- 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2019 with funding from 
 Duke University Libraries 
 
 https://archive.org/details/reportsonswamplaOOnort 
 
REPORTS 
 
 f 
 
 ON THE 
 
 % 
 
 OP 
 
 NORTH CAROLINA 
 
 BELONGING TO THE 
 
 State Board of Education. 
 
 RALEIGH : 
 
 Ashe & Gatling, State Printers and Binders. 
 Presses of Edwards, Broughton & Co. 
 
 1883. 
 
 / 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Frequent applications to this office for information in 
 reference to the “Swamp Lands” of the State, the title to 
 which is, by statute, vested in the State Board of Education 
 for educational purposes; the absence of such information 
 in print and of easy reference, and the desire to give all the 
 facts attainable in reference to said lands that they may be¬ 
 come available as a source of revenue to the public school 
 fund, lead me to publish this pamphlet, the contents of 
 which embrace the “Reports on the Swamp Lands of the 
 State ” made to Governor Worth in 1867 by Prof. W. C. 
 Kerr, State Geologist, and by WAlter Gwynn and Gen. W. 
 G. Lewis, Agents of the State Board of Education for the 
 “Swamp Lands”; and by Thos H. Allen, Surveyor to the 
 State Board of Education in 1869. 
 
 JOHN C. SCARBOROUGH, 
 
 State Superintendent of Public Instruction. 
 
 Office of State Superintendent 
 of Public Instruction, 
 
 Raleigh, N. C., April 9th, 1883. 
 
REPORT ON THE SWAMP LANDS 
 
 BY 
 
 W. C. KERR, State Geologist. 
 
 r lo His Excellency, Jonathan Worth, 
 
 Governor of North Carolina : 
 
 Sir:—I n accordance with your directions, I have exam¬ 
 ined all the sources of information accessible to me, on the 
 subject of the Swamp Lands, and have the honor to submit 
 the following report: 
 
 The first suggestion which appears on record in regard to 
 the improvement of the Swamp Lands, was made by Judge 
 Murphy in his well known “ Memoir on the Internal Im¬ 
 provement of North Carolina,” in 1819. The first action 
 was taken on the subject in 1822, by the passage of a law 
 prohibiting the entry of such lands, with a view to “ ascer¬ 
 tain what lands of that description yet belonged to the State, 
 their probable extent, and the cost of draining them.” In 
 carrying out this purpose, the Board of Internal Improve¬ 
 ment “ instructed the civil engineer, Mr. Fulton, to cause 
 surveys to be made of the several swamps and marshes.” 
 A report was made by Mr. Fulton, in 1823, on White and 
 Brown marshes in Columbus county, but on account of the 
 multiplicity of works of internal improvements then in 
 progress requiring the supervision of the State Engineer, 
 the matter seems to have rested here until 1826, when an¬ 
 other act of Assembly was passed, requiring “ That the Board 
 of Internal Improvement shall cause to be surveyed one 
 or more of the large swamps or marshes, and to determine 
 
6 
 
 Report on the Swamp Lands. 
 
 whether it be practicable to drain either or all of them, the 
 probable cost of such drainage, the quality of the land that, 
 by such drainage, will be reclaimed for cultivation, and the 
 quantity of vacant land, as nearly as can be ascertained, 
 and to report whether the proprietors of such lands gener¬ 
 ally be willing to contribute a reasonable proportion of the 
 cost of such drainage”; and they are “authorized to raise 
 by way of lottery $50,000 to carry into effect these pro¬ 
 visions.” 
 
 Accordingly, Mr. Nash, State Engineer, assisted by Mr. 
 Brazin, made a survey of most of the lands and reported 
 in detail. This report, made in 1827, represents that 
 “ nearty all” of them are of excellent quality, “susceptible 
 of cultivation,” and easily drained ; and estimates their quan • 
 tity, conjecturally, at 1,500,000 acres. The Board, however, 
 failed to raise, in the manner prescribed, the necessary funds 
 to proceed with the drainage. In their report for that year 
 they call attention to the difficulty of ascertaining what 
 lands were subject to entry and state their “ belief that there 
 are in various parts of the State a number of valuable 
 swamps which have not yet come to their knowledge,” and 
 suggests further legislation on the subject. 
 
 Although the law constituting the Literary Board and 
 vesting in them the title to the Swamp Lands was passed in 
 1825, the improvement of these lands was still left in the 
 hands of the Board of Internal Improvement, until 1833; 
 when the former board made their first report on the subject. 
 In that report, after reviewing and endorsing the opinions 
 of Mr. Nasii and of former boards as to the great value of 
 these lands, they report a suggestion made by the Board of 
 Internal Improvement in 1827, that Matamuskeet lake be 
 selected for an experiment, in drainage, on account chiefly 
 of the supposed extent and value of “ the lands which would 
 be laid dry at the bottom of the lake ” (estimated at “ 00,000 
 acres and very rich ”) and the facility and cheapness with 
 which its drainage could be effected. 
 
