USA > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Medford > History of the town of Medford, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, from its first settlement, in 1630, to the present time, 1855 > Part 7
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
This decision was not palatable to the defendants. Med- ford's action in the premises is recorded as follows : Voted, in a " general town-meeting, January 11, 1694, that the per- sons above said are to attend the premises, from Court to Court, until there shall be a final determination and settlement of Mistick Bridge." This Committee performed their duty faithfully, and the result is recorded above ; but, in 1698, Medford was again presented to the Court for defect in the bridge. On the 7th of March, the town came together, and voted " to empower a lawyer referring to answer a present- ment for defect in Mistick Bridge." March 28, 1698: "Voted to empower Mr. John Leverett for the further defending the town referring to Mistick Bridge, in case there be need ; and said town to pay lawyer's charges and other necessary charges that may arise in defence of said bridge, as above said." In connection with this case, the town resolve, that, if a man attended Court for sixty days, he should be paid £3; and for any less term, 1s. 6d. per day. The bridge seemed to have a wonderful aptitude in getting out of repair ; and, as Med- ford was liable to be indicted for the fact, the bridge became the standing vexation of the town. April 3, 1702, the inhabitants appoint three of their number as a Committee to treat with Woburn, Reading, and Malden, on the repairing and maintaining said bridge. Nine years bring up again the same question ; and, May 24, 1711, the town voted " to desire the selectmen of the town to procure such records of Court or Courts as may give information of the division of Mistick Bridge to the several neighboring towns for the repair of the same." This vote, while it shows us there, had
65
BRIDGES.
been a legal division of the bridge liabilities, shows also that the contiguous towns had not done their duty in the pre- mises. Sept. 21, 1714, a rate of £15 was assessed by the se- lectmen " for Mistick Bridge." The bridge was now rebuilt ; but the adjoining towns refused to pay their shares, and Med- ford voted to carry the question before the "General Sessions of the Peace," sitting at Charlestown. The object of this appeal was to show from records that there was no valid reason for the refusal of the neighboring towns in bearing their share of the expense of rebuilding. The Committee chosen to prosecute the whole matter to its final settlement were Deacon Thomas Willis, Ensign John Bradshaw, and Mr. Ebenezer Brooks.
The appeal of Medford was just, and it was met by " the Court of General Sessions of the Peace," sitting at Charles- town, Feb. 16, 1715, thus : " The Court apportion the charges of rebuilding Mistick Bridge as follows : Charlestown, £64. 14s. ; Woburn, Malden, Reading, and Medford, each £17. 12s. 3d. ; total, £135. 3s." To this award Woburn, Malden, and Reading objected, and therefore appealed. The conse- quence was a legal trial of the case; and Medford, July 11, 1715, passed the following: "Voted to empower Deacon Thomas Willis, Ensign John Bradshaw, and Mr. Ebenezer Brooks, as a Committee to defend the town against any suits in law having reference to the rebuilding of Mistic Bridge." The decision was in favor of Medford.
When the tract on the south of the river became annexed to Medford from Charlestown in 1754, the town says : " April 30, 1754 : The southerly half of Mistic Bridge, and the causey adjoining, by a resolve of the General Assembly, is now within the limits of Medford." "May 8, 1754: Samuel Brooks, Esq., Lieut. Stephen Hall, jun., and Jos. Tufts, were chosen a Committee to manage the affairs relating to the southerly half of the Mistic Bridge, and the causey adjoin- ing thereto."
.The increase of travel over this bridge rendered it liable to frequent repairs, and Medford became sole owner of it. The annexation, in 1754, of that part of Charlestown which lies near the south bank of Mystic River, released that town from all obligations connected with the "Great Bridge," as it was called. Accordingly, July 25, 1757, we find the follow ing record : "Voted, that Samuel Brooks, Esq., Stephen Hall, Esq., and Capt. Caleb Brooks, be a Committee to agree
9
66
HISTORY OF MEDFORD.
with suitable persons to rebuild the south side of Medford great bridge with wood or stone; and that said Committee empower persons to wharf out on each side of said bridge."
May 13, 1761 : " Voted to treat with Woburn, Reading, and Malden, concerning Medford Bridge, and acquit any of them that shall comply from all further charge; and also to treat with the General Court, if there be reason."
