SUBSTANCE 
 
 OF THB 
 
 r 
 
 REMARKS OF MR. WASHBURN 
 
 BEFORE A 
 
 Cnmmitee nf tfiB f Bgislature, 
 
 UPON THE 
 
 PETITION OF OILMAN DAY AND OTHERS 
 
 DIVISION OF WORCESTER COUNTY. 
 
 WORCESTER: 
 
 PRINTED BY E. R. FISKE. 
 
 1855. 
 

REMARKS. 
 
 The patience and candor with which the Committee have 
 listened to this case, assure us that the claims of the parties 
 will be carefully considered, candidly weighed, and uprightly 
 decided. 
 
 What is the proposition before the Committee ? 
 
 After an union of 124 years, after resisting seven attempts 
 to dismember it, and two attempts to change the place of 
 holding some of its Courts, it is proposed to divide the County 
 of "Worcester, reduce her moral and political power and in- 
 fluence, and destroy the cherished associations, historical and 
 social, of her citizens. 
 
 Clearly, whoever would ask you to do this, is bound to 
 make out a plain undoubted case of reasonable necessity for 
 the act; whoever asks you to change the existing state of 
 things, against the clear wishes of a respectable proportion of 
 her citizens, is bound to show a reason which shall outweigh 
 the wishes of these citizens, and the presumptions arising 
 from the state of harmony and prosperity that have so long 
 been enjoyed here. 
 
 This is a matter wherein the intelligent residents within 
 the County are in a better situation to know the condition 
 of its people, their wants and necessities, their wishes and 
 their interests, than strangers. 
 
 Indeed strangers can hardly be expected to judge, under- 
 standingly, upon the subject, except by examining citizens 
 and residents of the County as witnesses. 
 
So far therefore as these have had an opportunity of 
 making known thek views, the Committee will not wholly 
 disregard the light that is thus thrown upon the question 
 upon which they are called upon to decide. 
 
 Let us see how the evidence upon this point stood, up to 
 the time when Gilman Day and others presented their petition. 
 
 We learn by the report of the majority of the Committee 
 who considered this subject last year, that a project nearly 
 the same as the present, was submitted to the voters of the 
 two Counties in 1829, and only 1350 were found to have 
 voted for the measure. 
 
 In 1852, a movement for having a half shire in Worcester 
 was defeated in the Legislature. 
 
 In 1853, a measure like the present was moved, and 3045 
 petitioners within the 23 towns were obtained for, and 3681 
 against it. 
 
 The whole number of voters in those towns in 1851 was 
 9345, as stated by the Committee ; so that less than one 
 third of the voters in all these towns asked for the division. 
 
 In 1854, the same measure was again started, and 742 
 signed petitions for, to 4060 remonstrants against it. 
 
 The whole population of the 23 towns is 44,911, so that 
 less than one sixtieth of the people of these towns asked for 
 the change. 
 
 This is irrespective of the 95,000 in the other towns of 
 Worcester and 151,000 in Middlesex, who, in the absence of 
 evidence to the contrary, we have a right to assume were op- 
 posed to the division. 
 
 Add to this, the fact stated by the minority of that Com- 
 mittee, that of the 5 towns in Middlesex, 4 by solemn vote 
 objected to the change, and 13 out of the 18 in Worcester 
 made a similar declaration of their opinions and wishes. 
 
 Thus stood the evidence of the wishes of those for whose 
 pretended benefit the division was moved, when the present 
 petition of Gilman Day and others was presented to the Legis- 
 lature. 
 
 How stands the evidence on this point now, so far as the 
 number of petitioners is concerned ? 
 
After the repeated hearings and discussions had upon 
 the subject — and* after the great effort which it has been 
 proved, has been made by hiring agents to circulate peti- 
 tions in the various towns, and the well known ease with 
 which names can be obtained to almost any petition where 
 no money is to be paid — 3473 names are appended to the 
 Petition of Day and others for the Division, of whom 1125 
 belong- to Fitchhurg, leaving 2343 from all the other 22 towns. 
 On the other hand 4301 have signed a petition (besides 
 52 names upon another similar petition which has been 
 miscarried) the effect of which is that this Legislature should 
 not pass a Bill to divide the County, but that they should 
 submit the whole question to the people of the towns which 
 it is proposed to incorporate into a new County. And among 
 the last named petitioners are citizens from each of the 23 
 towns except four. Not a person from Bolton, JIubbardston, 
 Petersham or Winchendon asks for a division — nor is there one 
 from Groton or Pepperell — and these towns contain more than 
 one quarter of the entire population of the 23 towns. 
 
 Bolton, by a vote of 143 to 3 is opposed ; Royalston, with- 
 out opposition, chose an agent to oppose ; Gardner chose an 
 agent to oppose, 80 to 7, unless the people voted for the 
 change ; Petersham unanimously voted to oppose ; Harvard 
 voted to oppose, 67 to 3 ; Lancaster voted to oppose, 75 to 4 ; 
 Princeton voted to oppose it ; Phillipston voted to oppose it. 
 Not one town has voted in favor of the measure. 
 
 We start, then, with the presumptions all in our favor. 
 
 1. From the length of time time the County has been 
 united. 
 
 2. From the opposition and defeat that have uniformly 
 attended every attempt to dismember the County, showing the 
 general approbation of the existing arrangement. 
 
 3. From the repeated, deliberate, intelligent expression of 
 the wishes of a vast majority of the citizens within the pro- 
 posed County against the measure. 
 
 4. And from the fact that in no town except Fitchburg has 
 there been any thing like a spontaneous movement for this 
 change. Whatever has been done, has been instigated or urged 
 
6 
 
 on by emissaries from Fitchburg, as has been most conclu- 
 sively shown here by proof. * 
 
 Let us now examine the reasons given in these petitions 
 why these counties should be dismembered. 
 
 I shall confine myself almost exclusively to the considera- 
 tion of Worcester County ; for it is not pretended, even in the 
 petition, that the reasons apply to the five towns in Middlesex. 
 
 The facts stated in Oilman Day's petition are : 
 
 1. Worcester County is 60 by 50 miles in extent, bounded 
 North and South by 3 states, on the West by Hampden, 
 Hampshire and Franklin, on the East by Middlesex with its 
 three shire towns, and Norfolk, and contains more territory and 
 population than some of the states, and has but one shire town. 
 
 We have no occasion to controvert these facts, and yet are 
 at a loss to see in them any reason for dividing the territory. 
 That the mere distance across a county is not a good reason 
 for dividing it, against the wishes of its inhabitants, may be 
 inferred, among other things, from the fact that Berkshire is as 
 long as Worcester ; and Barnstable, if I mistake not, is even 
 longer. 
 
 Nor is mere population a ground for dividing a county. 
 Middlesex, Suffolk and Essex had each a larger population 
 than Worcester by the census of 1850, and nobody asks for a 
 division of these. 
 
 It is obvious that whether a country shall be of one size or 
 another, depends upon the situation, convenience and condi- 
 tion of its people. 
 
 In a new country, with few and poor roads, 600 square 
 miles, the size suggested as a proper one by the petitioners, 
 would be a less convenient territory for county pm-poses, than 
 one of four times that extent when accommodated by rail- 
 roads to its several towns. 
 
 So, while Suffolk with its 150,000 people is not too large, 
 Dukes with its 4500 is not too small. 
 
 Why the petitioners should take occasion to allude to the 
 three shire towns of Middlesex is not obvious, since there is no 
 suggestion of having another shire town in Worcester. 
 
 Whether a county shall have one or many shire towns. 
 
must obviously depend upon the geographical character, means 
 of access and situation of the people of the county. 
 
 Essex, for instance, has no central business point, and hav- 
 ing considerable cities upon its borders, to accommodate these 
 respective masses of population, it has four shire towns. 
 
 But after the experiment of years we find a decided effort 
 being made this winter to reduce the number of these county 
 seats. 
 
 To accommodate the masses of the population in and 
 around Cambridge and Charlestown — as well as the Central 
 portion of the county, Middlesex for many years had but two 
 shire towns. 
 
 When Lowell had grown to a large city, with a dense pop- 
 ulation around it, another shire town was established. 
 
 So Bristol had a large and dense population grow up in 
 and around New Bedford, and being without Railroad com- 
 munication between the extremes and centre of the county, 
 New Bedford was created into a half shire. 
 
 In no case, however, has the number of shire towns depend- 
 ed on the size of the county or number of population. 
 
 Essex, with 131,000, has 4; Middlesex, with 161,000, has 3 ; 
 Worcester, with 130,000 has 1 ; Suffolk, with 150,000, has 
 but one. 
 
 On the other hand, if size of territory is to fix the ratio, 
 Barnstable should have 4 to Essex 1, and 26 to Suffolk 1, 
 while Middlesex, compared with Essex, should have almost 9, 
 and Franklin, by the same rule, over 7. 
 
 The number of shire towns in other counties is no test of 
 what is needed in this. Unlike them, she has a large common 
 centre, presenting attractions and accommodation to every 
 part in the way of business of VEirious kinds, and a focal point 
 for all wishing to go by Raiboad to Boston, Providence, New 
 York, Albany, New Hampshire and Vermont. This is con- 
 nected with every part of the County by these Railroads, so 
 that a person can reach the shire town from the utmost ex- 
 treme of the County in a little more than two hours actual 
 travel — and at an expense of rarely exceeding a couple of 
 dollars. 
 
In this way, everything is as nearly equalized, practically, as 
 can well be. The man from Warren, or Fitchburg, or Ux- 
 bridge, can reach Worcester as quick and as cheap as the man 
 from Holden or Leicester, who travels by horse or carriage, 
 hired for the purpose. 
 
 And when the Gardiner and Barre Railroad shall be com- 
 pleted, as no doubt it will be, there will be -a Railroad depot 
 within 7 miles of every town in the County, upon a Road 
 leading directly to Worcester. 
 
 So much for the magnitude of the County. 
 
 2. The next statement in the Petition is " the 130,000 inhab- 
 itants are characterized for' industry, intelligence, agricultural 
 and mechanical skill, having added more than 25 millions to 
 the valuation of their property during the last 10 years, and in 
 proportion sufficient for a respectable County." 
 
 We have no occasion to controvert either of these state- 
 ments, and yet we do not perceive in them any reasons why 
 the present Counties of Middlesex and Worcester should be 
 divided and dismembered. 
 
 Certain it is, this prosperity has not been retarded by their 
 having been a part of Worcester County. 
 
 The petitioners do not show that a dollar would have been 
 added to the valuation of the County or these towns if it had 
 been divided. 
 
 The presumption is the other way, cmd the fact doubtless is 
 true, that these roads which have given such a spur and impulse 
 to the business of the County, owe not a little of their very exis- 
 tence to the fact that Worcester was the centre and shire town of 
 this large County. 
 
 It is in this way that the individual towns have enjoyed the 
 facilities which have enabled them to prosper. With such 
 facilities, " industry, intelligence and mechanical skill " will 
 hardly fail of success, whether those who have business in 
 court will have to travel a few miles more or a few miles lesa. 
 
 If the simple proposition is that the increase of population 
 for the last 10 years would be sufficient for a county, if the 
 circumstances of the people rendered it nece89ary or peculiarly 
 convenient, we do not controvert it. 
 
But the idea that Worcester has prospered and enjoyed 
 peculiar advantages for growth and business, because she is a 
 shire town, is not sustained by facts. 
 
 The committee of last year in their report urge this consid- 
 eration " that Worcester derived great and material advan- 
 tages from the sessions of the courts, the erection and main- 
 tenance of the county buildings, and the residence of the 
 public officers in her limits." 
 
 But a slight examination of the history and comparative 
 statistics of the town will show that this position is not sus- 
 tained by any proof, nor did it seem called for in that report. 
 
 Concord from 1800 to 1820, increased 109 persons ; Ipswich 
 in the same period lost 752 persons; Lenox from 18 LO to 
 1830 gained only 45 persons. 
 
 The truth is, the growth and prosperity of Worcester and of 
 the whole County, as well of its various parts, have been wholly 
 independent of its being the shire town. 
 
 Our earliest statistics go back to 1763-5. But by compar- 
 ing Worcester with Shrewsbury, Dudley, Mendon, Leominster, 
 and Fitchburg, or with the whole County, from that date up 
 to 1830, we shall see that the position is sustained. 
 
 In 1763-5 Worcester had 1453 ; in 1790, 2095,— an increase 
 of 41 per cent.. ; in 1820, 2962,— increase 41 per cent, from 1790 
 to 1820 ; in 1830, 4172,— an increase from 1790 of less than 100 
 per cent., and from 1763-5 to 1820 was only 56 persons over 
 100 per cent., a period of 55 years. 
 
 The increase of Shrewsbury from 1790 to 1820 was 51 per 
 cent.,— of W. 41 ; of Dudley, from 1790 to 1820 was 45 per 
 cent.,— of W., 41 ; of Dudley, from 1763-5 to 1820, 120 per 
 cent.,— of W., 100 and 56 over ; of Mendon from 1790 to 1820 
 45 per cent., — of W., 41. 
 
 Leominster from 1763-5 to 1790 was 61 per cent, — of W., 
 41 ; 1790 to 1820, 50 per cent.,— of W., 41 ; 1763-5 to 1820, 
 142 per cent., — of W., 100, and 56 over. 
 
 Fitchburg 1763-5 to 1820, 575 per cent. ; 1790 to 1820, 51 
 per cent.,— of W., 41 ; 1790 to 1830, 89 per cent.,— of W., less 
 than 100. 
 
 If we test it by the whole County, the increase is from 1763 
 2 
 
10 
 
 to 1790, 84 per cent.,— of W., 41 ; 1763 to 1820, 109 per cent, 
 —of W., 100 ; 1790 to 1820, 31 per cent.,— of W., 41. 
 
 Though Worcester had the county buildings, the offices of 
 the court, her men of wealth, her agriculture and her trade, she 
 did not grow compared with other parts of the county, till the 
 adoption of that system of internal improvements that has 
 given such a start to business through the state, and in few 
 places more than Fitchb.urg itself. 
 
 In Oct., 1828, the Blackstone Canal was opened. About 
 1834, the Boston & Worcester Raikoad was opened ; since 
 then, the Norwich & Worcester, the Western, — the Nashua, in 
 1848, and the Fitchburg & Worcester, in 1849. 
 
 These fm*nish the element of the growth and prosperity of 
 Worcester and of Worcester County. 
 
 And what is of exceeding importance in estimating the 
 eifect of this increase of population and wealth upon the 
 necessity of dividing the county, is, that the means of this very 
 business and growth furnishes facilities for access to, and trans- 
 acting court busitiess at the shire toivn, far exceeding any possible 
 impediment that can arise from any increase of that court 
 business. 
 
 Let us see how this is, from the time-table of one of the 
 Raih'oad Guides : — 
 
 A man from Waterford reaches Worcester in 80 min., for 
 80 cents ; from Webster, in 45 min., for 40 cents ; from War- 
 ren, in 80 min., for 85 to 90 cents ; from Harvard, in 64 min., 
 for 75 cents ; from Fitchburg, in 65 min., for 75 cents ; from 
 Athol, exclusive of delay at Fitchburg, in 2 hours 40 min., for 
 ^1.80 to $1.90. Giving between most of those places and 
 Worcester — and, during a portion of the year, every place — a 
 twice or thrice daily communication, at less fatigue, less cost, 
 and less time than, for 100 years, could have been had with 
 places ten miles distant from the shire town. 
 
 Mr. Stevens admitted that it was easier to do business 
 between Athol and Worcester now, than between Middleboro 
 and Plymouth, 16 miles apart, when he resided there. 
 
 Arid Mr. Fletcher admitted that it was easier to do lousiness 
 
11 
 
 between Leominster and Worcester than between Northboro 
 and Worcester, 10 miles, when he lived there. 
 
 And I repeat, when the Gardner road is completed, this 
 facility of communication between Worcester and the south- 
 ern and western portions of those 18 towns will be greatly 
 increased, and the expense consequently proportionately cheap- 
 ened. 
 
 For near 120 years, have the people in this part of the 
 county been content, even under the former inconveniences of 
 access to Worcester ; and now that these inconveniences have 
 been removed and even Fitchburg herself brought within an 
 hour of Worcester, she starts the cry that she is ojjpressed, and 
 tries — though in vain — to compel the other towns to join in 
 the cry. 
 
 The next ground for the division, as stated in the Petition, 
 is " The expenses of suits arising/rom the costs of travel by the 
 distance of suitors and ivitnesses in so large a county, are ruin- 
 ously oppressive ; while the evil is still further aggravated, to 
 the north part of the county, from the fact that Worcester is 
 entirely south of the centre thereof." 
 
 As this, after all, is the great point to be considered in 
 determining the question of dividing the county, it is important 
 to have our facts right. 
 
 In the first place, Worcester is not so entirely south of the 
 centre as to sensibly aggravate the evil of distance to suitors 
 from the north part of the county — if at all. 
 
 The territorial centre is said to be in Holden. The centre 
 of population is not, as we believe, two miles from the Court 
 House as it now stands. 
 
 From five admeasm-ements of lines across the county, taking 
 Hayward's Gazetteer, for distances, and multiplying these by 
 the population of the several towns through which those lines 
 pass, I believe the result will be found as stated. 
 
 In the next place, a County organization is not practically 
 for the mere purpose of sustaining Courts and the transaction 
 of their business ; although these may be its main objects. 
 
