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 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
111
CITY GOVERNMENT.
tion had express reference to the right secured to the people by the constitution of this Commonwealth to assemble, which it was intended to secure according to ancient usage; and which had always been exercised in a " general meeting," and not in ward or sectional meetings. The nature of the subjects provided for by this section, is conclusive against the right of the Board of Aldermen. The questions to which their authority in this respect extends, are of the most grave and weighty character, such as affect the common good. Instructions to representatives, or redress of grievances, are subjects which ought to be discussed in general meetings, that every citizen may have the advan- tage of the counsel and intelligence of every other citizen on a subject of general and common interest. The report, therefore, concluded that the Mayor and Aldermen had no right to call a general meeting of the citizens in wards for any of the purposes specified in the petition. This report was accepted, and ordered to be published in three of the public newspapers, for the inform- ation of the citizens.
. In November, 1823, the Mayor, by message, recommended a consideration of the expedieney of providing, by some general system, of loans, payable by instalments, incurred for objects of permanent improvements, in which posterity were generally and chiefly interested. The motives for this suggestion were stated to be the rapidly increasing population of the city, the propor- tionate increase of building, involving, as a consequence, a rapid increase in the value of lands; that it was impossible for the Surveyors of Highways to avail themselves of the opportunities daily occurring for widening and extending streets, without exceeding existing appropriations, and without throwing upon the current year burdens greater than was just and reasonable, at the same time that it would be the worst species of economy to suffer opportunities to pass unimproved, which may not occur again for many years, and, possibly, never; or should they occur, could not be availed of but at an expense many times exceeding that at which they now could be made, arising from the certain great increase of the value of land resulting from increasing population. As it respected posterity, there- fore, the question was between a light, pecuniary burden of accruing interest and a heavy tax for improvements, which time would show to be unavoidable, together with narrow streets and
1
112
MUNICIPAL HISTORY.
other inconvenient localities, which the value of the land may hereafter render impossible to change, but which now might be obtained with little comparative expense ; all that seemed requi- site was, that limitations should be adopted to guard against excess and abuse of this power.
The message was referred to the Mayor and Aldermen Baxter, Odiorne, and Hooper, and in the Common Council to Messrs. Amory, E. Williams, Savage, Shaw, and Lamson. After delibe- ration, the Committee came to the conclusion, that the appre- hension of a city debt, and the difficulty of preventing such a system in after time from abuse, were considerations sufficient to counterbalance the certain expedieney of the measure, in its pecuniary effects on the cost of improvements in the city.
The terms and conditions on which theatrical and other licenses should be granted, had been absolutely vested in the Mayor and Aldermen by the city charter. It was important that the first steps taken should be firm and just and well considered, that correct precedents should be established.
A committee, of which the Mayor was chairman, was early raised, and, after great deliberation, reported that licenses were divisible into classes ; the principles applicable to each were differ- ent, according to their respective natures ; that the licenses of theatres were of all the most important, and to be viewed, in respect of morals and finance. The tendency of theatrical exhi- bitions to draw money from the community, and their effect on morals rendered them proper subjects, not only of revenue, but also of regulation, in respect of morals. The tax upon them ought to have reference to the advantage gained by such license. Where the effect upon morals is unquestionably bad, they should be denied altogether. Where, as in the case of theatrical exhibi- tions, the good is, to say the least, dubious, it is a reason for raising the tax for the license, to such a degree as, if possible, to reduce the disposition to multiply them, by diminishing the resulting benefit, thereby securing as great a respectability as the case permits, both in the character of such exhibitions, and also of those who engage in such employments. Two principles applicable to the subject result : - 1st. That the tax should be considerable ; and 2d. That it should be uniform; that the amount of the tax should not depend on the expenditures incurred to set forth the exhibition, and still less on the smallness
.
