USA > Maine > Piscataquis County > Historical collections of Piscataquis County, Maine, consisting of papers read at meetings of Piscataquis County Historical Society, also The north eastern boundary controversy and the Aroostook War, V. I > Part 17
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33
On the 15th day of February, 1723, it appears, by some kind of a judicial proceeding or report, that "on the Fief of Madawaska there was a domain, on which the buildings had been burnt by the Indians, and that there were six 'arpens' of land cleared, but at that time no settlement."
By an adjudication by the Prevotal Court of Quebec, dated July 29th, 1755, founded on what was called a "voluntary judicial sale," Madawaska passed to Pierre Claverie. After Canada became a part of the dominion of Great Britain by conquest, the title to this terri- tory passed by judicial sale to Richard Murray and on August 2, 1768, by deed of assignment by Richard Murray to Malcolm Fraser.
The latest deed of Madawaska under these titles that we have evi- dence of was dated August 2, 1802, but between this and the last named date there had been several transfers by judicial sale and otherwise.
This chain of titles was introduced before the King of the Nether- lands, by the British commissioners, to show continuous possession and ownership by Great Britain to Madawaska. The reply of the United States to this contention was, that since the conquest no one had performed acts of fealty and homage under the condition of the original concession of 1683, and hence the title had been for- feited and abandoned by reason of the failure to comply with these feudal services.
(Appendix to the first British Statement before the King of the Netherlands.)
*History and Digest of International Arbitrations, Vol. I, p. 91.
238
HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS
Gallatin asserted that he devoted nearly two years in studying and preparing the case, and bestowed on it more time than he ever did on any other question. *
Finally on the 10th day of January, 1831, the deci- sion of the King of the Netherlands was made public and it was a surprise to both governments and to all parties of interest.
When his award was analyzed, it was found that he had sustained in words the American contention that the term "Highlands" was applicable to ground which, with- out being mountainous or hilly, divided rivers flowing in the opposite directions ; but that it was not shown that the boundaries described in the treaty of 1783 coincided with the ancient limits of the British provinces; and that neither the line of Highlands claimed .by Great Britain so nearly answered the requirements of the treaty of 1783 in respect to division of rivers as to give prefer- ence one over the other.
Abandoning therefore the attempt to determine this part of the boundary according to the treaty of 1783, he recommended what was termed a line of "conven- ience"t or in other words, he made an arbitrary line, not found in Mitchell's map, Map A, or in any of the maps used by the negotiators of the treaty of 1783, of the treaty of Ghent, or by either party before him.
It was evidently intended by him as a compromise, pure and simple.
On the 12th day of January, 1831, Mr. Preble, who was then envoy-extraordinary of the United States at The Hague, addressed to the British Minister of Foreign Affairs, a note, respectfully protesting against the award and reserving the rights and interests of the
*Adams' Writings of Gallatin, Vol. II, p. 549.
+History and Digest of International Arbitrations, Vol. I, p. 136.
239
OF PISCATAQUIS COUNTY
United States on the ground that the proceedings of the arbitrator constituted a departure from his powers.
Mr. Preble also took the ground that the object of the arbitration was to have executed the terms of the treaty of 1783 and that if this could not be done, the question of boundaries ought never again be submitted to any sovereign. And he thus formally entered his protest against the proceedings.
The British government, while apparently not satis- fied with the award, expressed its acquiescence in it, but authorized its minister privately to intimate to the United States that it would not consider the formal acceptance of the award as precluding modifications of the line by mutual exchange and consideration.
The government at Washington for a time hesitated as to what course to pursue. Mr. Preble's protest had been entered without instructions from his government and President Jackson was at first inclined to accept the award.
As the action of the King of the Netherlands became more fully understood by the people of Maine and Massachusetts, its discussion by newspapers and public men became bitter and its criticism more and more intense; and the President's political enemies in both states were severely blaming him for his procrastination in the matter.
At one time he was disposed to issue a proclamation, accepting of the terms of the award without consulting the Senate, but was driven from this course by his politi- cal friends in Maine, who represented to him that such a course would change the politics of the State. *
It is said that he regretted in after years that he did
*Webster's Works, Vol. 1, p. 119.
