USA > Massachusetts > Essex County > Salem > The history of Salem, Massachusetts, vol 1, 1924 > Part 23
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58
1In the court at Salem, March 27, 1638, he was sentenced to sit in the stocks two hours for misdemeanors.
2Records of Massachusetts Bay Colony, volume I, page 270. On the same day (Sept. 3, 1639), in the same court, "Ralfe Warriner was fined 10$ for being at excessive drinking at Thom: Grayes at Marble Heade"- Records of Massachusetts Bay Colony, volume I, page 268.
3Lechford's Note Book, page 148. See Plain Dealing.
204
HISTORY OF SALEM
remained in America. Feb. I, 1641-2, he was again presented1 in the court at Salem, but John Devereaux reported to the court that Gray was sick. In the same court Dec. 27th following, he was whipped for drunkenness ; and the next year was sentenced to be whipped for being "overseen in drink." In 1647, he was evidently engaged in fishing. The following winter he had a fight with John Devereaux, but the court found that the latter was the person blamable.2 In 1649, Gray was fined for being distempered with drink at Lynn.3 In 1654, he was convicted of railing and drunk- enness ; and this time he found a friend in Edmond Batter of Salem, who became responsible for the payment of Gray's fine to save him from being whipped ten stripes.4 For a quarter of a century he had made frequent appearances in the courts.
STOCKS.
At the court of assistants held at Charlestown Sept. 28, 1630, it was ordered "that John Goulworth shalbe whipped, and after- wards sett in the stocks, for ffellony comitted by him, whereof hee is convicted by his owne confession ; also, that Henry Lyn shalbe whipped for the like offence, & John Boggust & John Pickryn to sitt in the stocks 4 howers togeath" att Salem, for being accessory therevnto." These parties were all of Salem, probably. John Boggust was living the next year, and John Pickering removed to Piscataqua River. John Goulworth did not re-appear, but Henry Lynn was in the court of assistants, at Boston, Sept. 6, 1631, when he was ordered to be whipped and banished from the plantation before the tenth of the next month "for writeing into
1Similar to indicted.
"Salem Quarterly Court records, June 11, 1649.
3Salem Quarterly Court records, Nov. 30, 1654.
Essex County Quarterly Court Records and Files, volume I, page 135-
205
LABOR, ETC.
England falsely & mallitiously against the goum & execucon of justice here."1
Stocks were, therefore, in existence at Salem at this early date.2 They were located out of doors in or by the side of the central square or main thoroughfare, and near the most public building, as the meeting house and later the court house, where they would be most conspicuous. The last stocks to be used in Salem were probably located on the eastern side of the court house which stood in the middle of Washington Street, near Federal Street. The use of stocks here as a mode of punishment passed in or before the year 1805.
At a court of assistants, March 1, 1630-1, John Elford of Salem was alleged to be connected with the death of Thomas Puckett. With Roger Conant and John Woodbury, as sureties, Mr. Elford gave bond to appear at the court the succeeding November to answer for the death. Nothing more appears in the records about the matter, and probably this was the end of it. Mr. Elford lived in Salem as late as 1668, and was a man of property and standing.
The first case of whipping inflicted in Salem as a legal punish- ment is that of John Legg,8 about twenty-one years of age, servant to John Humphrey, who, at the court of assistants, May 3, 1631, was ordered to be severely whipped on that day at Boston and afterward, as John Logy soon as conveniently may be, at Salem, for striking Richard Wright of Saugus, when the latter came to correct him for idleness in his master's work.
Commerce with the Indians was important and valuable. Its main object was to secure beaver pelts, as the demand for them was great. The profits derived from the sale of these and other furs was expressly reserved for seven years by the Massachusetts Bay Company at the time of the transfer of its government to New England. A certain price therefor was fixed, but apparently a direct or positive benefit to the Company was unrealized, and, Nov. 9, 1630, the court of assistants ordered that thereafter beaver should be sold freely and "euy man to make the best pffit & impruem', of it that hee can."
1A Henry Lynn was fined for absenting himself from training, at a court in Boston, Nov. 7, 1632 .- Massachusetts Bay Colony Records.
2The town paid eleven shillings and sixpence for a pair of stocks Jan.
29, I637-8.
