USA > Maine > Maine Public Lands 1781-1795 : claims, trespassers, and sales > Part 9
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
It found the Sanford headline to lie further southwest than was originally thought. This discovery deprived one set of assignees of two hundred acres but the Committee allowed its owners to locate these two hundred acres elsewhere.
It found one man on the land taking up one hundred acres to which he had no title.
It also reported on the small plots belonging to the State -- about fifty six hundred acres of gores and strips on the plan mentioned and eleven lots adjoining Fryeburg, each of one hundred fifty acres, except one of one hundred ninety two acres.
The General Court read these reports and passed a resolve ap- proving the acts of the Committee, making the confirmations recommended by it, directing it to dispose of the squatters plot in the manner it thought best for the Commonwealth, and creating a special sales commit-
9 tee to handle the sale of the plots of State land at public auction. The York County Committee made a report on the claim of William and Bridget Phillips's heirs at an early date and an act was passed 10 confirming the land to the proprietors, but for some reason this action was not completely satisfactory. Therefore the Committee was asked to to re-examine the matter. Both the validity of the grant and its true
9. Mass. Resolve, March 20, 1784, Chap. 164. 10. Mass. Act, Oct. 14, 1783, Chap. 26.
138
11
bounds seem to have been in question.
The present claimants said they were holding the land on the basis of a purchase made by William Phillips, but opponents noted that the deed of indenture was made out to his son, Nathaniel. In answer, it was pointed out that this objection was immaterial as the son died intestate and the State's right to the area was based on an after deed which specifically exempted the Phillips tract.
The tract was said to run up Saco River to Captain Sunday's rock. There seems to have been some disagreement over the location of this landmark. However, it was definitely established to the satisfaction of the Committee after a study of the wording in the deed and depositions from three individuals.
Another claim between the two Ossippee Rivera, which flow in that southwestern corner of Maine, was also discussed by the Committee at this time. This was based on a deed from Captain Sunday to Francis Small, executed before witnesses and recorded in York County on August 28, 1773.
After its re-examination, which included the study of depositions, available records, and statements made by and in behalf of the claim- ants, the Committee reported in March of 1786 that it still held to its former decision that the land between the two Ossipee Rivers ought to be considered private property. However, the 1783 Committee had to
11. This purchase was made from Fuellen Hobinowill and Captain Sunday, Indian chiefs. (Williamson, The History of the State of Maine ... 1602 to ... 1820 II, 383); report of York-Cumberland Committee, March 20, 1786, Senate Document 1024.
139
state in 1787 that it was unable to make any recommendations regarding a petition for a town in York County because no fizal action had been 12
taken on this report.
In 1791 the courts were asked to establish the claim of one of these Phillips heirs. It seems that the land has finally been sold for taxes prior to this date. However, the power of redemption remained with 13 those whose land was sold for this reason.
The 1783 Committee started to examine the records at its dis- posal -- claims, the past doings of the General Court, and maps and 14 plans -- immediately after its creation. In 1726 it reported that its members had also read histories, pamphlets, and law suits. However, 15 all together these did not give a picture that vas complete or clear. As it turned out this was to be a job that occupied its attention throughout the years of its appointment.
Among the claims with which the committees had to deal were three large ones -- the Waldo, the Plymouth, and the Pejepscot. All three dated back to the early days of New England and had been revived in the eighteenth century when speculation fever had whetted people's
12. Report of Committee, July 3, 1787, Eastern Lands, Box 48.
13. Emery, Edwin, The History of Sanford, Maine, 1661-1900 (Fall River, Mass., 1901), pp. 94-95.
14. Eastern Lands, Deeds I, 30, Jan. 1734.
15. Report of Committee, March 24, 1786, with Mass. Resolve, March 24, 1786, Chap. 200.
140
16
appetite for wild lands as a place to invest their money. In at least the last two of these cases boundaries had been the subject of dispute between the companies owning them and the Government for many 17 years and had never been settled with finality. Each of these was on one of the three big rivers in Maine.
The Waldo claim was based on a grant made to Beauchamp and Leverett by the New England Council in 1629.
