USA > Connecticut > Fairfield County > Danbury > History of Danbury, Conn., 1684-1896 > Part 21
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49
1857 .- The " panic" of 1857 is still fresh in the minds of all. Of course Danbury, like all other places where much capital was invested, felt the panic keenly.
In no particular has there been more changes than in the shape and appearance of the hat. In early times, of which we have spoken, hats were made upon blocks entirely round, conse- quently when a man turned off a hat it was the celebrated one, nine inches deep with one and one half inch brim, the bell- crowned specimens of which appear once in a while worn by some rustic genius, or some aged stickler for the customs of his fathers, awakening in our mind thoughts of the " olden time." Save these few that we see now and then, and a few more lying, covered with the dust of years, in old garrets, these relics of bygone times and the crude days of hat-making are no more.
Having finished Mr. Francis's " History of Hatting," we look now over the ground he went over, and find many changes since he wrote. There are also some points of which he was not in- formed. First, as regards fur-forming machines. In a suit against G. E. Cowperthwaite, brought by H. A. Burr et al., of which more hereafter, we find that the Burr machine, so called, was not the first fur-former invented. Mr. Wells, the patentee,
230
HISTORY OF DANBURY.
took his idea from a successful fur-former then patented and in operation in England, and secured a patent only ahead of the English inventor, because the latter neglected to properly pre- pare his papers of application.
Previous to this, in 1843, one William Foskett, of Meriden, had invented a machine for forming hats. It was a combination of the catgut bow and the present former. The feeder spread his fur upon an apron, as now. This was carried on until it reached where is now the picker. In Foskett's machine a catgut string was stretched across the apron in place of the picker ; the string being vibrated by a series of wooden fingers disintegrated the fur and threw it through a trunk upon a cone as now. The cone, however, was of ruder workmanship. After the removal of the cone (the hat being formed) it was hardened on the cone without wetting, by an operation not necessary to describe. This machine of Foskett's was a perfect, practical machine, but he, lacking capital and health, had to let the matter drop. One of them was brought to Danbury subsequently and used by Mr. Cowperthwaite.
In 1856 Alvah B. Taylor, of New York, invented and patented a machine for forming, which is known here as the Cowper- thwaite machine. In this the cones-for there were three used -were placed on the sides of a pyramidal stand, under which was the exhaust fan. These cones were constantly revolving, horizontally to the picker. The fur, fed by a boy on an apron as in the Burr machine, was blown on the cone. After it was all on, the pyramid revolved one third of the circle, and another cone was covered. The first cone was covered with an outer cone, somewhat larger, and a jiggering motion given it. When the second cone was covered with fur the stand again revolved, bringing the first cone around to the boy, who continued the jig- gering motion by hand. When the third cone was formed (the second, in the mean while, following the operation of the first) a slight blast of air was let into the first cone, and the outer cover- ing came off with the partially hardened hat inside. The cone then passed under the picker again, and so on. In 1857 this machine was brought to Danbury by Mr. Cowperthwaite and placed in the old Hurlburt factory. Soon after it was removed to the Shelter Rock factory. In 1859 this factory was burned, and Mr. Cowperthwaite purchased of Darius Stevens the build-
231
HISTORY OF DANBURY.
ing then used by Stevens as a carpenter shop, on White Street. Cowperthwaite purchased Taylor's interest in the machine, and was then sued by H. A. Burr, on the ground that the Cowperthwaite machine was an infringement on his. During the suit Burr got a temporary injunction against Cowperthwaite using the machine, and it was at this time that the Foskett machine was used here. This injunction was soon dissolved, and Cowperthwaite won the suit. He then sold the machine to Burr for $100,000. The White Street factory was closed in 1860.
In 1860 what is known as the James S. Taylor machine was patented. This was really the invention of Lyman Platt, but Taylor perfected it, and Platt got out a patent. The inven- tion consisted in inverting the cone in the exhaust table, and forming the hat on the inside instead of the outside, as now. The first one was put up in the Sturdevant factory in Beaver Brook. E. A. Mallory also had one, two were in use in New- ark, and four in Brooklyn. The omnipresent Burr took a shy at this machine also, and got beaten. Then he purchased it, and in 1868 Arthur Nichols having an interest in the machine, the two consolidated.
The Gill machine was another candidate for public favor. This is on the plan of the Burr, except that the feed-apron is higher, and the cone is placed in a balloon-shaped chamber. The fur is blown from the picker into the chamber, perfectly dis- integrated. The exhaust being greater at the base of the cone than at the tip, the fur is laid on evenly, as in the Burr machine. The first machine of this patent was erected in the Hurlburt fac- tory, which seems to have quite a distinction in the matter of being the scene of the location of first machines.
