USA > Maine > Maine Public Lands 1781-1795 : claims, trespassers, and sales > Part 10
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
In November of 1788 the Land Committee submitted another report. At the Legislature's request, it had asked the company to meet with it to work out an agreement. At first the company officiala showed a reluctance to have anything to do with such a conference. In the past, they said, they had taken part in several such conferences and had succeeded in reaching a satisfactory agreement with the men representing the State only to have all their effort come to naught when the General
55. Report of Committee, Eastern Lands, Box 48.
56. Jarvis to General Court, no date, Eastern Lands, Box 46.
57. Titcomb to Jarvis, April 8, 1788, Eastern Lands, Box 17; Cony to Jarvis, April 21, 1788, Eastern Lands, Box 17.
154
Court refused to accept the agreement. Therefore, unless a committee was given full power by the General Court to rake binding decisions, they were not interested in discussing the question. However, because they were anxious not to become involved in an expensive law suit the company 58
did offer a solution that proposed some final boundaries and answers for other questions involved. This proposal was incorporated in the 59
Committee's report.
After considering the report the General Court created a committee of nine with the power necessary to settle conclusively all the matters relating to the case, and to convey the deeds that would officially make company property all that was found to be theirs, provided, however, that it would so confirm only lands within certain stated bounds. In January the company's standing committee (which included Hancock and Bowdoin) was authorized to make any boundary settlement with the State which it or a majority of its members thought best. These people met several times and finally reached a conclusion which was approved by a 60
proprietors' meeting on February 25, 1789. It included less land than did the company proposal mentioned in the report acted upon in November and as a final outcome the company got about half a million
58. Kennebec Purchase Records, Jan. 1, 1789, true copy lodged with Mass. Resolve, June 12, 1789, Chap. 47; Kennebec Purchase Records, III, 1768-1800, 214-215;Maine Historical Society.
59. Mass. Resolve, Nov. 17, 1788, Chap. 37.
60. Kennebec Purchase Records, III, 221, Feb. 25, 1789
155
61
acres less than they claimed to the north.
In June a resolve directed that the deed of release and con- firmation which settled all points in the dispute between the State and the company be recorded and placed on file in the Secretary's 62
office. In the deed of release special provisions were made for 63 settlers in certain specified tracts of this land. The company agreed to indemnify the State for all damage arising from proprietors' grants in the tract seded to the State provided the State declared all partition and divisional grants null and void when asked to do so. The 64 request was made and the necessary law was passed on June 25, 1789.
After the settlement was made and the boundary drawn, some people who had gotten their holdings from the Plymouth Company dis- covered that their land was actually the property of the State and that they were now in the unenviable position of having worked on and of still developing land that was not theirs.
This was the case in Sandy River Lower Township. The people tilere who were holding their land under an agreement with the Plymouth Company had been promised this land for performing certain services. The State took a charitable view of their situation and sent one Dummer
61. Committee Report, June 16, 1795, pp 2-3, Eastern Lands, Box 49.
62. Mass. Resolve, June 12, 1789, Chap. 47.
63. Deed of Release, Feb. 18, 1789, with ibid.
64. Mass. Resolve, June 25, 1789, Chap. 114.
156
Sewall to the township to take a list of the people there and report the circumstances surrounding their settlement, the number of lots, the time improvements were begun and actual settlements made, and the amount of land under improvement. He was also to return an accurate plan of the town. 65
After he returned this report the General Court decided that these people had fulfilled their part of the bargain and should be given their land -- it was thought, too, that their efforts had been of benefit to the Commonwealth. Trespassers also were provided for. The rest of the town, exclusive of land reserved for squatters, was to be sold to three men including Sewall, a resident of Bath. 66
The Pejepscot Company, which claimed land along the Androscoggin River, let the filing deadline get by before taking official action, but in September, 1784 they met and appointed representatives to confer with the men designated by the State to reach a conclusion 67 regarding the claim and its boundary lines.
The Committee of 1783 commented on the validity of this claim incidentally in its report on the Plymouth Company. In its opinion, it said, as will be remembered, the claim should be allowed as it was
65. Cony to Cummer Sewall, July 16, 1789, Eastern Lands, Box 52.
66. Mass. Resolve, Feb. 4, 1790, Chap. 68.
67. Pejepscot Records, II, 56, Sept. 1, 1784; Memorial of Josiah Little in behalf of Pejepscot Proprietors, March 1, 1787, with Mass. Resolve, Jan. 15, 1789, Chap. 28.
