The memorial history of Boston : including Suffolk County, Massachusetts. 1630-1880, Vol. IV, Part 6

Author: Winsor, Justin, 1831-1897, ed; Jewett, C. F. (Clarence F.), publisher
Publication date: 1881
Publisher: Boston : Osgood
Number of Pages: 760

USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Boston > The memorial history of Boston : including Suffolk County, Massachusetts. 1630-1880, Vol. IV > Part 6

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).

It was in or about 1825 that the project began to take form, but no prog- ress whatever was made for several years. By 1830 the number of people who had more or less interest in the property was quite large, and the task of uniting them all in one company, having for its object the development of the island, appeared to be hopeless. Nevertheless, General Sumner set about it. He interested several large capitalists in his plans, bought the interest of some of the owners outright, and engaged the co-operation of others by paying them part in cash and part in stock of a company to be formed. Finally, all difficulties were cleared away, the East Boston Com- pany was chartered in May, 1833,2 and the corporation succeeded to the ownership of the whole island by a clear title.

East Boston at that time consisted of six hundred and sixty-three acres of upland and marsh, and several hundred acres of flats, which had been declared 3 by the General Court to belong to the island by a special act of

1 [A view of this house is given in Sumner's East Boston, p. 460. - ED.]

2 It is interesting to note that when the ques- tion of incorporating the company was first brought before the Legislature, it was proposed to call it the North Boston Company ; but on the motion of Lot Pool, an influential member

of the House of Representatives from Charles- town, "East" was substituted, -- Mr. Pool re- marking that he wished to reserve the designation " North " for Charlestown when it should be an- nexed to Boston.

8 " It is declared that the flats round about Nodle's Island do belong to Nodle's Island to

TOPOGRAPHY, ETC., OF THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS.

May 13, 1640. To illustrate the lack of faith in the land enterprise of one who should have been enthusiastic over it, General Sumner relates that the single inhabitant of the island, Mr. Williams, who had lived there forty years and had grown rich as a tenant farmer, was offered an acre of land for nothing if he would build a house upon it. The offer was contemptu- ously declined.

The charter of the company provided that land, not exceeding four acres in all, should be set apart for public purposes, - for sites for school and engine-houses, and burial-ground. In accordance with this provision of law, the mayor (Mr. Wells) and aldermen of the city visited Noddle's Island in company with the directors, May 4, 1833, to select the public lots. This was the first time that any officers of Boston had ever visited the island in a capacity which implied that the municipal jurisdiction extended over it. The first dwelling-house was erected that year by Mr. Guy C. Haynes, and was occupied by him in September. The enterprise being now fully started, a public sale of lands was held, which with the proceeds of previous private sales netted the sum of $86,000, or $6,000 more than the company had paid for the whole island. From that time onward the history of East Bos- ton was one of almost uninterrupted prosperity. At the end of 1833 only eight persons were living on the island, of whom five were temporary residents who moved away soon afterward. The valuation of the whole property in the same year was only $60,000. The growth was so rapid that in 1835 the population had increased to six hundred, and the taxable valuation was $806,000. The location of the Eastern Railroad terminus at East Boston the next year, the erection of the Maverick House, and the establishment of the Cunard Line to Liverpool in 1840 made the future of the island sure. Its further history is merged with that of the city of which it so quickly became an important part.1

The South Cove improvement is a good illustration of the energy and enterprise of the Bostonians of half a century ago. It was devised as an auxiliary and supplement of the Boston & Worcester Railroad enterprise, to give a terminus and yard room for the railroad. The originators of the scheme, who were known as the South Cove Associates, were incorporated

the ordinary lowe water marke." -Massachusetts Records, i. 291.

1 East Boston was, in 1834, the scene of a novel experiment in railroading. This was in the very infancy of the railroad system, when as yet neither the Worcester nor the Providence Railroad, chartered in 1831, was in operation, and less than ten years from the opening of the first railroad in the world. Colonel Henry Sargent, having invented a suspension railroad, solicited permission from the East Boston Com- pany to make his experiment on their land. This was readily granted, although no great confidence was felt in the invention, as it was

supposed that the novelty of the affair would bring people across the ferry and make the island a place of resort. The peculiarity of the road was that it had but one rail. The car was hung in the middle, and was kept in position by lateral wheels. The wags likened the affair to saddle-bags. The experiment mct with but little success, and the trains were after a short time discontinued. The incident is in- teresting at this time from the fact that a railroad on this plan, with a very slight modification, was proposcd in 1881 for the projected elevated sys- tem in the Boston streets, as something new under the sun.

