USA > Connecticut > Hartford County > Hartford > Colonial history of Hartford, Connecticut > Part 33
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34
346
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
and was again appointed in 1783, bore a conspicuous part in it. The action of the various towns concerned, will show how rapidly it spread.
There is no doubt that current agitation of the impost question exerted an influence in this incorporation move- ment. Some thought that the right to place a duty upon articles imported from foreign lands, should be reserved by the states. Governor Trumbull, the Senate, and progress- ives generally, including several afterwards elected mayors of the new cities, considered a national impost essential to the Government's credit and standing. On this matter, the inhabitants of Hartford were divided. At a town meet- ing September 16, 1783, the freemen voted to oppose en- croachments of the American Congress upon the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the states. On the same occasion, they urged the General Assembly to regulate and encourage commerce within the state. This power of impost was not given by the Connecticut House of Representatives until May 20, 1784, nine days before the granting of Hartford's charter. The town's early opposition illustrates the unpro- gressive character of the action that might be expected at a freemen's meeting, and it must have made many of the new party aware of the fact. After that date, the impost ques- tion was more widely discussed. In the issue of The Con- necticut Gazette, December 12, 1783, a contributor, under the pseudonym Philo-Patriae, stated the matter thus: "This State ought at leaft to fecure the avails of her own hands: but if we are ftill to go on blind-fold, hiring Bofton and New York to import for us, at the fum of twelve and an half, and many times twenty-five per cent, they will have prudence enough to purchafe our cargoes at their own price, and make us pay for the purchafe in the goods they import with them." It then began to appear more clearly to many, that Connecticut must take whatever action would further the importation of foreign goods by her own mer- chants, in ships sailing from Connecticut ports. To this, their incorporation was considered essential. Governor Trumbull, who had already signified his intention of re- tiring to private life, took a prominent part in this discussion. He is credited with being the author of a series of six articles,
347
INCORPORATION OF THE CITY
which had been recently written, and had appeared in the above-named newspaper, beginning with the issue of March 26, 1784. Their title was the "Policy of Connecticut." A prefatory note was signed by "S.M.," who may have been Samuel Marsh, a warm advocate of incorporation at Hart- ford. In these articles the author claimed that Connecticut consumed, annually, three hundred and fifty thousand dollars worth of imported goods, one-eighth of which only she imported herself, the residue being purchased from states that had, or would soon have - unless the power was granted to Congress - a local impost for the benefit of their own treasuries.1 He advocated, in the fifth article, the incorpora- tion of towns, with independent jurisdiction in certain local matters. "The original plan of thefe incorporations in Connecticut," he says, "was suggefted with a view of pro- moting the commercial intereft of the diftrict propofed to be incorporated. In this refpect the plan is good and no doubt deferves the patronage of the Legiflature. But I conceive that fuch incorporations will have a provincial influence and that even afide of local advantages, the State at large will derive important benefits from the inftitution." He then reviewed the value of incorporation in European cities, and declared that opposition to such action in Con- necticut proceeded "from unreafonable jealoufy or from ignorance." It was a movement in which mechanics and farmers, as well as merchants, had an interest. "To the low ftate of commerce in Connecticut," he wrote, "muft be afcribed the prefent fcarcity of cafh which is always plenty where bufiness is lively." His concluding observation had such a direct application to the conflict of opinions in Hart- ford, that we may infer his acquaintance with the situation and intended reference: "The farming intereft muft bear all the public burdens till we improve our natural advantages and give extenfion to commerce." 2
The plan for municipal incorporation in Connecticut was itself an admission of the impossibility of advancing com-
