FRESH POND WATER. 
MEASURES PROPOSED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE 
PURITY OF THE WATER-SUPPLY OF THE 
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE. 
REPOET OF A PUBLIC HEARING 
BEFORE A 
JOINT CONVENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CAMBRIDGE, 
ON THE PETITION OI SAMUEL B. RINDGE AND MANY 
OTHERS, NOV. 15, 1878, AT 7* O’CLOCK P.M., HIS 
HONOR MAYOR MONTAGUE PRESIDING. 
STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED BY W. O. ROBSON. 
BOSTON: 
FRANKLIN PRESS: RAND, AVERY, & COMPANY. 
1878. FRESH POND WATER. 
MEASURES PROPOSED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE 
PURITY OF THE WATER-SUPPLY OF THE 
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE. 
EEPOET OP A PUBLIC IIEAEING 
BEFORE A 
JOINT CONVENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CAMBRIDGE, 
ON THE PETITION OF SAMUEL B. RINDGE AND MANY 
OTHERS, NOV. 15, 1878, AT 7J O’CLOCK P.M., HIS 
HONOR MAYOR MONTAGUE PRESIDING. 
STENOGRAPHICALLY KEPOKTED BY W. O. ROBSON. 
BOSTON: 
FRANKLIN PRESS : RAND, AVERY, & COMPANY. 
1878. CONTENTS. 
PAGE 
Petition . . ' 5 
Remarks of Samuel B. Rindge, Esq 5, 40 
Statement of Hon. George P. Carter 14, 40-42 
Remarks of Hon. Henry W. Muzzey 15, 52 
Remarks of Mr. Zenas W. Bliss 32, 52 
Remarks of Chauncey Smith, Esq 34 
Remarks of William Wright, Esq 43 
Remarks of S. H. Dudley, Esq 45, 51 
Remarks of Mr. D. A. Buckley . . 48 
Remarks of Charles E. Raymond, Esq 50 
Statement of Prof. S. P. Siiarples 51 
Remarks of Hon. Charles H. Saunders 53 REPORT OF HEARING. 
A hearing was given by a joint convention of the City Council 
of the city of Cambridge, on Friday evening, Nov. 15, on the 
following petition of Samuel B. Rindge and 2,755 others : — 
“ To the Honorable, the City Council of Cambridge: — 
“ The undersigned, citizens of Cambridge, and many of us water-takers, 
solicitous for the purity of our water-supply, and alarmed by the recent 
action of the selectmen of Belmont in authorizing the erection of a large 
slaughter-house upon the borders of Fresh Pond, respectfully and earnestly 
request you to take immediate steps, under the authority conferred upon 
you by the legislature, to secure, by purchase or otherwise, sufficient land 
upon the margin of Fresh Pond to protect our water-supply from pollution. 
We believe the acquisition of this territory a public necessity, and that 
advantage should be taken of the low price of real estate at the present 
time.” 
After reading the petition, his Honor the Mayor said, — 
The matter is now before the Convention, and, if the petitioners 
are present, they will now be heard. The Chair would suggest to 
the members of the City Council, that this hearing is for the peti- 
tioners, and that they be allowed to go on and present their case, 
and answer any questions that may be asked by the members of 
the City Council or the Water Board; and then, if an}’ one wishes 
to remonstrate, the}’ will be allowed a hearing, after the petitioners 
have concluded. 
REMARKS OF SAMUEL B. RINDGE, ESQ. 
Mr. Mayor, and Gentlemen of the City Council, — The 
petition that has been presented to the city government asks for 
some action to be taken by your honorable body towards protect- 
ing the purity of the supply of water which we receive from Fresh 
Pond. We think that the Water Commissioners and the Commit- 
tees appointed by previous honorable boards of this city are as 
well posted in relation to the purity of our water as any one. 6 
They are consumers of it, as we are. They have investigated the 
borders of Fresh Pond ; and I suppose that their reports, in their 
own language, speak stronger sentiments than any of us, as citi- 
zens, can express, and I would present to you from their own 
reports to the city' government their very language. I have before 
me some of their reports. In the first place, b}' authority of the 
legislature of this Commonwealth, by an act approved May 1, 
1875, the city of Cambridge has the right to take and hold, by 
purchase or otherwise, such land on and around the margin of the 
ponds, including Fresh Pond, not exceeding five rods in width, as 
may be necessary for the preservation and purity of their waters. 
On that question a petition was ably presented before the legisla- 
ture, which granted the city of Cambridge authority to take that 
quantitj' of land around Fresh Pond. Since 1875 no action has 
been taken to any extent; but, when the city asked for that action, 
they believed it was necessary for the preservation and purity of 
our water. 
In the report of the Water Board for the year 1876, which was 
signed by George P. Carter, J. Warren Merrill, H. L. Eustis, C. 
W. Kingsley, and F. A. Allen, they remarked that there has been 
dissatisfaction in relation to the purity of the water, the principal 
reasons for which they think are, — 
“ First, In the use of Fresh Pond for boating, by which more or less per- 
sons have been drowned; and in some case, the bodies have been in the pond 
several days before they were recovered. 
“ Second, The surface drainage that finds its way into Fresh Pond from 
the dwellings and lands around the pond, and which is constantly increasing 
as the surrounding country becomes settled.” 
In regard to the second ground of complaint they say, — 
“We can only say that there are undoubtedly some places where the 
drainage from various sources finds its way indirectly into Fresh Pond, more 
particularly in times of heavy rains, and during the spring freshets caused 
by the melting snow. . . . We are satisfied, that while the evil of surface 
drainage can be wholly removed only by a sewer around the pond, yet, at a 
small expense, a large part of the drainage into the pond can be so arranged 
as to be filtered through a gravel bank before it finds its way into the pond, 
thus removing all substances held in suspense, and greatly mitigating, if 
not wholly removing, the evil.” 
Now, then, no action has been taken to purchase any land upon 
which is a gravel bank, by which the purity, of the water running 
into the pond can be preserved. The Board continues, — 
“ There is a constantly increasing demand upon us to provide for the 7 
drainage from the estates bordering on the pond, which now pollutes the 
water. The construction of a sewer in connection with such a road would 
carry all the drainage into Alewife Brook, below the outlet of the pond. 
This, with the cleaning up of the hanks between such a road and the 
borders of the pond, would do much towards keeping the water clean and 
pure.” 
As far back as 1873, a report was made : — 
“ We were gratified at the prompt action of the City Council in voting to 
put in a sewer in Concord Avenue and Vassal Lane, by which a large 
amount of surface drainage on the easterly side of the pond can be kept out 
of the pond, and carried below the outlet into Alewife Brook; while at the 
same time we can properly drain the new pumping-works that have been 
erected. The subject of protecting our water-supply from drainage around 
the pond is an all important one, and appeals to the personal interests of 
every one who uses the water.” 
A committee, consisting of Samuel L. Montague, George H. 
Howard, Perez G. Porter, George F. Whiting, and Archibald M. 
Howe, were appointed by the City Council to report upon the pol- 
lution of the water-supply of the city of Cambridge. In their 
report they say, — 
“ The only places from which your Committee think that there is imme- 
diate danger to Fresh Pond are on the south-westerly side, near Cushing 
Street, where more or less drainage, at certain seasons of the year, finds its 
way into the pond, and should be cared for at once; also from the drainage 
which may find its way into the pond from Fresh Pond Hotel and the 
picnic grounds and the boating connected therewith. ... In regard to the 
picnic and hotel grounds, your Committee would recommend, that so much 
of the land bordering on the pond as is connected with these premises be 
immediately taken, under the authority given us by the legislature; and 
that the same be properly fenced, so as effectually to exclude all persons 
from the pond in that locality. ... In regard to Wellington Brook, there 
are some houses in Belmont whose drainage, if any, would naturally find 
its way into the brook. . . . Fresh Pond is really our reservoir or settling 
basin, and should be protected from the constantly increasing drainage on 
the shores. While no perceptible evil has yet come from this source, yet it 
is wisdom to provide for the future, and see that the pond is properly pro- 
tected. To do this, we must control the'borders of the pond, and, if possible, 
the pond itself. And we would therefore recommend that immediate action 
be taken, under the authority that we already possess, to control that portion 
of the borders connected with the hotel and picnic grounds, and on the 
south-westerly side, near Cushing Street, as previously mentioned in this 
report; and that after a careful survey has been made, and a system of 
sewerage adopted for this whole territory, then, whatever land is shown by 
the survey to be necessary for the full protection of the pond and for ulti- 
mately building a sewer entirely around it, be taken for that purpose.” 8 
In tlie report of the Cambridge Water Board for 1877, the sub- 
ject of the purity of our water is referred to. It says, — 
“ Much attention has been devoted the past year to finding and removing 
sources of pollution to our water. In this direction a beginning was made 
at Richardson’s piggery, of which so much has been said. The lower pen 
nearest the brook has been removed, and the ditch leading from Wellington 
Brook to a point near the piggery has been filled up solid its entire length, 
and a dike has been thrown up at the foot of the upland on the edge of the 
meadow; so that we do not expect any further just complaint from this 
source of trouble. The line of Wellington Brook was then followed up into 
Belmont, and the objectionable house-drainage and privies which were 
spoken of in report of the City Engineer to us (which, by vote, we sent to 
you Oct. 5 last) have been provided for and remedied. . . . The greatest 
source of pollution to our water now by drainage into the pond is from 
the Cusliing-street district in Belmont. This at times is very bad, and is 
growing worse every year. In times of heavy rains a large amount of very 
objectionable matter flows into the pond over the low lands bordering on 
the pond on the south-west side. We think this subject has assumed such 
proportions, that there is no justification for any longer delay in providing a 
remedy, and, if this is not done, our citizens will have just ground of com- 
plaint.” 
Further on they say, — 
“ During the past summer we had an unusual experience in the sudden 
appearance and very rapid increase of what proved to be a vegetable growth 
in our water. It was first observed in the reservoir Aug. 22, in the form 
of a greenish scum on the water, which emitted an offensive odor. The 
water seemed to be full of a substance which was constantly rising to the 
surface, and forming a scum. A man was employed at the reservoir in 
removing this floating matter every day, from its first discovery, until it 
disappeared.” 
In the report of a chemist employed by the city", he goes on to 
say that the water is injurious to health, and in this condition it 
is manifestly unsuited for domestic use. 
I might go on and select other remarks made by these honorable 
Committees ; but it is not necessary. Now, what we a3k is this : 
that action be taken upon these recommendations. The city of 
Cambridge is a seller of water. We are its purchasers. We ask 
you to sell us pure water. To-day we may say it is pure ; but, if 
no action is taken, how long will it remain so? To-day is erected 
in the vicinit}’ of our water-supply a house for the slaughter of 
hogs. I suppose they intend to slaughter all the way from three 
hundred to a thousand a day, more or less. The offal, to a 
certain extent, must soak into the ground; from the ground it 
soaks into Fresh Pond; and then we citizens of Cambridge have 9 
to drink it. That may not be unhealthy at present. It may con- 
tinue so for a little while ; but any time a disease may break out 
among our citizens caused by it. Perhaps it may take a 3’ear to 
find out the cause, and then at last they would decide that it was 
caused by the offal getting into the ground and into the pond from 
that slaughter-house. 
I, for one, want action before we suffer by the disease to such an 
extent. 
One of the honorable Board of Water Commissioners stated to 
me, that he was afraid, that, in a few 3-ears after the continuation of 
the slaughtering there, a disease would break out among our citi- 
zens, and that deaths might be very large in proportion to our 
population. Nowr, none of us want to think of such a thing as 
that staring us in the face. We want our wyater protected. We 
want pure water. It is essential to the interest of the city' govern- 
ment. It is essential to every one who lives here, and drinks the 
water. It is essential to every property-holder. 
We ask and demand of you pure water; and, to secure that, we 
wish you to take proper measures to preserve its purit}r to the best 
extent you can. 
The total cost of the -water-works to Nov. 30, 1877, amounted 
to $1,672,592.29. From this fund there were paid into the sink- 
ing-fund $186,100, and the sinking-fund amounted, on Nov. 30, 
1877, to $236,503.69 ; which shows that the account against the 
water-works, to Nov. &0, 1877, amounted to $1,249,988.60, — a 
million and a quarter of dollars. The net profit on this business for 
the }Tear ending Nov. 30, 1875, — and I wish the citizens of Cam- 
bridge to understand this, because I do not think all of them know 
what a good business the city of Cambridge is doing in selling 
water to its citizens, — the net profit for the 3-ear ending Nov. 30, 
1875, after pa3’ing interest of $85,404 on the whole debt, was 
$20,915. The net profit for the year ending Nov. 30, 1876, after 
paying interest of $83,730 on the water-debt, was $68,574.11. 
The net profit for the 3'ear ending. Nov. 30, 1877, after pa3’ing 
interest of $90,000 on the whole water-debt, was $46,467.06. The 
real, actual gain for those three 3Tears was about $50,000 a 3’ear. 
That was the net profit obtained from the citizens of Cambridge 
(the takers of water) in canning on the business. Now, if the 
city of Cambridge can make a profit of fift3T thousand dollars a 
3*ear in supplying its citizens with water, we ask 3'ou to sell us pure 
water. We demand of 3-011 a pure article. We want it pure to- 
da3T, and pure for the 3-ears to come. 10 
The city of Cambridge has authority to issue two million dol- 
lars of water-bonds, and I suppose there is about a million and a 
half outstanding ; but of that million and a half there is about 
two hundred thousand dollars in the sinking-fund. I may not be 
exact to a few thousand dollars ; but I will state that there is about 
that amount, according reports of your Committee. 
Now, in m37 remarks, I do not wish to condemn the purity of our 
water. I wish to stand up for it. Ever}7 citizen, ever}7 property- 
holder, does. I wish to say here that we have got good water; but 
I wish to preserve it good. 
