USA > Vermont > The Vermont lease lands > Part 32
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
100. Ibid., p. 217. It will be recalled that this fits with the writer's experience and with comments to him, made by various state officers.
101. Ibid., p. 37.
102. Ibid., p. 39. 103. Ibid., p. 41.
104. Ibid., p. 53.
105. Ibid., p. 134.
-
297
ADMINISTRATION
The experience of the Commission has been presented at some length because of its significance. Here was a well-staffed agency, operating under state authority, with two years of time available, and this was the limit of its ability to get at the facts. The experience in the present re- search goes to show that no great change has occurred in the intervening thirty-five years. Nor is the condition, as portrayed above, limited to school matters.
A careful inspection was made of the town report from every town and city for the year ending March, 1946, in an attempt to secure some sort of data respecting the lease lands under control of the towns. The results were at least illuminating. A rough classification of the 246 re- ports was accomplished in respect to the data presented, and the quality of the presentation, on the lease lands for which the town is responsible and in which it has an immediate interest.
To begin with, there were forty reports in which there was no item of any kind which could be identified as either revenue or disbursement of lease land income. A few of these instances would naturally occur be- cause of the absence of public rights, as in the case of Alburgh. But this would cover only a minority of that group of reports. In the remainder, it is to be concluded either that the public lands have disappeared or that the finances of them are simply lumped in with other fiscal matters. This is a reasonable possibility in the case of educational moneys, but is diffi- cult to reconcile where there should be disbursements of the moneys for religious benefit.
It is interesting, too, to observe that one of the forty, Rockingham, has a town manager government and displays the more technically cor- rect and detailed reports which distinguish such towns. Brattleboro was another particularly interesting case. It has a very elaborate and detailed report and accounting system. It is audited by a firm of professional ac- countants. But nowhere in the town report is there any separate or dis- tinct information of any kind respecting lease lands.
To make the matter worse, in some of the remaining 206 reports, which were credited as reporting, the only data found was included in the school treasurer's figures, none appearing from the selectmen or town treasurer. Furthermore, others would show just an income item, or a disbursement item, but not both.
The 206 other town reports were listed as "poor," "fair" or "good," depending, in the writer's opinion, on how much understanding could be gained from them about the lease lands. It is admitted that the classifica-
298
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
tion, as well as the distribution of reports into the different categories, was arbitrary. In view of the utter lack of any uniformity in town reports no other technique is possible.
Ninety-eight reports were considered as "poor." They barely sig- nified that the town was concerned with lease lands. For practical pur- poses, such as the one herein, they could well be bracketed with the towns which carried no lease land data. A few examples will demonstrate the inadequacy of this large group of reports. The Town of Brunswick, in its treasurer's report, merely carried the item : "Receipts, leased lots, $14.00." Fair Haven, in the town school account, showed : "Rent, land, F. S. Allen, $7.50." Fayston showed two items with no correlation : in the treasurer's report, "cash from lease land rent, $63.87," and in the auditor's report, "due from lease land rent, $78.54." Hinesburg's treas- urer reported : "Lease land rent, $103.43." These cases are typical, rather than otherwise.
Those reports rated as "fair" numbered eighty-one. They were not adequate for a full, clear picture of the status of the lease lands, but of- fered more to go on than the preceding group. In other words, they gave partial information, in one respect or another. They frequently included a list of lease land parcels, but by no property description other than the name of the person paying the rent. Or they might be good on receipts and poor on disbursements, and so on. This much can be said for most of them-that an individual who has determined to ferret out the lease land situation in such a town would have some information from which to start.
Only twenty-seven reports could be called "good," and some of these were given the benefit of a doubt. Some, however, were quite good and gave lot numbers and other solid information. It is a pitifully small pro- portion of the total number of reports.
All this is the more significant when one remembers that the annual town report is a basic source of information in an area in which the gen- eral town meeting is the basic governmental procedure. Furthermore, through conversation with town officials, it appears that the nature of the reports reflects only too closely the lack of knowledge prevalent among the town officials respecting lease lands.
