USA > New York > Westchester County > Rye > Chronicle of a border town : history of Rye, Westchester county, New York, 1660-1870, including Harrison and the White Plains till 1788 > Part 14
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 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59
A BORDER FRAY IN 1718.
No further claim upon the territory of Rye was made by Con- necticut, nor do the people appear to have renewed their attempt
1 Town Meeting Book, No. C. p. 20.
2 New York Colonial MSS., vol. xlv. p. 38.
120
TIIE BOUNDARY DISPUTE.
to join that colony. Yet for thirty years more, till the comple- tion of the boundary survey in 1731, there was an unsettled feeling among them relative to their political state. Some petty annoy- ances resulted from this condition of things, an instance of which occurred in 1718. Samuel Mills, the constable of Greenwich, went to the house of one of the inhabitants of Rye, living close upon the Connecticut line, and demanded of him the rates due to the minis- ter of the parish of Horseneck. Upon his refusal, the constable and his assistant ' took him into safe custody, and put him under keepers, in order to be committed to gaol, there to lye, till said Rates and charges were paid.' Elated by success, the constable was pro- ceeding to the neighbors' houses on the same errand, when, as he relates, ' There did meet us one John Clap, Elias Clap, Benjamin Clap, and Thomas Sutton, all with clubs in their hands ; . . . . and John Clap asked me where I was agoing ; and I said, To your house and your neighbours' houses ; and he and the other three run across the lots to his house and shut to the doors, and told me if I came in they would knock me in the head; and then I went from them, and was coming home, about a quarter of a mile from the Colony line and within the township of Greenwich ; and there came up to me Adam Ireland, Thomas Sutton, John Clap, Elias Clap, Benjamin Clap, all of the Government of Connecticut, and Thomas Daniels, now of Rye, late of Connecticut, William Fowler, and Strange and Green, all of Rye, near neighbours to said Daniels, with sundry others ; and said Ireland asked, Where is the constable of Greenwich ? and said he had a warrant to take me prisoner. Then the said company soon laid hands upon the deponent, and by force and violence pulled him off from his horse, threw away his constable's staff, and carried him and the collector before Justice Budd of Rye, and there were obliged to give bond of three hundred pounds, for their appearance at the Court to be held at Westchester on the first Tuesday of June next.'
Evidently constable Mills was somewhat astray as to the limits of his jurisdiction. He represents the families whom he visited as ' living west of the west bounds of the township of Greenwich, and east of the dividing line between this government and the govern- ment of New York.' This very confused idea of the metes and bounds of the two territories was probably shared by many. The fact is that there had long been pending between Rye and Green- wich a boundary question upon a small scale, like that waged by the two governments to which they belonged. Their respective limits were very indefinitely traced as yet. The early records of
121
BOUNDARY BETWEEN RYE AND GREENWICH.
our town show this. Thus at a town meeting held April 1, 1699, a committee was appointed 'to agree with Greenwich men to run the preamble line.' At a similar meeting held November 1, 1707, Thomas Merrit, Deliverance Brown, senior, and Robert Bloomer were chosen a committee to agree with Greenwich men to settle and run the line between the town of Greenwich and the town of Rye.1 In 1722 the inhabitants of Rye near Byram River again complain that they are assessed by the government of Connecticut ; some of them, who have not given in an estimate of their estates, have been assessed four times the value of the lands ; others have been imprisoned, and have had their goods distrained.2
In May, 1717, the inhabitants of Rye petitioned the General Conrt at Hartford to appoint persons to settle the disputed bound- ary between their town and Greenwich.3 The court summoned the inhabitants of Greenwich to attend their next session, and ' show reason why the petition of Rye shall not be granted.' 4 At that session the following action took place : ' Upon the Petition of the town of Rye contra the town of Greenwich, Resolved by this Assembly that the bound between them is already well settled, and that a parralell line with the line dividing between Stanford and Greenwich beginning a quarter of a mile above the great stone lying in the path by Byram river according to their Pattents given in 1696 and in 1697 and by each party rested in to this time shall remain to be construed and understood to be a good and sufficient Partition of the Common Lands mentioned in the return of the Comittee in 1673.'5 Not even this decision, however, seems to have terminated the dispute.
