TRP.EATI SE
UPON  T IIE
Estate  mytb~   izg1ts  wf tbE $vation
OF TZE
CITY OF TNEW YORK,
AS  PIROlPRIEIITOiRS:
Ba MURRAY HOFFMAN, EsQ.
Volume II.
APPENDIX,
CONTAINING
NOTES AND DIAGRAMS,
SECOND REVISED EDITION.
NEW YORK:
EDMUND JONES & CO., PRINTERS TO THE CORPORATION,
No. 26 JohN STREET.
1862.








APPENDIX.
NOTES.
NOTE 1.-PAGE 16.
Appointment of a Representative Council, in 1647. —Gov.
Stuyvesant.; Whecreas, we desire nothing more than that the government of New Netherlands, entrusted to our care, and principally New Amsterdam, our capital and residence, might continue and increase in good order, justice, police, population,
prosperity, and mutual harmony, and be provided with
strong fortifications, a church, a school and reading,-place,
harbor aind similar necessary public edifices and improvements, for which we are desirous of obtaining the assistance of our whole community. Being unwilling, however,
to vex and harass our dear subjects in any way with exactions, impositions and burthens, but rather to induce and
solicit them voluntarily to assist in such honest and highly
necessary work; and
"V4ehereas, it is difficult to cover so many heads with a
single cap, or to reduce so many different opinions into
one, so did we, with the advice of our Council, heretofore
propose to the Commonalty, that the inhabitants should
nominate a double number of persons from  the most
1




2                     APPENDIX.
notable, reasonable, honest and respectable of our subjects,
from which we might select a single number of nine men,
to confer with us and our Council, as their tribunes, on all
means to promote the welfare of the Commonalty, as well
as that of the country; wherefore a double number of our
good and lawful subjects having been proposed, we with
our Council did select from  said nomination nine men to
wit: (three from the merchants, three from the citizens, and
three from the fIrmers, all named,) as interlocutors on behalf
of the Commonalty."
Then follow provisions as to their powers and duties
most jealously guarded, and reserving almost entire control to the Director and Council.
NOTE 2.-PAGE IS.18
BuTher-rechlt. —February 1, 1657.
Dr. O'Callaghan (vol. 2, p. 33S) says, " The exclusive
right to trade was confined, almost from the beginning of the
city of Amsterdam, to the Burghers.  These were constituted by birth, purchase, intermarriage, or avote of the city."
Very important privileges, commercial, political, and legal,
resulted from  the possession of this right; which the
learned author states in detail.  The Burgomasters, however, pursuaded the Council to divide the Burghery into
two classes, the greater and small citizens; "giving to
those who should pay the sum of five hundred guilders the
privilege of enrolling their names on the list of the great,




APPENDIX.                      3
who alone were to be invested with the monopoly of offices.
The lessor citizenship conveyed only freedom of trade, and
the privilege of being received into the respective guilds."
This law was received with very little favor, and was
abolished by an edict of the 25th of March, 1668.  " Unfortunately for New Amsterdam, it was after the establishment of these unwise distinctions at home, that Burgher
right was conferred upon her.  Governor Stuyvesant divided the citizens into two castes-the great and the small
burghers. The members of the Council-all burgomasters
and schepens, all ministers of the gospel and officers of'
militia, with their descendants in the male line —were enrolled in the first class, and all others could obtain the
same on payment to the city treasury of fifty guilders,
Holland currency."
It may reasonably be concluded, that after the example
of Amsterdam, the chief officers were exclusively given to
the higher class.
NOTE 3.-PAGE 19.
Cariter of NTicolls, 12th of J'lme, 1665.
This charter is set forth in the records of the Burgomasters and Schepens, of 1665.  On the 14th of June, of that
year, the Governer Nicolls appeared in the Assembly, and
delivered to the clerk his act of revocation, dated the
12th of June, of the form of the old government of Schout,
Burgomasters and Schepens; and declared that acommission
should be instituted fbr the city government, " to consist




