STATE OF MAINE, Aroostook, ss.

Taken and subscribed before me this 17th September, 1856.
N. C. TOWLE,

Agent U. S. Senate to take proofs, &c.

Statement of Lawrence Kelley.

I, Lawrence Kelley, of Eaton grant, of lawful age, depose and say: That I knew of the commencement of Francis Gallahar's possession. He took off two crops. He then lived at Patrick Conley's house. I heard of his sale to Dennis Hale, perhaps eight years after the commencement of his possession. The possession was always called Gallahar's possession, and he was understood and recognized as the owner. Of my own possession, I sold the up-river half to Stephen Sands. I had occupied and improved the part I sold to Sands as fully as the part I retained. He paid me a cow, reckoned at that time at forty dollars.

The improvements on the old possessions on the Eaton and Plymouth grants have gained little, if any, during the past fifteen years, the settlers being discouraged by the uncertainty of their titles.

I settled on the Eaton grant about twenty-seven years ago. There was then a large amount of pine timber on both Eaton and Plymouth. The front ridges on the river were then covered with pine. It was cut off every year from that time to the time of the Aroostook war by settlers and people from the province. Mr. Tibbatts, Mr. Hopkins, Abraham Hammond, and Mr. Giverson, of Tobique, I recollect as operating. Mr. Tibbatts was the largest operator. He furnished the settlers with supplies to operate with, and bought all the settlers would haul to the banks of the river. No opposition was offered to those operations by American proprietors. The only person who asserted any right of control over the premises was Mr. McLaughlin, the British warden of the disputed territory. After the Aroostook war these operations were broken up. During the winter of that war Mr. Plummer was operating on Plymouth with twelve horses. His teams were broken up by the civil posse of Maine. At the time of the Aroostook war Eaton and Plymouth were pretty thoroughly stripped.

his

LAWRENCE + KELLEY.

mark.

STATE OF MAINE, Aroostook, ss.

Taken and subscribed before me this 13th September, 1856.

N. C. TOWLE,

Agent U. S. Senate to take proof, &c.

Statement of David O. Parks.

I, David O. Parks, of Eaton grant, depose and say: That in May or June, 1835, I was employed by three gentlemen to explore the grant for timber. I do not recollect their names, but my impression is that they lived in the western part of Maine. I spent two days with them, cruising through the timber. Our judgment was that the pine timber suitable for ton timber would average about a quarter of a ton per acre. We estimated no pine except for ton timber. There had been a good deal cut off before. When I returned home in 1838, this timber had been principally removed. The Plymouth grant was much better timbered with pine than the Eaton grant. We estimated on the Eaton that the timber standing, if sound, would average half a ton per acre. We made an allowance of one half for rots. DAVID O. PARKS.

STATE OF MAINE, Aroostook, ss.

Sworn and subscribed before me this 15th day of September, 1856. N. C. TOWLE,

Agent United States Senate to take proof, &c.

Statement of Elijah L. Hamlin.

I, Elijah L. Hamlin, of Bangor, of lawful age, depose and say: That in the year 1838 I was land agent of Maine. In the spring of that year I sent Colonel Eben Webster to report upon the trespassing upon the Aroostook and St. John rivers. In the fall I visited the Aroostook river myself, and when I returned left an agent (Mr. Buckmore) to look after the interests of the State. The reports of Colonel Webster and Mr. Buckmore have been published. I saw myself operations in timber going on at various points as I passed down the Aroostook river, and particularly upon the Plymouth township. Prior to 1838 the jurisdiction of the State had not been exercised for some time as far north as the Aroostook, and was then resisted by Mr. McLaughlin, calling himself the British warden of the disputed territory, on the ground that, by an arrangement between the governments of the United States and Great Britain, that region was to remain under the control of New Brunswick until the boundary dispute was settled. In the winter of 1839, however, the jurisdiction of the State against trespassers was maintained by civil and military force.

In the summer of 1842 I was three months at Fort Fairfield. My principal object in remaining there was to ascertain, by examination and inquiry, the condition of the lands and timber upon the Aroostook river, with a view to purchases. With the exception of remote tracts of land, I found that very little valuable timber was left. Of

the Plymouth township, which adjoins the township in which Fort Fairfield is situated, I made a particular examination, at the request of Frederick Hobbs, esq., who was the agent and attorney of parties interested in the ownership. I reported to Mr. Hobbs the condition of the township and my opinion of its value. I found the township substantially stripped of its pine timber, and the accessible lots on the river in possession of squatters. Under the circumstances, I advised Mr. Hobbs that his clients would do better to abandon the township than to pay taxes upon it.

STATE OF MAINE, Penobscot, ss.

ELIJAH L. HAMLIN.

October 17, 1856, personally appeared Elijah L. Hamlin, and made oath that the foregoing statement by him signed contains the truth, according to his best knowledge and belief.

Before me,

THOMAS N. GUMSEY,

Justice of the Peace.

Statement of David O. Parks.

I, David O. Parks, of Eaton grant, of lawful age, depose and says: That two, three, or four years before the Aroostook war, Daniel Hopkins, of Andover, New Brunswick, made a lumbering operation on the Eaton grant, and took off, according to my best recollection, six hundred tons of pine timber.

