USA > Maine > Maine Public Lands 1781-1795 : claims, trespassers, and sales > Part 11
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 the early 1760's Massachusetts's "westward movement" had taken her land granting activities east of the Penobscot River, and towns had been surveyed there and granted conditionally. To become final the transactions had to receive the approval of the kind, a provision required by the Massachusetts Charter of 1692, and the grantees had to do certain things such as clear land, build houses, and settle ministers. None of these grantees had ever received a final confirmation before the war started and now that it was over the Committee was called upon to tell the General Court whether in its opinion they should or should not be so treated. The king's appro- bation, of course, was no longer necessary.
In 1784 the Committee considered the petition of the people of Machias for a confirmation of their grant and recommended that it be 116
given and the town incorporated. This the General Court did. It will be seen that this action was later cited as a precedent by other groups.
The proprietors who held the six towns between Penobscot and Union Rivers had sent a petition to the General Court in the summer of 1783 asking for a confirmation of their grant. Here it was read and referred to a special committee, but no action was taken. Finally in
116. Eastern Lands, Deeds, I, 39, June, 1784; Mass. Resolve, June 23, 1781, Chap. 6.
17]
1784 it was read again and committed to the 1783 Committee, which had 117 been created the fall before.
Five groups of people were interested in these lands and any decision the General Court might make concerning them -- resident proprietors, non-resident proprietors, settlers who had moved on with the permission of the proprietors, settlers who had moved on without that permission, and those elsewhere who were interested in any pre- cedents that might be made here. The Committee, throughout the course of its deliberations, was faced with the claims of all these groups, made both personally at the Committee's headquarters in Brackett's 118 Tavern in Boston and by written petition. In some cases an agent was chosen to represent a group. For instance, John Peters was chosen by the inhabitants of Blue Hill to present the true case of the situation of the settlers and proprietors to the Committee, and ap- parently he did, because a memorandum of one of the members (apparently 119 Dane) lists Peter's opinion regarding some of the questions.
The proprietors mentioned the fact that extensions of time had been granted several times for them to get the king's acquiescence
117. Petition of Bailey Bartlett et al. with Mass. Resolve, March 17, 1785, Chap. 158.
118. Eastern Lands and Deeds, I, 35-36, June, 1784; papers with Mass. Resolve, March 17, 1785, Chap. 158; petition of inhabitants of Numbers Four and Five on Bluehill Bey, Numbers Six and One on Union River, and a place called New Bordwine, Nov. 16, 1785, with Mass. Resolve, July 8, 1786, Chap. 130.
119. Certificate and memorandum with Mass. Resolve, March 17, 1785, Chap. 158.
172
and in 1763 Governor Barnard had issued a proclamation protecting the claim of the proprietors to those grants until that acquiescence had been obtained. The fact that the later grant of lachias had been confirmed was pointed out. They also discussed the things that had been done on 120 the grants to improve them and to meet the conditions imposed.
The petitions of some of the settlers were late because they had not learned that they were required to submit a claim until shortly after the deadline set by the Committee was past. However, these applications -- their bid to secure the land where they were expending their labor to build themselves a home -- were considered. The essence of their requests, of course, was that they be not dis- turbed in their holdings, an example of which were those in Township 121 Number One of one hundred acres each.
The proprietors expressed a willingness to make some provision for those settlers who had entered on their land without their permission, one suggestion being that the act of confirmation specify that these settlers should be given a fair price for the improvements
120. E. Bartlett to Phillips and Committee, June, 1784, Eastern Lands, Box 17; Report of Committee, July 7, 1784, Mass. Senate Document 173; Memorial of proprietors to Committee, [oct. 1784" added in other handwriting], Eastern Lands, Box 10.
121. e.g. Letter from settlers on Number One with Mass. Resolve, March 17, 1785, Chap. 158.
173
122
they had made on the land.
The Committee stated in July 1784 that it felt that none of these people had a good title to the land, but that it would seem to it to be "equity and good policy" to convey the land in question to them with some few exceptions under some kind of mild terms. It was not quite prepared to make a complete report on the subject but it 123
would try to do so at the next General Court session. Later it submitted a report recommending that five of the six towns between the Penobscot and Union Rivers, which had been deeded to David Marsh and others, be confirmed to the proprietors under certain specified con- ditions. 124
For one thing, they were to fulfill the settling conditions set forth in the original grant within six years, allocate land for public lots, and provide for the people's religious needs.
