USA > Vermont > Early history of Vermont, Vol. III > Part 20
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
308
EARLY HISTORY
that immediately after the settlement of the pro- vince of lower Canada was commenced by the French, their Jesuit missionaries went among the natives of the forest with the purpose of bringing them over to the interest of the French and induce them to embrace the Roman Catholic faith-in this they were successful, and as early as 1670, they induced a large portion of the Mohawk tribe to emigrate to the province of lower Canada near Montreal, where they swore allegiance to the French Government. That portion of the tribe that did not emigrate, were firm friends of the En- glish during the French and English war and re- mained so till after the American Revolution, when they emigrated to the province of upper Canada. The Commissioner reached the conclusion that that portion of the tribe, that emigrated to lower Can- ada known as the Coughnawagas are the right- ful claimants upon Vermont for compensation for their lands, and said there was but very little ev- idence that the Iroquois had ever parted with the title to their lands in Vermont. The habits and cus- toms of the Indian tribes were such that the occu- pation of any territory for the purpose of hunting and fishing rendered the possession of that terri- tory as really theirs as though they had cultivat- ed fields, and built houses. If they parted with the title to their lands it had been usually for a mere pittance.
At the October Session of the Legislature of 1855, the Senate passed a bill appropriating $5000 to discharge the Indian claim but the House did not concur. The bill was again pre-
-
309
OF VERMONT.
sented in 1856, but it was rejected. A deputation of Indians again appeared at the session of the Legislature in 1857, but the claim was not pressed for allowance. On October 13, 1874, delegates of the Iroquois of Caughnawaga, St. Regis, and of the lake of Two Mountains again urged their claim before the Legislature for the quantity of land heretofore described of about 2,240,000 acres and for which they demanded the sum of $89,600. The committee to whom the claim was referred, re- ported a resolution in which it was stated that if such claim ever existed it was extinguished by the treaty between France and Great Britain in 1763, and by the treaty between Great Britain and the United States in 1783;" and that the Indians have no legal or equitable claim or interest in the lands. The resolution was adopted by the House and concurred in by the Senate.
The more one investigates the claim of the Caughnawagas to land in Vermont the clearer it will become to him that the claim stands upon a slim foundation; it is evident that if they ever had a substantial right it had been lost or extinguish- ed. The Iroquois from whom the Caughnawagas sprang had a government and laws though not ex- pressed in writing, but were nevertheless under- stood by every tribe and individual of their na- tion. According to those laws, the fee of their land was in the nation, and every tribe had only the use of the land within its boundary and every Indian had only the use of that which he actually occupied and improved. When the Caughnawagas left the Mohawk nation, they could sell their im-
-
:
310
EARLY HISTORY
provements, but when they emigrated they neces- sarily abandoned the land to the nation. The same law covered the territory conquered by the Iroquois. The abandonment of the Mohawks, of the land formerly occupied by the Caughnawagas, was conclusive against the latter and their de- scendants. In 1775 the Mohawks voluntarily abandoned all their territory in New York and re- moved to Canada, selling to New York in 1795, whatever interest they had in the lands. The Vermont lands were abandoned by the Indians at the same time they abandoned the New York lands, if not before with like effect. The Mohawks since their removal to upper Canada have never asserted any claim to Vermont land, and it would seem absurd that the Caughnawagas, descendants from the Mohawks, should assert a claim that the Mohawks themselves never made. The claims of the Caughnawagas, either in their own right, or in the right of the Iroquois of New York, can not be sufficiently supported by anything they have ad- vanced, or that has been found in the history of the Iroquois of New York, or Vermont. It should be stated that the ancestors of Indians who claim- ed compensation for lands in Vermont left their ancient hunting ground and emigrated to Canada about the year 1676, and placed themselves under the Crown of France and soon after swore alle- giance to his Majesty's government, became allies of the French and the enemies of the English Col- onies. The lands for which compensation was claimed was found vacant at an early day, and grants of land were made to the people of Vermont,
311
OF VERMONT.
first by the Governor of New Hampshire; then New York claimed the territory of Vermont upon the ground that it was a part of the Dutch pro- vince from which the British succeeded by conquest. and that the Dutch before the conquest purchased the territory from the Indians; and subsequently New York made grants of land extending upon Vermont territory without requiring a previous purchase from the Indians, which is strong proof against the existence of any title of the claimants for compensation through their ancestors. And then again, many of the early settlers of Vermont, after purchasing their lands from New Hampshire repurchased them of New York; and finally Ver- mont extinguished the New York title if they had any, by paying that State the $30,000 in the settlement of the controversy with that State.
