|
"History of New York State 1523-1927"
|
|
Hudson discovered the river known by his name in 1609. During the next ten years many Dutch ships were in New York waters, and Manhattan Island had a small settlement of traders. Magisterial authority, if there was any in this little trading community, probably followed the rules of the sea, with sea captains as arbiters, and with the certainty that capital offenses would be referred to the home government. In 1621 the Dutch West India Company was chartered, with wide powers and charged with the keeping of "good order, police, and justice." The charter contained many guarantees of freedom in social, political and religious life, but reserved final judicial authority for the States General. Next in magisterial authority were the directors of the company, who exercised supervision of, and accepted responsibility for, the judicial acts of their provincial officials, the superintendents of the trading posts and the ship captains. This system of judicial administration in all probability prevailed until the appointment of a local director. In 1623 the first party of colonists came, the Walloons crossing in the good ship "New Netherland," commanded by Cornelis Jacobsen May (Mey), of Hoorn, who was also to be the first director. There were thirty families, one hundred and ten men, women and children in all; and, upon arrival in New York waters, they were distributed over as much territory as possible. Some settled on Manhattan Island, some on Long Island, some on the Fresh (Connecticut) River, some in the Esopus country, some on the North (Hudson) River at what became Albany, and others along the Delaware tributaries. In these isolated settlements a degree of parental control was probably the only magisterial power called for. At all events, Captain May and his lieutenants had to apply themselves, chiefly to the development of the trading possibilities of the region. In that time of war between the United Netherlands and Spain, the States General had, at home, vital matters of such grave moment as to occupy almost the whole of their thoughts. The National situation, however, was less critical in 1625, and it was then arranged to send out to New Netherland a Director-General, to bring the provincial establishment more into line with the legal and civil systems of the homeland. It was planned to admit New Netherland to the union of provinces, making it a county of Holland, with provincial status to all intents like that of any other of the United Provinces. Peter Minuit was commissioned as Director-General, and sailed on December 19, 1625, in the vessel "Het Meetje," accompanied by more immigrants. Upon arrival at Manhattan in May, 1626, he set the new plan of government in operation.[1] It called for the appointment of a Council of five, "who, with himself, were to be invested with all legislative, executive and judicial powers, subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the chamber (of the company) at Amsterdam." This council was to have jurisdiction in all criminal cases, to the extent of fine, but each capital offender was to be sent, "with his sentence, to Holland," where his sentence would be reviewed, and where, if sustained, he would be punished. The Director-General and Council, therefore, constituted the local judicial body. An important functionary of the provisional government was the Schout-Fiscaal, who was expected to be the expert in all matters of law. He was, to all intents, the Attorney-General, public prosecutor, and, when given his full authority, presiding magistrate. Numerous other less dignified duties rested upon him. He was expected to act as constable or sheriff, as excise officer, as clerk of the courts, and sometimes, it seems, had duties not unlike those of a supervisor of stevedores.[2] He was, in fact, expected to be the "Eye of the Law," the "Encyclopedia of Jurisprudence," the Vigilance Committee of the Province, and be able to cite every law, detect every infraction of it, and bring to justice every violator. There is record that at least one schout was expected to be the Keeper of the Pigs, and that when he dared to rebel against such an indignity, pointing out that such a duty might well be performed by a negro slave, he provoked the irate Governor to reach for a bastinadoe. Jan Lampo was the first schout-fiscaal of New Netherland, though he was not the bastinadoed Oracle of the Law. The first magistrates were the members of Minuit's Council. They were: Peter Bylvelt, Jacob Elbertsen Wissinck, Jan Janszen Brouwer, Simon Dirckson Pos and Reynert Harmenssen. They knew little of law, and in other respects hardly constituted an ideal court of justice, inasmuch as all were servants of the Dutch West India Company. In 1629 a new system of colonization was devised in the Charter of Freedom and Exemptions, which introduced the patroons and the feudal system of land tenure. The intention was that this system of local government should be subservient to the provincial authority of the Director-General, just as the latter was subservient to the Amsterdam directors of the West India Company, and these in turn were controlled by the College of the Nineteen (delegates drawn from all the shareholders of the company) . All were expected to recognize the over-lordship of the States General of the United Provinces of the Netherlands. To what extent the patroon system interfered, in New Netherland, with the judicial authority of the early Directors-General will never be positively known, for the official company records of the period 1626-37 have been lost. Neither can it be stated, with assurance, how judicial proceedings were conducted under Directors Minuit, Krol, or Van Twiller, the first three Directors-General. It is quite clear, however, that authorities clashed, and that while the directors may have been arbitrary, they had little power in the patroonships. Such a system as that which the patroons were permitted to set up would be considered tyrannical in these days. The life of the immigrants in the patroonships would be looked upon as a kind of bondage, for, it seems, the colonists were bound to serve the patroons for a period of years after emigration,--ostensibly to repay the latter for the expense incurred in transportation to, and establishment upon, the land of the patroons. The most extensive and successful patroonship-in fact the only successful one-was that founded by Kiliaen van Rensselaer. In it, the patroon system is seen at its best and its worst. Upon the manor of Rensselaer were, in time, established, by their own means or by the assistance of the Van Rensselaer family, hundreds of tenant-farmers who accepted the system of manorial land-tenure, which demanded of the occupying farmer, for life and through succeeding generations, payment of a portion of each year's product of the land they tilled. It was a perpetual rental, the tenant, no matter how prosperous, never being able to own the land he tilled. The manor embraced parts of several of the present counties in the vicinity of Albany, and, surprising as it may seem, this near feudal system was maintained with the Van Rensselaer family for over two centuries, long after the time when, one would suppose, all traces of feudalism and monarchical government had, by the Revolution, been swept away from all parts of the United States. When the Dutch West India Company, in 1629, made public its plans for, or sanction of, a charter of "Privileges, Freedoms, and Exemptions to all patrons, masters or individuals who should plant any colonies and cattle in New Netherland," the proposals were not viewed as an impossible system by either the moneyed class or the emigrants. Life in the homeland had been a constant struggle for two or three generations, the sea vieing with Spain in an attempt to wrest from the Dutch their home. Furthermore, the alluring new land, a mysterious and possibly vast treasure-house of gold, silver, and precious stones, a National treasury more precious and potential than that which had been enriching Spain for a century, was the hope of the adventurous. So, several of the wealthy directors of the West India Company hastened to claim such privileges, receiving large land grants and making colonization plans to meet the conditions of such grants. [3]Much happened, in 1630 and 1631. Minuit in these land transactions came into conflict with the home authorities, for alleged excess of zeal in the interests of certain Amsterdam directors of the company who became patroons, and for not showing enough consideration for the interests of the company.[4] Although the privileges of the Charter of 1629 were open to "all persons, peasants or nobles," who could meet the conditions, they were in reality only within the reach of the wealthy; hence, the grants made were to men who, while not of the nobility, were of the great burgher class-wealthy merchants. To such persons as should "undertake to plant a Colonie there (in New Netherland) of fifty souls, upwards of fifteen years old," within four years, the company offered the feudal status of Patroon within the area the grantee would succeed in colonizing. "The extent of a colony of fifty souls was limited to sixteen miles on one bank of a waterway, or eight miles on both shores of a navigable stream; but the colony might extend indefinitely into the interior," which was the unknown land of the denizens of the forest, human and otherwise. "In ratio to the increase of colonists over the stipulated fifty, the limits of the colony along a waterway might be expanded." Within his manor, or patroonship, the patroon was to be the lord of the manor with absolute authority. He could hold inferior court, and in any cities developed in the colony he was to have power to appoint magistrates and municipal officers. No colonist, man, woman, or child, could leave the service of the patroon without his written consent; and whatever supplies they needed must be purchased at the store of the patroon. Patroons were, it seems, the final authority in matters of law. Through the medium of his principal agent, sitting as presiding magistrate in the patroon's court, the patroon had power even of life and death over the people of the manor.