USA > Vermont > Records of the Council of Safety and Governor and Council of the State of Vermont, to which are prefixed the records of the General Conventions from July 1775 to December 1777, Vol. I > Part 56
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65
Those bloody law-givers know we are necessitated to oppose their ex- ecution of law, where it points directly at our property, or give up the same: but there is one thing is matter of consolation to us, viz. that printed sentences of death will not kill us when we are at a distance; and if the executioners approach us, they will be as likely to fall victims to death as we: and that person, or country of persons, are cowards in- deed, if they cannot, as manfully, fight for their liberty, property and life, as villains can do to deprive them thereof.
THE New- York schemers accuse us with many things; part of which are true, and part not .- With respect to rescuing prisoners for debt, it is false. As to assuming judicial powers, we have not, except a well-reg- ulated combination of the people to defend their just rights, may be called so. As to forming ourselves into military order, and assuming military commands. the New- York possies, and military preparations, oppressions. &c. obliged us to it. Probably Mess. Duane, Kemp, and Banyar, of New-York, will not discommend us for so expedient a prep- aration; more especially since the decrees of the 9th of March, are yet to be put in execution: and we flatter ourselves, upon occasion, we can muster as good a regiment of mark's-men and scalpers as America can afford: and we now give the gentleman above-named, together with Mr. Brush, and Col. Ten Broeck, and in fine, all the land-jobbers of New- York, an invitation to come and view the dexterity of our regiment: and we cannot think of a better time for that purpose, than when the executioners come to kill us, by virtue of the authority their judges have lately re- ceived to award and sentence us to death in our absence. There is still one more notable complaint against us, viz. That we have insulted and
480
Appendix 1.
menaced several magistrates, and other civil officers, so that they dare not execute their respective functions: This is true, so far as it relates to the magistrates. But the public should be informed, what the func- tions of those magistrates are: they are commissioned for the sole pur- pose of doing us all the harm and mischief they possibly can, thro' their administration and influence; and that they might be subservient to the wicked designs of the New- York schemers. These are their func- tions; and the public need no further proof than the consideration that they are the tools of those extravagant law-makers; and it must be owned, they acted with great judgment, in chusing the most infernal instruments for their purpose.
DRACO, the Athenian law-giver, caused a number of laws, (in many re- spects analogous to those we have been speaking of,) to be written in blood. But our modern Draco's determine to have theirs verified in blood. They well know we shall, more than three, nay, more than three times three hundred, assemble together, if need be, to maintain our com- mon cause, fill his majesty determines who shall be and remain the owners of the land in contest. "Wilt thou not possess that which Che- moth, thy God, gireth thee to possess?" So will we possess that which the Lord our God (and King) giveth us to possess.
AND lastly, we address ourselves to the people of the counties of Al- bany and Charlotte, which inhabit to the westward of, and are situated contiguous to, the New-Hampshire grants.
GENTLEMEN, FRIENDS AND NEIGHBOURS,
PROVIDENCE having allotted and fixed the bounds of our habitations in the same vicinity, which, together with the intercourse of frade and com- merce, hath formed an almost universal acquaintance and tie of friend- ship between us, and bath laid such a foundation of knowledge, that your people, in general, cannot but be sensible that the title of our land is, in reality, the bone of contention; and that. as a people, we behave ourselves orderly; and are industrions, and honestly disposed; and pay just deference to order and good government; and that we mean no more by that which is called the MOB, but to defend our just rights and properties. We appeal to the gentlemen merchants, to inform whether our people in general, do not exert themselves to pay their just debts; and whether over they have been hindered by the country's MOB, in the col- lection of their dues. But as [to] the magistrates, sheriff's, under-sheriffs, coroners, and constables, of the respective counties, that hold their posts of honor and profit under our bitter enemies, we have a jealousy, that some of them may be induced (to recommend themselves to those on whom they are dependant, and for the wages of unrighteousness, offered by proclamation) 10 presume to apprehend some of us, or our friends: We therefore, advertise such officers, and all persons whatsoever, that we are resolved to inflict immediate death on whomsoever may attempt. the same. And provided any of us or our party shall be taken, and we have not notice sufficient to relieve them, or whether we relieve them or not, we are resolved to surround such person or persons, whether at his or their own house or houses, or any where that we can find him or them, and shoot such person or persons dead. And furthermore, that we will kill and destroy any person or persons whomsoever, that shall presume to be accessary, aiding or assisting in taking any of us as aforesaid; for by these presents we give any such disposed person or persons to understand, that, altho' they have a licence by the law aforesaid, to kill us; and an "indemnification" for such murther from the same authority; yet they have no indemnification for so doing from the green mountain boys; for our lives, liberties and properties are as verily
481
Appendix I.
