History of New London county, Connecticut : with biographical sketches of many of its pioneers and prominent men, Part 122

Author: Hurd, D. Hamilton (Duane Hamilton)
Publication date: 1882
Publisher: Philadelphia : J.W. Lewis & Co.
Number of Pages: 1317

USA > Connecticut > New London County > History of New London county, Connecticut : with biographical sketches of many of its pioneers and prominent men > Part 122

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).

This action of the committee, instead of healing, only intensified the opposition. The northern party denied that the early agreement was of the character of a contract made between two parties, to be legally and forever binding, but had only the force and character of a vote, and as such repealable, and should be so held; that if it was originally binding, its force was broken and ceased after the setting off of Goshen Society, for by that act the contracting parties were no longer existing as one society, but had become two separate and distinct corporations ; and, over and above all, they stoutly protested against being compelled to pay their full share of the expense of a building so distant from them when they were expecting before long to form a new society and build a meeting-house for themselves.

503

LEBANON.

Upon their application another meeting of the so- ciety was called and held in 1732, at which it was voted that within eighteen years thereafter, but not before six years, there should be set off a new society in the northern part by a dividing line agreed upon and described in the vote; that until the new society should be so set off the northern settlers should con- tinue to pay their share towards the building and keeping in repair of a meeting-house on the old site ; that a separate account of all the moneys so paid by the people north of the line described should be kept; and that when the new society was formed, and had built a meeting-house of their own, all the money so paid by them should be refunded to them by the old society, to be applied towards the building of their own meeting-house ; and that application should be made to the General Assembly for an act ratifying and confirming this agreement. Application was so made, and the General Assembly, May session, 1732, by a resolve, sanctioned, ratified, and confirmed this agreement.

This restored peace ; the meeting-house was rebuilt upon the old spot by the united labors and at the common cost of all the parties; the rate-book and the amounts paid by the northern parties were kept separate and recorded in the society records, and all continued in harmony until 1767, a period of thirty- five years, although no action had been taken to form a new society as proposed. At that time, 1767, some repairs had become necessary, and at the request of the northern people a meeting of the society was called to ascertain whether the society would then, in case a new society was formed within a reasonable time, agree to repay the moneys which they, the northern people, had heretofore paid under the old agreement. The society voted that if the "village" people would procure an act of incorporation as a society within a reasonable time the old society would so pay back the money advanced in an equal term of time with that in which they had made the advancements.

No steps, however, were taken under this vote by either party, either to establish the new society or to re- pay the advancements made, doubts arising whether, from the fact that the eighteen years fixed and sanc- tioned by the General Assembly (in 1732) as the limit in which the original agreement was to have been complied with had long since expired, the new vote (of 1767) would be legally binding, and might not be revoked at any future meeting of the society. This vexed question was agitated and the old trouble con- tinued until June, 1772, when a society meeting was called at the request of the village people, at which it was voted, by a majority of two, to take down the meeting-house, and to rebuild it farther north, at the then new centre of population and travel, including the village as a part, many of the southern people uniting with the northern in favor of this vote.

Immediately upon this a large number of the south- ern inhabitants united in a petition to the General

Assembly for its further interposition, and at the October session, 1772, a committee was appointed to inquire into the facts and report their opinion. At the May session the committee reported that, after hearing the parties, they found,-

"That there was an ancient agreement that the meeting-house should stand upon Meeting-house Hill, where it now stands; that this agree- ment was entered into for good reasons, and had its influence from the beginning, and ought to be held sacred and inviolable; that in ancient times it was expected that there would be a new society in the northern part, called the village from the beginning ; and a line had been kept up between the old and new proposed societies; that when the present meeting-house was built the place was fixed under the ancient agree- ment, and with views and prospects of such new society's being formed in a future time; that provisions were made to reimburse the people living northerly what they should pay towards the building of it; that it should be and remain where it is now, according to ancient agreement, and be kept in good repair at the expense of the whole society ; and that when the village people should be set off a distinct society they ought to be repaid the sums advanced by them for building and repairing the meeting-house."