4                     APPENDIX.
of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Sheriff, according to the custom of England, in other his M3Iajesty's corporations."
This was followed by his new charter, also dated the 12th
of June, 1665, which is as follows: "Whereas, upon mature deliberation and advice, I have found it necessary to
discharge the form of government late in practice within
this his Majesty's town of New Yorke, under the name and
style of Schout, Burgomasters, and Schepens, which are
not known or customary in any of his MIajesty's dominions
-To the end that the course of justice may be legally,
equally, and impartially administered for the future, to all
his Majesty's subjects, as well inhabitants as strangers.Know all men by these presents, that I, Richard Nicolls,
Deputy-Governor of his Royal Highness, the Duke of
York, by virtue of his Majesty's Letters Patent, dated the
12th day of Mfarch, in the sixteenth year of his reign, do
ordain, constitute and declare that the inhabitants of New
York, New Harlem, and all other his Majesty's subjects,
inhabitants upon the island, commonly called and known
by the name of 3Manhattan Island, are and forever shall be
accounted, nominated and established, as one body politique
and corporate, under the government of a Mayor, Aldermen and Sheriff; and I do by these presents constitute
and appoint, for one whole year, commencing firom the date
hereof, hMir. Thomas Willet, to be Mayor; MIr. Thomas De
La Vall, MIr. Oloff Stevenson, Mr. John Brugges, MIr.
Cornelius Van Ruyven, and Mir. John Lawrence to be Aldermen; and Allard Anthony to be Sheriffe; giving and
granting to them, the said Mayor and Aldermen, or any four
of them, whereof the said Mayor or his Deputy shall be
always one, and upon equal divisions of voyces, to have
always the casting and decisive voyce, full power and




APPENDIX.                      5
authority to rule and governe as well all the inhabitants of
this Corporation as any strangers, according to the general
laws of this government, and such peculiar laws as are or
shall be thought convenient or necessary for the good and
welfare of this his Majesty's Corporation; as also to appoint such under officers as they shall judge necessary for
the ordinary execution of justice.  And I do hereby
strictly charge and command all persons to obey and
execute, from time to time, all such warrants, orders and
constitutions as shall be made by the said Mayor and Aldermen, as they will answer the contrary at their utmost
perill; and for the due administration of justice, according
to the form and manner prescribed in this commission by
the Mayor, Aldermen and Sheriffe, these presents shall be
to them, and every of them, a sufficient warrant and discharge in that behalf.
" Given under my hand and seal, at Fort James, in New
York, on Manhattan Island, this 12th day of June, 1665.' RICHARD NICOLLS."
NOTE 4.-PAGE 19.
Acts of the Corporation unCer the Charter of 1665.
On the 9th of Maay, 1676, an ordinance was passed as
follows  "Ordered, that all personsliving within the street,
called the Heer Graft (Broad street), shall fill up the Ditch,
Graff, or Common Sewer, and make the same level with the
street, and then pave and pitch the same before their doors
with stones, as far as every inhabitant's house shall be front



6                     APPENDIX.
ting towards the said Graff or Ditch, upon pain of having
such fines inflicted upon them as the court shall see fit."[English Records, Corn. Council.]
On the 24th of July, 1677, a rate was laid upon the
inhabitants' houses and vacant lands in the city. This
was done by the authority of the Mayor and Aldermen.
It is stated to be laid for defraying the city debt, and was
to be paid one half immediately, and the other half by the
26th of October ensuing.
The names of probably all the principal inhabitants may
be found in this document.  We find also the names of
the following streets, &c.:
The Heer Graft, the Stone street, Marvelt street, Winkle
street (Broadway), MIarketfield street, The Wall, the High
street, Mill street lane, Smith street lane, Beavers Graft,
Field street, and the water side.
February 16, 1676. It was ordered that the several
persons named build wells in certain streets, of which they
were inhabitants.
And on the 23d of February, 168S3, a committee, before appointed to search the records for ordinances, laws,
&c., for the government of the city, made a report; and a
committee was appointed to draw up orders relating to the
several heads of such report.  On the 15th of Miarch,
16S3, a large body of ordinances was adopted.
They comprehended a great variety of subjects-the observance of the Lord's day —the registering of strangersthe regulation of cartmen, their number, fees and various
rules for their conduct, among them, that they were not
to ride upon their carts in the streets-that freemen only
should keep shops-the licensing of public houses-cappointment of surveyors, without whose sanction no build



