AND TOWN POLITICS IN THE LAST CENTURY.
BY ATHERTON P. MASON, M. D.
Nearly a century ago the little town, now the prosperous city, of Fitchburg, Mass., was the scene of a fierce contest that lasted a decade. Never in the history of the town was there contention so bitter or opposition so determined as that shown in the ninety-nine town meetings held during the years 1786-96. The cause of this tempest in a teapot was the location of a new meeting-house.
At that time the "center of the town" was in the easterly part of the township, in the vicinity of the present Union Passenger Depot. Here were located the rather shabby yellow meeting-house, Cowdin's tavern, Dea. Ephraim Kimball's mill, Joseph Fox's "red store," and several dwelling-houses. Westward from this ran a country road (now Main Street) along which were scattered half a dozen houses. West of the present junction of River and Main Streets there were almost no habitations until reaching the high land, now known as Dean Hill, about 1-3/4 miles distant. This high land was early settled by farmers, because of the excellent soil, and comparative freedom from early frosts. Here were two taverns, a blacksmith's shop, a store, and a number of dwellings. These people in the west were considerably removed from the river, which at that time was regarded as a curse to the town, and were desirous of being separated from Fitchburg in order to escape the heavy tax annually levied to maintain bridges. Moreover the west was then the more flourishing settlement, and its inhabitants began to feel that they ought to have a meeting-house of their own, and not be obliged to travel to the easterly part of the town to attend church,—in a word they felt rather abused at being considered a suburb.
Early in 1785 one of the articles in the town-meeting warrant was, "To see if the town will take into consideration the request of Jacob Upton and others, to see if the town will set off the inhabitants of the north-westerly part of Fitchburg, with their lands and privileges, free and clear from said Fitchburg, to join the extreme part of Westminster, with the north-easterly part of Ashburnham, to be incorporated into a town, to have town privileges, as other towns." Had this request been granted a new meeting-house would have been built near Upton's tavern; but it was promptly dismissed. Baffled, but not dismayed, the petitioners came to the town meeting held in May, 1785, with a proposition to annex to Fitchburg "about a mile or more in width of land, with the inhabitants thereon, of the northerly part of the town of Westminster," and these additional people were "to join the inhabitants of said Fitchburg to build a meeting-house on Ezra Upton's land." This scheme was very artful, but the wise men of the east saw that such a move would throw the balance of power into the hands of the west, and therefore voted it down.
These two defeats stirred up the people of the west, and they determined to carry their point in some way. In March, 1786, they petitioned "that Rev. Mr. Payson have liberty to preach some part of the time in the year in the westerly part of the town." This was certainly a modest request, but was denied, the people of the east evidently thinking that if they yielded an inch they might, at no very distant date, have to travel two or three miles.
All this, however, was but a skirmish. The date of the beginning of the real contest was Sept. 12, 1786, when, it was voted "to build a new meeting-house in the centre of the town, or in the nearest convenient place to the centre." It was thus agreed that a new house was to be built, but where to build it was not easily determined. The maxim, large bodies move slowly, was verified in this instance, for, although there was much private sputtering in regard to the location, no further public action was taken for two years. Meanwhile Jedediah Cooper and Jacob Upton, the two tavern keepers in the westerly part of the town, despairing of any redress, determined, together with some of their neighbors, to have a meeting-house among themselves at any rate. They accordingly erected in the course of time a shabby structure, just within the limits of the town, which was used to some extent for preaching; but the proprietors did not take much care of it, and its dilapidated appearance earned for it the name of the "Lord's Barn." It was sold and taken down about sixty years ago, and the proceeds of the sale (about thirty-six dollars) were divided among the proprietors.
