USA > Vermont > Windsor County > Baltimore > The history of the town of Baltimore, Vermont > Part 3
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
18
The History of
school which she did for $75 including board. She was followed by Abbie Sabin and Emma Martin. In 1872 Sylvia Demary taught the spring term for $2 per week and the town paid $2 for her board. The following winter Addison Blodgett taught three weeks and one day of school and then quit. There is no record of any more school that winter. His father was the prudential committee that year, and he probably ruled that the teacher be son Addison or nobody. But a meeting was held and his office was declared vacant.
The next year Emma Martin was hired again and taught four more terms. The old system of setting up the teacher's board to the lowest bidder was continued until 1875, unless voted to leave board to lowest bidder with the condition that if the committee "can get her boarded cheaper or for the interest of the district it is his privilege." E. C. Sherwin bid off six weeks at $2.9612. R. C. Sherwin the winter term at $3 per week. But Alice Preston taught the next year 1875 for a yearly salary of $80 including board. It will be noted that all four of the Preston girls gained experience in the Baltimore school.
Fannie Ward, later Fannie Raymenton, taught the winter school 8 weeks in 1877 for $20. Francis Preston boarded her for $16. The total expense for this year was $85.35, but they had dropped from 24 to 16 weeks of school, which was certainly a backward step. The town had paid as high as $2.50 per week for the teacher's board and the expenses were beginning to soar while the number of pupils had dwindled to less than ten. The town voted in 1879 to transport its pupils to Chandler School and Kendricks Corners. This was done at a total yearly expense of $38.25, the cost of tuition being 25 cents per pupil per week. With the exception of one year this practice was continued until 1886.
It then became evident that some of the town's people desired to have a school of their own. On March 20 of that year they "met agreeable to warrant," chose all necessary officers, abated three tax bills, and voted to dissolve the meeting, completely ignoring the matter of raising money to provide for any schooling anywhere. April 6 another warrant appeared with the article 1st, "to see if the District will vote to authorize the committee to arrange with the officers of other school districts for the schooling of the scholars of legal age in Baltimore," and also an article to see "if the town will vote to raise money to pay for said schooling." To their discredit be it remembered that they voted not to arrange for any schooling and not to raise any money for it.
The next week they called another meeting to see if the town would vote to reconsider its vote not to make arrangements with other towns to school its pupils and 3rd, "To see if the district will vote to have a school or schools in said district the ensuing year" They met and voted not to reconsider the vote, to pass over "art. 3rd.," and voted not to raise any money, all of which meant that Baltimore had no spring term of school that year nor any schooling provided elsewhere.
19
Baltimore, Vermont
By September the agitation had subsided somewhat. They held a meeting Sept. 15, 1886, and voted to have 12 weeks of school to begin Sept. 20. The schoolhouse was cleaned and repaired at an expense of $14.25 and Ella Kendall was the teacher. The next spring Maude Kendall taught 10 weeks for $35 and 12 weeks in the fall for $54 paying her own board by working for Erwin Sherwin.
By 1890 the schoolhouse showed the need of extensive repairs. A meeting was held Aug. 9 "to see if the district will vote to build a new school house or repair the old one and to see if they will vote to raise money for the same." It was unanimously agreed to put in all new windows, new doors and casings, make plastering good and fill cracks in the walls with cement and have new seats, not to exceed sixty dollars in cost. This appropriation did not meet all specifi- cations probably as they did not get new seats. The teacher was provided with the table now in use and a comfortable chair; win- dows with three long narrow panes in each sash were installed.
These repairs did not satisfy everyone for long. In March 1893 they voted again to repair the schoolhouse and put in seats. There was much talk that the old stone walls were no longer safe, and it was not practical to consider repairing them. Aug. 14, 1893, it was voted for F. Z. Preston to see about buying lumber for the new schoolhouse and other materials that were needed. The spring term of 1894 was kept in the building across the lawn from Francis Preston's house; the fall term of school was kept in the present building with Emma LaFountain as teacher. Here ends the story of the old stone schoolhouse. It is interesting to note that this year also marked the date of the 100th anniversary of the organiza- tion of Baltimore as a separate town.
