Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1892-08-18
For the Ellsworth Americana
TrentOn-l762 to 1900.
No. 81.

corporation as a town in 1900, was called
New Bowdoin.
Since our last communication we find in
that valuable periodical The Bangor His
torical Magazine { Vol. III, page l27 a
copy Of the petition Of the inhabitants OF
| Plantation No. I. to the Legislature ask
ing to be Incorporated into town by the
name of Sumner. II also appears by IL
that the petitioners had heretofore paid
their taxes with the town of Trenton,
This petition was presented and referred
to the General Court. Feb. 6, l79s, i" but II
seems that it was not acted upon until
Feb. &c. 1900, when instead of naming the
town Sumner. as prayed for in the petit
New Bowdon is not mentioned in the Pc
tition nor in the act of Incorporation.
It is evident that the bounds of Ellis
worth contained In the act of incorpora-
tion Of 1900, the copy Of which we OBJ
tanned from the archives of Massachusetts
but which we now find was previously
published in the Bangor Historical Maqa-
zine were not those of New Bowdoin in
| 1856. We're they the boundary lines Of
| Plantation No. /. or did said Plantation
take In a portion of No. | Trenton In
l79S when the petition for incorporation
was made? IL Is difficult to reconcile the
diversity Of seemingly contradictory state
ments that we ind recorded. surveys and
| plans made which apparently contradict
each other, only upon the surpositlon that
at different periods the General Court
changed the boundary lines through the
many surveys which they authorized made,
or set OF portions Of one town to another
so that in the lapse Of time aud destruc.
tion Of records their identity has been lost
and Tradition Goes not explain the dlscrep.
sncy or supply the missing links.
As sfording further light upon this
! somewhat cloudy and pulling subject, we
will add a few additional facts recently OBJ
taincd from the same source.
In 1856 petition was presented TO the
Massachusetts Legislature To have the
lands In New Bowdoin laid out into
township" upon which petition the follow
ing action was taken.
fI
The Committee of both houses on the
petition Of the settlers of New Bowdon,
so-called. as contained in the petition Of
the prOprietors and settlers Of the Town.
ships No, |. I, and 6. having considered
the saTe. are of opinion that it being
highly probable that the committee on the
subject Of unappropriated lands in the
County of Lincoln will shortly lay out the
lands in said New Bowdoin into town
ship no further measures are necessary,
than to direct the said COMMITTEES in Law
ing ont the same 10 assign olt hundred
acres OF land to each settler who shall
have settled thereon. and WHO shall have
made separate Improvement before the
first day OF Jan'y 1854, reserying however.
sufficient land near the River for the ac-
commodaiion Of the Township 10 general,
for landings.
Signed STKruEN CuoAT3:, per Order
In Senate. March II, 1856.
Read and accepted,
Sent down for concurrence,
(-igned) SAINT PHILLIPS, Jr.,
frest
In House Of Representatives.
March ~ l-sG
Read and coucurred.
iSigned) A. WARD, Speaker
Later and In the same year (l7s6l Rufus
Putnam made survey of No. s, Z, +, and
many other townships on Union River, un-
der orders from the General Court. Plans
OF this survey will BE- found in a bound
volume ir the Register Of Deeds office in
Ellsworth
1t is apparent that in l7s6 the limits of
New Bowdoin had not been established as
township, or by separate and distinct
boundary lines, or its inhabitants would not
have petitIoned Ito be laid out into a
township"
It certainly could not have been Ia a part
Of township No. :, for at that date NJ
such township existed; said township had
not been run out and located. II was not
until some months after, that Rufus Put
nam made his survey by order OF the Cen
eral Court hence it would have been alb
surd for the inhabitants of New Bowdoin
10 ask to be laid out into township ii it
had already been done
Upon reference 10 the plans it will be
readily seen that the No. Township run
out by Rufus Putnam did not include with
in its limits all the large territory Of No.
: described IN the act of incorporation of
EllsW orth in February, 800,
Because the Petitioners called them
selves inhabitants of PiaHtatiou No. :, it
all settlers in 7otrnShiP No. 7 or that the
Plantation was wholly on Nor
In fact the evidence already adduced
with what will be added shows that all of
them could not have been residents Of that
township and if settlers in any other town
ship 1t could only have been the one next
adjoining it on the south which at tina,
date was Trenton.
the inhabitants of Plantation No. they
ask, in case their prayer to be incorpor-
ated into town is not granted THAT they
be set oT by themselves so that they can
have the privilege of taxing themselves
| for public worship, schools and laying out
and making necessary roads, Why should
they ask to be set OFF by themselves if
they did not belong to Trenton or some
other town? II Plantation No. I, was
wholly on township No. I, would they
have petitioDed "to be set OF after ask
| ing to be Incorporated" There was no
other Plantation or village connected with
them unless in Trenton
| 1t will be borne in mind that the object
of collecting and commenting upon the
facts bearing upon the ancient division
line between Ellsworth and Trenton Is to
get at the true history of an important
part of both towns in the last century and
to this end we have given the records and
facts as fast as they have been ferreted
out from various authentic sources, and In
consequence more has been written than
would have been necessary if we could
have had all the material to work from In
the beginning.
We have discovered in John Peters sur
vey of the lots run out by him In ths
French Grant," on the main land on thu
east side of Union river. further evidenc,
tending to show where the north line OF
Trenton was formerly located and will
here give description of the settlers lott
on the river supposed to be south of sale
north line, prior to 1856, if not at late
|