A D E N I A L Of the Charges Of Forgery in connectio n With the ’ Sachems D eed to i m Roger Will a s . m G E O R G E T P A I N E . A P AP ER READ B EF ORE TH E H I S L AND HIS TOR I CAL S C Y R ODE O IET , V M B I 1 8 6 . NO E ER 7 , 9 TWO H! D D AND F IF T Y C P S N RE O IE . COP YR I GHT B Y T . GEO RGE PAI NE , 1 8 96 . 6 l ' R IN ' rl N Q 9 CO M P A N Y 6 v R OV IDB c , R . x. Y PRELIMINAR NOTE. A tract has lately been written and published entitled The Forgeries connected with the Original Deed a given to Roger Williams by the S chems. “ This deed in a mutilated condition has been very nicely “ inlaid or protected by a wide margin of strong a r and is ar r s r at a p pe , c efully p e e ved the City H ll, in is o o r a or Providence. It b und with the Indi n deeds ( papers signed by Indians) in a book special ly prepared for a r os . a e r s a er th t pu p e On the p g p eceding thi p p , s ne Canonicus and Miantonomi is r s r a ig d by , p e e ved paper which was apparently used as a cover to the “ i rs N I as s o O. rom a deed, it end ed DEED f Con ni ” us a a s to o r a s c Indi n S chem R ge Willi m . ! nlike the ” s a r i s r and r s ar s W deed, thi p pe enti e ; the que ie i e : as “ it originally a part of the sheet on which the deed was “ ” written ? Was the paper on which the deed is written originally of the same size as the paper of the cover ? As s is a m i a e the deed it elf b dly ut l ted, the edg s being ra and is m r a o r ar s gged, uch inju ed in m ny the p t , it i s not probable that the cover was originally a por the “ or s sam mu tion of deed, it would how the e i i of sa is and one ila on. s t t It the me width, but it two alf es o r a the a r and h inch l nge th n p pe of the deed, “ the presumption is that the paper of the deed was as a of o originally of the same length th t the c ver. a r s r r n a s n The p pe of the deed f om the othe I di n , k own ! as “ o r a e s is s ar t r and the C nfi m tion De d , imil in tex u e s o s s r and s s r s the im dimen i n to thi cove , thi t engthen “ ” r a a r of l was of p ession th t the p pe the deed same size. This two and one-half inches of missing paper would be sufficient for the writing of the clause which i s a m was n r o a and a r er if ri n in the cl i ed i te p l ted fo g y, w tte an ar an wr n r ia s the en open, gul h d iti g of Roge Will m , p “ ’ ” f e “ man o the Sachem s Deed . A lin Of this deed of an average length has about thirty-six letters and r s e a s and spaces. By w iting the di put d cl u e dividing it as nearly as possible into lines of this average length of r -six rs and s a s and a out as thi ty lette p ce , le ving the l t “ ” or of a s r r as s is o r w d the cl u e, ive , thi upon the l we r o of a s s of r po ti n the deed, it t ke eight line Roge Wil ’ liam s s h s s handwriting. Thi eight line will occupy t e two and one-half inches of space of the width of the e s r a a e f a writing of the deed . Do s not thi c e te b lie th t a clause of equal length was originally a part of the “ deed And what clause so likely as that which Wil “ liam Arnold certified in 1 658 was the true words of wri h in the g t g . s c a s “As al so ra o of ma Thi l u e, in Conside ti n the ny Kindnesses services he hath continually done for us both with our friends of Mas sachusetts as also at Quinitikticutt And Apaum or Plimouth wee doe freely give unto him all that land from those Rivers Reaching to Pawtuxett r as a s e rass meaddowes Rive , l o y G e ” o Pawtuxett er was a up n Riv , pl ced upon the town records in connection with the undisputed portion Of “ and was at m of r the deed, the whole the ti e en oll “ ” “ r a the o rt as r ment, ce tified in the f ce of C u the t ue ” “ words of the wrighting cal led the Town Evidence of Providence. a or the ra r of s a s The uth of t ct, in w iting thi cl u e, “ asserts that it is a forgery the question that it is a “ r r i not a a is a fi a . a so fo ge y s deb t ble, it xed f ct He l “ r the s a r Of r i ams is a or r w ites, ign tu e Roge Will f ge y , and the signatu re of Benedict Arnold is probably a asm as s r a r rs a forgery. And in uch hi to ic l w ite h ve heretofore accepted the clause and the signatures as “ e ofiers a a men m s ase genuin , he the ch llenge th t u t ce repeating these . hoary lies or historically destroy this (his) tract. e ar r ar s and e r Th se e ve y sweeping ch ge , b fo e they 3 are accepted and considered to be ‘ fifix ed f acts the r a r is as to oo o s r a e de ked l k int the hi to y Of the St te, and examine certain contemporary documents as to r ear o s s and not be arri thei b ing up n thi que tion, c ed a a n er of M r w y by the forceful a d enthusiastic mann . has r. not s em to Mr r Ride It does e me that . Ride ro his a s as to r r s or a his p ved cl im the fo ge ie , th t os is or o a p ition fixed unquesti n ble . The name of William H arris i s very prominent in the ra r r sm was one of the men t ct unde c itici . He five who ventured into the wilderness with Roger Wil liams to found a state striving for its fundamental prin “ ci le b or er s e was p to ould f th Lib ty of Con cienc . He one of the thirteen original proprietors or purchasers of r and a tu e ro n a s P ovidence P w x t f m the I di n , depend “ al a s s e for his r ing w y upon thi de d unde lying title, and through a long life resisting through the courts all a a s his ome and r r e o ers tt ck upon h p ope ty. Wh n th attempted to belittle the foundations of his possessions a a e r s r t at his e s he m int in d thei t eng h own exp n e, although the fight was for the benefit of his detractors f He n man as well as or himself. was the stro g in the emer gency. -five ars a o had for a o Some twenty ye g , I quite l ng period the possession of what are known as the Harris 4 a rs and i m a s ma s of all P pe , wh le in y h nd I de copie of i m. rs a a M r r has h s the I unde t nd th t . Ride now in ss s o a r a o an po e si n the p pe s th t I then c pied. Nothing c o s a ers and a e a to be f und in tho e p p , I h v been un ble a e se re a ou a an find nything l whe , th t c ld h ve given him y foundation for his statements that William H arris ” and his partners had any land scheme between them by which they could or did attempt to defraud the original thirt een purchasers or their heirs or assigns from the rightful ownership of the Providence and Paw tuxet a re is a rs l nds.