History of Westchester county : New York, including Morrisania, Kings Bridge, and West Farms, which have been annexed to New York City, Vol. II, Part 153

Author: Scharf, J. Thomas (John Thomas), 1843-1898,
Publication date: 1886
Publisher: Philadelphia : L.E. Preston & Co.
Number of Pages: 1286

USA > New York > Westchester County > History of Westchester county : New York, including Morrisania, Kings Bridge, and West Farms, which have been annexed to New York City, Vol. II > Part 153

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).

This raid of Major Sellick caused considerable stir. It was denounced by the General Assembly of New York as "a forcible invasion of His Majesty's right and dominion of this His Majesty's Province:" and the Assembly further declared that it was "humbly of opinion that the inhabitants of the said towns, Rye and Bedford, ought not to continue in their de- fection, without incurring the Pains and Penalties established by law upon such as rebel against His Majesty's Government." They therefore petition the Governor to "address his proclamation requiring the inhabitants of the said towns to return unto their faith and allegiance at a certain day, and assure them of His Majesty's grace and pardon upon that condi- tion,-otherwise that they may be proceeded against as the law direets." They would also have His Ex- celleney to represent unto the government of Con- nectient " the great evil they eommit by protecting such of His Majesty's subjects that have revolted;" how they have thereby "lessened the strength of His Majesty government here,-being a frontier prov- ince,-and by that means given great advantage to His Majesty's declared enemies, the French. And if they have any right or claim in the law to those towns of Rye and Bedford, that they may apply unto His Majesty, who is the sole Judge of extent and limits of his dominions in America, and submit the same unto his royal determination, and not by foree of arms enter upon His Majesty's Dominions, to the

evil example of those disaffected to His Majesty's government, and the disuniting. of strength of His Majesty's subjects, now necessary to be employed against His Majesty's enemies, the French."

Governor Fleteher issued his proclamation in all haste, on the next day, requiring the towns to return to their allegianee, and shortly after addressed his complaints to Connecticut. That colony replied promptly, disclaiming any intention of using force, and referring the whole matter to the King, who, they declared, had never annexed those towns to New York. After considerable recrimination between the two colonies, Governor Fletcher was recalled to England. Upon the arrival of his successor, Lord Bellomont, Connecticut sent a delegatiou to congrat- ulate him. Lord Bellomont expressed his thanks for the compliment, but denied the reasons advaneed by Connectieut for countenancing the towns of Rye and Bedford in their revolt. He also submitted a letter from the Lords Commissioners of Trade on the sub- ject. Nearly two years elapsed before the contro- versy ended.

On the 29th of March, 1700, King William III. approved and confirmed the agreement of 1683 and 1684, whereby Rye and Bedford were included in New York; and on the 10th day of October follow- ing, the General Court at Hartford released Bedford and Rye from all allegiance.

In the mean time the people of Rye had held their town-meetings as usual, choosing their officers and attending to the division and improvement of their lands. Deliverance Brown and Captain Joseph Theall had been their justices before the separation from New York, and retained their offices for years after- wards. They, with the eonstables, Robert Bloomer and Caleb Hlyat, and the townsmen, at the head of whom was Hachaliah Brown, kept good order in the little settlement. They yielded without demur to the final decision of their case by the crown. So tes- tifies Deliverance Brown in a petition to the Gov- ernor in their behalf for relief from excessive taxation. No further claim upon the territory of Rye was made by Connecticut, nor do the people appear to have renewed their attempt to join that colony. Yet for thirty years more, until the completion of the bound- ary survey in 1731, there was an unsettled feeling among them relative to their politieal state. This was particularly the ease with reference to the div- ision line between the towns of Rye and Greenwich. There was a protracted dispute between the two towns on this subject; and, after various failures to efleet a settlement, New York and Connectient se- lected commissioners, who met at Rye in April, 1725, and began the work of marking the boundary. They started at "the Great Stone at the Wading-place," which had been designated as the point of beginning forty-one years before. Their survey was extended as far as that of 1684, to "the Duke's trees" at the northwest angle of the town of Greenwich, where

659

RYE.

three white oaks had been marked as the termination of the former survey. Here the work was suspended for want of funds, and it was not resumed until the spring of 1731. The survey was then completed to the Massachusetts line; the "equivalent tract" or "oblong" was measured " and set off to New York," and the line dividing the province of New York from the colony of Connecticut was designated by monu- ments at intervals of two miles. The "Great Rock at the Wading-place " may still be found at the north- eastern end of the bridge crossing the. Byram River. Starting at this rock, the boundary line strikes across to King Street, and follows the course of that road for about two miles. At the distance of five miles from the wading-place it crosses Blind Brook near the head of that stream at an angle which terminates the territory of Rye. The famous "Duke's trees" are about two miles north of this point.

