USA > Maine > Maine Public Lands 1781-1795 : claims, trespassers, and sales > Part 13
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
59. e.g. Instructions to Titcomb, Nov. 15, 1786, Eastern Lands, Box 13; Deed to Robert Page et al., July 2, 1785, in Eastern Lands, Deeds 1, 397; Mass. Resolve, March 22, 1786, Chap. 162; Mass. Resolve, July 8, 1786, Chap. 130.
60. e.g. Mass. Resolve, July 8, 1786, Chap. 130; Mass. Resolve, Nov. 17, 1786, Chap. 135.
61. Petition of selectmen of Penobscot, Dec. 6, 1788, with Mass. Resolve, June 25, 1789, Chap. 106. (This petition was written after at least one resolve stating allocation should be in two parts if necessary was written. However, it indicates the reason for this change being made.); "Report of Town Committee," 1788, in Wheeler, History of Casting, Penobscot, and Brooksville, p. 59.
62. Mass, Resolve, March 24, 1788, Chap. 69.
205
the land was left up to either the Committee or the General Court, as the case right be. 63
Authorities sometimes set a definite time limit for the lotting of the settlers' land. On the half of Mount Desert Island given to 64
Bernard the job had to be done within eighteen months, in five of 65 the six towns between Penobscot and Union Rivers in eight months, and 66
in the sixth, twelve months.
It might be mentioned at this point that these deadlines were 67 sometimes not met. Sometimes the fault was that of the proprietors, but in the case of Bernard's grant it appears that the Committee was dilatory.
The General Court Intended that the right to these plots should be given to those who had bought or inherited from a man who had settled then before the qualifying date as well as to all original settlers who who still held their clair. 68 In one resolve it left out this stipulation,
63. Mass. Resolve, June 23, 1785, Chap. 43; Mass. Resolve, July 4, 1785, Chap. 136A; Vass. Resolve, July 6, 1787, Chap. 84.
64. Mass. Resolve, June 23, 1785, Chap. 43.
65. Mass. Resolve, July 8, 1786, Chap. 130.
66. Vass. Resolve, Nov. 17, 1786, Chap. 135.
67. Letter from part of committee chosen to lay out Township Number Four, May 4, 1797, Eastern Lands, Box 14. (Job was supposed to have been done by March 8, of that year); letter from Settlers on Mount Desert Island, March 12, 1787, Eastern Lands, Box 14, (Eighteen months allowed had expired on Dec. 23, 1786).
63. e.g. Mass. Resolve, March 22, 1786, Chap. 162; Mass. Resolve, Nov. 17, 1786, Chap. 135.
206
undont tedly through an oversigt no trouble ald devele ;. later legislation Incorporating his Feature was passed to give this right to these particular settlers, also.
In order that the Committee nige know the the settlers on the Tarimas plats were, it became it's practice to require the men who surveyed then to make a certified 1 burns of the names of all settlers and the dates of their It is also probably qualifications from getting land.
71 true Chet this was done to prevent peogl
As has been seen, some resolves stipulated that the Land Commit- tee or a board of referees che sen for the purpose should make a final decision in cases in which proprietors and settlers found it impossible 72 However, It does not appear that this step was taken at any time.
In 1787 the Committee told the General Court that all settlers
had been taken care of in the same manner on an Individual basis and it felt that a standard set of instructions covering all such cases that
29. Mass. Resolve, July 8, 1756, Chep. 130. 70. Mass. Resolve, June 25, 1729, Chap. 106.
71. e.g. Wells to Dimon Frye, Oct. 10, ITBT, Eastern Lamis, Box 17; Titoomb to Gen. Wodmirth, Cem. 15, 1790, Eastern Lands, Box 17; Instructions to Titoomb, Det. 06, 1797, Eastern Lands, Box 15.
12. e.g. Kass. Resolve, March 17, 1755, Chep. 153; Mass. Resolve, June 21, 1735, Chap. 41.
