USA > New York > Courts and lawyers of New York; a history, 1609-1925, Volume I > Part 10
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
99
THE DIRECTORS-GENERAL
somewhat lawless, and on the manors the patroons were almost supreme. So, to regain the lost authority, to more closely control commercial affairs and bring about a better communal state, Kieft may perhaps be pardoned for having temporarily taken full command. Had he been broad-minded as well as strong-minded, his administration might have been beneficial, even though rigorous in its beginning. But power soon shows a man at his true worth. Kieft evidently liked the role of tyrant. A new Charter of Exemptions and Priv- ileges issued in 1640 was designed to restrict the authority of the patroons and increase that of the "free colonists," but it effected little change in the colonial administration., Director Kieft was the law; "His council enacted laws, imposed taxes, and inflicted fines, confiscations, banishments, and other pen- alties indiscriminately upon the Indians or upon the colonists, as the Director desired.11 He ignored both the spirit and letter of that charter, which provided for "competent Council- lors, Officers, and other Ministers of Justice for the protection
tiny and homicides were not infrequent. The settlements on the upper Hudson were in a state of discontent, while the rights of the Dutch were threatened on Long Island and in Connecticut to the north, and on the Delaware Bay to the south.
Severe measures of repression were imperatively needed if the authority of the West India Company should be maintained. Kieft did not hesitate, but began to rule with a strong hand. Giving first attention to affairs in New Amsterdam, he issued proclamations in regard to the company's business, the proper conduct of the townsfolk and the legal and judicial procedures under the Holland law which controlled the colony. But his dispensation of justice was a farce .- Chester's "Legal and Judicial History of New York," Vol. I, 28.
II. In 1640 a charter of exemptions and privileges, designed to en- courage emigration, was adopted by the College of Nineteen, in which it was declared that the governor and council should decide all questions respecting the rights of the company and all complaints, whether by for- eigners or inhabitants of the province; that they should act as an orphan's and surrogate's court, judge in criminal and religious affairs, and administer law generally. In conformity with the charter, Kieft directed that the council should sit every Thursday, as a court of justice, for "the hearing and adjudication of all civil and criminal processes, and for the redress of all grievances of which anyone might have to complain"; and he estab- lished certain rules for securing the attendance of parties, and for the general conduct of business. In a court thus constituted, guided and con-
100
COURTS AND LAWYERS
of the good and punishment of the wicked." It also provided for "Courts of the Patroons or Colonists"; but while the strong patroonship of Rensselaerwyck and perhaps some of the feeble ones were able to keep control of their own minor courts, there is no mention of the functioning of Courts of the Colonists in New Amsterdam, or elsewhere. As the Albany records show, Director Kieft's administration manifested "an abundance of court activity," but from the beginning of his regime it was his Council that sat as a court of justice,-the Council in which he had two votes against one. "When anything extraordinary occurred, the Director allowed some whom it pleased him-officials of the company for the most part-to be summoned in addition, but that seldom hap- pened," admitted Adriaen van der Donck, in the "Remon- strance of New Netherland," printed at the Hague in 1649. One would hardly expect such additional judges, referees or arbitrators to have contrary opinions to those of their su- perior, the all-powerful Director-General. Pettiness, super- stition, and inconsistency marked the administration of jus- tice. Hendrick Jensen, arraigned in October, 1638, "for scan- dalizing the governor," was sentenced to stand at the entrance of the court at the ringing of the bell, and there publicly beg the
trolled by a man vain, rapacious and vindictive, it may readily be imagined in what way justice was administered. He enacted laws, levied fines or inflicted penalties according to his will. The schout-fiscals, of whom there were two during his governorship, Ulrich Lupold and Cornelis van der Huygens, were occassionally invited to be present at the sittings of the council, but neither they nor his counsellor, Doctor Johannes la Montagne, a learned Huguenot physician, appeared to have had much weight with him. Ever involved in trouble, either with the natives or with the colonists, he was constantly inflicting fines, confiscations and banishments; and though an appeal lay from his judicial decisions to the chamber of Amsterdam, he effectually cut it off by subjecting to fine or imprisonment anyone who attempted to resort to it. Such an administration was fruitful at least of one result. It stirred up the colonists to demand the establishment of judicial and municipal tribunals, similar to those which they had enjoyed in Holland .- Daly's "State of Jurisprudence During the Dutch Period," 1623-74, Vol. I, p. 8; "History of Bench and Bar of New York."
