limits of the province of New-York. The original rights of lord Berkley and sir George Carteret, are vested in two different sets, consisting each of a great number of persons, known by the general name of the Proprietors of East and West Jersey, who, though they surrendered the powers of government to queen Anne, in the year 1702, still retained their property in the soil. These were the persons interested against the claim of New-York. It is agreed on all sides, that the deed to New-Jersey is to be first satisfied, out of that great tract granted to the duke, and that the remainder is the right of New-York. The proprietors insist upon extending their northern limits to a line drawn from the latitude of 41° 40' on Delaware, to the latitude of 41°, on Hudson's river; and allege, that before the year 1671, the latitude of 41°, was reputed to be fourteen miles to the northward of Tappan creek, part of those lands being settled under New-Jersey till 1684.

They also contend, that in 1684 or 1685, Dongan and Lawrie, (the former governor of New-York, and the latter of New-Jersey,) with their respective councils, agreed that the latitude on Hudson's river was at the mouth of Tappan creek, and that a line from thence to the latitude of 41° 40' on Delaware should be the boundary line. In 1686, Robinson, Wells,* and Keith, surveyors of the three several provinces, took two observations, and found the latitude of 41° to be 1' and 25" to the northward of the Yonker's mills, which is four miles and forty-five chains to the southward of the mouth of Tappan creek; but against these observations the proprietors offer sundry objections, which it is not my business to enumerate. It is not pretended by any of the litigants, that a line according to the stations settled by Dongan and Lawrie was actually run; so that the limits of these contending provinces must long

*The same who left the quakers, and took orders in the church of England. -Burnet's history of his own times.

have existed in the uncertain conjectures of the inhabitants of both; and yet the inconveniences of this unsettled state, through the infancy of the country, were very inconsiderable. In the year 1701, an act passed in New-York, relating to elections, which annexed Wagachemeck, and great and little Minisink, certain settlements near Delaware, to Ulster county. The intent of this law was to quiet disputes before subsisting between the inhabitants of those places, whose votes were required both in Orange and Ulster. The natural conclusion from hence is, that the legislature of New-York then deemed those plantations not included within the New-Jersey grant.

Such was the state of this affair till the year 1717, when provision was made by this province for running the line the same being done in New-Jersey the succeeding year, commissions for that purpose under the great seals of the respective colonies, were issued in May, 1719. The commissioners by indenture dated the 25th of July, fixed the north station point on the most northern branch of the Delaware, called the Fishkill; and from thence a random line was run to Hudson's river, terminating about five miles to the northward of the mouth of Tappan creek. In August the surveyors of East-Jersey met for fixing the station on Hudson's river. All the commissioners not attending through sickness, nothing further was done. What had already been transacted, however, gave a general alarm to many persons interested in several patents under NewYork, who before imagined their rights extended to the southward of the random line. The New-York surveyor afterwards declined proceeding in the work, complaining of faults in the instrument, which had been used in fixing the north station on DelaThe proprietors, on the other hand, think they have answered his objections, and the matter rested, without much contention, till the year 1740. Frequent quarrels multiplying after that period, relat

ware.

ing to the rights of soil and jurisdiction southward of the line in 1719, a probationary act was passed in New-Jersey, in February, 1748, for running the line ex parte, if the province of New-York refused to join in the work. Our assembly soon after directed their agent to oppose the king's confirmation of that act, and it was accordingly dropped, agreeable to the advice of the lords of trade, whose report of the 18th of July, 1753, on a matter of so much importance, will doubtless be acceptable to the reader.

"To the king's most excellent majesty :

"May it please your majesty: We have lately had under our consideration an act passed in your majesty's province of New-Jersey, in 1747-8, entitled, an act for running and ascertaining the line of partition and division betwixt this province of NewJersey, and the province of New-York.

"And having been attended by Mr. Paris, solicitor in behalf of the proprietors of the eastern division of New-Jersey, with Mr. Hume Campbell and Mr. Henley, his counsel in support of the said act; and by Mr. Charles, agent for the province of New-York, with Mr. Forrester and Mr Pratt, his counsel against the said act; and heard what each party had to offer thereupon; we beg leave humbly to represent to your majesty, that the considerations which arise upon this act are of two sorts, viz. such as relate to the principles upon which it is founded, and such as relate to the transactions and circumstances which accompany it.

"As to the first, it is an act of the province of New-Jersey, interested in the determination of the limits, and in the consequential advantages to arise. from it.

"The province of New-Jersey, in its distinct and separate capacity, can neither make nor establish boundaries; it can as little prescribe regulations for

deciding differences between itself and other parties concerned in interest.

“The established limits of its jurisdiction and territory, are such as the grants under which it claims have assigned. If those grants are doubtful, and differences arise upon the constructions, or upon the matters of them, we humbly apprehend that there are but two methods of deciding them-either by the concurrence of all parties concerned in interest, or by the regular and legal forms of judicial proceedings and it appears to us, that the method of proceeding must be derived from the immediate authority of the crown itself, signified by a commission from your majesty under the great seal the commission of subordinate officers and of derivative powers, being neither competent nor adequate to such purposes to judge otherwise would be, as we humbly conceive, to set up ex parte determinations and incompetent jurisdictions in the place of justice and legal authority.

"If the act of New-Jersey cannot include other parties, it cannot be effectual to the ends proposed; and that it would not be effectual to form an absolute decision in this case, the legislature of that province seems sensible, whilst it endeavors to leave to your majesty's determination, the decision of one point relative to this matter, and of considerable importance to it; which power your majesty cannot derive from them, without their having the power to establish the thing itself, without the assistance of your majesty.

"As we are of opinion that the present act, without the concurrence of other parties concerned in interest, is unwarrantable and ineffectual, we shall in the next place consider what transactions and proceedings have passed towards obtaining such

concurrence.

"The parties interested are your majesty and the two provinces of New-York and New-Jersey. Your majesty is interested with respect to your sovereignty.

seigneurie, and property; and the said provinces with respect to their government and jurisdiction.

"With regard to the transactions on the part of New-York, we beg leave to observe, that whatever agreements have been made formerly between the two provinces for settling their boundaries; whatever acts of assembly have passed, and whatever commissions have been issued by the respective governors and governments; the proceedings under them have never been perfected, the work remains unfinished, and the disputes between the two provinces subsist with as much contradiction as ever; but there is a circumstance that appears to us to have still more weight, namely, that those transactions were never properly warranted on the part of the crown; the crown never participated in them, and therefore cannot be bound with respect to its interests by proceedings so authorized.

"The interest which your majesty has in the determination of this boundary, may be considered in three lights either as interests of sovereignty, respecting mere government; of seigneurie, which respect escheats and quitrents; or of property, as relative to the soil itself; which last interest takes place in such cases, where either your majesty has never made any grants of the soil, or where such grants have by escheats reverted to your majesty.

"With regard to the first of these interests, viz. that of sovereignty, it has been alleged to us in support of the act, that it is not materially affected by the question, as both provinces are under your majesty's immediate direction and government: but they stand in a very different light with respect to your majesty's interest in the quitrents and escheats; in both which articles the situation of the two provinces appears to us to make a very material alteration: for although the province of New Jersey is not under regulations of propriety or charter with respect to its government, yet it is a proprietary province with respect to the grant and tenure of its territory,