The question may be asked, Do you wish to saddle the city 
of Cambridge with a large debt in protecting its water? I would 
say to that, that I should be willing to do so, if it was necessary. 
Some may think, that, by purchasing property to preserve the purity 
of the water, the city is going to run in debt, and that the people 
of to-day have got to pay their proportion of it. My idea is not 
to put it into the tax levy upon our citizens at present; and, when 
I say at present, I mean that it may never have to be put into the 
taxes of the city of Cambridge. With a profit of fifty thousand 
dollars a year, and a debt of twelve hundred and fifty thousand 
dollars, how many years do you think it will require to wipe out 
and extinguish our city water-debt? I think it would take about 
fifteen years to wipe out and extinguish the debt. Now, gentle- 
men, every one of us here hopes and expects to live that fifteen 
years. We don’t wish to pay off that whole indebtedness. It 
isn’t fair for us to pay the whole of it. Let those who come after 
us pay for the privilege of having pure water ; let them pay their 
share of it. The citizens of the past fifteen years, more or less, 
have paid a larger proportion than any number of the citizens who 
are here to-day, or who will come after us, will ever have to pay. 
You may remark to me, that, according to the laws in relation 
to the sinking-fund, three per cent of our indebtedness has to be 
passed into the sinking-fund every year. That is true. But we 
are making money by the operation ; so that we are paying this 
debt off very fast with our sinking-funds. I, for one, think that 
this debt should not be paid off in so short a time as fifteen years. 
Three per cent on our water-bonds would pay it off in about that 
time. The measures which have been introduced’ into the city 
government (and I think they have been well and fairly discussed) 
to reduce that percentage to apply to the sinking-fund, are nothing 
but what is equitable and just to be done. If this is done, and a 11 
redaction should be made from three per cent to one, that would 
leave the income thirty thousand dollars, which could be used to 
pay the interest upon the investment, and acquiring by purchase 
such real estate as the Water Board should think necessary for 
the preservation of the purity of our water. If the land costs five 
hundred thousand dollars, you would have an income set aside to 
pay the interest upon that whole amount; and no citizen would 
have to pa}r one single cent of it otherwise than as he pa3*s it 
through his water-rates. 
It may be remarked that the income from water-rates will not 
be so large the next two 3’ears as it has been for the past few years. 
I think it will be. Cambridge is to grow. We are not going to 
stop. And, as the city of Cambridge grows, it will have more 
demand and more customers for water. I look for a good business 
in the future for the city of Cambridge in selling its citizens water. 
What we want is action. We want the action which the Water 
Board, and which the Committee appointed by the city govern- 
ment, have reported should be taken. We want action as soon as 
it can be taken, —judiciously taken. 
I have nothing further, gentlemen, that I wish to present to 3*011. 
I will leave the subject to those who are more able than I am. 
Councilman McSorley. What, in your opinion, would be the 
cost of purchasing the land around the pond for two rods wide ? 
Mr. Rindge. The act allows five rods. 
Councilman McSokley. Five rods. 
Mr. Rindge. I have made no estimate, and m3* opinion would 
not be good for an3* thing. I think the members of the Water 
Board can answer that question better than I can, because I have 
given it no attention. 
Councilman Emery. Have 3*ou studied this plan so far as to 
satisf3* yourself that the taking of five rods around the pond will 
be attended b3* the desired results? 
Mr. Rindge. I think that would never have been petitioned for, 
unless it had been deemed decidedly advantageous to the city of 
Cambridge in protecting its water-suppty. I am in favor of its 
being taken; but I do not think that five rods around the border 
of the pond will answer the purpose. I have understood that the 
city of Boston purchased about six hundred acres of the locations 
around Lake Cochituate. 
Councilman Emery. I have understood that the reason the 
project could not be received with more favor was because the land 
was not enough. Have 3*ou estimated the quantity necessary? 12 
Mr. Rindge. I have not. I have not been around the pond to 
take notice. Some will say we may have to purchase too large an 
amount of real estate. I should hope that arrangements could be 
made with the land-holders, by which they would restrict the 
property under the direction of the City Council of Cambridge, so 
that we should not have a large amount of property. Then, 
again, if we had to purchase more than was necessary, I should 
say sell it. I think, that, when the city of Cambridge owns five 
rods or more around Fresh Pond, the value of the property outside 
of five rods will be more than it is to-day. I think that would im- 
prove it greatly. For instance, you go around the Chestnut-Hill res- 
ervoir of Boston. They have spent a large amount of money there. 
I suppose that land is worth fifty times what it was before the reser- 
voir was built. In making that remark, I advocate no expensive 
drive-way around Fresh Pond to-day. I advocate no such thing. 
What I advocate is the purchase of and jurisdiction over such ter- 
ritory as will cause our water to be pure, and that we shall control 
it. 
Councilman Emery. You have not gone into the question of 
building any sewer, I suppose. 
Mr. Rindge. No, sir, I have not. 
The Mayor. I w’ould ask Mr. Rindge, if, in his judgment, it 
would be expedient for the city of Cambridge to purchase the land, 
and go to the expense of having police jurisdiction over the borders 
of the pond. 
Mr. Rindge. Yes, sir, I think it would. Whenever the city 
shall have purchased that property, I think it can find a way to 
have police jurisdiction over it. I do not believe that the town of 
Belmont, or any other town, would allow the policemen of the city 
of Cambridge to protect property in that town, unless it was 
granted by the town beforehand. But, by purchasing and owning 
it, the question is, whether you would not be more likely to have it 
annexed to the city of Cambridge than you are when not owning 
it. I think the city of Boston would find it very hard to protect 
the purity of the water of Lake Cochituate as far in the country as 
Framingham, if the}" did not own the land around it. 
Councilman Emery. I am requested to ask you whether you 
contemplate taking any territory now covered by the slaughter- 
house ; whether you go as far as that. 
Mr. Rindge. Well, I think the Water Commissioners would 
have a better judgment of that than I have ; but I should want that 13 
out of the way. I should want that out of the way as soon as I 
could get it. If the action had been taken which has been recom- 
mended by the Water Board and by the Committees, I think we 
should never have had a slaughter-house there. I consider that 
dangerous to the city of Cambridge. 
Councilman McSorley. What do you think of having parts of 
Watertown, Arlington, and Belmont, annexed? 
Mr. Rindge. Well, sir, if parts of Belmont and Arlington 
were annexed, we would have complete jurisdiction over that prop- 
erty. But the towns are rather anxious to hold on to as much 
taxable property as they can have ; and those who own the land 
would not be very anxious to come into Cambridge. I think, that, 
if it was owned b}7 the city of Cambridge, the valuation would be 
four times as much as it is under the town government of Belmont 
or Arlington, and then the taxes would be about double; and with 
the valuation about four times as much as now, and the taxes about 
double, that would be about eight times as much taxes as they have 
to pay now. If I owned property there, I would not want to be 
annexed to Cambridge. 
President Saunders of the Council. Have any surveys been 
made in regard to this property? 
Mr. Rindge. Not that I know of. 
President Saunders. Then you know of no general plan, except 
a general desire to purify the water? 
Mr. Rindge. That is all, sir. 
Alderman Fox. You don’t include the ice-works? 
Mr. Rindge. No, sir : I don’t think it necessary to remove the 
ice-houses. 
Alderman Fox. Simply to purchase land on the borders where 
the water is likely to be polluted ? 
Mr. Rindge. Simply to control the borders where the water is 
likely to be polluted. I think, that, if we should have pure water, 
we would have pure ice. I think the citizens of Cambridge are 
dependent, to a certain extent, upon their supply of ice from Fresh 
Pond. The purer the water, the purer the ice will be ; and, if the 
water of Fresh Pond is pure, the Fresh-pond ice will continue to 
rank as high as any ice in all the markets of the world. 
Councilman McSorley. Then you don’t propose to have us buy 
the entire strip around the pond, but only in certain locations? 
Mr. Rindge. The act of the legislature gave you authority 
to take five rods. You can do as you please. There may be 14 
certain points which you may not think it policy to take. You 
may think it policy to take more than five rods. I do not think 
the ice-houses, filled with Fresh-pond ice, will ever pollute Fresh- 
pond water. 
Councilman McSorley. But it strikes me, that, if we take any 
at all, we will have to take the entire sweep around the pond. I 
think that parties in hop0B of making a speculation would buy 
that land so as to put the city of Cambridge in the position of 
being required to buy or take their land. 
Mr. Rindge. Then, as you live in a Yankee land, you should 
look out to make a good bargain when you can. 
Councilman McSorley. You get the credit for doing the same. 
Mr. Rindge. I think it would take a much less price than it 
would at any time for the last five 3Tears. 
Question by an Alderman. Any idea how much per acre ? 
Mr. Rindge. No idea at all. 
Question by the same Alderman. Nor five years ago? 
Mr. Rindge. No, sir; but I am satisfied that the assessors of 
the city of Cambridge do not value it near as high as they did a 
few years since. That is acknowledged. 
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE P. CARTER, PRESI- 
DENT OF THE WATER BOARD. 
Mr. Mayor, and Gentlemen of the City Council, — Per- 
haps it may be well to put in a statement here that I have drawn 
up, showing the receipts and expenses of the water-works in the 
simplest form that I could put them in. There is some little 
difference of opinion about the figures as they are made up by 
the Board, and published in the report. The extension account 
was increased $15,881.98 : that, of course, was raised by issuing 
bonds. Received on water-rates, the total amount is $158,078.11 
for the year 1877 (that is the only year for which I have the fig- 
ures now) ; there was refunded from this amount $3,234.52, leav- 
ing a balance of $154,843.59. Received from the supply account 
$8,191.70, and from rent $151.25, making the total $163,186.54 
for the receipts from water in all forms. 
There were expended for care and repairs $22,612.44 ; on sup- 
ply account, $4,107.04; interest on debt, $90,000; sinking-fund,, 
$45,000; making a total of $161,719.48. That leaves a balance 
of receipts over expenditures of $1,467.06. 15 
Mr. Rindge. That statement of Mr. Carter agrees with mine. 
I stated, that at the end of the 3’ear, Nov. 30, 1877, the net 
profit for the year amounted to $46,467.06. Am I correct? If 
you will add the balance to the sum of $45,000, I think it will 
correspond with mine to a dollar. 
Mr. Carter. I don’t understand how my friend Rindge gets 
that. If his result is the same as mine, it leaves a balance of 
$1,467.06. " 
Mr. Rindge. I stated that the net profit for 1877 was $46,- 
467.06. Of this, $45,000 were appropriated to the sinking-fund, 
which left to credit of the appropriation $1,467.06. 
Mr. Carter. That sinking-fund is also to be charged to the 
account of the water-works as interest on debt. We are obliged 
to do that. 
Mr. Rindge. I agree with the gentleman; but, if you didn’t 
make $45,000 profit, it would be appropriated out of the tax levy 
on the citizens. But no appropriation was made for this $45,000, 
and it is passed to the credit of the sinking-funds out of the 
profits. 
Mr. Carter. I admit that. It is true. 
REMARKS OF IION. HENRY W. MUZZEY. 
Mr. Mayor, and Gentlemen of the City Council : — After 
what Mr. Rindge, the leading petitioner, has said, and 
after the explanation he has lucidly made, another voice from the 
petitioners seems superfluous. Still, sir, I station myself here, for 
strong personal reasons, in support of this petition. I come, not 
as a lawyer, but to perform a loyal citizen’s service. 
It is reported that one of the petitioners, — a citizen who, beyond 
any other citizen, has contributed to the fame and glory of Cam- 
bridge as the home of poetry and generous learning, —remarked, 
as he wrote his name upon the petition, “ Our water-supply should 
be, ‘ like Caesar’s wife, above suspicion.’ ” 
More than twenty-five hundred citizens of Cambridge, — whose 
names represent not only a majority of those who vote on our ordi- 
nary election-daj’s, but, in point of property, the major part of 
our valuation, — have addressed to }'ou their petition. There is 
no meaningless word in it. Its appeal is simple, impressive, com- 
prehensive, timely, and judicious. It does not call for a local 16 
expenditure in behalf of a limited number of our people ; but its 
scope embraces our whole territory and nearly every one of our 
inhabitants. It represents the palatial residences of the rich, 
and the tenement-houses of the poor. It is the rich man’s cause 
and the poor man’s cause ; for it touches ever}7 dwelling. I ven- 
ture the remark, that while we were a town, and since we have 
become a city, no such petition has ever been addressed to our 
authorities. The explanation lies in the fact that no question of 
equal magnitude, concerning all homes in Cambridge, has ever 
before arisen. It is not a petition which comes here to sleep in a 
committee room. That will not satisfy the men of Cambridge 
who signed the petition. They are resolved that something be 
done. It is for your w’isdom to say what. Here we are at last: 
the hearing is open for all; and the subject is broadly before the 
City Council, — our municipal representatives. 
In some adequate way these petitioners must be satisfied. They 
are not inclined to wait long. They come in character and num- 
bers that show this. It is a question for every one who is drinking 
the water of Fresh Pond, — man, woman, or child. It is a ques- 
tion for every man who owns property here. It is a question for 
all who care for the reputation of Cambridge, as residents of it, 
and responsible for what it does in public affairs and upon questions 
of health. 
Now, — I say this respectfully, but firmly, as one of the sign- 
ers of this petition, — something must be done which will answer 
us adequately and properly. You cannot rightfully deny or delay 
us. All reason is against that. All good judgment will oppose it. 
A sense of what is just and proper from city officials toward those 
who put them into office is opposed to it. Something must be 
done. 
The City Council of this year are not charged with any wrong, 
as yet. We are only watching to see what they will do for us. 