Also they were to rake a cash payment of one thousand pounds per town in Massachusetts consolidated notes with interest within one year from the date of the resolve.
122. E. Bartlett "in his own behalf others of the comtee dissenting" to Phillips and Committee, June 1784, Eastern Lands, Box 17; memorial of proprietors to Committee, [Oct. 1784" added in other handwriting], Eastern Lands, Box 10.
123. Report of Committee, July 7, 1784, Mass. Senate Document 173.
124. Committee Report, March 15, 1785, with Mass. Resolve, March 17, 1785, Chap. 158.
174
Finally, they were to grant all persons who had settled before 125
January 20, 1783 about fifty acres of land. These acres were. either to be half a share according to a division that had previously been made by the proprietors, or fifty acres of the undivided land, provided the person had settled there. In case the land was lotted the settler was to have his choice of the half that he was to get. If a settler had made improvements outside his half share, he was to have the privilege of buying the land they were on at a reasonable price based on its value had nothing been done on it, or as the report said, "estimating the same in a state of nature," or of receiving a reason- able payment from the proprietor owning the location of that improve- ment, whichever he, the settler, preferred. In case any dispute arose concerning the identity of a reasonable price or any other matter pertaining to the settlement it was to be decided by a disinterested committee of two people, one chosen by each party. If it was necessary to do so in order to reach an agreement, a third person was to be chosen by the other two. In addition each settler ves to have the privilege of buying an additional fifty acres for quantity and quality at not more than three shillings an acre in the township where he was settled provided he applied within twelve months. It was further stated that where an agreement had been previously reached between settlers and proprietors regarding terms of settlerent, its provisions
125. Although trespassers are discussed in full in the next chapter, those in these twelve touns were such an integral part of the confirmation problem they will be dealt with here.
175
were not to be violated. This report was accepted and its recommend- 126 ations zade law by a resolve passed in March, 1785. That summer Putnam reported that he had checked the plans of these towns with the seacoast as he came down from the north and was so well satisfied with the correctness of that part of the survey that he thought it unnecessary 127
to try to re-do it.
However, he mentioned finding an error in a
128
survey of a neck of an island later on. Too, the Committee reported that he had checked and corrected the plans of thirteen towns that summer. Although no names were mentioned, his list must have included 129
these.
Contrary to the expectations of the Committee, unfortunately the provisions of this March resolve proved satisfactory to practically no one.
The proprietors made some painful discoveries when they attempted to transact their business in these towns and three of them sent a 130
petition to the General Court listing their complaints.
All they knew about the settlers at the time of the passing of the resolve, they said, was what they had gathered from these settlers'
126. Mass. Resolve, March 17, 1785, Chap. 158.
127. Putnam to Phillips, Aug. 5, 1785, Eastern Lands, Box 17.
128. Journal of Rufus Putnam 1784, Sept. 10, 1785 in Rufus Putnam Papers.
129. Committee Report, March 21, 1786, with Mass. Resolve, March 24, 1786, Chap. 200.
130. Petition of Duncan, B. Bartlett, and Carlton to General Court with Mass. Resolve, July 8, 1786, Chap. 130.
176
representatives. This had given them a very inaccurate picture. The statements made by the settlers concerning their status and situation at the time of the Committee's investigation were exaggerations, the proprietors claimed. Otherwise, the Court would not have required the money payment that it did. In addition there were many more settlers in some of these towns than they expected. This, of course, left less land for the proprietors and therefore left the town less valuable to them. Too, most of the settlers were not at all cooperative about carrying out the obligations the resolve placed on them. The pro- prietors chose a committee of five to go the towns and adjust these matters, giving it full power to act, but no definite settlement was reached; the inhabitants were unreasonable and claimed their holdings by right of possession or else acted on the belief that Maine would be rade a separate state and the Government would confirm their possessions.
