"History of New York State 1523-1927"
^{(Click Here to view entire document in PDF format)}

Nevertheless, the Governor lost ground with the people by this undignified public action, and the suspicion of a few that Stuyvesant had been using his office for his own enrichment rapidly spread until it became general. Whether the Director feared that his treatment of Van der Donck might injure his own case before the States General, or that the term of imprisonment had been fully served by the Patroon of Colendonck is not clear; but the record shows that the latter was soon released, and that although he and others again pursued their former purpose, and even more openly prepared the Vertoogh, or Remonstrance, against the Governor's arrogant despotism in office, they were not molested. Stuyvesant no doubt knew that the Vice-Director and the Schout-Fiscaal were openly abetting the Board of Nine Men in their scathing condemnation of himself. He probably knew its exact wording, for the drafting of the Vertoogh van Nieuw-Nederlandt was not done in a corner but in the light of day"; yet he permitted the instrument to be signed, and sanctioned the sailing of three of the signers with it, for delivery to the States General. Two years earlier, Stuyvesant had declared, after sentencing Melyn and Kuyter: "If I were persuaded you would appeal from my sentences or divulge them, I would have your heads cut off, or have you hanged on the highest tree in New Netherland." Now, with his administration already discredited in the records of the States General, he permitted further condemnation to be heaped upon his head. Possibly Stuyvesant sensed the changing of the times. Most governments in Europe at that time were trembling lest the republican spirit which, in that year, 1649, had reached such intensity in England as to result in the decapitation of the King, might spread to the Continent, and sweep away all monarchical institutions and despotic governments. Europe was far from New Netherland, of course, and the Government was far also from aid in case the provincials should inhale the republican air, which might cross the sea quicker than soldiers could. Stuyvesant probably did not lack an experienced soldier's quick recognition of a military situation, and, with a soldier's sense of the greater importance of fending off near dangers before making dispositions to meet those that are still distant, he had probably decided that the New Netherland situation forbade a display of arrogant despotism such as had been his customary course of late years. Whatever may have been his reasons, he took no action to stop Van der Donck and two others from sailing with the Vertoogh. Neither did he detain Melyn, though he must have realized that his own case would be bettered if by some means Melyn could be kept in New Netherlands while Van Tienhoven, Stuyvesant's personal attorney, was presenting the Governor's side of the case to the States General.

However, the republican spirit did not become ominous in New Netherland, and the European situation soon became so confused that the States General lost much of its prestige; so much indeed, that the Amsterdam directors of the West India Company, in 1650, openly challenged the right of the States General to issue a "Provisional Order" recalling Stuyvesant and interfering with the government of their proprietary province. They averred that the action of the States General was "a violation of the privileges granted in the charter" of the General Privileged West India Company. It is believed that they advised Stuyvesant to ignore the Provisional Order. At all events that doughty administrator manifested no perturbation upon receipt of it. Indeed, he said, after reading the order: "I shall do as I please." Certainly he did not return to Holland, neither did he act in the matter of organizing a schepens court in New Amsterdam until 1653, by which time other great events had occurred to influence the local and home situations politically.

Van der Donck, upon arrival in Holland in 1649, appeared before the States General, praying to be heard. He laid the case of the people before Their High Mightinesses "at great length," and with great effect. The papers were referred to a committee; and this committee, in due course, on April 11, 1650, reported to the States General. The report favored the people, recommended a liberal and popular policy. Grievances were to be remedied; Stuyvesant was to be recalled; the Patroons were to be "obliged to settle their colonists in the form of villages"; the Nine Men were to have increased judicial responsibilities, eventually giving way to the Schepens Court in New Amsterdam; the Governor's Council thereafter was to be more representative of all classes of provincials; a well-defined judicial system was to be established as soon as possible; and matters of taxation and expenditure of public money were to be considered by a legislative body in which all classes were to have a part.

Van der Donck improved the situation by publishing his Vertoogh in Holland, which paper aroused a strong popular feeling. It also impressed the States General, who were insistent that reform be carried out by the West India Company. The latter had at first been ill at ease, the Amsterdam directors writing to Stuyvesant: "The name of New Netherland was scarcely ever mentioned before, and now it would seem as if heaven and earth were interested in it." The Company soon recovered itself, however, and, taking advantage of the temporary weakness of the States General, resolved to do as it pleased in governing New Netherland, which to the Company represented but a commercial investment. Still, in those grave, restless, unstable times the political situation was apt to change so completely and rapidly that what might be good policy in one year might be disastrous in the next. The States General had brought Holland triumphantly out of the Thirty Years' War in 1648, and ended the eighty years of strife with Spain by concluding a separate treaty of peace with the latter, much against the wish of the Stadtholder, William the Second.^[20] His opposition during the next two years took from the States General much of the prestige it had gained in 1648. However, he himself passed from power and all things earthly in November, 1615, succumbing to an attack of smallpox at a time when Holland seemed in grave danger of losing the independence that eighty years of bloodshed and incessant war had won for it. With his death the power of the States General again became definite, which fact the West India Company realized. So, recognizing the danger that lay in flouting the States General any longer, the College of the Nineteen of the West India Company bowed to the higher authority of the General Government, and in 1652 instructed Governor Stuyvesant to bring a municipal form of government into effect in New Amsterdam, in accordance with the seventeenth clause of the Provisional Order of 1650.

This order was made less objectionable to the Director-General by the cancellation of that part of it which called for his own recall. Again, the home situation controlled the provincial. The seas were unsafe at that time, England, under Cromwell, having, it seems, determined to cripple the maritime power of Holland. In case of English victory at sea there was, of course, always the possibility that hostilities would spread to the colonies; and in America the Dutch were not nearly as strong as the English. So it behooved the States General not to withdraw a good soldier-which Stuyvesant apparently was-from New Netherland, while there seemed a possibility that his military experience might be needed.

Life in the province now became less strained, and the people looked forward hopefully to better government. The possibility of danger from the English colonies seemed to trouble them less than the continuance under the old order of government. During the years in which the Company and its provincial agent, Stuyvesant, had flouted the States General, life had been generally uncomfortable for all classes in New Netherland-for the Governor as well as for the governed. Stuyvesant had never gone abroad during those years without an escort of four halberdiers. True, he had used those soldiers, in some instances, to arrest those who had displeased or opposed him-among those arrested being his own Vice-Director, Van Dincklagen^[21]-but the halberdiers had probably been especially instructed to exercise unceasing vigilance, lest harm come to their chief. If Stuyvesant thought that others might return evil for evil, he must have been quite uneasy, for his treatment of some had been especially vindictive; he made life so intolerable for Patroon Melyn that the latter was at last forced to leave the provinces altogether.^[22] Possibly, the Director-General's treatment of Van Dincklagen is explained by the latter's sympathy for Melyn.^[23]

Stuyvesant, apparently, was reluctant to bring in the new order. "Pride goes before a fall," but at times seems to hold a man suspended for a long time before the fall comes. The Director-General may not have been pleased that the order for the change had been brought by Van der Donck, his opponent. So he moved slowly. Still, no other course was open to the arrogant Governor, and, therefore, on February 2, 1653, the day of the Feast of Candlemas, Stuyvesant promulgated a decree in the matter.^[24] It was a farcical freedom, however, that his placard offered New Amsterdam. Certainly, popular government was not Stuyvesant's plan, for by the proclamation it was clear that the municipal officers were not to be elected by the people, but by himself. However, the facts that the settlement on Manhattan Island now became the city of New Amsterdam, that it was to have municipal officers, and a municipal court of justice, were changes that probably brought cheer to the less discerning. As a matter of fact, burgher government even in Holland was never truly representative of the commonalty, and the new order in New Amsterdam was probably thankfully received.