The General Assembly approved the report, fixed the location on the same old place, and provided that it should be kept in repair at the cost of the whole society, and that if the village people should form a new society within five years thereafter the old so- ciety should refund to them all the money which they had already advanced in the past towards building, or which they should thereafter advance towards repair- ing the old society meeting-house.

But still no further action was taken by the society or by either party. The General Assembly had not in its last resolution confirmed and made binding the last vote of the society, passed in 1767, agreeing to refund the money, nor reaffirmed and extended the terms of and time limited in their former resolve in May session, 1732, ratifying the vote of the society at that time passed upon the subject, and donbts still remained whether the vote of the society of 1767, or any other vote of the society, was legally so binding and final as to be beyond the power of repeal and re- vocation at any time by a major vote of the society. In this state of uncertainty, the village people feeling themselves too weak to build alone without the aid of the certain return to them of their former advance- ments, took no steps towards being set off, and so the whole subject remained in tolerable quietness until 1802.

At that time, 1802, the meeting-house again needed repairs, and at a meeting called to consider it a vote was passed by a majority present refusing to repair it. Several of the southern inhabitants thereupon again presented a memorial to the General Assembly at the October session, 1802, reciting the above facts and ask- ing some relief, whereupon, after hearing, the Assem- bly passed a very singular and peculiar resolve. It au- thorized and empowered the inhabitants south of the line proposed as a dividing line for a new society to ta.c themselves for the repairs of the meeting-house, and to call meetings, choose certain officers, and to lay and col- lect taxes for such purpose, and to make future repairs, exempting all the inhabitants north of the line from

504

HISTORY OF NEW LONDON COUNTY, CONNECTICUT.

any liability for such taxes or repairs, but making no division or set-off, and consequently impairing none of the legal rights, privileges, or franchises which the village people held in common with all others of the whole society.

Under this resolve the southern voters met, taxed themselves, raising therefrom about six hundred dol- lars, appointed a committee, and expended the sum raised in repairs.

But this did not settle the difficulty. And now commenced a more general and serious agitation than ever. At a meeting of the society, legally warned and held March 27, 1804, it was voted, by 75 yeas to 39 nays, upon a proposition then made by Daniel Tilden, Israel Loomis, John Dewey, Samuel Bailey, and John Haywood, acting as a committee,-

" That the society would relinquish all its right and interest in the meeting-house, and consent that the materials thereof should be used in the construction of a new one ; npon conditions that the said Tilden and others, as committee, would give sufficient bonds that they would build a good, commodious meeting-house for the use of the society [at a place about 1 mile northerly] at or near the then centre of the whole society, within one year from the Ist day of April next, at their own sole expense, and give full title thereto to the society, without any cost; and that the people living north of said centre, would fund their propor- tion for the support of the ministry forever."

The terms of this vote were accepted on their part by the Tilden committee, and they thereupon exe- cuted a bond in the penal sum of ten thousand dol- lars, signed by all of the committee, conditioned for the faithful performance of the contract. This bond was accepted by the society and lodged with its clerk, and twenty days after, on the 16th of April, 1804, the contractors, with a force of workmen, began peace- ably to take down the old building in order to use its materials in the construction of a new one. But the sight of the demolition of this long-loved structure, and its removal from the cherished spot for a century held sacred under the ancient agreement, deeply stirred the feelings of the southern people, and the whole so- ciety was soon in commotion. A large crowd assembled from every quarter, with: mingled emotions of grief and anger, so highly excited as to forebode actual violence.

