Volume 54 No. 2 Fall 2021 2 LETTER FROM MHS DIRECTOR Steve Bromage 3 EDITOR’S NOTE Gregory Gaines 5 “It May Be Questionable:” Granger v. Avery and the Redaction of Article X, Section 5 from the Maine Constitution Catherine M. Burns 25 Farther North of Boston: Maine’s Pull on Robert Frost Timothy D. O’Brien 37 “A Most Beautiful and Gratifying Spectacle:” Notes on the Times and Life of the Original Steamer Portland Larry S. Glatz 55 PHOTO ESSAY Passing the time: artwork by World War II German POWs in Aroostook County 65 5 25 BOOK REVIEWS A History of Maine Railroads. By Bill Kenny. Andrew Reddy Rufus Porter’s Curious World, Art and Invention in America, 1815-1860. Edited by Laura Feych Sprague and Justin Wolff. Brittany Goetting 37 Henry Knox’s Noble Train: The Story of a Boston Bookseller’s Heroic Expedition that Saved the American Revolution. By William Hazelgrove. Savannah Clark 55 Letter from MHS Director I want to provide a glimpse ahead to next year, 2022, which will mark the 200th anniversary of Maine Historical Society’s service to Maine. It will be a remarkable opportunity to consider how MHS has evolved, to share where we hope to go, and to celebrate the essential role that history plays in shaping Maine’s special sense of place. The commemorative year will highlight MHS’s core strengths—including our collections, which date back to the 15th century. We will feature three special initiatives: The major two-part exhibition Northern Threads: Two Centuries of Dress at the Maine Historical Society. The exhibition will draw from 3,000+ articles of clothing at MHS which have recently been the subject of a comprehensive three-year rehousing and digitization project. You can get a sneak peak at: http://historicclothing.mainememory.net The launch of a new portal on Maine Memory Network that provides access to 7500+ architectural and landscape design commissions in MHS collections as well as interpretive essays written by Earle Shettleworth and Patrick Chasse. The completion of our two-year National Endowment for the Humanities-funded grant to fully digitize, transcribe, and provide access to our Kennebec and Pejepscot Proprietors collections, as well as our Northern Boundary collection which maps and documents the setting of the border between the US and Canada. 2 Maine History Extensive digital resources and public programming will continue to provide context, information, and historical perspective on the issues that matter to Mainers today. These offerings will also demonstrate how history can help us imagine and pursue Maine’s vitality in its third century. Of course, we look forward to sharing MHS’s own institutional history with you—beginning with the founders and early milestones, to our focus and important developments of different eras, to our evolution into the organization you know today focused on documenting and celebrating the contributions that people throughout Maine and beyond make to Maine’s well-being and identity. Finally, we look forward to sharing more about Maine Historical Society’s vision for our future and plans for preserving and sharing Maine’s story as we embark on our next century. We wish you good health as we continue to make our way through the pandemic. When I need a dose of pandemic patience, MHS’s Deputy Director Jamie Rice reminds me: “The Spanish Flu took three years.” Historical perspective and management advice in one sentence! Best, Steve Editor’s Note T his issue of Maine History is special, and not just because we have some excellent articles to share with you! It will be my last issue as editor of the journal. I wanted to thank the Maine Historical Society, the University of Maine History Department, the editorial staff and editorial board of the journal, and most of all the readers of the journal for the opportunity to help present these wonderful academic articles. In this issue, Tim O’Brien recognizes Robert Frost’s deep connections to Maine and the effects that those connections had on his personal and professional life. Larry Glatz forges a narrative of iron and steam about the first Steamship Portland and its life in Maine and along the East Coast. Catherine Burns presents groundbreaking research on the redaction of Article X, Section 5, of the Maine State Constitution. This redacted section has had lasting repercussions for State and Wabanaki relations up to the present day. We also have three book reviews of works that came out in the past few years, as well as the Maine Historical Society photo essay. History, especially local history, can have a profound impact on individuals and communities. By researching, writing about, and presenting the history of our state, we share the stories of the past and connect those stories to our present and future. Maine History provides an exceptional venue for the continued historical study of the State of Maine. Being able to help advance that mission has been an honor and a delight. The journal is in good hands with our incoming editor, Dylan O’Hara, who is a friend and colleague. She will do great things with the journal, especially with the enduring guidance and assistance of Dr. Mary Freeman, Hannah Schmidt, and Darcy Stevens. Gregory Gaines Editor, Maine History Editor’s Note 3 Map of St. Croix River area, 1817. This map shows the Passamaquoddy islands later lost as a result of Granger v. Avery. Collections of Maine Historical Society, MaineMemory.net #8560. 4 Maine History “IT MAY BE QUESTIONABLE:” GRANGER V. AVERY AND THE REDACTION OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 5 FROM THE MAINE CONSTITUTION By Catherine M. Burns Since January 1, 1876, printed copies of the Maine Constitution have not included Article X, Section 5, which contains Maine’s constitutional duty to guarantee and defend Wabanaki treaties made with Massachusetts. This article offers an explanation of how and why the obscuration of Article X, Section 5 happened. It examines steps taken in 1875 to establish the redaction in relation to stages in the process to settle Joseph Granger v. Peter Avery, a Maine Supreme Judicial Court case that hinged upon a 1794 Passamaquoddy treaty. The timetable favored the financial interests of both Maine and Joseph Granger at the expense of the Passamaquoddy Tribe, which lost fifteen treaty islands as a result of the court’s decision and never received compensation from the state in defiance of Article X, Section 5. Maine officials were likely more immediately concerned about an outlay to Granger stemming from the verdict than to the tribe, as his demands would be harder to ignore. Notably, Frederick A. Pike, the constitutional commission member who proposed the redaction while a decision on Granger was still pending, pushed the Maine House to approve paying damages and other compensation to Granger soon after the redaction took effect. In violation of the now unprintable Article X, Section 5, this sum was taken from the Passamaquoddy Trust Fund. The Passamaquoddy Tribe and their allies protested, but Maine officials paid them no heed. Removing Maine’s Native treaty responsibilities from print all but formalized the government’s unofficial policy of ignoring its constitutional obligations. Catherine M. Burns served as co-curator of “REDACT: Obscuring the Maine Constitution,” an exhibition at the Maine Historical Society. She holds a Ph.D. in United States history from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. I N 2015, Henry John Bear, the non-voting member of the Maine House of Representatives from the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, introduced a bill calling for a constitutional amendment referendum question that would return to view redacted sections of the Maine Constitution. Article X, Sections 1, 2, and 5 have been excluded from copies of the state constitution published since January 1, 1876. Al- Granger V. Avery and the Redaction of Article X, Section 5 5 though Section 5 continues to be in “full force” and “with the same effect as if contained in said printed copies,” Bear wanted to see its text brought back to print for the sake of making the state’s constitutional obligations regarding Native treaties readily apparent. Comprised of nine subsections, Article X, Section 5 consists of the Articles of Separation, or the first section of the “Act Relating to the Separation of the District of Maine from Massachusetts” (Mass. Laws 1819, ch. 161), which are the terms and conditions to which the District of Maine agreed in order to become a state independent of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1820. Its fifth subsection states Maine’s responsibility to “assume and perform all duties and obligations of this Commonwealth, towards the Indians within said District of Maine, whether the same arise from treaties, or otherwise . . . .” For Bear, Maine’s long history of failing to uphold Indigenous treaties or to respect tribal rights raised questions as to whether the constitutional commission that devised the redaction had deliberately hidden the state’s agreement to guarantee and defend Native treaties made with Massachusetts.1 Few Maine residents, including members of the legislature, knew that the state constitution included portions barred from print. Representative Bear learned of the redaction from Portland Press Herald staff writer Colin Woodard’s twenty-nine-part series “Unsettled” on the history of the Passamaquoddy Tribe. Legislators tasked with responding to Bear’s bill could not explain why the constitutional commission that had formulated the amendments put before Maine voters in 1875 had included a law that would remain in “full force” but omitted from printed copies of the state constitution. Citing costs, the legislature did not approve the bill.2 The redaction of the Articles of Separation was one of several changes to the Maine Constitution proposed in 1875, but at that time the state had good reason to remove from view its obligations regarding Indigenous treaties with Massachusetts. The fifth subsection of Article X, Section 5 was pertinent to Joseph Granger v. Peter Avery, a lawsuit that threatened to result in Maine’s compensating the Passamaquoddy Tribe for land that should have been guaranteed by a 6 Maine History 1794 treaty with Massachusetts. The case began in December 1854, when Joseph Granger formally accused Peter Avery of trespassing on Grass Island in the St. Croix River, also known as the Schoodic River. