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 60
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
Tins is far from being the true state of the case. Sundry causes which had been tried, were determined against the claimants under New- Hampshire, and Mr. Breakenridge perceived it was spending money to no purpose, to maintain a suit at law against the New-York patentees, as they had such a combination of interest with the judges, part of which were interested in the New- York subsequent patents which interfered with the grants under Ner-Hampshire, though not in those on trial. This, with many other things too tedious to particularize, was the cause why Mr. Breakenridge would not defend the aforesaid suit in trial; but there was not a word said, (as he informs me) between him and his said attornies, about his farm's being within seventeen miles of Hudson's river; nor is it likely ever such a thing was mentioned in Albany county; the contrary being so well known. Undoubtedly. this was wrote "for the information of government at home," thinking the fal- lacy would not there be detected it being at so great a distance.
OUR authors, page 10th, after giving a narrative of a riotous and tumultuous outrage, committed by the inhabitants of Bennington, for which proclamation had issued from the earl of Dunmore, against the principal authors of the disturbance "which could not be brought to justice," then they introduce a particular charge against Mr. Breaken- ridge, which is entirely destitute of foundation, viz. That he was one of the principal rioters. To this they join the former calumny of the west- ward extention of Bennington. "by a vote of their town meeting;" and add to both these, the groundless story of Mr. Breakenridge's council's
507
Appendix I.
inability to set up any principle in his defence, by reason of his being seated "within seventeen miles of Hudson's river." All these fictions blended together, make considerable of a figure, in their own words: "James Breakenridge and Isaiah Carpenter, were two of the most inex- "cusable of all the offenders: the first had seated himself within sey- "enteen miles of Hudson's river, where he knew it was impossible, on " their own principles, that he could be protected by the New-Hampshire " claim, he had declined a fair trial, and suffered a judgment by default." With respect to Mr. Breakrnridge's being active in any expeditions (the New-Yorkers denominate riots, mobs, felony, &c.) it is well known through the country of the New-Hampshire grants, he was not. In the 18th & 19th pages of the appendix, they repeat their former aspersion against the inhabitants of Bennington in the most virulent and emphati- cal language-"And what is still more shameful, they contend, they arm, " they fight for land as a part of Bennington, which lies within seven- " teen miles of Hudson's river, and which the government of New-Hamp- " shire never claimed, but admitted to be beyond their jurisdiction."
As there can be no doubt but these gentlemen really wish these things to be true, and having so frequently repeated them as being so, it is con- jectured they by this time begin to believe them, or at least think others may; but that the impartial reader may have the real truth of the mat- ter, the following evidence is exhibited.
"A plan of a township six miles square (i. e. Bennington) lying in his majesty's province of New-Hampshire, laid by Matthew Clesson, sur- veyor, Abraham Bass, John Hooker, Ezekiel Foster, and Samuel Calhoun, chainmen, in pursuance of an order from his excellency, Benning Went- worth, Esq., governor of said province, to Col. William Williams, lying six miles north of the province line that was run by Mr. Richard Haz- zen, between said government and the province of the Massachusetts- bay, and twenty miles east of Hudson's river, viz. Begining at a crooked Hemlock tree marked W. W. six miles due north, or at a right angle from said province line, said angle commencing at a White Oak tree in said line marked M. ¿¿ O. I. T. which tree is twenty-four miles east from Hudson's river allowing one chain in thirty for swag, (which allowance is made through the whole following survey) and from said Hemlock tree west, ten degrees, north four miles, to a stake and stones; and from said stake and stones north ten degrees, east six miles, to a stake and stones; from thence east ten degrees, south six miles, to a stake and stones, and from thence south ten degrees, west six miles to a stake and stones; from thence west ten degrees, north two miles, to the Hemlock first mentioned, which survey was made November 1749.
(A copy.)
Per Matthew Clesson, Surveyor.'
HAMPSHIRE, ss. October 30, 1749. Matthew Clesson, suyveyor, John Taylor, Ezekiel Foster, and William Williams, chain-men, on November 3d, 1749, John Hooker, Abraham Bass and Samuel Calhoun. chain-mon, were all sworn to the faithful performance of the respective services aforsaid, and for the above survey.
