John Jay Papers

John Jay’s Role in the New York–Massachusetts Western Lands Dispute  Editorial Note

John Jay’s Role in the New York-Massachusetts
Western Lands Dispute

Although a committed nationalist, Jay served equally the interests of his native state. As a delegate from New York in Congress, he had in earlier years pressed his state’s case against Vermont. He was also experienced in the settlement of interstate boundaries, as a young man having served as secretary to the New York-New Jersey Boundary Commission in the colonial period.1 Now back in Congress he argued and voted for the choice of New York City as a temporary capital, and even before he had taken his seat at Trenton, the New York state legislature had appointed him one of five agents to represent New York in its western boundary dispute with Massachusetts.2 Since Jay considered the settlement of such interstate disputes essential to the advancement of national unity, such a move appealed to his nationalism as well as his state loyalties.

The claims of Massachusetts to lands west of the Hudson rested on the Massachusetts Bay Company’s old charter of 1629, with its “sea-to-sea” clause founded on the right of discovery of new lands made by explorers for England. New York relied on a contrary doctrine, stressing occupation and possession, and defending the validity of Dutch title to much of the area in dispute.3 Fruitless efforts to settle this conflicting claim were made in the years immediately preceding the American Revolution. When the controversy was revived after the war, both parties were governed by Article IX of the Articles of Confederation, which made Congress the “last resort on appeal” in all such interstate disputes, and the agents of the parties to the issue were to appoint the judges by joint consent. Failing agreement, the judges would be named under the agency of Congress, with the federal court ruling to be final.4

In response to a petition from Massachusetts of 27 May, Congress resolved on 3 June 1784 that agents of the two states should appear before Congress on the first Monday in December to take steps for setting up a federal court to hear the issues.5 New York’s agents, including Jay, met with their Massachusetts counterparts at Trenton for the selection of judges, in compliance with a congressional resolution of 10 December.6 In a fortnight the agents of the two states had agreed on a panel of nine judges, four chosen from each side’s list, with Robert Hanson Harrison, the chief justice of Maryland, the nominee of both sides.7 James Duane carried the burden of organizing and managing New York’s case, but Jay kept a hand in the business. When the New York agents arranged to get certified copies of New York, Dutch, and even pertinent Massachusetts records, Jay turned to William Stephens Smith, then secretary of the American legation in England, and engaged him to secure exemplifications under the Great Seal of some nineteen documents.8 In addition, Jay joined with some of his fellow agents in choosing counsel,9 and in urging nominees to accept service as judges of the federal court.10 In January 1785 Congress selected Williamsburg, Virginia, as the site for the court to assemble in June, but the New York agents opposed that place as too distant for the assemblage of appropriate records and witnesses, and for the convenient participation of their agents and selected judges, who held other posts requiring their presence. Congress rejected their appeal and retained its choice of Williamsburg, but the process delayed the official notification of appointment of the judges, and the court was postponed until November. However, by 1 November 1785 Jay and Duane, together with Massachusetts agents Gerry, King, and Holten, were obliged to confess to Congress that they had not yet received acceptances from several of the judges and had to ask for another postponement.11

As the case dragged on into the following year, Jay was on 26 January 1786 compelled by the pressure of other public business to resign,12 along with Walter Livingston. Replacements and additions to the ranks of the New York agents brought their number to seven, and they, along with their Massachusetts counterparts, were to play the decisive role in the settlement. The federal court was never convened, as both sides feared a definitive judicial ruling, preferring instead the possibility of a negotiated compromise settlement. By an act of 28 April 1786 New York empowered its agents, or any five of them, to settle the controversy.13 Similarly, Massachusetts, fearful that New York, having concluded a treaty with the Oneida and Tuscarora tribes for the purchase of a tract of land west of the Fort Stanwix Line of 1768, would dispose of the disputed lands before a judicial decision was reached, conferred a similar authority on its agents. Other likely factors include Massachusetts’s need for additional revenue to pay her public debt and reduce the heavy taxation contributing to Shays’s Rebellion, lack of confidence in Congress’s ability to enforce federal court decisions, and the interest of land speculators in the territory under dispute.14 The joint commission met 30 November 1786. Their agreement, signed by both states on 16 December 1786, recognized New York’s sovereignty and jurisdiction over all lands within her claimed limits between the Hudson River and Lake Ontario, but confirmed Massachusetts’s “right to the soil” of some six million acres west of the Fort Stanwix Line, with the exception of a strip a mile wide along the Niagara River, retained by New York.15 It was this final settlement that Jay anticipated with satisfaction in a letter to Livingston.16 The settlement touched off an era of land company speculation while clearing the way for a heavy influx of population into the formerly disputed area.

1. See JJUP, 1 description begins Richard B. Morris et al., eds., John Jay, vol. 1, The Making of a Revolutionary: Unpublished Papers, 1745–1780 (New York, 1975) description ends : 9, 10–11, 23, 102–5, 118–22; JJSP, 1 description begins Elizabeth M. Nuxoll et al., eds., The Selected Papers of John Jay: Volume 1, 1760–1779 (Charlottesville, Va., 2010) description ends : 63–64, 77–80, 660, 662nn1–2, 665, 666n1, 667, 679n1, 687–696, 699, 702–704, 708–709.

