dson of the host, is said to have been present, and his daughter-in-law, widow of Col. John Brooks, presided at the table.
The following, from the newspapers of the day, published in book form November, 1824, while the events described were fresh in the minds of all, gives us as accurate an account as can be obtained, and is of especial value to those who are not fortunate enough to own a copy of Brooks' History of Medford, which contains the selectman's speech of welcome, not inserted by Usher:—
Saturday, after receiving the salutations of the citizens, who were desirous of being presented to him, he set off for Medford, to visit his particular and valued friend, Governor Brooks.
His reception in this beautiful village, is represented as very interesting.
The citizens had comparatively short notice of the visit to that place; but they greeted him with great cordiality, and the honors bestowed were not unworthy of their distinguished guest.
The main streets and the houses
on of the Boston and Maine railroad has also been changed, it formerly flowed a short distance southeast from its present location.
In the article entitled The Withington Bakery in the July number of the Register (No. 3, 1915) may be found a reference to the approximate age of the old buildings demolished lately.
The records show that in the year 1735 the land was conveyed without buildings, and in the year 1755 it was conveyed with a house and shop thereon.
The writer of that part of Mr. Usher's history therein referred to overshot the mark by about one hundred years.
We have to record the passing of the old house on the corner of Main and Emerson streets.
This house stood on a portion of the Stinted pasture, and the land was deeded by Jonathan Tufts to Job Richardson in the year 1731.
The house was probably erected soon after, as it is mentioned in a deed a few years later.
In 1743 it came into the possession of Isaac Royall, and was a part of his estate at the time of hi
as can be readily proved to be erroneous, and where this cannot be readily proved, to give such reasons for my disagreement as will appeal to my readers as good arguments, even if they fail to convince.
I have taken great interest in the early history of Medford; my forebears, like those of Mr. Brooks, were among the early landholders of the plantation.
It is on account of this interest that I presume to criticise Mr. Brooks' history, and for the same reason I also include the history of Mr. Usher, which is mainly a copy of that of Mr. Brooks.
I have not attempted to point out all the errors of these historians; to do this would require a rewriting of much of both histories.
In order to correctly understand this article one should have in hand Mr. Brooks' history for reference.
These quotations are necessarily brief.
On page 1 may be found the following statement:—
This author (Josselyn) gives the name of Mistick to land on the north side of the river and reports a thrivin
This sum the town later appropriated and paid.
This report was signed by John B. Hatch and James M. Usher.
The minority report covers about four times the space of that of the majority, and is si another lot chosen, the price of which was four cents per foot.
At that stage of the matter Mr. Usher was in the minority, but by his powerful eloquence in the district meeting this conclusion wass found, the committee meeting soon after to stake out foundation, and fronting it southwest.
Mr. Usher was to proceed with the foundation, as he said he had raised money by subscription for that exe, and were adopted, not without his criticism.
Then the question of frontage came up again.
Mr. Usher wanted it northwest, and here was open war again.
Mr. Usher controlled the subscription, sayiMr. Usher controlled the subscription, saying, Unless the house fronts to suit me you can have none of this money.
At last Mr. Hatch is quoted as saying that he wanted that style of house, and rather than not have it, would vote to front it