Kitabı oku: «The Bay State Monthly. Volume 2, No. 4, January, 1885», sayfa 6
ROUSED FROM DREAMS
By ADELAIDE CILLEY WALDRON
Through the gorges leaps the pealing thunder;
Lurid flashes rend the sky asunder;
On my window-pane, making wild refrain,
Sharply strikes the rain.
Wind in furious gusts with angry railing
Follows the unhappy restless wailing
Of the sobbing sea, and drives ships a-lee
None to save nor see.
Dreaming souls are startled from their slumbers,
Though sleep still their trembling frames encumbers;
Helplessly they wait, fearing portent fate,
Shrieking prayers too late!
HISTORICAL SKETCH OF FITCHBURG
By EBENEZER BAILEY
On the opening of the year 1764 there was in the westerly part of the town of Lunenburg, Massachusetts, a settlement of about forty families, consisting of a number of farms, located mostly on the hills surrounding a narrow valley through which flowed the north branch of the Nashua River, almost screened from view by a dense forest of pines. These people were obliged to go four or five miles to Church and town meeting, over narrow, uneven roads, travelled only on horseback or rough ox carts. Most of them were of an independent, self-reliant type of character, and had a mind to have a little town and parish of their own.
Accordingly they commenced a movement for a division of the town of Lunenburg; and the first petition to have the westerly part of that town set off was presented in town meeting in 1759. At various other town meetings a like petition was presented and always rejected, until January, 1764, when it was granted, and a committee appointed to obtain an act of incorporation from the Legislature; and at last, on the third of February, 1764, the Governor of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay signed the Act, which made Fitchburg an incorporated town, with all the rights and privileges usually granted, except that the two towns of Lunenburg and Fitchburg were to have but one representative to the General Court.
A portion of the territory of Fitchburg was set off a few years later to form a part of the new town of Ashby.
The first town meeting in Fitchburg was held in the tavern of Captain Samuel Hunt, on the fifth of March, 1764, when selectmen were chosen, and other business necessary to the organization of a town government transacted. The next business after the necessary civil affairs were put in order was to provide for "Sabbath days’ preaching," and the Rev. Peter Whitney was hired to preach in the house of Thomas Cowdin for a time. It was also voted to build a meeting-house, which was completed sufficiently for occupancy in the autumn of 1766, and was located between Blossom and Mount Vernon Streets, near Crescent Street. The land was presented to the town by Thomas Cowdin, a new resident, who had purchased the tavern of Captain Samuel Hunt.
In those days the tavern keeper was a man of great importance by virtue of his calling, but Thomas Cowdin was in himself a remarkable man. Energetic and commanding by nature, his varied experience had been of a kind to call out his peculiar characteristics. A soldier in the Provincial army, he served actively in the French and Indian wars, and rose from the ranks to the office of captain. During the war of 1755 he was employed in returning convalescent soldiers to the army and in arresting deserters. At one time he was set on the track of a deserter, whom he found was making his way to New York. He followed him with characteristic celerity and promptness, and at length found him one Sabbath morning attending divine service in a Dutch meeting-house. Cowdin did not hesitate, but entered and seized the culprit at once, much to the surprise and consternation of the congregation. A severe struggle ensued, in which he barely escaped with his life, but he finally overpowered and secured his prisoner. He then took him to Boston, where he received orders to deliver him at Crown Point. So alone through the woods for that long distance he journeyed with his prisoner, who well knew the fate which awaited him; threading each day the lonely forest, and lying down each night to sleep by the side of the doomed man. He delivered his prisoner safely at Crown Point, from whence he was taken to Montreal, and shot. For many years Cowdin was one of the most influential and prominent men in Fitchburg, and enjoyed to a great degree the confidence of his fellow citizens. He was the first Representative to the General Court under the new State Constitution, and held many town offices. A handsome monument has recently been erected to his memory by his grandson, Honorable John Cowdin, of Boston.
Preaching being provided for, it was also voted to keep two schools, and to appropriate the sum of £8 for that purpose. And now the town of Fitchburg was fairly started out in life. From the towns to the East energetic young men began to come in with their families, to make new homes for themselves, so that in 1771 there were from seventy-five to eighty families, with a total valuation of £2,508,105. The highest tax payer was taxed on a valuation of £121, and the rate was over ten per cent.
