Boston 1822 - 1922 E-Book

John Koren

• Herausgeber: Jazzybee Verlag
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 279

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2018

Beschreibung

John Koren gives insights into the story of Boston as a municipality since its inception in 1822 until the year 1922, with its changing forms of government and its multitudinous activities for the betterment of conditions of living. The frame work of the book is mostly limited to tracing the development and undertakings of the City of Boston for a century, under successive city administrations.

Leseprobe

Boston

1822 – 1922

The Story of Its Government and Principal Activities During One Hundred Years

JOHN KOREN

Boston 1822 - 1922, J. Koren

Jazzybee Verlag Jürgen Beck

86450 Altenmünster, Loschberg 9

Deutschland

ISBN: 9783849651060

www.jazzybee-verlag.de

[email protected]

CONTENTS:

Introductory.1

The Winning Of The Charter.2

Boston And The Commonwealth.9

Mayors Of Boston From 1822 To 1922.11

Public Health.42

Police Protection.48

Fire Protection.55

Water Supply.61

The Public Schools.67

The Public Library. 75

Public Grounds, Parks And Recreation. 79

Public Lands. 87

Charitable And Correctional Institutions.91

Street Betterment.103

Sewer Improvements.109

Street Lighting.112

Rapid Transit.115

The Ferry Service.118

Bridges.120

Public Markets.121

Licenses And The License Board.123

Soldiers' Relief.125

The Finance Commission.126

Suffolk County.128

Boston And Its Commerce.131

The George Robert White Fund.135

The Population Of Boston.137

INTRODUCTORY.

Hitherto the story of Boston as a municipality since its inception in 1822, with its changing forms of government and its multitudinous activities for the betterment of conditions of living, has not been told connectedly. To set forth this story briefly and simply is attempted in the following pages.

The frame work is strictly limited to tracing the development and undertakings of the City of Boston for a century, under successive city administrations.

The things that have been done on private initiative to enrich and beautify the city, to bring light and happiness to its poor and rich inhabitants alike through the arts and educational opportunities, the place the city has in the history of our country, both in peace and war, and much else, lie wholly without our province.

All these things have been told in many books to which one must look for romance and historical narrative of a general kind.

Yet the story of municipal affairs is not without deep interest, for it is full of adventures and misadventures. Above all, the municipal story of Boston is creditable, despite those who during the hundred years have been the detractors rather than the promoters of upright city administration. Those who read this centennial municipal story may still apply to Boston the words of Emerson: "Let her stand fast by herself. She has grown great.

She is filled with strangers, but she can only prosper by adhering to her faith. Let every child that is born of her and every child of her adoption see to it to keep the name of Boston as clean as the sun; and in distant ages her motto shall be the prayer of millions on all the hills that gird the town, 'As with our Fathers, so God be with us.' Sicut Patribus, Sit Deus Nobis!"

Note.— This story of Boston as a municipality during a hundred years lays no claim to profound original research. The material used is for the greater part to be found in the public documents of the city and certain publications drawn from them. Therefore no footnotes have been supplied indicating sources, and no bibliography has been prepared in view of the many lists already existing and easily accessible.

In form and method of presentation, the story will be sufficiently novel to those who wish to trace Boston's beginning and development into a great city.

THE WINNING OF THE CHARTER.

For 192 years after its foundation, Boston remained under the town form of government, which in the course of time had undergone many modifications, the while it had grown from a straggling village to a thriving seaport of about forty-five thousand inhabitants, who dwelt chiefly between Beacon Hill and the waterfront. Amid many vicissitudes, Boston had become the life-center of New England, its great mart, the principal seat of industry, the port of entry and departure of ships that plied every sea. In learning and the arts its first rank was undisputed. Boston in 1821 has been truthfully described as the "most populous and illustrious town in the world."