W. C. Kerr, State Geologist. 
 
 7 
 
 These suggestions and those of the Board of 1827 were 
 repeated in several successive biennial reports without re¬ 
 sult. In 1835 the committee on Education report adversely 
 on the question of making an appropriation to drain any 
 of the Swamp Lands, “ deeming it highly important to be 
 first informed, not only as to the costs of drainage and the 
 quantity of land to be reclaimed,” but also “ whether indi¬ 
 vidual proprietors or the Literary Fund” would be most 
 benefited “by the particular works to be undertaken.” 
 
 In 1837, however, the subject was taken up de novo, and 
 the Literary Board was remodeled and clothed with the 
 necessary authority to meet and overcome all the difficulties 
 which had rendered'fruitless every former effort to utilize 
 this vast property. They were expressly “invested with all 
 powers and authority necessary and proper for reclaiming 
 the swamp lands of this State and for obliging the owners 
 of any part of said land to contribute an equitable share of 
 the expenses, whenever such owners are benefited b} 7 the 
 works of the company;” and it was further required as had 
 been repeatedly suggested by the different boards in former 
 reports, “ that all grants and deeds for Ssvamp Lands, hereto¬ 
 fore made, shall be proved and registered in the county 
 where such lands are situate, within twelve months ” upon 
 penalty of forfeiture ; and $200,000 were appropriated to the 
 use of the Board, in carrying out these provisions. 
 
 Under this act, the Board was reorganized in March of' 
 the same year and proceeded to appoint an engineer, C. B. 
 Shaw, with “ instructions to organize a corps of surveyors 
 and assistants,” and to commence operations in Hyde county. 
 Their reasons for beginning here, in addition to those which 
 have been mentioned as urged by the Board of- Internal 
 Improvement in 1827, are given in their report the follow¬ 
 ing year, 1828, [38?] They observe “ that their first duty 
 was to inquire and determine what lands were owned by 
 the State, entertaining the belief that large bodies had been 
 entered by individuals and the grants thereon were pur- 
 
8 
 
 Report on the Swamp Lands. 
 
 posely withheld from registration ; this inquiry could not 
 be satisfactoril}’ prosecuted until after the expiration of the 
 twelve months allowed by the act of the last session. 
 
 It was ascertained, however, that the county of Hyde did 
 contain a large body, the unquestioned property of the 
 State, believed to be fertile and susceptible of drainage, and 
 on which a fair and thorough experiment might be made.” 
 A special act had also been passed appropriating $8,000 for 
 the drainage of Mattamuskeet lake. This last work was 
 completed in 1835 by digging a canal, seven miles long, 
 from the lake to Ysocking creek ; by which a reduction of 
 three and a half feet in the level of the lake surface was 
 effected. 
 
 The works for the drainage of Pungo and Alligator lakes 
 were also commenced, and the main canals from these lakes 
 to Pungo river were located. Mr. Shaw having resigned, 
 Maj. Gwynn took charge in 1S39, and completed the works 
 in 1842, at “ an expense of more than $170,000.” Maj. 
 Gwynn, in his report to the Board in 1840, estimated the 
 number of acres drained by these works at over 60,000, and 
 considered them “ unequalled in fertility’’, by any lands in 
 the State,” worth at least $6.00 per acre, making an aggre¬ 
 gate of over $360,000 for this single tract. The best of these 
 lands, lying on the canal and lake, were offered for sale in 
 1841, but, the Board report, “ for some reason, very few per¬ 
 sons attended and no bids were made.” In their report for 
 1842 they call the attention of the Legislature to certain 
 claimants under old titles, “ who have defrauded the State 
 by failing to list their lands for taxation for years together,” 
 and state that most of the Swamp Lands were in this con¬ 
 dition, and also complain of the difficulty of ejecting squat¬ 
 ters, who generally hold under some ancient grant by the 
 State, and they ask further legislation on these points. Ac¬ 
 cordingly another act of Assembly was passed, January 21, 
 1843, which provided “ that any person, or persons, who have 
 heretofore, at any time, obtained a grant or grants from the 
 
W. C. Kerr, State Geologist. 
 
 9 
 
 State for any Swamp Lands in this State, and who have not 
 regularly listed the same for taxation and paid the taxes due 
 thereon, shall lose all right, title, and interest in the said 
 Swamp Lands,” unless payment shall be made within twelve 
 months of all arrearages of taxes ; and also “ that in all suits 
 at law for any Swamp Lands in this State, to which the Lit¬ 
 erary Board shall be a party, the title to said land shall be 
 deemed to be in said Board ” until the other party shall 
 “show a good and valid title.” 
 
 During the same year, a joint select committee being 
 raised for the purpose of “inquiring into the value of the 
 Swamp Lands in Hyde county, reclaimed by the Board, the 
 manner in which the money appropriated for that purpose 
 had been expended, and the propriety of continuing the 
 works in said lands,” and of “ making a road from the re¬ 
 claimed lands in Pungo to the Highlands of Washington 
 county,” after an investigation by three men of their selec¬ 
 tion' “judges of land,” “ living in the vicinity of the public, 
 works,” reported very favorably of the work done and of the 
 character of the land reclaimed,—that about 65,000 acres 
 have been drained, of which “10,000 are equal to the most 
 fertile lands on the globe, worth in the worst times $10.00 
 to $15.00 per acre, and that in the end the State will have 
 no cause to regret the experiment,” “yet thej^ deem it inex¬ 
 pedient at this time to commence any new work.” 
 