18 This group was punctual in placing its claim before the Committee as the latter's newspaper notice had directed and the Committee noted in February 1784 that it had spent several days studying this claim but could find no plans dealing with the matter and could not therefore make any report on it
at that session of the Court. 19 However, in April one of the members did succeed in getting some papers and spent some time looking them 20 over. Finally, after studying these papers and plans and talking with representatives of the Waldo heirs and of the settlers on the land and with disinterested people, a report was prepared and sub- 21 mitted to the General Court in 1784. Before a resolve was passed,
16. Akagi, The Town Proprietors of the New England Colonies, pp. 242, 245, and 248.
17. Report of Committee, Mass. House Document 1757 (1785-86).
18. Committee report with Mass. Resolve, July 4, 1785, Chap. 136a.
19. Eastern Lands, Deeds I, 31-32, 1784.
20. Ibid, p. 33.
21. Eastern Lands, Deeds I, 39-40, July 2, 1784.
141
people who were not directly connected with the claim but who were interested in the interpretation given to the boundary line clauses 22 also appeared to speak. . The validity of the claim was never in serious doubt, but its bounds were.
The legislators drew up a tentative resolve dealing with the sub- ject in March 1785 which would have confirmed land within certain stated bounds to the group. This land was to be no nearer than fifteen miles to the Kennebec River, the boundary of the Plymouth Claim, which was the older of the two. If there was a surplus over and above nine hundred square miles, it was to be paid for by the grantees. The land that was to be so paid for if necessary was designated, and it was provided that the price should be decided by a representative of each side plus another person chosen by these two, all of whom were to be sworn to the faithful performance of their duty. Settlers who were on the land prior to January 1, 1784 were to be granted their posses- sions under conditions to be set up by the General Court. This 23 proposal was referred to the next Court session.
Following this decision several groups pressed for action. Some people that lived on the patent wrote to the General Court that although they had settled under Waldo they had not been given some of the things they had been promised. Therefore, they asked that the claim be
22. Committee report with Mass. Resolve, July 4, 1785, Chap. 136a. 23. Proposed resolve, March 9, 1785, with Mass. Resolve, July 4, 1785, Chap. 136a.
142
24
decided by "due process of law." In June the Land Committee urged the necessity of deciding this issue because that would make it possible to 25
lay out and sell nearby state lands, which were very desirable. The joint legislative committee that reviewed the Land Committee report 26
recommended specifically that this be done.
In a Land Committee report printed with the resolve that was finally passed clauses in the original grant of 1629 were quoted. From these we can get an idea of the difficulties the Committee had to con- tend with in putting land affairs on a systematic basis:
All and singular those lands, tenements and hereditaments whatsoever, with the appurtenances, thereof, in New England aforesaid, which are situate, lying and being within or between a place there, commonly called and known by the name of Muscongus, towards the south and southwest, and a straight line extending from thence, directly ten leagues up into the main land and continent there, towards the great sea commonly called the south sea, and the utmost limits of the space of ten leagues on the north and north- east of a river in New England aforesaid, commonly called Penobscot, towards the north and north-east, and the great sea commonly called the western ocean, towards the east, and a straight and direct line extending from the most western part and point of the said straight line, which extends from Muscongus aforesaid, towards the south sea, to the utmost northern limits of the said ten leagues on the north side of the said river Penobscot, towards the west.
24. Petition of Warren Selectmen, May 14, 1785, with Mass. Resolve, July 4, 1785, Chap 136a.
25. Committee report, June 1, 1785 in Eastern Lands, Deeds I, 58-61.
26. Report of joint committee, June 3, 1785, in Eastern Lands, Deeds I, 272.
143
After this quotation was cited, this very understandable comment was made by the Committee: "a description, the true intent and meaning 27
whereof your committee find it extremely difficult to determine."
The attempts of the General Court to reach an agreement with the proprietors were discussed in this report. The original grant, it will be noticed, had included land on both sides of the Penobscot River, but in the early 1760's the Court anxious to lay out twelve towns east of that river had proposed to the grantees that they give up their claim there for a strip six miles wide to be laid out along the head line of their claim on the west side. That suggestion had been approved by both parties, but a document, which had been written up to that effect, had not been signed by the necessary officials -- the Governor and the Speaker of the House and the President of the Council -- as far as the Committee could discover, and therefore that 28 group did not consider it legally binding.
