and disposed of. After the above petition was folded it was endorsed on the back
In Council June 28, 1698.
Respited until the next Session
The General Court then, and for many years, met in two sessions each year, and the Council
's action deferred action and gave time for the consideration of Mr. Prout
's side of the matter.
At the next session favorable action was taken as follows:
The reader will do well to consider that in 1698 Medford
was, though seventy years from its first settlement, but an insignificant place, and had grown but little.
Only two bridges gave passage across the river in its entire length, but they were sufficient for all needs.
With a ‘cornemill’ on the Menotomy
side, what was the need of another a quarter mile up stream on the Medford
side of the river?
And why was it a matter of town or public action, instead of private enterprise as were those of Broughton
Twenty-three years before, a verdict had been given against the former in favor of Symmes
, whose meadows above
Mistick ponds were flooded.
, who was then (in 1698) proprietor, declared ‘thirty or forty years’ of use, which covered nearly the time since Broughton
We find no evidence that Broughton
sought legislative action for ‘liberty to build a gristmill,’ and perhaps his experience led to Medford
's as above stated, in order to be safe from the consequences of resultant damage.
A comparison of the vote in the Medford
record with the petition in the Archives is interesting: ‘Near and ’