240
HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS
not follow out his own inclinations in regard to the subject. *
President Jackson therefore submitted the question of acceptance or rejection to the Senate on the 7th day of December, 1831, and in June, 1832, the award was rejected by a vote of 35 to 8, and the Senate at the same time advised the President to open a new negotia- tion with Great Britain for the ascertainment of the line.
The British government promised to enter upon the negotiations in a friendly spirit; and it was stipulated and agreed that both sides should refrain from exercising any jurisdiction beyond the boundaries which they actu- ally possessed.
Meanwhile the government of the United States made earnest though unsuccessful attempts to obtain from the State of Maine full authority to adjust the matter with Great Britain.
The proposition was for Maine to provisionally sur- render to the Federal government all of her right to the disputed territory for the purpose of a settlement.
These offers were, however, all rejected by the State of Maine and then the British government formally with- drew its offer to accept the compromise recommended by the King of the Netherlands.
No real progress was made and nothing accomplished towards a settlement of the controversy during the remainder of President Jackson's administration.
President Van Buren sent a message to the Senate March 20, 1838, with recent correspondence about the subject between the Secretary of State, Mr. Forsyth, and the British Minister, Mr. Fox.
Mr. Forsyth recommended a new conventional line, or another submission to arbitration and the President in
*Webster's Works, Vol. 1, p. 119.
--
241
OF PISCATAQUIS COUNTY
his message expressed the hope that "an early and satis- factory adjustment of it could be effected."
Governor Kent submitted the question to the Legis- lature of Maine, which body on the 23d day of March, 1838, resolved that it was not expedient to assent to the Federal government's treating for a conventional line, but that the State should insist on the line established by the treaty of 1783, and that the senators and representatives in Congress be requested to urge the passage of a bill then pending for a survey of the boundary.
In 1839, Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge, employed by the English authorities, surveyed a part of the line and the government at Washington provided for a survey in 1840.
Nothing of importance resulted from either of these surveys.
For a decade of years subsequent to the award of the King of the Netherlands it was a theme of vast interest to the people of Maine and of Massachusetts as well.
The General Court of that commonwealth made vari- ous reports regarding it at different times. The Gov- ernors of Maine discussed it in their messages and the Legislature made several exhaustive reports upon it.
Indissolubly interwoven with this controversy is the arrest, imprisonment and punishment of one John Baker, a resident of what was known as the Madawaska Settle- ment.
The rights of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to Madawaska and adjacent lands on the Aroostook River were recognized at an early period after the source of the St. Croix was settled by the convention of 1794.
Grants were accordingly made by the Legislature of Massachusetts of lots of land embracing both branches of the Aroostook River* and bordering on the boundary
*This river was originally known as "Restook" and "Ristook."
242
HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS
line, namely : One to the town of Plymouth and one to General Eaton.
Locations and surveys of these lands were made under authority of Massachusetts.
Among other grants was that of a lot of land to John Baker "of a plantation called and known by the name of Madawaska Settlement, in the County of Penobscot, and State of Maine," the deed of which was executed jointly by "George W. Coffin, agent for the Common- wealth of Massachusetts, and James Irish, agent for the State of Maine," on the third day of October, 1825. Another deed of land situated below Baker's was made to James Bacon.
Baker had a farm and a small store, and also a grist and sawmill. Other settlers soon became his neighbors and his place was a center and headquarters for the American settlers in that locality.
One George Morehouse resided in Tobique, in a parish then recently formed and known as Kent.
He held a magistrate's commission from the Province of New Brunswick, and the first of the Madawaska troubles seem to have arisen from a practice which he had instituted as magistrate, although there is no evi- dence that he was in the first instance in any way authorized or instructed by the province authorities to pursue it.
This was no less a procedure than issuing precepts directed to the constables of the Parish of Kent, for the recovery of small demands against the inhabitants along the Aroostook River.
Criminal processes against these inhabitants were also occasionally issued by Magistrate Morehouse.
The serving of these precepts was often resisted by them and sometimes by force.