3John Legg, born about 1609; lived in Marblehead; shoemaker and merchant; married Elizabeth -, who was born about 1608, and was his wife in 1672; he died in 1674; children : I. Samuel ; lived in Boston; captain, in 1690; 2. John, born about 1644; merchant; lived in Marblehead; colonel ; died Oct. 8, 1717; had a family; 3. Daniel; died, unmarried, between 1672 and 1690.
206
HISTORY OF SALEM
When traffic in furs thus became free, a company was formed in Salem to engage in the trade at the eastward. The partners were Roger Conant, Peter Palfrey, Anthony Dike and Francis Johnson. They had a plantation and truck house on the eastern flanris Johnson coast. Mr. Johnson1 was about twenty-two years old and the man- ager of the company and Mr. Dike2 was master of the vessel, which was owned by the company and used in the prosecution of its affairs. Messrs. Conant and Palfrey, two of the old planters, were probably not actively engaged in the business.
Governor Endecott and several other men prepared certain stipulations to govern the general trade in beaver, and, in 1632, it was ordered that every planter here should pay to the court to- wards the defraying of public charges, twelve pence for every pound of beaver that he should trade with any Indian within the patent or beaver that he brought into the patent, having traded the same with any foreign Indian. It was also agreed that there should be a trucking house appointed in every plantation, whither the Indians might resort to trade, to avoid their coming to the houses.
Apparently, Francis Johnson was dissatisfied with this change in the law, and the next year after its passage sold his interest in the Salem company to Richard Foxwell of Blue Point,
1Francis Johnson, born about 1608; lived in Salem until 1648, when he bought a house and some land in Marblehead and removed thither ; sold his homestead in Marblehead in 1666 and removed to Boston; married Hannah -; she was his wife in 1677; children, baptized in Salem: I. Naomy, baptized April 1, 1638; 2. Ruth, baptized March 29, 1640; 3. Elizabeth, bap- tized April 24, 1642; 4. Francis, baptized June 16, 1644; 5. Samuel, baptized May 20, 1649; 6. Joane, baptized Oct. 5, 1651; 7. Sara, baptized Feb. 19, I653.
2CAPT. ANTHONY DIKE1 lived in Salem. He was once taken by the pirate Bull, but by some means escaped. In his Journal, Governor Winthrop records that Captain Dike, in a bark of thirty tons, was "cast away upon the head of Cape Cod. Three were starved to death with the cold; the other two got some fire and so lived there, by such food as they saved, seven weeks, till an Indian found them, &c." This was Dec. 15, 1638. In a severe snow storm with a northeast wind of great power, Captain Dike perished. His widow, Tabitha, married, secondly, Nathaniel Pickman in 1639. The children of Captain Dike were: I. Anthony;2 eldest son; 2. Charity;2 married John Alford.
ANTHONY DIKE;2 mariner; married Margery - -; died in 1679; she married, secondly, John Polin in 1680; children: I. Anthony,3 born March 24, 16 -; tailor ; in 1689 he removed to Ipswich, where he was living as late as 1702; married Sarah Davison of Ipswich; 2. Nathaniel,3 born Dec. 25, 1667; 3. Margery,3 born Aug. 16, 1669; 4. Mary,3 born in 167 -; 5. Jonathan,3 born March 28, 1673; 6. Benjamin,3 born Feb. 22, 1679-80.
207
LABOR, ETC.
merchant. Mr. Johnson found a settlement with the company difficult, and the matter was in court for many years.1
At the general court held Sept. 8, 1636, the council or any two of them were given power to farm out the trade with the Indians in beaver and other furs to such persons as they considered meet, for the term of three years and for an annual rent to be paid to the treasurer, except that any person could barter furs with the
"A letter written by Mr. Johnson from Newtown May 6, 1635, is as follows :-
"Sirs :
"I doe advise att this passadge in that you shoulde writt me Concerninge 281/2 li. of beauer paide Mr Shartt in full as alsoe a noate under his hande for the discharge of it butt he Cuming heather demands the some of me being disapoynted of the payment by you. now thes are to intreat you that if you haue nott made payment that you would do itt for I have Reffered nime to you in Regarde of your letter & have put it to your accompt thearfore I praye do nott delle soe ill with me as to disapoynt hime of his beaver thus intreatinge you not to faile me in the discharge of this I Rrest hee needs itt for Englande. if you haue not paide him 281/2li. to make itt so much "yours to use ffRANCES JOHNSON.
"Newtowne the
6th maye 1635."
---- Salem quarterly court files, volume III, leaf 82.
