USA > Massachusetts > Norfolk County > History of Norfolk County, Massachusetts, 1622-1918, vol 1 > Part 12
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
"THOMAS GARDNER ) In the name
"BENJAMIN WHITE of the
"ROGER ADAMS | Inhabitants."
Upon this petition the General Court failed to take any action, or at least no record of any action can be found, and the relations between the Town of Boston and the settlement at Muddy River continued without change for about two years longer. Then, the population of the hamlet having increased to such an extent that the people felt able to support a town government of their own, decided to take such steps as might be necessary for their separation from Boston.
INCORPORATION OF BROOKLINE
Accordingly, on March 11, 1700, a petition signed by nearly every man resident at Muddy River, was sent to the parent town asking that they be set off as a separate district or hamlet from Boston. The petition was not favorably received by the people of Boston, for at a town meeting on the very day it was presented the following action was taken :
"Upon the Petition of the Inhabitants of Muddy River to be a District or Hamlet, separate from the Town of Boston for these reasons, following, viz., the remoteness of the situation, which renders them incapable of enjoying equal bene- fit and advantage with other of the Inhabitants of Publick Schooles for the instruction of their children, relief of their Poor, and Repairing of their Highways.
"Their petition being read and reasons given therein debated, It was voted in the negative, and that though they had not for some years been rated in the Town
89
HISTORY OF NORFOLK COUNTY
rate, yet for the time to come, the Selectmen should vote them in the Town Tax as the other Inhabitants, and as formerly they used to be, and for their encour- agement it was voted that the Selectmen should provide a schoolmaster for them to teach their children to read, write and cypher, and order him his payment out of the Town Treasury.
"A True Coppie as entered with the records of the Town of Boston. "JOSEPH PROUT, Town Clerk."
That the people of Muddy River were greatly disappointed at this reception of their petition may be easily imagined, and doubtless some ill-feeling was de- veloped among them. Matters were allowed to drift along without change for about three years, when the inhabitants of the hamlet decided to appeal to a higher power for relief. Accordingly the following petition for presentation to the General Court was prepared and circulated for signatures :
"To His Excellency the Governor, Council and Assembly :
"The humble petition of the Inhabitants of Muddy River, Humbly Sheweth, That they are a Hamlet belonging to Boston, have been lately settled there and sometime since in the year 1686 being grown to a good number of inhabitants represented to the Government then in being, praying to be acquitted from paying duties and taxes to the Town of Boston, being then willing to bear their public charges of Bridges, Highwaies and Poor, and were accordingly then released and ordered to maintain a Reading and Writing Schoole as the order annexed will show, which accordingly we have ever since done, and now further humbly pray that being grown to a greater number of good settled inhabitants we may be al- lowed a separate right to have Selectmen, and all other rights belonging to a Township, which may further encourage us as we are able to settle a minister and other benefits amongst us, and we shall ever pray."
The petition was signed by Samuel Aspinwall, Thomas Gardner, Sr., Samuel Sewall, Jr., Thomas Steadman, Sr., Benjamin White, Joseph White, John Win- chester, Sr., and Josiah Winchester. It came before the General Assembly on June 17, 1704, when it was ordered "That the Selectmen of Boston have a copy of this petition and be heard thereon at ye next Session of this Court." On November 1, 1704, the Council ordered "That the Selectmen of Boston bee notified to attend on Saturday morning, the fourth, current, November 4, 1704." It is not certain that the Boston selectmen obeyed the summons, probably because they were not ready to present their side of the case, and the petition was continued to the next session.
At a meeting held in the Boston Town Hall on March 12, 1705, Elisha Cook, Joseph Bridgham, Ephraim Savage, Bezour Allen and Oliver Noyes were ap- pointed a committee "to consider and draw up what they shall think proper (on behalf of this Town) to lay before the General Court at their next session relating to a petition of sundry of the Inhabitants of Muddy River, that the said District be dismist from the Town of Boston and be admitted to be a Town of themselves." Following is the report of that committee :
"Upon perusal of the said petition (we) observed that several sessions of the General Court have passed after the time set for the hearing thereof, and that consequently the matter then fell; however, if it be again revived by any new petition or order, we think it proper to lay before the Court the unreasonableness
90
HISTORY OF NORFOLK COUNTY
of their demand, they having been hitherto supported by the Town while they were not able themselves to defray their necessary public charges, now increasing upon us and the body of ye town abounding with poor, and such as are not capable to defray, but rather greatly increase the charges for the Inhabitants of Muddy River at such a time, and being themselves now grown more oppulent and capable to be helpful to ye town, to be sent from us seems most unreasonable, and in them very ungrateful and may be a bad example to others to endeavor the like, and to cutt the town into such shreds, as will best suit themselves without any due regard to ye public Intrist, the charge of the Road upon ye neck is great and is still growing and ye petitioners and Inhabitants of Muddy River have had more benefit and do more to increase the charge of that way than all the rest of the town. Several other things might be instanced which the Selectmen are well acquainted with and we think they ought (if the General Court see cause to proceed on the petition) to pray to be heard therein."