-
1
IOI
THE DIRECTORS-GENERAL
Governor to pardon him. Anthony Jensen's wife Grietje slan- dered the Reverend Everardus Bogardus. Her husband was fined, and she showed a contrite spirit, "begging pardon of God, the court, and the minister"; but thereafter they seem to have been a marked couple, continually in trouble until, finally, on April 7, 1639, they were sentenced to be forever banished from New Netherland "as public disturbers and slan- derers." Jan Hobbesen, in 1641, stole a sheet from a bed in the city tavern. He pleaded intoxication as reason for know- ing nothing about the matter. But, after being "put to tor- ture," he confessed. He was sentenced to be whipped with rods, and afterwards banished. A man accused of murder was sentenced to be punished, when apprehended, "by sword until dead." The breaking of two halters around the neck of a gigantic negro sentenced "to be hanged by the neck until dead as an example to all such malefactors," brought the mur- derer freedom, "by God's providence." For "drawing his knife upon a person," in 1638, Gysbert van Beyerland was sentenced "to throw himself three times from the sail-yard (yard-arm) of the yacht 'Hope,' and to receive from each sailor three lashes at the ringing of the bell."
The justice dispensed may in many cases have properly met the crime; yet, the fact that offenders, or accused, had no appeal against the finding of one man must in itself have stirred resentment and resistance in the minds of colonists who had been reared in a land wherein there was some sem- blance of representative government. The judiciary was su- preme in the Dutch system, and controlled municipal govern- ment in Holland, the magisterial bench of burgomaster and schepens having judicial power, and also power equivalent to that of mayor and aldermen of a modern city. A degree of popular government was present in this body, for in most cases it was chosen by the representatives of the people-by a delegation of eight or nine "good men" selected in town
I02
COURTS AND LAWYERS
meeting by the burghers for the purpose.12 But in New Netherland Governor Kieft had more arbitrary sway "than would a king or emperor in their former home." "Month by month Kieft grew in unpopularity, while the protests of the people against him increased and their demands to participate in the government were more and more insistent."13
Not only were the colonists resentful of the acts of their Governor; the attitude of the natives grew increasingly omi- nous. An unscrupulous employer is apt to encourage the same quality in his hirelings. Dishonest trading by the rep-
12. There had existed in every town and village in Holland, for more than a century, a local tribunal of a highly popular character. It united the twofold functions of a court of justice and of a municipal government, and consisted of a court of magistrates, denominated burgomaster and schepens, with whom were associated a schout, whose especial duty it was to prosecute all offenders before the court, and to carry into execution its resolves or decrees. The burgomaster was a kind of mayor. The schepen resembled an alderman, and the schout performed the duties which, under our system, are respectively assigned to sheriffs and district attorneys. The principle of popular representation was recognized in the composition of this body. The mode of appointment was not uniform throughout Holland; but generally the inhabitants of the town who were possessed of a certain prop- erty qualification, assembled annually in a town council, or Vroedschap, and elected eight or nine "good men," and this representative body chose the burgomaster and schepens. The schout, under the feudal law, was appointed by the count or manorial lord, though in certain places, as in the city of Am- sterdam, he was chosen by the burgomaster and schepens .- Daly, in "State of Jurisprudence During the Dutch Period"; also "Esprit Origine et Progress des Institutions Judiciaries des Principaux Pays de l'Europe," par J. D. Myer, Paris, 1823; tome iii, livre 5, coup d'oiel, sur l'etat, politique des Pays Bas, Chapter ii, 253, Chapter 14, 387; "Placards of Hol- lande," Vol. II, 695; Van Leuwen's "Roman Dutch Law," book I, ch. 2, sect. 19, 20, 21 ; Van der Linden's "Institutes of Holland," Part I, book 3, Chap. I.
