USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Boston > Municipal history of the town and city of Boston during two centuries : from September 17, 1630, to September 17, 1830 > Part 10
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
On the first interview, the Overseers of the Poor declared they had no authority to transfer the poor in the Ahnshouse to the care of the. Directors of the House of Industry, and that they should not cooperate in such removal. On the urgent remon- strance of the Committee, they at length assented to allow to be transferred such of the able-bodied poor as the Master of the Almshouse should declare might be spared from that establish- ment ; and the whole number of the able-bodied poor in the Almshouse being one hundred and fifty-five, the Overseers con- sented to discharge forty-one. As the Overseers had set up a claim of exclusive authority on the subject, their decision con- verning the number to be transferred to the House of Industry was acquiesced in by the Committee.
But the Overseers, persisting in their determination to give no sanction to the transfer, instead of delivering the paupers over to
1 The members elected were, - John Bellows, George W. Otis, Henry J. Oliver, Isaac MeLellan, Cyrus Alger, Edward Cruft, Samuel Dorr; George Hal- let, Benjamin Shurtleff.
2 This Committee were the Mayor, Daniel Baxter, Joseph H. Dorr, and Caleb Eddy, of the Board of Aldermen; Eliphalet Williams, James Savage, John P. Boyd, Noah Brooks, and Joel Prouty, of the Common Council.
1
91
CITY GOVERNMENT.
the Committee, called them severally into their room, and, in presence of the Committee, gave to each of the paupers a writ- ten discharge from the Almshouse, simply informing them they were now free from that establishment. By this course of pro- ceeding, the paupers were made to understand that the Over- seers gave no countenance to their removal to the House of Industry, and that they were at liberty to go or not at their pleasure. The subsequent proceedings of the Committee towards the paupers were, consequently, not authoritative, but persuasive, and they urged upon the forty-one able-bodied poor, which the Overseers had consented to spare from the Ahnshouse, the advantage of taking the bread of the city in the place which the city had provided. The result was, that only twenty-one could be prevailed upon to embark for the House of Industry in a boat prepared for their transfer. The rest took the Overseers' dis- charge ; some of them saying, " they did not go into an alıns- house for work ; that if they wanted to work they could get it out of doors." Thus the first attempts of the City Council resulted in obtaining twenty-one out of one hundred and fifty-five able-bodied poor then in the Almshouse for the establishment at South Boston.
The City Council were convinced by this result that tempo- rary and compromising measures must be laid aside, and their determination to carry into full effect the original design of the House of Industry at South Boston should at once be made apparent to the Overseers of the Poor and the inhabitants of the city. And on the twenty-fifth of August, 1823, the Committee made a full report, stating the views of the Overseers of the Poor, regarding their authority and that of the Directors of the House of Industry, and the consequent difficulties they had encountered in their attempts to remove the paupers from the Almshouse to that institution ; and then considered the question, whether both these establishments ought to be continued. They argued, that from motives of economy alone, the Almshouse ought to be dis- continued, as the sale of the house in Leverett Street would pro- bably be sufficient to defray the expense of all the buildings requisite at South Boston. They then urged that the health and happiness of the paupers required a pure atmosphere, space for exercise, a separation between the sexes and between the vicious and virtuous poor, and opportunity for useful employment; all
1
92
MUNICIPAL HISTORY.
of which could be obtained in the highest degree at South Bos- ton. They, therefore, recommended that all the inmates of the Almshouse in Leverett Street, which afforded none of these advantages, should be transferred to the House of Industry, and that the estate in Leverett Street should be sold.
The Committee then developed a plan, which the Committee first appointed by the town for the erection of the House of Industry had formed, which was to ereet in the vicinity of that institution a house of correction for the reception of rogues and vagabonds, and other proper subjects of restraint and punish- ment. They urged that the protection and comfort of the poor, who from age, misfortunes, or infirmity, took refuge in the House of Industry, required such a separation, and recommended author- ity and an appropriation for carrying the same into immediate effect. In conformity with these views they proposed, -
1. That the House of Industry at South Boston should here- after be the Almshouse of the city, and that the Overseers of the Poor should be directed to cause all the poor to be forthwith transferred to it with certain specified exceptions.
