[ 132 ] EDWARD H. TEBBENHOFF eased the fears of the two most moderate spokesmen that a war of terrorism would ensue. Finally, by not disclosing to the militant loyalists the aid of Smith and Elliot in formulating the regulations, Clinton prevented an open fissure in loyalist ranks. The proposed regulations of the board of directors interpreted their powers broadly. In contrast, the regulations submitted by Smith and Elliot reflected a structured, highly legalistic approach that circumscribed the powers of the board. An examination of the two sets of proposed regulations makes the differences in approach readily evident.42 1. The directors desired to frame "Articles of Association" subjecting the associators to all orders and regulations the board judged "necessary and proper!' Smith and Elliot maintained that Clinton must have final approval of the articles and exercise "a Control on all the orders the Board is to make" 2. The board wanted the commander-in-chief to furnish all arms, ammunition, equipment, provisions, and armed vessels necessary to conduct raiding activities. All captures made by the Associated Loyalists would become their property and be evenly distributed by the board. If the loyalists operated in conjunction with the king's army, they were to receive the same pay as regular soldiers. The board would have charge of all prisoners captured by the organization and could exchange them only for captured associators, "except in Special Cases either assented to" by Clinton or the board. Mariners employed in the service of the Associated Loyalists could not be impressed by the Royal Navy. Sick and wounded associators would be received into the king's hospitals. Finally, each man serving "during the Continuance of the Rebellion" would receive a grant of two hundred acres of land "clear of all Fees and Expenses of Office!' The moderates objected that the second article of the board's regulations contained too many specific promises that "may have been asked in England and refused" This objection centered particularly around the exchange of prisoners. Smith and Elliot maintained that "the very Power they ask" includes "the Right to correspond on that Subject!' Such a trust in a subordinate body, they argued, deserved deep consideration. 42 See Proposed Instructions, 121-24; and Smith, Memoirs, IH, 345-46.