1
١٠٠
ـدم
٠
E
1 -
-
一
٠١
4
-
و
-
-
١
٠٤
三
4
たい。
ـممـ
-
٠٠
٠٠٠
٠٠
1
-
هام
一
منهـ
IT
-
75 208
petitioned the General Court to take some clarifying action. In Sedgwick one of the most knotty problems concerned a man who settled on a plot and improved it, then moved to another spot nearby and thereafter improved the two plots. As a result of these exertions he thought he was entitled to both places while the proprietors did not. Again in Sedgwick a problem arose because the resolve of July 1786 granted two hundred acres to the resident proprietors and their heirs and assigns but said nothing about the other settlers' heirs and assigns in the clause granting them their hundred acres. Some pro- prietors disagreed with the settlers when they (the settlers) claimed their hundred acres should be clear of bogs and ledges. The Fenobscot selectmen stated that it was their understanding that the General Court intended that the settlers should be given enough land to make up one hundred acres in some other location in the township if, because of other claims, the whole hundred acres could not be laid out in one tract. According to the people, Jarvis, in his role as a town pro- 76
prietor, opposed this view and made settlement difficult. On the one side the proprietors claimed that people had sold plots without doing the necessary work to entitle them to the land as settlers, and now the
75. Following are papers with Mass. Resolve, June 25, 1789, Chap. 106; letter of Moses Easton, proprietors' clerk of Sedgwick, to George Tyler, proprietors' agent, April 8, 1789; petition of proprietors of Sedgwick(Number Four) April 13, 1789, petition of selectmen of Penobacot (Number Three) Dec. 6, 1788; and petition of inhabitants of Sedgwick, signed by selectmen.
76. Report of town committee in 1788, in Wheeler, History of Casting, Penobscot, and Brooksville, p. 59.
209
purchasers were claiming them plots under the provisions of the resolve. (The original claimants had only cut a few trees or a "freight" or two of wood, or built a camp as a base for log cutting, or lived briefly on the plot without making any other improvements. ) On the other hand the settlers declared that the proprietors refused to grant some plots to which the settlers were entitled because of their efforts. The Sedgwick selectmen mentioned an added need to have a final settlement brought about; it was necessary that the officials know who owned the land so they could make assessments for a tax on unimproved lands which had been levied by the General Court.
These Sedgwick selectmen asked that the General Court grant each settler or his heirs and assigns one hundred acres to be free of bog and ledge for each separate improvement and that it empower the inhabitants to hire a surveyor to lot out the town, or else give them relief in some other way. The Penobscot selectmen on their part asked that the General Court appoint somebody to come to the town and lot the hundred acre plots and confirm the settlers in their possessions. . The Sedgwick proprietors asked for a "full and particular meaning of the word "settler."
As a result of these requests the General Court passed a resolve in June 1739, a resolve drawn up by a joint committee to whom the various 77 complaints and questions had been submitted. It stated that insofar as the resolves of July 8, 1786 and November 17, 1786 dealing with the
77. Mass. Resolve, June 25, 1789, Chap. 106.
210
six towns Just east of the Penobscot River were concerned the term "settler" was to mean a person who had settled in any one of the towns prior to January 1, 1784, made an improvement on the lot claimed by clearing some land so that it was fit for tillage or pasture or mowing, intended to live on the lot, and was actually resident there himself on November 17, 1786, or had somebody residing there under him by that time. The hundred acres each was to receive was to be so laid out as to best include the man's improvements and was to be in one piece if possible. However, if it was not possible to do so because of the location of other improvements or settlements, the deficiency was to be made up in some other part of the townships with a plot to be laid out as the proprietors should direct.
These lots were to be confirmed to the heirs and assigns of the settlers as well as to the settlers themselves and in case any settler had already sold any land to which he was entitled by this re- solve, the purchaser, his heirs, and assigns would be entitled to the land just as would the original settler had he not sold it.
In two respects this resolve did more than clarify the definitions and provisions of the former two resolves. The provision that the settler or someone under him must be resident on the plot on November 17, 1786 had not appeared hitherto. Rather, previous provisions had stated that the hundred acres was to be given to those who had "before the first
211 73
day of January, 1784 settled thereon, and zade" separate Improvements. In addition the deadline on which the allotments required by the July 8, 1736 resolve had to be made and a return thereof submitted was changed to a date six months from the passing of this new resolve. Originally the time limit for the five towns had been eight months from that 1786 date and had been extended on March 8, 1787 for another eight months. The Noverber resolve had allowed twelve months from the date of its passing to lot out and assign land in Number Three and make a return thereon, but nothing regarding this matter is said about that town separately from the others here.
The Commonwealth Secretary was directed to publish this resolve in Adams' and Nourse's paper and the Portland papers for three weeks. Thus did the State provide for these six towns.
