Crown of England was vested with a right of colonizing from the 25 to the 68°. of N.1. in America, and with the right, property, and pre-emption, to all the lands from sea to sea.”

  • Prince’s chronology. 17. 80.
  • Stiths history of Virginia Appendix 1. 2. 3.
  • General history and writers upon this subject.

2. A second position I lay down is “That 1606 King James the first divided the Countries aforesaid into two Colonies South and North Virginia.”

  • Stiths history of Virginia
  • Douglas—Hutchinson
  • and Prince.

3. My third position - “That King James the first granted to the Council of Plymouth all the Colony of North Virginia from the 40 to the 48° of N.l. in longitude from the Atlantic on the East to the south sea on the west the whole breadth throughout the main land, and gave it the name of N. England, except only such parts as were actually in the possession of some other Christian prince.”

  • Plymouth patent dated 18th. November 1620.

4. My fourth position - “That many subordinate Grants were made by the Council of Plymouth, particularly one to the proprietors of the province of Massachusetts Bay, confirmed by King Charles the first in 1629.”

  • Charter prefixed to the laws of Massachusetts.
  • 3 Hutchinson, from the beginning.

5. Position. - “That Robert Earl of Warwick president of the Council of Plymouth conveyed to lord Say and Seal and others all that part of N. England in America from Narraganset river the space of 40 leagues upon the sea shore, and also all the lands north and south in latitude and breadth, and in length and longitude of and within all the breadth aforesaid, throught the main lands there, from the western ocean to the South Sea.” Patent to Say and Seal dated 19 March 1631.

  • 2 Douglas 90. 160.
  • 2 Hutchinson. 203.
  • Connecticut records. 57.

6. Position. - “That in 1636 the Colony of Connecticut settled on the said lands as the associates of Lord Say and Seal &c. and in 1638 formed a constitution of Government extending themselves by purchases from the Indians to the possessions of the Dutch on Hudson’s River.”

  • Connecticut records. 41.
  • New-Haven records. 1. 2. 3.
  • United Colony records. 19. 20. 39.

7. Position. - “That King Charles the 2d. granted the present charter to the Governor and Company of Connecticut. The bounds are All that part of my dominions in New-England bounded East on Narraganset river, on the North by the line of the Massachusetts, and on the south by the sea; and in longitude as the line of the Massachusetts running from East to West, that is from the said Narraganset on the East to the south sea on the west part.” Petition of the Connecticut assembly to

  • Charles 2d. June 7th. 1661.
  • Charter 23 of April 1662.
  • Letter from Charles 2d. to the Governor and Company of Connecticut 23 of April 1664.

8. Position. - “That Charles 2d. gave a patent to his Brother the Duke of York of all that part of New-England from Saint Croise next adjoining to New Scotland, from thence on the sea coast to Pemaquid and up that river to its head as it tendeth northward, and extending from thence to the river Kenebeck and upwards by the shortest course to the river Canada Northward, also Long Island with the Hudsons river, and all the lands from the west side of Connecticut river to the East side of Delaware Bay.”

  • This patent, dated 12th. of March 1664.

9. Position - “That the Crown of England having granted all the lands from 40°. to 48 N.l. to the Plymouth Company, excepting as is therein excepted, the duke of York’s patent took effect by force of the exception and in the settlement of the line with Connecticut the duke’s patent was reduced nearly to the Dutch possessions on the Hudson’s River Eastward.”

  • Connecticut records. 137.
  • Articles of agreement 29th. of April 1725.
  • Act of the Connecticut assembly October 4th. 1730.

10. Position. - “That in 1753 the Colony of Connecticut having settled all the lands in the patent east of the line settled with the duke of York—Companies of Adventurers were formed for the purpose of making settlements within the charter on the west of delaware river agreeable to the original Intent thereof and purchased of the Indians sundry Tracts of land on the Delaware and Susqueh. rivers, and made settlements on the lands in controversy, under the colony of Connecticut, approved by the assembly.”

  • Indian deed 11 July 1754.
  • Indian deed 29th of October 1756.
  • Indian recognition. 12th July 1763.

11. Position. - “That in 1773 the Colony of Connecticut did assert their right of Jurisdiction and property and pre-emption in and to the lands in question, and for many years past have actually exercised Jurisdiction over the same.”