DAVID O. PARKS.

STATE OF MAINE, Aroostook, 88.

Taken and subscribed before me this 13th September, 1856.

N. C. TOWLE, Agent United States Senate to take proof, &c.

Statement of James Rogers.

I, James Rogers, of Plymouth grant, of lawful age, depose and say: That I have lived on the grant about twenty-three years. When I first came there was a large amount of pine, of good quality, on the Eaton and Plymouth grants. At the time of the Aroostook war the greater part had been taken off. The operations were supplied chiefly by the province people. The British squadron had officers to look after it and collect a province duty of eight shillings per ton. Before the Aroostook war there was no claim asserted of any United States proprietors to my knowledge.

In reference to my possession, I have not been inclined to increase my improvements from the uncertainty of obtaining title under the

treaty of Washington; and I believe that others have been restrained from improvements from the same consideration; but, notwithstanding this, it is my judgment that the improvements have been increased since 1842. JAMES ROGERS.

I also state, I knew of the commencement of Mr. House's possession, now occupied by Richard Jordon and John Buber, who bought of William Haley. The possession was commenced, I think, as early as 1834. I believe it has been improved ever since.

In 1842, to the best of my recollection, there was on this possession a clearing of as much as eight acres, and a log house and barn. JAMES ROGERS.

STATE OF MAINE, Aroostook, ss.

Sworn and subscribed before me this 15th day of September, 1856. N. C. TOWLE,

Agent United States Senate to take proof, &c.

MEMORIAL OF GEORGE M. WESTON.

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America:

This memorial of George M. Weston, commissioner from Maine, to present the claims of that State under the fourth article of the treaty of Washington, respectfully represents:

The fourth article of the treaty of Washington, concluded between the United States and Great Britain on the 9th of August, 1842, was in the following words:

"All grants of land heretofore made by either party, within the limits of the territory which by this treaty falls within the dominions of the other party, shall be held valid, ratified and confirmed to the persons in possession under such grants, to the same extent as if such territory had by this treaty fallen within the dominions of the party by whom such grants were made; and all equitable possessory claims arising from a possession and improvement of any lot or parcel of land by the person actually in possession, or by those under whom such person claims, for more than six years before the date of this treaty, shall, in like manner, be deemed valid, and be confirmed and quieted by a release to the person entitled thereto, of the title to such lot or parcel of land, so described as best to include the improvements made thereon; and in all other respects the two contracting parties agree to deal upon the most liberal principles of equity with the settlers actually dwelling upon the territory falling to them, respectively, which has heretofore been in dispute between them.

The territory which had been involved in the dispute between the United States and Great Britain, which was adjusted by the treaty of

Washington, embraced nine millions of acres, or about one-third of the area of Maine. It was inaccessible by roads, and had been substantially taken out of the jurisdiction of Maine by the arrangement entered into in 1832, between the British minister at Washington, and the Secretary of State for the United States. Its condition in respect to occupation and settlements was imperfectly understood. Attention appears to have been principally attracted to the French settlement on the river St. John, commonly known as the Madawaska settlement, which embraced a large number of people, and was ancient and well known. In 1843, the government of Maine, in conjunction with the government of Massachusetts, instituted a commission to ascertain and define the limits of lots, in the enjoyment of which settlers and holders of grants were entitled to be quieted by the provisions of the fourth article of the treaty of Washington. This commission was soon terminated, and its labors seem to have been mainly confined to the Madawaska settlement above referred to.

On the report of this commission, deeds of conveyance were executed to the parties entitled, by the land agents of Maine and Massachusetts. It did not then seem to be understood that the treaty operated, proprio vigore, to give title to the holders of grants and settlers coming within the provisions of the fourth article. On the contrary, that article appears to have been treated merely as a contract and agreement, to be subsequently executed and carried out by the parties bound by it.

It appears, also, from the report of this commission, to have been the impression of the gentlemen who composed it, that their duties were confined to quieting the holders of British grants and settlers upon the public domain of Maine and Massachusetts, and they instituted no inquiries into the rights of such grantees and settlers upon lands belonging to individual proprietors.

Although the treaty, if in truth any action was necessary to carry it out, was obligatory, not upon Maine or Massachusetts, but upon the United States, the government of the United States has not seen fit, or found it necessary, to take any measures in the premises. In the analogous cases of Florida and Louisiana, where, under the treaties by which those territories were acquired from foreign powers, certain prior rights in lands were secured to individuals, Congress has thought proper to make these rights more available, by instituting commissions, or by conferring special power upon existing tribunals. In reference to the treaty of Washington, it seems to have been left to Maine as the local sovereign, and to Maine and Massachusetts as the proprietors of the great bulk of the lands affected by it, to adopt such measures as were required by the national faith, and by the repose and quiet of the country. All which the government of the United States has ever done, has been to sanction and ratify the agency thus naturally and properly assumed by Maine and Massachu

setts.

The expenses of the commission instituted by those States in 1843 were audited and paid by the treasury of the United States, the proper officers adopting the views hereinbefore given.

It very soon became manifest that the attention of that commission Rep. Com. 323-3