113
CITY GOVERNMENT.
of the sum demanded for visiting them. The injury to morals is often great, in a direct ratio to the smallness of such expendi- ture and of such demand. It is the duty of a municipal author- ity, in the exercise of such power, to encourage a respectable and responsible theatrical establishment. Such an one cannot long be upheld in any community, if every light, vagrant, and irre- sponsible company be encouraged to compete with it, on the suggestion that its pretensions were less, and its facilities for public attraction greater. With the same views, bonds of secu- rity proportioned to the object, with responsible freeholders as bondmen, should be required to conduct the exhibition with deco- rum. It should not be permitted, in connection with any licensed tavern, or house for the sale of spiritnous liquors. At that period, however, a license to sell them within the walls of the theatre during performance was deemed indispensable ; an opi- nion that increasing moral influences of later times has happily and effectually changed.
This report was accepted, and the votes it recommended passed, - making the licenses annual, the tax seven hundred dol- lars, and the bonds required to be five thousand dollars.
In January, 1826, a vote passed the City Council, that what- ever number of constables or police officers the Mayor and Alder- men shall see fit to appoint for the preservation of order and deco- rum in any house where theatrical or any other exhibition or public show shall be licensed or had, or in the vicinity thereof, the managers, proprietors, or owners of such exhibition or show shall be liable to pay such expense, and the making such pay- ment shall be inserted as one of the conditions of any bond for such license.
Between Charles Street and the Basin of the Boston and Roxbury Milldam, there lay a large and valuable tract of land, known by the name of "the Ropewalk Lands," which, from its local position, its extent, its capacity of improvement, either for ornament or revenue, was one of the most important interests of the city. This tract had been granted by the town of Boston, in the year 1794, to certain proprietors of ropewalks, situated between Pearl and Atkinson Streets, which had been that year destroyed by fire. The grant was conditional, and had a double motive ; sympathy for the sufferers, and the removal of the ropewalks to a distance from the then settled parts of the town ; to whose safety
10 *
114
MUNICIPAL HISTORY.
such an accumulated mass of combustible materials was deemed dangerous. This land was marsh, or flats, overflowed at high tides by the sea, with the exception of an inconsiderable eleva- tion, called " Fox Hill," which was chiefly valued as a resource for gravel for town purposes. The town, in its grant to the suffer- ers, by the fire in September, 1794, denominated it " a piece of marsh land and flats, at the bottom of the Connon, including such parts of ' Fox Hill' as shall fall within the prescribed bound- aries ;" the street now called " Charles Street," not being at that. time laid out, and these flats being regarded as the boundary of the Common. The grant was made under circunstances of great general feeling and excitement, and without sufficient considera- tion of its actual intrinsic value and of probable prospective con- sequences. The rights granted were indeed limited and qualified, but they were in their nature perpetnal, and could only be devested by compromise. The ropewalks built upon this tract had been again destroyed by fire, and the proprietors themselves began to realize both the danger of rebuilding five or six long walks of wood in the vicinity of each other, and in the vicinity of build- ings, which the increasing population of the city were erecting in their neighborhood. Realizing also the great value of the pro- perty, they had, in the year 1822, proposed to the first City Council to negotiate for either the purchase or the sale of the lands which the ropewalks had occupied ; offering thirty thou- sand dollars for a quitclaim from the city, or to release their right to the whole tract, on the payment of eighty-six thousand dollars.
In May, 1823, these proprietors petitioned to the second admi- nistration of the city for deeds or a settlement of those lands, aud a Committee, consisting of the Mayor, Aldermen Odiorne, Dorr, and Eddy, was appointed, and reported that the interests of those proprietors ought to be purchased by the city, and that no delay ought to occur in making a settlement of that concern. Those interests were now in few hands, but would, probably, by death, transfer, or legal process, soon become subdivided, and should they fall into the hands of minors, great difficulties might arise to the reinvesting the title, free of all inembrance, in the city. The Committee recommended a reference of the respect- ive claims to discreet and confidential persons, who should de- cide the amount the city should pay to the proprietors of the
115
CITY GOVERNMENT.
