USA > Vermont > The Vermont lease lands > Part 3
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
14. Matt B. Jones, Vermont in the Making 1750-1777 (Cambridge, 1939), pp. 42, 130, App. G. Hereafter cited as Jones.
15. Albert S. Batchellor, ed., State Papers, New Hampshire (Concord, 1895), XXVI, vi. Hereafter cited as N. H. S. P.
16. Jones, op. cit., App. G., n.
17. Papers of the Treasurer of the Land Agents of the Episcopal Diocese of Vermont.
13
INTRODUCTION
Civil History of Vermont,18 asserts that there were 138 towns, as does the Documentary History of the Diocese.19 Mr. George G. Bush in his History of Education in Vermont likewise uses this figure.20 The figure 144 is to be found in "The Declaration and Petition of the Inhabitants of the New-Hampshire Grants, to Congress, announcing the District to be a Free and Independent State," in Slade's State Papers,21 and this figure was being utilized by that section of the Vermont Works Progress Administration Historical Records Survey which was attempting to produce a series of correct town maps of the state. In the proceedings in Vermont v. New Hampshire, 289 U. S. 93 (1932), the figure 144 was generally utilized, although Vermont's bill of complaint recited 146.22 Finding 97, p. 280 of Special Master speaks of 136. Mr. Trabue resorted to saying, "about 144 towns."23 It will be noticed at once that the most interesting point is the great disparity in the figures offered by the New Hampshire and Vermont collections of state papers. It is re- marked in passing that the British Board of Trade and Privy Council were no more certain of the number of Wentworth's charters. Two stu- dents of Vermont history acceded to the bewildering conditions. Wood- ard remarks that: "The exact number of the S. P. G. grants made by [Wentworth] is not known "24 And Clarke says, "There is con- siderable uncertainty as to the exact number of towns Wentworth chartered to contain grants to the S. P. G."25
Various factors have contributed to this lack of certainty. Went- worth's land granting activity was not one which would lead him to keep accurate records nor to give it much publicity ; so we do not find a clear-cut record of the charters, but rather a compilation made from fragmentary records. His activity extended over a long number of years, interrupted by the period of the French War, so that it is not to be ex- pected that his clerical and administrative personnel at Portsmouth was continuous. Over the years, town charters were in some instances re- newed by him and also re-granted, the latter act sometimes being ac-
18. Samuel Williams, The Natural and Civil History of Vermont (Burling- ton, 1809), 2nd ed., II, 14.
19. Doc. Hist., p. 6.
20. George G. Bush, et al., History of Education in Vermont, no. 29 in United States Bureau of Education Circular of Information no. 4, 1900 (Washington, 1900), p. 52.
21. Slade, State Papers, p. 70.
22. Special Master, p. 9.
23. Ibid., p. 92.
24. Woodard, Town Proprietors, p. 52.
25. Clarke, "Vermont Lands," p. 281.
14
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
companied by a change in the name of the town, and the classification of such over-lying charters by various writers has no doubt been a source of disagreement as to the total. The confirmation of some of these charters by the New York government, involving in some instances a change in the proprietors concerned, could add to the confusion. In this connection, it is worth noting that some of these charters are not even to be found in Vermont, but are deposited in the archives of New York.26 The New York authorities required that the Wentworth charters be surrendered for the issuance of a New York confirming charter. The many changes in town lines which have been directed by the legislature since the establishment of the state, in some instances involving the creation of new towns, have further obscured the early grants.27 This is especially significant for a study of the lease lands because some such town line changes will have shifted parcels of lease lands from one town to another.
A comparison of the various materials available has led to the con- clusion that the most nearly reliable and useful position is that adopted by Matt Jones. The list of towns found in the New Hampshire State Papers, as modified by him, was adopted for this study.
The post revolutionary, or "Vermont towns," offer a lesser degree of uncertainty but are not clear-cut by any means. Changes in town lines, with later grants partially or completely over-lying earlier towns, con- tribute to this. The legislature, just as Wentworth did, found it expedi- ent in some cases to make re-grants.28 And some adjustments respecting earlier New York land patents affect the picture. An example of this is the case of the Town of Whitingham, which is found to have no charter. The area was once called Cumberland Township, but no appar-
26. Stockbridge, Windsor, New Marlboro, Norwich, Fairfax, Somerset, Ful- lum, New Stamford, Stratton. This list is from unpublished research notes of Mrs. Mary G. Nye in the office of the Vermont Secretary of State.