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court did not hear the case until its April 1874 term. Peter Avery was neither Indigenous nor a member of the Passamaquoddy Tribe, but the charge necessitated that the court determine whether the tribe or Granger owned Grass Island. In accordance with the fifth subsection of Article X, Section 5, Maine was obligated to uphold Native treaties with Massachusetts. This meant that if Granger won the lawsuit and the tribe lost Grass Island and fourteen other treaty islands in the St. Croix River, Maine would be responsible for covering the costs of defending the tribe’s claim (i.e., Granger’s costs and damages) and paying the tribe the value of the islands. The timing of the process to redact Article X, Section 5 relative to Granger v. Avery suggests that state officials advanced the redaction with the lawsuit in mind. After an overview of Granger v. Avery, this article examines the push to redact Article X, Section 5 in connection with the settling of the lawsuit. It draws attention to Frederick A. Pike, a colleague of Joseph Granger’s who proposed the redaction to the constitutional commission while a decision in Granger v. Avery was still pending. A previous opinion by the court discounting aboriginal title made it likely that the case would result in the Passamaquoddy Tribe’s losing the islands, putting the State of Maine in the position of paying their value to the tribe and reimbursing Granger. Notably, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court did not rule on Granger v. Avery until after the legislature had agreed to put the redaction before voters. Final judgment in the case, furthermore, took place in October 1875, about one month after voters had approved the redaction. Documentation concerning the redaction is thin, but it was convenient for the state that the redaction took effect in time for Maine to avoid compensating the tribe and paying Granger’s damages. With Article X, Section 5 out of sight, Maine managed to dodge both outlays and ignored advocates for the tribe who refused to turn a blind eye to Article X, Section 5 in the aftermath of Granger v. Avery. Granger v. Avery Grass Island is located in the St. Croix River in Washington County. The dispute over whether Calais lawyer Joseph Granger or the Passamaquoddy Tribe owned it stemmed from a mistake or possible willful neglect by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Granger claimed Grass Island, in part, through a chain of title that originated with a deed issued to William Bingham by Massachusetts on January 28, 1793. On that date, Massachusetts conveyed to Bingham land including Township No. 7, later known as Baileyville. Massachusetts recorded Bingham’s deed on September 12, 1794. Yet on September 29, 1794, Massachusetts also formally acknowledged the Passamaquoddy Tribe’s ownership of Grass Island and other land in a treaty signed by the tribe and representatives of the Commonwealth.3 The lawsuit began in December 1854 with a writ of trespass issued to Peter Avery of Calais. It demanded that Avery appear before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court when it met in Machias in January 1855. The writ identified Avery as a “Trader,” although thereafter he was called the Indian agent in references to the case. Avery had served as the Passamaquoddy Indian agent, but his four-year term had technically been over for nearly a year by December 1854. Using standard legal language in a case of land trespass (trespass quare clausum frigit), the writ claimed that Avery had “with force and arms broke and entered the [Puff ?] close” on Grass Island at numerous times since December 16, 1848. Avery, furthermore, allegedly “cut down [and] took away the grass” worth “four hundred dollars and converted the same to his own use,” had “carried away a large quantity of hay” on “several occasions,” and had also “converted the same to his own use . . . .”4 When he was the agent for the tribe, Avery had cut the grass on the island and had authorized others to do the same, but he might have especially irked Granger in 1854 by continuing to do so after the end of his term. Whatever the case, we cannot know Avery’s perspective on either the accusations against him or the court’s eventual decision, because he did not testify in Granger v. Avery. Nor was his absence discussed at the hearing. By 1867 Avery had relocated his family from Maine to the gold rush country of Calaveras County, California. He died there in June 1874, not long after the case went to the law court.5 Testifying during the Maine Supreme Judicial Court’s April 1874 term, Seth W. Smith, who had qualified as the Passamaquoddy Indian agent in March 1854, stated that Avery had informed him, possibly in 1853, that Grass Island and fourteen other islands belonged to the Passamaquoddy Tribe. Smith was unsure of when his own term as agent had begun, but he recalled that he had sold “the grass on these islands to a man named Casey pretty much every year.” He also said that he had sold the grass once he became the agent. Between 1849 and 1854 the price for hay was especially high, likely increasing both Peter Avery’s and Joseph Granger’s interests in it.6 The prospect of a report that Smith would soon submit to the legislature may have prompted Granger to spark a lawsuit before the legislature met in January 1855, so as to force consideration of his claim. On April 17, 1854, eight months prior to the issuing of the writ, the Maine legislature passed a resolve authorizing the tribal agent to determine whether the Passamaquoddy Indians in fact had possession of the lands described in the tribe’s 1794 treaty with Massachusetts and to submit his report to the “next legislature.” In the report, Smith explained how various white landowners claimed the Passamaquoddy Tribe’s treaty islands: The original grant from ‘Massachusetts to William Bingham,’ of townships No. 6 and 7, was dated January 28, 1793 and recorded September 12, 1794, (both transactions being prior to the Indian treaty,) and the present owners holding their title thus derived, claim to the channel of said river. If this is correct, townships 5, 6, and 7, being all ‘bounded’ (as they are) ‘on the river’ will cover all of the fifteen islands in the Indian treaty. The Indians have occupied them part of the time, and the owners of said townships the rest, and there has long existed this question of title between them. The fifteen islands are worth two thousand dollars. Granger V. Avery and the Redaction of Article X, Section 5 7 The legislature’s response did not address the state constitution, but it did reflect the constitutional duty laid out in Article X, Section 5, subsection 5 to guarantee the terms of Native treaties with Massachusetts. In this spirit, the legislature approved a resolve on March 16, 1855 instructing the governor and his council to investigate, defend, and settle, in such manner as they deem expedient, the questions of title to the lands and islands granted to the Passamaquoddy tribe of Indians, by the state of Massachusetts by their treaty with the tribe . . . and to claim and receive of said state, for the benefit of said tribe, an equitable compensation for any of such lands or islands as may prove not to have been legally conveyed to or placed in possession of said tribe, by said state, according to the stipulations of the treaty. The resolve set no timetable for responding, but it showed the state as both open to the possibility that the white claimants owned the disputed land and willing to pay the Passamaquoddy Tribe the value of the islands should the 1794 treaty not hold. In this process, the question of title could be settled once and for all.7 A special committee of the governor’s council looked into the matter and instructed Smith to determine the boundaries of the Passamaquoddy Tribe’s land at Nemcass Point. To this end, Smith hired a surveyor and the state successfully defended the tribe’s title in the face of white encroachment. It did not, however, come to a conclusion on Grass Island.8 Granger v. Avery received sixty continuances before the law court agreed to hear the case during its April 1874 term. According to historian Micah Pawling, the lawsuit took nearly two decades to conclude largely because it was difficult to determine where Grass Island and other treaty islands were located in the St. Croix River relative to the international boundary. Dams built after 1794 had changed the course of the river, making it hard to identify the center channel (the location of the international boundary). In other words, the line separating Maine from 8 Maine History New Brunswick had shifted and this made it unclear under whose jurisdiction the islands fell. With the case not looking to be immediately settled, in December 1855 the special committee recommended that the state enlist attorney Charles R. Whidden of Washington County in Granger v. Avery.9 Although Maine seems to have made an effort in 1855 to meet the constitutional duty contained in Article X, Section 5 to safeguard and uphold Native treaties with Massachusetts, official attitudes changed as the case limped along. This can be seen in the Maine legislature’s response to questions of Penobscot and Passamaquoddy treaty land claims in 1862, when the Penobscot Indians were involved in a legal dispute with General Samuel Veazie’s heirs. The Veazies claimed to hold title to islands in the Penobscot River conveyed by the land agents of Massachusetts and Maine and which the Penobscots claimed through a 1796 treaty with Massachusetts. Unlike in 1855, in 1862 the legislature was concerned with addressing Native treaty land questions but not to the disadvantage of the State of Maine. In a resolve, the legislature authorized the governor to create a twoperson commission to “report to the next legislature the condition of said tribes, and of their property, the amount of their funds in charge of the state, and whence derived, and their claims upon the state by reason of treaties made with them; advising whether any further legislative action may, in their judgment, be promotive of the good of the Indians, or is necessary for the interest of the state.” The resolve went on to put further emphasis on meeting the state’s needs, asking that the commission find “generally, such facts touching the Indians and their rights, and property, and treaty claims, as may enable the legislature to act advisedly for the mutual benefit of the Indians and the state.”10 The requisite report issued in 1863 by Samuel H. Blake, a former state attorney general from Penobscot County, and James A. Milliken, a Washington County lawyer, questioned whether the Penobscot Nation actually owned the islands and posited that they might fall into a different category of land owned by Massachusetts and Maine, more commonly known as the public lands. Maine’s responsibilities regarding both Native treaties with Massachusetts and land formerly jointly controlled by Maine and Massachusetts are laid out in Article X, Section 5, albeit in different subsections. Native lands recognized by treaties with Massachusetts were distinct from the public lands divided between Maine and Massachusetts after Maine statehood. Willfully or otherwise, Blake and Milliken did not concede this.11 Regarding Granger v. Avery, Blake and Milliken doubted that Maine had assumed Massachusetts’ role vis-à-vis Indian tribes and treaties as mandated in Article X, Section 5, but the two men recognized what was at stake in the March 16, 1855 resolve. They acknowledged that the Passamaquoddy Tribe’s 1794 treaty included Grass Island and that Maine had not followed through on the directive in the resolve. They also, however, called into question whether Maine had actually “succeeded to the liabilities of the parent State in reference to the Indians” and framed any action the state might take not as a