13. His arbitrary methods and his general bad judgment in dealing with the situation made the colonists more and more dissatisfied with the condi- tion of affairs in which they were placed, and with the burdens which they were compelled to endure. . . . They chafed under the imperious man- ners of the director general, who, although without royal rank or prestige, assumed more authority and inflicted more hardships upon those over whom he had been placed temporarily than would a king or emperor in their former home. Naturally, they resented this, and, as the time went on and no signs of a change of heart in their master were manifest, they became more and more determined than ever before to assert themselves, and to de- mand what they considered were their rights as citizens .- Chester's "Legal and Judicial History of New York," Vol. I, 36.
103
THE DIRECTORS-GENERAL
resentatives of the West India Company exasperated as well as impoverished the natives, and Kieft showed no sympathy toward them. Indeed, his inclination was toward further ex- tortion. He treated the Indians as a conquered race, and deemed his own status, perhaps, to be that of emperor ruling both conquerors and conquered. He arrogantly demanded tribute "of furs, maize and wampum." He demanded even the life of the son of a chief in 1641. But he was shrewd enough to see that the rising storm was beyond his power to weather alone. So situated, he was not unwilling to grant the colonists some measure of representative government.
He wanted to wage war upon the Indians, but was not averse to sharing responsibility for such an act with the col- onists. Consequently, he called together the heads of fam- ilies. They met, and according to the custom of Holland selected twelve men to represent them. These were drawn from Manhattan, Long Island, Staten Island, and Pavonia. This board, the first representative body organized in New Netherland, is stated to have assented to the warlike measures planned by Kieft. Whether the approval was unanimous is open to question; it is said that Kieft obtained authorization to proceed by unscrupulous means.14 But it is certain that this Board of Twelve demanded reforms in local government, being insistent "that courts of justice similar to those which existed in the towns and villages of Holland" should be estab- lished. They condemned the Governor's Council of one, and the dispensing of justice by himself, or his underlings.15
14. Determined to carry out his purposes, Kieft, in order to give his action a show of endorsement by the advisory board, induced three of the most unscrupulous members, after a bountiful entertainment, to sign an authorization for him to proceed .- "History of Hudson County, New Jersey."
15. Finally opportunity came to the people in 1641. . . . Kieft de- termined to wreck vengeance upon the Indians, but, having some doubt concerning the wisdom and the outcome of such a venture, he wished to place the responsibility for a possible disaster upon the community of New Amsterdam, instead of taking it entirely upon himself. Accordingly, he
I04
COURTS AND LAWYERS
They probably were not surprised at the outcome. Kieft ad- hered to his system of government, with one exception; he professed that he had already decided to increase his Council to five. But he saw the danger that lay in representative government, for he summarily dissolved the Board of Twelve, deeming that further meetings would tend "to a dangerous consequence, and to the great injury both of the country and of our authority." He forbade further assemblage "on pain of being punished as disobedient subjects."16
Freed from such a constitutional curb, the Director-Gen- eral went his fatal way unheeding. The Indian situation grew steadily worse in the vicinity of Manhattan, for the Indians positively refused to render tribute in maize "for nothing." The Indian is inherently honorable; at the worst he is manly; or at least those were the common character- istics of the aborigine in the first generations of white inter-
called upon the heads of families to select twelve representatives to confer with him in regard to the matter. These twelve men were: David Pieter- sen de Vries, chosen president by his associates; Jacques Bentyn, Maryn Adriaensen, Jan Jansen Damen, Hendrick Jansen, Jacob Stoffelsen, Abram Pietersen Molenaar, Frederick Lubbertsen, Jochem Pietersen Kuyter, Gerrit Dircksen, Joris Rapelje and Abram Planck. They were residents of Man- hattan, Pavonia, Long Island and Staten Island.
The Twelve Men-who constituted the first popular representative body of New Netherland-gave their approval to a campaign against the Indians. They also availed themselves of the opening afforded them by their election as a representative body, to make demands on the governor for those re- forms in the administration of the affairs of the community which the people, as a whole, had long desired. Particularly, they were insistent that courts of justice similar to those which existed in the towns and villages of Holland-boards of schepens, or magistrates-should be established. They also asked that the membership of the council should be increased to at least five; they registered their decided disapproval of the practice of summon- ing "the common people," that is, the servants and employees of the com- pany, to the bench; finally, they demanded that the director of the council should not sit in judgment unless five of the council were presiding in the court .- Chester's "Legal and Judicial History of New York," Vol. I, 37.
