The civil, political, professional and ecclesiastical history, and commercial and industrial record of the county of Kings and the city of Brooklyn, N. Y., from 1683 to 1884 Volume I, Part 104

Author: Stiles, Henry Reed, 1832-1909, ed. cn; Brockett, L. P. (Linus Pierpont), 1820-1893; Proctor, L. B. (Lucien Brock), 1830-1900. 1n
Publication date: 1884
Publisher: New York : W. W. Munsell & Co.
Number of Pages: 1114

USA > New York > Kings County > Brooklyn > The civil, political, professional and ecclesiastical history, and commercial and industrial record of the county of Kings and the city of Brooklyn, N. Y., from 1683 to 1884 Volume I > Part 104

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).

"The Steamboat Nassau will start this evening (July 27), at 8 o'clock, on a tour of pleasure. An excellent band of music is provided. Tickets may be had of Mr. GEORGE HICKS, ferry-master, Brooklyn.

Those who are curious, can acquaint themselves fully with the appearance and mechanism of this boat by consulting Fulton's own description and plans of the Paulus Hook ferry boat, after which the Nassau was modeled, published in Valentine's Corporation Manual of New York for 1859, pages 605, 610.

The commutation system was early established, as appears by the following advertisement in the Long Island Star of May 4, 1814:

New- York and Brooklyn Ferry.

SUCH I persons as are inclined to compound, agreeable to law, in the Steam Ferry-Boat, Barges, or common Horse Boats, will be pleas- ed to apply to the subscribers, who are authori- zed to settle the same.

GEORGE HICKS, Brooklyn, JOHN PINTARD, 52 Wall -st Commutation for a single person not transferable, for 12 months, $10 00

Do. do. 8 months, 6 67

May 3, 1814. 6m.

For several years after its establishment, the new steam ferry won golden opinions from the public, and so great were the benefits experienced by the inhabi- tants of Brooklyn, and of Long Island generally, that a very general wish was expressed for the addition of the second boat, which, by their contract, the ferry company were to place on the route prior to May 1, 1819. This, however, the company seemed disinclined to do, and, under the plea that their present receipts would not justify the increased expense of building a new steamboat, and alleging (with more speciousness

435

FERRIES.

than truth, perhaps) that team boats were not only more easily navigated, but much safer in winter than steamboats, they offered, in 1817, that, if the Brooklyn people would petition the corporation for permission to substitute a horse boat for the steamboat, they would provide the said horse boat one year earlier than stipulated, and run the same during evening ferry hours. This was agreed to by the inhabitants of Brooklyn, and application made to the Legislature for a law fixing the same rates of ferriage by law on team boats as on steamboats. Opposition ensued from New York, but, on a renewal of the application to the legis- lature, in 1818, the corporation of New York, jealous of legislative interference (and assuming that they had the right), granted the substitution of the team boat, and raised the ferriage to four cents on team and steam- boats alike; granting, also, to the lessees the privilege of replacing the team boat with a steamboat whenever they should see fit.

Renewed Agitation of the Ferry Question .- In Brooklyn, however, the spirit of opposition, still unconciliated by the measures adopted by the New York Corporation, gained new force from the unusual severity of the following winter (1821-'22). The de- tentions and irregularities which naturally occurred in the ferry travel, during that season, occasioned great dissatisfaction, and, together with the inadequacy of the ferry accommodations, to the wants of the rapidly growing village, gave rise to an animated struggle for relief, which was carried on in the newspapers, in pamphlets, by means of public meetings and before the corporation of New York. The ferry, at this time, (both of its lessees having died, Mr. Fulton in 1815, and Mr. Cutting in 1821), was owned by certain New York stockholders, representing sixty shares of stock, and by the widow of Mr. Cutting, who had a separate interest. The few concessions extorted from these stockholders by the agitation of the subject, being en- tirely insufficient to meet the public necessities, Messrs. David Leavitt and Silas Butler, in 1833, interested themselves in obtaining from the scattered stockholders, forty-four out of the sixty shares, and the controlling influence thus secured in the ferry, was energetically exerted for the benefit of their fellow citizens. Yet, although a new boat was added, and other measures of improvement adopted, these all failed to satisfy the demands of the public, whose discontent became still more violent. Meanwhile, the extension of Brooklyn (in 1826), beyond the southernmost limits of the village (at District, now Atlantic street) had necessitated the establishment of a south ferry, which was effected in 1836, between New York and Patchen's dock, at foot of the present Atlantic street. (See History of South, or Atlantic street ferry, in a subsequent portion of this chapter). This additional ferry, however, afforded bnt little relief to Fulton Ferry, where scanty accommoda- tions, poor boats, etc., gave rise to many inconveniences,

