USA > Vermont > The Vermont lease lands > Part 30
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
32. This is illustrated by the minutes in the "Record Book: Agents," passim. As an attempt to straighten out affairs a General Agent, one Fullerton, was ap- pointed in 1844. However, thereafter, the minutes contain various items of com- plaint over his vouchers for expenses.
33. Hereafter referred to as "the Society."
278
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
agents be appointed to take charge of the lands. In 1773 the Society ap- pears next to have exhibited an interest, and in 1785 a resolution was adopted instructing the secretary to take steps. The resolution is of consequence because it asserted an intention to make over the lands to the use of the Episcopal church in Vermont.34
Apparently, however, this was mostly a matter of good intention. Nothing further of importance occurred for many years. The Vermont Episcopalians made several efforts to secure some action from the So- ciety. First, they petitioned for a deed; then for arrangements by power of attorney ; then again, later, for a deed ; and finally again for a power of attorney. Some of these petitions were answered in the negative, and to some there appears to have been no reply. Among other factors, the problem was difficult of solution, in the eyes of the Society, because the Episcopalians in Vermont were not properly organized according to church canons.35
The auspices of the Bishop of the Eastern Diocese were secured to overcome this, and, finally, in 1817 the first power of attorney was re- ceived. This power of attorney was renewed, without substantial change, from time to time until the transfer occurred in 1927.36
The power was full and ample and was granted jointly to five men. It was on the basis of this grant of power that the New Haven suit was undertaken in which the United States court confirmed the title to the rights.37
In the meantime, S. P. G. lands had been the subject of much con- cern, both in the legislature and in the annual Episcopal conventions. The legislature had received various propositions and petitions for the lands, including one from John Wheelock that they be granted to Dart- mouth College and one from Ira Allen that they go to the University of Vermont.38 The conclusion of all this had been the act of 1794 awarding the rights to the respective towns.39
34. Doc. Hist:, pp. 7-8, and passim.
35. Ibid., pp. 17-25.
36. The renewal in 1859 contained one significant change. It provided that leases should not be made for terms longer than twenty years. This restriction ap- peared in the renewal of 1870. The 1859 renewal also contained some urgently phrased instructions to the Agents to the effect that they be more energetic in se- curing the lands, making leases, and, particularly, in respect to rent collections. "Record Book: Agents," pp. 195-199, 216-222.
37. S. P. G. v. New Haven and Wheeler, 8 Wheaton 464 (1823).
38. Doc. Hist., pp. 46-48.
39. Ibid., pp. 48-50, 53-54. Laws of Vermont (1824 comp.), pp. 194-195.
279
ADMINISTRATION
Thus, a period of some fifty-five years intervened between the So- ciety's first notice of the grants and the time at which it concluded any constructive action toward their administration. Furthermore, forty years had gone by since the Vermont government appeared. During a large part of this time the S. P. G. lots had been subject to much politi- cal pressure and to the pressure of settlers, without enjoying any effec- tive oversight. And finally, a period of twenty-three years had passed during which the lots were under the influence of the act of confiscation.
An extended report, including a summary of the history of the situa- tion, was made to the Episcopal convention by the Board of Agents in 1823. This report also gave the essential information respecting the New Haven suit,40 just then concluded, and the plans for administering the lands. They expected to reduce popular opposition by giving leases to the then tenants, with no payment of back rent. They stated that they expected that the annual income would ". . amount to Four Thou- sand, and that it will not exceed Five Thousand Dollars." A pregnant item in the report, for later events, was the information that, "Agents were . . . appointed in the different counties authorized to execute leases in the name of the Society "41
Here we find the beginning of the method of administration which continued. From that time forward the Documentary History records frequent resolutions of the conventions requesting reports from the General Agents as to the state of the lands. In 1824 the agents replied that they were as yet unable to give a full account (this is found in later years to be a relatively normal reply), but they did say that approxi- mately a third of the lands had been leased and the income would be "something more than one thousand dollars a year."42 They also noted that there were then eight suits pending in county court.
Already, by 1826, the Prudential Committee of the Convention had
40. 8 Wheaton 464 (1823).