The first city magistrates were Arendt van Hattem and Martin Kregeir, burgomasters; Paulus Leendertsen van der Grist, Maximilian van Gheel, Allard Anthony, Pieter Wolfertsen van Couwenhoven, and William Beekman, schepenen. They entered upon their duties earnestly. Their first meeting was on February 6. Schout-Fiscaal Cornelis van Tienhoven was present, the Governor's intention being that he should become city schout, though this did not conform with the Dutch municipal system Jacob Kip was to be secretary, or city clerk. Minutes of that meeting shows that it was merely for organization, and that their regular meetings would begin on the 10th.^[25]

The first regular meeting of the municipal court opened with prayer on the 10th, and it was evident that the burgomasters and schepens intended to administer their judicial and civic offices honestly and justly for the common weal. They seemed to place most importance upon their magisterial functions. They were seemingly almost reluctant to take up their executive responsibilities, for, as a City Council, there was always a danger that they might clash with the vital interests of the Director-General and the Company. Their lot was not enviable, for their administration was attended with more difficulties than would come to burgomasters in the homeland. In Amsterdam, for instance, there were four burgomasters, each of whom was expected to sit in the City Hall in rotation for three months of each year, to deal with executive matters. The duties of the schepens were especially judicial. The schout was president of the court of justice. For municipal business and enactment of ordinances these three bodies would meet together as a "college," and this "college" was dignified by the title of The Lords of the Court of the City of Amsterdam. In New Amsterdam, however, there was but one body for judicial, executive, and legislative purposes, the senior burgomaster presiding over each session of the Court of Schepens. Because of the irregular procedure in making the Schout-Fiscaal (the attorney-general of the province) the City Schout, this highs official did not demand place on the local bench as Presiding Magistrate, which, under the Dutch system would be his right. When, however, in 1660, a separate City Schout was appointed, the latter, Peter Tonnemann, took his rightful place as president of the court, and the burgomasters presided only when the Schout had to appear before the court as public prosecutor.

The first meetings of the burgomasters and schepens were held in the fort, for the reconditioning of the old City Tavern, as the Stadt Huys, could not be completed in time for the first session of February 10, 1653. But from February 24, the court sat fortnightly in the Stadt Huys,^[26] as an inferior court of justice. After the hearing of cases, the members dealt with any executive matters that needed attention. In 1657 the burgomasters established a separate court, meeting on Thursdays for the disposal of executive business, the volume of which was rapidly increasing. It increased so much that they sought sanction to separate the judicial and legislative courts. The burgomasters would have liked to be released from attendance at the schepens court, so that they might give more of their time to the general affairs of the city. The Director-General, however, was unwilling to sanction the change, and the Court of the Schout, Burgomaster, and Schepens was destined to continue as a mixed tribunal until the end of the Dutch period.^[27] At first, Stuyvesant was inclined to interfere in city affairs, but with the passing of years and the increase of other duties and perplexities local affairs were left more and more to the local officials.

Court procedure in the schepens court was simple and summary. The court met on a stated day, at first fortnightly and later weekly. The court messenger, a man of many duties, would summon the adverse party to be present. If the defendant should fail to appear, he would incur the cost of summons and lose the right to object to the jurisdiction of the court. A new citation would be issued, with additional costs, and if the defendant should again fail to appear, he lost the right of making "dilatory exceptions." For the third time he would be cited, and if he should again fail to appear the court would proceed with the case and give judgment, the defendant by his negligence being cut off from all right of appeal. In case the court deemed the presence of the defendant essential, a fourth citation, having the nature of an arrest, would be issued. In most cases, however, the parties cited would appear on the first intimation. The plaintiff would state his case, the defendant would answer; and if a differing fact which the court might deem material should be brought out the court might put either party on oath, and if they were still at variance might require the examination of witnesses. Adjournment would be taken until next court day, when depositions of witnesses before a notary, or given orally before the court, would be considered, testimony being given under oath. In most cases, however, the litigation would be disposed of at the first hearing, without resorting to the oath, or to witnesses. In intricate cases it was the general custom of the magistrates to refer the case to arbitrators, who were always instructed to bring about a reconciliation between litigants, if they could. This practice was not confined merely to accounting disputes; it extended to nearly all classes of cases that could come before the municipal court. The litigants might choose the arbitrators, or they might be appointed by the court. In some cases, one of the magistrates would take the matter in hand and endeavor to reconcile the differences. Failure to do so would bring the case again into court for final disposition.

This method of arbitration was in constant practice in the municipal court, which tribunal might indeed be looked upon as chiefly a Court of Conciliation; "and it is worthy to remark that, though the amount involved was frequently considerable, or the matter in dispute highly important, that appeals to the court from the decisions of the arbitrators were exceedingly rare. Indeed, the first appeal found upon the records was brought by a stranger."^[28]

A more formal mode of procedure was possible, if litigants preferred it. The plaintiff would state his case, and the defendant would require the statement put in writing. He would answer in writing, the plaintiff would reply and the defendant rejoin, which would end the pleadings. Depositions of witnesses would then be taken by a notary, who would put the depositions in writing, making a copy for his own record. When the proofs were complete, they were added to the pleadings, the whole constituting what was called a Memorial. This was submitted to the Court, the parties both having the right to read it, and to cross-examine witnesses, or to reply by the testimony of additional witnesses. The loss of time and cost of this Memorial mode of litigation was such, however, that few litigants resorted to it. Most cases were referred to arbitration, or summarily disposed of by the magistrates at the first hearing. In respect to the rules of evidence, it may be remarked that whenever a paper or document was produced purporting to be in the handwriting of a party, it was taken as his handwriting, unless he denied the fact under oath. Properly kept books of account could be produced in evidence, and they were fully credited if strengthened by oath. "A leading distinction in evidence was also made between what was termed full proof, as where a fact was declared by two credible witnesses as to their own knowledge, or it was proved by a document or written paper; and half proof, as where it rested upon the positive declaration of knowledge of one witness only, under which latter head, as weak but assisting evidence, hearsay was allowed, which, in some instances, as in the case of certain dying declarations, was admitted to the force of full proof. As the determining of a case upon the evidence of witnesses was left to the judges, very discriminating and nice distinctions were made in adjusting or weighing its relative force or value."^[29]

Execution of judgment was considerate. Defendant was usually given fourteen days in which to pay the first half, and a further fortnight in which to discharge the remainder. If then delinquent, the court messenger would go to the defendant, exhibit a copy of the sentence and his wand of office (a bunch of thorns) and demand satisfaction within twenty-four hours. If still delinquent at the expiration of that day of grace, the Court Messenger would take into custody the debtor's movable goods. These he would detain for six days, within which time debtor might redeem them upon payment of judgment and additional costs incurred by delinquency. If not redeemed, notice would be given, on a law day or Sunday, that the goods would be disposed of by auction, publicly, on the next law or market day. The debtor was given a longer term of grace before public sale, in case the levy had been upon his immovable property, e. g., real estate. The manner of selling was somewhat different. Movable property offered for public sale would be primarily set at a figure higher than its real value, and the auctioneer would gradually lower the price until a bid was received. Immovable property sales, however, would begin at a low figure, and the bidding would go on during the life of a candle. He who had offered the highest price when the candle flickered to extinction would become the purchaser.

The civil business of the municipal court was extensive. Actions for the recovery of debt did not constitute the greater part of the business done. There were proceedings by attachments against the property of absconding debtors; actions to recover possession of land, or to determine boundaries; actions for damage in trespassing; action for freight, for seamen's wages, for rent, for breach of promise of marriage, "where the performance of the contract was enforced by imprisonment"; actions for separation between man and wife, "in which the children were equally allotted to the parties and the property divided, after payment of debts," proceedings in bastardy cases, "in which the male was required to give security for the support of the child, and in which both delinquents might be punished by fine or imprisonment"; actions for assault and battery, and for defamation of character, punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, "though the defamer was generally discharged upon making a solemn public recantation before the court, sometimes upon his knees, asking pardon of God and the injured party." Pecuniary compensation for physical injury could not be enforced; neither could damages be had for defamation, though the recantation by the offender was sometimes made more sincere by his tender of material compensation, in money or goods, to the other party.