But the constable's mistake, though not unnatural, caused a deal of trouble. Another mimie war had been enacted in our little town of Rye, and the report thereof spread alarm and indignation, reaching even to the high powers at Fort William. Thomas Daniels of the town of Rye hastens to New York and there makes his deposition before the worshipful Council.
Governor Hunter lost no time in transmitting to Connectient a copy of these complaints from Rye. In his letter to Governor Saltonstall, he expresses his hope that there has been some mistake in the matter, as otherwise he must regard it as ' the most extraor-
1 Town Meeting Book, No. C. p. 4 ; No. G. p. 23. Records of Town Meetings, p. 33.
2 Colonial Boundaries (MS.) Hartford, vol. ii. doc. 155.
3 Petition of Rye about the line, May, 1717 ; Towns and Lands (MS.) Hartford, vol. iii. doc. 106.
4 Towns and Lands (MS.) Hartford, vol. iii. doc. 108.
5 Ibid. doc, 109.
122
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE.
dinary method of procedure in disputes about boundaries between two provinces under the same Sovereign, that has been hitherto known.
' You see,' he adds, ' the necessity of your having a law passed previous to the running the line, in your Colony as has been done in this, declaring the line which shall be so run to be forever here- after the true division line betwixt the two. The minute that is done, I shall appoint Commissaries and Surveyors who shall in conjunction with such as you shall appoint, forthwith set about it to prevent all future disputes. We have hitherto,' concludes the good-natured governor, 'at least during my time, lived together in good and friendly correspondence, and I hope nothing can inter- vene that shall be able to break it off.' 1.
This episode at Rye may have had some effect in hastening the movement for the settling of the boundary line. In October of the same year, 1718, commissioners appointed by the two gov- ernments met at Rye, but failed to agree upon a method of proce- dure. The commissioners from New York refused to go on, be- cause those from Connecticut were not empowered to complete the line, and bind their government to its adoption. In 1719, Connecticut appointed new commissioners with larger powers ; but still without pledging itself that the survey should be final. New York, meanwhile, without taking any notice of this action, passed what was termed 'a probationary act.' It provided for the ap- pointment of commissioners on the part of that province, in con- junction with others from Connecticut. These were to run all the lines in accordance with the agreement and survey of 1683 and 1684. But if no commissioners should be sent from Connecticut duly empowered, those from New York were authorized to go on alone, taking every precaution to do justice to both provinces, and to conform to the agreement and former survey ; and the line so run was to remain forever as the boundary. This act was made conditional on the royal approbation.
Four years elapsed before this proposition was responded to. At length, in October 1723, the General Assembly of Connecticut appointed commissioners with full powers, as requested by New York. A meeting was arranged to be held at Rye on the fourth of February, 1724. But tedious negotiations followed, and it was
1 New York Colonial MSS. (Albany), vol. Ixi. doc. 11. A few days after, he writes to ask of Governor Saltonstall a true statement of the matter, adding, 'I have no great faith in the representations of these men.' Colonial Boundaries (MS.) Hart- ford, vol. iii. doc. 154.
123
MEETING OF COMMISSIONERS AT RYE.
not till April, 1725, that the commissioners met here. Their first business was to agree upon the mode in which the survey should be made. This accomplished, they entered upon their work, start- ing at ' the great stone at the wading-place' which had been des- ignated as the point of beginning, forty-one years before. Their survey was extended as far as that of 1684, to ' the Duke's trees,' at the northwest angle of the town of Greenwich, where three white oak trees had been marked as the termination of the former
survey. Here the work was suspended for want of funds ; and it was not resumed until the spring of 1731. The survey was then completed to the Massachusetts line ; the 'equivalent tract ' or ' Oblong' was measured, and set off to New York ; and the line dividing the province of New York from the colony of Connecticut was designated by monuments at intervals of two miles.
This survey was ratified by both governments, and terminated all local differences and contentions respecting the boundary. The town of Rye especially felt the benefit of the decision. During much of the time that this controversy had been waging, it was even doubtful to which territory the town belonged. And to the very last, its eastern limits remained uncertain, to the great annoy- ance and perplexity of the increasing population in that quarter. In 1729 the town appointed a committee . to meet Greenwich men concerning running the preamble line between Rye and Greenwich, and to act in that matter to the best of their discretion.' 1
This boundary question has always been regarded with particu- lar interest by our inhabitants. For generations it must have been a theme of frequent discussion. Old men among us tell of the care that was taken in their boyhood to keep up the knowledge of its exact course. One of them remembers being taken, when a boy, to ' the great rock at the wading-place' and led along the traditionary line for some distance, in order that he might be ac- quainted with it ; and though he denies any such experience in his own case, he testifies that it was usual to administer to some of the rising generation a sound flogging on the occasion, to insure their lasting remembrance of the localities pointed out.
