F 74 
 ■B22 W2 
 Copy 1 
 
 CAMBRIDGE 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 BELMONT 
 
 ARGUMENT OF 
 
 HON. W. W. WARREN 
 
 AGAINST ANNEXATION, 
 
 BOSTON 
 
 1880. 
 
CAMBRIDGE 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 BELMONT. 
 
 ARGUMENT OF 
 
 HON. W. W. WARREN 
 
 AGAINST ANNEXATION, 
 
 BOSTON 
 
 1880. 
 
^-'^;?..^ 
 
 r 
 
 f7A 
 
 mm^ 
 
Argument, 
 
 3Ir. Chairman and Gentlemen : 
 
 I suppose 1 ought to l)egiii by thiiiikiiig you for the patieut atten- 
 tion you have given to this long hearing. 1 feel no doubt that it has 
 been protracted, and that I am guilty, in some part, of having pro- 
 tracted it. But in a hearing of this kind, where it is necessary for 
 .the respondents to ascertain as clearly as possible the ground upon 
 which the petitioners move, and where their examination of witness- 
 es goes over so much of a technical and scientific investigation, it 
 will hardly do to pass it by without some considerable time spent in 
 cross-examination. I am, however, pretty well satisfied, after hav- 
 ing reviewed, as far as I thought necessary, the testimony that has 
 been put into this «ase, tiiat we have spent a great deal of time in it 
 which might perhaps have been saved, could we have known, at the 
 outset, what would be the outcome of the whole investigation. 
 
 Tills, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, is a petition by the city of 
 Cambridge for the annexation of a portion of the town of 'Belmont 
 to that city. It appears, from what we can see before us, and from 
 what we have heard, to be pressed by the whole power of the city of 
 Cambridge, led indeed by the water board, but supported by their 
 city government, and carried forward not only by the city solicitor, 
 himself able, and well able, to carry on any controversy of this kind, 
 but also by the aid of one of the most eminent and eloquent law- 
 yers who has ever been called to advocate the cause of any peti- 
 tioner. Such an amount of strength given to a case would seem to in- 
 dicate that it had some importance, at least in the minds of the pe- 
 titioners, and it would seem to require from us that we should at- 
 tend to it and endeavor to give full weight to whatever was advanced 
 on their behalf; and yet, after having gone through the whole of 
 this long, and, I tear, tedious hearing, I am in:ipressed with the con- 
 viction of what I suspected at first, that there is nothing in it at all. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, let us beiiin at the foundation. What is aunexa- 
 
tioQ? What is the meaning of the word '' mniexatiou "? Why it is 
 simply a change of the political associations of a people ; it is a sev- 
 erance of a community from one municipal affiliation, and attaching 
 it to another. 
 
 In annexing a portion of a town to a city, it is a change of the 
 whole form of government. It terminates the independent life of 
 the townsman and merges him in the great body of the citizens. 
 From having the right to vote and speak and act in the affairs of the 
 town of which he is a member, he descends to the position of having 
 only a right to be represented in the councils of a city. Such annex- 
 ation is for the inhabitants of a town a revolution. It is accompa- 
 nied with a loss of personal power and influence in afiairs ; if some- 
 times necessary, it is rarely desirable. In the case of a town of 
 ordinary size, compact in territory, harmonious in the feeling of its 
 people, themselves orderly, possessed of competency, free from debt, 
 well clothed and fed and lodged, healthy beyond the usual lot of 
 men, provided with schools, highways, churches and all public con- 
 veniences, the public offices lilled by competent and experienced 
 officers, the land itself fertile and productive beyond comparison, so 
 that in passing along the wa^^s, you ride through a continuous gar- 
 den, — in the case of such a town, I say, nothing but the most 
 pressing, immediate, inexorable necessity could ever induce a legis- 
 lature to think of dismembering it, laying the strong hand of the law 
 upon it, and giving over a large and desirable part of it to become 
 one of the outskirts of a great city. 
 
 Yet such a town is Belmont, a model town, if every well-ordered 
 town in Massachusetts were not itself a model. Such is the town 
 which Cambridge proposes to, divide. Such as I have described are 
 its inhabitants, honest, laborious, intelligent, independent, whom the 
 city of Cambridge proposes to absorb into itself, to share the for- 
 tunes of its changing city government, to help bear the burden of its 
 city debt, to have their property loaded with an exorbitant rate of 
 taxation, and to have the privilege of admiring the wisdom and pay- 
 ing for the extravagance of the Cambridge water board. 
 
 What overpowering necessity do they show for making 
 
change in the political relations of these inhabitants of Belmont? 
 Is there anything that these inhabitants can gain by the change? 
 Not so. The change will be for them unmitigated injury. Is it be- 
 cause they are unfit to govern themselves, and need the power of a 
 strong city government, with its marshals and police, to keep them 
 in subjection to the law? Not so. Their town meetings are not 
 crowded and disorderly, but quiet and well conducted. Their con- 
 duct never calls for the intervention of the police officer. Is it be- 
 cause Belmont cannot furnish schools and highways? Again, no. 
 
 On the other hand, do the people of Cambridge need this addi- 
 tion to their population? They tell us thej^ do not, and intimate that 
 they do not want them. Do they want to increase their expenses 
 for schools and highways? Again, no : their taxes are already too 
 high for endurance. Do they want the votes of these people of Bel- 
 mont? Again, no : they might change the result of an election in a 
 closely contested canvass. Again, is the present line between Cam- 
 bridge and Belmont unnatural or improper? Clearly not : it is the 
 line of greatest depression, and the same that divides Cambridge 
 from Arlington, and from Medford. But the line newly selected 
 may have some peculiar fitness. Not so : it indicates no natural 
 boundary, and the petitioners have indicated a willingness to 
 change it on each side of the pond. 
 