27. Mr. Virgil L. McCarty, researcher of the town lines section of the Work Projects Administration Historical Records Survey, has made an extensive study of this situation. For an example see: Virgil L. McCarty, "Boundary Contro- versy. The Brownington-Johnson Land Problem," Vermont Quarterly, New Series, XV, No. 3 (1947), 157-176. See also Corinth v. Newbury, 13 Vt. 496 (1841), for history of the Newbury-Topsham line.
28. When Vermont declared her independence in 1777, four towns (Concord, Waterford, Norfolk, and Canaan) had no charters and were first chartered by Vermont in 1780-1782. Bradford (Mooretown) had possibly had a New York patent, but in 1788 the Vermont legislature changed its name from Mooretown to Bradford, and in 1791 appointed a committee to deed land to the settlers di- rectly. Special Master, pp. 73, 74-75; Finding 19, pp. 236-238.
15
INTRODUCTION
ent grant was made of the land until New York issued a patent in 1770, which resulted in establishment of the township of Whitingham.29 The Vermont legislature never gave it a confirmatory charter (instead, it made several grants to individuals within the same town), but simply passed an act stating that land titles were to continue. Vernon is another town without a charter. Originally called Hinsdale, it embraced land on both sides of the Connecticut River and was granted successively by Massachusetts Bay, New Hampshire, the Indians and New York; its only charter even today is as a part of the town of Hinsdale, New Hampshire.30
A further factor is that the state government made grants of land, accompanied by what give the appearance of charters, which are not to be regarded as towns. These grants were for the most part small in acreage relative to that of town grants and were generally to one or a very few grantees. Most of them were and are known either as "gores" or simply "grants." Some of them have since been absorbed into adja- cent towns.31 Unfortunately for purposes of classification, there were some such grants which are difficult to distinguish from ordinary town grants due to the acreage involved, and this leads to variations in the estimates of the number of charters granted.
Another element of confusion respecting the distribution and location of lease lands may be noted here. The "gores" and "grants" have just been mentioned. In governmental organization in Vermont such areas are known as "unorganized places." In addition to these, though, some "towns" are also included in the "unorganized" category. These latter are areas covered by a full-fledged town charter but which lack town government because of a dearth of population. One such "town," for example, is completely lacking in settlement except for one person, and the entire area has been acquired by one man.
Governmental administration in the unorganized areas is accom-
29. Abby M. Hemenway, ed., The Vermont Historical Gazetteer (Brandon, 1891), V, pt. 2, 684-685. Hereafter cited as Hemenway.
30. Vermont State Papers. Index to the Papers of the Surveyor-General (Montpelier, 1918), I, 83. Hereafter cited as Surveyor-General's Index. Special Master, pp. 211, 212; Finding 13, pp. 234-235. Ira, likewise, has no charter. Here the origin of the town is so obscure that in the Surveyor-General's Index, p. 86, re- marks about this town are punctuated with a question mark. The extent of in- formation in Hemenway, III, 778, is simply to give the date of organization of the town as 1779.
