USA > New Jersey > Hudson County > Paper read before the historical society of Hudson County. 1908 > Part 19
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
The disturbances continued, new outbreaks occurring dur- ing November, 1748, in the vicinity of Newark and Perth Amboy.4 They called forth a memorial from the East Jersey Propri- etors to the Governor asking him to interpose in support of the King's authority, and arguing that the refusal to accept the act of grace was a clear proposal on the part of the culprits of an intention to throw off their dependence on the English crown. This prompted the Governor to again lecture the Legislature- the Assembly in particular-on the necessity of suppressing the "dreadful confusions". The Council's response was con- siderate, but the Assembly insinuated that the laws were not fully executed, and said that if this defect was remedied, the laws still proving to be inefficient, they would consider the matter at the next session.
This reply of the Assembly afforded ample opportunity
(3) N. J. A. XVI, p. 11.
(4) N. J. A. VII, p. 178.
18
for a conflict between the houses, for the Council immediately defended the executive officials of the colony, maintaining that more effectual enforcement of laws could be obtained only by added appropriations for the support of the government. Such an imputation upon the Assembly's control of the purse. strings was resented and brought forth the resolution among others, "that this House have a right to enjoy their own senti- ments, in all matters and things that shall come before them, without being accountable or censured by the Council for the same." The Council, convinced that the Assembly was guilty of a brazen neglect of duty, urged the Governor to join in laying the condition of the province before the King and his ministers. The Governor signified his intention of trying one more session of the Legislature before appealing to the King. At this juncture the unusual happened. The Governor and Council came into conflict! After receiving notice from the Council that it wished to give him advice, Governor Belcher prondly informed them that when he wanted their advice, he would ask for it. A few days later, December 22d, 1748, the Council communicated to Belcher the opinion that his stand regarding advice was wrong. Again the Council pressed for immediate application to the King. These facts can be inter- preted as signifying the Governor's lack of sympathy with the strong proprietary interests in his Council and a possible influ- ence which his religious activities and reputed tolerant attitude toward the rioters may have had on his official acts.
Duty so strongly impressed the councilmen, that notwith- standing the Governor's refusal to join with them, an address was sent to the King and also to the Duke of Bedford, then Secretary of State, urging that such measures be taken as should be thought best to secure peace in the province. At about the same time, in December, 1748, the Council of Pro- prietors of East Jersey also sent a petition to the King, asking his protection for their property at this time, when the colonial laws were unavailing and it was impossible to execute them. The importance of the matter was urged upon Ferdinand John Paris, the London agent of the East Jersey Proprietors, by Alexander and Morris. Their plan was that Paris should per- suade the Secretary of State or the Board of Trade to order Governor Belcher to call the Assembly to action, and if it re- fused to act, to threaten the sending of troops for the restoration
19
of order. Any hopes the Proprietors had of such strenuous action were punctured by Paris's letter to Alexander, stating that no more than a "strong instruction" from the King to Belcher to call the Assembly could be expected.
The suspicion with which the Proprietors began to regard the Governor became evident. A new Assembly had been convened in February, 1749, but had taken no measures against the rioters, which fact it was charged was a virtual confirma- tion of their case. The proprietary agent, dutiful to his clients, promised to look with diligence for any possible complaints against Belcher in order that the scale might be turned against him, But the imputations against the Governor were some- what shattered by his message to the Lords of Trade, sent on April 22, 1749. The Assembly, he said, had no regard for what he directed, there was no hope that they would raise money to protect the jails and quell the disturbances, and con- sequently the King's special orders would be awaited with great expectancy. Notwithstanding this Alexander and Morris sent to Paris some charges which could be used against the Governor. In justification of his action in not joining the Council in our address to the King, Belcher himself wrote to the Duke of Bedford that he regarded it more for the King's honour that action should separate, basing his belief on his in- terpretation of the character of the Colonial Goverment. He renewed his request for special orders from the King. The Lords of Trade began their consideration of the conditions in New Jersey.