41. Doc. Hist., pp. 213-218.
42. Ibid., p. 267.
43. Both the Documentary History narrative of convention meetings and the "Record Book" of the Agents, over a period of some years, relate a constant condi- tion of litigation. There will be "12 suits pending," or a report of so many suits set- tled by compromise, and so on. The financial reports reflect this in items of expense connected with litigation. On the one hand, this must be accepted as a disruptive influence administratively. But, against this credit, one perceives that much of the reason for the long drawn-out continuance of the litigation was ineffective admin- istration.
280
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
to report: "But as returns have been received from only four of the County Agents, and the principal pecuniary transactions have been car- ried on through them, the Treasurer found it impossible to present a full and satisfactory statement."44 And in 1828 the report of the Pru- dential Committee was in a still more dissatisfied tone :
Information with regard to the present state of the trust . . remains still so limited and ill-defined, that their [the agents'] report might perhaps as well be dispensed with . . .. And, in a word, the whole business is in so unsettled a state, that neither the Agents themselves, nor their Treasurer, nor your Commit- tee, can possibly, in any limited time, reduce confusion to order, or present a lucid or satisfactory view of the actual condition of affairs.45
Soon after this the minutes are filled with remarks respecting the problem of making the work of the General Agents more effective. Al- ready difficulties are apparent with the county agents, one having re- signed and failed in business so that nothing could be expected of him, another failing to remit, others being remiss at enforcing collection of rents. Thus rapidly, the pattern of administration emerged which con- tinued throughout the record. There were periods of more energetic ad- ministration than at other times. But the picture is essentially continu- ous.46 . 46
It was a cumbersome and diffuse system which was created. The powers of attorney named a various number of agents as a board-the number being generally some half-dozen.47 These, jointly, were respon-
44. Doc. Hist., p. 292.
45. Ibid., p. 305.
46. The "Record Book: Agents," p. 115, contains the following :
The undersigned general Agent of the said Society begs leave to report- That during the past year he has called on the Subagents in the several Counties in the State for Settlement with the Exception of Caledonia and Essex-but no full settlement made with any of them Except Major Haw- ley of Bennington Co
And on p. 171 the financial statement for 1854 concludes: "The rents on the 4 coun- ties not reported are probably all collected (with exception perhaps of Essex County ) ."
47. The renewals of the power of attorney were occasioned by losses of mem- bership of the Board, by death, removal from the state, and resignation. The "Rec- ord Book: Agents," p. 120, contains this significant remark from the minutes for June 4, 1846 :
The Board of Agency . . . would respectfully report to the Convention of the Diocese . . . that it has duly received notice of the Action of the
281
ADMINISTRATION
sible. All of them were persons with other heavy responsibilities, serv- ing in this capacity without other return than reimbursement for out- of-pocket expenses. The board, in turn, appointed county agents who were given authority to make leases and collect rents. They were en- titled to a small fee for their services. They were to remit their collec- tions to the treasurer of the board and transmit information respecting leases to the board.
After 1844 the system was further complicated by the creation of the office of General Agent. This post was evidently set up with the idea of establishing a more effective central control over the operations of the county agents. The real result seems, however, to have been just that much more confusion. The treasurer continued to exercise a central re- sponsibility, and the relations between him and the general agent were not well-defined. Essentially the new functionary merely added another link to an already long, weak chain. The board, in turn, disbursed the avails to the Episcopal church in Vermont, a portion to the Bishop and any remainder to the clergy of the parishes.
Presumably, the Treasurer of the Board of Agents would be the focal point, and to some extent this occurred. The Reverend John A. Hicks, after whom the box is called,48 was such a one, being appointed in 1857, and it was by virtue of this office that he possessed the box of leases which was lost for so long a time.49
Since 1927 modifications have been made to account for the disap- pearance of the Board of Agents and the assumption by the Diocese of primary authority. The county agent system was retained. There was created a State Agent to whom the county agents were responsible. The state agent is responsible to the Board of Trustees of the Diocese and remits to the treasurer of that body. The board, in turn, distributes the income. So far as results are concerned, there has been no great change. The records respecting lots and leases are still incomplete and inadequate. The relations with the county agents are as tenuous as ever. The "Record Book" carries various entries in which the agents were endeavoring to
Convention at its last annual meeting with reference to this Board and has taken the same into consideration. The Board upon consultation does not deem it expedient for several weighty reasons that there should be an entire displacement of the present Board such as is contemplated in the recommen- dation of the convention
48. Supra, pp. 84-85.
49. The Rev. Mr. Hicks died in 1869. He had been a member of the Board of Agents for thirty years and secretary-treasurer for twelve. "Record Book: Agents," p. 214.