Quorum, TIMOTHY DWIGHT, Justice Peace.
(A copy.)
THE deposition of Samuel Robinson, who being of lawful age. saith, He being a surveyor, hath laid out in lots a great part of Bennington, and is confident that the west line of said town is the line that Matthew Clesson run before the town was granted (upon which said grant was made,) and as I have run all the lands east, adjoining said line, and some on the west side, I never knew of any other line that was called or known, or supposed to be the west line of Bennington; but according to
508
Appendix I.
that line, the proprietors have settled, not making any improvements in the least degree to the west of said line.
AND the deponent further saith, That his excellency Benning Went- worth, late governor of New-Hampshire, gave a warrant to Samuel Rob- inson and George Gardner, Esq's. and John Davoow, to get the line run and measured out from Hudson's river; which committee employed the deponent as a surveyor, with Timothy Abbott and John Drott, as chain- men, who were under the inspection of said committee, and under oath, measured out from said river twenty miles, according to the aforesaid governor's warrant; and then turning a right angle north, ten degrees east, which they did, and found the west line of Bennington to the east of the line your deponent run, thirty-five chains; and so the proprieters of said town concluded the aforesaid Clesson line to be right, and have conducted accordingly.
AND further, your deponent saith John R. Blaker, [ Bleecker] Esq. of the city of Albany. got some chain-men soon after your deponent had run the line, and measured out, and told your deponent that Bennington west line was more than twenty miles from Hudson's river. And Ar- chebald Campbell, of Albany, deputy-surveyor, told your deponent, that he had measured out, and found it to be twenty miles. And further saith not.
Samuel Robinson.
Sicorn before me, in Hoosick, the 29th March, 1774. JOHN MALCOMB, Justice.
THE deposition of Ebenezer Wood, who being of lawful age, saith: IIc being chosen a select-man for the town of Bennington, and sent to per- ambulate the west line of said town; which accordingly I did; which line John R. Blecker. Esq. of the city of Albany, told your deponent was more than twenty miles from Hudson's river, which was the line that Matthew Clesson run, and your deponent never see or heard of any other line but that. for Bennington west line. Further saith not.
Ebenezer Wood.
Sworn before me in Hoosick the 29th day of March, 1774. JOHN MALCOMB, Justice.
SECTION VIII.
O UR authors in the twenty-seventh and finishing page of their narra- tive, discover great invention and subtilty, who after giving an ac- count of the unfortunate circumstances of the town of Hinsdale [ Vernon,] which has, say they, " been taken up by a royal mandamus." This town- ship had first been granted by the government of the Massachusetts-bay, and upon the settlement of the boundary line between the Massachu- setts and New-Hampshire, in 1739, fell within the latter, and by them [was] granted, and fully ratitied to the inhabitants and proprietors, who in addition to their title, had also the Indian right. This township, by the determination of the boundary line between New-York and New- Hampshire, fell within the jurisdiction of the former, and was by them granted to Col. Howard, after it had been settled about seventy years. The assembly of New- York in order to screen their government from the imputation of the blame justly due to so reprehensible a conduct, endeavor to palm it on the government at home. See page sixth, with respect to " Hinsdale, a township in the south-east corner of Cumberland " county. Even this is not to be ascribed to our government, it pro- " ceeded from a much greater, and the highest authority. A mandamus " was produced from the crown, on the report of the board of trade, and " by the advice of the privy council, which vested the grantee with a
509
Appendix I.
" right of election, an act decisive in itself, and superceding the action "of the governor and council here, and the usual forms." A very extra- ordinary representation ! The nature of a royal mandamus is diamet- rically opposite to this interpretation. The right of election in the grantees, is restricted entirely to crown lands which are unappropriated; in sneh lands, the grantee has a right of election, and common sense may teach, that neither a mandamus or any other crown grant can sub- vert the property which the subject holds under the crown by prior grants; and though there be ever so many alterations in the jurisdic- tion, sundry of which have perplexed the town of Hinsdale. yet this should have no effect on the property of the subjects .- These grantees are likewise withheld from interfering on the right of the Indian sub- jects. Yet, it seems Col. Howard had the vanity to locate his manda- mus on the old plantation of Hinsdale, which was firstly appropriated by a purchase from the Indians; secondly, by a grant from the government of the Massachusetts-bay, and thirdly, by the government of New-Ham- shire, and fourthly, by an uninterrupted possession and occupancy about seventy years.
