Radio Script #237
Little Talks On Common Things
October 24, 1954
Critics of the latest revision in federal taxes, the revision made by the Congress which ended last summer, keep harping on the provision that allows certain deductions from dividend income. In all fairness it ought to be pointed out that, to get relief under that section of the bi “,the taxpayer must first have dividends, To get dividends, he must first invest his savings in corporate enterprises, But, before a corporation can pay any di vi dends, it must do two th i ngs • I t must spend the money it gets from the investor to construct plant, buy machines and materials, and hi re workers to use those fad I ities. Secondly, it must market its product at a profit. No profit, no dividends. Only if the product is something the consumer wi I I buy, only if careful management turns this consumer response into profit, does the investor get a dividend. He is the I as t man in the long economi c cha into rece i ve any reward for the ri sk i ng of his money. Yet, without him, private enterprise industry would stop. Some reasonable rei ief on his tax bi II is his due.
After the corporati on known as the Plymouth Company acqui red possess i on of the vast area of Kennebec lands in 1754. they had continuous troub Ie with squatters unti I well into the nineteenth century. A first-hand, intimate account, from the viewpoi nt of one promi nent I and-owner ho I di nq his deeds from the Plymouth Company, telling how he dealt with squatters, is contained in the memo irs of Robert Hal lowe II Gard i ne r, grandson of the pioneer deve loper of the Kennebec lands, Dr. Sy I vester Gardi ner.
Born in 1782, Robert Gardiner was 80 years old when he wrote his remarkable memoi rs in 1862. Two years I ater he di ed. Th i sis the way he te lis the story of squatters on the Gardi ne r lands:
“Previous to the Revolution, my grandfather had made great exertions to settle this township. He had cleared a farm, bui It a number of houses, a grist mill, fulling mill, saw mills, potash works, and a wharf, and did whatever was necessary for the prosperity of an infant vi Ilage. He had given away 50 or 60 lots from five to ten acres each in the neighborhood of his mi lis, and had aided the persons to whom he had given them with money to erect their buildi ngs. For these advances he took mortgages on the lots improved, but these people being improvident, most of the lots fell back into his hands, 50 that when came into possession there were only 11 families who had any titles to lots occupied, and those lots altoqether did not contain 100 acres. But during the many years that the township had been neglected, lands were taken possession of by squatters, and I found 86 faml lies settled upon this property without -title. In coni:>ination with the squatters in other parts of the Kennebec area, they were determined to hold on to the land on which they had settled.”
Mr. Gardiner goes on to point out that the squatters considered It especially important that their link with other squatters on the east side of the Kennebec should not be broken, but that all should put up a united front against the proprietors. \-/hen Mr. Gardiner found it impossible to make any agreement with these settlers individually, he notified all the squatters on his lands to meet him at a designated place on August 11, 1803. When the time arrived, not only Mr. Gardiner’s squatters, but a lot more, appeared, from Litchfield, determi ned to stop any agreement between proprietor and settlers. By sheer exertion of his dominant personality, Mr. Gardiner met the issue face on. This is how he tells it: “The Litchfield men refused to leave at my request. I then went up to their spokesman, took him by the arm and led him out of the room. H3 was a man over six feet tall, who could easi Iy have taken me by one hand and thrown me out of the room, but he made no resistance and the other Litchfield people followed him. I then locked the door and put the key in my pocket. I did not reopen the door unti I I had come to an agreement with every man in the room, and unti I I had drawn up a contract which was signed by all present and properly witnessed.”
What sort of agreement did Mr. Gardiner make with these poor people, many of whom had cleared their farms, bui It their cabins and made improvements, all in good faith that they owned the property either bv deed that was nO\’1 declared void, or by length of possession? Robert Hallowell Gardiner, the rightful owner, in his meeting with the settlers on that August day 150 years ago, agreed to fix the price per acre of the land at what lands simi larly situated were supposed to be worth, with reducti ons to the 0 I der sett lers whose lots had been severa I years under improvement. The proprietor gave these sett lers sound warranty deeds. They in turn were to make payment in four equal annual installments.
Meanwh i Ie the debt was secured by a mortgage to Mr. Ga rdi ne r. I f any settler preferred not to make the purchase, but to pull up st”akes and make his home elsewhere, Mr. Gardiner agreed to pay that settler such sum as impartial referees should decide to be the value of the man’s improvements, provided the man remained on the property for 20 additional months, taking off two crops.
The price of this squatter-settled land was fixed at $5.00 an acre for the lands longest settled, and rising by a scale to $6.20 for the most recently settled land. Forty-nine of the Gardiner squatters decided to purchase on the proprietor ‘5 terms, th i rty-seven took payment for improvement”s and got out.