There were now, from time to time, numerous town meetings and many matters, both grave and trivial, to discuss and settle. Matters civil and matters ecclesiastical were inextricably blended. There was no separation of Church and State, but a community firmly believing in a personal Divine Providence, whose hand interposed daily in all the affairs of life. We may instance an article in the warrant for town meeting, January, 1770, which read as follows: "To see if the town will relieve Widow Mary Upton for Distress occasioned by frowns of Divine Providence, and abate her husband’s rates on Isaac Gibson’s and Ebenezer Bridge’s tax lists." The result of the article was that Mr. Upton’s poll tax was abated, and the frowns of Divine Providence were doubtless changed to smiles.
Time passed on, the town gaining in wealth and numbers, and a comfortable, prosperous future was the reasonable hope of the inhabitants; but other scenes than those of peace and quiet were preparing; the opening scenes of the Revolution were just at hand, and the curtain was about to rise on the drama of seven long years, so frought with great results, but so wearisome, painful, and discouraging to the actors, from whom the future was withheld.
As early as September, 1768, the selectmen of Fitchburg received from the selectmen of Boston a letter requesting them to call a town meeting to take into consideration the critical condition of public affairs, and to choose an agent to meet them in Boston and show there the "views, wishes and determinations of the people of Fitchburg upon the subject." A town meeting was accordingly called, and the Honorable Edward Hartwell was sent jointly by Fitchburg and Lunenburg to be their agent in Boston.
In December, 1773 the selectmen received another letter from the town of Boston, requesting them to meet and pass such resolves concerning their rights and privileges, as they were willing to die in maintaining, and send them to the Committee of Correspondence. A town meeting was held accordingly, and a committee appointed to draft resolutions. The report presented by this committee at an adjourned meeting, after expressing full sympathy in all efforts to resist any encroachments on the rights and liberties of the American people, concluded as follows:
"And with respect to the East India tea, forasmuch as we are now informed that the town of Boston and the neighboring towns have made such noble opposition to said teas being brought into Boston, subject to a duty so directly tending to the enslaving of America, it is our opinion that your opposition is just and equitable, and the people of this town are ready to afford all the assistance in their power to keep off all such infringement."
The time had now come when the talk at the tavern, the town meeting, the Church, and at the daily meeting of neighbor with neighbor, was of the rights of the colonies, and of the tyranny of the English Government. The fires of Liberty were already kindled from the North to the South and from the seaports to the frontier. Fitchburg was not behind in preparation for the coming storm. In the store building of Ephraim Kimball, which was near the corner of Main and Laurel Streets, was the armory of the minute men, about forty of whom were enrolled and regularly drilled; while by vote of the town fifty dollars was appropriated for powder, lead and flints.
The eventful nineteenth of April, 1775, at last arrived and found the little town ready for action. So rapidly did the news spread that at nine o’clock in the morning the alarm was fired in front of the store of Deacon Kimball. The company had spent the previous day in drill, and at the summons the members promptly assembled, and being joined by a few volunteers, about fifty men took up their line of march for Concord, under the command of Captain Ebenezer Bridge, who afterwards became Colonel, and whose regiment, in the battle of Bunker Hill, was engaged in the fiercest of the contest. With the minute men was sent a large wagon loaded with provisions, which followed them to Concord, where they arrived in the evening, too late to take any part in the fight.
It was now necessary to organize a permanent army to defend the towns around Boston; and Fitchburg and Leominster enlisted a company of volunteers to serve for eighteen months. At the battle of Bunker Hill John Gibson of Fitchburg was killed while fighting bravely in the intrenchments.
When the Continental Congress asked the support of the Colonies to the contemplated Declaration of Independence, the Massachusetts General Court sent circulars, asking the opinion of the several towns in regard to the measure. The answer of Fitchburg was as follows:
"Voted in town meeting, that if the Honorable Continental Congress should for the safety of these United Colonies declare them independent of the Kingdom of Great Britain, that we, the inhabitants of the town of Fitchburg, will, with our lives and fortunes, support them in the measure."