The municipal court was also a Court of Admiralty, and a Court of Probate. Out of this last responsibility developed the appointment of a burgomaster, as orphanmaster.^[30]

It will thus be realized that the duties of the magistrates of New Amsterdam were many and important. It must be admitted that, generally, the Director-General sought to hedge them about with considerable dignity, though sometimes, in anger, he would belittle them, once referring to them, with scorn, as "the little bench of justice." Whatever his own opinion may have been he wished the populace to recognize that they were dignitaries of consequence in the provincial capital. Each burgomaster was to be addressed as "My Lord." In the court room of the Stadt Huys soft cushions made their seats very comfortable, and on Sunday these cushions would be removed to the church within the fort, for the further comfort of the dignitaries when at their devotions. A pew in the church was set apart for them, and on Sunday they and their families would go early to the Stadt Huys and thence proceed to the church in a procession which was led by the court messenger. In 1657 Stuyvesant sought to add even greater distinction, by introducing the "Burgher Right," by which the populace was divided into two classes, Great and Little Burghers. The former were the landowners and wealthy merchants, and the latter had no right to hold office. However, there were so few who could qualify as Great Burghers that in 1658 the Director-General was at a loss to know how to secure a sufficient number to permit double nominations for burgomaster and schepens to be made. At last, he found it necessary "to invest some of the more prominent citizens with the right, in order to fill the offices."

Stuyvesant was always careful to address the municipal court in most dignified terms. Some of his communications were addressed to the "Honourable, Beloved, Faithful, the Schout, Burgomasters and Schepens of the City of New Amsterdam in New Netherland"; "the Most Worshipful, Most Prudent and Very Discreet, their High Mightinesses, the Burgomasters and Schepens of New Amsterdam"; "Respected and Particularly Dear Friends"; "Most Worshipful, Gracious and Distinguished;" and other gracious terms. When he addressed them merely as "Schout, Burgomasters and Schepens" it would be to convey some reproof. So the Burgomasters and other members of the Court of Schepens may, perhaps, be pardoned for fining one person 1,200 guilders for daring to refer to the magistrates as "mere blockheads." Though they were but poorly paid,^[31] and sometimes risked the anger of the choleric Governor, there were compensations in local prestige and respect which made the office an inviting one. Several of the most successful merchants of New Amsterdam were among those who became magistrates.

New Amsterdam was not the only place that enjoyed burgher government during the Dutch period in New York. At least there were many courts of Schepens, though in executive matters the outside magistrates did not have as wide or as full governmental authority as the magistrates of New Amsterdam enjoyed.^[32] The Long Island communities were grouped for judicial purposes, and extorted from Stuyvesant full municipal rights only by force of agitation, and circumstances which left the Director no other course.

In 1653, the English communities on Long Island became restless, and the Director had to lodge John Underhill in jail for a while, for inciting the citizens "to throw off this tyrannical yoke." He wanted the English towns to recognize Dutch rule no longer. After he was released, he resumed his agitation, with greater boldness. He was again arrested, and this time was banished. Had Stuyvesant not to be very anxious to avoid provoking a collision with the English of neighboring colonies Underhill would probably have been hanged.

The English of the four Long Island towns, Hempstead, Gravesend, Flushing, and Middleburgh (Newtown), grew more and more restless. They flatly refused to be taxed for the cost of completing the fortifications at Fort Manhattan, which was too far away to afford them any protection. They resolved, rather, to take matters into their own hands and defend themselves against raids by Indians and by gangs of lawless white men, who overran the island, and took from the farmers whatever they fancied. In October, 1653, a convention of these four towns was held, and at this meeting it was resolved to call another convention to meet on November 25, in the Stadt Huys at New Amsterdam to further consider what measures would be necessary "for the welfare of the country and its inhabitants and to determine on some wise and salutary measures to arrest these robberies." On the stated day the delegates gathered in the capital much to the perturbation of the Governor. He met the delegates in the Stadt Huys, pointed out that he had not sanctioned their meeting, and declared that the convention was therefore irregular and illegal. He declared that their attitude "smelt of rebellion and of contempt of his high authority and commission." Nevertheless he offered to permit the convention to hold a session at a future time, after having been regularly convened by himself, and after having been expanded to admit delegates from the Dutch towns as well as some of his own council. On December 8 he issued writs for a convention two days later and in due course nineteen representatives, ten of whom were Dutchmen, met. The outcome was the adoption of a Remonstrance. It was drafted by George Baxter, and delivered at once to Stuyvesant. The remonstrants declared that it was "contrary to the first intentions and genuine principles of every well-regulated government that one or more men should arrogate to themselves the exclusive power to dispose at will of the life and property of any individual, and this, by virtue, or under pretense of a law or order which he might fabricate, without the consent, knowledge or approbation of the whole body, their agents or representatives," which, they humbly submitted, was one of their inalienable rights. The remonstrance further recited that "officers and magistrates were appointed in many places contrary to the law of the Netherlands, and several without the consent or nomination of the people," and also that obscure laws, enacted "without the approbation of the country, by the authority alone of the Director and Council, remain obligatory."

The delegates evidently did not mince words. The hot-headed Stuyvesant likewise did not veil his opinion in gentle words. He defended the appointive system. "He would not permit the election of magistrates (to) be left to the rabble." "Your prayer is extravagant," he said. "You might as well claim to send delegates to the Assembly of their High Mightinesses themselves. Directors will never make themselves responsible to subjects."

The delegates continued in session and on the 13th defended their action by an appeal to the "law of nature," by which all men might "associate and convene together for the protection of their liberty and their property." The Governor retorted: "Magistrates alone, and 'not all men' are authorized to assemble to discuss public questions." He would have them realize that he derived his authority "from God and the Company, not from a few ignorant subjects," and that he alone could call "the inhabitants together." Stuyvesant was beside himself with indignation. "Such manners and forms of meetings, such insults, unprovoked affronts and contempt of the supreme authority, the Director and Council were bound to resist, yea to punish," he said. He ordered the delegates to disperse immediately "on pain of an arbitrary correction," and he forbade another gathering. Apparently, he was not sure that he would be obeyed, at least not by the English towns, for he wrote to the Dutch towns urging them not to send delegates to further meetings.

While no further attempt was made to convene, the people did not accept as final Stuyvesant's declaration that "the old laws will stand," that "Directors and Council only shall be the lawmakers," responsible only to the Company, never to the people. The delegates sent a remonstrance^[33] to Holland. Unfortunately, however, they addressed the Company, not the States General; and the Company was unsympathetic, as might be supposed. The Dutch directors upheld Stuyvesant, though they censured him for lack of vigor in handling the "ringleaders of the gang." In their expressed opinion, it was "the height of presumption in the people to protest against the government." They forbade Le Bleeuw, the bearer of the Remonstrance, to return to New Netherland, and they wrote to Stuyvesant ordering him to punish the delegates "as they deserved, and especially those delegates from Gravesend, the English men Baxter and Hubbard."

The latter were warned of their danger and escaped to New England, but two months later returned to Gravesend. They were then arrested actually as they were raising the English flag and reading a proclamation "declaring Gravesend to be subject to the laws of the Republic of England," but instead of being shot or hanged, they were merely held in jail for some months.

The truth was that Stuyvesant was losing control of the situation. The people were not to be denied. So he attempted to stem the tide by promising to extend the system of local magistracies. Indeed, he declared that it had been his purpose to grant Burgher government, or to establish courts of justice, in the villages outside New Amsterdam at the next election. Breuckelen had indeed had a municipal organization since 1646 when, at its own expense and with the approval of Director Kieft, the village had brought into existence a Schepen's Court, "by electing two Schepens, with full judicial powers as at home." In 1654, Stuyvesant authorized the enlargement of the Breuckelen court to four Schepens;' Midwout (Flatbush) was made a municipality, with right to have a court of three Schepens in the same year; and Amersfoort was given like status. In 1661 Boswyck (Bushwick) and New Utrecht were added to time Dutch towns possessing burgher privileges. They were grouped in one district, served by one schout, who lived in Breuckelen and attended court sessions in each of the towns. This group was known as the "Five Dutch Towns," and balanced the five English towns, some of which had long been under a semi-independent government. Jamaica (Rustdorp) was added to the English towns (Hempstead, Gravesend, and Flushing) by the organization of a Court of Schepens with it in 1656; and Newtown (Middleburgh) was given burgher government in 1659, completing the five English towns of that section. New Haarlem was granted local government in 1660, and Bergen-the first municipality in New Jersey- received recognition in 1661. Before Dutch rule finally passed from New Netherland in 1674, by the terms of the Treaty of Westminster, inferior courts were in operation in the following towns and villages outside New Amsterdam: Fort Orange, or Willemstadt (Albany), Schenectady, Wiltwyck, Swaanenburgh, Hurley, Marbletown, Breuckelen, Midwout, Amersfoort, New Utrecht, Boswick, Middleburgh, Flushing, Hempstead, Rustdorp, Oyster Bay, Huntington, Seatalcot, Southampton, Easthampton, Southold, Haarlem, Westchester, Mamaroneck, Fordham, Eastchester, Staten Island.

