History: PA Archives: Second Series, Vol. 18: LETTERS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS - Part I : DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE CONNECTICUT SETTLEMENT IN THE WYOMING VALLEY. Contributed for use in the USGenWeb Archives by Joe Patterson and Sally. USGENWEB ARCHIVES (tm) NOTICE All documents placed in the USGenWeb Archives remain the property of the contributors, who retain publication rights in accordance with US Copyright Laws and Regulations. In keeping with our policy of providing free information on the Internet, these documents may be used by anyone for their personal research. They may be used by non-commercial entities so long as all notices and submitter information are included. These electronic pages may NOT be reproduced in any format for profit. Any other use, including copying files to other sites, requires permission from the contributors PRIOR to uploading to the other sites. The submitter has given permission to the USGenWeb Archives to store the file permanently for free access. http://www.usgwarchives.net/pa/pafiles.htm _____________________________________________________________________________________________ NOTE: An html version of this volume may be found at http://www.usgwarchives.net/pa/1pa/paarchivesseries/series2/vol18/paarch2-18toc.html <>~~<>~~<>~~<>~~<>~~<>~~<>~~<>~~<>~~<>~~<>~~<>~~<>~~<>~~<>~~<>~~<>~~<>~~<>~~<>~~<>~~<>~~<> DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE CONNECTICUT SETTLEMENT IN THE WYOMING VALLEY. EDITED BY WILLIAM HENRY EGLE, M. D. HARRISBURG: E. K. MEYERS, STATE PRINTER. 1893. [Page numbers are in carats.] TABLE OF CONTENTS. _ _ _ _ _ _ Minutes of the Susquehanna Company, 1-123 An Examination of the Connecticut Claim, 125-214 Connecticut Records examined by Pennsylvania, 215-276 The Dutch Records of New Netherlands, 277-322 Letters from the Pennsylvania Claimants, 323-388 Letters from Secretary of Land Office, 389-430 Letters from the Commissioners, 431-514 Book of the Fifteen Townships, 515-572 Journal of the Commissioners, 1810, 573-609 Miscellaneous Papers relating to the Wyoming Controversy, 611-780 Index, 781 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ <431> LETTERS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OF PENNSYLVANIA TO VARIOUS PERSONS. A map titled "EXAMPLE OF CONNECTICUT AND PENNSYLVANIA SURVEYS." is attached here. The map is subtitled: "How they cross, interfere with, and cut one another up. "Some Connecticut lots submitted and some not. "Some Pennsylvania tracts released and some not." <433> LETTERS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ To Obediah Gore and others. [ June, 1801. ] Gentlemen: As we understand there will be considerable difficulty in making out anything like a compleat and connected legal Chain of title, to Claims under the Susquehanna Company, in favour of the present Settlers of lots and rights within the 17 townships, we take the liberty of applying to you for information that may materially affect the peaceable and beneficial operation of the Act of Assembly, under which we are appointed, not doubting but you will wave any objection of Informality to a request which is calculated to farther the mild Intentions of the Legislature, and the Welfare of a County, wherein you hold situations so conspicuous and respectable. We are given to understand that some years ago, while you sat upon the Bench and officiated as Associate Judges of the Court of Common pleas of the County of Luzerne, frequent Suits were submitted to your determination between contending Claimants under Connecticut rights, altho' of late the President Judge has deemed it inconsistent with his duty to entertain Cognizance of any Causes that did not originate in a title derived from the State of Penns'a. During the time when you devoted your attention to the decision of Connecticut Claims, many Instances most probably have occurred wherein the Claim'ts were unable to compleat their Chain of title by written Documents, legally substantiated. If such Cases have occurred before you, We beg to know, 1st, generally: 1. What rules or regulations you laid down for the guidance of the Bench; or what were admitted as ex necessitate rei by the Gentlemen of Counsel at the Bar, in the adoption of parol to supply written testimony, if any- 2. More particularly, whether you ever required proof of the Incorporation of the Susquehanna Company? 3. What evidence you required of the regulations of that Company, which were to guide the Conduct and rights of the Settlers? What original or Copies did you admit, and, if Copies, 28-VOL. XVIII <434> LETTERS FROM THE on what grounds was the production of the original dispensed with? 4. Can you inform us how we can procure, or where we can apply for any original minutes, or any authentic transcript of those Regulations down to the end of 1782, or how low down? Seeing that the Act of Assembly of Ap. 4, 1799, has established those regulations as the basis of our proceedings? 5. Were the votes and resolutions of the Committees of the Susquehanna Company considered as binding on the Settlers? Were they binding on the actual Settlers at the time as well as upon future Settlers? how were those Committees appointed? 6. Were original rights, whether of Townships or Individuals, Considered as forfeited by Non compliance with the regulations of the Company, or of its Committees? In what Instances, within your knowledge, have such forfeitures been insisted on and established? 7. How were the Boundaries of Townships originally established? or latterly ascertained? What evidence respecting them did you deem sufficient under the Circumstances of the Country? Are there any authentic minutes of the Surveys of Townships existing or produceable? 8. In what way were the Boundaries of contested lots usually ascertained? Was it required that the grant of the Company to original Settlers should be procured in Court? or in what cases, and under what Circumstances, was oral evidence admitted, either of prescriptive possession, or of surveys made within the knowledge of the Witnesses? 9. Was it customary for Claimants to suggest the loss of papers, or the Destruction of papers? or the neglect of procuring from the Grantor the written evidence of the rights of such Grantors? Were any such suggestions usually admitted, either under the Authority of the Court or by Consent of Counsel? or were they rejected, as in the latter Case we apprehend they must have been, and the parties put to strict proof? Or what were the rules and practice in this respect? 10. From your knowledge and experience of the titles of this County, under the Susquehanna or Connecticut Claim, what is the kind of proof you would suggest for the consideration of the Commissioners as necessary, or reasonable, to be admitted, when such Claimants come before them with titles resting upon evidence apparently defective, in that legal precision usually required by the Courts of Law? We Certainly mean to go as near to legal precision as the Cases will enable us. We are aware that the best evidence the case will admit may reasonably be deemed legal evidence. But in this early stage of our duty, and Strangers as we are to the <435> COMMISSIONERS OF PENNSYLVANIA. local difficulties and disputes that respect the titles in this County, we do not feel ourselves so Competent to appreciate those difficulties, in the production of original docum'ts and regular Evidence, as you, Gentlemen, whose Situations and Experiences have furnished you with superior Advantages in this respect. We are desirous of Complying with what we regard as the intentions of the Legislature in doing substantial justice, but we fear the evidence in very many cases, where we have no suspicion of the equity of the Claimant's title, will be unusually loose and irregular, not merely from inability arising out of the Circumstances of the County, But from negligence on the part of the Claimant. Your past observations in these respects, and your knowledge of the mutual admissions of Contending Claimants under the Connecticut title, May throw light upon the Subject and render our proceedings more satisfactory to ourselves and others. We request the Benefit of your Assistance in distinct answers to the preceding Queries, so far as they lie within the Compass of your knowledge and Experience, and beg of you to excuse the trouble which the present Application may occasion. We are, &'ca., THOMAS COOPER. JOHN STEELE, WILLIAM WILSON. Obediah Gore, Nathan Denison, Mathias Hollenback and Rosewell Welles, Esq'rs. _ _ _ The Commissioners to Daniel Rees. Wilkesbarre, June 20, 1801. M'r. Daniel Rees, Northumberland County: Sir: It appears that you have released to the State of Pennsylvania two tracts of land, originally part of Sunbury Manor, and purchased of Jos. Ogden and David McKinney. The Commissioners cannot proceed to take Cognizance of them without further description. They must have transmitted to them Office copies of the returns of Surveys, and a Statement of the Chain of title from the proprietaries, with the original Documents; without these they neither know where the lands are to be found, Nor whether your Grantors had any right to them. By order of the Board of Comm'rs. I am, Sir, Your humble Servant, THOMAS LLOYD, Clerk to the Commiss'rs. <436> LETTERS FROM THE The Commissioners to John Cooke. Wilkesbarre, June 20, 1801. John Cook, Esq'r., Northumb'd, Northumberl'd County: Sir: It appears that as Executor Cum test annexo of William McCord, you have released to the State certain tracts situated on Lacawanna, surveyed for James Parr, W. McCord, William Wilson, Sam. McClay, Casp. Weitzell, James Moore, W'm. Foster, David Meade, AlEx'r. Templeton, John Weitzell and Russel, Jacob Smith, John Lugar; All these tracts have been released also by James Moore and Wife, who have procured and transmitted returns of Survey of most of them. Is this a joint Concern? or is it a Contested Claim? Without further informat'n it is impossible for the Commissioners to certify respecting them. By order of the Comm'rs. THOMAS LLOYD, Clerk to the Commiss'rs. _ _ _ The Commissioners to Thomas Grant. Wilkesbarre, June 20, 1801. Thomas Grant, Esq'r., Near Sunbury, North'd County: Sir: It appears that you have released to the State of Pennsylvania a tract of land of 307 or 308 acres and Allowance, for there are 2 Surveys in the name of John Wolf. I am directed to request you would give them further information, whether this be the same with one returned by Aaron Levy, as warranted in the same name, and, if so, whether this be a joint Concern or a contested right. THOMAS LLOYD, Clerk to the Commiss'rs. _ _ _ The Commissioners to James Rose. Wilkesbarre, June 20, 1801. M'r. James Rose, North'd: Sir: I am direct'd by the Com'rs appoint'd to carry into effect the Act of April 4, 1799, Offering, &c., to mention that in the release made by you to the State of P'a. of a tract, warranted in the name of W'm. Thorp, It does not appear how you are entitled under M'r. James Rose of Philadelphia. If by testament, an authenticated extract of the Will should be set forth. The release is in other respects very incorrect. Neither does <437> COMMISSIONERS OF PENNSYLVANIA. it appear in an'r release how you are entitled to act as Attorney for R. H. Rose. They beg farther Information on these points. I am, Sir, Yours, THOMAS LLOYD. _ _ _ The Commissioners to Alex. Hunter. Wilkesbarre, June, 1801. M'r. Alexander Hunter, near Sunbury: Sir: It appears that you have released to the State of Pennsylvania certain tracts of land, as follows, viz: 150 acres allotted to be surveyed for Thomas Osborne, also 1/3 of lands containing 3,383 3/4 Acres, Situate on or near the Waters of Lacawanna, held in partnership with James Rose and Wife. The Commissioners beg to know whether Thomas Osborne's tract has been surveyed; If so, they request an Office Copy of the Survey. They desire also to be informed more particularly where the 3,383 3/4 acres lie, and they wish you to transmit Office Copies of the Surveys, and also whe'r James Moore's share be 2/3 thereof, and whether a Survey of Alexander Templeton of 326 1/4 Acres be part of them. Also whe'r McCord or Laughlin McCartney have any, and what share in said Lands. I am, Sir, Yours, &'c., THOMAS