USA > Maine > Lincoln County > Bristol > History of York, Maine, successively known as Bristol (1632), Agamenticus (1641), Gorgeana (1642), and York (1652) Vol. II > Part 26
USA > Maine > York County > York > History of York, Maine, successively known as Bristol (1632), Agamenticus (1641), Gorgeana (1642), and York (1652) Vol. II > Part 26
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
BRIDGES
The first appearance of this word in the town records occurs in 1653, when the Selectmen granted to Andrew Averett [Everest] "a parcel of upland Lying on the Northwest branch of the River of York near unto the bridge wch goeth to Newitchewonoc." (Town Records i, 20.) In 1661 the "little hy way bridge" is mentioned as being on the main road just north of the house formerly occu- pied by Luther Junkins, and probably crossed a ravine at that point - a crude affair of logs. In 1701 the Grand Jury presented the Town for not maintaining a sufficient bridge across the river on the Berwick highway. Other small bridges mentioned were on the main road to Berwick over the New Mill Creek and Alewife Brook, probably constructed of rough stone abutments supporting log and plank superimposed for a road bed. The greatest need,
292
FERRIES AND BRIDGES
however, was a bridge to span the main river and it began to be talked of as a possibility as early as 1740, but it was a novel as well as formidable undertaking to erect one over this tidal stream. The townsmen evidently did not care to tax themselves for its construction, and the discussion led to the scheme of private ownership and franchise for charging tolls for a specified period. It may be supposed that Samuel Sewall was the moving spirit in the prelim- inary debates, in view of his son's later connection with its construction, and perhaps Jonathan Sayward, who is known to have been one of its principal promoters finan- cially. At the Town Meeting of March 8, 1742-43, it was
Voted that there be and hereby is Granted unto such Persons as will accept & undertake it, the Liberty to Build a Bridge at their own Cost over York River, some where between Colo: Harmons Wharfe and Mr. Donnell's Point of Rocks, above the Ferry: Provided there be a Sofficient way left for Sloops to Pass & Repass, and the Inhabi- tants to have free liberty to Pass over the same without any thing to Pay.
This is the first action taken by the Town towards accom- plishing this great step forward in facilitating travel. Francis Raynes entered his "desent" against this vote. At the same meeting this supplementary vote was passed : Voted that if said Bridge shall be bult over said River it shall be by Capt. Samuel Sewall's wharfe.
THE DRAW
SECTIONAL DRAWING OF PILE DRAWBRIDGE
Whereupon Thomas Donnell entered his "Desent" against this vote. Probably in preparation for suitable approaches to the proposed bridge the present Lindsay Road was first laid out in 1744, but as explained in the chapter on High- ways a suitable layout was complicated by opposing pri- vate interests, and the north side terminal at the river did not meet the road that came to the river bank on the south side. It took two years to straighten out this jockeying for position. No further action was taken by the town,
293
HISTORY OF YORK
nor was any necessary. It only remained for the pro- moters to organize their company, secure the funds and carry out the engineering plans devised by Major Samuel Sewall and his assistant Capt. John Stone. The original draft of this pioneer pile drawbridge, the first built in the country, is now preserved in the Old Gaol and the sec- tional drawing is here shown. The method of construction was of a primitive kind, as pile driving machines had not been invented. Soundings having been made, the logs were cut to the length required, and sections of four joined by a cap piece and braced were floated into position. Then this section was set upright for the improvised driver to sink it in the bed of the river. A heavy oak log, rigged as a sort of trip hammer, slowly drove it into the mud. The old bridge has survived to the present time, with occa- sional renewals, and is a real relic of Colonial ingenuity in architecture. The success of Major Sewall in this engi- neering venture secured for him some years later the con- tract for building the first bridge over the Charles River.
Subscriptions payable in installments were raised in town by Sewall and Stone, and in 1757 the first traffic went over this famous bridge. Sayward in his diary, in 1761, notes that he paid £go to Stone for his share of the bridge, which was a part payment, and six months later, Novem- ber, entered in his diary:
I finished paying my sibscribtion to the Bridge, and I paid not only for myself, but for Colman Barrell and Joseph Barrell and Mr. Jacob Tredwell
It was operated as a toll bridge, excepting residents of York from payment. It was two hundred seventy feet long and twenty-five feet wide.