But the story of buildings and teachers alone, however complete, is not entirely satisfying. Then, as now, the main purpose of school was to prepare children for better living and higher citizenship. Before closing the story of the first three schools of Baltimore, let us give some space and time to the cause and result of all these en- deavors and expenditures and the pupils of the first hundred years.
We read that Baltimore at one time had 115 pupils. This may have been before the days of the stone schoolhouse as they began about that time to record the families entitled to send children to school and later the children's names were also recorded. Forty- one pupils in 1844 is the largest number recorded after 1838.
Many large families of children lived in Baltimore in the early 1800's. Jonathan Woodbury brought his bride here in 1790 and raised 10 children. Noah Piper's family had eleven children, Waldo Cheney's ten; Parkman and William Davis each began married life in Baltimore, the former having twelve children, the latter eleven. All the families had some children, the Gregorys 8, Batchelders 5, Houghtons 11, Boyntons numbering at least five. So possibly the two schoolrooms did have as many as 115 pupils.
That those early schools served their purpose well is evidenced by the splendid improvement in keeping the records and accounts of
20
«
The History of
the town. The calibre of the young men and women who went out from Baltimore and became prominent in the affairs of the world spreads a luster on the accomplishments of those early schools. As some pages of this history will be devoted to the early families, the achievements of those early pupils will be reserved for that section.
21
Baltimore, Vermont
III. THE STORY OF THE POOR.
Contrary to scriptural promise Baltimore did not have the poor with her always nor did she intend to have them, according to those first records. They give us a clue to the reason that when the article appeared in the warning, "To see if the town will raise any money to defray town charges if thought expedient," the voters could and often did vote to pass over that article. Imagine going to town meeting and not voting to raise any money! Those days are gone forever.
However, it is evident that in 1801 disturbing rumors began to be prevalent and for the first time we find this entry which is copied in its original spelling.
"State of Vermont
County of Windsor Ss
To Ether Constable in Baltimore County of Windsor Greting
You are hereby required to summon the Widow Deliverance Burnam to gather with her family (viz) Eunas Burnam, Rufis Burnam, Lydia Burnum, Submit Burnum, Thomas Burnum, Releaf Burnum, Metilday Burnum, now residing in Baltimore to Depart said Town thereof fail not but of this precept and your Doings herein Due return make ac- cording to Law given under our hands at Baltimore this 25th. Day of December A. D. 1801"
Signed by two of the Selectmen
Three other families were also given a like precept. We note the date, Dec. 25, and are moved to comment that the Christmas spirit was not exactly rampant in the minds and hearts of those select- men. They should have been serving Wd. Deliverance and her brood with a Christmas turkey and all the fixings rather than conjuring up precepts such as these to serve her.
Another grand gesture was made in 1808 when three individuals and four families were ordered to depart said town. The last in- stance on record was in 1817 when Susannah Whighting had a summons to depart read in her hearing by Amasa Gregory, Con- stable. Very likely Susannah was not able to read.
Mr. Claire Persons was the recent W. P. A. appointee to make a survey of the town's records and collect and arrange the historical data found therein. Being an elderly gentleman and conversant with early history, his opinion was sought as to what the real motive for such actions could have been. He stated that primarily people were warned out of town when it was thought there was danger of their becoming dependent. It did not mean that they had to leave town but forstalled their asking for help from that town. Just where they were to get help was problematical.
22
«
The History of
Instances were related, however, that proved that sometimes a man was ordered out of town because someone wished to play a practical joke on him or again he might be the victim of spite or ill will. Cases had been known where company stayed too long and a summons was served at the whispered suggestion or request of an unwilling host. Again in the spirit of kindness, two or three persons or families would be ordered out at the same time to save the feelings of the one they particularly wished to impress with the precept.
It is painfully evident that the townspeople had reasons to fear certain of these families might become town charges because the records prove that they did not depart said town and did eventually become paupers and thereby incurred heavy expense to the town. Phebe Gates must have been overlooked when the above precepts were being served, and in 1812 a committee was appointed to look into the state of Wd. Phebe Gates' property. It may have come as something of a surprise that Phebe Gates belonged in Baltimore. The Gates family apparently had no interests in or connections with Baltimore. This farm was not included when the families on the several farms were designated for each of the two school districts, and no road was surveyed to their dwelling by Baltimore. Their home was at the southwestern end of Hawks Mountain in the Spaulding lot, so-called, over the hill back of the Glenn Olney place. A cellar hole still remains to mark the home of Phebe Gates. Its former owners also had names wholly foreign to Baltimore lore. But when Baltimore was set off from Cavendish in 1793, Phebe's homestead probably just barely slid under the wire into Baltimore even if the dwellers thereon never severed social connections with Cavendish.
