USA > Massachusetts > Dukes County > Marthas Vineyard > The history of Martha's Vineyard, Dukes County, Massachusetts, Volume I > Part 27
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
May it please yr Excellency & hon'rs they alledge that it would be for the good of the community of the County which we suppose they in- tended to lay down as a general Proposition & to support by their fol- lowing Reasons: they say in case the Courts should be held in Tisbury the Bills of Cost in the County for Travail of Jurors and Evidences would be less than now - to which we answer that we send a number of Jurors equal to both the other Towns so that when those of Chilmark have got to Tisbury (to which place they must come be the Courts held here or there), they in conjunction with those of Tisbury make a number equal to that of Edgartown. And we very humbly inquire whether it costs any more to pay a certain number of men for Travailing Eight miles east than an equal number eight miles west: and whether there would be a Diminution of charge for the Travail of Evidence in case the Courts should be held in Tisbury is altogether uncertain: but allowing they would, and as great a Diminution as they can with the best appearance of Reason pre- tend; we cant suppose it would nearly be equal to the Interest of the money which it would cost the County to remove the Court House & Goal (both of which it is noted are now in very good Repair at Edgartown), so that it would not thro'out in all ages in any part Countervail that Charge to the County.
Again: They Allegd that they apprehend that it will accomodate the Inhabitants of this County, much more than at present for those Persons obliged to attend Courts cant Return home at Night, which they might if the Courts were held at Tisbury - by which we conceive that they cant intend that none of the Inhabitants of this County can now return home at night whereas they might all return home at Night in case the Courts were held in Tisbury, for this is most evidently false it being as easy for People that live within 1, 2, 3, &c miles of Court to return now as then but that they cant in so great a proportion now as then: and here it is true that the Inhabitants of Chilmark have now Eleven miles to Trav- ail, whereas those of Edgartown would have then but eight and that other
276
County of Dukes County
things being equal, those of Edgartown can as well return from Tisbury on account of the distance as those of Tisbury from Edgartown, but not- withstanding those things considering that the People of Chilmark & Tis- bury mostly live by farming & keep Horses, they can doubtless in as a great proportion & with the same ease return now as then it being much easier to ride Eleven miles than to walk Eight.
They plead in favour of the Inhabitants of the Elizabeth and Noman's Land Islands in which they say there are near 20 Families, that after they have sailed 3 Leagues to the North Shore they have 12 miles to Travail to the place where the Courts are now held: and so cant go home at night, whereas in case the Courts were held at Tisbury they might go home at night. To which we answer that if the Courts were held at Tis- bury they would have three or four miles to travail from a part of the North Shore, which distance we can hardly suppose they could Travail after sailing 3 Leagues and perform business at Court and Return the same Day: it is true these People have further to Travail now then in case the Courts were to be held at Tisbury, but this is no charge to the County in general for they are never required to serve as Jurors (the ad- vantage of their doing so being in no measure a compensation for the trouble of warning them); and with Regard to the Inhabitants of those Islands in particular as they have seldom if ever any occasion to attend Courts, except for the Renewal of their Licence for Innholding, we Ques- tion whether the charge of the additional Travail to them would ever preponderate their part of the Charge of removing the Court House and Prisn.
Again they further assert that that part of Edgartown where the Courts are now held is poorly furnished with Pasture or Hay to keep Horses, & to which we answer that they don't generally attempt to put up their Horses, & so it is possible that some time when they have desired it they may have found the less provision therefor, but it does not appear that they have any Reason to Complain there being several Persons that live near who Declare thay have ever been ready to take proper Care of their Horses & never Refused any when applyed to for Twenty years past, and are still ready to furnish them with good hay at one Shilling pr night at March Court and Pasture at eight pence pr Night at October Court, provided they are disposed to put them up.