282
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
concentrate the custody of the leases and the data respecting the lots in the office of the treasurer.50 Guy Wilson wrote in 1931 :
It has always been my idea that as far as practicable the office having charge of the S. P. G. lands should have available in the office what information could be reasonably obtained and with that idea in my mind I have procured what data I could, and it is on file. Many of the county agents have private information that they keep on file in their offices-but with the frequent changes in county agents these data get lost.51
In 1940, when the writer was inspecting the S. P. G. records, Mr. Joseph Wilson was still engaged in this effort, and two counties were still not in his current work book. He had no specific information on lots in those counties other than doubtful lists of rentals from the county agents, listed by their lease numbers, and including the name and ad- dress of the person paying the rent, and the amounts. Moreover, data on other counties was anything but satisfactory. The letter reproduced in Chapter I is illustrative.52 Even at this late date most of the lots were recorded only by the traditional familial name which had become at- tached to them.53
Two other interesting situations may be added to the demonstration that the course of S. P. G. administration has been more or less un- varying. The "Record Book" minutes contain various entries on the problem of requiring the county agents to remit their receipts.54 Mr.
50. See ibid., minutes : April 30, 1823, p. 39; June 15, 1825, p. 46; Jan. 9, 1834, p. 85; June 5, 1844, p. 111; June 13, 1852, p. 164; July 11, 1854, p. 171; July 10, 1855, p. 174; Aug. 12, 1856, p. 181; July 13, 1858, p. 187; July 7, 1870, p. 225; June 16, 1903, p. 336. These entries variously represent efforts to secure the use of uni- form forms, standard accounts, "suitable bookkeeping," lists of the lands, the leases, etc. The period from 1870 to 1903 is largely a blank in the records. One Bliss was secretary for thirty years, from 1872 to 1903, dying in office, and for that period the minutes are useless. Furthermore, the full fiscal reports ceased as of Hicks' in- cumbency as treasurer, were reinstituted in 1875 when Mr. Dewey succeeded him, then are only fragmentary from 1888 to 1903. The general conditions were not im- proved any by a fire in 1850, at the then treasurer's office, in which a large pro- portion of the leases were burnt. By 1860, the agents were still attempting to com- pile the information needed to replace those lost. Ibid., p. 192.
51. From correspondence file in possession of Joseph F. Wilson, Montpelier.
52. Supra, pp. 6-7.
53. Letters in Mr. Wilson's correspondence file refer to one lot, about which some difficulty existed, as the "Honey Pot" lot !
54. "Record Book: Agents," minutes : Apr. 30, 1823, p. 46; Apr. 8, 1838, p. 92; Feb. 2, 1841, p. 102; Feb. 3, 1842, p. 106; July 10, 1855, p. 174; Aug. 12, 1856, p. 181.
283
ADMINISTRATION
Wilson in 1940 was still struggling with this problem. The other relates to the administration of the timber lands in Essex County. This appears in the minutes as early as 1845 and is still unsolved.55
The legal aspect of the S. P. G. right is possibly different in some respects from the other public shares. To begin with, the Diocese is a far more "private" organization than are the other trustees, and before that, of course, the Society was a British corporation. And there have not been the explicit rulings by the court respecting this right which were found for the others. As was seen, the only case bearing directly on the status of the S. P. G. lots was Propagation Society v. Sharon,56 and the best that opinion offers is the opportunity to draw implications. It was mentioned in connection with the examination of that case that Mr. Joseph Wilson contemplated commuted rent conveyances. Various items in the correspondence file of the State Agent, dating from the time of Mr. Guy Wilson, show clearly that they then assumed they could sell the S. P. G. lots. And the earlier powers of attorney from the Society in- cluded authority to "demise."
It seems to the writer that this is a questionable position. The S. P. G. right has been administered under the advantages accruing to the other public rights; that is, they have enjoyed the benefit of the special doc- trine respecting perpetual leases, and they have been blessed with tax exemption, as being "public, pious and charitable" lands, as granted in the charters. The only distinctive point in which these lots enjoyed less advantage than other public rights is the fact that they were for a time refused the exemption from the statutes of limitations. Yet, even here, Judge Story pointed out that the act removing them from the protective clause, in itself recognized the S. P. G. lots as being among the public rights.57 The question, then, is whether the S. P. G. right may enjoy the benefits of a special status, without incurring the limitations and ob- ligations entailed thereto.
