USA > New York > Courts and lawyers of New York; a history, 1609-1925, Volume I > Part 9
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
CHAPTER IX. THE DIRECTORS-GENERAL .*
The fact that the English superseded the Dutch in the colonization of North America, or rather of that part of it with which this work deals, can hardly be attributed to mis- management by the directors-general, or to discouragement under the patroons. The home situation controlled the colonial development. In England, under Charles I, the Con- stitution hardly functioned; from 1629 until nearly his end King Charles was the Constitution. The dissolution of Par- liament by Charles in 1629 marked the darkest hour of Prot- estantism; Puritans looked with ever-increasing suspicion upon the measures of the Primate, Bishop Laud, who seemed more inclined to apologize to Rome than to uphold Prot- estantism, notwithstanding that nine tenths of the English people were staunch Protestants, most of them rigid Puritans. The Huguenots of France, in their defeat at La Rochelle, had had to fall at the feet of the Catholic cardinal, Richelieu, in 1628; and the Protestants of England feared that their own subjection might come next. They had grimly resisted the King and his favorites in matters affecting their parliamentary rights. When John Felton, in 1628, stabbed the Duke of Buckingham, the Lord Treasurer, to whom they attributed the extravagance of the King, with the extortionate levies it
*AUTHORITIES-Winfield's "Land Titles"; Van Rensselaer "Bowier Man- uscripts"; Green's "History of England"; Winfield's "History of Hudson County, New Jersey"; Chester's "Legal and Judicial History of New York"; Daly's "State of Jurisprudence During the Dutch Period" Van Leuwen's "Roman Dutch Law"; Van der Linden's "Institutes of Holland"; "Documents Relating to the Colonial History of the State of New York"; Westervelt's "Indians of Bergen County, New Jersey"; "History of Bergen County, New Jersey" (1924) ; Julian Hawthorne's "History of the United States," Vol. I; of "World's Best Histories"; West's "History of the American People"; Werner, in "Civil List and Constitutional History of the Colony and State of New York" (1888) ; Duruy's "Short History of France"; Ridpath's Universal History"; Riker's "Annals of Newtown."
90
COURTS AND LAWYERS
brought, there had been general rejoicing throughout Eng- land, outside the Court of King Charles. "God bless thee, little David," cried an old woman, as the slayer of Bucking- ham passed manacled by; "the Lord comfort thee," shouted the crowd as the Tower gates closed on him. And the House of Commons had resisted the King until Parliament was dis- solved. Had the religious aspect seemed less ominous, the people of England might have accepted the political situation, and bowed before violations of their constitutional rights. To surrender religious principles, however, would be harder ; men of strong conscience would prefer to hold to their faith even unto death; and in that age of intolerance life hung on a slender thread. So, in the fear that the aftermath of Eng- land's part in the defence of La Rochelle would be reversion to Popery in England, with all the bloody persecution that such a state might well bring to Protestants, the Puritans eagerly grasped the means of escape which opened in 1629, when the charter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony was granted. Apprehension was not so keen in Holland at that time, however, for, strangely enough, the Dutch had actually aided Catholic France against the Huguenots of La Rochelle. And while the Dutch situation steadily improved during the next decade, by brilliant military operations as an ally of France and by great naval victories, the state of the English people grew steadily worse. Hence, there were cogent reasons why the English came in thousands to Massachusetts after 1629, and why few Dutch emigrants came during the next decade to New Netherland, to swell the population of New Amsterdam, which, in 1628, was only two hundred and seventy. The Puritans of England turned "to the New World to redress the balance of the Old." During the years (1629-40) of tyranny which followed the close of the third Parliament of Charles, the exodus of English Protestants to New England was so enormous that by 1640 New England had about 25,000 colonists. During the same period, New-
9I
THE DIRECTORS-GENERAL
Netherland could show no appreciable increase, excepting by English, who were constantly reaching out into New Nether- land territory ; an ominous trend, which pointed inexorably to the ultimate passing of the land and the government to the English through sheer force of numbers.
Hence, tactless, lackadaisical, and inefficient as the Dutch executives may have been, the failure of Dutch colonization in America was the outcome of circumstances over which the Dutch governors had no control. Unfortunate experiments in colonization were tried by the Dutch West India Company, the most disastrous being that which introduced the patroons, who impoverished the Company and kept the colonists poor ; and it cannot be denied that the administrations of some of the directors-general brought misfortune. Yet these were minor factors in the passing of dominion from the Dutch to the English; the European situation as outlined was the controlling factor of colonial growth.
