USA > New Hampshire > Carroll County > Tamworth > The Tamworth narrative (New Hampshire) > Part 4
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 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26
In the same year with Tamworth a similar tract to the north called Burton (made Albany in 1833) was granted to another list of proprietors with the same Orlando Weed as Clerk, and likewise Eaton took shape to the east, from which Madison was not set off until 1852. In all of these early grants the most wholesale operator and speculator was undoubtedly Colonel Jonathan Moulton of Moultonborough, who enjoyed Governor Benning Wentworth's special favor, and inserted his claims to share in every transaction.
The surveying of the entire United States into rectangu- lar lots, with range and lot lines clearly defining bounds, was determined by Thomas Jefferson's Land Ordinance of 1785. This established the checkerboard map which is still our fami- liar usage. Prior to this, surveys were full of error, partly because instruments were primitive and faulty, but also be- cause the surveying party, coming to obstacles such as boulders or swamps, would just lift the chain, carry it around and not measure that part. When they got to a corner they would select a tree that was not valuable as timber, which threw the measurements off again, and no matter. "They'd start out in the morning with surveying instruments and a jug of cider strong enough to knock the tines off a pitchfork, and when the cider was all gone by sundown and surveyors back at the starting-point, the measurings they'd made and the markings
39
TAMWORTH
they'd put down they called a township," explained an old- timer.
The term "more or less" which goes with all land descrip- tions in our deeds and often frightens a city lawyer has good reason behind it, perhaps more than the mere quality of the cider. When the measurements of the east and west lines of a town failed to match, a "gore" might be created. It has been understood that Tamworth measured its east boundary from the south north, and Albany had happened to measure first from the north south, so the odd no-man's-land resulting became the irregular gore adjoining Albany which peters out at about the Albany bridge in Wonalancet.
Markings being blazes on trees and very perishable, set- tlers found themselves uncertain where they lived, even some- times in which town. There was friction, claim and counter- claim. But unlike earlier land disputes with the Indians, there were no massacres, no cow-stealing, no burning. The question of town boundaries was the first general issue which drew the Tamworth pioneers into a cohesive unit. In keeping with their democratic principles they resorted to petition.
In 1778 the selectmen William Eastman, Timothy Medar, and Bradbury Jewell were explaining to the General Court, New Hampshire's name for its legislature, that various settlers were not paying Tamworth taxes because their land had been incorporated over the line into Moultonborough (but they were not being assessed there either). Five years later the town sent word to the Court that it was unable to make up its tax inventory because one quarter of the inhabi- tants on the east side of the township had petitioned to pay taxes in Eaton. They having been then "set off" to Eaton without Tamworth's being consulted, this town was now only four and half miles wide instead of the chartered six. By 1796 Burton was also involved, and the situation as to who lived where was so confused that the three towns petitioned jointly in one instrument to get it cleared up. Three agents signed from each. Thomas Cogswell headed the Tamworth
40
Town Boundary Disputes
delegation and Jacob Blaisdell the Eaton group. The Blais- dells had large holdings on Washington Hill as now called, then evidently part of the territory in dispute. Orlando and Henry Weed were spokesmen for Burton. They had pitched just north of the Tamworth line in the settlement recently known as Pequaket. This is probably the same Orlando Weed who was Proprietors' Clerk in Sandwich.
These nine agents, "to put an end to altercation and lawsuits" agree to lay their "papers and evidences" before three arbitrators whom they name, from Charlestown, from Portsmouth, and from Newbury respectively, with an alter- nate from Hanover. They wish these gentlemen to be a com- mittee to fix these lines, and agree that their report shall be final and conclusive between the parties. They ask for an act to empower this committee, and agree to bring in a bill to that end, which would imply that the petitioners were all members of the legislature. Both House of Representatives and Senate concur at once on the bottom of the same docu- ment, and the Governor signs it. This was the first salvo in the great dispute.
The impressiveness of these early acts is much heightened by their parchment-like handmade paper with very rough edges. Every official document at this time is in longhand and shows off the proud accomplishments of an official scriv- ener. The smooth slanting copybook script is as legible as print, all capitals shaded, all hyphens double, long s's freely scattered. All "Whereases," "Be it enacteds," and so forth are in large and more erect script with fancier capitals, and all personal names interrupt the page with high perpendicular letters so as to catch the eye at once. Still more prestige is added by treating the small letter g to special curlicues both below and above the line. As for the Governor, John T. Gil- man, he is given giant capitals with the J swinging back in loops at the bottom and the T pressing forward in a parabola at the top.
