I I

Dyfer, ilbioa Morris, A..M.
Fi^rst Ownership of Ohio La
Boston, 1911.

"/ give theft Books
for. the founding of a College in this Colony"

- iyiiBiBi&i§Er •

Gift of
The Yale Law School
1919

jfir0t (Dnmeriljip of
©t)to £cm&0

FIRST OWNERSHIP

OF

OHIO LANDS

BY
ALBION MORRIS DYER, A.M.
o.

BOSTON
NEW ENGLAND HISTORIC GENEALOGICAL SOCIETY
1911

Keprintcd from the
New Wnoland Historical and Genealogical Register
Vols. LXIV" and LXV

n * • 1

^IEST OWNERSHIP OF OHIO LANDS

At the end of the war of the American Revolution the Continental Con
gress came into possession of certain western lands, surrendered by the
British Crown to the United States in the treaty signed at Paris on the
3d day of September, 1783. The "crown lands," as they were called, lay
back of the heads of the Atlantic rivers and over the mountains, extending
westward to the distant Father of Waters. They were known to the colo
nies as the " back lands " or " back country," and being waste and unculti
vated, remote from the ships and barred by many hazards, were not especially
desirable in the early settlements. Here wars had raged for unknown cen
turies, and war was to linger for many years. Two great savage nations
lad fought from the beginning for this vast wilderness, and three European
powers had striven from its discovery to possess it. Finally it was won
from the French by the united arms of the King and colonies and joined
to Quebec to enter upon a new epoch. Afterwards the crown lands ap
pear in the public councils of the colonies, and that part lying beyond the
Ohio River is referred to in the early records as " The Western Territory,"
a term obviously too broad, since there was western territory on both sides
of the river. Under this name it passed for many years, both in and out
of Congress ; but the official designation of the region was changed in the
final action on the famous Ordinance of 1787, where, in the last reading,
the title was extended to " The Territory of the United States North-West
of the River Ohio." 1 Such is the origin of the Northwest Territory, nur
sery of states, first extension in area of the United States, first grand re
source of the nation, yielding the first considerable item of revenue in the
public accounts.
The Northwest Territory passed to the United States indisputably, as
part of the lands embraced within the boundary line established by Article
in of the Treaty of Paris, reading : " through the middle of the lakes, and
along the middle of the river Mississippi, until it shall intersect the north
ern-most part of the thirty-first degree of north latitude." The English
right thus descending to the United States included the relinquished rights
of Spain and France, and the King of France had confirmed the transfer
by separate treaties giving up forever to the Americans all his claims west
of the Mississippi. No other civilized power laid claim to these lands, yet .
no territory of state ever had more troublesome encumbrances. Four col
onies had covered the property with overlapping titles based on vague royal
grants and Indian treaties. The territorial land rights of these and other
states were advocated by the commissioners of Congress 4n the negotiation
of peace with England, as the basis of a demand for the territory, and the
United States was further bound to respect the claims of the states by a
specific clause of the articles of confederation. Many tribes of Indians
occupied the territory as hereditary owners, and their right of habitation
had been confirmed to them by royal proclamation. Relying upon this
confirmation a part of the inhabitants had allied themselves with the British
1 Printed copies of the Ordinance of 1787, preserved in the Library of Congress, No .
30, Papers of the Continental Congress, show alterations made at various stages of its
progress. The first use of the limitation in the title seems to be on the date of passage,
Jury 13, 1787, but it is some time before " Northwest Territory " was in general use.

cause against the Americans for the retention of their homes and hunting
grounds, while the other part of the Indians had remained neutral or assisted
the colonies. The hostile Indians were not yet subdued ; they were still
in armed possession of the frontier, while the friendly tribes could not well
be disturbed in their wigwams without serious consequences. Added to this
were several minor complications : pledges of bounty land to the military ;
indeterminate grants within the territory to independent companies ; squatter
inroads into the bottoms of the Ohio ; and British garrisons keeping guard at
the outposts supposedly encouraging natives in hostilities, and furnishing aid
and comfort to intruders. These conflicting elements were cleared away from
the title by good management of Congress, and the United States was able to
establish a hold on the Northwest Territory. With great patience, exer
cising powers assumed but not granted, the American states solved their
first political problem, the land issue, quieted the discordant states and
gloriously concluded the confederacy. In the course of this business
through the assembly, with wonderful enlightenment and in marvellous
wisdom of counsels, the title of the Northwest Territory was cleared ; the
frontier was made safe and the Indians protected within their own property
limits under permanent relations of ward-ship; a public domain was
created and a rational system of surveying devised to open it ; a sinking
fund was started, which in time extinguished the whole state and federal
debt ; and a mode was provided for the extension of settlements on the
territory, and for the expansion of the American system of representative
government under the flag.
It is not the present purpose of the writer to trace the factors of this first
nationalizing movement in American history. The plan in this preliminary
sketch is merely to link together events in the course of action which cleared
the title to the Northwest Territory, and to follow with more detail the
subsequent steps by which Congress established an open doorway into the
West. That open door was Ohio. Between the meridians confining this
great state the problem of the preparation of a seat in the wilderness for
civilization was worked out on heroic lines. These matters are of more
than local interest, although the details may not be found in the larger his
tories. Years before the crown lands had passed to the United States, four of
the states " claiming to the Mississippi or South Sea," assumed sovereign
rights of preemption of soil and jurisdiction over the lands comprising the
Northwest Territory. Massachusetts and Connecticut rested their title on
royal charters, claiming parallel strips of land which cut off the northern
part of the Territory. New York claimed by the historic deed of the Six
Nations, and her title covered nearly the whole extent of the country south
of the lakes. Virginia's proofs were in the royal grants and European
treaties, supported by the subsequent military achievement of Clark, and
her claims overspread everything from the Canadas far into the South. The
claims of the Carolinas and of Georgia were of the same nature, but they
fell below the Ohio River. The proofs upon which many if not all of
these claims rested had never been tested by legal examination or compari
son. In some instances the charters or treaties were of uncertain force and
effect. The claims themselves were plainly conflicting. The delineations
in the documentary proofs were vague and inaccurate, and the descriptions
were based on erroneous geographical knowledge. It was obvious from
the first that difficulties would arise in settling these claims, but it was no
time in the midst of uncertain war for sister states to dispute over uncon-

quered territory, nor to search for boundaries in a wilderness not yet rid
of the savage allies of the King. Moreover the lands were still crown
property, and there was no hope of possessing them save " through the
common sword, purse and blood of all the colonies united in one common
effort." Under the circumstances the claimant states were disposed to rest
on their theoretical rights, awaiting the outcome of the Revolution. They
worked together in the prosecution of the war without thought of their
conflicting claims, and they even engaged to enter into a perpetual union
with the lesser colonies, as into a " firm league of friendship," utterly un
mindful of the trouble sure to come when boundaries were defined and the
limits of jurisdiction determined.
This complacent policy of undisputed, undisturbed ownership of the
crown lands by neighborly colonies might have continued unbroken
throughout the period of war, but one of the claimants, more " ambitiously
grasping for territories " than the others, made presumptions under her
charters that destroyed amity and planted discord among the states. Vir
ginia was the direct cause of the fear and distrust, and Maryland led the
opposition. Presuming upon the validity of untried proofs of title, and
confident of enforcing her indeterminate claims, the Old Dominion entered
upon a course of action in the summer of 1 776, which, if followed oat to
its conclusion, would not only exclude the smaller colonies from participa
tion in the benefits of the property but would place all her neighbors, great
and small, in position of trespassers. Unexpectedly, in the midst of general
alarms of British invasion, with union still in the balance and independence
not yet declared, the Virginians advanced pretensions to jurisdiction and
actual possession of all lands and waters of the region between the Chesa
peake frontage and the Mississippi River, warning off intruders, and an
nouncing intentions of setting up dependent territorial governments west
ward of the Alleghany Mountains. Maryland spoke up boldly against
these arrogant presumptions of her powerful trans-Potomac neighbor, and
so started a controversy which increased the embarrassments of Congress
in the conduct of the war, and placed the cause of independence in greatest
jeopardy. Maryland held to the demand for complete neutralization ef the
public lands on principles of fairness, if not of right ; and, by constant in-
sistance, at the risk of wrecking the Union, she broke down the plans of
Virginia and opened the way for the cessions of all the western country.
The origin of the controversy over the crown lands may be said to be in
the adoption of the " Constitution and Form of Government " agreed to
in general convention of the delegates and representatives of the several
counties and corporations of Virginia, held at the capital, in the city of
Williamsburg, on the 6th of May, 1776. A paragraph of the constitution
reads as follows :
The territories contained within the charters erecting the colonies of Mary
land, Pennsylvania, North and South Carolina, are hereby ceded, released, and
forever confirmed to the people of those colonies respectively, with all the
rights of property, jurisdiction and government, and all other rights whatsoever,
whieh might at any time hereafter have been claimed by Virginia, except the
free navigation and use of the rivers Potomack and Pocomoke, with the property
of the Virginia shore and strands bordering on either of the said rivers, and all
improvements which have been or shall be made thereon. The western and
northern extent of Virginia shall, in all other respects, stand as fixed by the
charter of King James the First, in the year one thousand six hundred and nine,
and by public Treaty of Peace between the courts of Great Britain and France
in the year one thousand seven hundred and sixty-three ; unless, by act of legis
lature, one or more territories shall hereafter be laid off, and governments estab-

Hshed westward of the Allegeny mountains. And no purchase of lands shall
be made of the Indian natives, but on behalf of the public, by authority of the-
general assembly.
Maryland unhesitatingly pronounced this claim in the -constitution of
Virginia as " injurious to the inhabitants of this state." At the convention
of delegates of Maryland in session at Annapolis, October 29, 1776, it was.
ordered by a vote and resolve that this paragraph of the Virginia Consti
tution be read, and it was read and spread upon the minutes of the con
vention. Whereupon it was resolved " That this convention will on tomor
row resolve itself into a committee of the whole ; to take the same into
consideration." The following day, October 30, according to the order of
the day, the objectionable paragraph was considered'. After some time
spent thereon the committee reported several resolutions by which the con
vention of the state of Maryland declared unanimously that Virginia had*
no title to any territory included in the charter granted to the baron of
Baltimore, and that the waters of that part of the Chesapeake included in
the charter ought to be considered as a common highway free for the people1
of the bordering states, and they further resolved unanimously :
That it is the opinion of this convention, that the very extensive claim of the-
state of Virginia to the back lands hath no foundation in justice, and that if the
same or any like claim be admitted, the freedom of the smaller states and the
liberties of America may be thereby greatly endangered; this convention being
firmly persuaded, that if the dominion over these lands should be established by
the blood and treasure of the United States, such lands ought to be considered
as the common stock, to be parcelled out at proper times into convenient, free
and independent govermnents.
It does not appear in the resolutions what means were contemplated by the
convention of Maryland to bring this opinion to bear upon? the " arrogance "
of her neighbor, but within ten days of the passage of the resolutions, No
vember 10th, to be exact, Maryland delegates were appointed in the con
vention to represent the state in Congress with expressed power " to concur
with the other United States, or a majority or them, in forming a confede
ration, providing that such confederation, when formed, be not binding
upon this state without the assent of the general assembly."
No one would be inclined to- doubt that the Maryland delegation was
sent to Congress charged with the responsibility of engrafting this principle-
of national disposition of the public- territory upon the fundamental plan of
confederacy then in process of formation in Philadelphia. There is no»
documentary commission to show this and the recorded proceedings of the
state and congressional assemblies are so meagre and incomplete that infer
ences may not always, be drawn from them with safety. But the steps
taken by the Marylanders are so clear and distinct, both in the home as
sembly and in the general congress, that they indicate a settled plan to
determine all matter of territorial ownership and boundaries before confed
erating with the claimant colonies.2
'The sentiments of Maryland thus vigorously expressed- regarding the grasping dis
position of Virginia, were- inflamed at the time by misunderstanding of the offer of
land for bounty in the raising of eighty-eight battalions of troops called for by the
continental board of war in September, 1776. Considering this matter in October the
convention formally resolved, to raise the eight battalions assigned to Maryland, but
declining to coantenance the promise of land where there was no land to give, sub
stituted an offer of ten dollars cash for each enlistment in lieu of the hundred acres
pledged by Congress. This action evoked criticism in Congress, in the form of a reso
lution adopted October 30, the exact date of the Maryland resolve against the Virginia
constitution, recommending, a.reconsideratian of the cash bounty substitution, on the
theory thus expressed i

It was not in the stated programme of Congress to introduce the land claims
into the confederation debates. In fact it was the bounden duty of the
leaders of Congress to exclude this subject from the discussion, as well as
from the plan of confederacy, owing to primary considerations. No refer
ence to the lands appears in the original Franklin sketch of a plan of gov
ernment read in Congress, July 21, 1775. But in the committee's draft
substituted a year later, a mode of treatment of indeterminate boundary
lines and conflicting territorial land claims is provided. In this second
draft there is a clause reading : " When the boundaries of any colony shall
be ascertained by agreement all the other colonies shall guaranty to such
colony the full and peaceable possession of, and the full and entire jurisdic
tion in, and over the territories included within such boundaries." And
among the powers of Congress enumerated are the following :
Limiting the bounds of these colonies which, by charter or proclamation, or
under any pretence, are said to extend to the south sea and ascertaining those
bounds of any other colony that appears to be indeterminate : Assigning territo
ries for new colonies, either in lands to be thus separated from colonies and
hereafter purchased, or obtained by the crown of Great Britain from the Indi
ans, or hereafter to be purchased or obtained from them : Disposing of all such
lands for the general benefit of all the United Colonies : Ascertaining bounda
ries of such new colonies within which forms of government are to be estab
lished on principles of liberty.
These clauses were not presented as a part of the committee's substitute.
They were the ideas of Mr. Dickinson and were merely " submitted to con
gress," very likely on his own responsibility. They were probably not
That the said convention, by their said resolution, Beem to apprehend that their state would
be obliged, in their individual capacity, to make good the bounty of land hereafter to be given
to the soldiery ; whereas it was the intention of congress to provide the said land at the expense
of the United States.
But this assurance served only to confuse Maryland. The convention took up the
former resolution for raising the quota of troops, and "on a very deliberate and at
tentive consideration of the subject," came to certain resolutions, of the date of Novem
ber 9, informing Congress of the precise opinion of Maryland on the offer of land,
which are in part as follows :
If the bounty of land should be offered as proposed to individuals of this quota, thi9 state
would be bound in good faith to see that bounty effectually granted, and therefore as this state
has no lands belonging solely and exclusively to itself, with which to make good the bounty, it
is not only prudent, but necessary, before they do an act which will engage the faith of this
state, to know what land is to be applied, and on what terms, to the designated purpose.
That this convention are under the strongest impressions that the back lands claimed by the
British Crown, if secured by the blood and treasure of all, ought in reason, justice, and policy,
to be considered as common stock, to be parcelled out by congress into free, convenient, and in
dependent governments, as the wisdom of that body shall hereafter direct; but if these (the
only lands as this convention apprehend that can) should be provided by congress at the ex
pense of the United States to make good the proffered bounties, every idea of their being a com
mon stock must be therefore given up: some of the states may, by fixing their own price on the
land, pay off what of their quota of the public debt they please, and have their extensive ter
ritory settled by the soldiery of the other states, whilst this state and a few others must be so
weakened and impoverished, that they can hold their liberties only at the will of their powerful
neighbors. Under these impressions the Maryland convention issued instructions to the en
listment commissioners to repair to the camps and endeavor to enlist such troops and
militia of the state as were willing to enter into the continental service on the terms
proposed by Congress
. . . immediately on its being made known to them that the honourable congress will specify
any land belonging to the United States as a common stock to be divided amongst the soldiery
in their service . . . but if the honourable congress will not specify the lands as aforesaid . . .
they shall endeavour to effect the said enlistment on the bounty of twenty dollars allowed by
congress ; but they are not to engage the faith of this state to give or make good any bounty of
lands, or give any assurance whatsoever that they will have such bounty.
Congress not being able to make such specification, and evidently wishing to avoid
a discussion of the theory of land claims quieted the trouble of Maryland for the time
being by an order dated November 13, instructing the president to inform the con
vention :
That if the inhabitants of that state will inlist to serve during the present war, they already
have the faith of the United States of America pledged for the land.

considered by Congress and were promptly expunged from the draft. They
do not appear again, nor anything like them anywhere in tentative or finished
form. It was the settled policy of Congress to avoid the subject of the
territories,, and this principle prevailed from first to last.
But the confederation discussions in Congress soon offered an opportu
nity for the Maryland delegation, to interject the subject of western lands.
The matter came up logically in the course of consideration of the draft
of an article of the confederation relating to the powers of Congress.
This discussion followed a prolonged debate on. fixing a suitable criterion
of taxation to meet the costs of war, a feature of the constitution that
eaused considerable trouble in the succeeding years. In the Franklin
draft framed in 1775, public money for war expenses was to be raised by
a simple poll tax. But subsesequent drafts elaborated the rule, enlarging
its scope, and extending its application to cover back outlays for war ex^
penses. When the article relating to taxation was taken up in its final dis
cussion, October 9, 1777, further differences of opinion developed among
the delegates ; the population tax was dropped, and a general property
tax was proposed. This was burning ground ; expenditures of the indi
vidual colonies in the early stages of the war before Congress had intro
duced the general machinery of finance. The debate dragged along
through four days' sessions and doubtless something was said that aroused
the old grudge and stirred up the spirit of contention. The taxation de
bate terminated on the 14th of October in agreement on a form, of Article
vni as it stands in the finished, plan of confederacy, basing taxation on-
" the value of all land, within each state granted to or surveyed for any
person, as such land the buildings and improvements thereon shall be esti
mated."8 In the next day's session-, October 15, came the land question in the
form of resolutions proposing national control of the western territory.
The question may have come from the Maryland delegation, but this is not
certain. Three resolutions were read in succession presenting the proposi*
tion in different forms. The authorship of the resolutions, is not stated in
the record, but it is probable that one, if not all, was the means adopted
by the Marylanders for fulfilling their instructions from the convention
issued the year before. The first resolution proposed :
That in order to render the present confederacy firm and perpetual, it is essen
tial that the limits of each respective territorial jurisdiction should be ascertained
by the articles of confederation, and therefore, it is recommended to the legisla
tures of every state to lay before Congress a description of the territorial lands-
of each of their respective states, and a summary of the grants, treaties and
proofs upon which they are claimed or established.
It might be supposed that this reasonable proposition would have gained
the support of the smaller colonies whose interests it especially favored,
but on this occasion, as throughout the controversy, the smaller states were
not united. New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and New Jersey opposed the-
resolution, while New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland supported it."
3 The rule of taxation provided for in Article vm of the confederation proved to be
inconvenient and uncertain, especially in its retrospective application. The states-
could not come to terms in regard to what early expenditures ought to be allowed by
Congress and paid out of the public treasury. In consequence Article vni was pre
sented to Congress for amendment and a substitute was submitted to the states for
ratification in April, 1783, by which the abandoned population tax was restored, but in
a-modified form. This was the first attempt to change the fundamental law of the
Union, and in it may be found some interesting and suggestive traces of the color, lina
and. sectionalism.

Delaware and Georgia were not represented, and the vote stood eight to
three. No division is given in the record of vote on the second amend
ment, and the third received the solitary support of Maryland, the vote of
New Jersey being divided. Following are the second and third amend
ments :
The United States in Congress assembled shall have the sole and exclusive
right and power to ascertain and fix the western boundary of such states as
claim to the South Sea, and to dispose of all land beyond the boundary so ascer
tained, for the benefit of the United States.
The United States in Congress assembled shall have the sole and exclusive
right and power to ascertain and fix the western boundary of such states as
claim to the Mississippi or South Sea, arid lay out the land beyond the boundary
so ascertained into separate and independent states, from time to time, as the
number and circumstances of the people may require.4
There is nothing in the record to show how these three resolutions were
received by Congress, although it appears that they were handled without
much " consideration " or discussion. Probably the three amendments
were summarily rejected in succession with little or no debate. There was
some complaint of this mode of Congressional procedure in the subsequent
controversy, and it is recorded afterwards, relative to similar propositions,
that " they involve questions, the discussion of which was declined on
mature consideration when the articles of confederation were debated."5
Virginia pointed out the inconsistency of this doctrine with the principles
upon which the boundaries of the United States were described in an ulti
matum in the terms of peace soon afterwards placed in negotiation with
England :
The United States could hold no territory but in right of some one individual
state in the Union. Any argument fairly urged to prove that any particular
tract of country, within the limits claimed by Congress on behalf of the United
States, is not a part of the chartered territory of some one of them, must mili
tate with equal force against the right of the United States in general ; and tend
to prove such tract of country (if northwest of the Ohio river) part of the
British province of Canada.6
It would be idle to conjecture as to the effect of those resolutions had
they gone into the plan of confederation. It might be that the confines of
the United States would have been at the mountains, as Virginia suggested
would be the case, and the region between the Great Lakes and the Ohio
might have remained until now a part of the Dominion of Canada. The
only appreciable effect of their introduction at this time was in the action
4 Herbert B. Adams, in his Maryland's Influence in Founding a National Common
wealth, a pamphlet published by the Maryland Historical Society, 1877, credits the
third amendment of October 15, 1777, to Maryland. He states, in italics, by way of
proof: " Only Maryland voted in the affirmative," but offers no other support of the as
sertion. Mr. Adams adds : " But in this motion was suggested that idea of political
expansion under sovereign control of Congress, which ultimately prevailed and con
stituted upon grounds of necessity, a truly .National Republic : Not only the sugges
tion of a firm lasting union upon the basis of a territorial commonwealth, but the chief
influence in founding such a union, must be ascribed to Maryland  The original
proposition that Congress should exercise sovereign power over the western country
was a pioneer thought, or, as the Germans say a bahnrechende Idee " (p. 28). This in
teresting suggesion might have been made with equal warrant respecting the earlier
Maryland expression, the opinion of the Annapolis convention pronounced October
30, 1776 ; if not indeed of the Virginia Constitution of May, 1776, which carried the
idea of ultra-montane territorial dependencies afterwards elaborated in the Ordinance
of 1787.
6 Sept. 6, 1780. Journals of Congress.
• From the Virginia Remonstrance. This document and others relating to this mat
ter are printed in full in Hening's Virginia Statutes at Large, vol. 10, p. 5i7.

10
which followed. The larger states took alarm from this attack upon their
cherished rights, and they voted to insert in the draft a clause which does
not appear in any earlier form, an addition to Article ix, reading : " No
state shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States."
The claimant states placed this in the law of the confederacy on October
27, by which they alarmed others of the smaller colonies and laid the basis
for subsequent loss of territory they sought to safeguard.
The plan of confederation as finally agreed upon in Congress, Saturday
November 15, 1777, contained no reference to vacant land, or western
boundaries except the saving clause introduced at the last to satisfy the
larger states. No time was lost in placing the plan before the thirteen
states for conclusion. The articles of confederation were revised and ar
ranged, and three hundred copies were printed. A circular letter addressed
to the states to accompany the articles of confederation was prepared by a
committee appointed to the task. Thirteen copies of the letter were made
out and signed, by the president of Congress, and on Monday, November
17, these two documents were transmitted to the executive authorities of
the several states. The letter of address is a dignified plea to hasten the
conclusion of confederation. The articles were earnestly recommended to
the immediate and dispassionate attention of the legislatures, with expres
sions of appology for expecting that any plan should exactly correspond
with the maxims and political views of every particular state, regret at the
time which had elapsed in preparing the plan for consideration, and so
licitude as to the time which must be necessarily spent before it can be
ratified. The legislatures were recommended "to invest their delegates
with powers to subscribe articles of confederation, and to attend congress
for that purpose on or before the 1 0th day of March next."
The states received the plan and address early in December, in ample
time for the necessary action in the assemblies before the day set for ratifi
cation in Congress. But it does not seem that they were especially affected
by the urgent plea for haste. Virginia alone made prompt reply. The
general assembly of that state complied immediately with all recommenda
tions of the address. Without stopping for debate, and without division,
each house of the assembly approved the articles and ratified them with
resolutions calling for speedy conclusion of confederation. The enabling
act of Virginia bears date of December 16, 1777,7 scarce a month from
the date of the address. Surely the Old Dominion was well satisfied with
the plan. Other states were not so well pleased. They were all as anxious
for confederacy and union as a means of ending the war, but they were not
in a hurry to ratify. Most of the states found fault with the plan. They
framed objections calling for amendments, and forwarded them to their
delegates for presentation to Congress. Several states waited long for
changes to be made. The responses of the legislatures show the extent
and nature of the dissatisfaction with the terms proposed for confederation.
The date set for ratification, March 10, 1778, was permitted to pass by
without the ceremony called for in the programme. Not enough delegates
had received the expected powers and instructions, called for in the letter of
address, to justify an attempt to proceed with confederation, and so matters
7 The published Journals of Congress print this enabling act of the Virginia assem
bly under date of Dec. 15, 1778. This error has come from the MS. vol. 9 (History of
Confederation), p. 123, Papers of the Continental Congress, Library of Congress.
There is an error also in the text of the act — the date of the adoption of the articles of
confederation by Congress being " The 17th day of November last," instead of the 7th
as it is there given.

II
drifted along while the states deliberated. Information travelled slowly
then and people were not so ready to spread news. Georgia, for example,
took action on the plan of confederation in February, and the result of the
action was not reported until the 23d of July. But it must have been
known among the delegates that objections had been raised in many of the
legislatures against the plan proposed, and no doubt much anxiety was felt
as to the fate of the confederacy.
Congress, then in session at Yorktown, was not disposed to begin the
canvass of accumulating objections until forced into considering them by the
sudden demands of the Maryland delegation. Fresh instructions just re
ceived from home called for immediate notice. The general assembly of
Maryland on Saturday the 20th of June, 1778, resolved:
That the delegates from this state to Congress consider themselves bound by
the instructions given in October session last, and that they endeavor to procure
from Congress an explicit answer to the propositions therein contained ; but
that they do not at any time consider themselves at liberty to ratify or confirm
any confederation of perpetual friendship and union, until they have communi
cated such answer to the general assembly of this state and shall receive their
express authority to do so.
The next Monday, June 22, after the issue of these explicit instructions,
Congress having proceeded to consider the objections to the articles of con
federation, the delegates from Maryland read to Congress these instructions,
and moved " that the objections from the state of Maryland be immediately
taken up and considered by congress, that the delegates from Maryland
may transmit to that state, with all possible despatch, the determination of
congress on these objections." The motion being put and resolved in the
affirmative, three objections of Maryland were read and voted upon out of
the regular order of roll call, which should have begun with New Hamp
shire. The canvas of returns from the legislatures of the thirteen states as re
corded in the Journals of Congress under date of June 22 to 26, 1778,
shows only three states approving of the articles " as they now stand," New
Hampshire, New York, and Virginia. A fourth had likewise approved, but
the official report from North Carolina did not arrive until after the canvas
was concluded. Objections had been received by delegates of eight states
and Delaware was still to be heard from. South Carolina sent twenty-
three alterations, and Rhode Island, " having had the articles repeatedly
read, and having maturely weighed and most seriously deliberated upon
them as their importance deserves," sent along three amendments, with
powers to her delegates " to accede to and sign the articles provided they
be acceded to by eight of the other states." The objections were numer
ous and scattering. They were mostly in the form of verbal changes of
little, if any, interest to-day.8 The more important criticism came from
four states in the form of a presentment against the land policy of the
claimant states.
The method of consideration applied by Congress to these objections de
serves a passing notice. According to the records in the Journals of Con
gress parts of three days in the midst of other business served to dispose of
them all. Very little time was given to the separate objections. The roll
8 Massachusetts and Connecticut expressed their dissatisfaction with the article relat
ing to taxation. The former proposed "That the rule of apportionment of taxation be
varied from time to time, until experience shall have showed what rule of apportion
ment will be most equal and consequently just." Connecticut asked to change the
basis of taxation from the lands to " the number of inhabitants in each state.!'

12
was called geographically, except that Maryland came first, and the objec
tions from the state called were read by the delegates. Sometimes there
was debate, but debate was slow. One elaborate series of objections per
taining to widely different features of the confederation were grouped into
one motion and cast out by a single division. Another set of belated ob
jections were, apparently, disregarded entirely. In this fashion the busi
ness was rushed through, and on the third day Congress was able to report
that the articles, " after mature deliberation, had been adopted, without
amendment." Two of the objections filed by the Maryland delegates do not concern
this inquiry as they pertain to other matters, but the third brought up the
contention on the land question in still another form. By this an explana
tion was called for of the obnoxious safety clause in Article ix. The Mary
land assembly expressed dissatisfaction with this clause and demanded the
addition of the following :
The United States in Congress assembled shall have the power to appoint
commissioners, who shall be fully authorized and empowered to ascertain and
restrict the boundaries of such of the confederated states which claim to ex
tend to the river Mississippi, or South Sea.
This amendment received attention during two sessions of Congress, and
although it failed of passage the solitary vote of Maryland, recorded in the
former division, was recruited by the support of Rhode Island, New Jer
sey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. Had New Hampshire stood by her
weaker sisters on this occasion the amendment would have carried, as North
Carolina was not then represented in Congress and New York's vote was
divided. Rhode Island and New Jersey both sent objection to the clause " no
state shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States,"
based on the theory that this inhibition might be construed as intending the
crown lands, which indeed was the very purpose of the insertion.9 The
legislature of Rhode Island asked for an explanatory addition to the clause
to prevent such construction, in these words :
Provided, nevertheless, that all lands within those states, the property of
which before the present war was vested in the crown of Great Britain, or out of
which revenues from quit-rents arise, payable to the said crown, shall be deemed,
taken, and considered, as the property of the United States ; and be disposed of
and appropriated by Congress, for the benefit of the whole confederacy, reserv
ing, however, to the states within whose limits such crown lands may be, the
entire and complete jurisdiction thereof.
The New Jersey objections appear in a Representation of the Legislative
Council and General Assembly of that state, an impressive document
consisting of a series of remarks arranged in nine numbered paragraphs,
each item a criticism of some point in the confederation, with an alteration
suggested, and argument supporting the proposed changes. The New Jer
sey criticisms cover a wide range of ideas, but two of the paragraphs deal
with land matters. The first suggests that the boundaries and limits of
each state ought to be fully and finally fixed and made known as a means
of preventing jealousies and controversies and promoting harmony and
confidence among the states. If this could not be done before the pro
posal of confederation, the principles ought to be established beforehand
upon which the determination might be conducted at an early period, not
8 The record of the division in Congress on the motion to adopt the ninth article
containing this objectionable clause, taken October 27, 1777, shows the delegate of Rhode
Island, Mr. Marchant, casting the vote of his state in the affirmative.