Minuit's six years as Director-General of New Netherland ended in 1632. He was recalled to Holland early in the spring because he favored those who were in reality his em- ployers-the patroons. Maybe he favored some to the detri- ment of others. At all events, "in the controversy which ensued, blame was thrown upon Minuit, who had coun- tenanced and confirmed these large grants of land with all their objectionable features." The patroonship of Van Rens- selaer above and below Fort Orange embraced a district of twenty-four miles of contiguous territory in the valley of the Hudson. But the patroon whose operations were the most open to question was, it seems, Michael Paauw (Pauw), "a Walloon from Belgium, Burgomaster of Amsterdam and Lord of Achtienhoven, near Utrecht." It was found that in 1629-30 he had bespoken much of the water front along the west side of the New York Bay and Hudson River, in close proximity to the Dutch headquarters on Manhattan Island. On July 12, 1630, Director-General Minuit, acting for Michael Pauw,
92
COURTS AND LAWYERS
purchased this land from the Indians, the conveyance being, it is said, the first deed of record in New Netherland.1 This secured for the absent Michael Pauw the site of Hoboken and vicinity ; a deed dated August 10, 1630, secured for the same patroon Staten Island; and on November 22, 1630, the same favored proprietor was made the owner of the western shore of the Hudson, between Communipaw and Weehawken. The estate on the Jersey shore of the Hudson was named Pavonia, and Burgomaster Pauw sent Cornelis van Vorst from Hol- land to act as his agent. Van Rensselaer, writing on July 20, 1632, stated : "I hear also that Cornelis van Vorst has laborers whose time is up, and that he has engaged new men." Whether the land transactions of this patroon caused the re- call of Minuit in 1632 is not disclosed; but the West India Company certainly disputed Pauw's right to Pavonia. After some years the Company regained possession, purchasing whatever right Pauw may have had for 26,000 florins. Part
I. We, Director and Council of New Netherland, residing on the Island of Manhatas and the Fort Amsterdam, under the authority of their High Mightiness the Lords States-General of the United Netherlands and the Incorporate West India Company at their Chambers, at Amsterdam, do hereby witness and declare that on this day, the date hereof underwritten, before us in their proper persons appeared and showed themselves, to wit: Aeomeauw, Tekwappo, and Sackwomeck, inhabitants and joint owners of the lands called Hobocan-Hackingh, lying over against the aforesaid Island Manhatas, who both for themselves and rato covern, for the remaining joint owners of the same land, declared that for and in consideration of a certain quantity of merchandise, which they acknowledged to have received into their own hands, power and possession, before the passing of these presents, in a right, true and free ownership, have sold, transported, ceded and conveyed, and made over, and by these presents they do transport, cede, and convey to and for the behoof of Mr. Michael Pauw, absent, and for whom we, ex officio, accept under suitable stipulations, viz .: the aforesaid lands by us named Hobocan-Hackingh, extending on the south side, Ahasimus ; eastward, the river Mauritius (Hudson), and on the west side surrounded by a valley and morass, through which the boundaries of the said land can be seen with sufficient clearness, and be distinguished; and that with all the jurisdiction, right and equity, to them, the grantors, in their quality aforesaid belonging ; Constituting and putting in their places and stead the already mentioned Mr. Pauw in the real and actual possession thereof, and at the same time giving full and irrevocable power, authority and special command to the said Mr. Pauw peaceably to enjoy, occupy, cultivate, have
93
THE DIRECTORS-GENERAL
€
of it became the West India Company's farm. In passing, perhaps one incident in the history of Pavonia might be cited to show with what lordly dignity the patroons and their repre- sentatives upheld their status in the colony.2
Wouter van Twiller became director-general in 1633, and most of the early historians of New York therefore assumed that he was the successor of Minuit. But evidence found, in the Van Rensselaer letters of the period 1630-43, by State Archivist Van Laer, and published by the University of the State of New York, in 1908, as the "Van Rens- selaer Bowier Manuscripts," prove that Bastiaen Jansz Krol, or Crol, who had been at Fort Orange before Killiaen van Rensselaer became patroon, and had later had charge of the Rensselaer manor, was Director- General of New Netherland for thirteen months, from the end of February, 1632. Van Rensselaer secured the ap- pointment for him. In the same year, however, the directors
and hold the aforesaid land tanquam actor et procurator in rem suam acpropriam; and also to do with and dispose of the same as he might do with his own lands to which he had a good and lawful title; without their, the grantors, in their quality aforesaid, saving or reserving any part, right, action, or authority thereunto in the least, either of ownership or jurisdiction ; but altogether to the behoof as aforesaid, henceforth, forever, wholly and finally desisting, renouncing, and quit-claiming ; promising hereby, moreover, not only to keep, maintain, and fulfil this their grant, and whatever shall be done by virtue thereof, inviolable and irrevocable forever, but also to keep and maintain the same lands against all persons free from any claim, chal- lenge, or incumbrance to be made thereon by any persons as also to cause this sale and grant to be approved of and held valid by the remaining joint owners as they are by right obligated to do; all in good faith without fraud or deceit.