Thus, out of the seemingly unsuccessful convention so arbitrarily dissolved by Stuyvesant, in 1653, came definite results. "In these, the dosing days of the year 1653, there dropped from the wide-spreading branches of the ancient Aryan oak a wonderfully symmetrical acorn; and from this acorn there sprang, the beautiful American oak under which we are gathered." Certainly, the Cromwellian example of popular government was encouraging to those in New Netherland who felt that the feudal and paternal Dutch systems of government were no longer fitted to the times. As is invariably the case, despotism defeats itself. When Nicolls, at the head of an English expedition, appeared off Manhattan in August, 1664, and demanded the surrender of the fort, and of the whole of New Netherland, Stuyvesant found that even the Dutch of the province would not fight for him. All he could muster for the defense were about 100 mercenaries, the paid soldiers who constituted the garrison of Fort Manhattan; and these disreputable men, it seems, would not fight, but eagerly looked forward to the pillage and booty that might be possible in the confusion that would follow the surrender.

The Dutch inhabitants of New Netherland were no more disloyal to their native land than the English inhabitants were under somewhat similar circumstances in 1673. The Dutch did not rally to save New Netherland from the English in 1664; neither did the English gather round their Governor in 1673, to save New York from the Dutch. The basic reason for this torpid patriotism was the same. There are certain rights of men that cannot be denied them with impunity, and particularly is he aroused to resistance when arbitrary raids are made upon his personal property. Most men of good sense recognize and respect constituted authority that is just and fair; but few men consider such authority fair that does not represent the will and weal of the majority. There is always an inevitable reaction against injustice.

The Dutch rule covers only half a century of American history, and its dominion extended over only a small part of the continent. Moreover, it cannot be said that the government was good. So one must look elsewhere for the reasons why Dutch institutions have made such a positive impression in American life. There are many reasons, some obscure, some clear. Much credit cannot be given to the Dutch Governors and less was earned by their provincial councils,^[34] the provincial Court of Last Resort. The pardons exercised even more feudal sway than the Governors, and the magistrates of their courts probably had the interest of the patron as constantly in mind as the Governor and his council had the interest of the company. In a different classification come the Boards of Twelve, Eight, and Nine Men.^[35] Politically, these boards were of constructive importance, their work leading directly to the introduction of burgher government in New Netherland. The members of these boards pursued their high-minded purpose with courageous persistence, despite personal danger, and they were evidently of the class which left the Dutch impress most clearly in American characteristics.

Their successors, the local magistrates, the burgomasters and schepens of the municipalities, were also of high-minded purpose, and, as has been seen, administered the inferior courts intelligently and ably, having chiefly in mind the settlement of differences with the least possible injury to either party by litigation. These magistrates were drawn from the people and they had the characteristic strength of purpose of the Dutch people who, in that generation and the preceding one or two, had wrestled grimly for their independence with the mightiest Nation of Europe. Although the Dutch of New Netherland lived under despotic governors, it was the quiet strength of the people that was the chief factor in moulding Dutch institutions of lasting quality; and the people were most truly represented by the magistrates of the local courts. The "real existence of law courts based on the popular will" began with the organizing of the Court of Burgomasters and Schepens^[36] in New Amsterdam in February, 1653. "They were the first judges in the colony in any way independent of the proprietary company." While they knew more of the problems of everyday life than of theories of political government and of jurisprudence, they were, as a class, men of broad mind, leaders of the community, and most had succeeded well in commercial life.^[37] To a corresponding degree, the same might be written of the magistrates of the lesser municipalities.^[38] They were stable, sensible men of affairs, generally well respected What they lacked in legal knowledge was supposed to be supplied by the schout, who was the professional member of the local bench, holding a relation somewhat like that which the stipendiary magistrate of a British court of justice holds to the local magistrates.

The schouts, who were the chief exponents of the law in the Dutch courts, were not all lawyers-at least, those of the local courts were not. Indeed, some of the schouts-fiscaal^[39] of New Netherland were not. For instance: Van Tienhoven graduated from a secretaryship to the Attorney-Generalship of the province. Some of the city schouts^[40] graduated from the magistracy, which office did not demand a prior knowledge of law. Undoubtedly, however, the city schouts became comparatively well versed in law 'in course of time, for they were constantly in legal practice, as district attorneys as it were. Some of the most eminent lawyers of the Dutch period, it seems, are to be found listed among the schouts of the inferior courts, i. e., the patron and municipal courts; in the lists are the names Adriaen van der Donck, Lubbertus van Dincklagen, Johanties la Montagne, all holding the degree of Doctor, though perhaps not all that of law. Other prominent and experienced schouts were David Provost, Pieter Tonneman and Nicasius de Sille. Provost was the schoolmaster at New Amsterdam in 1652, and at the same time was a notary public, the latter post at that time calling for greater knowledge of legal procedure than one would suppose; as a matter of fact, Provost was described as "an attorney and counsellor." Nicasius de Sille brought excellent credentials from the home authorities when he arrived in 1653. He was sent out as "First Counsellor" to the Director-General, his papers showing that in Holland he was looked upon as "an expert and able statesman," a man "well versed in the law," and moreover "acquainted with military affairs and otherwise qualified for public service."

Another schout whose knowledge of law was probably extensive was Tielman van Vleck, a New Amsterdam notary who was sent over to Bergen in 1661, by Stuyvesant, to organize a Court of Schepens in that village. The Director-General refers to Van Vleck as a "well qualified person."

Some of the papers relating to the organization of this Bergen court enable one to form a clear idea of the functioning and status of the inferior local courts during the last years of the Dutch period. Quoting from entries in the records of Ordinances of the Director-General and Council, as to Bergen Court of Schepens, it appears that the local courts in 1661 had jurisdiction without appeal up to fifty guilders. Above that sum, appeal to the Director-General and council was possible. Regular attendance of magistrates (schepens) at court sessions was demanded, members of the bench being fined twenty stivers if absent on a court day, a double fine being exacted from the President of the Court. Punctuality was also demanded, the minute-hand of the court clock determining the number of stivers each tardy magistrate must pay. The government, in its desire to provide "cheap and inoppressive justice," and with a view of maintaining a high standard of judicial acumen and probity in the magistracy, enjoined all members of the court of schepens, during their term of office, to "pay due attention to conversation, demeanor and fitness of honest persons, inhabitants of their respective villages, in order to be able, about the time of changing or election, to furnish the Director-General and Council with correct information as to who may be found fit, so that some may then be elected by the Director-General and Council."

Ownership of real property was one of the evidences of fitness to become a magistrate; and while it is clear that, until the last years of his administration of New Netherland, Stuyvesant actually appointed the magistrates himself, and, by the oath of allegiance,^[41] demanded of magistrates a willingness to follow such orders and instructions as he and his council might give them, the standard of justice was more impartial in the courts of schepens than in any other judicial tribunal of the Dutch province.

The local judiciary and lawyers undoubtedly constituted, or actuated, the faction which brought most trouble to the directors-general of New Netherland; nevertheless, a brief scanning of the governmental history of the Dutch period shows that the magistrates constituted the most stable element of the province; and court records indicate that, as a class, the local magistrates were sincere in their endeavor to administer impartial justice, so far as their jurisdiction reached. Their interpretation of Dutch Roman law suited the people; so well indeed that, as will be seen, part of it had to be eventually merged in the English system of jurisprudence, to meet the needs of the people of New York.

For a time the death of William II restored the Burgher Party to power, and made Amsterdam the head of the United Provinces. Holland triumphed over Zealand; the House of Orange, friend of the Stuarts, seemed to suffer eclipse with them; and though the Royalist mob, even at The Hague, set on by a princely rough of the Palatine house, made it impossible for the envoys of the English Commonwealth to come to terms with the Republic, still the popular monarchical party was in fact powerless in the Province for more than twenty years.-See Encyclopedia Britannica, sketch of Holland.