1 The Connecticut Gazette, New London, April 9, 1784. Cf. Stuart's Life of Jona- than Trumbull, pp. 638, 639.
2 The Connecticut Gazette, May 28, 1784. The same article had been published in The Connecticut Courant, May 18th.
348
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
mercial interests under town government, as developed in colonial times. Its advocates stated that "a due regulation of the Internal police" was needed. "It is a matter of no small importance," they said, "that wharves, Streets & Highways be commodious for Business, & kept continually in good repair." That none of these towns would undertake such improvements, was too obvious to be disputed by many. All of them were agricultural communities, with a large outlying population of farmers, and only a small area within the town-plot. The tract along the water-front, especially devoted to commercial pursuits, was still more limited. Farmers living at a distance could not discover any advan- tages accruing to them by the building of wharves in Hart- ford; nor were they interested in the regulation of the town's streets. Governor Trumbull declared that "in the incor- porated towns in Connecticut the value of lands will in- creafe in two years, fufficient to defray the city-charges of twenty years." Such was probably the sequel, but, in 1784, the farmers of Hartford could not believe it. The contest, therefore, in all the five towns, was between the progressive inhabitants, seeking the revival of business life and the improvement of the town-plot, and the agricultural classes, which throughout colonial times had controlled the free- men's vote and persistently thwarted progress. The former thought it essential to create a corporate agency having the power to advance local interests. It need hardly be added that the same causes have operated since for the multipli- plication of Connecticut cities, and the assumption by the State of responsibilities that the towns have neglected. Under the conditions of 1784, the wonder is that any vote for incorporation was secured in Hartford. The difficulties had been lessened, however, by the incorporation of all the territory east of the Connecticut River, as East Hartford, which town held its first meeting on December 9, 1783. Thus the number of farmers in Hartford had been greatly reduced.
The memorial of New Haven to the General Assembly was dated September 22, 1783. New London and Norwich took similar action before anything was done in Hartford, although the matter had been discussed. At a town meeting,
349
INCORPORATION OF THE CITY
held in the Court House, January 6, 1784, a committee of fourteen was appointed "to confider and fix the Limitts of that Part, or the Whole of this Town, which is propofed to be incorporated into a City." This meeting adjourned to January 9th, when Colonel Thomas Seymour and Mr. Chauncey Goodrich were instructed to present a memorial to the General Assembly, then in session at New Haven, asking for "the Incorporation of part of the Town of Hart- ford into a City with City privileges." That document is dated January 8th, and was probably the result of the de- liberations of the first committee. It employed much of the language of New Haven's memorial. The limits therein defined extended along the river, from Wethersfield to Windsor, and some distance westward. It also asked for "Jurisdiction in all commercial matters on said Connecticut River opposite to said Town of Hartford." This memorial was referred to the next General Assembly, meeting May 13th at Hartford. Meanwhile, both parties were active in their cause. The opposition prepared a remonstrance, dated April 29th and signed by seventy-one inhabitants. This was perhaps written by Captain George Smith, who was afterwards charged by twelve of its signers with using "vari- ous Arts & Misrepresentations of the design and tendency of said act of Incorporation" to secure signatures. It was accompanied by lists of certain inhabitants of both parties, and some who were neutral, with their taxable estate in 1783, designed to minimize the importance and standing of the progressives.1 The remonstrance claimed that their ancient town government was vested with ample powers to make and enforce "Laws and Regulations for their Internal Police." This may have been true, but there were also ample votes to prevent the use of those powers for improvements within the town-plot. It claimed, too, that a corporation with city privileges would conflict with the town and involve much expense, trouble and confusion; that they were groaning under "large and heavy taxes occasioned by the war," and that many would be obliged to dispose of a part or all of "that Patrimony which hath descended to them from their Pious fore Fathers Who sought an Assyllyum in
1 State Archives: Towns and Lands, X: 12 a., 13 a., 13 b.
350
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
this then howling wilderness." The progressives, however, prepared a new memorial, dated May 6th. It was probably written by Mr. Chauncey Goodrich, the second mayor of the city and United States senator from Connecticut, 1807- 1813, his associate in the Senate being James Hillhouse, one of the originators of the incorporation movement in New Haven. This memorial was signed by two hundred and nine inhabitants. The limits of the proposed city were admitted to have been "too extensive," and were altered as in the charter. The plea for jurisdiction in commercial matters on the east side of the river, was not repeated, but it was granted. Specific reference was made to the privileges that had been extended to New Haven and New London, and, for similar reasons, this patronage was asked for Hartford. The hope was also expressed that such action would be "the means of uniting the Efforts and Wealth of the commercial Part of the State in such useful and liberal plans of Trade as may rescue it from its dependence on our sister States and be an increasing emolument to our own." This petition was granted and "An Act for Incorporating a Part of the Town of Hartford" was passed May 29, 1784.