APPENDIX.                     7
ing should be erected-relating to markets, fire-wood, and
many other particulars.
NOTE 5.-PAGE 20.
Petition for the Charter of 1686.
" To the Honorable Thomas Dongan, Esquire, LieutenantGovernor and Vice Admiral under His Royal Highness,
James, Duke of York, &c.
" The humble petition of the Mayor, Aldermen, and
Commonalty of the city of New York, sheweth,"That this city hath had and enjoyed several ancient
customs, privileges and immunities, which were confirmed
and granted to them by Colonel Richard Nicolls, late Governor of this Province, by authority of His Royal Highness, A. D., 1665, who incorporated the inhabitants thereof,
New  Harlem and others inhabiting on the Island Manhattan, whereon this city standeth, as one body politic and
corporate, under the government of a ~Mayor, Aldermen
and Sheriff, in which manner it hath continued in practice
ever since, and hath had and enjoyed the custom, liberties
and privileges following, viz.:' st. That all the inhabitants on the Island Manhattan
were under the government of the city of New York.'2d. That the government of said city was by seven
magistrates and a schout, formerly called burgomasters and
schepens, now one Mlayor, six Aldermen and one Sheriff.' 3d. These magistrates had power to appoint all inferior




8                     APPENDIX.
officers, as constables and overseers, under-sheriffs, cryers
and marshals throughout the whole island; and also to
make such peculiar orders as they judged convenient for
the well governing tile inhabitants of said corporation, and
held once in fourteen days (or oftener, on special desire or
occasion) a Court of Judicature, at the City Hall, where
they did hear and determine all causes and matters whatsoever brought before them, by jury or in equity, as the case
required.  The Mayor or chief magistrate had power to
determine all matters that came before him  under forty
shillings, without appeal, or any other process than a verbal hearing thereof.' 4th. The sheriff served all writs, and summons, and attachments within the limits of the corporation, and acted
as water bailiff on the water.'5th. They had their owa clerk, and kept the records
of the city distinctly.' 6th. This city was the staple port of the whole province, where all the merchandise was shipped and enrolled.'7th. None were to be esteemed freemen of the city
but such as are admitted by the magistrates aforesaid, and
none before such admission are to sell by retail, or exercise
any handicraft trade or occupation; and every merchant or
shop-keeper was to pay for the public use of the city ~3
12s.; every handy craftman,  1L 4s. on being made free.' 8th. No freemen of the city were to be arrested, or
have their goods attached, unless it was made to appear
that they were departing, or conveying away their estates
to defraud their creditors.'9th. No person was admitted to trade up the North
river, except he was a freeman, and had been an actual
inhabitant of this city for the space of three years; and if'




APPENDIX.                    9
any freeman shall be absent out of the city the space of
twelve month, and not keep fire and candle, and pay scot
and lot, he should lose his freedom.' All the inhabitants up Hudson river were forbid to
trade over sea.' 10th. No flour was to be bolted or packed, or biscuit
made for exportation, but in the city of New York; it being for the encouragement of trade, and keeping up the
reputation of New York flour, which is in great request in
the West Indies, and the only support and maintenance of'
the inhabitants of this city, and if not confirmed to them,
will ruin and depopulate the same.' 12th. That the said city had a common seal, to serve
for the sealing of all and singular their affairs, matters and
business touching the said corporation.'
" All which said ancient customs, privileges and liberties, the said Mayor and Aldermen, in behalf of themselves
and the citizens of said city, humbly present and make
known to your honor, humbly beseeching your honor in
their behalf to intercede and procure that the same be
confirmed to them  by charter from his Royal Highness,
with the additions following."
The petition then asks for certain specified additions to
their powers and organization, which were generally
granted, and which it is needless here to state in detail.
The Governor and Council asked for an explanation of certain points of the petition, and in reply the Common
Council, among other things, stated as follows:
"The town of Harlem is a village belonging to this
city and corporation. For the more easy administration
and dispatch of justice, officers have been annually appointed by the Mayor and Aldermen, to hold courts, and




10                    APPENDIX.
determine matters not exceeding 40s. both for Harlem and
the Bowery, and shall do the like for the future, as it is
intended to be one of the six wards."
"The whole island being one corporation, the inhabitants are all members of one body, and conceive no need
of distinction." —[Minu tes of C. C., 9th and 27th Nov.,
1683.]
NOTE 6. -PAGE 20.
Preamble to the Charter of 16S6.
"'I, Thomas Dongan, Lieutenant-Governor and Vice
Admiral of New York and its dependencies, under his.Majesty, James the Second, by the Grace of God, of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the
Faith, Supreme Lord and proprietor of the colony and
province of New York, and its dependencies in America.
To all to whom  these presents shall come, Greeting.
}Whereas, the city of New York is an ancient city within
the said province, and the said city has anciently been a
body politic and corporate, and the citizens of the said city
have held, used, and enjoyed, as well within the same as
elsewhere in the said province, divers and sundry rights,
liberties, privileges, emoluments, &c., as well by prescription as by charter, letters patent, and grants, and confirmations, not only of divers governors and commanders-inchief of the Nether Dutch Nation, while the same was
under their power and subjection.




