"As lumbering was the principal business, all other was subsidiary to it. There had been several traders' before Edward D. Peters, and Major Pond, who afterward moved to Boston. I think that Andrew Peters came from Bluehill about the time that your father came, and Jesse Dutton (father of the Deacon), who succeeded him in business. They had the usual variety stores that we all associate with country places. The Blacks only supplied the families of their own lumbermen and the men who took up farms on the Bingham lands.

"I think there was but one lawyer in town before your fatherGeorge Herbert. Judge Hathaway followed soon after. For a long time the only physician was Dr. Peck, whose lumbering figure and generous powders you may remember. The old revolutionary pensioner in breeches and cue, of whom you speak in your article, I remember; I think he had no friends in town, and I cannot remember his name.

"There were more than the usual number of 'characters' in Ellsworth, and it has always seemed a pity that some one at that early time should not have made a note' of them. 6 Your mother, with her won

derful facility of language, could have done it admirably.

"I remember the great respect in which your father was held, both in Ellsworth and Cherryfield. He was a great loss to the town, which needed just such wise and liberal men to offset the smaller race of traders that were coming up. I copy on the opposite page the short notice of him found in the manuscript, and I am sorry that I can do you no better service.

"Very sincerely,

"C. J. MILLIKEN."

A CENTURY OF EXISTENCE.

AT the January meeting of the Massachusetts Historical Society — the oldest association of the kind in America, Dr. George E. Ellis the president said: "We are brought very near to, if we have not already reached, the date in time which will mark the completion of a century of the existence and activity of this society — the first in our country to lead the succession of the numerous and generally efficient and prosperous societies of like purposes in our states, cities, counties, districts, towns and villages. An interesting question at once presents itself, as to the precise date of our nativity, from which we are to begin our reckoning. Usage and recognized precedent have established the rule that the life of a chartered or incorporated society, intended for perpetuity, begins with its authoritative official sanction. Yet it is a well-known fact that very many schemes have been in active existence, and many associations and fellowships for a great variety of purposes have had organizations and meetings of members before charter and seal gave them incorporation. The Royal Society of London received its charter from Charles II, in 1661. But for at least a score of years previously the scholars, savants and philosophers, who asked for and ob

tained that charter, with seal and mace, had held their meetings and conferences, and had been gathering materials to promote in the same way the same objects which received the royal sanction. Our own now venerable and honored university - still poor and suppliant with its flood of wealth-dates its life from September, 1636, because the General Court of the colony then recorded its purpose to plant and foster a college among the stumps in a patch of the wilderness in a new town. The court also made a promise of money for the object and designated a committee to take order of it. But none the less the memorial statute on the delta is inscribed "John Harvard, founder, 1638. " This earliest and most munificent benefactor was the founder of "Harvard College.' But the date of two years preceding fitly marks the inception of the seminary.

"Following so honored a precedent this society might claim that this year will complete a full century of its existence. Curiously enough the first book plate in some of its earliest volumes bears the inscription, 'Established in 1790.' There was then something 'established ' which, soon after, it was thought best to have 'incorporated.' Those are the premises which we have before us for fixing the year of our nativity. And what is the significance of that word 'established'? It means something that is in being, not only in purpose, but in fact. The new-born infant is a reality in a household for watching over and for nutriment, perhaps before its name is decided upon. And that name may have been adopted in the household before it has been formally conferred in a sacred rite. It is, however, noteworthy that the faithful scribes of church and parish records in the mother country and in our early colony times, while very scrupulous in entering the date of baptism, fail to give the date of birth; as if a child's life began on the day when, as the phrase is, it was "christened." About many of our own worthies in whose biography we are interested, as, for instance, of John Harvard, we know the date of baptism, but not of birth.

"Our records satisfactorily explain to us what was meant by the words 'Established in 1790.' The books in which the legend was stamped were not private property, did not belong to individuals, but had passed into the ownership of associates, a fellowship formed of a few gentlemen brought intimately together to advance a common object. They were the same men who afterward sought and obtained a charter for their society. They had been holding meetings, gathering and contributing materials for a common purpose. Later on one of this series of meetings was held at the house of an associate, Judge Tudor, on January 24, 1791. Eight persons were present. They agreed to regard this as their first meeting.' It was not because it was the first meeting, but because they then first gave organic form to their association by voting on 'articles for its constitution and government.' Continuing their 'regular' and 'special' meetings, at one of them, on January 29, 1794, a committee was appointed to apply to the legislature for a charter. This

was granted under an act of incorporation passed on February 19. Here again the date of baptism, so to speak, is given more definitely than the date of birth.

"In any recognition, therefore, which we might see fit to make of the completion of our first centennial, we have an alternative for choice of date. Honoring the memory of that little group of cultivated and zealous gentlemen who had found a joint attraction in intelligent historical interests and aims, we may find the origin of our society in their meetings held in 1790. Or we may date from the grant of our formal charter. It is for the members of the society, if the matter has interest for them and if any view should be entertained of recognizing our centennial, to discuss and to dispose of the question."

