USA > New Jersey > Hudson County > Paper read before the historical society of Hudson County. 1908 > Part 17
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
Mary's widowed mother kept a boarding house at 126 Nas- sau Street.
A few weeks before her death, she left Anderson's employ and assisted her mother in the boarding house, when it became known that she had accepted an offer of marriage from Daniel C. Payne, one of the boarders, a young man employed as a cork cutter at 47 John Street.
On a beautiful Sunday morning, the 25th of July, 1841, Mary told her fiance, about ten o'clock in the morning, that she intended spending the day with her aunt, a Mrs. Downing, who lived at 68 Jane Street, and she would return by the Broadway stage, reaching Ann Street about six o'clock in the evening.
Although the morning was fair, a violent thunder-storm broke out in the afternoon, the rain falling in torrents. The storm was so formidable that Payne (who does not appear to have been a very ardent lover, although he committed suicide soon after the death of his betrothed), did not go to meet the stage, thinking Mary, on account of the storm, would re- main at her aunt's over night; and it was not until noon of the next day that the fact of her disappearance became known ; and although probably the best known young woman in New York, not a person could be found who had seen her after she left her home at ten o'clock on Sunday morning.
5 1
On the Wednesday following, her dead body was found floating off Castle Point, Hoboken, bearing every indication of having been murdered and plundered.
Numerous arrests were made, but nothing was discovered until John Adams, a New Jersey stage driver, gave information that he had seen Mary Rogers arrive in Hoboken by Bull's Ferry, accompanied by a tall, well dressed man of dark com- plexion, and go with him to a resort near the Elysian Fields, known as Nick Moore's, but kept by a Mrs. Loss. Mrs. Loss admitted that this was true, and that after partaking of some refreshments, the pair had gone in the direction of the woods. Two months after the death of Mary Rogers, Mrs. Loss in- formed the police that her sons had found the girl's parasol and gloves in a thicket nearby. It was now believed that the time and place of the tragedy had been discovered, but opinions differ as to whether she had been murdered by the tall, dark companion, or by one of the gangs of ruffians that frequented the Fields at that day.
It appeared that Mrs. Loss was shot by one of her sons (accidentally, he said) on October 24th, 1842, and died on the 9th of November following. It seems that Mrs. Loss could not keep from talking of the Mary Rogers' affair, and it is sup- posed that the sons, fearing their mother would reveal the secret of the murder, encompassed her death by the alleged accidental shooting.
In 1904, a Mr. Clemens discovered a vital clue in the news- paper of August 5, 1841, as follows: "On August 3, the body of an unknown man, about 35 years of age, was found floating near the foot of Barclay Street. The body had been in the water some days. The unknown was a tall, swarthy man, and was without a coat."
The conclusion Mr. Clemens comes to, -and he thinks it is strange it should not have occurred to the authorities at that time, -is that Mary Rogers and the "tall dark man" were marooned by the terrific rainstorm and were killed by the sons of Mrs. Loss and cast into the river.
It is a curious and interesting coincidence that the name of "Loss", so tragically prominent in the celebrated case of 1841, should be the same as the surveyor who made the map of Hoboken in 1804, which is the authority for the original shore line, and is mentioned in hundreds of conveyances
52
and titles in Hoboken as the "Loss Map of 1804." I do not regard this similarity of names as any reflection on the charac- ter of the surveyor of that ancient time, any more than I do the similarity in the names of the indifferent wooer of the un- fortunate Mary Rogers and that of the writer of this paper; the old adage, perhaps, applies: "A rose by any other name," &c.
The front of the City of Hoboken, from Castle Point to Hoboken Ferry,-about three-quarters of a mile,-has the line for improvements about 1200 feet beyond the original shore line, and covers about 150 acres.
At Harsimus Cove, from Hoboken Ferry to Montgomery Street, in Jersey City,-about a mile and a half in length, -the line is, on an average, 3200 feet beyond the original shore line, and comprises about 575 acres.
At Communipaw Bay, to the line of Communipaw Lane, - about a mile long and three-quarters of a mile wide -contain- ing about 475 acres.
New York Bay to Constables Hook, -about four miles long,-the Exterior Line for improvements is about 6000 feet beyond the original shore line, covering about 2500 acres.
Kill von Kull front of Bayonne-three and one-quarter miles in length, almost entirely developed, with an average distance of 600 feet beyond the original shore line for improve- ments, covering about 230 acres.
With the miles of but slightly improved stretches of New- ark Bay and Hackensack and Passaic River shores, comprising about 5,000 acres in all, on which now stands the water front development of Hudson County. It is a matter of growth coincident with the development and growth of the nation, and is a monument to the enterprise of the pioneers who brought it about and to the spirit of New Jersey that made it possible.