 They are for Political purposes, such as election of Senators, 
 electing Register of Deeds, Treasurer, and Commissioners,' 
 
12 
 
 &c. ; and these are made so partly by the Constitution, and 
 partly by law. For Business — as convenient divisions of terri- 
 tory for the transactions of Insurance Companies, Banks, &c., 
 where the condition of parties, their property, &c., can readily 
 be known to each other. Prudential — laying out and main- 
 taining highways ; maintaining boards of officers for assessing 
 taxes ; maintaining Jails, Houses of Correction, and giving 
 employment and exercising moral oversight and control of 
 convicts, &c. Social — For public meetings of citizens for 
 political, moral and educational purposes ; of Agricultural and 
 other Associations — such as Bible, Medical, and Temperance 
 Societies, and the like. 
 
 Nor do the petitioners pretend that the county is too large, or 
 rich, or flourishing- for any of these purposes ; nor for any pur- 
 poses but the business of the Courts. 
 
 Indeed, it must be obvious that the larger the number to be 
 accommodated by these political, economical, and social 
 arrangements in any one county, the less will be the burden 
 upon each individual citizen within it of maintaining the county. 
 
 The point, then to which v/e are brought is the Court busi- 
 ness, and whether this is such as alone to call for a division of 
 the County? 
 
 In order that we may consider the whole of this subject to- 
 gether I read the balance of the complaint in the Petition. 
 
 " That these expenses (of suits) are still farther enhanced by 
 the multiplicity of actions in our courts and consequent delay of 
 trials, an evil which, it will be apparent, must increase with 
 our growth. So severely are our grievances felt that our people 
 are often led to speak of Law only in terms of bitter reproach, 
 and to submit to almost any and every species of injustice 
 rather than seek justice by an appeal to our judicial tribunals." 
 
 So much of this bears the air of a mere rhetorical flourish, 
 that it is difficult to know how to meet it. 
 
 How a defeated suitor may have spoken we cannot tell. 
 But that those who have had the best chance to judge, enter- 
 tain such opinion of the administration of justice here, and the 
 necessity of dividing the county, in consequence, is not true. 
 Of 248 jurors from these towns, who have served as such since 
 
13 
 
 1850, and have expressed opinions on the point, 182 are either 
 decidedly opposed to the division, or not in favor of having the 
 change made unless the people, by their vote, shall manifest a 
 desire to have it done. 
 
 Besides, there is an entire inconsistency in the parts of this 
 proposition. In the first place it is said, suits are multiplying 
 so fast in our courts, as to cause great delay, and this is an in- 
 creasing' difficulty. 
 
 In the next, the people are led from the existing state of 
 things, " to submit to almost any and every species of injustice, 
 rather than seek justice by an appeal to our judicial tribunals. " 
 
 We think there is something unfair, in taking evils and dif- 
 ficulties which are inherent in any system of administration 
 of justice and under any government but that of a Czar or a 
 Turkish Cadi, and urging them as something peculiarly inci- 
 dent to the size of Worcester County. 
 
 That there is delay and expense of Justice we admit. But 
 the same thing is true in every county, large and small, and in 
 every state in the union. 
 
 But we deny that to individual suitors there is any more delay 
 or expense in this county than in the counties west, or in Bris- 
 tol, Essex, Middlesex or Suffolk, east of Worcester County. 
 Of the others I cannot speak so confidently. 
 
 On the contrary, we believe and think we have shown by 
 our proof, that Justice is as promptly and more cheaply ad- 
 ministered in Worcester County, both civil and criminal, than 
 in the small counties, or the large ones with several shire towns, 
 with which we have been able to institute a comparison. 
 
 Another preliminary remark I wish to make is, that there is 
 something exceedingly deceptive, not to say unfair, in the 
 manner of presenting here, by the Petitioners, the business and 
 expenses and duration of our courts in gross sums and 
 amounts. 
 
 They tell us the number of days that courts of some kind 
 are in session in Worcester, as if a suitor whose case is deter- 
 mined the first week of the civil term in December, had his 
 expenses enhanced by the length of the criminal term in Jan- 
 uary ; when in fact the larger number of persons there are to 
 
14 
 
 bear the expense of the criminal term, the less is the burden 
 upon any one individual. 
 
 They present the whole number of actions upon the dock- 
 ets in a year, and speak of the number being a cause of delay 
 — when every body knows that comparatively very few of 
 these are for trial, and the calling and disposing of the entire 
 docket of actions not set down for trial, occupies but a few 
 hours of the first day of the court. 
 
 So they give us in gross the costs of Jurors from these 
 towns for four whole years, to startle us with the aggregate 
 amount in miles travelled and dollars paid. 
 
 As if they would sum up in round numbers the amount 
 paid to the Legislatures for the last 20 years, to show that our 
 system of government is too expensive to be tolerated any 
 longer. 
 
 The only fair way is to analyze these various matters, to 
 see what of them are incident to the maintenance and admin- 
 istration of our coiurts, and then, by comparison, see whether 
 our citizens are less favored than other parts of the Common- 
 wealth, or can hope for any relief by the proposed creation of a 
 new county. 
 
 Let me illustrate the deceptive effect upon the mind, of 
 these gross sums and amounts. 
 
 If it were stated to a person that the tax on Worcester 
 County was |60,000 the last year, and that on Dukes was but 
 ^2500, he would be ready to believe that a citizen of Worces- 
 ter was more severely taxed than one of Dukes. 
 
 And yet such is the difference in population and valuation, 
 that if we consider the individual burden on each citizen, it would 
 be found to be nearly 25 per cent, higher upon each citizen in 
 Dukes than in Worcester, and more than 33 per cent, on his 
 valuation. 
 
 Before proceeding to analyze these grounds for a division) 
 growing out of alleged delay and burdens of justice, I am free 
 to say that to my mind cheap litigation is a questionable 
 good. 
 
 While I would have every man feel conscious that he is 
 under the protection of the law, that for every wrong there is 
 
15 
 
 a sure redress, and for every right a safeguard, litigation is 
 an evil which is not to be encouraged by cheapening, so as to 
 multiply it. 
 
 The sentiments contained in the report of Mr. Huntington 
 on the subject of courts of arbitration or conciliation at this 
 session of the Legislature, commend themselves to the good 
 sense of every man. 
 
 Just as bad passions are awakened in a com't for 5 dollars, 
 as for $500. 
 
 Another remark. There are times when topics of great and 
 exciting interest arise which are to be determined in courts, 
 where, especially if they are local in their character, a large 
 county is a fairer and safer arena for a trial, involving one of 
 those questions, than a small one. 
 
 If now we undertake to see how much, in reality, the 
 expense to suitors, in these 18 towns, in consequence of the 
 size of the county amounts to, over what it would be in the new 
 county, if formed, we find the average difference of distance 
 from those 18 towns to Worcester to be 11 miles more than 
 to Fitchburg, as stated by the opening counsel for the Peti- 
 tioners, and by Mr. Merriam, their witness, who made the 
 computation. 
 
 In every respect except the matter of travel, the expense of 
 an action, disposed of in court without trial, would be the 
 same in Fitchburg as in Worcester, for in no case, now, do 
 parties charge, or recover for attendance at comrt. 
 
 The. travel, in all cases not tried, is done by the attorney, and 
 the difference in the costs created by this 11 miles in any one 
 case, is 33 cents for every 10 miles, or about 70 cents upon 
 cases from these towns upon an average, or in the usual 
 mode of taxing costs 99 cents. 
 
 Our next inquiry will be, what proportion of the cases upon 
 the docket of our courts are actually tried, in order to see what 
 the amount of delay and expense is — for the defaulted cases 
 do not delay courts. The attorney's travel is all the addi- 
 tional cost arising from this 11 miles, except, perhaps, an 
 additional 44 cents for the officer's fees for serving the wiut. 
 
 I wish to call particular attention to this, because a gross 
 
•16 
 
 misapprehension has been created in the public mind upon 
 this point. 
 
 In the "statistics " circulated by the Petitioners in 1851, but 
 not inserted in their last form, it is stated, " on an average not 
 more than ten trials can be had per week, at which rate it 
 would have required 40 weeks to have cleared the Worcester 
 trial list last December term. " 
 
 And Mr. Mansur, in his opening statement, spoke of per- 
 sons being called away from these 18 towns " 40 miles to wait 
 on 600 or 1200 actions," as showing " a claim for redress. " 
 
 And Mr. Choate, in the report of his eloquent argument last 
 winter is represented to have stated that of a docket of 600 
 actions, an hundred days only melted away 200 of them — as if 
 it would require 200 days more to dispose of the other 400. 
 (p. 49.) 
 
 Now in fact the evidence before you shows what a small 
 proportion of actions are for trial, and that there is no pretence 
 of any such delay because of the number of actions, standing 
 upon the docket. 
 
 In 1851, we are told by Mr. Mason, at the December term, 
 668 actions were disposed of in 58 days, and of these only 77 
 or less than 12 in an hundred were trials. 
 
 In 1829, the number of actions on the docket at the Decem- 
 ber term were 1787. And yet, though the court had charge 
 of the criminal business together with the civil, at the same 
 time, it had occasion to sit but only 41 days during the whole 
 of 1830, (as is shown by the record put in by the Petitioners,) 
 to dispose of its business. 
 
 Another illustration. In the whole year of 1851, there were 
 1456 actions entered on the docket. Of these 1184 were dis- 
 posed of, (as shown by Mr. Mason) in the year, and only 49 
 verdicts in them all. 
 
 A still more recent and striking fact in relation to actions 
 actually standing for trial on the docket is before you. 
 
 In Dec. 1854 (the last term), 329 actions stood for trial; the 
 Court sat 56 days and disposed of 143 of them, in which there 
 were but 28 trials — or only 1 in 5 of all those upon the trial 
 list. 
 
17 
 
 If we apply this to cases from those 18 towns, the same 
 analogy holds good. 
 
 In 1851, 249 of the 1456 cases on the docket, as stated by 
 Mr. Mason, were from 11 of those 18 towns, including Fitch- 
 burg. Of those all but 32 were disposed of, and those were 
 not delayed by any condition of the docket — somfe of the par- 
 ties being dead, some absent from the Commonwealth, and 
 some insolvent, &c. 
 
 And of the 249 only 6 were tried. 
 
 When, therefore, it is attempted to show that business is 
 clogged and delayed by the mere number of actions on the 
 docket at any time, injustice is done to the truth of the matter. 
 The impression thereby sought to be made is altogether 
 erroneous. 
 
 Let us see, in the next place, to what amount the people of 
 these 18 towns are actually taxed by the year, in costs, in 
 consequence of this extra 11 miles which they have to travel. 
 
 The petitioners have put into the case the number of new 
 and old actions on the docket in 1850, 1258, — since which the 
 number, I believe, is rather less than greater. 
 
 If we allow one-fourth of these to the 18 towns, which is 
 more than an average proportion, the number is 314, which, at 
 70 cents each, is $219.80 ; add the officers' travel, and it amounts 
 to $357.96. Or if the travel is called 99 cents, that, with the offi- 
 cers' fees, will be $449.02. If, then, we suppose one-third of 
 these actions to be continued, making one more travel, we have 
 from $438.04 to $551.98 as the total expense of cases not litigated 
 from these 18 towns for an entire year. 
 
 How this is to be reconciled with the argument of the peti- 
 tioners last year, which assumed the " extra cost of travel for 
 every suit not litigated'^ at " six or eight dollars,''^ is beyond my 
 comprehension. 
 
 When it is borne in mind that now all actions for debts 
 under $100 may be sued before a Justice of the Peace, it is 
 obvious that even the amount I have above estimated will 
 hereafter be much reduced. 
 
 And to show what proportion of judgments have heretofore 
 been for less than $100, we find of 102 judgments rendered at 
 3 
 
18 
 
 the September term 1854, forty-five were for sums less than 
 $100, — the old custom of going to the Court of Common Pleas 
 being still partially continued, — a part of these being old ac- 
 tions upon the docket, and some few, probably, appealed 
 cases. 
 
 As it will hardly be contended that a difference of some four 
 to six hundred dollars in attorneys' and officers' fees for travel, 
 in a year, would be a serious cause for cutting up a county, 
 we must look for the cause if at all in the number and expense 
 of litigated actions in court. 
 
 Here, again, we encounter a false impression sought to be 
 raised by broad and general statements. 
 
 Thus in the printed argument already referred to, we see it 
 pressed with great force, how " eight and . forty thousand " are 
 compeflled to travel " eight and twenty miles " to obtain justice. 
 And the inference drawn is, that an expense is thereby created 
 of from seven to ten thousand dollars in a year. 
 
 Now, a little attention to the statistics before us will show 
 that the proportion of those in any community who ever have 
 a lawsuit is very small. 
 
 It should be borne in mind that it is parties only who 
 suffer by reason of this additional 11 miles. Witnesses are 
 paid for their travel, whatever the distance may be. 
 
 Let us see, therefore, how many persons in those 18 towns 
 are to be affected as parties to lawsuits^ in a year. 
 
 In the year 1851, we were informed by Mr. Mason that 
 there were 122 verdicts in the Court of Common Pleas. If we 
 reckon 2 parties to each, there would be 244 parties. 
 
 That is 1 to 536 persons in the County^ in a whole year, in 
 the Court of Common Pleas. 
 
 In 1854, the Court of Common Pleas sat 86 days. At the 
 Dec. term they rendered 1 verdict for 2 days. Suppose we 
 call it 1 verdict per day, there would be, after deducting the 
 first days of each term — ,when scarcely ever a trial is had, — 
 82 trials, or 164 parties — or 1 to 797 inhabitants, in a year. 
 
 If we add the trials in the Supreme Court, it would prob- 
 ably increase the ratio to about 1 in 700 in a year, in the whole 
 County. 
 
i9 
 
 K we confine our attention to these 18 towns, the ratio of 
 parties to lawsuits to the whole people would be still less. 
 At the last December term, 5 cases only were tried in which 
 either party belonged to those 18 towns. 
 
 That would give but 1 party to 3497 persons in these towns. 
 
 From 12 of the 18 there was not a single trial. 
 
 The petitioners put in the number of verdicts rendered in 10 
 years, ending 1852, in both Supreme and Common Pleas courts 
 in which both parties lived within the 18 towns, amounting 
 to 117 or 11 7-10 pr year. 
 
 The cases in the same time, where one of the parties lived 
 within the 18 towns were 85 or 8i pr year. 
 
 Of the cases where both parties lived in these towns, there 
 were 1 party to 1493 persons, and if we compute the addition- 
 al party in the actions where one resided within those towns, 
 it would make 1 party to 1096 persons, who in any year have 
 a lawsuit in either of the courts. 
 
 Showing, that instead of "eight and forty thousand" only 
 one in more than a thousand had to travel, once a year, 11 miles 
 and back again, for justice. 
 
 Let us now see whether even these parties do not get justice 
 as promptly and as cheap or more cheaply^ than in other coun- 
 ties ; and how far the amount to be saved, if any, could jus- 
 tify or demand a division of the county. 
 
 The evil under which litigant parties suffer must be the dif- 
 ference in distance or travel of themselves and witnesses, for, 
 when at Court, a case can be tried as quick and as cheap at 
 Worcester as any where else. 
 
 Nor is this affected by the length of the terms at Worcester ; 
 for, as the cases are arranged, the northern towns are no more 
 delayed while the southern cases are being tried, than if they 
 were practically in different counties with different Courts. 
 
 Another means of obviating delay by witnesses and parties 
 in court waiting for their time on the docket, is the telegraphic 
 and railroad communication, whereby a party and his witnesses 
 may often be notified in the afternoon or evening and be in 
 court in the morning, ordinarily within an hour as soon as at 
 Fitchburg. Mr Hill mentioned a case within his own knowl- 
 
20 
 
 edge of this kind from Harvard, where party and witnesses 
 were notified at evening and were in court ready for trial the 
 next morning, by the usual train of cars. 
 
 Another remark is that of the parties in the cases we are 
 considering — those where one party lives out of the 18 towns, 
 had just as much right to require the other party to go to 
 Worcester as to be compelled themselves to go to Fitchburg; 
 so that it turns out upon investigation that some 30 persons, 
 with their witnesses, in a year, have to travel some 11 miles 
 further upon an average to attend court, than if the new county 
 were formed as the Petitioners pray for. 
 
 And let me ask, if to save this additional item of costs, the 
 Legislature can feel themselves called upon to exercise an 
 " act of government, " by compelling this community to sus- 
 tain a new set of county officers and buildings, against their 
 wishes, and expend thousands of dollars to unite these towns 
 with Fitchburg ? 
 
 In attempting to analyze the mass of documentary and sta- 
 tistical proofs bearing upon this part of our case, I shall not 
 undertake to comment upon them in detail. At best they are 
 but matters of comparison, and are only important as illus- 
 trating how far the petitioners are sustained in assuming that 
 the people in smaller counties, and in counties with more shire 
 towns than one, are more favored than the citizens of Worces- 
 ter County. 
 
 In jespect to the alleged delay in trials, 7-10 of the Jurors 
 for the last 4 years who have been the best situated to judge 
 in the matter, and have been inquired of, express an opinion 
 the reverse of such an assumption. Nor do we hear any com- 
 plaint, on this ground, from other parts of the county, although, 
 if well founded, they would be equal sufferers with the north. 
 
 In other counties, it is shown, from evidence in the case, 
 that a year is the ordinary length of time before a trial is had 
 in the courts, even in counties not half the size of Worcester. 
 
 In Hampshire, as the clerk certifies, causes are usually tried 
 the 2d or 3d term — and they have but 3 in a year. 
 
 In Bristol, which has four terms, a trial is usually had the 
 3c? or Mh term, as certified by the clerk. 
 
21 
 
 In Franklin, which has 3 terms in a year, cases do not 
 usually come to trial, as certified by the clerk, before the third 
 term. 
 
 In Hampden, the clerk certifies, « trials are not generally had 
 under a year after the entry of the action. " 
 
 And the facts in that county show what is true in every 
 county, that occasionally unusual delays are experienced from 
 accidental causes. 
 
 Thus in their last October term, 5 cases were tried which 
 were entered October 1852, one in March 1853, and 2 in 
 June '53. 
 
