USA > New York > Courts and lawyers of New York; a history, 1609-1925, Volume I > Part 8
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
"Those who shall send persons over to settle Colonies shall furnish them with proper instructions in order that they may be ruled and gov- erned conformably to the rule of government made, or to be made, by the Board of Nineteen, as well in the political as in the judicial government."
7. Invested as well by the Roman law, as by the charter, with the chief command and lower jurisdiction, the Patroon became empowered to ad- minister civil and criminal justice in person, or by deputy within his colonie ; to appoint local officers and magistrates; to erect courts and to take cog- nizance of all crimes committed within his limits ; to keep a gallows, if such were required, for the execution of malefactors, subject, however, to the restriction that if such gallows happened, by any accident to fall, pending an execution, a new one could not be erected, unless for the purpose of hanging another criminal. The right to inflict punishment of minor sever-
80
COURTS AND LAWYERS
overcoming this curb were devised much as landed interests of our day find ways of "getting around" the law ; the Patroon drew from prospective settlers a promise "not to appeal from any judgment of the local tribunals." While O'Callaghan refers to the "hangman of the colony," and there is record of an execution in the Van Rensselaer "Bowier Manuscripts," these authoritative papers show that no such office existed in the patroonship, and that executions in the province were exceedingly rare. Still, with almost uncurbed power, "it is easy to imagine the high-handed and corrupt justice thus meted out to the suitors in these Patroon's Courts." For- tunately, perhaps, there were not many patroonships, and only one that developed permanency, that of Kiliaen van Rensse-
ity was necessarily included in that which authorized capital convictions, and accordingly we find several instances throughout the record of the local court, of persons who had, by breaking the law, rendered themselves dan- gerous to society, or obnoxious to the authorities, having been banished from the colonie, or condemned to corporal chastisement, fine, or imprison- ment, according to the grade of the offense.
In civil cases, all disputes between man and man, whether relating to contracts, titles, possessions or boundaries : injuries to property, person, or character; claims for rent, and all other demands between the Patroon and his tenants, were also investigated and decided by these courts; from the judgment of which, in matters affecting life and limb, and in suits where the sum in litigation exceeded twenty dollars, appeals lay to the Director- General and the Council at Fort Amsterdam. But the local authorities, it must be added, were so jealous of this privilege that they obliged the col- onists on settling within their jurisdiction to promise not to appeal from any sentence of the local tribunal.
The laws in force here were, as in other sections of New Netherland, the civil code, the enactments of the States General, the ordinances of the West India Company, and of the Director-General and Council, when properly published within the colonie, and such rules and regulations as the Patroon and his co-directors, or the local authorities, might establish and enact.
The government was vested in a general court which exercised exec- utive, legislative, or municipal, and judicial functions, and which was com- posed of two commissaries (gecommit teerden), two councillors styled in- discriminately by raets-persoonen, gerechts-persoonen or raedts-vrienden, or schepenen, and who answered to modern justices of the peace. Adjoined to this court were a colonial secretary, a sheriff, or schout-fiscal, and a geracht-bode, court messenger, or constable. Each of these received a small compensation, either in the shape of a fixed salary or fees, the com- missaries and magistrates fifty, one hundred or two hundred guilders an-
-
EMBARKATION ON THE "PRINCESS AMELIA," AUGUST 16, 1647 (SHOWING WILLIAM KIEFT AND PETER STUYVESANT IN THE LEFT FOREGROUND)
81
THE PATROONS AND THEIR COURTS
laer at the head of navigation on the Hudson.9 He erected "the manorship of Rensselaerswyck, which in subsequent years became famous."9a Of the other directors of the West India Company who were granted patroonships Samuel Godyn and Samuel Bloemmart controlled territory on Dela- ware Bay, Michael Paauw took Staten Island and the New Jersey shore of the Hudson, opposite Manhattan. Other patroons were Cornelis Melyn, Adriaen van der Donck, Meyn-
nually, according to their standing; and the court messenger one hundred and fifty, with the addition of trifling fees for the transcript and service of papers. The magistrates of the colonie held office for a year, the court ap- pointing their successors from among the other settlers, or continuing those already in office at the expiration of their term of service, as it deemed proper.