  • Act of assembly October 1773.
  • Act of assembly January 1774.
  • Act of assembly December 1775.

12. Position—and the last - “That the Colony of Connecticut at the time of the late Revolution was in fact seised of the right of Jurisdiction of property and preemption in and to all the Territory in their charter and patent including the lands in controversy.”

  • This question upon the whole matter is a very important question and to my Judgment ought to be determined by the law which existed at the moment of acquisition.
  • This law had for its basis the great principle or title of occupancy and the acknowleged Right of the Prince.
  • But America was inhabited. Therefore some additional principles were necessary and what were these additional principles? Preemption, and actual purchase.
  • But no such purchases could be made unless they were made under the authority of the Prince, agreeable to the feudal Ideas prevalent at that period.
  • Hence it followed that the Indian Tittle was subordinate to the Crown Title.
  • The Indian Title can give no certainty and certainty is necessary in the establishment of property.
  • We ought to consider the Natives of America as they were.
  • Cultivation or Industry appears to me the only just criterion of property.
  • Nay property ought to be commensurate with Civilization.
  • We made actual purchases of the Indians but why? That we might purchase peace and quiet.
  • All titles in America take their origin from the Crown in the way of Charters and other Grants.
  • The Crown only could give a right of pre-emption, and that right of pre-emption seems to be admitted by the laws of Nations, consented to by all civilized people and sanctified by prescription.
  • All the legislatures upon this continent have adopted a language of this sort and therefore ought to be binding upon this court as a fixed determination or law in the American code.
  • Connecticut had a charter given them in the year 1662 upon valuable considerations.
  • Charters or Grants are the foundation of all American property and charters or Grants once fairly made should operate eternally.
  • Connecticut has a legal Title as founded upon discovery and subsequent Grant from Charles the second.
  • Discovery is a right acquiesced in nay ratified by all the nations of Europe and therefore in a national controversy like the present will carry weight with it.
  • We have no direct proof that the Dutch were in possession of N. Netherlands or any part of N. England under a title from their sovereign, untill the year 1621, a year after the Plymouth patent was granted by King James.
  • Before the year 1620 Governor Argal of Virginia made the Dutch acknowlege the King of England and therefore became Tenants to the Crown of England.
  • We can consider the Dutch therefore as originally nothing better than Intruders.
  • Then the settlements of the Dutch cannot form a bar or an estoppel to the western extension of the Connecticut charter.
  • It does not appear that King Charles was deceived in his Grant to Connecticut. He well knew the extent of that Grant. The Atlantic and Pacific oceans even upon the coasts of them had been explored—latitudes and longitudes pretty accurately determined.
  • All these Grants or charters extending to the South Sea were done so for the purpose of encouragement. They formed a regular system.
  • At all events, the Instrument itself must determine the Grant.
  • Every Instrument of this nature should be construed liberally and not so strictly as to contradict or take away the essential words of it. If the property of these lands in dispute were once vested, as we think by the charter of Charles, there is nothing in our opinion to divest it.
  • The reasons, evidence, or documents to the divestiture of property ought to be fully as strong as to the Investiture.
  • The settlement of 1664 was only a settlement with the duke of York. In fair construction it can relate to nothing farther than to adjust the bounds of the Dukes patent and the patent of Connecticut as relative to the Duke.
  • If that settlement meant any thing more than I contend it could be only upon the principle of resumption by the Crown—the most horrid principle of Tyrannical power—against all Law whatever, and what I am certain this Court will never establish in these enlightened times.
  • In this case the Title of Connecticut cannot be considered as a dormant title. Silence does not operate against property in the society of nations. Neither in law or Equity can nonuses forfeit the right in our situation. Neither Penn or Connecticut made any use of this controverted Territory until lately. Connecticut took possession and made settlements so soon as her Eastern Territory was populated.
  • The acknowlegement of Connecticut as bounded west in 1680 and 1730 must be construed according to the subject matter. The subject matter was the bounds of the Province of N. York and the bounds of Connecticut as interfering with that province and can-not preclude the western extension of Connecticut beyond the province of N. York.
  • Besides if there was a dereliction or even such an acknowledgement on the part of Connecticut it cannot operate in favor of the Pennsylvania charter, that being granted to Penn only 19 years after the one to Connecticut.
  • The policy of this great Question has been mentioned. I think improperly. It was meant as an appeal to a majority of this honorable Court who come from the smaller states in the union. But your honors will disregard the policy of this matter if it militates with the right.
  • However, the policy will be found in favor of Connecticut—for at the approaching peace with G. Britain our charters will be the best foundation to stand upon in discussing the subject of the back Territory. We are not entitled to those fine and extensive regions by Conquest from Britain nor are we entitled to them by forfeiture on the part of Britain. Our charters or Grants from the Kings of England make the only firm basis of American claim to those back lands.