THE MEMORIAL HISTORY OF BOSTON.

as a company in 1833. The capital subscribed amounted to $414,500, in $500 shares. The company obtained from the Boston & Worcester Rail- road Company an agreement to buy a large amount of land, and to estab- lish and maintain the terminus of the road upon the reclaimed land forever. The South Cove company bought two million three hundred and seventy- five thousand feet of flats, at an average price of twelve cents a foot. This purchase, together with some pieces of other property which the company was forced to take in order to secure the flats, and a tract of marsh and upland in Roxbury, cost $316,084. Other estates were subsequently added, until the property in the South Cove, in 1836, amounted to more than three million square feet, or seventy-three acres.

The filling was carried on at an extremely rapid rate, considering the limited facilities ; but it was only in November, 1839, that it was completed. In a little more than six years the company had reclaimed fifty-five acres of land from the dock tide-waters, and had added seventy-seven acres in all to the area of the city. The material was brought chiefly in boats from the company's gravel pit in Roxbury and from Dorchester, but a part of it was obtained in Brighton and transported by the railroad. The amount of such material was but little less than a million and a half cubic yards. In addition to the work of filling, the company built a sea-wall three hundred and eighty feet in length. The new streets added to the city had an aggre- gate length of fifteen thousand three hundred and fifty feet, or nearly three miles.

The enterprise made ultimately a financial success ; but it saw many dark days. Soon after the land was ready to be put into the market, the finan- cial crash of 1837 interfered to postpone the realization of many hopes. The construction of the United States Hotel, too, an enterprise in which the corporation directly engaged, was so serious a drag upon the resources of the company that at one time failure seemed to be inevitable. The hotel was, when constructed, the largest in the country.1 Finally the two undertakings were divorced, and both were eventually successful. The Old Colony Railroad Company, when first built, made use of what was until lately the inward station of the Albany Railroad; but afterward bought land of the corporation and erected station buildings upon it. The com- pany paid for the land in its own stock, at par; and the South Cove Cor- poration distributed one share of railroad stock for each share of its own stock, as a dividend, making a twenty per cent dividend.

The annexation of Roxbury to Boston was a measure of great import- ance in itself and in its consequences. The subject was agitated many years before anything resulted except agitation. At first the idea was

1 The freight station of the Boston & Wor- more, argued, in his report for 1838, that the United States Hotel was not likely to be too large, and gave as one evidence of the growth of Boston that "the Worcester Railroad now transports about one hundred passengers daily."

cester Railroad Company was also said, at the time, to be the largest structure of the kind in the country. Mr. Francis Jackson, agent of the South Cove Corporation for fifteen years or

TOPOGRAPHY, ETC., OF THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS.

favored by only a few people, and though they were persistent in their presentation of the matter before the Legislature, they were treated with little patience and scant respect at the State House. In a city document of Roxbury, of the year 1852, it is mentioned that the question of annexation was then before the Legislature for the third time.1 There was a protracted hearing that year before the committee on towns, the matter being brought up on the petition of Isaac T. Allard and others. The committee reported their conclusion "that although Boston at some future period may include within her limits not only Roxbury, but all the towns and villages within a circuit of four to six miles," yet the exigency had not arrived when Rox- bury could advantageously unite her destinies with Boston; that the respec- tive wants of the two cities could be as well met without annexation as with it; that it did not appear that a majority of the people of Roxbury desired the union; and consequently that the petitioners should have leave to withdraw.