Sept. 9, 1788, the subject was again brought before the town by means of an article in the warrant,—"To see if the town will erect a meeting-house in the centre of the town, or receive any part of Westminster that shall be willing to join with us, and then erect a meeting-house in the nearest convenient place to the centre." This article was put into the warrant by the people of the west, whose underlying object was the formation of a new town, while the rest of the inhabitants were strenuously opposed to this project. No action was taken on this article at this meeting. A few days later, Sept. 23, a meeting was called, at which a committee, consisting of Moses Hale, Oliver Stickney, Daniel Putnam, Jacob Upton, and Asa Perry, was appointed "to find a place to erect a meeting-house in the most convenient place to accommodate the inhabitants of the town of Fitchburg." The result of the investigation made by these five gentlemen was that two of them found the most convenient place to be in the west, two in the east, and the remaining member was upon the fence. A town meeting was held, Oct. 2, to hear the report of this committee, and when it had been given it was rejected, and the gentlemen were promptly discharged from further services in that direction. A motion was then made to place the new house on the site of the old one: this was negatived. Then, "after much consideration," as the record says, it was voted "to erect the new meeting-house in the nearest convenient place to the centre." Such brilliant progress must have been altogether too gratifying, for a few minutes later it was voted "to reconsider all votes hitherto passed relating to this matter." At this stage in the proceedings the meeting was adjourned to nine o'clock of the next day.
On the following morning the parties proceeded to business. It was first moved to place the new house where the old one then stood; this was again negatived. It was then moved to place it "on the hill near Phineas Sawyer's house, on the land belonging to the heirs of Mr. Ezra Upton" (in the westerly part of the town). The meeting was divided on this motion, "to find a true vote," as the record states, and thirty-two voted in favor of it and seventeen against it. So by a vote of nearly two to one it was decided to place the new house in the west, and it looked as if everything was going on swimmingly. A committee was chosen, consisting of Reuben Smith, Asa Perry, Phineas Sawyer, Elijah Carter, and Jacob Upton, "to be invested with power to agree with the owners of the new frame erecting for a meeting-house (that of Jacob Upton and others before mentioned) in the north-westerly part of the town, if that appear cheapest for the town,—otherways are invested with power to provide materials and timber for building a new meeting-house in the prudentest manner for said town on said plat of ground." This committee was instructed to report progress at the next town meeting.
This was a bitter pill for the east to swallow. Resolved on retaliation, the east called a town meeting immediately "To see if the town will comply with a request of a number of the inhabitants of Fitchburg, to grant that they, together with their respective estates and interests, may be set off from Fitchburg and annexed to Lunenburg." This request was denied. The honest people, who, for the sake of peace and reconciliation had favored the west at the previous meeting, were now thoroughly alarmed. They held the balance of power, and were in a very unpleasant predicament. If they voted to place the new house in the east, the west threatened to form a new parish; and if they favored the west, the east evinced strong symptoms of returning to the parent town of Lunenburg.
Meanwhile, undaunted by this sudden squall in the east, the committee had bargained for the frame of the new meeting-house being erected in the north-westerly part of the town, prepared a site for the new house on the land of Ezra Upton's heirs, and done sundry other wise things. Nov. 17, 1788, a town meeting was called to listen to the report of this committee. Their excellent progress was set forth with great confidence, whereupon the meeting gravely voted not to accept the report, and added insult to injury by summarily discharging the committee from further service. This was done by the peacemakers who were at their wits' ends, and this time threw their influence into the eastern scale. At this meeting a committee was chosen to find the centre of the town. After a survey, the centre was found to be on the land of one Thomas Boynton, about five hundred feet north of the pound. Their report was accepted at a town meeting held Dec. 18, 1788, and a committee, consisting of Thomas Cowdin, Phineas Hartwell, Oliver Stickney, Daniel Putnam, and Paul Wetherbee, was chosen to bargain for a site in the most suitable place. This committee bought twenty-two and a half acres of land, a little south of the pound, of Boynton, paying therefor two dollars and thirty-three cents per acre, and the town approved this action.
The west, not thinking this location near enough, resorted to the old scheme of forming a new town, and called two meetings for that purpose, thereby scaring the conscientious peacemakers nearly out of their wits; but for some reason or other the men of the west did not put in an appearance, and these two meetings were uncommonly peaceable. The petitions were dismissed. The reason of their non-appearance at these meetings probably was that the people of the west, who all this time were carrying on their plans vigorously but quietly, as will soon be seen, wished to lull the rest of the town into a sense of security.
