USA > New York > Courts and lawyers of New York; a history, 1609-1925, Volume I > Part 23
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
I4c. "Ibidus," p. 78.
239
DUTCH MAGISTRATES
decided to give up his Rensselaerswyck office. Some time after the opening of navigation in 1646, Van der Donck and his wife went down to Manhattan. He seems to have still held an interest in the Castle Island farm, however, for as late as 1649 two hundred schepels of wheat belonging to him were attached by the commissary at Rensselaerswyck, to make good the loss of a horse belonging to the patroon which had been drowned on Van der Donck's farm. Still, Van der Donck became a patroon himself in 1646, for in that year he was given patent of some fine lands of Westchester County, along the Hudson River. He named the patroonship Colon- ยท donck, signifying Donck's colony. His land extended from Spuyten Duyvil Creek to beyond Yonkers, the latter place, it is said, deriving its name from the courtesy title "Jonkheer," by which the young lord of Colondonck was known to the settlers in the colony or vicinity. His possession came to be known as "De Jonker's Lant," and later as Yonkers.
For nearly three years after leaving Rensselaerswyck, Van der Donck pursued matters relating to the colonization of his manor, and also of trade in Manhattan. In New Am- sterdam he rubbed shoulders with the leading citizens, and eventually came into his logical place, at the head of the movement for popular government. He associated with Cornelis Melyn, who had so resolutely resisted Governor Kieft in the interests of the commonalty ; and after Melyn had been banished by Stuyvesant, the leadership of the citizen's body seemed to logically rest with Van der Donck. He was not the president of the first Board of Nine Men called by Stuyvesant in 1647, but headed the board in 1649, a vital year ; and he is deemed to have been the author of the celebrated "Vertoogh" (Remonstrance) which he and two other members of the Board of Nine Men took to Holland. The struggle between absolutism and popular government has been re- viewed in earlier chapters. Suffice it here to state that Van der Donck, for his part in the preparation of the Remon-
240
COURTS AND LAWYERS
strance, was expelled from the board by the governor, ar- rested, and held in jail for some time. His incarceration would probably have continued had not Melyn returned to New Amsterdam vindicated by the States General, that body having reversed the sentence of banishment imposed by Stuyvesant, and having delivered to Melyn an order com- manding Stuyvesant to appear before them, in person or by his accredited attorney, to answer the charges brought against him.
Thus rebuked by the highest court of Holland, Stuyvesant dared not, just then at least, risk a further reprimand, which might have come had the States General become aware of his treatment of Van der Donck. So the latter was released.
Van der Donck's ardor for the common cause had not weakened in confinement. In fact, he had scarcely been re- leased before he began to draft another petition, more em- phatic. It was signed by eleven men on July 20, 1649, the signers, present and past members of the Board of Nine Men, "in the name and on behalf of the commonalty of New Neth- erland," demanding burgher government, and condemning government by the West India Company. Stuyvesant did not attempt to stay the sailing of Van der Donck and two others with this petition, and the longer "Vertoogh."
But the struggle in Holland was destined to be long drawn out and bitter, the controversy being remarkable for the per- tinacity of Van der Donck and the high-handed actions of the West India Company, who seemed to flout even the States General at one time. The delay, as well as the independent attitude of the Company, arose from the fluctuating course of European politics. Twice when victory seemed to rest with Van der Donck and his associates, some mischance drove it away. In January, 1649, Charles I, of England, had been beheaded, and sympathy in the Netherlands-at least among the ruling class-had rested with the Stuarts to such an alarming extent that, try as the States General would and
ADRIAEN van der DONCK, 1618-1655
(Painted in 1654 by Jacobus Gerritsen Strycker, who died in 1687) (Copyright photo by courtesy of Thomas B. Clarke)
24I
DUTCH MAGISTRATES
did to prevent it, the Netherlands seemed to be ominously verging towards war with England. Hence, all other mat- ters of government were relatively unimportant. Van der Donck appeared before the States General in October, 1649, and favorably impressed that body. The case was referred to a committee; and in due course the committee reported. They favored reforms, recommended that Stuyvesant be re- called, and also that burgher government be established in New Amsterdam. But the West India Company chose to dis- regard the report, though it was adopted by the States General. "They mustered enough influence so that no measures were taken against them." So Van der Donck had to begin the fight anew.
