The Bay State Monthly. Volume 2, No. 2, November, 1884

The prosperity of the canal property now seemed fully assured. The first dividend, though only $15, was the promise of golden showers in the near future, and the stock once more took an upward flight. From 1819 to 1836 were the palmy days of the canal, unvexed with debts, and subject to very moderate expenses for annual repairs and management.

It is difficult to ascertain the whole number of boats employed at any one time. Many were owned and run by the proprietors of the canal; and many were constructed and run by private parties who paid the regular tolls for whatever merchandise they transported. Boats belonging to the same parties were conspicuously numbered, like railway cars to-day. From "Regulations relative to the Navigation of the Middlesex Canal," a pamphlet published in 1830, it appears that boats were required to be not less than 40 ft. nor more than 75 ft. in length and not less than 9 ft. nor more than 9-1/2 ft. in width. Two men, a driver and steersman, usually made up the working force; the boats, however, that went up the Merrimac required three men, one to steer, and two to pole. The Lowell boats carried 20 tons of coal; 15 tons were sufficient freight for Concord; when the water in the Merrimac was low, not more than 6 or 7 tons could be taken up the river. About 1830 the boatmen received $15 per month.

Lumber was transported in rafts of about 75 ft. long and 9 ft. wide; and these rafts, not exceeding ten in number, were often united in "bands." A band of seven to ten rafts required the services of five men, including the driver. Boats were drawn by horses, and lumber by oxen; and "luggage boats" were required to make two and a half miles an hour, while "passage boats" attained a speed of four miles. Boats of the same class, and going the same way, were not allowed to pass each other, thus making "racing" impossible on the staid waters of the old canal. Whenever a boat approached a lock, the conductor sounded his horn to secure the prompt attention of the lock-tender; but due regard was paid to the religious sentiment of New England. Travelling in the canal being permitted on Sundays, "in consideration of the distance from home at which those persons using it generally are, it may be reasonably expected that they should not disturb those places of public worship near which they pass, nor occasion any noise to interrupt the tranquillity of the day. Therefore, it is established that no Signal-Horn shall be used or blown on Sundays."

The tariff varied greatly from year to year. In 1827 the rate from Lowell to Boston was $2.00 the gross ton; but many articles were carried on much lower terms.

On account of liability of damage to the banks of the canal, all navigation ceased at dark; hence, at every lock, or series of locks, a tavern was established. These were all owned by the corporation, and were often let to the lock-tender, who eked out his income by the accommodation of boatmen and horses. The Bunker Hill Tavern, in Charlestown, situated so as to accommodate both county and canal travel, was leased, in 1830, for $350; in 1838, it let for $500. The Horn Pond House, at Woburn, in 1838, was leased for $700. In 1825, a two-story dwelling-house, 36 X 18, built at a cost of $1,400, for the accommodation of boatmen and raftsmen, at Charlestown, rented, with stable attached, for $140. In all these cases, the real estate was supposed to pay ten per cent.

Some of these canal-taverns established a wide reputation for good cheer, and boatmen contrived to be overtaken by night in their vicinity. Sometimes fifteen or twenty boats would be detained at one of these favorite resorts, and a jolly crowd fraternized in the primitive bar-room. The temperance sentiment had not yet taken a firm hold in New England. "Flip" was the high-toned beverage of those days; but "black-strap," a compound of rum and molasses, sold at three cents a glass, was the particular "vanity" of the boatmen. In the smaller taverns, a barrel of old Medford, surmounted by a pitcher of molasses, scorning the flimsy subterfuges of modern times, boldly invited its patrons to draw and mix at their own sweet will. "Plenty of drunkenness, Uncle Joe, in those days?" we queried of an ancient boatman who was dilating upon the good old times. "Bless your heart, no!" was the answer. "Mr. Eddy didn't put up with no drunkards on the canal. They could drink all night, sir, and be steady as an eight-day clock in the morning."