In February, 1776, the warrant for town meeting ran thus: "In his Majesty’s name." In May the warrant ran as follows: "In the name of the writ to us directed, these are in the name of the Governor and people of Massachusetts Bay." After the declaration of independence the warrant ran thus: "In the name of the State of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay."
For seven long years the little town of Fitchburg bore bravely and unflinchingly the hardships of the war. The burden to the inhabitants of furnishing their quota of men, money, and provisions, was a heavy one, the depreciation of the currency was ruinous; and they, in common with the rest of the people, found themselves in serious financial difficulties at the close of the war. Taxes were high and money scarce, and the efforts of the authorities to collect the sums levied on the inhabitants finally led to organized resistance, which has come down to us under the name of Shay’s Rebellion. With it the people of Fitchburg deeply sympathized, and in the initiatory proceedings they took an active, though a prudent part. In June, 1786, the town sent Elijah Willard as a delegate to a convention at Worcester to discuss the grievances of the people, and voted to defend his property if he should be taken in person for his attendance, "provided he behaves himself in an orderly and peaceable manner; otherwise he is to risk it himself." Deeply sympathizing with the Shayites, the people of Fitchburg did everything in their power to prevent the collection of taxes by the authorities, short of armed resistance; and the consequence was that a military company was quartered among them, much to their indignation; and had they not soon been prudently withdrawn, bloodshed might have followed.
The population of Fitchburg had not remained stationary during the war, but had increased from 650 to about 1,000. At its close there was the nucleus of a village scattered along the road near the river, now Main Street. One might see Cowdin’s tavern, Kimball’s saw and grist mill, Fox’s store, a baker’s shop, and half a dozen houses between the American house and the upper Common. The meeting-house upon the hill back of Main street was a small, shabby, yellow structure; the red store of Joseph Fox was below, and in the rear of his store his house with large projecting eaves. The mill and residence of Deacon Ephraim Kimball were near by. Up the road, and near the present residence of Ebenezer Torrey, was a bakery and a dwelling-house, and beyond, towards the west, were two or three houses and a blacksmith shop. Pine stumps, hard-hack, and grape vines were plentiful by the side of the road. Such was the village of Fitchburg in 1786.
In addition, however, to this little centre of population there was in the westerly part of the town, in the neighborhood of Dean Hill, a village which boasted a tavern, a store, and a blacksmith shop, and boldly sat up a claim of rivalship, and even superiority, to the little cluster of houses in the sandy valley. Its people petitioned to the General Court, to be set off, with a part of Ashburnham and Westminster, into a new town. However, a vigorous opposition from the inhabitants of the remainder of the town prevented its being granted. But, defeated in one point, the Dean Hill people turned to another. The time had now come when a new Church was needed, the little old meeting-house on the hill being too small to accommodate the increased population. So they determined to have the new Church in their vicinity, and this determination was the beginning of a protracted struggle to fix upon its location. A vote was passed in town meeting that the new Church should be located "on the nearest convenientest spot to the centre," but the words nearest, convenientest, were a cause of furious contention. Town meeting after town meeting was held—now victory rested with one faction, now with the other. Finally, after ninety-nine town meetings, extending through a period of ten years, the great question was settled, and the spot was chosen near the location of the present Unitarian Church.
But now the leaven of heterodoxy was creeping into New England society, and the people, to a great extent, turned from the theological doctrines of their forefathers and adopted Unitarian views. In most places there was a final division of the original Church, and the formation of two societies, one of the Unitarian, and the other of Orthodox persuasion.
Fitchburg was agitated in this way for about twenty-four years, during which time many ecclesiastical councils were held, and debate and dispute were almost continuous, both in and out of town meeting, for neighbor was divided against neighbor, and one member of a household against another. The result was the dissolution of the parochial powers of the town, and a division into two societies. The Unitarians remained in the old Church, and the Orthodox built a new building on the corner of Main and Rollstone streets.
But while religious contention went on, worldly growth and prosperity increased. Quite a number of manufacturing establishments had commenced operations, and the value of the little stream that furnished the power was beginning to be appreciated.