13
exceeding five years from the final ratification of the confederation. The
New Jersey reference to the meaning of "territory" in the prohibitive
clause inquires
Whether we are to understand that by territory is intended any land, the prop
erty of which was heretofore vested in the crown of Great Britain, or that no
mention of such land is made in the confederation, we are constrained to ob
serve, that the present war, as we always apprehended, was undertaken for the
general defence and interest of the confederating colonies, now the United
States. It was ever the confident expectation of this state, that the benefits de
rived from a successful contest were to be general and proportionate ; and that
the property of the common enemy, falling in consequence of a prosperous issue
of the war, would belong to the United States, and be appropriated to their use.
We are therefore greatly disappointed in finding no provision made in the con
federation for empowering the Congress to dispose of such property, but espe
cially the vacant and unpatented lands, commonly called the crown lands, for
defraying the expenses of the war, and for such other publick and general pur
poses. The jurisdiction ought in every instance to belong to the respective
states within the charter or determined limits of which such lands may be
seated ; but reason and justice must decide, that the property which existed in
the crown of Great Britain, previous to the present revolution, ought now to
belong to the Congress, in trust for the use and benefit of the United States.
They have fought and bled for it in proportion to their respective abilities ; and
therefore the reward ought not to be predilectionally distributed. Shall such
states as are shut out by situation from availing themselves of the least advan
tage from this quarter, be left to sink under an enormous debt, while others are
enabled, in a short period, to replace all their expenditures from the hard earn
ings of the whole confederacy?
The dignified form of the New Jersey objections, to say nothing of their
serious import, deserved from Congress the most careful consideration of
the several points raised against the articles of confederation ; but the docu
ment, apparently, received even less attention than was accorded to others
of much scantier significance. The representation was adopted at Tren
ton on the 16th of June. It was laid before Congress in the canvas of
objections on Tuesday, June 23, and taken into consideration on Thursday.
Upon the reading of the paper it was moved " that the several articles in
the confederation referred to in the foregoing representation be so far re
considered as to admit the purport and meaning of the additions, alter
ations and amendments proposed." There was no discussion of the motion
nor of the merits of the separate items. They were not debated seriatim
as in the case of other states. The entire set 'of nine objections was cast
out by a single blanket motion to reconsider, on which the record stands :
" Question put, Passed in the negative. Three ayes, six noes, one divided."
This rapid manner of disposing of objections brought the congressional
canvas of returns from the thirteen states to a close by night of the third
session,10 but the confederation was not concluded with the expedition
planned. Not one objection had been sustained. The plan as finished in
November was enacted without change in June. All that remained was
ratification by subscriptions in Congress to the Act of Confederation at the
hands of the authorized delegates of the respective states. Preparations
were made speedily for accomplishing this in a ceremonious manner. The
4th of July was approaching, and Congress had ordered adjournment to
Philadelphia, where on the sabbath day they were to appear in a body in
church, and participate in the celebration planned for the second anniver
sary of the birth of independence. Confederation might well be concluded
on the natal day. But there were slips in the programme. The act of con
federation and form of ratificatian agreed upon were elegantly engrossed
10 There was no confederation business in Congress, Wednesday, June 24.

14
on a roll of parchment, with spaces ruled in double column for signatures
of states in geographical order. The parchment " was laid before congress
Saturday, June 27, but the same upon examination being found incorrect,
it was ordered that another copy be made, and laid before congress on or
.before the 4th of July next." In the confusion of adjournment, or for
other reason, the day passed without the subscriptions, and the signatures
were not called for until the 9 th day of July, in the third year of inde
pendence. But these were merely temporary interruptions ; the serious difficulty de
veloped at the ceremony of subscription. Eight states ratified the act of
confederation, spaces for five state signatures remained Vacant on the roll.
Delegates of four states waived objections, disregarding specific instruc
tions from their constituency, and signed the engrossment. North Carolina
and Georgia, whose legislatures had voted to ratify, did not sign the roll as
" they were not at this time represented in congress." When called upon
to endorse the parchment as others had done " the delegates from the state
of New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland informed congress that they had
not yet received powers to ratify and sign." u So the ceremony failed, and
confederation was doomed to wait while Congress took measures for per
suading the refractory legislatures. A committee was ordered to prepare
a circular letter to the backward states, " informing them how many and
what states have already ratified, and desiring that they will authorize their
delegates to ratify the confederation with all convenient despatch."
The second appeal of congress, issued under date of July 10, 1778, re
peats the plea of immediate necessity of confederation, so earnestly employed
in the November address. " Influenced by considerations so powerful,
and duly weighing the difficulties . . . Congress have, after mature delib
eration, agreed to adopt without amendments the confederation transmitted
to the several states for their approbation. The states of New Hampshire,
Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecti
cut, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina12 and South Caro
lina, have ratified the same, and it remains only with your state to con
clude the glorious compact .... trusting to future deliberations to make
such alterations and amendments, as experience may show to be expedient
and just."
Two of the remaining states complied with this request, but not with
out considerable reluctance. New Jersey acted November 20, and Dela
ware on the 1st of February following. Coupled with the official instruc
tions issued to the delegates of these states were resolutions of the respective
legislatures, in almost the same words, disapproving of the articles of con
federation " as unequal and disadvantageous to this state ; " declaring " the
objections lately stated and sent to the general congress are still viewed as
just and reasonable, and sundry of them as of the most essential moment to
the welfare and happiness of the good people of the state ; " and protesting
that they ratified " under the full conviction of the present necessity of
acceding to the confederacy proposed, and of postponing every separate
and detatched state interest to the general good of the union, and, more
over, in firm reliance that the candour and justice of the several states, will
"The original parchment roll of the engrossed Act of Confederation with signa
tures, in excellent preservation, is in the Library of the U. S. Department of State,
Washington, D. C.
18 North Carolina is included in this list in the circular letter on the basis of unoffi
cial knowledge, for the record list of signatory states omits North Carolina.

15
in due time, remove as far as possible, the inequalities which now subsist."
The objections mentioned in the Delaware protest were adopted by the
legislature a few days previous to the passage of the powers of ratification.
It was then rather late for objections, but Delaware had been slow in deal
ing with the plan, which was not taken up by the council at Dover until
the 3d of December, 1778. At that time the second call for speedy ratifi
cation was also in hand. Still there was delay to accommodate the Senate
which "was desirous of knowing the sentiments of the people on a subject
so materially affecting their interests." Objections were formulated and
adopted, and a few days later the resolutions of ratification were passed.
Thus there were two sets of resolutions on confederation forwarded as cre
dentials to the delegates of Delaware ; first, the objections of January 28,
which were directed against the land policy on the same basis as the Alary-
land objections, and second, the powers for ratification issued to the dele
gates with the protest of February 1. The presentation of the Delaware
credentials caused a stir in Congress. The powers for ratification were
.lodged with the secretary February 16, 1779, and the roll was signed for
Delaware on February 2 2d. The following day the delegate of Delaware
laid before congress the objections to the articles of confederation declaring
in favor of absolute national control of the western limits of the claimant
states ; and national disposition of the extensive tract of country which lies
to the westward of the frontier of the United States. On which it was
Resolved, That the paper laid before congress by the delegate of Delaware
and read, be filed ; provided, that it shall never be considered as admitting any
claim by the same set up or intended to be set up.13
Meanwhile the signatory states waited with more or less impatience for
the disaffected ones to close the circle of confederacy and put an end to the
growing embarrassment of congress. The open discord among the states
and the uncertainly of their confederating were regarded as the principal
cause of the prolonging of the war. Most of the blame for the delay
rested on Maryland, but Virginia, whose pretentions had excited the first
criticism, did not escape censure. Agitation of the land question gave the
Virginians much concern, as the delay in confederating interfered with
certain plans of the commonwealth respecting the back lands. Already
the Old Dominion had moved to occupy their ultra-montane claims. At
this critical moment large grants of lands were being made by the Virginia
Assembly to speculators, and wide areas in the disputed territory designated
for distribution exclusively to the Virginia soldiery. Whilst the eleventh
state was still pondering on this point of union, and without the slightest
consideration for the rights of other claimants, Virginia assumed sole pos
session of everything westward of the Ohio River, and passed an act extend
ing the dominion of the commonwealth, in setting up a sub-administration
across the Ohio, to the uncertain limits of the Illinois. Further delay in
the Union of states might imperil these ambitious enterprises. The time
has come to force the obstructing members to the terms of confederation.
Thus conceiving, the Virginia assembly issued instructions to their delegates
in Congress to propose a partial confederacy "of so many states as shall be
willing." Such a scheme seemed certain to bring in the procrastinators, or
it might, perchance, result in the dissolution of the last refractory state,
13 The division on this motion shows New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland voting
together in the negative. Mr. Gouverneui- Morris, :i delegate of New York, voted no
also, but was out-voted by his three colleagues. Later, at critical times, in the land
controversy Mr. Morris acted with the minority.

16
and the possible distribution of the Calvert domain among the abutting
colonies. This act passed the assembly, December 18, 1778, but it was
not made public in Congress for several months. It was followed, April 7,
after Delaware's ratification, by powers issued to the Connecticut delegates
to accede to a confederation of twelve states, omitting Maryland. This ac
tion also was kept from the records, although known unofficially. Evidently
it was the plan to bring these acts into operation at a favorable moment.
But Maryland was prepared. Early in December she took action that
turned public approval in her favor, shifted the burden of blame to Virginia,
and made the first advance towards surrender of the territorial land claim
beyond the Ohio.
TNe fears of Maryland respecting the use that might be made of the
vacant land, if the claimant states were not restrained by provisions in the
articles of confederation, apply directly to the plans of her neighbor state
to seize and hold the whole extent of disputed territory. Virginia laid
foundation for the broadest expansion of her dominion, in the beginning,
at the moment of transition from the condition of a royal British colony
to that of a free American commonwealth, in the assumption of the second
charter of King James, issued to the "Virginia" of 1609, as the basis of
her rights in America. A number of events in the latter history of the
American colonies tend to establish the west boundary line of the claim
ants' territory at the " sources of the rivers which fall into the Atlantic
ocean from the west to the northwest," but Virginia clung to the doctrine
of the hinterland as the foundation of her domain, and steadfastly pushed her
borders westward; first, over the greater mountains, upon the western
waters, and thence across the river to the uttermost reaches of the Illi-
' nois, until, in the land cession of 1783, she was forced to drop the prize.
The claims in the Virginia constitution, quoted on an earlier page as the
initial cause of alarm in the colonies, made the extent of the new-
formed commonwealth to stand as fixed in this charter, modified by the
more recent limitation of the French Treaty ; comprehending
AH that space and circuit of land lying from the sea-coast, two hundred miles
each way from the Point or Cape Comfort, up into the land throughout from
sea to sea [Mississippi River] , west and northwest.
Provisions were made in the constitutional paragraph releasing, for pru
dential reasons, the portions of territory on the eastern waters which were
actually covered by her sister colonies, but there were no allowances on the
western waters for the claims of other states whose charter limits fall within
the area blocked out in the Stuart grant. Virginia had no intention of.
recognizing the right of any other colony in that direction. It was the la
tent purpose of Virginia to enter and occupy this reserved domain of the
crown, and to have and to hold the soil exclusively until, peopled by her
soldiery, " one or more territories, by act of legislature, shall hereafter be
laid off, and governments established, westward of the Allegany moun
tains.14" 14 The assumption of Virginia respecting her chartered limits was never put to proof.
The generous concession of a portion of the territory made in 1784 rendered proof of
claims unnecessary, and Congress magnanimously accepted the cession on its face
value without insisting on proofs of title. Proof was unnecessary also because the
United States held by prior and higher claims the Iroquois deed of 1701, and the defin
itive treaty of 1783. Ex parte statements on the value of the Virginia title have not
;been lacking from that time to this ; the latest is " a communication from the gover
nor of Virginia transmitting certain correspondence and reports in reference to the
claims of Virginia against the United States government on account of the cession of

17
The objection heard in Congress respecting the territorial land claims
was general and not particular, and no protest against individual state claims
was made until towards the last. Maryland made her objections felt in the
matter of controlling the Chesapeake waters by an early conference with
Virginia and a joint commission,
to consider of the most proper means to adjust and confirm the right of each,
to the use and navigation of, and jurisdiction over the Bay of Chesapeake, and
the rivers Potomac and Pocomoke.
But no state made local challenge of the proposed rule of the common
wealth of Virginia on the western waters.
The first mark of the purpose of Virginia to occupy the back country
is in the prohibitive clause appendant to the description of the charter lim
its of the commonwealth enacted May 6, 1776:
No purchase of lands shall be made of the Indian nations, but in behalf of the
public, by authority of the general assembly.
It was the well established policy of the British crown and colonies that
the title of an Indian was not in itself sufficient to convey the right of
property,16 but occasion called for the early application of this principle in
Virginia, with respect to the disputed lands, while the convention was still
in session, in the following form :
Whereas, divers petitions from the inhabitants on the western frontiers have
been presented to this convention, complaining of exorbitant demands made on
them for lands claimed by persons pretending to derive title from Indian deeds
and purchases.
Resolved, That all persons actually settled on any of the said lands ought to
hold the same, without paying any pecuniary or other consideration whatever to
any private person or persons, until the said petitions, as well as the validity of
the titles under such Indian deeds and purchases, shall have been considered and
determined on by the legislature of this country ; and that all persons who are
now actually settled on any imlocated or unappropriated lands in Virginia, to
which there is no other just claim, shall have the pre-emption or preference, in
the grant of such lands.
Resolved, That no purchases of lands within the chartered limits of Virginia,
shall be made, under any pretense whatever, from any Indian tribe or nation,
without the approbation of the Virginia legislature.
The petitioners referred to in these resolutions are "inhabitants of that
part of America called Transylvania," from whom one petition is recorded
in the Journal of the Convention under date of May 18. They complain of
the unjust and arbitrary proceedings of Richard Henderson and Company,
the proprietors of that country in which the petitioners had made settle
ments under expectation of undoubted title. They doubt the validity of
the purchase those proprietors have made of the Cherokees, "the only title
they set up to the lands for which they demand such exorbitant sums of
money," as it was in conflict with a deed which they had lately seen, exe
cuted at Fort Stanwix, in which the confederated Indians of the Six Nations
" declared the Cherokee [ Tennessee] river to be their true boundary with
the southward Indians." As they had purchased from the Henderson
the Northwest Territory " (Va. Sen. Doc. No. in, Jan. 24, 1910), wherein it is pro
posed to the legislature that a demand shall be made upon the United States for a re
fund of a share of $119,479,204 due Virginia as reserve interest in ceded lands mis
appropriated by the United States for education, public improvement, and other local
benefits. ¦5 Chief Justice Marshall ruled " that a title to lands derived solely from a grant
made by an Indian tribe northwest of the Ohio in 1773 and 1775 to private individuals
cannot be recognized in the courts of the United States " (8 Wharton, p. 543).

18
Company the}' asked for relief from the convention of Virginia, or an es
pousal of their claim in Congress as the cause of the colony.
The proprietors of the Transylvania purchase answered these petitions
in a memorial which appears at great length in the convention proceed
ings of June 15, in which they seek to clear themselves of the heavy
charges of injustice, exorbitant, and arbitrary measures. They deny also
certain insinuations " of setting themselves up as absolute proprietors of
an independent province ; and of attempting to dismember the colony by
sending delegates or a memorial to Congress." They claim also priority
of title to the convention and the commonwealth of Virginia, arguing that
a declaration of independence cannot alter the tenure of estates, or a change
of government interfere with the rights of private individuals to hold pro
perty ; and they demand a hearing of the matters charged in the petitions.16
The petitions and the memorial were in the hands of committees of the
convention, and they passed over as impending business to corresponding
committees of the general assembly when that body was organized under
the commonwealth. The references to attempts to set up independent
governments at different locations along the Ohio were transmitted to the
delegates in Congress to forestall action there. The Henderson case called
for an inquiry into the nature of the Iroquois claims to the Cherokee
country, and commissions were assigned to take depositions of the Indian
chiefs at Williamsburg and in the Washington district. Thus matters
stood in the middle of the second session of the Virginia assembly when,
on the 3d of June, 1777, a memorial appeared from the proprietors of a
tract of land on the Ohio, called Indiana.
The memorial of the Indiana Company, known in after proceedings in
the land controversy in the Continental Congress, raised the direct point
with the commonwealth of the right of title of the Six United Nations to
practically all of the back country from the Wisconsin to the central ridges
of the Alleghanies, upon which the claims of the New York colony had
rested for almost a century. The memorialists claimed property as con
veyed by the Six United Nations at a treaty held at Fort Stanwix in
the year 1768, setting forth
"That the grant was obtained of the grantors under the immediate superin
tendence of Sir William Johnson, and executed in the presence of the Governor
'^Other petitions of this nature are found running through the printed records of
the final session of the convention of Virginia, and the succeeding sessions of the
general assembly, and elsewhere in the published archives of Virginia. They tell the
same story
... of the hardships that would result to the petitioners and others, from grants of large
tracts of lands to private companies of gentlemen, which were to be sold out at a moderate
price for the encouragement and speedy settlement of the back country, but that agents to the
company and their successors, instead of adhering to their first proposals, have demanded, and
actually received enormous prices, and hnve, by various unfair practices, either sold, located or
claimed nearly double their first grant.
Certain petitioners set forth that they had
. . . entered on the lands they occupied many years before and cultivated them with great labor
and expense, often at the peril of their lives from savages, in consequence of which they hoped
they had obtained a just and equitable title to their possessions, without being obliged to con
tribute large sums of money for the separate emolument of individuals whose mercenary views
are incompatible with the real good of the community.
Petitions are recorded also from companies holding grants to take up and survey
lands issued "by the governor and council under the former British government.
The purchasers had made investments in explorations and surveys, in roadways and
other improvements, and they had sold off much of their lands to actual settlers but
their contracts were impaired and their operations interrupted by the general fee'ling
of unrest in the colonies, and by the uncertainty regarding titles, and afl would be lost
unless the titles were confirmed.

19
of New Jersey, and others, among whom were the commissioners then attending
in behalf of the colony of Virginia."
They conceive that by the convention resolve of the 24th of June last,
Virginia had laid a foundation for calling in question the title of the memorial
ists to the lands aforesaid ; if the title of the memorialists should be called into
discussion, conscious of the equity and validity of their right, they shall never
hesitate to submit it to a proper judicature, nor to defend it in the ordinary
course of justice ; that, under these circumstances, they confide the legislature
of Virginia will not, by any act or proceeding whatever, impeach or prejudice
their title, so well established, on the principles of reason, equity, and sound
policy. The memorial, when read, was referred to the committee of the whole
house upon the state of the commonwealth, the same committee that had
charge of the Henderson case. The matter dragged along through the
third session, during which the Henderson case was appointed to a hearing
and postponed. It must not be supposed that the Virginia general assembly
mistook the gravity of the situation. On the last day of the third session
action came of a significant character. The record for January 24, 1778,
reads :
" The clerk of the house was ordered to transmit a copy of the several papers
filed in the office relating to the claim of Richard Henderson and Company and
the Indiana Company, to George Mason and Thomas Jefferson, Esquires."
This was done, no doubt, to fortify the assembly with opinions ; and on the
same day these resolutions were agreed to :
Whereas, it is of the greatest importance to this commonwealth, that the
waste and unappropriated lands to which no person having just claim should be
disposed of, for the purpose of creating a sinking fund, in aid of the taxes for
discharging the public debt, and to the end that the claims to unpatented lands,
under the former or present government, may not in the meantime be increased
or strengthened.
Resolved, that every entry, with the survey hereafter made in the country
upon the western waters under any pretense or title whatsoever, until the land
office shall be established and the manner and terms of granting waste and un
appropriated lands, shall be void and of no effect ; and that no persons hereafter
settling in the country upon the said western waters, shall be entitled to any
land or pre-emption of land for such settlement, without paying for the same
such consideration as shall be hereafter ascertained by the general assembly, so
as no family be entitled to more than 400 acres.
Resolved, That all persons claiming any unpatented lands on the said western
waters by order of council, shall lay the same before the general assembly on or
before the 20th day of their next session, and be at liberty in the mean time to
take the depositions of any witnesses they may choose, to examine such claims,
giving reasonable notice thereof to the person appointed by the governor and
council to attend such examination in the county, on behalf of the common
wealth, in case such person shall be appointed.
Finally, after two years, the Henderson case was heard in the Virginia
assembly. The hearing was conducted with dignity, with " the Senate in
vited to take seats in the House, while the memorials and papers were read
and arguments heard at the bar." Richard Henderson, chief promoter of
Transylvania, appeared in person. He asked for a separate court of judi
cature, and proposed as the issue the simple question " whether the title ob
tained by the claimants from the Cherokees was sufficient to convey the
right of property." They argued for the justice of the Cherokee claim
as against the claim of the Six United Nations, citing the constant and
perpetual occupancy by the Cherokees and the recognition by the Virginia
colonial government in treaties and purchases made of the Cherokee" na-

20'
tion.17 Conclusion was reached in the case November 4, 1778. The
Henderson purchase was declared void, and the doctrine of invalidity of
Indian titles reaffirmed in this form :
Resolved, That all purchases of lands made or to be made of the Indians
within the chartered boundaries of this commonwealth, as described by the con
stitution and form of Government, by any private person not authorized by public
authority is void.
Compensation was to be allowed to the claimants " for their great expense
in making the purchases and in settling the lands, by which this common
wealth are very like to receive great advantage, by increasing its inhabi
tants and establishing a barrier against the Indians " ; and a commission
was ordered, to consider "what compensation it may be just and reasonable
to allow for the service rendered this commonwealth in quieting the minds
of the Cherokee Indians, and in settling many families upon that tract of
land in the back country, commonly called Transylvania."
The way was now clear for the inquiry called for in the memorial of the
Indiana Company. A day was set in the May session for a hearing, and
public notice was inserted in the Virginia Gazette for all concerned to at
tend. Meanwhile petitions and memorials were accumulating, and the min
utes of the assembly were burdened with applications for confirmation of
titles obtained in various ways : lands taken up for homesteads, purchases
from the Indians, grants of the Dunmore government, army warrants, un
der the royal proclamation, or under orders of the governor and council.
The claims antedate the Virginia constitution, but they are all illegal under
the retroactive aspect of the constitution. They must be swept out of
the chartered territory of Virginia and all unpatented lands reclaimed,
from the boundaries of Pennsylvania southwest to the indeterminate lines
of the Carolinas and Georgia. The. finding of the Indiana Company case,
after a ceremonious hearing June 9, 1779, marks the climax of activity
in these expulsions :,
Resolved, That the commonwealth of Virginia hath the exclusive right of
pre-emption, from the Indians, of all lands within the limits of its own char
tered territory, as declared by the act and constitution or form of government
in 1776, that no person or persons whatsoever have, or ever had, a right to pur
chase any land within the same from any Indian nation, except only persons
duly authorized to make such purchases on the public account, formerly for the
use and benefit of the colony, and lately of the commonwealth ; and that such
exclusive right or pre-emption will, and ought to be, maintained by this com
monwealth to the utmost of its power.
Besolved, That every purchase of land heretofore made by the King of Great
Britain from any Indian nation or nations, within the before mentioned limits,
doth and ought to enure forever to and for the use and benefit of this common
wealth, and to and for no other use or purpose whatsoever.
Besolved, Therefore, That the deed from the six united nations of Indians,
bearing date on the third day of November, 1768, for certain lands between the
Alleghany mountains and the river Ohio, above the mouth of the little Kanawha
creek, to and for the use and benefit of a certain William Trent, gentleman, in
his own right, and as attorney for sundry persons in the said deed named, as
well as all other deeds which have been or shall be made by any Indian or In
dians, or by an Indian nation or nations, for lands within the limits of the char
ter and territory of Virginia as aforesaid, to or for the use or benefit of any-
private person or persons, shall be, and the same are hereby declared utterly
void, and of no effect.
17 A second Henderson memorial is recorded Oct. 29, 1778, in the House journal.
Final agreement, November 30, allows 400,000 acres on Green River to Henderson and
Co.

21
In order to remove and prevent all doubt concerning purchases of land
from the Indian nations, the general assembly framed the first and second
resolution into a bill and enacted the same on the 17th of June at this
session, with the title : An act for declaring and asserting the rights of
this commonwealth, concerning purchasing land from Indian nations.18
While the general assembly was thus striving to establish a jurisdiction
over the disputed territory, and to set up a revenue for the benefit of the
public exigencies by wholesale reclamations of the soil of the back lands,
the Old Dominion unexpectedly gained the chance to expand the govern
ment of the commonwealth over the entire area of her claims. Clark
had heard the call of conquest in the wilds of Kentucky, and hurrying to
the capital secured a commission of secret invasion. He mustered his
militiamen in Virginia for an overland crusade to Detroit, and having
crossed the Ohio halted at the Kaskaskies, with the result well known
to fame. Clark brought as his trophy to the commonwealth a fictitious
estate for an empty treasury. When lands were lacking in every colony
to satisfy overwhelming requirements of bounty obligations, he opened' a
way for Virginia to the fabulous wealth of an immeasurable wilderness.
AH other land claims were as nothing compared with these, and Virginia
had secured all. These delusive prospects of profit in the sales of Ohio
lands lay in the marvellous fertility of the soil, in the abundance of nat-
ural products, in salt springs known to abound, and in traditional mineral
deposits of gold, silver, copper, and lead along the river. Here was land
for ready sale, an imaginary asset, sufficient to indemnify Virginia for all
the past expenditures of war, to pay off all bounty promises, to furnish a
means for permanent reduction of taxation, and to leave vast areas un
touched for future uses.
Virginia lost no time in securing this new property. It is recorded under
date of the 19th of November, 1778, that "the speaker laid before the
House, a letter from the governor, enclosing several letters and papers
from Lieut. Col. Clarke and Captain Leonard Helm." The letters and
papers, being read, were referred to a committee named, to whom leave
was given to prepare and bring in a bill " for establishing a county, to
include the inhabitants of this commonwealth, on the western side of the
Ohio river, and for the better government of those inhabitants." This is
the record of the act to establish the county of Illinois, the land of Clark's
triumph, and to provide a temporary form of government adapted to the
circumstances of the new citizens of the commonwealth, French and Cana
dians, who had taken the oath of fidelity to Virginia " on the westward
side of the Ohio, in the vicinity of the Mississippi." No other description
is necessary ! The legal bounds of the new county embrace all that re
mains of the expanse of the King James charter, up into the land through
out, "from sea to river, west and northwest" from Old Point Comfort.19
It was in this session of the general assembly, in which it was ordained
to establish this distant dependency of the commonwealth on territory
claimed by sister states and on lands still in controversy in the general
congress, and while the tenure of land cases were actually depending on the
18Hening's Statutes, vol. 10, p. 97.
19 The indefinite limits of the county of Illinois as expressed in the act, although ac
tually including the entire northwest, must be understood to mean the limited region.
4efined by Thomas Hutchins in his topographical description of Virginia, issued in
1778, as " that part of my Map called Illinois Country, lying between the Mississippi
westerly, the Illinois River northerly, the Wabash easterly, and the Ohio southerly."
The act is in Hening's Statutes, vol. 9, p. 553.