A talented and enthusiastic young minister, lately called to one of our prominent churches, said recently :
"I am not interested in the past development of the water front of Hudson County, but I am interested to know what the development is going to be in the future."
I say to that young man, he can predict, with fair certainty, what the future development will be by studying the develop- ment of the past, and in no other way.
What this development would have been if left in the hands
53
of the municipalities comprising the county, is entirely con- jectural ; but it may be of interest to recall that the Legislature, by Act of April 4, 1872, granted to the city of Jersey City, for the nominal consideration of one thousand dollars, a tract of land under water in the lower part of old Jersey City, lying be- tween the extension of Van Vorst Street and Grove Street, con- taining about twenty acres. This grant was made conditional upon the payment by the municipality of one thousand dollars, but so little was thought of this now considered valuable tract of land that the municipality refused to pay this nominal sum and thus perfect its title.
Under the presumption that the municipality had forfeited its rights to these lands under water in question, the State of New Jersey, in 1874, purported to vacate the same, and em- bodied them in a grant to the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey. Subsequent litigation, however, brought forth the decision of the courts of last resort in the State, that the title of the municipality of Jersey City to these lands was still in force, and the city thereupon carried out the provisions of the act and became the absolute owner of these lands. The fact remains, however, that from 1872 up to the present time,- a period of thirty-seven years,-no use has been made by the municipality of this tract of land under water and no develop- ment attempted.
In 1878 the State granted to the municipality of Jersey City a tract of land under water on the Hudson River 130 feet in width, adjoining Morgan Street on the south, and for some reason no profitable use has ever been made of this water front holding.
In 1886 the State granted to the municipality of Bayonne three tracts of land under water; one on New York Bay, near the foot of East 35th Street; one on Kill von Kull at the foot of Ingham Avenue; and one on Newark Bay at the foot of West 30th Street.
No development or use has been made of the New York Bay tract; a dock has been built on the Kill von Kull tract; and a dock has been built on the Newark Bay tract; both used by the public.
These are about the only cases of municipal administration of water front property in Hudson County.
54
THE USE MADE OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALES OF THE STATE'S LANDS UNDER WATER.
On March 31st, 1869, (P. L. 1869, p. 1017), an act was passed creating the present Board of Control of the riparian in- terests of the State; and section ten of that act provided that the moneys received from such sales should first be appropriated to the payment of the expenses of its administration, then to the payment and liquidation of the State debt, and afterward invested and the interest paid over to the Trustees for the maintenance of free schools.
On April 6th, 1871, (P. L. 1871, p. 98), an act was passed devoting all moneys thereafter received from the sale and rental of lands under water to the support of free public schools.
On March 19th, 1890 (P. L. 1890, p. 92), an act was passed repealing the above and making the proceeds of the sales and leases of these lands, made after the passage of the act, applic- able to the "necessary" expenses of the State. This was under Governor Abbett's administration, but on April 24th, 1894, (P. L. 1894, p. 123), under Governor Werts' administration, an act was passed repealing the last mentioned act and devoting the proceeds of the sales and leases of the riparian lands again to the support of free public schools.
In an opinion by Attorney-General Samuel H. Grey, in 1901, the learned Attorney-General expressed the opion that any money, stock or other property appropriated to the support of free public schools under the provision of the Constitution, Article 4, Sec. 7, paragraph 6, were constituted a fund that could not be devoted to any other purpose than the support of free public schools. And in the light of this opinion it is ques- tionable whether the use of the moneys from the sale of the riparian lands, between the years 1890 and 1894, during which period they were diverted to general State purposes, was a lawful use of the money; but there is no question that now all of the proceeds of the disposition of the State's lands is devoted to the support of free public schools throughout the State.
Article 4, Sec. 7, paragraph 6, of the Constitution of the State provides:
"That the fund for the support of free schools and all money, stock and other property which may hereafter be ap- propriated for that purpose, shall be securely invested and re- main a perpetual fund."
55
The board having control of the fund is called "Trustees of the School Fund", and is composed of the Governor of the State, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the State Comptroller and the State Treasurer.
SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
In conclusion, in connection with the development and administration of the water front of Hudson County, it is in- teresting to note the names of some of the men who were en- trusted with this duty:
We find that, in 1848, a committee, composed of W. H. Leupp, Martin J. Ryerson and George F. Fort, were appointed "To investigate and report as to the extent and value of the lands under water owned by the State within the limits of the County of Hudson", and reported to the Legislature.
