USA > New Hampshire > Merrimack County > Canterbury > History of the town of Canterbury, New Hampshire, 1727-1912, v. 1 > 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
The Congregational Society before receiving its share was "to relinquish all title they imagine they have to the lot on which their meeting house stands and agree not to bring any suit inlaw against the town or against any individual who has purchased any of the aforesaid parsonage land." The vote on this proposition was sixty-one in favor to fifty-two against. The Congregational Society adopted a resolution in conformity with the requirement of the town. Trouble was anticipated at the meeting where this sale was authorized and an attempt was made to avoid it by an amendment offered to the vote of the town, but the amend- ment was not accepted. A special meeting was called for Septem- ber 16, 1848, for the purpose among other things of receiving the report of the selectmen on the outcome of the sale. It appeared that they had sold land "used as a common" and the meeting house, town house, shed and store lots. These particu- lar sales the town refused to ratify and requested the Congre-
17
242
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
gational and Freewill Baptist Societies to refund the money received therefrom. The town further declared "that these lots remain in common as heretofore, no part of them being occupied except where the meeting house, town house, sheds and store stand, without a vote of the town."
Finally at the annual meeting in 1849 a committee, consisting of two representatives each from the Congregational and Baptist Societies, one from the Shakers and one on the part of the town, was appointed "to adjust existing difficulties arising from or connected with the sale of the meeting house, store and shed lots." The committee consisted of John A. Chamberlain and Joseph Ham from the Congregational Society, Joseph M. Harper and David M. Clough from the Freewill Baptist Society, David Parker in behalf of the Shakers and Benjamin Sanborn for the town. The selectmen were also authorized to negotiate with Charles Greenough for his title to the blacksmith shop lot, to sell and convey the same, and "divide the proceeds as other such funds have been divided."
The committee probably settled all these questions to the satis- faction of the town and the two religious societies, as there is no further reference to the subject in the records. There still re- mained to be disposed of the lot north of the town house which was laid out for a burying yard in 1845, and the lot the use of which had been voted to the Freewill Baptist Society for a meeting house in 1843. The town voted in 1852 to sell the bury- ing yard lot at auction. An attempt was made in 1845 to have the town sell the Baptist Meeting House lot to that society for a parsonage house, but it failed. In 1852, however, the select- men were instructed to lease a piece of land in the rear of the old meeting house, thirty-one by forty feet, to the Baptist Society as a building lot for a church, the lease to run for so long a time as the lot was occupied for religious purposes. The society did not avail itself of this privilege.1
The parsonage lot of forty acres, which was given in 1752 by Dea. Ezekiel Morrill in exchange for 100 acres of the proprietors' undivided land, included the cemetery at the Center, the old pound adjacent thereto, the present common, the sites of the chapel, the two stores, the town and meeting houses, and all
1 The Baptist Society referred to was the one organized at the Center in 1848.
243
SURPLUS REVENUE OF THE UNITED STATES.
the land embraced between the road running by the Joseph P. Dearborn place and the highway which passes the John W. Dris- coll place to where they meet and form the road to Hackleborough. The vote of the town in 1752 described the parsonage lot as "adjoining the meeting house," which at that time was located south of the present highway on some part of the present cemetery.1
At the annual meeting in 1837, the town was called upon by act of the legislature to determine what disposition it would make of its share of the surplus revenue of the United States which Congress had voted to deposit with the several states. This surplus was to be paid in four instalments to such states as voted to accept it, subject to recall by the secretary of the treasury whenever needed by the general government. The faith of the states was pledged to return the deposits. What to do with the money was a problem confronting the legislatures, the solution of which makes an interesting story, but it is foreign to this his- tory except as it pertains to the action of New Hampshire.
