The Bennington banner. [volume] (Bennington, Vt.) 1858-1894, 1889-08-29

The Manchester Union INDUCES Il
ghoulish glee over the fact that tn
Granite State is the sole owner and pro
prietor of the Connecticut River, that 4
commonly supposed to act as boundary
line between the States OF New Hamp
shire and Vermont. This fact. the I'm
ion think ought to be generally known
because usually rivers flowing between
states are held in joint ownership, anG
the middle channel is the acknowledged
boundry line. As though feeling little
shaky regarding the genuineness of the
claim, OF else fearing that some irate
Vermonter may rise up and knock the
foundations from under il, our New
Hampshire contemporary puts In the
necessary word in season that may
serve to check incipient controversy. VI
We do not know of any incipient con-
troversy likely to arise over this ques-
ton, but as a matter of history and OF
interest to jewellers on both sides Of the
river, we quote some OF the evidence
adduced to substantiate the claim.
Samuel Williams, L. L. D., in his National
and Civil History Of Vermont" printed a. per
MDcCSdiv,% says "fTI The eastern boundary q
Vermont Is formed by the west bank OF COnnec-
ticut river. This line following the course OF the
river, is about 200 miles and is derived from the
decree OF George the third. On the 10th Of July.
1894. his majesty ordered and declared "The
western banks Of the river Connecticut, from
where II enters the province of Massachusetts,
Bay, as far north as the forty-flfth degree OF
latitude, TO be the boundary line between the two
provinces, Of New Hampshire and New York.
This royal decree In settlement Of his contro-
versy between New Hampshire and New York
CONCERNING the so called Hampshire grants.
in his recent history Of New Hamp.
shire, refers to this decree as follows: THE
western boundary OF New Hampshire was deter.
mined in July, 1764, to be The western bank Of
Hampshire was withdrawn from the Hampshire
grants and confined to It's present limits"
Well, we admit the claim, hut what
Of IL How do our Granite State friends
enjoy the obligations that go with the
river? 1t devolves upon them TO main.
tain the bridges and keep the way open
Tor navigation and all that, and Just
what return they get for this expepdi-
lure we fail TO see, unless it be the salts.
faction Of owing river with remark
ably long name.
In this connection the Union amuses
Itself by noting number OF interesting
questions which might arise. Whether
'r not Vermont criminal standing up
o his ankles In the river would be free
rom arrest by Vermont officials? Wheth.
IT or not New Hampshire reaches its |
maximum size during the spring freshets
md dwIndles correspondingly during
he dry season? Whether or not Yer
nonter keeping ducks should pay tribute
n two States 10 these may be added
till other interesting questions. The
eeree OF George the Third was declared
n the Goth Of July, 1894, season OF
he year when the Connecticut touches
cry nearly ITS lowest water mark. II
1e remember correctly the year 1894
7as phenomenally dry, and the river
1as consequently unusually low. In
lew OF II facts there are the other
questions which might arise:
Whether or not New Hampshire is di-
ectly responsible for the damage done
y the rising Of the river and the flIw-
lg OF Vermont land in consequence
Whether New Hampshire is directly re-
ponsible for the great damage done to
ropelty in this State by the river in
mes Of heavy rainfalls, but more par
cularly in the spring when not infre-
uently mill property Ia carried away and
'rious damage done Vermont property
wners by ice as we'll as water in the
yer New Hampshire delights 10 call its
wn? We pause for reply before making
Ut the biggest bill for damages that
ew Hampshire ever confronted. Free
ress.