USA > Pennsylvania > Bradford County > Athens > A history of old Tioga Point and early Athens, Pennsylvania > Part 86
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
626
APPENDIX B
in favour of Gen. Welles that caused his election in 1809 ; the people were offended at Satterlee for the course he took, but voted for Welles for the reason that there was no other Republican (as the Gen. was then called) before the public. I have been told by those better informed than myself that there was no such wonderful obstacles to encounter in the passage of this law that has caused so much excite- ment, but might have been thrown aside and conquered by other men, even Conn. claimants, and the law carried into effect with the same facility that it was done by this champion of the Penn'a claimants in possession ; and that too without the proviso contained in the 7th section of the act; which section does not affect the interest of one individual Pa. claimant, except the same Gen. Henry Welles as owner or agent who reported the bill and voted for it in violation of the express rules of the House. This Gen. Welles has done for the purpose of depriving my deceased father's family of their honest livelihood and converting it to his own aggrandizement.
It seems that Charles F. Welles, Esq. considers himself fully competent to de- cide on the constitutionality and propriety of the measures of the Legislature and assumes the right to condemn or approve as will best suit the interest of his brother the Gen. A man possessing such a supremacy of capacity and power ought to make truth his guide-but there are but few sentences of Charles F. Welles' de- fence of his brother but bears the impress of misrepresentation on its face. He frowns indignantly on a majority of the House of Representatives in their Session of 1824-5 for rejecting two amendments to the bill (which passed in favour of the Mathewsons) No. 471-one was offered by Mr. Meredith, which he states provided that issue should be joined between Constant Mathewson and Henry Welles be- fore Judge Scott in Luzerne county to try the fact whether the heirs and devisees of Mathewson were put out of possession by fraud, and if on trial the jury should find that they had been so dispossessed, then the Judges of the Supreme Court should grant certificate to Mathewson. He says, that Mathewson's friends with him sitting by, (his brother home, but it was believed prepared the amendment previous to his departure) refused to risque a trial of the truth before an impartial jury ; thus abandoning on the Journals and in the face of the House his first accusation. As this misrepresentation of Mr. Meredith's amendment is intended to make an unfavourable impression on the public mind against me, my friends and my claim, I will state the substance of the amendment as it was offered; it provided liberty for me to institute three separate suits before the courts of Luzerne against three individuals, viz : Richard Caton, Henry Welles and Obediah Spalding. In a suit against Caton and Spalding they would very properly plead that they had com- mitted no fraud and were not accountable for Welles' transactions; in a suit against Welles it would be pleaded that he did not receive his deed until the 15th of June, 1814-years after the commission of the fraud, consequently entirely out of the common course of judicial procedure and out of the cognizance of the Court-the half an eye may see that. This amendment was intended and would in fact render the bill nugatory.
Mr. Ritner's amendment was in the hand writing of Gen. Welles, although as his friend states he was at home, yet he had the art to prepare it before his retirement; it is perhaps correctly stated thus : "Provided, however, that not- withstanding the repeal of the seventh section of the Act aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the Commissioners to decide upon the same principles, and no other than if the compensation act of 4th April, 1799, and its supplements, had been extended to the townships of Bedford and Ulster." This says the General's friend is placing the question on the same footing, as if the proviso had never existed. Let us see again whether in this instance friend Charles has stated the truth or whether he has again falsified with a view of misleading the honourable unsuspecting mind. It is a well known fact that the Act of 1810 with its proviso, (the offspring of Gen. Welles' ingenuity) was not a supplement to the act of 1799-it was a separate act unconnected with it. If this amendment had included the act of 1810 there would have appeared some fairness on the face of it, the bill No. 471 then under consideration was supplementary to that act, but as it was totally unconnected with the act of 1799 and its supplements, it would if adopted have totally destroyed the effects and force of the supplement in my favour. Thus every observing mind will perceive the deceitful art practised by Gen. Welles to defeat the calls of justice.