constitutional obligation but as a demonstration of benevolence. While the 1855 resolve could also be read as an act of paternalism, albeit one to the possible advantage of the tribes, the attitude expressed by Blake and Milliken was in keeping with a form a paternalism pervasive among Maine officials since statehood and which justified state control of the tribes and the dehumanization and infantilization of Indigenous people.12 Maine had, indeed, assumed Massachusetts’ liabilities. In accordance with Article X, Section 5, both the Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Nation had to assent to Maine’s taking on the role of Massachusetts relative to Indians. The Penobscot Nation officially gave its approval, but the Passamaquoddy Tribe did not. Despite not obtaining the tribe’s consent, in 1823 Maine accepted a $30,000 indemnity from Massachusetts in accordance with Article X, Section 5, subsection 5, signaling that Maine had agreed to become a stand-in for Massachusetts in its duties concerning Native tribes and treaties. This money provided Maine with the funds to compensate tribes if they lost land that should have been guaranteed by treaty with Massachusetts. Regardless of the Passama- quoddy Tribe’s not having given its approval, Maine agreed to uphold Passamaquoddy and Penobscot treaties with the Commonwealth when it accepted the indemnity. The 1794 treaty acknowledged that the Passamaquoddy Tribe owned fifteen islands in the St. Croix River, making it Maine’s responsibility to pay the tribe the value of these islands should the treaty fail.13 Nearly twenty years elapsed between Joseph Granger’s accusing Peter Avery of trespass and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court’s taking up Granger v. Avery in April 1874. Why continuances were no longer requested or granted, whichever was the case, is not known. Nevertheless, it was an inauspicious start. According to the Calais Advertiser, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court began to hear the case and then almost immediately adjourned from April 28 to May 1 due to a judge’s reported illness. Then on Saturday May 2, the court adjourned again because Joseph Granger had also become sick. Granger was arguing cases before the court at the same time that he was the plaintiff in Granger v. Avery. The Calais Advertiser explained that the court had no choice but not to meet, because Granger happened to be the lawyer in all the cases on the docket. The newspaper made no further mention of the lawsuit in May, even when it noted that the court had adjourned for the term on May 21, 1874.14 In May 1874 the Maine Supreme Judicial Court submitted Granger v. Avery for consideration in its capacity as the law court, where questions of law were interpreted. Arguments before this court came down to aboriginal title, riparian right, and possession. At the case’s hearing before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, Charles R. Whidden, had made the case for why the Passamaquoddy Tribe owned Grass Island and contended that the 1794 treaty did not grant land to the tribe; rather, the treaty confirmed the tribe’s aboriginal title. In other words, the treaty served as Massachusetts’ recognition of the Indians’ enduring, never-extinguished possession of the land, not as a land transfer from Massachusetts to the tribe. Massachusetts, therefore, had no authority to deed the land to Bingham, because Massachusetts had never possessed it.15 Whidden had also elicited testimony from Granger V. Avery and the Redaction of Article X, Section 5 9 individual members of the Passamaquoddy Tribe to make the case that the island belonged to the tribe by stressing that Passamaquoddies had long thought the island belonged to them as demonstrated by their using it as a camp. This ultimately proved to be a futile tactic, because camping, while in keeping with how members of the Passamaquoddy Tribe used the river and its islands, constituted merely sporadic use in the eyes of the court and, therefore, was not a legitimate claim to title. Nevertheless, fifty-sevenyear-old Peter Sepsis, for example, recalled how forty-five years earlier he, his father, and his grandfather had gone “all up and down the river hunting.” As a child, Sepsis had used Grass Island as a camping spot. He explained that his people had viewed the island and others in the St. Croix as theirs for many years. He also acknowledged their past and present struggles to use their treaty land. Frustrated, Sepsis testified: “So many your fellows come here now – Indians always had possession before that. Now my hunting grounds you white people all take ’em up.”16 The law court also considered the legal questions related to the multiple paths by which Joseph Granger had asserted ownership of Grass Island. In the 1830s, Granger acquired the entirety of lot fourteen from John Robinson, whose chain of title originated with William Bingham. This, Granger claimed, made him the riparian owner of Grass Island because his purchase included the shores on the riverbank opposite the island and, thus, the island in between that land. Most of Grass Island was included in lot fourteen. In riparian doctrine the owner of land adjacent to a waterway has a legal right to that water, often to the middle of the water in the case of a stream or river. Granger reasoned that this entitled him to the island located in the middle of the river to the extent that the island lay between the two shorelines that he indisputably owned. Granger also argued that the island was his by possession. Granger and Robinson had thought it wise to procure Grass Island for the sake of building a dam and flooding it. That project, however, was made initially difficult by the competing claims made by other white men. Granger, therefore, paid William Thornton “for his betterment right” and an- 10 Maine History other man named William Vance “for the soil.” Granger also knew as of 1842, the year that Maine recorded the 1794 treaty as a deed, that the Passamaquoddy Tribe claimed Grass Island as well, which in due course led to the lawsuit. Nevertheless, by eventually purchasing both Thornton’s betterment and river shore from Vance, Granger could make the argument that Grass Island was his not just by riparian right but also by possession. When he died in 1880, the Bangor Whig and Courier reported that Granger “was called the best real estate lawyer in the State.”17 Devising the Redaction In January 1875, knowing that there would have to be a vote on a constitutional amendment to abolish the Office of the Land Agent, Governor Nelson Dingley took the opportunity to announce that the time had come to make multiple changes to the state constitution. Wishing to expedite the process, Dingley advised the legislature against a constitutional convention. Instead, he requested the creation of a body of roughly ten men, from both the Democratic and Republican parties, which would meet and formulate the suggested amendments for the consideration of the legislature and then voters. This commission could be advised, Dingley explained, by the judiciary committee and members of the legislature.18 When Dingley made his announcement, the Supreme Judicial Court had still not issued its ruling in Granger v. Avery. Evidence showing that the impending Granger decision in any way informed Dingley’s push to amend the constitution is wanting. Yet Dingley should have been aware of the lawsuit and its financial implications for the state, as the governor and his council had “legal charge” over Native matters (and did so until 1929). Furthermore, three members of the governor’s council served on the Joint Standing Committee on Indian Affairs. Members of the legislature may also have had Granger v. Avery on their minds in early 1875, as Representative John D. Lawler of Baileyville, the town opposite Grass Island, was named a member of Indian Affairs that January.19 Beyond the court case, Dingley most cer- tainly recognized Joseph Granger as a man impatient to receive monies that he felt the state owed him. On June 2, 1874, Joseph Granger presented a claim for payment from the state to the Granger Turnpike Company. The state treasurer opposed it, but Granger persisted. The matter did not come to a close until 1876, when the governor and council denied Granger and his associates the $6,000 that they demanded.20 Whatever Dingley knew concerning Granger v. Avery, a decision should have been forthcoming and Maine would be liable for compensating the tribe and paying Granger’s damages. Concerning the tribe, Seth W. Smith had said as much in 1855 and the Blake and Milliken report of 1863 had also raised the subject of the state’s paying the tribe for the islands. People in Joseph Granger’s hometown of Calais knew this too. When commenting in June 1875 on the court’s verdict, the Calais Advertiser told readers that “the State has been carrying on this case in behalf of the Indians and will have to foot the bills, and the costs must amount to a very fair sum by this time.”21 Those knowledgeable of Granger v. Avery should have felt confident that the court would rule against the Passamaquoddy Tribe’s claim to Grass Island and other treaty islands in the St. Croix and, thus, put the State of Maine on the hook for compensating the tribe for its lost treaty land. One of Attorney Charles W. Whidden’s arguments for why the tribe owned the land focused on aboriginal title, but the court had rejected that concept in its ruling on Penobscot Tribe of Indians v. Jones P. Veazie and another announced just four years earlier. Judge Charles W. Walton acknowledged that the 1796 treaty represented Massachusetts’ recognition of the Penobscots’ aboriginal title. Yet this mattered little. “The executive and legislative departments of the government,” Walton wrote, “have generally treated with the Indians as if they were the owners of those vast territories. But when the title of any particular tract of land has been called into question, in the courts of justice, no such doctrine has been admitted. The courts have uniformly held that the title of government is superior to that of the aborigines.”22 In other words, a white Mainer would henceforth triumph in a land dispute with any Native tribe claiming title through a treaty with Massachusetts. Due to the stipulation in Article X, Section 5 requiring Maine to guarantee the terms of Native treaties made with the Commonwealth, this ruling essentially assured that any land dispute involving an Indigenous treaty with Massachusetts and a white person’s claim to title should lead to Maine’s having to use state funds (or, more accurately, the $30,000 indemnity accepted in 1823) to compensate tribes and pay white litigants’ court costs and damages. The legislature’s approach to sparking the Penobscot lawsuit indicates that members not only understood the state’s constitutional responsibility to assure and defend Native treaties but also sought to avoid the financial obligations of this duty. Unlike in the Granger case, the Maine legislature prompted Penobscot Tribe of Indians v. Veazie in 1868 as a means of determining title. The legislature did not devise a way