Dinsmore Documentation presents Classics of American Colonial History
| Author: | Osgood, Herbert L. |
| Title: | The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century. |
| Citation: | New York: Columbia University Press, 1904. |
| Subdivision: | Volume II. Part III. Chapter V. |
| HTML by Dinsmore Documentation * Added December 1, 2003 | |
| ← Vol. II, Pt. III, Ch. IV Table of Contents Vol. II, Pt. III, Ch. VI → |
CHAPTER V
The distinguishing characteristic of New York as a proprietary province was the prominence and strength of its executive. During nearly the whole period of its existence under a proprietor, the executive officers and the council, together with the courts, were the only organs of government which New York possessed. A legislature existed for a brief time, but the share which it bore in the history of the province, when compared with the other colonies, appears to have been unimportant. This fact throws much light on the entire course of New York history during the colonial period and on the attitude of many of its people at the time of the Revolution. Its government, in reality as well as in theory, was more autocratic than that of any other colony. In New York, especially during the early decades of its history, the principles of the Tudors and Stuarts came nearer to realization than elsewhere in English America. The official element was always strong in her governmental system, and until comparatively late it was not adequately counter-balanced by popular tendencies and forces. This characteristic was imparted to the province not solely by the Duke of York and his officials, but it was also an inheritance from the period of Dutch rule. When New Netherland passed into English hands, in the part which became New York the titles of officials were gradually changed, and readjustments were made in order to secure conformity with English practice, but the spirit of the administration remained practically unchanged. Reference to the main features of the Dutch system and a comparison of them with those which existed under English rule will make this evident.
New Netherland, like Virginia, was a proprietary province, of which a trading company was the proprietor. Though, corresponding to the federal system in the Netherlands, the stockholders of the Dutch West India company were organized into five chambers or groups, the Amsterdam chamber was the most important, and it had immediate control of New Netherland. Through this body its affairs were mainly transacted, and character was given to the political and commercial policy of this province. The general executive board of the company as a whole was the College of Nineteen. A very close connection was maintained between the company and the States General, and therefore the province was in a very real sense under their joint regulation and control. The establishment of the company was one of the results of a long political struggle. When founded, it was used mainly as an instrument for the prosecution of the war with the Spanish power in Brazil and the West Indies. In the charter provision was made for subsidizing the company by the state, and for the service, in emergencies, of government troops and ships on its expeditions. One of the members of the College of Nineteen was a deputy of the States General, and sometimes several of its deputies were in attendance at meetings of the college. The director-general of the colony, while selected and instructed by the company, must be approved by the States General, and from that body he received his commission.1 In a variety of other ways provision was made in the charter for the exercise of control by the States General2 over the accounts of the company and the transaction of its business; while it is also true that the company was created only for a term of years.
1 N. Y. Col. Docs. I. 104, 175, 178.
2 One of the clauses of the charter provided that if, at any meeting of the Nineteen, a weighty matter should come before them, upon which they could not agree, or in case the votes were equally divided, it should be left to the decision of the States General. A translation of the charter is in O’Callaghan’s History of New Netherland, I. 399. The documents illustrating the control exercised by the States General will be found in N. Y. Col. Docs. I and II. Those which illustrate the relations between the company and its colony will be found both in those volumes and in Vols. XII, XIII, and XIV of the same series.
It is evident that the States General was informed respecting the business which was to come before the company at its meetings, even if it did not assist in preparing the programmes. The proof of this will be found in the Pointen van Beschryving, several of which prior to 1645 are accessible in the Holland Documents. These were calendars of business which demanded consideration and which related to all the settlements within the sweep of the company’s jurisdiction.1 The States General used its influence with the provinces to secure the payment of the subsidy which was due to the company.2 Diplomatic relations in which the interests of New Netherland were involved and defence lay especially within its province. On one occasion the States General even went so far as, by formal resolution, to permit the sending of one hundred muskets to New Netherland.3 In August, 1643, the company was ordered by it to permit no hostilities between the Dutch and the inhabitants of New England. Appeals were frequently made to the States General, and on many subjects, by parties resident or concerned in New Netherland; and the petitions thus presented furnished the most common occasion for administrative action. In June, 1634, the complaints of the patroons4 that the freedoms and exemptions of five years before had not been observed by the company were brought in this way before the States General and led to an extended inquiry. Four years later,5 as a result of special information on the subject, it resolved to adopt measures which should promote the increase of population in New Netherland. This resulted in the issue of articles abolishing the monopoly which the company had hitherto possessed over the trade of New Netherland and
1 N. Y. Col. Docs. I. 45, 68, 100, 117, 132, 135, 138, 163. None later than the date mentioned occur in this series.
2 Ibid. 93.
3 Ibid. 397. Familiar illustrations of the activity of the States General in foreign relations are its correspondence with England over the affair of the Eendragt in 1632; in its controversies with England over boundaries and the counter claims to New Netherland, and in the long series of acts which followed the occupation of New Netherland by the English. Defence also received its special attention at this time and during the war of 1652 to 1654.
