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 9
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
There is further evidence that Arnold was scheming to get pos- session of the Showomet lands by a fraudulent transfer. On the 9th October, 1645, Arnold placed on record in Boston a pretended Deed of lands from Socononoco to himself (W. Arnold) and Robert Cole, and William Carpenter of lands lying on and between the rivers Pawtuxet, Pocasset and Wanasquatucket. The last line of this Deed reads: "This was by an absolute Deed dated 30 (II) 1(41". The plain purpose of Arnold was to antedate the Gorton purchase, the Deed of which was dated 12th January, 1642. Arnold's Deed was never recorded in Providence, and was to be effective after the Arnolds had thrown the Colony into the possession of Massachusetts. This Arnold Deed is a sham from start to finish and is well worth study (Suffolk Deeds, Boston 1, 63). The adroitness of Arnold's work in the fixing of this date will appear when it is known that while antedating the Gorton purchase of
99
WILLIAMS TELLS WHAT HE REALLY BOUGHT.
Showomet, it saved to John Greene his individual purchase of Occupussnatuxet. Greene was a Showomet owner, hence Arnold's purpose was to weaken Greene's opposition to his purpose. This matter has been carefully considered by the present writer in an- other place ( Book Notes 5, 70).
The "monstrous Diana" refers to a fabled goddess of the most ancient Greeks, who, like Feronia of the Italians, was looked upon as the goddess of the "lower world," otherwise Hades; but while on the surface of the earth loved to dwell in groves and along the streams, and in the spring of running waters. The "Blades" of Warwick may be defined as "brisk, mettlesome, sharp, keen, active young men ( Wright's Provincial Dicty.). Again, concerning this memorandum at the bottom of the Deed, Mr. Williams says : "After . Miantinomi had set our bounds in his own person (about 16.42) one amongst us recorded a memorandum of a courtesy added upon request (to these bounds) by Miantinomi; it had no date, nor the Sachems' knowledge, nor hand, nor witnesses" (Narr. Club 6, 387). What was that but a rank forgery.
Again, concerning the extent of his purchase, Mr. Williams says : "By the Sachems' grant to me, of an abundant sufficiency to myself and my friends; for those were the terms; and in reason cannot be imagined otherwise, I never understood infinite and boundless mat- ters; no nor twenty miles; but what was of realty counted suffi- cient for any plantation, or town in the country."
"As to Warwicks 20 mile I even tooke it to be a mistake, like other grand mistakes betweene ve English and ye natives. If it were so, & true at Warwick yet. As I said before, the Sachems and myself never intended such vast and monstrous business: but what .was usually allowed to the biggest towns in New Eng- land" (R. I. Hist. Traet, Ist Ser. 14, p. 30).
Again, "W. Harris hatlı robbed us, even by a kind of force, ever since the first birth of the towne, but to this day (1669) both our towns ( Providence and Warwick) and myself have been notoriously abused and robbed of that which is yours, and ought to be in your Records" (R. I. Hist. Tract, Ist Ser. 4, p. 14).
--
100
THE "SHORT" AND THE "LONG" BOUNDS.
The Bounds Set by Mlantinomi in 1642 to the Original Deed to Williams.
17
, Sugar Loaf Hill. 2 Buitt's Brow.
3. Observation Rock. 4 Absolute Swamp. 5.0x - Foord. b.Hipses Rock
1. Town of Masha paug.
14
615
0,6
Other Localities
? Sassafrax Point.
9 Pantuxet.
10 Providence.
11 Awumps Pond 12 Ponaganset Pond.
13 Upper Wanasquatucket
14 Aqueed nuck River. is Michnic Pond. 16 17
This little outline map of Rhode Island is introduced to give ocular demonstration of the stake for which William Harris and William Arnold, or the "Pawtuxet partners," were playing. The
IOI
WHAT THE OUTLINE SKETCH MEANS.
points numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 are the bounds set by Miantinomi in his own person in 1642, and knowledge of which is acknowledged by both William Harris and Roger Williams, as has been herein shown. No. 7 represents the town of Mashapaug as it stands in the manuscript of the original Deed. From No. 7 the line has been carried to the Pawtuxet river; the reason for this is that these lands had been occupied by Harris and by Arnold. We cannot show the area of the Indian town Mashapaug; but we do know that these lands were "impropriated" by the thirteen first proprietors, or by twelve of them, in 1638. No. 9 is the Falls of the Pawtuxet. No. 8 is Saxafrax point, with the line extending from it to the Indian towne Mashapaug, which Harris labored from 1640 until his death to have fixed by the people, and they refusing by the outside colonial courts. No. 10 is the town of Providence. No. 6 stands for Hipses rock and the Hill Notaquonckanet; the latter name stands in the original Deed. The remaining numbers, to wit, II, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, represent the utinost limits north, west, and south, fixed by Arnold and Harris in the Deed presented by them to the town government in 1658-the Forged Deed. These points cover the entire State as it now exists, north and west, and as far south as No. 16. This represents an artificial pond on the estate now owned by Stephen O. Metcalf in Exeter. The line north of the pond is .the south line of Kent County, and the dividing line between West Greenwich and Exeter. On the lands owned by Mr. Metcalf are two ponds, both artificial. One is the head waters of a stream which empties into Long Island Sound; and the other is the head waters in this section of the south branch of the Pawtuxet river.
Harris, and Arnold, and Carpenter had bought, and then owned, a large majority of the rights of the thirteen proprietors in the Pawtuxet "impropriation," and hence claimed all lands west, north and south as far as the river extended, under the Forgery. These three men would have individually owned more than one-half the State had they established their claim. They all died in the full belief that they had succeeded, and all made wills accordingly, all of which came to naught. Let me suggest again, with this outline sketch before us, two or three questions. Had Mr. Williams by
102
MEN OF PROVIDENCE-TENANTS BY FORCE.
Deed actually covered the points, beginning at (10) Providence and covering all the lands to 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, as Arnold and Harris alleged, would he have submitted to the bounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 fixed by Miantinomi and himself in 1642; or, had the genuine original Deed covered the points which they alleged, would Arnold and Harris and Carpenter under their wild craze for land have ever quietly submitted to the Miantinomi bound of 1642?
Again, had the Deed written by Williams, the original Dced, con- tained the clausc which they had interpolated, would it have been necessary to "impropriatc" the Pawtuxet meadows in 1638; or in what consisted the sense of the picayune line from Sasafras Point to Mashapaug pond there can be but one conclusion, the Arnold- Harris Deed of 1658 was an unblushing Forgery.
The period covered by these forgcries and attempted robberies by Harris and Arnold and the Pawtuxet partners has been described as being "one of the most confused in New England History". It would be well to consider what made it so confused in so small a portion of New England. There can be but one answer: it was the work of the "most influential of the founders of Rhode Island" engaged in a life-long struggle for the destruction of the Colony. It was the work of William Harris, assisted by William Arnold. Roger Williams thus describes this illustrious Founder: "W. Harris hath robbed us even by a kind of force ever since the birth of the townc". This may naturally have caused some confused conditions. But there was another cause, in a plea presented to the Court at Providence, which Court consisted of judges from the three outside Colonies then engaged in attempting to obtain posses- sion of the lands of the Colony. In this plea Harris uses this phrase, "They of Providence, Tenants by Force (and in a preced- ing paper, "Trespassers"), Arthur Fenner and his party under yc name of a town," ctc. (Coll. R. I. Hist. Soc. 10, 251). Consider for a moment the meaning of this phrase used by Harris and applied to every man owning his house in the town, and whether it might not justify a "confused" condition.
A tenure, whether in lands or tenements, was derived originally from the Crown ; therefore the King is Lord immediate, or mediate. of all tenures (Coke's Institutes, First, 1719, p. IOS). Hence a
103
WHY CALLED "CONFIRMATION" DEEDS.
Tenant by Force was one who held his lands or tenements in viola- tions of the legal tenures of England, and thus was wrongfully in possession. By this phrase Harris denied the ownership of every man of his own home in Providence-every one of the (12) twelve first proprietors, held by virtue of a Deed from Roger Williams ; Williams alone hield by a Deed from the Sachems, Canonicus and Miantinomi. This was done under the jurisdiction of Charles the First. Parliament recognized these purchases in the charter of 1643; and Charles the Second again recognized them, and affirmed them, in the charter of 1663. Under such legal conditions, how could "the men of Providence be Trespassers and Tenants by Force," as Harris charged? He and his partners held under them, and they were themselves the same men ; hence by charging them with holding under a fraudulent title, he destroyed his own title.
In comparison, how much better in its foundation is the title of the men of Pawtuxet by impropriation, an absolute fraud and a monstrous robbery devoid of every legal principle known to English law ; nevertheless, on a perfect parity with every move made by both Harris and Arnold.
