USA > New Hampshire > Merrimack County > Canterbury > History of the town of Canterbury, New Hampshire, 1727-1912, v. 1 > Part 22
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
In 1820 the selectmen of Canterbury were instructed "to contract with some person to provide for all the poor of the town and that they this day give public notice when they will enter into said contract," and they were further directed "to bind out all the children of the poor of suitable age even if it is attended with some immediate expense."
In 1827 the town was moved to vote that "the selectmen be authorized to oblige those who agree to support the town paupers to provide them suitable food and clothes, and any person neglect- ing to do the same, upon satisfactory evidence thereof, the selectmen shall furnish them with the same and deduct the pay of the same out of their respective sums which they were to have for supporting them." Evidently some of those who bid off the paupers were neglectful in their care of them. These cases of neglect may have contributed to inducing the town to establish a poor farm two years later.
Interest in the town farm was not confined to the voters, for at the annual meeting in 1831 it was "voted that the moderator of this meeting present the thanks of the town to the Society of
231
HOUSE OF CORRECTION AND POOR FARM.
Shakers for the valuable articles which they presented to the said town for the use of the poor at the time of their removal to the town's farm for support and for their readiness to extend the arm of charity to the destitute and unfortunate which so emi- nently characterizes them as a humane and benevolent people."
This was a deserved tribute, as the entire history of the Shaker Society at Canterbury shows these people to have been ever responsive to the calls of the unfortunate. If the needy after being cared for expressed a desire to become Shakers, they had the opportunity to pass through the novitiate stage preparatory to joining the society, but the Shaker charity was never bestowed for the purpose of securing recruits. Their offerings were always freely made to those in need who asked for assistance.
The town farm, although it was an improvement upon the earlier method of caring for the poor, was far from being an invit- ing haven of refuge. The criminals and the pauper insane were there with the destitute, but there was no segregation of inmates into classes nor were there separate apartments provided for offenders against the law and for those who were mentally deranged. The worthy poor had to associate with the aban- doned and with those whose minds were unbalanced, sitting at the same table and employed at the same tasks.
The philanthropic spirit of Canterbury was invoked to remedy these conditions. Among the articles in the warrant at the annual town meeting in 1831 was the following: "To see if the town will afford any assistance to any person in town, except such as can not be moved, unless they will go to the town farm." This article was referred to a committee who reported that the subject should be left with the selectmen and "if they think proper in extraordinary cases to afford some assistance, they were authorized to do so." This vote enabled selectmen to assist the poor at a private home if some relative or friend could be induced to care for them.
Equally indicative of the humane feelings of the people of the town is another vote at this same meeting. The selectmen were directed to pay Martha Burdeen the sum of twenty dollars and to Susan Glover the sum of ten dollars "for the unusual attach- ment which they have manifested towards their aged and infirm parents in taking care of them in sickness and in providing them with suitable articles of food etc."
232
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
The town farm was situated about a mile from the Center on the Morrill Road, so called, nearly one eighth of a mile beyond the Capt. David Morrill place. It is a large, two-story house with an ell. The farm is now owned by George P. Morrill and his daughter-in-law, Mrs. Ethel Gale Morrill. The house is unoccupied at present.
As the town grew in population there came a desire for a more expeditious and convenient way of crossing the Merrimack River than by ferries. This desire was met first by private enterprise. Application was made to the legislature in 1802 by citizens of Concord and Boscawen for a charter to build a toll bridge at Blanchard's Ferry. The act of incorporation 1 gave them the right to construct one anywhere within the limits of the ferry. These limits as described in a previous chapter were within three miles above and below John Webster's residence in Canter- bury or nearly opposite the mouth of the Contoocook River. The charter bears date of June 15, 1802, and by its terms the incorporators were to complete the bridge within two years. It was finished that year.2 This bridge as well as its successors has been known as the Boscawen Bridge. The rates of toll were fixed by the charter but they were reduced in 1814.3 The original structure was carried away by a freshet in 1839. A chain ferry served the public until 1853, when a new bridge was built.4
There was another ferry between Canterbury and Boscawen about three miles north of Blanchard's Ferry. This right of ferriage had been granted to Nathaniel Clement in 1780 by act of the legislature.5
Clement recited in his petition to the general court that "for a number of years past a ferry of the name of Fosses Ferry had been kept from his farm in Canterbury across the river to Bos- cawen," and that it was necessary for the people of the two towns that it should continue to be maintained. A new boat, however, must be built "at great cost." This, Clement was willing to undertake, if the exclusive right of keeping the ferry within cer- tain limits were granted to him. The legislature, therefore, gave