The board of trade at London declared that the government of New York by an agreement with the Iroquois Indians granted lands on both sides of Lake Champlain, to a very great extent to British subjects, previous to 1731. The claim of the Indians on Vermont was not made till 1798, twenty years subsequent to the organiza- tion of the State. If they had had a beneficial claim against Vermont, it is fair to assume, it would have been made before. The claim advanc- ed against New York "by the St. Regis and Caughnawaga Indians, in 1792, to a vast tract embracing most of the territory between the Mo- hawk and the St. Lawrence, was urged for sev- eral years with great pertinacity. This claim not only embarrassed the title to the lands of the set-
312
EARLY HISTORY
tlers, but it agitated the public mind from the ex- treme terror which prevailed in the exposed settle- ments of savage hostility. Just and vigilant in- vestigation amply established the conclusion that these tribes never possessed a title to the tract, but that the Iroquois were the original proprie- tors who had long before alienated it to the whites by treaty or sale." It is obvious from this and other New York records, that that State rejected all claims of the Cognawagas as descend- ants, and descendants from the Iroquois; no record had been found showing any concessions were ever made to the Cognawagas in respect to the lands in question, or that any rights were ever attempted to be transferred to them by the Iro- quois or Mohawks. It is very evident that Vermont territory during the seventeenth century and for long before was not permanently occupied by any Indian tribes, but was used by the Iroquois as a hunting ground to some extent. The reason why it was not permanently occupied, was in view of the facts that North-western Vermont was then, and had long been, the war-path of the Iroquois of New York; they were a power- ful tribe and it was impossible that the Cogna- wagas or any Indians hostile to the Iroquois, could have had any continuous occupation of that portion of Vermont even for a hunting ground. From 1735 to 1744, was a period when the King of France assumed jurisdiction of Western Ver- mont and recognized no right to the land of the Cognawagas or any other tribe, for even hunting and fishing, except in subjection to his grantees.
313
OF VERMONT.
subsequent to 1744. Vermont was again the the- atre of war and the allies of the French could not have gained peaceable possession of Vermont lands adjacent to Lake Champlain. Even Cham- plain says in his account of his first visit to this lake in 1609, "that here the country was former- ly inhabited, but it was at that time to a great extent abandoned on account of the continued wars." There is strong evidence it was never in- cluded within the Iroquois country and that proves that Lake Champlain was the eastern boundary of the Iroquois territory. E. P. Wal- ton says, there are many maps covering the Iro- quois country and but one has been found which includes North-western Vermont, and that the proof is overwhelming that the Iroquois never oc- cupied or resided in Vermont, and, therefore, any claim of the Cognawagas on that ground is dis- proved, and they never had in their own right such possession or use of the land as would entitle them to compensation.
There was a branch of the Mohegans called the Stockbridge branch, deriving their name from the tribes of that name in Massachusetts and New York where they formerly resided, who claimed twelve or more townships of land, situated on the west line of the province of New Hampshire, as chartered by Benning Wentworth. These lands were in the south-western part of Vermont. On Nov. 30, 1767, a subscription was made at Bennington to discharge the claim whenever it should be proven.
In 1779, an Indian claim was made by Asa
314
EARLY HISTORY
Douglass to Gov. Chittenden. This proved to be a claim of the Moheakunnuk, the Stockbridge In- dians whose territory was described as "west of the Connecticut river, extending a short distance west of the Hudson, and into the State of Ver- mont." This made them next neighbors to the Mohawks, and in fact the tribe was ultimately to have a home in the Iroquois nation. This claim was finally discharged by a grant to these Indians by Vermont, of the township of Marshfield. This was the only Indian claim to land in Western Vermont until the Cognawagas made their claim in 1768.
CHAPTER XI.
THE PLACE OF HOLDING THE LEGISLA- TIVE SESSIONS, THE CAPITOL AND LIBRARY BUILDINGS, AND SU- PREME COURT ROOM.