precious to us, as to any of the king's subjects: and we are as loyal to his majesty or his government, as any subjects in the province: but, if the governmental authority of New- York will judge in their own case, and aet in opposition to that of Great-Britain, and insist upon killing us, to take possession of our "vineyards," - come on, we are ready for a game of scalping with them; for our martial spirits glow with bitter indigna- tion, and consummate fury, to blast their infernal projections.
IT may be, the reader, not having seen the law referred to in this piece, and not being thoroughly acquainted with the long and spirited conflict that hath subsisted between the claimants under New-Hampshire and Ver- York. nor of the progressive. arbitrary, and monopolizing disposi- tion of the court party of the latter of those provinces ; may be apt to imagine that the spirit of this writing is too severe, inasmuch as it des- tines whoever presumes to take us as felons or rioters, to immediate death: but let the wise consider the state of the canse.
1. PROVIDED we on our part be taken, we have by them laws the sen- tence of death already pronounced against us, on proviso more than three of us assemble together to maintain and defend our property, till his ma- jesty determines the controversy. And,
2. MAY it be considered, that the legislative authority of the province of New-York had no constitutional right or power to make such laws ; and consequently, that they are null and void, from the nature and en- ergy of the English constitution; therefore as they merit no place among the laws of the realm of Great-Britain, but are the arbitrary league and combination of our bitter and merciless enemies, who, to obtain our pro- perty, have inhumanly, barbarously, and maliciously, under the specious and hypocritical pretence of legal authority, and veneration for order and government, laid a snare for our lives ; can the public censure us for ex- erting ourselves nervously to preserve our lives, in so critical a situation? For by the laws of the province, into which we are unfortunately fallen, we cannot be protected in either property or life, except we give up the former to secure the latter : so we are resolved to maintain both, or to hazard or loose both.
FROM hence follows a necessary inference, That inasmuch as our prop- erty, nay, our lives, cannot be protected (but manifestly struck at) by the highest authority in the province to which we. at present, belong : therefore. in the interim, while his majesty is determining the contro- versy, and till he shall interpose his royal authority, and subject the an- thority aforesaid to their duty, or re-annex the district of disputed lands to the province of New-Hampshire, or some way, in his great wisdom. and fatherly clemency, put the distressed settlers under New-Hampshire on an equal footing with our brother subjects in his realm; we are under necessity of resisting, even unto blood, every person who may attempt to take us as felons or rioters as aforesaid: for in this case it is not resist- ing law, but only opposing force by force ; therefore, inasmuch as by the oppressions aforesaid, the New-Hampshire settlers are reduced to the dis- agreeable state of anarchy and confusion ; in which state we hope for wisdom, patience and fortitude, till the happy hour his majesty sball graciously be pleased to restore us to the privileges of Englishmen.
Signed per
Bennington, April 26, 1774.
ETHAN ALLEN, SETH WARNER, REMEMBER BAKER, ROBERT COCKRAN. PELEG SUNDERLAND, JOHN SMITH, SILVANUS BROWN.
482
Appendix I.
" When Cisar reigned king at Rome St. Paul was sent to hear his doom ; But Roman laws, in a criminal case, Must have the accuser face to face, Or Cirsar gives a flat denial. But here's a law made now of late; Which destines men to awful fate,
And hangs and damns without a trial.
Which made me view all nature throngh,
To find a law where men were ti'd, By legal act which doth exact Men's lives before they're try'd. Then down I took the sacred book, And turned the pages o'er. But could not find one of this kind,
By God or man before. - T. R." [THOMAS ROWLEY.]