ropewalks for their interest in the tract, and that both the city and the proprietors should be bound by their decision. After great deliberation and considerable difficulty, the report was accepted by both the City Council and the proprietors. The reference resulted in an award, that the title of the proprietors should be invested in the city, on the payment of fifty-five thou- sand dollars. The referees mutually chosen were, - Patrick 'T. Jackson, Ebenezer Francis, Edward Cruft, Peter C. Brooks, and John P. Thorndike, citizens greatly distinguished for their in- telligence, probity, judgment, and acquaintance with real estate; and although some opposition was made to the acceptance of the award by one of the proprietors, all the others accepted it, and the result finally reinvested in the city, free of all incumbrance, that great and valuable tract of land relieved of all the embarrass- ments which the complicated state of the title had occasioned.
The situation of that tract, and its connection with the health, ornament, and other interests of the city, rendered the future dis- position of it a subject of immediate excitement among the citi- zens. Some contended that these lands were too important to be left unproductive, and that they should at once be put in a state to be sold. Others asserted that those lands were appurte- nant to " the Common." And although being flats, and usually covered with water, they had never been embraced within the general idea of " the Common," yet they in fact made part of it, and, by the terms of the city charter, the City Council was expressly excluded from the power of either lease or sale of the Common ; and that neither could be done without the sanction of all the citizens. The City Commeil deemed it most prudent to act in conformity with this last opinion ; and to put an end to controversy, which was increasing in the city on the subject, they called a general meeting of the citizens on the twenty-sixth of July, 1824, and required their opinion to be expressed upon the two following questions. First, shall the City Council have authority to make sale of all the lands west of Charles Street, in such way and on such terms as they shall deem expedient ? Second, shall they have authority to annex it, as a condition to such sales, that all the lands generally known by the name of " the Common," and lying between Park, Common, Boylston, Charles, and Beacon Streets, shall be kept forever open and free from building for the use of the citizens ?
116
MUNICIPAL HISTORY.
At this meeting, a large committee was appointed by the citi- zens, of which John T. Apthorp was chosen chairman. This Committee, after many meetings and long deliberation, made, in October following, a report, setting forth the inexpediency of selling the land west of Charles Street, denying the power of selling it under the city charter, and declaring the duty of keeping the space open for a free circulation of air from the west, for the sake of the health of the citizens. This report, which conchides with submitting three other questions for the decision of the citi- zens, in addition to those submitted by the City Council, was published and distributed, and on the twenty-seventh of Decem- ber, 1824, the five questions 1 were all negatived by great major- ities, except the second, which passed in the affirmative, by a majority of one thousand one hundred and eleven, to seven hun- dred and thirty-seven in the negative. The result of the meeting was to deny the expediency and withhold the right from the City Council of making sale of the land west of Charles Street.
In November, 1823, the Mayor called the attention of the City Council to the importance of securing Deer and Rainsford
1 The five questions submitted by the Committee were the following : -
First Question. Shall the City Council have authority to make sale of all the upland and flats owned by the city, lying west of Charles Street, on such terms and at such times as they may deem expedient ?
Second Question. Shall they have anthority to annex it, as a condition to such sales, that the land known by the name of the Common, and lying between Charles, Beacon, Park, Common, and Boylston Streets, shall be forever after kept open and free of buildings of any kind, for the use of the citizens ?
Third Question. Shall the City Council be authorized to bring the question of boundaries between the city and the Boston and Roxbury Mill Corporation to a settlement, and for that purpose be authorized to renew or confirm the former grants and acts of the town, with respect to said corporation, on such terms and conditions as the City Comeil may deem expedient : Provided that no confirm- ation or conveyance be made in virtue of their vote, to authorize the erection of dwelling houses or other buildings on any part of the premises ?