[5] The Dutch legal system provided certain restrictions, but in the actual administration of judicial affairs, as of civil government, the local authorities had devious but sure ways of gaining their ends. For instance, the law provided that capital sentence must be referred to Holland for review. Possibly some were; but the Patroon of Rensselaerswyck was in the habit of weakening the power of the Provincial Government and of the States General over the judicial acts of his agents by drawing from the prospective colonist a promise "not to appeal from any judgment of the local tribunals." Perhaps, however, this did not hold in capital cases, which it seems were few. While there were many patroonships,[6] that which was developed at the head of navigation on the Hudson River by agents of Kiliaen van Rensselaer, the wealthy Burgomaster of Amsterdam, is the only one that enters vitally into the history of New Netherland and New York. The quasi-independent government set up in the patroonship of Van Rensselaer had so important a part in the impoverishment of the West India Company, and was so disturbing a factor in the State politics of two centuries later, that it is well that much of its history has been preserved. In the preface of the "Minutes of the Court of Rensselaerswyck, 1648-52," translated recently by State Archivist Van Laer,[7] is the information that in July, 1632, Patroon Kiliaen van Rensselaer-who by the way never came to New Netherland-appointed Rutger Hendricksz van Soest to the office of schout of the colony, i. e., the patroonship, New Netherland generally being differentiated as the province. Rutger Hendricksz was empowered to administer the "oath of schepen" to five persons, four of whom were then resident in the colony. The five schepens were to constitute the Patroon's Court of Rensselaerswyck, over which Hendricksz was to preside. Wouter van Twiller, the Director-General of the Province, a nephew of the patroon, was authorized to administer the "oath of schout" to Rutger Hendricksz, though, as Van Laer states, it is doubtful if he ever did. Hendricksz seems to have been an agricultural overseer on the manor, and his term "as farmer" having expired, he seems to have left the colony in 1634. It is, therefore, doubtful whether he was ever Schout of Rensselaerswyck. The first schout of the Patroon Court seems to have been Jacob Albertsen Planck, who arrived in the colony, with his instructions as schout, about August 12, 1634. Soon after that date, in all probability, the Rensselaerswyck Court was organized. There is difference of opinion as to what effect the patroonships had upon the province. Lincoln, in tracing the patroon system, seems to feel that its part in the development of the province was important and beneficial; others condemn the system. Certainly, it brought into strong functioning a quasi-independent government, making the task of the Directors-General hard. Three Governors came and went in eight years, and the next two-Kieft and Stuyvesant-found the power of the Patroon of Rensselaerswyck so well entrenched that provincial authority was enforced in the colony only after the Patroon Court had been so weakened as to lose power over the colonists. Adriaen van der Donck, a man who had studied canon and civil law at the University of Leyden and was about to enter professional life, was chosen by Burgomaster van Rensselaer, in 1641, to proceed to the colony and take over the duties of schout-fiscaal from Planck. The latter had also been commies, or commissary, at Rensselaerswyck, and had given up both offices, Arendt van Curler taking his place as commies. Of Van der Donck, the patroon wrote to one of his partners thus: "This young man of proper habits is in truth a good thing for us." Undoubtedly Van der Donck could. be useful in the colony if he would, for they had nobody versed in the laws at hand to advise the schepens of the Patroon Court. In truth, the patroon at the moment stood much in need of a voorspraecke, or attorney, to defend the interests of his colony against litigation of colonists and of Governor Kieft. Van der Donck was commissioned as Officer de Justice on May 13, 1641, and arrived at Rensselaerswyck in August of the same year. He did not get on amicably with Van Curler, who perhaps was inclined to be overbearing, holding as he did, the more important post, that of manager of the colony. Van der Donck himself was ambitious. Reports that reached the Patroon as to this, so concerned him, that he went to infinite pains to draft for Van der Donck a treatise on his duties. This paper, it is said, took Van Rensselaer "the better part of four days to compose." He blamed Van der Donck "for being too hot-headed, for arguing with fractious colonists instead of maintaining his dignity by summoning them before the court of justice." He accused Van der Donck of overweening ambition. "I tell you frankly," he wrote, "if you set your mark so high, you will study more your own advancement than my advantage." Van der Donck's most serious breach was in seeking to become a patroon himself. His first attempt to do so was abandoned only after he had been threatened with dismissal and imprisonment. Soon after, however, other friction arose to make Van der Donck seem to be not the ideal man to enforce the will of the Patroon. It seems that Commissary Van Curler had issued orders that none of the colonists should go into the forest to trade with the Indians, the latter being expected to bring their furs to the Rensselaerswyck store for barter. Furthermore, the colonists were forbidden to buy goods from any ships that came up the river. Van der Donck flatly refused to enforce these ordinances; and once when he was ordered to search the houses of colonists for woolen cloth surreptiously acquired from a trading vessel, he just gave the people "the wink" and reported: "Nothing found." In 1644, Kiliaen van Rensselaer died, and in 1645 Van der Donck went out of the colony, going down the river to Manhattan, where later he became one of the outstanding leaders of the people. He also became a patroon. Nicolas Coorn and Gerard Swart were respective successors of Van der Donck, as Schout of Rensselaerswyck, but the Court of Rensselaerswyck does not seem to have functioned strongly until it was reorganized by Brant Aertsz van Slichtenhorst in 1648.[8] Van Slichtenhorst was then in charge of the colony, as director or commissary, and he seems to have been the only outstanding figure in the Rensselaerswyck Court also. He had a tilt with Governor Stuyvesant in 1652, when the latter organized a schepen's court, quite independent of Rensselaerswyck, just outside the patroonship, at Fort Orange. Stuyvesant came up from Manhattan, and arrested Van Slichtenhorst for his resistance of the authority of the Provincial Government. Thereafter, and until 1665, when the Province passed to the English and the Duke's laws came into force, the jurisdiction of the Patroon Court of Rensselaerswyck was weak. With this brief review we may pass from the patroon courts, which actually were the first local inferior courts of New York, to the other provincial courts of the Dutch period in New York. The chief magistrates, the chief justices as it were, of the Province of New Netherland, were the directors-general, who lived at New Amsterdam and presided over the Council, the members of which, even up to the closing years of Stuyvesant's administration, were mainly under the direct control of the governor. They were mostly employees of the West India Company, or former employees, and generally, the will of the Governor was the law with them. The Council was, in fact, the court of last resort in the province. So the directors-general seem to have right of place among the judges and magistrates of the Dutch period. Minuit served as Director-General for six years, being recalled early in the spring of 1632. Later he went into the service of the Queen of Sweden and led a Swedish colonizing party to the Delaware. New Sweden eventually had to bow to the authority of New Netherland, through the military prowess, or stronger military force, of Stuyvesant. Minuit had by this time died in the colony. He seems to have been more faithful to the Swedish Government than to the Dutch. His successor, as Director-General of New Netherland in 1632, was Bastiaen Jansz Krol, or Crol, who had been in charge at Fort Orange. He took over control of the province from Minuit at the end of February, 1632, and acted as Director-General until April, 1633, when Wouter van Twiller reached New Amsterdam. Krol was, in all probability, never commissioned as Director-General, which explains why some official lists show Van Twiller as the direct successor of Minuit as Governor. Van Twiller was a nephew of Kiliaen van Rensselaer, and though the latter professed to have had no part in procuring the appointment for the young man, there seems no doubt that he looked upon it with favor. Van Twiller's task was by no means an easy one, and he is considered by some to have been hesitant and inert as director. The truth is, however, that he had to temporize and compromise with the stronger forces that opposed the governmental authority of New Netherland. The English were of sufficient strength in neighboring colonies to have subdued the Dutch of New Netherland had they been exasperated unduly by Van Twiller, who by the letter of his instructions, was supposed to assert the authority of the United Netherland from Cape Cod to the Delaware.