USA > New York > Courts and lawyers of New York; a history, 1609-1925, Volume I > Part 12
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
The village of Beverwyck was by the proclamation made independent of the colony of Rensselaerwyck, an independence which Stuyvesant was prepared to maintain by force of arms if necessary. Van Slichtenhorst, who had stubbornly resisted the Director-General, was taken under arrest to New Amsterdam and his reign brought to a close. It appears that he was succeeded as schout by Gerrit Swardt in July, 1652.
The patroon's court continued to exist in his colony outside of Bever- wyck, but with a greatly lessened importance, until the English conquest, when it was consolidated with that of ,Beverwyck, then Albany .- Chester's "Legal and Judicial History of New York," Vol. III, 10; see also Footnote 15, Chapter VIII.
I20
COURTS AND LAWYERS
fully sent two Englishmen to Connecticut to settle the Hart- ford boundary dispute, though in 1647 he had almost set the English colonies at war with the Dutch by sending a ship filled with soldiers to New Haven and seizing the "St. Beninio," as a "smuggler," notwithstanding that New Haven considered itself an English colony, not a part of New Nether- land.6 And a little later he dealt decisively with the Swedes on the Delaware and Schuylkill. Stuyvesant was a shrewd calculator of military forces. He did not belittle or antag- onize the Indians in the manner of his predecessor, Kieft, not- withstanding that one chief, Ninigret, seemed to have cause for offense.7 Indeed, the English of New England were uneasy for some years, reports having reached them that, en- couraged by Stuyvesant, the Indians were planning to mas- sacre the English. Certainly Stuyvesant had established good relations with the Indians of the Delaware region. He had prevailed upon them to declare the Swedes in New Sweden to be usurpers of land to which the Dutch of New Netherland were entitled. Altogether, Stuyvesant manœuvred his forces well in dealing with the stronger neighboring colonies. But he failed to hold amicable relations with his own people, or, indeed, with his home government.
He soon found that he could not exact obedience from the Board of the Nine Men when his recommendations, or de- mands, or commands conflicted with the interests of the people. His first Board of Nine Men had given way to an- other appointed by Stuyvesant ; it had been somewhat intract-
6. Trade was driven from the port of New Amsterdam, for New Eng- land and Virginia vessels were afraid to venture into a harbor where, as in the case of the "St. Beninio," seized at New Haven, the Governor did not hesitate to confiscate ship and cargo if his demands were not complied with; and the fear of such acts was said to have been a loss of the trade of twenty-five ships a year to New Netherland .- Bryant's "History of the United States," Vol. II, 130.
7. "I stood," he said, "a great part of a winter day knocking at the governor's door, and he would neither open it, nor suffer others to open it to let me in."-Hazard's "State Papers," Vol. II, 207.
I2I
NEW NETHERLAND UNDER STUYVESANT
able, and had been dissolved; and in the second board ap- pointed by himself, Stuyvesant hoped for better cooperation; but it was little better than the first, and the president, Adriaen van der Donck, of this second board soon brought upon him- self the full weight of the Governor's displeasure. Van der Donck caused a journal to be kept of certain investigations he made of the actions of the Director-General. In most cases these actions were such as might well bring upon the Governor the censure of the States General of the United Netherlands, to which body the Board of the Nine Men had decided to ap- peal. Stuyvesant showed his displeasure of Van der Donck's historical record by summarily putting its compiler in jail and seizing the journal.8 "On the 15th (March, 1649), the Direc- tor called his Council and other public officers together as a Court of Impeachment, and Van der Donck was expelled from the Council of the Nine Men."9
But Stuyvesant could not in this way smother the cry of the people for popular government. Their cause was
8. Within two years the first board of Nine Men became dissatisfied and uncompliant, and another was appointed. This second board proved as unmanageable as the first, and succeeded in doing what the first had at- tempted to do without success-in sending a deputation to the Hague to present to the States General a statement of the grievances of the colonists. . Of this commission, Adrian van der Donck was the head, as he was probably the author of the Vertoogh, or Representation, presented to their High Mightinesses.
This important measure was not carried out without a struggle with the imperious Director. When the Nine Men proposed it they asked per- mission of Stuyvesant that they might confer with their constituents in a popular meeting to be called to consider the condition of the colony, whether it would approve of sending a delegation to Holland, and to provide means to defray the expenses. The Director refused permission, saying that any such communication with the people must be made through him, and his directions followed. The next best thing the Nine Men could do was to go from house to house to consult with their constituents privately ; and Van der Donck was appointed to keep a record of these private conferences. Stuyvesant, exasperated at this defiance of his authority, went to Van der Donck's chamber, in his absence, seized all his papers and the next day arrested and imprisoned their author .- Bryant's "History of United States," Vol. II, 131.