 What, then, is the reason assigned for this extraordinary petition; 
 extraordinary, I mean, when we consider the relation of the parties 
 and the reasons which usually control a legislature in questions of this 
 character? 
 
 The reason they give is that they w^ant to preserve and protect the 
 purity of the water of Fresh pond. That is why they want to change 
 the municipal and political complexion of the inhabitants of this 
 district, and to alter the boundary lines between the two places. 
 Was ever so absurd a reason for so grave a request before presented 
 to a legislaure? Let us state their proposition in due form. 
 This is their proposition, as they must state it : 
 
 It is necessary to preserve the purity of our well, which at pres- 
 ent contains pure water. 
 
6 
 
 The clanger of future pollution of our well will arise from the pol- 
 luting matter which may find its way into the pond from the habita- 
 tions of men, and the business which may be "carried on in the 
 vicinity. 
 
 There is no appreciable pollution now, and we do not know when 
 there will be any, and we do not offer to prove that there ever w^ill 
 be any ; but if there ever is any pollution, then there will be pollu- 
 tion. There may be pollution which chemistry cannot detect, and 
 which the microscope cannot detect. To be sure, we rely on 
 chemistry when we say that our water is pure now, and on chem- 
 istry alone. All our voluminous analyses simply show results of 
 chemical examination. They satisfy us now, and they furnish all 
 the evidence we can ever hope to have of the purity of our water. 
 But they are not sure, because disease may break out and prove that 
 to \)e impure which we now believe to be pure. The only safe way, 
 therefore, is to remove the possibility of contamination. 
 
 I believe I have stated their proposition substantially correctly. 
 
 Therefore, they say we desire to preserve the purity of our water, 
 how? By building proper seNvers nnd drains? No. By building an 
 intercepting drain around the pond? No. By removing the sources 
 of filth which now exist and have existed within the limits of the city 
 of Cambridge ever since the pond was taken as a source of water 
 supply? No. By cleaning out the borders of the pond and properly 
 walling it in and protecting it? No. By extinguishing the public 
 rights of bathing, boating, fishing and cutting ice? No. By none of 
 these methods known to civil engineers and boards of health ; but by 
 changing the town lines between Cambridge and Belmont, and 
 making a portion of the inhabitants of the latter town vote and pay 
 taxes in Cambridge instead of in Belmont. Fresh pond is to be 
 kept pure by changing the form of government of a portion of its 
 inhabitants from the simplicity of the town to the complexity of the 
 city. In other words, the purity of Fresh-pond water, — it being now 
 pure, — is to be preserved only by changing the territory by 
 which it is surrounded from a town to a city. You will not change 
 the surface of the soil ; you will not alter .the highways nor the 
 
water-couvses ; you need not reduce or alter the population or their 
 occupations; you will not change the flow of the surface water, nor 
 alter the height of the column of the water of percolation. Every- 
 thing will remain as it was, except that everything will be in Cam- 
 bridge and nothing in Belmont. 
 
 Of course, the Cambridge water board and their astute counsel 
 cannot fail to appreciate the absurdity of their position. They must 
 defend it in some way. They know that annexation is suggested in 
 the report of their own experts only in the most incidental way. In 
 fact I should hazard a guess that the word was added to the report 
 in order to meet the requirements of the committee. They knew 
 the reports of their experts. Let me refer to them; I will not read 
 a great deal from them. On the 52d page of the report of the 
 special committee on water supply, which you have had laid before 
 you, are the conclusions of Prof. Wood, who gives a chemical report 
 to the committee appointed by the city of Caml^ridge. His conclu- 
 sions are as follows : — 
 
 " 1st. That Fresh pond alone cannot be relied upon to furnish a 
 sufficient supply of pure water for the city of Cambridge. 
 
 " 2d. That there are certain sources of contamination which are 
 liable to pollute the water of Fresh pond to an extent dangerous to 
 the health of the community, and which must be removed in order 
 to preserve the purity of Fresh-pond water. 
 
 "3d. That the principal sources of pollution of Fresh pond itself 
 can be diverted. The sewage discharging into the pond at Cushing 
 street, and that into Alewife brook and Black's nook, can be con- 
 ducted away from the pond by means of sewers. 
 
 " 4th. That, in order to still further preserve the purity of Fresh 
 pond, the city authorities should exercise constant supervision over 
 Fresh Pond Hotel and its adjoining grounds, and the Fresh-pond 
 meadows, and prevent, upon this territory, the carrying on of any 
 business or the erection of any buildings, the refuse from which 
 would tend to injure in any way a source of water supply. And if 
 the city has not this power vested in its board of health, or other 
 board, it should obtain it, if possible, by legislative enactment. 
 
 "5th. That the water of Little pond and Wellington brook is, at 
 times, polluted to so great an extent, and with material of so dan- 
 gerous a character, that these waters are totally unfit to be used as 
 sources of water supply; and since this pollution is of such a nature 
 
8 
 
 as to render it impossible to prevent it from entering these waters, 
 their use should be discontinued, and they should be prevented from 
 entering Fresh pond. 
 
 "6th. That some other additional snpply should be obtained. 
 
 " 7th. That if the above-mentioned sources of pollution of Fresh 
 pond be removed, the purity of its water may be sutficiently pre- 
 served, so as to render it suitable to be used as a source of water 
 supply for an indefinite period, and also as a storage reservoir, if 
 necessary, for any other additional suppl}-." 
 