But I wish to say, and have it understood here, and I say it 
frankly and in a manly and proper way, that we wish something 
done now for our protection. 
The Water Board make recommendations; the City Council 
make appropriations. You should come together and do what is 
necessary. 
While this petition was in circulation, and while signatures to it 
were accumulating, and after its presentation, various substitutes 
or expedients have been offered to public attention. Before con- 17 
sidering other suggestions, I wish, in a general way, to at- 
tract the attention of the City Council to the leading merits of 
our application. In the first place, it is a practical measure of 
relief. It is a practical plan, Mr. Mayor. You do not need to go 
to the legislature on a fresh subject, or on the old beaten track 
of defeat. You have the power now. The power and the respon- 
sibility' rest with }rou now. Are we safe at present? 
I assume that no one attempts to defend the present quality 
and fitness for drinking of Fresh-pond water. But, if there be any 
doubt as to this point, I beg to refer the gentlemen of the City 
Council, who listen to me, to the able paper of Dr. Edward R. 
Cogswell, in the Report of the State Board of Health for 1878, 
and to the Report of the Cambridge Water Board for 1877, pp. 
6, 7, 13, 14. 
I state distinctly that I am not a foe of other plans. I wish you 
to ascertain what is best to be done. I suppose no petitioner 
has any special plan of his own. It is 3'our duty, not ours, to 
determine what should be done. 
In his valuable paper, entitled “Sanitary Condition of Cam- 
bridge,” appearing in the Report of State Board of Health for the 
present year, Dr. Cogswell remarks, — 
“ Fresh Pond lies partly within the city limits, and partly in the town of 
Belmont, and has an area of nearly two hundred acres. It has no streams 
running into it, being fed principally by springs. The natural outlet of the 
pond was through Alewife Brook to Mystic River; but of late years the level 
of the pond has been lower than the water in the brook, which is kept out of 
the pond by a gate, as it is now only an open ditch, receiving the drain- 
age of about eight hundred acres of the territory of Cambridge through 
three large sewers. The greater part of the pond is bordered by gravel 
banks, which, in places, form steep hills rising directly from the margin of 
the pond. The land on its borders is mostly uncultivated, and there are but 
few dwellings in its immediate vicinity. On one of the hills is a grove, 
which is a favorite resort for picnics, and is sometimes visited by as many 
as ten thousand people in one day. There is no direct drainage into the pond, 
either from the grove or from the hotel connected with it; but undoubtedly 
the pond receives a considerable amount bf impurities from the presence on 
its banks of such large numbers of people. 
“On the Belmont side of the pond, near Cushing Street, is a settlement 
known as Strawberry Hill, where most of the houses are of an inferior 
class. The drainage from a number of these houses their outbuildings 
runs into the small pond which is shown on the map, and at times overflows 
into Fresh Pond. To prevent the future flow of sewage into the pond from 
this vicinity, it has been proposed to build a sewer from Cushing Street to 
the neighborhood of the water-works, there to connect with one of the 
sewers emptying into Alewife Brook. This would be the beginning of a 18 
marginal sewer, to be carried, if necessary at a future time, entirely around 
the pond. Except from the two sources just mentioned, the prospect of the 
direct contamination of the water of Fresh Pond seems now to be slight.” 
Dr. Cogswell quotes the following from Sir John Simon, who 
may be regarded as the first sanitarian of England : — 
“What one has to do is to guard the supply with the utmost strictness 
against every foul admixture. 'It should be made an absolute condition for 
a public water-supply, that it should be incontaminable by drainage.” 
Cambridge’s auxiliary supplies, under legislation obtained in 
1875, are the waters of Spy Pond in Arlington, and Little Pond 
and Wellington Brook in Belmont. 
Mark what Dr. Cogswell says of these contributions to our 
water-supply: — 
“ Little Pond, situated between Spy and Fresh Ponds, has an area of 
thirty-four acres, and is partly bounded by meadows, and partly by market- 
garden lands under a high state of cultivation, which are heavily manured 
with night-soil. 
“ Spy Pond in Arlington contains one hundred and fifty acres, being nearly 
as large as Ft'esh Pond. Like Fresh Pond, it has no streams running into 
it. On the east are pastures; on the west, highly-cultivated gardens, lying 
on the side of the hill which slopes down to the pond. Here night-soil is 
used sparingly, if at all; but it is only through Little Pond, where night-soil 
is used, that the water of Spy Pond can reach the conduit. Spy-pond water 
is objectionable at present on account of the great amount of microscopic 
vegetable growth found in it. 
“ Fresh Pond, the largest and best of these various sources of supply, can 
be most easily protected. 
“The question of the future water-supply of the city is one of great 
importance.” 
I understand, that, although Richardson’s piggery still passes its 
defilement into Wellington Brook, that brook is the only one of 
the auxiliary supplies to Fresh Pond which Cambridge obtained 
from the legislature in 1875, that it ventures to use. 
I do not read from the reports of the Water Board, showing the 
necessity for immediate action. Mr. Rindge has read from them, 
and relieved me of that duty. 
I wish ever}" gentleman of the City Council who listens to me 
would personal!}' visit the ground, traversing the shores and the 
adjacent territory,'before he votes upon the subject presented by 
the petitioners to his attention. I am somewhat familiar with the 
shores of Fresh Pond ; and, while I do not believe that a strip of 
land only five rods in width would meet our necessities, in a liberal 19 
view of the future, I, nevertheless, am for that, if nothing better 
can be done. It would give us the power of doing what the city 
has already done, to some extent, on the north-easterly shore of the 
pond. There, the shore has been bulk-headed. In other words, the 
city has tai<en out the foul deposits; gone down to a clear, sandy 
bottom, and, by the method of paving the shore, prevented future 
accumulations of a like character. Before the city did this, Mr. 
Jacob Hittinger, acting wisely for his ice-cutting interests, had 
done the same thing along a considerable line of the shore which 
he owned. If we acquired a strip of land only five rods in width 
upon the remaining part of the shore, a great step would be taken, 
if the bulk-heading were continued and completed, in protecting 
the waters from defilement. 
I am not an advocate of extravagance in our municipal under- 
takings. I regret some things that have been done; for, not 
approving of them, they add to my personal burden of taxation. 
Whatever need not be done now does not find in me an advocate. 
But I cannot help looking forward to the time when, with honest, 
persistent determination on the part of the citizens of Cambridge 
to extinguish municipal obligations incurred in the past, we may 
make upon the shores of Fresh Pond the most attractive spot in 
all the surroundings of Boston. For this we must wait until the 
coming of more prosperous times. We postpone that considera- 
tion, only looking at it as a pleasant view of our future. All that 
we ask now is that health and life in our midst may be cared for. 
Our water-supply is located near to an overflowing population 
from the metropolis, and its active industries have already begun 
to seek location upon the shores of Fresh Pond. Our eyes are 
opened to this fact when we see a hog-slaughtering establishment 
built there. Threatenings of a like character are already in the 
air. Of course the employes of such establishments are also to 
locate upon the shores of the pond. Now is our time, — now, if 
ever,—to secure ourselves, if we mean to protect our water-supply. 
Delay is defeat,—irreparable disaster. Imitate the wisdom of 
Boston. Lake Cochituate la}’ in the woods, without railroad con- 
nections, and distant from the centres of trade. What stares us 
in the face as to the offensive occupation of Fresh Pond did not 
threaten the water-supply of Boston ; yet that city, looking to 
the possibility, in the remote future, of what has already come to 
us, bought all the land surrounding Lake Cochituate,—many hun- 
dred acres. Why do we wait? Is not the enemy at hand? We 20 
can buy now at exceptionally low prices. We must have at some 
time what Boston acquired, — the land that surrounds our water- 
supply. This is the golden moment, if we consult economy, if 
we are not too narrow-minded to see our necessity. Some things 
cannot be reckoned in money. Health and life do not admit of 
procrastination. Surely, the}’ cannot wait. 
Happily, the Water Department is the prosperous branch of our 
city government. Mr. Rindge has shown this, and that the proba- 
ble outlay can be met by the resources of that department. 
I shall not dwell upon the necessity for immediate action of 
some kind. I speak with the voices of hundreds and thousands of 
other citizens, when I say to you, something must be done. We 
have said in our petition what, in our opinion, should be done. 
If an exercise of the power of eminent domain, granted to Cam- 
bridge by the Act of 1875, will not secure land enough to protect 
Fresh Pond from pollution, then we ask you to acquire, by pur- 
chase, any additional land that is necessary to that end. You have 
the right to buy any land needed for any legitimate municipal 
purpose. This is a general power belonging to the city. Again : 
you have the power as successors to the chartered rights of the 
Cambridge Water Works. In addition, and as a special grant 
of power, you have what was obtained by the Act of 1875. So, 
then, there is no question of power upon which to deny the 
petitioners. It is all in your own hands. What answer will you 
make to them ? 
Fair consideration should be given to the subject in all its as- 
pects. If there be a better plan of relief than that of the peti- 
tioners, it, rather than theirs, should have your sanction. xLet 
us consider with candor, and in the light of experience, the sub- 
stitutes suggested for the action w’hich your petitioners request and 
advise. What will cost us the least, and accomplish the most, is 
what we all seek. 
The primary question is, — Are you prepared, Mr. Mayor, and 
gentlemen of the City Council of Cambridge, to abandon Fresh 
Pond? You cannot expect us to be willing that you should keep 
it, and do nothing for its purity. Are you willing to give it up ? 
That is the first question. We suggest, in substance, that you 
keep Fresh Pond, but protect it, so that we shall not feel that we 
drink impure water. 
Now, upon this question whether we shall abandon Fresh Pond, 
I desire to know where we shall go for a substitute for its waters. 21 
Does anybody know where we can go? I have listened to all I 
have heard said on this subject, with candor and open ears. 
It has been suggested to me by a city officer, whose opinion is 
entitled to much consideration, that we might go to Boston. Mr. 
Mayor, I have had some conversation with a Boston official, — I 
am not at liberty to name him; but, if the authority were given, 
it would be recognized as entitled to verj’ great respect, — and it 
concluded with a recommendation to me, as a citizen of Cambridge, 
to advise you, sir, and the gentlemen of the City Council, to stay 
at home and protect Fresh Pond. But I will tell }'ou what has 
happened to a neighboring city from its water-connection with 
Boston. We will see what figures show. 
Chelsea has a population of twenty thousand, and is supplied 
with water by Boston. It pays to Boston, to state it in round num- 
bers, thirty-six thousand dollars annually for water. Cambridge 
has a population of fifty thousand. Now, if we should go to 
Boston for our water, we should have to pay in the proportion of 
twenty thousand to fifty thousand people (I state things in round 
numbers), — about ninety thousand dollars annually. Recollect 
that Boston charges Chelsea thirty-six thousand dollars for a popu- 
lation of twenty thousand : Cambridge would have to pay Boston 
ninety thousand dollars for a population of fifty thousand. Ninety 
thousand dollars, gentlemen, is the interest at five per cent (we 
can market our bonds at five per cent, and get a premium on them) 
upon eighteen hundred thousand dollars. So, if you go to Boston, 
and get as liberal treatment as Boston gives to Chelsea, you 
will have to pay the interest on eighteen hundred thousand dollars 
in order to get 3'our water there. The way they manage it is this : 
Boston takes all the Chelsea water-rates, and gives back twenty- 
five per cent. They would do the same with us, perhaps. They 
certainty would not do any better for us. We expect you to find 
out whethet it is advisable for Cambridge to go to Boston for 
water. If yoityconclude that }tou had better go to Boston, and pay 
the interest annually upon eighteen hundred thousand dollars, we 
say, Go there. We only wish to awaken you to the importance of 
doing something. 
The chief objection I have heard made to our project was, 
that it might involve our city in an expenditure of half a million 
dollars. That seemed to me to be a vety extravagant estimate. 
I could not see where the money was to be spent, — either in buy- 
ing land, building a marginal sewer, or constructing a drive-way ; 22 
but that is the largest sum I have heard named. People have 
stood aghast, and said, “ Five hundred thousand dollars ! ” 
Gentlemen, I think we had better pay interest at five per cent 
on five hundred thousand dollars, —amounting to twenty-five thou- 
sand dollars, — and pay three per cent on five hundred thousand 
dollars into a sinking-fund, which makes fifteen thousand dollars 
more, annually, and preserve our system, —rather than go to Bos- 
ton and pa}r ninety thousand dollars annually, even if we could 
get a supply there, and be treated as well as Chelsea. 
Another thing (I speak in the presence of gentlemen who 
have served and are serving on the Water Board),—we desire 
to know whether money has been wasted or not, whether there 
has been good judgment or not, and for what expenses have 
been incurred upon the water-works, carrying their cost up to 
between sixteen and seventeen hundred thousand dollars, lias 
the money been wasted ? Have mistakes been made ? If you go 
to Boston, you confess error by the abandonment of your system. 
We are burdened with a water-debt, and then there will be nothing 
to it with. There will be no water-taxes to take care of the 
interest and to provide annual payment into the sinking-fund. 
We now have to raise, and do raise, from the water-rates for in- 
terest on debt about seventy-five thousand dollars annually, and 
forty thousand dollars more for the sinking-fund for the redemp- 
tion of the water-bonds. If we went to Boston, this sum (a 
hundred and fifteen thousand dollars), in addition to the ninety 
thousand dollars, would go into our general tax-bills. Besides, 
there would be the confessed and mortifying fact, resting upon 
those to whom our people have trusted the matter, that what has 
been spent upon Fresh Pond is money lost to our citizens. I 
hope that is not in store for us. I do not believe any irretrievable 
errors have been committed. 
