Amherst Township vs DesBarres 2.0
Revival of the Gmelin Line Dispute
Although the DesBarres tenants had won a victory over Amherst Township in the 1796 court case, their ownership of the properties near the Gmelin Line again came into question nearly 20 years later. In the fall of 1814, former surveyor Charles Baker, who had become a judge, asked Surveyor General Charles Morris to review the Gmelin/Amherst Boundary. The dispute was likely revived when surveyors prepared to lay out a newly-proposed grant to Samuel McCully and others in the 1350-acre triangular piece of ungranted land that lay between the Gmelin/DesBarres grant and the Amherst Township Grant.
Although the DesBarres tenants had won a victory over Amherst Township in the 1796 court case, their ownership of the properties near the Gmelin Line again came into question nearly 20 years later. In the fall of 1814, former surveyor Charles Baker, who had become a judge, asked Surveyor General Charles Morris to review the Gmelin/Amherst Boundary. The dispute was likely revived when surveyors prepared to lay out a newly-proposed grant to Samuel McCully and others in the 1350-acre triangular piece of ungranted land that lay between the Gmelin/DesBarres grant and the Amherst Township Grant.
1814 Opinion of Surveyor General Morris
On the 16th of November, 1814, Charles Morris wrote Charles Baker a five-page letter, giving his "decided opinion." Morris thoroughly discredited the "buried bottle" starting point that DesBarres had so often touted, writing that "the bound fixed at the time you mention (when the bottle was buried and mount of earth raised in presence of Mr. Huston above the tide at Maccan River with all the specious parade of solemnity as the true bounds of Mr. Gmelin's grant should never be viewed or considered in any light whatsoever but as a standing and perpetual monument of disgrace!" He called the action a fraud and deception that would not hold up in court. But Amherst's attempt to set the boundary was no better. Morris concluded that Amherst residents first settled and had a survey made up to reflect their properties and then "came forward for the grant to be made out according to the said plan." The boundary of that plan, he said, was S45E which appeared to coincide with a plan annotated in Baker's own writing dated 20 Aug 1772. (That plan had been entered in evidence in the 1796 trial at Amherst.). It should be noted that when DesBarres described settling the Goulds on their properties in 1772, shortly after he acquired the northern 8,000 acres of the Gmelin Grant, he did not mention that any Amherst lot owners were settled on the properties.
Morris proposed that the area be surveyed again by Charles Baker's son William, starting at the willows planted between the Francklin and DesBarres properties and using the original measurements. Morris had confidence that the survey, properly done, would not result in any conflict. But any conflicts that did arise should be resolved in a practical way. Morris specified that "the Acadian French who are settled on the lots which were originally laid out and set off as part of Amherst--they ought to remain in peaceable possession of the land..." Any Amherst residents who were displaced should be offered land elsewhere, and Jeremiah Casey should not expect to retain all of the lots he claimed. Morris predicted that the land surveyed for Samuel McCully and others would not be interfered with. He also declared that the Roach survey should not be "considered as case closed and obligatory on the parties unless they consent thereto". (DesBarres Fonds online, Series 5 (M.G. 23, f1-5, Vols 22-23, Documents 4953-4957, Reel C-1459, Image 1285.)
On the 16th of November, 1814, Charles Morris wrote Charles Baker a five-page letter, giving his "decided opinion." Morris thoroughly discredited the "buried bottle" starting point that DesBarres had so often touted, writing that "the bound fixed at the time you mention (when the bottle was buried and mount of earth raised in presence of Mr. Huston above the tide at Maccan River with all the specious parade of solemnity as the true bounds of Mr. Gmelin's grant should never be viewed or considered in any light whatsoever but as a standing and perpetual monument of disgrace!" He called the action a fraud and deception that would not hold up in court. But Amherst's attempt to set the boundary was no better. Morris concluded that Amherst residents first settled and had a survey made up to reflect their properties and then "came forward for the grant to be made out according to the said plan." The boundary of that plan, he said, was S45E which appeared to coincide with a plan annotated in Baker's own writing dated 20 Aug 1772. (That plan had been entered in evidence in the 1796 trial at Amherst.). It should be noted that when DesBarres described settling the Goulds on their properties in 1772, shortly after he acquired the northern 8,000 acres of the Gmelin Grant, he did not mention that any Amherst lot owners were settled on the properties.
Morris proposed that the area be surveyed again by Charles Baker's son William, starting at the willows planted between the Francklin and DesBarres properties and using the original measurements. Morris had confidence that the survey, properly done, would not result in any conflict. But any conflicts that did arise should be resolved in a practical way. Morris specified that "the Acadian French who are settled on the lots which were originally laid out and set off as part of Amherst--they ought to remain in peaceable possession of the land..." Any Amherst residents who were displaced should be offered land elsewhere, and Jeremiah Casey should not expect to retain all of the lots he claimed. Morris predicted that the land surveyed for Samuel McCully and others would not be interfered with. He also declared that the Roach survey should not be "considered as case closed and obligatory on the parties unless they consent thereto". (DesBarres Fonds online, Series 5 (M.G. 23, f1-5, Vols 22-23, Documents 4953-4957, Reel C-1459, Image 1285.)
Contentions and Ruin
In response to Morris's letter, Charles Baker posted notices around Amherst calling for a public meeting on the matter. The exasperated DesBarres called on Mr. Baker to view the letter and then wrote to Morris on the 7th of December, "That an official order of survey of your grandfather executed between 40 and 50 years ago, and the lands settled by me ever since the year 1771, should now become a matter of dispute or that any doubt should arise respecting the rectitude of its boundaries whatever misrepresentations have been made I know not, they cannot have any effect and I trust they will upon mature examination appear to be not only unfounded and absurd but also if not immediately suppressed will establish a field of contentions and ruin throughout this country."
DesBarres also wrote that he had attended the meeting at which it had been decided unanimously that "Mr. William Baker was not a proper person to be employed." DesBarres implored Charles Morris to attend to the matter in person. (DesBarres Papers, Series 5 M.G. 23, f1-5, Vols. 22-23 document 4959, Reel C-1459, Image 1291)
In response to Morris's letter, Charles Baker posted notices around Amherst calling for a public meeting on the matter. The exasperated DesBarres called on Mr. Baker to view the letter and then wrote to Morris on the 7th of December, "That an official order of survey of your grandfather executed between 40 and 50 years ago, and the lands settled by me ever since the year 1771, should now become a matter of dispute or that any doubt should arise respecting the rectitude of its boundaries whatever misrepresentations have been made I know not, they cannot have any effect and I trust they will upon mature examination appear to be not only unfounded and absurd but also if not immediately suppressed will establish a field of contentions and ruin throughout this country."
DesBarres also wrote that he had attended the meeting at which it had been decided unanimously that "Mr. William Baker was not a proper person to be employed." DesBarres implored Charles Morris to attend to the matter in person. (DesBarres Papers, Series 5 M.G. 23, f1-5, Vols. 22-23 document 4959, Reel C-1459, Image 1291)
Continue with Samuel McCully Grant