to avoid paying for land that the Penobscots might lose in the case and members likely had no inclination to do so. With the Granger case, however, the legislature and state officials had received official confirmation of the land’s value and instruction that the state was liable for paying that sum. In 1868, the legislature did, however, defy Article X, Section 5 by refusing to pay the price of defending the 1796 treaty, i.e., damages and court costs. Initially, the legislature approved a resolution requiring that if the court decided against the Penobscot Nation the Veazie heirs would be paid from the state treasury. Twenty-four days later, however, the legislature approved another resolve ordering that the funds disbursed to the Veazies then “be charged to the Indian fund, or general or special appropriations from the state in favor of said Indians.”23 In bringing the Penobscot lawsuit forward, the state did its job in accordance with Article X, Section 5. Yet it seems members of the legislature recognized that the state would be at a financial loss if the Penobscot Nation did not prevail in court and remedied this by passing the resolution before the case went to court. No such stipulation existed when Granger v. Avery began, so the state had nothing in place that might shield it from the potential financial burden of court costs and damages when the law Granger V. Avery and the Redaction of Article X, Section 5 11 court finally heard Granger in 1874. Theoretically, the state could have ignored or put off Penobscot or Passamaquoddy claims for compensation. Of course, as long as anyone with a copy of the state constitution could point to Article X, Section 5, there was always a chance that the tribes and their supporters would press for reimbursement. It seems, however, that members of the legislature assumed the most likely scenario would be whites demanding payment for damages and that their claims would be harder to dodge than those made by Indians. Governor Dingley did not cite the possibility of a decision costly to the state in Granger v. Avery, but he did make clear that financial concerns were on his mind when he requested amendments to the constitution. Between 1871 and 1889 the state focused on curtailing the cost of government and in most of those years applied leftover funds to paying down debt. Maine also expanded its revenue source away from an overwhelming reliance on property taxes. In 1872 the state began taxing savings deposits, but the Panic of 1873 made it even more apparent that real estate taxes posed an especially great burden. Dingley pushed for the state to move beyond taxing property. Heeding his advice, Maine imposed a tax on railroads in 1874 and, in 1875, another on insurance companies. In 1875 Dingley also succeeded in halting payments to the sinking fund of 1865 created for the sake of paying Maine’s Civil War debt. In a period of so much focus on seeing that receipts exceeded expenditures and that the surplus be applied to liquidating the debt, it is conceivable that avoiding an outlay such as paying the Passamaquoddy Tribe for fifteen lost treaty islands or the more-difficult-to-ignore cost of Granger’s damages fit with Dingley’s emphasis on limiting expenses.24 Dingley and the legislature moved quickly. A January 12, 1875 resolve, spearheaded by Democrat John C. Talbot of East Machias, granted the governor the ability to select the ten-member commission “to consider and frame such amendments of the constitution of this state as may seem necessary, to be reported by them to the legislature for such action as may seem ad- 12 Maine History visable, and for final submission to the people at the annual election in September next.” The commission would then submit its recommended amendments no later than February 15, 1875. On the same day on which the resolution received approval, Dingley, after consulting with Democrats and Republicans in the Maine House and Senate and deciding that there should be two men chosen from each congressional district, selected the ten members of the commission and ordered that they be informed of their appointment by telegraph. One week later, the constitutional commission’s initial meeting took place on January 19, 1875. The men chose exGovernor and former Maine Supreme Court Justice Edward Kent as their president.25 As for what Dingley wanted changed, he publicly indicated that he wished to see the commission remove outdated material. According to the Portland Daily Press, Dingley informed the commission that “it was desirable to consolidate amendments made to the constitution from time to time, and take out portions which in the changed condition of the affairs of the state were useless and cumbersome.” The Kennebec Journal similarly reported that Dingley had suggested “that in the revision of the constitution those portions that have become obsolete be omitted. . . .” Yet it is unclear what exactly the governor deemed out of date.26 Dingley brought up the matter of making constitutional amendments in light of the pending dissolution of the Office of the Land Agent, whose job entailed managing the public lands. Under the belief that there were not enough of the public lands left to justify the existence of the Office of the Land Agent any longer, in 1874 the legislature approved a resolution for its dismantling as of December 31 as a cost-saving measure. The issue carried into 1875, because the post could not be terminated without altering the constitution. This required amending Article IX, Section 10, the wording of which Frederick Pike of Calais presented as Report No. 13 to the constitutional commission. The commission passed it and it became proposed amendment number sixteen in the commission’s report to the legislature.27 Getting rid of the land agent did not neces- sitate changes to Article X, but abolishing the land agent logically fits with thinking that text in Article X related to the public lands was no longer essential to the constitution. Commenting on the day of the constitutional commission’s second meeting, the Calais Advertiser remarked: “Of course, that portion of the present constitution relating to public lands will be dropped as needless.” Portions of Article X, Section 5 concern the public lands whereas the fifth subsection on Native treaties does not — although in 1863 Blake and Milliken reported that they thought land included in Native treaties was possibly part of the public lands. For that matter, the land agent also supervised sales and management of Penobscot and Passamaquoddy lands. Parts of Article X, Section 5 may have been vulnerable because they dealt with the public lands, but all of Section 5 was put on the chopping block.28 Without discounting the role of the public lands, the fact that the man who proposed redacting the entirety of Article X, Section 5 was a friend and colleague of Joseph Granger’s suggests that he did so with the settling of Granger v. Avery in mind. A Republican for most of his career, Frederick A. Pike completed four terms in Congress between 1861 and 1869. He was also formerly Mayor of Calais and had served multiple terms in the Maine legislature, being named Speaker of the Maine House in 1860. Relative to the constitutional commission, it is notable that Pike was from Calais and that he had received his law training from Joseph Granger. The two men also maintained an ongoing professional relationship. In fact, in May 1874 Granger and Pike jointly represented clients before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. Given his relationship to Granger, Pike should have understood both the importance to Joseph Granger of wrapping up the lawsuit and the potential problems and costs that Article X, Section 5 posed to the state in the Granger case.29 Edward Kent, the commission’s president, also likely had knowledge of Granger v. Avery and the state’s constitutional duty to compensate the Passamaquoddy Tribe, not to mention Granger, should the case result in the tribe’s los- ing its treaty islands. A former governor, Kent had served on the Maine Supreme Judicial Court between 1859 and 1873, years in which Granger v. Avery received continuances. He was also a close friend of Justice Jonas Cutting’s, the presiding judge on the case. The two were law partners for eighteen years, served fourteen years together on the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, and lived side-by-side in a Greek Revival duplex in Bangor. In his personal journal, John Edwards Godfrey of Bangor noted that Cutting and Kent liked to “sit together and tell stories and smoke and smoke, and tell stories until they strangle all those hearing with tobacco smoke and laughter.” Kent also enjoyed socializing with John Appleton, the justice who wrote the decision in Granger v. Avery. At the very least, Kent was in a position to know that the fifth subsection required the state to make an unwanted outlay depending on how the law court ruled in Granger v. Avery.30 Pike first addressed Article X when he presented the constitutional commission with “report No. 10 relative to Codification” on February 5, 1875. It included the language later approved as Article X, Section 4: Section 7. Sections 1, 2 + 5 of Article 10 of the existing constitution, shall hereafter be omitted in any printed copies thereof, prefixed to the laws of the State: but this shall not impair the validity of acts under those Sections; and said section 5 shall remain in full force as part of the constitution according to the stipulations of said section with the same effect as if contained in said printed copies. The commission unanimously passed the report.31 The journal kept by the constitutional commission does not contain an explanation of why the Articles of Separation should no longer be printed in the constitution, but the commission’s decision to keep Article X, Section 5 in “full force” shows that the members—or at the very least Pike—understood the ongoing significance of subsection 9. It requires that Maine receive the cooperation of Massachusetts in order to al- Granger V. Avery and the Redaction of Article X, Section 5 13 ter the Articles of Separation (Article X, Section 5) and that the Articles be included in the Maine Constitution: “These terms and conditions, as here set forth, when the said district shall become a separate and independent state, shall, ipso facto, be incorporated into, and become a part of any constitution, provisional or other, under which the government of said proposed state, shall, at any time hereafter, be administered; subject however, to be modified, or annulled by the agreement of the legislature of both the said states; but by no other power or body whatsoever.” This explains why the constitutional commission redacted Article X, Section 5 but kept it in “full force” rather than simply voiding it. Purging Section 5 from law without the approval of Massachusetts would have constituted a violation of the ninth subsection of Section 5 and, thus, the terms by which Maine became an independent state.32 In sanctioning the redaction of the Articles of Separation, the members of the constitutional commission walked a fine line. It