31. Four remain : Avery's Gore, Warner's Gore and Warner's Grant in Essex County ; and Avery's Gore in Franklin County.
16
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
plished through a Board of Supervisors, one such board operating for each county containing such areas. These boards represent the state government, and such public administration as exists in the unorganized places is carried on in the name of the state. Real property taxation is accomplished as follows: A board of three appraisers is appointed an- nually for each interested county by the state Commissioner of Taxes, with the approval of the Governor. The boards of appraisers make up the grand list and resulting tax bills for the unorganized land. These are transmitted to the Commissioner of Taxes for his approval. He in turn transmits them to the Board of Supervisors (appointed biennially by the Governor for each county), which collects the tax money and spends it for the benefit of the respective areas.32 The writer had an inter- view with Mr. C. M. Coffrin, the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes. Mr. Coffrin was, and had been for some years, on four of the five existing boards of appraisers. He stated categorically, in response to inquiry, that the unorganized areas included no lease lands. It was pointed out to him that both Glastonbury and Somerset had been chartered by Went- worth in 1761 and the charters provided the usual four public shares. His rejoinder was that neither of these town's has any record in the grand list book of any lease lands. 33
Using the same standard as that adopted by Matt Jones and by a classification of grants made by Vermont, as compiled in Slade's State Papers, the writer evolved totals respectively of 128 and 131 towns, or a grand total of 259 original town grants, eliminating such elements as renewals or re-grants. A current map of the state prepared and pub- lished by the State Development Commission shows a total of 243 towns,34 to which may be added eight incorporated cities.35 In some in- stances these cities would serve to replace earlier town organization, but in most instances the antedating town still exists. These figures are presented to show the extent to which original town identities may be lost completely. The figures do not, however, entirely illuminate the situation because they do not allow for changes in town names, or other incidents. For example, on today's map the towns of Peru and Land-
32. P. L., ch. 147, secs. 3577-3585.
33. No evidence has been found that either of these towns has furnished any income from lease-rent to the Episcopal Diocese of Vermont for the S. P. G. shares. 34. Five of these are unorganized: Averill, Ferdinand, Glastonbury, Lewis and Somerset.
35. These figures agree with the mimeographed mailing list of local units of government prepared by the Vermont State Library.
17
INTRODUCTION
grove are found in the south-central section of the state, but no town of Bromley is to be seen. There was, originally, a Wentworth grant of a town of Bromley. When Bromley's settlers located on the land, they actually settled on a gore between Bromley and Andover (Weston). This was caused partly by inadequate surveying and partly by the at- traction of the superiority of that land. Later the error in location was disclosed, but the settlers wished to remain where they were. A separate, small-sized town was chartered to accommodate them, with the name of Landgrove.36
All such situations and conditions have contributed to the present confused status of much of the lease lands and, likewise, illustrate the justification for the change made in the orientation of this study.
Another angle from which to regard the study as being of concern to Vermont is to consider the total land involved. At best no more than a rough approximation may be offered, but an estimate can be derived which will be of the proper general order and will serve to demonstrate the significance of the lease lands in the state. In order to be as con- servative as possible, an average share has been estimated at 250 acres per town.37 Taking account of the fact that the Wentworth towns pro- vided four public shares and the Vermont towns five, somewhere be- tween 280,000 and 300,000 acres were set aside for the use of the re- ligious and educational beneficiaries designated; and, under the law, all of this is theoretically available for the original purpose. Figures vary somewhat as to the total land area of Vermont, due, no doubt, to the considerable number of lakes and rivers and the impingement, on the western border, of Lake Champlain. The various figures indicate that there are somewhere between 5,800,000 and 6,000,000 acres. Thus, ap- proximately five percent of the land area of the state is affected by the provisions of the charters requiring lands to be reserved for the sev-
36. Hemenway (Burlington, 1867), I, 196-197.
37. Jones, p. 26, estimates shares in Wentworth towns at 340 to 380 acres each. R. C. Benton in his study, Vermont Settlers and the New York Land Specu- lators (Minneapolis, 1894), p. 18, suggests that each shareholder received from 300 to 350 acres. In the Matt B. Jones collection of photostatic copies of various public documents, deposited in the Vermont Historical Society Library, is a copy of a petition of some inhabitants west of the Connecticut River to Governor John Wentworth, dated October, 1769 (Library of Congress Division of MSS Papers of the Continental Congress. No. 40, vol. 1, folios 38-50), which states that the public shares were about 350 acres. The lower figure used herein is to account for small-sized towns and other irregularities. The Jones collection hereafter cited as Jones photostats.
18
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
eral public shares.38 It is conceded at once that the actual acreage of lease lands is less than this because of various "losses" which have oc- curred and which will be considered fully later on. Such losses, however, are a significant aspect of the lease lands as a political institution, and the total remaining acreage is still an impressive portion of the state's area.