Nothing further appears upon the records about the bridge until 1770, when a committee consisting of Joseph Thompson, John Stone, Edward Grow, John Bradbury, Joseph Weare, Alexander McIntire and Daniel Bragdon was appointed at the annual March meeting "to take into Consideration & report to the Town at their next May Meeting what they think proper for the Town to do with relation to the Great Bridge over York River." As noth- ing was done at the next May meeting except to elect a Moderator and adjourn it is to be supposed that the com- mittee or the town did not consider that it was necessary
294
FERRIES AND BRIDGES
to do anything about the Great Bridge. The matter to be considered was the condition of the superstructure of the bridge which had deteriorated during its ten years of service. The Proprietors decided to take the matter to the General Court and obtain authority to provide funds by increasing the toll charges to be applied to the repair and improvements of same. In their petition they stated unless funds for this purpose could be raised the bridge would "very soon without it become useless." The Gen- eral Court voted the necessary authority and prescribed the following rates on April 16, 1771, to be collected for the term of seven years:
For every footman who shall pass the said Bridge two thirds of a penny for every Man and Horse two pence, for every two Wheel chaize, chair or Sleigh & Horse with the Travellers therewith the sum of Four pence for every four Wheel carriage including the Passengers six pence for every Man with Team Cart or Sled the Sum of four pence, for all horse kine or neat cattle two Thirds of a Penny, for Sheep or Swine four Pence a Dozen and soin proportion for a greater or lesser Number.
The Act provided that a toll-keeper should be in attendance "at all Times between the Hours of five in the morning & Nine in the evening." It was further pro- vided
that the passage of said Bridge shall be kept open and free for all Persons travelling to or from public worship on Lords Days- for the Inhabitants of the Town of York going to or from Public meetings of the Town or Parish Post riders ministers of the Gospell on all Occa- sions, Constables and collectors of Taxes & all other officers of the said Town and Parish, while doing the Town or Parish business & members of the general Court going to or returning from the same.
By an Act of the General Court the Proprietors of The Great Bridge over York River were authorized "to take toll for the repair and amendments thereof." Possibly this may have been an extra toll allowed for this special pur- pose, as the bridge was a County necessity. In 1832 it was still owned by the "Proprietors."
THE RICE BRIDGE
In 1797 William Frost and others petitioned the Gen- eral Court for permission to build a bridge over York River, "at or near the place where Traftons Ferry was formerly kept," and the matter was brought before the town at a special meeting in October of that year to see whether the town "has any objections to certain persons
295
HISTORY OF YORK
building a Bridge across the River" at the point named. By a vote of forty-seven to twenty-five against the pro- posal the improvement was vetoed, and the meeting fur- ther "Voted that there be no Committee raised to shew what cause the Town have to offer against the building said Bridge." This was the beginning of an attempt to span the river where Rice's bridge now crosses.
But the proponents were not to be discouraged, as the Ferry Neck route was the accepted through highway for the post eastward and westward. In 1805 Alexander Rice, a bridge builder of Kittery, petitioned the Court of Ses- sions for authority to build a toll bridge across the river at this point, and the town appointed a committee to remonstrate against the project. In the end the bridge was built and for over a century has been the span that has carried countless thousands on its girders as a part of the present national highway. The structure has been rebuilt a number of times, as in 1850 at a cost of $11,738.84, and has always been a source of great expense to the tax- payers, owing to the ever increasing traffic which it accom- modates. The State has now taken it over, and in 1932 a new bridge, with a concrete roadway, reinforced with steel and resting on piling, was erected by the Highway Depart- ment of Maine.
YORK BRIDGE
As early as 1670 a bridge was built across the north- east branch of the river to provide for the travel from York to Berwick along the "Country Road." "York Bridge," as "we go to Newitchewonock," is mentioned in a grant of land in 1672. It was probably a wooden log affair at first.
SCOTLAND BRIDGE
This was the second bridge built in town, as far as records furnish evidence. It was called "the New Bridge" in 1725 and was completed about this time to accommo- date those living in the settlement at Beech Ridge on the southwest side. The common name for it was "The Swing Bridge." It was carried away in a "freshet" in 18II, then rebuilt and has continued, in one form or another, since then, the last reconstruction being finished in 1930 under the supervision of A. W. Gowen, the civil
296
.