Woburn, as we have seen, always contended most stoutly, but ineffectually, against paying for the support of the bridge, because, as she maintained, her people did not use it. They sometimes went to Boston through Charlestown (now Somer- ville). So troublesome grew this litigation, that Woburn paid to Medford a certain sum to be released from all further liabilities.
The next movement for this important passway, worthy of record, was in 1789, when it was proposed to widen the bridge and pave the market-place. The plan devised for paying the expenses was a common one in that day; it was by a lottery ; and, May 11, the town petitioned the General Court to grant them a lottery for these purposes. Our fath- ers did not think that such a lottery was doing evil that good may come. The petition was not granted.
April 2, 1804 : On this day, the Committee, chosen at a previous meeting to inquire into the necessity and expediency of building a new bridge; report that it is expedient that a new bridge be built ; and they recommend that it be thirty feet wide, and also that it have a draw. They further say it should have " four piers of white oak timber of seven spoils each ; the two outside piers to be set twenty feet from each other. To have an arch in the centre of twenty-six feet in the clear, and a draw the width of the arch." There were two hundred and eighty dollars afterwards subscribed by private persons, as a donation, to help forward the work. The estimated expense, without a draw, was one thousand dollars. This proposition was received with favor; and the increasing business on the river required this width, and also a draw ; but it was not immediately adopted. Various plans for meeting the expenses of the draw were proposed, but without much success, till a resolution was taken by the town, in 1808, to do the whole thoroughly. It was done; and a toll of twelve and a half cents was charged upon every vessel that passed the draw. The next year, May 20, 1809, we find the following vote: "Mr. Timothy Dexter to demand of
67
BRIDGES.
every lighter, passing through the draw, ten cents each time, and twenty cents for larger vessels."
This bridge answered all its intended purposes till 1829, when the question of building a new draw came up. The matter was referred to a Committee, who report, May 4, as follows: "That the town is under no legal obligation to make or maintain a drawbridge, but may build without a draw, as heretofore." Nevertheless, the final result was a vote to build a new bridge, with a draw. It was so built, . accordingly ; but the draw was so narrow that, in 1834, the town voted to widen the draw, whenever the selectmen shall judge proper. This was done. The idea that ships could be built above the bridge became common ; and, as ships of the largest size became fashionable, it was found that the draw was not sufficiently wide to allow the transit of one then on the stocks. The petition for widening was granted ; and, in 1852, it assumed the form it now wears. This bridge, among the earliest in the country, and among the most im- portant in the Colony, has had an eventful history. Seldom, if ever, has there been so much legislation in the General Court about seventy-five feet of bridge ; and, certainly, no town has talked and voted and petitioned and litigated so much about such a matter. It was part of a great thorough- fare, and was second to none in importance to all travellers, from the east and north, who were going to Boston. For one hundred and fifty years, it was on the nearest land-route for all the travel of Maine and New Hampshire ; and, within the memory of some now living, the farmers of New Hamp- shire, who brought large loads of pork and grain in pungs to Boston, passed over that bridge in companies of five, ten, fifteen, and twenty within the months of January and Febru- ary. Perhaps the strangest fact connected with it is, that it is still the only bridge for common highway travel now (1855) across the Mystic River in Medford! That another bridge, for free public travel, is imperiously demanded by the growing wants of the town, is generally acceded ; and pro- bably such a bridge will soon be built.
The other bridges of the town were of minor moment ; though that at the Wear cost the town much money, and some trouble. March 6, 1699: " Put to vote, whether the town of Medford will give Mr. John Johnson three pounds towards the building a sufficient horse-bridge over the Wears ; said bridge being railed on each side, and the said bridge
68
HISTORY OF MEDFORD.
raised so high as there may be a fit passage under said bridge for boats and rafts up and down said river. This was voted in the affirmative." This is the first mention of a bridge of this kind at the Wear. The dwellers in the western parts of Charlestown and Cambridge came so often to Medford that they petitioned for the erection of a bridge "at the Wears." As Medford would be obliged to pay for half of it, a protest by the town was made against the proceeding, and the two arguments used were, first, that the ford was sufficiently easy and convenient ; and, second, that Medford people never, or seldom, travelled that way. The building was deferred ; but, in 1722, the grand jury present the town of Medford for not maintaining a bridge across the Wears. Aug. 17, the town " put to vote whether the town will choose a Committee to answer a presentment by the grand jury of the want of a bridge over the Wear ; said answer to be made at Concord Court next. Voted in the affirmative."