APPENDIX.                     11' Anted whereas, divers lands, tenements and hereditaments,
jurisdiction, liberties and privileges have heretofore been
given or granted, or intended to be given or granted to the
citizens and inhabitants of the said city, sometimes by the
name of the Mayor and Aldermen and Sheriff of the city
of New York, an. d sometimes by the name of the Mayor
and Aldermen of the city of New Yorkl-and by divers
other names, as by their several letters patent, charters,
grants, writings, records and nmuniments, amongst other
things, may more fully appear.
"And whereas, the citizens and inhabitants of the said
city have erected, built and appropriated, at their own
proper costs and charges, several public buildings, accommodations and conveniences for the said city, that is to say,
the City Hall, or State House, with the ground thereunto
belonging; two market-houses; the bridge into the dock;
the xharves or docks, with their appurtenances, and the
new burial-place without the gate of the city: and have
established and settled one ferry from the said city of New
York to Long Island, for the accommodation and conveniences of passengers, the said citizens and travelers."The preamble also recites the holding a-nd enjoying, by
several the inhabitants of the city, of lands, privileges,
&c., under prior grants, charters and conveyances.  The
attestation is -" In witness whereof I have caused these
presents to be entered in the Secretary's office, and the seal
of the said province to be hereunto affixed, this 27th day of
April, in the second year of the reign of his sacred 3Majesty aforesaid, and in the year of our Lord, 1686."




12                    APPENDIX.
NOTE 7.-PAGE 25.
Minute of statutes under the charter of 1686.
The principal statutes passed after 16S6, the date of
Dongan's charter, to 1730, that of Montgomerie, which
affected the powers of the Corporation of New York, were
the following:
The act for confirming the charters of cities, of May,
1691, is before fully stated.
The act for regulating buildings, streets, wharves, lanes,
docks and alleys in the city of New York, passed Oct. 1,
1691, S. & L., p. 8.
This important statute is quoted particularly under the
head of wharves, and also streets, &c. It is sufficient here
to observe that the Common Council was empowered to
make all laws and regulations for the laying out of streets
and wharves, as should be found convenient; and if, in laying out any streets or wharves, it should be found necessary
to take any person's lands, and the amount to be paid
cannot be agreed upon, a jury was to be impanneled to
assess it.
The third section contained the principle of imposing
the charge for paving of streets, pitching and cleaning
sewers, drains, &c., upon the houses within the city, in proportion to the benefit they shall receive thereby.
July 3, 1695, an act (the first of a long series) to enable
the city of New York to relieve their poor, and to defray
the necessary and public charges. (Ibid., p. 2.)
May 16, 1699.-"  An act to enable the city of New
York to pay their debts, and repair their public buildings."
Oct. 18, 1701. —" An act for encouraging the city of




APPENDIX.                    13
New York." Part of this expired in three years, and the
residue, relating to ferriages, was provided for by the ferry
act of October 14, 1732.
Act 17th October, 1701, ~ 9.-" Whereas, the cities of
New York and Albany, by their several charters, differ in
the ways and means for their defraying their public charge
and maintaining their poor from the several counties within
this province" Be it therefore enacted, that the said Common Councils
of such cities respectively are hereby authorized to follow
their former methods in the premises. And they were empowered to raise, by annual tax, such sum  as should be
necessary to pay their representatives, bellmen or watchmen, or such other necessary public charge as should be
requisite. Not to exceed, however, S300 per annum  for
their public charge."
May 1, 1702.- " An act for declaring, confirming and
explaining the liberties of the city of New York, relating
to the election of their magistrates." Repealed by Queen
Anne, Dec. 31, 1702.
Nov. 20, 1702.-" An act for the better support of the
poor in the city of New York."  Expired Nov. 12, 1704.
Nov. 25, 1702.-" An act- to enable the Mayor, &c., to
raise money upon the freeholders and inhabitants thereof,
and for defraying their public and necessary charges annually." Expired Nov. 25, 1704.
Nov. 27, 1702.-" An act to enable the city of New
York to supply the vacancy of such public elective magistrates and officers as may die, remove, or be incapacitated
before the time of the annual election."   Expired Nov.
27, 1705.
June 19, 1703.-" An act for prohibiting the distilling




