USA > Pennsylvania > Bradford County > Athens > A history of old Tioga Point and early Athens, Pennsylvania > Part 80
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 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89
MATHEWSON VS. WELLES.
The case of Mathewson vs. Welles has been before the House for several sessions. A committee reported upon it to the last session ; but as the remonstrant had, previous to that moment, been kept in the dark as to the grounds to be taken up in the report, and as it was then too late in the session for him to send for the further documents and testimonials that he then found necessary, he has been compelled to adopt this mode of laying his defence before the several members of the House at the present session.
The conduct of Henry Welles as a citizen and as a former member of the Legislature being most flagrantly impeached in the Report, and as the object in- tended to be reached by this aspersion, is to stimulate the Legislature to divest him of his landed property, it becomes his duty to use all necessary freedom in his own defence; conscious that there are few members in the House who will refuse to hear both sides, and examine patiently and without prejudice before they pass in this unheard-of manner upon the rights of property and person.
In duty to himself it becomes necessary on the part of Henry Welles to prove that the report of a committee, adopted by this House and spread upon the jour-
592
APPENDIX A
nals, is a web of errors and misrepresentations ;- that it asserts in direct opposi- tion to known facts and legal certainties, and in direct contradiction to the testi- mony.
The Report opens the subject by stating that "Henry Welles lived in the "neighborhood of Mathewson (Elisha) at the time of his death, and was in pos- "session of some lands adjoining Mathewson's" :- that "in the Spring or Summer "of 18071 he" (meaning Henry Welles) "went to Baltimore agreeably to his own "statement, for the purpose of making some arrangement with Mr. Carroll for 'the "purchase of the lands held by the Mathewsons'"; meaning to represent Henry Welles as a designing speculator, proceeding upon the defencelessness of the widow and fatherless, and that all this was his own admission.
The injustice of this representation was apparent from the title papers before the committee, as will still appear by the same evidence, showing the derivation and progression from the Commonwealth to Henry Welles.
May 17, 1785, a warrant was issued to Josiah Lockhart of Lancaster, to which was drawn Lottery No. 1, under the Act of April 8, 1785; on which was chosen, surveyed and returned, the tract called "Indian Arrow," 10383 acres, including the peninsula of Tioga Point, then in Northumberland County, and patent issued thereon to Josiah Lockhart April 3, 1786; a part of this location being within the boundaries since designated under the Connecticut title as Old Ulster. The valid- ity of Mr. Lockhart's title under Pennsylvania is not disputed.
March 1, 1798, Josiah Lockhart conveyed to Richard Caton and Ashbel Welles, merchants trading in Baltimore under the firm of Ashbel Welles & Co., and George Welles, in equal undivided interest, for the consideration of sixteen thousand dollars, by deed recorded in Luzerne Co. Deed Book No. 5, page 431. July 11, 1798, George Welles arrived at Tioga Point, intending to reside there ; but finding it held by an hostile title, adverse to the laws of Pennsylvania, was com- pelled to buy out the Connecticut settlers; which he did with the joint funds of himself and partners; giving to James Irwin for his possession six thousand dollars, and to Isaac Cash, Ira Stephens, Nehemiah Northrup, David Paine, Henry Decker, Jonathan Harris, Nathan Bull, and Beebe, various sums, amount- ing, including Irwin's, to about nine thousand dollars. To Elisha Mathewson, holding under Connecticut, about one hundred and twenty five acres, proposals for purchase were also made, but not accepted ; he having entire faith in the ability of the Connecticut settlers to hold the country. As near as can be recollected the sum offered him was four or five hundred pounds, Pennsylvania currency. It was intended to purchase out all the settlers holding lands below the town plot of Tioga Point ; and they effected this as to all except Elisha Mathewson.
During the winter of 1799, in consequence of mercantile disasters, the house of Ashbel Welles & Co. in Baltimore failed. May 14, 1799, Ashbel Welles con- veyed his undivided third to Richard Caton, by deed recorded in Luzerne Co. May 28, 1799 ; and in consequence of the failure in Baltimore, and of the large disburse- ments at Tioga Point, George Welles also failed; and on the same 14th May 1799, mortgaged his undivided third of Tioga Point to Richard Caton.
May 30, 1800, Richard Caton assigned the mortgage of George Welles, and also mortgaged his other two thirds of Tioga Point, to his father-in-law, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, in part security for the sum of forty four thousand dollars, cash advanced to assist in discharging the debts of the firm; all of which, it is understood, have subsequently been paid.
