USA > Vermont > The Vermont lease lands > Part 2
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
3. The University of Vermont became the sole beneficiary of these lots. Throughout this work the word "University" refers to the University of Vermont, as does the term "College" lots or lands.
4. In The New England Quarterly, III (1930), 279-296. Hereafter cited as Clarke, "Vermont Lands."
5. Florence M. Woodard, The Town Proprietors in Vermont (New York, 1936). Hereafter cited as Woodard, Town Proprietors. Edward D. Andrews, "The County Grammar Schools and Academies of Vermont," Proceedings of the Ver- mont Historical Society, New Series, IV, No. 3 (1936). Hereafter cited as An- drews, "Grammar Schools."
4
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
The beginnings were entirely by interviews, mainly with "old-timers" whose local lore included some awareness of such lands. One such in- dividual would lead to another who was thought to know something additional. This procedure accomplished two results. On the one hand, it increased the number and variety of the fragments in the writer's possession, expanding unevenly the area of the subject of which he was aware. On the other hand, it tended to increase the confusion out of which he was attempting to define the study. The start had been with the impression that there were a group of sequestered "glebe lands." Now, hints and suggestions developed that the lands of interest to the study fell into several groups and, also, that their relation to the com- munity was not uniform. It was only by a close familiarity with the town charters that at least the number and nature of the groups of lands came to be known. Attempts were made to obtain information more solid and authoritative than the tales of the old-timers. This was unsuccessful at the beginning due to the terminological confusions exist- ing. The public documents used terms different from those in customary practice-so different that for a time they passed unrecognized ; so dif- ferent that the process of becoming acquainted with the documentary materials was slow and arduous and required much trial and error, and only a gradual building up of confidence. Indeed, it has been found necessary in the case of the state legislation to go through the many volumes of the laws page by page, scanning the acts for relevancy of contents for this study. Neither the indices nor the titles of the acts have been found at all trustworthy as an indication of applicability.
A second outline of the study was developed in the light of what was regarded then as a recognition of the limits of the problem. This, like its predecessor, has been entirely discarded. At the time of this second definition of the study, the writer was acquainted with the several classes of the lands, knew their source and intent, was aware of the nature of the documentary material to be searched for, and had established the location of important segments of such material. It was proposed to present a complete study of the lands, to the last individual parcel, and to consider in substantial detail their fiscal aspects in relation to taxa- tion in the state. This, it will be recalled, was the first basis of aware- ness of the lands-the concern in the towns about lands sequestered from taxation. It was planned to show just what effect sequestration had had so far as these particular lands are involved. This, of course, meant
5
INTRODUCTION
that the various lots in each town would be analyzed, and plans were laid to that end.
First, it was discovered that the state offices would be valueless for such a plan. The Secretary of State, Rawson C. Myrick, informed the writer, with some regret at being unable to assist him, that "there are practically no records of the lands in the state offices." The Department of Education had no data on those lands allotted for the benefit of education. The office of the Commissioner of Taxes had data derived from the quadrennial assessment reports and other papers, but the Com- missioner was emphatic in his comments that these would be of no value to this study. (These individuals were among those who expressed satisfaction that a study of the lands was to be undertaken.) Failing in this, it was proposed to secure information from the town clerks by use of a questionnaire. A form was prepared which would elicit the basic data respecting the various lots. It was thought that such a ques- tionnaire would provide a point of departure from which its contents could be readily checked and compared and which would provide uni- form information for a comparison of town conditions. This procedure was abandoned due to the pessimistic persuasions of the state officials, particularly those in the tax and education offices. They said that the town clerks would not be of help on a questionnaire. They showed in- stances in which they, in their official capacity, had tried questionnaires to the towns, with uniformly disappointing results. Too many towns failed even to return the questionnaire, and in too many returns the replies were of dubious quality. It was found later on that this is a long- standing characteristic of Vermont. Early efforts to clarify town lines were impeded by the failure of some towns to submit their charters for inspection.6 In at least one instance the legislature considered refusing
6. In 1779 the Vermont General Assembly directed the Surveyor General to collect and record in his office all charters granted by Massachusetts, New Hamp- shire, or New York and in 1780 resolved to declare lands vacant whose charters were not received within a year. Vermont, Secretary of State, State Papers of Ver- mont. Assembly Journals and Proceedings, 1778-1791 (Bellows Falls, 1924), III, pt. I, 88, 150. Hereafter cited as Vermont State Papers. In 1809 the legislature re- quested the Surveyor General to collect and organize data on town lines because no proper state office had any record of the New Hampshire charters. Laws of Ver- mont, 1808-1810, 1809, pp. 62-63. An 1830 effort to clarify the New Hampshire- Vermont boundary line was frustrated because the state government was unable to secure charters from the towns along the river. In the Supreme Court of the United States (October Term, 1932), No. - , Original. The State of Vermont v. the State of New Hampshire. Report of the Special Master, in Chancery [Edmund F. Tra- bue], pp. 167, 195; Finding 301, p. 410. Hereafter cited as Special Master. As late
6
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
to seat town representatives until their towns should have complied with certain requests for information.