When the feverish haste born of the locomotive and telegraph had not yet infected society, a trip over the canal in the passenger-packet, the "Governor Sullivan," must have been an enjoyable experience. Protected by iron rules from the dangers of collision; undaunted by squalls of wind, realizing, should the craft be capsized, that he had nothing to do but walk ashore, the traveller, speeding along at the leisurely pace of four miles per hour, had ample time for observation and reflection. Seated, in summer, under a capacious awning, he traversed the valley of the Mystic skirting the picturesque shores of Mystic pond. Instead of a foreground of blurred landscape, vanishing, ghostlike, ere its features could be fairly distinguished, soft bits of characteristic New England scenery, clear cut as cameos, lingered caressingly on his vision; green meadows, fields riotous with blossomed clover, fragrant orchards, and quaint old farmhouses, with a background of low hills wooded to their summits.

Passing under bridges, over rivers, between high embankments, and through deep cuttings, floated up hill by a series of locks, he marvelled at this triumph of engineering, and, if he were a director, pictured the manufactories that were to spring up along this great thoroughfare, swelling its revenues for all time.

The tow-path of the canal was a famous promenade. Upon Sunday afternoons, especially, numerous pedestrians from the dusty city strolled along the canal for a breath of fresh air and a glimpse of the open country, through the Royal estate in Medford, past the substantial old-fashioned mansion-house of Peter C. Brooks, as far, perhaps, as the Baldwin estate, and the birthplace of Count Rumford, in Woburn. "I love that old tow-path," said Uncle Joe. "'Twas there I courted my wife; and every time the boat went by she came tripping out to walk a piece with me! Bless you, sir the horses knew her step, and it wan't so heavy, nuther."

Meanwhile, under the direction of Caleb Eddy, who assumed the agency of the corporation in 1825, bringing great business ability and unquenchable zeal to his task, the perishable wooden locks were gradually replaced with stone, a new stone dam was built at Billerica, and the service brought to a high state of efficiency. The new dam was the occasion of a lawsuit brought by the proprietors of the Sudbury meadows, claiming damages to the extent of $10,000 for flooding their meadows. The defendants secured the services of Samuel Hoar, Esq., of Concord, assisted by the Hon. Daniel Webster, who accepted a retaining fee of $100 to "manage and argue the case in conjunction with Mr. Hoar. The cause was to have been tried November, 1833. Mr. Webster was called on by me and promised to examine the evidence and hold himself in readiness for the trial, but for some time before he was not to be found in Boston, at one time at New York, at another in Philadelphia, and so on from place to place so that I am satisfied no dependance can be placed with certainty upon his assistance, and," plaintively concludes the agent, "our $100 has gone to profit and loss account."

On the other side was the Hon. Jeremiah Mason, assisted by Franklin Dexter, Esq. This case was decided the following year adversely to the plaintiffs.

With the accession of business brought by the corporations at Lowell, the prospect for increased dividends in the future was extremely encouraging. The golden age of the canal appeared close at hand; but the fond hopes of the proprietors were once more destined to disappointment. Even the genius of James Sullivan had not foreseen the railway locomotive. In 1829 a petition was presented to the Legislature for the survey of a railroad from Boston to Lowell. The interests of the canal were seriously involved. A committee was promptly chosen to draw up for presentation to the General Court "a remonstrance of the Proprietors of Middlesex Canal, against the grant of a charter to build a railroad from Boston to Lowell." This remonstrance, signed by William Sullivan, Joseph Coolidge, and George Hallett, bears date of Boston, Feb. 12, 1830, and conclusively shows how little the business men of fifty years ago anticipated the enormous development of our resources consequent upon the application of steam to transportation:—

The remonstrants take pleasure in declaring, that they join in the common sentiment of surprise and commendation, that any intelligence and enterprise should have raised so rapidly and so permanently, such establishments as are seen at Lowell. The proprietors of these works have availed themselves of the canal, for their transportation for all articles, except in the winter months … and every effort has been made by this corporation to afford every facility, it was hoped and believed, to the entire satisfaction of the Lowell proprietors. The average annual amount of tolls paid by these proprietors has been only about four thousand dollars. It is believed no safer or cheaper mode of conveyance can ever be established, nor any so well adapted for carrying heavy and bulky articles. To establish therefore a substitute for the canal alongside of it, and in many places within a few rods of it, and to do that which the canal was made to do, seems to be a measure not called for by any exigency, nor one which the Legislature can permit, without implicitly declaring that all investments of money in public enterprises must be subjected to the will of any applicants who think that they may benefit themselves without regard to older enterprises, which have a claim to protection from public authority. With regard, then, to transportation of tonnage goods, the means exist for all but the winter months, as effectually as any that can be provided.

