History of Royalton, Vermont, with family genealogies, 1769-1911, Part 7

Author: Lovejoy, Mary Evelyn Wood, 1847-
Publication date: 1911
Publisher: Burlington, Vt., Free press printing company
Number of Pages: 1280

USA > Vermont > Windsor County > Royalton > History of Royalton, Vermont, with family genealogies, 1769-1911 > Part 7

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).

HISTORY OF ROYALTON, VERMONT

ter was compromised, according to the account of Mr. Child, by legislative enactment in 1787, directing the courts to be held at Windsor till the inhabitants of Woodstock should build a satis- factory court house.

The act of the legislature dividing Windsor county into two half shires was approved Oct. 27, 1790. The court houses were to be finished by the respective towns without any expense to the county, and ready for occupancy before the next term of court. The news of this action was hardly announced to the residents of the county, before an opposing element appeared, and secured the introduction into the House of an act to repeal this act of division. The House voted to repeal, Jan. 17, 1791, refused to refer to the next session, and sent it to the Governor and Council, who promptly refused to approve it, after hearing the attorneys of both parties, and sent it back for amendments. Amended, it ordered the two shires to remain in force three years, after which Woodstock was to be the shire town. This lively rivalry between Windsor and Woodstock resulted in les- sening the rate of taxation for the county, as each town sub- scribed liberally in erecting the required buildings.

There seemed to have been a mania for burning court houses in 1790, so much so that the legislature passed an act in 1791 recommending the governor to take effectual measures to "sup- press the recent villany of burning court houses." Woodstock lost her building by fire, October 24, 1791, possibly due to the warm controversy over the county seat. Mr. Henry Swan Dana in his History of Woodstock says that a negro was suspected of setting fire to the building, but the evidence was not strong enough to hold him. A new building was erected in 1793, which in turn was burned July 4, 1854, having caught fire from fire- crackers thrown on the roof. Another court house was erected the same year.

Before Woodstock was declared to be the shire town of Windsor county, regular sessions of the court were held at Wind- sor, but special sessions were itinerant like a hand-organ. When the cases were ground out in one town, the court moved on to another. This was true also of probate courts for some years, so that Royalton had its probate court sittings from time to time.

How much ground there was for the charges of a correspond- ent of the Woodstock Observer in the issue of August 7, 1827, cannot be affirmed. "For some time," he writes, "a few rest- less and aspiring individuals on White River have been brooding over a scheme for dividing the county of Windsor, and raising Royalton to the peerage. The magnets of the north assembled in that snug little village - and determined it to be expedient and advantageous and drew up a petition

HISTORY OF ROYALTON, VERMONT

to the legislature for a division of our ancient and honorable county, which they have since been circulating in the disaffected district for signatures." He adds that Orange, Caledonia, and Essex are to feel the knife, and "poor Essex is to be literally cut up and extinguished." He complains that, if the project suc- ceeds, the money spent on the jail and court house will be lit- erally thrown away, "all to gratify the whims of a few conceited county-makers in Royalton."

The Observer squarely charged, that efforts were making to constitute Royalton and Windsor shire towns. Another short article in the same paper stated, that a meeting was held the pre- ceding Saturday at Royalton to see how much those interested would put up for a "stone jug and court house." Mr. Spooner, who was then editing the Advocate in Royalton, in his next issue denied that any petition for a division of the county had been circulated, but owned that the matter had been discussed. He made light of the charges of the Observer, which fails to con- vince one that there was no such meeting.

Jacob Collamer was the town representative that year, and it is likely that he was one of the "magnets" referred to by the editor of the Observer. Certain it is, that he did present the petition of Elias Stevens and others for a division of the county to the next session of the Assembly, and ably advocated it, but it was postponed to the next session. This petition came before the Governor and Council Oct. 17, 1829, having enjoyed a leth- argic retirement for two years. It was referred to a committee raised on a bill for establishing a new county by the name of Cumberland. It seems to have relapsed into a state of insensi- bility from which it never recovered. The aspirations of Roy- alton were not realized, and she has ever since allowed Woodstock to enjoy the prestige of being the shire town unmolested.

CHAPTER VI.

BOUNDARIES.

It was more than half a century from the time Royalton was chartered by New York in 1769, before its inhabitants ceased to consider a change in its boundary. By the New York charter Royalton was to have 30,000 acres, and her territory included two whole ranges of lots, which are not hers today. She will, probably, always think with regret over the action of the "fathers of the town" in allowing such a divorcement of terri- tory. It is necessary to review the history relating to this loss, in order to understand how it ever occurred.

