USA > New York > New York City > A history of the Brick Presbyterian Church in the city of New York > 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 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38
It would appear as though the incident had now been closed, but evidently a good deal of private ar- gument had been indulged in, and in this manner a large number of converts made, for another meeting of the pew-holders was held after a month's time, and at it the former action was reversed. In the preamble to the resolutions then adopted the objections to the Beekman Street site were again succinctly stated. "From the residence of a large portion of the families of the congregation at a distance from their present place of worship," this preamble said, "and the in- creasing changes of residence into the upper parts of the city, the present site of the church is deemed less promotive of the interest of religion than one which may be selected." Moreover, "the contemplated im- provement of streets * in the vicinity will render the place less quiet than it is, and will be accompanied with heavy expenses." On these grounds the pew-
* The property had already suffered from the improvement of streets, the widening of Beekman Street in 1831, and of Spruce Street (affecting the north end of the lot) in 1834. The assessment in the one case was $750, in the other $2,000.
256
THE BRICK CHURCH
holders voted to relinquish the property for $150,000. But now, when, apparently, this difficult step, from which many shrank, no doubt even some of those who voted for it, had been irrevocably taken, one word reduced the whole scheme to ruin. The Chancellor of the city, whose order was necessary to the com- pleting of the transaction, refused to give it, "on the grounds both of law and expediency." As a conse- quence the Board of Aldermen withdrew from the negotiations, and the trustees necessarily allowed the matter to drop.
All this occurred, it will be remembered, before 1838. Ten years now passed, during which the dif- ficulties perceptibly increased. The officers of the church realized more and more that the removal from Beekman Street was becoming a matter of the ut- most importance. Something must be done before the whole organization should be imperilled. It was true that, as yet, though the conditions were highly inconvenient and calculated to create alarm for the future, the church was in a prosperous condition, as the preceding chapters have abundantly shown. If only the Beekman Street site could by some means be exchanged for another before the tide turned, the church might yet be carried through the crisis with- out any real loss.
Toward the close of 1847, the trustees themselves reopened negotiations. They sent a formal address to the Common Council requesting that body either to buy the church's interest in the property in ques- tion, or for a consideration to remove all restrictions from it, and transfer to the church " all the right, title, and interest of the Corporation of the City of New
257
ON BEEKMAN STREET
York therein." This communication, however, pro- duced no effect .*
In May, 1850, the trustees, who must by this time have been a good deal troubled by the situation, again endeavored, without success, to bring the Common Council to some agreement. But even had they succeeded, they would now have been too late to bring the church through unscathed, for in this year of 1850, which we have already marked in pre- ceding chapters as a turning-point in the church's his- tory, the difficulties under which the church was labor- ing had become acute. The church had visibly begun to lose ground, and when this process had once set in there was no telling how rapidly it would advance.
Of course the strongest and most valued friends of the church stood by her. She had no lack of wise and faithful men to fill her offices. Her treasury was well sustained by a generous constituency, which more than made up for any falling off in the pew-rents. Indeed, it will be remembered that in this very year of 1850, the treasurer had the pleasure, for the first time in a long period, of announcing a balance, and
* It is a rather amusing circumstance that at the same time when these deeply important matters were the subject of correspondence between the church and the city government, the following somewhat insignificant matter was also thought worthy of being carried direct to the attention of the city's Executive: "Repeated complaints having been made to the board of trustees that the noise by collections of boys in the neighborhood of the chapel is a very serious annoyance and frequently an interruption to the religious meetings held therein; therefore, Resolved, That a commu- nication be addressed to his Honor the Mayor, desiring his interference in the premises and the urgent request that he may adopt suitable measures effectually to remedy the evils complained of." Had the city fathers per- mitted themselves to be guided by their sense of humor, they might have sent word to the Brick Church trustees, "We regret our inability to buy your church site or remove the restriction in your title, but, on the other hand, we will see that the 'collections of boys' are 'effectually ' dealt with."