They inform your Excellency & hon'rs that the Ferry for Transport- ing People from the Vineyard to the Main Land is in Tisbury, by which we suppose they intend to intimate that in case the Courts are held in Tis- bury People from the Main Land (if any there be) who have occasion to attend our Courts could do it more easily, but we beg leave to inform your Excellency & hon'rs that altho' Tisbury does enjoy the Privilege of the Ferry yet the Difference is but very small as the distance from it to the Courts where thay are now held or in Tisbury, & that the Distance to either Place is so great that People would be obliged to Transport their Horses, it being eight miles now and six miles to Tisbury: And that Peo- ple from Boston, Rhoad Island & Nantucket (to which places our Trade is almost wholly confined), can come within 20 Rods of the Court House by Water, whereas in case the Courts were held in Tisbury they would be obliged after Landing to Travail 6 or 8 miles. And we would just observe here with regard to the Inhabitants of the Elizabeth Islands that
277
History of Martha's Vineyard
there is no harbour upon the North Shore and the waves are frequently so high that it is probable that they would be obliged to Land at Holmes' hole & then the difference of their Travail would be no greater than that of the People who came over the Ferry from the Main land. And as a further Reason why the Prayer of the afores'd Pettr's ought not to be granted we beg leave to inform y'r Excellency & hon'rs that the Indians who often have occasion to attend Courts are now much better accomo- dated than in case the Courts were held at Tisbury, for here they can within call of the Court furnish themselves with plenty of Shell Fish for Provisions, whereas then they would be obliged to spend their money there- for if anything they have and otherwise to Live upon People or suffer hunger: 'and now when any of them are in Goal others easily furnish them with Shell Fish and with fire wood, which they have a great plenty of on Chappaquiddick, which lies near the Court House, whereby their lives are rendered the more comfortable; likewise as we are liable to be ran- sacked by Privateers or the like in time of war (of which the General Court in the last Spanish war was so apprehensive as to grant us a con- siderable sum of money for building a Fortification), in case the Courts were held in Tisbury our danger hereof would be very greatly increased; for if an enemy knew when our Courts were held and that they were held there (as they might easily inform themselves), they would doubtless Choose such a time to Plunder us.
Furthermore: This is the only Safe Harbour for Shipping upon the Island and the People not only of this but of the other Towns Carry on their Trade & Business here, and as our Courts are held just before our Whale men sail in the Spring and about the time they make up their Voy- ages in the Fall ; so People can accomodate their business at Court times: Whereas then they would be greatly removed therefrom.
Again: That altho' the other two Towns have Increased faster than we for some time past yet there is no Rational prospect of their doing so in the Future; for the Island has now as many Inhabitants as the Land will comfortably support; so that if there should be any further increase of Inhabitants it seems they must be supported by whaleing, Fishing & seafaring business, and as there is no other safe harbour except this (as we have before observed), so it seems that this must be the Place for Car- rying on such business, and there is a prospect (with Divine blessing), of an Increase herein, in this place inasmuch as the Situation of this is much more commodious than that of Nantucket, and since our People seem now to be running into it, as there sailed from this Town the Summer past nineteen Masters of vessels and upwards of fifty Sailors. Disorders arise often among the sailors who live in the Harbor and some of them have been obliged to be committed to Goal, which now can very easily be done and the Prisoner be delivered immediately when ever the wind suits for sailing; whereas it would be vastly incommodious to send them up Eight miles from the Harbur and when the vessel was ready to sail to wait till they could be brought back again; and it is not at all unlikely that were the Instruments of Correction removed they would take the advantage thereof and be guilty of greater disorders, and if it should here be objected that Holmes hole Harbour is more used than this by Coasters and Foreigners it may be very easily answered that it is much easier to sail into this Harbour (a thing which they frequently do when they are
278
County of Dukes County
under apprehansions of a storm, that harbour being much Exposed to a North East wind), than to send six miles by land.
Lastly: The Charge of moving the Court House & Prison would be very heavy upon this small County, especially at this Time inasmuch as our Province Taxes are high and we have been of late at some very con- siderable expense in the County e. g. we have settled Two Ministers, one the last year, the other this - we have built a new Ferry boat, Repaired the Court House & lately paid for building a Goal & been at the charge of imprisoning and Trying an Indian for Murder.
These or the like Reasons we humbly conceive ought to continue the Mother Towns in the enjoyment of their Priviledges of this nature not- withstanding thay be not in the Center, especially since your Excellency & hon'rs have not seen fit to remove the Shire Towns in several Counties in the Province in which a removal we apprehend might with parity or superiority of Reasons be urged as in this, and we beg that considering these things your Excellency & hon'rs would be pleased to continue us in the enjoyment of those Priviledges which we have had from the begin- ning, and redily Dismiss their Petition especially seeing it is not the first time they have thus Troubled us. Which we shall have the more occasion to hope for if we may be favoured with a hearing on the floor.
