USA > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge > History of Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1630-1877. With a genealogical register > Part 22
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 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88
206
HISTORY OF CAMBRIDGE.
Legislature of this Commonwealth now in session, and to state such facts and to petition for such measures in regard to this matter as they may judge proper. Voted, that the Committee consist of the following gentlemen : Hon. Francis Dana, Esq., Hon. Elbridge Gerry, Esq., Hon. Jonathan L. Austin, Esq., Messrs. Royal Makepeace and John Hayden."
The Committee, thus appointed, presented to the General Court a long and very energetic remonstrance, a copy of which remains on file in the office of the City Clerk. They commence by alleging " that the inhabitants of Cambridge and Cambridge- port are deeply afflicted by the incessant machinations and in- trigues of Mr. Andrew Craigie, in regard to roads ; " in proof of which they refer to the fact that, at the last session of the Gen- eral Court, Mr. Craigie caused two petitions to be presented for the appointment of a committee with extraordinary powers to lay out roads in Cambridge ; that these petitions " seemed by their tenor to proceed from disinterested persons, whereas some of the petitioners were proprietors of the Canal Bridge, and others deeply interested in lands connected with the proposed roads ; and Mr. Craigie, who was not a petitioner, supported them in person and with two lawyers, in the absence of all the petitioners ; these two petitions being manifestly, as the remon- strants had stated, a continuation of a plan of him and his coad- jutors, commenced in 1797, and invariably pursued to 1809, to turn the travel to that quarter; and the same game he is evi- dently now playing, by the petition signed by T. H. Perkins and others." " That such a petition, viz. to lay out roads without number, with courses undefined, by a committee of the Legisla- ture, your remonstrants conceive, never was before offered to any Court, Legislative or Judicial, of Massachusetts ; " that a Bill reported in accordance with these petitions, was rejected ; " that the principal object of all these petitions, viz. to open a road from Mr. Wyeth's sign-post to Mr. Fayerweather's corner,1 has been three times before the Court of Sessions of Middlesex, has been as often rejected by it, and has been once suppressed after it had obtained by intrigue and surprise the sanction of that honorable Court ; and it is now a fifth time pending in the exist- ing Court of Sessions of that County ; that the petition of T. H. Perkins and others prays for a committee to explore, view, and mark out new highways from the westerly end of the Canal Bridge to communicate with the great roads into the country,"
1 Namely, Brattle Street, from Fresh Pond Lane to Fayerweather Street.
207
CIVIL HISTORY.
etc. ; " that this petition is predicated on the feeble pretence that there is not any public highway leading to the west end of said Bridge, - an highway which Mr. Craigie has ever had it in his power, by a petition to the town, to attain, and which is now ordered by a vote of the town, by removing every obstacle to be laid out and established." This remonstrance was effectual ; the committee, to whom the petition was referred, reported that " it is inexpedient for the Legislature to appoint any Committee to view or mark out any of the highways aforesaid ; " and the re- port was accepted.
Agreeably to the vote of the town, before recited, the Select- men laid out a road over the lands of Hill and others, so as to make a continuous avenue from Canal. Bridge to Cambridge Common ; and the road was accepted by the town July 10, 1809. But this was not satisfactory to Mr. Craigie ; 1 and on the fol- lowing day (July 11) he presented a petition to the Court of Sessions, that a road might be " laid out from the west end of the Canal Bridge in a straight line through the lands of Andrew Craigie, Henry Hill, Aaron Hill,2 Rufus Davenport, Royal Make- peace, William Winthrop, Harvard College, and John Phillips, over what is called Foxcroft Street, to the Common in said Cam- bridge, and over and across said Common to or near the house of Deacon Josiah Moore," which "road is already made over the whole of it, except a few rods only." This petition was referred to a committee, who reported in its favor, Aug. 1, 1809 ; where- upon another committee was appointed, who reported Sept. 11, the laying out of the road, with a schedule of land damages amounting to $2,055 ; whereof the sum of $1,327 was awarded to Andrew Craigie, and $292 to William Winthrop.
The town, considering it to be unreasonable that Mr. Craigie should claim and receive damages for land used in the construc- tion of a road which he so much desired, and for which he had so long been earnestly striving, petitioned the Court of Sessions in December, 1809, for the appointment of a jury, " to determine whether any and what damages said Craigie has sustained by means of said road," alleging " that in fact said Craigie sustained no damages." At the next term of the Court, in March, 1810, it was ordered that a jury be empanelled, and at the next term in June, Edward Wade, Coroner, returned the verdict of the
1 The road, as laid out by the town, structed by Mr. Craigie, and no damages did not include the portion already con- were awarded.