But the machinery of government, although it had become more and more highly organized, had not kept pace with the external growth of the town. Years before Boston adopted its first city charter, men had become dissatisfied with the unwieldy and archaic forms of the many semi-independent boards that had jurisdiction over local affairs and had been called into being, not according to a well-conceived plan looking to the future, but to meet incidental emergencies or immediate needs. No less than four plans for incorporation as a city had been submitted to the voters — in 1784, 1792, 1804 and 1815. But so tenaciously did the people at large cling to the old form of government that each of these charter proposals was, in turn, defeated mostly by large majorities, although the one of 1815 failed of adoption by but thirty-one votes. It has been cited by the third Mayor Quincy as a curious coincidence that of the two plans submitted in 1784 by a committee, which included Samuel Adams and James Sullivan, the first proposed a city government consisting of thirty-eight members, the exact number provided for by an act of 1897. The alternate plan would have a single body elected one third at large and two thirds by wards, which again was the basis of election brought forward in 1897.

Throughout the struggle over the question of incorporation, its advocates had been moved chiefly by two considerations. One was that of practical necessity; the town had grown too large to be managed by direct government. Indeed, several modifications of the old government had been put into effect. Already in 1799 the method of ward elections for certain purposes had been introduced. And in 1813, a de facto town council had been created to choose the city treasurer and the collector of taxes. It consisted of the selectmen, the members of the board of health and the overseers of the poor — in all thirty-three members,— who also formed a committee on finance. These innovations were among the beginnings of a change from direct to representative government. Boston had grown too large for a rule of pure democracy, which implies that the people themselves constitute the government.

Perhaps a weightier reason for seeking the incorporation of Boston as a city was the tangled relations of the town to the County of Suffolk. The trouble was of ancient date, for at the very establishment of Suffolk County (1643) it had been given a county court endowed with jurisdiction over several matters directly affecting the towns within its borders, including Boston.

Thus it was required that all orders and by-laws of towns should be approved by the Court of Quarter Sessions, as it was called. This court also had authority to assess county taxes, to discontinue highways, license innholders, locate distilleries, etc., and to appoint certain local officials. While Suffolk County consisted of a large district outside of Boston, including Roxbury, Dorchester, what is now Norfolk County, and even a part of Worcester County, there may have been ample reason for giving the court executive powers that for certain purposes placed it above the selectmen of the towns. But the law remained in force until 1822, when Suffolk County consisted merely of the towns of Boston and Chelsea. The county taxes, to which Boston contributed about 99 per cent, were levied and spent under the direction of the justices of the Court of Quarter Sessions over whom the town of Boston had no control since they were appointees of the Governor; and there were other grievances against the county rule.

The administration of justice had become complex and defective. It was divided among three courts; that of Quarter Sessions, a Municipal Court, especially created for adjudicating violations of town ordinances, and a Court of Common Pleas, known as the Town Court. The conditions had grown so bad that the committee report on incorporation, which was submitted in 1821, felt constrained to say, "The present mode of administering justice in the first stages is attended with many and growing abuses; and although they have already attained to a very considerable extent, they must, unless prevented by an entire change in the system, produce eventually the most mischievous and immoral consequences." So it was in part the feeling that a municipal form of government, which would necessitate a reorganization of the courts and might correct the abuses in the administration of justice, that accelerated the movement for a city charter.

Thus it came about that the town meeting held on October 22, 1821, instructed a committee to "report to the town, at a future meeting, a complete system relating to the administration of the town and county which shall remedy the present evils." The committee made its report in December and was thereupon enlarged and instructed "to report a system of Municipal Government for this town, with such powers, privileges and immunities, as are contemplated by the amendment of the Constitution, authorizing the General Court to constitute the City Governments." It should be explained that the Constitutional Convention held in 1820 had, by a slight majority, adopted an amendment permitting the General Court to incorporate towns containing 12,000 inhabitants as cities. When this amendment had been secured, the final committee was appointed and instructed as above. Among its members were John Phillips, then President of the Senate and afterwards the first Mayor of Boston; Josiah Quincy, then Speaker of the House of Representatives and later the second Mayor; Lemuel Shaw, subsequently the Chief Justice of the Commonwealth; and Daniel Webster. After a debate lasting three days, during which the committee report was amended in important respects, the charter petition was accepted on January 7, 1822, by a vote of 2,805 Yeas to 2,006 nays. A separate vote taken on the question whether Boston should be a county by itself was practically unanimous in the affirmative. The General Court passed the act of incorporation promptly; it was approved by the Governor on February 23, 1822; and the act, known as the First Charter, was accepted by the town on March 4, 1822, by a vote of 2,797 Yeas to 1,881 nays. By this vote Boston became the first city in the Commonwealth as well as the largest; indeed, it was the only city in Massachusetts until the incorporation of Salem in 1835.

