USA > New Hampshire > Hillsborough County > Hollis > History of the town of Hollis, New Hampshire, from its first settlement to the year 1879 > Part 8
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
.
80
THE ONE PINE HILL CONTROVERSY.
[174600:7; entitled, " An Act Annexing One Pine Hill to Holles." This act was prefaced by a preamble in which it was stated " That sund: : inhabitants of Dunstable had petitioned the General Assembl. stating that they were more conveniently situated to belong ti Holles than to Dunstable -- That Dunstable is large, rich and able. to spare them -which reasons and the arguments and objection. having been duly weighed, and it appearing reasonable to grant the Petition. * * Therefore be it enacted, &c."
Then follows a description of the part of Dunstable to be annexed to Hollis, in accordance with a survey and plan made by Samuel Cumings, the surveyor for Hollis and now at Concord. In running this new east line of the town this survey begun at the Pine tree standing on the hill called One Pine Hill, thence south 13 1-2°, West 372 rods to Nashua river. The line was then run northerly, begin- ning again at the same Pine tree, one mile and 225 rods - thence westwardly one mile and 23 rods to the northeast corner of Holli- as chartered in 1746- thus taking from Dunstable all that part of Hollis as it now is, east of Flint's brook and pond and Muddy brook.
1
This once famous pine tree, thus made to mark the boundary of the belligerent towns, and which gave its name to One Pine Hill. is now no more. It is said to have been a tall, straight pitch pine, near a hundred feet high, with no other tree of its species near it, stand- ing solitary and alone on the summit of the hill. In early times, be- ing conspicuous in all directions for a long distance. it served as a beacon to mark a place of rendezvous for backwoodsmen and deer- hunters, whose names in scores were cut in its bark, from its roots many feet upward.
Thus at last ended by conquest the war between Dunstable and One Pine ITill and its ever faithful allies of Hollis, a war which had lasted, with varied fortune, nearly twice as long as the siege of Troy - more than twice as long as our war of the Revolution. and. sad to tell, no Homer has yet sung its heroes - no Marshall told it- history.
SECOND BORDER TROUBLE WITH DUNSTABLE, NASHUA RIVER BRIDGE, COMPROMISE.
A second border trouble, in respect to the boundary between Hollis and Dunstable, began soon after the conquest of One Pine Hill. This controversy grew out of a question in respect to the support of an expensive bridge across the Nashua river, in the
1
81
1746 to 1763.] SECOND BORDER CONTROVERSY.
south-east part of Hollis, near the place in the Hollis Records at first called " Lawrence's Mills," afterwards "Jaquith's," and in our times known as " Runnell's Mills." A bridge at this place was very necessary to the people of Hollis, being on their main road to mar- ket ; but much less needed by Dunstable. So indispensable was this bridge to Hollis, that in 1740, as we have seen, provision was made for building it out of the "' non-resident tax of 2d. per acre " granted by the parish charter for the support of the ministry. But that tax being lost. with the parish charter, I do not find sufficient evidence that any bridge was built at that place till many years after the charter of Hollis and Dunstable as towns. These charters, as has been seen, made the Nashua river from the Province line to Flint's Brook the boundary of the two towns ; the south line of Dun- stable beginning at Merrimack river, and running on the Province line .: to" the Nashua, and the south line of Hollis, beginning " at" the Nashua, and running westwardly on the Province line six miles and ninety-six rods. A New Hampshire court in these times would have probably held that this charter descriptive of this boundary would have divided the river equally between the two towns, leaving the town line in the middle or thread of the stream. instead of on its banks, and each town under equal obligation to build the bridge. But we shall see by and by that the town meetings in Hollis and Dunstable did not take this view of the law.
In the early Hollis records there are many references to this bridge, and to the troubles in respect to it. The first of these is found in the record of the March meeting. in 1751 when the town voted to help build a bridge "across Nashua river near Dea. Cum- ings." From this vote it is evident that the bridge had not been then built. and that Dunstable was expected to help build it.
At the annual meeting in 1756, Hollis " chose Capt. Peter Pow- ers, Samuel Cumings and Benjamin Abbott a Comtee to see if Dun- stable will joyn with Holles to bould a Bridge over Nashua river in some convenant Place where the Road is laid out from Holles to Dunstable." It seems that Dunstable did not accept this invitation of the Hollis committee, for it is found that a special town meeting in Hollis, in 1760, chose a "committee to Petition the Generall Court for a Lottery to Bould a Bridge over Nashua river if they think fit." But the "Generall" Court did not " think fit" to grant a Lottery, as it appears that at the annual meeting in 1761, the town without calling on Dunstable for help " Voted to have a Bridge (6)
82
SECOND BORDER CONTROVERSY.