I believe you can protect the purity of the pond without an 
expenditure of half a million dollars. I do not believe it will cost 
that. If you abandon Fresh Pond and go to Boston, we shall 
have to pay our water-debt in our general tax-bills, and shall have 
no revenue coming from special water-taxes to the city, with 
which, through the sinking-fund, to discharge the debt; while, if 
you keep and protect Fresh Pond, you can save a hundred and 
sixty-five thousand dollars a year over the plan of buying water 
of Boston, and no one will feel that an}T money has been wasted, 
either by the City Council or the Water Board. 23 
I oppose the proposition to go to Boston, — first, because I do not 
think they would supply us, and, secondly, because of the financial 
folly of the scheme. 
It has been said that we might go to Lake Winnipiseogee. 
Is there a man living who knows the relations between Lake Win- 
nipiseogee and this little city of Cambridge, — a man in full pos- 
session of his senses,—who will say that we should go there? 
Why, the mill-rights begin at Laconia, and you would encounter 
the Masonian proprietorship in the Lake waters at the start. The 
principal source of the Merrimack River is Lake Winnipiseogee, 
and, following the river down, you come to Concord, Manchester, 
Nashua, Lowell, Lawrence, and Newburyport, where it joins the sea. 
What do you suppose in mone}' would extinguish the mill rights 
and privileges along the course of the Merrimack ? I say nothing 
of the immense outlay for the construction of water-works by 
Cambridge. I asked a good judge of such matters what it would 
cost to extinguish those water-rights, and he said the entire valu- 
ation of Cambridge would hardly cover it. I put that project 
entirely aside. 
We have connected Fresh Pond with Sp}r Pond and Little Pond, 
and also with Wellington Brook. We have a right in att those 
sources of supply. It has been found, that, with the exception of 
Wellington Brook, we cannot resort to these supposed helps to our 
water-supply. They are unfit sources of suppl}\ Anybod}' who 
reads Dr. Cogswell’s paper will agree with me. I see Professor 
Sharpies before me, and no doubt he agrees with me. 
Attention has been called to Kendall’s Pond, lying in Belmont; 
and I have read some communications, written by Mr. Gates, sug- 
gesting it as a good source of supply. He shows the purity of 
its water, and its height, — making it an important feeder to Fresh 
Pond. But, gentlemen, AVatertown obtained from the legislature, 
in 1875, the right to take water from Kendall’s Pond ; and, Water- 
town not having perfected its right to take it, Belmont demands 
the waters of Kendall’s Pond. A leading gentleman of that town 
said to me, “ Cambridge has got Little Pond and Wellington 
Brook; and, as Watertown has not availed itself of its right to 
Kendall’s Pond, we shall demand it for Belmont. It is all that is 
left to Belmont for a water-supply.” 
A gentleman who has paid much attention to the general subject 
of our -water-suppl}',—one of our own citizens, and one of the 
signers of the petition, — mentioned to me the pond called “ Sandy 24 
Pond,” in the town of Lincoln. I was pretty familiar with it when 
a boy, and knew its surroundings, and should think well of it as a 
possible resource for Cambridge ; but investigation has resulted in 
finding that it has been appropriated to the use of Concord and 
Lincoln. I do not know of any place to which we can go. It 
seems to me to come to this result: we must stand by Fresh Pond, 
and do the best we can to protect and purify its waters. 
If we stand by Fresh Pond, the practical question is, How can 
we protect it? Gentlemen, if it would cost, as I have shown y’ou, 
ninety thousand dollars a year to go to Boston (and I have shown 
yrou the great additional difference between the cost of going there 
and keeping Fresh Pond pure), — suppose it does cost half a million 
dollars (the most extravagant sum, which I think only an enemy 
could have mentioned) to protect that pond, — what is that? Mr. 
Rindge has shown you that the cost of protecting Fresh Pond will 
go into no citizen’s general tax-bill. But suppose it should add a 
little to our tax-bills, — the trifle of a few thousand dollars, — as 
a part of the expenditures of a city whose total annual appropri- 
ations I do not accuratety know, but I suppose they reach at least 
a million dollars. 
The Mayor. One million two hundred thousand. 
Mr. Muzzey. A million two hundred thousand dollars annually. 
Suppose you spend twenty-five thousand dollars a year (it is com- 
paratively a mere driblet in our total expenditure) to protect the 
water we drink. Tell me for whom or for what you could spend 
twenty-five thousand dollars as well. Is it better spent for a sewer 
in a particular locality ? Is it better expended for the improve- 
ment of an old street, or the laying out of a new way in some 
limited locality ? Is it more demanded for filling low lands, gen- 
tlemen? No, I will tell you w’hat calls for it: every man, every 
householder, every father of children, who is a water-taker from 
you. You know you should not sell them impurities knowingly, 
designedly, carelessly, recklessly’. You build schoolhouses, and 
put faucets into them for children to drink from. You build ele- 
gant edifices; but do you provide pure water for teachers and 
pupils to drink? You erect fine buildings for various municipal 
purposes. You purchase splendid engines for the water-works, 
and build over them a palace. They and it are the wonder and 
admiration of visitors, interested in water-works, from all parts of 
the country’. These things have cost large sums of money’. Are 
we to be told, — are others who would like to come to Cambridge 25 
to be told, — that Cambridge cannot afford to supply its citizens 
with pure water? 
Boston has not retained all the land it purchased about Lake 
Cochituate; but all deeds to purchasers of that land from the 
city contain such restrictions as prevent the grantee from doing 
any thing, or following an}'occupation, that will injure the purity of 
the water. No slaughter-house can be built upon land about Lake 
Cochituate acquired and sold by the city of Boston. No piggeries 
can exist there. The purest occupation is demanded by the deeds. 
Now, where are you? Think of the wisdom of Boston ; the good 
sense, good judgment, of its Water Board, in protecting the 
health of the people of that city. 
Admitting that Fresh Pond must continue to be our source of 
water-supply, it is suggested that its purity may be assured if we 
annex to Cambridge, Belmont, or parts of Belmont, Arlington, and 
Watertown; for then, it is said, we should be able to exercise 
police jurisdiction over the borders of Fresh Pond. Annexation 
the remedy ! Why, on your own ground, belonging to the city of 
Cambridge, so far as municipal limits go, what do you permit ? I 
said that Lake Cochituate was away from human habitation. You 
have licensed on Cambridge soil, on the margin of the pond from 
which we take our water-supply, a hotel, with a grove visited at 
times by ten thousand people in a single day. Do you need Bel- 
mont, do you need any thing from Watertown or Arlington, to pro- 
tect the purity of Fresh Pond? What do you permit on your own 
soil? What do you allow in and about the Fresh Pond Hotel? 
You not only license it as a hotel, but you allow it a liquor-license, 
and permit it to be the scene of debaucheries such as should never 
be permitted on Cambridge soil; and the filth runs into our muni- 
cipal well! T say, in all frankness, before you seek new territory 
in adjoining towns, let it not be longer recorded that you allow 
contamination from that hotel and grove to continue to find its way 
into Fresh Pond. That place is licensed by you : it is on your own 
soil. 
Gentlemen, on this subject of annexation, let me say it is not 
the possession of the land that you need, in a municipal outlook. 
You cannot prevent the land within your territory from being used 
for legal purposes. If you should acquire the territory you have 
petitioned for from Belmont and Arlington, you could not prevent 
the objectionable use of it, — because it would then be in Cam- 
bridge, — any further than you can the land used for objectionable 26 
purposes, now lying within our limits. In other words, the remedy 
is not in annexation. In a moment I will show you this. 
There are two petitions to the legislature for annexation, — one 
by Mr. Linn B. Porter, the editor of “The Chronicle,” which 
includes parts of Belmont, Arlington, and Watertown. There is 
another petition, which the City Council directed your Honor to 
make, for the annexation of a smaller territory, not touching the 
towrn of Watertown. Annexation, if the legislature would grant 
it, would help us very little. You would hold the newly-acquired 
territory just as you hold territory now in Cambridge. 
You cannot do any thing to interrupt a lawful occupation by a 
man of his private premises. You cannot prevent a man from 
doing what he has a right to do on his own estate, even if it is an 
injury to the purit}' of Fresh Pond. Wh}r? Because Fresh Pond 
belongs, in a certain sense, to all the inhabitants of this Common- 
wealth. I speak in the hearing of the City Solicitor, and have no 
doubt of his agreement with me. Fresh Pond belongs to all the 
inhabitants of the Commonwealth for certain general enjo3’ments 
or uses. It is one of the “ great ponds ” devoted by the colonial 
ordinance of 1647 to all the inhabitants of the Commonwealth, 
establishing their right to visit that pond for such reasonable uses 
as its waters afford them. Any inhabitant of the Commonwealth 
has the right of boating, bathing, fishing, skating, driving over it 
when it is frozen, and taking ice from it. All the inhabitants of 
the Commonwealth have those rights. 
Gentlemen, I have the pleasure of seeing present my old friend, 
Mr. Jacobs, the city clerk; and I have here, in my collection of 
authorities, a report which he made upon this subject, under an 
order of the Board of Aldermen of the city of Cambridge, dated 
Oct. 16, 1855, which stated the law clearly before the Supreme 
Judicial Court had occasion to pass upon it in the same connection 
that his attention was called to it. In that report he says, — 
“ I am inclined to the opinion that the title to the pond is in the Com- 
monwealth.” 
And then he goes on to say, — 
“ The fee in the bed of the pond is in the Commonwealth, subject to an 
easement in the public, and the inhabitants of the State, and the towns of 
Watertown and Cambridge.” 
I do not read further than that; but I say that what Mr. Jacobs 
there foreshadowed as the probable opinion of the Supreme Court, 27 
has since been put into the law of this Commonwealth. The first 
direct decision of the Court on this point is that in the case of 
the inhabitants of West Roxbury vs. Stoddard, 7 Allen, 158, 
decided in 1863. Mr. Jacobs’s opinion wras given under an order 
of the City Council in 1855 ; and the decision of the Supreme 
Judicial Court upon this subject, sustaining his opinion, was ren- 
dered eight years tliereafter. 
Mr. Justice Hoar, speaking for the Court, quotes the colony 
ordinance of 1647, which appears in the Ancient Charters, 148, 
and reads as follows : — 
“And for great ponds lying in common, though within the bounds of 
some town, it shall be free for any man to fish and fowl there, and may pass 
and repass on foot, through any man’s propriety for that end, so they tres- 
pass not upon any man’s corn or meadow.” 
The conclusions of the Court (so far as material in this hear- 
ing) are, — 
“ Great ponds containing more than ten acres, which were not, before the 
year 1647, appropriated to private persons, were by the colony ordinance 
made public, to lie in common for public use. 
“ Fishing, fowling, boating, bathing, skating or riding upon the ice, 
taking water for domestic or agricultural purposes, or for use in the arts, 
and the cutting and taking of ice, are lawful and free upon these ponds to 
all persons who own lands adjoining them, or can obtain access to them 
without trespass, so far as they do not interfere with the reasonable use of 
the ponds by others, or with the public right, unless in cases where the 
legislature have otherwise directed.” 
That decision concerned Jamaica Pond. In a later case, that 
of Hittinger vs. Eames, 121 Mass., 539, decided in 1877, the 
same principles are affirmed as applicable to Fresh Pond, as Mr. 
Jacobs told us, in 1855, would be the ruling of the Supreme Court, 
whenever the question as concerning Fresh Pond should arise. 
Now, gentlemen, knowing that mere annexation of outlying 
territorial possessions will not help us, where are we left? We 
are in this position: we must acquire the land around the pond. 
IIow can we acquire it? It is said that taking five rods under 
the statute of 1875 would not give us enough. I have gone 
around the borders and vicinity of the pond, and I do not think 
that would give enough for its protection. I think there are 
places where that would be entirely inadequate. But you have 
the right to purchase whatever land is needed. 
It is suggested, as a substitute for the purchase of the shore of 28 
Fresh Pond, that all we need ma}' be had through annexation of 
portions of Belmont, Arlington, and Watertown. I refer to that 
suggestion again, merely for the purpose of gaining your attention 
to the results of previous efforts for annexation. We have had 
that contest. Do you know the history of it? I will give you 
in a brief way the record of it. 
In 1873, Cambridge, by his Honor Mayor Houghton, under an 
order of the City Council, petitioned the legislature for the annex- 
ation to Cambridge of parts of Belmont*and Watertown. The 
petition was referred to the Committee on Towns. After a hear- 
ing, thejr reported leave to withdraw, and the report was ac- 
cepted by the legislature. That was the result in 1873. In 
1875 the petition of the city of Cambridge to be allowed to make 
police regulations for the shores of Fresh Pond was referred to 
the Judiciary Committee, who reported leave to withdraw, and 
the report was accepted. In 1876, upon the petition of the city 
of Cambridge to prevent boating and bathing on Fresh Pond, 
the Committee reported leave to withdraw, and the report was 
accepted. The last effort was made the present year (1878). 
What did we petition for? Why, gentlemen, this: — notice was 
served upon Belmont by Cambridge, that Cambridge would petition 
the legislature to annex so much of Belmont as might be neces- 
sary to protect the waters of Fresh Pond. What became of 
that? The petition was abandoned by Cambridge. No bill even 
was presented. Are you to expect us to be satisfied with that 
course ? 
You are going again this very year to the legislature, asking 
substantially for the same grant. His Honor the Mayor has been 
directed to present the petition. There is no better chance of 
success this year. Gentlemen, I have a fact or two in connec- 
tion with the chances of this year, which, perhaps, may be worth 
presenting. You passed an order through the two branches of 
the City Council, on the 18th of October of this 3*ear, instructing 
his Honor the Ma}’or (Mr. Porter had moved, individually, a little 
earlier) to petition the legislature, — for what? To acquire, 
by annexation, parts of Belmont and Arlington. Last year you 
did not venture to present any bill, and ask a hearing upon it. 