2. That all the furniture, provisions, &e., should be transferred in like manner to the House of Industry also, with certain spe- cified exceptions.
3. That the Overseers of the Poor should be authorized to make temporary provision for the sick and maniacs in the house in Leverett Street.
4. That a committee of the City Council should be appointed to superintend and aid the Overseers in these arrangements.
5. That the Directors of the House of Industry should be authorized to erect a house suitable for a house of correction, and an appropriation of twenty thousand dollars be made for that object.
6. 'That a joint committee of the City Council should be appointed for the sale of the Almshouse in Leverett Street.
7. That the future admission of paupers into the house in "Leverett Street should be prohibited, except in case of necessity, and until they could be removed to South Boston.
8. That the Overseers of the Poor should be authorized to give permits for admission into the House of Industry.
9. That the Mayor and Aldermen, on application of the Over- seers of the Poor, should be authorized to provide for the transfer of such poor to South Boston.
.
93
CITY GOVERNMENT.
This report was accepted, and the votes recommended passed by both branches of the City Council, and the several commit- tees appointed, of each of which the Mayor was constituted Chairman.
By the direction of the Committee, the Mayor communicated these votes to the Overseers of the Poor on the ninth of Septem- ber; but they refused to comply with the directions relative to the transfer of the poor to South Boston, denying the authority of the City Council and the responsibility of the Overseers to that body.
The Mayor, however, being anxious to prevent, if possible, all collisions between the different city authorities, addressed a letter to the Chairman of the Overseers of the Poor, stating that "twenty or thirty laborers were now wanting at the House of Industry ; " that " he had been informed by one of the Overseers of the Poor that such a number, at least, of able-bodied poor were now in the Almshouse with little or no work ;" that " if they could not be obtained, it would be necessary for the city to hire .; " and expressing the wish of the city authorities to avoid all public discussions of questions of jurisdiction between coex- isting boards, inquired whether, considering the actual relations of things, and also the great respectability in point of charac- ter and talent of the Directors of the House of Industry, the Overseers of the Poor, under the expressed wish of the City Council, may not enable that body to avoid the necessity of any discussion, concerning relative powers, by simply declaring that under these circumstances and relations, they consent that such of the poor as, after consultation by the Committee of the City Coun- cil with the Overseers, it shall be deemed expedient to transfer, shall be temporarily placed under the direction and superintend- ence of the Directors of the House of Industry, until the whole poor shall be transferred, reserving to the Overseers of the Poor the right of visitatorial power, in relation to that establishment, at their pleasure, and of making all inquiries concerning the manage- ment there, as they deem expedient, and, in case of any dissatisfac- tion, of taking such measures as the exigency may require."
None of these suggestions were acceded to by the Overseers of the Poor ; and on the twenty-third of September, 1823, they made a communication to the City Council, signed by Redford Webster, their Chairman, developing their views of their duties
94
MUNICIPAL HISTORY.
and rights. In this they stated, that as they derived their author- ity from the people, " it did not appear that they were, in any respect, the agents of the City Council, or properly subordinate to them ;" that " they derived their powers from the statute passed in 1735, ratified and confirmed in January, 1789." They then undertook, by a course of reasoning, to show that the city char- ter effected no change in those powers, and that notwithstanding the acts of the legislature, establishing the Directors of the House of Industry, the Overseers had the right to the care of the Alms- house and the superintendence of its government and the management of the poor.
The Committee of the City Council, thus finding that all attempts to induce the Overseers of the Poor to acquiesce in the measures proposed, were fruitless, submitted a report, marking out a course of measures, which were adopted by the City Council. In this they showed that the claims set up by the Overseers of being " neither agents or subordinates of the City Council," necessarily implied they were either equals or superiors ; either of which excluded the idea of responsibility ; that if not responsible to the City Council, they were responsible to no one, as the City Council was the only body now invested with the fiscal, prudential, and municipal concerns of the city. The consequences of such a claim by a Board expending annu- ally thirty or forty thousand dollars of the public money was too serious to be passed over without examination ; they recom- mended, therefore, a special committee for that purpose.