He approached the problem from a new angle. He pub- lished the Remonstrance, thereby bringing the popular party of Holland to his support. So much so that the West India Company in one letter to their governor, Stuyvesant, stated : "The name of New Netherland was scarcely ever mentioned before, and now it would seem as if heaven and earth were interested in it." Van Tienhoven, the attorney for Stuyve- sant, had come to Holland and had not helped the cause of the West India Company by an attempt he made to cast aspersions upon the characters of the remonstrants. He was ordered to appear before the States General. This seemed dangerous, and so the West India Company connived to hurry Van Tienhoven back to New Netherland. A stern reprimand from the States General came upon the heads of the West India directors, who were playing a dangerous game. It be- came evident in time that the Company might lose its charter altogether if they continued so to run counter to the recom- mendations of the States General. So, finally, the West India Company thought it better to compromise, by conceding burgher government to New Amsterdam. In the spring of 1652 the Company acknowledged defeat by sending orders to
C.&L .- 16
242
COURTS AND LAWYERS
Stuyvesant to bring such a system of local government into effect. Van der Donck had won. And after a short time he won an even greater victory, the States General intrusting to him an order recalling Stuyvesant to Holland, to give an ac- count of his administration.
Van der Donck at once prepared to depart for New Neth- erland. "He embarked his wife and other relatives and some colonists for his manor of Colondonck on a ship of the West India Company, and was about to join them. The Company determined to save Stuyvesant, refused to permit him to go on their ship. He was forced to see his party sail away without him."14d And soon it seemed that his victory was an empty one. War broke out between England and Holland. It so affected the New Netherland situation that Van der Donck was asked to give up the summons he had hoped to deliver to Stuyvesant. Though possibly an arrogant governor, it was recognized that Stuyvesant was a soldier of experience, and that his recall at such a time of war could not be risked. Possibly, this great change in the political situation now worked in Van der Donck's favor. Certainly Stuyvesant had nought to fear from him now. At all events the directors of the West India Company relented so far as to permit Van der Donck to return to the colony, and seemed to be not dis- inclined to permit him to practice as an advocate in New Amsterdam. It seems that during his long stay in Holland Van der Donck had enrolled once more at the University of Leyden, had taken the degree of Doctor of Civil and Canon Law, and had been admitted to practice at the Bar of the High Court of Holland. It is recorded that Van der Donck was forbidden to practice law when he returned to New Amsterdam, but the letter from the West India Company to
I4d. Alfred L. Becker, in a paper entitled "Mr. Adriaen van der Donck, the Earliest Lawyer in New York," read before the New York State Bar Association at Albany, Jan. 20, 1904 .- See "Albany Law Journal," Vol LXVI, p. 46.
243
DUTCH MAGISTRATES
Stuyvesant, under date of July 24, 1653, does not seem to indicate that such was the wish of the Company.15 Still, the vindictive Stuyvesant was given power to decide the question ; and he was so unforgiving that Van der Donck at last had to appeal to the newly-formed city government for the protection of his rights as a citizen. Even the directors rebuked Stuyvesant for "suspecting Van der Donck so vehemently."
Van der Donck, it seems, wanted to examine the records of the province so as to make his literary work, the "Description of New Netherland," more authoritative. Stuyvesant perhaps suspected that Van der Donck in this was actuated more by political motives than by literary. At all events, his work- which was published in 1655 and ran through two editions, stirring up much interest among Hollanders-had to be com- pleted from unofficial records. And in the year of its pub- lication, 1655, Van der Donck died-at the age of thirty-five years. In September of that year his colony, Colondonck, was blotted out by raiding Indians.15a The estate, however, remained in the possession of his family until 1672.15b
Whether Van der Donck practiced as a lawyer after re- turning to New Netherland is not important-in considering the claim made that he was the first lawyer to practice in
15. "Whereas, Master Adrian van der Donck has presented to our Board two petitions, namely : that having received his degree at law by the University of Leyden, and been admitted to the bar by the Court of Holland, He may be permitted to practice as Attorney and Counsellor in New Neth- erland, and further to be allowed to examine the documents and papers in the Secretary's office there to complete his already begun Description of New Netherland : we have resolved on the first to allow that according to the usages of this country he may practice there as advocate by assisting every one who desires it with his advice, but as to pleading in court, we cannot observe that at present it is proper to allow because we do not know whether there is somebody there of sufficient ability and the neces- sary qualifications who, before being admitted to practice there, must report to you (or as the case may be to us) to act and plead against the said Van der Donck."
15a. "History of Westchester County" (1925), p. 124.