LLOYD, Clerk to the Commission. _ _ _ The Commissioners to William Tilghman. Wilkesbarre, June, 1801. William Tilghman, Esq'r., Phil'a.: Sir: It appears that you have released to the State of Pennsylvania, as Executor of James Scovell, deceased, No. 30 in the Manor of Stoke, stated as containing 100 acres, the return is 88 Acres 82 perches. Qu. Is there any encrease to that quantity by subsequent Survey? N'o. 24, in Sunbury Manor, Allotted to William Armstrong, appears to contain only 85 Acres, but the release states it to have been encreased to 150 by Charles Stewart. The Commissioners possess no Office Copy of the Survey, and therefore no <438> LETTERS FROM THE regular evidence of the contents of William Armstrong's Survey, and they beg you to transmit them any evidence you have or can procure of the addition suggested in the release, which makes that allotment 150 acres. There is also a release of a Warrant, but apparently without any Survey in the name of William Hamilton, 300 acres and Allow'ce; but if this be on Red Bank creek, it is out of their Jurisdiction. I am, &'c., THOMAS LLOYD. _ _ _ The Commissioners to Edmund Physick. Wilkesbarre, June, 1801. Edm'd. Physick, Esq'r., Phila.: Sir: It is impossible for the Comm'rs to proceed with any certainty, Satisfaction or effect in valuing the lands claimed and released by the late proprietors of Penns'a in their Manors in Luzerne County, without farther and accurate Acc't of the lands therein, which have been disposed of heretofore to other persons, either under absolute Deeds of Sale or Executory Devises still binding. They beg, therefore, therefore, that immediate information, and such as they can act upon, be transmitted without delay upon these points, that they may be enabled to do justice to the proprietaries. The list of allotm'ts by Mess'rs. Tilghman, Shippen and Lukens in 1771, does not supply the inform'n required. In hopes of an early reply, I am, Sir, &'ca., Yours, THOMAS LLOYD, Clk. _ _ _ The Commissioners to James Rose. Wilkesbarre, June, 1801. James Rose, Esquire, Attorney-at-Law, near Williamsport, Lycoming County: Sir: The Commissioners appointed for putting in execution the Act of 4th April, 1799, For offering Compensation to the Pennsylvania Claimants of certain Lands within the 17 Townships, &c., request you to furnish them with information on the following points, without which they cannot do justice to the Claims of the deceased M'r. Galbreath Patterson, and the other heirs of M'r. W. Patterson, Esq'r. Is the release of the Moiety of a tract warranted in the name <439> COMMISSIONERS OF PENNSYLVANIA. of Robert Wood, the same with one claimed by John Ewing and Wife? The Survey of M'r. Ewing's states the tract to Contain 229 1/2 Acres. M'r. Galbreath Patterson has not sent, as he should, an Office Copy of M'r. W. Patterson's return of Survey of the tract in question. The above tract is stated to be held in partnership with R. Stewart, but he does appear to have noticed his Share in his release to the State. There appears also to have been an agreement between M'r. W. Patterson and M'r. John Cox, dated Jany 20, 1774, for taking up lands in partnership, of which M'r. Cox was to have the 1/3'd. The tracts so taken up are in the names of John Vansant and others. Can you furnish the Comm'rs with any transcript or Abstract of the Agreement with Cox to this purpose. The Agreement, of which no more than the date is Stated by the heirs of Cox, is of 20 Jan'y, 1774. Are the Warrants taken out by Cox, in the names of William Smith and Thomas Smith, returned or not? if they are, the Comm'rs should have the Office Copies of Surveys, and any other inform'n that can be given respecting the Situations. Quere. Is there any title to part of these two last mentioned tracts in D'r. W. Smith, who returns Warants in the same names? Again, there appears to have been an agreement to take up lands in the now County of Luzerne, between W'm. Patterson, Joseph Wharton and Matthias Slough. What lands, if any, were taken up under that Agreem't? if any be pleased to transmit the Office Copies of the returns of Survey, if they have been surveyed. W. Patterson was to have 1/3. Your early attention to these queries will promote the Interest of the heirs of W. Patterson, and Oblige, Yours, &'c., THOMAS LLOYD. _ _ _ The Commissioners to Elias Boudinot. Wilkesbarre, June 24, 1801. Elias Boudinot, Esq'r.: Sir: It appears that the tracts of Land which you have released to the State of Pennsylvania under the Act of 4 April, 1799, For offering Compensation to the Pennsylvania Claimants of certain lands within the 17 townships, in the County of Luzerne, &'ca., in the names of John Pryor, George Dudley and Conrad Appleman, is Warrantees have also been released by <440> LETTERS FROM THE M'r. Daniel Montgomery, of Northumberland, The Commissioners beg to know whether this is a joint or contested Claim. I am, &c., Yours, THOMAS LLOYD, Clerk to the Commission. _ _ _ The Commission to Daniel Montgomery. Wilkesbarre, June 24, 1801. M'r. Daniel Montgomery, Danville, North'd County: Sir: It appears that by your Attorney, Robert Montgomery, you have released to the State of Pennsylvania certain tracts, warranted in the names of John Pryor, George Dudley and Conrad Appleman, patented and named respectively "Dullage," "Durham" and "Sydenham." M'r. Elias Boudinot hath also released the same lands. The Comm'rs beg to know whether this be a joint Concern or a contested Claim. I am, &'ca., THOMAS LLOYD, Clk., &'ca. _ _ _ The Commissioners to Jesse Fell. Wilkesbarre, July 2, 1801. Jesse Fell, Esquire: Dear Sir: I understand that many of the Connecticut Claimants in this town, who are otherwise ready to adduce evidence of their Claims, are apprehensive that the Certificate of the Commissioners is not likely to be final, and that they may perhaps be called upon for the Same Evidence before the Board of Property, and that this opinion is founded on some Conversation of mine. I do not recollect having expressed any other opinion than that which I hold, namely, that altho' in case of a Caveat entered against the reception of the Commissioners, the Board of property will have a right to Construe the Act for themselves, and determine whether in such a Case they will admit the Certificate as Conclusive Evidence; yet in my opinion there is no probability that such a Certificate will be rejected or objected to, especially in Cases where no Contending Claimant stands forward to impeach it. THOMAS COOPER. <441> COMMISSIONERS OF PENNSYLVANIA. The Commissioners to the Secretary. Wilkesbarre, July 14, 1801. Sir: It is with much Concern we received your letter, stating that you were unable to furnish us with any information respecting the proprietary Manors, other than we appear to have. The release makes a reservation of all those tracts or parcels of land within the Manor which have been sold by the proprietaries, or for which Contracts of sale have been made. We want to know: 1st. Of the Agreements executed. What are the Conditions therein contained? Are any of them invalid for non-performance of Conditions? How many of them are binding upon the proprietary Estate? Of such as are valid, how are we to proceed the returns of Survey to determine their Situation? Have you any means of determining who are the present Owners? 2. Of the Agreements that were not executed. Are any of them considered as binding? How can we procure the Draughts of Survey? On what conditions were these agreements made? We think there is no room to doubt whether any of these agreements convey a legal title, or even an equitable one, that can be Supported, unless accompanied on the part of the purchaser with something like a specific performance of his part of the Contract. At all Events we beg of you to exert your utmost to furnish us with the means of ascertaining in what part of the Manors these tracts are situated, that in our Certificates we may keep clear of them. The proprietary interest is at stake on this question to the whole value of the Manors; for we cannot certify in the dark as to the value, without knowing where the parcels disposed of are situate; nor can we certify a single tract of the Connecticut Claimant, within the Manors, for fear of stumbling upon some portion sold by the late proprietors, and not yet released by the purchaser or his Assigns. We entertain no doubt whatever of the propriety of your speedily coming up hither by way of Lancaster & North'd, to procure at the 1st place office Copies of the Draughts of Survey of the plots sold, and at the second to search the records to see what agreements were recorded; indeed to hasten the business we shall send those records. M'r. Roberts or M'r. Moore, Attornies there, to examine those records and send us information of their Contents, so that if you think best you may omit that route, tho' from Lancaster it would be as good a way as any hither. We say, without scruple, that the only certain means the late proprietaries have to get anything for the lands, is to attend to the above men- <442> LETTERS FROM THE tioned Circumstances. In hopes, therefore, of seeing you as early as your Convenience will allow, We are, Sir, Your humble Servants, THOMAS COOPER, JOHN STEELE, WILLIAM WILSON. _ _ _ The Commissioners to Conyngham and others. Wilkesbarre, July 14, 1801. Mess'rs. Conyngham, Meredith, &'ca.: Gentlemen: The Comm'rs find 2 releases of land by you to the State, the one of specific tracts, the other dated Sep'r. 29th, 1800, whereby M'r. Conyngham and Nesbitt release all their joint and separate Claims within the 17 townships generally. Upon this last release it is impossible for the Comm'rs to act, without precise information of what tracts are intended to be conveyed by it. They beg you would be good enough to furnish them with precise information, necessary to put in execution the latter release. I am Gentlemen, &c., THOMAS LLOYD, Clk., &'ca. _ _ _ The Commissioners to Aaron Levy. Wilkesbarre, July 14, 1801. Aaron Levy, Esq'r., Philadelphia: Sir: The Commissioners beg to know of whether the 12 tracts released by you to the State of Pennsylvania, in Luzerne County, in the names of Conrad Picard and others, have ever been warranted, surveyed and returned. If so, they request you to transmit office copies of such Survey and returns, otherwise they cannot take cognizance of them. I am, Sir, Your humble Serv't., THOMAS LLOYD, Clk. _ _ _ The Commissioners to William Bingham. Wilkesbarre, July 14, 1801. William Bingham, Esq'r.: Sir: I am directed by the Comm'rs to state the follow'g circumstances respect'g the Lands by you released to the State in Lz. Co'y. <443> COMMISSIONERS OF PENNSYLVANIA. Of the 12 tracts surveyed, whereof the Heirs of Lukens claim 1/3, no return of survey is furnished for the tract named Dublin, 313 1/2 as. We beg to receive one from the Office. The Surveyors under the last Comm'rs, and those also under the present, have been assiduously hunting the lines of the 2 tracts at the back of the proprietary manor of Stoke, in Wilkesbarre township. They are named Belfast and Newry, 318 1/4 and 390 acres, Warranted to W'm. Lennox and Charles Miller; as they are not to be found we know not what measures either you or we can take respecting them, except under an order of resurvey. We fear the 10 other tracts given to M'r. Sambourne to survey and return are not out of the provisions of the act in point of time, for they are not returned till after the 4th April, 1799. I am, Sir, in behalf of the Comm'rs, Sir, Your obedient Servant, THOMAS LLOYD, Clerk to the Commissioners. _ _ _ The Commissioners to Peter Snyder and others. Wilkesbarre, July 14, 1801. Mess'rs. Peter Snyder, John Young & Chris'r. Hertzel. Gentlemen: In your release of certain tracts, formerly belonging to M'r. Peter Kachlin, deceased, situate in the Co. of Luzerne, viz: the tracts warranted in the name of Peter Kachlin, Henry Hess, Henry Snyder, Peter Conrad, W'm. Hill, Michael Kocker, Jacob Miller and Christopher Wolf, there is a suggestion of their having been surveyed and returned, but no proof of it. If they are held by warrant only, the title is defective. If they are really surveyed and returned, we beg of you as early as you can to transmit to us certified copies of such surveys, &c., I am, on Behalf of the Comm'rs, Gentl'n., Your obd't. Servant, THOMAS LLOYD. _ _ _ The Commissioners to Charles Hartley. Wilkesbarre, July 14, 1801. Cha's. Hartley, Esq'r., Prothonotary of York County: Sir: The Commissioners at this place, appointed to carry into execution the Act of April, 1799, respecting the Claimants of Luzerne lands, direct me to enquire, 1st. Whether the tracts <444> LETTERS FROM THE released by Tho's. Hartley, Esq'r., warranted in the names of James Thompson and Thomas Walker, are in any respect held under a Connecticut title, for the Submission of the tract warranted in the name of Benj. Luce and purchased of Putnam Catlin, Esq'r., contains also a Submission of the 2 before-mentioned tracts, as if they were also held under a Connecticut title. 