The bounds proposed in this Committee report were as follows:
27. Committee report with Mass. Resolve, July 4, 1785, Chap. 136a.
28. However, by 1784, those interested in the Waldo Claim definitely considered it to be a tract of thirty miles square on the west side of the Penobscot with the addition of the six mile strip at its head. (William Wetmore to Phillips, June 20, 1784, Eastern Lands, Box 53); on the other hand it will be recalled that the resolve of March 22, 1784, called for towns to be laid out on the western side of Penobscot River beginning thirty miles from the sea. (Mass. Resolve, March 22, 1784, Chap. 169).
144
. .. the tract of land contained within the following founds, viz. Beginning at the point of land east of the mouth of the river Muscongus; thence extending up the said river according to the general course thereof, into the country; then running from the said point of land a long the sea- coast, and by the bay of Penobscot to the mouth of the river Penobscot; from thence extending up the said river, until a line drawn from the said river Penobscot to the Muscongus line first mentioned, shall give and complte & tract of land, equal to a tract of land thirty miles square, and so that the said Muscongus line first mentioned shall be equal in length to a right line, drawn from the point of land called Owls-Head, to the mouth of the Penobscot river, with the line extending up the said Penobscot river, added thereto, together with all islands whose center falls within three miles of any part of the lands before described ..
It will be noted that these boundary lines are somewhat different from those discussed in March -- for one thing nothing was said about going no nearer than fifteen miles to the Kennebec.
Since the exchange for lands on the western bank was not thought to have been consummated, no provision was made for this portion of the claim -- the six mile strip at the head was not included.
The resolve that was passed on the recommendation of this report, gave the tract described in the report to the Waldo heirs with these provisos: the company was to signify its acceptance of the terms by the second Tuesday of the next General Court session by executing a release and quit claim of all land not included, none of the lands withir. the tract which had escheated to the Commonwealth were to be included in the grant, and a three thousand pound bond was to be posted guaranteeing that all members of the company twenty-one and
145
over would sign their acceptance of this agreement by the next April and all members under twenty-one would sign within six months after 29 reaching that age. Settlers on the land were to be taken care of. A notice setting forth the terms of this agreement was to be inserted for six successive weeks in the Independent Chronicle.
The failure of the State to include the six mile strip in the tract undercut the claims of the Lincolnshire Company, which held land there on the basis of an agreement of the 1760's, and who were now due an indemnification was its legal right and urging that group to do nothing that would upset this resolve. He was sure, he said, that the bounds that were given were the best possible they could get, and that anything that would nullify the resolve would greatly please 30 the "eastern interest" who wished heartily for such a development.
On November 1 the agreement was signed by the people interested 31 financially in the ownership of the claim, and everyone seemed well 32
satisfied.
29. Mass. Resolve, July 4, 1785, Chap. 136a.
30. Knox to William Hunt, Oct. 24, 1785, Lincolnshire Company, Miscellaneous, 1717-1802, in the Prescott Papers (Mass. Historical Society).
31. Copy of document in which Waldo Heirs with noted exceptions relinquish claim to all lands except thos mentioned in resolve, Nov. 1, 1785, Eastern Lands, Box 53; Vote of Lincolnshire Company Standing Committee, Nov. 1, 1785, Records, 1766-1794, 1 folder, Nov. 9, 1785, pp. 166-167 (Mass. Historical Society).
32. Report of Committee, June 16, 1795, pp. 2-3, Eastern Lands, Box 49.
146
But unhappy day!
Once the transaction was completed, the Land Committe hurried to have the designated lines run out and marked so that it could sell the state land in the sector. It announced its intention of having this 33 surveying done in a report to the General Court in March, 1786 34 and that season Stone and Titcomb did the work.
A suspicion soon arose that the grant as made might fall at some point within fifteen miles of the Kennebec River. 36
35 A measure- ment was taken and these fears were confirmed. Since the Plymouth Grant, whose boundary extended to this fifteen mile line, was the more ancient of the two, the Waldo heirs were possessed with a deficiency to the extent of about thirty-nine thousand acres.