The next thought was that, while it would involve considerable travel and time, it would be well to visit each town in turn and secure the de- sired information from the land title and tax records. Several towns were visited, without much success. Land records simply did not exist in most towns in any such form. Finally, the writer had the good for- tune to be invited to accompany the land agent of one of the beneficiaries. He visited several towns during an excursion devoted to an attempt to determine the status of certain lots to which his principal was entitied. He was a man well-experienced in the task as he had been an active land agent for some years and was, moreover, a native of the state, thor- oughly familiar with the ways of town clerks and treasurers. Partial or complete defeat met him in some instances. Nothing short of a com- plete study of all town records, supplemented by other information such as bank mortgage records, by a qualified land attorney, with the addi- tional services of a surveyor, could have dissolved the veil of uncertainty obscuring some of the lots for which he was searching. The following letter was received from him shortly thereafter and indicates the lack of clarity respecting one of his searches :
Monday Sept. 9th '40
Mr. Walter T. Bogart Middlebury Vt
Dear Walter
I wish to thank you for doing so well for Fee and me last week in the way of lunch and incidentally to let you know that our worrying friend Leon V. Chapman in West Rutland need not worry over the lot paid for by C. A. Bloomer. The Ballard lot has been leased since 1838 whereas the Bloomer lot seems to have been discovered by itself as late as 1870 by an attorney working
as 1852, the legislature again directed acquisition of the New Hampshire charters by the Secretary of State. Laws of Vermont, 1852-1854, 1852, p. 54. In 1900 a Joint Resolution of the legislature stated :
Whereas, It appears that the first nine volumes of the Surveyor Gen- eral's papers, containing the original surveys of the several towns in this State, through some lamentable misfortune have been lost to the State, and are now in the possession of the State of New York, and as the said papers, or copies thereof ought to be reasonably accessible to the people of this State.
the Governor was directed to procure copies of the papers or the original volumes. Laws of Vermont, 1900, p. 386. See also, "Address of the Council of Censors," Vermont State Papers, comp. by William Slade, Jr. (Middlebury, 1823), pp. 534- 535. Hereafter cited as Slade, State Papers.
7
INTRODUCTION
for the Society in that area something as I have been working over the whole state.