22
decision of the assembly, that the Virginia house of delegates developed
the plan of forcing immediate conclusion of the confederacy. The bill
creating the county of Illinois became a law on the 30th of December,
1778. On the same day the plan was formulated in the house to bring ;
the backward states quickly to the terms of a confederation so favorable to /
Virginia's hopes. The matter was under consideration until the 18th,/
when the house came to the following resolutions, which the next day/
were concurred in by the Senate : /
Resolved, nemine contra dicente, That our delegates in Congress be instructed
to propose to Congress, that they recommend to each of the states named as par
ties in the articles of confederation, heretofore laid before and ratified by' the
assembly, that they authorize their delegates in Congress to ratify the said arti
cles, together with the delegates of so many other of the said states, as shall be
willing, so that the same shall be forever binding on the states so ratifying,
notwithstanding that a part of those named shall decline to ratify the same ;
allowing, nevertheless, to the said states so declining, either a given or an in
definite time, as to Congress shall seem best, for acceding to the said cpnfeder-
eration, and making themselves thereby members of the Union.
Resolved, nemine contra dicente, That our said delegates now in office, or here
after to be appointed, be authorized and required, and they are hereby authorized
and required to ratify the said articles of confederation on the part of this
commonwealth, with so many of the other states, named in them as parties, as
shall on their part ratify the same.
Resolved, nemine contra dicente, That it be an instruction to the Virginia dele
gates, to inform Congress of the resolutions of this general assembly, respecting
purchases of lands from any Indian nation.
Entered next after this in the journal, in a form indicating that they are
part of a single connected action, are these items :
And whereas the assembly hath come to believe that sundry citizens of some
of the United States, were, and aret connected and concerned with some of the
King of Great Britain's late governors in America, as well as with sundry noble
men and others, subjects of the said King, in the purchase of a very large tract
of land from the Indians, on the northwest side of the Ohio river, within the
territory of Virginia,
Resolved, Also, That the said delegates be instructed to use their endeavors in
Congress, to cause an inquiry to be made, concerning the said purchase, and
whether any, and what citizens of any of the United States, were, or are, con
cerned therein.
The more effectually to enable Congress to comply with the promise of a bounty
in lands to the officers and soldiers of the army, on continental establishment ;
Resolved, That this commonwealth will, in conjunction with such other of the
United States as have unappropriated back lands, furnish out of its territory,
between the rivers Ohio and Mississippi, in such proportion as shall hereafter
be adjusted and settled by Congress, its proper quota or proportion of such
lands, without any purchase money, to the troops on continental establishment
of such of the United States, as already have acceded, or shall within such
time, given or indefinite, as to Congress shall seem best, accede to the confeder
ation of the United States, and who have not within their own respective terri
tory, unappropriated lands for that purpose ; and that a copy of this resolve, be
forthwith transmitted to the Virginia delegates, to be by them communicated to
Congress. Not all of this volley of resolutions of the Virginia assembly reached the
intended mark, as some of the items have not been located in the journals
or papers of the Continental Congress ; and not one of them produced the
results desired. The edict of the commonwealth against Indian grants
would serve as a " no trespass" notice to all the states until a land office
route to the preserves was open. The warning of a British invasion by
colonization fell short of the general congress. The proffer of land from

23
her own abundance, for the bounty dues of landless states, seems like a
a reward of merit for good behavior. It was read in Congress on the
26th of January and repeated, with protestations of sincerity, in the first
land session proposition of 1781. The lands intended for this generosity
were in Ohio territory ; but as the lands were still claimed by New York
and Connecticut, and as the general controversy respecting their ultimate
disposition was still pending in Congress, the offer to distribute them to pay
off the debts of a few states could not well be entertained in that body.
The main resolution proposing confederation without Maryland did not
reach the files of Congress at once. Doubtless it found the popular chan
nel of publicity of that day, being privately printed as " broadsides" and
distributed with signatures attached. It cannot be said that it influenced
the action of Delaware, and its effect on Maryland was not quite what was
expected by the authors of the resolution. One response may or may not be
attributed to it : the issue at Hartford on the 7th of April of power to
the Connecticut delegates to conclude confederation without the thirteenth
state. But Maryland had made ready for the assault. Fully anticipating the
responsibility that must come upon the state as last obstinate objector in
the confederation dispute, the general assembly had prepared a justification
of past action and had taken counsel of the sense and deliberate judgment
of the state for a future course. It was decided that the state should re
main independent, continuing in loyalty to the original compact of colonies
until liberty was won, but not confederating on the basis proposed.
The declaration of intentions respecting confederation, and the personal
instructions to their six delegates in Congress for use of the same, were
prepared by the Maryland assembly simultaneously with the Virginia se
ries of resolves. The two instruments bear date of December 15, four
days ahead of the Virginia proposition. The Maryland declaration is a
restatement of the series of resolves, remonstrance, and instructions20 of
the assembly in the course of the dispute, upon which the amendments
and alterations proposed on behalf of the State from time to time were
drawn, while the second instrument conveys assurances to the delegates
of the sentiments of the state, and explicit directions for their final action
on confederation.
The declaration of Maryland was laid before Congress by the delegates
of that state on Wednesday, January 6, 1779, but it was not then consid
ered. It is not recorded as read in Congress, nor does it appear anywhere
in the journals, 21 but it is not to be doubted that the sentiments it express
ed respecting the confederacy were " made publicly known and explicitly
and concisely declared," since the delegates were directed in the instruc
tions .... to have it printed and to present signed copies thereof to each of the dele
gates of other states to the intent and purpose that copies may be communi-
20 The instructions here referred to are in the action of the Maryland general assem
bly of the previous June, which had formed the basis of objections urged in Congress
against confederation at that time :
Resolved, That the delegates from this state consider themselves bound by the instructions
given in October session last, and that they endeavour to procure from Congress an explicit
answer to the propositions therein contained; but that they do not at any time consider them
selves at liberty to ratify or confirm any confederation of perpetual friendship and union, until
they have communicated such answer to the general assembly of this state and shall receive
their express authority to do so. ¦
*' It is stated in the final act of ratification of the Maryland Assembly, adopted Feb
ruary 2, 1781, and read in Congress February 12, that the declaration "stands en
tered on the journals of Congress," but no such endorsement appears on the original
ros. document, which is in the papers of the Continental Congress, No. 70, p. 293.

24
cated to our brethren in the United States, and the contents taken into their
serious and candid consideration.
The old argument appears in the declaration of the injustice and unfair
ness in the exclusive use of the crown lands by individual states, but addi
tional force and effect is secured by reference to certain preparations for
immediate sales of the vacant lands. However, the most interesting fea
ture of the paper is the fresh cry of alarm raised on account of newly
discovered dangers in the proposed confederation.
Maryland apprehensions were aroused by the reading of Article in of
the confederation, which seems to be merely an expression in fervent lan
guage of the " firm bond of friendship" wliich was to hold the sister states
in perpetual amity. By this bond the assembly seemed to fear that Mary
land might be " burthened with heavy expenses for the subduing and guar
anteeing immense tracts of country, although having no share of the mon
eys arising from the sales of the lands within those tracts or be otherwise
benefitted thereby." It is stated :
We declare that we mean not to subject ourselves to such guaranty nor will
we be responsible for any part of such expense, unless the third article and pro
viso [of article rx] be explained so as to prevent their being hereafter construed
in a manner injurious to this state.22
There are promises, also, that Maryland will accede to the confederation
provided the desired amendments are made,
expressly reserving or securing to the United States a right in common in, and
to all the lands lying to the westward of the frontiers as aforesaid, not granted
to, surveyed for, or purchased by individuals at the commencement of the pres
ent war, in such manner that the said lands be sold out, or otherwise disposed
of for the common benefit of all the states ; and that the money arising from
the sale of those lands, or the quit rents reserved thereon, may be deemed and
taken as part of the moneys belonging to the United States, and as such be ap
propriated by Congress towards defraying the expenses of the war, and the
payment of interest on moneys borrowed or to be borrowed on the credit of the
United States from France or any other European power, or for any other joint
benefit of the United States.
The final paragraph of the declaration pledges Maryland's adherence to
the cause of freedom until independence is firmly established, but shifts
the responsibility for prolongation of the war upon those " who by refusing
to comply with requisitions so just and reasonable have hitherto prevented
the confederation from taking place, and are therefore justly chargeable
with every evil which have flowed and may flow from such procrastina
tion." M
No trace of the instructions appears in the January record of Congress.
This document was not filed with the declaration, but was read in secret
and held in reserve by the Maryland delegation to answer the call for fur
ther powers for ratification, should that be heard. The paper instructs the
delegates respecting the use of the declaration, and directs them as to the
votes they give and the opinions they deliver in Congress respecting confed
eration. " We have spoken with freedom as becomes freemen, and we
sincerely wish that our representations, may make such an impression on
that assembly as to induce them to make such addition to the articles of
confederation as may bring about a permanent union."
22 Article in of the confederation reads as follows:
The said states hereby severally enter in{o a firm league of friendship with each other, for
their common defence, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare;
binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them,
or any of them on account of religion, sovereignty, trade or any other pretence whatever.
23 Printed in full in Hening's Statutes, vol. 10, p. 549.

25
_ Maryland's course of opposition is explained at length, and the obstruc
tion of the confederation is fully justified to the delegates on patriotic
grounds. The private use of the crown lands, which were secured at com
mon expense, is the main point. The instability of the proposed union,
formed on so great an injustice, is argued on the theory that the states
which have acceded to the present confederation contrary to their own in
terests and judgments will consider it no longer binding when the causes
cease to operate, and will eagerly embrace the first occasion of asserting
their just rights and securing their independence. The preparations of
Virginia to sell the lands is cited as to what may be expected.
Suppose Virginia indisputably possessed of the extensive and fertile country
to which she has set up a claim, what would be the consequences to Maryland?
They cannot escape the least discerning. Virginia, by selling on the most mod
erate terms a small portion of the lands in question would draw into her treas
ury vast sums of money, and in proportion to the sums arising from such sales
would be enabled to lessen her taxes. Lands comparatively cheap and taxes
comparatively low with the lands and taxes of an adjacent state, would quickly
drain the state thus disadvantageously circumstauced of its most useful inhabi
tants, its wealth, and its consequence in the scale of confederated states would
sink of course.
The declared intention of Virginia to relinquish at some future period a
portion of the country contended for is criticised " as made to lull suspicion
asleep, and to cover the design of a secret ambition ; or, if the thought
were seriously entertained, the lands are now claimed to reap an immedi
ate profit from the sales." The argument of nationalizing the crown lands
follows, and then the words :
We have coolly and dispassionately considered the subject; we have weighed
probable inconveniences and hardships against the sacrifice of just and essential
rights ; and do instruct you not to agree to the confederation unless an article
or articles be added thereto in conformity with our declaration. Should we suc
ceed in obtaining such article or articles, then you are hereby fully empowered
to accede to the confederation.24
For reasons not disclosed in official records the Virginia resolutions pro
posing a confederacy of part of the states were not presented in Congress;
until the 20th of May. On that day the delegates of Virginia laid before
Congress an attested copy of the two resolutions of the assembly pertain
ing to this subject, which had been in their care since the December pre
vious, and the same were read and entered in the journals. In pursuance
of the powers and instructions therein contained the delegates moved to
carry the resolutions into immediate effect by recommending ratification
on the basis proposed, on a fixed date to be determined in Congress. The
delegates of Virginia then delivered a paper signed by them in the fol
lowing words :
In consequence of the foregoing instructions and powers to us given we do
hereby declare, that we are ready and willing to ratify the confederation with
any one or more states named therein, so that the same shall be forever binding
upon the state of Virginia. Merewether Smith, Richard Henry Lee.
Cyrus Griffin, William Fleming.
No action of Congress is recorded on the Virginia proposition. No dis
cussion took place and, apparently, the motion of the Virginia delegates
was not put to vote. The next day's business began with the delegates of
21 The original ms. Instructions are in the papers of the Continental Congress, No.
70, p. 305. The paper is recorded in the journals of Congress under date of May 21,
1779, and may be found in Hening's Statutes, vol. 10, p. 553.

26
Maryand " informing Congress, that they had received instructions respect
ing the articles of confederation, which they were directed to lay before Con
gress, and to have entered on their journals." The Maryland instructions
were read by the secretary and were spread upon the pages of the journal.
Following this the Connecticut delegation filed the further powers issued
to them authorizing them to ratify the confederation with eleven states,
omitting Maryland, "in the most full and ample manner. Always pro
vided, that the state of Maryland be not thereby excluded from acceding
to said confederation at anytime thereafter."
Confident in the security of her claims from local interference, and no
longer fearing the interposition of Congress, the Virginia assembly now
made haste with the legislation necessary for immediate disposition of the
property to the best advantage of the commonwealth. ' The long deferred
land, office was provided for in a bill enacted soon after the close of the In
diana Company hearing. A second bill " for adjusting and settling the titles
of claimers to unpatented lands under the present and former governments,
previous to the establishment of the commonwealth's land office," was en
acted at the same time to ease the anxiety in the settlements on the fron
tiers. The land office was to open in October, the terms and manner of grant
ing waste and unappropiated lands were fixed, and a register was appointed
to take office immediately. A special order for record books of sales was
made in the assembly so that no time would be lost in the remote counties
of Monongahela, Yohogania, Ohio, and Kentucky, bordering upon the river.
The lands were to be distributed according to the ancient custom to pros
pectors making entry and survey by county surveyors commissioned by the
College of William and Mary, and warrants issued on proof. Officers and
soldiers had the preference, as provided by the several bounty laws, and
actual settlers on uncontested claims were also privileged to purchase the
lands they occupied. All other waste and unappropriated lands on the
eastern or western waters, within the territory of the commonwealth, were
for sale to any person in quantity desired at the rate of forty pounds per
hundred acres. The laws were printed and distributed to the various coun
ties, and extraordinary means were employed to spread abroad quickly the
news of the opening of the land office. On the last day of the summer
session of the Virginia assembly it was
Resolved, That the Governor be desired to transmit by the post one hundred
copies of the act .... to the Virginia delegates in Congress, and desire them
to take the most speedy and effectual measures for dispensing and publishing
the same in the different states.25
These laws were intended to apply, until further orders of the Virginia
assembly, to lands only as far westward as the Ohio River, but it will not
be doubted that it was the plan to extend as soon as practicable to the re
gions across the river. But the time never came for Virginia to sell off
Ohio lands. Disapproval of the land office act arose to prevent it. These
laws made actual trespassers of the speculators and settlers along the river,
most of whom held title from the confederated Indians. As this was an
issue of national magnitude the dispossessed memorialists took an appeal
to Congress and secured the interposition of the United States to restrain
Virginia.28 25 The acts were passed on the 23d of June. They may be found in Hening's Stat
utes, vol. 10, pp. 35-65.
26 George Crogan appeared on the 5th of June before the Virginia House of Dele-

27
The memorials were presented and read in Congress on the 14th of
September. George Morgan, petitioning for the Indiana Company, con
tends " that the tract of country claimed by the Indiana Company was separated by
the King of Great Britain, before independence was declared, from the dominion,
which, in the right of the crown, Virginia claimed over it, and cannot remain
subject to the jurisdiction of Virginia, or any particular state, but of the whole
United States in Congress, assembled."
Morgan prays for an order to stay Virginia in the sale of the. land in
question till the case can be heard in Congress, and " the whole rights of
the owners of the tract of land called Vandalia, of which Indiana is a part,
shall be ascertained in such a manner as may tend to support the sover
eignty of the United States and the just rights of the individual therein."
The same point was raised by William Trent in a second memorial in re
gard to the larger tract called Vandalia, and there were other appeals of
minor importance.27
The delegates of Virginia made instant objection to the consideration of
these Papers in Congress, raising for the first time in American politics an
issue of state rights. The matter of Virginia's protest does not appear in
the records, but from subsequent proceedings in Congress its purport may
be known. The objections were based on the doctrine that Congress had
no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the Morgan memorial since it was
related to the internal affairs of a sovereign state. The question was put
to vote and the reference was ordered. The committee of five delegates
elected by vote of states was directed by order of Congress
to enquire into the foundation of the objection formerly made by the Vir
ginia delegates, upon the reading of the petition and the memorial, to the juris
diction of Congress on the subject matter of the said papers, and first report
the facts relating to that point.28
The committee took quick action on the protest, with results detrimental
to Virginia, declaring
. . . that they have read over and considered the state of facts given in by the
delegates of Virginia, and cannot find any such distinction between the question
of jurisdiction of Congress, and the merits of the cause, as to recommend any
decision upon the first separately from the last.
And in addition to this, they offer a preamble and a resolution reproba
ting the action of the commonwealth in opening a land office.
The delegates were in conflict in Congress for two days over this report.
There was apparently no trouble in the decision on the point of jurisdiction,
for the members seemed to agree with the committee ; but on the wording
of the preamble, and the substance of the resolution, there were several
divisions. Maryland delegates offered a substitute of more drastic criticism
of Virginia's land office programme. On this there was a sharp conflict.29
gates praying to be heard, and on the 9th presented a memorial praying for confirma
tion of title to three tracts of land on the Ohio purchased in 1749 from the Six Nations.
After the decision against the Indiana Company Crogan took his case direct to Con
gress. Many papers relating to Western claims may be found in the Papers of the
Continental Congress, No. 30.
2? The Morgan memorial is spread on the minutes of Congress. The original Trent
memorial is in the papers of the Continental Congress, No. 41, vol. x, p. 79.
29 The vote was six to five. Connecticut for the first time voted with the non-claim
ants, New York was divided, and Georgia was not represented.
29 Mr. Paca of Maryland wished to censure Virginia for opening the land office, be
cause it "has produced much uneasiness, dispute and controversy, and greatly weak-

28
The Maryland form carried at first, but on reconsideration a more rea
sonable resolution was adopted, in these words :
Whereas the appropriation of vacant lands by the several states during the
continuance of the war, will, in the opinion of Congress, be attended with great
mischiefs ; therefore,
Resolved, that it be earnestly recommended to the state of Virginia, to re
consider their late act of assembly for opening their land office ; and that it be
recommended to the said state, and all other states similarly circumstanced, to
forbear settling or issumg warrants for unappropriated lands, or granting the
same during the continuance of the present war.
Report of this action first reached the Virginia assembly in a letter from
the delegates of the commonwealth. The letter and proceedings were read
in the house of delegates on the 13th of November and referred to a
committee of the whole house on the state of the commonwealth. The
committee took up the matter the same day and soon came to resolutions
which were at once reported ; and, all formalities being suspended in view
of the importance of the subject, the resolutions were unanimously agreed
to by both house and senate.
Resolved, nemine contra dicente, That a remonstrance be drawn up to the Hon.
the American Congress, firmly asserting the right of this commonwealth to its
own territory, complaining of their having received petitions from certain per
sons, styling themselves the Indiana and Vandalia companies, upon claims which
not only interfere with the laws and internal policy, but tend to subvert the
government of this commonwealth, and introduce general confusion ; and ex
pressly excepting and protesting against the jurisdiction of Congress therein as
unwarranted by the fundamental principles of the confederation.
Resolved, nemine contra dicente, That the Governor, with the advice of the
council, be empowered and required to use the most effectual means for appre
hending and securing any person or persons within this commonwealth, who
shall attempt to subvert the government thereof, or set up any separate govern
ment within the same, that such person or persons may be brought to trial,
according to due course of law.
A remonstrance to Congress was issued by Virginia in pursuance of this
action, but not in the belligerent tones of the resolutions. The remonstrance
bears date of its adoption in the assembly thirty days after the passage of the
resolutions. It doubtless found its way directly to the congressional com
mittee, which was still at work on the memorials. The remonstrance as
sures Congress that, " Although the general assembly of Virginia would
make great sacrifices to the common interests of America .... and be
ready to listen to any just and reasonable propositions for removing the
ostensible causes of the delay to the complete ratification of the confedera
tion, they .... expressly protest against any jurisdiction or right of adju
dication in Congress, upon  any matter or thing subversive of the internal
policy, civil government, or sovereignty of this or any other of the United
American States." There are other interesting features of the remon
strance not anticipated in the resolutions : a warning against establishing
dangerous precedents in seizing lands of states ; a reminder of the effect of
congressional interposition, upon the pending negotiations for peace, in
which the charters of the states were to be urged as the basis of definition
of the United States boundaries ;80 and a reference to the safety clause in
the ninth article of the confederation by which "the rights of sovereignty

ened these United States by the emigration of their inhabitants to parts remote from
defence against the common enemy." 'But as the land office had been open less than
a month this language was scarcely justifiable.
"¦Of. Note 6, supra.

29
and jurisdiction within her own territory were reserved and secured to Vir
ginia when she acceded to the articles of confederation." There is infor
mation, also, of the offer of the general assembly of bounty lands "out of
their territory on the northwest side of the Oliio river," and Congress is
assured that " the offer when accepted will be most cheerfully made good."
No word appears respecting reconsideration of the land office act, nor of
a suspension of the distribution of the vacant lands ; but in the first para
graph of the document it is announced that " the general assembly have
enacted a law to prevent present settlement on the northwest side of the
Ohio river."
The law to prevent present settlements on the northwest side of the Ohio
River, referred to in the Virginia remonstrance, is easily identified as a
paragraph inserted by the Virginia House as an amendment to a bill rela
ting to the location of warrants on the military reservation, then in its final
passage in the assembly.' The circumstances of this enactment are interest
ing. Information was received in the House on the 8th of November, in
a communication from the Governor, respecting "intrusions on Indian
lands upon the Ohio." From reports31 received the same day in Congress
it is learned that these intruders are
. . some of the inhabitants from Yoghiagania and Ohio counties, Virginia,
who had crossed the Ohio River and made small improvements on the Indian's
lands, from the river Muskingum to Fort Mcintosh, and 30 miles up the branches
of the Ohio River.
The trespassers had been apprehended and their huts destroyed by the
Continentals under Col. Broadhead. In consequence of this news from the
frontiers the assembly made haste to enlarge the scope of the pending bill,
adding the paragraph prohibiting settlements on the northwest side of the
Ohio, and
. . . desiring the Governor to issue a proclamation, requiring all persons settled
on the said land immediately to remove therefrom, and forbidding others to
settle in future, and moreover, with the advice of the council from time to time,
to order such armed force as shall be thought necessary to remove from the
said lands, such person or persons as shall remain on or settle contrary to the
said proclamation.32
New York, moved by this display of national spirit in Congress, made
an immediate surrender of all claims upon the western country. The firm
stand of Congress against Virginia, proudest of the claimants, inspired the
legislature to relinquish the long Standing rights of the state to the Iroquois
lands. New York gave up this great property freely, with no thought of
reservation, and without suggestion of personal indemnity for the expenses
of a century of support of the historic contract with the Six United Na
tions, from whom the state derived title. The New York cession of terri
tory is in the form of " an act to facilitate the completion of the articles of
confederation and perpetual union among the American States," passed by
the legislature on the 19th of February, 1780. The act confers full power
and authority upon their delegates in Congress,
31In,a letter of the 26th of October from Col. Broadhead to the president of Con
gress, on the basis of which Congress ordered a letter enclosing a copy of the letter of
Col. Broadhead sent to the Governor of Virginia, from whose jurisdiction the offenders
came, " requesting his excellency to endeavor to prevent a repetition of the trespass
mentioned in it."
311 This act is printed in He'ning's Statutes, vol. 10, p. 159, but there is no trace of the
¦proclamation.

30
... to limit and restrict the boundaries of the state in the western parts thereof,
either with respect to the jurisdiction or right of pre-emption of soil, or both,
and to relinquish the territory to the north and westward of these boundaries,
" to be and enure for the use and benefit of such of the United States as shall
become members of the federal union."
The New York act of cession was read in Congress on the 7th of March
following its passage, and was referred to a committee of three delegates
chosen by a vote of the states to consider the matter. The New York act
and the unfinished business of the former committee of five, the Maryland
and Virginia papers, and the memorials of the Indian claimants, were re
ported upon six months later, and the famous recommendations of Septem
ber 6, calling upon the claimant states to surrender a portion of their
claims for the general good, is the report of this committee.33
Congress took the report into consideration on that date, and it was
agreed to as reported. This document is often printed in full in accounts
of the land cessions. The committee conceived it to be unnecessary to take
up the matters raised in the papers of Maryland and Virginia. They declared
That it appears more advisable to press upon those states which can remove
the embarrassments respecting the western country, a liberal surrender of a
portion of their territorial claims since they cannot be preserved entire without
endangering the stability of the general confederacy.
It was advised to urge upon the legislatures the indispensable necessity
of establishing the federal union. The example of the New York act was
commended. The states were to be urged to pass the laws for the desired
cessions, and the legislature of Maryland was to be earnestly requested to
authorize its delegates in Congress to subscribe the articles.
Congress took the necessary measures to carry out the provisions of this
resolution. But in order to reassure the states making land cessions, that
the territory entrusted to Congress would be held only for the common use
and benefit of the United States in the manner contended for from the be
ginning of the controversy, a pledge was issued October 10, in this form :
Resolved. That the unappropriated lands that may be ceded or relinquished
to the United States, by any particular state, pursuant to the recommendation
of Congress of the 6th day of September last, shall be disposed of for the
common benefit of the United States-, and be settled and formed into distinct
republican states, which shall become members of the federal union, and have
the same rights of sovereignty, freedom and independence as the other states ;
that each state which shall be so formed shall contain a suitable extent of terri
tory, not less than 100 nor more than 150 miles square, or as near thereto as
circumstances will admit; That the necessary and reasonable expenses which
any particular state shall have incurred since the commencement of the present
war, in subduing any British posts, or in maintaining forts or garrisons within
and for the defence, or in acquiring any part of the territory that may be ceded
or relinquished to the United States, shall be reimbursed.
That the said lands shall be granted or settled at such times and under such
regulations as shall hereafter be agreed on by the United States in Congress
assembled, or any nine or more of them.
Two days after the adoption of this resolution in Congress, October 12,
1780, the Connecticut legislature, without knowledge of the programme
33 The sequence of commitments of these papers is in a tangle on account of omis
sions in the journals of Congress. The original committee of October 8, John Wither-
spoon of New Jersey, chairman, seems to have been superseded by this committee of
three, Messrs. Sherman of Connecticut, Burke of North Carolina, and Holton of
Massachusetts Bay. Later a committee of seven was chosen with John Witherspoon
again as chairman, and the final cessions report of November^ 1781, was made by
another committee of which Elias Boudinot was chairman.

31
therein pledged for territorial disposition, resolved to make a proportionate
cession of the land claims of the state in the western country. The Con
necticut resolutions proposed to surrender a portion of lands westward of
the Susquehanna purchase, in compliance with the earlier recommendation,
reserving full jurisdiction of the lands ceded. This was unsatisfactory as
compared with the unreserved cession authorized by New York, but the
resolution was not officially returned to Congress until the last day of
January, by which time the third state had reported a plan of cession
even more objectionable.84
Virginia's response to the recommendations of Congress is in the form
of a resolution of the general assembly bearing date of January 2, 1781.
The resolution makes no cession of territory, and confers no authority on
the delegates to cede. It is merely a resolve that the commonwealth " will
yield all claims " to a portion of the crown lands, on conditions which Con
gress was compelled to decline, for reasons expressed in the after-report of
the committee, " as inconsistent with the interests of the United States, the
duty Congress owes to their constituents, or the rights necessarily vested in
them as the sovereign power of the United States." By the terms of the
act, the assembly pledges
That this commonwealth will yield to the Congress of the United States, for
the benefit of the said United States, all right, title and claim that the said
commonwealth hath to the lands northwest of the river Ohio, upon the following
conditions, to wit : . . .
The conditions enumerated in the resolutions aside from those expressed
in the resolution of October 1 0, all of which are restated in the Virginia
34 The method of cession proposed by Connecticut was too clumsy to admit of
acceptance. The lands were to be granted direct to settlers by Connecticut for the
benefit of the confederated United States, in specified estates, on survey warrants
issued by Congress to grantees, as agreed to b}r the delegates, or any three of them.
There is an attested copy of the resolution of cession in the Papers of the Continental
Congress, No. 66, vol. 2, pp. 178-9. Following is a copy of the record of the action in
the ms. vol. ii, Records of the State of Connecticut, October, 1780 :
This Assembly taking into their Consideration a Resolution of Congress of the 6th of Septem-
brlast recomending to the several States which have vacant unappropriated Lands lying within
the Limits of their respective Charters and Claims to adopt Measures which may effectually re
move the Obstacle that prevents a Ratification of the Articles of confederation together with
the Papers from the States of New York Maryland & Virginia, which accompanied the same
and being anxious for the accomplishment of an Event most desirable and important to the
Liberty and Independence of this rising Empire, will do every Thing in their power to facilitate
the same, Notwithstanding the Objection which they have to several parts of it. Resolved by
this Assembly, that they will Ceed and relinquish to the United States who shall be confederated
for their Use and benefit their Right or preemption of 8oil in or to so much of the vacant and
unapropriated Lands Claimed by this State contained and comprehended within the extent and
Limits of their Charter and Grant from King Charles the second, and which lies and extends
within the Limits of the same Westward of the Susquehanna Purchase so called and Eastward
of the River Misisipi, as shall be in Just proportion of what shall be Ceded and relinquished
by the other States, Claiming and holding vacant Lands as aforesaid with the Quantity of such
their Claim unappropriated at the Time when the Congress of the United States was first con
vened and held at Philadelphia.
And it is further Resolved that all the Lands to be ceded and relinquished hereby, for the
benefit of the Confederated United States with respect to property, but which shall neverthe
less remain under the Jurisdiction of this State shall be disposed of and appropriated in such
manner only as the Congress of the United states shall direct and that a Warrant under the
Authority of Congress for surveying and laying out any part thereof, shall entitle the Party in
whose favour it shall issue, to cause the same to be laid out and returned according to the
Directions of such Warrant, and thereupon the Interest and Title of This State shall pass and be
confirmed to the Grantee for the Estate specified in the said Warrant for which no other fee or
reward shall be demanded or received than such as shall be allowed by Congress always pro-
vided that said Lands to be granted as aforesaid, be laid out and surveyed in Townehips in regular
form to a suitable number of Settlers in such manner as will best promote the Settlement and
cultivation of the same according to the true spirit and principles of a Republican Slate. And
the Delegates of this State in Congress or any three of them are hereby Impowered & Author
ized in behalf of this State to agree to the Location of such Warrants and surveys as shall be
made by Congress according to and in pursuance of the Resolves aforesaid and whatever may
be further necessary for the same being carried into full Execution.