258
THE BRICK CHURCH
this comfortable state of things, so far as finances were concerned, continued even for two years longer. The first danger, then, did not lie in this direction. Rather it was the spiritual life of the church that was primarily imperilled. Its practical work was being curtailed, its habits of religious observance were be- ing weakened, its accustomed meetings and services, upon which its influence was so much dependent, were being neglected more and more.
The first direct effect was felt in the week-day ser- vices. For some time it had been difficult to maintain them, but now they were apparently about to die out altogether. Judging by the ominous silence in regard to it for the next six or eight years, the prayer-meeting did actually expire at this time; but an attempt was made to save the Thursday evening lecture by hold- ing it in quarters uptown, secured for this purpose. "Hope Chapel," a building erected not long before, on Broadway nearly opposite Waverly Place,* was accordingly hired .;
Three years later, in 1853, the session proposed that the second Sunday service also should be held up- town, a still more radical suggestion. We do not know that it was ever carried out, but if not, it is probable that the service was at once abandoned altogether, for we know that a little later this had occurred. Indeed, there were periods, possibly of
* It was built by certain members of the Stanton Street Church who took their letters and organized a church of their own in 1846. Mr. Bel- lamy became their pastor. It became later the Broadway Baptist Church. "A History of the Churches of All Denominations in N. Y.," by J. Green- leaf (N. Y.,1850), p. 412.
t The precise date on which this was determined was October 17th, 1849, but for the convenience of the round number, 1850 has been used in the text to date the "turning-point."
259
ON BEEKMAN STREET
a year at a time, when even the Thursday even- ing lecture was not held, in Hope Chapel or else- where; and finally in May, 1856, Dr. Spring, in show- ing how utterly impossible the condition of things had become, tells us that the weekly lecture, the prayer-meeting, and the Sunday-school had all per- force been discontinued, while it was with no small difficulty that a single service was maintained on the Lord's Day. That the Brick Church, which a few years before had been one of the most prosperous and influential churches in the city, should be reduced to this state, was an unhappy, and, to those who loved it, a heart-breaking fact.
But meantime the officers had not been idle. On the contrary, as conditions grew worse and worse, in the years between 1850 and 1856, they redoubled their efforts to liberate the church from the position in which it was manifestly starving to death. Baf- fled as they had been in every attempt to dispose of their rights in the Beekman Street lot, they proposed in 1852, to abandon that endeavor, but at the same time held to their purpose "to procure or build an- other church edifice in the upper part of the city, to be occupied as an associated or colleague church, with their present establishment." Where the money was to come from for this costly enterprise is no- where explained, and it was probably this financial difficulty that caused the matter to be tabled from meeting to meeting without any progress toward a definite result. At any rate, the scheme was at length abandoned, and the trustees once more, with what discouragement we can well imagine, were forced back upon the attempt to effect a sale.
260
THE BRICK CHURCH
It may be well at this point to refresh the reader's memory in regard to the conditions which compli- cated this endeavor, and had thus far thwarted it. To state the matter in a sentence, the church did not own its property. It merely held it on a perpetual lease, and, moreover, with the restriction that it must never be converted to "private, secular uses." It is true that, carefully interpreted, these words did not imply the prohibition of every use that was either private or secular, but only such use as was both private and secular; that is, it was no doubt allow- able to put the property to a use which was secular but not private, such as a custom-house or an armory, or to a use which was private but not secular, such as a church or a cemetery. It was only forbidden to put it to a use which was both private and secular, such as a dwelling-house or a dry-goods store. From this in- terpretation there was some gain, and yet not very much, when it came to making a sale; for though some other church or the federal or State Government, if one of them acquired the Brick Church's rights in the property, could use it for some of the purposes mentioned above, they would not be very much in- clined to acquire land which was so strictly condi- tioned, and which would, therefore, be transferred again with great difficulty, if that should ever become desirable. Furthermore, it was questionable whether the church, acting by itself, had the power to transfer its rights at all.