15b. "National Encyclopedia of American Biography," Vol. XII, p. 205.
244
COURTS AND LAWYERS
New York. In challenging this claim it is asserted that he did not practice at all. But though he may not have prac- ticed in New Amsterdam, he did practice earlier in Rens- selaerswyck. As schout-fiscal he was prosecuting attorney; and he acted as referee in a Rensselaerswyck case in 1649. He was evidently in Rensselaerswyck in 1654, for his name is mentioned in a Fort Orange court record of that year. However, he was not the first lawyer connected with the courts of New Netherland. Lubertus van Dincklagen, "a man of superior education, a doctor of laws, and an able and accomplished jurist," was in the province, in legal capacity, some years before Van der Donck became schout-fiscal of Rensselaerswyck colony; Van Dincklagen was schout-fiscal of New Netherland during the administration of Van Twiller, 1633-38.
But a greater distinction than that of being the first lawyer in New York may be accorded to Dr. Adriaen van der Donck. One does not have to be illogical to claim that he was the "father" of what is now the largest or next to the largest city in the world. Van der Donck in his great struggle, followed through ably and persistently even against his own interests, won for the people of New York, or New Amsterdam, as it then was, a municipal charter. For the first time since its settlement, the community on Manhattan Island was permitted to manage its own affairs. The man who made this possible, who carried the fight almost alone against a trading corporation that was almost as powerful as the Dutch Government itself, and who defeated this great political power on its own ground, surely deserves a prom- inent place in the municipal history of New York City, as well as in the legal and constitutional history of the State of New York.
David Prevoost, whose name comes first-as though suc- ceeding Van der Donck, as president-among the Nine Men of 1652, was schoolmaster in New Amsterdam at that time.
245
DUTCH MAGISTRATES
He had been in New Netherland almost from the beginning of settlement. He was only sixteen years old when he first came, in 1624; but perhaps he did not then come to settle. We find that in 1634, he reached New Amsterdam again, bringing a wealthy wife; and the remainder of his life (twenty- three years) was spent in the province. He was in the ser- vice of the Company, as commissary, and was able to secure large grants of land. Also at one time he did profitable busi- ness as a general trader. He showed patriotism and common sense in his handling of the Connecticut situation in 1642, and while at Fort Good Hope the English found him "a ver- itable thorn in their flesh." In 1647 he returned to New Amsterdam and became the schoolmaster of the town. He also busied himself with public matters. In 1652 he was made a notary, "a position which was then one of grave importance and exceedingly profitable to its holder." Only one other notary had the province had up to that time, Dirck van Schelluyne, who had been commissioned in 1650,16 and who was at that time in official disgrace.17 In practice, if not by commission, the notaries were attorneys and more than ordi- narily acquainted with the law.18 Prevoost is stated to have
16. "In addition to these (magistrates who were well versed in the law) there were several notaries. Dirk van Schellyne, who came out in 1641, had previously practiced at the Hague; David Prevoost discharged the duties of notary for some years before Schellyne's arrival; and there was another notary named Matthias de Vos."-Chief Justice Daly, in "State of Jurisprudence During the Dutch Period, 1623-74," "History of Bench and Bar of New York," Vol. I, 21.
17. Early in the administration of Stuyvesant, the independent char- acter of Van Schelluyne brought him into trouble. He entered a protest against Stuyvesant, saying that he "dared not prepare any more writings, but commended matters to God." From the records he appears to have been an experienced and skilful practitioner. He was appointed Court Marshal or High Bailiff to levy executions and enforce processes, and after his complaint to the States General that body sent positive orders to Stuyvesant to allow him to discharge the functions of his profession with- out interference .- Chester's "Legal and Judicial History of New York," Vol. I, 142.
18. Under the civil law, as it prevailed in Holland, a considerable part of the proceedings in a cause were conducted by the notary, who was re-
1
246
COURTS AND LAWYERS
been "an attorney and counsellor" as well as a notary ; and as his practice was in the period prior to 1658, when Stuyvesant established a regular tariff of fees for legal service, the emolu- ments of notarial service were more substantial than in later years.19 In the same year that Prevoost was appointed notary he was also elected to head the new Board of Nine Men. The sessions of that body were held in the schoolroom ; hence it would seem that Prevoost also retained his school appointment. In 1653 he was appointed, with two others, Johannes la Montagne and Govert Loockermanns, to meet the New England commissioners and persuade them that the Dutch were not intriguing with the Indians to massacre the
quired at least to be well versed in the manner of carrying on legal contro- versies ; and as he was frequently consulted by suitors for advice as to their rights and liabilities, he was generally well informed and capable of giving it. Such was the case with Van Schellyne, who, from the records he has left, was evidently an experienced and skilful practitioner .- Daly, in State of Jurisprudence During the Dutch Period," Vol. I, 21, "History of Bench and Bar of N. Y."
