274 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER. 



June 



THE DAM AT NOKTH BILLERICA. 



We offer no apology for continuing the history 

 of the unjust usurpation of power in rebuilding 

 the dam at North Billerica, and the loss and dis- 

 tress which it has caused to hundreds of the in- 

 dustrious farmers of the State. We have an un- 

 shaken faith in the justice of our people, and that 

 future legislators will see how shamefully the elec- 

 tions have been corrupted by a combination of 

 moneyed power, and the rights of a large number 

 of our citizens trampled under foot. But this 

 state of things cannot last. When the history of 

 this oppression is better understood, the public 

 voice will demand its suppression, and we trust 

 compel the oppressors to compensate the farmers 

 for the damage done to their property. We be- 

 lieve the determination to repeal the act of 1859- 

 60, to remove thii*ty-three inches of the dam, was 

 a foregone conclusion by the last Legislature, on 

 the day that it first met. Such had been the in- 

 fluence exerted on the elections in every part of 

 the State. We knew of this, as we Avere repeat- 

 edly notified, during the summer and fall, that one 

 or more persons were visiting various portions of 

 the State, and it was supposed were forestalling 

 the public mind in this matter. The result jus- 

 tifies the supposition. 



We recently gave one chapter in the early his- 

 tory of the controversy still going on between the 

 owners of meadow land on Concord and Sudbury 

 rivers, and now continue it a step or two farther. 

 This dam was first erected about the year 1710. 

 It was removed in 1722, by order of the Governor 

 and Council, under the act establishing a "com- 

 mission of sewers." This removal ends the first 

 chapter in the history of the long controversy be- 

 tween these meadows and this dam. 



In a second report of the Commissioners of 

 Sewers, dated January, 1723, we learn that the 

 dam was found built again, within two months af- 

 ter its removal. The Commissioners promptly ap- 

 pointed responsible men to repair to Billerica, 

 "and if they found any mill-dam, to inquire who 

 erected it, and to take notice of the height and 

 dimensions of it, that His Excellency and Council 

 might be truly informed of the matter of fact." 

 This report was either never made, or has been 

 lost. The existence of the new dam, however, is 

 well established. 



When the existence of the new dam was known 

 to the meadow-owners, with the prompt energy 

 for which the inhabitants of Concord valley have 

 always been noted, they at once adopted mea- 

 sures to bring an action against Mr. Osgood, un- 

 der an act passed in 1709. This act is enti- 

 tled, "An act to prevent hedges, weirs, and other 

 incumbrances, obstructing the passage of fish in 

 rivers." It provides that whoever "obstructs the 

 usual passage of fish in the spring, or proper sea- 



sons of the year without approbation or allowance 

 first had and obtained for the same, in manner as 

 in and by this act is du'ected," shall be regarded 

 as creating a "common nuisance," and declares 

 that this "nuisance shall be demolished and pulled 

 down, not to he again repaired or amended ; and 

 that on complaint made to the General Sessions 

 of the Peace," &c. 



We may remark in this connection, that large 

 quantities of shad and alewives were formerly 

 taken from this stream, even so far as twenty-five 

 miles from the dam. The inhabitants of the 

 towns bordering upon the river held their fishing 

 privileges in high estimation, even within the 

 memory of many persons who are now living. It 

 was natural, therefore, that an obstruction which 

 impeded the flow of the water, and prevented the 

 natural course of the fish, should be regarded with 

 aversion, by men with intelligence enough to know 

 their rights, and with determination enough to 

 assert them. 



It is worthy of remark, that the meadow-own- 

 ers complained of the first dam for two reasons ; 

 because it kept back the fish, and because it flowed 

 back the water over their lands. Against the new 

 dam they brought only the first complaint. We 

 naturally infer, therefore, that while the new dam 

 obstructed the passage of the fish, it was not liigh 

 enough to cause the meadows to be overflowed. 

 It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that this 

 dam was not so high as the first one. 



In May, 1723, the town of Sudbury, at a legal 

 town meeting, chose a committee, and empowered 

 them to prefer a petition to the General Sessions 

 of the Peace, "that the stoppage and obstructions 

 upon Concord and Sudbury rivers may be re- 

 moved, which is a hindrance to the free passage 

 of the fish." This Committee prepared and pre- 

 sented a petition as they were directed, asserting 

 that "they humbly conceive that the said dam is a 

 nuisance, being so far from being lawfully and or- 

 derly made as that it was placed there in direct 

 opposition to the order of the Commissions of 

 Sewers." 



In July of the same year, the selectmen of Con- 

 cord, five in number, presented a petition to the 

 Court of General Session, in conjunction with the 

 petition from Sudbury. The following extract 

 from this petition presents the cause of complaint 

 in a clear and forcible manner. After alluding to 

 the existence of the above mentioned "Nuisance 

 Act," the petitioners say : "The ancient town of 

 Concord hath ever, from the first settlement there- 

 of, enjoyed the privilege and benefit of the fish 

 coming up Concord River, without any incum- 

 brance or obstruction, until sometime in or about 

 the year 1709, at which time there was a mill dam 

 erected across the said river, in the township of 

 Billerica, in the county of Middlesex, to accommo- 



