More about the grist mill.
To the editor of the Medford Historical register.
Dear Sir:—I was much interested in article (Vol. XXIII, p. 53) on Medford's first grist mill. It occurs to me that it is timely to try to answer some of the questions asked in the article, and perhaps to criticize some of the statements and conclusions of the author. I agree with Mr. Brooks that in all probability the Wade mill was the first erected within Medford limits. The senior Mr. Wade purchased land in Medford May 25, 1661, and his sons Jonathan and Nathaniel came to reside thereon soon after the purchase. He himself resided in Ipswich, where he died in 1683. By his will he gave to his son Jonathan one-half of his farm in Mistick, with one-half of the stock upon it, and he gave to his son Nathaniel the other half of the farm and the other half of the stock, ‘to be divided equally between them.’ The westerly [p. 72] part of the farm was Jonathan's share. It was upon the brook in that part that the mill was located. It was called a saw mill, although it may also have been used as a grist mill.
Medford people were no doubt served at Broughton's mill (built in 1656) which, although situated across the river in Charlestown (present Arlington), was owned and operated by Medford men the greater part of the time. In 1698, when the town petitioned the General Court ‘for liberty to build a grist mill on the river near and above Mistick bridge,’ it must have been its intention to build it as a public work. The General Court granted the petition, but it is evident that no action was taken by the town to build a mill, as the records fail to show that the town ever voted to build, or to appropriate any money therefor. In the absence of any such votes we may rest assured that no mill was built by the town. Broughton's mill must then (1698) have been out of repair and unable to serve Medford people or they would not have complained of being obliged to travel as far as Noddle's Island (East Boston) to be served. This petition affected the interests of Mr. Joseph Prout, owning as he did the Broughton mill, where, as he said, the public had been served for about ‘thirty or forty years,’ and in all probability it moved him to take action to supply the wants of the Medford people by putting in repair the old Broughton mill on the Charlestown side of the river.
In the year 1711 Joseph Prout sold to Jonathan Dunster, ‘mill, mill-yard, buildings and Orchard one Acre also one and one-half acres of upland on the north side of the river at the end of the old dam.’ In the same conveyance is named ‘one and three-fourths acres of meadow land on the north side of the river at the end of the mill dam.’ It is beyond a doubt that a mill was on the Charlestown side of the river(whatever its condition may have been) at the time of this sale, and we know that the one and one-half acres of upland at the end of ‘the old dam’ extended to the water's edge without any [p. 73] meadow land intervening, and we also know that the one and three-fourths acres of meadow land at the ‘end of the mill dam’ is the identical land upon which the remains of an old structure were found.1 Harvard avenue is located through this land. Does not the omission of the mention of a mill on this land indicate that there was not any mill there at the time of the sale? And if this is correct, it shows that while in all probability Joseph Prout built the dam, or allowed Jonathan Dunster to build it, Mr. Dunster must have the credit of building a new mill where those remains were found on this land. It is to be noted that Broughton's mill was built before he received a deed of the land from Henry Dunster.
In the year 1822, Moses Robbins, a descendant of Jonathan Dunster, deeded to Cyrus Cutter ‘one acre of marsh land, bounded southwest on Mystic river, northeast on Deacon John Larkin, southeast on James Cutter, together with all the mill privileges if there be any belonging to the said parcel of land’ on the north side of the river. There is no mention of a building in the deed. James Cutter owned the other part of the acre and three-fourths of marsh land that Joseph Prout sold to Jonathan Dunster.
Mr. Brooks says, in writing of a mill a short distance below Wear bridge, ‘the place is yet occupied.’ If we are to be guided by Moses Robbins' deed, there was not any building there in 1822, but the conveyance of mill rights shows that a mill stood there at one time. Mr. Brooks' statement that the place is yet occupied probably had reference to the remains recently discovered.
In regard to the query about Mistick bridge, I answer that the term Mistick bridge meant the bridge located where the Cradock bridge now stands. There was no other bridge across the river at that date (1698). In 1699, the town voted to give Mr. John Johnson ‘three pounds towards building a horse bridge over the wears.’ That bridge, which it is assumed was built, must have had a brief existence, for many years after, constant complaints [p. 74] were made of the lack of a bridge at the wears. Medford and Charlestown neglected to supply the wants of the people, until in 1747 the General Court ordered ‘that a good and sufficient bridge be erected over the wears.’ That bridge when erected made a second bridge over the river.
In 1757, ‘Medford Great bridge’ was spoken of, evidently to distinguish it from the new bridge over the wears. It is doubtful if at that time the term ‘Wear bridge,’ was in use. The bridge at the center was called Mistick as late as 1754. It is not at all probable that Broughton's mill dam was ever called a bridge.
I was also interested, and somewhat amused with the view of Medford in 1839, as shown in the register, Vol. XXIII, No. 3, and in reading some of the remarks of the author of the article in explanation of the illustration. I was interested because I lived in what is called Moore square in that same year (1839), and in that vicinity for many years after, and there is hardly a foot of land but what I have traveled over time and again. I fail to recognize Moore square as the place where the four-horse team is located, for the reason that had the team been in or near the square it would have been surrounded by houses and such a view would have been impossible. Nor could the point of view of the artist have been on Main street where the author of the article assumes it to be, unless it was as far away from Moore square as Brooks park, and then he would have been obliged to ignore the Middlesex canal, Branch canal and locks, also the Turnpike with the bridge over the Branch, to have sketched such a view, all of which were plainly visible. As I look at the illustration, the four-horse team is on Mystic avenue, or the Turnpike of those days. Note the wide expanse of land between the road and the river, without any road or building intervening. Without doubt that is the salt marsh, which occupied the entire space between the road and the river. I lived on the turnpike in the year 1843 (not far [p. 75] from where the boy appears to be standing), and I have seen just that view times without number, and I confidently assert that there is no other place where such a view could have been taken except in that vicinity.
Of course, when one learns that the illustration is intended to represent Medford, it is not difficult to point out what the author of the article deemed to be the most prominent buildings, but were it not for the word Medford applied to the illustration, I should never suspect it was our good old town.