32
resolutions, include protection for the French and Canadian inhabitants' ot
the Illinois ; reservations of lands for the men of Clark's expedition and,
if needed, for other soldiery of Virginia ; invalidation of all Indian pur
chases or royal grants which are inconsistent with the chartered rights, laws,
and customs of Virginia ; and guaranty by the United States to the com
monwealth of " all the remaining territory of Virginia included between
the Atlantic ocean and the southeast side of the river Ohio, and the Mary
land, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina boundaries." The " cession" was
to be void and of no effect unless all the states in the American Union
should ratify the articles of confederation, and it was expected in return
" that every other state in the Union, under similar circumstances as to va
cant territory, will make similar cessions of the same to the United
States for the general emolument."
The three cessions of New York, Connecticut, and Virginia, covering
practically the same lands and being so fundamentally different, required
careful consideration, and Congress ordered a committee of seven to be
elected to take them in charge.86 The whole business of land concessions
was relegated to this committee, where it remained until the thorough, com
prehensive, and exhaustive report, which was submitted to Congress on the
3d of November, 1781, was finally disposed of in Congress eighteen months
later. But while the theory and principle upon which the cessions were
to stand remained officially in this prolonged state of abeyance, there was
no uncertainty as to the status of the Northwest Territory. Sovereign con
trol of the crown lands of King George was forever secure in the United
States, and it remained only for the subscriptions to the definitive Treaty
at Paris to make it absolute.
Maryland was now ready to enter the confederation. The cessions were
made in part only, and in form wholly unsatisfactory, but with no ces
sions Maryland would have closed the circle of the confederacy at this junc
ture. The ultimate surrender of the so-called claims of individual states-
was inevitable ; the manner and form of surrender was immaterial. It was.
merely a matter of courtesy, from this time on, for Congress to negotiate
with particular legislatures for terms of cessions. The natural wnity of
interests resulting from the near approach of peace, and the certitude of
a liberal allowance from the British Commissioners for peace in the boun
dary settlements, would have given Congress the power of assertion of con
trol over the claimed lands if that had been necessary.86 Other consider
ations impelled the state at this time — considerations of sentimental or pa
triotic nature — and, disregarding the cessions, the Maryland assembly or
dered the name of the state to be subscribed within the thirteenth space on
35 This commitment took place January 31, 1781. The journals of Congress for that
day read :
A letter of the 18th, from Governor Trumbull, was read, enclosing in a resolution of the
general assembly of that State, passed in October last, respecting the cession and relinquish
ment of the western territory to the United States,
Ordered, That the resolution of October, together with the acts and resolutions of the State
of New York and the Commonwealth of Virginia,on the same subject, be reterred to a com
mittee of seven; the members, Mr. [John] Witherspoon [New Jersey}, Mr. [James} Duane
(New York}, Mr. [Jesse! Root [Connecticut}, Mr. [Samuel] Adams [Massachu-eti!-}, Mr. | John}
Sullivan [New Hampshire}, Mr. ^Thomas} Burke [North Carolina}, Mr. [George] Walton
[Georgia]. The three papeTS named and the memorials from the earlier committee were all re
committed in July to a new committee of five, of which Elias Boudinot of New Jersey
was chairman.
36 Congress had already made assertion of supremacy in a number of cases. In
addition to the interposition in the Virginia land ofiice matter, there is the example;

33
the scroll of the Act of Confederation. It remained ©nly for Maryland to
await with complaisance for the assured congressional control of the Nation
al domain.
The act of the Maryland assembly authorizing the ratification of the
articles of confederation is in the form of a preamble and a declaration,
agreed to on the 2d of February, 1781. The paper was reported to Con
gress and spread upon the minutes under date of February 12. The pre
amble tells its own story of the apprehensions which had led Maryland to
the act :
Whereas it hath been said that the common enemy is encouraged by this state
not acceding to the confederation, to hope that the union of the sister states
may be dissolved ; and therefore prosecutes the war in expectation of an event
so disgraceful to America; and our friends and illustrious ally are impressed
with an idea that the common cause would be promoted by our formally acceding
to the confederation ; this general assembly conscious that this state hath, from
the commencement of the war, strenuously exerted herself in the common
cause, and fully satisfied that if no formal confederation was to take place, it is
the fixed determination of this state to continue her exertions to the utmost,
agreeably to the faith pledged to the Union ; from an earnest desire to conciliate
the affection of the sister states ; to convince all the world of our unutterable
resolution to support the independence of the United States, and to destroy
forever any apprehensions of our friends, or hope in our enemies, of this state
being again united to Great Britain.
And in order to guard the points of long contention the conditions of ratifi
cation are thus positively expressed :
And it is hereby declared, that, by acceding to the said confederation, this state
doth not relinquish, nor intend to relinquish, any right or interest she hath, with
the other united or confederated states to the back country ; and claim the same
as fully as was done by the legislature of this state, in their declaration, which
stands entered on the journals of Congress; this state relying on the justice of
the several states hereafter, as to the said claim made by this state. And it is
further declared, that no article in the said confederation, can or ought to bind
this or any other state, to guarantee any exclusive claim of any particular state,
to the soil of the said back lauds, or any such claim of jurisdiction over the said
lands or the inhabitants thereof.
On this firm foundation Maryland would have placed the final ratification
of the confederation. Had it remained on that basis no more would have
been required to place Congress in absolute control of all vacant lands and in
determinate boundaries of every state. The back line of Virginia would then
have fallen at the water ridge of the Alleghanies, and the states of Ken
tucky and West Virginia would have had an independent organization and
a more general settlement. But a conditional ratification was an impossi
bility without amendments that would require ratification and subscription
of thirteen states. The articles must stand as ratified in Congress ; they
could not be affected by the conditional action of any state legislature.
Maryland's signature was yet to be placed on the form of ratification, and
a day was set and a programme arranged for the ceremony — March 1,
of the Pennsylvania-Virginia boundary disputes, wherein, on December 27, 1779, Con
gress resolved :
That it be recommended to the contending parties not to grant any part of the disputed land,
or to disturb the possession of any persons living therein, and to avoid every appearance of iorce
until the dispute can be amicably settled by both States, or brought to a juot decision by the
intervention of Congr ess ; that possessions forcibly taken be restored to the original possessors,
and things placed in the situation in which they were at the commencement of the present War,
without prejudice to the claims of either party.

34
1781, at twelve o'clock, in Congress, when the final ratification of the con
federation of the United States of America was to be announced to the
public. This ceremony was carried out as arranged, and the completed
articles of confederation were entered on the minutes of Congress with
the signatures transcribed. But before the act of confederation could be
completed by such a ceremony it was necessary to perfect the record as to
the action of New York. The act of cession of the legislature of that
state was accordingly spread upon the minutes. The New York delegation
then executed in Congress a declaration, which was likewise entered on the
journals. By this instrument the delegates declare that, being uninstructed
on the subject of the Virginia guarantee by their constitutents, the cession
of land and the restriction of boundary of the state of New York which
they are about to make on behalf of the state, " shall not be absolute, but,
on the contrary, shall be subject to ratification and disavowal by the people
of the state," unless the reserved territorial rights of New York shall be
guaranteed for her future jurisdiction by the United States in the same
manner as stipulated by Virginia as a condition of the cession. Following
this in the minutes comes the deed of restriction and absolute cession trans
cribed as executed in due form with legal seals and signatures all com
plete. The New York northern and western boundaries are given as they
now exist, and the delegates :
.... cede, transfer, and forever relinquish to, and for the only use and benefit
of such of the states as are or shall become parties to the articles of confeder
ation, all the right, title, interest, jurisdiction and claim, of the state of New
York, to all the lands and territories to the northward and westward of the
boundaries .... to be granted and disposed of, and appropriated in such man
ner only, as the congress of the said United or Confederated States shall order
or direct.37
The interest now passes to the struggle of Virginia with the committee
of Congress to whom was re-committed the acts of cession and the unfin
ished business of the Trent and Morgan memorials. The Virginia delega
tion resisted a notice to appear before the committee and confer with the
memorialists on the subject of their memorials, conceiving that " it dero
gates from the sovereignty of a state to be drawn into a contest by an indi
vidual or individuals." They inquire if Congress " intended to authorize
this committee to receive claims and hear evidence in behalf of the Indiana
and Vandalia Companies adverse to the claims or cessions of the states,"
and requested the committee to forbear the conference until Congress could
advise. They appealed to Congress a second time for a ruling " on the
authority of the committee to admit council or to hear documents, proofs,
or evidence not among the records, nor on the files of Congress, which have
not been specifically referred to them." Congress supported the committee
on these rulings, and Virginia from this time on found herself deserted by
her former friends in the north. Finally, in the last call of the committee
for proofs, the delegates on the part of Virginia stood on their state's
rights, " declining to make any elucidation of the claim, either to the lands
ceded, or to the lands requested to be guaranteed to the state by Congress."
The committee delayed no longer, and made final report to Congress on
the 3d of November, 1781, on all matters recommitted to them.
The report of the committee of five appears in full in the journals of
37 The New York deed of cession, one of twelve parchments transferred from the
XJ. S. Department of State, is in the Division of Manuscripts, Library of Congress.

35
the Continental Congress for the first of May, 1782, when, after several
postponements, it was on the order of the day for final discussion. It is
an exhaustive report, covering all points under dispute of the right and ti
tle of the public domain, laying foundations for the land policy of the
United States for all time to come. The report deals primarily with the
cessions, but it does not bring the settlement of this vexatious matter. Many
years must pass before all that was necessary was said and done in Con
gress on this subject. But while it seems to fail in securing concessions
from the states in the form desired, it removed the subject from contro
versy, advanced the sovereignty of the United States, and fixed a modus
operandi in territorial disposition and Indian control.
The report takes up the several cessions and claims on the basis of
vouchers examined,88 and information obtained as to the status of the
lands mentioned in each ; and gives the results of . the findings in the form
of recommendations, with reasons itemized. The findings are entirely ad
verse to Virginia on all points in controversy, and, according to the recom
mendations of the report the act of cession of the state of New York is to
be- accepted as based on claims of jurisdiction authentically derived from
the Six United Nations of Indians. The claims of Massachusetts and
Connecticut are disregarded entirely in the report, and these states are
earnestly recommended " that they do without delay release all claims and
pretensions of claim to the western country, without any conditions or re
strictions whatever." As to Virginia, it is resolved that " Congress cannot
accept of the cession proposed to be made, or guarantee the tract of country
claimed by Virginia," for the reason that the lands are within the claims
of other states and outside the bounds of the late colony of Virginia as it
stood at the beginning of the war. It is proposed as a resolution,
That it be earnestly recommended to the state of Virginia, as they value the
peace, welfare and increase of the United States, that they reconsider their said
act of cession, and by a proper act for that purpose, cede to the United States
all claims and pretensions of claim to the lands and country beyond a reason
able western boundary, consistent with their former acts while a colony under
the power of Great Britain, and agreeable to their just rights of soil and juris
diction at the commencement of the present war, and that free from any condi
tions and restrictions whatever.
Certain of the claims of the memorialists are sustained by the committee
and confirmation of their purchases recommended, while others are con
demned. The outline of a national Indian policy will be referred to
later, as also the pledge of suitable method of opening up the territory for
settlement by a new system of quadrilateral surveying based perhaps on the
suggestion contained in the Connecticut resolution of cession, adopted at
Hartford on the 12th of October, 1780,
Always provided that the said lands to be granted be laid out and surveyed in
Townships in regular form to a suitable number of settlers, in such manner as
will best promote the settlement and cultivation of the same according to the
true spirit and principles of a republican state.
88 The original ms. report of this commission is in the'Papers of the Continental
Congress, No. 30, pp. 15-27. There are, apparently, none of the vouchers referred to
as submitted by the states in elucidation of their claims among the papers, nor can
there be found " the written paper hereto annexed and numbered twenty " which the
report states was delivered by the Virginia delegates on their final refusal to sub
mit proof.

36
The settlement offered by the report on cessions and claims afforded the
means to Congress, as the natural possessor of all the crown lands within
the confines of the United States, to dispose of the same according to the
pledges of the resolution of October 10, 1780. Provisions needful for such
a course were contained in the report, and no determined opposition remain
ed in Congress, save only the Virginians. In addition to the references to
cessions and claims the report advises indemnification for the expenses of the
Clark campaigns, recommends a policy of paternal handling of the Indians,
and outlines a plan of extension of the settlements and expansion of gov
ernment over the western territory. All that remained to be done, had
this report endured, was for Congress, as the executive head of the United
States in the exercise of right descending logically from the British crown,
to proceed as convenient to carry out its provisions, to settle matters with
the Indian tribes, and to dispose of all the lands from the greater moun
tains of the Alleghanies to Louisiana, and from Florida to Quebec, for the
joint use and benefit of the United States. But Congress deliberately gave
up this great advantage. The report was laid aside. No action was taken
on it as a whole, and no separate part of it was ever submitted to vote.
The end of the war approaching brought other mighty problems : the shift
ing of Congress from a martial to a civil base, and the " forming arrange
ments for the United States in time of peace." Examination of tie
minutes of Congress of this period seems to show that much of this busi
ness moved along on the theory that the land controversy was finally set
tled by this report.
But the Virginia delegation had never relaxed opposition to that portion
of the report pertaining to their own cause. They demanded a rule re
quiring pledge of personal disinterest in the claims from each delegate
voting, they moved for postponement whenever opportunity arose, and they
constantly pressed the acceptance of the Virginia cession as a ready rem
edy for all the financial woes which developed in the stress of debate. For
more than a year the fight kept up, and in the end the Virginians won.
They secured the recommitment of that portion of the report and a final
reconsideration of the question of accepting the conditional cession of the
commonwealth. The New Jersey delegates filed a protest of the legisla
ture against re-opening the question, and the Maryland delegation proposed
a declaration39 for the immediate disposition of the lands. Congress disre
garded these apparently just complaints and, choosing to hold a portion
only of the disputed territory, and that on a federal and not a national basis,
voted on the 13th of September, 1783, to accept the Virginia cession, with
all conditions approved, except the guaranty of reserved lands40 and the
invalidation of the Indian titles called for in the Virginia resolution of
cession. The action in Congress on the Virginia cession took the form of agree
ment to a report reviewing the eight conditions formerly named, and sub
stantially restating them all except the guaranty and invalidation clauses,
39 The New Jersey protest is entered on the minutes of Congress under date of June
20, 1783, and the Maryland declaration September 13, 1783. Later, March 1, 1784,
George Morgan, the memorialist of 1779, re-appeared, demanding a hearing on his
grievance " that the Commonwealth of Virginia still continued to claim the lands of
the Indiana Company."
40 The reason offered for this decision as to the guaranty is thus expressed :
Congress cannot atfree to guarantee to the commonwealth of Virginia the land described in
the said condition without entering into a discussion of the territorial rights of indivdual
states, and only to recommend and accept a cession of their claims, whatsoever they might be,
to vacant territory.

37
as -conditions upon which the cession should be made, and recommending
that " if the legislature of Virginia make a cession conformable to this re
port, Congress accept such cession." Quick response followed this pro
posal. The Virginia general assembly, October 20, 1783, "authorized
their delegates to convey to the United States in Congress assembled, all
the right of that commonwealth, to the territory north-westward of the
river Ohio." And the delegates did so, on the 1st day of March follow
ing, by a proper deed of conveyance drawn on parchment in due form. 41
Meanwhile preparations to enter and occupy the hostile region across the
Ohio were in active progress in Congress, and little attention was spared
for further details of the cessions. Acts of cession followed in time from
all the claimant states, but not without renewed pressure42 on the legisla
tures and considerable anxiety as to the form of the cessions. But the
extent and conditions of the various cessions are well known matters of
history, and the dates and circumstances of each act are easy matters of
reference. Weightier business was now pressing for attention in Con
gress. Enough had been done already respecting the title to justify imme
diate perfection of the programme of expansion of the government upon
that part of the crown lands which had been relinquished to the United
States by the cessions of New York and Virginia.
At the first signs of the coming of peace with Great Britain, Congress
turned to consider the Indian preliminary to the formal occupation of his
hunting grounds. The Indian policy outlined in the report on cessions
and claims was ready at hand. This was merely a brief expression of the
relations long subsisting in the colonies, and now recommended as a means
of more clearly defining and establishing the jurisdiction of Congress
regarding Indian affairs. It declares
That the sole right of superintending, protecting, treating with, and making
purchases of the Indian nations outside the state lines, is necessarily vested in
Congress for the benefit of the United States, that no person in- separate capa
city can, or ought to purchase any unappropriated lands belonging to the Indi
ans, and that Congress has no claim in point of property of soil to lands belong
ing to the Indians unless the same has been bona fide purchased of them, or shall
be purchased by Congress, and that at a public treaty to be held for that pur
pose.
But before such a policy could be applied to the extensive regions beyond
the western frontiers matters had to be settled with the hostile nations,
who, abandoned by their late allies, were left stranded on the conquered
territory.43 " Letters from the Commander in Chief, and from the Generals" were
read in Congress, while the measures for cessation of hostilities were being
drawn, "informing of the sentiments of the Indians" in camp and on the
41 The deed of Virginia is among the cession papers previously referred to in the
Library of Congress, Division of Manuscripts; also the deeds of cession of Massa
chusetts, executed April 19, 1785, Connecticut, September 13, 1786, South Carolina,
August 9, 1787, Connecticut, December 21, 1793, Connecticut, May 30, 1800, and
Georgia, April 24, 1802. In some eases a certified copy of the legislative act of cession
accompanies the deed.
42 Resolutions of Congress agreed to April 18, 1783, and April 26, 1781.
43 The Indians complained that they had not been consulted in the negotiations for
peace and declared they were not represented in the convention at Paris which had
signed away " their Island." They professed that belts had been exchanged with the
Red-coats on an agreement " never to surrender their lands to the Americans," and
they pointed to the proclamation of 1763 as a guarantee of their hunting grounds. Cf.
Indian papers in the Papers of the Continential Congress.

38
British side. Agents were despatched at once to the northern and western
frontiers to gather more news from the British posts. As soon as peace
was announced a resolution was agreed to in Congress ordering
That the Secretary at War take the most effectual measures to inform the sev
eral Indian nations, on the frontiers- of the United States, that preliminary arti
cles of peace have been agreed on, and hostilities have ceased with Great Brit
ain, and to communicate to them that the forts within the United States, and in
possession of the British troops, will speedily be evacuated ; intimating also
that the United States are disposed to enter into friendly treaty with the differ
ent tribes ; and to inform the hostile Indian nations that unless they immedi
ately cease all hostilities against the citizens of these states, and accept of these
friendly proffers of peace, Congress will take the most decided measures to
compel them thereto.
A committee, of which James Duane of New York was chairman, was ap
pointed to take the Indian situation into consideration and report thereon.
Meantime, to save the territory from invasion of settlers and to shield the
Indian from molestation until negotiations were concluded, an ordinance
was passed, September 22, and a proclamation issued prohibiting the settle
ment and purchase of lands inhabited or claimed by the Indians. The
Duane report was ready the following month. It reviews the sentiments
of the Indians and considers the situation from their standpoint, refers to
their resentment against their late allies, and the natural advantage to the
Americans which might be made of this feeling as a protection on the
Canadian frontiers. It estimates the effect of continuing hostilities with
the Indians " until all are driven into the protection of the British posts,"
and recommends a peaceable settlement by friendly negotiations with all
nations of Indians on the basis of a waiver by Congress of the rights of
conquest of the Indian lands and " atonement made by the Indians of the
enormities which they have perpetrated and a reasonable compensation for
the expenses which the United States have incurred by their wanton bar
barities." It was proposed to ascertain and fix lines of property for the
Indians, by purchase if necessary, in which care ought to be taken neither
to yield nor require too much ; to accommodate the Indians as far as the
public will admit and to give some compensation for claims rather than to
hazard a war which will be much more expensive. Conventions for this
purpose were suggested to be held at various posts, and an ordinance to re
gulate trade, with many items particularizing how trade should be carried
on. The report further declares
That nothing can avert the complicated and impending mischiefs, or secure to
the United States the just and important advantages which they ought to derive
from those territories, but the speedy establishment of government and the
regular administration of justice in such district thereof as shall be judged
most convenient for immediate settlement and cultivation.
As may well be supposed, this enlightened report met with general ac
ceptance in Congress. Difference of opinion developed on one point only.
A resolution proposing a committee to report on the expediency of laying
out a suitable district within the territory, and erecting it into a distinct
government, etc., for settlement, gave way, after some debate, to a substi
tute offered by Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, recommending prompt
action in thus extending the government over the territory in advance of
settlement without intervention of a committee to investigate its expediency.

39
The main body of the report was agreed to, and the committee was con
tinued to frame an ordinance to regulate the Indian trade, and to draw
up details of instruction for the treaty conventions.44 As soon as the Vir
ginia cession was concluded, these measures, with some alterations, were
put into operation. Five Commissioners were elected March 4, 1784,
to negotiate with the Indians in the northern and western departments, who
have taken up arms against the United States, for the purpose of receiving them
into the favor and protection of the United States, and of establishing boundary
lines of property for separating and dividing the settlements of the citizens
from the Indian villages, and hunting grounds, and thereby extinguishing as
far as possible all occasion for future animosities, disquiet and contention.
It was resolved that the negotiations should commence as soon as possible,
and the commissioners were "desired to meet in New York, April 10, and
fix upon times and places for holding the treaties with the different nations
and tribes of Indians." All prior appointments were revoked, and a fortn
of commission was ordered to be prepared and laid before Congress by the
secretary, making any three of the commissioners competent to the business
of their commission. Thus began the series of purchase treaties, starting
at Fort Stanwix, whereby the United States fixed forever the legal status
of the American Indian, set him up on reservations, under precarious con
ditions of intercourse with his neighbors, citizens of the republic.46
Preparations for extending the settlements upon the new land were de
veloping in Congress while the Indian matter was still under consideration.
The recommendations of the Gerry resolution on this subject were expanded
into a plan for a temporary government to apply to as much of the western
territory as the cessions and Indian purchases would admit. This was in
accordance with the pledge of October 10, 1780, and in conformity with
the report on cessions and claims filed November 3, 1781, which provided
for the erection " of a new state or states not exceeding 150 miles square,
to be taken into the federal union, and the same to be laid out into town
ships of the quantity of about six miles square." All reasonable engage
ments for lands to the military were to be made good, and bona fide settlers
were to be " confirmed in their title to their reasonable settlements, on the
same terms as new settlements." This plan was taken up in Congress
immediately after the Virginia cession, and recommitted for further con
sideration. A plan was reported by the committee April 19, 17X4, and
passed after four days debate and considerable amendment, providing for
division of the territory into two distinct states by parallels of latitude and
44 The Duane report, somewhat curtailed in form, is in the minutes of Congress
under date of passage, October 15, 1783. The original complete drafts may be found in
the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 30. The Gerry substitute resolution
reads :
Resolved, That it will be wise and necessary, as soon as circumstances shall permit, to erect a
district of the western territory into a distinct government, as well for doing justice to the
Army of the United States, who are entitled to lands as a bounty, or in reward of their services,
as tor the accommodation of such as may incline to become purchasers and inhabitants; and
in the interim, that a committee be appointed to report a plan, consistent with the principles
of the confederation, for connecting with the Union by a temporary government, the purchasers
andinhabitants of the said district, until their number and circumstances shall entitle them to
form a permanent constitution for themselves, and as citizens of a free, sovereign and inde
pendent state, to be admitted to a representation in the Union ; provided always, that such con
stitution shall not be incompatible with the republican principles, which are the basis of the
constitution of the respective states of the Union.
45 The commissioners first to serve were George Rogers Clark, Oliver Wolcott, and
Richard Butler; Arthur Lee, elected April 24, 1784; and Samuel Holden Parsons,
elected September 21, 1785. The original commission issued to General Parsons is in
the manuscript collections of the Western Reserve Historical Society.

40
meridians of longitude. A number of forms of this ordinance, found among
the papers of Congress, are of curious interest. No attempt was made to
put the plan into practice. In fact, all these first efforts at providing a
government for a fanciful state in the midst of an unbroken forest were
abandoned as premature. The Indian treaties were not yet settled, and
the actual purchase of soil had not been made. So all plans were dropped
for another year, and when they appeared again the subject matter of the
plan was divided, and there were two separate ordinances — one the land
ordinance of 1785, and the other the famous Ordinance of 1787.
The land ordinance of May 20, 1785, made its preliminary appearance
in Congress early in March and passed through several commitments until
reported April 14 by a grand committee in a form "for ascertaining the
mode of disposing of lands in the western territory." Thereafter the ordi
nance was the subject of continuous attention until its final passage in
amended condition.46 This is the act which the states had long desired, to
open the coveted lands of the Ohio. It defines a mode of subdividing
the territory into small parcels for quick sale, and names for the first offer
a most desirable section. The price is low per acre, to insure a ready
market, and the terms easy, to fit the infirmities of the times. The act thus
made favorable was passed to meet a public exigency, and its application
was hastened to satisfy a suppositive demand, which never existed, and to
supply a quick revenue, which never came. The subdivision of the soil
into small areas was made in the wilderness in heroic manner, as ordered,
and the lands were offered at public vendue to save time and trouble for pur
chasers, but the sales were so few, and the returns in funds so inconsiderable,
that the event itself is nearly forgotten and its traces in the records are
almost entirely lost.
The land ordinance of 1785 inaugurated a system of surveying which
was afterward perfected by practice and experience into that now in use in
almost every civilized country on earth. It replaced the customary method
of the ages, of locating by metes and bounds. The returns of homestead
settlement by description referring to familiar objects of the landscape —
so much frontage on a river or lake, including so many acres, by lines
running to a tree or mountain as near as may be — would not apply in an
unknown wilderness. An exact rule was needed of locating accurately,
determinable by rod and chain, projected from an astronomical point
whereby " the homesteader could locate his hut by the stars of heaven, no
longer dependent on the whim or caprice of the overlord." The parcels
were to be " squares " formed by parallels and meridians, the lines run by
the compass and marked by chops on the trees as numbered towns and
ranges, the whole presentable in a checkered plat, from which the pur
chaser might select his site. The first suggestion of the original ordinance
made these squares "hundreds," ten miles on a side, with one hundred
interior squares or lots of 640 acres each. The draft of April 26 reduces
the township to seven miles, with forty-nine interior lots, and the final
ordinance makes a further reduction to thirty-six lots, as now in use.47
48 The ordinance is entered on the minutes of Congress under date of April 26, and
again with the alterations on the date of its passage, May 20, 1785.
47 This remarkable device of surveying, now known as the rectangular system, and
called " one of America's greatest inventions " ( W. R. H. S. Tract No. 61, p. 282), has
not been traced to its origin. If the thread is ever picked up it will doubtless be found
running through the New England village of geometrically exact form. It has been
said that Jefferson devised the scheme, but this would not explain the Connecticut
suggestion of October 12, 1780, nor the recommendation in the report of November 3,

41
Immediate attention to the enforcement of the land ordinance follows its
enactment. On the seventh day after passage, May 27, 1785, " The Geo
grapher of the United States ( Captain Thomas Hutchins ) was continued
in his office for a term of three years, at an allowance of six dollars a day
for his services and expenses," and, according to order, Congress proceeded
on the same day to the election of a surveyor for each state.48 This action
was taken in the reasonable expectation that the Indian programme set
tled upon would be carried out by the commissioners elected, the object
being to obtain from the northern and western nations and tribes consent
in writing to the extinguishment of their rights to the federal lands intend
ed for settlement, and substantial engagements for the establishment of
permanent relations of peace and friendship between the Indian and the
settler.49 The treaty at Fort Stanwix, October 27, 1784, settled matters
on this basis with the northern Indians, and by a similar treaty at Fort
Mcintosh, January 21, 1785, the commissioners gained the consent of the
western tribes 50 to the survey and settlement of the lands as far west
ward as the division line drawn between the portages of the Cuyahoga
and the Great Miami rivers. These two great conventions, conducted
with much show of dignity and considerable display of military protection,
with great consumption of stores and exchanges of cash for wampum,
1781. Most likely it arose naturally from many sources to meet a general want. A
curious pamphlet of the 18th century seems to bear out this idea :
"Britania Major, the New Scheme, or Essay, for discharging the debts, improving the lands,
and enlarging the trade, of the British Dominions in Europe and America," London, 1732.
The unknown author of this most remarkable book, in elaborating a plan for the ex
change of the " useless and unimproved lands of the British Isles and Northern Amer
ica" with the creditors of the Nation, in the form of manors of 3000 plantation acres
each to the nobility suitably graded, proposes, " a new division of each Province to be
made into Comities of about 33 Square Miles, the County Town tn be near the Centre,
and each County to be divided into a proper number of Hundreds and Parishes, All
the lands aforesaid to be measured out in Squares, and divided into Parishes as conve
nience of Habitation shall require." ( p. 31.)
48 Under the ordinance Congress elected surveyors on the 27th of May and subse
quently, and their names were proposed by delegates from the several states as follows :
Massachusetts: Rufus Putnam, excused, no service; Benjamin Tupper, elected July
18, " with authority to perform the duties of that office until Mr. Putnam shall actually
join the Geographer and take the same upon himself," served 1785, 1786, 1787. New
York: William [W.] Morris, served 1785, 1786. Virginia: Alexander Parker, served
1785, 1786. Maryland: James Simpson, served 1785, 1786, 1787. New Hampshire:
Nathaniel Adams, declined; Ebenezer Sullivan, August 15, declined ; Edward Dowse,
August 24, served 1785, resigned; Winthrop Sargent, June 27, 1786, served, 1786.
Rhode Island : Caleb Harris, declined ; Ebenezer Sproat, May 22, 1786, served 1786,
1787. Pennsylvania: Adam Hoops served 1785. North Carolina: Absalom Tatum,
no service. South Carolina : William Tate, no service. Georgia : Robert Johnson,
June 20, served 1785, 1786. New Jersey: Absalom Martin, June 20, served 1785, 1786,
1787. Connecticut : Isaac Sherman, June 27, served 1785, 1786, 1787. Delaware : Mark
McCall, July 15, no service.
49 Albert Gallatin thus states the situation of the treaty nations :
Those tribes are in some respects considered as independent communities. They govern
themselves without being subject to the laws of the United States; and their right to remain in
possession of the lands they occupy, and to sell them only when 'they please is recognized. On
the other hand the United States have the exclusive right of pre-emption, and all salesto
foreign nations or to individuals, whether citizens or foreigners, are null by law; a provision
as necessary for the protection of the Indians, as for that of the public domain. The principle
is generally acknowledged by themselves and recognized in several of their treaties. Nor can
it be disputed that even if their own right to sell is entire, the United States have that to for
bid any one to purchase. The sales to the United States are however altogether voluntary and
never made without a compensation more valuable to the Indians than the use of the land
which they cede. ( Introduction to Laws, Treatips and other Documents having operation and
respect to the public Lands, collected and arranged pursuant to an act of Congress, passed
April 27, 1810, Washington City. Printed by Joseph Gales, Jun., p. xiv.)
so The Wyandot, Delaware, Chippewa, and Ottawa tribes. The full text of these
two treaties is recorded in the minutes of Congress for June 3, 1785.