 During the next ten years after the completion of the 
 drainage of the Pungo swamp, the Board were occupied in 
 fruitless efforts to effect a sale of the reclaimed lands, and in 
 controversies with trespassers and various claimants under 
 old titles that were supposed to have been extinguished by 
 the acts of 1837 and 1843. In 1850 these laws providing 
 for the forfeiture of titles for non-registration and for non¬ 
 payment of taxes were declared “applicable to such Swamp 
 Lands only as had been surveyed or taken possession of by 
 the Board.” In their report for this year, they describe an 
 attempt which had been made in 1849 to sell out the drained 
 
10 
 
 Report on the Swamp Lands. 
 
 lands at auction, which resulted, after extensive public notice 
 of the time and place of sale, with description of canals and 
 lands, notwithstanding the personal attendance of the Board 
 and the most favorable inducements offered, in the way of 
 long credits, &c., resulted in the sale of a “few sections val¬ 
 uable for Juniper timber,” but “ at such prices as compelled 
 the Board to stop the sale.” 
 
 In 1852, the Board, having resumed the work of improv¬ 
 ing the swamp lands, in compliance with the directions of 
 the General Assembly, report that as “ it was made their 
 duty to inquire into the practicability of draining the Open 
 Ground Prairie in Carteret county,” and $5,000 were appro¬ 
 priated for that purpose, “ should the Board deem it advan¬ 
 tageous to do so;” “some of the members of the Board 
 having visited these lands, and after an examination of them 
 by Prof. Emmons and a favorable report thereon by him, the 
 Board determined to proceed in the work of draining.” This 
 tract had been reported upon very favorably by both the 
 engineers who had surveyed it, Mr. Nash and Maj. Gwjmn. 
 The work was accordingly put under contract, and its comple¬ 
 tion was announced in 1855. It consisted of a canal eight 
 miles in length from Ward’s creek to the highest part of the 
 Open Ground and transverse ditches at this point to drain a 
 square mile. These lands were immediately advertised, aud 
 a “ portion of them offered for sale at a reduced price with 
 a view to having the same tested for agricultural purposes,” 
 but no sales were effected. (The Board afterwards (18511) 
 disposed of 2,000 acres, with the privilege of selection, at 
 twenty-five cents per acre). A road from the Pungo lands 
 to the Long Acre road, Washington county, which had been 
 commenced several years previously, under the auspices of 
 the Board, was also completed in 1855, at a cost of nearly 
 $10,000. This road was constructed by order of the General 
 Assembly for the purpose of making the reclaimed lands 
 more accessible to purchasers and facilitating their sale. 
 
 By au act of Assembly of this year, the Board were au¬ 
 thorized to appoint an agent, whose duty should be, among 
 
W. C. Kerr, State Geologist. 
 
 11 
 
 other things, to “ prepare a statement of each tract of land 
 owned by the Board, its location, quantity, as well as ascer¬ 
 tained and probable value, distinguishing between those 
 tracts, the title to which is doubtful or good.” Mr. G. J„ 
 Cherry, of Washington county, having been appointed for 
 this purpose, found great difficulty in executing his task, 
 and the following year the Board report that “ it has been 
 found impossible for Mr. Cherry to perform all the duties 
 required of him, save at an expense greater than the value 
 of the land.” They also report that a Mr. Keeling, who had 
 purchased of the Board in 1849 a piece of land on Pungo, 
 having “ entered upon it and proceeded to get up the tim¬ 
 ber, an action of trespass was brought against him by the 
 Albemarle Swamp Land Company, claiming under grants 
 of an old date, issued by the State.” “From such informa¬ 
 tion as the Board has upon the subject,” says the report 
 further, “these grants, if they can be successfully located,” 
 will “ cover a large portion of the land claimed by the 
 Board.” “Our predecessors therefore employed counsel to 
 aid in the defence of the said suit. Owing to difficulties 
 and delays in procuring a trial, the whole matter was re¬ 
 ferred to Hon. Thomas Ruffin, late Chief Justice of the 
 State. It has been argued before him by counsel but as yet 
 he has not announced his decision.” “ It was agreed that 
 either party might appeal from the decision of the referee, 
 and it is probable, therefore, that the case will go to the Su¬ 
 preme Court.” 
 
 The last published report of the Literary Board, bearing 
 date 1860, has this general statement: “ The Swamp Lands 
 belonging to the Literary Fund, though believed to be of 
 great value, have for many years past yielded but an incon¬ 
 siderable revenue, not enough indeed to pay the expenses 
 of agents to look after them and prevent trespassers upon 
 them.” 
 