THE subterfuge the gentlemen make use of to rid their government from dishonor, in making this last grant of Hinsdale. is very extraordin- ary; it seems not well calculated " to be transmitted for the information " of the government at home !" who are undoubtedly competent judges of their own mandamus's, and no doubt will easily discern their last error to be worse than the first. Such preposterous granting of lands. is criminally injurious to the subject, as it never fails to embarrass the different claimants with many concomitant difficulties. Yet, still to cast the blame due to their government, on the king's mandamus, is more daringly injurious to the highest authority in the nation.
LASTLY, the manner of redress prescribed for the sufferers, viz. the. old proprietors of Hinsdale, is the most shocking piece of contrivance, page 27, " Hinsdale, a small township which has lately been taken up by " virtue of a royal mandamus, is alone unfortunate -- but even here the " possessors may be relieved, by a suitable compensation, equal to the " value of their improvements, in crown lands, free from the expence of " fees." These gentlemen in their great clemency have also conceded that the New-Hampshire settlers in general may be thus considered: " on the same terms, may be assigned to each of those who are seated " on the soil, actually appropriated to others by the government ot New- " York, and the possessions of which cannot for that reason be con- " firmed; such a proportion of crown lands as the governor and council " shall judge to be adequate to their respective improvements."
THEN they proceed to describe the tract: "a fertile and extensive " country, in the northern part of the county of Charlotte, and between " Connecticut-river and lake Champlain, still remains unpatented by their " government, and might be planted and cultivated by these people." What a surprising condescention this ! the posterity of the original pro- prietors of Hinsdale, especially to be allowed the privilege to pull up stakes, quit their farms and possessions, houses, orchards, &c. and join company with the New-Hampshire settlers in general, and trudge off to the northeast part of the wilderness of Charlotte, and there commence another settlement, leaving their pleasant habitations, fields, tenements, and country, in exchange for a howling wilderness; a pretty exchange- and this to gratify a number of New-York cormorants. But, let's stop a little and consider whether it would not be more righteous to change the scene, and so the New-York patentees remove their patents, that interfere with the New-Hampshire grants, and lay them in the wilder- ness of Charlotte, as neither government have appropriated it.
510
Appendix I.
A SUFFICIENT reason to be offered in favor of the latter of the pro- jects, is, that the settlers under New-Hampshire, are in deed, and in truth the lawful owners and proprietors of the lands they possess, as, 'tis apprehended, has been fully demonstrated in the preceding sections. Although these gentlemen have in the course of their narration, flung out very extraordinary hints of rewarding his majesty's soldiery, by the distribution of those lands, yet they may here again be reminded, (which may further serve as the above reason) that his majesty's proclamation directed the soldiery to make their pitches on unappropriated and va- cant lands; this therefore they must do, at the hazard of losing their grants or repitching. For those lands which being antecedently granted by the crown, by the agency of the governor and council of New-Hamp- shire, must forever exclude the soldiery from pitching thereon; and put it entirely out of the power of the government of New-York, or the crown, to grant them to a second person. And when it is considered, that the New- York land-jobbers have, long since, purchased great part of the soldiery rights, and that for a mere trifle. and laid them out of themselves, at their own risque; their arguments on that subject cannot contribute greatly to the removal of the New-Hampshire settlers to the exterior part of Charlotte.