Isaac Hill, then governor, urged the legislature to loan the state's quota and use the interest to pay the expenses of govern- ment. In his opinion the money belonged to the state; in the opinion of the legislature it belonged to the people. The general court met November 23, 1836, and laying aside all other business it devoted its time to settling the question of distribution. The session lasted fifty-three days, the longest with one exception in the history of the state at that time, and on the day before the final adjournment, a bill was approved which divided the money among the towns, to be loaned, not spent, subject to recall should the United States ever demand it.2 If any town neglected to call for its share, the state treasurer was authorized to loan the money and pay the interest to the town.
At the July session, 1838, the towns were authorized to use the loan for any purpose for which they could lawfully raise taxes.3 Three years later they were given authority to make such disposition of it as a majority of the town should determine.4
1 The parsonage lot in the fourth division of lots was sold at public auction May 8, 1824, to Jeremiah Small for $199 and the proceeds appropriated to the support of the gospel.
2 Act of January 13, 1837.
¿ Act of July 4, 1838.
Act of July 2, 1841.
244
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
New Hampshire's proportion of the surplus revenue was $892,115.71. Only three instalments were ever paid. Before the fourth instalment became due, the condition of the United States treasury was such that Congress voted to postpone the payment.1 New Hampshire received $669,086.79, of which amount Canterbury's share was $3,790.65.2
At the March meeting, 1837, the town "voted to let the public money remain in the state treasury (that is the first in- stalment)." Amos Cogswell, chairman of the board of selectmen, was elected agent to receive the interest on this deposit.
The people of Canterbury were not unanimous in this decision. A committee to whom the question had been referred reported in favor of taking possession of the first instalment. After the annual meeting adjourned, a doubt arose whether the deposit would be entirely secure in the hands of the state treasurer. If the money was lost through bad investment, would the state make it good to the town? A meeting was accordingly called for July 7, 1837, to reconsider the subject. At this meeting it was:
"Resolved that, if it can be satisfactorily shown to the select- men that the town can enjoy the interest of the surplus revenue without being responsible for the loss of the principal, it be per- mitted to remain in the hands of the state treasurer at present."
This official regarded himself as merely an agent of distribu- tion without responsibility except to account to the towns for their quota and pay it to them when they complied with the terms of the act of disbursement. There is no entry in his accounts of the surplus revenue fund, except of the amount due to the unincorporated places. An advertisement appeared in the New Hampshire Patriot showing the receipt of the first instal- ment from the federal government and the allotment made to the towns of the state.3 As three instalments of equal amounts were received and distributed by the state treasurer, each town's share can be computed from this table.
The selectmen of Canterbury evidently ascertained that, if the town permitted the state to loan the money, it would do so at its own risk of loss, for another meeting was called for October
1 McMaster's History American People, Vol. VI, pages 351 to 357.
2 N. H. Patriot, February 13, 1837.
& Idem.
245
SURPLUS REVENUE OF THE UNITED STATES.
7, 1837, to take the sense of the voters on "the expediency of receiving forthwith their proportion of the surplus revenue, to see if they will employ a part to pay for their town farm, and to determine whether they will choose some other person than the chairman of the board of selectmen to take charge of the money."
The town voted to draw its proportion of the surplus revenue from the state treasury and elected Joseph Ham, Jr., its agent to collect and handle the funds. The article in the warrant to use part of the money to pay for the town farm was dismissed, as under the first act of distribution, the towns could not appropriate the funds but simply loan them. Agent Ham, therefore, had at this time one and perhaps two instalments to loan on approved security.
At the annual meeting in 1838, four months after the town had decided to take its quota, it was voted to use the interest on the surplus revenue fund to defray town charges. The selectmen were instructed at the same meeting "to give our agent a note on interest after demanded for the money the town owes him which belongs to the United States." Apparently the town had already borrowed of its agent some of the fund, thus avoiding the spirit of the statute forbidding the town to appropriate the money.