19. During Stuyvesant's administration, several complaints were made to him that the notaries were overcharging; and as the work was almost as comprehensive in law as that of an attorney of to-day, the scale of fees set by the Director-General as fair remuneration for the legal or notarial service was the first provision made by law in New York to regulate the fees that an attorney or court officer might charge. From the complaints made of extortion by lawyers in New Netherland prior to 1658 the following exhibit is made :
For a petition a notary would charge up to 14 guilders.
For a written conclusion up to 12 guilders.
For a replication up to 12 guilders.
For a deduction up to 12 guilders.
For Inventory of Documents up to 12 guilders.
but according to the scale of charges set by Stuyvesant the fees for such service should have been 3, 3, 2, 6 and 3 guilders respectively.
This tariff was established by proclamation on January 25, 1658, a copy of Stuyvesant's ordinance recorded in the "New York Records of Burgomasters and Schepens" reading as follows :
'Whereas, the Director-General and Council of N. Netherland have sufficient evidence by their own experience, in certain bills of costs exhib- ited before them, as remonstrances and complaints of others presented to them, of the exactions by some Scriveners, Notaries, Clerks, and other licensed persons in demanding and collecting excessively large fees, and money, for writing, from contending persons, almost all sorts of instruments to the manifest, yea, insufferable expense of judgments and judicial costs, some led by covetousness and avarice so far that they are shamed to make a
247
DUTCH MAGISTRATES
English. In 1655 Prevoost was appointed schout of the dis- trict court then created to serve the municipalities of Brueck- elen, Midwout (Flatbush) and Amersfoort (Flatlands), at a salary of two hundred guilders a year, with court fees. Two years later he died. David Prevoost was evidently one of the better class of public officials, well educated, and able to give genuine service for public pay. It is said that he spoke Dutch, French, English and Latin and several Indian languages.
Prevoost was succeeded as schout of the District Court of the three Dutch towns by Pieter Tonneman, who became
bill of or specify the fees demanded, but ask if not extort it from parties in gross. Therefore, the Director-General and Council, wishing to provide for the better and more easy administration of justice, hereby ordain, enact, and command :
"That no person shall henceforward presume to draw up or write any public instrument, unless he be qualified or licensed thereunto, as Secre- tary, Notary or Clerk by the Director-General and Council, which quali- fied or licensed person shall be bound to be satisfied with such fees as are fixed by the Director-General and Council therefor and renew every year on the 5th of February the established oath to submit themselves uncon- ditionally to the Ordinances enacted or to be, according as occasion requires, enacted, regarding Secretaries, Notaries and Clerks and such like offices, and to obey them in manner as follows :
"Firstly, all Secretaries, Notaries, and Clerks, or such officials shall keep a regular Record or Journal, in which, if necessary or required, can immediately be seen what is transacted before them, and for what they make a demand of such fees and render an account.
"Secondly, No Secretary, Notary, Clerk, or such like official shall ask money in hand from any person, or receive any presents, nor compound nor agree with any one about fees or engrossing money to be earned, as such compounding or previous bargaining before final judgment may prove detri- mental to the losing party in case he be condemned in the costs and mises of justice; but the aforesaid officials or such shall have themselves paid for the executed instrument according to this Ordinance, or at the termination of the suit, by rendering a pertinent bill or specification of what they have written, drawn out, or copied without entering in such bill or specification in . gross any extra costs, and all this according to the fees fixed therefor, without demanding or exacting from their principals anything else or more, under penalty of their office and fifty guilders fine on those who shall be found acting contrary thereunto.
"Thirdly, the Secretary, Notary, Clerk, or official shall sign with his own hand, and when required seal with his signet all instruments executed before him on condition of receiving six stivers for his seal, in addition to his established fee.
248
COURTS AND LAWYERS
city schout of New Amsterdam in 1660. Tonneman was city schout in 1660, 1661, 1663, 1664, when Dutch rule ended. And, when the Dutch came again in 1673, he was able to again get appointment as schout of a Long Island court. In fact, Tonneman, who was an old servant of the West India Com- pany, had held many public offices. He was a member of the Director's Council in 1657, 1658, 1659.
