Yale University Library 39002005744819 YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY OPENING ARGUMENT OF HENRY P. MOULTON, ESQ. AND TESTIMONY OF PETITIONERS AND REMONSTRANTS, AND CLOSING ABGUMENT OF HON. GEORGE D. ROBINSON, BEPOEE TIE lEGISIATIVE COMMITTEE ON TOWNS, ON BEHALF OF THE TOWN OF BEVERLY •it AGAINST THE DIHSION OF THB TOWN. 1890. CONTENTS. OPENING ARGUMENT OF HENRY P. MOULTON Petitioners are not farmers at aU 2 They want one half of the valuation 8 The division a Boston scheme i Originated by a summer resident, Mr. Lothrop 5 First meeting at a summer resident's house 6 Boston gentlemen manage the public meeting 6 The public meeting announce they save $25,000 the flrst year ... 7 Committee of Boston gentlemen raise $18,000 9 Expenses of a town depend on its population 15 Public burdens in Beverly and Beverly Farms 16 WITNESSES FOR THE PETITIONERS. DANIEL ^W. HARDY,, carpenter and buUder ! .... 17 Mr. Morse pays taxes in Bourne 26 Mr. Lothrop's million discovered and removed 27 New houses, stores, factory, etc • ... 29 Knows nothing about his own tax ... 31 Sales largely in excess of valuation 31 Knows no sale but Haven's for less than assessment . . . . . 35 Expenses compared with other towns . 38 Wants $6,000 to educate 120 children 40 Has forgotten the Boston committee disclosed by the investigation . . 41 Farms Committee of Conference 42 Won't answer whether he favors Plum Cove line 44 Children in Gore would have to walk twice as far to school ... 45 Almost all sales since 1883 " exceptional sales " 60 Owners of the Gore and its two millions 51 THOMAS D. CONIfOLLiT (Contractor) 53 Opposed to any change of line 64 " Comfortably well off " in the Gore 65 " Comfortably well off" at Beverly Farms means owning half a million . 65 Mr. Loring says 89 summer residents to 26 71 THOKNTON K. LiOTHBOP (a Boston lawyer) .... 72 Mr. Lothrop's taxes. Why he removed his personal property ... 78 Immaterial whether " assessors are right or wrong " 80 These gentlemen want lower taxes 80 Tell their friends not to come there 80 Thinks nobody else wiU move personal property, though he has done so . 81 11 Thinks people cannot judge of Beverly in winter Offers his place for sale, but refuses to consider an offer Control of front land essential to Haven HUl Would not cut up land so himself Peculiar sales in Beverly Farms The house lets for $4,500 a summer .... Mr. Morse, who has removed to Bourne, spent the summer at Beverly Land still increasing in value on seashore 8486 8888 88 92 93 94 TESTIMONY FOR REMONSTRANTS. JOHN" OENTLEE (selectman of .Wenham) 96 ROBERT R. ENDICOTT (selectman of Beverly) .... 99 No ill-feeling for three years 100 Town meeting, vote 703 to 54 101 How Beverly developed the Farms 102 Spent 25 per cent of their valuation to supply the Farms with water . . 103 Value of shore lands at Farms 104 Debt extinguished in twenty years 104 Why valuations were raised 104 Opposition to horse-cars, poles, etc 105 Who originated the division movement 106 Effect of division on men with small houses, often mortgaged . . . 107 ^ Personal property lately removed and ready to come back . . . 109 Twelve times as many children to educate at Farms, 1639 to 130 . 109, 129 Roads, 47 to 13 , 109 Poor, over $10,000 to $7 109, 129 Good trading between Old Beverly and Farms ¦ 110 Permanent residents say they are heartily tired, 112 Introduced water to develop the Highlands 118 A Boston movement and Boston money 120 Personal property removed, but owners still living in Beverly . . . 121 What Mr. Lothrop has at stake 122 Chairman of Division Committee elected selectman 122 Representative ELIHU B. HATES, of Lynn .... 123 Essex has fought division successfully for thirty years .... 124 Other club towns wanted all round ... . . • . 124 Testimony of WILLIAM H. LOVETT (Town Clerk) . . 128 Branch Library — Voters at Farms 130 Public property at Farms ... 131 Town oflBcers from Farms .... 131 106 owners of Gore live in Beverly . . 131 Farms petitioners — 38 not assessed 132 New buildings at Beverly Farms since 1886 133 What has been done lately at Farms 133 Everything granted as soon as asked 133-137 Summer residents remonstrated 138 SAMUEL COLE (farmer. School Committee, Board of Engineers) . 138 Farmers live in Old Beverly, not at Farms 139 Farmers make small profits, — could not pay higher taxes .... 139 Ill Pleasant relations with Beverly Farms 140 Division line cuts twenty-three estates 141 JOHN M. MURNEY, assessor 142 $7 per poll at Farms to $1 at Beverly 145 Permanent residents' taxes, Farms and Beverly 145 Ownership at Farms 146 Ownership in the Gore 147 Personal property at Beverly Farms discovered and taxed since 1885 . 147 Over two millions removed 148-170 AppUcations for abatements at the farms in one year .... 150 How the assessments were made 152 Misstatements 154 Sales at Farms above the assessed valuation 163 Sales in Old Beverly 164 One of Mr. Connolly's misstatements corrected 167 Explanation of Mr. Hardy's statements 168-170 How summer residents differ from permanent residents ... 176 Difference between Gov. Ames's interest in Easton and that of summer residents in Beverly 179 ' Mr. Connolly's §10,000 an acre proves to be $5,235 182 Shore property on each side of line assessed same price .... 183 Valuations fixed by sales in neighborhood but not as high as fancy prices . 185 What a Beverly Farms man will pay to be near his mother-in-law . . 186 Sales at Beverly Farms all " exceptional " 186 Assessments much lower than sales 187 Sales in Beverly below the assessed valuation 191 Trusts on Beverly side carefully examined 192 Summer residents send no children to schools 195 Largest increase in 1886 on Mr. Sohier's cow pasture .... 195 Mr. Loring testified " the city folks are not assessed too high . . . 196 Mr Loring's fine-tooth comb, which had raked in every dollar at the Farms, 196 Abatements granted . • • ¦ • 199 Hon. JOHN I. BAKER 200 More school children at Farms 30 years ago ..... 200 Formerly Farms, now summer residents . . .... 200 $200,000 realized from estate costing $6,000 200 Water put in to develop the Farms causes great increase in value . . 201 A strange way to sell land 203 Would not sell for laborers' cottage 204 The vote for Farms men 206 Probate appraisals of Farms property 207 ROLAND D. GRANT (Pastor of the First Baptist Church of Beverly 219 Pleasant relations with the Farms • • ^19 Secession not the only remedy 220 How Beverly was incorporated . ... ... 220 Over one hundred towns divided by their own vote 221 Towns represented by the Committee 222 Incorporation of towns since 1840 225 Town divisions in Massachusetts with the consent of the town divided . 228 Letter to SENATOR HOAR abojit Post-offlce .235 Letters from summer residents about water .... 237 IV CLOSING ARGUMENT OF HON. GEORGE D. ROBINSON. Why do the petitioners present no case, no witnesses .... 246 Who tires the peopje? Whose fault is it? 247 Which political party wants the responsibility of Beverly Farms . . 247 The way to get Beverly out of politics 248 A good time for a commission 248 When summer residents have removed over two millions .... 249 An unfair division of territory . 250 Distance . . . .' 252 Petitioners claimed no grievances 252 Raised $40,000 more than was spent on themselves 252' 1886 summer residents led and were defeated, 131 to 78 .... 253 1887 — indignation in Essex. Investigation 253 Did poor farmers raise $20,000 to carry the bill? 254 The veto 254 1888 — def«ated again 254. 1889 — too much had been done for them 255 Mr. Loring's " fine-tooth comb " did not reach himself .... 265 1890 — No ill-feeling. Mr. Lothrop completes the circle .... 256 Summer residents began the movement, continue it, and could end it . 256 Transportation of school children — Library — Roads .... 257 Townoflacers 258 No ill-feeling 259 Valuations 259 Assessments at Farms much below sales .... . . 264 Should we relieve the wealthy by putting added burdens on poorer men . 265 Exceptional sales in an exceptional place 265 They quote assessments three years old, not those of to-day . . 267 Petitioners' admissions as to valuations 267 New houses, stores, and other buildings 268 Permanent residents pay a smaller tax to-day than in 1886 .... 268 Wish to pay $100,000 or $200,000 and be taxed on $10,000 or $13,000 . 269 No shore land sold for less than $10,000, or assessed as much as $9,000 . 269 Mr. Sohier's the only land at Farms assessed more than it cost . . . 270 Probate appraisals of Farms property sustain assessors .... 270 The County Commissioners sustained the Beverly assessors . . 271 Abatements granted 271 A strange way to sell land 272 How these gentlemen move their residence and taxes 273 The Beverly Farms picture-book 273 Misstatements by Mr. Connolly and others . . . . . . . 274 What kind of a case needs such misrepresentations and falsehoods . . 275 Sales in Old Beverly 275 Is this a fair division? 276 Expenses for poor 276 Children to educate 277 $7 per poll to $1 per poll 277 Where summer residents pay $1 , permanent residents pay less than 7 cents, 277 Absentee landlordism ... 277 V " Comfortably well off" at Beverly Farms means owning half a million . 278 Why do they want the gore? 278 Expenses in proposed town 279 Over two millions discovered and taxed ! 279 Over two millions converted or moved away 280 One man by moving saves over $7,000 a year 280 Birds of passage 280 Boston gentlemen hope to move their taxes down there . . . .281 A snug harbor 281 ERRATA. Page 26, 15th line, $12,272.95 should read $72,272.95. 37, 34th line, John E. Morse should read John T. Morse. 60, 25th Une, John I. Gardner should read John L. Gardner. 94, 18th Une, Q should come after " Mr. Schlesinger's house for $4,500." Q. " Didn't Mr. Storrow, etc." 110, 28th Une, Stockford should read Stopford. 207, 23d line, 87 should read 68. 210, 25th line, $30,500 should read $29,500. 160, 12th Une, $45,000 should read $25,000. 163, 39th line, $3,000 should read $300. 163, 41st line, 700 should read 750 — assessment 8300. 164, 165, 166. Dates at head of columns do not refer to lists below. 171, 32d Une, Jacobson should read Jackson. 195, 34th line, $400 should read $800. 185, 25th Une, Murray should read Murney. OPENING ARGUMENT OF HENRY P. MOULTON, ESQ., FOR THE REMONSTRANTS. Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen : The town of Beveily is situated on the main line and also on the Gloucester Branch of the Eastern Railroad, seventeen or eighteen iniles from Boston," and extends from Danvers on the west to Manchester on the east, and from Wenham to Salem, and to the harbor. Beverlj' is a small town, containing about 8,600 acres. It is about two thirds the average size of towns in the State. The average size is some 13,000 acres, and of the 326 towns in the State, 246 are larger than Beverly, 5 are about the same size, and 73 dre sraall,er. It w^ould be a misapprehension of the facts to believe that Beverly consists substantially of two villages. That is not the fact. It is ^ town with a number of Tillages. The largest village of Beverly ex tends from the Gloucester Railroad crossing, and consists of about flve hundred acres of territory, and has a population of some 6,000 or 6,"iOO. On the left, towards Danvers, is the village of Rial Side, a small village with its own school. Going north you come to North Beverly, which, including the adjoining settlement at Dodge's Row, has a population of some six or seven hundred. It is situated two or three miles from the principal village in the towD, and it has, as at the Farms, what are claimed to be all the. appliances of a village or of a separate municipality. They have the schoolhouses, engine house, church, etc. Then passing on towards the so-called division line you have the vil lage of CentreviUe, where there is also a school, an engine house, etc., and a population of some four or five hundred people. Following that down towards the Cove, there is a village at the Cove of 1,000 to 1,200 inhabitants ; a village where there are more school children than at the Farms. So that, leaving the largest villageof the town out of account, you have in other parts of the town, in the outlying districts, a population which by the figures which have been given this year by the petitioners is more than twice as large as the population at Beverly Farms village. I flnd that there is nothing upon which there is a greater misapprehen sion than as to the residence of the farming population of Beverly. THE PETITIONERS ARE NOT FARMERS AT ALL. The inhabitants of Beverly Farms are in favor of division. The farmers of Beverly are unanimously opposed to division. The real farming land in Beverly, beginning at the southwestern part, at Rial Side, extends up nearly through to the left of the village of North Beverly, and then across to Ci-ntreville, and from there following the road again down to the Cove. The fact that one hundred and twenty- five men own farms, and about two hundred and sixty men are engaged in farming in Beverly, and the number of farms in that part ofthe town, were given bj' Mr. Cole in his testimony of last year, which will be sub mitted to you. There are only one or two men, at most, who have, at Beverly Farms village or within the limits' of the proposed territory, anything that can fairly be called a farm. There is only one farm of even twenty acres. Beverly is situated upon the sea, and the coast line from Manchester to the bridge is some five miles in extent. The most valuable part of the seashore property is the land beyond Woodbury's Point. The peti tioners' witnesses have heretofore testified that the tide ceased to be objectionable at that point. East of that point the shore land is of much greater value than it is towards Beverly. The price of land has alwaj^s been greater. Taking the division line as it stlands represented upon the map, you see how small a proportion of this most valuable shore land would be left in Beverly in case of division. I may say that the land at Beverly Farms is the only land that of late j'ears has largely increased in value, and has been increasing in value, as we believe, substantially down to the present time. The tide leaves the lands on the Beverly side, although they are occupied by small resi dences to some extent. The land bj' Beverlj' bridge is occupied for busi- i;ess purposes. The region beyond consists of a river which runs down to a channel, and the land there is not seashore property in any sense of the word. THE DISTANCE from the Town Hall in Beverly to Marshall's Corner, which is the centre of population ofthe Farms, is 3.9 miles, as ascertained by actual meas urement, and testified to last year. The distance from the Town Hall in Beverly to Thissell's bridge, which is the bridge over the brook that is chosen as the division line, is 1.7 miles. The distance from the Town Hall in Beverly to Bald Hill, which is in CentreviUe, is three miles. There is, as I said, (juite a village there, and there are no means of communication ; that is, there is no railroad, no horse cars, from that point to Beverly, so that the means of communication between that part of Beverly and the town are much more difficult than they are from Beverly Farms, where there are two stations, one located at Pride's Cross ing, so called, and one at the Farms village. There is also communi cation as far as Beverly Cove, close to the proposed line, by horse cars. The population, the native population, of Beverly Farms, or the total population of Beverly Farms, is stated this year as about one thousand. Our figures make the population less than one thousand. We think that the facts show that there were last year only a few more than eight hun dred people at the Farms, and over eight thousand people in other parts ofthe town, and the petitioners' claim is that they are entitled to take what has heretofore been ' ONE HALF OF THE VALUATION, real and personal, ofthe town of Bfeiverly, and is a little lesi* than that this j-ear. This map that we present is in different colors, for the purpose of show ing how much in extent is owned by the different people who live in the territory of the proposed new town. It is essential to our case 'that the committee should understand what the ownership of the land at Beverly Farms is ; and we accordingly have had the map prepared with these colors for the purpose of showing, first, how much is owned by the peti tioners and by tte native residents, who are said to be the real peti tioners in this case. The blue represents the portion of territory owned by the native residents of Beverly Farms, people who live there all the ye'ar round, and are citizens. The dark red represents the property owned by the sum mer residents, people who reside in Beverly so far that they pay their personal taxes in Beverlj-, but who really reside there only during the summer. The part colored light red represents non-residents ; that is, people who have summer residences in Beverly, but do not pay their personal taxes there, and are not voters there. This map was prepared two or three years ago, and represented the state of affairs at that time. Since that time, hy the change of legal residence of some of the shore people, who now pay their personal taxes elsewhere, the amount of territory that should be of a light 'red color, should be considerably,^ increased. The part that is colored green represents the amount owned in the proposed new town by residents of Beverly ; that is, the other part of Beverly, what would be left in the old town in case of division. The permanent residents own only flye hundred and seventy- Atc acres out of a total of three thousand, or less than one fifth in ¦ 4 -extent of the whole territory of Beverly Farms. There are seven hun dred and seventeen acres owned by Beverly residents, or more than are owned by the native residents at the Farms. Of the houses at Beverly Farms, of two hundred and fifty-six houses one hundred and three belong to non-residents, and other summer resi dents. So far as valuation is concerned, and perhaps it is as striking a fact as there is in this case, the valuation, according to the figures of the present year, shows that the entire taxable property of the permanent residents at the Farms, real and personal, is only about $365,000. These men who claim to be the real petitioners own $365,000 of property, real and personal, and the balance of $5,414,900 is owned by per sons who reside in Boston and elsewhere, and have no local interest in Beverly Farms at all. So i'ar as the land between the division line and the black line that is drawn on the map is concerned, the land which has been described by Gov. Robinson as THE GORE, there are perhaps two hundred acres of the most valuable land there that are owned entirely by wealthy Boston men. There are but very few resident property owners in the Gore at all, and of those, there is not one, so far as I know, although I have not examined the petition care fully this year, who are petitioners. - Every year there have been remon strants from that part of the town. The committee will see that this property is nearer to Beverly than it is to the village of Beverly ^arms, so that school children, for instance, will have to g^ two miles to the schoolhouse at the Farms, instead of going three quarters of a mile to the schoolhouse at the Cove. If you should draw a line, coming out of Mr. Haven's place, up and down the map, a north and south line would, as you see bythe coloring on the map, place the whole village of Beverly Farms and about nine tenths, of the petitioners on the eastern side of that line. It is not my purpose to present any arguments in this case, but to state the facts, and our claim is : this matter of the division of Beverly is A BOSTON SCHEME; that it was got up by Boston men ; that it was backed by Boston money for the benefit of Boston capitalists ; and I must ask you to permit rae to go over the facts in relation to the origin of this petition, although it involves repetition which, to a large extent, is unavoidable in this -case. The village of Beverly Farms, I may say, had not, up to 1885, in creased in population. You will find in the testimony of Mr. a! N €lark, testimony in regard to that fact. The population was no larger in 1885 than it had been for twenty-five or thirty years previously. There was no special business there. The only shoe factory that is there now had not been located at that time, so that there was no demand from the growth of the village, or from any business interests there, for a separation from the town. There had never been anj- feeling or want of harmony between the -two sections of Beverly, — that is not claimed by the petitioners. I believe it to be a fact, that if two months before the month of Septem ber, 1885, the question of the division of Beverly had been- submitted to , a vote of the people of Beverly Farms, the majority against division would have been large. Something occurre.l in that year 1885, and particularly in the fall of the 3'ear, to change the sentiment of Beverly Farms people in regard to division, and we desire lo show you what it is. In April, 1885, the street railroad company petitioned the selectmen for leave to lay tracks to Beverly Cove. The track was not going to the Farms at all, but to the Cove ; and it actually, as located, stopped a little on the Beverly side of Thissell's bridge, which they had chosen for their division line. At once there was an objection on the part of people of Beverly Farms. Mr. Thornton K. Lothrop, a summer resident, on the 15th of April wrote a letter to a Beverly newspaper in opposition to the location of the horse railroad track, and said that the proposition was then to go to the Cove, but that it was the " entering wedge to go to the Farms," that it was a " menace to the Farms," and suggested thb,t a division of the town at a point somewhere at or near Chapman's Corner, substantially where the petitioners now place it, would be the best solution of the -\< rly Farms, which was put forward as the only committee. on division. Leaving the origin of this movement and the prosecution of it for the present, I desire to sa}^ a few words to the committee upon the ques tion of TAXATION. It was said by Mr. Williams in bis Opening yesterday that the increase in the valuation of Beverly Farms from 1870 to 1885 has been from $800,000 to between four and five millions, and that we are told was a natural and normal increase. That, you see, gentlemen, upon that statement, was an increase of more than fivefold. They admit that Beverly Farms was worth flve times as much in 1885 as it was in 1870. A Board of Assessors would have to change their ideas of the valuation of land quite often during those fifteen years, upon their own statement of this case, if they proposed to keep pace with the rise in values there. The circumstances of this case in this respect, and of ta:xation, are peculiar. Here was a constant rise going on all the lime, and a very large rise. At the division heaiing early in 1886, the tacts in relation to the price that real estate was bringing at Beverly Farms was brought out from the testimony mainly of Mr. Augustus P. Loring. The people of Beverly and the assessors of Beverly had no accurate knowledge up to that time ofthe price that land was bringing at Beverly Farms. The transactions were in Boston. With the exception of one or two deeds, the records at the registry show that the transfer was ' ' in consideration of one dol lar and other valuable considerations." But Mr. Loring came here, and upon cross examination he was asked as to the price that land brought, 10 and gave a number of recent sales, sales which were recent then, to the astonishment, I think, of the assessors, who were present in the room and heard the testimony. It appeared from his testimony and from facts that were substantially learned, that land at Beverly Farms had not been taxed in 1885 at more than one third of its value as estab lished by the actual sales that had taken place. Land in Beverly generally was taxed at abont what it would bring, and about what it did bring at actual sales, it always has been and it is now, and I think we shall have no difficulty in proving that fact to you. The assessors of Beverly said, not that they were going to tax for the "purposes of revenge," but they said that there was no reason why, if land brought a certain price down at Beverly Farms, that price should not be in some measure a guide to their assessment of the value of the land, just as a similar rule was applied when they taxed the shoemaker's cottage in the main part of the town. A table has been prepared that has been submitted in evidence twice. It contains all the sales of which we have any information, and we have constantly called upon the petitioners to give us information if we were wrong. BEVERLY FARMS. SHORE LAND. (1880 to 1889.) Date of Assessed 'PricBB Purcha Be. 1885. 1887. Paid. 1882. Wm. Powell Mason, land and buildings $41,000 $62,400 $80,000 1880. Alexander Cochrane . 15,000 19,600 30,000 1882. Emily D. Tyson 14,000 34.850 55,000 1882. Stephen G. Wheatland 13,250 20,700 25,000 1883. Reginald H. Fitz .... 22,600 40,000 45,000 1883. Eugene V. B. Thayer .... 17,000 38,650 70,000 1884. Henry P. Kidder . ' . 30,000 66,100 120,000 1882. Andrew C. Wheelwright 19,100 30,500 45,000 1885. Mrs. Whitman and Miss Perkins 32,850 39,000 75,000 1885. Thomas Gaffleld and Martin Brimmer 4,300 7,975 24,041 1886. Thornton K. Lothrop 15,800 25,375 35,000 Franklin Haven (Miller Hill Lot) 1,700 6,000 6,000 Franklin Haven (Haskell Street Lot) 600 1,000 1,000 $227,200 $392,150 $611,041 It will be seen that these shore lands, for which $611.04 had actually been paid, were only taxed for $227,200 in 1885, and after the terrible increase, of which you hear so much, are only taxed now $892,150. 11 It is not taxed to-day at two thirds the price that was actually paid for it, and in 1885 had only been assessed at about one third. Complaint is made this year that the lots in the village are taxed too much, and you have heard some figures read in relation to that, which I will not comment upon now. I say, in regard to those sales, that we have taken all the means that we could to "find out every sale that has been made of village lands, from 1880 to 1889. The result of those are that the prices paid for village lots at the Farms have been $45,153; the valuation in 1885 was $12,000 of the same land ; and the valuation in 1887 Was $29,847, showing even a greater difference between the assessment and the actaal price paid in the case of village lotjs at Beverly Farms, than even in the shore lots to which I called your attention before. I VILLAGE LOTS. (1880 to 1889.) Valuations. Prices 1885. 1887. Paid. 1887. James J. O'Brien. . . . . $1,150 $1,450 $2,200 1885. C. E. Hubbard . 6,000 15,950 20,000 1887. Abigail Young 150 300 425 1887. Abigail Young . 100 150 325 1887. Town of Beverly 1,500 4.350 4,691 1881. Ellen Vaughn 800' 800 1,850 1881. Caroline E. Lovering 800 925 1,850 1886. Sarah L. Ober 1,600 2,972 8,000 1887. W. C. Loring 550 2,600 5,000 1884. S. A. Fogg . 150 350 812 $12,700 $29,847 $45,153 There were two or three hill lots, as they are called, lots back from the shore. The prices paid were $57,140. The valuation in 1885 was $21,138 ; and the valuation in 1887 was $43,566, and that includes the Bisson lot that Mr. Connelly testified to this morning. HILL AND WOOD LOTS, BEVERLY FARMS. Valuations. 1885. 1887. B. W. Gurney .... Mrs. Cabot (on f| of the whole) Bisson (wood lot) $io;5oo 9,388 1,250 $17,900 20,626 5,040 Prices Paid. $22,500 32,000 2,640 $21,138 $43,566 $57,140 Totals Of all above $262,038 $460,563 $713,336 There has not been a piece of land upon the^Beverly shore, suitable for a residence, sold at Beverly Farms within the last twelve years, for less than 12 TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS AN ACRE. There is no land at Beverly Farms, — the highest valuation, that is put upon any is less than nine thousand dollars an acre. It is said that we discriminate, and that as soon as you got on the Beverly side of the division line the valuation is lower ; in the language of Mr.' Williams, the assessors have ratified the division line. I desire now, as we always have desired, that if there are any sales at the Cove that' sub stantiate any such claim as that, that those sales shall be produced, and shall be put in evidence in this case. We have got all the transaction^ that we know, in relation to sales at the Cove on the Beverly side of the division line, and the result of all of them, which I will give you in detail, is that they were assessed in 1887, at $116,475, and that the prices paid were $114,350 ; or on the Beverly side of the line upon the sales that had been made at the Cove on the Beverly side, the valuation was $2,000 more than the actual pjice paid, instead of being over 3,001) less, as was the case at the Farms. OLD BEVERLY. SHORE LAND (COVE). (1880 to 1889.) Assessed. Prices 1885. 1887. Paid. 1880. H. W. Peabody ... $12,000 $15,700 $10,750 1880. A. A. Lawrence 13,500 15,600 8,100 1883. William Hobbs 9,000 9,000 6,000 1885. W. 0. Grover 12,000 14,000 11,000 1884. , C. Almy in Burgess estate, 4,400 4,500 1880. C. Torrey 7,000 7,500 6,000 1881. J. W. LeTavour 15,000 18,300 20,000 1883. W. D. Pickman . 22,800 24,475 40,000 J.886. W. Sohier . in Burgess estate, 7,500 8,000 $116,475 $114,350 VILLAGE LOTS. (1886 to 1889.) Assessed. Prices Paid. 4 sales. North Beverlj T . $7,850 $7,500 10 sales, Beverly Centr e 28,075 28,610 3 sales, Beverly Centr e 4,700 4,810 6 sales. North Beverlj T 5,075 4,800 2 sales, Bisson 3,800 4,720 Totals from 25 sales 3149,500 $50,440 Totals of all above ¦ I ¦ I ¦ $165,975 $164,790 13 There have been a few sales at the Farms this year, within a year in this time of depression, when it is said nobody is able to live, and there is no remedy but division. Every sale, — there have been half a dozen sales, more or less, at the Beverly Farms within the last year, every sale, except Mr. Haven's sale, has been at a higher price than the assessed valuation of the property . During all those years, from 188.T to the present time, there has not been one sale, and there has never been a claim of a sale, at Beverly Farms at less than the assessed valuation, excepting the sale that has been referred to as Mr. Haven's sale, in the spring of 1889., Mr. Haven had a quarrel with the town of Bevprly, the merits of which it is not profitable to go into here. It is sufficient to say that he owned the largest and finest estate on the coast, an estate that has half a niile of beach frontage, that has 'shore land that is the most valuable at the Farms, and hill land which h6 has sold at the rate of seven or eight thousand dollars an acre. He applied two years ago to the county com missioners of Essex County for an abatement of his tax. After hearing fuUy his case, the COMMISSIONERS REFUSED TO ABATE THE TAX. Then Mr. Haven published the advertisement which I desired the gen tlemen upon the other side to prodlice yesterdaj^. It was an advertise ment made not in good faith for the purpose of selling the property, but for the purpose of lowering the valuations, or of getting even with the assessors and with the town. He did not describe the property in his advertisement at all ; he merely said it was located at Beverly Farms, and he said it would be sold — this was not an auction sale, you will remem ber — atone half the assessors' valuation, thereby calling the attention of every purchaser to the fact that it was a matter of dispute between him and the assessors as to how much that property should be valued at. Mr. Lothrop, by the way, advertised his property at the assessors' valuation at the same time, but when means were taken to purchase the property at the price at which Mr. Lothiop offered it, Mr. Lothrop gave an excuse that he had given some one the refusal of a lease for several years, and that the propertj' was not for sale. Nobody paid any attention to Mr. Haven's advertisement, as he prob ably expected, and so in the spring, in April, he advertises what is called the Ludden lot for sale, and also his hill land, consisting of twenty-four acres. The property was advertised four or flve days before the auction, and that is all. No notice wassent to anybody who would be likely to he a customer; the poster was dated six days before the sale ; no one in Beverly knew anything about it until three or four days before the sale. 14 Every sale that had taken place around there had brought a much higher price than the amount that this property was valued at by the assessors of Beverly. Property had been sold in the vicinity — property ¦ right across the street — that could be compared with this property, at a much higher price than the land was assessed. The auctioneer came there, and instead of talking about the property, began to talk about the assessment. There were very few people there, and it was not intended that there should be anybody there, and it was bought finally by Mr. Sohier at $9,000, which was less than the assessed valuation. That is the only sale which they have had at Beverly Farms where the price has been less than the assessed valuation. In regard to what took place at the hill lot : Right alongside of the twenty-four acres of hill property that Mr. Haven advertised for sale, he had sold, two or three years before, sixteen acres for $120,000 to Mr. Henry P. Kidder, of Boston, exactly the same kind of land, with no buildings upon it at all. This hill land is situated back from the beach that I have spoken of an eighth of a mile, perhaps. It is a ¦vVooded hill, and overlooks the sea, and there is quite a long tract of marsh land between the hill and the sea. It has been said by witnesses in favor of Mr. Haven and in favor of division, that that kind of prop erty is worthless, and will bring nothing in the market, unless the pur chaser can have a right to the beach, and can control the shore in front. Nobody would buy it, with another owner in front putting up any kind of a structure obstructing their view. Mr. Haven's hill was offered without that approach to the sea, and without any interest or control in the marsh land, which constituted its main value. Wlibn Mr. Haven was asked, and when the auctioneer was asked, who was talking about taxation instead of about the sale of the land, if any right to the sea would be sold, or if the marsh would bp sold with it, the inquirer was informed that neither would be sold, and that wi hill would be sold by itself. Nobody wanted to buy at Mr. Haven's sale under those circumstances. It was not supposed that any one would buy. It was a bogus sale, it was a sham sale. It was intended only as an argument for divisioii and a reduction of Mr. Franklin Haven's tax, and there was ncjthing bona Jide about it. This is the only case for five years in which they claim that the assessors' judgment has not been fully justifit d by the actual sales that have taken place. I will give now the sales that I referred to a moment ago as having taken place within a year : — Solomon Woodbury to Mr. William ilndicott, Jr., April 18 1889 for $15,000, or nearly twice the assessors' yaluation. 15 A lot on the corner of High and Haskell Streets, a village lot, was bought within a year by Mr. Augustus P. Loring, who bought of Ellen M. Story, and paid $200 more than the assessed valuation. The King property was three or four acres, and largely low land ; it was sold to Mr. Gardner for $10,000, nearly double its valuation. The Pope sale to Mr. Pierce, in 1889, on Hart Street, was one acre for $300, which was in excess of the valuation. The sale of the Clough stable to Dane, that is on Vine Street, right in the centre, at the station in Beverlj^ Farms, that was 8,500 feet, for $1,400 and a stable. The valuation was very much less. For the shoe factory lot, in the same locality, within a year or so, about a year, $806 was paid for 6,700 feet of land. A single word in opening, as to the condition of Beverly, in the event of division. This is what my friends upon the other side call '• whin ing." The total valuation of Beverly this year is $13,607,976 ; the Farms, $5,891,200 ; that would leave in the old town of Beverly a val uation of $7,716,675. That, my friend says, would leave Beverly " one of the wealthiest towns in the State." But it does not make any difference how much the aggregate propertj' in a town is. THE EXPENSES OF A TOWN DEPEND ON ITS POPULATION, andif that property is to be divided among a large number of people, the result of that division will show whether the town is really left wealthy or not. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts the average amount of wealth per poll is $3,510. There would be left in the town of Beverly 2,546 polls. Dividing up the amount of property in Beverly by the amount of polls, you would get left in the town of Beverly $3,030, or $480 to the poll les§ than the average of towns throughout the Commonwealth. On the other hand, instead of $3,510 a poll, which is the average in Massachusetts, Beverly Farms would have $21,900. This would be more than seven times as much as there would be in Beverly. Our argument, based upon the figures of last year, which would have to be varied a little this year, is that as an inevitable result of these fig ures the tax rate in Beverly would go up to about $20 on $1,000, and the tax rate at Beverly Farms the fii'st year would be some $9 on $1,000. Mr. Gentlee, who has appeared in former years, is here representing the town of Wenham, and will make a statement of facts in regard to it. Wenham is one of the smallest towns in the State. I want to introduce, before we get through the hearing, a map of Essex County, showing the opposition and relative size of these towns. In Wenham there is a. total 16 of about four thousand acres, of which they propose to take four hun dred and sixteen acres. There is no complaint against the people of western Wenham, of the men, or the town. The feeling of the town has been pretty unanimous against division. A remonstrance, signed by one hundred and twenty-nine citizens of Wenham, was put in the House yesterday. There seems to be no good reason assigned for invading this town of Wenham and taking a portion of it and annexing it to their town of Beverly Farms. So far as convenience is concerned, the school children, perhaps, would be most directly affected ; and while it might be somewhat nearer for the school children in Beverly Farms, in the north ern part of Hart Street, to go to the school in East Wenham, on the other hand, you take the northern part of CentreviUe, up in the Gore there, the children would have to go a mile and a half to school instead Of going a much shorter distance to the school at CentreviUe. PUBUC BURDENS IN BEVERLY AND BEVERLY FARMS. OLD BEVERLY. FAKMS. Roads to keep in order .... 47 13 Children to educate ...... 1 ,639 130 Expenses- for poor $10,266 $7 TESTIMOIiTY FOR THE PETITIONERS. TESTIMONY OF DANIEL W. HARDY. Q. Are you chairman ofthe Division Committee? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long have you resided at Beverly Farms? A. Twenty-three years. Q. What is your business, please? A. Carpenter and builder. Q. You have spent all your time there during the twenty-three years ? A. Largelj' all. Q. Ha\eyou any other business beside that of carpenter and builder? A. I am interested in the store business with my son. Q. General store ? A. General store. Q. You are acquainted with most ofthe people there, are you not? A. I am. Q. Will you please state to the committee what, as you understand and as you believe, is the feeling ofthe Beverly Farms people with refer ence to this petition, at the present time? A. I should say the people of Beverly Farms, if possible, were more earnest in the division movement, and in favor of the incorporation of the town and local self-government' for Beverly E^arms than they have •ever been before. Q. And have they always been nearly unanimous? A. They have always been nearlj' unanimously, but I think they feel a deeper interest as years go on, from the fact that there has been such a long cessation of business, tliere has been no growth for the last three or four years, and I suppose that is one reason. On the other hand, they do not like the methods their opponents have pursued in this con test ; that causes probably a good man}" unpleasant feelings, and there fore, they feel that they have got into this, and there is no other way out •of it except to push it and carry it through. Q. What is the condition of business there? A. Business is at a standstill, virtually ; there is but little business at the present time. Q. How about building ? A. There is no building ; there has not been any building of any account, for the past four years, I should say. Q. In reference to the employment of the people : are they generally employed? A. They are not generally employed at the present time ; quite a number of them have been obliged to move away from the place, working people, to find work. 18 Q. And how is the population? A. The population has decreased somewhat. There are quite a number of families who have been obliged to move away, and others probably wiU follow, unless some change should come over the place. Q. Now, with reference to this matter of taxation, what is the feeling of the people as to that, so far as you can understand it and express it? A. They feel that it is unjust, from the fact that previous to 1886 Beverly Farms was having quite a healthy growth. Between the years 1875 and 1885 there were some ;flfty houses of permanent residents erected, and about an equal number of what we call shore residences, making nearly one hundred houses, and since that time there have been but a very few. Q. Now, with reference to this taxation. ' A. In 1885 we applied for a separation of the town. In 1886 our valuation was increased, and in Beverly Farms, withont any particular growth in the year, the valuation was marked up over two millions of dollars, something like $2,600,000, I think. There had been no growth at that time of any particular amount. Q. Where does this increased valuation rest? does it rest wholly upon the shore property? A. It rests largelj^ upon the shore property, but not wholly. The native residents, the village people, were also in creased in the neigborhood of one hundred per cent on the real estate. The assessors commenced upon the line, and as they came over, came into Beverly Farms territory, they began increasing all the way from flfty to one hundred per cent, — I &m speaking now of the village prop erty, — and, going west, on the Beverly side of the line, there was no increase whatever on the village property. In some exceptional cases there may have been a slight rise. Q. When you say there was an increase of from fifty to one hundred per cent, what do you mean bj'that? — that every man's property was raised? or what do you mean? A. Nearly every one was raised. Perhaps I can show it better by referring to this paper. I took these figures from the valuation books of 1885 and 1886, which are the only valuation books we have. Mr. Williams. Mr. Connolly, will you please indicate on the map the location of the properties Mr. Hardy refers to ? The Witness. This is all village property, and I have simply taken the land. In some cases the person named will own, perhaps, a little house lot, and then he will own a wood lot, and I have put all this land together, simply noting the rise. Here is N. P. Allen, $.100 ; his re mained the same in 1885 and 1886. William Batchelder in 1885 was assessed' $600, and in 1886, $900. Q. The same property? A. The same property. For a wonder, the 19 next one I come to, Benjamin F. Bennett, was assessed in 1885 at $1,300, and in 1886 at $950, or $350 less than in 1885. The reason for this is, he told me he signed the re.nonstrance and didn't sign the petition, and therefore his taxes were reduced. The next pne is James G. Bennett, $300, and $600, simply a house lot; Henry Blanchard, $200, and $200, remains the same ; John Brady, in 1885, $700, and in 1886, $2,300, the same land. Q. How much land was there there, about ? A. Perhaps there wei[e two or three acres. John' Burchested, $1,500; in 1886, $2,000; Patrick Cannon, ©200, in 1886, $300 ; James E. Cole, $300 in 18»5, and $550 in 1886 ; S. F. Callimore, $200, $300 ; Connolly Brothers, $1,150, $2,000 ; A. J. Crowell, $1,300, $2,200 ; Otis N. Davis, $300, $400 ; I. S. Day, -$500, $575 ; James Dow, $1,000, $3,150 ; James E. Dow, $6u0, $1,000 •„ Dow & Larcom, $400, $1,400. Q. What was that property ? A . It is a piepe of property with a greenhouse upon the land. Q. You are giving only the values of the land? A. The values ofthe land, all of these are valuations of the land, and nothing else. Thomas Elliott, 88,970 in 188-5 and $24,500 in 1886; Samuel Fogg, $150, $350; Thomas W. Hannible, $100, $125;, Alvin Haskell, $2,0.=>0, $5,000. Q. What is the character of that property ? A. This included a house lot, perhnps, of an acre, a piece of low land of abrut two a,cres and a half, and I thjnk, perhaps, there are two or three other pieces of wood land back in the woods ; I don't know just where it is, but there, are three or four pieces of land, and I have put them all together and taken the rise on the whole. Andrew Haskell, $550, $1,150 ; Joseph F. Has kell, $400 each year ; Paul N. Haskell, $200, $425 ; Eli R. Hodgkins, $375, $575; William Hull, 8350, $500 ; Abigail Larcom, $1,275, .$1,800 ; Edmund Larcom, $900, $1,125 ; Heirs of Francis Larcom, $1,000', $3,400 ; George T. Larcom, $4,550, $13,870. . Q: What is the character of that pioperty? A. I think about three acres of it is his homestead ; a part of it is high land, and a portion of it is a meadow. Q: What you have given is in different locations? A. Yes, sir, it is in different locations. There is his homestead, per haps, of three acres, and a house lot on West Street, and the balance, I think, is woodland. Q. Do you remember about what the increase was on the house lot itself? A. The increase was largely on the house lot, I think. Q. Do you rememher what it was? A. I do not. Mr. Robinson. Will you state George T. Larcom's again, and see if you have given that as you want to give it? i 20 A. $4,550 in 1885, and $13,870 in 1886. Q. Does that include the' house on the land? A. No, sir; there are no houses included in these flgures at all. J. H. Larcom, $700, $2,000. Mr. Williams. What is that? A. That is his house lot; he has a ,house lot and garden ; I should say there was an acre in the homestead lot, and then he has one or two wood lots, little wood lots, small pieces. Stephen Larcom, $400, $1,200 ; Daniel Linnehan, $3,900, $7,500 ; Jerry Linnehan, $150, $350 ; Caroline Lovering, $800, 8675 ; A. O. Maishall, $1,400, $3,000 ; Heirs of T. J. Marshall, $2,800, $4,725 ; E. H. Ober, $750, $1,025; Elizabeth Ober, $1,800, $3,900; G. F. Ober, $350, $1,000; Isaac Ober, $1,350, $1,475; Heirs of Jas. E. Ober, $700, $1,000; MaryL. Ober, $500, $925; Paul H. Ober, $1,650, $3,600; Heirs of Samuel Ober, $3,900, $8,900 ; Heirs of W. E. Parrey, $2,000, $3,000; George Pierce, $500, $700; T. L. Pierce, $200, $400; Benja min Preston, $1,300, $1,375; C. F. Preston, $2,550, $5,525; Heirs of Jas. K. Pre-ton, $8,500, 81,950; W. H. Preston, $250, $650;^Elisha Pride, $2,450, $6,600; Sally Pride, $800, $2,500'; Louisa Rodgers, $200, $300; Isaac Smith, $2,500, $2,850; J. W. Smith, $200, $425; Rebecca Smith, 1650, $900; Timothy M. Standley, $1,750, $3,700; Heirs of Abraham Trout, $2,450, $9,200; John H. Watson, $750, $1,(100; L. Watson, $1,800, $2,450; Adeline Williams, $1,600, $3,325;' John H. Woodbury, $1,850, $3,275 ; George H, Younger, $100, $325... That is all I have taken. Q. How is it with your own, was your own increased? A. No, my own was not increased, — in fact, I never have looked to see. I don't think it has been changed. About that time I was making .; changes, and building. Q. Take those you have given, — they are all your neighbors and village people, are they ? A. Yes, sir. i ,Q. And does not take in the shore propeity? A. Does uot take in any shore property at all. Q. What is the feeling on the part of the people there with reference to this taxation, do they feel it is just? A. They feel it is unjust. There was nothing to warrant the raise in the valuation, and it was a death blow to the place, — in fact, no' one would go there. Q. Now, then, as I understand you, they are quite iu favor of division there? A. Most decidedly they are. Q. Just a word as to recent sales, whether thei-e have been any sales of property there ? A.I don't know ; there have been no sales, no recent sales ; I think the last sale was the sale of Mr. Haven's, which was in April, I think last April. Q. What did that consist of ? A. That consisted of eight acres of 21 village property, — 1 call it village property : it is right in the centre of the village, what I would call the centre. Q. Right in front of your house, isn't it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know what that was assessed for ? A. Il was assessed in 1886 for $18,000; since then I think the assessment was reduced to $13,000 ; I think last year the assessment was $13,000. Q. And it was sold, you say, last April, at public auction? A. Public auction, yes, sir. Q. And what did it bring at that time? A. It brought $9,000. Q. Do you happen to remember the purchaser? A. Mr. Sohier was the purchaser. Q. This Mr. Sohier, —W. D. Sohier? A. I think it was his father. Q. At that time was there an^^ other property sold by Mr. Haven, or offered for sale? A. There were twenty-five acres of hill land, which was offered for sale at the same time. Q. Do you know what that was assessed for? A. It was assessed for $104,000, 1 believe. Q. What did it bring, or what were the facts about it? A. There was an offer — there were two bids, one of 25, and one of $30,0uO ; :i30,000 was the highest bid, — tl(e highest offer. CJ. And what did the auctioneer offer to sell it for? A. He said he would start it at $45,000 ; if he could get that he would start the sale, and otherwise he would withdraw the sale. / Q. And did he make any other statement than that, did he drop below $45,000? A. I don't think he did; I think $^5,000 was the lowest. ' Q. And, at that time, you say, the highest offer was $10,000? A, Yes, sir. Q. Do you know whether that property had been in the market for some time? A. The village property, the eight acres, had been in the ¦ market for a number of 3'ears ; I don't know about the hill lot. Q. Hadn't it been advertised for fifty per cent less than its assessed value? A. It had been in the market-, it had been advertised for a year or more. Q. And when it was advertised, do you remember what the terms were that were offered? A. Fifty per cent less than the valuation. Mr. Moulton. I think we had better have the advertisement here : I would like to see it. Q. Is there any other properly there in the market at the present time? A. I guess so, in fact I don't know of anything that is npt in the market ; perhaps there is not a great amount that is advertised. Q. Is there property there which is known to be for sale ? A. Yes, siir. 22 Q. You might mention some of the property that is for sale, that is notoriously so. A. I may speak of property I have known to be for sale, advertised for sale, known as the Woodbury lot, containing six and a half acres, and adjoining the high land of Mr. Haven, adjoining the land which was offered at the auction sale ; it is the highest point of the ridge, and contains six and a quarter acres. That has been advertised for sale for a number of j-ears by a largo board, as l.irge as that map, descriptive of the property, beautifully located, overlooking the estate of Franklin Haven. It has a fine sea view, and it is a desirable property. That has been for sale, I should say, and it has been advertised for six or eight years. Mr. Storrow, I see, has a furnished house and three acres, a new house built but a few j'ears, a very fine loc.-ition, advertised for sale. Mr. A. P. Loring has laud on Haskell Street which has been advertised for sale for a year or more. Then 1 here is some village prop erty. Mr. John Ober has a new house, which he has been very anxious- to sell : he wished last spring to go to California, and he could not find a purchaser ; that is on Hale Street. Q. Mr. T. K. Lothrop : do you know anj'thing about his property? A. Mr. T. K. Lothrop advertised his property for sale last winter, I think, and failed to find a purchaser. Mr. John T. Morse, — I don'tknow that he has advertised his property, but he has frequently told me that his property was for sale ; and I see he stated before the Commisioners in Mr. Haven's case that his property was for sale and a price flxed on it of $22,000, and $2,500 worth of furniture thrown in : that was his statement. Q. Mr. Lothrop's and Mr. Morse's and Mr. Storrow's is what is called shore property? A. Well, itis not exactly shore property, because it is somewhat back from, the shore. Q. But it is property which consists of nice estates, and is rather ex pensive property? A. Yes, sir. Q. And with the exception ofthe Haven sale, has there been any other sale there? A. I do not call to mind any other sale made recently. Q. Now, Mr. Hardy, I want to ask you with reference to the relations of the two communities, whether they are identical in any way, or'have anything in common': A. I should say not; they are as distinct as it is possible for any two communities to be. Q. During the last four or flve years have they been growing toward one another or apart ? A. They have been growing apart, separatino-, socially, religiously and every other way, from the fact, of course, that a contest of this kind makes more or less feeling ; perhaps it would be i;xpected it would. ' Take our societies, our secret societies: while, of course, we do not propose to bring anything of that kind in, and would.^n6t, — but take the Grand Army, for instance : perhaps it is un- 23 pleasant, — no matter what it may be, whether it is churches or anything else, there is that feeling between the two sections ; our people don't feel at home, of course, in the old town, and therefore take, as I was saying, the Grand Array : we have now a Grand Army Post at Beverly Farms, and a great many of the other organizations that have withdrawn and have their local associations there at Beverly Farms, where they used to go to Beverly. The people are growing apart every year, I think, and perhaps it is natural thej' should do so.- Q. Has anything ever been said to you in reference to going to the town and asking to go away? has anything been said to you as a Farms man, and representing the Farms people, and to other of the Farms people, iu reference to what would be granted you if you should go to the old town ? A. Yes, sir, there has, frequently. Of course, in our contest, the latter end of the contest, usually something of that kind has come up, and it has been repeatedly said by the people of Beverly, and claimed, ^that we are asking too much ; and they will put it in this way : If j-ou would take more of the debt, or if you would change the line, or if you would do this or do that, there would be no opposition to the Farms -going. I don't know as I can put it in any better way. Q. Has it ever been suggested to you that if you would go to the town, that you have always gone to the Legislature, and never consulted the town, and that if the Farms people would go up to the old town and -ask to go off, they would let them go, — if the Farms people would make a reasonable request, as they put it? A. Yes, sir; I have often heard that statement made : that they should go before the town. Q. With that in view, did the Farms people take any action last year? •Just state what was done last fall and in the early part of the winter. A. We did make a movement in that direction, and we did it for the reason that last year, as, of course, you are perfectly aware, the contest seemed to be over a little piece of territory — if Mr. Connolly will lay the pointer on the map from Plum Cove up to the Wenham line, — itis worn almost through where the Governor has used that Gore line so much. Mr. Robinson. You are looking for the sore spot ? The Witness. Yes, that is it. The whole contest last year was over the possession of that Gore ; there wasn't any particular objection to the division of the town, except as to that particular portion. All that terri tory on that side of the railroad is an uncultivated waste, — rabbits and muskrats are about the only natural products, — but on the shore of course ¦there is some valuable property ; and it has been claimed that the Farms people were unfair, that they wianted the earth and wanted everything, and we got tired of hearing it. So we thought, before we went into the 24 contest again this year, we would go before the town of Beverly, and see if they would, listen to any proposition we had to make. We made a proposition like this, and presented it to a town meeting on the 17th' of December, that we will leave the question — I think I can remember it so I can state it almost exactly, — we will leave the question o f the division line and the apportionment of the town debt to a committee to consist of an equal number chosen by the citizens of the respective ends of the town ; if that committee cannot agree, the matter then to be left to arbitration, and we' will abide by the result, if the old town will dO' the same. I think that was the proposition we made before the town. And I would also say right here that it was made in good faith, and we committed ourselves to that resolution and were prepared to carry it out to the letter. Q. And what was done under that? What action did the town take^ inthe first place? A. We presented that proposition to the town at the town meeting. We had some little difficultj' in getting it into the meet ing ; perhaps we didn't go to work just right. They have a beautiful system of running their town meetings in Beverly, perfect, of course, I will admit ; but they knew perfectly well that the proposition was com ing before that meeting, and finallj' there was an opening, and the prop osition was received by the meeting, and it was referred. In the first place, let me state that the town meeting was called to see what action the town will take in regard to the petition of D. W. Hardy and others,. now on file at the Secretary of State's office. The meeting was called to order, and on motion of Mr. Baker the matter was left in the hands of the selectmen, they being authorized and requested to choose sucli a committee as they saw fit from the different branches of industry in the the town, something to that effect, and later on we got our proposition before the meeting, and the matter was referred to this committee. Q. Consisting of the selectmen and such as they might join with them? A. And such as they might join with them. This committee was afteiwards instructed to confer with any committee the Farms might, select. We went home and chose a committee of five the following night, I think, and notified the old town committee that we should be happy to meet them at their earliest convenience, on this matter. We got notice in about a week that they would meet us, and we met them at the Town Hall, and the committee were the Board of Selectinen. The meeting was called to order, and they said they were ready to listen to any proposition which wo had to make. I told them there was a proposi tion already before the town, and this committee from, the Farms "has 'waited upon you, gentlemen," as we put it, "to see what action you have taken in regard to the proposition we made." You will see at once, gentlemen, the difficulty we were laboring under. We simply 25 went there tO hear a report on the proposition we had made. The com mittee, which were the Board of Selectmen, told us that they had no authority and no power to act upon this matter — they were a sub-com mittee of the general committee. We then asked them if they would like to refer this proposition back to the town, to a special town meeting ; they refused to do that, did not consider they had any authority to do it, but they would report back to the general committee. , Q. What is that general committee? A. It is an. anti- divi sion com mittee appointed by the Board of Selectmen, or chosen by the I^oard of Selectmen, I presume. (4. So that was all that came of it? A. That was all that came of the proposition ; I don't know where it has gone to, what has become of it. We kept track of it as well as we could, but it was finally lost in the woods. Q. You were willing then, and had^ authority, to leave it to arbitration, as representing the Beverly Farms people? A. Yes, sir. Q. And are now, for that matter? A. Yes. sir. Q. Have you given any thought to the matter of the expenses of the new town, if it were incorporated, so as to tell this committee what you think it would probably cost to run the new town? A. I have given it some thought ; I have run over it hastily. ¦ Q. You might state, in the first place, what you have based your esti mates on ; that is, how you came to arrive at the flgures you are about to testify to? A. I estimate the probable expense of running the town of Beverly Farms, in case of incorporation, at about $75,000, — some where in that neighborhood. Q. How do J'OU arrive at that? A. Partly by the town reports for the whole town, aud partly by whai I considered would be the needs of the new town in case of separation. Q. And, in doing that, have you consulted with some of your neigh bors, and others, who are interested in this matter? A. Yes, sir, I have ; in fact, I went over it very c.refully with some dozen of them last evening, to see what the result would be. Q. You may now state what your figures are based on, and give them to us. A. First, I have reckoned for the water works $3,000. Q. What is that for, — repairs ? A. That would be fbr repairs on the pipes principally, I suppose, and it would be necessary to employ some one to look after that branch of the business, ihe same as in other towns. I would say that the water pipe.-, are fifteen or more years old, and there are constant breaks (we have a bad break there now, so that people on the high land this morning were hauling water up on to the hill, and have been doing it for two days), and they will need repairing more and more every year. I thought $3,000 was a low estimate. Overseers of the poory $1,000; health and cemeteries, $700; fire department, $2,200. 26 Q. That is based on your present expenses? A. The present ex penses are a little more, something over $2,000, I think. Schools, $6,000; highways, $10,000; street lights, $1,600; telephone, fire alarm, etc., $200. Q. You now have a fire alarm there, have you? A. Yes, sir. Q, That is for the maintenance of it? A. Yes, sir. Town offlcers, police, etc., $4,000; incidentals, $1,200; public library, $800; State tax, $6,840. , Q. You get that by takinghalf of the whole? A. Half of the whole. County .tax, $6,143.72 ; we get that the same way. Interest on public debt, fifty per cent, $24,500 ; sinking fund, $10,000. Q. That would be your share ofthe contribution of $20,000? A. That Would be our share. That makes the sum total $78,183.72 ; less corporation and bank tax, $5,910.77, leaves $12,272.95. Q. You get the amount of the corporation and bank tax from the flgures furnished you by Mr. Murney or Mr. Sohier. ? A. Yes, sir. I would also add to that interest on temporaiy loan, about $1,200. Of course, starting out we would have to have new buildings, new schoolhouse, town hall, etc., and I merely take the interest, of course, on a temporary loan of about $30,000, at four per cent, which would be $1,206. Cross Examination. MR. MORSE PAYS TAXES IN BOURNE. Q. (by Mr. Modi.ton). What families have gone away from Beverly Farms in the last j'ear, Mr. Hardy ? A. I can give some of them. There is a man by the name of Gayton, who was a carpenter in my employ, and had quite a large family ; another. man, by the name of Barter, Capt. Barter, quite a family ; I don't know as I can call to mind the others. Then, of course, there were one or two families — there was Mr. Lothrop's family, — Mr. Lothrop is no longer a resident of Beverly Farms ; also John T. Morse, Jr. Q. Any one else? ' A. I can think of other families, but I don't remem'ber the names ; I would be happy to give them to you later. Q. Mr. Morse and Mr. Lothrop you classed as residents of Beverly Farms, who have moved away, did you ? A. Of course, in taking the number of inhabitants last year, they were residents, of course, of Beverly, the same as you are, and we took their families as we should yours or mine. Q. Where have they gone ? 27 A. Mr. Lothrop within a fortnight has moved to town. Q. He still retains his residence in Beverly, that is, he retains his property there and still lives in Beverly a part of the year ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then his moving away from Beverly is being absent from Beverly on the first of May, substantially ? A. Yes, sir, substantially. Q. You reckon the fact that he and his family are away on the first of May as a decrease in the population of Beverlj' Farms? A. Yes, certainly. Q. Where has Mr. Morse gone ? A. He is in Boston, I presume. Q. Is that his legal residence now? A. I don't think it is, sir. Q. What do you think is his legal residence ? A. I think his legal residence is in Bourne. Q. In the town of Bourne? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he spend any part of last year or of the present year at Bev erly F'arms? A. Yes, sir. ' Q. What portion? A. I should say four or five months. Q. And how much do j-ou reckon the depreciation of the loss of inhab itants at Beverly Farms on account of the departure of Mr. Morse and his family? A. I don't know ; I don't know just how much of a family he has got ; I didn't take the number of inhabitants last year, but what ever he was entitled to I presume they gave him credit for, I should. Q. Now, did both Mr. Lothrop and Mr. Morse spend substantially the same time in Beverlj' last year that they have of late years spent there when they were residents, called residents of Beverly? A. I think nearly ; I know Mr. Lothrop did, but whether Mr. Morse did or did not I don't know. Q. But you didn't notice he was not there about as long? A. I didn't notice. MR. LOTHROP'S MILLION DISCOVERED AND REMOVED, Q. How much property did they take away from Beverly? A. I am not preparfid to say how much Mr. Morse took away. I think Mr. Lothrop took awaj- in the neighborhood of half a million dollars. Q. Wasn't it considerably more than that ? A. I wouldn't say more : I don't know. ^. Mr. Lothrop was taxed as trustee within the last two or three years for a much larger amount than half a million dollars, was he not? A. Yes, I think he was. Q. Is the trust property taxed in Beverly now, or somewhere else ? 28 A. I think it is taxed somewhere else. Q. So that by Mr. Lothrop or the beneficiaries of the trust changing their residence, there has been a loss to Beverly's valuation of a million dollars or so ? , A. Certainly. Q. By the way, do you know when this trust was first taxed any where ?^ A. No, I do not. Q. Not until the year 1886, was it? A. I don't know ai^ything about it, sir. Q. Haven't you knowledge, and haven't you seen yourself on the assessors' records, that that was an estate which was not taxed at all until the year 1886 ? A. I never noticed, sir ; I couldn't tell you when it was first taxed. Q. There was a rise, you know, in the valuation of personal property at Beverly Farms in the year 1886, of more than a million dollars? A. I know there was quite a rise — yes, I presume so. Q. Was $900,000 of the rise this trust which had not paid a tax any where the year before? A. I presume it was. Q. N9W, you mentioned the name of Mr. Gayton, who worked for you, as having moved out of town. A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, aside from his family, can you name any familj', that are not emplojed by shore residents in Beverlj', who have gone out of Beverly Farms since last year? A. I referred to one other, Capt. Barter, who has gone since last year. , Q. Where did he live? A. He lived in one of my houses. Q. What is his business? A. He kept one of mj' houses as a board ing house for quite a while, and he met with an accident and lost his leg, and then, of course, he didn't do any business. Q. Then he gave up business on account of his accident? A. Not necessarily so ; it was because he could no longer keep a boarding house, because there was no business to sustain it. Q, You say business is at a standstill at the Farms ? A. I should say it was, sir. Q. And that there is nothing going on? Now, j'ou said, in the flrst place, that before 1885 there was a healthy growth at Beverly Farms : wiU you tell me how much the populotion of Beverly Farms had increased for thirty years prior to 1885 ? A. I never took the trouble to look it up, sir, so I can't tell you. , Q. Haven't you been interested in the question? A. Not enouo-h to look up the increase of population ; ho, sir, I have not. ' Q. You have lived there for thirty-five years ? A. Thirty-three, yes, sir. 29 Q. Isn't it true that in 1885 there were not so many native resident people at Beverly Farms as there were when you first knew the place? A. I could not say it was not, but in my judgment it certainly is not so. Q. Were there not less children in the public schools in 1885 than there were when you were first acquainted with Beverly Farms? - A. I could not tell j'ou, sir ; I should say not, to the best of my judg ment. Q. And isn't it true that, so far as there was any growth at Beverly Farms, it was the addition of summer residences, and the change in the character of the land by its passing into the possession of people of large means, who bought the land for the use of summer residences? A. That was a part of the growth, of course, as I stated. Q. Wasn't it all of it? A. Not by any means. Q. Do you mean the village had increased i.n population, say for ten, years before 1885, Beverly Farms village? A. It must have, sir, from the fact we built some flfty new houses for permanent residents. Q. Between what years? A. Between 1870; nearly that number between 1875 and 1885 ; I might, in order to get flfty, be obliged to go back to 1870, but I should get but very few houses back of the year 1875, very few. The principal growth was since 1875. Q. Have you anj' accurate information on that point as to whether there had been any substantial increase in Beverly Farms before 1885? A. Nothing more than that ,that number of houses were built and were occupied by families for permanent residences, and that leads me to believe that there must have been quite an increase in the permanent residents of Beverly Farms. Q. Do you think you could m^ke a list of one half of that number of houses which were built between those years? A. I will do it, sir. NEW HOUSES, STORES, FACTORY, ETC. , Q. Business, you say, is at a standstill, and there is nothing, being done : now, has there been a shoe factory built at Beverly Farms within two or three years ? A. Yes, sir. Q. When? A. A little over a year ago. Q. And is that in operation now? A. Yes, sir. Q. That is an addition to the business of Beverly Farms, isn't it? There never was a shoe factory there before? A. No ; never was a factory there before ; not to make shoes by machinery. Q. Who have built houses at Beverly Farms within the last year or two ? A. We built a house for Mr. Wisemen at Pride's Crossing. 30 Q. When did he build his house? A. About a year ago. Q. Mr. Wiliiam C. Loring? A. He has a house in process of construction. Q. When did he begin it? A. I think last spring, some time in the spring. Q. In 1888 did the O'Briens build a large block at Beverly Farms? A. They built a block, not a very large one, I guess about thirty feet square. Q. And the block is used for what purposes? A. There are two stores, and above them is a tenement. ' Q. Has Mr. Cornelius Murray built a new cottage on Haskell Street? A. Yes, sir ; a small cottage. Q. When did he build? A. About a year ago, I think, it may be a year and a half or two years ago. Q. Mr. John Knowlton? A. Yes ; Mr. John Knowlton has built a house there the last year. Q. Then there have been four or flve new house, within the last year, either built or in process of erection now ? A. Yes, sir ; perhaps four. Q. Now, J'OU take any time in the history of Beverly Farms, and has there been on an average more than five houses a year added ? A. Oh, yes, sir. Q. When? A. In 1885. Q. Take any number of years together, take fifteen years together. My question is not as to any special year, although I do not object to your making any statement you please with regard to it. A. I don't know how they would average, I should have to look that up. I could very easily tell ; I think they would. Q. Two or three a year ; have there been more than that, excepting, possibly, in a few years, between 1873 and 1885? A. It would average eight or ten, I should say, from 1875 to 1880 or 1882, I think that was the time there was the most building. And I would say right here that the houses at, that time were all occupied, while to-day nearly half of that class of houses are vacant : there is no demand. I have two myself that have been vacant over a year, and I know many others. Mr. Crowell has a large house with two or three tenements which have been idle over a year ; and it is so all through the- place. There is no demand, and no new building. When Mr. Knowl- ton's house, which you refer to, was built, he was in hopes to let it to summer people, but it remained idle all summer. .Q. Was that ready for summer people last summer? A. Yes, sir. Q. And it was built for that purpose ? A. Built for that purpose. 31 Q. When Was that ready? It was not ready early in the season, was it? A. It was ready in June. Q. Now, besides these new houses that have actually been built, there have been large additions and alterations made in summer houses at Beverly Farms within the last year, have there not? A. Not at all sir. Q. Mr. Brimmer? A. A small addition, yes, sir. Q. Who else? A. Mr. Peirson is putting on a little addition. Q. Mr. George Goddard, didn't he more than double the size of his house? A. I remember he enlarged his house, but I guess it was earlier than last j-ear. Q. Gen. Loring? A. I was not aware he had made an addition. Q. You have spoken ofthe taxation on village lots? A. Yes, sir. KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT HIS OWN TAX. Q. Your own tax, you say, was not raised? A. I have never looked to see ; I couldn't tell you ; I never looked to see whether it was raised or not. Q. You would have found it out very quickly if it had been raised? A. If there had been any material raise, I think I shoulil, j'es. Q. Was your tax lowered, or was the valuation of your property low ered, between 1885 and 1886? A. I don't think it was. Q. Was your tax actually less ? A. I don't remember, I am sure. Q. If the valuation was the same the tax would naturally be less, if there had been a rise over a large portion of the town ? A. I don't think there was any material difference in mj' own tax ; I never took the trouble to look. SALES LARGELY IN EXCESS OF VALUATION. Q. Now, Mr. Hardy, except this sale of Mr. Haven's to Mr. Sohier, has there been any sale of village property at Beverly Farms in the last ten years at less than the present assessors' valuation upon it? A. That I could not say. I know some cases where it has brought largely in excess of the assessed value ; one or two cases I could refer to. Q. And largely in excess of the assessors' valuation of 1886 ? A. There are one or two particular cases. Q. What cases do you have in mind ? A. I have in mind a lot of Sarah Ober. [Eecess till 2.30 P. M.'