157
set forth by the company. Its reason for saying this was that it had been placed before the government in 1764, and there was no record of 68 any opposition to it.
In March of 1786 the Committee of 1781, which was responsible for reaching a decision on the Company's claims on the east bank of the Androscoggin River by virtue of the fact that that river was the boundary between Cumberland and Lincoln Counties, reported to the General Court a company conceived plan for settlement with the recommendation that it be accepted on the basis of the wording of its Indian Deed, which was 69 the foundation of its claim. Josiah Little, the company spokesman, later wrote that he had been called into conference with the Committee off and on for a year prior to this. Bakerstown, a grant which
70 bordered on the Pejepscot Claim and had some proprietors in common with it was found to contain considerably more acreage as it was laid out than was intended by the General Court when it made the grant. In their plan the Pejepscot Proprietors proposed to accept this overage in ex- change for any claim they held to territory north of the Bakerstown line on the west side of the Androscoggin River.
68. Report of 1783 Land Committee, Mass. House Document 1757, (1785-86).
69. Report of 1781 Land Committee, March 20, 1786, with Mass. Resolve, March 8, 1787, Chap. 118.
70. Memorial of Josiah Little in behalf of Pejepscot Pro- prietors, March 1, 1787, with Mass. Resolve, Jan. 15, 1789, Chap. 28.
158
The General Court put the matter off until July when a resolve was introduced which embodied this plan and also made similar provisions regarding the claim on the eastern bank. It also made provision for 71 people who had settled on the tract prior to January, 1786. This resolve was referred to the next Ganeral Court session. Finally, how- ever, opposition killed it. One Bridgham, who was interested in land in this area, objected and the Court felt that the objections were of 72 sufficient weight to warrant defeating the bill.
The chief point of contention that arose in the settlement of the boundary lines of the grant was the location of the Great Falls mentioned as the northern boundary. It could be at Brunswick, or at the place which is now Lewiston, or at the present Rumford. The company pointed to grants made in the 1760's that had boundaries based on the supposition that the falls intended were the Twenty Mile Falls at Lewiston, but some in opposition stated that it was singular that many of the proprietors of these grants of the 1760's were also Pejepscot Proprietors. After the Land Committee of 1781 had recom- mended that the previously mentioned proposal for settlement by the company be accepted, the company pointed to this as partial support 73 for the claim that the falls meant were those at Rumford.
71. Unpassed resolve, July 4, 1786, Eastern Lands, Box 10.
72. Report of joint General Court Committee, Feb. 28, 1787, with Mass. Resolve, March 8, 1787, Chap. 118.
73. Pejepscot Records IX, 65 and 30. Maine Historical Society.
159
In 1786 and 1787 much attention was given to the identification of these falls, and also to the location of the site of the home that Thomas Purchase, one of the original holders of the land, had lived in. It had been stated that this dwelling was about halfway between the northern and southern boundaries of the grant. Thus, if this site could be identified, it would be relatively simple to define the boundaries. Therefore, the subject was vigorously explored, and it is almost safe to say that all earthly depressions which had any possibility of being his cellar hole were thoroughly discussed. In order to get information that was as complete as possible officials tock depositions from a number of people who might have had any knowledge of the subject.
74
At this point Little became impatient and wrote to the General Court that he would like to have the matter settled quickly. He was willing, he said, to have a decision made by the Supreme Court or a committee of five men chosen mutually by the two parties to the dispute -- 75 these alternatives would be cheaper than a law suit.
Very soon after this letter was written a resolve was passed establishing Twenty Mile Falls as the Uppermost Great Falls mentioned in the deed. This legislation also instructed the Committee not to sell certain land along the Androscoggin because the bounds of the
74. See Eastern Lands, Box 10.
75. Memorial of Josiah Little in behalf of Pejepscot Proprietors. March 1, 1787, with Maas. Resolve, Jan. 15, 1789.
160
76
grant were still to be located. 77 That June the Committee pondered the problem but nothing was done.