frequent delays and even to serious apprehensions of danger. So great, indeed, was the excitement which prevailed in Brooklyn upon the subject, that some of the most peaceable and estimable citizens went so far as to indulge in threats of sinking the boats.

In 1836, Messrs. Leavitt and Butler, together with Mrs. Cutting and the other stockholders, were induced to dispose of the unexpired lease for the sum of $100,000 ; and a subscription to a seven per cent. stock was made among a number of citizens, who desired, both for their own use, and for the benefit of the city wherein they dwelt, a good ferry, free from a speculative interest. Although the investment was considered a safe one for the return of the capital, the amount was not fully made up, and the committee who negotiated the pur- chase of the lease, were obliged to assume more of the stock than they desired. This committee consisted of Messrs. John D. Wright, Jonathan Trotter, James S. Clarke, Seth Low, W. J. Cornell, H. B. Pierrepont, Henry Young, Chas. Hoyt, Edgar Hicks, John Van Antwerp, George Hall, Charles Hallock, Joseph W. Allen, William Hull, S. H. Moser, John S. Doughty, John Frost, Ed. G. Miller, E. D. Hulburt, John N. Smith, S. B. Whitlock, Austin Melvin, Losee Van Nos- trand, D. Anderson and L. Green. The new lessees, through their executive committee, Messrs. Wright Trotter and Frost, conducted the ferry with an assidu- ity which fully proved their intention to fulfill the ex- pectations of the public. They did not escape, how- ever, the usnal imputations of interested motives, or the annoyances of misrepresentations and attacks, both in the newspapers and public meetings ; and, notwith- standing their prudent management, the assets of the association, at the expiration of their lease in 1839, proved the value of the stock to be only sixty-eight per cent.

At the same time the lease of the South Ferry ex- pired, with very unsatisfactory results to its stock- holders, its receipts having been greatly exceeded by its expenses, and a large proportion of the capital used up. In order to prevent its complete abandonment, they applied to New York, for the union of their ferry with the Fulton Ferry, under a new leasc. As might have been expected, the application met with violent opposition from those interested in the Fulton Ferry, and very generally from the property owners in the older part of Brooklyn ; and at a public meeting held in May, 1839, expression was given to the opinion that the proposed union of the ferries " would be detrimental to the interests of Brooklyn at large." And, against this unsound policy, the absurdity of which has been abun- dantly proved by subsequent experience, scarce half a dozen persons present had either the foresight or the courage to battle for the more liberal principle of a union of the ferries, for the benefit of the city at large. Among these, although his property and interests were nearer to the Fulton Ferry, was a lessce of the Union

436

HISTORY OF KINGS COUNTY.