The limits of the city thus established were substantially those embraced within the settled portion of the town in 1640. They were defined as follows: "Beginning at a place called the Dutch Ground, upon the high land on the bank of the Great River, on the southerly side of said river as it now runs in the lot belonging to Thomas Seymour, Esq. [North of Charter Oak Avenue] and from thence a strait line to the northwest corner of Joshua Hempstead's dwelling- house [The southwest corner of Wethersfield Avenue and Wyllys Street], thence a westerly line to the northwest corner of James Steele's dwelling-house [The corner of Wash- ington and Jefferson streets], from thence a northwesterly course to the southwest corner of James Shepard's malt- house [Near the corner of Park and Lafayette streets], from thence northerly, a strait line to the Upper Mills, so called, including said mills [Imlay's Mills], thence northerly in a strait line to the northwest corner of Capt. John Ol- cott's dwelling-house, including said house [The corner of Windsor Avenue and Belden Street], and from thence
:
351
INCORPORATION OF THE CITY
turning and running due east a strait course to the Great River." 1 The municipal government they had formed would now be considered somewhat crude. It was chiefly designed to carry out effectively the purposes for which it had been sought. With amendments and special acts, this charter served the city until 1821, long after most of their original purposes had been accomplished. The corporate name was, at first, "The Mayor, Aldermen, Common Council and Freemen of the city of Hartford." It was not until 1859 that this name was changed to "The City of Hartford." The charter provided that, at an annual meeting of the freemen in March, they were to elect the mayor - who held his office during the pleasure of the General Assembly - four aldermen, and not more than twenty councilmen. These were to meet together as the Court of Common Council to deliberate on city affairs. The freemen were also to choose a clerk, treasurer and two sheriffs. A legal meeting of the freemen was made necessary to levy taxes, and they were to approve all by-laws made by the Court of Common Council. In the first memorial, the petitioners had asked the General Assembly to "institute a Court to be holden within said jurisdiction, with full Powers and Authority to hear, try and determine all Personal actions (where the Title of Land is not concerned) grounded on any Contract made or injury happening within said Limits, and that said Court may have a concurrent Authority in said Causes with the other Courts of Common Law in the State." The charter established this City Court, in which the mayor and two aldermen presided as judges. It was a common feature of all these Connecticut cities.
Accordingly, the first freemen's meeting was held June 28, 1784. The moderator was George Wyllys, Esq., the senior justice of the peace. Hon. Thomas Seymour was elected
1 Connecticut Statutes, Revision of 1784, pp. 283 ff .; City Code, Hartford, 1856, pp. 265 ff. The City's limits were extended north to Capen Street, and south to Wawarme Avenue in 1853 (Private Laws of Conn., III: 392 ff.). Territory, mainly on the west, was added in 1859 (Ibid., V: 316 ff.). Another tract on the south was annexed in 1871 (Special Laws of Conn., VII: 136). In 1873, the remainder of the town was included, except a strip on the north, the addition of which, in 1881, made the town and city bounds coincident (Ibid., VII: 620; IX: 245). The City as originally chartered, covered 1700 acres, or one-sixth of the present area.
352
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
Mayor, an office which he filled for twenty-eight years. The aldermen chosen were: Col. Samuel Wyllys, Jonathan Bull Esq., Jesse Root, Esq., and Capt. Samuel Marsh. Twenty councilmen were elected, as follows: Capt. John Chenevard, Mr. Barnabas Deane, Ralph Pomeroy, Esq., Mr. James Church, Chauncey Goodrich, Esq., Mr. Peter Colt, Capt. John Olcott, Capt. John Caldwell, Mr. Zebulon Seymour, Mr. Zachariah Pratt, Mr. Ashbel Steele, William Nichols, Esq., John Trumbull, Esq., Mr. Barzillai Hudson, Capt. William Bull, Mr. Caleb Bull, Mr. John Morgan, Capt. Israel Seymour, Mr. Daniel Olcott, and Mr. Daniel Hinsdale. William Adams, Esq. was chosen City Clerk, Hezekiah Merrill, Esq., treasurer, and Capt. Joseph Talcott and Mr. James Wells, sheriffs.
