Local History
Goose Bay Dyking Company, 1886–1898
Friday, July 1, 2016
![The bridge and causeway that join Roberts Island with the mainland at Glenwood Corner have been a great convenience to the island’s residents ever since the first bridge was built in 1835. Even residents of Morris Island would come to use the bridge, for when recalling her schooldays on Roberts Island, Helen S. Ricker wrote:
“From the open doors of the schoolhouse we would sometimes see a group of three or four French women passing, wearing long black dresses to their ankles and large black silk kerchiefs over their heads. They would have come from Morris Island, an all-French island west of Roberts Island, coming across by rowboat to Sharp Point near the lower end of the island, then walking two miles or so to Glenwood Corner to do their shopping.” [1, p. 24]

Fig 1. Four Acadian women from Abram’s River, north-west of Roberts Island, ca. 1897. The original image is owned by Susan Young, Tusket. (P1991-432p, ATCHA)
In the 1880s the Roberts Island bridge and causeway were incorporated into an ambitious marshland dyking project. Today, from the causeway, one can glimpse marshland to the west at the head of what is called Big Sluice Salt Bay––but what in the nineteenth century was called Goose Bay.

Fig 2. Goose Bay Marsh viewed from the Roberts Island causeway in October 2014.
About forty residents of Roberts Island and Glenwood proposed to build two dykes, one incorporating the bridge and causeway, to transform a portion of Goose Bay’s tidal mud flats into fields of grass. They petitioned the Crown for a grant of mud flats and marshland at the head of Goose Bay. The grant was awarded on 1 September 1886.

Fig. 3. Map accompanying the 1886 Crown Grant [2]. Roberts Island is at left; Glenwood is at right. The road to Roberts Island is at the lower right corner.
Fifty-five years later Jackson Ricker, one of the grantees, recalled the dyking project’s challenges.
“The most important venture in dyke building was what is known as the Goose Bay Dyke. It is situated between Roberts Island and the mainland. Goose Bay, which ebbed dry at low tide with the exception of a narrow channel, comprised two hundred acres of mud flat beside some fifty acres of marsh lying on the western side of the bay. A grant of the flats was obtained from the Provincial Government. The dyking of this area was begun in October 1886 and was completed in the autumn of 1889. Two dams or dykes were necessary, one along the bridge connecting Roberts Island with the mainland, where the drain and doors to keep out the flood tides were situated.” [3, p. 29]

Fig. 4. Goose Bay lower dyke viewed from Roberts Island, ca. 1910, with Glenwood Corner in the distance. The bridge is in the foreground with the causeway beyond it. (P1988:696ptif, ATCHA)
The workers installed an aboiteau in the water channel beneath the bridge; then they blocked in and filled the area from the aboiteau up to the bottom of the bridge itself. Thus the bridge and causeway formed the lower dyke, with an aboiteau installed to drain the dyked land.
Ricker continues:
“The northern [upper] dyke crossed the bay at a point where a ledge near the channel made the distance across shorter. This dyke crossed a channel where the water was eleven feet deep at low tide. To effectually dam this channel was the most difficult part of the whole undertaking. The approaches to the channel were made of stones built in two parallel walls with earth and marsh sods between. Across the channel were sunk two lines of cribwork built of logs, high enough to be reached at low tide. On these blocking[s] walls of stone were built. Then the space between the two sets of blockings and the walls was filled with a mixture of sods, earth, and spruce brush. After many mishaps and some loss of material which well-nigh defeated them, the plucky crew, nearly half of whom were young men not easily beaten in any undertaking, by hard work finally dyked out the salt water. After two years with the water off the flats, grass appeared, and year by year it spread over the drier parts until all was covered with a thick growth.” [3, pp. 29–30]

Fig. 5. Goose Bay Marsh upper dyke viewed from the marsh side in October 2014.