Dated June 1, 1740, the report of the Lord's Commission- ers for Trade and Plantations upon the condition of New Jer- sey was sent to the Lords of the Committee of Council. The report gave in detail the basis of the proprietary claims and a lengthy statement of the disorders in the province. After a review of the claims of the rioters the report, little sparing the feelings of the Elizabeth Town and other claimants, character- ized them as a "Set of Freebooters who enter upon any lands, and cut down and destroy the timber, tho' the lands have been ever so long granted to others under the King's title."
It was the Lords' opinion that the laws passed in New Jer- sey designed to check the disorders should be disallowed, in
(5) N. J. A. VII, p. 197.
20
accordance with a report of the Attorney-General and Solicitor- General. The rise and progress of the outbreaks were due prin- cipally to the weakness of the government, consequent upon the necessity of the governor's either obeying the popular will or being refused support.6 As to remedies, the report declared the most efficient would be to send a "sufficient military force under the direction of a commander to be appointed for that service." Or four companies from New York could be sent under the command of an authorized person, allowed to act independ- ently by having a competent salary settled upon him at home. Or if it is believed that either of the above remedies would not be efficient, New Jersey may be re-united to the Government of New York according to the plan in vogue before 1738.
The Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council, as a re- sult of the above report, in July, 1751, directed the Attorney- General and Solicitor-General to prepare a draft of a commission to be issued for investigating the grievances of the King's New Jersey subjects. The Lord's Commissioners for Trade and Plantations were ordered to prepare the draft of an additional instruction to be sent to the Governor of New Jersey. The in- struction was to be drawn so as to include an expression of the King's displeasure with the Assembly for its inactivity, a noti- fication to the inhabitants that a commission had been ordered to inquire into their grievances, and a declaration that the King had in consideration "the granting an Act of Indemnity to all those who shall appear to have merited the same," with the added injunction that the people behave themselves for the future.
The Attorney-General and Solicitor-General submitted the commission which they had been ordered to prepare. The full and impartial report on New Jersey condition. They were granted by the commission as drawn full power to receive neces- sary information, to examine witnesses and to send for persons, books, papers or records that might be useful. This tentative commission was transmitted to the Lords of Trade who, in re- porting it to the Committee of Council, gave the opinion that if the committee was executed "it must be by the appointment of such persons to be Commissioners as shall be men of known prudence, temper and ability; that these Commissioners should
(6) N. J. A. VII, p. 521.
2I
be chosen out of some of the neighboring colonies or sent from hence, as your lordships shall judge most proper, but we are inclined to think that persons sent from hence would be the least liable to suspicion of interest, prejudice or partiality." The Lords of Trade viewed favorably a suggestion of the At- torney-General and Solicitor-General that one of the disputed property cases be brought up for a final judicial determination, which when settled would serve as a rule for all other cases? and they remarked that, conformable to that idea it might be well to send an additional instruction to the Governor of New Jersey.
In the meantime while the authorities at Whitehall were evolving ways and means for the reduction of the restless Jer- seymen, there was no abatement of that restlessness in the colony. The disturbers of the peace indeed seemed inclined to regard legislative apathy as a commission allowing them to de- fy the law. The counties of Essex, Middlesex and Bergen particularly became the scenes of violence. Two men, Ball and Bunwell, having been imprisoned, were rescued, but later re- turned to confinement voluntarily and petitioned for speedy trial. The Assembly urged the Governor to issue a commission for holding court of oyer and terminer in Essex County, but the Governor, acting upon the Council's advice, refused on the ground that lawful and impartial juries could not be obtained in the County of Essex. In September, 1749, the Governor again appealed to the Assembly to take action, but fruitlessly. The appeal was renewed in February, 1750, after a riot at Horsenecks, but elicited the response from the Assembly that legal prosecution was the only measure to be pursued, and the disturbances might have been checked if the Governor had heeded the request for a commission of oyer and terminer in Essex County.
After a brief respite from disturbances, there occurred in April, 1752, another jail-breaking and the release of a prisoner committed for high treason at Perth Amboy. Although the Governor had issued his warrant that extra precautions be taken to hold the prisoner, one Wickoff, in confinement, he was spir- ited away before the extra precautions could be taken. The Council, on being asked by the Governor for advice, stated that
(7) N. J. A. VIII, p. 90.
