Plymouth memories of an octogenarian

by William T. Davis

In order that my readers may understand the meaning of old tenor money, let me say, that there were three issues of paper money by the Massachusetts province prior to 1750. The issues prior to 1737 were called old tenor, the issue made in that year was called middle tenor, and the issue of 1741, new tenor. When the province bills were redeemed in 1750, the old tenor was redeemed at the rate of one piece of a dollar for forty-five shillings of old tenor, which would make the amount paid to the county a fraction over $444.44. This sum it must be remembered was in addition to the share of the cost of the building to be assessed on the town in its county tax.

In 1749, then, the present town house, was erected. A somewhat doubtful tradition ascribes its design to Peter Oliver, who in 1747 was appointed Judge of the Inferior Court of Plymouth County; and a still more doubtful tradition states that originally its entrance was on the easterly end and was changed about 1786 to the north side, where it is now. After a careful examination of the latter tradition, I have reached the conclusion that it is erroneous. A market was established as early as 1722, and for more than a hundred years clerks of the market were annually chosen by the town. Having examined every land title from Wellingsley to Cold Spring, and found no mention of a market anywhere except under the town house, I am satisfied that the basement of both the old and new building contained a market from 1722 to the time of its comparatively recent abandonment in 1858. The tradition therefore concerning the change of the entrance to admit of the establishment of a market probably refers, not to the present building, but to the old one in which a change of plan may have been made to admit of the establishment of a market in 1722. There is no reason to doubt the statement that at one time there was a one story wooden projection as far out as the sidewalk to furnish larger accommodations for the market, but it was removed before my day, and the market was confined to the basement alone. The market in my day was equipped with stalls, which were leased by the clerk of the market to various persons, among whom I remember Elisha and Charles Nelson, Amasa Holmes, Joseph White, Brackley Cushing and Maltiah Howard. The interior arrangement of the town house was much the same as now, except that a safe has in later times been built, and the old Court room occupied the whole of the second story. The Court room was provided with a raised desk for the judge, a desk below for the clerk, a sheriff’s box on one side, a court crier’s box on the other, the jury seats facing the judge, and separating the lawyer’s area from the space for the public in the rear. Such was the arrangement of the building until 1820, when a new Court House having been built in Court Square, the building was sold to the town for the sum of two thousand dollars. It remained practically unchanged until 1829, when the Torrent No. 4, a suction hose engine was bought, and the room at the westerly end was fitted for its accommodation. For the supply of water to this engine, and the Niagara No. 1, which was at the same time changed to a suction engine, reservoirs were built in Shirley and Town Squares to be filled by the aqueduct. The specifications for these reservoirs required them to be sixteen feet in diameter in the clear, and fourteen feet deep from the spring of the arch. To complete the story of the reservoirs, that on Training Green was built in 1834, that at the crossing of High and Spring streets, and that opposite Pilgrim Hall in 1853, and one at the foot of Russell street at an earlier period.

All through my boyhood the Town House remained as I have described it until 1839, when all the equipments of the old Court room except the judge’s desk were removed and substantial seats were built on a sloping floor, which necessitated three more steps on the stairs. In 1858, while I was chairman of the selectmen, the engine Torrent was removed to the basement, and the room and ante-room, recently occupied by the selectmen, were fitted for use by the board. As first arranged, a large, round table with five drawers was constructed around an iron column in the room, which was removed some years later. The hall above was used for meetings of the town until 1872, since which time they have been held in Davis Hall and Odd Fellows’ Hall, and the Armory. At a later date it was occupied by the Public Library for a short time, and then divided into rooms, one of which was occupied until recently by the school committee, and the other is now occupied by the Assessors. It may be interesting to some of my readers to learn that Catholic mass was celebrated in Town Hall, April 4, 1849.

While this book is in press, the selectmen have remodelled the interior and built a new and larger safe.

My first connection with town affairs began in 1854, when I was chosen a member of the school committee. I had the previous year become a permanent resident of Plymouth, after some years residence in Boston, and until 1892, a period of thirty-eight years, I do not recall a year in which I did not hold a town office. In 1855 I was chosen a selectman with Jacob H. Loud, chairman, and Ezekial C. Turner, Israel Clark and Ezra Leach, my other associates. In 1856 I was chairman, associated with Joseph Allen, Joseph P. Brown, Bradford Barnes and David Clark, and 1857-8-9, the board remained unchanged. In 1860 I remained chairman with Joseph P. Brown, Ezekial C. Turner, David Clark and Thomas B. Sears my associates, and in 1861 my associates were Lysander Dunham, Hosea Bartlett, Thomas B. Sears and Ezekial C. Turner, the same board continuing in office until the spring of 1866, when I declined further service. I was again chosen in 1870 and 1881, but declined serving, and was finally chosen in 1888, ’89, ’90, serving the last year as chairman. At regular, adjourned and special meetings, and November elections, I served as moderator seventy-nine times.