We may rest assured that the site of Phebe's home was in Balti- more as the selectmen of that day were too alert to let a pauper come upon the town for support that did not belong to them. And they were justified in their position on this matter. They were but a handful of hard-working people wrestling a living from uncleared hillsides for large families of their own. Why should they welcome further unnecessary or unwarranted burdens?
The committee to look into Phebe's property found her 6212 acres mortgaged to Henry Chandler. The selectmen bought up this mortgage for $145, then sold the property to John Woodbury for $240. This happened in 1812 and resulted in $95 towards Wd. Phebe's support. In 1814 it was voted that if the selectmen can agree with any suitable person to maintain the Wd. Gates through life and secure the town, that the town will pay one hundred dollars. Probably Phebe's chances for longevity were too good as no one accepted this offer.
In 1816 the following article appeared in the warning,-"To see what method the town will take to provide for the support of Phebe Gates the year ensuing." They voted to "Vandue the Widow Phebe Gates for one year," which they did and she was bid off by "Robert Bemis for one year at seventy five cents per week if
23
Baltimore, Vermont
she lives so long the town to find her wearing apparel and pay her doctoring said Robert to have her labour." The next year she was bid off by David Chaplin Jr. for 58 cents a week, quite a reduction, but the town agreed to pay her funeral charges if taken away. The town had no need to arrange for her funeral for many years.
In 1821 it was voted "any person belonging out of town to have privilege of bidding the Widow Gates off." Accordingly Jesse Spaulding of Cavendish bid her off at 45 cents a week. He was to have the use of her bed and bedding in addition to her labor. In 1822 he bid her off for $30 a year but was "to find her a pair of shirts and keep all her clothing in repair, extra."
Phebe was on the program for town meeting every year, and it seemed necessary to make an additional stipulation each time. In 1824 Jesse was to keep Phebe but not to apply for doctor but once before notifying town. Also voted that the selectmen may ap- propriate at their discretion as much spirits as they shall think proper in case of sickness not to exceed two gallons. Who shall say they were not generous in spirits in those days?
Jesse Spaulding continued to bid Phebe off until 1827 when she was bid off by Ephraim Paine presumably of Cavendish "upon same conditions she was kept last year." She came back to Balti- more in 1829 to Edmund Batchelder's at $50 per year. Next year he bid her off at $35.90. In 1831 she went to David Chaplin. She must have passed away before March meeting 1832 as they voted to pass over the article to provide for the poor and they raised only $25 that year to defray town charges. This was the method used to support a pauper in those days. All the homes were comfortable to which Phebe went when bid off. What better could be done?
But the town's troubles with the poor were not over. Back in 1825 one man whom we shall call J. L. evidently became weary of supporting himself and family.
The town held a special meeting Oct. 25, 1825 "to see if the town will build, purchase or hire house of correction or work house in which to confine and set their poor to work-also to see if the town would raise money for the above purpose, also to maintain it, ap- point officers to govern such house also make and establish necessary rules, orders and regulations for such persons there committed." They voted to have house of correction or workshop and designated Jona. Woodbury's shop for that purpose.
Joseph Atherton, Jonathan Woodbury, Amasa Gregory were the committee to superintend it with all the powers the statute provides. It is probable there were not three men in the state better con- stituted to strike terror to the heart of the lazy individual than these three were. This may all have been a ruse to make it possible to hold a threat over J. L.'s head. They next proceeded to dispose of J. L. and his unfortunate family. They set him up to the highest bidder (evidently expected him to earn something). · Manasseh Boynton bid him off until March meeting and took a chance of getting $3 worth of labor out of him besides his board, said $3 to be
24
«
The History of
paid town. His wife and youngest child were bid off by Amasa Gregory until March, the town to pay 50 cents per week for their keep. The older daughter went to Edmund Batchelder who agreed to clothe her and clear the town from all expense for 24 cents per week; the town was to clothe J. L., his wife and youngest child. They had to raise $30 extra to care for this family, also voted that the committee dispose of J. L.'s belongings at the best advantage.
