As has been already stated, in the early days of the Plymouth Colony,
town meetings were held in either the Governor’s house, or the
meeting house. The last meeting in the meeting house, so far as the
record shows, was held July 6, 1685. In that year Plymouth County
was incorporated with Plymouth, the shire, and though I can find no
record of the event, it is probable that the County Court house,
which stood on the site of the present town house, was built in that
year, and that from that time it was the meeting place of the town.
There are scattering records of town meetings held there before it
was taken down in 1749, in which year the present town house was
built by the county as a Court House. In anticipation of the erection
of the present house it was voted by the town at a meeting held in
the Court House, Oct. 10, 1748, “to give towards building a new house
three hundred pounds old tenor, provided that the town shall have
free use and improvement of the said building, as long as it stands,
to transact any of the public affairs of the town in.” On the 6th of
March, 1749, it was voted “that the town will add to their former
vote for building a Court House, the sum of seven hundred pounds
old tenor... provided that the Court of General sessions for this
county at its next sessions shall order that the said Court House
shall immediately be built, and that the town have the privilege of
transacting their public affairs in the same so long as the said
house shall stand.”
At the next session of the court it was voted to accept the
additional grant and a copy of the vote was attested by Edward
Winslow, clerk.
In order that my readers may understand the meaning of old tenor
money, let me say, that there were three issues of paper money by
the Massachusetts province prior to 1750. The issues prior to 1737
were called old tenor, the issue made in that year was called middle
tenor, and the issue of 1741, new tenor. When the province bills were
redeemed in 1750, the old tenor was redeemed at the rate of one piece
of a dollar for forty-five shillings of old tenor, which would make
the amount paid to the county a fraction over $444.44. This sum it
must be remembered was in addition to the share of the cost of the
building to be assessed on the town in its county tax.
In 1749, then, the present town house, was erected. A somewhat
doubtful tradition ascribes its design to Peter Oliver, who in 1747
was appointed Judge of the Inferior Court of Plymouth County; and a
still more doubtful tradition states that originally its entrance
was on the easterly end and was changed about 1786 to the north
side, where it is now. After a careful examination of the latter
tradition, I have reached the conclusion that it is erroneous. A
market was established as early as 1722, and for more than a hundred
years clerks of the market were annually chosen by the town. Having
examined every land title from Wellingsley to Cold Spring, and
found no mention of a market anywhere except under the town house,
I am satisfied that the basement of both the old and new building
contained a market from 1722 to the time of its comparatively recent
abandonment in 1858. The tradition therefore concerning the change
of the entrance to admit of the establishment of a market probably
refers, not to the present building, but to the old one in which a
change of plan may have been made to admit of the establishment of
a market in 1722. There is no reason to doubt the statement that at
one time there was a one story wooden projection as far out as the
sidewalk to furnish larger accommodations for the market, but it was
removed before my day, and the market was confined to the basement
alone. The market in my day was equipped with stalls, which were
leased by the clerk of the market to various persons, among whom
I remember Elisha and Charles Nelson, Amasa Holmes, Joseph White,
Brackley Cushing and Maltiah Howard. The interior arrangement of the
town house was much the same as now, except that a safe has in later
times been built, and the old Court room occupied the whole of the
second story. The Court room was provided with a raised desk for the
judge, a desk below for the clerk, a sheriff’s box on one side, a
court crier’s box on the other, the jury seats facing the judge, and
separating the lawyer’s area from the space for the public in the
rear. Such was the arrangement of the building until 1820, when a
new Court House having been built in Court Square, the building was
sold to the town for the sum of two thousand dollars. It remained
practically unchanged until 1829, when the Torrent No. 4, a suction
hose engine was bought, and the room at the westerly end was fitted
for its accommodation. For the supply of water to this engine, and
the Niagara No. 1, which was at the same time changed to a suction
engine, reservoirs were built in Shirley and Town Squares to be
filled by the aqueduct. The specifications for these reservoirs
required them to be sixteen feet in diameter in the clear, and
fourteen feet deep from the spring of the arch. To complete the story
of the reservoirs, that on Training Green was built in 1834, that at
the crossing of High and Spring streets, and that opposite Pilgrim
Hall in 1853, and one at the foot of Russell street at an earlier
period.