Another letter written by Mr. Johnson, from Salem Feb. 12, 1635, is as follows :---- "Salem ye 12th of february 1635 "Sir :
"yors of the 5th of December p m" Richard Tucker, as also beauer and otter the wch had taken wett so that I was forced to take some pains wth it, and coming to way it there wanted 3li. in the beauer and so the otter. so that I wonder at your ouersight in the waying or else in your stillyards, intearting you to take more care heareafter. I have taken your bils of in" Allerton but not according to your writing, for unless I would pay him all he would not let me haue them being first in his hand so forced to doe that so that at present we had but 113li. of beauer so would intreat you to make supplie wth more so soone as you can for it would be very welcom unto us. for the other we ar not bid above 5s. p li. but yet keep it for a better market. In your letter you mention the payment of 28li. 1/2 of beauer to M' Shurt wch was more then his due by the price of 2 hogsheads of salt but I will speake to him about it wondring that you sent not a noat under his hand of the receipt of it, for m' Gardner will not accept of it untill a noat from him, so would intreat you to send it by the first, as also would intreat you to pay unto him for the same mans use the some of twenty pounds of beuer the wch I haue promised shall be paid by you there, as also to cleer that bill of zoli. of beuer to m' Conit all wch I would intreat you not to faile I would have sent you an accompt of the whole but time will not pmit. concerning your being wth me I would be very willing to do you any good that lyes in my power. thus not else at p"sent I leave you and your affairs to god, I rest "Your friend in what I may
"ffRANCIS JOHNSON.
"pray remember my loue "to y" wife."
-Ipswich quarterly court files, volume III, leaf 83.
208
HISTORY OF SALEM
Indians for any other commodity that he might need. The next spring it was ordered that no person of the colony should trade out of the limits of the same with any Indian.
The membership of the Salem company was again changed by the death of Anthony Dike who was shipwrecked and frozen to death at Cape Cod in the terrible snow storm of Dec. 15, 1638. His widow, Tabitha, married, secondly, Nathaniel Pickman of Salem, house carpenter, in 1639; and he succeeded Captain Dike in the company. The business was continued but a few years longer, as there was at that time great disorder in the beaver trade here. At the general court, June 2, 1641, a commission, one member to be of Salem, was appointed to take sole charge of the matter of furs. The commission was to pay into the treasury one- twentieth part of all furs they traded, and had authority to make orders for its conduct.
The wild animals that were most troublesome and dangerous to the early settlers were wolves. As the number of domestic animals increased, the depredations of the wolves became cor- respondingly more frequent. In the autumn of 1630, they killed six calves in Salem ; but the wolves were so wary that only one of their number was secured at the time. A bounty for the de- struction of wolves was determined upon, and Nov. 9, 1630, the court of assistants ordered "that euy Englishe man that killeth a wolfe in any pte within the lymitts of this pattent shall haue allowed him Id for euy beast & horse, & ob. for euy weaned swyne & goate in euy plantacon, to be leuied by the constables of the sª plantacons." This law was repealed a year later, as the wolves were so numerous that the payment of bounties became burden- some.
The general court, Sept. 4, 1632, ordered that Richard Waterman be paid by the colonial treasurer forty shillings for killing a wolf about two months previously in the Salem plantation.
Sept. 2, 1635, the general court passed a law giving a bounty from the colonial treasury of five shillings for each wolf and one shilling for every fox that was killed.
Governor Endecott evidently owned a dog to protect his animals from wolves, as John Sweet was fined and ordered to be imprisoned during the pleasure of the court, at the quarter court in Boston, June 6, 1637, for killing a wolf dog of "Colonel En- decott" in the latter's own yard. The fine of five pounds was subsequently remitted.
Nov. 20, 1637, the bounty was increased to ten shillings for wolves and two shillings for foxes ; and March 13. 1638-9, it was wholly taken off. Great loss of domestic animals must have
209
LABOR, ETC.
followed this repeal, as Sept. 14, 1640, the town of Salem ordered that any man therein should have fifteen shillings for taking a wolf in the town and bringing it to the meeting house alive, and ten shillings for each wolf he killed. Oct. 4, 1640, it was "Ordered, that every man that kills a wolfe wth hounds shall have 405, alowed him, & whosoever kills a wolfe wth trap, peece, or other engine, shall haue IO alowed him, to be paid by the towne where the wolfe is killed, & if hee bee kiled out of any towne bounds it shalbee paid by the Treasurer." It was "further ordered, that such as shall keepe any hound, mastife, or gray hound, weh shalbee ayding to the death of any such wolfe, shall not bee contributory to the recompence." This entire law was repealed June 2, 1641. Wolf- trap brook at Magnolia, in Manchester, is suggestive of the practice of trapping wolves. Pits or falls, as they were called, were also dug for this purpose. Records show one to have been in the lowland on Andover street, in Danvers, about halfway be- tween Felton's corner and the railroad bridge.
