The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1883-05-12


ceived:
PORTLAND, May TO-
To the Editor of The Press.
Can anyone give q reason why tho present
year is called the 250th anniversary of the
founding of Portland. We are informed by the
historian Willis, that 1t was founded in 1859,
and, therefore, 1882 would have been the pro-
per year to celebrate. II any one can throw
light upon this nav departure, let us have it.
LEN.
To the foregoing query the following reply
is made by the editor of the Trelawney papers:
1t has hitherto been supposed that George
Cleeves landed on Portland Neck in 1852, that
being the date fixed by Willis, who says "They
selected the Neck, called Machigonne by the
natives, now Portland, for their habitation,
and erected there in 1852 the first house, and
probably cut the first tree that was ever felled
upon it by an European hand Willis then
proceeds to give his reasons for fixing upon
this date as follows: "In Winters answer to
Cleeves action, he says that after possession
was given to him of the land granted to IRE
lawney in July, 1852, he warned Cleeves to
leave the premises, and on his refusing to do
1t, he repaired to Capt. Walter Neale, who re-
quired him to yield up the possession; he then
adds, and soon after the plaintiff left his said
possession to the defendant Again Cleeyes
in another action against Winter in 1910, for
disturbing his possession in the Neck, has
the following declaration: The plaintiff de-
clareth that he now is and hath been for these
seven years and upwards, possessed of a tract
of land in Casco bay, known first by the name
of Machigonne, being neck of land which
In,
therefore the plaintiff seized on it as his own
inheritance By virtue OF royal proclamation
of our late sovereign Lord King James Of
blessed momory-which proclamation standeth
still in force to this day, by which right the
plaintiff held and enjoyed it for the space of
four years together, without molestation, In
terruption, or demand Of any, and at the end
of the said first four years, the plaintiff, de.
sirous TO enlarge his limits in lawful way,
addressed himself to Sir Ferdinando Gorges,
the proprietor Of this province, and obtained
for sum of money and other considerations a
warrantable lease of enlargement" These are
the only reasons which Willis could give with
the materials to which he had access. The
first, that Cleeves left "soan ofter'' July, 1852
is too indefinite to be conclusive The second
is based upon Cleeyes' defamation, June %,
1910, that he had enjoyed possession, "these
screen years aud uplcaFds." This declaration
does not offer any proof that he took posses
sion of the Neck in 1852. We may indeed,
more reasonably conclude from it, that he
took possession in the early summer of 1888.
We are not to expect absolute accuracy in
these declarations, but we may reasonably
conclude, that Cleeves would wish to make his
occupancy appear as long as possible for the
sake of his case, and, if he settled on the Neck
in the summer of 1852, he would be more like
IL in June 18th, 1910, TO declare, that he had
been in possession nearly eight years, than
"these seven years and upwards" The third
reason given u.s. that referring to his lease,
dated June q, 1857, he says, he has been in
possession Of the Neck flour years. He does
not say over four years, but roughly, four
years, to which the same reply may be made
as in the former declaration that he would be
likely to make the time as long as possible,
and from the fact that he does not say over four
years, and If We accept shortly after July,
1852, as meaning Immediately after, it would
be at least four years and half, we may
reasonably infer that it was less than four
years, or in the early part of 1858. But we
now have in the Trelawney Papers, soon 10 be
published, evidence which 1 deem conclusive
that Cleeves took possession Of the Neck in
1888. The patent Of Trelawney was dated Dec.
2, 1881, and Winter, then in his employ,
reached Richmond's Island April II, 1852. In
July OF that year Cleeyes was warned to leave
the house he had erected on the Spurwink
river; and Winter, leaving some men on the
island, returned to England, it being under
stood that Cammoth was TO look after Trelaw-
ney's interest, but,oWing to an accident, he was
unable TO do so. Winter therefore returned on
the I'd OF March, 1888, as Trelawney's agent,
and at once entered upon active duty. The
few men, however, whom he had left in pos
session. had been overpowered by little crew
OF Barnstable men, who had taken possession
of their stages for drying fish, and Winter says
I'VE have not as yet strength to resist them, y
and '.yf vt be lawful for any one to take up
any of the place that I have taken heare fol
your vse, you must not expecte to have but
little Rome for ship to fish heare when she
cometh with provisions for VS., and to take
away the fish from VS. that God shall send VS.
You are nothinge at all the better for pattsn
for fishing place heare yf another shall take
vt from VS. at their pleasure" Under such a
condition OF affairs as Winter here depicts, is
it to be supposed that man Of Clesyes' cour-
age and energy would leave a house which he
had been at great labor to build in the wilder
ness upon a mere notice to quit without power
to enforce it? Certainly there was no power to
enforce Trelawney's rights before Winter ar.
rival in March, 1888. Again Trelawney wrote
Sir Ferdinando Gorges in the early part OF
1857, complaining of Cleeves, that after remov-
ing from the Spurwink he settled on the N eek,
which he claimed was included in his grant.
In this letter Trelawney claims that Cleeves
knew before the grant was made to him that 1t
was to be made, and might without much
loss have removed, but that they al
lowed him "to enjoy a. first and second
CROP 1t is hardly to be supposed
that Trelawney refers here to the crops OF sc
and 81. 1t is more reasonable to conclude that
it was 81 and 80. But there are other reasons
for fixing the date of the founding of Portland
in 1888. Cleeves,son June %, 1910, declared
that winter, 'for these three years past, !" lad
claimed the Neck. This is, We know, accu-
rate, as Cleeves arrived with his patent 10 May,
1857, and Winter, between that date and July
9Th, had doubtless made this claim, as on the
grant was within the limits Of Trelawney's
patent. With the preceding facts before u.s.
let me briefly re-state my grounds for believing
that 1888 was the date OF Cleeyes' occupation
OF the Neck. He is clearly accurate in his
statement made June 2-.h, 1910, that Winter
had claimed Trelawney's right to the Neck,
and would not be likely to make an error OF O
year in preceding statement, especially as he
would naturally desire to make the period 81
his occupancy appear as long as possible fol-
the sake of his case. He says plainly that for
''foure yeares' previous TO Winters demand
which was about July, 1857, or certainly be-
tween May and July Of that year, he had held
"peaceable possession" of the Neck, which
would make the date Of his settlement in the
spring or early summer Of 1858 1t would
seem also, from Robert Trelawney's letter to
Sir Ferdinando Georges, that Cleeves enjoyed
the crops OF 1912, and, having a comfortable
home at Spurwink, be would hardly leave IL
for a new place in the wilderness, until the
long and severe winter was past. He was
warned to leave, we know, in July, 1892, hui
unless he thought it best for future advantage
to leave Immediately, he was not the man te
leave upon mere notice to quit, and that
Winter possessed the force to remove him
would appear doubtful, from the tenor Of his
letter to TrelawDey in July, 1858, In which he
says he arrived the second Of March previous
and found their stages on the island in posses
sion Of the crew Of fishing vessel from Barn
stable. Hence, / conclude that Cleeves did not
leave the Spurwink until after Winters arrv
al in March, 1888. J.p.B B.
The Sunday Laws Again.
From further examination Of the enforce
ont If fha Eur dos -, orto