The Burr machine has not been improved upon, except in the making of the frame stronger, and consequently more able to bear the higher rate of speed at which it is now run. Mr. Fran- cis says the capacity of the machine in 1845 was one hat in two minutes. Now one hat a minute is the capacity.
The changes in the trade, so far as the introduction of labor- saving machinery is concerned, have been enormous since Mr. Francis's history closed. This was a necessity, and it was fore- seen by inventive minds years ago that machinery would have to take the place of manual labor, if the trade would keep pace with the demands. Busy brains have toiled, and from them
232
HISTORY OF DANBURY.
have emanated a thousand devices, some worthless, many having good ideas but lacking perfection, while a few have been of practical benefit.
Pouncing machines were first constructed in Danbury in 1865 by Sidney S. Wheeler and Daniel B. Manley, who obtained a patent for the same in August, 1866. About the same time a patent was granted to Emile Nougaret, of Newark, N. J., and improvements on the same were patented by John L. Labiaux and P. W. Vail, of Newark, in 1867.
Machines for stretching the brims of hat bodies were first in- vented by W. R. Fenn, of New Milford, in 1869. These machines consisted of two pairs of conical rollers, revolving at different rates of speed, through which the brim of the hat was passed. These machines were introduced in Danbury by James S. Tay- lor, but proved of little value.
During the last thirty years attempts have been made in this town and elsewhere to size fur hats by machinery. Machines have been imported from France and England, and scores of them invented in this country, and quite a large number in this town. Every manufacturer has tried and abandoned several, and until recently the difficulty has seemed no nearer solution than ever. For a few years an English machine has been in use for second sizing, which has proved quite successful.
In December, 1878, another vast improvement in labor-saving machinery was introduced. It was a machine for shaving hats, manufactured by Osterheld & Eickemeyer, of Yonkers, N. Y. A hat body is placed upon a padded board just the shape of the hat, and large enough to make the hat fit snugly to it. Upon this descends a knife of the same shape as those used by hand, and a jigging motion being given to the knife, the hat rolls around under it, the knife shaving off the hair and coarse fur as cleanly and neatly as by hand. The machine will shave fifty dozen per day. They were first used here by Nichols & Hine and the Tweedy Manufacturing Company.
Mr. Francis's history was closed in 1860. There were then but eight manufacturers of fur and wool hats in Danbury.
In 1860 there were two firms of the Tweedys-Tweedy, White & Co. and Tweedy Brothers. In 1864 the first firm was changed to T. E. & E. Tweedy, and the second was changed to William H. Tweedy in 1861. In 1867 both these firms were merged into one
WM. W. STEVENS.
GEORGE ANDREWS. WM. D. MORRIS.
ORLANDO WILCOX. JOEL TAYLOR. WM. SCOFIELD. TRUMAN TROWBRIDGE.
LUCIUS S. WILDMAN.
JACOB FRY. WM. H. FRANCIS.
233
HISTORY OF DANBURY.
under the name of Tweedy & Co., and after four years of busi- ness a stock company was formed under the name of the Tweedy Manufacturing Company. In May, 1890, the firm of White, Tweedy & Smythe succeeded to the business, and are the present firm.
Giles M. Hoyt's factory in 1860 was in Grassy Plain, which was then a part of Danbury. In 1874 Mr. Hoyt removed to White Street, and in 1878 he moved again to the old laundry building near the Danbury and Norwalk Railway.
A. T. Peck in the winter of 1863 was engaged in hatting with his brother-in-law, Anson Taylor, in the old comb factory which stood on the site of Beckerle & Co.'s factories. Mr. Taylor had just received a patent for combining pieces of waste silk with fur, and they were manufacturing hats under this patent. It was said that a hat, after being " jacked up," was made to look like a silk hat, and at a much less cost. They were made in all styles. Mr. Taylor died soon after the manufacture began, and Mr. Peck then went out of business.
The Union Hat Company, composed of W. H. Youngs, H. C. Ely, Kellogg Nichols, and Cyrus Raymond, started in that build- ing in 1869. In 1872 they discontinued business. It was occu- pied between this time and 1875 by Casper Zeigler, and in that year William Beckerle took possession. In 1876, after taking into partnership C. H. Piex, T. F. Fay, and J. H. Shuldice, he removed to the old comb shop near Pahquioque Avenue. This shop soon proved too small for the firm, and from time to time they added to their capacity by building numerous additions and erecting small buildings for make- shops, coloring-shop, etc. In December, 1879, the establishment was totally destroyed by fire. Work was immediately resumed and new factories built, which are in active operation to-day.