Fourth Question. Shall the City Council be anthorized to prepare for sale, and to convey on such terms and conditions as they may deem fit, so much of the upland and flats as lay sontherly of a line beginning at a point on Charles Street, thirteen hundred and fifty feet southerly from the dam belonging to the Boston and Roxbury Mill Corporation, and opposite to the southwesterly corner of the Connon, and running westerly at an angle of eighty-five degrees with Charles Street to the bounds of the city flats: Provided there be annexed to all such conveyanees a condition that the Common and all the npland and flats lying westerly therefrom shall forever after be kept free from, and unincumbered with all buildings ?
Fifth Question. Shall the City Council, whenever, in their opinion, the con- venience of the inhabitants require, be anthorized to lay out any part of the lands and flats, lying westerly from the Common, for a cemetery, and creet and sell tombs therein, on such terms and conditions as they may deem proper ?
117
CITY GOVERNMENT.
Islands from the inroads of the sea. The Mayor, Aldermen Child and Benjamin, and Messrs. Coolidge, Wilkinson, and Oliver, of the Common Council, were in consequence appointed a Com- mittee on that subject, who reported on the nineteenth of Novem- ber that an examination of those islands, in company with Com- modore Bainbridge and General Dearborn, and with other gentle- men skilled in maritime concerns, and particularly acquainted with the influence of tempests and currents on the harbor of Boston, had resulted in a conviction of the importance of taking imme- diate measures to secure them from the inroads of the sea. Its action had, during late years, done great injury, by gradually washing them away, and thus filling up and shifting the present channels, and diminishing the protection derived from the bluffs and headlands to the great roadsteads of the outer and inner harbor. The operation of these causes, if not attended to in sea- son, threatened to change one of the safest, most commodious, and beautiful harbors in the world, into a sightless, insecure suc- cession of sand banks ; the Committee, therefore, reconnnended an efficient and immediate application to the National Legisla- ture for an appropriation for the preservation of all the important points, on which the safety and convenience of the harbor, and the consequent commercial prosperity depended. They suggested the erecting of a breakwater, and the obtaining from the Legis- lature a law, prohibiting the taking away ballast from any of the islands. This report was accepted, and the Mayor, Aldermen Child and Benjamin, the President ( Wells) and Messrs. Savage, Oliver, and Dexter, of the Common Council, were appointed a Committee to carry it into effect.
On the eighth of December, 1823, the Mayor brought also before the City Council the importance of the immediate pur- chase of George's and Lovell's Islands, the former being, in the opinion of men of great nautical skill, the bulwark of Boston Harbor, both as being the best site for a fortress, and as affording the only secure anchorage in the lower harbor for ships of war and vessels of every size and description, during casterly gales, when without a pilot. He had ascertained that "those islands, of such inestimable importance to the city, were the property of one individual, who now derives from them an income, by the sale of stone and gravel, and thus assisted the inroads of the sea." By these combined operations, one half of George's Island had been
.
118
MUNICIPAL HISTORY.
destroyed, and both might be purchased for seven thousand dol- lars. The City Commeil were not, however, prepared to adopt the suggestions of the Mayor, and referred the subject for con- sideration to their successors.
In November, 1824, the Mayor again brought this subject before the City Council, stating that these islands ought to be owned by the city ; that although the duty of fortifying the har- bor belonged to the United States, the favorable opportunity for vesting the title to them in the city ought not to be lost. The measure would strongly express the opinion of the city govern- ment of their importance, and must have a propitious influence on an application to Congress for an appropriation for their pro- tection. This persevering urgency effected its object. The sanc- tion of the City Commeil was obtained. The Mayor and Alder- man Eddy, and Messrs. E. Williams, Wales, and Coolidge, of the Common Council, were appointed a Committee, with full author- ity; and in March, 1825, they reported that George's and Lovell's Islands had been purchased for six thousand dollars, on terms and conditions to which the City Council immediately acceded.