-
APPENDIX,
C ONTAINING conclusive arguments in favor of the validity of the New-Hampshire grants to the westward of Connecticut-river; setting forth the injustice and invalidity of the New- York subsequent interfer- ing grants, with observations on the jurisdictions of the [re]spective governments to those lands. And remarks on the state of the right of the colony of New-York, &c. And on the narrative of the proceedings subsequent to the royal adjudication, concerning lands to the westward of Connecticut-river. &c. published at their sessions, 1773.
THE Appendix was written by the writer of the Vindication [ ETHAN ALLEN] to which this is annexed, and was printed at Hartford, [Conn.,] by EBENEZER WATSON, (deceased.) 23d September, 1774.
SECTION L.
A S the claimants under New-Hampshire rely on their charters from that government as the predicate and ground of their title to the property of the land in contest: so, on the other hand, the claimants under New- York, predicate and ground their title to the same land on the validity of their patents from New- York: This brings the point in issue between the respective claimants to this single question. namely, Which of the said governments conveyed the fee of the land in contest ? For it is self-evident both could not. And upon exploring the controversy, and animadverting on the merits of the different claims, be it which it will that may be allowed to stand the test, and adjudged valid, it will of necessity invalidate the other. In the discussion of this subject, and searching into the merit of the respective claims, it is necessary to in- spect into the validity of the grant from king CHARLES to the duke of YORK, from which foundation only. the government of New-York de- duce their right of patenting the lands in contest; yet the matter of fact. is, that neither the government of New- York as such, or any individual therein, has ever had any conveyance of any land from the duke of York, nor doth any landlord or person whatever, in the government, hold the fee or property of their land, by virtue of any conveyance from the duke of York; but they hold the fee of their lands on a very different footing,
483
Appendix I.
riz. by conveyance from the Crown; yet, if it be conceded to, that king Charles gave to his brother James duke of York, the fee of the lands west of Connecticut-river to the head of Delaware-Bay; and allowing the fee to be still vested in him, his heirs or assigns, upon this hypothesis no person in the province of New- York hath the fee or property of the land they possess, the fee remaining the property of the duke of York, his heirs or assigns. And further, upon the same principle, those identical patents under the seal of New- York, which were laid on the New-Hamp- shire grants, are in their own nature, equally null and void, with all other conveyanees of land in the said province which have been given by the crown, the fee thereof being vested in the duke of York, &c. So that the grantees under New- York and New-Hampshire are both. upon this stating of the case, equally destitute of the fee of the land contested for : But, upon this stating, the grantees under New-Hamp- shire, have the argument of settlement, and occupation, and possession, on their side; which is abundantly sufficient to give the priority. and preference of title to them; so that neither the government of New- York or their patentees, gain anything by building their title on the said grants to the duke of York; for if there be anything in it, it defeats their own title as well as that of New-Hampshire, proving too much for their purpose, or nothing at all. But, if the lands contained in the duke of York's grant reverted back to the crown, then the duke of York's patent became extinet, null, and absolutely void, and is as though it never had been; whether the said reversion happened in consequence of the said duke's abdicating the throne-turning papist, or by any for- mal surrendery, or by any means whatever. Provided the fee became revested in the crown, then the said charter became extinet, as afore- said; so that whether the fee of the land in dispute still remains in the said duke of York, his heirs or assigns, or reverted, or was surrendered to the crown, none of all this will in the least justify the government of New- York or its patentees, in founding their pretensions of title to the land aforesaid, by virtue of the aforesaid grant from king Charles to the duke of York. For, take the argument one way, and it overturns both the title of New- York and New-Hampshire also, leaving the latter in occupation and possession of the disputed premises, and that only. being intirely destitute of the fee; and the New- York claimants destitute of the least colour of title whatsoever. But, take the argument the other way, viz. Provided the fee of the lands aforesaid reverted and been revested in the crown, then the said lands at the time of first granting were crown lands the same as though the duke of York had never ex- isted. But the truth of the matter undoubtedly is this, the under pro- prietors all except William Penn, who had the several countries parcelled out to them by the duke of York, which was contained in his grant. sur- rendered their charters to the crown, whereby New- York and New- Jersey became royal governments : This then being the state of the case, the lands in dispute became crown lands, and the governor of New- Hampshire, as well as New- York, crown officers, or king's agents, and it is of no consequence to the king which of his governors grants his land, if so be they be granted to and settled by loyal and industrious subjects, thereby adding to the revenue of the crown and enlarging and strength- ening the kingdom. This being presupposed, and admit for supposition only, that the governor of New-Hampshire exceeded his proper limits in granting crown lands, must the grantees who have settled those lands, paid one of the officers for granting the same, and expended their ALL, in settling and cultivating his majesty's wilderness land, and who are truly loyal subjects, be turned off the said land by thousands, and re- duced to starving poverty, together with their numerous families, because
484
Appendix I.
