USA > Vermont > The Vermont lease lands > Part 26
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
Here are to be found the listers' laws, with their instructions re- specting sequestered lands. The selectmen are referred to in several capacities-taking control of and leasing some classes of the lands, abating taxes, distributing the avails of religious and school lands, and so on. One duty of especial interest was that, in the early days, of laying out the divisions where the proprietors failed to do so. Town clerks'
31. E.g., Goshen Gore.
32. App. B, sec. 13.
238
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
duties, with reference to records, appear, as well as legislative efforts to correct conditions where clerks have been remiss. The factors of negli- gence and ignorance show up strongly in such acts.
The laws on tax collection are to the point in the way in which they illustrate the difficulties with which the state government has had to contend. Many were the troubles encountered in attempting to require proper collection of taxes and proper tax records. It is clearly probable that the laxness so prevalent, particularly in the early period, accounts for some instances in which lease lands became "lost." A special aspect of the situation, which would have been particularly contributory, is represented by the legislation which established a fee system for reim- bursing those doing tax collecting. Records, generally, as well as other elements of local administration, were so primitive that there would be no necessary correlation of the listers' and collectors' activities-such failures would be possible where the tax payers included a good propor- tion of unlettered "frontier" people.
School laws are included where the nature of the provisions may affect distribution of lease land avails and involve duties of selectmen and school directors, and it should be noted that some county officers are represented in the compilation-the county treasurer and sheriff, particularly. One further group of local officers is to be remarked. It should be understood that city officials carry out responsibilities, in their jurisdictions, parallel with those discharged by town officers elsewhere.
STATE TAX ACTS
It will be recalled that the opinion in Herrick v. Randolph was criticized, in part, with reference to the course of prior tax legislation, and exemption of the public lands therein.38 Some effort is required if one is to perceive fully the relation of early tax legislation to the lease lands. A cursory survey of tax acts might easily lead to the conclusion that there had been no exemption in numerous instances.34 This, how- ever, would be an erroneous impression.
To begin with, it must be understood that the state government, for many years, financed itself, as did other states, by the device now re- ferred to as locally-collected-state-shared taxes. That is, the state legis- lature would pass an act laying a tax of so much on the dollar of the
33. 13 Vt. 525 (1841). Supra, pp. 207-209.
34. See App. B, sec. 14.
239
LEGISLATION
grand list of the towns. The towns were then responsible for adding this levy to the tax rate set by the towns, collecting the whole tax due, and remitting to the state Treasurer that amount of the receipts due to the state levy.35
Budgetary planning was, of course, unknown. So one finds, in the early years, a mass of particularized tax legislation. It was the custom to estimate the cost of any individual subject of legislation and then to pass a tax act providing revenue for that proposed expenditure. Such tax acts were, for the most part, extremely simple in form, merely stat- ing the tax rate per dollar, as expressed either by "the grand list" or by "the polls and rateable estate" and specifying the expenditure purpose. These, as well as similar acts designed to provide revenue for general government purposes for the year, are those which could lead the inves- tigator astray. To complete the picture, another series of tax acts of the legislature is of interest. These acts allowed various taxes for the use of the counties and were otherwise similar in all respects to those pro- viding revenue for the state.36
All of these acts must be read in relation to a separate series of acts- the so-called listers' laws.37 The latter were not annual acts, but were passed from time to time when changes were deemed necessary. They were minute and voluminous in detail. They prescribed specifically the objects of taxation and those things exempted from taxation. They constituted an assessing manual for the town listers, but they were basically of the nature of assertions as to tax policy. In short, they de- scribed and established the composition of the grand list. It was in these listers' laws that one finds provision for tax exemption of the lease lands. And they were for some years the only statements of tax policy by the legislature. Thus, to understand a specific tax act, laying a levy on the grand list, one must be acquainted with the details of the listers' law in effect at that time.
35. As elsewhere, this procedure led to some competition between towns to re- mit as little as possible, through the well-known practice of low assessment rates balanced by higher local tax rates. The recent state Commissioner of Taxes has still been trying to convince local authorities of the merit in realistic assessments. It should be added, however, that in some cases the state tax was set at so many cents per acre of land. Here, this competition was avoided, but, on the other hand, these latter acts were particularly interesting for the lease lands as all such acreage
was to be accounted for by abatement. 36. See App. B, sec. 15.