On June 15, 1705, the petition came up in the Council and it was ordered that the selectmen of Boston be given an opportunity to be heard on the 19th. The House concurred in this action and the next mention of the matter is found in the journal of the House for June 20, 1705, when it was "Resolved that since the time of hearing of ye premises before this Court is Slipt, there should be a hearing thereof on fryday next at three of the Clock in ye afternoon, and that ye Select- men of Boston be notified thereof."
The Council concurred and this time the selectmen of Boston appeared and submitted the following answer to the petition :
"To his Excellency, Joseph Dudley, Esq., Captain-General and Commander- in-chief, and to ye Honorable, ye Council and Assembly :
"The Answer of ye Selectmen and ye Committee of ye Town of Boston, to ye Inhabitants of Muddy River, Humbly Sheweth, That they have been as easy in this Town as they could in reason desire. That they have not urged anything in their petitions to the contrary. This Town has never called on them to support the ministry of the town as is usual in like cases in ye Country. They have not been enjoined to watchings and wardings, either stated or occasionally, which has layn heavy on ye body of the Town. That they have constantly had ye nomi- nations of their own officers ye towne has usually confirmed. Upon ye desire and Regular motion for a Schoole in that part of ye Town, it has bin allowed them. That lately there has not been more levied on them (and not always so much) as would defray the charges incident in that Part of ye Town and when, as they mention in ye petition, it would in them in time to support the charge of a stated ministry thereby importing ye present inability, which seems a very preposterous arguing.
"The law requiring a settled ministry thereby as one qualification for a Town- ship and some of the subscribers since ye signing have declared ye contrary Inten- tions. And that which makes this desire the more unreasonable is that they have hitherto been supported by ye Town, while they were not able themselves to defray ye public charges in too many instances to be enumerated. That it may be a precident of ill consequences to ye public to divide Townships into small slips of land rendering them weak and every charge a Burden, tending to starve learning and religion out of ye countrey, especially when no reason of state requires. Ye consideration of which we submit to this honorable Court.
91
HISTORY OF NORFOLK COUNTY
"We humbly offer further to this honorable Court that such a separation is contrary to ye undoubted right and interest of Boston, there being 500 acres of land common in that part of the Town, which is the Town's right, but on a sepa- ration can be of no service to the Town. That the Town is very much straightened in its present boundaries by our former too easy concessions as was that of the Neck to Dorchester, or the Lane to Newtown and Cambridge, and the whole Townshipp of Braintree, and would so much more if Muddy River so near us should be separated from the Town. Rumney Marsh, &c., would have a preci- dent to desire the same so that Boston would only be confined to this Isthmus of a mile long which was never thought sufficient bounds for a Townshipp, espe- cially at this time when Boston is daily ye centre of all foreign poor, of saylors widows, and the refuge of our distressed neighbors from ye frontier who Insensi- bly grow upon us, so that upon the whole we hope your Excellency's honorable Court will not grant said petition."
This answer was signed by three members of the committee appointed the preceding March-Savage, Allen and Noyes-and "By order of the selectmen it was spread upon the records of the town on June 22, 1705. It is interesting now, in that it shows what a plea of poverty and hardship Boston, now the wealthiest and most populous city of New England, could make two hundred and twelve years ago. So far as the people of Muddy River were concerned, the plea fell on deaf ears, as they redoubled their efforts to bring about a separation. At the fall session of the General Court another petition was presented, to wit :
"To his Excellency, the Governor, Council and Assembly in General Court convened :
"The humble petition of the Inhabitants of Muddy River sheweth, That at a session of this honorable Court, held at Boston on 13, August, 1704, the said Inhabitants exhibited their humple petition praying that the said Muddy River might be allowed a separate Village or Peculiar, and be invested with such rights and powers as they may be enabled by themselves to manage the general affairs of said place. Which petition has been transmitted to the Selectmen of the Town of Boston, that they may consider the same; since which your humble petitioners, not having been informed of any objection made by the Town of Boston, afore- said, we presume that there is no obstruction to our humble request made in that petition.