is questionable that redacting Article X, Section 5 did not defy the terms of subsection 9. Constitutions by their very nature are written documents. Surely the members of the Massachusetts legislature did not envision that one day Maine would remove the Articles of Separation from print but not law when it stipulated that Maine not “modify” them and always keep them in the state constitution. Whether or not the constitutional commission violated subsection 9 is a matter for further legal analysis. Subsection 9 of Article X, Section 5 has no bearing on Article X, Sections 1 and 2, as neither are part of the Articles of Separation. Lengthy, they could have been expunged rather than redacted. Sections 1 and 2 applied specifically to the initial meeting of the legislature. The commission members could have easily considered both to be irrelevant in 1875, but why they thought it necessary to remove them from print and retain their validity rather than delete them entirely remains to be determined. Yet neither continued to be in “full force,” another sign that the commission understood how subsection 9 applied to Section 5.33 Pike’s redaction proposal conveniently served Joseph Granger, who was surely eager to 14 Maine History see his lawsuit come to a close, and gave the state plausible deniability should the Passamaquoddy Tribe or someone acting on its behalf ask the state to honor its constitutional obligation to uphold and safeguard the terms of Native treaties with Massachusetts. The omission of Article X, Section 5 from printed copies of the constitution would have given the state political cover if it came to pass that the Maine Supreme Judicial Court sided with Granger and, thus, put the state in the position of having to pay the Passamaquoddy Tribe for lost treaty land. If the court had reservations about forcing this fiscal liability on the state—which might explain why the court took over a year to make its decision—the legislature’s agreeing to put Pike’s drafted amendment before voters may have signaled to the court that it could make a ruling with some confidence that the possible financial burden to the state would be obscured. With the fifth subsection of Article X, Section 5 slated for concealment, the court could affirm Granger’s title and, once the redaction was in place, the state could theoretically ignore calls to pay the Passamaquoddy Tribe for the islands. Anyone without access to a pre-1876 copy of the Maine Constitution would not readily be able to read the state’s obligations. Five days after the commission unanimously accepted Frederick A. Pike’s redaction plan framed as a codification measure, the constitutional commission issued its final report. In total, the commission presented seventeen amendments for the legislature to consider and decide if they should be presented to voters. Much to the dismay of Edward Kent, only nine of the seventeen received enough votes in the legislature to be put to voters in September 1875. The drafted “codification” amendment made it through.34 Just weeks after the legislature approved sending the proposed redaction to voters and over a year after the Granger case was submitted to the law court, the Calais Advertiser announced on June 23, 1875 that Granger v. Avery “has at last been decided in favor of the plaintiff by the Supreme Court. ” It is unclear when exactly the law court issued its opinion in the rescript required for this decision to be made, but newspapers such as the Lewiston Evening Jour- nal summarized its contents when reporting on the close of the law term on July 7, 1875. The court not only accepted Granger’s arguments concerning riparian right and possession but also cited its previous rejection of the legitimacy of aboriginal title. “It was determined in Penobscot Tribe v. Veazie, 58 Maine, 401,” Judge John Appleton wrote, “that the title of government was superior to that of the aborigines. The Passamaquoddy Indians had no title originally to this island in controversy.” By excluding aboriginal title, the law court easily found that the treaty did not convey to the tribe possession of Grass Island or the other fourteen islands noted in the 1794 treaty. Conveniently for the state, the redaction of Article X, Section 5 was on its way to the voters when the ruling took place.35 Perceivable ties between the redaction process and the settling of the lawsuit do not end there. Granger v. Avery did not conclude with the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision. Its final judgment was still pending when Maine voters approved the “codification” amendment on September 13, 1875. The court rendered final judgment in Granger’s favor on October 20, 1875. This means that the conclusion to Granger v. Avery—and, thus, the start of when Maine would be liable for compensating the tribe and Granger—did not happen until one month after voters approved an amendment that removed Maine’s responsibilities regarding Native treaties from printed copies of the Maine Constitution. The amount of Joseph Granger’s damages also came due after the September election. The October final judgement set his damages at $930 and costs at $64.10. Just like the value of the islands, these sums should have been paid by the state in accordance with the soon-to-be-hidden Article X, Section 5, as they constituted fees associated with defending Native treaty land. Maine, however, sidestepped both payments after the redaction took effect.36 Avoidance and Resistance The legislature’s unwillingness to make good on the state’s now-redacted constitutional duty to safeguard and uphold Native treaties with Massachusetts was apparent in how it circumvented paying Joseph Granger’s damages with state funds and reminiscent of its sidestepping the state’s constitutional duties ahead of Penobscot Tribe of Indians v. Veazie. With Granger v. Avery, however, the state took the same action after the case was over and after the redaction had taken effect. The state could wait to see if current or future members of the Passamaquoddy Tribe demanded compensation for the islands, and likely turn a blind eye to such a plea, but Joseph Granger was unlikely to sit idly by when the state owed him money. Within weeks of the redaction’s taking effect on January 1, 1876, Granger sought payment for his damages and costs. He had a friend to help him. Once again, Frederick A. Pike was in a position advantageous to his legal mentor and colleague. Pike had won a seat in the Maine House of Representatives in the same September election in which the vote on the constitutional amendments had taken place. On January 12, 1876, Pike proposed a resolve “providing for the payment of $2,674.17 to Joseph Granger of Calais as damages and costs against the state, recovered of Peter Avery, Indian Agent, and other Indian agents on account of the use of islands in the St. Croix river.” The amount Pike put forth was much larger than that established with final judgment. It seems it represented payment for the Passamaquoddy Tribe’s availing itself of Grass Island or, in Passamaquoddy historian Donald Soctomah’s words, “trespass charges.”37 Pike’s efforts to assist Granger did not sit well with fiscally-minded Republicans. Reporting in February 1876 on discussions in the legislature concerning payment for Granger’s damages, “S.,” the Augusta correspondent for the Portland Daily Press, questioned the amount of the damages and the value of all the islands lost by the tribe. S., furthermore, criticized the willingness of John C. Talbot, the East Machias Democrat who had also introduced the resolve for the creation of the constitutional commission in January 1875, to support “the appropriation to pay Mr. Granger’s judgment on an indirect suit against the state to recover rents for certain islands in the St. Croix River. It is said that the court fixes the rental, but even the best judges may possibly set a sum too high on property they have never seen. For one I don’t believe Mr. Granger V. Avery and the Redaction of Article X, Section 5 15 Section Four of Article X of the 1876 Maine State Constitution. The section describes the omission of sections one, two and five. Collections of Maine Historical Society. Granger’s St. Croix islands would sell to-day for the rental obtained for the years they were claimed and occupied by the Passamaquoddy Indian agent.” S. also expressed hostility towards Democrats he deemed too quick to open the purse, calling attention to Talbot, in addition to Frederick A. Pike, now an Independent, for appearing to give too much favor to Joseph Granger.38 In the midst of this partisan dispute over money, a second proposed resolve shifted the burden of compensating Granger from the state to the Passamaquoddy Tribe in similar fashion to the 1868 resolution concerning the Penobscot Nation’s case with the Veazie heirs. It was likely a compromise in the face of Republican resistance to Maine’s paying Granger’s damages. When it passed on February 21, 1876, the state treasurer received authorization to disburse to Granger $2,486.17 from the state treasury “in full discharge of all claims against the state for damages and costs recovered of Peter Avery . . . and all claims for damages against the state’s agent for said tribe, and all other persons claiming the grass islands in the St. Croix river under the agent of the state for said tribe of Indians . . . .” However, Maine was only technically the party that would reimburse Granger. According to the legislation, Granger would receive the $2,486.17 from the state treasury, but that sum would then be taken from the Passamaquoddy Trust Fund and put back into the treasury. The governor authorized these transfers on March 17, 1876. In other words, the tribe paid Granger. Just as important, it did so at the same time that the part of the constitution requiring the state to cover the amounts ex- 16 Maine History pended to defend Native treaty land was no longer being printed.39 Not everyone in the Maine government, however, was willing to act as though the omission of Article X, Section 5 from printed copies of the constitution gave the state political cover to disregard its duty to guarantee the terms of Native treaties with Massachusetts. Some in positions of power questioned whether the State of Maine had acted legally in taking the amount of Joseph Granger’s costs and damages from the Passamaquoddy Trust Fund. In June 1876, Governor Seldon Connor and his council ordered Attorney General Lucilius Emery to report on whether Massachusetts could be asked to pay for the $2,486 in costs and damages owed Joseph Granger. This came to no avail. In July, Emery informed the Executive Council that Maine was responsible for paying the damages in accordance with the Maine Supreme Judicial Court’s decision and that no argument could be made for why Massachusetts was liable. That the governor asked Emery to make this inquiry suggests that he had come to doubt the legitimacy of paying Granger’s damages from the Passamaquoddy Trust Fund or had received complaints.40 Others had misgivings. In February 1878, the Joint Standing Committee on Indian Affairs produced a report methodically outlining