By the early 1730's some of the settlers on the claim were getting very restless because of the uncertain status of the land tenure and in February, 1791 the people of Greene wrote to the General 78 Court asking them to settle the boundary dispute. In December a petition was sent to the General Court asking "or.ce more" that something be done to ameliorate their condition, pointing out that legislation had just been passed which authorized the attorney general to act in
such cases. 79 The next March. the Court appointed a joint committee of five to investigate the claim, run the bounds, and grant whatever deeds it might decide should be granted, receive any releases of land that the proprietors might be required to make, and in all ways make a final 80 settlement of the claim with the proprietors. In May of that year the Proprietors gave Josiah Little full power to meet with the General Court Committee and make a final settlement. He was to have authority to make any binding decisions necessary and hire any legal aid that he
76. Mass. Resolve, March 8, 1787, Chap. 118.
77. Committee minutes, June, 1787, Eastern Lands, Box 46.
78. "General Court News," Feb. 16, 1791, in Boston Gazette, Feb. 21, 1791.
79. Petition of John Herrick et al, to the General Court, Dec.29, 1791, with Mass. Resolve, March 6, 1792, Chap. 134.
80. Mass. Resolve, March 6, 1792, Chap. 134.
161
81 needed. The next March things, unfortunately, were still in an un- settled state despite these steps, and Herrick again picked up his pen and wrote to the General Court asking that the Attorney General
82 be directed to enter the case. As a result the General Court ordered this official to bring suit against anyone trespassing on a tract that started five miles above the uppermost falls at Brunswick on the east bank of the Androscoggin River, went back to the Plymouth line and extended to the limits of the State, and on the west extended from these uppermost falls to the State boundary and reached four miles back from the bank -- the State felt that the company was encroaching on land which the public still owned. Intruders were to be removed and 83
the title to the land was to be rested in the Commonwealth. In this way, it was hoped, a definite conclusion might be reached.
In its 1795 report the Committee stated that a suit had been 84 started. However, no conclusion had been reached. It is interesting to note that of the three big grants this was the only one concerning which no settlement was reached during this period, and it was also the only one near which there was not a large amount of state land to be sold.
81. Vote of Pejepscot Proprietors, May 28, 1792, Pejepscot Records II, 69.
82. Memorial of John Herrick to General Court with Mass. Resolve, March 21, 1793, Chap. 124.
83. Mass. Resolve, March 21, 1793, Chap. 124.
84. Report of Committee, June 16, 1795, pp. 2-3, Mass Archives, Eastern Lands, Box 49.
162
The legislation mentioned by the people of Greene that gave the Attorney General power to enter this case was an act giving directions for restoring illegally claimed land to the Commonwealth by an inquest of office. When directed by the General Court to do so, he was to file an information on behalf of the Commonwealth in the Supreme Judicial Court. This information was to describe exactly the grant in question and give the alleged breaches. If the landholders refused to relinquish 85
the land, a jury was to consider the suit and make a decision.
At one point Samuel Phillips, no less, found himself holding land bought from Alexander Sheppard that, when surveyed, did not fall 86 within the latter's holdings. In 1783 Phillips had bought the land from Sheppard but in 1794 after some preliminary developments, he 87
again bought the same land, this time from the State.
This indicated
that he did not feel that his title through Sheppard was secure. The reason for this confusion according to the local historian of the area seems to have been that Sheppard apparently granted land which he had 88 been promised but which was not actually included in his confirmation.
85. Mass. Act, June 18, 1791, Chap. 13.
86. Mass. House Document 4726, 1798.
87. Spurr, A History of Otisfield, p. 132. Report of Committee, June 16, 1795, Table 16, p. 22, Eastern Lands, Box 49.
83. Ibid. pp. 128 and 132.
163
During the winter session of 1785 the Committee also examined the claims of two other companies claiming land in Lincoln County, but passed no judgment on their validity. One of these, the Drowne Claim was based on a former grant. In this case the Committee postponed final action until it could investigate the matter further and more evidence could be procured. Another, the Brown claim, was based on a supposed Indian deed of 1625. In this case the Committee instructed the claimants 89
to submit further evidence of the original deed, if they could. In a 1787 report to the General Court the Committee wrote that for the most 90
part these were conflicting claims for the same land. Although the
Brown Claim, at least, was pressed until the agent died, and state-
91
ments about both of them continued to appear in the official records from time to time, no decision concerning them was reached during this period. The towns of Buxton and Scarborough, which joined each
other, had long been engaged in a boundary hassle. A General Court committee appointed in answer to a Buxton petition in 1762 had given that town a grant of 1241 acres to make up for a deficiency in its original measure. This tract had then been confirmed by the General Court, the town stated. However, this addition was also claimed by 92
Scarborough. Finally the matter was taken to court and Scarborough won.