Sept. 1, 1802, Richard Caton and George Welles made partition of Tioga Point ; and one third, including about sixty five acres of Mathewson's possessions, was set forth by metes and bounds to George Welles, subject to his mortgage assigned to Charles Carroll :- George Welles remaining tenant in occupancy of the whole, so far as the Connecticut title had been purchased.
May 28, 1804, the mortgage of Caton to Carroll having been foreclosed in Luzerne County as of No. 11, January Term 1803, Robert Goodloe Harper of Baltimore, another son-in-law of Mr. Carroll, bid off Richard Caton's two thirds of Tioga Point, on public sale, to the use of, and in trust for his father-in-law. About the same period the mortgage of George Welles for the remaining third being put in suit by Mr. Carroll, as of No. 45 April Term 1804, Luzerne County, George Welles, on a general settlement with Messrs. Carroll and Caton, agreed to
1 October, 1804, as proven by letters of both Henry Welles and Richard Caton.
593
HENRY WELLES' DEFENCE
deed over his third, which was done by deed recorded in Lycoming County Deed Book L, Page 162 :- and being entirely ruined in property, advanced in life, and broken down, prepared to leave Tioga Point.
At this time his eldest son Henry Welles, then about twenty four years of age, finding it incumbent upon him to maintain the family, after suspense of a year or thereabouts, concluded to attempt the purchase of a part of his father's share of Tioga Point, and visited Baltimore for that purpose. Finding that Messrs. Caton and Harper, who acted for their father-in-law, were unwilling to cut up the farm that had belonged to George Welles, and that the whole could be bought on better terms. proportionate, than a part, concluded to undertake the purchase of all his father's share, being about 375 acres. Accordingly-
July 20, 1805, Richard Caton and Robert Goodloe Harper addressed a letter to Henry Welles, saying that they would "sell him the one third of Tioga Point "held by George Welles, as per Deed of Partition, for an exchange of 4000 acres "of land lying in the section of the 1st Range of the country called Genesee, near "to the river Tioga, or Chemung"; giving Henry Welles twelve months2 to effect the arrangement. To deed to Henry Welles absolutely, if the 4000 acres were received without incumbrance; otherwise to give bond for conveyance, with the necessary restrictions. It was verbally engaged at the time that Mr. Carroll should put Henry Welles in possession of the Mathewson lots lying within the George Welles third, by ejectment; a measure which had of course been deter- mined upon, ever since the offers of purchase had been refused. The action was however delayed by dispersion of title papers, and by neglect, until 1807.
Elisha Mathewson died in 1805, leaving by will his possessions on Tioga Point as a life estate to the widow ; also seven hundred and twenty acres of the first rate land in Palmyra in the State of New York, now intersected by the grand canal, to be divided among his children ; and naming Elias Satterlee and Elizabeth Mathewson as executors. The estate was free from debt.
Soon after his return from Baltimore in 1805,3 Henry Welles effected an ar- rangement with Colonel Robert Troup, agent for the Pulteney estate, for the 4000 acres of land now known as Caton township Steuben County ; but it was not until June 28. 1811, that he obtained a deed from Charles Carroll to Colonel Troup- Bradford County Deed Book No. 2. page 4; and not till June 15, 1814, that he effected payment and received to himself the quitclaim deed of Colonel Troup; ( Bradford County Deed Book No. 2 Page 5,) by which the title finally became vested in him.
As George Welles had not been dispossessed of the one third, Henry Welles, under his contract with Messrs. Caton and Harper, continued in possession of the farm which that third composed, except as to the several lots, said to be about sixty five acres, occupied by the Mathewsons. These lots, lying intermixed in the centre of the farm, parts of a large common inclosure liable to floods and held by inimical possessors, may well be supposed to have been inlets of mischief. This state of things was endured until the year 1807; at which period Joseph Hopkin- son, Esq., having been employed on behalf of Mr. Carroll to bring suit in the United States Court, and prepared, Henry Welles went to Philadelphia, brought up the notice in ejectment as of No. SS. April Session 1807; and by the marshal's deputation served it on Elizabeth Mathewson, August 17, returnable to October 11.