There is a supposed source of revenue to a railroad, from carrying passengers. As to this, the remonstrants venture no opinion, except to say, that passengers are now carried, at all hours, as rapidly and safely as they are anywhere else in the world.... To this, the remonstrants would add, that the use of a railroad, for passengers only, has been tested by experience, nowhere, hitherto; and that it remains to be known, whether this is a mode which will command general confidence and approbation, and that, therefore, no facts are now before the public, which furnish the conclusion, that the grant of a railroad is a public exigency even for such a purpose. The Remonstrants would also add, that so far as they know and believe, "there never can be a sufficient inducement to extend a railroad from Lowell westwardly and northwestwardly, to the Connecticut, so as to make it the great avenue to and from the interior, but that its termination must be at Lowell" (italics our own), "and, consequently that it is to be a substitute for the modes of transportation now in use between that place and Boston, and cannot deserve patronage from the supposition that it is to be more extensively useful...."

The Remonstrants, therefore, respectfully submit: First, that there be no such exigency as will warrant the granting of the prayer for a railroad to and from Lowell.

Secondly, that, if that prayer be granted, provision should be made as a condition for granting it, that the Remonstrants shall be indemnified for the losses which will be thereby occasioned to them.

This may seem the wilful blindness of self-interest; but the utterances of the press and the legislative debates of the period are similar in tone. In relation to another railroad, the "Boston Transcript" of Sept. 1, 1830, remarks: "It is not astonishing that so much reluctance exists against plunging into doubtful speculations.... The public itself is divided as to the practicability of the Rail Road. If they expect the assistance of capitalists, they must stand ready to guarantee the percentum per annum; without this, all hopes of Rail Roads are visionary and chimerical." In a report of legislative proceedings published in the "Boston Courier," of Jan. 25, 1830, Mr. Cogswell, of Ipswich, remarked: "Railways, Mr. Speaker, may do well enough in old countries, but will never be the thing for so young a country as this. When you can make the rivers run back, it will be time enough to make a railway." Notwithstanding the pathetic remonstrances and strange vaticinations of the canal proprietors, the Legislature incorporated the road and refused compensation to the canal. Even while the railroad was in process of construction, the canal directors do not seem to have realized the full gravity of the situation. They continued the policy of replacing wood with stone, and made every effort to perfect the service in all its details; as late as 1836 the agent recommended improvements. The amount of tonnage continued to increase—the very sleepers used in the construction of the railway were boated, it is said, to points convenient for the workmen.

In 1832 the canal declared a dividend of $22 per share; from 1834 to 1837, inclusive, a yearly dividend of $30.

The disastrous competition of the Lowell Railroad was now beginning to be felt. In 1835 the Lowell goods conveyed by canal paid tonnage dues of $11,975.51; in 1836 the income from this source had dwindled to $6,195.77. The canal dividends had been kept up to their highest mark by the sale of its townships in Maine and other real estate: but now they began to drop. The year the Lowell road went into full operation the receipts of the canal were reduced one-third; and when the Nashua & Lowell road went into full operation, in 1840, they were reduced another third. The board of directors waged a plucky warfare with the railroads, reducing the tariff on all articles, and almost abolishing it on some, till the expenditures of the canal outran its income; but steam came out triumphant. Even sanguine Caleb Eddy became satisfied that longer competition was vain, and set himself to the difficult task of saving fragments from the inevitable wreck.

At this time (1843) Boston numbered about 100,000 inhabitants, and was dependent for water upon cisterns and wells. The supply of water in the wells had been steadily diminishing for years, and what remained was necessarily subject to contamination from numberless sources. "One specimen which I analyzed," said Dr. Jackson, "which gave three per cent, of animal and vegetable putrescent matter, was publicly sold as a mineral water; it was believed that water having such a remarkable fetid odor and nauseous taste, could be no other than that of a sulphur spring; but its medicinal powers vanished with the discovery that the spring arose from a neighboring drain." Here was a golden opportunity. Eddy proposed to abandon the canal as a means of transportation, and convert it into an aqueduct for supplying the City of Boston with wholesome water. The sections between the Merrimac and Concord at one extremity, and Charlestown mill-pond and Woburn at the other, were to be wholly discontinued. Flowing along the open channel of the canal from the Concord river to Horn-pond locks in Woburn, from thence it was to be conducted in iron pipes to a reservoir upon Mount Benedict in Charlestown, a hill eighty feet above the sea-level.