 Now, if we compare this with Worcester, we shall find as 
 little delay, ordinarily, as in either of these counties. 
 
 We expect to try our actions entered in the Supreme Court 
 at April the same term they are entered. And Mr. Willard, a 
 juror at the last Supreme Court of trials, tells you that the 
 court adjourned repeatedly for want of business to do — and so 
 obvious was this, that a juror upon the panel from Fitchburg, 
 conceded there was not much necessity for dividing the county 
 because of the court being full of business. 
 
 In the Court of Common Pleas, December and March are 
 the long terms, at which most of the trials are held, though of 
 late years the September term has set two or three weeks. 
 
 It is expected always to reach a trial within one year after 
 the entry of an action, and generally we reach our March ac- 
 tions for trial at December, and often the June actions. 
 
 Mr Mason, the present clerk, states, (p. 10,) that in 1851, 
 when there were 1456 actions on the docket during the year, 
 " in all the cases which were actually for trial, entered previous 
 to September term, the parties had an opportunity for trials at 
 the December term, if they desired it, except nine cases which 
 were not reached. " 
 
 It will be recollected that this was before the change in the 
 law by which all cases upon contracts, &c., involving less than 
 $100, may be tried by a Jury before a Justice of the Peace. 
 
 And, should the proposed court of conciliation, which is now 
 before this Legislature be adopted^ it is impossible to calculate 
 
22 
 
 the extent to which the business of our courts may be still 
 further reduced. 
 
 And what is remarkable, upon this subject of delay of jus- 
 tice, the Petitioners have not pretended to offer any contradic- 
 tory evidence to that which we have put in. 
 
 In regard to the cheapness at which trials can be had in 
 Worcester County, we believe the comparison with the other 
 counties in this state will be found altogether in favor of 
 Worcester ; though it is enough for om- purpose to meet their 
 suggestion that it costs more in Worcester than in other coun- 
 ties. It is for them to show that it does cost more, if they call 
 for a division on that account. 
 
 It is urged by the Petitioners that, 1st, from the size of 
 the county it is more expensive obtaining justice ; and 2d, 
 from the nature of the actions for settling titles to lands, 
 water rights, &c., it is attended with greater cost here, than 
 where the actions, as in Suffolk, are upon contracts chiefly, 
 though they have not offered any proof that the costs of 
 litigation are less in other counties than in this. We there- 
 fore requested the clerks of Berkshire, Hampden and Suffolk, 
 without knowing or having any reason to conjecture what 
 the result would be, to give the amount of the costs in the first 
 20 actions upon their dockets, which had been disposed of at 
 the last term at which the judgments have been generally made 
 up, — 1st, because they would have been longest in court; 2d, 
 would embrace, probably, quite a proportion of trials to the 
 whole number ; and 3d, it would furnish the fairest average, 
 short of the entire list of the whole term ; and 4th, because 
 Berkshire has about one third as large a population as Worces- 
 ter, Hampden is one of the fractions into which old Hampshire 
 was divided, and Suffolk was referred to by the petitioners, as 
 being, in the nature of its trials, less expensive than Worcester. 
 And I am glad the Petitioners have had an opportunity to 
 scrutinize and see if we have been guilty of the slightest in- 
 accuracy or mismanagement, lo make out our case, by any 
 shaping of the evidence. 
 
 The result has been, the average costs of the 20 actions in 
 Berkshire, were $35.00 per action ; in Suffolk, $34.50 ; in 
 Hampden, $42.30 ; in Worcester, $31.53. 
 
23 
 
 Nor does it seem to me that the Petitioners have succeeded 
 in impeaching the correctness of this comparative expense of 
 the business of the Courts in these several counties. 
 
 Besides, that you may judge of the average costs of suits in 
 Worcester, independent of any comparison with other coun- 
 ties, we have put into the case the list of judgments and their 
 costs for an entire term. 
 
 And of 108 judgments rendered at the September term, 
 1854, in which 97 were for Plaintiff, and 11 for Defendant, the 
 average of all Plaintiff's costs, including 2 extraordinary bills, 
 amounting to $588.45, one where there were two trials, and 
 questions of law in case of a Jury upon road damages, and 
 the other the case of a reference, where the costs of the re- 
 ference was $133.68, including referee's fees, $125; I say in- 
 cluding these two cases, the average of Plaintiff''s costs were 
 $22.67, and without them $17.07. 
 
 And of Defendants' costs the average of the 10 cases was 
 $30,50. • 
 
 "With what pretence, then, can the Petitioners represent that 
 " the expense of suits arising from the cost of travel hy the dis- 
 tance of suitors and witnesses, in so large a county are so ruin- 
 ously oppressive " as compared with any counties, large or 
 small? 
 
 If we test the question of expense, even by criminal costs, of 
 which so much has been said by Petitioners, we find the costs 
 in the first 20 suits in Hampden to average $42.30, while in 
 Worcester they are only $36.28,— -as appears by the certificates 
 before you. 
 
 Now we do not pretend that that would always be the pre- 
 cise proportion between these two counties, either in civil or 
 criminal costs. But it is a sufficient authority for my repeating 
 that justice is administered here as cheap as in larger or smaller 
 counties ; and we believe we are justified in saying, more 
 cheaply than in either. 
 
 But I repeat, it is enough for our case that the Petitioners 
 have failed to show that the costs of suits in Worcester are 
 uniformly or generally higher than in other or smaller counties. 
 
 But it has been intimated in the course of the hearing, that 
 
24 
 
 one reason for the small number of actions from those 18 
 towns was because people were deterred from bringing them 
 by the increasing expense^ which is now felt to such an extent 
 as to lead to this movement for separation. 
 
 Facts and statistics do not sustain this position, any more 
 than they have the others of Petitioners' positions. 
 
 All over the state the number of actions for the mere collec- 
 tion of debts has fallen off within a few years past, while the 
 number of litigated cases has greatly increased. 
 
 In 1828 and 29, the number of actions on the docket, at a 
 single term, were 1373 and 1787 ; and the Court sat but about 
 forty days in a year for civil and criminal business together. 
 
 In 1853, there were but 849 actions entered, and yet the 
 Court sat 97 days. 
 
 The number both of actions for collection of debts and for 
 trials have been and will be still more essentially diminished 
 by the change in jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace. Thus : 
 the number of days of Court in Worcester in 1851, was 100 ; 
 in 1852, 92; in 1853, 97; in 1854,82. 
 
 But the average number of trials from the 18 towns has not 
 diminished since 1842, as shown by Petitioners' own statistics. 
 
 In the Court of Common Pleas the trials, in 1843, 44, and 45, 
 were 9, 7, 13 — average 9| ; in 1850, 51, and 52, they were 7, 
 13, 7 — average 9 ; only showing a difference of three-fourths 
 of a case in the average of three years, in cases where both 
 parties lived in the 18 towns. 
 
 And in cases where one of the parties only lived in those 
 towns, the average of 1843, 44 and 45, was 7 ; while the average 
 of 1850, 51 and 52, was 8 — showing an increase of 1 in the 
 three latter years. 
 
 But a broad constitutional question has been raised by the 
 Petitioners, who, — after more than seventy years'' acquiescence 
 on the part of the people of those 18 towns, during most of 
 which time none of the modern facilities of access to Worces- 
 ter were enjoyed, and while, as we have seen, a. g-reat inajority 
 even now are opposed to the proposed change, — take the high 
 ground that they have a constitutional right, in the language 
 of Col. Phillips, to " demand " this accommodation of a new 
 
25 
 
 county. In this he is sustained by Mr. Crocker, and a consid- 
 erable part of the eloquent argument of Mr. Choate last year 
 was based upon the same assumption. 
 
 The argument is, that the Bill of Rights lays down certain 
 propositions which the Petitioners undertake to apply to this 
 particular case. 
 
 Thus, Col. Phillips says, the 13th Art. of that Bill gives a 
 right to be tried " in the vicinity " where the facts happen. 
 
 But, when asked to define what he meant by " vicinity^'' he 
 frankly admitted that it must depend upon the circumstances 
 of each particular case, the cheapness and readiness of access, 
 and the like. 
 
 Mr. Crocker, on his part, defined this by having a Court 
 House near enough to every man to go and return to his home 
 the same day. 
 
 Before the day of railroads that would have required a 
 court house about every twenty miles. 
 
 And it is a little singular that the framers of this Bill of 
 Rights never seem to have made this discovery, nor to have 
 taken any measures towards restoring to their fellow-citizens 
 living out of Dukes, Nantucket, and Suffolk, rights which have 
 been suffered so long to lie dormant. 
 
 Even now, by that test, you would have to create a new 
 county between Barnstable and Provincetown ; although some 
 entire terms of the court in Barnstable go by without a single 
 case, civil or criminal, for trial. 
 
 But let us analyze this claim founded upon the Articles in 
 the Bill of Rights, which were rather intended to indicate the 
 general duties of the government towards its citizens, than to 
 define. precisely hoio this shall be done. 
 
 Thus it is declared that the citizen " ought to obtain right 
 and justice freely and without being obliged to purchase it." 
 (11th Art.) 
 
 But will it be pretended that our court houses are to be 
 built, our courts supported, our officers maintained, and wit- 
 nesses and counsel paid for, in all cases, for every suitor who 
 chooses to go to law, and all without any charge to him ? 
 It is declared that the citizen ought to obtain right and jus- 
 4 
 
26 
 
 tice " completely and without denial, promptly and without 
 delay. " 
 
 But was it ever supposed that courts and juries could never 
 make mistakes? Or that the moment a suitor presented him- 
 self before the court, his cause should be heard and decided, and 
 if 20 or 50 or 500 come at the same time, they should all be 
 heard together ? 
 
 Was it intended by the constitution that every man should 
 have a court house and a judge just so far from his house as 
 every other one has, — that Dukes County should have as 
 many terms as Suffolk, or a citizen in Suffolk should have his 
 cause tried just as quick and just as cheap as the men living 
 in Edgarton or Nantucket? 
 
 Every body knows that with all the beautiful theory of our 
 government, these things cannot be practically accomplished. 
 
 Nor did the article of the Bill of Rights above recited, when 
 examined, contemplate that such perfect equality should be 
 attained; for it adds, after stating that he ought to obtain right 
 &c, " conformably to the laws ", — that is, that the right of all 
 citizens should be protected, enforced and enjoyed according 
 to known prescribed laws, applicable as far as reasonably possi- 
 ble alike to all. 
 
 It no where says that a bUl of costs shall be the same in 
 Berkshire, Hampden and Worcester, or that no man shall be 
 obliged to have his cause tried at the disadvantage of being 
 opposed by the power and eloquence of men who grace the 
 courts of this Capital. 
 
 But in such a govement as ours, things, if left to themselves, 
 tend to an equality. 
 
 The people cannot all live close to a court house, even if the 
 county contains only 600 square miles as advocated by the 
 Petitioners. 
 
 Those who live near or in the shire town, find it attended 
 with expense, they are taxed to build roads from the remote 
 parts of the county to that point, though they may never travel 
 them, while they are obliged to maintain their own streets at the 
 same time; and those who never have a lawsuit are taxed to 
 support court and courts houses for those who have, and to 
 
27 
 
 sacrifice their own comfort and business to sit as jurors upon 
 other people's matters. 
 
 The law, too has its " delays," and always has had, and al- 
 ways will have. And so there has always been and al- 
 ways will be, " the oppressor's wrong " and " proud man's con- 
 tumely." 
 
 But it is idle to think of reorganizing society in order to get 
 rid of those evils w^hich are inherent in the very constitution of 
 society in whatever form we find it. 
 
 The legislature can only take things as they find them, and, 
 in view of aU the existing circumstances, so adapt their legis- 
 lation as to do the greatest good to the greatest number. 
 
 The question is not what you would do if this were an un- 
 organized territory — so many square miles in Kansas or Minne- 
 sota. But the county exists and its parts have adapted them- 
 selves to the existing state of things. 
 
 Ample accommodations are provided, in suitable public 
 buildings, for such a county for a century to come. 
 
 Highways are already constructed. RaU roads, centering 
 in Worcester, are already built, with the exception of one, and 
 that will be as surely built as the world goes on. 
 
 It is idle to scout or disparage the proposition that the Gard- 
 ner and Barre Railroad will be built. That part of the coun- 
 ty need it, have the ability to build it, and cannot afford to be 
 without it. 
 
 Clinton's " Big Ditch " became a by-word for scoffers in his 
 day and the Western Railroad was, to mjj personal knowledge 
 and experience, as much derided as any work could be as a 
 visionary and Utopian scheme. Nor had it at its commence- 
 ment an hundreth part of the encouragement of success that 
 this road now has. 
 
 And when that is completed, there will be a twice or thrice 
 daily communication between Worcester and every town in 
 that part of the county. 
 
 The very solicitude manifested by the advocates for this 
 division, and their readiness to decry and discourage this road, 
 ought to satisfy us of their apprehension that it will be made. 
 
 When that is done Fitchburg will, by reason of the com- 
 
28 
 
 parative heavy grades in her road, be left one side of the great 
 line of the western travel in its way to the seaboard. 
 
 The chance of then calling for a division of the county will 
 be constantly growing less, and we can readily understand the 
 meaning of Mr. Choate's language, last year, when he said, " if 
 you are ever to do any thing for us now is the time. " (p. 63.) 
 
 I have thus far been considering the business of the Courts^ 
 as a ground for dividing the County, for not only, after all, is 
 that the great argument on which the Petitioners rest their case, 
 but even this is narrowed down to the mere consideration of 
 the distance ivMch those having trials in Court are obliged to 
 travel with their witnesses noiv, compared with what would be 
 the case if they went to Fitchburg. 
 
 Mere wealth or popidation is not a ground for division. 
 
 Suffolk, including those who live and do business in Boston, 
 is half as large again as "Worcester, with four times as much 
 wealth, and yet nobody ever thought of dividing that county. 
 
 On the contrary, an act was passed last winter and adopted 
 by a major vote of both cities, to cut off Charlestown from 
 Middlesex, " with its three shire towns, " and annex it to Suf- 
 folk. 
 
 And when it is proposed to annex Roxbury and other towns 
 to Boston, I have not heard any apprehension expressed that 
 they would not obtain justice as fairly in Suffolk as in Norfolk 
 or Middlesex. 
 
 I come now to another position of the Petitioners in regard 
 to the Court business of these towns, and that is that in conse- 
 quence of the distance of these towns, those who have claims 
 to sue, refer them to arbitrators, when they would otherwise 
 try them by Jury, as they have a right to do. 
 
 This is sought to be sustained by the testimony of Mr. 
 Wood, Mr. Whitney, Mr. Fletcher, and Mr. Norcross. 
 
 Mr. Wood expresses the opinion that one half or two thirds 
 of the cases for litigation are referred. He recollects two cases, 
 Hill's and Kelton's, and seven, at the last term, but could recal no 
 others. And he frankly added that he did not know as any 
 more were referred from his part of the County than from other 
 parts. 
 
29 
 
 Mr. Whitney recollected 8 cases since 1850, 3 of them the 
 same mentioned by Mr. Wood, and stated that about one case 
 a year was tried frQm Templeton. 
 
 Mr. Fletcher recollected two of the same cases mentioned 
 by Mr. Wood, and could only recollect one litigated case from 
 Leominster in 5 years. 
 
 Mr. Norcross recollected the same 7 cases mentioned by Mr. 
 Wood. 
 
 Two of the parties in these 7 cases were of Fitchburg, and 
 2 of Leominster, within an hour's ride from Worcester. 
 
 Our answer to this position and this proof is — 1st. From 
 the very nature of law business, arbitration is often resorted to 
 as the best and most satisfactory mode of determining many 
 cases, even when the parties live in sight of the Court House, — 
 but by no means the cheapest. In the case already mentioned 
 the fees of the Referrees were $125 — when of witnesses, party 
 costs, &c. all the charge was about 15 dollars. 
 
 2. That, in fact, it is no more common, if so much so, to re- 
 sort to arbitration in Worcester County than in small counties, 
 and those in which are more than one shire town. 
 
 And 3d. That so far as the evidence is before us, it is no 
 more resorted to from these 18 towns, if as much so, as from 
 other parts of the County, from which we hear no complaint. 
 
 The settling of difficulties and disputes by arbitration is as 
 old as the Common Law, if not the Bible itself — and volumes 
 have been written to define and explain the Common Law on 
 the subject. 
 
 In the next place, it is a mode provided for by statute, 
 occupying an entke chapter (114) of our Revised code. 
 
 In the next place, the forms of law in our Courts provide 
 for this very mode of determining questions, by what is called 
 « Rules of Court. " 
 
 In the next place, all matters of complicated accounts are 
 sent to auditors, by order of the Court, if the parties do not 
 choose to make it a matter of arbitration; because Juries 
 are not a proper tribunal to examine and state long and 
 complicated accounts. And this class of cases are often re- 
 ferred, as every lawyer and suitor knows. 
 
30 
 
 So reasonable and usual is it to refer disputes to arbitrators, 
 that some states are said to have " Courts of Conciliation " 
 answering this very purpose. And our own Legislature have 
 a similar proposition now before them, sustained by a learned 
 and able report. And every body knows that there is a very 
 general sense where persons have difficulties which they cannot 
 settle between themselves, that the fairest way is to " leave it 
 out to men. " 
 
 Another class of cases are those requiring men of peculiar 
 experience or science to decide them, and the parties choose to 
 select these rather than to depend upon a jury, drawn from 
 the common business pursuits of life, even though it is much 
 more expensive. 
 
 HilVs case was of this kind, and was referred mainly on that 
 account, and not because the parties were not willing to incur 
 the trouble and expense of witnesses, &c. — for the witnesses 
 were in attendance, and the case had been partly tried, when 
 the parties concluded to refer it. 
 