It is an interesting fact that the George F. Fort referred to in 1848, was Governor of the State of New Jersey from 1851 to 1854, and is the uncle of the present Governor of New Jer- sey, Honorable John Franklin Fort; so the fact appears that the administration of this great asset of the State began in the same family, in 1848, that is administering it in 1909, sixty-one years after.
In 1864 a committee was appointed to inquire into the sub- ject of the riparian rights of the State, and among the commis- sioners appointed for that duty we find the name of Jacob R. Wortendyke, father of the present Assistant Engineer of Jer- sey City, and of Mrs. Watson, the wife of Dr. W. Perry Watson; also at that early day we find Robert C. Bacot, Esquire, for many years an honored resident of Jersey City, as Superinten- dent and Engineer; and it is interesting to note that Mr. Bacot continued as such Superintendent and Engineer until the year 1897, a period of thirty-three years, when, by reason of age, he retired with the respect and regret of those associated with him in the administration of this trust.
In 1869 the commission contained the name of Peter Vre- denburgh, father of James B. Vredenburgh, the eminent coun- sellor of our own city, and of Judge William H. Vredenburgh, of Freehold; also the name of Honorable Bennington F. Ran- dolph, father-in-law of Governor Joseph D. Bedle; and others.
No thoughtful person can regard the subject of the devel- opment of our water front without interest.
56
There stands on a prominent point of land on the east shore of the Hudson River, enclosed by a plain iron barrier, under the shadow of Grant's Tomb, a simple stone monument, on which is inscribed, "Erected to the memory of an amiable child"; this stone has stood there a hundred years and more. I know of no better spot from which to obtain a view of the magnificent development of the water front of the northern part of our county than this; and I know of nothing that so strongly impresses the mind with the fact of the passage of time.
As you look on the resting place of this sleeping child, "the world forgetting, by the world forgot", you are back a hundred years in the quiet of undisturbed nature. Raise your eyes, and you look on another order of things,-the life and activities of the commercial world of to-day.
Or, stand on the upper deck of one of our uptown ferry boats, or one of the Staten Island ferry boats, and let your eyes thoughtfully rest on the development of the shores of our county,-all gained out of the mud and slime of the shoals of our water front, -and you will be impressed by what has been accomplished.
How easy it is to criticize, and what wonders are not per- formed by men whose chief claim to distinction is an abnor- mally developed hind-sight.
But we write of men of the past. What they lacked in spec- tacular and sensational activities, they made up in solid worth and character, and theirs is an inheritance to be preserved. They laid the foundations with dignity and builded with integrity; and the Hudson County Historical Society does well to add to its archives the names of men, and their achievements, which have stood the test of time.
The Historical Society of Hudson County.
No. 6.
Organized January 17, 1908.
OFFICERS
President : DANIEL VAN WINKLE.
Vice Presidents :
1st-REV. C. BRETT.
2d-JOHN W. HECK.
Treasurer :
NELSON J. H. EDGE.
Librarian : W. H. RICHARDSON.
Corresponding Secretary :
Recording Secretary :
LOUIS SHERWOOD.
DR. J. C. PARSONS.
Assistant Librarian : EDMUND T. MILLER.
Board of Governors:
ALEXANDER MCLEAN ) M. J. CURRIE
1910
W. J. DAVIS
JOHN J. VOORHEES
DEWITT VAN BUSKIRK
1911
DAVID R. DALY
W. R. BARRICKLO
DR. G. K. DICKINSON
DAVID RAMSEY VREELAND TOMPKINS
1912
BENJ. L. STOWE
F142 , H8H6
Ciu The Society
9/2-200
SYNOPSIS.
I-GENERAL STATEMENT Page
3
II-EARLY HISTORY OF THE ELIZABETH TOWN AND
MONMOUTH TRACTS 4
I The Elizabeth Town Purchase.
(1) The successful Nicolls expedition to America.
(2) The Nicolls grant to Bailey and Associates.
(3) The Duke's grant to Berkley and Carteret.
(a) The consequent conflict of grants.
(b) The "Concessions and Agreements."
(4) Ownership of the lands in point of law.
(5) Conditions during proprietary rule.
(a) Opposition to quit rents.
(b) Effect of the Dutch conquest and English reconquest.
(c) Case of Jones vs. Fullerton.
(d) The Clinker Lot Division, 1699.x
(6) Conditions during the Union Period.
(a) During Governor Cornbury's Administration, 1703-1708.
(b) During the other administrations of the Union Period, 1708-1738.
2 The Monmouth Purchase.
(I) The Nicolls grant to Goulding and Associates.
(2) The apparent settlement between the proprietors and settlers.