Here also for the first time in town files appears the gran-
41
TAMWORTH
diose signature of Philip Carrigain, the State Secretary, which attests all "true copies" in his period of office that were sent back to the towns to keep, original documents being presum- ably retained at the State House. Carrigain wrote a measured angular backhand deeply shaded on the downstrokes. He artistically frames his name with immense pen circles and figure eights which reach half across the paper, as if he were drawing clouds in the sky. On one of these documents he must have dropped a blot of ink which he then treated as part of the design, outlining it round and round as if making waves of the sea for a child.
In a few days a full act was passed and signed by the Governor, granting the petition as filed. The representatives from the towns now having permission to bring in their bill for the committee of their own naming to fix their boundaries, the bill was brought in. This also was voted by the House, concurred by the Senate, and the Committee appointed. The next step was to have a survey made. The surveyor found was one Henry Gerrish, likely the man who had figured in the Revolutionary War as Muster Master for Captain Clough's Company (ours).
DIRECTIONS TO COL. GERRISH TO PERAMBULATE THE LINE BETWEEN TAMWORTH AND EATON 1796
To Col. Henry Gerrish Esqr Sir
By agreement & concent of Parties you are appointed Surveyor to take Survey of the boundary line between the Townships of Tamworth & Eaton, being the East line of Tamworth & west line of Eaton you are to begin at a Pitch- pine Tree marked with six notches, which Stands on the Patent line so called about one mile East of Bearcamp River so called being the Southly corner between Tamworth & Eaton and from thence to extend a north line between Tam- worth and Eaton untill Six miles are compleated where
42
Town Boundary Disputes
you are to erect a good & Sufficient Monument or land make ---
And from thince are to extend a line due West between Tamworth & Burton until it shall intersect the eastern line of Sandwich addition, so called, where you are to affix a Monument or landmake as above -
You will appoint Two good & qualified Chainmen who Shall be Sworn to a faithfull discharge of their duty & Trust
You will notify the Agents of the Townships Tamworth- Eaton & Burton when you shall make s'd Survey -
You will Compleat s'd Survey & make a return thereof, on oath to me the Subscriber Chairman of the Comtee for Setling the boundary lines between s'd Tamworth Eaton & Burton - on or before the first Day of March next -
You are to expect your pay and reward for s'd Services from the Agents of the Township of Tamworth -
Concord 15th Dec'r 1796
Per order Sim. Olcott Chair'n
By telling their surveyor to begin at that certain pitch- pine tree with the six notches the honorable committee would seem to have stacked the cards, whether intentionally or not. The petition from the nine agents involved had made no state- ment at all as to where anybody thought the lines should begin. But it looks as if the gentlemen from such widely separated places as Charlestown, Portsmouth, and Newbury already smelled a mouse and were expecting to back Tamworth. They already knew about that "notched pitchpine about one mile east of Bearcamp River," and when Gerrish turned in his re- port he had duly found the pitchpine in company with one agent from each town, and "measured upon an old line which was then agreed to by the parties" (even the Burton and Eaton parties present), nobody appearing to have any real doubts as to where the line was.
Gerrish's report continues. On the old line they measured North one degree and about twenty five minutes West by the Needle six miles to a beach tree about seven inches di- ameter which we spotted on four sides for the North East
43
TAMWORTH
corner of Tamworth which tree I also marked with the letters H G. N H. & TC. and dated it Dec 22 1796 and drove a cent into the Westerly side of said tree, from thence I ran and spotted a line West one degree and about twenty five minutes South, which makes it a right angle with the old line until I came to the line of Sandwich addition when I set up a stake for the Northwest corner of Tamworth, said stake is spotted and marked with the letters T C about eight feet Southeasterly from said stake, I also spotted a red Birch Tree which is about eleven inches diameter which I marked with the letters H G T C & I G [ likely H G's boy] and drove a copper into the side of said tree facing the bounds.
Tamworth Dec. 24th 1796
Henry Gerrish Surveyor I hereby Certify that the foregoing is a true copy of papers lodged in the Secretary's Office Feb 13th 1797 by a Com- mittee empowered to settle and fix the boundary lines be- tween Tamworth & Eaton & Tamworth & Burton.