At this time the Land Committee also saw fit to ask the General Court to make a statement defining exactly who should be considered a settler who had settled before January 1, 1784 that would cover all cases not dealt with in special resolves, and indicate whether the hundred acres to be granted settlers could be laid out in more than 79
one plot if it was impossible to do it in one. This the General 80 Court also did and on the same day, June 25, 1789.
78. Mass. Resolve, July 3, 1786, Chap. 130: Mass. Resolve, Nov. 17, 1786, Chap. 135,
79. Memorial of Land Committee, Jan. 19, 1789, with Mass. Resolve, June 25, 1789, Chap. 113.
80. Mass. Resolve, June 25, 1789, Chap. 113.
212
The joint committee which submitted the resolve pertaining to the six towns just previously mentioned also had this request given to it for its consideration, and it brought forth the draft of this resolve, which was to apply to all cases on all unappropriated land in Maine ex- cept those in towns which had been confirmed with the condition that 81 the proprietors quiet the settlers in a way specified at that time. This act was much more specific then the one dealing with the six towns. To be considered a settler eligible for a hundred acres, & person must have either taken up his residence on the plot he claimed before January 1, 1784 with the intention of making his permanent residence there or else had someone else living there for him before that date. Furthermore, the resident must be still living there.
lie must also have made certain tangible improvements. One acre of land at least had to be fit for tillage or mowing and there must have been a house built. (No specifications were listed for the house. )
If possible, cach hundred acre plot was to be laid out in one piece in such a manner as to best include the improvements the settler had made and be least injurious to the adjoining property. If it could not be laid out in one piece "so as best to include his separate improve- ments" then the remainder was to be laid out under the direction of the Land Committee.
81. Notations on Ibid.
213
In order to receive these hundred acre grants the settlers were obliged to make certain payments and do so within a stated time. They were to pay thirty shillings to the Land Committee and finance the cost of surveying the plots, the former payrent to be rade within a year's time of the passing of this resolve. If they waited to take this action until after the deadline had passed, they could still have the land provided they could and did give a satisfactory reason for their delay. In such a case they were to pay interest on the payment owed from the end of the said year. Unless these conditions were met, their eligibility was forfeited.
Originally the resolve as drawn up had stated that in case a settler's holdings had already been contracted for or sold by the Committee, the settler was to be given his hundred acres elsewhere, but an amendment removed this clause.
An additional paragraph specifically placed settlers on lands confiscated by the State outside the provisions of this resolve.
This resolve was to appear in the Independent Chronicle and the Cumberland Gazette for three weeks in succession.
After this the few squatter problems that cropped up were almost exclusively those of enforcement rather than interpretation. For example some of the settlers had difficulty in finding money to pay for their land or for some other reason failed to meet the deadline, and in some instances talk was made of bringing the Attorney General and the
214
82
Solicitor General into the case. Fortunately such difficulties were infrequent and minor throughout this period.
However, the General Court deviated from this program a number of times.
In a number of instances it provided for trespassers who had settled on the land on or after January 1, 1734 as well as those who had settled before. As a rule the conditions it set forth were the same as those the pre-1784 settler had to meet except that the prices charged for the land were higher. In Township Number Eight on the Canadian border the charge was ten dollars per hundred acres -- the original draft of the resolve had made no distinction between pre- and
post-1784 settlers. 83 The petition of John Cooper, agent for the town, had asked that the General Court appoint a committee from the town to lay out the settlers lots including those of the post-1784 settlers, saying that an attention to the desires of the people would gain the voluntary allegience of a "considerable number of freemen." One additional require- ment placed upon these people was the taking of an oath of allegience. In another case the post-1734 settlers paid for the land as if it were
82. Undated paper, dispute involving Eddy and Oliver regarding lots 15 and 16, Eastern Lands, Box 13; Wadsworth to Wells, June 11, 1790, Eastern Lands, Box 10; Increase Robinson to Wells, June 1, 1787, Eastern Lands, Box 10.
83. Mass. Resolve, June 18, 1791, Chap. 90; petition of John Cooper, township agent, with Mass. Resolve, June 18, 1791, Chap. 90.
215
84
in a state of nature. Post-1784 settlers in Cindy River Lower Town- ship, which had been thought to belong to the Plymouth Company until the settlement of the Plymouth Boundary showed it to be state land, were 35 granted one hundred acres for six pounds. The resolve listed these settlers and stated that they were to pay the sums owed within nine months. Their land was to be so laid out as to best include their 86
Improvements.
