History of Detroit and Wayne County and early Michigan: A Chronological Cyclopedia of the Past and Present, Vol. I, Part 12

Author: Farmer, Silas, 1839-1902
Publication date: 1890
Publisher: Detroit, Pub. by S. Farmer & co., for Munsell & co., New York
Number of Pages: 1094

USA > Michigan > Wayne County > Detroit > History of Detroit and Wayne County and early Michigan: A Chronological Cyclopedia of the Past and Present, Vol. I > 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).

were that the grantees should pay, on St. Martin's Day, a certain number of fowls, so many dozen eggs, or a definite number of measures of grain for each front arpent occupied; and in addition to having their grain ground in the seigneur's mill, they were obliged to have their bread baked in his ovens.

At Detroit the boundariesof these farms, or claims, were defined by ditches. The Private Claim now known as No. 90 was granted by Cadillac to Jacob de Marsac Jouira, dit Desroches, on the same day that the grant was made to De Lorme. He also made two other grants of the same size,-one to M. St. Aubin and the other to the widow Beaus- seron. Cadillac also granted to Michel Campau a piece of land fifty-three feet long upon St. Antoine Street, and seventeen feet on St. Ann Street, within the stockade, for which he was to pay an annual rent of five livres and five sous. For a right to trade, ten livres additional were charged. The rents were payable on March 20, in furs or "silver money when there shall be any." Keep up fences and build habitation within a year. No transfer could be made without the consent of Cadillac, and with every transfer a fee was to be paid him. In case the grantees neglected or did not wish to plant the May-pole, they were required to pay three livres in silver or peltries.

Cadillac also granted a lot inside the fort to M. Malette. Other lands within and without the pick- ets were granted by him to Messrs. Langlois, Tru- deau, Magnau, Des Rivières, De Ruisseau, Com- paret, Dufresne, Hubert, Lacroix, and Monier.

In 1708 M. d'Aigremont officially reported that he caused the lands at Fort Pontchartrain to be meas- ured, and found that there were three hundred and fifty acres improved, of which La Mothe had one hundred and fifty-seven acres, and the French in- habitants forty-six acres; that sixty-three inhab- itants possessed lots inside the fort, and twenty-nine of them farms outside. M. d'Aigremont arrived at Detroit July 15, 1708, and remained nineteen days. The records of St. Ann's Church, under date of July 29, 1708, note his presence under the following name and title : " François Clarembault, Esq., Sieur d'Ai- gremont, Navy Commissary in Canada, sub-delegate of the Surveyor, and King's Deputy for surveying the Military Posts in Canada."

In 1710 Cadillac was appointed Governor of Loui- siana. In the summer of 1711 he was relieved of the command at Detroit, and on his departure his property was placed in the care of Pierre Roy. After he left, there were so few immigrants, and the settlers were so much discouraged, that no grants were made for many years. It appears evi- dent that while Cadillac was in Louisiana his inter- ests at Detroit received but little attention. Set- tlers, however, began to murmur at the demands

made upon them under the concessions he had granted, and in April, 1716, the king revoked all grants made by Cadillac on the ground that they were not given in ordinary form, and that too much was exacted of the occupants. This decree, how- ever, was accompanied with a provision which left the settlers in possession as before. The next year Cadillac returned to France, and in 1719 or 1720 the king directed that he be put in possession of the lands which he had cleared at Detroit, together with the rights that he had in connection with lands he had conceded to others. He was also to be put in possession of the buildings, furniture, and cattle which he left when he went to Louisiana, together with the increase of the live stock. His other claims he was to bring before an officer for adjudication, and a patent was to be granted to him for the lands within two years.

M. Vaudreuil, the Governor, and Begon, the In- tendant of New France, probably at the instigation of Tonty (then in command here), and presumably in the interest of those occupying the lands claimed by Cadillac, offered various reasons why it would be impolitic and impossible to carry out the directions of the king. In connection with their protests they stated in their memorial of November 4, 1721, that. there were then only four who had farms outside the fort, and that thirty others had locations inside the stockade. The king responded to these protests by a decree, dated May 19, 1722, which conceded to Cadillac all the land he had cleared and rights over that which he had granted to others, except that the dues exacted from traders were thereafter to be paid only to the commandant of the post. He also di- rected that Cadillac should have two years from the date of the decree in which to have his claims sur- veyed. No evidence can be found that the claims of Cadillac were ever surveyed and defined in ac- cordance with the intent of the decree. On the contrary, Vaudreuil and Begon, in a letter dated October 14, 1723, said : " The lands cleared by M. de la Mothe are not yet surveyed, neither do we know what he has conceded, the revenues of which must be paid to him."