one of the crown officers either ignorantly or designingly imposed upon the people by granting crown lands over his bounds ? This would be extreme wrong, the more so as it cannot be supposed that the subjects are capable judges of the jurisdiction of governments, and conse- quently there should be the greatest care taken to guard the subject from injury in all cases of this nature; the truth of which will more fully ap- pear by the following considerations, viz. That notwithstanding the sup- posed error in granting the said lands, yet the great end of the crown in granting of it is compleatly answered; and provided the subjects i. e. the settlers are quieted in the fee and possession of the said lands, they will not be injured, so that upon this hypothesis, neither king nor subject would sustain damage : Indeed no person in the realm could have just cause of complaint. True, the respective governors of New- York may insinuate, that upon this state of the case, the governor of New-Hamp- shire has cheated them out of their fees for granting the said lands- though it is evident, if crown officers are faithful to the king and sub- jects, they could take no more money for granting crown lands, than a reasonable compensation for their trouble, and the other governor's being supposed to grant the lands, saves the said governor of New- York the trouble: so that the argument is brought to this single point only at last, that upon supposition the governor of New-Hampshire exceeded his proper limits in granting those lands, yet neither king nor subjects are injured. (provided the claimants under New-Hampshire hold the fee of the said land as above) except the governors of New- York, and if they be supposed to be honest men, the trouble of granting the land would be equal to their fees had they granted it; so that they have not been in- jured a whit more in this case, than they be supposed to have injured the subjects by taking exorbitant fees for granting the same lands; which to them is no injury at all, but a providential check to the exer- cise of their avarice. So that the respective governors of New- York, in an equitable sense, are no loosers in this atfair, or at most the privileges would be so very inconsiderable as to make it meer trifling to mention it, especially when set in competition with the shocking and universal destruction that would overspread a large country of his majesty's good subjects, provided they be dispossessed of the lands aforesaid. This seems to be the genuine sequel of the argument, even upon the Yorkers own stating it.
SECTION H.
IT is not conceded to on the part of the claimants under New-Hamp- I shire, that the governor did in fact exceed his proper limits in grant- ing those lands. The contrary will abundantly appear from the following considerations, viz. Before and at the time the said governor of New- Hampshire granted those lands they were reputed to be within his juris- diction. This was the opinion of both learned and unlearned, the wise as well as simple. Thus it was universally planned in all ancient and mod- ern maps down to the year 1764. when, by royal determination, the juris- diction of New- York was extended over this disputed district of land. But the general opinion before this royal adjudication was, that the province of New- York extended its jurisdiction but twenty miles to the eastward from Hudson's-river. So general was this opinion, that the best maps of the two respective provinces, and the history of New- Hampshire adopted it as settled; it is of very great weight in the ques- tion to shew how universal this maxim was, and that the unprejudiced and accurate geographer Mr. Mitchel, in his map composed so late as the
485
Appendix I.
year 1755, which with great propriety and certainty ascertains the same limits. This map has the more authority as it was according to the cer- tificate of Mr. Pownal, secretary to the board of trade, and was under- taken with the approbation and at the request of the lords commission- ers for trade and plantation, and is chiefly composed from draughts, charts, and actual surveys of different parts of his majesty's colonies and plantations in America, great part of which have been since taken by their lordships' orders and transmitted to the office of the governors of said colonies, This twenty mile line was so far from being deemed un- favorable to New- York, that we find the commissioners from that prov- ince so late as the year 1767, made an offer to those of the Massachusett- Buy to let a line of twenty miles distance east of Hudson's-river be the division between their respective provinces, which the latter commission- ers would not then agree to it, being thought by them too much in favor of New- York, so little it seems did New- York commissioners conceive their claim as far as Connecticut-river could be supported.