In some cases a different qualifying date was used, for instance, in 1791 the Committee gave a man a sixty day option on a number of townships in Maine with the stipulation that he provide one hundred acres for each person who had settled on the land before the expiration of the sixty days. 87
The day following the passing of the March 1783 resolve setting up a general land policy the General Court granted a township to John Allan. In this grant it took care of settlers in a unique manner and one which did not in the least conform to the new resolve. Several men were granted varying quantities of land there for their services in the war. Also, an amount up to six thousand acres was reserved for the settlers --
84. Deed of Release, Feb. 18, 1789, with l'ass. Resolve, June 12, 1789, Chap. 47.
85. Mass, Resolve, Feb. 4, 1790, Chap. 68.
86. See also memo of proposals regarding Butterfield "June 1786" added in other handwriting , Eastern Lands, Box 10; rough draft of agreement to sell land north of Tyngstown, Eastern Lands, Box 46.
87. Memo regarding proposal to sell Ogden fourteen townships, May 16, 1791, Eastern Lands, Box 15.
216
anyone who had settled before that date -- with the provision that for whatever part of it they had they pay a proportionate share of the three 88 hundred pounds charged Allan. However, the settlers found this pro- vision not. to their liking and after a while sent a petition to the General Court asking to be granted one hundred acres saying that when Rufus Putnam surveyed the town he had told them they would receive that 89 In January 1790 the amount inasmuch as they had settled before 1784. 90 Court passed a resolve complying with this request. The settlers, who were named in this resolve, were to pay five dollars each to the Land Committee within one year of the resolve. This resolve also granted two hundred acres each to two men who in 1784 tried unsuccessfully to buy state land with paper money received for their war services and who 91 had subsequently settled there.
The agreement was with the Plymouth Proprietors, incorporated three tracts previously the property of the State within the patent bounds, 92 and required the proprietors to convey land to the settlers on them.
88. Kass. Resolve, March 27, 1788, Chap. 84.
89. Petition of settlers of Orangetown to General Court with Mass. Resolve, Jan. 30, 1790, Chap. 40.
90. M'ass. Resolve, Jan. 30, 1790, Chap. 40.
91. Petition of Trescott & Crane, Nov. 20, 1789, with Mass. Resolve, Jan. 30, 1790, Chap. 40.
92. although it was not stated in the deed of release that these particular tracts were received from the State, they were three in number and the land released by the State was in three pieces and in this area. Therefore they must have been one and the same. See Mass. House Document 1757, (1785-1786).
410 16 186 : ะยะ
Ewever, '
tless.
ここもこ
EnT FrE-1754 ٠٠ ٠١ Ge cis 5
١٠
מי
might have any Less Tal ٠٠
I: will be sotei
=: settlers on lund that was already The proper: The people in : received by the "Jacky adven tmmerof in the land battery exchange hely vinnings else- where were treated quite AllTeremtig. legislators placed mo exact but neither did they set amy linde on the amount they would have to pay. However, they made aapons eligible who hand made the passing of the June 1758 mot giving the proprietors this right to 54 exchange.
All settlers who bad settled be !: re dummiey 20, 1785 1the doble be first Site resolve dealing with these people) in the
1 don River that were sold Jointly by the
55. Deet ef Belouse, Feb. 18, 1799, with Vass. Resolve, Frane 10, 1729, Chep. 47.
94. Yass. Rpoolme, June 20, 1788, Chep. 11.
218
proprietors and the State were allowed to buy any improvements they might have made over and above their allotment of one hundred acres at the rate of three shillings an acre for upland and whatever its 95 value might be for marsh. People who settled after January 20, 1783 were allowed to buy their hundred acres for a total payment of three pounds.
One piece of post-1788 legislation was designed to remedy an oversight made before that date. In 1786 the Committee sold a group of settlers the land they were living on for a certain stm without making any allowance for their settling activities. Later these settlers asked for and were granted a reduction in the figure they owed that allowed them one hundred acres each at thirty shillings per 96
hundred acres. The arrangement made provided that the settlers' agents should be granted such an abatement in their payments to the State in case these agents did not charge settlers more than thirty shillings plus interest from March 25, 1786 for their plots and gave satisfactory evidence to the Committee that they had allowed each individual said hundred acres at no higher a price and also that the people so cared for were actually pre-1784 settlers who had made separate improvements.