I do not wonder that Cambridge has met with defeat before, and 
shuns these contests. Still, gentlemen, you asked his Honor the 
Mayor to renew that petition. How were you met? Although on 
the 5th day of November, the annual State-election Day, the town 29 
of Belmonfr was to hold a regular meeting, — 3*011 having moved 
on the 18th of October, the}* instantly called a special town-meet- 
ing to consider this subject. That meeting was held on the 29th 
of October. What did the}* do? What was the vote? In a large 
town-meeting they voted (145 to 1) against annexation. They held 
no such meeting last year. And yet then we did not venture to 
present a bill, and ask a hearing. This year they met us at once, 
and said, “No!” The town of Arlington voted last Tuesday, 
unanimously, against annexation, and instructed their selectmen 
to employ counsel to appear at the State House, and oppose us. 
The town of Belmont appointed a special committee to resist our 
application, — the chairman of that committee, long successful in 
th&se battles between Cambridge and Belmont, is, I observe, pres- 
ent here to-night, — and put two thousand dollars in their hands 
with which to oppose us. 
What is the use of going to the legislature? It means defeat. 
We shall be beaten there, as we have been before. Even if the legis- 
lature granted us an act, it would contain a provision making it of 
no effect, unless accepted by the inhabitants of the towns affected 
by it. They have told us, in advance, what to expect from them. 
There is nothing strange in the fact that an opulent town should 
decline to come to a city saddled with debt; that people taxed 
ten dollars on a thousand dollars, on a small valuation of.property, 
should be disinclined to unite with a people paying eighteen dol- 
lars on a large valuation, —three times greater than their own. 
I will tell you how we can succeed. In the first place, acquire 
ownership of the soil. You never can get it for nothing. Bel- 
mont, Watertown, and Arlington will never allow you to obtain 
it for nothing. Those towns stand by each other. One thing is 
peculiarly true of Belmont. That town was born out of a five- 
years’ struggle for existence. It fought its way into a town 
organization through a memorable legislative contest. It is very 
tenacious of its territorial integrity. The one citizen of Belmont, 
who, out of 14G, said “Yes” on the vote of annexation, was 
an excellent gentleman who lives within sixty feet of our own 
borders; sends his children to our schools, and has to pay Cam- 
bridge something for their education. He alone voted, “Yes.” 
Watertown, also, is resolved to resist Mr. Porter’s application 
to the legislature. 
See what we can do, practically. We can gain nothing by mere 
annexation, and cannot get that as Ave stand now toAvard these 30 
towns. We.could not, if we had their land, profit by It any more 
than we do now as to the land within our own territory. We must 
obtain what we need by purchase. Then we can go to the legisla- 
ture with the project of annexation. Then we can say to the 
towns of Belmont, Watertown, and Arlington, if they go there to 
oppose us, “We own the soil, why should not we have it under our 
own municipal jurisdiction?” That step taken, success would be 
easy. But, when you acquire the soil, you have another and the 
most important measure yet to accomplish. The possession of 
twenty miles around the pond would amount to little, unless }'ou 
obtained from the legislature something beyond that. It is this, — 
a grant from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, exercising its 
sovereignty through the legislature, giving to the city of Cambridge 
entire and exclusive jurisdiction over the waters of Fresh Pond, 
and extinguishing the general rights now belonging to the citizens 
of the Commonwealth, by reason of the colonial ordinance of 1G47, 
to go upon the waters of the pond for the purposes of fishing, 
boating, bathing, and taking ice. There are three steps necessary 
to obtain what we need ; — first, the acquisition of the land by pur- 
chase or otherwise ; second, the annexation of the territory thus 
acquired ; and, third, such legislation as will extinguish the general 
rights of the public under the colony ordinance.1 You never 
otherwise.can protect Fresh Pond from injurious contaminations. 
All temporary expedients, —pardon me for saying it, — tire us as 
you repeat them. 
Mr. Mayor, I speak for our homes. The health, comfort, 
and peace of our people interest me, as one citizen, more than 
our financial prosperity ; although I bear my burden, with all 
other citizens, in whatever concerns our municipal expenditure, 
in whatever increases our debt. Never before, within the knowl- 
edge of a Cambridge citizenship of a quarter of a centurj’, have I 
witnessed an appeal like this made at the doors of the City Hall. 
John Adams said that Massachusetts owed her distinction among 
States to three of her institutions, — the church, the common 
school, and the town-meeting. AVe, because of our growth of 
voters, have outgrown the town-meeting. You, gentlemen of the 
City Council, stand in place of that. You hold a town-meeting 
trust. The signers of this petition you represent. They have a 
1 Since this hearing, the Water Commissioners of Boston have appealed to the government 
of that city to apply to the legislature for the extinguishment of like public rights in Lake 
Cochituate. 31 
right to demand that you do, upon their petition and as their rep- 
resentatives, what they would do for themselves, could they act in 
the earlier way, in town-meeting. 
Above all, Mr. Mayor and gentlemen, we ask }'ou not to put us 
aside by suggestions that in some other manner, or at some other 
time, the protection we seek may be had. We are tired of make- 
shifts. Refuse our petition outright rather than procrastinate 
longer. I)o not go to the legislature. We appeal to you. The 
legislature will not help us. You can and should. Anxious 
homes are looking to you, and }'Ou only. Relieve them, and, at the 
same time, relieve our city of a reproach, wide-spread and injuri- 
ous. We must pay large taxes for some time to come. But let us 
not longer suffer from the stigma, — keeping rich and poor alike 
away from us, — that our water-supply, however hitherto guarded, 
has become unworth}' of a large and affluent community, governed 
by enlightened and conscientious officials. 
The City Solicitor. I understand, Mr. Muzzey, that your plan 
involves, in the last instance, a petition to the legislature to remove 
the rights of the public in that pond, such as boating, bathing, 
fishing, &c. ? 
Mr. Muzzey. That is my third proposition. 
The City Solicitor. What would you say to making that prop- 
osition to the legislature before we bought the land? 
Mr. Muzzey. I think it would be useless. 
The City Solicitor. Well, on condition that we should buy it? 
Mr. Muzzey. I do not think that the legislature would grant 
the right upon condition of purchase. 
The City Solicitor. Then you would go ahead and purchase ? 
Mr. Muzzey. First I would purchase, next apply for the 
annexation of what we acquire, and then ask the legislature to 
extinguish the general rights. 
The City Solicitor. I wanted to know whether }’our plan in- 
volved the extinguishment of the public rights ? 
Mr. Muzzey. Certainly. I regard that as the most important 
thing we can ask for. 
The City Solicitor. Then your plan is to purchase all the land 
around the pond ? 
Mr. Muzzey. I have no plan. I desire the wisdom of the City 
Council applied as to what is necessary to protect the pond. My 
proposition is, that the city purchase what is necessary to protect the 
pond, and then apply to the legislature for annexation and the 
extinguishment of the public rights there. 32 
The City Solicitor. One of the public rights is the taking of 
ice from the*pond. 
Mr. Muzzey. I expect all public rights to be extinguished, — 
even the right of taking ice, if that is detrimental to the water. I 
do not know whether it is or not. 
The Mayor. I understood you to make the statement, that, if 
it should cost half a million dollars, it would not enter into the 
question of taxation and the expense of carrying the debt. 
Mr. Muzzey. I did not say precisely that. I said that I 
thought, upon Mr. Rindge’s presentation of the figures, it would 
not probabty make any impression upon the general tax-bills ; that 
the Water Board could take care of it. I did make a comparison 
between going to Boston and spending ninety thousand dollars a 
year for what we could keep pure here for forty thousand, — a sav- 
ing of fifty thousand dollars, beside saving our credit for municipal 
wisdom in the past as concerns our water-supply. 
The Mayor. I would state that the receipts were less than the 
expenses by three thousand dollars, which had to be put into 
taxation. 
Mr. Muzzey. I have not gone into the financial calculation, 
Mr. Mayor; but I call it a very insignificant item, when we are 
spending twelve hundred thousand dollars a year for general muni- 
cipal purposes, — as the benefit of it would reach every dwelling, 
in protecting the purity of the water supplied by the city. 
REMARKS OF MR. ZENAS W. BLISS. 
Mr. Mayor and Gentlemen, — You have heard to-night from 
Mr. Rindge, who represents the property-holders, and you have 
also heard from Mr. Muzzey, who represents the professional gen- 
tlemen of this city. I come here as a working-man, and I come 
to urge action upon a question in which I, in common with 
all working-men, am interested. I live in this city, and have a 
family growing up here. I am obliged to have Fresh-pond water 
in my house, and' can have no other. It is a question of vital 
importance to me, and it is equally important to all working-men. 
1 come to-night to urge immediate action upon this question. 
Ever since I began to keep house in this city, some dozen years 
ago, I have been urging in one way and another, as in my 33 
path, action upon this question of protecting Fresh Pond. It has 
been a vital question all these years. We have had people there 
bathing in the water, and we have had picnics upon its banks. 
There have been times when it has gone against m}r stomach to 
drink that water after we had ten thousand people there in one 
da}*. And there have been people drowned in the pond, and there 
have been all manner of debaucheries at the pond, licensed b}' the 
city government here. 
But now, sir, there comes up something more important than 
bathing or picnicking. We have a slaughter-house there. I don’t 
know whether it is in operation to-day. They tell us this slaughter- 
house is seven hundred feet away from the pond, and is never 
going to injure the water. Your city engineer tells me that the 
slaughter-house is within fifty-five feet of our water, and it is 
within five or six hundred feet from the pond; but out of the 
pond there runs a conduit up to Little Pond, and fifty-five feet 
from the banks of the conduit stands this slaughter-house. This 
slaughter-house stands upon a gravel bank which is porous, and 
which it was thought of taking for a filtering-bed ; but the engineer 
thought it too porous for a filtering-bed. The city engineer tells 
me, that, if you shut the gates of Little Pond tight, a million gal- 
lons of water a day, by actual measurement, come out of the 
gravel bank upon which that slaughter-house stands into Fresh 
Pond. 
Now, sir, if that slaughter-house stands upon that gravel bank, 
and the water filters through the bank into Fresh Pond, what sort 
of water are we to have ? What sort of water will come to your 
house and mine? And, once in }’our soil, how are we going to 
get it out ? 
Mr. Mayor, it seems to me that the occasion has come for 
instant, intelligent, and efficient action, and that now is the time 
or never. If we are to have pure water, we must have it secured 
now. Let this opportunity pass, and the opportunities to get pure 
water from Fresh Pond will have gone forever. 
As one of the petitioners, as one of the working-men of this 
city, as one of the voters in this Commonwealth, I ask the Cityr 
Council of the city of Cambridge to take prompt, immediate, and 
efficient action, in order that we may have the water-supply of our 
city well protected from all defilement. 34 
REMARKS OF CHAUNCET SMITH, ESQ. 
I am one of the signers of this petition ; but I did not for that 
reason alone come here to occupy your time. I have al\va}*s been 
greatl}’ interested in the subject of Fresh Pond. I believe the 
president of the Common Council will remember when we had a 
common interest in the discussion of that subject. I have given a 
great deal of attention to Fresh Pond itself; not the most critical 
attention, such as a commission should have long since given to 
it, but such attention as 1 could when J had an opportunity to visit 
its shores and look upon the country around it. 
I have never believed it to be a suitable source of supply for the 
city of Cambridge, and I don’t believe it to-day. I am frank to 
admit, however, that there is no evidence that any great amount 
of harm, if any, has come from the waters of Fresh Pond up to the 
present time ; but I have looked upon it as inevitable, that, in the 
progress of the settlement of the territory around it, the day would 
arrive when its waters could not be used without disaster to Cam- 
bridge. 
I have always hoped that there was some other source of supply 
to which Cambridge could finally resort. I should be sorry to 
believe that there is none ; but I am free to sa}' that I do not know 
of any. Several places have been spoken of to-night, and they 
seem to be out of the question. Now, if Fresh Pond is our only 
source, and we must depend upon it in the future, it is, I think, of 
the highest importance that the question should be investigated 
whether it is needful to do an}' thing to preserve its purity, and, if 
so, what it is. 
I came here, I think, about two years ago, when a suggestion 
was made that the Hittinger property, surrounding nearly two- 
thirds of the circumference of Fresh Pond, could be purchased on 
favorable terms, — to say then, as I say to night, that I was not 
prepared to advocate that measure. But I was prepared to say 
then, as I say now, that the city government should institute 
inquiries to see whether it is advisable to purchase the land on the 
borders of the pond. There was a great deal of discussion at that 
time, and some of it pretty earnest, as to what might be appre- 
hended from Fresh Pond. There was a good deal of difference of 
opinion among men whose opinions were valuable. Some, I know, 
thought the water of Fresh Pond was not impure, not 35 
likely to be impure. I spoke, I recollect, of visiting it one da}’ in 
the spring, and finding a large stream of water flowing across the 
Watertown Branch Railroad into the pond, which had every 
appearance of coming directly from some stable. I did not like 
the looks of it, and said so. I had frequently visited the Cushing- 
street district, and I spoke of that as a source of pollution. Some 
one said I must be mistaken as to the character of the water I had 
seen flowing into the pond, and seemed to sneer at my suggestions. 
Dr. Driver was there, and said he had examined and tasted the 
water flowing from the Cushing-street district, and did not like it; 
and yet it was flowing directly into the pond. I visited that dis- 
trict a few days ago, and, although there was no water flowing into 
the pond, there was water lying in the basin to a considerable 
depth, as offensive as any thing you can imagine ; and that water 
probably goes by percolation into Fresh Pond. 