Ferry Company. Both parties appeared, by counsel, before the corporation of New York, by which body it was finally determined that the ferries should be united, and a lcase was accordingly granted, May 3, 1839, for a term of five years, at an annual rental of $12,000, to thirty-two individuals, acting with reference to the in- terests of the city of Brooklyn. These incorporators of

The New York and Brooklyn Ferry Company were George Wood, Losee Van Nostrand, James E. Underhill, John Dimon, Chas. J. Taylor, R. M. White, John Dikeman, Cyrus P. Smith, Henry E. Pierrepont, Eli Merrill, F. Marquand, J. A. Perry, J. H. Moser, N. B. Morse, E. Lewis, John B. Lasala, C. Kiersted, Jos. Ketchum, John A. King, David Johnson, Chas. Kelsey, Parmenus Johnson, Chas. Hoyt, Lemucl Green, Geo. B. Fisk, W. N. Degrauw, R. D. Covert, A. G. Benson, John Benson, Jacob Bergen, Joseph W. Allen, David Anderson. Mr. N. B. Morse was appointed president, and Mr. Henry E. Pierrepont, in compliment to the disinterested public spirit shown by him in the previ- ous controversy, was made an associate in the lease, and the vice-president of the company. By the terms of this lease, only seven per cent. dividend was allowed to the stockholders ; the net profits on the capital, at the end of the lease, were to be paid to the treasury of New York ; the lessees being bound to purchase all the old boats of both ferries from the previous lessees, and to provide, at their own expense, all piers, floats, ferry houses, equipments and improvements, etc., as might be necessary, for all of which the corporation of New York declined to offer any compensation upon the expiration of the lease. Messrs. Leroy and Perry gen- erously advanced about $50,000 to relieve the embar- rassment caused by paying off the old Fulton Ferry stockholders who preferred to withdraw. The United Fulton and South Ferries were managed, however, by the New York and Brooklyn Ferry Company, with faithfulness and a due regard to the wants and inter- ests of Brooklyn and its citizens, and were improved as rapidly as a prudent expenditure of their income would permit. Upon the settlement of the company's affairs, after the termination of their lease, May 1, 1844, the stock was found to be worth only seventy-five cents on the dollar. It was now hoped that more liberal counsels would prevail in regard to the new lease of the ferries, which would allow of a reduction in the rates of ferriage, as well as of an increase of facilities and accommodations of travel. The application of the lessees for a renewal of their lease was favorably re- ported upon by the ferry committee of the corporation of New York, who recommended the granting of a seven years' lease of the united "ferries, to such thirty of the stockholders of the present ferry, as shall be selected by the ferry committee and the street com- missioner, at an annual rent of $20,000." Notwith- standing this report in favor of a renewal of the lease, the corporation found itself so harassed by bids and

importunities from rival applicants, that it was finally decided to receive sealed proposals. This created much excitement in Brooklyn. Its citizens suddenly awoke to the danger which threatened their most important interests, should they fall into the hands of speculators, who, without any real interest in Brook- lyn, would have regard only to their own private gain. Pending the receiving the bids for the ferries, a large public meeting was held (8th of May, 1844), at which the mayor presided, and it was unanimously re- solved "that the power of establishing ferries should be lodged in some independent and impartial tribunal," and that measures should be taken to ascertain whether the assumed right of the city of New York to lease these ferries was a franchise, or simply a jurisdiction subject to recall by the State. Messrs. John Green- wood, Geo. Wood, William M. Harris, George Hall, Eben Merriam, Jonathan Trotter, Alden Spooner, Henry E. Pierrepont, Cyrus P. Smith, George S. How- land and Gabriel Furman were appointed a committee to carry these resolutions into effect.

The ferry lease was at last granted to Messrs. Jacob R. Leroy and Henry E. Pierrepont, for the term of seven years, in consideration of a bid of $30,000, with- out restrictions as to the rates of ferriage, or dividends, and with the power to retain as much stock as they pleased, and to select their associates. Having chiefly in view the promotion of the interests of Brooklyn, and the repayment of the par value of the capital invested by the stockholders, with seven per cent. interest thereon, the lessces selected seventeen out of the former thirty-two managers, and four others to form a board, which might represent fairly the important sectional interests of Brooklyn, and to whom they intrusted the organization of the company.