The boundary line laid down in 1731 remained without disturbance until 1855, when the question arose as to its existing definiteness. On some portions of the line the marks had disappeared and along the whole distance the greatest uncertainty existed. Resi- dents near the border refrained from voting in either State, while officers of justice and tax collectors hesi- tated to exercise their authority up to any well- defined limit. These circumstances were taken ad- vantage of by those who wished to evade the payment of taxes or the enforcement of the law. In May, 1855, the General Assembly of Connecticut took steps to have the true position of the boundary line ascer- tained, by means of a new survey and the erection of new monuments. In the following year the New York Legislature took similar action and the commis- sioners appointed under the several acts employed an engineer to run the line. The commissioners eould not agree, however, as to the method of running the line, and nothing was done. In August, 1859, new commissioners were appointed on the part of each State, but, owing to the tenacity with which Connec- ticut adhered to the claim that a straight line should be run, regardless of existing monuments to indicate the original course, no agreement could be reached.

The last step taken in this matter occurred in 1860. On the 3d of April in that year, the Legislature of New York passed an act, empowering the commissioners formerly appointed "to survey and mark with suitable monuments" the "line between the two States, as fix- ed by the survey of 1731." They were to give due notice of their purpose to the commissioners of Connecticut, inviting then to join in the duties imposed upon them. But in case of their refusal or neglect to do so, they were to proceed alone, and perform the work assigned. The commissioners of New York, acting under these instructions, held several conferences with those of Connecticut. But the latter adhered inflexibly to the principle that the boundary to be established must be a straight line. The commission- ers from New York therefore pursued the course en-

joined upon them. They fixed and marked the bound- ary line between the two States, placing monuments along its course at intervals of one mile, from the Massachusetts line to the mouth of Byram River. This work was undertaken on the 8th of June, 1860, and was completed in the autumn of that year.

On December 5, 1879, this line was agreed to by commissioners appointed by both States to establish the boundaries, which agreement was ratified by the legislatures of New York and Connecticut, and con- firmed by Congress during the session of 1880-81.1

In 1720 the people of Rye took steps to procure a patent for their lands from the British crown. The petitioners were Daniel Purdy, son of John Purdy, deceased; Samuel Brown and Benjamin Brown, “in behalfe of themselves and diverse other Inhabitants of the said Township of Rye." They asked for letters patent for the tract of land lying between Blind Brook and the colony line, from the southern extremity of Peningo Neck to "the Antient marked Trees of Limp- ing Will's purchase." The Governor and Council re- ferred the petition to the people of Rye at large. A town-meeting was held and it was decided that the inhabitants of Rye "unanimously have noe objection against granting the said Lands to the said Petition- ers, but only that the same cannot be Granted to them by the Express Limitts and Boundaries as pticularly Described by the said Petition by reason it would In- terfere with Lands already Granted to other persons." A somewhat different description was suggested,-e. g., "beginning at a certaine Rock lyeing on a point of Land cy known by the name of Town Neck point" "together with a certaine Island Included . known by the name of Monussing Island lyeing about Twenty Rodes from the maine Land."

An old controversy which had been slumbering for some years, regarding the ownership of the southern part of Manussing Island, was now revived. Samuel Odell, who claimed it, against Roger Park, remon- strated against the granting of a patent that should fail to secure him in his rights to that property. De- positions of various parties were taken on the subject before the Council. The surveyor-general, Cadwal- lader Colden, surveyed the tract, exclusive of the island, and made his report August 11, 1720. And finally, July 28th, the gentlemen of the Council to whom the petition of Rye had been referred, reported favorably upon it. Letters patent were issued August 11, 1720, to Daniel Purdy and Samuel and Benjamin Brown, for themselves and the other inhabitants of Rye, exelusive of Budd's Neck, that tract being held by another patent granted the month before.

The tract known to the natives as Quaroppas, and to the settlers as the White Plains, was purchased from the Indians in 1683. There was, however, an opposing elaimant in the person of John Richbell, of Mamaroneck, a native of England, who had bought

1 See " Boundary " &c., in Chapter I., Volume I. of this work.

660

HISTORY OF WESTCHESTER COUNTY.