While Vermont stood as an independent State or Nation from 1777, to the time it was admitted into the Federal Union in 1791, there was no place fixed by statute for meeting and holding the sessions of the Legislature: as it was expressed in the legislative act of 1791, there were no places of "residence of the Legislature; it had no seat of government-no State House. Previous to the passage of that act the Legislature met in different places about the State as was most con- venient and as would meet the wishes of the mem- bers of the Legislature. The Legislature met and its sessions were held as follows: at Windsor in March and October 1778, February and April 1781, June 1782, February 1783, October 1785, and October 1791; at Bennington in February 1779, October 1780, June 1781, January 1782, February 1784 and 1787, and January 1791; at Manchester October 1779, 1782 and 1788; at Westminster March 1780, October 1783, and 1789; at Charlestown, N. H., October 1781; at Rutland in October 17844 and 1786; at Norwich
(315)
RETTOKHU
316
EARLY HISTORY
in June 1785; at Newbury in October 1787, and at Castleton in October 1790. The Governor and Council also met in special sessions at Bennington in June 1778, November 1779, July and August 1780, and June 1790; at Arlington in April and December 1779, February, June and July 1780, March and April 1781, May 1782, and April, May and June 1783; at Windsor in July 1779, March 1786, and May 1801; at Manchester in January 1780; at Shaftsbury in March 1782, and April 1784; at Rutland in August 1788, and March 1799; and at Fairhaven in March 1789."
On November 1, 1791, an act was passed de- claring in the preamble, that a "great inconven- ience and expense have arisen to this State by rea- son of having no fixed place for holding the sess- ions of the Legislature, and that no place near the center is sufficiently settled to accommodate the same," and therefore designated Rutland for the session of 1792, and after that at Windsor and Rutland alternately for the space of eight years, and also provided that the then next adjourned session should be holden at Windsor, and after that alternately at Rutland and Windsor for the space of eight years. The regular October sess- ions of 1792, 1794 and 1796 were held at Rut- land, and in 1793, and 1795 were hield at Wind- sor. This covered but five years of the eight, and the only adjourned session was held at Rutland in February 1797, instead of at Windsor as the act of 1791, provided it should be. This was caused by the repeal of the act of 1791, in 1796. In fact Rutland and Windsor were subsequently selected
٠ ١٠٠
317.
OF VERMONT.
as the places of the meeting of the Legislature but not exclusive of other towns. Before the Legis- lature was permanently located at Montpelier. the sessions were held at Rutland in February 1797, and October 1804; at Windsor in October 1797, and in 1799, and January 1804; at Ver- gennes in 1798; and at Middlebury in 1800 and in 1806; at Newbury in 1801, Burlington in 1802, Westminster in 1803, Danville in 1805, and at Woodstock in 1807.
The act of 1791, located the sessions at Wind- sor and Rutland and on condition that those towns should at their own expense furnish wood and sufficent houses for the reception of the Legis- lature. At Windsor a "meeting house" was fur- nished and at Rutland a "State House" was fur- nished for the use of the Legislature.
In the General Assembly on October 1803, Sol- omon Wright of Pownal, Samuel Porter of Dum- merston, Samuel Shaw of Castleton, William Perry of Hartland, Amos Marsh of Vergennes, Thomas Porter of Vershire, Udney Hay of Under- hill, Reuben Blanchard of Peacham, Benjamin Holmes of Georgia, Samuel C. Crafts of Crafts- bury and Daniel Dana of Guildhall on the part of the House, and Noah Chittenden of Jericho, James Witherell of Fairhaven, Eliakim Spooner of Weath- ersfield and Lieut. Gov. Paul Brigham of Norwich on the part of the Council, were appointed a com- mittee to take into consideration the expediency of the measure of establishing a permanent seat for the Legislature and report by bill or otherwise. Paul Brigham for the committee reported. "that
-- -
318
EARLY HISTORY
in their opinion there ought to be appointed a committee consisting of a member from each County, to be nominated by the several County Conventions, as County officers are, for the pur- pose of examining and fixing upon the most prop- er place for a permanent seat of government and to report at the next session of the Legislature." And accordingly such a committee was appointed.