627
HENRY WELLES' SPEECH
Charles F. Welles, Esq. I have extended this notice of your misrepresentation of my conduct and motives in the unpleasant controversy I am compelled to sustain with your Brother in hope of the acquirement of my family's just and equitable right, to a greater length than I intended ; yet I have left much of your sophistry unnoticed and unanswered ; I think I have stated sufficient to prove to every candid mind that your brother's efforts to rear a fortune on the ruin of my deceased father's family-and supported by an assumption of might and misrepresentation -and as I hope and believe that the subject will hereafter receive a fair and candid examination and that truth and justice will eventually prevail, I shall at present leave the concern to the consideration of the public.
Athens, Nov. 26, 1826.
CONSTANT MATHEWSON.
EDITOR'S NOTE .- The Welles' and their advocate Mr. Roberts appear to puff both heat and cold as best suits their purpose; by Mr. Carroll they prove no agen- cy ; but the Gen. and Mr. Roberts both declare he was an agent and undertake to prove it by Mr. Hopkinson's letter-look at a paragraph in Mr. Roberts' substitute for the committee's report on the subject-it reads thus :- "Mr. Carroll, a pur- chaser under Mr. Lockhart, began to occupy his land in 1798-Mathewson's lots were located in different parts of the tract, and the annual overflow of the grounds by the waters of the river, made it difficult to keep up division fences. The ground was occupied as a common field, and the crops greatly damaged by cattle. The mo- tives for negotiating with the Mathewson family for withdrawal from possession, were obvious and imperious. To effect this, Mr. Welles as agent for Carroll, of- fered the most liberal inducements, and at length succeeded in making an ar- rangement, &c."
APPENDIX C.
HENRY WELLES' SPEECH.
Copy of a document in the handwriting of Henry Welles, un- dated ; evidently a draft of an address written to be delivered before a committee of the Senate. It is probably the one referred to by Henry Welles in a letter of 1818, noted on page 451; and is here printed as an evidence of his good faith in the office to which he had been elected.
MR. CHAIRMAN :- The circumstances which have given existence to the bill under consideration have arisen out of a controversy of long standing, and one connected with the origin of the Government.
The foundation of the Wyoming controversy is the interference of the char- ters of the two states of Pennsylvania and Connecticut. The tenor of those two instruments is such as to clash with each other, and mutually to cover one degree of latitude, running the whole length of the state of Pennsylvania. The subject was considered one on which intelligent and honorable men might differ, and did differ. Conflicting settlements were formed. Those deriving their title from the state of Connecticut were regular and systematic in their operations. The juris- diction of that state was as effectual from about the year 1770 until 1787, as in any part of Connecticut itself. The settlement was called Westmoreland, had its representation in the General Assembly of that state, and a regular judicial orga- nization. It also raised its full quota of troops during the Revolutionary War, which were received as of the Connecticut line. It defended the then frontier with remarkable bravery and effect.
Pennsylvania, both as a government, and by means of its individual citi- zens, was not idle in the meantime, nor did they abandon their claim. After many unpleasant and indeed bloody scenes, a tribunal was erected under the authority
628
APPENDIX C
of the existing national Confederation, with the power and for the purpose of settling the controversy. That tribunal convened at Trenton in December, 1782; and after a session of fourteen days upon a trial managed by great talents, the council decreed that the jurisdiction and the right of soil belonged to the state of Pennsylvania. But at the same time the Commissioners, in a letter to the Supreme Executive Council, strongly recommended the settlers who had so nobly protected that part of the frontier of the state, to the justice of the Government; not merely from that circumstance, but also [because] those settlers had come upon the land in question in the full belief of the justice and legality of their title, as derived from the state of Connecticut. And when it is remarked that the doubt was such as to require a solemn judicial decision to ascertain the rights of the parties, it may well be imagined that an honest difference of opinion may exist, and the settlers of that day and their representatives rescued from the imputation of being squatters and intruders. It was remarked at that day by many, that the over- whelming influence of the great state of Pennsylvania bore heavily upon the ques- tion, and that also upon grounds of political convenience the decision was favor- able to that state.