FERRIES AND BRIDGES
engineer who prepared the plans for the new bridge. In the "old days, " and to within the memory of the present generation, this was a busy place where schooners docked to load wood and other produce for Boston and coastwise traffic.
OLD SCOTLAND BRIDGE
"LABOR-IN-VAIN" BRIDGE
A small bridge crossing a marshy stream rising in the marshes above Mount Agamenticus, emptying into the Ogunquit River in Wells. Probably so called because of the difficulty of keeping it in repair owing to the insecur- ity of the foundations.
THE NEW LOWER BRIDGE
What began as an innocuous movement to obtain an obvious town necessity wound up in a legal snarl and con- troversy of the most violent character. The ancient bridge built by Sewall across the river was about two miles by road from the mouth of the river, and the need of a more convenient crossing to Kittery for western travel was recognized by those inhabiting the lower part of the town and having business on the south side. Early in 1905 the Selectmen petitioned the Legislature to grant authority to the town to proceed with the construction of a new high- way and bridge at York Harbor. In response the Legis- lature authorized the Commissioners of York County to lay out a way and build a bridge as petitioned. A petition signed by one hundred sixty-eight citizens was addressed to the County Commissioners requesting that body to lay out
297
HISTORY OF YORK
a County way between some point in York Harbor on the County way leading from York Village through York Harbor to Norwood Farm to another point southwesterly over tide water to the County Way leading from Sewall's Bridge to Seabury R. R. Station to Kittery Point, and respectfully petition that you would fix the time for a hearing and that you would lay out a way between such points in said two County ways as shall be most convenient, said way to pass over Harris and Bragdon Islands, in York River.
A hearing was held on May 18, 1905, and on January 2, 1906, the Commissioners decided "after a full hearing of all the facts, testimony and arguments by them pre- sented" that "common convenience and necessity do require the laying out of said way as prayed for." The chairman of the County Commissioners at this date was Samuel W. Junkins of this town, and his participation in the proceedings was later attacked on the ground that he owned an undivided quarter interest in Bragdon's Island and was therefore disqualified to act on the petition. A special town meeting was called for October 13, 1906, to consider this decision and to act upon an article in the war- rant "to see if the Town will vote to build a highway and bridge across York River in said Town." After a spirited discussion the vote to accept the article and authorize the work was passed by 174 yeas to 123 noes, a strong minority which indicated opposition to a measure that involved a large expenditure. According to the record of the Town Clerk, as unamended, a motion was made and carried "that the Town accept the bid of E. B. Blaisdell of York to construct said highway and bridge for the sum of thirty thousand dollars" (Moody, Handbook of York, 123).1 At this same meeting a "committee of four to act in conjunc- tion with the Selectmen" was appointed as a Bridge Com- mittee and the combined membership so constituted con- sisted of Joseph P. Bragdon, Harry H. Norton, Henry S. Bragdon (the Selectmen), Charles H. Young, Joseph W. Simpson, Charles E. Weare and J. Perley Putnam. This committee immediately organized by the choice of Charles H. Young as chairman and J. Perley Putnam as secretary. On October 17 this Bridge Committee held its next meet-
1 In 1910 as a result of one of the many legal moves made by the opposing parties in this case, Mr. Justice Bird of the Supreme Court of Maine issued an order requir- ing the Town Clerk to amend the record of this meeting so that it would read: "Voted, Not to accept the bid of E. B. Blaisdell for $30,000"! This change of record was deemed necessary because Mr. Blaisdell, the contractor, had completed the bridge under a contract for $39,500 with the majority of the Bridge Committee dated December 5, 1906 after the Selectmen had withdrawn.
298
FERRIES AND BRIDGES
THE NEW BRIDGE, 1908
-
...
....