All the title papers herein enumerated-legal evidence-supporting letters and representations, which with that support certainly amount to moral evidence, proving that Henry Welles' steps in acquisition of the Pennsylvania title to the property in question had been thus fair and irreproachable, were spread before the committee, unquestioned and undisputed. From what authority then, has the framer of that report drawn his odious representation? Is it a candid narrative that introduces Henry Welles as a neighbor who, finding his neighbor Elisha Mathewson deceased, went to Baltimore "to purchase the lands held by the Mathewsons," made some dark and unascertainable agreement with CHARLES CARROLL OF CARROLLTON, brought suit himself, in the name of Charles Carroll, a citizen of Maryland &c? Surely it is not. Henry Welles moved for the re- purchase of the identical tract of land, metes and boundaries, which had belonged
2 Time was six years.
3 Error here. Henry Welles was not in Baltimore in 1805.
594
APPENDIX A
to his father for several years before, and which had been lost in consequence of the large disbursements made in purchase of title and possession ; three or four times larger, in fact, than the whole at that period was actually worth. So far as Henry Welles was interested under the ejectment, it was not for an adjoining lot desirable simply for its value of sixty five acres, as the report implies, but for lots lying inter- mixed through the very centre of his farm, the possession of which was absolutely indispensable to the safety and value of the rest. Instead of timing the ejectment by the death of Elisha Mathewson, it was timed by the urgency of circumstances stated. Instead of being instituted from oppressive feelings, it was brought re- luctantly, after every advance toward a purchase had been rejected by Elisha Mathewson, and repelled by his widow.
In this transaction, instead of being a wealthy oppressor circumventing the indigent, he was a young man without property, undertaking a large debt, for the repurchase of his father's homestead, but never enjoyed without damage.
Instead of being a powerful neighbor, crushing the weak, he was an unsup- ported individual, asserting the title of Pennsylvania, in a country wholly occupied by an hostile population, who at that time threatened to hold it against the Com- monwealth by force.
"CHEATED OUT OF HER RIGHT OF DEFENCE!"
The next division of the accusations arrayed against Henry Welles is, that by a delusive arrangement entered into between George Welles for him, and Eliza- beth Mathewson, on the 8th October 1807, three days before the return day in Philadelphia, she was "led to believe" that the suit was ended; therefore omitting to enter appearance in Court, judgment was rendered by default, and she thus de- luded, misled, and betrayed out of the chance to defend her title in the Circuit Court.
Now it is self evident, that if Elizabeth Mathewson had no title, and no ground for a defence, that then Henry Welles could have had no interest in pre- venting her appearance :- that therefore he could have had no such object in ac- ceding to the arrangements of October 8, 1807; neither could that arrangement have tended to deprive her of any value by prevention of appearance, because neither appearance nor defence could have been otherwise than useless.
What title, then, had Elizabeth Mathewson to set up against the recovery of Charles Caroll? The petition, testimony, and report, all set forth that the hold- ing of Elisha Mathewson was under the pretended title of Connecticut.
It has been settled, to use the words of Chief Justice Tilghman, that "from "this period" (Decree of Trenton Dec. 30, 1782) "the Courts of Pennsylvania must "consider the title of Connecticut of no validity either in law or equity, except as "it may have since been confirmed by our own Acts of Assembly." Enslin vs. Bowman, 6 Binney, 467.
Had then the title of Mathewson been confirmed by Acts of Assembly ?
March 28, 1787, the Confirming Law was passed; enacting that "all the said "rights or lots now lying within the County of Luzerne, which were occupied or "acquired by Connecticut claimants, who were actually settlers there, at and before "the termination of the claims of the state of Connecticut by the Decree aforesaid, "and which rights, or lots, were particularly assigned to the said settlers prior to "the said decree, agreeably to the regulations then in force among them, be and "they are hereby confirmed to them and their heirs and assigns."
Under this act, had it been carried into effect, Elisha Mathewson, being then a settler in Kingston township, Luzerne County, and coming within its provisions, would have been confirmed in his possession there; but the Commissioners were violently driven out by the population, of whom Mathewson was one *; and on this account, March 29, 1788, the Confirming Law was suspended by the Legislature.
In 1788 Elisha Mathewson sold out and removed from his settlement in Kingston, made before the Decree of Trenton, and therefore held in encourage- ment as above cited, and made a new settlement on the lands now in question, being included within the lines of Athens township, laid out since the Decree of Trenton. and also within the supposititious lines of an earlier township, named "Old Ulster"; which had been granted by the Connecticut Company before the Decree of Tren-
* Matthewson's allotment in Athens was in 1786.