4 Ibid. 83-96.
5 Ibid. 106, 110, 115; O’Callaghan, I. 176 et seq.
throwing it open to all Dutch subjects, with their allies and friends. The petitions of the Eight Men, followed by those of Melyn, Kuyter, and Van der Donck, occasioned by the Indian war of 1643 and the misgovernment of Kieft, led to inquiries and action by the States General which extended over many months and involved important results for the province.1 The petition of Van Dincklage in 1636 for the payment of three years’ salary as fiscal in New Netherland,2 the petition of Henry Van Dyck in 16523 for redress because of his removal from the office of schout fiscal by Director Stuyvesant, furnish good illustrations of appeals to the States General of an administrative nature. A judicial appeal,4 however, made by Van der Capelle in 1653 to recover property of his which he alleged that Director Stuyvesant had caused to be unjustly seized in New Netherland, though at first allowed by the States General was afterward held not to lie. In pursuance of a declaration of the states of Holland and West Friesland it was ordered, the same year, by the director and council that a writ of appeal from judgments pronounced in New Netherland ought in no case to be granted by the States General. It thus appears that governmental control, which when exercised by the English monarchs over trading corporations has sometimes occasioned surprise, was an everyday matter at Amsterdam and The Hague.
Although the great body of the records of the West India company have been lost, enough remains to show that, especially after the appointment of Stuyvesant, a voluminous correspondence passed between the Amsterdam chamber and the director.5 It was more extensive and minute than that
1 N. Y. Col. Docs. I. 139, 141, 188 et seq. The documents and other writings called forth by this affair furnish us with our chief information concerning the internal condition of New Netherland.
2 Ibid. 103, 138.
3 Ibid. 491 et seq.; XIV. 107.
4 Ibid. I. 528, 534-537; O’Callaghan, Laws and Ordinances of New Netherland, 147.
5 The letters which have been preserved and are now in print will be found chiefly in N. Y. Col. Docs. XIV. A few appear in Vols. XII and XIII. They consist mostly of letters from the company, the replies from the director having probably perished. About seventy of these letters have been preserved.
which English proprietors ordinarily kept up with their agents in the provinces, and reminds one more of the memorials which, in the time of Colbert, passed between the ministers in Paris and the officials of New France. The director was required to present full reports of all the occurrences in the province which affected the interests or rights of the company. Upon the basis of these and of information which it received from other sources, and from petitions and complaints in the Netherlands, its advice and directions were formulated. Few formal instructions appear, but orders were transmitted in the letters concerning grants of land, recall of grants, the despatch of vessels, admission of emigrants, duties and all the minutiae of trade relations, claims and snits against the company, dealings with the Indians, relations with the English on the north and the south and with the Swedes, the appointment and removal of officials, the claims of the patroons. The attack of Kuyter and Melyn on the company and its director also received much attention. The internal affairs of the province in all departments, as well as its external relations, were reviewed in these letters. Though the director is sometimes reproved, in general relations of high respect and confidence existed between him and the company. The government at New Amsterdam appears to have been most negligent in submitting accounts, and finally Secretary Van Tienhoven was removed amid strongly expressed suspicions respecting his official honesty. About 1645 the company, because of its vast expenditures in Brazil,1 had become bankrupt, and for that reason could give little positive assistance to New Netherland. That province, in comparison with interests in the Spanish seas, was always an object of minor importance. Still, the company continued to send its long letters of advice and command, and to receive letters of warning from Stuyvesant, occasioned by the weakness of the province, until the encroachments of the English ended in their taking possession of the whole territory. It is worthy of note that, in the exercise of their joint control, the States General stood for a broader and more statesmanlike policy than did the
1 Netscher, Les Hollandais en Brasil.
company, and in part by its insistence the company was forced to abandon some of the narrowest features of its own commercial policy.
Within New Netherland governmental authority was exercised through the director-general and council and a small body of officials who were immediately dependent upon them. The director, as has already been stated, received his authority primarily from the company, though his appointment must be approved by the States General and from it he received his commission. The career of Stuyvesant shows that, when the States General and the company differed upon matters of policy, the director was the servant of the latter. The company then protected him as its agent and in general assumed responsibility for the line of conduct which, under its instructions, he had pursued.1 On the appointment of Stuyvesant, in 1647, the office of vice-director was created, but its power did not essentially differ from that of a councillor.
The council, which was closely associated with the director in all his acts, was a small body. Usually it consisted of five persons, though during the administration of William Kieft it as a rule contained only one or two members. The schout fiscal, when not acting as prosecuting officer, had a seat in the body, but no vote. For the trial of certain cases it was customary to admit some of the inhabitants or officials to the board. In the early part of Stuyvesant’s administration he was in the habit of calling captains of the company’s ships, when on shore, to a seat and vote in the council.2 The secretary of the province usually acted as secretary of the council, but he was not ex officio a member of it. In later years the receiver-general held also an appointment as councillor. The members, whoever they might be, were virtually the director’s appointees, though legally their own power proceeded from the same source as his. The director and council
1 The letters of the company contain reproofs of Stuyvesant for having taken up the quarrels of Kieft, and the company did not justify the way in which the Indian war had been brought about. But it shielded Stuyvesant when he was summoned to answer in Holland, and sought in no respect to make him its scapegoat.