In 1865 J. D. Meeker began business as a hatter in a factory on Canal Street. This building for a few months previous had been used by journeymen hatters who took out work from our larger firms for manipulation in one branch only. They were not what might be called manufacturing hatters, and for that reason we have not secured their names. In 1877 this fac- tory was completely destroyed, and the next year the present commodious and enlarged building was completed and occupied by D. W. Meeker, a brother of the first-named.
234
HISTORY OF DANBURY.
Mr. Francis, by some means, received no information concern- ing hatting in Mill Plain. As early as 1844 Ransom Brothwell, father of Theodore Brothwell, had a shop situated on the farm of Oliver Burchard.
The next we find of hatting in that hamlet is a shop run by P. A. Sutton. This changed hands many times, being owned successively by A. Solomon, Harry Jennings & Son, and Stone & Downs. The latter were burned out in 1867, and Mr. Downs then retired. Benjamin Stone then built the shop now occu- pied by H. M. Senior & Son, run it for about nine months, and then went to New Jersey. C. B. Prindle occupied it next for about six months, and Senior bought it in 1871. John Harvey was his partner for one year.
In 1866 C. B. Prindle and Edward Gage took out work to size. The original shop stood just west of the present building. In 1869 Mr. Gage went out, and Prindle & Co. soon after became the title of the firm. In December, 1877, the Mill Plain Manu- facturing Company, a joint-stock corporation, took the factory now standing, which was built in 1871.
It is related that at the time of Mr. Brothwell they were mak- ing what was known as the "coney" hat. These hats were always worth just a dollar. If no money was forthcoming on pay day, the men were given as many hats as there were dollars due them. These were received at the stores as cash, and the merchants sent them to New York to sell. Mr. Brothwell never used the neat packing cases of to-day, but used to knock boards off the fences and make cases.
In 1860 the old firm of Crofut, Bates & Wildman being dis- solved, the business was conducted by Henry Crofut. From that time to the present there have been four different partners besides Mr. Crofut. First Rollo Nichols was admitted, under the firm name of H. Crofut & Co .; then George K. Nichols, and afterward Joseph H. White, the firm still retaining the old name. In 1878 the firm was Crofut, White & Peabody. The present firm is Crofut & White.
The firm of E. A. Mallory & Co. in 1860 was formed of Mallory and P. A. Sutton. In 1864 Mr. Mallory associated with him his brother, Samuel Mallory, and this firm con- tinued till 1866. Samuel Mallory then retired, and until 1872 E. A. Mallory was again alone. In that year he took in
235
HISTORY OF DANBURY.
his son, Charles H. Mallory, and this comprises the present firm.
In 1862 S. C. Holley began the manufacture of wool hats in the shop then standing at the Main Street bridge, which had before that been used by Crosby & Wildman. For a short time J. H. Gesner was his partner. In 1865 A. N. Wildman con- nected himself publicly with the firm, and the "Co." was added to Mr. Holley's name. In 1868 the factory was burned. The same year they built the factory on River Street, now occu- pied by them. A. B. Holley became a member of the firm in January, 1876, though the firm name was not changed.
Shethar & Lacey was the name of a new firm which purchased the Montgomery factory on White Street in 1865. For one year they continued business, and then admission to the firm was given to Henry Starr and Thomas Lawrence, under the firm name of Shethar, Lacey & Co. One more year passed and this firm dissolved, and in its place was the firm of Lacey, Hoyt & Co., composed of W. F. Lacey, Theodore Hoyt, Moses Collier, Ives Bushnell, and George Downs. In 1872 the firm went out of business. Lacey, Downs & Co .- the " Co." being C. H. White- then formed a copartnership and manufactured hats for a time. Lacey & Downs were before this time associated in the fur-cut- ting business in the Phoenix factory. Their hatting experience continued but a short time.
Elijah Sturdevant continued the business at the factory in Beaver Brook District until August 31st, 1873. On that date the building was totally destroyed by fire at a loss of $60,000. For four years the ruins lay as the fire left them, and it was not until 1877 that the factory was rebuilt. It then became the property of James S. Taylor, and from that time to this a de- sultory trade has been carried on there. In 1879 D. E. Leowe & Co. took it, but in 1880 the firm dissolved.
Nichols & Hine were burned out in Bethel in the spring of 1878. In the fall of the same year they came to Danbury, and took the old Lacey, Downs & Co.'s factory on White Street, where they were eminently successful for many years.