Before the next annual meeting the legislature enlarged the purposes for which the surplus revenue could be used by the towns. The act of July 4, 1838, permitted them not only to loan on approved security in sums not less than $25, but also to "appropriate to any purpose for which they may lawfully raise money." Opinion was rapidly crystallizing in New Hampshire that the money never would be called for by the United States and that what had been offered as a deposit could with safety be treated as a gift.
Accordingly, Canterbury at its March meeting in 1839 "voted to take $700 (of the surplus revenue) to pay town charges and a sufficient sum to pay the county tax." The interest received from any of the fund which was loaned was thereafter to be added to the principal. At the next annual meeting, the town charges were again met by drawing upon this fund.
Agent Ham evidently required the town to observe certain business formalities when it appropriated the money in his cus- tody, and he surrendered it only upon the selectmen giving notes
246
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
for the same. The people of Canterbury could see no advantage accruing to them in the use of this money if these notes remained as outstanding obligations of the town. Therefore, at a special meeting November 7, 1840, the following article appeared in the warrant:
"To see what the town will do with the note given to Joseph Ham Jr. as agent to take care of the surplus money, given March 14, 1838, by the selectmen of Canterbury for the sum of $1600."
The town promptly voted that the note be given up. Mr. Ham appears to have refused to comply with this instruction, for, at the annual meeting in 1841, the question of the distribu- tion of the surplus revenue was again up for consideration. It was then "voted that Joseph Ham Jr. as agent to take care of the surplus revenue, surrender all notes he holds against the town and pay the remainder of said money and notes to the selectmen."
Before the next annual meeting, the state had given the towns authority to make such disposition of their quota of the surplus revenue as a majority of the voters in each town should deter- mine.1 The notes were, therefore, surrendered and what was left of Canterbury's share not already appropriated was mingled with the town's revenue and applied to paying expenses.
Many towns of the state used their proportion of the surplus revenue for school purposes. Portsmouth distributed its share per capita among the inhabitants. The selectmen of Gilford, having spent the town's share probably for town needs, were ordered by the voters to borrow enough to make good the defi- ciency that the whole might be given to the people. This they refused to do.2
That public office was considered a public trust by the citi- zens of Canterbury, and that officials, especially the selectmen, were held to a strict accountability for their acts and charges for services, is shown by several votes of the town during the period under consideration. Prior to the published reports of recent years, the town fathers, or the auditors when chosen, made oral statements of the year's transactions, at the annual meetings and they were undoubtedly sharply interrogated by the voters if
1 Act of July 2, 1841.
2 McMaster's History American People, Vol. VI, page 353.
247
CALLING TOWN OFFICERS TO ACCOUNT.
the latter had reason to think there had been either extravagance of mangement or neglect of duty. This was at a time when the honor of holding office was considered to be a part of its emolu- ment and the public servant was only worthy of his hire if his services met with approbation and his charges were moderate and frugal. The annual and special town meetings were occa- sions when individuals aired their grievances. It required only a few petitioners to secure the insertion in the warrant of an article to take the sense of the voters on almost any subject. It is not improbable that envy or spite prompted some of the impeachments of officials put forth under the guise of inquiry in the calls for the public assembly of the inhabitants of the town. While the records merely register the questions raised and the action taken, the imagination of one familiar with New England town meetings can readily fill in the picture of what took place when the policy of the town fathers was condemned or some public servant was called upon to explain his services.
The accounts of the selectmen were evidently challenged at the annual meeting in 1832, and, not being able to give all the details demanded, they were instructed by the town to purchase a book and to enter therein a correct record in detail of all their transactions, "stating the particular business which they or any of them were attending to, the place where such business was done, whether by vote of the town or at the request of an indi- vidual." This book was also to be used by their successors and to be open to the inspection of any citizen.
In 1839 the rebuke to the selectmen was more pointed. It was then "voted that the selectmen do business according to law and not according to custom." Apparently the board had justified some practice by saying that they had followed the custom of their predecessors.