 Thus it appears that about 40 years have elapsed since 
 the improvement of the Swamp Lands was commenced, and 
 more than $200,000 have been expended in surveys, canals; 
 
12 
 
 Report on the Swamp Lands. 
 
 and roads for this purpose. And yet, notwithstanding the 
 high reputation of these lands, the almost uniformly favor¬ 
 able opinion which has been given of them by successive 
 Boards, legislative committees and engineers, and the san¬ 
 guine expectations which have been so long indulged in re¬ 
 gard to them, the Board have not been able, after repeated and 
 most strenuous efforts and the dissemination far and wide of 
 advertisements and favorable reports, to realize enough to 
 defray the current expenses incurred in the care and man¬ 
 agement of them ; and it is to be remembered that the 
 larger part of the small income derived by the Board from 
 this source has arisen from .the sale of unimproved Swamp 
 Lands, very few sections of the “drained lands” having been 
 disposed of, and those chiefly for the timber and at a price 
 frequently less than the cost of their drainage ;—this result, 
 instead of an income of §150,000, as anticipated by the 
 president of the Boa.rd in 183S, instead of ready sales at 
 86, §10, §15, and §50 per acre as so often and so confidently 
 predicted. 
 
 The question presses, what is the explanation of this so 
 unexpected and most unsatisfactory result? It must be 
 sought in the facts of the case and of the record. 
 
 It is Important to remember, in this connection, two or 
 three circumstances likely to be overlooked. In the first 
 place, although these lands through which canals were cut, 
 are generally spoken of as “ drained lands,” they are not so 
 in fact. The channels of the creeks which make up into 
 these swamps were carried by the canals to connect with the 
 lakes which occupy their highest and central parts, so as to 
 reduce the waters of these lakes three or four feet, and thus 
 furnish a channel way to carry off the water from the subor¬ 
 dinate farm ditches. The land is not actually drained but 
 its drainage is rendered practicable. Some single farms on 
 Mattamuskeet have probably cost more to drain them, after 
 the construction of the main canals, than the seven mile canal 
 made by the State for the drainage of that lake. Another 
 
W. C. Kerr, State Geologist. 
 
 13 
 
 unfavorable circumstance is the difficulty of access to this 
 species of land. The Board has expended more than $ 12,000 
 at different periods, in the construction of roads to the 
 Pungo tract, and still it is difficult of access, both by land 
 and water. And so are the so-called drained lands of Car¬ 
 teret. A third circumstance which has operated against the 
 sale of these lands, at least in the case of strangers, is the 
 supposed insalubrity of the swamp region generally. 
 
 The controlling, efficient causes, however, to which it is 
 necessary to ascribe the signal failure of all attempts to make 
 these lands available for the purposes of revenue, are un¬ 
 questionably to be sought in the character of the titles and 
 of the soil. It is not certain that the Board holds a single 
 acre of these lands by an undoubted title. It may be profit¬ 
 able to recapitulate, in order to bring into one view the 
 facts bearing on this point. Mr. Nash, who, it will be re¬ 
 membered, first undertook the investigation of this subject 
 under the act of 1827, reported to the Board of Internal 
 Improvement “There are no means at present of ascertain¬ 
 ing the quantity of vacant land owned by the State. Many 
 large tracts, the property of individuals, have been trans¬ 
 ferred from the original patentees by sale, inheritance or 
 otherwise, and the owners at this day are not easily found.” 
 And in reporting a surve} 7 which he had made of “a large 
 territory about the Dismal Swamp Canal,” he says, “these 
 lands were supposed to be the property of the State,” “but 
 various persons in this section informed me that these lands 
 were surveyed and patented at an early period previous to the 
 Revolution, &c.” “ Under these circumstances it has been 
 thought best to make no report on them until measures shall 
 be taken to ascertain whether the State has any interest in 
 them.” Of the Bay river tract, after estimating its area at 
 over 40,000 acres, he adds in a note, “Some dormant titles 
 have since been discovered to a part of this tract.” And in 
 reference to those large bodies of Swamp Land lying in Car¬ 
 teret, Onslow and Jones, containing an aggregate of more 
 than 180,000 acres, he says, “ the whole were patented by 
 
14 
 
 Report on the Swamp Lands. 
 
 Dayid Allison, but have since reverted for non-payment of 
 taxes,” and Mr. Brazin, his assistant, has the same remark 
 about Big Swamp in Robeson county. This reversion, we 
 shall see, is more than doubtful. In their report for 1842, 
 the Literary Board state “ that most of the Swamp Lands of 
 this State were granted away, years ago, to individuals and 
 companies in very large surve} T s,” and that “ these claimants 
 had abandoned the lands or their titles,” and failed to pay 
 taxes, &c. Under this description they would include no 
 doubt such grants as the following, which will be found 
 registered in the land office, viz: 195, 840 acres to J. Hall 
 
 on Pungo ; 170, 120 acres to three parties in Brunswick, in¬ 
 cluding Green Swamp, and several hundred grants to D. 
 Allison, above mentioned, amounting to more than 1,000,000 
 acres,—all of which were issued about 1794-’9o. 
 