2nd. They beg to know whether the tract warranted to Benj. Luce is held under a Penns'a. title in whole or in part. 3rd. They wish for a Draught or Survey, exhibiting in what part of the said tract the 200 as. claimed by Tho's. Hartley lie. 4th. They beg to know who is the present representative of Tho's. Hartley, Esq'r., deceased, in respect of the above property. I am, Sir, Your Ob. H. Servant, THOMAS LLOYD, Clk., &c. _ _ _ The Commissioners to Rev. William Smith. Wilkesbarre, July 14, 1801. D'r. W. Smith: Sir: The Commissioners appointed to carry into execution the Act of Ap. 4, 1799, offering Compensation to Pennsylv'a Claimants of lands in Luzerne County, beg you w'd have the goodness to send them information on the following queries that arise on perusal of your release to the State. 1. As to the Nos. 6, 8, 14 and 17, on Abrahams Plains, can you furnish Office Copies of the Surveys, that their Situation and value can be accurately ascertained, and that the Commissioners may have evidence of such Survey? 2nd. You have released also for the representatives of Lukens; have you their authority for so doing? If not, the Comm'rs will be at a loss to proceed on an undivided tract released by one Share owner and not by the others. 3d. As the tracts warranted and surveyed in the names of W'm. Smith, Thomas Smith and Jos. Ball, Augustus Ripple, Wm. Rush, Samuel Laverty & Christian Strayley, 1/3 of these have been released by the heirs of Patterson, under an agreement for locating with John Cox. Does your 1/3 depend upon the same agreement, or how are you entitled? The heirs of Cox have also released the same Land, stating the agreement with Patterson, but not with you. 4. You have not stated in your release any chain of title by which you became entitled to the tracts Surveyed in the names of Richard Smith, John Parkinson and Simon Armstrong. 5. They wish to be informed of the Substance of the Contract <445> COMMISSIONERS OF PENNSYLVANIA. under which you claim a moiety of the Warrants in the name of John Cox and Jos. Read. 6. They wish also to be informed of the Substance of the Contract under which you claim a moiety of the Warrants in the names of John Cox and Jos. Read. In furnishing answers to the above queries, as soon as your convenience will allow, You will oblige the Commissioners. and Sir, Your obedient Serv't., THOMAS LLOYD, Clerk, &'ca. _ _ _ The Commissioners to Mathias Barton. Wilkesbarre, July 14, 1803. Mathias Barton, Esq'r., Lancaster: Sir: The Commissioners appointed under the Act of 4 April, 1799, Offering compensation to Pennsylvania Claimants of Land in the County of Luzerne, &c., beg me to request that on the part of the heirs of of M'r. Cox, deceased, you would be good enough to furnish them with Office Copies of the Surveys of the tracts released by M'r. Cox's heirs in the names of William McCarroll, Eliz. Punner, Samuel Boucher and John Vansant. The other Surveys are furnished by the heirs of Patterson. They beg also to know the Substance of the agreement made by the late M'r. Cox with William Patterson, deceased, and with Doctor W. Smith, if any such there was, respecting the tracts released by M'r. Cox's representatives. And also respecting 2 tracts in the names of John Cox and Joseph Read, Whereof D'r Smith Claims a Moiety. I am, Sir, Your H. Servant, THOMAS LLOYD, Clk., &c. _ _ _ The Commissioners to Charles Hurst. Wilkesbarre, July 14, 1801. Cha's. Hurst, Esq'r: Sir: The Commrs., &c., direct me to state that they do not find any Authority for the Surveys made under the Rts. of Gaskell, L'd. Shelburn and Arent Sonmans. They are indeed surveyed by Noah Grant, but by what authority he surveyed them does not appear to the Comm'rs. I am, Sir, Y'r. obed't. Servant, THOMAS LLOYD, Clerk to the Comm'rs <446> LETTERS FROM THE The Commissioners to Margaret Fullerton. Wilkesbarre, July 14, 1801. M'rs. Margaret Fullerton, Phila. Madam: The Comm'rs appointed to settle the Dispute respect'g the title to Lands in Luzerne County, direct me to request that you would transmit them, to this place, all such information as you possess respecting Lands belonging to you in that County. They require an Office Copy of the Survey of such Lands, under the Hand and Seal of the Surveyor General of the Land office at Lancaster, without which it is impossible for them to find the Lands, & your release thereof is of no avail. I am, Madam, Your ob., Hble Servant, THOMAS LLOYD, Clerk to the Comm'rs. _ _ _ The Commissioners to Anne Kennedy. Wilkesbarre, July 14, 1801. M'rs. Anne Kennedy: Madam: The Comm'rs appointed, &c., direct me to request that you would procure from the L'd Office of Pennsylvania, and transmit to them, a certified copy of the return of survey of a tract of Land, warranted in the name of W'm. Bell, and released by you to the State. Without this they cannot accurately discover or value the Land in question, or indeed ascertain whether it is in or out of the Township of Putnam. I am, Madam, Y'r. obt. Serv't., THOMAS LLOYD, Clk. to ye Comm'rs. _ _ _ The Commissioners to Col. Francis Johnston. Wilkesbarre, July 14, 1801. Francis Johnston, Esq'r., Philadelphia: Sir: I am directed by the Commissioners appt'd under the Act of 4 Ap., 1799, offering Compensation to Penns'a Claimants of land in Luz. County, to enquire whether you can furnish them with documents relating to any specific tracts owned by Lawrence Keene, Esq'r., of that County. From there being a release generally of M'r. Keene's Land therein, it is to be presumed there are tracts to be found that w'd. belong to his representatives; <447> COMMISSIONERS OF PENNSYLVANIA. but unless the Comm'rs possess the Office Copy of the Survey of such Land, it is impossible for them to find them, or to act on the release. I am, Sir, Your Ob. Serv't., THOMAS LLOYD, Clk., &c. _ _ _ The Commission to the Secretary. Wilkesbarre, July 13, 1801. Sir: We have duly received the letters from you by post of July 14, 1801, partly directed to the Comm'rs generally and partly to M'r. Cooper. We had not time to answer them immediately, but we have taken the earliest opportunity our convenience would allow for that purpose. We are much obliged by the communication and are fully sensible of the Assiduity, industry and talent you employ in promoting the termination of the present unhappy dispute. As an open and unreserved Communication of Sentiment between us will promote the object we mutually have in view, We have taken the liberty of making such observations as occur to us on the points suggested in your Letter, and of stating without Scruple some slight difference of opinion that appear to exist between us; not doubting but you will make allowance for the different views which you and we may take of the same general Question, especially when it arises on our part, in all probability, from more minute and continual converse with the Subject than your present local situation, and the many and important avocations in which you are engaged will allow you to employ. With respect to the order of the Board of Property, relative to the Connecticut Submissions, which We are very glad to find, by the last post, a parcel of Submissions, which we apprehend are those alluded to in in the temporary order of the Board. It would, in our opinion, have occasioned much uneasiness, and much unnecessary trouble and expence to the Connt. Claimant, had the Board insisted on their attendance at Lancaster, to abide the Event of a question, which Could have been as well decided without their presence. Indeed we are satisfied they would rather have renounced the Benefit than have incurred the Journey. The Copies of your Pamphlet Have been duly received and many of them distributed where we thought they would be useful; but as the Letter tho' addressed to us related to the Class of people with whom Colonel Horne has to deal rather than to the Claimants within the Seventeen Townships to whom <448> LETTERS FROM THE it is indifferent whether the Connecticut title be good or bad in its origin, We thought ourselves justified in not pressing upon M'r. Wright the publication until Colonel Horne's arrival here. But after waiting so long for his coming we gave the Pamphlet to M'r. Wright to be inserted in his paper, Who began to set it with readiness and without hesitation; but on Friday morning Colonel Horne arrived and at his request the publication was stopped he not being of opinion it would do Service at this time. As to M'r. Wright we think you have judged rather hardly of his Disposition in respect of the present dispute, for tho' he objected to the prudence of the publication, so far as it respected the Claimants in the 17 Townships, and conceived that it would not only hurt his own interest among his Subscribers to his paper, but exasperate more than conciliate among the Connecticut Settlers generally. Yet so far from refusing, he readily consented to insert it in Series in his future paper, until Col. Horne's intimation to suppress it. You wish to know the effect of your Statem't on the minds of the People. We have not yet heard the opinions of many persons respecting it; but those with whom we have conversed on the Subject urge some mistakes (that do not appear to us to be of much Consequence) without answering the many weighty Arguments it contains. It is well for you to know the principal points dwelt upon in favor of the Connecticut claim are in Substance: 1st. That the Decree of Trenton did not embrace the private right of Soil, as appears by the deliberate averment made by Cyrus Griffin, Esq'r., on of the Commissioners of Trenton, whose declaration of the sentiments of the Commissioners in his Letter to M'r. Bidwell is strongly in favor of the occupant under the Connecticut right at the time of that Decision. I understand there is also a declaration of M'r. Brearly, and a Letter of the Commissioners at Trenton to the Governor of Pennsylvania, 31st December, 1782, to the same purpose, so that the question as to the private right of Soil remained open. They urge the precedents of Massachusetts, Virginia and Pennsylvania, in certain cases of disputes respecting territorial rights, wherein the occupants were confirmed in their possessions under whichever title they claimed. When it is stated in reply that the right of Jurisdiction is founded on the right to the Soil, where the State is a Claimant, and that the decree of Trenton did in fact decide the right of Soil to be in those who claimed under PENNA., when the preemption right was adjudged in favor of this State, And when it is further stated that it was finally and irrevocably aban- <449> COMMISSIONERS OF PENNSYLVANIA. doned on the side of the Connecticut Claimants by suffering the non pros in Dorrance v. Vanhorne in the Supreme Court, when that cause was intended to try the private right of Soil the argue. 