42
were deemed sufficient to insure pacific conditions for the land surveys.
But, "in order to give greater security to the frontier settlements, and
establish a boundary line between the United States and the Potawatoma,
Twightwees, Plankishaw and other western nations," Congress ordered
a treaty, March 1 7, to be held with these Indians " at post Vincent on the
"Wabash river, on the 20th day of June or at such time or place as the
commissioners may find most convenient." Even with these treaties
there would still remain some uncertainty as to how the Shawnees
would regard the transfer of their lands made at Fort Stanwix and Fort
Mcintosh, and a special treaty with these tribes was ordered by Congress,
June 29, " to be held on the western bank of the Ohio, at the rapids, or at
the mouth of the Great Miami," and arrangements were made for the com
missioners and military to attend.51
Trusting that these accommodations would clear the frontiers of danger
for the execution of the land ordinance, Captain Hutchins rendezvoused his
men at Pittsburgh, the nearest point of approach to the scene of the sur
veys, where he arrived September 3, 1785. Accounts current there res
pecting the Indians were so very vague, uncertain, and unfavorable, that he
took counsel with the commandant at Fort Mcintosh, who was of the
opinion " that he might very safely repair with the surveyors to the inter
section of the west line of Pennsylvania with the Ohio," where he was to
begin the survey. Here, also, he met and counselled with General Butler en
route to the Shawnee meeting, and despatched a courier to the Indian
towns " requesting a chief from each of the Delaware and Wyandott na*
tions for the purpose of constantly attending the surveyors during their
being employed in the western territory ; " and having written to the Presi
dent of Congress of his intentions, Capt. Hutchins took the current of the
Ohio, on September 22, for the place fixed by the land ordinance as the
starting point of the survey.62
Arriving at Little Beaver Creek the geographer-general made camp at
the " point on the River Ohio found to be due north from the western ter
mination of a line, which has been run as the southern boundary of the
state of Pennsylvania," there to await the return of his messengers and the
arrival of the chiefs for his escort. During the intermediate time he took
account of his equipment for the survey, " ascertained the variation of the
different compasses belonging to the surveyors, and also the difference in
the lengths of their Gunther's chains."63 He endeavored also " to find out
the true variation of the needle and the latitude of the point of beginning
the east and west line, and from a mean of a great number of observations
61 Gen. Samuel H. Parsons joined General Clark and General Butler as commis
sioners for this treaty.
62 As the letter despatched from Pittsburg to Congress was the first he had written
since receiving the copies of the ordinance which he was to put into operation, the
Geographer took the occasion to observe :
By the Ordinance of Congress I am Commanded to lay off each Township Six Miles Square,
by Lines running due Nort.lt & South, and others crossing these at right angles as near as may
be; Permit me to observe that as we approach the Pole the Meridians have a gradual inclination
towards each other until they terminate in n point, therefore Six Miles square cannot be com*
prehended within the Meridians, and it will be impossible for each Township to contain 23,040
Acres as intended by Congress without adding in Latitude what may be wanting in Longi
tude. — I pray to be honored with Instructions on this Matter as soon as Congress shall think
proper should they deem it necessary to give directions at all, in the meantime I will proceed
as directed in the Ordinance.
63 No special instruments were provided by the United States for the public surveys
until they were called for in 1804 by Surveyor-General Jared Mansfield to correct the
error made by the Connecticut surveyors in running the south line of the Western
Reserve.

43
both on the sun and north star made the latitude 40° : 38 ': 02" north, and
the variation of the compass 54' east." Disquieting rumors of the Indians
came to him from the neighborhood, but so great was his anxiety to carry
the ordinance into execution that, on the 30th of September, he com
menced running the first east and west line, notwithstanding disagreeable
reports heard of " many prisoners and scalps taken into the Shawanoese
towns by Indians unknown, and of a man and a part of his family killed
and scalped a few miles below his encampment."
Captain Hutchins advanced less than four miles on the east and west
line, purposely holding back in fear of the hovering Indians, and in anxi
ety for the return of the messenger with the protecting escort of chiefs.
He remained on the line until October 9, when, news of the threatening
Indians brought in by one of the surveyors caused him to suspend opera
tions and remove the camp to the southern side of the river.64 There on
the 15th of October he received the returning messenger laden with most
unfriendly intelligence from the Indian towns. So far from meeting him
at the appointed place, there were orders from the tribes who, at the Fort
Mcintosh convention, had " consented to the cessions and promised coopera
tion," for " Captain Hutchins and Brothers who sit at the thirteen fires . . .
to desist from prosecuting the surveying business until the treaty to be
held at the big Miami river." M
Thus ended the first attempt of the United States to survey the federal
lands. The geographer removed his outfit to Pittsburgh, ana later depart
ed for New York. In a letter dated November 25 he communicated
these facts to the President of Congress, enclosing all papers respecting
Indian matters gathered while on the frontiers.
A few weeks after his return to New York, Captain Hutchins transmit
ted to Congress
a plan and Remarks of that part of the Western Territory through which an
East and West Line has been run, agreeable to an ordinance of Congress of the
20th of May last. The plan was copied from the original by Mr. William Mor
ris Surveyor appointed by Congress from the State of New York. The justice
I owe that Gentlemans merit and abilities, as well as for the active part which
he took in forwarding of and assisting in the astronomical business of the
Geographic Department when in the Western Territory, will I hope be admitted
as a sufficient apology, for my having taken the liberty of mentioning his Name
on the occasion.56
The letters of Captain Hutchins, and the papers accompanying them,
give an explanation of the violation of the treaty by the Ohio Indians.
In the letter sent to Congress from Pittsburgh, September 15, he declares :
This place is destitute of any accounts from De Troit or Niagara. — Permit me
to assure your excellency, that, whilst the British possess those Posts, all Ne-
gociations with the Indian Nations on the part of the United States will fall far
short of the end proposed to be attained, neither will Congress have that
64 While waiting at the new encampment opposite the Little Beaver River camp,
the geographer " made as many observations on the sun and north star as sufficiently
enabled him to determine the latitude to be 40° : 37' : 47" and the variation of the com
pass about the same as on the North side of the river."
65 Letter spoken by Captain Pipe for the Delawares and Wyandotts, at Upper San
dusky, October 5, 1785. Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 60, p. 209.
66 Letter dated New York 27th Decemr., 1785. Papers of the Continental Con
gress, No. 60, p. 225. The Remarks follow the letter (pp. 229-39), but the plan is mis
sing. No plan of Hutchins's work in the Seven Ranges of Townships has been located,
but there are many letters and papers pertaining to the surveys in this volume.

44
weight & Influence in the Councils of the Indian Nations, not even in those sit
uated nearest to Pittsburgh, which the very great expence and trouble, that
August Body have taken ought to insure to them ; — Indeed these circumstances
together with the evil reports industriously propagated amongst the Indians by
a number of persons who have in defiance of the Proclamation of Congress
settled on the north side of the Ohio near to the Mingo Town 75 Miles below
Pittsburgh, will greatly contribute to alienate the affections of the Indians, who,
If freed from evil councellors, would be desirous of living peaceably and friend
ly with the Citizens of the United States. This is an Evil, allow me to say,
which calls loudly for immediate redress, more especially as, in my opinion, the
Surveyors have reason to apprehend much greater danger from those disorderly
Persons, than from the Indians themselves.47
Information gathered at Little Beaver creek seems to support this theory.
One witness reported :
Wyandots told the Delawares it was an open war ; the British had sent toma
hawks among them and that all the nations meant to strike. On the 1st of Oc
tober they arrived, at which time, a grand council of the chiefs of the following
nations was held at the Delaware town on the headwaters of the great Miami,
vizt. the Wyandots, Delawares, Mingoes, Shawneese, Cherokees, Potutawata-
mies Miamies and Twightwees. TheKickapoos, Wauweaughtenies, Pox, Otta-
way, Chepawa nations were not present but they sent their speeches with their
wampum. That he was informed their intention at this meeting was to bright
en the chain of friendship, and bind their union the firmer ; . . . that he saw
a man who wishes his name to be kept secret, who told him the British were
using their influence to prevent the Indians from attending the treaty at the
mouth of the Great Miami.
It was reported also that the "Wyandots and Delawares, after their return
from Fort Mcintosh, had received communications from Detroit in which
the British denied having given their country away ; they acknowledged
they had made peace with the Americans and agreed to a boundary line be
tween them, and had also given the Americans the laws or jurisdiction
over the country, but they did not give them any right to the land.68
The initial point of the survey, fixed by the land ordinance, as
a point that shall be found to be due north from the western termination of
a line, which has been run as the southern boundary of the state of Pennsylvania,
was easily located by the geographer, through observation of the markings
made south of the Ohio river by commissioners of Pennsylvania then em
ployed in running the west boundary line of the commonwealth. Captain
Hutchins was himself engaged for this work, having been employed during
the previous summer in determining the western extent of the southern
boundary line of Pennsylvania, and he would have continued, but for his
present labors, in running a north line from that point as far as the Ohio
.River. From this point he ran the East and West Line or, as it was later
57 Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 60. p. 189.
58 The geographer favored the President of Congress with an opinion of the cause
of the unexpected Indian disaffection in the territory, but it must be considered that
Captain Hutchins had brought to America a great grievance against the British, and
this may have affected his judgment:
When your Excellency compares all the above information and circuiuMuuces together with
the repeated threats and solemn declarations of some hundreds of pei.-ous who have taken
umbrage at that part of Ordinance relative to the mode of disposing ot L.uids in the Western
Territory, and who in consequence thereof, have removed with their Families and Effects in the
course of the last spring and summer to Detroit that they would hriiaie the Indians against
the Surveyors appoiutea by Congress and actually go with the Indians to ti.e War against them;
permit me to hope that my conduct will appear to merit your Excellences approoation more
especially as I have made it my constant study to pursue every measure that to me appeared
best calculated to enable me faithfully to discharge the trust reposed in me.— All the Indian in
formation 1 could procure I have transmitted copies of to General Butler lor the purpose of
making his Negotiations with the Indians more successful.

45
called, the Geographer's Line, westward for a distance of 3 miles, 66 chains
and 78 links to the place where he heard the evil news.69
The next year the geographer and his staff returned to the survey, in
tending to make up for lost time of the previous failure by completing
thirteen ranges of townships ready for sale before the season closed. The
return was ordered in Congress by a resolution of the 9th of May, 1786,
with some opposition, and a proposition for alteration of the land ordi
nance. No alterations were made, however, except a provision that " the
surveyors do not proceed further northerly than the east and west line," 60
and a repeal of the clause requiring them " to pay the utmost attention to
the variation of the magnetic needle and to run and note all lines by the
true meridian." The treaty at the Big Miami, held on the 21st of January,
had rendered everything secure— as Congress supposed.61 The geogra
pher set out for the frontier May 23 and, arriving at Pittsburg June 25,
despatched messengers for the chiefs of the Delawares, Wyandots, and
Shawnees who, " agreeable to their promise to the Commissioners, were to
give him protection." He informed Congress, in a letter dated July 8, that
" troops may be necessary," and he proceeded at once, without waiting for
either soldiers or Indians, to resume the surveys. But when he summoned
the men, who had assembled at the former camp awaiting orders, they pos
itively refused to proceed until a body of troops was provided to cover their
operations.62 Thus the surveys were resumed. The east and west line was pro
jected westerly to the ninth range, a distance of over fifty miles. From
this line as a base, range lines six miles apart were run southerly to the
river, a distance on the westerly ranges of ninety-five miles. Cross lines
were run every six miles, working westerly from the river at right angles
69 No description has been found of his method of finding this point, but it may be
supposed that he sighted across the river from the south shore. According to present
geography the East and West Line forms the north line of the second tier of lots,
or sections, of the township of Liverpool, Columbiana County, Ohio, passing directly
north of the city of East Liverpool. It is not known how Capt. Hutchins marked the
initial point, nor how it was situated with respect to the high- and low-water lines
of the Ohio River. The original surveyor's plat of the northeasterly township of
the Seven Ranges of Townships, in the General Land Ofiice, Drafting Division,
Washington, D. C, shows the point at the exact margin of the river as does also the
published plat of the Seven Ranges of Townships made to advertise the sale of 1796.
But maps of Ohio from that day to this show a bit of land between the line and the
river, which may or may not be due to the recession of the river. Virginia has al
ways claimed that her reserved territory extended to the high-water mark on the
northerly side of Ohio River, but Chief Justice Marshall ruled (v. Wharton, 691)
that low-water mark on the northwest side was the boundary of Ohio.
The Pennsylvania commissioners completed the west boundary line of Pennsylva
nia to Lake Erie in October, 1786, " by opening a Vista and planting stones marked
P on the east side." Penn. Arch , vol. 10, pp. 440, 443, 452, 760; vol. 11, p. 69.
60 This alteration in the field of survey, which originally extended " from the River
Ohio to the lake Erie," was made in Congress after the report of the geographer of the
latitude of the east and west line, 40° : 38' : 02", to accommodate the claims of Connec
ticut, which lay between 41° and 42°, 02;" north latitude.
61 The Shawnee tribes had given their signatures to the prescribed division line,
and the Wyandots had sent their hostage to Congress as a token of their repentance
for the broken treaty. Half King, chief of the Wyandot tribes, sent his son Scotosh
to visit Congress in July. The young chief was received with ceremony. There was
a conference, a speech to Congress, and a letter in which Scotosh declared * that his
father and the Wyandot natiou were satisfied to have the land measured.' Papers of
the Continental Congress, No. 30, pp. 381-387.
62 Correspondence dated " Little Beaver Rivulet, July 21 and 22, 1786 Gen. Benj'n.
Tupper, Surveyor of Massachusetts, wrote the response in behalf of the surveyors
present." Hutchins Papers, vol. 3, pp. 25, 26, Hist. Soe. of Penn.

46
to the range lines, and every mile was marked by chops on trees standing
on or near the line, as required by the ordinance. The geographer and his
eight surveyors and many more chainbearers, axe men, and followers, and
a battalion of military to escort them, were thus spread out over the trian
gular field of the survey, pushing the work steadily, " even Sundays not
excepted," to finish the thirteen ranges — if possible, altogether making
quite a stir in the wilderness east of the Muskingum and the Tuscarawas.
The storm broke upon them in September. At his camp, " 38 miles on the
the East and West line," Hutchins received a message from the chief of the
Wyandots, informing him that they could not comply with the request to assist
in the surveying until they had brought the " back nations" 68 to terms. " I
am just now between two fires," spoke Half King, "for I am afraid of
you and likewise of the back nations." From other sources it was learned
that a large body of Indians was collecting with hostile intentions, deter
mined " that the Ohio river and the line being cut by Pennsylvania shall
remain forever the boundary between them and the Big Knives." The
Shawnees had five hundred warriors ready to move the " moment they
hear Captain Hutchins is out." On October 1 the danger had become so
threatening that the surveyors held to camp, absolutely refusing to con
tinue.64 The men were in terror, and the geographer, " to his great mor
tification," was obliged to advise retirement to the back ranges. With
great difficulty he kept enough men at work until four ranges were com
pleted. Still the attacks continued, and in November, on advice of the
military, the surveyors withdrew to a camp on the Virginia side.66 Cap
tain Hutchins informed Congress of the interruption of the survey in a
letter dated at the Virginia camp, December 2, adding : " I shall be de
tained here until such time as the townships already surveyed are delinea
ted on paper, which will probably take to the commencement of the ensu
ing year, when I shall lose no time in proceeding with them to New York."66
Captain Hutchins returned to New York in February, carrying with him
63 Meaning Ottawas, Chippewas, Potawatomies, and Miamis. Papers of the- Conti
nental Congress, No. 60, p. 254.
61 The refusal is embodied in a round robin, signed Bern. Tupper, Wm. W. Morris,
Absalom Martin, James Simpson, Samuel Montgomery, Michael Duffy, Andrew Hen
derson, Charles Smith. Congress has given authority to the geographer to appoint
surveyors as vacancies occurred, which accounts for the last four names. The sur
veyors employed the first season were : Benjamin Tupper, William W. Morris, Alex
ander Parker, James Simpson, Robert Johnson, Isaac Sherman, Absalom Martin, and
Edward Dowse. (Cf. Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 41, vol. vi, p. 301, and
Minutes of Congress, date of September 25, 1786.)
65 A letter dated October 27, 1786, informed Hutchins that " Joseph Brant with 56 of
the Six Nations had gone to the Shawnees Towns. In a council he had with some
of the Indians at Casheckton he expressed a wonder that the surveyors should pro
ceed to survey the land that did not belong to them." Hutchins Papers, vol. 3, p. 32,
Hist. Soe. of Penn.
66 The ordinance required the surveyors " to mark the lines they had run on plats
and to note thereon all mines, salt-springs, salt-licks, mill-sites, water-courses, moun
tains, and other remarkable and permanent things over and near which the lines shall
pass, and also the quality of the lands," and to return these plats to the Secretary at
War, who was to cause a copy thereof to be made for the loan commissioner of each
state for purposes of the sale. One set only of these plats was made, consisting of
77 townships, and they are still preserved in the United States General Land Office
in charge of E. Mulkow, a veteran employee who rescued them some years ago from
destruction by mildew when the General Land Office was removed from the Patent
Office building to its present quarters. Each of these plats is signed by the sur
veyor. They are drawn on a scale of 40 chains to the inch, and the interior lines
forming 36 lots, which were not run by the surveyors are ruled on certain of the plats,
to show the results of sales. There is also a book of exteriors of certain townsnips,
with elaborate descriptions, which seem to belong to this survey.

47
the visible and tangible evidence of his labors. " I have brought with me,"
he wrote to the President of Congress, " the plats and description of four
ranges completely surveyed containing in the whole six hundred and seven
ty-five thousand four hundred and eighty acres." These he deposited with
the board of treasury, according to the ordinance ; and on the 18th of
April he sent his own returns to Congress.
Captain Hutchins's returns were the subject of immediate action in Con
gress, in the consideration of " a plan for selling for public securities the
townships surveyed in the western territory" reported by the board of
treasury on the 19th of April. The report condemns the plan of propor
tional distribution by states through the Secretary at War and the local
loan offices, fixed in the ordinance to take place " as soon as 7 ranges of
townships shall have been surveyed," as too slow and expensive, and re
commends a direct sale at public auction to the highest bidder regardless of
his local habitation. Congress agreed to this report April 21, and ordered
" the sale to be advertised to commence at the expiration of five months
from date, in the place where Congress shall sit and continue from day to
day until the same shall be sold." The advertisements appeared as direct
ed.67 Twenty-seven separate townships or fractional townships are listed
in a table by range and township numbers, to be exposed to sale, either
entire or in lots ( now called sections) of one mile square in alternate or
der, at not less than one dollar per acre, plus cost of surveying, payable
one third down and the remaining two thirds in three months, in specie, or
certificates, " excepting therefrom and reserving one third part of all gold,
silver, lead and copper mines within the land sold."68 Proper maps and
descriptions of the lands were to be exhibited at the time and place of
sale, and the sales were to continue from day to day until the whole were
sold. " The admirable quality of these lands, and the favorable climate in
which they are situated," the advertisements declare, " are too well known
to need description."
The sale took place as advertised, in New York, September 21, 1787,
continuing until October 9, when it ceased, with the greater part of the
townships remaining unsold. " During the sixteen days of sale 32 persons
bought 148 parcels, aggregating 150,896 acres, 176,090 6/9 0th dollars, pur
chase money, of which 87,438 18/90th dollars was paid at the time of
sale in public securities.69 The highest price bid was 22 dollars for a frac
tional lot of an acre and a half on the river, but most of the sales were at
the minimum rate of a dollar per acre. During the summer of 1787, the
surveyors again returned to the Ohio. Troubles with the Indians had not
abated, but they finished closing in the townships of seven ranges. Hutchins
probably did not attend this survey as he was in New York in October
busy with his accounts. He made final report the following summer and
turned in the finished plan of the Seven Banges, which he transmitted to
the board of treasury under date of July 26, 1788.
6' The order was to advertise the sale " in one of the newspapers at least of each of
the states." See N. Y. Packet, May 15, 1787 ; Providence Gazette, Aug. 11, 18, 25, Sept.
1; Connecticut Oourant, June 25, July 9, 23, Aug. 6; Pennsylvania Packet, Sept. 6, 13,
18, etc.
68 This reservation still stands as a lien on the lands. It is entered on the patents
issued at the time by the board of treasury, and is recorded in the county books of
Ohio where the lands are situated. This clause was omitted from the act of 1796.
«9 Albert Gallatin gives the results of the New York sale, in a summary printed in
the Introduction to the Land Laws, p. xxii, previously referred to, as " 72,974 acres at
public sale at New York, in the year 1787, for 87,325 dollars, in evidence of the pub
lic debt," while Public Domain, p. 17, gives other figures.

48
The circumstances of the first survey and sale of the federal lands,
from which so much had long been expected and so little realized, would
be interesting and doubtless important if all were known, but scarcely any
thing remains of this period in the public prints or official records to tell
the story. The sale itself was a failure and the survey a disappointment.
The first returns of four ranges, after years of waiting, expense, and dan
ger, were so meagre as to justify criticism in Congress of the mode of sur
vey, and call for immediate revision of the ordinance, and a move in that
direction is noted in the minutes of Congress at the time the sale was or
dered.70 At this very moment, also, memorials began to appear, praying
Congress for grants of large areas for private adventure in settlement for
which large sums of money were promised for immediate payments, offer
ing quicker means of revenue than the auction sales.71 Hutchins's finished
plan and description of the whole Seven Kanges came in during the sum
mer of 1788,72 but there the business dropped. By that time several
70 It was recommended in April, 1787, " that Congress adopt measures for disposing
of the lands which may be, not only practicable, but speedy in their operation." An
investigation of the working of the geographer's department under the ordinance fol
lowed, and a revision appeared of the old ordinance, providing, for private adventures
in locating, surveying, and settling lands, conformable, in a fashion, to the six mile
township system. The revision gained no standing in Congress, as it was deemed
best not to interfere with sales depending, both public and private, by new legislation
of this nature. But after the sales were over the subject was revived, and a supple
mental ordinance was passed July 9, 1788, repealing parts deemed objectionable in the
old ordinance, suspending the public sales at the option of the board of treasury, and
authorizing the private locations provided for in the former revision, with respect to
the two military tracts westward of the Seven Ranges of Townships, which, on the
22d of October, 1787, were designated by act of Congress for apportionment as army
lands. (The revised draft of April, 1787, is in the Papers of the Continental Congress,
No. 30, p. 119.)
71 The first of these proposals is the Memorial of the Associators, in the handwriting
and over the signature of their Agent, " Sam H. Parsons." Dated in New York the 8th
of May, 1787, read in Congress May 9, reported by the committee July 10, it was dis
cussed and acted on July 23, when it was referred to the board of treasury to take or
der. This was the earliest explicit offer of money for lands, but the contract was not
closed. Dr. Manasseh Cutler, one of the Association, filed another memorial on July 6,
which was acted on in the same way July 27, and this was made the basis of the con
tract with the Ohio Company of Associates. Next came the proposition of William
Duer, agent for the Scioto Company, which, for prudential reasons, was combined with
the contract of the Ohio Company. (The Parsons memorial is in the Papers of the
Continental Congress, No. 41, vol. viii, p. 226 ; and the committee report, No. 19, vol.
v, p. 27. The letter of Dr. Cutler, dated Ipswich, Nov. 19, 1788, explaining the Scioto
land transaction, is among the Col. John May papers, W. R. H. S. Cf. also the Memo
rial of the Directors of the Ohio Company, dated March 2, 1792, W. R. H. S.)
There is a prior proposition dated July 16, 1783, a "petition of the Subscribers
Officers in the Continental Line of the Army," praying for the locating of their mili
tary lands on Lake Erie, " on conditions of settlement and purchase, for public securi
ties," but this was too early to receive recognition. (The petition with nearly 300
signatures is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 42, vol. vi, p. 65.)
A curious petition was filed in Congress in October, 1784, "of the inhabitants re
siding near the Ohio River, praying that each one may be indulged with taking out
warrants according to his abilities and locating the same in what manner they shall
see fit." Ibid., No. 42, vol. vi, p. 106.
72 This letter was found by the writer in the attic of the General Land Office. It is
now in the file room, Surveyor's Division, General Land Office.
New York, 26th July, 1788.
Gentlemen :
Tou will receive herewith a Plan of the Seven Ranges containing 1.641.724 acres with the
surveys and Descriptions appertaining thereto, also a calculation of the Townships and Frac
tional parts of Townships in the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Ranges.
I am very Respectfully
Gentlemen Tour most obedient servant
Tho : Hutchihs.
The Honble Commissioners of the board of Treasury.
The plan is missing, but the descriptions and calculation were found with the letter.

49
large purchases had been successfully concluded by the board of treasury,
beginning with the Ohio Company of Associates, which was closed a few
weeks after the end of the New York sales. All dealings for lands ceased
under the new constitution until, after the Greenville Treaty, the act of
Congress of 1796 restored the system inaugurated by Captain Hutchins
into full force and effect.78

Official returns of the New York sale are found in the papers of the Con
tinental Congress, entitled:
Schedule of Sales of Lands in the Western Territory of the United States,
at Public Auction, from the 21st Septemr. to the 9t. October 1787— And the
Amount of Public Securities received in payment for the Same.
This document, consisting of six large tabulated sheets, signed by M. Hil-
legas, U. S. Treasurer, and Wm. Duer, Secretary of the board of treas
ury, and dated September 13, 1788, gives names of each purchaser, town
ship and lot number, acreage, amount paid etc.74 There is also in the land
office in Washington the book of patents issued for the sale, in which
the names and dates of the complete purchases are given.76 In addition are
the surveyors plats, previously mentioned, on which are recorded the names
and other data of sales. Finally there are the lands themselves entered in
the several counties in Ohio, with records of the original purchasers. From
all these s,<jurces it is possible to compile a list of the first owners of pub
lic lands of the United States.
It is possible also to give a correct list of the 1000 original proprietors
and settlers of the Muskingum settlement of the Ohio Company from the
official records of draughts and allotments of lands to each proprietor, kept
by Col. John May, secretary of the Ohio Company, and recently found.
The draughts took place at Providence, B. I., on Thursday, the 8th of May,
1787, and on the Muskingum in July, 1788. (Cf. Cutler's Journal, also
the Journal of Col. John May.)76
The lists of names of first owners of lands within the limits of the State
of Ohio, as proposed on an earlier page of this writing, here follow. They
73 The board of treasury had authority to hold a public sale at any time or place of
the land remaining unsold in the Seven Ranges of Townships after the New York
sale, but no more lots were sold until 1796, when the Secretary of the Treasury held
sales under the first land law of Congress (May 18, 1796), as follows : at Pittsburgh,
where alternate townships were offered for sale in lots, or sections, and 43,446 acres
were sold for 100,427 dollars ; and at Philadelphia, where the alternate townships en
tire were offered, and one sale made, 5,200 acres at $2.00 per acre. No other sales
were made of public lands until the establishment of the local land office system by
the act of May 10, 1800. The latest larger histories are at fault on this matter of the
early land sales. (Cf. act of May 18, 1796, and Introduction to the Land Laws, p. xxii.)
fN. B. The writer wishes to acknowledge his obligations to Mr. T. L. Cole, of
Washington, D. C, for generous use of his large and valuable collection of state and
Xiolonial laws.]
« No. 59, vol. 3, p. 135.
75 In the Recorder's Division. The binder's title of this volume is as follows : Mis
cellaneous Vol. 1, Record of Patents, Sales at New York, Vol. A, Credit, General
Land Office.
76 A number of alphabetical lists of proprietors, and separate lists of drafts, found
among the papers ot Col. John May are in the New England Historic Genealogical
Society, Boston, and the Western Reserve Historical Society, Cleveland.

50
are constructed for the purpose of this publication by comparison of the
several documents mentioned.77 First Owners of Lands in Ohio
The sale of lots or the Four Ranges of Townships at public vendue in
the City of New York, September 21 to October 9, 1787, terminated the
period of reservation or prohibition of "settlement and purchase of the
lands inhabited or claimed by the Indians." 78 Purchasers of lots at this
sale obtained thereby the right of entry and occupancy of the lands that
they had purchased ; all others were trespassers, excepting the French and
Canadians in the Illinois Company, who were protected by their oath of
fidelity to Virginia.79 These purchasers received certificates of payment of
purchase money issued by the Treasurer of the United States,80 which en
titled them to such right. Certain purchasers, no doubt, moved at once
upon their lands, probably from the vantage camps on the Virginia hills over
looking the forbidden river, but other purchasers made no actual settlements ;
facts to be ascertained by those especially interested.81 Their names appear
in the Schedule of Sales returned by the Treasurer of the United States
after full payment for the lots had been made, as ordained by the act of
Congress passed May 20, 1785. They appear also, except the forfeitures
for non-payment of purchase money, in the official Record of Patents, and
on the plats of the surveyors, to which reference has been made.
The Schedule of Sales contains the names of purchasers with other data,
in order as the sales were made ; description of each lot sold ; location by
numerals to indicate the range, township, and lot ; number of acres in each
lot ; amount of purchase price ; payments made, etc. The Record of Sales
is a volume made up of printed blanks used by the Board of Treasury
for recording the patents as issued, one full page for each lot patented.
The- pages are numbered progressively and dated as filled out, and the
blanks are filled in with name and other data corresponding with the items
of the Schedule of Sales.82 The plats of the surveyors show the exteriors
77 Cf. Register for October, 1910, p. 369.
78 As proclaimed according to Act of Congress passed September 22, 1783, entited
" An ordinance prohibiting settlement and purchase of certain lands."
79 Cf. Register for April, 1910, p. 268.
10 Cf. note 84, infra, section 4. Advertisement of the Board of Treasury for the sale.
81 An entry in the Journal of John Matthews (Hildreth's Pioneer History of the Ohio
Valley, p. 188) is especially interesting in this connection :
November 30, [1787] A part of this month I have been on the West side of the Ohio with Mr
Simpson and Colonel Martin, assisting them in the survey of the lands they bought at the public
sales in New York...
There is no record of a sale in the name of Simpson. James Simpson was Surveyor
for the State of Maryland in the Geographer's Department, bnt Capt. Absalom Martin,
Surveyor for the State of New Jersey, purchased and occupied as his permanent home
two fractional lots on the Ohio River bottoms opposite Wheeling ; land which he had
himself surveyed under Hutchins the year before. He took possession of his property
within a month or six weeks of the date of sale, and appears to be the first known set
tler in the Western Territory. Captain Martin was the son of Ephraim Martin of
Baskenridge, N. J. (cf. Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 56, p. 173), and 'his
place on the Ohio River was the landing place from Wheeling, now known as Martin's
Ferry, Ohio.
s* Many pages of this volume were not used, as the form was changed for the Pitts
burgh sale, and only 111 patents were issued. Some of the pages are signed with the
names of the three members of the Board of Treasury, but most of them are not so
signed. The patents are recorded in the several county records of Ohio, and they
correspond with the form given in the Ordinance of May 20, 1785.

