One man’s response to what he saw as a growing need within his community reads in part:

“I, Thomas Jordan of Cape Elizabeth, being advanced in years and mindful of my mortality, and of sound and disposing mind and memory and enjoying a comfortable state of health for which I humbly desire to be duly grateful and being without children and desirous to make provision for the support and comfort of my beloved wife Mary Jordan in case of her surviving me, do hereby make, ordain and publish the following as my last will and testament…all my Real Estate and personal property, whatever and wherever the same may be situated, including the House, land and Homestead where I now live, and the marsh and outlands belonging to me…whatever of my estate shall remain undisposed of at the death of my said wife shall belong to the town of Cape Elizabeth in fee and in trust for the poor of said town forever.”

-Signed, witnessed and dated in 1825

Thomas Jordan, born in 1744, was a veteran of the Revolutionary War. After his return home to Cape Elizabeth he married Mary Henderson in 1790. Thomas and Mary went to live at the old Jordan family homestead on Spurwink Avenue, property that contained approximately 150 acres of farmland and marsh land on the west side of the road with 76 acres on the east side.

After Thomas’ death in 1828, his widow, Mary, continued to live at the homestead for another three years until her guardian moved her to a private home. The town received the Jordan homestead in 1831 and proceeded to remodel it immediately into a poor farm. The “first keeper of the poor” was Enos Jordan, who would be followed by 32 others who served various terms of one year or longer over the course of more than 100 years.

Prior to the acquisition of the Jordan property, the town took care of its poor by assigning them to the highest bidder with the money going into the town treasury. Farmers and fishermen bid about 30 cents a day for these workers. “Overseers of the poor” were provided with the means and authority to remove any of the assigned workers if they were mistreated. This removal would be at the expense of the bidder.

Able-bodied men and boys were put to good use around the town rebuilding fences, stone walls or doing other menial tasks. If young enough to learn a trade, they were indentured to blacksmiths, wheelwrights, and boat builders. Widows and children seem to have been among the first residents as they tried to keep the remaining family together following the death or incapacitating illness of their main source of support. Often they were sent to live with families to help with the cooking, gardening and other household chores.

Those persons not indentured were housed at the homestead. The men remaining at the poor farm performed the heavy work, using the farm implements in use at the time, while the women did household chores, preserved the food products gathered by all and shared the quarters with others who found themselves in like circumstances. The younger boys were taught at an early age how to do farm work and help care for the animals while the girls learned the domestic chores, helped with the gardening, feeding livestock and chickens. Only boys attended school the minimum time necessary to learn the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic. Girls did not attend school but were taught at a minimum to read and write their own names.

House of correction

In 1833 it became necessary to build an addition attached to the property to serve as a house of correction. Records of the Town Meeting of April 16, 1835, state “Voted: The Treasurer of the Poor may discharge Jessie – from the House of Correction provided, however, his son or others will indemnify the town from all liabilities and expenses of every kind.”

Although not often used in this capacity, the Poor Farm appeared to be an excellent investment for the town either by adding to their coffers the money provided by the bidder or by accepting reimbursement from families of those housed at the House of Correction. During its early years, the Poor Farm operated at a small profit.

After successfully providing for the town’s indigent population for many years, the number of residents installed there began to decrease forcing the town to appropriate money to help keep the farm operating. By 1874 the old homestead had outlived its usefulness and was in need of extensive repairs or replacement.

Local building contractor and Selectman William D. Murray was chosen to oversee the building of a new house at a cost of $4,000. This new building measured 36 by 46 feet. It was two stories in height and situated just to the south of the original. The addition of the barns and other outbuildings were completed at a later date.

The keeper of the poor was tasked annually with providing a complete inventory of all livestock and equipment such as farm tools, harnesses, scythes, mowing machines, buckets, wagons, ladders, chains and rakes. One inventory claimed possession of one cider mill, one butter churn, two wash tubs, one wash board, two axes, two grindstones, one lantern and household items, such as blankets, feather beds and mattresses.