[9] He also had to deal diplomatically with the patroons, who were inclined to overrule him, and who, as home directors of the West India Company, were, in fact, his superiors. So Van Twiller should not be looked upon as a man of such colorless characteristics as his actions as Governor indicate. He lived comfortably, and was apparently well able to care for himself. At all events, he seems to have enriched himself while Governor and he was sorry to leave the province after five years. Van Twiller had a Council of four: Jacob Jansen Hesse, Martin Gerritsen, Andries Hudde and Jacques Bentyn. None had been on the Council of Minuit, but the Schout-Fiscaal who was in office when Minuit left was continued by Van Twiller, though not, it would seem, because of fitness for the office. Within a year Schout-Fiscaal Notelman gave way to Dr. Lubbertus van Dincklagen, who, however, was too highly qualified to stay long. He was probably skilled in all the sciences, and also was "possessed of considerable means." It might be reasonably assumed, therefore, that he would have been permitted to function more fully as Schout than Notelman had been. Moreover, it seems certain that he would not stoop to do the menial tasks expected of some of his predecessors. Quite possibly, the judicial processes of the province were left largely in his care. Van Dincklagen was not Schout for long, Ulrich Lupold succeeding him before the end of Van Twiller's administration. To succeed Van Twiller as Director-General, the West India Company sent William Kieft in 1837. He was "a commercial adventurer of ill repute," but of aggressive personality. Perhaps the directors of the West India Company thought that a Governor who had no connection with the Patroon of Rensselaerswyck might be better able to see that the company had its proper share of what trading was possible with the Indians. Kieft arrived in March, 1638. That he was determined to rule with absolute authority was soon evident, for his Council consisted of only one man, Dr. John la Montague, who had arrived with his wife and four children in 1637.[10] Montagne had one vote in the Council against Kieft's two; which meant that the Governor was the government. Kieft was unscrupulous,[11] and was quite convinced that the instructions of the home government, "that he should maintain a Council," had been met by the appointment of Dr. la Montagne, even though previous Councils had consisted of four or five men, in addition to the Governor. However, he eventually had to realize that his fellow-counsellor would not stand meekly by while he carried out arbitrary measures upon Indians and whites. According to Kieft's testimony, the affairs of the province were in a woeful state of chaos when he arrived. Company servants had been enriching themselves at the expense of the company; smuggling was common; the Indians were obtaining firearms and were getting out of hand; the garrison was insubordinate; the sailors riotous; New Amsterdam disorderly; drunkenness, theft, fighting, and immoralities prevailed; and generally there was need of a strong governing hand. The unfortunate fact, however, is that the Governor was not a broad-minded as well as a strong-minded man. He was apparently a ruthless tyrant. A new Charter of Exemptions and Privileges made known in 1640 the wish of the West India Company to improve the lot of the "free colonists" of New Netherland, and restrict the judicial authority of the patroons; and while Kieft did his best to break down the latter power, he ignored both the letter and the spirit of the Charter of Exemptions and Privileges. It provided for "competent Councillors, Officers and other Ministers of Justice for the protection of the good and the punishment of the wicked"; yet, from the beginning Kieft's Supreme Court of Justice was his Council of one. "When anything extraordinary occurred (perhaps when Dr. la Montagne disagreed with him), the Director allowed some whom it pleased him-officials of the company for the most part-to be summoned in addition; but that seldom happened," was the testimony given by Adriaen van der Donck, in 1649, in his "Remonstrance of New Netherland." One could not have much confidence in a court so constituted, for such additional judges, referees, or arbitrators would hardly hold views contrary to those of their superior, the all-powerful Director-General. Pettiness, superstition and inconsistency marked the administration of justice. Hendrick Jensen, arraigned in October, 1638, "for scandalizing the Governor," was sentenced to stand at the entrance of the court at the ringing of the bell, and there publicly beg the Governor to pardon him. Anthony Jensen's wife, Grietje, slandered the Reverend Everardus Bogardus. The court fined her husband, and compelled her to beg "pardon of God, the court, and the minister"; but thereafter they were constantly in litigious trouble. They were of such frequent court record that finally, on April 7, 1639, they were sentenced to be forever banished from New Netherland, "as public disturbers and slanderers." For stealing a sheet while intoxicated, Jan Hobbesen was "put to torture" until he confessed, in 1641; whereupon he was sentenced to be "whipped with rods," and afterwards banished. A man accused of murder, but still at large, was sentenced to be punished "by sword until dead." For "drawing a knife upon a person," in a sailor's brawl in 1638, Gysbert van Beyerland was sentenced "to throw himself three times from the sail-yard (yard-arm) of the yacht 'Hope,' and to receive from each sailor three lashes at the ringing of the bell." A negro was more fortunate. He was tried for a capital offense, was convicted, and was sentenced "to be hanged by the neck until dead as an example to all malefactors." Twice they placed the noose around his neck, and twice his immense frame broke the halter. He was then allowed to go free "by God's providence." Some of the justice meted out by Kieft was not, perhaps, any sterner than that of preceding and later administrations; yet the fact that offenders, or accused, had no appeal against the findings of one man, must have stirred men of courage to resistance, even though complaint to the home government might bring upon complainants total disaster. In a province so far from the homeland, life should, if anything, be less curbed by governmental restrictions; yet, New Netherland was denied even the privileges that burghers had in the homeland. The Dutch system of local government placed in the hands of municipalities the judicial power, but in New Netherland, as yet, there were no municipalities. In Holland a magisterial bench of burgomaster and schepens had jurisdiction of inferior offenses, the bench being chosen by the representatives of the people-by a delegation of eight or nine "good men," selected in town meeting by the burghers. In New Netherland Governor Kieft had more arbitrary sway "than would a king or emperor in their former home." "Month by month Kieft grew in unpopularity, while the protests of the people against him increased and their demands to participate in the government were more and more insistent." Kieft must have sensed growing resistance of colonists to his arbitrary system of government and administration of justice; and he soon had to recognize that an outside danger was growing more and more serious. He had but little interest in the Indians, treated them as a conquered race, and seemed to shut his eyes to the deceit practiced by the company's traders, in their dealings with them. The latter were cheated out of proper payment for the peltries they brought and had no recourse. Kieft, through his court of justice, his Council, would not aid them. Indeed, he arrogantly demanded tribute "of furs, maize, and wampum," and in 1641, even demanded the life of the son of a chief. The Indians refused to pay tribute and the chief was even more determined not to permit his son to be tried in a Dutch court. Kieft wanted to wage war, but he was shrewd enough to see that he must set his own house in order first. So he then opened his ears to the petition of the people, and resolved to give them some part in the government of the province. With this intention, he called together the heads of families. They met, and, as was the custom in Holland, chose twelve men to represent them in the government. The Twelve Men[12] were drawn from Manhattan, Long Island and Pavonia (New Jersey). This was the first popular body organized in New Netherland, the first board representative of the people. The imperative need of campaigning against the Indians, of teaching them such a lesson that they would be tractable thereafter, was put to the Twelve Men by Kieft. It is said that they agreed to punitive measures being taken, but subsequent disclosures make it appear that Kieft gained the consent of the Board of Twelve Men by unscrupulous means. It is recorded that he induced "three of the most unscrupulous members after a bountiful entertainment, to sign an authorization for him to proceed." He needed no more, and, inasmuch as the Board of Twelve Men demanded reforms in local government, insisting "that courts of justice similar to those which existed in the towns and villages of Holland should be established," and also inasmuch as they emphatically condemned the Governor's Council of one, as it placed the judicial power absolutely in Kieft's own hands, the Director-General decided that he had no further use for that board. While he promised to increase his Council to five, he adhered to his general form of government, and in summarily dismissing the Board of Twelve Men, warned them that further meetings would tend "to a dangerous consequence, and to the great injury both of the country and of our authority." Indeed, he forbade the Twelve Men to again assemble, "on pain of being punished as disobedient subjects."