USA > Rhode Island > The lands of Rhode Island : as they were known to Caunounicus and Miantunnomu when Roger Williams came in 1636 : an Indian map of the principal locations known to the Nahigansets, and elaborate historical notes > Part 8
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
The signature to this deed was witnessed by Nathaniel Waterman and Andrew Harris. Waterman was engaged in the conspiracy and Andrew Harris was a son of William Harris, the chief con- spirator. John Sayles swore that he witnessed the signing of the Deed, and that "the contents of the said Deed was fullye opened to the said Quojaniquond, and made very playne to his understand- ing." This must have been done by those engaged in the con- spiracy, for no others were present.
Read what Roger Williams, writing in 1669, said of Caujona- quond's confirmation : "Is not this notoriously known that W. Harris urged that poor beast (always drunk), Kachanaquond. and other Sachems after him, to confirm only what Miantinomi had granted to R. Williams, which was under the Sachems' hands ; they not imagining any such juggling to be intended by Englishmen.
88
THE INDIAN WORD COMMOOTIN-STEALING.
.
who called themselves children of God, and Christians; and that any boundless grants were comprized. They were .easily willing, especially for Wompan's sake, to confirm what was granted to Roger Williams by Miantinomi, dead and gone, as knowing that the bounds were known to themselves and the natives roundabout us". Again, "It is no less prodigious and wonderful to me liow they can squeeze out a confirmation from the surviving Sachems of what Miantinomi, only one Sachem, and less ( in power ) than Canonicus have granted. I say squeeze a confirmation of what had no reality, no more than dreams, and castles built in the air" (R. I. Hist. Tract, Ist Ser. 14, pp. 31, 32). Again, "This after purchase and Satisfaction (payment ) to all claimers W. Harris puts a rotten title upon it, and calls it Confirmation of the title and grant of up streams without limit ; but all the Sachems and Indians when they heard such interpretation cried commootin, commootin" (Narr. Club 6, 391). This Indian word meant stealing and lying-see note by Trumbull in the Indian Key ( Narr. Club 1, 165) ; also a note by Trumbull (R. I. Hist. Tract, Ist Ser. 14. p. 31).
The three "Confirmation" Deeds were obtained in May, August an'd December, 1659; but they were all held by William Harris until 1662, when they were entered upon the records ; and upon the same day Olney recorded the original Deed, as I have before stated, April 4, 1662 ( Providence Early Records 5, 296). Directly following Olney's Record of .Kacharaquond's Decd this "juggling" Town Clerk, as Harris describes him ( Hist. Soc. Coll. 10. p. 53). made a statement as an "assistant," which office he held being so designated in the charter, and recorded it as a Town Clerk-but did not swear to it that "Quojaniquond came before me, this 7th of July 1664, and did acknowledge and confesse that he hath re- ceived of the men of Providence, and the men of Pautuxet Nine pounds Tenn shillings for the land specified in this Deed and his hand or marke being showed him he did own it to be his act and cieede. This was made known to me ( Olney) from him by an interpreter upon his ingagement the day and year above written" ( Prov. Early Rec. 5, 299). Olney, as I have written, was a "Paw- tuxet Partner" at the time, and interested in the conspiracy, but neither Harris nor Roger Williams had confidence in him. His
89
SCUTTAPE ON THE QUESTION OF WILLIAMS' AGENCY.
statements, nor the Interpreter's, bear neither oaths nor affirmations. and they were made five (5) years after the Deed of Cojonoquand was said to have been executed, and two years after the Deed was recorded. It was a good specimen of Olney's trickery.
