USA > Maine > Maine Public Lands 1781-1795 : claims, trespassers, and sales > Part 12
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
137
proprietors could demand their land of thez.
The proprietors' legal activities both past and present were declared valid provided they did not violate this resolve, and they were declared to be accountable for all debts contracted, particularly a payment of three hundred twenty seven pounds ten shillings and six pence to Sarah Shaw as their share of the cost of the surveying, previously mentioned, of Towns Number One, Four, Five and Six made by the late company of Gould and Shaw.
Later that year the proprietors voted to sell the land in 148 accordance with the provisions of the resolve ..
Township Number Three, one of those east of Union River, belonged to three people, one of whom was Sarah Shaw. In 1786 a petition was sent to the General Court asking that their town be confirmed. This was done conditionally by a resolve in 1786.
149 150
The proprietors were to complete the settling duties required in the original grant, convey one hundred acres to all pre-1784 settlers who were to pay them thirty shillings therefor unless some other agreement had already been made, and set aside the four lots customarily reserved
148. Copy of proprietors' records of Townships Four, Five and Six, July 29, 1793, with Mass. Resolve, June 21, 1793, Chap. 37.
149. Petition of Shaw and Rowe to General Court, Oct, 1786, with Mass. Resolve, Oct. 31, 1786, Chap. 69.
150. Mass. Resolve, Oct. 31, 1786, Chap. 69.
188
for public uses. In 1792 they asked for a final confirmation, which was granted.
151 This confirmation, however, contained the provision that they were to grant the settlers the hundred acres required by the first resolve and set aside four lots for public use, indicating this may not have been done as yet.
The State also pondered the advisability of a final confirmation for Bakerstown. The inhabitants there had asked that certain taxes be abated. They could not pay them, they said, and they felt the fault lay with the proprietors because those men had never provided all the things 152
they had promised.
A General Court committee was appointed to con-
sider this petition, 153 and they found that the proprietors were indeed negligent. They therefore proposed that a confirmation should include the proviso that each settler there should be given one hundred acres 154
and that the other requirements of the grant be met in three years. Whether this factor was actually weighed in making a final decision is not certain. However, an unpassed resolve of 1788 proposed that if the proprietors did not convey the land to the settlers to which they were
151. Petition of Shaw, Gardner, and Jones to General Court, Jan. 1792, with Mass. Resolve, Feb. 29, 1792, Chap. 113; Mass. Resolve, Feb. 29, 1792, Chap. 113.
152. Petition of inhabitants of Bakerstown, Oct. 22, 1785, with Mass. Resolve, Dec. 1, 1785, Chap. 137.
153. Mass. Resolve, Dec. 1, 1785, Chap. 137. 154. Report of Committee with Mass. Resolve, Dec. 1, 1.785, Chap. 137.
139
entitled within a year, the proprietors' rights therein should be 155
forfeited. A little later a request was made that the proprietors should not be allowed an extension of tirs unless the settlers were 156
quieted.
SUMMARY
The committees moved reasonably swiftly in making recommend- ations regarding ur.settled claims to the General Court, but there action sometimes moved at a less than deliberate pace. The Government did not entertain ideas of wholesale land dispossession except in the case of British sympathizers, and even in some cases conveyed land to claimants whom they considered had no legal title. There was, however, a rather strong opposition to confirming large grants if their validity was questionable or if there was some room to argue that they had been forfeited. This opposition made itself felt in the General Court and was undoubtedly responsible for its delays and failure to act.
By the time 1795 arrived, much had been done in the way of clarifying the status of claims that dated back to pre-Revolutionary days. However zone questions still remained to be answered conspicuous among which were the following. Was the Pejepscot claim valid? Should the proprietors of the Waldo clair be given the land they demanded at
155. Unpassed resolve, March 31, 1788, with Mass. Resolve, June 19, 1790, Chap. 46.
156. Letter to Cony, May 28, 1799, Eastern Lands, Box 10.
190
the head of their patent? Who owned the land at the mouth of the Kennebec River? As long as the job remained unfinished, all people Involved suffered from an uncertainty that hampered the progress of the District.
-
CHAPTER VI
TRESPASSERS
The trespassing done on Maine lands was of two kinds -- the theft of timber and other property on the one hand and the settling on land without any legal right -- squatting, as the practice is often called -- on the other. These two problems, both a worry to the responsible State officials, will be discussed separately.