In witness whereof these presents are confirmed with our usual sig- natures and with our seal thereto affixed.
Done at the aforesaid Island of Manhatas, in Fort Amsterdam, this 12th day of July, 1630.
(See Land Paper, Albany, G. G. I .- Winfield's Land Titles, 3).
2. No sooner had Van Vorst become settled in his new home than the dignitaries of New Amsterdam, representing both church and state, resolved to pay him a visit, as well as to assure him of their distinguished considera- tion as to sample his newly arrived Bordeaux. On the 25th of June, 1636, Wouter van Twiller, who was always "glad to taste good wine," but on whose shoulders rested the weighty cares of the New Netherland state,
94
COURTS AND LAWYERS
of the West India Company decided to send a new Director- General from Holland. They chose Woutter van Twiller, nephew of Patroon van Rensselaer.3 The new Director did not reach Manhattan until April, 1633. What Krol's actual status on the books of the Company was is not known. There is record of the Council of Director van Twiller, but not of that of Krol; therefore it seems possible that the administra- tion of Director Krol was of provisional character, that his status was more that of Acting Director-General, bridging the gap between the sudden departure of Minuit and the ar- rival of the new governor. By testimony Krol himself gave "at an examination conducted at the request of the patroons, by a notary in Amsterdam, June 30, 1634" it is, however, evi- dent that he really did hold the office of Director-General of New Netherland for thirteen months, also that he was a
and Dominie Everardus Bogardus, the old preacher and husband of Anneke Jans, accompanied by Captain de Vries, came over to Pavonia. Van Vorst entertained them with princely hospitality from his newly-filled wine cellar. As time passed on and the sampling of the wine was repeated, the Governor and the Dominie grew warm and disputatious, if not angry, with their host. The modest entry in De Vries' journal, that they "had some words with the Patroon's Commissary" plainly means that they quarreled with him. The subject of the dispute was the murder which had been recently committed in Pavonia. Although the discussion ran high, and bad blood for a while threatened the peace of the occasion, yet another bumper or two was like oil on the troubled waters, for "they eventually parted good friends." Leaving their host and his good Vrouwtje, they entered their boat and started for New Amsterdam. Van Vorst, determined to deepen their impression how royally the representative of the Patroon of Pavonia could entertain such distinguished guests, fired a salute from a swivel (steen-stuk, a stone gun), mounted on a pile in front of his house. How the reverberations of that primal salute must have rolled over the hills of Ahasimus, and what a brilliant illumination followed to light the way of the parting guests : "A spark unfortunately flying on the roof, which was thatched with reeds, set it in a blaze, and in half an hour the whole build- ing was burned down." Thus ended the first recorded entertainment in Pavonia .- Winfield's "History of Hudson County, New Jersey." Where- upon, states another account, the Governor, "quickened by a remembrance of his late host's entertainment, ordered a new house built for him."
3. A letter to Krol from Killiaen van Rensselaer at Amsterdam, under date of July 20, 1632, acknowledges receipt of Krol's letter of - - Janu- ary, "in which vou thank me that I helped to promote you to the director- ship, which I did with pleasure. However, though new lords make new laws, I am astonished at the great changes which they are making, inas-
95
THE DIRECTORS-GENERAL
former Director at Fort Orange.4 As Director of the most important manor, or patroonship, he would naturally be thought of as the executive best fitted of those on the spot to temporarily take the reins of government from Director- General Minuit, when the latter was recalled to Holland.
