(352) 
them except, such allowances therefor as the later New York 
grantees might choose to make. On the trials at Albany in 
1770, the earlier grants were rejected as evidence, both on 
technical grounds and on the ground of Gov. Wentworth’s 
The charter to the Duke of York in 1774 was in the identical words of that 
of 1664, of which it was merely a reissue, designed to cure any defects in the 
Duke’s title arising from the Crown’s want of possession when the first 
charte er was granted, or from the Dutch recapture of New Popa in 1673. 
thoriz 
settle disputes and to determine boundaries, which were to ‘‘continue and 
be observed’? until otherwise determined by the crown. (Colonial Doc.,3: 
51-53, 64, IIo, ie ah , 241; 7:597. H. Hall’s Vt., 31.) Their determina- 
tions were never changed, es to correct errors of detai 
In Dece mber, 1064, this commission with Gov. Nicolls, adopting the ex- 
pon a uniform parallel line 20 a east e Hudson, as the li 
division. Broa ’s Hist. 2: 54. reduced to writing, the treaty was 
erroneous in location and direction yer Doc., 3 64, T12, 125; 
all’s Vt., 24-28.) ese errors were corrected by the commission ap- 
pointed by Gov. Dongan . sa so as ‘‘to answer to the err intention o - 
38, 285-288.) The eres Hee the aa sont 
wards and parallel thereto, ‘‘as ae s the Connecticut oe doth extend, 
in 1700 (Colonial Doc., 7: 776); again ratified y the N. Y. islature, 
Laws, 1039-1043 ae again confirmed by the Crown in 1723 (Colonial Doc. 
) 
uestioned. ‘ 
The same line applicable to Pie ee In his letter to the Duke of 
York in November, 1665, Gov. Nicolls wrote that the greement with Con- 
necticut ‘‘was made by virtue of her precedent patent” ; that is, on account 
of her superior rights under her prior charter and the see treaty of 1650, 
of which that agreement was in fact a recognition; that it was is a 
case of equal justice and of great good consequence in alf ie lonies, . . 
So that to the east of New York and Hudson's River nothing considerable now 
any part of Fludson River.’ (Colonial Doc., 3: 51, 64, 106, 110-117, 170, 
235; N. Y. Hist. Soc. Pub., 1869: 76, 86. 
From these expressions it is plain that Gov. Nicolls considered that the 