of the Indians in 1660, about the same time that eote, however, seems to have been disposed to treat them with great fairness. In the charter which he obtained for his lands, exception was made of " ye land called White Plains, which is in dispute ye said Caleb Heathcote and some of ye inhabitants of ye town of Rye." To that land the patent gave him 110 further title than he already possessed. At a meeting held by " the Properities of the White Plains pur- chasc," February 24, 1701-2, Hachaliah Browne, Deliverance Browne, Humphrey Underhill, Thomas Merritt, Sr., Isaac Denham, John Stokham and Benja- min Horton were chosen a committee to agree with Colonel Heathcote concerning the running of a line be- tween Colonel Heathcote's patent and the White Plains purchase. The controversy was still pending in 1702, when the Rev. Mr. Christopher Bridge, Hachaliah Browne, Ensign John Horton, Captain Joseph Budd, and John Hoyt were chosen to treat with Colonel Heathcote for a quittance of "all his elaime of the above said White Plaine purchase." The question was still unsettled at the time of Colonel Heatheote's Disbrow effected the purchase of Peningo Neck, the lands adjoining the town of Rye on the west. His right to these lands was confirmed in 1662 by the authorities of New Netherland, and in 1668 by the government of New York. Mr. Richbell's patent gave him possession of the "three necks" bounded on the east by Mamaroneck River, and on the west by Stony Brook, together with the land lying north of these bounds " twenty miles into the woods." The claim thus set up conflicted with that of the settlers of Rye. As the border town of Connecticut, they conceived that their bonds extended westward as far as the western line of that eolony. This was a north-line drawn from the east side of Mamaroneek River northwest to the line of Massachusetts. But negotiations were now pending between Connecticut and New York for a more satisfactory settlement of that boundary, and on the 2Sth of November, 1683, the two govern- ments agreed upon a line to begin at the mouth of Byram River. Meanwhile, doubtless anticipating this decision, the inhabitants of Rye, on the 22d | death, about four years later. Owing, doubtless, to of November, only six days before. the date of that these difficulties, the White Plains purchase re- mained undivided for many years. Finally, "at a meeting held in Rye by the Proprietors of the White Plaines purchase, February the 11, 1714-15," Captain Joseph Budd, Ensign John Horton, Mr. John Hoyt, Samuel Purdy, Caleb Hiat and George Lane, Jr., "are chosen to rectify all mistakes that has been formerly made by the former layers out of the White Plaines purchase, and also has power to add or diminish the just and true proportion of all the lotments of land which is in dispute to be above or under the true proportion, aud to lay out propor- siable all the remaining part of the abovesaid pur- chase ; and when so done to make return to the said proprietors." agreement, concluded a treaty with the Indian pro- prietors of the White Plains for the purchase of that tract. They describe it as "lying within the town bounds of Rye." Mr. Richbell was not inelined to yield his elainis upon the territory, and petitioned Governor Dongan to grant an order to clear it, as he was " wholly obstrueted and hindered by Rye men," who had "made a great Disturbance amongst them and Pretends a right to the same." The inhabitants of Rye were summoned to show cause why the lands in dispute should not of right belong and appertain to Mr. Richbell. The controversy seems to have remained unsettled. Mr. Richbell died soon after this, and the greater part of his lands, including all the northern portion, came into the possession of the Hon. This committee appear to have completed their work in the year 1720. The lands divided were appor- tioned to forty-one proprietors, all of whom were inhabitants of Rye. In the following year, 1721, eertain individuals who had already settled upon lands in White Plains obtained from the British gov- ernment a patent for themselves and their associates for the whole traet of four thousand four hundred and thirty-five acres. These persons were Joseph Budd, John Hoit, Caleb Hoit, Humphrey Underhill, Joseph Purdy, George Lane, Daniel Lane, Moses Knap, John Horton, David Horton, Jonathan Lynch, Peter Hatfield, James Travis, Isaac Covert, Benjamin Brown, John Turner, David Ogden and William Yeomans. Several of them were actual settlers. White Plains drew largely on the strength of the community of Rye. Several of the latter's most enterprising inhabitants removed thither about this time. Some branches of nearly all the ancient families established themselves there, and, indeed, those families are now represented there more numer- ously than in the pareut settlement. The accom- Caleb Heatheote. In 1701 Colonel Heathcote obtain- ed a confirmation of his rights to the Richbell estate by purchasing again from the Indians the "necks" formerly known as East and Great Neck (now ealled Orienta and Larchmont), with the lands lying north of them along Mamaroneck River to its souree and across to the Bronx. This traet included the whole of the present town of Scarsdale, for which Colonel Heathcote immediately obtained letters patent from the British crown, securing to him that territory, and constituting the "lordship " or Manor of Scarsdale. But his Indian grants included also the whole of the White Plains, which the inhabitants of Rye had pur- chased from the Indians in 1683, and where some of them were already settled, although no division of the lands had yet been made. This new cueroachment on their territory occurred just at the close of their unsuccessful attempt to return to the colony of Con- nectient. Having failed to recover the lands appro- priated by Harrison, the people of Rye probably had little hope of resisting these claims. Colonel Heath-

661

RYE.

panying diagram shows the location of their lands and houses. It is copied from the map accompany- ing a survey of the tract made before the granting of the patent. After the Revolutionary War, in 1788, the White Plains became a town distinct from Rye, of which it had till then formed a part.