Although Royalton was loyal to the cause of freedom, she did not at first show such a respect for, and acquiescence in, the early proceedings of the new State, as most of the towns mani- fested. She did not make haste, as the saying goes, "to jump on to the band wagon." The General Assembly did not look upon the town with an especially favorable eye; therefore, when a new survey of the towns in the State was ordered, and the Surveyor General pared off a large slice of Royalton on the west, which had already been included in the Bethel charter, and a thinner one on the east, and left a gore on the north, Royalton had to suffer without redress. She did not endure without a protest, though she seemed to care less for the loss on the west than on the east. A short history of the Bethel grant may explain this.

In the year 1777, on December 29th, eighteen "adventurers," as they styled themselves, among them Comfort Sever of Han- over, and Benjamin Day of Royalton, met in that hot-bed of rest- lessness, Dresden, and organized into a company for the purpose of settling a new tract west of the Connecticut river. The next day they again met and voted to petition the Honorable Council of Safety for a charter for the northwesterly part of Royalton, and that part of Middlesex (part of Bethel and Randolph) which abutted on Royalton, taking from Royalton a tract two and one- half miles in breadth, the whole to be about six miles square. In their meeting the next day, they named the tract Bethel, and chose Comfort Sever treasurer.

HISTORY OF ROYALTON, VERMONT

In their petition they say that they understand these lands were granted by the late Governor of New York, contrary to royal proclamation, to certain persons, the greater part of whom have gone over to the enemy. In a note it is stated, that before the petition was presented to the Council of Safety, Mr. Com- fort Sever was employed by a number of the members to apply to the inhabitants of Royalton for their consent to the annexation of the two and a half miles then forming the northwesterly part of the town. He reported that, in talking with the principal inhabitants, they appeared willing, but upon further consulta- tion, they informed Mr. Sever that they would consent to the annexation of the two tiers of 300-acre lots on the northwest, leaving Royalton six miles square. It was said that Mr. Sever had received a letter from the town clerk of Royalton to that effect. This report did not reach the proprietors, until the peti- tion had been sent in, and they say that they now expect only the two tiers of 300-acre lots.

On February 11th the number of subscribers was increased to fifty. Abel Curtis was appointed to look up the ownership of the land. He was instructed to see the New York proprietors, and buy the land, if he could. The lots insisted upon were 49, 56, 57, 47, 48, and a common lot. The other lots named included all in the two tiers except 50 and 59. They chose John Payne an agent to attend the Assembly at Windsor, Mar. 17, 1778.

Mr. Curtis found Mr. Banyar at Livingstone Manor, where William Smith was a prisoner. Messrs. Banyar and Smith would sell their lots nearest the river for eighteen shillings an acre, and the others, for fourteen shillings, Y. C. He did not buy, but got a refusal of the lots until June 15.

The agent that was sent to the Assembly reported, that that body would grant their petition as soon as the circumstances of the State would admit of it. A membership of forty-six was required, and $2000 on loans was to be paid into a Loan Office to be established in the State. This sum was raised, April 28, 1778. A committee was chosen at the same time to survey the proposed town, and this committee reported on May 19, that they employed Mr. Zenas Colman, and as they could not find the upper bounds, they hired Esquire Marsh of Sharon. They voted to buy all lots embraced within said line of Bethel, except such lots as belonged to persons inimical to the United States. They chose Capt. Abel Marsh to go to New York and buy the lots of Messrs. Smith, Banyar, and Livingstone. This agent re- ported June 30, that Gov. Livingstone was not at his own home, and could not get at his writings, but he took the agent's name, and assured him, that any settlers going on his land would be well used. Mr. Banyar conveyed lots 56, 57, 44, 45, 46, 54; Mr.

HISTORY OF ROYALTON, VERMONT

Smith, 47, 48, 43, 52. Eighteen shillings in silver or gold or New York currency equal to it were to be paid in four years for each of lots 56, 57, 47, and 48, and fourteen shillings for the others.

Comfort Sever resigned as proprietor in 1779, and Zebulon Lyon was added. John Payne received from the Governor and Council on Dec. 23, 1779, the charter for Bethel. This was the first town grant made by the new State of Vermont.