 Not a word in that about annexation as a remedy. He speaks 
 simply as a chemist, tirst stating the difficulties with the water, and 
 then he states what it is practicable to do with it. In passing, I 
 will refer to page 36 of his report, in which, speaking of the only 
 other source of pollution which he fears may at some time become 
 dangerous, namely, Niles' slaughter-house, he says, referring particu- 
 larly to the muck-heap near the slaughter-house : " This matter is, 
 however, under the supervision of the state board of health, in 
 whose hands it may safely be left." 
 
 I then pass to Mr. Chcsbrough's conclusions, an eminent 
 engineer, against whom, of course, nobody Avould say a word. He 
 says, — 
 
 " First. There is satisfactory evidence to show^ that, up to the 
 present time, the supply from Fresh pond has been sufficiently 
 pure ; 
 
 " Second. Comparatively cheap expedients may be adopted to 
 mainttun its present purity under existing conditions in regard to 
 population and industries ; 
 
 "Third. That to provide against futiu'c probabilities, it will be 
 necessary to take constantly into Fresh pond sources of supply now 
 admited to but a limited extent because nut sufficienty pure ; or 
 
 "Fourth. It will, as I believe, be found best ultimately to abandon 
 the attempt to make and keep all the present available sources of 
 supply pure, on account of great expense and impracticability, and 
 for an additional supply to take a part of the Shawsheen river, or go 
 to the city of Boston." 
 
 These are his conclusions, and in the course of his report he 
 speaks of the facility of draining the Cushing-street district at a 
 very small expense. 
 
9 
 
 Then comes INIr. Barbour's report, in which he strictly confines 
 himself within his own province. He gives the measures showing 
 the amount of water supplied l)y Fresh pond, the rise and fall of the 
 pond, and the amount that it can be relied upon to furnish. Includ- 
 ing the conduit from Wellington brook, it will probably furnish 
 1,750,000 gallons daily. 
 
 Now, on the basis of those reports of the scientific men appointed 
 to examine the subject, the city of Cambridge came here, and, with- 
 out resorting to any single one of the means of relief suggested by 
 their experts, propose to find their sole relief in the annexation of 
 the territory of Belmont to the territory of Cambridge. 
 
 Now, the true remedy for the difficulty under Avhich Cambridge 
 labors can be ascertained from the reports of their own committee, 
 from the general experience of the cities and towns of this common- 
 wealth, and from our common knowledge. What is necessary is to 
 take certain precautions, whicli precautions require a dealing with 
 the soil and water around the pond so as to exclude the possibility 
 of contaminating substances getting into the pond. 
 
 In order to give some plausibility to their position, the com- 
 mittee of the city government, and I suppose their counsel, claim 
 that annexation is necessary to enable them to take these precau- 
 tions, to deal with the soil and water around the pond ;' but they 
 utterly failed to show this, and from the nature of the problem they 
 must forever fail to show it. 
 
 On the other hand, the truth is, that annexation not only afibrds 
 no 'remedy against the danger they apprehend, Ijut, secondly, 
 even if permitted to annex this territory, Cambridge must do 
 the same things after annexation that she could and must do 
 without or prior to annexation. Furthermore, she must, after 
 annexation, come to the legislature for the same grants of 
 power and authority to take or control private property that she 
 must now ask while the territory is. in Belmont. She must have the 
 same kind of legislative grant of power over territory now in Cam- 
 bridge as over territory now in Belmont. Let us see exactly what 
 she wants, and how she can get what she wants. In the first place, 
 
10 
 
 Avhat has she now? By the statute of 1875, chap. 165, p. 731, of 
 the blue-book of that year, Cambridge " may take by purchase or 
 otherwise such land on and around the margin of said ponds, includ- 
 ing Fresh pond," (she was authorized to take Little pond, Welling- 
 ton brook, c^cc, besides), "not exceeding five rods in wddth, as may 
 be necessary for the preservation and purity of said waters, and may 
 also take and hold in like manner such lands as may be necessary 
 for erecting and maintaming dams and reservoirs, and for laying and 
 maintaining conduits, pipes, drains and other works for collecting, 
 conducting and distributing said waters into and through said city, 
 either by the way of Fresh pond or otherwise." 
 
 By sect. 3, it may carry its pipes and drains over or under any 
 water-course, street, railroad, highway or other way, — may enter 
 upon and dig up such road, street, or way for the purpose of lay- 
 ing down, maintaining or repairing pipes or drains, " and may do 
 any other things necessar3^ and proper in executing the purposes of 
 this act." 
 
 And by sect. 4, the power is given to Cambridge to do this, and 
 this without reference to whether the road, street or way is within 
 or without the city of Cambridge. And provision is also made in 
 section 4 for cases where they go outside of the town to do this 
 work; and then, in order that there may be no possible want of 
 power to keep the water [)ure, they have in section 7 of this act this 
 provision : 
 
 "Section 7. Whoever w^antonly or maliciously diverts the water, 
 or any part thereof, taken or held by said city pursuant to the 'pro- 
 visions of this act, or corrupts the same, or renders it impure, or 
 destroys or injures any dam, aqueduct, pipe, conduit, hydrant, 
 machinery, or other works or property held, oAvned or used by said 
 city under the authority and for the purposes of this act, shall forfeit 
 and pay to said city three times the amount of the damage assessed 
 therefor, to be recovered in ;m jxtion of tort ; and on conviction of 
 either of the wanton or malicious acts aforesaid, may also be punislied 
 by tine not exceeding thiee hundred dollars, or by imprisonment not 
 exceeding one year in the house of correction in said county of 
 Middlese^x." 
 
