Viewing page 113 of 237

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

that "he, the Undersigned, lived sufficiently near to see that no excesses were committed." Can any vigilance, on the part of an owner avail, under such refusal, on his part, to say. what parties are authorized and what parties are not? Can there be any judiciousness or satisfaction in such a course? 

The Undersigned would respectfully state, that, under this general license to get down-wood, a good deal of standing wood, wood too, of the most valuable kinds is appropriated; and under permission to "cut a solitary tree for canoe purposes," Two very large trees worth from ten to fifteen dollars each, which it has taken a century to produce, and for which this man can have no adequate use, have been cut. Is it the wish of the Bureau that trees so [[large?]] and so valuable shall be thus appropriated?

The Undersigned would further respectfully beg leave to state a fact, which will show how very liable, under the most favorable circumstances, this land is, to be trespassed upon. Lying in on angle of the main road, and skirting the road on both lines of this angle for some distance, and though there is an abundance of wood on several of the adjoining farms, yet from the proximity of this to the road, it is resorted to by the freedmen of the entire neighborhood since the abrogation of the very judicious Order referred to above, which Order the Undersigned would herewith respectfully transmit, but cannot do so from the fact, that Capt. Wilder refused to restore it to the Undersigned, knowing that he "would make it the basis of an appeal to you for the protection of this Court against this system of wholesale destruction which Capt Wilder seems willing to allow. The universal draft upon it during Capt Wilders former administration has denuded

Transcription Notes:
---------- Reopened for Editing 2024-01-27 20:47:06 ---------- Reopened for Editing 2024-01-28 11:28:10