The S. P. G. right is so little defined legally because it has had so meagre a history of litigation, in the higher echelons of judicial appeal. Despite the many county actions to be noted in the Diocese records, few cases are reported in the Vermont Supreme Court, and none recently. The Vermont court records include Colchester v. Hil158 and Rood v.
55. Ibid., minutes : June 4, 1845, p. 114.
56. 28 Vt. 603 (1856).
57. S. P. G. v. Pawlet and Ozias Clarke, 4 Peters 480 (1830).
58. Brayt. 65 (1815).
284
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
Willard,59 which were attempts by selectmen, in actions of ejectment, to recover S. P. G. lots under the 1794 act of confiscation, and Propaga- tion Society v. Sharon.60 That is all. Then there were the two federal cases in 1823 and 1830.61 This lack of legal disputation is probably by design. The pages of both the Documentary History and the "Record Book" are replete with remarks showing a firm purpose to conciliate the general public as much as possible. The Documentary History dwells on the Episcopalian minority status in the state. The agents' records dem- onstrate their various techniques for securing their lands with the least possible friction.
GRAMMAR SCHOOL LANDS
Of all the public shares, that for a county grammar school has per- haps wound up, in its effects, farthest afield from the original contempla- tion of the donor. (This is except for the glebe which, by confiscation, was diverted to the use of the towns.) This statement is predicated on the development which has occurred respecting secondary education. The high school system of today has hardly any parallel to offer for the scheme in mind when the founders of the state spoke of the plan for county grammar schools. And this, of course, is founded on the turn of demographic development in the state. The size of the population, the ease of transportation and communication, the greater per capita wealth which has permitted more diffusion of education, the mechanization of farming methods which likewise has permitted more youngsters to spend time in school, the general spread of "democracy of education" as a belief, and finally, profound changes in the concepts of the proper content of secondary schooling-all these factors were not foreseen by those who set afoot the movement for county grammar schools and re- served the grants of land to that purpose in the town charters.
The county grammar school, as an institution, and its history, need not be related here at any great length. The story has been well told by Edward D. Andrews.62 Only so much is in order here as is needed to
59. Brayt. 65 (1816) ; S. C., Brayt. 67 (1817).
60. 28 Vt. 603 (1856).
61. S. P. G. v. New Haven and Wheeler, 8 Wheaton 464 (1823) ; S. P. G. v. Pawlet and Clarke, 4 Peters 480 (1830).
62. "Grammar Schools." This was a publication of a portion of Dr. Andrews' dissertation, submitted to the Graduate School of Yale University in 1930, in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, which he was awarded that year. The part deleted, by Dr. Andrews, dealt with the later period of the rise of the public high school system.
285
ADMINISTRATION
understand the public right of lands originally designed to aid such schools.
It is apparent that the scheme was to have been a grammar school in each county. This is indicated by the wording of the grant in the town charters, and in the words of the first state constitution.
The charters are about evenly divided in the use of two variants of the granting clause: "for use of County Grammar Schools in said state" and "for use and benefit of County Grammar Schools throughtout this State." The first Constitution of Vermont, 1777, said : "One grammar school in each county . ought to be established by direction of the General Assembly."63 By the time of the revision of 1786, the idea had been modified : ". . . and one or more grammar schools be in- corporated, and properly supported in each county in this State."64 This form continued, without change, in the 1793 revision.65 The latest ver- sion of the Constitution carries the provision : " .. one or more gram- mar schools to be incorporated and properly supported, in each county, in this State."66
The first disposition of grammar school lands was in the grant con- tained in the charter incorporating the Caledonia County Grammar School at Peacham in 1795.67 Other secondary schools preceded this one : Clio Hall at Bennington in 1780; Windsor and Rutland County Gram- mar Schools in 1785 and 1787 respectively ; Athens Grammar School in 1791 ; and Cavendish Academy in 1792.68 They did not, however, receive the grants of lands.