"Wherefore we humbly beseech your Excellency, that this honorable Court will be pleased to proceed to pass an Act for the establishing of the said place a separate Village or Peculiar, with such powers as aforesaid, and your petitioners shall ever pray."
The petition was signed by John Ackers, John Ackers, Jr., William Ackers, Eleazer Aspinwall, Samuel Aspinwall, Peter Boylston, Abram Chamberlen, Edward Devotion, John Devotion, John Ellis, Caleb Gardner, Joseph Gardner, Thomas Gardner, Thomas Gardner, Jr., John Seaver, Samuel Sewall, Jr., William Sharp, Ralph Shepard, Joshuah Stedman, Thomas Stedman, Thomas Stedman, Tr., Benjamin White, Benjamin White, Jr., Joseph White, Henry Winchester, John Winchester, John Winchester, Jr., Josiah Winchester, Josiah Winchester, Jr., Thomas Woodward, and a few others whose names cannot be deciphered.
On November 2, 1705, this petition came before the House of Representatives and on the 9th that body ordered that the prayer of the petitioners be granted.
92
HISTORY OF NORFOLK COUNTY
On the 10th the petition and order passed by the House were read for the first time in the Council, where the action was concurred in on the 13th. Following is the full text of the order :
"Anno Regni, Anna Regina Quarto.
"At a Great and General Court or Assembly for her Majesty's Province of the Massachusetts Bay in New England begun and held at Boston upon Wednesday the Thirtieth of May, 1705, and continued by several Prorogations unto Wednes- day the Twenty-Fourth of October following, and then mett Tuesday November 13, 1705, In Council :
"The Order passed by the Representatives upon the Petition of the Inhabi- tants of Muddy River, a Hamlet of Boston read on Saturday last, viz. :
"Ordered, That the Prayer of the Petition be Granted and the Powers and Priviledges of a Township be given to the Inhabitants of the Land commonly known by the Name of Muddy River, The Town to be called Brookline, who are hereby enjoyned to build a Meeting House and Obtain an Able Orthodox Minister according to the Direction of the Law, to be Settled amongst them within the space of Three Years next coming. Provided, That all Common Lands belonging to the Town of Boston lying within the bounds of the said Muddy River not dis- posed of or allotted out shall still remain to the proprietors of the said Lands.
"Which Order being again read was concurred And is consented to.
"JOSEPH DUDLEY."
FIRST ELECTION
The first town meeting in Brookline was held in the old school house on Monday, March 4, 1706, and the first thing to come before the meeting was the election of town officers. Thomas Gardner, Samuel Aspinwall, John Winchester, Josiah Winchester and Samuel Sewall were chosen as selectmen; Josiah Win- chester, Sr, clerk; Samuel Aspinwall, Joseph Gardner and Roger Adams, asses- sors (Mr. Adams declined to serve and John Winchester was chosen in his place) ; Daniel Harris and Samuel Clark, tithingmen; Eleazer Aspinwall, Benjamin White, Jr., and Robert Harris, surveyors of the highways; John Winchester, Jr., and Edward Devotion, fence viewers; Thomas Stedman, Jr., and Daniel Harris, overseers of the common lands; Nathaniel Holland and William Sharp, field drivers.
At the same meeting it was voted that a burying place should be established in the town and that it should be "on a spot of land on the south side of the Hill in Mr. Cotton's farm pointing between the two Roads if it can be attaind." The meeting declined to take any action toward the erection of a meeting house and the settling of a minister as required by the organic act, but voted that twelve pounds be levied by tax upon the people of the town "for repairing the school house and the support of the school for the present yeare."
ADJUSTING THE BOUNDARIES
When the Town of Brookline was established, the little stream known as Smelt Brook formed the boundary line between the new town and Brighton, and it is said that from this fact the town of Brookline derives its name. Early in the
TOWN HALL. BROOKLINE
·
.