We now have given the hat manufacturers since 1860, so far as we can trace them. Next in order come the fur-cutters. The firm of W. A. & A. M. White, which was the principal one in the trade at that time, is still running. Their factory was
236
HISTORY OF DANBURY.
totally destroyed by fire in 1874. It was immediately rebuilt with brick, and is probably one of the most conveniently arranged establishments in the country.
FUR-CUTTING INDUSTRY.
We are indebted to Mr. Alexander M. White, of Messrs. W. A. & A. M. White, for the following matters of interest in connection with the fur-cutting and hatting industry, also carpet weaving.
"The manufacture of hats was carried on in Danbury before and during the Revolutionary War, and always since. Formerly the apprentices were taught to cut fur by hand from skins, for the use of their employers.
" The first fur cut in Danbury by machine and to sell was by my father, E. Moss White, for my brother, William Augustus White, between 1825 and 1830, and this industry has been con- tinued by the family from that time to the present. The fur- cutting by E. Moss White was done in an old shop on Main Street, just south of Niram Wildman's house, on land which, I think, was occupied by the widow of Judson White. This property afterward was occupied by Giles M. Hoyt.
"The firm of W. A. & A. M. White was formed January 1st, 1839, and had been in existence fifty-seven years under that title on January 1st, 1896.
" At the commencement of the business cutting machines were somewhat similar to those now used, only they were operated by a foot treadle, and the fur was mostly cut from muskrat skins and used for napping on wool bodies, which about 1825 and after were formed by machines on cones. Fur bodies were then seldom used and were bowed by hand, as was also the napping.
" Up to about 1842 hatters' furs were mostly imported from Germany and England. French furs came much later, when coney was used for soft hats. None of the imported furs were then cut by machine, which was an American invention, as also the blowing and forming machines. Up to 1842 imported hat- ters' fur paid no duty. In 1842 a tariff bill was passed by Con- gress laying a duty of 25 per cent on hatters' furs. For many years after this period the cutting of hare and coney skins was done in this country by our firm only.
237
HISTORY OF DANBURY.
" In 1842 we imported a man (C. L. Klumpf) from Frankfort, Germany, to teach the business, and made a contract with the State of New York for a large number of prisoners to prepare the skins and cut the fur, principally hares, under his super- vision, hare and coney skins being free of duty. At termination of contract with the State of New York we sent all machinery, with Klumpf, to Danbury, continuing the business there. We imported from Buenos Ayres nutria skins and cut them in Dan- bury soon after 1830, but hare and coney skins were not cut there until about 1845.
" The fur-forming machines caused a revolution in the manu- facture of hats, and brought about the general use of fur bodies for napping and plain hats stiffened. Up to about 1840 soft hats were not used, and but few plain hats.
" Between 1830 and 1840 a man in our employ, named Mon- mouth Lyon, invented a machine for weaving carpets. A patent should have been obtained, but was not. My father had a machine built, and it was the first power-loom machine that ever wove a carpet. About four or five carpets were made, but imported carpets were sold lower than these cost, and the work was abandoned. The machine and patterns were stored in the attic of our factory, and were destroyed by fire in 1874. In 1839 the writer visited a carpet factory at Lowell, where weaving was done on hand-looms, and was shown in a locked room the exact counterpart of the Lyon machine with the paper patterns, and was told that it was a machine that would revolutionize carpet weaving."
W. F. Lacey and George Downs went into partnership with Stephen Hurlbut in 1862, under the name of Hurlbut & Co. In 1864 Mr. Hurlbut left the firm and started in business in Peck's comb shop, where Beckerle & Co.'s factories now stand. He continued business until 1869, when he was killed by a run- away team.
Peter Robinson, in 1865, began the fur-cutting business in a shop belonging to the Tweedys. In 1867 he purchased a build- ing at Beaver Brook, and admitted to partnership John Tweedy. In 1870 the business was so extensive that greater accommoda- tions were made necessary, and the firm purchased the factory of Benedict & Montgomery on West Street. This shop was burned down in 1874, and in the same year they went to the
238
HISTORY OF DANBURY.
Hull & Belden Co.'s factory on Canal Street. Mr. Tweedy had, in the mean time, retired from the firm, and John Starr was made a partner in 1871. Mr. Starr died in 1876, and O. de Comeau took his place. He remained a member of the firm one year, and in 1877 Mr. Robinson's oldest son, E. T. Robinson, was taken into the firm, and sent to England, where they established a branch office. Since then they have established also a branch house in Mexico.