Whoever chooses to seek it may find the Great Rock, among other rude boulders, at the northeastern end of the bridge crossing the Byram River. The boundary line strikes across from this point to King Street, and follows the course of that road for about two miles. At the distance of five miles from the wading-place, it crosses Blind Brook near the head of that stream, at an angle
1 Records of Town Meetings (Rye), p. 33.
124
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE.
which terminates the territory of this town. The famous ' Duke's trees ' are about two miles north of this point.
Since the year 1731, there has been no dispute as to this part of the boundary line, nor indeed respecting the first thirty miles of its course. Nor was it extensively known until within a few years, that any part of it remained indefinite. The first public intima- tion of any difference was given by the legislature of Connecticut in 1855. It then appeared that in the process of time doubts and uncertainties had arisen as to a considerable portion of the line. These resulted in part from the imperfect character of the surveys made so long ago, and in part from the temporary nature of the marks which had been used to designate the lines. A century and a quarter had elapsed ; the troublous years of the Revolution had intervened ; the country had been gradually filled up and set- tled ; and in consequence, on some portions of the line all trace of the lines formerly established had vanished. 'Ranges of marked trees had long since disappeared. Many of the heaps of stone originally erected had been scattered. Traditions were found in- consistent and contradictory, varying the line in places to a con- siderable extent. Along the whole distance the greatest uncer- tainty existed, and a distrust and want of confidence in all the supposed lines rather than a disposition to contend for any. Resi- dents near the border refrained from voting in either State ; while officers of justice and collectors of revenue from both hesitated to exercise their authority up to any clearly defined limit. These circumstances were taken advantage of by those who desired to evade the payment of taxes or the severity of the law.'
In view of these facts, the General Assembly of Connecticut, in May, 1855, took steps to have the true position of the boundary line ascertained by means of a new survey and the erection of new monuments. Commissioners were appointed, to meet others from the State of New York, for the performance of the work. This proposition was submitted to the legislature of New York by the governor on the twenty-fifth of January, 1856, and received its prompt concurrence. Commissioners were appointed as proposed ; and on the twenty-fifth of June in the same year they entered upon their duties.
Mr. C. W. Wentz, of Albany, an engineer of established repu- tation, began the survey of the line, by direction of the joint commission. The line was run without question or difference of opinion, from ' the great stone at the wading-place ' on Byram River, to the 'Duke's trees' at the northwest corner of the town of
125
A NEW SURVEY.
Greenwich ; thence on the line parallel to the Sound to the Wil- ton angle, and thence to the Ridgefield angle. Thus far it would appear that the commissioners were agreed. But with regard to the line from the Ridgefield angle northerly to the monument at the southwest corner of the State of Massachusetts, a controversy arose. The commissioners from Connecticut were for adopting a straight line between these two extreme points, fifty-three miles apart. They urged this course on the ground that the old monu- ments and marks upon the intervening line were generally re- moved, and the original line could not be traced with any certainty by reference to them. The commissioners from New York, on the other hand, insisted that their duty was simply to 'ascertain ' the boundary as originally defined. They believed that most of the boundary marks could be found and identified, and that where they should fail to find them, other evidences of their original loca- tion might be discovered that would be sufficient.
In this diversity of views the parties could scarcely fail to be confirmed by the fact which a survey of the ground revealed. It was found that the line originally traced was not straight, but in- clined considerably to the east of a direct line. This appeared suf- ficiently from the monuments that remained, and that were incon- testable marks of the ancient boundary. It was also seen, that by abandoning the original line and adopting a straight one in its place, the State of New York would lose, and the State of Con- necticut would gain a tract of about two thousand eight hundred acres and between two and three hundred inhabitants, who had always been residents of New York.