The next serious attempts to carry through the project were in 1859 and 1860, in both of which years reports were made by committees in favor of the union; but the bill submitted was in each case stifled in the House to which it was reported. Previous to this time the city government of Rox- bury had submitted the question to the legal voters, with the result of show- ing but two hundred and sixty-two persons in the city favorable to the project of annexation. In 1865 it came up again, and this time it was deemed of sufficient importance to be referred to a select committee, who made a unanimous report in favor of the union. The report was made in the Senate, and remained on the table of that body a long time before action upon it was taken. Finally it came on for discussion, and, on a division, was refused a third reading by eighteen to fifteen. Subsequently the rejection was reconsidered and the bill was amended, after which it was again refused a third reading. A second motion to reconsider was lost by a tie vote. The bill provided for a submission of the act to the voters of the two cities, and it was not to have force unless it was accepted by a ma- jority of the voters of each city. Of course it never reached the House of Representatives.

In April. 1866, the city council of Boston passed an order providing that whenever the municipal authorities of any city or town adjoining Bos- ton should give notice of a desire to be annexed, it should be the duty of the mayor to appoint three commissioners to meet an equal number of commissioners from such city or town, and to make a full report to the city council upon "the financial, industrial, and sanitary condition of the city or town applying for annexation, with such suggestions as they may think proper regarding conditions which would make annexation desirable." The city council of Roxbury during the same year adopted an order pro-

1 The occasion was the severance of West Roxbury from Roxbury, after the grant of a city charter. West Roxbury was originally opposed VOL. IV. - 6.

to the change, and claimed and obtained a sepa- rate town charter in 1851, five years after Rox- bury became a city.

THE MEMORIAL HISTORY OF BOSTON.

viding for a conference, and under its provisions William Gaston, Theodore Otis, and James Ritchie were made commissioners; and the mayor of Bos- ton appointed William Gray, Moses Kimball, and A. S. Wheeler to meet them. The commissioners reported to their respective city councils the next year, - those for Boston on Feb. 18, 1867, and those for Roxbury two or three weeks later. The reports were unanimous in each case in favor of the union. The Boston commissioners entered largely into sta- tistics, comparing the area, population, debt, taxes, valuation, schools, and other facts regarding the two cities. The proposition " that a large addi- tional territory will soon become a necessity for the healthful growth of Boston " was argued at some length. The report concluded as follows : -

" We are led, by our investigation of this subject, to the conviction that immediate annexation is equally important to Boston and Roxbury. If Boston would be the gainer by the addition of vacant territory, she will be the greater gainer by annexing a territory already occupied and improved by a people who have accompanied her own in the progress which they have already achieved. We are satisfied that in all material respects the two communities are nearly equal in the advantages which each offers to the other ; and we believe that the welfare of both will be greatly promoted by the early consummation of annexation."

The Roxbury commissioners likewise discussed the subject in all its bearings. The chief argument employed was that the sanitary condition of a part of Roxbury, which could not be efficiently protected from filth and disease, except by such a comprehensive system of drainage as Boston alone could supply, demanded the union; but the commissioners further expressed the opinion that annexation was inevitable sooner or later, and that the time was opportune on many accounts. "The few local and tem- porary interests which oppose it must yield to the pressing demands and wants of a great people. The interests of both cities, and to a large extent the interests of the Commonwealth, are involved in it, and these must soon overwhelm all opposition."

There was opposition, but it was slow in manifesting itself, and was at a disadvantage from the start. The project had gained great headway. Both city governments were in favor of it, and the reports referred to above greatly strengthened the movement. A meeting was held in Roxbury, and a committee was appointed to advocate the union before the legislative committee. The county of Norfolk, however, prepared to resist being robbed of the most important community within its limits. The local opponents pointed out the weak spots in the commissioners' reports. The one great need of Roxbury was an additional water supply, and the strongest argument among Roxbury people in favor of annexation was based upon that need; but water was the one thing which Boston, by the admission of her own commissioners, could not supply with existing facili- ties. Moreover, it was urged that Boston was then about to enter upon a number of large improvements within the city proper, which would call for

TOPOGRAPHY, ETC., OF THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS.

heavy appropriations and increased taxes upon Roxbury, were the union to take place. The hearing at the State House was held at the end of March and early in April. The petitioners introduced a great number of gentle- men representing a large variety of interests, all of whom warmly advocated the union. The opponents offered no testimony; but Mr. Safford, chair- man of the Norfolk County commissioners, made a long and able address, in which the argument against annexation was forcibly presented.