For the manuscript description and the editors’ discussion of the policy argument, consult the complete scholarly edition at Founders Online.

Notes and sources

Primary records are cited by document date and printed page. Where a detail rests on a later historian or on collection information, that distinction is stated.  OpenAI, ChatGPT, assistance with historical research, source verification, and HTML editing for “The Decree of Trenton,” prepared for the Klos Yavneh Collection, October 1, 2026.

  1. United States, Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (hereafter JCC), vol. XXIV (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1922), pp. 6–32, proceedings entered under January 3, 1783; decree at pp. 31–32. The editorial note at p. 32 locates the signed judgment in the Papers of the Continental Congress, no. 77, fol. 81, and a copy of the proceedings at fols. 216–285. Library of Congress scan. ↩1 ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8
  2. JCC, XXIV, pp. 10–12, Connecticut’s motion concerning private claimants and the court’s ruling; commissioners’ letter of December 31, 1782, in Henry M. Hoyt, Brief of a Title in the Seventeen Townships in the County of Luzerne: A Syllabus of the Controversy between Connecticut and Pennsylvania (Harrisburg: Lane S. Hart, 1879), p. 45. ↩1 ↩2 ↩3
  3. Articles of Confederation, Article IX, interstate-dispute and private-right-of-soil clauses (Yale Law School, Avalon Project). Article IX expressly makes the interstate court’s judgment final and conclusive and requires transmission and lodging with Congress; it does not require subsequent ratification by the successful state. Article XIII requires the states to abide by determinations of Congress on matters submitted to it by the Confederation. ↩1 ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5
  4. Klos Yavneh Collection, manuscript and exhibit descriptions supplied with this webpage. The contemporary clerk-copy description and attribution of the main text to John Neilson are retained as the collection’s identification, not presented as a new handwriting authentication. Dimensions and watermark reading follow the supplied description. The verso reading is provisional. No document examined for this revision identifies the original recipient of this particular sheet. ↩1 ↩2
  5. JCC, XXIV, pp. 7–10 (November 12–19, 1782); XXIII, pp. 466–468, 528–536 (August appointments and commission), Library of Congress scan. The original proposed list included Nathanael Greene and John Rutledge; five commissioners actually heard the case. John Neilson was appointed clerk November 18 and sworn November 19. The commission named seven prospective commissioners, with any five or more empowered to act. For the November 3, 1781 petition, see JCC, XXI, p. 1092, Library of Congress scan. ↩1 ↩2 ↩3
  6. Oscar Jewell Harvey, A History of Wilkes-Barrรฉ, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, completed by Ernest Gray Smith, vol. III (Wilkes-Barre: Raeder, 1927), pp. 1304–1305. Harvey explicitly describes forwarding a copy of the decree to Dickinson and reports filing of the advisory letter on January 2. His footnotes cite William Henry Egle, ed., Pennsylvania Archives, 2nd ser., XVIII (1890), p. 629, for the decree, and Hoyt, p. 45, for the letter. The volume’s title page gives 1927, although some catalog records apply the series’ 1909 date to it. ↩1 ↩2 ↩3
  7. JCC, XXIV, pp. 14–24 (competing charter claims); Boyd, “The Connecticut-Pennsylvania Territorial Dispute,” editorial note. Colonial grants and asserted purchases must be read as the parties’ claims, not as neutral accounts of Indigenous ownership. The 1768 purchase invoked by Pennsylvania was from the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix, not a sale by New York State; see Vanhorne’s Lessee, 2 U.S. at 304–305. ↩1 ↩2 ↩3 ↩4
  8. Commissioners to President John Dickinson, Trenton, December 31, 1782, transcribed in Hoyt, p. 45, and Harvey, p. 1304. The excerpt follows Harvey. The printed signature lists differ: Hoyt lists four names, while Harvey includes Cyrus Griffin. No new conclusion about the original letter’s signatures is drawn here. Brearley’s March 4, 1790 explanation that the letter had no official authority appears in Hoyt, p. 103, and Harvey, pp. 1304–1305. ↩1 ↩2 ↩3