Fig. 6. Goose Bay Marsh upper dyke viewed from the tidal side in October 2014.
Such an undertaking required money, labour, and careful planning. The Goose Bay Dyking Company (hereinafter called “the Company”) had been formed, probably in 1886, but was not incorporated. The Company’s shares were taken up by 39 shareholders who had subscribed to the Company’s Constitution agreement. The Company’s mandate was to dyke and drain the granted land, to divide the reclaimed land into lots of equal size, and to assign the lots to the shareholders in proportion to the number of shares they held. Perhaps because the Company had not been incorporated, its shareholders sought legal advice of Thomas B. Flint, a Yarmouth barrister, who in January 1890 replied:
“The status of the Company is this: Not being an incorporated company its members (the subscribers to the Constitution agreement) are partners in a partnership undertaking, which undertaking will be completed when the dyke is finished, the accounts adjusted and settled, and the land reclaimed set off in lots to the shareholders and the deeds given. Then, the objects and purposes for which the agreement or contract (Constitution) was entered into having been carried into effect, the Company is dissolved and the owners of the various lots are relegated to all the rights, duties and privileges of individual owners.” [4, pp. 1–2]
In October 1891, when the Company’s dyked land was well drained, Peter Lent Hatfield, a surveyor from Tusket, prepared a “Plan of Division of Dyke Flats at Glenwood” [5]. For the shareholders he marked out 100 lots, each 1.89 acres in area. The lots were labeled by two consecutive numbers, from 1+2 through 199+200. Furthermore he identified four other lots, labeled 201 through 204, which were to be held in common for the benefit of all shareholders. In effect, the Company had 104 lots but 204 shares, each representing a specific piece of land. In due time the 204 shares were assigned to the shareholders and the trustees: “The parcels thus set off were drawn by lot, excepting in a few cases where owners were allowed to select lots adjoining their old marshes” [3, p. 30]. On 5 June 1895 a deed recording the allocation was registered at Yarmouth’s Registry of Deeds [6]. The parties of the first part were the shareholders (and their wives, if any) who were the grantees in the Land Grant of 1886. In addition to 38 shareholders who were assigned numbered lots individually, Roswell F. Crowell, Oliver Pitman, Jackson Ricker, James F. Roberts, and Oscar Roberts were named to serve collectively as trustees. Here is a list of the parties of the second part, ordered alphabetically by surname with the number of assigned lot numbers given within parentheses:
Allen Arthur E. (10)
Crowell George S. (6); Lemuel (2); Melvin (4);
Roswell F. (5); Thomas (3)
Forbes William H. (9)
Goodwin Thomas (10); Wentworth (5)
Kenney Reuben (2); William (2)
Pitman James R., Sr. (10); James R., Jr. (2);
Oliver (3)
Reynard Jacob A. (15)
Ricker Bowman N. (5); Forrester (6);
Frank (8); Havelock (8);
Jackson (12); Sylvanus (4);
William (6)
Roberts Albert W. (2); Alfred (3);
Benjamin, Jr. (6); Daniel C. (6);
Emerald F. (2); Emerson (3);
Ephraim N. (2); Fletcher A. (5);
Hiram (3); James F. (3);
Joseph (7); Leonard W. (3);
Martin (1); Oscar (9)
Sargent Robert M. (2)
Whitehouse Howard (2)
Trustees (8)
Before the Company could be dissolved its accounts had to be adjusted and settled. Apparently the Company’s finances were recorded in two account books of which the first has been lost; but Goose Bay Dyking Co. Book No. 2 [7] has yearly summaries of income and expenses for 1886–1892, and detailed financial information for 1893–1898.
The Company’s Annual Income and Expenditures
Calendar Yearly Cumulative Yearly Cumulative
Year Expenses Expenses Income Income .
1886 $ 961.77 $ 961.77 $ 0 $ 0
1887 1,581.07 2,542.84 0 0
1888 1,444.10 3,986.94 0 0
1889 1,181.38 5,168.32 18.55 18.55
1890 336.12 5,504.44 0 18.55
1891 637.34 6,141.78 0 18.55
1892 21.42 6,163.20 6,138.00 6,156.55
1893 209.32 6,372.52 6.40 6,162.95
1894 50.14 6,422.66 214.93 6,377.88
1895 33.37 6,456.03 52.00 6,429.88
1896 14.80 6,470.83 49.00 6,478.88
1897 217.58 6,688.41 0 6,478.88
1898 18.73 6,707.14 196.00 6,674.88
Between 1892 and 1898 the Company raised $6,642.38 by five assessments levied on its shares. Incidental income of $32.50 derived from sales of grass and construction materials that were no longer needed. Shareholders had accounts that recorded how they paid their assessments. Although some shareholders paid by cash, most provided labour, materials, or services. Typical account entries involved: working on the dykes ($1.25 per ten-hour day); providing a team of oxen ($1.00 per day); boarding a worker ($1.25 per week); providing hardwood planks (1¢ per foot); hauling timber, cement, or gravel; purchasing paint, oil, nails, hoes, pails, or copper tacks; measuring fences.
The structure of Book No. 2 suggests that the Company was dissolved at the end of 1898. Thereafter the lot owners (previously shareholders, but now called proprietors) chose to maintain the dyked land under a provincial statute [8], entitled “Of Commissioners of Sewers, and of Dyked and Marsh Lands,” which allowed proprietors of dyked or marsh lands to choose individuals, called commissioners, to carry out maintenance or repairs on behalf of the proprietors and in their best interests. In April 1897 Oliver Pitman, of Glenwood, had been sworn in as a “Commissioner of Sewers for the District of Argyle” [9]. According to the statute,
“Two-thirds in interest of the proprietors of any marsh, swamp or meadow lands within the jurisdiction of such commissioners may by themselves or their agents select one or more commissioners to carry on any work for reclaiming such lands …. … The commissioners so chosen may require the proprietors of such lands to furnish men, teams, tools and materials to build or repair any dykes or [weirs] necessary to prevent inundation, to dam, flow or drain such lands, or to secure the same from brooks, rivers, or the sea, by aboiteaux or breakwaters, or in any way they may think proper, or for the erection of fences to protect the same ….” [8, p. 308]
On 3 January 1899 Jackson Ricker was sworn in as Clerk to Commissioners of Sewers and Dyked and Marsh Lands. At a general meeting on 23 January 1899 the Goose Bay proprietors appointed Oliver Pitman and Oscar Roberts as Commissioners of Sewers and Dyked and Marsh Lands in charge of the Goose Bay Dyked Flats of Glenwood. Thus ended the era of the Goose Bay Dyking Company. [10, pp. 1–5]