The next important action of the town was May 29, 1746. They petition Gov. Shirley and the General Court to order a bridge built over the Wears, and then apportion the expense upon the towns that would most use it; or on Middlesex County. The just decision of the Court was, that Medford and Charlestown should build a bridge, and each pay half the expenses and keep it in repair. August, 1747 : The General Court "order that Samuel Danforth, William Brattle, and Edmund Trowbridge, Esquires, be a Committee of said Court, empowered and directed to cause a good and sufficient bridge to be erected over the place called the Wears, between Charlestown and Medford ; one-half of the charge to be paid by the town of Charlestown, and the other half by the town of Medford." Nov. 4, 1747: Andrew Hall, Ebenezer Brooks, and Francis Whitmore, jun., were appointed a Com- mittee to build one-half of the bridge. £200 (old tenor) was raised to pay for it. May 12, 1760, the selectmen were chosen to divide this bridge with the town of Charlestown. Ever since that time, the two towns have kept it in good repair ; and, recently, it has been rebuilt, and is now wide and strong. Its support devolves on Medford and West Cambridge.
" Gravelly Bridge," so called, was first built by Mr. Cra- dock's men probably, and was the usual route for all the travel between the east and west parts of the town. It was very low, narrow, and slender at first, and received frequent
69
BRIDGES.
repairs. April 27, 1716, " put to vote whether Dea. Thomas Willis, John Whitmore, Jonathan Tufts, Ebenezer Brooks, and John Willis, shall view and consider what method may be most proper for the repairing of Gravelly Bridge, and what may be the cost thereof, and make report to said town at their next town-meeting. Voted in the amrmative." June 11, 1716: Voted " £5 to be raised for the' repairing their meeting-house and mending Gravelly Bridge."
The bridge over Gravelly Creek, in Ship Street, was built by a few Medford persons, in 1746, for the purpose of mak- ing a road to the tide-mill.
March 4, 1751: Voted to build a new bridge of stone where the present Gravelly Bridge is. This continued till recently, when a new one, built of stone, has been widened so as to cover the entire street.
March 7, 1803: " Voted, that the bridges over Meeting- house and Whitmore's Brooks, so called, be rebuilt with stone."
The bridge over Marble Brook, in West Medford (called " Meeting-house Brook " in later times ), was made of wood at first, and so continued for more than a century ; it was then built of stone, in 1803, and so continued till 1850, when it was rebuilt of stone, and made as wide as the street. The same remarks belong to the small bridge, called " Whitmore's Bridge," farther west, and near the Lowell Railroad Station in West Medford.
There is one feature connected with each of the four bridges, herein described, which is worth a passing notice. It is this. These bridges were only half the width of the road, and thus allowed fording ways at their sides. It was formerly the custom for those travelling with horses or driv- ing cattle to let their horses and cattle pass through the brook, and drink. The multiplication of wells, in public squares and frequented places, has helped to change the old habits ; and now, generally, these "watering-places " are covered.
The bridge at Penny Ferry (Malden) was opened for travel, Sept. 28, 1787 ; and President Washington rode over it in October, 1789, when he visited Salem. At that time, he came to Medford to see his friend, General Brooks, who lived in the first house west of the meeting-house. Medford opposed the building of the bridge on two grounds : first, that it would encumber navigation ; and, second, that it
70
HISTORY OF MEDFORD.
would divert travel from Medford. March 4, 1802, the town chose a Committee to compel the proprietors of Malden Bridge to build the piers, next the draw, required by their act of incorporation.
To show how general and how sharp was the opposition to the erection of Malden Bridge, we will quote from a letter of the Pastor of Medford to his friend in Charlestown, dated Monday, June 26, 1786 : -
" Almost ever since I saw you, I have been so agitated about that execrable bridge at Penny Ferry, that law and divinity have both been obliged to stand by, whilst I have rallied all my powers to fight the bridge-builders. And still the combat is not over. The people are bridge-mad. Old Judge R. is in a perfect frenzy, and raves about Charlestown and bridges with as little reason as the wildest lunatie in the defence of his imagined crown and sceptre. I do think it unpardonable in him and in the other inhabitants of Charlestown, who are abettors in this business. After the danger and terror they were all in, from the apprehension of a bridge at Leechmere's Point, and the assistance which they received from this town in making their escape, - for them, so immediately to turn upon us and appear so zealous for the destruction of Medford, is a conduct so base and ungenerous as nothing can palliate. I shall be tempted, when I preach to them again, to take total depravity for my subject, though that be a doctrine of which I had begun to doubt till I had this recent proof of it.
