Radio Script #1954
Little Talks On Common Things
November 14, 1954
From the begi nn i ng of th is program six years ago the sponsor has ins i sted that, except for the announcer’s brief introduction and close, mention shall seldom be made of the Keyes Fibre Company. Yet I simply cannot resist the temptation to give you what I think is important Information about that local industry of ours, just as I did a few weeks ago when I told you about their awards to emp loyees of long service.
So, again tonight, I must mention Keyes Fibre. As you have driven over College Avenue between Waterville and Fairfield during recent months, you must have observed the big addition under construction at the south end of the Keyes plant. That addition is now close to completion, and the first of what wi I I eventually be five new machines for the manufacture of Keyes’ famous Chinet dishes has already been installed. How proud Martin Keyes would be if he could be alive today and see what has developed from his keen observation of more than half a century ago when he saw workmen using big maple chips as plates for their lunch.
Rev. Robert Ingraham~ minister of the Baptist Church at China Vi Ilage,. is my source for a bit of unusual information about Hurricane Carol. Mr. Ingraham says that his father has a summer estate on the south shore of Long I s I and, where Carol perpetrated a unique kind of damage. This estate, about 25 mi les from Montauk Poi nt, is parti a Ily protected by sand dunes. but these were no barrier to the huge waves raised by Carol. During that hurricane the ocean surged up around the house and covered the lawns with salt water and debris. To the amazement of those who inspected their lawns after the water subsided, the earth worms had come to the surface and had been a I most Immediate Iy ki lied by the salt. The ground was covered with worms. That’s not a tall story; that is “the gospel truth. At least it is vouched for by a minister of the gospel.
A few weeks ago I talked about Maine’s early nineteenth century squatters, and the story I told you was from the point of view of one of the big landed proprietors, Robert Hallowell Gardiner. Tonight let us devote a few minutes to “the other side of the question, “tha”t of the squatters themselves. There are always two sides to every controversy. Let’s see how that land problem of more “than a hundred years ago looked to “the settlers on the Plymouth Company’s lands.
You wi II recall that, about 1750, a corporation was formed cal led the Plymouth Company, which secured possession of the land titles in the Kennebec Valley.
It is especially interesting “to us in that part of the valley around Watervi I Ie to know that the chief surveyor of this section of the Company’s lands was John f’.1cKechnie, one of Watervi lie’s rrost prominent earlv citizens. In 1769 McKechnie ran his surveys through this region, extending them eas”tward into what are now the towns of Albion and Uni”ty. As most of you know, our Maine surveys d i vi ded tracts into ranges and those ranges into lots. In McKechn ie’s survey “the range lines ran east and west from the Kennebec Ri ver to the outer boundaries of the Kennebec Purchase. Those range lines were about 15 mi les apart, and ran for 15 mi les each side of the Kennebec. Within each range “the lots set aside for settlers were usually a mi Ie square, and were often divided into ha I ves. Between each “two of these lots was set off what was ca I I ed a check lot — a tract 100 rods wide and two mi les long, reserved for the proprietor.
In the dense woods along the Kennebec it was hard enough for “the most conscientious settler to determine any of these lot lines. The settler’s main task was to get the best possible site for his cabin and a suitable clearing for corn. Many a settler just put up his cabin and cleared some trees without even 5-217 trying TO find out who owned the land. More often a settler got a title to one of the half-lots, then proceeded, wi Ilfully or innocently, to bui Id a cabin and clear land on an adjacent check lot to which he had no title.
I n many instances the proprietor was an absentee I andowner. He di dn ‘T even live within the District of Maine. Robert Hallowell Gardiner was a notable exception.
He I ived on his lands and came to know the settlers personally.
The absentee proprietors were represented by land agents, and I ike the pub I i cans of the New Testament, they became among the most hated men on the Kennebec frontier. When a land agent discovered a squatter, it was his duty to tell The fellow to pay up or get ouT. But sometimes several years elapsed before The land agent even discovered a particular encroachment. How did such care less i ndi fference on the proprietor’s part come to pass?
AlThough settlement was eventually stimulated by the end of the RevoluTion and the government grants to its veterans, it was for our new nati on a ti me of troub Ie. Money was scarce. The absentee I andowners were re I uctant to se I I their lands on any terms except cash, and most prospective settlers had no cash.