And as in duty bound shall ever pray &c. Edgartown Jan'y 8th 1762.
JOHN NORTON Agents for the Town of JOHN SUMNER Edgartown.
The council having read the plain and forceful statement of the petitioners and the witty and stirring remonstrance of Edgartown were in an uncertain frame of mind, and after deliberation, took the following action on Jan. 22, 1762: -
In Council Read again, together with the Answer of the Town of Edgartown, and Ordered That Benjamin Lynde and John Cushing Esqrs with such as the honourable House shall join be a Committee to take the same under consideration, hear the parties and report.
In the House of Representatives Read and Concurred and Mr. Tyler, Capt. Livermore and Capt. Richardson are joined in this affair.1
The augmented committee finally reached a decision upon the subject which was a compromise, as it only divided the holding of the courts between the two towns, and on Feb. 8, 1762, the following act was passed in pursuance of the recom- mendation of the committee: -
Be it enacted &c., that the Court of General Sessions of the Peace and Inferior Court of Common Pleas for the County of Dukes County, ap- pointed to be holden on the last Tuesday of October, annually, shall instead of being holden at Edgartown, be henceforth holden at Tisbury, on the last Tuesday of October, annually, and all officers and other persons concerned, are requested to conform theerto accordingly.2
1Council Records, XXIV, 191.
2 Acts and Resolves, Province of Mass. Bay.
279
History of Martha's Vineyard
The result was not satisfactory to either petitioners or remonstrants, in all probability, as the "west enders" wanted the whole establishment removed to Tisbury; but it is signifi- cant of the deliberate way in which this matter was managed that nothing further was done by the petitioners to accomplish their purpose for a quarter of a century. Meanwhile, the act went into effect, and it required the building of another court house and the maintenance of two by this small county. It is probable that the October terms of the court, 1762 and 1763, were held in the meeting house at Tisbury, as no steps were taken to provide a court house for the sitting of the justices. Accordingly, at a meeting of the judges of the court, held on February, 1764,
On a motion made by Mr. Chief Justice Mayhew to the Court that there was need of a House to be built in Tisbury for the Holding of the Courts by Law to be held there on the Last Tuesday of October annually,
Voted That there should be the sum of £108-o-o Lawful money forth with raised in the said County of Dukes County, The sum of £48 to be raised and applied for the Building the aforesaid House and the Remain- der being £60-o-o for Defraying the other Charges that the County is now in debt for.1
At the same meeting, probably to perfect negotiations already under way, the following action was taken by them: -
Voted the sum of £48 to Samuel Cobb, "he first giving conveyance to this County of a Piece of Land for to set said House upon on the West side of Mill Brook in Tisbury & likewise obliges himself to build a House of the Same Dimention as the Court House in Edgartown & to finnish the same in the Same manner that That is done by the first Day of Octo- ber next.2
Taxes to Edgartown 38-10-93-4 41-06-61-4 28-02-8
Chilmark Tisbury
118-0-0
The land referred to is situated on the spot now occupied by the post office in the village of West Tisbury. The deed describing the property, executed by Samuel Cobb to James Athearn, as agent for the county, was dated July 10, 1764, and is in abstract as follows: -
for the entire use and benefit of the County of Dukes County afore- said a certain piece of upland lying in Tisbury aforesaid at the southeast corner of that piece of land bought of Silvanus Cottle late of said Tisbury
1Dukes County Court Records.
2Ibid.
280
County of Dukes County
ying on the east side of the old mill river in said Tisbury bounded on the east side by the road dividing said land from the land of Barnard Case and on the south by the road dividing said land from the land of Samuel Manter of said Tisbury to extend twenty five feet north & twenty five feet west from said corner so as to be twenty five feet square, to him the said James Athearn to and for the only use aforesaid in order for said county to errect a Court House for said County thereon.1
At a meeting of the justices at this time, to act upon the subject, the following vote was passed: -
July 1764. Court of Sessions. Present: Matthew Mayhew, Chief Justice, John Sumner, Ebenezer Smith, and James Athearn, Associates.