22
inasmuch as orders might be expected from the home govern- ment at any time, they should be awaited.8 Belcher continued during the summer of 1752 patiently to ply the London author- ities for orders. The Council now despaired of any good coming from the Assembly, told the Governor it would be useless to have another session of the Legislature to consider the state of the colony, and became content with the suggestion that the Attorney-General "should proceed according to the known laws of the land "
When the Assembly did meet in May, 1753, it listened to the regular exhortation that some action should be taken to bring the colony out of its difficulties. But after this session of the Legislature the Governor could write to the Lords of Trade merely the oft-repeated news that nothing had been done to check the riots, and made the oft-repeated request that the King's orders be sent.
Early in 1754 Hunterdon County became the scene of dis- orders, and Governor Belcher issued a proclamation command- ing the magistrates to punish the guilty persons.9 One year later another disturbance occurred in the same county, and there followed the usual procedure-the chief executor's request for advice from the Council, and the subsequent issue of a proc- lamation ordering the magistrates to be diligent and the sheriff to suppress the riots.
By August, 1755, after more than one half a century of gloomy land dissensions, the horizon began to clear. That is, there came a relief from the intermittent distractions, and the development of a disposition on the part of the people to submit their land title cases to the regular course of judicial precedure. As early as August, 1753, Belcher, doubtless encouraged by the less frequent occurrence of riots and the apparent harmony be- tween them had written to the Lords of Trade that the province was in a "better state of peace and tranquility,"10 and that the Proprietors should improve this excellent opportunity by bring- ing forth their actions of trespass and ejectment.
Over a year passed before an answer from the Lords of Trade to the above letter reached New Jersey. This answer from London, which Belcher laid before the Council in Novem-
(8) N. J. A. XVI, p. 379.
(9) N. J. A. XVI, p. 433.
(10) N. J. A. VIII, p. 151.
23
ber, 1754, advised that the Governor use his influence in per- suading the Properietors to bring their trespass actions before the courts for adjudication. A Council Committee considered the matter and after six months elapsed reported to the Gover- nor. It stated that after continued offers on the part of the Pro- prietors to rioter's committee to join in an action, one Tompkins was entered as defendant in 1752, the case to be tried a year later before a Middlesex County jury, but delays had postponed the trial of the case. In the meantime according to report which came to the Council Committee, it was seen that the spirit of rioting was disappearing.
In Essex County at least sixty rioters were indicted, con- fessed the indictments, submitted to the mercy of the court, were fined and ordered to good behaviour for three years. They complied and paid the costs of prosecution. In Hunterdon County even more auspicious omens were observed. In the trial an action of trespass before the Supreme Court at Bur- lington, the plaintiffs were able to set forth their case as so just and so evident, that not only were the jury and bystanders con- vinced, but even the rioters settled upon the lands involved in the case, and the defendant's lawyer, who advised his clients "to contend no farther against so clear a title.""1 The light of the proprietary point of view dawned upon the wayward set- tlers of Middlesex and Hunterdon Counties, but the majority of the people of Essex County had not yet, according to the Proprietors, become "sensible of their errors."
In must be borne in mind that the inhabitants of Middle- sex and Hunterdon Counties were not included in the original Elizabeth Town Purchase. The determining factor in their outbreak had been the influence of the general restless condi- tions about them, or as was so often mentioned in the letters and reports of that time, the disorders spread. Coupled with that was doubtless the hope of substantiating their questionable claims against those of the Proprietors and in so doing, freeing themselves from the obligation of the quit-rents, which they had regarded with such hostility. But in Essex County, the seat of the Elizabeth Town Purchase, the outcome was different.
In Essex County the Elizabeth Town Purchase contro- versy came to an end, but not to a legal settlement. On April
(II) Bill in Chancery, p. 81.
24
13th, 1745, there was filed with the Clerk in Chancery (Tho. Bartow) the Elizabeth Town Bill in Chancery. This was an exhaustive defence of their claims, which the Proprietors had had prepared, as complainants, and submitted to the Governor, then Lewis Morris. It was signed by James Alexander and Joseph Murray, as "of Council for the Complainants."