9. "Civil List, N. Y." 1888, ed., p. 34.
I22
COURTS AND LAWYERS
strengthened considerably by the return of Patroon Melyn about this time. His sentence of banishment had been re- versed by their High Mightinesses, the Lords-Major of the States General; furthermore, he was the bearer of "a man- damus requiring the Director-General to appear at the Hague, either in person or by attorney, to answer the charges which Melyn and Kuyter had brought against him." There was considerable excitement in New Amsterdam when Melyn pub- licly demanded as public a pronouncement of his vindication as there had been, two years earlier, of his condemnation.10 Stuyvesant lost ground by this incident, and the suspicion that he had been using his office to promote his private interests became general.11 So the movement to take the case to the States General could not be resisted.12 A memorial was pre-
IO. The Patroon was by no means disposed to carry his triumph meekly. He declared that the decision in his favor ought to be pronounced as publicly in New Amsterdam as two years before, he had been publicly condemned. This he demanded in a public meeting in the church soon after his arrival. At this bold step the whole assembly was ablaze with excitement. An excited and vehement debate followed; but the motion to read the mandamus was carried, and Van Hardenburg, one of the Board, was about to obey, when Stuyvesant, declaring that a copy ought first to be served upon him, snatched the document from the hands of the councilman.
All dignity and reserve were thrown aside at this violence of the Gov- ernor. The disputants forgot where they were and who they were; an
unseemly struggle followed in which . , they showered hard and angry words upon each other. One party tried to retain, the other to regain pos- session of the paper, and in the snatching and resnatching the seal was torn from it. The tumult was at length quelled . . . and the Director was persuaded to return the document, on Melyn's promise that a copy should be given him. When the mandamus was read, Stuyvesant said in answer : "I honor the States, and shall obey their commands. I shall send an at- torney to sustain the sentence that was pronounced." Melyn demanded that a written reply should be given, but this Stuyvesant refused .- Bryant's "History of the United States." Vol. II, Chap. VI.
II. But the governor's conduct in this (Melyn) affair, his imprisonment of Van der Donck, and the strong suspicion that he used his office to pro- mote his own interests, in shops which he owned and others kept for him, in farms cultivated, in breweries carried on, in ships sailed wholly or in part on his account, and in a monopoly of the sale of arms to the Indians aroused the public indignation .- Ibid, Vol. II, Chap. VI.
12. He was in open collision not only with the Board of Nine Men, but with the Schout Fiscal, Van Dyck, and the Vice-Director, Van Dinclage, an enlightened and learned man, and the most influential member of his council.
123
NEW NETHERLAND UNDER STUYVESANT
pared, and means of sending three delegates to Holland were soon subscribed. And so it happened that Van der Donck headed the delegation, carrying the "Remonstrance of New Netherland (Vertoogh van Nieuv-Neder-Landt) which strongly condemned Stuyvesant's administration of justice and despotic ways of government. The other delegates were Jacob van Cowenhoven and Jan Evertsen Bout. The Vertoogh is be- lieved to have been drafted by Van der Donck, and was prob- ably dated July 26, 1649, which is the date of a letter to their High Mightinesses signed by eight members of the Board of Nine Men, accrediting the three delegates. The Vertoogh, which was signed by eleven men, members of the first or sec- ond Board of Nine Men, condemned the Director in no gentle terms. One paragraph shows Stuyvesant to be of such chol- eric temperament as to at times berate his councillors "in foul language better befitting the fish market than the council board."13 That the drafting of the remonstrance "was not done in a corner, but in the light of day" indicates that, temporarily
The Council he was enabled to control, but not so with the popular body. The nine men met together, a spirited remonstrance was prepared to the States General, and three of the number, of whom Van der Donck was one, went with it as a deputation to Holland .- Daly, in "State of Jurispru- dence During the Dutch Period,"; "History of the Bench and Bar of N. Y.," Vol. I, II-12.
