1647 DISPUTE ABOUT SPRINGFIELD. 383 the impost was undoubtedly one in which the two opposed parties might legitimately take differing views. On the one hand the security of the river was a direct benefit to Springfield. Against that it might fairly be urged that it was also a gain to Plymouth, and still more to Newhaven, and that it was hard that the traders of Springfield should either be wholly cut off from the use of the river or else should have to pay a tax which they had no share in originating or apportioning. The difficulty could never have arisen if the federal compact had been a more effective one. A more complete constitution would have provided for the matter, both as a question of common defence and also by some definite system of inter-colonial duties. It may be said that the absence of any special clause in the Articles of Federation reduced the question to one of international right. Even if Massachusetts and Connecticut had been wholly independent of one another, and the question had therefore come under the code which governs international disputes, it may be doubted whether Massachusetts could justly have opposed the impost. Nor can it be denied that the federal compact, even if it created no legal bond, at least set up a moral obligation. The case was one which from its very nature could not become a precedent. The laxity of the federal tie was in itself a reason why any of the colonies should scrupulously forbear to act in a way which could imperil the union. The very superiority of Massachusetts enabled it to be less tenacious of its rights without endangering them. Moreover the act of protesting before the Commissioners was almost an acknowledgment of their jurisdiction. To refuse to be bound by their verdict was perilously near a breach of faith, and could not fail to discredit the federal govern ment. In 1618 the question was re-opened. The Massa chusetts Commissioners proposed a compromise, or perhaps one should rather say that they made the dispute a pretext for suggesting a complete rearrangement of the federal constitution. After calling attention to the fact that their colony bore five times as much of the common burdens as any of the others, they proposed that Massachusetts should be allowed a third Commissioner, and that any of the other colonies might by increasing its contribution proportionately obtain the same advantage. They suggested at the same time that the meetings of the Federal Commissioners should for the future be triennial. They also proposed to weaken the authority of the Confederation by a special enactment that the power of the Commissioners should not extend to the government of Indians, nor to the appointment of any general officer of a civil nature to carry out the objects of the Confederation within any of the four colonies. The virtual result of this would have been to reduce the Confederation to a lax alliance of colonies under the leadership of Massachusetts. tween Con and Massa The matter was further embittered and complicated by a dispute as to the boundaries of the two colonies. Boundary Owing to the peculiar circumstances under dispute be- which Connecticut had been settled, the colony necticut could not be properly said to have any fixed chusetts. limits. The soil had been acquired by occupation, by the conquest of the Pequods, and by successive purchase of parcels of land from the natives. As we have seen, the colonial government had in a certain fashion acquired the territorial rights of Lord Say and Sele and his partners by agreement with Fenwick. This transfer, however, did not fix the limits of the colony with any precision. It rested therefore with Massachusetts to claim a certain frontier, and with Connecticut, after investigating, and if needs were challenging, that 1 These proposals are in the Acts of Commissioners (vol. i. p. 119). 1649-50 DISPUTE ABOUT SPRINGFIELD. 385 claim, to accept the territory beyond it. The exact southern boundary of Massachusetts, like that to the north, was open to dispute, and the question remained for some years a matter of contention, breeding illfeeling between the two colonies.1 The Assembly of Massachusetts soon retaliated, not only on the colony whose claims had offended them, Massachu- but against the confederates who had given those claims their support. In 1649 they setts im poses a retaliatory duty. passed an act imposing a duty on all goods carried into or out of Boston harbour by inhabitants of any of the other three confederated colonies. This was avowedly a measure of retaliation, since the preamble set forth the imposition of the duty by Connecticut, and declared that the government of Massachusetts had expended large sums in fortification. The act furthermore set forth that the works at Saybrook were of no use for defence. A colour was given to this statement by the fact that the fort had been burnt down, and, as it seems, had not been fully rebuilt.2 If this measure was meant to awe the three weaker members of the Confederation into submission it failed. The Commissioners stood firm, and met the aggressive. policy of Massachusetts with a remonstrance. In temperate and dignified language they asked the government of Massachusetts to how far its conduct agreed with 'the law of love and the tenure and import of the Articles of Confederation.' In conclusion, they desired to be spared in all further agitation concerning Springfield.' 