At one time, as has been described in an earlier chapter,* the Corporation of the city had shown a certain disposition to modify the restrictive terms of
* See pp. 138-140.
261
ON BEEKMAN STREET
the original grant. In 1831, when the new chapel was being built, permission had been given to rent for ordinary business purposes "two smaller rooms fronting toward Chatham Street," "without affecting the validity of the grant or lease." In 1835 the Cor- poration granted still greater liberty, for they then so modified the terms of the grant "as to authorize and permit the said church, from time to time and at all times during the continuance of the said lease, to rent so much and such parts of the new edifice erected on the rear of said church as may not be required for religious purposes." From this the church derived decided benefit, in that the rental of its rooms added materially to its income; but it is evident that nothing in these modifications of the grant concerning the use of the chapel made a sale of the entire property any more easy.
To sum the whole matter up, it appeared that in the ordinary course of affairs there were but two ways open by which the church could proceed. Either it must obtain from the city, for an equitable considera- tion, a complete removal of all restrictions, so that the property could be sold to any one for any purpose whatsoever, or else the city itself must be induced to take the property and pay the church the value of the church's rights. In 1847, as we have seen, an attempt had been made to accom- plish either one of these two things, but without success. This was still the situation of affairs in 1853.
But we have as yet spoken of only one set of diffi- culties by which a sale was prevented. There were also other difficulties of a different sort. The church
262
THE BRICK CHURCH
had been in the habit of selling its pews from time to time to individuals. It had also sold in like manner certain burial vaults in the churchyard. The pur- chasers in each of these cases had thus acquired cer- tain rights in the property and must be reckoned with if the property should be alienated. In regard to the vault.owners, it was at first proposed to sat- isfy them by the promise of a reasonable indemnity, but finally, before the end of the negotiation which we are about to study, it was deemed wise for the church to buy back the vaults and so remove this complication altogether. It so happened that a sec- ond widening of Beekman Street just at this time, which forced the removal of a number of vaults in any case, aided the church materially in this under- taking.
The rights of the pew-owners could not be dealt with in this way. The sum required would have been very considerable and, moreover, they themselves did not wish to sell. They preferred, if the church moved, to have their rights transferred to pews in the new building. Meantime, as we have seen, it was considered necessary to gain their consent before any sale of the property could be consummated; and they had a will of their own, which they occasionally asserted in opposition to the measures proposed by the trustees. Happily, however, as time went on, practically all of them were convinced that the change of location was necessary. In February, 1853, it was found, after a careful inquiry, that there was only
* The city officials in 1853 claimed that the opposition of the vault- owners to a sale of the property had up to that time been not only one, but the chief obstacle to an agreement. This, however, is extremely unlikely.
BRICK CHURCH
Park Row
Nassau Street
5. fut Siger
Beck man-Stroe
flichard is
THOMAS &
Vault 1700
15. Tort 4 Img
3.50 992mg
FAMILY VAULT 1787
Ifert 1 Wide
Theet 4 Biết
Il fort. 11. Wide.
MAP showing the relative position
taba Stephens
JEHIN HUECKKANOS'
Themes
of the BRICK CHURCH. taken in Widening Beckman - Street in
JOHN N.CONM' FAMILY VAULT -1817
November the
J171
with Facsimiles of the tablets and inscriptions thereon
& Tech - Wide
9 feet & Wide
10 feet Wide
PLAN OF BURIAL VAULTS ON BEEKMAN STREET
263
ON BEEKMAN STREET
one pew-owner who expressed decided opposition to the measure .*
At the same date all nine trustees and nine mem- bers of the session, including the pastor, put them- selves on record as being of the opinion that the change must be made, and the remaining two elders declared that they would at least offer no opposition. Backed by this almost unanimous approval, the board of trustees took an entirely new step; they made application to the Supreme Court for an order authorizing the Brick Church to dispose of its prop- erty "and to execute to the purchaser or purchasers good and sufficient conveyances therefor."