The most important functionary attached to this government was, as throughout the other part of the country, the schout-fiscal, who, in discharge of his public functions, was bound by instructions received from the Patroon and co-directors, similar in tenor to those given to the same officer at the Manhatans. No man in the colonie was to be subject to loss of life or property unless by the sentence of a court composed of five persons, and all who were under accusation were entitled to a speedy and impartial trial. The public Prosecutor was particularly enjoined not to receive presents or bribes, nor to be interested in trade or commerce, either di- rectly or indirectly ; and in order that he might be attentive to the per- formance of his duties, and thoroughly independent, he was secured a fixed salary, a free house, and all fines amounting to ten guilders ($4) or under, besides the third part of all forfeitures and amendes over that sum were his perquisites .- "History of New Netherland," by O'Callaghan, Vol. I, 320-32.
9. . . It remained for Killiaen van Rensselaer, the first Patroon, to become the founder of an enduring settlement here. (Albany County). He it was to whom the Dutch West India Company, under a plan ap- proved by the Lord States-General, granted manorial rights and the per- mission to establish a colony. While he did not come himself, he sent a few settlers here in 1630. These were followed by others in subsequent years, but he remained at his home in Amsterdam and administered his affairs from there. . . .- Chester's "Legal and Judicial History of New York, Vol. III, p. 3.
ga. The first step to organize a court in the colony of Rensselaerswyck was taken by the Patroon on July 1, 1632, when he appointed Rutger Hen- drickz van Soest schout and empowered him to administer the oath of schepen to Roelof Jansz van Masterland, Gerrit Theusz de Reus, Maryn Adriensz, Brant Peelen and Laurens Laurensz, all of whom, with the excep- tion of de Reus, were then residing in the colony. The Patroon issued in- structions for the schout and schepens on July 20, 1632, and sent these to the C.&L .- 6
82
COURTS AND LAWYERS
dert Meyndertse van Keren, Hendrick van der Capelle and Cornelis van Werkhoven.10
Some of these patroons began to exploit their manors im- mediately. Van Rensselaer sent some settlers to the Hudson
colony by his nephew, Wouter van Twiller, the newly appointed director- general of New Netherland, who also took with him a silver-plated rapier with baldric and a hat with plumes for the schout, and black hats with silver bands for the schepens.
Van Twiller sailed from the island of Texel, on the ship "Soutberg," shortly after July 27, 1632, and arrived at New Amsterdam in April of the following year. He had with him a power of attorney from Killiaen van Rensselaer to administer the oath of schout to Rutzer Hendrickz van Soest, but as far as can be judged from the meagre information that is available did not administer the oath.
Conditions just then were not favorable for the erection of a court in the colony. Differences had arisen in the board of directors of the Dutch West India Company in regard to the fur trade, and efforts were made by those who were opposed to the agricultural colonization of New Neth- erland to deprive the Patroons of the privileges granted to them by the charter of Freedoms and Exemptions. Van Rensselaer complains of this in a memorial presented by him to the Assembly of the XIX on November 25, 1633, in which he makes the statement that in July 1632, he had people and animals enough to start five farms, but that his efforts were frustrated because the Company refused to let him have carpenters, smiths and other mechanics, and also declined to furnish his people with supplies, in ex- change for grain and dairy products.
Taking this statement with the facts that Rutger Hendricksz' term of service as a farmer was about to expire and that his name does not appear in the records of the colony after 1634, it seems safe to conclude that when Van Twiller arrived in New Netherland Rutger Hendricksz had determined to leave the colony and declined to accept the position of schout.
Van Twiller wrote to the Patroon and recommended Brant Aertsz van Slichtenhorst for the post, but before his letter was received the Patroon had already made other arrangements, and entered into a contract with Jacob Albertsz Planck, whereby the latter was engaged as schout for the period of three years. Planck received his instructions on April 27, 1634, and soon after sailed for the colony, where he arrived on or just before the 12th of August. His instructions provided that on his arrival in New Netherland he was to present himself before Director Van Twiller and to request him to administer to him the oath of office, "instead of to Rutger Hendricksz, according to previous power of attorney," and, furthermore, that at the first opportunity he was to choose three schepens from among the fittest of the colonists, so that he could hold court, if need be. Pre- sumably, therefore, the court of the colony (of Rensselaerswyck) was first organized shortly after August 12, 1634 .- See the Preface of Minutes of the Court of Rensselaerswyck, 1648-1652, translated by State Archivist A. J. F. Van Laer (University of State of N. Y., 1922).