Mr. Gardi ner subsequent”ly thought he got the worst of the improvement deals. He says of them: “I n many cases the sett lers had mere Iy cut down the trees and burnt them, taking off a single crop. By allOWing the logs to lie on the ground and letting bushes grow up, they had made the land much more difficult to clear and hence less valuable, than if no labor at all had been expended upon it. I n genera I the I ands were in a wretched state, the houses were log hove Is, the fences on I y of brush. If Mr. Gardiner had serious trouble with only one of the squatters. James Dunlap, the 0 I dest man among the settle rs, refused to agree to Mr. Gard inert s terms. Anxi ous to have no troub Ie with the man and not have to resort to force, Gardiner offered to pay Dunlap double the usual price for his improvements if he wanted to leave, or to gi ve hi m excepti ona Ily favorab Ie terms if he wanted to stay. Dunlap insisted the property was his by ri~ht of possession and he would neither buy nor sell the place.
Dunlap was convinced that Gardiner would not risk incensing the community by removing Dunlap from his holdings by force. As to what finally happened, let us have it in Robert Gardiner’s own words: “I had no alternative but to eject Dunlap by process of law. When I obtained my judgment, he resisted the service of execution. I then procured a warrant against him for resisting an officer.
I was informed that he had made preparati ons to prevent arrest, that he kept a large bottle of water hot day and night, and had collected stones in his loft to de fend h imse I f. By blow i ng a horn he cou Id summon to h is rescue a large number of his Litchfield friends, who I ived across the stream in sight of his house. It was therefore necessary to take him by surprise. So I hi red a numbe r of reso I ute men to accompany the she ri ff, who started in the night so as to reach Dunlap’s house by daybreak, before he or his friends were likely to be up.
They succeeded in reaching the place without giving any alarm, forced the door~ took Dunlap and his son out of bed, and hurried them off to Jai I, where, unable to ob ta in ba ii, they rema i ned unti I the next sess i on of court. If The proprietor, instead of gloating on his victory, shCMed unusual clemency.
When Dunlap’s case came to trial and the man finally pleaded gui Ity to trespassing on the Gardiner lands, Mr. Gardiner urged the Attorney General to ask for only token punishment, with the result that Dunlap got a mere three day sentence. When he came out, the proprietor paid him the appraisal value of his betterments, just as if he had accepted the Gardiner terms without resis- tance. Says Mr. Gardiner in his merooirs~ “ntis act of determination to enforce my rights, whi Ie at .”the same time not allowing the man’s vexatious conduct to prevent my paying his just claim for Improvements, had a very happy effect in all future dealings with the settlers. I had no roore trouble. Li How strong the feel ings were between settlers and proprietors in the whole Kennebec Va Iley during the open ing years of the 19th century I s shown by the case of Paul Chadwick. Himself a squatter, Chadwick, In 1809, was induced to ass i st secret Iy I n the survey ·of the I and of one of his ne i ghbors. When his act was discovered, he was branded as a betrayer of his frien-ds and a traitor to their cause. A group of settlers formed a party, somewhat in the fashion of the later Ku Klux Klan, to inflict upon Chadwick the penalty which they deemed his treachery to deserve. So one day Chadwick was found shot to death, with the surveyor’s chain in his han-ds.
Ten of the avengi ng party were arrested and lodged in ja II. One turned state’s evidence; the other nine were tried for murder. The squatters formed an armed band to rescue the prisoners. To protect the Jai.l, severa I compan les of mi lit i a were ca lied out. A contemporary account of th is i nd dent says: “From the known sympathies of the militiamen, it is doubtful whether they would have resisted a genuine attempt to rescue the prisoners. Fortunately no such attempt was made, but both sides continued armed unti I the end of the trial. A large number of jurymen had been drawn, but a I I the most respectab Ie were excused as having expressed an opinion in the case. This resulted in a Jury picked with friends of the squatters. The trial lasted for two weeks. Then, In spite of the strongest circumstantial evidence and the eye-witness testimony of the one who turRed state’s evidence, all were acquitted. The jury decided that it was not right to hang nine men for the murder of one, and justly to select one from the nine was impossible.”
Robert Hallowell Gardiner himself commented most interestingly on this trial in his memoi rs • Th is is what he wrote: “Severa I of the pe rsons engaged (n the murder of Chadwick became peaceable and respectable citizens. They had murdered Chadwick, not for assisting the proprietors, for they offered no violence to the surveyor whom he was assisting, but for the betrayal of his friends. Nor did the act produce lasting animosity between the two parties, for friendlyre- I at ions and rna rr i age I ate r took p I ace between them.”
Year: 1954