USA > Maine > Maine Public Lands 1781-1795 : claims, trespassers, and sales > Part 14
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 October of 1786 the Governor, at the request of the General Court, took cognizance of the reports that people were still settling on land in the eastern counties without authority by issuing a pro- clamation warning all persons to desist from all trespassing and un- 110 authorized settling upon pain of being prosecuted. This proclamation was particularly aimed at those who had taken possession of land after January 1, 1784. Earlier that year Stone had written his letter to some Committee members expressing his surprise at finding so many people still 111 settling on public land illegally.
109. Cony to Jarvis, March 14, 1789, Eastern Lands, Box 52. 110. Bowdoin's Proclamation, Oct. 26, 1786, in Boston Gazette Oct. 30, 1786.
111. Stone to Phillips or Brooks, Aug. 14, 1786, Eastern Lands, Box 17.
223
It must have been about this time that the Land Committee vas instructed, presumably by the General Court, to present some plan to the Legislature "by way of a resolve or otherwise" designed to prevent 112 trespasses on State property. These efforts were not completely successful. It even appears that some people were not hesitant to apply pressure to get for themselves the hundred acre benefit accruing to a qualified settler when in truth they were not in this class. One proprietor reported that he had been warned that some of the men seeking some of his land without having any right to it would be bad neighbors to him if he did not list them as settlers -- settlers on some of the 113
best that he had.
DESPOILERS OF THE LAND
People often went onto State property and wrought destruction -- chiefly a matter of stealing timber - without having any intention of settling there.
In 1789 Wells wrote to Jarvis that the Grand Inquest of Cumber- land had found a bill against certain individuals for cutting pine on Androscoggin River (he does not say this was on State property) and also suggested that it might be well to try to sell the land on the
112. Orders to Committee on Eastern Lands, (no date), Eastern Lands, Box 9.
113. Cutler to Wells, May 28, 1790, Eastern Lands, Box 10.
٢٢٤
muCT.
DE SV/HER
محظظ !
inone
٤
15
& Buram bands, Box If.
225
118
been done there within the last two years. As they went along they were to mark all the lega they found in a conspicious and uniform manner, and warn all people they saw against removing those logs or cutting any more. The names of the people seen there, particularly of those who appeared to be the principal operators, the quantity of logs and amount of other lumber found, and all other pertinent information vas to be reported to the Committee.
Cony sent along a letter of his own with the official instructions, which he transmitted. He suggested that it might be well to make a secret mark on the logs in addition to the conspicious and uniform one prescribed, and warned Weston to be very cautious and expeditious and 119 keep the purpose of his mission an absolute secret.
Upon receiving these instructions Weston set forth into the area to see what he could find and on March 14 wrote a report of his ob- servations up to that time. There were indeed people there and also fallen lumber in a mmber of places in the form of both logs and hoge- head staves. He had marked the logs as directed and taken the names of the people he met which he listed in his letter. He added that all of these people might not be trespassers. Unfortunately, he found that 120
they were very chary about giving out any information.
118. Committee to Samuel Weston, Feb. 17, 1794, Eastern Lands, Box 52.
119. Cony to Weston, Feb. 18, 1794, Eastern Lands, Box 52.
120. Weston to Cony, March 14, 1794, Eastern Lands, Box 52.
226 121
After he finished his investigation he wrote another report. Re named three people who were living on state land and keeping cattle and sheep there and who had probably lumbered there the past winter. However he could not prove who had actually cut the timber, he said. These men he had met planned to settle there and he had advised them to make an agreement with the Committee. It might be a good idea, he thought, to get the names of the hands of the big operators. They would not know on whose land the logs had been cut and he, as he had said, could not tell who had cut them, but between them they ought to be able to present a convincing case.
This information he gave was considered sufficient grounds upon which to press charges and one Bridge, an attorney, acting on orders given him wrote to several men. He told them that the State had good evidence of the fact that they had been trespassing on state land the past winter and encouraged them to consider the high penalty for this action and come forward to pay damages before it became necessary to take 122
the case to court. Twenty days were allowed them in which to do this. In addition he warmed them not to remove the logs that had been out.