In order, however, to avoid all discussions concerning the rela- tions of authority of the City Council and the Board of Over- seers, they recommended a course of measures coincident with the views entertained by the Overseers of their own powers, and predicated upon the statute of 1735, which that Board considered as the basis of those powers.
As the statute of 1735 required that " the house for the recep- tion and employment of the idle and poor should be under the regulation of the Overseers of the Poor, and be erected, provided for, continued, or discontinued, as the town of Boston shall find or judge their circumstances require;" and, as the town had no longer a corporate existence, and all the rights of the ancient town were, by the terms of the city charter, vested in the city of Boston; and, as all the administration of the pru-
.
95
CITY GOVERNMENT.
dential and municipal concerns of said city are, by the same. charter, vested in the City Council, the Committee considered that it would not be questioned by the Overseers, or by any one, that it now belonged to the City Council, exclusively, to "judge what the circumstances of the city required, in relation to any such house thus erected."
Upon this ground, following the precise words of the statute of 1735, in all material points, they recommended that votes should be passed of the following import : -
1. That for the present, and until the further order of the City Council, the house in Leverett Street should be the house for the reception and employment of the idle and poor of the city, under the regulation of the Overseers, and be continued, or discon- tinued, as the City Council shall find or judge the circumstances of the city require."
2. That the Committee of the City Council should proceed to Leverett Street, and,' after notice given to the Overseers, "judge what the circumstances of the city require, in relation to said house and the inmates thereof;" and if they judge, in relation to any of said inmates, that " the said house shall be discontinued," it was declared as to them discontinued, and not lawful for the Overseers to apply to such imnates any portion of the public provision ; and if they afterwards did so apply it, the amount was ordered to be deducted from their accounts.
3. That, in case the Committee of the City Council should "judge that the circumstances of the city required that the per- sons, in relation to whom the house in Leverett Street was thus discontinued, should be admitted into that at South Boston, they were authorized to give a certificate to that effect, and the Directors of the House of Industry thereupon should admit them into that institution.
Other votes were also recommended, for appointing a con- mittee to inquire into the powers and authorities of the Over- seers of the Poor, under the city charter, particularly with refer- ence to the limitations of expenditure of public moneys, and their responsibility for their disposition of them; also, for the transfer of five thousand dollars of the unexpended appropri- ation from the Overseers of the Poor to the. Directors of the House of Industry ; and, finally, giving to the Overseers of the Poor, in conformity with the act of February, 1794, a general
96
MUNICIPAL HISTORY.
visitatorial power, in relation to the treatment of the poor, in the House of Industry. These votes passed the Board of Aldermen on the twenty-ninth of September; and on the first of October, notice having been given of these votes to the Overseers, the Committee attended, on the second of October, at the Alms- house Wharf with a boat, and received from them thirty-five of the inmates, who were forthwith transferred to the House of Industry. After this time, the course of measures which the City Council had originally resolved upon were steadily pursued, - to make the house erected at South Boston the refuge of the respect- able poor, and the House of Correction, then in progress, the recep- tacle of the vagrant and vicious.
During the remainder of this city year, the house in Leverett Street was chiefly used for the accommodation of the sick, and for the temporary reception of those who were to be subse- quently transferred to South Boston, no further obstructions being offered by the Overseers. An account of their opposition to future measures of the City Council will be given in a subse; quent chapter.
The foundation for a building for a house of correction was laid this year, under the superintendence of the Directors of the House of Industry. About five acres of land were also purchased, in its immediate vicinity, for the enlargement of its boundaries.
In this state of progress the relations of that institution stood at the end of the second year of the city government.