Furthermore, the resident proprietors had already gone to great expense in making a settlement and had to give up a considerable amount of their land to others settled on it. Therefore, they deserved an abatement on their share of the thousand pounds.
Finally, they asked that the Court choose a delegation to study the matter for themselves, decide just what should be done, and give correct allowance for settlers who had settled rights. In addition, they asked for an extension of time on their payments.
177
The settlers also expressed their disatisfaction, vigorously affirming that they could not and should not be ousted from their holdings.
A number of settlers in these towns plus some others in nearby 131 unappropriated areas declared they had not been given enough. They furthermore stated that the proprietors were required to pay their bills to the State in paper securities but demanded specie payment of the settlers.
Their request was that the General Court take action to prevent proprietor-settler disputes, encourage emigrants from the western part of the State to come that way, and give them a firm title.
One writer, possibly Benjamin Lincoln, wrote that some of these settlers felt that the grantees had forfeited their claims because of their failure to satisfy all the conditions, and that the State would cast a benevolent eye on them, the settlers, and convey their holdings to them on lenient terms. 132
Some of the resident proprietors and a few of the settlers holding under them sent in petitions which listed their settling activities, and asked for an abatement of these proprietors' share of
131. Petition of inhabitants of Numbers Four and Five on Blue- hill Bay and Numbers Six and One on Union River and a place called New Bordwine which is in no town, Nov. 16, 1785, with Mass. Resolve, July 8, 1786, Chap. 130.
132. Letter, "General Lincoln" and "1787" added in other handwriting], Kennebec Purchase Papers 1786-1795.
178
133
the thousand pounds. The people in Number Four reminded the General Court that it had made a precedent of confirming one township -- Machias -- without demanding a money settlement.
A resolve to meet these complaints was drafted in March of 1786, but referred to the next session. In June the General Court again tackled the problem and the unpassed resolve of March was sent to a special committee. In July a resolve, altered by a few amendments, was passed with the hope that it would render justice, allay discontent, 134 and make a workable solution. Interestingly enough, this resolve in its final form after the amendments were added was identical to the March proposal.
In this resolve the money payment required of the proprietors was entirely removed. This feature must have been discussed at length, and of course not surprisingly. The March document had not called for any payment, but it took an amendment to keep a five hundred pound per town price tag from being one of the requirements of the July resolve.
Each settler who had settled before January 1, 1784, was to be granted one hundred acres by the proprietors, instead of fifty. The resident proprietors who had settled and made improvements prior to January, 1784 were to get a hundred acres as proprietors in addition to
133. Petition of resident proprietors of Number Five to General Court, Dec. 31, 1785, and a petition of resident proprietors and those claiming under proprietors in Number Four to General Court, Jan. 2, 1786, with Mass, Resolve, July 8, 1786, Chap. 130.
134. Mass. Resolve, July 8, 1786, Chap. 130.
179
the hundred acres as settlers. The hundred acres to be given to the settlers in every case and the hundred acres extra to resident proprietors was to be laid out so as to best include their improvements. In order that they should bear their share in making roads, sur- veying, lotting, and doing other things that the settling of the town required, settlers were to pay the proprietors thirty shillings each, an amount raised by amendment from twenty four shillings.
The proprietors were to lay out the settlers' lots within eight months from the date of the resolve, and submit to the Land Committee a report containing a description of the lots, the numbers of the lots, and the names of the people to whom they were assigned. They were also to designate the four public lots.
Should they fail to do this job within the time allotted, the matter was not to be allowed to drag along. Rather the Committee was to choose three disinterested commissioners to settle things. If appointed, these commissioners were to first give a notice that they were to under- take the job at least six weeks before starting on it. This was to ap- pear in Adams and Nourse's Independent Chronicle of Boston, the Portland paper, and on a written bulletin posted in each of the delinquent towns. This notice was to state the fact of their appointment and announce the date that they were going to the towns to do the job. Upon the com- pletion of their task they were to report their allotments to the Committee.
180
The expense of the commission was to be paid by the settlers and resident proprietors in case they were the ones who had impeded the proprietors' efforts. If they were not, enough land not assigned to settlers or to public use was to be sold to pay the bill.
The remainder of land that was not assigned to settlers and resident proprietors was to be at the order and disposal of the General Court.