Thus the Forged Deed had no sooner been conceived and executed than half a dozen of the chief Sachems were asked to confirm what they were told was the Deed of Canonicus and Miantinomi to Roger Williams. This fact is confirmed by the sworn testimony of John Sayles ( Prov. Early Rec. 5, 298). But not one of them had the slightest idea that they were transferring more than one-half of the lands in the present State. I give a specimen of the scope of the transfers. The first is from Kachanaquond's Deed. It conveyed the lands up the Pawtucket river and the Pawtuxet river without limit, full twenty miles, from Fox's hill, upon a straight line, run- ning up into the country between these two rivers: again, another confirmation. "We ratify and confirm to the men of Providence and Pawtuxet their lands according to their joint agreements which our brother Meantenomeah possessed with them: that is, all the lands between Pawtucket and Pawtuxet, between the streams of these rivers, and up these streams without limits : or as far as they shall think fit." Another. Scuttape, confirmed all that he was asked to confirm : and still further. that when, in 1636, Roger Williams made his contract with Canonicus and Miantinomi he acted as agent for the men of Providence, and the men of Pawturet" ( Prov. Early Rec. 5. 304). There were at the time when Williams bought these lands no men of Providence, nor men of Pawtuxet. Neither place had an inhabitant. So much is the value of these Indian Confirma- tions of documents, not one word of which could they read. .
These boundary clauses explain the force of Mr. Williams's language, "Up stream without limit": "Bounds without bounds"; "Boundless bounds": "Boundless grants". These all refer to Har- ris's language in the "Confirmation Deeds, "Between the streams of these rivers, and up these streams without limits, or as far as they (the men of Providence and the men of Pawtuxet ) shall think fit"; again, "As far as the men of Providence, and the men of Pawtuxet shall judge convenient" : again, "All lands between Paw- tucket river. and Pawtuxet river up stream without limit". la
90
THE INITIAL DEED.
considering these bounds and these confirmations we must not for- get that the term "up streams without limit" came from the Forged memorandum attached to the bottom of the original Deed; but which formed no part of the Deed itself.
It remains to connect these transactions with the original Deed and certain transactions which followed it.
The first thing done was by Roger Williams in giving a Deed to twelve of the principal men, himself retaining one share, the lands which he had individually purchased from the Great Sachems. This Deed came first to be known as the "initial" Deed, because Mr. Williams used only the initials of the names of the men to whom the Deed was given, thus, S. W., W. A., T. J., etc., for Stukeley Westcott ; William Arnold; Thomas James, etc. (Staples's Annals, 28). Twenty-eight years later Mr. Williams was forced by the . Pawtuxet partners to write a more specific Deed. This he did in 1666 (Staples's Annals, 33).
No care was taken of this "Initial" Deed. It was soon lost and no Record remains. In 1661 William Arnold and other men then engaged in this land conspiracy made what they said was a copy of this Deed ( Prov. Early Rec. 15, p. 86). The date given by Staples at the beginning of this Deed (Annals, 33), "8 of 8th month 1638", is pure guesswork, and Mr. Williams so states the fact (Annals, pp. 33, 34). The William Arnold copy, having not the slightest legal force, is now upon the Records, as above stated. The late Judge Staples writes this paragraph: "After accepting the 'Initial' Deed on the 7th October, 1638, the thirteen proprietors deemed it expedient to make a division in their purchase, and subject the different parts to different rules of subsequent sub-division. The two parts are known in the Records as the Grand purchase of Providence' and the 'Pawtuxet purchase'. Great dissentions and difficulties grew out of this division" (Annals of Providence, 34). Mr. Staples founds this statement upon a supposed "agreement" made "between several inhabitants of the town of Providence" (Prov. Early Records, 15, 31). This agreement reads thus: "It is agreed this day (eight of the eight month 1638) that all the meddow ground at Paturett bounding upon the fresh river on both sides is to be impropriated unto these 13 persons now incorporated
.
91
THE TENURE OF IMPROPRIATION.
together in our town of Providence" ( Prov. Early Rec. 15, 31). Then follows the name of the twelve men to whom Roger Williams gave a Deed of his purchase, and his own name included. The agreement further provided that Roger Williams was to have twenty pounds, the money to be paid to him by the thirteen first proprietors, himself being one.