(No Stadtholder of Holland was elected to succeed William II, the Grand Pentionary, or Chief Justice, becoming the virtual President of the Dutch republic. Nevertheless, there was war between England and the United Provinces during the period 1651-54) .

Footnote 21: Vice-Director Van Dincklagen, from his place of refuge on Staten Island wrote to Van der Donck, in Holland, as follows: "Our great Muscovy Duke goes on as usual, resembling somewhat the wolf-the older he gets, the worse he bites. He proceeds no longer by words or letters, but by arrests and stripes."

Footnote 22: The Patroon returned in 1650, in a ship which was compelled by stress of weather to put into Rhode Island, and when she arrived.... at New Amsterdam, the Director ordered her to be seized for violation of a regulation of the Company in trading without a license, and brought Melyn to trial as her owner. Melyn was only so far interested in her voyage that she brought a number of settlers for his manor at Staten Island, and though the ship and cargo were confiscated, there was no evidence that could hold him responsible. Failing in this, Stuyvesant brought new charges against the Patroon, confiscated his property in New Amsterdam, and compelled him to confine himself to his manor of Staten Island. Melyn surrounded himself with defenses, and, establishing a sort of baronial court, contrived for a while to live till Stuyvesant's persecutions drove him at length out of the colony.-Bryant's "History of U. S., II, 135.

Footnote 23: With Melyn on Staten Island, Van Dincklagen, the Vice-Director, also found a refuge from the violence of Stuyvesant. The Vice-Director busied himself in preparing a new protest to the States General on behalf of the colony, when Stuyvesant ordered that he be expelled from the Council. Van Dincklagen refused to be so disposed of; on the plea that he held his commission not from the Director but from Holland. Stuyvesant arrested and imprisoned him for some days, and he felt that his life was not safe on Manhattan Island.- Ibid., II, 136.

Footnote 24: After three years of delay, the prayer of the people was listened to in earnest. It was decreed that a "burgher government" should be established; that the citizens of New Amsterdam should have the right to elect their own municipal officers; that these officers should constitute a court of justice, with appeal to the supreme court of the Director and Council; that the export duty on tobacco should be abolished; that emigration should be encouraged by a reduction in passage money; that the importation of negro slaves, hitherto a monopoly of the Company, should be now free to all citizens; and Stuyvesant was ordered to return home.

These long-delayed concessions were taken to New Amsterdam by Van der Donck himself, and in accordance therewith Stuyvesant published a proclamation on the day of the Feast of Candlemas, the 2d of February, 1653. But none knew better than he how to keep a promise to the ear and break it to the hope. The States General meant to bestow upon New Amsterdam-in the election by the people of a schout or sheriff; of two burgomasters, who were in effect the chief magistrates of the town; and of five schepens, who constituted the court of civil and criminal jurisdiction. Van der Donck might well come home in triumph with this grant of municipal government as the fruit of his three years of incessant labor in Holland and the people might well rejoice that they were at last to govern themselves. . . . But even this first success the Governor defeated for a time, by assuming the right to appoint, where election was ordered.-Ibid., II, 138.

Footnote 25: "Thursday February 6, 1653 present Martin Krigier (Aarent van Hattem) Poulus Leendersen van die Grist, Maximilynus van Gheel and Alard Anthony, Willem Beeckman, and Pieter (Wolfertsen).

Their Honors, the Burgomasters, the schepens of this city of New Amsterdam, herewith inform everybody that they shall hold their regular meeting in the house hereto called the City Tavern, henceforth the City Hall (Stadt Huys) on Monday mornings from 9 o'c, to hear all questions of difference between litigants, and, decide as best they can. Let everybody take notice hereof. Done this 6th of February, 1653, at New Amsterdam. Signed (as above except Arent van Hattem) .-The Records of New Amsterdam From 1653 to 1674, Anno Domini, edited by Berthold Fernow, 1897, I, 49.

Footnote 26: It was a stone building originally put up as a tavern during the time of Director-General Kieft. It was fifty feet square, with three upright stories and a two-storied gabled roof, and was conspicuous far down the harbor. Behind it was a Dutch garden of flowers and vegetables, and through this was a pathway leading to Hoogh Strat, or Stone Street, the road to the ferry.

On the second floor of this building, at the southeast corner, was a large chamber which was used for the court room. On the window panes of this room were engraved the arms of New Amsterdam. Above the bench on which the magistrates sat were the orange, blue and white of the West India Company, and the colors of Holland. Here also was the painted coat-of-arms of the city, which was sent over by the directors of the West India Company in 1654. On the wall near the door were suspended fifty leathern buckets, which constituted the fire equipment of the city. In the cupola which surmounted the building hung a bell which was rung for the assembling of the court and for the announcing of proclamations. The bell ringer was a man of many and varied employments. He served as the court messenger, was the village grave digger, and the church chorister, and sometimes was schoolmaster. As an attendant of the court he served the magistrate in small ways, keeping the court room in order, providing the magistrates with papers and other things necessary for their work, and ringing the bell at the opening of the court in the morning and for adjournment at noon. From the platform erected in front of the Court House he read the proclamation. For many years the bell ringer was Jan Gillisen, familiarly called Kock.-Chester's Legal and Judicial History of New York, I, 60.

Footnote 27: The proceedings of this tribunal, or as it has been denominated "the Worshipful Court of the Schout, Burgomaster and Schepens," were all recorded by their secretary or clerk; and as everything that took place before it, the nature of the claim or of the offense, the statements of the parties, the proof and decision of the court, with the reasons assigned for it, were carefully noted and written down, these records supply a full account of the whole course of its proceedings, and furnish an interesting exposition of the habits and manners of the people. Upon perusing them, it is impossible not to be struck with the comprehensive knowledge they display of the principles of jurisprudence, and with the directness and simplicity with which legal investigations were conducted. In fact, as a means of ascertaining truth and of doing substantial justice, their mode of proceedings were infinitely superior to the more technical and artificial system introduced by their English successors. None of these magistrates were of the legal profession. They were all engaged in agricultural trading or other pursuits and yet they appear to have been well versed in the Dutch law, and to have been thoroughly acquainted with the commercial usages, customs and municipal regulations of the city of Amsterdam. This is the more remarkable, as a knowledge of the Dutch law at that period was by no means of easy acquisition. Though the principles and practices of civil law prevailed in Holland, it was greatly modified by ancient usages, some of them of feudal origin, others the result of free institutions, which had existed from the earliest period..... In every town and village in Holland, moreover, there existed usages and customs peculiar to the place, which had the force of law, and were not only different in different towns, but frequently directly opposite. The Dutch law in fact was then a kind of irregular mosaic, in which might be found all the principles as well as the details of a most enlightened system of jurisprudence, but in a form so confused as to make it exceedingly difficult to master it. That these magistrates should have had any general or practical acquaintance with such a system at all was scarcely to have been expected; but that they had is apparent, not only from the manner in which they disposed of the ordinary controversies that came before them, but in their treatment of different questions as to the rights of strangers, their familiarity with the complicated laws of inheritance, and the knowledge they displayed of the maritime law while sitting as a court of admiralty. The Amsterdam Chamber sent out to them the necessary books to guide them as to the practices of the courts of Amsterdam, and, when the province passed into the hands of the English, there was attached to the court a small but very select library of legal works, mainly in the Dutch language. The authoritative work used in the administration of the criminal law was Damhouder's "Practyke in Criminele Saecken," . . . . printed in Rotterdam in 1628. . . . There were, however, men educated in the legal profession in the colony; Van Dinklagen, the Vice-Director, who had acted as Schout Fiscal for Van Twiller and Chief Judge of the court established by Stuyvesant was a Doctor of Laws; and there is sufficient known respecting him to warrant the opinion that he was an able and accomplished jurist. Van der Donck was admitted to the same honorable degree in the University of Leyden, and was afterwards an advocate in the Supreme Court of Holland. The Schout-Fiscal Nicasius de Sille, who acted as City-Schout for four years, is stated in his commission from the Amsterdam Chamber to be "a man well versed in the law." In addition to these, there were several notaries: Dirk van Schellyne, who came out in 1641, had previously practiced at the Hague; David Prevoost discharged the duties of notary for some years before Schellyne's arrival; and there was another notary named Matthias de Vos. Under the civil law, as it prevailed in Holland, a considerable part of the proceedings in a cause, if it was seriously contested, was conducted by the Notary, who was required at least to be well versed in the manner of carrying on legal controversies; and as he was frequently consulted by suitors for advice as to their rights and liabilities, he was generally well informed and capable of giving it. Such was the case with Van Schellyne, who, from the records he has left, was evidently an experienced and skilful practitioner. He was not only connected with the court in the discharge of his duties as Notary, but he was appointed by it in 1665 High Constable (conchergio). All of these must have had more or less to do with establishing the mode of legal proceeding, and of advising and guiding the magistrates. Van Schellyne and De Sille were in constant official communication with them. Van Dinklagen must have brought into use the forms of legal procedure in the court over which he had presided, and Van der Donck was one of the chief getters up of the new tribunal; and, though he survived its creation but two years, he was no doubt advised with and consulted in respect to its organization, and as to the mode in which it was conducted. We find him, in fact, the very year that it was established, claiming its protection as a "citizen and burgher" against the menaces of Stuyvesant. The Court was required in all its determinations to regard as paramount law all regulations established by, or instructions received from, the Chamber of Amsterdam, or the College of Nineteen, for the government of the Colony. Next, all edicts and ordinances duly established by the Governor and Council; then the usages, customs or laws prevailing in the city of Amsterdam, and, where they furnished no guide, the law of the fatherland, by which it was particularly understood the ordinances of the province of. Holland and of the States General, and the civil law as it prevailed in the Netherlands, or, as it is denominated by jurists, the Roman Dutch Law.-See McAdams' "History of Bench and Bar of New York"; article by Justice Chas. P. Daly on the "State of Jurisprudence During the Dutch Period"; and quoting "N. Y. Rec. of Burg. & Schep."; Brodhead's "History of New York"; O'Callaghan's "History of New Netherland"; Valentine's "History of New York"; Meyer's "Institutions Judiciaries"; Van Leuwen's "Practyk der Notarissen" (1742); "Practyke in Criminele Saecken," by Damhouder (1628), and others.