89. Eastern Lands, Deeds, I, 48, 1785.
90. Report of Committee, July 3, 1787, Eastern Lands, Box 48.
91. Memorandum, Woodward papers Maine Historical Society
92. Petition in behalf of Buxton Proprietors, Jan. 1793, with Mass. Resolve, Feb. 23, 1795, Chap. 75.
164
As a result Buxton went to the Court to ask for something to offset this loss. The attorney general was instructed to investigate the matter and 93
report, which he apparently did. The Court discussed the facts in early 1795, at one time proposing to send men down to assess Buxton's 94 loss, then later talking about authorizing Buxton to go to court 95 again against Scarborough at its own expense. It also considered giving 96 the proprietors six thousand acres. However, none of these proposals was accepted and finally a resolve was passed granting five thousand acres of unappropriated land in the District to those proprietors of Buxton who had drawn land in the disputed tract or their heirs or assigns to be divided proportionately according to their holdings in
that tract. 97
This grant was to compensate them for the loss of the land plus the expenses they had incurred in the business. The surveying was to be done under the direction of the Land Committee and paid for by the town proprietors.
93. Report of statement of facts [apparently from attorney general though there is no signature], March 14, 1793, with Mass. Resolve, Feb. 23, 1795, Chap. 75.
94. Unpassed House resolve, Jan. 1795, with Mass. Resolve, Feb. 23, 1795, Chap. 75.
95. Unpassed House resolve, Feb. 1795, with Mass. Resolve, Feb. 23, 1795, Chap. 75.
96. Unpassed House resolve, no date, with Mass. Resolve, Feb. 23, 1795, Chap. 75.
97. Mass. Resolve, Feb. 23, 1795, Chap. 75.
165
A man named Cutler claimed that a plot of which he was the right- ful owner had been declared State property by the 1781 Committee and sold by the Sales Committee despite his protest to one of its members. Convinced of the validity of his claim, which was based on an incom- plete grant to the person from whom he bought the land, the General Court granted him compensation for the loss. 98
A committee was appointed to appraise the value of his holdings, after which he was to be allowed to select an amount of unappropriated land somewhere in the State equal in value to the figure arrived at in the appraisal. The Committee was then to report its proceedings to the Land Committee which was to give him a deed.
Mt. Desert Island presented a situation that was unique.
Governor Bernard had been the last owner of the island but because he had espoused the British cause during the Revolution it had been con- 99 fiscated by the State. However, John, his son, who had been bequeathed this particular piece of property, had been loyal to the colonial cause throughout. Therefore, upon his petition, the General Court granted 100
him one half the island. The other half, of course, was still considered State property. Years before, however, when France claimed
98. Petition of Cutler to General Court with Mass. Resolve, Nov. 20, 1787, Chap. 91; Mass. Resolve, Nov. 20, 1787, Chap. 91.
99. George E. Street, Mount Desert, A History, ed. Samiel A. Eliot, new ed. (Boston, 1926), p. 125.
100. Mass. Resolve, June 23, 1785, Chap. 43.
166
this area, this island plus some of the mainland had belonged to the Frenchman, Monsieur de la Motte Cadilac. Now it was applied for by his granddaughter, Madame De Gregoire. After an intensive study of the situation, the General Court decided that because the claim had lain dormant so long and there had been a long lapse of possession, Madame De Gregoire had no legal title to the land. However, the General Court was disposed to maintain friendly relations with the subjects of King Louis. Therefore, stating explicitly that this deed was not to be construed as a precedent, it granted the lady such parts of Mt. Desert Island and other parcels of land and islands mentioned in the grant to Cadilac which the State still owned, exclusive of land claimed by people, principally settlers, whose right to it was approved 101 by the Land Committee. The grant was to be effective as soon 88 8 bill of naturalization was passed for Madame De Gregoire and her husband.
Bakerstown, on the Androscoggin, provided an outstanding example of an investigation started by a report that someone had taken too much. It had been granted in 1765 and apparently the proprietors had returned a plan that year. But in 1767 or 1768 a "more actual" survey had been made according to the proprietors' agents. It was then discovered that an error had been made in the original plan and part of the land they had laid out was claimed by the Pejepscot Company. The agents had
101. Mass. Resolve, July 6, 1787, Chap. 84.
167
reported this fact to the General Court, and later asked that body for a resurvey. This had been made in 1780 and a plan based upon it which, they said, excluded all land claimed by them in error returned. They 102
had then laid out lots according to that plan.