Attest Joseph Pearson Secry
[The true copy was again attested by friend Carrigain: ] Secretary's Office
[and the copy was dated]
Concord March 24th 1809
With the surveyor's statement in hand, the committee then sat. Their findings are again preserved in the same talented hand, with even more wanton g's and the secretary as usual outdoing the scrivener as he brings up the rear lying upon his clouds. After preamble, the report solemnly states that they have "proceeded to hear the parties, their allegations and proofs and viewed their several papers and documents," and they confirm the pitchpine tree as the beginning of Tam- worth's line (they put back that it is about one mile east of the Bearcamp River bridge, which the surveyor had left out ) and otherwise repeat Gerrish's exact description as the lines which they settle, affix and establish for the three towns. They charge the proprietors of Eaton and Burton with the obligation
44
Town Boundary Disputes
of the costs, which are $70.50 for each, payable to Tamworth. The usual Carrigain exploit follows, dated 1809. Carrigain has a mountain named after him. It was he who christened New Hampshire the Granite State. He must have been a man to reckon with.
The pitchpine tree with the six notches allows some con- fusion for posterity. In the State Papers, Volume XXVIII under Tamworth, is a neat survey map by James Hersey dated 1775, twenty-one years earlier than the boundary dispute, with "Plan of Vacant Land within Mason's Pattent Line" on it. This shows a site "supposed to Tamworth," and alongside it is much more vacant land running clear to the "Province of Main," which must later have become Eaton, Burton, and Freedom. There are two pitchpines recorded as markers, and the description begins at one of them "on the Pattent Line," but this tree is away over on the eastern side of Ossipee Lake where the Ossipee River flows out of it toward Maine, and its Patent line is the old one that had at that time been cor- rected by a survey of Robert Fletcher in 1769. If the Bear- camp River bridge in our committee's report means the covered bridge at West Ossipee, today's recognized southeast corner of Tamworth is in fact about a mile east of it. This corner is definitely on the 1769 Patent line, and the tree over by the Ossipee River is not. Gerrish and the committee meant the tree a mile east of the covered bridge of today. James Hersey could have made his language clearer, or not intro- duced so many pitchpines as markers, or both.
It will not have escaped notice that two of the "true copies attest" by Carrigain were dated in 1809 while the docu- ments they copied were of 1796. The sad fact is that the arbi- tration so elaborately achieved and accepted under the orderly processes of democracy did not stick. Eaton and Burton pro- fessed not to like the lines as drawn. Eaton said Tamworth had better land than it did; as to that it may have been right. Twelve years after the decision, in the year 1808, Eaton and Burton residents are tiresomely petitioning for a new committee
45
TAMWORTH
to decide the matter all over again. A new committee was thereupon appointed by Act of Legislature as before, and sat, and it was for their use that the documents from the first de- cision were copied off, these that we have. This time Sand- wich was in it too, along with Eaton and Burton, for Sandwich had no mind to be put in the wrong town. If Tamworth were to be moved west to accommodate restless Eaton, Sandwich would have to be moved west to accommodate Tamworth, as all towns were intended to be about six miles square.
The new act creating the new committee named three new appointees who were "empowered to run and establish by just course and careful admeasurement the jurisdictional lines between the towns of Sandwich, Tamworth, Eaton, and Burton, or as many of those lines as they may find necessary to obtain proper information, and establish said jurisdictional lines in such a manner as justice, the convenience and welfare of said towns may require." Further, if it appeared to the committee that Tamworth and Sandwich had more land than their just measure, then these towns were to pay costs of the sitting, to be recovered by Eaton and Burton; but if the com- mittee should see no cause of alteration of those towns, then Sandwich and Tamworth were to recover from Eaton and Burton.