2nd. That they were always ready and willing to have the case tried upon the merits, but were baffled by the illiberal practice of the Attornies for the Pennsylv'a claim. For as the Service of notice upon Vanhorne, who had gone far away into the Western Country, was a mere matter of Form, that did not touch the question itself, that Service ought to have been admitted by consent, and then the merits would have been tried. But even after a Messenger had been sent into Allegheny, for the sole purpose of serving notice on Vanhorne, and when Vanhorne was actually served with notice, the Attornies on the side of Pennsylvania again shunned the question upon its merits, and took advantage of the legal quibble that the return of Service was not signed by the Sheriff. That being thus harassed from term to term by legal Maneuvre, they grew weary of the trouble and expence and the Cause died away. Hence if the merits were not tried it was not their fault, who were always ready upon that ground, but the fault of their Adversaries who always shunned the main question, and sheltered themselves under objections merely technical. Nor c'd. the non pros, under these circumstance, be considered as determining any other case than that in Which it was suffered. That their perfect conviction of the goodness of their cause, and the fairness of their intentions could not be more satisfactorily evinced than by their solicitude to have the question tried. Altho' perfect impartiality C'd. hardly be expected on a trial in the State of Penns'a., by a Jury of Pennsylv'a., on a point wherein the State of Penns'a was so deeply interested. Such are the Articles we understand they yet dwell on, which no man is more competent to answer than yourself. We shall with great pleasure forward some Copies of your Statement to Cap't. Williamson, whose Sentiments we believe accord with yours. You wish to be informed what we conceive to be the real dispositions as well as the professions of the people of the 17 townships and those out. We have been too closely confined to Business since our arrival to be competent to this important enquiry. Such experience as we have is almost confined to the township of Wilkesbarre, but hitherto we have had no reason to suspect but the influential people of that township and its vicinity mean to deceive us. They profess, and we incline to think they will practice, fair and candid dealing. We are fully persuaded that it is the interest of the submitting Claimants to act fairly and candidly. 29-VOL. XVIII. <450> LETTERS FROM THE if they are so treated, and of this they seem sensible. Many of them have been long and almost habitually attached to the Connecticut side of the general question, but a fair and liberal construction of the Act of 1799, in favor of the Claimants within the Seventeen Townships, a construction that will embrace the Spirit rather than be rigidly confined to the Letter, will, in our opinion, best fulfil the design of the Legislature and promote the beneficial operation of the Act; such a Construction, steadily acted upon, will give the people confidence in the Legislature and its agents, and will materially tend to divide the Connecticut party, and attach the most opulent and respectable Settlers by the strong tie of their Interest to the Penns'a Claim; on the other hand, any appearance of harassing them unnecessarily, or of Wiliness or Duplicity in the Conduct of the Agents of Pennsylv'a towards them, will as infallibly induce them to reject with disgust the terms of a Law of whose design they have become reasonably suspicious. Such Conduct will render them the secret, if not the open Friends, of those who are the only obstacle to the internal tranquility of Penns'a., viz, the unprincipled Speculators in half share rights; and the poor, industrious, but obstinate and deluded people, who Confide in these men. We mean so to act as to conciliate the people with whom we have to deal, and divide, if we can, the force of the Common Enemy. Out of the townships we have not information enough to give you an opinion, but Col. Horne will be enabled, we presume, to write fully; therefore, we shall not forestall by retailing at second hand any of the important information which he has to give. We shall confine ourselves, therefore, to such information and such reports as have reached ourselves, in various accidental Conversations, premising that whatever our opinion may be, or however unreservedly we may express them to you, our opportunities of Intelligence have not been so accurate as to justify us in expecting implicit Acquiescence. Your good Sense will fully enable you to judge for yourself. We have reason to believe, from the opinions & Conversations of some of the best informed, and most decided opp'ts of the half Share men, that the Form of renunciation transmitted for Signature by the Comm'ee of Land holders at Philad'a, whereby the Settler is required to sign an unconditional Abandonment of all title to his past Labors, and all his means of future support; to give up his whole dependence, and live and labor upon the mercy of the Penns'a owner, while the latter had taken care to commit himself to nothing, has occasioned great and universal irritation, even among those who have thought it prudent to sign the paper. We do not presume <451> COMMISSIONERS OF PENNSYLVANIA. to decide upon this instrument ourselves, for it is out of our immediate province, and we remark upon it only in compliance with the request intimated in your Letter. Nor should we presume to differ; but with much caution from the eminent abilities, by which, as we understand, it has been dictated and sanctioned, yet if you request our observations & opinions, we must send you such as we really entertain. If we might venture to suggest a Sentiment in opposition to such authority, it would be that the Comm'ee of Landholders, in their letter and form of renunciation should have been more explicit; they should have Committed themselves to Something in favor of the Settlers. They have been too prudent; Cautious overmuch. This is felt, and has its operation; perhaps they would do well to send out agents to treat with the people on the Spot upon liberal terms; the former then would be able to judge by actual inspection of the nature of the Lands and the State of the Country, what price might reasonably be expected, and the latter would know upon what terms they might venture labor on their Lands in future. It appears probable to us that the owners of Luzerne lands, resident in Philadelphia, value them far, very far, too high; Considering how execrable a very large proportion of them are, how difficult they are to clear, & how much of their value the first Settlers in such a Country give to them. If the Settlers could put confidence in the Pennsylvania Holders, they would soon abandon Franklin and C'o. Respecting your doubts about the readiness of the township Claimants to take the oath of single title, and your remarks on the confirming Law, we have to observe, that we do not find that the Connecticut Claimants hitherto object to the oath of single title, with a reservation of any Benefit the Confirming Law may afford them, should the present act in any respect fall thro' or be left unexecuted. We see no reason for insisting that they should renounce their right under the confirming law, if they should conceive they have any such right. We have added a clause to our oath of single title in conformity to this view of the Subject, and we send it herewith. But we do not apprehend that many claimants out of Wilkesbarre will be very anxious about it. With respect to Judge Patterson's charge, to which you refer, on the Subject of the confirming law, M'r. Cooper, speaking for himself, is of opinion that there is some foundation for a claim under that law, wherever there has been an actual Submission to the Commissioners under it; and the persons who can prove their actual conformity to the provisions of that act, may have a question raised in their favor. Whether the neglect <452> LETTERS FROM THE of the then Commissioners to return the Submissions duly made, and in full time, Ought to deprive the persons Submitting of the advantages held out to them, and that it is dubious whether the subsequent repeal of that law will exonerate the legislature from the performance of its contract with those who performed their part. However, as Comm'rs under the Act of 1799 We have no right, as we Conceive, to decide upon the law of March, 1787, or prejudge a legal question of much difficulty and importance, or deprive the Claimants, who submitted under that law, of any chance they may apprehend they now possess. Their Claim under the Act of 1787 is a clear implying, and acquiescence in, and conforming to, the laws of this State, and we, therefore, incline rather to Countenance than discourage it. You are of opinion that where one Claimant holds both titles he ought not to be permitted to throw away the one and claim under the other. There may be, as you suspect, many who hold both titles, but we have met with none such yet. Nor do we see why they should not be permitted to relinquish a bad title to obtain under the State a good one. It is the spirit and policy of the act to embrace as many Submissions and releases as possible; the more extensive its influence the more beneficial its operation. If such Holders comply substantially with the provisions of the Act, and satisfy us that their claim is fair and open, and that they mean to rest entirely on the present law, without concealing any of the circumstances attending their title, we shall not be inclined, to raise scruples of mere form, or substitute suspicion of unfairness for proof of it, or throw any unnecessary obstacle in their way. We repeat our decided and well considered opinion, that it is the interest of the State to disconnect the submitting Claimt's within the Townships from the great body of Connecticut Holders. This will be rendered impossible, and every endeavour of the Legislature frustrated by insisting on trivial Obstacles, by compelling them to incur needless trouble and expence, and by any conduct that favours of Stratagem or duplicity. We are persuaded that in the generality of these Sentiments you coincide with us, but we apprehend that from the prudence and caution of your temper, arising from much knowledge and observation of the world, and assiduous attention to this unhappy contest in particular, has probably rendered you more suspicious of the class we have to deal with than they may be found to deserve. At least we hope so. At all events we feel it our indispensable duty to our characters, and the State, to set them an example of patience and candid conduct, <453> COMMISSIONERS OF PENNSYLVANIA. and we sincerely believe that a liberal Construction of the act of 1799 will conciliate, while a nicety, too scrupulous, will revolt them. Nevertheless we feel ourselves much obliged by all your friendly suggestions of Caution, and are sensible that your opinion of the Character of many among the Conn't Claimants is too well founded. Whenever we differ from you in opinion, owing to the different Situations in which we are placed, it is always with due consideration for the Sentiments you have adopted after long and laborious research on this particular subject, very much to the credit of your talents and industry, and your character as an officer. We regret with you that the Indictment against Jenkins last year failed of the intended effect. We have not yet been in his immediate neighbourhood. If any similar circumstance should occur to us we shall act with much consideration and circumspection; for when efforts on the part of the State are unsuccessful our opponents gain a victory. Indeed in the case of Jenkins it appears that the evidence on the part of the prosecution did not prove before the Grand Jury as much as they swore to before the magistrate (at least so M'r. Cooper has been informed), and that failure, in this instance, is not fairly imputable to either the Court or Grand Jury. Jenkins was once bound over by Judge Rush himself and committed on refusing to procure Bail. While we are on this Subject M'r. Cooper wishes to suggest, that if rumour may be relied on, it is far from certain that the intrusion law will be considered by the Court of Common pleas here as Constitutional, even though Judge Rush should preside. Upon the ground of the constitutionality of that law, the Intruders are ready to come forward and plead to Indictments, and they mean to carry this question thro' all its stages. M'r. C. thinks he recollects that in some parts of the U. States laws, provision is made for an appeal to the federal Courts, wherever a State law is contrary to the federal constitution. If so, this point will be carried up to the U. States Courts, for the purposes of delay, if no other. Whether the law be constitutional, which, in M'r. Cooper's opinion, may admit of Argument, Yet the