The manufacture of hat cases is an important factor in the business. In 1860 Mr. George Starr was the only person engaged in the business in Danbury. Besides cases he made blocks, tools, etc. In 1876 his brother, Daniel Starr, purchased the business, and still continues it. The Danbury & Bethel Hat Case Company began to manufacture cases in 1876.
Through the kindness of one of our oldest residents we have been enabled to trace some of the old hatters mentioned by Mr. Francis.
1787 .- William Babcock, who was employed by Burr & White, died in New Haven.
1803 .- Samuel H. Phillips lived opposite the Danbury Savings Bank, and died there. George Benedict was a son of Eliakim, and lived and died in Danbury. David Wood lived and died on the corner of Main and South streets. Ezra Wildman, who was a great-uncle of Samuel C. Wildman, moved to Clarksfield, O., and died there. Ebenezer and John D. Nichols died in the South. The firm of Boughton & Starr we cannot trace. Mr. Boughton is believed to have been Elias Boughton, who lived on the site of George C. White's residence.
1805 .- The firm of Clark & Benedict should have read Bene- dict & Clark. Sallue P. Clark lived down-town, near the old Carrington place. He was an uncle of Starr Clark. Benedict was the son of Peter Benedict, who lived in Mountainville, on the place now owned by E. S. Benedict. Gersham Nichols was the father of Starr Nichols and the great-grandfather of John Nichols.
1807 .- Noah Rockwell died in Danbury. Hoyt Gregory died here, and we believe has no descendants.
1812 .- James Benedict, of Tweedy & Benedict, retired from business to a farm on the Hudson River, and died there.
1816 .- David H. Boughton was a son of Elias Boughton, and
239
HISTORY OF DANBURY.
died South. His remains were brought home and interred in the burying-ground up-town. David M. Benedict lived later in life in the house now owned by Lucius P. Hoyt, and died there. He was also buried in the up-town burying-ground. Ezra M. Starr lived and died in the house now occupied by D. G. Penfield, on South Street.
1818 .- Captain John Foote lived near the present residence of Harmon Knapp, Main Street. Abel Hoyt was the father of Giles M. Hoyt, and died in Bethel.
1820 .- Ephraim Gregory was a son of Elijah Gregory, a black- smith, whose shop stood on the site of St. James's church, and his dwelling on the site of the rectory.
John Fry died November 4th, 1880. Alvin Hurd, who was his partner, died in August, 1869. The firm of Benedict & Montgomery consisted of Charles H. Benedict and William Mont- gomery, and closed business in 1861. Both partners are dead.
Joel Taylor lived for many years in Great Plain. He died in 1870.
Nathaniel H. Wildman was in the Southern trade in Charles- ton. He closed up his business in 1861. He lived and died in the old house yet standing in rear of Wildman's Block, on Main Street. He was the father of Alexander Wildman. His death occurred in 1877. Charles Fry is still living.
The firm of R. and E. T. Hoyt, doing business in 1816, was Russell and Eli T. Hoyt. The former died in 1868, the latter in 1893.
John R. Hoyt, who was one of the sons of Russell Hoyt, suc- ceeded the old firm. He was a brother of Lucius P. and T. Granville Hoyt. He died in 1848. This old firm of Hoyt Brothers eventually consolidated with the Tweedy family. Mr. Francis speaks of the firm of Hoyt, Tweedy & Co. This was the consolidation of the two.
A. E. Tweedy died in February, 1864. His cousin, Samuel Tweedy, died in 1868. Niram Wildman, who was a partner of John Fry, was grandfather of A. N. and John Wildman. Fred- erick Nichols is brother-in-law of Giles M. Hoyt. He now lives in New York.
The White Brothers, mentioned in 1814, were Judson and Russell White. Russell died in 1838, and Judson in 1839. Rus- sell White was the father of William R. White.
240
HISTORY OF DANBURY.
Edward S. Brockett, who was in business in 1832 with William Montgomery, died in Norwalk in 1872. He was for many years the trying justice of Danbury, and his reputation extended into the whole country.
In 1824 Mr. Francis mentions Isaac H. Seeley. Mr. Seeley died March, 1880, full of honor and ripe in years. White & Keeler were Colonel E. Moss White, who was the father of the late Colonel N. L. White. He died in 1863. His partner was Timothy B. Keeler. Mr. Keeler died somewhere between 1835 and 1840. Joseph Taylor was a manufacturer in Wildcat, Bethel, now known as Elmwood. He was succeeded in business by his sons, Reuben and Stephen. Joseph Taylor died in 1874. The Taylor & Dibble mentioned were Elias Taylor and Scott Dibble. They died many years ago, leaving no direct descendants in Bethel.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.