Without, however, wishing to waste time in the examination of this part of the question, as it has become a subordinate one, I will proceed to the trans- actions which followed the Trenton Decree.
Under the recommendation of the members of the Council, under a con- viction of the equitable rights of the settlers on the ground, and what perhaps was more weighty than all, a desire to introduce in a peaceable manner the juris- diction of Pennsylvania, the state passed what is called the Confirming Law, dated 28th March, 1787.
The conditions of that Act were, as it respects the settlers, to give them their lots at the single and mere price of 20 shillings each, and the surveying fees. Under these views the settlers accepted the jurisdiction of Pennsylvania, in the faith and belief of the fulfillment of the terms. Much of the land in ques- tion had been previously located by citizens of the state. The government, em- barrassed by the interference of the two sets of claimants, provided that the Penn- sylvania claimants should be satisfied by grants of land in other places, not at that time appropriated. Some accepted the conditions offered, and made locations very much to their advantage; among whom was the late Gen. Meade. Others dissented : altercations and litigation took place: and the United States Circuit Court decided that the Confirming Law was unconstitutional and void : after which the same was repealed. Probably had the offered indemnity to the Penna. claimants been made in money instead of land, the retrograde movement might have been saved, and a great expense and trouble been avoided.
From the time of the repeal in the year 1790, up to the date of the Compro- mising Law of 1799, the country was in a most distracted condition : hostilities were carried on and blood was shed: the settlers were embittered against the state, under the impression that its faith had been broken with them; and much wrong and violence was committed on both sides.
At this period, between the dates of the Confirming and Compromising Laws, the lands in question were surveyed on behalf of the Pennsylvania claim- ants, who are proposed to be quieted by this bill. It may be said that they ought to have avoided meddling with the land in question, under the knowledge that in equity and good faith it belonged to the settlers in the country. Certainly they should : they were not strictly justifiable in touching lands so situated : and it is a subject of great regret that the existing government had not only prohibited this class of claimants, but all others, from locating land in that disputed territory. Had she done so, the controversy would have been much more simple and easily settled.
Yet although in equity the land belonged to the Connecticut claimants, and it ought to have been reasonably expected that it must be confirmed to them sooner or later, yet there was no legal impediment placed in the way of its being located by citizens of the state; and under the whirlwind of land-specula- tion that swept over this country about the years 1792-3-4 and -5, the whole of the territory was located.
Equitable as were the claims of the Connecticut claimants to these lands, and legal according to the rules and regulations in force among them, yet this
629
HENRY WELLES' SPEECH
would not, and will not, avail them as a legal defence in our courts of justice. A distinction has been kept up by the legislature, in all her acts upon the subject, between those claimants whose titles accrued before the Confirming Law, and those acquired after it. For the former, a mode of compensation is provided by a trial by a court and jury ; and nothing more is requisite for that class of claim- ants, than is provided by the existing laws.
It is probably within the knowledge of all the members of this Committee, that the terms of the Compromising Laws are materially harder, and different from those of the Confirming Law. Yet so anxious were the Connecticut claim- ants to close and put an end to the quarrel, that they embraced the terms offered by the compromising acts with zeal and avidity. Instead of obtaining their farms at 20 shillings and the surveying fees, they were obliged to give $2.00 per acre for the first quality, and lower in proportion to its goodness.
To their credit it may be said that the Pennsylvania claimants generally accepted the terms held out by the law, so far as it was provided for their redress. As was said before, all are provided for except those who made their locations after the date of the Confirming Law of 28th March, 1787.
Now, for the want of any other remedy, those claimants are obliged to sue in ejectment for the land they claim, and numerous suits are now pending : unwilling as they may be, it appears their only resource. The defence of the set- tlers will not generally avail them in a court of law. The date of the patents to the Pennsylvania claimants is earlier than [that of] those given to the Con- necticut claimants upon certificates given them by the Commissioners who exe- cuted the Compromising Law; and as things are now circumstanced, the decision must inevitably be in favor of the oldest title. Until the Legislature provides some other remedy, the courts must decide upon the common principle of law which gives the land to priority of title?
