Lock's Bridge
- Thread starter BEHR655
- Start date
Wow Guy, I didn't realize that. Too bad that he doesn't participate here anymore. I'm sure he still has a lot to share even if he can't get out there himself.
Gabe, Mark, et al.:
What do we know?
Based on the text of the quoted legislative Act and available recorded deeds, we know that Estell owned land on both sides of the Atsion River, yet we also know that the county bounds established in a 1710 act clearly delineated Gloucester County on one side of the river and Burlington on the other for the waterway’s entire length with absolutely no opportunity anywhere along the stream for Burlington County to extend across the Atsion River to the other side until the legislative boundary change in 1902. Ergo, either someone provided the scrivener who prepared the text of the legislative bill with bad information or he otherwise made an error. Whatever the happenstance, there is little doubt the language within the 1765 Act is incorrect concerning Estell’s landholdings. The textual error does not, however, change the permission granted and the requirements set forth for constructing a dam. With these requirements and specifications set in place, other dams could be constructed along the watercourse without additional action from the colonial lawmakers, provided the constructor followed the same prescripts.
As Gabe rightly pointed out, prior historians—most notably Boyer, Pierce, and Ewing—identify Estell as active at Atsion and I have no quarrel with their assertions. But it does not preclude Estell or another personage from constructing this dam and lock downstream from Atsion. My review of historic and modern aerials strongly suggests that a dam once stood where Locks Bridge formerly spanned the passageway. Whether a sawmill ever operated here is unclear, although the volume on waterpower in the United States from the 1880 federal decennial census compendium identifies a mill once received its power from this dam:
While Trowbridge failed to define the type of mill operated at this dam, a sawmill makes the most sense. Based on Drinker’s letter, we know the dam and passage or lock in question already existed in 1804. There is no reason why Estell (or another person) could not have constructed the dam and a sawmill at this location. With the lock constructed within the berm, the dam met the requirements of the 1765 legislature, which referenced the 1755 and 1762 Acts regarding the preservation of navigation.
See the next posting for the completion of this message due to the 10,000-character limit of these forums.
What do we know?
Based on the text of the quoted legislative Act and available recorded deeds, we know that Estell owned land on both sides of the Atsion River, yet we also know that the county bounds established in a 1710 act clearly delineated Gloucester County on one side of the river and Burlington on the other for the waterway’s entire length with absolutely no opportunity anywhere along the stream for Burlington County to extend across the Atsion River to the other side until the legislative boundary change in 1902. Ergo, either someone provided the scrivener who prepared the text of the legislative bill with bad information or he otherwise made an error. Whatever the happenstance, there is little doubt the language within the 1765 Act is incorrect concerning Estell’s landholdings. The textual error does not, however, change the permission granted and the requirements set forth for constructing a dam. With these requirements and specifications set in place, other dams could be constructed along the watercourse without additional action from the colonial lawmakers, provided the constructor followed the same prescripts.
As Gabe rightly pointed out, prior historians—most notably Boyer, Pierce, and Ewing—identify Estell as active at Atsion and I have no quarrel with their assertions. But it does not preclude Estell or another personage from constructing this dam and lock downstream from Atsion. My review of historic and modern aerials strongly suggests that a dam once stood where Locks Bridge formerly spanned the passageway. Whether a sawmill ever operated here is unclear, although the volume on waterpower in the United States from the 1880 federal decennial census compendium identifies a mill once received its power from this dam:
The two principal streams which go to form the Little Egg Harbor river are the Batsto and the Atsion river, which unite about 6 miles north of Egg Harbor city. Batsto river, the more northerly of the two, has a length of about 18 miles and drains an area of some 70 square miles. The first power is at Batsto, now not in use, but formerly used by iron works, and a saw- and grist-mill. The fall is stated at about 10 feet and the power is considered the best in the vicinity. Farther up the stream, at the Lower Forge, is another site not in use, and still farther up others can be developed. All the dams on these streams are of earth, and they are seldom disturbed by freshets. The Atsion river, which rises in Camden and Burlington counties and forms for its entire length the boundary line between Camden and Atlantic on the south and Burlington on the north, is considerably larger than the Batsto river, draining somewhere about 150 square miles. The first power [meaning the first waterpower encountered moving upstream from the Forks] is said to be about 2 miles below the town of Atsion, where there was once a mill using a fall of 7 feet. [preceding bolding added for emphasis] At Atsion we come to the first utilized power—the Atsion cotton-mill. The dam, which is of earth, 600 or 700 feet long and 10 or 12 feet high, ponds the water over a hundred or more acres, and the fall used is 11 feet. The power is stated at 130 horse-power, but this can be obtained during only eleven months, even by drawing down the water in the pond during the day-time, the capacity during the remaining month being about 100 horse power. In addition to the factory a small grist mill and a saw-mill are run occasionally. No steam is used for power, and in very dry weather the mill is sometimes obliged to stop. It is said that the pond is connected by a canal with the Mechesatauxen river, a stream flowing nearly parallel with the Atsion, and joining it at a distance of 8 or 10 miles below, so that an additional supply of water is obtained in this way. Above this place there are only very small powers on the stream.
