Page:The-new-brunswick-magazine-v3-n3-sep-1899.djvu/29

It is inconceivable that Messrs. Simonds, White and their co-partners should have expended so much money, time and pains in the cultivation and improvement of the marsh, unless they believed it to be their property, which it could not possibly have been by any stretch of the imagination, if the Red Head of their grants had been located at or near York Point, as was claimed by the St. John Common Council in 1830.

Jonathan Leavitt, in his deposition of May 5, 1794, says, that prior to the arrival of the Loyalists, "By much the greater part of the hay for the stock was cut on lands actually ungranted, though at that time supposed to be within the bounds of the first and second grants."

It was nearly forty years after the termination of the law suit by which Mr. Simonds strove to fix the site of Red Head at the mouth of Little river, when another controversy arose between the descendants of Hazen, Simonds and White and the St. John Common Council, in which the location of Red Head again became the crucial point. The principal source of our information with regard to this controversy is a rather scarce pamphlet of 48 pages, printed in 1834 at the office of Lewis W. Durant, entitled "Reports of the committee of the Common Council respecting the Flats, etc., within and to the northward of the City line, &c., &c., &c."

The controversy originated in this way. In the year 1829 the Mill Bridge leading from St. John to Portland had become so unsafe and so unsightly that the Grand Jury called attention to its condition. The necessity of repairing the structure was evident, but before the council assumed responsibility in the matter, a committee was appointed to report upon the question of ownership of the flats over which the bridge was