95. Instructions to Lothrop, Lewis, Aug. 15, 1793, Eastern Lands, Box 13; Mass. Resolve, June 21, 1793, Chap. 37.
96. Mass. Resolve, Feb. 24, 1791, Chap. 67 and petition of settlers on front lots of Orrington to General Court with it.
219
REASONS FOR BENIGN ATTITUDE OF STATE
It is interesting and enlightening to consider the reasons for the benevolent attitude taken by the State.
A letter of one Enoch Bartlett gives an insight into the metter. In June 1784, as one of the proprietors, he wrote to the Land Committee seeking confirmation of the six towns east of Pemobscot River granted to David Harsh and his colleagues, and expressing his own personal opinion that the settlers ought not to be driven off the land without being a just payment for the "labour and charges" they had made over and above the damages they had done. He recommended that the requested act of confirmation guarantee then this justice feeling that this would fore- stall lawsuits. At the same time he did say that the others of the pro- 97 prietors' committee did not agree with him. Later the proprietors! agents announced a willingness to have some provisions made for these people in the final grant in order that they might have & just compen- 98
satica for their efforts. They may well have thought that such an attitude on their part would render the State more likely to confirm their grants.
Some people thought that the work which the settlers had already done on the land in developing their plots vas of sufficient value to the State to warrant special consideration. This vas a point which
97. Enoch Bartlett to Phillips and Committee, June 1784, Eastern Lands, Box 17.
98. Memorial to Committee from Marsh township proprietors' agents, [Note in other handwriting says "Oct. 1784' ], Eastern Lands, Box 10.
220
the settlers themselves pressed when applying for their land. One group emphasized the importance of the help which they had given to later 99 settlers in getting a start when they appeared on the scene. Another
man wrote that people with whom he was associated had improved and 100 defended the soil for the State, a contention which other writers
supported. One zan, writing a letter which appeared in the Falmouth Gazette, mentioned that these settlers had "rendered it the land 101 ralmable." Talleyrand, too, made the statement that squatters 102
added to the value of the land round about them!
Settlers also pointed to the things of value they would be doing 103
in the future such as contributing to the tax fund, or providing meeting houses and schools for the welfare of the commmity. 104
Furthermore, the settlers claimed, in the past the Government had given to people for little or nothing, particularly as a recompense for
99. People on Sandy River to Committee, May 28, 1789, Eastern Lands, Box 52.
100. Abraham and Levis Ogier to Committee, May 20, 1784, Eastern Lands, Box 10.
101. Letter from Jonathan of the Valley in Falmouth Gazette, Nov. 19, 1785.
102. Talleyrand-Perigord, Charles Maurice de, Tallerrand in America as a Financial Promoter, 1794-1796, p. 152.
103. e.g. Bancroft, Spaulding et al. to 1781 Committee, Feb. 1, 1785, Eastern Lands, Box 10.
104. Petition of settlers with Mass. Resolve, March 13, 1786, Chap. 97.
221
105
performing settling duties. Sullivan states that Massachusetts always gave weight to a right based on actual occupation. 106 Another factor zay have been the realization that there was a distinct possibility that trouble might follow any attempt to dispossess these people. Rochefoucauld wrote that a proprietor who took such a course of action 107
might bring on confusion, dissension, and clamours.
Upon consideration of the problem the Committee agreed that the settlers should be given thoughtful consideration. When reporting on those in the twelve towns east of the Penobscot River, it will be remembered, it said that while they had no good title, "equity and good
108 policy" dictated that they be quieted on mild terms. At the same time it recommended that all settlers who made application within a rea- sonable time should be sold their holdings at a price based on the value of their land in a state of nature. Later Cony wrote that he felt that a certain group of people who had set down on land without authority after January 1, 1784 should be given the right to buy their settlements
105. e.g. E. Thompson to Committee, Oct. 15, 1793, Eastern Lands, Box 52.
106. Sullivan, The History of Land Titles in Massachusetts, pp. 193 ff.
107. La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt, Travels Through the United States of North America in the Years 1795, 1796, and 1797, I, 422-423.
108. Report of Committee, July 7, 1784, Mass. Senate Document 173.
222
because it was important to a government that the residents of its new 109 territories feel friendly toward it.
In summary it is probable that this course of action stemmed from a combination of humanitarianiam and a prudence that realized the benefits of refraining from steps that would most assuredly have greatly agitated the population.
PREVENTION
In addition to coming to peaceful terms with these people the State also attempted to prevent any further transgressions of this sort.
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.