[13] Freed from such a constitutional curb, Kieft went his fatal way unheeding. It led to a massacre of Indians under conditions which besmirch the Dutch record, or would do so if the disgrace could not be placed almost wholly upon this vindictive Governor. The reaction was a massacre of white people in 1643, and the destruction of almost the whole settlement of Pavonia. The Indians exacted a terrible revenge. "With tomahawk and torch they laid waste most of Pavonia. Indeed, their onslaught was so furious that not a white man remained within its limits, except as a prisoner. Those who escaped with their lives found that they were not safe from attack even when within a thousand paces of Manhattan Fort. Such was the disastrous outcome of Kieft's tyranny in one direction." Before the storm had reached such intensity as to cause almost all the Dutch of New Netherland to cry out against Kieft, because of his vindictive Indian policy, the Governor had again tried to shift responsibility upon the people, or at least to again get their chosen men to help him out of his troubles. In the autumn of 1643, he again "convoked the community into an assembly to plan for the common protection." For his own immediate ends, Kieft was not unwilling to follow the old Roman system He would not give the burghers power to initiate any legislation, but would permit them to give their opinion, through their chosen representatives, as to any measure he and his Council might decide upon and submit to the popular body. In this way, Kieft planned to hold control, while seeming to offer representative government. To the average person it would seem that any legislation approved by the representatives of the freemen would necessarily reflect the will of the people. Only a few would know that the measure had been drafted by Kieft himself and his Council. However, the freemen were willing to have even this small share in governmental affairs. Perhaps they thought it might lead to a larger share in the future. At all events, the freemen met in September, 1643, and chose eight representatives to form a Board of Eight Men. As a matter of fact, they did not themselves choose the eight men, but permitted the Governor to nominate eight, claiming for themselves only the right to reject any undesirable nominees. One of those nominated was Jan Jansen Damen, "but he was excluded by his associates for his connection with the Pavonia massacre." Jan Evertsen Bout was chosen in his place and the other seven were Joachim Pietersen Kuyter, Barent Dircksen, Abraham Pietersen, Isaac Allerton, Thomas Hall, Gerrit Wolfertsen and Cornelis Melyn. The last-named was president. The Board of Eight Men met in session on September 15, 1643, "to consider the critical condition of the country." The condition of the country remained critical throughout the next year, and, therefore, their deliberations were chiefly upon questions of war during that winter. While they did not condone Kieft's acts, they had now to consider the defense of their own homes against the ferocity of the marauding Indians. When, on June 18, 1644, they reconvened for their second term as a legislative body, the situation was not so critical, and they had more time to think of governmental matters in general. Matters of revenue and taxation were submitted to them and Kieft's proposals in this respect brought from them opinions which were pointedly against the Governor. They did not, for instance, see why the people of the province should be taxed for the maintenance of soldiers from Brazil or elsewhere. By the charter, the "home government had guaranteed protection, as one of the inducements to emigrate," and, therefore, the home government ought to bear the expense. Furthermore, the Eight Men did not see that the West India Company had any right to tax the people of New Netherland, as power of taxation lay only with the States General. Certain measures connected with the provincial treasury they approved, such as a placard issued by the Governor, stating that "by the advice of the Eight Men chosen by the commonalty" certain taxes were imposed "provisionally, until the good God should grant us peace, or that we shall be sufficiently aided from Holland." When, however, in July, soldiers arrived from Holland and Governor Kieft sought to impose further taxes to meet the cost of their subsistence, the Board of Eight Men positively refused, or rather, finally disapproved of measures proposed by the Governor and Council in this connection. Whereupon, the arbitrary Kieft did what was contrary to the laws of Holland itself-he usurped the power of the people and imposed taxes without the consent of the Eight Men. He soon found that there are certain infractions of the rights of man that none but the most craven or servile will bear for long. Taxation only with consent had been the fundamental principle in Holland for a long time. The arbitrary rule of Governor Kieft, in this and other respects, so exasperated the Eight Men that, on October 28, 1644, they appealed directly to Holland, memorializing both the Board of the Nineteen of the West India company, and the higher authority, the States General. They accused Kieft of usurping "princely power." "We did not conceive," they said, "that our powers extended as far as to impose new taxes, but that such must first be considered by a superior authority (to wit, by the Lords Major). "They prayed for a new Governor and for popular government, "so that the entire country may not be hereafter, at the whim of one man, again reduced to a similar danger," such as they had endured, and as still threatened them, because of Kieft's relentless treatment of the Indians. The complaint reached Holland at a time when the affairs of the West India Company were at a low ebb. Indeed, the company was to all intents insolvent; and while the colonists were sympathized with and there was a general desire among the College of the Nineteen to recall Kieft, more serious thought was given to the suggestion that the colonists be transported back to the homeland, and the province of New Netherland abandoned, as an unprofitable enterprise. The Dutch Government, of course, did not wish this to happen, as no government views abandonment of territory without grave concern. So, when the West India Company stated that such a course might be forced upon them unless they should be granted a subsidy, "in order that the colony should be placed in a safe and prosperous condition," the States General did not dismiss such a request summarily. Indeed, decision against abandonment was soon taken. Matters of reconstruction were promptly considered and it was decided that the predicament of the colonists and remedial plans should be the principal matters of consideration by a committee of the company. This committee, the Chamber of Accounts, in March, 1645, sustained the colonists, and recommended the organization of village and hamlet communities, somewhat after the manner of the English places, giving to each community of certain size the privilege of electing a deputy who, at the call of the Director-General, should gather with other deputies twice yearly for "the upholding of the statutes and the laws." They were to have the power to deliberate "on all questions which might concern the prosperity of their colonies." Governor Kieft was, of course, to be recalled. It was decided that Dr. Lubbertus van Dincklagen, who had returned to Holland, should become Director-General. He was commissioned as such, but before he could leave Holland, his commission was revoked; not because anyone doubted his integrity or ability, but because the changing and grave state of European politics made it seem more prudent to send out as Governor a man of military experience. Hence, in July, 1645, the West India Company decided to commission Petrus Stuyvesant as Director-General.