The Brooklyn Union Ferry Company, as thus constituted, July 1st, 1844, was composed of the fol- lowing gentlemen : Jacob R. Leroy and Henry E. Pierrepont, lessees and trustees; George Wood, Joseph A. Perry, John Dikeman, Joseph Ketchum, John B. Lasala, Seth Low, C. J. Taylor, L. Van Nostrand, Walter N. Degrauw, H. R. Worthington, C. N. Kier- sted, N. B. Morse, C. P. Smith, John Dimon, A. G. Benson, Chas. Kelsey, Jas. E. Underhill, Ezra Lewis, Sam E. Johnson, E. J. Bartow, Geo. Hulburt, board of managers; N. B. Morse was elected president, and H. E. Pierrepont, vice-president.

When the articles of association were drawn, it was not anticipated that the stock at the end of this lease would be worth more than par, for these articles speci- fied that "the net profits should be applied to dividends upon the stock, but no more or greater amount than 7 per cent. per annum shall be declared;" that "the sur- plus profits, if any, shall be applied to improvement of the ferries and extinguishment of the stocks. The net capital, at the end of the lease, shall be applied to the payment of the capital stock then outstanding."

437

FERRIES.

Agreeably, therefore, to the trusts which the new company had assumed, the four ferry landings were largely improved, at an expenditure of nearly $50,000; superior boats were built in place of the old boats ; the rates of the ferriage were, from time to time, redueed, as ineome warranted, until the fare for foot passengers was fixed at one cent. Yet, the inerease of the business, and the ineome of the ferries, outstripped the managers' anticipations, so that, at the termination of the lease, the assets were found to make the stoek worth more than par.

Meanwhile, under the direction of the committee, appointed at the publie meeting of May 8th, 1844, the aet of May 14th, 1845, had been drafted, and its pas- sage by the legislature secured, after a strenuous eon- test with the interest of New York, mainly by the efforts of John Greenwood, Alden J. Spooner and William Burbank, Esquires.

This aet provided for the appointment of three eom- missioners, non-residents of New York, Kings, Queens, Suffolk or Richmond eounties, empowered to grant lieenses for as many ferries between New York and Long Island as, in their judgment, publie convenienee demanded. The commissioners under this aet were Judge Samuel Cheever of Saratoga Co., Chairman ; Judge John MeLean of Washington Co., and Hon. Mr. Barker, Attorney General, whose place was subse- quently filled by Ebenezer Blakely, Esq., of Otsego Co. Having thus seeured the impartial commission which they desired, Alfred G. Benson, Edward J. Bartow, Charles Kelsey, William S. Paeker and Elihu Townsend, applied to the commission for a license to establish and keep four ferries between New York and Brooklyn, viz., the Fulton, the South and the Hamilton Avenue ferries for the term of ten years from the ex- piration of their respective leases, and a new ferry from the foot of Wall street, New York, to the foot of Montague street, Brooklyn, for ten years from date. The required lease was granted to the applicants on the 17th of October, 1848 ; the whole transaction being intended as a test of the validity of the aet of 1845, and the rights of the eity of New York. An amieable suit was commeneed, May, 1849, for the purpose of testing the question (entitled "The Mayor, &e., of New York vs. Alfred G. Benson, et alios"), and was brought to trial before Judge Roosevelt of the Supreme Court, in the year 1852, the City making an appropria- tion for defraying the costs of said suit. The ease was argued on behalf of Brooklyn by the Hon. Wil- liam Kent and Charles O'Connor, Esq. ; and on behalf of New York city by Hon. Henry E. Davies and John Van Buren, Esq. Judge Roosevelt decided that the eity of New York had a vested interest in the ferries that were established-which opinion, however, was a verbal one-and was never committed to paper by him. The late Judge Barkelo, also, delivered a similar decision on the subjeet, in another ease, but these opinions were not appealed from.

In 1850, a renewal of the lease of the Fulton and South ferries was obtained by Messrs. Leroy and Pier- repont, for the term of ten years from May 1st, 1851, at a rent of $35,000 per annum-and the Hamilton avenue Ferry was included in the same lease. These three ferries, at this time, were running sueeessfully at one eent fare ; while the independent ferries (viz., the Gouverneur, Catharine, Roosevelt and Wall streets), were running at two eents, but were unable to sustain competition with the Fulton ferry, which was paying, not only its own, but a large portion of the expenses of the South and Hamilton ferries.