To prevent the progress of the work writs were obtained from the local justices, and several of the workmen were arrested and held under bonds, and thereby the work was interrupted and for that day suspended, but on the 27th a larger force was em- ployed, and again a still larger crowd gathered. To protect the contractors and their workmen retaliatory or counter writs were obtained from other local jus- tices, and arrests were made of those interfering or in any way instigating interference with the contractors or their workmen. These counter measures enabled the contractors to complete during this day the taking down of the building. But this war of writs and counter writs, and the arrests made under them, had only exasperated and intensified the popular feeling, and added fuel to the flame. Doubtless these writs,

though in the forms of law, were an abuse of civil process and a perversion of its purposes. It was "sharp practice," resorted to in anger by both par- ties, and only to obstruct and harass each other. It was an unseemly strife, but it was a strife under the forms, at least, of law ; it was a war of writs and legal processes on both sides, and, however exasperating, no resistance was made to these arrests, so far as it appears, in a single instance. All held in sacred re- gard the symbols and mandates of the law.

Men of high standing and influence were thus ar- rested upon both sides, among them the Hon. William Williams, one of the signers of the immortal Declara- tion of Independence, and, it is said, at that very time a judge of the County Court, then over seventy years old, and infinitely more venerable throughout the whole land for his distinguished honors than for his years. Look at him ! A town constable approaches him, taps him on the shoulder, arrests him as a pris- oner, marches him off a mile, places him under a keeper, and holds him all day in custody, without the privilege of bail-prize, and the brave old man, whose fiery patriotism so flashed out in the dark days of the Revolution, yielding to all this with the quiet submis- sion of a lamb because of his high sense of LOYALTY TO LAW! Why, the whole scene would be sublime if it were not at the same time so supremely ridiculous as to excite our irrepressible laughter. But there was no spirit of laughter there that day in that angry crowd.

And now came the crisis. One party determined at all hazards to remove the materials and proceed in the rebuilding on the new site north, and the other party as firmly determined at all hazards to prevent it. The local authorities were powerless to restrain them, for they were themselves divided, some taking one side and some the other, as partisans, and as strongly excited and as active participants in the struggle as the parties themselves ; and mingled with all this, as a disturbing element, fierce political feuds and animosities now showed their baneful influence, for it must be remembered that the bitter political war between the old " stalwart" Federalists and the " fierce Democracy" under Jefferson's administration was at this very time at its whitest heat.

To allay this excitement, and to prevent it from breaking forth into acts of lawless personal violence beyond the power of control by the civil authorities, as was now threatening and imminently impending, the men of high character and influence upon both sides now came forward and strongly counseled for- bearance and a resort for a peaceful solution of all the great questions in controversy to the high judicial tribunals of the State. These wise counsels hap- pily prevailed. Suits in trespass were immediately brought to the Superior Court by Eliphalet Metcalf and others of the southern party against Daniel Tilden and others of the northern party for damages by demolishing the meeting-house, and all became

505

LEBANON.

quiet, awaiting peacefully the final determination of the long-standing controversy by due course of law.

In the trial of the cause before the Superior Court the whole history of the controversy, from the begin- ning of the settlement in 1697, as herein narrated, together with certified copies of all the votes and transactions of the society pertaining thereto, and a copy also of the penal bond of Tilden and others, given to the society for the enforcement of their building contract, were fully presented to the court, and admitted by both parties, and the only issues were the questions of law and equity arising upon these facts. Many issues were raised, but the great question involved, and upon which the whole case turned, was whether the "ancient agreement" fixing forever the location of the meeting-house at the place then established was still valid and irrevocable by any vote of the society however large the majority, for if that agreement was found to remain irrevo- cable, then the vote of the society to change the loca- tion was null and void, and all action under it was without authority and a trespass. But if, on the other hand, that agreement was revocable by a major vote of the society, then the action of the parties, under the authority of such vote, was lawful and justifi- able.

Upon a full hearing of the whole case the Superior Court found the issue for the plaintiffs, Metcalf and others, thus affirming the valid existence of the an- cient agreement. On a further hearing in damages another great question arose, whether the resolve of the General Assembly of 1802, authorizing a part of the society to tax themselves and repair the meeting- house, gave that part, by itself, a right to suc and re- cover, in trespass, for taking down the building under the authority of a major vote of the whole society, the building being the common property of all. The court found this issue also for the plantiffs, Metcalf and others, and awarded that they should recover of the defendants, Tilden and others, the sum of two thousand three hundred dollars damages.