policy of preventing any further accession of force to the intruders, until the right of Pennsylvania is completely acknowledged, or finally decided, is too obvious to admit of doubt. If during "the law's delay" they fill the Country with half Speculators, it may cost much more trouble to drive them off than need be incurred at present; altho' when the dispute shall once be settled, such men will be excellent Citizens and invaluable cultivators of land, which <454> LETTERS FROM THE a Pennsylvanian or European would shudder to sit down upon, and would purchase at no rate. M'r. Cooper has ventured to advise Colonel Horne to be very particular in procuring (personally wherever he can) full and circumstantial evidence against any offender, as instantly as the case will admit, and without waiting for instructions from the Atty. General to go without delay to the nearest magistrate and procure the intruder to be bound over to the Court of Session, for in some cases the delay occasioned by writing to the Attorney General in the 1st Instance and waiting the arrival of his answer may be productive of bad consequences. In case the ground is not perfectly clear as to the decision on the Constitutionality of the Intrusion law in the Court at Luzerne (which M'r. Cooper will endeavour to ascertain next month), he wishes it to be enquired whether a Delinquent could not be proceeded against ex-officio, in the Supreme Court, or whether the Atty. General could not direct the Indictment to be removed into the Supreme Court immediately on its being found at the Sessions. If any Magistrate should be found offending, perhaps the better way would be by information instead of Indictment. Probably Col. Horne will report facts some time or other, which will require these suggestions to have been previously considered and settled. We observe that you recommend to the Commissioners to open a small Book for applications of Settlers out of the Townships, and for pitchis; Altho' out of the line of our duty, we shall have no objection to make such entries, if any person applies. You are of opinion that no Surveys out of the Townships ought to be noticed by us, that were made since the Year 1782. We presume you mean actual Surveys. These Surveys may be of 2 kinds, viz, either such as were made in Conformity to original minutes of direction, recorded in the township books prior to that time, or resurveys according to and pursuing the course of old Surveys, where the marks and lines of these, or the maps or plans thereof, have been lost or defaced; or 2ndly, Surveys of townships, under the Connecticut Claim, where none had ever been made, or any directions given for making one prior to the Year 1782. For Instance, the town of Wilkesbarre was originally Surveyed in 1770, by Jos. Jac. Wallis and Samuel Wallis; a part, a very small part, of the draught of this Survey we have obtained. M'r. Cooper has personally applied to Daniel Smith, Esq'r., of Sunbury, the Executor and Son-in-Law of J. J. Wallis, to procure any Copy or field notes of the original Survey, but without effect. The only Document we have, therefore, to ascertain the boundaries and Lots of Wilkesbarre is an origi- <455> COMMISSIONERS OF PENNSYLVANIA. nal Survey of M'r. Montgomery, who was the sworn surveyor under the Commissioner, 1787, and which was made under their direction. We cannot presume you mean that Wilkesbarre ought not to be considered a township because we have no better evidence of the lines than Montgomery's Survey. Again; Very early, at the very first entrance almost the original Settlers into Hanover township, motion was made at a town meeting to have township lines, lots, highways, &c., run out. One White was the Surveyor; the courses and distances were entered in minutes, But we can find no trace of White's Survey. Under the direction of the Comm'rs 1787, a M'r. Hurlburt made Survey, now in our possession. Shall we strike out Hanover from the List of townships or adopt the best evidence of the lines We can now find? With respect to Surveys of townships, Wherever no Survey had ever been made at all previous to 1782, We cannot precisely determine what Conduct we shall pursue, for hitherto such a case has not come before us. But since the legislature has taken for granted the existence of the 17 townships, as tracts of land notoriously known by that designation, and has assigned them to us as objects of our enquiry, and as we are fully persuaded that the true policy of the law in question, as well as its particular intent and meaning, requires that the benefit operation of it should rather be extended than contracted, we shall certainly hesitate before we reject a township from our Jurisdiction, which has been commonly called and known as one of the "Seventeen Townships," previous to the Act of 1799. It is not for us to be less liberal than the Legislature, or by our own practice to contract or contravene its expressions or its policy, by determining that there are not 17 townships, when the very law which gives us authority declares that there are. You are also of opinion, that, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the 17 townships are all within the Bounds of the purchase of the Susquehannah Company, We ought to demand inspection of the Indian Deed. We believe that M'r. Franklin has lately (within these 2 months) procured from a M'r. Pepoom, of Albany, the original Deed; but we are persuaded he would not entrust us with it, nor do we know upon what fair plea to insist upon it. The first 70 miles from N. to S. by 10 miles East of the Susquehannah, and 2 degrees of longitude to the West, would probably cover their claim, or at least so nearly as not to make it worth while to raise a question about the Difference. Secondly, the Objects of the law would still be the same; for whether the people claimed under the Susquehannah company or not, they would still be Connecticut Claimants. <456> LETTERS FROM THE It is in this latter view that they become the objects of our Jurisdiction. Thirdly, the Legislature has recognized the 17 townships and we have no right to reject them, whether they are contained in the Indian Deed or not. You object to the Votes and regulations of the Susquehannah Company, which you have heard of as having been Communicated to the late Comm'rs. 1st, that they are imperfect, Secondly, that they are not original. At our request M'r. Franklin has been sent to for the original minutes in his possession, he has sent them. They contain the Votes and resolutions of the Company (including those which were communicated to the late Comm'rs), from the Commencement of the Company in 1753 to Dec'r. 26, 1786, attested chiefly by Samuel Gray, their original and long continued Clerk, & ending with the attestation of Joel Barlow, as clerk to the last meeting. We have no doubt of their accuracy, they bear intrinsic evidence of it. The copy we now have we understand to have been already produced and admitted in the federal court; and the attestations of Samuel Gray, Clerk of the Company, proved on oath of Oliver Wolcott, Esq'r. Of this Book we have made a Copy verbatim. The people have made no objection. In fact they seem desirous to furnish us with information. And we believe they do so in every instance in their power. We have also copied all the minute of the Committees of the Company at Wilkesbarre, interspersed thro' 1,500 pages of the Westmoreland records. You know of course that all this County was called Westmoreland, and was annexed as a district to the County of Litchfield in Connecticut, until the Jurisdiction was changed by the Decree of Trenton. With respect to the lands comprized in what are called the 17 townships, and lying within the New purchase, we shall more fully consider the objection you state when it comes before us. At present we think in Conformity to our general principles of construing the act, which leads us rather to extend than narrow its operation, that the expressions of the law have confirmed the Claim of those who have submitted, and taken away your objection. You wish to know by Draught the Lands within the 17 townships, covered by Pennsylvania rights, later than the decree of Trenton, or by unleased rights of any age. You evidently entertain no adequate idea of the extent of Labor necessary to answer this question in the way you mention. We shall be very glad to have such a Draught made out for ourselves, and in that case we shall with the utmost willingness furnish you with a Duplicate, for we are well aware it will serve important purposes, both to your enquires and ours. But we <457> COMMISSIONERS OF PENNSYLVANIA. are certain 1 or 2 months assiduous application would not suffice to perform this. At present M'r. Sambourne, who possesses unusual readiness as a Draughtsman, from 5 in the morning until 6 in the Evening, when he is not actually employed in surveying the nicer parts of the work, and he has enough to do to arrange in time what we find necessary to enquire of him. We are surprized at your intimation that the business should be as far as possible concluded this year, for you cannot be fully aware of the detail of difficulties. But without any reason for imputing neglect to the late Comm'rs, but otherwise, We are hardly prepared to say with truth that when we came here the Business was begun. To the merit of Industry We shall certainly lay claim; but we have no hopes of Concluding this Season, nor unless the Legislature assist, the next or succeeding year. The people here allow us one full season for Wilkesbarre alone. But we hope to produce Evidence that they are more wide in their Conjecture than you are. We cannot procure a copy of the general tax list, without having one made out, expressly with the permission of the Comm'rs of the County, but we understand it is the practice to tax the claimants of uncultivated land where ever they can be found, under both titles. This will surely amount to a legal difficulty against the purchasers at the Commissioners' sales. With respect to the Lands of Charles Hurst, Gaskell and Lord Shelburne, great part is out of the township entirely, and unless for a part of Hurst's, there is no Survey Whatever of these Lands upon any regular Warrant or order of Survey. Whoever made it had no authority to make it, so far as the Documents demonstrate to us. If there be any information in your power to transmit, which will clear up the difficulty, we shall be glad to receive it. Be good enough also to send without delay the release of Turnbull and C'o. for Charles Baker, Whitehead Jones, Sam'l. Clampher, Benj. Davis, James Wharton and 10 others. We were surprized at finding these Surveys among the collections furnished by M'r. Cochran, without knowing to what releases to refer (except the Representatives of Robert L Hooper, by whom many of them are claimed and released), had we not found a letter of the Surveyor General, transmitted after the late Comm'rs had quitted Luzerne, stating these to have been released by Turnbull and others. We shall Gladly attend to the Lands released by M'r. Chas. Stewart and his Heirs, but we want for that purpose office copies of the following returns of Survey, for We have no evidence of a tract having been surveyed and returned, but the <458> LETTERS FROM THE official documents that certify its having been so. Chauncyance Vancleve, John Hall, Thomas Craig, John Lawrence, Sam'l. Pleasants, Sam'l. Clark, William Norton, George Ryerson, Martin Ryerson. M'r. Sambourne requests the Draught of Nescopek creek, which you shewed him, & also the draught of M'r. Meredith's land on the Lacawanna, which M'r. Mott was to copy; perhaps these are the draughts your Letter alludes to as having been sent to Easton; if not, be good enough to forward them. The draughts you wanted, and mentioned to him, he will make out the first opportunity; hitherto he has not had time, and the principal Surveyor under him has lately been disabled by the kick of a horse. M'r. Sambourne will, therefore, be obliged to take the field daily himself. We hope ere long to have 4 Compasses at work. We shall enquire whether Jacobs was a Settler before the Decree of Trenton. We are decided to admit no claim which is not deduced anterior to that date from an actual Settler. We shall attend also to the