In 1830 there were in Fitchburg 235 dwelling-houses, 2 meeting-houses, 1 academy, 12 school-houses, 1 printing office, 2 woolen mills, 4 cotton mills, 1 scythe factory, 2 paper mills, 4 grist mills, 10 saw mills, 3 taverns, 2 hat manufactories, 1 bellows manufactory, 2 tanneries, 2 window blind manufactories, and 1 chair manufactory. There were a number of stone bridges, and a dozen dams on the river; stages communicated daily with Boston, Keene, and Lowell, and left three times a week for Worcester and Springfield, and returned on alternate days.
Energetic, enterprising young men were attracted to Fitchburg as a promising place for a home, and there was the exhilarating, hopeful atmosphere of a new and growing town, where changes are rapid and opportunities are many. It was about this time that Rufus C. Torrey wrote his history of Fitchburg, in which work he was most substantially aided by his friend, Nathaniel Wood, then a public spirited young lawyer, who had already accumulated quite an amount of material from records and conversations with the older residents These two men saved from oblivion very many valuable facts in the history of the town.
About this time, also, the Fitchburg High School Association was formed and an academy built, and in 1838 the Fitchburg Library Association was organized, both of which institutions were valuable educational influences.
From 1840 to 1860 the town continued to grow steadily. New paper mills were built in West Fitchburg, the chair business enlarged greatly, the iron business was introduced by the Putnam Brothers, and grew rapidly, and various other branches of industry were begun and prospered. The Fitchburg Railroad was built, followed by the Vermont and Massachusetts, the Fitchburg and Worcester, and the Agricultural Branch Railroads, all centreing in Fitchburg and bringing an increase of business.
At the breaking out of the war of the Rebellion the town contained nearly 8,000 inhabitants, and during the war Fitchburg did her part, answering all calls promptly and sending her best men to the field. Her history in that contest is well told by Henry A. Willis, in his history of "Fitchburg in the War of the Rebellion." Nine companies were organized in the town, and 750 Fitchburg men sent into the field.
The years immediately following the war were years of prosperity and rapid growth. March 8, 1872, Fitchburg was incorporated as a city. The infant township of 108 years before had grown to a city of 12,000 inhabitants. The little stream which then turned the wheel of the one solitary saw and grist mill had since been harnessed to the work of many mills and manufactories, and on either side were the homes of hundreds, dependent on its power for their daily bread. Railroads carried the products of these establishments to the limits of our own and to foreign countries, and brought to the busy city from the East and from the West all the necessaries and all the luxuries of life. Can it be that the dead of past generations, who sleep on the hillside which overlooks the valley, have seen this transformation, and if so, will they behold all the changes of the future? Then may this and the coming generations prove themselves worthy of those who, during the years that have passed, have been its bone and sinew and life blood.
SUNDAY TRAVEL AND THE LAW
By CHESTER F. SANGER
The Legislature of 1884 has placed an act upon our statute book which rounds out and completes an act looking in the same direction passed by the Legislature of 1877. Chapter 37 of the Acts of 1884 provides that "The provisions of chapter ninety-eight of the Public Statutes relating to the observance of the Lord’s day shall not constitute a defence to an action for a tort or injury suffered by a person on that day."
Chapter 232 of the Acts of 1877 provided that common carriers of passengers should no longer escape liability for their negligence in case of accidents to passengers, by reason of the injury being received on Sunday. This act marked a long step forward in the policy of this Commonwealth, and made it no longer possible for a corporation openly violating the law to escape the consequences of its illegal acts by saying to the injured passenger, "You were breaking the law yourself, and therefore you have no redress against us."
This was a condition of things which worked a confusion of relations, and lent "doubtful aid to morality;" resting on "no principle of justice" or law, and creating a "species of judicial outlawry which ignored alike the principles of humanity and the analogies of the law."
The provisions more particularly referred to in these Acts are those relating to travelling on the Lord’s day, found in the Statutes as follows:—
"Whoever travels on the Lord’s day, except from necessity or charity, shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten dollars for each offence."—Pub. Stat., Chap. 98, sect. 2. It is an interesting and curious study to follow the changes made in the Sunday law, so called, with the accompanying judicial decisions, as one by one the hindrances to the attainment of simple justice by travellers injured on the Lord’s day have been swept away.