The Charter of 1822.

The deep changes wrought by the first charter stand out vividly when one contrasts the cumbersome officialdom, which had grown up under the town system of government, with the city form of administration.

The last town meeting elected the following officials: "Seven Selectmen, who also served as surveyors of highways; a Town Clerk; a School Committee of 12; 12 Overseers of the Poor and of the Workhouse; 30 Firewards; 20 Surveyors of Boards and other Lumber; 6 Fence Viewers; 6 Cullers of Hoops and Staves; 9 Cullers of Dry Fish; 4 Hogreeves, Haywards and Field Drivers; 3 Inspectors of Lime; 2 Surveyors of Hemp; 2 Surveyors of Wheat; and 2 Assay Masters. Besides, there were chosen by each ward 12 members of the Board of Health; 24 Assistant Assessors, 2 for each ward." These officials were chosen annually at ward meetings presided over by the wardens, who themselves were elective officers. The principal assessors were chosen in convention by the 24 assistant assessors. The financial policy and affairs of the town were largely controlled by the Selectmen, Overseers of the Poor and Board of Health, as a standing committee on finance, which chose the town treasurer at an annual convention. As a rule, the town treasurer was also the collector of taxes. At the last town meeting held in Boston there were elected, in all, 112 officers besides those appointed by the Selectmen or elected by each ward.

The first city charter provided for the election of a Mayor, eight aldermen, chosen at large, forty-eight members of the Common Council, four from each ward, besides other elective officers referred to elsewhere. The City Council, or the Mayor and Aldermen, selected the other necessary officials. City and county finances were placed under a single treasurer.

The county courts ceased to have a veto power over ordinances; but the General Court reserved the right to annul any ordinance not meeting with its approval.

The financial, executive and administrative powers of the city government were thus vested, partly, in the Board of Mayor and Aldermen and partly in the City Council, and to be exercised by concurrent vote of both branches. Departmental heads were generally elected by the City Council. The Mayor had in reality very little power except to appoint committees.

He presided over the Board of Aldermen which, together with him, constituted a single board known as the Mayor and Aldermen. The charter had not omitted to admonish the Mayor to be "vigilant and active at all times in causing the laws of the government of the said city to be duly executed and put in force to cause all negligence, carelessness and positive violation of duty to be duly prosecuted and punished." But the charter, almost in a spirit of irony, neglected to give him the necessary powers.

The new charter did not yield the practical results so confidently expected by its advocates, and for obvious reason: It was, in fact, not an effort to establish a new form of government, but simply intended to perpetuate, so far as possible; the old regime in attempt to substitute delegated for direct control.

The Mayor had no power to appoint or remove officials, no veto over municipal legislation and, in general, no control of the executive work of the city except indirectly through his veto in the Board of Aldermen and the power to appoint committees. Only one Mayor, the first Josiah Quincy, tried to overcome these charter weaknesses by placing himself at the head of all the important committees of the Board of Aldermen. By this means he familiarized himself with all the details of administration and assumed greater responsibility than the charter implied. Although Mayor Quincy accomplished great things for the city as its chief magistrate, he overstepped the limits of the charter which led to severe criticism and abuse by the non-progressive elements among the citizens.

The mayors following him were content to act within the narrow sphere prescribed by the charter, with the result that, until 1885, the administration of Boston was practically in the hands of the committees of the City Council.

The Charter of 1854.