13. As regards the Director, his manner in Court has been, from his first arrival unto this time, to browbeat, dispute with and harass one of the two parties; not as beseemeth a Judge, but like a zealous advocate. This has caused great discomfort everywhere, and has gone so far and had such an effect on some that many dare not bring any suits before the court, if they do not stand well, or passably so, with the Director; for whom he op- poseth hath both sun and moon against him. In addition to the fact that he hath himself appointed and obliged so many Councillors, some of whom also are well disposed, so that he can restrain the others by plurality of votes, he likewise frequently submits his opinions in writing, and that so fully and amply that it takes up some side, and then his word is: "Gentlemen, this is my opinion, if anyone has ought to object to it, let him express it." If any one then, on the instant, offer objection, which is not very easy unless he be well grounded, his Honor bursts forth, incontinently, into a rage, and makes such a to-do that it is dreadful; yea, he frequently abuses the Coun- cillors as this and as that, in foul language better befitting the fish market than the council board; and if all this be tolerated, he will not be satisfied until he have his way .- See the Vertoogh van Nieuw-Neder-Landt.
I24
COURTS AND LAWYERS
at least, Stuyvesant estimated the will of the people to be stronger than in 1647, when he had considered the case of Governor Kieft and had declared, after sentencing Melyn: "If I were persuaded you would appeal from my sentences or divulge them, I would have your head cut off, or have you hanged on the highest tree in New Netherland." Possibly Stuyvesant sensed the changing of the times. Most govern- ments in Europe at that time were trembling lest the republi- can spirit which had in that very year, 1649, reached such an in- tensity in England as to behead the King, might spread to the Continent, and sweep away all monarchical and despotic gov- ernments. Of course, Europe was far away. Yet, this might be greater reason why the colonists might take matters into their own hands to make their own will respected by their Governor. The Director may not have been greatly troubled by the attitude of the States General in the Kieft-Melyn case ; but, with a soldier's sense of deeming present and near dan- gers as those of first importance, he had probably decided that the trouble in New Netherland could not be met by maintain- ing an intolerant arrogance. Whatever may have been his thoughts he permitted the remonstrance to be signed, and sanctioned the sailing of the three delegates with it. Melyn also returned to Holland in that year, 1649, and Stuyvesant's defence was entrusted to his own secretary, Van Tienhoven.
Van der Donck aroused a strong popular feeling for the distant province among the people of the United Provinces by publishing the Vertoogh. The States General were also im- pressed. On the other hand, the managing body, the Amster- dam Chamber of the West India Company was evidently ill at ease. "The name of New Netherland," wrote the Amster- dam Chamber to Stuyvesant, "was scarcely ever mentioned before, and now it would seem as if heaven and earth were interested in it." Action did not come immediately, because the States General had other causes of greater moment to Holland then before it. The States General had brought Hol-
125
NEW NETHERLAND UNDER STUYVESANT
land triumphantly out of the Thirty Years' War (the eighty years of war with Spain) in 1648. In this separate peace treaty with Spain they had acted contrary to the wish of their Stadtholder, William the Second. The States General also sympathized with Cromwell and the Commonwealth of Eng- land, while William necessarily sided with the Royalists, for his wife, Mary, was a daughter of King Charles. The States General at one time seemed likely to be swept away altogether by the Royalist faction ; and had not William succumbed to smallpox at an opportune moment, in 1650, Holland itself might have lost the independence won by eighty years of bloodshed and warfare.14 The outlook certainly was dark in 1650 when Holland was struggling against its Royalist stadtholder, for Cromwell might well have taken umbrage against Holland be- cause of its Royalist head.
This unstable state of national affairs may perhaps explain why the Amsterdam Chamber of the West India Company, in a measure, flouted the authority of the States General by op- posing the "Provisional Order" issued by the States General in 1650, calling for the recall of Stuyvesant, and the establish-
14. And so ended the so-called Eighty Years' War. No sooner was peace concluded than bitter disputes arose between Holland on the one hand, and the Prince of Orange, supported by the Army and Navy and the smaller provinces, on the other. He was tempted into foolish acts : he arrested six of the deputies of Holland; he even tried to surprise and occupy Amster- dam; he favored the English royalists, now plentiful in the Provinces, while Amsterdam and Holland inclined toward the Commonwealth. Things went so far that Wiliam II had almost destroyed the liberties of the Provinces, and was intent on two schemes-the resumption of the war against Spain, with a partition with France of the Spanish Netherlands, and interference on behalf of Charles II, in England-when his opportune death by small- pox occurred (Nov. 6, 1650). A few days afterward his widow, Mary of England, gave birth to a son who was destined to be the most distinguished man of his race, William III, of Holland and England.
