The history of the town of Dorchester, Massachusetts, By a committee of the Dorchester antiquarian and historical society ...

4 11iSTORY OF DORCITESTE. -
Smith's account was doubtless the origin of the exaggerated importance attached to this river by the
first adventurers to New England, and it is very certain that no accurate knowledge of it was possessed
by the patentees when the Massachusetts charter
Was obtained, or thin tortuous stream would never
have been selected as the boundary line between the
Massachusetts and Plymouth colonies; indeed, the
whole of the present harbor of Boston seems to have
been regarded by the early settlers as a part of
Charles river. Roger Clap says, Gov. Winthrop's
&c., but the French having remained here near six weeks, left nothing
for us to take occasion to examine the inhabitants relations, viz., if there
be near 3000 people upon these isles, and that the river doth pierce
many days journey the entrails of the country. We found the people
very kind, but in their fury no less valiant, for upon a quarrel we had
with one of them, he only with three others crossed the harbour of Quon.ahasaet (Cohasset) to certain rocks, whereby we must pass, and there le
fly their arrows, &c."
Smith's second description of Boston Bay, printed 1631, without
making another visit (Mass. Hist. Col. vol. 3, 3d series, page 34), says —
From this place (Salem) they have sent 150 men to the Massachua
setts, which they call Charlton or Charles town. I took the fairest reach
in this bay for a river, whereupon I called it Charles river, after the
name of our Royal King Charles." (Charles I. became king 1625, 11
years after Smith's visit to Massachusetts, and 9 years after he published
his first account, and was but 14 years old when Smith returned front
his voyage.)
Smith's map, published long after his first description (see Mass. Hist,
Col. vol. 6, 3d series), proves conclusively his ignorance of Charles river,
The evidence in favor of his landing at Dorchester is, that the French
ships could not have found their way to Charlestown (and they had no
occasion to go there, as the head quarters of the Massachusetts Indians,
whose furs they wanted, were at the mouth of NeponsetO, the French
money found by Ludlow, and the Indians following Smith to Cohasset.
The evidence that Smith's description in 1631 was a mere compila.
tion, is conclusive. He states, in 1616, that he was absent but six or seven
months from England-that he went to get commodities rather'tharn
make discoveries-that he caught 60,000 fish, and collected ~1500 stg,
worth of furs, and says, "' I had not power to search as I would," But ini
1631, he had athorough knowledge of the geography of the country,
had sounded five and twenty harbors, was acquainted with the pro,
ductions of the soil, and the religion and character of the inhabitants
which important knowledge was all suppressed in his first publication t