Mr. Harris took his idea of calling the three Indian Deeds of 1659 "Confirmation" Deeds from Coke's Institutes ( First part, 1719, P. 387), first published in 1628. Mr. Coke defines the word as "a conveyance or right in esse by which a voidable estate is made sure; or a particular estate increased ; but it strengthens not a void estate ; nor does it enlarge without privity".
Under this law "a particular estate might be increased," but it could not be enlarged by the new grantors without privity. The Narragansett Sachems of 1659 who signed these deeds had no privity, and hence under the English statute could not enlarge by "confirmation". Their confirmation consisting merely in making another sale and transfer of new lands, being led by deceit and fraud. They could not contest the fraud in an English court, and so the lapse of years fixed the title in the Freemen of the Colony. I have said these Sachems were without privity and could not legally enlarge. A person privy "must have an interest in an estate created by another." What interest had these Indians in the estate created by the English? Again, a person privy "must have
.
104
TITLES LAY IN "HIGHEST" SACHEMS. .
an interest from a contract or conveyance to which he is not him- . self a party." In what contract with the English did these Sachems have an interest ?
The Charter of 1663 fixed the principle that titles to Indian lands laid in the "Potent Princes," otherwise chief Sachems, of the tribes. These "Confirmation" Deeds obtained by Harris were signed only by such Sachems then in control. However little force they had in "confirming" the Arnold forgery, there was no limit to the actual sale to the "men of Providence, and the men af Pawtuxet" of all the lands which the tribe then owned in Rhode Island north of the north line of what is now Kent County. The exact point is a pond numbered 16 on the little sketch map preceding. The title to all the lands newly acquired, vested the moment the charter went into force in the Colony of Rhode Island.
The life work of the Arnold's and of William Harris had been the destruction of the Colony of Providence Plantations, and for the getting for themselves individual possession of the entire lands of the northern half ; it was for these reasons that they recorded their "fundamental" Deed at Boston, but never in Providence. They died never having actually secured a single acre, by virtue of these terrible frauds, and with the people of Rhode Island in full possession ; in truth, their work for the destruction was one of the chief factors in the preservation of the State.
It has been the custom of those who have hitherto written what has been called the history of New England to denounce the People of Rhode Island for their dissensions and quarrels among them- selves, and for their continuous refusals to unite in the formation of a government. Here the fundamental cause is for the first time set forth, for whatever of truth there was, or is, in these stories. For the first half century of their existence here the People had been harassed, and frightened, and kept in continuous turmoil for the preservation of their homes from the infamous treacheries and forgeries of the Arnolds, and Ilarris, and Carpenter, assisted. as they constantly had been, by the Boston religious oligarchy. It is time such work came to an end, and that the glorifications of the Arnolds and William Harris cease, at all events, in Rhode Island. This fact was noted by Chief Justice Staples in this language : "The
--
105
IT WAS A FORTY YEAR STRUGGLE FOR A HOME.
disputes and difficulties which have heretofore been traced from their rise to their final determination related solely to rights of property and soil" ( Annals of Providence, 593).
Before leaving the subject I must call attention with some detail to the Arbitration of 1657, for, while originally started upon an entirely different matter, it bears heavily and decisively upon the time of the Forgery.
Two years before the Forged Deed was first shown, or the "Con- firmation" Deeds obtained, an arbitration was appointed and a report made. This arbitration arose from the action of the Court of Com- missioners under the first charter, in May, 1656. There were four arbitrators, two from the Massachusetts and two from Newport. How they were related is not known. Their report was made 15th June, 1657, and is here given nearly entire. The Court of Com- missioners, now called the General Assembly, resolved that "There hath been differences between certain of our countrymen at Paw- tuxet and others of this Colony". The nature of these differences, so far as was then known, related to the subjection of William Arnold, Benedict Arnold, Robert Cole, and William Carpenter, and their lands to the Massachusetts Colony, lands in the heart of the Williams purchase, in the town of Providence, were held by these men without taxation for nearly seventeen years. Roger Williams in a letter to the Massachusetts government asserts this fact : "Our second request concerns two or three families at Pawtuxet, who, before our charter (of 1643), subjected themselves to your jurisdic- tion" (Col. Rec. 1, 343). Mr. Williams had before written to the Massachusetts government on this affair with much severity (Col. Rec. 1, 322). The time of this last letter was 15th November, 1655. The arbitration was authorized on the 23rd May, 1656. It was to be fixed in one month, and the report to be ready in three months. It was signed on the 15th June, 1657, thirteen months after the authorization. It is as follows:
"We whose names are hereunto subscribed being mutually chosen arbitrators to determine a case depending in controversy between several of the inhabitants of Providence, and others the inhabitants of Pawtuxet, concerning the titles of lands lieing at Patoturet afore- said, do declare our resolution and determination therein as fol- loweth,-
106
THE "ARBITRATION" OF 1657.