Director-General van Twiller had, as koopman, or secre- tary, the official who had served Minuit as such; but none of the first Director-General's councillors were reappointed. Van Twiller's Council consisted of four members : Jacob Jan- sen Hesse, Martin Gerritsen, Andries Hudde and Jacques Bentyn. Cornelis van Tienhoven was assistant to Jan van Remund, the koopman, or secretary. Coenraed Notelman was retained as schout-fiscal, giving way, however, in 1634 to Lub- bertus van Dincklagen. The latter was a doctor, either of laws or medicine; probably he was. skilled in all the sciences. He was also "possessed of considerable means." With such qualifications, Dr. van Dincklagen may have been vested with more legal responsibilities than his predecessors; he may have demanded them; and he hardly would have undertaken the menial duties expected of other schouts.5 Hence, "he
much as they summon you and albert ditering home and send a new commis to Fort Orange . . . although they now send my nephew Woutter there as director, believe me freely that he has not tried in the least to oust you from your office, as the directors have offered it to him without his asking for it and without my speaking to any one about it for him .- Van Rensse- laer "Bowier Manuscripts," p. 217.
4. After he had been away about 15 months, he was appointed to the di- rectorship at Fort Orange on the North River and held the same for three years. The third time he went out again as director of Fort Orange, and to the best of his recollection served again for about two years. After which he was elected director general of New Netherland at Fort Amster- dam, on the island Manhatas, lying at the mouth of the aforesaid North River, also named Mauritius, and served in this office 13 months .- Chester's "Legal and Judicial History of New York," Vol. I, 24, quoting from Van Rensselaer "Bowier Manuscripts," p. 302.
5. In what manner judicial proceedings were conducted is unknown. Records were kept under Van Twiller, but they are now irretrievably lost. His schout-fiscal, however, Lubbertus van Dinclage, was a doctor of laws, and a man of ability ; and, as long as he continued to act, it may fairly be presumed that the management of judicial matters was under his charge .- Ex-Chief Justice Daly, in the "State of Jurisprudence During the Dutch Period," 1623-1674; "History of the Bench and Bar of New York."
96
COURTS AND LAWYERS
did not long retain the favor of Van Twiller." Ulrich Lu- pold succeeded him as schout-fiscal.
What judicial procedure was during the administration of Director Van Twiller will probably never be known; but judging by indirect evidence, he seems to have been more con- scientious than his predecessors; and this quality would be reflected more in the functioning of the law than of other departments. In the confidence instilled in the Indians by his administration one sees that Van Twiller aimed to trade fairly with them, and see that their rights were not abused.6 The Indian question was not a difficult problem under Van Twiller, but under his arbitrary and unfair successor, Kieft, the resentment of the Indians reached such intensity that many Dutch families were massacred, and many settlements were put to the torch. A report to the States General in 1643, reads in part: "Every place almost is abandoned. We, wretched people, must skulk with our wives and little ones, that still are left, in poverty together, by and around the fort on Manhatas, where we are not one hour safe."7 Van Twiller had had a regrettable experience in one important part of New Nether- land, for he had been outwitted by the English in the rich Connecticut Valley, and had been unable to dislodge them, even with a reinforcement of seventy men, "with arquebuses, swords, trumpets and banners"; but in New York waters
6. His administration throughout seems to have been on the whole peaceful and satisfactory. . . His dealings with the Indians were just and wise, and in sharp contrast with the policy of his successor, William Kieft, who arrived here in 1638. . . . , Kieft's administration was turbulent throughout, and much of the Indian troubles are attributable to his unwise and arbitrary treatment of them. In the report of the "Eight Men" (a body appointed to investigate and determine the troubles with the Indians) to the Directors of the Company, it is stated : "The Indians are in no way to be pacified until the Director Kieft is removed therefrom, they calling daily for 'Wouter! Wouter!' (Van Twiller) .... These Indians have lived as lambs among us until a few years ago, injuring no one, affording every assistance to our Nation, and had in Van Twiller's time furnished provi- sions to several of the Company's servants."-"History of Bergen County, New Jersey" (1924).