A bill of exceptions was thereupon filed by the de- fendants, and the case came, by writ of error, to the June term, 1806, of the Supreme Court of Errors, at Hartford, the court consisting of two judges and twelve assistant judges, " His Excellency, Jonathan Trumbull, of Lebanon, Governor," being "chief judge." The whole case, from the beginning, with all the documents, was again presented, and upon a full hearing the court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court upon both issues, against Tilden and others,1 and this decision ended forever this long and troublesome controversy. All the parties gracefully submitted, though application was made to the Gen- eral Assembly, and granted, for a division of the so- ciety by the old line, as formerly proposed. The society rebuilt the house upon the old ground, and

has ever since remained at peace, but, as was inevit- able from the nature of the controversy, some per- sonal alienations and animosities continued to show their unpleasant influence for many years.

The taking down of the church solely for the pur- pose of using its materials in the construction of a new one unfortunately gave rise abroad, where none of the circumstances here related were known, to the wild stories that were widely circulated regarding it. These stories represented the transaction merely as the lawless work of a ruthless and infuriated mob, bent only on the wanton destruction, in broad day- light, of their own sacred house of worship. It was called an infidel, a sacrilegious mob ! Such was the bald version of the story abroad, without any explana- tion, palliation, or even knowledge of its real char- acter. It was surely too improbable, too absurd, too monstrous for rational belief or public credence. The high renown which this town had ever maintained, and the world-wide fame of its eminently distin- guished men, should have been sufficient at once to have stamped such a story everywhere as a manifest misrepresentation, perversion, and calumny. It nevertheless gained a lodgment in the public mind, was published abroad in the newspapers of the day, and has even crept into sober history, and thus brought undeserved reproach upon the fair fame of the town.

It is time this calumny was swept away, and its true character shown by the still-preserved and in- contestable records of the society itself, and by the records, also, of the high court which adjudicated, in the day of it, the whole transaction.

Society Statistics .- The churches have been or- ganized as follows, viz. :

FIRST CHURCH .- Organized Nov. 27, 1700. Min- isters, Joseph Parsons, 1700-8; Samuel Wells, 1711- 22; Sol. Williams, D.D., 1722-76; Zebulon Ely, 1782-1824; Edward Bull, 1825-37 ; John C. Nichols, 1840-54; Orlo D. Hine, 1856, present pastor.

CHURCH IN COLUMBIA (FORMERLY "LEBANON CRANK") .- Organized 1720. Ministers, Samuel Smith, 1720-24; William Gager, 1725-34; Eleazer Whec- lock, D.D., 1735-70; Thomas Brockway, 1772-1807. The town of Columbia was set off from Lebanon in 1800, and this society was embraced in the new town.

CHURCH IN GOSHEN (LEBANON) .- Organized Nov. 26, 1729. Ministers, Jacob Elliot, 1729-66; Timothy Stone, 1766-97 ; William B. Ripley, 1798-1822; Eras- tus Ripley, 1823-32; Salmon Cone, 1832-34; Israel T. Otis, 1835-44; Joshua R. Brown, 1845-52; Elijah W. Tucker, 1853-58; Aaron B. Livermore, 1860-68 ; Daniel B. Lord, 1868-77 ; M. Quincey Bosworth, 1877, present pastor.

CHURCH IN EXETER (LEBANON). - Organized 1773. Ministers, John Gurley, 1775-1812; John H. Fowler, 1813-21; Daniel Waldo, 1823-34; Lyman Strong, 1835-41; Stephen Hayes, 1841-46 ; John Av-

1 See Tilden rs. Metcalf, 2d of Day, p. 251-79, Conn. Rep., for a full re- port of this case.

506

HISTORY OF NEW LONDON COUNTY, CONNECTICUT.

ery, 1848-73 ; Charles C. Herbert, 1874-78; David Breed, 1878, present stated supply.