Every item used on the farm or in the house itself, was listed. As of Feb. 26, 1897, the supplies on hand, and the dollar value of each, listed such items as seven tons of hay, one-half of a ton of straw, 40 cords of manure, 10 cords of wood, one hog, 80 pounds of pork, 10 pounds of lard, 40 pounds of soap, 100 bushels of potatoes, nine bushels of beans, 28 bushels of mixed grains, two bushels seed peas, 1 and one-half barrels of flour, 3 pounds of butter and one-half of a gallon of molasses. All supplies on hand valued at $669.20.

Throughout its use annual inspections were conducted to include detailed conditions of the property, recommending repairs needed, furniture to be purchased or painting outside and/or papering inside the building. Notations were made about cleanliness of the rooms, sufficient bedding supplied, disinfectants used and the sight, or lack of sight, of vermin. The heating supply must be in good working order, running water must be supplied within the building and flush toilets were also a necessity.

Years of prosperity

Following several years of prosperity under the term of Keeper Clarence L. Phinney the following poem was submitted for inclusion in the Annual Town Report of 1924:

The Town Farm

Now list to this and give a cheer

The old town farm has paid this year;

Contentment reigns, no sign of strife,

All praise to Phinney and his wife.

Our poor unfortunate friends out there

Have every kindness, every care;

For all their troubles, pains or needs

Are sympathetic words and deeds.

For many years, as is well known,

Instead of income, loss was shown;

So here’s a thought to ponder o’er:

If one farm pays, why not have four?

By 1935 with the advent of Old Age Assistance for the Elderly (forerunner to the Social Security Retirement System) the number of residents living at the Poor Farm had dwindled considerably leaving the town budget to pick up the bills for expenses to keep it running. There were only two men in residence at this time.

The annual inspection states, “The older gentleman at age 86, is very feeble. He should have a new suit of clothes, glasses so that he can read and an easy chair in which to sit. The younger man, about 60 is deformed and feeble minded. The men share a sitting room with only one easy chair and no couch. The room is clean and comfortable, their bedrooms are clean, bedding is sufficient and disinfectant is used all the time. There are no vermin. All the house is sunny; all rooms neat and clean. For fire there are two extinguishers in good condition. Plenty of food is furnished and the men are well cared for. There are two cows, four horses, three pigs and 30 hens.”

The end of the farm

The Poor Farm closed in 1937 when the financial burden exceeded the town budget allocation. However, the arable land was leased to local farmers, and the building remained available as a place for those in need. This arrangement continued until the mid 1960s when controversy and legalities regarding its future created its own problem: What to do with the property?

After a five-year legal battle seeking modern use for the Poor Farm property while still retaining the general purpose for which it had been given, it was ultimately decided that the town would purchase the property from the Jordan Trust for $600,000. An additional $150,000 was included to reimburse the trust for rental fees that were not directly applied to support of the poor during the intervening years. Since 1995 the trust has provided grants to needy families whose income is below 150 percent of the federal poverty level; helped unemployed residents avoid foreclosures; helped with prescriptions; provided scholarships to youth programs and counseling services for individuals in stress.

The remaining buildings were destroyed in a fire during September 1974. There was no cemetery associated with the property; those persons indentured to the highest bidders often stayed with the same family the remainder of their lives and were often given burial plots in family cemeteries, with their deaths duly noted in the town records. All that remains of this once necessary part of life in the farming community of Cape Elizabeth is the written record of its existence and the beautiful sunset views overlooking the Spurwink Marsh. The land will remain vacant for the foreseeable future.

The present sources of income associated with the property include a lease from the Portland Water District for the sewage treatment plant and a grant from the federal government for a wildlife easement to the Spurwink Marsh. The town transfer station holds 76 acres on the east side of Spurwink Avenue. The 150 acres across the road completes the entire 226 acres bequeathed to the town from Thomas Jordan.

Written by M. P. Wells, Marietta, Ohio, dated 1892: “Thomas Jordan gave the Town farm – His body lies in an unlettered grave in the strip of ground given by his brother John at the foot of the field bordering on the salt marsh and a small creek which receives water from Pollocks’ Brook. The ground is in utter neglect although it contains the dust of many of the “Rude Forefathers of the Habitat.”

Information and photo supplied by Cape Elizabeth Historical Preservation Society.