When appraised of this situation the proprietors asked that they be given compensation for this loss at the head of their patent -- 37 land that was a part of the six mile strip they had not been given. The Committee felt that this was a fair arrangement but thought that it was not authorized to take such a step. It therefore voted to
33. Committee report, March 21, 1786, with Mass. Resolve, March 24, 1786, Chap. 200.
34. Stone to Phillips or Brooks, Sept. 29, 1786, Eastern Lands, Box 17.
35. Committee to Stone, Oct. 1786, Eastern Lands, Box 17.
36. Certificate of Committee to Waldo Proprietors, Nov. 18, 1788, Eastern Lands, Box 53.
37. Report of Committee, July 3, 1787, Eastern Lands, Box 48.
147
notify the proprietors that any action must be taken by the General Court and if that body did not direct otherwise the land at the head 38
of the patent would be sold within six months. It then submitted a report of the case to the General Court suggesting that appropriate action be taken. 39
The Court did not heed this advise at that session but the next fall gave the problem to the House committee. Putnam was a member of this committee and he worked to get some action taken on that matter. However, it became apparent that nothing was likely to happen there, so he joined with Jarvis in introducing a resolution on their own that would accomplish the purpose. But opposition led by a Dr. Taylor was 40 too strong and their attempt failed.
Some thought was given to the patent's proprictors' buying the necessary land to give the Lincolnshire Company the amount they owed them. Putnam had suggested the advisability of such a course of action 41 in his letter to Knox. However, one of the heirs had previously disapproved of this step on the grounds that it would imply that them 42 were satisfied with their grant as its boundaries then stood.
38. Committee minutes, June 1787, Eastern Lands, Box 46.
39. Ibid .; Putnam to Knox, Dec. 11, 1787, Knox Papers, vol. LI.
40. Putnam, ibid.
41. Ibid.
42. Isaac Winslow to Knox, Feb. 7, 1787, Knox Papers, vol. LI.
148
As time went on the various groups became more insistent that something be done. The Lincolnshire Company did not receive any land to compensate them for their loss, and considered taking action against the heirs.
43 The heirs petitioned for land to make up the loss, and in. 1788 Knox and some of his colleagues wrote a letter to the Committee stating that they intended to insist on being given land at the head of the patent as justice required. They took this opportunity, they said, to notify it of their intentions in order to save the State from embarrass- ment and legal entanglement that might arise if it granted to others 44 land that was rightfully theirs.
Furthermore, it developed that the agreement of. 1762 swapping land east of the Penobscot for that west of it had been signed by all parties on this side of the water and lacked only the approval of the 45 king. Therefore, the proprietors had more right to the six mile strip than had been supposed. In January of 1789 the Committee notified the General Court that the agreement had indeed been signed and that the Waldo heirs had warned the Committee not to sell any land there laid out for the Ten Proprietors by Waldo. This statement was
43. Minutes of meeting of Lincolnshire Company Proprietors, July 31, 1787, Lincolnshire Company, Miscellaneous Papers, Prescott Papers.
44. Knox et al. to Committee, Nov. 22, 1788, Eastern Lands, Box 17.
45. Representation of Committee to General Court, Jan. 19, 1789, Mass. Senate Document 1201; certificate from Secretary of State, Jan. 19, 1790, Eastern Lands, Box 53.
149
read in the Court in January and June of 1799 and in March of 1790, but 46 no action was taken.
Because of the State's failure to grant this land to the heirs, Henry Jackson, acting for Knox, considered it necessary to ask for an option to buy land at the head of the patent, as had been suggested 47
earlier. However, this right to buy was not taken up and Jarvis wrote to Jackson in January, 1795 that unless the purchase was soon made, the Committee would feel that it must sell to others who were 48
applying. At the time the Committee submitted its report in 1795, 49 matters still rested at this point.
The oldest of the land patents in Maine to come under study was that of the Plymouth Company, a tract which was also called the Kennebec Purchase. This patent, a grant made by the New England Council to the Plymouth Colony in 1629, occupied the Kennebec Valley, straddling the river for a considerable distance along its course. On each bank it extended back fifteen miles into the woods, but no one knew the exact location of the southern and northern bounds. Nor did they know the bounds of certain of the tracts acquired by the Plymouth Company from various sources since 1629 and added to the original grant.
46. Representation of Committee to General Court, Jan. 19, 1789, Mass. Senate Document 1201.
47. Jarvis to Jackson, Jan. 24, 1795, Nox Papers, vol. XXXVII. 48. Ibid.
49. Report of Committee, June 16, 1795, Eastern Lands,
Box 49.