595
HENRY WELLES' DEFENCE
ton, but never located perfectly, nor allotted, but abandoned by those concerned, and annulled by the Company. So that Elisha Mathewson elected to sell his lots or rights in Kingston, which were under a degree of promise, and have since been quieted ; and elected to settle on another spot, which, whether it were considered to be either in "Old Ulster," or in Athens, was equally excluded by the express words of the Confirming Law.
It is in proof, then, that Elisha Mathewson voluntarily put himself out of the pale which had been held in favorable consideration, as "acquired" prior to the Decree of Trenton, and established himself within a district where he could have had no ground of hope, other than in numerical strength in defiance of the Com- monwealth.
April 1, 1790, the Confirming Law was repealed as unconstitutional. Elisha Mathewson, being now in occupancy of lands excluded from favorable considera- tion, as expressly set forth in the Confirming Law, was one of those put under notice by all the strong acts of Assembly which ensued.
April 11, 1795 : Intrusion Law passed, laying on future intrusions a penalty of two hundred dollars and one year's imprisonment ; on persons who shall com- bine, or conspire for the purpose of conveying, possessing, or settling, a penalty of not less than five hundred, nor more than one thousand dollars, and imprisonment at hard labor, not exceeding eighteen months; on resistance, a penalty from five hundred to five thousand dollars and imprisonment at hard labor from three to seven years ; and empowering the Governor, if necessary, to order out the militia to assist the civil authority in carrying the act into effect : 3 Smith's Laws, 209. Agents under this act put up at the tavern on Tioga Point, opposite Elisha Math- ewson's tavern ; and these respective houses were the headquarters of the opposite interests, as may be remembered by Mr. Ralston,4 who was one of those agents.
April 4, 1799: Compensation Law passed, pursuing the design laid in the Confirming Law, but confining its operation to those lands only that might be released for that purpose, by those holding title under Pennsylvania; authorizing the Commissioners to "ascertain all the rights or lots within the said seventeen "townships, which were occupied or required [acquired] by Connecticut claimants, "who were actually settlers there, at or before the time of the said decree at Tren- "ton, and which rights or lots were particularly assigned to the said settlers prior to "the said decree, agreeably to the regulations then in force among them." 3 Smith's Laws, 362. The act describes the section within which this was intended to apply, as that which had been "commonly called and known by the name of the seventeen "townships in the county of Luzerne," leaving the Commissioners to ascertain what were townships, what were lots or rights, and what had been particularly assigned, occupied or acquired agreeably to the regulations of the Susquehanna Company, by claimants actually settled there before the Decree of Trenton. The Commissioners appointed under this act ascertained that "Old Ulster" although one of the seventeen townships granted by the Company before the Decree of Trenton, had never been actually located nor allotted :- consequently that there were no "rights or lots" therein "particularly assigned, occupied or acquired," be- fore the Decree of Trenton. Mr. Cooper, one of the commissioners, wrote to the Governor in 1802, that he regretted to find it impossible to accept Ulster; and describes it as the centre of opposition.
By a supplement passed 6th April 1802, the Commissioners were empowered to certify lands not released :- so that this Act of 1802 is the first that went to divest the rights of Pennsylvania owners without their consent; but brought this measure within constitutional limits, as a necessity, and proffering to owners a right to sue the State for jury compensation : 3 Smith's Laws, 526.
The report in this case of Mathewson and Welles declares that it does not satisfactorily appear, "why the benefit of the Act of 1799 was confined to fifteen "townships only"; adding that it "was evidently the intention of the law to put "the settlers within the seventeen townships on the same footing." By recurrence to the provisions of the act itself, and to the letters of Mr. Cooper in the Land Of- fice, the committee would have found the reasons satisfactory; as they appear to have been to the Legislature, as evinced by subsequent acts, recognizing but fifteen
4 This reference to Mr. Ralston, one of the Commissioners under Bedford and Ulster Act, 19 March, 1810, then in Harrisburg, and present .- C. F. W.
.
596
APPENDIX A
townships. The report further declares "that the Act of 1799 actually included "these two townships" (Ulster and Bedford) "equally with the others; and that "the faith of the Commonwealth was pledged the moment the Act of 1799 went "into operation." How clear it is that the faith of the Commonwealth was pledged to abide by the provisions of the act; and these townships being excluded by those provisions, that therefore the faith of the Commonwealth was pledged for their exclusion ; priority to the Decree of Trenton being the absolute criterion.
Elisha Mathewson then, by forsaking his rights in Kingston, chose to reject - the favor of the Commonwealth; elected to hold his possessions adversely, and class himself among those who resisted the laws and jurisdiction of the State :- consequently remaining subject to the continued warning of subsequent Acts of Assembly.