 So that, taking that act as it is, the city may exercise all the right of 
 
11 
 
 eminent domain which is necessary to preserve the piuily of her water, 
 ma}- take laud, and not only that, but any person living anj'where in 
 any town around the ])ond who does any act which produces impurity 
 in the pond is liable to the city of Cambridge for three times the 
 amount of damage he does, and is also liable to indictment, con- 
 viction and punishment for the offence. 
 
 And yet, although this has been the hiw since 1875, I have yet to 
 learn that there has been a single complaint made by the winter board 
 of the city Cambridge or a single attempt made to enforce their 
 rights against even the people in their own territory who polhite 
 tlie watt^rs of the pond. 
 
 But that is not all the powei' that Caml)ridge has now. 
 
 The statute of 1878, ch. 183, contains full and complete pi-ohi- 
 bition against the pollution of all rivers, streams and ponds iised as 
 sources of water supply, and section 4 of said act gives supervision 
 to the state board of health over all rivers and sources of water sup- 
 ply. It can restrain and control- the exercise of trades which inter- 
 fere with the purity of the water, and the statute of 1879, ch. 224, 
 sect. 1, contains a still stronger provision, punishing all persons 
 who interfere to pollute the water which is used as a source of water, 
 supply. 
 
 Then again, in the direction of offensive trades, which is made a 
 great bugbear by some people in Cambridge, there is fidl authority 
 given to the state board of health by the statute of 1871, chap. 167, 
 to prohibit and supervise such establishments. 
 
 Then again, the general statutes, chap. 26, sect. 52, at the end, 
 confer similar authority upon l)oards of health of the towns. 
 
 If the connnittee desire to see the coustiaiction of these statutes, 
 and the wa}' in which the general statutes, chap. 26, bear upon 
 the statute of 1871, which confers power iiiJon the state board of 
 health, they will find in the case of Smvi/er v. T/ie Sfate Board of 
 Health, 125 Mass. 182, the whole subject gone into in two elaborate 
 opinions, both given by ]Mr. Justice Lord. I will simply say as 
 the result of the statutes, and as the result of the opinions and de- 
 cisions of the court upon it, that I have no doul)t that the state 
 
12 
 
 board of health has power, in a proper case, to prohibit the carrying 
 on of any oifensive trade in any town of this commonwealth. Or, 
 if it believes that a trade which might otherwise be offensive, could 
 be carried on harmlessly b}^ proper supervision, it has power to su- 
 pervise it. . And the state board of health in this very case of the 
 slanghter-house on this territory has acted upon that view of the 
 law and taken the whole matter under supervision. 
 
 Now, it is suggested that the board of health of Belmont cannot 
 be relied upon, that their power over this matter is of no benefit. 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I repel that insinuation. The board 
 of health of Belmont, in the case where they were called upon, 
 acted with the greatest circumspecti(Mi, and with the greatest care. 
 They gave the authorities of the city of Cambridge a hearing which 
 lasted more than one day, if I recollect right. The city of Cam- 
 ridge was represented not only by its able city solicitor, but by 
 one of the most eminent jurists and lawyers of the state, who 
 has honored the office of judge of the supreme court of this state 
 and Attorney General of the United States ; .and if any men in the 
 State of Massachusetts or an}' other state in the United States could 
 have presented a case with force, he certainly could do so. And 
 pressed as they were by able arguments and by such apparent 
 interest on the part of Cambridge, the board of health of Belmont 
 gave to this subject a most anxious consideration ; and they did not 
 give the license until they were satisfied that the petitioners had 
 proved beyond peradventure that the business could l)e carried on 
 without the slightest danger to Fresh pond, or the slightest danger 
 to any source of water supply; and if any doubt could exist upon 
 that subject, it was set at rest by the appeal that the city of Cam- 
 bridsre took to the state board of health. 
 
 The committee very well know that the state board of health 
 has been instrumental in doing away with more sources of filth and 
 sickness than have ever besu done away with by all the combined 
 boards of health in the statu before. They were zealous in the 
 cause; they were thoroughly impressed with the necessity, not only 
 of eradicating an apparent and obvious nuisance, but of preventing 
 
13 
 
 the possibility of future ones. And yet, after examining this mat- 
 ter thoroughly and patiently, they did not issue an order of prohibi- 
 tion, because the}^ found no cause for one ; and although they did 
 not actually dismiss tlie petition, because they preferred to keep the 
 whole matter under their supervision, they yet came to a decision, 
 or at least, as the court would say, an "opinion," which they ex- 
 pressed in the following words : " The water supply of the city 
 of Cambridofe need not be contaminated from the slaughter-house of 
 the Messrs. Niles Bros., if the directions of the state board of 
 health are thoroughly followed out ; " and on the strength of that, 
 they still hold the whole matter under advisement, under consid- 
 eration. 
 
 It has been sufi-oested, and a remark of Dr. Folsom lends some 
 support to the suggestion, that the statute of 1879, which transfers 
 the ])owers of the state board of health to the present state lioard 
 of health, lunacy and charity, does not give the present board the 
 authority which the other board had. But if the committee will 
 look at that act, statutes of 1879, chapter 291, they will find the 
 3d section to be as fallows : — 
 
 "Section 3. The board shall have all the powers and duties, and 
 may exercise all the functions, of the boards abolished by section 
 one hereof, and of all their bureaus and agents, including the agency 
 thereby abolished, except as hereinafter provided ; and said board 
 may assign any of its powers and duties to agents appointed for the 
 purpose, and may execute any of its functions by such agents, or by 
 committees from and by said board." 
 