2 No land of Aaron Hill was taken.
1 208
HISTORY OF CAMBRIDGE.
jury, and the case was continued to December, when the verdict was set aside by the Court, and it was ordered that another jury be empanelled. The case was then continued to March, and again to June, 1811, when Nathan Fiske, Coroner, returned the verdict of the jury, which the Court set aside, and continued the case to the next September, when neither party appeared.
On petition of the town of Cambridge, setting forth that two cases in which said town was petitioner for a jury to assess the damages, if any, suffered by Andrew Craigie and William Win- throp for " land taken for the highway from the Canal Bridge to Cambridge Common," had accidentally been dropped from the docket of the Court of Sessions, and praying relief, the General Court, June 22, 1812, ordered the Court of Sessions " to restore said cases to the docket," and to proceed " as if they had never been dismissed therefrom." Accordingly, on the records of the Court of Sessions, Jan. 5, 1813, the former proceedings are recited, together with the action of the General Court, and a mandamus from the Supreme Judicial Court, requiring the Court of Sessions at this Jannary Term, to " accept and cause to be recorded the verdict aforesaid, according to the law in such case made and pro- vided, or signify to us cause to the contrary." The record proceeds thus : " And on a full hearing of the parties in the premises, the Court here do accept said verdict, and do order that it be recorded ; which verdict is as follows: We, David Town- send jr., Thomas Biglow, Thomas Sanderson, Nathaniel Brown, William Wellington jr., Jonas Brown, Ephraim Peirce, Jacob Gale, Moses Fuller, Thadeus Peirce, Arthur Train, and Gregory Clark, having been summoned, empanelled, and as a jury sworn to hear and determine on the complaint of the town of Cambridge against Andrew Craigie, have heard the parties, duly considered their several allegations, and on our oaths do say, that, by the laying ont and establishing of the highway from Cambridge Com- mon to Canal Bridge, and by the passage of the same highway over lands of Andrew Craigie, the said Craigie las sustained no damage." It may be added, that the same proceedings were had in regard to the damage awarded to William Winthrop ; and the jury, in like manner, determined that " the said Winthrop has sustained no damage."
Thus ended the exciting contest concerning Mount Auburn and Cambridge streets. I have entered so fully into the details, partly because they illustrate the character of the long-continued rivalry between the two bridges, but chiefly because I have been
209
CIVIL HISTORY.
assured by the late Abraham Hilliard, Esq., that in the trial of the Cambridge Street case, the principle of law was first announced and established in the courts of this Commonwealth, that the damage which a land owner sustains by the taking of his land for a highway, and the benefit which he derives from its construction, shall be equitably adjusted, and offset against each other ; and if the benefit be equal to the damage, he shall receive nothing more.
14
CHAPTER XIV.
CIVIL HISTORY.
ALTHOUGH Cambridge was early abandoned as the seat of gov- erminent, it maintained from the beginning a prominent rank among the towns in the Colony. It was designated, before the establishment of counties, as one of the four towns in which Judicial Courts should be held. Having until that time exercised the whole power of the Colony, both legislative and judicial, the General Court ordered, March 3, 1635-6, " That there shall be four courts kept every quarter ; 1. at Ipswich, to which Newe- berry shall belong; 2. at Salem, to which Saugus shall belong ; 3. at Newe Towne, to which Charlton, Concord, Meadford, and Waterton shall belong; 4th, at Boston, to which Rocksbury, Dorchester, Weymothe, and Hingham shall belong. Every of these Courts shall be kept by such magistrates as shall be dwell- ing in or near the said towns, and by such other persons of worth as shall from time to time be appointed by the General Court, so as no court shall be kept without one magistrate at the least and that none of the magistrates be excluded, who can and will intend the same."1 And when the Colony was divided into counties, May 10, 1643,2 the courts continued to be held in Cambridge, as the shire-town of Middlesex. As " the business of the courts there is much increased," it was ordered, Oct. 19, 1652, that two additional sessions should be held for that county in each year, both at Charlestown. These courts were continued for many years, and a court house and jail were erected in that town. At a later date, courts were established and similar build- ings erected in Concord, and also, at a comparatively recent day, at Lowell. All these places were regarded as " half-shires "; but the County Records were never removed from Cambridge, as the principal shire, except as follows : During the usurpation of Sir Edmund Andros, he appointed Capt. Laurence Hammond of Charlestown to be Clerk of the Courts and Register of Probate
1 Mass. Col. Rec .. i. 169.
2 Ibid., ii. 38.
211
· CIVIL HISTORY.