37. See App. B, sec. 13 and sec. 16.
240
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
As to the lease lands, all of the listers' laws provided them with ex- emption. The first modification of any kind is that in the act of 1825 which allowed taxation of the improvements on lease lands. This was the legislation underlying the litigation in Herrick v. Randolph.38
TAX EXEMPTION
Tax legislation in Vermont, and particularly that affecting exemp- tion, would make a study in itself of some considerable dimensions. The legislators have been notably preoccupied with the matter, and there is a vast number of acts in the record. Necessarily, only those laws of interest to this study have been compiled here.39 An inspection of the extent of that list will show that, even within so limited a scope, a full discussion of the legislation would be beyond the range of an introduc- tory study. In any case, it would be relatively pointless to describe, in- dividually, many of the acts listed because they apply to individual towns or situations and can be arranged in series, the general nature of which can be demonstrated adequately for the present purpose.
In extension of the preceding comment, a generalization, of im- portance here, can be developed. Tax legislation illustrates preeminently the degree to which the Vermont legislature has been prone to indulge in special legislation. This is true generally, as well as in respect to taxa- tion matters. (Another very clear example is found in the legislative record respecting incorporation of county grammar schools and acad- emies.) The term "special legislation" is used here with the broadest connotation. Not only has the legislature acted particularistically for particular institutions ; it has shown, frequently, a failure to decide upon, and follow through with, a policy which is reflected throughout a series of related acts-so much so that acts within a series even fail to show consistency of phraseology where it is reasonable to suppose that the legislature intended to be consistent.40 The farther back in the record one goes, the more apparent this becomes.
It has been stated that the legislature has been consistent in allow- ing tax exemption of the lease lands.41 The comment above gives the
38. 13 Vt. 525 (1841) ; Laws of Vermont, 1822-1826, 1825, pp. 11-12. It is worthy of note that even when the S. P. G. right was excepted from the protec- tion from adverse possession, there was no move to subject the right, as a whole, to taxation.
39. App. B, sec. 16.
40. It will be recalled that this characteristic was remarked in the discussion of town charters, supra, pp. 146-155.
41. Supra, p. 208.
241
LEGISLATION
appearance of a contradiction of this position. However, a description of the situation will afford a reconciliation. Basically, the earlier remark is correct-there has been an enduring policy of exemption, from the earliest acts on. But a detailed inspection of the Laws brings to light various instances in which no exempting clause was included in tax acts. An example is to be seen in land taxes which were laid from time to time, principally for roads and bridges. Such acts would appear in groups on consecutive pages of the Laws, each one applying to a particular town. Such groups are clearly related, both by their position in the Laws and their subject matter. In fact, one might well have expected them to ap- pear as clauses within a single act. Yet some within such a group will include exemption of the public lands while others fail to do so. This happens not once, but often.42
Even the series of acts dealing directly with the question of the public lands is not completely consistent.43 One finds that, although the acts of 1779 and 1781 provided exemption, those of 1782, 1787, and 1794 lacked this clause. Yet, during this same period specific land taxes did provide exemption.44 Furthermore, one finds in the Journal of the General Assembly for 1785, the bill, previously quoted, which proposed to prohibit taxation of the public lands.45 It is evidence of the intent of the legislature to grant exemption even then. Since 1797 exemption has been provided for, the only modification appearing in the authority granted to tax the betterments on lease lands. The act passed in October, 1781, carries a preamble which indicates something of the legislators' concern : "Whereas the value of the landed interest . is greatly ad- vanced by settlements being formed in the towns. " The act went