[1745 to 1763.
built over Nashua river near Lawrence's Mills," and chose a com. mittee to obtain subscriptions for it. The next year, 1762, the town " Voted to raise Money to pay for the Building of the Bridge over Nashua river the Money to be redukted out of the cost of the Bridge that was subscribed out of town." From this vote it is evi- dent that as early as 1762 a bridge had been built across the Nashua river mainly, if not wholly, by Hollis. In May, 1765, at a special town meeting, the town " Voted to Rebuild or Repair the Bridge over Nashua river, and that the £Soo voted at the March Meeting for Making and Mending the Roads be laid out in Building and Re- pairing the Bridge." From the above vote I infer that the bridge built in 1762 was either washed away wholly in the spring of 1765, or so much injured as to need costly repairs. Though, in the lan- guage of the law, " often requested," the town of Dunstable, as it seems, had given no aid in supporting this bridge, and the question of the legal liability of that town to aid in it was allowed to sleep till the annual meeting in Hollis in March, 1772. At that meeting, in pursuance of an article in the warrant, the town "Voted to ap- point a committee to ask for and recover of Dunstable a share of the Cost of Building and Repairing the Bridge across Nashua River near Jaquith's Mills with power to prosecute if necessary."
Thisrequest of the people of Hollis, upon being submitted by the committee to a town meeting in Dunstable. in the month of June following, was curtly rejected. and it was " Voted that Dunstable would not do anything towards building a bridge over Nashua river."
But it fortunately so happened that not far from this time, the Mills before known as "Lawrence's Mills," had become the prop- erty of Ebenezer Jaquith. This Mr. Jaquith and Ensign Daniel Merrill lived in the bend of Nashua river on the Dunstable side, their two farms containing about 500 acres, and comprising all the land in this bend. These men were nearer to the mecting-house in Hollis than to that in Dunstable, and like the saintly and sensible settlers on One Pine Hill, wished to be annexed to Hollis and were willing to pay something for the privilege. With these new facts in view, and the long and costly contest for the conquest of One Pine Hill not yet forgotten, a special town meeting was called in Hollis in December, 1772, at which it was "Voted that whereas, there is a dispute with respect to the Bridge over Nashua river be- tween Holles and Dunstable, and whereas Messrs. Merrill and Ja-
------
* IF.
*ميلا
83
1746 to 1763.] SECOND BORDER CONTROVERSY.
quith live more convenient to Holles than Dunstable, and are wil- Fag to pay something handsome towards the Building of said Bridge, and also considering the expense of Suits at Law in the Premises- now in order to an amicable settlement of the matter, and for the Preservation and Cultivation of Harmony between said Towns- Voted to accept said Families with their Lands, Provided Dunstable shall lay them off' to us and assist in an amicable man- ner to get them incorporated with us. Also Voted that Samuel Hobart, Dea. Noyes and William Nevins be a Committee to treat with Dunstable on Bridge Affairs." The Hollis Committee soon communicated these amicable terms of peace to the Selectmen of Dunstable, who upon their receipt, summoned a town meeting of their constituents, by whom these neighborly overtures were dis- dainfully rejected and the meeting " Voted that the people of Dun- stable would not pay anything towards the Building of the Bridge, nor would they consent to annex any more Land to Holles."
In the meanwhile the legal advisers of Hollis, " learned in the law," upon the examination of the charters of the two towns, had expressed the opinion that Nashua river, where it flowed between Hollis and Dunstable, was not in any part in either town, and that neither town was under any obligation to build a bridge across it. This opinion in respect to the law with the proposed remedy is set forth in the following preamble and resolution, adopted at a town meeting of Hollis, Jan. 20, 1773, called to consider the report of their Peace Ambassadors to Dunstable.
" Whereas it appears by the charters of Dunstable and Holles, that Nashua River is not in either town - That it is highly necessary that a Bridge be erected over said River, but that neither Town is obliged by Law to make or maintain the same - and Dunstable manifesting an unwillingness to do anything respecting the Building of a Bridge - therefore, voted that William Nevins be agent of the Town to Petition the Governor and Council and General Assembly that Dunstable and Holles may be connected so that a Bridge may be built over said River."
Again at the annual town meeting in Hollis, in 1773, Col. John Hale, William Nevins and Ensign Stephen Ames were chosen to represent the matter in respect to the bridge, to the Governor and Council.