III-THE CONTEST DURING GOVERNOR MORRIS'S AD- MINISTRATION, 1738-1746 10
I The Elizabeh Town Petition of 1744 to the King.
2 Effect of the Newark Riots of 1745-46.
(1) Brief account of the disturbances.
(2) Statements of the contending parties.
(a) Rioters communication of February, 1746.
(b) Statement of the Council of East Jersey Proprietors, March, I746.
(c) Two petitions from the rioters laid before the New Jersey Assembly.
(d) Nevill's answer to the two petitions, April, 1746.
(3) Proposals of rioters for legal determination of land claims.
3 The gloomy outlook during President Hamilton's Administration. (a) Assembly refuses to act.
(b) Disturbances in Somerset, Morris and Middlesex Counties.
IV-CONFLICTS AND PARTIAL ADJUSTMENT DURING GOV-
ERNOR BELCHER'S ADMINISTRATION, 1747-1757 --- 15
I The Accession of Governor Belcher.
2 The Joint Council and Assembly Committee on the Disorders.
(1) Delays in meeting.
(2) Resolutions discouraging rioters' demonstrations.
3 Two acts passed by the Legislature bearing on the Disorders.
(1) Act for Suppressing Riots, February, 1748.
(2) The Act of Pardon, February, 1748.
(a) Terms of the Act of Pardon.
(b) It fails of its purpose.
4 The Departments of Government come into conflict.
(1) The Council and Assembly at odds.
(2) Governor and Council disagree.
5 Petition to the Crown.
(1) The Council's petitions to the King and Secretary of State, De- ember, 1748.
(2) The East Jersey Proprietors' petition to the King, December, 1748.
(3) Governor Belcher appeals for the King's special orders, April, 1749.
6 The action taken by the Home Government, 1750-51.
(1) The report of the Lords of Trade.
(2) Preparation of a commission for an investigating commission ordered.
(3) Draft of additional instruction to Governor of N. J. ordered.
7 Continued disorders in the colony.
(1) Essex County disturbances of 1749 and effects.
(2) Perth Amboy disorders of 1752.
(3) Hunterdon County riots, 1754-1755.
8 The dawn of peace in some sections.
(1) Attempt to have a test case decided.
(2) A show of quiet in Essex County.
(3) Peace in Hunterdon and Middlesex Counties.
9 The Elizabeth Town Bill in Chancery.
(1) The Proprietary Bill in Chancery.
(2) The "Answer" of the Elizabeth Town settlers.
(3) Probable attitude of Morris and Belcher.
(4) The suit interrupted and never renewed.
10 The outbreak of 1762.
COLONIAL LAND CONFLICTS IN NEW JERSEY.
Paper read before "The Historical Society of Hudson County" by Edgar J. Fisher, A. M., 11 February 25, 1909.
I-GENERAL STATEMENT.
The most annoying and distracting feature of the somewhat complicated history of the Jerseys during the Colonial period was the adjusting of conflicting land claims.
Of course, during the eighteenth century as in the other colonies, the people of New Jersey, represented by the Colonial Assembly, had bickerings with the royal authority, represented by Governor and Council, but such disturbances were naturally temporary, coincident with the administrations of those Gov- ernors, who showed little sympathy for Colonial affairs in New Jersey. It was often the case that the contests between the As- sembly and the Governor and Council, were precipitated be- cause of the conflicting land titles-the Council upholding the proprietary interests and the Assembly showing opposition thereto.
Such a division was natural, for the Council members were often in a majority of cases holders of large proprietary inter- ests, while the Assemblymen represented the people in the dis- turbed sections who claimed lands under counter-proprietary titles. For the most part, the question of ownership of two ex- tensive tracts of land, designated as the Elizabeth Town Pur- chase and the Monmouth Purchase, was the cause of the difficul- ties.
These tracts comprised practically five counties of the pre- sent State,1 the Monmouth Purchase including the settlement of Middletown and Shrewsbury2 and the Elizabeth Town Pur- chase the towns of Elizabeth Town, Newark, Woodbridge Piscataway and Bergen.3 At irregular intervals during the Colonial Life of New Jersey, after an apparent adjustment of claims, the vexatious disputes would again arise to plague the proprietors.
(1) Tanner, p. 59.
(2) Lee I, p. 136.
(3) Lee I, p. 137.
4
From the year 1703, when the East Jersey and West Jer- sey proprietors surrendered their rights of government to the crown, until after 1738, the year in which New Jersey obtain- ed a separate Royal Governor-the Royal Governor for New York having been since 1703 appointed to have jurisdiction over New Jersey also-there was a period of comparative quiet, as regards the land disputes. But during the administration of Governor Lewis Morris unrest again became evident and continued throughout almost the whole of Governor Belcher's long administration assuming at times a very serious aspect. For an adequate understanding of the land troubles of the Jer- seys after the Union period, it will be necessary briefly to re- view the early contests, because for the most part the latter dis- sensions grew out of and had their inception in the same gen- eral misunderstandings that characterized the early struggles.