Some of the tributaries of Atsion river have small mills, but none are large enough to merit special description. (Trowbridge 1885:124)
While Trowbridge failed to define the type of mill operated at this dam, a sawmill makes the most sense. Based on Drinker’s letter, we know the dam and passage or lock in question already existed in 1804. There is no reason why Estell (or another person) could not have constructed the dam and a sawmill at this location. With the lock constructed within the berm, the dam met the requirements of the 1765 legislature, which referenced the 1755 and 1762 Acts regarding the preservation of navigation.
See the next posting for the completion of this message due to the 10,000-character limit of these forums.
Here are those two earlier Acts:
There are two manuscripts that I have not examined, but are crucial to this discussion mentioned in Arthur Pierce’s Iron in the Pines. He writes,
This 1793 map may very well identify the sawmill and the owner or at least the remaining dam and lock that Henry Drinker described in his letter. The other manuscript source would be the case files for the court actions (both the State Supreme Court and the Court in Chancery) that ensued between the owners at Atsion and the owners at Batsto. These sources may clear up most or all of the mysteries involving this dam and the presumed sawmill that once operated there. Perhaps one of these days I will have the time to visit the New Jersey State Archives and review this material. Until then, the puzzles may remain, but I think we have vetted them as much as possible given my sources at-hand.
Best regards,
Jerseyman
An ACT to preserve the Navigation of the Rivers and Creeks within the Colony of New Jersey.
[1755]
WHEREAS the Transportation of Timber, Plank, Boards, Hay, and other Things to Market by Water, is a great Conveniency to the Inhabitants of this Colony, and the Preservation of those Advantages are highly worthy the Care of the Legislature:
BE IT ENACTED by the Governor, Council and General Assembly of the said Colony, And it is hereby Enacted by the Authority of the same, that if any Person or Persons, without first obtaining an Act of the General Assembly for that Purpose, shall after the Publication of this Act, erect any Dam, Bank, Sluice, or other Thing, which shall obstruct or prevent the free and uninterrupted Navigation of any River, Creek, or Stream of Water within this Colony, which is used for the Navigation of Boats, or Flats, or for the Transporting of Hay, Plank, Boards, or Timber, or shall Fall any Trees, a cross such Creek, or threw Brush, or other Filth in any Part thereof, between the Mouth thereof and the uppermost Place thereon, now or late used as a Landing, he, she, or they so offending shall severally forfeit the Sum of Five Pounds Proclamation Money, to be recovered by Action of Debt, before any one Justice of the Peace of the said Colony, at the Suit of any Person who will Prosecute the same to Effect, to the sole use of the Prosecutor with Costs of Suit. And the Person or Persons so offending, shall also at his or their proper Costs and Charge immediately remove the Bank, Dams, Sluice, or other Thing so erected, or the Trees so fell across such Branch, or Brush, or other Rubbish thrown, into the same, and the continuance of such Dam, Bank, Sluice, or other Thing so erected or obstructing the Navigation as aforesaid, after a Request made to such Person or Persons who erected the same, to remove the same, and on neglect or refusal, it shall be esteemed a Publick Nuisance.
AND BE IT ENACTED by the Authority aforesaid, that it shall be lawful for any Person or Persons to enter into the said Creek, River, or Stream of Water, and to lay on Shore on the Banks, all such Rubbish as shall obstruct the Navigation thereof, to the least Damage to the Owner of the Land that may be.
AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED by the Authority aforesaid, that it shall and may be lawful to keep up and repair any Bridge or Bridges on publick Highways; and also all Dams, Banks erected and finished before the publication of this Act, where the said Dam or Bank does not raise the Water so as to overflow the Lands of any other Person or Persons except those who so erected or own the said Dam, and does not Injure or Damage any other Person or Persons whatsoever, by any Ways or Means whatsoever, and to Build such other Brides where publick Highways are or shall be hereafter laid out, over any River, Creek, or Brook as a publick Highway, and there be left in the Channel thereof, a Vacancy not less than Eighteen Feet between the Piers, or Piles of the said Bridges hereafter to be Erected, and that all Rafts and Floats or Hay, Boards, Planks, and Timber, shall have free Passage thro’ the Mill Dams now erected where they have usually of late had that Liberty and Conveniency.
PROVIDED ALWAYS that nothing in this Act shall extend to deprive any Person or Persons of his Right of Action for any Damage accruing to such Person by the keeping up or erecting any Dam, or Bank, or to justify any Person in repairing or keeping up any Dam, that shall raise the Water so much as to overlow the Lands of, or any ways endamage any other Person or Persons, then he, she, or they who hath so Built, or shall own the said Dam.