1 N. H. Laws, 1802, Vol. XIII, page 278.
2 History of Boscawen, page 646.
3 N. H. Laws, 1814, Vol. XX, page 226.
History of Boscawen, page 647. Brown's History of Penacook, page 13.
6 N. H. Laws, 1780, Vol. IV, page 83.
233
LITIGATION OVER CANTERBURY BRIDGE.
him this privilege at any place within a mile of his dwelling house, on condition that "the ferry shall be constantly attended and well kept."
The building of the Boscawen bridge stimulated a leading citizen of Canterbury, Col. David McCrillis, to apply for a charter for a toll bridge at Clement's Ferry. The Boscawen bridge, while it was a convenience to the citizens of Canterbury going to Concord, diverted travel on the west bank of the Merrimack by the town and, if used by the people on their way to Boscawen, increased the distance by several miles. The charter bears date of December 29, 1803, and it incorporated Colonel McCrillis and his associates under the name of the "proprietors of Canter- bury Bridge." 1 It was erected the next year. Maj. Enoch Gerrish of Boscawen was the builder. The completion of the bridge was a great event for both towns and was the occasion of a celebration. The people gathered at the meeting house on Boscawen Plain, where addresses were made by the Rev. William Patrick and the Rev. Samuel Wood. Then a procession was formed which marched across the bridge to the residence of Enoch Gerrish 2 in Canterbury, where John K. Chandler afterwards resided. Here a dinner was served with liquor in abundant supply.3
The great freshet of 1819 carried away the Canterbury bridge, whereupon the proprietors erected a new one under the super- vision of Isaac Chandler and Jacob Blanchard. It was completed in the summer of 1820, but the winter freshet in the month of February, 1824, destroyed it. The third bridge was built for the stockholders in 1825 by Benjamin Kimball of Boscawen. This structure withstood the elements until January, 1839. There was then a great body of snow on the ground. A warm rain which poured continuously for thirty-six hours melted the snow and broke up the ice in the river which had an average thickness of two feet. Every bridge on the Merrimack River south of Franklin, with the exception of those at Hooksett and Amoskeag Falls, were swept from their piers. The proprietors of the Canter- bury Bridge again renewed it only to have a part of it carried away in the winter of 1848.
1 N. H. Laws, 1803, Vol. XIV, page 339.
2 A relative of the bridge builder.
a History of Boscawen, page 165.
234
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
There was now no bridge across the Merrimack between the two towns, the lower or Boscawen bridge not having been rebuilt since it was carried away by the freshet in 1839. An agitation for free bridges to take the place of those where toll was collected had already been started in the neighboring town of Concord, and this movement spread to Canterbury and Boscawen. A petition dated February 22, 1848, and signed by about sixty residents of these towns was presented to the Merrimack County Court asking that a highway be laid out across the river at the place which had been occupied by the Canterbury toll bridge. If the highway was laid out, it would require the building of a bridge at the expense of the two towns. The petition was referred to the road commissioners by the court at the March term, 1848, and hearings were given to the parties interested, at the tavern of William P. Heath in Boscawen, during the months of July and August. The report of the commissioners was in favor of laying out the highway. This was the beginning of a contest which lasted nearly ten years and resulted in the building of free crossings to replace both the Canterbury and Boscawen toll bridges.