All through my boyhood the Town House remained as I have described
it until 1839, when all the equipments of the old Court room except
the judge’s desk were removed and substantial seats were built on a
sloping floor, which necessitated three more steps on the stairs.
In 1858, while I was chairman of the selectmen, the engine Torrent
was removed to the basement, and the room and ante-room, recently
occupied by the selectmen, were fitted for use by the board. As first
arranged, a large, round table with five drawers was constructed
around an iron column in the room, which was removed some years
later. The hall above was used for meetings of the town until 1872,
since which time they have been held in Davis Hall and Odd Fellows’
Hall, and the Armory. At a later date it was occupied by the Public
Library for a short time, and then divided into rooms, one of which
was occupied until recently by the school committee, and the other
is now occupied by the Assessors. It may be interesting to some of
my readers to learn that Catholic mass was celebrated in Town Hall,
April 4, 1849.
While this book is in press, the selectmen have remodelled the
interior and built a new and larger safe.
My first connection with town affairs began in 1854, when I was
chosen a member of the school committee. I had the previous year
become a permanent resident of Plymouth, after some years residence
in Boston, and until 1892, a period of thirty-eight years, I do
not recall a year in which I did not hold a town office. In 1855 I
was chosen a selectman with Jacob H. Loud, chairman, and Ezekial
C. Turner, Israel Clark and Ezra Leach, my other associates. In
1856 I was chairman, associated with Joseph Allen, Joseph P. Brown,
Bradford Barnes and David Clark, and 1857-8-9, the board remained
unchanged. In 1860 I remained chairman with Joseph P. Brown, Ezekial
C. Turner, David Clark and Thomas B. Sears my associates, and in 1861
my associates were Lysander Dunham, Hosea Bartlett, Thomas B. Sears
and Ezekial C. Turner, the same board continuing in office until
the spring of 1866, when I declined further service. I was again
chosen in 1870 and 1881, but declined serving, and was finally chosen
in 1888, ’89, ’90, serving the last year as chairman. At regular,
adjourned and special meetings, and November elections, I served as
moderator seventy-nine times.
During my first service as moderator, the men who took the most
active part in discussions were Moses Bates, Wm. H. Spear, Ichabod
Morton, Charles G. Davis, Wm. H. Whitman, Captain John Russell,
Jonathan Thrasher, Nathaniel Ellis, Charles H. Howland, Barnabas H.
Holmes, Samuel H. Doten and Chas. O. Churchill. Occasionally the
debates were spirited and personal. Some of the above were remarkable
men. Jonathan Thrasher born and brought up, and a life-long resident,
at Long Pond, denied favorable opportunities of instruction, was a
man of large brain, who under the sunlight of a higher education,
would have been a formidable competitor in the arena of professional
life. When he spoke he at once arrested attention by his calm and
judicial manner, and well expressed arguments, which were the result
of careful thought. Nathaniel Ellis of Ellisville, was also a man
of mark, vigorous in mind and body, ready in speech, and at every
opportunity keen in ridicule and satire. I remember the roars of
laughter, elicited by his speech in opposition to an additional
appropriation asked for by a school committee, in whom he had no
confidence. He described one of their junkets, hiring a two horse
carriage, stowing under the seats lemons and sugar and sandwiches and
cold chicken and pickles, and the purpose of their service in behalf
of the town, the conveyance of an inkstand to the Ellisville school
of four scholars. He said it was the same committee which went on a
similar junket to examine the Red Brook School, and learned from the
teacher after their erudite examination was finished that Red Brook
school was in Sandwich, and not in Plymouth. It is needless to say
that the additional appropriation was defeated. Ichabod Morton on
every question relating to schools was conspicuous in debate. He was
an ardent advocate for larger appropriations for public schools, and
though often subjected to ridicule by his opponents, he never lost
his temper and waited patiently for time to prove in the end that one
with a righteous cause was a majority. At the time to which I refer
in 1855 and 1860, the appropriations for schools were $8,600, and
$10,000, respectively, with a population of six thousand, while the
appropriation for the present year is forty-nine thousand dollars, to
which the interest on the school debt must be added, with little less
than double the population.
In performing the duties of moderator many questions arise for which
neither law nor parliamentary usage furnishes any solution. He
possesses arbitrary power which he must be careful in exercising.
