556 Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1752.

Lib. C. B.

3^d That M^r Digges his Tenant or Tenants were Possessed of
such Place at the Time of the Royal Order.
Were the Subject of Dispute a Claim of bounds or Property
either between a Proprietary and a Tenant or between Tenant
and Tenant and Determinate by the Common Rules of Law
your Expectation might be very reasonable, But this Question
is concerning a Jurisdiction directed and regulated by a Par-
ticular Order of his Majesty, who has been also Pleased to
Specific the Mode and proof of such Jurisdiction Not by Sur-
veys, Plans, and all the disputable Inquirys used in Common
Cases, but by one Criterion only, i e, Possesions Had it been
otherwise, and that each Government must have proceeded
for their Satisfaction on the Point of Jurisdiction by the Plan
you have prescribed, what endless uncertainty contention and
Confusion would have happened in every Case from the meet-
ing of the People on Each Side of the Borders, in running
Lines & proving boundarys We maybe Sufficiently convinced
by what happens on common Surveys & opposite Interests of
the Borderers, So that an Order pursued by your Scheme
would rather raise fresh Disturbances and destroy the Peace
than prevent the [one] or preserve the other And in this view I
presume the Royal Order has only Subjected the Point of
Possession to Our Examination, But indeed it has yet taken
further care of these two Provinces by the Strict Injunction
contained in that Order to the Proprietaries & their Officers
not to receive or accept of Attornments from the Tenants of
the other Proprietary. You very rightly observe, "Thatprob-
" ably Art Fraud and Violence were too frequently used
" amongst the Borderers concerning their Possessions." Even

p. 495

this his Majesty most Graciously Provided against as far as
his Royal Commands would Influence the Tenants by Ex-
pressly forbidding them on one Side to Attorn to the Propri-
etary of the Other But however inefficacious such Restraints
may prove to the Conduct of the Tenants, we may be assured
not the least appearance of Disobedience will be in those who
hold the Reins of Government, — In this opinion I again Set
before you the Light in which this Transaction Shews itself
on the face of the Depositions. That the Spot where Dudley
Digges was murdered had been Surveyed for M^r Digges the
Father under authority of this Government some considerable
time before his Majestys Order in Council. That John Lemon
upon some agreement with & under M^r Digges had Posses-
sion of it. That Martin Kitzmiller purchased from John
Lemon his work (which I suppose means his Improvements)
on the said Land. That Kitzmiller being told by Lemon that
he had no Right to Sell the Land but that he (Kitzmiller)
must buy of M^r Digges answered, that if he could get Lemons