121. Weston to Cony, April 7, 1794, Eastern Lands, Box 52.
122. J. Bridge to trespassers on state land, April 11, 1794, Eastern Lands, Box 52.
123 227
In May Weston wrote anciber letter. In it be estimated the number and value of the logs cut. He added that he did not know whether any of them bad come from trees that would have been fit for zasts nor did he know the value of the oaks used in the manufacture of the hogs- head staves. In his talks with the people he said he had tried to alter the unfavorable opinion some of these men had of the Committee, assuring them that it was interested only in getting the fair value of the logs
cut plus expenses involved and preventing further depredations. In closing he drew what he considered to be several extenuating circu- stances to the attention of the Committee. In the first place these trespassers were only acting in accordance with the custom of the area. Then there was the matter of need -- these people had very little money under any circumstances and there had been a drought the previous szer which forced people to go far afield in search of hay. Having done this, men could not afford to let their teams stand idle. In addition there was the fact that the roads these loggers made might well prove to be of great value in the future settling of the area. Finally the price of the lumber would quite possibly be a high price for the land.
As a result of the negotiations at least two of the trespassers
gave & hundred pound bond,
124
although one zan had thought getting
123. Weston to Cony, May 7, 1794, Eastern Lands, Box 52.
124. Settlement with David Ballard, July 10, 1794, Eastern Lands, Box 52.
228
125
bondamen might prove to be a difficulty. This guaranteed their payment of the cost of damages as determined by a board of three, acting on a majority vote, plus expenses within a period of two months after the decision was reached. The records show that the payment of those two men (nineteen pounds four shillings plus four pounds, thirteen shillings and eight pence expenses) was made according to schedule, and the bond 126
released.
127 The total amount received from all involved vas sixty one pounds.
The next winter the Committee sent Weston into the woods again. Cony had heard that people were making plans to log illegally on state land again, intending to cut trees which the State planned to reserve for masts. On the basis of these reports be directed Weston to make one or two or more trips and told him to gather all the evidence necessary for a court conviction as the Committee's intervention could 128 no longer be expected.
Weston reported in December that he could find no evidence of
trespassing, adding that some settlers there had asked his opinion of 129 the advisability of such a course of action. He also added that as
125. Weston to Cony, May 7, 1794, Eastern Lands, Box 52. 126. Note added Aug. 1, 1794 to settlement with David Ballard, July 10, 1794, Eastern Lands, Box 52.
127. Committee report, June 16, 1795, Table 21, p. 32, Eastern Lands, Box 49.
128. Cony to Weston, Nov. 24, 1794, Eastern Lands, Box 52.
129. Weston to Cony, Dec. 13, 1794, Eastern Lands, Box 52.
229
a matter of fact the rivers up to that date had been so open that season it was almost impossible to do any logging. However, be would continue to be on the alert to detect any steps taken in this direction.
Timber thieves received little opposition from the State. Un- questionably they constituted a problem that only an adequate law enforcement department could have solved -- a department much larger than the State could afford.
Illegal settling however, was a different matter. This vas a problem that had to be met without the benefits of any great amount of previous experience. It was a problem that vas accentuated by the decision of the State to charge for the land it conveyed to private individuals. It was also a problem that vas fraught with the possibilities of serious trouble. People would not have reacted favorably to having the hard labor of several years taken away from them, even though their position had never been tenable in a strictly legal sense. The earliest attempts to take care of these people were exploratory, and some rather serious trouble spots did develop. However, the State moon adopted a system that made allowance for the value of the work the settlers bad done and left then on their plots under conditions they could meet. This system was followed with very few exceptions, most significant
of which was the case of the settlers on the land that already belonged to the Plymouth Company when its 1789 agreement with the State was reached.
230
In its report of March 7, 1791 the Committee states that
Notwithstanding the perplexity attending that part of the ... business ... they have endeavored to conduct it in such a manner as they conceived would be most beneficial to the settlers and at the same time would best promote the interests of the commonwealth.130
131 By 1795 more than one thousand settlers had been cared for, some by clauses in the grants made to the proprietors of the land requiring those proprietors to convey the land to the settlers 132and others by reservations made in the grant which enabled the State to grant them their land. 133
Because of this approach harmony was achieved and economic growth enjoyed with few exceptions where there could have been turmoil and strife.