  9. Pennsylvania Supreme Executive Council, minutes of January 6, 1783, Colonial Records of Pennsylvania, XIII (Harrisburg, 1853), pp. 474–476. Page 474 records receipt and reading of the agents’ report dated January 2, enclosing the decree, and of the commissioners’ letter. Pages 475–476 reproduce the January 6 proclamation and order its publication. This is direct primary evidence of Council action on January 6; it should not be conflated with Harvey’s account of filing on January 2. ↩1 ↩2 ↩3
  10. United States Constitution, Article III, sections 1–2 (National Archives). Article III establishes the Supreme Court, permits congressionally created inferior courts, extends federal judicial power to controversies between states, and provides original Supreme Court jurisdiction in cases in which a state is a party. This is institutional continuity in the use of national adjudication; the text does not ratify the Trenton decree. ↩1 ↩2
  11. Harvey and Smith, History of Wilkes-Barrรฉ, III, chs. XXIV–XXV, pp. 1374–1457 (the 1784 conflict), ch. XXIX (Luzerne County), and ch. XXXIV, pp. 1650–1673 (later land settlement). These historical accounts distinguish the state-boundary result from the prolonged private-title controversy. ↩1 ↩2
  12. Vanhorne’s Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 304, 310–320 (Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District, April Term 1795), official United States Reports scan; searchable transcription. Despite its inclusion in the early United States Reports and modern Supreme Court databases, this was a federal circuit-court case. Justice William Paterson’s jury charge discusses the March 28, 1787 Confirming Act, its operation, and its repeal, as well as constitutional protection of property. ↩1 ↩2
  13. Cyrus Griffin to Barnabas Bidwell, September 15, 1796, reproduced in Hoyt, pp. 46–47, and Harvey, pp. 1305–1306. This is the source of the remarks about impartiality and private soil rights formerly misaddressed on this page to Dickinson. It is a retrospective account, distinct from the commissioners’ December 31, 1782 letter. ↩
  14. Julian P. Boyd, ed., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 6, “The Connecticut-Pennsylvania Territorial Dispute,” editorial note (Princeton University Press; National Archives, Founders Online), identifies this as the only interstate litigation carried out under Article IX’s prescribed procedure. The wording used here is deliberately limited to a duly constituted interstate Court of Commissioners reaching final judicial judgment. It does not include settlements reached by agreement or the separate prize jurisdiction. For the negotiated settlements, see the Georgia Archives, Convention of Beaufort (1787), and the Harvard Business School Baker Library collection description, Accounts of payments on bonds for New York lands, describing the December 16, 1786 Hartford agreement. ↩
  15. Federal Judicial Center, “Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators,” introduction, on the Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture, created in 1780. Article IX separately authorized courts for piracy and high-seas felonies and final appeals in capture cases. Trenton should therefore not be described without qualification as the first or only federal judicial decision. ↩
  16. Biographical references: Federal Judicial Center, David Brearley and Cyrus Griffin; National Archives, “The Founding Fathers: New Jersey” (William C. Houston); Rhode Island Historical Society, bibliography entry for Franklin Stuart Coyle’s study of Welcome Arnold. Brearley’s birth year differs between institutional biographies and is omitted here. Griffin’s birth year is 1748 in the FJC directory; his prize-court service preceded his 1788 congressional presidency. ↩
  17. James Wilson and William Samuel Johnson, “Arguments … before the Court of Commissioners,” [14–23 December 1782], notes in Cyrus Griffin’s hand, Thomas Jefferson Papers, Library of Congress; edited in The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 6 (Princeton University Press), available at Founders Online. The source appendix preserves the supplied page’s text, normalizes list formatting, and supplies an explicit note for the manuscript’s “Gabot … 1594” error. These are notes of advocacy, not the court’s reasons for judgment. ↩

Back to top

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)