1857. 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER. 



271- 



around the trunk of the tree, somewhat loosely, 

 and made tight by packing the space between the 

 trap and the trunk of the tree with rags, cotton, or 

 any similar article that will not obstruct the growth 

 of the tree. The rubber pan is filled with any kind 

 of liquid offensive to the insect, and thus prevents 

 its passage up the tree. 



Should this contrivance, which certainly presents 

 a very promismg look, succeed in effecting the ob- 

 ject for which it was constructed, our fruit-growers 

 will find themselves under lasting obligations to 

 the inventor. A specimen can be seen at this of- 

 fice. 



For the- New England Farmer. 



UNJUST OPERATION OF LAW. 



Mr. Editor: — The papers have recently an- 

 nounced that the case in reference to the flowing 

 of Sudbury meadows. Heard vs. Talbert, has been 

 decided in favor of said Talbert, by the Supreme 

 Judicial Court. Permit one who has had some 

 knowledge of the subject matter of the litigation, for 

 forty years past, between the Middlesex Canal Cor- 

 poration and the owners of said meadows, and 

 which is now finally settled by the recent decision 

 of said Court, to make a few statements. The great 

 Dred Scott decision has not surprised the people 

 of the free States more than the said recent decis- 

 ion, which came booming up here from the Court 

 House in Boston has surprised us poor farmers and 

 owners of said meadow lands, which decision we 

 admit to be a dead shot. I may not, in giving 

 dates, be precisely correct. 



About the year 1792-3, the Middlesex Canal 

 Company was incorporated for the purpose of 

 connecting the waters of Merrimac river with 

 Medford river. This act was so indefinite as to what 

 was intended to be done under it, that Jeremiah 

 Mason, Esq., said to the Court that a petition for 

 such an act now would not get inside of the 

 State House, the rights of private property are so 

 truly regarded. It was obtained when gover- 

 nors wore cocked hats, scarlet cloaks and small 

 clothes, silk stockings and silver knee and shoe 

 buckles, and all ministers put up special prayers 

 weekly for them, and the people said amen, and 

 the laws were supposed to be administered justly 

 to all. 



The said corporation, not as was at first contem- 

 plated, decided to make Concord river the summit 

 height of their canal, obtained another act to 

 purchase and hold a mill privilege, and purchased 

 the Old Richardson mill, in the north part of the 

 town of BlUerica. The dam was a zigzag from one 

 stone in the river to another across the river. In 

 1798 the Canal Company commenced a new frame 

 dam, and completed it about 1800, which was, as 

 can be proved, one foot higher than the old one; 

 in 1808 or 1809, they put sixteen inches of flush 

 board upon the new dam, that not raising the wa- 

 ter sufficiently high to operate their canal. In 1811, 

 David Baldwin, Esq., of East Sudbury, brought an 

 action against the Canal Company for damages 

 done thereby to his meadow lands; that case went 

 to a jury under the direction of Judge Parson ; 

 that jury was made to believe that water would 

 not stand back higher than the top of the dam, 

 and as it was admitted to be one inch fall per mile. 



it being 22 miles from the dam to the meadow, by 

 actual survey of the river by Col. L. Baldwin, the 

 jury gave a verdict against Baldwin ; also, again, 

 on a new hearing, no other defence«being made. 



In 1816 the proprietors of said meadows were 

 incorporated for the purpose of clearing the ob- 

 structions in the river, which were said by the Ca- 

 nal Company to cause the damage to the meadows, 

 and some thousands of dollars were expended for 

 that object, without relief. In 1828, the Canal 

 Company erected a stone dam below the frame one 

 some ten feet, which is, as can be proved, twenty- 

 seven inches higher than the first frame dam which 

 they built in 1798. It was put in operation Sei> 

 tember, 1828, and the first intimation the meadow 

 owners had of that fact was in August, 1829. — 

 There was no Court of Sessions at the time, or any 

 other court to which we could apply for a jury. 

 The meadow owners of East Sudbury and Sud- 

 bury, in 1832 commenced an action against the 

 Canal Company at the common law, under the ad- 

 vice of Benjamin Rand, Jeremiah Mason, Franklin 

 Dexter, and Isaac Fisk, Esq. They said, inasmuch 

 as the dam had been raised without notice to the 

 owners of the lands, and as by their Canal act they 

 were required to complete their work as early as 

 1808, and having used them for more than thirty 

 years in their own way, it was held that they should 

 go to the Legislature for further power to take and 

 hold private property. But after some delay, the 

 Supreme Judicial Court decided that our action 

 was wrong ; that it should have been brought un- 

 der the Canal act, giving the Canal Company a 

 perpetual right to raise their dam without notice 

 to any one. Then some of the meadow owners com- 

 menced actions under the Canal act, a provision of 

 \Ahich is, that all who were injured in their lands 

 by said Companj', could apply to the Court of Ses- 

 sions for a jury to assess damages within one year. 

 As no such court was in existence at that time, 

 Mr. Dexter got an act passed conferring the pow- 

 er of the Court of Sessions to the Court of Common 

 Pleas; and, subsequently said cases were carried 

 to the Supreme Judicial Court, and there argued. 

 After the lapse of twelve months, the judges re- 

 quested the counsel to reargue the case, which 

 was done, and at the expiration of two years the 

 Court decided that our action should have been 

 commenced within one year from the time of the 

 cause of action ; which was, as will be seen, an im- 

 possibility — and not being allowed yearly damages, 

 we went out of Court the third time on technical 

 law. Subsequently, in 1844, the Canal Company, 

 petitioned the Legislature for leave to turn the Ca- 

 nal into an aqueduct to supply the city of Boston 

 with water. We remonstrated, for the purpose of 

 preventing their obtaining new power, believing 

 that if no new power were given the Canal Compa- 

 ny, they would surrender their franchise, and that 

 we should, in that event, have our lands reclaimed 

 as in the case of highways when discontinued, 

 which have been taken for public use. The result 

 of the Legislature was a bill, after a full hearing be- 

 fore the Committee of which Judge Strong was 

 chairman, so framed as to reduce the dam ; and 

 Judge Strong remarked to the Senate that the 

 committee were satisfied that the meadow owners 

 never had, nor never could under the Canal act re- 

 cover their rights, and the Legislature ought to 

 give relief. This bill was not passed, the Senators 

 not liking the water. 