It is not probable that the lands and claims of Cadillac were settled according to the king's decree, and it is clearly evident that the governor-general, intendant, and local commandants evinced a masterly inactivity in bringing his claims to a final and just conclusion. The proof that his claims were left in vague and unsatisfactory shape is made almost con- clusive by the following facts. In 1730, the year of Cadillac's death, his eldest son, in a memorial to Count Maurepas, said that his father had the promise of the post of Detroit, with the title of seigneur. Now, this son was with Cadillac, and old enough to be an ensign, when his father came ; and if his rights

FRENCH FARMS OR PRIVATE CLAIMS.

had been definitely settled according to the king's de- cree of 1722, his son would undoubtedly have known about it and have so stated in his memorial. This view of the case is made still more certain by an ex- amination of the Maichens Deed, so called. This deed was first heard of in Detroit in 1872, when Rev. J. C. A. Desnoyers, curate of the parish of St. Pie, in Lower Canada, forwarded it to E. N. Lacroix, of Detroit. It purported to be a deed for a tract of land on the Detroit, executed on August 28, 1738, to Bernard Maichens, of Marseilles, by the widow and heirs of Cadillac. The deed was subsequently obtained from the same priest, on November 29, 1873, by Levi Bishop, and on pages 343 and 344 of Volume I. of the Pioneer Collections of Michigan, he gives a translation of it. The deed conveys " All the property generally left by the said deceased An- toine de la Mothe Cadillac, and which said Madame and her said sons, in consequence of his death, pos- sess at Detroit, upon Lake Erie, in North America, consisting of cleared lands forty arpents in depth, with the buildings and animal stock together in title and enjoyment ; with the right of hunting and fish- ing granted on the 19th of May, A. D. 1722, by the Council of State of His Majesty, for the benefit of said deceased; with the right of quit rents and arrearages of such rents in stock and other movable property which appertains thereto, and in such quantity and consistence as belongs thereto, in said Detroit. Including in this sale all that may belong to said vendors in regard to said lands, fruits, farms, leases, buildings, stock, arrearages, and rents wher- ever they may appear."

It will be noticed that this deed, although made in 1738, makes no allusion to any grant or decree ex- cept the one of May 19, 1722. That decree provided that Cadillac's claims should be surveyed within two years, evidently in order to determine their real ex- tent and number. If such survey had been made, and his claims clearly defined, the fact would un- doubtedly have been referred to in the Maichens Deed. The most casual examination discloses the fact that just what was being conveyed was not clearly known. The deed deals only in generalities, which would not be the case if Cadillac's claims had been fully adjusted. The statement of Mr. Bishop that the deed " conveyed the site of Detroit, with all rights and property thereto belonging," and that "the whole of Detroit and its appurtenances were sold for about ten thousand dollars," was made without a knowledge of the real facts in the case. It was never conceded by either the king or the council that Cadillac owned " all of Detroit and its appurtenances." Only the lands he had cleared or granted were to be restored to him, and there was much uncertainty as to how much would thus be embraced. Accompanying the deed (which was

only a duplicate) there was a letter dated Boston, August 20, 1798, addressed to a Mr. Sicart, signed by Mme. Grégoire, granddaughter of Cadillac, setting forth that Maichens paid only half of the purchase price, and left for Detroit immediately after getting the deed; that they had since been unable to hear from him or get any satisfaction as to the further sum due, although the property conveyed was by the deed mortgaged to the family of Cadillac until paid for in full. The object of this letter was to induce some lawyer to recover the property, and Mme. Grégoire proposed to give one quarter of all that might be realized from the claim. The probability is that Maichens himself, at that early day, never realized as much as he actually paid for whatever came into his possession.

Only about ten years before writing the above mentioned letter, Mme. Grégoire had obtained from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts a grant of Mt. Desert Island and portions of the main land. Her claim for that estate was based on a grant made to Cadillac, prior to his arrival at Detroit, in evidence of which she furnished a copy of the king's decree describing and granting the lands. Her success in securing this grant would undoubtedly have caused her to make a more earnest effort to obtain the grant at Detroit had there been like conclusive evidence of her rights.

It is matter of record that there was much confusion for many years concerning the lands of Detroit. La Forest, Tonty, and Sabrevois all made grants, but none of them had authority to do so. About 1720 Tonty compelled the inhabitants to bring their contracts of concession to him, and he retained the greater part of them.