14                   APPENDIX.
of rumn, or burning of oyster-shells into lime, within the
city of New York, or within a half mile's distance of the
said City Hall."  Expired 1710.
June 27, 1706. —" An act to enable the M3ayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of the city of New York, to
carry on the fortifications of said city."  Ibid., p. 69.
Oct. 24, 1706, another act to raise ~3,000 for the same
purpose.
Oct. 16, 1708.-" An act to enable the Miayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the city of New York to raise
~600, in two years, for the uses therein mentioned."  Repealed by Queen Anne, Dec. 17, 1709.
Nov. 11, 1709. —" An act to regulate the sale of goods
by public outcry, auction, or vendue, in the city of New
York."  Renewed or provided for until the act of Nov.
19, 1720, which expired July 1, 1726.
July 21, 1705. —" An act to oblige the inhabitants of
each particular ward within the city of New York to
make good their respective quotas of all public taxes."
By this act, "if any collector or constable of any ward
proved insolvent, or withdrew with the public money, the
inhabitants of the ward who elected him should make
good the loss by a new levy, and not the city at large, as
had been formerly."
3May 14, 1717. —" An act to enable the Mayor, Aldermen, &c., to raise the sum of ~500 for altering the course
of the Common Sewer, at the end of Broad street, and for
cleansing the dock of the city."  It was recited that the
public and annual income of the city was so small, that
they would not defray the necessary and public charge
thereof. (Law in the office of Secretary of State.)
Sept. 20, 1782.-"- An act to raise the sum of ~'268, in




APPENDIX.                   15
the city and county of New York, for discharging the
debts therein mentioned."
Sept. 20, 1728. —" An act for raising or levying P~200
for repairing the barrack in his Majesty's Fort George, in
the city of New York."In 1713, an act was passed for amending and keeping
the Post road, from New York to King's Bridge. It was
successively renewed until 1741, when it was materially
altered. Its chief provision was, that the portions of the
street, from the dwelling house of Joachim  Anderson,
should be repaired and amended by the inhabitants of all
the wards of the city except the Out Ward; and all that
part of the road from Joachim Anderson's to the limits
of Harlem patent shall be amended and repaired by the
inhabitants of the Bowery division of the Out Ward.
In 1717, an act was passed as to Ferries. This was to
last for seven years. It was renewed in 1724, again in
1726, and finally in 1732, when the law was passed which
remained in force down to the Revolution, and which will
be particularly noticed under the head of Ferries. By the
act of 1717, the rates of ferriage were established, the
times of running, and number of boats prescribed, and
other regulations imposed.
NOTE 8.-PAGE 25.
Acts of the Corporation ucnder the charter of 1686.
On the 24th of April, 16S6, there was the following
proceeding:




16                   APPENDIX.
" Adrian Waterhouse, making application for satisfaction
of his ground that was taken away to make the New
street, did consent to convey his right and title therein to
the city; and in consideration thereof to be free from all
public taxes for the use of the city for a term of years,
and also fiom payment of what has been already taxed."
On the Sth of August, 1687, an  ordinance was
passed, directing the inhabitants to pave the portions of
the streets opposite their lots, and imposing a fine for
neglect.
On the 15th of October, 1691, several ordinances were
adopted.  Two markets were established-the sale of
butcher's meat and fish was regulated-the duties of carmen were prescribed-two persons were appointed city
surveyors, to. lay out lots-and the assize of bread was
settled.
Dec. 4th, 1691.-A committee was appointed to lay
out streets, and highways, and lots of ground, with power
to treat with claimants for their rights, and to sell lots.
January 21, 1692. —The inhabitants from the widow
Lewis to the water gate were summoned to produce their
patents, to show what claim they had to the ground before
their doors unto low water mark. Upon perusal of the
patents exhibited, it appeared that they had no title or
pretense to such ground.
N. B. Several of the inhabitants did not appear.
Daniel Van Vost produced his patent, laying claim to
certain ground. Eight days given him  to make his defense.
Feb. 5th, 1692.-"' Upon perusal of Daniel Van Vost,
his patent, the Common Council are of opinion that all
the land, without the wall, belongs to the city." This