TOWN OFFICERS OF RYE .- The local government of Rye in early times was administered by a con- siderable number of functionaries. About the year 1700, when there were sixty persons paying county rates, we find them choosing the following officers : A supervisor, five townsmen or selectmen, a constable, a town clerk or recorder, two assessors, two listers, two pounders, two fence-viewers, three sheep-masters and a collector. With a justice of the peace, besides two deputies to the General Court, and any number of "layers out " of public lands and roads, to say

1145

THE WHITE PLAINS, IN 1721.1

nothing of the captain, lieutenants, ensigns and ser- geants of the "train-bands; " there seems to have been official business of some sort or other for nearly every member of the community.

The town elerk appears to have been the most im- portant of the village worthies. But two persons filled the position during the first three-quarters of a

I The references in the diagram are explained as follows in the original drawing :- ' A, Caleb Hyat's. B, Joseph Purdy's. C, Hum- phrey Underhill's. D, Sam' Merritt's. E, Sam' Ilunt's. F, Sam llunt's Mill. G, Sam' Hoit's. H, John Iloit's. I, George Lane's. K, Dan Brundige's. 1., James Travis. M, Moses Knap's. N, John Hyat's. 0, Dan' Lane's. P, Sam1 Horton's. Q, Christr Yeomans. R, Anthony Miller's. S and T, Dan1 Brunlige s Bound Trees. U, Beginning of Mr. Bridge's Patent. V, Ye Bound Tree between Mr. Bridge and Sam1 Ihunt. W, Ye Bound Tree between Humphrey Underhill and Sam Hunt. a, Ye road to Mamaroneck. b, Road to East Chester.

c, Road up to ye woods. d, Road to Hudson's Ferry. e, Road to Mr. Phillips' Mills. I, Road to Bedford. g, Road to California Patent [sic]. h, Road to Rye. i, Road to Budd's Neck.'

ii .- 58

century. John Brondige was probably chosen as town clerk in the early days of the settlement. We find mention of him as such in 1678. He remained in office probably to the time of his death, in 1697, and was succeeded by Samuel Lane, who was town elerk until 1736. Besides keeping a record of the proceedings at the town-meetings, the clerk was re- quired to enter in a book provided for the purpose, a statement of the bounds and dimensions of every man's land. Each grant, sale or mortgage of land must thus likewise be recorded to be of force. Prior to the Revolution . these records were kept in three folio volumes, which are still preserved in fair condi- tion. The records of the town-meetings were kept, not in bound volumes, but in books composed of forty or fifty leaves stitched together. The oldest of these have in recent years disappeared. They related to the doings of the first thirty or thirty-five years- from the foundation of the town to the year 1697. Mr. Bolton, however, who had access to these docu- ments when preparing his county and ecclesiastical histories, has preserved many interesting facts which he gathered from them. Some accounts of town matters are also interspersed among the land records which fill the bound volumes. Here, too, the Indian deeds for all the territory purchased by the pro- prietors and the town are carefully engrossed.

At the first town-meetings the number of free- holders was perhaps twenty-five or thirty. Eighteen of these were proprietors and had exelusive control of the common lands within the first purchase on Peningo Neek. All other lands not yet distributed belonged to the " town in general" or the whole body of inhabitants qualified to vote. These also pos- sessed the right to admit or exelude new comers into the settlement.

The following statement shows the population, and the estimated property of the inhabitants for the time during which the town was subjeet to Connecti- cut. It is made up from the "Lists of Persons and Estates " kept by the General Court :

Persons.

Ct. Rec.

Estates.

1665

ii. 28

£1211 00 00

1666

ii. 49

1547 10 00

1667 .

ii. 72

1721 00 00

1668

ii. 94

2174 00 00

1669

ii. 117

2403 10 00

1670.

ii. 137

1950 12 00

1671 .

ii. 160

1979 15 00

1672.

ii. 186

2031 00 00

1673

ii. 210

1767 05 00

1674 .

ii. 236

19-11 00 00

1675.

ii. 261

1909 01 00

167.6.

ii. 290

1591 00 00

1677 .

ii. 320

1789 00 00

1678

iii. 17

2122 00 00

1679

iii. 36

2361 00 00

1680

iii. 67

2274 00 00

1GSI .

iii. 86

2415 00 00

1682 .

iii. 106

2612 00 00

1683

iii. 126

2339 00 00

1698

iv. 265

3136 18 00

1699

. . 60

iv. 297

3306 00 00

662

HISTORY OF WESTCHESTER COUNTY.