Other criticisms of the reports are in order. Out of 246 reports, no more than eighty-seven so much as mentioned revenue or disbursements of money pertaining to the lease lands which were reserved for the bene- fit of religion. And some of these were wholly inadequate in their in-
299
ADMINISTRATION
formation, making but the barest mention of income or disbursement. Another point of interest is that few of them designated the churches to which the funds went. Ordinarily the selectmen's orders were found to be written in favor of some individual, the reader simply having to as- sume that such persons were the representatives of some religious con- gregation.106 As with the "Gospel" income, so also, the large majority of the reports from the Wentworth towns failed to distinguish the status of the glebe right although this is a mandatory duty of the treasurer.107
Where town reports carried sufficient data to make possible a cross- check, as, for example, between the treasurer's and the selectmen's re- ports, it was found frequently that totally inexplicable discrepancies showed up. Confusion also developed at times by virtue of the custom of referring to lease land rents as taxes, and even treating them as such, and in other instances it was about impossible to distinguish between in- come from lease lands and from other town property.
The reports demonstrated in a glaring way that the leases are not carefully administered.108 A startlingly large proportion of the reports carried items of back rents due. And in many cases this was no small amount. In fact, a fair number of reports showed as much as $500.00 or more in uncollected rents. There was clear evidence of uncollected due lease rents in 128 of the 206 reports which in some way showed the existence of lease lands. The delinquencies for the most part ran for from one to six years, although in one case a rental was due since 1938. It is probable that the delinquency list is much greater than 128. The make-up of some reports was such that the inspection of them created an
106. It was interesting to observe, though, how meticulously the selectmen make an even division of the money between the various congregations in a town, in accordance with the requirements of No. 27 of the Laws of Vermont, 1868, p. 32. The older system of apportionment in the ratio of church membership was evidently discarded as being too troublesome.
107. P. L., ch. 188, secs. 4338, 4339, 4344. For duties of selectmen and school directors in this respect, see ibid., ch. 188, sec. 4341, and ch. 172, sec. 4177.
108. The Commission on Forest Taxation reported :
The area of the towns as originally set up consisted of about 61/2% lease land. The towns covered by this survey have records of lease land of about 3.8% of their area. The records are on the whole very sketchy and income to the towns has been lost as a result. In many cases the towns are col- lecting rent for parcels, the boundaries of which are unknown. Due to changes in town boundaries by various acts of the legislature, numerous towns are collecting lease rent for lots located in other towns Lease or sequestered land records were rather incomplete but all available information was gathered.
Forest Taxation, pp. 8-9.
300
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
impression that the lease rents were not in order. But no certain result was possible, short of an audit of the town books. These were not in- cluded in the total of 128. Furthermore, it is fair to assume that de- linquencies would be found in at least some of those towns the reports of which were classified as "poor." In the Hancock report, the town audi- tors took cognizance of the condition :
From our observations there is a marked degree of laxness about collections of accounts due the town . . The selectmen have rented town property and, to our knowledge, bills for same have not been billed and no account as assets of the town have been sub- mitted to the auditors.
The data secured from the Richford report is presented in the foot- note below, approximately as it appeared in the report. The discrepancy between the amount available for religion and that for education is strik- ing and, together with other aspects of the report, goes to show what can be found with respect to town administration of lease lands.109
109. Treas. Rept.
Lease land-rentals
General town acct.
102.50
School acct.
.80
Summary of income to town
Lease land rents collected-ministerial
102.50
Lease land rents collected-school
.80
Summary of expend.
Churches from lease land rents
102.50
Selectmens rept.
Receipts
Rents from ministerial lands
102.50
Orders
Ministerial land rents
102.50
Richford Bapt. church
20.50
Meth. church
20.50
All Saints Church
20.50
St. Ann's church 20.50
E. Richford Bapt. church
20.50
School directors rept. School land rentals
.80
Aud. rept. Assets
1944
1945
Due from rent of school land
242.50
...
Due from rent of ministerial 1d.
302.60
Due from rent, school land
268.60
Due from rent, Min. land
251.40
Est. 75% collectible
520.00
301
ADMINISTRATION
Nor does the general level of town income from lease lands speak well for the system. With but a few exceptions110 the income derived from issuance of dog licenses was greater than the income from all the public rights in the town. This is a serious commentary when one recalls that the acreage reserved to the towns as public rights was important. The Vermont Educational Commission pointed out ". .. that in the chart- ers of the towns, land aggregating more than a hundred thousand acres, was reserved for the support of the town schools."111 And this was a portion of the several shares which came under town control.