and Deeds, wlio removed the records to Charlestown. After the revolution and the resumption of government under the forms of the old Charter, Captain Hammond denied that the existing courts had any legal authority, and refused to surrender the rec- ords which were in his possession. The General Court there- fore ordered, Feb. 18, 1689-90, " that Capt. Laurence Hammond deliver to the order of the County Court for Middlesex the rec- ords of that county ; that is to say, all books and files by him formerly received from Mr. Danforth, sometime Recorder of that County, as also all other books of record, and files belonging to said county in his custody."1 A year afterwards, Feb. 4, 1690-1, the Marshal General was directed to summon Captain Hammond to appear and show cause why he had not surrendered the Mid- dlesex Records ; and on the next day, he " peremptorily denying to appear," the General Court ordered the Marshal General to arrest him forthwith, with power to break open his house if nec- essary.2 The records were at length surrendered. Again, at a town meeting, May 11, 1716, an attempt was made to reclaim missing records : " Whereas the Register's office in the County of Middlesex is not kept in our town of Cambridge, which is a grievance unto us, Voted, that our Representative be desired to represent said grievance to the honorable General Court, and in- treat an Act of said Court that said office may forthwith be re- moved into our town, according to law, it being the shire-town in said county."3 By the records of the General Court it appears that on the 8th of June, 1716, Colonel Goffe complained that no office for the registry of deeds was open in Cambridge, being the shire-town of Middlesex ; the Representative of Charlestown in- sisted that his town was the shire ; and a hearing was ordered.4 A week afterwards, June 15, " upon hearing of the towns of Cam- bridge and Charlestown as to their respective claims of being the shire-town of the County of Middlesex, resolved that Cambridge is the shire-town of said County. Read and non-concurred by the Representatives." 5 The case between the two towns being again heard, June 13, 1717, it was resolved by the whole court, that " Cambridge is the shire-town of the said county ; "6 and on the following day it was voted in concurrence " that the public office for registering of deeds and conveyances of lands for the County
1 Mass. Prov. Rec., vi. 117.
2 Ibid., vi. 173.
8 Samuel Phipps, Esq., of Charlestown, succeeded Captain Hammond as Register
of Deeds, and kept his office and the rec- ords in Charlestown up to this time.
4 Mass. Prov. Rec., x. 63.
6 Ibid., p. 68.
6 Ibid., p. 145.
212
HISTORY OF CAMBRIDGE.
of Middlesex be forthwith opened and kept at the shire-town of Cambridge." 1 This order was immediately obeyed.
I have not ascertained when or where the house was erected in which the judicial courts were first held in Cambridge. It seems to have been burned in 1671. In the Court Files of that year, is a document commencing thus : " At a County Court held at Cambridge, 4 (8) 1671. After the burning of the Court House, wherein was also burnt the Court Book of Records for trials, and several deeds, wills and inventories, that have been de- livered into Court before the fire was kindled," etc. 2 The Court afterwards passed this order : " Upon information that several Records belonging to this County were casually burnt in the burning of the house where the Court was usually kept, this Court doth order that the Recorder take care that out of the foul copies and other scripts in his custody he fairly draw forth the said Records into a Book, and present the same to the County Court, when finished : and that the Treasurer of the County do allow him for the same."3 The first Court House of which we have any definite knowledge, was erected, about 1708, in Har- vard Square, nearly in front of the present Lyceum Hall.4 It ap- pears by the Proprietors' Records that "at a meeting of the Proprietors of Cambridge, orderly convened, the 26 day of Jan- uary 1707-8, - Voted, That the land where Mr. John Bunker's shop now stands, with so much more as will be sufficient to erect the Court House upon (to be built in this town), be granted for that end, in case a Committee appointed by the Proprietors do agree with Andrew Bordman and John Bunker for building a lower story under it . . . . Deac. Nathaniel Hancock, Jason Russell, and Lieut. Amos Marrett, were chosen a committee to agree with said Bunker and Bordman about building under the said house."