[14] Dr. van Dincklagen was not averse to taking second place. He seems to have been the first to hold, officially, the title of Vice-Director; and the new plan seemed to assign to him, particularly, the care of the judicial department, the Director-General devoting his thoughts more to the political and military situations. There was delay in despatching the new Governor and his staff and this delay came as a result of several important happenings. First, the physical condition of Stuyvesant was as yet not quite satisfactory. He had only recently been under surgical treatment, having lost a leg in an attack upon the Portuguese island of St. Martin, in 1644, and having had to return to Holland for operation and a wooden leg. Furthermore, the provincial situation was brightening. As the year 1645 passed the military situation of New Netherland improved and Governor Kieft succeeded in signing a peace treaty with the Indians on August 30, at Fort Amsterdam, "in presence of the whole community" and "under the blue canopy of heaven." There may have been other reasons why the commission was not issued to Stuyvesant until July 28, 1646, and why he did not leave Holland until 1647. However, no important changes were made in the plan decided upon in 1645; and in May, 1647, therefore, the new Governor, resplendent in his silver-mounted artificial leg, pegged his way from the ship to the fort at New Amsterdam. It cannot be said that Stuyvesant made evident effort to soothe the ruffled state of public feeling; indeed, his attitude was autocratic, arrogant, unbending, pompous. The populace had received Stuyvesant with acclaim; but this redoubtable man of war seemed to look upon the "vehement" welcome as but his due. He and his staff "landed on a fine morning, in the presence of all the people, who came out with guns and received him with shouts." They knew little of Stuyvesant, but the fact that his coming meant that Kieft would soon go was sufficient to bring them joy. "So vehement was their welcome that nearly all the breath and powder of the city was exhausted." Stuyvesant marched through the cheering crowds "in great pomp," making the most conspicuous display possible of his "silver-mounted wooden leg of fine workmanship." It was of definite political value to him. It testified emphatically, to a valiant past. Its embellishments also testified to his exalted station. Maybe, it helped to keep in good humor the "principal inhabitants" who had gathered at the fort to receive him, and who stood before him bareheaded, awaiting his pleasure, while he remained covered "as if he were the Czar of Muscovy." Though he eventually, with brutal frankness, told them that he would make any man "a foot shorter" who dared to appeal to Holland against his rulings as Governor, they may have taken his words as but an indication of his basic honesty, and have been glad to cast in their lot with him, who at the worst was at least displacing Kieft. Stuyvesant promised to govern them "as a father his children, for the advantage of the chartered West India Company and these burghers and this land." He assured them that "justice should rule," but at the same time pointed out that the directorship held "exclusive privileges," which he was determined to exercise. He frowned upon "every expression of republican sentiment." Accompanying Stuyvesant were Lubbertus van Dincklagen, his Vice-Director, and Henry van Dyke, his Schout-Fiscaal. Cornelis van Tienhoven, who had been Secretary to Kieft, was continued as Provincial Secretary by Stuyvesant. He also appointed an English secretary, George Baxter, who had acted in a similar capacity, since 1642, in Kieft's administration, and was evidently a necessary official, seeing that "none of the company's officers could tolerably read or write in the English language," and that the English-speaking settlers in the Dutch province were ever increasing, both in numbers and restlessness. Another Englishman, Captain Bryan Newton, was given a place on Stuyvesant's Council, as was also Dr. Johannes la Montagne, the original and sole member of Governor Kieft's original Council. The new Governor soon organized a court of justice to consider the charges against those who had attacked the outgoing administration. Stuyvesant did not bring the culpable ex-Governor to justice, but those who had brought his misdeeds to light, Patroon Cornelis Melyn and Joachim Pieter Kuyter, the leaders of the case of the people against Kieft, were arraigned and tried, presumably before Vice-Director van Dincklagen and "others of the Company's officers," and found guilty "of grave offense for presuming to attack one in authority over them." Both were heavily fined and banished from the province. It was decreed that they, as prisoners, should sail for Holland in the very ship upon which Kieft, triumphant and complacent, would depart, vindicated with the dignity and courtesy that one of his high station might expect to enjoy at the end of a worthy term of service. With him went his Schout, Van der Huygens, and also the Dominie, Everardus Bogardus. In the same ship, the "Princess," was deposited Kieft's ill-gotten wealth. All were lost in the wrecking of the ship off the rocky coast of Wales; at least, all but Melyn and Kuyter, the prisoners. They managed to reach the shore and eventually crossed to Holland, whence they ultimately returned to New Netherland vindicated, their sentences having been quashed, much to the annoyance of Stuyvesant. The new Director-General, as has been stated, organized a court of justice, soon after he reached New Netherland. It was apparently his Council, and, as formerly, it was to be the Supreme Court, the tribunal of last resort, in the province. As before, it was also to be much under the control of the Governor. The Vice-Director became presiding judge, but it seems he had to give way whenever the Director-General wished to preside.[15] Stuyvesant probably would have liked to have only one court, and that absolutely under his governing hand, but the province was growing, especially in independent thought. The people were getting to the point where they did not look upon their Governor as their patriarch. They demanded a share in the government, and especially in the administration of local justice and in the making of laws. It seems possible that Stuyvesant had a secret understanding with the Company's managing board, and that the expressed wish of the Company, in the matter of popular government and the betterment of governmental processes under which the provincials should live, was to be borne in mind by Stuyvesant only after the Company's commercial interests had been safeguarded. Unfortunately, Stuyvesant seems to have felt that the people's interests and the Company's could not be merged. "That the people should rule themselves was as good as to say that the horse should loll in the carriage while his master toiled between the shafts" was his opinion. He did, however, not have absolute control, and neither did the Company. The States General, though not very strong at that time, had, of course, a certain degree of authority over all the provincial governments, and it was their wish to establish or to get the Company through its provincial Director to establish a governmental system like that of the home provinces in New Netherland. The people's leaders were aware of this, and ere many months had passed Stuyvesant found that the popular demand could not be ruthlessly put aside. So, in September, 1647, four months after he had landed, he permitted the people to organize and establish a Board of Nine Men. At least, he permitted the people to choose eighteen men from whom he himself would select nine to constitute the Board of Nine Men.[16] This board was to have some legislative authority. At least, it was to be consulted in matters of taxation, and upon any civil matters it was to hold advisory capacity. Its most definite function, however, was to be magisterial. The board was to be an inferior court, to the extent that the nine members were to form three groups of three, and attend in group rotation all sessions of court, "and consider all civil cases which might be referred to them as arbitrators." Stuyvesant evidently did not intend that the board should long remain a people's body, for his plan did not include popular elections. Retiring members were to nominate their successors, "with the aid of the Director," the latter having the power to dissolve the board at his discretion. In time, no doubt, Stuyvesant expected the official class to have a majority on the board, and so be quite amenable to his will. The first Board of Nine Men consisted of three "merchants," three "citizens," and three "farmers."[17] They took office in September, 1647, and soon proved that they were truly representative of the people. They would not become mere puppets. If they were looked upon by the people as their representatives, they would see to it that the interests of the people were made paramount, or they would resign. Stuyvesant, on the other hand, was determined that the board should be subservient to his will, or should not exist. That the board was soon dissolved indicates that its members refused to bow to the Governor. Another Board of Nine Men took office in 1649,[18] but the Governor was no more successful with the new body than he had been with the old. Indeed, he soon became so angry that he arrested its president and dissolved the body.[19] This action was taken after he had discovered that the board had dared to think of bringing his own administration under investigation by the home authorities. Van der Donck, Patroon of Colendonck and president of the Board of Nine Men, had been keeping a journal of certain investigations he had been making of the state of the people and of the actions of the Director-General, and this journal was to be the basis of a remonstrance to the States General. Stuyvesant seized the journal and cast its compiler in jail. On March 15, 1649, his Council, acting as a Court of Impeachment, expelled Van der Donck from membership of the Board of Nine Men.