The immediate occasion of this petition was the erection of the 
slaughter-house near the pond. In signing I did some- 
thing I don’t often do: I signed it without investigating the par- 
ticular matter which was the occasion of it. I did not have time 
to look into it. I put off the gentleman who asked my signature, 
hoping to get time to go up and look at the location and character 
of the slaughter-house ; but not getting an opportunity to do that, 
and knowing that some of the city officers who understood them- 
selves believed it to be a matter to be deprecated, I took that as 
sufficient ground for signing the petition. A few days ago I found 
an opportunity to go up there. I found the location of the house 
farther from the pond than I supposed it to be. I found it stand- 
ing, as was said to-night, upon a gravel bank. I suppose that no 
water will flow’ directly into the pond from that establishment; but 
I suppose there must be some thrown out upon the meadows or 
flats just below Fresh Pond. Probably the flow of water from the 
establishment can be so taken care of, that it will not enter into 
that gravel bank, but will be carried off beyond into the low flats. 
Now, in passing from my house to that locality, —would you be- 
lieve it? — I passed right by the mouth of a sewer, Which Cam- 
bridge had itself constructed to take the drainage from land in 
Cambridge, and discharge ft right out upon the flats, nearer to 
Fresh Pond than the discharge from the slaughter-house. That is 
what our Water Board, or somebody, has done. Instead of taking 
measures to purify the water, measures have been taken to flow 
sewage out upon the same flats, upon which will be discharged the 
waste water from the slaughter-house. 36 
Well, there is something worse than that. The suggestion was 
made in the last report of the Water Board, that the Cushing-street 
district (which, I believe, never was mentioned in the reports of 
the Board until after the discussion here two years ago, to which 
I have referred) was really a great nuisance, and was growing 
worse. If I understand the report, the suggestion now made is, 
that a sewer shall be laid around the pond from that neighborhood 
to the seAver which has already been built, and which discharges 
upon the other side of the pond: in other words, they propose to 
take this objectionable sewage from one side of the pond, and 
carry it to the other side. How much good will come from taking 
this water from one side of the pond to the other, I don’t know. I 
have no faith, I will say frankly, that any great good will be 
accomplished by building a sewer around the margin of Fresh 
Pond, and I will tell you why. With the exception of this par- 
ticular Cushing-street locality, there is not much water flowing on 
the surface of the into Fresh Pond, which would be inter- 
cepted by a sewer. Before we began to take water from Fresh 
Pond, observation showed that about two and a quarter millions 
of gallons per day, for eight months in the j'ear, flowed out into 
Alewife Brook. During all that time, there was no appreciable 
quantity of water flowing into it upon the surface of the surround- 
ing land. Those two and a quarter millions of gallons came into 
the pond from below the surface of the surrounding shores. This 
water found its way there from somewhere below the surface of 
the pond and the surrounding country. Now, if the great mass 
of water reaches the pond underneath the surface by channels 
under ground, then the question what can be done to cut off the 
entry of bad water is an important one, and I confess I don’t know 
how it should be dealt with. 
I happen to be somewhat familiar with the flats through which 
the waters of Fresh Pond were formerly discharged. They are, 
as you all know, low, marshy grounds, consisting mainly of a clay 
bed overlaid with a bed of peat. You will find at any time in the 
summer season that there is a great deal of water lying on those 
flats in a very offensive condition. It flows off, so far as it flows 
off at all, through Alewife Brook. It used to come back into the 
pond occasionally. This Alewife Brook, by the way, is the chan- 
nel into which this sewer enters at the present time. Now, this 
body of clay is full of seams of sand: that any one can see who 
goes down to the brick-yard pit. I had occasion to examine it 37 
many years ago, and it was a frequent thing to see the water 
flowing through these seams of sand between the layers of clay in 
very extraordinary streams. You can see a little of it in the pit 
there now ; but, at the time I last visited it, there was not much 
flow of water visible. Now, I suspect that these seams in the clay 
furnish channels for the water to flow towards or from Fresh Pond, 
according as the pressure is in one direction or another; and it is 
not unlikely, I think, that the sewage-water discharged from our 
sewers and from the slaughter-house may find its way into the 
pond. 
I have spoken of this sewer on the south side of Concord Avenue 
to take off the surface water there. But I am told there are one 
or two other sewers draining territory on North Avenue out on to 
those flats. I am quite certain there is an open aqueduct running 
along the Fitchburg Railroad on one side, and flowing out upon 
the flats. Cambridge will find itself in possession of a first-class 
nuisance some day from these sources, that will have to be taken 
care of. Now, the idea of protecting with such an 
amount of drainage flowing on to these flats by a sewer around its 
margin is to me absurd ; but still I think a good deal maybe done, 
if it is necessary (and I believe it is) to protect the pond. I suppose 
it is possible to drain the Cushing-street district out into Charles 
River in another direction. It may be said that Cambridge has 
not the right to lay a sewer there, as it is a part of Belmont. Yet, 
if there is to be any adequate protection of the pond from that 
district, its drainage must be carried away from the pond, and not 
around it. 
On the west side of the pond is a swamp, and not an inviting 
one. It is as bad as the territory at the east end formerly was to 
appearance, and I think worse. If the land was acquired, the city 
could dig out and remove that nuisance. There is something in 
the last report of the Water Board about the clearing out of the 
nook into which the water from Wellington Brook is discharged 
into Fresh Pond. If the city' has done an}' thing there, it is not 
perceptible to human eyes. It is bad enough as it is now. I do 
not believe it is a proper place to discharge the water. It is a 
peaty bed, and at the time I was there it was covered with filthy 
matter. I don’t believe it is the right thing to do. 
I think, and you will pardon me for saying so, that if the 
cit}', instead of making appropriations four or five }’ears ago to 
pump four or five times as njuch water as there was to be pumped, 38 
hacl done something to take care of what was there, and make it 
better, we should have been better off to-day. At that time the}7 
w'ere pumping about two million gallons a da}*, I think; and yet 
the Water Board procured two engines, which were each capable, 
as the engineer tells me, of pumping six million gallons a day. 
They have never been called upon to pump, on an average, more 
than about two and a quarter million gallons. Nobody has ever 
had any reason to believe that eight million gallons a day could be 
brought into Fresh Pond. But, having procured the engines, an 
edifice was built to cover them, capable of holding four just such 
engines. Now, the money spent in that way had better have been 
spent in taking care of the water. We have facilities for pumping 
water that never will be demanded. Fresh Pond cannot supply 
the water which our pumps are each capable of pumping. 
I have heard much said this evening about plans. I am by no 
means certain that any great good can be had by purchasing the 
land around Fresh Pond. But the suggestion is certainly deserv- 
ing of attention. not certain how you can accomplish what 
is desired when you purchase the land. I am not certain that 
Fresh Pond can be taken care of at all, if you allow its borders to 
be covered with dwelling-houses. The houses upon the Cushing- 
street district have mostly been built since I first came here. If 
that territory is to be wholly covered with houses, it is utterly 
inadmissible, I think, that an}7 water from it should go into Fresh 
Pond which can be kept out of it. 
Now, because I signed that petition, I don’t want any thing to 
be done that shall be hasty or insufficient, and I don’t want any 
money squandered. I don’t liesitate to say that there has been a 
great deal of money squandered. So far as I am concerned, I 
would be very glad to see an intelligent commission, without any 
preconceived opinions as to what should be done, take this matter 
in hand, and, after faithful investigation, tell us whether there is 
danger in allowing the territory around the pond to be settled, and, 
if there is, what ought to be done about it. I shall be glad to 
believe that there is no danger; but I am not prepared to believe 
now that the danger is not one that before long will be a pressing 
one. There is not a ■ citizen in Cambridge who would not be 
happy to learn that there is no danger. No harm can possibly 
come from having this question thoroughly investigated. Then, 
too, the cost of acquiring the property around the pond should be 
looked into. Nobody knows now what it would cost, or what 
should be done with the territory, if acquired. 39 
The question should be considered whether drains are to be laid, 
and, if so, where. As for a drain around the margin of Fresh 
Pond, I don’t believe we shall get half enough benefit from it to 
pay for the expense. I do not believe that a pond fed by springs, 
as this is, can be preserved to any great extent by putting a sewer 
around it. But it is undoubtedly true (I cannot well conceive it 
to be otherwise) that the water which falls upon the territory around 
Fresh Pond does find its way into the pond below the surface of 
the ground, as the water enters my little pond, which }’OU are all, 
perhaps, familiar with. I will tell you what I have found in respect 
to that. Formerly there were streams flowing into it across 
Craigie Street and from Garden Street. About the time I pur- 
chased that land, the city laid sewers which cut off the surface 
water, which had flowed freely into my pond before. I was per- 
plexed about what to do. I found the bottom filled with mud and 
decaying matter. I dug it out, and came down to a perfectly hard 
bottom, and, even in a very dry time, found freelj* bub- 
bling up from the bottom. When the seasons not verj’ dry, there 
is a large stream of water flowing from it, though there is no visi- 
ble water entering it. It all comes up from the bottom. Now, I 
believe that what is true of that little pond is true of Fresh Pond, 
and that the water flowing into it from the surrounding territory 
is beyond the reach of an intercepting sewer. In a locality where 
the water runs over the surface, a sewer would probably drain it, 
and take the water off somewhere else. 
Now, I agree with the gentlemen, that the city ought to do some- 
thing. It ought to set about finding out what to do at once. 
There should be no superficial examination. Let us have an intel- 
ligent examination, which will show us, either that Fresh Pond is a 
suitable source of water-supply, or, if it is not suitable, let us know 
why not; and, if there is anything that can be done to prevent 
its coming to harm, let us know what, and do it, whatever be the 
cost, if we have no other resource ; because there is no considera- 
tion like that of health. * 
Now, in regard to the financial aspect of the question. I sup- 
pose I have spent about as much breath in abusing the city about 
getting in debt as anybody I expect to do a great deal more in 
that direction. My theory is, that the city should not run in debt 
for any current expenses, and that a city never has airy extraor- 
dinary expenses which should be met by loans, unless like the city 
of Boston at the time of the great fire. I have made but one ex- 40 
ception, and that is when there is a property to be acquired or 
created, yielding an income. The cost of such property may, I 
think, be properly treated as an investment. It is a mere form 
whether the money is represented by stock on which dividends are 
to be paid, or bonds on which interest is paid. In either case 
the property has to pay the interest on the investment. Last 
year the city of Cambridge increased its water-debt, and increased 
its sinking-fund to meet that debt. It increased the debt fifteen 
thousand dollars, and paid forty-five thousand dollars into the sink- 
ing-fund. I cannot see why it should not have taken the fifteen 
thousand dollars out of the surplus, and made the debt smaller by 
paying olf thirty thousand dollars, unless it was to furnish somebody 
a chance to steal the securities which make up the sinking-fund. 
Now, if the city of Cambridge would stop the folly of providing 
sinking-funds, and would treat the money which has been spent on 
its water-works as so much capital invested, and would pay a fair 
interest on that cqjpital, and, if they are able to do so, charge rates 
which should provide’♦or all future improvements, and go to re- 
duce the capital invested, it would, I think, be better than to go on 
increasing both debt and sinking-fund. I think that Mr. Rindge 
has shown that more money may be invested, and yet be a paying 
investment; because there is a surplus of income above the interest 
on the capital now invested. It is clear, even the present 
year, as I understand, that the water-works have more than paid 
the interest on the capital invested, and that we could incur, if need 
be, a considerably larger debt, invest considerably more* capital, 
and yet easily pay the interest upon it. 
Mr. Rindge. I would like to give the gentlemen a little infor- 
mation in regard to the slaughter-house now being built near Fresh 
Pond. In that business they use a large amount of ice. They 
can obtain ice in the localit}7 where they are building at a very low 
price. I understand they can freight their pork from the slaughter- 
house into Boston on Atlantic Avenue at a less expense than they 
can team it from Cambridge to Boston. Now, if one establish- 
ment can make such a saving by erecting their works upon the 
borders of Fresh Pond, why may not others in the same line of 
business do the same thing there? 
President Carter (of the Water Board). I was very much 
interested in the remarks of Mr. Smith, whom I knew had given 
a great deal of attention to the water-works, particularly in regard 
to Fresh Pond. I rise simply to correct some errors which he 41 
seems to have made to-night. I presume he did not intend to 
state any thing that might be called an error. If I understand 
him, he charges the squandering of the public money on account 
of the erection of a building and the purchase of a new engine. 
Just before this second engine was purchased by the Water Board, 
we had an engine of an estimated capacity of five millions. He 
stated that it was estimated at six millions. The old pump that 
we bought with the old works, with a capacity of three millions, 
was nearly worn out. We were pumping at different seasons of 
the year from three to five million gallons of water a da}r. I know 
that Mr. Smith, and everybody else in this room, will say that 
when our consumption is five million gallons, with a pump of that 
capacity, we certainly need another in case this one should break 
down. While repairs are being made, we must have another one 
of equal capacity. I do not think that men connected with the 
water-works in a city of fifty thousand inhabitants, where manu- 
factories are to be provided for, as well as water for domestic pur- 
poses, would be considered men who knew their business, unless 
fehey had another engine of equal capacity. All those important 
parts connected with the water-works must be duplicated, and 
they have been. Then he tells us that we have built a large engine- 
house, and putin pumps with a capacity for four. We have only 
capacity for three. 
Mr. Smith. I stated that the building was large enough for 
four. 
President Carter. Provision was made for only three. 
Mr. Smith. And I say that the building is large enough to 
hold four just such engines, though it is true that foundations were 
put in for three only ; and it won’t hold any the more because of 
the granite pillars there. 
President Carter. In 1863-64 we pumped, in twenty-four 
hours, five million five hundred thousand gallons. Suppose the 
engine had broken down. Suppose we had had our old engine 
with a capacity of three million gallons, and it had broken down. 
We could not have supplied the city for twenty-four hours. I do 
not say that the Water Board have not made errors ; but I deny 
that we have squandered mone}r. I say the Board have used good 
judgment, and have been backed up by the City Council at the 
time they appropriated the money. Another thing stated by Mr. 