At the town meeting J. L.'s cause was not a popular one. They motioned to try the minds of the town whether they thought J. L. able to labor and it was decided in the affirmative. They had the ability in those days to detect plain laziness when they saw it with- out referring cases to the Lahey Clinic, or resorting to X-rays. After reaching this decision they voted not to furnish J. L. a house and shoemaker tools, but to vendue him off again to highest bidder. They also voted to agree with some suitable person to oversee the poor.
Excitement may have been rife at this meeting as they adjourned until April 3 without electing an overseer of the poor. They then met and voted to pay Nancy Bemis $1.50 for nursing J. L.'s wife, to allow Jona. Woodbury $4.13 for keeping town poor, to allow Amos Bemis $2.25 for meat delivered to town poor. They chose Joseph Atherton overseer of the poor, but he refused to serve. Apparently the selectmen served as overseers. In 1827 it was voted to allow Jona. Woodbury 37 cents for corn delivered to J. L. also to allow Benj. Page $2.23 for provisions delivered to J. L. And it was furthermore voted that the overseers of the poor should not grant any more relief to J. L. except they proceed with him ac- cording to law.
The possibility of life in the workhouse already planned may have had disquieting effects on J. L.'s dreams of a carefree, easy existence. At any rate his name does not appear on the records in any capacity. He may have decided Baltimore was no place for a lazy man; any- way he sought new pastures. The taxpayers probably welcomed his departure.
The expense for the town poor was not excessive for a number of years. Some help had to be given Simeon Burnham and his wife Rachel. At her death a bill of $3 was paid for medical services for her and $8.40 paid for her burial expenses. Hers could not have been a costly funeral but heavenly peace does not depend upon pomp and floral display. Simeon was then set up to the lowest bidder, "the town to buy his wearing apparel, pay his doctor's bills and funeral charges if he was taken away, the one that takes him shall do his necessary mending washing and nursing." He was bid off by Lyman Litch for $25. The next year it was stated that the town pay his doctor's bill if any should be necessary and pay his extra nursing if he should be sick over one week and the one that took him should do his necessary mending and washing, and mend his boots and shoes if necessary. He was bid off again by Lyman Litch for $24.25. No further mention is made of Simeon; probably
25
Baltimore, Vermont
he died or moved away or perhaps it was then the town relinquished its practice of setting paupers up to the lowest bidder.
The writer is under constraint to write a paragraph in justifica- tion of Simeon's son Isaac. It should be entitled the "Pauper Who Never Was." He was not over-bright, and the old folks used to tell of his peculiarities and the remarks he used to make. His parents lived on the old road and Isaac used to declare "that his house was built upon solid rock and the rock was built upon the 'green sward' so it couldn't get away."
It appears that the town expected Isaac to become dependent and, wisely enough, assumed responsibility for him when he was quite young. By 1854 they began to record the overseer's account as furnished by the auditors at town meeting. A copy of one such might prove interesting.
March 4, 1856-Having settled with the Overseer of the Poor we find he has received
On last year's settlement $ 28.75
Of the town treasurer 177.84
For Isaac Burnham's labor 60.00
$266.59
We find he has paid out
For wearing apparel for Isaac Burnham $ 15.93
For spending money for Isaac Burnham 4.50
For boarding Amos Page 101.40
For nursing and wearing apparel
8.72
For rum and sugar . 38
For boarding George Page 22.68
For doctor's bill and wearing apparel 2.20
Paid Raymond Page for keeping Amos Page (his father) 97.59
For the year ending March 5, 1855 $253.40
Balance due from Overseer $ 13.19
According to the records Isaac Burnham was more than self- supporting. His wages fluctuated from $60 down to $36 and back to $50. 50 the two years before he died in 1865 and the balance went into the town treasury. The records state that the town paid out $60.22 for his wearing apparel, nursing, digging grave, coffin, medical attention, and funeral expenses. Isaac was the last of a numerous family of Burnham that had lived in Baltimore since and before 1794.
Burying Isaac was not the end of the Burnham difficulties. He had heirs watching and waiting in the offing who had an adminis- trator appointed to settle his estate. In June we find the following notice was placed on record containing two articles viz:
1. To see if the town will authorize the Selectmen to settle with Admr. on Isaac Burnham's estate and to give any directions in relation thereto as the town shall think proper.