 In 1835 the Committee on Education report: “Your 
 committee have no means of certifying what portion of the 
 Swamp Lands are claimed by such titles. This can only be 
 partially ascertained by surveys and examinations of the 
 Register’s books in the counties in which they are situate.” 
 
 In the report of the Board for 1846, occurs this statement: 
 “ An agent of certain persons in Pennsylvania, styling 
 themselves the North American Land Company, submitted 
 to the Board claims of title to a large part of the Hyde 
 county lands,” and proposed a compromise of their claims. 
 This being declined by the Board, “ he declared his intention 
 to bring suit in the Federal Court, as soon as the Board should 
 have a tenant in possession.” It does not appear what be¬ 
 come of this claim. In 1849 originated the controversy 
 with the Albemarle Swamp Land Company, involving, the 
 Board observe, “ their title to a large portion of the land now 
 and heretofore claimed by them.” This is also unsettled. 
 And these two claims cover that part of the Swamp Lands, 
 of which the Board had spoken in 1838 as“ the unquestioned 
 property of the State,” and which was, for that reason, se¬ 
 lected for the great experiment. 
 
W. C. Kerr, State Geologist. 
 
 15 
 
 In the report of the Board for 1856, it is stated, that “ our 
 system of granting iands to every applicant, prior to the 
 transfer of the Swamp Lands to the Literary Fund, and the 
 confusion in locating grants, which have generally issued 
 for Swamp Lands without any actual survey, render it im¬ 
 possible for any man to determine whether the title of the 
 Board is clear or not to any piece of land.” 
 
 In 1857 a claim was preferred by certain parties, profes¬ 
 sing to have, purchased of the estate of David Allison, the 
 title to the Swamp Lands claimed by the Board in Carteret 
 and Craven, and a proposition made to them “ to make up a 
 case and submit it to the Supreme Court.” The whole matter 
 was referred to Mr. B. F. Moore, counsel of the Literary 
 Board. And it may be mentioned here, that these Allison 
 lands are also claimed by the University. These grants 
 cover more than half a million acres in Carteret, Craven, 
 Onslow and Jones. There is no means of ascertaining what 
 proportion of them are Swamp Lands, but probably they in¬ 
 clude all that the Board have heretofore claimed in those 
 four counties. 
 
 The history of these claims to the Carteret and neighbor¬ 
 ing tracts seems to stgnd thus: David Allison took out 
 grants for them in and about 1795. He died in 1801. The 
 University claims under the laws of 1789 and 1805. But, 
 whether the claim was good or not, the trustees seem not to 
 have taken possession. In 1827 Mr. Nash made the report 
 above mentioned, that these lands had “ reverted for non¬ 
 payment of taxes.” But as there w r as no law to that effect 
 until that passed in 1843 at the solicitation of the Board, 
 this is of course a mistake. That he did not mean to say 
 that the lands had been sold for the taxes is probable, in the 
 first place from the fact, that he does, not say so, but says a 
 very different thing, and in the second place, from the fact 
 that the Board allow this statement to accompany their re¬ 
 port uncorrected, which they would not probably have done 
 if they had been in possession of deeds for the land from 
 
16 
 
 Report on the Swamp Lands. 
 
 the sheriff's making the sales, (and that this does not happen 
 from inadvertence is evident from this remark on the subject 
 which occurs in the report,—“ it is believed that the sher¬ 
 iffs in some counties have failed, when lands of this descrip¬ 
 tion have been struck off to the State and sold for taxes, to 
 make a deed of them to the governor as required by law ”) 
 and* in the third place from the fact that no such deed (or 
 deeds) is in possession of the Board, or is anywhere men¬ 
 tioned in connection with any of the various controversies 
 about these lands, which would have been effectually settled 
 b} r the production of such a document. 
 
 If it is suggested that the law of 1837, confiscating such 
 lands for non-registry, or that of 1843, for non-payment of 
 taxes, would, in auy case, put the Board in possession, ex¬ 
 cept as against the University, two things are to be remem¬ 
 bered per contra, —first, that the meaning of those laws 
 of 1S37 and 1843 was greatly restricted by the subse¬ 
 quent enactment of 1850, declaring their provisions “ ap¬ 
 plicable to such lands only as had been surveyed or taken 
 possession of by the Literary Board,” and as that Board 
 
 *It seems evident that the Literary Board, as here argued, were not 
 aware of the existence of such deeds. But after several ineffectual attempts, I 
 have at last succeeded in finding in the land office sheriffs’ deeds for 390,704 
 acres of the Allison lands in Carteret, Onslow and Jones, and 58,240 acres in 
 Brunswick and Columbus on both sides of the Waccamaw, including Cow Cow 
 Swamp. And besides these are other deeds of lands which have been sold for 
 taxes, in New Hanover 44,160 acres, patented by Daniel Wheaton, (this con. 
 stitutes a portion of Holly Shelter Swamp), in Tyrrell more than 100,000 acres 
 patented by different parties, and still others in Robeson, Moore and other 
 eastern counties, amounting in the aggregate to not less than three-quarters of 
 a million acres. And is probable, as intimated above by the Board, that other 
 of these Allison lands have been sold (or ought to have been) for the taxes and 
 the deeds have not been forwarded. In order to ascertain how much of the 
 above lands, thus sold for taxes and deeded to, the State by the sheriffs, belongs 
 to the Literary Board, it will be necessary to ktiow, 1st, what portion of them 
 are swamp lands, and 2nd, what portion has been re-entered prior to 1S22, these 
 tax sales having occurred about 1S00. 
 