Fig. 7. Jackson Ricker, in January 1937, aged 78. (P1990-103pf, ATCHA)
Was the dyking of the Goose Bay flats a reasonable investment for the Company’s shareholders? During its thirteen years of operation the Company’s expenses averaged $2.73 per year per acre of reclaimed land, and this expense could have been repaid by 2.2 day’s labour per year per acre at the prevailing rate. Jackson Ricker balanced these expenses against the benefits of producing hay on the reclaimed flats.
“For a period of ten years or more [1891–1900] the area produced 300 tons of hay annually, which fast compensated the [shareholders or] proprietors for their outlay and for their enterprise and hard work. This increase in the supply of hay in the locality made it possible for the small farmers to keep more cattle and it was therefore of great advantage to them. Those owning lots and having no stock to consume their hay sold to buyers in some instances as far away as Barrington and other quite distant places.” [3, p. 30]
As the years passed the production of hay on the reclaimed land became unprofitable. Eventually, in the late 1980s, a conservation project transformed the land between the Goose Bay dykes into a non-tidal marsh habitat for the benefit of North America’s waterfowl.

Fig. 8. Goose Bay Marsh conservation plaque.
References and Notes
[1] Helen S. Ricker, “Glenwood, Yarmouth County 1895–1909.” The Argus, 15(4), pp. 22–27, Winter 2003.
[2] Crown Grant from Her Majesty the Queen to Sylvanus Ricker et al., doc. 15689, book GR02/14, reg. 25 Mar. 1887, Registry of Deeds, Yarmouth County.
[3] Jackson Ricker, Historical Sketches of Glenwood and the Argyles, Yarmouth County, Nova Scotia. Truro Printing & Publishing Co., Truro, N.S., 1941. 135 pp.
[4] Letter from Thomas B. Flint, Barrister, to The Goose Bay Dyking Company, 9 Jan. 1890, 8 pp, in folder “Incorporation Papers, Legal Agreements, etc. 1890–,” MG201–Goose Bay Dyke Co. Fonds, ATCHA.
[5] “Plan of Division of Dyke Flats at Glenwood,” plan P-298, reg. 5 June 1895, Registry of Deeds, Yarmouth County. See 1895 Plan of Division.pdf.
[6] Deed from Sylvanus Ricker and others to William Ricker and others, doc. 399, book CA/462, reg. 5 June 1895, Registry of Deeds, Yarmouth County.
[7] Goose Bay Dyking Co. Book No. 2, in folder “Account Book 1886–1910,” MG201–Goose Bay Dyke Co. Fonds, ATCHA.
[8] “Chapter 42. Of Commissioners of Sewers, and of Dyked and Marsh Lands,” pp. 308–318 in The Revised Statutes of Nova Scotia. Fifth Series. Queen’s Printer, Halifax, 1884.
[9] Appointment, by the Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia, of “Oliver Pitman to be a Commissioner of Sewers for the District of Argyle in the County of Yarmouth,” 24 Oct. 1896. Sworn into office on 15 April 1897 by Jackson Ricker, Justice of the Peace. See folder “Papers of Oliver Pitman …,” MG201–Goose Bay Dyke Co. Fonds, ATCHA.
[10] Record Book No. 1 of Commissioners of Sewers, and of Dyked and Marsh Lands appointed for the Municipality of Argyle, Province of Nova Scotia, in folder “Minute Book 1900–1932,” MG201–Goose Bay Dyke Co. Fonds, ATCHA.
[11] The Google Earth aerial photograph at the top is © 2014 by Google. I thank archivist Peter Crowell, of the Argyle Township Court House and Archives (ATCHA), for providing advice and access to the Goose Bay Dyking Company fonds. The photographs labeled ATCHA are copyrighted; please contact the Archives if you wish to acquire copies of them.
[12] A version of this essay appeared in The Argus, vol. 28, no. 2, Summer 2016, pp. 35–42.](1_Goose_Bay_Dyking_Company,_18861898_files/shapeimage_2.png)