The survey set forth in the charter began at a point six and one-half miles on a straight line, N. 61 degrees west from the northwest corner of Sharon, thence south 33 degrees west six miles, sixty rods, thence north 61 degrees west six miles, thence north 33 degrees east six miles and sixty rods, thence south 60 degrees east six miles to the point making the first bound.

From the foregoing it is plain that the original New York proprietors still owned in 1777 the land in the two tiers bor- dering Bethel, and they must have also held a large part of the rest of Royalton. The inhabitants might have petitioned the Assembly for a new charter to include this land, but there were reasons, no doubt, why this did not seem advisable at this time. The town was already chartered, the residents had probably, in most cases, paid for their individual holdings, and felt it to be un- just to have to pay a second time. It was a repetition of the New York and New Hampshire controversy so far as paying twice for their land was concerned. They had no claim to the unoccu- pied land, and if they retained it as a part of the town, would have to buy it of the New York proprietors. Comparatively few in numbers, as they were at this time, that could scarcely have been possible. Besides, it was by no means certain that Vermont could maintain her right of statehood against New York and New Hampshire, and in case of failure, the charters granted by the state would be null and void. When all points are consid- ered, no blame will be attached to the inhabitants of Royalton for taking the action which they did, but they should rather be commended for saving so much of the original grant, as they succeeded in doing.

Trouble over the boundary between Bethel and Royalton did not cease with the granting of the Bethel charter. The lines of the town had evidently followed the course of the Connecticut river, and did not run due north and south. The Royalton set- tlers may have consciously or unconsciously infringed upon the Bethel land, for in May, 1787, a committee was appointed by Bethel to prosecute any person that should interfere over the old lines of Bethel. Some towns in the State were much dis- satisfied with the new survey made by the Surveyor General, and the Assembly was deluged with petitions begging for a change

HISTORY OF ROYALTON, VERMONT

in the survey or for the establishment of old lines. Both Roy- alton and Bethel were among the petitioners in June, 1785. The committee of the Assembly appointed to report on these petitions, declared that the lines were run according to charter, but advised the postponement of the establishment of them until the next General Assembly. Dea. Dudley "Chace" opposed the report, and it was dismissed. Then the House took up the petitions and dismissed them.

Meanwhile the charter had been granted to Royalton, and her boundaries had been established by it. The survey made by Joel Marsh agrees with the charter survey, viz .: "Begin at Sharon S. W. corner, thence N. 40 degrees E. 496 chains to Tun- bridge, thence N. 60 degrees W. 456 chains to Bethel, thence S. 40 degrees W. 496 chains on Bethel line to Barnard, thence S. 60 degrees E. 456 chains on Barnard line to the place of begin- ning, containing 22,320 acres."

In a petition to the Assembly regarding taxes, sent by sev- eral towns, including Bethel, Royalton, and Sharon, dated Oct. 2, 1784, one reason assigned for complaint was, that the Sur- veyor General had altered lines and taken their land from them in violation of the thirteenth article of the Bill of Rights.

The boundary lines established by her charter did not give Bethel the whole of the two tiers which had before formed a part of Royalton. By referring to the chart of Tunbridge Gore, it will be seen that a gore of considerable size was left between the two towns. Bethel petitioned the Assembly on Oct. 21, 1783, for a gore "that is Cut of from sd Bethel, containing about 1400 acres." She did not get it. In 1785, June 2, Silas Williams and Elias Stevens petitioned in behalf of Royalton to have the old lines established.

The town took action but once regarding the new survey, and seemed to leave the matter in the hands of the proprietors, until 1786, and then they did not consider boundaries, but bit- terly opposed taxation for the purpose of paying for running the new lines. The action of the proprietors respecting the new survey follows :

"These are to warn the Proprietors of the Township of Royalton to Meet at the house of Zebulon Lion on Monday the twenty ninth Day of this Instant Month at one of the Clok Afternoon

1st to Chose A moderator

2 to see if the Proprietors will Chose A Ajint to send to the Governor to see Conserning the Land that is Cut of from sd (town?) by the New Lines Run by the Sevare General

and to transact Any Other Bisness proper to be Done on sd Day By Order of the Perdential Committee

Elias Stevens Pr Clark"

HISTORY OF ROYALTON, VERMONT

"Sept 29th 1783

Met Acording to warning

1st Chose Calvin Parkhurst Moderator

2nd Chose Elias Stevens Ajint to go to the Governor to see him Conserning the Land that Is Cut of By sd New Lines Maid by the Servare General and to see whether he Cant Get the old Lines Estab- lished