51
of the townships as surveyed, on which are lines drawn at right angles to
represent the 36 square lots in each township. The plats are drawn on the
scale of 40 chains to the inch, making each of these lots two inches square,
on which is written the name of purchaser, date, acres, etc. The lots are
numbered, also the townships and ranges as required by the ordinance :
Ranges ; westward from I to vn beginning with the Pennsylvania line.
Townships, northward from the river, each range beginning with Town
ship No. 1, and the lots ; northward from the base line of the township, in
ranges of six, beginning with Lot i at the southeast corner.88
From this data not only the names of owners but the situation of each
lot, according to present day geography, may be ascertained84 and designated
by modern names of political divisions, county and township. The region
covered by the seven Ranges of Townships may readily be traced on a map

83 Lots or sections in the Seven Ranges of Townships are not numbered as in the
later surveys. According to the terms of the ordinance of May 20, 1785 :
The plats of the townships respectively shall be marked by subdivisions into lots of one mile
square or 640 acres, in the same direction as the external lines and numbered from 1 to 36, always
beginning the succeeding range of the lots with the number next to that with which the pre
ceding one concluded,
while the law of May 18, 1796, required that
the sections shall be numbered respectively, beginning with number one, in the northeast
section, and proceeding west and east alternately, through the township, with progressive num
bers till the thirty-sixth be completed.
Thus it happens that some of the townships of Columbiana, Carroll, and Stark
counties, part of which were outside the Old Seven Ranges of Townships, have two
sets of townships and sections in the same townships with the same numbers.
84 The townships offered for sale were described by numerals in the advertisement
published by the Board of Treasury, which reads as follows :
Treasury of the United States.
May 14, 1787.
The Commissioners of the Board of Treasury of the United States, give notice, That on the
21st day of September next, will be exposed to Sale, at the place where the United States in
Congress may hold their sessions — The following Townships and Lots of Lands in the Western
Territory, which were surveyed last year, under the direction of the Geographer General of the
United States viz.

First Eange.

Third Eange.

Fourth Eange.

No. 3, containing 4,350 acres.

No. 1,
2, 3,

containing 6,596 acres.
11,79?14,482

No. 1,
2,3,

containing 4,574 acres
21 350

Second Eange.

23'040

No. 1, containing 1,386
2, 5,434
3, 8,598

5, 6,

23,040 23,040

7,
8,

23,04023,010

7,

23,040

10,

23,040

5! 21,139
6, 23,040
7, 23,040
8, 22,886
9, 18,644$

8,

23,040

11,

23,040

9,

23,040

12,

23,040

10,11,12,

23,04023,04023,040

13,

23,040

The admirable quality of these Lands, and the favorable climate in which they are situated'
are too well known to need description. The conditions of sale are as follows, viz.
1st. The townships or fractional parts of townships throughout the different ranges, will be
sold either entire or in lots in alternate order; that is to say, where a township or fractional
part of a township is sold entire, the next will be sold in lots, agreeably to the ordinance of the
20th of May, 1785.
2d. The lands are not to be sold under a dollar per acre, payable in gold or 6ilver, or any of
the securities of the United States.
3d. The purchasers are to pay the charges of survey, which are to be estimated at thirty-six
dollars in specie, or certificates as aforesaid for every township; and in the same proportion for
fractional parts of townships or lots; this payment to be made at the sales, and in case of fail
ure, the lands to be again exposed to public auction.
4th. One third of the purchase money is to be paid at the time of purchase; and the remain
ing two thirds in three months after the date of the sale ; on which payment a certificate shall
be given by the Treasurer of the United States, which shall entitle the person to whom the same
is given to receive from the Commissioners of this Board a proper title; provided, that if the
second payment is not made at the time above specified, the first payment is to be forfeited, and
the land on which t&e forfeit accrued be again set up for sale.

52
of Ohio86 by following the East and West line from the intersection of the
Pennsylvania western boundary and the Ohio River westward across seven
ranges to the northwest corner of Rose Township, Carroll County (Tpv
No. 16),86 and thence by a meridian line southward across Tuscarawas,
Guernsey, Noble, and Washington counties to a point where the meridian
crosses the Ohio River about a mile east of the city of Marietta, which is
in Township 2 of Range vm.87 The lots purchased at the New York sale
are all within the four counties, Columbiana, Jefferson, Monroe, and Bel
mont, and the initials of these counties are used in the following list to in
dicate the situation of the several lots — closer designations being expressed
by names of township, or otherwise.
Arnold H(enry) Dohrman88 n p (no patents issued)
6th. The platts of the townships will be marked by subdivisions into lots of one mile square*
or 640 acres, and numbered from 1 to 36; and out of each township, Lot No. 8, 11, 26 and 29, are
to be reserved for future sale; Lot No. 16, for the maintenance of Public Schools within th»
respective township, as many lots of the same number as shall be found therein. There will
also be reserved to the United States one third part of all gold and silver, lead and copper mines.
Proper maps and descriptions of the lands will be exhibited at the time and place of sale, and
the sales will continue from day to day until the whole are sold.
Samuel Osgood, )
Walter Livingston, ! Commissioner!.
Arthur Lee, )
From The New York Packet, No. 697, Tuesday, May 15, 1787; Providence Gazette* Aug. 11, 18, 25,
Sept. 1, 1787; Connecticut Courant, June 25, July 9, 23, Aug. 6, 1787: Pennsylvania Packet, Sept.
6, 13, 18, 1787; etc., etc.
85 The latest map of Ohio, issued by the General Land Office, bears the date 1910.
86 There are two Townships No. 16 in Carroll County, the northernmost being out
side the Seven Ranges of Townships.
87 The Seven Ranges of Townships are first shown on the map entitled :
A Map of the Federal Territory from the Western Boundary of Pennsylvania to the Scioto
Eiver, laid down from the latest informations and divided into Townships and fractional parts
of Townships agreeably to the ordinance of the Rouble Congress passed in May, 1785,
which, according to the Phillips Last of Maps of America, p. 626, is the " Map to ac
company Cutler s 'Explanation of the map of the federal lands, confirmed by the
treaties of 1784.. .Salem, 1787.' " The famous map issued by Joel Barlow for European
exploitation of the Scioto Company's lands, entitled : " Plan des achates des Compagnies
de 1' Ohio" (Cf. Winsor, vol. vii, p. 532; the Library of Congress has a fine copy
of the Barlow map recently picked up by Mr. Phillips in Pans), shows the region
marked : " Sept ranges de Municipalitere acquis par des individus, et oceupfes depuis
1786," and described as " Habite et defriche," which, considering the date of Barlow'*
activity, 1788, is surprising.
A " Plat of the Seven Ranges of Townships being part of the Territory of the United
States JST. W. of the River Ohio which by late act of Congress are directed to be sold... W.
Barker, Sculp." issued for use of the second sale of lots, shows the survey as altered to>
fit the latest land laws, 1796. The sub-divisions sold at the New York sale are marked
on this plat. This plate seems to have been used by Matthew Carey far editions of the
American Atlas as late as 1818. (A reproduction from an original print is in Avery's
History, vol. vi, betw. pp. 406 and 407.)
An outline map of the State of Ohio, showing the land divisions, prepared by Col.
Chas. Whittlesey and published in W. R. H. S. Tract No. 61, represents the Seven
Ranges of Townships as extending northerly to the base line of the Western Reserve.
whereas the writings of Col. Whittlesey on this subject, in this and other publications*
correctly describe the Ohio surveys. The strip of land, twenty-five miles wide, be
tween the Seven Ranges of Townships and the Western Reserve, was surveyed in 1801
by extending the ranges northward from the East and West line to the 41° of latitude,
which was forbidden by earlier resolution of Congress, May 9, 1786.
88 Dohrman [Dorhman] is the Portuguese refugee honored by Congress (Land
Laws of the U. S., p. 222) with liberal pensions in recognition of his services to Amer
ican sailors during the war. After his escape from Lisbon he appears as a merchant
in Chambers Street, New York. No doubt he attended the sale and made the first
purchase of land on the public domain. Congress voted to him a township of land in
the Seven Ranges of Townships, and he went west to take possession of his property.
He lived and died at Steubenville, Jefferson County, where he lies buried, and where.
his descendants still reside. There are many traditions in the family concerning

53

II

3

17

H

acres

II

5

3

m

a

Absalom Martin

II

3

18

36£

acres

II

3

23

293£

a

Abijah

Hammond

n
3
19
201.
acres
n
3
20
85
a
n
3
21
4
a
n
5
1
H
u
n
5
3
188i
a
Robert Kirkwood
(Kerchwood)
II
3
27
546f i
icres
II
5
9
640
a
II
5
15
640
a
II
5
18
640
a
Jn° Cowenhoven (Covenhoven)
II
5
4
558^ acres
II 57
7
640
a
Wm. McKennan
II 5 10 640 acres
II 5 17 640 "
Wm. Manning
II 5 13 640 acres
John Foulks
81II 5 12 640 acres
81II 9 1 144 "
II 9 9 270 "
III 2: 10 75£ "
Benj. Manning
II 5 14 640 aores
Jacob Martin
II 5 19 640 acres
John Learmonth (Learmouth) 640 acres
640 "
II 5 20
II 5 21
John Lyon
II 5 22
640 acres
Honble. Arthur Lee Esq
II925 30 640 acres
1 : 48 dollars89
348 : 67 "
Patents 2-3
356 : 73 dollars
1321:79 "
Patents 13-17
103 : 70 dollars
340 "
18:45 „
22 : 87 «
836:42 "
90 Patents 59-62
2204:8 dollars
680 «
640 "
640 «
Jun Patents 67-68
1083:9 dollars
640 "
Patents 67-58
720 dollars
640 "
Patent 30
706 : 60 dollars
Patents 34-36
720 dollars
153
270 : 68 "
228 : 10 "
Patent 33
660 dollars
Patent 31
640 dollars
Patents 63-64
640 dollars
640 "
Patent 65
640 dollars
Patents 8-12
640 dollars
B Martin's Ferry
J Warren Tp.
March 5. 1783
B Martin's Ferry
B » «
March 10, 1788
B Pultney Tp.
B « «
B « «
J Warren Tp.
J Wells Tp.
May 27, 1788
B Bridgport
J Wells Tp.
J " "
J " "
July 26, 1788
J Wells Tp.
J Isld Creek Tp.
April 27, 1788
J Wells Tp.
J " "
April 10, 1788
J Warren Tp.
April 10, 1788
J Wells Tp.
J Saline Tp.
C Yellow Creek Tp.
M Salem Tp.
April 10, 1788
J Warren Tp.
April 10, 1788
J Warren Tp.
May 27, 1788
J Wells Tp.
J " "
May 27, 1788
J Wells Tp.
March 10, 1788
J Wells Tp.
their ancestor. Among others is this, that he was taken to Lisbon when an infant by
his parents, Dutch adventurers, arid was in that fateful city when the earthquake
occurred. He was saved from destruction by his nurse, who crawled, with the infant
at her breast, under the stone stoop of the house, which shielded him from the flying
debris. 89 Old style notation with fractions in the 90th denomination.
90 Thus spelled in Record of Patents.
91 The items are marked Patents 34 and 33 respectively, although they come in the
above order.
92 This patent is entered erroneously as Tp. 3 in Record of Patents.
54

II

3

30

640

acres

640

dollars

B

Pease Tp.

II

3

34

640

a

640

a

B

it .t

II

3

35

640

a

640

a

B

a a

II

3

36

640

a

640

a
B
n it
James Grav
Patents 21-25
March 31, 1788
II
7*
1
640
acres
640
dollars
J
Isld Creek Tp.
98npII
7
2
640
a
641
tt
J
« tt it
II
7
4
640
a
640
a
J
a tt tt
II
7
6
640
a
640
a
J
ti It «
II
7
27
640
tt
640
tt
J
It It H
94npU
7
31
640
tt
640
it
J
a tt tt
94npII
7
32
640
a
640
a
J
a a t(
MnpII
9
7
6391
a
639:
45
it
J
Saline Tp.
III
2
17
149
Cf
474:
85
a
M
Salem Tp.
Daniel Turner
Patent 72
September 15, 1788
II
7
5
640
acres
740
dollars
J
Isl" Creek Tp.
Doctr. Robt. Johnston (Johnson) Patents 37-55
April 17, 1788
II
5
31
640
acres
940
dollars
J
Warren Tp.
II
7
10
640
a
640
it
J
Isld Creek Tp.
II
7
17
640
a
640
tt
J
« a a
II
7
18
640
a
640
a
J
it a it
II
7
13
640
a
760
a
J
it it ti
II
7
19
640
a
680
n
J
tt it a
II
7
21
640
tt
640
a
J
tt a tt
II
7
22
640
a
640
a
J
it it a
II
7
23
640
a
640
a
J
« ti a
II
7
24
640
tt
640
a
J
it a a
96II
9
4
145|
it
286;
:85
a
C
Wellsville
96II
7
34
640
a
726:
60
tt
J
Isld Creek Tp.
II
9
5
542J
tt
542:
45
a
C
Wellsville
III
6
13
640
tt
640
a
B
Pultney Tp.
III
6
23
640
tt
640
a
B
tt a
III
6
24
640
tt
640
a
B
tt a
III
8
1
640
a
640
it
J
Smithfield Tp.
III 10
3
640
tt
640
it
J
Salem Tp.
IV
1
33
221
tt
1105
a
M
Cochransville.
John D.
. Mercier
Patent 56
April 23, 1788
II
7
12
640
acres
720
^dollars
J
Isld Creek Tp.
Joshua Merereau
(Mersereau)
Patents 69-71
September 5, 1788
II
7
28
640
acres
640
dollars
J
Isla Creek Tp.
II
9
10
640
a
640
it
C
Wellsvilre
II
9
17
640
a
640
a
c
Yellow Creek Tp.
George Douglass
Patent 19
March 20, 1788
III
2
9
212J
acres
578:
53 dollars
M
Ohio Tp.
Henry W.
Livingston
n
P
Ill
1
-
5316
acres
5316
dollars
M
Lee Tp.
93 Patented April 1, 1789, No. 29, to John Crawford.
94 Patented March 31, 1789, No. 26-28, to William Bowne.
96 These items are marked Patents 48 and 47 respectively, although they come in
the above order.
55

Cornelius Ray
III 2 19
James Burnside
III 2 24
Henry Kuhl
III 6 3
IV 7 3
IV 7 17

385J acres
240f acres
640 acres
640 »
640 "
The Rev. Willm. Linn
III 10 4 640 acres
Jacob Blackwell
IV 7 10 640 acres
John Martin ,
IV 7 20

Patent 18
385 : 23 dollars
Patent 20
278 : 33 dollars
Patents 5-7
660 dollars
640 «
640 '.'
Patent 4
640 dollars
Patent 66
640 dollars
Patent 1
640 dollars

640 acres
Alexr. McComb (Macomb) & Willm. Edgar96 n p
II 3 24 640 acres 1280 dollars
640 "

II II
II IIII
IIIIIIIIIIII II
IIIIII
II II
IIII

2G 2931
32 5 6
7
23 24
2527 28
3233
34 35
36

640 640
640640640
640640 640640640 640
640 640
640 640
640

II 8
II 9

-97 19840
3 640
— 97 19686
13 640

800 640640
640
1326 : 60
1306 : 60
1600 640640640640640640640640640
960
19840 640
19686 640

dollars

March 12, 1788
M Ohio Tp.
March 20, 1788
M Salem Tp.
March 6, 1788
B Pease Tp.
B Richland Tp.

B

B

March 5, 1788
Salem Tp.
July 26, 1788
Richland Tp.
March 4, 1788
Richland Tp.

B Martin's Ferry
B Pultney Tp.
Pease J,Tp.
Mead Tp.

B
B B
J J J
J J
J
JJ J J
J JJJ J J
J

Wells Tp.
a tt
Warren Tp.
Wells Tp.
a it
Warren Tp.
Wells Tp.
a a
Warren Tp.
WeUs Tp.

Cross Creek Tp.
Isld Creek Tp.
Knox and Saline
Saline Tp. [Tp.

°6 Alexander Macomb and William Edgar, of the city of New York, memorialized
Congress, praying
that they may be permitted to complete the payment of the purchase money of a quantity of
land, in the territory of the United States, northwest of the river Ohio, on the original terms of
the purchase, and to obtain a grant for the same; or, that a law may be passed for granting to
the memorialists so much of the said land, as will be in proportion which the sum heretofore
paid by them bears to the whole amount of the purchase money.
The memorial was read in the House, May 13, 1796 (Journal of the House, 4th Con-
fress, 1st Session, p. 435), and reported upon by the committee on claims, January 30,
798 (5th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 179), and on the 30th of April following (p. 438-439) it was
resolved in the affirmative to agree with the report, which was in part as follows :
Several of the lots for which the petitioners made their contract having been sold at Pittsburgh,
in pursuance of the act of the eighteenth of May, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-six,
if the prayer of the petition should be granted, it will be necessary to indemnify the petitioners,
by granting other lots of equivalent value.
But, as the petitioners have shown no reason why they did not proceed to fulfil their contract,
excepting that their funds were otherwise employed, and as the United States must have in
curred considerable expenses in the negotiation when the contract was made with the petition
ers, the committee can find no reason why the forfeiture to which the petitioners have subjected
themselves by the terms of their contract, should be remitted. They therefore report, as their
opinion, that the prayer of the petition ought not to be granted."

56

IIII II
IIIIII
III III IV IV
ni

1419
2018
3036 6
24 34

640
640640640
640640640
640 636

acres a

— 97 19840 "

640
640640
640653:640
640
1380 1590
25420

dollars

31

JJJB
B B
J M
M

Colerain Tp.
ti it

Smithfield Tp.
Jackson Tp.

Nathan McFarland

B and J Colerain and Mt.
Pleasant Tps.
Patents 107 and 110 March 3, 1789

np II
np II
np II
np II
np II
np II
np II
np II
np II
np II
npHI
npIII
npIIInpIIInpIII III
npIIInpIII IV
npIV
John Hopkins
np

(Patented except 107 and 110 to Richard Piatt)

9
15
14
20253035
36 1218
14 1
2
4 5
72
24 23 28

acres

np

I
IIIIII
II
IVIV
IV IV IV
IV
IV

293035
152122 23 24 2728

640 640
640640
640640640640640640
106J 640
640
640 640
640640
640
333 208J

3340 acres
247| "
86J «
413J «
4154 "
640 "
640 "
640 "
640 "
640 "
640 "
640 "

Willm. Duer, Esqr.
II 1 36 640
II 7 33 640
III 8 31 640
IV 7 4 640

acres

640 dollars J
640 " J
680 " J
640 " J
726:60 " J
640 " J
640 " J
640 " J
640 " C
.640 " C
342 : 73 " M
640 " B
640 " B
640 " B
640 " B
640 " B
640 " J
640 " J
1332 " M
873 : 8 " M
Patents 73-82
4488 : 11 dollars J
929 : 6 " B
351 : 36 " B
619:79 « B
5365 : 53 " B
640 " B
640 " B
640 " B
640 " B
640 " B
640 " B
640 " B
Patents 83-88
646 : 60 dollars B
1313:31 " J
640 " J
640 « B

Isld Creek Tp.

Yellow Creek Tp.
Ohio Tp.
Pultney Tp.
It u
Pease Tp.
a ti
Pultney Tp.
Smithfield Tp.
tt »
Jackson Tp.
a ti
March 3, 1789
Isl" Creek Tp.
Mead Tp.

Pultney Tp.
Richland Tp.

March 3, 1789
Mead Tp.
Isld Creek Tp.
Smithfield Tp.
St. ClajrsviHa

" Entire townships minus the. reservations.

57
TV 7 9 640 acres 640 dollars B Richland Tp.
IV 7 14 640 " 640 " B « "
Joseph Hardy Patents 89-91 March 3, 1789
III 6 6 640 acres 640 dollars B Pease Tp.
Ill 8 32 640 " 640 " J Smithfield Tp.
IV 1 18 149£ " 373 : 68 " M Jackson Tp.
Willm. Bowne98 Patents 26-28 March 31, 1789
(Entered in Schedule of Sales under the name of James Gray purchaser)
II 7 31 640 acres 640 dollars J Isld Creek Tp.
II 7 32 640 " 780 " J « « «
II 9 7 659J " 639:45 « C Saline Tp.
John Crawford98 Patent 29 April 1, 1789
(Entered in Schedule of Sales under the name of James Gray purchaser)
II 7 2 640 acres 640 dollars J Isld Creek Tp.
Richard Piatt98 Patents 92-111 (except 1 07 & 1 10) March 3,1789
(Entered in Schedule of Sales under the name of Nathan McFarland
purchaser)
II 7 9 640 acres 640 dollars J Isld Creek Tp.
II 7 15 640 « 640 " J " " «
II 7 14 640 " 680 " J » « "
II 7 20 640 " 640 " J « " «
II 7 25 640 " 726 : 60 " J " " "
II 7 30 640 " 640 " J " " "
II 7 35 640 " 640 " J « " »
II 7 36 640 " 640 " J « " "
II 9 12 640 " 640 " C Yellow Creek Tp.
II 9 18 640 " 640 " C " " "
III 2 14 106J " 342:72 " M Ohio Tp.
Ill 6 1 640 " 640 " B Pultney Tp.
Ill 6 2 640 " 640 " B •' "
III 6 4 640 " 640 " B Pease Tp.
Ill 6 5 640 " €40 " B " "
III 8 2 640 " 640 " J Smithfield Tp.
Ill 8 24 640 " 640 " J " "
IV 1 28 208J " 873:8 " M Jackson Tp.
Land Owneks on the Muskingum
While the first sale of lots was in progress at New York, the agents and
directors of the Ohio Company of Associates were negotiating with the
Committee of Congress for the purchase of the tract of land on the Mus
kingum River, west of the seventh range of townships. Papers were
signed for this purchase, and for the Scioto River tract, on the 27th of
October, 1787, and title to the property passed from the United States on
that date. Prior to this date the Ohio Company had arranged to apportion
the lands of their purchase among the proprietor-shareholders of the com
pany, in number about a thousand, one numbered subdivision in each allot
ment for each share. Plans were formed at a series of meetings, beginning
August 29, 1787, and extending beyond the date of signature to July 7,
1788, for the distribution of these shares of the lands to the proprietors by
a method of drafts, the details of which appear in the form of resolutions
•8 These names : William Bowne, John Crawford, and Bichard Piatt do not appear
in the Schedule of Sales.

58
entered in the manuscript minutes of the Ohio company."
89 The minutes of the Ohio Company of Associates are in the Library of Marietta
College, Marietta, Ohio. Extracts covering the matter of the drafts may be found in
a set of four page leaflets issued, without date or title, for purposes of advancing the
sale of shares in the company. A set of these leaflets is in the Col. John May Col
lection, W. R. H. S., attached to Col. May's copy of Dr. Cutler's famous pamphlet
" An Explanation of the Map which Delineates that part of the Federal Lands ..."
Salem, 1787. References to the subdivisions of the lands and the process of drafts as
actually carried out, taken from these sources, follow :
(The instructions of August 30, respecting the allotments, which appear in the Massachusetts
Gazette, Tuesday, September 11, 1787, were never carried out, but were displaced by later regu
lations.— A. M. D.)
At a Meeting of the Directors and Agents of the Ohio Company, at Mr. Brackett's Tavern,
the Zlst. of November, and continued by Adjournment to the twenty- second.
Resolved,
That the lands of the Ohio Company be allotted and divided in the following manner; anything
to the contrary, in former resolutions notwithstanding— Viz.
Four thousand acres near the confluence of the Ohio and Muskingum river for a city and
commons, and contiguous to this, one thousand lots of eight acres each, amounting to eight
thousand acres.
Upon the Ohio in fractional townships, one thousand lots of one hundred and sixteen and
48/100, amounting to one hundred and sixteen thousand four hundred and eighty acres.
In the townships on the navigable rivers, one thousand lots of three hundred and twenty
acres, amounting to three hundred and twenty thousand acres, and,
In the inland towns, one thousand lots of.nine hundred and ninety two acres each, amounting
to nine hundred and ninety two thousand acres, to be divided and allotted as the agents shall
hereafter direct.
Resolved, that the city at the mouth of the Muskingum river be so laid out into oblong
squares, as that each house-lot shall consist of ninety feet in front, and one hundred and eighty
feet in depth, with an alley of ten feet in width, through each square in its oblong direction;
and that the centre street, crossing the city, be one hundred and fifty feet wide, anything to the
contrary, in former resolutions, notwithstanding.
Resolved, That the eight acre lots be surveyed, and a plat or map thereof be made, with
each lot numbered thereon, by the first Wednesday in March next, and that a copy thereof^ be
immediately forwarded to the Secretary, and the original retained by the Company's Superin-
tendant. That the Agents meet upon the same Wednesday in March, at Rice's Tavern in
Providence, State of Rhode-Island, to draw for said lots in numbers, as the same shall be stated
upon the plat. That a list of the draughts be transmitted by the Secretary to the Superintendant,
and a copy thereof preserved in the Secretary's office.
Winthrop Sargent, Se&ry to the Ohio Company.
At a Meeting of the Directors of the Ohio Company at Mr. Brackett's Tavern, in. Boston,
November 23, 1787.
For the purpose of carrying into effect the surveys and other business of the Ohio Company i
as agreed upon by the Directors, and Agents, at their meetings of the 29th. of August last, and
the 21st. instant.
Ordered,
That Col. JEbenezer Sproat, from Rhode-Island, Mr. Anslem Tupper, and Mr. John Matthews,
from Massachusetts, and Col. R. J. Meigs, from Connecticut, be the surveyors.
That General Rufus Putnam, he the Superintendant of all the business aforesaid, and he is
to be obeyed and respected accordingly. General Parsons in the Chair.
General Varnum, General Tupper, Mr. Barlow, Col. May, and Capt. Heyward, were appointed
a Committee to examine into, and report upon, the returns of the Agents.
This Committee reported, that one thousand shares of the Ohio Company's purchase were
taken up by the Agents, and that the drawing for the eight acre lots may commence as soon as
the Meeting shall direct; which report was accepted and approved.
Resolved, That the Secretary enter upon the records the number of shares in each agency.
Resolved, That Mr. Cutler, General Parsons, Major Dexter, Col. Talmadge, and Major
Corlis, be a Committee to prepare the names and numbers, and make all necessary arrange
ments for drawing the eight acre lots.
Resolved, That the drawing shall commence tomorrow morning, at the State-House in this
town. Adjourned till tomorrow morning, at 9 o'clock.
Thursday , March 6.
Met agreeably to adjournment.
The committee for preparing names and numbers reported, that they had procured two boxes,
into the one of which they had put the names of the adventurers, as returned by the Agents
(amounting to one thousand) and into the other the numbers, from No. 1 to No. 1000 inolusive :
That they have procured two lads to assist in drawing out the names and numbers.
That they have appointed Colonel J. May to receive the numbers, and call them off; and
Major W. Sargent to receive and call off the names ; And,
That they have appointed General H. Jackson, and Col. Talmadge, Clerks; and General B.
Tupper to receive and string the several names and numbers together, as they shall be severally
drawn out.
Resolved—, That the report of the Committee be accepted and approved; and that the
Meeting adjourn to the State-House immediately, and proceed to drawing the lots.
Adjourned to the State-House.
At 9 o'clock, p.m. having completed the drawing of the names and numbers (a list of which
is with the files of the Company, in the Secretary's ofiice) th.e Meeting adjourned till to-morrow
mprmng, at 9 o'clock, at Mr, Rice's T&Yern,