William Beeckman, of the Board of Nine Men of 1652, was one of the most capable public servants. Originally he was of the official family, coming to New Netherland with
"Fourthly, the Secretaries, Notaries, Clerks and similar officials are bound, when required, to give acquittance or receipts for the earned and paid fee, that the same may be used as needs be.
"Finally, and lastly, all Secretaries, Notaries and Clerks shall be bound to serve the poor and indigent who demand it as an alms, Gratis and for God's sake; and may ask and take from the wealthy the following fees :
"For a plain petition, written on one side of the paper, 18 stivers; and if the petitioner will have it booked or registered for the copy, 12 stovers.
"For a plain demand as above, 18 stivers.
"For an answer, reply, or rejoinder engrossing, two guilders; copying, 24 stivers; but should the answer, reply, rejoinder, demand, or petition require more writing than one half sheet of paper, for each page of 25 to 39 lines, with each line of 30 to 36 letters, 30 stovers.
"For a deduction; for each page of 26 to 30 lines with 30 to 36 letters in a line, 2 guilders.
"For a petition in appeal to be presented to the Director-General and Council, two guilders ten stivers.
"For a petition or revision, reformation, reduction, rehearing, purging, complaint, pardon, or grant of land to be presented to the Director-Gen- eral and Council two guilders 10 stivers; if it exceed the second or third page, 24 stivers per page, lines and letters as above.
"For a petition as before, to some Inferior Court, 40 stivers or 20 stivers per page, lines and letters as above.
"For a judgment, 30 stivers.
"For extracts from their books, 20 stivers per page lines and letters as above.
"For a contract, obligation, assignment, declaration, Case or deed, 30 stivers ; for a copy, 20 stivers.
"For a verbal consultation, the matter being to be brought before the Director-General and Council, 20 stivers, on condition the Notary is bound to enter the time and matter thereon, in his journal.
"For an inventory of documents to be delivered by parties, 15 stivers.
"For drawing up an interrogatory and entering the queries, 10 stivers per page; provided 7 to 8 interrogatories are on one page; for entering the answers on the opposite side also, 10 stivers.
"For a day's journey with or without their principals, when required,
249
DUTCH MAGISTRATES
Director-General Stuyvesant in 1647, as a clerk. But when put into public office he showed that he felt he was respon- sible first to the people. He did not hesitate to state his own opinion, whether pleasing or not to his superiors.20 Beeck- man was broad minded, capable, sincere, and by tactfulness was able to hold the confidence of the English, when they took up the reins of government, as well as of the hot-headed Stuyvesant. Beeckman was a burgomaster of New Amster- dam for nine years, though only for one year under the Dutch (1674). However, he was a magistrate (schepens) of the first court established in New Amsterdam, that of 1653, also serving as such in 1656 and 1657. He was then called upon to endeavor to reorganize the affairs of the colony of New Amstel, which had been part of New Sweden and had suffered much through sickness and loss of crops under the first governor, Jacob Alricks. Beeckman went in the capacity
four guilders, in addition to conveyance and board; but going with their principals when requested, within the City, village or place, 20 stivers.
"For one attendance at Court, in the absence of, or with, their prin- cipals, 15 stivers, neglecting it they shall repair the defaults and damage thereof.
"No drinking treats, nor any other extraordinary presents, gifts or douceurs shall be entered in any bill, nor demanded nor asked by the Sec- retaries, Notaries, Clerks, or similar officials; and these preceding articles shall be published, affixed, and observed not only within all places within this Netherland Province where men are accustomed to make publication, but shall be privately read by the Fiscal, Schout and other subaltern Mag- istrates to the Secretaries, Notaries, Clerks and such like, both now and on the 5th of February of every year, not being Sunday, in their respective Boards, and take an oath from them, that they will strictly regulate them- selves accordingly, and in case of refusal deprive them of their office and place, expressly forbidding them directly or indirectly to write any instru- ments for any person, under a penalty of fifty guilders for the first, twice as much for the second time, and for the third offence to be arbitrarily punished at the discretion of the Judge. Thus done at the Assembly of the Hon. Director-General and Council, holden in Fort Amsterdam in N. Neth- erland the 25th January A. D. 1658."-"Records of Burg .- Schepens of New Amsterdam," Vol. II, 316.
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.