On May 14, 1728, Louis XIV. gave permission to lease the farms at Detroit; and on March 15, 1732, he directed the settling of all lands granted, on pain of forfeiture. In 1734 Beauharnois, Governor-Gen- eral, and Hocquart, Intendant of New France, began to grant farming lands at Detroit. These conces- sions were subject to much the same conditions indi- cated in the grant by Cadillac to De Lorme. The first lands granted were the farthest from the fort, and each new grant was a little nearer the fort than the one preceding; consequently, in each case, the grants were bounded by the unconceded lands of the fort. In fact, nine different claims are described as being bounded on one side by Fort Pontchartrain. An important condition of the grants was that, with- in two years, a patent of confirmation should be obtained from the Crown, but this was almost uni- versally neglected. The following grants were con- firmed by Louis XV. on February 22, 1735; they had been granted by the governor and intendant on the dates appended: P. C. 15, to Jean Gilbert, dit sans père, on July 9, 1734; P. C. 16, to Charles

FRENCH FARMS OR PRIVATE CLAIMS.

Chene, on July 14, 1734; P. C. 18, to Jacques Cam- pau, père, on July 10, 1734. This last grant was also confirmed to Nicholas Campau, père, and P. C. 38, to Jean Cass St. Aubin, père, on July 15, 1734.

The following twenty-three grants were made on the dates named, but for some reason were not con- firmed by the king. It will be noticed that all the first grants were on the east side of the town; the last grant on the east was made on May 1, 1747, on the very day that the first grant to Robert Navarre was made on the west side of the fort.

Grants on East Side of Town.

Present No. of claim. Arpents.

No. of To whom granted. Date of grant.

2x40-Jean Chapatone

(chirurgien), June 18, 1734

91 and 14,

5x40-Pierre Eustache, July 3, 1734

733, 5x40-Louis Campau, July 5, 1734

9, 4x40-St. Marsac Des- rocher, père, July 6, 1734

4x40-Pierre Meloche, July 8, 1734

19, 4x40-"Named" Moran, July 11, 1734

257,

4×40-François Gilbert,

dit sans père, Sept. 10, 1736

26, 4x40-Gaeten Seguin,

dit Lederout, Sept. 10, 1736

E. part of 2,

3x40-Jean Bte. Beau-

bien, May 30, 1745

W. part of 2, 2x40-Jean Maria

Barios, May 1, 1747

2x40-Eustache Gamelin, May 1, 1747

Grants on West Side of Town.

22, 3x40-Robert Navarre, May 1, 1747

27, 3x40-Antoine Robert, April 1, 1750

473, 3x40-Charles Chene, "

23, 2x40-La Veuve Vital Caron,

24, 2x40-Pierre Labadie,

726, 3×40-Zacharie Cicot,

55, 3x40-François Burrois,

55, 2x40 - Jean Bte. Debutes, dit St. Martin, "

55, 2x40-Jacques Godet, "

44, 3x40-Claude Audrey, dit St. Andrie, " "

474,

2x40-Alexis Delille,

77 and 78,

8x40-" Named " De- quindre, May 16, 1753

It is not claimed that the above list includes all of the grants that were made. A Canadian official list of old claims shows that M. Chauvin received a grant of two arpents by forty on June 16, 1734, " bounded on one side towards the east northeast by the land of Faffard de Lorme which he holds of Sieur de la Mothe Cadillac." This would identify

the grant with what is now known as P. C. 182, or the Mullett Farm. It is also known that on Septem- ber 1, 1736, a grant of a farm two arpents wide, lying next west of a grant made to François Lauzon, was conceded to Charles Bonhomme, dit Beaupré, on September 1, 1736. Also that a farm of the same size, lying immediately east of the fort and between it and the present Brush Farm, was granted to Pierre Reaume on April 1, 1750. The knowledge of this last grant explains the existence of the old claims on the east which interfered with the Gov- ernor and Judges' Plan.

The farthest claim on the east of the city, granted by the governor and intendant, so far as shown by the Proceedings of the Land Commissioners, was Claim 26 in the town of Grosse Pointe. Going west towards the city, the following claims, not shown to have been granted by the governor and the intendant, are interspersed with those which they are known to have granted, and with the six claims that were fully approved by the commissioners. Their order is as follows : Numbers 688, 724, 387, 725, 337, 152, 10, 644, 723, 155, 734, 180, 679, 100, 678, 573, 11, 453, 454, 609, 14, 8, 17, 182, 181, and 6.

The farthest claim on the west of the city shown in the Proceedings of the Commissioners to have been granted by the governor and the intendant is P. C. 77, or the Hubbard Farm. Going east towards the city, the following claims, in their order, are not shown to have been granted by the governor and the intendant, viz .: Numbers 21, 20, 727, 728, 729, 338, 228, 227, 248, 247, 246, and 592. Between the two extremes there are thus embraced thirty-eight claims that were, very likely, granted by the governor and the intendant, but no evidence of the kind was presented to the Commissioners of Claims. In fact, it seems to have been impossible, in the case of all, or nearly all, the claims, to show a chain of title from the time of the original grants; and as the claims were confirmed in accordance with possession and improvements on a given date, there was but little use in presenting any of the original grants to the commissioners.