By its terms (the charter of the Dutch West India Company) the will of the company was supreme, and all power was vested in the Director-General and Council, who were to be governed by the Dutch Roman law, the imperial statutes of Charles V, and the edicts, resolutions and customs of the United Netherlands. . . . This shows the genesis of Dutch government. The basis of it all was the customs of the fathers. The superstructure was a union of the Roman, German and Dutch municipal systems. The Dutch were governed by a league of commercial guilds, represented in the States-General in order that they might protect the organized interests of each class of people; not that they might invade the rights of others. This principle of conserving the ancient and vested rights of all the people as against any portion thereof, even a majority, and as against government itself, was the foundation principle of the province as of the mother country, and distinguished it in the beginning from either of the English colonies. . . .In the last analysis, the English system gave the government absolute power over all subjects. Whoever controlled the government worked their sovereign pleasure with all people, whether such control was held by Crown or Parliament. . . . The Dutch system, while holding the elements of feudal liability to tyranny, held them in strict subservience to Law, and guarded against abuses by conferring no power without accompanying it with an adequate safeguard against its arbitrary exercise. In England it was either the Crown or Parliament making laws at their own pleasure; in the Netherlands government was a commercial agent, while the laws and customs of the fathers were administered and justice secured by magistrates nominated by the people. While the Dutch form was feudal, its spirit was municipal. . . . The Dutch gave the New Netherland in feudal shell, a paternal guardianship of liberty regulated by law. The English parliamentary system vested supreme power in the legislative majority. The Virginia system placed the Legislature under the control of a royal master. The New England system (except in the Plymouth Colony) rendered the Church supreme. . . . . The Dutch made the Judiciary supreme, and denied all arbitrary power, either in people or parliament, in civil rulers or religious teachers and sought to fortify the people against its exercise. Thus the feudal shell of Dutch government enclosed the seed of liberty, ready in fullness of time to germinate in most perfect form. Constitutional History of the Colony and State of New York, New York Civil List, 1888 ed., pp. 22-26. Footnote 2: He is charged specially with enforcing and maintaining the placards, ordinances, resolutions and military regulations of the High Mightinesses, the States General, and protecting the rights, domains, and jurisdiction of the company, and executing their orders as well in as out of court, without favor or respect to individuals; he was bound to superintend all prosecutions and suits, but could not undertake any action on behalf of the company, except by order of the council; nor arraign or arrest any person upon a criminal charge, unless upon information previously received, or unless he caught him in flagrante delicto. In taking information, he was bound to note as well those points which made for the person as those which supported the charge against him, and after trial he was to see to the proper and faithful execution of the sentence, pronounced by the judges who, in indictments carrying with them loss of life and property, were not to be less than five in number. He was, moreover, specially obliged to attend to the commissions arriving from the company's outposts, and to vessels arriving from, or leaving for, Holland, to inspect their papers and superintend the loading and discharging of their cargoes, so that smuggling might be prevented; and all goods introduced, except in accordance with the company's regulations were at once to be confiscated. He was to transmit to the directors in Holland copies of all information taken by him, as well as all sentences pronounced by the court, and no person was to be kept long in prison at the expense of the company without special cause, but all were to be prosecuted as expeditiously as possible before the Director and Council.- O'Callaghan's "History of New Netherland," Vol. I, p. 102. Footnote 3: No number 3 footnote in original. Footnote 4: While the charter was under consideration in the meetings of the Company at Amsterdam, two of the directors (Samuel Godyn and Samuel Bloemmaert) purchased of the Indians a tract of land on Delaware Bay, extending from Cape Henlopen (the southern boundary of New Netherland) northward full thirty miles, and two miles in the interior. This purchase was ratified by the company when the charter was issued. Very soon afterwards, Kiliaen van Rensselaer purchased a large tract of the natives on the upper navigable waters of the Hudson River; and Michael Paauw, another. director, secured by the same means a large tract in New Jersey at the mouth of the river opposite Manhattan, and all of Staten Island. This adroit management of wide-awake directors, in securing the best lands in the province as to situation-who "helped themselves by the cunning trick of merchants"-provoked jealousy and ill will among their fellow directors, which was finally allayed by admitting others into partnership with them.- Lossing. Footnote 5: Invested as well by the Roman law as by the charter, with the chief command and lower jurisdiction, the Patroon became empowered to administer civil and criminal justice in person, or by deputy, within his colonie; to appoint local officers and magistrates; to erect courts and take cognizance of all crimes committed within his limits; to keep a gallows, if such were required, for the execution of malefactors, subject, however, to the restriction that if such gallows happened by any accident to fall, pending an execution, a new one could not be erected, unless for the purpose of hanging another criminal. The right to inflict punishment of minor severity was necessarily included in that which authorized capital convictions, and accordingly we have several instances throughout the record of the local court, of persons who had, by breaking the law, rendered themselves dangerous to society, or obnoxious to the authorities, having been banished from the colonie, or condemned to corporal chastisement, fine, or imprisonment, according to the grade of the offense. In civil cases, all disputes between man and man, whether relating to contracts, titles, possessions or boundaries; injuries to property, person or character; claims for rent, and all other demands between the Patroon and his tenants, were also investigated and decided by these courts; from the judgment of which, in matters affecting life and limb, and in suits where the sum in litigation exceeded twenty dollars, appeals lay to the Director-General and the Council at Fort Amsterdam. But the local authorities, it must be added, were so jealous of this privilege that they obliged the colonists on settling within their jurisdiction to promise not to appeal from any sentence of the local tribunal. The laws in force here were, as in other sections of New Netherland, the civil code, the enactments of the States General, the ordinances of the West India Company and of the Director-General and Council, when properly published within the colonie, and such rules and regulations as the Patroon and his co-directors, or the local authorities, might establish and enact. The government was vested in a general court which exercised executive, legislative, or municipal and judicial functions, and which was composed of two commissaries (gecommit teerden), two councillors styled indiscriminately by raets-personen, gerechts-personen or raeds-vrienden, or schepenen, and who answered to modern justices of the peace. Adjoined to this court were a colonial secretary, a sheriff, or schout-fiscaa1, and a geracht-bode, court messenger or constable. Each of these received small compensation, either in the shape of a fixed salary or fees, the commissaries and magistrates (receiving) fifty, one hundred or two hundred guilders annually, according to their standing; and the court messenger one hundred and fifty, with the addition of trifling fees for the transcript and service of papers. The magistrates of the colonie held office for a year, the court appointing their successors from among the other settlers, or continuing those already in office at the expiration of their term of service, as it deemed proper. The most important functionary attached to this government was, as throughout the other part of the country, the schout-fiscaal, who, in discharge of his public functions, was bound by instructions received from the Patroon and co-directors, similar in tenor to those given to the same officer at the Manhatans. No man in the colonie was to be subject to loss of life or property unless by the sentence of a court composed of five persons, and all who were under accusation were entitled to a speedy and impartial trial. The Public Prosecutor was particularly enjoined not to receive presents or bribes, nor to be interested in trade or commerce, either directly or indirectly; and in order that he might be attentive to the performance of his duties, and thoroughly independent, he was secured a fixed salary, a free house, and all fines amounting to ten guilders ($4) or under, besides the third part of all forfeitures and amendes over that sum were his perquisites.