The word "impropriation" is not among the English land tenures of the time. It is now obsolete; but then it meant "to convert to private use, to seize for one's own use"-"as when a layman is possessed of a church living, and converts the profits to his own private use" (Bailey's Dict. 1725). There was no purchase, neither from the Indians nor from Williams. Nor was there a division of the Williams purchase. It was neither more nor less than a seizure of lands held by the Indians ; but it covered only the meadow ground at Pawturet. It did not extend "up streams without limits". Con- cerning this transaction Mr. Williams says: "Pawtuxet I parted with at a small addition to Providence, for then that monstrous bound or business of upstreams without limits was not thought of. Wm. Harris and the first 12 of Providence were restless for Pawtuxet, and I parted with it upon the same terms, viz, for the supply of the destitute, and I had a loan of them, then dear." etc. (R. I. Hist. Tract, Ist Ser. 14, p. 55). Harris was the leader in this "impropriation," and upon it rests all his claims to the lands interpolated by himself and Arnold into the original Deed.
The coming to Providence of William Arnold and his son, Benedict Arnold, with their intense passion for the possession of the earth, and the natural control which such possession gave them over other men, caused immediate discontent among the first planters. William Harris and William Carpenter at once joined the Arnolds, and a long and bitter fight followed as long as the Arnolds and Harris lived. Out of this land passion in the Arnolds and Harris came the transfer of Pawtuxet, as above stated by Mr. Williams ; or its seizure by "impropriation."
We now come to the "Combynatione," and it becomes necessary to examine with care this extraordinary paper. It was recorded only on the Suffolk Records at Boston: this was done in pursuance of the treachery of the Arnolds. A copy of it is among the ancient
92
OLNEY, A "JUGGLING" TOWN CLERK.
town papers and has been recently printed ( Prov. Early Records 15. p. 2). The record at Boston was made in 1650. There were then no signatures upon it, nor any certification of authenticity, nor of adoption. The copy now in the possession of the city of Provi- dence must have been privately made by Olney from one in the possession of Harris, and left among the town papers where it remained hidden for nearly two centuries.
In the month before the obtaining of the first of the "Confirma- tion" Deeds, a letter was addressed "To the Town meeting, Prov. the 27th of 2, m, 1659," signed by William Field : William Arnold. and William Harris. These men inform the Town Meeting, pro- vided the letter was ever sent, that "We have fixed or sett a marke stone neer the spring at Saxafraig cove, according to ye prescription of ye place in ve Combynatione. This we say we are redey to rattefy, & stand to our hands in ye combynatione. If our neigli- bours object, we are ready to choose an Umpeor to sett it". These men further say that "Ye Combynation being in your hands that you would send it" by, or with the Vmpeor ( Prov. Early Rec. 15. 76).
When Harris said "the Combination being in your hands," he had doubtless had Olney, the "juggling" Town Clerk at that time, make the "copy" which is now existing at the City Hall.
Five years later another similar letter was sent, dated 27th Jan- uary, 1664. It was signed by William Field, Zachary Rhodes, Richard Waterman, his X mark. William Carpenter, and last, as was usual, William Harris. Every one was engaged in the land conspiracy. These men say: "Again this (second time ) requeste you that you would come to Adebitione of ye land (called in ye Combynatione ye propriettyes of ye men of Patuxcet) from ye Generall Comone of ye Towne of Providence" ( Prov. Early Rec. 15, 105). There is no mention of this Combynatione in the Records. But a copy of it. purported to have been made by Thomas Olney, Jr., "as it standeth upon Record," appears among the miscellaneous papers and is printed ( Prov. Early Records 15, p. 22). If the original existed upon the Records, why make this Olney copy? Certainly under such conditions the Town Clerk could not give it legal force, with nothing to show that the town meeting had ever
ยท
-
93
THE COMBYNATIONE.
acted upon it, nor had the inhabitants or land holders so acted-by their act alone could it be valid.