An idea once prevailed that affairs in remote French posts were conducted without much regard to legal correctness. The more closely the question is examined, the more careful the local authorities appear to have been ; and if all the facts could be ascertained, it is not unlikely that the claims con- firmed by the United States on purely equitable grounds might have been more generally based on perfect rights than has been supposed. There can be no doubt that the British Government looked upon most of the French titles as clear. In imita- tion of the French commanders, the English lieu- tenant-governors and commandants gave possessory rights in and near Detroit, some approved by the

FRENCH FARMS OR PRIVATE CLAIMS.

Privy Council, and some not acted upon ; but such grants could never legally become absolute. Several grants to individuals on the west of the town were made by the Indians, and approved by the local authorities ; but none of these were valid. The king's proclamation of 1763 expressly forbade such grants, and they were never lawful. By both British and American law, all Indian purchases must be by, or with, the consent of the Government which is assumed to own the ultimate title, subject to Indian occupancy. Among the more notable Indian grants were those of the Navarre and Campau farms, granted by the Potowatamies to Isadore Chene and Robert Navarre, to keep in order the resting-places of their dead. Their village and place of graves were on these lands, and the grants were made when the tribe removed from this neighborhood.

The front of the French farms on the river was occupied by the dwelling-house and garden; back of this was generally a very valuable and beautiful orchard; and in the rear of the orchard were wheat and corn fields. The farms were narrow, so as to give river fronts to as many as possible, and also to keep the occupants close together for convenience and safety. The depth of the farms was always in- tended to be forty French acres, the width varied from two to five acres, or in other words, the farms had a river frontage of from four hundred to nine hundred feet, with an average depth of one and a half miles.

Within the fort the building-lots were small, and the entire population -those holding farm lands out- side as well as others-had homes inside the stock- ade for a great many years.

As late as 1778 the largest lots were twenty-five by one hundred feet. It is probable that all the lots within the pickets were permanently disposed of, subject to fines of alienation, and to certain annual charges, including a contribution towards keeping the fort in repair.

While Michigan was still a part of Indiana Terri- tory, Congress, by Act of March 26, 1804 (United States Laws, Volume II., page 227), appointed the Register and Receiver of the Detroit Land Office as commissioners to examine and report on all claims under French and English grants. Under this Act the commissioners examined a number of claims, and rejected all except three, viz., P. C. 16, claimed by F. P. Matcher, P. C. 18, claimed by George Mel- drum, and P. C. 90, claimed by J. M. Beaubien. They decided that the other claims presented to them were not founded upon any legal grant made by the French Government prior to the treaty of Paris, of February 10, 1763, or upon any legal grant made by the British subsequent to said treaty, and prior to the treaty of peace of September 3, 1783, between the United States and Great Britain; or

upon any resolution or Act of Congress had subse- quent to said treaty of peace.

By Act of March 3, 1805 (United States Laws, Volume II., page 343), they were authorized to ex- amine and report on claims actually possessed and improved on July 1, 1796, the official date on which the Territory passed from the British into the possession of the American Government.

They were also to examine into claims based on all grounds whatever ; and persons were to have till November 1, 1805, to file their claims, which were to be surveyed at the expense of the Government. Before the commissioners had forwarded their first report to Congress Detroit was destroyed by the fire of June 11, 1805. Under the provisions of the law of 1805 in connection with the law of 1804, the com- missioners subsequently reported on six classes of titles, viz., I. Grants by French governors confirmed by the King of France. 2. Grants by French gov- ernors not confirmed by the king. 3. Occupancies by permission of French commandants without grant, and perhaps without evidence of the permission, but with long and undisturbed possession. 4. Occu- pancies under French possession, without any per- mission, but with undisturbed possession. 5. Simi- lar titles, together with purchases from Indians under British rule. 6. Occupancy and possession under American Government, and purchases from Indians. They sent three reports to the Secretary of the Treasury, one dated December I, another December 16, 1805, and the third March 6, 1806. They again reported in favor of the three claims ap- proved under the first law, and also in favor of P. C. 15, claimed by Phillis Peltier, and P. C. 38, claimed by the heirs of Antoine Morass. These five claims they reported as valid so far as original title was con- cerned, but it was not claimed that the chain of title since the original grant was complete. The sixth claim confirmed by the commissioners was that of Charles and Nicholas Guoin, and embraced what is now known as P. C. 12 and 13. It was claimed in one parcel, and was confirmed in separate tracts. They also reported claims for many other tracts based on ownership and occupation.