Footnote 28: "Records of Burgomasters & Schepens of New York," I, 188, 231; II, 104, 176; III, 188; V, 190; VI, 474; VII, 180.

Footnote 29: Records of N Y Burg & Schepens VII, VIII, Meyer's "Institutions Judiciaries," chap. XIV, 387; Van Leuwen's "Roman Dutch Law," Book V, chap. XIII to XX and XXIII.

Footnote 30: The court also acted as a Court of Admiralty, and as a Court of Probate, in taking proofs of last wills and testaments, and in appointing curators to take charge of the estates of widows and orphans. Application was made to Stuyvesant for liberty to establish an orphan house, similar to the celebrated institutions which exist throughout Holland. He did not think that such an establishment was necessary, but he afterwards assented to the appointment of orphan masters, and those officers acted in aid of the court. Some of its proceedings in the exercise of this branch of its jurisdiction will serve to illustrate how tenaciously the Dutch cling to old forms or legal ceremonies, as where a widow, to relieve herself from certain obligations, desired to renounce her husband's estate; it is in all such cases recorded that the intestate's estate "has been kicked away by his wife with the foot," and that she has duly "laid the key on the coffin." The court also exercised a peculiar jurisdiction, that of summoning parents or guardians before them who, without cause, withheld their assent to the marriage of their children or wards, and of compelling them to give it. It also granted passports to strangers, or conferred on them the burgher right, a distinction which, now that it has ceased to be attended with any practical advantage, is still kept up in the custom of tendering or presenting the freedom of the city to strangers as a mark of respect.-McAdam's "Bench and Bar of New York," quoting "N. Y. Records of Burg. & Schep.," Vols. I to VI.

Footnote 31: Burgomasters received an annual salary of 350 guilders ($140), and each schepen received 250 guilders ($100).

Footnote 32: Not long after the organization of this court (New Amsterdam) by Stuyvesant, courts of the same popular character were established in several towns on Long Island, and these received powers similar to those granted to that in New Amsterdam. Before this time, Breuckelen had a court of schepens, which was dependent on the court at Fort Amsterdam. Now her magistrates were increased from two to four, and Midwout (Flatbush) obtained the right to three schepens, while to Amersfoort (Flatlands) two schepens were granted. In all matters relating to police, peace, and security, in their several towns-which extended in criminal matters over cases of fighting, threatening, etc.-these courts had separate jurisdiction. Offenses of a graver character were reported to the director and council at Fort Amsterdam. In civil matters these courts could take cognizance of suits to the amount of fifty guilders. In excess of this sum to a further definite amount, an appeal lay to a superior district court. The latter court was composed of magistrates delegates from each town court, and a schout, who acted also as a clerk. To this district court was also committed the superintendence of such affairs as were of common interest to the several towns represented in it: that is, the laying out of roads, the observance of the Sabbath, and the erection of churches, schools, and other public buildings. It was also, to a certain extent, a court of records.

David Prevoost, who had been commissioner of Fort Good Hope, on the Connecticut River, was the first schout, or sheriff, of this district court. In January, 1656, he was succeeded by Pieter Tonneman, who acted until August, 1660, when Adriaen Hegeman was appointed. The salary of the office was two hundred guilders a year, with one-half of the civil fines imposed by the court, and one third of the criminal fines levied by each town, together with certain fees as clerk for entries and transcripts. In 1661, courts similar to those in Breuckelen, Midwout, and Amersfoort were established at Bostwyck (Bushwick) and at New Utrecht. These towns were then formed into a district which was called the "district of the five Dutch towns." The several town courts still continued to exercise their independent jurisdiction, but there was one schout for the district, and he resided in Breuckelen.

Courts were established, by virtue of grants from Stuyvesant. among the English settlers in Canorasset, or Rutsdorp (Jamaica), in 1656, and in Middleburgh (Newtown), in 1650. In 1652, Stuyvesant established a court in Beverswyck (Albany), independent of the patroon's court of Rensselaerswyck.

The courts which have thus been enumerated and described, including the patroon courts and the appellate court in New Amsterdam, which was composed of the governor and council, constituted the judicial tribunals of New Netherland until the colony passed into the hands of the English.-Chester's "Legal and Judicial History of New York," I, 86.

Footnote 33: "In substance, this petition reads:

"The States General of the United Provinces are our liege lords. We submit to the laws of the United Provinces; and our rights and privileges ought to be in harmony with those of the Fatherland, for we are a province of the State, and not a subjugated people. We who have come together from various parts of the world and are a blended community of various lineage, who have at our expense, exchanged our native lands for the protection of the United Provinces; we who have transformed the wilderness into fruitful farms, demand that no new laws shall be enacted without the consent of the people, and none shall be appointed to office without the approbation of the people, and that obscure and obsolete laws shall never be revived."

Footnote 34: "The Governor's, or Director-General's, Council, sometimes referred to as the Supreme Council, and in fact, the judicial court of last resort in New Netherland, was constituted as follows:

1626-Peter Minuit, Director; Isaac de Rasieres, Peter Blyvelt, Jacob Elbertsen Wissinck, Jan Jansen Brouwer, Symon Dircksen Pos, Reynert Harmansen.

1630-Peter Minuit, Director; Peter Blyvelt, Reynert Harmansen, Jan Jansen Myndertsen, Jacob Elbertsen Wissinck, Symon Dircksen Pos.

1636-Wouter van Twiller, Director; Jacob Jansen Hesse, Martin Gerritsen van Vergen, Andries Hudde, Jacques Bentyn.

1636-Wouter van Twiller, Director; Andries Hudde, Claes van Elslant, Jacobus van Curler.

1638-William Kieft, Director; Johannes la Montagne.

1639-William Kieft, Director; Johannes la Montagne, Ulrich Lupold.

1642-William Kieft, Director; Johannes la Montague.