W. C. Kerr, State Geologist. 
 
 17 
 
 have surveyed only the Pungo tract and the Open Ground 
 Prairie, (the other surveys having been made by the Board of 
 Internal Improvement, in 1823, ’7 and ’8,) and as it is not ap¬ 
 parent what other act of possession they have performed, 
 this declaratory act amounts to a repeal (except as to these 
 two tracts), and second, these acts are regarded by very high 
 authority as unconstitutional and invalid from the beginning. 
 So that in any case the Board are thrown back upon such 
 claims only as is vested in them by the original act of 1825. 
 And then, as to these lands in Carteret and Craven and 
 probably all .the Swamp Lands of that region, including 
 Jones and Onslow, the claim of the creditors of David Al¬ 
 lison comes up in 1857. And that of the University is also 
 pressed. 
 
 So much for the first item,—the character of the title un¬ 
 der which the Board holds the Swamp Lands. It is imag¬ 
 inable that a sane man might purchase such a title, but it 
 would not be taken as the best evidence of sanity. 
 
 This review of the claims of the Board makes it evident 
 how little any conjectural estimate of the quantity of Swamp 
 Lands owned by them is worth. The only attempt in this 
 direction was that made by Mr. Nash in 1827, the statements 
 reported in subsequent reports, messages and other docu¬ 
 ments, being derived from this. And he acknowledges that 
 there were no means of ascertaining the quantity, but puts 
 it down, at a peradventure, at 1,500,000 acres, “ both of re¬ 
 verted and vacant.” We have seen how much the supposed 
 reversions amount to, but even including these, it will ap¬ 
 pear from a summation of all the individual estimates 
 which he gives, that we should have but little more than 
 one-third of the sum mentioned, or about half a million 
 acres. And if the “ reverted lands,” so-called, be deducted, 
 to say nothing of those claimed under dormant titles re¬ 
 cently revived, we shall have a further reduction of the 
 above sum to the extent of more than one-third. 
 
 The second reason assigned for the unfortunate results of 
 
18 
 
 Report ox the Swamp Lands. 
 
 the Swamp Land operations of the Board, was the doubtful 
 character of the lands themselves. The only sources of in¬ 
 formation on this subject accessible to me are, 1st, the re¬ 
 ports, so much referred to already, of engineers and Boards 
 from 1823 onwards (of which it is remarked by Dr. Emmons 
 in his report for 18G0, that “ they furnish no information of 
 value”); 2, the several Geological Reports on the Swamp 
 Lands in 1852, 1858 and 1860 ; 3, Mr. Ruffin’s “ sketches,” 
 recently published by the State; and 4, memoranda of a 
 week’s trip in Hyde county made by myself in 1862. As to 
 the first, they amount to little more than the report of 
 Mr. Nash, (there being but a few observations by Ful¬ 
 ton and Brozier on a single limited tract) and the very 
 brief one by Maj. Gwynn. The biennial reports of the 
 Board and other papers on the subject contain, on this point, 
 little more than citations from these two. The report of 
 Mr. Nash, as we have seen, was very favorable, summing up 
 with these two statements, that “all the Swamp Lands are 
 susceptible of cultivation except a comparatively small 
 portion contiguous to tide water,” and that “ North Carolina 
 possesses a mine of wealth in her Swamp Lands, which, if 
 rightly managed, may be made a source of great and lasting 
 revenue to the State.” And to the same effect Maj. Gwynn— 
 his observations being confined, however, to the Hyde and 
 Carteret tracts. 
 
 In estimating the value of the opinion of Mr. Nash on 
 this part of the subject, and in making that opinion the 
 basis of their calculations and their procedure in undertak¬ 
 ing works of such cost and magnitude, it does not seem to 
 have been sufficiently considered that, however able he may 
 have been as an engineer, (and in that capacity, he seems to 
 have given entire satisfaction to the Board which emplo 3 r ed 
 him) he did not pretend to any special qualifications, chem¬ 
 ical, geological or agricultural, for the investigation of the 
 constitution and character of the Swamp soils, and that 
 his opinion was worth as much as that of any other intelli- 
 
W. C, Kerr, State Geologist. 
 
 19 
 
 gent man on a subject with which he had no special acquaint¬ 
 ance, that, and no more. The conclusions of Dr. Emmons, 
 who may be supposed to have had the necessary scientific 
 qualifications, and of Mr. Ruffin, who had a greater practi¬ 
 cal acquaintance with the agricultural qualities and the im¬ 
 provement of Swamp Lands than any other man who has 
 written on that subject in this country, are evidently more 
 worthy of attention. A comparison and discussion of these 
 several reports, together with ascertained facts, will proba¬ 
 bly bring us near the truth of the matter. 
 