After the case of the plaintiffs has been stated, the bill concludes, praying that the defendants be commanded to appear on a certain day in "His Majesty's Court of Chancery of this Province, then and there to answer the Premises". The Governor was asked to grant writs of injunction, commanding the defendants and confederates to commit no further "Waste or spoil upon the lands in question, by cutting of timber or otherwise howsoever, until Your Excellency shall have given farther directions therein."11
The committee of Elizabeth Town engaged William Liv- ingston and William Smith, as their counsel, to prepare an answer to the proprietary document. This work, "An Answer to a Bill in the Chancery of New Jersey", was not completed until August, 1751, and was printed the following year by sub- scription. Affixed to the "Answer" are the signatures of 449 freeholders and inhabitants of Elizabeth Town.
As mentioned above the Bill in Chancery was submitted to Governor Morris, who had established a Court of Chancery and himself exercised the officer of Chancery. Morris's con- nections might naturally have inclined him toward the propri- etary cause had he passed a decision upon the case, but his death in 1746, over five years before the answer was prepared, prevented that contingency. On the other hand, had the case been adjudicated before Belcher, there are facts which might have suggested his possible leaning toward the defendant's cause.
The case dragged along, and for unknown reasons was not settled before Governor Belcher, in New Jersey Court of Chancery. Some of the leading men connected with the suit died.12 Before a decision was rendered the strenuous events beginning in the late fifties interrupted further progress. To furnish troops for the French War became the paramount ques- tion for some time after 1757. Shortly after came the tense
(11) Bill in Chancery, p. 81.
(12) Hatfield, p. 372.
25
situation caused by the Stamp Act, from which time until the outbreak of the Revolution thought and energy was diverted into other channels than a suit in Chancery over disputed land titles. During the Revolution there was a suspension of legal business, and after the colonies had gained their independence and New Jersey had become a State the suit was never again reopened. Thus this controversy, which had been a thorn in the side of the province for almost a century, was never legally decided.
There remains to be mentioned one event. During the long period of excitement in the colony, due to the events from 1756 until after the Revolution there is the record of just one case of a disturbance in Essex County. In 1762, during Gov- ernor Hardy's administration, it became necessary to issue a proclamation, because of "unwarrantable proceedings by riot- ers." The proclamation is issued to prevent calamaties, such as vexed the province "but a few years since." The usual ad- monition is given to the civil and military authorities that they exercise vigilance in suppressing disturbances, and to the King's subjects, that they obey the laws, and refuse assistance to dis- turbers of the peace.
26
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
ORIGINAL SOURCES.
New Jersey Archives.
Documents relating to Colonial History of New Jersey-Vol. VI, VII, VIII.
Journal of Governor and Council-Vol. XV, XVI, XVII.
Elizabeth Town Bill in Chancery.
Leaming and Spicer: Grants and Concessions of New Jersey.
SECONDARY SOURCES.
Tanner: The Province of New Jersey (1664-1738.)
Gordon: History of New Jersey (Trenton, 1834.)
Mulford: History of New Jersey (Philadelphia, 1851.)
Smith: History of New Jersey (Second Ed. Trenton, 1877.) published in 1765. History of New Jersey to year 1721.
First Ed. was
Hatfield: History of Elizabeth, N. J. (N. Y., 1868.)
Whitehead: East Jersey under Proprietary Governments.
Proceedings of New Jersey Historical Society.
Settlement of Elizabeth, N. J., paper read by Wm. A. Whitehead, May 20, 1869. Second Series, Vol. I, p. 155.
Monmouth County during the Provincial era. Paper read by Governor Joel Parker, May 16, 1872. Second Series, Vol. III, p. 15.
Nicholas Murray: Notes on Elizabeth Town (Elizabeth Town, 1844.)
The Historical Society of Hudson County.
No. 7.
Organized January 17th, 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,
DR. J. C. PARSONS.
Recording Secretary,
LOUIS SHERWOOD.
Assistant Librarian, EDMUND T. MILLER.
Board of Governors,
ALEXANDER MCLEAN M. J. CURRIE 1910
W. J. DAVIS
JOHN J. VOORHEES
DEWITT VAN BUSKIRK
DAVID R. DALY
}
1911
W. R. BARRICKLO DAVID RAMSEY 1912
DR. G. K. DICKINSON
BENJ. L. STOWE
VREELAND TOMPKINS
T142 H&H6
Gift The Society JUL 12 1910
.