EXTENT OF THE SQUATTING PROBLEM
The General Court realized at the very outset that the squatting 1 problem was a serious one. The state of affairs that was brought to light in the investigation of the towns east of the Penobscot River 2 further confirmed .this conclusion in graphic fashion. Nor was it only these twelve towns that proved the point. The measures the pro- prietors of the large tracts had to take with regard to squatters on 3 their lands throw further light on the extent of the problem. In June of 1785 the Committee reported to the General Court that
1. See earlier, pp. 29-30.
2. See earlier, pp. 174-187, passim.
3. e.g. Farrow, History of Islesborough, Maine, p. 4; Records of Lincolnshire Records, p. 175.
191
192
trespassers in Lincoln County outside of the so-called twelve towns had 4 applied for some 100,000 acres on which they had settled, while in its report of March, 1786 it added in a postscript that it had forgotten to mention the time and trouble it had taken to reach an agreement with those people who had established themselves on state land without so 5 much as a by your leave. In 1787 it reported that pre-1784 trespassers other than those in the twelve towns mentioned above owed three hundred pounds, ten shillings for their illegally settled sites which the 6 General Court of the State had subsequently allowed them to buy.
As time went on it became apparent that not all squatters were people who had settled where they were prior to the date of the Commit- tee's proclamation warning against such action made shortly after its appointment. Jonathan Stone, who spent the surveying season of 1786 working for the State in Lincoln County, wrote at that time that he was greatly surprised that people were still settling on state land without authorization. He said that they "explode the idea" that they intended to stay on their holding without paying for it, but that in 7 fact they expected to have it at no more than a very low figure. In
4. Committee Report, June 1, 1785, in Eastern Lands, Deeds I, 58-61.
5. Report of Committee to joint committee inspecting accounts, March 24, 1736, with Mass. Resolve, March 24, 1786, Chap. 200.
6. Report of Committee, July 3, 1787, Eastern Lands, Box 48.
7. Stone to Phillips or Brooks, Aug. 14, 1786, Eastern Lands, Box 17.
193
1790 a group of people in Bridgton petitioned the General Court to allow some men to buy some State land which the latter had settled 3 on in 1786. At various times land grant resolves of the General Court had a provision enabling people who had squatted after January 1, 1784 9 on land they did not own to buy their holdings for a certain price.
RESULTS OF SQUATTING
The difficulties caused by squatters were of several kinds. Some stripped the land of its timber, thereby reducing its value appreciably. Many laid out their holdings in an irregular manner which made it difficult to divide the townships into neat little parcels -- parcels that would be easy to manage and work. Such actions, the 10 Committee reported, had a negative effect on people's desire to buy. 11 Furthermore they selected the choicest and moat saleable sites. For example, a 1790 map of one town showed that out of 24,231 acres 4,700 12 acres, all down by the two rivers there, had been prempted by squatters.
8. Eleven inhabitants of Bridgton to Wells and Committee, July 20, 1790, Eastern Lands, Box 8. .
9. £ Mass. Resolve, Feb. 4, 1790, Chap. 68; Mass. Resolve, June 18, 1791, Chap. 90.
10. Report of Committee, Oct. 18, 1784, with Mass. Resolve, Nov. 11, 1784, Chap. 84.
11. Stone to Phillips or Brooks, Aug. 14, 1786, Eastern Lands, Box 17; letter ["General Lincoln" and "1787" added in other handwriting, Kennebec Purchase Papers 1736-1795; petition of Bridgham to General Court, Nov. 13, 1788, with Mass. Resolve, Jan. 15, 1789, Chap. 28.
12. Walker, Embden Town of Yore, p. 6.
194
In some cases, notably Deer Isle and the twelve towns east of the Penobscot, officials found that quarrels between squatters and proprietors over the carrying out of measures designed to quiet the trespassers posed a particularly knotty problem requiring much 13
attention.
TREATMENT OF SQUATTERS
Just what should the State do about these people? The General Court had decided, when it passed its very first land resolve, to come to amicable terms with them if possible by providing for sales to those who would buy their usurped holdings. Only if the guilty party refused to cooperate was recourse to be had to the courts. 14 As the land pro- gram continued the same policy was maintained. The general resolve of July 1784 directed the Committee to handle the land which had been previously settled in such manner as it thought best for all parties concerned, and the mode of procedure approved in November of that year 15
authorized it to carry on as it had been doing. It is true that two other resolves passed that same November empowered the Committees to sell state land as they thought best regardless of who was actually in possession of it. 16 However, in actual practice squatters were in-
13. See earlier, pp. 175-183 passim, and later, pp.287-291.
14. Mass. Resolve, May 1, 1781, Chap. 113.
15. Mass. Resolve, Nov. 5, 1784, Chap. 45.
16. Mass. Resolve, Nov. 10, 1784, Chap. 76; Mass. Resolve, Nov. 11, 1784, Chap. 84.
195
variably given careful consideration. The Committee's newspaper adver- 17 tisement prompted some trespassers to apply for their land, and these and other squatters who came to the Committee's attention were provided for in one way or another. In the early years there was no set policy, but rather each case was handled as seemed best at that particular time. Then as time went a uniform pattern of action began to evolve.