In June, 1823, a petition of the proprietors of the church in Bromfield Street, praying for the liberty to erect tombs in the cellars of that edifice, drew the attention of the City Council to a consideration of the expediency of granting such a right. The subject was referred to a Committee of the City Council.1 'The petition was pressed with great urgency, as a common right, and the grant of a like privilege, by the preceding City Council to the churches of St. Paul and Park Street, was relied upon as conelu- sive. The question presented great difficulties. To grant it, would be to allow all the churches in the city a similar privilege, which, considering the pecuniary advantage resulting, would be likely to be generally used. To deny it, would be to withhold from a nume-
1 This Committee were, -the Mayor, Aldermen Dorr and Hooper, and Messrs. Page, S. Perkins, Wales, and Bullard, of the Common Council.
£
97
CITY GOVERNMENT.
rous congregation rights which had, during the last year, been granted to two churches in their immediate vicinity.
On examining into the circumstances under which those privi- leges had been granted to the St. Paul and Park Street churches, it was found that they had been acquired under a weight of pri- vate interests and influences, which rendered it doubtful whether the permanent welfare of the city had been sufficiently con- sidered. The important question, concerning the propriety of allowing cemeteries under churches in the heart of a metropolis, had been brought before the first administration in December, 1822, by a petition of the proprietors of St. Paul's, praying for leave to use the cellar under that building as a place of inter- ment; "and stating that, having erected a church at a great expense, they had incurred a debt, from which they could not be relieved unless their prayer was granted. Among the proprietors of St. Paul's were men of wealth and influence, who were earnestly desirous of securing, not only for their church, but for themselves, the benefit of possessing tombs under it. The pro- prietors of Park Street possessed similar influences in the com- munity, and were actuated by a similar desire to be relieved from a troublesome debt, by the sale of their cellar for tombs. Mem- bers of each society were members of one or the other branch of the city goverment. This combination of circumstances had a tendency to counteract an unbiased inquiry into the public interest.
The Committee of the first City Council, to whom the peti- tion of the church of St. Paul's had been referred, in 1822, reported, that " learned physicians had given a decided opinion that no injurious effects were to be apprehended from granting such a privilege on the health of the city ;" that "persons whose business obliged them to be constantly exposed to the decompo- sition of animal matter, were as healthy as other classes of citizens ;" and that " no danger had arisen from cemeteries under King's Chapel and Trinity Church ;" and, "as to nauseous eflluvia, tombs might be so constructed as to prevent any incon- venience in that respect;" and after recommending that the City Council should annex it as a condition, that the tombs should be constructed under the direction of a committee of the City Council, and forever subject to their control, they reported the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. This report
9
98
MUNICIPAL HISTORY.
was accepted in both branches on the thirtieth December, 1822. The Committee who made this report, in answer to the objec- tion, that other societies would claim the same privilege, stated " they had not taken that into consideration, leaving it to the judgment of those who shall have the care of the interests of the city at the time such application may be made." No notice was taken of this statement, or intimation given, so far as could be ascertained, of any intention on the part of the proprietors of Park Street Church, to take immediate advantage of the precedent. Yet, on the twenty-third day of January ensuing, as soon as the principle was settled, by the acceptance of that report, those proprietors presented a petition for a similar right of interment under their church, predicated on the grant to the Church of St. Paul's ; and their petition was granted, without even the formality of commitment or any further inquiry.
Other circumstances greatly diminished the confidence of the second administration of the city in the soundness of these per- missions, and led them to submit the petition of the proprietors of the church in Bromfield Street to a rigorous scrutiny. On the fourth of August, (1823,) the Chairman of this Committee reported, that the claim of the Bromfield Street Church had no foundation on the ground of common right, each City Council being independent, and not bound to exercise its discretion by precedents set by its predecessors; that if the claim of this church be granted, there would be no resisting similar claims, and that the cellar of every church in the city might be con- verted into a cemetery; that the temptation to exercise that right, when it was recognized to be universal, would be abso- lutely irresistible, since Park Street Church had already realized eight thousand dollars, and St. Paul's thirteen thousand, by sales of tomb rights, under the liberty granted by the first City Council.