However, a certain Peletiah Warren and others had petitioned the General Court in 1784 for all the land between Sheppardsfield and 103 Bakerstown and Turner and Androscoggin River. That body then told the 1781 Committee to investigate the situation and make a plan of any
state property there. 104
The survey that was made showed that Bakerstown 105
was still claiming about 20,629 acres more than it was supposed to. In a later report the Committee suggested that a bend in the river may 106
have caused the surveying error that led to this overage. Shortly after the first report a petition of several men including John Bridgham requested that they be given the refusal of the land in case it proved
102. Mass. Resolve, Nov. 21, 1782, Chap. 110; memorial of Josiah Little to General Court, Feb. 10, 1791, with Mass. Resolve, March 10, 1791, Chap. 139; memorial of Bakerstown. Agents to General Court, Feb. 27, 1788, with Mass. Resolve, Jan. 15, 1789, Chap. 28.
103. Petition of Peletiah Warren et al. to General Court, May 26, 1784, with order of General Court, Mass. Senate Document 240.
104. Order of General Court, Mass. Senate Document 240.
105. Report of 1781 Committee with Mass. Resolve, Feb. 11, 1785, Chap. 47.
106. Report of 1781 Committee, March 20, 1786, with Mass. Resolve, March 8, 1787, Chap. 118.
168
107
to be the property of the State. Two years later Bridgham and others wrote to the General Court asking that they be sold this. land, which they had gone to great expense to determine to be the property of the 108 109
State. Titcomb was then instructed to survey the tract.
Directly after Titcomb made his return a resolve, proposed by the Land Committee, to whom the petition had been referred, directed the proprietors of Sheppardsfield, Bakerstown, and Turner to submit the bounds of their claims. In addition the first two groups were to show cause why Bridgham's petition should not be granted. In order to in- form these proprietors of the requirements made of them the Court directed that the resolve setting forth these requirements be published three weeks successively in the Portland and Essex papers and in the 110 Independent Chronicle of Boston.
In 1789 the State sold a parcel of 20,959 acres in this area to 111 Bridgham and his colleagues. The story of the difficulties that these people encountered from the proprietors of Bakerstown in trying to take over this tract will be found in the section on sales.
107. John Bridgham et al. to Committee, Oct. 20, 1785, with Mass. Resolve, Nov. 21, 1787, Chap. 110.
108. John Bridgham et al. to General Court, May 28, 1787, with Mass. Resolve, Nov. 21, 1787, Chap. 110.
109. Return of Titcomb, Oct. 25, 1787, Eastern Lands, Box 10.
110. Maas. Resolve, Nov. 21, 1787, Chap. 110.
111. Mass. Resolve, Jan. 15, 1789, Chap. 28.
169
The factors that led Warren and Bridgham and their associates to ask the State for land here are not completely clear. However, the fact that the Bakerstown proprietors themselves had had a resurvey taken and that actually some land was taken off Bakerstown may have caused some uncertainty in people's minds. It is to be noted that Bridgham and his colleagues stated that when the people came there some of them thought that they held their lands under certain proprietors, whom they 112
named, but now they were in some doubt.
A man named Glover reported that there was some land claimed by Raymondtown which did not rightfully belong to it and he would like to have it. He was then given permission to get the lines measured to 113 ascertain the true state of affairs. Later a resolve was passed directing anyone who wished to to show cause why Glover should not be 114 sold the state land between Raymondtown and Bakerstown.
On another occasion a citizen reported that he thought that some land between New Gloucester and the Pejepscot tract which was 115 privately claimed really belonged to the state. This is filed with the resolve dealing with Bridgham's request to buy land between
112. Bridgham et al. to Committee, Oct. 20, 1785, with Mass. Resolve, Nov. 21, 1787, Chap. 110.
113. Glover to Jarvis, Dec. 21, 1791, Eastern Lands, Box 17.
114. Mass. Resolve, Feb. 1, 1790, Chap. 47a.
115. Parsons to Committee, March 21, 1786, with Mass. Resolve, Nov. 21, 1787, Chap. 110.
170
Sheppardsfield and Bakerstown -- a request that prompted Titcomb's survey there.
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.