Nov. 13, 1644, the general court ordered that a town should pay a bushel of Indian corn or three quarts of wine to an Indian for each wolf he killed within the town.
The destruction of cattle by wolves during that winter was very great, but the new law had such limited results that it was repealed. In its place it was provided that an Indian or English- man should be paid from the colonial treasury ten shillings for killing a wolf within ten miles of any plantation in the colony.
In 1645, the town of Salem concluded to do something in the way of the destruction of wolves, and voted, Nov. 10th, that "halfe a dozen or 4 braches or hounds shall be brought out of England & the chardges born by the town." Oct. 18, 1648, it was also "ordered, that the select men of every towne shall & hereby have power giuen them to purchase or pcure of the townes stock so many hounds as they think meete, & to impose the keep- ing of them on such as they thinke fitest, that so all meanes may be impved for the destruction of wolves, and that no other dogs shall be kept in any towne but such as the select men shall see meete ; no magistrate is to have any hound imposed upon him nor any dog taken from him, without his consent." At the same court, it was provided that every inhabitant of the colony, English or Indian, an Englishman should be paid thirty shillings, and an Indian twenty. In either case, ten shillings were to be paid from the colonial treasury, and the balance from the town where the wolf was killed. For proof, the head of the animal was delivered to the constable who buried the same.
Swine were provocative of more contentions and passage of laws than any other of the domestic animals in Salem in the early days. The first law was passed by the general court May 3, 1631,
210
HISTORY OF SALEM
by which all swine found in the corn of any person other than the owner of the animals were forfeited to the public and their value applied to the damages they had done, the owner of the animals paying the balance, if any. After March 1, 1632-3, the owner of swine which had damaged the corn of another person was required to pay the damages. July 2d following, it was ordered that any man might kill any swine that came into his corn, the owner of the animal to have its body, first paying for the damage.
Not only were swine injurious in cornfields, but also among flakes on which fish were drying at the stages they were equally harmful. In the spring of 1633, it was ordered that if any swine, in fishing time, should come within a fourth of a mile of the stage of Marble Harbor and other stages they should be forfeited to the owners of the stage.1
November 5th of that year, corn that was fit for human con- sumption was forbidden to be fed to swine; and it was also ordered that each plantation agree upon the number of swine any person might keep about the settlement, winter and summer.
All laws relating to swine were repealed May 14, 1634, and each town was to make its own rules about them, but owners of swine remained responsible for damages done by these animals in other towns.
There was need of a proper place to keep the swine which were found doing damage, and July 8, 1635, the general court ordered that each plantation should make a pound for the express purpose of securing swine found in any cornfield. This was the 'pund" of the Anglo-Saxons, a public enclosure, some thirty or forty feet square, surrounded with a high fence or wall. Salem ' built its pound at once, on the southerly side of Town House Square. A pound keeper, as he was called, was chosen by each town to have charge of the pound and custody of the animals impounded, feeding and watering them. This was usually some man living in the vicinity. Subsequently, several varieties of domestic animals became subjects for the pound.
Reproaching or finding fault with any person for seizing or killing any swine according to law or resistance to the taking and the driving the animals to the pound or illegally taking them from the pound, "pund breche," as the Anglo-Saxons called it, was a criminal offence.2 In those days, men spoke and acted freely and occasionally appeared in court to answer complaints of this kind.3
1Massachusetts Bay Colony Records, volume I, page 104. This was the stage in the South field probably.
"Massachusetts Bay Colony Records, volume I, page 238.
3Mr. Thomas Scruggs was fined five shillings for a pound breach in 1636, and George Harris five shillings, in the Salem quarterly court, Sept. 24, 1639, for stopping the poundage of swine.
2II
LABOR, ETC.