II-EARLY HISTORY OF THE ELIZABETH TOWN AND MONMOUTH TRACTS.
It will be remembered that in 1664 King Charles II had granted to his brother James, the Duke of York, the lands ly- ing between the Connecticut River and Delaware Bay. Under the command of Colonel Richard Nicolls, a fleet was despatch- ed by the Duke to take possession of the territory and oust the Dutch.1 The expedition proved successful and Nicolls was the Governor of this territory, which thus included New York and New Jersey. In September of that year (1664) some set- tlers from Jamaica, Long Island, applied for permission to pur- chase some land, which permission being granted by Nicolls, these settlers-"Bailey, Denton and Watson, their Associates, their Heirs and Executors"-by purchase obtained a deed to a tract of land from three Sagamore Indians. In the words of the indenture the tract was bounded "on the south by a river commonly called the Raritan River, and on the east by the river which parts Staten Island and the Main, and to run north. ward up after Cull Bay till we come at the first river which sets westward out of the said Bay aforesaid and to run west in- to the country twice the length as it is broad from the north to the south of the afore mentioned bounds".2 Bailey, Wat-
(1) Whitehead: Settlement of Elizabeth, N. J.
(2) N. J. A. I, 15.
5
son and their associates had this purchase confirmed by a pat- ent from Nicolls, with the proviso that they should render a certain yearly rent to the Duke of York or his assigns, ac- cording to the customary rate of the country for new planta- tions. This grant-the so-called Elizabeth Town Purchase- contained a tract of great extent, probably between 400,000 and 500,000 acres.3
In June, 1664, while the Nicolls fleet was still at sea, the Duke of York, evidently anticipating the successful outcome of the expedition, granted by deeds of lease and release to Berkley and Carteret, that part of his newly acquired territory which we know as New Jersey. Of this grant, Nicolls was of course unaware when he confirmed the purchase of Bailey, Wat- son and associates and indeed he probably was not informed of the transfer to Berkley and Carteret until December of that year (1664).4
Thus in these two grants, the one of Nicolls to Bailey and associates and the other from the Duke of York to Berkley and Carteret, there are two conflicting claims to the same tract of land. In this conflict of grants is found the source of those disturbances that for decades disturbed what might well other- wise have been a period of peace and quiet in New Jersey his- tory.
After New Jersey was deeded over to Berkley and Carteret, the Lords Proprietors commissioned Philip Carteret, a cousin of the proprietor, as their Governor. According to the "Con- cessions and Agreements" issued by the proprietors, lands were to be taken up only by warrant from the Governor, and were to be patented by him. Quit rents were not required until March twenty-fifth, 1670, after which they were to be paid annu- ally, "a halfpenny of lawful money of England for everyone of the said acres". The arrival of Governor Carteret in Amer- ica was not marked by any disquieting omens, premonitions that might possibly have been expected of the two conflicting interests which later would assert themselves so positively, and indeed indications point to the fact that the settlement was quietly made under the concessions instead of under the Nicolls grants,5 for the fact is that a large majority of the people,
(3) Hatfield: History of Elizabeth, p. 36.
(4) N. Y. Col. Doc. III, p. 105.
(5) 'Tanner, p. 68.
6
sixty-five male inhabitants, swore fidelity to the Lords Propri- etors claims.6 Newark, Piscataway and Woodbridge were settled deliberately under the Concessions and to oppose the proprietors came as an after thought.7
In point of law, as to the legal ownership of the lands in question, the case rests clearly in favor of the Proprietors' cause. The emptiness of a claim based merely on Indian pur- chase was apparent even to the anti-proprietary settlers them- selves. But their position regarding the Nicolls grants can not be sustained. Those transfers of lands took place after the tracts had passed from James' ownership. By eminent lawyers, 8 the opinion was given, that "The Delegated Power which Col. Nicolls had, of making grants of the lands, could last no longer than his Master's interest, who gave him that power; and the having or not having notice of the Duke's grant to the Lord Berkley and Sir George Carteret, makes no difference in the law, but the want of notice makes it great equity, that the present proprietors should confirm such grants to the people who will submit to the concessions and payment of the present proprietors common quit rents".9 This right in equity the proprietors always respected, offering to confirm the grants made under the Indian purchase and the Nicolls patent, but at the same time justly claiming their right to the yearly rent, as prescribed by the concessions.
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.