Of primary interest to all people concerned was the size of the tract the settler was to be allowed.
Two of the earliest grants were made to compensate people who had lost land in state boundary revisions. These made no mention of reserving 18
holdings for the settlers already there. Perhaps at this early date the men of the General Court did not realize that unauthorized settlers had gone so far afield. Later, in 1786 the General Court sold a sizable tract to a group of settlers with no allowance of land at all. However, 19 this oversight was later taken care of.
The Court took care of the settlers in nine of the twelve towns east of Penobscot River at an early date. In fact, the first resolve, which dealt with five of these towns, was passed on the same day as the last of the two compensation grants just previously mentioned. It will
17. e.g. Noah Miller to Committee, May 20, 1784 and Abraham and Lewis Ogier to Committee, May 20, 1784, both in Eastern Lands, Box 10.
18. Mass. Resolve, March 17, 1785, Chap. 162; Mass. Resolve, Feb. 7, 1785, Chap. 39.
19. Mass. Resolve, March 24, 1786, Chap. 179; Mass. Resolve, Feb. 24, 1791, Chap, 67.
196
be recalled that at first these settlers received fifty acres each with a right to buy any improverents they might have rade over and above 20 .
this fifty acres plus another fifty acres, if they so chose. In another tract, sold to the settlers residing thereon, the Legislature deducted fifty acres per settler from the tract in determining the ~21 number of acres to be paid for. Just before this last sale, the Committee sold a seven thousand acre tract with the provision that each settler receive one hundred acres, which was half of the lot on which
he had settled. Henceforth settlers were allowed one hundred acres in most cases. In the period before the passing of the resolve of 23
22
March 26, 1788 this included among others the people of Deer Isle, the six towns between Penobscot and Union Rivers (the people in the five 24
who got only fifty acres in 1785 were favored by new legislation) and a John Robertson. 25 Rochefoucauld, a European who travelled in Maine, was to write later that it was generally accepted in Massachusetts at
20. See earlier, pp. 174-175 and 182.
21. Mass. Resolve, Nov. 30, 1785, Chap. 126.
22. Deed of land to Robert Page et al., July 2, 1735, in Eastern Lands, Deeds I, 397.
23. Mass. Resolve, March 22, 1786, Chap. 162; Mass. Resolve, March 24, 1788, Chap. 69.
24. Mass. Resolve, July 8, 1786, Chap. 130; Mass. Resolve, Nov. 17, 1786, Chap. 135.
25. Deed to Joseph Vose, March 20, 1786, in Eastern Landa, Deeds I, 400.
197
this time that a hundred acres made a large enough farm to support a 26
family.
It is interesting to note that occasionally granting one hundred acre units led to special difficulties. In one case regularly laid out lots squatted on by the settlers were not quite one hundred acres in size, and some thought the landholders involved ought not to be given 27
more. In another case the lots had been bigger, and the settlers had 28
to decide what part of them to keep.
However, in some cases no specific amount of land was mentioned. The earliest state resolves, of course, had said only that the committees should reach an agreement with the individual for the amount of land he held. 29 Some later grants also provided that the amount of land given to the settlers should be decided upon by either the Land Committee or the General Court, the particular body intended being specified in the resolve. A resolve of July 4, 1785 stated that people who held possession of land in the Waldo Claim and who had held it since the nineteenth of April were to have this land conveyed to them under such provisions as
26. La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt, Travels Through the United States of North America in the Years 1735, 1726, and 1797, I, 423. However, Moses Greenleaf was to write in the early 1800's that a man needed 160 acres. (Greenleaf, A Statistical View of Maine, p. 72.).
27. Undated remo, Eastern Lands, Box 52.
28. e.g. Increase Robinson to David Tilden, Sept. 29, 1787, Eastern Lands, Box 10.