3 Next year the Massachusetts government voted the repeal of the duty, conditionally on Connecticut also withdrawing the toll at Saybrook. There unfortunately 1 For this boundary dispute see Mass. Records, vol. ii. p. 264; Acts of Commissioners, vol. i. p. 150; Connecticut Records, vol. i. p. 570. 2 The order is in the Massachusetts Records (vol. iiì. p. 152). 3 Acts of Commissioners, vol. i. p. 158. 4 Mass. Records, vol. iv. pt. i. p. 11. II. C C our knowledge of the dispute ends, as there is nothing in the records of either colony to show which prevailed. Indian dis The Confederacy was soon entangled in fresh difficulties with the natives. As might have been foreseen, the death of Miantonomo brought trouble in putes. its train. His followers complained that Uncas had received ransom for his captive and had then slain him, and for this they threatened vengeance.1 It was even rumoured that they were seeking help from those dreaded neighbours, the Mohawks.2 The Mohican chief turned to the English for protection. Accordingly the Federal Commissioners summoned Uncas and some of the leading chiefs among the Narragansetts to attend their meeting at Hartford in the autumn of 1644. The Commissioners examined the charges against Uncas, and declared that there was no proof that ransom had been paid. After some discussion a truce was arranged between the hostile tribes, each pledging itself not to attack the other till after the next crop of corn was planted, and promising that the side which began the war should give the English due warning. The Narragansett chiefs furthermore undertook that if any of those Pequods who still remained in the Nyantic country attacked Uncas they should be seized and delivered up to the English. The truce failed to restrain the Narragansetts, and in the spring Uncas came to his allies with fresh complaints.4 Thereupon the government of 3 1 Acts of Commissioners, vol. i. p. 28. 2 This rumour is mentioned in a letter from Benedict Arnold to Winthrop, and also in one from Mason to Winthrop (Mass. Hist. Coll., 5th series, vol. i. p. 331, and 4th series, vol. vii. p. 411). 3 The expression used is, 'any of the Nyantic Pequods.' The agreement with the Narragansetts is given in the Acts of Commissioners (vol. i. pp. 28-30). 4 A skirmish between the Narragansetts and Mohicans at this time is very graphically described in a letter from one Thomas Peters to Winthrop (Winthrop, vol. ii. Appendix N). 1645 EXPEDITION AGAINST THE NARRAGANSETTS. 387 Massachusetts summoned a special meeting of the Federal Commissioners at Boston. They came together, and sent messages to the Indian country requiring the two rival tribes to send representatives to Boston. The Narragansett chiefs neglected the summons, and treated the messengers with contumely. The Commissioners then decided on war. A force of three hundred men was raised, a hundred and ninety from Massachusetts, forty each from Plymouth and Connecticut, and thirty from Newhaven. The troops from the two last named colonies, strengthened by forty men. from Massachusetts, were placed under the command of Mason, and sent to the help of Uncas. Narragan The circumstances under which the expedition was sent out illustrated the weakness of the federal bond and the arrogant attitude of Massachusetts Expedition against the towards the other members. The General setts. Court of Massachusetts declared that a military expedition could not legally be sent out without their sanction. They did not apparently wish that the expedition should be hindered, but only that the commander should have a supplementary or confirmatory commission from themselves. The Federal Commissioners resisted this claim, on the ground that their own powers of making peace and war included all incidental and necessary acts. At last the Massachusetts government gave way, being appeased, as it would seem, by the appointment of one of their own citizens, Major Gibbons, as commander-in-chief of the expedition.2 Gibbons' instructions were moderate and humane. He was empowered to offer the Narragansetts terms of peace, exacting from them security not to molest Uncas 1 The proceedings of their special meeting are fully recorded in the Acts of Commissioners (vol. i. pp. 32-49); cf. Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 198. 2 For this dispute see the Acts of Commissioners, vol. i. p. 36. |