This proposal to appeal to the General Court, or Governor and Council, very soon had the effect to render the people of Dunstable
84
SECOND BORDER CONTROVERSY. [1746 to 1763.
more placable, and more ready to accept the treaty of peace offered by Hollis the year before. The choice of evils now pre- sented was another trial of their border troubles before the General Court or the acceptance of the proposed compromise, and it is manifest from the doings of a town meeting in Hollis on the ensuing ISth of March, that Dunstable had voted to submit to the least of the two evils. At this meeting Hollis voted
" To extend the easterly line of Holles so far east as to include Messrs. Merrill and Jaquith with their Improvements, provided it shall be done without expense to the Town. and that Dea. Boynton, Reuben Dow and Samuel Cumings be a committee to agree with Dunstable in respect to Boundaries."
At a town meeting on the following 12th of April this committee made report as follows :
"' We have met the Dunstable committee and have mutually agreed that the Easterly Line of Holles shall be extended Eastward- ly to the following Bounds: To Begin at a Stake and Stones fifteen Rods below Buck Meadow Falls, at the River, which is Mr. Jaquith's northerly corner ; Thence running southerly in a straight line to a Pine tree on the River Bank which is Mr. Jaquith's south- westerly corner. April 8, 1773."
This report was accepted by the town, and afterwards, in the month of May, 1773, at the joint request of Hollis and Dunstable, the General Court passed an act establishing the boundary line be- tween the two towns as so agreed upon, where it has remained un- disturbed from that day to this. These terms of settlement, though at first not willingly accepted by Dunstable, were exceedingly favor- able to that town, and ought to have been ample satisfaction for the loss of One Pine Hill. It is true that Dunstable came out of the controversy short of 500 acres of territory, but in return for this loss, that town was relieved from the burden of aiding in maintaining this bridge in all future time ; a charge that has already cost Hollis much more than the value of all the land so annexed.
5. 2
85.
-
HISTORY OF MONSON.
CHAPTER VI.
HISTORY OF MONSON .- TOWN OFFICERS .-- EFFORTS TO MAINTAIN PREACHING AND BUILD A MEETING-HOUSE, ETC .- REPEAL OF CHARTER .- THE MILE SLIP .- CHARTERS OF RABY, WILTON, MASON AND DUXBURY .- MILFORD .- 1746 TO 1794. .
The ancient, now extinct town of Monson, incorporated April I, 1746, was bounded, as we have seen, on the north by the Souhegan river, and south by Hollis. Its corporate existence lasted for twen- ty-four years, during which time it regularly held its annual town meetings, elected its moderators, town clerks, selectmen, tithingmen, hogreeves, deerkeepers and other town officers, but I am pained to. say that I find no evidence that it ever had a school, school house,. meeting-house or a "learned orthodox minister," or a minister not orthodox. The only public structure ever owned by the town was a pound, built for the confinement of disorderly cattle. Its first town meeting was held May 1, 1746, under the direction of Col. Joseph Blanchard, as provided in the charter, Col. Blanchard being moderator. At this meeting town officers were chosen as follows : ROBERT COLBURN, Town Clerk
WILLIAM NEVINS 1 Selectmen JOHN BURNS
SAMUEL LEEMAN, Surveyor of Highways
BENJAMIN HOPKINS)
ABRAHAM LEEMAN, Hogreeve
ROBERT COLBURN
JAMES WHEELER Fence Viewers
THOMAS NEVINS, Constable
At this meeting the town voted to build a pound, and also " to buy a suteable Book to Record Votes in, and other things as the town shall see meet."
During the twenty-four and one-half years of the corporate exist- ence of Monson, I find from the record of votes kept in this " sute- able Book," that the persons named in the following lists were chosen at the annual town meetings to the respective offices of moderator, town clerk and selectmen, the number of times set opposite their names. Moderator,-William Nevins, twelve times : Benjamin
玉
1
86
HISTORY OF MONSON. [1746 to 1770.
Hopkins, seven times; Robert Colburn and Benjamin Kenrick, twice each ; Nathan Hutchinson, once. Town Clerk-Robert Colburn, thirteen times ; Benjamin Kenrick, nine times ; Archelaus Towne, three times. Selectmen-Robert Colburn, fifteen times ; William Nevins, fourteen times ; Benjamin Hopkins and Benjamin Kenrick, ten times each; Nathan Hutchinson, six times ; Josialı Crosby, four times ; John Brown and Archelans Towne, three times each ; Daniel Kenrick and Samuel Leeman, twice each; Thomas Burns, Benjamin Farley, Joseph Gould, William Jones, Thomas Nevins and Jonathan Taylor, once each.