130. Report of Committee, March 7, 1791, with Mass. Resolve, March 10, 1791, Chap. 136.
131. Report of Committee, June 16, 1795, P. 3, Eastern Lands, Box 49.
132. e.g. Mass. Resolve, July 8, 1786, Chap. 130; Mass. Resolve, March 24, 1788, Chap. 69.
133. e.g. Deed to Joseph Vose, March 20, 1786, in Eastern Lands, Deeds, I, 400; instructions to Titcomb, Nov. 15, 1786, Eastern Lands, Box 13.
CHAPTER VII
SALES
The principal function of the Committee appointed on October 26, 1783 proved to be the sale of the land that still belonged to the State. This chapter is concerned with that job. The topics included will be the granting of the authority to make sales, the preparation of the land for sale, sales promotions, negotiations, the settlement of complaints and enforcement of the conditions of the sales, a summary of sales made, and an evaluation of the program.
PREPARATION FOR SALE
Several preparatory steps were taken before the land was placed on the market.
At an early date the General Court gave authority to make sales to the Land Committee, which did most of the work. The way in which 1 this was done has already been told. The Court continued to make some conveyances itself, it is true, but these were generally in situations involving special circumstances or in areas in which no committee had been given the necessary authority.
A second very important step was that of laying out the land. Of all that the State owned, which should be surveyed in preparation for sale first? This was a question that the Legislature answered at
1. See earlier, Chap.2.
231
232
first but which shortly became the responsibility of the Committee.
Different criteria were used in making these decisions.
The first post-Revolutionary resolve of the General Court direct- ing that lands be laid out for future sale was that of July 11, 1783. 2 As a place to start the General Court chose York County, the most thoroughly populated of the three in the District and the one nearest Boston.
The Resolve of October 1783, it has been noted, directed the Lincoln Committee to investigate the expediency of laying out townships 3 on the St. Croix River or elsewhere. Was this an attempt to secure its claim to its eastern boundary which was a matter of dispute? Or was this directive based solely on a belief that these were lands pro- spective buyers would be most likely to want. This is a matter of con- jecture although it seems likely that the latter was the case. 4
As the Committee carried on its work, it made it a point not to lay out plots within the District in any area the title to which was in question, even though all other factors might make those places 5 logical ones in which to carry on operations. Not only would the State run the risk of losing its investment should it be decided that the lands belonged to private individuals, but people would not be likely to pay
2. Mass. Resolve, July 11, 1783, Chap. 99.
3. Mass. Resolve, Oct. 28, 1783, Chap. 102.
4. For a discussion of this possibility see earlier, pp. 25-26.
5. Committee Report, July 7, 1784, Mass. Senate Document 173; Committee Report, June 1, 1785 in Eastern Lands, Deeds, I, 58-61.
233
full value for such property were it offered for sale.
Since one of the major purposes of the land program was to provide a revenue for the State by selling this public land, it was' only natural to suppose that one of the prime criterion involved in deciding which lands to locate was their salability, and that the auth- orities would adopt a policy of surveying those lands first which would be most in demand by buyers. Indeed this was the case.
For example, the early resolves which gave the Committee any choice told it to choose those lands which it considered would be for the best interest of the State 6
or to proceed "having regard to the lands and islands most saleable." 7 The Committee, when giving instruct- ions to Putnam which gave him some leeway. in deciding which lands to lay out, told him to chose those that he considered would be the best 8 inducement on the market. When planning for the 1786 surveys the Com- mittee noted that it would be well to lay out townships at the head of the Waldo Claim and between the Plymouth Company Land and Penobscot's 9 tide head as this was very salable land. This same report also statod that it would seem to be a good idea to come to a settlement with the
6. Mass. Resolve, July 9, 1784, Chap. 103.
7. Mass. Resolve, Nov. 5, 1784, Chap. 45.
8. Additional instructions to Putnam, Aug. 3, 1784, Eastern Lands, Box 13.
9. Report of Committee, March 24, 1786, with Mass. Resolve, March 24, 1786, Chap. 200.
234
Penobscot Indians as the land in that sector was reported to be very valuable. Cony's reason for recommending that certain surveying should 10
be done was that there was a demand for land in that area.
How did the General Court and the Committee know which lands would be likely to sell first?
