William N. Locke
Research Note
The Rise and Demise of the Cattle Pound
Harpswell and Maine
This paper will examine why and how cattle pounds, which
date from early English and continental European practice, reappeared in
Maine at the end of the eighteenth century.[i] "Pound"
refers to an enclosure authorized by the voters of a particular town to
keep stray animals until they were claimed by the owner. One of the
first pounds in Maine was built in 1793 in Harpswell, a fishing and
farming community on Casco Bay where stray cattle[ii] were
causing serious damage in unfenced gardens and pastures. Setting up a
pound was so urgent that towns took immediate action as soon as
incorporation made it legally possible. Pounds were built throughout
Maine and colonial America. Then as towns grew larger, as fencing
materials improved, and as the laws governing impounding grew more
complicated, pounds fell into disuse.
Richard Wescott of South Harpswell has located one of
two stone pounds built in Harpswell. He has been so kind as to give
permission for the inclusion here of the three following excerpts from
his 1992 unpublished paper, "On Pounds and Burying Grounds," based on
Harpswell town reports:
The meets and bounds outlined in Farr's 1910
deed to the inhabitants of Harpswell can be seen today in the
stone walls at Harpswell Center which enclose the north, west,
and south sides of the burying ground on the west side of Route
123, and in the stone wall which runs northeast from the south
corner of the old pound on the east side of Route 123.
Actually, the location of the walls that formed two
sides and the South corner of the pound still can be determined,
although the structures are now ordinary stone walls. The change took
place some fifty years ago when most of the large stones were taken by
the State Highway Department to fill a marshy place in the road. The
start of the third side at the east corner of the pound is shown by a
few remaining big stones, while two others at the center of the fourth
side were probably part of the doorway. Since the Harpswell Historical
Society has been authorized by the selectmen to "bring the Town Pound to
the attention of the public for its historic and educational value,"
volunteers have cleaned up brush and rubbish in the pound. This revealed
some of the stones of the other two sides and the south corner.
Wescott's paper also provides clues to the history of
Harpswell's pounds and pound keepers. The town was incorporated by the
Massachusetts General Court on January 25, 1758, as the thirteenth town
in Maine. At the town meeting the following year the voters took it upon
themselves:
to build two [log] pounds in which to place
stray animals. They ordered one to be built near the meeting
house on the Neck [Harpswell Neck], and the other… to be erected
on Joseph Thompson's land on Great Island. Thompson and William
Tarr on the Neck were elected as pound keepers....
On March 25,1783, Harpswell ...voted once again
to build two pounds. One on Great Island. Two months later the
town awarded to John Roduck fifty-four pounds for building "the
animal pound" on Great Island....
The fifty-four pounds paid to John Roduck indicates two
new developments in pound construction: First, the town paid for the
work; and second, the structure was to be built of stone, not wood. The
stone pound on Harpswell Neck near the Old Meeting House was not built
until ten years later, but is still one of the earliest known in the
state. The earlier one authorized on Great Island has not been located
definitively.
Pound keepers were elected from time to time until 1810,
the year of the last reference to a pound in Harpswell town reports:
Soon thereafter William Dunning, Jr., the
town clerk, appointed John Curtis and Nehemiah Curtis Jr., as
"two disinterested persons" to estimate the damage done to Alcot
Stover by the sheep which he had seized and impounded in the
pound on the Neck and [determine] how many of those sheep would
be sufficient in value to make up for his losses by their
encroaching upon his land. The Curtises reported that Stover had
suffered a $3.50 loss. Since the sheep were worth $1.25 each, he
should be awarded four of them for his damages and trouble.
The brief references in the town reports leave us with a
number of questions. For example, what caused pounds, which date back to
European Medieval times, to be resurrected in the colonies? How were the
early wooden pounds financed? And why were they replaced by stone? For
answers, it may be helpful to consider what other Maine towns were
doing. All faced similar problems with wandering livestock, and methods
of resolving them spread rapidly, thanks to a floating population of
teachers, preachers, woodsmen, ship builders, blacksmiths, and peddlers
to carry news and ideas from one place to another.
Cattle pounds became a widespread feature of the hundred-year transition
from exploring, hunting, and wood cutting to farming. When the isolated
farm came to have near neighbors, pounds answered an urgent need for
protection against stray animals. It is hard, today, to appreciate the
impact of cattle grazing in a garden or in the wrong pasture. For
families on subsistence farms, the winter's food for both humans and
animals was at stake. Moreover, in certain seasons male animals on the
loose created another difficulty: it was important for owners to be able
to choose what male bred with what female.
Gardens were small and the return from fencing them was large, so
gardens were fenced early, often by poles simply driven into the ground
side-by-side. Pastures were larger; fencing them was difficult and
expensive, so some were not fenced. Yet with near neighbors, cattle
could easily stray from one pasture to another. At the earliest town
meetings there were angry demands for an end to damage by marauding
cattle. Towns may have hastened their incorporation partly because the
election of pound keepers was apparently accepted as establishing a
legal basis for impounding strays.