 So that I can have no question that whatever jurisdiction the state 
 board of health had before the passage of tlie act of 1879 was by 
 that act transferred to and vested in the board of health, lunacy 
 and charity; and section 11 confirms that view: 
 
 "All laws applying to the boards, bureaus and agencies hereby 
 abolished shall apply to the board created by section 2 of this act. 
 All acts and parts of acts inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed." 
 
 So that I can have no doubt aI)out the existence of a sufficient su- 
 pervisory poAver, so far as regulation through the intervention of the 
 
14 
 
 authorities goes. Nothing would be gained, nothing would be lost, 
 and nothing would 1)e changed by annexation. 
 
 But suppose that something more is needed. Suppose that, not- 
 \yithstanding these large powers possessed by Cambridge, more 
 were necessary : they are powers of like nature to those now pos- 
 sessed, and are to be sought from the legislature. They are, if any- 
 thing, additional })Owers to take land, cross and dig up highways, 
 lay sewers, make drains, divert Mater-courses and prevent nuisances, 
 and the exercises of public rights in the pond. For the attainment 
 of all these rights, annexation is not necessary, nor is it any aid. 
 They arc all powers that are to be obtained by application to the 
 legislature, and by a grant of the right to exercise the power of 
 eminent domain, and damages are to be [)aid in case of any injury, 
 whether the land is in Cambridge or whctlicr it is in Belmont. In 
 case of any injury to private property, Cambridge must pay com- 
 pensation. 
 
 The precedents upon this whole matter are very numerous. The 
 precedents upon the other side, of taking a town, tearing it asunder, 
 and annexing a portion of it to a city, and changing its whole form 
 of government, simply l)ecause the city wishes it, and against the 
 will of the inhabitants of the town and the owners of the land, I 
 think my friends will find to bo very few. I do not know of any. 
 Bat the precedents by which to regulate the kind of legislation 
 which should be asked for and which shcjuld be granted to enable a 
 city or town to obtain or to preserve a pure water supply, are nu- 
 merous for the last ten years in this state. Suppose you want in- 
 stances of the extinguishment of the rights of boating, l)atliing and 
 cutting ice upon a pond from which you take your supply of \vater. 
 The statute of 1<S71), chap. 147, in the case of Springfield, ex- 
 tinguished the right of fishing and bathing in the water supply of 
 that city. It was not deemed necessary to annex the town in which 
 the l:d:e lay ; it was simply necessary to pass a law prohibiting 
 people from fishing and bathing therein. In 1N78, the city of New- 
 ton desired to lay a drain or main sewer through a portion of the 
 town of Watertown, in order to reach a portion of the city of Boston, 
 
15 
 
 through whose territoiy it had before that time obtained the right to 
 construct a sewer to Charles river. I will refer briefly to that act, 
 because it is an instructive act. The first section of that act 
 authorizes the city of Xewton, by its board of aldermen, to lay and 
 construct a main or connecting drain or common sewer, which shall 
 have a diameter of not less than seven feet, through a certain por- 
 tion of the town of Watertown. Section 2 authorizes the city of 
 Newton to take land and buildings. 
 
 Section 3 authorizes the city to construct such drain or sewer 
 over or under any water-course, highway, town way or other way; 
 and subsequent sections describe how the work may be done, 
 under the supervision of the Supreme Court, in case any controversy 
 arises ; directs the streets to be restored to grade ; fixes the liabili- 
 ty for damages ; provides that the town of Watertown may enter the 
 drain at any time by paying its share of the expenses of it ; pro- 
 vides for the appointment of commissioners to appropriation the ex- 
 penses betwen Newton and Watertown in case the parties fail to 
 agree. The whole thing is very simple. The legislature of 1878 
 had no difficulty about it ; it was simply a question of detail. 
 
 Then 3^ou may take for illustration the acts of 1872. All the 
 ])lue-books of recent years are full of provisions to enal)le towns or 
 cities to obtain a pure water supply. Take the acts of 1872, and 
 you will find Watertown, Newton and Brookline, in three success- 
 ive chapters, I think, or nearly so, authorized to take water from 
 Charles river. In the case of Newton, the water could be obtained 
 within its own limits; in the case of Waltham, it was authorized to 
 take either within its own limits, or within the limits of the town of 
 Weston ; and Brookline, I think, took within the limits of Newton or 
 Needham. If you look at these acts you will find that there is no dif- 
 ference in their general phraseology, whether the water is to be taken 
 within or without the limits of the town. The rights conferred upon 
 the towns are the same in all cases, and the ol)]igati(jns are the same. 
 It was never dreamed of by anybody that there was any need of 
 the annexation of territory, or of changing the political relations of 
 the people, in order to obtain a supply of pure water. 
 
16 
 
 In the same volume you .will find the cases of Wakefield and 
 Stoneham, the pond being in Wakefield. West Roxbury was 
 authorized to take water from Charles river, outside of her own 
 limits. Winchester was authorized to take water from Wedge pond, 
 I don't knoAv whether Avithin its own limits or not. Springfield was 
 authorized to take water within its own limits, or within the limits 
 of the town of Wilbraham. Lawrence from its own limits, or with- 
 in the limits of the town of ]Metliuen. I take these cases from the 
 blue-book for the year 1872, the first one I put my hand on, and we 
 know that the legislation of the last few years is full of examples of 
 this kind ; and all these examples show completely that there is an 
 entire and manifest distinction between the legislation which Cam- 
 bridge requires, if any, namely, legislation which shall enable her to 
 exercise certain powers in and over Fresh pond, and upon the 
 territory and property of individuals, and the legislation which she 
 aslis for, which is legislation which shall enable her to exercise 
 political power over the residents upon certain territory. 
 