At the time Monson was chartered, the French and Indian War, (begun in 1744,) was still raging. A petition dated May 13, 1747. presented by the inhabitants of Monson to the New Hampshire General Court for soldiers for a guard, shows the extent and condi- tion of the settlement at that time. This petition has fourteen names appended to it, probably those of all the householders then in the town. In this petition they say :
" That the town has just begun to settle, and but about fifteen families there-That they are one of the Frontier Towns West of the Merrimack River and the most northerly one already incorporated. lying between Holles and the new Plantation called Souhegan West. Could we be assisted by soldiers in such competent numbers as miglit enable us to Defend our Selves, we shall chearfully endeavor to stay there by which we shall serve as a Barrier in part to Holles. Merrimack and Dunstable. That last year we were Favored by
Soldiers from the Massachusetts that prevented our Drawing off."
*
In answer to this petition, and one similar to it from Souhegan West, (now Amherst) the General Court gave orders for the raising of "fifteen good effective men to scout and guard Souhegan West and Monson till the 23d of the following October."
A petition of the selectmen of Monson to the General. Court, six years later, dated April 25, 1753, asking that the inhabitants might be relieved from the payment of Province taxes, tells the story of the sad financial condition of the settlers at that time. In this petition the selectmen tell the General Court that there were then in Monson,
"But thirty-six Poles in the whole, severall of them transiently hired for a short space to Labor, without any Estate. But twenty-one Houses, chiefly small cottages only, for a present shel- ter, the charge of Building yet to come on. That they are all plain men Dwelling in these Tents; Husbandry their employment, their
87
1746 to 1770.] HISTORY OF MONSON.
Improvements very small, their Lands yet to Subdue. The Prog- ress much retarded by the necessity to work out of town the prime part of the year to procure Provisions. *
* The few set- lers are scattered all abt the Town. Much Labour has & must be spent in making and opening Roads and Bridges * a burthen too heavy for the small, weak number that is there. * *
They therefore apprehend themselves utterly unable to Bear any Portion of the Publick Taxes, as yet, * * . but hope that their small Be- gining in Time may become usefull if they may be nurssed and favoured now in their Infancy."
What, if anything, was done by the General Court in answer to this pathetic petition, in respect to " nurssing" the infant suppliant, does not appear in the Provincial records.
SCHOOLS, PREACHING, MEETING-HOUSE AND MEETING-HOUSE PLACE.
It is shown by the records of the doings of the annual town meet- ings in Monson that the attention of the inhabitants was many times called to all of these topics, but always in vain.
Schools. An article first appeared in the warrant for the annual town meeting in 1753, " To see if the town would raise a sum of money for a school?" "Passed in the negative." The like articles were inserted in the warrants for the annual town meetings in 1756 and 1760, and in each year. as before, "passed in the negative." After 1760. I do not find that any effort was made for a tax either for a school-house or school.
Preaching. In the year 1749, 1751, 1752. 1754 and 1757. the question of raising a tax for the "support of Preaching amongst them" was brought before the annual town meetings, and each year either "passed in the negative," or was not acted on at all. But in 1763 the town .. Voted a tax of $300, O. T., to support the Gos- pel, each person to pay where they hear." Yet it seems that this tax was not collected. the town the next year having voted to "sink" it. In 1764, at the annual meeting, a vote was passed .. To Raise £400, O. T., to make satisfaction to the Towns of Holles and Amherst for the Privileges we Enjoy in attending Meeting with them." But at a subsequent town meeting. in 1767, " Voted that the money Raised in 1764, and assessed for the Towns of Holles and Amherst shall not be collected," so that it does not appear that any tax was ever collected in Monson, to pay for preaching either in the town or out of it.
88
HISTORY OF MONSON.
[1746 to 1770
Building a Meeting- House. Between the years 1752 and 176 ;. an article several times was inserted in the warrant for the animal town meeting to " see if the town will Vote to be taxed for the. Building of a Meeting-House and Settling the Gospel among -! them." And also " To see if the Town will Petition the General Court for a tax on the Land of Residents and non Residents to build a Meeting-House and setel the Gospel." These various pro- posals all alike " passed in the negative ;" as also did a proposition. introduced in 1760 " to build a Meeting-house at the most conven- ient place near the Center of the Town or ' pick' a new one." .
In 1762, and again in 1765, Monson was coupled with Merrimack in sending a Representative to the New Hampshire General Court. In the former year these towns were represented by Major Joseph Blanchard, and in 1765, by Capt. Jolm Chamberlain, both supposed to live in Merrimack. At the census of New Hampshire taken in 1767, the population of Monson was 293.
PROPOSALS TO DIVIDE THE TOWN, AND FINAL REPEAL OF THE CHARTER.