At a meeting held Nov. 2, 1789, the town voted "to erect a new meeting-house on the land purchased of Thomas Boynton," and a committee was chosen to take the matter in charge. Two weeks later the town voted to reconsider all former votes; so that at the end of four years the town was in the same position regarding this matter as when it began operations, with the exception of owning twenty-two and a half acres of real estate. The cause of this singular action was the culmination of the move on the part of the west, alluded to above. The people of the west, together with portions of Westminster, Ashburnham, and Ashby, had presented to the General Court a powerful petition for an act of incorporation into a town.
"This petition set forth in glowing colors the delightful situation of the contemplated town—how nature had lavished all her skill upon it—how admirably adapted for a township by itself was the noble swell of land—and that nothing in nature or in art could exceed the grand and imposing spectacle of a meeting-house towering from its summit, while beneath the said swell was a region of low, sunken land which almost cut off the petitioners from intercourse with the rest of mankind.[B]"
This meant business, and the inhabitants of Fitchburg drew up a spirited remonstrance, in which they were joined by the people in those portions of the three adjoining towns not included in the proposed new township. In this remonstrance every statement of the petitioners was denied, and the whole thing denounced as visionary. This matter engrossed the attention of both parties during 1790, and the result was that the General Court refused to incorporate the new town.
After such a vigorous contest a brief breathing spell was necessary; but Sept. 7, 1791, the town voted, forty-one to twenty-three, "to erect a new meeting-house in the centre of the town, or in the nearest convenientest place thereto." This double-barrelled superlativeness shows that the spirit of the people was by no means cast down by the fruitless struggle of five years. At this meeting a committee was appointed to plan a new house. Oct. 10, this committee reported to the town "to build a house sixty by forty-six feet, with a porch at each end twelve by eleven feet, with stairs into the galleries." There were to be forty-six pews on the ground floor, and twenty-five in the galleries, to be sold to the highest bidders, and three years were to be allowed in which to build the house. This report was accepted at a meeting held Nov. 14, 1791. A committee was also chosen to clear a site upon the land purchased of Thomas Boynton and build the house. Dec. 27, 1791, the town with its usual consistency voted "to dismiss the committee chosen to build a new meeting-house from further service." Thus the matter again stood as at the beginning.
For nearly three years thereafter the pot continued to boil, but nothing more was done about church affairs in town meeting, except that on May 17, 1793, the people showed their obstinacy by refusing "to repair the meeting-house windows, and to paint the outside of the meeting-house."
Sept. 3, 1794, operations were again renewed by voting "to erect a meeting-house in the centre of the town, or in the nearest convenientest place thereto, to accommodate the inhabitants thereof for divine worship." Three disinterested individuals, Joseph Stearns and David Kilburn of Lunenburg, and Benjamin Kimball of Harvard, were chosen by ballot as a committee to discover that much-to-be-desired spot, "the nearest convenientest place to the centre." They found the centre to be a little less than a quarter of a mile north-east of the pound, but considered the most eligible location for the house to be about a half a mile south of this point, which would have placed it near the present junction of Main and River Streets. Oct. 21 a meeting was called to hear their report and it was rejected 36 to 29. So the opinions of interested and disinterested persons seem to have been considered of about equal value—as good for nothing.
Nov. 21, 1794, a motion "to place the meeting-house on the spot where the committee out of town proposed" was negatived, forty-eight to forty-five. A committee was then appointed to select a suitable place. Dec. 1 this committee reported in favor of "setting the meeting-house near the high bridge, under the hill" (the place the out-of-town committee had proposed). This report was accepted, sixty-one to forty-seven. A town meeting was therefore called Jan. 8, 1795, to choose a committee to purchase the land agreed upon; but at the meeting the town refused to choose such a committee, and so ended the plan of building a meeting-house there.
Jan. 26, 1795, the town voted "to erect a meeting-house on the town's land they purchased of Thomas Boynton, about five rods south-west from a large white oak tree, and to pattern it after the Leominster meeting-house." It was to be completed by the last day of December, 1796.