This roll represents the progressive inhabitants of Hart- ford, to whose efforts its incorporation was due. With the exception of two or three, who were neutral, presumably for good reasons, all of these were among the memorialists of May 6th. During the next five years, nine of them were displaced by others; but all of the new men, with two excep- tions, were memorialists. Strange to relate, one of the exceptions was Captain George Smith, who was chosen a councilman in 1785. He was the only one of the opposition who was thus honored for many years. Whether he experi- enced a change of mind, or was surrounded with fagots for torture, is unknown. The other exception was Colonel Jere- miah Wadsworth, who did more than any in Hartford to push forward the improvements of the infant city. He was absent on his mission to France and England during the controversy; but he was informed of the movement by his business representative, Peter Colt, and favored it. On April 25, 1784, Mr. Colt wrote him as follows: "The people in this State seem desirous of having our Goods imported directly from Europe - with this view they have granted City Privileges to N. Haven & New London, hoping that Measure would serve to collect the trading Interest to a . point - but our Merchants seem too shy & reserved to consult their true Interest - Great dependance is had upon your returng to this Country & setting down in this your native spot. They know your knowledge & activity in
it
14
-
THE STATE HOUSE OF 1792
353
INCORPORATION OF THE CITY
Business is great & believe your Capital is equal to the occa- sion." The citizens of Hartford were not disappointed in Colonel Wadsworth. This letter passed on the ocean another from him, in which he intimates his purpose of using some of his means in "building up my [his] Native Town." Im- mediately upon his return, he began this labor. He was elected first alderman in 1785, serving six years, and a second term from 1795 to 1798. Then for four years he was first councilman. Besides this, he represented Hartford for eleven years in the councils of the State. The value of these services to the new city can only be measured by an examination of municipal improvements to his death, in 1804. He was worthy of the tribute paid to him by Brissot de Warville upon his visit to Hartford: "It is the refidence of one of the moft refpectable men in the United States, Col. Wadf- worth. He enjoys a confiderable fortune, which he owes entirely to his own labour and induftry. Perfectly verfed in agriculture and commerce; univerfally known for the fervice he rendered to the American and French armies during the war; generally efteemed and beloved for his great virtues; he crowns all his qualities by an amiable and fingular modefty. His addrefs is frank, his countenance open, and his difcourfe fimple. Thus you cannot fail to love him as foon as you fee him; efpecially as foon as you know him."
By an examination of early improvements in the City of Hartford, the reader can clearly see, as in a mirror facing the colonial period of its history, the ancient town with all its old customs, disorder, encroachments, muddy highways, wooden buildings and long-standing needs. What the new- born citizens did to improve Hartford was what they admitted had been very unsatisfactory. No party of citizens since, has surpassed them in wisdom, method or enthusiasm, at the task of building a city. The powers they had sought, and received in the city's charter, disclose the failures of their town government. The Court of Common Council, at its first meeting July 13th, appointed a committee to prepare city by-laws, and one after another, as they were reported, the freemen approved them. The better regulation of trade and commerce was one of their first concerns. Inspectors were
354
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
appointed for everything they exported. Goods were sent out, with the brand of Hartford upon them. Conferences were held with representatives of other Connecticut cities, to further their common interests. An act was passed relative to weights and measures, providing for sealing the same and punishing all fraud. Meanwhile, a committee of these new citizens had been observing the nuisances in their streets. Their first act reforming these was to restrain swine from going at large. In 1797, a. similar ordinance was passed with reference to cattle, sheep and horses, and, a few years later, they suppressed the geese. On September 6th, this committee reported "that in each and all Streets and High- ways in the City, Nuisances and Obstructions are so numer- ous, multiplied and varied into too many Shapes and Forms to admit of a particular Description or enumeration." They were then authorized "to run the lines of the several Streets within the City and to Ascertain and Mark out and fix the Limitts and Bounds of the same and sett up Monu- ments and Marks descriptive thereof." In their report on September 27th, they gave names to their main highways.1 This report was accompanied with "a plan or map of the Bounds and Limits of the City, and also of the Highways and landing-places in the same, with their Bounds and lines, and of the encroachments made thereon." It was ordered on file, but has disappeared. Most likely it was a prelim- inary map, and was made by Solomon Porter, who after- wards carried his work to completion, in 1790. The records prove that his survey was exhibited at a City meeting, March 28, 1791. The Court of Common Council at a meet- ing March 31, 1792, having before it "Solomon Porter's Plan and Chart of the City, and Survey and Field Book," formally accepted and approved the same.2 The establish- ment of the city's streets, after one hundred and fifty years of the town's careless administration, was one of their most difficult tasks in building the City of Hartford. Their
1 "History of Hartford Streets" by Albert L. Washburn and Henry R. Buck in Publications of the Municipal Art Society, Bulletin No. 9., pp. 5-10.