The history of land grants in the latter days of the province government may have influenced them. Some of these were on the coast 11 east of the Penobscot River, the scene of some of the earliest surveying done by the State.
Furthermore the population advance from 1760 had been eastward along the coast of Maine 12 and the General Court members may have real- ized that this was the case. Such an advance would have pointed to the desirability of the Penobscot and St. Croix areas, although it does not explain why so much of the sea coast was ignored at first.
Requests for land ran ahead of the surveying in some areas and 13 this, of course, was a hint to the Committee.
As they went along on their tours of duty surveyors sometimes made observations of the land that led them to make suggestions about
10. Cony to Jarvis, April 21, 1788, Eastern Lands, Box 17.
11. e.g. Mass. Resolve, March 2, 1762, Chap. 401; Mass. Resolve, Jan. 24, 1763, Chap. 157.
12. Maine, A History, ed. Hatch, III, 722.
13. Committee Report, June 1, 1785 in Eastern Lands, Deeds I, 58-61; Committee Report, March 21, 1786, with Mass. Resolve, March 24, 1786, Chap. 200.
235
this matter to the Committee. Weston wrote that the land on the north 14
side of the west branch of the Penobscot looked very good, and Tit- comb reported when he was surveying in Cumberland County that there was a sizable tract of state land lying westward of his operations, which
he would be glad to survey. 15
On his trip in 1785 Putnam wrote back that he had discovered that a large number of the islands west of Machias were very good and recommended that another surveyor be sent to help with 16
the work.
The bounds within which Putnam was to work in 1784 were set, but if he could not survey those townships listed as a first choice by the Committee, he was to choose the land within those bounds that he con- 17 sidered best (it was not intended that he should do it all). Thus a final decision was to be made on the basis of personal observation on the scene by the person doing the choosing. Later, he noted in his journal that he used his own judgment in deciding to survey some 18 islands rather than more mainland townships.
The mode of procedure adopted in 1784 had emphasized the need of laying out tracts in an orderly manner by stipulating that the first
14. Weston to Cony, June 4, 1792, Eastern Lands, Box 17.
15. Titcomb to Jarvis, Dec. 10, 1787, Eastern Lands, Box 17.
16. Putnam to Committee, June 29, 1785, Eastern Lands, Box 17. 17. Additional instructions to Putnam, Aug. 3, 1784, Eastern Lands, Box 13.
18. "Journal of Rufus Putnam 1784," Oct. 14, 1784, in Rufus Putnam Papers.
236
townships surveyed should border on the coast, a river, or some pre- viously granted tract and that all subsequent surveying should proceed 19 from thence in a regular manner.
A few minor factors also were taken into consideration by the Committee when it decided where to survey new townships. At one point the General Court voted to set aside a township for a public seminary -- it was to be the best land in a given area. Fulfilling the provisions of this grant required that that general area be sur- 20 veyed. Of course, there was already a demand for the land there and that would have motivated a survey anyway. In another specific instance the Committee had arranged to have five towns laid out before it had originally planned to do so because the surveyors who were asked to survey an adjoining tract insisted that these five towns, which lay nearer the settled areas than the tract the Committee wanted surveyed, 21
be included, too, at the fee offered. Still another possible example of a criterion affecting a portion of the total areas involved was that 22
the land along big rivers should be sold first. Wells suggested this as an attempt to forestall a loss to the State from timber thieves whose favorite scene of operations was the river valleys, where the flowing
19. Mass. Resolve, Nov. 5, 1784, Chap. 45.
20. Cony to Jarvis, Sept. 8, 1789, Eastern Lands, Box 17.
21. Cony to Jarvis, April 21, 1792, Eastern Lands, Box 17.
22. Jarvis to Wells, Aug. 3, 1789, Eastern Lands, Box 17.
237
waters provided them with a means of transportation to market. Jarvis also thought such a step would be a good idea, but just how much this thought actually influenced a decision is a question. Again, river valley land was among the most salable at the disposal of the Committee, of course, and would have a priority rating on that basis alone.
Not only did the authorities have to decide where to lay out towns, they also had to make some decisions concerning the exact bounds of these tracts.