The Pilgrims brought many strange ideas with them to their new home, as we all well know, and we find these reflected in their statute books in the form of many "blue laws," some of which may yet be found in changed garb in the form of constantly disregarded "dead letter" laws in our own Public Statutes. Interesting as a general discussion of this subject is, as showing the character and purposes of the founders of the Republic, we can follow but one division of the Sunday law in its various forms since it was first framed by our "Puritan ancestors, who intended that the day should be not merely a day of rest from labor, but also a day devoted to public and private worship and to religious meditation and repose, undisturbed by secular cares or amusements," and among whom were found some who thought death the only fit punishment for those who, as they considered it, "prophaned" the Lord’s day.
As early as 1636 it was enacted by the Court of the Plymouth Colony that, "Whereas, complaint is made of great abuses in sundry places of this Government of prophaning the Lord’s day by travellers, both horse and foot, by bearing of burdens, carrying of packs, etc., upon the Lord’s day to the great offence of the Godly welafected among us. It is, therefore, enacted by the Court and the authoritie thereof that if any person or persons shall be found transgressing in any of the precincts of any township within this Government, he or they shall be forthwith apprehended by the Constable of such a town and fined twenty shillings, to the Collonie’s use, or else shall sit in the stocks four hours, except they can give a sufficient reason for theire soe doeing; but they that ’soe transgresse’ must be apprehended on the Lord’s day and ’paye theire fine or sitt in the stockes as aforesaide’ on the second day thereafter." It seems, however, that in spite of the pious sentiments of the framers of the law it was not, or could not be enforced, for in 1662 it was further enacted that "This Court doth desire that the transgression of the foregoing order may be carefully looked into and p’r’vented if by any due course it may be."
But even now it seems that the energies of the law-makers were of no avail in preventing prophanation of the Holy day by "foraignors and others," so that twenty years later, in 1683, we find that "To prevent prophanation of the Lord’s day by foraignors or any others unessesary travelling through our Townes on that day. It is enacted by the Court that a fitt man in each Towne be chosen, unto whom whosever hath nessessity of travell on the Lord’s day in case of danger of death, or such necessitous occations shall repaire, and makeing out such occations satisfyingly to him shall receive a Tickett from him to pas on about such like occations;" but, "if he attende not to this," or "if it shall appeare that his plea was falce," the hand of the law was likely to fall upon him while he contributed twenty shillings "to the use of the Collonie."
In the Massachusetts Bay Province it was early enacted that "no traveller … shall travel on the Lord’s day … except by some adversity they are belated and forced to lodge in the woods, wilderness, or highways the night before, and then only to the next inn," under a penalty of twenty shillings.
In 1727 it was found that notwithstanding the many good and wholesome laws made to prevent the "prophanation of the Lord’s day," this same "prophanation" was on the increase, and so it was enacted that the penalty for the first offense should be thirty shillings, and for the second, three pounds, while the offender, presumably a "foraignor," was to be put under a bond to observe the Sabbath day and keep it holy according to the ideas of the straight-laced Puritans.
Even this did not put an end to the good fathers’ troubles, for in 1760, "whereas, by reason of different constructions of the several laws now in force relating to the observation of the Lord’s day or Christain Sabbath, the said laws have not been duly executed, and notwithstanding the pious intention of the legislators, the Lord’s Day hath been greatly and frequently prophaned" all the laws relating to the observance thereof were repealed and a new chapter enacted, one section of which, and the only one in which we are now interested, was the same as the law of 1727, above quoted.
Thirty-one years later all these laws were again erased from the statute book and a new attempt was made to frame a law which should leave no loop-holes for foraignors or others, as follows: "Whereas the observance of the Lord’s day is highly promotive of the welfare of a community by affording necessary seasons for relaxation from labor and the cares of business; for moral reflections and conversation on the duties of life, and the frequent errors of human conduct; for public and private worship of the Maker, Governor, and Judge of the world; and for those acts of charity which support and adorn a Christian society. Be it enacted that no person shall travel on the Lord’s day except from necessity or charity, upon penalty of a sum not exceeding twenty shillings and not less than ten." Notice what an interesting and moral tone is given to the otherwise dry statute book by these sermonizing preambles which reflect so well the motives and aims of the men who moulded and formed the statute laws of the Commonwealth.