10. Of all these patroonships, that of Rensselaerwyck alone assumed prominence and power. Its affairs were directed by men of ability, and
83
THE PATROONS AND THEIR COURTS
colony in 1630, and in that year Captain De Vries, partner of Godyn, led two ships from Texel. One ship was captured on the way, but the other, with colonists, cattle, seeds and implements and eighteen cannon, reached Delaware Bay. Near the site of Lewiston the thirty emigrants settled, and the ship returned to Holland for more colonists. In the spring of 1632 De Vries was again in Delaware Bay, but found only the bones of the settlers. They had been massacred, Indians suddenly descending upon the settlement, and obliterating it. Other settlements had chequered existence, but that of Rens- selaerwyck went on to increasing strength, and to some extent its influence was felt long after English dominion had been ended. In the manor of Rensselaerwyck, the manorial sys- tem of land tenures was perpetuated "without interruption by changes of government during our entire colonial history, and for more than fifty years after the Declaration of Inde- pendence.11
To what extent the patroon system affected the develop- ment of the Dutch colonies, or guided the industry and am-
among its officials was one at least who subsequently became distinguished at New Amsterdam in the participation in the general affairs of New Neth- erland. In 1632 a judicial system consisting of a schout and a court of schepens was laid out for Rensselaerwyck, but it was two years before the court was really set up. It was the first local court established in New Netherland. The first schout was Jacob Albertsen Planck; after him in that office were Adriaen van der Donck, Nicolas Coorn and Gerard Swart. Arendt van Curler, or Corlaer, was the commissary general, or superin- tendent, and he was also the colonial secretary until 1642, being succeeded in that office by Anthony de Hooges. Dirck van Hamel was also secretary of the colony. Among the councillors, or schepens, at various times were Brant Peelen, Gerrit Theusze de Reux, or Reus, Cornelis Anthonisz, van Schlick, Pieter Cornelis van Munnicksen, Marinus Adriaenz or Maryn Adriaensen, Laurens Laurensz, Goosen Gerritsz, Rutger Jacobs, Jan van Twiller, Gerrit Varrick, Jan Baptist van Rensselaer and Abraham Staas or Staets, who was president of the council .- Chester's "Legal and Judicial History of New York," Vol. I, 22.
II. The first Patroon, and those who succeeded him, perpetuated the manorial system of land tenures without interruption by changes of gov- ernment during our entire colonial history, and for more than fifty years after the Declaration of Independence. The government of the patroons however, was subject to the same vicissitudes and interruptions as were
84
COURTS AND LAWYERS
bition of the individual colonist is a theorem that would develop diverse opinions. Lincoln, in his "Constitutional History of New York," has interestingly traced the origin, development and consequences of the patroon system (see Vol. II, 10-27). Others have condemned the system. And while it is clear that the Dutch colonization was not as suc- cessful as the English, the cause must not be looked for alto- gether in the manorial system of the former. It should not be forgotten that at the time the great Puritan movement began, the English were mainly agriculturists, and the Dutch were merchants and manufacturers.12 And in a new land, the true base of prosperity lay in agriculture, not trade. Still,
visited upon the Dutch government at New Amsterdam. A change in sov- ereignty came with the Dutch capitulation to the English, September 24, 1664. The English rule continued from that date until the Revolutionary War, with the exception of about six months prior to the Treaty of West- minster, on February 19, 1674, during which the Dutch were again in control. With the exception of the difference in allegiance, the English rule brought only minor changes at Albany for several years and down to the time of the Dongan Charter in 1686, for the settlement was essentially Dutch. The courts here continued to exercise practically the same juris- diction as formerly, and many of the officers retained their old titles .- Chester "Legal and Judicial History of New York," Vol. III, p. 4.