Aside from the inherent weaknesses of the first charter, the changing conditions eventually made it necessary to improve the form of government given the city. Population had greatly increased; Boston was no longer a mere seaport of local importance, but had become the distributing point for the industries of New England; and better means of communication and transportation had placed it in touch with the whole country. The "long winter of New England isolation" had passed; other states and cities developed with amazing rapidity, and Boston was drawn closer to them. Moreover, immigration had introduced new elements of religion and race, so that the life of the inhabitants grew increasingly more complex; their interests became more and more diversified; and new ideals loomed up. All these developments helped to accentuate the demand for better city service and a more liberal expenditure for municipal undertakings.

These and other considerations led to a reframing of the charter, yet very few material changes were made. The Mayor was placed outside the Board of Aldermen and given a qualified veto over the acts of the City Council, or either branch of it, in regard to expenditure of money; but a two thirds vote enabled the Council to pass a bill over the Mayor's veto.

He could not disapprove separate items in an appropriation order or a loan bill, but was given a certain power to remove officials, their election being entrusted as heretofore to the City Council. The old government by committees remained. In brief, the Mayor, under the charter of 1854, had little more than advisory power.

The Charter Amendments of 1885.

The urgent reasons for a revision in the form of government which led to the charter of 1854 became even more pressing within the next thirty years.

The different Mayors until that time had all taken occasion to advocate a separation of the executive business of the city from the legislative. The mingling of the two had become intolerable.

The charter of 1885 took the form of a few short amendments by which all the executive powers of the municipality were transferred to the Mayor, to be administered by the officials and boards of the various departments, under the supervision and control of the Mayor. Thus these officials and boards were given the general direction and control of all the executive and administrative business of Boston.

The City Council was expressly prohibited from interfering in any manner with the work of the executive in the way of employing labor, making contracts, purchasing materials, etc. The amendments, furthermore, gave the Mayor authority to appoint all officials and members of boards except the City Clerk, Clerk of Committees and City Messenger, but made all appointments subject to confirmation by the Board of Aldermen. He was also given the power of removal for cause. Departments were prohibited from exceeding the appropriations made for them. All contracts for public work required the approval of the Mayor, who also had the right to veto any order passed by the City Council and disapprove increases in loan bills and appropriations. Such orders could, however, be passed over the Mayor's veto by a two thirds vote of the City Council. The Mayor was not to be a member of the Board of Aldermen or of the School Committee, nor could he appoint any of the committees of these two bodies.

To sum up, the charter amendments of 1885 placed in the hands of the Mayor the entire charge of and responsibility for the conduct of the executive business of the city.

Whatever may be said of the theory of substituting the one-man power of the Mayor for the control of city affairs by committees, the latter has proved impracticable and dangerous in this country. It was, in fact, distrust of common councils and their committees to carry on the executive business of the municipal administration honestly and effectively which led to the charter changes of 1885, a distrust common to municipalities throughout the United States.

The Charter of 1909.

The city administration was undoubtedly improved by the charter amendments of 1885, but they left much to be desired. The provision that appointments by the Mayor should be subject to the approval of the aldermen proved a great weakness. Another weakness was that members of the City Council could not be penalized for interfering with the executive branch of the government. They could, therefore, violate with impunity the prohibition against activity in the employment of city labor, concerning contracts, the purchase of materials and, generally, in all matters of public works. The interference by the City Council had gone so far that the Finance Commission of 1907 declared many of its ordinances to be inconsistent with the statutes, and that a large part of them were devoted to things with which they were expressly prohibited to interfere.

The Finance Commission of 1907, when entrusted with the task of framing a new city charter, sought to correct the evils which had arisen in the city administration by means of several expedients. A complete separation of the executive and legislative branches of government was sought. The appointments by the Mayor were no longer subject to confirmation by the Board of Aldermen, but all heads of departments were to be certified by the Civil Service Commission.

A penalty was imposed for interference with executive business on the part of the City Council. In regard to finances, the new charter provided that all appropriations to be met from sources other than loans must originate with the Mayor. The City Council could no longer increase any item or add new ones.