From
the beginning several implicit concepts underlie the pound solution to
the stray cattle problem: First, the owner was responsible for damage
done by his animals; second, it was in the public interest that the
person harmed or others should round up and drive offending animals to
the pound ‑ originally the pound keeper's barn or farmyard; third, to
get his animals back, the owner should pay for damage done. Later, two
more concepts were added: the owner was to pay for the cost of feeding
and caring for impounded animals, and fines were to be levied on the
owner by the town. Eventually, the state legislature incorporated these
and other sanctions.
When pound keeping in barns and in farmyards became too
onerous, towns throughout the District or later the State of Maine
authorized construction of one or more log pounds in strategic locations
on land loaned for the purpose. No money was appropriated. Trees were
there for the felling, and neighbors, no doubt, joined in the common
effort, as they did for roads and barns. Later on, more prosperous
voters would appropriate money to pay for the work. Then lob pounds were
replaced by more secure and permanent stole structures.
Specifications in an 1840 Edgecomb town warrant required
walls up to seven feet high, four feet thick at the bottom and eighteen
inches at the top, with double-thick plank doors and iron hinges and
locks. The area enclosed was to be 1,200 to 1,600 square feet. (See
Table 1 for other examples.) These massive structures, built without
mortar, were designed not only to keep the animals in but also to keep
their owner’s from spiriting them away some dark night without paying
for feed and damages
Pounds had a finite life, related to the development of
the community. By 1810 the increased density of coastal towns like
Harpswell, the enclosure of pastures and the rise of civic
responsibility put an end to strays, hence to the need for pounds.
Vienna incorporated in 1802, built a stone pound in 1835 when its stray
cattle phase was almost over; it was "not used after 1840." Another
factor in the decline of the cattle pound was a steady drop in the rate
of incorporation of new towns after the 1830s. (See Table 2.) By then,
the colonizing fervor had begun to sour before the reality of remote,
unproductive lands. By the 1880s the farming population was in full
retreat except in Aroostook County. Farms in marginal areas were being
abandoned. Forest, always lying in wait, returned to swallow up fields,
stone walls, cellar holes - and an occasional pound. Families and even
whole towns went west or to the city, drawn by the promise of better
living.[iii] The
final blow to pounds came in the 1870s with the introduction of cheap,
effective barbed wire.
Further evidence of the development and the decline of
pounds in Maine comes from legislation passed at the state level.
Starting in 1820 when Maine became a state, the legislature was
confronted with urgent demands for "curbing stray beasts" in towns that
were not taking action on the matter. The legislature responded with
seven acts between 1820 and 1846, all approved by the governor.
Selections from three of these follow.
First there was enabling legislation, such as an 1820
statute: "An Act Extending the Powers of Towns to Restrain Cattle
Running at Large," reading in part:
Be it enacted...that the inhabitants of any
town in this State, may at any legal town meeting, order and
direct that any particular description of neat cattle [bovines]
or other comonable [that is, authorized to graze on the town
common land] beasts, shall not go at large within certain
particular parts of such town, without a keeper, under the
penalties now provided bylaw in similar cases, and to be
recovered in the same manner.[iv]
Apparently the towns did not act fast enough, perhaps
due to resistance from cattle owners whose rights to common pasturage
were at stake. Another law in 1821 adopted a mandatory, rather than
enabling tone:
Each town shall keep and maintain a sufficient
pound or pounds, in such place or places therein as the town
shall direct; wherein horses, asses, mules, swine, goats, sheep
and neat cattle may be impounded and kept, for the causes
hereinafter mentioned; and any town that shall neglect, for the
space of six months, to provide and maintain such a pound shall
forfeit and pay the sum of fifty dollars, for the use of the
county….[v]
Still, in this and other acts stone was not specified
for the pounds, offering towns an easy way out.