The commissioners on both sides adhered to their respective opinions in this debate, and no agreement could be reached. In August, 1859, new commissioners were appointed on the part of each State. These gentlemen had their first conference at Port Chester, on the thirteenth of September in that year. The same difference of views manifested itself at once in the commissioners' minds. They agreed, however, as a preliminary step, to make an effort to trace out the true position of the original line of 1731. And on the twentieth of September, the two parties, each with a competent engineer, met again at Port Chester. After examining the localities at the mouth of Byram River, they decided, as there would probably be no difference about the line between the ‘ great stone ' and the Ridgefield angle, to proceed to that point, and ex- plore the line from thence to the south line of Massachusetts. This was done. Monuments were found without difficulty that enabled
126
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE.
the commissioners to verify the ancient line. Some of the marks were wanting, but where this was the case, satisfactory evidence of their original position was obtained from the location of line fences or from tradition. No space of more than eight miles intervened between the monuments found standing. The line was not found to be straight. The greatest divergence from a direct course proved to be ten chains and twenty-six links. This irregularity was owing to the fact that in the survey of 1731, the line was not run directly from point to point, but monuments to mark it were placed at the end of perpendiculars, run from the west line of the Oblong over surfaces often very uneven, and by a compass subject to constant variations, owing to the mineral deposits along its course.
Notwithstanding the fact, however, which thus became apparent, that the original line could be accurately traced, the Connecticut commissioners adhered substantially to the position which their predecessors had taken. A straight line must be run, regardless of all existing monuments. As this, in the judgment of the com- missioners from New York, would be to establish an entirely new line instead of ascertaining the old one, the proposition was re- fused, and the conferences of the commission were ended for the time.
The last step taken in this matter occurred in 1860. On the third of April in that year, the legislature of New York passed an act, empowering the commissioners formerly appointed ' to sur- vey and mark with suitable monuments ' the ' line between the two States, as fixed by the survey of 1731.' They were to give due notice of their purpose to the commissioners of Connecticut, invit- ing them to join in the duties imposed upon them. But in case of their refusal or neglect to do so, they were to proceed alone, and perform the work assigned. The commissioners of New York, acting under these instructions, held several conferences with those of Connecticut. But the latter adhered inflexibly to the principle that the boundary to be established must be a straight line. The commissioners from New York therefore pursued the course en- joined upon them. They fixed and marked the boundary line between the two States, placing monuments along its course at in- tervals of one mile, from the Massachusetts line to the month of Byram River. This work was undertaken on the eighth of June, 1860, and was completed in the autumn of that year.
Since that time, nothing has been done to settle the ' vexed ques- tion ' of our boundary. The line indicated by new marks and monuments is recognized by New York, but not by Connecticut.
127
BOUNDARY LINE NOT SETTLED.
It is to be hoped that some definite agreement may be reached be- fore the lapse of a third century over this singular dispute.
REVOLT OF RYE AND BEDFORD. - The patent granted by Connectient to the town of Rye upon its return to that colony in 1697, has been given, pp. 93-94. The following record of the action taken with reference to those towns, shows the precise grounds upon which the Connecticut government based its decision in this case : -
' At a Meeting of the Governr and Councill held at Hartford Jany ye 19th 1696 :
' Thomas Merritt and Deliverance Brown in behalfe of the Plantation of Rie : And Zechariah Roberts in behalfe of the Plantation of Bedford Petitioning this Conneill that the Plantations of Bedford and Rie might be owned as included within the Charters of this Colonic. And enjoy the protection of the Govermt and Lawes of this Corporation. The Councill considering that the said Plantations are included within the Charter granted by his Royal Majtie Charles the Second to this Corpora- tion, And also further Confirmed to this Territory by the Settlemt of the dividing line between this Colonie and the province of Newyork by the Solemne aet of Com- missioners for that end Comisionated under the broad seal of England by his said Majestie. And assented to by Commissioners appointed by this Corporation, which settlement bears date Novembr ye 30th 1664 : And was approved and Rattified by his said Majestic as appears by his Majesties letters bearing date Aprill the 10th : 1666 : And since the said Settlement whereby the said dividing Line was stated, And this ter- ritory so farre extended Westward as to include the said Plantations. No act doth appear whereby the said Plantations might be alienated from this Territory and be- come part or parcell of the neighbouring province : And the inhabitants of the said Plantation Claiming their right to and Interest in the Govement priviledges and protee- tion, of this Corporation, and being willing to submit thereunto. The Councill doe therefore soe Cause and judg themselves obliged to own the said Plantations to belong to this Territory and to receive the inhabitants thereof under their Goverit and protection. And doe hereby order that Pattents shall be granted to them for their Respective townships. And that they shall enioy all other priviledges in Conon with other his Majeties Subjects in this Corporation Acknowledging themselves obliged to submitt to his Majesties wise and inst determination in the matter appearing in our Charter and the Settlmt aforesaid.
