its jurisdiction; as, for example, when Col. Benjamin Fletcher, the new governor of New York, arrived from England in 1692 with a commission vesting him with power to command the militia of Connecticut. Fletcher was subsequently allowed to command 120 Connecticut men in case of a threatened invasion, but the rest of the militia was under Connecticut's control. This arrangement virtually recognized the authority of the charter. Connecticut likewise resented Gov. Joseph Dudley's attempt to take command of the military forces of both Connecticut and Rhode Island in time of war.1 But a true friend of the colony was Sir Henry Ashurst, who was the agent of Connecticut at the court of Great Britain from 1704 until his death in 1710. Connecticut owes a debt of gratitude to Sir Henry for his unselfish devotion to Connecticut in upholding her chartered rights. The years following 1710 showed several attempts to appeal to the court of England when Connecticut refused to give redress for alleged wrongs. Nicholas Hallam and Maj. Edward Palms, a son-in-law of John Winthrop, jr., appealed to the King in Council, but the decisions of the Connecticut courts were sustained. But a more notable case was the appeal to England of John Winthrop, F. R. S., grandson of John Winthrop, jr., who was unwilling to allow his sister to inherit any real estate, but claimed all for himself. Winthrop went to England to prosecute his claims and died there. The Talcott papers published by the Connecticut Historical Society gave a full account of this notable appeal. A confirmation of the Connecticut law was obtained. Connecticut was obliged to appeal to the Crown during the eighteenth century on account of the boundary disputes with Massachusetts and Rhode Island; but appeals to the Crown were unpopular, for the reason that privileges in the charter were threatened. The Mohegan case was used by enemies of the colony to injure Connecticut, but this case was finally decided in 1771 in favor of the colony. A violation of the charter of Connecticut was the appointment by George II of the governor of New York as captain 1 Kimball, "Joseph Dudley," 135-179. 2 "Collections of the Connecticut Historical Society," IV, 166–168, 175, 179, 180, 232, 235 (Talcott Papers) and "Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings," second series, VIII, 125, 138. 8 Hildreth, "History of the United States," II, 348. See also "Acts of the Privy Council, Colonial Series (The Unbound Papers)," VI: 173, The Petition and Complaint of John Winthrop of Connecticut, dated Feb. 8, 1727: "As your petitioner saw the government there wholly vested in the hands of persons of levelling spirits and antimonarchical principles. . . . Your petitioner looked upon it as his particular duty, as being the grandson and heir of the person who obtained the grace and bounty of this Charter at your Majesty's royal predecessor's hands and which the said Company have so greatly abused, to come over to England in person to lay those grievences before your Majesty." Governor Talcott answered the 29 articles in the petition and said that Winthrop's sole aim was to inherit all of his father's and grandfather's estates, basing his claim on primogeniture and not on partition, which was the rule of inheritance in all the New England colonies. 4 Palfrey, IV, 364, 366, also "Massachusetts Historical Society Collections," fifth series, IX (Trumbull Papers), 222, 235, 253, 261, 483. general and commander in chief of the militia within the colony of Connecticut.1 The charter of Connecticut was used by English commissioners against the French in 1752 in order to establish our jurisdiction across the Mississippi River. The establishment of the Mississippi River as a boundary line between the United States and Spain at the close of the Revolutionary War was an affirmation of the charter of Connecticut and the acceptance by the United States in 1786 of Connecticut lands in the west was another confirmation of the charter. If Connecticut had not received a charter from Charles II, she would not have to-day the $2,000,000 school fund obtained as the result of the sale of western lands. 1 Peters, "General History of Connecticut" (1781), 76, 77, 78, 90, 1.02. VII. THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS. By FRANK M. ANDERSON, 28333°-14-8 113 |