 But the great and leading ilhistration in the whole of this matter 
 of water supply is the city of Boston itself. Just see what Boston 
 has done. It has built two conduits from Cochituate lake to Brook- 
 line ; two reservoirs — one in Brookline, and one in Brighton and 
 Newton, It has laid numerous mains through Brookline ; it has 
 built an intercepting sewer all round Chestnut hill reservoir, and a 
 100 feet roadway outside of that. It has walled in its reservoir 
 Avitli heav}^ stone walls, liacked by a puddle bank of sufficient width 
 for a coimtr}^ road, and as deep as the l)ottom of the reservoir; it 
 has l)uilt dams and storage 1)asins of great capacity in Framingham 
 to control and store the waters of Sudbury river ; connected the 
 waters of Sud'nu-y river through Farm })ond with those of Lake 
 Cochituate. and now proposes to lay a main through Cambridge to 
 supply the Mystic l)asin with pure water ; and all this without annex- 
 ing or asking to annex a foot of territory to its municipality. It is 
 true, ptu't of Biigliton has l)een annexed to the city of Boston, and 
 a small part of Xcwton, l)ut that was, not done until years after the 
 work wa-^ accomplished. 
 
17 
 
 Annexation had nothing to do with tlie water supply. Brighton, to 
 be sure, was annexed afterwards ; Brookline has not yet l)eeu annexed. 
 All tlie basins of the city are in Framingham, except one, and all of its 
 conduits and mains run through the tcrrritories of other inunici[)ali- 
 ties, without any difficulty, without any conflict, with the utmost 
 harmony of feeling, so far as I know, upon the part of the authorities 
 of the city of Boston and the authcu-ities of the various towns. 
 
 The use Boston proposes to make of the ^I\-stic basin shows 
 Avhat use Cambridge can make of Fresh pond, and what its treatment 
 of that pond shoidd be. I say the experience of Boston is valua- 
 ble, in the first place, as showing that -annexation is not necessary, 
 and it is valuable, in the second place, as showing what use can l)e 
 made of the waters of Frpsh pond. Fresh pond is soon, 
 and for most of the time hereafter, to I)C used, if at all, as a 
 reservoir for the storage, rather than as a source of suppl}", of water ; 
 and in this 1 think Professor Wood substantially agrees with me, 
 because he evidently has had his mind upon it ; and all the experts 
 who have looked upon this question are of opini(m that as a source 
 of water sup]:)ly Fresh pond cannot long be relied upon. It must be 
 treated, I say, as a reservoir, protected from the influx of all surface 
 water, and of nil water flow^ing throuizh brooks which receive the 
 drainage of the territories through which they flow, whether those 
 territories are within the municipal limits of Watertown, Waltham, 
 Belmont, Arlino;ton, or Cambridge itself. It must be cleaned out 
 and walled in, and a drain constructed around it to intercept and 
 carry ofi' all surface water and brook water. 
 
 It may be said that this will reduce the supply of water in Fresh 
 pond. Undoubtedly it will, but the authorities of the city of Cam- 
 bridge concede that they cannot take the supply which they relied 
 upon from Little pond and Wellington brook. It is very certain 
 that they cannot take a supply from the little rivulets that you have 
 seen, some of you, to-day, that flow in around the pond, and carry 
 in the filth from the pig-styes, drains and privies in the vicinity. 
 They cannot rely upon it ; they can use Fresh pond as a source for 
 what it is able to supply, and be\ond that it may be used as a 
 
18 
 
 reservoir. They may then be furnished with a supply of pure water 
 from any suitable source. The cheapest and easiest to obtain would 
 be that suggested by Mr. Chesbrough, by contract with the city of 
 Boston. If at any time it should be feared that it had become an 
 improper reservoir, on account of what might percolate into the 
 pond, then it would have to be abandoned. 
 
 But I hold that Fresh pond bears the same relation to Camlu'idge 
 that the Chestuut-hill reservoir I)ears to the city of Boston, and 
 both should l}e treated as storage reservoirs. It makes no difference 
 that a large quantity of water, in the case of Fresh pond, comes 
 from springs in the bottom, that is, through percolation, if you please, 
 while all the water in the Cliestnut-hill basin is brought down by a 
 conduit. My belief is, that the pui'ity of the water of Fresh Pond 
 is due to the fact that it comes from a long distance ; through under- 
 ground lines of communication, to be sure, but still from a long dis- 
 tance. For, if you take the result of the analyses as given by the 
 witnesses, it aj)pears that there is no water so pure, that analyzes so 
 well as the water of Fresh [)ond, nearer than the source of FiH)st 
 brook which is at the top, as I understand it, of Arlington Heights. 
 Now the distance from which Fresh pond is fed, nobody can by [)os- 
 sibility tell. "Per(;olation" is a term used to define the passage of 
 water through soil ; but the law governing the passage of the water of 
 percolation is the same law wliich governs the passage of any other 
 water, where it is perfectly free to move in two directions. The law 
 is that water will seek its level. Water in the soil and water in a 
 pond will seek the level. There will be a difterence, if the water in 
 the soil tends towards a pond, owing to the resistance offered by the 
 character of the soil. But suppose the soil to be perfectly porous 
 to water, then* water will stand at the same level in the pond and in 
 the soil, in all probability. But 3'ou may go further; the general 
 law in regard to the pressure of water is, that the pressure is equal 
 to the height of the column of water. That is to say, it makes no 
 dilference whether the column of water is a foot in superficial area 
 or only a sixteenth part of an incli. The [)ressure of a column the 
 
19 
 
 sixteenth part of au inch is just as strong as the pressure of a col- 
 umn a foot in area. It is height and height alone that determines it. 
 