Ordered that there be a floor laid in the Upper part of the Court House in Tisbury and that the Roof be Joynted & Ploughed and that the Justices Bench be Raised the fore Part & that there be hanging benches to lean upon . . and that the Joyce be straight.2
It is supposed that the building was completed at the time required, and that the new court house, of the same size and style as its rival in Edgartown, with its "hanging benches" for the spectators "to lean upon" was opened with much pomp by their honors for the first time in October, 1764, to comply with the law.3 Here the courts annually administered justice until 1807, and in this building met the delegates to the County Convention in December, 1774, and passed those stirring reso- lutions of resistance to the British government on the eve of the great struggle. To-day it is used as an ice house, or part of it, on an adjoining lot, having been removed years ago from its original location.
LATER COURT HOUSES.
In 1781, upon petition of William Jernegan, Thomas Cooke, and Benjamin Smith, representing "the Expediency of Removing the Court House in Edgartown to some more Convent Place Provided that the same may be Removed and Compleated in some sutable Place without Expense to the County which they think may be Done by Granting the Land whereon said house Stands to the Undertakers of that Busi- ness."
The justices granted this petition and impowered them to remove the old Court House from North Water street "to
1Dukes Co. Deeds, IX, 425.
2Dukes County Court Records.
3There was a town meeting held in the "County House" in Tisbury in December, 1764, and thereafter the annual and other town meetings were convened there. (Tis- bury Records, 186.)
281
1
History of Martha's Vineyard
some sutable place on the Southerly part of the Highway Be- twixt the Meeting House & the Dwelling House of the said Thomas Cooke as soon as may be."
Accordingly on Dec. 5, 1781, in consideration of the old lot, Thomas Cooke deeded to the County a lot of land forty feet square on the present Commercial street, south side, situated to the "Northwestward of the School House that adjoins the Road which Matthew Mayhew gave the Town from the Spring or Harbour to the Meeting House."
The times were then full of excitement over the impending controversy with the mother country, and it was not till the war had ended, twenty-five years after the law of 1762, that the two towns began another fight to accomplish the removal of the shire town. Tisbury was the aggressor on this occasion in point of time, and held a meeting on Feb. 7, 1786, of which the following is a report of its doings: -
Tisbuary ss: At A Town-meeting Legally Warn'd & held at the Courthouse in Tisbuary by the Freeholders and other Inhabitants on Tuesday the 7th of Febreuary AD: 1786 in Order to Act and do what was Inserted in the Warrant for calling the Same Decon Stephen Luce being Moderator, And then it was put to Vote and Voted in the Affirmative that Mr Benjamin Allen Tisbuary's Present Representative Should be a Committee Man to Joyn the Town of Chilmark in Prephering a Pettition to the General Court of the State of the Common Wealth of Massachu- setts to have the Town of Tisbuary to be made the Shire Town in Dukes county and for their Courts to be held there for the Future Either at the Present Session or any Other Sessions hereafter &c: - 1
Chilmark followed suit two days later, and the record of her doings in the premises is contained in the following extract from the proceedings of the meeting: -
Att a meeting on the ninth Day of february 1786. Then was chosen Nathaniel Bassett Esq. Moderator.
Voted that there be a committee of two persons to Draught a Pe- tisson to the General Court to make Tisbury the Shear town for the said County: then was chosen Matthew Mayhew Esq. and Benjamin Bassett Esq. to Draught said Petition and to Lay it before the Town att the ad- jornment, and said town meeting is adjorned to Monday next at two o'clock in the afternoon.
att a Town meeting by adjornment on the thirteenth day of february 1786, then was chosen Nathaniel Bassett Esq. Moderator.
And said Committee Bring in the Petition to the town and the Town Voted that the Petition be sent to the General Court.2
1Tisbury Records, 257.
2Chilmark Records, I, 203, 206.