why the state might have to offer the Passamaquoddy Tribe some sort of payment for the fifteen islands. In its explanation of why Maine may be responsible for compensating the tribe, the committee looked to the now-redacted Article X, Section 5. The report explained that Massachusetts had made an agreement with the tribe recognizing its possession of the islands in the St. Croix River and that Maine, having adopted the Articles of Separation and including them in its constitution [emphasis mine], was required to “assume and perform all the duties and obligations of this commonwealth towards the indians [sic] within the said District of Maine, whether the same arise from treaties or otherwise.” The committee’s report also noted that Massachusetts, were Maine still a part of the Commonwealth, would be duty-bound to compensate the Passamaquoddies for having failed to guarantee the tribe’s possession of the islands through the treaty. Furthermore, the report continued, Maine had taken on this responsibility once it had assumed Massachusetts’ treaty obligations upon accepting the $30,000 indemnity intended to cover any costs the new state might face in upholding Native treaties made with the Commonwealth. “It may be questionable,” found the committee, “whether ‘obligations’ of this particular kind were then understood to have been assumed by this State by the terms of separation. But the language is very broad, and it having been made a part of the Constitution of Maine, the tribe may fairly look to this State for such remuneration as they may be justly entitled to receive for the loss they have sustained.”41 The Committee on Indian Affairs went further in proposing a resolution that also commented on the state’s subtracting the amount of Joseph Granger’s damages from the Passamaquoddy Trust Fund. In addition to tasking the governor with determining the value of the fifteen islands denoted in the 1794 treaty, and assessing “the fair yearly value of their use and income since taken from the tribe,” the resolve also instructed the governor to determine the “expenditures necessarily incurred in defending the title to the lands or islands mentioned.” Whatever amount the governor determined, furthermore, he should “report to the next legislature what sum of money, if any, in his opinion, should be deposited in the state treasury, as a trust fund, to the credit of said tribe, in full compensation for the islands, their use and income, and for the expenditures necessarily incurred in the way above stated.” The legislature granted its approval. If the governor ever formed such an opinion, it does not seem he shared it with the legislature.42 The recommendations made by the Committee on Indian Affairs remained an open question into the twentieth century. In a 1942 report on the state’s handling of Indigenous matters, Ralph W. Proctor raised six unresolved issues regarding monies the state possibly owed both the Passamaquoddy Tribe and the Penobscot Nation. Two stemmed from Granger v. Avery and reflected points raised in the Committee on Indian Affairs report. Proctor wondered if the state should pay the Passamaquoddy Trust Fund $2,486.17 to cover the amount taken for Joseph Granger’s damages. He also asked whether Maine owed the Passamaquoddy Tribe $2,000 (1855 estimated value) for the fifteen lost treaty islands in the St. Croix River. Although omitted from copies of the constitution printed after January 1, 1876, Article X, Section 5 was the basis for the Committee on Indian Affairs’ conclusions and remained the reason why the state might still owe the tribe for the islands and reimbursement for Granger’s damages.43 Long before 1942, members of the Passamaquoddy Tribe also demanded justice in the wake of the 1878 Committee on Indian Affairs report. In January 1879 Passamaquoddy Governor Solmo Francis and Lieutenant Governor Peter Selmore implored the state to rectify the tribe’s shrinking land base, including the fifteen islands in the St. Croix River. The petition shows the tribe’s demand for compensation and, incidentally, reveals that tribal leaders thought Peter Avery sparked the lawsuit that led to the loss of the islands: Again we see our white neighbors using the 15 Islands deeded to us by the State of Mass. before Maine became an independent State[.] Now we think as one man those are ours!! and if they cannot be made ours we humbly ask your honorable body to pay us at least their Value as they were when they were wrested from us[.] Peter Avery Valued them $2000.00 when he began a suit in our behalf for their possession. They are surely no less in Value now, Therefore we would ask that either our lands be made again ours and to continue ours until by a majority vote of the Whole Tribe they can be sold or That those parted Granger V. Avery and the Redaction of Article X, Section 5 17 Photograph of Louis Mitchell (Passmaquoddy), who appeared before the Maine Legislature about the loss of the islands (see note 44), image Courtesy of New Brunswick Museum – Musée du Nouveau-Brunswick, www.nbm-mnb.ca, 1987.17.464 with be by the state paid for and the remainder Kept until voted upon by the tribe as above.44 The reports of Charles H. Porter, a Calais grocer as well as agent for the Passamaquoddy Tribe, show that over time he learned the importance of referencing the Articles of Separation, but not the Maine Constitution, in demanding that Maine honor Native treaties with Massachusetts. In his 1884 annual report, Porter confronted the state with its failure to pay the tribe for the fifteen islands in the St. Croix River by making an appeal to a sense of “moral obligation,” not law. He became bolder the following year, threatening that if Massachusetts did sell the land before agreeing to the 1794 treaty then “representations to that effect will be made to the proper authorities, and such measures adopted as will secure to the Indians their treaty rights.” For a different treaty issue in 1886, Porter drew direct attention to the Articles of 18 Maine History Separation. “The State of Maine, by the treaty of separation from Massachusetts,” he wrote in reference to a 1725 treaty between Massachusetts and the Passamaquoddy Tribe, “bound itself to faithfully regard all the treaty obligations of the latter State. A violation of these obligations is therefore a breach of faith on the part of Maine, not only to the Indians, but also to Massachusetts.” Seeing as Maine’s independence as a state depended on its agreeing to the Articles of Separation, this was a serious assertion. It is not surprising that the governor, as Donald Soctomah finds, fired Porter “for helping the Tribe in his reports.”45 Maine’s including Massachusetts’ Native treaty responsibilities in its state constitution represented a salient point to future Maine Supreme Judicial Court Justice George M. Hanson in State v. Newell (1892). Justice Lucilius Emery wrote that the defendant, whose lawyer was Hanson, “claims that these treaties are made by the fifth section of the Act of Separation (incorporated into our Constitution) a constitutional restraint upon the power of the Legislature, to the limit of the freedom of the Passamaquoddy Indians in hunting and fishing.” Hanson’s brief underscored his belief that the Commonwealth’s insisting that its own treaty obligations be passed into the Maine Constitution gave them special weight, noting that Massachusetts had showed its “strict observance” of the treaties “by special enactment in the constitution, and at separation insisted by special enactment that all the rights of the Indians by treaty and otherwise should be observed.” Article X, Section 5 may have technically remained in “full force, ” but Hanson felt it necessary to make a case for what that meant.46 Conclusion Efforts to prohibit publication of the Article X, Section 5 in copies of the Maine Constitution coincided with the settling of Joseph Granger v. Peter Avery. The case concerned a dispute over whether Joseph Granger or the Passamaquoddy Tribe owned Grass Island, one of fifteen islands in the St. Croix River that should have been protected by the tribe’s 1794 treaty with Massachu- setts. The lawsuit began in December 1854, when Granger formally accused Peter Avery of trespass on Grass Island, but the Maine Supreme Judicial Court did not hear the case until its April 1874 session. Its task was to decide whether Granger or the Passamaquoddy Tribe owned the island, as well as if the tribe possessed fourteen other treaty islands. In the intervening years, Maine lawmakers received reminders that, should Granger win, Maine could be responsible for reimbursing the tribe for all fifteen islands. Efforts to redact Article X, Section 5, which included Maine’s duty to protect and defend the terms of Native treaties with Massachusetts, from the Maine Constitution began when a decision on Granger v. Avery was forthcoming. The Supreme Judicial Court’s recent rejection of aboriginal title in Penobscot Tribe of Indians v. Jones P. Veazie and another made it unlikely that the Passamaquoddy Tribe would retain its islands. When the court finally took up the case in its April 1874 session, Governor Nelson Dingley was very concerned with reducing state expenditures and using surplus revenue to pay down Civil War debt. Arguably, the possibility of the treasury’s reimbursing the tribe for their islands and paying Granger’s damages did not further his goals. In January 1875 Governor Dingley broached the possibility of making amendments to the state constitution and soon established a constitutional commission to expedite this process. With a decision in Granger v. Avery still pending, commission member Frederick A. Pike of Calais, who was also a professional associate of Joseph Granger’s, offered an amendment barring Article X, Sections 1, 2, and 5 from printed copies of the constitution while keeping Section 5 in “full force” as though it were published. The commission unanimously approved it. Pike’s actions served Joseph Granger’s interests and benefitted the state. Little documentation concerning the decision to call for the redaction of this part of the constitution exists, but the timing was very opportune. Within weeks of the legislature’s agreeing to put Pike’s proposed amendment and others before voters, the Supreme Judicial Court finally made a decision in Granger’s favor. Voters then approved the redaction—described to the public as an amendment on codification— on September 13, 1875. The Granger case finally drew to a close one month later, with the rendering of final judgement, inclusive of Granger’s costs and damages. It is extraordinary that Frederick A. Pike, Joseph Granger’s protégé and colleague, put forth the redaction and subsequently assisted Granger in receiving his damages soon after Article X, Section 5 ceased to be printed. It is likewise remarkable that the court did not rule on Granger until after the legislature agreed to the put the redaction before voters and that final judgement did not come until after voters had given the redaction final approval, ensuring that the part of the constitution containing Maine’s responsibilities regarding Native treaties was no longer