2. The other named New York agents were Egbert Benson, James Duane, Robert R. Livingston, and Walter Livingston. Credentials of the New York agents, DS, 1 Dec. 1784, DNA: PCC, item 75, 163–76; JCC description begins Worthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1904–37) description ends , 27: 667–71 (presented 8 Dec. 1784); New York Laws description begins Laws of the state of New-York, comprising the Constitution, and the acts of the legislature since the Revolution, from the first to the twelfth session, inclusive. Published according to an act of the legislature, passed the 15th April, 1786. In two volumes. … (New York, [1789]). description ends , 1: 182 (8 Sess., 1784, c. 4).

3. Rufus King to John Lowell and James Sullivan, 23 Feb., 1785, LDC description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds., Letters of Delegates to the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (26 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1976–98) description ends , 22: 211–13; Report of the Regents of the University of New York on the Boundaries of the State of New York, prepared by Daniel J. Pratt (2 vols., Albany, 1884), 2: 100–151; Hamilton Law Practice description begins Julius Goebel Jr. and Joseph H. Smith, eds., The Law Practice of Alexander Hamilton (5 vols.; New York, 1964–81) description ends , 1: 554–65.

4. JCC description begins Worthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1904–37) description ends , 19: 217–19.

5. JCC description begins Worthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1904–37) description ends , 27: 547–50; Massachusetts petition, 27 May 1784, LS, DNA: PCC, item 65, 2: 228–32; Hamilton Law Practice description begins Julius Goebel Jr. and Joseph H. Smith, eds., The Law Practice of Alexander Hamilton (5 vols.; New York, 1964–81) description ends , 1: 567–69.

6. The agents were “to appoint, by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question.” JCC description begins Worthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1904–37) description ends , 27: 678. The Massachusetts agents chosen were John Lowell and James Sullivan, both specifically appointed, and its Congressional delegates— Elbridge Gerry, Samuel Holten, Rufus King, and George Partridge. Massachusetts resolution, 11 Nov. 1784, DS, DNA: PCC, item 65, 2: 233–34. For their meeting, see James Duane, “Journal of the Proceedings at Trenton,” 10–11 Dec. 1784, D, NHi: Duane, Box 6, misc., 1784–86, portions of which are printed below; LDC description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds., Letters of Delegates to the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (26 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1976–98) description ends , 22: 56–60.

7. Agreement between the Agents of New York and Massachusetts, 24 and 28 Dec., below; Report to Congress of the New York and Massachusetts agents on the appointment of judges, 24 Dec. 1784; DS, DNA: PCC, item 67, 2: 499–502; JCC description begins Worthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1904–37) description ends , 27: 709–10; LDC description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds., Letters of Delegates to the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (26 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1976–98) description ends , 22: 46–49, 56–60, 83–84; Hamilton Law Practice description begins Julius Goebel Jr. and Joseph H. Smith, eds., The Law Practice of Alexander Hamilton (5 vols.; New York, 1964–81) description ends , 1: 569–70.

Both the agents and the judges or commissioners were changed over time. The four judges chosen by New York were Thomas Johnson, the former first governor of Maryland; the former congressional delegate George Read (1733–98) of Delaware; and the Jerseyites William Paterson (1745–1806), the former state attorney general, 1776–83, and Isaac Smith (1740–1807), an associate justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court, 1777–1804. Massachusetts’s choices were South Carolinian John Rutledge and three Virginians: William Grayson (1740–90), James Monroe, and George Wythe. Of the original selectees, Harrison, Grayson, and Rutledge declined to serve. LDC description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds., Letters of Delegates to the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (26 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1976–98) description ends , 22: 93n3., 284. For the agents’ selection of Samuel Johnston (1733–1816), a former congressman and later governor of North Carolina], John Sitgreaves (1757–1802) of North Carolina, and William Fleming (1736–1824) of Virginia as their replacements in June 1785, see Agents to Congress, 9 June 1785, DNA: PCC, item 67, 2: 511–14 (EJ: 13273); and LDC description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds., Letters of Delegates to the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (26 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1976–98) description ends , 439–40, 444, 446–47.

On 22 Sept. 1786, when the agents wrote Congress requesting a commission for William Hooper (1742–90) of North Carolina in place of James Monroe, who resigned 15 May 1786, the remaining eight judges were Thomas Johnson, William Paterson, George Read, Isaac Smith, George Wythe, Samuel Johnston, John Sitgreaves, and William Fleming. Agents to Congress, 22 Sept. 1786, LS, DNA: PCC, item 67, 2: 507–8, respectively; JCC description begins Worthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1904–37) description ends , 28: 440–41; 31: 693; see also ibid., 28: 125n, 181n; 30: 265–66 and n. At that time the signatories for New York were agents Egbert Benson, James Duane, John Haring, and Melancton Smith; for Massachusetts, Nathan Dane (1752–1835), Nathaniel Gorham (1738–96), and Rufus King (1755–1827).