In this the trustees scored their first real success. The order was issued on February 15th, 1853 .; Exact- ly what power it gave must be thoroughly understood. It did not alter in any way the original restriction upon the property, that it should not be converted to private, secular uses, but it authorized the Corpora- tion of the Brick Church "to sell and convey all their church property, lands, and tenements, situate in the Second Ward of the City of New York . . . either at public or private sale, subject to the conditions and restrictions contained in the grant." That is, it was now declared that, if the church could find a pur- chaser, able and willing to use the property for other than private, secular uses, a legal sale could be made without any permission or cooperation of the city. On the other hand, a new restriction was added. The proceeds of the sale must be applied "to the
* Twenty-one others did not favor it, but agreed not to oppose, and of five the opinion was not known, they being absent from the city. See Ap- pendix S, p. 537.
t See Appendix X, p. 547,
.
264
THE BRICK CHURCH
purchase of other lands in said city and to the erec- tion of a new church edifice thereon." This, of course, was an entirely just provision .*
Greatly encouraged by this evidence that the tide had at length turned, and assured of their position in a degree that had not before been possible, the trus- tees approached once more the authorities of the city. They had several interviews with the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund, and made the offer to give $15,000 to the city for a removal of all restrictions. This, however, "was considered a sum too trifling." The Commissioners called attention to the facts, that for eighty years the church had been exempt from taxation and had enjoyed freely the city's protection. Moreover, the value of its property had been greatly increased by many improvements which had involved the city in a heavy debt and burdensome taxation. It was urged that the trustees should, in view of these facts, concede something to the public benefit, "and it is believed," say the Commissioners in their report to the Common Council, "that these considerations have had their influence in bringing the trustees up from their proposition of $15,000," to the accept- ance of the plan which was finally agreed upon.
By this it was proposed that the property be put up at auction, the minimum price being fixed at $225,000, and that of the proceeds, twenty-five per cent. should go to the city, the rest to the church. By this arrangement the city would receive at least $56,250, and the church at least $168,750. It was thought, however, by the representatives both of the
* For this and other details to follow see "Board of Aldermen, Docu- ment No. 37" (1854).
265
ON BEEKMAN STREET
city and of the church, that the property would bring at least $250,000, and probably much more.
This plan in its entirety was accepted by the trus- tees on April 6th, 1853,* who even appointed a com- mittee to confer regarding the "time, the terms, and conditions of site," but although the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund and afterward the Committee on Finance of the Board of Aldermen reported favor- ably, no final action was taken by the city at this time. The trustees, disgusted by the delay, employed legal counsel to aid them, and even secured opinions on the subject from Judge Bronson and Charles O'Connor. They attacked the city authorities through the Comptroller ; and through the Mayor.} They even considered § "the expediency of institut- ing legal proceedings against the city Corporation, with a view to ascertain what the rights of this church are under its grant." But, although they were apparently led to believe that the city would at some time act favorably upon the matter, no action could be secured until 1856.
This tedious interval, however, had not all been spent by the trustees in a state of discouragement. At one point in it they had strong reason to believe that they had the whole matter in their own hands, that, armed with the Supreme Court's order, they might accomplish a sale without any cooperation of the city authorities at all. The circumstances were
* Their committee, in recommending this, gave as one reason "the present peculiar condition of the city government." Politics in New York at this time were in a somewhat confused state. Corruption had already infected many lower officials. Two years later the notorious Fernando Wood was elected Mayor.
+ In February, 1854. # In January, 1855. § In August, 1855.
266
THE BRICK CHURCH
these. In September, 1854, the agents of the United States "advertised for proposals for the purchase of a site for a post-office and for courts, etc.," in the city of New York. Here was the very chance that the church needed,* and for which it had not even dared to hope. For the purposes here expressed the church had full legal right to sell, and the United States Government to buy and use, the property on Beekman Street, without the aid or consent of any other party whatsoever.