12. There was something in the blood of the English Puritans which fitted them to be the settlers of a new country, independent of cravings for religious liberty. In their new homes in the cheerless climate of New England we see traits which did not characterize the Dutch settlers of New York; we find no patroons, no ambition to be great landed proprietors, no desire to live like country squires, as in Virginia. They were more rest- less and enterprising than their Dutch neighbors, and with greater public spirit in dangers. They loved the discussion of abstract questions which it was difficult to settle. They produced a greater number of orators and speculative divines in proportion to their wealth and number than the Dutch, who were phlegmatic and fond of ease and comfort, and did not like to be disturbed by the discussion of novelties. They had more of the spirit of progress than the colonists of New York. . .. They kept Sunday with more rigor than the Dutch, and were less fond of social festivities. They were not so genial and frank in their social gatherings, although fonder of excitement.
Among all the new settlers, however, both English and Dutch, we see one element in common-devotion to the cause of liberty and hatred of op- pression and wrong, learned from the weavers of Ghent as well as from the burghers of Exeter and Bristol .- Lord's "Beacon Lights of History," Vol. XI, 33.
85
THE PATROONS AND THEIR COURTS
there seems to be no doubt that the manorial system would curb the spirit of independence in the individual.13 It is also clear that divided authority, such as existed in the Dutch colony after the coming of the patroons, must have interfered with any wish the Dutch West India Company may have had for the harmonious administration of New Netherland.14 The clashing of authority was evident during the first few years, and there were three changes in the governmental head- director-general-within eight years. It then, in 1638, be- came evident to the West India Company, and the States General, that they must vest in the next governor, the fourth director-general, supreme responsibility over even those of their own directors who were patroons.
Governor Kieft clashed with the Rensselaerswyck authori- ties, and his successor, Stuyvesant, in 1652, to all intents
13. As a whole, the patroon system was not the success which its promoters had anticipated. Eventually serious conflicts developed between the patroons on their respective manorial properties and the West India Company in New Amsterdam. It was impossible that two such colonizing institutions with interests of largely contrary character and each possess- ing administrative and judicial powers to a greater or less extent independent of each other, should long live in perfect accord. Quarrels between the patroons and the director-general began almost at once, and later on, during the administrations of Director-General Kieft and Director-General Stuyve- sant, they became fruitful sources of trouble. The immediate result of these contentions was seen in less than two years. Complaints of the patroons were taken before the West India Company and the States General, and, in the controversy which ensued, blame was thrown upon Minuit, who had countenanced and confirmed these large grants of land with all their objectionable features. Therefore, he was recalled, and returning to Holland early in 1632, his administration came to an end .- Chester's "Legal and Judicial History of New York," Vol. I, 23.
14. This was excellent for such as could afford to become patroons; but what about the others? The charter provided that any emigrant who could pay for his exportation might take up what land he required for his needs and cultivate it independently. Other emigrants, unable to pay their fare out, might have it paid for them, but in that case incurred a mortgage to their benefactors. In effect, they could not own the product of the work of their hands until it had paid their sponsors for their outlay, together with such additions in the way of interest on capital as might seem to the sponsors equitable.
The Company further undertook to supply slaves to the colony should they prove to be a paying investment . . . . but the patroon planters could
86
COURTS AND LAWYERS
crippled the judicial authority of the patroons when he erected the court at Fort Orange and Beverswyck and arrested Brant Aertsz van Slichtenhorst, Director of Rensselaerswyck. Thereafter this, the last, Patroon's Court functioned weakly until 1665, when, under English jurisdiction, it was merged in that of Fort Orange and Beverwyck.15
dispense with black slaves, since they had white men enough who cost them no more than their keep, and would, presumably, not involve the ex- pense of overseers .- Julian Hawthorne, in his "History of the United States," Vol. I, 106, U. S. section of "World's Best Histories."
15. The court as organized (in 1648) by Van Slichtenhorst consisted at first of four and afterwards of five persons, of whom two were designated as gecommitteerden, or commissioners, and two, or afterwards three, are in the record indiscriminately referred to as raden, raetspersonen, gerechts- personen, or rechtsvrienden. £ The duties of the gecommitteerden were primarily of an administrative nature, while those of the raden, contrary to what one might expect from the title, seem to have been chiefly judicial. The gecommitteerden represented the patroon and acted under definite in- structions from the guardians. The raden, on the other hand, were ap- pointed by the director, but represented the colonists, it being at that time held sufficient if persons who were to represent others were chosen from among them, so as to represent their class. The only requirement was that they should not be in the patroon's service. Goossen Gerritsz made a point of this on October 22, 1648, when as one of the reasons for his being unable to accept the office of gerechtspersoon he stated that he was "not yet on a free basis with the patroon." The objection, however, was over- ruled, so that he was obliged to serve.