Some of the questions which came up during my service in that office
were sufficiently interesting to justify a reference to them. On
one occasion an article in the warrant involved an appropriation to
which the voters in the south part of the town were opposed, and
after a full discussion the appropriation was defeated, and the town
passed on to the consideration of other articles in the warrant. In
the latter part of the afternoon, after the southern voters had left
for home, a motion was made to reconsider the vote of rejection, and
with no rule of law to guide me, but one of fair play and square
dealing, I ruled the motion out of order. I stated that the person
moving reconsideration failed to make it before other business was
done, and not having made it or given notice that he intended to make
it, before adjournment, the opponents of the measure had a right to
consider the question settled for the day. Some complained of the
ruling, but its fairness was afterwards conceded, and so far as I
know has been adopted as a guide for other moderators.
On another occasion, while several articles in the warrant remained
unconsidered, a motion was made to adjourn, which I ruled out
of order. It was claimed that a motion to adjourn was always in
order, and was undebatable. That is undoubtedly true in any body
or convention, which has regular sessions, for in that case an
adjournment means merely an adjournment to the next session, and the
business arrested by the adjournment can be resumed when the next
session comes together. But in a town meeting, unless it has been
voted that when the meeting adjourns, it shall adjourn to meet at a
certain time, a motion to adjourn cannot be entertained. There were
only two courses which the mover might have pursued. He might have
moved as above that when the meeting adjourns it adjourn to a certain
time, and then if the town so votes a simple motion to adjourn would
have been in order; or he might have moved that the consideration of
the remaining articles in the warrant be indefinitely postponed, and
if the town so vote, he could have moved to dissolve the meeting.
A motion to adjourn unless there is a fixed time to adjourn to is
simply an absurdity.
Under the old system of voting for town officers each set of officers
was chosen on a separate ballot, and the counting of each set of
ballots before balloting for the next officers involved great labor
and delay. In order to expedite matters, a motion was made at the
annual meeting in 1882 to instruct the moderator to appoint tellers,
and I ruled the motion out of order, as being in controvention of
the law. Many towns had been in the habit of employing tellers and
their example was quoted as sufficient precedents for my guidance.
I stated in general terms that the law conferred on the moderator
extraordinary powers, and imposed upon him responsible duties
which he could no more delegate to another than a constable or an
assessor could delegate to a substitute his powers and duties. At
the adjourned meeting I gave my reasons in writing to the town, and
a reporter for the Boston _Herald_ being present, had it printed in
full in the Sunday edition of that paper. The legislature was still
in session, and the judiciary committee acknowledging the correctness
of my ruling at once secured the passage of an act authorizing the
appointment of tellers in town meetings.
The question has often been asked whether a moderator can participate
in debate. I am clearly of the opinion that except for the purpose
of explaining rulings and answering questions within certain
limitations, he cannot with propriety engage in the discussion of any
measure before the town. It is extremely doubtful whether if he takes
a marked interest in a debate he can secure the confidence of the
town in the entire impartiality of his rulings and acts. For the same
reason I do not believe in the propriety of his leaving the chair to
speak from the floor. If, however, he should do so, I am clearly of
the opinion that he vacates his chair, and that the only business
before the town is to choose a moderator pro tern. His powers and
duties cease the moment he leaves the chair, and they cannot be
assumed by another upon whom they are not conferred by the town by
ballot, and the use of the checklist.
How far a moderator shall go in ruling on the illegality of a
proposition contained in the warrant, it is difficult to lay down any
rule. There are many moderators unfamiliar with the laws who would
necessarily permit the consideration of the article, trusting to the
meeting to decide on the arguments in which illegality is alleged
whether the proposition shall be rejected. If in such a case an
illegal vote is favored a remedy may be found on an application to
the court for an injunction.
On the whole the ruling must be left to the judgment of the
moderator, who would not hesitate to rule, for instance, out of order
an article to see if the town will build a steamboat to run between
Plymouth and Boston.
I cannot close this chapter without suggesting that, while the
most stringent laws are in force to prevent illegal voting in the
elections of officers, a law should be enacted either excluding
non voters from the floor at town meetings, or prescribing such a
method of voting on appropriations as shall preclude the possibility
of illegal voting. If other methods are impracticable it might at
least be provided that in voting on appropriations exceeding $5,000,
voters shall pass between two tellers appointed by the moderator and
standing in front of the platform, who shall count the votes and
report to the moderator.