' Hartford Jany ye 21st : 1696 :
A true Copie
' Test. ELEAZAR KIMBERLY Secretry
(Endorsed :) " A Copy of the Act of the Councill in refference to the Town of Rye : 1696'1
1 Colonial Boundaries (MS.) Hartford, vol. ii. doc. 138.
CHAPTER XIV.
MANNERS AND CUSTOMS.
1680.
' In a plaine habbit, according to the maner of a poore wildernesse people.' Address of Connecticut to Charles II., 1683.
H OUSEKEEPING in Rye in the olden time did not require a great variety of furniture. Each room, even the kitchen and the parlor, or ' best room,' was generally supplied with a bed. Beside this, a table or two, a cupboard and some chests, consti- tuted the heavier articles of ' household stuff.' Of chairs there were few, sometimes none. Philip Galpin's house, in 1684, boasted of three benches ; and rude stools, and the invariable coffer or chest, served our early inhabitants for seats.
The cupboard displayed the choicer eating utensils of the family. They were of pewter ; the dishes in ordinary use were of wood. The value set upon these articles appears from old inventories and from wills, where they rank with important legacies. Richard Lounsbery, in 1690, leaves to his wife ' her bed and some small re- versions of Pewter ;' and to his daughter Mary ' two Great Char- gers of Pewter, two pewter platters next to them, two lesser Plat- ters, and a flaggon, and a cow.' Peter Disbrow's widow, in 1688, relinquishes her thirds in favor of her sons Peter and John, who promise hier a certain yearly allowance, ' only her wearing clothes with her bed and what belonged to it, and her pewter -those to remain to her, and to be at her disposal.'
The apparel of our settlers was mostly of domestic manufacture. Samuel Hoit's wardrobe, in 1684, contained 'one pair of serge trowsers, one pair of linen trowsers, one ould serge coat lined,' and ' one Kersye Coat.' Serge and kersey were woolen materials of different texture. Leather garments were much worn at this period. Deerskin and buckskin, raccoon and foxskins, wolf and bearskins, were much used for this purpose. 'Indian stockings,' or moccasins, were worn to some extent instead of shoes.
The household linen with other valuables were stored away in
129
PRIMITIVE HOUSES.
the great ' chests,' three or four of which appear to have been owned by every family. These were the only receptacles which the housewife had at her command for such domestic treasures. In these chests, also, important papers and other treasures were preserved. Sometimes a neighbor would intrust his valuables to be locked up with the family goods. Nathaniel Sherwood testifies, November 1, 1704, that some years ago he had charge of a deed from Richard Ogden to John Wilson ; but having ' lost the key of his chest, he did desir them to Secure it other where, but they neg- lecting that he cannot now tell what is be come of it.' 1
Few luxuries were to be found in these dwellings. The floors were generally bare. 'One rugg' is mentioned in the inventory of John Hoyt's estate, in 1684 ; also 'one carpet or curtain,' - a hanging for the parlor wall, perhaps, -and 'one cushion case.' Feather beds and chaffe beds, feather pillows and bolsters, are specially noted. The ' warming-pan' was considered indispensable to comfort. Every house possessed a loom ; a shop for weaving, frequently built of stone, would be found on nearly every farm. A huge fire-place, ten or twelve feet wide, and half as many in depth, occupied one side of the kitchen.2 The 'cross-cut saw' of the early settler was needed, to prepare the great logs which were rolled into this cavernous depth. 'In the kitchen, the high wooden settle was never absent - now used as a screen, and now receding to the wall. This was the principal sitting-room of the family. Blocks in the chimney-corners were used for children's seats ; the settle kept off the air from the door; a tin candlestick with a long back was suspended on a nail over the mantel. As fears of the Indians died away, and weapons of warfare were less used, occasionally a musket miglit be seen suspended transversely from beam to beam. A small open recess for books was usually seen on one side of the fire-place, a little below the ceiling. The family Bible was never wanting. It occupied a conspicuous station upon the best table, and though much used, was well preserved.' 3
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.