A Supplementary ACT to the Act, entitled, An Act to preserve the Navigation of the Rivers and Creeks, within the Colony of New-Jersey.
[1762]
WHEREAS the Act, entitled, An Act to preserve the Navigation of the Rivers and Creeks, within the Colony of New-Jersey, through beneficial in its Nature, by making Provision for freeing the Navigation of the said Rivers and Creeks from the Obstructions within the same, yet not making the like Provision, for cutting down and removing from the Banks of said Rivers and Creeks, such Trunks and Limbs of Trees, and such like Obstructions, that hang over and impede the Navigation of the same, renders it necessary to supply that Omission, for Remedy whereof,
BE IT ENACTED by the Governor, Council, and General Assembly, of the said Colony of New-Jersey, and it is hereby Enacted by the Authority of the same. That it shall and may be lawful, for any Person or Persons whomsoever, to cut down and remove from the Banks of any River or Creek within this Colony, all such Trunks and Limbs of Trees, and such like Obstructions, which shall hand over, or any ways interrupt the Navigation of the same, so as such Obstructions be removed with as little Detriment to the Owners of the Lands where the same may happen, as the Nature of the Case will admit, for the Benefit of the Navigation.
There are two manuscripts that I have not examined, but are crucial to this discussion mentioned in Arthur Pierce’s Iron in the Pines. He writes,
Richards came into frequent conflict with the Atsion Iron Works. Lawsuits resulted in at least two cases. One of these involved a canal which the Atsion Company dug between the Mechesetauxen River and Atsion River above Atsion Lake, to gain greater waterpower for the Atsion wheels. Lawrence Saltar was manager of Atsion at the time, with Henry and John Drinker of Philadelphia as partners in ownership, and this canal was long known as “Saltar’s Ditch.” The other major suit, settled by arbitration after many years, involved the old 1765 agreement between Charles Read and John Estell covering ore and coaling wood rights in the land along the Atsion River between Batsto and Atsion. Not long ago a parchment map of this disputed area was included in a State exhibit dealing with New Jersey iron production. Believed to be drawn in 1793, it showed that extensive areas above Sleepy Creek already had been “mined.” Located on the map also are the Batsto forge and furnace. “W. Richards’ Dwelling House,” and the Atsion furnace and forge—on opposite sides of the river from each other—as well as J. Saltar’s House.”
This 1793 map may very well identify the sawmill and the owner or at least the remaining dam and lock that Henry Drinker described in his letter. The other manuscript source would be the case files for the court actions (both the State Supreme Court and the Court in Chancery) that ensued between the owners at Atsion and the owners at Batsto. These sources may clear up most or all of the mysteries involving this dam and the presumed sawmill that once operated there. Perhaps one of these days I will have the time to visit the New Jersey State Archives and review this material. Until then, the puzzles may remain, but I think we have vetted them as much as possible given my sources at-hand.
Best regards,
Jerseyman
Thanks, Jerseyman. I agree that a sawmill makes most sense at the locks location. I wonder if Samual Richards did in fact build a forge there at a later time, as Pierce asserts. Some prodding around the area should yield some clues.
Duh,
There is an Atsion River millpond downstream of Atsion shown on the 1872 Beers Topographical Map of Atlantic County (see insert, top right). This is ironic since a print of that map is hanging on my wall five feet away from where I type.
http://gallery.njpinebarrens.com/showfull.php?photo=2751
A small stream designated as Myrtle Spring(?, hard to read) borders the northern boundary of the Fruitland development at Atsion and drains into the Atsion River at the upper reaches of the millpond right at the Shamong/Washington Township border. This configuration seems to indicate a dam had been present at Locks Bridge.
A similar millpond is also present on the southern-portion map of Burlington County of that same series. A much smaller pond appears on the large 1872 Beers Atlantic County wall atlas, and is situated a little further upstream – being closer to Atsion than shown on the folio map sheets. The Hopkins 1873 Atlantic County map has no such water-body, which is surprising since this atlas series often shows interesting ponds not found on other maps.
S-M
There is an Atsion River millpond downstream of Atsion shown on the 1872 Beers Topographical Map of Atlantic County (see insert, top right). This is ironic since a print of that map is hanging on my wall five feet away from where I type.
http://gallery.njpinebarrens.com/showfull.php?photo=2751
A small stream designated as Myrtle Spring(?, hard to read) borders the northern boundary of the Fruitland development at Atsion and drains into the Atsion River at the upper reaches of the millpond right at the Shamong/Washington Township border. This configuration seems to indicate a dam had been present at Locks Bridge.