"That the parcel of land in controversy lying between Pawtuxet river, south; and Providence bounds, north; the Great Salt river, east ; and river called Pauchasett, west, shall be so divided from cast to west throughout that three parts, of Four shall be the proper lands of William Arnold, William Carpenter, and Zachariah Rhodes, to them and their heirs forever in full for the rights appertaining to them, or any of them by virtue of their shares with the thirteen purchasers, or any contract by them or any of them afterwards made, provided that this shall not prejudice the right of any of the thirteen purchasers in the five acre parcels first laid out; nor the right of a six acre parcel to be laid to the assignes of Francis Weston adjoining the aforesaid parcels; neither shall it prejudice the rights of any of the present possessors of meadows wherever within the tract before specified ; and further reserving a parcel of land near the Falls in Pantuxet river, called the Vineyard, to be in 'proporietic' to all the thirteen ; and the little neck lying each of the 'forsaid' Falls; and further excepting to Mr. John Sayles what is proper to him laid out within the premises; and also to William Harris all his share that belongs to him within the tract before bounded, that land already laid out to him is east of Pauchassett- river, and adjoining thereunto; and the other fourth part next Providence bounds shall belong to the rest of the thirteen purchasers provided that whatsoever part or parcel of meadow lying within this fourth part still belonging to the present proprietors thereof. All the lands lying west of Pauchassett river shall belong to the thirteen purchasers and their heirs forever, excepting William Arnold, William Carpenter, and Zachariah Rhodes;" who was a son-in-law of William Arnold, etc. ( Prov. Early Rec. 15, 94.) The purpose of calling these arbitrators must be recalled. The set- tlement of the jurisdiction over the persons and lands, both being at Pawtuxet, to wit, over William Arnold, William Carpenter, and Zachariah Rhodes, was the real question, and touching only lands lying at Pawtuxet. Instead of fixing the question of jurisdiction, it was not touched: but three-fourths of all the lands which came under the Sachems' Deed to Williams was given to these three men. Of course it came to naught. It is conclusive evidence that the Forged Deed did not exist in 1657, in that it excluded Arnold,
107
THE LEGAL IGNORANCE OF MEN.
Carpenter, Rhodes, and practically William Harris from all owner- ship in all lands west of Pocasset and of the Pawtuxet also. Such work was scandalous to all concerned. It was a concoction made by William Harris. If the Sachems' Deed to Roger Williams had in 1657 contained that language which is printed in italics on page 86 preceding, would Arnold and Harris have failed to produce it before them ; or would these arbitrators have used the bounds which they did use, thus, "That parcel of land lying between Pawtuxet river, south ; and Providence bounds, north ; the Great Salt river, east ; and a river called Pauchassett ( Pocasset), west"? The mere statement of the question is destruction to Arnold's story of his Forgeries and to his Forged Deed.
The following is Mr. Samuel G. Arnold's "History" of the affair : "It was agreed that the controversy with the Pawtuxet men should be closed by arbitration (21-23 May, 1656), after which they were to be received as Freemen of the Colony" (Arnold's History of Rhode Island, v. 1, 261). It would be quite impossible to write history more contrary to the facts than Mr. Arnold here wrote.
The Deed made, not by Williams, but by William Harris, William Arnold, and Thomas- Olney, either singly, or together, is a clear and absolute forgery in all its essential parts. The original does not exist, but it is the form always printed in all Rhode Island Histories. It was slow but sure in its development ; and developed always with a great show of legal knowledge by Harris. This show of legal knowledge was rotten from start to finish. There was not beneath this deed a genuine legal foundation as large as a fly's eye. Had the men of Providence possessed the slightest knowledge of English land tenures and the English law, Mr. Harris would have been instantly driven out of Rhode Island.