7. "History of Hudson County, New Jersey" (1923).
97
THE DIRECTORS-GENERAL
the Dutch settlements were satisfactorily expanding under Van Twiller. He may have been somewhat phlegmatic and lackadaisical, and not sufficiently imbued with the commercial spirit to be notably successful as estate manager for a trading company, which fundamentally was his status; but he was of a very different type from William Kieft, who succeeded him in 1638.8 Van Twiller was a man of honorable character and gentlemanly mien, but Kieft was a "commercial adventurer of ill repute."
However, the directors in Amsterdam, or the Board of the Nineteen, apparently thought that this man of bad character but aggressive personality, would advance their interests in New Netherland better than Van Twiller had. It was be- coming necessary to adopt a firmer "front" in the Company's dealings with the patroons; and William Kieft was looked upon as the man most likely to effect this. The restriction of the power of the patroons may be dated from March, 1638, when Kieft arrived off Manhattan Island, on the man-of-war "Haerring"; further restrictions came into effect in 1640,
8. Van Twiller was no more successful in management than his prede- cessors had been. His incumbency of five years was a record of blunders, inexperience, lack of energy, and a general incapacity for administration. When it became necessary to recall him, the Assembly of Nineteen deter- mined to send out a man of entirely different character. Accordingly, William Kieft, who, although a commercial adventurer of ill repute and once under serious charges of financial dereliction, a person of deter- mination and activity, was chosen .- Chester's "Legal and Judicial History of New York," p. 26, Vol. I.
8. Van Twiller had a difficult task. His inertia in certain dramatic situations, was rather the demand of the national state of politics than the manifestation of craven characteristics in himself. Europe was in a state of war, and the international situation was delicate. To deal resolutely with some colonial matters might have endangered the offensive and defensive alliance between England and the United Provinces of the Netherlands. Van Twiller was a comparatively young man when he arrived in the prov- ince as Director-General; it is therefore all the more creditable that he curbed his youthful spirit and preserved a pacific attitude. That he had the confidence of his uncle, Patroon Van Rensselaer, is indicated by his later responsibility, that of guardian of the Rensselaer estate and heirs, from about 1644.
C.&L .- 7
98
COURTS AND LAWYERS
and by them the privileges of the free settlers were intended to be enlarged. As a matter of fact, however, conditions be- came much worse, Kieft taking into his own hands and ad- ministering as he saw fit the affairs of the whole colony, judicial as well as commercial, without any curb whatsoever. To make his authority absolute he appointed only one man to constitute his Council, the deliberations of said Council of one having no power to overrule his will, for John de la Mon- tagne, the Council, had only one vote to place against Kieft's two. Hence the Governor was the Government; and the Governor was not a man of honor.9 He had met the instruc- tions of the Board of the Nineteen : "that he should maintain a Council," but had rendered it always a useless minority. This despotism in time defeated itself, as unfair conditions generally do; but for a time life itself was uncertain in New Netherland.
There was apparently some justification for resolute action by Director-General Kieft in the first years of his administra- tion ; the Company's commercial affairs in New Netherland were in a chaotic state, and its civil authority was not uni- versally recognized.10 Life in the larger communities was
9. In 1638 William Kieft was appointed governor. This governor was a grasping, arbitrary, narrow-minded man, full of his own importance, with a restless activity that was never turned in any right direction, or applied to the accomplishment of any wise purpose. During the nine years that he mismanaged the colony, he retained in his hands the sole adminis- tration of justice. In obedience to his instructions, it was necessary that he should keep up the form of a council, but that he might enjoy exclusive control, he reduced it to one member, reserving two votes to himself .- Brodhead's "History of New York"; also Daly's "State of Jurisprudence During the Dutch Period"; "History of the Bench and Bar of New York," p. 8.
10. Public interests had suffered so greatly during the administration of the previous director general that Kieft was confronted with a very grave condition of affairs. The company's employees had been trading in furs on their own account, instead of attending to their duties and observing the prescribed regulations ; smuggling was common; guns and ammunition had been furnished to the Indians; the town was in a disorderly state, through the insubordination of soldiers and the rioting of sailors and citizens ; drunkenness, theft, fighting, and immoralities generally prevailed, and mu-
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.