being printed right when Maine became liable for paying the tribe for its lost treaty land and covering the costs of safeguarding that land. After the redaction officially took effect on January 1, 1876, Maine never compensated the tribe for the fifteen islands it lost due to the ruling. It also charged Granger’s damages to the Passamaquoddy Trust Fund in defiance of the unprintable Article X, Section 5. In 1878 the Committee on Indian Affairs strongly suggested that these actions violated the terms of Article X, Section 5, but the government remained silent. The redaction of Article X, Section 5 all but authorized the existing and ongoing practice of disregarding Maine’s constitutional obligations regarding Wabanaki treaties made with Massachusetts. If not for the efforts of Representative Henry John Bear, few people in Maine today would know that the Articles of Separation inclusive of Maine’s Native treaty obligations are excluded from printed copies of the Maine Constitution. The bill proposed by Bear in 2015 to return Article X, Section 5 to print by way of a constitutional amendment resulted instead in the legislature’s making the Articles of Separation more available to the public at the Maine State Library and the Law and Legislative Reference Library, as well as online. In 2017 Bear sponsored another bill with the intention of returning Article X, Section 5 to the constitution also via an amendment, but it was unsuccessful. The continued exclusion of Article X, Section 5 from the published constitution remains a point Granger V. Avery and the Redaction of Article X, Section 5 19 of contention for the Wabanakis of Maine. As Donna M. Loring, a Penobscot elder and former Senior Advisor on Tribal Affairs to Governor Janet Mills expressed in 2016, it exemplifies “the way the State of Maine keeps the Tribes invisible and marginalized and shows the intent of the State to continue to dominate and control them.” Regardless of how, or if, it mattered legally that Maine obscured its responsibilities concerning Native treaties with Massachusetts, because Section 5 remained in “full force,” government leaders disrespected and disregarded the rights of the Indigenous people of the state by ignoring the law and instruction to take it seriously, such as that offered by the Joint Standing Committee on Indian Affairs in 1878. Much of the impetus behind recent calls to return Article X, Section 5 to print come down not so much to questions of legality but demands from the tribes for respect from the State of Maine and recognition that the wrongs of the past impact the present. Hopefully the historical analysis of the roots of the redaction offered here, as well as subsequent ones, serves to foster greater transparency.47 NOTES 1. “Constitution of the State of Maine 1875,” digitalmaine.com, h5p://digitalmaine.com/senate_docs/11 (accessed 23 May 2019). This is digital copy of the 1876 constitution, but it is mislabeled on the website as the 1875 constitution. Although approved as Article X, Section 7, the redaction of Article X, Sections 1, 2, and 5 appears as Section 4 in the 1876 state constitution. Article X, Section 5, subsection 5 quoted in Constitution of the State of Maine Together with Amendments (Augusta, ME, 1825). Marshall J. Tinkle, The Maine State Constitution: A Reference Guide (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 156-57; Colin Woodard, “Bill Seeks to Make Public ‘Redacted’ Parts of Maine Constitution,” Portland Press Herald, 1 June 2015, https://www.pressherald. com/2015/06/01/legislation-would-put-hidden-sections-of-maines-constitution-back-into-print/ (accessed 7 June 2018). For the text of the first section of an “Act Relating to the Separation of the District of Maine from Massachusetts” (Mass. Laws 1819, ch. 161), see Ronald F. Banks, Maine Becomes a State: The Movement to Separate Maine from Massachusetts, 1785-1820 (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press for the Maine Historical Society, 1970), 270-74. 2. Colin Woodard, “The Passamaquoddy’s Land Claim Case Takes Shape,” Portland Press Herald, 5 July 2014, http://www.pressherald.com/2014/07/05/the-passamaquoddys-land-claim-case-takes-shape/ (accessed 15 February 2017); Woodard, “Bill Seeks to Make”; Colin Woodard, “Potential Cost Kills Referendum on Redacted Parts of Maine Constitution,” Portland Press Herald, 18 June 2015 (updated 19 June 2015), http://www. pressherald.com/2015/06/18/potential-cost-kills-referendum-on-redacted-parts-of-maine-constitution/ (accessed 25 January 2017). 3. Micah Abell Pawling, “Petitions and the Reconfiguration of Homeland: Persistence and Tradition among Wabanaki Peoples in the Nineteenth Century, Vol. 1” (Ph.D. diss., University of Maine, 2010), 293. 4. Writ dated 15 December 1854 in Joseph Granger v. Peter Avery, Supreme Judicial Court, Washington County, October 1875 Term, original court papers, box 306, docket #1, Maine State Archives (MSA); The Maine Register and State Reference Book. 1852. (Hallowell, ME: Masters, Smith & Company, 1852), 52. Governor William G. Crosby commissioned Calais resident Seth W. Smith to serve a four-year term as Passamaquoddy Indian Agent in February 1854. Smith was specifically called “to fill a vacancy.” See Maine Department of Health and Welfare and Margaret Snow, “Indian Affairs Documents from Maine Executive Council: Subject Glossary” (1935), Finding Aids and Reference Material. 7, https://digitalmaine.com/arc_finding_aids/7 (accessed 1 October 2019); Portland Advertiser, 28 February 1854, genealogybank.com. 5. Granger v. Avery, original court papers; California, Voter Registers, ancestry.com (accessed 5 November 2019); Edna Bryce Buckbee, Calaveras County California Gold Rush Stories, edited by Wallace Motloch (San Andreas, CA: Calaveras County Historical Society, 2005), 147-48; “Peter Avery,” Find a Grave, https://www.findagrave. com/memorial/65238104 (accessed 5 November 2019). Maureen Elliott of Murphys, California kindly located local history sources on Peter Avery for me. 6. Granger v. Avery, original court papers; Maine Department of Health and Welfare and Snow, “Indian Affairs Documents.” 7. “Resolve in relation to Passamaquoddy Indian lands” (Ch. 139), in Resolves of the State of Maine, 1853 to 1856 Inclusive (Augusta: Fuller & Fuller, Printers to the State, 1856), 126; Report of Seth W. Smith in Acts and Resolves Passed by the Thirty-Fourth Legislature of the State of Maine, 1855 (Augusta: Stevens & Blaine, Printers 20 Maine History to the State, 1855), 241-42; “Resolve in relation to the Passamaquoddy Indian lands” (Ch. 248), in Acts and Resolves Passed by the Thirty-Fourth Legislature of the State of Maine, 1855 (Augusta: Stevens & Blaine, Printers to the State, 1855), 242-43. 8. Pawling, “Petitions and the Reconfiguration of Homeland,” 287-89. 9. Schedule of court fees, Granger v. Avery, original court papers; Pawling, “Petitions and the Reconfiguration of Homeland,” 292-93; Ralph W. Proctor, “Report on Maine Indians,” prepared at the request of the Legislative Research Committee, typescript, September 1942, page 24, located at the Maine State Library. This document is often called the “Proctor Report.” 10. “Resolve in relation to the Penobscot and Passamaquoddy Indians” (Ch. 156), in Acts and Resolves Passed by the Forty-First Legislature of the State of Maine. 1862. (Augusta: Stevens and Sayward, Printers to the State, 1862), 182. 11. Republican Journal (Belfast, Maine), 4 April 1862, genealogybank.com; History of Penobscot County, Maine, with Illustrations and Biographical Sketches (Cleveland, OH: William, Chase and Co., 1882), 76; Leonard F. Tibbets and Darryl B. Lamson, Early Pleasant River Families of Washington County, Maine (Camden, ME: Picton Press, 1997), 383; “Report of the Commissioners on the Affairs of the Penobscot and Passamaquoddy Indians,” Land Agent Report, Documents Printed by the Order of the Legislature of the State of Maine. 1863. (Augusta: Stevens & Sayward, 1863), 2-3. On the history of the public lands, see David C. Smith, Studies in the Land: The Northeast Corner (New York and London: Routledge, 2002), 51-73. 12. “Report of the Commissioners on the Affairs of the Penobscot and Passamaquoddy Indians,” 7-8. On Maine officials’ paternalistic treatment of Indigenous tribes, see Jason M. Dorr, “Changing Their Guardians: The Penobscot Indians and Maine Statehood, 1820-1849” (M.A. thesis, University of Maine, 1998), https://digital commons.library.umaine.edu/etd/2746/ (accessed 25 February 2020). See also, for example, court cases such as Murch v. Tomer (1842), in which the Maine Supreme Judicial Court found that “imbecility on their [the Indians’] part, and the dictates of humanity on ours, have necessarily prescribed to them their subjugation to our paternal control; in disregard of some, at least, of abstract principles of the rights of man.” Charles Murch versus People Tomer (21 Me. 535), in John Shepley, Reports of Cases Determined in the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Maine, Vol. VIII, Maine Reports, Vol. XXI (Hallowell, ME: Glazier, Masters & Smith, 1843), 538, google.books.com (accessed 6 June 2021). 13. Francis J. O’Toole and Thomas N. Tureen, “State Power and the Passamaquoddy Tribe: ‘A Gross National Hypocrisy?’ ” in A History of Maine: A Collection of Readings on the History of Maine, 1600-1976 (4th edition), edited by Ronald F. Banks (Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1976), 443. 14. Calais Advertiser, 6 May 1874; Calais Advertiser, 27 May 1874. 15. Granger v. Avery, original court papers; Joseph Granger v. Peter Avery (64 Me. 292), in Edwin B. Smith (Reporter to the State), Reports of Cases in Law and Equity Determined by the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, Maine Reports, Vol. LXIV (Portland: Dresser, McLellan & Co., 1876), 294-95, google.books.com (accessed 1 August 2016). 16. Granger v. Avery, original court papers (quotation); Pawling, “Petitions and the Reconfiguration of Homeland,” 296-301. 17. Granger v. Avery, original court papers; Bangor Whig and Courier, 23 July 1880, ancestry.com; Joseph Granger v. Peter Avery (64 Me. 292), in Reports of Cases in Law and Equity, 294. For a more detailed description of Granger’s land purchases and his dealings with individuals on the island who represented the tribe, see Pawling, “Petitions and the Reconfiguration of Homeland,” 293-96. 18. “Address of Governor Dingley to the Legislature of the State of Maine, January 7, 1875,” in Annual Reports of the Various Public Officers and Institutions for the Year 1875, Volume I (Augusta: Sprague, Owen & Nash, Printers to the State, 1875), 36-38. 19. Proctor, “Report on Maine Indians,” 2; Portland Daily Press, 12 January 1875, genealogybank.com. 20. S., “The State Capital,” Portland Daily Press, 27 April 1874; S., “By Telegraph; Matters in Maine,” Portland Daily Press, 3 June 1874; Portland Daily Press, 19 August 1876, genealogybank.com. 21. Calais Advertiser, 23 June 1875. 