 If we inquire how this is in other counties, the- clerk of 
 Hampshire certifies " cases are frequently referred " in that 
 county. 
 
 Hampden. " It is a common practice." 
 
 In Essex, {with four shire towns,) 35 cases were referred in 
 1858, and 40 in 1854. 
 
 How is the fact in this respect in our own County ? 
 
 The Clerk certifies that for the several terms of the Court of 
 Common Pleas, in 1853 and 1854,41 cases and no more were 
 referred or awards made — making on an average but 5\ cases 
 per term — about half as many as in Essex during the same 
 period. 
 
 If we examine, I think we shall find Mr. Wood was correct 
 in not assuming that any more cases in proportion were 
 referred from those 18 towns than the rest of the County ; for 
 we find by Mr. Mason's statement that, of 249 cases from 
 eleven of these towns, including Fitchburg, (whether there 
 were any from the other 7 or not is not stated,) in the year 
 1851, all but 32 were disposed of, and on\y four of the number 
 were referred, and in all these four the parties resided in Fitch- 
 
31 
 
 bvrg' — practically nearer Worcester than most of the 18 towns, 
 off the direct line of the railroad, are to Fitchburg. 
 
 Here are facts against theory; and which will the Com- 
 mittee adopt as their guide ? 
 
 But the Petitioners go further and say, that because of the 
 distance of these towns from Worcester, not only parties for- 
 bear to try their actions in court, and therefore refer them, but 
 many persons forbear to prosecute just claims on account of 
 the expense of travelling so far. 
 
 Let us now see what is the proof of this, and if it does not 
 turn out like so many others of Petitioners' assumptions. 
 
 Mr. Ware states two cases — one in the Courts of Law, the 
 other in Probate. 
 
 In respect to the first, a part of the claim, $150, was recov- 
 ered after a trial, and a suit was then brought for the balance, 
 $50 — depending, as I understand him, upon the same facts. 
 
 But as the defendant manifested a determination to resist 
 the claim, the plaintiff abandoned it, and paid defendant's 
 costs, rather than incur the expense of the trial. 
 
 If that was a recent affair, the question arises, why plaintiff 
 did not sue the action before a Justice of the Peace, and have 
 the trial at his own door, as he might have done, if he believed 
 he really had a just claim ? 
 
 In the other, I understood him to say, he advised to give up 
 a claim of two to three hundred dollars, growing out of a 
 Guardian's account, rather than contest it. 
 
 I understood him to admit there was no danger of any delay 
 in the hearing ; for the Judge was ready if he came to Wor- 
 cester. 
 
 It would only make some 20 miles difference in the travel 
 of his witnesses, as I understand the relative distances from 
 Fitchburg and Worcester, which would be about $1.60 each. 
 So that if he had the very unusual number of 30 witnesses, it 
 would only have made $48 difference. 
 
 And 1 think the Committee must have been satisfied after 
 the frank explanation of Mr. Ware — ^who is too fair and hon- 
 orable to misrepresent a case — the cause why it was thought 
 
32 
 
 best not to prosecute this claim, was rather the engagement of 
 the counsel, than that Fitchburg was not a shire town. 
 
 The true explanation of the few number of suits from those 
 eig'hteen towns is most creditable to them. 
 
 They are intelligent, thriving, industrious people, each 
 pursuing and managing his own business honorably and dis- 
 creetly ; and being, withal, free from that curse of any com- 
 munity, a class of pettifogging, mischief-making lawyers, they 
 have, comparatively, few controversies to settle in courts. 
 
 I might find a parallel in the County of Barnstable, where, 
 with a population of over 35,000 thriving, intelligent, indus- 
 trious men, a whole six months has gone by, at times, without 
 a single case, civil or criminal, for the decision of court or jury 
 in that county. 
 
 Do such men need a multiplication of court-houses, and courts, 
 and jails, and houses of correction ? I think I know them too 
 well and too long to believe it for a moment. 
 
 Another ground on which a division is asked, is the amount 
 and expense of the criminal business of the County. 
 
 In the first place, it is not denied that the criminal business 
 of the County is well and promptly done, and all of it done 
 satisfactorily. 
 
 In the next place, the Jail is delivered three times a year; 
 while in the smaller counties, prisoners may have to lie six 
 months before the time of a Court arrives, and unintentional 
 cruelty and injustice be often done in that way. 
 
 In the next place, it is cheaper keeping prisoners where 
 there are arrangements like those at Worcester for their em- 
 ployment, than in smaller counties. And if it were not, the 
 burden of keeping convicts from these 18 towns is a charge 
 upon the whole County or State, and not upon those towns. 
 
 In respect to the comparative cost of criminals and criminal 
 proceedings, we have statistics that settle the question. 
 
 If we go behind the gross amounts and large generalities, in 
 which the Petitioners deal, we find that in the amount of crim- 
 inal costs, Hampden, Essex, Bristol and Berkshire all stand 
 higher upon their respective valuations than Worcester. And 
 
33 
 
 that the accuracy of my calculations may be tested, I gi^e 
 them, as made upon the respective amounts of the costs of the 
 last year : — 
 
 Hampden, amount of costs, $14,620—6.4; Essex, $32,070— 
 5.6; Bristol, $18,123—5.6; Berkshire, $8,755—5.0; Worcester, 
 (as stated by Co. Commissioners,) $24, 303—4.3 ; Hampshire, 
 $4,820—3.6. 
 
 And as to the comparative expense of supporting prisons, 
 in Hampshire, Franklin, and Hampden, the board per week in 
 Jail and House of Correction, is $1.75, but in Worcester, it is 
 only $1.40, per week. 
 
 We may repeat what I have already stated, that, while the 
 costs of the first twenty criminal actions on the docket in 
 Hampden, averaged $42.20, the same number in Worcester, 
 averaged only $36.28. 
 
 But what I regard as of far more importance than mere 
 expense in respect to criminals, is the effect upon the criminals 
 themselves, of a well or badly managed Jail or House of Cor- 
 rection. 
 
 In small counties with but few convicts, it is impossible, 
 with any reasonable expense, to provide for their systematic 
 employment or the application of proper means of reform. 
 
 If such men are left idle and uncared for, to associate 
 together and corrupt each other, the purposes of imprisonment, 
 as a measure of reform, are worse than lost. 
 
 Under the present system at Worcester, the inmates are 
 kept constantly employed ; there is a constant oversight of 
 them ; they have the advantages of religious worship, preach- 
 ing, and Sabbath schools ; and they feel that they are yet 
 remembered and cared for in the sympathies of the good. 
 
 And the influence and moral effect of this is incalculable. 
 It has not been understood or appreciated till of late. How- 
 ard's "pilgrimage of mercy" formed a new epoch in the 
 history of criminal jurisprudence and prison discipline. 
 
 The whole Christian world is interested in»the condition of 
 the prisoner, to save and restore him, if possible, instead of 
 shutting him up in idleness, to brood over mischief, or cor- 
 rupt and be corrupted by wicked associations. 
 5 
 
34 
 
 When, therefore, we contend that it is better to have the 20 
 or more per year that are sent from those 18 towns to the 
 House of Correction, in such an Institution as the County now 
 has, than in any similar establishment that could be hoped 
 for in the proposed new county, we are but pleading the cause 
 of a generous humanity and Christian brotherhood. 
 
 And on this subject, I commend to the attention of the 
 Committee, the Report of the Committee who visited all the 
 prisons in the Commonwealth, since the last session of the 
 Legislature, — which is among the files of your papers ; and we 
 feel fully sustained and justified by that, for everything I have 
 said on this subject. 
 
 Another reason put forth by the Petitioners for their pro- 
 posal, is the alleged difficulty in doing the Probate business of 
 the 18 towns. Mr. Choate's argument puts down for the 23 
 towns, " for the extra Probate business — travel of parties, 
 $1000 per year." (p. 47.) 
 
 In the first place, there are six Courts in a year within these 
 18 towns ; and in ordinary cases, the delay of a month or two, 
 in order to attend to business at these, would occasion no 
 inconvenience. 
 
 In the next place, to go to Worcester, is only, on an aver- 
 age, eleven miles further than it would be to go to Fitch- 
 burg. 
 
 In the next place, no man complains of any dclaij at Wor- 
 cester, if the parties choose to go there. They always can 
 knoiv when their cases may he heard. 
 
 The ordinary business in the Probate Office takes so short 
 a part of the day, that persons coming by railroad can com- 
 monly go and return the same day, as has been stated by 
 various witnesses. 
 
 And besides, it is generally a convenient occasion to attend 
 to other business, insurance, purchase of goods, stock, &c. &c. 
 
 And what is the fact practically? Mr. Ilawes — who is an 
 advocate for a division of the County, and lives 4 or 5 miles 
 from Fitchburg — in 20 years' experience in Probate business, 
 never went to Fitchburg but in 3 cases. 
 
 If there were any difficulty of this kind it would be perfectly 
 
35 
 
 easy, and with but little cost, to multiply the terms of the 
 Court, in that part of tlie County. 
 
 But the statistics of the business last year, shows that par- 
 ties would still come to Worcester, for the reasons I have 
 stated, because they prefer to do so. 
 
 There were in 1853, 132 letters of administration and testa- 
 mentary, granted in these 18 towns, and of these, 114 were 
 taken at Worcester. 
 
 In 1854, 122 were granted, and of these, 101 were granted 
 in Worcester. 
 
 And what is more palpable even in respect to Fitchburg 
 itself; in 1853, 10 out of 14 were granted in Worcester, and 
 in 1854, 17 out of 18, showing the preference of parties to go 
 to Worcester to do the very business, a portion of which they 
 could have done at their own doors. 
 
 Does this look as if there was a state of suffering in this 
 respect in these towns, such as to call for the creation of a 
 new Probate Court, and a new County ? 
 
 And in this connexion, let me suggest a reason why people 
 will always be better accommodated at the public oflices in 
 a large than in -a small county. There is business enough to 
 engage the entire attention of the officers, and they are always 
 found at their offices, — whereas, when the compensation is but 
 partly enough to support them, they are, of necessity, obliged 
 to divide their attention between their duties, at the expense of 
 each. 
 
 A point is made by the Petitioners on the ground of having 
 to send their deeds so far for record. 
 
 We have heard the practical operation of this. Agencies 
 exist in almost every town, by which they can be sent, at the 
 simple cost o( postage, and often for nothing, and in mosttowns 
 are expresses going and coming every day, whose utmost 
 charge would be 25 cents for each deed. 
 
 In the first place, from how many towns could this be more 
 cheaply or easily done, if the Registry were in Fitchburg ? 
 
 In the second place, would the difference in the total num- 
 ber by the year (2875 last year,) be an occasion for cutting up 
 the County? 
 
36 
 
 It is urged, I know not exactly whether as an evil or not, 
 that there has been "a stampede of Lawyers" from these 18 
 towns to "Worcester. 
 
 Our answer is, ist, — The " stampede " consisted of tivo. 
 
 2d. That lawyers locate themselves where they are most 
 accessible to their clients ; and that it is often cheaper and 
 easier for a client to go by railroad 20 miles to Worcester, than 
 to the town next adjoining him. 
 
 That the same effect is being produced in Fitchburg, the 
 Committee may already have concluded, from the number of 
 the profession from that place that have appeared either as 
 witnesses or counsel in this case, and that neither in number 
 or talent of their lawyers, has Fitchburg any occasion to be 
 jealous of Worcester, or any place short of the metropolis. 
 
 And lastly, that counties are not usually cut up and altered 
 merely for the accommodation of the legal profession. 
 
 When the Legislature were asked to abolish Concord as a 
 shire town, a few years ago, they refused, although it appeared 
 upon the hearing, that more than half the actions upon the 
 whole docket were commenced by Lowell lawyers, who de- 
 sired the change to be made. 
 
 It is said County Conventions are held in Worcester. 
 
 So far from this being evidence for a division of the county, 
 it seems to me the reverse. 
 
 It is a case where the people do as they choose, and are not 
 compelled by any process of court, and they go there as the 
 proper centre of travel and business, and the most accessible 
 point for all parties. 
 
 Is it proposed that the Legislatiu-e shall force the people to 
 go somewhere else, and hold voluntary conventions ? 
 
 But it is made a great matter of complaint that of $50,000, 
 land damages for roads, only $7000 were paid in these 18 towns. 
 
 The mere amount of damages is not a test of the length 
 or necessity of the roads located. 
 
 No roads have been granted but upon petition, — nor until a 
 full notice and opportunity to be heard, and make objections if 
 any body had any. If the public generally have called for 
 roads towards Worcester, it was not to accommodate litigants 
 
37 
 
 and their witnesses alone, but the general business of the 
 County, and can be no cause for dividing it. 
 
 The only complaint I have heard made is, not that too many 
 roads were made, but that one from Princeton through West- 
 minster, towards Fitchburg, was not granted after being op- 
 posed by the inhabitants of two of these towns, as unneces- 
 sary and uncalled for. And Mr. Mansur did intimate that a 
 road from Hubbardston, over the summit to Westminster 
 should be laid out, though we hear of no petition for it, and 
 those who know the route speak of it as an impracticable one. 
 
 Suppose the changing the county lines could force busi- 
 ness into new channels, which we do not admit, will the Legis- 
 lature exercise " an act of government " to accomplish such a 
 purpose? Why should they? 
 
 This forcing of business, if at all, is to be by creating a new 
 Board of Commissioners to carry out new lines of highways, 
 and many of them directly across the usual course of such 
 ways, which has hitherto been adopted. 
 
 And is this question of being taxed for all this, a matter 
 which is not to weigh in determining the main question? 
 
 Shall the people be denied the privilege of voting whether 
 they will be taxed or not, to force trade and business towards 
 Fitchburg ? 
 
 Our fathers heard of " acts of government " when they were 
 'told they must go to the Mother Country for their markets 
 and their place of business. But they did not hesitate to re- 
 pudiate such an "act of government" the first opportunity 
 that offered for the movement. 
 
 Another reason urged by the Petitioners, and set forth in so 
 many terms in " the statistics " they have circulated so widely, 
 is, that "the expenses of a small county are less in proportion 
 either to population or valuation than the costs of supporting a 
 large oneP And this is held out as an inducement to those 
 heretofore opposed, to favor the creation of a new and smaller 
 county than Worcester. 
 
 Now, in fact, I am altogether mistaken in the computations 
 I have had made ; or, like so many others of the Petitioner's 
 positions and assumptions, this is not sustained by the proof. 
 
38 
 
 These computations are in the case as a part of the evidence 
 based upon the county taxes granted in 1850 and 1854, which 
 were accidentally selected and averaged upon the valuation 
 and population of the various counties, except Nantucket. 
 
 And the result is that upon valuation, in 1850, Dukes, 
 Bristol^ Berkshire, Franklin and Hampden, were all taxed 
 higher for county charges than Worcester. And in 1854, 
 Dukes, Norfolk, Hampden and Hampshire were all above 
 Worcester, Bristol was the same as Worcester, and Franklin 
 stood 1.07 to Worcester 1.08. 
 
 Upon Population in 1850, Dukes, Bristol, Norfolk, Franklin 
 and Hampden were all higher than Worcester. 
 
 In 1854, Dukes, Hampden, Hampshire and Norfolk were all 
 higher llian Worcester, and Bristol stood the same as Worces- 
 ter. And what is more, we do not believe these counties have 
 so good roads, so well regulated a prison and house of correc- 
 tion as Worcester, nor any better county accommodations of 
 any kind. 
 
 These statistics confirm the judgment of Mr Murdock and 
 other witnesses, who expressed themselves opposed to the 
 division, because they apprehended that their expenses in a 
 new, small county, would be higher than in an old and large 
 and wealthy one. 
 
 From the whole course of the hearing, from the resolute 
 resistance to submitting the question to the very people who 
 are said to be the sufferers, is it too much to deny that the 
 measure is one designed to build up Fitchburg? 
 
 The matter of courts and county officers to be located there 
 is but a secondary interest. The measure goes deeper — to 
 change the present current of business and direct it towards 
 Fitchburg by new highways and the creation of new business 
 relations. 
 
 The movement originated there, and it is from there that it 
 still derives its chief if not its only aid. 
 
 Fitchburg has a perfect right to seek her own aggrandise- 
 ment, and we complain not of this. But it shows the real 
 spring that gives impulse to what claims the dignity of a 
 popular measure. 
 
In no other town was there a spontaneous movement in 
 this direction. And while we are told that the 34,000 people 
 in these 18 towns are suffering so much, what town but 
 Fitchburg now takes a single step for relief? 
 
 From what other town do emissaries go out to stir up and 
 excite the people of these suffering' toivns ? 
 
 What other town raises money to employ people to circu- 
 late petitions to pay for counsel and witnesses ? 
 
 And of the 3473 petitioners this very year, Fitchburg fur- 
 nishes 1125. 
 
 What other town has offered a bribe for the boon of a new 
 shire, and of being the shire town ? Col. 'Doi/ tells you, that, 
 when obtaining petitions, he offered the Bill by which Fitch- 
 burg was to pay $25,000, in one hand, and Mr. Mansur's 
 statistics in the other. 
 
 Mr. Simonds, of Temple^pn, expressed a doubt whether even 
 he, who had always petitioned, should be in favor of the 
 division, if this $25,000 was not to be paid. 
 
 Maj. Hawcs said seven-eighths of the opposition was on 
 the score of expense, and the $25,000 relieves this to a great 
 extent. 
 
 So it is through the whole. 
 
 The Petitioners undertake to explain and soften down this 
 palpable bid for the shire town, as a thing in market, by the 
 testimony of witnesses that the saving to Fitchburg in extra 
 travel by being made a shire town, would be equal to $1500 
 a year. 
 