16. And whereas the Commonalty at our request appointed and in- structed these twelve men to communicate their good council and advice in the subject of the murder of the late Claes Cornelissen Swits, which was committed by the Indians; this now being completed by them, we do hereby thank them for the trouble they have taken and shall with God's help make use of their rendered written advice in its own time. The said Twelve men
105
THE DIRECTORS-GENERAL
course with them, while their national morale was high. And a mean advantage taken by Kieft of one tribe in 1643, when that tribe, the Hackensack, was beset by another enemy, the fierce Mohawk, united the lower Hudson tribes for one grim purpose, that of exacting a terrible revenge. With toma- hawk and torch they laid waste most of Pavonia. Indeed, their onslaught was so furious that not a white man remained within its limits, except as a prisoner. Those who escaped with their lives found that they were not safe from attack even when within a thousand paces of Manhattan fort. Such was the disastrous outcome of Kieft's tyranny in one direction.17
While the storm was gathering, before it reached such in- tensity as to cause all in New Netherland to cry out against Kieft, because of his disastrous Indian policy in particular which brought upon his head the weight of condemnation by the colonists of every phase of his despotic system of gov- ernment, Kieft again thought it prudent to call into consulta- tion some of his "subjects." The horizon was everywhere dark. His complications with the English, who were spread- ing out on Long Island, and were firmly, indeed indepen-
shall now, henceforth hold no further meetings, as the same tends to a dangerous consequence, and to the great injury both of the country and of our authority. We therefore hereby forbid them calling any manner of assemblage or meeting, except by our express order, on pain of being pun- ished as disobedient subjects .- "Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York," Vol. I, 203.
17. The trouble seemed to be over in April, 1643, when Director-Gen- eral Kieft concluded a peace treaty with Oratamin, "Sachem of the savages living at Achkinkeshacky (Hackensack)," when both sides promised to forever forget and forgive all injuries done, also "not to molest each other in the future." But it seems that this was but a temporary truce, the Indians being incited by Pachem, "a crafty man" of Achkinkeshacky, to unite for a general massacre. But the tribes of the lower Hudson were at war with the Mohawks, and so possibly the massacre was deferred.
Kieft may have heard of the proposed treachery, and when in July, some of the Hackensack Indians, by the vicissitudes of tribal warfare, encamped for safety behind Jan de Lacher's Hook (in the present Jersey City), Kieft thought the opportunity was a good one to be first in treachery ; so, despite the remonstances of De Vries, who pleaded with him to "stay his hand," not only for humanity's sake, but of stirring the Indians into a bloody war of extermination, Kieft's soldiers "crossed over to Pavonia in
106
COURTS AND LAWYERS
dently, placed in the Connecticut Valley, were sufficiently dis- concerting, if one placed territorial aggrandizement first, which it is doubtful if the Dutch West India Company did, excepting insofar as such expansion could swell the coffers of the corporation. Which reflection suggests the unfor- tunate experience the Company had had in the matter of the patroonships. The Lords of the Manor in reality had tapped the source of wealth that should have come to the Company. They so surrounded the trading posts of the company that the trade which should have reached the posts did not get nearer than the surrounding manors.18 This had become clear to the Company even before Kieft had been given the colonial reins ; and he was becoming perplexed and worried because of his inability to swell the Company's chest. Failure in this of course pointed directly to his own ultimate recall. But probably the most important reason for the convocation of the freemen lay in the ominous aspect of the Indian situation.
So, in the autumn of 1643, he "convoked the community
the dead of night on the 25th of July, 1643, and fell upon the sleeping sav- ages." De Vries, watching from the fort at New Amsterdam, testified that "the darkness of the night was lit up by the flashes of musketry, and the groans of the doomed victims were plainly heard." Men, women and children were slaughtered. The few survivors crossed to the fort for safety, thinking the attack was by the Mohawks. They were soon dis- illusioned, however, "and the news of the cruel massacre spreading among the different tribes, they all combined against the whites, determined upon a terrible revenge."-See "History of Hudson County, New Jersey" (1924) ; Westervelt's "Indians of Bergen County, New Jersey"; "History of Bergen County, New Jersey"; Hawthorne's "History of the United States," Vol. I, of "World's Best Histories."