59
Lists of the drafts kept by Col. May furnish means of obtaining the names
of the proprietors of the Ohio Company, owners of lands on the Muskingum
River, 1788-1792.100 They present the drafts by name and number of the
proprietor, the agency from which the shares were obtained, and the
various numbers of the lots drawn against each name. An early list,
dated 1788, gives names about in order of the alphabet, but a later list,
17 9 6,101 gives data from which corrections may be made, showing changes
of residence, assignments of title, forfeitures, etc. A list, constructed from
these sources follows, giving names of proprietors, residence, agency and
number of shares held,102 the corrections taken from the attested copy being
inserted in each case in brackets.
Extracts from the Journal of Col. John May (Cincinnati, Bobert Clarke & Co.,
1873), relating to the distribution of lots on the Muskingum :
p. 59. [May 27, 1788] As to our surveying, buildings, etc., they are in a very backward way.
Little appears to be done, and a great deal of time and money misspent. . . .
p. 60. [May 28, 1788] The directors and agents present agreed to lease the ministerial lot to
different persons, in lots of ten acres each, for a term not less than one hundred years, at the
option of the lessee — to be without rent the first ten years, and then a fixed rent the remainder
of the time. This was done to accommodate a number of proprietors present, whose eight-acre
lots were drawn at a distance. Went this afternoon to survey the ten-acre lots, and drew for
them in the evening. Colonel Sproat drew No. 9; Varnum, 10; May, 11; Sargent, 12; Parsons,
13, etc. ... '
p. 63. [June 7, 1788] General Varnum and his party are making difficulties about the eight-
acre lots not being drawn contiguous to the city; also, with respect to the Scioto purchase.
The rations are not good. General Putnam did not strictly adhere to orders given at Brackett's
tavern in Boston, and Rice's tavern at Providence. I think I foresee difficulties of a more
serious nature.
p. 65. [June 9, 1788] . . . Met to settle difficulties respecting the eight-acre lots; but we
could not agree, and adjourned until to-morrow, at 8 o'clock a.m. . . .
p. 66. [June 10, 1788] . . . Met this morning, according to adjournment, and after much
debate and discussion, agreed to cut up our commons into three-acre lots, to be drawn for in
July. This has appeased the minds of the people. We also appointed officers of police.
p. 76. [July 2, 1788] . . . Attended myself a meeting of directors arid agents, according to
order at Providence, 8th March. Chose a committee to make preparation for drawing the city
lots. Entered into several debates, and at 2 o'clock adjourned until Monday, 7th inst., at
8 o'clock in the morning, for the purpose of drawing the city lots, and transacting such other
business as may be thought necessary for the establishment of our infant settlement. . . .
p. 79. [July 5, 1788] ... I am employed myself in preparing for the draughts of the city
lots. . . .
p. 82. [July 7, 1788] . . . We have drawn the city lots to-day. . . .
ioo Several of the official drafts, two of which are in the library of the New England
Historic Genealogical Society, were found in the chest of Col. John May, which, with
its contents, is now in the Western Reserve Historical Society.
101 In the Col. John May collection, W. B. H. S. Attested copy of an instrument
executed February 1, 1796, whereby agents of the Ohio Company relinquish and quit
claim to each proprietor the allotments made in the several drafts, viz.
one lot of eight acres, one lot of 100 acres,
one lot of three acres, fifll HV . • $ one lot of 640 acres,
one house or town lot, bth divisl0n } one lot of 262 acres.
one lot of 160 acres,
102 The agencies employed in selling shares in the Ohio Company are given by lull
title in the attested copy of the deed, although appearing in earlier lists by catchword.
A list of these agents as entered in the deed, with numbers of shares sold by each,
follows : Barlow's Agency
William Corlis's Agency
A Crary's Agency
M. Cutler & J Dodge Agency
Ephraim Cutler's Agency
Eliphalet Downer's Agency
N. Freeman's Agency
E. Harris's Agency
H. Jackson's Agency
Jno May's Agency
S. H. Parson s Agency
E. Putnam & Co. Agency
W. Sargent's Agency
Sproat & Dexter' s Agency
Benjn Tupper's Agency
Benjn Tallmadge's Agency

19 shares

Nos

i. 1- 19 i

nclusive

108

"

<l

20-127

((

71

a

If

128-198

<<

86

a

((

199-284

a

13

tt

tf

285-297

a

18

a

((

298-315

a

9

n

"

316-324

it

31

tt

(<

325-355

a

13

d

a

356-368

a

35

(<

a

369-403

a

91

<(

it

404-492 and 816-817

59

a

a

493-551 inclusive

148

a

(t

552-699

a

43

<<

Cf

700-742

a

30

(<

((

743-772

a

43

cf

a

773-815

a

PKOFEIETOB RESIDENCE
Cranston, R. I. [Warwick]
Warwick, R. I.
Mansfield, Conn.
Durham, N. H.
Ashfield, Mass.
-^Middleton, R. I.
Conway, Mass.
Johnston, R. I.
a it
n it
ProvidenceE. Greenwich, R. I. [Greenwich]
" a a
Providence E. Greenwich, R. I. [Greenwich]
Stockbridge, Mass.
Ohio
New York
Wallingford, Conn.
Killingly, Conn.
S. Kingstown, R. I. [Kingstown]
Plainfield, Conn, [no address'}
Norwich, Conn.
Brookline, Mass. [Brooklyn]
Reading, Conn.
Southbury, Conn.
Hartford, Conn. [Reading]
2? numerals in brackets indicate the number of shares entered in the quit-claim deed.
Ihis and other names thus expressed do not appear in the early lists showing a transfer of title.

Aborn, Samuel
a a
Adams, David
" Samuel
Alden, John
Allen, Elisha
Allis, Lucius
Angel, Israel
[ " " and Windsor, Christer
" and Mathewson, Jeffery
" Nathan
Arnold, Stephen
" Thomas
" Welcome
" William
Ashley, Moses, and [Hill, Asa]
Ashton, Joseph
Atkinson, John
Atwater, Caleb
Atwood, Ebenezer
Babcock, Abijah [Alijah]
Backus, [Bachus] Andrew, and [Jones, Jno. P
his heirs]
Backus, James
Baker, Eleazer
Barlow, Aaron
" Jabez
" Joel [& Asso :]

AGENCY

SHARES

^William] Corlis
^Sproat &] Dexter
"S. H.] Parsons
~M. Cutler & J. Dodge]
|Benjn] Tupper
Crary
Tupper [Sproat &] Dexter
a it

3 1
21 1
1 1
3 r

-0-]i08 T
" 104

n ti
[William] Corlis
[A.] Crary
a tt

i
3 1
1
41 O
2[1] 1
3 1
111

^William] Corlis
|A.] Crary
~Benjn] Tupper
~W.] Sargent
M. Cutler [& J. Dodge]
[S. H.] Parsons
E[phraim] Cutler
[A.] Crary
^S. H.] Parsons

a a
"Eliphalet] Downer
Barlow it a

11
5 1
3

[o;[o:

i

Barrill [Barrell], Joseph
Bartlet[t], William
Barton, William
Basset, Barakiah
Bates, Joseph
[Beardslee, John
Beatty [Beaty], Ercurias
Beauman, Sabastian
Beers, Nathan
Bent, Silas
Big[ge]low, Timothy, and [Bent, Silas, &c]
Bird, Seth
Blake, Thomas
Blanchard, Augustus
Bond, John
Boss, John L.
Bowdoin, Elizabeth [Eliza :]
" James
Bowen, Israel
" Jabez
" Obadiah
" William
Bowers, Henry, Jur.
" John
Bowland [Borland], Leonard N.
Bradford, James [Heirs]
« William
Brasher [Brosher], Philander
Brazer [Brashier], Samuel, and [Choate, Francis]
Breeze [Breese], John
Brick [Breik], William

Boston Beverly, Mass.
Providence
Falmouth, Mass.
Rochester, Mass.
Stratford Ohio [Princetown]
New York
New Haven, Conn.
Rutland, Mass.
Worcester, Mass.
Litchfield, Conn.
Boston Amherst, N. H.
Hemstead, N. H. [Hempsted]
Newport, R. I.
Boston a
Coventry, R. I.
Providence

Cambridge, Mass.
Swansey, Mass.
Boston Ohio
Bristol, R. I.
New York
Worcester, Mass.
Newport, R. I.
Boston

M. Cutler [& J. Dodge]
« «
[William] Corlis
[N] Freeman
a a
Benj. Tallmadge
[W.] Sargent

5 11 1 11]
3 1
[S. H.] Parsons 1
Clapp [R. Putnam & Co.] 1
" " " %
Talmage [Benj. Tallmadge] 1
[Jno.] May 1
M. Cutler [& J. Dodge]
E.] Harris 1
!A.] Crary 1
'W.] Sargent 4
'Jno.] May 5
"A.] Crary 1
^William] Corlis 2
a " 1
n « 1
[Eliphalet] Downer 2
ti n l
[W.] Sargent 1
a it 1
[William] Corlis 1
[W.] Sargent 1
Clapp [R. Putnam & Co.] 1
[A.] Crary 2
[Jno.] May 1

Briggs, Joseph
Britt, Daniel
Broadstreet, Nathaniel
Broome [Broom], Samuel
Brown, Abigail [alias Francis]
" Allice
" Ann
" Daniel
" Jacob
" James
" John
" Moses, Jur., and [Nicholas]
" N. James [James, son to Nathl]
" Nathaniel
" Nicholas
" " Jun1., and [Nicholas]
" Salley [Sally]
" Sarah
" Stephen
" William S.
Browning, Will™. Jur.
Buel, John H.
Buffinton, Samuel
Bull, David
Burnham, Isaac
" John
it it
it ti
" William
Burr, Shubal [Shubael], and [Samuel]
Butler, Jeremiah

Newport, R. I.
OhioRowley, Mass.
New Haven, Conn.
Providence a
New York
Ipswich, Mass.
Newbury, Mass.
Providence

Ipswich, Mass.
Providence

Ipswich, Mass.
Providence Rutland, Mass.
Hebron, Conn.
Worthington, Mass.
Hartford, Conn.
Pomfret, Conn.
Dunbarton, N. H.
Ipswich, Mass.
Lynnfield, Mass. [Ipswich]
Ipswich, Mass.
Warren, R. I.
Durham, Conn.

"A.] Crary

1

"W.] Sargent

1

M. Cutler

1[0]

[S. H.] Parsons

5

[William] Corlis
tt it

20

[W.] Sargent

1

M. Cutler

1[0]

[E.] Harris

1

[William] Corlis

5

n it

5

it it

3

[A.] Crary

1

M. Cutler [& J. Dodge]

1

[William] Corlis

5

a it

3 <=>

[William] Corlis
a a

2 41[0]

M. Cutler

[A.] Crary

1

Clapp [R. Putnam & Co.]

i

"S. H.] Parsons

i

[Benj.] Tupper

i

S. H.] Parsons
a ti

ii1[0]

M. Cutler

" [& J. Dodge]

3

Heywood [R. Putnam & Co.]

1

M. Cutler [& J. Dodge]

1

[William] Corlis

1

[S. H.] Parsons

1

Cady, Squier [Squire]
Caldwell, William, and [Goodale, Nathan]
Call, Jonathan, [& True, Jabez]
Camp, Elnathan
Campbell, Alexander
Caning, Henry
Carpenter, Asahel
" Thomas
Carrington, Edward
Carter, John
Casey, Wanton
Cass, Jonathan
Catling [Catlin], Alexander
Center [alias Senter], Isaac
Champney, Caleb
Chapman, Levi
[ " " and [Shipman, Saml]
Chevalee, John Agin [Chevallie, John H.]
Chever, Joshua
" Lott [Lot]
Chickery, Jabez
Child, John
Choate, Jonathan, and [Miles, Benjamin]
Clap, Caleb
" Daniel
" Joshua [& Daniel]
Clark, Ethan
Clark, Peleg
Cleaveland [Cleveland], Moses
" " William
Clough, Aaron

Plainfield, Conn.

E[phraim] Cutler

1

Rutland, Mass.

Clapp [R. Putnam & Co.]

2

Newburyport, Mass.

~E.] Harris

1

Durham, Conn.

;S. H] Parsons

1

Chester, N. H.

Harris

1

[0]

New London, Conn.

M. Cutler

1

"01

Rehoboth, Mass.
n n

'William] Corlis
a a

1i

Richmond, Vt.

;W.] Sargent

4

Providence

"William] Corlis

5[1]

Warwick, R. I.

"A.] Crary

2

Exeter, N. H.

=E.] Harris

1

Litchfield, Conn.

Talmage [Benj. Tallmadge]

1

Newport, R. I.

"A.] Crary

2

Boston

=W.] Sargent

1

Saybrook, Conn.

=S. H] Parsons

2[1]

n it

n u

[1"

New York

'W.] Sargent

L -
2

Lynn, Mass.

ML. Cutler

1[0]

u u

" " [& J. Dodge]

1

Dedham, Mass.

a it

1[0]

Warrin, R. I. [Warren]

"William] Corlis

1

Rutland, Mass.
tt n

Clapp [R. Putnam & Co.]
n it n

1
1 1

Worcester, Mass.

Heywood [R. Putnam & Co.]

Hardwick, Mass. [Harwich]

it a it

1

Newport, R. I.

[A.] Crary

1

Newport, R. I.

"A.] Crary

2

Canterbury, Conn.

"S. H.] Parsons

2

Salem, Mass.

M. Cutler [& J. Dodge]

1

Thompson, Conn. [Marietta]

E[phraim] Cutler

1

OSOS

Cobb, Benjamin
" David
Coburn, Asa, [& Asso :]
Cogswell, James
Coit, Joseph
" Wheeler C. [Wheeler]
Coldin, Henritte [Colden, Henrietta]
Coles, Thomas
Colton, Abijah
Comstock, Benjamin
Conant, Nathaniel
Condy [Candy], Thos. Hollis [H.]
Congdon, James
Constable, William
Converse, Alpheus Benjamin, and [James & heirs]
Cook, Stephen
Cooper, Ezekiel [& Putnam, Jethro]
Corlis, George, and [Bowen, William]
" " and [Nightingale, Joseph]
" and [Sessions, William]
" William, and [John]
Cory, Ebenezer
Crary, Archibald
[ " and King, Saml.
[ " " and Martin, Simeon
Crook, John
" William
Crosby, Ebenezer
Crowley, Florence
Cummings, Joseph

Boston Ta[u]nton, Mass.
Brookfield, Mass.
New York
Thompson, Conn.
Preston, Conn.
New York
Providence
Hartford, Conn.
Providence Sanford, Mass.
Boston Charleston, R. I.
New York
Thompson, Conn.
Killingly [Thompson], Conn.
Watertown, Mass.
Danvers[e], Mass.
Providence

Tiverton, R. I.
E. Greenwich

Newport it
New York
Boston Topsfield, Mass.

[Jno.] May
[W.] Sargent
Foster [R. Putnam & Co.]
ParsonsE. Cutler
S. H.] Parsons
~W.] Sargent
^Sproat &] Dexter
Barlow [William] Corlis
M. Cutler
W.] Sargent
A.] Crary
^W.] Sargent
E[phraim] Cutler
it a
[Eliphalet] Downer
M. Cutler [& J. Dodge]
[William] Corlis

Crary it
A. Crary
(t «
[A] Crary
tt tt
[W.] Sargent
n n
M. Cutler

[0]

[1][0][o; i
r
[0]

[0]

OS

Currier, Samuel
Cushing, Nathaniel [& Asso :]
" Thomas
Cutler, Ephraim [to Moulton, Joseph]

Dall, William
Davis, Daniel
[ " Perah
Day, Joseph [& Asso :]
Dean, Elizabeth
" [Deane], Nathaniel, Jur.
" Thomas
Deane [Dean], Jonathan
" Samuel H.
Deavenport [Davenport], James
Delafield, John
Deming, Jonathan [to Deshon, John]
Demrick, Joseph
Demount, Mary, and [Rebecka]
Denney [Denny], Ebenezer
DeNeufville, Leonard
Deshon, John
Devenport [Davenport], John, and [Jones, J, P.
and his heirs]
Devol, Jonathan
Dexter, John S.
« Sam'l S. [L.]
" Timothy
Dewolf, Charles
ioB Indicating removal to the Muskingum.

Hamstead [Hempsted], N. H.
Brookfield, Mass.
Salem, Mass.
Killingly, Conn. [Marietta]106
Ipswich, Mass.
Boston Killingly, Conn.
E. Hampton
Hartford, Conn.
Dedham, Mass.
tt a
Ipswich, Mass.
Dedham, Mass.
it a
Stanford [Stamford], Conn.
New York
Colchester [N. London], Conn.
Falmouth, Mass.
Providence OhioNew York
New London, Conn.
Stamford, Conn, [no address}
Tiverton, R. I. [Marietta]
Cumberland, R. I.
Newburyport u
Bristol, R. I.

[E.] Harris
Foster [R. Putnam & Co.]
M. Cutler
" " [& J. Dodge
[M. Cutler & J.] Dodge
[Jno.] May
E[phraim] Cutler
Benj. Tallmadge
BarlowM. Cutler
« " [& J. Dodge]

[0]

n a

[& J. Dodge]

S. H.] Parsons
W.] Sargent
"S. H.] Parsons
Freeman [William] Corlis
[W.] Sargent
it a
[S. H.] Parsons

A.] Crary
Spioat &] Dexter
E.] Harris
' n «
[William] Corlis

11 1
2 5 111] 1 111
5 115 1 111
2 11

2[1] 4 15 1

[0] [o; [2[0

[0]

OS

Dix, Elijah

Worcester, Mass.

Heywood [R. Putnam & Co.]

2

Dodge, Isaac [& Oliver]

Wenham, Mass. [Hampton]

"M. Cutler & J.] Dodge

1

" John

Beverly, Mass.

it a a

2

a n

Wenham, Mass.

Dodge

2

"(T

" " Jur.

n it

tt

1

=0"

" John Thornton
u n
it
1
=<f
" Oliver
Hampton, N. H.
tt
5
=0=
" Richard, and [Woodbury, Nathan]
Wenham, Mass. [Hampton]
"M. Cutler & J.] Dodge
1
" William
a a a
M. Cutler
1
"0"
Dolliver, Peter
Boston
a ti
1
=0"
Donalson, James
London Derry, N. H.
Harris
1
"0"
Dorr, Ebenezer
Boston
[Jno.] May
1
Dorrance, Samuel
Saybrook, Conn.
~S. H.] Parsons
1
Doughty, John
Ohio
[W.] Sargent
2
"1"
" '' and [Kerr, Hamilton]
u
it it
"r
Douglas, Richard
New London, Conn.
"S. H.] Parsons
1
Downer, Eliphalet
Brookline, Mass. [Roxbury]
"Eliphalet] Downer
2
Dreson, Jacob
Thompson, Conn.
E. Cutler
1[0]
Drowne [Drown], Solomon
Providence
[Sproat &] Dexter
1
Duer, William
New York
Sargent
5[0]
Duglas [Douglas], John
Plainfield, Conn.
Parsons [Ephraim Cutler]
1
Dunham, Daniel [Danl's heirs]
Conway, Mass.
"Benjn.] Tupper
1
Dustin, Amos
Salem, Mass.
VI. Cutler
1 [0]
Dyar [Dyer], Eliphalet
Windham, Conn.
"S. H] Parsons
1
Easton, Nichols [Nichl8]
Middleton, R. I.
"A.] Crary
2
Edgar, William
New York
[W.] Sargent
5
Ens worth, Jedediah
Pomfret, Conn.
"William] Corlis
1
Evans, Israel
Charlesto[w]n, Mass.
W.] Sargent
2
Everett, Moses
Dorchester, Mass.
ML. Cutler [& J. Dodge]
1
Fairchild, Major
Newport
A] Crary
1
Farley, Thomas
Ipswich, Mass.
St. Cutler
1
[0[
Far[e]well, Isaac
Fearing, Paul
n a
Felshaw, John
Fisk, Caleb
" Peleg
Fitch, Andrew
Flagg, Samuel
Flint, Hesekiah
Fogg, Jeremiah
Forbes, Eli
Foster, Dwight
" Gedion
" Peregrine
Fox, Reuben
Foster, Theodore
Fulham, John
Fuller, Daniel
" Oliver
Furnice [Furnace], Nathaniel H.
Fra[u]ncis, Andrew
Freeman, Nathaniel
Friend, John
Frost, Samuel
Frothingham, Ebenezer
" Samuel
Frye [Fry], Frederick
Gardner, Benjamin
" Caleb
[Gardiner, David
Gay, Jesse •

Charlesto[w]n, N. H.
Middleborough, Mass.
" [Marietta]
Killingly, Conn.
Scituate, R. I.
a u
Lebanon, Conn.
Worcester, Mass.
Reading, Mass.
Kensington [Kingston], N. H.
Gloucester
Brookfield, Mass.
Danverse, Mass.
Brookfield, Mass. [Worcester]
Warren, Conn.
Providence E. Greenwich, R. I.
GloucesterRehoboth
BostonNew York
Sandwich, Mass.
Wenham, Mass. [Dorchester]
Framingham, Mass.
Middleton, Conn.
it u
Andover, Mass.
Marblehead, Mass.
Newport, R. I.
E. Hampton
Dedham, Mass.

Foster [R. Putnam & Co.]
Freeman 1 [0]
Heywood [R. Putnam & Co.]
Harris 1 [0]
[Sproat &] Dexter
u il
[S. H] Parsons
Heywood [R. Putnam & Co.]
M. Cutler 1 [0]
[E.] Harris
M. Cutler 1 [0]
Heywood [R. Putnam & Co.]
M. Cutler 1 [0]
Foster [R. Putnam & Co.]
Talmage [Benj. Tallmadge]
[Sproat &] Dexter
[A.] Crary
M. Cutler [& J. Dodge]
Sproat &] Dexter
Eliphalet] Downer
W.] Sargent
FreemanM. Cutler [& J. Dodge]
Heywood [R. Putnam & Co.]
[S. H] Parsons
a a
Clapp [R. Putnam & Co.]
M. Cutler
[A.] Crary 2
[Benjn.] Tallmadge 2]
M. Cutler [& J. Dodge] 1

[0]
[1]

[0]

t J

Gerrey [Gerry], Elbridge
Gibbs, George
Gilman, Benja. T. [Benja. I.]
Goldthwait, Ezekiel and [Porter, Stephen &
Nath'l.]
Goodale, Nathan
Goodman, Noah [& Asso :]
Gramon [Groman], James, and [Windsor, Christo
pher]
Graves, Asa, and [Spencer, Joseph]
Green, Catharine, and [Griffin]
" Charles
" Elihu [Elihue] & Co., and [Elihue &
Christ17.]
" Governor [Wm. Govr.]
" Job
" John
" Jonathan
" Josiah, and [Vaughn, Boon] ¦
" William, 2d [Wm. son of Nathl.], and
[Griffin]
Greenleaf, Abner
Gridley, William
Griffin, Samuel
Griswould [Griswold], Abiel
" ^ " Sylvenus [Sylvanus]
Gro[s]venor, Nathan
" Thomas
Guthrie, Joseph
Hales, William
Hall, Elias [& Asso :]

Cambridge, Mass.

[Jno.] May

1

Newport, R. I.

"A.] Crary

1

Exeter, N. H. [Marietta]

=E.] Harris

1

Danvers, Mass.

if. Cutler [& J. Dodge]

4[1]

Brookfield, Mass.
Hadley, Mass. [N. Hampton]
ProvidenceHatfield [no address}
Warwick, R. I. [Marietta]
E. Greenwich, R. I. [Mariettal
Warwick, R. I.

New York
E. Greenwich
Providence Warwick
NewburyportBoston Salem
Windsor, Conn.
n n
Pomfret, Conn.
it a
Washington, Conn.
Gloucester, Mass.
New Braintree

Foster [R. Putnam & Co.]
[Benjn.] Tupper
[William] Corlis
[Benjn.] Tupper
[A.] Crary

[W.] Sargent
Crary 1 [0]
[William] Corlis
[A.] Crary
Harris 1 [0]
[W.] Sargent
M. Cutler 1 [0]
Barlow u
[William] Corlis
[S. H] Parsons
Talmage [Benjn. Talmadge] 2
M. Cutler 1 [0]
Foster [R. Putnam & Co.] 2

crs
oo

Halsey, Thomas L.
Hamilton, Alexander
" " and [Stevens, Robert]
Hammond, Abijah
" [Hammon], William
Hanshaw [Henshaw], Samuel
Hardy, Joseph
Harmer, Josiah
Harris, Edward
Hartwell, Ephraim
Haskell [Haskill], Elnathan
" Jonathan
Haskins [Hoskins], William
Hazzard [Hazard], Ebenezer
Heart [Hart], Jona., and [Abigail]
Heartshorn [Hartshorn], Thomas
Heath [& Asso :], Peleg
Hedges, David
Henderson, Hugh
Herd [Hird], John [I.]
Herredon, David
Herrick, John
Heylegar, Peter
Heywood [Haywood], Benjn.
Hildreth, Samuel
Hilligas, Michael [Hillegas, Michl.]
Hine, Abel
Hinkl[e]y [& Asso :], Ebenr.
Hitchburn, Samuel, and [Story, Daniel]
Hitckcock, David
" Enos

Providence
New York
Newport New York
Newport
Northhampton, Mass.
New York
Ohio [Philada.]
Newburyport [Kentucky]
N. Ipswich, N. H.
Boston Rochester, Mass.
BostonNew York [Philada]
Berlin, Conn.
Salem, Mass.
Hartford, Conn.
E. [S.] Hampton
New York
Ipswich, Mass.
a a
Boxford St. Croix
Worcester, Mass.
Methuen, Mass. [Methum]
New York [Philada.]
New Milford, Conn.
Saybrook, Conn.
BostonBrookfield, Mass.
Providence

'William] Corlis
W.] Sargent
A.] Crary
W.] Sargent
A.] Crary
Benjn.] Tupper
W.] Sargent
n n
[E.] Harris
M. Cutler
[W.] Sargent
it a
[Jno.] May
W.] Sargent
"S. H.] Parsons
M. Cutler [& J. Dodge]
Barlow Talmage [Benjn. Tallmadge]
M. Cutler [& J. Dodge]

[S. H.] Parsons
Clapp [R. Putnam & Co.]
M. Cutler [& J. Dodge]
[W.] Sargent
Talmage [Benjn. Tallmadge]
Barlow M. Cutler [& J. Dodge]
Foster [William] Corlis

[0]

CO

[1]

[0]

Hobson, Humphrey
Holden, John
Holroyd, William
Horton, Amos
Hosmer, Timothy
How, Aaron
Howland, Thomas
Hubbard, Elijah
" John
" Nehemiah
Hughes, Thomas
Humphrey, David
Humphr[e]y, William
Hunt, Elijah
Hunter, Henry
Hunting, Benjamin
Huntington, Andrew, and [Jones J. P. his heirs]
Jedediah, and [Lathrop, Azariel]
Hurd, John
Ingersol, George
[Jackson, H. & Associates
" Henry
Jeffers, John
Jenks [Jinks], John, and [Joseph]
Jewett [Juet], Stephen, and [Gilman, I. Benja].
Jones, Baniel
" Jno. C.
Joslin, Hope
Judd, Elizabeth
Judson, David
Keith, John, 2nd

Rawley, Mass.
Warwick, R. I.
Providence
Johnson, R. I. [Jonson]
Farmington, Conn.
Conway, Mass. [Marietta]
Newport, R. I.
Middleto[w]n, Conn.
Moultonborough Middleto[w]n, Conn.
Newport, R. I.
Darby, Conn.
RehobothNorth Hampton
Newport, R. I.
S. Hampton
Norwich, Conn, [no address}
Norwich, Conn.
Boston

Ohio
Providence Rowley, Mass. [Marietta]
Hartford, Conn.
BostonE. Greenwich, R. I. .
Farmington, Conn.
Washington, Conn.
Thompson, Conn.

M. Cutler
Crary [William] Corlis
a it
Barlow Benjn.] Tupper
A.] Crary
_'S. H.] Parsons
M. Cutler
S. H.] Parsons
A.] Crary
S. H.] Parsons
William] Corlis
Benjn.] Tupper
A.] Crary
Talmage [Benjn. Tallmadge]
[S. H] Parsons
a ~ it
[H.] Jackson
n u

2[0] [0]

[1][0]

[W.] Sargent 2"Tl]
a it j
[William] Corlis
M. Cutler [& J. Dodge]
Barlow[H] Jackson 5
Crary 1 [0]
Barlow 1
Talmage [Benjn. Tallmadge] 2
E. Cutler 1 [0]

[1]

o

Kendall, Ephraim
King, Zebulon [Zebulon's heirs]
Kirby, Ephraim
Kittle, John
Knight, Isaac
Knowles [Knowls], Charles
" Charles
Knox, Henry
Kuhl, Henry
Labateaux, Hannah
Laird, Robert
Lamb, John
Lamb & Baker
Lambert, Thomas
Langdell, John
Lappingwell [Liffingwell], Chrisr.
Larebee [Larraby], Timothy and [Jones J. P.
his heirs]
Lathrop, Elijah, Jur., and [Jones J. P. his heirs]
Lawrance, Elisha
" [Lawrence], John
Leach, Joseph
Leavens [Levins], John
Leavitt, David, Jur. [& Asso :]
Le Chapedelain [De Chapedelene], Marq., and
[Thomas L. Halsey]
Ledyard, Isaac
Lee, Arther [Arthur]
Lepet [Lippet], Christopher
Leucas [Lucas], John
Levens, Joseph

Ipswich, Mass.

St. Cutler

Newport, R. I.

"A.] Crary

Litchfield, Conn.

Talmage [Benjn. Tallmadge]

Danvers, Mass.