It is proposed in this study to consider the lease lands as a type of public subsidy, intended, like any subsidy, to aid the growth and develop- ment of the beneficiary of the subsidy, in this case religious observance or practice, and education. It is assumed that, while there was a general sort of interest in the welfare of these two elements of social activity, the primary purpose in providing such subsidy was as an added incentive to settlement and development of the region.39
In other words, the lease lands will be herein regarded as an instru- ment for the implementing of public policy, the policy being the settle- ment of the region. The element of speculative interest in land, large as it looms in the early history of Vermont, is not of interest in this study per se. We will be concerned with it only as the speculators' way of doing business may have influenced the fate of the lease lands. Nor are we concerned, otherwise, with speculation as an underlying motivat- ing influence in the desire to obtain settlers. The existence of a wide- spread official interest in settlement and development is assumed and
38. Forest Taxation, p. 8, asserts that originally 61/2% of the land area was covered by these grants.
39. This view has been expressed by the Vermont Supreme Court in the case of Dow v. Hinesburg, 2 Aik. 18, 21 (1826) :
There is no room for doubt, but that the object of the government, in granting a right of land to the first settled minister . . . was to encour- age a minister to settle, and preach the gospel among the people of such town, while the land's were uncultivated and the inhabitants few in number, and unable to contribute largely for the pecuniary support of a minister.
The New Hampshire court has been at least as explicit in holding the same assumption. In the case of Baptist Society in Wilton v. Town of Wilton, 2 N. H. 508, 510 (1822), the court said :
A general opinion seems to have prevailed in this state, that the lots re- served for the ministry and for schools, were intended to aid the first inhabitants in educating their children, and in procuring religious in- struction, and thus to induce individuals to become inhabitants.
And again, at p. 512:
The first inhabitants of this country considered the settlement of min- isters and the establishment of schools as matters of the highest importance. In general, those who first settled in the new townships were poor, and we have no doubt that these reservations were intended to aid those who went into the new towns
19
INTRODUCTION
accepted as a major political policy both before and after the Revolu- tion.
At this point, a word should be said with respect to the use herein of the term "political." It is used at all times in the sense of govern- mental, or pertaining to the State. There is no evidence to be found that the lease lands have ever served as a "political football," in the sense of party politics, as has so frequently been true of lands in the west. There is some indication that the early maneuver of the state to confiscate the lands allotted to the glebe and to the S. P. G. was prompted by a desire on the part of the state leaders to appeal to the larger proportion of the settlers at the expense of a minority group, the Episcopalians, by establishing a wider benefit from these shares-and at the same time "twist the tail of the British Lion." Even then (1794) the separate exis- tence of the state did not have the unqualified approval of various groups of residents. There were still those who doubted the wisdom of leaving the jurisdiction of New York, there were those who yet believed in the advantage of joining with New Hampshire, and still others were du- bious of the merits of people such as the Allens, who were prominent in state affairs. This is the single instance in which even the suggestion of partisan use of the lands can be found.
The lease lands are also to be viewed as an administrative problem. Some attempt will be made to compare the more centralized administra- tion of certain of the public rights with the more decentralized admin- istration of other shares. The general terms of the administration of the lands will be looked at; such aspects, for example, as part-time "ama- teur" administrators. Finally, the administration of the lands must be taken into account in any evaluation of the lease lands as a device for furthering public purpose. The State, earlier in the guise of the British colonial administration and later in the persons of the legislature and governor of Vermont, devoted a large area of the public domain, repre- senting a considerable value, either at a capitalized figure or as taxable wealth, to certain purposes. This study will attempt some indication of what has happened to this great asset and to what extent it has con- tributed to the intent for which it was reserved.
Chapter II HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
No picture of the lease lands system in Vermont can be complete without some understanding of the general history of the state. The latter is not the object of the present study ; consequently there will be no attempt made to give a thorough or complete story of the circum- stances out of which arose the fourteenth member of the Union. In fact, the main purpose to be served by this excursion into the history of Vermont is to illuminate the confusion which prevailed on all sides from the time of Benning Wentworth's crossing of the Connecticut River, until well after the establishment of a separate government be- tween that stream and Lake Champlain. If the situation of the public lands is still obscure in the state, that is due in a measure to the man- ner in which the area was developed.