3d Voted to Desolve this meeting

Elias Stevens Pr Clark"

The question naturally arises, Why did they petition the Governor instead of the Assembly? They may have had little hope of receiving attention from the legislators, or the old habit of referring disputes to their rulers may have actuated them. What they expected the Governor to do is not easily understood. They wanted the old lines established. To secure this, the Gov- ernor would either have to apply to the Assembly, or ride em- pirically over the decision of the Surveyor General. The meet- ing of the Assembly at Westminster was near at hand, and their first session opened October 9th. The work of the Surveyor Gen- eral was not finished, as on the 23d instant the Governor and Council concurred in an act to enable him "to compleat a Sur- vey of the Town-Lines of this State." Their hope may have rested in this fact, that the final word had not been spoken. The Governor, no doubt, told them that the proper course was to petition the Assembly.

The next record of the proprietors is dated Dec. 2, 1783, when they met according to adjournment, which leads one to suppose that the record of some meetings in the interval between Sep. 29, when they dissolved, and this meeting were omitted. They merely adjourned at this time to Jan. 6, 1784:

"Met Acording to Ajurnment

1st Voted to Chose an Ajint to Atend the General sembly at their sitting in Bennington in February Next to Put in a Petition to the General sembly for the Land that Is Cut of from sd Royalton Between Tunbridg and Royalton and Betwene Bethel and Royalton and to Git a grant of sd Land if posable

2nd Chose Elias Stevens Ajint to Atend the asembly

3d Chose John Hibbard Jun Benj Parkhurst Calvin Parkhurst A Committee to git a County survear and to survey the Land that is Cut of from sd town and Make Returns to the Next meeting

4 Voted to Rais a tax of one Dollar on Each proprietors Right in Royalton to pay for Surveying and the Expense for the Ajent 5th Voted that Standish Day pitch of Three Afterdivition shall stand Good whitch was pitch June 8th 1783 in Lot No. 21 Town plot 6th Voted to Ajurn this Meeting to the sixteenth Day of March Next at one of the Clok on sd Day

Elias Stevens Pr Clark"

This petition from Comfort Sever, Calvin Parkhurst, and John Hibbard, prudential committee of Royalton, came up in the Assembly March 5th, and its consideration was postponed until

HISTORY OF ROYALTON, VERMONT

the next session. Their agent, Elias Stevens, was also the town representative in 1783, but Silas Williams was the representative in 1784. The proprietors met Sep. 7th of 1784 and chose Mr. Williams as their agent to look after the petition that had been presented by Mr. Stevens. The Journal records of the Assem- bly at their October session do not show that the petition came up again for consideration. In June, 1785, the petition of Silas Williams and Elias Stevens to have the old lines established was before the House. This was probably the petition that was put over to the October session of 1784, or it may have been the one which the town authorized, March, 1785. Its fate in this session was like that of a petition from Bethel of June 3, asking for the establishment of the old lines, which was ordered to lie on the table. It is no wonder if the Assembly did grow weary of a steady diet of petitions relating to land boundaries, and if they sometimes gave them scant attention, so that the petitioners com- plained that they could not get their petitions even read.

Royalton seems to have had hope that she would yet win her case. The Proprietors met Aug. 9, 1785, and chose Elias Stevens, Joseph Parkhurst, and Calvin Parkhurst a committee to go and measure the line between Sharon and Royalton and to make returns at the next meeting. They were looking now to some arrangement between the towns themselves. At their next meeting on Sep. 6th they chose Esquire Dewey, Elias Stevens, Calvin Parkhurst, Esquire Sever, and Benjamin Parkhurst a committee to treat with Sharon or their committee in establishing the line between the two towns. At the same time they chose Daniel. Tullar and Israel Waller to measure the line between Bethel and Royalton, and to report at their next meeting.

Their hope revived before this meeting on the 20th of the month. Elias Stevens was again their representative, and he was chosen to attend to the matter and see if he could not get the land that was cut off by the new survey. They dismissed Mr. Waller and Mr. Tullar "from running the Line Between Royalton and Bethel." They "Chose Calvin Parkhurst and Benj Parkhurst a Committee to go and Run the Line Round the Town and git A inDifferent Chainman and in Differ survere to Run Round sd Town and git the Distant of the Old Lines and New and draw a plan of the Old Line and New and Make Return to the Next meeting." There is no record of the adjourned meeting, but in the warning for a meeting on Nov. 29th, one article provided for the report of the agent. Four adjourned meetings follow, the record of the last of which is, "Januy 3d, 1786

Met Acording to Ajurnment

1 Voted to Ajurn this meeting to Let Lions for fifteen minits Met Acording to Ajurnment

the Report of the Ajint"

HISTORY OF ROYALTON, VERMONT

This is the last word said by the proprietors about the boundaries.