The good quality of the Concord-river water was vouched for by the "analysis of four able and practical chemists, Dr. Charles T. Jackson, of Boston; John W. Webster, of Cambridge University; S.L. Dana, of Lowell, and A.A. Hayes, Esq., of the chemical works at Roxbury." The various legal questions involved were submitted to the Hon. Jeremiah Mason, who gave an opinion, dated Dec. 21, 1842, favorable to the project. The form for an act of incorporation was drawn up; and a pamphlet was published, in 1843, by Caleb Eddy, entitled an "Historical sketch of the Middlesex Canal, with remarks for the consideration of the Proprietors," setting forth the new scheme in glowing colors.

But despite the feasibility of the plan proposed, and the energy with which it was pushed, the agitation came to naught; and Eddy, despairing of the future, resigned his position as agent in 1845. Among the directors during these later years were Ebenezer Chadwick, Wm. Appleton, Wm. Sturgis, Charles F. Adams, A.A. Lawrence, and Abbott Lawrence; but no business ability could long avert the catastrophe. Stock fell to $150, and finally the canal was discontinued, according to Amory's Life of Sullivan, in 1846. It would seem, however, that a revival of business was deemed within the range of possibilities, for in conveyances made in 1852 the company reserved the right to use the land "for canalling purposes"; and the directors annually went through with the form of electing an agent and collector as late as 1853.

"Its vocation gone, and valueless for any other service," says Amory, "the canal property was sold for $130,000. After the final dividends, little more than the original assessments had been returned to the stockholders." Oct. 3, 1859, the Supreme Court issued a decree, declaring that the proprietors had "forfeited all their franchises and privileges, by reason of non-feasance, non-user, misfeasance and neglect." Thus was the corporation forever extinguished.

THE TAVERNS OF BOSTON IN YE OLDEN TIME

BY DAVID M. BALFOUR

The first tavern in Boston was kept by Samuel Coles. It was opened in March, 1633, and stood near the south-west corner of Merchants row and Corn court, with an area in front on Merchants row and also on Fanueil Hall square, which in latter days have been covered with buildings. It was destroyed by fire during the early part of the eighteenth century, and the older portion of the present edifice was erected in 1737, which has been enlarged on the northerly side. It was towards the close of the last century known as the "Brazier Inn," and was kept by a widow lady of that name. It is now known as the "Hancock House," and is kept by a stalwart Scotchman named Alexander Clarkson. Gov. Vane held a council in the south-westerly room in the second story with Miantonomoh, the Narragansett chief. The same room was subsequently occupied by Lafayette in 1773, and afterwards by Talleyrand in 1798.

The State Arms Tavern was built in 1645, and stood on the south-east corner of State and Exchange streets. It was occupied as the custom-house just before the Revolution.

The Star Inn was built in 1645, and stood on the north-east corner of Hanover and Union streets. It was first kept by Thomas Hawkins, and afterwards by Andrew Neal, a Scotchman. The Scots' Charitable Society, of which the landlord was a member, frequently held its meetings there.

The Roebuck Tavern was built in 1650. It stood on the east side of Merchants row, between Clinton and North streets. It was believed to have been built by a descendant of Richard Whittington, the Lord Mayor of London in 1419, who was famed for his love of cats.

The Ship Tavern was built in 1651, and stood on North street, just beyond the corner of Fleet street. John Vyall kept it in 1663, and it was at one time called "Noah's Ark." The peace commissioners sent over by Charles II. held their sessions there. It was demolished in 1866.

The King's Arms Tavern was built in 1654, and stood on the southeast corner of Washington and Brattle streets, opposite the Samuel Adams statue.

The Red Lion Tavern stood on the north-west corner of North and Richmond streets. It was built in 1654, and kept by Nicholas Upsall, a Quaker, who was persecuted, imprisoned, and banished for his faith. Near this spot the devastating fire of November 27, 1676, broke out in one Wakefield's house.

The Blue Anchor Tavern stood on the site of No. 254 Washington street. It was built in 1664, and kept by George Monck.