BAPTIST CHURCH (LEBANON) .- Constituted Sep- tember, 1805. Ministers, Nehemiah Dodge, 1805-15 ; Daniel Putnam, 1815-18; Esck Brown, 1818-34; John H. Baker, 1834-36; Levi Meech, 1836-38; Na- than Wildman, 1838-51; Nathaniel W. Miner, 1851- 52; T. Bennet, 1853-55; O. Cunningham, 1855-65; B. S. Morse, 1865-70; George L. Putnam, 1870-79; Asa C. Bronson, 1879, present minister.

"CHRISTIAN CHURCH" (LIBERTY HILL, LEBA- NON). - Organized about 1810 by Elder Plumber. Successive ministers, viz. : Dexter Ballard, Dr. Rob- inson, Warren Hathaway, James Burlingame, Elisha H. Wright, Frederick Coc. Reorganized as a Free Will Baptist Church in 1873, but have no service.

MINISTERS OF THE GOSPEL born or reared in Lebanon ; list as far as known, not including Colum- bia : Peter Pratt, Eliphalet Williams, D.D., Eliphalet Huntington, Daniel Throop, Joseph Lyman, D.D., William Robinson, David Huntington, John Gris- wold, Eliphalet Lyman, John Robinson, Elijah Par- ish, D.D., Lynde Huntington, Ariel Parish, William Lyman, D.D., Asa Lyman, Andrew Huntington, Abraham Fowler, Richard Williams, Shubael Bart- lett, John Bartlett, Ralph B. Gurley, Ezra Styles Ely, Nathaniel Freeman, Daniel Huntington, Dyer T. Hinckley, Timothy Stone, Jonathan T. Ely, David F. Ely, David Metcalf, Orrin Fowler, Warren B. Dutton, D.D., Flavel Bascom, D.D., Hobart McCall, Samuel G. Buckingham, D.D., Elijah F. Rockwell, James A. Clark, Salmon McCall, William M. Burch- ard, Henry D. Woodworth, Henry Gay. Total, 40.

College Graduates, who were either natives of or went from Lebanon to college:

HARVARD. - Jonathan Trumbull, 1727; Nathan Tisdale, 1749; William Williams, 1751; Joseph Trumbull, 1756 ; Jonathan Trumbull, Jr., 1759 ; John Trumbull, 1773; Eliphalet Birchard, 1843. Total, 7.

YALE .- James Calkin, 1725; Benj. Throop, 1734; Joshua West, 1738; Peter Sweetland, 1740 ; Gersham Clark, Joseph Fowler, Samuel Huntington, Elipha- let Williams, and Solomon Williams, Jr., all in 1743; David Strong, 1745; Pelatiah Webster, 1746 ; Joseph Clark, 1747 ; John Clark and Nathaniel Porter, 1749 ; Joseph William Bissell, 1751; Joshua Porter, 1754; Ephraim Fitch, John Smalley, and Thomas Williams, M.D., all in 1756; Jonathan Lyman, 1758; Eliphalet Huntington, 1759; Jonathan Bascom, 1764; Joseph Lyman, 1767; David Huntington, 1773; Abraham Fowler, 1775; Eliphalet Lyman, 1776; John Robin- son, Rev., D.D., 1780; Daniel Crocker, 1782; Charles White, 1783; Joseph Eliot, Jabez Huntington, and William Lyman, all in 1784; Dyer Throop Hinckley, 1785; Joshua Dewey, 1787; Lynde Huntington and Jeremiah Mason, 1788; Solomon Williams, 1792; Dan Huntington, 1794; Stephen Thatcher and William Trumbull Williams, 1795; Diodate Brockway, Asa-