The importance of this evidence in the matter of establishing a line of division induces me to investigate it with whatever of force I am competent. It is destructive to the "Denial" of the Forgery of the Deed.
From 1640 until the death of William Harris (in London, in 1681,) there was a continuous struggle by Harris and his partners for the establishment of a Division line between the owners of Pawtuxet and the owners of Providence. On the map recently published by the Historical Society ( Hist. Coll., v. 10, p. 376) is laid down this "Division Line of 1640". This rests upon the Combination which purports to have been presented to the town of Providence at that time. There exists no evidence that it was so presented. It was never entered upon the records of Providence, but it was entered upon the records at Boston about 1650, elsewhere described herein. The people never acted upon nor accepted this "Combination", which has been so mich lauded heretofore. And of course no Division Line was then adopted. Nothing was heard of the Com- bination until three of the four men who are stated in it, to have made it, were dead. William Harris was the only living man stated in it to have been connected with it ( Prov. Early Rec. 15, 2). Ou the 22d of ye 2 mo 1659, a letter was written by William Harris, William Arnold and William Field to the town of Providence, stat- ing that we have set a mark stone, at Saxafraig Cove, to an oak at Mashapaug, according to ye prescription of the place in ye Com- bination. These men asked that if "our neighbors object", that they choose an Vmpeor. This is evidence that no line had been fixed by the Combination in 1640 ( Early Rec. 15, 76) down to the year 1659. What power had these three men to fix a division line? They admit that they had no power, by the suggestion of an Vmpeor. I11 1664 Harris with some of his partners repeated the operation. This is evidence that nothing had been done down to that time. In 1677 Harris brought suit against Dexter, Fenner, and ve towne of Providence. Harris was not alone in this action, but the only per- son named as acting with him was Thomas Field. In their Declara- tion the plaintiffs say: "It is for the jury to say whether ye said
.
94
THE SAXEFRAX LINE, BY HARRIS RUN.
town of Providence should not run ye said line agreed on by us for . a partition," etc. (Col. R. I. Hist. Soc., v. 10, p. 202). This is evidence that no line had ever been accepted nor adopted by the town in 1640, nor down to 1677, and this suit failing, no line then followed the action of the jury. Notwithstanding this positively conclusive evidence, George T. Paine says : "In 1640 a division line between 'this special tract' and the town of Providence was agreed upon" (Paine's Denials, p. 68) ; and this, Mr. Brigham has fol- lowed on his map in the Harris papers (Col. R. I. Hist. Soc. 10, P. 376). But this line on the Brigham map is entirely in error. The line mentioned in the "Combination" ran from a spring, being in a gully, at the head of a cuave, running in by a point of land called Saxefrax, into the Town of Mashapauge". It cannot be shown that there was any brook known as Mashapaug in 1640 existing there; nor can it be shown that the Indian town of Mashapang was at the western end of the Brigham line. Mr. Brigham followed Paine.
This Olney copy of the "Combination" bears the date 27th of the 5th month in the year so called 1640. The "so called" was put in by Olney as a suggestion that Roger Williams had a hand in the writing-he being the only man then living who used that language. The document itself says that "Wee Robert Coles; Chad Brown : William Harris and John Warner, being freely chosen by the con- sent of our loving ffreindes," made the Combination. The second paragraph is in these words : "Wee have with one consent agreed, that in parting those particular proprietyes, which some of our friends and neighbours have in Pautuxett, from the General Comon of the Town of Providence, to runn upon a straight line from a fresh spring, being in the gully, at the head of the coave running in by the poynt of land called Saxeffrax, unto the Towne of Masha- pauge to an oake tree standing neere unto the corne field, being at this tyme the nearest corne field unto Pawtuxett" (Prov. Early Rec. 15, 2).