For a time the death of William II restored the Burgher party to power, and made Amsterdam the head of the United Provinces. Holland triumphed over Zealand; the House of Orange, friend of the Stuarts, seemed to suffer eclipse with them; and though the Royalist mob, even at the Hague, set on by a princely rough of the Palatine house, made it
126
COURTS AND LAWYERS
ment of burgher government in New Amsterdam,15 with a municipal court of two burgomasters, five schepens and a schout, the order providing that the Board of Nine Men were to continue to exercise judicial powers in civil cases until the new court was erected, or for three years. The Amsterdam Chamber resisted the Provisional Order, deeming it to be "a violation of the privileges granted in the charter" of the West India Company. In all probability they instructed Stuyvesant accordingly. At all events he ignored the order, saying he would "do as he pleased."
He did so. For the next two years or so Stuyvesant ruled as of yore. The Director became more despotic than ever. Indeed, one is inclined to attribute his change of attitude to the chaotic state of Dutch affairs in that year-to the struggle for authority between the Stadtholder and the States General. Suyvesant no longer feared Melyn. This was demonstrated when the Patroon returned in 1650. From that year until
impossible for the envoys of the English Commonwealth to come to terms with the Republic, still the popular monarchical party was in fact powerless in the Provinces for more than twenty years .- See "Encyclopedia Britan- nica" sketch of Holland.
(No stadtholder of Holland was elected to succeed William II, the Grand Pentionary or Chief Justice becoming the virtual President of the republic. Nevertheless, there was war between England and the United Provinces during the period 1651-54).
15. The petitioners laid their case before the States General at great length. . . . The papers were referred to a committee, which submitted a report April II, 1650. This recommended a liberal and popular policy. All grievances were to be remedied, and Stuyvesant was to be recalled ! the Patroons were to be "obliged to settle their colonists in the form of vil- lages"; the Nine Men were to be given additional judicial functions, and were to be continued for three years ; a burgher government was to be estab- lished in New Amsterdam; the Patroons or their deputies, and delegates from the commonalty were to choose representatives in the Council; a ju- dicial system was to be erected in the Province; and the colonists or the Patroons thereof, and the commonalty, were to be convoked on questions of expenditure. The Amsterdam Chamber opposed this "Provisional Order," and submitted a counter proposition merely modifying the original "Priv- ileges and Exemptions." Stuyvesant paid no attention to either .- "New York Civil List, " 1888 edition, p. 35.
NEW NETHERLAND UNDER STUYVESANT 127
1657, when he was driven out of the country, Melyn was des- tined to feel the heavy hand of the tyrannical Stuyvesant.16
After one evidence of it in 1650, Melyn returned to Hol- land, and added his strength to that of Van der Donck and the other people's delegates; and although the Amsterdam Chamber of the Company used all possible means to oppose the popular movement, the Company was obliged to bow to the inevitable a couple of years later. Those were uncomfort- able years for Stuyvesant, as well as for those who opposed him. Once, the Vice-Director, Van Dincklagen, was actually imprisoned by Stuyvesant,17 the former probably having his own case in mind when he wrote to Van der Donck: "Our great Muscovy Duke goes on as usual, resembling somewhat the wolf -- the older he gets, the worse he bites. He proceeds no longer by words or letters, but by arrests and stripes." Alas! "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown." Stuyve- sant never walked abroad during those years save under guard of four halberdiers.
There was no Stadtholder of Holland in 1651, and in that year the affairs of the tottering republic were readjusted, with
16. The Patroon returned in 1650, in a ship which was compelled by stress of weather to put into Rhode Island, and when she arrived . . . at New Amsterdam, the Director ordered her to be seized for violation of a regulation of the Company, in trading without a license, and brought Melyn to trial as her owner. Melyn was only so far interested in her voyage that she brought a number of settlers for his manor at Staten Island, and though the ship and cargo were confiscated, there was no evi- dence that could hold him responsible. Failing in this, Stuyvesant brought new charges against the Patroon, confiscated his property in New Amster- dam, and compelled him to confine himself to his manor of Staten Island. Melyn surrounded himself with defences, and establishing a sort of baronial court contrived for a while to live till Stuyvesant's persecutions drove him, at length, out of the colony .- Bryant's "History of U. S.," Vol. II, 135.