2 N. Y. Col. Docs. I. 398; O’Callaghan, Register of New Netherland, 11.
together were invested with local legislative, judicial, and administrative powers, subject in all administrative affairs, and under the conditions already explained, to the control of the Amsterdam chamber and the College of Nineteen. The relations between the councillors and the director were legally the same as those existing between governors and appointed councillors in the English provinces. In executive matters the director took their advice, but he was not bound by it. In Kieft’s council there were for a time but three votes, of which the director had two and the other member one.
Kieft, says Van der Donck,1 “imagined himself, or would fain persuade others, that he was Sovereign, and that it was absolutely in his power to do or to permit, everything.” The conduct of Van Twiller in securing for himself and friends very large grants of land2 without the knowledge of the company, and the accounts which have been preserved of Kieft’s share in the origin of the Indian war, show that in their time no recognized authority existed within the province which could override the director.3 By fear or favor, when he chose, he was able to play the autocrat. Kieft relied on his commission from the States General to justify an idle boast that he was independent of the company. If Councillor La Montagne stated, as he is reported to have done, that the power of the director in the province was greater than that of the Prince of Orange in the Netherlands, he was well within the truth.
But the administration of Stuyvesant furnishes the largest number of illustrations of the autocratic power and manners of the director,4 as well as his paternal care of the province and its inhabitants. These proceeded from the personal qualities of the worthy director himself, as well as from the character of his office. His critics called him the “great Muscovy duke,” and told many tales of his threats
1 N. Y. Col. Docs. I. 304.
2 Ibid. XIV. 119, 121, 132.
3 Ibid. I. 194 et seq.; De Vries in 2 Colls. of N. Y. Hist. Soc. III. 114 et seq.
4 N. Y. Col. Docs. I. 211, 302, 307, 348, 352, 453, 495; II. 152; Broad Advice, in 2 N. Y. Hist. Colls. III. 264 et seq.
to hang, or make shorter by a head, those who happened to incur his displeasure. He had the habit, on occasion, of browbeating opponents into submission. His state papers were not always precisely truthful; and his relations with Van Tienhoven show that he could long retain a faithful and able official in service, even though the private life of the man had been proven to be corrupt. But this was only a faint reflection of the conditions existing in the official systems of the European states at that time.
The delegates from the English and Dutch towns who prepared the remonstrance of 1653 to the States General1 described the executive system under Stuyvesant as follows. Though somewhat hostile in tone, it is the best contemporary description which has come down to us. “The entire government of this country is directed and controlled exclusively according to the pleasure and caprice of Dr. Stuyvesant or one or two of his favorite Sycophants; in divers cases decisions were given without the knowledge, yea frequently without summoning his adjoined Councillors, who have no further power to decide except as the Director permits them, his will being a Law absolute, whereby everything is controled; even if the Burgomasters and Schepens were sometimes summoned to the Council when occasions presented, to dispatch business with the Director General and Council, it is, in fact, rather to approve of his plans than to assist in consultation upon them; for notwithstanding the Burgomasters and Schepens may dissent and differ from his opinion, the Director decides without them, declaring it must be so; moreover, if any resolution be adopted with the consent of the Burgomasters and Schepens, ’tis changed and altered without their knowledge, at the pleasure of the Director; and lastly, to show how great an appearance there is of the establishment of an arbitrary government among us, ’tis considered sufficient that a Director, a fellow-subject of a Free State, tho filling a high and honorable office, with arrogant words disclaims his fellow subjects who are assembled with his previous knowledge for the good of the country, and are thereunto convoked beforehand by the lawful Rulers
1 N. Y. Col. Docs. I. 554.
of the first and most important City in this country, and present an humble Remonstrance, declares their Assembly illegal, protests against it, forbids the Members and Deputies thereof to meet again, orders and commands them to disperse forthwith on pain of his highest displeasure and arbitrary punishment, as if they were, by their acts guilty of resisting authority and had conspired to revolutionize the State and reduce it under another Ruler and government.”
It required the spontaneous efforts of the colonists, operating through the slow and roundabout process of petitions to the company and the States General, to check the director in any disastrous course or to secure redress. Experience also showed that in such cases it was doubtful if the interest of the company could be enlisted in behalf of reform until it was spurred to action by pressure from the States General. By that time much of the evil had been done, and the belated and partial reform would effect little change. It was for this reason that the more intelligent colonists, who realized that the province had become something more than a group of trading factories, desired that the council might be enlarged1 till it was permanently fixed at least at such a number as the councils in the cities of the Fatherland. This object, after the close of Kieft’s administration, was reached; but the further effort to add to the council a representative body, thus establishing a legislature, failed. The history of this experiment, with that of the opposition from which it originated, will, in a later chapter, throw additional light on the character of New Netherland government.