 I have attempted to see how far this will be true ; but 
 from the evidence we have, I am compelled to believe, that 
 even in this, the Petitioners are again in a great error. 
 
 Let us see how the account will stand. 
 
 She had 485 deeds last year to send to the Register; 20 
 attachments of real estate, and 18 administrations. Suppose 
 we add three times as many guardianships, probate accounts, 
 &c., and call them 54, — which the Register testilies would be 
 a large allotvance. 
 
 In 1850, there were 1258 actions on the docket. Suppose 
 we assign one-fourth of these to the 18 towns — 314, and 
 
40 
 
 apportion these to the number of voters, Fitchburg would have 
 about 40 ; the difference in travel being to the parties the dif- 
 ference between 33 and 165 — or 1.32, making for both parties 
 2.64 X by 40— $105.60. 
 
 Say. then — 
 For sending deeds, 25 cents each, - - - $120 
 " attachments, $1 each, - - 20 
 
 Probate matters, 72 travels each way, twice a year, 216 
 80 parties in court, 1.32 each, (though this is trav- 
 elled, if at all, by a few lawyers,) say, - 106 
 
 $462 
 
 I add nothing for criminal business, as that is a charge upon 
 the State, or the whole County. 
 
 And these cover, one would think, calculating upon the 
 statistics in the case, a pretty liberal allowance for the extra 
 travel in respect to court matters to be saved to the town of 
 Fitchburg by becoming a shire xown. And we should only 
 have to add the travel of witnesses, which, at $2 each, may 
 be $100 in a year, if you please, — and not swell the extra 
 travel of Fitchburg to any where nigh half the amount at 
 which then- witnesses conjectured it to be. 
 
 I come now to the last, and with many, the most influential 
 consideration, which has been urged by the Petitioners for 
 granting their demand ; and that is, that it would be repeated 
 again and again till it ivas accomplished. 
 
 We hear it spoken of as " inevitable ; " and we find such 
 men as Mr. Fletcher yielding his own judgment to the appre- 
 hension that this wearisome process of resisting the demands 
 of the Petitioners will have to be abandoned by and by from 
 mere exhaustion on the part of the remonstrants. 
 
 We find this determination of clearing everybody from " the 
 track" who should oppose them, set forth in the very first 
 address issued by the Fitchburg Committee, Jan. 6, 1851. 
 
 And the Committee of the Legislature, in 1853, seem to 
 have regarded it as an important consideration that at some 
 future time the County must be divided. «» 
 
 Now we protest against this doctrine. 
 
 First, because, from all the evidence before the Committee, 
 
41 
 
 the necessities, if any exist, for such a division, will become 
 less hereafter^ instead of greater ; and if there is not sufficient 
 cause noiv, there is no evidence that there ever will be for gen- 
 erations yet to come. 
 
 And second, because such a doctrine is subversive of the 
 rights of other parties, and turns these hearings before the 
 Legislature into mockery. 
 
 It is worse than idle for the Legislature, time after time, to 
 hear parties and decide upon the merits of their cases, if they 
 are to be wearied out and compelled, to decide against their 
 own convictions, by the obstinacy or pertinacity of an inter- 
 ested party. It is simply saying, whoever has the most ability 
 of means and stubbornness of will, can in all cases get, in the 
 end, just what he asks for of the Legislature, let whose rights 
 be trampled upon that may be. 
 
 Here is a case where there are two parties, one of which has 
 rights as well as the other. And after a full and fair hearing 
 and determination of their claims, the people of the other 
 towns have a right to be left in peace. 
 
 If there is no other way of doing this, it is a sufficient reason, 
 of itself, why the matter should be submitted to the people, to 
 declare their wishes on the question, — not for the purpose of 
 hindering the right of petition, for that we accord to the fullest 
 extent, but to satisfy the Petitioners themselves that they are 
 pressing an unfounded and unreasonable claim. 
 
 What would be thought of a court or jury who should take 
 one man's estate and give it to another, upon no better ground 
 than because he threatened to keep suing till he wearied out 
 the court and the rightful owner ? 
 
 If Petitioners have made out a case that shows that their 
 petition should be granted now^ grant it ; otherwise, let the 
 parties go in peace and stand as they are till they can make 
 out clearly that a change should be made. 
 
 If we were to stop here, and take the Petitioners' own case 
 with our explanations, without saying a word as to the weighty 
 objections which are shown, on the other hand, to exist to the 
 measure, is there not at least enough to call for a submission 
 of the question to the people ? 
 6 
 
42 
 
 Suppose it were left merely doubtful whether there was that 
 loss and inconvenience suffered by the people of those towns 
 which the Petitioners represent ; can there be so sure, so direct, 
 so convenient a mode of determining- the question, as to put it 
 to the very people themselves, who, if anybody, are to be 
 relieved and redressed ? 
 
 The Petitioners themselves, though they seem to advocate 
 the exercise of sovereign power now, in an " act of govern- 
 ment," rather than a regard for the wishes of the people, seem 
 to have felt, that in making out their case, they ought to show 
 something like a public sentiment in its favor ; and they ac- 
 cordingly introduce several witnesses to show what the public 
 sentiment is. 
 
 We ask you to lay this out the case for two persons ; first, 
 if public sentiment is to be regarded, why not let the people 
 declare it directly, instead of taking it hearsay and second- 
 hand? 
 
 In the next place, we do not think these witnesses have giv- 
 en us any thing like the true public sentiment. 
 
 They tell us of conversations they have had with individuals 
 in cars and hotels. But we all know how often " the wish is 
 father of the thought, " and if a man did not see fit to openly 
 oppose the zeal of Col. Crocker or Col. Phillips, how ready 
 they would be to infer that he was in favor of what they had so 
 much at heart. 
 
 Col. Phillips testifies as to the condition of the County being 
 a general subject of complaint of Jurors and witnesses during a 
 long time. " " I believe I have got at the public sentiment of 
 those who have practical experience. " 
 
 Now we have evidence that the reverse is true as to a large 
 proportion of the Jurors who have served since 1850, and even 
 of Jurors who are in favor of the division — but not because of 
 complaint in respect of the law business. And witness after 
 witness who have attended court themselves, have testified they 
 have heard no such complaint. 
 
 Petitioners have attempted to show changes of opinion in favor 
 of the division of the County, and the names of Mr. Fletcher 
 and Mr. Tyler are mentioned. 
 
But Mr. Fletcher has himself explained the ground on which 
 he has changed his opinion. And Mr. Tyler, though called, did 
 not throw light upon the sudden alteration of his views, after 
 signing the Petition in favor of that of Artemas Lee and others. 
 
 But the result of the 1st Convention at Fitchburg told what 
 the public feeling of that part of the county was. 
 
 The report of the majority of the Convention in 1854, clearly 
 admits that the people are against it, and only recommend the 
 measure as " an act of government, the propriety of which the 
 Legislature was peculiarly the judge. " 
 
 Here then we resume the ground on which we first stood 
 when this case was opened — the ground on which more than 
 4,300 petitioners rest it, that this whole question should be 
 submitted to the people ; and although the people of the entire 
 county have feelings and interests involved, it is only to the 
 people of these towns that it is asked to submit it. 
 
 And are the grounds upon which the Petitioners resist a 
 proposition so reasonable, sufficient and satisfactory to your 
 minds ? 
 
 Is it not because such a step would settle the question 
 against them, so that they can no longer have a face to perse- 
 vere, and show that Mr. Fletcher was mistaken in the grounds 
 on which he changed his opinion ; " that he had seen a deter- 
 mination in the north part of the county to divide, and if it 
 was to take place, it had better take place now than later. " 
 
 Let us see what some of these reasons as stated by the open- 
 ing counsel for the Petitioners are ? 
 
 I took down the language of Mr. Mansur, as .well as I could 
 upon this point. 
 
 " The people will not be left to act upon their own judgment. 
 Influences will be brought to bear from outside of the terri- 
 tory. " And then allusion was made to the fact that the city 
 of Worcester had raised money to oppose it. 
 
 Again. " Every man, ambitious of office, who takes part in 
 this measure, is proscribed." 
 
 Another. " We have but few rich men. But in the north- 
 west part of the county, we have some always opposed to this 
 — they may be ambitious. There may be another reason. If 
 
44 
 
 you have such a docket 40 miles off, might it not prevent peo- 
 ple asserting their rights, and these may be the reasons why 
 rich men will be opposed to the change. " 
 
 Thirdly, " We canH have a fair reference to ilie people — influ- 
 ences will be brought to bear upon the people that they cannot act 
 freely. " 
 
 Now that this was not intended as a mere flourish of rhet- 
 oric, witnesses were enquired of and expressed opinions upon 
 the subject, Mr. Goulding, Mr. Wood and others, 
 
 Mr. Wood did indeed " decline answering as to any rich man 
 oppressing the poor man, " " I include some who are active. It 
 is a mere matter of opinion. " And he added, that he had 
 heard another man say, " If another sued him he would make 
 it cost him as much as he could. " As if foolish threats like 
 that, had not been heard again and again from quarrelsome 
 litigants, within hearing of every court-house bell in the Com- 
 monwealth. 
 
 I have been more full in stating this part of the Petitioners' 
 answer, because it involves a grave charge, which I be- 
 lieve to be as unjust and ungenerous an imputation as ever 
 was made upon an honorable, highminded, intelligent commu- 
 nity. 
 
 Thank God, these towns are yet a part of my native county, 
 and I have a right, in their name to repel the insinuation as 
 the mere creation of a groundless jealousy, as I believe it to be. 
 It is like that bugbear of " Worcester influence'''' of which 
 we hear so much from the Petitioners. 
 
 Who are the men and where do they live who thus oppress 
 the poor? 
 
 Does one pretend to believe that if there were men suspect- 
 ed, even, of habitually grinding down the poor and robbing 
 them by refusing to pay their honest debts, or using their 
 wealth to cheat and oppress their fellow-citizens, the whole 
 community would keep their peace ? Nay more, that when 
 that community had it put into their power by a simple vote 
 to disarm the oppressor of his power, that they would quail 
 from fear, in doing it ? 
 
 I can scarcely treat the suggestion with patience. I know 
 
4B 
 
 the men of North Worcester better than to tolerate such a 
 thought for a moment. 
 
 It was but a few years since I saw some of the leading men 
 of Athol volunteer to come down to Worcester to rescue a 
 poor friendless black boy from a master's power ; and is it to 
 be charged that such men, and those who drew in hatred of 
 oppression with their mother's milk, may not be trusted to 
 decide whether they themselves and their own kindred and 
 neighbors are the victims of oppression of some purse-proud 
 tyrant ? 
 
 They talk about proscription, of ambitious men. Who is 
 to proscribe them but the very men whom they are relieving 
 by their efforts to create a new county ? And what sort of 
 proscription is that which instead of giving here and there an 
 ambitious man, in one of these towns, a county office, pours 
 into the lap of eager expectants the scores of offices and 
 places which a new county is certain to open to hungry office 
 seekers ? • 
 
 I do not mean to charge improper motives upon any one. 
 But if this suggestion of the Petitioners as to ambitious men 
 has any force, I can easily see that the coming office of Sheriff 
 may dazzle the eye of one, of Judge of Probate another, of 
 Clerk or Register a third, and so on through the whole alpha- 
 bet of aspirants for these honors of a new county. 
 
 It is the ambitious men that are against us — not for us. 
 
 They tell us of influences " from outside the territory," and 
 they couple Worcester with this charge. 
 
 They have introduced evidence in order to show that Wor- 
 cester has had wishes and expressed opinions upon the subject 
 of this petition, and they have moused around to see if Wor^ 
 cester has not paid somebody something to oppose it. 
 
 Suppose she has, had she no right to ? If she has no right 
 to speak or be heard upon it, why notify her in common with 
 the county to be here at all ? 
 
 Why not disfranchise her citizens at once, and put an inter- 
 dict, like a Popish Bull of excommunication upon her, even 
 offering up a prayer to be spared the sacrifice ? 
 
 Has she done any thing improper? Has she offered the 
 
46 
 
 bribe of a single sixpence to any body or any community to 
 act with her ? 
 
 Did she ever try to tempt Col. Day, or Mr. Fletcher, or Col. 
 Crocker, though they have so often been there ? They all 
 acquit her of that, and Col. Crocker had the magnanimity to 
 say that Col. Lincoln who was perhaps the most influential of 
 aU her citizens against this division while he lived, had done 
 " nothing but what was fair and honorable," and every body 
 who knew that true and strong man, knew he could not act 
 otherwise than honorably. 
 
 Has Worcester, in short, done a single thing to prevent the 
 division, which Fitchburg has not done to promote it ? 
 
 One thing at least is true, what she has done she has done 
 openly and without coyicealment. 
 
 What has she in fact done ? 
 
 In consequence of the public meeting and address at Fitch- 
 burg, in December 1850, there was a meeting and address in 
 Worcester, in March 1851. And that address we have produc- 
 ed. Is not that as proper as to send emissaries and lecturers 
 into other towns to stir up the public mind which had hither- 
 to been quiet and content, or hire agents to circulate petitions 
 in aU the towns and induce persons to subscribe them who 
 would not otherwise have thought of a division ? 
 
 She raised money to employ counsel and to defray the ex- 
 pense of opposing the division. 
 
 How else could she appear? And has not Fitchburg expend- 
 ed larger sums every year for the last four years for carrying 
 the measure through$ — 1,000 this very year? 
 
 Her press has been honorable, open and consistent on this 
 point. The articles which we have laid on your table all 
 maintain the same ground — let the people settle this question, 
 they are competent to judge, if they ivish to dissolve their connexion 
 with us — sorry as we should be, we will throw no obstacle in the 
 toay ; and that doctrine we still maintain. 
 
 But out of the hundreds of newspapers that must have been 
 published since this controversy began, the Petitioners have 
 produced one, and read it with some little air of triumph. 
 
 I understood the counsel, the article was from the "Journal," 
 
47 
 
 and think I heard as he read it something about " Worcester" 
 and its "Governors." Now I never happened to see the ar- 
 ticle, nor did I know the then editor. But I had good reason 
 to suppose "Worcester Governors" were not in the best odor 
 with him. Nor do I see how Worcester is to be made res- 
 ponsible at all for the article. The editor, we are told, did 
 not live there, and soon after writing that article, if he did 
 write it, he found it convenient to be absent in parts unknown. 
 
 But, as far as I caught expressions from the article, so far 
 from indicating a bad state of feeling on the part of Worcester 
 towards Fitchburg and the division of the county, it seems to 
 indicate the want of any feeling at all upon the subject. "Where 
 is Worcester?" "It is time for her to move." "Let Worcester 
 begin to move." As if the people were, as many of them I 
 doubt not actually were, in a state of apathy and indifference 
 upon the subject, from which they should be roused. 
 
 In his argument the last year, the counsel for the Petitioners 
 favored the committee with a page from an Agricultural ad- 
 dress of Gov. Lincoln, in 1819, — speaking in terms of eulogy 
 of the magnitude and prosperous condition of Worcester 
 County. 
 
 If that was treasonable, it has been open to the pubUc gaze 
 for 35 years, and it has never been thought a crime tiU this 
 controversy arose, to speak well of so noble a body politic as 
 the old county of Worcester. 
 
 And to my poor comprehension it is quite as patriotic to 
 address the generous pride of the high minded, intelligent 
 yeomanry of that county, as to stand up before the committee 
 of the legislature and deny to them sufficient intelligence or" 
 honesty or independence to know their own interests, or to 
 dare to declare their own wills. 
 
 But, Sir, Worcester needs no apology or defence on my part. 
 
 That she would regret to see this old county dissevered is 
 true. That she has openly and at all times, expressed herself 
 opposed to it, is equally true. But that there is evidence here 
 that she has ever done a dishonorable, or improper, or question- 
 able act in relation to it, is not true. 
 
 She makes no war upon Fitchburg or her citizens. Her 
 
48 
 
 votes helped to elect the worthy senator from that town who 
 presented this very petition which she opposes. And fortunate- 
 ly her prosperity is too firmly based to be affected by with- 
 drawing a few boarders in court weeks from her taverns and 
 boarding houses. 
 
 Her prosperity rests upon the intelligence, enterprise, sldll 
 and industry of her mechanical, manufacturing and business 
 population, and the facilities they enjoy through her railroads, 
 and her being what she always will be, the centre of a large 
 and densely populated region. 
 
 I have seen her grow up within the last 26 years, from 4 to 
 almost 24,000 people, not from the board bills of a few suit- 
 ors, or lawyers, or jurors, or witnesses, but from the well di- 
 rected, well rewarded labor and ingenuity of her multifarious 
 industry. 
 
 She would mourn to have you sever her from her old asso- 
 ciations. But you will not thereby annihilate the great ele- 
 ments of her prosperity and success. 
 
 But to return to the question of the people being competent 
 to act upon this matter, the Petitioners seem to me to be a 
 little inconsistent with themselves. While at one time they 
 urge these " influences" as so controlling that the people can- 
 not act freely — at another they tell us and try to prove it, that 
 the public sentiment in these towns is constantly growing 
 stronger, and is openly expressed in cars, hotels and other pub- 
 lic places in favor of it. 
 
 We however deny any such influence. 
 
 We asked witness after witness whom the Petitioners pro- 
 duced, if they knew of any thing in their own towns to prevent 
 the people acting freely and intelligently on the question if 
 submitted to them, and no one pretended to be cognizant of 
 such a fact. 
 
 If the people of these towns are not capable and independ- 
 ent enough to know their own interests and provide for their 
 own protection and security, they are not Jit to be trusted to 
 form a county hy themselves. 
 
 But it is not so. And I dismiss this part of the subject by 
 repeating what I know, that there is not a more intelligent, 
 
49 
 
 high minded reliable people in all our land than those who 
 constitute those 18 towns. 
 