150
The Committee considered the claim at a relatively early date but it postponed making a report until more information could be 50 gathered. .. Finally in June 1785 the Committee did submit a report to the General Court describing the research it had done and setting 51
forth a proposal intended to conclude the matter. The investigation carried on by the Committee when preparing this report was a tremendous piece of work.
The validity of the claim had to be determined, of course. The original patent itself was apparently not questioned, but there was some question about the pieces that had been added to it. Some of these were purchases from other companies and some were direct acquisitions from the Indians. The tracts based on Indian deeds raised a question as both Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth, which had formerly controlled this grant, had passed laws forbidding purchases from Indians. However, since the pacts involved here were concerned with land not under the jurisdiction of either colony at the time they were made and a royal statute forbidding such purchases had not been passed until a later date, the Committee decided they should be considered valid. As argument to approve the claim in two specific cases in question the following points were made. The conveyances of land between the Wesserunsett River and Cobbisecontee had been recognized
50. Eastern Lands, Deeds I, 47-48.
51. Report of Committee, Mass. House Document 1757 (1785-86).
151
by the General Court of Plymouth Colony when it had jurisdiction over the area, and therefore these particular agreements were still binding on Massachusetts. The second tract was a piece acquired from the Pejepscot Proprietors. In this connection it was noted that the Pejepscot people had laid their claim before the General Court in 1764 as they had been required to do, and no objection to it was raised at that time. Therefore, it should be considered valid.
Once the Committee decided that the company did own certain land, it had to establish its true bounds. One of the landmarks used to designate the boundary was the Negumkike Falls. But which falla were the Negumkike Falls? No one was certain. Indeed, they might even have been worn away in the years since the making of the agreement. A report of islands and rapid current now in the river in that general area were cited as support for this possibility. Another knotty question was raised by the phrase, "utmost limits of Cobbisecontee." Was this the south bend in the river itself? The Committee thought it probably was. But there was a chance it meant the southern limit of streams coming into the river at this point, an interpretation which would carry the claim five or six miles toward the Androscoggin River. The text of the patent was examined to see whether it threw any light on the boundary question. But here the word "trade" created another problem. The patent was issued to give the Plymouth Company a chance to trade. But was this to be Indian trade or trade
152
with the rest of the world? In one case this would indicate one boundary line and in the other case another.
Altogether the Committee drew upon these sources of information in its quest for a true understanding of the claim: depositions, company claims, old plans, information of living people regarding the geography of the locality, previous doings of government and grantees, rational interpretations, Indian usage, ancient word usage, authorities, later Indian action, and reports of referees in disputes.
This report, with the Committee's recommendation, was considered by & joint committee of the General Court in the fall. This group submitted a report to the General Court which included a proposed re- solve embodying these recommendations. The Senate approved this
proposal and sent it down to the House. 52 However, sometime during this period the matter was committed to a committee to consider, and several
people asked to appear before it. One man claimed that some of the land to be confirmed to the Plymouth Company actually belonged to him. James Sullivan, speaking for settlers in the area, said the report was in error in locating Negumkike Falls where it did. And a spokesman for 53 the company appeared to say something in its behalf. Subsequently, the resolve was voted down. 54 The question, despite all that work, was
52. Mass. House Document 1757 (1785-6). This is a twenty-nine page printed report.
53. Mass. House Document 2146, Feb. 22, 1786.
54. Mass. House Document 1757 (1785-6).
153
as unsettled as ever. The inconveniences growing out of the uncertainty remained to harass the State, becoming even more acute as time went on. This land along both sides of the Kennebec was some of the best in Maine. Because of this it is not strange that the demand for land bordering on this patent should grow, and that therefore the need for determining its exact extent for purposes of establishing a boundary line should be keenly felt. The Committee reported to the General Court in July of 1787 that it was greatly embarrassed by reason of 55 this claim and that of the Pejepscot Proprietors not being settled. Jarvis also wrote to the General Court in behalf of the Committee saying that little could be expected from the sale of lands in that 56 area until a settlement was reached. 57 Letters written by Titcomb and Cony also emphasized this fact.
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.