The functions of the director and council were coextensive with the government of the province. Working on the basis of the Roman-Dutch law, and under the limitations set by acts of the States General and the orders of the company affecting the province, they issued ordinances2 concerning all matters which fell within the scope of government. A real legislative power was thus exercised by them. They legislated concerning trade more than any other subject,
1 N. Y. Col. Docs. I. 202.
2 These will be found in O’Callaghan’s Laws and Ordinances of New Netherland.
prescribing the regulations under which it should be carried on, import and export duties, excises, the sale of liquors, fraud and smuggling, trade in all varieties of commodities with the Indians, and the despatch of runners into the Indian country; the importation of negroes, trade with the English on the north and south and with Brazil, Curaçoa, and other Dutch possessions, the maintenance of a staple port at New Amsterdam for the purpose of securing the interests of the company as a commercial monopoly. By ordinances concerning land, provision was made for the extinguishment of Indian claims, for the issue of patents, for the annulment of extravagant and unimproved grants, for the fencing of land, for the levying of tenths and other taxes upon it, for the collection of rents, and the prevention of trespass. Courts were established under the authority of these ordinances; their jurisdiction was prescribed, and provision was made for their officials. Provisions for land grants and for courts, when combined, led to the origin of local government within New Netherland. The villages of the province owed their origin as administrative units to grants of privileges from the director and council, while the affairs of New Amsterdam, after as well as before the grant of municipal privileges, were minutely regulated by them. Duties and fees of officials throughout the province were subject to their regulation. They made general provision for defence, as well as for meeting particular attacks of the Indians and peril from Europe or from neighboring colonies. The conditions under which religious worship should be celebrated were also subject to their control, as well as schools, Sunday observances, and general public morals.
The ordinances, the scope of which has just been indicated, it was the duty of the director and council, with the aid of the local and provincial officials who were subordinate to them, to execute. Though only fragments of the executive records of the council have been preserved, we know from correspondence and other sources—from the general character of the provincial system as well—that the administrative activity of the director and council was continuous, and that it reached all phases of the colony’s life.1 The restraint
1 O’Callaghan, History of New Netherland, I. 244.
of swine in the streets of New Amsterdam, as well as the enforcement of the rights of the company in Rensselaerswyck and the overthrow of the power of the Swedes on the South river—things small and great alike—engaged its attention. To describe its administrative activity would be to write the political history of the province. When we add to this the statement that the director and council constituted the highest judicial tribunal in the province, with civil and criminal jurisdiction and the powers of a surrogate court and a court of admiralty, and that either originally or on appeal all important cases came before it, the importance of this body and the simplicity of the governmental system in New Netherland will both be apparent.
The other officials of the provincial civil list in New Netherland were the secretary, the schout fiscal, the receiver-general, the surveyor-general, the commissaries of stores, and in the later years of the province the farmers of revenue. They were such as the union of commercial and political functions in the hands of the company made necessary. With the exception of the schout fiscal, their titles indicate their duties, and those were substantially the same as the duties performed by officers bearing similar titles in an English province. The schout fiscal—an appointee of the company—was both prosecuting officer, or attorney-general, and sheriff, and was thus an important functionary.1 In the former capacity it was his duty to defend the rights of the company before the director and council, in whatever judicial capacity they might sit, and in all questions of police, justice, and finance. In his double capacity he was to see that all placards, ordinances, resolutions, military regulations, and commands of the States General and the West India company were executed and obeyed. To that end he should inform himself concerning the delinquencies of officials of the company, both on water and land, and pay particular attention to the conduct of commissaries in the loading and unloading of cargoes. In respect to prize cases he should exercise special care. Information of all his
1 See the commission of Hendrick Van Dyck and the instructions to him as schout fiscal in 1645; N. Y. Col. Docs. I. 494, 504.
doings should be sent to the company, to be used in cases brought by appeal or petition before it. Though the schout fiscal was an appointee of the company, and was intended to act as a check upon all other officials, the statements of Van Dyck, who was removed by Stuyvesant in 1652, show, if true, that the director had been able from the first to prevent him from performing his duties; that he had been almost wholly ignored, and that the director had assumed almost exclusive control of business.1 The fact, however, that Van Dyck was dismissed for drunkenness and inattention to duty decidedly weakens his case, though it does not make it improbable that Stuyvesant assumed all the authority which his office would bear. Upon the dismissal of Van Dyck, the director appointed his confidant, Van Tienhoven, to the office.
Within New Netherland, as we have seen, several well-defined sections existed. It is easily conceivable that each of these might have become a subordinate administrative district, a county, or group of counties. But such was not the case during the period of Dutch rule. The manor of Rensselaerswyck and the colony of New Amstel, the latter of which was separately organized in 1656, made provision in part for local government in the remotest districts of the province. Elsewhere a village system of government, in imitation of that of the Netherlands, was established, though with modifications in a few instances which were borrowed from New England custom. This was a direct result of the grant in the revised Freedoms and Exemptions of 1640, which provided for the establishment of colonies under masters who should bring over five adult colonists and establish them in the province. If such settlements should so increase as to become towns or villages, the company was bound to grant them “subaltern or municipal government,” with magistrates and ministers of justice.2 The process of
1 N. Y. Col. Docs. I. 495 et seq., 512. When on shipboard, as Stuyvesant was coming to New Netherland to assume office, Van Dyck offered his services, and he states that he was met with the response, “Get out I whenever I need you I’ll can you.”