It is quite possible that the "Stevens and Williams" peti- tion was one of the five petitions from as many towns, including Bethel and Royalton, which were referred to a joint committee on June 5, 1785, and that the following action was the result of it. This is recorded in "Governor and Council," under date of Oct. 22, 1785 :

"Whereas the Charter of Incorporation of the Township of Royal- ton was Issued in the Absence of the Surveyor General, & without proper Bounds from him, Therefor-Resolved, that the Surveyor General be directed to resurvey the said Township of Royalton as near agreeable to the original design of the Grant and the present wishes of the Proprietors as may be, and lay the same before this Council in order for a new Charter to be given accordingly. The Survey &c. to be at the Cost of the proprietors."

It would appear that a "Correct Survey" was made, either by the proprietors or the Surveyor General. On Oct. 27, 1785, the Governor and Council passed the following Resolution:

"Whereas the Charter of Royalton was Issued in the Absence of the Surveyor General, and it appears on a Correct Survey not to comport with the Instructions of Council, and the wishes of the people, therefore, Resolved, that Joel Marsh Esqr be and he is hereby requested to preambulate (perambulate) the lines of Royalton & Bethel, as near as may (be) to the wishes of the proprietors of both Towns & make a return of such Survey with the Difference there may be between that & the lines run under the direction of the Surveyor General to the Secretary of Council the expense to be paid by those applying therefor." They further "Resolved that the land that shall be found on the Survey this day allowed to be made in the Town of Royalton, not yet paid for by the proprietors, be paid for at the same price pr acre that was given for the Township Together with the Intrest thereof from the time of the other payment, in Hard money orders of this State."

Conforming to these resolutions the town would be to con- siderable expense in making surveys, and in paying for the land which had been cut off. The Surveyor General, Ira Allen, had employed James Whitelaw as one of his assistants, and the new lines bounding Royalton were called "Whitelaw's Lines." Mr. Whitelaw later became Surveyor General.

The opposition to the new surveys culminated in 1785 in the House proposing an act annulling the surveys, and directing a discontinuance of such surveys. On October 27th a Committee of the Whole considered the bill. The Council had proposed to postpone it until the next session, but the proposition was voted down. The Governor and Council then asked for a Grand Com- mittee of the two Houses, which voted to postpone. These rec- ords register the general feeling throughout the State, and prove that Royalton was not alone in strenuously opposing a change in boundary.

Neither Bethel nor Royalton seemed willing to accept the line established between them. On Sep. 13, 1791, Bethel chose 4

HISTORY OF ROYALTON, VERMONT

Joel Marsh to act with the prudential committee, and they were empowered to agree with the committee of Royalton and Ran- dolph, and settle the town lines between said towns. Whether it took the committee a year to conclude negotiations, or whether they failed, and a new committee was appointed is not evident, but the final record bears date, Sep. 6, 1792:

"An agreement between the proprietors' committees of Bethel and Royalton. We do agree for ourselves and in behalf of the aforesaid proprietors, that the old known line, on which the lands in each of said towns are settled, and the old known corner, which is a maple tree with stones about it, marked 'B. L.' on the South West side, being 456 chains from Sharon line, be the N. W. corner of Royalton, and the N. E. corner of Bethel; then running S. 40 degrees W. 496 chains to Barnard line be and forever to remain to be, the settled and established line between the above said towns, and we, in our capacity as com- mittee men, do release and quit all right and title, interest or claim to any land on either side of the above said line. And we further agree that the above said agreement be recorded in each proprietors' books. In witness whereof and in testimony of our mutual agreement we have herewith set our hands this sixth day of September, 1792.

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.

History of Royalton, Vermont, with family genealogies, 1769-1911, Part 7

Author: Lovejoy, Mary Evelyn Wood, 1847- Publication date: 1911 Publisher: Burlington, Vt., Free press printing company Number of Pages: 1280

Author: Lovejoy, Mary Evelyn Wood, 1847-
Publication date: 1911
Publisher: Burlington, Vt., Free press printing company
Number of Pages: 1280