} 32 Afternoon Session. Mr. Moulton. You said you had known of several sales that were largely in excess of the assessors' valuation, Mr. Hardy? A. I did not say several, I said there were one or two I remembered distinctly. Q. Wljat one or two ? A. The Sarah Ober lot, and, I think, Mrs. Lovering, — both on Hale Street. Q. And thej' are opposite, or across, the street from the land of Mr. Haven, that you said was sold at auction last year to Mr. Sohier? A. One parcel of land is directlj' opposite ; the other is a few rods — not more than two hundred feet, I should say — to the eastward. Q. What were those sales? A. The Sarah Ober land, the sale I have referred to, — it was sold at auction, and it was bid in at $11,500, if I recollect rightly. Q. Wasn't some land of Sarah Ober's sold for $5,000 afterwards? A. A portion of it was sold afterwards, but the price I don't know- Q. You have heard it testified to several times, haven't you? A. I have heard it testified to, but really I have forgotten the^ exact sum ; I think it was in that neighborhood. Q. Do you knw how much there was? A. I should say in the neigh-^ borhood of an acre and a half. Q. Do J'OU know what it was assessed for in 1886 or 1887? A. No, I do not. Q. Was it assessed for more than $2,600 property that sold, for $5,000? A. I should not suppose it would be ; that is all it is. worth, I should say. Q. And that sold for $11,000 at auction? A. Exactly. Q. Now*, you mentioned besides that the Caroline E. Lovering lot : what was the price paid for that land? A. I don't know, I have forgotten. Q. Was it $1,850? A. I think it was in that neighborhood'. Q. And what was the assesssd value in 1886 or 1887? A. I have forgotten ; it was considerably less than that. Q. Was it $925? A. I think in the neighborhood of $1,000. Q. Do you know of any other sales of village lots in that vicinity? Take the sale by' Mr. Foster to Mr. Hubbard? A. I remember that sale, but I don't remember anything about the price. Q. Near^this land of Mr. Elliott's you have spokeu of? 33 A. A short distance from that. Q. Haven't j'ou heard Mr. Foster testify that it was sold at $10,000 an acre? A. I might have heard him, but I have forgotten. Q. For about three acres ; do you know what that was assessed for ? A. No, I do not. Q. Whether or not, it was $20,000 for the three acres? A. I don't know what it was assessed for. Q. The Ellen Vaughan sale : did you know of that? A. Yes, I know something about it. I know she purchased a piece of land of Mrs. Lovering, or exchanged, or there was some trade made. Q. Was the price that $1,800? A. I don't know. Mr. Williams. He says he doesn't know ; and what is the use of put ting in evidence in a back-handed way like that ? Mr. Moulton. I want to see if he never has heard of these cases and heard them testified to, and to find out what his idea is with regard to this property. Q. Were these sales before or since the assessment of 1886? A. I think they have taken place since 1886, some of them. Q. Did you know of the sale to the O'Brien Brothers of property for $2,200 that was assessed for $1,450 in 1886 and 1887? A. I know of their purchasing a small lot of land, but I don't know. anything about the price thej' paid for it. Q. Now, let me ask you about some more recent sales : do you know pf anj' sales that have taken place in 1888 and 1889? Do you know of the sale of the Solomon Woodbury heirs to Mr. Endicott, in April, 1889 ? A. No, sir ; I do not. Q. You do not know how it compared with the assessors' valuation? A. I don't know anything about it. Q. Do J'OU know of the lot of land on the corner of High and Haskell streets that Mr. A. P. Loring bought of Ellen M. Storey? A. I know of the piece of land that Mr. Loring bought. Q. Did he pay more for it than the assessors' valuation of the prop erty iu 1886 and 1887? A. I don't know whether he did or did not. Q. Do you know of the King property, which was sold to Mr. Gardner? A. I,know the property well, but I was not aware it was sold. Q. And you don't know what the price is, nor how it compares with the assessors' valuation? A. No, sir; I do not. Q. Do you know the sale of a small piece of land by Mr. Pope to Mrs. Pierce in 1889 on Hart Street, up near the Wenham line, is it not? A. Yes, sir. I know where the land is perfectly well. Q. Do you know of that sale? A. No, I do not. I know the price Mr. Pope paid. 34 Q. What was that? A. It was less than a hundred dollars. Q. And you don't know whether this sale was for $300, — whether he sold it for $300 ? A. I did hear he sold it for $300. Q. And that is more, a good deal, than the assessors' valuation ofthe property, isn't it? A. Possibly, I don't know. Q. Now, about the lot bought bj' the Co-operative Shoe Company, that is the name of the company that has established the factory there: what was that sale, and when was it made? A. It was made about a year ago, a little over a year ago, I guess. Q. And that property is near the station at Beverly Farms? A. Quite near, verj' near. Q. And that was what? what was that sale? A. That sale was $800. Q. Eight hundred dollars for how much land? A. I should say per haps 75 X 100, or somewhere in that vicinity. Q. To be exact wasn't it 6,700 feet of land ? A. Very likely. Q. And do you know what that property was assessed at ? A. No, I never noticed. It was a piece of property that Mr. Day intended to build a house on, and was ready to build a house, and of course he put a fancj' price upon it because we were bound to have it ; it W3,s the onlj' lot we could get near the depot for that purpose. Q. That was on Vine Street? A. On what we call 'Vine Court. - Q. , There were no buildings on that land ? No, sir. Q. Were there any buildings in that vicinity that had any special value, any dwelling house? A. There was a house on the adjoining lot, and houses directly opposite, on all sides, and one blacksmith shop on the easterly side, and on the westerly side is a house. Q. What is the value of the blacksmith shop? A. The shop itself? Q. Yes. A. I should say three or four hundred dollars. •Q. Is there a stable there? A. There is a stable on the opposite side. Q. What is the value of that? A. One hundred or two hundred dollars. Q. A hundred or two dollars? A. I should say so, yes. It was an old affair. Q. Was that property sold, that had a stable on it of the value of a hundred or two dollars, within a year, 8,500 hundred feet, for $1,400, to Mr. Dane? A. I think there was a trade made there, an exchange for some land in Wenham ; I don't know anything about it, — a sort of a dicker trade, horses and carriages, and land, etc. Q. Do you remember what the assessment was? A. I don't remember. Q. Didn't, you understand the price was $1,400 for 8,500 feet? A. I never understood anj'thing about the price. 35 KNOWS NO SALE BUT HAVEN'S FOR LESS THAN ASSESSMENT. Q. I have spoken of these sales, and now I ask you. Can you now name aay sale of village property that has taken place at Beverly Farms since 1886, or for several years before 1886, that was at a less price than the assessors' valuation, except the Haven property? A. Well, I cannot, because I don't know of anj' other sales except those you have referred to. Q. And you understand that in those cases the land sold for more than the assessors' valuation ? A., I simply take your statement for it, which I assume to be correct. I do not mnke any statement to that effect. Q. You were at the auction sale of some of this property, were you not? A. I was at the auction sale ofthe Sarah Ober estate, also of the Haven estate. Q. You said that Mr. .John Ober wanted to sell and go away : how many owners has that piece of land, do you know, or the house? A. I don't know, I can't think of but two at present. Q. Isn't there some question of title thfere? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Do J'OU know what price it is offered at or held at? A. No ; I know he came to me in the spring and seemed very anxious to sell. He wanted to go to California, and suid he had been to several he supposed would buj' it and he couldn't get an offer. I don't know the price he put upon it. Q. He didn't name any piice ? A. He didn't name any price, no, sir. Q. Now, do you know of any property — I will extend my question to all property at the Farms — do you know any property at the FarraS, seashore or hill land or village lots, that has sold since 188-t or 1885 at less than the assessors' valuation, with the exception of this property of Mr. Haven's which was sold to Mr. Sohier ? A. No ; I can't say I can call to mind any such sales. There have been no sales that I know of except those you have referred to, and those were sold under peculiar circumstances, the most of them. Q. And these arc village lots? Now, j'ou say that Mr. Haven had a sale and that this village property was sold and Mr; Sohier bought it : that was a sale at auction? A. It was. Q. You said you would bring the advertisement of that property: that was an advertisement to the effect that the property would be sold at less than the assessors' valuation ? A. That referred to the hill property. Q. Now, was there any advertisement of the auction sale of this prop erty, if so, what was it, to your k'nowledge? 36 A. Of the auction sale previously to the time it was sold? Q. Yes. A. Why, certainly there wis. Q. How many days was it advertised? A. I could not tell you, sir. Q. Four? A. Two or three weeks ; I think I saw it certainly a fort night before the sale.' , Q. What month and what day of the month was the auction sale? A. The auction sale was some time in ApriU 1 think, I think it was the last of April. Q. The 29th of April? A. I think it was. Q. And was the advertisement written and dated the 23d of April, so that the bills bore date of the 23d of April ? A. I could not say, sir. Q. You won't say now, as you did a moment ago, you saw it three weeks before the sale? A. I think I did, sir. Q. Bills dated April 23d? A. I don't remember of seeing any sale advertised that day. Q. Now, you said that of the hill property, there was no sale ; that property was a hill belonging to Mr. Haven, with a tract of marsh in front leading down to the beach, extending along his estate for half a mile : that is the fact, is it? A. That is the fact, yes. Q. That property was advertised the same length of time, whatever it was, that this other property was advertised that was sold in the vil lage, — it was all on one poster, wasn't it? A. I think so, yes. Q. That property was put up for sale without any right to the beach and without any right to control the marsh land in front of the hill, waS it not?A. There was no fight given to the beach and no, right of controlling the front land? A. No ; I presume not ; I don't remember there was. Q. And the question was asked at the time whether any such right would be given, wasn't it? A. There might have been at the time something said with regard to that matter, I know there was, about whether it included anj' right to the beach. I remember of that question being asked. Q. And the answer was no? A. The answer was. No, there was no light. Q. Now, you knew of the sale of the land adjoining this property that Mr. Haven claims to have offered for sale at auction to Mr. Kidder ? A. I do. Q. That was a sale of sixteen acres of hill land for $120,000, wasn't it? A. I couldn't state about the price. 37 Q. Didn't you hear Mr. Meredith last year before the committee tes tify that the property sold fo'- $120,000 ? A. I don't remember its being placed quite so high as that, rising a hundred thousand dollars, I think he said. Q. Now, you say the Woodbury lot, which is a hill lot adjoining Mr. Haven's on the other side from the Kidder land, has been offered for sale for some years : Is there any connection between that land and the beach? A. No. Q. No beach right? A. No. Q. Is there atiy access to that land except by bridging over the rail road ? can you get on to it ? A. The same as you can get on to anj' of the other, over the railroad. You have got to cross the railroad to get on to these hills of Mr. Haven's. the same access to get to that land there is to Mr. Haven's. Q. Is there? Mr. Haven could reserve rights to get to his own land, but nobody would have any right to demand of Mr. Haven any access to this Woodbui-y land, would they? A. I think she has land on the westerly side of the railroad which she could enter from the street across the railroad, crossing her own land and crossing the railroad on to the hill lot. Q. How could anybody get on to the Woodbury lot, that part which is offered for sale, without going across Mr. Haven's or Mr. Gordon Dexter's propertj' or bridging the railroad ? A. I wont be positive whether her land on the westerlj' side runs to, the highwaj- or not, but there is land owned hy Mr. Dow, Dow & Larcom, which, if she wanted, she could get a very nice entrance over at a very low cost. For a trifle she could enter from the highway and enter her hill lot. I have looked it over carefully to get a rdadwaj'up to the top ofthe hill. Q. You would have lo buy of somebody else, you would have to deal with somebody else than the owner of the land, to get on to it ? A. As I say, I am not positive whether her land on the westerlj- side of the rail road goes to the highway or not. She owns very near to it. Q. You said Mr. John E. Morse stated his property was for sale for $22,500, did you say? A. I saw that statement in the paper of the testimony that was given. Q. When was that announcement made? A. It was made at the hearing one day last week. Q. Last Saturday, wasn't it? A. Last Saturday, I think. Q. For the first time: A. I presume so. Q. It never has been advertised for sale? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. And you spoke of Mr. Lothrop's having advertised his property : he had the same reference to the assessors in his advertisement, didn't , ' 38 he, that the property would be sold at the assessors' valuation? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you hear it testified, that when negotiations were begun with Mr. Lothrop to purchase his property at the rate at which he had offered •it that he declined to sell it, and said he had given some one the refusal of a lease for a term of years ? A. I heard Mr. Lothrop say tha^ he was at that time negotiating, or had negotiated, a lease of his propeity, and consequently, he could not consider any proposition. Q. He has lived there ever since, has he not? A.' In one of the houses ; he has two houses there. Q. What did he pay for the Hooper House? Wasn't it $35,000 for propeity that has never been taxed higher than $25,000, and didn't he get a mortgage on it for $25,000? A.. Verj' likeij', sir. Q. Haven't you heard him testify he paid $35,000 exactly? A. No, sir ; I have always had the impression it was thirty. EXPENSES COMPARED WITH OTHER TOWNS. Q. When did you make these figures, Mr. Hardy, estimating the expense of running the new town? A. One evening last week, I think. Q. Did J'OU talk with Mr. Loring about these estimates ? A. No, sir, I never have seen Mr. Loring. Q. Mr. Loring has heretofore made the estimates : now, won't you tell me how much — taking out the interest of the delit and the sinking funds — how much you make the running expenses of the town of Beverly Farms ? A. I think I stated that we called the running expenses in the nfeighborhood of $75,000. Q. And that includes the interest on the debt and the sinking funds, doesn't it? A. Yes. Q. Taking those out leaves about $42,500 of your estimate? A. In that neighborhood, I should say. Q. Now do you know of any town in Essex Countj', of anywhere near t^e size of such a town as Beverly Farms would be that spends any thing like that amount? A. I have never looked into the expenses of other towns of that size, so I am not prepared to answer your question. Q.^ Do you know wlfat the total tax levy in the town of Essex, for instance, is? A. No, I do not ; I have never taken the trouble to look. 39 Q. Essex has at least twice the population that Beverly Farms would have, and is situated just beyond Wenham, beyond that portion of Wen ham that it is proposed to annex? A. Yes, sir. Q. The number of polls is 467 ; you claim 269 polls, I believe. Should you say if their total tax levy was $16,334, that that would have any effect upon your judgment as to the amount of money it would take to run the new town of Beverly Farms? A. Well, perhaps I don't know. I suppose they run their business in Essex, perhaps, on a more economical scale than they do in old Beverly. We have based our figures largely on old Beverly's extrava gance, probably, perhaps, too much so. Q. Do J'OU suppose, when you get the new order of things, with j'Our better ideas of economy, it will cost three times as much lo run the town of Beverly Farms than it does to run the town of Essex, which is nearly twice as large? A. I am not very familiar with the town of Essex, so I 'am not pre pared to answer that question. Q. Well, take Wenham, with 267 polls : that is just about the size of the new town of Beverly IJ'ai'ms, isn't it? A. Yes, sir ; very near. Q. Now, suppose the total tax levy there was $6,179 : what should you flay for $42,500 for the ordinarj' expenses of Beverly Farms? A. I don't know anything about that, — how they get along. Perhaps they take care of the town of Wenham, have some methods, perhaps, of managing their business, which we don't know anything about. I have stated the amount for each department which I should think was fair. Q. I will ask you about the various items in a moment. Can you see any reason why it should cost seven times as much to paj' the ordinary expenses of Beverlj' Farms as it would cost to pay the ordinary ex penses of the town of Wenham, of about the same size? A. As I told you before, I have no knowledge about Wenham, but I will stand by these flgures I have given you there. Q. Let us see about the flgures. Your first item is water works re pairs, $3,000. How do you make that up ? how do you make up $3,000 ? A. Well, we should be obliged to hire some one to look after the water works. In the town now you are hiring a man, paying him $1,200 I think ; -of course, I have not got alb the figurers, but I think that would only be a fair proportion of the expenses, our fair proportion for the expenses of the whole town. I don't see how we could keep up our water works, keep them in repair, for any less than the sum I have named. Q. Have you any items to show what the e.xpenses would be? A. No particular items. 40 Q. How would you get rid of the 83,000 ? A. By repairing and putting in new pipes. As I say, we have got to employ a man for that purpose, and he has got to have his help ; there are constant breaks going on, and the expense is every' day. Q. Have you had any experience in keeping a system of water works in repair, know anything about it personally? A. No, sir; but I have got common sense, and when I see men digging the streets up every day,. three or four men, I know it must cost something to do it. Q. What I wanted to get at is whether this item of $3,000 is a matter you jumped at, or whether you have anj' facts to base it on? A. No, sir, it is only our best estimate as to what it would cost. Q. How did you calculate it? was it anything more than that a man must be employed ? A. I should saj' it was important that a man should be employed, and I have some little knowledge of what it costs to employ a man. Q. And that is all you have to say with regard to this item of $3,000? A. That is all, sir. Q. Very well, then I will take the overseers of the poor, $1,000 : that is for the poor department, is it? A. That is for the poor department. Q. How much did it cost last year for extravagant Beverly to run it? A. I didn't notice particularly. Q. Was it $83?' A. Very likelj'. We don't send our poor to the workhouse verj" often. Q. How much in 1887? A. I don't know. Q. Was it ever more than $165 ? A. I should doubt if it was. . Q. And that being so, you think that it is a fair estimate to call il; a thousand dollars. A. I do, a low estimate, very low. WANTS $6,000 TO EDUCATE 120 CHILDREN. Q. Now, how much do you say for schools ? A. Six thousand dollars. Q. How many scholars are there at Beverly Farms? A. I think there are about 120, if I remember rightly. Q, 120 children, and $6,000? A. Yes, sir. Q. That would be $50 for each scholar, would it? A. Yes, sir. Q. And, at that rate, Beverly has over 1,600 scholars: that would make about $80,000, at that rate, for running the schools of Beverly, wouldn't it? A. Well, if you put it on that kind of a basis, perhaps it would be so. We don't pay a teacher anymore to teach 50 scholars than a dozen,. probably. 41 Q. And if the tax levy of Wenham is $6,000, then you would allow more for the schools in Beverly Farms, taking the 120 scholars, than the whole tax levy of Wenham? A. I don't care to go into Wenham. Q. I don't care about Wenham, you may take any other town j'ou please to take in Essex County. A. I am perfectly willing to explain where I place the $6,000. It already costs us $3,300 for our school at Beverly Farms. Now, then, we have got to have a higher grade of school, we have got to employ an extra teacher in the building we have there ; then we have got to pro vide a teacher in Wenham, that little corner of Wenham, -^ we have got to build a schoolhouse there and employ a teacher there ; and I should say that the estimate I have made was not extravagant at all. Q. Isn't it true that the town of Beverly spent last year for the Farms instead ofthe sum j-ou named, $1,5X2.65? A. I verj- much doubt it, sir : we were very careful ; but I am perfectly willing to correct any wrong statement, of course. Q. Didn't you have in mind Mr. Loring's flgures of last year as to what he estimated it was going to cost, and not the actual expense? Ai I don't think so, but, as I say, if there is any error I shall be only to i happj" to correct it. Q. You said j'Ou were chairman of the committee on division : were you chairman ofthe onlj' committee on division? A. Yes, sir. HAS FORGOTTEN THE BOSTON COMMITTEE DISCLOSED BY THE INVESTIGATION. Q. Was there a committee of Boston men upon the division of Bev erly? has there been since the division agitation started? A. No, sir, not to my knowledge, of Boston men. Q. Hasn't it appeared in the course of the investigations that have followed these hearings -that there was a committee, of Boston men, entirely independent of your committee, Iipon the division of Beverly? A. Oh, no, sir I It may have been stated so, but not entirely inde pendent, not bj' any means. Q. Hadn't it been stated that there was a committee of men living in Boston, who raised money for the purpose of dividing Beverly, and con trolled it? A. I will explain that, sir, but it will take a little time. Q. Why not answer my question as to whether it has appeared in evidence that such a committee existed ? A. Because I don't remember whether it appeared in evidence or not ; I have forgotten. Q. Didn't you testify yourself that there was such a committee, and that you knew it, but that other people did not know it, — a committee. 42 of which Gen. Pierson was treasurer, and Mr. Martin Brimmer was chairman ? A. We had a meeting — I remember of having a meeting — I was not aware, and I don't know that I testifled, there was a regular committee. We had a meeting of Boston gentlemen, and very likely Mr. Brimmer was chairman of that meeting. Will you allow me to explain that? Mr. Williams. Go on, Mr. Hardy. The Witness. At that time I was trying to get together a fund to carry on this division contest. Of course, I went to every man and woman that owned anj' property at Beverly Farms. I called upon these gentlemen, and at my suggestion, — and I urged thera several times be fore I could get them to come together and talk the matter over, — I finally succeeded in doing it, and I do remember, I think that Mr. Brim mer was chairman of the meeting. Mr. AVilliams. "When was that? What j'ear? A. I think that was in 1886 and 1887, 1 think. Q. (by Mr. Moulton). Wasn't the testimony, to put it just as it was, the testimony upon the division side of the case, that they organized a committee, independent of the Farms committee, who raised money and spent it for the purposes of division, — to go no further than that? A". I don't think it was. FARMS COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE. Q. (by Mr. Robinson). You were chairman of that committee that weiit to meet the selectmen of the town ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you have full authority to come to any agreement? A. The committee was appointed to see what action the town of Bev erly had taken in regard to the proposition we had made to the town. Q. You were present at the town meeting?' A. I was. Q. And a good many other people from Beverly Farms were present too? A. Quite a number. Q. A good, large attendance? A. Very fair. Q. Fifty, or sixty, or seventy? A. I should say there was rising forty, perhaps ; between forty and fifty, possibly. Two Barges. • Q. Do you recollect what the vole was in the town meeting, can you recall it, on the question ? Was there a vote taken there which indi cated how many votes were cast by Beverly Farms people? A. I don't know how you could tell, how you could separate the Beverly Farms people by any vote there was taken. I noticed when we came to the' appropriation of money to employ counsel, I presume that every one from the Farms stood up and voted against it ; I know that, but how many more I don't know. 43 Q. Do you know what that vote was ? A. I think it was decided 750 to 50, — 40 or 50, I have forgotten the exact number, but that is about the size of it. Q. When you got back to Beverly Farms, at any time didj'ou have a meeting in Beverly Farms, and make a report of your doings of the meeting of the committee? A. We did, later, in a day or two. Q. Were there a good many present at that time, at that meeting? A. Yes, it was quite a fully attended meeting. ' Q. And a pretty general expression of sentiment? A. I think there was but very little said one way or the other. Q. By anybody present? A. Not discussing the matter ; we reported to the citizens the result. Q. You made a report, didn't you? A. I did, I presume. , Q. Did you make this report, in substance, being called upon by Mr.' James B. Dow to make a report, do you remember that? do you recol lect Mr. Dow said he would like to hear si report from the committee ? A. I think I do remember some one ; I have forgotten whether it was Mr. Dow. Q. Do you remember saying that, " According to your direction, your committee proceeded to the town of Beverly, with a body guard Of some fifty of the citizens of Beverly Farms, as you well know ".? A. I remember making that statement, of course, in a joking way. Q. And then you went on and stated you went up there, didn't you, and met that committee ? A. I presume so. Q. Was Mr. John H. Watson in that meeting? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he make a speech? A. He did ; he said a few words. Q. Was this the way it ran? •' Mr. Chairman, I do not believe in this way of doing the thing, and if I had been at the meeting the other even ing I should have opposed it. I am opposed to the whole scheme. I believe in going to the, Legislature. You may go up there to Beverly, and it is left out to appoint men. They may delay you for six months, and the result is we have got to go to the Legislature in the end. I do not believe in any compromise. I believe in standing by the old line, if it takes twenty years. It is a natural division line, and is two and a quarter miles from Beverly depot and two and a quarter miles from ours. The impression is you are trying to compromise. They could have accepted these results, but they did not ; thej' simply received them and referred them to a committee. The proper action for them to take, if fair, and wanting to decide it, was at the town meeting of 700 men to S'ccept them and then refer them to a committee. How long is it going , to take to do this business? Who is going to notify these men? If they decide either way, another meeting of 700 ijien will be called. I do 44 not believe in making any proposition to Beverly, but I do believe in fighting it out on the old lines." Did you hear that? A. I think that was substantially it. Q. Do you know Mr. James B. Dow? A. Perfectly well, sir. Q. "Was he there, and did he make some remarks? A. He did. Q. He is one of your committee now ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he say, " I am glad to hear a few words from Mr. Watson. There is one impression which he gives that is not exactly correct, that is, that we have withdrawn from the old line. We have conceded or re ceded nothing to Beverly." Did you hear that? A. I don't know that he said just those words. Q. He is in the room now, isn't he ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You recollect his making a speech? A. Yes, he made a speech. Q. Would you give this committee to understand that your people were all united in being ready to give up this old line if it was desired? A. I think it is verj' nearly unanimous. Mr. Watson was the first man I ever heard raise any objection whatever. Q. About giving up the old line? A. About giving up the old line. I would say here before this committee that we claim that the proposi tion we have always made has been fair, but in offering this proposition ito the town we waived a claim to any lines ; of course we established no line. We are perfectly willing, believing that we are fair and just in what we have asked for, — we are perfectl j' willing to leave the line question to the commission. WON'T ANSWER WHETHER HE FAVORS PLUM COVE LINE. Q. I understand ; hut, to bring it right down to a single point, are j'ou in favor of taking division with the Plum Cove line, answering that for yourself ? A. I will answer that later. Q. Won't you be kind enough to answer it now? A. I don't think it is proper for me to answer that question. Q. And why isn't it proper for you to answer it? You are a citizen of Beverly and hope to be a citizen of Beverly Farms : now, why isn't it proper for you to say, Mr. Hardy, what, as a resident of the town, you are willing to do ? Do you want division with a line run down to Plum Cove from the corner up there? . A. I would be willing if I was chosen upon that committee. We are getting, it seems to me, altogether ahead of time. Q. No, I am keeping right to time now, and I would like to have you go along with me, and why won't you be kind enough to answer-my question ? Is that too hard ? A. That is too hard. 45 Q. Then I certainly will have tenderness for you and I will not press it. [TAe territory known as the Gore is pointed out on the map.'] Q. Are there many people resident within that territory permanent, residents ? A. There are not many. Q. Those that are are wealthj', aren't thej' ? A. I guess they are pretty comfortably hitched. Q. You think they are pretty comfortably hitched, as you and I look at things. How much do j'ou think it takes to hitch them? A. Well, I don't know. » Q. For a random, estimate of it, how much do you think they are worth ? A. To hitch them on to which side? Q. It don't make any difference ; take them right along there in that Gore, how much do you think thej' are worth? A. I am not prepared to say. ¦ Q. About two millions? A. Possibly. Q. There is about two millions worth of propertj- in that Gore : do you know anything about the distance from where the settlement of the people is, whatever settlement there is, in that Gore, to the schoolhouse they could now send their children to, which is beyond what is called the petitioners' line, about how far it is? A. From our proposed line to our schoolhouse at Beverlj' Farms? MUST WALK TWICE AS FAR TO SCHOOL. Q. No, sir ; in the first place, to the schoolhouse in the town of Bev^ erly, which is your schoolhouse still, how far do those children have to go to school ? A. Perhaps three quarters of a mile ; some of them farther. Q. Now, if you were to compel those children to go to the Beverly Farms schoolhouse, how far would they have to go? A. They would have to go considerably further. Q. About how far? A. Well, two miles and over. Q. They would have to go two miles to get to the schoolhouse in Beverly Farms, while now they are within three quarters of a mile ofthe s,choolhouse in their own town? A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you see any possible use in transferring the people in the Gore away from the town of old Beverly, any possible use in it, except to get them because they are well hitched? A. I suppose we would both like to get as well hitched as we can. Q. You and I would, I don't suppose anybody else cares about it? 46 A. There is:the fact, that those people are there, and, there seems to be the dividing line. Q. What is the dividing line? A. I mean between the people, the people this side of the proposed line. Q. What do you mean by the dividing line? what is the dividing line? A. We may call it the dividing line where these associations are. Q. Whj'? A. Those people come to Pride's Crossing to take the cars ; they want to come in with the people of Beverlj' Farms, and they ask to come in. That is the reason we would like to have them come. We would like to have everybodj' come who wants to. , Q. I suppose thej' could go to the Pride's Crossing station wherever the town line was. A. I presume we should not put up a fence there. Q. That is not a serious matter then, do you think so? A. No, sir; not a serious matter. Q. We will leave that out then. The other thing is, you think they want to go because they like the people on your side better, -is that it ? A. I think their associations are more in that direction. Q. Is it because they are associated with you and with Mr. Connolly and with Mr. Dow, and the other gentlemen I see here, or is it because they associate with the other gentlemen who live in Boston in the win ter time ? A. Well, put it that way, that is the way you would put it. Q. Then it is to make a town in which the people will be agreeable in their associations, is it ? A. I should hope they would be agreeable. Q. Among themselves, without regard to the old residents of Beverly Farms? A. Very well ; I have no objections to that ; I don't know why they should not be. Q. Does it strike you also as desirable to have that two millions in there for the purposes of taxation for the benefit of your new town ? A. Well, I think we should need it to get along. Q. You have an impression your town, as you propose it, is rather a poor town ? A. I should saj' it was. Q. Did you state at that meeting of your fellow citizens in Beverly Farms, after your return from Beverly, that your committee had no authority to enter into any arrangement? A. We cou\d not have any authority. All that there was was for us to know whether the town of Beverly accepted or rejected the proposi tion we made to the town ; that is all ; and we are ready to act • if 47 they accept it we will carry it out in good faith. That is the honest and the straight, square proposition we endeavored to get before the town, and they have dodged the question, as I said this forenoon. Q. Were you asked when you got there whether you had the author- itj'? A. Yes, sir; I think we were. Q. And didn't you say you didn't think you had it? didn't you tell the chairman of the selectmen so? A. Perhaps we didn't put it just that way We stated the object of our coming before that committee. They stated they had no authority to act in the matter. Q. And when you were asked by Mr. Cressej', the chairman ofthe selectmen, the same question, didn't you say you didn't have authority? A. We didn't consider we had any authority to i;o any further than to receive an answer to the proposition we had already made. Redirect Examination. Q. (by Mr. Williams). You had made a proposition in the town meeting to refer this either to an outside commission or to a committee ofthe two sections ofthe town, hadn't you? A. Yes, sir. Q. And when j'ou met the last time, when your committee met the selectmen acting as a committee, what was the proposition made to them ? A. We asked them if thej- were pr. pared to rep(jrt on the proposition that we had made to the town, and in answer to that question I think they said they didn't have authority. I then asked them if they would refer the matter back to the town by calling a special town meeting ; they refused to do that, but said they would refer it back to the general committee, and I presume they did : I never have heard anything from them since. Q. And the general committee was the Anti-division Committee? A. The Anti-division Committee. Q. You stated to them you had authority to act so far as committing the Beverly Farms people to that proposition? A. Exactly. .__, „ .^... ,;, what has come out in cross g^ company : When was that gjr .• . - : . . ::- ; ' : _- ' - SU was the buildiug started? y. well, tue company: was it in lUay, 1888, after the defeat of the bill? A. It was in the spring ; I don't know whether it was in May, I think it was in May. Q. Done with a view of helping business in Beverly Farms? A. Yes, sir. Q. And started among the Beverly Farms people? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the stock taken by Beverly Farms people? A. Yes, sir. Q. The native people there? A. Yos, sir. 48 Q. And the manufacture of shoes is carried on there now by an old Beverly Farms man. Mr. Knowlton? A. No, it was formerly, till within a few weeks ; he has sold out to a Lynn party, Mr. Atwell, of Lynn, who is now running the business. Q. And you are endeavoring to build up the business ofthe place? A. We are in hopes to. Q. Y(ju said in answer to Mr. Moulton you would like to explain the circumstances ofthe sale ofthe Sarah Ober lot: will you indicate what you had in mind with reference to the price brought? A. This was a lot owned by the Olier family, — there were several heirs, — and the land lies right in between, right adjoining, the estates of Charles Storrow and Frederick Dexter. Thej' were very anxious to get an easier way upon to the hill, the Highlands, and they had made attempts to purchase that property, but the parties hung out, knowing the circumstances, and didn't propose to sell unless thej' got a fancy price for it. Finallj', to settle the estate, thej- put it up at auction. Mr. Storrow came down and bid, as I have stilted, and afterwards Mrs. Ober sold about an acre and a half, I think, to Mr. Storrow and Mr. Dexter at undoubtedlj' a very fancj' price. It jutted right into their land, and price was no object. I am surprised to hear she only got what she did. There has been comparison made between that land and the Ludden lot, which lies directlj- opposite, the eight acres which Mr. Haven sold at auction, aud which brought $9,000. I had authoritj- to act as Mr. Haven's agent in regard to that land, and have had for a number of j-ears. I offered Mr. Charles Storrow, in 1884, or 1885, I think it was, the whole eight acres — a large part of which I will admit is equally as good as the Sarah Ober lot — I offered him the whole eight acres for $8,000, and the best offer I could get for the eight acres was $6,000, showing that it is not fair, that there is no justice in assessing land by any such sales. I should like to state in regard to the Mrs. Lovering lot in the same way ; let us have the facts. Mr. Williams. Go on. The Witness. Mrs. Lovering owned a lot adjoining Mrs. Vaughan ; I think her land came within a very few feet of the house, — Mrs. Vaughan is a summer resident, — and Mrs. Lovering sent her men down there to dig a cellar within twenty-flve feet of Mrs. Vaughan's house. Of course Mrs. Vaughan sent to Mrs. Lovering and asked her what she would take for her land. She didn't want to sell. She then asked her if there was any other spot she could buy that would satisfy her just as well if she would purchase it and would pay for it. I was very much surprised at her locating where she did, because she might just as well have come up on to Commonwealth Avenue and taken a lot, and I have no doubt she would have paid for it for her about as quick. Those are the circumstances of the sale, and of course a fancy price was paid. 49 Q. There is testimony that Mr. Charles Pierce paid more than the assessed value : do j'ou remember his testimony with reference to the reason of it, to the effect that it was, quite an annoyance having this place right opposite his own land ? {Reading from the testimony .] Do you recall that testimonj'? A. Whose testimony? Q. Mr. Charles Pierce's, as to that land which you said somebody paid $100 for it, and it sold afterwards for more. A. I don't seem to recall it just now. Q. Allusion was m.ade to the town of Wenham : does the town of "Wenham have anj' water supply? A. It does not. Q. Does it have any street lights ? A. It does not. Q. Either gas or lamps, or electric lights, or anything of the kind? A. Nothing of the kind. Q. Does it have anj' of the modern improvements? A. None what ever. Q. , Isn't it entirely different in its character and in the management of its town affairs from Beverly or any of the larger towns? A. Decidedly so. Q. Is it a fair comparison to speak of Wenham, in j'our judgment? A. Not at rdl. Q. Now, just a word as to the poor : Is assistance rendered the poor people of Beverly Farms by the people themselves rather than go to tlie town? A. Very large Ij' ; there is a good deal of that done. Different societies do a good deal, and there is a good deal done individually. I don't doubt hut that there has been more than $1,000 spent already this year to aid those who need help. Q. When your committee was chosen to go to present the resolutions to the town meeting, it was done by a vote of the people generally, assembled in Marshall's Hall? A. The meeting was verj' largely at tended, — a very full meeting. Q. And, so far as anv vote was t-.tken, was there any opposition to the vc te ; it was unanimous. hings generally are, and there ¦W; A. There was. Q. Quite a little discussion? A. 1 drew up the proposition and went before the citizens and read it. I didn't urge them to accept it at all; I simply presented it to them, and asked tbem to discuss il and think it over carefully before taking any action upon it. Q. There was no proposition to abandon the line, but to refer the mat ter, to leave the matter of the change for sombody else to settle? A. The matter of meeting the old town was the proposition, and it was unanimously adopted. 50 Recross Examination. ALMOST ALL SALES SINCE* 1883 "EXCEPTIONAL SALES." Q. (by Mr. Moulton). How many sales at the Farms have to be explained as exceptional sales, Mr. Hardy, made under exceptional cir cumstances? A. I don't know as to anj' particular number, sir. Q. Almost eVerj' sale which has taken place since 1883, isn't that so? A. Well, to a certain extent, I should say it was ; there is something a little peculiar about them. Q. How many families do you know, poor families, that are helped, that receive aid, not from the town of Beverly, at Beverly Farms, that would be entitled to receive aid from the town? I don't refer to deeds of kindness. A. I should not want to give anj' names, but I could name a dozen or more. Q. You could name a dozen families at Beverly Farms who would be entitled to receive aid from the town ? A. I don't know as I would put it that they would be entitled. I consider that when a family needs aid they are entitled to aid, — still it may not be a legal title. Q. Mr. Williams, you testified this morning about families moving out of town, and you could not then recall but three or four : during the intermission have j'ou given any attention to that, so you can give some other names ? A. I have thought of several. There is a family by the name of Coakley, a family by the name of Shea, a family by the name of Slaughter, Capt. Barter I think I gave, a family by the name of CuUen, Stephen Cullen ; Gayton T think I gave ; quite a large family by the name of Raineville, a family by the name of Edgar J. Bliss, a family by the name of Henry Andrews, a family by the name of C. E. Elliott, a family by the name of Carroll, a family by the name of Fay, a family by the name of McComber, a family by the name of Gerald. Q. Are there sorae who haven't families, mechanics and others, who have gone ? A. There are quite a large number of mechanics ; I can simply refer to my own case. Where we were in the habit of emploj'ing from flfty to seventy-flve men, mechanics in the building line, we have reduced down to half a dozen. These men of course scatter, and o-q into other places. Q. Mr Robinson. On the question of aid to the poor, I suppose it is the same as it is in every place, that there are charities bestowed that do not go through the public channels, — that you know to be the fact every where? A. Yes, 1 presume so, to a certain extent. Q. And do you know that it is a fact that if you were to undertake to supply out of an appropriation for paupers those who have been in the 51 habit of receiving private charity they would refuse to receive public Aid, — would not apply for it or receive it? Don't you think that would follow? A. Some would and some would not, probably. Q. Isn't it j'our experience that a great many people who would be glad to receive aid, dislike to be known as paupers? They are usually published in the town reports. A. Oh, verj' likely. Q. So that it is fair to suppose you would not jump up from $85, if that was the sum, to the 81,000 limit of j'our entire liberality and gener osity during the year, isn't it? A. I should saj- $1,000. Q. I know you said so ; but I am trying to get at whether you think if you have given $1,000 in charily, which may be very noble, your pauper system would entail so large an expenditure upon the town? A. I am inclined to think it would come very near that. Q. You think your pauper list would go up from $85 to $1,000 in a J'ear ? A. I will tell J'OU whj'. Governor. Of course, we should not have paupers enough in a little town like that to build a poorhouse, and if we had any deserving poor we should probably be obliged to board them, and it would onlj- take, as you would see, three or four to dispose of the $1,000. I think that is a verj' moderate sum for any town. Q. And you think there would be no hesitancy on the part of those ipeople in taking pauper aid and being known as paupers with all that implies? you think they would not refuse to lake aid? A. From mj' experience, I would not hesitate to say thej' would not. OWNERS OF THE GORE AND ITS TWO MILLIONS. Q. I want to ask a few questions about the people in the Gore ; Wil liam G. Saltonstall's heirs are there? A. Their property is there. Q. Thomas E. Proctor? I " CIQ. yy iiiiaui jTuweu iuason .' A. Yes, sir. Q. The Dexters? A. Yes. Q. William S. and Mrs. Franklin Dexter? A. Yes, sir. Q. Stephen G. Wheatland? A. Yes. Q. Mrs. John 'Cushing ? 52 A. Yes, sir. Q. Mrs. John Silsbee? A. Yes. Q. John L. Gardner? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mrs. King? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mrs. Joseph Cabot ? A. Yes, I think she is. Q. C. U. Cotting? A. C. U. Cotting I think would go to the westward. Q. Martin Brimmer? A. Yes, take him in. Q. William Endicott, Jr. A. I don't think he comes into the Gore ; I won't be positive. Q. The Bartlett property, Mrs. Sidney Bartlett? A. They have a place there. Q. Mrs. Palfrey? A. Yes. Q. Frank Bartlett? A. Yes, sir. Q. Charles Peirson? A. Charles Peirson. Q. Alexander Cochrane? A. Yes, sir. Q. Charles Loring ? A. Yes. Q. And the Jacksons ? A. Yes, sir. Q. AndR. T. Parker? A. Yes. Q. George Goddard ? A. Yes. Q. These are all people whose propeity is in the Gore : is that so? A. Some of it, not all of it. ' Q. No, not all they have got. And these people are all well known to you, I suppose, as Boston people, aren't they? A. I think so. Q. You call them Boston people ? A. We call ihem Boston people. Q. And they are iu that Gore, and they make up that property of about two millions, at any rate, in there ? A. Yes. 53 Q. If you should take them out, and take out the people who work for ¦them as coachman or employed in various ways, how many would you fhave left in that Gore, do you think ? A. Not a very large population. Q. It wouldn't be worth getting, would it, then? A. We would take it without them. Q. You would take it and take the chances on it? A. Certainly. Mr. Williams. I have here the census prepared by Mr. Stephen Connolly, and which was made by going from house to house, and it is classifled in this way : Those under flve years, 'hose between flve and fifteen years, total under twenty-one, males over twenty-one, and females •over twenty-one. I will cheerfullj' submit it to the inspection of my brothers on the other side, and at any time after to-morrow Mr. Stephen Connolly can be here and submit to cross examination ; if thej' desire to cross examine him to-day he is now here. The sum total is as fol lows : 299 under 21 ; 326 males over 21 ; 352 females over 21, making a total of 957 in Bevjrly Farms, and 60 all told in Wenham, making a population of 1,017. TESTIMONY OF THOMAS D. CONNOLLY. , Mr. Williams. Before I begin on the main examination, I would like to ask whether Mrs. Woodbury's property extends down to the stream. A. Yes, sir. It extends right across to the railroad track and borders on the railroad track for some distance, one end of it, and comes out on the main road. There is a crossing now on the railroad where you can cross right over now; j'Ou can drive a team across it to-day if you wish. Q. You are a resident of Beverly Farms? A. Yes, sir. Q. And one of the members of the committee? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is your business? A. Contractor and builder. Q. What class of work do j'ou do ? A. Sewers, buildings of all kinds, •everything, rough work, blasting and building. Q. Not wood work? A. Not wood work. Q. And with a view to testifying, have you paid some attention to the sales that have taken place on the Beverly side of our proposed line? A. I have, sir. Q. And what is the result of j'our deductions? How do the sales on the Beverlj' side of the line compare with the assessments? A. Very largely in excess ofthe assessed valuations. Q. Please state to the committee what you have to say about those -scales. A. These are all sales on the Beverlj- side. The first case I have is a case on Tuck's Point, off Lothrop Street, that land by the •water here. ' {Indicating on a map.] This is the Chapman estate. 54 There was a store assessed for $50, and an eighth of an acre of land $150, a total of $200, in 1885. In 1886, the year of the great rise at the Farms, the store was assessed for $150, and the eighth of an acre of land, — it is put in feet, 545 feet — was assessed at $150, total, $300. This estate was sold by S. H. Stone, through his agency, to George S. Seeley, early this present year, in January, for $1,500, $1,200 above the assessed valuation. I suppose it is very valuable, because there is a large hotel there called The Queen, and a very fine view. You can see the Beverly shore, and the Marblehead shore on the other side, and down. in between the islands ; it is one of the finest views in Beverly. ' The next case is one which was before the county commissioners as to- changing the line of the bridge that goes from Beverly to Salem, the Masury estate. I take this from the Beverly Times, and I suppose it is right ; I have seen it in several other papers, but I take it from the Bev erly Times because they are supposed always to tell the truth in Beverly : " Mr. Barlow, for Masurj' estate, said it was assessed for $3,650, but was not assessed bj' $1 .500 of what it should be. The prop erty is well worth $7,000, and the actual cost was*$6,500. Itis paying about ten per cent, on $7,000. It would bring $6,000 at auction. He didn't think that Mr. Masury would sell for $5,000." That is the testi monj' of a Beverly man, that the propertj- pays ten per cent on $7,.000, and it is only assessed for $3,650. The next one is the George A. Clough estate. The man who owned it was killed on the railroad, aud there was a forced sale, and it wassold at public auction, by John M. Murney, who is here in the room. In 1885^ this propertj-, including a house and barn, was assessed for $750, and 4,500 feet of land for $200 ; total, $950. In 1886, 4,500 feet of land,. assessed $225, barn and house the same as in 1885, $750 ; total, $975,. an increase of $25. This was sold by John M. Murney for $1,250,. September, 1889. That was $325 above the assessed value. The next estate is that of F. A. Crosby, on Mechanic Street. In- 1885, the house was assessed at $700, and 5,000 feet of land at $100 ; total, $800. In 1886, liouse, $800, 5,000 feet of land, $100 ; totaly $900. Mr. Robbins Raymond bought this estate for $1,500 in October,, 1889, an increase of $600. The same man bought the lot which is right back of this, belonging to- Hugh Hill. The unfinished house, in 1885, was assessed for $1,500, and 7,474 feetof land at $250. The house the nextyear was assessed at $1,900,. and the same amount of land at $375 ; total, $2,275. This was bought. by the same gentleman, Robbins Raymond, for $2,800, or at an increase of $525 above the assessed valuation. This was sold in October, 1889. There was another estate down here in the Cove, on Corning Street^ belonging to the heirs of the late Levi Woodbury, and that estate had to 55 be settled. In 1885 the house, and an eighth of an acre of land, was assessed at $650, and the same in 1886 ; and it was sold at a forced sale at public auction to David Palmer for $775 in March last. , The ' lots which were sold on East Lothrop Street by A. P. Loring, trustee for the Burgess estate. — lots Nos. 24 and 25 ; lot 24 con sisting of 7,060 feet, and lot 25 consisting of 6,356 feet, — these two lots were assessed together for $125 last year, or in 1888; and they were sold at public auction by Perry Collier for $750, to Isaac Ray. These are the only ones I could get at, for the simple reason I have to take them from the Beverly papers. Q. Now, have j'ou anything to say. as to the sale of the Bisson estate on the Beverly side in 1888 ? A. There was a sale of the Bisson estate, which consisted of property owned by several heirs, and they wanted it sold to divide it up. They owned property there in the old town, and some woodland on the Farms side. I don't know what it brought ; I have forgotten the amount now, bpt I think it brought a third more than the assessed valuation. I think the piece on the Farms side was assessed for $800 and only brought $400. Q. What did you mean to testify as to the Queen Hotel ; that it was near the lot you mentioned, or upon it? The Governor understood you to saj' the Queen Hotel was on it. A. No ; right near it, right in that vicinity, on Lothrop Street. (^Adjoumed to 10 a. m., Wednesday, Jan. 29, 1890. J 56 State House, Blue Room, Boston, Jan. 29, 1890. The hearing was resumed this morning. Senator Oakman presiding. THOMAS D. CONNOLLY (^resumed). Mr. Williams. Just at the close of the testimony of Mr. Connolly, I was speaking to him about the sales of the Bisson estate on the two sides, and he has the exact flgures, and I will ask him just to state them. The Witness. The Bisson estate, on the Beverly side of the line, the property consisting of 61,000 feet of land, assessed for $2,875, was sold for $4,505. Then there was another smaller piece belonging to the same property, in the old town ; that was assessed for $75 and sold for $215. Then, on the Farms 'side of the line, I stated j'esterday, the proportion was just the same as regards the assessment and valuation, but I stated yesterdaj' that I thought it was $800 it was assessed for on the Farms side, and that it was sold for $400. The facts are, that it was assessed for $420 and sold for $220. The proportion is just the same, onlj' I thought I would like to correct myself on it. Cross Exa,mination. Q,. (by Mr. Moulton). Is this Bisson sale that j'ou have just spoken of the same property that was spoken of last year, the same sale? A. Well, I am uot so sure about that. Very likely, Mr. Moulton, it may be. Q. And of what does it consist? A. It consist of very good build ing hind. Q. A house lot, do you mean? A. I think there is a house on it. I didn't state the valuation ofthe house, I merely took the land. Q. The house wassold? A. Yes. Q,. You took the valuation of the land? A. Yes ; the house was sold and I took the valuation of the land. Q. Was there any other land connected with the estate? A. I think there was another small piece of land close lo it, in the back, rather low, and also the piece on the Beverly Farms side, in these woods here, I think [indicating on the map]. Q. This was a sale by the family, or a division among themselves, was it? ' A. The sale, as I understand it, it was flve eighths of the property ; it was the game on both sides ; it is a sale just the same, whether it is five eighths, or one eighth, or the whole, —it is practically the same. 57 Q. What I want to get at is the facts in regard to that sale : it was a sale, then, only of five eighths ofthe property? A. Yes, sir. Q. And was it a sale among members of the familj' for the purpose of division? Did it go out of the familj' at all? A. I couldn't tell j-ou that, sir. It was a public auction sale, for I saw the red flag flj'ing ou the propertj-. Q. Now, in that assessment, did you take into account the assessment of anj' part of that property? You took the part that was on the Beverly side ofthe line, as you term it: did j'ou know that anj' part of it was assessed to Solomon Woodbury, of Boston? A. No, sir, I did not. Q. And didn't know that Solomon Woodbury owned a fifth of it? A. No, sir. Q. And, of course, didn't take that into account at all? A. I shouldn't have taken it account if I had known it, for the reason that it was five eighths of the propertj' ; it made no difference to ine who owned it, the proportion was just the same on one side as on the other. Q. AVasn't the whole iiroperty sold? A. Of course I can't go into that, Mr. Moulton, but I understood there was five eighths ofthe property sold or divided. Q. Were you present at the auction? A. I was not, sir. Q. And .all that you know about it is what some has told you? A. I read it in the Citi:en. I think, and other papers at the time. Q. W;is j-our valuation ofthe whole or only five eighths? A. I took it just as it was frorn the papers, but I heard afterwards that it was five eighths of the property. / Q. Now, isn't it the fact that th.-it property, — or if j'ou can't answer now, will J'OU look and see whether that propeity, in 1886, was assessed for $3,685 : three fifths to the Bisson heirs, one fifth to Mr. Solomon Woodbury, and one fifth belonging lo another heir of the estate, who was absent, away ? 1. I .suppose if j-oQ say so it i if jou will ascertain whether that was the fact or not. A. I will later on. Q. Now, you spoke yesterday of a sale at Tuck's Puint : won't you give your statement again in regard to that sale at Tuck's Point? A. The Chapman estate. Tuck's Point, assessed in 1885 : store, S50 ; on eighth of an acre of land, $150. The store, $150, 5,445 feet of land, practically the same ; an eighth of an acre, $300. This estate sold by Samuel H. Stone to George S. Seeley, for $1,500. This was sold some time early this month. 58 Q. Are you sure that it is the same estate at all? A. Of course we are sure of nothing in this world. Q. I want to know how much confidence you have in your opinion' that this property was sold for $1,500 was the same that was assessed $250. A. The only way I could have access to it was through the last valu ation book, and, of course, I took it for what I supposed was correct, and the same estate, aud ifit is not so, of course I don't want to insist, but I think it is the same estate. Q. That was the Chapmart estate? A. The Chapman estate. Q. And do j'ou know whether this estate that sold for $1,500 is taxed this year to Mrs. Greenough, aud isn't the estate which you men tion al all ? A. As I said before, BIr. Moulton, the only way I had to take it was from the last valuation, and I took it from that supposing it was correct. Q. But the valuation book doesn't identify the properly, I suppose, necessarily? A. As near as you can make it out. Tuck's Point, and it has been- assessed the previous year, 1885, to this Chapman estate, and I supposed it was the same estate. Q. Now, you spoke next of the testimonj' of Mr. Barrow, who, you say at the hearing on the subject of changing the line of the road of Beverly bridge, said that the property was paj'ing ten per cent on $7,000. A. Yes, sir. Q. What was that propertj'? A. That propertj' consists of a house, and I don't know how manj' feet of land back of it. It is the last house before j'ou strike the bridge on the lefi-hand side going towards Salem. I should judge it was a valu able piece of wharf prorerty, together with a store that is underneath it ; I think it is used for a drug store. Q. Do J'OU know that, at the first hearing before the commissioners, Mr. Barrow offered the property at 85,000? A. No, sir, I did not. Q. Didn't know that that was the fad? A. No, sir. Q. And then when he found, perhaps, that there was an opportunitj- to make a good bargain by the change of the street that he raised his price to $7,000, or said that it was worth $7,000, or was paj'ing ten per cent on $7,000? A. Yes, sir. Q. And it is a fact, is it not, that the County Commissioners have not 59 taken that Barrow property yet, even at $5,000, an offer of $5,000, if one was made? A. I don't know. Q. Where is the Clough estate, — George A. Clough? A. It is on Chase Street; I think that is in the Washington district somewhere. Q. And was that a sale on foreclosure of mortgage ? A. I understood that it was a forced sale ; the man was killed on the railroad. Q. The Hugh Hill propertj' was an unfinished house, you say? A. Yes, sir; that is, in 1885. In 1886 it was $1,900, — $400 more. Q. There has been a loss in valuation at Beverly Farms? A. I think there is a loss of somewhere around $590,000. Q. Does that include real und personal? A. I ain't so sure about that. I should think the most of it was personal. Q. How do you account for that loss? A. I account for it by people moving out. Q. Who has moved out? A. Thorxtox K. Lothkop, John T. Morse, Jr. ; there may be one or two more, but I don't know who they are. Q. How much did Mr. Lothrop take of taxable property out of the town? A I couldn't tell j-ou. Q. About a million of dollars ? A. 1 couldn't tell you. Q. How much did John.T. Morse, Jr., take out of the town? A. I couldn't tell you. Q. Has Mr. Charles Read gone away from Beverly? A. What Charles Read is that? Q. A Boston man who lived at Beverly Farms. A. I know a Mr. Charles A.. Read, who went to Manchester some two years ago. , Q. Yes. How much taxable property did he take from Beverly? A. I don't know. Q. Was he a wealthy man? A. Well, he is supposed to be comfortably off. I don't think he is wealthy in the strict sense of the word nowadays. I don't think he is a millionaire. Q. Were Mr. Lothrop and Mr. Morse millionaires? A. I don't think Mr. Morse is, I don't know about Mr. Lothrop. Q. They are wealthy men, are they not, all of these men, Boston men, having shore residences? A. Which men do you mean, sir? Q. Mr. Reed, Mr. Lothrop, Mr. Morse. 60 A. I couldn't state whether they are or not ; they are supposed to be. Q. Don't know anything about it? A. I know them personally and know who they are. I suppose they :are comfortably well off. Q. About their means : is that what j'ou would saj' about it, that they were men who are comfortablj' well off? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. John A. Burnham was in Beverlj' Farms one year, or several years? how manj- years was he there? A. Mr. Burnham, I think, was in Beverly three years. He goes from one place to another ; that is, it is just merely a fancy with him. He was in Nahant three j'ears, and he got tired of there ; he was in Mar blehead three years more, and he went to Beverlj' and stayed there three years. He has been in Newport. Q. Where is he now? A. I couldn't say. The last time I knew of him he was located in Manchester. Q. How much personal tax did he pay when he was in Beverly Farms ? A. I couldn't tell you that. •Q. Was he ta.\ed on about a million? A. I couldn't tell j'ou. Q. Yes ; William Amory Gardner : has he gone awaj- from Beverly ? A. I don't know. I know it as the John I. Gardner estate. I don't know it as William A. Gardnei's. Q. You don't know how much property Mr. Gardner took away from Beverly, if he went away? A. No, sir, I do not. Q. Mr. Franklin Haven has also changed his residence, has he? A. I believe he has, sir. Q. He was formerly a resident of Beverlj-? A. I think so, sir. Q. And is now^a resideiil of Boston? A. Yes, sir. Q. And how much personal property did he take away from Beverly? A. I don't know, sir. Q. Mr. Hardy spoke of some property of yours yesterday? A. Yes, sir. Q. Of the valuation of it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did J'OU sell any land to Mr. Cannon? A. I did, sir. 61 Q. When? A. I don't remember now whether it is three, four or flve years ago,. sir. It was either 1 886 or '87 ; I think it was the fall of 1886. Q. What propertj' did j'ou sell? A. Itis a piece of propertj' consisting of an acre and a quarter of land. Q. For how much did j-ou sell the property? A. I think it was four or flve hundred dollars, I wont't be sure. Q. Four or flve hundred dollars? what was the assessment on that property, ihe valuation of it? A. At that time I think it was valued at $1,000. Q. Do you mean what you sold for four or flve hundred dollars was valued at $1,000, or the whole lot? A. No, not the whole lot. It consisted of an acre or an acre and a quarter, I don't know the exact number of feet. It fronts on one side on Haskell Street, and on another on Hale Street. Q. How much of it did you sell ? A. I don'i want to say, for I don't know exactly, so I shan't saj'. Q. Don't know about it? What rental do you get for that property, Mr. Connolly, and for the blacksmith shop, and what other income dO' J-ou get fiom it? A. I gel SCO a year for the blacksmith shop. Q. How manj' front feet are there ou that Cannon lot that j-ou sold? A. I couldn't saj'. Q. Can'i you jiixe me any idea? A. 1 shouhl ihink perhaps seventy-flve or one hundred feet. Q. Will J-ou say there are over fifty or sixty feet front. A. I told you I didn't know. I should say that there were over flfty feet ; I think I uould be safe to say so, though I don't know. Q. There is also a quarry on that pioperly, that you work? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know what Mr. Watson sold a piece of land to Mr. Mur- raj- for? A. I do iiOt, sir. Q. Now, Mr. Connolly, has there been any land at Beverly Farms since 1885, excepiing that land of Mr Haven's which Mr. Sohier bought,. that has sold at less than the assessors' valuation? A. I can't say ; I don't know. Q. You don't know of any instance? A. I don't know. Q. Any kind of land, either shore land or hill land or village property? A. I know there has been land offered. Q. I am not asking about offers, — have there been any actual sales? A. I don't know. I couldn't tell you that. 62 Redirect. Q. (by Mr. Williams). There has been land on the market, then, that you know of that has been offered for less than the valuation? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you recall any now by name? A. I think John T. Morse said that he had a piece of land that was assessed for $24,000 ; he would sell it for $22,000, and he would throw in $2,500 worth of very nice furni ture as an inducement. Q. Do you remember the teslimony of Dea. Alvin Haskell last year, where he said he would sell his for less than it was assessed at? A. Yes, sir; Mr. Haskell's land consists of low land; in 1885 it was taxed for $700, in 1886, for $3,300 ; there are one or two house lots on it ; it is rather sunken ; it is about ten or twelve feet below the level of the street. This I heard him say myself, that he would be glad to take $1,500 for it. It is assessed now for $2,200, — they have taken $1,100 •off of it. Q. And there is considerable land for sale at Beverly Farms, is there? A. Yes, sir ; there is. Q. You said that j-ou would like to explain about that sale that you made. A. That piece of land I bought for a ledge, but when I started in business there were two competitors of mine there. I had no stone ; I had to buy it. I paid three times more than I ought to paj' for it, because I wanted it ; I had to have it. There is just one little building spot on one end of it, and a man named Cannon came to me and asked me if I wouldn't sell him that little building spot. It was no use to me. I said yes, I would sell it to him. It is a whole ledge, and on the main street, I think. The ledge rises up off of the street ten or twelve feet. I haven't sold $200 worth of stone since I have had it. I have had it five years, and I had to biij- il and pay three times more than it was worth. Q. You have been asked about property leaving : is there a general impression if things continue as they now are that more property will leave the town? A. Yes, sir. Recross Examination. Mr. Moulton. You paid how much for it? I don't know but what J'OU have stated. A. I bought this piece of land of Mr. John I. Baker ; he was assessed $400 on it, and I paid $1,500 for it; I paid three times what it was worth, because I had to have it for business. Q. Mr. Robinson. You were trying to tell us what Mr. Haskell tes tified to : you were present when he testified ? 63 A. I maj' have been. Q. There isn't any doubt about it. You have been here always since this thing commenced? A. No, sir ; I have not. Q. Has there been a day when you were absent? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was it in the summer time? A. No, sir ; it was in the winter. Q. Now, isn't this just what Mr. Haskell testified before the commit tee : "Will you sell at S-2,200?" "Iw-ill." " Will you sell at less than $2,000? I think I should want to think about it, if anybodj' should offer me $2,000, but I think I should let him have it." Do you remem ber that? A. No ; I do not. Q. I think you said a moment ago that you heard the testimonj? ' A. No, sir. Q. Didn't you tell Mr. Williams you heard him testifj'? A. I heard Mr. Haskell testifj', but as to the very details of what he said I can't remember now. There has been so much testimonj- on this case that I can't remember to a single word what he said ; I couldn't say ; I remember he testified. Q. You were active in this matter last j'ear as this year? A. I took part with others from the Farms ; yes, sir. Q. These people that have been mentioned — Mr. Haskell, is he still living ? A. Yes, sir ; he is. Q. So far as j'ou know, Mr. Lothrop and Mr. Morse are living? A. I think so. Q. And is that school teacher with us who has been with us in former years ? A. Miss Ober? Yes, she is living. She is married now. Q. Married ! Is she in favor of division ? A. Yes, sir. Q. She isn't a unionist now? Please give her name now, so that we may know. You saj- it is changed. A. Mrs. Dow. Q. And Mr. Dow is one of the committee here? A. Yes, sir. Q. Does she still teach the school ? A. She does. Q. And all these other people who have testified in former years here, and presented themselves before the committee, are they still livjng, so far as j'Ou know ? 64 A. I don't recall any of them that have died. OPPOSED TO ANY CHANGE OF LINE. Q. Do J'OU favor the Plum Cove line. A. No, sir, I do not. Q. Are you opposed to it? A. I am, sir. Q. Are you in favor of a bill that should take that line? A. No, sir, I am not. Q. You would rather not have a division if you were to have Plum Cove line? A. I suppose I am committed on that for this reason, that I voted for a resolution that was put into the town of Beverlj-, it having been said that we have never come up to the old town to talk it over with them. I voted for that resolution. I am willing to abide by the result of that resolution. Q. That is not quite an answer to mj' question. A. That is my answer, as far as I can give it. Q. Perhaps, if I put the question again, j'Our abilitj' may be greater than you conceive. I asked you if you would favor a bill that ran the line to Plum Cove. Mr. Williams. He has answered No. A. I answered No. Mr. Robinson. He doesn't need anj- care on j'our part : he has been with this case longer than j'Ou have. Mr. Williams. I propose to make a suggestion if I want to. Mr. Robinson. That is all right. I don't think the witness needs a suggestion. Mr. Williams. I think he does. Mr. Robinson. Mr. Williams answered, Init may I have your answer? Would you rather have a bill at Plum Cove line, or h.avi' no bill of division ? A. I said that I was uot in favor of Plum Cove line. I said that I was willing to abide by those resolutions. Q. I undeistand that. Don't j'ou understand my question? A. That is the way I understand it. Q. I am trying to gel at j our individual judgment. A. I told you that, as far as I am concerned, I would not accept the Plum Cove line. Q. Do you agree with what Mr. Hardy said in regard to the persons who live in that poriion which is called the " Gore "? A. 1 wish you would put j-our question again. Q. You recollect that I called over to him the names of Boston people whose residences for a part of the year were in the Gore : do you re member 'that ? 65 A. I remember of j'Ou calling some names and asking if they lived in the Gore. Q. And was it correct, so far as you noticed ? A. I think those persons are in the Gore. Q. I am talking about those Boston people. A. Those do live there, I think. "COMFORTABLY WELL OFF" IN THE GORE. Q. Are those people of wealth? A. Some of them are, and some of them, I should say, were land poor. Thev own some land there which is valuable for shore land, but I think they are what we call " land poor." Q. Is Mr. Thomas E. Proctor one of those poor people? A. I think Mr. Thomas E. Proctor is comfortably well off. Q. What do you call "comfortably well off"? you have used that expression several times. A. I should say a man worth $500,000. Q That is comfortablj' well off. Do you have an impression that that is the limit of Mr. Proctor's possessions? A. I c uldn't tell you, sir ; I don't know. Q. William G. S-dtonstall's familj'? A. I know the man to speak to, but about his family, I don't know anything about them. Q. Should you say that thej' were " comfortably off" ? A. 1 should say yes, they were. Q The Shaw familj-, Mrs. ,Shaw? A. Yes, sir, she lives there. Q. I know ; but follow up on the other question now. Is she comfort ably well off? A. I don't know what she is worth. Q. William Powell Mason : have j'ou got anj' idea about him ? A. I know he is well off, or supposed to be. Q. Did you know that he paid about $80,000 for his estate there? A. No, 1 did not. Q. Didn't you hear it testified to in the former hearings ? A. I think I have. Q. You know Augustus P. Loiing? A. Yes, sir. Q. By the way, Mr. Loring is alive? A. I hope so. Q. I hope so : but is he, as a fact? A- Y'es, sir. Q. And he has always been the front witness, hasn't he? A. I I, on't think so, not necessarily. Q. He has been the one who has testified on the values and testified on 66 the expenditures of the town and presented all these questions of taxa tion, hasn't he? A. He is one that has testifled on the expenditures of the town. I think other men have testified to the valuations also. Q. But he was the one who was active in telling where property could be found in Beverly for taxation, personal property, but didn't succeed in unearthing anj' on the Beverly Farms side ? A. I don't remember that. Q. You don't remember that when he was here he didn't testify about his own personal estate, — he hadn't found out about the per-sonal estate in his own family, had he ? A. I don't remember about that. Governor. Q. You don't remember about that? A. No, sir, I do not. Q. You don't remember the little sensation he created by that on cross examination ? A. No, I do not. Q. He isn't here to-day, though? A. I don't see him ? Q. The Dexters, are they wealthy people? A. Which Dexter do you mean ? Q. There is William S., and Mrs. Dexter, and Arthur. A. I don't think William S. Dexter is a wealthy man. Q. Speak of the others. A. I don't think Arthur Dexter is very wealthy. Q. What do you mean bj' very wealthy ? A. I don't think Arthur Dexter, though I don't know anything about it, is a wealthy man. My impression is, I don't think he has got $50- 000. Q. Do J'OU know what his property is? A. I do not. Q. Steiihen G. Wheatland? A. Stephen G. Wheatland I don't know only by hearsay. Q. And that Hearsay is that he and his wife together are wealthy people ? A. They Own ' a" residence in the Gore. I don't think they are wealthy. Q. Those people in the Gore are not wealthy people, then, on the whole ? A. I think Mr. Powell Mason is a wealthy man ; I think Martin Brimmer is ; I think'Mrs. Cabot is. I think, take those three out, the others, as far as t retnember, are not wealthy. Q.. How about the Palfreys? 