During my first service as moderator, the men who took the most active part in discussions were Moses Bates, Wm. H. Spear, Ichabod Morton, Charles G. Davis, Wm. H. Whitman, Captain John Russell, Jonathan Thrasher, Nathaniel Ellis, Charles H. Howland, Barnabas H. Holmes, Samuel H. Doten and Chas. O. Churchill. Occasionally the debates were spirited and personal. Some of the above were remarkable men. Jonathan Thrasher born and brought up, and a life-long resident, at Long Pond, denied favorable opportunities of instruction, was a man of large brain, who under the sunlight of a higher education, would have been a formidable competitor in the arena of professional life. When he spoke he at once arrested attention by his calm and judicial manner, and well expressed arguments, which were the result of careful thought. Nathaniel Ellis of Ellisville, was also a man of mark, vigorous in mind and body, ready in speech, and at every opportunity keen in ridicule and satire. I remember the roars of laughter, elicited by his speech in opposition to an additional appropriation asked for by a school committee, in whom he had no confidence. He described one of their junkets, hiring a two horse carriage, stowing under the seats lemons and sugar and sandwiches and cold chicken and pickles, and the purpose of their service in behalf of the town, the conveyance of an inkstand to the Ellisville school of four scholars. He said it was the same committee which went on a similar junket to examine the Red Brook School, and learned from the teacher after their erudite examination was finished that Red Brook school was in Sandwich, and not in Plymouth. It is needless to say that the additional appropriation was defeated. Ichabod Morton on every question relating to schools was conspicuous in debate. He was an ardent advocate for larger appropriations for public schools, and though often subjected to ridicule by his opponents, he never lost his temper and waited patiently for time to prove in the end that one with a righteous cause was a majority. At the time to which I refer in 1855 and 1860, the appropriations for schools were $8,600, and $10,000, respectively, with a population of six thousand, while the appropriation for the present year is forty-nine thousand dollars, to which the interest on the school debt must be added, with little less than double the population.

In performing the duties of moderator many questions arise for which neither law nor parliamentary usage furnishes any solution. He possesses arbitrary power which he must be careful in exercising. Some of the questions which came up during my service in that office were sufficiently interesting to justify a reference to them. On one occasion an article in the warrant involved an appropriation to which the voters in the south part of the town were opposed, and after a full discussion the appropriation was defeated, and the town passed on to the consideration of other articles in the warrant. In the latter part of the afternoon, after the southern voters had left for home, a motion was made to reconsider the vote of rejection, and with no rule of law to guide me, but one of fair play and square dealing, I ruled the motion out of order. I stated that the person moving reconsideration failed to make it before other business was done, and not having made it or given notice that he intended to make it, before adjournment, the opponents of the measure had a right to consider the question settled for the day. Some complained of the ruling, but its fairness was afterwards conceded, and so far as I know has been adopted as a guide for other moderators.

On another occasion, while several articles in the warrant remained unconsidered, a motion was made to adjourn, which I ruled out of order. It was claimed that a motion to adjourn was always in order, and was undebatable. That is undoubtedly true in any body or convention, which has regular sessions, for in that case an adjournment means merely an adjournment to the next session, and the business arrested by the adjournment can be resumed when the next session comes together. But in a town meeting, unless it has been voted that when the meeting adjourns, it shall adjourn to meet at a certain time, a motion to adjourn cannot be entertained. There were only two courses which the mover might have pursued. He might have moved as above that when the meeting adjourns it adjourn to a certain time, and then if the town so votes a simple motion to adjourn would have been in order; or he might have moved that the consideration of the remaining articles in the warrant be indefinitely postponed, and if the town so vote, he could have moved to dissolve the meeting. A motion to adjourn unless there is a fixed time to adjourn to is simply an absurdity.

Under the old system of voting for town officers each set of officers was chosen on a separate ballot, and the counting of each set of ballots before balloting for the next officers involved great labor and delay. In order to expedite matters, a motion was made at the annual meeting in 1882 to instruct the moderator to appoint tellers, and I ruled the motion out of order, as being in controvention of the law. Many towns had been in the habit of employing tellers and their example was quoted as sufficient precedents for my guidance. I stated in general terms that the law conferred on the moderator extraordinary powers, and imposed upon him responsible duties which he could no more delegate to another than a constable or an assessor could delegate to a substitute his powers and duties. At the adjourned meeting I gave my reasons in writing to the town, and a reporter for the Boston Herald being present, had it printed in full in the Sunday edition of that paper. The legislature was still in session, and the judiciary committee acknowledging the correctness of my ruling at once secured the passage of an act authorizing the appointment of tellers in town meetings.

The question has often been asked whether a moderator can participate in debate. I am clearly of the opinion that except for the purpose of explaining rulings and answering questions within certain limitations, he cannot with propriety engage in the discussion of any measure before the town. It is extremely doubtful whether if he takes a marked interest in a debate he can secure the confidence of the town in the entire impartiality of his rulings and acts. For the same reason I do not believe in the propriety of his leaving the chair to speak from the floor. If, however, he should do so, I am clearly of the opinion that he vacates his chair, and that the only business before the town is to choose a moderator pro tern. His powers and duties cease the moment he leaves the chair, and they cannot be assumed by another upon whom they are not conferred by the town by ballot, and the use of the checklist.