 The general term Swamps, or Swamp Lands, includes two 
 kinds of land widely different from each other, which may 
 be distinguished as alluvial swamps and peat swamps. The 
 first are low wet bottoms, generally covered with vegetation, 
 lying along the margin of water courses and subject to 
 overflow; and consists therefore of accumulations of sedi¬ 
 ment with vegetable matter. Such soils are commonly of 
 great fertility and the question of their value turns solely 
 upon that of their drainage and protection from overflow. 
 The claims of the Board cover only two considerable tracts of 
 this description, and those doubtfully, viz : the Brown and 
 White Marsh tract in Columbus, and the Big Swamp in 
 Robeson, containing together some 40,000 acres. 
 
 The other species which we have denominated peat 
 swamps, have an entirely different origin, situation, and 
 structure. As to situation, they occupy ridges, or low swells 
 of land, from the crown of which streams flow off in every 
 direction ; and as to origin and structure, they consist 
 almost entirely of accumulations of vegetable matter, grow¬ 
 ing and decaying upon the spot, being always saturated 
 with water, but never subject to overflow, or deposit; and 
 containing, therefore, only a small per centage of inorganic 
 matter. Another peculiarity of these peat swamps is, that 
 the highest part of them is usually occupied by one or 
 more shallow lakes. The value of such swamps, it is easy 
 to see, depends upon two points, their susceptibility of drain- 
 
20 
 
 Report on the Swamp Lands. 
 
 age, and the constitution of their peaty soil,—the propor¬ 
 tion of earthy ingredients. Nearly all the Swamp Lands 
 claimed by the Board are of this character. 
 
 And first of the drainage. That, of course, is a question 
 for the engineers. As to the first class of swamps, it is ob¬ 
 vious that it must be generally a difficult and expensive 
 operation. It is plainly so in the case of the only two in 
 which the Board are interested, as will be apparent on ref¬ 
 erence to the reports and surveys of them by Fulton and 
 Brozier; the cost per acre being set down in the one 
 case at $5, and in the other at §3. The second class of 
 swamps, it is evident from the above description, may be 
 drained with facility, having in most cases, at least in their 
 central parts, a considerable elevation above the neighbor¬ 
 ing water levels. The actual amount of this elevation is 
 given, for most of the larger tracts, in the different reports 
 of the engineers. This facility of drainage, however, 
 exists for only a small part of some of these Swamps. Thus 
 Maj. Gwynn, who surveyed the largest of them, the Hyde 
 county tract, and superintended the public works for its im¬ 
 provement, says that, of this immense body of swamp, com¬ 
 prising more than 300,000 acres of the Board’s claim, “ the 
 only portion sufficiently elevated to afford a lall for its 
 drainage ” is the 64,500 acres, which the Board had selected 
 for its experiment. But the second, and most important 
 point in regard to these peat swamps, is the constitution of 
 their soil. How little reliance is to be placed upon the mere 
 opinion of engineers, or any one else, on this subject, will be 
 apparent on reference to the history ot the drainage of the 
 lake flats, as they are called ; of which the Board of Internal 
 Improvement remark, in the report for IS27, on the author¬ 
 ity of Mr. Nasli, “ it has been ascertained that the land cov¬ 
 ered by most of the lakes which have been examined is of 
 the very first quality,” au opinion which seems to Jiave been 
 entertained also by Maj. Gwynn, (vide his report of 1340.) 
 
W. C. Kerr, State Geologist. 
 
 21 
 
 It was this statement, and the recommendation founded 
 on it, it will be remembered, which was reported by subse- 
 Boards, that led to the drainage of Mattamuskeet lake. 
 But the “ 60,000 acres of excellent land ” turns out to be a 
 sand beach, wholly worthless for tillage. It is not of course 
 intimated this important work was useless, or even that it 
 was not worth all it cost to the inhabitants, but it reclaimed 
 no land for the Board. Dr. Emmons has two reports on the 
 Hyde county Swamps, one in 1858 and one in 1869, but he 
 does not seem to have made a second examination of this 
 district, the second report being largely, if not mainly, a 
 repetition of the first. And it is worthy of mention that 
 in both he confines himself almost entirely to the best farm 
 lands which had been long under cultivation and whose 
 fertility had been practically demonstrated. He did not 
 penetrate the savannahs, or analyze specimens of their peat 
 soils, did not in fact leave the lake shore. And perhaps it 
 was not necessary, as they had been pronounced by the best 
 authority incapable of drainage. But he does not so much as 
 mention the Pungo lands, on which the Board had expended 
 so much labor and money. He has this general observa¬ 
 tion on the large body of this tract extending northward and 
 eastward of the Mattamuskeet region : “ That part of the 
 