Evidently the present state of affairs is not new. In the 1878 report to the legislature, of the seventeen towns in Bennington County, all but seven reported lands sequestered for religious uses, for a total of 3003 acres and a total rent of $792.98.112 In the 1882 report no town in the county reported any such sequestered lands.113 In the earlier report, all towns in Caledonia County, except Kirby, showed religious land with a total acreage of 6583 and a total rent of $535.81.114 Only five of the coun- ty's seventeen towns admitted to having such land in 1882, and the acreage for the county was down to 1328, while the income reported was no more than $100.29.115
The State Superintendent of Education undertook to present a sta- tistical picture of the condition of education in 1875 and 1876,116 and in- cluded was a column of figures titled, "Rent of town school lands." This appears for each of the two years by county totals, and for 1876, by towns. The data for the two periods do not correlate. For example, the state total for 1875 is given as $15,165.29 and for 1876 as $14,193.39.117 Furthermore, there is no comparison possible between the figures pre- sented therein and similar data in the 1878 and 1882 reports in the Laws of Vermont.118
School administration in Vermont has very largely been a matter of local government, and this has undoubtedly contributed to the loose
110. E. g., Lemington.
111. Vermont Educational Commission, Report, p. 12.
112. Laws of Vermont, 1878, p. 297.
113. Ibid., 1882, p. 339.
114. Ibid., 1878, p. 298.
115. Ibid., 1882, p. 340. These examples were selected for comparison at ran- dom. The two reports show various other discrepancies as singular as these.
116. Twenty-Fourth School Report.
117. Ibid., App., pp. 4, 7.
118. 1878, pp. 296-310; 1882, pp. 338-352.
302
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
handling of the school lands. The state has at various times had one or another type of central education office, but it has never wielded any ex- tensive authority. The spirit of localism has been dominant in respect to school organization. The latter has varied from time to time as different experiments were authorized by the legislature. The result is that at present four types of school districts may be encountered: the old sim- ple school districts; incorporated districts, which comprise parts of towns; town districts ; and union districts, composed of two or more towns. (Interestingly, only three town reports indicated a distribution of the school rents as between school jurisdictions.) The negative rela- tion of the state to matters of education is further illustrated, in that the Sixteenth Biennial Report of the State Board of Education for July 1, 1944 to June 30, 1946, makes no mention of the school lands or income therefrom, and this is found to be the normal thing in the reports from this department.119
The correlation between decentralization of lease land administration and a greater incidence of litigation appears clearly. In one way and another, the lease lands under town jurisdiction have been involved in an impressive number of legal actions which were carried to the state Supreme Court.120 The cases cited have been discussed at various points in Chapters IV and V and, so, need no further analysis here. Suffice it
119. It was of interest, too, to find that Mr. Noble, the Commissioner of Edu- cation, was unable to tell the writer anything at all respecting lease lands for educational benefit.
120. School lots figured in : Poultney v. Wells, 1 Aik. 180 (1826) ; Maidstone v. Stevens, 7 Vt. 487 (1835) ; Montpelier v. East Montpelier, 27 Vt. 704 (1854) ; S. C., 29 Vt. 12 (1856) ; White v. Fuller, 38 Vt. 193 (1865) ; Currier v. Rosebrooks and Brighton, 48 Vt. 34 (1875) ; Lemington v. Stevens, 48 Vt. 38 (1875) ; Churchill v. Capen, 84 Vt. 104 (1911) ; Jones v. Vermont Asbestos Corp., et al., 108 Vt. 79 (1936) ; Brown v. Derway, 109 Vt. 37 (1937). The "Gospel" or "ministry" lots were involved in: Gardner v. Rogers, 11 Vt. 334 (1839) ; Herrick v. Randolph, 13 Vt. 525 (1841) ; Montpelier v. East Montpelier, 27 Vt. 704 (1854) ; S. C., 29 Vt. 12 (1856) ; Universalist Society, Fletcher v. Leach, 35 Vt. 108 (1862) ; Sterling v. Baldwin, 42 Vt. 306 (1869) ; Lemington v. Stevens, 48 Vt. 38 (1875) ; Spiritual Atheneum Society of West Randolph v. Randolph, 58 Vt. 192 (1885) ; Holton v. Hassam, 94 Vt. 324 (1920) ; Jones v. Vermont Asbestos Corp., et al., 108 Vt. 79 (1936). The glebe was at issue in : Bush v. Whitney, 1 D. Chip. 369 (1821) ; Lamp- son v. New Haven, 2 Vt. 14 (1829) ; Willard v. Benton, 57 Vt. 286 (1884) ; Brown v. Derway, 109 Vt. 37 (1937). Mention should also be made of the case of Select- men of Manchester v. Barber, which is described in Doc. Hist., p. 65. The case was an attempt to dispossess the Rev. Daniel Barber of the glebe in that town under the authority of the act of 1794. The action was decided in the United States Circuit Court where it was ruled that the act was unconstitutional and void. No appeal was taken.