The Mayor was given an absolute veto power over all acts of the City Council, extending to a veto of any item in a bill requiring the expenditure of money and to any part of an item. The term of the Mayor was extended to four years, subject to recall at the end of two years.

The new charter abolished the bi-cameral organization of the City Council and provided that it should consist of but nine members, to be elected at large for a term of three years, only three being elected each year. An entirely new charter feature provided for the appointment of a permanent Finance Commission, with all the powers of the first commission, but its members were to be selected by the Governor, the idea being that a body quite independent of the municipal government would be able to serve as a check on waste and corruption. The charter as drawn up by the Finance Commission of 1907 was passed by the General Court of 1909, but its political features, to be submitted to the voters for their acceptance, were divided into two plans, one providing for a single legislative council consisting of one member from each ward, to be elected for two years, and nine members at large, to be elected for three years. Also, the term of the Mayor was left at two years. The other plan contained the recommendation of the Finance Commission of a single legislative chamber of nine members, and this plan was adopted by the voters. The charter of 1909 has been amended in some respects, the principal changes being that the Mayor shall not be eligible for re-election for the succeeding term (that is, a term of four years must elapse before a Mayor can again become a candidate), the abolition of the recall of the Mayor, different dates for elections, and various changes of minor importance.

BOSTON AND THE COMMONWEALTH.

The successive charter amendments show very clearly a distrust of the capacity of the municipal legislature and its committees to conduct the executive affairs of the city for the common good. The only alternative presenting itself has been to substitute the one-man power for a less responsible, or irresponsible, city council. But this tendency toward concentrating responsibility for city affairs has undoubtedly acted as an incentive to the General Court to extend its control over the municipality of Boston.

Occasionally, administrative mishaps or difficulties have served as an excuse for interference.

The underlying principles upon which a city government is established are that, in the first place, it is an organ for local self-government; and, secondly, an administrative agency through which the state government secures within the municipality the execution of state laws of general application. Thus a municipal corporation has a two-fold function; but just how and where the dividing line between the authority of the city and that of the state should be drawn has given rise to much dispute. From the very beginning there has been insistence on the part of the municipal authorities upon a larger measure of self-government, or complete control of municipal affairs. On the other hand, the Commonwealth has not only demanded the execution of general laws within the city, and rightfully so, but has attempted to make Boston its mere agent in carrying out matters of purely local concern and legislated accordingly.

It is obvious that in much of the city's administrative work,— as for instance, through the Board of Elections, the Board of Assessors, the Board of Health, the School Committee, etc., the interests of the Commonwealth as well as those of the city must be served.

In other words, some city departments are partly, but not in any case wholly, concerned with the execution of state laws, while others are created simply as parts of the ordinary municipal organization for local purposes. On the other hand, the wisdom of establishing departments like that of the Police and Finance Commission as independent organizations of the state has given rise to much controversy.

The complaint, however, has not been directed solely against such extensive usurpation of municipal authority, but also against efforts to control the departments of the city government, and, above all, against attempts to regulate municipal expenditures and tax limits. If it cannot be said that Boston has been deprived of municipal autonomy in having charters imposed upon it, since they have always been subject to the acceptance of the voters, the situation is quite different when the more intimate details of conducting city affairs, particularly finance, are concerned.

A glance at the special acts affecting the city of Boston and the towns or cities annexed to it shows beyond doubt that the Commonwealth has legislated in regard to matters that could easily have been entrusted to local control without infringing upon its sovereignty, for they have been affairs that could have been dealt with by the city under ordinary charter powers. But it must be admitted that a very large portion of the legislative acts have been beyond municipal control because they involve interests either affecting the Commonwealth itself or territories lying outside the limits of Boston.

Perhaps the one feature of state legislation affecting the city of Boston most disadvantageously has been the meddling with its financial concerns. As Mayor Matthews puts it in his valedictory address: "The treasury of the city of Boston is regarded in many parts of the State as a fund to be drawn upon by compulsory legislation for the benefit of the smaller towns; and many of the representatives from this city make it their habitual concern to introduce and advocate bills for the transfer of portions of the city's money for the benefit of special interests and classes. The result is that during the annual sessions of the Legislature a large part of the work of governing this city must be transacted at the State House in the advocacy of needed reforms, and in defence of the city treasury against agrarian and class legislation."