 In this connection I cannot omit to notice and regret the 
 readiness with which the Petitioners suspect and intimate 
 charges oi fraud. Nor should I omit to remind you how sig- 
 nally the proof of such a charge has failed. 
 
 The main attempt to charge this, relates to what is called 
 the Petition " in aid of that of Artemas Lee and others." 
 
 They tried to show that a boy in Mr. Colburn's store de- 
 ceived Maj. Hawes in respect to it. But when it appeared 
 that Maj. Hawes, one of the most intelligent men in Leomin- 
 ster read it, and that it speaks for itself, that was abandoned. 
 
 The effort to show the same thing by Mr. Merritt "Wood, 
 that persons told him they " signed for a division to be left 
 to the people," and by Mr. Simonds that Col. Lee when he 
 presented the petition read it to him and explained that it was 
 " a preamble setting forth the state of things as they had been 
 acted here," were fully and completely met by producing the 
 petitions which confirmed the construction which was given 
 to those papers. 
 
 So the pretence of misrepresentation by Mr. Partridge in 
 respect to the same petition is denied by him and certified to 
 be untrue hy the persons said to have been misled. And there is 
 something absurd in the idea of his publicly reading the peti- 
 tion in the Depot in the hearing of all, and at the same time, 
 in presence of Col. Day, the witness produced by the Peti- 
 tioners, misstating what he had just read, and maintaining it 
 after a discussion with Col. Day. 
 
 The petition speaks for itself, and Mr. Simonds is still in 
 favor of having the question go to the people if the $25,000 
 pledge of Fitchburg can go with it ; but otherwise he has 
 doubts whether he would himself go for the division at all. 
 
 Having thus considered the objections made by the Peti- 
 tioners to submitting this whole question to the people, let me 
 call your attention to some of the grounds upon which we con- 
 tend that it is a proper and expedient course. 
 
 In the first place, it is consistent with, and in conformity toj 
 7 
 
50 
 
 the spirit of the Constitution, in respect to creating towns into 
 cities. (2d Amendment.) 
 
 This cannot be done, though a mere change in the govern- 
 ment and organization of the same corporation, without being 
 submitted to the people of the town. 
 
 Here it is proposed not only to change the government of 
 these towns as parts of a county organization, but to change 
 the corporate body itself — throwing them into new relations 
 and severing old ones — a much stronger reason for consulting 
 the wishes of the people, than whether a Mayor and Aldermen 
 or a Board of Selectmen shall have charge of the municipal 
 and prudential concerns of the body politic. 
 
 In the next place, it is consistent with a long com-se of legis- 
 lation. 
 
 In 1821, the change in the Boston courts was submitted to 
 the people of the city. (1821, c. 109.) 
 
 So the adoption of the Superior Court, in 1842, I think. 
 In 16 cases, I believe, the question of establishing as many 
 Police Courts has been submitted to the people of the respec- 
 tive towns. 
 
 In 1828, the very measure now proposed, was adopted by 
 the Legislature, except that the question was submitted to 
 the people of the whole county, instead of the towns to be 
 set off. 
 
 The propriety of such a submission to the people, is expressly 
 recognized by our Supreme Court, in 3 Pick. Rep. 51 1. 
 
 Every change in city charters are submitted to the vote of 
 the people of the cities. Among those, the acts of 1854, c. 448 
 and 449, in relation to Boston. The question of taking Charles- 
 town from one county and making it a part of another, the 
 very last winter, (1854, c. 433,) was submitted not only to 
 Charlestown, whether they would go to join Suffolk, but to 
 Boston, whether she would assent to have them come. 
 
 So the question as to the removal of the court house in 
 Berkshire last winter was sent to the people of the county. 
 
 And then we have a class of laws as to snipe, woodcock? 
 pickerel, &c., which towns have, by general law, the power to 
 suspend by vote. R. S. c. 53 & 5b. 
 
51 
 
 And a bill to divide the County, and requiring Fitchburg to 
 contribute $25,000, as is proposed, cannot he passed without 
 virtually/ submitting to the people of Fitchburg- to determine by 
 their vote, whether the law shall take effect or not, for that is to 
 depend upon whether thej will raise the |25,000 or not. 
 
 And we ask, upon what principle of equity or justice, Fitch- 
 burg shall have the power and right to say by vote, whether she 
 wishes the 18 towns to come to her, while you deny to the 18 
 towns all power of saj'ing whether they wish to go to her 
 or not. 
 
 The propriety of such a submission of this question to the 
 people is recognized by the people of Fitchburg, in their first 
 address, when we may suppose they acted from the first 
 plain obvious instincts and common sense of what was right. 
 
 Such a measure would be in accordance with the growing 
 sentiment of Massachusetts. 
 
 The time has gone by when " acts of government " are to 
 supercede the wishes of the people on subjects within their 
 capacity, and by which they are personally and intimately 
 affected. 
 
 "We already elect our County Commissioners, and doubtless 
 soon shall, our sheriffs and various other officers, whose appoint- 
 ment has hitherto been an " act of government " on the part of 
 the executive. Nor are the examples of Franklin and Hamp- 
 den, as some have represented, against us. 
 
 "When Franklin was made a County, every town within its 
 limits but three petitioned for it through their agents, and there- 
 fore there was no occasion to go to the people to know if they 
 desired the measure. 
 
 In the case of Hampden, only 5 towns within that territory 
 opposed the measure. So that in both these cases the Legis- 
 lature did but carry out the express wishes of the people of 
 those counties. 
 
 And surely if these 18 towns are competent and free to 
 choose their agents to represent them here, and in the Legis- 
 lature, and wiU be competent to elect the county officers, who 
 will be eligible, if the new county is created — ^they are compe- 
 tent, and ought to be permitted to express their judgment in 
 
52 
 
 the first place, whether their peace, and interest, and prosperity 
 will be, as it is contended is to be the result, promoted by the 
 creation of the county prayed for. 
 
 A refusal thus to submit the question involves the conclusion 
 either — 
 
 1st. That they are not as competent to judge whether they 
 wish to go to Fitchburg, as Fitchburg is whether she wishes 
 them to come to her. 
 
 Or, 2d. They are under such restraint, from fear or other 
 causes, as not to be able to act freely. 
 
 Or, 3d. That " government " is above and beyond the people, 
 like the power of an autocrat, which does not emanate from the 
 people, and is not, as a representative power, responsible to 
 them ; and that the doctrine of the 5th article of the Declaration 
 of Rights has been abrogated, or become obsolete, which speaks 
 of the people being the source of power, to whom Legislative 
 and other officers of government are accountable. 
 
 Shall a matter like regulating the shooting of snipes or catch- 
 ing of pickerel be granted to the people as a boon, and the priv- 
 ilege be solemnly denied them of judging whether their rights, 
 their associations and their relations, as members of a great and 
 honored County, shall be surrendered and sacrificed or not, 
 ■when no public exigency, beyond their own wants, can require 
 the sacrifice? 
 
 Let me present this in another aspect. 
 
 Is not the supposed wishes of the people of these towns in 
 effect the onl^ ground on which a division is asked for or could 
 be sustained? 
 
 Suppose a member of the house had risen in his place and 
 stated and proved every thing that has here been attempted, 
 as to the inconvenience of courts, &c., and had moved to set 
 off these 18 and 5 towns into a County, before any body living 
 within them asked for the change, would the measure have 
 been sustained for a moment ? Would it not have been said, 
 these people know their own interests best, why thrust a doubt- 
 ful favor upon them ? 
 
 If then, in such a case, the supposed wishes of the people 
 would be a guide for the Legislature, why should they not 
 
have the same right and privilege to express these wishes, and 
 thereby settle the question beyond dispute ? 
 
 If after all these considerations, the Committee should decide 
 against the proposition to submit the matter to' the people 
 of the towns interested, and if they shall feel bound to go into 
 the merits of the case in order to decide it " as an act of gov- 
 ernment," we are called upon to oifer, as briefly as I can, some 
 of the reasons why the prayer of the petition ought not to be 
 granted. For the Committee will observe that I have not 
 thus far brought forward the objections on our part, but have 
 been examining how the case stood upon the points made by 
 the Petitioners themselves. 
 
 In doing this, however, we do not waive the position that 
 the burden of showing that a sufficient cause for the change is 
 on the Petitioners. 
 
 Nor do we admit that they have shown any thing like such 
 a cause, or have made out even a prima facie case for the 
 granting of their petition. 
 
 In the next place, unless the Petitioners succeed in showing 
 that both Middlesex and Worcester ought to be divided, there is 
 no pretence that Worcester should be ; — the whole have thus far 
 gone together. Strike out the 5 towns, or even Groton, and 
 Fitchburg ceases to be anything like a central point ; and the 
 whole character of the original proposition will be essentially 
 changed. 
 
 And what is most remarkable, the Petitioners seek to make 
 out an exigency for dividing Worcester, by adding 5 towns 
 from Middlesex, although their petition itself had not the 
 hardihood to allege that either of these towns are suffering 
 inconvenience as they now are. 
 
 In the first place, the people of those toivns do not wish the 
 change. If they did, they could easily have said so, by signing 
 some of the petitions, which have been circulated everywhere, 
 and at no little expense. 
 
 The subject has not been a new one, on which they have 
 not had an opportunity to form a judgment. It has been for 
 years before the Legislature and the people ; and agents and 
 lecturers and arguments have been circulated and employed 
 
54 
 
 among the inhabitants of these towns to enlighten them upon 
 the subject of all their giievances — if they have any. 
 
 And what is the result ? — 3473 Petitioners ask for the change ; 
 only a little'more than 1 in 3 of the number of voters, although 
 the list of the Petitioners embrace some who are said not to 
 be legal voters. 
 
 But we do not rest here. It was not urged last year 
 because the people wanted it, but because it was a salutary 
 " act of government^ 
 
 And this year, we have brought an overwhelming amount 
 of evidence to show that the people not only do not want the 
 change, but are opposed and averse to it, upon thorough, 
 deliberate, well-considered conviction. 
 
 And not only so, but the scheme, at this moment, has much less 
 favor and support among" the people, than the first year it was 
 broached. 
 
 The truth is, the people have looked into it themselves, and 
 seen what its bearing is to be ; that, though it may benefit a 
 single town or two, — Fitchburg, in its growth, Lunenburg, in 
 its market, — and possibly a few to whom the new county 
 offices are to be distributed, and a few litigant parties and 
 parties having business at the public offices, — yet that the 
 people will neither get better, nor speedier, nor cheaper justice 
 by the change ; while they will entail upon themselves and 
 then- children after them a burden of taxation which they 
 cannot escape. 
 
 Let us see how the evidence stands upon the present and 
 former wishes of the people upon the subject. 
 
 In 1851, there were 4505 petitioners ; now, 3262, aU told, 
 including 1125 from Fitchburg, — a loss of 1243, although the 
 population must have increased thousands in the last four 
 years. 
 
 AtJiol — at first, says Mr. Hill, 10 to 1 for it, has a majority 
 against it, and instead of 349, now has only 249 petitioners 
 for it ; one of the Jurors from the town, who was once for it, 
 is now opposed. 
 
 Royalston — the most to be favored, if any one, in 1853, voted 
 114 against, to 14 for; and this year, a vote in town meeting 
 
55 
 
 to oppose, and no opposition made to the vote ; every Juror 
 but one opposed. 
 
 PhiUipston — in town meeting, chose an agent to oppose ; 
 witness says general opinion decidedly opposed ; 6 out of 8 
 Jurors opposed. 
 
 Winchendon — 12 out of 15 Jm-ors opposed ; in 1851, 187 
 petitioners ; none now for it ; seven-eighths of the people 
 opposed. 
 
 Petersham. — Unanimous vote in town meeting to oppose it, 
 in February last ; sentiment all opposed. 
 
 Hubbardston. — People decidedly opposed to division ; 15 
 Jurors aU opposed; most that signed for it once are now 
 opposed. 
 
 Templeton.-^Ahout 303 out of 447 voters signed for a refer- 
 ence to the people ; a strong feeling against the division. 
 
 Gardner.'-^Chose agent to oppose, 80 to 7, unless voted for 
 by the people ; 1851, 148 for it — ^128 now ; of these 36 not on 
 voting list ; of 15 Jurors all but 1 opposed — and he not in 
 favor. 
 
 Westminster. — In 1854, in town meeting, after full discussion 
 and efforts of friends, the vote was 159 against to 80 for ; no 
 change in favor since; in 1851, 300 petitioners for ^- now 
 203. 
 
 Princeton'. — The general desire of town against it ; 78 peti- 
 tioners in north-east corner of town, out of 308 voters. 
 
 Leominster — only 5 miles from Fitchburg, 20 from Wor- 
 cester — in 1851, 322 petitioners for division ; now, 182 ; town 
 once voted against it ; no changes of opinion for it known, 
 but one, — offset to that, Mr. Litchfield, o. petitioner for, is now 
 opposed. 
 
 Ijunenburg. — In favor ; not because of court accommodation, 
 but because of its supposed effect in creating a market. 
 
 Sterling — midway between Fitchburg and Worcester-^— pub- 
 lic sentiment against it ; once voted in town meeting generally 
 against it; only 3 or 4 votes for it; 15 out of 18 Jurors op-, 
 posed; 2 signed both petitions. 
 
 Lancaster — town meeting — often much discussion ; chose 
 agent to oppose; 75 to 4; 71 petitioners,, all in north part of 
 
56 
 
 Lancaster, in hope of being joined to Shirley, — not on account 
 of inconvenience as to courts ; of 23 Jurors, all but 3 opposed, 
 and those 3 not because of any difficulty as to courts ; 76 
 petitioners in 1851 ; 71 now, and from same quarter of 
 town. 
 
 Harvard — voted 67 to 3 against the division ; 50 petitioners 
 in 1851; 32 now; sentiment strongly against it; 10 Jurors 
 opposed ; 1 in favor. 
 
 Bolton. — Sentiment entirely against it ; vote of town 143 
 to 3 against it ; every Juror opposed. 
 
 I have thus run over the substance of the testimony of wit- 
 nesses as to 16 of the 18 towns, and we find 15 of the number 
 opposed to the change. Witnesses have stated freely their 
 reasons for this opposition, and so strong are- they, that in some 
 towns all but an unanimous sentiment is entertained against 
 it. And in these witnesses, the Committee had a chance to see 
 and judge for themselves of the intelligence, independence and 
 capacity to form their own opinions, of the people of these 18 
 towns. 
 
 And will you force these towns into an union that is repug- 
 nant to their wishes, their interests and their affections ? 
 
 Justice and fair dealing, as well as the common rights of 
 citizens and freemen forbid the bans I 
 
 And if we look into the evidence before us, we shall find 
 these towns fully sustained in their opposition, by facts. 
 
 1st. On the score of additional expense, present and future, 
 occasioned by creating a new county, disproportioned, alto- 
 gether, to any possible general benefit. 
 
 1st. In erecting public buildings. 
 
 The petitioners represent this expense at some ^25,000 or 
 $30,000, of which it is said Fitchburg will pay $25,000 as a 
 bonus. 
 
 In the first place, any calculations made upon the character 
 and cost of such buildings 25 or 30 years ago, is no test of 
 what will be required now. Public taste and sentiment de- 
 mand better and more costly buildings, and the cost of erecting 
 even the same character of buildings has been greatly en- 
 hanced. Som;^' of the witnesses say it has doubled in 30 or 
 
 40 years. 
 
57 
 
 There will be a Court House with offices, and if they mean 
 to have their records safe — fire proof offices — a Jail and House 
 of Correction with shops, if the convicts are to be kept em- 
 ployed, and is it not idle to talk of doing all this, buying lands, 
 constructing yards, and furnishing these buildings for 30,000 
 dollars ? 
 
 They tell us their Hotel in Fitchburg cost over $35,000. 
 
 Lowell started with some $20,000, and it has reached al- 
 ready 80,000 with a Jail to be added of 75,000 more. 
 
 Franklin has expended on a Court House and Jail $26,000, 
 and has been already authorized by the Legislature to borrow 
 $20,000 more for the same purpose. 
 
 The wooden building for a Court House at Concord we are 
 told cost from 20 to $25,000, although it has no pretence 
 towards having fire proof offices. And you have the estimate 
 of the cost of a Jail at Lowell, only one out of the three in 
 that county, at $75,000. The Concord Court House was ex- 
 clusive of land. 
 
 Hampshire. — The cost of Court House, Jail and House of 
 Correction has been over $70,000. The legislative committee 
 and Mr. Huntress think the Jail and House of Correction cost 
 over $70,000, and still the Court House is insufficient. 
 
 Dedham Jail and House of Correction cost near $100,000. 
 
 If then you intend to give this new county as safe, to say 
 nothing of as convenient buildings and accommodations as 
 they now have, can you set down the expense of furnishing 
 the public buildings at Fitchburg at less than $150,000 in the 
 light of the evidence before you ? Our Almshouses were esti- 
 mated to cost less than $100,000, and cost $241,758 ; and 
 would not the experience of every man who ever built a house, 
 pubfic or private, lead him to add to rather than deduct from 
 the estimate I have given ? Mr. Huntress has told you that 
 the cost will be at least $150,000; and Col. Park, as experi- 
 enced as any man in the world in regard to such buildings, 
 sets the sum still above that amount. 
 
 We have then to start with, for somebody to pay, a charge 
 of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars if this change is 
 made. 
 
58 
 
 Now, how will it be as to the comparative amount of an- 
 nual county charges, compared with what are now paid. 
 
 I call these 18 towns one-fourth of the county, though in 
 fact their valuation is 25 per cent, of the whole county, while 
 their population is 26 per cent. 
 
 County Commissioners are required to publish annually a 
 list of the expenses of the county, and we have put in that 
 statement for Worcester for 1854, and of its 27 items, I have 
 selected some of the leading ones which are of the same na- 
 ture as those which will be in the new county, in order to 
 approximate the difference between supporting two counties 
 and one. 
 