? The original of this map is preserved among the collections of the Connecticut Historical Society, as also a copy. The Field Book is in the City Engineer's De- partment, where there is also a working copy of the map. Solomon Porter's sur- vey has been proved in court as a legal authority by Mr. Albert L. Washburn.
355
INCORPORATION OF THE CITY
ambitions were not satisfied with this. Throughout colonial times, the inhabitants had not demanded any radical altera- tions in their old roads. Workhouse Lane, from Trumbull to Ford streets, had been opened in 1725. Talcott Lane had been deeded to the town in 1761, by Samuel Talcott. Perhaps the inhabitants had begun to indicate, by the paths they made across lots, the location of other future highways. But, in 1788, several new streets were laid out. Colonel Wadsworth and others then deeded to the City land for Commerce Street. Morgan Street was laid out that year, from Main Street to the Connecticut River. In 1785, Cap- tain Daniel Phelps conveyed to the City land for Theatre, now Temple Street, which was opened in 1788. About the same time, also, Prospect Street was laid out, and it soon became a fashionable location for residences. The inhab- itants then began to take more particular notice of their buildings along these streets. An ordinance was passed in 1789, with reference to this matter, by which an undesirable nearness to the street could be prevented. The obstruction and misuse of sidewalks, which were then constructed by abutting owners, was forbidden in 1793. Public lamps were not provided by the City until 1821. Of course, there was then no public water supply, although "The Proprietors of the Hartford Aqueduct" conceived one in 1797, when they purchased Babcock's well, and they laid some wooden pipes.1 A few householders probably had private drains. An amendment to the City's charter in 1843, empowered the Court of Common Council to construct sewers.2 The pres- ervation of the new city from fire was one of their earliest considerations. Apparently, a fire-engine was owned in Hartford in 1785, when Captain William Bull was appointed to have it repaired. Ladders and buckets had been the chief part of their fire apparatus in colonial times. The city was soon divided into fire wards. In 1789, they organized a fire department under an engineer.3 The Court of Com- mon Council also enacted some by-laws that reflect very
1 The Hartford Times, Jan. 15 and Feb. 10, 1891.
2 The Hartford Courant, Sept. 20, 1907.
3 The Hartford Times, Nov. 16, 1907: The Hartford Courant, June 7, 1910. Sept. 25, and Dec. 28, 1913. See also Theodore Broome's Record Book, Ex-Chief Henry J. Eaton.
356
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
unpleasantly the sanitary conditions of the colonial town. Deeds have been found that prove the actual existence of hog-pens and barns along their streets. Factories for the manufacture of soap and tallow candles, tanneries and slaugh- ter-houses, were not far away from some pretentious man- sions. Within the town-plot there were ponds of water, more or less stagnant, and pools that served for drainage of their barns. An acquaintance with such conditions enables us to appreciate the wisdom and energy of the city fathers in dealing with them.
The progressive citizens, to whom Hartford owed its early incorporation, did not limit their efforts to these reforms and improvements. Their interest in commercial affairs became profitable in a way they did not at first an- ticipate. After the Revolutionary War, emigration up the Connecticut River became popular. Many who removed were from Connecticut. Then the era of up-river trade was inaugurated. Some of Hartford's leading merchants were engaged in it. "It is only six or seven years," says a writer in 1792, "since the first boat was built at Windsor, Vt. and business is now increased to hundreds of tons yearly." At that time sloops discharged their cargoes at Warehouse Point; but, after 1810, when the bridge was built, Hartford was the head of sloop navigation for eight years. In 1788, Colonel Wadsworth became interested in improving the river's channel. The sequel was the incorporation of John Cald- well, John Morgan and others in 1800 as the "Union Com- pany," with the privilege of collecting tolls. A lottery was granted in 1789, for the purpose of erecting wharves at Hartford. In these and other commercial schemes, these same citizens were interested. The Hartford Bank was incorporated in 1792 "to facilitate commercial operations." Its officers and most of its directors were among the me- morialists of 1784. Indeed, wherever one finds in the records, newspapers or manuscripts of those years, the details of any new enterprise, which it was thought would be for the up-building of the City of Hartford or the welfare of its inhabitants, there the names of these citizens testify to their devotion.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.