It may be noted, by the way, that the special acts relating to the city of Boston which have been passed by the General Court from 1822 to 1908 (taking no account of later years during which the acts have been published separately) cover more than thirteen hundred pages, in two bound volumes, and include almost every topic that can be mentioned under the head of municipal administration. The most recent tendency seems to be toward a keener desire on the part of the General Court to prescribe ways and means of conducting Boston's city administration.

MAYORS OF BOSTON FROM 1822 TO 1922.

JOHN PHILLIPS.

Born in Boston, November 26, 1770; died May 29, 1823; served during 1822.

A service of twenty-five years in the General Court, during ten of which he was president of the Senate, well qualified John Phillips for the new office of Mayor of Boston. He had also served for many years as town advocate and public prosecutor. He has been described as a man "of a rather pliable disposition, but of strict integrity and general good judgment.'' Conservative tendencies led him to preserve as much of the ancient regime as possible; and it was well, for it made the transition to a city government so much easier. His activities were mainly confined to the organization of the administrative machinery created by the first city charter. Men who had been instrumental in securing it, and expected radical changes at once, showed some dissatisfaction with the administration of Mayor Phillips, but his conservative course was an asset rather than a hindrance in laying the proper foundations for a city government.

It is of interest to observe that at the very first election of a mayor political feeling ran high. Josiah Quincy was an avowed candidate for the office, likewise Harrison Gray Otis. Both finally withdrew their names after an acrimonious campaign full of charges and counter-charges, and left the field open for John Phillips. The latter's delicate health made him refuse a second term, the mayors at that time being chosen annually.

JOSIAH QUINCY.

Born in Boston, February 4, 1772; died July 1, 1864; served during 1823-28.

No one had taken a greater interest in town affairs than Josiah Quincy. It fell to him to preside at the last town meeting held in Faneuil Hall, and those who wanted an energetic Mayor, ready to take full advantage of the powers under the city government, found in Josiah Quincy a man admirably suited for the task. He has deservedly been called the Great Mayor, setting a standard of purpose and execution which has rarely been equaled.

Josiah Quincy's term of administration covered a period of six years marked by lively controversies and the accomplishment of many important measures, in spite of the charter limitations under which the Mayor had to act. In order to secure the widest possible power, Quincy placed himself at the head of all the committees of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen, and did so without antagonizing his associates in a disturbing degree.

Among the achievements under Quincy's administration were the great extension of Faneuil Hall for market purposes, and the reorganization of the departments of Health, Fire, and Charitable and Correctional Institutions. He also placed the Police Department on a better footing and abolished the Board of Surveyors of Highways. Indeed, Josiah Quincy's interests covered all kinds of municipal activities. He was exceedingly concerned on behalf of the public schools. Already prior to the organization of Boston as a city he had given much attention to the care of the poor, and, on becoming Mayor, put into effect several important measures for their welfare as well as for that of prisoners. A memorable event in Quincy's administration was the official visit of General Lafayette to Boston.

When his last year of office drew to a close, Quincy had aroused a feeling of bitterness and even of malignancy on the part of many influential voters, whose private interests had suffered through his reform measures, and who could not forget the increased expenditures due to the many improvements undertaken. In addition, he had the low elements against him because he enforced laws relating to gambling, prostitution, and the sale of intoxicating liquors. In spite of all vilification, no charge could be brought against Mayor Quincy affecting his personal and official integrity. He was a strong man and had used his power to the advantage of the city, if perhaps ruthlessly at times. Although Mayor Quincy stood for re-election in 1828, he failed to receive a majority of all the votes cast both on the first and second ballots.

He then withdrew his name, stating that "no consideration would induce him again to accept the office."

HARRISON GRAY OTIS.