Very truly yours (signed) Joe Wilson (over)
Of course the fact that the Bloomer $3 lot seems to have been discovered by a lawyer in 1870 and leased to himself in payment for his services is not proof that it is not part of the irregular lot claimed by Ballard and Chapman, Joel Howe claimed the pres- ent Bloomer lot in 1886 and had a perpetual lease made to himself with no rent during his life but he had held the lot for some time before getting the lease
(signed) J. F. W.7
And so it was realized that the study must again be defined. It still existed as a problem and as a topic for study. But on terms different from those previously conceived. The lands exist as a political phe- nomenon, and it now appeared that their very obscurity comprised the definitive aspect of them as a subject for this study. This was the ap- proach which could be of most value in an introductory presentation of the lease lands. To present a perspective picture of the lands as an ele- ment of Vermont political organization and then to make apparent the condition of confusion and obscurity now surrounding them would be of service to those in the state who would have occasion to delve deeper into any particular land problems.8 There is a practical "every-day" place in Vermont for such an analysis of the lease land system. The following letters are submitted in substantiation of the assertions just made. They illustrate both the extreme lack of knowledge in the state regarding the lands and the point that, in various ways, more knowledge is needed. The originals of the letters are on file. The identification of the writers has been omitted here because of the possibility of causing them embar- rassment. The first of the letters was written by a relatively prominent Episcopal clergyman, the second by a member of an important law firm :
October 28 1940
Professor Walter Bogart Middlebury College Middlebury, Vt
My dear Professor Bogart :
Mr. Joseph Wilson, of Montpelier, has suggested to me that you might be able to help me in getting some data in regard to
7. Original of letter in the writer's files.
8. The process of definition of this study has been described at such length because it, in itself, illustrates the general condition of lease land affairs.
8
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
the Land Grants of the Society for the Propagation of the Gos- pel in Foreign Parts as they stand and are administered at the present time by the Diocese.
I am writing a history of [ £ ] and I have also written a his- tory of the Parish Glebe Lands and the Diocesan Land Grants of the S. P. G. taking the subject up to 1920. I am quite sure that the Diocese has made some changes in regard to the Lands since then and I am hoping you can give me some light on this subject. What I would like definitely to know is:
How many acres of such lands there are in each town? How much income the Diocese receives from them?
When the transfer was made by the S. P. G. to the Diocese and how much authority is given to the Board of Land Agents. I have I believe the record of the long litigations but the pres- ent status of the workings and the administration of the Land Grants is somewhat hazy to me.
I would be greatly obliged if you could enlighten me on some of these points
Yours Very Sincerely [ ]
January 7, 1941
Professor W. T. Bogart
Middlebury, Vermont
My dear Professor Bogart :
Mr. Conant, our State Librarian, tells me that you have been making a special study of our public lands.
The Congregational Church has for many years received an- nual rents from three farmers. The church is now being dissolved and all its property turned over to the Vermont Congregational Conference, etc., under P. L. 2644-2652. Question arises whether these annual rents should pass to the Conference or perhaps re- main in the town of [ ] for the benefit of other churches in the town.
For two reasons it seems that the [ ] church can not own these lands in fee :
First, the lands are exempt from taxes and only church build- ings and parsonages are exempt. P. L. 590, 592.
Second, Mr [ ] the town clerk, has made extended search and can find no conveyance of these lands to the church.
Therefore, I suspected these lands are public grants of the town charter. You will know that in our town charters granted by our legislature there were grants for "the ministery and social worship of God forever." See Williams v. North Hero 46 Vt. 301, 319 ; and Williams vs. Goddard 8 Vt. 492. But the [ ] town charter is a Gov. Benning Wentworth charter, and the fore- going grant does not appear in his charters, all of which were of
9
INTRODUCTION
the same form. See Thompson's Vermont Part II, page 224. The following public grants appear in the Gov. B. W. town charters ;
(1). Grant to the first settled minister. But that grant went to the first settled minister in fee. (North Hero case, supra), and therefore the church could only get same by deed of the minister which would appear on the land records and the land would be taxable.
(2). The Glebe lands granted to the Church of England were given to the town for support of schools (Nos. 2 and 7 of Ch. XXV of Slade's Laws).
(3). Following the Revolution the grants to the propagation society were given by our legislature to the towns for support of schools (Nos. 1 and 9 of Ch. XXV of Slade's Laws), and upon this latter act being held unconstitutional by the courts, these grants were turned over to our Episcopal Church.
So how could the lands of the [ ] Church have arisen out of any of the public grants ?
Can you give us any suggestions which might enlighten our darkness? We would greatly appreciate your kindness.