17. With Melyn, on Staten Island, Van Dincklagen, the Vice-Director, also found a refuge from the violence of Stuyvesant. The Vice-Director busied himself in preparing a new protest to the States General on behalf of the colony, when Stuyvesant ordered that he be expelled from the Council. Van Dincklagen refused to be so disposed of, on the plea that he held his commission not from the Director but from Holland. Stuyvesant arrested and imprisoned him for some days and he felt that his life was not safe on Manhattan Island .- Ibid, Vol. II, 136.
128
COURTS AND LAWYERS
the States General emerging supreme. So the West India Company had perforce to change its defiant attitude. The Assembly of the Nineteen of the Company yielded so far as, in 1652, to instruct Stuyvesant to bring a municipal form of government into effect in New Amsterdam, in accordance with the seventeenth clause of the Provisional Order of 1650.18
18. We have resolved to permit you hereby to erect a Court of Justice (een banck van justitie) formed, as much as possible, after the custom of this city; to which end printed copies relative to all the law courts here, and their whole government, are sent herewith. And we presume that it will be sufficient at first to choose one schout, two Burgomasters and five Schepens, from all of whose judgments an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Council, where definite judgment shall be decreed .- O'Callaghan's "Documentary History of New York," Vol. I, 387.
CHAPTER XI. BURGHER GOVERNMENT .*
The municipal affairs of New Amsterdam were, in part, taken out of the jurisdiction of the Director-General in 1653. Had it not been for the state of war that then existed between England and the United Netherlands some other Governor than Stuyvesant would have had the distinction of inaug- urating this measure of burgher government in New Nether- land. The States General had decided, in fact, upon the recall of Stuyvesant, but had revoked the order because of the uncer- tainty of sea travel, England being bent on crippling the mari- time power of Holland. There was also a possibility that hos- tilities might spread to the American colonies, in which case Stuyvesant's experience as a military commander might be needed in the defence of New Netherland.
That Stuyvesant was reluctant to pass to others any au- thority may be inferred from the fact that he allowed many months to pass before he carried out the instructions of the home authorities. It may also be inferred that the Company
*AUTHORITIES-Bryant's "History of the United States"; "The Records of New Amsterdam From 1653 to 1674, Anno Domini," edited by Berthold Fernow; Daly's "State of Jurisprudence During the Dutch Period"; "His- tory of Bench and Bar of New York"; "Records of Burgomasters and Schepens of New Amsterdam"; Brodhead's "History of New York"; O'Callaghan's "History of New Amsterdam"; Valentine's "History of New York"; Meyer's "Institutions Judiciaries"; Van Leuwen's "Practyk der Notarissen" (Rotterdam, 1742) ; "Practyke in Criminele Saecken," by Joose de Damhouwer (Rotterdam, 1628) ; Chester's "Legal and Judicial History of New York"; Van Leeuwen's "Roman Dutch Law"; "Colonial Laws" (Brad- ford, 1694) ; "Charter Book and Acts of Assembly of 1683" (in office of Secretary of State of N. Y.); "Placards of Stuyvesant, N. Y. Rec. of Burg. & Schep."; "Ordinances of Amsterdam," 1644; "Documents of Stuyvesant's Council, N. Y. Rec. Burg. & Schep."; Werner's "Civil List of New York," 1888 ed .; Sewell's "History of the Quakers: An Abstract of the Sufferings of the People Called Quakers for the Testimony of a Good Conscience" (London, 1733) ; James Walton Brook's "History of the Court of Common Pleas of City and County of New York."
C.&L .- 9
130
COURTS AND LAWYERS
did not frown upon him for acting tardily. Possibly, they ex- pected him to act as he did, in ignoring the spirit, if not the letter, of the new plan of local government ordered by the States General. Representative government had been the plea of the people, and this it would seem had been the intention of the States General in instructing the West India Company. Van der Donck had returned to New Netherland himself, triumphantly bringing the order. But when, on Feb- ruary 2, the day of the Feast of Candlemas, 1653, Stuyvesant promulgated a decree in the matter, it was clear that represen- tative government was not granted by him, and that his word would still be supreme in New Amsterdam's affairs. Accord- ing to his proclamation, the municipal officers were not to be elected by the people, but would be appointed by himself.1 It was fortunate for Stuyvesant, perhaps, that at the moment the danger of war between the New England colonies and New Netherland overshadowed everything else, minimizing internal dissension. The dissension, however, was only tem-
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.