In case proprietors and settlers should come to any other agree- ment concerning all matters of settlement and so notify the Committee within six months, listing the names of resident and non-resident, proprietors and settlers, the quantity of land assigned them, and the lots reserved for public use, the Committee could confirm the town. When making recommendations for these five towns in 1785 the Committee had not included the sixth, Number Three, because of special conditions there which made it impossible to make provisions that could apply to both that and the other five towns.
135 However, in November, 1786 a resolve was passed for this town confirming it to the pro- prietors with conditions. Apparently the special conditions mentioned were the large numbers of settlers living there because the chief difference between this resolve and that of July for the five other towns was the stipulation that should it be found that the number of acres to be granted to these settlers (not the resident proprietors)
135. Committee Report, Nov. 4, 1786, with Mass. Resolve, Nov. 17, 1786, Chap. 135.
181
at a hundred acres each exceeded six thousand acres then the pro- prietors were to be given land equal to the amount 30 granted over and 136
above six thousand acres in two other towns.
This resolve also provided that in case an original settler had disposed of his pitch, to use a word meaning a land hold in vogue at that time, to another person in any way, that person or his heirs or assigns were to have the same rights as the original settler.
Another important article in this act declared that in case any of these pre-1784 settlers had improved more than a hundred acres, that settler was to have the option of either buying his acreage that was in excess of the first hundred acres at a price "estimating the same, as if in a state of nature," or receiving a reasonable payment from the owner of the plot for the improvements made. Again in case there was any difference of opinion regarding the amount of a reasonable price or any other matter involved in the settlement of this question, a panel of two disinterested persons, one chosen by each party, and if necessary a third picked by the first two arbiters, was to make a final decision.
Another minor difference in the two resolves was that in the case of Township Number Three, the proprietors were allowed twelve months instead of eight in which to submit a report to the Land Committee.
Shortly after the five towns between Penobscot and Union Rivers had been conditionally confirmed in 1785, the General Court took action in the case of four of the six towns east of Union River.
136. Mass. Resolve, Kov. 17, 1786, Chap. 136.
182
The proprietors of these four towns held meetings in Cape Elizabeth all at the same time, in April, 1735 and Samuel Freeman, an active figure in Portland affairs, was chosen representative of the 137
four. He had petitioned the General Court the previous year to grant them a further length of time to meet the conditions of the 138
grant but nothing had been done. Now at these April 1785 meetings these proprietors instructed Freeman to again ask for an extension of 139
time.
In July a resolve was passed which was intended to be a perman- ent solution of a land problem, but unfortunately once more it was a 140
solution which proved to be neither satisfactory nor workable.
In most ways the provisions of this resolve were much like those of the March, 1785 resolve confirming the five towns on the other side of Union River.
This resolve stated, as did the other, that any agreement that had been made or should be made between the settlers or a settler and
137. True copy from Proprietors' records with Mass. Resolve, June 21, 1785, Chap. 41.
138. Petition of Samuel Freeman to General Court, Oct. 13, 1784, with Mass. Resolve, June 21, 1785, Chap. 41.
139. Petition of Samuel Freeman to General Court, June 14, 1785, with Mass. Resolve, June 21, 1785, Chap. 41.
140. Mass. Resolve, June 21, 1785, Chap. 41.
183
proprietors or a proprietor should not be violated. Later papers 141
dealing with these towns refer to an agreement made in 1781.
The major difference between the two was the greater size of the payment required -- in this case one thousand two hundred fifty pounds per town with interest within a year.
It does not appear that complaints came quite as quickly as they did across Union River, but in 1788 the town proprietors elected a committee to ask the General Court to remove the twelve hundred fifty pound price tag on each town, and they further voted to try to 142 get a confirmation of the towns or an equivalent consideration. Nothing was then done but in the early 1790's there was renewed activity. There was, in 1791, a proprietors' request for an abatement of the money charge and an extension of time in which to meet the requirements in 143
the form of a petition to the General Court. In this petition they went to some length to justify their request. They pointed out that the proprietors of the six towns west of Union River had been freed from the necessity of making any cash payment for a confirmation; they voiced the oft told tale of settlers being located on a great part of the land, saying they did not think there was enough land not
141. Unpassed resolve, March 5, 1790, with Mass. Resolve, June 21, 1793, Chap. 37.
142. Copy of proprietors' records, Feb. 6, 1788, with Mass. Resolve, June 21, 1793, Chap. 37.
143. Petition of proprietors' committees of Numbers One, Four, Five, and Six to General Court (March 1790" added in other handwriting], with Mass. Resolve, June 21, 1793, Chap. 37.