The people of Monson, like their neighbors of Hollis, do not at any time seem to have been well content with their chartered boundaries. Several expedients in different years came before the annual town meetings proposing changes in the chartered limits of the town. some of them favoring additions to its territory, others, a division of it in various ways. Among the rest was a pro- posal adopted at the March meeting in 1760 " To annex the Land on the south side of Monson to Holles, and to Petition the Governor and Council for such part of Souhegan West to be added to the Remainder of Monson as will be sufficient to maintain the Gospel, and other incidental charges." Again in 1761, the town .. Voted to set off one mile and a half on the south side of Monson to Holles." This last vote it would seem was passed to favor a petition of Hollis to the General Court for the like purpose. After this date all ques- tions looking to a change in the boundaries of the town seem to have rested till the year 1770. when the people of Monson. having bandoned all hope of maintaining preaching. or of " settling the Gospel among them." or of building a meeting-house. or even of finding a suitable .. Meeting-house Place," petitioned the General Court to put a final end to their unhappy and troubled Corporate life by a repeal of their charter. In their petition for this repeal,
.
٤٠٠
.
1
1769.]
89
INCORPORATION OF RABY.
they told the General Court as a reason for it, " That the Land in and about the Center of Monson is so very poor, Broken, Baron and uneaven, as cannot admit of many Settlers, so that those Families that are in Town, are almost all planted in the Extreme parts of it." * * " We have no prospect of ever Building a Meeting-House in the Center or elsewhere, any ways to accommodate us, by which Difficulties we think the Gospel will not be settled among us while in the present situation. We therefore pray, &c."
The consent of Hollis to accept of two miles in width of the south side of the suppliant town, and of Amherst all the residue, having been first obtained, an Act was passed by the General Court, July 4. 1770, dividing Monson by an East and West line passing very near its centre, annexing the south part to Hollis and the north to Amherst. In this way, and in answer to its own humble entreaties, this ancient town voluntarily surrendered its right to municipal life, and for more than a century has been effaced from the map of New Hampshire, and all memory or tradition of it is now nearly lost to the present generation. Since the corporate death of Monson, its remains have been subdivided into four fragments, the largest of them being in the body politic of Milford, the smallest in Brookline, the remainder about equally divided between Amherst and Hollis.
INCORPORATION OF RABY, WILTON AND MASON .-- THE MILE SLIP. DUXBURY .- MILFORD.
.
The west line of Hollis and Monson, as chartered in 1746, as al- ready shown, was the original west line of old Dunstable; running due south by the needle from Souhegan river to the new Province line. The towns of Wilton and Mason, granted by the .. Masonian" proprietors in 1749, were afterwards chartered with the same boun- daries as granted-Wilton in 1762 and Mason in 1768. The cast line of these towns also run due south from the Souhegan river to the Province line, parallel with and about one mile distant from the west line of Hollis and Monson, thus leaving, in the intermediate space. a tract of unincorporated territory, about a mile wide, and extending from the Souhegan river to the Province line. This tract of land, at that time, and for some years later, was known as the " Mile Slip," but often in the old records called the .. Mile Strip," and sometimes " Strip town." A considerable number of families had settled on the Mile Slip, who naturally felt the need of a town charter. Their near neighbors at the west end of Hollis, as has
90
INCORPORATION OF RABY.
[176)
been seen, some years before had felt themselves much aggrieved a. the location of the Hollis meeting-house, so far from themselves and so near to the east end of their town. Whether willing or not, these settlers in the west end of Hollis, as the Province laws then were, were taxable, both in person and estate, for the building of the meeting house and support of the ministry there, the same as the rest of the inhabitants. They had now, for many years, impa- tiently borne this injustice. So long as the boundaries of Hollis re- mained as fixed in the original charter of the town, these west end settlers doubtless cherished the hope that at some time in the future better justice would be done them, either by the erection of a new meeting-house, or the removal of the one already built nearer to the centre of the town. . But all hope of this sort forever vanished in the year 1763, on the annexation of One Pine Hill to the east end of Hollis, thus bringing the centre of the town about two miles nearer to the west end, and the meeting-house so much nearer to the centre. The people in the other parts of Hollis were doubtless de- sirous of quieting the murmurs of their discontented and trouble- some townsmen at the west end, provided it could be done consis- tently with the geographical symmetry and pecuniary interests of the old town. With this end in view, the expedient of forming a new town from this " Mile Slip," and the west end of Hollis, was first brought to the attention of the people of Hollis at their annual town meeting in the spring of 1764, less than three months after the conquest of One Pine Hill. At that meeting the town " Voted To measure East from the Meeting House to the Town Line -- and then to Measure West from the Meeting House the same Length of Line-And all West by a North and South Line to be set off to the One Mile Strip so called."
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.