4. I don't think Palfrey is a weAlthy man at all. 67 Q. Alexander Cochrane? A. I don't know what he is worth, sir, I couldn't tell you. Q. Mr. Sidney Bartlett's family, and Mr. Francis Bartlett's family? A. I don't know. Q. You don't know about that. A. No, sir. Q. William Endicott, Jr. ? A. I don't know about that ; I don't know what he is worth. Q. He is of the firm of C. V. Hovey & Co., of Boston ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You don't know whether he is wealthy or not ? A. I supposed he was " comfortably well off." He owns land on the Beverly side. He is a Beverly boj'. Q. Are the people over in Beverly any more than " comfortably well of"? A. They are. Q. As soon as you get over the line you strike into rolling wealth, don't you ? A. You do. Q. And is it the Plum GrOve line, or is it the petitioners' line, where you jump from poverty to affluence ? A. I stated. Governor, that we had wealthy men on this side, and I stated thej' had wealthy men on that side. The first man after j'ou cross the line, the Sears estate, which everybody knows denotes wealth; the Pickman s come next : nobodj' knows what they are worth ; I don't think the assessors of Beverlj- do. ' Q. Go right on and revel in the wealth on Beverly side. A. We come next to William Endicott Peabody ; I don't know what he is worth, he owns this large estate in here. Q. State it large. A. Amorj' Lawrence, whose illustrious father the city of Lawrence was named after, — which denotes wealth. Take Mr. W. D. Sohier's family. I think nobody knows what thej' are worth. We haven't been able to find ont. Q. But thej' are comfortably off? A. I think so, verj- much so. Then take Grover, of Grover & Baker Sewing Machine, they are comfortably well off. Take Richardson, down in there ; and there is another man that is comfortably well off, I forget his name now. Then take the Phillips estate, away up here in North Beverly, on which over half a million dollars were spent, a beautiful estate, on the borders of Wenham lake. There are others, I don't think of them now. There are wealthy men on both sides, there is no deny- in" it; thej' are just the same on one as on the other. 68 WEALTH AT FARMS PROPER. Q. When you are ready, now, I should like to have j'ou go over on the other side and tell us about wealthy people. A. I have told you. I said Mr. Powell Mason. — Q. He is in the Gore. Are there any wealthy people east of the Plum Cove line? A. Well, Eugene Thayer they say is a wealthy man. That isthe first one I think of. Q. Think of the next one. A. I think Mr. Lothrop is reputed to be a wealthy man. Q. Anj'body else? A. Haven is wealthy as far as land is concerned ; he is land poor. Q. Haven is " land poor"? A. Yes, sir. Q. You sympathize with him, I suppose? A. Yes, sir, I do. Q. You want a division so as to protect Franklin Haven? A. Not uece-sarily. Q. Go on with the rich people down there. A. That is all I know of. Q. Only three? A. You said east of Plum Cove line, and I have given them to j'Ou as far as I am able. Q. And you only know Eugene Thaj'er and Thornton K. Lothrop and Franklin Haven? A. That is all. Q. You don'tknow of any others who are " comfortably well off"? A. They may be worth $50,000 or $75,000. Q. Suppose you give us some of those ? A. Well, I don't know. I wouldn't want to state what they are worth. I don't know. Q. You are not so well informed on that side of the line as you are over in old Beverlj', are you ? A. I think I am. Q. Go right on with the same alacrity and devotion. A. I have given it to you as far as I can. Q. This is the measure of your fairness? A. I think it is east of the Plum Cove line. Q. Three people over there are the only ones you can mention, and over here you went by the dozen ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Because they are over there ? A. I think they are wealthy. Q. Do you know Mr. Frank L. Higginson ? 69 A. Yes, sir. Q. What do you saj- about him? A. I don't know what he is worth. I guess Mr. Frank Higginson is -perhaps a wealthy man. Q. Is Schlesinger over there somewhere? A. Yea, sir. Q. What about him? A. I don't know what he is worth. He hasn't lived in Beverly — Q. Do you know anything about his business connections? A. I think that he is in the iron business, if I mistake not. Q. Naylor & Co. ? A. Naylor & Co. Q. Do you know anything about his connection with the Rothschilds? A. No, sir. I know this much, that he wants to sell in Beverly. Q. I undeistand about that : thej' all want to sell. The George Gard- ' ner estate, is there anything there ? A. I don't consider them wealthy. Q. Did you know, as a matter of common information, that Mrs. George Gardner had the income of $20,000 in gold from her husband's estate ? A. I did not, sir. Q. And thej- said she was " wortli her weight in gold"? A. I did not, sir. Mr. Williams. Is it a fact? Mr. Robinson. I am told so. Q. Didn't you know that In the will he did actually leave her gold, to the amount of her weight in gold, so many ounces? A. I don'tknow. Governor. Q. Didn't JOU ever hear that? A. I don't go into everj-bodj-'s business in that town. Q. Is there a gentleman named Storrow lives down there? A. Charles S. Storrow, yes, sir. Q. Is he a man " comfortably" situated, do you know? A. I don't know. He is a man that works every day ; he is a cotton broker, and works .very hard, too. Q. That might be, and he might be worth something, for all that. A. I don't think he is a wealthy man. I think he is like Mr. Haven, he is land poor. Q. Then he is as unfortunate as Mr. Haven is ? A. Yes, sir; I think he is. Q. In just the same category as Franklin Haven? Charles H. Dalton, don't he live down there somewhere? A. Yes, sir ; he lives there. 70 Q. Is there a gentleman of the name of Lee down there? A. Henrj' Lee? Q. I believe that is his name. A. Henry Lee had been there since 1847, and a citizen of Brookline, and always will remain so. Q. I know, but I am talking about his property there. A. He has got a small place. Q. I suppose that is Col. Lee, of Lee, Higginson & Co., the bankers here? A. Yes, I think it is. Q. And have you an impression that Col. Lee is " comfortably off"? A. Yes, I should think he jwas, Governor. Q. He is one of the " comfortably well off"? A. Yes. Q. Not wealthy? A. Yes, I should say he was wealthy. Q. There are a good many of these people that j'ou have spoken of who would be fairly called summer residents, wouldn't they? A. Yes. Q. Those are summer residents ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And by that you mean people who go down there and spend how many months, say, for an average, four or five, or along there? A. Well, what I mean by a summer resident, a summer resident is one that doesn't live there ; he owns perhaps property there, and lives in Boston ; that is what I call a summer resident. Those men that vote in Beverlj', and have been voters for j'ears, and own summer residences- there, and perhaps spend three months in Borton, or perhaps four, I should consider residents of Beverly, just as much as Mr. Sohier is to-day . Q. You are illustrating and arguing, that is your habit ; but those summer residents are in favor of division? A. I don't think they bother much about it. Q. Perhaps you could answer the question, Do thej' favor division? A. Some of them do and some of them do not. Q. Who doesn't? A. Well, I won't say they do not ; I suppose they do favor division I know some of them don't care anything about it. Q. Who are thej'? A. I think Mr. Frank Bartlett is a man that is indifferent. Q. Who else? A. I don't know of any other. Q. He is the only one that is indifferent ? A. Yes. 71 Q. All the rest are for it? A. I couldn't say whether thej' are for it or against it. I never went to them personallj' to inquire whether thej' were for division or against it. Q. Do you know whether they have contributed monej'to carry this on? A. I have heard that thej- contributed somewhat. Q. That would indicate that they were in favor of division? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know from whom those sums have been collected? A. No, sir ; I do not. Q. Mr. Gordon Dexter : do you know anything about that? A. I think he did. Q. Last J'ear? A. I think he did. Q. This year too ? A. He said he might give something by and by. He hasn't given anything j'et, I think. Q. Who else ? [Objected to and withdrawn.] Q. (by Mr. Murray, of the Committee). How many summer resi dents are living on the Beverly Farms side of the proposed division line? A. There are eightj--four, and seventy on this side. There are about eighty on this side, and sixly-flve or seventy on that. MR. LORING SAYS 80 SUMMER RESIDENTS TO 26. Q. Mr. Robinson. Mr. A. P. Loring, you said, testifled : he isn't here this year ; he is a man that is well informed, isn't he? A. Yes, sir ; I should saj- he was. Q. Did he testify as to the number of summer residents who go down to Beverlj-, " I haven't flgured it up carefully, but I have made out a list. I can't testifj- beyond what I testifled last year, that there are between seventy-six and eighty in our part of the town, and about twenty-six in the other part of the town ; those were the names of all the people I could recollect to write down " ? A. I think he was wrong there. Governor. Q. He isn't here to-day to correct it, is he? Mr. Williams. Although it has been intimated that there was a cun ning scheme on mj' part not to introduce any testimony, I feel that, so far as bringing information to the committee, everything has been brought to your attention that could be, and I propose to leave my case here, inviting you to read the testimony, simply reserving the right of intro ducing rebuttal teslimony — Mr. Robinson. Of course, while this is not tried in court, and you are 72 not bound by the strict rules that the courts would apply, still we sup pose it is fair to assume that there will be some reasonable limit on this question of rebuttal. Mr. Williams. I have never put in but one witness, Mr. Chairman, in rebuttal. Mr. Robinson. And you have never kept your witnesses off the stand, as you have this time, never. Mr. Williams. I have put in my case, and I know that the Governor wants to try both his case and mine, and decide it, but I have seen flt to adopt this course, and I propose to take the consequences. PETITIONERS' REBUTTAL. Mr. Williams. I want to hand to the committee a little population book. It was taken by Mr. Stephen Connolly, and he has, as I say, been ready for examination at any and at all times, and will be. I have overlooked it here. I would like to call Mr. Thornton K. Lothrop, a gentleman whom I have summoned to be here. TESTIMONY OF THORNTON K. LOTHROP. Mr. Williams. How long have you been acquainted with Beverly Farms ? A. It is a great many years since I have been acquainted with Bev erly Farms. Q. How long since you have owned any property at Beverly Farms? A. I moved there in the summer of 1870 and hired a house. I bought some land in 1872, built a house, and have owned propertj' there ever since. Q. Have j-ou resided there a certain portion of the j'ear ever since? A. I have resided there up — to I was a citizen and resident there up to 1889. I have lived there much more time than I have lived in any other place in this countrj- since I moved there. Q. Have you been familiar with the purchase of propertj' and sales of propertj' there? A. Yes, I have both bought and sold. Q. And have paid some attention to the question of the valuation of propertj'? A. Yes, a good deal; I have been consulted about purchases and sales of property. Q. Your profession, by the way, is that of a lawj-er? A. Y'es, sir. Q. There has been a list of sales introduced here to the committee concerning which I would like to ask you a few questions, but not about all of them. It speaks of William Powell Mason first: do you know anj-thing about that? A. Yes, sir ; I do. Q. Are you willing to state to the committee the circumstances under which he purchased? A. The only question I have about stating the circumstances to the com mittee is that it is going into Mr. Mason's private and family and domes tic matters in a sort of way I do not exactly like. There were reasons 74 why Mr. Mason, who had hired this place, had a peculiar, extraordinary and especial interest. He had an attachment for it that was very pleas ant and very strong. He is a very rich man, I fancy, — I don't know anything about it, but I fancy he is a rich man. He wanted this place. He had hired il there, and his only boy, who was a charming little boy, after he had lived through the summer was drowned by accident just as he was going to leave. Instead of its turning Mr. Mason away from the place, he could not bear to leave the place ; that was the amount of it, and he took it again the next summer. Every haunt that this boy had been over he kept going over, and after a while he made up his mind to buy it for whatever il cost, and bought it for whatever it cost. He was a long time thinking about it. It had a special and peculiar value for him. The place is undoubtedly valuable as a shore place, but it had a value for Mr. Mason far beyond its value as so many acres of land or so many acres for a house That is the whole history of his place. Q. " Andrew C. Wheelwright?" A. W ell, I just heard Mr. Baker, as I was bitting there, — I heard Mr. Baker's statement. Miss Jackson bought that place, — I guess the J'ear was given correctly, I don't remember the j'ear, — at a price, after much consideration and discussion, — at a price which everybody down there thought very high. Mr. Wheelwright had married the j'oungest daughter of Mrs. Cabot, who was then an old ladj' of ninety odd. This place was right next to hers, divided merely bj- a line of trees or a fence, and she wished to come back there and be next her mother. And Mr. Wheelwright, before the Jacksons had taken possession of the place, came to them and wished to buy it. Thej' did not wish to sell, and he made an offer. He paid them so much bonus, so to speak, that they could not bui let him have the place. It was not a question of dollars and cents, or the value of anj- place on the Beverly shore, but of this particular identical spot of land that was next to this old lady's house. ' Mr. Wheelwright stayed there as long as old Madam Cabot lived, and he has never, — he may have been there one summer since, but I do- not think he has been inside of the place. I think he has let it when he coiild let il. It has been shut up some summers, and has been let. others. Q. Take the Henry P. Kidder estate. A. I don't know that I want to say that a man whom I think was a person of such excellent judgment, one of the best men I ever knew, committed an act of supreme folly, but Mr. Kidder had married a wife who was a very charming woman of whom he was veiy fond. She wanted this place, and he bought it for her, and he built a house for her, and he built a stable for her. Before the house was fairly done he died, and the place had been on the market ever since theu, either to let 75 or to sell, at flgures much below the assessors' valuation ; or, I will say,. I don't know what they ask for it, but it can be bought for much less than the assessors' valuation, but nobody has ever been willing to hire it or to buy it. Plenty of people have looked at it, but everybody has gone oft'. Q. Two others I would like to ask you about : one is the purchase by Mrs. Whitman and Miss Perkins. A. Mrs. Whitman bought the whole — which was not a great deal — of old Mrs. Cabot's place, which is next to this Wheelwright place. I don't remember whether I heard Mr. Baker's statement of it this morning; however, it is immaterial. They asked 875,000 for it. Mr. Whitman wanted to buj' it, — thought of buj'ing il. He is a merchant in Boston, a wool merchant, of the firm of Weston, Whitman & Co. He had lived down at Beverly Farms, I should think, some five or ten j-ears, I could not saj' how long, always hired a house there, I should think as much as that. He liked this place there, but he said. " It is not worth that sum of money, and I won't buy it at all." Mrs. Whitman had been a verj' great friend of old Mrs. Cabot's, and was very much attached to the place, and she went into the broker who had it in charge, and she said, "I am very sorry Mr. Whitman will not buy this place, but he does not think it worth while as an investment. Mj- uncle had died, or I have just had money come to me in mj' name. I have got some money, and I will buy the place." That is the way that place was bought, exactlj-. Q. Now, one other : that of Thomas Gaffield to Martin Brimmer. A. Well, that place belonged to the Upton family, — a little bit of a place under the hill. At the same time it cut right into Mr. Brimmer's place. It was offered to him, I don't remember the flgure, $16,000 or $17,000, I have forgotten now how much, it may have been a trifle less. He thought it too much, and declined to buy it. Mr. Gaffleld, who is a lar- ever business they would have in going to the local stores is at Beverly Farms? A. I presume so. As regards the store : Mr. Webb keeps a store, and accommodates those in the village itself, — a general variety or country store, — so they are under no necessity of going away from the place to get the most of the goods they need. Q. He is right in the village ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the post office is away in Beverly Farms, where they get their mails mostly? A. Yes, sir, and part comes to Wenham. 98 Q. How are their expenses as compared with their receipts ? A. They take out more than they pay in. You couldn't flgure it very well without going to a great deal of expense. Q. And how many acres of territorj' do the petitioners own ? A. Forty-one and flve eighths acres. I took that from the estimate last night. Q. What taxable property do the petitioners represent? Look at your list — is it $6,625 real estate, and $2,050 personal property? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is the property ofthe remonstrants in the territory? A. I included both the remonstrants and those not signing the peti tion. Henry Dodge did not sign either. Q. And they own, by your list, $2,325 personal property and $12,075 real estate ? A. Whatever I gave last year is correct. I would have taken off the flgures again but the property does not change much. Q. You testified that they owned $12,075 of real estate against $6,625 owned by the petitioners ; also that they owned 181J acres, the peti tioners 40|, and the balance of the territorj' is owned bj' people in the old town of Wenham, Hamilton, and Ipswich : is that so? A. That is so, mostly. There are a few pieces belonging to people in Beverly Farms. Q. The division would take substantially one school district? A. Substantially one school district. Q. How many miles of road have J'OU in Wenham? A. About 21 J. Q. How many schools are there in Wenham? A. Five. Ci^oss Examination. Mr. Williams. As I understand, there are four remonstrants there, and there are several that don't sign? A. There are two that don't sign either paper. Q. Are you aware that there has been a petition in favor, circulating up in the old part of the town ? A. I have heard so within a week. Q. I referred to it in my opening. There are thirty signers, and I want to ask about them. Mr. William S. Cummings, he is one of j'our selectmen, is he not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And your postmaster, Mr. Fred P. Stanwood, and tax collector? and am I correct in calling these some ofthe business men, in the way of butchers and grocers and druggists? Mr. James H. Perkins, am I right? A. Yes, sir. Q. He is a druggist, is he not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And Mr. Frank E. Perkins is a butcher? A. Yes sir. 99 Q. And Mr. William F. Trout, a grocer? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Alonzo C. Perkins a butcher there? A. Yes, sir. Q. And Mr. Henry H. Dempsey is the blacksmith, is he not? A. Yes, sir. Q. John Dodge has signed a petition personally, hasn't he ? A. He did the first j-ear. Q. And there was an intimation made that if he became connected with the Farms his taxes would be higher, and he hasn't signed since, has he? A. That was the impression I got from talking with him. I don't know that he said so in so many words. Q. Mr. Moulton. Has it been stated how many have signed the re monstrance? A. I don't know. Q. Mr. Moulton. Do you know whether there are 126 remonstrants? A. One hundred and twenty-nine. Mr. Williams. And how many voters are there in the town? A. I think there are 230. On the petition there are three that are not voters, but on the remonstrance we only take legal voters that are, registered. Q. Y'ou have now 129 out of 230? A. Yes, sir. TESTIMONY OF ROBERT R. ENDICOTT, selectman op BEVERLY. Mr. Moulton. You reside in Beverly, Mr. Endicott? A. Yes, sir, I have resided there all my days. Q. You are one ofthe selectmen of the town? A. Yes, sir, for the last two years. Q. You are a brother of Mr. William Endicott, Jr., who has been spoken of, who owns land on both sides of the proposed division line, of the firm of C. F. Hovey & Co. ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You have been acquainted with the people of Beverly Farms, of course, all your life, Mr. Endicott? A. Yes, sir ; I have been in trade forty years there, and have had more or less intercourse with them in that way. Q. What was your business? A. Dry goods dealer. Q. Now, I want to ask you, Mr. Endicott, where there is or has been any ill feeling between the inhabitants of Beverly and the inhabitants of Beverly Farms ? A. Previous to this division movement, I don't think there was any whatever. 100 Q. What were the relations of the people prior to 1885?^ A. Verj- pleasant, indeed, as I saw them. I think the attendance at town meeting was fullj' as large from that section of the town as from the other part. I think they enjoj'ed coming up to the town meeting, and always took their full part in the proceedings. Q. Did people residing in the Farms work in the factories in Beverly? A. Y''es, sir ; there has always been a representation in the factories. Q. Do they still- continue to work in the factories? A. I think this division movement has not made anj' difference in that respect ; that there are just as manj' work in factories now as did previously. NO ILL FEELING FOR THREE YEARS. Q. Now, you said that the relations between the two sections were pleasant up to 1885 : has there been ill feeling since, and does any ill feeling now exist, between the two sections of the town ? A. I don't think that there is any ill feeling which exists at the present time. I think during the investigation people on both sides got pretty well worked up about it, like the excitement at election time, and took sides of the question — Q. What year was that, Mr. Endicott? A. 1887 ; three years ago. Q. Mr. Williams referred to some demonstration yesterdaj' : did you see that demonstration ? A. Yes, sir, I was there. Q. When was it? A. Three years ago. After we had gone through the investigation, the Governor vetoed thejbill, and there was a display of fireworks and a band of music. Some boys — the leader of them a young man from Marblehead, a clerk in a store, he had been there a short time, and has since returned to Marblehead — got up a little frame about that length, and covered it with a piece of white cloth, and marked on it " Division, Bill," I think, and carried that round, and burnt it up. It was just enough to make an item for the papers, aud amounted to nothing in reality. The townspeople were not responsible for it, and did not take any part in it. I, for one, told the young man that it was a foolish thing, that people would make a handle of it, and make a good deal more of it than it was entitled to be ; but he said he wanted to have a good time, and didn't think it would hurt anybody. The whole thing didn't_ cost ten cents, and was of no importance whatever, but it was taken up by the newspapers. Q. Did the citizens of Beverly generally take any part in that demon stration ? 101 A. Thej' did not, no part whatever; it was mere boy's play. The leader in it was a J'oung man from Marblehead, who has since returned there. Q. And was there anything else to those manifestations or to that occurrence? A. I think none whatever, no ill feeling. It was only the satisfaction expressed, after the bill had passed both houses, to still gain a victory. I think the Farms people had had a celebration previously, when they thought they had carried their point, a few weeks previously* TOWN MEETING. Q. Were j'ou present at the town meeting a few weeks ago? A. Y'"es, sir ; I was. Q. And a number of voters came up from Beverly Farms : how many? A. I think just about fiftj'. There was a test vote taken, as I remem ber It ; it was about seven hundred to fifty, Q. What was that vote upon? A. It was on the question of the town employing counsel to oppose the division of the town of Beverly. The voters stood and were counted. There were over seven hundred on one side and about fifty on the other. Q. Was there any collision or any unpleasantness between the two sections at that time? A. None whatever, sir. Q. Anj'thing said bj- the Farms people? A. I think that Mr. Dow and Mr. Eldredge expressed their satisfaction at the conrtesj- with which they had been treated. FARMS COMMITTEE HAD NO AUTHORITY. Q. Were j-ou one of the committee on the part of Beverly to meet a committee from Beverlj- Farms at th 'ir request? A. The selectmen appointed themselves a committee. It was left for them to decide who should meet the Farms people. Thej' appointed themselves a committee to meet them, and did so. Q. That was the meeting about which Mr. Hardy testified j-esterday? A. Yes, sir. It was Tuesday afternoon, the 7th of January. Q. What took place? A. We talked about the weather, whether the proximity of the Gulf Stream to the coast causing it, and various subjects of that kind, and had a general talk in that way. The chairman of the selectmen told them we were ready to hear any proposition they had to make. I think thej' stated that they "had no proposition to make," except the resolu tion which they had presented at town meeting. 102 Q. What was that?. A. I don't know as I can tell you the exact words, but the gist of the whole matter was that this matter should be left to arbitration, if the two committees on each side could not agree upon a line. The chair man of the selectmen asked if any terms which we should make would be binding on the Farms people, whether the Farms committee had an-j authority for what they were to offer, and they stated very frankly that they thought they had not. I think Mr. Hardy was their spokesman. Q. Mr. Hardy made that statement? A. I think it was he, if he was the spokesman ; if not, I should like to be corrected. Then the chairmain of the selectmen asked them if they felt that our committee, that is the selectmen, had any authority to act, and they said they did not. The chairman asked them the question, they did not ask us. Q. That is, Mr. Hardy said that he thought j'OU had no authority? A. Yes, sir. This matter was very carefully worded ; we didn't .want to put ourselves into a trap either way, and we said as little as possible about the main question. But those were the two points. First, they acknowledged that they had no authority to bind the people of the Farms ; and next, they also said that they thought we had no authority ; so the meeting was without results. We talked very pleasantly together, as we always have. I have never had any ill feeling, and no one has ever treated me unpleasantly at the Farms. Q. What is the feeling in Beverly in regard to the question of divis ion, Mr. Endicott? A. I think there is a great unanimity in regard to opposition to divid ing the town. HOW BEVERLY DEVELOPED THE FARMS. Q. Upon any line? A. Yes, sir. We regard the Farms as one of the most beautiful spots on the face of the earth. It is generally acknowledge to be so by people who have travelled the world round. This property is also veiy near Boston, only about eighteen miles, less than hour's ride, aud in the future, as the trains grow faster, and go as they do on some roads already, a mile a minute, it will be within twenty or thirty minutes' ride from Boston. It has been increasing in value steadily, and we have tried, that is, the town has tried to develop that territory. The water pipes were curried down to the Farms with that object, causing a good deal of expense. It required a great deal of blasting and changing the grade of roads to do it. Q. When was that, Mr. Endicott? 103 A. I think that was as far back as 1867 or 1870. Q. Do you know what the valuation of the Farms was at that time? A. I think there was about $800,000 of taxable property at the Farms at that time, and this expense was about $200,000. We spent, to ¦carry water down there, and to develop that part of the town, one quarter part of the whole valuation there. It has always been a hobbj' with Mr. Baker, it almost became a by word in the town meeting, that we should " develop the highlands." I think he foresaw their value better than the majoritj' of the people, and everj' chance he could get he would extend these water pipes. I think he has done so when I should not have been in favor it it. I think I can say trulj-, that he went rather faster than I then thought was desirable. Q. Do j-oii know whether there was a demand for that from Beverly Farms? A. Yes, sir, there was. Q. And whether it was represented that it would be a wise invest ment for the town ? A. I remember, mj' brother who lives down there and myself were -walking down towards in that direction, and we met Mr. Baker, just about the time the water pipes were being put into the main body of the town, and my brother spoke to him about it. My brother made the re mark that he thought the shore residents would be willing to pay some thing for having the water put in. It was a long stretch of shore, some four miles, and verj' expensive. Q. What are the lands j'OU refer to as high lands, Mr. Endicott? A. My brother's place is pretty well up. Q. Is that in the Farms? A. Y'es, sir ; I think it is in the Gore. Gen, Peirson's, I think, was another. Q. As a fact, these lands that you speak of as high lands are all in Beverlj' Farms? A. Yes, sir. Q. And all east of the proposed line of division? A. Y'es, sir. These high lands were very attractive, because they over looked the sea, but they were not settled up so quickly as the other por tions of land near the ocean, because there was no way of getting water up there. It was quite a point to have Wenham water put in, water from Wenham Lake. SPENT TWENTY-FIVE TKR CENT OF THEIR VALUATION TO CARRY WATER THERE. Q. Were not the water pipes extended to Beverly Farms at once after the large village of Beverly had been supplied? was that the first •dii'ection that the pipes took ? 104 A. I think it was. Q. And at a cost of about twenty-five per cent of the entire valuation ofthe Farms at that time, you say? A. Yes, sir. Q. And what was the result of that, Mr. Endicott, upon the value of the Farms land ? A. It increased the value sensibly, as it naturally would. This watei from Wenham Lake is of unexampled purity, and, next to the salt water,. it is the great attraction of the place to have such a bountiful supplj' of pure water. VALUE OF SHORE LANDS AT FARMS. Q. What causes the value of the shore lands ? Is it due to the owners or to the situation, and to what the town has done for it? A. I think it is first due to the natural situation, the natural beauty, and then, secondlj', it being so near Boston. There may be other places as beautiful. Bar Harbor, for instance, but it is a day's journej' to get to it ; but here these Boston gentlemen can do a daj''s business in Boston and get down to dine the same daj' at their homes. DEBT EXTINGUISHED IN TWENTY" Y'EARS. Q. What is the feeling in Beverly in reference to the assumption of a certain part of the debt, and division in consequence? A. I feel, for one, and I think I represent the majority there, that the debt makes but little difference. If they would take the whole of it I would not give up the territorj-. Q. How soon will your sinking fund wipe out the entire debt? A. The debt will be taken care of in about twentj- years. The sinking fund provides for it, and will extinguish almost the whole of it within twenty years. Q. Doesn't it provide for the whole of it except a small water debt? A. Y'es, sir. WHY VALUATIONS WERE RAISED. Q. I'ou knew something of the increase iu valuation of Farms land in 1886, Mr. Endicott? A. Yes, sir ; it arose from the information given by Mr. Lorino- and others at the division hearing iu 1886. I was present at the hearings, and I was perfectly astonished, as well as everybody else that was here from Beverly, to hear what prices had been paid for the property at the Farms, about three or four times what the property had been taxed. That is the reason of the great change in valuation of Farms lands 105 between those two years. At the first hearing on this division question, Mr. Loring and others testified to the prices that real estate had brought there. Where land had been taxed, I think, $2,000 or $3,000 an acre, they testified that it had^been sold for $10,000 an acre. It was the most natural thing in the world for the assessors to take note of it, they couldn't do otherwise. Q. What do you say^in regard to that rise iu v.iluation, and the fair ness of it, Mr. Endicott? A. I don't think there is any property there that is taxed for more than two thirds of the price that property in the immediate vicinity has brought. Q. How do the Farms valuations compare with the valuation of prop erty as determined by actual sales in the other part of the town ? A. I don't think it is so high as it is in the other parts of the town. I think property is taxed nearer its market value in the old part of the town than it is at the Farms. -It is held in small pieces, by small hold ers. The assessors get at those pieces more easily. Q. A claim has been made that there is a depression of business at Beverly Farms at pi csent, and that there are no sales of land : what do you say in regard lo that? A. I think there is no real cause for it. I think they have decried their own property, and tried to make a depression. I think that is one reason, if there is a depression. Another reason is the stock market is somewhat depressed. I think the rise and fall of Atchison and Chicago, Burlington and Quincj', and those properties, make a differenc. Q. You say thej' have decried their own property : to what extent and where ? A. They have done il before the Legislature and in the Haven tax case. They have tried to give the impression that it was the last place on earth to settle, as the assessors would take their last dollar ; but in spile of that, there are several houses being built this season. Q. What houses do you know of that are being built? A. Mr. Loring, I think, is building a house there. Q. Do J'OU know of anj' others? A. There is another, but I don't remember the name. OPPOSITION TO HORSE CARS, POLES, ETC. Q. Do you know whether there has been any opposition to horse cars and electric lights, etc., at Beverly Farms, to the development of the village in that way? A. There was a proposition made in town meeting, in 1885, I think it was, to have the horse cars go to the Cove Mr. Lothrop attended 106 the town meeting and spoke against it, thinking — I think he used this expression — that it would be " an entering wedge to have the cars go to the F'arms," and the Farms people were very much opposed to it, — they felt it would bring excursion parlies down on to their lands and on to the seashore. The town meeting, in spite of his opposition, voted to have the horse car go to Ihe Cove. But thej' have also voted since that the town was not in favor of extending the horse railroad to the Farms unless the inhabitants of that territory desired it, that thej- had no wish to do anything that these gentlemen were opposed to. If they did not wish to have the horse cars, they need not have them. Q. You understand they objected to having the horse cars go there? A. Thej' objected to having them go even to the Cove, j'cs, sir. Q. And, objected to having them go to the Farms much more ? A. There was no proposition made to have them go to the Farms, tha was only imaginary. Q. How about electric lights ? A. Some years ago it was proposed to have a telephone go to the Farms. The summer residents presented a remonstrance, saying that the poles injured the beauty of the streets, and they were very much opposed to it, so, in consequence of that, the selectmen changed the line of the telephone and put it up through what is called " Mont Serrat," and across private property in some cases, so as not to have it go down the main street, Hale Street. WHO ORIGINATED THE DIVISION MOVEMENT. Q. Have you any personal knowledge or any facts bearing on who are behind the division movement, Mr. Endicott? A. Well, I think it is very plain to me, because I have followed this thing from the beginning. I think the Farms people have always been satisfied with their relations with the old town, and would not have thought of this movement if it had not been started by these Boston gen tlemen. 1 think the horse-car extension, or the fear of its extension, to the Farms was the^ pretest, but the real cause was the desire to make this sort of a snug harbor for wealthy people. These gentlemen who are familiar with this coast saw what a beautiful place it was, and they also knew what fancy prices they were selling their estates at, or that others were paying for tbem. In 1885, Mr. Lothrop intimated in the Beverly Ttjjies that he thought it would be a good thing to stop this horse car going to the Farms, and perhaps the best way to do it would be "to divide the town." Afterwards, as he testifled himself, he intimated to people who had been attending a town meeting, that he thought it was desirable that they should set up a town by themselves. Next, they held a meeting, chiefly of Boston people, shore people, as you would call thera. ^ 107 In Mr. Morse's parlor. I think they held a second one there ; and then later, one in Marshall Hall. I think that was the origin of this move ment. Perhaps I can. Since that time, — we didn't knoW of it then, — hut since this agitation has been going on it has come out that Mr. Lothrop was trustee, with others, for about a million dollars of property, left by Samuel Hooper, which was taxable in Beverly, which had gone without being taxed for some years, but was likely to be taxed soon, on account of the death of Jlrs. Hooper, at Beverlj-, and the estate's going •through the Probate Court. [Adjourned.] Gbben Room, State House, Tuesday, Feb. 11, 1890. The hearing was resumed at 10.30 a. m. DIRECT EXAMINATION OF ROBERT R. ENDICOTT (continued). Selectman of Beverly. Mr. Robinson. You have been selectman for the last two years, and have always lived in Beverly? A. Yes, sir. Q. You were a dry goods dealer there for forty years, and know all the people, and you have some position in the savings bank in that town ? A. Yes, sir ; I am president of the savings bank. Q. You are a brother of William , Endicott, Jr., here in Boston, of the firm of C. F. Hovey & Co. ? A. Y'es, sir. Q. You called my attention to something that j'ou desired to qualify in your former statement. A. I think I gave the impression that there were more people in the Farms working in the shoe manufactories in old Beverly than there really are. I have made careful inquiries since, and I flnd that there are only two. Since a shoe factory was established at the Farms, those who formerly came to Beverly work there -^ to the number of six. That is all that are working in the factory, of the Farms people, I think, — six. That is now run hy a Lynn concern. The other operatives come from Lynn or some other place. I thought I would like to correct it. Q. That number that you stated had reference to the condition of things before this shop was opened at Beverly Farms? A. Yes, sir. EFFECT OF DIVISION ON MEN WITH SMALL HOMES, MANY OF THEM MORTGAGED. Q. What facts h^ve you derived from your knowle Ige as president of the savings bank that bear upon this question ? A. I have taken off a list of the mortgages in the savings bank. The 108 whole number of mortgages on real estate in Beverly, old Beverly, as we call it in this testimony, is 340, and the average of those mortgages is $1,063. There are 85 of these that only average S'2S2 apiece. There are 68 of thera that average only $613. Q. Sixtj'-eight of them average only $613 ? A. Sixty-eight average $613 apiece ; 32 of them average $866 ; 82 of them average $1,142 ; 47 of them average $1,744 ; 26 of them average $3,540, making 340, the whole number, with an average of $1,063. There are also other mortgages on real estate in Beverly in Salem banks,. which I have no record of. Q. This mortgaged property that you speak of is all on what we call the old-town side of the proposed line? A. Yes, sir. Q. It does not include anything in Beverly Farms? A. Nothing at all. It is probably all the property which these people hold. They are mostly small estates, held bj' persons working in the shoe manufactories. Any increase of taxation, I think, would be very hard upon these small propertj- holders. These mortgages are reduced very graduallj'. It is a work of years to pay off a mortgage of a few hundred dollars, or a thousand. Q. Well, what proportion does the mortgage bear to the value of the property, in a general statement? A. The savings bank is allowed to take only sixty per cent of the valuation of the propertj'. The new mortgages that we take are usually just about that amount. Little houses are started, and the owners want to get all the monej' they can on them. They buy a piece of land and put in about fortj' per cent of the value, and mortgage the other sixty. Q. These parcels of property that are so mortgaged are owned by peoiile of moderate means, are they? A. Y'es, sir ; entirely so. It is their only property in most cases. Q. They are generally people employed in the shops? A. In the shoe factories ; yes, sir. Q. As the result of your experience there and your various official duties, have you any statements to make in regard to the inequahties which are apparent if such a plan for division were adopted as is pro posed ? A. It seems to me that it would bear very hardly on the small prop erty holders in the old town, — any increase of taxation, which, it seems to me, must inevitaMy come if the town is divided, as has been proposed. The Farms take about one half the valuation ; not quite as much as that this year, because there has been over a million dollars moved away of personal property, but in previous years it has been fully one half I 109 PERSONAL PROPERTY LATELY REMOVED AND READY TO COME BACK. Q. You say a million dollars has been moved away? A. Yes, sir; Mr. Lothrop, for instance, has moved his personal * propertj'. Q. That has been done within a year? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know any reason why, if anything should happen, that same propeity should not be moved back in a year? A. I think if the tax rate was reduced it would certainly come back. Q. You can discover no way in which you can consider that it has gone away forever? A. Mr. Morse has gone to Bourne. I think it is not that " bourn from which no traveller returns." He would come back mighty quick if the rate was put down to the Manchester rate of four or flve dollars. He still lives in Beverly, by the way. Q. Notwithstanding he has found this Bourne? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you any facts or proper inferences in regard to the children, the school children, and the support of the poor ? ' BEVERLY WOULD HAVE TWELVE TIMES AS MANY SCHOOL CHILDREN TO EDUCATE, —1,639 TO 130. A. Yes, sir ; I have those figures, I think, prettj' exactly in my mem ory. In regard to school children, there are 1,639 in the old town, and 130 in Beverly Farms. , Q. 1,639 "in the old town? A. Yes, sir; about twelve times as many, for us to educate. ROADS. — 47 MILES TO 13. Q. Give that other number once more. A. 1,639 and 130, as I re member it. In regard to the roads, we should have to maintain 47 miles of roads. The Farms would have 13. Of course our roads would be used bj- the Farms people just the same as they are now. Q. And when you say ' ' the old town " j'ou mean what would be the town of Beverly if divided ? A. Yes, sir. POOR. — OVER $10,000 SPENT IN OLD BEVERLY, LESS THAN $7 AT FARMS. A. Yes, sir. In regard to the poor, the expenses in Beverly, that side of the line,, are about $10,000 this year. 110 Q. Do you know that for the last year it has been actually less than $10.00? A. I think I have heard it stated as $7. Q. And $10,000 on the old-town side? A. Yes, sir ; $7 is rather a low estimate. I think it has averaged $75 or $80, perhaps. It is less than $7 in the last year. Q It cannot be because of these removals which you spoke of a few minutes ago? A. No, sir ; I do not think they would come under the head of the poor. Q. They have not affected that matter? A. No. Cross Examination. Q. Yoti spoke of the fact of there having formerly been trade from Beverly Farms : how has it been since the division movement? A. There is more or less trade. I have not been in business for four years. Mr. Williams. Is it not a matter of general knowledge that the trade has fallen off; that is, that Beverly Farms peojjle do not trade with the Beverly people as thej' did formerly ? A. Not to my knowledge. I see them in town every daj'. I know thej' do trade with the Beverlj- people very extensively. Q. How extensively ? GOOD TRADING BETWEEN OLD BEVERLY AND FARMS. A. Mr. Woodbury, the grocer at the Cove, has a very large trade with the Shore people. I have heard him state personally that he lost but one or two customers. He has a very extensive trade for a country trade, many thousands of dollars' worth. And I also know that Whit- comb & (Jarter, hardware dealers, have quite an extensive trade ; also Mr. Stockford. Q. And do you know whether their trade has fallen off ? A. I think there may be a few cases ; but I have asked them particu larly about it, and they said not. Q. I understood you to say a few minutes ago that you had no knowledge. A. Well, in regard to the business I was in, I meant. I formerly had a dry-goods store. Gave it up four years ago, just about the time this matter came up. Q. And about the people from Beverly Farms working in the old town : I understand, before the .question of the division came op, before there was a shop established down there, there were several people who worked in the old town. Ill ¦ A. Yes, sir. Q. And now you know of only two? A. Yes, sir; and only six Beverly Farms people in any of the shops. The other operatives come from Lynn or some other place. Q. What is the source of your information that there are only six? A. I got it from John H. Woodbury, a selectman. Q. He is an anti-divisionist? A. Yes, sir. Q. He is one ofthe men who work in Beverly? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is the fact as to the attendance at town meetings since the division movement? A. I think it has been very small. Q. Practically none ? A. Well, some half dozen people. Q. Now, then, at this meeting which was held last fall, or perhaps in December, there, you say, there were about flfty 'who came up : and the question before the meeting was what? A. This is the exact language of the warrant. I had better read : " First. To choose a moderator. " Second. To see what action the town will take in regard to the peti tion of D. W. Hardy and others for the division of the town of Beverly, now on file in the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth." Q. And it was well known that there would be a motion made to employ counsel at the expense of the town, under the Act of 1889 ?• i A. It was generally understood. Q. And that motion came up, and the Farms people voted against it? A. Yes, sir ; their vote was against it. It was 703 in favor, and 54 against. Q. Does that represent about the vote that the Farms people gen erally get *hen thej' come up there? A. I do not know as thej' have ever been counted by themselves before, — I could not say. I will say, as I did the other day, that the representation frora the Farms has been fully equal, in proportion to the numbers, to that from the other parts of the town. Q. And at that time there was a resolution offered the general sub stance of which was that the Farms people would leave out this matter ofthe settlement ofthe differences in regard to division to arbitration, if the two ends of the town could not agree through their respective com mittees ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is it not a fact that in order to get that resolution through it was agreed that a motion to have the yeas and nays, by a Farms man, should be withdrawn? A. Yes, sir. Q. And then thej- should admit the resolution ? A. The object of withdrawing that was that the calling of the yeas and nays in a countrj- town where there are something like twenty-five 112 hundreil people on the voting list would have taken until eleven or twelve o'clock. The gentlemen had come up with the idea of getting this resolution through. They could not have held the audience to that late hour. As soon as they made the motion tliey saw they had made a mistake, and withdrew it for that reason. It was not necessary to do it. Q. Was there not a definite understanding between the representa tives of the two ends of the town that if the motion lo have the yeas and nays called should be withdrawn they would receive the resolution? A. It was apparent that it would take all night if they were to call the whole voting list. Q. Now you staled in your testimony that you did not think there was any ill feeling existing at the present time between the two communities : have you not said that you thought at the time of the investigation there was warm blood raised on both sides? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you think the non-attendance of the people at the Farms at town meetings indicates a good feeling ? A. I think that non-attendance is for a purpose. If this question could be definitely settled, and thej' felt that it was so, the attendance would come back. Q. In other words, you think they stay away for the purpose of argu ing it before this committee? PERMANENT RESIDENTS SAY THEY ARE HEARTILY TIRED. A. Yes, sir; that is my idea. They acknowledged the other day that they were very courteously treated. And Mr. Eldridge made the remark that he was " heartily tired of this division matter." Q. I guess a great many would make that remark, that they are tired of it, do you not think so ? A. Yes, sir. Q. They are all tired of it. They often admit that? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, then, do you not think that the fact that they were treated discourteously became a matter of comment? A. I do not know that anybody on the part of the Beverly people expected to treat them any other way than courteously. Q. Do you not remember Mr. Pierce's testifying about it? A. No, sir ; I think they are treated as courteously as any of the Beverly people. There are always people in town meeting who criticise what is said. It has not been confined to the Farms people anj' more than to those from our part of the town. 113 Q. Do you know whether there has been any diminution in the visit ing between members ofthe same general family residing in Beverly Farms and Beverly ? A. I think, as I said the other day, that, at the time of the investiga tion, things got pretty well worked up on both sides. For a few weeks or months there might have been some interruption of the social inter- oourse, but I think it has all come back. Q. Take the important office of selectman and the important office of assessor in Beverly Farms : who flU those offlces? A. The gentleman's name who is selectman is John H. Woodbury. . Q. An anti-divisionist. is he not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And what is the name ofthe assessor? A. Mr. Haskell. Q. And he is an anti-divisionist? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you think they represent the people of the Farms in their views? A. Not on this division question. Q. Do think tbey would be the people selected by the people of the Farms? A. I can saj- in regard to the selectman, that he was the man they selected. He was selectman before this controversy came up. And he is one of the most prominent men. Q. Was Mr. Woodbury selected by the Farms people to be their selectman? A. I do not think they would vote for him, on account of this anti-division sentiment. I think, in regard to general matters, he would represent them. In regard to dividing the town I do not think he does. Q. Now, then, the assessor is an old men, some seventy/ odd years of age, is he not? A. I do not know his exact age. Q. And he has no property? A. I do not know, personally, about that. I have heard it stated here. Q. He is selected by the old town of Beverly to assess all that prop erty, or to be one of the assessors, representing the Farms? A. He was ; yes, sir. Q. Do you think that the putting on of such men, filling such impor tant offlces, shows a good feeling on the part of old Beverly towards Beverlj' Farms? A. I will state in regard to these offlcers, that Mr. Morse and Mr. Loring and Mr. Lothrop, I think, have all been nominated for these various offlces, but declined to serve. I think Mr, John T. Morse was nominated on — Q. On the school committee ? A. Yes, sir ; on the school committee. Q. But in that capacity he would not have the handling' of much money or the assessing of much property ? 114 A. I think Mr. John T. Morse was particularlj' requested to take charge of the roads in that vicinitj-. This j-ear we had a general sur- vej'or for the whole town; the law is changed. But formerly we had ward surveyors. I think that he was specially requested to take control of the Farms wards and oversee them and have the roads put in such shape as he thought desirable, but declined serving. Q. I was speaking about selectmen and assessor. A. I think that the office of assessor was off'ered to Mr. Lothrop, and he did not take it. Q.. It»is a fact that a separate Grand Armj' Post has been established at Beverlj' Faims since this division movement started up? A. Yes, sir. Q. Does that indicate anj'thing whatever to j-our mind ? A. They are establishing them all around. I think a great many things have been done with reference to this division movement, start ing to set up on their own account. I think there is good feeling be tween the Posts. I think they have ^'isited with each other. Q. That does not indicate a particularly good feeling on the part of Beverlj- Farms towai d Beverlj- ? A. I have no doubt but what the majority of the F.arms people are in favor of division ; but I do not think they all are. The fact that Mr. Sohier, the present representative from Beverly, received twenty-two votes for representative last year at the general election. State election, shows that the opinion is not unanimously in favor of division. Q. Did the Farms people have any ticket as against Mr. Sohier? A. I haven't the votes in mind, but I have the impression that the Prohibition candidate received the larger number of votes. He was from old Beverly. And Mr. Sohier had twenty-two in addition to that. I do not know whether the Farms had a candidate or not. Q. How many remonstrants are there from Beverly Farms? A. I haven't the figures in mind : cannot tell. Q- Do you know Messrs. Obers and Stephen Eldridge and Issacher Eldridge, and Mr. Stanley, and the other petitioners? A. Yes, sir. Q. They are honest men? A. Very fine men. Q. Capable men? A. Y'es, sir. Q. Capable of filling positions as town offlcers? A. Certainly. I have nothing to say against the Farms people. Q. Do you not think that they are perfectly honest in asking for this petition ? A. I think that they are, as I said before, in favor of division, but I do not think the movement originated with them. I think they were perfectly satisfied with their condition before this originated. Q. D6 you not think they are just as honest in therr petition for divis ion as you are in remonstrating? 115 • A. I think the animating motive, in the first place, was, that they would have a very low rate of taxation. I think the movement started with the Boston people, and they talked it np, and gave them to under stand that the rate, in a few years, would be much lower. Q. Do you know anything abont that? Is not that a mere opinion of yours ? A. No, sir; I have been to all these hearings, and know how this thing started. Q. Y'ou do know, do you not, that it is constantly iterated and re iterated that this is a movement ofthe summer people? A. Y'es, sir. Q. And that all the native people down there do not know what is for their best interests and are the tools of the summer people, and are not fit to have a town by themselves? A., Those things are not said by Beverly people. Q. Thej' are said by Beverlj' papers, are they not? A. No, sir ; not in just that way. Mr. Robinson. You do not propose to divide a town on newspaper comments, do you ? Mr. Williams. Thej' come in as a very important factor in this case. Q. Do you think these things tend to promote a good feeling between the two ends of the town? A. No, sir ; I do not think they do. Q. Would you not saj', fairlj', that the two ends of that town, speak ing of tbem as communities, are in a quarrel? A. They are entirely at variance on this question of division, but on nothing else. They do not quarrel about every-day matters. I have been down there more or less while I have been on the Board of Select men. They treat me in a gentlemanlj' manner, and I reciprocate. I do not talk " division" there. Q. You will give them credit for treating you courteously ? A. Certainly, they always have. Q. Now, we have this single instance of attendance at a town meeting where the whole question was whether they should be taxed to pay for the bills ofthe people who were opposing them? A. Yes, sir. ' Q. And that resolution came up, as you testified, and the meeting of the two committees : did the selectmen represent Beverly, or did they represent the Anti-division Committee? A. As I remember it, this matter was left for the Anti-division Com mittee, of which the selectmen were members, to appoint a committee of five, that being the number whicli the Farms people had fixed ort as their representation ; aud the selectmen appointed themselves as a com mittee. Q. To whom did the selectmen make their report? 116 A. They made it to the Anti-division Committee. Q. They made no report to the town, but reported to the Anti-divi sion Committee ? A. Y'es, sir. Q. You testifled that the Farms people said that they had no authority to act, and also admitted that you had no authority : now, I ask you if thej' did not say thej' had authority to act, lo represent Beverlj' Farms, to the extent of leaving the whole question out? A. I do not understand it so. As I remember it, I think they had authority to hear what we had to saj', and report to another meeting. I do not think, if we had said " We will leave this whole thing out," there was to be no further action taken. Q. Did they not also ask if you would not get authority from the town to leave the beverlj' side ofthe question out? A. I think thej' did say they would like to have this question come before another town meeting. But the selectmen having just had a town meeting — I would like to read what the vote was, showing the sentiment of this town meeting — and the selectmen, knowing the senti- ment_ of the town, did not see how it would be of any use to have another meeting. I would like to read the vote. The Chairman. What do you propose to read, onlj' the vote that was passed? A. Y'es, sir ; this was the first vote that was taken : Voted, " That the selectmen of this town be authorized aud requested to oppose by all lawful and proper means the granting of the petition of D. W. Hardy and others for the division of the town of Beverly, as set forth in said petition, and that said selectmen be requested to appoint to act with them in that service such a number of citizens representing the different interests of the town as to them from time to time may seem expedient, the whole to constitute a joint committee to protect the interests of the town." It was adopted without debate. Q. Did not the town, in that town meeting, refer the resolution to the committee? A. Y'es, sir; afterwards. Q. With instructions to meet a committee from the Farms? A. To meet them. Q. Did not that committee ask you if you would accept those resolu tions? A. Well, I don't remember exactly about that. Q. Do you not believe that the Farms people are willing to abide by the spirit of that resolution and leave the questions out? Have you any doubt about that? A. Y'es, sir ; I have very much doubt. I have heard it said over and over again that they were opposeil to any change of line. They had rather not be divided at all than to be divided on any other line than the proposed line. I remember, Mr. Williams, particularly the flrst year,— 117 " Give us that line, or kill the bill," — I beg pardon, 1 mean Mr. Kim ball, chairman on the part of the Senate. Q. I have no doubt that we have heretofore chaiined to the committee that we wanted it on that line. Rut have you any doubt that we are willing to leave this matter out to a disinterested commission, — have you any doubt that that represents the feelings of the Farms people ? A. Y''es, sir, I think I have. The reason is this, that immediately after this meeting this committee went back to the Farms and reported what they had done. Q. After the committee met with j'ou? A. Yes, sir ; and we have a full report of that meeting. Some of the speakers said they merely went up there to draw the Beverly people out, and another member said they were opposed to any change of line. Q. From the mere fact of a single man's rising and expressing his views, before there was any discussion, would you say that the people of Beverly Farms are not willing to leave this matter out? A. Yes, sir ; I am very certain about it. I do not have any other opinion than that thej- are not willing to submit to anj' change of line. Q. When I stand here and say to this committee, as their attorney, and their paid attorney, that if the committee see fit to leave this ques tion out to the commission we are perfectly willing to accept such a bill, do you mean to saj' you do not believe me? A. No, sir; not if you say so. Q,. I do say so, and have said so publicly to this committee. A. And I will say further that the town would not agree to anj' such thing, for this reason : This very year there has been more than a million dollars' worth of propertj' moved away ; and it is very easy for these gentlemen to move awaj' from town with their personal property, and then have this matter come before a commission. The valuation would be very much depressed and lessened. It would not be a fair thing for the old town to come into any such arrangement. The moment this thing is done these gentlemen would come back. They are living there all the time. Q. I did not ask the reason. A. I do not wish to make anj- argument, — I was only giving my reason. Q. You referred to the share of the water debt, about $800,000 ; and our share, according to your testimony, was $200,000 : outside of that, can you refer to any large items of debt that have been incurred for the benefit of the Farms ? A. When water pipes have been put in there, there has been blasting done in the highways. Q. Outside ot that, I mean. 118 A. Thej' have a steam fire engine, that was put in a short time ago at their request. Q. At an expense of some 20,000 odd dollars ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And there is a schoolhouse there? A. Thej' have all that people ordinarilj' have : good roads, fire depart ment, fire alarm, drinking troughs, good schoolhof.ses. Q. Would not $250,000, at the outside flgure, represent the share of the debt that had been incurred for the benefll of the Farms ? A. That might be, of late j'ears. It would not, of course, cover all roads laid out from the beginning. Q. If all the debt from the beginning represented about a million of dollars, would not that represent our part? A. It probablj' would. WATER TO DEVELOP THE HIGHLANDS. Q. About this independent source of water supplj' • is it not a fact that it is a perfectlj- good investment for the town ? A. I do not think it was needed in the old town so much as it was at the Farms. I said, the other daj', that it was a hobby of the chairman •of the selectmen, Mr. Baker, "to develop these highlands." He saw their prospective value, and was forever ringing that in the ears of the tax payers. I got rather tired of it. I have never been in favor of a big debt. Q. Il was also stated by the chairman of the committee, and others, that they regarded it as a good financial investment? A. I think some of them did, but I never could regard it so, with that exception, for developing these highlands in the Farms, I think it is a very good thing, and increase their value very much, because people will not locate up on top of a hill unless they can get water. If thej' have got to carry it up in water buckets and barrels, it is a very serious objec tion, especially for gentlemen who have handsome estates and use water veiy freely. Q. When this suggestion was made, that it was for the beneflt of the Farms people, it is not a fact that a petition was presented to a town meeting asking that the vole might be reconsidered, whereby they voted to take water independently ? A. That may be so. I would not contradict anything, because I do not remember about it. I will say this, I know il almost as well as I can know anything, that an independent supply would never have been put in by Beverly if it had not been for this call for higher pressure for the highlands at the Farms. 119 Q. When there was an effort to reconsider it, the town refused to do so? A. I do not think the question came seriously before the committee. I never remember of it as a serious notion at all. There are a good many things said at town meetings which have no support, and which the communities on neither side of this line were responsible for. I have known men to get up and make such a motion. Q. This is an article in the town warrant, which was, that this motion or petition was presented bj' Stephen Connolly and others, to the select men : it went into the town meeting, and was acted on as one of the articles? A. I am not knowing to that vote, it may be so. Q. Reference has been made seven or eight times to the fact of j'Our brother being Mr. William Endicott, Jr., a member of the firm of C. F. Hovey & Co. : is he one of the petitioners ? A. No, sir. Q. Is he one of the remonstrants ? A. No, sir; he has never taken any part in this matter. He has friendly relations with the people at the Fai-ms, and he has a brother living at old Beverly. I have heard him speak of it. I heard him saj- the other daj' that he wished the whole thing was buried. He had got tired of hearing of it. He said he did , not believe that outside of half a dozen Boston gentlemen there was any desire among them to have the matter further agitated. Q. Who said that? A. My brother, William Endicott, Jr. Q. As a matter of fact, he never took part? A. He has extensive estates both sides of the line ; so, on the matter of taxation, what he would lose on one side he would gain on the other ; and what he would gain on one side he would lose on the other. As I said before, he has friendly relations with Boston gentlemen who live there, and also relatives on the other side of the line. My father is still living, is very old, aud very much interested in this matter, and has taken a very active part, for an old gentleman, in opposing division. Q. Mr. Loring, whom j-ou cited, has come up from a boy there, has he not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And spent more or less of his time always ? A. During the summer. Q. He is building a house : is he the only one that you can recall? A. There are quite a number of others. I do not have them in mind. Q. You said there was a meeting held, exclusively of summer resi dents and non-residents, at Mr. Morris's house, when this movement originated? • A. I think that at the first meeting there was no one but what we call shore residents present. It was held in Mr. Morse's parlor. {Mr. Williams reads from testimony.) 120 A BOSTON MOVEMENT AND BOSTON MONEY. Q. Now, then, j-ou referred to the origin of the movement, and said there was a letter of Mr. T. K. Lothrop's which, in your judgment, started the whole affair, in reference to a horse railwaj- : do you think such men as Isaac Oher and Mr. Hardy are carried around, as it were, in the breeches pocket of Mi-. Lothrop, to do his bidding? A. I don't think I would use any such expression as that, but I think these gentlemen are all susceptible if it is held out to them that their rate of taxation would be \ cry much reduced ; I think that thej' would graduallj' come into it. As to talking about puiting them in Mr. Loth rop's breeches pocket, I do not think it is necessarj' to make anj' such allusion. Q. Supposing it was held out lo them, or thej' were led to believe, that they would have an opportunity to choose their own assessors and have some voice in the choice of their selectmen and the spending of their own money, and would have an opportunitj' to govern themselves, do you not think that would have some influence? A. No doubt it would. Q. Do you not think that does have some infiuence, and that they are perfectly honest in that petition, and are acting for and by and of them selves ? A. I should hardlj' put it so stronglj'. I do not think thej' are acting independentlj' of the Farms people, but I think this is being carried on, the bulk of it, by Boston gentlemen. I haven't any doubt of it. Ql Do you not think a great deal of the work is done by the Farms people? A. Yes, sir. il. The terrible flght they have had imposed upon them necessarily involves the expenditure of some money ? A. I have no doubt they have done a great deal of work, and I have no doubt a great raany of them have received a per diem for it. Q. Do you know of a man who has ever had one single per diem for his services. A. I know they could not afford to come up here and spend their time for nothing. Q. Do you think Mr. Connolly or Mr. Hardy or Mr. Trowt have had one cent? A. I don't know as I ought to state my belief, but I haven't any doubt but that these gentlemen have been paid. They have a fund to do the work with and doubtless have their expenses paid. Q. You testifled that j-ou, personally, were opposed to any division on anj' line whatever. 121 A. Yes, sir ; I am. Q. Just a single question as to the matter of summer residents : it is a fact that you have summer residents on the Beverly side of the pro posed line of division ? A. Yes, sir. Q. They make good citizens, many of them, do they not? A. Excellent. Q. They take an interest in the town? A. Well, they take a different interest from what the natives do. They do not attend town meetings, do not visit the schools, do not do anything of that kind. Q. Many of them have been honored by public office, or some of them, have they not? A. I do not recall anybodj', except Mr. Sohier, the representative. Q. He certainlj- has taken an interest in the town and its welfare? A. Decidedly. Q. 1 mean in the interests of the town of Beverlj'. A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you anj' reason to doubt but that if a purchaser there should be a summer resident in Beverly Farms he might take an inter est in the affairs of the town? A. No doubt of it. Q. And you think he might be actuated by some other purpose than that of sordid gain or hiwering his taxes? A. Yes, sir. PERSONAL PROPERTY- REMOVED BUT OWNERS STILL LIVING IN BEVERLY. Mr. Murray. You have referred, Mr. Witness, in your testimony, to the fact that one million dollars had been taken out of the town of Beverlj' in the past year : will you give me any reason why that one million dollars was taken out of the town? ' A. I think it was to depress the assessed valuation of the Farms and make the proportion less instead of equal, and possibly to get n, lower rate of taxation. Mr. Thornton K. Loihrop and Mr. John T. Morse were the gentlemen to whom I had reference. Que moved to Bourne and the other came to Boston, but they still reside in Beverly in the summer. Mr. Morse went to Bourne for a few weeks at the time taxes were assessed, in May I suppose it was, and became a nonjinal resident there and "was taxed on his personal property there. Q. Irf the conversation you had with your brother concerning the question of division, did I understand j'ou to say that your brother said there is not, outside of half a dozen Boston men, any desire to push this matter further? A. Among the Boston residents ; He did not refer to what we 'call natives. 122 Q. Boston residents are summer residents, are they ? A. Summer residents are what I refer to. Q. I asked you if I understood you aright, when I copied this : you said j'our brother told j'ou or said to you, " There is not, outside of half a dozen Boston men, to-day any desire to push this matter further? A. That is what I stated. Mr. Williams. Then, if there is anj' desire for this division, it must be bj' the native people, outside of half a dozen Boston men? A. 1 think it is, outside of this half dozen ; I do not stick to the number six, but what I mean by half a dozen is comparatively few of the whole number. I think they are paying the bills, and the Farms people are doing the work, in one sense. As you say, they have their fares paid up here, and their dinners, and it comes at a season of the J'ear when thej' are not very busj-, and they follow the thing up. Q. And J'OU do not think there is a general interest on the part of the summer people in favor of this division ? A. I think, after having this contest for four years, thej' have got tired of it, - — if it was not pushed bj' some half dozen people, ; — I mean bj' that, a small number out of the whole number, — it would be dropped. I give that as mj' brother's opinion, and that is mj' opinion, personally. MR. LOTHROP'S INTEREST. Mr. Murray. Do you think your brother is in a position where he could speak intelligently? A. He gave that as his opinion. Yes, sir ; he is acquainted with many of them. To my mind, the reason that Mr. Lothrop has such interest in this matter is that after the flrst effort to divide the town it carae out iu the town that he had $1,000,000 of trust property which had not been taxed in any way. I think the effort on his part was to keep that where it should not be found, and then afterw.ards to get it into a place where the tax rate would be lower. CHAIRMAN OR MEMBER OF DIVISION COMMITTEE ELECTED SELECTMRN. Mr. Robinson. Mr. Woodbury was referred to as the gentleman from the Farms made Selectman ? A. He is a member of the Board of Selectmen, — Mr. John H. Wood bury. Q. Was he not chairman, or rather a member, of the Division Commit tee the flrst J'ear ? A. He was a member, I don't know whether he was chairman or not. 123 Q. What was the office for which Mr. L,othrop was nominated? A. I think it was for assessor. Q. You do not remember whether there was a caucus at the Farms at which he was nominated ? A. No, sir ; I do not. Q. You know that he declined to be chosen, do you not, in 1886? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know how long it is since Mr. William C. Loring, to whom you have alluded, has lived there? A. I think it is very likely he may have been born there : his father came there early. Q. No, but how lately? — whether in late years he has been residing there, whether he has had his place of residence there through the j'ear. » A. I don't think he has, through the year ; I think he has been away for several j-ears. Q. Six or eight years ? A. Yes, sir ; but his father and grandfather had summer estates there for something like forty years,' but I do not think either of them resided there through the winter ever. Q. You have been asked j'Our brother's opinion : I would like to know what your own opinion is, whether this movement is sustained or promoted by a few Boston people or by the Beverly Farms people really ? A. I have no doubt that the Farms people, the natives, so called, a majority of them, are in favor of division. I do not think thej' are united, from the fact that twenty-two of them voted for Mr. Sohier for representative last j-ear. It is verj' evident there is an undercurrent in opposition to it. STATEMENT OF ELIHU B. HAYES OF LYNN. Mr. Hayes. May I be permitted to speak to the committee for a few minutes upon this matter? The Chairman. The petitioners, I understand, object, at this time. Mr. Williams. I do not object to Mr. Hayes simply suggesting what he would like to say, or to what purpose his remarks are to be directed, but I do not think he ought to go on and put in testimony, un less he is introduced bj' the other side. The Chairman. It seems to me it might open the door to manj- such statements, and the committee would be in doubt how to proceed. Mr. Hayes. Is this a public hearing, Mr. Chairman? The Chairman. Y'es, sir ; but the question is whether now would be the proper time tp hear what you have to say. 124 Mr. Hayes. Very well, that is the question, whether or not I am going to be stopped at a public hearing by counsel, — that is what I would like to know. Mr. Robinson. I don't know anything about Mr. Hayes's statement at all, and we only say, if the committee desire to hear it, we do not make anj- objection. I believe he is a member of the House? Mr. Hayes. Y'es, sir. Mr. Robinson. For his own convenience, we do not insist on going on if the committee wishes to hear him, and we will suspend for the time being. We cannot put him on the stand, because we do not know anything about what he will saj-. ¦ The Chairman. We certainly want to give every one au opportunity at this public hearing. The question before the committee is whether to hear Mr. Hayes at the present time or not. [77ie committee voted to allow 3fr. Hayes tf.n minutes in which to make hi^ statement. ] Mr. Hayes. Mr. Chairman, I thank yoti very kindly for the ten min utes J'OU have given to me. This question that has arisen here about my speaking has a good deal to do with this case. This has come to be not a public question but a question of attornej's, a question of the lobbj-, and if J'OU would paj' a little more attention, — I do not mean this committee, — ^but if all of us could paj- a little more attention to the sentiment and the feeling of the people about this matter, I am inclined to think we would get verv much nearer the truth. ESSEX HAS FOUGHT DIVISIONS SUCCESSFULLY FOR THIRTY' YEARS. — OTHER CLUB TOWNS WANTED ALL AROUND. This committee, by the fortunes of politics, and by the peculiar appor tionment of committees, do not any of them happen to represent the section of the State in which I live, and in which this case occurs, but I believe j-ou to be a body of fair-minded gentlemen, who .are going to hear this matter upon its merits. In these few brief moments I want to give you some idea of the sentiment iu our counlj-. I live right close by this communitj-, and we have had several cases just like it right around us, and I have come here to give you such information as I have obtained upon this matter. It has been asserted that this petition must be granted iu order to get it out of politics, that it is a disagreeable thing, and makes a lot of trouble. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have been sent up here twice, this is my third term, and if my constituents should insist, as you know con- 125 stituents sometimes will, upon sending me back another lime, I should feel utterly at a loss without this case. If I did not meet my friend Con nolly on' the train, with his benevolent, smiling face, if I did not see Mr. Williams, with that statesmanlike and graceful manner of his, 'and no where met the familiar face of Capt. Odell, and the whole apparatus ¦of this division matter, I should feel at a loss. So far as its hurtino- politics down in our part of the State is concerned, it certainly does not. We have fought these division flghts down there in Essex for thirty years, and have fought them successfully, and we are just as willing /to light them to the end. So I want to assure the committee that it is not a matter that they want to take out of the way because it is a disturb- ' ing element among us. The petitioners say there is no community of interest. I have seen these people try to bring it out in the testimony that there is no com munity of interest. There ought to be ; there would be if they were let alone. A man would not build a nice house if everybody was blind. And these people, it is utterly useless for them to go down on the north shore, build these nice houses, and have their swell turnouts, if there is to be nobodj' there to see them : so thej' need this communitj- down there ; thej' need the shoemakers and farmers to admire them as thej- drive around. If thej' were let alone thej- would get along all right together. •SURPRISING VALUE OF LAND IN SUCH FASHIONABLE SUMMER PLACES. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have had a little experience in this regard, and that is the important question, the question of valuation. I had in Nahant — a similar town to the one which they would like to set up — a man owing me some raonej', and I had a mortgage on his store, and I was obliged to take it. It was a little stoiy-and-a-half building. When it came into mj' hands I found there was $400 ground rent on it. It seemed to me that was outrageous, and I made a protest right away ; but the man was verj' unconcerned about the matter, and said I might pay that or do better, and I went about to buy some land to put that building on, and it is an actual fact that I can demostrale to this <3ommitte^, if you want it, that I can buy land in the business part, the •business streets of Lynn, where there are more than 50,000 people, for less money per foot than I could buy land on a countiy road in Nahant village to put' that store on. What I want to say to this committee is that this va.uation matter is not a matter that you can judge upon from ordinary business principles, it is a purely fancy value. I know actually of a lot of land that was sold in Nahant for $27,000 that there is not a 126 meraber of this committee would give $500 for ; and I would not mjself. It is a mere question of fashion. There are other portions of Nahant that would seem just as desirable, but where the land is not worth half as much because it is not fashionable. People buy this land on the shore because itis fashionable. As General Manager Furber, of the Boston and Maine Railroad, says, "they swarm every year in Boston," and they have been alighting the past twentj'-flve years on the north shore. It is the fashion to go there, and as long as that fashion holds up they will pay that fancy price for this land ; and it is worth what they will pay for it. It is on just the same principle that Robert Bonner paj's $50,000 for a two-vear-old colt : because nobody else has got it ; on the same principle. UNEQUAL TAXATION AND CLUB TOWNS. The question involved iu this division matter is a question purely and simply of taxation ; that is all there is in it. They may mystify bj' val uations, and this assessor and that assessor maj' come here and give you flgures, but it is purelj' and simplj- a question of taxation. The question of equal taxation is the most important question that is facing the American people to-daj'. The principle involved in this division of Beverly is this question of equal taxation ; and, Mr. Chairman, you cannot settle that Cjuestion by establishing club towns ou the north shore. Only last Sunday I saw in a Sunday paper that a paitj- of New York gentlemen propose to buj' a village down on the Cape somewhere, pay ing 8100,000 for il. Next, they will be up here and want that town divided, because they can go in there and escape taxation. I am not certain, Mr. Chairman, but what these gentlemen are right in wanting to avoid this personal-property tax. It is an open question, it is a very important question. I am not certain but what they are right, but this is not the place to settle it ; it is not the way to settle it : lo come here and make further inequalities. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. Mr. Cook. Do assessors assess property on a fancy valuation, or do they take their oatli lo assess it on the fair cash value? Can anybody go and assess Robert Bonner's $50,000 mare, and expect they are going lo get taxes on that assessment of it? The Ci-TAiRJiAN. You may answer. 127 PROPERTY SHOULD BE TAXED WHAT IT WILL SELL FOR. Mr. Hayes. I should think, sir, that it was fair to tax property, and in fact the onlj- test of valuation that can be made is upon what it will sell for. That is what j'ou tax stocks for, not upon what they are written for but what they will sell for. Now, as I say, if^a man willpay $27,000 for a lot of land that you or I would nbt pay more than flve hundred dollars for, he ought to be taxed for that, because it will sell for that. But the point I wanted to bring befoi'e the committee was that these were fancy places, and I think the assessors ought to go by what things will sell for. Mr. Cook. The question I ask is, whether a fancy valuation is the fair cash value? Mr. Hayes. Y'es, if it sells for that. The selling price is what you must go bj- on any property, it strikes me. Mr. Cook. I beg leave to differ. Mr. Hayes. Oh, certainly ! Mr. Cook. The market value is the fair cash value. A fancj'price is what some particular rich man will paj' for a piece of property, when no individual would lend upon it one fifth of what he pays, and no bank would accept it as securitj' for a loan one twentieth the amount of what this one man may sec flt to paj- for it. Mr. Hayes. Maj- I be permitted to make a counter statement? Mr. Robinson. Is it not a question of words between you and the member of the committee as to what the word fancj' means? It is a question of fancj', is it? ¦ It may be a matter of fancy and also a matter of value ? 1 Mr. Hayes. It may be. Of course, I can hold my end up if you give me a chance, but if the committee shut me off, I have not got an even chance. Mr. Cook. I am not holding up one end of a discussion, I only wanted to get an explanation. I should be willing the gentlemen might talk two hours. Mr. Hayes. Let me state one single instance. [Stopped by the committee.] ' 128 WILLIAM H. LOVETT. Town Clerk of Beverly. Mr. Robinson. Do you hold any position in Beverly? A. I am town clerk. Q. How long have you been town clerk ? A. Since 1879. Q, Can you give the expenses of Beverlj- Farms for this year? A. The whole expense this year for that particular part of the town has been $13,958.72. Q. What does that include? A. That includes highwaj's, military aid, street lights, public library. Memorial Day, night police, poor department, schools, fire department and the health department. Q. How are the items made up? A. From the bills as they came in during the year, commencing Feb. 1 last J'ear, and ending Feb. 1 this year. Q. What is the amount for highways ? A. $6,396.59. Q. Military aid? A. $72. Q. Streetlights? A. $1,449. Q. Public Library? A. $200. Q. That is a branch: A. That is a branch library ; yes, sir. There is a special appropriation for that purpose. Q. Memorial Day? A. $150. Q. Night police? A. $744. Q. And that makes a total of what amount? A. $9,011.59. Q. Besides that, there is a hall used for various purposes? A. There is a hall, a public building down there, formerly an engine house, that is used for a Grand .Army hall, and the first floor for a read ing-room, and that is heated and lighted bj' the town. Q. What were the expenses of the poor last year? A. The expense of the poor department was $6.85. Q. Is that substantially the same as you have had each year? A. There is only one year in which it was over $100. Last year it was $83, the year before, $183.50, the year before that, $90, in 1885, $14.30, and this year it is $6.85. Q. Is it possible that any considerable bills are outstanding that have not been brought in ? A. I saw the chairman of the overseers ofthe poor within a week, and he said he had drawn no orders that had not been paid, and this included everything that had been drawn this year. " 129 Q. Do you know whether there is more than one family that requires aid in Beverly Farms? I mean as a general and regular thing. A. There is onlj- one family at present that the overseers of the poor are called upon to help. Q. And that accounts for the very small amount. It might otherwise seem like an error. What are the expenses of the schools? A. The total amount is $1,868.26. For school supplies, books, etc., $73.48 } teachers, $1,160; janitor, $200; fuel, $125.38; repairs, $81.62; music, $27.66 ; transportation of school children, $123.35 ; other incidentals, $76.77; total, $1,868.26. A. What is that item of transportation of school children ? A. That is for the transportation of children to the high school. Q. The high school being in Beverly town? A. In tOwn. Q. There is one high school? A. Yes. Q. And the town pays the expenses of children going from the Farms up to that high school? A. Yes, sir. Q What are the expenses of the flre department at the P'arms? A. The whole expense has been $1,433.43 : steam flre engine com pany, $210.31 ; hose company, $180 ; hook and ladder company, $180 ; West Street engine-house, $802.07; use of horses, $33; incidentals, $28.05; total, $1,433.43. Q. Then there is a fire alarm down there? A. Well, the fire alarm is connected with the main system of the town, that is, the central station in town ; that is, it is maintained there, and it could not very well be divided : the batteries are all in one place. Q. Are there anj' other expenses? A. There is the board of health, care of the Farm cemetery, $325.80 ; incidentals connected with that, $22 ; and a drain put in at Pride's Crossing, $1,291.25 ; making a total of $1,638.59^ POOR IN BEVERLY COST OVER $10,000; AT FARMS, LESS THAN $7. Q. Now, I wish you would compare the expenses in totals at the Farms and in the old town : take, for instance, the expenses of the poor ? A. This present year the expenses of the poor at the Farms were $6.85 ; in the town, $10,266.29. SCHOOLS, 130 CHILDREN AT FARMS ; BEVERLY WOULD BE LEFT 1,639. Q. And the expenses of the schools, if you will, give us that? A. For the schools at the Farms there was spent $1,868.26 ; at the town, $28,010.18. 1.30 Q. If you can give it, what is the number of children between five and fifteen in the two parts? A. In the town, 1,639; in the Farms, 130; total, 1,769. Q. Can J'OU give the number of children that attend school at the Cenlerville school? A. There are two children living bej'ond the proposed line who attend the Centerville school. Q. Those that would be set off' in this division proposed ? that is what I refer lo. A. Yes, sir. Q. And between the line and the Cove? A. There are nine. Q. Do you know where these nine children live? A. They live quite near the line, less than a quarter of a mile from the proposed line. Q. Have you made anj- estimate of the expenses of the new town if it were made or set off? A. Leaving out the payments for interest and the paj-ments of the town debt, I think $20,000 would be plentj'. Q. It is now $13,958.72? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, how do you get the addition? A. There would be the expenses of town government, town officers, and some incidental expenses. BRANCH LIBRARY. Q. Do you know how the hbrary branch is supplied? A. The books are all at the library at the hall, and they have a box so that people who wish books send their cards in, and they are sent down several times a week by regular express. There are regular daj's for the books to be received and delivered, and they are delivered from the central office to the Farms. V0TE:RS, 183 AT FARMS, TO 1,721 IN OLD BEVERLY. Q. Can you state the number of voters ? A. At the last election there were 1,904 in all : 165 in the Farms pre cinct, and 1,739 in the remaining part ofthe town. Q. And between the line proposed and the precinct line (in the Gore) , you Slid there were eighteen voters ? A. In the lower part there are thirteen, and at Centerville there are five, making eighteen in all. In the proposed town there would be 183 voters. Q. That is, in the portion taken from Beverly, leaving out the Wenham pan? A. Yes, sir. Q. Most of those in the Gore are down near the shore, are they not? A. They live very near the proposed division line. 131 Q. All down on the shore? A. Down near the shore, yes, sir. Q. So that would leave 1,'?21 in the town, according to that registra tion? A. Yes, sir. Q. Something was said in the opening here about the paved streets in Beverly : what are they ? A. Three hundred and ninety-seven feet of paved streets. PUBLIC PROPERTY AT FARMS. Q. What public property is there at the Farms? A. Water pipes costing over $200,000, engine house, steam fire engine, hose carriage and equipment, hook and ladder truck and equip ment, hall for reading room. Grand Army hall, schoolhouse and furni ture, cemetery, street lights, gravel pit and fire-alarm system. ' TOWN OFFICERS. Q. Something has been said about the number of town officers that the Farms now have: what is the fact about that, as a matter of fact? A. There is one member from the Farms on the board of selectmen, assessors, school committee, and board of health, two constables, precinct offlcers, warden and inspector of the precinct, and a night watch man. Q. How about surveyor of highways ? A. Until this year, they have been Farms men. Under the new law, providing for superintendents of streets, there are no surveyors of high ways anywhere. 106 OWNERS OF THE GORE LIVE IN BEVERLY. Q. That is true. Taking the people who live between the lines (in the Gore), are they nearer Beverly or Beverly Farms? A. Most of them are nearer Beverly. Q. Where do they vote? A. Iq Beverly. Q. Do J'OU know the number of land owners there are in the Gore that would have to go with the Farms, if they were set off to pay taxes? A. One hundred and six. LEAVES ALL THE BURDENS IN THE OLD TOWN. Q. What do you find to be the general sentiment of Beverly on this question of division ? A. People are opposed to it. Q. Leaving Out all matters of feeling, what are their giounds for opposition ? 132 A. It is a matter of taxation and expense. The proposed division takes awaj' a large part of the valuation and leaves the other part of the town most of the expenses. Q. Have you looked over the list of the petitioners, so that you can tell how many voters there are among them ? FARMS PETITIONERS. A. There are 131 registered voters on the petition. There are 179 assessed polls ; 89 are assessed a poll tax only. There are 33 that are not assessed at all. Q. What did you say about th^ 33 ? A. Thirty-three are not assessed at all this year. Q. Not assessed for a poll tax? A. No, sir ; not assessed for anything. Q. And thej' are petitioners? A. Their names are on'the petition ; yes, sir. Mr. Cook. Why are they not assessed ? A. I do not know. Mr. Robinson. Were not there, probably. The Witness. I suppose they were not there. Mr. Robinson. At the time the registration was made at the Farms, were you present? A. Yes, sir. Q. So that you know? You were there for that purpose? A. Yes, sir, we held two meetings at the Farms last fall for registra tion. Q. Well, is it a fact, that, to the best of j-our information, these 33 people are so transient that they have not a tax habitation or anything .else ? A. I have always found the assessors to be very careful to tax any body they could find ; but they did not find these 33 petitioners. Q. On this petition are there any persons, summer residents, who own considerable property? A. There are six summer residents there taxed for $450,150. Q. The terms " summer resident" seems to be somewhat in dispute here : what do j'ou mean by " summer resident"? A. A summer resident is one who lives there during the summer and somewhere else the remainder of the year. Mr. Robinson. I do not want any confusion in the committee's mind about it. The term " summer residents " has been used differently by different persons, but I understand it to be the fact that these six per sons are all voters there. 133 EXPENDITURES AT THE FARMS IN CHARGE OF FARMS OFFICERS. ,Q. You have spoken of the town officers at the Farms : can you say anything about the expenditure of the money down there? A. The town offlcers for the Farms there have the oversight of the spending of monej- at the Farms, and the care of the property, — mem bers ofthe selectmen, school committee, and board of health each attend chiefly to the affairs in their own neighborhood. Q. Can you state the amount of property of the petitioners who re side there during the year round — we call them permanent residents ? A. There are 84 permanent residents petitioning, and thej' are taxed for $262,220. Q. Have you any knowledge about the houses built at the Farms since 1885? A. Yes, sir ; I have this list : — NEW BUILDINGS AT BE7ERLY FARMS SINCE 1886. 1886. — John McKeone, house. Isaac W. Smith, house. 1887. — Geo. D. Batchelder, house. John L. Pierce, house. Martin Brimmer, stable. 1888. — O'Brien Brothers, two stores and tenements. Wm. R. Brooks, flsh market. Patrick W. Brady, grain building. Beverly Farms, shoe manufactory. Geo. A. Goddard, large addition to house. Andrew Standley, turned shoe shop into house. 1889. — Wm. C. Loring, house and stable. Cornelius Murray, house. John Knowlton, house. Roderick McNiel, house. Geo. Wiseman, house. Addison Davis, house. Chas. L. Pierson, large addition to house. Wm. Leahy, stable. James P. Farley, stable. WHAT HAS LATELY BEEN DONE AT THE FARMS. Q. What additions to public property have been made in recent years at the Farms by the town ? A. An engine house, a steam fire engine, a hook-and-ladder truck. 134 Q. Any addition to the lights, any extension of the system of lighting ? A. The streets are pretty thoroughly lighted, — all that have been called for. Q. Do you know anything about the road material ? A. A gravel pit was bought either two or three j'ears ago, at quite large expense. Q. And a fire-alarm system? A. A fire-alarm system was put in to connect with the system of the town. Mr. Cook. Will you tell me how far the gravel pit is from the shore? A. I think about a mile. Q. How much does it contain, r- how manj' rods or acres? A. Several acres, I don't remember how many. Q. How much was it sold for per acre ? How much did it cost the town? A. I think it was $4,500. Mr. Sohier [Referring to the rnaji]. The gravel pit is right there. Mr. Robinson. We understand it cost about $1,000 an acre, and contained about four acres and a half. The vote on the division ques tion in the recent meeting has been given, but, as you were the recording officer, we will take it from you. A. The vote was 703 votes in favor, and 54 against the motion. Q. Have you got the vote for Mr. Sohier in 1889 and in 1888? A. In 1888 Mr. Sohier had 12 votes at the Farms, and in 1889 he had 22 votes. Q. What was the whole vote in 1888? We can get at it that way. What was the whole vote in that precinct? A. In 1888, the whole vote was 156, and Mr. Sohier had 12 ; in 1889 there were 126 voles and Mr. Sohier had 22. Mr. Robinson. He is gaining all the time. Mr. Cook. Would not the nomination by the opposite political party have something to do with that? Perhaps they would prefer him to the other candidate. Mr. Robinson. There was but one candidate in the field, and that was Mr. Sohier ; they had either to vote for him or take to the woods. Mr. Williams. In 1888 they had a separate ticket, and then he had 140, or whatever it was. Mr. Robinson. In 1889 they were satisfied it was no use, and in 1890 he will have the solid vote of the Farms. 135 Cross Examination. Q. Speaking of that gravel pit: is it not a fact th.it it was largelj' ledge, 'almost wholly ledge, and that they paid a large price for it? A. The adjoining land was very good gravel, but when they come to dig into it thej- found a ledge. Q. Is it not a fact that thej' had, this summer, to cart gravel some thing like three miles for the purpose of improving the road, to buy a pit from a man named Williams? A. No, not as long distance as that, but quite a distance, up Hart Street. [Mr. Connolly poifiied out the location of the gravel pit and ledge.] Q. Now, right in connection with what you are testifying, that the vote was 713 or 703, is it not a fact th^t some stood up and refused to vote either way ? A. There were 111 think, who did not vote either way. Q. But they stood up, and were counted as not voting either way? A. Yes, after we had flrst called one side and then the other. Q. Hav§ J-ou anj' figures as to building in 1883, 1884 and 1885? A. I h:ive not. , Q. Was there not a great amount of building in those j'ears? A. I think in those years there were a great number of summer resi dences built. Q. Now, you spoke of those six summer residents ; thej- are men who have just the same privileges there and the same duties and obliga tions imposed upon them as any other citizen? A. Just the same. Q. Just the same as Gov. Ames, living in North Easton, and hav ing a winter home in Boston? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is it not a fact that there are many more who are qualified to vote and are not registered? A. The registration this year, it being an off year, would be very small all over the town. Q. And it dropped off at Beverly Farms last year, didn't it? A. Just the same everywhere. Q. Whether you know anything about the names of men down there, so that you would know whether they are eligible or not, — Pat Finne- gan, Thomas W. Hannibal, Thomas Cummings, Allen Lee? A. Some of those you read I should say were not, some are. Q. Well, who, for instance? A. Thomas W. Hannibal is eligible. Q. Allen Lee, Thomas Cummings? A. Allen Lee, I think, might be registered. Q. Pat Finnegan ? A. I think he is a registered voter. Mr. Williams. No, I guess he is not registered this year. The Witness. He is in Precinct two. 136 Mr. Williams. Perhaps I made a mistake. Q. On the petition, is it uot a fact that there are a large number of quahfled voters who do not appear among the registered voters ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Finnegan is a petitioner, is he not? Whether his children are not among then ine, four of them? A. Yes. Q. And he is a petitioner? A. I think he is. Q. Is it not a fact that the expenses down there varj' from j-ear to year? A. I presume it is so in all places. Q. Was there not more expended on the roads last j-ear? A. There was a little more expended on the roads last year. Thej' built a new road, or widened an old one. Q. Now, how much would j ou add to the $20,000 for the interest account, or sinking fund ? A. It would depend on the amount of the debt. Q. The bills heretofore have provided for fifty per cent, haven't they? A. The whole interest account is $51,000. Q. Does that cover your sinking fund provision? A. The sinking fund is $13,000 in addition. Q. Would it be larger, the sinking fund? Wouldn't it be about $20,- 000? I think you undertook lo testifj'. A. Not now, after nextyear, I think. Q. So that you take $51,000 and add $20,000, making $70,000, it will be $35,000 to add to it, would it not, if they took fiftj- per cent? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Williams. It would be $55,000. Q. You say you have only one application there for charity? A. Only one familj'. Q. Don't you know there is a great deal given there in private charity, and they do not come to the town? A. I think that is true. Q. And you say the expenditures there on this account have been very much less than they ever have been before ? A. This present year. Q. It was some $80 last year? A. Yes, sir. Q. Don't you think it is a fact that people will not go up there to the town for help if they can possibly avoid it? In other words, do not the Grand Army and the Woman's Relief Corps and the other individual charities there take care of about all the assistance that is needed? A. Well, I don't know anything about that. I should not suppose they would do any more than those organizations do in other places. Q. You do not think division has anything to do with the application for help, then? A. I don't see why it should. 137 Q. Now, in reference to the transportation of school children, the li brary thej' have there twice a week, the flre engine, the engine house and lights, those were all granted after the people of Beverly Farms made their flrst application for division ? A. Yes, sir. Q. The following spring, before that they had not had these afdvan- tages ? A. There was no application made before that time. Q. But when application was made, they were granted with a rush, were they not? Have thej- a stone crusher in the town of Beverly? A. There is a stone crusher in Beverly. Q. How long have you had it? A. I think this is the third year. Q. Has it ever been down at the F"arms? A. It has been located in ¦one place all the time. Q. Have you had any ofthe materials prepared by it put down at the Farms? A. No, sir; it is quite a long ways down there. Q. And there are electric lights in Beverly town? A. There are a few in the immediate village. Q. But none down at the Farms? A statement was made here the other day as though they carried the wires out the back way : that was the telephone, was it? A. The telephone. Q. If thej' sfiould have a separate town, of course their expenses for schools would be increased, would they not, if they gave them any further facilities, such as a higher grade of schools? A. If they had anj' more schools. Q. They would necessarily have to build a new schoolhouse, or do something there right on the edge of Wenham to provide for theschoo children on the Beverly Farms side ? You know what an old ram-shackled barn there is there now for a schoolhouse? A. It is somewhat worn. {^This schoolhouse is in Wenham, not Beverly.] Q. Do you know of a single non-resident on the petition for division ? A. I do not recall any. Q. Have you examined this list to see if these are the names of the persons on the petition that are not assessed ? A. Well, it is substantially right; yes, sir. EVERYTHING GRANTED AS SOON AS ASKED. Q. You were asked by Mr. Williams upon the subject of these addi tional advantages at the Farms : I suppose the Farms people did not ask for those things in the first place, did they ? A. No, sir. Q. Then when they said they wanted things, they were granted promptly, were they not ? 138 A. They have beep done right away. Q. The town did not mean to supply them with a grievance by put ting them there ? A. No, sir. SUMlVtER RESIDENTS REMONSTRATED. Q. The people who lived there, the native people, the permanent ones, were the ones who wanted these things done, and the other people ob jected ? A. The native people petitioned, and there was a remonstrance from the summer people. Q. So that what the real people down there wanted the town gave? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the summer residents, some of them migratory, objected? A. They sent ina remonstrance. Mr. Williams. It was this matter of a fire engine and the expendi ture of such large amounts, to which objection was made? There was no objection to the transportation of children or to street lights, was there, on the part of sumraer residents? A. No. Mr. Robinson. Do the children of these people who are summer resi dents attend the public schools of Beverly, or do thej' attend school else where ? A. They do not attend the public schools of Beverly. Mr. Williams. You do not know of the wealthy people objecting to the transportation of children to the public schools. Mr. Robinson. You object to everything we do, and I didn't know but it must be so. If you will tell us anything you do not object to, we will leave that out. [Adjourned to 9.30 a. m., Wednesday, Feb. 12, 1890. J TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL COLE. Farmer, Member of the School Committee and the Board of Engineers. Wednesday, Feb. 12, 1890. Mr. Moulton. You reside in the part of Beverly known as Center ville? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is your business, Mr. Cole? A. I am engaged in farming. Q. You know the facts in reference to farming land in Beverly and the Occupation of the people in Beverly ? A. Yes, sir. 139 THE REAL FARMERS OF BEVERLY. Q. Now, how many persons are there engaged in farming in Beverly, having farms of say twenty or thirty acres? A. In the neighborhood of 125. There are more than that engaged in farming, counting those that work on thefarms. Q. Well, how many are there NOT PAY HIGHER TAXES. Q. What do you say as to the taxation of farming land in Beverly? A. I think it is taxed fully what it is worth, what could be afforded to pay for land to farm on. 140 « Q. Do you think it could stand any additional valuation ? A. I should not think it could, sir. Q. What is the profit of farming in Beverly now? A. The profit of farming the last few years has been very small in deed. We have to compete now with the country in all directions, west and south and east. Q. What is farming land worth an acre? A. Well, a man cannot afford to farm on land worth over $100 an acre. PLEASANT RELATIONS WITH BEVERLY FARMS. Q. What is the feeling of the people of Beverly in regard to the mat ter of division, Mr. Cole? A. Very stronglj' opposed to it. Q. Do J-ou know of anj' ill feeling between Berverly and Beverly Farms ? A. I never noticed any. Q. Do the people come in contact with each other often in business or otherwise ? A. Yes, sir ; I think they do. I meet the Beverlj' Farms people quite frequently myself I have never had any occasion to find any fault with the way I have been treated ; I have always been treated the same as I always was. Q. You are a member of the fire department in Beverly, Mr. Cole? A. Yes, sir. Q. Ofthe board of engineers? A. Yes, sir. Q. And have been for several j-ears? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who is the engineer from the Farms ? A. Mr. Stanley. Q. He meets with the others and the other engineers of Beverly? A. Yes, sir. Q And there is ^a relief association connected with the fire depart ment? A. Yes, sir ; there is what is known as the Relief Association, and there is what is known as the Benefit Association, two associations ; one pays in case of a man being disabled at a fire, and the other pays a sick, benefit. Q. Is the Farms represented upon this association? A. Yes, sir. Our board of engineers had a meeting, a social gather ing, last spring ; the engineer from the Farms was there, and the fore men of the different hose and steamer companies in town were invited, and the members of the Farms companies were present. We had a pleasant meeting at that time. 141 DIVISION LINE WOULD C UT TWFNl Y-THREK ESTATS. Q. How many estates are cut by the proposed division line, Mr. Cole? A. Twenty- three. There are one or two pieces that the same owner owns, I think, two,— I think ; but there are twenty -three different parcels of land. Q. How is it with the farms on Stanley Street? A. The proposed line cuts them at an angle. Q. Stanley Street is the street running north and south, somewhat parallel with the division line and near it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Would those houses be separated by such a line as that from the farms? A. They would be separated. Q. Do J'OU know how many of those? A. I do not know the exact number, I know of three or four. Q. How much land is tillage land beyond the brook, along the line of division where it leaves the brook? A. There is quite a lot of tillage land towards the proposed line there Q. And extending up the street to Essex Street? A. Yes, sir. Q. How is it bej'ond Essex Street, to the Wenham line? A. After you pass Bald hill, where the road turns there on the map, it is prac tically all tillage land through there to the Wenham line. Q. You are a member of the board of school committee, I believe, Mr. Cole, as well as the board of engineers? A. Yes, sir. Gross Examination. Mr. Williams. You say that is tillage land : is that farming land, up there, which you just testified about? A. It is farming land between the street until you get to Bald hiJl. Q. So that there is some farming land on the Farms side? A. Yes, sir, there is some farming land ; a small quantity that side of the line. Q. Take it from the Wenham Hne, as you drive down into the Farms, what do the people do who live along there? You said there were no farms there. A. I really don't know what most of them do. Q. They have some land, haven't they, most of them? A. It is barely possible that some of them may keep a cow or two, or something like that ; general farming I don't know of Q. Don't they raise produce and sell it? A. Not unless they sell it at the Farms. 142 Q. Well, assuming that they do sell it at the Farms. A. Nothing that I know of. Q. Well, you don'tknow much about them over on that side, doryou? A. I have alwaj's met them more or less. Q. Do you know whether these people raise produce and sell it? A. My impression is that they do not. Q. What do they do for a living ? A. They are shoemakers, some of them ; some of them are oldish men that have practically retired. Q. The testimony of one of the witnesses for the remonstrants yester day was that there were only six shoemakers, six men who work in the shop : now, how many of those six live up on that land? A. Well, those small shoe shops, I refer to, on the place. Q. Exactly : how many are there of those ? A. Well, I am not prepared to state the number. , Q. Well, do you know much about those people there? A. I know they do not sell in Boston, and, in a general way, I know they do not do farming ; as to the business of every individual I could not specify. Q. How did you get at your statistics so as to testify to this committee about the number? You had to know the individuals? .A. Yes, sir. Q. That was confined to the Beverly side of the division line, was it not? A. Yes, I said that the farmers lived on the Beverly side. The number of farmers I gave are on the Beverly side of the line. JOHN M. MURNEY. Assessor of Beverly. Mr. Moulton. You are one of the assessors of Beverly ? A. I ain. Q. And have been for how many years? A. Since 1886. Q. What is the whole number of polls in Beverly ? A. The whole number of polls is 2,815. Q. Now, a voting precinct has been established at Beverly Farms known as Precinct one ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, how many polls are there in Precinct one, at Beverly Farms? A. 249. Q. Between Precinct one and the proposed division line? A. 20 ; a total of 269 and in the proposed town. Q. That does not include Wenham ? A. No, sir. Q. How many would be left in Beverly ? A. 2,546. Q. Now, what is the total valuation of Beverly ? 143 A. $13,607,975. <5. How much in the Farms precinct A. $3,774,525. Q. Between the lines in the Gore ? A. $2,116,775. Q. Making how much in the proposed town ? A $5,891,300. Q. Leaving how much in Beverly ? A. $7,716,675. Mr. Moulton. Mr. Chairman, we have some tables here that per haps can be put in more conveniently in a tabulated form. Mr. Murney, you can take the paper and read these figures, if you please. (^Beading.] Farms precint. Acres. Valuatldn. Tax. Permanent residents . . 456 $338,075 $4,733 05 Summer " . . 220 1,425,975 19,963 65 Non " . . 653 1,936,950 27,117 30 Beverly people ... 192 73,525 1,029 35 Totals including feet 1,523 $3,774,525 $52,843 35 Between Precinct one and the black line here and the white ground on the other map. Permanent residents Summer " Non Beverly ' ' Total including feet Total proposed town Q. Now, if you will, give the corporation and bank tax, — what do you mean by the corporation and bank tax? A. The corporation tax is the tax that they receive from residents ofthe town who are investors in Massachusetts corporations, and who pay a tax to the State. The State pays it back to the town. The bank tax is paid in the same way. Q. Yes, sir; go on. A. [Beading.] Farms Precinct. Between lines. Corporation tax $3,337 55 $1,790 97 Bank tax 674 80 107 45 Acres. Valuation. Tax 65 $24,850 $347 90 67 1,249,900 17,498 60 380 802,075 11,229 05 518 39,950 559 30 1,031 $2,116,775 $29,634^ 85 2,554 $5,891,300 $82,478 20 Total «4,012 35 $1,898 42 Total in proposed town $5,910 77 144 Total Income by Precincts. Farms precinct tax ..... $52,843 35 Corporation and bank tax . . . 4,012 35 Total income $56,855 70 Between lines. Tax $29,634 85 Corporation and bank tax . . . 1,898 42 31,533 27 Total income proposed town .... $88,388 97 Q. Well, now, what is the whole valuation of Beverly Farms for the year 1889? A. Total valuation of the proposed town, $5,891,300: non-residents,. $2,739,025; summer residents, $2,675,875. Q. Making how much for summer residents and non-residents? A. $5,414,900. Q. Of that $5,891,300 valuation, how much is owned bj' permanent residents? A. $362,925.. Q. And by people living in old Beverlj-? A. $113,475. Q. Now, take the income of the proposed town, Mr. Murney. A. Income from non-residents, $38,346.35 ; from summer residents, $37,462.25 ; then the corporation and bank tax, which is nearlj' all from those same individuals, or, rather from summer residents, $5,910.77. Q. Making a total income from summer and non-residents of how much ? A. $81,719.37. Tax, permanent residents, $5,080.95; tax, from people living in Old Beverly, $1,588.65 ; a total income of $88,388.97. Q. Now, how manj' summer residents are there in Beverly and how many in Beverly Farms? A. The number of summer residents at Bev erlj- Farms is 80 ; summer residents in Beverly, 26. Q. Those are householders or families? A. Yes. This evidence, I will say, is taken from Mr. Loring. I suppose he has got about as good knowledge about summer and non residents as any one who has testified about them. I have not taken these off myself, I have taken his testimonj-. Q. Mr. Augustus P. Loring? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, take the personal estate of summer and non-residents in the proposed town. A. Summer and non-residents, personal, $1,869,825. Q. What is the total tax paid by summer and non-residents? 145 A. $75,808.60. Q. Tax paid by permanent residents ? A. $5,080.95. $7 PER POLL AT FARMS TO $1 AT BEVERLY. Q. Now, what ia the valuation per poll in the proposed town? A. $21,900. Q. And the valuation per poll left in Beverly? A. $3,030. Q. Seven times as much? A. Yes, sir ; seven times as much as in Beverly after division. Q. What is the income per poll left in Beverly, in case of division, as' proposed ? A. $44.40. Q. And at the Farms ? A. $330.60. Q. That is seven times as much ? A. Yes, sir ; seven times as much ofthe income. The Chairman. These figures are all based on the valuiation and tax of 1889? A. Yes, sir. ' , PERMANENT RESIDENTS' TAXES AT FARMS AND BEVERLY. Q. Now, what part of Beverly's tax would be paid by summer and non-residents ' A. $21,083.30. Q. How much do Beverly residents pay, Beverly permanent residents? A. $92,589.65. Q. Have you found the proportion of Beverly's tax that would be paid by summer residents and the proportion of Beverly Farms tax that would be paid bj' summer residents in case of division? A. On the Beverly side, it would be less than -| ; on the Beverly Farms side, it would be -f|-. Q. What do the permanent residents paj'? A. 1^ in Beverlj-, and about J^ at the Farms. Q. And for every dollar paid bj' summer and non-residents in Bev erly how much would the permanent residents pay? A. The permanent residents would paj- $4. Q. And for every dollar paid bj' summer and non-residents in the pro posed town what would the permanent residents pay ? A. Less than 7 cents. Q. In 1885, Mr. Murney, what was the valuation of the permanent residents and the tax of permanent residents in the proposed town ? 146 A. In 1^85, permanent residents' valuation, $348,101 ; tax, $5,500. Q. Now, in 1889, after the increased valuation that has been spoken of, will you give me the figdres ? A. $362,925. Q. That is against $348,101 in 1885? A. Yes, sir; and the tax is $5,080.95. Q. Against a tax of $5,500 in 1885? A. Yes, sir^ Q. What new houses have been built, Mr. Murney? ^ A. There have been some new houses buUt there, but I cannot testify as to them now. Mr. Moulton. Another witness testified as to that. OWNERSHIP AT FARMS. Q. Now, Mr. Murney, what per cent of the value of the proposed town is owned by summer and non-residents? A. 92 per cent. Q. And what by permanent residents? A. 6 per cent. Q. And what by Beverly residents ? A. 2 per cent. Q. How much is owned by people who are not living to-day in Beverly Farms ? A I i Q. And by permanent residents who are there to-day? A. tV- Q. Taking the area of the proposed town, how much do summer resi dents own? A. 11 per cent. Q. And non-residents ? A. 41 per cent. Q. Beverly residents? A. 28 per cent. Q. And permanent residents? A. 20 per cent. Q. Then summer and non-residents own what proportion ? A. Well, they own 52 per cent of the area, — a little over half. Q. And persons who are not there now, at this time of year, own what proportion ofthe acreage at the Farms? A. |. Q. And the permanent residents own? A 1" Q. Take the valuation of summer and non-residents in Beverly, Mr. Murney, take it at the Cove, on the Beverly side of the line. A. $1,505,950 at the Cove, for summer and non-residents. Q. And at the Farms how much is it? A. $5,414,900; total, $6,920,850. Q. What proportion of this amount would be left to Beverly ? A. About I. Q. And to the Farms? A. ^. 147 Q. Now, if the Plum Cove line, the black line, is taken, what would Tie the valuation of summer and non-residents on each side? A. In the proposed town there would be $3,362,925. Q. And in Beverly ? A. $3,557,925. Q. That is, the valuation would be about equally divided ? A. The valuation of the summer and non-residents would be as nearly equally divided as you could get it. OWNERSHIP IN THE GORE. Q. Now, who owns the property in that part of Beverly that has been ¦called the Gore? A. Summer and non-residents own 44 per cent, or over 2-5 of the territory, and 97 per cent of the valuation ; Beverlj' residents own 50 per cent of the territory, and the permanent residents 6 per cent, or 1-16 of the territory. Q. What per cent of the valuation is owned by persons who are not living there at this time in the year? A. 99 per cent of the valuation — Q. And of the territory ? A . Ofthe territory it would be about 94 per cent. Q. What proportion of the valuation of the Gore is owned by per manent residents ? A. 1 1-7 per cent of the valuation of the Gore is owned by the per manent residents. They own 1-16 of the territory. PERSONAL PROPERTY AT BEVERLY FARMS DISCOVERED AND TAXED SINCE 1885. Q. Has there been any personal property that was not taxed at Bev erly Farms in 1885 that has been taxed there since? A. Yes, sir ; there has. Q. How much is there all told ? A. $2,308,100. Q. Was that property that was at Beverly Farms before 1885 and was taxable there? A. Yes, sir ; it was there before 1885. Q. Was this all personal property? A. Yes, sir ; it was. Q. Now, if you will, give me a list of that. A. [Beading.] ' John A. Burnham, trustee $746,050 Samuel Johnson et als., trustees (for Mrs. John T. Morse) 9400 J. T. Morse et als guardian 1,500 Franklin Haven 19,275 148 T. K. IvOthrop et al., trustees (Mrs. Lothrop et al.), 997,200 Wm. A. Gardner 110,000 Wm. C. Loring et al., trustees (Richie) 9,0.00 " " Waters heirs '. . . 13,275 " " Sophy Carr 19,000 " " Mary E. Leeds 14,600 " " will Sally Blake 1,625 " Nina Blight 10,275 " " will Henry Dalton 7,275 " " will Moses Grant 2,700 " " Mary G. P. Binney 2,075 " " estate Charlotte Rice 10,700 " " for Sarah Reed 2,55a " " Sarah A. Hardy 9,550 i " " will Wm. Parker 3,160 " " Elizabeth Skinner 57,200 Q. Well, then, was there an increase in the George Gardner estate? A. Yes, I believe there was an increase there, — estate of' George Gardner, increase, $86,000 ; estate of Mrs. George Gardner, $176,000. Q. That property you say was taxable in Beverly before it was dis covered ? A. Yes, sir ; that was taxable in Beverly before 1886, the year it was assessed. OVER TWO MILLIONS MOVED AWAY. Q. And that makes a total of how much moved away ? A. $2,308,100. Q. How many estates and who have moved away from Beverly since the untaxed propeity was discovered^and taxed? What is the amount? A. There are ten estates, representing $2,167,550. Q. Just give us the names and amount. A. [Beading.] John A. Burnham $140,000 John A. Burnham et£als., trustees 746,050 Charles A. Read 30 oOO John T. Morse 15 ooO John T. Morse et al., guardians 1 500 Samuel Johnson, trustee for Mrs. Morse 9 lOO Franklin Haven g4 gQO Thornton K. Lothrop 54 jgO Thornton K. Lothrop, trustee for Mrs. Lothrop et al. 997,200 George A. Gardner et als. , trustees 65 000 Wm. A. Gardner 45 qqq $2,167,550 149 Q. Well, that is a total of more than $2,000,000 that has been taxed in Beverly and has been taken away from Beverly for the purposes of taxation within the last two years ? A. The total should be $2,167,550. Q. Then all that property had been taxed in Beverly and has been taken from Beverly for the purpose of taxation within the last two years ? A. Yes, it has. Q. Whether or not it is largely property that was discovered since 1885 and taxed. A. Yes, sir ; it is, largely. Q. And it was property that was included in the rise in valuation from 1885 to 1886 ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is the total tax on that propertj'- that has gone away, at the Beverly rate of $14 on the thousand? A. $30,345.70. Q. And corporation aad bank tax moved away? A. $11,048. Q. So that the loss of taxes tp Beverly is how much? A. $41,393.70. Q- Where did this property go, Mr. Murney ? A. Well, Mr. Burnham went to Manchester. Q. Does he own any land there ? A. He is not taxed for any. <5- What is the tax rate of Manchester, Mr. Murney ? A. $5.16. Q. What did he save by going there, in taxes, — by going to Man chester? A. $7,834. Q. That is more than the whole tax of the permanent residents of Beverly Farms, is it not ? A. About 50 per cent more than their whole tax. Q. Where did Mr. John T. Morse go? A. He went to Bourne. Q,. How much was he taxed for? A. $15,500. Q. Does he own any land in Bourne ? A. He is not taxed for any there. Q. Where did he spend the summer last summer? A. He spent it in Beverly. Q. Just the same as before? A. Yes, sir, I so understand ; I saw him there all the summer. 160 APPLICATIONS FOB ABATEMENTS AT THE FARMS IN ONE yk;ar. Q. How many applications for abatement were made from Beverly Farms last year ? A. In the year 1888, which has been already completed, 1 find there- were 38. Q. How many were abated ? A. 37. Q. Only one abatement refused out of 38 : what was that? A. The other one was the case of Mr. Franklin Haven, which has besn before the Countj' Commissioners. Q. Has it been about the same every year ? A. I should think that was a fair average. , Q. Do these requests for abatements from Beverly Farms come before your Board directlj', or through Mr. Haskell, the assessor? A. Occasionally there are some that come directly, in matters con nected with land, where there is considerable of it, but the greater part of them have come through the Farms member of the Board, Mr. Haskell. He makes the representation, makes the statement, and we act upon it. Q. What was the fact in relation to Mr. John Larcom's tax ? A. I think that was in 1886. Some time ago Mr. Larcom came to my offlce in regard to abatement of his tax. He came to my office and spoke to me with regard to an abatement on his tax, and said that he had no personal property to be taxed for. He thought there was not much use in coming before the Beverly assessors, he said, but he thought he would try. So I told him if he had no personal propertj- he ought not to be taxed for it. Then he mentioned some land, that there was more in quantity assessed than he owned, according to his deeds, and he showed' me his deeds, and I told him I would bring the matter before the Board, which I did at the next meeting, and I notified him of the result. There was an abatement granted, and I think Mr. Larcom was very well satisfied ; at least, he expressed himself so to me. Q. Now Mr. Murney, you know where George T. Larcom's land is situated, do you, at Beverly Farms r A. Yes, sir ; I do. Q. I wish you would point it out. Mr. Moulton. The committee will remember, perhaps, that the car riage stopped near the railroad, near the drinking fountain, just before turning to come up towards Beverly, after coming down from Wenham, 151 and that Mr. Connolly pointed out an estate that he said belonged to George T. Larcom, about which he gave what he claimed to be certain facts in regard to taxation and valuation. I wish to ask Mr. Murney about it. Mr. Murney [Referring, to the map]. That is the house you have reference to, and that is the lot of land. Mr. Moulton. The committee will remember that was close to the" railroad, and a brook run through it. Q. Now, in the first place, does Mr. Larcom own down to the railroad ? A. No, sir ; he does not. [Showing estate on the map.] There is an acre from this corner to ^his point that is owned bj' John Burchstead and Benjamin F. Bennett ; that is, there is half an acre to each. Q. And that is assessed to them at what rate ? A. That is assessed to them at $100 an acre, $50 each. It is low land, adjoins the railroad, and comes down on to the street. Q. Now, what is Mr. Larcom's land? A. Mr. Larcom's land is this part, here, is high, a very good eleva tion ; it slopes down, and joins this low land. There is a very good view of the water front. I should call it a very desirable location. Q. Is there anj' part of this land that is marsh ? A. I think there is very little of it that is marsh ;' if you take an acre off of the lower part of that, I think it would take the greater part of all that marsh away. There is some low land in that slope, but there is nothing that could be termed a marsh, in my opinion, as I remember it now. Q. What is the assessment this year ? A." $7,100 is the assessed value. Q. Can you tell how much that is a foot for the upland, or about how much an acre? A. Well, we calculate for that upland there about eight cents a.foot. Q. Do you know what it actually is taxed? 'not what you calculate, but what that is actually taxed an acre, that land? A. I have not got it figured out just now, because I am not just sure of the quantity of land. Q. If you will figure that, I will put it in later. How does that land compare in value with the land sold by Capt. Foster to Mr. Hubbard, .adjoining it? A. It does not quite join it, it is in the same belt of land ; I should think it was at least equally as good. I think there is a better view from Mr. Larcom's, as I remember it. Part of Mr. Hubbard's is quite low, I think, low'er than the lowest part of Mr. Larcom's would be, that which adjoins the railroad. Q. Now, have you talked with.Mr. Larcom about this matter? 152 A. No, sir, I did not; others of the assessors have. Mr. Larcom was in the assessors' office this summer some time, but I happened to be absent that day, so I did not have conversation with Mr. Larcom myself. I could only repeat what the other assessors have told me. Q. Do you understand he makes any complaint of his assessment? A. No, sir, I do not. I do not understand that he makes any com plaint now. Mr. MuREAY. Has he at anytime made complaint? You say he has not made any now? A. Yes, sir; his property was assessed in 1886 for $9,700,1 think, if my memory serves me right. He came before the Board last summer before the assessments were made, and made his statement to them, and we acted upon it, and reduced the valuation to $7,100. Mr. Moulton. Does he own another estate on West Street? A. Yes, sir; he does. It is the third lot from Marshall's Hall, including the Marshall's Hall lot, as you go into the depot, on the right-hand side, I believe, of the lot. Q. You said that the valuation was reduced : was therej a difference upon his representation in the amount of land that should be taxed ? A. I believe there was a difference in quantity of land as well. Q. Does he not own another piece outside of the two which you have mentioned at Beverly Farms ? A. I think he has got some rear land, I could not tell you just where without referring to the book. Mr. Cook. Will you be kind enough to tell me which Larcom that was ? A. George T. Mr. Moulton. Does he let his property in the summer? A. I understand that he does. Q. And has, for years? A. I understand so ; yes, sir. HOW THE ASSESSMENTS WERE MADE. Q. Now, Mr. Murney, will you explain how the Board of Assessors made the assessments? Take the map and show what that property is assessed for in a general way,— what your method of assessing has been?. A. Well, the general method of the whole assessment in 1886 was as follows : We started out and looked the ground over, and found there were a great many inequalities all over town, and we came to the con clusion that it was almost a hopeless task to undertake an assessment of the property as it was and to make it just and equitable, so we went to work and got out these street books [showing the books], taking, for instance, all of the estates upon Rantoul Street and all of the estates upon Cabot Sti-eet in rotation, right and left or east and west, as the .153 •case might be. We put down the quantity in feet of each piece of land and established a valuation upon it per foot. We commenced at Cabot Street, here, at ten cents per foot, on this corner, and as we got along it increases until it comes up to Railroad Avenue here, where it is fifty cents a foot. ,Q. How did you fix the rate per foot, Mr. Murney? A. Wo determined on that largelj' bj- the sales that had been made for the past number of years, taking five or six years back, and averag ing up the sales, to see how the matter stood. Here it was 50 cents a foot, and on the other part of the street we go through the business section, and then from 50 down to 25, and so along down away from the village, until we came to farm land, which was assessed by the acre. We did just so with all the rest of the town. Commencing upon the - shore land, we took the sales that had been made for the past number of j'ears, averaged them up, and* went through the whole town in the same manner, basing the valuation largely upon sales that had been made. In fact, it was rather a curious thing, but taking the land from the upper part of the town there were a good many sales all over the town that assisted us very materially in determining how to establish the value. It was also so with the Cove property and along the shore line, because the most of that, the greater part of it, had changed hands in the ten years previous to that time, 1 think. So that we got a very good idea in that 'way, as we considered. Q. Well, now tell us about the assessment along on Hart Street, at Beverly Farms. A. Commencing at about this point on Hart Street, I flnd that the lots there are at about 3 cent? a foot for village lots, and going up , to about that point we get down to half a cent a foot for the house lots. and the rear land, of course, is taxed anywhere from $50 to $75 an acre, as the case might be. On the opposite side, taking these lots here, opposite the church, I flnd that these run at about 5 cents a foot until you get to Mr. Hull's, and then it begins to reduce down in the same way. Q. Now, take the shore properly, Mr. Murney. You speak of actual sales : let me ask you how the assessment in comparison with the actual sales compares at the Farms with the assessment compared with actual sales in the rest of the town ? A. It is lower in proportion at the Farms. Taking this land here, from Burgess Point, so called (it is on here as Woodbury Point), I find that shore land is assessed at fourteen cents a foot, or, I believe, about 4|6j098 per acre. 154 MISSTATEMENTS. Q. How does that compare with Mr. Mason's place, upon the other side? The committee went there the other day. A. Mr. Powell Mason's place is assessed 12 cents a foot, or ,$5,224 per acre. Q. And that is the estate that it was stated to the committee was assessed at $10,000 an acre? A. It is not assessed at $10,000 an acre. Q. You were not present? A. I was not present. Mr. Moulton. You don't know whether the statement was made to the committee. The committee know it was. Mr. Murney. Well, he paid $80,000 for it. There was a house upon it. Q. What is he assessed, Mr. Powell Mason? A. The assessment in 1887 was $62,400. I think there is no mate rial change. Q. $62^400 for an estate for which he paid $80,000? A. Yes, sir ; he paid $80,000. Q. You say that it is assessed for 12 cents a foot now? A. Yes, sir ; it is 12 cents a foot. Q. And the Pickman place, on the other side of the line, is 14 cents a foot ? , A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, if you will, point out some other estates near the line. A. Following this line up, we come to the Sohier estate, that is 14 cents ; the next is the Lawrence estate -^ Mr. Moulton. It was stated to the committee that that was lO' cents a foot? Mr. Murney. I don't know what was stated to the committee : I was ilot present ; but it is not assessed 10 cents, it is 12 cents ; it is $5,224 an acre. In other words, it is just the same as Mr. Powell Mason's, — exactlj' the same valuation as Mr. Powell Mason's. Q. Any other estates near the line? A. The next one belongs to Mr. WilUam Endicott, Jr. Q. That is the estate where Mr. Henry Endicott lives? A. I believe Mr.' Henry Endicott does occupy it in the summer. That is 14 cents, or $6,098 per acre. ¦ Q. How does that compare with the Silsbee place, on the other side? A . The Silsbee place, on the Farms side, is $5,224 per acre, I believer or 12 cents per foot. Twelve cents a foot the Silsbee place is and the Endicott place is 14 ; in other words, it is $5,224 an acre against $6,098. 155 Q. What is Mr. Cochrane at the Farms assessed ? Mr. Loring testi- tified that Mr. Cochrane paid $10,000 an acre. A. I believe Mr. Alexander Cochrane paid $30,000 for three acres : $10,000 an acre. Q. What is that assessed for? A. That is assessed at 15 cents per foot, or $6,534 per acre. Q. What is the total assessment? A. The total assessment was $19,600 Q For what cost $30,060? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, take the Sears and Wheatland estates, one on each side ^ Mr. Wheatland is on the Farms side : what are the assessments on those two estates ? A. The Sears estate, six acres, $20,000 ; and the ^heatland estate, five acres, 40,700 feet, $20,700 ; it would' be about the same. Q. And does the Sears estate include some marsh? A. Yes, it does. Q. How is it with the Wheatland estate? A. Well, the Wheatland estate is on this high land. Mrs. Shaw comes in between the brook and Mr. Wheatland, but the Sears estate goes down to it. ' Q. That is, the Sears estate goes down to low laud and the other does not? A. Yes. Q. And are there two houses on the Wheatland estate? A. I think there are three ; but there are certainly two there. There is the house that he occupies himself and there is another, that I believe Mr. William S. Dexter occupies. Q. You were on the Board of Assessors when there was talk about the assessment of Mr. Cotting's barn : will you state the facts in regard to that, Mr. Murney ? A. Mr. Cotting owned a bam, and it was assessed, from what ap peared upon the books, and in fact, at $6,000, when it should have been $600. We added on an extra cipher. As soon as we found out our error we notified Mr. Cotting and made an abatement upon it.' Q. Had the assessment been $600 for years, do you know? A. The assessment for 1885, if I remember right, was $6,000, and we carried it on just the same, made an error in that wav. ' Q. Well, before that time had the assessment been $600, for years before 1885? A. I understood that it had. Q. For two J'ears there was an error, and, I understand you, the tax for one year was abated and the tax for the other year was paid back to him? A. Yes, sir. Q. So that the result is that he has been taxed at $600 for that barn? A. Yes, that is the way I understand it. 156 Q. And never more than that? Now, what is the highest valuation of any land at Beverly Farms? A. The highest valuation of anj- land at Beverly Farms is 20 cents a foot, at the Perkins and Whitman places, - and also a piece of Mr. Martin Brimmer's, right in here, next to Mrs. Cabot's, on Hale Street. Those estates are about $8,700 an abre. Q. How is it with Haven land ? A. Well, the Haven land extends seme depth. This shore land, until il; '^comes to the low land, to his marsh, is 20 cents; Mrs. Whitman,. when she bought the estate close to his, paid about 39 cents a foot for it. Q. Has anj- land of that character sold in the last ten years for less than $10,000 an acre? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. This Brimifer sale you speak of was at the rate of $20,000 an acre ? A. Yes ; and Mrs. Whitman paid in that vicinity, $16,675. Mr. Moulton. Our attention has been called to an illustrated book •called "The Case of Beverly Farms": I don't know whether such a book has been shown or given to all the committee or not. Mr. Robinson. It is on their table now. Mr. Moulton. If so, I wish to call the attention of this witness to some things that are in that book. Q. Have you got a copy of that book, Mr. Murney? A. Yes, I have one here. The Chaiuman. I know of no copies having been presented to the «ommittee. There have been no copies distributed to the committee. Mr. Williams. I understood that the members of the committee •each had one. Mr. Cook. I had one, and I took it home and ha\e been studying it. Mr. Robinson. We want to put in a commentary upon it. The "Chairman. Has it been put in as evidence? Mr. Robinson. Not as evidence. Mr. Cook. We all had one left on our desks in the Blue Room. I took mine home. Mr. Moulton. Have you examined this book, Mr. Murney? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Williams. You do not understand anything of this kind has gone in as evidence? It is part of the general literature of the case that has been scattered broadcast. If there is any error that you want to ¦correct, that is all right. Q. Turn to page 37, Mr. Murney. A. Yes, sir. Q. To the picture entitled " Shore property, Beverly side of line. Average assessment $4,870 per acre " : I want to ask you if that state ment is true. Mr. Murney ? A. That cut represents Mr. Joseph Lefavour's estate, and Mr. Pick- 157 man's two houses. They are assessed at 14 cents a foot, which would be $6,096 an acre, and not $4,870, Q. Is there any land shown in that picture that is assessed at $4,870 an acre? A. Not on the front, not in what is shown on the front ofthe picture ; no, sir. Q. All that front land is assessed at how much an acre ? A. It is assessed at $6,098 per acre. ' Q. How much does the depth of land there compare with the depth of land that is assessed at about the same rate on the Farms side, opposite ? A. About the same. Q. Well, now, between pages 42 and 43 there is a cut called " Bird's- ej'e view of the manufacturing district in Beverly, from Ryal side. Land taxed on an average under 8 cents a foot, not including roads " : what do you say to that statement, Mr. Murney ? A. That statement is not correct. Q. What is the manufacturing district assessed for? A. The manufacturing district, taking Park Street, commencing at the — Q. Just point it out. Mr. Murney [Indicating on the map]. Park Street, and the manu facturing district, commences below the railroad station, that is, south of the railroad station. Upon those corners around the station it is 30 and 33 cents a foot ; also the corners upon Rantoul Street, for manufacturing purposes, the same, and the corner upon Broadwaj'. The manufacturing sites there are assesssed at 25 cents per foot until you get to below Bow Street, and then they are 20 cents a foot. And after we get through the manufacturing district the building lots are more plenty and the rate is reduced. Q. Is there any manufacturing property in Beverly that is assessed as low as 8 cents a foot ? A. No, sir. Mr. Murney. Here, below Broadway, which will also be shown in this picture, going right up from the depot, land is from 40 to 25 cents a foot, with the exception of one or two unimproved lots, that, I believe, are 18 cents. Q. Well, how is it on Cabot Street and Railroad Avenue? Those are shown on this picture. A. On Railroad Avenue, as is shown in this picture, I flnd that the most of it runs from 25 cents down to 10 cents per foot. There is a little on this corner, here, that is shown upon the picture that is less than that. It is a lot of land that is on Rantoul Street. Q. Well, that is up above the manufacturing part ofthe town? A. Oh, yes ! it is not in the manufacturing part at all. There is none of the manufacturing part that is less than 20 cents. 158 Q. What is the assessment on Broadway, which is another street lead ing from Cabot Street to the railroad station ? A. I have just said that runs from 45 cents to 25, with the exception of one or two unimproved lots, that is, lots that have not been built upon, have not any cellars on them, and those are 18 cents. Q. Take page 14 of this pamphlet. There is a statement made on that page " that citizens of Beverly Farms after its separation from the old town will own more acres of land in Beverly and of more valacthan citizens ofthe old tOwn of Beverly will own in the new town of Beverly Farms '' : what do you say as to that? A. That is impossible. Mr. Moulton. Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to go through this whole book. I do not suppose it is in evidence at all. It has been given to the committee, and in our view ofthe case it is entirely incorrect, and misleading. I have called attention to some matters contained in it, but I will not go into it more fully. The Chairman. The committee have not understood that it has been put in evidence. Mr. Moulton. We could follow it up a good deal more closely, if you choose. Mr. Cook. Well, maj- 1 be allowed to ask why it is impossible that the citizens of Beverly Farms should own more acres of land in Beverlj', and of more value, than the citizens of the old town of Beverly will own in the new town of Beverly Farms? That I do not understand. A. It would be impossible, as it exists to-day, for that statement to be true. There are only, as I can remember now, four or flve or six of the Beverly Farms people that own property in Beverlj'. For instance, there is Mrs. Mary Preston comes to my mind just now ; she owns a house, or two houses rather, and a small lot of land, right in here, some where on Eliot Street. Then there is Mr. Charles Frank Preston, who did own a lot of land on Lothrop Street, but I understand that he has sold it ; also, Mr. Thomas Eliot owns in the same place. Mr. Moulton. Haven't they both sold ? A. I understood so. Mr. William Endicott, Jr., who resides in summer on the Farms side, also owns a house on the Beverly side, that we have been talking about this morning. Apart from these, I cannot seepa- to recall any ; there may be more. I have no doubt there are more, but there are not 168, as we have on Beverly side, who own land at the Farms. Q. Mr. Endicott is not a Voter in Beverlj'? A. No, sir ; he is a non-resident. Mr. Murray. During our recent view of the country there, we visited the Haven estate and also the Pickman estate : now, you say 159 the Haven estate along the shore is assesse^d for 20 cents a foot ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the Pickman estate at 14? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, won't you explain to us that difference ? A, Yes, sir ; I will. The reason of that difference is that we took as the basis for our valuation as near as we could the sales of property in the vicinity. We found that the sales in the vicinity of Mr. Haven's «state and through this section were at very much higher prices than the sales in the Cove, near Mr. Pickman's. We found that Mr. Henry P. Kidder, of Boston, purchased sixteen acres of land on Mr. Haven's «state [indicating on the map], and paid for it, according to the testi monj- of Mr. Meredith, of Boston, who sold the property, $120,000. We also found that this property here of Mrs. Whitman's, near Mr. Haven's, that she purchased of Mrs. Cabot, was sold for $75,000, for four and a half acres. We also found that Mr. Eugene V. R. Thayer, on the other side of Mr. Haven, purchased this lot in here, of five and three quarters acres, partly low land, and paid $70,000 for it. We assessed Mr. Thayer $38,650 for land he paid $70,000 for. Mrs. "Whitman paid $75,000 for her place, and we assessed it at $39,000. Mr. Kidder paid $120,000 for that land, and we assessed it for $66,100. Q. What did Mr, Pickman pay for his estate? A. Mr. Pickman's estate was one of those that was purchased very early, and I really do not know. There is probably a witness who will follow me who might give you that information. He has been there a very long time, and I •could not say how much he paid. I think he ojade several purchases in order to get the estate which he has now. Q. Do you think that shore property of Mr. Haven's is more desirable than the shore property of Mr. Pickman's ? A. Yes, it is more desirable, if we are to judge by sales and the prices paid ; and that is all that we have got to go by. Q. Well, which of the places do you think is the most desirable, regardless of sales and prices ? A. I think the place that is most desirable for me is the place I am pre pared to have and own. That is where the investment is made, and that is what the tax has got to be based upon. Now take it in this case : Mr.