At the same time, also, the business of the Fulton ferry was already as great as could well be aecommo- dated, and ought not in justiee, to the safety of its passengers, be inereased by the abandonment of the other ferries, and the consequent defleetion of their business to it.

These independent companies, therefore, asked the Union Ferry Company to increase its ferriage, which, of course, was not granted ; whereupon they offered to sell out to the Union Ferry Company, at a great re- duction on their cost, and take pay in the ferry stock. This was agreed to by the lessees, Messrs. Leroy and Pierrepont, on condition that the consent of the stoek- holders should be obtained, and that the aceeding company should beeome incorporated under the gen- eral law.

This desired consolidation was effeeted by the erea- tion, on the 10th of November, 1854, of a corporation, organized under a statute of the state (passed April 9, 1853), entitled "An Aet to authorize the formation of ferry companies," under the corporate name of the

Union Ferry Company of Brooklyn, and in- eluded the Fulton, South, Catharine, Hamilton Avenue, Wall street, Roosevelt Street and Gouverneur Street Ferries.

The nominal eapital stoek of this company was $800,- 000 (with a right to inerease the same to $1,000,000), divided into 8,000 shares of $100 each. The direetors were H. E. Pierrepont, N. B. Morse, Cyrus P. Smith, J. A. Perry, A. A. Low, W. N. Degraw, Joseph Ket- chum, Charles J. Taylor, Henry K. Worthington, John Blunt, Chas. J. Bill, G. G. Van Wagonen, J. S. T. Stranahan, Abraham B. Baylis and Ezra Lewis.

The result, however, as far as eoneerned the cheap- ness of fare, disappointed the company's expectations. Their loss during the first year, had the one cent fare been continued, would have been nearly $120,000 ; the rate was therefore raised to one and a half eents, and sub- seqnently, from the necessity of the ease, to two cents.

The lease of 1851 was to expire in May, 1861. In anticipation, application was made in 1859 for a re- uewal for ten years. The lease was sold at auction, and by the competition of speeulators, the rent was bid up to $103,000, at which priee it was obtained by the Union Ferry Company.

438

HISTORY OF KINGS COUNTY.

In the year 1859, the new lease of the ferries being advertised for the 17th of December, an offer was made on the 26th of November by the city of Brooklyn and its authority, to the corporate authority of the city of New York, to take the said lease upon the same terms as those by which they were held by the Union Ferry Company. This, however, was refused, and an appli- eation was made to Judge Hogeboom, of the Supreme Court, for an injunetion against the sale, under the terms advertised. It was promptly issued, and served on the comptroller of the eity, but was, however, finally dissolved ; and, on the 29th of May, 1860, the ferries were again bid off by the Union Ferry Company of Brooklyn, for the term of ten years, at an annual rent of $103,000. The company also had to pay $20,000

FULTON FERRY, 1865.

annual rent on the Brooklyn side, besides purehasing land for repair shops, eoal depots, &e.

At the expiration of this lease, in 1871, Tweed was in power, and, it is supposed, for popularity, obliged the Union Ferry Company to take a renewal of their lease for ten years at the nominal rent of one dollar, but restrieting the ferriage, morning and evening, during the five erowded business hours to one cent.

As eighty per eent. of the ferry ineome is derived from foot passengers, the company fearing a loss to the stockholders, proposed to take a new lease on the same terms as that expiring. Being informed that a party, supposed to be Mr. Tweed, was ready to take the lease on the terms proposed, the company aeeepted rather than have the ferries in the hands of speculators, who had no interest in Brooklyn.