29. See Mass. Resolve, May 1, 1781, Chap. 113; Mass. Resolve, July 11, 1783, Chap. 99.
198
30
the General Court might decide upon. (No year was mentioned at this time.) An earlier proposed resolve which included a possibility of a surplus of land over and above the amount of the grant had made pro- visions only for settlers in the surplus who had settled before January 1, 1784 but the passed legislation eliminated the surplus and, thanks to an amendment, provided for all possessors of land in the 31 patent itself as of the date mentioned. It was later stated that 32
the particular nineteenth of April intended was that of 1775. The people on the half of Mt. Desert Island granted to John Bernard who were in possession of land at the time of the passing of the resolve making that grant were given such amounts of land as the 1783 Committee should direct and in such a manner as it directed within eighteen months 33
of the passing of the resolve. When the General Court granted the other half of Mt. Desert Island plus certain bits on the mainland to the De Gregoires it also provided that all or any "possessors of, or claimers to the title of any" of the land granted should be provided with such amounts of land and under such conditions as the Committee thought best, always conforming to precedents established for the satisfaction of settlers. 34
30. Mass. Resolve, July 4, 1785, Chap. 136A.
31. Unpassed resolve, March 9, 1785 with Mass. Resolve, July 4, 1785, Chap. 136A.
32. Mass. Resolve, Nov. 1, 1788, Chap. 8.
33. Mass. Resolve, June 23, 1785, Chap. 43.
34. Mass. Resolve, July 6, 1787, Chap. 84.
199
It happened, too, that some people got more than a hundred acres. For example, in 1736 the General Court sold Fox Islands, later the town of Vinalhaven, to the settlers on them, their heirs, or assigns, for sixty six pounds seven shillings in consolidated securities plus one hundred eight pounds specie for surveying and other charges. There were seventy-two pre-1734 settlers (the stipulation was that the settlers buying should be of this variety) and 16,527 acres, not more than half 35
of which was of any value. On Deer Isle, the Legislature granted one man a larger amount, which had been given him previously for his 37
activity in settling the island.
In all cases in which land was granted to people who had settled on it without authorization the State was making a concession to the settler. Therefore it set forth certain eligibility rules which were meant to indicate clearly just who should receive this consideration.
It usually restricted the list of recipients to those who had settled before a certain date. However, this date varied in the early days. Some of the dates specified at different times were September 1, 1784,
38 and January 20, 1783 (later changed to January 1, 1784 in one
35. Mass. Resolve, March 13, 1786, Chap. 97.
36. Mass. Resolve, June 17, 1791, Chap. 67.
37. Mass. Resolve, March 24, 1788, Chap. 69.
38. Deed to Robert Page et al. July 2, 1785 in Eastern Lands, Deeds I, 397.
200
40
39 case) and April 19, 1775. Other resolves made all settlers on the 41 land at the time of the passing of the resolve eligible for a tract. By 1736 the General Court was beginning to list as eligible settlers 42 those who had settled before the first of January, 1784, which was just about the time that the Committee of 1783 had published its first newspaper notices warning all people to refrain from trespassing.
On one occasion, at least, the officials, after outlining the things to be done for post-1784 settlers, pointed out that the pro- posed list of beneficiaries was not to include minors. 43
Squatters eligible to receive their plots under the state program were required to do certain things before their grant was made final.
Frequently a token money payment was called for. During the first months of the period there was no set policy covering the amount that they were to pay just as there was no set policy with regard to the amount of land they received. Some paid nothing. This was the arrangement covering one plot of fifty acres granted at first to settlers in five of the towns between the Penobscot and Union Rivers
39. Mass. Resolve, March 17, 1785, Chap. 158; Mass. Resolve, June 21, 1785, Chap. 41.
40. Mass, Resolve, Nov. 1, 1738, Chap. 8.
41. e.g. Mass. Resolvo, June 23, 1785, Chap. 43; Mass. Resolve, Nov. 30, 1785, Chap. 126.
42. e.g. Instructions to Titcomb to survey lots for Eddy et al., Nov. 5, 1786, Eastern Lands, Box 13.
43. Memo of proposals regarding Butterfield, "June 1786" added in other handwriting], Eastern Lands, Box 10.
201
44
and four of the towns east of Union River. However, later General Court action, it will be remembered, changed this. 45 It was also true of a grant of fifty acres per settler given to another group for the 46
actual settling that had been done.