HIGH SCHOOL, BROOKLINE
93
HISTORY OF NORFOLK COUNTY
year 1825, Josiah Quincy, then mayor of Boston, and John Robinson, chairman of the board of selectmen of Brookline, joined in a petition to the General Court asking that the boundary line between Boston and Brookline be established as follows :
"Beginning at a point (marked 'a' on the annexed plan) 1,123 feet distant westerly from the westerly side of the filling sluices of the Boston and Roxbury mill-dam; thence running northwesterly from said point 'a' at an angle of 115° from the mill-dam until it strikes the center of the channel of Charles River ; and also running from said point 'a' southerly at an angle of 103º 40' until it strikes the center of the channel of Muddy River, at a point where the respective boundaries of Boston, Brookline and Roxbury meet each other."
The petition was granted by the passage of a bill which was approved on February 22, 1825. Section I of the act established the boundary line as described in the petition, and Section 2 modified the boundary lines between the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk to conform to the new line as given in the preceding section.
On November 23, 1869, James Bartlett, Thomas Parsons, William J. Griggs, Edward S. Philbrick and Horace James, selectmen of Brookline, and James F. C. Hyde, George E. Bridges, D. C. Sanger, Willard Marey, Joseph Walker and Thomas Rice, Jr., selectmen of Newton, acting under authority conferred upon them by the General Court, fixed the boundary line between those two towns as it exists at the present time.
The boundary line between Brookline and West Roxbury was established on December 2, 1869, by the selectmen of the two towns, viz .: James Bartlett, Thomas Parsons, William J. Griggs and Edward Philbrick on behalf of Brook- line, and Aristides Talbot, Charles G. Macintosh, John E. Blackemore, Nathan B. Prescott and Jeremiah E. Williams on behalf of West Roxbury.
On the same day the above named selectmen of Brookline and B. F. Pierce and H. W. Baxter of Brighton fixed the boundary line between the two towns. The line as established by the selectmen was made legal by an act approved on June 18, 1870.
TOWN HALL
The early town meetings of Brookline were held in the old school house. The first mention of a town house to be found in the records is in the minutes of the meeting of May 10, 1821, when it was "Voted, that the Town build a two-story building, the basement to be entirely above ground, that the building be of wood 48 by 28 feet, and that the town treasurer be authorized to borrow a sum of money sufficient to complete said building."
Some delay was evidently experienced in the erection of the building, as the records show that "On Saturday evening, January 1, 1825, the New Town Hall was dedicated by Prayer and Sacred Musick." On that occasion John Robinson presented a chandelier for lighting the hall. On August 17, 1843, the town hall was ordered to be remodeled for a high school building, which was done at a cost of $281.67, and on November 13, 1843, the following was adopted by a town meeting :
"Whereas, in consequence of our recent appropriation of the Town Hall to
94
HISTORY OF NORFOLK COUNTY
the use of the public high school, and of the destruction of the Engine House by fire the past summer, it is both expedient and necessary that measures be taken at this time for providing a new Town Hall and store house for the Fire Engine; and that a committee of five citizens, selected from different parts of the Town, be now appointed to look out and decide upon some suitable location, ascertain the price for which it can be obtained, procure from an architect a plan of build- ing suitable for the accommodation of the Town, get an estimate of the whole expense, and make a report of their proceedings to our annual meeting in March next, and that Samuel Philbrick, Abijah W. Goddard, Charles Stearns, Jr., Daniel Sanderson and Timothy Corey constitute said committee."
The report of this committee is dated January 30, 1844, and states that the committee had obtained the refusal of three sites. The town voted to purchase the lot fronting on Washington Street 205 feet and 180 feet deep from James Bartlett, for the sum of $935.82, and Samuel Philbrick, Bela Stoddard and Charles Stearns, Jr., were appointed a building committee to superintend the erection of the new hall. The building was dedicated on the evening of October 13, 1845, with music and a historical sketch of the town by Rev. John Pierce. The total cost of lot and building was $6,285.32.