The trustees very quietly went to work, considering the matter from every point of view, and finally send- ing a committee twice to Washington to confer with the proper officials there. From the second of these two visits the committee returned, feeling that the prospect of a sale was favorable. There was, indeed, a difficulty (was there not always a difficulty in this struggle to dispose of the church's "angular lot"?). Congress had so left the matter, that it was a question whether the President could act without further sanction. Still Mr. Pierce, who was at that time the nation's Chief Executive, and with whom the church's committee had conferred, gave them the impression that he considered himself to have the necessary authority. The Secretary of the Interior, the Hon. Robert McClelland, had also received the church's proposition in a friendly way; and indeed the offer was, in the trustees' opinion, so highly advantageous to the Government, that they expected every effort would be made to accept it.
They had offered the property at $300,000, which
* For a curious prophecy of this proposal fifteen years before, see above p. 254.
267
ON BEEKMAN STREET
was one-fourth less than what would be the value, it was said, were there no restrictions, the reduction being made because of the government's being ready to use the land for purposes not prohibited by the original grant, so that the city need not be consulted and the whole sum would go to the church. If, moreover, the valuation was thought to be too high they would willingly submit that matter to any com- petent judges for revision. They asked for a reply within twenty days and also "that unless accepted and the contract signed, the proposal shall not be made known to any but the gentlemen connected with the service of the United States, whose inter- ference may be deemed useful to the government."
But the reader knows, of course, that the New York Post-Office was never built on the church's land. Within the twenty days, on May 22d, 1855, word was received "that the President, after mature re- flection, had concluded that it would be of doubtful propriety to take any action in the matter of the pur- chase of the Brick Church property without further sanction of Congress."
This, it is a pleasure to state, was the last of the many disappointments which these patient church officers were called upon to endure. At the very meeting when the declination was received from Washington, two applications for the purchase of the property were received from other quarters. These were conditioned, no doubt, upon that coop- eration of the city which had been so long delayed; but still there was distinct encouragement in the knowledge that the property was in active demand, and that pressure would now be exerted, not only by
268
THE BRICK CHURCH
the sellers, but by prospective buyers, to have the matter speedily settled. The trustees had, it is true, felt all along that their property possessed an assured value, which was bound to be realized in time-they had even trusted so far in this assurance as to open negotiations already for new land uptown, as we shall see in the next chapter-but the result would be doubly and trebly welcome if it could come at once.
In January, 1856, they received a definite offer of $175,000, for their rights in the property, but they stood out for $200,000. And three months later, this course was justified, when their figure was definitely accepted by Frederick P. James, Edward B. Wesley, and Henry Keep, who became the purchasers, for the sum named above, of all the rights of the Brick Church in the property which it had occupied for nearly ninety years .*
* The contract was signed on April 11th, and the deed delivered a month later. The church was given "the right to remove from the church edifice the bell and furniture and fixtures in the church" and also "the right to remove at their own cost the remains of the dead contained in the vaults and in said ground." The church was to receive the award for damages for the widening of Beekman Street; but agreed to pay the assess- ment for the same, and also to settle the claims of all vault-owners who should not have been previously bought out. In the process of removing the dead, as here provided for, there arose the "novel and interesting question, Who is legally entitled to the custody of the dead?" In order to settle this point a friendly suit was instituted. The remains of one Moses Sherwood (identified "by the ribbon, by which his hair was tied in a queue, found lying with his skull and bones") were claimed by his daughter, al- though the grave in which he had been buried was now the property of the church. The trustees raised no objection, but desired that the rights in the matter should be legally determined. They received with pleasure the decision of Judge Davies, in committing the dead exclusively to the next of kin, and thanked both the Judge and Samuel B. Ruggles, Esq., who had "vindicated the rights of the dead," for the achievement of a result so distinctly in accord with "Christian sentiment, taste and feeling." See " An Examination of the Law of Burial," by S. B. Ruggles.
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.