forfeitures. We are are most sadly at a loss and chagrined in consequence of the inability of M'r. Coates, the agent to the proprietors, to procure anything like a certain account of the lands claimed by contract with the proprietary agent, and sold by the proprietors within the manors. Unless these reservations can be ascertained, we see not to what purpose we need go into any of the townships that comprize either of the manors. We have sent to search the records of Northumberland, and by this post we shall send for M'r. Coates himself. The difficulty is all important, but we keep it out of sight until we can ascertain definitely what can be done. Can you assist us with any information on this Subject? We do not observe any other object of remark in your Letter to which our attention is particularly called. We trust that the same Communication that has hitherto taken place between us will be continued, and that you will unreservedly afford us the benefit of your talents and information, even tho' our opinions should not always coincide. Accept, Sir, our Assurances of sincere respect, THOMAS COOPER, JOHN STEELE. <459> COMMISSIONERS OF PENNSYLVANIA. Mr. Cooper to the Secretary. Wilkesbarre, July 13, 1801. Dear Sir: You gratify me much by the articles of intelligence you occasionally transmit me. I sincerely wish the present occurrences in European politics may lay the foundation of the utter destruction of the Turkish Empire, which is now the greatest Barrier against the Civilization of the finest part of the world. As to Tripoli and Algiers, I would have them swarm with their cruizers, that set the Example under Jefferson's administration of protecting the merchant at the Expence of the nation. It is evidently to me a destructive policy; destructive of national policy, for commerce can at all times furnish innumerable causes for war, according to the modern doctrines respecting it. I would never sacrifice one class to another, but least of all would I protect the merchant, who is of no country, at the expence of every other class. When Muhlenberg (whose death I do not regret) has a successor, let me know. I hope your conjecture will be right as to his disposition on the subject of improvement rights. I am, D'r. Sir, Your obed't Servant, THOMAS COOPER. _ _ _ The Commissiners to the Secretary. Wilkesbarre, July 14, 1801. Dear Sir: Since writing the Letter in which this is enclosed, Colonel Horne has requested me to communicate a disagreeable piece of intelligence, which, with our acquiescence, he has set off to Bald Eagle to investigate farther. He had employed a person of the name of Smilie to collect signatures to the Submission, who sent him word (refusing to write to him) that he (Smilie) had been taken out of his Bed, about 2 o'clock on Wednesday morning last, at a house about 2 miles from the mouth of Towandee, by 15 men, disguised, Who tarred and feathered him, and robbed him of his papers. Smilie has gone off to the west Branch, and hearing that he had relations at the Bald Eagle creek, Colonel Horne is set off to ascertain, in person, whether this account be true, or how much of it is so. We find, upon enquiry, that Smilie is well known and disliked. Hitherto we deem it prudent to make no noise on the subject, much doubting Smilie's account and his motive for going off. <460> LETTERS FROM THE But it is right that Confidential officers of Government should be apprized even of the report. In other respects Col. Horne has had good success. This morning Mess'rs. Catlin, Lord Butler and Welles called on us, and informed us that they had heard the report, and that they or any off them, and Major Ross, and the Sheriff Colt & M'r. Fell were ready to start with Colonel Horne into the Country, and do their utmost to bring to light the offenders; but they hoped no measures would be decidedly taken until means had been used to discover the perpetrators. Indeed it is in our opinion an action too imprudent to be done deliberately by any investigation of the heads of a party, and arises from the silly vengeance of some ignorant people; rather instigated by dislike to Smilie than any motives of revenge or intimidation on the general Subject. We are, &c., THOMAS COOPER, JOHN STEELE, WILLIAM WILSON. _ _ _ The Commissioners to Governor McKean. Wilkesbarre, July 21, 1802. To his Excellency Governor McKean: Sir: At our request Jesse Fell and Putnam Catlin, Esq'rs., wrote to M'r. John Franklin to procure the original records of the Susquehanna Company, that we might have something like authentic Evidence of the "Votes and regulations" of that Company, mentioned in the act. About a fortnight ago, they brought us a Book which they said M'r. Franklin had sent to them (on their application at our request), and which M'r. Catlin, who was engaged in the Suit, Dorrance v. Vanhorne, informed us had already been admitted to his knowledge in the United States court in that cause, and that the handwriting of Samuel Gray, the Clerk to the Susquehanna Company, and who appears to attest the votes, &c., thereof, was proved in Court by Oliver Wolcott, Esq'r. Indeed, from the perusal and inspection, We have no doubt of the originality and authenticity of the Book in question. We received it under a promise to return it within a Week, or sooner if wanted. Of this Book containing about 170 folio pages, of what appears to us important matter, we have taken a verbal copy, which has been since accurately examined. It Contains the proceedings of the Company from 1753 to 1786. <461> COMMISSIONERS OF PENNSYLVANIA. The resolutions subsequent to the Decree of Trenton appeared to us too important to be left unnoticed. They contain manifest determinations of settling the Country in despite of Pennsylvania, _ Of calling in a force for so doing, and paying them with the Lands of Pennsylvania. And, on the part of Franklin, there appears to have been an induction by oath into his office of Clerk to the Company. Whether the Evidence will amount to a sufficient reason for apprehending him without further proof, of his acting in that capacity to a meeting and a company not merely illegal, but hostile, we do not presume to judge; proof of his transmission of the original, we think can be procured if necessary. Perhaps as he will probably be sent to the Legislature as a representative, the matter may rest till then; but we merely take the liberty of making suggestions. We think, however, that the apprehension of Franklin, Spaulding and an'r or two, upon good ground, would go near to terminate the Dispute, if the Pennsylvania Claimants would take some decisive measures to satisfy the Settlers, that the terms of compromise will be fair and liberal. But while the Settlers are required to commit themselves unconditionally, and the PENNA hold'r commits himself to nothing, it is impossible to eradicate a degree of Jealousy and Suspicion, which will keep alive a dispute that we are persuaded might otherwise be extinguished. Should it be necessary to have recourse to military operations, the Settlers after an ineffectual resistance, might be driven off. If they return, a constant force must be kept up. But should they never come back again, that part of the State which is of more immediate value as a back country than any other, would become a desart, and a desart it would remain; for no Pennsylvanian will ever think of clearing land which none but a new England man can live upon. The half share people are for the most part deceived by the speculating Principals of the Susquehanna Company, but they are a very orderly set of Citizens and most industrious Cultivators. The part of the Country they chiefly occupy is that whose trade (when cultivated) must belong exclusively to Pennsylvanians, while a large proportion of the rest of the State will be gradually inticed toward Baltimore. Hence, it becomes of great importance, to conciliate rather than to terrify a class of Inhabitants who promise to be, in time, more peculiarly Pennsylvanians than many others who will become ere long but half so. We know that these ideas relate to a part of the general Subject not so immediately within our province. But we cannot avoid forming an opinion or being anxious on a question of such Importance. We beg you therefore, excuse for sugges- <462> LETTERS FROM THE tions, which are submitted with much Deference, to y'r. Excellency's better Judgment. In the prosecution of our immediate business, we find the Claimants within the 17 townships, altho' fearful and jealous of the opinions of the Government respecting them, yet desirous of complying with the law, and ready to furnish every necessary information in their power. We have thought a liberal rather than a strict construction, and a conciliating, rather than a repulsive conduct, would best promote the object of the Legislature; and we think we have adopted it with effect. We have no doubt, if the present most imperfect Act be amended at the next Sessions, but the claimants within the Townships may be attached by the strong tie of Interest to the Pennsylvania title, even tho' opposed by the half Shareholders. We have determined that no part of our conduct shall savour of needless obstruction, duplicity or stratagem. In our communication with M'r. Tench Cox, we have sometimes thought that that Gentleman (who has executed much laudable industry on the subject) has suggested a mode of proceeding more strict and guarded than was consistent with prudence. But we cannot resist the impressions of local residences, and continued attention; and what we have observed, has convinced us that the people here are far from deserving the character of unnecessary caution or suspicion in their dealings with each other, particularly in respect of their Land titles. There has been a rumour of some violence offered to a Deputy of Colonel Horne, but we know you pay no attention to information short of Evidence, and we ourselves doubt extremely how far that agent is to be depended upon. We beg your excuse for troubling so much with what may appear extraneous to our duty, But the Contents of the Document, of which we send you an extract, has led us to it, and we hope the great and imminent Importance of the general Subject will induce you to excuse, Sir, Your obedient Servants, THOMAS COOPER, JOHN STEELE, WILLIAM WILSON. Would it be desirable that we should transmit a Copy of the Votes & regulations of the Susquehanna Company for the use of Government? <463> COMMISSIONERS OF PENNSYLVANIA. The Commissioners to the Board of Property. Wilkesbarre, July, 1801. Gentlemen: The importance of the Subject on which we have to address you will, we hope, be deemed a sufficient excuse for our desiring the opinion of the Board of Property on the points we have to state. The Connecticut Claimants may be divided into four classes: 1. The principal Supporters of and Speculators in the Connecticut title, such as M'r. Franklin and some others, by whom the spirit of actual opposition is perpetually kept up. 2. Settlers without the townships, upon whole or half share rights, whose property and whose labour for many years have been invested in the purchase and improvement of Land, under the Connecticut title, and whose all depends upon their present possessions so obtained. 3d. Half share holders enticed into Luzerne County, chiefly of late years, and since the decree of Trenton, and who hold their possessions not from purchase in general, but chiefly under a kind of implied contract to defend them against the Pennsylvania claim. 