The settler just didn’t wait for the landowners to offer more reasonable terms. He pushed on into the Kennebec woods, cleared the trees and built his cabin, wiThout taking the time or trouble to establish a legal title. So in 1799, reported Robe rt Ha II owe I I Gard i ner, ‘” arge porti ons of the un located lands of the Plymouth Patent were taken by persons who had intruded themse I ves without right or permission.”
When the prop rl etors took measures TO oust these squatters 1 they qui Te natura I I y met with determi ned oppos I ti on. A man who had spent fi ve years on a piece of land, steadi Iy improving it, slowly but surely increasing his crops, didn’t take with any turn-the-other-cheek aTTitude toward the sudden demand of a proprietor that he pay up or get out. Why hadn’t that proprietor paid more attention to his lands during the past five years?
The first uprising anywhere near the Kennebec Valley came in the town of Jefferson in 1796, where the settlers showed themselves wi Iling to resist the domineering, uncompromising demands of the proprietors, even by violence if necessary. The fever spread to other communities. Conditions reached an impasse.
The prop r i etors found it i mposs i b Ie to se I I more of the i r I and untl I they coul d come to terms with the squatters.
That coming to terms was not easy. The settler’s usual method of resistance was that of the much heralded Boston Tea Party. Disguising themselves as Indians, bands of squatters took vengeance on any settlers who came to terms with the proprietor or who assisted his agents or surveyors. In Unity they burned the house of Benjamin Bartlett; in Albion they destroyed a grist mi II; in Ch I na they sank a boat and burned a wharf. I n Montville a rob dressed as I ndians entered a Tavern where the land agent was spending the night, seized the fellow and dragged him outside. Only the intervention of cooler heads among the settlers saved The land agent from tar and feathers. He was, however, hasti Iy and rough I y escorted out of town.
Finally in 1802 the Plymouth Company agreed that the settlers, many of whom had taken honesT possession of land and greatly improved it, did have some rights. The company for the first time abandoned its stubborn, greedy position of pay up or geT out, and suggested a collllromise. They asked the legislature to appoint a commission which should decide the terms on which the company should give a settler c lear title to his settled tract of land. The resulting legislative act was known as the “Submission of the Settlers on Plymouth Company Land”. The setT lers were di vi ded into three c I asses: those who had settled be …. fore the RevolUTion; those who took up land during that war.: and those who had settled since the war’s close. Every settler who agreed to the commission’s decision concerning his particular claim paid a sum of money and received a clear deed to his farm.
This plan of arbitration did not end the trouble, however. Many a settler couldn’t raise the money to make even a token payment on the price fixed by the commi ss i oners. The Embargo Act of 1807 increased a poverty a I ready severe. Defying proprietor, agent, or even sheriff, the squatters stuck to their claims.
The fi rst break in the proprietors’ ranks carre from the man who gave his name to Bowdoin College. Along with Sylvester Gardiner and William Vassal, one of the wea I th i es t of the prop r i etors was J ames BOt/do In. I n 1809 he began se 1- ling a large share of his lands on terms even more favorable than those previ ous Iy worked out by the commt ss loners. Other proprietors were forced to meet the Bow do I n competiti on. For the fl rst ti me the squattl ng sett ler had a chance to secure title without being branded a criminal.
The whole history of those troublesome years, knONn as the “Years of the Squatters”, sums up to this. Settlers, especially soldiers of the Revolution, saw a chance for new II fe and prosperity in the wi I derness of Mal ne. Some of them just camped down on lands they did not own. Then years went by without anyone molesting them. Suddenly land agent and sheriff said: “We don’t care how long you’ve lived he re and what improvements you’ve made. You don’t ONn an inch of it. Pay up or get out.” What wou I d you th i nk, how wou I d you react, you citizen of 1954, if that happened to you? I suspect you’d get downright mad.
Then, when the proprietors refused all compromise, what could they expect but violent resistance? These were: men of lexington and Concord, of Bunker Hi” and Harlem Heights, of Trenton and Yorktown. They knew what honest resistance meant.
Certainly the squatters were wrong; they didn’t own the land. But certainly, too, they were ri ght. less greedy and more humane proprietors woul d have found earlier and more decent ways to ease the tension and solve the problem.
The old story of the Maine squatters reveals clearly the wholesome truth that right and wrong are not always clearly distinguished, that most of life’s questions come to us neither black nor white, but a very mixed gray.
Year: 1954