 Now the question where the water of Fresh pond comes from could 
 only be determined, if we could know, for miles and miles around 
 the pond, the sources of water and the freedom of communication 
 between those sources and the bottom of this pond, for, otherwise, 
 we have no data from which to arrive at a conclusion. I have no 
 idea that any amount of water percolates into this pond from these 
 meadows, not the slightest. It may be that some gets in through 
 the gravelly formations about the pond ; but if it does, it comes in 
 from the remote parts of Belmont, away beyond this territory that 
 they propose to annex, and so the danger to water from the perco- 
 lation from land can never be wholly guarded against. Annexation 
 would, of course, have no effect upon it. The water would run the 
 same after annexation as l^efore. A particular ascertained source of 
 pollution could he abated before annexation as well as after ; there is 
 law enough for it now. No such source of pollution can exist to-day 
 in any part of this commonwealth, if the authorities charged with the 
 protection of the water supply use proper diligence in protecting it. 
 I will say here, in passing, that I am surprised at the want of dili- 
 gence on the part of the Cambridge authorities in regard to the 
 sources of pollution within their own territory. They made a scape- 
 goat of the Niles Brothers' slaughter-house, and although a year has 
 elapsed since the lioard of health failed to find in it any serious 
 ground of apprehension, yet the city authorities still direct their 
 whole energies and complaints against it, and pass over the crA'ing 
 evils within their own border. 
 
 The mention of percolation leads me to say that the annexation 
 asked for has no i-elation to the territory from which there may arise 
 danger to the purity of the pond, if from anywhere, through perco- 
 lation. 
 
 It is in testimony that the whole area of Belmont (and they might 
 have added the whole of the territoiy of Arlington, and the whole or 
 a great [)ortion of the territory of Watertown and Waltham) is 
 highly cultivated garden land, manured by great quantities of night- 
 
20 
 
 soil; the very thing which, nccordiiig to the testimony, contains most 
 certainly the germs of disease. Those teirilorics are all high, and 
 during !i certain portion of the 3'ear the drainage of those territories 
 runs into Wellington brook and other hrooks above Fi'esh pond, and 
 the surface water may more or less flow into the pond itself. The 
 remedy for that, I should say, is to construct an intercepting drain 
 around the pond. Portions of the water must sink into the ground, 
 and, Ijeing at a higher level, it would by the force of gravity tend 
 downward to seek the lowest level which enn be found, and that 
 lowest level will be the pond and the mejidows around the pond : for 
 I agree that the meadows around the pond are, in a certain sense, to 
 be treated as subject to the same influences. I have no doubt th:tt 
 the water level in the meadows nnd the water level in the pond re- 
 spond at the same time to a rainfall, l)ut they do not respond to any 
 mutual action between each other ; they respond to a similar eff'ect 
 exerted upon them by the rainfall t)ver a similar territory, and while 
 some of the water of percolation from the high lands of Arlington, 
 Belmont and \A"altham alfects the levels of the pond and raises it to 
 an appreciable extent, other water of percolation nffects the water 
 levels in the soil of the meadows and raises those an appre- 
 ciable extent. The evidence of that is perfectly conclusive, — there 
 is no conflicting testimony. Mr. Elliot may be sneered at by my 
 friends on the other side :uid by the Cambridge newspapers as much 
 as they please, but INIr. Elliot showed a clear comprehension and 
 knowledge of his subject ; and that there might be no mistake, he 
 took his data and facts from the very minutes furnished us by the city 
 of Cambridge itself. And ho found this, that while he conceded that 
 in the neighborhood of Black's nook, the levels of the wells sunk in 
 the soil would show that, for a short distance, there was a tendency 
 of the water towards the pond, yet he is no less satisfied that when 
 you got to the meadows and took the levels through the meadows, 
 and down towards Mystic river, everywhere the water stood lower 
 as you receded from the i)ond ; and the very water-line given in this 
 book, amplified by the soundings kindly furnished by Mr. Barbour 
 at m\- request, shows that, while the water in the pond was 
 
21 
 
 pumped down and lowered from day to day, the water in Alewife 
 brook was stationary during the same time. No better proof can 
 possibly be given that there was no percolation from the meadows 
 towards the pond, because the level of the brook would fall with the 
 level of the pond water, if the two were in free comniunication. 
 The inference is irresistible that the soil betwe(>n those meadows 
 and that pond is a bed of clay, perfectly impervious to 
 water, so that the danger from the percolation of water into Fresh 
 pond does not arise from any water that falls on the meadows, or 
 percolates into the meadows, but arises from percolation through the 
 gravel and porous material which surrounds the northerly, westerly, 
 and southerly side of the pond. 
 