184
settled on by these people to raise this sum at present prices; and they added that not all the towns were, six miles square in size, Number Five, indeed, being not more than two thirds that size. Besides they had already spent large sums and thought this should suffice as a pur- chase price, especially if they were required to pay the non-resident proprietors tax. If this request could not be met, the petitioners would be satisfied with a grant elsewhere equal in value to their costs. In conclusion, they invited the General Court to send a committee down to investigate the situation in case there was any doubt in its mind concerning the truth of these statements.
The settlers in this area do not seem to have been as vocal as those in the other six towns; little correspondence from them is to be found in the post-1785 resolves pertaining to them.
Several resolves were drawn up and presented to the General 144 Court but did not receive favorable action. The proposals included cash payments; the quieting of all settlers, both those who had settled before 1784 and those who had settled after, with the latter paying more than the former; payment of the cost of laying out the settler's holdings by the settlers; the providing of money for meeting houses and other town expenses by both the proprietors and settlers; and the setting aside of five public lots -- two for the general use of govern- ment. One unpassed resolve considered in 1793 also had provisions for
144. Proposed resolves considered in 1790, 1791, and 1793 with Mass. Resolve, June 21, 1793, Chap. 37.
185
requiring the proprietors to secure a quit claim to Township Number One, providing compensation in land in the other three townships for the pro- prietors in Number One. In addition, Mrs. Shaw, one of the proprietors of Gouldsborough, was to get some land as payment for the surveying of the towns that had been done under the auspices of her husband.
In the meantime the General Court had appointed a joint committee to investigate the situation in response to a petition submitted by the proprietors. After it finished its investigation it was to turn in a report on conditions there with its recommendations. To this committee Freeman made three proposals: the proprietors would pay the State two hundred pounds per town as confirmation for each; the General Court would authorize the Land Committee to sell the land there that was free to be sold forthe equal advantage of State and proprietary, with Freeman acting as proprietors! agents; or the State would pay the 145
proprietors five hundred pounds for each town. A proposed resolve of early 1793 did call for the State's buying the land from the propri- etors and paying the latter as soon as it was sold or granted by it, but 146
it failed to pass.
Finally just exactly eight years after passage of the first resolve a second was passed based on the second of Freeman's suggestions.
147
145. Report of joint General Court committee with Mas. Resolve, June 21, 1793, Chap. 37.
146. Unpassed resolve, Feb. 21, 1793, with Mass. Resolve, June 21, 1793, Chap. 37.
147. Mass. Resolve, June 21, 1793, Chap. 37.
186
However, this covered only three of the four towns -- Numbers Four, Five. and Six.
The land there was to be sold under the direction of the Land Committee with the proprietors getting two thirds of the proceeds and the State one third; or if the two parties agreed, the land could be divided with the proprietors getting two thirds of it and the State one third.
By this resolve the settlers who were there before January 20, 1783, were to receive one hundred acres instead of fifty. This change in amount, of course, was in line with the general policy of the State with regard to trespassers. Two particular settlers, however, were to receive three hundred acres. In case the settler was a proprietor he was allowed another hundred acres. All lots were to be so laid out as to best include improvements, and the settlers were to pay thirty shillings per hundred acres. Every settler who had come since January 20, 1783 was to receive a hundred acres at three pounds for each hundred acres. These sums were to be divided between the pro- prietors and the State on the previously mentioned ratio of two to one. In all cases in which land allowance to settlers did not include all of his upland improvements, he was to be granted all of the extra at three shillings per acre, this sum also to be divided between the proprietors and the State. All settlers were to have a share in the marsh of the township proportionate to lands set off to them "as afore- said." If the settlers refused to pay the sum specified, the
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.