-Eugene V. R. Thayer paid $70,000 for a few acreS of land; and we assess him for that $38,650. If a man goes into business in Boston or in any of our towns, and he invests $70,000 in his business, it is more than likely that the assessors will assess him more than $38,000 on that investment. That is the way we have to do with this land. We have thought and considered ourselves that these prices are high although they were almost continuous along the shore ; nevertheless, we 160 have not at any time come up in our assessments to the prices paid for the property. Q. So you do think your assessed value is high? A. No, sir; I said our assessed valuation was not as high as the price paid for the property in any case. For instance, I will state some case, one of the cases I have just stated : — Mr. Powell Mason paid $80,000 for this place down here, and we assessed it for $62,000 in round numbers. Mr. Alexander Cochrane paid $30,000 for his place and it was assessed for $19,000. Mrs. Tyson, $55,000, and we assessed it for $34,850. Stephen G. Wheatland's place here, he paid $45,000, and we assessed it for $20,700. Mr. Cook. Will you be kind enough to tell us about the Endicott place, on the Beverly side? How long since there has been a sale there? A. I have not got the Endicott sale, but I have got a sale right adjoining it, which, I presume, is at about the same price, although I could not say. Joseph W. Lefavour joins the Endicott estate here, and I find that Mr. Lefavour paid for 3 J acres, $20,000, Sept. 20, 1881, and that it was assessed for $18,^00 in 1887, and it is now assessed higher than that. It is assessed at $6,096 an acre now. Mr. Cook. Well, Mr. Lefavour's view is not so good, is it, as Mr. Endicott's? A I don't think there is any difference whatever. They are adjoining estates, and they are both on the same angle. I think you would get about the same view. Mr. Cook. Well now, I would like to ask, for my own information, if . the assessors could assess propertj' that is improved, in other words, I would like to know if that nice wall that is laid there for a quarter of a mile or more, ifit did not cost some monej-, and if it did, if j'ou put any value to it, or assessed property any more that a man has improved than you do property that God has flnished or left unBnished? A. No, sir ; we have not taken that much into consideration at any time, except in a general way. We know that property is increased by it, still I do not think the sale of any estate would be increased to the extent of these improvements, because they are necessaiy improve ments. Mr. Cook. Well, if a man puts $30,000 or more into a stone wall, ouaht he not to be assessed for it just as much as he should for a rocky piece of land which is not worth so much? A. Well, that is an investment, and it increases the value ofthe land, the value of the property, to a certain degree, of course. For instance^ Mr. Haven's estate has got a very fine stone wall around it. 161 Mr. Cook. I am talking about' the seashore. A. It is just the same about this shore around there. These walls are torn down every little while by the action of the, waves. They are really sea walls. They are a necessity to them. They have paid for those in the beginning, and the price that they have paid for them, for the property, in the beginning, of course includes those, and the assessed valuation, following, must naturally include them all in the same invest ment. For instance, when Mr. Lefavour paid $20,000 for a piece of property there, three and one half acres, there was a stone wall in front of his estate. That estate is assessed more now than he paid for it. A year ago or so, that wall was torn away, the one that was there when he made the original purchase. He had to go to work and put up a new Vail to keep his land from washing away. We did not consider we were justified in taxing him more for the new wall that he built there; that is, for supplying a wall that had been torn away by the action of ,the sea. Mr. Cook. Then, in other words, if his house had burnt down and he had built a new one, you would not assess it? A. Certainly we would. Mr. Cook. Then why not assess the wall? It has cost monej'. A. It has cost money, but th§ investment has already been made. He is not adding anything to his estate which makes it any better than before, he is simply making his estate equal to what it was before, no better: why assess him? Mr. Cook. Why assess a new house, if it is not any better than the one that is torn down? A. A new house is supplying a want, and can be-used, and an income can be derived from it, that would not be derived from this wall that you speak of, inasmuch as there was a wall there before. He has got to build that wall to protect himself; if he did not, the waves would take awaj- all that property that he has there, almost, and all that Mr. Endicott has. Arii^ in fact, the greater part of that property was made, — carted on there and levelled off as it is. Q. That is the reason I think it is worth a great deal more than land that has never been touched : it cost a great deal more to do it than to take it as nature left it? A. That maj' be. It may be worth more, and probably will be at some time ; but the assumption is that his land to-day is not as desirable as if it were less likely to be washed away. Q'. How long ago did Mr. Endicott or Mr. Lefavour buy this land, so I can understand it? . Mr. Murney. Mr. Peabody, who adjoins Mr. Endicott, purchased Sept. 20, 1880. Mr. Lefavour purchased Sept. 20, 1881, and I think that Mr. Endicott must have purchased about the same time. Then we 162 have got two sales right in this same vicinity here. There is Mr. Grover and there is Mr. Almy, who purchased in 1884. In other words,. we have got three sales in 1880, and two sales in 1884, one in 1881, one in 1883, two in 1886, on this section of land, from here to here, to be governed by. Mr. Ely. I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, whether people who- have invested $75,000 or $100,000 in estates in Beverly Farms are getting any pecuniary returns for land by the sale of building lots, as a general thing. Are there any sales there of building lots from these larger estates ? A. There is not much, for this reason: men purchase simply what thej' want for their own use. A man may want a lot of one acre or he may want a lot of two, three, or five acres, but he pur chases enough to give him his shore front or privilege, and sometimes his land may run back more in the rear, and whatever there is he takes it. It may be a three or a five acre lot, and the selling price of, the two lots might not differ materially. In the matter of income from it, there is no doubt there are some building for an investment, but I think the most of the estates that are owned at the Farms are owned by gentlemen who are Boston merchants, build their houses there to have a summer home near to their business and near to their hpmes, and the consequence is that t.hey are not looking so much fur an income from it as they are for the pleasure and for the use and convenience of having it, the convenience of being near their place of business and near their home, as I said before. But I have heard it testified, that some of the estates that were let there rented at from $5,000 to $6,000 for the season. Mr. Meredith, I think, made that statement here. What those estates were I do not know. Mr. Moulton. I was going to ask you, Mr. Murney, if it is true that estates at Beverly Farms have been cut up and sold within the last ten or fifteen years, largely? » A. Oh, yes. Q. Take the Paine estate, for instance. A. There is no doubt but what the Paine estate has been cut up and sold, and has been divided into several estates. But I was speaking of estates as they are there now- With the exception of Mr. Haven's, I do not know of any estate there is to cut up. Q. The Paine estate was an estate that cost about $6,000, originally? A. I understand so, sir. Q. Do you know how much has been sold froni that estate which cost $6,000? A. I do not. I should have to apply the pencil to that. Q. You spoke in answer to the committee as to the assessment of 163 improvements upon estates: is there any different rule applying to similar improvements in Beverly Farms ? A. No, sir ; the same rule applies to all improvements of that kind. SALES AT FARMS ABOVE THE ASSESSED VALUATION. Mr. Moulton. I want to put in these sales which have been put in for several j'ears, and some additional sales. [Printed lists handed the committee.] Q. Will you give any sales of lots in Beverly Farms that you know about that do not appear on this list of sales of village lots, and give the assessments, too, if you will? A. Sarah L. Ober, in 1884, from estate of Joseph Ober, two acres and 21,780 feet, price paid, $11,500. Mr. Charles Storrow, in 1884, from Sarah L. Ober, 1^ acres of the same property, $8,000, that part in there. In 1887, William C. Loring, from Samuel Ober's heirs, assessed' $2,600, paid $5,000. Thomas Elliott, from Stephen Eldredge, a lot of land on Hale Street,, price paid $1,150 when he bought it, right at the corner of Hale and Valley streets, I believe, and is now owned by Henry Parkman, assessed for $1,200, and selling for $1,500. In 1887, Lena Ingalls Sewall from Eva Larcom, a piece of property on Hale Street, which is quite near to Marshall's Hall, assessed $900 in 1889, in 1887 assessed $600, and paid $1,100^ for it. Augustus P. Loring, in 1889, from Helen M. Storj', two acres and about a half, at the corner of High and Haskell streets, which is that lot in there colored green, assessed $1,000, price paid, $1,200. Catharine Watson, from Larkin W. Story, 30,000 feet of land on Haskell Street, that lower part of that green lot there, $600 assessment, and $600 the price paid. Mr. Williams. When was that sale? A. It is since 1886, or, at least, since 1885, sure. In 1889, Silesta E., wife of Jesse Pierce, from Jasper Pope, 1 acre and 8 rods, $100 assessed, $300 the price paid. I am not quite sure about the piece, but itis right there in that bend somewhere. ' J. Webster Dane, from Isaac F. Day, lot on Vine Court, the assess ment was $800 in 1889, and $1,400 was the price paid for it. Cornelius Murray, from Catharine Watson, a piece of this same lot on Haskell Street, assessed in 1889, $100, and the price paid was $3,000, abont 5,000 feet of the 30,000. Mr. Wiseman purchased of Mr. Linnehan a piece of land right in about that point there, about 11,000 feet, and paid $700 for it. 164 I purchased from John H. Woodbury for the O'Brien Brothers, of Boston, 1-12 ofthe Joseph Woodbury estate, which is on West Street, assessed for $125, and I paid $175 for it. Also another twelfth of the same piece for the same parties, O'Brien Brothers, from Issachar Lefavour and wife, $175, being assessed $125. Mr. Moulton. Have j'ou got the shoe f actorj' lot there ? A. I have got the shoe factory lot upon my list, but I haven't got it quite clear in my mind what was paid. Mr. Williams. We can tell you what was paid. Mr. Hardy. $800. Mr. MouL-roN. $800 for how many feet? Mr. Hardy. 6,700 feet. Q. What was that assessed for, $400? A. From Charles H. Day, $400 assessed, $800 paid. SALES IN OLD BEVERLY. Q. I have here a paper marked " sales since 1886 in Beverly village," a long list of sales : are they all that you know of? A. All I know about, all I have got any definite knowledge of The are 62 of them, I believe, or 60. Mr. Moulton. I will not stop to have you read them all, but I will ' put them in evidence, and submit them to your examination, Mr. Williams. SALES SINCE 1886 IN OLD BEVERLY. 1887. Asseasefl. Price paid. Enoch Brown's heirs to B. M. Smith, house and land, Cabot Street (auction) . . . $4,200 $3,800 Mrs. Augustus Morgan to Arthur L. Morrill, house and land, Cabot Street ... 4 700 4 500 John W. Standley to Peter E. Clark, 32 acres land, Standley Street . . . > . . i,250 1,000 Wilson heirs to Andrew W. Rogers et als., house and land, Cabot Street .... 2 100 1 600 Catherine Foley heirs to John I. Baker, house and land, Cabot Street ..... 2 250 1 600 Mark A. Woodbury to Israel Lefavour, shop and land. Park Street 1 475 j qqq William A. Prince to F. J. Crowell, land, 8 acres, Kyall Side 825 810 Beverly Savings Bank to Geo. P. Irving, house and land. Central Street .... 3 500 3 300 165 . 1887. Lydia Stone to Benj. D. Webber, house and land, cor. Cabot and Davis streets J. Frank Hitchings to Peter E. Clark, house and land, Charnock Street .... S. J. Remmonds to Jacob Jacobs, house and land. Stone Street ...... Saflord heirs to Horace W. Woodbury, house and land, Cabot Street .... Alfonzo Mason to Samuel A. Fuller, farm land. North Beverly Lorenzo Pierce to Samuel A Fuller, house and land, Knowlton Street .... Mrs. Driver to Mrs. Derby, house and land, Franklin Place ...... Gilbert P. Weston to Benj. Chapman, house and land, Water Street Heirs David Welch to , house and land. Park Street ..... Eben Ellingwood's heirs to Geo. A. Woodbury, 2d, 1887 (auction), house and lot. Chapman Street Mrs. Tracy, place on Rantoul Street, sold at auc tion, March 14, 1888, to Jeremiah Harrigan, 1884. Jasper F. Pope to Miss Jennings, Broadway, 8,250 feet 1,350 1,150 1887. Nannie L. Odell and Emily ¥. Lovett to John J. Parker, '29,220 feet, Rantoul Street Susanna Kennison to C. H. K. Morgan, houpe and lot, Bartlett Street' .... George Roundy to Mr. Stopford, lot, corner Ran toul and Pond streets .... Richard J. Preston to Owen P. SuUivau, house and lot, Cabot Street Anna E. Foley, Admx. to John E. Foley, house and lot. Water Street . . . . . George S. Seeley to Sarah S. Lefavour, 2 houses and lot, Lothrop Street . isessed. Price paid. 3,400 3,350 4,700 4,000 2,400 2,000 3,400 2,800 8,450 3,000 850 675 8,700 3,000 1,600 l,30o 1,150 1,100 1,700 t 1,250 2,800 2,540 1,400 1,400 2,000 2,000 400 400 1,550 1,550 1,550 950 2,475 2,650 . 166 1887. Augustus Williams to Solon Lovett, storehouse and lot. Federal Street .... George A. Clough estate to John W. Fennick, house and lot, Chase Street John G. Warner to Benjamin Webber, land. Porter Street C. W. Porter to W. F. Burns, lot land, Living stone Avenue ...... William A. Prince to Henry W. Foster, land, 2 J acres (auction) ,' Cole Street . C. W. Porter to B. F. Cann, land, Kernwood Avenue .....•• C. W. Porter to E. L. Thomas, lot, Livingstone Avenue ....... C..W. Porter to J. W. Whitmore, lot, Living stone Avenue ...... C. W. Porter to J. E. Gerrish, lot, Winthrop Avenue ....... Wm. Bradstreet to W. C. Major, lot Bridge Street John Moore to W. A. Sawyer, house and lot, Franklin Place f . . Mrs. Fallon to Andrew J. Iverson, lot,' Lothrop Street ....... John Roy to C. B. Hoyt, house and lot. Chase Street John Roy to Wm. H. Welch, lot^ Winthrop Avenue ....... L. F. Adams to L. K. Barker, house and lot, , cor. Rantoul and Dane Streets •¦ . John Pickett to Sarah S. Lefavour, land, Lothrop Street ....... E. E. Herrick to Squire Beaumont, land. Beck- ford Street • . ¦ / • Peter E. Clark to Horace T. Crensy, lot. Bridge Street John W Wood to Thomas W. Raymond, house and land, Mulbury Street .... M. F. Rock to F. Marshall, lot. Back Street A. N. Clark to N. W. Haynes, lot, Butman Street 400 450 ssessed. Price paid. 1,200 2,375 1,075 1,275 850 700 150 200 350 360 450 474 150 175 150 175 325 375 200 400 1,600 1,800 1,000 1,050 1,000 1,275 300 350 2,050 ' 2,300 ' 6,600 7,000 » 350 425 350 450 1,525 150 1,800 237 J67 1887. Edwin B. Rogers to W. A. Prince, house and lot. Park Street Benjamin Chapman to George Seely, house and ^ lot. Water Street F. A. Crosby to Robbins Raymond, house and lot. Mechanics Street Hugh Hill to Robbins Raymond, house and lot, Dane Street Elizabeth Foster to H. P.- Woodbury, land. Hale to Ober streets Nancy L. Odell to A. K. Ober, lot, rear of E. Lothrop Street ...... ^ufus H. Woodbury to Timothy W. Woodbury, house and lot. Hale Street . . _ . Issachar Foster to S. W. Woodburj', house, Lake Shore Avenue ...... Alfred R. Woodbury to Rufus H. Woodbury, lot, corner Hale and Woodbury streets John J. Watson to Rufus H. Woodbury, three houses and lot Bisson estate to Annie E. Bisson, house and lot. Hale Street ...... IBisson estate to Benjamin Prince, lot Bisson Street ....... Issachar Foster to R. A. Pedrick ¦ Sixty sales in Beverly since 1886. Price paid . . . . . $102,792 Assessed 102,600 Assessed. Pi-ioe paid. 1,450 1,600 1,600 1,500 1,075 1,500 2,300 2,800 1,200 1,200' 375 500 2,800 3,000 300 400 • 2,000 2,800 5,000 6,000 3,675 4,505 125 215 300 400 $102,600 $102,792 Sold in excess of valuation . $192 MR. CONNOLLY'S STATEMENT AS TO AN ASSESSMENT AND SALE. Q. I wish to ask you about the land that was spoken of by Mr. Con- nollj', called the land at Tuck's Point. A. That is the Chapman land? Q. Yes. A. The facts in the case are that Mr. Chapman purchased of Mr. Gilbert P. Weston a year or two ago a house lot on Water Street, assessed for $1,600. They purchased it for $1,300, or $1,350 I believe was the price. They made sorae little improvements upon it and have since sold it, sold it this January, on a date corresponding with the date 168 given by Mr. Connolly, for $1,500, and the assessment was still $1,600. Q. Let us understand : that was land that Mr. Connolly stated was assessed at $150? A. Yes, sir. Q. In fact it was assessed at $1,600? A. The house and land were assessed for $1,600; $150, or whatever statement he made, was a»mis- take. Q. It sold for $1,500? A. $1,500, I understand. Q. That is, $100 less than the valuation. Now, did Mr. Chapman own another lot of land, which was not sold at all, which was valued at $150? ' A. Mr. Chapman formerly owned another lot of land before he purchased this Gilbert Weston place ; he owned a lot of land at Tuck's Point, which was assessed $150, or whatever it was, some small sum of that kind, and he sold that to Miss Greenough, at what price I don't know. Q. Was it taxed to her? A. It was taxed to her this year — and then Chapman purchased the Gilbert P. Weston estate I spoke of. Q. And that was taxed this year to the Gilbert P. Weston estate? A. No, sir, it was taxed to Chapman this year, that is, in 1889. EXPLANATION OF MR. HARDY"S STATEMENTS. Q. I think I will ask j'ou, Mr. Murney, the general question in rela tion to those examples of valuation which were given by Mr. Hardy, as to what you have to say in relation to them. A. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that after looking them over, looking over the property that is described by Mr. Hardy, I find that there has been in nearly every case either an increase of land, or an increase in value in some way of the land, to merit the rise in the valuation. Now, we will take, for instance, the case of Mr. Stephen Larcom as an illus tration. In 1885, according to Mr. Hardy's statement, that was as- ses.sed $400 in 1885, and $1,200 in 18S6. We assessed in 1886 two and a half acres more land than we did in 1885. Mr. Williams. Was it the same lot, Mr. Murney? make that clear. A. It may have been the same lot, it maj' have been land adjoining ; but we took it that if the land in 1885, the number of feet as represented in 1885, w'as worth so much money, the amount of land we found there in 1886 was worth so much additional. Q. Wasn't it extra land he had bought? A. That I couldn't say; I have only got it as it was brought in by the assessor from the dis trict. Mr. Moulton. Do you know whether as a fact he had been ex empted from taxation to some extent before 1885? You were not on the Board, however, then? A. No, since 1885, since I have been on 169 the Board, I believe he has ; but that is something I don't wish to talk anything about. In nearlj' all of these cases we can show something similar, or something to account for ,the rise. Take the case of Mr. Charles Frank Preston: in 1885, $2,550, and in 1886, $.-),526. The facts in that case are that $6,000 was paid for 3-4 of this estate, Mr. Preston or his wife owning 1-4 of it themselves. The whole of it was assessed much below what they paid for 3-4 of it. It was assessed at $3,150 in 1885, and not $2,550, as represented, and $5,575 in 1886,.. a rise of $2,425, instead of $3,000, as represented. Then there was also' an increase upon his homestead lot of 16,450 feet ; there was no increase in the Lynde lot, an increase in the sheep pasture, and an increase in several other lots, and so it brings the assessment up to that sum. Now, Mr. Chairman, it would be a good deal of work to read this all over, and if the counsel on both sides are .satisfied, and the committee have got no objection, I should prefer to leave the book with you. [Mr. Williams objects.] Mr. Moulton. Then, will j'ou go on and follow the list you have, and state in regard to each individual name that was furnished by Mr.- Hardy? A. In the case of John Brady: 1885, $700; 1886, $2,300; that should be $2,000 in 1886! James E. Cole, 1885, $300 ; 1886, $550. That is Mr. Hardy's statement ; there were 2,000 feet more land in 1886 than in 1885. Mr. Moulton. Do you know whether there was a house added to that land in 1885 or 1886? ' A. There was a house added, I believe, in 1886 ; the property was- iraproved by a house, I believe. Connolly Bros. : 1885, $1,1^0 ; 1886, $2,000. Assessed on Haskell Street lot, about $400 in 1885, paid $1,500 for the lot, and sold of this^ lot to Patrick Cannon of about 5,000 feet f.jr about $400, I understood. Mr. Moulton. Mr. Connolly testified $500. The Witness. Andrew J. Crowell: 1885, $l,.3O0 ; 1886, $2,200, corner lot, and assessed at flve cents a foot, and land having been sold since that, which was a part of the same estate, at an advance over its assessed value. That is the case of Mrs. Story and Mr. A. P. Loring. Mr. Williams. Was it sold between 1885 and 1886, or since 1886?' A. Sold since 1886. Q. Since you made the increase in the assessment, then ? A. Yes, since the increase jn the assessment was made. 170 John M. Murney (resumed). OVER TWO MILLIONS OF PERSONAL PROPERTY REMOVED. Thursday, Feb. 13, 1890. Mr Moulton. Mr. Murney, some question was made j-esterday as to the total amount of personal property that has been taken from (Beverly by the removal of persons whose names you gave. A. The total amount removed was $2,167,550. 1 Q. And the total amount of taxes? A. The total amount of tax on this property was $30,345.70 ; corporation tax. removed, $11,048 ; mak ing a total, combined, of $41,393.70, which has been removed. CORRECTIONS OF MR. HARDY'S STATEMENT. Q. Mr. Hardy testified that the valuation of Mr. Bennett's property (he was said not to be in favor of division) had been lowered : what wfere the facts? A. In 1885 Mr. Bennett was assessed for some land in what is called the " Sheep Pasture." Land is of comparatively little value, in there, and in 1886 we assessed it the sam'e as so many acres of land, sheep pasture. We found that that was wrong, that in fact it was land upon Hart Street. [Mr. Connolly points out the land.] Mr. Murney. We were drawn into error by the use of the words " Sheep pasture." I suppose it had escaped Mr. Haskell's attention, who was the assessor in the Farms district, and that was the conse quence. Pei-sonally, I didn't know whether Mr. Bennett was a divis- iofiist or anti-divisionist, and did not care, for that matter. Q. What has been the assessment since? A. The assessment since is just the same as the land that is adjoining. I know that it is as much as the other land, and it may perhaps be a little more. Mr. Moulton. Now, Mr. Chairman, we desire to put in some testi mony in answer to the testimony which was given by Mr. Hardj'. Mr. Murney has investigated each instance that was testified to by Mr. Hardy. Now, I desire to put it in as short a form as possible, and I am willing to submit it without the witness going through the testimony ¦orally, but if objection is made I know of no other way than to continue as we began yesterday and let Mr. Murney take up the list where he left •it off. Mr. Williams. I have no objection to its going in in that way, only I think it would have been a little better if I had had an opportunity to look over that list. I know it takes a quantity of time. 171 Mr. Moulton. In so many Instances there , are various explanations or various circumstances to be stated ; in some cases there was more land, in some cases the figures were not taken correctly from the valua tion book. In other cases property was assessed to different indi viduals. Of course, among 60 instances, we cannot say that there was any general rule. In 8 instances out of 60 there is nothing that we can say except that there was a rise in valuation. Mr. MuRi^EY. In six instances. Mr. Moulton. In every other instance, excepting those six, there is something to s'ay. Mr. Moulton submitted in evidence the following : — CORRECTIONS AND EXPLANATIONS OF MR. HARDY'S ASSERTIONS. James K. Cole, 300,* 350. t 200 feet more land assessed on Haskell Street, lot $400 in 1885. Connolly Bros., 1,150,* 2,000.t Paid $1,500 for the lot, and sold a lot to Patrick Cannon, of about 5,000, for about $400. Andrew J. Crowell, 1,300,* 2,200.-f Corner lot, and assessed at 5 cents a foot ; and land has been sold since that was a part of the same estate at an advance over its assessed value, — Story to Loring. Otis M. Davis, 300,* 400.t In 1886 should be $200, a decrease of $100. I. S. Day, 500,* 575.t 1,316 feet more land, 1886. James Dow, 1,000,* 3,150.* Malt Hill, verj' near the shore and high land and practically belongs up in the town. John E. Dow, 600,* l,OOO.t Dow & Larcom, 400,* l,400.t Wm. Sewall bought from Eva Lar com a lot a short distance above this lot, for more than it was assessed, and this lot was raised the same way as land adjoining, and was 7 cents per foot in 1886. Thomas Elliott, 8,970,* 24, 500. t Assessed for property that was assessed to C. C. Jacobson in 1885 ; also assessed for three acres in addi tion, and all at a lower price per foot than land, on the same street, of JVIr. Hubbard's, that he paid $20,000 for, about three acres. Sam'l A. Fogg, 150,* 350.t More land paid $812. Thos. W. Hannabal, 100,* 125.t 1,000 feet more land in 1886. Alvin Haskell, 2,050,* 5,000.t Land adjoining Abram Trout's heirs' land, for which they asked 10 cents a fool for a piece wanted by the town. This lot since reduced. Andrew Haskell, 550,* l,150.t Adjoining land of Abigail Prince, *1886. tl886. 172 31,000 feet, which was sold at public auction for over three times what ¦ it was assessed in 1885, i. e., $100, sold for $325. Joe F. Haskell, 400,* 400. f Assessed all alike on this court, Vine Court. Paul N. Haskell, 200,* 425. f Assessed at two cents a foot, a very good house lot, and occupied as such. ' Eli R. Hodgkins, 375,* 575.t 1,200 feet more land. William Hiill, 350,* 500.t 2,000 feet more land. Abigail Larcom, 1,275,* 1,800. f Not $1,800 in 1886, but $1,450, a raise to three and four cents per foot for the High Street land. Edmund Larcom, 900,* l,125.t Mr. Loring testified in Salem that land on this street was worth ten cents a foot ; assessed at six cents and less. Heirs of Francis Larcom, 1,000,* 3,4.00. f Only 1,700 in 1886, and has since been reduced. George T. Larcom, 4,550,* 13, 870. f Assessed three cents a foot less'^than Elliott's land and three cents a foot less than Hubbard's land that he paid $20,000 for three acres. J. H. Larcom, 700,* 2,000, f 24,000 feet more land in 1886, and com plained to the assessors of 1885 that his property was not assessed high enough. Stephen Larcom, 400,* 1,200,-|- 2J acres more land, and the whole- property is exempt. Daniel Linnehan, 3,900,* 7,400,t sold to O'Brien Brothers part of this property for $750. Increase over the valuation. Jeremiah Linnehan, 150,* 350, f in 1886 assessed for 3,620 feet more- land than in 1885. Since then an abatement has been made. Caroline Lovering, 800,*-675,t paid $1,850 for the lot. A.' O. Marshall, 1,400,* 3,000,t corner lot, and has since been reduced. He has also a house and lot on High Street, which was mort gaged for $400 moie than it was assessed to Geo. W. Kingsly, of Salem. Assessed $1,600; mortgage, $2,000. Heirs T. J. Marshall, 2,800,* 4,725,t a gain of an acre of land. One of these houses is occupied by Oliver Wendell Holmes. E. H. Ober, 750,* l,025,t a gain of an acre of land over 1885. ElizabethOber,-l,800,* 3,900.t This is high land and a good location,. but has been reduced in valuation since 1886. George F. Ober, 350,* l,0O0.t Good house lot on Hale Street- Adjoins land of Mr. Sewall. Isaac Ober, 1,350,* 1,475. f This is money he was assessed $l„50O in 1885, which shows a decrease of $25. *1885. tl886. 173 Heirs Joseph E. Ober, 700,* 1 ,000. f Near the church, and -is a very nice lot of land. Mary L. Ober, 500,* 925. t Assessed at the same price per foot in 1886 as in 1885, there being an increase of 6,650 more land, i.e., Eva Larcom lot, sold to Mrs. Sewall, adjoins this lot, and brought much more than the assessment. Paul H. Ober, 1 ,650,* 3,600.t An acre and a quarter of land adjoin ing this estate was sold to Mr. Storrow for $8,000, Heirs Samuel Ober, 3,900,* 8,900. f One piece of this land was assessed in 1885 for $550," and was sold in 1887 for $5,000. W. E. Perry's heirs, 200,* 300. f Near lot of Abigail Young's, which sold at auction for $425, Oct. 25, 1887, and was assessed in 1885 for $150. George Pierce, 500,* 700. f This is not so. He was taxed for $700 both in 1885 and 1886. Thomas L. Pierce, 200,* 400.t 4,415 feet more land in 1886. Benjamin Preston, 1,300,* l,375.t This is not so. 1885, land assessed $1,400; 1886, $1,775, 16 3-4 acres. C. F. Preston, 2,550,* 5,525.t Paid $6,000 for 3-4 of this estate. The whole of this land in the Farms, in 1886, being assessed below that amount. Besides, his land at the Farms was assessed at $ 1,150 in 1885, and $5,575 in 1886, showing a raise of $2,425, instead of $3,000, as represented, and there was also an increase of 16,450 feet in the home stead, which would account for $658 increase at 4 cents per foot. In the Lynde lot an increase of, 10,573 feet, 7,146 feet increase in the sheep pasture, and an increase of 14,645 feet in Commons, or rear of Haskell Street, and 6,160 feet of land on Valley Street assessed 1886, at $325. And in addition to all this there was an abatement of the valuation made this year. Hrs. J. K. Preston, 850,* l,950.t This property is only assessed $1,550, in 1886, not $1,950 as represented. Wm. H. Preston, 250,* 650. f Equalized with other land. Elisha Pride, 2,450,* 6,600.f The homestead land was raised to cor respond with the adjoining land, and the same as the land on Pride's ~ Mountain. Sally Pride, 800,* 2,500.t The same reason for raise applies to this place as tp Elisha Pride's. Louisa Rogers, 200,* 300. t More than twice as much land, aud only an increase of $100 ; besides, this property is exempt from paying taxes. Isaac Smith, 2,500,* 2,850.-f- This land has a large frontage on Hart Street. *1885.' fisse. 174 Isaac W. Smith, 200,* 425. t This is a fine house lot, and at a very low price now. Rebecca W. Smith, 650,* 900. f This is a fine lot of land, and has a large frontage on Greenwood Avenue and Hart Street. Timothy M. Standley, 1,750,* 3,700.t There was an increase of 1 3-4 acres and he had refused $4,500 for 9 acres in the Commons, and this same Commons land was assessed in 1886 for $1,90(J. Hrs. Abraham Trout, 2,450,* 9,200.f This land is all assessed same as adjoining land ofthe same qualitj', and they asked the town 10 cents a foot for a part of the 3:^^ acre lot on Hale Street, that is assessed at 4J cents a foot. John N. Watson, 750;* l,000.t There are 21,425 feet of land in his lot, assessed at 5 cents a foot, the same as all the rest of" the laml of a similar quality in this locality. Lawrence Watson, 1,800,* 2,450.t 14,350 feet more land assessed in 1886 than in 1885 on'the homestead, and 1,350 feet more on Everett Street. This would aqcount for a good part of the raise, i. e. 14,350 feet increase at 4 cents 574, and 1,350 feet at 4J cents, Everett Street, $60, $631, which accounts for all but $16 of the raise. AdeUne Williams, 1,600,* 3,325.t Assessed for IJ acres more land in 1886 than 1885. Also owns 9 acres of high land in the Commons, adjoining that of Timothy M. Standley, for which he was offered $4,500. John H. Woodbury, 1,850,* 3,275.t This is a good lot of land near the depot, and is assessed at 6 cents a foot ; there was an increase of 8,223 feet in 1886 over 1885, equal to $493. This land was assessed at '3f cents a foot in 1885. The assessors of 1886 didn't think this was enough, and raised it to 6 cents a foot. George W. Younger, 100,* 325.t In 1885, there was assessed 10,- 890 feet, valuation $100. In 1886 we found there was 39,500 feet, or three and half times more land, and assessed at $325. So there was no increase in value there per foot. Q. Mr. Connolly testifled concerning the John C. Phillips estate, in North Beverly. A. That estate is on the edge of Wenham pond. Q. Ttis e-tate is inthe hands of a trustee? A. Yes, sir; William S. Dext. r. of Boston, is trustee for the John C. Phillips estate. Q. Mr. Dexter lives where? A. He lives in Boston in the winter, and he occupies one of Mr. Wheatland's houses, at the Cove, in the summer. Q. Well , I h a is in the Gore ? He lives in the proposed town ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did Mr. Dexter appear before the assessors in relation to the assessment ofthe Phillips estate? •1886. tl886. 175 A. He appeared before the assessors in 1886 or 1887, and raised some objection to the valuation that was placed upon it. He said that he would be pleased to sell it for much less, and he spoke of the amount of money that had been invested there. He said it was a fancy farm, or had been run as a fancy farm ; was very poor property for the heirs to have upon their hands, and that he would like to change it into some thing which there would be a larger income from. Q. Mr. Phillips had died after improving the place? A. Yes, he died, I think, before the improvements that he Contem plated were finished. Q. There is one instance in Mr. Hardy's testimony to which I wish to call your attention, and that is the increase in Mr. Eliot's valuation between 1885 and 1886: what do you sayin regard to that? A. In 1885, Mr. Jackson had leased Mr. Eliot's house, and agreed to pay the taxes upon it ; but in 1886, it was taxed to Mr. Eliot, and that increased Mr. Eliot's valuation the succeeding year, of that house and lot of land. Q. And that land was assessed at about howf much an acre ? A. About $4,300 an acre ; it was assessed at about ten cents a foot. Cj'oss Examination. Mr. Williams. In reference to this list that you put in, in reference to the correction of Mr. Hardy's testimony, is it not in large part to show that you found more land there the next year. A. Yes, there is more land in most all of the places. Q. Did you find that in taking from the books, 1885 to 1886, Mr. Hardy had made many mistakes? If so, how many and what were they ? A. I did not examine the book in that way. I simply com pared the 1885 and 1886 assessments together and found that there were those differences. Q. Now, here is ''Heirs of Joseph E. Ober": Mr. Hardy says it' was assessed in 1885 for $700, in 1886 for $1,000. Your note on the side is " Near the church, and is a very nice lot' of land." Now, has Mr. Hardy made any mistake ? ' A. No, not in that case. I am giving that explanation for that land; Itis simply saying that it was very low in previous years. In fact, that land was below the average rate of other property in that vicinity in 1885. Mr. Moulton. I did not say that Mr. Hardy was mistaken in the figures that he gave in every instance ; what I did say was that some were inaccurate, aud that upon other instances we had some explanation, or something to say in addition to what Mr. Hardy had snA. Q. " Elizabeth Ober" : assessment in 1885, $1,800 ; in 1886, $3,900. Your note is : " This is high land and a good location, but has been 176 reduced in valuation." So that Mr. Hardy, in stating the fact, has stated it correctlj'? A. That was so in 1886 ; it is not so now. Q. Is it not a fact, too, that in 1886 you made a survey of the prop erty in Beverly Farms? A. Yes, sir; that is also true. • Q. And you found quite a larger amount of propertj' than had been assessed? lots of land, for instance, had been returned and assessed at a smaller amount than actually existed? A. I was not on the board in 1885, and so that I could not say whether it was an increase ofthe same property that had been assessed in 1885, or an increase by adding property to it by purchase. Q. How many new acres of propertj' were found in that year by tl^e survey ? A. I do not remember. The probability is that it is in evidence. Q. The total increase of property in that year in Beverly Farms was $2,370,225, of which $1,723,810 was on real estate? A. Yes, sir. Q. I believe you said that most of these were increases of measure ment. A. Increase of area so far as those village lots are concerned. Q. Now, in Mr. Connolly's testimony, that was alluded to, did you flnd more than one error of his as to the sale of this Chapman estate, that you testifled to yesterday? A. Not that I know of. HOW SUMMER RESIDENTS DIFFER FROM PERMANENT RESIDENTS. Q. You made a distinction between summer residents, non-residents and permanent residents. A. Yes, sir. Q. Now will you kindly state what that distinction is, and why you made it? • A. The distinction between non-residents and other summer residents is that a summer resident may be a citizen'of Beverly, that is, pay a per sonal tax there and have the rights of citizenship, voting, etc. ; non-res idents do not pay their personal tax and cannot vote in Beverly. Q. Then a summer resident, as you class him, is just as much a resi dent as Mr. Hardy, or Mr. Connolly, or yourself, or Mr. Sohier, or Mr. Baker, is he not? A. So far as his rights are concerned, yes. Q. Well, are there any rights which Mr. Hardy, or Mr. Baker, or Mr. Sohier or Mr. Connolly has which the summer residents do not have A. No. Q. Are there any duties imposed on any of these gentlemen which are not imposed upon the summer resident? ' A. I think there are. 177 "Q- What are they ? A. Well, I think that either of these gentiemen that you have spoken of have got to do a great deal more for their respective towns, whether it is Beverly or any other town, in attending to the management of it, and ; looking out for its welfare, than the gentleman has who lives in Boston, New York or Philadelphia six or seven months in a year, and in Bev erly, or any other town that he might be located in, three or four months. I think there is a great deal more work imposed upon any of these gentlemen you have named, and a great deal more of the responsibility -of town affairs resting upon their shoulders. Q. Well, how? A. They are the ones that have got to attend to all these matters. The other people are not there to attend to them. For instance, in town matters, if there is anything to be done or needs doing, it is the man that is there all the year that has got to go and see that it is done ; it is him that has got to bring it before the notice of the proper authorities to see that it is done. He is, in fact, doing the work of those who are not residing in the town. For his own protection, he also has tq pro tect them, and see that everything is carried out properly : so I do not think I can agree with j'ou on that point. Q. If he is not elected to offlce? A. Not in the matter of being elected to offlce, but in the matter of ¦every-day citizenship, as a citizen withotit any offlce. We will take it, for instance, in any town where there are residents and non-residents : There is a leak in a water pipe occurs on the ground of a non-resident ; a resident discovers it; the non-resident is in New York or in Boston. It may be that the leak is near valuable property, and if it was not seen ¦ to, Whjs there would be a great deal of injurj' done to that property. But yie man who is there all the time, all the year round, resides in the town, he happens to see that there is likely to be an injury caused by the breakage of that water pipe. Now, he has probably got to go to the centre of the town somewhere, and put himself to some disadvan tage to notifj' the authorities to look into the matter ; and if he was not there, if it was a town composed entirely of non-residents, why, there would be nobodj' to see to it. That is an illustration of what I mean. Q. That is a very good illustration, if the town was composed entirely of non-residents. A. Well, Mr. Chairman, if it were composed of summer residents, in this case it would be the same ; that is to say, those who are only there three or four months in a year, and in their city homes the balance of the time. Q. How many do you have of those ? A. Well, tiiere are quite a number. You take it upon our whole 178 shore, such a case as I have illustrated might occur at almost any place on our map, from what is called Burgess Point to Henry Lee's place ; it might occur almost any time. Q. And you say he has got to go some miles. Suppose he had a town government pretty near, which was not any great distance away, it would be quite convenient, would it not? A. Well, that would be a convenience for that one man. I do not think that where we have a town as it is in this case, owing to the ownership there, if I may be permitted to say it, I do not see where there would be any great advantage in a toWn where there is so little amount of property that is really owned by the people who reside there. Q. Is there any earthly reason why you should make a distinction between Mr. Frederick Dexter, who is a citizen there, and votes there, owns property, and another man who happens to live there a few more months in a year than he? A. The distinction is simply the same as has always been made. They are known as summer residents, and we class them as summer residents. Q. Well, they are residents of the town, are they not? A. They are. Q. And they have some interest in the town, or they should have? A. Yes ; they should have, but I don't think they have. Q. Why not? A. The interest cannot be manifested in a town where their interest is divided. I think I can safely say that' if I resided in Boston six or eight months in a year — my interest is divided. My business is in , Boston. -My interests are more likely to be given, my time is more •likely to be given, to developing the place where my business is, rather than to the place where I only sleep nights part of the year. , Q. Now, you take it in my case. I am a lawyer; have an offlce in^ Boston ; my home is in Foxboro ; I vote there ; I sleep nights in Fox- " boro; I spend more or less time here. Would you say my interests were in Boston as against Foxboro, against the town where I own pioperty, have my home, educate my children, know the people, and go to church? A. It is not a parallel case. Q. Why not? A. You are coming down to my own case. That is just how I am^ flxed, but that is not how these people are. Q. Why is it uot a parallel case ? A. Because all these people are out of the town altogether ; their houses are empty, their windows are boarded up, they are not thpre during the winter season at all, and the consequence is, thsk they are in 179 Boston or elsewhere, and their interests being there they are morte actively engaged in looking out for their business interests here in Bos ton, or wherever else they reside during the winter, than in looking out for the interest of the town where, as I said before, they only sleep during the summer. Q. A good many of these people live there the larger portion of the year, do they not? A. No, sir ; not those that I know of. Q. The men who vote there? A . I do not think they live there the larger part of the year ; no, sir. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOV. AMES'S INTEREST, IN EASTON, AND THAT OF SUMMER RESIDENTS IN BEVERLY. Q. Now, then, yon take a man like Ex-Gov. Ames. He has, as every one knows, an elegant residence in Boston ; he has business interests here. He also has an elegiint home in North Easton, where he votes, and where he pays his taxes. Would j'ou say his interests were not identical in North Easton or Easton with those of any other man who lives there, a man who works in his factory, for instance? A . That again is not a parallel case. Gov. Ames resides in Boston, and may have business interests here, but he has probably greater busi ness interests, so far as manufacturing is concerned, in Easton. He h-as large shovel works located there. He, in fact, gives about all the employment in the town, and it is for his interest to look out for North Easton, on account of his interests there. He looks out to see that the town is properlj' governed, no doubt. His case is entirely different, hav ing his manufacturing interests there. These gentlemen you ask about have not got any manufacturing interests at Beverly. They have noth ing which will make them give to Beverly that sort of attention. Q. Now, then, will you make a distinction that here is a merchant or manufacturer; suppose he has an elegant plac.e, which has cost him money, for which he is taxed, to roduci- i+ to a flnancial stand-point, and he pays a tax there ; would you say that he does not have an interest in the town? A. He has got an important interest individually, but not an important interest in the general welfare of his fellow-townsmen. Q; Whv? Isn't he interested in whether they have good roads, in whether they have a low rate of taxation or a high rate of taxation, or whether they have got fire apparatus, and all the incidental advantages which go to make up a good governraent for his own protection ? A. I think he is interested in good roads just the length of time he is there ; and I think after he goes away he does not care whether yon or I 180 have good roadsjto travel on, or have to wade through the mud. I think the interest of such a^^man is an individual interest. Q. You think they are absolutely selfish ? A. I think the majority of them are. Q. Then you do not give them any credit for being human, having any generous impulses ? A. I will give them credit for having generous impulses. I wiU give them credit for being about the average of that class of men. But here is what I base my experience on. You take it when a man will move into a town, and finding he has to pay taxes upon personal property which was not taxed in previous years (eight or nine years, for instance, when the tax was really due the town) , and just as soon as that property is found and taxed as it should be, the very first opportunity that he can avail him self of, almost, he leaves that town and takes that personal property valuation away, taking away that personal property tax which would help to run the town, would help to keep expenses down. I think it does prove that they do not care a great deal about the town, if their own needs can be attended to as they desire. ' Q. Well, now, Mr. Murney, is that the kind of a man who is the summer resident here to-day ? Is that the same resident you have got right in here ? A. No, sir ; he is not the same resident we have to-day, he has become a " non-resident." Q. We are talking about the men that you have classed as summer residents, and i)ut in as non-residents, and you come here and tell us about a man — A. Mr. Chairman, that man was a "resident" last year, before we found and taxed his property. I cannot tell how long any of these summer residents may be " residents.'' Something might happen in any particular case which would change the whole thing. We find that it is changing very rapidly. There are others who have followed that example, some before and some after. Q. Now, then, supposing that same man was continually paraded- before the committee as a tax-dodger, that his name was hawked about the Legislature as a tax-dodger ; do you wonder he would want to get out of such a town ? Q. Well, I don't know what the question was. [Question read.] A. Mr. Chairman, I don't know as I wish to answer that question. That is a question for him to decide. If he was, as he is represented there, a tax-dodger, and he wants to run away from Beverly, all right ; but he cannot run away from himself. The fact would remain just the same, as to whether he was a tax-dodger or not. Q. Now, in your list, in making this discrimination, what is the 181 amount of property that is owned by residents of Beverly Farms ; not summer residents and non, but all residents? A. Of the summer resi dents, as we term summer residents and permanent residents? Q. No ; what I want is the residents. A. Well, that is the way that we have them designated, summer residents and permanent residents. Q. Haven't you it there, that j'ou can give right off? A. $3,038,800. Q. Now, then, did you m.ike any distinction, when j'on made this classification, as to whether a man was a Catholic or a Protestant, whether his mother was an Irish woman or his father a Yankee, or any thing of that kind ? ' A. No ; we didn't even go so far as to find if he was a deist or an atheist. , Q. Would there not be just as much sense in making that distinction as in making the distinction you have made? A. No ; certainly not. Q. You said, as far as summer residents were concerned, you did not know of your own knowledge but had taken Mr. Loring's statement? A. Yes." Q. Were you also present, and did you hear Mr. Alexander Camp bell testify? A. I was here. Q. Did you hear him testify that he had personally counted them on both sides of the line? A. I heard him make that statement. Q. Are you prepared to testify, take it in 1885 and 1886, what the total increase was? A. No, I am not. Q. How was it proportionately ? A. It was larger on the shore property. Q. On the Farms side ? A. Not necessarily upon the Farms side, but upon all sides. Q. Well, as compared with shore property, conflne it right there, on the Beverly Farms side with the Beverly side, how much was the in crease in 1886? A. I don't know ; I do not remember. Q. How much was Mr. George T. Larcom taxed for in 1886?, A. Nine thousand eight hundred dollars, in 1886. Q. What was it in 1885? A. Three thousand dollars. Q. Now, then, your asses'sors' books show that that same three acres and so many feet was increased from $3,000 to $9,800, do they not? A. They do. Q. And that is what was stated to the committee. I understand you to say that that has since been reduced? A. The valuation of the property to-day is $7,100. Q. It has been reduced $2,700? A. I believe those are the exact figures now. 182 Q. You testifled as to the amount of increase in personal property for the different years. Is all confined to one j'ear, or scattered through twa or three years ? A. It is scattered through. MR. CONNOLLY'S $10,000 AN ACRE PROVES TO BE $5,235. Mr. Williams. There was some question yesterday in relation to this book (The Case of Beverly Farms), as to whether the coramittee were correctly informed as to the Powell Ma-on place, the flrst place at which we got out of the barge on the Beverly Farms side, a's shown by that picture. Now, will you slate to the committee what the assessments were, according to the assessors' valuation of 1886; not what they are now, but what they were then. That is all that we have undertaken to show. A. In 1886, as near as I can remember, the assessed vahie per foot was 12 cents. Q. On which? A. On Mr. Lefavour's and on Mr. Endicott's, I think. Q. I want a comparison made between Pickman's and Powell Mason's. A. But, Mr. Chairman, I should prefer to read it, because it is here. Mr. Williams. All I care for, Mr. ChairmaUj, is, the statement was made that we had not correctly stated to you the value at the view. Mr. Robinson. [Making a remark to Mr. Wi'liums,wJiicJi could not be heard at the reporter's table ] Mr. Williams. Now, I want an opportunity to explain. Mr. Sohier got up here yesterday, and said that Mr. Connolly told this committee that land was assessed at $10,000, and left it there. Now Mr. Connolly has probably laid awake half the night, and he has spoken to me 50 times, or until T am tired of it, to say that he said $10,000, aud Mr. Sohier said, "You are mistaken, it is $6,800," and he said, "You are right," never claiming then that it was $10,000; and Mr. Sohier does wrong when he tries to give the impression that he did. Mr. Connolly has no desire to mislead the committee, — well, $5,234. He said, " You are all right about it," whatever he said it was in 1886. Mr. Connolly. Mr. Sohier and I both agreed that it was $6,800. In the hurry there, with so much talk about valuations, it was hard to carry them in the head, and I said, "$10,000." Mr. Sohier said, " Look out, Connolly ; be careful." Said he, " $6,800." Isaid, "Yes> Mr. Sohier, I beg your pardon." Mr. Robinson. It is really $5,224 ? Mr. Murney. $5,235 an acre. 1 SI- SHORE PROPERTY ON EACH SIDE OF LINE ASSESSED SAME PKICE. Mr. Williams. What is the Mason place assessed ? A. $5,235 on the Mason estate, William Powell Mason ; eight and one half acres, $44,500. That would be about the same as Mr. Pickham, I should judge. They were both assessed at about twelve cents a foot that year. Mr. Moulton. Mr. Pickham's is more to-day? A. Yes, Pickham's is more ; I won't state just how much. Mr. Williams. Are j'ou sure you are testifying as to what the assess ment of Mason's property was in 1886? A. Yes, sir ; I am. Q. How much was it ? A. About twelve cents a foot in each case ; the Mason property and the Pickman, on each side of the line. Mr. Moulton. Well, itis eight and a half acres at $44,500? A. That would be about the same thing, practically the same. Mr. Williams. Now, you divide $44,500 by 8^, and it gives you what? A. $5,235. Q. Now, the Pickman estate, how do you get that? Now, let us see if you divide it right. Three acres of the Pickman place, $15,675 ; divide that by the measurement. A. It is $5,235. Mr. Robinson. Do you come out right? Mr. Williams. I think we do. Mr. Robinson. Then it is correct. Mr. Williams. As to 1886. Q. Since then, has the Pickman place ever been increased? A. It has ; it has been increased. Q. A question was asked about Mr. Sohier's land. Has that land been increased since 1886? A. It has. Q. Was it increased from 1885 to 1886? A. It was, largely. Q. And it has been increased more ? A. Yes, it has been increased $875 an acre. Q. As to other property in Beverly Farms, has it been increased since 1886? A. No, sir ; the tendency there has been to reduce rather than to in crease. 184 Q. Now, is not this the fact : that we came up in 1886 and complained bitterly, and said that our property on the Beverly Farms side was taxed higher than the same class of land on the Beverly side, and that since that time property on the Beverly side has been increased, and if anj'thing has happened on the Farm side, it has been decreased ? A. Yes. Q. Mr Cotting's barn. This barn of Mr. Cotting's has been referred to. You state, and I have no doubt it is so, that inadvertently there was a mistake made in carrying over $6,000 for $600, on the books. Did you know anything about it until the hearing ? A. The first one that brought it to my attention was Capt. Charles H. Odell. Q. Was that after the hearing before the committee? . A. I could not state that, with anj' accuracy. Q. It was made a matter of comment here at the hearing, was it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And up to that time had not Mr. Cotting paid a tax on $6,000 for that barn? A. Y'es, he must have. Q. And after attention was called to it, then the assessors remitted and abated the tax ? A. Yes, sir. Q. The money was sent back to him ? A. Yes, sir. Q. I want to come to the Haven estate, on the question of average on each side. There is a picture of the Haven estate and a picture of Pickman's. The statement says, "At au average assessment'' of so much. It is not the average of the Haven estate, $6,800, is it? What Is the fact about the assessment of the Haven estate, where we went in the morning, on the front land? A. The fact is, as I stated yesterday, that the assessment upon the front land of Mr. Haven's estate is 20 cents a foot. Q. $8,750 an acre, I am told. Now, point that out on Mr. Haven's estate. A. Commencing at this point, adjoining Mr. Rantoul's land, and ex tending along there the same depth of Mr. Rantoul's land until it comes to the lowland of Mr. Haven, it is assessed at 20 cents per^foot. Q. And how much is iti assessed on Mr. Pickman's, per foot? A. It is assessed 14 cents. Q. Were you present at the auction sale of Mr. Haven's iland, last spring? A. No, sir. Q. Of the hill lot. As I understand, it is valued at $104,000 or $108,000? A. $108,000, I believe. Q. How many acres? A. Twenty-four, almost twenty-flve. "¦' 185 VALUATIONS FIXED BY SALES IN NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT NOT AS HIGH AS FANCY PRICES. Q. Will you state to the committee how you fixed upon that valu ation ? A. Mr. Chairman, a short time previous, I think in 1885, the heirs of Mrs. Samuel Cabot sold to Mrs. Whitman 4^ acres of land right in there, close to Mr. Haven's, for $75,000. In 1882, Mr. Andrew C» Wheelwright had paid $45,000 for 2 acres of land and a fraction, just to the east of Mr. Haven's. On the other side of Mr. Haven, Mr. Eugene V. R. Thayer purchased 5f acres of land, paj'ing $70,000 for it. Ad joining that hill lot, which is now under examination, Mr. Henry P. Kidder purchased of Mr. Haven 16 acres of similar land, paying for it» according to the testimony of Mr. Meredith, Mr. Haven's broker, $120,000 for the 16 acres. Mr. Meredith has since testified that this Kidder land is similar property to this hill lot, and there was no material difference in it. We based our valuation on those sales in that local ity, and the assessments are certainly much below the prices that were paid. For instance, in the case of Mrs. Whitman, the price which she paid was $75,000 for what land there was there ; that is about 39 cents per foot. It is assessed for 20. And I think the same average would come true elsewhere. Mr. Thayer paid $70,000 for that 5 acres, and is assessed to-day $38,650 for it. The investment is $70,000, and it is taxed for $38,650. And I think that that will show upon all the estates right there. Q. Mr. Murray, when you assessed that for $108,000, did you not know that it had been advertised in the public prints as for sale at for less than one half of the assessed valuation ? A. Yes, I did. I knew it was advertised for sale at less than one half of the assessors' valuation, and it was made very prominent that it would be for sale at less than one half of the assessors' valuation ; and I think as far as the advertising was concerned it would seem as though a man could not, if he tried to stop a sale or put a damper upon the sale of his property, he could not seem to work any harder to do so than in this advertisement of that sale. Q. And you knew also, when j'ou assessed it in 1889, that it had not been sold ? A. Yes, I knew it had not been sold ; and I think there are very few men who would purchase a place advertised as that was, and I think very few who wanted to sell would advertise in that manner. Q. You spoke of the sale to Mrs. Whitman. Don't you know that 186 there were some peculiar circumstances about that sale ? A. No, sir ; I did not know that there was any such thing, but I have heard it stated very often. There are some peculiarities about all sales. If I should make a sale, there would be some peculiarity .about it, but I don't know what they are. Q. Where a sale is made of a very few acres of land for $76,000; there must be some special circumstance which would induce any one to pay it? A. They want it. ^ Q. And they want it bad ? A. That is the place they want. WHAT A BEVERLY FARMS MAN WILL PAY TO BE NEAR HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW. Q. Take the case of Mr. Wheelwright ; did you not know about the circumstances connected with that? Haven't j'ou heard that Mr. Wheelwright was married, and Mrs. Wheelwright had a mother, and wished to live right there ; -and in consequence of it, her husband pro posed to buy a place for her, and be right near there, in her front door- yard, and money would not make any difference, and if it had been necessary he would have paid $50,000 more for it ; is not that the fact? , A. I don't see why that should enter into it, for such a large sum of monej'. I don't think people will pay so much for sentiment. Q. Dou't you know that Mr. Kidder had just married a young wife and she liked that spot, and he proposed to get it ? A. No ; I don't know whether he married a young wife or an old one. SALES AT BEVERLY FARMS ARE ALL "EXCEPTIONAL." Q. Now, assume for the moment that a purchase was made under such circumstances. Another man sees a woman he loves, and this man lives at Beverly Farms, the associations are such that he likes to go there, or his wife, whom he likes to gratify, goes there, or the set in which he travels goes there, and he likes the place that he sees and he pays an enor mous price for it : should you say that was a fair test of cash value? A. Mr. Chairman, there are just such circumstances as have been related in these two or three cases connected with every estate upon the shore. There is always something about our neighbors that we wish to be near them. We may have some that we wish to be nearer to than others. It is just so with these people. They come from Boston, they are married and intermarried, and all these things would come right through the same thing. There is some reason for Mr. Jones establishing 187 himself down at West Beach. There is some reason for Mr. Smith buying tho adjoining lot to him. Finally, Mr. Black gets in because he knows Mr. Jones ; and it runs through the whole land. There is no one buys a place but' what he has some reason for it. So there is no disputing these -statements. But it holds good of everj' other place in town or in any town, just as much as it does in that particular place. ASSESSMENTS MUCH LOWER THAN SALES. Q. Where such enormous prices are paid, would you saj' that was a fair test of value, so that you ought to assess other property alongside of it at the same rate ? ' A. The assessors, where they have found this property selling, as I have stated in the case of Mr. Thayer, for $70^000, have £issessed it at $38,650. The estate of Mrs. Whitman, which cost $75,000, is, assessed at 20 cents a foot, when she paid 39 cents. This shows very plainly that we have, to a certain extent, considered these fancy prices ; we have given them full credit for it in ranking assessments in the town of Beverly. Q. How much credit have you given in the Haven case? A. We have given in that Haven case the difference between $120,000 paid and $66,100 assessed valuation. Q. That is the Kidder estate? A. Yes, the part Mr. Haven sold to Mr. Kidder. Q. But on this Haven hill, which is adjoining, and is not ornamented by anything, as the other is, by a house? A. Yes, I guess they think it is quite an ornament. I guess they would like to get rid of it. I think the land would be worth just as much. Q. I do, too. Now, how much credit do you give for any such con sideration on the Haven hill, which is assessed for $108,000? A. ]\Tr. Kidder bought just one site there, only sixteen acres, and twenty-four are left, and I have no doubt whatever that what remains is preferable and the better lot of land. Q. Do you think, Mr. Murney, these lots of land could be put upon the market and sold at any like what was paid for them ? A. I do not think you can put anything on the market at any time under certain conditions and do just certain things with it. But I think this property would bring that price. I think, get this confounded divis ion cdse out ofthe way, let the Legislature knock it t© one side, and let «s understand we are to be a town forever, and I think you will see prices and business booming in Beverly Farms just as in the past. Q. Is that property on the market so that a man can go down there 188 and purchase it, for instance, an estate, and then divide it up and sell it, or does it take eight or ten years to dispose of these large estates where they are cut up into building lots? A. I do not know how many years it takes, I really could not say how much, what time it took to sell the Paine place, or any of those places. No doubt, it would take some time, but I think it would be fiUed up very rapidly and the value become increased. Q. Has it not taken twenty years to divide up the Paine place and sell it off? A. Well, they sold all they had, whatever time it was. No doubt, if other estates were opened up the land would be sold. Q. I am trying to find out what the real test of full and fair cash value is, which I understand assessors take the oath to assess, accord ing to the statute. A. Well, to determine the fair cash value of property is a very hard. thing to do in a great raany instances ; but the onlj- waj' we have ever considered was the fair way was to take the sales in the immediate vicinity of this place, see what it brought either at public or private sale,. and come to our conclusion in that w:iy. Sales, of course, determine the value, but! should not consider for a moment that one sale would deter7 mine the value for a large area of land. I would consider that if there were three or four sales on an ordinary street in the course of three or four years that they would have a good deal to do with determining what the value was ofthe property in that locality. I would not nn'ler- take to determine the cash value 'oy one sale upon a street, 1 would have to !-ee about what it was held at, what people would take for it, which is a very easy thing to do. Q. Would you say that when a man paid, to gratify a whim, either ot himself or of his wife, $10,000 for a lot, that the lot right side of it should be assessed correspondingly? A. I would say that it should not if it could not be proved that there was another lot right on the other side or near it that had brought the same price. But I have stated three or four times that we have not assessed these fancy prices. Q. Is it not a fact that in that statement that you handed in here in explanation of the rise in valuation that you frequently saj' : assessed so much because Smith has bought a lot a short distance above A. paying so much. Q. Take the item of "Dow & Larcom. $400; $1,400; Williajn- Sewall from Eva Larcom, a lot a short distance above this lot, more than it ^as assessed, and this lot was raised the same way as land ad joining, and was — per foot in 1886 "? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, is it not a fact that you have been governed in these cases 189 Ijy the prices . that they paid? A. There is no doubt whatever about that. Q. Now, I come back to my original question, that if, when a man is wealthy and able to spend any sum, $5,000, $10,000, or $1.5,000 an acre for a piece of land, if he pays a price for a certain loti, then you would assess the property right side of it at the same value ? A. Mr. Chairman, I will have to answer that question as I did before, that is, by saying that we have not assessed the property up to these fancy prices that have been paid, if they may be termed fancy. I do not call them fancy from the fact that they commence at one end . of the shore land and go to the other. All excessively high prices they may be called, for when land gets up to $10,000 an acre it looks very large, and it is a very large price ; but you find that it is assessed for only fifty per cent of what was paid. I will refer again to the Whit man case, she having paid $75,000, and being assessed $39,000 in round numbers ; and to the Kidder estate, which was bought for $120,000 and assessed at $66,000 ; and to other estates where the same relative pro portion is maintained throughout that district, and I think it will appear to yon at once that we have not followed up these fancy prices. If we had considered that the price paid was the fair cash value for tjie land, we would have been obliged to assess it at $70,000 when $70,000 was paid. But we did consider the circumstances of the sales, and went down to $38,000 upon an estate which cost $75,000. Mr. Cook. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman if a man who gives $70,000 for five acres of unimproved land is constituted a tax- dodger ? A. Mr. Chairman, I have not called any man a tax-dodger. I have not made use ofthe word while I have been giving tny evidence, if I have, I am ready to take it back. The Chairman. I have heard no such epithet or remark from you. Mr. Cook. I heard the question discussed here, and I merely wanted to know what a tax-dodger was : I never saw one. Mr. Robinson. It is in Mr. Williams's question. Mr. Cook. It was in Mr. Williams's question. He represented a tax- dodger to be a man goint; from one place to another where he found taxes were low, as I understood him. Now, I wanted to know if a man who was willing to take a place costing $70,000, start and build there, and live there, and pay a tax of $13,000, was a tax-dodger. I was allud ing to Mr. Eugene V. R. Thayer, a neighbor of mine ; and I think a man who is willing to go to a place and give $70,000 for a few acres of land cannot consistently be called a tax -dodger. Mr. Murney. Mr. Thayer certainly could not be termed so in Beverly, because he is not a resident there, and has never paid any per- 190 sonal-property tax there. ' But as I have not applied that term to any one through my testimony, to my knowledge, — if I have I want to with draw it, — I don't care to answer the question in the form in which it is put, but I am ready to answer it in another form. Mr. Williams. Is it not a fact that from 1886 down to the present time it has been an indirect inference from the testimonj- and the direct statement of counsel that this was a movement of summer residents and non-residents to incorporate a town here to which they could carry their personal property and have a very low rale of taxation, and what would be the result if this town was incorporated? A. Ye3 ; that has been shown. Q. And that has been the claim all the waj' through? A. That has been shown. Q. Is not that the fact, that your counsel have repeatedly made that statement, and that such witnesses as Mr. Endicott have staled the fact? A. I think that it has been. Q. Do not your side of the case indirectly slur these gentlemen who own propertj' down there as prospective tax-dodgers? A. Well, our side ofthe ease will have to protect itself; I will only protect myself. , Q. But you testified before this committee what you thought of a tax-dodger, in j'Our testimony about the distinction between summer residents and the residents, — you made that allusion ? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Cook. Mr. Chairman, I hear that Mr. Thajer wants to sell that place : does any one here know what it is worth in the market, vvliat it can be bought for? It is for sale now. The Witness. I don't know, Mr. Chairman. I have no knowledge what it could be purchased for. Mr. Williams. Mr. Murney, do j'ou have any idea if Beverly Farms was incorporated next June, or at anj- time, that Mr. Thayer would move into it and take up his residence there? A. I never spoke to Mr. Thaj'er that I know of. I know nothing about his future movements, as lo whether he will remain where he is or will remove to New York. Europe or Asia ; I never spoke to him,. and do not know what his futun- movements will be. Mr. Williams. Testimony has i^one in showing a list in the printed — the type-written testimony, —naming certain gentiemen and stating the amount of their personal, corporation and bank taxes, with the statement that they had moved awav, and the impression was given to the committee : incoiporate this town and these men will go down there. It was claimed und is claimed now that the circumstances under 191 which these individual gentlemen moved away are such that they will not return. Mr. RoBrNSON. Of course it is good ground for an argument, but when Mr. Murney says he don't know the gentleman, knows nothing whatever about him, I do not quite see how his opinion is of any account or weight; if you think it is, I have no objection to his stat ing it. Mr. Williams. I don't know that I care to press it. Q. About this list of sales which was given in yesterday by you, of which you say there are 60, how many sales or records ot sales do you find, all told, on the record as being made in Beverly? Q. I could not say. I did not take these off of the records ; these are largely instances I knew about. Q. In other words, these are 60 selected sales, that foot up $102,792? SALES IN BEVERLY BELOW THE ASSESSED VALUATION. A. They are not selected, they are just as thej' came, so far as I know, with the exception that I placed together those below the assessed valua tion. I took them off by themselves, and that is the only selection there is. Q. Can you tell us how thej' have run, the sales in Old Beverly, during the past J'ear, — how the sales have compared with the assessed valua tion? Can you tell of any that are below? A.^ Yes, I think I can. Q. I mean the past year, 1889. A. House corner of Cabot and Fayette streets, at auction, Safford heirs to Horace P. Woodbury, assessed $3,400, price paid $2,800. that was sold a very short time ago, I could not say what month. Heirs of David Welch sold at auction house and land on Park Street, assessed $1,150, price paid $l,10u. Richard J. Preston to Owen P. Sullivan, house and lot, Cabt)t Street, assessed $1,550, price paid $1,550. Anne E. Foley, administratix to John E. Foley, house and lot. Water Street, assessed $1,550, price paid $950. George S. Seeley to Sarah S. Lefavour, two houses and lot, Lothrop Street, assessed $2,475, price paid $2,650 George H. Clough estate to John W. Fennick, house and lot. Chase Street, assessed $1,075, price paid $1,275. John G. Warner to Benjamin Webber, land. Porter Street, assessed $850, price paid $700. Benjamin Chapman to George Seeley, house and lot. Water Street, as sessed $1,600, price paid $lj500. 192 F. A. Crosby to Robbins Raymond, house and lot, Mechanics Street; assessed $1,075, price paid $1,500. Hugh Hill to Robbins Raymond, house and lot Mechanics Street ; assessed $2,300, price paid $2,800. ¦All these were sold in 1889. TRUSTS ON BEVERLY SIDE CAREFULLY EXAMINED. Q. I want to ask whether or not during the past year you have made any mpre investigation with reference to the Pickman trusts ? A. If you will just call them off, I will answer your question. Q. Well, W. D. Pickman, W. C. Rogers and R. R. Rogers, trustees, are not taxed ? A. In that case, the beneficiaries are residents of Massachusetts, and Beverly is not entitled to any part of it. Q. How did you ascertain that ? A. We ascertained that by investigating and seeing where the bene ficiaries resided. Q. Have you asked Mr. Pickman to come before you and make any statement or return ? A. No, sir. Q.' Well, W. D. Pickman, G. Z. Silsbee and D. B. Fay, estate of R. S. Fay? A. Yes, sir; we investigated that. Q. What did you flnd ? A. We found that there was $90,000, I think it was, of taxable prop erty there, and we taxed it, and Mr. Silsbee came before us, and' we found we would have to abate it ; that the beneflciaries resided in an other part of the State, and the tax was paid, on the statement made by Mr. Silsbee, so we abated it. Q. W. D. Pickman and W. F. Wharton, trustees? A. That is, upon the general estate of Mr. Pickman, the old estate, and he is assessed $270,000 ; his valuation in personal property is- $270,000, which would include that whole trust. i Q. Did you make any inquiry of him personally, relative to it? A. No. Q. Why didn't you? Last year you testifled that you asked Mr. Loring about his trusts, and j-ou ascertained. Mr. Moulton. I beg pardon ; that is not the statement of the testi- ment of the testimonj' of last year. Mr. Williams. Well, what is it? Will you correct me, if I have not stated it correctly ? Mr. Moulton. Mr. Loring did not disclose his trusts. Mr. Williams. Well, wherein have I misstated his statement? 