2 Ibid. I. 119.
bestowing village rights upon such communities began among the English towns within Dutch territory on Long Island in 1644. In that year such rights were bestowed on Hempstead, in 1645 on Flushing and Gravesend. Breuckelen, in 1646, was the first Dutch settlement to receive a court of justice. In 1652 a court was erected at Fort Orange, with jurisdiction over Beverwyck. In the same year a court was granted to Middleburgh, later Newtown, on Long Island. In 1654 Amersfoort (Flatlands) and Midwout (Flatbush) were granted a joint court, which became two separate courts in 1661. In 1656 Westchester (Vreedland) and Jamaica (Rustdorp) were granted similar privileges. In 1660 a town court was granted to Haerlem. In 1661 courts were established at Bushwick, Wiltwyck (Kingston), Bergen, and New Utrecht; and one was granted to the settlers on Staten Island in 16641.
The village institutions thus created conformed in all cases to the same general model. The ordinances provided in more or less elaborate terms for the establishment of town courts consisting of a board of magistrates, called schepens, and a prosecuting officer and sheriff, called a schout. In a few of the villages the officials were called commissaries. The ordinance relating to Flushing declared that the schout should have the powers of a Dutch schout or English constable. These officials were in all cases appointed by the director and council from lists of nominees—presented by the freemen of the village. In many cases, according to a well-known Dutch custom, the list contained double the number of names which were requisite to fill the offices. The officials held office for one year. The magistrates as a town board had authority to pass ordinances concerning lands, fences, highways, schools, churches, and other local
1 O’Callaghan, Laws and Ordinances of New Netherland, 42, 48, 53, 58, 97, 389-391, 395, 403, 422; O’Callaghan, History of New Netherland, II. 183; N. Y. Col. Docs. XIII. 65. Of the village charters, the two which were granted to Hempstead and Gravesend were identical. The same is true of those which were issued to Wiltwyck and Bergen. Those which were granted to Haerlem, Bushwick, and New Utrecht were also drawn from a common model, but one which differed somewhat from the others that have been mentioned.
affairs, subject to the approval of the director and council. They acted also as a local court. The magistrates were appointed from among the worthy men, freeholders of the locality, and took a special oath of submission to the States General and company. Legally all their acts were subject to review by the provincial government,1 and they had little independence. Really, however, the localities seem to have enjoyed a considerable degree of freedom. This was secured by the tolerant disposition, or sometimes even indifference, of the director and council, by the difficulties of communication, and by the very weakness of the province itself and the need which its authorities felt that population should be increased and outlying settlements multiplied. It should also be remembered that a large proportion of these villages were inhabited by Englishmen, whose plans of domination the Dutch always feared. And yet their need of colonists forced them to be tolerant, even when their power was being undermined.
New Amsterdam, though in size and population a village, was the seat of the provincial government, and its affairs were administered directly by the officials of the province. The fact that it was the residence of the director and council always affected its status to a certain extent. This delayed for a time the full enjoyment of its liberties. In 1653 the Amsterdam chamber2 granted it municipal rights. This grant took the form suggested by the clause of the Provisional Order on this subject and provided that the officers of the new city should be one schout, two burgomasters, and five schepens; that they should be elected by the burghers, as in old Amsterdam, and act as a court of justice with right of appeal in certain cases to the supreme court of judicature. In the absence of a single executive head, like the mayor of an English city, the burgomasters acted as the general representatives of the municipality. But contrary to the intent of the grant, Stuyvesant retained the appointment of burgomasters and schepens in his own hands. Van Tienhoven,
1 Abundant examples of this appear in Vols. XII, XIII, and XIV of N. Y. Col. Docs.
2 O’Callaghan, II. 192; N. Y. Col. Docs. I. 391.
the schout of the province and Stuyvesant’s chief supporter, was appointed schout of the city. On the plea that he had not been definitely instructed to that effect or that he did not wish to disturb the peace, and later that some of those who were nominated were obnoxious to him, Stuyvesant continued, until 1658, to delay the time when he must consent to the appointment of burgomasters and schepens from a list, presented by the city magistrates, of double the number required to fill the offices.1 The concession was finally made only after persistent solicitation on the part of the citizens. The city did not secure even this restricted control over the choice of its schout until 1660.
At first the city had no control over the revenue which was raised within its limits. But after some controversy, and before the end of 1653, the director and council were brought to agree that the excise on wine and beer consumed within the municipality should be paid into the city treasury.2 But this concession was limited by the condition that from this revenue the expenses of the churches and salaries of the officials of the city should be paid, and the public works kept in repair. It should also be farmed out to the highest bidder. The right to determine the rate of the excise, or otherwise to tax the inhabitants of the city, remained, of course, with the director and council.3 In 1654 the city secured from the director and council the right to grant conveyances and mortgages of lots within its limits, but returns of these had to be made to the provincial authorities. The regulative and ordinance power of the director and council for the exigencies of defence, care of the streets, preservation of the peace, trade, and other matters seems to have remained without definite limits. The records would indicate that the chief function of the city magistrates was judicial. The business of a municipal court seems to have occupied the most of their attention.