-O'Callaghan's "History of New Netherland," Vol. I, 320-322. Footnote 6: Samuel Godyn, Samuel Bloemmaert, Michael Paauw, Cornelis Melyn, Adriaen van der Donck, Meyndert Meyndertse van Keren, Hendrick van der Capelle, Cornelis van Werkhoven. Footnote 7: The first step to organize a court in the colony of Rensselaerswyck was taken by the Patroon on July 1, 1632, when he appointed Rutger Hendricksz van Soest schout, and empowered him to administer the oath of schepen to Roelof Jansz van Masterland, Gerrit Theusz de Reus, Maryn Adriensz, Brant Peelen, and Laurens Laurensz, all of whom, with the exception of de Reus, were then residing in the colony. The Patroon issued instructions for the schout and schepens on July 20, 1632, and sent these to the Colony by his nephew, Wouter van Twiller, the newly-appointed director-general of New Netherland, who also took with him a silver-plated rapier with baldric and a hat with plumes for the schout, and black hats with silver bands for the schepens. Van Twiller sailed from the island of Texel on the ship Soutberg shortly after July 27, 1632 and arrived at New Amsterdam in April of the following year. He had with him a power of attorney from Kiliaen van Rensselaer to administer the oath of schout to Rutger Hendricksz van Soest, but as far as can be judged from the meagre information that is available did not administer the oath. Conditions just then were not favorable for the erection of a court in the colony. Differences had arisen in the board of directors of the Dutch West India Company in regard to the fur trade, and efforts were made by those who were opposed to the agricultural colonization of New Netherland to deprive the Patroons of the privileges granted to them by the Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions. Van Rensselaer complains of this in a memorial presented by him to the Assembly of the XIX on November 25, 1633, in which he makes the statement that in July, 1632, he had people and animals enough to start five farms, but that his efforts were frustrated because the Company refused to let him have carpenters, smiths, and other mechanics, and also declined to furnish his people with supplies, in exchange for grain and dairy products. Taking this statement with the facts that Rutger Hendricksz' term of service as a farmer was about to expire and that his name does not appear in the records of the colony after 1634, it seems safe to conclude that when Van Twiller arrived in New Netherland Rutger Hendricksz had determined to leave the colony and declined to accept the position of schout. Van Twiller wrote to the Patroon and recommended Brant Aertsz van Slichtenhorst for the post, but before his letter was received the Patroon had already made other arrangements, and entered into a contract with Jacob Albertsen Planck, whereby the latter was engaged as schout for the period of three years. Planck received his instructions on April 27, 1634, and soon after sailed for the colony, where he arrived on or just before the 12th of August. His instructions provided that on his arrival in New Netherland he was to present himself before Director Van Twiller, and to request him to administer to him the oath of office, "instead of to Rutger Hendricksz, according to his previous power of attorney, and furthermore that, at the first opportunity, he was to choose three schepens from among the fittest of the colonists, so that he could hold court, if need be. Presumably, therefore, the court of the colony (of Rensselaerswyck) was first organized after August 12, 1634.-See Preface of Minutes of the Court of Rensselaerswyck, 1648-1652, translated by State Archivist A. J. F. Van Laer (University of State of N. Y., publishers, 1922). Footnote 8: The court as organized (in 1648) by Van Slichtenhorst consisted at first of four and afterwards of five persons, of whom two were designated as gecommitteerden, or commissioners, and two, or afterwards three, are in the record indiscriminately referred to as raden, raetspersonen, gerachtspersonen or rechtsvrienden. The duties of the gecommitteerden were primarily of an administrative nature, while those of the raden contrary to what one might expect from the title, seem to have been chiefly judicial. The gecommitteerden represented the patroon and acted under definite instructions from the guardians. The raden, on the other hand, were appointed by the director, but represented the colonists, it being at that time held sufficient if persons who were to represent others were chosen from among them, so as to represent their class. The only requirement was that they should not be in the patroon's service. Goossen Gerritsz made a point of this on October 22, 1648 when, as one of the reasons for his being unable to accept the office of gerachtspersonen he stated that he was "not yet on a free basis with the patroon." The object was, however, overruled, so that he was obliged to serve. The members of the court were as a rule chosen from among the most prominent residents of the colony. . . . . The proceedings of the court presided over by Van Slichtenhorst cover the period from April 12, 1648, to April 15, 1652. They form the most important source for the history of the colony (of Rensselaerswyck) during that period, but unfortunately add but little to what is known from other sources in regard to the outstanding event of that period, namely, the controversy between Van Slichtenhorst and General Peter Stuyvesant, regarding the jurisdiction of the territory around Fort Orange, which forms one of the dramatic episodes of the history of New Netherland. As is well known, this controversy had its origin in the claim made by the patroon, as early as 1632, that "all the lands lying on the west side of the river, from Beyren Island to Moeneminnes Castle" . . . . "even including the place where Fort Orange stands," had been bought and paid for by him. The Dutch West India Company on the other hand maintained that the territory of the fort, which was erected several years before the land of the colony was purchased from the Indians, belonged to the Company, and consequently was not included in the patroon's purchase. The question had remained unsettled during the lifetime of Kiliaen van Rensselaer, but came to an issue when Van Slichtenhorst, soon after his arrival in the colony, began to issue permits for the erection of houses in the immediate vicinity of the fort. Stuyvesant objected to the erection of these houses, on the ground that they endangered the security of the fort, and ordered the destruction of all buildings within range of cannon shot, a distance at first reckoned at 600 geometrical paces of five feet to the pace, but which was afterwards reduced to 150 Rhineland roda (equal to 12.36 English feet). The order called forth a vigorous protest from Van Slichtenhorst, who regarded it as an unwarranted invasion of the patroon's rights; and he proceeded with the erection of the buildings. A counter protest followed, and in 1651 charges were brought against Van Slichtenhorst, who was summoned to appear before the director-general and council at Manhattan, and there detained for four months. The controversy continued after his return but was definitely settled on April 10, 1652, when a proclamation, drawn up by the director-general and council of New Netherland on the 8th of that month, was issued in the colony for the erection of a separate court for Fort Orange, independent of that of the colony. The erection of this court was a serious blow to the colony of Rensselaerswyck, from which it never fully recovered. By virtue of this proclamation, the main settlement of the colony, which was known as the Fuyck, but which in the court record is generally referred to as the byeenwoninge, or hamlet, was taken out of the jurisdiction of the patroon and erected into an independent village by the name of Beverswyck, which afterwards became the city of Albany. As a result of this action, the jurisdiction of the court of the colony was thereafter confined to the sparsely settled outlying districts of the colony, so that the cases which came before it must have been very few. No consecutive judicial record of the colony after April 15, 1652, has been preserved, but entries in the minutes of the court of Beverswyck indicate that the court of the colony continued to hold sessions. Van Slichtenhorst protested vigorously against the erection of the court of Fort Orange and Beverswyck, and with his own hands tore down the proclamation which had been posted on the house of the patroon. For this he was arrested on April 18, 1652, and taken to Manhattan, where he was detained until August, 1653. With his arrest, Van Slichtenhorst's administration came to a close. On July 24, 1652, he was succeeded as director by Jan Baptist van Rensselaer, and as officer of justice by Gerard Swart, so that thereafter the two functions were no longer combined in one person. The latter had been commissioned schout on April 24, 1652, and continued to hold this position until 1665, when, by order of Governor Richard Nicolls, the court of the colony was consolidated with that of Fort Orange and the village of Beverswyck. The year 1665, therefore, marks the end of the first local court that was organized in the province of New Netherland, outside of New Amsterdam.-See Minutes of the Court of Rensselaerswyck, 1648-1652, by A. J. F. Van Laer, published by the University of State of N. Y., 1922, pp. 16-19. Footnote 9: Van Twiller had a difficult task. His inertia in certain dramatic situations was rather the demand of the national state of politics than the manifestation of craven characteristics in himself. Europe was in a state of war, and the international situation was delicate. To deal resolutely with some colonial matters might have endangered the offensive and defensive alliance between England and the United Provinces of the Netherlands. Van Twiller was a comparatively young man when he arrived in the province as Director-General; it is therefore all the more creditable that he curbed his youthful spirit and preserved a pacific attitude. That he had the confidence of his uncle, Patroon Van Rensselaer, is indicated by his later responsibility, that of guardian of the Rensselaer estate and heirs, from about 1644.