Evidence indicates that the Committee kept in mind at all times the thought that all surveying should be done in a way that would leave no small pieces of property lying here and there between the townships. When giving directions to one man to lay out some townships in 1784, it instructed him to do the job in such a manner that no gores would be left and nothing be done to harm any other tracts suitable for a town- 23
ship. In 1787 Phillips thought it would be wise to sell a township which was to be surveyed after the sale (provided the General Court approved this departure from established procedure) at a certain price provided specific conditions were met, one of them being that the sur- veyors leave no gores. 24
At least one instance is mentioned of a township being laid out adjoining previously existing boundaries with the provision that within its boundaries should be included any pockets that might fall between that old boundary and the normal line of
23. Instructions to Jordine sic , Aug. 3, 1785, Eastern Lands, Box 13.
24. Phillips to Jarvis, Oct. 23, 1787, Eastern Lands, Box 17. 4
2.38
the new town considering the normal line to be a straight line projected 25 in the desired direction from the corner post. In 1789 the Committee sold a William Widgery seven square miles in a certain town with the stipulation that this tract should be either on the town line or one or more whole miles from it and that its lines should conform to the towns 26 boundary lines. Again, in 1792 some townships were contacted for with a State option on land with timber suitable for masts. In case the State took any such tract the buyer was to have his choice of taking an equal amount of land elsewhere "to be laid out in a regular form," or of swapping the entire township for another one. In each case the 27 land selected was to be on the boundary line of some other township. The townships involved in the lottery plan of 1786 posed a problem. The fact that the managers had not sold many tickets meant that there were a number of lots privately owned scattered around throughout state property. Furthermore, a person who had bought more than one ticket most probably had an equal number of plots that were far removed from each other. In order to benefit both these people and the State, provisions were made to allow these people to exchange any group of parcels equal in size to a township for a township somewhere within and
25. Cony to Ballard, Aug. 14, 1790, Eastern Lands, Box 13.
26. Instructions to Titcomb, Feb. 11, 1789, Eastern Lands, Box 13.
27. e.g. Contract with John Dearborn, March 22, 1792, Eastern Lands, Box 15; contract with Jedediah Jewett, March 22, 1792, Eastern Lands, Box 15.
239
28
upon the border of the lottery tract. There is one indication, however, that as late as 1788 the creating of some gores was still not completely eliminated. Cony urged that all the land west of the Plymouth Patent and south of the great east-west line should be
surveyed. 29 In this tract, he thought, there would be some gores.
The size of the plots to be surveyed was another point that the officials had to decide.
The July 1783 resolve giving directions for surveying some of 30 the public domain into small parcels mentioned two kinds. First were the gores and strips too small to be made into townships. Second were some sizable tracts. Some of this land was to be laid out in townships six miles square each or as nearly that size as circumstances permitted. The Province had granted land in townships approximately 31 32
six miles square, and the State now continued on in this tradition. Almost entirely all tracts laid out on the mainland were in units of townships about thirty six square miles in size, the boundaries of adjoining property frequently making necessary to make them a little
28. Mass. Resolve, June 20, 1788, Chap. 17.
29. Cony to Jarvis, April 21, 1788, Eastern Lands, Box 17.
30. Mass. Resolve, July 11, 1783, Chap. 99.
31. e.g. See petition of Committees of Townships Number One, Four, Five and Six to General Court with Mass. Resolve, June 21, 1793, Chap. 37.
32. e.g. Mass. Resolve, March 26, 1788, Chap. 80; Cony's instructions to Titcomb, July 1, 1793, Eastern Lands, Box 13; Cony's instructions to Ballard, April 3, 1794, Eastern Lands, Box 13.
240
bigger or smaller if no gores were to be left and the best interests of the State in general were to be maintained.
In at least one case the Committee had subdivision lines
33 run at the time the townships were laid out. The resolve that re- defined land policy in 1788 provided that the Land Committee should decide whether or not the towns should be further subdivided into 34 lots at the time of surveying.
Certain rules were made to regulate sales themselves.
Although land was laid out in townships unita the Committee vas not required to sell that quantity to any one customer. On the contrary it was explicitly authorized to sell in whatever amounts it considered 35
best.
Another decision the General Court had to make was whether sales should be public or private. The resolve that created the Committee which was given the job of selling land in York County specifically stated that the selling should be done at public auction. The next June, however, this committee was given the freedom of selling this land either at public auction or private sale, depending 37
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.