243
OF PISCATAQUIS COUNTY
That Baker was a leader among these settlers is true and that he may have advised them to thus resist the officers which he believed had no authority or jurisdiction there, is also undoubtedly a fact.
Thus the strife between Morehouse and his followers on the one hand, and the American settlers, led by Baker, on the other hand, continually increased until it seemed to have culminated some time in the early fall of 1827 by an incident which now seems more amusing than tragic.
The Americans had erected a staff, or what might have been known as a "liberty pole," although it does not appear that they had any flag, and upon the top of it had attached a rude representation of the American Eagle.
The Americans had occasional gatherings and festivi- ties around this national emblem, which it may be imagined, were more or less convivial, and they sometimes jeered and perhaps annoyed passers-by from the province who acknowledged allegiance to the Sovereign of Eng- land.
When Morehouse learned of this he became enraged and called upon Baker and ordered him to remove it. This Baker refused to do, whereupon Morehouse procured a subpoena from Thomas Wetmore, Esq., attorney- general of New Brunswick, dated September 17, 1827, for his arrest.
Early in the morning of September 25th, while Baker and his family were asleep, his house was surrounded by an armed force and he was arrested and taken before Magistrate Morehouse,* who committed him to the jail in
*Report of Charles S. Davies to the Governor of Maine, January 31, 1831, p. 29. There may be some doubt however about this statement as the subpoena commanded him to appear before the court in Fredericton.
244
HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS
Fredericton without even examination or trial, if the accounts of the transaction published at the time are to be believed.
But while Morehouse may or may not have been incited by the New Brunswick authorities to do these unlawful acts, they were themselves responsible for some things equally as illegal, among which was that of assess- ing and levying a special and wholly illegal tax upon these settlers which was known as the "Alien tax."*
Baker was prosecuted at various times and one of the alleged grounds for action against him and for several other similar proceedings against Americans in Mada- waska and along the Aroostook River was, that they were trespassers on crown lands. Lumber that had been sawed at Baker's mill was seized and confiscated while being transported down the St. John.
Magistrate Morehouse seems to have spent consider- able time in harassing the settlers on the Aroostook in devious ways.
Early in the spring of 1827 he assumed to have author- ity to prevent them from working on the lands which they occupied, and forbade their doing so, and also posted up written notices to this effect on the Eaton Grant, and in different places; and marked some small piles of tim- ber which they had cut, for seizure. t
He did not even treat them as English subjects but apparently regarded them as outlaws and intruders with- out a country, and without rights which anyone was bound to respect.
In July, 1827, Daniel Craig, a deputy sheriff of the Parish of Kent, who was sent by Morehouse, delivered summonses to all of the inhabitants to appear before the
*Gov. Lincoln's letter to the Secretary of State of the United States, September 3, 1827.
+Davies' Report, p. 10.
245
OF PISCATAQUIS COUNTY
court in Fredericton in pleas of trespass and intrusion on crown lands .*
This sudden and unexpected proceeding naturally created a state of consternation and alarm.
The precepts were served only a few days before the court was to convene. Some went to Fredericton only to learn that the cases were delayed until the next winter. Some went part way and then returned home, while many did not heed the summonses at all.
It was said that those who did go suffered much hard- ship as they were far from home without means of suste- nance.
One man, James Armstrong, was seized in the house of his brother, Ferdinand Armstrong, placed in a canoe and forcibly deported beyond the territory. f
Their market was at Houlton and their only means of transportation was down the St. John River, but as their produce was often seized while en route and as they were subject to so much oppression from the provincial officers, in the fall and winter of 1827-8 they deter- mined to cut out a woods road to Houlton which should be wholly on undisputed American soil.
The first attempt at this was a failure as the explorers who were employed to "spot" out the road, lost their way and after much suffering and privation, found them- selves in Foxcroft.#
It is evident that these American settlers desired to live quiet and peaceful lives, for the means which they resorted to to circumvent provincial authority fully demonstrate this.
When they had endured the methods and practices of Morehouse and others as long as they felt it was possible,
*Davies' Report, p. 11.
+Ib. p. 12.
#Ib. p. 12.
246
HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS
instead of organizing an armed revolt which might have been natural under the circumstances, they conceived the idea of a general agreement to avoid all resort to courts or legal proceedings whatever.