Cordially and sincerely yours, [ ]
Letters have also been read which were addressed to land agents from tenants and from town clerks asking for information and ex- planation of the status of some of these lands. Such letters from tenants are apt to waken no little sympathy in the reader. One farmer, for ex- ample, had seen the proprietors' records of his town and discovered thereby that a portion of his farm was made up of land which the rec- ords indicated belonged to the S. P. G. He had thought he owned all of his land and was bewildered. By considerable inquiry he heard of this land agent as being in some manner connected with the situation, and he was hopeful that the agent could and would help him figure out the situation and what his status was on his farm.
Not the least of the confusion surrounding the lands is the matter of terminology-a designation for them which is definitive and which might serve as a common medium of thought among the people of the state. It has already been pointed out that this constituted one of the early obstacles in this study. Although the problem was gradually solved for purposes of research by becoming familiar with the various terms in use, no satisfactory solution occurred insofar as a title for the study is involved. The present title was finally adopted because it at least has the merit of applying more strictly to these lands than any other title available and because it is in relatively common use among Vermonters.
10
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
It is not altogether satisfactory because it fails of certain proper func- tions of a name, especially in that it carries no suggestion of the purpose of the lands. But for want of any other designation as distinctive as this, the term "lease lands" was adopted for the title and for use in the study.
As has been stated, the first contact with the lands was through the term "glebe." Since then several other terms have been encountered. These are lease lands, public shares, public lands, public rights, seques- tered lands, and lands devoted to public, pious and charitable use. The use of the term "glebe" is found mostly among townspeople, the "neighborhood phrase," so to speak. However, it occasionally appears at the state capitol.9 In the charters of the towns granted by Benning Wentworth, it appears in its traditional use as referring to a lot of land for the benefit of a church-in this instance the Church of England.10 "Lease lands," on the other hand, is equally a phrase in common or
9. Public Laws of Vermont (1933), ch. 33, sec. 592; ch. 145, sec. 3374; ch. 146, sec. 3536. Hereafter cited as P. L. The Vermont Supreme Court, in St. Albans Hospital v. Town of Enosburg, 96 Vt. 389, 392 (1923), noted the use of "glebe" as a term in General Laws (1917), sec. 687.
10. In ecclesiastical law, a glebe was "the land belonging, or yielding revenue, to a parish church or ecclesiastical benefice." Webster's New International Dic- tionary, 2d ed., copr. 1934, 1935, 1945, by G. & C. Merriam Co. (Springfield, 1936), p. 1063. Justice Story, in Pawlet v. Clark, 9 Cranch 292, 330, 334 (1815), gives a more complete interpretation of the glebe in English and American usage :
No parish church, as such, could have a legal existence until consecra- tion, and consecration was expressly inhibited unless upon a suitable en- dowment of land . . This endowment was in ancient times commonly made by an allotment of manse and 'glebe,' by the lord of the manor, who thereupon became the patron of the church. Other persons also at the time of consecration often contributed small portions of ground, which is the reason, we are told, why, in England, in many parishes, the glebe is not only distant from the manor but lies in remote, divided parcels .
Whenever . . within the province, previous to the Revolution, an Epis- copal church was duly erected by the crown, in any town, the parson thereof regularly inducted had a right to the glebe in perpetual succession. Where no such church was duly erected by the crown, the glebe remained an haereditas jacens, and the state, which succeeded to the rights of the crown, might, with the assent of the town, alien or encumber it, or might erect an Episcopal church therein, and collate, either directly, or through the vote of the town, indirectly, its parson, who would thereby become seised of the glebe jure eccelesiae and be a corporation capable of transmit- ting the inheritance.
A further definition found in Benjamin V. Abbott's Dictionary of Terms and Phrases Used in American or English Jurisprudence (Boston, 1879), I, 535, is as follows :
The land of which a rector or vicar is seised in right of the church . We most commonly . . take it for land belonging to a parish church, besides the tithe. It is, in fact, a portion of land attached to a benefice as part of its endowment.