OUR authors have given a tedious history of the suits at law, which have been commenced by the New- York patentees, against the claimants and occupants under New-Hampshire, and have exhibited many specious appearances of fairness, equity, and impartiality in their trials. How- ever, the reader must observe, that in every of those, so boasted of can- did trials, the defendants, by the result, were to be dispossessed of their farms. They then continue to tell of the entire satisfaction of the van- quished, (together with such of the New-Hampshire claimants as at- tended the courts) relative to the validity of the New-York title .- Soon after this, they give a surprising account of riots and outrages, commit- ted by these settlers, and mention Allen by name, (who they say, but a little before was so fully persuaded of the validity of the New-York title) as one of their leaders. This narrative is in itself incredible; it cannot be supposed, that men who were convinced, they had had an im- partial trial at law, and of the insufficiency of their own title, and the authenticity of that of their opponents, would rally to arm, in defiance of legal authority, and in defence of their own invalid title; especially, after they had publickly declared their own sentiments concerning that matter.
Now follows another quotation from our authors, which is no less than a barefaced insult on those inhabitants, and one of the boklest misrep- resentations. " If the New-Hampshire claimants imagined that they " were aggrieved by the decisions of our judges, the means of redress " were in their own power; and they ought to have sued their writs of "error, and in the legal and ordinary mode, to have referred their cause " to the final sentence of his majesty. But to expect a remedy incom- " patible with the administration of justice, and the rights of the sub- " ject, either bespeaks the greatest ignorance or presumption."
COULD they once get this established, that there should be no access to his majesty or trial, but in this " ordinary mode," it would no doubt be to their entire satisfaction: trials in that government woukl then easily be- come decisive: for in no case wherein the demand of the plaintiff is below the sum of five hundred pounds, a writ of error in favor of the defendant can issue. And the New-York attornies who compiled the New-York statings. and are also patented under that government, well knew that every action brought against New-Hampshire claimants has been designedly laid below that sum. Yet they were possessed of that
511
Appendix I.
extreme boldness to aver in express terms, that " if the New-Hampshire " claimants imagined that they were aggrieved by the decisions of their " judges, their means of redress were in their own power," i. e. by way of a writ of error.
THERE is nothing exhibited in this New- York pamphlet which more sensibly deserves resentment than their pretensions of indulgencies, favors, &c. conferred on these claimants by that government. - To the " honor of the government of New- York, it may justly be asserted, that " the New-Hampshire claimants have received every mark of favor and " indulgence which the circumstances permitted." Such hypocrisy de- bases human nature, is the pest of society, partakes of falsehood and treachery: and what renders it peculiarly vile is that it usurps the seat of virtue, and destroys faith in communities, and is the source of cruel jealousy. Had the government of New-York been truly friendly to those settlers, it had been returned again'; and mutual good will sup- plied the place of hatred and strife. But alas ! so long as the fee of the country of the New -- Hampshire grants is the object in view, by the gov- ernment of New-York, how it is possible for peace and good order to take place, can't well be conceived. Well would it be for that govern- ment. and infinitely better for the settlers under New-Hampshire, were they annexed to some other government; but they say no. Query, why ? The answer is easy. They would then loose sight of the aforesaid de- sirable object: otherwise. surely they would be glad to part with such rebellious subjects as they represent them to be. For the truth no doubt is, that they are in hopes some better fortune may in future attend them. And that they can take and execute some of the leading men among these inhabitants; and so frighten and impose on the rest; and finally, by this means avail themselves of their estates and subjugate the country. This is all they can desire in continuing it under their jurisdiction. That they have in reality a view to this, will further ap- pear by some memorable sentences recorded in the 25th page of their appendix. " We may," say they, " readily conceive, that Breukenridge "and his party, have abundant reason to wish for an alteration of juris- " diction. The public crimes and private wrongs which they have per- " petrated, must make them look forward to the hour of tranquility. with " the most anxious apprehensions. The injured may then demand sat- " isfaction for all their sufferings-An attonement must then be made to " the country, for the violation of its laws." Here the New-Hampshire settlers may read their intended doom, in consequence of the ability of the government of New-York. And one reason why this government have not already destroyed the inhabitants of the New-Hampshire grants, with fire and sword, is their want of ability; and this inability. in great part, consists in this, that the common people in the govern- ment, are universally of opinion that the inhabitants have a good right to those lands, and should not be molested in the peaceable enjoyment of them, and consequently will not assist their civil officers in taking possession of their tenements, or them as rioters. That they are no further turbulent than what is necessary to defend their persons and properties, from the cruelty and monopoly of their rulers. This is the ground of all the lenity, forbearance and indulgence of that government towards those inhabitants: and it is hoped, if these excessive favors should be passed over without their thanks, they may yet be excused for the neglect.