Smith was, that the Water Board, after talking about draining the 
Cushing-street district, had put a sewer into Alewife Brook. You 42 
know very well, Mr. Maj’or, that the Water Board never have had 
any thing to do with the sewerage of this city. They have put 
no sewage into Alewife Brook. 
Mr. Smith. I did not say it was the Water Board who did it. 
I said it was done. 
President Carter. I understood you to say it was the Water 
Board. Then, in regard to the general subject of purchasing land, 
I did expect to get some information from Mr. Smith. Suppose 
you get it: he is unable to tell us any advantage after purchasing 
this land. There is the whole question. I, for one, do not know 
what we shall do with it after we have made the purchase. I think 
there is not much doubt but some improvement can be made on 
the borders of the pond, if we own it; but as he tells you, and tells 
you very truly, there isn’t much water, if any, flowing into the pond 
from the surface. That is true, and has alwaj’s been true. There 
are, as we know, and as has been quoted from reports from the 
Water Board, some places around the pond that should be taken 
care of, some flowage of water and drainage. We know it gets in 
there at some seasons of the year. We have had conferences with 
members of the City Council, and believe the thing may be brought 
about in the best manner possible at some time. It may be, as 
has been stated by the petitioners here, that there has been some 
negligence. It is possible that the land should have been taken, 
or a sewer constructed, or something of that sort done which has 
not been done. Possibly that may be so. I certainly am not here 
to oppose any project of this kind. I would like the fullest inves- 
tigation in regard to it. I know that the Water Board think that 
the city should sooner or later own the borders of Fresh Pond. 
It is a question of time, and it is a question for the CitjT Council 
to get such information upon as they can; and I have no doubt 
the Water Board will do every thing in their power to help the 
matter along in the best possible manner. 
Mr. Smith. I wish to say, in regard to the controversy, that 
my suggestion was, that somebody charged with the duty by the 
cityr should inquire what it will cost to purchase the land, and 
how it can be obtained from the owners. But what I have insisted 
upon long before this evening, is, that this whole subject should 
undergo that investigation which it never has received. 
I will mention one circumstance, and, as no member of this 
Water Board was a member of that Board, it will not be personal 
to any present member of the Board. In 1872 the Water Board 43 
put themselves on record as saying that they could demonstrate 
that the suppty of water in Fresh Pond was not dependent upon 
the water-shed, but that it came from some other source. The 
next year the Water Board came forward, and said it was a 
mistake. They said they estimated three million gallons per inch 
over the surface of the pond as the supply, and they should have 
estimated five millions. A year or two afterward, they reported 
that the engine pumped three hundred and twenty gallons at each 
stroke, and, a year or two after that, they discovered that it didn’t, 
and that they had made a mistake of twenty gallons per strode. 
While I do not wish to criticise such things too freely, I think 
it well to call attention to them. Such mistakes do not inspire 
confidence. I think there should be an investigation of this sub- 
ject to set at rest with the people the question whether Fresh Pond 
is now, or is to be hereafter, a suitable source of water- 
supply, and see what can be done, if there is a necessity for doing 
any thing. 
No other petitioner desiring to speak, his Honor the Mayor 
announced that any opponents of the petition would now be 
heard. 
REMARKS OF WILLIAM WRIGHT, ESQ. 
Mr. Mayor, — I have a very few and brief remarks to make. I 
have listened with a great deal of attention to the gentlemen who 
have presented this petition. I do not propose to attempt to con- 
trovert any points they have made: I simply wish to look at the 
matter from another stand-point. I remember a ver}T lengthy 
argument made a few }’ears ago/after running the city into debt 
by the filling of the low lands. Those arguments were brought for- 
ward, and carried to the legislature, and the necessit}' of giving 
the city this power was fully stated. At that time it was only 
intended to fill a little territory in the Washington-street district. 
We all know how the power was exercised by the cit}'. I heard 
some of the arguments used b}T the gentlemen before the legisla- 
ture. It was stated that the winds of heaven invaded it from the 44 
windows of the mansions of the rich and poor. They only wanted 
to get a little entering-wedge ; and we know where it went to. 
Could you find a man in the city of Cambridge to-day who has the 
hardihood to say “ I am responsible for filling those low lands ” ? 
Mr. Smith. I went before that committee. 
Mr. Wright. I heard the remarks of the gentleman before 
the Committee. I don’t wish to make this a personal discussion ; 
but I do wish to call the attention of the City Council to the great 
danger of making this entering-wedge. We know how plausibly 
these arguments are brought out upon the surface. I remember a 
great many of them. We know what the low lands have done for 
the city: we know how the different mayors of Cambridge have 
tried to shift the responsibilit}7 for them upon their predecessors, 
and how none of them are willing to father it, because it has 
involved the city in a debt of half a million dollars, and the tax- 
payers are feeling it to-day. The taxes to-day on a valuation of 
fifty-five millions would bring it about seven dollars on a thousand 
that we are required to pay for interest and the contributions to 
this sinking-fund. 
Now, do we propose to increase these burdens upon the people 
at a time of business stagnation all over the country ? Are we 
going into a land-speculation that will cost half a million dollars, 
when we don’t know whether it will accomplish any thing or not? 
Not a gentleman here has testified that it will preserve the purity 
of the water. We do not know whether five or ten rods will be 
sufficient: it is a serious question. 
Before I came down here, I looked over the address of your 
Honor at the inauguration of the present city government, and 
made a few extracts from it. In the first place, it states that the 
amount required for interest and sinking-fund is more than six 
dollars and fifty cents on an estimated valuation of fifty-five mil- 
lions ; which I think is over-estimated by about three millions. 
Further on in the Inaugural it is stated that this City Council were 
elected on the issue of economy and reform, and, “ for the faithful 
performance of this desired result, we must be held responsible.” 
That was the language of your Honor at the inauguration. On 
the same occasion, after speaking upon the reduction of the city 
debt by your Honor’s immediate predecessor, of sixty-five thou- 
sand dollars, occurs this language : — 
“ I think you will agree with me, that there is only one course for us to 
pursue; that is, strictly to carry out the principles of the platform upon 45 
which we were elected, and to take a firm stand that there shall be no in- 
crease of the general city debt during this municipal year.” 
I believe, sir, that that was the principle upon which this present 
City Council was elected. From what I have seen of this Council, 
I believe that they will abide by that platform, and carry it out. 
While I do not dispute any proposition made by the petitioners 
to-night, I do contend that this is not a time to add to the burdens 
of the people by increasing the taxation. 
Subsequently Mr. Wrigiit added,— 
From the remarks that have been made this evening, it would be 
natural to suppose that there had never been any investigation of 
this subject. I had the honor to present to the Board of Aldermen 
a petition two years ago, signed by six or seven hundred tax- 
payers in my ward; and at that time it was suggested that a com- 
mittee be appointed to investigate this subject, and propose any 
plan that would be feasible to protect the water, and purify it, and 
have the water analyzed. That Committee was appointed; and 
they reported upon several analyses of the water, and that it was 
as pure as any water in the Commonwealth. I believe your Honor 
was chairman of that Committee. They consulted with the 
Water Board, and said, as I should say now, that they believed 
that the care of the water-works was in competent hands, and 
that they were looking out for the interest of the city and the 
purity of the water. They also quoted the remarks of one of the 
chemists who analyzed that water, — that, if nature was let alone, 
she would take care of these impurities, and that the water was 
very much purer than the people thought it: in other words, that 
the contamination of the water was more in the imagination than in 
fact. There have been several examinations of this kind, and the 
result has been the same. I was surprised that the gentleman who 
read from the reports failed to mention the fact that the analyses 
have been in support of the purity of the water. 
REMARKS OF S. II. DUDLEY, ESQ. 
I had supposed, that, when the petitioners had presented their 
side of the question, the hearing would be extended, perhaps, for 
those who desired to criticise, or had objections to, the petition, to 
say something for themselves. This petition was presented to my- 
self for my signature. 46 
Now, this is a matter of extreme importance to every house- 
holder, every citizen, and every tax-payer. It is not to be consid- 
ered lightly. A petition of this kind is not to be signed simply 
because it is presented to any gentleman; but he is to consider 
carefully what it means. Now, because I was very desirous that 
something should be done to preserve the purity of Fresh-pond 
water, — and not only preserve its purity, but make it more pure 
than it is at present, — I hesitated whether I should not sign that 
petition. 
But, sir, I was not clear that the proposition which seems to be 
embodied in that petition was the one which of necessity, or per- 
haps in an}* degree or to any extent, would subserve the purpose 
for which the petition, or those who got up the petition, seemed to 
be aiming. How can we say that the taking of any strip of land 
five rods in width, or, perhaps, ten, or fifteen, or twenty, rods in 
width, is going to bring us such a result that the waters of Fresh 
Pond are to be made purer than they are to-day, or retained in the 
same purity that they are to-day ? 
We all know, and I think we are pretty well satisfied, of the 
character of Fresh Pond, from the remarks made here this evening, 
that its supply comes not from the surface water, or, if it is, it is 
so far away that it cannot be called surface water, and reaches the 
pond by percolation. It is said by some that it comes from 
springs ; but we don’t know where it comes from. 
I presume that the area of the present Fresh Pond is large 
enough to make a perceptible difference in the amount of water 
which reaches Fresh Pond, and enhance the amount which is 
there at any one time. But it does not all come from surface 
water: consequently, you may take your strip of land five rods 
in width, or any number of rods wide, around Fresh Pond; you 
may build a drive-way upon it; you may build a cemented sewer 
within that drive-way: and that will not prevent the water from 
getting into Fresh Pond which we desire not to get into it. Con- 
sequently, I did not feel as though I ought, as a citizen of Cam- 
bridge, to sign that petition. 
This morning I took occasion to make some examination of the 
surroundings of Fresh Pond. I found within a very few rods of 
the border of Fresh Pond a Cambridge sewer which has been 
flowing into Alewife Brook ; and nothing but a simple planking 
protected the waters of Fresh Pond from the polluted waters of 
the brook. Anybody who knows any thing about the laws of 47 
chemistry and the laws of nature, about different liquids joining 
each other, knows that such a partition will allow the waters of 
Alewife Brook to pass through it, and that impurities from the 
brook must go into Fresh Pond, and Consequently contaminate 
the water. I found the odors from the outlet of that sewer noth- 
ing like those from the rose. I was informed that there was 
another sewer that entered Alewife Brook only about a thousand 
feet, or perhaps a little beyond, towards North Avenue. I also 
found that another sewer entered Alewife Brook ; and there it was 
backing up to Fresh Pond through this partition. I looked at the 
water on the Fresh Pond side of the partition. I am frank to say 
that the water didn’t look any purer than it does in an ordinary 
mud-puddle. Those things presented some thoughts to my mind, 
and it seems to me that we have not yet got to the bottom of the 
discussion of the purity of Fresh-pond water. 
There is another thing. I went out and looked at this slaughter- 
house nuisance, and found that the only possible sewage which is 
to come from that slaughter-house is to be emptied into Alewife 
Brook, near the mouth of our own sewer, with a little three-inch 
iron pipe. I found that the cellar of this slaughter-house was 
made of cement four inches thick, placed upon a gravel flooring, 
which was pounded down four inches before the cement was placed 
upon it. I found ever}’ thing connected with the slaughter-house 
constructed in the most substantial and careful manner. Whether 
that will prevent any effluvia, or sediment, or any thing objectiona- 
ble connected with the slaughter-house, from entering into the 
water, I am at present unable to say. But, notwithstanding the 
great precautions taken by these gentleman, I do not believe that 
we should relax our etforts to keep Fresh-pond water pure. 
Now, it seems to me there is no one particular method presented 
to us which may be said to be a plan or method. Perhaps we may 
say that no plan has been presented to us here to-night. No plan 
has been presented which can be called a plan; but we have 
heard enough said to set us all tot thinking, and cause us to see 
that no amount of investigation will be too much to show us what 
course we shall pursue to keep the waters of Fresh Pond pure, and 
keep them as pure as they are to-day. Let the Water Board, or 
some Board, take measures to make the investigations as sug- 
gested here, and tell us what to do to keep Fresh Pond pure, so 
that we shall not suffer from epidemics, and so that those who 
come after us will not say that we have been derelict in duty. 48 
Councilman Emery. I understood you to say, that, if we should 
put a sewer around Fresh Pond, it would not prevent impure water 
from coming into it. Did I understand you to state that as an 
ascertained fact? Do you mean to state it as a scientific fact, 
from researches which you have made ? 
Mr. Dudley. No, sir, I only stated it this wa}': if you take a 
strip of land five rods around Fresh Pond, and put a macadamized 
road-way around it, built according to the best experience we have, 
you will not prevent a certain amount of water reaching Fresh 
Pond, as I understand it. That is to say, the mere water which 
comes from the surface is not the fresh water which reaches this 
pond, or any other. It will percolate through the soil. You have 
got to build a coffer-dam all aiound it, before you can prevent the 
water from reaching it. 
Councilman Emery. Then the road would be a kind of sieve, 
would it not? 
Mr. Dudley. Certainly. I think such a road as Boston has 
around Chestnut Hill reservoir would be no assistance at all. 
There is no. question, Mr. Mayor, in regard to taxation. What 
difference does it make, whether it is taxation appearing in our 
bills, or in the water-rates which we have to pay? The citizens 
of Cambridge have got to pay for the water-works, and for any 
improvements made in them, and for every cent expended upon 
Fresh Pond, or upon any thing connected with the water-works. 
