The disputes of the colonies, however, were by no means limited to those with foreigners and savages. The union, which had been so seriously threatened by the Dutch war, had earlier suffered another severe strain in a controversy between Connecticut and Massachusetts over questions of taxation. When the fort at Saybrook was bought from Fenwick by the former colony, for the purpose of protecting and controlling the mouth of the river, the contract provided that he should receive, in part payment, certain tolls to be levied upon merchandise exported by all the River Towns.[593] A few months later, the General Court passed a law regulating the amounts of these duties and providing for their collection.[594] The boundary line between Connecticut and Massachusetts was still undetermined; but as the latter colony claimed Springfield, which was under its jurisdiction, that town objected to being taxed by Connecticut, and refused to pay the duties demanded.[595] The question was referred to the Commissioners of the United Colonies by Connecticut in 1647, though the fort had then been destroyed by fire. The objections of Massachusetts, presented in writing, were not well taken, and one was an absolutely false statement, Connecticut having no difficulty in showing that the Bay Colony's contention that the question of a river-toll had delayed the formation of the Confederacy by ten years was palpably absurd and impossible.[596] Another contention, that the toll was not levied upon the Dutch at Good Hope, was also of no import, for the commerce of that tiny post was slight, and by taxing it, international questions would have been raised, to no advantage. Moreover, as the main value of the fort at Saybrook was to protect the river from the Dutch, its upkeep could hardly be considered as a charge of which that nation shared the advantages. The duties required were not discriminatory, and Connecticut was merely asking that the other permanent settlers up the river should share the same burden which she imposed upon herself. Footnote 593: Conn. Col. Records, vol. I, pp. 119 _ff._, 266 _ff._ Footnote 594: _Ibid._, pp. 189 _ff._ Footnote 595: _Acts United Colonies_, vol. I, p. 80; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, Series IV, vol. VI, p. 380. Footnote 596: _Acts United Colonies_, vol. I, pp. 89 _ff._