1647-Peter Stuyvesant, Director; William Kieft, ex-director; Lubbertus van Dincklagen, vice-director; Johannes la Montagne, Brian Newton, Paulus Leendertsen van der Grist, Jacob Loper, Jeimer Tomassen, Jan Claessen Bol, Adriaen Keyser.

1648-Peter Stuyvesant, Director; Lubbertus van Dincklagen, Johannes la Montagne, Brian Newton, Paulus L. van der Grist, Adiiaen Keyser.

1650-Peter Stuyvesant, Director; Lubbertus van Dincklagen (forcibly expelled Feb. 28 1651); Johannes Ia Montague, Brian Newton, Adriaen Keyser.

1652-Peter Stuyvesant, Director; Johannes la Montagne and Brian Newton.

1653-Peter Stuyvesant, Director; Johannes la Montague, Brian Newton, Cornelis van Werckhoven (who returned to Holland in 1654), Nicasius de Sille (who came out from Holland in 1652, commissioned by the Company as "First Councillor").

1655-Peter Stuyvesant, Director; Nicasius de Sille, Johannes la Montagne (appointed Vice-Director at Fort Orange, Sept. 28, 1656).

1657-Peter Stuyvesant, Director; Nicasius de Sille, Peter Tonneman.

1657-Peter Stuyvesant, Director; Nicasius de Sille, Peter Tonneman, Johannes de Decker.

1659-Peter Stuyvesant, Director; Nicasius de Sille, Peter Tonneman (who went to Holland in fall of year); Johannes de Decker (absent from country from July 29, 1659, to July 12, 1660); Cornelis van Ruyven.

1660-Peter Stuyvesant, Director; Nicasius de Sille, Johannes de Decker, Cornelis van Ruyven.

1664-1673-Under English rule.

1673-74-Anthony Colve, Governor; Cornelis Evertse, Jacon Benckes, Abraham van Zyll, and Anthony Colve, naval commanders controlling emergency government; Cornelis Steenwyck, appointed Sept. 19, 1673.

Footnote 35: "Board of Twelve Men, 1641-David Pedersen de Vries, President; Jacques Bentyn Jan Jansen Dam Handpick Jansen, Mary Andriessen Abram Pedersen (the miller) Frederick Lubbertsen Joachim Pedersen Kuyter Gerrit Dircksen George Rapalje Abram Planck Jacob Stoffelsen Jan Evertsen Bout Jacob Walingen

Board of Eight Men 1643-Cornelis Melyn President Joachim Pedersen Kuyter Jan Jansen Dam (expelled at first meeting); Jan Evertsen Bout (named vice Dam), Barent Dircksen, Abram Pedersen (miller), Isaac Allerton, Thomas Hall, Gerrit Wolphertsen van Couwenhoven.

Board of Eight Men 1645-Jacob Stoffelsen John Underhill Francis Douty (Doughty), George Baxter, Richard Smith, Gysbert Opdyck, Jan Evertsen Bout, Oloff Stevensen van Cortlandt.

Board of Nine Men, 1647-Augustine Heerman, Arnoldus van Hardenburgh, Govert Loockermans, merchants; Jan Jansen Darn, Handpick Hendricksen Kip, Jacob Wolphertsen van Couwenhoven, burghers; Michael Jansen, Jan Evertsen Bout, Thomas Hall, farmers.

1649-Adriaen van der Donck, President; Augustine Heerman, Arnoldus van Hardenburgh, Govert Loockermans, Oloff Stevensen van Cortlandt, Handpick Hendricksen Kip, Michael Jansen, Elbert Elbertsen (Stoothof), Jacob Wolphertsen van Couwenhoven.

1650-Oloff Stevensen van Cortlandt, President; Augustine Heerman, Jacob van Couwenhoven, Elbert Elbertsen, Handpick Hendricksen Kip, Michael Jansen, Thomas Hall, Govert Loockermans, J. Evertsen Bout.

1652-David Provost William Beckman Jacobus van Curler Mallard Anthony Isaac de Forest, Barent van Hattem, Joachim Pedersen Kuyter, Paulus Leendertsen van der Grist, Peter Cornellissen (Miller).

Footnote 36: "Burgomasters of New Amsterdam-1653, Barent van Hattem and Martin Cregier; 1654, the same until November, when Van Hattem returned to Holland and Mallard Anthony was appointed; 1655 Mallard Anthony and Oloff Stevensen van Cortlandt; 1656, the same; 1657, Mallard Anthony and Paulus Leendertsen van der Grist; 1658, P. L. van der Grist and O. S. van Cortlandt 1659; O. S. van Cortlandt and Martin Cregier, 1660; Martin Cregier 1660; Mallard Anthony and O.S. van Cortlandt, the latter taking the place of Cregier then the Esopus country on military duty 1601, Mallard Anthony and P. L .van der Grist 1662, O.S. van Cortlandt and Cornelis Steenwyck, 1663, O. S. van Cortlandt and Martm Cregier with P. L. van der Grist substituting for Cregier absent; 1664, P. L. van der Grist and Cornelis Steenwyck.

Schepens of New Amsterdam-Paulus Leendertsen van der Grist Maximilianus van Gheel Mallard Anthony William Beckman Pieter Wolfertsen Couwenhoven Joachim Pedersen Kuyter Oloff Stevensen van Cortlandt Johannes Nevius Johannes de Peyster Johannes van Brugh Jacob Stryker Handpick Hendricksen Kip Govert Loockermans, Adriaen Bloemmaert Handpick Jansen van der Lin Cornelis Steenwyck Isaac de Forest Johannes Pedersen van Brugh Jeronimus Ebbingh Jacob Kip Timotheus Gabry Jacobus Bancker Isaac Gravenraet Jacques Cousseau Nicolaeus Meyer Christoffel Hoogland Laurens van der Spiegel Gelyn Verpianck Francis Rombout and Stephen van Cortlandt.

Footnote 37: "Here then in the Stadt Huys of New Amsterdam the worthy merchants and brewers Indian traders and ship captains who usually composed the body of burgomasters and schepens of the little municipality met and passed their ordinances for the government of the town, or sat as a court of justice to consider the numerous and sometimes queer controversies which were brought before them Naturally they were not men who were overstocked with legal lore. Ponderous folios, and quartos, in hog-skin of the civil and imperial laws of the ordinances of the States General and of the States of Holland, and the well-thumbed "Rosebooms rescued" of the Statutes and Customs of Amsterdam, lay before the magistrates, inviting them to lose themselves in the mazes of those abstruse treatises. They preferred, however, as a rule, to render their decisions by the aid of what is known as horse sense They were fond of settling cases informally by inducing parties to accept advice before going to trial failing this, they were apt to send their cases for arbitration to one or two good men, whom they could select out of the community, with instructions to reconcile the contending parties if possible in one case in the year 1662 when the question of the sewing of linen caps was involved the court went so far as to appoint good women as arbitrators.-J. H. Innes, in "New Amsterdam and Its People," p. 188.

Footnote 38: "Magistrates of the Dutch Period:

New Amsterdam, 1653-64-See footnote No. 36.

Fort Orange, 1654-64-Sander Leendertsen, Pieter Hartgers, Frans Barentsen, Pastoor Jan Verbeck, Jan Tomassen van Dyck, Volckert Jansen, Rutger Jacobsen, Andries Herbertsen, Dirck Jansen Croon, Jacob Jansen Schermerhoorn, Philip Pedersen Schuyler, Goosen Gerritsen van Schack, Abraham Staats, Adrien Gerritsen, Francis Boon, Evert Jansen Wendel, Gerrit Slechtenhorst, Stoffel Jansen, Jan Handpick van Bael, Jan Kostersen van Aecken.

Willemstadt, 1673-Gerrit van Slechtenhorst, David Schuyler, Cornelis van Dyck, and Peter Bogardus.

Schenectady, 1673-Sander Leendertsen Glen, Herman Vedder, and Barent Janse.

Wiltwyck, 1661-64-Evert Pels, Cornelis Barentsen Slecht, Albert Heymans, Tjerck Claessen de Witt, Albert Gysbertsen, Thomas Chambers, Gysbert van Imbrock, and Jan Willemsen Houghtaling.