193 Mr. Moulton. That Mr. Loring disclosed his trusts. They found the trusts in some other way than from Mr. Loring. Mr. Williams. I said he asked Mr. Loring to come before him, and hedid, and made a return. Mr. Moulton. Yes ; after the trust property had been discovered. Mr. Williams. After the discovery that there was trust property, then I called his attention to it, and asked whether he went away and made any investigation of Mr. Pickman's trusts. Mr. Murney. When the question was asked, I understood it to apply particularly to the past year ; that is, to the past taxable year, since May the 1st. I had seen Mr. Pickman and had a talk with him ; and when I say I had not talked with Mr. Pickman with regard to his trusts, I did not state the facts in the case, because I had spoken with him some time during this investigation. But I understood the ques tion to refer to the taxable year of 1889. I spoke to Mr. Pickman in his offlce, about a year ago, in regard to this trust ; got information from him then, and I got also information in regard to the trust which he and Mr. Wharton are trustees of. It is the old trust, part of — what he is assessed $270,000 upon. Mr. Williams. [Beads from the evidence of 1889.] Q. Did you ask Mr. Pickman about it, where his trust was, and who the beneficiaries were? A. No, I did not. Q. You asked Mr. Loring, didn't you? A. Yes, sir; I asked Mr. Loring. Q. I ask you if j'OU have found time this year to send for Mr. Pick- man, and ask him about these trusts? A. There is only one trust, the Pickman and Wharton trust, that could be taxed in Beverly. We used Mr. Pickman in that case just as we used Mr. Caleb W. Loring, on the Farms side. For instance : Mr. C. W. Loring, his father's trust estate is not taxed to the trustees, the trustees being Mr. Caleb W. Loring, Mr. Patrick Grant, and some others. We did not assess that estate to the trustees, but we assess it to him direct, so much personal property, which covers that estate. Just so with Mr. Pickman, we did not assess this trust to the trustees,' but we assess it directly to Mr. Pickman. He pays tax upon $270,000, which the assessors believed would probably be in excess of the trust fund, if we could get at it. Q. Does he make any statement at all, or do you doom him ? A. Oh) we doom him just as we doom Mr. Caleb W. Loring, at the Farms, upon his. Q. Then you did not investigate, to find out what he has to say about his trusts, did you? A. We have not in either case, either Mr. Loring's trust or his, where 194 it is directly in the family, because we have alwaj's thought they were paying a pretty fair tax upon it. Mr. Loring has stated that there would not be any benefit derived from his looking it up, aud Mr. Pick- man, I guess, is satisfied of the same thing, that they are paying a pretty large tax, more than the estate would warrant. Q. Why didn't you follow it up, as an assessor, in both cases ; I do not care for Mr. Loring or Mr. Pickman, it is a matter oi duty. A. Well, it went along in this waj- for years ; and, as far as duty is concerned, I think we have been living up to the law and to duty about as close as we possibly can. Q. I would like to know why you make a distinction in sending for Mr. Loring, which I think I have alreadj' read, and not for Mr. Pick- man. A. Mr. Chairman, I do not remember of sending for Mr. Loring. I asked him, I think, bj' mail, in regard to this matter. The board did not wish to go to work and assess these fourteen J}rusts we had discov- , ered, if there was any explanation that could be given upon it, so we wrote to Mr. Loring to see if he wished to explain, and he did. In the case of this trust of Mr. William D. Pickman, George Z. Silsbee, and others, trustees, we went to the extent of assessing that property, and have been obliged to abate it because the beneficiaries reside in this State, and the property is not taxable in Beverly, Mr. George Z. Silsbee making the statement for the trustees. As to the Pickman and Rogers trust, we have got no claim upou it in Beverly. These trusts are all where the assessors or any one else can see them and examine them, and know as much about them as any of the trustees know, so far as knowl edge for the purpose of assessment is concerned. Q. Take the case of Mr. William Sohier and Leverett Saltonstall ; has anything been done about that trust? A. Y'es, we have been getting that for years. Q. Does he make any statement? A. No ; but we assess it from the return in the Probate Court up to the full amount shown by the return. Q. George lioundy ; do you know anything about^that trust? A. peorge Roundy holds in trust, I believe, a piece of real estate, and also some Massachusetts corporation stock ; I do not think he holds anything else ; I will see in a moment (looking on his book) . There is no personal property there. Q. What, in your opinion, is the market value ofthe Haven hill? A. The market value of that hill, in my opinion, is $108,000, what I assessed it at. Q. Do you own any real property now? A. No, sir. Q. Have you since you have been an assessor there? A. No, sir. 195 SUMMER RESIDENTS TAKE NO INTEREST IN THE SCHOOLS. SEND NO CHILDREN TO THEM. Mr. Murray. Just one point I want cleared up, Mr. Witness ; and that is, whether or not you believe there is any difference in the legal status of a summer resident and a native resident in Beverly Farms ? A. Legally, no. Mr. Moulton. Upon that point, Mr. Williams included in his question the supposition that the children of summer residents were educated in the tovi'u, whatever town it might be. Mr. Williams. You have a vivid imagination. Mr. Moulton. Not a bit. Your question in regard to j'Our own residence included the education of yoUr children. Q. Are the children of the summer residents educated in Beverly F.arms, or in Beverly at all ? A. No. I Q. Have the summer residents any interest in the schools there, so far as yOu know ? A. I don't know of anj'. Q. Do any of them belong to anj' of the fire companies or organ izations ? A. I think not. (Laughter.) Q. Do J'OU know that aside from voting they take any part in any of the local interests at Beverly Farms ? A. I do not know. Q. Are t&ey connected by relationship with any of the native families at Beverly Farms, so far as you know? A. I think not. LARGEST INCREASE OF VALUATION IN 1886 ON MR. SOHIER'S COW PASTURE. Q. Where was the largest rise in valuation in 1886 ; on what kind of property was it? A. That that occurs to me now, which I have noticed, is on Neptune Street, Neptune and Ober Streets. I think that is the largest increase that J know of; right in here, two acres in 1885, were assessed for $400 ; and to-day I think it is assessed for $4,500. In 1886 it was $3,000 and some odd dollars, if I remember right. Q. Was the increase of taxation the largest upon the shore land ? A. Oh, yes. ' 196 MR. LORING TESTIFIED THE "CITY FOLKS ARE NOT ASSESSED TOO HIGH." Q. Do you remember the testimony of Mr. Augustus P. Loring, in 1887, after the assessment of 1886, to the effect that the city folks who owned land were not assessed too high? He did not think the city folks who owned land were assessed too high under the assessment of 1886 ? A. Yes, I remember that testimonj-. Q. You were not present, you say, at the sale or the pretended sale of Haven hill? A. No, sir. Q. You do not know whether any control of the land in front of the hill was given or was offered with that land, or any beach-rights? A. I understood from others that there were no beach-rights included in the sale. Q. Supposing that to be the fact, how would that affect the value of the hill land? A. I think it would affect it very materially, so far as bringing a price is concerned. MR. LORING'S FINE-TOOTH COMB WHICH HAD RAKED IN EVERY DOLLAR AT THE FARMS. Q. Do you remember Mr. Loring's testimony in the same year to this effect : that on looking over the list, that is, the list of Beverly Farms taxation, " I do not see anj- one who, if I were to be an assessor, I ( could doom any more." i A. Yes, sir ; I remember. Q. After Mr. Loring said the Farms had been raked with a fine-tooth comb, how many trusts did you find that Mr. Loring and his father were taxable for themselves on which they were not taxed? A. Fourteen or 16, if I remember right. Q. Did J'OU find them by Mr. Loring's return, or by looking up the records ? A. I found them by looking up the records. Q. Mr. Loring had brought in a sworn list of property on which he was taxed before you discovered those trusts ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And those trusts were not included in that list? A. No, sir. Q. Mr. Loring testified that he did not consider it his business to make any statement in regard to the trusts, but left it for the assessors to find out? 197 A. Yes, sir. Q. Have j-ou looked up every trust in Beverly, Mr. Murney? A. I have, so far as is shown, or has come to my knowledge. Q. Is it not a fact that when Mr. Lothrop and Mr. Morse were there, that they participated in town affairs? One was a member ofthe school committee, and I think both of them were on a committee with reference to 'an independent wafer supply ? A. Yes, sir. Q. So it is a fact that sometimes these despised persons do participate in town affairs to the extent of being honored bj' sorae minor offlce, is it not? Mr. Robinson. The witness has not said these were despised persons. The Witness. I have not said that, and I do not intend to. Q. What would you assess that Haven hill lot, without -any bea,ch rights? A. That question is now before the county commissioners of Essex County. I should rather be excused from answering that question under the present condition of that place. Not that I have any objections otherwise. But the assessment of 1888, which is now in question, shows what I considered then was the fair cash value of it; and I do not wish to make any statement now, in connection with that hill different from the assessed value that is upon it. I shall likely be called upon to testify in that case about as soon as I can get out of here, aud I think one thing at a time is about enough. Q. I think it is a perfectly fair question for me to put to you, what you valued that at, without any beach-rights ? A. I suppose it would be worth about the same in that case as Mr. Lothrop's place he bought from Dr. Hooper. I think it would be just about the same thing. Q. , And that was how much? A. I do not remember, but I think those two would be a fair compari son. Mr. Williams. Well, is not that in your printed .statement? He paid $35,000, according to this, for five acres. Is that right? > A. That is $7,000 an acre? Q. And twenty-four acres would be — or would you want to put it on the same basis, in your estimate, of Dr. Hooper's, oi- what he paid? A. Oh, either. Q. Whq.tis that assessed for? Well, this is $25,000. Five acres would be $5,000 an acre. I do not want to mislead you here. Here is your statement, and Mr. Sohier says it is flve acres there. It is assessed for $25,000. Now, then, if there are twenty-four acres, and you assessed it at $120,000, or thereabouts, then you would assess it as much with out beach-rights as with? A. It is the same class of property that has not any beach-rights, and 198 they have to depend upon the public beach ; the same qualitj' of property, and for the price paid, I don't see as there is anj' difference. I don't. know what I should do until I was called upon to go through it. I may not ever have to do it again. It is similar property, and there it is. You cannot run awaj- from it. Mr. Moulton. In regard to Mr. Morse's services upon the school committee, is it a fact that after being a petitioner for division, and a witness here for division in 1886, he was elected to the school committee, and served one year ? A. Yes, sir ; he served one year. Q. He was a witness for division again the following year, and then declined re-election ; and is that all the public service of a summer resi dent in any of the town business, so far as you know ? A. Excepting the water board. Q. Did not Mr. Loring serve one j'ear on the school commitleee? A. Yes, I believe he did. Q. Mr. Lothrop and Mr. Morse are now both non-residenls ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Retaining, as has been said, their propertj' in Beverly ? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Cook. I am a little confused in one statement, and I understand you could not get a bid of over $30,000 on this property because they would not sell beach-rights. Now, if I understand it right, it is worth ust the same without beach-rights as it is with them? A. It is a similar class of property to that to which I compared it, and I have given my reasons for not wishing to go into any extended remarks upon that, because the matter of the Haven assessment is before the countj- commissioners of Essex Countj- ; and as I said before, I will have to testify there about as soon as I can get out of here. Let those that are appealed to, decide the question. It is taken from us altogether, and I do not think it would be right for us to interfere to anj" extent. I naturally want to discuss it just as little as possible. Mr. Flint. You testifled yesterday in relation to abatements ; and if I remember rightlj' there were between 40 and 50 applications for abatement? A. Yes, sir. Q. I would like to ask on what class of property those abatements were asked, whether personal or real estate, or whether they were cleri cal errors to anj' degree ? A. The abatements were asked mostly upon real estate, and largely of the poorer class of individuals, such as are likely to ask abatements. There weie a few abatements running through the ordinary line, and then I think there were two or three trust estates that had decreased in 199 value during the year. Although tiiere had been no return made, we took that into consideration, and made the abatement upon them. A good deal of it was on small properties, — small class of property, — by peo ple of rather limited means. I have forgotten the names of therh all. ABATEMENTS GRANTED. Mr. Flint, of the Committee. Were all the abatements, as a general thing, granted? A. Y'es, sir ; they were, all but one. Mr. Flint. When I said generally, I was speaking of all the years, although 1888 was the year referred to. A. I take it as the years having been all in, and speaking in a general way, they have always been granted. Mr. Moulton. Was the whole tax abated in many of these instances ; were they cases of widows and single women ? A. There were cases of widows and single women. There have been some cases where the whole tax was abated, and some where fifty per . cent was abated . Q. Well, on the ground of the circumstances ofthe parties? A. Yes, sir; abated under the statute, so far as the statute would allow us. William H. Lovett, recalled. Mr. Robinson. I see, on looking over the report of your testi mony, some reference was made to the kind of a schoolhouse, — do you recollect the place? A. The schoolhouse there is Wenham. Q. Mr. Williams speaks of it as " a ram-shackled old barn of a school house" Is that schoolhouse in Beverly at all? A. No, sir ; it is some distance from the Beverly line ; it is in the Wenham part of the proposed town. Mr. Williams. I said we should have to have a better one. Mr. Robinson. But "the ram-shackled sort of a barn " is over in Wenham. A. Yes, sir. The Witness. In my testimony of yesterday, on giving the vote on the question of employing counsel to oppose division, I said that I thought there were 11 who did "not vote at all. I looked that up when I went back, and I found there were 8 instead of 11. The other figures were all right. [Adjourned until Friday, Feb. 14, at 9.30 a. m.J 200 Friday, Feb. 14, 1890. - Testimony of Hon. John I. Bakek. MORE SCHOOL CHILDREN AT FARMS THIRTY YEARS AGO. Mr. Moulton. What are the facts in relation to the population and size of Beverly Farms to-day as compared with the Farms thirty or forty years ago? A. I have a report of the school committee for 1859, which returned one hundred and forty-one children down there. This year there are one hundred and thirty. That is my test of population, always. I believe it is recognized, — the percentage of children to population. Q. What school district was that, Mr. Baker? A. This is what we call the Beverly Farms district now, which comes up to Witch Lane, and in cludes a part of the Gore. There were two school districts in those days, — two single school-houses in thos^ days, — one up near Pride's Crossing, and the other down by the meeting-house. There were two districts: one was called " East Farms," and the other " West Farms." Mr. Robinson. That would leave or include about one half of the Gore? A. Yes; and it included part of the Gore, and left the section north of Witch Lane in the Cove district exactly the same as to-day. FORMERLY FARMS, NOW SUMMER RESIDENCES. Mr. MouLTOJ). What change has there been in the ownership of property? A. The principal road there is part of the great road from Boston to Gloucester, — the stage road. It was settled all along the line of it by men who were engaged in farming or fishing, or both; there was some summer fishing. They have sold out their whole interest along the shore, — a large number of estates, and very good estates, too Many of the houses have been torn down; the families have moved away, and are scattered. Many of them are up in town, members of families living in what would he called old Beverly. Q. Is there any shore land owned by native residents, until you get close to the proposed division line? A. No shore land. Q. When did the change take place, and what have been the facts in regard to the rise in value of the shore land? A. The flrst purchase was made by Mr. Paine, of the Paine place, in 1844. ONE PLACE COST $6,000, AND PART HAS BEEN SOLD FOR OVER $200,000 ALREADY". Q. That adjoins Mr. Haven's? A. Yes, sir. That is the first purchase. He bought 101 acres for $6,000. They have sold about one half or a littie more of it, for about $200,000. That is one of the places that was cut up on speculation. 201 The 'family have retained a large portion of it. The Paines bought in 1844, and paid $6,000. Then' Mr. King bought a place up at Mingo's Beach. One year later, Mr. Loring bought his farm, and of that they have sold" off some very valuable property at high prices. Judge Sprague built, about 1858 or 1859, the place which is now Mr. Sidney Bartlett's. Mr. Haven bought his place in 1847, I think, and there were a few other purchases. Col. Lee bought down below Mr. Haven's, at about the same time, and Mr. Sam Cabot bought in that neighborhood. Then when we began to put the water works in, this change came, and as the water works progressed, the Farms progressed. WATER PUT IN TO DEVELOP THE FARMS. — GREAT INCREASE IN VALUE. Q. What date was that? A. I think we put in the water works in 1870. Q. Do you know the valuation of Beverly Farms at that time? A. I think it was about $800,000; I am not quite sure. We put the water into the Paine place about 1874, I should think, and then immedi ately that place was developed, or continued to develop into this great growth. Q. And what has been the fact in regard to the growth in value of the land since that time? A. It has been constantly growing. Q. How was it during and after 1878 and 1874, at the time of depres sion in real estate elsewhere? ' A. It kept rising and growing all the time, only there was a slight hinderance there because of the want of a head of water on the high - lands. The shore property was taken up, much of the Paine place was soldj and then they began to go on to the highlands; there was a demand for it, which increased after we increased the head of water. You have several petitions in print on that subject. There is one petition which has not been put in, which was signed by all the people down there, asking for an increased head, showing the necessity for it. I have the petition here, signed by the shore residents and others, to that effect. The petitioners asked the town for a better head of water. These people, use a great amount of water, washing carriages and watering their lawns. They use more water, I have some times thought^ down at Beverly Farms, than we do in the whole of the rest of the town, in tho summer time, — the short season. They keep it going night and day on their lawns; and the head was short there. In order to relieve thi.^. flrst, we provided to lay water pipe down what is called Common Lane, to give an additional line of pipe. At every hearing or debate in the House, I suppose we will hear it this year; they bring up the statement that the town has been extravagant, and carried the water out into the woods and about where nobody else would think of doing it. That pipe through the woods was put in at their request, exactly in order to give them more head down, there. They say there are no houses upon it, butthere 202 are quite a number besidet he Gurney, which have been built within a few years. I have a letter here from Mr. Augustus P. Loring, as early as 1882, asking the selectmen to put water pipes on to Pride's Mountain, on Mrs. Cabot's property.' Y^et this very street, you will see, if you read the debates, is one of the extravagant streets they complain of, through which we have put pipes purposely to accommodate these people. Q. Is that the way the independent supply goes to the Farms at present ? A. That is the way the independent supply goes at present. Mr. Eobinson. You remember Mr. Loring testified he wanted water for Mrs. Cabot's land there. A. Yes; but this separate pipe did not accomplish the purpose. In 1881 they came up and complained to the selectmen — I was not a member of the board at the time, but I came up at their request with them, and so did Mr. Loring and Mr. Morse, and several other people. These Farms gentlemen signed a petition, which is in our printed books, petitioning the Legislature to give them relief. The city of Salem, upon whom we then depended for a supply of water, came up before the Legislature, said they would put in an apparatus that would accomplish the jiurpose if we would withdraw our petition. The town withdrew, and we tried it. It was a temporary relief, but it did not accomplish the purpose, and so in 1885 they petitioned for this independ ent water supply. It was petitioned for, and at the special request and upon the complaints of the Farms people for their accommodation ; there was no real necessitj' for it,for any other purpose. Some of them had the meanness to say afterwards that the letters from these gentle men asking for this high service were got at my request, after I had done for them what I had done. It was done with the co-operation of Mr. Loring and myself in the matter. We then put in this independent water works, at a cost of $150,000. It would not have been thought of, I think it would not have been suggested, except for the necessity of sup plying these high lands, of which there are a large portion now still unoccupied. Mr. Cook. Do you take it from another reservoir, or is it all from the same reservoir':' A. We have a separate reservoir. Our reservoir takes from the same pond as Salem. In the original Act of 1864, which granted the right to Salem to take water from Wenham Pond, we had a section that authorized us to have a supply of water from that pond, a portion of it being in our own town. Q. How do you get any additional head? A. We put our reservoir on the highest hill in town. Thirty-six feet higher, I think, than the Salem reservoir. Q. Do you pump it up there? A. Yes, sir [producing letters']. I have letters here in abundance, I do not know that it is worth while lo read them, setting forth the necessities and the need for this water supply ; one from Mr. Lothrop. I have got a batch of them in my pocket, and some of them have bten printed. 203 Mr. Williams. They were put in testimony last year. I thought you read a quantity of them last year. I know Mr. Loring's, Mr. Morse's, and Mr. Bartlett's are in. A. Not all, I think. Mr. Baker. The eflect of having this water, doWn to 1885, was to ensure a great increase in the value, usefulness, and attractiveness of the Farms, and the property sold accordingly, until this division movement began; there was uo sign of any change. To my mind, I do not believe, except for that, it is worth a dollar less there than it was before. It is as valuable property, in my Opinion, as there is on or near the seashore in the State of Massachusetts. Mr. Moulton. Were you present at the sale or the offer of sale of Haven Hill? A. I was, sir. Q. How long a time before the sale was the properly .advertised? A. The Beverlj- Citizen published it on Saturday. The sale was for Monday, and it was advertised only once in that paper, on Satfirdaj', two days before the sale. Q. [Referring to an advertising poster.] And did you ever see that poster? A. I think I received a handbill like that possibly on Thursday; I might have seen it Thursday or Friday the week before. I received it from Mr. Hyde, whom I know very well. Q. That is dated April 23, and the sale is announced for the 29th, is it? A. Yes, sir. A STRANGE WAY TO SELL LAND. Q. I'ou were present at the sale ; will you be kind enough to state what occurred? A. Mr. Hyde was the auctioneer, au acquaintance of mine. He went upon the ground close to it, and without any par ticular description of the land or setting^forth any of its capabilities, he besan at once to banter me, to oblige me to bid, saying now was " the time to test my confidence in the Board of Assessors and in their assess ment. He had considerable jocose talk that way; nothing else said about its merits, and I did not believe, myself, it was intended for a sale. I had good reason, I thought, for not believing it, both from reading the advertisement and the talk I had previously had about that estate for years with Mr. Haven. I do not now believe that there was any purpose to sell it until they got to the sale that day. Q. Did the auctioneer have any receipt ready there? A. No, sir. After the sale was made, he and Mr. Collier, who bid it off, went into the depot; and I remember when be came out, Mr. Collier said the auctioneer had not his papers ready, and had not any receipt. He had a receipt on the back of a card. Mr. Hyde, being an auctioneer of large experience — Q. Mr. Hyde is a real-estate dealer? A. Oh, yes, sir; a very extensive one. Q. Well, that was the sale to Mr. Collier for Mr. Sohier? Then, did you go to the hill? A. We did not go to the hill; we went tp the depot. Q. What Occurred in regard to the hill sale? 204 A. Something the same talk about it that there was at the other. I think he did say something there about the outlook to the sea. I asked him if there was to be any privilege on that front. He evidently then was not posted certainly, because he turned round and consulted Mr. Haven before he answered me. Then he said, "No, none what ever." This Haven property, or Ludden property, I have tried to buy before. I was down with Mr. Peter E. Clark, and I was satisfled there was no use to compete with parties I believed to he bidding on it. Mr. Clark bid, I Ihink, up to pretty near the price it was bid off for. THIS SUMMER RESIDENT WOULD NOT SELL FOR LABOR ERS' COTTAGES EVEN A LOT IN THE VILLAGE. Q. Mr. Hardy said that he had had that property, or had been employed to sell it. Have you any letters frora Mr. Haven putting a price on the property before that time? A. Y'es, sir. I, had a letter from Mr. Haven, coming about as this handbill did; perhaps I got the letter Wednesday, — I should think Wednesday, — saying that he would sell that land. Knowing that I talked about buying it, he would sell that laud for .^14,000 in cash, pay able next Saturday. Well, he knew me, and knew what facilities I should have to raise that amount of money in two or three days for a speculation of that character. I wrote an answer to it, stating that fact, and asking for the purchase of some of his other land, and offeriug to purchase it if he would give me ten days, such another part of the land at its valuation. He wrote me back declining that, and wrote me a subse quent letter, in which he said he would make a liberal discount — that was some time afterwards — forthis hill property, and some other, if I cared to buy that. I wrote imihediately back to him, asking how much discount he would make, because I thought 1 knew parties that would be very glad to purchase it; but he wrote to me, saying that he had heard a rumor about a hotel, which made him decline to give any price to selL When I tried to buy this Ludden place, he wrote to me, saying that it might be worth something to cut up for laborers' cottages, but he did not want anything of that kind of occupation and therefore declined to sell. This lot is away from the home estate, has no connection with it at all,. as you are aware. Mr. CooK. How long has Mr. Haven owned this estate? A. He bought it in parts. The estate of his was owned by different families, mostly in small flelds; some of them, I guess, were as small as one acre or two acres, walled out into fields; some of it was formerly a fish-yard where the small vessels used to ancho'r in front of the beach and cure fish. He bought it along year after year, beginning in 1847, 1 think. He built a house. I guess his flrst house was burned. Then he bought the other from time to time, and this Ludden lot in the village was bought some time afterwards. , Q. Could you tell the committee about what it averaged per acre at 205 that time? A. I should suppose when be bought it land was not worth more than $200 an acre. Q. The same land is now assessed for about S6,000 an acre. A. Yes, sir; a part of it, and it is cheaper at $6,000 now than it was at $200 then. Mr. Moulton. You have spoken of front lands; now, what is the hill land worth to-day'f' A. These hills, to my mind, are very valuable. All the hills are valua ble. If they would take their hands off of this division matter, you would flnd it out pretty quick. * Mr. MuEEAY. If the number of permanent residents is less to-day than it was thirty years ago, why is it, Mr. Baker, that in your judgment the land is worth so much more? A. Because the wealthy people want to buy. They have bought about all of it, and in a very few years they will have the whole of it, substan tially ; they have kept buying all the time. Q. Do you think these wealthy residents are ready to pay the market value, or are they willing to pay still higher prices? A. WeU, I don't know any higher price than the market value. All sales are the market value. Q. You said a few moments ago that except for the division , move ment property would not be worth a dollar less to-day. Then you do be lieve that the division movement affects the price of property at Beverly Farms? A. I do not think it affects it any further than these large property holders have done what they could to create a scare and prevent its growth, in order to help division. That is my exact belief about it. Q. You think the division movement does affect prices? A. To that extent, in that way, and only in that way. Actual sales; if you will allow me, that have been made right along, made continu ously, made even this year, have been higher than the valuation every time. There has been no sale made except this Haven sale, within my knowledge, within what they ask for as a town, that has not been above the valuation, not one. The Haven sale I do not regard as a sale upon a fair basis in any way. The property was worth all it was taxed for, and if I had had the money I think I would have bought it at the price. Q. Did you say anything to the assessors of your correspondence with Mr. Haven, and did any result follow in regard to the valuation of this Ludden lot ? A. I notified them; I am sure of that. Q. And do you know whether the assessment has been lower since ? A. It has been less. Q. It was $13,000 in 1889, was it? A. Yes, sir; at the time of that sale it was $13,000. Q. Now, what representation was given to the Farms, including rep resentation on the board of assessors, in 1886? A. The Farms people held a caucfts and nominated a member of the board of selectmen, assessors, school committee, etc. They nominated for selectman Mr. John H. Watson; for school committeeman, Mr. 206 John T. Morse; for assessor, Thorton K. Lothrop; for the board of health, Mr. Andrew Standley, if I remember right; constable, Mr. Georn-e T. Larcom; and selected their own surveyors of highways, as they always have done, selected their own men. Then a meeting was held at Beverly to make up a ticket for town offlcers, as has usually been done by a sort of voluntary action on the part of the members of the different parties. They discussed the expediency of adopting these nominations from the Farms; and there was a unanimous feeling for the adoption of all of them but one. It was staled, I don't know by what authority, that the people at the Farms, although they had nominated Mr. Watson, did pot want him, and would not vote for him if he was on the ticket. That was the statement made; how correct it was, I don't know, t advocated his nomination myself. That committee that night took instead Mr. John H. AYoodbury, who had been the second candidate of the Farm's caucus. I think Mr. Watson had fifty votes an4 Mr. Woodbury twenty or more. Mr. Williams. In the caucus? A. Yes, sir ; in the caucus at the Farms. On the day of the election, ,Mr. Lothrop declined to serve, declined to accept the nomination from Beverly. He had already had one from the Farms some time before, but he had not declined, that we ever heard of. We voted to put him on the ticket. They say they recommended Mr. Hardy, but I never heard of it at all. I never heard of Mr. Hardy as a candidate .until the day of eleo- tion; never heard of Mr. Hardy being proposed as a candidate hy Beverly Farms. On the contrarj', on the day of election, Mr. Charles L. Williams, the old assessor from the Farms, had his votes there, and he had, I think, 68 votes and Mr. Hardy had 80 votes on the final count in 700 or 800 votes. Mr. Watson had his tickets at the election. I would say that I voted for him mysell, and he had 32 votes, or 18 less than the caucus at the Faims gave him. VOTERS FROM THE FARMS. Q. Do you know what the vote was from the Farms that day ? A. There were 87. I took the count from the check list. Mr. CooK. Here i« one thing I would like to inquire about. How did you know ? A. I took the check list and picked out the Farms names, and there were 87 voting, for 1 was there, and I myself took the check list and counted the names, knowing the people as I did. Q. Well, by your knowing the people, did you really know how they voted ? A. No, sir; not the least idea how they voted. Q. Excuse me; I understood you knew how these different ones voted? A. I know how many voted. Q. I say how many each one had. A. I did. The final count showed that. They were candidates, an^ when the votes were counted (I was chairman of the selectmen, and counted the votes), Mr. Hardy had 80 207 and Mr. Charles L. Williams 68, for assessor; and Mr. Watson 32 for selectmen. Q. I understand that; but how could you distinguish betAveen a Farms voter and an old town voter? A. I took the check list after the voting was all over, and I know all the men, and I picked Ihem out. Mr. Eobinson. He says that 87 Farms men voted that day, and that on the final vote, on counting up, Mr. Watson had only 32 in the whole town; therefore his inference is, that the Farms people did not vote for him. Mr. WitLiAMS. Mr. Hardy had 80,' and the inference is, that nearly all the Farms people did vole for him. Mr. Cook. It is all inference. The Witness. Mr. Charles L. Williams had 68 votes. He had a prettj' large family, and they were distributing votes for him, I know. Mr. Robinson. Was "Williams a Farms man? A. He was the Farms assessor for the year previous on the old board. I know that he had 68 votes. Mr. Williams. Do you know how many Mr. Haskell had? A. Not exactlj'. Mr. Robinson. [Referring to a paper.] There is the whole list, 533. A. I did not remember. Mr. Robinson. Mr. Hardy had 80? A. Yes, sir. Q. And Mr. Williams 87? A. If you will excuse me, one other Farms man, Andrew Standley, had nine votes there for assessor, and was elected on the Board of Health. As to the valuation of property there, I have taken the liberty to copy from the probate records the appraisal of estates of people who have died there, of the shore estates. I thought it might possibly help the com mittee, if they care to have il in. I have not any official copy; I took it mj-self. Mr. Moulton. Well, if you' will give that, Mr. Baker, I will not ask you. Give the sales that you have knowledge of. A. Then I will take the appraisals. Mr. John G. King's estate, he was the owner of one third of his father's estate, by Mingo's Beach, on the left, as you rise the , hill. That one third was appraised $16,666.66, or one third of $50,000. Q. In 1886? A. That was in 1888 ; April 18, 1888; house, barn, and 7i acres of land. Q. Let me understand. You give the appraisal, just what it was ap praised, on April 18, 1888, at the probate office? A. House, barn, and li acres of land, one third of it appraised at the rate of $50,000. Then after he died, I think they sold 3^ acres on the opposite side of the road to William A. Gardner, and bis property, I think, is called Flora's Swamp; a large part of it is swamp. It has a nice little cottage lot on it, on the hill as you ride from Mingo's Beach. They sold that for — I don'tknow exactly; I think they sold it for $8,500. The appraisers in that case were Benjamin F. Hayes, of Medford; you know the gentleman, he served in the Senate and House; William P. Martin, I don't know him, but 1 presume you do, and Thomas S. Harlow, 208 a veteran lawyer, and I think the judge ofthe local court out at Medford, w^io was the companion of Mr. King in his offlce for a long series of years, and knew all about his property. Mr. Flint. How does the appraisal compare with the assessors' valuation? You have just given it, but I am not quite sure what the assessors' valuation is. A. I have not got that, Mr. Flint ; the assessors can give it to you. I have only taken the appraisal. It seems to me it was $64,000, but I am not sure. Mr. Moulton. The total valuation, llj acres, is $54,500. Mr. Baker. Of which 3J acres have been sold. Mr. Moulton. Then the appraisal, perhaps if you will refer to the appraisal, Mr. Baker, of the seven acres? A. Mr. King's third of it was at the rate of $50,000 for the 7J acres. Q. Now, you may ^o to the Henry P. Kidder estate. A. The Henry P. Kidder estate was appraised in 1886, March 25, 16 acres of land, with unfinished stone mansion, $90,000. It was appraised by Charles B. Fox, Arthur L. Woodman, and J. D. Henry Luce. < Q. That was assessed for what? A. I think it is assessed now for $96,000. Feb. 8, 1888, Ellen Guroey's estate, ^ she was Dr. Hooper's daughter, and she owned this estate on this street where this pipe went down, that has been a matter of criticism, which supplies the Farms. Land and buildings in buildings in Beverly appraised by Joseph B. Warner, Edmund M. Parker and Francis C. Lowell, at $45,400. Q. You did not give the assessment, Mr. Baker. Do you know what ' the assessment of that estate was that was appraised at $45,400? A. No, I do not. I will get that in a moment, and give it to the committee. Mr. Flint. If you can get that, it will be quite important. Mr. Flint. That is in 1888? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Moulton. The estate was assessed $34,400 in 1886. Mr. Williams. Now, that did not cover the house. Mr. SoHiEB. The house was $15,000. Mr. Moulton. " House, unfinished. Greenwood avenue, $15,000." Mr. Robinson. $34,400, instead of $45,000. Mr. Williams. That lyas unfinished, and now it is appraised when it was finished in 1888. The Witness. I will get it for the committee. I supposed the assessors would be here and their books would be here, or I should have taken the trouble to get it myself. I find it is assessed $45,400, house and land. In 1885, July 14, Robert W. Hooper's estate (Dr. Hooper) was ap praised by Charles U. Cotting, John C. Gray and Robert H. Gardiner, jr., at $35,000. That is just what Mr. Lothrop paid for it afterwards. That is taxed a little less than $25,000. There was some portion of that sold, it appears on the books, I think. Mr. Robinson. Wait a minute ; let us get this Hooper, matter rio-ht in 209 The Witness. I think it appears in the testimony. Mr. Robinson. AYhat was the assessment in 1886? Mr. SoHiEE. $25,375. It remains the same to-day. Mr. Moulton. Whether or not that was mortgaged for the amount of the assessment? A. It was mortgaged for $25,000. Q. To whom was that mortgaged? A. To the trustees of that Hooper estate. Mr. Eobinson. Well, go ahead. Mr. Baker. July 21, 1889, William G. Saltonstall's estate, appraised hy George Z. Silsbee, Charles S. Tuckerman and George D. PeabOdy; Leverett S. Tuckerman and Francis- Peabody, jr., being the trustees. Estate at Beverly, $35,000. It is assessed $15,500. Mr. Saltonstall's estate is one of the first estates you come to in the proposed town. Mr. Flint. When was this assessment of $15,500? A. It has been continued, I think, right along for years. I do not think there has been any change ; I don't know whether there was any raise on it in 1886 ; I think it was $15,500 then. Mr. Robinson. Real estate, $15,000. Thai is, land and buildings., Mr. Moulton. Do you know the facts in regard to the Barlow sale? A. The Barlow sale? There was no sale. Mr. Connolly testified that Mr. Barlow made a statement before the county commissioners, and he read it in a newspaper. I have no doubt that statement was just as he read it. The county commissioners had been petitioned to widen the road leading towards Salem. There is a bad corner there, and there is an estate upon it, a prominent estate; and they have been asked to take that entire estate away. I was at the hearing, the first hearing before the commissioners, and Mr. Barlow, representing the owner, Mr. Masury, offered them that estate for $5,000 ; told them they might take it. At a subsequent hearing (I was not there when he made these addi tional claims), that is the precise offer that he made for the estate, and the commissioners declined to accept that even, and have not yet done anything about it. What they may do ultimately, I don't know. The petition is now pending. Q. Did you buy a piece of property, Mr. Baker, within a year or two? A. I did, sir. Q. What was it? A. " The Old Tavern House," they used to call it, and a lot of land. Q. How did the price you paid for it compare with the assessors' valu ation? A. It was taxed $2,200, and I paid $1,600; and I would say that it had been put up at auction before that, under a mortgage, and the highest bid they got for it was $1,200. Q. Anything else? A. I was present at the sale of Bald Hill summit to Peter Clark. That I made a memorandum to remind myself of. We have a hill called Bald Hill, up in CentreviUe, near this division line. There is a pleasant view there. It is taxed at $30 an acre. At public auction, at which I was present, when Mr. Peter E. Clark bought it, it was sold for $20 an acre. Mr. Cook. That is in the old town of Beverly? 210 A. That is in the old town of Beverly. It is pretty near the propose* line. That was 16 acres, and he bought 15 acres more adjoining it at the same rate. Mr. Cook. Have you known of any sales — mortgage sales of prop erty in Beverly Farms — where it was sold under mortgage, bona fide sale; I mean where it was put up and sold? A. I do not recall any. I may know of some, but they do not come to my mind. Q. How did that land on Bald Hill, that Mr. Clark bought, compare with land just over the line into what is called Beverly Farms; how would it compare in price? A. Well, wooded land sold higher for the sake of the wood, but the land as barren as that is, I suppose $30 an acre would be all that is worth. Q. Is it assessed in Beverly Farms over $30 an acre? A. Land grows more valuable as you go towards the shore. Q. I am taking the land opposite. A. When you get beyond Bald Hill, towards the division line, there is some good farming land. Mr. Hooper Appleton has a farm, and his son has a small place; 1 can remem ber when it was kept up, and was some of the best land in town, and the land about there. It has been allowed to go down somewhat. But the moment you get away from Bald Hill toward the shore, towards Gravelly Brook, it is somewhat higher in price. Mr. Moulton. Do you know the facts of the Jackson sale to Wheel wright? A. This Neai place was in the market and Miss Jackson bought it, and paid $35,000 for it; and she sold it, well, right in a very short time, for $45,000. Q. And the assessment is $30,500, is it? A. I think so; that is of the same character of Mr. Haven's frontage, that land and frontage there. Mr. Murray. When you leave Bald Hill and come down towards the shore, does the land on both sides of the proposed division line increase in valuation in the same proportion? , A. I think not, sir; I think as you go towards Beverly Farms shore, there is a difference in the value of the land. Q. A greater increase? A. Y''es; in the same quality of land, I should say. It grows more valuable as you go towards the shore. Q. The same kind of land? A. It is the same quality of land here where you visited, but as you come down Bald Hill, here you are on the street; and on that street there are some farms, some very good farmers; the farmers are better than the farms; it is hard land. They are Mr. Charles Eliot, and men of that kind, sir. Mr. Moulton. Is it not true, Mr. Baker, that those farms on the street, as you come down, are assessed at the same price an acre, and that the line cuts them? A. Oh, yes, sir; some of those farms, like Charles Eliot's and Mr. Standley's -farm, the line cuts them diagonally on long range, dividing the fleld. I think there are nine, it seems to me there are nine estates. Mr. Appleton, who knows it all, testified they were eut. Q. Well, now, I don't know whether there is any misunderstanding 211 of the fact or not, but coming down along Standley Street, along toward the Cove, and down towards the brook, is the assessment any higher on the Farms side than it is on the Beverly side? A. I don't think it is. I think when you get a little further down is where the land grows more valuable, when you get nearer the Farms. Q. Well, when you get south of the woods, as they appear on the petitioners' map, that depends on the eligibility of it? A. As you come down towards the front, you strike these hills called Lovett's Rights, the finest lookout, the highest hill in town, except our- reservoir hill. i Q. I understood you to say, in answer to Mr. Murray's question, that land ofthe same quality was assessed more along that line on the Farms. side than on the Beverly side? A. Nearer the Farms shore, I said. Q. But not along the division line? A. No, sir. As you approach the Farms village, down near the Farms, land increases in value ; when you are up above these, it makes- little difference. Mr. Murray. More than it does as you approach old Beverly? A. I did not get your question. Q. It increases as you approach the Farms more than it does if you were going toward old Beverly? A. When you get down to this hill that I speak of, the increase is- larger. Mr. Cook. Would any one be kind enough to inform me where the highest point of ground is, in either old Beverly or Beverly Farms? A. Brimble Hill, where our reservoir is located, between those two points [pointed out on the map]. Q. That is the highest point in Beverly? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, within a veiy few feet of that [indicating on map] is Lovett's Eights, the " Sheep pen," as we call it, running along the side of Com mon Street. Q. Can you obtain a better view from that point than you can from any other place in Beverly or Beverly Farms? Can you see a longer distance of view from that hill than from any other point in Beverly? Q. You can in one direction, off to the west, where it falls off ; you cannot of the shore; you do not get any view of the shore as you do on these other hills, which is the great attraction, the view from the shore. Q. Mr. Ely. I would like to ask how far that hill is from the sea? A. Brimble Hill? Q. Yes. Whether you could get a view of the sea from that point? A. From Brimble Hill? No, sir. Q. How far should you guess? A. That it was firom the shore? Q. Yes. A. It is two miles and a half. Mr. Cook. Is there a good street to it, or a road? A. Yes, sir. • 212 Q. How much is the land assessed for right there on that hill, that hill and the surrounding land? A. The town owns that hill, and has its reservoir there. Q. Will you be kind enough to fell us what the town gave for it? A. I knew at the time; I think in the neighborhood of $200 an acre. Q. How many acres, please? A. I think there are thirty something. You will bear in mind that this is the farming part of our town ; beginning here, taking Centerville and running over to North Beverly, it is all farms away over to Ryal side. Q. Good strong land, good level land? A. Some of it is good land. Mr. Moulton. This has been used as a pasture? A. Yes, sir. The elevation gave it all of its value for us. Mr. Cook. Is there any land in Beverly Farms used as a pasture? A. Yes, sir; there must be some, but not much. Q. Mr. Moulton. Now, Mr. Baker, is anybody living on Brimble Hill? A. No, sir. , Q. Is that settled country on Brimble Hill? A. No, sir; we built this road or street to it, and built it in order to lay the water pipe. It was built for that purpose, and as a part of the water-supply system. Q. Is property^iin town, along Lothrop Street, as you come towards Beverly Farms, assessed at less than the Farms are? , A. No, sir; by no manner of means. All the property this side of the line or the proposed line, all of it, I should say, — of course there may be exceptional cases, — is assessed higher, very much higher with refer ence to its actual value, than anything that side ofthe line; but our busi ness section of the town, the whole of it, is assessed at more than it would fetch to-day, a large portion of it, at least. Q. And the actual price a foot is higher when you get up to Beverly, towards Beverly village, is it not? A. The assessment? Q. Yes, sir; the assessment. A. Certainly. Q. I thought there might be some misunderstanding as to the state ment. A. I say all of the Beverly side of the line is assessed higher relar tively than the other side of the line is, relatively to its value to-day, its value, market value. Mr. Cqok. Now, I would like to ask one question : Do you say land in Beverly is assessed for more than its market value? A. I have not said so, sir. Q. Than I didn't understand you. A. I said this : That it is assessed higher relatively that the Farms land, with reference to its value. Q. Well, I understood you to say it was assessed higher than it would Ibring. A. Well, more or less of it is. I have proved it by what I bought •myself. Q. Do not the assessors take their oath that they will assess it at its fair market value; and if they assess it for more than that, it shows they -do not make a fair assessment? 213 A. Well, they are like all other boards, they make mistakes, and when you go to them for an abatement, they correct it if you prove they have assessed a man more than he is worth. There is not a town in this Com monwealth where it is not so. I have been with assessors outside of my own town, and I have found it invariably so; you can hardly flnd a board of assessors who do not make occasional mistakes, and you flnd it so everywhere. Q. Well, that answers it; but I believe they have not found one in Beverly Farms, or you haven't? A. What is the question. Q. I see your testimony says that your assessors have not assessed any land in Beverly Farms for more than what it brought? A. I say Beverly has been carrying and paying more than its share all the time, as compared with the Farms, with all the talk about high val uation and so on, in view of the fact that a large part of this debt was caused by them. They had the benefit of it in Beverly Farms. You must bear in mind that the great rise in value has not been for the benefit of old Beverly, but for the beneflt of those very men. They have had the benefit of the advance, these very men that are coming and ask ing you for this great privilege to-day, had the beneflt of all this advance; it has gone into their pockets, and not into the town. Q. Well, as fast as they get an advance from the old town, they raise ' the taxes, don't they, so that they are required to pay or do pay for their proportion? A. I don't remember anybody appealing except Mr. Haven. The appeal is open to them, if they are not satisfled with the valuation. Cross Examination. Mr. Williams. Before the time of the independent source of sup ply, you purchased water of the city of Salem? A. We did. Q. And the city of Salem took its water from Wenham Lake? A. Yes, sir. Q. And then the question arose in regard to Beverly supplying itself with water independent of Salem, and that is what gave rise to the estab lishment of an independent water-supply system? A. That is so. Q. I thought that perhaps was not quite clear. Now, Mr. Baker, is it not a fact, when the committee which was appointed to consider the mat ter of an independent source of supply was acting and considering the matter, that it was a matter of opinion and a matter of discussion and argument that it would be a matter of financial saving to the town to have its independent source of supply rather than to continue to pur chase of Salem? A. I, myself, made this statement to the committee in substance: that we were paying Salem $11,000; they asked $18,000; that was their asking price at that lime. I told the committee then, that rather than to pay that price, I believed it was economy to put in an independent supply of water. Q. For the town? A. I believed so. 214 Q. And was not the controlling influence rather- than the matter of giving to the people on the highlands au increased head? A. By no manner of means, sir. Q. Then you would say that giving an increased head to the highlands controlled, rather than the matter of financial saving? A. Yes; it was an advantage both ways, and we recognized it in our report, that it would be a benefit. Q. Didn't you in your report say — you were one of that committee — "A unanimous expression of opinion was had, that it would be good policy for the town to establish for itself an independent water supply which Tjould provide for our whole community, both the high and low land, provided that the cost of building the works would not cost, exclu sive of land damages, $150,000" ? A. Exactly; that is the fact about it. Q. And has it not always been conceded to be, and has it not proved in fact, a matter of financial saving to the town? A. It will be, as compared with what they asked and what the commis sioners awarded. The commissioners awarded that we should pay $16,200, and I am satisfied it is going to be a saving, although we have not got far enough along to know yet. Another year we shall know better. Q. Didn't you say and don't you think, Mr. Baker, that when it came, to the expenditure of $150,000, exclusive of land damages, that what influenced the town to vote that was the fact that it would be a flnancial saving, rather than getting an increased head to supply water for two dozen or twenty-five people in the high lands? A. No, sir; I do not Bear in mind, Mr. Chairman, that .there has been, ever since the water works were established, a constant pressure for high service. These citizens came individually, they wrote letters to us, they petitioned the board and the people they were acquainted with up in town; they were constantly bringing it to their attention. It was all the time so, and that was the prevailing and controlling influence. I wanted it; I had been advocating it for years. I know about it. I believe all these hills,— I believe they are about as Mr. Knowlton said they are, and as Mr. Loring said they were, —beautiful places, fine out looks, and valuable property; and that it was wise policy for the town to develop these high lands by giving them water. Q. Well, is it not a fact that members of the committee have testified that what influenced thera was the fact that it would be a saving finan cially to the town and not because of increased head? A. I do not like to criticise the testimony. Q. Well, is not that the fact which has been testified to here before the committee? A. Before that task took place they got pretty good assurance that the' committee were going to report in favor of a high-water service ; after that, I want to say of these gentiemen from the Farms upon this, com mittee, they both served on that committee until they were practically assured that the thing was done, and then they both resigned service on the committee. , 215 Q. You do not ascribe to them any motive other than that which should influence a nan in not serving longer upon a committee? A. Well, they had become interested in this division movement, which is enough to poison almost anybody. Q. Exactly. Now, just a word as to the Haven sale [readifig the poster] : Now, Mr. Hyde is a reputable manin his business, is he not? A. I think so. Q. Do you believe he would be a party to a bogus sale? A. I think he might not inquire whether it was bogus or not. I think he Would do what he was employed to do. I think if I asked him to sell a piece of land and not give more than two days' notice, he would sell it for me, — offer it for sale. Q. It was, as you testified, advertised in the Beverly Citizen: was it not a fact that it was advertised in the Boston papers, three of them? A. It was said so, I think. Mr. Williams. Here is the Boston Evening Transcript in connection with it. Mr. Moulton. What is the date? Mr. Williams. It is marked "4t"; then over in the cornerj " Ap 24"; that means April 24, I suppose, — the Boston Evening Transcript; and the same advertisement appears as that poster, simply a copy of that. Q. It was also made in the Advertiser and- in other Boston papers, the Post and Advertiser f A. It was so said. Q. Didn't Mr. Hyde also testify that it was as fair a sale as he ever •conducted? A. As far as he was concerned. Q. Of course, he could not undertake to speak for other people. Now, I understood you to use, that in your judgment the wealthy men depre ciated the property at Beverly Farms at the present time for the purpose of accomplishing division? A. I think so. Q. Don't they, at the same time, then, depreciate their own property? A. Exactly. Q. If they take that course, are not they, to use a familiar expression, ' biting off their own noses? \ A. Exactly. But see how much they will make by it if they accom plish the purpose. They would pay for it in one year. Q. Why so? A. Why, the rise of property, the rush of people in there would cut down their taxes to $4, like the rush of people into the Indian country. Q. Then you assume that all these people are going there to take up -their residence? A. A large part of them. Q. Do you think Mr. Thayer would? ' A. I should not be at all surprised. Q. And you think — A. I should say that certainly of almost all these people. He would .go where his interest was. Q. Martin Brimmer, for instance? 216 A. Well, I should not be at all surprised. As I said before, he is open to temptation. Q. Have you any reason to think that these gentiemen would go there, any reason for it? A. I cannot account for their action on this question of division, except that is their reason. Q. Y'"ou do not think they take any interest in helping along the native people who are interested? A. I never have seen any signs of it. They do not take any interest in the schools, only in the roads and water works. I don't know any thing else they have taken interest in. Mr. Morse, when on the school committee, resigned before his term was out. Q. Did he go to Europe? ' A. He complained of the roads — Q. Just answer me that. A. I don't know it. Mr. Moulton. We understand he did not go out of the country at that time, but later. Mr. Baker. Mr. Loring did not leave the country, and he resigned his office. Q. Now, I don't know that it is necessary to go into the matter of the caucus. As I understand, you say that in your judgment 87 Farms votes were cast, don't you? A. I am satisfled that there were. Q. And Mr. Hardy received 80 votes? A. He received 80 votes. Q. And is it not fair to presume that those principally represented the votes of Farms people? A. Mr. Williams, from the Farms got 68 votes; his friends were dis tributing votes, and Farms people did vote for him. Q. Well, all the Farms people, you understand? A. I don't know. Q. Mr. Haskell, who was an anti-divisionist, received 500? A. I voted for him heartily, because I believed in him. Q. And you had been one who had said that if the Farms people would get together and nominate a man you would vote for him? A. I did. I never heard of Mr. Hardy's being selected, and I voted for a good Farms man. Q. Well, you knew votes were there with his name, and that he was a candidate? A. I did not know that — Mr. Robinson. You do not let him answer. Mr. Baker. I said Charles L. Williams, another Farms man, had tickets there and got 68 votes, also Mr. Standley, who had 9 votes. Q. Well, Farms people were not circulating those tickets? A. Farms people circulated tickets, but I didn't have much opportu nity to hunt around and discriminate: I was officially employed that day. Q. Now, just a word more about the Haven sale, which you say was not a bona fide sale: what, in your judgment, is the value of that hill lot, assessed for $108,000? A. Well, without any privileges, with the right of other people to build right up front of it, just as they have got it now? , Q. Yes,'just as it stands, and just as the assessors can look at it? A- 217 I think Mr. Murney put it about right when he compared it with Dr. Hooper's. Q. One hundred and odd thousand dollars? A. Well, whatever it amounts to. Why, take the Miller's hill with it. I could show you a way of developing that, and all Mr. Haven's property. Q. Why did you not bid on it? A. I had no money. I cannot buy all the world. I buy now more than I ought to. Q. It only required $1,000 down. A. The other $29,000 would have been the trouble with me. I could have got the thousand. Mr. Ely. I would like to ask the gentleman how many purchasers. appeared at that sale. I do not expect you to count accurately, but give us an estimate. A. I cannot say. Mr. Haven had some of his friends with him, Mr. Dalton, I think, and Mr. Storrow. I do not now remember any others. Then there were some townspeople aud quite a number of Farms peo ple. I went down with Mr. Peter E. Clark, who buys more or less real • estate and who bid for that property. I should have bid for Ihe Ludden l9t myself and taken the risk that Mr. Cook suggests if I did not have reason to believe that it was going to be bought at any rate up to the valuation, if it had reached that, by parties that Mr. Collier was bidding for. I should certainly been glad to buy it for the valuation. Thei Lud den land is the finest village land there is to-day at Beverly Farms unoc cupied, for residences. Mr. Moulton. You are speaking now not of the hill land but of the Ludden lot? A. The Ludden lot; $13,000 was the valuation, as I understood. Mr. Williams. You are acquainted with these people'down there at the Farms, residents there? Y''ou know Isaac Ober and his brother, the two Eldridges, Andrew Standley, the Days, Mr. Burchstead? A. I know them all. Q. And they are in every sense reputable men, are they? Q. Yes, sir; they are so. Q. Are they men capable of managing the affairs of the town, in your judgment? A. Undoubtedly. Q. And in every way competent? And don't you believe that if they were granted a town they would manage affairs well? A. I don't think they would be allowed to. Q. Now, why not? A. I think these other people would control them. Q. In other words, while you admit these are reputable men, and men of good character, common sense and good judgment, you think they would not manage affairs themselves? A. They would not be allowed to. Now, let me give a reason. Q.. I would be very glad to have you. A. These summer people now own half the houses there are there. Q. The testimony is there are only 80, and there are 264 all told. A. If there is testimony that way, it is incorrect, I ara satisfled of that 218 If there are 80 people, some of them own two or three houses. Mr. Storrow owns flve, and so they run right through. Q. Well, I will not interrupt you. A. If they had a town it would increase iu that way I speak of, because the rate of taxation would be just as it is in all the other towns, as it is in Manchester and the Other towns right along. To illustrate the difference of opinion that they have, I will give, for example, this: At the hearing 1886, the complaint was the inefficiency pf the flre department. Mr. E. Rollins Morse had had a barn burned down the winter before, or the fall before, I don't know which, and they complained about it here at the State House, and Mr. John T. Morse made it quite conspicuous, and stated that the want •of capacity to extinguish fires was especially proven, for want of appara tus, at Beverly Farms. They also wanted a sidewalk on Hart Street, as they said these roads are travelled in summer time by fast teams, the •streets were crowded and to a certain extent dangerous, and thej' wanted that widened. The permanent residents petitioned to have that widened and for an engine house and engine. And who remonstrated against it? These very summer residents. Q. Didn't they in their remonstrance say that in the then financial condition ofthe town they thought they were not warranted iu incurring such an expense? A. Certainly, but it didn't make any difference. What they did and what they would continue to do, I am speaking of. After the water ser vice had been put in or assured and practically decided upon, but had not been built, the native residents, the permanent residents, having an idea it was put in for the benefit of the shore people, sent in a remon strance to the town asking to have the whole matter reconsidered; show ing the difference between the two elements, which never should exist and never should be allowed to exist, bylaw, in my mind. Q. Now, right on this point, when these native people found that for the benefit of shore residents, or Beverly Farms, you were going to incur an expense of $150,000, they sent in a remonstrance asking to have it reconsidered? A. They did. Q,. What did Mr. Stephen Foster say about that? A. Edwin Foster, I believe, said they wanted it for themselves. Q. Are not these his words? [Reading.] A. Mr. Edwin Foster is not the town of Beverly. Q. But the town of Beverly did vote not to reconsider? A. It did. It was all settied with the CQ-operation of Mr. Lothrop and Mr. Morse, as members of that committee. Mr. Moulton. How many people of means were there at that sale? A. With the exception of those gentiemen, Mr. Haven's friends, and Mr. Peter E. Clark, I do not recall any other men that would bo likely to make such an investment as that. Mr. Williams. You would not say there was not a number of other people? A. No, but that advertisement stated so plainly what it was, that it was not a sale — 219 Mr. Cook. How do you know but thafsome of those flfty who were there were authorized to bid on the place? Even if a poor man goes to an auction he sometimes goes with instructions from a rich man to buy. A. I have bought a good deal of property for rich people myself, and they may have been authorized, but I did not see any signs of it. If they had been, I think you would have heard of it here. Mr. Moulton. They did not bid, I understand. A. I never heard anybody bid except Mr Clark. Testimony of Roland D. Grant, PASTOR OF THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF BEVERLY. Mr. Robinson. You are a clergyman? A. Yes, sir. Q. Pastor of what church? A. The First Baptist Church of Beverly. Q. Perhaps all these gentlemen haven't the profit and pleasure of attending your ministrations, and they may like to know how much of a church it is, that is, whether it has a dozen in it or two or three hundred or more. A. We have between flve and six hundred members. PLEASANT RELATIONS BETWEEN THE FARMS AND OTHER PARTS OF BEVERLY. Q. Are you acquainted from your experience with the state of feeling "'between the two parts of the town? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you officiated by exchange or otherwise at the Farms church? A. I have been there to numerous services, to funerals, and to meetings -of other kinds. Q. And what have you to say with regard to the feeling ? A. I have found nothing but the pleasantest feeling in any way, shape or manner in my intercourse with the people, nor have I heard of any unpleasant feeling. Q. Did you testify upon that same point last year ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Having your attention again called to it for the year past, you still say so? A. Yes; I have carefully watched for it, and have been very much surprised after all the statements made here to flnd that there was an utter absence of anything that could be called feeling. I have made reference to it oftentimes, and I haven't seen anything that would sug gest to me anything of the sort; if I hadn't heard it up here I never :should have known it. Q. The only feeling there is between them is up here at the State House? A. That is all I have ever heard or seen. The people go back and forth attending meetings; we have union meetings together at Beverly JFarms; we have had two this year, — four, in fact, this year. Q.-What have you to say as to the desirability of dividing the town? 220 A. I should say it was not desirable, for a good many reasons. First of all, I should say it was not desirable on the grand principle on which our government was founded. SECESSION NOT THE ONLY REMEDY. Q. What do you mean by that? A. I mean by that, that the policy of the State must needs be reversed if the division of Beverly shall take place, even if there were any such- thing as feeling, because I do not understand that secession is the only remedy for such difficulties, any more than it was when the South desired to secede and we said " No." And such has been the policy of the State in opposition to any such theory of secession, unless there was the indorsement of the people represented by vote of the town. Mr. Robinson. Contrary to the policy and practice of Massachusetts to divide towns against the wish of their people. Q. You have spoken about the general policy of the Commonwealth ; have you made any examination in order to ascertain the facts so as to- be able to present them as they appear in the offlcial records? A. I have, sir. Q. To show the policy and the practice of the State in regard to the division of towns? A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you state what you have found, and what the facts are upon that question? A. I should refer first of all to the records of Massachusetts, the offlcial records ofthe General Court. I have been for a year on the look out for information on the subject in a large general way, and where I have been unable to give the time to it myself we have employed some one else to do it, until we have examined over a hundred cases in these records and in the Secretary of Slate's offlce, and in county histories. Q. Yiiu supervised it, so you know about it? A. Y^es, sir ; I have some of the books here. The passages are all marked with red ink in the books, and I can show them if desired. There is a mark, as you see, in the books, and each case in each town is marked with red ink, so that a person can turn to any one case without difflculty. Q. Now, will you take some of these cases, or have you a list which you can put in to show the facts? A. I can speak of them from memory, or I can turn to the books. (Turning to the Records of Massachusetts.) HOW BEVERLY WAS INCORPORATED. A. The first case I will mention was in 1659, in the old town of Salem. We flnd this record in the old records of the General Court, that an application came into the General Court " from the people living on the north side of Bass River " (which is now known as Beverly) desiring to be set apart as a separate town. This is the answer they received, which you will flnd here in full. (Records of Mass., Vol. IV., 221 part 1, page 376.) They were sent back to the town of Salem, for Salem to determine whether they should be set off or not. The m'atter of division was left with the town of Salem. The next record we find is nine or ten years later, in 1668, when an other application comes from the same quarter, from the people on the north side of Bass River, desiring to be set oft', and that they might furnish their own Representative. The General Court for the second time sent them back to Salein, say ing " If Salem 'consents the General Court will consent." And we find a little later in these records of the General Court, Vol. IV. part 2' the answer of the town of Salem. Indexed by the clerk of the Common wealth as " Salem's concession lo Bass River." It reads : — " The answer ofthe town of Salem to the court's former order is that we do not see cause to consent further. We say that if our brethren and neighbors of Bass River side desire to be a township by themselves and are content with the lands already set out to them we consent to that." Edmund Baiter, per order ofthe town. The act of Incorporation reads : " The Court, on perusal of this re turn, judge it mete to grant the Bass River be henceforth a township of themselves, referring it to Salem to accommodate them with lands and hounds suitable for Ihem, and that they be called ' Beverly.' " —Records ¦of Massachusetts, Vol. IV., Part 2, p. 407. The consent of the town having been taken by vote and communicated to the General Court, the General Court did set off Beverly in 1668 as a separate town, and gave it the name of Beverly. OVER 100 TOWNS DIVIDED BY THEIR OWN VOTE. We find that by tracing through many ofthe other towns in the State, almost exactly the same record, and we have looked them up one after the other till we have over a hundred of them. If you want me to go over them it would be a pleasure for me to do so. I will read, however, just a group of them. In Hampshire County, we find that for more than sixty years there has been no division of any kind without the consent of the towns. No division has succeeeded there for over sixty years. In 1670, Hatfield was «,et off by vote of Hadley. In 1753, Southampton was set off by vote of Northampton, the town of Northampton declaring their willingness. In 1753, South Hadley was set off by vote of Hadley, " with the cotisent of the mother town." In 1771, W^illiamsburg was set ofi by vote of Hat field. In 1783, Middlefield was set off from Worthington, Chester, Becket, Peru and Washington, the application not appearing to be opposed. The history of the incorporation of towns shows that in certain cases a village has grown up about a railroad station, or water power which formed the centre, where the main village would be in three or four or, as in one instance, in flve different towns. Therefore it became neces- 222 sary to form a new town in order that the laws could be enforced, because if a man was drunk he would only have to cross the street and be in another town. In a very few cases of that kind we find that the General Court seemed to have taken the matter into its own hands irrespective of the vote of the people. We find in Middlesex County alone, twenty-eight towns which have been created by the division of towns by their own vote. The Chaieman. Have you a tabulated statement there? Mr. Grant. I have; and I will put them all in without wearying you by reading all of them. Mr. Robinson. We will put them in, but we thought we would simply call attention to a few cases. TOWNS REPRESENTED ON THE COMMITTEE. Mr. Grant. Chelmsford was an original town, and in 1826 Lowell was set off by vote of Chelmsford, and not by vote of the section set oflf. By vote of Chelmsford a committee w^as appointed by the town to confer wifh Kirk, Boott, and others who had petitioned the General Court to inqorporate the northeasterly part of Chelmsford into a separate town ship, and that committee reported at a town meeting a line of division and terras. Joel Adams, the town clerk, certifies that in a "legal town meeting of the freeholders and other inhabitants of the town of Chelms ford ... it is voted to accept the report of the committee appointed to confer with Kirk, Boott and others, petitioners for a new town." This vote is filed in the Secretary of State's offlce. Dalton was an original town, and it has never been divided. Millis was set off from Medway, 1885. The History of Medway, published by the town, registers the incor poration of Millis, as follows : — " The easterly part of Medway embracing all that was anciently known as the Old Grant by the unanimous petition of its inhabitants, supple mented by the names of others residing in other parts of the town, with out any serious opposition from anv quarter, was incorporated Feb. 24, 18B5." — History of Medway, by Rev. E. O. Jameson, published by the Town, page 96. Fitchburg was set off from Lunenburg by vote of Lunenburg, in 1764. In 1757, Lunenburg declined to assent, but the project " Was presented at other town meetings for a number of years, unlil finally Lunenburg voted that the west part should be set ofl from said town into a town or district, as the General Court should think proper." (Worcester County History, Vol. I.) ' A few years fater, in 1767, Fitchburg herself voted for division and Ashby was created, but it was created, not by the vote of Ashby, but by the vote of Fitchburg. Mr. Williams. Did the General Court have anything to do with it? Mr. Grant. It was voted by the town of Fitchburg "that '¦ two miles on the westerly line of said town be set off to Mr. John Fitch and 223 others, in order to make a town or parish"; part of Ashby was taken from Fitchburg and part from Townsend, and we are told that " Town- send parted with territory enough to form about two-thirds of the town of Ashby, with as little regret as is felt by a mother at the marriao-e of the eldest daughter of a family." Thi.s is the only town set off from Fitchburg. Mr. Williams. I want to know if the General COurt had anything to do with it. You tell us about how much the towns had to do, that they voted, so and so, but I want to know if they came to the General Court. Did'nt every one of them, in fact ? Mr. Grant. Certainly, they all come to the General Court. Mr. Robinson. You don't claim the towns set themselves off without any action by the Legislature ? Mr. Grant. Not at all. I only say that the towns themselves have voted on the separation of the towns, and the General Court, instead of forcing separation upon them have legalized and ratified the action of the towns. In the same way Springfield voted, in 1669, to set off Westfield ;. in 1774, to set off West Springfield (which I understand desires to come back againnow), and Ludlow, and in 1783 Long Meadow and Wilbraham. In 1850, Holyoke was in turn set off from West Springfield, and papers in the Secretary of State's office show that the town was notified to appear and object if she wished to. There is also a letter from the Town Clerk, stating that the town took no action to oppose the bill. Otis was formed, not by division, but by the union of Loudon and Beth lehem, each of them larger than Beverly. Wendall was an original town and has never been divided. In 1740, Leominster was set off by vole of Lancaster, the act of incor poration reading, " Whereunto the inhabitants of said town have mani fested their consent." Four towns, Leominster in 1740, Bolton in 1738, Sterling in 1781, and Clinton in 1850, have been created from ancient, Lancaster by her own vote. When Marshfield was created, territory was taken from Duxbury, and in 1646, additional territory was granted to Duxbury, " as a compensa tion of the loss of territory they had sustained in the setting apart of Marshfield." When in 1788, a portion of Scituate, called the two-mile grant, was added to Marshfield on the request of the inhabitants, but they had to wait ten years unlil they were ready to accept the conditions upon which Scituate was willing to vote them off. In 1711, Marshfield voted to set off Pembroke. The petitioners addressed a letter to their fellow townsmen asking to be set off as a part of a new town, "and requesting of them that they would join their petitions to the General Court." " The town of Marshfield on the same day granted their request." The act of incorporation also men tions the consent of the inhabitants of Duxbury, " to allow part of their land thereto." The same can be said of numerous other towns of which I have a list here. During the last fifty years there have been a large number of 224 town divisions, by the direct vote of the town, which I have in tabulated form here. I would like to have this noticed particularly, because it covers the whole ground. There have been incorporated in the State, within 60 years, by vote of the town, 26; by consent of selectmen, 1; by general desire, 1; by amicable arrangements, 1; making 28 upon which the towns agreed-' not by division, bift by incorporation of districts, there were 2; of cases in which the town took no action, or refused to oppose, there are 7; addi tional towns unopposed by representative, 3; with no roll call, 6- opposed by town and representative, 5; making 51. 