The first resolves passed for the people in the nine towns east of Penobscot River stated that they were to be given the right to buy a second allotment of fifty acres for not more than three shillings per acre. In addition they were to be allowed to buy any improvements they had made over and above fifty acres for which they were to pay a reasonable price -- a price computed on the value of the land without 47 the improvements. The resolve passed concerning Township Number Three between Penobscot and Union Rivers also allowed the settlers there to buy at a price considering the land to be in a state of nature, any extra improvements they had made in addition to the amount granted 48
them. In all of these cases the settlers could require the proprietors to pay them a reasonable amount for the above mentioned improvements if they so chose. As in the case of the allotment sizes the resolves stated that either the General Court or the Land Committee should
44. Mass. Resolve, March 17, 1785, Chap. 158; Mass. Resolve, June 21, 1785, Chap. 41.
45. See earlier, p. 178.
46. Mass. Resolve, Nov. 30, 1785, Chap. 126.
47. Mass. Resolve, March 17, 1785, Chap. 158; Mass. Resolve, June 21, 1785, Chap. 41.
48. Mass. Resolve, Nov. 17, 1786, Chap. 135.
202
43
decide at a later date upon the amount to be paid in some cases.
In some instances the legislation stipulated that the pro- prietors should quiet the settlers upon a total payment of thirty shillings which was to be paid to the proprietors to cover the charges 50 of surveying and other expenses. By 1786 thirty shillings -- or five 51
dollars -- per hundred acres was customarily charged by the State.
The Government desired that the trespassing problem should be cleared up at once, and therefore it sometimes explicitly provided that settlers must pay for their allowance within a given period, which 52 was generally a year give or take a few months.
In order to secure for himself the benefits he had been given by the State, the settler was sometimes, although not too often, required to make certain improvements or have an agent do so for him. In one 53
case it was a matter of building a house and residing there. 54
In an- other, the settler had to clear land and build a house.
49. e.g. Mass. Resolve, July 4, 1785, Chap. 136A [by the General Court]; Mass. Resolve, June 23, 1735, Chap. 43, and Mass. Resolve, July 6, 1787, Chap. 84 [by the Land Committee ].
50. e.g. Mass. Resolve, July 8, 1786, Chap. 130; Mass. Resolve, Nov. 17, 1786, Chap. 135; l'ass. Resolve, March 24, 1788, Chap. 69.
51. e.g. Instructions to Titcomb, Nov. 15, 1786, Eastern Lands, Box 13, memo of proposals regarding Butterfield ["June 1787" added in other handwriting], Eastern Lands, Box 10.
52. e.g. Mass. Resolve, March 24, 1783, Chap. 69.
53. Mass. Resolve, March 24, 1788, Chap. 69.
54. Mass. Resolve, Nov. 17, 1786, Chap. 135.
203
There is an indication that the Committee was very particular to 55
get the exact bounds of settlers' plots before giving them a deed. A
desire to forestall confusion undoubtedly entered into its thinking at this point, although, of course, good business practice called for such a step in any case.
Steps were taken to ensure that settlers got considerate treat- ment in the allocation of their tracts and certain specifications were written into the grants.
One important consideration was the exact location of the plot. It was not enough to merely guarantee a settler an estate of a hundred acres or so. The land the proprietor might want to give him might not be the land he wanted. However, it was the desire of the State that the settlers' wishes should take precedence and be fulfilled whenever possible. This desire was worded in a number of ways. The original resolves, later superseded, covering five of the towns east of the Penobscot stated that settlers on lots already laid out should have their choice of the half lot they wanted to keep.
56 The additional fifty acres 57 that they and the people in the four towns east of Union River were to be allowed to buy was to be in the same township as the first fifty acres. Settlers on the tract sold to Robert Page and his colleagues were also
55. Increase Robinson to David Tilden, Sept. 29, 1787, Eastern Lands, Box 10.
56. Mass. Resolve, March 17, 1785, Chap. 158,
57. Mass. Resolve, June 21, 1785, Chap. 41.
204
to be given half the lot on which they were settled. This division was to be made "according to quantity and quality" -- in other words, the 58 settlers' lots were to be as good as the rest. The State always in- tended that the settlers' grants should best include their improve- 59 ments. Some grants stipulated that the settlers' lots should be in one piece. 60 This was undoubtedly intended to be a benefit to the settlers. However, it proved to be disadvantageous in some cases be- cause it was impossible to lay out the lot in one piece. Proprietors then seized upon this clause to insist that because it was impossible 61
to do this they (the settlers) could not have all the acres specified. The resolve grating one hundred acres to each settler on Deer Isle avoided this difficulty by specifying that the allotment should be laid
out in two pieces if necessary. 62 Again, in some cases the location of
58. Deed to Robert Page, et al., July 2, 1785, in Eastern Lands, Deeds, 1, 397.
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.