In consideration of circumstances heretofore mentioned, it is not proposed to give to these people the same extent of indemnity as those of the earlier class : it is proposed to refund them their money with the interest: this amount is to be paid only where they exhibit evidence that they are fully, fairly and exclusively entitled to the land, except as against the Connecticut claimant.
Now, Sir, when we take into consideration that these Connecticut settlers have embraced the laws of your making, have done all they were required to do, have proved themselves peaceable and obedient citizens, have patented their lands, and very generally paid the purchase money, you are bound by every principle of justice and good faith to protect them.
On the other hand you have taken, for the attainment of a great public pur- pose, the property of the Pennsylvania claimants, legally acquired beforehand, under your existing laws, and the practice of the Land Office : and it is plainly due to them, to provide for their indemnity, and not to force them to incur the expense and odium of sacrificing innocent persons in the vindication of their rights.
The merits of this case lies in a very narrow compass :- you have sold the land twice, and have received the purchase money and patenting fees twice; and most surely ought to do just what an honourable and honest individual would do in like circumstances.
A great number of actions in ejectment upon these titles are now pending in the courts of Luzerne and Bradford counties, and in the circuit court of the United States. A large share of these actions were brought at the time when the statute of limitations was about coming into force in those counties. The settlers' hope of protection from that law is thereby destroyed, and they have no other redress than from the Legislature. After having gone thro' all the horrors of warfare and a contested title, all the hardships of settling a new coun- try, of paying in many instances considerable sums for the Connecticut claim, and finally acceding to the offers made by the state of Pennsylvania, taking certificates, paying the purchase money and patenting their lands, they find the whole un- availing, and themselves more completely defenseless than before.
Prior to the passage of the Compromising acts, their numbers and unity were a safeguard, at least in their own estimation. Now, from the facility of enforcing legal process, from the larger inducement of the Pennsylvania claimant to urge his right, in consequence of the increased value of the land he claims.
630
APPENDIX C
owing to settlement and improvement, is not the settler in a most alarming con- dition? Can it be expected that the Pennsylvania claimant will abandon his right after paying his money to the State? Can it also be expected that after having followed that right thro' all the trouble and expense of a lawsuit, and arrived to a judgment, execution and possession, he will accept from the settler his six pence per acre and interest? Or is it fair to expect that the settler will again purchase out the claim of the individual, after having bought and paid for it two or three times? Is there not every reason to expect that the Pennsylvania claimant, on being denied any other indemnity, will push his claim to judgment and to final possession, and cause execution to issue against the adverse party for all the costs? The temptation to acquire a farm under the circumstances will not be resisted; and what will you do with the Connecticut claimant when he comes here with a statement of his loss-and that loss perhaps twenty times greater than the amount you are now requested to pay to the Pennsylvanian, by the terms of this bill?
There are as yet no judgments rendered by the courts ; and all parties appear to pause, with the expectation of being saved the painful necessity of a contest ; and this is the stage of the contest in which we ought to interpose, and render justice to the parties.
I find it impossible to ascertain the precise quantity of land in this predica- ment ; but it is generally agreed in Luzerne county to be about 40,000 acres; and the rate of purchase money for the main part of it was fifty shillings per 100 acres : the more however the better, as there will be the less to pay for by the award of a jury, and the valuation in such cases is generally higher than the purchase money and interest.
I look upon it as a matter of right for the Senate to pass this bill upon the plain principles of obligation. The government has made a treaty of peace with the people of that country :- for the establishment of that point I need only to refer gentlemen to the act of 4th April, 1799; it will there be seen in that light clearly. The State was to do certain things, stipulating carefully at the same time that the Connecticut claimants should do certain other things. The State was to purchase back from the Pennsylvania claimants the lands they had acquired, at certain fixed rates; which if those claimants would not accept, they were by a subsequent act authorized to sue for the value thereof. At all hazards the gov- ernment was to repossess itself of the lands in question: that was the indis- pensable condition of the whole proceeding. That measure was all in all; and after the grant which she had made twelve years before by her Confirming Law, she was bound to do it : and indeed, Mr. Chairman, in my humble opinion, bound in good faith, on lower terms to those settlers than she agreed to do by the act of '99 and its supplements.