At this fresh attack those residents of Tamworth whose homesteads Eaton had once coveted, and had paid $70.50 for the failure of her claim, rose up and did a bit of petitioning themselves. Their petition is not a copy like the others we have had. It is in its original form, far from beautiful, inky and splattered and crabbed, especially as to the signatures which might be those of a lot of children. Thirty-nine good men and true, however, regarding themselves as lawful Tam- worthites, registered their protest as follows:
To the honorable committee apointed by the Legislature of this State to take into consideration the Situation of the Towns of Sandwich, Tamworth, Eaton and Burton and to make alteration, if you think it necessary - the subscribers
46
Town Boundary Disputes
living on land, that We suppose the Petitioners [Eatoners and Burtoners] would be glad to have altered, beg leave to represent to your honors that we are well situated as we are, and wish not to be removed, we are handy to transact bisness in our own Town, and in Eaton we could not be - many reasons might be assignd here which is needless, a word is enough for the wise - we pray therefore the lines may not be altered, but that we may Remain where we best like and are best acquainted, and we will pray, etc. Tam- worth 12th May, 1809.
On the back of the sheet they give their reasons after all, probably had been requested to add them.
1st. Because we do not consider the movement of the lines to be the desire of the towns of Eaton and Burton but the act of the individual who first presented the petition, whose restless spirit (like his master) delights most in de- struction and confusion. [Now the cat is out of the bag. The root of the trouble is Jonathan Moulton, long dis- trusted by all and now clearly in bondage to the Devil.] 2nd. Because we bought our land under Tamworth and have contributed our mite toward the prosperity of the town, & have been with it in prosperity and adversity 3rd. Because we have built a meeting house & settled a minister which must be broken up if the lines are moved - 4th. Because the nearest of us are from three to four miles from the first settlement in Eaton and many of us from five to ten miles distance
5th. Because there is a tract of unsettled land in Eaton joining on the east end of Tamworth we believe from three to four miles wide from one side of the town to the other which separates the towns and will not admit of being settled by reason of the poorness of the land. [This must mean Deer Hill and the Silver Lake region, not such good farming land.]
Sandwich likewise became vocal. Fifty-two people - Beedes, Weeds, Foggs, Vittums, Fellowses, etc., signed their own petition to the committee :
To William Webster, Noah Robinson & Abraham Burnham
47
TAMWORTH
Esquires, a Committee appointed by the Honorable General Court to establish the Boundary lines between Sandwich and Tamworth, & Eaton & Burton. The remonstrances of the subscribers living in Sandwich show that they live near Tamworth line, and should probably many of us be set off into Tamworth. Should said line be altered agreeable to the petition of Eaton & Burton. That we purchased our Lands in Sandwich at considerable expense and hard labour, have brought too new Farms, made roads, created school houses and meeting-houses for our accommodation and are divided into convenient School Districts. And should your Honor's desire to set us off to Tamworth it would injure us very much, being much better accommodated with Town privileges in Sandwich than we could possibly be in Tam- worth. Therefore we pray your Honors would let us remain quietly under the Jurisdiction of Sandwich, and we as in duty bound shall pray
Sandwich May 1809
This committee also saw no sense in the thing. Tamworth and Sandwich were sustained, and Eaton and Burton told to keep hands off, and to pay costs.
Labeled "Committee Minutes, Sandwich & Tamworth" various interesting papers have been preserved, apparently used by the committee in their difficult discussions.
Note that according to the plan of the Petitioners for alter- ing the lines of the several Towns, as will appear by the plan, that the Easterly line of Tamworth will be 200 Rods short of six miles (from east to west) And that in extend- ing the curve line westerly, Tamworth must run over into Moultonboro - about 130 Rods, to meet the corner con- templated by the Petitioners - which cannot be correct because the Charter of Tamworth begins where the easterly line of Sandwich addition intersects the curve line - which can be found in no place but where the lines are now established. [The "Curve Line" was the original southerly border given for Tamworth. It was a device of the Mason patentees to embrace a large vague area of wilderness
48
Town Boundary Disputes
without surveying it. There was one on the north of Tam- worth too, around the base of the mountains. Both dis- appeared on later maps. ]
And also note that the dividing line between Sandwich & Tamworth, by this plan is upwards of 200 Rods short of the original survey of the Town of Sandwich. And it may be further observed that the Gore of Land at the north easterly part of Tamworth adjoining Burton, could not according to their own plan belong to Burton, but to Eaton, so that the settlers could never have any legal title to the disputed land as belonging to Burton.
It may further be observed that, the line returned by Burton, from Tamworth, N. E. corner, to meet a certain point in which is named in Burton Charter (viz) N 48° E 3 m & 60 rods - neither course nor distance will agree, if altered to their wish.
There were other notes the committee had that bore upon the matter.