Born in Boston October 8, 1765; died October 28, 1848; served during 1829-31.

From early manhood, Mr. Otis had been prominent in public affairs. In his first inaugural address, he recommended the establishment of railroad communication with the Hudson river. His administration was not remarkable for any extension of municipal activities. Rather, his incumbency marked a period of retrenchment made necessary by general financial conditions. There had been a decline in the valuation of assessed property, and the City of Boston, which counted a population of over sixty-one thousand at the census of 1830, suffered from a depression that Mayor Otis attributed to "over-capitalization in manufactures." On his recommendation, the Old State House was renovated in order to provide accommodations for the Mayor, Aldermen, Common Council and other officials. They took possession on September 17, 1830, the two hundredth anniversary of the settlement of the town. Former Mayor Josiah Quincy, who meanwhile had become president of Harvard College, delivered the address of the day. During the preceding administrations the city government had been housed in the Old Stone Court House on School street.

On the initiative of Mayor Otis, during the last year of his administration, the General Court passed an act which vested all the property of Suffolk County in the City of Boston. Thereafter Boston was to provide and maintain all the county buildings and to pay the county charges. If the administration of Mayor Otis was not remarkable for any special advance in municipal government, he must be said to have fully maintained the standards set by Mayor Quincy.

CHARLES WELLS.

Born in Boston, December 30, 1786; died June 3, 1866; served during 1832-33.

In 1831, two elections were held for the purpose of selecting a mayor. In the first election, the contest lay between Charles Wells, William Sullivan and Theodore Lyman, Jr.; in the second, it narrowed to one between Wells and Lyman.

Charles Wells won and served two terms. He had been a member of the Common Council and of the Board of Aldermen, but he did not come from the same social stratum that had contributed the previous mayors, his occupation being that of a master builder. His election has been described as a protest by the middle class against "excessive" expenditures inaugurated by Quincy and maintained by Otis. Mayor Wells' administration was, on the whole, featureless, except that expenditures continued to rise and with them the city debt notwithstanding higher tax rates.

The early thirties were years of prosperity, and it was natural that expenditures should be indulged in proportionately. Under Mayor Wells, a new court house was built, some of the principal streets extended, and the quarantine regulations were more strictly enforced owing to the prevalence of cholera in certain British provinces.

THEODORE LYMAN, JR.

Born in Boston, February 19, 1792; died July 17, 1849; served during 1834-35.

He has been described as a man "of good understanding, enlarged by a liberal education and extensive foreign travel.'' At all events, he was a farsighted and able man. One of his early acts was to draw attention to the need of a better water supply.

Hitherto water had been obtained from Jamaica Pond for certain parts of the city, through crude pipe lines which proved quite insufficient. Efforts had been made to study the whole subject, but without tangible results until Mayor Lyman sent a message to the City Council about the water supply, the Council, in turn, referring it to a committee of which the Mayor was chairman. But in spite of the urgency of the situation, a number of years elapsed until final action was taken on the basis of recommendations furnished by Col. Loammi Baldwin, an engineer, who had been selected to make a special investigation of the most available water supply.

Mayor Lyman achieved, among other things, the erection of a well-founded house of reformation, a larger development of the primary school system, and was much occupied with street extension and improvement. He did not confine his attention solely to the needs of Boston in penal reform. It is due to him that the State Reform school at Westboro for juvenile offenders, the first institution of its kind, was established (now known as the Lyman School for Boys). To him we also owe a school of similar character for girls at Lancaster. He interested himself in and was for many years the manager of the Farm School for Boys at Thompson's Island.

Several stirring events took place under Lyman's administration. One was the destruction of the Ursuline convent by a mob (see page 76); others were the demonstrations against the abolition movement, particularly the one of October 21, 1835 at which Garrison was seized by the mob, and Mayor Lyman offered his own body as a shield to Garrison against the rioters.

SAMUEL TURREL ARMSTRONG.

Born in Dorchester, April 29, 1784; died March 26, 1850; served during 1836.

He held office for about one year. During his administration the new courthouse in Court Square was completed.