Whatever diversity of publie opinion may have ex- isted in Brooklyn, in regard to the Union Ferry Com-

pany's motives or management, it was generally regarded, by the community at large, as a fortunate eireumstance that they retained the possession of these ferries against the speeulators who competed at the sale. They were Brooklyn citizens of honorable re- pute, and amenable, to some extent at least, to local opinion ; while the apparent desire, which they had recently exhibited, to lower the rates of ferriage, al- though not meeting, perhaps, the full measure of the publie demand, was yet regarded as an earnest of a new and more liberal spirit. It would, indeed, have been a step "from the frying pan into the fire," if the ferries, so vitally eonneeted with Brooklyn's interests, had then fallen, or should, at any time, fall into the hands of grasping New York politieians and speculators, who would be more likely to disregard public remonstranee than the present manage- ment.

After the fall of the Tweed ring, the authorities of New York elaimed that the terms of the lease at the nominal rent were illegal, and a New York judge so decided, and a elaim for ten years baek rent at $1,500,000 was made on the Ferry Com- pany.

This suit and claim was compromised by the payment of $300,000 to New York; and a renewal of the lease for five years was obtained at the auction sale for a per- eentage annually of 12} per eent. of the gross income of the ferries.

The authorities of New York have here- tofore represented, that they desired to require for the rent of ferries, only the commereial value of the slips. But by the present rental demanded, of 12} per cent. of the ferriage, they impose a tax on every passenger crossing the river to enter or de- part from the eity, and acknowledge no limit to the demand they may make in future. This is a misuser of their franchise, and if adjudicated, may be so decided, and New York be restrained or deprived of the exereise of it.

The principle of union of the ferries, established by those who organized the Union Ferry Company (by which plan the non-profitable are supported by the pro- fitable ferries, for the publie benefit and at uniform rates of ferriage), must ever continue to prevail, if the publie interests are duly regarded by the Legislature .=

The New Ferry, now Catharine Street Ferry. This route from the foot of Main street, Brooklyn, to the foot of Catharine street, New York, formerly ealled the New Ferry, in contradistinction to the Old or Fulton Ferry, was established August 1st, 1795, by William Furman and Theodosius Hunt, lessees from the corporation of New York. They were succeeded by Messrs. Noah Waterbury and Henry Stanton, who ran

Kimiunzonne

439

FERRIES.

it for a short time ; and it subsequently passed into the hands of Rodman Bowne, who, in 1811, asked an extention of his contract for two years from May, 1812, which was granted. It was again renewed to him in 1814, for five years longer, at $1,275 per annum, on condition of his making, within a specified time, certain needed improvements, etc. The chief of these improve- ments was the introduction, in April of that year, of the horse or teamboat, previously described in conncc- tion with the Fulton ferry.

In March, 1816, before the expiration of his lease, he took a new one for eight years from May 1st, 1819, at the same rent. This, however, was cancelled in June, 1820, and another lease executed to Rodman and Sam- uel Bowne, of the same ferry, for nineteen years from May, 1820, at a yearly rent for the first seven years, of $1,275, and for the next five years, of $1,800, and for the last seven years of $2,000.

In 1846, Samuel Bowne leased the ferry for 7 years from date, at the yearly rent of $3,500, and it remained in his hands until March 24th, 1852, when it was pur- chased by Messrs. Smith & Bulkley, who subsequently united it with Union Ferry Company of Brooklyn.

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.

The civil, political, professional and ecclesiastical history, and commercial and industrial record of the county of Kings and the city of Brooklyn, N. Y., from 1683 to 1884 Volume I, Part 104

Author: Stiles, Henry Reed, 1832-1909, ed. cn; Brockett, L. P. (Linus Pierpont), 1820-1893; Proctor, L. B. (Lucien Brock), 1830-1900. 1n Publication date: 1884 Publisher: New York : W. W. Munsell & Co. Number of Pages: 1114

Author: Stiles, Henry Reed, 1832-1909, ed. cn; Brockett, L. P. (Linus Pierpont), 1820-1893; Proctor, L. B. (Lucien Brock), 1830-1900. 1n
Publication date: 1884
Publisher: New York : W. W. Munsell & Co.
Number of Pages: 1114