4. Settlers within the Seventeen Townships, holding under a Connecticut title, but of whom the most part have submitted under the act of 1799. The first class will never be induced to submit, but by force, or being directed by the other classes. The second class, persuaded (however improperly) of the goodness of their title, will certainly endeavour to repel force by force, if they can muster strong enough; for they might as well die as be turned out with their families to starve. But as this class have by patient Industry, to which upon the same lands few of the Pennsylv'a Cultivators would be equal, acquired a comfortable property, they would listen to fair and reasonable terms of compromise and might be detached from the first class. The third class would be more apt than any other to be guided by the first; but if fair terms of Compromise (liber'l prices and easy payments) were offered them they also might be detached; but unless the force sent would put opposition at defiance in the first instance, they would join in open rebellion. The 4th class may certainly be detached from the others and secured to Pennsylvania by a liberal construction and effectual amendments of the present Law; but the same jealousy and suspicion that the Pennsylv'a Claimants they in return entertain of Pennsylvania. This commenced with the repeal of the confirming law, and has since continued. So far as we can discover, we believe them sincere in their endeavour to aid the execution <464> LETTERS FROM THE of the present Law of 1799, under which we act. But any measures adopted by authority, to harass them with obstructions and difficulties, to suggest and act upon legal niceties, to put them to needless trouble and expense, or to enforce the law in question, under a strict and harsh, rather than under a fair and generous construction, will in our opinion infallibly tend to confirm their prejudices, and to make them the secret, tho' inveterate, enemies of the State. It is true our concern is with the people of the seventeen townships alone; but the whole question of the Connecticut title, and the holders under it is so connected thro' all its parts, that an enlarged and liberal view of the whole subject is absolutely necessary to guide the treatment of any part of it. Hence we trouble you with these preliminary observations, the result of much reflection and perfect conviction, on the information we have at various times received. Hence our opinion clearly is if prudence and policy were alone to be consulted, that the Act of 1799 should in every possible instance be construed as generously and as liberally in favour of the submitting Claimants as the expressions will bear. But altho' this be our opinion we submit it merely for your consideration, and with much deference to your better judgment in all cases, which by the law are placed within your Jurisdiction. We request, therefore, that you will take into consideration the following points: 1st. Many of the Submissions, tho' duly executed and in proper time, were likely to arrive at Lancaster later than the day fixed by this Act; especially owing to the irregular and circuitous mode of Conveyance from here to Lancaster. In consequence whereof, the Secretary of the Land office very properly suggested, in a Letter dated Dec'r 7, 1800, and inserted in the Wilkesbarre papers of the 22nd, recommended such submissions to be deposited at the prothonotary's office, who w'd mark the time of the receipt. Both in that paper, and in the order of the Board transmitted to us about a fortnight ago (of date _ _ ), it is intimated that the question is dubious. If so, we sincerely wish it may be reconsidered and that the Submissions so circumstanced may not be rejected; especially as many of them might have been transmitted in time, had it not been for the letter of M'r. Coxe, which induced the Claimants to think that it would be sufficient to lodge them with the prothonotary. In M'r. Coxe's Letter to us, accompanying the resolution of the Board, he suggests that the persons who are thus late should be directed to apply to the Board of Property; but we are satisfied not a man among them would take this trouble <465> COMMISSIONERS OF PENNSYLVANIA. or incur the Expence; they would regard it as an Evidence of the intention of the officers of Government to put them to needless inconvenience. 2nd. We have been repeatedly asked by persons exhibiting their title whether our Certificate will be regarded as conclusive Evidence by the Board of Property of their claim to the Patents for the Land so certified, and whe'r they may depend upon receiving a patent without delay. We have said that in our opinion the Board of Property will deem our certificate sufficient, and that a patent would issue thereon. We think much depends upon our being able to answer this question decidedly, for the people will hardly be induced to undergo a re-examination of all their papers and documents. We hope we have not pledged our opinions too far in this respect. We really dread the Effects of a refusal on the minds of the people, And we are strongly impressed with an opinion of the beneficial effects that would result from a few patents obtained this Summer. The question is to irritate or conciliate; the one may lead to civil war, & the other will certainly tend to peace and conciliation. We beg, therefore, that the Board of Property will authorize us to give a decided answer to this question. We have been urged the inconvenience and hardship of taking out patents for every acre, and 1/4 of an acre and with the inefficacy of a Law under which so few Pennsylvanians have released, while so large a majority of the Connecticut Claimants have submitted; but we are aware that, however reasonable their observations may be, these are objects not within our Jurisdiction. But while such hardships remain against them. We are anxious not to encrease the difficulties which we cannot remedy. Our local residence in Luzerne County, and our frequent communications with men of good sense on the subject, have induced to consider the Subject as of the first importance to the peace of the State; and we have, therefore, very freely, as well as fully, suggested the observations that occur to us. But we submit them to the consideration of the Board; with great respect, We are, Gentlemen, Your obedient Servants, THOMAS COOPER, JOHN STEELE, WILLIAM WILSON. 30-VOL. XVIII. <466> LETTER FROM THE The Commissioners to Tench Coxe. Wilkesbarre, July 31, 1801. M'r. Coxe: Sir: Much to our satisfaction M'r. D. H. Conyngham & M'r. Stewart of Flemingtown, have been here and have produced for our examination titles to several tracts which we much wanted. But as in many instances, the office Copy of return of Survey is part of the Evidence of Title itself, and is in all instances necessary to ascertain the precise situation and boundaries, we must beg of you to transmit by General Steele those Documents respecting the following tracts: Jacob Lemley 306, 133; D. Johnston, 335; Thomas Hayes, 329; John Ander'n, 306, 133; Ab. Stack, 303; W'm. West, Junior, 339 3/4; W'm. Sheaf, 178 and 3/4, Situate on Jacob's Plains; paten'd by J. M. Nesbitt. Ut de supra.-- Thomas Hayes, 329; John Patterson, Nanticoke, 298 1/4; Geo. Miller, Nanticoke, 310 1/2; Corn's Stack, 267, Title founded on Warrt. with ret'n of Survey. 2 Warr't. of accept'ed. M'r. Cony'm says the overplus alone rem'ns to be p'd in. Sit. Jac'bs Plains. William Dawson, 330; Ph. Olar, 400; Adam Clampher, 310; Isaac Stroud, 328; Peter Howard, 307; John Evans, 314; title Warrt. & Survey. Rect. for purchase money. Sit. Jac'bs Plains. Deed Polls produced. Isaac Jones, 301 3/4; Isaac Gray, 330 3/4; Mary Steel, 326 3/4; Peter Miller, 310; James Treadwell, 330 3/4; Jo's. Martin, 331 1/2; J'n. Shaw, 320 1/2; title as above. Situate in Nanticoke. William Corbett, 330 3/4; Patrick Savage, 292; Mill Lot near Wilkesb., Jacob's Plains, allotted in 1771, at Easton to Amos Ogden. For these no title has been pro'd to us, but we are referred to M'r. Stewart. AlEx'r. Nesbitt, 331 1/2; Jon. Nesbitt, 332; rec't for the purchase money produced; Situate, Nanticoke. John Maxwell, Sr., north of Abraham's Plains; Patrick Hamel, W. side of Lackawanna, adjg. J. Evans, near the upper line of Stoke Manor. Warrts dated Ap. 2, 1773. Robert Glen and Geo. Clymer, Warrantees, of which W. Gray has certified that a return has been made into the office, but they cannot be found; under these circumstances we think M'r. Sambourne's Survey, under the order of resurvey may fairly relate back to the original Survey, and bring him within this act, tho' not apparently surveyed till after. The following tracts released by M'r. Charles Stewart's heirs, as a Schedule to the general Clause in the Release: Manor of Stoke N'o. 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 43, 44; _ _ Sunbury, 32, 16, 17; Abraham's Plains, 7, 10, 16, 11. These we wrote to you about in the general List. <467> COMMISSIONERS OF PENNSYLVANIA. N'o. 19 and 70, (Qu. 20) in the manor of Wyoming, In Sunbury. N'o. 70 is survey'd (or s'd to be) to C. Stewart. Quere. if N'o. 19 be S. Rodgers in Stoke? If this be the Manor of Stoke, it does not coincide with the List of agreements at Easton, transm'd by the Prop'rs Agent. The Mill tract in Wilkesbarre township allotted under the agreements at Easton to A. Ogden; Stephen Phillips joining Abraham's Plains; William Harrison, D'o.; Abel Pree (or Prue or Price), Nanticoke. The other Surveys, not sent us by the Surveyor General, and conveyed in the release of M'r. C. Stewart, are noticed in our Letter last but one, and in the Mem. transmitted by Gen'l. Steele. We are, &c., THOMAS COOPER, WILLIAM WILSON. _ _ _ The Commissioners to Putnam Catlin. Wilkesbarre, August, 1801. Putnam Catlin, Esq'r.: Dear Sir: The Board of Property mean formally to object to granting Patents, where any addition has been made to the oath of single title. The Commissioners (Gen. Steele, M'r. Wilson & myself) have no objection to grant Certificates where the oath of single title has been taken, under the modification expressed in yours. If the Land Office object, the only course you can pursue will be to get your Certificate recorded, and defend the title in case of an Ejectment, as claiming under it. If you have no objection to take this risk, the Commissioners have none. But if you think there would be any hazard in such a Defence, had you not better take the oath in the form prescribed by the Act? which certainly meant no reference to a title claimed under the Confirming Law, and which implies no deception in those who take the oath without noticing that Law. Of this you will judge for yourself, and take that course that suits your own Interests. I am, Dear Sir, Your friend and Servant, THOMAS COOPER. _ _ _ The Commissioners to Mr. Snyder. Wilkesbarre, August 26, 1801. M'r. Snyder, Ex'r. of Kachlein: Sir: I was honored with your communication, under date of the 19th Current, and note its contents. I have conferred <468> LETTERS FROM THE with M'r Sambourne on the subject, and from the inspection of his Drafts and Plans I am assured that the Lands may be Surveyed and returned conformably to the directions from the Land Office, under which impression I think you may with propriety, and to the benefit of the Concerned, forward the Warrants, which your friend has transmitted to you, accompanied with the necessary fees. I am, Sir, &c., THOMAS COOPER. _ _ _ The Commissioners to the Secretary. Wilkesbarre, August, 1801. Dear Sir: I thank you for the news you were so kind as to send me; it was earlier than I had received at the time. We have received the resolution of the Board of Property respect'g the Submissions that came too late, and the explanatory addit'n to the oath. We regret that our opinions still remain as before, by no means in harmony with the Sentiments of the Board. We shall not enter into the arguments that induce us to think we were right, but we are decidedly satisfied that we were so at the time. In fact we see plainly that our ideas of prudence, policy and justice, incite us to a liberal construction of the Act, & to the exercise of a discretionary power occasionally, which the peculiar nature of the Case, & local reasons impossible to be known by those not on the Spot, appears to us absolutely to require. While your notions of Prudence and of legal precision, and your preconceived opinions of the people we have to deal with, incite to a construction strictly confined within the words of the act. It is evident our general Ideas differ toto cælo. However, as we have uniformly pursued a conduct tending to conciliation with the people here, we have said to the few who have taken the oath conditionally that eventually it may be made a question, whe'r we had any right to alter or diminish from the strict Letter of the Act in this respect, and that, therefore, they must, if they please so to take it, run the hazard that such a question may induce; for tho' it neither will nor can come before the Board of Property, it may come before