This Olney copy bears the names of thirty-nine persons, all writ- ten upon it by Olney. No real signatures were ever known, and Olney's copy was made on the 28th March. 1662-twenty-two years after the document purports to have been written. The scheme was to establish a line running from Sassafras point to
95
HARRIS' LINES NEVER ACCEPTED.
the Indian town of Mashapaug-all lands west of this line were to belong to the Pawtuxet Proprietors; all lands east of the line to belong to the Providence Proprietors; both Proprietors being at the time the same men. It was the possibility of a westward ex- tension that suggested the Forgeries in the Deed. The two letters from William Harris and his partners, 27, of ye 2 mo. 1659, and 24 January, 1664, show positively that the proposition in the Com- bynatione to which Harris referred had not been accepted by the
town in 1640; not a signature was upon it in 1650. These letters also prove that the people of the town had not accepted the Com- bination down to 1664-5. Nor did the people ever accept the line proposed in it by Harris. He soon began suits in New England, and subsequently in England, to force the Providence people to fix the line, which, being done, all lands west of the line would be owned by the men who owned the Pawtuxet shares. In case these Pawtuxet owners could show that all the lands in Rhode Island west of their desired line were included in the original Deed to Williams, then these lands would belong to these men individually who owned rights in the Pawtuxet purchase. For this the Forged Deed presented by Arnold in 1659 was made. For this were secured the three Deeds "confirming" the grant to Williams and extending this grant from twenty to thirty miles west, northwest, and southwest, by four, or five. ignorant Sachems who had been most treacherously deceived. The real purpose of the "Combyna- tion" was first to fix a line of separation midway between Providence and Pawtuxet ; second, to establish a land tenure in individuals and in perpetuity. The Combynation was never accepted, but William Arnold, in 1640, bought land of William Harris and took his deed for it. There is no record of an appointment of Harris. Cole, Brown and Warner as a committee to make such a report. At the time, in 1659, when Harris and Field in a letter called the town meeting's attention to to it. Harris was the only living member of the four who are represented in it as being the authors of it. Brown died in 1650: Warner died in 1654; Cole died in 1655, and Harris alone remained.
The recently published volume ( 10th) of the R. I. Historical Society contains an "Indian Deed to Harris 3 April. 1657" (page
96
HARRIS ADMITS KNOWLEDGE OF SHORT BOUNDS.
48). It was printed "From a copy by George T. Paine". Mr. Paine did not inform us where the original existed. . At present it is not known. It is not signed, and hence is not a Deed, but merely the form of a Deed ; but it is quite as effective for my present use, as it would be had it been signed. There are attached to it the signatures of two men. Thomas Harris and John Sayles, cer- tifying that the Deed was "Signed and Delivered in the presence of us". This was a convenience invented by William Harris, who must have written the Document : it saved him the trouble of actually bringing the Indians who were to sign and the witnesses together. This document is most important in establishing the Forgery of the Arnold Deed, and of Harris's knowledge of the Forgery; it admits the bounds fixed by Miantinomi in. or about, 1642, Sugar Loaf Hill and Hipses rock, etc .; it makes these two unknown Indians confirm this act: and lastly it contains this ridiculous language, "Allsoe we assent to, and confirme, the act of seale that Canonacoe made to Roger Williams for the thirteen purchasers".
How could these unknown and ignorant Indians affirm that Roger Williams bought from Conanicus and Miantinomi lands in 1636-7 "for the thirteen purchasors"? There were not, at the time, but seven persons, not all of these men, in the entire company.
Again, Mr. Harris writes: "These bear witness that I, Mos- compowes ; and I. Twopowes, assent to the acts of Myantenomye to the thirteen ( 13) men." The only acts of Miantinomi alone, in any of these land transactions, were the fixing in his own person the bounds of the lands conveyed to Williams by himself ( Mian- tinomi ) and Canonicus. these bounds being "Sugar Loaf Hill to Hipses Rock." etc .. and the Deed of Showomet; but the latter Deed ran to eleven. but not to thirteen men. Hence Ilarris admits the bounds by Miantinomi in 1642, and at- tempted to use these Indians in confirmation of them. Again, he admits them. Harris makes these Indians say, "We sell and con- firm to William Harris that right of ours, namely, two of the thir- teen parts in all the said lands up the streame of Pautucksette river. about miles more or less, to the side of Providence lands on the north: and, or. one any other point" (Coll. R. I. Hist. Soc. 10. p. 48). The line of the Providence lands on the north and extend-
97
HARRIS KNEW "THE LITTLE OLD BOUNDS."