The Blue Anchor Tavern (the second of that name) was built in 1665, and stood on Brattle street, upon the site which was afterwards Doolittle's City Tavern. It was first kept by Robert Turner, and was noted for its punch, and was a favorite resort of public men.

The Blue Bell Tavern was built in 1673, and stood on the north-west corner of Batterymarch street and Liberty square; a portion of the Mason building now occupies its site. It was kept by Nathaniel Bishop, and afterwards by Alleric & Drury. In 1692 it was called the Castle Tavern, and ceased to be an inn after 1707.

The Castle Tavern (the second of that name) stood on the south-west corner of Dock square and Elm street. It was erected by William Hudson in 1674, and kept by John Wing in 1687, who gave his name to the street. In 1694 it was called the George Tavern.

The King's Head Tavern was built in 1680, and stood at the northeast corner of North and Fleet streets. It was burnt in 1691, and afterwards rebuilt. It was kept by James Davenport in 1755.

The Seven Star Inn stood, in 1684, on the south-west corner of Summer and Hawley streets. It gave its name to the lane which was afterwards called Bishop's alley. Here, in 1736, was erected of wood the first edifice of Trinity Church. The land, which originally contained 15,000 square feet, was bought of John Gibbins and William Speakman for £450. This edifice was demolished in 1828 and a stone structure erected in 1830, which was burnt in the great fire, November 8, 1872. The site, after having its proportions curtailed, in order to widen Summer and Hawley streets, containing 7,126 square feet, was sold to William D. Peckman, in 1874, for $194,402.

The Sun Tavern stood on the southwest corner of Dock and Faneuil Hall squares. It was built in 1690, and was kept by Samuel Mears in 1724, and by Day in 1753. It was conveyed by Thomas Valentine in 1741 for £2,475 ($8,250); and by Joseph Jackson in 1794 for £1,333-6-8 ($4,444); and by E.P. Arnold in 1865 for $20,000. The Scots' Charitable Society frequently held its meetings there. It was the head-quarters of the British officers during the siege. It is the oldest building in Boston.

The Queen's Head Tavern stood at the north-west corner of North and Clark streets. It was built in 1691.

The Green Dragon Inn was built in 1692. It was first kept by Alexander Smith, who died in 1696, and was succeeded by Hannah Bishop, who was next succeeded by John Cary. In 1734 Joseph Kidder was its landlord. In 1764 it was conveyed by Catharine Kerr, sister to Dr. William Douglas, to St. Andrew's Lodge of Freemasons. It was a hospital during the Revolution. It was the head-quarters of Joseph Warren, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, James Otis, Paul Revere, and other patriots, during the Revolution. It was called the Green Dragon Tavern after the Revolution, and at one time the Freemasons' Arms. Daniel Simpson, the veteran drummer, was at one time its landlord. The Scots' Charitable Society frequently held its meetings there. The Green Dragon building, extending through from Union to (new) Washington street, now denotes its site.

The Salutation Inn stood on the north-west corner of Hanover and Salutation streets. It was built by John Brooking in 1692, and sold to Sir William Phips. John Scollay kept it in 1697, who was succeeded by Samuel Green in 1731. It became famous, later, when William Campbell kept it in 1773, when it was a rallying-place for the patriots who gave rise to the word "Caucus." The resolutions for the destruction of the tea in Boston Harbor were drawn up there. It was also called the "Two Palaverers," from the representation upon the sign of two old gentlemen in wigs, cocked hats, and knee-breeches, saluting each other with much ceremony.

The Golden Bull Tavern was built in 1693, and stood on the south-east corner of Merchants row and Chatham street. It was kept in 1752 by Marston.

The Black Horse Tavern was built in 1700, and stood on the west side of Prince street, which in former days was called Black Horse lane, and Salem street. It was noted as a hiding-place for deserters from Burgoyne's army when stationed at Cambridge.

The Half Moon Inn was built in 1705, and stood on the north-west corner of Fleet and Sun court streets. It was kept in 1752 by Deborah Chick.

The Swan Tavern was built in 1707, and stood at the north-east corner of Fleet and North streets.

The Orange Tree Inn was built in 1708, and stood on the north-east corner of Court and Hanover streets during the Provincial period. White it was kept by Jonathan Wardwell, in 1712, he set up the first hackney-coach stand. His widow kept it in 1724. It was demolished in 1785. It was noted for having a well of water which never froze or dried up.