 Albemarle and Pamlico Swamp which extends into Tyrrell 
 county appears to rank only as a second rate soil.” And Mr. 
 Ruffin says of this character of swamp, “ the savannahs, or 
 peat swamps, bare of trees, are worthless for any purpose.” 
 The very high character which Dr. Emmons gives the Hyde 
 county lands belongs therefore to only a very small part of 
 this tract. It must be observed, also, that more importance 
 should be attached to the bare facts and analyses than to 
 the general statements which he gives; which are to be re¬ 
 ceived with considerable abatement, partly on account of 
 the insufficient extent of his observations and experiments, 
 and partly on account of an evident reluctance to commu¬ 
 nicate disagreeable information. For example, in the re- 
 
22 
 
 Report on the Swamp Lands. 
 
 port for 1852, he says of these lands generally, “ I regard 
 them as among the most fertile and valuable in the State,” 
 and then proceeds to describe them as low bottoms, subject 
 to overflow and accumulations of sediment, &c., which, as 
 we have seen, is no description of these lands at all. 
 
 The only other of these swamps which Dr. Emmons made 
 the subject of special examination is the Open Ground Prai¬ 
 rie. It will be remembered that, before undertaking the 
 improvement of this tract, Dr. Emmons visited it, at the 
 request of the Board, and made, they say, “ a favorable re¬ 
 port.” But his published account for 1852 cannot be so re¬ 
 garded, the Open Ground being then described as consist¬ 
 ing almost entirely “ of peaty matter,” and as “ unproduct¬ 
 ive for want of inorganic matter.” Nor does his report for 
 1860 improve its character. In that he speaks of the “rim 
 of the Prairie” only as “richly constituted.” And Mr. 
 Ruffin, who visited the tract after the canal was dug, puts 
 down the whole tract as not worth ten cents per acre. And 
 we have seen that 2,000 acres on the canal with this privi¬ 
 lege of location, was sold by the Board at twenty-five cents 
 per acre. 
 
 The Dover Swamp is spoken of by Dr. Emmons as worth¬ 
 less. His report on the other tracts is very meagre and un¬ 
 satisfactory. 
 
 The inevitable conclusion which any one will reach, who 
 examines all the documents on the subject, is that the Swamp 
 Lands are simply vast beds of peat, the only portions of 
 them having any agricultural value consisting of a few 
 belts and ridges, constituting generally the elevated and 
 narrow margins of the interior lakes and the outer fringes 
 of some of them ; these being almost invariably indicated by 
 thegrowth upon them and having generally a sub-soil of clay. 
 
 And the general conclusion of the whole matter, as nearly 
 as can be ascertained with the existing lights on the subject, 
 seems to be, that the Swamp Lands owned by the Board 
 amount probably to less than half a million acres, that their 
 
W. C. Kerr, State Geologist. 
 
 23 
 
 title to a large part of this is doubtful; that only a small 
 proportion of the whole is susceptible of drainage ; and of 
 that much the larger part is not worth draining, and that 
 the erroneous views, which have so widely prevailed in re¬ 
 gard to the whole subject, are due in a large measure to the 
 hasty and insufficient examination, and the inaccurate re¬ 
 port of the first engineer by whom the Swamp Lands were 
 surveyed. 
 
 I append a tabular statement of the principal tracts 
 claimed by the Board, showing their location, number of 
 acres, by whom and when surveyed, &c.: 
 
 NAME. 
 
 LOCATION. 
 
 No. of Acres. 
 
 1 
 
 Surveyor. 
 
 | Date of 
 
 Survey/ 
 
 Hyde County Swamp, 
 Bug River.. 
 
 Hyde, Tyrrell, Washington, 
 
 316,480 
 
 41,000 
 
 94,000 
 
 8,320 
 
 87,680 
 
 6,000 
 
 Maj Gwynn, 
 
 1839 
 
 White Oak,. 
 
 
 Brozier,. 
 
 1827 
 
 1827 
 
 1839 
 
 Cat Fish,. 
 
 
 t < 
 
 Open Ground,. 
 
 Waccamaw. 
 
 Carteret,. 
 
 Maj. Gwynn, 
 
 White & Brown M’rsh. 
 
 
 29,000 
 
 14,000 
 
 Brozier. 
 
 1823 
 
 1827 
 
 Big Swamp,. 
 
 Robeson,. 
 
 < < 
 
 Holly Shelter,. 
 
 New Hanover,. 
 
 58,240 
 
 < c 
 
 1827 
 
 Angola Bay,. 
 
 New Hanover and Duplin,. 
 
 50,000 
 
 < ( 
 
 .... 
 
 Dover,. 
 
 
 75,000 
 
 60,262 
 
 < ( 
 
 
 Dismal. 
 
 Currituck, Perq., Pasquotank 
 
 (« 
 
 1828 
 
Date Due 
 
 
 It- 
 
 
 
 ,,,20'iflK- 
 
 
 | 
 
 JUN 1 0 ’44 
 
 
 
 990V 7 r , 
 
 
 
 
 1 49 
 
 
 
 
 pAF2 * ** 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Form 335—2511—7-35—B-M.Co.