225 INCORPORATION OF TOWNS SINCE 1840. During the last fifty years, 51 towns have been incorporated, and 28, or more than one half of the whole number, are known to have been by the desire or consent of the town concerned.'' Earlier divisions with no ro'1-call are frequently obscure, but during a third of a century (since 1855) onlj- four towns have been created when opposed by the representative from the district and the town in its cor porate capacity, out of over 120 applications which ^ave been presented. Unlil 1885 the law required the petitioiers should serve an order lOf notice on the town they wished to divide, to appear, and show cause, if any, why the petition should not be granted. Any ten voters could have demanded a town-meeting to oppose the petition for division. In cases, therefore, where the town took no action, it may be assumed that - the opponents of the division were afraid to risk a town vote. Thus, during the lifetime of a generation, the policy and practice of Massachusetts seems firmly established and maintained, since 96 per cent of the applications for new towns have been decided in accordance with the wishes of the town concerned, or of its representative. By DiKECT Vote ot Town. Avon, 1888. By vote of Slonghton. Letter from Town Clerk. Acushnet, 1860. By vote of Fairhaven. Hist, of Bristol, p. 161. Ashland, 1846. By vote of Framingham. Papers, Sec. of State's office. " " By vote of Holliston. House Doc. 45, 1846. Ayer, 1871. By nnanimous vote of Groton. Hist, of Middlesex, Vol 1, p. 238. " 1871. By consent of Shirley. Hist, of Middlesex, Vol. 1, p. 238. Blackstone, 1845. By vote of Mendon. Hist, of Mendon, p. 586. Clinton, 1850. By vote of Lancaster. Hist, of Worcester, Vol. 1, p. S88. Groveland, 1850. By vote of Bradford. Vote filed, Sec. Slate's offlce. Hampden, 1878. By vote of Wilbraham. Vole filed Sec. State's office. Lawrence, 1847. By vote of Andover. Vote filed, Sec. State's office. Marion, 1852. By vote of Rochester. Vote filed, Sec. State's offlce. Mattapoisett, 1867. By vote of Eochester. Vote filed, Sec. State's offlce. Melrose, 1850. By vote of Maiden. Vote filed. Sec. State's offlce. Monterey, 1847'. By vote of Tyringham. Vote filid, Sec. State's office. Merrimac, 1876. By vote of Amesbnry. Old Hist, of Kssex, p. 292. Nahant, 1863. By vote of- Lynn. Hist, of Essex, p. 1424. Norwood, 1872. By vote of Dedham. Hist, of Norfolk, p. 89. Norwell, 1849. By vote of Scituate'. Vote filed. Sec. State's office. N. Reading, 1853. By vote of Reading. Vote filed. Sec. State's office. N. Attleboro, 1887. By vote of Attleboro. Act of Incorporation . N. Andover, 1856. By vote of Andover. Hist, of Essex, p. 1680. Peabody, 1855. Ry vote of Danvers. Hist, of Essex, p. 512. Rockport, 1840. By' unanimous vote of Gloucester. Vote filed, Sec. State's offlce. Somerville, 1842. By vote of Charlestown. Vote filed, Sec. State's office. W. Brookfield, 1848. By vote of Brookfield. Vote filed. Sec. State's office. Winchester, 1850. By vote of Woburn. Hist, of Middlesex, Vol. 2, p. 513. ?Individuals have sometimes opposed even when a majority. Or the town, hy vote, has approved. 226 BY GENERAL DESIRE OR WITH ASSENT OF SELECTMEN, ETC. Mayuard, 1871. By " amicable arrangement" with Stowe. Hist, of Middlesex, pp. 154-356. " 1871. By "amicable arrangement" with Sudbury. Hist, of Middlesex, pp. 154-356. N. Adams, 1878. By general desire of Adams. Hist, of Berkshire, Vol. 1, p. 603. Revere, 1846. By consent selectmen of Chelsea. Report of Com. on Towns, 1846. NOT BY DIVISION. Gay's Head, 1870. Previously a district. Act of Incorporation. Masbpee, 1870. Previously a district. Act of Incorporation. TOWN TOOK NO ACTION OR REFUSED TO OPPOSE. Holyoke, 1851, West Springfield took no action to oppose. Letter Ixom 'rown Clerk. Hudson, 1866. Unopposed by Marlborough. Letter from Town Clerk. " " Unopposed by Stow. Hist, of Middlesex, Vol. 1, p. 501. Hyde Park, 1868. Unopposed by Dorchester. Hist, of Norfolk, p. 907. " " Unopposed by Milton.* Hist, of Norfolk, p. 907. " " Unopposed by Dedham.* Hist, of Norfolk, p. 907. Millis, 1885. " Without serious opposition." Hist, of Medway, p. 96. Rockland, 1874. Town of Abington took no action. Letter from Town Clerk. Whitman, 1875. Town of Abington took no action. Letter from Town Clerk. Winthrop, 1862. Long petitions, few remonstrants. Papers, Sec. State's office. UNOPPOSED BY REPRESENTATIVE. Bourne, 1884. Representative voted for the division. (House Journal, 1884.) Cottage City, 1880. No one before com. to oppose. Rep., and Senator favored. (Boston ^oi/nia;, Feb. 1880.) Holbrook, I87I. Representative favored division. Did not vote. (House Journal, IS72.) OPPOSED BY TOWN AND REPRESENTATIVE. Belmont, 1859. Parts of three towns. Methods condemned by Court. (Allen 6, p. 162.) Everett, 1870. A precinct with many powers of a town, 1737. Hist, of Middlesex, Vol. 1, pp. 428-431 Hopedale, 1886. Republican no-license village, Democratic license town, ($1.25 per poll, to $1). Wellesley, 1881. Made a precinct, with many powers of town, 1773. Prov. Laws, Vol. 5, p. 805. W. Roxbury, 1851. Annexed to Boston, 1870, rejoining Roxbury, annexed three years e.trlier. REMAINING TOWNS WITH NO ROLL-CALL. Cliicopee, 1848. More petitioners than remonstrants. Papers, Sec. of State's offlce. Gosnold, 1864. Incorporation of Islands. Swampscott, 1862. No opposition mentioned. Hist, of Essex, p. 1488. Lakeviile, 1863. Middieborough was the largest town in the State (55,000 acres) . Agawam, 1856. West Springfield contained 23,000 acres. Norfolk, 1870. Parts of four towns. TOWNS INCORPORATED WITHIN FIFTY YEARS. By vote of town (25) , consent of selectmen (1) , general desire (1) , amicable arrangemente (1) 28 Not by division (incorporation of districts) . . 2 Town took no action or refused to oppose . . .' ' * - Additional towns unopposed by representative . . ^ With no roU.caU . . ' " Opposed by town and representative . ' - Towns incorporated since 1840 , TI Individuals have sometimes opposed even when a ma.iority, or the town, by vote, has approved. 227 By counties, the summary is as follows: Woecestee County, only 1 town for 50 years, except by vote of the town to divide, and that one is Hopedale, in which there was a Republican no-license district in a big license town. Baenstable County, only 1 town. Bourne, for 80 years. The rep resentative voted for division. In Essex County, no town incorporated, except by vote of the town divided, during that same time. The same is true of Hampden County. Beistol County, no town incorporated in sixty years, except hy vote of the town that was divided. The same of Franklin County. In fact, in Franklin County, for sixty years, every division has failed. The same of Hampshiee County. For sixty years every division has failed. In Beekshibe County uo town has been incorporated for eighty years, except by desire of the town divided. In NoEFOLK County, the last town incorporated was Avon, by vote of Stoughton, in 1888. I have here a letter from the town clerk saying that there was no opposition to that vote. At a meeting held at Stoughton, Dec. 30, 1887, the following action and vote were taken on the matter of setting off East Stoughton: — " Voted, That the sense of this meeting is that a division of the town of Stoughton take place according to the tenor of a petition now in the office of the Secretary of State." . . . The vote was passed with but one vote in the negative. '¦'¦Voted, That a committee of flve, a majority of whom shall be from East Stoughton, be appointed by the chair for the purpose of presenting this matter to the Committee on Towns of the Legislature." Mr. Williams. Did I understand you to say that Millis went off with the consent of the Selectmen of Medway? The Witness. I have a letter from the Town Clerk stating that the town took no action. Mr. Williams. What does he say? The Witness. I have a letter from the Town Clerk in which he says "The town took no action whatever as a town in the matter of the set ting off of Millis. It was left with the Selectmen and no town meeting was called. Respectfully, H. E. Mason, Town Clerk." (Adjourned.) 228 TOWN DIVISIONS IN MASSACHUSETTS. with the consent of the town divided. The hidtory of earlier town divisions is frequently obscure, especially iu certain counties. Consultation of the town records, or of the archives of the State in earlier^ years, Or even of the town histories, would unquestionably lengthen very materially the list of towns which has been obtained from the sources wiihin easy reach. In many other cases towns took no action, although imtil 1885 orders of notice were always served upon them to appear and make objections, if they so desired. Baknstablb Countt. Brewster, 1803. By vote of Harwich. Vote filed. Sec. of State's offlce. Dennis, 1793. By vote of Yarmouth. Hist, of Old Yarmouth, pp. 165, 240. Orleans, 1797. By vote of Eastham. Hist, of EasUiam, etc., p. 85. Wellfleet, 1763. By vote of Eastham. History of Eastham, etc., pp. 71-117. Eastham, 1763. Voted to set off Wellfleet. History of Eastham, etc., pp. 77-117. " 1797. Voted to set ofT Orleans. History of Eastham, etc., p. 85. Harwich, 1803. Voted to set ofi' Brewster. Vote filed, Sec. of State's offlce. Yarmouth, 1793. Voted to set off Dennis. Hist, of Old Yarmouth, pp. 165, 240. Bebeshirb Coumtt. Great Barrington, 1761. By vote of Sheffleld. Hist, of Great Barrington, p. 166. Hinsdale, 1804J By vote of Partridgeville (Peru). Vote filed Sec. of State's ofiice. " 1804. By vote of Dalton. Vote filed Sec. of State's office. Lee, 1777. By vote of Great Barrington. Hist, of Lee, p. 126, Lenox, 1776. By vote of Richmond, Hist, of Berkshire, Vol, 2, p. 186. Monterey, 1847. By vote of Tyringham, Vote filed Sec, of State's office, Korth Adams, 1878. By general desire of Adams. Hist, of Berkshire, Vol, 1, p. 503. West Stockbridge, 1774, By vote of Stockbridge. Hist, of Berkshire, Vol. 2, p, 626, Adams, 1878. Desired to set off North Adams, Hist, of Berkshire, Vol. 1, p, 503, Dalton, 1804. Voted to set off Hinsdale, Vote filed, See. of State's office. Great Barrington, 1777. Voted to set off Lee. ^ist. of Lee, p, 126. Peru, 1804. Voted to set off Hinsdale. Vote filed. Sec. of State's offlce. Richmond, 1776. Voted to set off Lenox. Hist of Berkshire, Vol. 2, p. 185. Sheffield, 1761. Voted to set off Great Barrington. Hist, of Great Barrington. p 165. Stockbridge, 1774. Voted to set off West Stockbridge. Hist, of Berkshire, Vol. 2, p. 626. ryringham, 1847, By vote of Monterey, Hist, of Berkshire, Vol. 2, p. 220.' Bristol Count r. Acushnet, 1860. By vote of Fairhaven. History of Bristol, p. 161. ^ Easton, 1726. By agreement with Norton, Act of Incorporation. Mansfield, 1770. By vote of Norton. Hist, of Norton, p. 442. N. Attleboro, 1887. By vote of Attleboro. Act of Incorporation. Norton, 1711. By vote of Taunton. History of Bristol, p. 600. Wellington, 1814. By agreement with Dighton. Bristol Countv History, pp. 217, 237. Attleboro, 1887. Voted to set off N. Attleboro. Act of Incorporation. Dighton, 1814. Agreed to set off Wellington. Bristol County History, pp. 217, 237. Fairhaven, 1860. Voted to set off Acushnet. History of Bristol.'p, 161. Norton, 1726. Agreed to set off Easton, Act of Incorporation. " 1770. Voted to set off Mansfleld. History of Norton, p. 442. Taunton, 1711. Voted to set off Norton. History of Bristol, p. 600. Essex County. Amesbnry, 1666. By vote of Salisbury. Mass. Records, Vol. 4, Pt. 2, pp. 300-376 Beverly, 1668, By vote of Salem, Mass. Records, Vol, 4s Pt, 2, p. 407. Boxford, 1786, By vote of Rowley. Mass. Records, Vol. 5, p. 497, '229 Bradford, 1668. By vote of Rowley. Mass, Kecoids, Vol, 4, Pt. 2, p. 380. Danvers, 1752. By agreement with Salem, Province Laws, Vol, 3, p, 599, Georgetown, 1838, By agreement with Rowley, Vote filed. Sec. of State's office. Groveland, 1860. By agreement with Bradford. Vote filed. Sec. of State's offlce, Hamilton, 1793, By agreement with Ipswich, Vote filed. Sec, of State's office. Lawrence, 1847. By agreement with Andover. Vote filed,' Sec. of State's ofllce. Lynnfield, 1782, By agreement with Lynn, Vote filed. Sec. of State's offlce. Marblehead, 1649, By agreement with Salem, Mass. Records, Vol, 2, p, 26 K Merrimac, 1876. By agreement with Amesbtiry. Old Essex History, p, 292, Middleton, 1728, By agreement with Boxford, Old Hist, of Essex, p, 301, Nahant, 1863, By consent of Lynn, Essex Hist, p, 1424, North Andover, 1866, By vote of Andover, Hist, of Essex, p. 1680. Peabody, 1855, By vote of Danvers, Hist, of Essex, p, 613, Rockport, 1840, By vote of Gloucester. Vote filed. Sec. of State's -office. Rowley, 1639, By vote of Newbury. Hist, of Essex, p. 1709, Saugus, 1815, By vote of Lynn, Vote filed. Sec, of State's office, Wenham, 1643, By wish of Salem, Mass. Records, Vol. 2, pp. 44-49. _,ynn, 1782. Voted unanimously to set off Lynnfield. Vote filed. Sec. of State's office. " 1816. Voted unanimously to set off SauguB. Papers in Sec. of States's office. " 1853, Consented to set off Nahant, Hist, of Essex, p. 1424. Andover, 1847, Consented to set off Lawrence. Vote filed, Sec. of State's offlce. *' 1855. Consented to set ofl' North Andover. Hist, of Essex, pp. 1679, 1680. Amesbnry, 1876. Consented to set off Merrimac. Old Hist, of Essex, p. 292, Boxford, 1728. Consented to set off Middleton, Old Hist, of Essex, p, 301, Bradford, 1850, Consented to set off Groveland, Vote filed. Sec, of State's office. Danvers, 1855. Consented to set oft' Peabody. Hist, of Essex, p. 513. Gloucester, 1840. Consented to set off Rockport. Vote filed. Sec. of State's ofiice. Ipswich, 1793. Consented to set off Hamilton, Vote filed, Sec, of State's office. Newbury, 1639, Voted to set off Newbury, Hist, of Essex, p, 1709. Rowley 166S. Consented to set off Bradford. Records of Mass., Vol. 14, Pt. 2, p. 3io. " 1635. Consented to s^-t off Boxford. Records of Mass., Vol. 6, p. 497, '• 1838, Consented to set off Georgetown. Vote filed, Sec, of State's office. Salisbury, 1666, Consented to set off Amesbnry. Old History of Essex, p, 47, Salem, 1643. Con-ented to set off Wenham, Mass. Records, Vol, 2, pp. 44-49. " 1649, Consented to set ofl Marblehead, Mass. Records, Vol, 2, p, 266, " 1668. Consented to set off Beverly. Mass, Records, Vol. 4, Pt, 2, p. 407. " 1752. Consented to set off Danvers. Province Laws, Vol. 3, p. 599. Ebanklin Countt. Conway, 1767. By vote of Deerfield. Hist, of Conn. Valley, p. 676. Gill, 1793, By vote of Greenfield, Hist, of Conn. Valley, p, 765. Greenfield, 1753. By vote of Deerfield. Hist, of Conn. Valley, p. 609. Leverett, 1774. By vote of Sunderland. Hist, of Conn. Valley, p. 736. Leyden, 1784, By vote of Bemardston. Vote filed Sec. of State's office. Orange, 1783. By vote of Warwick. Hist, of Conn. Valley, p. 779. Shelburne, 1768. By vote of Deerfield. Hist, of Conn, Valley, p, 646. Whately, 1771. By vote of Hatfield. Hist, of Conn. Valley, p. 410, Bernardston, 1784, Voted to set off Leyden. Vote filed Sec, of State's offlce. Deerfield, 1753. Voted lo set off Greenfield. Hist, of Conn. Valley, p. 609, " 1767. Voted to set off Conway. Hist, of Conn. Valley, p, 675, " 1768, Voted to set off Shelburne. Hist, of Conn. Valley, p. 646. Greenfield, 1793. Voted to set off Gill. Hist, of Conn. Valley, p. 765. Hatfield, 1771. Voted to set off Whately, Hist, of Conn. Valley, p. 410. Sanderiand, 1774. Voted to set off Leverett, Hist, of Conn, Valley, p, 735. Warwick, 1783. Voted to set off Orange, Hist, of Conn. Valley, p. 779. Hampden County. Hampden, 1878. By petition of Wilbraham. Vote filed Sec. of State's office. HoUand, 1783. By vote Of S. Brimfield. HUt. of Conn. Valley, p. 1068, Longme'adow, 1783. By vote of Springfield. Hist, of Conn. Valley, p. 905. Ludlow, 1774, By vote of Springfield, Hist, of Conn, Valley, p. 906, Westfield, 1669. By vote of Springfield. Hist, of Conn. Valley, p. 944. ' 230 W. Springfield, 1774, By vote of Springfield. Hist, of Conn. Valley, p. 903. Wilbraham, 1763, By vote of Springfield. Stobbins's Wilbraham, p. 214, Springfield, 1669, Voted to set off Westfield, Hist, of Conn, Valley, p. 944. " 1763. Voted to set off Wilbraham,' Stobbins's Wilbraham, p. 214. " 1774. Voted to set off W. Springfield. Hist, of Conn. Valley, p. 903. " 1774. Voted to set off Ludlow. Hist, of Conn. Valley, p. 906. " 1783. Voted to set off Longmeadow. Hist, of Conn. Valley, p. 905. S. Brimfield, 1783. Voted to set off Holland. Hist of Conn. Valley, p. 1068. Wilbraham, 1878. Petitioned to set off Hampden, Petition filed Sec, of State's ofiice. Hampshibe County. Easthampton, 1785. By vote of Northampton. Hist, of Conn. Valley, p. 266. Htintington, 1773. By vote of Murrayfield (Chester), Hist, of Conn, Valley, p, 509. Southampton, 1753. By vote of Northampton, Hist, of Conn. Valley, p. 306. S. Hadley, 1763, By vote of Hadley, Hist, of Conn. Valley, p. 320.- Westhampton, 1778. By unanimous vote of Northampton. Province^ Laws, ^'ol. 5, p. ' Williamsburg, 1771. By vote of Hatfield. Act of Incorporation. Hatfield, 1670. By vote of Hadley. Mass. Records, Vol. 4, Pt. 2, p. 460, Hadley, 1753, Voted to set off S, Hadley. Hist, of Conn. Valley, p, 320, '* 1670, Voted to set ofi* Hatfield, Act of Incorporation, Hatfield, 1771. Voted to set off Williamsburg. Hist, of Conn, Valley, p, 410. Chester, 1773. Voted to set off Huntington. Hist, of Conn. Valley, p. 509. Northampton, 1753. Voted to set off Southampton. Hist, of Conn. Valley, p. 306, " 1778. Voted to set off Westhampton. Province Laws, Vol. 5, p. 989. -' 1786. Voted to set off Easthampton. Hist, of Conn. Valley, p. 266. MiDDi,ESBx County. Acton, 1733. By vote of Concord. Act of Incorporation. -Vrfington, 1807. by vote of Cambridge. Papers in Sec. of State's ofllce. Ashby, 1767. By vote of Fitchburg. Hist, of Middlesex, Vol. 1, p. -221. " 1767. By vote of Townsend. Hist, of Middlesex, Vol. 1, p. 221. Ashland, 1846. By vote of Framingham. Papers filed, Sec. of State's office. " 1846. By vote of Holliston. Papers filed. Sec. of State's offlce. Ayer, 1871. By unanimous vote of Groton. Act of Incorporation. '* 1871. By consent of Shirley. Act of Incorporation. Bedford, 1729, By vote of Concord, Hist, of Middlesex, Vol, 1, p, 242. Billerica, l665. By vote of Cambridge. Hist, of Middlesex, Vol. 1, p. -284. Boxborough, 1783. By vote of Stow. Vote filed. Sec. of State's office. Brighton, 1807. By vote of Cambridge. Papers filed. Sec. of State's office. Carlisle, 1780. By vote of Billerica, Prov, Laws, Vol, 5, p. 1357. " 17*10. By vote of Concord, Prov, Laws, Vol, 6, p, 13S0. Harvard, 1732. By vote of Groton . Hist, of ©roton, pp. 61, 62. Holliston, 1724. By vote of Sherborn. Hist.of Middlesex, Vol. 1, p. 470. Lexington, 1712. By vote of Cambridge. Hist, of Lexington, p. 66. Lowell, 1826. By .vote of Chelmsford. Vote filed. Sec. of State's offlce. Maiden, 1649. By vote of Charlestown. Hist, of Middlesex, Vol. 2, p. IIS. Melrose, 1850. i By vote of Maiden. Vote filed, Sec. of State's offlce, Natick, 1679, By vote of Dedham, Barry's Hist, of Mass, Newton, 1691. By vote of Cambridge. Smith's Hist, of Newton, p. 76. North Reading, 1853, By vote of Reading, Vote filed, Sec. of State's ofiice. Pepperell, 1763. By vote of Groton. Hist, of Groton, p. 64. Shirley, 1753. By vote of Groton. Hist, of Middlesex, Vol, 2, p, 298, Somerville, 1842, By vote of Charlestown, Vote filed, Sec. of State's offlce. Stoneham, 1725. By vote of Charlestown. Act of Incorporation. Tewksbury, 1784. By vote of Billerica. Hist, of Billerica. Tyngsborough, 1789. By vote of Dunstable. Vote filed, Sec, of State's office. Waltham, 1737. By vote of Watertown, Act of Incorporation. Weston, 1712. By vote of Watertown. Hist, of Middlesex, Vol, 2, p, 491. Winchester, 1850, By vote of Woburn, Hist, of Middlesex, Vol, 2, p. 513, Woburn, 1642, By vote of Charlestown, Billerica, 1734, Voted to sot off Tewksbury. Hist, of Billerica, " 1780, Voted to set off Carlisle. Prov, Laws, Vol. p. 1357. 231 Cambridge, 1656, Voted to set off BUlcrica, Hist, ot Middlesex, Vol. 1, p. 284. 1691. Voted to set off Newton. Smith's Hist, of Newton, p, 76. " 1712, Voted to set off Lexington. Hist, of Lexington, p, 66. " 1786. Voted to sel off Carlisle. Prov. Laws, Vol. 5, 1868. 1807. Voted to set off Arlington, Vote filed. Sec, of State'i offlce. " 1807, Voted-to set off Brighton. Vote filed. Sec. of State's offlce, Charlestown, 1642, Voted to set off Woburn. " 1649. Voted to set off Maiden, Hist, of Middlesex, Vol. 2, p. IIS. " 1725, Voted to set off Stoneham, Hist, of Middlesex, Vol. 2, p. 342. " 1842. Voted to set off Somerville. Vote filed. Sec. of State's office. Chelmsford, 1826. Voted to set oft' Lowell. Vote filed. Sec. of State's offlce. Concord, 1679. Voted to set off Natick, Barry's Hist, of Massachusetts. " 1729, Voted to set oft' Bedford, Hist, of Middlesex, Vol. 1, p, 242. " 1738. Voted to set off Acton. Hist, of Middlesex, Vol. 1, p. 197, " 1780, Voted to set off Carlisle, Prov. Laws, Vol, 5, p, 1369. nunstabie, 1735, Voted to set off Litchfield, N. H, Prov. Laws, Vol, 2, p, 720. " 1789, Voted to set off Tyngsborough, Vote filed. Sec. of Slate's office. Fitchburg, 1767. Voted to set off Ashby. Hist, of Middlesex, Vol. 1, p. 2'21, Framingham, 1846, Voted to set off Ashland, Vote filed. Sec. of State's ofllce. Groton, 1732. Voted to set off Harvard, Hist, of Groton, pp. 61, 62. " 1763. Voted to set off Shirley. Hist, of Middlesex, Vol. 2, p. 298. " 1763. Voted to set off Pepperell. Hist, of Groton, p. 64. •* 1871. Voted unanimout-ly to set off Ayer, Hist, of Middlesex, Vol. 1, p. 23S. Holliston, 1846, Voted unanimously to set off Ashland, Vote filed. Sec, of State's office. Maiden, 1850. Voted unanimously to set off Melrose. Vote tiled. Sec. of State's offlce. » Marlborough, 1717, Voted unanimously to set off Westborough, Old Hist, of Worcester, 2, p. '28.5. " 1727. Petitioned to set oft' Southborough, Hist, of Worcester, p. 569. " 1784. Voted to set ofl Berlin. Vote filed, Sec. of State's offlce. Reading, 1853. Voted to set off North Reading. Vote tiled. Sec. of State's office. Sherborn, 1724. Voted to set off Holliston. Hist, of Middlesex, Vol. 1, p. 470. Shiriey, 1871. Voted to set off Ayer. Hist, of Middlesex, Vol. 1, p. 238. Stow, 1783. Voted to set off Boxborough. Vote filed, Sec. of State's office. Townsend, 1767. Voted to set off Ashby. Hist, of Middlesex, Vol. 1, p, 221. Watertown, 1712. Voted to set off Waltham. Hist, of Middlesex, Vol. 2, p, 491. ¦' 1737. Voted to set off Weston. Hist, of Middlesex, Vol. 2, p, 410, Woburn, 1850, Voted to set off Winchester. Hiat. of Middlesex, Vol, 2, p. rii:j. NoEFOLK County. Avon, 1888, By vote of Stoughton, Letter from Town Clerk, Braintree, 1640, By vote of Boston. Mass. Records, Vol, 1, p, 291, Fraiiklin, 1778, By vote of Wrentham. Province Laws, Vol. 5, p. 845, Canton, 1797. By vote of Stoughton. Papers filed Sec. of State's office, Milton, 1662, By vote of Dorchester. Act of Incorporation. Walpoie, 1724. By vote of Dedham. Act of Incorporation, Medfield, 1651, By vote of Dedham, Hist, of Norfolk, p, 43. Needham, 1711, By vote of Dedham, Hist, of Norfolk, p, 47, Norwood, 1872, By vote of Dedhem. Hist, of Norfolk, p. 88. Randolph, 1793. By vote of Braintree, Vote filed Bee, of State's oflici-. Sharon, 1765. By vote of Stoughton. Province Laws, Vol, 6, p, 1447. ^ Stoughton, 1726. By vote of Dorchester, Hist, of Dorchester, p. 293. Wrentham, 1873. By vote of Dedham. Mass. Records, 4, Pt. 2, p. 569. Braintree, 1793. Voted to set off Randolph. Vote filed in Sec. of State's ofllce. Dedham, 1651. Voted to set off Medfield. Hist, of Norfolk, p. 43. " 1673. Voted to set off Wrentham. Hist, of No? folk, pp. 43 and 830. " 1711. Voted to set off Needham, Hist, of Norfolk, p, 47. " 1724. Voted to set off Walpoie. Act of Incorporation. " 1872. Voted to set off Norwo.od. Hist, of Norfolk, p. 88. Dorchester, 1662. Voted to set off Milton. Mass, Records, Vol. 4, Pt. 2, p. 60. " 1726. Voted to set off Stoughton. History of Dorchester. 8toughton, 1797. Voted to set off Canton. Papers filed. Sec. ot State's offici-. " 1766. Voted to set off Sharon. Province Laws, Vol. 6, p. 1447. " 1888. Voted to set off Avon, Letter from Town Clerk, Wrentham, 177S, Voted to set oft'Franklin. Province Laws, Vol, 5, p. 845. 252 Plymouth OouwTy. Brockton, 1821. By vote of Bridgewater. Vote filed in Sec, of State's office. Carver, 1790. By vote of Plympton. Vote filed in Bee. of State's offlce. E. Bridgewater, 1823, By vote of Bridgewater. Vote filed in Bee. of State's ofllce, Hanson, 1820, By vote of Pemljroke. Hist, of Plymouth, p. 236, Marion, 1852, By vote of Rochester, Vote filed ih Sec, of State's office. Mattapoisett, 1857, By vote of Rochester. Vote filed in Sec, of State's office. Norwell, 1849. By vote of Scituate. Vote filed in Sec. of State's offlce. Pembroke, 1711, By vote of Marshfield. Hist, of Plymouth, p. 236. " 1711. By vote of Duxbury. Act of Incorporation. Plympton, 1707, By vote of Plymouth, ' Hist, of Plymouth, p. 1106. Wareham, 1739. By vote of Rochester. Act of Incorporafion, " 1739, By vote of Plymouth. Act of Incorporatioii. W, Bridgewater, 1822, By vote of Bridgewater, Vote filed in Sec. of State's oflice. Bridgewater, 1821. Voted not to oppose Brockton. Vote filed in Sec. of State's office: " 1822. Voted not to oppose W. Bridgewate*. Vote filed in Sec. of State's office. " 1823. Voted not to oppose E. Bridgewater. Vote filed in Sec. of State's office. Duxbury, 1711. Voted to set off Pembroke. Act of Incorporation. Marshfield, 1711. Voted to set off Pembroke, Hist, of Plymouth, p, 236. Pembroke, 1820, Voted to set off Hanson. Hist, of Plymouth, p. 236. Plymouth, 1707. Voted to set ofl Plympton. Hist, of Plymouth, p, 1106, " 1739, Voted to set off Wareham. Hist, of Plymouth, p. 195, Plympton, 1790. Voted to set off Carver, Vote filed in See. of State's offlce. Rochester, 1867. Voted to set off Mattapoisett. Vote filed in Sec, of State's office. " 1739, Voted to set off 'Wareham, History, of Plymouth, p, 196. " 1862. Voted to set oft' Marion. Vote filed in Seb, oii Slate's offlce, Scituate, 1849. Petitioned to set off Norwell, Vote filed in Bee, of State's oflice. Suffolk County. Revere, 1846. With consent of Selectmen. Report of Com,, House, 35, 1846. Boston, 1640. Voted to set off Braintree. Mass. Records, Vol, 1, p, 291, Chelsea, 1846. Consented to set off Revere. House Document 35, 1846, AYoKoEsTEE County. Barre, 1753, By vote of Rutland, Old Hist, of Worcester, Vol. 1, p. 2-'>4. Berlin, 1784. By vote of Bolton. Vote filed. Sec. of State's offlce. " 1784. By vote of Marlborough. Vote tiled, Sec, of State's offlce. Blackstone, 1846, By vote of Mendon. New Hist, of Worcester, p. 613. ' Bolton, 1738. By vote of Lancaster. Old Hist, of Worcester, Vol. I, p. 301. Boylston, 1786. By vote of Shrewsbury. Vote filed. Sec, of State's offlce, Charlton, 1764, By vote of Oxford, Old Hist, of Worcester, Vol. 1, p. 378. Clinton, 1850, By vote of Lancaster, New History of Worcester, p, 57. Dana, 1801. By vote of Greenwich. Vote filed. Sec. of State's office. " 1801. By vole of Petersham. Vote filed, Sec, of State's office. " 1801. BV vote of Ashbnrnham. Vote filed, Bee. of State's office. Gardner, 1786. By vote of Templeton. Vote filed. Sec. of Stale's offlce. " 1785. By vote of Westminster. Vote filed, Sec. of Slate's offlce. " 1785. ^ By vote of Winchcndon, Vote filed. Sec, of State's office. Harvard, 1732. By vote of Groton. Hist, of Groton, pp, 61, 62. Holden, 1740. By vote ef Worcester. Act of Incorporation. Leomin8ter,'1740. By vote of Lancaster. Act of Incorporation. Fitchburg, 1764. By vote of Lunenburg. Lewis's Hist, of Worcester, p. 21-2. Milford, 1780. By vote of Mendon, Lewis's Hist, of Worcester, p, 1-263. Southborough, 172T. By petition of Marlborough, New Hist, of Worcester, p. 569, Southbridge, 1816. By vote of Sturbridge. Vote filed. Sec. of State's oflice. ' Spencer, 1753. By petition of Leicester. Hist of Worcester, p. 633. SterUng, 1781. By petition of Lancaster, Old Hist, of Worcester, Vol, 2, p. 344. Uxbridge, 1727, By unanimous vote of Mendon, Old Hist, of Worcester,' Vol, 2, p. 421. Westborough, 1717. By vote of Muriboroueh. Old Hist, of Worcester, Vol. 2, 481. 233 West Boylston, 1808, By vote of Boylston. Vote filed. Sec, of State's offlce. " 1808, By vote of Holden, Vote filed. Sec, of State's office, " 1808, By vote of SterUng, Vote filed. Sec, of State's offlce. West Brookfield, 1848. By vote of Brookeld. Vote filed, Sec. of State's offlce. Ashbumham, 1785. Voted to set off Gardner, Vote filed. Sec. of State's offlce, Athol, 1786, Voted to set off Phillipston, Vote filed. Sec, of State's offlce. Bolton, 1784, Voted to set oft" Berlin. Vote filed. Sec. of State's offlce. Boylston, 1808, Voted to set off West Boylston. Vote filed. Sec. of State's offlce. Brookfield, 1848. Petitioned to set off West Brookfield, Vote filed, Sec, of State's office. Greenwich, 1801. Voted to set off Dana, Vote filed, Sec, of State's offlce, Holden, 1808, Voted to set off West Boylston, Vote filed. Sec, of State's office, Lancaster, 1740, Voted to set off Leominster. Act of Incorporation. " 1738. Voted to set off Bolton. Old Hist, of Worcester, Vol. 1, p. 301. " 1781. Voted to set off SterUng. Old Hist, of Worcester, Vol. 2, p, 344, " 1850, Voted to set off CUnton. Old Hist, of Worcester, Vol, 1, p. 388. Leicester, 1763. Voted to set off Spencer. Old Hist, of Worcester, Vol, 2, p. 314, " 1766. Voted to set off Paxton. Old Hist, of Worcester, Vol, 2, p, 189. Lnnenhurg, 1764. Voted to set off Fitchburg. Old Hist, of Worcester, Vol. 1, p, 449. Mendon, 1727, Voted unanimouslj- to set Uxbridge, Old Hist, of Worcester, Vol. 2, p. 421. " 1780. Voted to set off Milford. Old Hist, of Worcester, Vol. 2, p. 65, " 1846, Voted to set off Blackstone. Hist, of Mendon, p, 586, Oxford, 1754, Voted to set off Charlton Old Hist, of Worcester, Vol, 1, p. 373. Petersham, 1801. Voted to set off Dana. Vote ffled. Sec, of State's offlce, Rutland, 1753. Voted to set off Barre, Old Hist, of Worcester, Vol, 1, p, 264. Shrewsbury, 1786, Voted to set off Boylston. Vote filed. Sec, of State's offlce, SterUng, 1808. Voted to set off West Boylston, Papers in Sec, of State's office, Sturbridge, 1816, Voted to set off Southbridge, Vote ffled. Sec, of State's offlce, Templeton, 1786, Voted to set off Gardner, Vote filed, See, of State's offlce. " 1786. Voted to set off PhiUipston. Vote filed. Bee. of State's offlce. Uxbridge, 1772, Voted to set off Northbridge. New Hist, of Worcester, p, 428. Westborough, 1766, Voted to set off Northborough, New Hist, of Worcester, p, 464. Westminster, 1785. Voted to set off Gardner. Vote filed Sec. of State's office. ¦Wlnchendon, 1785. Voted to set off Gardner. Voto filed Sec. of State's office, Worcester, 1740. Voted to set off Holden, Act of Incorporation. APPENDIX A. THE PRIDE'S CROSSING POST-OFFICE. Explanation Gi'hsn to Senator George F. Hoar of its , Discontinuance. ¦ Post Office Department, Office of the First Assistant Postmaster-General, Washington, D. C, • Supt. Free Delivery System, Feb. 4, 1889.' Senator, — I have the honor to inform you that the post-offlce at Pride's Crossing was discontinued, to take effect at the commencement of the free- delivery system at Beverly, as recommended by Post-oflBce Inspector Arringlon. That portion of his report relating to the discontinuance of that post-offlce is as follows: " As to the advisability of discontinuing the offlces now known as North Beverly]and Pride's Crossing, in the event that the service is established, I would recommend that they both be discon- tinued,and my reasons for such recommendations are as follows: North Beverly is just about two miles frora Beverly, and there is a good street all the way, nicely built up. A large number of the people living at North Beverly now have boxes rented in the Beverly offlce, and receive all their mail at the latter offlce. I called upon the postmaster, who very frankly told me that while it would be depriving him of the revenue of the offlce, and he would hate it on that account, he was satisfled "the people living around there would like it, and that it would be beneficial to them to have it. The North Beverly offlce did business during the past year amounting to $201.86. " Pride's Crossing is about the same distance, two miles, from Beverly, and sixth tenths of a mile from the post-office at Beverly Farms. " This offlce (Pride's Crossing) has been established only about two years; there is a good street built up, with elegant summer residences between Beverly and Pride's Crossing. "Among others who spend their summers out there are the British and Turkish ministers. Nearly all of the mail comes to Beverly, and the citizens living out there employ a regular carrier who delivers their mail to them twice a day, and they are very anxious that the service be established. I called to see the postmaster at Pride's Crossing, and he is much opposed to the discontinuance of his offlce. " It is situated in a small room in which the postmaster sells ale and soda, and in the next room he has billiard tables; not a very nice place for an offlce. " He has failed to keep duplicate records ofthe business of his office, and I could not get the exact amount of business done for the past year. I found for the second quarter, 1887, the receipts were $205.05; for the fourth 236 [uarter, 1887, were $88.52; for the flrst quarter, 1888, they were $14.80,_and 'or the second quarter, 1888, they were $106.90; so that the only two [uarters that can he legitimately compared are the second quarters of 1887 md 1888,. and this shows a decrease of $98.15. " I asked the postmaster to explain this, and he said he could not, except tom the fact that there were more people there last summer than this. I bund this was not the case, as every house, that can be, is occupied this 'ear, when last year soiiie were vacant. Some of the people living out there vho do not have their mail delivered by this special carrier have boxes in he Beverly office. In my opinion, there never was any necessity for the istablishing of this office, Beverly two miles ou the one side and Beverly Tarms six tenths of a mile on the other." 'I deem it proper to state that the Pride's Crossing post-office was re- istablished Jan. 12, 1889, with Fred W. Trowt as postmaster. Very^ respectfully, J. F. BATES, Supt. Free-delivery System. Hon. George F. Hoar, U. S- Senator, Washington, D. C. APPENDIX B. LETTERS FEOM SUMMER RESIDENTS ABOUT WATER. MR. AUGUSTUS P. LORING URGES WATER FOR WOODLAND LOTS, TO INCREASE THEIR VALUE. 11 Pemberton Square, Boston, Mass., Nov. 30, 1882. To THE Hon. John I. Baker, Chairman of the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Beverly: Dear Sir,— As I have charge of the laying out of the Pride's Mountain estate, at Beverly Farms, being about sixty acres of land near Pride's Crossing suitable for building lots, I wish to ascertain whether the town is willing to lay a water main up on to said lands, if the owners thereof will pay the expense of the necessary excavation and filling. . I think it would he advantageous to the town,, as was the case on the Paine place, as the convenience in the water supply tends to render the occupation of the land rapid, and thus largely increase its taxable value. I have the honor to be, dear sir, yours truly, (Signed) AUGUSTUS P. LORING. MR, CHAS. H. DALTON CAN GET NO WATER. URGES HIGH SERVICE. Beverly Farms, July 15, 1885. To THE Board of Selectmen of Beverly: Sirs, — The water service at my house has been steadily growing worse for several years, until now it is very nearly a. failure. During a portion of nearly every day no water can be drawn from the pipes, and the household can only draw from the cistern in attic. This small service has at times been exhausted, and the household and stable been supplied from my old well. Here, now, is a chronic difficulty — annually growing worse, concerning which I have heretofore several times addressed your Board, but without results. . . . The remedy to this unsatisfactory condition is, of course, perfectly well understood. I hold that it is the duty of your Board to proceed without unnecessary delay in the construction of high-service works. I shall be glad at any time to appear before your Board to testify to the bad water service at present existing, should such evidence be required, thouo-h I believe the facts are too notorious to call for special statements. Respectfully your obt. servt. , (Signed) C. H. DALTON. 238 MR. CHARLES H. DALTON WANTS TO STOP HIS NEIGHBORS' FREE USE OF WATER, AND PERHAPS THE STREET WATERING, SO THEY MAY REALIZE THE NEED OF HIGH SERVICE. Beverly Farms, July 22, 1885. To THE Hon. John I. Baker, Chairman Board of Selectmen: Bear Sir, — I beg to suggest that all use of hose for watering lawns and gardens be absolutely forbidden while the present scarcity of water for household purposes continues. This course on your part will measurable relieve the existing dangerous conditions, and perhaps prevent serious acci dents to range boilers. Such action would bring home to a large number of householders in the lower level the necessity for providing high service, which they may not fully appreciate if they enjoy uninterrupted supply of water while others on the high level are almost entirely cut offi Perhaps it may be found also necessary to stop road watering, but I would advise trying the flrst expedi ent to start with. I could get no water through the pipes yesterday till late in the evening, and the tank was so nearly drawn down that I had to order the servants to use none, in order that the boiler should be kept full. During the night the tank filled again, but this morning — 8 o'clock, no water is coming through the pipes. Respectfully, C. H. DALTON. MR. CHARLES STORROW CALLS FOR BETTER SERVICE AND AN INDEPENDENT SUPPLY. Boston, July 23, 1885. To the Honorable Board of Selectmen of Beverly: Gentlemen, — I beg to refer to my recent communication as to lack of water at houses on the high lands, and to state that within the past week the same trouble has been more serious; on some days there has been no water even in the basement nor even at the stable, so that I have to send my horses to the street trough, at junction of Hale and Hart Streets, to be watered. To pay water rates and to practically be deprived of water facilities is a condi tion of things which surely should be rectified. I can well understand that if I build upon land too high for your water service, I cannot complain if water does not reach me; but such is not my case, nor that of many ofthe others now suffering for water. When I built, water would flow readily all over my house; but now, when consumers have increased without the town increasing its water capacity to an adequate degree, the earlier consumers are practically deprived of their rights, that later consumers may be supplied. 239 It his high time that the pumping power be called on to do its utmost t correct this, and in ample season the town should take independent means if beed be, to supply its high service. Very respectfully, (Signed) CHARLES STORROW. MR. STORROW ASKS TO HAVE THE RESIDENTS ON THE HIGHLANDS SATISFIED. Boston, June 29, 1885. To THE Board or Selectmen of Beverly: Gentlemen, — I beg to advise you that for the past two weeks the water service at my house, in common with others situated on high land, has been very deflcient. Many days little, if any, water can be had during daylight; generally it comes again by 8 p. m., but one night not till abotit 11 p. m. It seems to me high time that some action should be taken to- secure the service which, I am informed, can be had from the lake if proper pumping is resorted to, and I beg to urge upon your honorable body that you will take steps to satisfy the reasonable demands of residents of the high lands, like myself. Very respectfully, (Signed) CHARLES STORROW. MR. SCULL COMPLAINS. Boston, July 22, 1885. To THE Selectmen of the Town of Beverly, Mass.: Bear Sirs, — I occupy one of Charles Storrow's houses at Beverly Farms, Mass., and have done so for a long time. I have suffered a great deal from want of water for several days, and this morning, as early as 7.30 A. m. , there was not a drop to be had on the premises, neither in the house nor in the stable. At the same time, when I drive out I notice the sprinklers in opera tion on many lawns, and my neighbors apparently enjoying a lavish abundance. I commend myself to your sense of justice to remedy this evil. Yours truly, (Signed) GIDEON SCULL. MR. HENRY P. KIDDER WOULD LIKE HIGH SERVICE. Boston, July 28, 1885. To THE Selectmen Town of Beverly: Gentlemen, — As I am building a house at Pride's Crossing, and learn there is trouble in securing sufficient water on high land, wish to say I shall be very glad, if arrangements are made for a high service, to have my house included. I do not know the precise height my tank will be from tide-water, but think it will be seventy or eighty feet. If at any time it will be necessary to depend upon the high service, now will be the most convenient time to arrange for it. Yours very respectfully, (Signed) H. P. KIDDER. 240 MR. SIDNEY BARTLETT ASKS FOR BETTER SERVICE. Beverly Farms, July 20, 1885. Gentlemen, — There is a want of constant supply of water at my house, which, during the four months when only I use it, ought to be remedied, or the rates abated. Ifit be in the power of the town to prevent this, I hope it may be done promptly. Respectfully, (Signed) S. BARTLETT. To fhe Selectmen of Beverly. MR. FRANCIS BARTLETT FINDS ABSENCE OF WATER DANGEROUS TO HIS RANGE, ETC. Boston, July 20, 1885. To THE Selectmen of the Town of Beverly : Gentlemen, — I desire to call your attention to the fact that the supply of water at my house near Pride's Crossing is becoming more and more uncer tain. Until lately there has generally been, during the early hours of the morning, enough water flow in to make the use of the range safe, but of late in some instances the supply has ceased at 7.30 a. m. Very truly yours, (Signed) FRANCIS BARTLETT. GEN. PEIRSON FEARS HIS HOUSE WILL BE UNTENABLE, WITHOUT BETTER WATER FACILITIES^ Beverly Farms, June 29, 1885. Gentlemen, — I beg to call your attention to /the fact that it is becoming difficult to get water at my place near Pride's Crossing. At certain times of the day water does not run even to my stable, which is some distance below the house, and I fear that my house may become untenable in conse quence, unless something is done to limit the use of water by other takers, or some new provisions made for the benefit of the houses on the upper level. Yours very respectfully, (Signed) CHARLES L. PEIRSON. To the Selectmen ofthe Town of Beverly. MR. J. ELIOT CABOT URGES THAT IT IS FOR THE INTER EST OF THE TOWN TO ENCOURAGE THE BUILDING UP OF THE HIGHER PARTS BY FURNISHING WATER. To THE Selectmen of the Town of Beverly: Gentlemen, — ! have heard with much interest of a project for high service ofthe water-works. My house being situated above the common level,, the 241 supply to the upper parts of it is intermittent, and sometimes fails altogether for all parts of the house. And this seems to happen more frequently than it used to do, putting one in some alarm lest with the natural increase in the number of houses supplied, my supply should become unreliable, and practically of little value. It seems to me that not only equal justice to all water-takers, but also the direct interest of the town in encouraging the building up of the higher parts requires that everybody should be assured' his money's worth for the rates he pays. The value of the land at this end of tlie town has been steadily and vastly increasing, so that we pay a considerable share of the taxes, but it is now threatened, in the higher parts, with the loss of a valuable privilege which property owners here will feel severely, not only as a loss but as an injustice to them. I hope, therefore, that your honorable body will forward by all proper means the establishment of a water service at a level that will assure equal privilege to all. Your most obedient servant, (Signed) J. ELLIOT CABOT. MR. LOTHROP DEMANDS RELIEF. Beverly Farms, Mass., Saturday, July 18, 1885. To THE Selectmen or the Town of Beverly: Gentlemen, — I have long since ceased to expect an adequate supply of water at my house; but to-day the failure has been so great that I think I should notify you. A high service would entirely remedy this difflculty, and I respectfully submit to you that we are entitled to that relief. If we are taxed for the water debt, and pay heavy water rates, we should certainly have water. Respectfully yours, (Signed) THORNTON K. LOTHROP. MR. FRANK MORISON ASKS FOR SOME REMEDY. Boston, July 22, 1885. Hon. John I. Baker, Chairman of Board of Selectmen of Beverly: -Bear Sir, ^ This morning at seven and until 1 left the house at eight we were deprived of water. None would flow in the second story, and the water-closet tanks and bath-rooms were useless. During a small part of this time the water flowed feebly in the kitchen. Mr. Scull, on Storrow's Hill, had the same experience, while at the house occupied by Mr. Burnham, on the same hill, no trouble was experienced. 242 My house is higher than this last, but I did not suppose Mr. Scull's was higher. The water service has never been nearly so bad at my house as during the past week. I do not think the tank in my third story receives any water in the daytime at all. It fills at night, and we have to fill the baths at night for use in the morning. Thanking you for your personal attention to the matter yesterday, I write of this additional trouble, hoping that the selectmen may flnd some way to remedy it. Yours respectfully, (Signed) 'F. MORISON. MR. F, W, PALFREY RENEWS HIS INQUIRIES. 255 Beacon Street, Boston, May 30, 1885. John I. Baker, Esq,: Dear Sir, — Is there any chance of a stand-pipe, or high service, or any thing of the kind at Beverly Farms, West District, this year? An early reply will oblige me very tnuch, as my supply was constantly failing me last year, and sometimes for days at a time. Yours truly, (Signed) F, W. PALFREY. Beverly Farms, Mass., June 12, 1885, John I, Baker, Esq, : Dear Sir, — I wrote you a letter of inquiry about a fortnight ago, to which an answer was important to me. As I have not heard from you, I infer that my letter failed to reach you, and I therefore repeat my inquiry, which was twofold, viz,: — • 1, Does Beverly propose to erect a stand-pipe or establish a high service, of a character to supply residents on high ground, like me, with a constant supply of water? 2. If so, how soon may it be expected to be in operation? There were weeks and weeks last year when I had to depend on a force- pump for a supply. Yours truly, (Signed) FRANCIS W. PALFREY. As my house was built when the head was ample, there is much of my plumbing which depends on head, and is not aided by a force-pump. If the head falls this year as it did last, all the people whose sites range from twenty-five to forty feet lower than mine Will be short of water. Last season there were many hours when it only reached tny underground cistern. 243 MR. F. W. PALFREY FEARS THAT HE MUST PUT IN A POWER-PUMP, AT GREAT EXPENSE. Beverly Farms, Sept. 18. Gentlemen, — The water supply at my house the last ten days has been scantier than I ever knew it, except in case of a break in the pipes. It often does not rise to my first floor, and practically never flows into my tank on second floor. If this is not owing to any cause other than drought, I must proceed to put in some power-pump. Before going to this large expense, I should like to hear from you whether the Water Board is going to do anything to help me and other occupants of high land. As the head here is now fifteen or twenty feet below my needs, you can see that a slight further drop will leave a large number of occupants of high high land without water. Yours respectfully, (Signed) FRANCIS W. PALFREY. MR. GEORGE DEXTER WRITES THAT THE HIGHLANDS WILL NOT BE DEVELOPED UNTIL CERTAIN OF WATER- Beverly, July 2i. The Selectmen of the Town of Beverly : Dear Sirs, — Until about a week ago I got water at the house I am build ing on Common Lane. Now it does not rise within ten to fifteen feet of it, causing inconvenience and expense. Will you be good enough to see that the same service is given me that I found earlier in the summer, and a higher one, which will do away with the necessity of pumping, as soon as practicable? The high lanils back from the sea will not be developed until there is a certainty that they will get a supply of water during the summer, and there are now enough residents suffering for want of proper service to ma^e a stand-pipe or reservoir, to supply this need, a necessity. The comfort of an unfailing water supply has materially helped to de velop your shores, and will do much to open up the back lauds, and I trust I shaU soon hear that steps have been taken to secure a high service. I remain, yours very truly,, (Signed) GEOBGE DEXTER. CLOSING ARGUMENT FOR THE TOWN OP BEVERLY AGAINST THE DIVISION OP THE TOWN. BY HOJS^ GEORGE D. ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, — Few questions that you will have to consider is the present session of the Legislature will be of more conse quence to the parties directly interested and to the Commonwealth at large than the subject which is now under your immediate consideration. When a demand is made that old ties be sundered, or when a petition is presented that a new government be anywhere established, or when it is demanded that some widely variant policy from that heretofore obtaining shall be established, it behooves us all to stop on the threshold and consider carefully. To you this is a new question. Though you may have served in legislative halls before, you have not had this question presented to you for consideration. You are to come here, I take it, and you will do so, in a patient, intelligent, and candid spirit, dismissing for the time being any sort of intimations or impressions that you may have received in regard to the one side or the other, and sit down here like good, square, honest men, and give your decision accordingly. If we are ever to be swung away from that safe ground, if decisions are to be made up beforehand, and they are to be registered as decrees according to the interest of the one party or the other, then we might as well close the State House and dispense with committees. In the discussion of a question so far reaching, so wide as this, it will be impossible for nie, in the short space of time which it seems to me that I ought to take, to touch upon more than a very small portion of the items of interest. Let me say at once that it will be my endeavor to discuss those matters that seem to me most material ; and I promise that whatever I omit which my learned brother may take up will be an unintentional drop on my part, and not done by design, and I should be very glad to stay with him a week, if your patience would hold out, and discuss everything that there is in this case, not fearing the results. 246 WHY DO THE PETITIONERS PRESENT NO CASE? To those of us who, like himself, have seen these hearings for more than the present 3'ear, the change of attitude and the method of pro cedure are striking facts. The petitioners come in here now, and present no case ; that is to say, practically none. They say, " We -will put on a couple of witnesses, and we will say that is our case. A great deal of testimony has been given in former years, from 1886 down, but we will not present much testimony to you now." Why ? Do we ever try cases that way in court? Do we ever present to the courts, for their consideration, matters in that form? I assume not. And why? Is it because my learned friend, the counsel for the petitioners, thinks that you have already made lip your minds in his favor, and he knows it in advance ? That is too absurd and unjust for even a moment's tolera tion or consideration ; that would be an imputation upon your intelli gence and your honesty ; it would be an impeachment of the justice and fairness of the presiding oflScers of the two branches of the G-eneral Court. That cannot be the reason. NO WITNESSES FOR CROSS EXAMINATION. Is it because he hesitates to present his witnesses because he knows, from his experience in the past, that they would have to submit to cross examination, and that every one of them that has been presented here in former years has proved, upon cross examination, directly the con trary proposition of what the petitioners sought to establish ? In fact, the justice of the remonstrants' case in this matter has been brought out every year by the testimony given on cross examination by the petitioners' own witnesses. My learned friend will not say that, but it is really a confession of the weakness of his case that he should fail to produce those witnesses here this J'ear. He knows that you cannot read the evidence in this case, for it is impossible. You have heard what few witnesses have been brought here by fhe petitioners, but what do you know about the petitioners' case? Where is il? In books — a stack of printed statistics, volumes of material which, it is said, that you may read, and which, gentlemen, I know, considering the multiplicity and variety of your duties, you can never find time to read. Much of it is not in print. The testimony of last year is in stenographers' notes, of which, perhaps, there is not a com plete copy to be had ; and if there is, you cannot all have it. It is out of the question. 247 And so you are asked to take this case on the opening of counsel, thrown at you in that waj-, and submit to appeals and misrepresentations that are made by deeply interested parties on the one side or on the other, and go into the General Court and tell your fellow-members what ought to be done. Now I say at once, and at the outset, that, in a hear ing conducted as this has been, you are justified in saying that they have not made out a case. It is for them to make a case. You will see when the petitioners' counsel makes his argument he will have nothing to saly except repetitions of what he claimed two or three years ago, and he will answer my arguments of 1888 and 1889, and not the one I give to-day. WHO TlRES THE PEOPLE? WHOSE FAULT IS IT? I know that the argument will be made that " the people are tire'd of this. It is about time to dispose of it, because everybody has got tired of hearing of Beverlj- Farms." Well, who tires the people? Who tires the General Court? Is it the Town of Beverly that desires to remain intact? Or does this annoyance come from those who could let it alone ? Let it not be an argument in favor of division that the men who seek it come here and annoy people. They will come again, it is said. Do you do wrong because somebodj- will come again and ask you another year to divide the town? Are there not stock and annual questions coming into this Legislature every year to be settled ? and has it not been so ever since we were born, and years before we were born, and they get a negative every time? I dare not mention any of them for fear that I shall tread on some of your preferences or prejudices. But just think of the things that have been marched up the hill and marched down again, and again they come in solid phalanx once more, again to be driven feack. This vibration goes on from year to year, and nobody thinks that bectiuse those petitions are being repeated their requests should be granted, ' WHICH POLITICAL PARTY IS READY TO TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF BEyERLY FARMS? Get it out of politics, gentlemen ! Think of it ! Will you tell me which of the two prominent parties in this State would take this little child to its bosom and take care of it ? Are you a Republican, or are you a Democrat, that you want it in your party platform ? Will you tell me where the party is that says we will take Beverly Farms to our bosom and make the question of its division a plank in our party platform ? Do any of the political parties want to get it into their 248 party platform, and keep hold of it? Show me the party that does. Talk, yourselves, with your own parties (and I assume that you belong to different ones), just inquire around, and see whethtr those who belong to your own party are hankering after the adoption of any such child as this ; see whether your party is in favor of taking this matter up and deciding it as a matter of political expediency for that party. The party that does it this winter as a party, whether it succeeds or not, will not, I think, put into its platform next fall any such declara tion as that. THE WAY TO GET IT OUT OF POLITICS. The best way to get it out of politics is to turn it away, irrespective of politics, on the merits. " Good men ask for this thing." Well, ten times as many good men say, " Don't give it to us. Don't force it upon us." A GOOD TIME FOR A COMMISSION. Now, recognizing all these differences, the petitioners come in a new attitude this year, practically new, in the committee-room, and they- say, "Here! we have had a good deal of trouble about this. It takes up a great deal of time to carry on these hearings : let us sit down and see if we cannot settle this Whole matter, and not annoy the Legislature) or a committee of the Legislature, any more ; let us take the whole matter and refer it o'Jt to a commission to determine the line, the debts, and so on." But the remonstrants say No, because that approves divis ion, that means divide the town, and then get a commission and draw the lines, and fix the details. Now, you see at once that no such proposition as that can be accepted on its merits. My friend will allude to the fact that in the Legislature propositions have been made to divide by the Plum Cove line, and the matter was discussed before committees and debated in the House. But the town of Beverly never has asked for any division ; it has not asked to have aiiy lines drawn, but it has always opposed any such scheme, whenever and wherever any one has attempted to draw a line. She resists it absolutely ; let that be under stood at the outset. She wants none of her territory taken away from her, none of her people set off by themselves. It would be a good time to .have a commission now, gentlemen. It would call for a new valuation, wouldn't it? Three commissioners to be appointed, and a new valuation to be made. They are going to make it. They are going to flnd out whether a line that is proposed is right or not. Do you know? Can they know, and you not know? Suppose three men are found, and are appointed commissioners : are 249 they going to determine this question of valuation so that the General Court and the people will say, " That flnding is conclusive ; that finding is just " ? You see it is not possible. If so, there would be more assess ments and more valuations, and another return. We have had a good many of them already, but they are said to be unsatisfactory. OVER TWO MILLIONS MOVED AWAY. But I tell you further, gentlemen, that this is a very politic time for a commission on behalf of the petitioners, when you take into co^sidera- tion the fact that since this movement has commenced personal property in Beverly Farms has either been moved out of Beverly town, — the whole' town, — or else converted, so that it is not taxable directly iu the town, to the extent of $2,167,550. It is a good time, is it not, to appoint a commission? Wait a year or two longer, and then it will be a better time. OVER $40,000 OF INCOME MOVED AWAY, OR CONVERTED IN PREPARATION FOR THE PROPOSAL, Moved away, or converted away, from the annual income of the town of Beverly in that way, — $41,393! Are you going to stop to talk about a commission appointed to pass upon any such question as that now ? It is one part of this whole plan, as I think you will see, unless I fail in presenting my views. ' It is a plausible thing. Get it out of the way ; relieve you from your burden, and you can go home and say : " We took this question and sent it out to three men, and they divided it, and that is the end of it." Can you agree upon three men ? Can the parties agree ? Will they consent that anybody shall appoint them ? THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT TAKE PART IN LEGIS LATION. My friend says that he will have the Supreme Judicial Court of this Commonwealth appoint them. I want to remind him that that is utterly impracticable, and as good a lawyer as he is knows it ; I am quite sure that he does. The Supreme Judicial Court does not participate in legis lation. In the government of this Commonwealth we have an execu tive, a legislative, and a judicial department. The judicial department never exercises legislative or executive powers. Mr. WiLLtAMS. They often appoint commissioners. Mr. Robinson. Ah, you cannot get ahead of me on that ! That is just where my friend has fallen into an error. I will show him the way Qut. The Supreme Judicial Court does appoint commissioners, and if 250 the Legislature should draw a line upon that map, and say, " The town of Beverly is divided on that line," and there should be a dispute as to where that line came, the Supreme Judicial Court would appoint com- njissioners to determine that fact. The Supreme Court would 'appoint them, and their return would be made to. that Court, in order that a complete record of the matter might be made, and it would be settled according to judicial principles ; but the Supreme Court does not draw lines through towns to divide towns. Ask the Supreme Court to appoint subh a commission, and that Court will decline to do so. And I will tell you why : In the case of the petition for the appointment of supervisors of election in the city of Boston (114 Mass., 247), under Chap. 376 of the Acts of 1873, where the Legislature said that it should be the duty of the Court to appoint supervisors of election, the Court declined to do so, on the ground that the appointment of any . such oflicers should be made by the Executive Department, and not by the Judicial Department. The Supreme Court in that case gave its opinion at considerable length, and it is good reading on the subject of why one department should not entrench upon the powers and duties of another. It states that the record of the case must be in the court itself. Now, what do you say ? You say, that the Court shall appoint three men as commissioners. To do what? To do what the Legislature does not do itself. The making of a town is a legislative act ; the carving out of territory is wholly a matter of legislation. The Legis lature does not need to delegate its power to anybody else. But I believe that when my friend comes to consider that question carefully he will discover that he is upon ground where he cannot sustain himself. The books are full of such diecisions. I have a great many citations that I might nSake, and I could read to you at great length from the opinions, but t am not going to take up your time in doing so. If you report any such bill as that to either branch of the Legislature I shall be surprised indeed if the lawyers belonging to those two branches do not discover that that is an insuperable diflSculty ; therefore let us get away from the question of sending this to a commission: we have a good many things in commission now, and we had better not increase them; and, certainly, we had better not ask the Supreme Judicial Court to do what it was never created to do, and what it never was set to do, by the fathers of the Commonwealth. This is a question for j ou ; it is for the Legislature, that is all. AN UNFAIR DIVISION OF TERRITORY. In the requests for a new town there arc are two considerations: What is best for the whole town, and for the jiortioa asking for the change. Then, what is best for the whole Conimonwealtli? 251 Just now it is. What is best for the town of Beverly, speaking of that -first ? _ Look- on the map and see by the different colorings and also by the proposed line what is attempted. Somehow or other, if a man were totally unprejudiced, and he were to stand here and look at that block of territory, he would say, "It must be that the Beverly Farms people, who have laid out that plan, are going to be generous, considering everj'thing, because, do you not see that they take the most ofthe sjiore down along there into their town? It must be that they wish to take only a small portion of the town up there in the northerly part, that valuable portion of the territory, and they are unselfishlj- going away by themselves to have the benefit of self-government. They take away the old rocks and the sea-lashed coast, and put them into their own town, and do not burden the rest of the town with it. That must be so ; it strikes everybody so when he looks at it. There is a direct and well- defined boundary on the Manchester line, slanting up on that side, and then there is a well-defined line, as they draw it, running up" and slanting on the other side, leaving a small corner not large enough to put your hat upon. Then look at the rest of Beverly, where it borders upon Wen ham, and see it reaching out to Danvers on the other side. We say it must be generosity and liberality on the part of these petitioners, when they propose any such thing as that. It cannot be anything else. We would not conceive for a minute that anything can be wrong. But some thing is wrong about that. It is something like a pie which is about to be cut: which end is the meat end? where is the crust? Did they have any accident in carving it in that way ? Did your old grandmother treat you in that way in your younger days? And if she did, didn't you cry? It is the other end of that pie piece that you want, and I am inclined to think that the Beverly farmers know on which side of the pie the meat is. Why, look at the extent of the valuable shore land from Manchester line to where the proposed line strikes the sea, and then compare it with the narrow portion left to Beverly between the proposed division line and Burgess Point ! I will not spend time by reading a lot of statistics with regard to this or other towns in the Commonwealth for the purpose of showing when a town should be set off, or when it should not be divided ; suffice it to say that 1,017 people are really large enough to be a town, and that 9,186 people are not too large to remain a town, —that is, there is no argument there. Suffice it to say, further, that the people in Beverly Farms are good-looking enough, and intelligent enough, and capable enough, to be a town. They are so, because they have been with Beverly BO long. Beverly is a competent town, is a well-honored town of Essex County, and in. the Commonwealth, and she is able to stand up and take care of her own family, not only now but for many years to conjie. - Oh, they are well enough, either one of them, so far as that goes. 252 DISTANCE. The distance between the two places, not as my friend's map shows — and it always tells that same falsehood every year — it is not four and a half miles, it is 3.91 miles — call it four miles, for argument's sake. You cannot obliterate that distance. But you are going to divide towns because there is that space between villages ? My own town would fare hard — It is not four and a half miles. Mr. Williams, Four and one eighth. This is actual measurement, not as the crow flies. Mr. Robinson. It is your crow ; it is not mine : your crow wabbles. Mr. Williams. No ; your crow flew, mine walked. Mr. Robinson., I should think your crow had been walking, and I should think it had tried to pick up something on the waj'. I said that it would fare hard with my town. My friend from Chicopee, who argued this case one year, to whom it is always a delight to listen, and whose remarks it is always a pleasure to read afterwards, told about the old ' town of Chicopee, and stated that you could not have anything but a town meeting there ; and, behold, he is the first mover this year to make " the.town a city. Of course he is not here arguing the case, and Brother Williams is not responsible for what he said. The period in the history of this movement, ante-dating 1886, is wholly immaterial, 1717, 1869, and 1880 are so shadowy that my friend really will not insist much on anything that took place in those years, I think ; but, if he does, may he have delight in it ! CLAIMED NO GRIEVANCES. In 1886, there was a formal movement, and they claimed division as a matter of right. They did not declare any grievance. On examina tion, my friend admits that perhaps they said that they did not have all that they wanted. They wanted a better fire apparatus, better street lights, better roads, the transportation of children to school, town meet ings, town officers, and a library. That was in 1886. There was nothing whatever said about any ill-feeling between the two parts of the town in 1886. Uncle John Larcom said, and he was seventy years old, — said that they treated his people " like gentlemen." That, ¦ is in the testimony. RAISED $40,000 MORE THAN WAS SPENT IN THEIR TERRITORY. They said that they wanted to spend their own money. Mr. Augus tus P. Loring, their chief witness, — you have not had the pleasure of 253 seeing him here this year, and learning what he would say on cross-ex- aminatiOn, — Mr. Augustus P. Loring, the sheet-anchor in this case in former years, has not been here. He said that they raised in the Farms $40,000 more than was spent on them. That is the argument of the rich man always, and that is the argument of the man who says that the poor man cannot have as much as he can ; that he is not going to pay the poor man's taxes. He says " I have no children, and I do not want to pay anything to educate the children of other people. I do not travel the roads, and I should not be taxed to pay for those who do and must travel the roads.'' $40,000 they pay more than they get back. That is the argument of supreme selflshness, here or anywhere. They will not spend their own money, for it is their own money within certain limits, gentlemen, and I am no socialist either. But we all hold our property, to a certain extent, if we perform our duties as men, for the public good ; and small is the man who does not recognize that every daj- in the year. 1886 — SUMMER RESIDENTS TOOK THE LEAD AND WERE DEFEATED, 131 TO 78. The summer residents at that time took the lead, did they not ? There will be no question about it. Thornton K. Lothrop, John T. Morse, Jr., Augustus P. Loring, Col. Henry Lee, and so on, they all addressed themselves to this question, but they were defeated in the House by a vote of 131 to 78. That was when they came up fresh, when they had all the case that they ever have had. 1887 — INDIGNATION IN ESSEX. In 1887, all those grievances that they did not present in 1886 were removed, and the town spent about $30,000 in doing so. Let us take these things into consideration as we go along. The valuation had been increased then, and they said at that time, abandoning all the question of grievances, that the only thing that they bad to complain of was that they did not have the men in offlce that they wanted. 1 shall speak of that later. The bill passed, indignation meetings were held all through lissex County. Danvers had its public meetings and sent its resolutions; Marblehead also was aflame ; all through Essex County the people were protesting against the enormity and the iniquity of the measure. 254 DID POOR FARMERS RAISE 820,000 TO CARRY THE BILL? Then came an investigation. I know nothing about it personally, but il; is public. Its history has cropped out in this case all along throughly the hearings, and it has been referred to in all the hearings whiiih have- been had since that time, and it appears that $20,000 was spent by these people for certain purposes connected with procuring a division of the town. $20,000 spent by the poor Beverly farmers ! Do you think that the permanent residents, whose whole tax in the year is about $5,000, put their hands down deep into their pockets to get that $20,000? or did somebody who is known as a summer resident help to make up that sum? You will draw j'our own inferences as to which was the fact. I shall say nothing more on that point. THE VETO. Then came the Governor's veto, which my brother has assailed ever since ; but, somehow, there seems to be an impression abroad in the Commonwealth that that veto was correct, and that it was time to call a halt. The people seem to think that somehow or other there was some thing about that matter that was wrong. 