8. See JJ to James Duane, 11 Oct. 1785, Dft, NNC (EJ: 858); and William S. Smith to JJ, 26 Jan. 1786, DS, NHi (EJ: 662); Hamilton Law Practice description begins Julius Goebel Jr. and Joseph H. Smith, eds., The Law Practice of Alexander Hamilton (5 vols.; New York, 1964–81) description ends , 1: 571.

9. See JJ to Duane, 26 Jan. 1785, Dft, NNC (EJ: 661); Duane, JJ, and RRL agreement on retaining of Alexander Hamilton and Samuel Jones as counsel, 9 June 1785, C, NHi: Duane (EJ: 658); PAH description begins Harold C. Syrett et al., eds., The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (27 vols.; New York, 1961–87) description ends , 3: 613–14; JJ and RRL to Samuel Jones, 9 June 1785, LS, NHi: Duane (EJ: 659). For Hamilton’s role, see also Hamilton Law Practice description begins Julius Goebel Jr. and Joseph H. Smith, eds., The Law Practice of Alexander Hamilton (5 vols.; New York, 1964–81) description ends , 1: 571–72, 579–656; PAH description begins Harold C. Syrett et al., eds., The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (27 vols.; New York, 1961–87) description ends , 3: 702–16.

10. See Massachusetts and New York Agents to James Monroe, 28 Dec. 1784, LDC description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds., Letters of Delegates to the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (26 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1976–98) description ends , 22: 92–93. On 9 June 1785 JJ signed the report as agent for New York reporting the choice of three new members, Samuel Johnson [Johnston], William Fleming, and John Sitgreaves, to the panel of federal judges, DNA: PCC, item 67, 2: 511–14; DNA: PCC, item 18A, 95; JCC description begins Worthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1904–37) description ends , 28: 440–41. See also New York Agents to Mass. Agents, 7 June, and Mass. and New York Agents’ Agreement, 8 June 1785, LDC description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds., Letters of Delegates to the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (26 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1976–98) description ends , 22: 439–40, 444. On 15 June 1785 JJ joined the other New York agents in urging Samuel Johnson [Johnston] of North Carolina to accept, LS, NNGL (EJ: 90532). See also note 7, above.

11. On the opposition to the Williamsburg site, see the New York agents’ memorial of 26 Jan. 1785, and Mass. Delegates to the Mass. Governor and Council, 7 Feb., and to the Mass. Assembly, 12 Feb. 1785, Mass. and New York agents to George Wythe, 9 Apr. 1785, LDC description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds., Letters of Delegates to the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (26 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1976–98) description ends , 22: 139–42, 172–73, 318–19. For the further postponement, see the agents’ 1 Nov. 1785 letter to the President of Congress, DS, DNA: PCC, item 67, 2: 503 (EJ: 5135).

12. JJ to Clinton, 26 Jan. 1786, Dft, NNC (EJ: 7628); HPJ description begins Henry P. Johnston, ed., The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay (4 vols.; New York, 1890–93) description ends , 3: 182.

13. The New York State legislature on 28 Apr. 1786 added John Haring, John Lansing Jr., Robert Yates, and Melancton Smith in place of JJ and Walter Livingston. New York Laws description begins Laws of the state of New-York, comprising the Constitution, and the acts of the legislature since the Revolution, from the first to the twelfth session, inclusive. Published according to an act of the legislature, passed the 15th April, 1786. In two volumes. … (New York, [1789]). description ends , 1: 318–19 (9 Sess., 1786, c. 49); see also note 7, above.

14. Hamilton Law Practice description begins Julius Goebel Jr. and Joseph H. Smith, eds., The Law Practice of Alexander Hamilton (5 vols.; New York, 1964–81) description ends , 1: 574–79.

15. On the negotiation with the Indians in 1785, see Franklin B. Hough, ed., Proceedings of the Commissioners of Indian Affairs of New York (Albany, 1861). On the appointment of the agents for Massachusetts, see the act of Massachusetts legislature, 17 Mar. 1786, read in Congress on 17 Apr. 1786, JCC description begins Worthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1904–37) description ends , 30: 184–85.

16. There was also a tract awarded Massachusetts east of the line as compensation for land in the western area that New York had already sold. For the agreement with Massachusetts, 16 Dec. 1786, deliberated in Congress on 8 Oct. 1787, see JCC description begins Worthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1904–37) description ends , 33: 617–29.

17. See JJ to RRL, 4 Jan. 1787, Dft, NNC (EJ: 7969), although JJ had not yet seen the precise agreed-upon terms.

Index Entries

    You Are Looking At

    Source Project
    Jay Papers
    Title
    John Jay’s Role in the New York–Massachusetts Western Lands Dispute  Editorial Note

    Reference

    Cite as
    “John Jay’s Role in the New York–Massachusetts Western Lands Dispute  Editorial Note,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jay/01-03-02-0295. [Original source: The Selected Papers of John Jay, vol. 3, 1782–1784, ed. Elizabeth M. Nuxoll. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2013, pp. 631–634.]