What were the settlers to do on their part? Why, Sir, they were required to accept titles under the terms and conditions specified in those acts. Have they not done so? Have they not most faithfully performed all that was required of them? Have they not ceased all opposition? Have you not broken a combination that was deemed so formidable as to have induced the government to entertain the idea of employing force for the termination of the controversy? Had you not an object in view worth far more than all you have expended in thus avoiding hostility and bloodshed? Surely you have. In adopting a pacific course, the gov- ernment exhibited its wisdom. That course was not only the most just and humane, but also the cheapest. A treaty was determined on :- the settlers em- braced the terms, ceased all opposition, submitted their claims to the court created for their examination, surrendered all their papers, accepted certificates; and generally have paid the purchase money and received their patents. Now, Sir, what is wanted is that the State carry into fulfillment her part of the treaty of peace thus solemnly and legally made.
It is with pleasure I admit that she has done so in part; and so far as re- spects the settlers it is precisely as obligatory on her to perform the remainder. I cannot and will not doubt but it will be done. It only requires a knowledge of the subject to ensure the event; it is plain, undeniable justice. Your neglect or refusal to do this will amount to a crying injustice: how much more so even from the long delay, from the faith of your laws, from the payment of purchase
631
HENRY WELLES' SPEECH
money on the part of the settler, than if you had driven him off at an early day, before his improvements had become valuable. All must know that without the measure prayed for the title obtained from you is worth nothing: the right of the Pennsylvania claimant is paramount to his.
One gentleman, from Schuylkill (Mr. Frailey), compares the present case to that of lost warrants. Sir, I apprehend a radical distinction between such a case and the present one. As to lost warrants, it may be said that the price, being low, induced many to hazard the chance of making a few fortunate loca- tions, and buying a larger number of warrants than they were certain of finding land for. The applicant was supposed to know, and ought to have informed him- self, whether his warrant when obtained would be worth what it had cost him. The land-officers could not be supposed to know it. On consideration of the reduced price of warrants, it must be apparent that it is in but few cases that the warrantee is not a gainer by his adventure; and when he happens to lose, he must be content with having drawn a blank.
In this case, on the contrary, the holders of the lands in question have found lands, made their locations, perfected their title except as against the Connecticut claimant; and now the State, stepping entirely out of its usual course of pro- ceeding, and with the special view to avert a great evil, passes acts which in their operation must deprive the Pennsylvania claimant of his location. The State here interferes, and allots, in the most solemn legal manner, his land to another. Here is a positive act, and one he could not control or hinder. You recognize the Connecticut claimant as the lawful possessor of the land :- in what condition do you place the Pennsylvania claimant by this proceeding? Why, either to lose the land he claims, or pursue his right thro' a desperate lawsuit. In what condi- tion do you leave the Connecticut claimant? Why, liable to the evils attending the same desperate lawsuit, and which must result in his ruin.
Another gentleman, from Delaware (Mr. Ewing), has remarked that these settlers deserve no consideration from the legislature, and that they came into the country as squatters, intruders, and usurpers of the rights and lands of others.
Sir, this language would have been less exceptionable, if it was ever excus- able, when the confirming and compromising acts were passed. He says also that it would have been but just had these people been dispossessed by military force. I agree with him in part, that it would have been better to dispossess the inhabitants with the bayonet and the rifle. It would have been better for them in early days to have been driven thus off into a better country, and where it would have been safer to rely upon Acts of Assembly! They would have been gainers in being thus dispossessed in the days when the fertile country in a neighboring State was vacant, and into which many then retired with great advantage to themselves.
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.