-Williams in Courts and Lawyers of N. Y., Chap. IX (1925). Footnote 10: The first regular physician who came to New Amsterdam and stayed was the Huguenot Johannes La Montagne, who in 1637 came from Leyden. He had received his degree from the University of Leyden and settled down to practice there. He married Rachel de Forrest, whose family emigrated to New Netherlands-to be the ancestors of our New York de Forrests-and after her death Dr. La Montagne was tempted to follow them. (He) was born in 1595, at Saintonge, on the Bay of Biscay. His family were among the first Huguenot refugees to Holland. As Jean Mousnier de la Montagne he registered as a student of medicine at the University of Leyden, November 19, 1619 . . . . we can trace his connection with the university as student and probably lecturer, off and on for some seventeen years until 1636. . . . It was not until the following year (1637) that with his wife and four children, he arrived in New Netherland.-Walsh in History of Medicine in New York (1917), Vol. I, pp. 19-20. See also Medical chapter of this work. Footnote 11: In 1638 William Kieft was appointed governor. This governor was a grasping, arbitrary narrow-minded man, full of his own importance, with a restless activity that was never turned in any right direction, or applied to the accomplishment of any wise purpose. During the nine years that he mismanaged the colony, he retained in his hands the sole administration of justice. In obedience to his instructions, it was necessary that he should keep up the form of a council, but that he might enjoy exclusive control, he reduced it to one member, reserving two votes for himself.-Brodhead's "History of New York"; also Daly's "State of Jurisprudence During the Dutch Period"; "History of Bench and Bar of N. Y.," p. 8. Footnote 12: Board of Twelve Men in 1641-David Pietersen de Vries, president; Jacques Bentyn, Maryn Andriaensen, Jan Jansen Damen, Hendrick Jansen, Jacob Stoffelsen, Abraham Pietersen Molenaar, Frederick Luhbertsen, Jochem Pietersen Kuyter, Gerrit Dircksen, Joris Rapelje, and Abram Planck. Footnote 13: And whereas the Commonalty at our request appointed and instructed these twelve men to communicate their good council and advice in the subject of the murder of the late Claes Cornelissen Swits, which was committed by the Indians; this now being completed by them, we do hereby thank them for the trouble they have taken and shall with God's help make use of their rendered written advice in its own time. The said Twelve Men shall now, henceforth, hold no further meetings, as the same tends to a dangerous consequence, and to the great injury both of the country and of our authority. We therefore hereby forbid them calling any manner of assemblage or meeting except by our express order, on pain of being punished as disobedient subjects.-See "Documents Relative to the Colonial History of New York," Vol. I, 203. Footnote 14: The Commissioners of the Assembly of the XIX of the General Privileged West India Company acted upon this report (of the Chamber of Accounts) in instructions given to the Director and Council under date of July 7, 1645. The Council was to consist of "the Director as President, his Vice, and the Fiscal." In cases in which the Advocate-Fiscal appeared as Attorney-General, either civil or criminal, the military commandant was to sit in his stead; and if the charge was criminal, three persons were to be associated from the commonalty of the district where the crime or act was committed. The Supreme Council was the sole body "by whom any occurring affairs relating to police, justice, militia, the dignity and just rights of the company" were to be "administered and decided." That is, it was an executive, administrative and judicial body, but possessed no legislative functions, and had no power to alter or abridge the ancient rights of the people. The gathering of the inhabitants "in the manner of towns, villages, and hamlets, as the English are in the habit of doing," was to be aided by all means in their power, and the privileges (heretofore noted) as being granted in the Freedoms and the amplifications thereof" were continued; and, further, "inasmuch as the respective colonists have been, allowed, by the Freedoms, to delegate one or two persons to give information to the Director and Council concerning the state and condition of their colonies, the same is hereby confirmed." The recommendation of a semi-annual assembly, therefore, was not confirmed.-"Constitutional History of the Colony of New York," "New York Civil List," 1888 ed., p. 33. Footnote 15: Immediately after his arrival, Stuyvesant established a court of justice, of which van Dincklagen was made the presiding judge, having associated with him occasionally others of the company's officers. The new tribunal was empowered to decide "all cases whatsoever," subject only to the restriction of asking the opinion of the governor upon all momentous questions, who reserved to himself the privilege, which he frequently exercised, of presiding in the court, whenever he thought proper to do so.-Justice Chas. P. Daly in the "State of Jurisprudence during the Dutch Period," quoting Breeden Raedt, extracts in 4 Doc. Hist. N. Y., 69; and Albany Records 20, 28, 29, 38, 56 to 61. Footnote 16: The new Director proceeded with great vigor to restore the disordered government. He promulgated municipal regulations, and stringent enactments against smuggling; established customs duties on wines and liquors and on beaver skins. He ordered an election of eighteen men from Manhattan, Breukelen, Amersfoort, and Pavonia, from whom he selected nine as "Interlocutors and Trustees of the Commonalty," or "Tribunes" of the people. These Nine Men were to hold courts of arbitration weekly, and were to give advice to the Director and Council on all matters submitted to them. They received their appointment September 25, 1647. Three were taken from the merchants, three from the burghers, and three from the farmers. Thus was preserved and continued the system of giving representation to the various vocations which formed the groundwork of municipal organization in the Netherlands. The tribunal was of very ancient date. Indeed, in its essence it was a method of adjudication which prevailed in one form or another from time immemorial; of which the village elders were the most ancient type. The "Tribunal of Well Born Men," or "Men's Men," had existed for centuries in the Netherlands. It originally had separate criminal and civil jurisdiction, the first exercised by thirteen and the second by seven men. These courts were afterwards united, the number of members being thirteen until 1614, when it was altered to "Nine Well-Born Men." This institution was now introduced, as a form of government for the capital of New Netherland and surrounding villages. It was provided that six should annually retire, and that twelve men were to be referred to the Director, with the Nine who had served during the year, from whence the new board was to be selected. The Board met on the 15th of November, when the Directors communicated his views by written message, in consequence of illness. They consented to appropriations for schools and for completing the church; but declined to repair the fortifications, on the ground that, as the company had agreed to incur expenses of that class, the money for that purpose ought to come out of the funds derived from customs and excise duties and from tolls paid at the company's mills. This board therefore, was also a legislative body, in the ancient sense; that is, a body without whose consent taxes could not be lawfully assessed nor vested rights modified.-New York Civil List and Constitutional History of the Colony of New York, 1000 edition, pp. 33-34. Footnote 17: Board of Nine Men, 1647-Augustine Heermans, Arnoldus van Hardenburg, Govert Loockermans, merchants; Jan Jansen Danm, Jacob Wolfertsen van Cowenhoven, Hendrick Hendricksen Kip, citizens; Michael Jansen, Jan Evertsen Bout, and Thomas Hall, farmers. Footnote 18: Board of Nine Men, 1649-Adriaen van der Donck, president; Aug. Heerrnan, Arnoldus van Hardenburgh, Govert Loockermans, Oloff Stevensen van Cortlandt, Hendrick Hendricksen Kip, Michael Jansen, Elbert Elbertsen (Stoothof), Jacob Wolfertsen van Cowenhoven. Board of Nine Men, 1650-Oloff Stevensen van Cortlandt, president; Augustine Heerman, Jacob van Cowenhoven, Elbert Elbertsen, Hendrick Hendricksen Kip, Michad Jansen, Thomas Hall, Govert Loockermans, J. Evertsen Bout. Board of Nine Men, 1652-David Prevost, William Beeckman, Jacobus van Curler, Allard Anthony, Isaac de Forest, Arent van Hattem, Joachim Pietersen Kuyter, Paulus Leendertsen van der Grist, Peter Cornelissen, miller. Footnote 19: Within two years the first Board of Nine Men became dissatisfied and uncompliant, and another was appointed. This second board proved as unmanageable as the first, and succeeded in doing what the first had attempted to do without success-in sending a deputation to The Hague to present to the States General a statement of the grievances of the colonists. . . . Of this commission, Adriaen van de Donck was the head, as he was probably the author of the Vertoogh, or Remonstrance, presented to their High Mightinesses. This important measure was not carried out without a struggle with the imperious Director. When the Nine Men proposed it, they asked permission of Stuyvesant that they might confer with their constituents in a popular meeting to be called to consider the condition of the colony, whether it would approve of sending a delegation to Holland, and to provide means to defray the expense. The Director refused permission, saying that any such communication with the people must be made through him, and his directions followed. The next best thing the Nine Men could do was to go from house to house to consult with their constituents privately; and Van der Donck was appointed to keep a record of these private conferences. Stuyvesant, exasperated at the defiance of his authority, went to Van der Donck's chamber, in his absence, seized all his papers and the next day arrested and imprisoned their author.-Bryant's "History of U. S.," II, 131.
|
 The Historical Society of the Courts of the State of New York |