THOUGH it is true in the year 1771 the province of New- York by a public act of their general assembly, did annex all that part of the prov- ince of the Massachusetts-Bay, to the westward from Connecticut-river. to their county of Albany; and it is likewise true that in the year 1773, the governors of the respective provinces met at Hartford, in Connecti- cut, and came to a mutual agreement to settle that line at twenty miles distance eastward from Hudson's-river, which was the hypothesis of that settlement, which hath since been ratified by his majesty.
THE report of the lords commissioners for plantation affairs in 1753, states the following facts, from which is necessarily inferred that New- Hampshire extended its jurisdiction to the westward of Connecticut- river,-" There are, says their lordships, about 60,000 acres of Jand situ- ate on the west side of Connecticut-river, which were purchased by pri- vate persons from Connecticut, to whom the land had been laid out, by the government of the Massachusetts-Bay as an equivalent for two or three townships which the latter purchased from the former, This tract of land by the determination of the boundary line between the provin- ces of New-Hampshire and the Massachusetts-Bay in 1739 is become a part of New-Hampshire."-Thus we have their lordships' sentiments that the jurisdiction of New-Hampshire extended over part of the very lands in contest, westward of Connecticut-river, as long ago as the year 1739,
at which time New-York never dreamed of extending their claim to Connecticut-river .- There is another glaring and indisputable evidence of the former western extent of New-Hampshire, viz. Relative to fort Dummer which was built by the Bay province in 1724, and garrisoned at their expence a great number of years: but upon its being excluded from their jurisdiction, by the settlement of the jurisdictional line between them and New-Hampshire in 1739, the Bay province represented to the government at home, that the said district of land and fort Dummer. having been determined to be the property of New-Hampshire, they were no longer oblige to garrison and maintain it, and praying, that as it was necessary to the defence of the country, that New-Hampshire might be directed to support it. In consequence of which, an order passed the king and couneil in 1744, that the governor and commander in chief of New-Hampshire should forthwith move the assembly, in his majesty's name, to make a proper provision for that service; and at the same time informing them that in case they refused to comply with so reasonable and necessary a proposal, his majesty would find himself under a necessity of restoring that fort, with a proper district of land contiguous thereto, to the province of the Massachusetts-Bay, who can- not with justice be required to maintain a fort no longer within their
486
Appendix I.
boundary. In consequence of this, New-Hampshire did maintain this fort, and paid a demand of arrears for its maintainance, to the Massa- chusetts-Bay. In the mean time New- York was never a competitor for the burthen, willing as she is to enjoy the advantage of granting and engrossing said lands.
THIS being the case, the government of New-Hampshire, by the royal decree, was obliged to maintain fort Dummer, and it being on the west side of Connecticut-river, and on this very identical district of land now in dispute. can that government be justly charged with granting lands in the province of New- York, when but a little before his majesty in council had adjudged the same lands to be in the said government of New Hampshire and ordered them to defend it, as by maintaining fort Dummer, &c. Surely at that time New-Hampshire did extend its juris- diction westward of Connecticut-river; otherwise the king had ordered the government of New- York to have maintained fort Dummer. Noth- ing can be more flagrantly evident than. that the government of New- Hampshire had a right to grant crown lands where the crown compelled them to defend. From hence it appears. that the government of New- Hampshire had a legal right to grant the lands now in dispute, and that. that government and his majesty's good subjects, the grantees of and settlers on the said lands, acted upon honest and honorable principles. in granting, purchasing and settling the same, and on the other hand it appears, that the government of New- York, in regranting the same land, acted quite the reverse, and the more unpardonably so, as they granted great part of it in open defiance to his majesty's authority manifested unto them by his express prohibition, dated the 24th day of July 1767.
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.