In the preceding and subsequent negotiation with the Gene- ral Goverment, the aid of James Lloyd and Daniel Webster, the Senators of Massachusetts in Congress, was earnestly and suc- cessfully given to the views of the City Council. A correspond- ence was also opened, by the Mayor, with James Barbour, the Secretary of War of the United States, which resulted in a transfer to them of the soil and jurisdiction of George's and Lovell's Islands, and also so much of Deer Island as should be covered by their works, and in an appropriation by Congress of forty thousand dollars for the protection of George's and Deer Islands by a sea wall. This appropriation was, however, exchi- sively applied to, and exhausted in protecting George's Island.
In November, 1827, the Mayor, therefore, again called the attention of the City Council to the state of the several islands and beaches in the vicinity of the different harbors of the city, stating that the former appropriation made by Congress had been expended, and that additional appropriations were requisite for the protection of our harbor from the inroads of the sea. At the same time he called the attention of the City Council to a petition pending before the Legislature of the State from the town of Chelsea, relative to the jurisdiction over Chelsea Beach,
1
119
CITY GOVERNMENT.
and to the importance of maintaining that Beach in its present state. He adverted also to the practice of taking ballast and sand from Bird Island and from the Bar, extending from the Great Brewster to the Stone Monument, at the entrance of the Narrows. An application to the Legislature was accordingly authorized, and an aet obtained, providing against the several injuries which were specified or apprehended.
In February, 1828, the importance of protection to Deer Island, as stated in a memorial from the Boston Marine Society, was laid before the City Council by the Mayor, and a memorial to Congress for an appropriation for that objeet was authorized, and, in June following, a letter from Mr. Gorham, the member of Congress from Boston, was received, stating that eighty-seven thousand dollars had been appropriated, according to the tenor and request of that memorial, and in the course of the same month, another letter from Samuel L. Southard, Secretary at War, was received by the Mayor, stating that the appropriation had been made, and an engineer directed to proceed in the pro- posed system of protection. This was accordingly commenced in the autumn of 1828, the city having caused the cession to be made to the United States of the jurisdiction of that part of the island on which the sea wall was erected, as required in like cases by the United States.
The subject of common sewers came early under the conside- ration of the City Council. Under the town government, the drains were objects of private property, subject to the rules esta- blished by law. No person was allowed to open a street for the purpose of laying a new or using an old drain or common sewer, without the consent of the Selectmen. If any inhabitant, with their permission, laid a sewer, every person entering his drain into it, or remotely benefited by it, was held to pay its owner a proportionate part of the charge for its construction and repair, to be ascertained by the selectmen, with an appeal from their decision to the Court of Sessions. In case of subsequent repairs, all persons benefited were held to pay their proportion of the expense. The person opening such drain, being bound to give seven days notice, by advertisement, to all persons interested, to appear and object to it on the day appointed by the Select- men, whose duty it was to decide whether the 'drain should be opened, and the person who should bear the expense.
1
120
MUNICIPAL HISTORY.
No system could be more inconvenient to the public, or embarrassing to private persons. The streets were opened with little care, the drains built according to the opinion of private interest and economy ; and constant and interminable vexations occasions of dispute occurred between the owners of the drain and those who entered it, as to the degree of benefit and pro- portion of contribution.
The direction of the drain, and the place in the street selected for laying it, was often guided by the interest of him who first opened it, with little regard to public or general accommodation. An ordinance of the City Council was passed on the seventh of July, 1823, adapted to remedy these inconveniences. It provided that all common sewers should be laid and kept in repair at the expense of the city, under the direction of the Mayor and Alder- men ; that persons entering or benefited by them, should be held to pay what they should deem just and reasonable. Their dimensions, size, position, and materials, with which constructed, and all incidental particulars, were subjected to their authority, and they were invested with power to compel any owner of land adjoining to make a sufficient drain into them, and if neglected, to cause the same to be done, and recover the amount of expenses, with ten per cent. damages. Penalties were annexed for entering a drain without a permit, and provisions made for repairing or rebuilding a common sewer, and assessing the cost on those benefited. A. plan of each conmon sewer, embracing its size, its direction, and all particulars to show its local position, was directed to be kept in a book for that purpose.
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.