42. E.g., Laws of Vermont, 1796-1798, 1798, pp. 137-141.
43. These acts are the central point of interest here; so it has been thought advisable to specify them: Slade, State Papers, pp. 297-298, Feb. Session, 1779; Statutes of the State of Vermont, Revised (1797), App., pp. 28-32, Apr. Session, 1781; Slade, op. cit., p. 440, Oct. Session, 1781; Laws of Vermont (1807 comp.), II, 305-309, Oct. Session, 1782; ibid., II, 315-319, 412-414, Feb. Session, 1787 ; Laws of Vermont, 1787, p. 11, Oct. Session; ibid., 1791, p. 19, Jan. Session; Laws of Vermont (1807 comp.), II, 320-324, 1794; Statutes of the State of Vermont, Re- vised (1797), p. 569, Feb. Session, 1797; Laws of Vermont, 1811-1814, 1814, pp. 82-83; ibid., 1819-1821, 1819, p. 26; ibid., 1822-1826, 1825, pp. 11-12; ibid., 1827, p. 12, Oct. Session; ibid., 1833, p. 24; ibid., 1841-1844, 1841, p. 11; ibid., 1855, pp. 44- 59; ibid., 1860, pp. 28-29; ibid., 1876, pp. 88-89; ibid., 1896, p. 10; ibid., 1898, pp. 10- 11; ibid., 1906, p. 19; ibid., 1908, pp. 22-23; ibid., 1910, pp. 23-24; ibid., 1915, pp. 96-97 ; ibid., 1917, pp. 33-35.
44. E.g., Slade, State Papers, p. 509, Oct. Session, 1786.
45. June 17, 1785, pp. 4, 41. Supra, p. 206, n. 120.
242
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
on to authorize the towns to levy taxes for "building houses of public worship, school houses, and bridges." It concluded by exempting "such ",46 lots or rights of land, as are appropriated to public or pious uses. . . .
An act of 1850 is of some interest.47 It shows the beginnings of the later trend away from tax exemptions which was remarked in the preced- ing chapter48 and at the same time demonstrates the special treatment accorded the lease lands. It authorized the taxing of certain college lands under durable leases, but specifically excluded the lands reserved in the town charters.
In later years tax exemption came to be a concern because of its supposed influence on the tax burden of non-exempted property. But the legislature still failed to develop a settled position. The activities of the 1915 session illustrate this. On the one hand, a joint resolution took notice of the conditions, the attitude of the tax payers of the state, and their "desired relief from the burdensome conditions of local taxation. >>49 It set up a joint special committee to investigate and hold hear- ings and report. On the other hand, one finds the same session grant- ing new exemptions.50 The lack of policy is more generally demonstrated by the way in which, over a long period, various exemptions were being curtailed at the same time that other new exemptions were established. In fact, the only exemption encountered which has been relatively con- tinuous has been that granted the lease lands. Even in 1939 when the Commissioner of Taxes was directed to report to the 1941 session on various classes of exemptions, the lease lands were not included in the directive. The preamble of this act is significant: "Whereas, much spe- cial legislation has been enacted exempting real and personal property from taxes, resulting in loss of revenue. . . ",51
Among the laws listed under "Tax Exemption" one encounters pro- visions in certain acts which throw an interesting sidelight on Vermont affairs. These acts variously required local officers to prepare and com- pile detailed and specific data on all public lands within their respective towns. This was desired in connection with abatement of taxes, esti- mating revenues, and so on. The first instance found was as early as
46. Slade, op. cit., p. 440.
47. Laws of Vermont, 1849-1851, 1850, pp. 16-17.
48. Supra, pp. 213-215.
49. Laws of Vermont, 1915, p. 535.
50. Ibid., 1915, p. 378.
51. Ibid., 1939, p. 422.
243
LEGISLATION
1797,52 and the requirement appears at intervals thereafter. If these di- rectives had been accomplished properly, starting at so early a date, the present conditions of uncertainty respecting numerous parcels of lease land would have been prevented.
THE UNIVERSITY
The acts listed as pertaining to the college right include, besides those applying to the University, a few which refer to Dartmouth College, Middlebury College and Norwich University.53 These are thought to merit inclusion in order to clarify some existing confusion of thought respecting the lease lands so far as the "college right" is concerned. An example of the sort of misconception to be encountered is found in the statements made to the writer, by officials of Middlebury College and others, that the latter institution is trustee of some of the lands which are the subject of this study. Actually, Middlebury College is not, but any attempt to explain this fact is apt to be met by polite, but firm, skepticism, so deeply entrenched has become the accepted notion. The act of 1800 specifically denied to Middlebury College all the rights of lands reserved by the town charters for a college.54 Those items re- ferring to Dartmouth College demonstrate the interest and early pro- posals of that institution as to lands in Vermont and cover the final disposition of the problem thus created, by the grant of the Town of Wheelock.