At a meeting three years later an article appeared in the war- rant "to see if the town approves the course of the selectmen in running the town in debt and pledging its faith to pay said debts without any appropriation or authority." The town fathers had notice this time that they were to be catechised, and they prepared their defence so satisfactorily that they were vindi- cated, the vote of confidence reading, "to sustain the selectmen agreeably to the article in the warrant."
At the annual meeting in 1847 the auditors report that they
248
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
found all charges of the selectmen correct, except that each col- lected one dollar for his services town meeting day. The com- ment of the auditors is as follows, "It appears that this has been the practice for several years, but your auditors are of the opin- ion that no such charge should be made." Their report was accepted, which would indicate that the voters believed that the work of the selectmen on town meeting day in regulating the check list and assisting to sort and count the votes was a patri- otic duty and not one of hire.
For a generation the most prominent citizen in Canterbury was Dr. Joseph M. Harper. He was born in Limerick, Me., June 21, 1787, being one of a family of ten children. Educated at the academy in Fryeburg, Me., he studied medicine, settling first at Sanbornton in 1810. The next year he located in Canterbury, having become acquainted with the town while a medical student pursuing his studies with Dr. Jonathan Kittredge. During the War of 1812, he enlisted and was commissioned as second surgeon in the Fourth United States Infantry. He served from Jan- uary, 1813, to the close of the war. In 1826 and 1827 Doctor Harper was elected to represent Canterbury in the legislature. He was chosen to the state senate in 1829 and reelected the next year, serving that body as its president during the session of 1830. When Matthew Harvey resigned as governor Febru- ary 28, 1831, Doctor Harper succeeded him as chief magistrate of New Hampshire. The same year that he served as gover- nor, he was elected to Congress and reelected in 1833. He early joined the Freewill Baptist Church of Canterbury, and, for several years when the church was without a pastor, he officiated in the pulpit. As a speaker he was forceful and direct without any of the gifts of the orator. As a physician he was successful and beloved by his patients.
While a member of the senate in 1829, the governor and council appointed him an agent of the state to visit Connecti- cut and gather information regarding the cultivation of the mul- berry tree, the methods of raising the silk worm and the manu- facture of silk. His report made to the next legislature was printed in pamphlet form and circulated gratuitously through New Hampshire. While in Congress, he was a strong supporter of Jackson's administration. He was an ardent advocate of temperance reform, not having used either liquor or tobacco the
249
CALLING TOWN OFFICERS TO ACCOUNT.
last twenty-five years of his life. The common school system had no better friend than he.
Doctor Harper was a strong and rugged personality and a man of much public spirit and enterprise. He was consulted freely upon all town matters. Plain of speech, his part in town meet- ings frequently provoked opposition, yet there was respect for his ability and his integrity. An illustration of his outspoken opinion of men occurred in a party caucus. It was proposed to nominate a certain individual for one of the selectmen. Imme- diately Doctor Harper was on his feet in opposition. "It would never do," said he, "Mr. Blank is not an honest man." The candidate was present at the caucus. Such frankness is not likely to promote popularity and it is not strange that, as oppor- tunity afforded, effort was made to discredit the Doctor. He, however, shrank from no conflict and it was a rare occurrence when he was discomfited in debate. The following incident from the town records is a tribute to Doctor Harper's influence, although the vote was intended as a rebuke to him and probably passed when he was absent.
At a special meeting called to see what disposition the town would make of a piece of land at the north end of the parsonage lot which was laid out for a burying ground, the selectmen were called upon to make explanation of some transaction of which the records are silent. Apparently these officials had sought the counsel of Doctor Harper and acted upon it. This did not meet the approval of the assembly, for the clerk makes the following record :
"Voted that our selectmen be instructed to obtain legal advice when necessary in the discharge of their official duties and not rely upon the opinion of Dr. Harper."