The Committee reported, Feb. 9, 1607-8: " Pursuant to the aforesaid appointment, we, the subscribers above mentioned, have agreed with and granted liberty unto the said John Bunker and Andrew Bordman to make a lower room under the said
1 Mass. Prov. Rec., x. 147.
2 The volume which was burned con- tained the Records after October, 1663, up to October 4, 1671.
8 County Court Rec., iii. 173.
4 This Court House stood where the Market House was erected more than a century later. Its position is indicated
on a pen and ink plan drawn about 1750, and here reproduced by permission of its owner, Henry Wheatland, M. D., of Sa- lem. The Court House (called Town- house on the plan) stood further south than is here represented, - its northerly end being several feet south of the south- erly front of the meeting-house.
SQUARE.
TO WATERTOWN
COMMON.
THE
TO WATERTOWN
3F
-
14
13
‹
2
1
THE WAY DOWN YE NECH.
EXPLANATION.
1
5
6
1. Meeting house.
2. Town house.
3. Coledge.
4. Mr. Moriss house.
5. Mr. Whitemores house.
6. Mr. Stedmans house.
7. Schol house.
8. Mr. Foxcroftes house.
9. Mr. Bradishes house.
10. Presidents house.
II. The burying place.
12. Col. Bratles house.
13. Dr. Wigglesworths.
14. Mr. Appletons.
CAMBRIDGE
CAUSEY
.
ABOUT 1750.
BRIDGE
CAMBRIDGE RIVER.
+
.
THE WAY TO CHARLESTOWN.
PLACE.
MARKET
PRISON.
.
10
213
CIVIL HISTORY.
house (which we apprehend will be about thirty foot in length and twenty-four foot in width), the said lower room to be about seven or eight foot stud, betwixt joints, with a cellar under the whole of the said house ; the aforesaid lower room and cellar to be for the use of the said John Bunker and Andrew Bordman, their heirs and assigns forever, excepting an entry through the middle of the said lower room, of about six foot wide, and a stairway for passage into the said Court House, or chamber, as the committee for building the same shall see meet ; the remain- der of the said lower room and the whole of the said cellar to be for the use and benefit of the said John Bunker and Andrew Bordman, their heirs and assigns, forever, as aforesaid. It is the true intent and meaning of this agreement, that the said John Bunker and Andrew Bordman shall, at their own cost and charge, build the cellar and lower room aforesaid, and finish the same up to the girts, and keep so much of the said buildings as appertains to them the said Bunker and Bordman, viz., up to the girts afore- said, in good repair, at all times, on penalty of paying treble damage that the upper room may sustain by reason of the said Bunker and Bordman's neglect in causing their part of said build- ing to be kept in good repair," etc. The County Court had previously " Ordered, that there be allowed out of the County Treasury towards the erecting a suitable Court House for the use of the County in the town of Cambridge, thirty pounds, the one half thereof to be paid at the raising and covering, and the other half at the finishing of the same ; the said house to be not less than four and twenty foot wide and eight and twenty foot long, and of height proportionable."1 This house, diminutive as its proportions now appear, was used by the courts for about half a century. But in 1756 the Court of Sessions appointed a com- mittee to provide better accommodations, either by enlarging and repairing the old house or erecting a new one. Whereupon the town, Nov. 2, 1756, declared by vote its willingness to pay its customary proportion of the cost of a " new Court House, to be erected, of such model and dimensions, and in such place in the town, as the Committee of said Court shall judge most suitable and commodious : provided the materials of the old meeting-house now about to be taken down, be given and applied (so far as they shall be wanted) to that use, together with the town's pro- portion of the present Court House." On the 29th of the same month, the Proprietors voted to grant land, " not exceeding one
1 Sessions Records, April 23, 1707.
214
HISTORY OF CAMBRIDGE.