303
ADMINISTRATION
to notice two points. One is that the cases, quite generally, involve either the problem of distribution of avails by the selectmen, or efforts to re- cover from conditions which resulted from weak administration. The other point is that the list of cases includes a fair smattering of actions between individuals respecting such problems as the right to the land, and these would likewise eventuate from careless town administration.
The preceding pages go only so far as to give a suggestion, from available evidence, that all is not well with town administration of lease lands ; that the great public asset represented by the various rights of land is not being handled to the best advantage. The evidence presented is fragmentary, but gains in value when it is remembered that, as the Education Commission said, sources from which much was expected, produced so little.
The towns seem to have been satisfied with the state of affairs. Dur- ing the latter part of the last century, the legislature undertook to pro- vide for better administration of town properties, the program culminat- ing in an act of 1888 establishing a board of three trustees for each town. They were to have charge and management of ". . all real and per- sonal estate, except United States deposit money, held by any town in trust for any purpose, or any part thereof "121 This was man- datory on the towns. Later, the arrangement was made optional,122 but a considerable number of the towns continued to have such trustees. However, it appears that few of them placed the lease lands in the charge of the trustees, although the acts at no time carried a clause exempting the public rights property. This fact is further significant because the acts have regularly carried a clause requiring that any funds devoted to schools shall be reported annually by the trustees to the state office of education.
FIRST SETTLED MINISTER LANDS
The right for the first settled minister stands apart, in some respects, from the other public rights. First and foremost as a distinction, it is the only one of the public rights which was regarded in Vermont as be- ing subject to alienation by the passing of a title in fee simple.123 Actu-
121. Laws of Vermont, 1888, pp. 52-53.
122. P. L., ch. 146, sec. 3541.
123. See Dow v. Hinesburgh, 2 Aik. 18 (1826) ; Charleston v. Allen, 6 Vt. 633 (1834) ; Williams v. Goddard, 8 Vt. 492 (1836) ; Williams v. North Hero, 46 Vt. 301 (1873) ; Capen's Admr. v. Sheldon, 78 Vt. 39 (1905) ; Brown v. Der- way, 109 Vt. 37 (1937), for confirmations of this doctrine. The decision in Wil- liams v. Goddard is the only exception, either in the opinions of the Vermont
304
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
ally, it can be said that this right finds a place in a twentieth-century study of the lease lands only by default. That is, the right persists to- day as public land by virtue of there never having been a ministerial set- tlement in some towns. If it had been otherwise, the parcels reserved to this right would all have become private property without distinguishing characteristics.124
An additional difference is that this is the one right which was steadily omitted from the practice of durable leasing, until 1867. The legislature provided, by various acts, for administration of such lots where no minister had acquired them.125 In all such cases the legislation contained a restriction that leases should not be for terms longer than five years, or until a minister should settle. Briefly, the provisions have been to place the responsibility for the unsettled lots on the selectmen of towns and on the county treasurers for those places which were un- organized. In either case, the avails were specified to be used for educa- tional or religious benefit. It may be added that the quantity of land re- served for this right was important. The right for the first settled min- ister and the right for town schools are the only ones which ran through both the Wentworth and Vermont charters.