ing west would touch Wionkeige Hill. Harris admits knowledge of their existence in 1657. He again admits knowledge of their existence, in 1677, by this language: "Mr. Dexter and Capt. Fenner are, and have been, very active and underhand another design for by pretence of Providence little old bounds, much stood upon, wherein Gregory Dexter could not in his understanding against jurisdiction, by the same, claim his land; his due would by force, if he could overthrow that title for a worce, but bigar." (Col. R. J. Hist. Soc., 10 (Harris Papers), 200.) This shows that Harris knew these ancient bounds when he assisted in the Forgery of the Deed. Had Harris succeeded in his claims, both Arthur Fenner and Gregory Dexter would have lost the titles, whatever their value, which they then held. The Arnold Forged Deed denied, in effect, their existence in 1658. Again, how could these two unknown Indians have ever bought "two of the thirteen parts"? The duplicity of William Harris is clear and absolute. Of what force is Paine's Denial of the Forgery in the face of this document, which but for his "foresight" in copying and print- ing it we might never have known? It convicts Harris of a guilty knowledge. But Paine admits the Forgery thus, "As the date 1639 appears on both the 1658 and 1662 records of the Town Evidence, and is not to be found on the original paper, this is called a forgery and possibly may be so considered" ( Paine's Denial, p. 56) ; again, "As to the statement that Benedict Arnold in a case tried forty years after the writing of the clause denied his signature, no quota- tion of the words by Arnold is given, nor a copy of the paper presented, we ought not to be thus asked to accept this as a forgery without some authority" (Paine's Denial, p. 54). By a singular fatality Mr. Paine has himself supplied me with the evidence. "Mr. Benedict Arnold upon his engagement saith ye name subscribed in the paper where the Evidence of Providence (original Deed) is, was not his hand wrighteing" (Col. R. I. Hist. Soc. 10, p. 56). Mr. Paine admits the Treachery of Arnold (Denial, pp. 28-39). Con- cerning the first paragraph above, Paine says. "The date 1639 ap- pears on both the 1658 and 1662 records". There was no 1658 record, nor does the date 1639 appears on the 1662 record. These are fair specimens of Paine's statements of facts. Inadequacy in
98
HARRIS, AS WILLIAMS SAW HIM.
the use of language prevents me from a proper characterization of : these transactions. Roger Williams shall assist me, for besides being a clear and pungent writer, he was an eye witness of what was said and done.
"If all be divulged, that may be produced and proved, there was hardly ever in New England, W. Harris his equal for monstrous evils in land business," written by Mr. Williams in 1669 under the full light of these terrible iniquities (R. I. Hist. Tract, Ist Ser. 14, p. 41). Again, "Ilis covetous and ambitious ends so taken notice of, and cried out on, by the barbarians for such monstrous cheating and stealing of their countrey" (R. I. Hist, Tract, Ist Ser. 14, p. 44). Again, "His monstrous Diana, up streams without limits so that he might antedate and prevent, as he speaks, the blades of Warwick" (Narr. Club 6, p. 392). Mr. Williams here means that by dividing the lands into the Providence and Pawtuxet divisions in 1638, and the forgery of the date 1639, to the memorandum ; and the forgery of the names Roger Williams and Benedict Arnold to the memorandum at the bottom of the Deed; and by the pretended "Combynatione" line of 1640, Harris and Arnold had attempted to antedate Gorton and Greene in the Showomet and Occupasnetuxet purchases, both having been made in 1642.
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.