HISTORICAL NOTES AND QUERIES.

THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF GEORGEANA AND THE TOWN OF YORK.

HAVING Occasion recently, while elaborating a land-title in York to make some investigation of its ancient boundaries, I was surprised at the wide circulation given to erroneous statements of the extent and limits of this township; and as, from the character and official prominence given to one, and the wide circulation of others, these errors are liable to be re-copied and still further disseminated, these notes have been prepared to counteract these mis-statements.

The particular point to which it is desired to direct attention is this: that the great majority of the so-called authorities, that touch upon this point at all, give only twenty-one square miles of territory to the ancient city of Gorgeana, instead of the forty-two square miles it received by its charter from Sir Ferdinando Gorges, which were recognized in its reincorporation as the town of York, by Massachusetts in 1652, and which have, substantially, continued included in its borders to the present day. To give these erroneous statements in the order of their prominence: Note by the Commissioner on the sources of land titles in Maine, p. xi, prefixed to the Revised Statutes of Maine (1883).

...

"and by a second charter dated March 1, 1642, incorporated it, with a territory of twenty-one square miles, into a city called Gorgeana.” —(Varney's Gazetteer of Maine (1882), p. 607.)

"Its limits were seven miles inland from the sea by three in breadth; and the Agamenticus (York) river formed its southwestern boundary." -(Emery's Gorgeana and York, (1874), p. 40.)

...

. . . "he incorporated a territory of twenty-one square miles." -(Sanford, Everts & Co.'s Atlas of York County (1872), p. 114.) "Her limits were seven miles inland from the sea, by three in breadth, with the Agamenticus (York) river for the southwestern boundary.”

"In 1652, Massachusetts assumed control, the city charter was revoked, the name changed to York, and an incorporation as a town granted, with limits enlarged probably nearly to those now existing."

Such attempts, as this last clause, at manufacturing presumable history cannot be too severely reprehended. By comparison with the extract from the incorporation by Massachusetts, cited from the records, below, it will be seen that this writer leads his reader into supposititious reasoning at direct variance with the facts.

Cf., also (Everts & Peck's History of York County (1880), p. 217.)

Do these writers suppose that Gorges intended by the terms of his charter to exclude from the benefits to be derived therefrom his grandson for whom he had obtained a large grant (Records of the Council for New England), or his "tenants who hold land upon the river of Acomenticus" (York Deeds, i, Part ii, 6), or alderman, and afterward mayor, Roger Gard and his dwelling-house, all of whom were located upon the south side of the river of York (York Deeds i, 119).

This error was undoubtedly promulgated by some careless interpreter of the Gorges charters of incorporation, and the others have, apparently, blindly followed his lead. Extracts from these charters are reprinted here, to sustain the stand taken by the writer and make it clear to others, from Hazard's Collection of State Papers, wherein they were printed in 1792, as "copies of originals now in possession of Daniel Moulton as clerk for the town of York," viz: (i, 470, the first, or borough charter, 10 April, 1641) . . . . "establishe the Planters and Inhabitants of Acomenticus to continue. . . . by the name . . . . Towne of Acomenticus," ..."the limitts of the said Corporacon which shall extend East West North and South three miles every way distant from the Church Chappell or Oratory belonging to the Plantacon of Acomenticus."

....

.

"My

(Id. i, 480, the second, or city charter, 1 March, 1642.) will is that the same from henceforth bee nominated termed and called by the name of Gorgeana And by that name of Gorgeana the said Circuite Precinctes Lymitt and Places I do. . . . . establishe," &c. . . ... "And doe therefore for mee my heires and assignes graunte ordeyne and establishe that the Circuite of the said Incorporacon within the Province aforesaid shall extend from the beginninge of the entrance in of the River Commonlie called and knowne by the name of Agamenticus and soe vp the said River seaven Englishe Myles, and all alonge the Easte and North East side of the Sea-shore three Englishe Myles, in bredth from the entrance of the said River and vp into the mayne land seaven myles buttinge with the seaven myles from the sea-side vp the said River the bredth of three myles opposite therevnto."

It is incomprehensible how this careless interpreter, who has been primarily responsible for so much subsequent blundering, could have disregarded all the plain indices to Gorges' intent; both the plainly expressed seven miles by three miles on the opposite side of the river; the "Circuite," which plainly indicated the three miles in all directions in the borough charter; and could have supposed that the area of the township would be diminished in an amplification of its privileges; or that Gorges would have left out from participation in the proposed increased benefits his own tenants and adherents on the south side and have conferred these extra city privileges on the north side alone.

For a clear distinction of the difference between a town and a city at that early date, see Coke's Commentary on Littleton, p. 115, cited in Richardson's introduction to York Deeds, i, p. 46 and note; and see