Two other points can be noted respecting the right here under con- sideration. The first is that it has been the subject of more Vermont Supreme Court opinions than any other single right. The other is that there is less known about the outcome of the reservation, and it would probably be more difficult to track down than any of the other public shares.
court, or in legislation. Even there, the court limited the restriction to charters phrased as was that of Concord. The doctrine has been that not only did the fee pass to the minister, but that it was absolute, and hence permanent even though he should afterward break his connection with the church.
124. There is one other exception. In some instances all, or a part of, the right was deeded back by the minister for the support of religious practice, either vol- untarily or by demand of the town. It appears that a fair number of towns insisted that the minister take only a portion of the right, the remainder going to the towns. Although this seems to have been accomplished practically, its legality is question- able in view of the court's views that the right automatically lay in the minister upon the completion of his settlement. One town carried out a novel program for assuring continued religious leadership. Upon the settlement only twenty-five acres of the right went to the minister; twenty-five acres more was to go to him each time he made a subsequent five-year renewal of his contract. Hemenway, II, 104-105.
125. Laws of Vermont, 1798, pp. 17-19; ibid., 1835-1837, 1835, pp. 147-148; ibid., 1849-1851, 1851, pp. 141-142, 143; ibid., 1867, p. 57. P. L., ch. 146, sec. 3536. Such lands in gores and unorganized towns are still limited by the five-year lease term provision. P. L., ch. 145, sec. 3376.
305
ADMINISTRATION
The last assertion is equally applicable to those lots which were ac- quired by ministers and those which have remained in public control.126 As to the latter, one finds no distinction of this share in the town reports. The income from it is simply lumped with that from the other public rights, the benefit of which goes to the schools or churches.
Generally, it is probably safe to say that the majority of those lots which were taken up by ministers were ultimately conveyed, either by sale or inheritance, and passed into the mass of private real estate.127 This is not universally true, however. One type of conclusion is exhibited by the recital of facts in Gardner v. Rogers,128 and Congregational So- ciety, Newport v. Walker,129 in which the minister deeded voluntarily all, or a part of the right, for the continued support of religious worship. The right seems, besides, to have endured a variety of other experiences. During this research, the writer was regaled with yarns about this right by individuals apparently conversant with Vermont local history. Such information could not be verified, or documented, within the limits of this study, and so is not presented in any great detail even though some of it had the appearance of solid foundation.130
A more extended study, however, would do well to investigate such tales in terms of the problem of the lease lands as an instrument of public policy. Of all the various rights reserved, this one was most directly and immediately designed to produce the desired result. Here was a reservation of land, in principle as extensive as any holding in the town- somewhere around 300 acres on the average-free for the taking, and to become the possession of a minister simply by his settlement in the town. He might either farm it, in addition to his ministerial duties, or he could lease or rent it and collect the avails, or he could sell it and realize the market value. When one considers the well-known low level of income of men of the cloth at that early time, this would seem to be an irresistible inducement. And certainly the duties of the church would not be over-
126. The fates of some, of course, are more available because of having been determined by the court.
127. So long as the land remained in the possession of the minister and he re- tained the pastoral charge of the church and congregation over which he was set- tled, the land continued to be considered as sequestered to a pious use and free from taxes. Laws of Vermont, 1811-1814, 1814, pp. 82-83.
128. 11 Vt. 334 (1839).
129. 18 Vt. 600 (1846).
130. One of the writer's informants was Mr. George Hyde, Historian of Towns of the Works Progress Administration Historical Records Survey. Another was the Rev. Samuel Bean, in charge of the church records section of the Survey.
306
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
whelming in those small, sparsely settled communities; whereas, the opportunity to do good would be great.
The record of litigation respecting this right, the difficulty, or im- possibility, of securing ministers in some towns, and finally the tales told of other situations raise a serious question as to how well the pur- pose of the reservation was served. It may be said that among those people interviewed, both lay individuals and church folk, the general attitude displayed respecting the record of this right was not favorable. As an example of the sort of stories which are passed along, the writer was told of one town in which a minister was duly settled in the church, whereupon the entire congregation surrounded him and marched him to the town clerk's office, holding him there until he deeded the right back to the town. Other tales relate cases in which ministers secured legal title and then departed. The most extreme story, told by a reliable in- dividual, related the activities of a minister who moved through the state and was not caught up with until after he had secured seven rights in as many towns.
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.