The American State Papers state that the commis- sioners found only six titles that had been confirmed by the king. This is undoubtedly an error, caused by including the two grants of Cadillac with the four grants that were actually confirmed by the king. The State Papers also say that eight claims were con- firmed, which error is apparently caused by counting the two grants of Cadillac twice.

On March 3, 1807 (United States Laws, Volume II., page 437), Congress confirmed the six tracts al- ready alluded to, and also all tracts reported upon by the commissioners which were occupied, im- proved, and settled upon prior to and on July I,

FRENCH FARMS OR PRIVATE CLAIMS.

1796, and that had continued to be occupied up to the date of the Act. By Law of April 25, 1808 (United States Laws, Volume II., page 502), claim- ants were allowed until January 1, 1809, to file their claims.

By the Act of 1807, the claims were to be sur- veyed under the direction of the surveyor-general. All certificates issued by the commissioners were re- quired to be entered at the land office at Detroit be- fore January 1, 1809. The claims confirmed under this last Act included nearly all the original private claims in Wayne County, not excepting the inevita- ble six French grants, which were again confirmed as held by possession. The claims were surveyed by Aaron Greely, and his map is referred to on page 158, Volume V., of the American State Papers in connection with the Abraham Cook Claim. His manuscript map was afterwards engraved.

On April 23, 1812 (United States Laws, Volume II., page 710), Congress confirmed the claims as sur- veyed by Aaron Greely under direction of the sur- veyor-general, making his survey authority even where it did not correspond with the description of the claims as confirmed by the commissioners. There is abundant evidence that in making his sur- veys he frequently gave extra measure by adding the length of his " Jacob's staff" from one to three times. Tradition says a bottle of wine or brandy had something to do with this proceeding.

Other surveyors, among them Joseph Fletcher and John Mullett, were afterwards employed in surveying the rear concessions.

The patents for the lands confirmed reached De- troit just before or during the War of 1812, and were seized or destroyed by the British.

In addition to grants of lands fronting on the river, the commandants at Detroit are said to have made grants known as "second," "rear," or back conces- sions, whereby the depth of the farms was extended to eight arpents. Many persons claimed of the Commissioners of Claims a similar duplication of their farms upon the plea that the lands claimed had always been used for obtaining wood, and that the Government would have granted these rear conces- sions at any time if asked. On September 1, 1807, the commissioners reported to Congress, recom- mending that as the arable land fronting on the river was exhausted, and mostly without wood for fires, lands in the rear be added as asked for.

By Law of April 23, 1812, it was provided that additional lands might be granted for farms that had been confirmed only forty arpents in length, and claims for the additional land were to be filed before December 1, 1812, but no farm was to be over eighty arpents in depth.

By Act of March 3, 1817 (United States Laws, Volume III., page 390), the time for the filing of

claims for back concessions, under Act of 1812, was extended to December 1, 1818. On May 11, 1820 (United States Laws, Volume III., page 572), Con- gress revived the powers of the commissioners, and authorized them to decide on claims presented under Act of 1817, and they were to report on or before October 1, 1821. This Act was construed as reviv- ing all the powers possessed by commissioners under former Acts; and several original claims, confirmed under Act of 1820, are contained in Report or Book Number 4, in Volume V., page 146, of American State Papers, entitled, "A Report of Absolute Claims." The last Act pertaining to the hearing and deciding upon claims by commissioners was passed on February 21, 1823 (United States Laws, Volume III., page 724). It provided that the Act of 1820 should be in force until November 1, 1823, and that the final report of the commissioners should be laid before Congress and the Secretary of the Treasury. The Act also confirmed claims reported on under Act of 1820, as reported by the Secretary of the Treasury. The numbers of the claims in Wayne County, filed under the several Acts, range from I to 734. Many of the numbers between these two extremes are for claims in other parts of the then Territory of Michigan. The total number of claims confirmed in Wayne County was only two hundred and sixty-eight ..

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.

History of Detroit and Wayne County and early Michigan: A Chronological Cyclopedia of the Past and Present, Vol. I, Part 12

Author: Farmer, Silas, 1839-1902 Publication date: 1890 Publisher: Detroit, Pub. by S. Farmer & co., for Munsell & co., New York Number of Pages: 1094

Author: Farmer, Silas, 1839-1902
Publication date: 1890
Publisher: Detroit, Pub. by S. Farmer & co., for Munsell & co., New York
Number of Pages: 1094