The settlements on the South river, with which communication,
1 O’Callaghan, II. 257, 311, 322, 370; Records of New Amsterdam, I. 144, 156, 218, 233, 281; II. 16, 26, 109, 121, 282; III. 199 et seq.
2 Records of New Amsterdam, I. 129, 130, 218; O’Callaghan, II. 255, 298.
3 Records of New Amsterdam, I. 166, 192, 224, 232.
whether overland or by sea, was quite as difficult as that with the outpost at Fort Orange, were first governed through a commissary. His duties were not light, for, in addition to keeping the peace among the colonists and with the Indians, he was forced to protect the commercial and territorial interests of the Dutch in that region against the encroachments of the Swedes and the English. He was subject to instructions from the director, and corresponded with him concerning all affairs of importance. Trade with the Indians he was bound to encourage, as he was also required to enforce the prohibition of the sale of arms and ammunition to them. No one was permitted to sail from Manhattan to the South river without a permit from the director-general, or to make the return voyage without a passport from the commissary.1 Over defence, the granting of land, the administration of justice in the outposts along the river, the commissary, though as a subordinate officer,2 had immediate control. The English from New Haven were also trying to establish settlements on the east side of the bay near Salem creek, and on the Schuylkill. The Swedes also occupied Fort Christina, Tinicum, and other points along the bay and river. As no party concerned had a definite grant from a power which could assert authority, traffic with the Indians was virtually open to all, and the representatives of each nationality were entitled to as much land as they could permanently occupy.
These were the problems which Jan Jansen of Ilpendam, the first commissary, had to face during the seven years between 1638 and 1645 when he held the office. He, with the support of the director, prevented the English from obtaining a permanent foothold, but was forced to accept the Swedes as neighbors. Finally he was removed on a charge of fraud and neglect of duty, preferred by the fiscal. Andries Hudde was appointed to the place, and Jan Jansen was sent to Holland for examination before the directors.
1 Hazard, Annals of Pennsylvania, 50; N. Y. Col. Docs. XII. 120.
2 Land patents for that region, as for other parts of the province, for example, were issued by the director and council. N.Y. Col. Docs. XII. 177.
Hudde1 held the position, keeping up active rivalry with the Swedes all the time, until 1655, when Stuyvesant destroyed the Swedish power on the Delaware. Then a vice-directorship of the South river was created, and Jean Paul Jacquet, who for years had been an agent of the company in Brazil, was appointed to the place. Hudde was now made secretary and surveyor. A commissary was also appointed, and these officials, together with two of the most intelligent freemen, formed a local court for the trial of civil and criminal cases,2 and a council for general administration. When a military offence was to be tried two sergeants were substituted for the freemen. All questions were decided by majority vote, the vice-director having a double vote in case of a tie. All important cases might be appealed to the director and council. The minutes of this court from December, 1655, to March, 1657, have been preserved.3 They show how petty civil controversies among the mixed Swedish and Dutch inhabitants of this part of the province were adjusted, and with what mildness their crimes were punished. Drunken soldiers were at one time charged with disturbance and mutinous talk. Illegal sale of liquor to the Indians occasioned more than one trial. Suits for debt appear more frequently than any other complaint, and of these Isaac Allerton, the former merchant of Plymouth, appears most frequently as plaintiff. He had long been trading on the river, and many were indebted to him for goods. Many against whom he now brought suit acknowledged the obligation, but said they could not pay till the tobacco crop was sold or they became in some way possessed of means of payment which they at the time wholly lacked. In a petition4 to the vice-director, Allerton states that some twelve thousand guilders were due him, and some f this had been owing for eight years. He was now more than seventy years old, would soon have to give up travelling, and must bring his affairs into order or he would leave his wife
1 N. Y. Col. Docs. XII. 23, 25, 26; Hazard, Annals of Pennsylvania, 41, 61, 83; Acrelius, History of New Sweden, 58, 59.
2 N. Y. Col. Docs. XII. 114 et seq.; Hazard, 205.
3 N. Y. Col. Docs. XII. 133-162.
4 Ibid. 60.
and children in distress. These entries afford the last glimpse that we get of an adventurous trader whose career is not the least interesting among those which present themselves in the seventeenth century.
The arrival of a Swedish ship, the Mercurius, in the spring of 1656, and its passage up the South river to a point above Fort Casimir, and that contrary to the command of the Dutch, aroused the attention of the director and council. De Sille and Van Tienhoven1 were sent as special agents to investigate the case, and also to do whatever else seemed necessary for the security of the settlements on the South river. For the time being by these agents the vice-director’s authority was virtually suspended. About a year later various complaints2 were presented against Jacquet, alleging that he had been guilty, in certain cases, of arbitrary and oppressive conduct. These were brought before the director and council by the fiscal, and Jacquet was arrested. On his preliminary examination he declared that the charges originated largely in party spirit, and Director Alrichs of New Amstel afterwards expressed a similar opinion.3 He was discharged from arrest and allowed to return to the South river, but was required to submit his accounts for examination and must stand ready to make a full defence. When soon after a large part of the territory along the South river was transferred to the immediate care of the city of Amsterdam, Jacquet was removed, and William Beekman of New Amsterdam took his place, though with the double title of vice-director and commissary.4 These events illustrate the extent and method of control which the provincial authorities exercised in this remote section.