11
INTRODUCTION
customary use among those around the state capitol and among those immediately concerned with some of the groups of lands. "Public shares" is a term found in some of the town charters and in other early papers. The next three terms, "public lands," "public rights" and "sequestered lands," are those customarily encountered in public documents such as legislative acts and the decisions of the courts. The latter, "sequestered lands," is found in legislation dealing with lands of various sorts which happen to be exempt from taxation and with which the lease lands are at times bracketed. "Lands devoted to public, pious and charitable use" was found in some of the town charters and since then may be en- countered at times in legislative acts and other documents. As it is used in later times, it has much the same omnibus quality as "sequestered lands."
A perusal of this list of terms will show that none of them is en- tirely satisfactory. The "glebe," both in its accepted use and in the Wentworth charters, is proper only for one of the groups. "Lease lands" fails entirely to signify anything about the lands other than the mode of their disposal. All of the remainder of the list of terms fails to distinguish these lands specifically granted in the town charters from other quite dissimilar lands. For example, these lands are exempt from taxation ; whereas, certain other lands in the state devoted to "public, pious and charitable use" are subject to taxation.11 "Lease lands" has the single virtue that it alone is comprehensive enough, as used, to embrace all of the lands granted in the charters and at the same time distinguish as between these lands and other types or classes of special land hold- ings.12 Admittedly, the term "lease lands" is unsatisfactory in that it
11. P. L., ch. 33, secs. 590, 592.
12. Even this term is not always reliably used. In the 1946 legislative com- mission report on forest taxation the term includes lands held by Middlebury and Dartmouth Colleges. These holdings are quite distinct in certain characteristics from those commonly called "lease lands." The same report also contains an illu- minating instance of the use of the word "glebe." Therein it is applied to the share for the social worship of God. Normally, in Vermont, as previously indicated, "glebe" refers either to all of the lease lands indiscriminately, or to the original glebe grant in the Wentworth charters which was confiscated for the use of schools. Vermont, Report of the Commission on Forest Taxation (Montpelier, 1946), p. 7. Hereafter cited as Forest Taxation. Another illustration is in a report made to Middlebury College. That institution holds extensive acreages in Vermont. In an effort to clarify the status of its lands, the college undertook a study of the matter. The report was submitted by R. L. Rowland in 1931. The title is, "Middlebury College Lease Lands." That institution is not the beneficiary of any of those lands customarily and properly embraced in the term.
12
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
does not describe to the uninitiated some of the most important char- acteristics of this system of land grants. No adequate term exists.
It has been explained that an acquaintance with the town charters was the step in this research by which the true nature of the lease lands was first made clear. From this, it was a reasonable assumption that a detailed cataloguing of the towns, and the land provisions in the charter of each of them, would provide a firm point of departure for establish- ing the total acreage of the authorized lease lands. It was further as- sumed that the charter provisions, in conjunction with the records of the proprietors as to land divisions, would establish the total acreage, the number of lots, or parcels, of land and their distribution through- out the state. However, this proved to be anything but true.
Even the exact number of towns chartered was elusive and developed much the same uncertainty as had characterized the problem of nomen- clature for the lands. Not only do the written accounts vary respecting the number of towns granted, but the extremes are far apart. The fol- lowing figures have been encountered at one place or another with ref- erence to the number of charters granted prior to the Revolution: 126, 127, 128, 129, 136, 137, 138, 144, 146, and 148. Some of these figures should be identified in order to give a more complete appreciation of the degree of uncertainty existing. The low figure, 126, is found in the power of attorney given by the S. P. G. to the Trustees for the Diocese in 1816.13 Matt Jones prefers the figure 128 (although in a later pas- sage of his book, he casually speaks of 129).14 He relied on the material available in the New Hampshire State Papers. The preface to this col- lection uses the phrase "not less than 129."15 Jones' reason for using 128 is that a duplication existed in that the charter of Dunbar granted in 1764 was for the same area of land previously granted in 1763 under the name of Sudbury, the former grant having lapsed through inactivity of its proprietors.16 In 1927, when the S. P. G. lands were finally trans- ferred to the Diocese, the latter sent notices of this change to 137 towns presumed to have such lands.17 Mr. Samuel Williams, in his Natural and
13. C. R. Batchelder, comp., The Documentary History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Vermont (New York, 1870), p. 147. Hereafter cited as Doc. Hist.
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.