hel Clark, Warren Dutton, and Asa Lyman, all in 1797; David Young, 1798; Shubael Bartlett, 1800; Roswell Bailey, Samuel Holbrook, and Joseph Trum- bull, all in 1801; Richard Williams, 1802; Ezra Stiles Ely and Eliphalet Swift, 1804; Clark Bissell (Governor of Connecticut), Josiah Bartlett Strong, and Ichabod Brewster, all in 1806; John Bartlett and Jonathan G. W. Trumbull, 1807; Orrin Fowler and Andrew Huntington, 1815; Rufus Huntington and James Fitch Mason, 1817; Ralph Randolph Gurley, 1818; Joseph Dyer Chapman, 1826 ; Flavel Bascom, 1828; Warren Backus Dutton, 1829; Amasa Dewey, 1832; Samuel Giles Buckingham, 1833; James Au- gustus Clark and Elijah Frink Rockwell, 1834; Ju- lian Vail Pettis, 1836; William Metcalf Birchard, 1837; Henry Strong McCall, 1842; Edwin Wright, 1844; Nathaniel Williams Manning, 1847; Albert Hebard and Salmon McCall, 1851; John Elderkin, 1852; Edward Strong Hinkley and Arthur Williams Wright, 1859; Daniel Hebard, 1860; Alexander Hamilton Wright, 1863; Charles Daniel Hine, 1871; Leroy B. Peckham, 1880. Total, 83.

Graduates from the Medical Department, Yale .- Jo- seph Peabody, 1821; Charles Hubbard Dutton, 1826 ; Elisha Hutchinson, 1828; Jeremiah Nathaniel Pea- body, 1831 ; Oliver Kingsley, 1832; Charles Osgood, 1833; Alonzo Fuller, 1842; Jeremiah King, 1846. Total, S.

Attended Medical Lectures for a time at Yale, but did not Graduate .- Jotham Sexton, 1821 ; Wm. Chauncey Williams, 1822; Samuel W. Ripley, 1830; Wmn. Wat- tles, 1831 ; Stephen Champlain, 1837 ; Gilbert Fuller, 1843. Total, 6.

Members of Yale who did not Graduate .- David Trumbull, drowned, 1740, while in college; Henry Porter, 1782; John Ward Gurley, 1796 (A.M., Yale, 1799); Eleazer A. Hutchinson and Daniel Strong, 1802 (latter d. sen. yr.) ; Solomon W. Williams, 1803; John Trumbull and Edward Young, 1806; Ebenezer Dewey and Thomas B. Powers, 1815; John Carrier and Solomon Goodrich Gilbert, 1833; George W. Standish, 1843. Total, 13.

DARTMOUTH .- John Wheelock (second pres., and son of Eleazer, first pres. of Dartmouth Coll.), 1771; David Huntington, 1773 ; Samuel Collins, 1775; Abel Curtis and Eleazer Wheelock, Jr., 1776; Jedediah Parker, Buckingham, Elijah Dewey, and Elisha Smith, 1779; Elisha Picknor, 1783; Joseph Clark and Elijah Parish, 1785; Erastus Clark and Charles Marsh, 1786 ; Daniel Ordway Gillett, Walter Harris, and Elijah Lyman, 1787; Ariel Parish and Ezra Woodworth, 1788; Josiah Dunham, Lathrop Rock- well, and Joel West, 1789; Bezaleel Pinneo and John Walbridge, 1791; Richard English Newcomb, 1793; Bezalcel Bliss, 1794. Total, 25.

WILLIAMS .- David Mason, 1796; Samuel Selden Loomis, 1811; Alfred Wright, 1812. Total, 3.

PRINCETON .- Josiah Thatcher, 1760. MIDDLEBURY .- David Metcalf, 1819.

507

LEBANON.

AMHERST .- Henry Dwight Woodworth, 1855. BROWN UNIVERSITY .- Luther Robinson, William Randall Sexton,1 1834. Total, 5. Grand total, 150.

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.

History of New London county, Connecticut : with biographical sketches of many of its pioneers and prominent men, Part 122

Author: Hurd, D. Hamilton (Duane Hamilton) Publication date: 1882 Publisher: Philadelphia : J.W. Lewis & Co. Number of Pages: 1317

Author: Hurd, D. Hamilton (Duane Hamilton)
Publication date: 1882
Publisher: Philadelphia : J.W. Lewis & Co.
Number of Pages: 1317