M. Cutler
Plainfield, Conn.
Parsons [Ephraim Cutler 1]
Boston [New York]
"Eliphalet] Downer
a it u
=W.] Sargent
New York
"Boston]
it u
u n
"Philada]
u it
it u
Sargent
Newburyport, Mass.
Harris
Norwich, Conn.
Eliphalet Downer
Brookline, Mass. [Brooklyn]
a n
Rowley, Mass.
M. Cutler
Beverly, Mass.
n n
Norwich, Conn.
nS. H.] Parsons
Windham,
Honn. [no
address}
u u
Norwich, Conn, [no address}
Killingly, Conn.
New York
Manchester, Mass.
Thompson, Conn.
BethlehemSt.. Breiux [Providence]
New York
New York [Virginia]
Cranston, R. I.
Boston Thompson, Conn.
E. Cutler
[W.] Sargent
M. Cutler
E. Cutler
Talmage [Benjn. Tallmadge]
[William] Corlis
[W.] Sargent
n n
[Sproat &] Dexter
[H] Jackson
E[phraim] Cutler
[0]
[0]
[2] [1] "0"=0=
1[0]
3 1[0]1[0]1
5
22111
Littlefield, William
Livingston, Brockholst
" Walter
Loomis, Lebeus [Libbeus]
Lord, Elisha
" William
Loring, Daniel
Low, John *
Lucas, John
Lummis [Loomis], Porter
Lumus, John
Lunt, Ezra
« " [B. Leigh]
» " [Call]
" " [Harris]
Lyon, Humphrey
" John
Lyman, Daniel
Mackanon, Will
Macomb [McComb], Alex.
" " Eliza.
« " William
Macomber [McComber], Ebenezr.
Malbone, John
Manchester, Mathw.
Manning, James, and [Holroyd, William]
Marble, Joel
Marsh, David W.
Marshall, Christopr.
Marshal, Wm.
Mathews, Abel [& Asso :]

Newport, R. I.
New York
it a
Cumberland, R. I.
Pomfret, Conn.
Saybrook, Conn.
Sudbury, Mass.
Coxhall, Mass.
Boston. Ipswich, Mass.
a <;
Newburyport, Mass. [Kentucky]

E. Haddam, Conn.
Le[i]cester, Mass.
Newport, R. I.
AntiguaNew York

Providence
Newport Cranston, R. I.
Providence
Worcester, Mass.
ProvidenceBoston a
Bristol, Conn.

Crary "W.] Sargent
n it
"Sproat &] Dexter
"S. H.] Parsons
n n

11
532

:o]

Clapp [R. Putnam & Co.]
M. Cutler
[Jno.] May
M. Cutler [& J. Dodge]
u it a

1[

"0"

[E.] Harris
it n

4

it a
it tt
[S. H.] Parsons
Foster [R. Putnam & Co.]
[A.] Crary
Parsons [W.] Sargent
u n
1 "" "^
11
3[0] 5 i
it n
[Sproat &] Dexter
Crary 'Sproat &] Dexter
"William] Corlis
Heywood [R. Putnam & Co.]
"William] Corlis
W.] Sargent
^Eliphalet] Downer
Barlow
j.
5 1 1
3 1 1
1 11 1
X
Mathews, John [& Assoc :]
Mawney, John
Mawny [Mowrey], Elisha, Jur.
Maxwell, Hugh
May, Fredk. [Frederik]
" Hy. Knox [Henry K.]
" John, and [Sargent W.]
«f. Jno. W- M. [& Marshall, Wm.]
" John, Jur.
" Joseph <(
" Wm. Rufus [Wilm. R.]
McCurdy, William
Meigs, Jplm
Mercor [Mercer], John
Miles, Joshua
Miller, Nathan
Morgan, John
Morton, Jacob
" Perez, and [Tupper, Huldah]
Morris, James
" Wm. M.
Moulton, Willm.
" Joseph
Mnmford, John
Munro[e], James
" Josiah [& H. White]
Murrey [Murray], John
Newton, John, Jjir., and [Lord, Abner]
Nicholson, James
Nightingale. & Clarke [Clark]

New Braintree
Providence Smithfield, R. I.
Heath, Mass.
Boston

Ohio Middleto[w]n Ohio
Brookline, Conn. [Brooklyn]
Warren, R. I.
Hartf ordi Conn.
New York
Boston [/Marietta]
Litchfie/d, Conn.
New York
Hempsted, N. H.
Newburyport ProvidenceProvidence
Amherst, N. N. [Marietta]
Glocester [Boston]
Colchester, Conn.
New York
Providence

Foster [R. Putnam & Co.]

rSproat &] Dexter
it «

Tupper

1[0]

"Jno.] May
a it

~W.] Sargent
n it
"Jno.] May,
it n
"W.] Sargent
=Jno.] May
"W.] Sargent
"S. EL] Parsons
[W] Sargent
*^l
[S. H] Parsons
2 os
Crary
1[0]
[S. H.] Parsons
Sargent
1[0]
[Benjn. Tupper]
Talmage [Benjn. Tallmadge]
3
~W.] Sargent
2
[E.] Harris
2
[1]
u
1
[0]
"William"
Corlis
1
"William^
Corlis
1
"E.} Harris
1
;W.] Sargent
1
"S. H-] Parsons
1
"W.] Sargent
5 [3]
"William]
Corlis
5
Nixon, Thomas
Nurse [Nourse], Joseph
Nye, Ichabod
" Joseph
a u
Odiorn [Odion], Thomas
Odlin [Odlyn], Dudley, and [Gilman, Benj. I.]
Oliver, Alexander [& Asso :]
" Peter
" Robert [& Asso :]
Olney, Christopher
" CogshaU
" Jeremiah
Olyphant, Ann[a]
" David
Orne, Mary
Parke [Park], Mat[t]hew, and [Thorp, E.]
Parson[s], Wm. W.
Parsons, Enoch
" Joshua, and [Miller, Edward]
" Mehitabel [to Jno. Niewanger]
" Nehem.
" Saml. H. [Samuel H. to Wm.]
Patterson, James
Pearson [Parsons], Obadiah
Peck, William
Peirce [Pierce], David
" " " Jur.
Perkins, Samuel [G.]
Perry, Sylvenus
Peters, Andrew [& Asso :]

Southborough

Heywood [R. Putnam & Co.]

1

New York [Philada.]

[W.] Sargent

1

Chesterfield [Marietta]

[Benj™.] Tupper

2[1]

Harwich

N.] Freeman

4

Sandwich

" n 'n

1

Exeter, N. H.
it u

[E.] Harris
tt it

12[1]

Conway, Mass. [Belprie]

"Benj".] Tupper

Salem, Mass.

M. Cutler [& J. Dodge]

1

Chester, Mass. [Marietta]

[Benjn.] Tupper

2

Providence

[William] Corlis

1

Cumberland, R. I. [Ohio]

[Sproat &] Dexter

3

Providence

"William] Corlis

2

Newport

"A] Crary

1

u

~ n «

3 [2]

Wenham

Dodge

1[0]

Boston

M. Cutler [& J. Dodge]

1

Middletown, Conn.
it n

[S. H.] Parsons
tt it

111

Palmer [Middletown], Mass.

"S. H.] Parsons

Middletown, Conn.

tt n

1

Gloucester, Mass.

M. Cutler

1 [0]

Middletown, Conn.

[S. H] Parsons

5

Bedford "

=Jno.] May

2

Lynn, Mass.

St. Cutler '

[& J. Dodge]

1

Providence

"Sproat &"

Dexter

1

Glo[u]cester, Mass.

St. Cutler'

"& J. Dodge]

5 [4]

n n

a n n u

5

Boston

"Jno.] May

1

Killingly, Conn.

E. Cutler

1 [0]

Mendon, Mass.

[Benjn.] Tupper

2

Pierce, Jona.
" William
Pierpoint, John
[Pierson, David
Pitman, Sa[u]nders
Phillips, Peter
Piatt, Jeremiah
" Richard
Pom[e]roy, Asahel
Porter, Ebenezer, Jur.
[Post, James
Potter, William
Power, Nicholas
Pratt, Humphrey
" John
Prentice, Jonas
Putnam, Allen, and [Amos Porter]
EdwinHaraIsrael, Jur. [Israel
Jethro Rufus

Wm. R.
Quegly [Quigly], John [& Asso :]
Read [Reed], John, and [Miles, John]
Redwood, Abraham [Aba. 3d], and [Champlin,
Christopher]
Revera, Jacob R., and, [Abraham R.]
Reynald, Joseph

Salem it
New Haven, Conn.
South Hampton
Providence
N. Kingston [No. Kingston]
NeNv Haven
New York
North Hampton
Ipswich, Mass.
So. Hampton
Ipswich, Mass.
Providence Saybrook, Conn.
Ohio [Middletown]
New Haven, Conn. [New York]
Danverse, Mass.
Rutland, Mass. [Marietta]
Middletown, Mass. [Marietta]
Brookline, Conn. [Pomfret]
Denverse, Mass.
Rutland, Mass. [Marietta]

ChesterRutland
Newport E. Greenwich

[M. Cutler & J.] Dodge
a u a
[S. H.] Parsons
Benj. Tallmadge
[William] Corlis
Corry [Crary]
[S. H] Parsons
Sargent[Benj11.] Tupper
M. Cutler
[Benjn.] Tallmadge
M. Cutler
'William] Corlis
"S. H] Parsons
°W.] Sargent
'S. H] Parsons
it. Cutler [& J. Dodge]
Foster [R. Putnam & Co.]
Heywood [R. Putnam & Co.]
[S. H] Parsons
it. Cutler
'H] Jackson
|W.] Sargent
"Benjn.] Tupper
Foster [R. Putnam & Co.]
[Benjn.] Tupper
Heywood [R. Putnam & Co.]
[A.] Crary

1[0"
3[2= 1
J]
5[1] 5[0]

I]

[0]
I [0]

[0]

[0]

Rice, Henry

Warwick, R. I. [A.] Crary

1

" Oliver

Sudbury Heywood [R. Putnam & Co.]

2

" Thomas

Warwick, R. I. [

"A.] Crary

1

" William

Sudbury, Mass. Clapp [R. Putnam & Co.]

1

Richmond, Adam, and [Revera,] Abrahm. R.]

W. Greenwich, R. I.

"A.] Crary

1

Riddle [Riedls], Henry

Sutton, Mass. '

Dlapp [R. Putnam & Co.]

2

Rhodes, William

Boston

[Eliphalet] Downer

1

Robards, B. Richard

South Carolina

Sargent

2

Roger[s], Piatt

New York [Fishkill]

"W.] Sargent

1

Rose, John

Pennsylvania

« a

1

Ruggles, Nathl.

Roxbury

"Eliphalet] Downer

1

Rumril [Rumrell], Thos.

Newport

[A.] Crary

1

Russell, Jona. [Russel], Jonathan

Thompson, Conn.

E [phraim] Cutler

1

" Jos. & Wm.

Providence

"William] Corlis

2

" [Russel], Thomas

Boston

"Jno.] May

5

Sabiu, Thomas

Providence

"William] Corlis

1

Sacket, Ananias R.

New York [Fishkill] .

°W.] Sargent

1

Safford, John

Ipswich, Mass. ¦

St. Cutler [& J. Dodge]

1

" Samuel

it it

tt «

1

Sargent, Winthrop

Boston

" " [& J. Dodge]

2

it it

Gloucester

a it " ti it ' »

1

" Winthrop

Boston [N. W. Terr.]

Heywood [R. Putnam & Co.]

2

" " and [May, John]

Boston

"Jno.] May

1

Savage, Abijah

Middletown

"S. H.] Parsons

1

Sawyer, Nathl.

Ipswich, Mass.

St. Cutler

1

Sayles, David

Smithfield, R. I.

"Sproat &] Dexter

1

Scott, Jno. M.

Ohio

=W.] Sargent

1

Scranton, Abrm.

Durham

=S. H.] Parsons

1

Scuyler, Derrick [Schuyler, Derick]

Ohio

=W.] Sargent

1

Sears, Elisa: [Sarah]

New York

n n

1

Seward, Thomas, and [Dyer, John]

Boston

it n

2

[0]

OS

[0]

[0]

Shaw, Peter

Beverly, Mass.

M. Cutler [& J. Dodge]

Sheffield, Hanah [Hannah]1 -/

E. Greenwich [Marietta]

"A.] Crary

Shep[p]ard, Enoch

Ohio

[Benjn.] Tupper

Siexas, Moses

Newport

Drary

1[0]

Sill, David F.

Lyme, Conn.

[S. H.] Parsons

Sizar, William
Chester, Mass.
Tupper
1[0]
Skinner, Timothy
Litchfield
Talmage [Benjn. Tallmadge]
Slocum, Benja.
Newport
A.] Crary
" John
«
Drary
1[0]
Smart, Thomas
Providence
Sproat &] Dexter
Smith, Calvin [& Asso :]
Mendon, Mass.
"Benjn.] Tupper
" Henry
Providence
"William] Corlis
" James
Bedford, N. H. [Marietta]
[Jno.] May
" Melancton
New York/
"W.] Sargent
" Paskell [Paschal] N.
it n
n n
" Reuben
LitchfieldBristol, R. I.
Talmage [Benjn. Tallmadge]
" Stephen
[William] Corlis
Southmaid [Southmayd], Saml.
Watertown, Conn.
Talmage [Benjn. Tallmadge]
Spauldin, Obadh.
Killingly, Conn.
E. Cutler
1[0]
Spraigue [Sprague], John
Dedham
Heywood [R. Putnam & Co.]
" John
a
"Jno.] May
Sproat, Earl
Middleborough, Mass. [Marietta]
"Sproat &] Dexter
" Ebenezer
Providence [Marietta]
« a
3 [2]
" " [Drawn by Coit, Jos., E. Cut
a
it it
[!]
ler's Agency]
Spurr, John
it
"William] Corlis
1
Stacy, William
New Salem, Mass. [Marietta]
"Benjn.] Tupper
4
Stanly, Thos. [& Asso :]
Berlin, Conn. [Marietta]
Berlow
1
Stanton, John
Boston
Clapp [R. Putnam & Co.]
1
it it
Worcester
n n n
1
Starr, George
Middletown, Conn.
[S. H.] Parsons
1
Starr, Josiah
St. Clair, Arthur
Stephens [Stevens], George
" " Joseph, Jur. [Joseph]
" " Robt.
Sterry, Cyprian
Stewart, Archibold [Archibald]
StUlwell [StUwell], Elias
Stone, Benjamin [& Asso :]
" Jona.
Storey, Isaac
" John
" [Story], William, and [Daniel]
Story, Daniel
Straiten [Stratton], John
Strong, Caleb
" David
Sturges, Russell [Russel]
Sumner [Summer], Job
Swacy [Swasey], Jos. Jur.
Swan, Caleb
Swart, Evart [Evert] W.
Swasey, Stephen
Swift, Heman [pr T. & Co.]
" " and [Nye, Ebenr.]
Talcut [Talcot], Gad
[Tallmadge, F. Augustus
Talmage [Tallmadge], Benja.
" " Henry F.
" " John [for B. T. & Co.]
" " Mary

New Milford, Conn.
Pennsylvania [Ohio]
Beverly, Mass.
AndoverNewportProvidence it
New Haven
Shrewsbury
Brookfield [Belprie]
MarbleheadIpswich, Mass.
" [Marietta]
Worcester, Mass. [Marietta]
Brookline, Mass. [Brooklyn]
N. Hampton
Ohio
BostonGeorgia
NewburyportNew York
it it
Newburyport
Cornwell [Litchfield], Conn.
« " « a
HebronLitchfield

Warren [Litchfield]
Litchfield

Talmage [Benjn. Tallmadge]
[W.] Sargent

1 1

M. Cutler [& J. Dodge]

1

Clapp [R. Putnam & Co.]
[A.] Crary
[William] Corlis
u ' u

11 1
9

[S. H] Parsons

2

Heywood [R. Putnam & Co.]
Foster [R. Putnam & Co.]

1
2

M. Cutler

1

"0]

n u
« " [& J. Dodge]
Heywood [R. Putnam & Co.]
[Eliphalet] Downer
Foster [R. Putnam & Co.]

1
1
2 1
1

[0] -aCO

W.] Sargent
"Jno.] May
"H.] Jackson

111

E.] Harris

1

=W."

Sargent

1

*W."

Sargent
Harris

1
1

Talmage [Benjn. Tallmadge]
n n n

2

[1]
rn

[S. H.] Parsons

1

[Benjn.] Tallmadge
Talmage [Benjn. Tallmadge]
n ' n it

1

a n ti

1

i

<( »

4

[0]

Talmage [Tallmadge], Wm. S.
Taylor, Nathanl.
Tenney [Tenny], Samuel
Tew, William
Thayer, Simeon
Thomas, Isaih [Pike, Nichs. Assignee]
" Joseph
Thorndike [Thornduke], Israel
Thorndike & Larkin
Thurber [Thurbur], Edward, Jur.
« " Samuel, Jr..
Tibbets [Tibbits], Waterj
Ticknor, Elisha^-f''
TilH^^Nk^s. P.
Pardon
Topham, John
Torrey [Terry], Nathan [Nathaniel]
" [Torry], William
Tracey [Tracy], Uriah
Treadwell, John
Troop, Benjamin
True, Jabez [Doctr]
Trumball, Jona.
Tupper, Anselm
" Benjamin
" " heirs
" " Jur.
" Edward W.
Turner, Peter

LitchfieldNew MUlford
Exeter, N. H.
Newport Providence
Worcester, Mass^
Plymouth. JH^
Providence tt
Warwick, R. I.
Boston Providence
Newport ExeterW. Greenwich
NewportInfield [Suflield], Conn.
Pembrook [Pembroke]
Litchfield Salem, Mass.
Bozra, Conn.
Hamstead, N. H. [Marietta]
Lebanon. Conn.
Chesterfield [Marietta]
it" Marietta

E. Greenwich

[Benjn. Tallmadge
a u
E.] Harri
^4^-erary William] Corlis
Clapp [R. Putnam & Co.]
[N.] Freeman
M. Cutler [& J. Dodge]

"Sproat &"

Dexter

1

"Sproat &

Dexter

1

"A.] Crary

1

"Jno.] May

1

"Sproat &] Dexter

3

'A.} Crary

2

it n

1 "^

n u

1

U it

1

Barlow

1

[H.] Jackson

1

Talmage [Benjn. Tallmadge]

1

M. Cutler [& J. Dodge]

2

"S. H.] Parsons

1

=E.] Harris

2[1]

"S. H.] Parsons

2

'Benj11.] Tupper

1

[A.] Crary

[0]

[2]

Tyler, Danl. Jun.
" Dean
Underwood, Robt.
Vernon, Samuel
" William
Vernum, J. M.
" [Varnum], J[ames] M. for Saml.
Fowler
Wadsworth, Benja.
" Elijah
Wainwood, Godfrey
Waldo, John
Wald[r]on, John
Wales, Ebenezer
Walker, John
« Joseph
Walkutt [Waieu^ ,_,
Ward, Samuel ^">mas
Wardwell, Saml. [To G. Gree^
Warner, Jona.
Waters, Nathl.
Waterhous [Watrous], Daniel
Waterman, Nathaniel [Nathan]
Waterous [Watrous], Jno. R.
Watson, John
Webb, Samuel B.
Wells, James
" Thomas, 2d.
Wetzell [Wotzell], Mat[t]hew
Wheaton, Nathl.

Brookline, Conn. [Brooklyn]
Haverhill, Mass.
New York [Philadela]
Newport it
E. Greenwich
" " [Marietta]
Danvas [Danvers]
LitchfieldNewportBoston
Bristol, R. I.
DorchesterRehoboth Stratford, Conn.
a a
BostonWarwick, R. I.
Bristol, R. I.
Hardwich
Ward, Mass.
S^-hesterProvide*^
New York
HartfordHopkintonNew York
Providence

[S. H.] Parsons 1
M. Cutler 1
[W.] Sargent 2
Crary 1
[A.] Crary 2
Crary 3
[A.] Crary 1
M. Cutler [& J. Dodge] 3
Talmadge |[Benjn. Tallmadge] 3
Crary 1
"Eliphalet] Downer 1
"William] Corlis 1
Jno.] May 1
William] Corlis 1
S. H] Parsons 1
u a ^
[W.] Sargent 1
Crary 2
[William] Corlis 1
Foster 1
Clap 1
[S. H.] Parsons 1
[William] Corlis 1
[S. H.J Parsons 1
Barlow 2
Sargent . 1
Barlow i
Crary j
"W.] Sargent i
[William] Corlis 1

[0] [0][0][0]

[0][0][0]

00 o

Wheaton, William
Whipple, Abram
" Jesse
" John
" Saml.
White, Haffield
Whiteridge, Josiah
" " Richd.
Whiting, Zenus
Whit[e]man, Eliza. [Elizabeth]
" [Whitmore, Nath.
Whitmash, Micah
Whitmore, Amos
" Ebenr.
" Nathl.
Whitney, Elisha
" " and [Burley], William
Whitridge, Wm.
[Wickham, Thomas
Wichham, Wm.
Wilkinson, Joseph
Willard, Joseph [Joseph Peat]
Williams, Abram
" Jeremiah
" Jona.
" Joseph
" Nathan
" Robt. Jur.
a it ti
Willis, John P.
" [Wyllys], Saml.

Providence

"Sproat &] Dexter

1

Cranston [Marietta]

a it

2

Killingly, Conn. [Thompson]

E[phraim] Cutler

1

Ipswich, Mass.

M. Cutler

1

0]

it a

u it

1

[0]

Danvas, Mass. [Marietta]

" " [& J. Dodge]

2

Danvers

a tt

1[0]

Danvas

« a

1[0]

Beverly, Mass.

tt a

1[0]

Newport

[A.] Crary

1

Newburyport

E. Harris

1]

E. Greenwich

Drary

1[0]

Newbury

[E.] Harris

1

Newburyport

Harris

1[0]

it

[E.] Harris

1

Roxbury

"Elaphalet] Downer

2

Ipswich

St. Cutler [& J. Dodge]

1

Danvas

M. Cutler

1[0]

E. Hampton

"Benjn.] Tallmadge

1]

New York

"W.] Sargent

1

Smithfield, R. I.

"Sproat &] Dexter

1

Cambridge

St. Cutler [& J. Dodge]

1

Sandwich

[N.] Freeman

1

Boston

"W.] Sargent

1

tt

Rt. Cutler [& J. Dodge]

2

Springfield

[W.] Sargent

2

Tolland, Conn.

Parsons [Barlow]

1

Boston

M. Cutler [& J. Dodge]

2

"

[Jno.] May

1

Hartford

3arlow

1[0]

a

n

1

Wilson, George [& heirs]
Windsor, Joseph
Wisenfelts [Wyzenfitz], Frederick, and [Charra,
James]
Woodbury, Jno.
Wyatt [Wyat], Lamuel
Wyman, Abel
Z[e]iglar, David

Killingly, Conn.
Glocester, R. I.
New York
SalemRehoboth, Mass.
Woburn, Mass.
Ohio

E[phraim] Cutler
"William] Corlis
W.] Sargent
M. Cutler
[William] Corlis
M. Cutler
[W.] Sargent

[0] [0]

CO to

83

Original Proprietors of Galliopolis, Ohio
Following is a copy of a document accompanying the returns of a survey
and partition of lands in Ohio found in the General Land Office, Drafting
Division, Washington, D. C., while this writing was in preparation. The
document is a ms. letter folded and stitched in a leather book of field notes
bearing this inscription stamped on the cover :
A Survey of the Tract of Land
Granted by Act of Congress
to the French Inhabitants
at Gallipolis.
List of Actual Settlers &c.
Rufus Putnam's Letter, dated
12th May 1796."
Superscription on the letter : Oliver Wolcott, Esquire, Secretary of the
Treasury of the United States.
Sir Marietta May 12th 1796
By the papers herewith enclosed you will perceive that the Lands pro
posed by the Act of Congress of the Third of March 1795 to be granted
to the French inhabitants of Gallioppolis, are surveyed and assigned to the
several persons entitled thereto (as I trust) agreeably to the intention of
the afore-mentioned act, and your instructions of the Twenty-ninth of
September 1795.
Mr Martin100 arrived at Galliopolis the Second of November and within
a few days after commenced his survey ; which which he completed as
soon as could be expected, but from an ill state of health, as he informs
me, he was not able to make the returns before the 25th ult. On re-
civeing them I proceeded to Galliopolis, as soon as I could with conven
ience, and the several lots were assigned to individuals on the Third in
stant in maner certified in the list of Drafts, and I beleave the whole
business has been conducted to the satisfaction of all concerned.
Mr Martin states the distence run in executing this survey to be 125
miles 72 chains & 98 links, and the time necesarily employed in mak
ing duplicate plans & certificates 34 days. My agreement with Mr Mar
tin was to execute the survey at " the rate of three Dollars permile for
every mile actually run including the pay of assistents and all expense
of the survey And for the makeing Duplicate Plans with Certificate of the
Courses Distances and boundaries ; two dollars per day for the necessary
time. I have furnished Mr Martin with a certificate of the compensation
contracted for, also that he has executed the surveys agreeably to the Act
of Congress and returned Duplicate Plans Certificates &c, to me: but
have referred him to the Treasury Department for auditing his accounts
which I presume was your expectation
I am with great respect & esteam
Sir Your obedient servant Rtjftjs Putnam
Oliver Wolcott, Esqr
»9 Cf. Land Laws of the U. S., p. 223.
100 Capt. Absalom Martin, Surveyor, who represented New Jersey in the original sur
vey of the Seven Ranges of Townships, 1785-88.

84

A List of the French inhabitants and Actual Settlers of the Town of
Gallipolis ; being males above eighteen years of age or widows, who were,
in pursuance of instructions from Oliver Wolcott Esqr, Secretary of the
Treasury of the United States, to Rufus Putnam : by him assertained to be
within the said Town of Gallipolis on the First day of November 1795
agreeably to the second section of an Act of Congress passed the Third Day
of March 1795, entitled : An Act to Authorize a Grant of Lands to the
French inhabitants of Gallipolis, and for other purposes therein men
tioned, Together with the number of the Lot assigned (by lot) to each
settler prefixed to his or her name, in a Tract of Twenty Thousand acres
of Land being part of Twenty-four Thousand acres surveyed agreeably to
the Third Section of said Act and is subdivided into Lots, &c agreeably to
the Fourth Section of the same Act.

Lot Names Drawn against ^°4
1 Matthew Berthelot Sen1101 35
2 Nicholas Thevenin 36
S John Baudot 37
4 Peter Matthew Chandivert 38
5 Francis Valodin 39
6 William Duduit 40
7 Nicholas Hurteaux 41
8 Peter Lewis Leclerc Jr 42
9 Peter Marret Senr 43
10 Michael Mazure 44
11 Lewis Ambrose Lacour 45
12 Lewis Berthe 46
13 John Baptist Ginat 47
14 Lewis Anthony Francis Cei. 48
15 Andrew Lecrouix 49
16 John Baptist Berthond 50
17 Francis Davous 51
18 Anthoney Bartholomew Due 52
19 Philip Agustus Pithoud 53
20 Stephen Bastide 54
21 John Parmantier 55
22 Martinus Vandenbernden 56
23 Nicholas Prioux 57
24 Francis Alexander Larquilhon 58
25 Nicholas Questel 59
26 Christopher Etienne 60
27 Francis Duverger 61
28 Claudius Chartier Duflique 62
29 Nicholas Petit 63
30 John Baptist Letailleur 64
31 Claudius Berthelot 65
32 Francis Charles Duteil 66
33 John Peter Romain Bureau 67
34 James Francis Laurent 68

Names drawn against
John Francis Gobeau
John Julius Lemoyne'
Peter Duteil
Lewis Joiteau
Agustus Chereau
Peter John Desnoyers
Marin Dupert
Agustin Leclercq Sen1
Nicholas Lambert
John Brouin
Agustin Leclercq Jr
Anthony Philipeau
Anthony Henry Mingun
Lewis Peter Leclere Sen1
Mary Magdalen Brunier, widow
Remy Thierry Quiffe
Peter Magnier
Matthew Ibert
Jno Baptist Nicholas Tillaye
Anthony Claudius Vincent
John Gilbert Petit
Lewis Augustin Lemoyne
Basil Joseph Marret
Joseph Michau
Joseph Dazet
Michael Craufaz
Francis D'hebecourt
John Francis Perrey
Claudius Romaine Menager
Peter Richon
Peter Matry
Peter Serre
Francis Marion
Peter Marret, Jr

181 The numbered lots are shown on the map accompanying the document.

85
. £<£ Names drawn against ^°t Names drawn against
69 Francis Winar Joseph Devacht 81 Joachin Pignolet
70 Nicholas Charles Visinier 82 Anthony Vibert
.71 Agustus Waldemard Mentelle 83 John Lewis Violet
72 Stephen Chandivert 84 Peter Laffillard
73 Peter Robert Maquet 85 Peter Chabot
74 Stephen Willermi 86 Peter Thomas Thomas
75 John Baptist Ferard 87 Michael Chanterel
76 Francis Alexander Dubois 88 Francis Carteron
77 John Lewis Maldan 89 Claudius Cadot
78 Francis Mennessiers 90 Lewis Victor Vonschriltz
79 Peter Serrot 91 Peter Francis Agustin Leclercq
80 Anthony Francis Saugrain 92 Peter Ferard
I hereby certify that the foregoing numbers of Lots were severally drawn
against the Names before which they respectively stand ; at Galliopolis on
the Third Day of May 1796, by a committee of the inhabitants acting
under my imediate superintendence, and that I have inscribed each pro
prietors Name on his Lot Drawn as aforesaid in two Plats of the survey
made by Absalom Martin. Rufus Putnam.
In another book marked " A." is a plat of the subdivision with each lot
bearing the proprietor's name, and inscribed :
A Map of the Tract of Land granted by the HonMe the Congress of the
United States to the French Inhabitants of Galliopolis, divided agreeably
to the Act and according to the Instructions from General Rufus Putnam
into. 1 Tract of 4,000 Mr Gervais102
92 lots of 217 ^ Acres 20,000
Surveyed by 
Absalom Martin Acres 24,000
April 9 1796.

By an act of Congress passed June 25, 1798 (Land Laws of U. S., 1810,
p. 225), Stephen Monot, Lewis Anthony Carpentier, Lewis Vimont, Fran
cis Valton, Lewis Philip A. Fichow, Anthony Maquet, Margaret G. C.
Champaigne wife of Peter A. Laforge, and Maria I. Dalliez wife of
Peter Luc, inhabitants of Galliopolis, who were prevented from obtaining
their proportion of the land granted by the act of March 3, 1795, received
each an eighth equal part of a tract of 2200 acres on the Ohio River
" beginning at the lower corner " of the Galliopolis tract.
IM John Gabriel Gervais.

Register Re-prints, Series A, No. 37.

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY