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

or the writer. that every honest. fair -iuiud-
,l roo,lor .,,,,,,II ,+ ,,,,,... so. ,.oy po, thc
intention oI Ihe au'hor' anu ne "oeS "".
think amy enduring honor can he gained
by such a course
We think "honors are even" now be
tyeon tbe t.,, historians and bere this
s,'r -. 60,
P"' V, O''' ''''''' ''',''' 'V'f
our columns are cohcerhed' VI
O"hoef'"""'- AOS' N"''
Our second contribution is from Mr.. jill
son, and is entitled "Cumbcrland's Lost
Charter The article is in answer TO "Ii.
II w - .,,d ,,.,. ,.,,,,., e.. ,,.,.,,,;,l ,,ort
''
ie"'lhB ouU onIy Such al'usIohS as "re ""'
pertinent to the discussion
II. II. W.. in his first letter, finds it con
venent to describe the western boundary
of Cumberland county, claiming that IT
touched the northwest corner Of Draper,
thence spuvherly in the west line Of Ora
per and Cumberland and to the north line Of
Massa chusetts Bay When undertook TO
deal with this same boundary, he says it
was not there, but four miles west, and not
ON Cumberland at all. ! do not claim but
what the line of Cumberland county has
been in both places but when it was west
of ReadsbDrough it existed only by virtue
of the province Of New York, the acts of
which II. H. W. declares to have been
void, consequently his logic would exclude
the early western boundary for all pur-
poses except when used by him as jump
ing place
II. II. W says there were no vacant
lands about WhtinEham after the territory
had any name at ull / submit that it nev
er had any legal name tii March -, no.
when it was patented under the name of
Whltngham ! also assert that a portion
of that tract, 50 patented, was vacant land
owned by no person nor claimed by any
government. The petitioners for the " hit
ing grant say that che government Of Ne"
York affirmed it, and New Hampshire never
| disputed it. Still further ReadsbOrough
was vacant land aud 50 treated when Whit
| ngham was chartered and that part of it
| adjoining Wilmington was claimed by that
Gown for many years, aud the dispute final
| ly settled by reference 10 "A committee of
the legislature Of Vermont.
If the statements of ii. II. W are to be
taken as true, there was plenty of vacant
| land IN that region, for 1t had been claimed
! by no government except New York, the
authority of which, he saws, was of no ac-
count If the claims of New York were
| void they were not Vuidable for NermOnt
had to pay $50, 600 to get rid Of them.
In his last letter H. H. W. for the first
time. touched the subject under discus ion,
to wit. Was the town of Nhitnghau ever
the town of Cumberland He claims that
! it was, and has ransucked the archives for
some record to show that such "A town was
chartered aud organized. After finding no
documentary evidence in support Of any Of
these essentials he undertakes TO tell what
mjgt have been lie claims that vol
umes of records of land patent, were placed
ON board man.of war in New York hur
| hor in lftJ. and iutiuatrs that some IF
them We're never accounted for lie thru
SAYS, "a record of the charter Of Cumber
| land may have been IN some of those Ee
| ing resident of Massachusetts, perhaps ]
ought to say at this point God save the
| commonwealth" " He did save Whitincham
! but II. II. W thinks Cumberland was lost
He SAYS "the map OF tho town umeaninl
| Cumbcrlandl made from surveys in the
| patent office looks As if there was such Il
| record. ! have an accurate tracing Of
that same map, and 1t is the one upon which
lhe charter oil " hitihshHih Is naaed ana To-
'h"ut !, ~ sho, that iar,,. ,,V, art,nr, '',' ~
The town now Whitingbnm. wa, then va
can't unpatentcd land. which proves be
| yond all question that 1t was not a town by
'he name OF CGmotrIand' ms map show,
III 1'ie Ia"'9 '''- i''' 'n''' pee' maj n''''
I ~ y nun ''''s ''lg ,'. '''i'
i,nu1 1 y" 'no "''V' ~ ~ no"
,'ea,.f2 i,L s ~ ','r
'S,EIn "a 'ie vow anu 'l'' vas ~,
''' p'iiIs my = 49, ~, 'u"'
~ u'D' &C. ns." 90" I"' = 'iJ"
,'',,' a.it 'u' ~" 20 'i'
" ii"i', a. i,"'.', ~ ''1' }a