BAYONNE AND SOUTH HUDSON.
Paper read by DeWitt Van Buskirk, before Hudson Histori- 11 cal Society, October, 1909.
While other bold navigators and explorers may have sailed past Sandy Hook and through the Narrows before Hendrick Hudson, we Dutchmen like to regard him as the discoverer of this beautiful section of America and the grandest harbor on the Atlantic Coast. Though he was an Englishman, the enterprise was a Dutch enterprise, in the interest of the Dutch East India Company.
Hudson and his bold crew of the "Half Moon" are accepted in history as the first white men to make the harbor and explore the glorious river that bears his name. When he cast anchor on the third day of September, sixteen hundred and nine, in the horseshoe inside Sandy Hook (that beautiful outer harbor of this great port), the sight that met his eyes must have been a glorious one. The Navesink Highlands to the south, tlie ex- panse of Princess Bay to the west, the Narrows and the heights of Staten Island to the north, with the broad ocean, over which he had so recently passed, to the east, must have been a picture of delight. This spot is to-day the "Mecca" of the yachtsmen and the sportsmen. Then, later, as he felt his way through the Narrows, past the high wooded shores of Staten Island and Long Island and cast anchor, as Winfield's history has it, near the mouth of Kill von Kull, he felt safe from every danger of the sea, and as quoted from his diary, he found the shores on both sides "as pleasant with grasse and flowers and goodly trees as ever they had seen and very sweet smells came from them." Of the harbor he says, "we saw that it was a very good harbor for all winds." He found the Indians on the Long Island and Man- hattan side of the bay unfriendly. One of his best men was killed in an attack upon the men who were sent out in a small boat to explore the shores of the bay, but he also found the In- ยท dians on the New Jersey side of the harbor to be far more friendly than those on the easterly side. Winfield says "this
2
attack was probably made at the mouth of the Kill von Kull. It is also probable that the canoes were from Manhattan, for the Indians on the Jersey side visited the ship next day and seemed to be ignorant of what had happened." This would not have been so had the attack been made by any of the neighbors on the west side of the bay. It must also be borne in mind that there was no intercourse between the tribes on the opposite sides of the river.
From this place of anchorage of the "Half Moon " explora- tion parties were also sent through Kill von Kull and up Newark Bay, afterward called Achter Coll, that is the back bay, to dis- tinguish it from the New York Bay. Afterwards this name of Achter Coll or Arthur Kull was applied to the narrow strip of water lying between Staten Island and New Jersey from Perth Amboy to Elizabethport.
It will thus be seen that Hendrick Hudson and his men had a very kindly regard for the beautiful stretch of land bounded by waters of Newark Bay, Kill von Kull and New York Bay, now known as Bayonne.
With its dense woods and the beautiful foliage, with the shores in their natural state, this territory must have been ex- tremely attractive. Bayonne can therefore claim, with no un- necessary stretch of imagination, to have been the first of the territory explored by our distinguished Dutch discoverer.
I will endeavor, in the time that is allotted me, to trace the development of this section of Hudson County down to the pres- ent time. This section of the County has been from its first discov- ery and settlement, and is now more or less tied up and affiliated with the larger settlements of Bergen, Jersey City and New Am- sterdam or the great city of New York. The events of inde- pendent historical importance that appertain distinctively to this territory have been apparently few. I will endeavor, however, to outline what will be of interest to this society. I cannot claim very much of original research, but have gathered what follows from various sources, including local tradition and recollections of some of the old settlers, and I make use of much information from Winfield's History of Hudson County.
Constable Hook, by reason of its nearness to the Narrows, and also because it is at the mouth of Kill von Kull, appears to have secured prominence in its early days out of proportion to
3
its later importance. This point, as you well know, is a distinc- tive name given to that portion of Bayonne which lies opposite New Brighton, Staten Island, and is now the center of a hive of oil and other industries. This point, containing one hundred and fifty morgens (about three hundred acres) was granted to Jacobson Roy, a gunner of Fort Amsterdam, hence the name Konstable, the title for gunner, and Hocke, Point, Constable Hook, or Gunner's Point.
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.