The plan was simple and yet unique and perhaps in a degree communistic.
A paper was accordingly drawn up and signed by the American inhabitants generally, constituting a sort of compact, by which they mutually agreed to adjust all disputes of whatever nature which might arise among themselves, by virtue of referees, without admission of British authority, and that they would support each other in abiding by this determination.
This was to be a provisional agreement, to continue in force only for one year; and, in the meantime, appli- cation was to be made to the government, in order to obtain, if possible, the benefit of some regular authority. *
Thus these isolated and primitive people in that deso- late and remote region, buffeted by the persecutions of one government, and forsaken and abandoned to their own resources by another government, more than half a century after the treaty of 1783, proposed to free them- selves from the tyranny of all magistrates, courts, lawyers and officers.
This paper or written agreement among the inhabi- tants of Madawaska, was, as will hereafter appear, one of the grounds for the indictment against Baker and others for alleged conspiracy and sedition.
The redoubtable Morehouse, as might have been anticipated, appeared upon the scene as soon as he learned of the existence of this written agreement and demanded it of them, but it was in their estimation, too sacred a document to part with, and they refused to
*Davies' Report, p. 23.
247
OF PISCATAQUIS COUNTY
deliver it up as did the people of Connecticut refuse to surrender their ancient charter to James II in 1687.
At the Hilary term* of the Supreme Court in 1828, the grand jury for the County of York in the Province of New Brunswick found a true bill of indictment against John Baker, James Bacon and Charles Studson, for conspiracy.
The defendants, Bacon and Studson, were never taken into custody, but John Baker was arrested and arraigned Thursday, May 8, 1828, before the Honorable Chief Justice Saunders, Mr. Justice Bliss and Mr. Justice Chipman.
The indictment alleged that the defendants "being persons greatly disaffected to our said lord the now King, and his Government, within this his Majesty's Province of New Brunswick, and being factiously and seditiously disposed, on the fourth day of July in the eighth year of the reign of our said Sovereign Lord George the Fourth, with force and arms, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, did amongst them- selves, conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together, falsely, maliciously, factiously, and seditiously, and to bring hatred and contempt on our said lord the King, etc, etc."
The first overt act complained of in this indictment was that on the said fourth day of July at the place above named, the defendants "in pursuance of, and according to said conspiracy," * * * did "cause to be raised and erected, a certain flag-staff, and did place thereon a certain flag, as the Standard of the United States of America."
*Hilary Term. In English law. A term of court, beginning on the 11th and ending on the 31st of January in each year. Super- seded (1875) by Hilary sittings, which begin January 11th, and end on the Wednesday before Easter.
,
248
HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS
The second overt act relates to the provisional paper which the inhabitants had signed as above referred to and alleged that the defendants had "applied to divers liege subjects of our said lord the King, and then and there presented to the same subjects a paper writing, which they the said John Baker, James Bacon and Charles Studson, then and there requested the said sub- jects to sign, then and there declaring that, by the said paper, they the said subjects, would bind themselves to oppose the execution of the laws of Great Britain, to wit, in the Madawaska settlement, so called."
The third overt act states that the defendants "did oppose and obstruct the post man" in carrying the mail through Madawaska settlement, etc.
The attorney general appeared and prosecuted the case for the crown while the defendant Baker appeared without counsel and defended himself during the trial. Baker was found guilty, and sentenced to two months imprisonment, and to pay a fine of £25 to the king.
Prior to the arrest of Baker he and James Bacon had been selected by the inhabitants as "a deputation" to proceed to the seat of government of Maine with a request to have their case laid before the Legislature at its next session ; and to enquire of the executive authority whether they were recognized as citizens of the State of Maine and entitled to its protection.
These two men attended to this duty by traveling on foot and by canoe much of the way ; they then "returned through the wilderness by the way they came."
One of the results of their mission was the following proclamation by the Governor of Maine:
"Whereas it has been made known to this State, that one of its citizens has been conveyed from it, by a Foreign Power, to a gaol in the Province of New Bruns- wick ; and that many trespasses have been committed by
249
OF PISCATAQUIS COUNTY
inhabitants of the same Province upon the sovereignty of Maine and the rights of those she is bound to protect.