The compilation includes a number of basic acts affecting the Uni- versity. For the present study, they may be roughly classified into sev- eral purpose categories. That group of most direct interest includes the acts which specifically dealt, in one way or another, with the Univer- sity's possession of the "college right" lands.55 They commence with the act of 1791, which was the charter of the institution, and continue through to 1937. The charter was twice amended respecting the grant of the public lands, each instance being intended to broaden and strengthen the legal right of the University in those lands. In the pres- ent century the 1925 and 1935 acts authorized sale of the lands, under
52. Laws of the State of Vermont, Revised (1797), App., p. 78.
53. See App. B, sec. 17.
54. Laws of Vermont, 1800, p. 40. This was the act incorporating the college.
55. Ibid., 1791, Oct. Session, pp. 29-30; ibid., 1802-1804, 1802, pp. 156-158; ibid., 1808-1810, 1810, pp. 117-120; ibid., 1861-1863, 1863, pp. 61-67; ibid., 1925, p. 52; ibid., 1935, pp. 78-79 ; ibid., 1937, pp. 108-109.
244
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
certain limitations. Finally, an act of 1937 presumably allows the Uni- versity, with approval of the court of chancery, to expend principal, as well as interest of moneys derived from the lease lands.
A second group of acts deals with the problem of meeting the re- quirements of the Morrill Act, and the change in organization which was necessary in order to receive the benefits of that legislation.56
It must be understood, that the University of Vermont is not truly a "state university," as that term is used in the middle and far west. This assertion would draw a strong denial from some Vermonters and an equally strong support from others because the status of the institu- tion, and its precise relation to the state, has been the subject of much speculation and controversy.
In any case, the situation apparently did not meet the requirements of the Morrill Act. So, it was found necessary to create a new educa- tional corporation in the form of a state agricultural college. The Uni- versity's friends were close enough to the state government so that the matter did not rest there. A third corporation was created, styled the University of Vermont and State Agricultural College, which continues to the present time. To make a simplified explanation, it is analogous to a "holding company" in the business realm. The two earlier and separate institutions did not cease to exist, but were simply conjoined through the medium of the third corporation. This was achieved only after much pulling and hauling and trial and error, as the legislative rec- ord from 1862 until 1866 testifies. Indeed, the 1945 act listed is interest- ing as illuminating the situation. It established a commission to study the finances of the University and the relation of that institution to the state.
The last group of acts is concerned most directly with the relations between the University and the state.57 These acts are found to modify the composition of the Board of Trustees and achieve other like meas- ures. They are of interest here solely as they furnish a significant com- mentary on the basis on which the early legislatures performed the function of granting away the public rights.
There is no evidence by which to know whether the legislation of 1787 was effective.58 It provided for a state administrator in each county
56. Ibid., 1861-1863, 1862, p. 67; ibid., 1861-1863, 1863, pp. 36, 61-67; ibid., 1864, pp. 100-105, 106-107 ; ibid., 1865, pp. 96-102; ibid., 1866, p. 105; ibid., 1945, pp. 98-99.
57. Ibid., 1822-1826, 1823, p. 27; ibid., 1827-1831, 1828, pp. 11-12; ibid., 1845- 1848, 1845, p. 52; ibid., 1878, pp. 56-57; ibid., 1943, pp. 90-91.
58. Ibid., 1787, Oct. Session, pp. 7-8.
245
LEGISLATION
for the lots in the college right for the septenary. This act remained on the books in the revision published in 1791, despite the fact that the University was chartered in that year and granted the college right.59 Small wonder that some question developed as to the extent of Uni- versity control of the lands !
Several of the acts listed deal with problems of the lease lands in certain particular towns. Such acts are a part of the data which would be needed by anyone going deeply into the various parcels of lease lands. They also illustrate the legislature's interest in the public rights, and the ways in which that body undertook to solve the problems which arose.
THE S. P. G.
The list of acts directly concerning the S. P. G. right are relatively few in number.60 Two points are to be noticed about them. One is that they are more dramatic in character than the legislation pertaining to other public rights. This effect is the result of the antagonism of the early legislature to the Church of England and the effort to confiscate the glebe and S. P. G. rights, followed by the later maneuver of sub- jecting the S. P. G. right to the provisions of the statutes of limitations respecting adverse possession.