Notice of impounding was given to the owner of the animals, if he could be ascertained, otherwise it was announced at the next lecture. If the owner did not satisfy the damage and costs or the swine were not' claimed within three days thereafter the owner of the corn had the animals appraised and sold, and from the pro- ceeds retained double damages. This order extended to farms, but not to unfenced parcels of corn of an acre or less, planted remote from the town. The owner of the corn might kill the swine, if they could not be impounded, and of the net proceeds of the sale of the pork retain the amount of the damages and pay the balance, if any, to the owner of the animals. If the swine escaped from the pound, the owner became liable for damages.
Sept. 3, 1635, the general court ordered that the owner of the animals should pay twelve pence apiece, in addition to the damages and charges of keeping, for each swine taken without a keeper within a mile of any plantation ór on farms improved by tillage, to the one who impounded them. Swine so taken were cried at the next two lectures, and if not claimed within three days there- after, the impounder had them appraised and sold, and delivered the surplus of the proceeds of the sale into court.
Great damage by swine going at liberty was sustained every year; and it was ordered Oct. 26, 1636, that any swine found abroad out of the owner's inclosure or off his island, unless some person had them in restraint, by a line or otherwise should be ac- counted wild swine, and any man could take them, alive or dead. Each town was obliged to choose annually a discreet person, called the "hogreeve," who should seize all such swine, and account for all that were seized by others. All other laws relating to swine were repealed. Swine that were ringed had more liberty, as a ring in the snout of a hog prevented it from rooting, which was apparently one of the principal objections to a stray.
March 9, 1636-7, it was ordered that all swine be kept in yards or on islands, or committed to keepers, under penalty of ten shillings for each animal, and if they were taken in corn or in a meadow five shillings each should be forfeited to the impounder and double damages paid. If the swine could not be impounded, it was lawful to kill them.
After Nov. 20, 1637, each town made all orders for preventing harm done by swine in corn, meadow, pasture or garden, and had authority to impose reasonable penalties. The town paid the damages and recovered the amount from the owner. If swine in one town trespassed into another town, through lack of a ring or yoke, the town in which they belonged paid the fine. Pursuant to this authority, the town of Salem ordered, March 31, 1638, that all swine should go under keepers or be kept up; otherwise they could be impounded, but before they could be released, the owner
212
HISTORY OF SALEM
of the swine had to pay the damages and also two shillings and sixpence to the impounder.
Sept. 6, 1638, the general court ordered that any swine found within two miles of a meeting house (except on the premises of its owner), without a sufficient keeper, or found within another's cornfield, garden or pasture was forfeited.
Swineherds were appointed by the town to take swine to feed- ing grounds and care for them. The animals fed upon acorns, grubs, roots, etc.
In a new government there are many things that have to be provided for as exigencies arise. One of the early regulations in this colony was that governing weights and measures. At the general court held May 18, 1631, it was ordered that each planta- tion should provide common measures and weights, to be made according to some that the governor had sealed, and all measures and weights must conform to this standard. The kinds of measures thus standardized were not defined by law until 1635, when it was ordered that dry measures should consist of a bushel and peck; weights, one, two, four, seven and fourteen pounds, half a pound and quarter of a pound ; and the measure of length to be a "meate" yard, all to be made according to the standard in Boston and sealed by the marshall there.
Rev. Hugh Peter obtained weights and a beam and scales for the town of Salem in 1637, and was paid six pounds therefor.
The following winter, the general court ordered that the marshall of Boston should notify the constables of the several towns in the colony to require the inhabitants to bring their meas- ures and weights at a certain time and place, to have them sealed by the marshall from Boston, with the help of the constable, according to the standards the marshall had with him, and if any change was necessary, a cooper, whom the marshal was ordered to take with him, was to make measures even. When they were correct, the marshal placed his seal upon them. For his service he was allowed two pence for every measure and a penny for every weight or yard that was inaccurate, to be paid by the owner. If any weight or measure was so defective that it could not be cor- rected, the marshal broke or defaced it. It was also provided that if anyone sold goods by unsealed weights or measures, he should be punished at the discretion of the court.
In 1640, William Lord, the constable, was ordered to keep the weights and measures in Salem.1 In 1646, the town ordered that the weights and measures be brought to the marshall for sealing. Inventories of estates of deceased persons of this early time, in Salem, show that a number of the families had wooden
1Quarterly court records, July 1, 1640.
213
LABOR, ETC.
measures though scales and measures of length and liquid measures were scarce. The wooden measures thus early men- tioned were pecks and some smaller sizes, but rarely other kinds.
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.