282
County of Dukes County
With the above named petition went the petition of Tis- bury, drawn up by Benjamin Allen, and both were presented to the General Court at its session for that year. The former is not in the archives, but that of the agent for Tisbury is of record and reads as follows: -
To the Honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in General Court assembled :
The Petition of Benjamin Allen of Tisbury in behalf of said Town, and appointed on the Seventh day of February instant, at a legal Town meeting as by a vote of said town will appear. To Petition the General Court in conjunction with the inhabitants of the Town of Chilmark in the County of Dukes County That the Town of Tisbury may be made the shire town in sd County, first Because it is the middle town in Said County and in the center of the County, and the people, and one half of the County Courts have Been held there for some years, and a new Court House within a few years hath been built at Tisbury: but no goal as yet. But one must soon be erected at Tisbury and as the Goal at Edgartown is old and much out of Repair our small County must now be at the cost of building two Goals & keeping them in Repair, which will be such a cost as this small County is not able to pay, and one goal is quite sufficient for sd County if in the center of the same; for further Reasons your Pe- titioner begs leave to referr your honours to the Petition of the town of Chilmark which is now before your honours; your Petitioner humbly prays your Honours will be pleased to Take the above into your wise & Compassionate Consideration & order That the Town of Tisbury may be made the shire town in Dukes County and all the sd County Courts for the future to be held there: & as in Duty bound shall ever pray.
BENJAMIN ALLEN Agent for Tisbury 1 February 23, 1786.
The representatives took the following action on the prayers of the petitioners shortly after : -
In the House of Representatives February 28, 1786.
Read with the Petition on the same Subject from the Town of Chil- mark & ordered that the Hon. Walter Spooner Esqr, Solomon Freeman Y Esqr & Shearjashub Bourne Esq, Committee appointed the last sitting on the petition of a number of the Proprietors of the Island of Chabba- quiddick, have it in instruction to view the County of Dukes County with respect to the suitable place or place or places of holding the Courts there, hear the parties & report.2
It does not appear what action was taken, if any, on the report of this committee, but it is sufficient to say that no change occurred as a result of the agitation. For twenty years
1Mass. Archives. 2Ibid.
283
History of Martha's Vineyard
more there was peace between the rival ends of the island, and not till the beginning of the next century did there appear any ripples upon the waters. This time Edgartown started the ball again, by trying to get the fall session transferred from Tisbury. In 1805, Thomas Cooke and Cornelius Marchant joined in a petition for a change of this character, but it got no further than the files of the Committee of the General Court, where it was lost. This time the east end faction was determined to fight it out to a finish, and kept up the agitation the next year.
On May 7, 1806, the people of Edgartown held a meeting "to know the minds of the inhabitants with respect to the necessity & conveniency of supporting two Court houses in this County." and by a unanimous vote they decided "to have but one and that to be the one that is now in Edgartown." And they further voted to obtain the approbation of the General Court that there be but one court house established in this county.1 Following this the two petitioners, Cooke and Mar- chant, renewed their prayer for a change the next year, but no reason therefor are stated in their address to the General Court. Their petition is as follows: -
To the Honorable the Senate and the Honorable House of Repre- sentatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in General Court assembled :
Humbly shows Thomas Cooke and Cornelius Marchant Junr that by the order of the Honorable Court of the General Sessions of the Peace holden at Tisbury within and for the County of Dukes County on the 26th day of February 1805 were appointed a committee to petition your Honours for the purpose to discontinue the October term which by Law is appointed to be holden at Tisbury aforesaid on the last Tuesday of October annually, and that the said Court be altered to the first Tuesday of November then to be holden at Edgartown within and for said County of Dukes County.
Your Petitioners inform your Honours that they did accordingly prefer a Petition to the General Court at the next session which was committed but not reported, and the Papers since not to be found.
We therefore Pray your Honours that the October term be discon- tinued and in future to be holden at Edgartown as herein set forth; and in duty bound shall ever pray.
Edgartown January 6th, 1807
THO. COOKE COR. MARCHANT Ju'r
This petition was referred to a committee of three, Messrs. Spooner of Plymouth, Whitman of Barnstable, and Sprague of Duxbury, who reported "as their opinion that the Petitioners
1Edgartown Records, II, 130.
281
County of Dukes County
serve the Town Clerks of the several Towns of Edgartown, Chilmark and Tisbury 40 days before the 2nd of Wednesday next session of the Court."1 Meanwhile, before this could take effect, the people of the two towns were busy, each in its own way, to promote its interest. On April 6, 1807, Edgartown voted that "the Court of Common Pleas & General Sessions" should in the future be held at Edgartown.2 On the same day the voters of Tisbury were considering the same weighty matter in town meeting assembled, called together
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.