The people who had been accommodated by the lower or Bos- cawen bridge were opposed to the erection of the upper one at the expense of the two towns. If a free bridge was to be built, their claim was that it should be located near the southern bound- ary line of Canterbury and Boscawen. It was asserted that the travel on the highway leading from Canterbury to Boscawen Plain was very limited and confined to a few individuals who owned land in that locality or who desired to trade at the stores in the latter town. The old Canterbury toll bridge in its palmiest days only paid three per cent. dividends, which, divided among three hundred and sixty-five days in the year, would give but half a dollar a day revenue. Two railroads now carried to Concord those who formerly went to Boscawen to trade, and to tax the 4,000 inhabitants of Canterbury and Boscawen to accommodate these few individuals would be an outrage.1
This view commended itself to the people of both towns, for at the annual March meeting in 1849 Canterbury and Boscawen voted to discontinue the highway laid out by the road com-
1 N. H. Statesman, January 19, 1849.
235
LITIGATION OVER CANTERBURY BRIDGE.
missioners, and their selectmen presented these votes to the court at its next term. The case was again referred by the court to the road commissioners, who in December, 1849, heard the parties, and in their report, which was filed at the March term, 1850, their previous finding was confirmed. Exceptions were taken to the conclusions of the commissioners and the cause was transferred to the higher court on questions of law.
A second petition from both towns for leave to discontinue this highway was presented at the March term, 1851, which was dismissed, but at the same term another petition was filed and referred to the road commissioners, who at the October term following reported against the discontinuance. At the March term, 1853, this report was set aside and the case was referred to a new board of road commissioners. This tribunal also con- firmed the action of its predecessors and the court accepted their report. Three years later, a further petition was laid before the court asking that the action of the road commissioners be set aside on the ground that circumstances had changed in the meantime and that the highway and bridge were no longer re- quired. The court regarded this new application as "vexatious" litigation and refused to entertain it.1
The contest was complicated by the grant of a charter from the legislature of 1848 for a new toll bridge at the lower crossing and by a later petition of those people who had used the Boscawen toll bridge asking for a free bridge at this point.2 If private enter- prise was willing to construct a bridge at the south, it was argued that individuals rather than the towns should be made to build one at the north. If a free bridge was to be built at the expense of Canterbury and Boscawen, it should be constructed at the place where travel would be most accommodated and this, it was claimed, was at the lower crossing. The petition for a highway across the Merrimack at the latter place came in due time before the road commissioners and the prayer of the petitioners was granted in 1852 and the action of the commissioners was subse- quently confirmed by the court. The earlier application for a free bridge over the Merrimack at Boscawen Plain continued in the courts until 1857, when, all objections thereto having been
1 33 N. H. Report, page 421. See also 23 N. H. Report, page 188: 28 N. H. Report, page 195: and 37 N. H. Report, page 466, for further history of this case. N. H. Statesman, January 26, 1849.
236
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
overruled by the judges both at the law and trial terms, further opposition was abandoned.
From first to last the following attorneys were engaged in this case: Pierce and Minot, John H. George, Ira Perley, Asa Fowler, James Bell, Flint and Bryant, George W. Morrison, Henry A. Bellows, William L. Foster and William H. Bartlett.
The leading champion for the Canterbury free bridge was Col. David M. Clough, although he was not one of the original petitioners. Enlisting in the cause after it was opposed by the people of both towns, he carried it to a successful termination. In the courts and in the newspapers of the day he appeared its unflinching advocate.1 With an abiding faith in the justness of his cause and with a vision which saw beyond the demands of the immediate present, Colonel Clough was undisturbed either by the intensity or by the numerical strength of the opposition. His victory, while a personal triumph, was of lasting benefit to his fellow-citizens of both towns.
The result of the contest, as previously stated, was the build- ing of two free bridges between Canterbury and Boscawen. Both were covered, wooden bridges. The lower one withstood the storms until March 2, 1896, when it was carried away by a freshet. Then for about two years, the old chain ferry was revived and continued in use until the present steel structure was completed in 1898.
The bridge from Canterbury to Boscawen Plain was erected in the autumn of 1857 under the supervision of John Abbott of Concord.2 There was a rivalry among the people of both towns to see who should first drive across it when it was finished. The successful contestant was Henry L. Clough, a son of Colonel Clough. This bridge was so securely built that no floods ever weakened its piers and it lasted until 1907, when the present hand- some steel span was constructed by the vote of both towns.