Touching the opinions of those physicians, who had declared to the Committee of the first City Council, on the application of St. Paul's Church, " that if tombs under churches were of brick and stone, and arched, there could be no danger to health therefrom ; " and that " fevers arise from the decomposition of vegetable, and not of animal, matter;" the Committee of the second City Council remark, that "they have ascertained that other physicians, not less known, of at least equal standing,
99
CITY GOVERNMENT.
and as well deserving of confidence, held directly contrary opi- nions, in which they are supported by facts, and the concurrence of European physicians of eminence;" from which the Com- mittee deemed it at least doubtful, whether any measure so naturally alarming, and, once adopted, if erroneous, so irre- trievable, should be predicated on opinions thus equivocally set- tled among professional men. " But if," they add, " decomposi- tion of animal matter be not obnoxious, why require tombs to be constructed with so much care? The physicians most favor- able to such grants declare, there will be no danger if the tombs were properly built, thereby strongly implying there would be danger if they are improperly built. By the very words of these physicians, safety, therefore, depends, not upon the harmlessness of the effluvia, but upon the precautions used. The declaration of one physician, that ' he had never known the slightest offen- siveness from tombs under churches,' was distinctly repelled by the deposition of the sexton of King's Chapel, and by the certi- ficate of the Rev. Dr. Freeman, rector of that church; as also by a letter from the oldest physician of the city, Dr. Samuel Danforth, who, for extensive practice, weight of professional character, and intellectual talent, was second to no physician in it; and other certificates, to like effect, might have been obtained from other physicians. In conchision, the Committee stated, that the evidence of the noxiousness and danger from the eflluvia under churches was, in their opinion, established beyond ques- tion, and confirmed even by the advocates of that practice; that safety depends upon the tightness of the vaults; and that the im- possibility of enforcing requisite precautions by statutory provi- sions was evidenced by the fact, that the right of erecting tombs under Park Street and St. Paul's Churches was granted on the express condition, ' that they should be built under the direction of the City Council;' yet, strange as is the fact, the tombs are built, and no directions of the City Council were either asked or given, so far, at least, as appears by their records."
The Committee add, that " a subject of this importance should be decided without regard to private interests. The right of being buried under churches must necessarily be confined to a very few. It is not just, that a small minority of the population should have the privilege of poisoning the air for the great ma- jority. If the right of ancient tombs is to be respected, those
100
MUNICIPAL HISTORY.
rights ought not to be multiplied and extended by the erection of new tombs .. It is the duty of the official guardians of .states and cities to avoid adopting any policy materially affecting the general health or welfare on the assumption of wavering theories, especially when they contradict the most direct intimations of sense and reason. Instead of advocating the burial of the dead within the city, the great duty of a city government is to adopt rigidly a prospective system, which should ultimately, in some dis- tant time, exclude burial within its limits altogether. The Com- mittee, therefore, recommend a rejection of the petition of the Bromfield Street Church; the prohibition of the erection of new tombs within the ancient peninsula of Boston; the adop- tion of 'measures ultimately tending to exclude all burials here- after within the peninsula; and devising measures for applying the only perfect and satisfactory remedy, by adopting some com- mon place of burial for all the inhabitants, selected, if possible, beyond the limits of the city, but certainly beyond that of the peninsula, of an extent sufficient to meet the future exigencies of the population. There let all classes meet together, and let a common interest in the place be fortified and perpetuated by the sympathies and affections common to all, and thus become honored, and protected, and consecrated."
These views were submitted by the Committee in a series of resolutions, and adopted by the City Council.
The church and congregation in Bromfield Street, although denied a liberty which had been granted by the first City Council to the churches of St. Paul and Park Street, and who were thus deprived of an important pecuniary benefit, submitted without a murmur, and in a manner highly honorable and exemplary, to the decision of the City Council.
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.