"Be it also known, that, relying on the government and people of the Union, the proper exertion will be applied to obtain reparation and security.
"Those, therefore, suffering wrong, or threatened with it, and those interested by sympathy, on account of the violation of our territory and immunities, are exhorted to forbearance and peace, so that the prepara- tions for preventing the removal of our land marks, and guarding the sacred and inestimable rights of American citizens may not be embarrassed by any unauthorized acts.
ENOCH LINCOLN.
Portland, November 9, 1827."
The Legislature of 1828 also passed this resolve:
"Whereas the sovereignty of this State has been repeatedly violated by the acts of the agents and officers of the Government of the British Province of New Brunswick, and that government, by its agents and officers, has wantonly and injuriously harassed the citi- zens of this State, residing on the North Eastern frontier of the same, and within its limits, by assuming to exer- cise jurisdiction over them, in issuing and executing civil and criminal process against them, by which their property has been seized, and some of them arrested and conveyed out of the State, and subjected to the opera- tion of the laws of that Province; and in establishing military companies within the territory of this State; imposing fines for neglect of military duty; imposing upon our said citizens an alien tax, and requiring pay- ment of the same; and Whereas, by the exercise of the aforesaid unwarranted acts of jurisdiction by the govern-
250
HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS
ment of the said Province, some of our citizens have been deprived of their liberty, their property destroyed, many of them driven from their lands and dwellings, the tranquility and peace of all of them disturbed, and the settlement and population of that part of the State adjoining said Province, greatly retarded, if not wholly prevented : Therefore,
"RESOLVED, That the present is a crisis, in which the government and people of this State, have good cause to look to the government of the United States for defence and protection against foreign aggression.
"RESOLVED FURTHER, That if new aggressions shall be made by the government of the Province of New-Brunswick upon the territory of this State, and upon its citizens, and seasonable protection shall not be given by the United States, the Governor be, and he hereby is requested to use all proper and constitutional means in his power, to protect and defend the citizens aforesaid in the enjoyment of their rights.
"RESOLVED FURTHER, That, in the opinion of this Legislature, the Executive of the United States ought, without delay, to demand of the British Govern- ment the immediate restoration of John Baker, a citizen of this State, who has been seized by the officers of the Province of New Brunswick, within the territory of the State of Maine, and by them conveyed to Fredericton, in said Province, where he is now confined in prison; and to take such measures as will effect his early release.
"RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Governor be, and he hereby is, authorized and requested, with the advice and consent of Council, from time to time, to extend to the family of the said John Baker, such relief as shall be deemed necessary ; and he is hereby author- ized to draw his warrant on the Treasury for such sum or sums as shall be required for that purpose.
251
OF PISCATAQUIS COUNTY
In the House of Representatives, Feb. 16, 1828. Read and passed, JOHN RUGGLES, Speaker. Attest, James L. Child, Clerk. In Senate, February 18, 1828, Read and passed, ROBERT P. DUNLAP, President. Attest, Ebenezer Hutchinson, Sec'y.
February 18, 1828-Approved, ENOCH LINCOLN."
In 1831 the attempt of certain persons to hold an election at Madawaska Settlement under the laws of Maine, led to their arrest and trial by the authorities of New Brunswick.
They were convicted and sentenced to fine and impris- onment, but were afterwards released on the request of the United States government, their action having been disavowed by the authorities of Maine.
In June, 1837, Ebenezer Greeley of Dover, Maine, was employed by the State of Maine as an agent to take the census of the people of Madawaska, and at the same time, to distribute their share of the surplus money which had accumulated in the United States Treasury .*
A provincial constable arrested Mr. Greeley and car- ried him as a prisoner to Fredericton, N. B.
But while the Fredericton officials had for some time unhesitatingly imprisoned humble and uninfluential citi- zens of Maine when brought to them in custody, they were alarmed at this bold procedure. The sheriff there feared to detain in gaol an agent or officer of the State of Maine while in the discharge of his duties, and refused to receive the prisoner. After being liberated,
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.