A similar millpond is also present on the southern-portion map of Burlington County of that same series. A much smaller pond appears on the large 1872 Beers Atlantic County wall atlas, and is situated a little further upstream – being closer to Atsion than shown on the folio map sheets. The Hopkins 1873 Atlantic County map has no such water-body, which is surprising since this atlas series often shows interesting ponds not found on other maps.
S-M
I was able to get out to the Locks today for a leisurely paddle. It was gorgeous out there. Found no evidence of a forge, but the pine flies, mosquitoes and brush weren't exactly conducive to exploration. I did find furnace slag in the causeway, which I'm guessing was brought from the site of Hampton Furnace in order to build up the causeway.
pinelandpaddler said:
Thanks to our beloved member, "turtle", I have found that the lock was built 220 years ago this month. The construction of the lock, then, would have taken place under Henry Drinker. This information was gotten from the Wharton Ledgers.
So it looks like this site was mainly to power a sawmill. I too, noticed a large amount of furnace slag here, but no forge slag. I'm guessing the same thing as Gabe, and the slag was brought from another location (probably Hampton or Atsion) to help reinforce the dam. Very interesting.
So if this wasn't a forge location, where would have Atsion have sent there iron to be forged? Possibly Batsto Forge, or even the two nearest to Hampton - either Upper or Lower Forge? It seems nearly every furnace site had a connection with a forge.
So if this wasn't a forge location, where would have Atsion have sent there iron to be forged? Possibly Batsto Forge, or even the two nearest to Hampton - either Upper or Lower Forge? It seems nearly every furnace site had a connection with a forge.
Good of you to drop by, Kevin. I think that Charles Read built a furnace at Batsto and a Forge at Atsion, the latter to re-work pig iron from the former. Batsto Forge wasn't built until 1781. My knowledge of Atsion is rather lacking, unfortunately. When was the furnace built at Atsion? Where was it located? where was the forge?
Gabe, it appears that you are correct. According to Carl Woodward in Ploughs and Politicks a large forge of four fires and two hammers was built at Atsion in 1767-1768. The forge worked bog iron from Batsto into bar iron.
Almost immediately Read began to sell shares in Atsion. On January 26, 1768 he sold a 249/1000 interest each to David Odgen, Jr. and Lawrence Saltar. In 1773 he sold his remaining interest in Atsion to Abel James and Henry Drinker. Once the ties were severed from Batsto presumably whomever owned Atsion would have needed to build their own furnace. Beck records that Joseph Saltar (maybe a son of Lawrence?) built the furnace around 1776.
Presumably the sale of Atsion necessitated Batsto constructing their own forge? Clearly if Atstion had a forge and furnace of their own it would have been a strong competitor to Batsto.
See also: http://www.njpinebarrens.com/charles-read-part-3-ironmaster/
Almost immediately Read began to sell shares in Atsion. On January 26, 1768 he sold a 249/1000 interest each to David Odgen, Jr. and Lawrence Saltar. In 1773 he sold his remaining interest in Atsion to Abel James and Henry Drinker. Once the ties were severed from Batsto presumably whomever owned Atsion would have needed to build their own furnace. Beck records that Joseph Saltar (maybe a son of Lawrence?) built the furnace around 1776.
Presumably the sale of Atsion necessitated Batsto constructing their own forge? Clearly if Atstion had a forge and furnace of their own it would have been a strong competitor to Batsto.
See also: http://www.njpinebarrens.com/charles-read-part-3-ironmaster/
Ben, according to Pierce “Iron in the Pines” 1957, page 33 and “Atsion a town of four faces” Ewing , page 8 the furnace was built at Atsion in 1774.
I think Beck may have been mistaken about Joseph Saltar. Lawrence was part owner of Atsion at the time the furnace was built. Joseph didn’t enter the picture until Lawrence died in 1783. Lawrence had no children. Joseph was his brother. Joseph’s son William also worked at the Atsion Company. Saltar’s ditch was dug in 1786 three years after Lawrence’s death by this brother Joseph.
Don
I think Beck may have been mistaken about Joseph Saltar. Lawrence was part owner of Atsion at the time the furnace was built. Joseph didn’t enter the picture until Lawrence died in 1783. Lawrence had no children. Joseph was his brother. Joseph’s son William also worked at the Atsion Company. Saltar’s ditch was dug in 1786 three years after Lawrence’s death by this brother Joseph.
Don
On page 30 in Heart of the Pines, Pearce mentions the Atsion Forge was built and one year later Batsto Furnace was built 8 miles downstream. So I am assuming it is presumed the forge was at Atsion because if it was at Lock's Bridge it would not have been 8 miles.
I should have known better then to look at Beck for facts.
I love Beck’s work he was an very interesting writer. What I like best about him is he walked the walk and he talked the talk. He was right there and talked to real people. Although his history is good, his fact are a little off some times.
Beck should be required reading for all Pine Barren explorers.
Don