It is with the Caledonia grant that the initial change in the general scheme occurred, and the one which, in the writer's opinion, was the most momentous for the future. It seems inescapable that the plan had been for an administration of the grammar school rights, of such a nature that these lands would benefit such schools throughout the state. Besides the charter phraseology quoted above, it should be observed that a considerable number of the charters went on to state: ". . . and the Improvements, rents, Interests and Profits arising therefrom shall be under the Controul, order, direction and disposal of the General As-
63. Ch. II, sec. XL. Slade, State Papers, p. 254.
64. Ch. II, sec. XXXVIII. Ibid., p. 528.
65. Ch. II, sec. 41. Laws of Vermont (1824 comp.), p. 53.
66. Ch. II, sec. 64. P. L., p. 51.
67. Laws of Vermont, 1794-1796, 1795, pp. 12-14.
68. Andrews, "Grammar Schools," p. 134.
286
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
sembly of said State forever . ",69 However, with the incorpora- tion of the school at Peacham, and the grant of lands to it, the policy was inaugurated by which grammar school lands came to be identified as for the benefit of particular schools.
The legislators were evidently somewhat at sea in the matter. Dur- ing the consideration of the Peacham petition, the legislative committee to which the petition had been referred reported :
That, from an examination of the charters, in which particu- lar rights of land were granted . .. it appears, that the said rights were to be appropriated to the county grammar schools in, or which might be within the state, without confining the rights to the several counties in which they lie ; and therefore suggest to the House, whether or not it will be expedient to pass said bills, till the sense of the Legislature shall be known on the construction of said grants.70
It is true that the Peacham school grant contained a proviso that future legislatures could order distribution of avails so as to create an equal proportion with other counties in the state. And various provisions are found in the grants to other schools. A few of them were complete and specified simply that future legislatures should have the power to change the disposition of the lands,71 while at the other extreme there were grants to schools, with no saving clause whatever.72 In any case, the legislature cannot be said to have exercised good foresight in writ- ing this part of the various acts of incorporation of schools. The court, as we have seen, has been strict about the matter. In fact, the Caledonia
69. E.g., charter of Cabot. Vermont State Papers, II, p. 36. Such charters in- cluded the college right in this stipulation. It is somewhat surprising that the Ver- mont court did not rule that these rights could not be granted away by the legisla- ture in view of the literal reading otherwise given to charter provisions.
70. Proceedings of the General Assembly, 1795, p. 152, as quoted in Andrews, "Grammar Schools," p. 132.
71. E.g., Orange County Grammar School at Randolph, Laws of Vermont, 1805-1807, 1806, pp. 153-157; Windsor County Grammar School at Norwich, ibid., 1805-1807, 1807, pp. 173-175; Orange County Grammar School at Thetford, ibid., 1819-1821, 1820, pp. 161-162.
72. E.g., Windsor County Grammar School, ibid., 1794-1796, 1794, pp. 113-114; Addison County Grammar School, ibid., 1796-1798, 1797, pp. 36-38; Rutland County Grammar School, ibid., 1805-1807, 1805, pp. 39-40. It is to be noted that occasionally, even though there was no saving clause, the legislature did re-distribute or other- wise dispose of the lands involved. An example is the two Orleans County Gram- mar Schools at Craftsbury and Brownington. Ibid., 1811-1814, 1812, pp. 65-67, and ibid., 1819-1821, 1820, pp. 37-40.
287
ADMINISTRATION
grant itself caused trouble when the legislature attempted to give some of the lands to the Lyndon Institute.73 It was found that the proviso was not sufficient to cover re-distribution to another school within the same county.
With the passage of time, the school movement developed rapidly. As Andrews points out, the whole thing changed from a county pro- gram to one sponsored by various communities which determined to be the site of a school and thereupon petitioned for an incorporation- and for a grant of the grammar school lands.74 Indeed, it would seem, from the history of the development, that the possibility of securing the benefit of the lands acted as a strong motivation in some instances to- ward the establishment of schools. The legislature, on the other hand, ordinarily dealt with the petitions in a quid pro quo fashion and set re- quirements by which the community must contribute specified amounts within specified times in order to gain the public rights. Some of the proposed schools foundered on this rock. Under the pressure which the school movement developed,75 the legislature produced a wide variety of provisions respecting the granting of the grammar school lands.76 The net result of the whole business was that grammar school lands came to be a vested right in particular schools, and the scheme of a state-wide benefit was lost.77
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.