The persons here enumerated were male inhabit- ants, of adult age, paying taxes upon an estate of fifty pounds cach. Ministers of the Gospel, deputies to the General Court and some others were exempted. The figures, therefore, may be taken to represent ap- proximately the number of families in the town.

Besides electing officers, the town-meetings had much other business to transact. The prevention of damages by cattle, the reception or exclusion of in- habitants, the disposal of lands belonging to persons removing from the town, the fixing of bounties for the killing of wolves, the selection of persons to look after the boundaries of public lands, the granting of permission to open taverns, erect mills, ete., the adop- tion of regulations concerning sheep and cattle, were among the matters discussed and determined in town-meeting.

Where the town-meetings were held does not ap- pear until the year 1728, when it is mentioned that tlte meeting took place at the school-house near the church in Rye. It is probable that this had been the place of meeting for some years. As early as 1708, notice of a special meeting of the town was given by "a warrant from a Justice of the Peace Sett upon a signe post nere the Church four days before the meeting."

The selectmen presided on these occasions, and as early as 1705 the town chose trustees or overseers, whose duty was to take care of the town lands and the town's interests, rights and privileges in the lands witltin the boundaries of the town. Full power was given them to raise money as they might have ocea- sion in pursuance of their trust, and to sell or mort- gage undivided lands, " or other ways as they shall see best within their said year." The charges that might arise, the town agreed to " disburse by equall proportion, and alsoe to have equall proportion of Lands thereby recovered." This action was evidently taken to prevent encroachments similar to those which the town had already suffered.

Justice was administered by a magistrate, known at first as the commissioner. In 1697-98 the office of justice of the peace was substituted. They were em- powered, "with the seleetmen of the town, or any two of them, to hear and determine any action that should be presented before them for tryall to the value of forty shillings." The first commissioner was Mr. John Budd, appointed in 1663 and 1664. He was succeeded by Lieutenant Joseph Horton in 1678. In 1698 Deliverance Brown was appointed justice of the peace by the Connecticut anthorities and continued to Itold the office under the New York government until 1716.

The following is a list of the town officers of Rye from the beginning :

SUPERVISORS.

1491. Joseph Theall.

1701. Deliverance Brown.

1703. John Frost 1705 6. Thomas Merritt.

1707 8. Joseph Purdy.

1711. John lloyt.

1713 16. Joseph Budd. 1717-19. John lloyt.

1720-22. Joseph Budd.

1809-22. Sammuel Deall.

1723-39. Samnel Purdy.

1823-34. David Kirby.

1740-43. Jolin Thomas.

1835-37. John Theall.

1744-46. Samuel Purdy.

1838. David Kirby.

1747. Sammel Tredwell.

1×39-40. Willett Moseman.

1749. Samuel Purdy.

1>41. John Theall.

1750-61. Wmn. Willett.

18-12-15. James D). Ilalsted.

1762-63. Jonathan Brown. 1×46-17. J. C. Roosevelt Brown.

1764. Timothy Wetmore.

1×48. Dr. D. Jerome Sands

1765-67. John Thomas.

1849. John S. Provoost.

1768. Timothy Wetmore.

1850. Win. Horton.

1769-70. John Thomas, Jr.

1851-53. Newberry D. Ilalsted.

1771-72. Ebenezer llaviland.

1-54. John S. Provoost.

1783-81. John Thomas.

1>55-59. John E. Marshall.

1785-86. Jesse Hunt.

1861. John W. Lounsherry.

1788. Gilbert Broulige.

1862-61. James D. Ilalsted.

1789-95. Thomas Bowne.

1-65. Wilson D. Slawson.

1796. Bartholomew Hladden.

1866-68. Thomas K. Downing.

1797. John Gnion.

1×69-71. lloward C. Cady.

1799. Jolin Brown.

1>71-73. Amherst Wight.

1800. Thomas Brown.

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.

History of Westchester county : New York, including Morrisania, Kings Bridge, and West Farms, which have been annexed to New York City, Vol. II, Part 153

Author: Scharf, J. Thomas (John Thomas), 1843-1898, Publication date: 1886 Publisher: Philadelphia : L.E. Preston & Co. Number of Pages: 1286

Author: Scharf, J. Thomas (John Thomas), 1843-1898,
Publication date: 1886
Publisher: Philadelphia : L.E. Preston & Co.
Number of Pages: 1286