299
HISTORY OF YORK
ing, which apparently developed into a controversy in which i there was a serious division of opinion as to the relative status of the Selectmen and the four members appointed to act with them, and it was decided to employ counsel to clarify the situation. An adjourned meeting was held five days later at which the Selectmen announced their decision to withdraw wholly from this Committee and to take no further official action with it looking toward the construction of the bridge. Their contention was that this body was not a committee of seven but that the addi- tional four were a sort of vermiform appendix to act with them but not to be of them. Henceforth the building of this bridge developed into a bloodless but none the less war to the knife between the Selectmen and the four additional members, who constituted the majority of the Bridge Com- mittee, and who assumed control of the situation under legal advice. An injunction was served upon Mr. Young and his associates restraining them from awarding a con- tract for constructing the bridge and highway, and at a meeting of the four members November 16, it was voted to "employ Hon. J. C. Stewart of York and Hon. Enoch Foster of Portland as counsel."1 On December 5, 1906, the Committee awarded to Edward B. Blaisdell the contract for completing the highway and bridge, voted by the town, for the sum of $39,500, and from that time forward the Committee was bombarded with injunctions, manda- mus proceedings, Federal Government hearings, lawsuits and the opinions of special town meetings. Meanwhile the work progressed under the supervision of the engineer in charge of the technical features of construction, fortified by the advice of counsel that the Committee was on sound legal ground in all its actions. The Committee was unable to obtain from the Selectmen authority to draw upon the town treasurer for funds. The then treas- urer was Hon. J. C. Stewart, and acting upon his general authority to borrow money to meet pressing liabilities, he secured on March 9, 1907, a loan of $25,000 from the Bath Savings Bank, to meet payments to the contractor. This money he tendered to the entire Committee, but the Select- men refused to recognize the transaction and the loan was receipted for by the four. At the annual town meeting
1 Mr. Foster was retained only for special advice and was succeeded by Frank D. Marshall, Esq., of Portland as General Counsel.
300
A Q
EDWARD B. BLAISDELL, IS44-1924 The Storm Centre of the Bridge Controversy
FERRIES AND BRIDGES
following this episode Edward E. E. Mitchell was elected town treasurer, and the Selectmen, on April 9, made a demand upon the four members for the payment of this money to the new treasurer. "We find, " they wrote, "that the late Treasurer of the Town of York, John C. Stewart, without authority, has placed in your possession a large sum of money belonging to the Town of York." The Com- mittee complied with this demand and, securing the amount in the largest gold certificates, tendered it to the new Treasurer for his acceptance and secured his receipt, thus closing one important controversial point.
Henceforth the comedy proceeded with the Selectmen holding the sinews of war, and for a year the requisitions of the Bridge Committee for payments to the contractor were not honored by the Treasurer for the reason that the Treasurer required the signatures of two of the Selectmen for his protection, and these were not forthcoming. Thus the farce went merrily on to its inevitable airing in the courts. The contractor was forced to sue the town for his payments due under the terms of his contract, plus the sum of $6,900.43 additional expense for changes in the construction required by the War Department.
When the bridge and highway were completed in March, 1908, the Bridge Committee notified the Selectmen of the fact that it had performed its duty under the vote of the Town, October 13, 1906, that both bridge and high- way were open for travel and that the total cost of same was $49,765.63 according to the certificate of the Engineer- in-Charge. The Selectmen pursued their futile course of ignoring the legality of the Committee and its "alleged" bridge and way in the following reply to this notification :
March 18, 1908
Messrs Charles H. Young, Joseph W. Simpson, J. Perley Putnam, Charles E. Weare:
Your communication bearing date March II, 1908, is before us. We do not recognize your right or authority to act in any way relating to the way and bridge matter to which you refer in your communica- tion, or that you are authorized to accept any way or bridge in this Town, for and in behalf of the Inhabitants of the Town of York. We must decline in behalf of the Town of York to recognize any pretended acceptance of the same. We do not understand that the Inhabitants of the Town of York have ever entered into any valid contract for the construction of said pretended way and bridge, or that you had any authority to do any act or thing whereby the Town might become
301
HISTORY OF YORK
liable in this matter. We understand that no such way or bridge has been legally laid out or located, or that the Town is liable in the matter in any way. If, as individuals, you have undertaken to con- struct a private way and bridge the responsibility therefor as we understand it, rests upon you individually.