Numerous attempts have been made to establish the validity of one or another version of the struggles which occurred. Some of them have been of an official character, commencing with the representations in 1751 of Governor Benning Wentworth of New Hampshire and Lieuten- ant Governor James Delancey of New York in 1753 to the British Board of Trade and ending with the decision of the United States Su- preme Court in 1932.1 The latter case rose out of the concern of the states of Vermont and New Hampshire over taxation rights on the Con- necticut River, for the solution of which it was necessary to establish the exact boundary line. The Court surveyed the entire history of the boundary, and its conclusions may be regarded as the authoritative state- ment, at least so far as American interests are concerned.2 This, how- ever, came very late, and long after the events affecting the public lands had ended. It should be noted particularly that the Court's opinion is the next statement, carrying a positive authority, following the British Order in Council of July 20, 1764, with the exception of the decision of the New York Supreme Court in the ejectment suits of 1770. And
1. State of Vermont v. State of New Hampshire, 289 U. S. 93 (1932).
2. The full statement of the survey is to be found in Special Master.
22
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
this latter was not acceptable to the New Hampshire grantees who at that date were still insisting on a further royal order. It is true that the colonial offices in London issued statements after 1764 which go to support or even reiterate the position taken in the Order in Council.3 But the British government never made a later positive and definite declaration ; and, actually, the various instructions relative to land grants, issued thereafter to the New Hampshire and New York governors, and statements relating to petitions presented, do no more, at best, than to follow the general lines laid down in the Order. At worst (and this view is derived from reading the sequence and circumstances of such instructions and statements), they tended to make much less certain in the minds of the colonists the ultimate attitude of the British govern- ment.4
Other studies have been made by private investigators, some of them parties to the disputes and some later local historians of New England and New York. Here one encounters immediately the confused and con- troversial state of affairs, beginning with such publications as those of James Duane of New York, Ethan Allen and other "Vermonters," and closing with the latest study, that of Matt B. Jones.5 Probably the latter is the most accurate of the many accounts as it bears abundant internal evidence of careful scholarship and, furthermore, was written long after the smoke of battle had dissolved and there was a better opportunity to survey the field. But even here the reader is soon aware that the effort is somewhat partisan and controversial in that Mr. Jones is obviously attempting to discredit certain previous theses, such as that of Governor Hiland Hall, to the effect that Lieutenant Governor Colden was the vil- lain of the piece.
While various factors, as will be seen later, contributed to the situa- tion, the controversy over the area known until the Revolution as the New Hampshire Grants pivoted on a phrase in the Order in Council of 1740 which determined the boundary between New Hampshire and Massachusetts Bay. Most of this order is irrelevant, but there is an interest for this study in that the line was established to run from a point on the Merrimac River three miles north of Pentucket Falls, thence by a straight line extending "due west across the said River till it meets our other Governments."6 This, as is apparent, is a somewhat
3. Ibid., Finding 86, p. 270.
4. Ibid., Findings : 48, p. 248; 50, p. 249; 64, p. 256.
5. Supra, p. 12, n. 14.
6. N. H. S. P., XIX, 536.
23
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
vague termination of a boundary, especially since the Order of 1740 establishing the province of New Hampshire had fixed no definite western boundary therefor. But, taken in and by itself, it would prob- ably have been adequate, as His Majesty's ministers undoubtedly as- sumed. It did not, as the events later proved, suffice in the face of the conditions to which it was to apply.
Primary among these conditions was the fact that Vermont was then, as now, off the main currents of movement and consequently was somewhat later than surrounding areas in development, political as well as economic. The principal New York contacts with Canada moved along the western edge of Lake Champlain-indeed, even the fortifica- tions were largely on that shore. There was not a very heavy traffic with Canada at best, and the major attentions of the New Yorkers were directed westward through the Mohawk Valley. New Hampshire looked toward the coast, with Portsmouth, and ultimately Boston, as its foci of interest, and the travel to Canada from those parts did not venture west of the Connecticut Valley. What east-west traffic existed, between Bos- ton and Albany, crossed south of Vermont. And so the area, densely wooded and fairly difficult of passage, lay in a pocket. It was too far east for early development by New York and too far west to command at- tention while the energies of the early colonists of Massachusetts and New Hampshire were being absorbed by the country nearer the coast.
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.