On November 12, 1803, a bill entitled an act appointing the committee named to fix a place for a permanent seat for the Legislature was be- fore the Legislature, but it went over to the ad- journed session when it was again under con- sideration and went over to the next regular session. On November 6, 1804, a new bill on the subject of place for a permanent seat of govern- ment was presented but it went over to the next session.
On October 15, 1805, the new bill was referred to a committee of one member from each County, joined by a committee from the Council, who re- ported "that they were unanimously agreed on the expediency of the measure of fixing a perma- nent seat, and that they have also agreed on the town of Montpelier, as being the most conven- ient place for the accommodation of the State at large;" and recommended that a bill be drafted accordingly. A bill was introduced on the 6th, and after some amendments the bill was passed Nov. S, 1805, and it became a law and is as fol- lows :-
"An act establishing the permanent Seat of the Legislature at Montpelier.
319
OF VERMONT.
"SECTION 1. It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont, That Elijah Paine [of Williamston, ] Ezra Butler [of Water- bury, ] and James Whitelaw [of Ryegate,] be, and they are hereby appointed a committee to fix up- on a place in the town of Montpelier, for the erection of buildings for the accommodation of the Legislature of this State, and to prepare a plan for such buildings.
"SEC. 2. And it is hereby further enacted, That if the town of Montpelier, or other individual per- sons, shall, before the first day of September, which will be in the year of our Lord one thous- and eight hundred and eight, erect such buildings on the place designated by the aforesaid com- mittee, to their acceptance, and shall compensate said committee for their services, and also convey to the State of Vermont, the property of said buildings and the land whereon they shall stand, and lodge the deed of conveyance, duly executed, in the Secretary of State's office, then, and in that case, said buildings shall become the permanent seat of the Legislature, for holding all their sessions.
"SEC. 3. Provided nevertheless, and it is hereby further enacted, That if any future Legislature shall cease to hold their sessions in said town of Montpelier, those persons, who shall erect said buildings, and convey the property of the same, and of the land as aforesaid, shall be entitled to receive from the treasury of this State, the full value of the same, as it shall be, then, fairly ap- praised."
320
EARLY HISTORY
It will be noticed that no provision was made in said Act for raising money to erect the Capitol building. The Legislature made Montpelier the permanent seat of the Legislature for holding all their sessions with two conditions: first, that Montpelier should give the land for a Capitol, and build the house by the first of September, 1808: and second, that if a future Legislature shall cease to hold their session in Montpelier, the State shall pay to Montpelier the value of the property.
At a legally warned meeting of the freemen of Montpelier a committee was chosen to receive subscriptions and donations for a State House and to superintend the building of the same at the expense of the subscribers; by the action of this meeting the town was not to be made liable either to pay for the House or to compensate the com- mittee for their services. The individual subscrip- tions received and expended by the committee amounted to $6,138.88, the most of which was paid in produce, neat stock, materials, and labor; but in the spring of 1808, it became absolutely necessary to have money for the purchase of glass and nails, and to finish the house, and on May 12, 180S, a meeting was warned and held at which the town voted to raise a tax of four cents on the dollar of the inhabitants of the town on the list of 1807, "two thirds part payable in grain, butter. and cheese, at cash price to the State House com- mittee on or before the third day of October next. and one third in specie or current bank bills, or orders from said committee, or receipts or orders from Sylvanus Baldwin," which sums were to be
OF VERMONT. 321
applied towards the completion of the State House under the direction of the committee. This tax raised $942.79. In proceeding to collect the tax, the constable met Samuel Rich, a sharp and substantial inn-keeper residing in the town, who refused to pay his tax on the ground that the town had no authority to tax to build a State House. This legal point was regarded as well taken, and for a time was alarming; the Hon. Daniel Baldwin, then a minor, was appointed to collect the tax, and the opposition was with- drawn, and the tax cheerfully paid by the people.