" Last Saturday week passes among them for the Great Day. I felt but little disposed to see the transactions of it, and believe I should not have gone had I been invited. But neither I, nor any of my people, except Father C., came to that honor. I may say, as Nathan the Prophet did to David, with reference to Adonijah's feast, 'But me, even me, thy servant, &e., they have not called.' I am told that their preacher, the sabbath after, gave them an occa- sional sermon. My informer (one of my own people, you'll sup- . pose) could not tell the text; but added, that, in his opinion, the most suitable one would have been these words: 'And the devils entered the herd of swine, and the whole herd ran violently down a steep place,' &c.
"The Charlestown Bridge is indeed a grand and noble affair, beyond any thing ever effected in this country before. The only thing that I much regret about it is, that it has deprived so many, both wise men and fools, of their reason, and set them raving. Judge R., and his connections, are the wise men ; S., and the Mal- den gang, are the fools. As for the Malden miserables, they were never awake till the talk about this bridge put them in motion, like men who walk in their sleep. They now leave their corn unhoed, and their grass not cut, to carry petitions to Court for a bridge,
71
BRIDGES.
which, if built, rather than pay two coppers toll, for going over it, they would choose to come round by Medford. But the distracted creatures think, that, if there should be a bridge, they shall at once commence a seaport town, have still-houses, stores, and what not. And in consequence of this wretched delusion, and that neglect of business among them, which it occasions, their families next winter will have no bread, and their cattle no hay. It will be a deed, not of charity, but of indispensable justice, in Judge R. to provide for the support of the poor ignoramuses ; since it is owing to his super- annuated whims that their brains have been turned. As for the old Judge himself, I told him, the other day, that, if he had gone to a ' better country' some weeks since, it might have been well for him ; but, whether he would ever get there now, there was too much reason to fear, as he had of late so greatly and egregiously missed the way. His delirium is so great that it is not possible to reason with him. When my people tell him that the proposed bridge will ruin them, he answers all their objections with ' Well, come and live at Charlestown then.' W. H. says, that, 'were it possible, the judge would try to persuade the saints in heaven to come down and live in Charlestown.' Indeed, the Charlestown people in general, since the bridge is done, are so very high, that I know not whether they will not think it proper to add another story to their houses ! Knowing how a-tiptoe they were when I went down last week, though I could not very well afford to pay the toll for my carriage, yet, rather than stop among them, I chose to ride directly into Boston. Like all other religious and political enthu- siasts, their heat will abate in time; they will gradually recover their senses, and become like other men. And, if the bridge should stand seven years (of which, by the way, I have still my doubts), by the expiration of that period the inhabitants of Charles- town will get their eyes open, and will see that it would have been more for their interest if it had never been built. This town feels the ill effects of it already in another respect besides the stir it has occasioned for a bridge at Penny Ferry. A trader, from the country, who, previous to the bridge, had all his goods brought up here in our lighters, did last week send five teams by us into Boston, there to unload and load again. And, if the country traders gene- rally do so, our boatmen will lose a profitable part of their business. But this does not give us much concern, provided we can prevent the bridge at Penny Ferry. I scribbled a very long letter to Judge Phillips upon this subject last week ; and he told me to-day that it is circulating among the members of the Court. I have kept a copy, and will send it to you in a few days. At present, I may possibly want it to show to some whom I may perhaps wish to influ- ence by it. If the facts which I have produced do not carry con- viction, and overwhelm these bridge-builders with confusion, I shall think that all the world is mad ; and that I and my people, with the few who have hitherto joined us, remain the only sober and rational part of this lower creation."
72
1
HISTORY OF MEDFORD.
May 4, 1801: "Voted, that the selectmen, with Benj. Hall, Esq., and John Brooks, Esq., be a Committee to attend at the General Court on the first Tuesday of the next session, to prevent, if possible, the erection of another bridge across Mystic River.", Nevertheless, Chelsea Bridge was built in 1804. The town directed the selectmen to petition the General Court to have the bridges over Mystic River widened ; and that no one should be less than forty-six feet in width.