Swaenenburgh, 1673-74-Cornelis Wyncoop, Roeloff Kierstede, Wessel Ten Broeck, Jan Burhans, Joost Adriaensen, and Cornelis Hoogeboom.

Hurley, 1673-74-Louis de Bois, Roeloff Hendricksen, and Adriaen Albertsen Roose.

Marbletown, 1673-74-Jan Jopsten, Jan Broersen, and William Jansen Schudt.

Breuckelen, 1646-1674-Jan Evertsen Bout, Huyg Aertsen van Rossum, Frederick Lubbertsen, Albert Cornellissen Wantenaer, William Brendenbent, Joris Dirksen, Peter Cornelissen, Joris Rapelje, Teunis Nyssen, Peter Montfort, William Gerritsen van Couwenhoven, Teunis Jansen, Thomas Verdonck, Teunis Gysbert Bogart, Thomas Lammertse, and Rem Jansen.

Midwout, 1654-1673-Jan Stryker, Adriaen Hegeman, Jan Snedecker, Thomas Swardwout, Peter Lott, William Jacobe van Boerum, William Guiljamsen, William Willemse, Jan Sned, Jan Stryck, Handpick Jorissen, William Guilliamsem, Auke Janse.

Amersfoort, 1654-1673-Elbert Elbertsen, Nicholas Stilwell, Cornelis de Potter, Peter Claessen, Martin Jansen Breuckelen, Coort Stevensen, and Abram Jorissen.

New Utrecht, 1659-1673-Jan Tomassen van Dyck, Jacobus van Corlaer, Rutger Joosten van Brunt, Jacob Hallekens, Balthazar Vos, Jacob Pedersen, Francis de Bruyn, Thomas Jansen van Dyck, Handpick Mattyssen Smack, Jan van Deventer, and Jan Gysbertse van Meteren.

Boswyck, 1661-1673-Peter Jansen de Witt, Jan Tilje Letelier, Jan Cornelissen Zeeauu, Ryck Leydecker, Jan Catjouu, Gysbert Teunissen, Barent Joosten, David Jochimsen, John Lequier, Handpick Barentse Smith, and Voickert Dirckse.

Gravesend, 1650-1674-George Baxter, William Wilkins, Nicholas Stilwell, James Hubbard, William Bowne, Edward Brouse, Thomas Spicer, John Cooke, Samuel Spicer, Richard Stillwell, John Emans, Barent Jurisensen, John Tilton, and Samuel Hoims.

Middleburgh, 1652-1673--Thomas Hazard, Robert Coe, Richard Gildersleeve, Henry Feake, Richard Betts, William Palmer, John Coe, Edward Jessup, Ralph Hunt, Jonathan Fish, Samuel Coe, John Layton, Francis Swaine, William Bloonsfield, John Cochrane, John Burroughs, John Ransden, and Jonathan Hazard.

Flushing, 1648-1673-John Townsend, John Hicks, William Toorn, John Underhill, Thomas Saul, Robert Terre, William Lawrence, Edward Farrington, William Noble, William Hallett, John Hinchman, Francis Bloetgoet, and Richard Wildie.

Hempstead, 1647-1673-Richard Gildersleeve, John Seaman, John Hicks, - Coe, Daniel Whitehead, John Strickland, William Washburn, Robert Ashman, Robert Forman, Robert Jacksen, John Smith, and William Jacobs.

Rutsdorp, 1659-1673-Benjamin Coe, Samuel Matthews, Richard Everett, John Townsend, Nathaniel Denton, Andrew Messenger, Robert Goe, Daniel Denton, John Strickland, Thomas Benedict, John Carpenter, and Robert Ashman.

Oyster Bay, 1652-1673-John Richbell, Robert Ferman, Nicholas Wright, Thomas Townsend, and Nathaniel Coles.

Huntington, 1673-1674-Joseph Whiteman, Isaac Platt, Jonas Wood, and James Chichester.

Seatalcot, 1673-Richard Woodhull, and John Bayles.

Southampton, 1673-Edward Howell, and Joshua Barnes.

Easthainpton, 1673-John Mulford, and John Stretton.

Southold, 11673-Thomas Hudson.

Haerlem, 1660-1673-Jan Pedersen Slot, Daniel Terneur, Peter Cressau, Johannes la Montagne, Philip Cassie, Dirck Claessen, Michael Muyden, Johannes Verveelen, Resolved Waldron, David des Marest, Joost van Oblinis, Barent Hermans, Jan Petersen Harling, Adriaen Cornelissen, Jacob Pedersen de Groat, and Wolfert Webber.

Westchester, 1656-1673-Thomas Wheeler, Thomas Newman, John Lord, John Smith, Josias Gilbert, Nicholas Bayley, Thomas Veall, Thomas Mollinaer, Edward Waters, Robert Heustis, William Betts, John Barker, Nicholas Bayley, Edward Jessup, Joseph Palmer, and Richard Panton.

Mamaroneck, 1673-John Busset, and Henry Disbrow.

Fordham, 1673-Johannes Veerveelen, Michael Bostiaensen, and Valentine Claessen.

Eastchester, 1673-John Hoit.

Staten Island, 1664-1674-David D'amarex, Pierre Bilyou, Wairaven Lutten, Tyse Barentse--Leendart, Jan Willemse, Gideon Marlet, and Nathan Whiteman.

Footnote 39: "Schouts-Fiscaal of New Netherland-Jan Lampo, appointed in 1626; Coenraed Notelman, in 1632; Lubbertus van Dincklagen, in 1633; Jacques Bentyn, in 1636; Ulrich Lupold, on March 28, 1638; Cornelis van der Huyghens, on July 53, 1639; Hemrich van Dyck, on May 22, 1647; Cornelis van Tienhoven, on March 27, 1652; Nicasius de Sille, on June 26, 1656; William Knyff, on December 15, 1673.

Footnote 40: City Schouts:

New Amsterdam-Cornelis van Tienhoven, appointed February, 1653; Joachim Pedersen Kuyter, appointed in 1654, but was murdered by Indians in September of same year, before he had taken over duties; Cornelis van Tienhoven, continuing in dual office; Nicasius de Sille, 1656; Pieter Tonneman, 1660, the first to have only the one office.

Rensselaerswyck-Jacob Albertsen ver Planck, Adriaen van der Donck, Nicolas Coorn, Gerrit van Slechtenhorst, Cornelis Teunissen, and Gerrit Swart.

Esopus-Roeloff Swartwout, Mattys Capito, William Beckman, Isaac Gravenraet.

Haerlem-Johannes Ia Montague, and Resolved Waldron.

Westchester-Thomas Wheeler.

Breuckelen-Jan Teunissen, David Provost, Peter Tonneman, Peter Hegeman, Adriaen Hegeman, Jacob Stryker.

Flushing-William Harck, John Underhill, John Hicks, William Hallett, Tobias Feke, John Mastine.

Fort Orange and Beverwyck-Jan Daniels, Jacob Teunissen, Hans Vosch.

Willemstadt and Rensselaerwyck-Andrew Draeyer.

Schanegtade (Schenectady)-Jan Gerritsen van Marcken.

New Orange, 1673-Anthony de Milt.

New Utrecht-Nicasius de Sille.

Gravesend-James Hubbard, Richard Gibbons, John Morris, John Cooke, and Charles Morgan.

Middleburgh-Thomas Newton, Elias Bagley, and Thomas Pettit.

The Five English Towns-William Lawrence, and Francis Bloodgood.

South Seatalcot, Huntington, and East Southold, 1673-Isaac Arnold.

Staten Island, 1673-Peter Biljou.

Bergen-Tielman van Vleck.

Footnote 41: "Whereas we are chosen by the authority of the High and Mighty Lords of the States General to be Magistrates of the Town of Bergen, we do swear in the presence of Almighty God to be true and faithful to said authority, and their Governors for the time being, and that we equally and impartially shall exercise justice between party and parties, without regard to parties or Nations, and that we shall follow such orders and instructions as we from time to time shall receive from the Governor and Council. . .

Page 3

     

The Historical Society of the Courts of the State of New York
140 Grand Street, Suite 701
White Plains, N.Y. 10601
phone: (914) 824-5717