The state laws quickly became complicated with demands
for paperwork and schedules for punishments, as shown by this 1834 act:
There shall be annually chosen in every town a
suitable person to keep each pound therein, who shall be sworn
to the faithful discharge of his trust. And he shall have and
keep a book, wherein he shall enter at length, the certificates
he shall receive from the persons, committing beasts to the
pound, or finding the stray beasts; shall record a single copy
of all advertisements by him posted or published, and shall note
therein the time when a beast was impounded, and the time when
and the person by whom taken away;....[vi]
Having entangled the injured farmer in red tape, the
legislature threw him a sop:
That whoever shall rescue or release any beast
after being taken into custody or being in the possession of any
person, for the causes in this act mentioned, or prevent in any
way the impounding of any beast, or occasion the escape thereof,
so that the law be evaded; the wrong doer shall forfeit a sum
not exceeding twenty dollars nor less than five dollars,
according to the circumstances and aggravation of the case; and
shall be further liable to pay to the party injured in an action
of the case, the full damages with charges and costs, which he
might have received by impounding the beast….[vii]
Later, in 1871, A.G. Lembroke, speaking before a State
Board of Agriculture meeting, showed in caustic commentary how these
well-intentioned legislative efforts to protect the interests of
everyone ‑ owners, offended parties, and stray animals ‑ had been
carried to such extremes that they protected no one:
If you wish to impound a beast which you have
found on your premises, you should first ascertain that there is
a pound in the town; secondly that a pound-keeper was chosen;
thirdly, that he was sworn; fourthly, that he gave bonds;
fifthly, that those bonds were approved by the municipal
officers of the town; sixthly, that the municipal officers have
fixed and caused to be recorded the pound‑keeper's compensation
for keeping and feeding beasts committed to his custody. Then
you must proceed strictly according to law. You must take up
that beast, and within ten days you must drive that beast to the
town pound, and make a certificate, stating your name, your
residence, a description of the animal, the close [enclosure] in
which the damage was done, the name of the town in which the
close or farm is, and make a claim for your damages and unpaid
charges…Now how are you going to take care of your neighbor's
cattle if this impounding is as difficult as I have described
it, And it certainly is….[viii]
Finally, Samuel Wasson, also before the Board of Agriculture, poured
scorn on the daunting muddle of requirements facing those who would
impound a stray animal damaging crops:
But suppose stray cattle, unlawfully in a
public way [road], pass therefrom into your garden or
corn-field. What protection is by law afforded? Why, as a
law-abiding citizen, you must house, water, feed, and otherwise
care for the comfort of such invading beasts for the space of
ten days, waiting for an owner to "turn up";…If no owner calls
before or at the expiration of the martyrdom‑days, the beasts
must be committed to the pound, or you forfeit one percent on
their value for each week. Joy go with him who attempts to
impound an estray, for with such an attempt comes a swarm of
vexations, petty yet powerful as the wasps and hornets of
Canaan.[ix]
The damage done by stray cattle in early farming
communities brought forth an age-old response: the cattle pound. Pound
keepers were elected at town meetings soon after incorporation,
reflecting the urgency of keeping roaming animals out of gardens and
pastures. At first, pound keepers' barns, barnyards, or specially built
log enclosures served as pounds. Later, towns contracted for massive
stone structures with heavy, locked gates, not only to keep animals in
but also to prevent owners from "liberating" them without paying costs
and damages.
Roughly from 1760 to 1860, spreading across the state
inland and from south to north, town dwellers quickly experienced the
need for pounds. This vanished with better fencing and a denser and more
prosperous population, accompanied after 1880 by a steady decline in the
number of farms. It is ironic that often, soon after voters could afford
to build a fine stone pound, it was no longer needed, for stray cattle
had all but disappeared.
The legislature, too, failed to understand the
transitory nature of the stray cattle problem. To benefit cattle
raisers, themselves quitting the state for better pastures in the West,
laws were passed imposing such burdensome requirements that impounding
became impractical. Fortunately, by then pounds had run their course.
William N. Locke, Ph.D.
South Harpswell, Maine
NOTES
[i] The
author wishes to express his appreciation to Kirk F. Mohney,
architectural historian at the Maine Historic Preservation
Commission and to Richard Wescott for bringing pertinent
information and statutes to his attention, to the librarians of
Bowdoin College and of the Curtis Memorial Library in Brunswick,
and to a number of others for suggestions, information and
illustrations. A list of some thirty known pounds in the state
is available from the Maine Historic Preservation Commission, 55
Capital Street, State House Station 65, Augusta, Maine 04333.
The Commission would appreciate further information and pictures
in the state.
[ii] The
term, cattle, was then used broadly for all livestock, a usage
followed in this paper.
[iii] Clarence
Albert Day, Farming
in Maine, 1860-1940, University of Maine Studies, Second
Series, no. 78 (Orono: University of Maine Press, 1963)
[iv] Laws
of the State of Maine (Brunswick:
J. Griffin, 1821), vol. 2, chap. 129 (1820), p. 573
[v] Ibid.,
Chap. 28 (1821), p. 566.
[vi] Public
Acts of the State of Maine Passed by the Fourteenth
Legislature…January1834 (Augusta:
L. Berry & Co., 1834) Chap 4 (1834), p. 219.
[vii] Ibid.,
Chap. 137 (1834), p228.
[viii] A.G.
Lebroke, “Law for the Farmer,” Annual
Report of the Maine Board of Agriculture (Augusta,
1871, pp. 311, 314
[ix] Samuel
Watson, “Anomalies of Fence Law,” Annual
Report of the Maine Board of Agriculture (Augusta,
1877, p. 22.
|