1888— DEFEATED AGAIN. In 1888 they came up here once more. They had the same complaint as to valuation, of which I shall speak later, and there was a repetition of the claim as to offlcers. And then they told us about the celebration at Beverly in 1887, after the bill had been vetoed, where there was dis played a good deal of exhilaration and exuberance. There is no doubt about that, and boyishness and foolishness, and an exhibition of temper ' on both sides, if you please. Well, we get that every year in pohtics- do we not? Men sometimes get so wrought up over politics that you would think that they would not speak to each other again, but the day after election they are as friendly and agreeable to each other as they ever were. Even my friend across the table has an intense hatred and ill-will for any one who speaks against the division of Beverly ; but he does not really cherish it in his heart. Outside he appears to hate us terribly, and yet he is all sunshine inside. He naturally believes his side of this question to be right, just the same as I believe my side of it to be right, and it would be a mighty poor kind of a lawyer who would not think so after having given as much time to this case as he and I have 255 given to it. But we are always nearer together than the length of this table. It was said that the children would not go from Beverly Farms up to the high school, not one. That is what Mf. Augustus P. Loring said ; and Mr. Augustus P. Loring was in here to complain of the valuation and the catching of property, and he said I want to correct mj? learned brother. It was Mr. Augustus P. Loring who said that if you took a fine-toothed comb and raked over Beverly Farms j-ou could not get any more property for taxation. It was not one of the assessors of Beverlj- that said that, it was Mr. Augustus P. Loring. He was going to rake with a fine-toothed comb, and he said that nothing more could' fee got. 1889— TOO MUCH HAD BEEN DONE FOR THEM. See what the next chapter in this period will relate. " No children would go to school." But they came here in 1889, and all of the chil dren went to school, gentlemen, all of them. They all went to the high school, all that were in the class. Thej- all came from Beverly Farms, and the teachers came here and said so, and a Beverly Farms scholar was the president of the association of the alumni, I think, of that school, and the teacher came here and said that there was no trouble at all. Why, if the town were divided, the Farms would not have a dozen scholars for its high school. Such pupils would then be compelled to go out of town for instruction. Then Mr. Loring and the others came in here and said, " We have had our grievances removed, but you have given us too much. We said that we needed these things, but you have now fairly overloaded us' with kindness, and that is the cause of complaint." You think that I am humorous, but I am not intending to be. I ara telling the truth abso lutely. That was the burden -of the song in 1889. It is not so this year. You will find, if you read the testimonj', that the complaint was that we had " done too much." And, right on that point, Mr. George Pierce, a witness whom they brought here, said last year that " they were too ready to comply with our wishes." "It did seem as if they were too ready to complj-, and readj- to punish us bj- giving what we asked." Poor man ! Will you not sympathize with somebodj' that is so " down trodden " ! MR." LORING'S FINE-TOOTH COMB. Then it appeared that the fine-toothed comb had somehow or other got some of its teeth out, and it did not rake them all, because Mr. Loring himself on the stand last j-ear confessed that the trusts that he and his 256 father held had not until the year 1889 been caught bythe assessors; and yet he said, upon cross-examination, on being asked, " Were you put on oath in regard to all your property the year before?" " Yes, sir." " Did you give in this trust property? " " No, sir. I don't con sider it my business to give to the assessors anything more than they can flnd out." Fine-toothed comb, marked " A. P.. Loring " ! That was the valuation that these people complained of. And this is all true, gentlemen, not fiction ! • 1890 - NO ILL-FEELING. MR. LOTHROP COMPLETES THE CIRCLE. Then we come to 1890, that is this year, and we have the question of the valuation and the question of the officers. Is there anything about ill-feeling now proved to you, gentlemen? If I dared to spend the time, I woi^ld allow the clock to tick about two seconds, in order to enable you to think whether there has been anything proved here about ill-feeling from this part of the town, or from anybody. Is there any evidence, of it at all ? Have you heard one sound? If you have, you have heard and seen what is not apparent to most people. We have, then, the question of officers and the question of valuations, of which I shall speak by and by, and this year the circle is complete. In 1886 Thornton K. Lothrop began this movement. In 1890 Thornton K. Lothrop ends this movement. BOSTON SCHEME DEVELOPED AND PROVED NOW. The Boston scheme for division is developed and proved now. Mr. Thornton K. Lothrop has been very carefully kept off the stand hereto fore, but this year he is brought up here on a summons, issued not by the Committee, I understand, but, perhaps, by Brother Williams, and it so impresses him that when he walks into this room he goes up to Mr. Williams, and, in the presence of the Committee, shows to him the sum mons, so that it may be seen in a dramatic way that he is here against his will. But Mr. Thornton K. Lothrop is here completing this scheme this year. Things that have been testified to about him in relation to his property, and about others, he does not deny. SUMMER RESIDENTS BEGAN THE MOVEMENT, CONTINUE IT, AND COULD END IT. You will flnd that Mr. Lothrop, Mr. Morse, Mr. Loring, and otherS; were at the first meeting, and that, going from town meeting, it was 257 thought and suggested by Mr. Lothrop that it was a good time to divide the town, when the horse-railroad came up for consideration ; that they met at Mr. Morse's house ; that they had two meetings there, and that Mr. Lothrop presented statements in regard to taxes and expenses ; that they afterwards had a public meeting in Marshall's Hall, at which Mr. A. P. Loring acted as secretary, and Mr. Lothrop made a report. Mr. Lee, a resident of Brookline, made motions and propositions, and others participated, and in the investigation which followed in 1887 you will find those gentlemen's name connected with the contribution to the fund of $20,000 that I have spoken of; and everywhere, all the way through, you will see that it is in the hands of those gentlemen. So Mr. William Endicott, Jr., is undoubtedlj- correct, as his brother says, when he states that if yOu took out of it half a dozen Boston men there would be noth ing left. 0 Mj- brother will undoubtedly talk about that. If half a dozen Boston men had been taken out of it when it began — yes, half of that number — these hearings would never have been had ; and you can now pull the strings on six men, and my brother Williams's occupation will be clean gone. Beverly Farms will not send Mr. Connolly and Mr. Hardy and a number of other people here, with brother Williams, year after year after those six Boston gentlemen have left. TRANSPORTATION OF SCHOOL CHILDREN — LIBRARY — ROADS. ' I have not time to discuss separately the question of grievances ; they have been provided for. The money has been paid by the town, and children are transported to school at the town's expense ; and, just the same as it is done in many other towns where there is a large library, books are sent out periodically. It is so in my own tow;n. There is no discrimination. My friend will probably get afoul of that stone -crusher, and say that it has never been down to the Farms. I see him smile. Very likely he has got it in his notes now. He will say that it never has been down to the Farms, and he will be trotting it out pretty soon. But they have got a gravel-pit down at the Farms worth $4,500, and Beverly has not had any of that yet. Mr. Williams. We cannot get any gravel out of it. Mr. Robinson. If there is anything that you cannot get something out of I should like to know what it is. You have been five years trying to get something out of this scheme, but you: have not succeeded. Yon have a gravel-pit, and you will probably have a crusher before you get; through. , 258 The distance from the town meetings ! Yes ; but, as I said, you can't , help it. Are you going to move your town meeting off where everybody is — carry it around on a platter? [Laughter.] The trouble about itis, they say they can't go up to Beverly and out-vote the majority. There are 1,904 voters, and only 183 in this proposed town, and they don't like it because they can't out-vote the rest of the town. I have been in that place myself, and been considerably aggrieved because I was out-voted, but I have concluded to stand by the Republic nevertheless ; and, after all, isn't that safe ? They have a motive in keeping this up, and undoubtedly, so long as they encourage and foment this sort of surface indication of discoid, thej- will have just that feeling. But thej' could lay it down any minute. Do you mean to tell me that Thomas D. Connolly could not be heaid in a town meeting if he wanted to be heard, or that the other gentlemen thiit are here, all of whom have my entire respect, couldn't make themselves felt? There isn't anything in that, as you see at once. And there isn't any evidence whatever that there has been any dis respect or prejudice shown against any of these people, mark you ! not a particle. Time has healed whatever little friction there was. There was some in 1887, when there was this celebration on one side and the other, and I believe they hanged on a tree, down there in Beverly Farms, good Uncle John I. Baker. [Laughter.] Dear old man ! he is here now, God bless him ! [Applause.] He is not dead yet. There was nothing in it ; it was all foolishness, of course. And, if he will allow me to say it, better men even than he is have been hanged in effigj' [Laughter] , and they have erected statues to some of them in Commpnwealth Avenue, in Boston, — men that were dragged through the streets of Boston and hurried into jail to save their lives, and Massachusetts now puts up her statues, and crowns them as eternal heroes of her glorj'. The High School is all right ; the people patronize it ; it is the people's institution, and there is no trouble about it at all. TOWN OFFICERS. Then take the question of town officers, and let us look at that a minute. They have had their own selectman, assessor, school committee man, member of the Board of Health, two constables, precinct offlcers, warden and inspector, night watchman, and, until the law was changed, they had regularly their own surveyors. What objection have they to it? They say that these men are not all divisionists. Well, is there any reason why, in town affairs, ihair opinions on this question should be one way or the other? Will j-oii tell me why a selectmen cannot perform his duty just as well whether he is in favor of division or not? Is there anything to indicate it has not been done 259 properly, any evidence here of anything of that kind ? Will you tell me what there is to show that any of these gentlemen have not done their duty properly? They say they cannot have a representative in the General Court. I will tell them how they can have a representative in the General Court in due time. Let alone this matter of discord. But do they expect the town of Beverly to choose a man and send him up to this State House to misrepresent the town of Beverly, to say to the Legislature that Beverly wants division when she does not? Why, of course not. The present representative voices the sentiment of Beverly. He does not, if you please, represent the sentiment of Beverly Farms in the present contest, and you cannot expect he would, under the' circum stances, but when you have laid, this question away there will be nothing more heard about their not being represented. Moreover, they say that when they nominate men for offlces they are not elected. Let us see about that ; and there is a way of making a true test of this question. In 1886, 87 vqtes were cast by the Farms people ; that is undisputed. 87 people from the Farms voted for town offlcers. Thej' say Mr. John H. Watson, whom some of you may Know, was nominated for selectman, and he was not elected. Well, John H. Watson didn't get but 32 votes for selectman ; he didn't carry his own part of the town. There were 87 votes cast by Farms men, and why didn't John H. get all of them if Beverly Farms wanted him, will you tell me? Beverlj- Farms didn't want him, for some reason or other, probably entirely creditable to John H., but, nevertheless, that was the fact. Somehow or other he was a prophet with honor, somewhere outside of his own country, apparently. For assessor, Thornton K. Lothrop was nominated, and the town would have elected him, but at the last moment he declined, and Mr. Hardy, it seems, was in the field, although unknown to the people of Beverlj', and he got 80 votes. He didn't carry his part ofthe town, but why? Because Charles L. Williams, another man living in the Farms, had tickets printed and was running by his friends, and he got 68 votes out of 87 ; and Andrew Stanley got 9 votes, and he is another Farms man. There is no mistake about these figures, they are uncontradicted ; and you see at once what the trouble was. They say that these gentlemen, although they carried the caucus, didn't get the election. We have seeii that thing before. It has happened in other eases, hasn't it? It didn't happen iu your cases, gentlemen, this fall, because you are here, but next fall some of you may get hit in the- same way. [Laughter.] It isn't the strangest thing in the world, it isn't an unusual or unexampled procedure that the Australian ballot comes in, or some other test, and, 260 upsets 'the caucus. [Laughter.] John T. Morse, a Farms man, was chosen on the School Coramittee, just the one they, wanted, and Mr. Stanley was elected on the Board of Health. NO ILL FEELING. I have said there isn't any ill-feeling — and we know there is not nowi Last year and year before, Brother Williams used these elegant expres sions : " spit on," " reviled," " down-trodden," " persecuted," " hooted at," "insulted," jeered at," "called names." Those I remember with- great distinctness. I hear nothing of that kind from him this year. The only eloquent and pathetic sentiment is that they are " plundered by the rulers in the foreign province of Old Be'verly." But that has done ser vice in former years. I have heard it often. I knew it was coming, and it is all that remains, — " the foreign province of Old Beverly." Why, now, gentlemen, in all seriousness, is that candid? and is that right? Is that good policy, after all, to' speak of Beverly as a " foreign province? " and isn't it time to have done with that, upon so slight and flimsy a foundation ? Heretofore it has been said that there have been paragraphs in the newspapers away back in 1887 and in 1888. This year there has been nothing of the kind, for if there had been anything it would have ; been shown, gentlemen. And the evidence is positive the other way, from Mr. Endicott, frora Mr. Grant, and from Mr. Baker, and it seems to me their evidence is conclusive on this subject. I assure you, gentle men, that if there is any ill-feeling at all it is between the Boston summer residents who live on opposite sides of the proposed line. VALUATIONS. Now, I pass along to speak of the valuations. Are they right or are thej' wrong? The assessors are sworn offlcers of the town. Consider these assessors as you would ask to be considered if j'ou were in a similar position. Treat men fairly, because you may some time or other want to be treated in the same waj-. I beg of you not to put down a man as a liar and a perjurer unless j'ou have some evidence of it. You have seen one of the Board of Assessors, a man, I take it, who was not born in wealth, but who certainly has inherited or has acquired the, intelligence that befits him for the place. He has conducted himself here like a gentleman of ability, so far as I can judge, and I submit whether, so far as you can discover, he is not a proper person to be in the position which he occupies. Mr. Murney has testifled here, and you shall judge whether he stands discredited or not by mere insinuations. The assessors take their oaths that they will appraise propertj- at its " full and fair cash value." Fair cash value, — yes, but full. Two things 261, there : " full and fair cash value ; " that is, all the value there is in c'ash, and fair as to the rest ; that is what that means. Now, let us go together and see about it. The assessors swear that they " will neither over-value nor underr value," according to the law of 1885, as provided ; and if they do for any corrupt or malicious motive, thej- are liable to a penaltj-. It is on that edge the assessors walk when they have taken that oath. Do they lightlj' regard it? Let us see whether we are right or not as to real estate, in the flrst instance. Mr. Williams tells us in his opening that in 1870 the valuation of, Beverly Farms was $817,425, and that in 1885 it was $4,020,890, and Mr. Williams says that that was " a normal and natural valuation*". The same land down there, the same rocks, the same territory exactly, and it is normal and natural that it should go up from $817,425 in 1870 to $4,020,890 in 1885. Mr. Loring says that the real estate in Beverly Farms from 1870 to 1885 increased $1,800,000, and he says that was a " healthy rise." Then came the petition of 1886. Go with me, gentle men, closely on this. There was no grievance. The assessment of 1886 was right then, wasn't it, — " a normal and natural valuation," a " healthy rise," to $4,020,890? Before I get through I shall show you pretty plainly how the rise did get into that valuation. But it is all right up to this time, 1885. My brother over there (Mr. Williams) says so ; the people back of him say so ; the undisputed facts estab|lish it. Now, fiom 1885 thej' went on increasing the valuation. I will not give you the figures because I haven't the time for details, but from 1885 to 1886 there was an increase of $2,656,735; the next year, 1887, there was an increase of $672,945 ; the next year there was a decrease, don't forget'that, of $939,977.50, almost a million dollars. In the next year, that is, in 1889, last year, there was a decrease of $312,387.50. A million and a half of dollars gone out of the valuation within the last two years. Although it went up in the flrst two years, it has gone down a million and a half in the last two years. And, gentlemen, yoh are to take the valuation as it is now, not as it was in 1886. If it was wrong then, it has been corrected, if you please. If it#vas right then, as I maintain it was, it has been maintained subject to the changes for which I shall duly account hereafter, I trust. Well, now, was this increase I have spoken about justified ? Mr. Loring, Mr. Morse, Mr. Lothrop, and Mr. Meredith, all of whom you have not seen, have testified, and they have told you about the value of the land down there. They are the petitioners' witnesses, and not ours, and they are the ones who have given you the facts. I will put in here a statement of the sales and assessments of shore land, village lots, and hill and wood lots, in Beverly Farms. , 262 BEVERLY FARMS. SHORE LAND. (1880 to 1890.) Bate of Purchase. 1882. 1880.1882, 1882,1883. 1883, 1884. 1882. 1885. 1885. 1886. Wm. Powell Mason, land and bldgs. Alexander Cochrane Emily D. Tyson . Stephen 6. Wheatland Reginald H. Fitz, land and bldgs Eugene V. R, TJiayer , Henry P, Kidder , A, C, Wheelwright, land and bldgs, Mrs, Whitman and Miss Perkins Thomas Gaffleld and Martin Brimmer Thornton K, Lothrop, land and bldgs, Franklin Haven (Miller Hill Lot) Franklin Haven (Haskell St, Lot) ABsesaed 1885, #41,000 15,000 14,000 13,2,50 22,600 17,000 30,000 19,100 32,850 4,3U0 15,800 1,700 600 $62,400 19,600 34,85020,70040,000 38,650 66,100 29,50039,000 7,975 25,375 6,000 1,000 Prices Paid. $80,000 30,000-55,00025,000-45,000-70,000 120,000- 45,000-75,000- 24,041 35,000- 6,000 1,000' $227,200 $391,150 $611,04f VILLAGE LOTS. Date of Purcllase. (1880 to 189 ).) Assessed. 1S85. 1889. Friees Paid. 1887. James J. O'Brien .... $1,150 $1,450 §2,200 1885. C. E, Hubbard 6,0C0 15,950 20,000 1887. Abigail Young 150 300 425 1887. Abigail Young 100 150 325 1887, Town of Beverly , 1,500 4,350 4,691 1881, Ellen Vaughan 800 800 1,850 1881. Caroline E. Lovering 800 800 1,850 1886. Sarah L, Ober 1,500 2,500 8,000 1887. W. C, Loring 550 2,600 5,000 1884. S, A, Fogg , 150 350 812 1884. Sarah L, (5ber, from estate J, Ober 2,500 5,323 11,500 Henry Parktaan, from Thomas Elliott 1,000 1,200 1,500 1887, Lena J, Sewell, from Eva Larcom 600 900 1,100 1889, Mrs, .Tesse Pierce, from Jasper Pope 100 100 30O 1889, J, W. Dane, from I. J. Day . 425 800 1,400 Mr, iWiseman, from D. Linnehan 150 150 70O 1888, Co-operative Shoe Factory , 400 400 800 Thomas Elliott, from S, Eldridge 1,200 1,150 Charles F, Preston O'Brien Bros,, from J, H, Woodbury 4,400 100 6,000 125 6,000 175 O'Brien Bros,, from Mrs, J, Lefavour 100 125 175 A, P. Loring, from H. I VL. Story 1,000 1,20(> 263 1888. C. Watson, from L. W. Story . . $600 $600 C. Murray, from C. C. Watson . . lOO 300 T. D. Connolly, from J. I. Baker . 400 1 500 Total 25 sales $47,673 $73,553 1889. W. Sohier from F. Haven . . . 18,000 9 000 HILL AND WOOD LOTS, BEVERLY FARMS. Assessed, Prices 1886. 1889, Paid, - E. W. Gurney .... $10,500 $17,900 $22,500 Mrs, Cabot (on f| of the whole) , 9,388 20,626 32,000, Bisson (wood lot) 1,250 2,750 2., 640 $21,138 $41,276 $57,140 Totals of all above . - • • $493,099 $750,734 Every one of these sales has been testifled to, and there isn't any question made as to any of them. It is the testimony of Augustus P. Loring, and of these other gentlemen, and it is uncontradicted by any ofthe gentlemen who have 'made this a subject of special study and in vestigation. Will you look at that ? will you see what the facts are ?' What do these gentlemen mean when they talk about the "full and fair cash value " of the property at Beverly Farms, when the evidence here stands uncontradicted that property there assessed at $493,000 has been sold for $750,000? There is no mistake about this. They say figures won't lie. We have some gratitude that figures are left to save us against things that will lie. [Laughter.] Well, what is the fair cash value? My friend on the left of the committee was asking about v^hat consti tuted the market value, and whether a fancy price is the market value. The market price of a piece of land is what it will bring, isn't it? It is what it will bring, not what somebody who doesn't want it says it is ' worth. Rocks, how much are they worth? It depends upon where the rocks are. We have some of them, I believe, up in Berkshire County that you could buy cheap, and if you would remove thera they would be worth less still. Rocks ! Thej- would laugh at a man who wanted to buy rocks in some parts of Berkshire County ; and we will find yon some in Hampden you could get cheap. Undoubtedly the farmers would be glad to have you take them off their premises. But one of those rocks down by the seashore, which stands right out in an otherwise perfect lawn, you couldn't buy for I don't know how much monej-. 264 THE MARKET PRICE IS WHAT A THING WILL BRING. Fancy price ! Men buy things sometimes because they have a fancy for them, and because others have a fancy for the same things we see at once that fixes the price. There is the town of Lenox, in Berkshire County, and wealthj' men have a fancy for that town. It is a beautiful. town in its situation, though there are others just' as well situated among the hills of that county, but people go to Lenox, and pay great prices, making the farmers there independentlj- rich by buying their lands. Fancy price ! Yes,' but it is the market price, nevertheless. It is a fancy price for me to talk about giving $70,000 for a piece of land, but it isn't a fancy price to the gentleman who lives in Lancaster and goes down there, and spends that amount of money for it. It would be an exceedingly fancy price for me to pay $120,000 for sixteen acres of land, but the late lamented Henry P. Kidder could do it, and it wasn't a fancy price for him, or if it was he could bear it. I might hesitate a great while about buj'ing a bronze statue, or a marble carving, or a beautiful painting, but my friend here on mj' left would walk in and look at it for a minute, and draw his pocket-book and buy it and carry it home, while I should be tlisgusted at mj- inabilitj' even to think of doing such a thing. Oh, no ! we all know that the market price of a thing is what it will fairly bring. ASSESSMENTS AT FARMS MUCH BELOW SALES. Now, let us see, Mr. Mason went down there and bought a piece of land, and gave $80,000 for it ; that land was assessed in 1885 at $41,- 000, and in 1889 at $62,400. Mr. Thornton K. Lothrop paid $35,000 for property that was valued in 1885 at $15,800, and in 1889 at $25,375, and Mr. Lothrop right here on the stand says it is worth the assessment, and he says it was mortgaged for $25,000. That is a pretty good test, that the value is there, — not mere fancy, but real money. Mrs. Tyson paid $55,000 for property which was valued at $14,000 in 1885, and $34,850 in 1889. Andrew C. Wheelwright paid $45,000 for what was valued at $19,100 in 1885, and $29,500 in 1889. And Mr. Kidder, as I have said, paid $120,000 for land that was valued in 1885 at $30,000, I mean valued by the assessors, you under stand, and in 1889, when it was improved by building upon, it was val ued by the assessors at $66,100. Paid $120,000, assessed, $66,000. 265 Didn't the assessors make a mistake, and go under the full and fair cash value? Not the cash value to j-ou and me ; it perhaps would burst us all to pieces, all of us combined, to buy one of those pieces of land ; that is not the test; but the men who possess millions have the things that millions will buy. Sometimes I have discovered that the men who have millions cannot buy everj-thing with their money ; they would like things some times that money cannot bring to them, but they have a right to make themselves happy with the things that money will bring, and they have the right to enjoy honestlj' acquired wealth. Now, in determining the course of procedure in fixing the full and fair cash value, will you not put it on that kind of property for which men pay fairlj' that amount of money ? WILL RELIEVE WEALTHY PEOPLE AND PUT THE EXTRA BURDEN ON POOR MEN. Will you say you will take it ofl fj om those people and leave it to come upon those who own little houses worth perhaps $2000, in which they have invested their all, and that may be mortgaged? Will you, gentle men, as citizens of this Commmonwealth, living in our towns and cities, say npon your honor that you ought to allow that property, which, upon what you know by the action of these people, and all the evidence in the case, is now assessed below the full and fair cash value, that you ought to allow that property to go untaxed, and thus necessarily throw the bur den over on to other people, who cannot carry it for want of means? That will be the inevitable result. EXCEPTIONAL SALES IN AN EXCEPTIONAL PLACE. But it is said that these are all exceptions. It is something very strange that everything that is done there is exceptional in an exceptional community. There eiists no other place, you would think, like Beverly Farms. Why, you heard Mr. Lothrop give here the reasons for which people bought these lands and paid these prices, and let us just run them over. Here are six cases, and I will take them just as he gave them. 1. A man had married a young wife, who was a very flne woman, and therefore he went and paid $120,000 for sixteen acres of land ; that was the exception in his case. 2. A man " wants a thing right off," and " can't wait flve minutes for it " ; he has got plenty of money, and he goes right down there and lays down $70,000 for another piece of land ; that was another excep tion. 266 3. A man was attracted to the place where he was living when his boy was drowned, and it came out afterwards that he wasn't living there when his boy was drowned, that he wasn't living within a Ynile and a half of the place, and that the boy was drowned out by an island which was, in fact, three miles away from the main land, or something like that, — it wasn't anywhere near, — but this man left one place and bought another, and paid $80,000 for gratifying a sentiment that hadn't any foundation ; that is another one of the exceptional cases. ' 4. Another man is in the habit of giving his wife presents, and he thought it would be a nice thing to give her a piece of land, for which he paid $24^000 an acre. 5. A lady wanted a piece of land ; her husband didn't think he wanted it, and so wouldn't buy it ; but the lady's uncle died, and so she went and gave $75,000 for it. 6. A gentleman wanted to live near his wife's mother [Laughter], and he couldn't resist the attraction, and he went and laid down $45,000 to be next to his mother-in-law [Laughter]. That propertj- is assessed at less than $30,000, — bear that in mind, will you, that it is assessed at less than $30,000 ? And it is so true that Brother Williams broke out in one of his questions, and be said : " Whj-, don't you know that that man would have paid $50,000 more to get that lot? " That is $95,000 that man would have paid to get near his mother-in-law. [Laughter.] What a pity that the owner of the land didn't discover the pecuniary strength of that attachment, so she could have got $95,000 instead o'f $45,000 ! SUBLIME NONSENSE. These are the reasons that an intelligent and honorable witness like Mr. Thornton K. Lothrop gives to show that those are exceptional cases, to show that thej' are fancj' prices. I submit it, not only to you, gentlemen, but to everybody to think it over and see if it is not sublime nonsense. See if you cannot come down to the platform of sense, and say whether you believe that these gentlemen who are able to con trol great fortunes, to acquire millions of dollars, who are railroad and financial magnates known all over the country, whose dominion and power may be in State Street, or some other great financial circle, men who would be called to places of trust when great monetary interests in Massachusetts are at stake, have become mere lunatics, and dropped their money here into the fathomless sea. That is not sense, but it raay do for the Beverly Farms petition, not^ withstanding. 267 THEY QUOTE ASSESSMENTS THREE YEARS OLD INSTEAD OF THOSE TO-DAY. Now, gentlemen, will j-ou bear in mind one other thing? When our friends on the other side talk about the valuation, why do they go way back to the valuation of 1886 instead of taking the valuation of 1889 ? It must]3e because the valuation of 1889 is not so favorable for them. If . it were better they would have it here.' They say, oh, the valuation of 1886 is in print, and therefore they can have it, and that the other is not in print. But the indefatigable gentleman who sits at the other end of the table (Mr. Williams) knows that th6 valuation of 1889 is a matter of record in Beverly, open to everybody, and he knows further that by going down to the offlce of the tax commissioner in this very building he can see it and read it. Mr, Williams. I didn't know that. Mr. Robinson. My friend didn't know that before. He will come uphere next year and try his case on that knowledge. [Laughter.] There are lots of things he doesn't know, and if he had known them earlier I am sorry to say he never would have been here. Then the things are proved to be right so. far. This is not sportive- ness, this is not fun, but it is fact, and what I am telling you is what the evidence shows and what you know. Why don't they give us 1889 in stead of 1886? They can have it. The assessors' books are public propertj- to be seen. If they would spend half as much time in going down to look at the assessors' books as they have spent in piloting people down to the hotel by the seaside they would get some facts here. PETITIONERS' ADMISSIONS AS TO VALUATIONS. I said that the things proved are right. Let us see if it is not so, on their own testimony : Mr. Augustus P. Loring said, in 1887, " I do not complain of these assessments at the Farms. It is only by com parison." Again he saj's, in the same testimony, " I don't think the city folk who own land are assessed too high." Mr. Stearns, con ducting the case in 1887, says openly in the hearing, " There has been a great deal of time taken up here unnecessarily, I think. It has not been claimed that the property on the Beverly Farms side was taxed too high, except in comparison. I do not know why so much time is spent on it." And in 1889, in answer to my ques- ton, which was " Tou do not complain of their assessment of per sonal property at the Farms ?" Mr, Loring says, " No, sir ; I do not." 268 Now, will you please to stick a pin in there, that, according to their own witness and their own admission, the assessment of the Farms property was not too high. They only say that they think it is not right in comparison with somewhere else. But I will speak of that by and by. The actual assessments, then, at the Farms, was right, by Mr. Loring's statement, and by concession of counsel, and the admission in the case. There is no getting that out of the way. NEW HOUSES, STORES, AND OTHER BUILDINGS. Do not forget, gentlemen, that since 1886 ten houses, and eleven stores, stables and other buildings have been erected in Beverly Farms, and thereby the valuation has been largelj- increased. PERMANENT RESIDENTS PAY A SMALLER TAX TO-DAY THAN THEY DID IN 1886. Right here I may as well say, because this question of permanent residents, and the burden that has been put upon the Beverly Farms people has been touched upon, that the permanent residents were as sessed in 1885 at $348,101, and in 1889, last year, they were assessed at $362,925. Is that a burdensome increase, from $348,101 to $362,925, ii^ four years? That is the fact. Are the real people of Beverly Farms, Mr. Hardy and Mr. Connolly and Mr. John Larcom and Mr. Ober and those other worthy people burdened by this valuation, when the whole increase of their taxable property in those four years, with their new houses, new stores, new shoe factory, is less than $15,000? Why, gentlemen, the permanent residents in Beverly Farms actually paid last year $419 less than they paid in 1886. What does it mean ? Are they unhappy ? The testimony says it is so. I am not stating it on my authority, I am stating what the testimony shows. Mr. Williams. I did not contradict you. Mr. Robinson. You turned and asked Mr. Hardy ifit was so. Mr. Williams. No ; I did not. I asked him if the tax rate was lower. Mr. Robinson. Yes, the tax rate is lower. That shows that Beverly is treating you right, too. Mr. Williams. Not necessarily. Mr. Robinson. No ; there you go again ! If we put you up you are not happy ; if we put you down you are still in misery. If we put up your taxes, you are not happy ; if we put your taxes down, away you go in a fit of indignation I 269 Mr. Williams. We want to rule ourselves, up or down. Mr. Robinson. I never knew him to be satisfied, whichever way it was. Now, those are the actual facts. I will not distort them. WISH TO PAY $100,000 OR $200,000 AND BE ASSP:SSED $10,000 OR $13,000. Yet Mr. J. Morris Meredith, a fine gentleman, came here last year — . he is not brought here this year, unfortunately for us — we would like to make his acquaintance again, and he afforded us a good deal of information. He is a real-estate gentleman in Boston, and has been connected with property in Beverly Farms, and knows all about it, and he told us all about it, and how desirable it is for summer residences, and how beautiful in creation, and all that, and Mr. Meredith was asked last J'ear by the chairman of the Committee : — " Would you allow those people to go down there and spend $100,000 or $200,000, make a plant of that amount, and then tax them for $10,000 or $13,000 1 " His answer was, "Tes, I would, for the benefit of the town." Perhaps my ideas are different from those of most people, because I was brought up in France, and there, in these summer places, not only do they let the people off very light, but the town itself gives an opera hoase, gives them music to attract them ; instead of bleeding them when they come, they do everything to make it happy for then), and the town, under that management, flourishes and grows, and becomes much more prosperous than if they pursued the other course." I should think they would ! Happy place, where the people who have an opera house do not bleed, but where the toilers in the daily work of life do the bleeding, and also do the paying ! That is the kind of community that the witness of last year thought that it would be a good deal better to have, and which this scheme would provide for if they could only carry it through. NO SHORE LAND SOLD FOR LESS THAN $10,000 OR ASSESSED AS MUCH AS $9,000. Mr. Loring says that the sales of shore land varied from $10,000 to, $20,000 an acre, but the valuation put upon the most valuable shore land does not exceed $9,000 an acre. Mr. Meredith says that the Thayer land, seven acres and a half of it, low land, was bought at the rate of $10,000 an acre, the Whitman land at $15,000 an acre, Mr. Kidder's sixteen acres at $120,000, and Mrs. • Tyson's flve and a half acres for $55,000J 270 Within the ten years that have last passed not an acre of shore land has been sold for less than $10,000. MR. SOHIER'S THE ONLY LAND ASSESSED MORE THAN IT COST. The only sale at the Farms that has been brought in this year, except the small Bisson wood lot — and that nobody claims is of any account — at less than the assessed value, is the land that William Sohier bought, — not the representative, but William Sohier his father — for $9,000, and that is valued at $13,000, and assessed for $13,000, just where it was before. They say that the anti-divisionists get the favor of the assessors, and yet here is a man who bought a piece of property for $9,000, and has been paying a tax this year on a valuation of $13,000 1 These things, I think, show the facts. PROBATE APi'RAISALS OF FARMS PROPERTY SUSTAIN ASSESSORS. But there is another way of proving those matters, namely, by the probaie appraisals. They were made by independent appraisers. Now you have got out of the atmosphere of Beverly. You have men ap pointed by the Probate Court, sworn to do their duty- in making inven tories of the estates of deceased persons ; and those appraisers come in and give the value of their own judgment of some of this property: what do they say ?'f Will you listen a minute? Take^the John G. King estate, in Probate : seven and a half acres was valued at $50,000 by the appraisers, and the assessors valued eleven and a half acres and the buildings at $56,800, and the people owning it sold off four acres for $8,500 : was there anything wrong with the assess ment in view of that Probate appraisal ? ' Take the Kidder property that you have heard about : The land and buildings were valued by the Probate appraisers in 1888, at $90,000, at the time when Mr. Kidder's estate was being settled, when the house \ was not flnished — that is the land and buildings — an unfinished house. Since that time it has been finished. The assessors valued that property in 1889, the land and the buildings, at $96,100: are they right or wrong on the Probate appraisal ? Take the Ellen Gurney estate in Probate, 1888: the land and build ings were appraised at $45,400, and thp assessors in 1889 valued it at $45,400 : are they wrong?' Then the Robert W. Hooper estate in Probate, 1885 : Land and build ings appraised at $35,000, and the assessors' valuation is $25,375. 271 George Gardner's estate in Probate, 1886, $90,000, and the assessors' valuation from 1886 to 1889 was $76,825. William G. Saltonstall's estate in Probate: Land and buildings, in the year 1889, last year, appraised at $35,000, and the assessors' valuation was $15,500. Now, no one Board of Appraisers made those estimates and values for the Probate Court, but three different gentlemen in each case, coming from different communities, and being themselves employed and expe rienced in different ways. There you have those as samples, and there are no others than we can produce, and none that the other side can produce. Now, we show further proof; they are absolutely proved again, formally proved again. THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUSTAINED THE BEVERLY ASSESSORS. The assessors' valuation was confirmed by the County Commissioners last year in the Haven tax case. That I have not time to discuss now. t They say that no member of the County Commissioners dare to do other- ¦wise than to confirm the valuation of the assessors, etc. ; but that is too cheap ! They had long hearings before the County Com'iiissioners, at great expense, and the County Commissioners overruled the appeal from the valuation ofthe assessors last year, and they are now going on with the hearings again this year. Whether or not they will'dejcide inthe same manner this year is a matter of no consequence, and, so far as the question of appeal in the way provided for by law is concerned, they have decided against those appeals. ABATEMENTS GRANTED. In the matter for the applications for abatements at Beverly Farms, you will recollect the fact that in 1888 there were 38, and that 37 of them were allowed, for various reasons. There was only one denied. Now, the petitioners try to meet all these proofs by saying that there are offers to sell. Mr. Lothrop has 34 acres of land and buildings as sessed at $89,350, and he said here upon the stand that he woulti sell it at the appraised value. He did not say that he would sell it at any less ; he would like to get an offer. That is all very well. It is all very well for a man who owns $89,350 worth of real estate to walk around and say that he would sell, insist on selling the whole of it together, and then challenge somebody to make him an offer. I might own something — I never shall — but I might own something which I knew that j'OU could not look at, and I might walk up to some of you and say, ''I will sell that for $500,000 " — just the same as some of you put Mr. Baker to the 272 rack, good old gentleman ! — he was asked why he did not go and buy something if he thought it was so cheap, but he had no money to buy it with. That propertj' may be dog cheap if a man has the money to pay for it, but it is heavenly dear if he has nothing with which to pay for it. Who wants to mortgage his property and go and load himself up with sugar trusts. It may be cheap some day to somebody, but a man would be a fool to-day to go and mortgage his property to buy it. He had better attend to his own business. Lots of things are cheap if you have the monej- to pay for them, but mighty dear if you have no money to touch them. A STRANGE WAY TO SELL LAND. Mr, Haven' offered to sell some back land down there, but he did not offer to sell any beach land with it ; he offered to sell no right to the beach. That is important. He advertised for four days that valuable property, and got an auctioneer down there, Mr. Hj'de, a worthy gentle man, who went through the form of trying to sell this property. They said, ^s I think you will find, upon all the testimony, " Now, we will see if this pioperty will bring as much as the assessors put it at. This property is assessed at so much. Now, we will see if we can get any bodj- to pay as much as that for it." That is a good way to sell property, isn't it? That is a good starter ! You engage an auctioneer to sell a horse for you, and let him say, " They tell me that this horse is worth $500, and now I would like to know if anybody will bid $500 for that horse." How they would rush in and make their bids ! Mr. Haven, who has valuable property, and who controls a large amount of money, got his agent to go down there and say, "Will any body bid as much as the assessors valued this property at? And an offer was made of $30,000, as I recall the testimony, and the property was withdrawn. Now, Mr. Lothrop, in his testimony, said that that was no way to sell it. He said : — " Now, I have said the hill land, including the marsh, because, in my opinion, nobody would buy a lot on the hill unless he owned or con trolled the marsh in front, because a hill lot, in my opinion, would be perfectly valueless fbr a person to put a house on unless he knew what was going to be put on that marsh land, and he cannot know except by owning it. I do not mean for any right of way across it at all, I do not attach any value to that." You see that Mr. Lothrop said that tfa^t was not the way to sell it. If Mr. Haven wanted to sell that land that was no way to sell it. No body will give much of a price for that land unless he can have control 273 of a right of way to the beach, and Mr. Haven knew that. He thought that that might catch some gudgeon somewhere, when he said that that was a bona fide offer to sell. But Mr. Lothrop said that that was not the way to sell that properly, and you know very well that $30,000 did not represent its real value, because nobody would care to buy it under the conditions upon which it was offered. The whole course and con duct of these gentlemen has been for a purpose, and for this scheme. They are creating a depreciation, they are discrediting their own prop erty for a purpose. Mr. Lothrop testified himself that they told their friends not to come there. You think that that is very surprising, necessarily so. Perhaps there is something that will make it apparent that self-interest has dictated that course. It is just like removal from a place. HOW THESE GENTLEMEN MOVE THEIR "Rp:SIDENCE" AND TAXES. Men will take a valise, and write a letter to the assessors, saying that they have gone away from Beverly Farms, but after the first of May they will be back again, and will live there all the summer. And the probability is that they have not been away from there. That is the way they move ! I need not call any names. That same gentleman to-day will say, like some of those that sit around the table here, " Everybody wants to sell down there. You can buy anything." But, gentlemen, you do not believe that at all ; that is mere talk ; that is the froth of this occasion ; that is not evidence. THE BEVERLY FARMS PICTURE BOOK. ^ Now, gentlemen, leave out the misrepresentations in this case, and take the testimony. That little picture-book that is so beautifully illus trated, and which has been handed around here, is brimful of misrepre sentations. That is a long word, and perhaps you might think I could express the idea by a much shorter one, but misrepresentations is my word. That book is full of them. It was published last year, and put into the Legislature. They cir culated it around, and thought by it to do a great deal of mischief ; but the committee reported against division, and there came a groan at the bottotn of that book, and thiey said: "Good-by to popular liberty and domestic rights," etc., and that everything was going to everlastings smash, because the bill did not go through. And yet here we are again, unmolested and undisturbed and uncrushed. That goes to show the animus of it. 274 MISSTATEMENTS BY MR. CONNOLLY AND OTHERS. Mr. Connolly said, in a statement that he made before you — I believe that it has been corrected, but I want to allude to it — Mr. Connolly spoke about the Mason property, and said that it was assessed at $10,000 an aerie. But it did not appear to be so : it was only $5,224, that is all ; that is about half of his statement. Again, he said it was $6,800, and that was wrong: it was only $5,200. So also of the Pickman land and the Endicott and the Sohier, and another place in that vicinity, Lefavour's, — that is over the other side ofthe line now. The Pickman place was said to be $5,200 an acre, but the fact is that it was $6,098 an acre. I have been told that somebody has been telling members, either down there or up here, as they have caught them and have had the occasion of their ears for a minute, that marsh land down there is assessed at 20 cents a foot. As an actual fact, there is not a piece of marsh land down there that is assessed at two cents a foot, not a piece, and it can not be shown, and nobody in his senses would believe it if il was sta-ted, and therefore I do not expect this committee or the Legislature to believe it. Ifit is so, will you please to prove it? Will somebody prove it, and then divide the town if it is so? " Twenty cents a foot for nothing but marsh land ! " If it is not so, do not tell it. Cotting's barn comes around here every year, and remains with us. They never forget to mention it, and it is always known as a mistake, and it was published in the testimony of 1887, and Augustus P. Loring. and everybody else has said that it was a mistake, and yet it is circu lated as literature in this room. Then there is the Wheatland property, which, it is said, was assessed ' at a great deal higher flgure than the Sears property, on the other side of the creek: "The Wheatland land is assessed at $14,000, and the Sears land was assessed at only $3,300." It never has been so. The Wheatland land was assessed at $3,484 an acre, and the Sears land, including the marsh, was $3,300. And they got up a great talk here that that creek smelt worse on one side than on the other, and said that that was the reason why the valuation was different. 275 WHAT KIND OF A CASE NEEDS SUCH MISREPRESENTA TIONS AND FALSEHOODS. Now, what kind of a case is it, gentlemep, that needs any such mis representations and falsehoods as that? Is that right? Then, if it is not right, should anything prosper that is contrived in that way ? SALES IN OLD BEVERLY. I have said that " full and fair cash value" means all the value that there is in cash, and fair as to the rest. Now, I want to take you over to the other side of the line, to the shore land in the Cove, and all the sales that Mr. Connolly testified to I will put in. Bear in mind that the land on the Beverly side hag never sold so high as that on the Farms side. You might, perhaps, say, on a brief examina tion, that it ought to, but the fact is otherwise. You certainly are not qualified, on your own experience and judgment, to determine the values. OLD BEVERLY. SHORE LAND (COVE). (1880 to 1890.) Assessed. -- Prices 1885. 1889. Paid. 1880. H. W. Peabody $12,000 $15,700 $10,760 1880. A. A. Lavirrence 13,500 15,600 8,100 1883. William Hobbs 9,000 10,000 6,000 1885. W. 0. Grover . • 12,000 14,000 11,000 1884. C. Almy 3,500 4,400 4,500 1880. C, Torrey 7,000 7,500 6,000 1881. J. W. Lefavour 15,000 21,350 20,000 1883. W. D. Pickman . 22,800 24,475 40,000 1886. W. Sohier . . 2,625 7,598 8,000 $97,425 $120,623 $114,350 VILLAGE LOTS, (1886 to 1890,) Assessed. Prices Paid. 4 sales, North Beverly $7,850 $7,500 10 sales, Beverly Centre 28,075 28,610 3 sales, Beverly Centre 4,700 4,810 6 sales. North Beverly . 5,075 , 4,800 2 sales, Bisson • 3,800 4,720 276 41 sales, Beverly "Old Town" . , , $83,675 $80,002 12 sales, Beverly Cove 16,900 20,905 9 sales, Beverly RyaU Side , , . . 2,900 3,410 87 Sales Of Village Lois $152,875 $154,757 Paid. John I. Baker $2,200 $1,600 Peter B. Clark, 15 a. Bald Hill ... 450 300 Peter E. Clark, 15 a. adjoining ... 450 300 $3,100 $2,200 Total of 39 Sales above , $276,598 $271,307 There were ninety-nine sales in all from the beginning to the end, from 1880 down to and including this year, the total amounting to $271,307, and the assessment on the same was $276,598. That includes every sale that has been put into this case by either .side, and it shows that, bj' comparison on fair values, the Beverly Farms assessments are again right. I want to stop a minute to allude to Mr. Connolly's error when he said the Chapman land was assessed for $300 and sold for $1,500, when, as a fact, it was assessed for $1,600 and sold for $1,500. That probably was an error, and very likely Mr, Connolly got hold of the wrong piece of land. It was assessed for $1,600, and it sold for $1,500. IS THIS A FAIR DIVISION? Now, gentlemen, there is another consideration, and that is the ques tion of comparison. Let us see what will be the result in the way of inequality, because there is no better test of this whole question than to see whether the things that are to be left are equal or fair. They pro pose to take practically half the' property. Sometimes it is a little more, and sometimes it is a little less. In 1888, it was a little more, and this year it is a little less, in consequence of the removal of this personal property and conversions. Now, let us see what they are going to do about it. Let us see what thej' are going to give. The chief expendi tures in the town are on the poor, on the roads, and the schools. EXPENSES FOR POOR. The town of Beverly spent last year $10,266 for the poor, and the Farms spent $6.85. Of course, that is not equal. No matter what has been done in pri vate charities in either case, that does not matter ; and no matter if year before last it was as high as $80, and if some years it has been as high as $183. It has never been over $184 in any year, and the year before the division contest it was less than $15. 277 CHILDREN TO EDUCATE. Then, as to the scholars : There are 1,639 to be provided for in Beverly, and 130 in the Farms. There are 47 miles of roads in Beverly, and 13 in the Farms. Half the property, half the burdens, do you say? Ts that anywhere near right? INEQUALITY OF INCOME $7 PER POLL TO $1. They have as income on their taxable property $88,388.97. They want to take that awaj-, do they not? That is very plain. Of that the permanent residents, as I told you before, paid only $5,080.95. In Beverly, as has been shown by the former testimony, the tax rate would be $21 on $1,000; in Beverly Farms it would be about $7 on $1,000. You can easly compute those things. In the Farms the value per poll would" $21,900 ; in Beverly it would be $8,030. The income per poll in the Farms would be $330 ; the income per poll in Beverly would be $44. From either of those state ments you will see that there would be seven times as much in the Farms as there would be in Beverly ; that is, on an equal division of the property. WHERE SUMMER RESIDENTS PAY $1, PERMANENT RESI DENTS PAY LESS THAN SEVEN CENTS. For every dollar that is paid by the summer or shore residents in Beverly the permanent residents will pay $4 ; while in the Farms for every doUar that is paid by the summer and shore residents the permanent residents will pay less than seven cents. And that is said to be equality I In the proposed town four fifths of the acreage and fifteen sixteenths of the valuation is owned by people- not living there to-day. ABSENTEE LANDLORDISM. Call them what you please, they are not there now, and they own four fifths of the acreage and fifteen sixteenths of the valuation. That is a good example of absentee landlordism and foreign domination, if you please. For whom are you asked to make this town? For the people who own four fifths of the acreage and fifteen sixteenths ofthe valuation, or the others, do you think? 278 Who is it that promotes this movement? Isn't it a class town that they seek to get there ? It has been demonstrated by the figures and undeniable facts. "COMFORTABLY WELL OFF" AT BEVERLY FARMS MEANS OWNING HALF A MILLION. It will be a safe resort for people that are " comfortably well off," as Mr. Connolly says. " Comfortably well off" was his expression to de scribe those who are worth $500,000 or more, and he ran over a list of them, and gave their names to you: Thomas E. Proctor, William G. Saltonstall, Mrs. G. H. Shaw's family, William P. Mason, Martin Brimmer, Mrs. Cabot, William Endicott, Jr., Eugene Thayer, Thornton K. Lothrop, Franklin Haven, F. L. Higginson, and Col. Henrj- Lee, twelve of them, with not less than $500,000 apiece. There you have at least"$6,000,000 to make those twelve people " comfortably well off." WHY DO THEY WANT THE GORE? Now, if they were to offer Plum Cove line, which bounds the Gore on the east side, — if they were to offer that, the valuation of the summer residents would be practically equal in both towns. It would be prac tically equal, without troubling you now with the exact figures. They would have an annual income from summer residents of about the same, $56,000, in round numbers. The outlines of the " Gore,'' so called, appear on the maps, being the proposed line on the west, and the Plum Cove line on the east, these two lines running to a point at the north. Now, do they need the Gore? Does the new town need the Gore? I put this as a test ofthe movement, not as to whether they shall have it or not, but as a test of the movement, and the good faith that is in it. Does justice require it? Is it fair ? Do the interests ofthe people that live in the Gore require it? The valuation ofthe Gore is $2,116,775, and the annual income ofthe Gore is $31,533.27. That is whj'.they want it, isn't it? Mr. A. P. Loring testified last year, in excuse for their want of the Gore, and said : — " I think if you want to shove us off without any sort of a town over here, we might as well give up the ghost." There is a good reason apparent. They do not want it for the permanent residents there, for the, per manent residents own only one and one seventh per cent of the valuation ' in the Gore, and only one sixteenth of the territory. 279 They do not want it, do they, to have the school system more con venient in the Gore, because the Gore is two and a half miles from the Farms, and it is only three quarters of a mile from Beverly schools? They do not want it for the railroad conveniences, because those people come to Beverly, they do not go to the Farms. They do not want it on account of the town meetings, because they have over two and a half miles to go to the Farms, whereas they go a much shorter distance now. Is it for the churches? No, because the same argument applies there. For the horse cars? No, because there is a line that carries them down through Beverly to the town hall, and the people must walk to the Farms. Half of the area in the Gore is owned by residents in Beverly who remonstrate. They would have to go the Farms to pay taxes, ovet; to that " foreign province of Beverly Farms," as my friend should say. EXPENSES IN PROPOSED TOWN. They claim that they must have an income in that town of $70,000 to run them every year. Last j'ear it cost $13,958, add to that $6,00i> for other things, and the annual actual expenses would amount to $19,950, practically $20',000. Is that not enough for 1,017 people? How does that compare with other towns ? They have an income of $88,926. If they retained that income they could pay all expenses, about $20,000, and they would have $68,000 left, more than enough to pay off the whole debt as it accrues and the sinking fund and the interest meanwhile, and have $10,000 left every year besides. Of course that would be a good thing for them. That shows what thej- want. Why, Essex, Wenham, Middleton, Hamilton, Topsfield, all about the same size, and right around there, and some of them require much higher corporate expenses for schools and poor, carry on the affairs of the town with from $6,000 to $15,000 a year each. OVER TWO MILLIONS DISCOVERED AND TAXED. Now, what kind of a club town do they want down at Beverly Farms? Since 1885 there has been discovered and taxed personal property that had escaped taxation, that had not been taxed before, but should have been, to the amount of $2,308,100. Did I not tell you that you would see whj- the valuation went up from a normal and healthy rise after 1885 ? This is not on the real estate, remember ; it is right there 280 on the personal property. Probably that discovery of personal property and the fear that more such discoveries would be made, prompted the division movement. OVER TWO MILLIONS CONVERTED OR MOVED AWAY. Since that discovery of personal pioperty was made six men have moved away, with their trusts, and other personal property, or have con verted it into property non-taxable directly by the town to the amount of $2,167,550. The tax on that which was moved away would be in a year $30,345.70. The bank and corporation tax went with them, $11,048, making $41,393.70 of annual income that went out of Beverly. , This is a part of the whole scheme, as I told you before. This is to produce a good time to come up to the committee and say, " Now, give us a commission : we have denuded ourselves of $2,000,- 000, and now come down and value us ; send a commission." Where has it gone? Mr. Lothrop has come to Boston, which has a tax rate of $12.90 on the thousand, while the tax rate at Beverly is $14.00, so that he saves $1.10 on each $1,000. Mr. Morse has gone to Bourne, where the tax rate is $12.00 on the thousand, so that he saves $2.00 on a thousand. Mr. William A. Gardner has gone to Groton, where the tax rate is $5 on the thousand, and he saves $9 on every thousand. Mr. John A. Burnham went to Manchester, where the rate is $5.16 on the thousand, so that he saves $8.84. He owns no land down there., Mr. Morse owns no land at Bourne. ONE MAN BY MOVING SAVES OVER $7,000 A YEAR. Mr. Burnham saved in one year $7,834, or fifty per cent more than all the tax paid by the permanent residents in the Farms. Think of it half a minute 1 You will remember that Mr. Thomas D. Connolly testifled that Mr. Burnham was in Beverly three years ; that he goes from one place to another ; that he was in Nahant three years, in Marblehead three years, and that the last that he knew of him he was in Manchester. BIRDS OF PASSAGE. And he is the gentleman that my brother Williams maligned here two years ago. He called him " a bird of passage," he called him names. I protest against his calling people names in public. He said " they caught one more bird of passage," and " they plucked him." They 281 taxed him; that is what he meant, — taxed him., " a bird of passage" because he went to different places. Mr. Williams seems to have some little grudge against that man, but he does not speak of the others. BOSTON GENTLEMEN HOPE TO MOVE THEIR TAXES DOWN THERE. In 1886, Mr. F. L. Higginson said to Mr. Hills, " A lot of US pro pose to pay our taxes there if we can have the town set off from the old town of Beverly." Mr. John T. Morse said in 1886, " William Powell Mason is in Wal poie, N. H., and. he is not coming back to Beverly Farms." But he is there now in Beverly, and pays his personal tax there. A SNUG HARBOR. This is no place for epithets, and if it were I should be the last man in the world to use them. I shall call nobody a " tax dodger," or any thing of that kind, not even a " bird of passage," but I say that that little community down there that asks for municipal organization would, if incorporated, be a bome for the weary, it would be a snug harbor, it would be a haven of rest. If nobody runs out many will run in, and sotpe time or other, I have no doubt, the wanderers will return. As they land upon the familiar shore I trust that from Mr. Meredith's opera house will go out the wel come strains " Home again, home again, from a foreign shore." THE POLICY OF MASSACHUSETTS. What is best for Massachusetts? What is the true policy as to the division of towns? Let us see. What is best for Massachusetts ? In 1849, on a petition for the division of Newton, the committee said, " We are not in favor of altering the bounderies of towns for trifling causes. We have no desire to remove ancient landmarks unless some adequate reason is presented, and in all cases the burden of proof is on the petitioners." And the Legislature of 1849, to which that report was presented, con tained as members men afterwards well known and honored, — Henry L. Dawes, George S. Boutwell, Alexander H. Bullock, William Claflin, N. P. Banks, Benjamin R. Curtis, John Wells, Otis P. Lord, Charles Devens, Jr., J. Lothrop Motley, Whiting Griswold, Ensign H. Kellogg, John C. Gray, and many others. They gave I character to that Legislature. 282 THE SPOFFORD AND NICHOLS RULE. , Now, it is claimed here that there is another rule that controls now, and which has been cited by Mr. Williams as the " Spofford Rule," simply because Mr. R. S. Spofford, a member of the House, in 1859, made a report upon a division ease, and put something into his report which has been dignifled by calling it the Spofford Rule. This is it : — " It is the public policy ofthe State, in the opinion of the committee, to Create new towns whenever and wherever a necessity requiring such legislative action is seen to exist. And the consideration of that necessity may or may not be limited to local circumstances, and may or may not extend so far as to include the public interests of the State. So that, as respects the creation of new towns, the rule of practice as well as of right has come to be, that, whenever the elements of a town are shown to exist, that is to say, a suflBcient area, population, wealth, and capa bility to manage municipal affairs, and further shown that it is the unquestionable wish of the people living upon the territory to be incor porated as such, that then, if no injury shall accrue to any other town or interest, the Legislature, under such circumstances, will, in the exercise of its power in this regard, be guided by the will of the people, and grant their request." I will not take time to read it in full, but that has been called " The Spofford Rule." This was promulgated in 1859, when the town of Bel mont sought incorporation against the remonstrance of Watertown, West Cambridge, and Waltham. The bill passed, and in the House the vote was, for its passage 119, and a vote against it of 105. Anybody who has ever read the Supreme Court reports will readily turn back to the case of Frost v. Belmont, and will "learn what the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts thought of the proceedings con nected with the incorporation of that town. It. will be found to be good healthful reading for a man who is despondent of the conditions of Amer ican life and American legislation. The Spofford rule was advanced by a majority of the committee, and of that committee (this was in 1859) I flnd that Mr. Nichols, of Rox bury, was a member. Mr. Spofford has gone to his final reward, and cannot tell us now of his subsequent impressions or experiences ; but Mr. Nichols is living. He is Mr. Robert C. Nichols, of Boston, perhaps better known to some people as Bob Nichols, possibly better known to other people as the King of the Lobby. Ha is still with us, and in the flesh, and, although he, perhaps, has not announced himself on this question, I think it might be assumed that Mr. Nichols is in favor of division without doubt, and that he adheres to' the Spofford rnle. So I will call this hereafter the Spofford and Nichols Rule. 283 THE BRIMMER AND LOTHROP RULE. Look at the othet side of the question. The minority of that Com mittee said : " The undersigned saw no elements of a new town, either mechanical, manufacturing, or mercantile, but only a suburban retreat for mfen of wealth. " We were satisfled that incorporation would aid the petitioners to escape their just share of the expense of support of poor and of educa tion, and to form a small town exclusively of men of wealth, and to which others of like character would resort to escape equal taxation elsewhere. " We believe that any additional wealth the petitioners might acquire by incorporation would be by reducing the value of the property of others to a greater extent, and by a violation of the principle of equality in rights, burdens, and advantages." "Repeated appeals from the judgment of past Legislatures ought' not to induce unjust judgment because of iraportunitv." I find in the negative of that vote on the incorporation of Belmont the names of two gentlemen, then representing the citj- of Boston in part in the House, recorded as against that proposition to incorporate Belmont, and recorded as sustaining the paragraphs that I have read from the minority report. Those two members of the House frorn Boston were Martin Brimmer * and Thornton K. Lothrop. I call that rule that I have last read the Brimmer and Lothrop llule> and I put it against the Spofford and the Nichols Rule, and I say that the Brimmer and Lothrop rule ought to stand in this case, and that those doctrines that were declared there should go to the perpetuity and substantiality of our institutions, and that those two gentlemen, in 1859, when not confrdnted with the private interests which they have in this case, the principles involved being the same, declared themselves in speech and by vote as adopting that report against the incorporation of a town that should take away from Boston, or from any other community, the property that ought to be taxed, leaving the burden upon those who ought not to be compelled to bear it. I ask those same two gentlemen to read that report to-day, and recon cile the movement of to-day with their action in 1859. * C airman of Beverly Farms Committee, 1887. 284 NOT THE POLICY OF MASSACHUSETTS TO INCREASE INEQUALITY. , It is not the policy of Massachusetts to increase inequality. It is not her policy to establish club towns, and to set up class dis tinctions and grinding inequalities. It is not the policy of Massachusetts to violate the fundamental prin ciples upon wnich the government of this State has been founded and maintained until now. To take the course that is recommended is to import here upon us the frightful dangers that assail the integrity of governments in the Old World. As our fathers said in our Declaration of Rights : — " Government is instituted for the common good ; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people ; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men." Any policy that takes from one town or city and transfers to another taxable property tends toward grievous injustice. Legislation that facilitates the removal of personal property from one town to another, and its concealment in whole or in part, so that it es capes its just share of public burden, is radically wrong. There are too many instances now confronting us. Let me give you some : — Place Removed from. Amount. Place Removed to. Increase in ' Boston . $900,000 Falmouth $88,385 Boston . 1,000,000 ' Brewster 15,373 Boston . 800,000 Dover 281,665 Boston . 2,000,000 Lancaster 993,701 Owners of personal property taxed in Boston at $8,225,000, removed to eight towns, and the personal property in all those eight towns increased only $2,435,239, making a loss to Boston and to the State of the just tax on $5,789,761. The State commission on taxation (Thomas Hills, Julius H. Seelye, and James M. Barker) reported that "more than nine millions found lodgement in only eight towns, where, upon the ' club" principle,' the owners were able to combine the advantages of rural assessment with city privileges. In some of these eight towns, notwithstanding the pro visions of law which the assessors were sworn to obey, more than a difference in the rate of taxation was accorded to the citizens who had SO much property that they could not afford to pay their taxes." 285 THREATENS DANGER TO THE STATE. I say that the practice is vicious, inequitable, and impolitic. It threatens danger to the institutions of this State. It arouses animosity ; and we all know well enough that there is no need of doing that gratuit ously ; it violates the safeguards of freedom and equality before the law, — and no State can safely sanction that. You remember that Lord Macaulay said, in 1857, in a letter in which he was discussing the principles and policy of Thomas Jefferson, that th6 time was coming, in his judgment, when America would be rent in twain, notwithstanding her constitutional form of government. He put out dismal forebodings of what would come when one class of men were arr rayed against another, and he looked for it in a not distant future. But he did not understand American institutions. He did not discover that in the constitution of society our people are not fixed in classes naturally ; that they go from one to another ; that a man can here rise from the lowest walks to the highest ; that a man when he is born, and when in his cradle, might be poor and of obscure lineage, but before he dies he may be crowned with the highest honors of the nation. Lord Macaulay did not recognize our universal system of education, which benefits the poor as well as the rich. He did not discover at that time that the whole current of American sentiment was against the establish ment of distinction and the dividing of people into classes in this country. WE DO NOT WANT GLASS TOWNS. That was more than thirty years ago, and, although those evils that he referred to will never come, you must guard well against any legislation which carves out of our territory a town for a class, and leaves over the other side of the line another town in which another class lives, one to look across to the other, and to produce feelings of animosity and ill- will that would lead to the breaking, possibly, of the integrity of the Government. The danger that that Englishman foresaw will not come in the way that he anticipated, and it will not dome in the other way, because the Legislature will not do a dangerous thing. This is not any prejudice against rich men that I am inculcating. May their number increase ! May everybody in time grow rich ! But we want men as well as money. We want to retain manhood as well as dollars. " 111 fares the land to hastening ills a prey. Where wealth accumulates and men decay." 286 Let us not dismember our towns and create resorts for selfish people, who, in their wealth, think that they owe no duty to anybodj' but them selves. TOWNS SHOULD DECIDE THEMSELVES, THAT IS LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT. I should say to you that you should not, as a general rule, incorporate anj- town as against the remonstrance of the parent town ; that you sjiould submit the question to the parent town ; that that is local self- government in its best estate, and that that has been the general prac tice ofthe State of Massachusetts from the beginning. HOW BEVERLY WAS INCORPORATED. So was Beverly incorporated with the consent of Salem. Salem was older than the General Court, and Beverly was set off by vote of Salem. When Bass River, now Beverly, first applied to the General Court to be made a separate town, in 1657, the General Court told the petitioners to ask Salem. The following is the answer : — "In answer to the petition ofthe inhabitants of that part of Salem on the north side of the ferry going to Ipswich, humblj' desiring to be a township of themselves, etc., the Court do judge that the petitioners should make their address to the town of Salem in reference to their requests, and they agreeing to mutual satisfaction, this Court will be ready to answer their just desires in their petition, and orders the town of Salem tp give the petitioners a speedy meeting to effect the same." Nine years later Bass River again made application to the General Court and was again sent back to Salem, and in 1668 Beverly was set off bj' vote of Salem. In the Massachusetts records of 1668, indexed as " Salem's concession to Bass River " (now Beverly) , is the following answer from the town of Salem : — " The answer of the town of Salem to the Court's former order is that we do not see cause to consent further. We say that if our brethren and neighbors of Bass River side desire to be a township bj' themselves and are content with the lands already set out to them, we consent to that." The act of incorporation reads : " The Court, on perusal of this return, judge it mete to grant that Bass River be henceforth a township of themselves, referring it to Salem to accommodate them with lands and bounds suitable for them, and that they be called Beverly." 287 TOWN DIVISIONS IN DIFFERENT COUNTIES. You have heard the testimony of Mr. Grant, and have seen the lists he presented. You can see for your.* el ves what are the facts in the dif ferent counties, as there presented. In Barnstable County there has been only one town divided for eighty years, when Bourne was set off from Sandwich, and the repre sentative from the district voted for the division. In Berkshire County no town has been incorporated for eighty years, except by the desire of the town divided. In Bristol County no town has been incorporated for sixty years, except by vote of the town divided. In Essex County, during a third of a century, there have been con stant attempts to incorporate new towns, but not one has succeeded except by the vote of the town divided. In FrankUn County for sixty years every attempt has failed. In Hampshire County for sixty years every attempt has failed. In Hampden County every attempt has failed for a third of a cen tury, except by vote of town divided. In Middlesex County there are twenty-eight towns which have been set .off by the vote of the town divided. In Norfolk County there are thirteen, including Avon, which^ is the last town incorporated in Massachusetts, with only one dissenting vote in the parent town of Stoughton. In Plymouth County eleven towns have been set off by vote of the town divided. In Worcester County twenty-six towns have been set off by vote of the parent town, while for fifty years no town has been incorporated except by vote of the town divided, excepting Hopedale, which was a Republican, no-license district, in a large license town. Such has been the history of 140 towns in the Commonwealth. It has been the history in all the counties of this Commonwealth. And so has it been everywhere. I will stop a moment to speak of Millis, as my friend seems to object to Millis's being included in among the cases where the parent town did not oppose. But the town historian says that there was " no serious opposition from any quarter " to its incorporation. My learned friend, who carried through triumphantly the bill, of course saw a great manj' difficulties in advance, and as he looks back to that he regards it as a great victory, and we all congratulate him upon his suc cess ; but there were really not a great many opponents of that petition, and it went through nem. con. , 288 Gentlemen, I thank the comraittee for their great patience and their very careful attention. If I have urged the side of Beverly with the force and strength that is in me, it is my duty. If I have been emphatic about it, it is because I believe in her case, and because it is in accord with my experience and my training. IS NOT ESSEX A GOOD JUDGE? If I tell you that the Town of Beverly has an interest in this inatter, it is because- she speaks in one voice with all Essex County, who never would see a thousand of her people down-trodden by anybody's mis management and tyranny. Essex County is a unit against this proposi tion. And how shall men of Bristol and Berkshire, and Hampden and Franklin know better what is just and right, and what is fair, than the people who are all around Beverly, and who have no personal interest in the matter ? THE WHOLE STATE IS INTERESTED. ¦ And if I tell you that the whole State of Massachusetts cares for this really above many other things that seem to be of greater consequence, I only speak what is the spirit, as I believe it, of those who actuated' the movement for the foundation of this Government, and of those who, in every-day life, in quiet homes, in the shop, or on the farm, in industry or in leisure, in this Commonwealth, are to-day deeply interested that no wrong be done. [Applause.] 3 9002 00574 4819