During all the preliminary discussion it -had never been suggested by anybody that the Legislature should take the matter into its own hands absolutely, and marry the two cities without formally consulting their wishes. Many old opponents of the annexation had withdrawn from resistance so far as to express a willingness that the question should be submitted to the people of the two cities, and decided by their votes. The Norfolk County Fournal, edited by Mr. George H. Monroe, who was personally an opponent of annexation, had hardly noticed the progress of the measure further than to print the reports and accounts of the hearing. Great, therefore, was the surprise, indignation, and consternation of the opposition, when the com- mittee reported to the Senate, in May, a bill providing for a summary union of the cities. The unanimity of the committee, the strong Boston influence in favor of the absorption of Roxbury, and the activity of a well trained lobby, left the opponents very little reason to hope that their rights, as they regarded them, would restrain the Legislature from consummating the union.

The debate in the Senate was not a long one. An amendment to the bill, providing for a submission of the question to the voters of the two cities, was rejected by twenty-four votes against four, and the bill was ordered to a third reading by twenty-six to three. It was afterward passed to be engrossed without a division ; and a reconsideration being moved, was refused by a tie vote, - thirteen against thirteen. In the House of Repre- sentatives the submission amendment was brought forward, and was there also rejected, but by a close vote; ninety-three being in favor of it, and one hundred and three opposed. Among the prominent men in the House that year may be mentioned the Hon. P. Emory Aldrich, Francis W. Bird, Rich- ard H. Dana, Jr., and John S. Potter, who voted for submission; and Daniel L. Harris, Harvey Jewell, and Moses Kimball, who voted against it.1 The

1 It is interesting to notice the reasons urged by the advocates of the summary annexation for refusing to allow the voters of the two cities to decide the matter. The opponents of annexa- tion taunted the other side with being afraid to trust their measure to a popular vote. They maintained that the sentiment in favor of union, as indicated by the action of the city govern- ments, was fictitious, and that a popular vote would show it to be so. To this it was replied that the State had full power over the boundaries of cities and towns, and might obliterate them altogether ; that there was a grave question if

the General Court might make the enactment of a law dependent upon the votes of citizens ; that it was a part of the deep game of the " Antis," having secured the submission clause, to main- tain before the Supreme Court the proposition that the act was unconstitutional ; and, finally, that the question of union was not one concern- ing the people of the two cities alone, but that other cities and towns, -all the people of the State, in fact, - were interested in the gov- ernment of the chief city and should, equally with Boston and Roxbury, be allowed to vote on the question.

THE MEMORIAL HISTORY OF BOSTON.

bill was ordered to a third reading on May 28, without a count. The next day numerous amendments were proposed, but were all rejected, and the bill was passed to be engrossed without a division. The enactment of the bill was resisted, but it was carried, and the bill was laid before the Gov- ernor. It was promptly vetoed, and returned to the Senate June I, the very day of prorogation. The message of Governor Bullock 1 was a calm and temperate criticism of the high-handed act which the Legislature had attempted to commit. His Excellency did not try to conceal his opinion that the union itself was a measure of questionable wisdom. But he pro- tested against its being accomplished without consulting the people of a municipality which had had a corporate existence for two hundred and thirty-seven years, as to their willingness to be absorbed by their greater neighbor; nor those of the city of Boston, who might be decidedly averse to undertaking jurisdiction over new territory, and to assuming the Rox- bury debt. On the reconsideration required by the Constitution, the Senate voted to pass the bill, notwithstanding the objections of the Governor, twenty-five to nine. The House rejected it, not even a majority support- ing it. The ayes were eighty-three; the noes, one hundred and twenty-one. A new bill was immediately introduced, being the vetoed bill with the sub- mission clause added, which was passed through all its stages, under a suspension of the rules, in both branches, and was signed by Governor Bullock, the whole process having been gone through in a few hours.