William Harris twice charges William Arnold with forgeries in the matter of Deeds. In his statement to the arbitrators in the matter of the Pocasset lands, July, 1670. Harris says: "The aforesaid arbytrators have known William Arnold to have had the writings thereof and delivered them defaced and Raced (erased)" (Coll. Ifist. Soc. 10, p. 99). Such work was Forgery. Again. Harris appealed to the King, IIth June, 1675, for a specially packed court and jury to try his case against the people of Rhode Island. In
...
. ...
108
HARRIS DECLARES THE FORGERY.
his appeal he said: "Some of our partners subjected themselves · and their lands to the jurisdiction of Massachusetts; and then by suit demanded the said lands. Our Evidence (the Original Deed) of the same lands being formerly committed to the said demandant ( William Arnold) to keep, was cut out, and pieced together on another paper" (Col. Hist. Soc., v. 10 ( Harris papers). p. 150). Here Harris admits Forgery; but charges it against Arnold. But Arnold tells a different story. On the 7th of 12 mo. 1658. when Arnold showed his Forged Deed in a town meeting, he said those two copies, to wit, William Harrises and Thomas Olneys, which hath in these words as followeth are the true words of that writing called the Towne Evidence of Providence; and that which is want- ing in the now writing called the Towne Evidence, which agreeth not with these two copies was torn by accident in his ( Arnold's) house at Pawtuxet. Thus Arnold admits that something was gone from the manuscript, and that he had inserted something different which had been supplies to him by Harris, or Olney, one or botli. This statement, which appears to have been made in 1658, appears on the Records in 1705. "Some of our partners" whom Harris says had subjected themselves and their lands to Massachusetts were William Arnold, Benedict Arnold, William Carpenter, and Robert Cole. William Arnold had obtained posession of this "Town Evi- dence". the original Deed, then seized and held it for many years. He held possession of it until it became a fixed fact that the Colony would seize and hold all his land, and that neither of the outside colonies could assist him. Then the four came back, or so many as were living. Cole, a miserable renegade forced upon us by the Massachusetts government, was dead. Very few men living in Providence in 1658 had ever seen this original Deed. The purpose of the Arnolds and Carpenter was to hold pos- session of this Deed. meantime secretly buying deeds from under Sachems and recording them at Boston. Then, when Massachu- setts had seized Providence and Warwick, the Arnolds and Car- penter would claim the actual ownership. The scheme failed. Then they continued the Forgery. It seems incredible that any student of Rhode Island history should publish a "Denial of the Charges of Forgery" in the light of such facts as are above stated. He admits
109
HARRIS SHOWS THE PARTNERSHIP.
that the date 1639 is not upon the original deed, and then says, "This is called a forgery, 'possibly' it may be so considered" (Denial, p. 56). Again, Mr. Paine says the tract now under criticism was written on the assumption that Williant Harris was a partner with William Arnold, and William Carpenter and others. This "assump- tion" is based upon the admission of Harris himself : "Some of our partners subjected themselves and their lands to the jurisdiction of Massachusetts" (Harris Papers, R. I. Hist. Soc. Coll. 10, p. 150). The four men who submitted were William Arnold, William Car- 'penter, Benedict Arnold, and Robert Cole. Mr. Paine then says : "The references that have been made to the original documents must have proved that this position is untenable ; and yet drop the name of William Harris from the story of the imputed partnership and the tract has lost its force" (p. 67). Mr. Paine's language is astounding. Again, he continues : "Many of the assertions are . based upon the theory of the forgeries, and as it is believed that it has been shown that the 'Forgery' theory is without substantial foundation, then the superstructure must fall when the foundation crumbles, and the assertions are stamped as untrue". But the faundations have not crumbled; and it depends upon who stamps my assertions as untrue whether they are overthrown. Harris charges Arnold with cutting out pieces of the original, and Arnold admits interpretating a clause written by Harris the purpose was to extend the limits of the lands covered by the Deeds and the bounds set by the men of Providence and Miantinomi. I will give you a clause from the laws of England of that day: "The making of any fraudulent alteration of the form of a true' deed in a material part of it is a Forgery". Again, "The Fraud and intention to deceive by imposing upon the world that as an act of another which he never consented are the chief ingredients which constitute this offence" (Bacon's Abridgment 2, p. 567). Such was Paine's work, and such are the facts; these facts were all in Paine's possession when he wrote his Denial. If he did not sufficiently understand the English language to comprehend them. he was not competent to state a historical fact ; if he understood them, and then wrote as he did. as a writer of history he is not to be believed. But the editors of this volume of the "Harris Papers" inform us that they "have had the
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.