The land for the State House grounds was conveyed to the State by Thomas Davis of Mont- pelier on August 23, 1SOS, and was described as follows: being part of a tract of land known by the description of Colonel Jacob Davis' lower pitch, containing two acres, bounded as follows, to wit: beginning on the northerly side of the Turnpike road leading from said Montpelier to Burlington, so far westerly of a large brick house lately built by said Thomas Davis that a line turning northerly at right angle with said road will pass by said house one half rod westerly therefrom, thence northerly on right angle with said Turnpike road sixteen rods, thence westerly a parallel line with said road twenty rods, thence southerly on a right angle sixteen rods to said Turnpike road, thence eastwardly on the north- erly side of said road twenty rods to the place of beginning, together with the buildings thereon, lately erected for the accommodation of the Leg- islature of the State of Vermont. The "large
21
1
322
EARLY HISTORY
brick house lately built by said Thomas Davis," referred to in said deed to the State was the orig- inal Pavilion hotel, which was then the largest, most thoroughly constructed, and most elegantly finished hotel in the State. The grantor of said deed died December 17, 1864, in his 96th year of age.
The first State House was erected and finished on the grounds selected at Montpelier, to the sat- isfaction of the committee appointed by the Legis- lature, the first day of September 1808, and occu- pied by the Legislature on October 13, 1808, and it continned to be the Capitol until it was super- ceeded in October 1836. It was a three story building, well constructed of wood and covered a space of 50 by SO feet on the ground and 36 feet high above the basement, surmounted by a belfry. The Representatives hall occupied all of the second story except the vestibule. The hall was warmed by a large stove in front of the speaker's desk. The Council Chamber was in the southeastern part of the third story, and was furnished with a table and chairs for fifteen members of the board includ- ing the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, and Sec- retary. In rear of the Council Chamber, over the hall of the House, was a large room called "Jef- ferson Hall," which was used by canvassing com- mittees and for caucuses; and from this hall there was access to several smaller committee rooms. E. P. Walton, in his Governor and Council, says of the House, "were not the dry pine benches too strong temptations for the gratification of the Yankee propensity for whittling, the first State
:
323
OF VERMONT.
House would have been good for half a century at least. The truth is, this old house was literally whittled out of use. The holes were too big for putty and paint, and too ugly to be agreeable, So a new house was indispensable, while, in all but the seats, the old was not half worn out."
The first meeting of the Legislature at Mont- pelier in the new State House was honored by all the ceremonies and courtesies, civil and military, that were possible. The election sermon was by Rev. Tilton Eastman. Escort duty was perform- ed "by United States troops, under the command of Colonel Larned Lamb of Montpelier, who at that time had received a commission in the U. S. Army and raised a company. A large number of people attended to witness the opening of the Leg- islature and the proclamation of the State officers, and but a very small part of them could gain ad- mission to the House. Colonel Lamb's company had filed in after the representatives and occupicd the back seats of the hall of the house, when Mr. William Templeton objected strongly to the pres- ence of United States troops to the exclusion of the freemen of the State, and especially of those who had contributed for the building of the State House. He was clamorously seconded, and the troops were ordered to withdraw from the hall."
Several attempts were made to remove the State House from Montpelier. At the session of 1810, when the bill constituting a new County by the name of Jefferson (now Washington) was be- fore the House, the following amendment to the bill was offered:
324
EARLY HISTORY
"Provided nevertheless, And it is hereby further enacted, That this act shall not take effect, nor said county of Jefferson be organized, nor any Su- preme court hold any session therein, until the in- habitants of said county hereby created, shall pay to the inhabitants of said Montpelier, and other individuals, who assisted in building the state- house in said Montpelier, the full value of said state-house and the land on which it stands, so as to discharge the state from all liability to pay said value upon the legislature's ceasing to hold its session at said Montpelier; and be free from all obligations to hold any future sessions at said Montpelier, and be at libery to hold their sessions in any part of this state which they shall think proper, without incurring any expense to the State in any way, on account of said state-house, and the said inhabitants of said county, so soon as they shall have paid for said state-house as afore- said, and shall have rendered the said Legislature free to hold their sessions out from said Mont- pelier, without expense to this state, shall be en- titled to receive from this state all the right and title this state has to said state-house and the land on which it stands," but the amendment pro- posed was rejected. On November 3, 1812, on mo- tion of Titus Hutchinson of Woodstock, a com- mittee was ordered to inquire into the expediency of repealing the act of 1805, which made Mont- pelier the Capitol, and fixing upon some other place or places for holding the sessions; the. com- mittee reported that the subject ought to be re- ferred to the then next session, and this was
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.