26
¥
The History of
2. To see if the town will raise money to effect settlement and, if thought proper, to vote a tax for that purpose.
This comprehensive and well-worded notice did not bring forth the desired results. They met, chose Thomas Preston moderator, then voted to dissolve the meeting without date. The populace was aroused, disgusted, dismayed and unprepared to act on the subject.
By Nov. 19, however, they met and voted to raise 40 cents on the dollar to replenish the treasury for the money paid to settle the estate of Isaac Burnham. A receipt dated Aug. 2, 1869, appears on the records for $225 "in full of all clames and demands whatsoever against said town in favor of the estate of Isaac Burnham late of said Baltimore deceased," and signed by "L. L. Lawrence Admr."
Probably the accumulation of Isaac's wages rightfully belonged to his heirs. "The question before the house is"-if Isaac had lived to a ripe old age and become helpless in his latter years, would those same watchful heirs afforded him any attention or assistance? If those same heirs were solicitous as to Isaac's welfare while living, it is not so recorded.
Be it remembered that the last scion of the Burnham family to live and die in Baltimore was not a town pauper as generally re- ported. There is an old saying, "Poverty is no disgrace." In some cases that is true. But when a man is ordered out of town in his young days and afterward "by illness and debauchery so spends, wastes and lessens his estate as to expose himself and his family to want and suffering and the town to charge and expense" so that an appeal is made to the Probate Judge for a guardian to be ap- pointed for him, then that man's poverty becomes a disgrace and the problems which devolve upon a small group of people are difficult to solve.
It is not the purpose however of the sketch to bring to light all the records might disclose of the seamy side of the citizens of Baltimore. It was the methods used rather than the individuals involved that should interest us. We believe those early founders of the town encountered many perplexing situations. Viewed in light of present day leniency they may have seemed hard-hearted and penurious. Let us remember that in those days other towns of size and wealth adopted similar measures with their poor. Even the State's prison then was a penal institution in reality, and no one dreamed then that the Federal Government would one day assume the role of Santa Claus.
27
Baltimore, Vermont
IV. THE STORY OF THE HIGHWAYS
If we refer to that section of this effort which is designated as "Baltimore in its First Year" we shall find that at the very first town meeting held in 1794 they voted twenty pounds for the use of highways, elected Jonathan Woodbury and Francis Burnam high- way surveyors and also voted that the selectmen should lay out "rodes." This action would indicate that what is now Baltimore had no laid out roads while a part of Cavendish.
The selectmen evidently performed the task assigned to them promptly, for that same year the town held an adjourned meeting and voted that there should be three "rodes" as was "lade" out, one from Noah Piper's (Oel Converse's) to Weathersfield town line (Frank Davidson's) one from Weathersfield town line (near Dan Davis's) to Isaac Hildreth's (Volney Foster's) and to Mr. Bemis (beyond Geo. Cook's) and one from Mr. Briant's field to the road that leads from Noah Piper's to the town line (to Jehial Converse's) This road extended from back of Arthur Basso's house straight toward and nearly to base of mountain, connecting with present road near James Shepard's sugar house. They also voted to lay out one more road from Noah Piper's to south part of town. This was what is now called the "Old Road."
In 1795 it was voted that the listers should make up the highway rates and "Commit them to the highway survayors to be Worked out the fore part of the Sumer the money that was granted 1794." In 1798 they began to have three surveyors, Seth Houghton, Benj. Page and Ezra Redfield being elected, or one from each corner of the town.
In Nov. 1799, Mr. T. Barrett the County Surveyor surveyed for six different additions to the highways of Baltimore. A road was laid out from Luke Harris's (now Slayton Kendall's) to Chester line; said road was to be 158 rods long. Another road was laid out from Joseph Hildreth's (Volney Foster's Place) 233 rods long to the main road under the mountain. This road is now being used only as far as Shepard's corner. Road No. 3 began at a hemlock stump in the north line of Chester about 40 rods west of the northeast corner of said Chester (the elm tree at the corner bound), then running north 106 rods to the road formerly laid out by Samuel Davis to Chittenden's. This will be recognized as the road by the Ham- mond place.
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.