An odd fact appears upon the reading of these acts. The first aimed at the church was that of 1787.61 In this, the selectmen were directed to take the care and inspection of the lots of the glebe and society rights, to see that the rights were properly allotted, and to lease them for the period of that septenary. Furthermore, the selectmen were to take what- ever possessory action might be necessary before the courts to oust wrongful possessors. But there was no word respecting disposition of the resultant lease-rent! One can only suppose that any such revenue would have gone into the town general fund. It was not until the 1794 act of confiscation (or as it was referred to, appropriation) that one finds the provision for the avails to go to the schools. It may be noted, too, that this act changed the authorized term for leases from the period of the septenary to perpetuity.62
The other noticeable characteristic of this compilation is the demon- stration that the legislature did regard the S. P. G. right as being of
59. Statutes of the State of Vermont, Revised (1787), pp. 208-209.
60. App. B, sec. 18.
61. Laws of Vermont, 1787, Oct. Session, pp. 7-8.
62. Ibid., 1794-1796, 1794, pp. 114-116.
246
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
equivalent status with the other public rights. The acts listed for 1801 and 1811 are clear examples. In each instance there was, in the respec- tive towns involved, some difficulty as to the allotment of land for the public rights. These acts were legislative solutions of the trouble. And it is to be seen that in each case there was no distinction made respecting the S. P. G. right.
A further element of the position, just reviewed above, is seen in the series of acts commencing with those in 1868 by which the property- holding status of the Episcopal parishes and the Diocese were regular- ized and statutory provisions were developed to substitute for the Eng- lish law, which was reviewed so meticulously by Judge Story in Pawlet v. Clark63 and which, of course, had been made void by the Revolution.
COUNTY GRAMMAR SCHOOLS
Much of what might otherwise have been written here about the county grammar schools and the public right reserved for them will have been handled elsewhere in this study, the matters being covered more appropriately at those places.64
The first comment to be made respecting this topic is that the com- pilation of laws has been subdivided into two groups.65 The first part of the list includes acts which unmistakably concern the lease lands in one way or another. The second part pertains to schools-academies, in- stitutes, seminaries, incorporated high schools, etc .- which are thought not to have been involved in the lease lands. There was some considera- tion of omitting this latter group of acts, but the opposite decision was reached for several reasons. First of all, without a close, detailed in- dividual study, it is impossible to be certain that none of those schools received benefits from the lease lands. Next, the internal characteristics of the two lists will show that it is difficult to derive many distinctions by which to determine why some schools received the lands and others did not. Three such distinctions are available, but they account for only a modest proportion of the second group. One is that no school for women seems to have received the benefit; a second is that those schools under immediate control of any religious organization were excluded ; and, finally, those few schools which were based on the endowment of a single individual donor seem not to have been given the grants of public
63. 9 Cranch 292 (1815).
64. See chap. III, p. 81; chap. IV, passim; chap. VII, pp. 284-295.
65. App. B, sec. 19.
247
LEGISLATION
1
land. A third justification for inclusion of the second group of acts is that the two lists, together, give a more adequate picture of the flood and ebb of private school development in Vermont. Finally, together they likewise demonstrate the tremendous quantity of legislation which was enacted respecting secondary schools.
This last point deserves special emphasis. It is to be seen that the compilation in this section of the appendix exceeds, considerably, the extent of any other section, even those on taxation or town line changes. The extreme number of laws is partly accounted for by the simple fact that there were incorporations of a large number of schools. But this is no solution. The fact is that the legislature treated school problems par- ticularistically, and this is the primary basis for the quantity of laws encountered. Probably, this legislative characteristic was a reflection of the particularistic localism of thinking which prevailed in Vermont on all matters of education.66 However, for the purpose of this study it must be noted that the lack of broad basic policy respecting the schools was accompanied by an equal failure to develop a policy respecting the gram- mar school lands. Instead of applying a policy, subject to modification as conditions might change, the legislature undertook to cope with each individual situation separately, with the patch-work result which might be expected from such a course.
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.