22. Penobscot Tribe of Indians v. Jones P. Veazie and another (58 Me. 402), in Wm. Wirt Virgin (Reporter to the State), Reports of Cases in Law and Equity Determined by the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, Maine Reports, Vol. LXIII (Portland: Loring, Short, & Harmon, 1871), 407, google.books.com (accessed 12 November 2020) (quotation); Bangor Daily Whig and Courier, 7 July 1871, Newspapers.com. 23. “Resolve amendatory of a resolve entitled ‘Resolve relating to the title to the Grassy Islands and fishways at Oldtown falls’ ” (Ch. 233), in Acts and Resolves of the Forty-Seventh Legislature (Augusta: Owen & Nash, Print- Granger V. Avery and the Redaction of Article X, Section 5 21 ers to the State, 1868), 188 (quotation); “Resolve relating to the title to the Grassy Islands and Fishways at Oldtown Falls” (Ch. 195), in Acts and Resolves of the Forty-Seventh Legislature of the State of Maine (Augusta: Owen & Nash, Printers to the State, 1868), 175. 24. “Address of Governor Dingley to the Legislature of the State of Maine, January 7, 1875,” 9, 15, 36; Fred Eugene Jewett, A Financial History of Maine (New York: Columbia University Press, 1937), 56-58, 60-61. 25. “Resolve providing for a constitutional commission” (Ch. 1), in Resolves of the State of Maine, from 1875 to 1877, Inclusive (Augusta: Sprague, Owen & Nash, Printers to the State, 1877), 3 (quotation); Calais Advertiser, 13 January 1875; Portland Daily Press, 13 January 1875, genealogybank.com; “Journal of the Constitutional Commission,” 19 January 1875, MSA. On Kent and his work for the constitutional commission, see David M. Gold, An Exemplary Whig: Edward Kent and the Whig Disposition in American Politics and Law (New York: Lexington Books, 2012), 221-23. 26. Portland Daily Press, 20 January 1875, genealogybank.com; Kennebec Journal, 27 January 1875. 27. Smith, 62-63; “Resolve concerning the abolition of the office of land agent” (Ch. 314), in Acts and Resolves Passed by the Fifty-Third Legislature of the State of Maine, 1874 (Augusta: Sprague, Owen & Nash, Printers to the State, 1874), 193-94; “Address of Governor Dingley to the Legislature of the State of Maine, January 7, 1875,” 27; “Journal of the Constitutional Commission,” 6 February 1875; “Report of the Constitutional Commission,” in Public Documents of Maine; Being the Annual Reports of the Various Public Offices and Institutions for the Year 1875, Vol. II (Augusta: Sprague, Owen & Nash, Printers to the State, 1875), 9. 28. Calais Advertiser, 20 January 1875; Dorr, “Changing Their Guardians,” 23-24; “Resolve for the sale of land belonging to the Passamaquoddy Indians” (Ch. 54), in Resolves of the Sixteenth Legislature of the State of Maine (Augusta: Smith & Robinson, 1836), 47; “Resolve providing for the sale of timber and grass on Indian Township” (Ch. 51), in Resolves of the State of Maine from 1853 to 1856 Inclusive (Augusta: Fuller & Fuller, Printers to the State, 1856), 28-29. 29. Robert Franklin Durden, James Shepherd Pike: Republicanism and the American Negro, 1850-1882 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1957), 36, 107; Rachel Reed Griffin, “Life and Writings of Mary Hayden Green Pike (1824-1908)” (M.A. thesis, University of Maine, 1947), 29, 32, 41, https://digitalcommons. library.umaine.edu/etd/2383/ (accessed 7 March 2019); Calais Advertiser, 13 May 1874. 30. Godfrey quoted in Gold, 218; History of Penobscot County, Maine, with Illustrations and Biographical Sketches (Cleveland, OH: Williams, Chase & Co., 1882), 76; Granger v. Avery, original court papers; Gold, 218; “Bangorism—Kent—Cutting Double House,” Bangor Historical Society, https://www.bangorhistorical society.org/bangorism-articles-and-info-4/ (accessed 7 November 2019). 31. “Journal of the Constitutional Commission,” 5 February 1875. 32. Article X, Section 5, subsection 9 in Constitution of the State of Maine Together with Amendments (Augusta, ME, 1825). 33. See Article X, Section 1 and Section 2, in Constitution of the State of Maine Together with Amendments (Augusta, ME, 1825). 34. “Report of the Constitutional Commission,” 1-10; Gold, 223; “Resolves providing for certain amendments to the constitution of the State of Maine” (Ch. 98), in Acts and Resolves of the Fifty-Fourth Legislature of the State of Maine (Augusta: Sprague, Owen & Nash, Printers to the State, 1875), 34-37, http://lldc.mainelegislature.org/Open/Laws/1875/1875_RES_c098.pdf (accessed 6 November 2019). I could not locate any public discussion of the “codification” measure in regard to Native treaties or any issue for that matter. 35. Calais Advertiser, 23 June 1875 (quotation); Joseph Granger v. Peter Avery (64 Me. 292), in Reports of Cases in Law and Equity, 296 (quotation); Lewiston Evening Journal, 7 July 1875, genealogybank.com; Portland Daily Press, 8 July 1875, genealogybank.com; Penobscot Tribe of Indians v. Jones P. Veazie & another (58 Me. 402), in Wm. Wirt Virgin, Reports of Cases in Law and Equity, Determined by the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, Maine Reports, Volume LVIII (Portland: Loring, Short & Harmon, 1871), 406-7; Joseph Granger v. Peter Avery (64 Me. 292) in Reports of Cases in Law and Equity, 295-96; Pawling, “Petitions and the Reconfiguration of Homeland,” 304. The decision on the Granger case was published by the state in 1876 and dated as being of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court’s April 1874 term. 36. “Resolves providing for certain amendments to the constitution of the State of Maine” (Ch. 98), 36; Washington County Supreme Judicial Court, October Term A. D. 1875, microfilm roll 12, vol. 24, page 74, MSA. 37. Portland Daily Press, 13 January 1876, genealogybank.com (quotation); Donald Soctomah, Let Me Live as My Ancestors Had, 1850-1890: Tribal Life and Times in Maine and New Brunswick ([Maine: Passamaquoddy Tribe of Indian Township,] 2005), 115 (quotation); Portland Daily Press, 16 September 1875, 22 Maine History genealogybank.com; Howard Owen (compiler), Biographical Sketches of the Members of the Senate and House of Representatives of Maine, for 1876, Vol. V (Augusta, ME: Kennebec Journal, c. 1876), 12. 38. S., “The State Capital,” Portland Daily Press, 21 February 1876, genealogybank.com (quotation); S., “By Telegraph; From Augusta,” Portland Daily Press, 24 February 1876, genealogybank.com. 39. “Resolve in favor of Joseph Granger” (Ch. 154), in Acts and Resolves of the Fifty-Fifth Legislature of the State of Maine. (Augusta: Sprague, Owen & Nash, Printers to the State, 1876), 116-17; 1876 Executive Council Report, Report #220, original council papers, MSA. 40. Maine Farmer, 22 July 1876, genealogybank.com; Portland Daily Press, 12 July 1876, genealogybank.com. The Maine Farmer incorrectly identified Granger v. Avery as the Granger Turnpike claim. 41. “Report,” Fifty-Seventh Legislature, House, No. 176, in Documents Printed by Order of the Legislature of the State of Maine, During the Session A.D. 1878. (Augusta: Sprague, Owen & Nash, Printers to the State, 1878), 4-5. 42. “Report,” Fifty-Seventh Legislature, 4-5 (quotations); “Resolve relating to the Passamaquoddy Indians” (Ch. 83), in Acts and Resolves of the Fifty-Seventh Legislature of the State of Maine (Augusta: Sprague, Owen & Nash, Printers to the State, 1878), 31, books.google.com (accessed 6 November 2019); Pawling, “Petitions and the Reconfiguration of Homeland,” 330; John Francis Sprague, “Indian Treaties in Maine,” Sprague’s Journal of Maine History 8, no. 4 (December 1920): 195. 43. Proctor, “Report on Maine Indians,” 8. 44. Petition of Governor Solmo Francis, Lt. Gov. Peter Selmore, and sixty-six others, 1 January 1879, attached to “Resolve Relating to Survey and Lease of Land in Indian Township,” House of Representatives, Box 211, MSA. In 1887, Passamaquoddy Tribal Representative Louis Mitchell made an impassioned speech to the legislature in which he complained not only about the loss of the islands but also the payment made to Joseph Granger from the Passamaquoddy Trust Fund. See Louis Mitchell of the Passamaquoddy Tribe of Indians, House document no. 251, in Documents Printed by the Order of the Legislature of the State of Maine during the Session A.D. 1887 (Augusta, ME: Burleigh and Flynt, 1888), 6, http://www.wabanaki.com/wabanaki_new/Lewis_Mitchell.html (accessed 16 May 2019). 45. C. H. Porter, Report of the Agent of the Passamaquoddy Tribe for the Year 1884 (Augusta, ME: Sprague and Son, 1886), 6 (quotation); C. H. Porter, Report of the Agent of the Passamaquoddy Tribe for the Year 1885, 6-7 (quotation); C. H. Porter, Report of the Agent of the Passamaquoddy Tribe of Indians, for the Year 1886, 7 (quotation); Soctomah, 198 (quotation); Edmund S. Hoyt (prepared by), The State Year-Book, and Legislative Manual, for the Year 1878-1879 (Portland, ME: Hoyt, Fogg & Donham, 1878), 538; Tenth Census of the United States, 1880, Calais, Washington, Maine, Roll 489, Page 113D, Enumeration District 169, ancestry.com (accessed 7 November 2019); C. H. Porter, Report of the Agent of the Passamaquoddy Tribe for the Year 1885 (Augusta, ME: Sprague and Son, 1886), 6; C. H. Porter, Report of the Agent of the Passamaquoddy Tribe of Indians, for the Year 1886 (Augusta, ME: Sprague and Son, 1887), 6-7. Porter technically resigned from his post in early 1887 and Governor Joseph Bodwell appointed a new agent in March. At the same time, Porter sold his grocery business in Calais. He died at age 46 in November 1887 after an illness. See Bangor Daily Whig and Courier, 17 March 1887, ancestry.com; Bar Harbor Mount Desert Herald, 18 March 1887, newspaperarchive.com; Calais Advertiser, 2 November 1887. 46. State vs. Peter Newell (84 Me 464), in Charles Hamlin (Reporter of Decisions), Reports of Cases in Law and Equity Determined by the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, Maine Reports, Vol. LXXXIV (Portland: Loring, Short & Harmon, 1892), 466, google.books.com (accessed 9 January 2020); (Hanson quoted in) Sprague, “Indian Treaties in Maine,” 185. To the best of my knowledge Hanson’s original brief is no longer extant. 47. Donna M. Loring, “Dominated in Maine: A Tribal Perspective from Behind the White Curtain,” Indian Country Today, 10 September 2016 (updated 12 September 2018), https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/dominatedin-maine-a-tribal-perspective-from-behind-the-white-curtain (accessed 4 June 2021); Maine Legislature, “Resolve, Directing the Secretary of State, Maine State Library and Law and Legislative Reference Library to Make the Articles of Separation of Maine from Massachusetts More Prominently Available to Educators and the Inquiring Public,” 127th Maine Legis., 1st regular session, 2015, http://legislature.maine.gov/legis/bills/display_ ps.asp?LD=893&snum=127 (accessed 8 June 2021); Maine State Legislature, “Sections of the Maine Constitution Omitted from Printing,” https://legislature.maine.gov/lawlibrary/sections-of-the-maine-constitution-omitted-fromprinting/9296/ (accessed 8 June 2021); Maine Legislature, “Resolution, Proposing an Amendment to Article X of the Constitution of Maine Regarding the Publication of Maine Indian Treaty Obligations,” L.D. 428, 128th Maine Legis., 1st regular session, 2017, https://legislature.maine.gov/legis/bills/display_ps.asp?LD= 428&snum=128 (accessed 8 June 2021). Granger V. Avery and the Redaction of Article X, Section 5 23