More explicit in detail are the records of the town in 1844, when the services of the superintendent of the town farm were called in question by some of the voters. One of the articles in the warrant for the annual meeting that year read as follows:
"To see if the town will vote to pay Samuel Tallant Jr. the full amount of his wages as manager of the town farm the year past when for the last three months he has been engaged in other business, hereby rendering no service to the town by his labor on said farm; and further, if said Tallant be paid the full amount of his wages by the selectmen (which would be unjust before
250
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
this meeting), then to see what method the town will adopt to have that part of the money which actually does not belong to him refunded."
It is easy to comprehend the excitement that must have been created after this warrant was posted and read by the citizens for two successive Sabbaths as they assembled at the Center and Hill's Corner to attend divine service. Mr. Tallant was a man of the highest standing in town, with a reputation for the strictest probity in all his public and private dealings. The accusation not only contained the charge of neglect of duty, but the imputa- tion that he had collected or was trying to collect pay for serv- ices which he had not rendered. The case was undoubtedly discussed at every fireside and the accused may have been found guilty by some persons before his side of the story was heard. There is not even a traditional account of what took place at the town meeting, for no one now living recalls the incident. The vindication of Mr. Tallant, however, was complete. At the close of a discussion which undoubtedly took place, the town adopted the following resolution apparently without a dissenting vote:
"Resolved that the thanks of the town be presented to Mr. Samuel Tallant for the faithful manner in which he has dis- charged his duties as superintendent of the town farm, and to the selectmen for permitting the said Tallant to teach the school in District No. 7, thereby saving the town $20."
The Canterbury town meeting, especially the regular annual gathering, was invariably an interesting occasion until as late as 1878, when the state and town elections were separated by the amended constitution. It required two days at least to transact the business of the March meeting. The first day was given over to organization, voting for state and county officers, choosing a representative to the general court, the election of the select- men and, if there was time, to the selection of some minor officers. Rarely, however, did the business of the first day proceed further than the election of selectmen and sometimes not even this article in the warrant was reached until the second day.
From the earliest division of the people into political parties in the state and nation, Canterbury was debatable ground in partisan contests. In the strife between Federalists and Anti- federalists, between Democrats and Whigs, and later between
251
CHARACTER OF TOWN MEETINGS.
Democrats and Republicans, the margin of the majority party in town was seldom large enough at any election to eliminate a trial of strength the following year. The political battle in town opened with the choice of a moderator, the law prior to 1893 requiring this official to be elected by the meeting over which he presided. This was the test vote. The political complexion of the moderator almost invariably determined the party to elect the representative to the legislature and the board of selectmen.1
The town clerk was usually chosen year after year as long as he would serve, though if party spirit ran high, not even his popularity, the outgrowth of constant accommodation to his fellow-citizens, saved him from defeat if his party lost the town.
With the exception of the election of a delegate to a constitu- tional convention, when one was called, which was rare, the position of representative to the legislature was the highest office in the gift of the town. Few there were of the citizens who did not hope that at some period of their lives the choice would fall upon them. The strife for both the nomination and election was usually intense and sometimes led to breaks in party alignment, necessitating several ballots to secure the majority vote required for an election. Occasionally an adjournment had to be taken to a second day before a choice was made. In some instances, the voters wearied by successive ballots voted not to send a repre- sentative to the general court.
In the days before the separation of the town from the state election, the position of selectman was a partisan office, the town fathers having charge of the making and correcting of the check list, thus sitting as a tribunal to determine who were voters in town. In a close town like Canterbury, the control of the check list might decide which party would succeed in the ensuing election. In times of intense partisan contests, the candidates for selectmen were not always selected solely with a view to their ability to do town business.2 Usually the candidate for chairman of the board was a man familiar with town affairs, but his associ- ates were too often selected for their disposition to give their party a winning check list. Sometimes the party would over- reach itself in making this kind of selection, the incompetence of
1 This was true of other towns of the state.
2 This was true in all of the close towns of the state and the fact was a potent argument in favor of the change in the constitution separating the town from other elections.
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.