Yours very truly J. P. Bragdon Harry P. Norton Henry S. Bragdon Selectmen of York
The Committee was still without funds and once more notified the Selectmen that its work had been completed, that the contractor had fulfilled his obligations and that the draw would soon have to be opened to navigation. No draw-tender was provided by the Selectmen and under date of May 20, 1908, they returned their last answer to the Bridge Committee before the Supreme Court of Maine swept away their technical evasions five years later. In this letter they repeat their "understandings":
A communication bearing your signatures under date of May 16, 1908, relative to an alledged way and bridge in this Town is before us. We beg to call your attention to a letter from us to you bearing date March 18, 1908, which explains our position and views touching the subject matter of your last letter. We do not understand that the Inhabitants of the Town of York are liable for or in any way inter- ested in the alleged way and bridge referred to.
But the technical jockeyings of the contending parties had now reached an impasse when the beginning of the end was forced by the screeching whistle of a little tug belonging to the Piscataqua Navigation Company as it chugged up the river to take in tow some barges at the brick yard. She whistled vainly for the tender of the draw, who did not exist, to open it for her passage above the bridge. Complaint was immediately made to the Secretary of War that navigation was obstructed and demanded that this navigable river be made free to com- merce. The Selectmen were ordered to open it without delay as required by the laws of the United States.1 Faced with this national obligation, the Selectmen opened the draw and chained it in that position. The next move of the Committee was obvious. It laid a complaint before the County Commissioners immediately, setting forth that a public highway, approved by that body officially, was
1 The Piscataqua Navigation Company sued the town for demurrage and secured a substantial sum as damages.
.
302
FERRIES AND BRIDGES
obstructed by an open draw left in that position by the town authorities. The Selectmen were directed to remove this obstruction. The dilemma was awkward, but inex- orable. A draw-tender was appointed. The Selectmen were able to keep the contractor out of his just dues for several years by legal technicalities, but on July 1, 1913, the Supreme Court in its rescript, written by Mr. Justice Cornish, completely devastated the case of the Selectmen. The action was described as one of assumpsit to recover $51,066.71 under two contracts dated December 5, 1906, and October 17, 1907. In thirteen sections the Court held :
I. The petition to the County Commissioners must describe the way with reasonable definiteness (R. S. Chap. 25, Sec. I).
2. This requirement was met with fair intent according to statute.
3. The proposed route over the islands named sufficiently answered this legal rule.
4. The alleged disqualification of County Commissioner Junkins was voidable, but not void. In this collateral action the proceedings must be regarded as binding.
5. The special town meeting of October 13, 1906 was legally called and its acts valid.
6. The vote to appoint "a Committee of four to act in conjunc- tion with the Selectmen" is construed to mean one committee of seven. Two committees were not created to build the bridge.
7. That it was the duty of the seven to carry out the vote of the town and as the Selectmen refused to act with the others, it was the duty of the four remaining members, the majority, to proceed without the assistance of the minority and the acts of the latter were legal and binding on the town.
8. The contract of December 5, 1906 was valid. The objections of the Selectmen against it and the acts of their fellow members were unauthorized and futile. It was their duty to aid in the construction of the bridge and way.
9. If the contractor saw fit to proceed with the work in absence of any appropriation therefor at the meeting of October 13, 1906, it does not affect the legality of his contract. He had a legal right so to do.
IO. The town took no legal action to rescind the contract. At the town meeting of March II, 1907, it indefinitely postponed an article in the warrant looking to the making of another contract. This had to do with future not past contracts.
II. The vote of March 11, 1907 dismissing the four members simply reduced the committee from seven to three and was legal; but as the three Selectmen refused to exercise their authority, previously granted, the contract with the plaintiff was not thereby voided. The work was completed "under the eye of the engineer who was legally employed, was never discharged and who finally accepted the work."
303
HISTORY OF YORK
12. The contract of October 17, 1907, to meet changes required by the War Department, was void because the four who signed it had been dismissed by the town previously.
13. Judgment for Plaintiff for $45,936.99, with interest from May 15, 1913, of which $11, 109.92 was reckoned as interest. This was the sum the town had to pay on account of the "understanding" of the Selectmen as to their authority.
(Moody, Handbook of York, 139ff. See also Blaisdell v. Inhabit- ants of Town of York, 110 Maine Reports, 500; 87 Atlantic Reporter, 36I.)
This ended the case officially. The engineer-in-charge was commended by the Court in its proceedings. The only evidences left of this unfortunate controversy are the inevitable scars of the battle which time alone can heal, if it has not done so already. A needed road to the south side was the practical result, even though it was not ideally located.
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.