You may talk about the sinking-funds, or about any thing else you 
please in regard to it. After all, the citizens of Cambridge have 
got to pay it in some wray or another; and this talk about the 
profit which comes from the water-works, — what difference does it 
make? Of course, I am not criticising it one way or the other ; but 
we have got to pay all those expenses. It isn’t the people of 
Boston, Belmont, or Arlington, but the people of Cambridge, who 
have to pay for it. What difference does it make, whether we call 
it taxes, or water-bills? 
REMARKS OF MR. DANIEL A. BUCKLEY. 
I desire to rise simply to object to this proposition to purchase 
this land. The gentlemen coming here directly interested in this 
purchase have made no case whatever. Mr. Rindge, who is 
known as one of the largest real-estate owners, laid great stress 49 
upon the fact that a great many more would have signed the peti- 
tion. By hiring a few more men, and making a little more exer- 
tion, all the citizens of Cambridge could be got to sign a petition 
to keep Fresh-pond water pure as possible. After hearing all the 
arguments they have advanced, I am satisfied that they have made 
out no case whatever. 
Gentlemen must understand that that water will percolate 
through the soil, and get into the pond, and that, if it is impure, it 
will make the water of the pond impure. Now, there is no way, 
as I understand, that you can prevent it, onl}’ by shutting off- that 
water altogether. There is one way of preventing the water from 
the slaughter-house and Alewife Brook from reaching that pond, 
and that would be to box it, as 3’ou do tide-water from dwellings. 
That is the only plan that has been suggested to me. 
Then, again, you must take into consideration, that if the town 
of Belmont allows a slaughter-house there, or any number of them, 
you cannot prevent it until you prove that it is a nuisance ; and 
then it will be too late. 
We have heard from a member of the bar who always commands 
the highest fees ; and he comes here, and pleads his own case and 
that of the citizens of Cambridge. Now, gentlemen, I question 
whether you will find a lake in the whole Commonwealth whose 
water is entirely pure ; and then the only question is, How far, and 
to how great an extent, will these foul particles pass through sand, 
or any other gate, that it meets with as an obstruction ? 
Then, again, our City Solicitor asked, Suppose you purchase this 
land, then there is this great public right which you will have to 
petition for from the legislature before you can accomplish any 
thing. It is a right we all possess. After raising such insur- 
mountable barriers against giving us any rights at the State House 
at all, how can we expect to obtain this privilege? It is a subject 
that should be pursued with great care, especially if it is going to 
cost five hundred thousand dollars. With such a feature in this 
case, how can we go before that Augustinian body, and expect them 
to give us special rights of such magnitude, that no other citizens 
of the State of Massachusetts possess ? 
The gentleman correctly stated that it would make no difference 
in our taxation, as the citizens of Cambridge have all got to pay 
for it. That is the trouble. We are all taxed to death. The 
same parties who pay the taxes pay the water-rates. We are 
crying for a reduction in our water-rates. But I have said a 
great deal more, and occupied a great deal more time, than I 
intended to. 50 
Mr. Mayor, and Gentlemen of the City Council, — I was 
one of the signers of the petition, and am very glad I signed it. 
Perhaps the proper place for me to speak would have been before 
the case for the remonstrants was begun ; but, if there is no objec- 
tion, I will make a few remarks now. Life is very dear to me, 
and I desire to live as long as possible. If life is worth any 
thing, it is worth protecting. This water should be as pure as 
any thing we eat. If any thing can be done to make Fresh Pond 
purer, I think it is for the interests of all citizens to see that it 
is done. Certainly it is one of the duties that naturally come 
upon you as members of the city government. The petition re- 
quests you to take immediate steps, under the authority conferred 
upon you by the legislature, to secure, bj* purchase or otherwise, 
sufficient land upon the margin of Fresh Pond to protect our water- 
supply from pollution. Now, sir, it seems to me, that, if any thing 
under heaven can be done to accomplish that result, it is the 
duty of this city government to do it. And, sir, I go further, and 
say, that unless some proposition can be presented by the remon- 
strants,, wdiich in your judgment is superior to that suggested by 
the petitioners, it is your duty to answer the prayer of the peti- 
tioners, by granting their request. Their proposition is before you. 
If any gentleman has a better one, let him present it. I have 
faith in the judgment of your Honor, and your associates about the 
Board, to think that you will accept it. The remarks made by 
every gentleman present this evening recognize that it is impera- 
tive, if we care for our lives and health, that something should 
be done. 
The purity of Fresh-pond water has been a very important 
question to me for the past few 3Tears; so much so, that, having 
a place in the immediate vicinity, last 3'ear I went to the 
expense of building a well upon it in order that I might drink 
from it when feeling solicitous about the purity of our water- 
suppty, especially if I found the well-water pure. If any thing 
can be done to make our water-suppty pure, I think it should be 
done, and that nobody should be at the expense of digging a well. 
I sa3r again, as I said before, if an3’ better proposition can be 
made b3r the remonstrants, I should like to hear it; and, if not, I 
say the prayer of the petitioners should be granted. If there is a 
better plan, I should be glad to have it adopted. I think this is a 
REMARKS OF CHARLES E. RAYMOND, ESQ. 51 
question of so much importance, that it demands the best attention 
that science can give it, if nothing else, and I hope that a com- 
mission of the most eminent men who can be procured at any 
reasonable expense will be created for the purpose of investi- 
gating the matter, and recommending some reasonable plan for 
increasing the purity of our water. 
REMARKS OF MR. DUDLEY (CONTINUED). 
I did not mean to say, and I doubt whether any gentleman here 
who has spoken, and who is not a petitioner, meant to say, or to 
convey the idea, that he was a remonstrant. What we all desire, 
of course, is pure water. I did not sign the petition, because it 
did not seem to me that the particular thing which the petitioners 
asked for was the best thing to be done. But it seems to me, that, 
if wre can take measures to find out the best thing to be done, then 
the petitioners will have accomplished their purpose, and we shall 
all be satisfied. 
President Carter of the Water Board was called upon by a 
member of the City Council to give his opinion of the water ; but 
he declined to do so, as Professor Sharpies, who had made several 
analyses of it, was present, and he therefore called upon him. 
REMARKS OF PROFESSOR S. P. SHARPLES, 
Professor Sharpies said, — 
I believe that about all I have to say upon that question I said 
in a report made to the City Council about two years ago. I have 
seen no occasion yet to change my mind in regard to any thing I 
said in that report. One or two things have changed since the 
date of that report, and I think I have called attention to them. 
One is the increasing danger of contamination from the Cushing- 
street district. That, as has been shown by analysis, is steadily 
growing worse. The other is from the Concord-avenue sewer, 
which enters Alewife Brook at present much too near Fresh Pond. 52 
But that whole matter of the sewer and that valley is before the 
City Council now, in a petition from the city of Somerville, and no 
doubt will receive immediate attention. The sewer, sooner or 
later, will have to be extended the whole length of Alewife Brook, 
from Fresh Pond to tide-water, or to a tide-gate. I think that 
question is now before the City Council; so that any thing further 
said on that would hardly be useful. 
I have, within a few days, made a fresh examination of the 
water of the conduits. I made one last August. The two exami- 
nations are identical. I made a third one about two months ago. 
Fresh Pond is now at its worst during the whole of the year, 
because vegetation grows luxuriantly upon the pond, and in the 
fall that is decaying. If the pond does not freeze up by the first 
of January, it purifies itself. It may hang on till March or April, 
if we have an early freeze. We find it purest about the first of 
June, or later ; then the hot weather causes a little change, and a 
slight impurity sets in, and stays a little while; and there is a 
change of that kind each year. But since my investigations began 
(in 1875), I have seen no material change in the pond. 
I may say, that, in addition to the analysis of the water, I have 
been making microscopic examinations of the life found in the 
water as delivered in our houses through the pipes. Those are 
mostly such animal life as are found in pure waters, and it is not 
the animal life that is found in bad waters. 
I would like to make one more suggestion. Mr. Muzzey said, 
that after we acquired this strip of land, which the State law has 
given us the right to acquire, we could not keep off the trespassers. 
I would ask him, when we acquire that land, why we cannot keep 
them off. Are they not trespassers by crossing our land? and 
cannot we keep them off? 
Mr. Muzzey. I will try to make that portion of the discussion 
clear. I said I did not think we could get the land by application 
for annexation, until we owned the territory which we desired to 
have annexed. Then, I thought the legislature would grant us 
annexation, because we owned the land ; but 1 added, after we 
had accomplished this, and acquired the land by purchase and 
annexation, there would still remain the right (under the old 
REMARKS OF MR. BLISS (continued). 53 
colonial ordinance of 1647) in any person inhabiting the Common- 
wealth to cross that land, and go upon the waters for the purposes 
of fishing, boating, bathing, and taking ice ; so that if we made 
the first step, and became owners of the land around the pond, 
and next acquired it by annexation as the second step, the third 
step, — reached by having taken the two previous ones, — would 
be to ask the legislature, as we held the pond for a great and 
special public use, to extinguish all those general rights in the 
pond. That application, I believe, would then be successful. 
REMARKS OF HON. CHARLES H. SAUNDERS. 
I do not rise, sir, to say a word against any project to improve 
the character of Fresh-pond water. The petition before you, as 
has been truly said, contains a larger number of names and a 
larger representation of property, than any petition that ever came 
before the City Council. I have for years considered this matter 
of the purity of Fresh-pond water. I have felt that the supply of 
Fresh-pond water, at its best, would not exceed twenty-five years, 
and my mind has been fully made up that the relief we need for 
its protection is annexation. No man, or town, or city, can suc- 
cessfully stand against the petition of a city like Cambridge for 
the protection of the purity of its water-supply. A statute has 
been passed by the legislature the present year to protect all the 
water-supplies in the State, giving to the State Board of Health 
general supervision of all rivers, streams, and ponds in this 
Commonwealth, who will exercise their power in our behalf if 
found necessary (Act 1878, chap. 183). 
I believe that this year we are passing through a water-panic in 
Cambridge. It is with great regret that I see published in the 
papers reports that we are suffering from that source. Fresh Pond 
contains an area of a hundred and eighty acres, with a maximum 
depth of some seventy feet, and is, I believe, a purer supply than 
Cochituate or Mystic. If slight impurities reach the pond, they 
become thoroughly filtrated before the}7 reach our service-pipes for 
domestic uses. 
My opinion is, that annexation will give us all the relief we need, 
by having police jurisdiction over the territory, and also being sub- 
ject to the ordinances of our city, rather than a purchase of the 54 
land over which we can have no control. I am no alarmist about 
a water-supply. I was informed by a prominent citizen of Arling- 
ton, within a few da}’s, that their supply was sufficient to supply, 
besides Arlington, Cambridge and Somerville, with a sufficient 
head that would obviate any pumping at all. 
A doubt may be expressed whether the annexation of a strip of 
territory from Belmont can £>e obtained. I should say that Bel- 
mont, if it consulted its interest, would hold up both hands for 
annexation. Talk about annexation in Belmont, with taxes seven 
or eight dollars on a thousand, and in Cambridge eighteen ! What 
do they get there ? Are they not substantially as they were left by 
nature two hundred years ago? After annexation, their property 
would be worth twenty per cent more than before annexation. 
It is a territory to invite people to who do business in the metropo- 
lis, and who want homes in the suburbs. There are many men 
doing business in Boston who desire to live where they can have the 
advantages of a city government. Cambridge can give them all 
the water they w’ant, can give them a better police and fire depart- 
ment than they can ever have under a town government. It seems 
to me that annexation will give us just the relief we want. They 
may oppose us this year; but it seems to me, that, after the legis- 
lature have given us the use of this water for drinking-purposes, 
the voices of fifty thousand inhabitants to preserve and keep it 
pure will not be stifled. 
It seems to me that the suggestion of Mr. Smith is a good one. 
I think that some commission should take the subject into consid- 
eration, and repdrt, and make a thorough analysis of the water. 
I must say of the members of the Water Board, that I have full 
confidence in them. They have given a great deal of time to this 
subject, and have served the city faithfully. They are interested, 
with the whole of us, in providing pure water for Cambridge. 
Now, gentlemen, look at the financial matter. I have always 
lived in Cambridge, and I propose to remain here. I believe that 
no suburb of Boston is so desirable to locate in as Cambridge. 
The education our children get here, with the public improvements 
we possess, is alone enough to draw an increased population, 3’ear 
after 3Tear. 
I am no alarmist in regard to these matters. The expenditures 
made in the last seven 3’ears ; the filling of the low lands (all done 
in a time of inflation), have created debts that we are yearly taxing 
ourselves to pa3’. In this 3’ear (1878) we show a reduction of our 55 
debt virtually more than a quarter of*a million dollars. In,five 
years from to-day, six hundred and five thousand dollars of our 
cit\r debt become due, and the Sinking-fund Commissioners have 
alread}T the money to pay. In 1884 about seven hundred thousand 
dollars more become due, and we shall have the funds to paj\ In 
a few years, if the. policy we now pursue is carried out, we shall 
be able to show advantages which no city out of Boston can offer, 
and this outlay should be avoided if possible. 
Now, as to this purchase of land: I should be very sorry to see 
the city enter into any such operation as that, without the report of 
a commission, and without a virtual necessity for doing so. I 
believe we can get that property, sooner or later, by annexation. 
I believe that police jurisdiction over that territory will preserve 
the water from any contamination that may come from that source. 
I believe that the evil from the sewers alread}7 built upon the mar- 
gin of that pond is an inexcusable one, and should be attended to 
at once. 
I believe that the discussion this evening will prove profitable; 
that the subject will receive your serious attention. But, before 
any action is taken, I think a report from a proper commission, on 
which the Water Board should have a proper representation, should 
be made, giving all the sources of contamination. If it is deemed 
best to purchase that land, no one will hold up his hands sooner 
than I will to have it done. But, with the light I have, I think we 
can do more to keep that pond pure by annexation than in any 
other way. 
The hearing here closed.