 In the first place there will be a new set of county officers. 
 
 Sheriff. — Ours now has, as appears by a report to the Leg- 
 islature, $2,125; Hampden, $911 ; Bristol, $1,076. I call the 
 compensation of the Sheriff of the new county, $1,000 
 
 Judge of Probate, same as Bristol, - - . - 500 
 
 Register of Probate, same as Bristol, ... 800 
 
 Clerk of the Court, say same as Assistant now, 1,600 
 
 County Commissioners. — Franklin is $1,625, Hampden, 
 $1,630 ; and considering the amount of business in the new 
 county, I call that sum $1,700. 
 
 Keeper of Jail and House of Correction ; — call it the same 
 as Franklin, $996 ; Crier of Court, say one-third of present, 
 $155 ; fuel and lights for Court House and offices, I call two- 
 fifths of the present sum, for the same number of offices will 
 be to light and warm, and the Com-t will be in session I as- 
 sume one-fourth of the time, $2,700; Messenger of Court 
 same as Franklin, $300 ; travel of Grand Jury twice, say up- 
 on an average by the year, $60.00 — giving us, exclusive of 
 blank books. Auditors of Commissioners' accounts. Physician 
 to Jail, Overseers of House of Correction, and a great variety 
 of other items, an amount of over $10,000 ; and if we call it 
 all $15,000, 1 am quite confident it would be below the actual 
 sum, without adding a dollar for interest on original outlay or 
 repairs of buildings, after examining as I propose to do, the 
 additional expense of Jurors in the new over the present 
 county. Now, with the exception of what will be saved in the 
 
59 
 
 sum paid to County Commissioners, and the shortening the 
 terms of the Court somewhat, all this is a new charge, forever 
 to be sustained by somebody. 
 
 It may be said that a part of it will be by the State. That 
 is true, and it is equally true that this does not show any thing 
 like the total additional expense, which will be occasioned by 
 the creation of a new county. 
 
 Take the matter of travel and attendance of Jurors alone, of 
 which so much wiU fall directly upon the people of the county. 
 
 The present expense of these is |6225, of which these 18 
 towns pay J, or $1556. 
 
 In the new county they will have 5 terms of the Court of 
 Common Pleas, including 2 criminial terms, undoubtedly, and 
 two panels of Jurors with 3 or 4 supernumeraries, making 27 
 or 28 each term. 
 
 The average in Worcester for years past has been 80. If 
 they are to have a term of the Supreme Judicial Court, that 
 will make 6 terms in a year, consequently six travels for Jurors. 
 
 I call the average travel from the small towns in the new 
 county to Fitchburg 14 miles, as stated by Mr Mansur in his 
 opening. 
 
 If we take the average of the days of courts in Hampshire 
 Hampden and Franldin, it is I believe 57 per year. But I do 
 not believe those towns, unless they change, would be litigious 
 enough to average so many days, call it 52. 
 
 We then have for attendance of Jarors $2537. 
 
 For travel, - . - - - 
 
 making a total of $4889 for Jurors alone, of which the 5 towns 
 will pay 22 pr cent, leaving the balance $3814 a charge upon 
 the 18 towns instead of $1556, what they now pay — increas- 
 ing of course with the increasing business of the courts. Be- 
 sides these, will be the cost of constructing miles and miles of 
 highways, to open communications between Fitchburg and 
 these towns in their new relation to each other. 
 
 I leave for others to estimate what the sum total of these ex- 
 
60 
 
 tra burdens upon the industry of these towns is to be, and 
 what part is to fall upon each of their number. 
 
 It corroborates and is corroborated by the computation I 
 referred to before, showing that the expenses per dollar and 
 per head of a small county are larger than in a large one. 
 
 And what are the people of these towns to get for all this ? 
 One in a thousand will save on an average 11 miles once a 
 year in the travel of himself and witnesses in attending court. 
 
 The same difference in some 2 or 300 probate causes, and 
 the postage or express-man's fee on some 3000 deeds to the 
 Registry in a year. 
 
 In this connexion I ought to say a word in respect to the 
 action and commission of the County Commissioners with 
 this matter of the division of the county. 
 
 Petitioners complain that they oppose it, and incur expenses 
 to do so. 
 
 We insist they could do no less. They know what the 
 economy of the thing would be — They know what the wishes 
 and interests of the people of the county are, and they are 
 authorised and required by the Revised Statutes, c. 14, § 31, cl. 
 6, " to represent the county" in all such cases. 
 
 For this reason, they were notified to appear here — and they 
 had no criterion to guide their action but what they conscien- 
 tiously believed the great body of the people whom they 
 represented desired to have them do. 
 
 And such has been their course. There is noticing narrow 
 or selfish in their policy, nor are they hostile to any of these 
 18 towns. 
 
 Not one of the standing board belong to "Worcester ; one 
 third of their number resides within the 18 towns. 
 
 And so far from showing any disposition to oppress these 
 towns, though this matter has been pending several years, 
 though the county has a debt from which as is generally sup- 
 posed these 18 towns will escape if set off by themselves, not 
 a dollar extra has been added in consequence, to the " county 
 estimate," for the purpose of relieving the remainder of the 
 county from the debt, by taxing those towns while they yet 
 belong to Worcester. 
 
61 
 
 To do their duty required the expenditure of money. But 
 they challenge the most rigid scrutiny into the propriety of the 
 act and the reasonableness of the amount. 
 
 And they now wish that the people may themselves have 
 an opportunity to say, by theh- vote, whether in opposing this 
 division, these very 18 towns do not accord with them in senti- 
 ment. 
 
 The fact, however, that after all the excitement and agitation 
 upon this subject, the people re-elected these gentlemen, in 1853, 
 shows that they have done nothing in this respect to forfeit the 
 confidence of the people, in their integiity and fidelity. On the 
 contrary, they know, and the people know, they would have 
 been recreant in their duty, if they had done any less than 
 they have done. 
 
 We repeat then, that we object to the division of the county, 
 because it will entail a great and perpetual burden of expense 
 upon the inhabitants of the new county. 
 
 In the next place, we object to the division on account of 
 the great inconveniences^ to which the people of these 18 towns 
 will thereby be subjected. 
 
 The course and channels of their business have become 
 established and accommodated to their localities and wants, 
 and these cannot be broken up without embarrassment and 
 loss. 
 
 Their place of trade — their supply of raw materials and stock 
 for their manufactures, and the market for their goods — the 
 place of insuring their property, of aiTanging business with 
 other parts of the county at a central point, of sending goods 
 to New York, or Albany, or Providence, and sometimes to 
 Boston, have all been settled and adapted to the convenience of 
 other parts of the county by the existing state of things, and 
 cannot be broken up except at a great sacrifice. 
 
 Changing the place of holding the courts may not, and pro- 
 bably will not, break up these altogether. But the effect 
 will be, instead of combining their court with their other 
 business, as they do now, and thereby saving half the time 
 and expense, they will have to go to one place to do their ^qh- 
 
62 
 
 eral business, and to an entirely different one to attend courts, 
 or settle their Probate accounts, or record their deeds. 
 
 In regard to Bolton, Harvard, Lancaster, Princeton, Hub- 
 bardston and Petersham, neither of these can be done with 
 nigh the convenience with Fitchburg as with Worcester. And 
 whatever goes to Fitchburg must be forced to go there. Nor 
 will any conceivable state of things ever make it as easy or 
 cheap for these towns to go to Fitchburg as to Worcester. 
 
 On the contrary, when the Gardner road is built, the advan- 
 tage in favor of Worcester will be greatly enhanced, so far as 
 the whole Northwest part of the present county is concerned. 
 
 When we go into particular inconveniences, the proof holds 
 quite as strong. 
 
 Take the matter of titles to estates, the injury can not be 
 measured in dollars and cents. 
 
 Every estate in the county is supposed on an average to 
 change hands as often as once in thirty years, through the Pro- 
 bate office, and thousands change every year, by conveyances 
 of one kind or another. 
 
 From these 18 towns alone there were 2875 conveyances 
 recorded last year. 
 
 And in at least one quarter of them, as testified by Mr. 
 Rogers, examinations of titles are had, and this can be done 
 comparatively easily, while the records are all in one place. 
 
 More than this — by arrangements made between the Register 
 and gentlemen in every town, deeds can be sent, and often 
 examinations made and communications had, easily and cheaply 
 with the Registry without a personal attendance. Suppose the 
 county divided, conveyances will of course be recorded in the 
 new Registry, and soon every one taking a conveyance will 
 have to make a search in Worcester and Fitchburg for every 
 estate whose title is in question, doubling the expense and 
 trouble for at least 700 persons a year from these 18 towns alone. 
 The towns from Middlesex will of course suffer the same in- 
 convenience. 
 
 So obvious and serious is this difficulty, that Petitioners 
 undertake to obviate it by a suggestion of copying the deeds 
 of lands in these 18 towns for 20 years. 
 
6^ 
 
 But every one familiar with conveyancing knows that for 
 descriptions of estates and in tracing titles reference is often 
 necessary to be had to deeds much older than 20 years. 
 
 Since our first adjournment, I have been called upon to in- 
 vestigate the description of an estate in preparing for a trial, 
 where we had to go back to deeds given in 1758. 
 
 Another case was where an estate had been held by a 
 widow, apparently as her own, 48 years, but it was discovered 
 after her death, that she simply owned a right of dower in the 
 premises. 
 
 Another, where I recovered an estate for a client as heir to 
 an estate in tail, after a conveyance by the tenant near 70 years 
 ago, the purchasers in succession supposing themselves, in the 
 mean time, to be owners of the estate in fee simple. 
 
 So in the case of mortgages, if the debt is not due or the 
 condition not broken, or debt kept alive, the limit of 20 years 
 would not quiet the title of a purchaser. 
 
 In the next place, to copy these deeds requires an examina- 
 tion of every deed in the office, and the last year there were 
 10,000 recorded. 
 
 After they are copied, they must be examined and compared 
 by the Register, and the estimate of Mr. Rogers that to do all 
 this would require 25 3-4 years, besides 3 years and 161 days 
 of the Register's time, is, I believe, below rather than above 
 the actual time it would occupy. 
 
 And the estimated cost of $31,707 to do it, at reasonable 
 days' pay, is but an additional evidence of the all but impossi- 
 bility of the scheme. 
 
 I might speak of the inconveniences of this division to the 
 line of towns bordering upon the new and old counties, where 
 the citizens of each are liable to be compelled to go into the 
 county to which they do not belong, to attend to business in 
 court : but that must be obvious to every one. 
 
 Indeed, as we look at it, beyond the trifling saving to a few 
 individuals in a year, the division is fraught with evil and mis- 
 chief, and nothing else. 
 
 They talk to us of the lawyers leaving the 18 towns to 
 
64 
 
 come to Worcester ; but dividing the County will not drive 
 them back to the towns they came from. 
 
 They tell us of the roads that have been made leading 
 towards Worcester. There they are, and there they will 
 remain, and a division of the County will not discontinue 
 them. 
 
 But, upon this point, let me say, that in no county have the 
 roads been more systematically and better laid out and made 
 than in Worcester ; and it has been because she is able and 
 willing to have such a system of roads, and it is what a poor 
 county cannot afford to have. 
 
 K she remains together, these will become less and less 
 burdensome every year ; for there will be less and less occasion 
 for laying out new highways, and those towns will be reaping 
 the benefit of this, instead of being obliged to incur new and 
 heavy expenses the moment they are separated. 
 
 If the people are dissatisfied with the Board of Commission- 
 ers, they can correct it at the ballot-box, without dividing the 
 County. 
 
 Comment has been made upon the style and expense of 
 our present County buildings. Dividing the County cannot 
 correct any errors of taste or economy, if any have been com- 
 mitted. 
 
 But I am far from admitting that there have been these 
 errors. 
 
 We have a brick Court House in which our County Com- 
 missioners and criminal courts do their business. 
 
 And a granite one, in which are the County offices, and the 
 other courts are held ; and these are sufficient for the County 
 for scores of years to come. 
 
 Even in the economical character of those buildings, com- 
 pared with many other counties, the result is favorable to 
 Worcester County. 
 
 Certain purposes were to be answered by their construc- 
 tion : — convenience, safety, and a decent regard to appear- 
 ance ; and all these have been accomplished. 
 
 Our records there are safe — a matter of more importance 
 than can be measured by dollars and cents. 
 
65 
 
 And in doing this, the Commissioners wisely exercised a 
 foresight in providing for the wants of the County for many 
 years to come. Tliey were erected for such a County as Wor- 
 cester is. The County still owes more than $100,000 for 
 these ; and is it just, without some strong public reason, that 
 the balance of the County should be left with this heavy debt 
 upon its hands ? 
 
 And is it not still more unfair to do all this, in order to 
 build up a single other town in the County ? 
 
 Even this purpose, we contend, cannot be answered to any 
 thing like the anticipated extent, by this division. You may 
 force a part of the court business of the County into a new 
 channel ; but you cannot force other business out of the chan- 
 nel which it makes for itself 
 
 There is another important objection to dividing the County, 
 which affects the balance that remains, in a most serious and 
 disastrous manner ; and as guardians of the rights and inter- 
 ests of the 95,000 that will be left in the old county, we call 
 your attention to this consideration of the case. 
 
 These ninety- five thousand luill chiefly be entirely on one side 
 of the shire town. Worcester will be within a few miles of 
 the north line of the County. 
 
 This, it is true, will not render the distance to other parts 
 greater than it now is. But it destroys all relative accommo- 
 dation of the several parts of the County, and leaves to those 
 who have thus to travel no corresponding benefit or compen- 
 satory considerations. 
 
 So long as they can form a part of a noble body politic, 
 like the County of Worcester, and can feel that they share in 
 its character, and history, and prosperity, as a whole., and that 
 its burdens are to be borne by the whole County, they are 
 content to forego the inconvenience of a few miles, more or 
 less, to reach the shire town. 
 
 But, once declare that these County ties and associations 
 are of no value ; cut down the fair proportions of the County 
 to a third-rate body politic ; " crush out " the pride that once 
 every man felt to belong to this ancient County ; and they 
 will feel (and why should they not ?) that everything is reduced 
 9 
 
66 
 
 to a matter of a few dollars more or a few dollars less in a 
 year; and that they have no equivalent in return for any 
 sacrifice which they would otherwise willingly make. 
 
 And why should any 18 or 20 towns in any other part of 
 the County be refused, if, after passing this act, they should 
 come to this Legislature, and show that they can save on an 
 average a few miles' travel in a year, and ask to be made into 
 a new county ? 
 
 Conceal it, therefore, as we may, this question is not the 
 mere setting off of these 18 towns from Worcester County, 
 but whether the County shall be cut up, and divided again 
 and again, till a mere fraction shall be left, with public build- 
 ings uselessly too large for her, — erected for the County as 
 she once was, — and saddled with a debt which was con- 
 tracted for the benefit and by the agency of those who have 
 gone out from her. 
 
 Old Hampshire was cut into three parts, because three con- 
 siderable towns equally distant and centrally situated from East 
 to "West indicated that division, if one must be made. 
 
 But what shall prevent every cluster of towns in Worcester 
 County from claiming to be made into a county, if this divis- 
 ion now asked for is made, and any ambitions town, for a 
 nucleus and a county seat, can be found ? 
 
 In this way there is not a town or a citizen in the whole 
 county of Worcester that is not interested in this question of 
 division, as a matter of policy and a matter of right between 
 man and man. 
 
 The County, by the act of every part, has incurred heavy 
 expenses and responsibilities for the accommodation of every 
 part, having reference to the County as one entire community, 
 for many years to come. 
 
 And it is proposed to curtail the County, and to throw the 
 entire debt, (for such is the intimation of the law in the case 
 between Hampshire and Franklin County, 16 M. R., p. 86,) 
 upon the people who shall be left in the old county. 
 
 And what is more, it is asked of you to do this act against 
 the wishes both of those who are to be set off, and of those \who 
 remam, merely because Fitchburg "demands" it — to use the 
 language of Col. Phillips. 
 
67 
 
 In thus alluding, so often, to the action and zeal of Fitch- 
 burg in this matter, let it not be supposed that the respondents 
 have any hostile feelings against her. Why should they have ? 
 Her prosperity and importance goes to swell the power and 
 influence and importance of the whole County. 
 
 No one would detract a tittle from the legitimate sources o f 
 her prosperity. 
 
 She has grown most signally, without having had the courts 
 to aid her, and she still has the elements of a far wider and 
 more rapid growth, of which not one of those who remonstrate 
 against this division, would deprive her of the smallest tittle. 
 
 But is it right, is it just, that her wealth and increase of 
 population and power should be built up at the expense of 
 every other town in the County ? 
 
 Will you do this, when by so doing, you aim a blow at the 
 prosperity, the honest pride and cherished memories of a whole 
 community ? 
 
 Before passing to another part of this subject, let me dispose 
 of what I have to say upon the subject of a reference of the 
 question to the people. 
 
 In prescribing the terms in which this should be done, we re- 
 spectfully contend that the question should be submitted by a Re- 
 solve, without embracing the proposition for Fitchburg to pay 
 $25,000 as a bonus. 
 
 In the first place, the question is too solemn and important in 
 its bearing upon the moral, social and personal relations of the 
 communities and individuals of whom it is to be composed, to allow 
 the payment of a certain sum of money, for county purposes, to 
 have any legitimate weight in determining how it shall be decided. 
 
 In the next place, a town has no authority, and ought not to 
 have, to raise a sum of money by a tax, to build a court house 
 for the county — that can only be done by the county. 
 
 We think this was fully settled in Stetson vs. Kempton, 13 M. 
 R. 272, and Parsons vs. Goshen, 11 Pick. 399. 
 
