Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1888-02-17

ington, Thomas Gamble and several 9th
ers, Mr. Brown quotes in answer from a
record in the secretary of states Office al
| Albany, n. Y. under date Of March IL,
| no which SAYS that "to Nathan Whiting
and six others was granted 'all that tract
Of land on the west side of the Connecticut
river in the county Of Cumberland, part OF
a large tract known by the name Of Cum
| berland, " etc This tract the record
| says in conclusion, "wth others, making
six miles square was also erected into a
township called Nottingham, and is noa
| the s. W. corner town of Windham Co.
| VT This Mr.. Brown holds to be another
bit Of evidence that the territory formerly
called Cumberland, and that now Whiting
ham, are exactly Identical, Mr. Jillson',
assertion to the contrary notwithstanding
After referring to some other points in Mr..
Jillsons historical address which do not
seem iu be essential in the discussion Mr.
| Brown takes up in the next and last place
the disputed question of the towns char
ter, and on this point we quote his remark,
in full
These few Of his statements Of higtori
cal facts, as given in his published address
will serve to show the accuracy Of hi,
knowledge of the history Of Vermont and
Of the town of Whitingham but these are
not greater perversion Of history than t,
say that tn grant of land to Col. Nathan
| Whiting and his six associates, ISSUED Mar
| -. 40 by the governor Of the province
of New York, which together with other
| lands contiguous thereto, previously grant
| ed 10 other officers, was erected into a town
| ship called Nhitinghau, is now the char
| ter of this town and ia full force Ihi.
/ grant, ON the petition of Whiting and hi
associates, Mar. -, l11O, was made on the
-pecIu! condition that settlement of AT
| least one f.iully for every thousand acre
| must be made within three years aud three
acres for every % granted must be etfectu
! uly cultivated within three Years, or the
| .rant was to be void. No one has ever
/ pretended that either Of those condition,
ver, complied With There were several
other conditions to the grant that were not
.omplied with consequently it was ahso
| iutcly void after Mar -, l113 The char
| ter or grant was never renewed, and never
aad any force or validity anywhere
There IS no record evidence that | have
been able to find, except Clark Jlllson's cen
,rnnial address, that Nottingham ever had
a charter No alusion was made 10 any
.harter when the town was organized, nol
, there any record Of charter Of Whit
ughaln in the Office Of the secretary OF
state at Montpelier There can be littl,
doubt that Wh.tingham finally took its nam,
| from Whiting. and Lot from any charter oi
grant from New York But Mr.. JIllsol
avs, 1t will be discovered 10y the petition
rrs and grants issued that Vermont recog
nized not only the New York charter, bu
the land grants of that state. so far as Whit
ngham was concerned, and the charter
srauted in l110 is now the charter of th
town, recognized 10y the state and in ful
force Its provisions were violated wheI
the town was organized and have been ev
cry year since it ought 10 be amended IA
the next session Of the legislature and mad
TO conform TO the present methods of trans
acting public business
In the preceding paragraph Of his al
lress he says that on March 10Th, $50, 3OO
acres of land was granted TO j ,hn Butler
-ilas Hamilton, Thomas Stearus, jaime
.ioberts Ahner Moore, James Angel, Chls
Dodge and Eliphalet Hyde, and after Civ
ing the boundaries adds This was prob
ably the first grant of land in Whitnghau
under the authority of the state of Yer
mont, aud was the same land covered b
the grants Of Lieut. John Norbury an
Lieut.. Thomas Etherington, granted by NeN
| York in December 1866. This Is the wa
lac undertakes to prove that Vermont rec
osnizcd not only the charter but the Ian
Grants of New York. 50 far as Whitinghur
was concerned Now, can it be possibl
that he can think 10 make the people q
,ermont OF of the town of Whltinghau
believe that Vermont recognized the Ian
grants of New York in Whitingham b
granting she lands of licuts Norbury an
Etherington TO other and different partit
without the slightest allusion TO any forme
grant or charter This is most conclusiv
evidence that Vermont did not recogniz
hose New York grants, but treated theI
as a perfect nullity,
If Mr.. JillsOn does not know that all tll
Grants of land 10y the state of New Nor
in the territory Of Vermont, Whtinghal
included, were completely abrogated whe
the first constitution and state governmer
of Vermont were established, he ueve
ought to undertake to teach the people {
Vermont or even Of the town of Whiting
ham, the rudiments of their own history
He mas not shown, nor can he show, a siI
/
any department of its government, eve
recognized those New York grants of Ian
in Whitingam rs of any validity whatever
and the charter which he calls new rev
elation' was never recognized by Vernon
or ever alluded to by any of her historian
before Mr. Jillsun's time. He has immol
tal2ed his name by eXhuming it from III
grave of oblivion. where il had been II,
funct for more than century, restoring
to vitality, and making it the charter {
Whitinghnm, nov in full force and hi
presented IA copy, neatly transcribed an
bound, to the town of Nottingham as
part of it, records. 1t will remain in I'll
town clerk office perfect nonentity fC
all time as the original document has
the secretary Of states office at Albany,
y, for the last hundred years and NOR,
1t never had even Il prospective show
existence after March H. 11i3, and not On
in - of the people of Nottingham haN
ever read it or desire to 1t was not know
to the people Of Whitingham Vermont.
New York, as Of any validity to convey
title to the lands therein described an
besides, the grant TO Col Nathan Within
and his associates, which, together wit
lands previously granted to other officer
was erected into township called Whiting
ham, was made on conditions that wei
forfeited, besides being made in EXPIRE
violation of the prohibitory orders of Il
king of England. Hence they were vol
as by the terms of the grant appear"
Mr. Brown claims the right to reply
Mr. Jllson's personalities ON the groun
that he began the controversy. Mr., Brown
answer seems TO us to be summed up in Il
assertion that he never "advertised'
SHARPLY criticise' Mr., Jillson, as claim,
10y the laster. On this point he furth,
says
"He Mr. Jillson knows, too, that | di
not propose TO sharply criticise him, al
that ia our correspondence he first wro
me in February, 1856 appealing for assis
ance IN the work of collecting facts al
figures for history of Nottingham Wh'
he quotes from my letters to him to prov
that shouted Hold, enough = more than
year ago, he quotes but part of the Sc
tence. and then hoastingly eXclaims, 'Tl
sounds some as though he had got enoul
for all time, and requested me TO stol
The whole sentence from which he quot
is this, 4 have now still another favor
ask of YOU, and that is that you will new
write another line TO me unless you "a
, adopt a different style from that contain
in your score of letters TO me since Feb,
y 1886 If it is not dishonest to quote
j that way for the purpose of deceiving d
lkr