The establishment, in 1657, by the city of Amsterdam of the colony of New Amstel introduced a new jurisdiction upon the South river, and greatly reduced the territory which was directly administered by the company. The territory on the west side of the bay from Christina Kill southward now passed under the direct control of the city and its officials. The vice-director of the company took up
1 N. Y. Col. Docs. XII. 120-129.
2 Ibid. 167-173.
3 Ibid. 173.
4 Ibid. 219; Hazard, 233.
his residence at Fort Christina, now called Altona,1 and administered the affairs of the few struggling Swedish and Dutch2 outposts above the bay and along the eastern shores. At Fort Casimir, now called New Amstel, Jacob Alrichs, as the appointee of the city of Amsterdam and with the title of vice-director, administered the affairs of the city’s colony. As was so common in such cases, the magistrates of Amsterdam intended that its colony should enjoy full municipal rights. Provision was made for resident boards3 of burgomasters and schepens, and, when the city should reach a population of two hundred families or more, for a common council. The schout should be appointed by the director-general, under power of attorney, from the deputies of the city of Amsterdam who were members of the governing board of the West India company. By means of this appointment, and the right of appeal in criminal cases and in civil suits involving more than $40 to the director and council, the subordination of the city to the province in judicial matters was to be maintained. The company also claimed jurisdiction over the rivers and waters of the bay, and retained its right to inspect all goods bound for New Amstel. The repression of smuggling was therefore an important object of its policy. Stuyvesant visited the South river in the spring of 1658, and adjusted to an extent the relations between the company and the city’s colony.4 This, with the active correspondence which Alrichs maintained, shows that the director, notwithstanding the divided jurisdiction, continued to exercise a general superintendence over all affairs on the South river.
The simple form of government through vice-director and council which Alrichs found in existence, was continued
1 The negotiations between the company and the city of Amsterdam in reference to this colony may be traced in N. Y. Col. Docs. I. 612 et seq. The correspondence of Jacob Alrichs, director at New Amstel, with Stuyvesant is in N. Y. Col. Docs. XII. 173-285. The correspondence of William Beekman with the director follows in the same volume. Hazard, 220 et seq., gives a full documentary history of the enterprise.
2 N. Y. Col. Docs. XII. 211.
3 Laws and Ordinances of New Netherland, 241.
4 O’Callaghan, History of New Netherland, II. 372.
until August, 1657.1 Then seven city councillors were elected, and from them three new schepens were chosen. Another secretary and schout were also appointed, with two elders and two deacons for the management of church affairs. Thus municipal government was instituted at New Amstel, though at the close of the first year of the city’s administration it was only a village of one hundred houses. In 1658 the population of the colony was somewhat more than five hundred. But its prosperity was checked by a series of disasters which remind one more of the sufferings at Jamestown and Plymouth than of the experiences of later colonies. Two wet seasons in succession almost destroyed the crops, and caused sickness so to prevail as to cripple the colony. Scarcity and discontent followed. Discontent was increased by the issue of certain modifications in the conditions of settlement. The English from Maryland threatened to take possession of the country. The vice-director, though struggling against adverse conditions, was accused by many and on many charges. A general exodus of the settlers to Virginia, Maryland, or to other parts of New Netherland was threatened. These events, together with complaints of the defenceless condition of the South river, led Stuyvesant to send commissioners to further regulate affairs in that quarter2 and to negotiate concerning the claims of Maryland.
At the close of 1659, worn out by cares and losses, Alrichs died, and left as his successor Alexander d’Hinoyossa, a man who of late had occupied a prominent place among his accusers. D’Hinoyossa was only prevented by the opposition of the other magistrates from seizing all the estate of Alrichs. The city of Amsterdam had already become tired of its experiment and had sought to retransfer the colony to the company. But the latter shrank from again assuming responsibility for it. Because, however, of the friction which existed between the magistrates of the colony and those at Altona, it was felt that one or the other must be removed from the region. Finally, after full discussion, the
1 O’Callaghan, History of New Netherland, II. 337.
2 N. Y. Col. Docs. XII. 205, 226, 228, 231, 236, 245 et seq., 259, 266, 272; Md. Arch., Proceedings of Council, 1636-1667, 366.
directors of the company, in February, 1663, conceded to the burgomasters of Amsterdam all the Dutch territory on the west side of the river, and a tract three miles broad extending along the entire east bank. This they were to hold, on condition that they should not alienate it, should send over annually four hundred settlers, and should assume the responsibility for its defence. As the result of the agreement1 the officials and soldiers of the company were removed from Altona, and a few months before the English conquest D’Hinoyossa, as representative of the city, became director for the entire South river.