As the design of this section was, in a concise manner. to point out some of the most notorious extravagancies of the governmentof Nor- York, the subject can't with propriety be passed over, without taking a short review of the forementioned laws of that colony, which are the most ap-
512
Appendix 1.
parent portraiture of their horrid malevolence and caprice. Passing these laws which are evidently calculated with a design of extirpating the inhabitants, by them laws alluded to, from their goodly land, nay, from the face of the earth; is no less than lavishly foaming out their own shame; laws that ought, and are contemned and disregarded by ev- ery lover of virtue. Laws and society-compacts were originally designed to protect the subjects in their property. Loyalty and subordination to such government, is essentially necessary for the good of society, and all good and liege subjects will support such laws and legislators. But, as in the present instance, when laws in their original design and adminis- tration, are degenerated from the good ends for which laws and govern- ment were instituted. terminating in the ruin and destruction of the society it should seeure and protect, from the same principle. viz. self- preservation, the subjects are obliged to resist and depose such govern- ment. And, inasmuch as those laws, together with some remarks on them, are to be seen in the narrative part of this performance, shall therefore conclude, with leaving the reader, from his own meditations, to pass such sentence concerning this matter as may appear reasonable.
SECTION IX.
TT may be of some moment, towards the close of this treatise, to ex- hibit a number of special motives which induced those inhabitants to prosecute settlements on the controverted premises. As,
FIRST, on the good faith of his majesty's grants. by the agency of the government of New-Hampshire, the validity of which has been sutli- ciently argued. And.
SECONDLY, by engagement from a proclamation by his late excellency Benning Wentworth, which for the more public information, is here in- serted.
By his Excellency, Benning Wentworth, Esq; Captain General, Gover- nor and Commander in Chief of His Majesty's Province of New-Hamp- shire, in New-England, &c.
A PROCLAMATION.
W THEREAS his honor. CADWALADER COLDEN, Esq; lieutenant yor- ernor, and commander in chief of his majesty's province of New- York, hath lately issued a Proclamation, of a very extraordinary nature, setting forth, that King CHARLES the Second, on the 12th day of March, 1663-4, and on the 29th June, 1674, did, by his sereral letters patent, of those dates, grant, in Fee. to his brother, the Duke of York, among other things, all the land from the west side of Connecticut-river to the east side of Dela- ware-Bay; and therein also set forth, and describes the bounds of New- Hampshire; in which description there is a very material mistake; besides, there is omitted the fact, on which the description of New-Hampshire de- pended, viz. Ilis Majesty's determination of the north and western bounda- ries of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, in 1739. And nothing can be more evident, than that New-Hampshire may legally extend her western boundary as far as the Massachusetts claim reaches; and she claims no more; but New-York pretend to claim eren to the banks of Connecticut river, although she never laid out and settled one town in that part of his Majesty's lands, since she existed as a government.
When New-York government extends her eastern boundary, to the banks of Connecticut River, between New-York and the Colony of Connecticut;
513
Appendix I.
und to the banks of said river, between New-York and the Province of the Massachusetts-Bay, it would have been full early for New-York to declare that the yorernment of New-Hampshire was fully apprised of the right of New-York, under the before recited letters patent to the Duke of York. virtue of the final determination of the boundary lines settled by his late Majesty, between this yorernment and the Massachusetts Bay, all lands capable of settlements, have been erected into townships, agreeable to his Majesty's commands, and a considerable revenue is duily arising to the crown, unless interrupted and impaired by his Honor's Proclamation, which New-Hampshire will not be answerable for.
At present, the boundaries of New-York, to the northward, are unknown; and as soon as it shall be his Majesty's pleasure to determine them. Now- Hampshire will pay really and cheerful obedience thereunto, not doubting but that all grants made by New-Hampshire, that are fulfilled by the grant- ces, will be confirmed to them, if it should be his Majesty's pleasure to alter the jurisdiction.
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.