 I have not said anything in particular about the slaughter-house, 
 because, practically, I understand they concede that the only possi- 
 ble danger that can result from that slaughter-house will arise from 
 the "muck heap." The state board of health have furnished a 
 sufficient answer to that. The amount of drainage through that 
 hree-inch pipe leading from the slaughter-house to Alewife brook 
 is a mere bagatelle as compared with the amount deposited by the 
 three servers of Camb^;idge in the same brook. It is not worth talk- 
 ing about. All I can say about that is, that the same remedies that 
 Cambridge must adopt to preserve a pure water suppl}', namely, to 
 build a sewer for herself, will give relief to all possible dangers from 
 Belmont. She says she does not want to be put to the expense of 
 building a sewer in Belmont. They come up here, in the first place, 
 and complain of the Cushing-street district, and say that the people 
 who occupy those houses pollute their water ; and then when those 
 people come up here, unanimous against annexation, they say they 
 are willing to leave them out. That shows that annexation has 
 nothing to do with it. The real thing is, to build a sewer to take 
 the drainage of that district and carry it into the main sewer which 
 Cambridge builds, and Mr. Chesbrough says that can be done at a 
 very small expense. Now, they come here and abandon the whole 
 ground of their proceeding when they agree to leave out this people. 
 They cannot contend that drainage is any less necessary wheil" thev 
 
22 
 
 leave those people in Belmont than when they take them into Cam- 
 bridge. They must drain oS their sewage in Belmont, and they 
 would have to drain it no more and no less in Cambridge. Then 
 what is the use of annexation when it is abandoned so readily in the 
 case of this district? 
 
 I say then, if the water of Fresh pond is to be protected against 
 impurities arising from percolation, you must annex the whole of 
 Belmont; and when you have annexed it, you must do something 
 more than drain it — you must stop the cultivation of the land ; and 
 that means driving out the population ; and you cannot replace them 
 with any other population unless it is a population of people from 
 the city, who will cease to cultivate the land and adopt the modern 
 improvements in their house drainage. Then if the city of Cam- 
 bridge will build a series of drains all over the present territory ,of 
 Behiiont, they must do the same in Arlington, the same in Water- 
 town, and pol^tions of Waltham. It means, therefore, if there is 
 any h)gic in their argument, that they fear danger from percolation, 
 and that that danger is inniiinent ; it means, not annexation, but 
 depopulation, so far as the present inhabitants of the territory devoted 
 to market gardening are concerned, and there is no logic that will 
 stop short of this. 
 
 Now, I know that there is an earnest desire expressed here to do 
 something. It was originally to annex that territory shown on the 
 map. It has finally dwindled away, so that all that it is proposed 
 to take, I believe, is the property of the Hittinger estate, and the 
 property of the Niles Brothers, and a very few houses on the terri- 
 tory. Well, now, I suppose that the water board want to accomplish 
 something. They have attempted, before several legislatures, or 
 the city has on their behalf, to do something, and every attempt has 
 been met with failure. They have attempted in various ways to do 
 something to satisfy the people of Cambridge in regard to their 
 water supply, and thus far the only result has been a very great 
 expenditure from a large part of which they must, as they confess, 
 abandon all hope of benefit. I suppose that it will be a sort of 
 triumph to them, if they can accomplish this result and get some 
 
23 
 
 bill for annexation. It would l)e a personal gratification, I suppose, 
 if the}' could claim tliat tliey had brought these people, the Messrs. 
 Niles, within the jui'isdiction of the local board of the city of Cam- 
 bridge ; but I think, gentlemen, that if ever a controversy were to 
 arise in respect to that place — I trust there never will — it would 
 be a very hard tribunal for the Messrs. Niles to be subjected to, 
 when that tribunal is already committed beforehand to do away with 
 their establishment, whether it be well conducted or whether it be 
 ill. I think they have made a mistake in the legislation they ask 
 for. We were served with a notice that they proposed to come up 
 here and get leave to lay sewers in Belmont. To that we have not 
 the slightest objection. Any fsicility that the citizens of BeluKmt, 
 collectively or individually, can give the citizens of Cambridge, or 
 their water board, to lay sewers or drains, or do anything that will 
 make them feel satisfied and contented about the water of Fresh 
 pond, we sliall be ghid to have done ; but we do not feel called upon 
 to have our citizens set off to another municipality ; we do feel 
 called upon, on the other hand, to maintain our town in its integrity. 
 As I said, the reasons which generally govern in cases of annexation 
 do not exist here. The i-easons which are given for annexation 
 are not sufficient reasons for it, and the remedy which the city of 
 Camln-idge needs, to make its water reservoir what it should be, is not 
 a remedy through amiexation, but a remedy tln-ough sanitary legisla- 
 tion, and through proper power of control over Fresh pond itself. 
 
 We have said that ^\%i will appoint police officers, as many as they 
 want, to serve around the pond, and they may select them, except that 
 the selectmen of Belmont ought to have the right to know that they 
 are proper men. But we ol)ject first, last and all the time, to changing 
 our town into a city, or any portion of it. We stand here believ- 
 ing that we are one of the few towns remaining in the vicinity of 
 Boston which has preserved the character of the old Massachusetts 
 town. We have that homogeneous population which goes to town 
 meeting, where each man is equal to every other man, and each man 
 can say his say, and vote his vote, and have his will expressed regu- 
 larly, after patient investigation, and can feel that he himself is an 
 
24 
 
 inclepeiiclent citizen ; and we do not wish to change our fate, or the 
 fate of any of our people, so that they may have no right except 
 once in a year to go to some smoky ward-room and vote for a 
 caucus ticket for an alderman and member of the common council. 
 We do not believe that Cambridge will get any benefit that will be 
 at all commensurate with the loss that our people will sustain. 
 We know that our people will l)e subjected, as I have said once 
 before, to simple injury. We see no right in this thing, we see no 
 reason in it ; we see no good in it to the people of Cambridge, and 
 only harm to the people of Belmont. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, thanking you and the gentlemen of the committee 
 for your patience, I leave the matter in your hands. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 014 077 085 1 i