The remoteness of the settlements on the North river from the seat of the provincial government, together with the exigencies of defence and of the fur trade, should have established between them and the director relations similar to those which he maintained with the South river. But this was not altogether the case, and the reason for its not being so will be found in the feudal pretensions of the colony of Rensselaerswyck. Fort Orange antedated by several years the establishment of the patroonship, and, like Fort Nassau or Fort Casimir on the South river, was a military and trading outpost, governed by a commissary, and occupied by a few soldiers and fur traders. The purchases of land which Kiliaen Van Rensselaer made under the authority of the Freedoms and Exemptions, enclosed this little fort on all sides. The colony had its distinct administrative system and claimed many privileges. Its general court, which consisted of two commissaries and two councillors or schepens, performed executive, legislative, and judicial functions. Connected with the court was a secretary, a schout fiscal, and a court messenger or constable, while the chief resident official held the title of director. These all received their appointments from the patroon or from the court itself, and were in no respect officially dependent on the director and council. In this they differed from all village officials, and from those of New Amsterdam during nearly all of the Dutch period. At the outset even those of New Amstel were more dependent on the director.
1 N. Y. Col. Docs. II. 165-215.
But in addition to these facts, it was the desire of the authorities of the manor wholly to exclude provincial officers and control from its limits. Their ambition was not merely territorial, but chiefly to monopolize the fur trade along the upper Hudson. The regulations of the colony against unlicensed trading with the natives were as rigid as those of the company. But licenses could easily be procured by residents of the colony on condition that they should bring all furs to the patroon’s magazine, whence they were shipped to him in Holland. He and his partners were also the sole importers of European goods for the colony, and, owing to the neglect of the company, for Fort Orange as well. Thus within ten years after the founding of the colony it had developed an independent organization and policy. Attempts were made to prevent appeals to the court of the director and council. In 1644 a fortification, called Rensselaers-Stein, was built on Beeren island, at the southern limit of the manor, for the purpose of enforcing the claim of staple-right. Vessels passing up and down the river were obliged to lower their colors at this point, and a toll of five guilders was imposed on every trading craft. This at once aroused protest at New Amsterdam, and through the schout fiscal maintenance of the fort and the enforcement of the exaction were both forbidden. But the orders of the director and his officials were defied, and the pretensions at Beeren island were continued for several years.
Stuyvesant’s prolonged controversies with Van Slichtenhorst, the director of Rensselaerswyck, began over a protest of the latter that the inhabitants of the colony were not bound to obey a proclamation which the director had issued for a general fast. Though Stuyvesant visited the colony in person, he was unable to bring the sturdy director to terms. The visit, moreover, called Stuyvesant’s attention to the fact that the houses of Beverwyck, the patroon’s village, were clustered so closely about Fort Orange as to encroach on the sovereign rights of the company there and to interfere with the range of the guns. The director protested vigorously against this and ordered that all houses within the distance of a cannon-shot—later
he contracted the limit to that of a musket-shot—should be demolished. Over this question a long struggle ensued, in which force was used on both sides. It finally resulted in Stuyvesant bestowing village rights on Beverwyck, and thus withdrawing it, as well as Fort Orange, from the jurisdiction of the patroon. Attempts, also, of the officials of the colony to secure additional tracts of land near Claverack and Katskill and to issue leases there to tenants were resisted by the provincial authorities. The director ordered the collection of the excise within the colony, but that was refused. In 1651 he ordered the payment of a subsidy by Rensselaerswyck, and this also was refused on the ground that it was a violation of custom and grossly unfair, since the colony, by a fiscal system of its own, provided for all its needs. When on this occasion Van Slichtenhorst went to New Amsterdam to remonstrate, he was detained as a prisoner for four months by Stuyvesant. The question was not settled during the period of Dutch rule, save in the practical way that no provincial taxes were collected within the colony. In connection with these disputes it repeatedly happened that the service of writs and orders and the posting of placards by the officers of the company were resisted. Van Slichtenhorst’s crowning act of offence was that of tearing down the placard which announced that a court of justice was established for the village of Beverwyck independent of the colony. Soon after this he was dragged from his house by a body of the company’s soldiers and carried a prisoner to New Amsterdam. He was not again restored to office, and no such doughty champion of feudal rights as he had been appeared among the later directors of Rensselaerswyck. Stuyvesant’s attention was soon diverted by events and questions of larger import, and thus the controversies of an earlier time were allowed to drop without a settlement in express terms of the points at issue between the two parties.1
Thus, as the close of the period of Dutch rule approached, the authority of the director and council was withdrawn from the South river, and it failed to receive full acknowledgment
1 O’Callaghan, I. 319; II. 68, 159, 173.
at the northern extremity of the province. The English were at the same time rapidly securing control of the towns at the western end of Long Island. These changes, however, resulted more from lack of resources sufficient to maintain its sway, than from change in the theory which was held as to its extent. Had the Dutch been left to themselves, the government of the province would probably have continued for an indefinite period unchanged.
Dinsmore Documentation presents Classics of American Colonial History