Feb. 9, 1795, the town chose a committee of three "to view Ashburnham meeting-house, and take a plan of the inside, and consult with Asa Kendall of Ashby for the mode of finishing the inside, and laying a plan for building the house." A week later the report of this committee was heard and accepted, and it was voted to pattern the new house after the one in Ashburnham. "Likewise voted to have the length of said house sixty-two by forty-eight feet, the posts to said house to be twenty-seven feet in length, and that the undertaker to build the house give bonds, with good bondsmen, to fulfil the contract." The contract was given to John Putman, Jr. Then followed other town meetings which regulated the size of joists to be used, and other minor matters that need not be here dwelt upon, Sept. 1, 1795, a committee of five was chosen "to stake out and oversee the clearing and levelling of the meeting-house spot for the underpinning on the town land." At this meeting it was also voted "that the Selectmen lay out a four-rod road in the best place to accommodate the travel to the new meeting-house spot."
At this time plans seem to have been perfected, and the prospect of a new house on the town land tolerably assured; but Oct. 19, 1795, everything was completely upset. On that day a meeting was called "to know the sense of the town whether the former vote in placing said meeting-house should be altered." After some wrangling, it was decided by a vote of forty-four to thirty "to place the new meeting-house at the crotch of the roads, near Capt. William Brown's house" (very near the present junction of Main, Mechanic, and Academy Streets). This decision was final. It is rather difficult to see how it happened to be, for this site was a little east of the town land. The opposition put in one final blow in this way. It was designed to have the house face directly "down street" and the underpinning was laid with a view to this, but the opposition party mustered enough strength to change the plan so that it should face the south and "stand cornerwise to the street."
So the momentous question was finally settled, and early in the summer of 1796 the raising occurred. This was of course an event of great importance, and extensive preparations were made to celebrate it. On May 9, 1796, a town meeting was called "to see if the town will make any provision for the refreshment of the Raisers and also the Spectators that shall attend upon the raising of the new meeting-house." It was then and there voted most amicably and unanimously "that the town provide one barrill W. I. Rum and Loaf Sugar sufficient to make it into Toddy for refreshment for the Raisers and Spectators that shall attend the raising of the new meeting-house." A committee was also chosen, consisting of Deacon Daniel Putman, Deacon Ephraim Kimball, Deacon Kendall Boutelle, Reuben Smith, Joseph Polley, Dr. Jonas Marshall, and Asa Perry, "to deal out the Liquor to the Raisers and Spectators on Raising Day." It would seem as if a barrel of rum would suffice to make enough toddy to satisfy the cravings of all that would gather to witness this raising, but the people were evidently overflowing with hospitality, and bound to have a rousing time after waiting for it so long, for before the adjournment of the meeting it was voted "that the committee to deal out the Liquor and Sugar sufficient for the Raisers and Spectators, in case the barrill of W. I. Rum and Sugar already voted should be insufficient, procure more and bring in their account to the town for allowance."
This was the only meeting in ten years where there was no contention or bitterness of feeling. For once these good people were all of the same mind, and a "barrill of W. I. Rum," which in these days gives rise to such excited controversy, in the presumably degenerate days of 1796 acted like oil upon the troubled waters.
The raising came off successfully, but it is not definitely stated how much rum was consumed thereat. However here is a copy of the order to reimburse Deacon Boutelle for the refreshment expenses.
"Fitchburg, May ye 12: 1796.
"To Ebenezer Thurston Town treasurer you are hereby Directed to pay Den Kendall Boutwell thirty eight Dollars and one Cent it being for providing Rum and Shugar for the Raising of the new Meeting house and this with his Rect shall be your Discharge for the above sum
| D C | John Thurston | } | |
| 38 1 | Paul Wetherbee | } | Selectmen." |
On the back of this order is written the receipt and settlement as follows:—
1796
"may ye 12 Recd a Note in behalf of the Town of fitchburg of thirty Eight Dollers and one Sent in full of the within Order
"Kendal Boutell"
"April 19:1797 Order Settled with the treasurer"
Such in substance was the controversy about the location of the meeting-house. The contest was characterized by zeal, obstinacy, and bitterness, manifested equally by both factions, and so fierce was the strife that the people of adjoining towns, for miles around, were in the habit of flocking into Fitchburg to attend town meetings.
The edifice was dedicated Jan. 19, 1797, Rev. Zabdiel Adams of Lunenburg preaching the sermon. This house became, a few years later, the church of the First Parish (Unitarian) in Fitchburg, and stood until 1836, when it was removed, and a brick church, now standing, was built by the Unitarians on nearly the same site.