The members of the court were, as a rule, chosen from among the most prominent residents of the colony. .
The proceedings of the court presided over by Van Slichtenhorst cover the period from April 2, 1648, to April 15, 1652. They form the most important source for the history of the colony (of Rensselaerswyck) during that period, but unfortunately add but little to what is known from other sources in regard to the outstanding event of that period, namely, the con- troversy between Van Slichtenhorst and General Peter Stuyvesant regard- ing the jurisdiction of the territory around Fort Orange, which forms one of the dramatic episodes of the history of New Netherland. As is well known, this controversy had its origin in the claim made by the patroon, as early as 1632, that "all the lands lying on the west side of the river, from Beyren Island to Moeneminnes Castle," .. . "even including the place where Fort Orange stands," had been bought and paid for by him. The Dutch West India Company, on the other hand, maintained that the ter- ritory of the fort, which was erected several years before the land of the colony was purchased from the Indians, belonged to the Company, and con- sequently was not included in the patroon's purchase. The question had remained unsettled during the lifetime of Kiliaen van Rensselaer, but came to an issue when Van Slichtenhorst, soon after his arrival in the colony,
87
THE PATROONS AND THEIR COURTS
began to issue permits for the erection of houses in the immediate vicinity of the fort. Stuyvesant objected to the erection of these houses, on the ground that they endangered the security of the fort, and ordered the destruction of all buildings within range of cannon shot, a distance at first reckoned at 600 geometrical paces of five feet to the pace, but which afterwards was reduced to 150 Rhineland rods (equal to 12.36 English feet). The order called forth a vigorous protest from Van Slichtenhorst, who regarded it as an unwarranted invasion of the patroon's rights, and he proceeded with the erection of the buildings. A counter protest followed, and in 1651 charges were brought against Van Slichtenhorst, who was summoned to appear before the director general and council at Manhattan, and there de- tained for four months. The controversy continued after his return, but was definitely settled on April 10, 1652, when a proclamation, drawn up by the director general and council of New Netherland on the 8th of the same month, was issued in the colony for the erection of a separate court for Fort Orange, independent of that of the colony.
The erection of this court was a serious blow to the colony of Rens- selaerswyck, from which it never fully recovered. By virture of this proc- lamation, the main settlement of the colony, which was known as the Fuyck, but which in the court record is generally referred to as the byeenwoninge, or hamlet, was taken out of the jurisdiction of the patroon and erected into an independent village by the name of Beverwyck, which afterwards became the city of Albany. As a result of this action, the jurisdiction of the court of the colony was thereafter confined to the sparsely settled outlying districts of the colony, so that the cases which came before it must have been very few. No consecutive judicial record of the colony afier April 15, 1652, has been preserved, but entries in the minutes of the court of Beverswyck indicate that the court of the colony continued to hold sessions.
Van Slichtenhorst vigorously protested against the erection of the court of Fort Orange and Beverswyck, and with his own hands tore down the proclamation which had been posted on the house of the patroon. For this he was arrested on April 18, 1652, and taken to Manhattan, where he was detained until August, 1653. With his arrest, Van Slichtenhorst's administration came to a close. On July 24, 1652, he was succeeded as director by Jan Baptist van Rensselaer, and as officer of justice by Gerard Swart, so that thereafter the two functions were no longer combined in one person. The latter had been commissioned schout on April 24, 1652, and continued to hold this position until 1665, when, by order of Governor Richard Nicolls, the court of the colony was consolidated with that of Fort Orange and the village of Beverswyck. The year 1665 therefore marks the end of the existence of the first local court that was organized in the province of New Netherland, outside of New Amsterdam .- See "Minutes of the Court of Rensselaerswyck," 1648-1652, by A. J. F. Van Laer, published by University of State of New York, 1922, pp. 16-19.
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.