The town fathers and other public servants may have been worthy of their hire at all times, but those who elected them thought it the part of wisdom to fix occasionally their compensa- tion. At the annual meeting in 1821, the town "voted that the
1 N. H. Statesman, January 26, 1849.
2 It was of a style unfamiliar in this country. The type was that of the quaint old English bridge. The roof stretched forth in two camel's back spans that rose from either end in odd sweeping curves and converged at the center of the structure, meeting at a level with the starting points.
The Home of Col. David M. Clough.
237
COMPENSATION OF TOWN OFFICERS.
selectmen shall receive $1.25 per day for their services when taking the inventory, reviewing the roads and for all other serv- ices abroad, when making taxes and when sitting on other busi- ness $1 per day, and in all cases to board themselves free of expense to the town." The next year the selectmen were given a uniform rate of one dollar per day.
It was customary when suit was brought against the town or the town was indicted for having defective highways, which occasionally occurred, and when it became necessary for the town to go to law to protect its rights, to choose an agent who should act for the people in their collective capacity, assisting in the preparation of the case and employing counsel. Usually these agents were elected to attend to some specific lawsuit. In 1822, however, Ezekiel Morrill was chosen agent "to make defence against all suits at law that may be commenced, or commence actions against towns or individuals when he with the advice of the selectmen shall think proper, and the said agent shall receive for his services seventy-five cents per day exclusive of his expenses."
The town had been indicted for two bad roads the year before, but had named Abiel Foster as agent to undertake its defence. The records do not show any further indictments for defective highways for several years or that the town was engaged in liti- gation. As Mr. Morrill's authority as agent was general, his appointment may have been in anticipation of suits and for the purpose of limiting the charges of the town agent for services.
At the annual meeting in 1831, there was an article in the warrant "to see if the town will accept so much of Northfield as lies south east of a line commencing at the northwest corner of the Boswell lot so called in said Northfield, running (in a) south westerly direction to Canterbury line including the farms of Josiah Marden, Eliphalet Brown and the Boswell lot above men- tioned and a part of Nathaniel Whidden's lot, provided the town of Northfield is willing to disannex the same."
The town voted to accept the territory mentioned. It appar- ently comprised those farms in Northfield which were later included in the Hill's Corner school district. Either Northfield did not consent to this loss of territory or the people interested secured the result desired by act of the legislature, annexing their farms to this district in Canterbury for school purposes.
238
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
A brilliant and promising son of Canterbury during the first quarter of the nineteenth century was Charles Glidden Haines, who was born January 24, 1792. At the age of fourteen he was a clerk in the office of the secretary of state at Concord and captain of a military company of boys. Graduating from Middlebury College in 1816 he read law and settled in New York City, where he was admitted to the bar in 1821. He soon after became private secretary to Gov. DeWitt Clinton whose earnest champion he was. Largely through his efforts the governor was reinstated to political power in 1825 and he appointed Mr. Haines adjutant general of the state, a position for which he did not qualify owing to his untimely death at the age of thirty-three. In a biographical sketch of him, written by Charles Walker, Jr., of New York, it is said:
"He came to the city of New York a poor and friendless stranger, and in the short space of seven years he surrounded himself with numerous and valuable friends, acquired a dis- tinguished reputation as a scholar, a politician and a writer, and rose to one of the highest offices in the gift of the state government."
Mr. Haines edited the first law journal published in this country. He was the author of many treatises on legal and political subjects, notably "A Complete System of Republican Government," written for the republics of South America by the request of their representatives and at the instance of Daniel Webster. Practicing law in the Supreme Court of the United States he contended successfully for the free navigation of the Hudson River and he was engaged in other causes involving important constitutional questions. His varied and intense labors were too much for his physical strength. After an illness of a few months he died July 3, 1825.
CHAPTER X.
THE PARSONAGE FUND AND LOT. ACTION ON SURPLUS REVENUE OF THE UNITED STATES. CALLING TOWN OFFICERS TO ACCOUNT. THE ANNUAL TOWN MEETING OF A FORMER GENERATION. LITI- GATION OVER NEW HIGHWAYS. ATTITUDE OF CANTERBURY ON THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC. VOTE ON ABOLISHING CAPITAL PUNISH- MENT. TOWN HEARSE. HEATING THE TOWN HOUSE. SOAP- STONE INDUSTRY.