The Committee are Desired to take notice in adjusting the lines in dispute
1st. That Sandwich was Granted, laid out, and the line now and ever held to was made prior to the Grant of Tam- worth, and that Tamworth was Chartered and the 1st survey made to the bounds now holdin to, upwards of 40 years since, and the present southeasterly corner made on a pitchpine tree.
2d. And that the lines since in consequence of a Dispute, are established by order of Law.
3d. That no advantage was taken, with respect to evi- dences not being admitted etc., [had the committee been accused of partiality?] for why was a postponement of the business at Portsmouth, [at that time capital], and the proprietors of E & B allowed to run which they did from the Jourdon Tree [ not a pitch pine. They must have taken things into their own hands and run a line. Probably Moul- ton and his master were abroad again.]
4th. As the Committee has no authority to interfere with the right of Soil, nothing but imperious necessity can Justify
49
TAMWORTH
a removal of the lines, as to the conveniencing of the In- habitants.
5th. By removing the lines, the Governor's Right in Tam- worth, [we have seen that 500 acres of every grant was reserved for the Governor. In Tamworth it was the south- east corner], will fall on some of the oldest farms in Sandwich.
6th. If the pretended iniquities, ever did exist, why did not the Proprietors of E & B, (who knew every circum- stance) Remonstrate.
7th. Why shall Tamworth, & Sandwich be brought to an air line and Burton, especially, claim thirteen square miles, extra, in consequence of Conway large measure. [More skull-duggery evidently; the notes become incoherent.] Eaton has more land than contemplated by Charter. [Madi- son was later created out of it. ]
The committee had also in hand an affidavit of one John Bradley taken in 1809 for the purposes of this hearing, who had evidently assisted the original surveyor Chandler who ran lines for the town "since cal'd Tamworth" some forty-four years previously, back in 1764 before the Charter.
Philip Carrigain's inevitable swagger as "Just. Peace" completes the simple paper :
I John Bradley of Lawfull age testify and say that about forty-four or five years since, being in company with Abiel Chandler Surveyor Daniel Carter Jonathan Stickney Abra- ham Bradley John Webster all of Concord and James Head assisted in Runing the out Lines of a Town since cal'd Tam- worth. we were directed by the inhabitance of Moulton- borough where to find the Southeast corner Bound of Sandwich (set 3 years earlier). agreable to information found a Tree marked on or nearly the top of the North- westerly side of Ossipee Mountain. [Still Tamworth's southwest corner today.] Thence measured six miles on a line cald Sandwich East Line, and made a Bound. thence turning acording to the best of my remembrance at right angles, due East and measured six Miles, and made a Bound
50
Town Boundary Disputes
thence measured six miles South, and made Bound on flat Land in sight of Ossipee Pond. I have repeatedly seen the first mentioned Bound, once in companey with Nathaniel Shannon Esq Col Jacob Gilman Col John Wester Abraham Bradley and Col Mason, s'd Webster and Bradley declard it to bee the original and first Bound made and considered to be the Southeast corner Bound of Sandwich and the Southwest Corner Bound of Tamworth and further the deponent sayeth not
Concord March 24th 1809 John Bradley
Some further notes obviously not for posterity, but per- haps jotted by someone in committee meeting suggest local affairs of a more eighteenth century cast than the twentieth can easily interpret :
Much has been said about the Widow Weed, Elisha Weed, and Dan'l Weed, all of Burton, have been greatly injured which is a wrong statement, as neither of them could be in Burton provided lines were removed west, and Elisha Weed has signed a receipt in Burton proprietors book, in full for any injuries rec'd by the establishment of Tamworth lines.
Then why all these complaints, since the Proprietors of neither Eaton or Burton have complained since the settlem't by the [first] Committee. Also it is presumed that Col Jere Gilman's patrimony granted him by vote of Bur- ton proprietors as a Compensation for his trouble in altering s'd lines, viz one half of the land he should gain by s'd alteration, is the cause of s'd complaints.
Then the committee spoke its mind, if only in private, about the arch villain. They found "that the disputes kept up by General Moulton appeared to them more calculated for Private emolument than for the good of the proprietors or the peace of the people." It was added that "Moulton was a pro- prietor in Eaton and Burton when Tamworth was laid out, and did at an early period sell land on the interior parts of
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.