March 12, 1713: John Clark & Co. petition for a bridge across Charles River. Many in Medford strenuously opposed it ; and the wits had some playful ridicule of the project. The press, in 1714, has the following: "One great thing proposed hath been the building of a bridge over Charles River, and that it would be a service to us. This I look at to be next to building castles in the air. For, if we could sink forty or fifty thousand pounds in building such a bridge, the matter is uncertain whether it would answer the end ; for, . I can't learn of a fast bridge, over such a river, where there is such a stream, in the whole world."
INDIANS.
When or where the Indians first appeared, ethnologists do not inform us. They have always awakened a strange and poetic interest, and have called out a deep and Christian sym- pathy. They who connected themselves with the first settlers of Medford, and continned their alliance through so many years, were too numerous and influential to be omitted in this history.
Two large and powerful tribes held sway in this region when our fathers landed; the Massachusetts and the Paw- tuckets. Their chief enemies were the Tarratines, on the Penobscot, who, at harvest, would come in their canoes, and reap the fields in this neighborhood. One hundred of them attacked Sagamores John and James, Aug. 8, 1631, by night, and wounded them and killed seven men. The renowned Sachem of the Pawtuckets was NANEPASHEMIT, who removed from Lynn, 1615, and took up his abode on Mystic River, where he was killed in 1619. During his short and eventful residence in Medford, his house was placed on " Rock Hill," where he could best watch canoes in the river. Winslow gives the following account : -
73
INDIANS.
" On the morrow (Sept. 21, 1621), we went ashore, all but two men, and marched in arms up in the country. Having gone three miles, we came to a place where corn had been newly gathered, a house pulled down, and the people gone. A mile from hence, Nanepashemit, their king, in his lifetime, had lived. His house was not like others ; but a scaffold was largely built, with poles and planks, some six foot from the ground, and the house upon that, being situated on the top of a hill. Not far from hence, in a bottom, we came to a fort, built by their deceased king ; the manner thus : There were poles, some thirty or forty feet long, stuck in the ground as thick as they could be set, one by another; and with them they enclosed a ring some forty or fifty feet over ; a trench, breast-high, was digged on each side; one way there was to go into it with a bridge. In the midst of this palisado, stood the frame of a house, wherein, being dead, he lay buried. About a mile from hence, we came to such another, but seated on the top of a hill. Here Nanepashemit was killed, none dwelling in it since the time of his death."
The histories represent him living in Medford, not far from the river, not far from the pond, and on the tops of hills. This eminent Grand Sachem was the father of Saga- more John of Mystick, Sagamore James of Lynn, and Saga- more George of Salem. George finally became Sachem of the Pawtucketts.
After the death of Nanepashemit, his wife, as Queen and Squa Sachem, reigned. She married Webcowit, the physi- cian of the tribe, "its powwow, priest, witch, sorcerer, and chirurgeon." In 1637, the Squa Sachem deeded a tract of land in Musketaquid (Concord). In 1639, she deeded a tract to Charlestown (now Somerville) ; also another tract to Jotham Gibbon, of Boston. This last deed is as follows : -
"This testifies that I, the Sachem, which have right and posses- sion of the ground which I reserved from Charlestown and Cam- bridge, which lies against the Ponds of Misticke with the said ponds, I do freely give to Jotham Gibbon, his heyres, executors, and assigns for ever; not willing to have him or his disturbed in the said gift after my death. And this I do without seeking too of him or any of his, but I receiving many kindnesses of them, and willing to acknowledge their many kindnesses by this small gift to their son, Jotham Gibons.
" Witness my hand, the 13th of 11 mo., 1636. " The SQUA SACHEM E marke.
"WEBECOWIT O marke.
" Witness, EDMUND QUINCY."
10
74
HISTORY OF MEDFORD.
Aug. 1, 1637: "Squa Sachem and Webber Cowet did acknowledge in Court, that they had received of Mr. Gib- bins, for the town of Charlestown, 36s. for the land between Charlestown and Wenotomies River, which they acknowledge themselves to be satisfied for."
Another grant, by the " Squa Sachem of Mistick," of lands bordering on Medford, is as follows : ---
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.