 In both these cases the people of towns undertook to tax 
 the town for purposes foreign from the duty imposed upon 
 them, and for which other corporations should have been 
 charged, and the Court held the act illegal. In one, the town 
 
68 
 
 undertook to erect fortifications for defence against the enemy 
 who were then threatening them, — the duty of doing which 
 belonged to the State or the United States. And in the other, 
 the town undertook to pay for building a county road, when the 
 expense of making those was upon the county, as the law 
 then was. 
 
 And by analogy we say if the public good requires that a 
 county should be created, the law imposes the duty of provid- 
 ing buildings upon the county alone. 
 
 I know we have been cited to precedents in the case of 
 Lowell and Lawrence. But our answer is that the point was 
 not taken, nor objection made, nor the question raised at all 
 that we have heard of. Every thing, for aught appears, was 
 acquiesced in without discussion. 
 
 In the next place, one bad or dangerous precedent is no rea- 
 son why another bad one should be made. 
 
 In the next place, I believe the weight of precedent and 
 example is the other way, and that when the public saw the 
 danger of such measures their judgment condemned it. 
 
 Last winter there were attempts made to induce the Legis- 
 lature to pass acts authorizing Barre and North Brookfield and 
 some other towns to tax themselves to aid in constructing a 
 railroad. 
 
 But after a full hearing the proposition was rejected. 
 
 It was seen that it would be a dangerous precedent if mere 
 majorities in towns might tax as they pleased the whole prop- 
 erty of the town for mere purposes of trade, or business, or 
 speculation. 
 
 It was for municipal purposes and not for schemes of specu- 
 lation, that towns were created into little democracies, in 
 which majorities are by law to govern without any appeal. 
 
 If in this instance, a mere majority may vote money to erect 
 a Court House, not for themselves, or to be their own, but for 
 the county, to be the property of the county, because it will 
 add value to the estates of certain land owners, or proj&ts to 
 certain men in trade, or custom to a certain hotel, why may 
 it not be done for any purpose that will increase the business 
 of a town ? And why may not the transient population in a 
 
69 
 
 manufacturing village on the very borders of an agricultural 
 town tax every farmer within it to erect a hotel, or stock a 
 manufactory, or build a railroad, or open and manage a 
 " Protective Union Store," for the sole benefit of that village? 
 
 This is no idle matter. It is of grave magnitude, and if it 
 is to become a guide and precedent for future Legislatures, it 
 is of immense importance that it should be wisely and delib- 
 erately determined as a matter of legal right and propriety. 
 
 But another ground why it ought not to be inserted is, that 
 call it what you will, it is the offer of a hid or bribe for a thing 
 that ought to be granted, if at all, on public grounds and pub- 
 lic grounds alone. 
 
 It may be said that these towns are not to be bribed or in- 
 fluenced by such a sum. 
 
 Then why put it in at all ? Why treat them as if they could 
 be thus bought ? 
 
 Even the Petitioners ask no such thing in their petition. 
 And yet, when it was stricken out of a former bill, we have 
 been told that friends of the division were not a little disturb- 
 ed, and many unkind words were uttered on the occasion. 
 
 It is certainly somewhat singular, if it is not for the purpose 
 of buying something with this money, that the people of Fitch- 
 burg should be so anxious to thrust so generous a bounty 
 upon people who never have asked for it. 
 
 How such an offer as this will commend itself in the light 
 of a " sop''' to the independent yeomen and manufacturers of 
 North Worcester, to hold their peace and yield up their own 
 convictions, I must leave for others to determine. 
 
 But one thing let me say, if this matter of being a shire 
 town is to be treated in the light of a thing to be bid for, why 
 not put it up openly in a fair vendue, that Leomister and 
 Gardner and Templeton and Shirley may come in as competi- 
 tors ? 
 
 Or if Fitchburg may by law, make up a purse to compel 
 the 22 towns to join her, why not let Princeton and Hubbards- 
 ton and Petersham and Shirley, or Bolton and Harvard and 
 Lancaster, see if they cannot make up a larger one to be left 
 where they are? 
 
% 
 
 Some of those towns had better do it than build the roads 
 it has been testified they will have to build, if the county is 
 divided. 
 
 And if it is to be done, let it be done deliberately ; let there 
 be ample time for the people to judge upon the question. 
 Nor is there any occasion to put them to the expense of extra 
 town meetings, since November will be in ample season, even 
 if the vote shall be for a division. 
 
 But whatever may be the form in which you see fit to put 
 this subject to the people, put it in some form that the question 
 may be at rest for the present. 
 
 We ask you to put no check or restraint upon the right of pe- 
 tition. But one part of the people of these towns have as 
 good a right to remonstrate as the other part have to petition. 
 And they may, if you will give them the chance, remonstrate 
 in tones so strong and decided as to put this question at rest. 
 
 But to continue this struggle is full of mischief. This at- 
 tempt to weary out those who oppose this measure and to 
 get by importunity what would never be got by fair argument, 
 tends to bring the sacred right of petition itself into disfavor. 
 
 There is a legal maxim, " Interest rei publicae ut sit finis 
 litium," that applies with great force to this very case : The 
 public good requires that there should be an end to legal strife. 
 
 Careful and courteous as parties and witnesses have been 
 here, you have seen enough to know that the subject is deep- 
 ly agitating the public mind in that community. It has 
 awakened bitter feelings, and fostered prejudices and heart- 
 burnings in a population which has hitherto been a united and 
 prosperous community. 
 
 It has even been attempted to show, though I am happy to 
 believe without effect, that it has entered into party politics. 
 The very attempt to prove this, shows that it has been thought 
 of as an ingredient in that bitter cup of discord, and the peo- 
 ple look to you for relief from such a disastrous consumma- 
 tion. 
 
 They know but one way to do this, and that they have 
 spread before you. More than 4000 of the citizens of these 
 towns have come before you, and waiving the expression of 
 
n 
 
 their own preferences on the subject of division, have earnest- 
 ly prayed the Legislature, the guardians of the public peace, 
 to have this vexed and vexatious question settled by the tribu- 
 nal that best knows how to do it. 
 
 And who should refuse the prayer of the Petitioners ? Why 
 should Barnstable, or Essex, or Norfolk, or Hampshire, inter- 
 pose to prevent this storm of excited feeling from subsiding, 
 that peace and harmony and good fellowship may again re- 
 turn to this community. 
 
 There are one or two more considerations that do not in- 
 volve matters of detail which I wish to present to your at- 
 tention. 
 
 There is a policy in this breaking up and reducing counties 
 which seems to me unwise, and ought not to be pursued. 
 
 They do not exist for the mere purpose of trying causes, 
 or punishing criminals. 
 
 They are, as I have said, social and political in their charac- 
 ters, and as such they each have their own associations and 
 habits of thought as well as local interests. 
 
 They are, in a larger sphere, what towns are within a more 
 limited one, where men are bound together by a common 
 tie of sympathy and interest. 
 
 And the framers of the Constitution understood this when 
 they provided that the popular branch should be selected from 
 the several towns, while the Districts from which the Senators 
 were chosen should be the counties. 
 
 In this they provided, in effect, that all great questions 
 should be viewed from different stand points, and that the 
 great, independent sectional views and opinions existing in 
 different counties should be felt and represented in the making 
 of our laws. 
 
 And the importance of this gradation of little Democracies 
 from the School District, up through Parish, Town, County to 
 the State, can only be appreciated by comparing Massachu^ 
 setts with any state where no such corporations, less than 
 counties, exist. 
 
 It is illustrated every year by the legislatures who success- 
 ively fill these halls. 
 
72 
 
 How otherwise than by the training that they acquire in 
 the transaction of the business of these little corporate democ- 
 racies, are men able to come here new, fresh from the people, 
 unaccustomed to the halls of legislation, and yet acquire at 
 once the forms of proceeding and always sustaining the self- 
 respect of men who have tried their own powers and know how 
 to rely upo7i themselves ? 
 
 You cannot abolish these without well nigh destroying the 
 very character of Massachusetts. 
 
 Nor can you weaken or break down the healthy esprit du 
 corps of these communities without injuring the stability and 
 tone of the whole public sentiment. 
 
 In Worcester county now, this harmony of feeling and sen- 
 timent and opinion is strong from the homogeneous character 
 of its population. An interior and mainly an agricultural 
 community, their trade and manufactures and mechanic arts 
 have no particular locality, nor is one part a jealous compet- 
 itor with another. 
 
 Now, it is idle to deny that such a community, wealthy, 
 intelligent and uinted, will exercise an influence in a Com- 
 monwealth. And why should she be deprived of it? She 
 has earned it by the industry and intelligence of her sons ; why 
 seek to belittle her by cutting her up into pieces, and thus 
 destroy that incentive to effort in her citizens to elevate her 
 character and keep alive an honest and honorable ambition ? 
 
 Would you cut up New York into thirty States because, as 
 an united body, she holds a more commanding influence in 
 Congress than Delaware or Arkansas ? 
 
 Would it be right to carve Boston into forty parts, because, 
 in representing her 150,000 inhabitants, her voice in the haUs 
 of legislation is more potent than a town that is represented 
 but half the time ? 
 
 This tendency to belittle every thing, to reduce every body down 
 to the lowest possible degree of respect or influence in a com- 
 munity, is perfectly at war with the growth and prosperity and 
 elevation of a state. 
 
 Let the same policy which has made Worcester what she is, be 
 
73 
 
 the leading policy of the state, and there is no limit to her moral 
 and scarcely her physical power. 
 
 In 1731, Worcester was thought too feeble to sustain county 
 relations, and now she stands the 3d county in the state. 
 
 In 1820, she stood below Old Hampshire in wealth and popula- 
 tion, and the richness of her soil. Now she outstrips the whole 
 three counties together, into which that territory was divided. 
 Hampshire was broken up. Worcester has been united. Leave 
 her so — that her sons may still feel that they have a common stake 
 in the great problem of her future success and destiny. 
 
 And the lesson taught by this comparison between Worcester and 
 old Hampshire and old Hampshire cut in pieces, ought not to be lost. 
 A statement was put into the case by Col. Lee, from which it ap- 
 pears that from 1790 to 1810, the plurality of Hampshire over 
 Worcester had increased from 3 to 11,000. In 1811, Franklin 
 was cut off, and from that day the balance began to change in 
 favor of Worcester united. In 1820, the balance was but 10,000 ; 
 in 1840, it was less than 2;000 ; and in 1850, the balance against 
 the 3 counties was 12,949. 
 
 Of the tendency of this frittering away and destroying the relative 
 power and influence of Worcester County upon the state, I cannot 
 say half I would. But I must presume upon your patience to 
 urge, that the effect of such a measure is to withdraw power from 
 the country and merge and concentrate it here. 
 
 I have already referred to the influence of counties in their con- 
 nexion with the government as originally designed. When large 
 counties existed, those counties had a voice that was heard. 
 
 The time was, when Berkshire and old Hampshire, and Wor- 
 cester, and Bristol, and Essex, and Middlesex had independent opin- 
 ions of their own. They had their own leading men who thought 
 for themselves, and did much to give tone and direction to local 
 thought. 
 
 The merchants from the interior visited Boston twice a year to 
 buy goods and pay their debts, and not to settle politics or take 
 their cue as to how they should talk or think. 
 
 And the consequence was, that in the decision of political issues, 
 or the shaping of public policy, the capital waited to hear from 
 Berkshire, and the response of the " River Gods, " and what direc- 
 10 
 
74 
 
 tion the men of Essex were to take, and how the press of Middle- 
 sex or Worcester regarded the question to be decided. 
 
 But how is it now ? For miles around the Capital, the Norfolk 
 and Middlesex and Essex men have their business homes in 
 Boston, while from a still larger circle every considerable trader, 
 manufacturer or dealer in any form, is as familiar with " Change " 
 and the places and men of business here, as if he did not sleep at 
 night 25 miles from State street. 
 
 The consequence is, instead of the city having her public opin- 
 ion and the country counties theirs, to act as checks, and balances, 
 and correctives upon each other, every thing of that kind originates 
 and emanates from here — and is carried through the state as having 
 the sanction and influence, and power, and sentiment of the whole 
 Commonwealth. 
 
 I need not take up your time for proof and illustration. Who 
 manages party politics, or gives shape and direction to what are 
 called the moral movements of the day ? Who hold the votes and 
 elect the Directors of the Railroads that centre here, or who holds 
 that great engine the currency, by which the business of the coun- 
 try is controlled ? 
 
 Let me not be misunderstood — I make no complaint of this — it 
 grows out of the very nature of the improved means of access to the 
 city. I do not seek even to curtail it. 
 
 But we want some corrective power — some agent strong enough 
 to guide this mighty central force when its course becomes way- 
 ward or erratic. 
 
 And I know not where you will find it if not in our county or- 
 ganizations. Suppose these destroyed — suppose the state one 
 great corporation like a town, made up only of citizens, with no re- 
 lations between her and themselves, could we look for any check 
 upon the combined, contracted influence of the tact and intelligence 
 and wealth clustered around these banks, and within view from this 
 state house ? 
 
 Thousands lament that the vcnce of Old Hampshire is broken 
 and divided, and does not tell as it used to in the day of her union, 
 and consequently, her moral power. Mr. Litchfield heard this 
 among i)xQ farmers of old Hampshire herself, and changed his 
 opinion as to dividing Worcester County. Worcester and Berk- 
 
75 
 
 shire are the only interior agricultural communities that remain 
 unbroken and substantially unimpaired, from the causes to which I 
 have alluded. 
 
 Will you break down these too ? Why not leave as many as you 
 can of the elements that went to make Massachusetts the Com- 
 monwealth she has so proudly claimed to be ? 
 
 Leave at least old Worcester County her associations, her pride, 
 her history, and her na7ne. 
 
 As for the city of Worcester, I have not a word further to say. 
 She is only of consequence in this controversy, as she is an integral 
 part of a large county. Situated as she is, surrounded by intelli- 
 gent and influential towns, without a dollar of capital employed 
 beyond her own borders, she must borrow her opinions and influ- 
 ence from the county around her rather than exercise any control- 
 ing influence over them. 
 
 But if it were otherwise, would you strike down the moral power 
 of Worcester County, because the shire town of that county held a 
 leading position among her associated towns ? 
 
 I congratulate you that I am about to relieve you from my own 
 poor presentation of this case. 
 
 I have but one more suggestion to make against this division, 
 and that is, the feelings of the people whom you are asked to sever 
 and divide. 
 
 The Petitioners rest their case upon a matter of dollars and 
 cents. We have met them there, and we think successfully. But 
 there are some things that it would be mockery to try to measure 
 by a scale so sordid. Among these are the sanctity of home feel- 
 ings and home associations. Every body knows the hold that old 
 associations have upon a generous mind, and that these are beyond 
 price. What would you say to the man who should ask you to 
 cut down " the old familiar tree " under which you played with 
 your brothers and sisters in childhood, because it would bring so 
 much a, cord for fire wood ? 
 
 You have heard man after man come up here and tell you in 
 earnest tone, " they do not wish to be cut off from their old asso- 
 ciations with Worcester County. 
 
 They feel as if they had a personal interest in her welfare and 
 her honor. They have helped to earn her wealth, and to strengthen 
 
76 
 
 her influence, and they do not now wish to be driven off like the 
 bond woman and her son of old, to form new associations and new 
 ties, and to take upon themselves a new and unfamiliar name. 
 
 You may call it weakness. But it is a weakness which no gen- 
 erous mind need be ashamed to confess. 
 
 And in this matter, I not only speak for them, but I speak for 
 the whole County of Worcester, as she is. I plead for her sons, 
 who are to share with her, in her progress or in her decline. 
 
 I ask for them, that when they go abroad they may still feel that 
 glow of honest pride which her sons have always experienced when 
 claiming for their home the old Central County of Massachusetts. 
 
 I ask for her children who have gone out from her, and are filling 
 stations of honor and usefulness wherever they are found scattered 
 all over the Union, that they may feel that her name, still undivided, 
 still united, still affluent in every thing that makes a people honored, 
 is a part of the heritage that has come down to them from fathers 
 who are sleeping in the old church yards of their native county. 
 
 She has no battle field of the Revolution, like Middlesex, to plead 
 for her, it is true. But there was not a battle field in all that long 
 struggle in which her sons did not have a part. 
 
 There is scarce an old and time worn cottage along the hill sides 
 and valleys of that county, that has not been consecrated by the 
 fire-side tales of suffering and exposure at " Old Ti, " or Crown 
 Point, or Quebec, or at Bunker Hill, or Saratoga, or Yorktown, of 
 those who went out into the French and Revolutionary wars, as 
 volunteers from Worcester County. 
 
 That generation with its hardships and inconveniences has passed 
 away, and another with its rugged ways made smooth and easy, is 
 now before you. But do not sever the bond of union and common 
 sympathy that binds them together, nor needlessly do violence to 
 those associations that endear them to this ancient and honored 
 County. 
 
 She was the child of the Legislature. She has repaid the care 
 which was bestowed on her in her infancy, and cheerfully borne 
 her share in the public burdens in peace and in war. 
 
 Do not, I pray you, by a blow like this which you are now called 
 upon to inflict, strike down her fair proportions and her strength, 
 and wound incurably her just ambition and her honest pride. 
 
SUBSTANCE 
 
 REMAEKS OF MR. A¥ASHBUM 
 
 HKFOltF. A 
 
 CniiiiiiittBe nf tlje IfgiBlatiire, 
 
 rrox TiiK 
 
 PETITION OF OILMAN DAY AND OTHERS 
 
 DIVISION OF WORCESTER COUNTY 
 
 WORCESTER: 
 PRINTED BY E . 15. . aM S K E . 
 
 18 5 5. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 013 996 540 1 
 
 uffnfffffm