March 11, 1800: Act for the limitation of actions for real estate, repealed, "and declared to have no force or effect within what is called the seventeen town- "ships in the county of Luzerne, nor in any case where title is, or has been at any "time claimed under what is called the Susquehanna Company, or in any way un- "der the state of Connecticut." 3 Smith's Laws, 421.
February 16, 1801; Supplementary Intrusion Law, still stronger than the orig- inal : 3 Smith's Laws, 457.
April 6, 1802 ; Territorial Law passed, avoiding all deeds of Connecticut title, and subjecting to penalties any judge or justice of the peace who shall acknowl- edge, and any recorder who should record such conveyances ; enacting that no per- son interested in the Connecticut title should sit as judge or juror in any cases where that title might be brought in question :- further, that any person selling, buying or contracting for such title should forfeit the sum of two hundred dollars, and the contract or conveyance be void : 3 Smith's Laws, 525.
April 2, 1804 : Act passed annexing the portion of Luzerne County including Tioga Point, and a narrow strip on the east side of the river, just to surround Colonel Franklin and the settlements under his influence, to Lycoming County, for obvious reasons : 4 Smith's Laws, 187.
April 4, 1805; Supplement to the Act of 1799 passed, restricting to fifteen townships expressly; thus recognizing the decision of the Commissioners against Bedford and Ulster ; 4 Smith's Laws, 26 : see also page 411, act of April 9, 1807.
April 9, 1807 ; Supplement to the Act of 1799 passed, extending to Connecticut title acquired within the fifteen townships since the decree of Trenton. This de- parture from original principles was retracted by the next Legislature, (Act of March 28, 1808), and proceedings under the Act of 1799 finally suspended: 3 Smith's Laws, 534.
So that at the time the ejectment Carroll vs. Mathewson was pending, or rather from the service of notice, August 17, 1807, up to the return day, October 11, the executors of Mathewson had to prepare her [Mrs. Mathewson's] defence under her Connecticut title, subject to the decided condemnation of all these Acts of Assembly.
Then comes the allegation, or innuendo, that Henry Welles, under pretence of compromise, deluded Elizabeth Mathewson out of her chance of defence! What was her defence? Out of what has she been deluded ?
A report of a committee of this House narrates the train of circumstances in such manner as to convey the idea that Elizabeth Mathewson lost her lands by being "led to believe," betrayed, defrauded, out of her opportunity of defence ! and this report is received and adopted by the Legislature of Pennsylvania. A Legis- lature whose journals, and whose statute-books, for the space of more than thirty years, have been literally covered with proceedings and enactments against that very class of Connecticut intruders among whom Elisha Mathewson, and his heirs, and his and their possessions, are expressly included.
What was the chance of defence which the report holds in allusion? What plea could she have set up before the Circuit Court of the United States under the adverse claim of Connecticut, since the Decree of Trenton ?
By their own showing, Elisha Mathewson settled on Lottery Warrant No. 1, more than two years since the warrant, survey and patent, of Josiah Lockhart.
By their own showing he settled on Lottery Warrant No. 1, under a claim hostile to this Commonwealth, and in contempt of her jurisdiction.
597
HENRY WELLES' DEFENCE
What defence could have been set up under the Compensation Laws, by the positive provisions whereof the township of Old Ulster, and the claim of Elisha Mathewson were excluded; an exclusion decided by the Board of Commissioners, whose decision is final as to rights under that act, and whose decision had been expressly adopted by the Legislature, as appears by the Acts of 1805 and 1807?
What defence could she have set up under a claim against which the Intru- sion Law, the law repealing limitations, and the Territorial Law, had been passed ? Acts which surround the Connecticut claim with penalties as an enemy's invasion ; and authorize the executive to march armed troops into the country to carry into effect those penalties against the very people among whom Elisha Mathewson was one?5
There ought to have been no necessity for calling up these enactments and decisions, to show from page and paragraph that Elizabeth Mathewson had no shadow of a defence to make against the recovery of Charles Carroll. Every man of common information in Pennsylvania, every lawyer, and every member of As- sembly, knows now, and has not been ignorant, that a Connecticut settler out of the fifteen townships could at that time have made no defence whatever against the Pennsylvania title: consequently that Henry Welles could have had no in- terest in preventing her defence : consequently that there could have been no such design, and no such result; and that therefore all the holding forth of the report in this respect, is utterly unfounded. No verbal evidence can be so powerful as these deductions.
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.