quarter of an acre, whereon to erect a new Court House," the place to be determined by a joint committee of the proprietors, of the town, and of the Court of Sessions. At length a lot of land, where Lyceum Hall now stands, was purchased of Caleb Prentice, who conveyed the same Nov. 5, 1757, to William Brat- tle, Andrew Bordman, and Edmund Trowbridge, for the use of the town of Cambridge, and county of Middlesex, "for erecting and continuing a Court House upon forever hereafter." On this lot a house was erected, more spacious than the former, and was occupied by the courts more than half a century. An attempt was afterwards made to erect another edifice in the centre of Har- vard Square ; and the Proprietors voted, June 14, 1784, " to give and grant to the town of Cambridge, for ever, so much land ad- joining to the land on which the old Court Honse stood (which was nearly opposite to where the present Court House stands), as shall be sufficient to make up a piece forty six feet square ; including and surrounding the land on which the old Court House stood (which was thirty feet by twenty-four feet), for the purpose of erecting a building to keep the County Records and hold the Probate Courts in."1 It does not appear, how- ever, that any such building was erected. An ineffectual attempt was also made in 1806 by prominent men in Cambridgeport to induce the County to erect a court house on the easterly side of what was long called the " meeting-house lot," bounded by Broadway, and Bordman, Harvard, and Columbia streets. Andrew Craigie and his associates were more successful. Having given ample grounds, and erected a court house and jail at an expense of $24,000, as related in chapter xiii., they were re- warded by the removal of the courts and records in 1816 to the edifices prepared for them, where they remain to this day. The old Court House having been abandoned by the County was used for town and parish purposes until April 19, 1841, when the town quitclaimed all its right and interest in the house and the lot (containing about ten perches) of land on which it stood for the nominal consideration of one dollar, to Omen S. Keith and others, in trust for the use of the proprietors of the Lyceum Hall to be erected on the premises ; provided, nevertheless, that the grantees " do and shall forever grant and secure to the town the right of the inhabitants of the first Ward in said Cambridge to the use of the Hall for all necessary meetings of the voters in said Ward." The old Court House was soon afterwards removed to Palmer Street ; it still remains, being occupied for secular purposes.
1 Proprietors' Records.
215
CIVIL HISTORY.
The earliest notice which I have found of a place of imprison- ment in Cambridge is contained in the following report, preserved in the Middlesex Court Files : -
" January the 7th 1655. Wee, whose names are underwritten, being appoynted by the County Cort of Middlesex to provide a house of Correction, with a fit person to keep the same, do make our return to the honored Court as followeth : Impr. Wee have bargained and bought of Andrew Stevenson of Cambridge his dwelling house with about half a rood of land adjoyning to the same, being bounded with Mr. Collines on the north and east, and the highway on west and south,1 with all the appurtenances and privileges thereoff ; the said Andrew hereby covenanting and promising, for him and his heyres to make legal conveyance
thereoff to the County when thereunto demanded. In consid- eration whereoff we do covenant with the said Andrew Steven- son, his heyres and assignes to pay and satisfie to him or his assignes sixteen pounds in cattle or 18" in corne, at or before the first of May next; and at the same time the said Andrew to de- liver his house in as good repaire as now it is for the use of the County. Also wee have agreed with our brother Edward Goffe to errect an addition thereunto, in length 26 foote and in propor- tion to the other house, and a stack of chimneys in the midle, and to finish the same as may be most sutable for the work and end proposed. Also, wee do desire the honored Court to allow unto our brother Andrew Stevenson (who hath willingly at our request yelded himselfe to the service of the County in that place) such an annual stipend as may be due incouragement to continue the same with all diligence and faithfulnes, according as need shall require.
EPHRAIM CHILD, EDWARD JACKSON, RALPH MOUSELL, EDWARD GOFFE."
On the other side is endorsed, - " This witnesseth that I, An- drew Stevenson, do consent to the within named propositions and covenant, as witnes my hand this 7th. 11mo. 1655.2
ANDREW A. S. STEVENSON."
1 The House of Correction stood on the easterly side of Holyoke Street, about two hundred feet northerly from the pres- ent location of Mount Auburn Street. After the ercetion of a jail, this estate
was reconveyed to Stevenson, whose heirs sold it to Jonathan Nutting, March 25, 1695.
2 By the Court Records and Files, it appears that the House of Correction or
216
HISTORY OF CAMBRIDGE.
In October, 1660, the County Court ordered, that the House of Correction, or Bridewell, should be used as a prison for the County, until further provision be made. Such provision was made by the erection of a jail 1 before Aug. 26, 1692, when it was ordered by the Court, " that the County Treasurer take care that their majesties Goal at Cambridge be repaired, for the com- fortable being of what persons may be committed forthwith." 2 It was also ordered, Dec. 14, 1703, " that an addition be made to the prison at the west end thereof, of eighteen foot square, with studs conformable to the old house." A dozen years later, the old part of the prison became so unsatisfactory, that the Court appointed "a committee to agree with carpenters and other workmen to erect and build a good well-timbered house in Cam- bridge for a Prison, for the accommodation of a keeper, to be thirty-six foot long, and for width agreeable to the foundation of the old Goal or Prison, two storeys high, fifteen foot stud, with a stack of chymneys in the middle, to be done and finished work- manlike, as soon as may be conveniently effected. .... Further ordered, that Coll. Edmund Goffe, the present Sheriff, repaire
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.