In this act appears for the first time that "charity" which since then has truly "covered a multitude of sins," while it has as often been a strong tower of defence to corporations clearly shown to have been careless of their obligations to the public. One of the first cases to arise in which these words "necessity or charity" must be judicially construed was Commonwealth vs. James Knox, 6 Mass., 76.
One Josiah Paine had contracted with the Post Master General of the United States to carry the public mail between Portland and Boston on each day of the week for two years from October 1, 1808, and Knox, his servant, was indicted for unlawfully travelling while carrying the mail with a stage carriage through the town of Newburyport on November 20, 1808, the same being Sabbath or Lord’s day, and the said travelling not being from necessity or charity. Chief Justice Parsons in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court, after showing the authority of Congress under the Constitution to establish post-offices and post-roads, and the consequent legality of Paine’s contract, the statutue of his State notwithstanding, says that "necessity … cannot be understood as a physical necessity … and when this travelling is necessary to execute a lawful contract it cannot be considered as unnecessary travelling, against the prohibition of the Statute." But fearing that this decision may open too wide the gate to Sabbath breakers the Chief Justice hastens to add: "But let it be remembered that our opinion does not protect travellers in the stage coach, or the carrier of the mail in driving about any town to discharge or to receive passengers; and much less in blowing his horn to the disturbance of serious people either at public worship or in their own houses. The carrier may proceed with the mail on the Lord’s day to the post-office; he may go to any public house to refresh himself and his horses; and he may take the mail from the post-office and proceed on his route. Any other liberties on the Lord’s day our opinion does not warrant."
The report naively says, that after this opinion the Attorney General entered a nolle proscqui.
In Pearce vs. Atwood, 13 Mass., 324, a case which arose in 1816 and which attracted a great deal of notice at the time, Chief Justice Parker says: "It is not necessary to resort to the laws promulgated by Moses, in order to prove that the Christian Sabbath ought to be observed by Christians, as a day of holy rest and religious worship; and if it were it would be difficult to make out the point contended for from that source;" and then goes into a long disquisition upon the Mosaic law and the precepts of the Saviour and finally says that "cases often arise in which it will be both innocent and laudable for the most exemplary citizen to travel on Sunday. Suppose him suddenly called to visit a child, or other near relative, in a distant town laboring under a dangerous illness; or suppose him to be a physician; or suppose a man’s whole fortune and the future comfort of his family to depend upon his being at a remote place early on Monday morning, he not having known the necessity until Saturday evening; these are all cases which would generally be considered as justifying the act of travelling." Certainly a somewhat broader view than that taken by the Court seven years earlier.
The law remained thus and was re-enacted in the Revised Statutes of 1836, the penalty being raised, however, to ten dollars. In civil cases arising out of damages sustained by travellers upon the Lord’s day, corporations defendant were quick to take advantage of the law and to rely upon the illegality of the plaintiff’s act of travelling, as a good defence to his action.
In 1843 arose the case of Bosworth vs. Inhabitants of Swansey, 10 Metcalf, 363. Bosworth was travelling on the eleventh of June of that year, being Sunday, from Warren, Rhode Island, to Fall River on business connected with a suit in the United States Court, and was injured by reason of a defect in a highway in Swansey.
The defendant town admitted that it was by law required to keep the highway in repair. And plaintiffs counsel argued that as the statute provided a penalty of ten dollars for travelling on Sunday it could not be further maintained that there was the additional penalty that a man could have no legal redress for damages suffered by reason of the neglect or refusal of defendants to do that which the law required them to do. But the court ruled, Chief Justice Shaw delivering the opinion, "that the plaintiff was plainly violating the law and that since he could recover from the town only, if free from all just imputation of negligence or fault," in this case he could recover nothing. In deciding this case, however, the Court was not called upon to construe the terms "necessity or charity," as affecting the liability of corporations plainly shown to be negligent in the performance of their duties to others; but many such cases soon arose.