It was not until 1833 that the legal relations between the town of Canterbury and the Rev. William Patrick were formally dissolved. At the March meeting the year before, a committee, appoint edin 1830 to ascertain the annual expense of assessing and collecting the minister's tax for the Congregational Society, to examine the minister's tax from the date of Mr. Patrick's settlement in 1803 to the year 1831 and to find the balance after payment of his salary, if any, made its report. They found the average annual cost to be $4.50 and the balance after payment and drawbacks to be $148.19. This report was accepted by the town.
An attempt was made at a meeting held November 5, 1832, to arrange some settlement with the Congregational Society and end the contract between the town and Mr. Patrick, but the voters for some reason refused to take action. The next spring, however, Mr. Patrick's contract was annulled, but, if a formal settlement was made with the society, it was not recorded in the town books. Evidently the amount involved was not enough to occasion dispute and apparently arose over the cost of collect- ing Mr. Patrick's salary and the interest on arrearages, etc.
It will thus be seen that, while the toleration act of 1819 absolved the inhabitants of the town from taxation without their consent for the support of the gospel, the machinery of the town of Canterbury continued to be used for the collection of rates from those of the Congregational faith until 1833. As stated in a previous chapter, Mr. Patrick's contract when he settled in Canterbury in 1803 was with the town, and the town alone could
240
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
annul this contract. After a time it became apparent to the people of the Congregational Society that no advantage accrued to them from continuing an antiquated system of raising money for the support of their minister. From this time forward, there- fore, the history of the Congregational Society at the Center ' loses its connection with town affairs.1
The parsonage lot at the Center continued a subject for consideration until 1852. The meeting house and the town house stood on this land. At various times in the history of the town, applications were made for the use of the parsonage land. Sometimes these applications were for purchase and sometimes for lease. The early ministers of the town had the use of it for tillage and its income from all sources went to the support of the gospel.
At the annual meeting in 1833 two parcels of the parsonage land were sold, one to Frederick Chase "off the corner where his house stands at the selectmen's appraisal," and the other to Richard Greenough "at a reasonable compensation" on which to erect a barn.
It was also "voted that the income from the parsonage near the Congregational meeting house which has been for years past for the benefit of Rev. William Patrick, late town minister, shall until otherwise ordered be paid to the Congregational Soci- ety for the support of the gospel as they may choose to direct."
In 1838 the question of the disposition of the parsonage fund and land was brought before the annual meeting, but no action was taken. Four years later, the town "voted to lease a piece of the parsonage land sufficient for a blacksmith shop, coal house and shed so long as it may be wanted for this purpose."
At the annual meeting in 1843, the town granted the use of a suitable lot to the Freewill Baptist Society to be located between the store of Richard Greenough and the blacksmith shop occupied by Jonathan K. Taylor on which to build a meeting house, the society to pay a reasonable annual rent.
Two years later the town "voted that the annual income of all the parsonage, whether it consist of land, money or securities, be divided between the Congregational and Freewill Baptist soci- eties, equally, until otherwise ordered by the town." The select-
1 See chapter on Center Congregational Church.
241
THE PARSONAGE FUND AND LOT.
men were authorized to lay out a burying ground and fence it "at the north end of the parsonage land north of the town house if the piece of land will answer for the same." An appraisal was to be made of the lot and the interest on that sum was to be paid annually to the two religious societies. The selectmen laid out the burying ground and valued the lot at $50.
At a special meeting November 29, 1845, there were several articles in the warrant to see if the town would dispose of lots on the parsonage land, including a proposition to sell the whole at public auction, but all these articles were indefinitely post- poned. The subject was again brought up for consideration at the annual meeting in 1847, and the town "voted that the whole of the parsonage (land) not before disposed of be sold at public auction under the direction of the selectmen and that the same be by them divided into lots with a view to suit purchasers." The sale occurred within a year, for, at the March meeting of 1848, the selectmen were directed "to pay over all the parsonage money now deposited with the town which arose from the sale of the parsonage land, or that may come into their hands as a parsonage fund, to the Congregational and Freewill Baptist Societies in equal proportions." In case there was not enough money in the town treasury to comply with these instructions, the selectmen were directed to give a note of the town to the societies for the full amount due.
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.