Edward Atkinson, Charles D. Head, Charles U. Cotting, Alfred Kenrick, William S. Spencer, Amos A. Lawrence and Abijah W. Goddard were appointed a committee on March 18, 1867, "to consider the expediency of adding accommo- dations to the present Town Hall for a reading room and library." No report from this committee can be found, but the members apparently did not regard . the project with favor, for on March 28, 1870, the following committee was appointed to consider the subject of a new town hall: William A. Wellman, Charles U. Cotting, John C. Abbott, Charles W. Scudder, Augustine Shurtleff, William Aspinwall, William K. Melcher, William Lincoln and M. P. Kennard. The committee reported in favor of the new building and the town voted an appropriation of $100,000, which was placed at the disposal of the committee. Fifty thousand dollars were subsequently added to the appropriation and bonds were issued for the whole amount. S. J. F. Thayer's plans were accepted and bids were advertised for, which resulted in the contract for the masonry being awarded to Adams & Barstow of Boston, and for the carpenter work to William K. Melcher of Brookline. The corner-stone was laid on May 23, 1871, and the structure, which occupies the site of the old town hall, was dedicated on Febru- ary 22, 1873, with appropriate ceremonies, Robert C. Winthrop delivering the historical address. At a special meeting held on the 27th, William Aspinwall, Charles D. Head and William A. Wellman were appointed a committee "to com- pile and print the proceedings, speeches," etc. of the dedication. The total cost of the building was $150,010.
WATERWORKS
At the annual meeting held on March 20, 1865, it was voted "That the repre- sentative from this town in the General Court be requested and instructed to use his utmost endeavors to have inserted in the 'Bill to authorize the City of Boston to build an additional reservoir,' now before the House of Representatives, a provision that the city may distribute the waters of Lake Cochituate through the
95
HISTORY OF NORFOLK COUNTY
said Town of Brookline, and shall make and establish hydrants therein in the same manner it now may throughout the City of Boston and if the Legislature shall, upon a respectful request therefor refuse to make such provision, that our representative be instructed to remonstrate and protest, in behalf of the inhabitants of Brookline, against so much of the bill as authorizes the City of Boston to lay pipes through the streets of Brookline."
This was the first move on the part of the people of Brookline to secure a supply of water for the town. The Legislature failed to grant the request and the next mention of the subject in the town records is in the minutes of the meeting of December 7, 1869 when Amos A. Lawrence offered a resolution "That George M. Dexter, Francis P. Denney and E. C. Cabot be a committee to ascer- tain whether it is expedient to purchase the property of the Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Company, or any other supply of water, for the town, and to report at a future meeting to be called by the chairman of the committee."
The resolution failed of adoption and nothing further was done until the meeting of May 2, 1871, which voted that the moderator appoint a committee of five to take into consideration the subject of supplying the town with water and report at a future meeting. George F. Homer, the moderator, appointed John W. Candler, William Aspinwall, Amos A. Lawrence, Charles D. Head and Edward S. Philbrick, and the meeting voted to add Mr. Homer to the committee. On January 23, 1872, Edward S. Philbrick reported for the committee three plans that had been considered: Ist, to obtain a supply of water from the City of Boston ; 2nd, to erect waterworks in connection with the Town of West Roxbury ; 3d, to construct independent works on the part of Brookline. The first proposed method failed because the water board of Boston reported that the city had no water to spare, the second also failed because it was learned that the Charles River, from which it was proposed to take the supply for Brookline and West Roxbury, was claimed by the City of Boston. With regard to the third method the committee recommended the purchase of the springs upon the land of the Brookline Land Company, which showed an average daily capacity of about three hundred and fifty thousand gallons. The committee reported that nine acres of the land could be bought for $50,000, and estimated the cost of the works at $165,968. The report was accepted, the committee was continued with instruc- tions to confer with the Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Company.
On March 26, 1872, the committee reported that the City of Boston was apply- ing to the General Court for permission to take the waters of the Charles and Sudbury rivers and recommended that the selectmen of Brookline be instructed to have a bill introduced allowing Brookline to take water from the Charles River. Later at the same meeting Mr. Philbrick reported that the city had withdrawn its application. The instructions to the selectmen were then changed by a resolu- ion setting forth that as Boston had for twenty-five years used the streets of Brookline for water mains, the selectmen ask the General Court to order Boston to supply the town with water, otherwise to pass a bill giving the town permission to use the waters of the Charles River. On the 10th of April following the selectmen and committee presented a petition to the General Court asking that the town be allowed to take water from the Charles River. A bill to that effect was passed and was accepted by a town meeting on May 7, 1872, by a vote of 185 to 90.
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.