the Supreme Court, who will ultimately have to judge whe'r our proceedings, in case an Ejectment be brought for the Lands certified. They have all declared that tho' they think such an explanation of the oath no more than they had a right to request, and me to comply with, they will not be the cause <469> COMMISSIONERS OF PENNSYLVANIA. of any objection whatever to our proceedings any where, and they will cancel the oath taken and take one in the words of the act merely. I have appointed a day in this week for that purpose, and I have advised them to the measure, for their sakes to save trouble and avoid Cavil. We shall ere long send down a few clear and unobjectionable cases, with Certificates for Patent, that the people may be convinced, before we leave this place, that the present act is not meant like the Confirming Law, to be repealed before it can be effectually acted upon, for the benefit of those who embrace its provisions. I hope there will be no difficulty; if there should, the remedy I shall advise them to take will be to record their Certificates, to operate as constructive notice, to take Depositions of their tender at the Land Office, and give these in Evidence in Ejectment; our proceedings will then come before the proper tribunal. It might have materially tended to the furtherance of our Business, Could the people have been assured that the Certificate of the Comm'rs would have been sufficient Evidence whereon to obtain a Patent for the Lands Certified; for many of them have thought (and still think) that the application under this act would be equally useless as their application under the confirming law; this uncertainty delayed us, I have no doubt, in one way or other, the Business of a Month. I am very anxious that it should not operate hereafter. I am very sorry that you and I should differ in opinion, for I can truly & without flattery say that I greatly admire your industry and respect your talents, but I do really think your notions on this Subject, and your deep-rooted suspicion of the Connecticut Claimants generally, have a strong tendency to throw the State into Confusion, by exasperating a large class of citizens who may easily be conciliated, and by tormenting them into resistance when they are truly anxious for peace. But I am willing to bear testimony to the fairness of your intentions, and I believe you err, if at all, for want of knowledge, not to be obtained where you are. As to the Scurrility with which you are treated in the Luzerne paper, it is really beneath your Character to notice it. It does no good to the cause of the writer, and no harm to you. I told you before that Wright had undertaken to print your Statement, but that Colonel Horne had anxiously desired it to be let alone. After that, We could not think of pressing it any more, for it applies to the object of his mission only, and not to the people within the 17 towns. Next to the Demand of preliminary unconditional subm'n by the Committee of Landholders at Philadelphia (which you ap- <470> LETTER FROM THE prove as highly as I disapprove), I know nothing that has done more serious harm than constituting Col. Horne an agent of that Comm'ee as well as of the State. This circumstance would have defeated the Indictment agst. the outragers of Smilie, except on the common count of Assault and battery, even if that Indictment had been found. M'r. C. Hall, however, one of their Attornies for the Philadelphia Committee told me at Wilkesbarre that he thought there was hardly evidence enough of the Identity of the Persons indicted to authorize the grand Jury to find the Bill against them. I do not think there was want of inclination At Lycoming. I forced on, against the Intention of the Atty. Genl., and of the Court, the trial of some of the persons indicted for intruding on Strawbridge's Land, but to my Surprize they proved the Sheriff Cummings to be a Deputy of Col. Horne, and upon challenge set aside the array. This intermixture of Duties, in Col. Horne and his Deputies is of incalculable injury Judge Rush is of opinion that the Intrusion Law is constitutional, but there are so many objections to the Indictments found here last Court agst. Franklin, &c., that I doubt if they can legally be convicted. Indeed, they mean to move it by regular steps into the United States Court, as I wrote to you before that I expected they would. I have sent your Letters to M'r. George Welles. I shall gladly urge on the Consideration of Hartley's claim, as we all of us are inclined to do in any case where you have a personal Interest; but I apprehend you have not seen what the objections are, therefore, I enclose you The objection to the Lands of Gaskill Shelburne, &c., being surveyed in 1776 on Land in the New purchase is fatal; but at all Events they are out of the townships. I even suspect that the Connecticut claimants will fail in making out a single title in Athens, for which I am sorry and You I presume are otherwise. The other Lands of Hurst, we shall in their course get surveyed & valued and return them to your Board, subject to the objection of Noah Grant, having no regular authority to survey them. Be good enough to peruse the following List of returns wanting, and transmit to us information: Returns of Survey still Wanting Sept'r. 10, 1801. Warrantees, R't. Wood, 224 1/2. Descrip'n, Easterly side of the N. East Branch of Wysaughing or Rust meadows; Released by John Ewing & Wife, and also by the heirs of Patterson. This has been surv'd., but we have no returns. Tho's. Smith, 300. Descrip., in the Warrant Includg. both <471> COMMISSIONERS OF PENNSYLVANIA. sides of a path lead'g to Wyalusing & a run, 3/4 mile above the cross'gs of Tuscarora; Rel'd by Thom's Hartley. W. Smith, 230 3/4. Released by S. Howell and Wife. N'o. 6, 8, 14, 17, on Abraham's Plains. Released by D'r. Smith, But we have no return of Survey in favor of any Body. Nor do we know the Chain of title under which D'r. Smith Claims. William McCarroll, Elizabeth Punner, Samuel Boucher, John Vansant; released by Matthias Barton, Ex'r. of Cox, and also by the heirs of Patterson. Quere. are there any returns of Survey? If not, of course we cannot find the Lands. Conrad Clock and eleven others. Warrants taken out by Aaron Levy. The Surv. Gen'l has noticed these, but if there be no Service we can take no cognizance of the Lands, which we have no means of finding. Patented Tract "Dublin;" released by Bingham. We did not want Bingham's release, But the first patent not reciting the Survey we have no description by which we can find out the Lands. Thomas Craig, John Lawrence, 341 as., Samuel Pleasants, Samuel Clarke. These are released by C. Stewart, But we have no Survey. N'o. 15, 16, 17. On Abraham's Plains; But tho' we have Lukens' Survey, it does not say for whom they were returned, nor do we know how Charles Stewart's title is deduced. N'o. 32. On Abraham's Plains; Also released (or intended to be included in Charles Stewart's General release), but there is no return of Survey for this N'o. in Lukens' Survey. N'o. 19, 70. Also released by Stewart. We suspect N'o. 70 should be no. 20. But the Description is the Manor of Wyoming. We have no Survey under Authority. Stephen Phipps, W'm. Harrison; adj'g Abrah'ms Plains; these also are released by Stewart, or given in under his gen. release; but we have no Survey. Abel Pierce, Price or Rees, the same sit'n., as to title described, as being in Nanticoke. Jacob Lemlie, David Johnson, Tho's. Hayes, J'n. Anderson, Ab. Stack, William Sheaf, J'n. Patterson, Geo. Millar, Corn's. Stack, W. Dawson, Ph. Olar, Isaac Stroud, Peter Howard, John Evans, W'm. Corbet, Isaac Jones, Isaac Gray, Mary Steel, John Shaw, Peter Miller, Ja's. Treadwell, Ja's. Martin, Pat. Savage, Alx'r. Nesbitt, J'n. Nesbitt, J. Maxwell; D'o. north of Abraham's Plains, Patrick Hammel, Robert Glen, R. Clymer. These are given in by M'r. Conyngham, as being part of the General release. We have been able to find many of these laid down upon the Draughts in our Possession, but we have no Survey nor authority & of course none on which we can depend. We <472> LETTERS FROM THE have already sent for these, and are in immediate want of them. Your attention to these will much Oblige, Dear Sir, Your obedient Servant, THOMAS COOPER. Gen'l. Steele and M'r. Wilson are out on Surveys. _ _ _ The Commissioners to Judge Fell. Wilkesbarre, May 26, 1802. M'r. Fell is requested To call on M'r. Jenkins (taking with him either Sheriff Dorrance or M'r. L. Myers, if he thinks fit), and to request of him in the name of the Comm'rs the loan of the Surveys of Exeter, Providence and Northmoreland, or such of them as M'r. Jenkins may happen to have; Also any other Document relating to those, or any other Townships, which M'r. Jenkins may have in his possession. Whatever M'r. Jenkins requires to be returned shall be returned. M'r. Fell will then proceed to Exeter, Providence and Northmoreland and apply to the town Clerks of those Townships for every Draught, paper and information that they can furnish him with, relating to those Townships. If there are no town Clerks, or the town Clerks cannot be found, to urge the necessity of calling town meetings as soon as possible, to furnish the Commissioners with the means of proceeding in the investigation of title. And, generally, to procure all possible information, & to instigate the Inhabitants to apply without delay. THOMAS COOPER. _ _ _ The Commissioners to D. H. Conyngham. Wilkesbarre, May 27, 1802. M'r. D. H. Conyngham: Sir: We have considered your request to have certificates issued for the Land releas'd to the State by yourself and Gentlm'n connect'd with you, but we cannot properly in our opinion accede to your wish. 1st. Because there are some Difficulties respecting title, affect'g most of the released Lands. Which on a communication between us and the members of the Board of Property, they have taken time to consider; the illness of one of the members has hitherto prevented the meeting of a full Board on the Sub- <473> COMMISSIONERS OF PENNSYLVANIA. ject; until our opinions are made up on the question under consideration, in Conjunction with the Gentlemen at Lancaster, we cannot think of issuing any certificates for Lands liable to questions, not yet decided upon. 2d. If we issue certificates for the Lands released by you, We shall be soon overwhelmed by similar applications, to the total interruption of all the rest of our business. If we begin this, the Surveys must stop, for both together cannot proceed. If we refuse to others what we give up to you, we shall be justly accused of improper partiality. 3d. We propose finishing the whole Business of the Commission, in respect of Surveys, this Summer. We are in some decree pledged to this, if it be possible. If we commence the issuing of Certificates, it will be impossible, and the State will be put to a very great and unnecessary Expence as well as delay. The Certificates are properly a business by themselves, that ought to be conducted at once without interruption, and that may most properly and Conveniently be done when all the Surveys are finished. Nor can we in y'r case compleat your Certificates if we were so inclined, for many of the tracts are not yet finished as to the valuation and Survey. We should be very glad to accommodate you to the utmost of our power, but we cannot do so at what we deem a sacrifice of the object of our Commission & the Interest of the State. We are decided to commence and finish the issuing of Certificates for released Lands after the Surveys are closed, and not sooner. We are, &'c., THOMAS COOPER, JOHN STEELE, WILLIAM WILSON. _ _ _ The Commissioners to William Dean. Wilkesbarre, May 28, 1802. M'r. William Dean: Dear Sir: I observe an application to the Land Office to release a tract of Land in the Manor of Stoke, called "Hayes Choice;" there must be a regular release to the Commonwealth, in Consideration of the Compensation mentioned in the Act of April 4, 1799, "offering Compensation, &c.," the rest of the Deed may run in the usual way; the sooner you transmit it to the Land office the better. Colonel Horne is here yet. We are all well. I am, Sir, Your Friend & Servant, THOMAS COOPER. Continued in LETTERS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS - Part II