The question was thus remitted to the people. At first there seemed to be a chance that the measure would be successfully opposed; but the advantages of union were too apparent long to leave the hope of such an issue. Some efforts were made to arouse the opposition, but they did not effect much. The campaign was conducted languidly, and appeals to the pride and pockets of Roxbury men met with no response. Even before the vote was taken, the most strenuous opponents of annexation began to reconcile themselves to the inevitable. The election was made September 9. Every ward of both cities voted for union, and, with one exception in each city, by more than two to one. The vote of Boston was four thousand six hundred and thirty-four for annexation, and one thousand and fifty-nine against it. In Roxbury it was one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two in favor, and five hundred and ninety-two opposed. The contest was ended; and Roxbury was, to use a witticism of which the author has doubtless repented long ago, Suffolkated. The verdict of the people was instantly accepted with the best of feeling by all, and every trace of bitterness disappeared as if by magic. It had been complained that after union Roxbury would not have her due proportion of represen- tation in the city council; but on a further examination the complaint was

1 The message was accompanied by a long opinion by Attorney-General Charles Allen, in which the view that the General Court might submit such an act to the voters, and make the

enactment dependent upon their decision, was maintained ; and precedents were cited to sus- tain this position. This view of the matter has obtained ever since.

TOPOGRAPHY, ETC., OF THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS.

discovered to be unfounded. The voters of Roxbury participated in the city election in December, and the union became complete at the beginning of January, 1868.1

It is most convenient to add here the brief details of the later annexa- tions. The movement in favor of adding Dorchester to the city began very soon after the union of Boston and Roxbury. It met with stren- uous opposition, however, in the old town. An act was passed by the Legislature of 1869, and approved June 4 of that year, submitting the question to a vote of the people in the city and town. The election was held June 22. Boston voted more than six to one in favor of annexation, the numbers being three thousand four hundred and twenty ayes to five hundred and sixty-five noes. Dorchester agreed by a small majority, - nine hundred and twenty-eight votes being cast in favor of the union, and seven hundred and twenty-six against it.2 Four years later, in 1873, the pro- ject of annexing several municipalities in the neighborhood was taken up in earnest. In Charlestown, in fact, the idea was an old one, having been brought forward at various times in the previous twenty years ; and for some years before 1873 the annexation question had been the leading issue before the voters of that city. As a result of the agitation the Legislature sub- mitted the question of annexation to the voters of Charlestown, Brighton, Brookline, and West Roxbury, the consent of the people of each place, and of Boston, being required for each separate annexation. The voting took place October 7. Boston agreed to accept all the new responsibilities offered to it, and only Brookline refused its consent to be absorbed.3 No annexations have taken place since 1873.

The creation of new land by filling, and the cutting down of Beacon Hill gave opportunities for the laying out of streets in a regular system, such as was never thought of in the original planning of old Boston; but great inconveniences grew, as Boston increased in size, out of the narrow- ness and crookedness of the old streets. Some enterprises of much impor- tance, considering the times and the wealth of Boston, were undertaken, as occasion seemed to require, at the public expense, after the organization of the city government; but the aggregate amount expended in the widening and extension of streets from 1822 to 1866, a period of forty-four years, was but $4,418,283 in the city proper; $75,980 in South Boston; and

1 [See the chapters by Mr. Bugbee and Mr. Charlestown, ayes, 2,240, noes, 1,947. As to Drake in Vol. III .- ED.]

2 Between the time of this vote and the actual union with Boston, Dorchester made sure several internal improvements by liberal votes at town-meetings, the money to carry them out being raised by loans which became, in January, 1870, a part of the debt of Boston. [See Mr. Barrows's chapter in Vol. III. - ED.]

3 The voting was as follows. As to Charles- town, Boston voted, - ayes, 5,860, noes, 1,863 ;

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.

The memorial history of Boston : including Suffolk County, Massachusetts. 1630-1880, Vol. IV, Part 6

Author: Winsor, Justin, 1831-1897, ed; Jewett, C. F. (Clarence F.), publisher Publication date: 1881 Publisher: Boston : Osgood Number of Pages: 760

Author: Winsor, Justin, 1831-1897, ed; Jewett, C. F. (Clarence F.), publisher
Publication date: 1881
Publisher: Boston : Osgood
Number of Pages: 760