18. The Company at home presently discovered that its incautious liberality (in granting vast manorial tracts to persons who would settle fifty colonists) had injured its own interest, as well as those of poor settlers; for the estates of the patroons covered the trading posts where the Indians came to traffic, and all the profits from the latter swelled the pockets of the patroons. But the charter could not be withdrawn; the directors must be content with whatever sympathetic benefits might be conferred by the increasing wealth of the colony. The patroons were be- coming more powerful than their creators, and took things more and more into their own lordly hands-Hawthorne, in "History of the United States," Vol. I, 106.
107
THE DIRECTORS-GENERAL
into an assembly to plan for the common protection." The freemen met in September, and were evidently willing to elect representatives to cooperate with the Director-General and his Council in the colonial government to the extent offered by the Director. Kieft, for his immediate ends, was not unwilling to follow the old Roman system. He would not give the representatives of the burghers the power to initiate any legislation, but would permit them to give their opinion upon any measure he and his Council might decide upon, and submit to them. In this way he held control, while seeming to offer representative government, for any legisla- tion approved by the delegates of the freemen would seem to reflect the will of the people, even though drafted by himself and his Council. Therefore, the freemen elected eight men, the certification of whose election was signed by twenty-eight freemen, and agreed to approve what legislation their chosen eight should determine. It seems that the election was hardly such, for the freemen had agreed to permit the Di- rector-General to choose the eight men himself, claiming for themselves only the right to reject any undesirable nomi- nation. Jan Jansen Damen was one of the eight, "but he was excluded by his associates for his connection with the Pavonia massacre" and Jan Evertsen Bout was chosen in his place. The other seven were Jochem Pietersen Kuyter, Barent Dirck- sen, Abraham Pietersen, Isaac Allerton, Thomas Hall, Gerrit Wolfertsen, and Cornelis Melyn. The last-named was presi- dent.
The Board of Eight Men, the lower legislative house, as it were, accordingly met in session on September 15, 1643, "to consider the critical condition of the country." Several meetings were held during the year, and the body "passed upon the most important questions of war and peace, and per- formed other legislative acts." The need of rallying to defend their own homes was urgent, though it is obvious that they did not approve of Kieft's tactics, nor condone the Pa-
108
COURTS AND LAWYERS
vonia massacre. When they reconvened on June 18, 1644, and matters of revenue and taxation were submitted to them they pointedly opposed Kieft's budget plans. Soldiers had come, or were to come from Brazil, and the Eight Men con- tended "that as the home government had guaranteed protec- tion, as one of the inducements to emigrate, it ought to pay the expense." Furthermore, they claimed that the power of taxation lay only with the States General. However, the need was urgent, the treasury being empty; so finally the Eight Men yielded, and a proclamation was issued declaring that "by the advice of the Eight Men chosen by the com- monalty" certain taxes were imposed "provisionally, until the good God should grant us peace, or that we shall be suf- ficiently aided from Holland."19 Soldiers arrived from Hol- land in July, and the Director-General sought to impose fur- ther taxes to meet cost of their subsistence. The Eight Men opposed the Governor in this. Whereupon the arbitrary Kieft did what was at that moment fast bringing a king to the block, Charles I of England, and was indeed contrary to the laws of Holland itself-he usurped the power of the people and imposed taxes without the consent of the Eight Men.20 He stirred the hornet's nest. He had been despotic, in very many acts in the past, but in this he had gone beyond what any free men would tolerate. "Taxation only with consent" was the fundamental principle in Holland, indeed throughout Western
19. The act of concurring in this recommendation was the exercise of the highest legislative function, and demonstrates that the Eight Men were a parliamentary body, in the most ancient sense. The Executive asked that consent be given to the enactment of a certain revenue measure, in accordance with ancient custom, and his request was granted; which, with the action of the preceding year, settles the character of the body .- Werner, in "Civil List and Constitutional History of the Colony and State of New York," 1888, p. 30.
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.