APPENDIX.                    17
means, it is supposed, the land which Van Vost claimed
under his patent, and lying outside the wall.
The wall was first erected in 1653, being an entrenchment and line of palisades, running through Wall street,
to Broadway, and to the North River. In 1699, the Common Council petitioned the governor to have it demolished, and the materials to be employed in building the
City Hall. (Valentine's Manual, 1852, p. 353.)
On the 11th of February, 1692, an ordinance was
adopted, directing the inhabitants in the streets and lanes,
called Bridge street, Broad street, Church street, Broadway, Beaver street, Pearl street, and others not named, to
pave so much thereof as shall front their respective buildings and lots, according to the dimensions and proportions
specified. This ordinance was enforced by a penalty of
20s. for every neglect, to be levied by distress of goods
and chattels. An Alderman and Assistant Alderman in
each ward were to levy of the goods and chattels of the
defaulters, until the same should be done. (Published at
the City Hall after the ringing of three bells.)
October 6th, 1722.-Ordered that Alderman Cortlandt
and Mr. Roosevelt be a committee to fence in the land belonging to the Corporation, from high water to low water
mark, from the west side of the slip near the house of
Andrews Hartenbrook, and that they take the affidavits of
such ancient and honest inhabitants as can best inform
them, where the high water mark was about twenty or
twenty-two years ago.
2




18                    APPENDIX.
NOTE 9.-PAGE 26.
Proceedbings anzd Petition ofithe Common Councilfor the CIharter
of 1730, and acts of the King's Council.
At a meeting of the Common Council, held on the 23d
of March, 1729, it was
"Resolved, That this Corporation do make application to
his Excellency the Governor, for his MIajesty's grant of
confirmation of the charter of the Corporation in the Royal
style, and of all their ancient rights and privileges thereunto belonging, and for such additions, grants, emoluments
and privileges as can be obtained."
A committee was appointed to consider what things it
would be needful to be petitioned for by this Corporation.
The committee made their report " as to what may be
thought necessary to ask and petition for, in order to obtain
a new charter in the Royal style, to confirm and grant
unto this city their present grant and charter."
They reported eighteen different subjects to be asked
for. The report was approved of.
A committee was appointed to wait upon the Governor
in relation to the matter. They did so. and were informed
that he would refer any such petition to his Majesty's
Council for their advice, as he was bound to do by his
instructions.  (Minutes C. C., Board of Assistants, 1729.)
A petition was then drawn, and on the 3d of August,
-1729, was approved and directed to be presented to the
Governor.
" To his Excellency, Sac.:
" The humble petition of the Mayor, Aldermen, and
Commonalty of the city of New York, sheweth:




APPENDIX.                     19
"That the city of New York is an ancient city, and the
citizens thereof have anciently held and used, and still do
hold and use divers rights, liberties, privileges, franchises,
jurisdictions and emoluments, lands, tenements, hereditaments, and public buildings, as well by the name of the
Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the city of' New
York, as otherwise, as well to the great improvement of
his MIajesty's revenue, and the sensible increase of navigation, trade, and commerce, as to the advancement of the
said city in the number of buildings and  inhabitants,
whereby the said city is become a considerable seaport,
and exceedingly necessary and useful to Great Britain in
supplying his Majesty's government in the West Indies
with bread, flour, and other provisions.
"l That the said Corporation and citizens have been strenuous assertors of the Protestant religion, and upon all occasions shewed an earnest and hearty zeal for the Protestant succession in his Majesty's illustrious house, and ever demonstrated their sincere loyalty and affection to the crown of
Great Britian, by an unfeigned readiness and alacrity in
paying all due regard to the support of the honor and
dignity of his Majesty's government, and in the cheerful
payment of those duties and taxes for that purpose raised
and layed, and of which they bear a voluntary, though
very great part.
" And as this city, under the influence of his Majesty's
just, mild, and gracious government, as well as that of the
royal predecessors, is grown large and populous, and under
your Excellency's wise and prudent administration bath
the fair prospect of a numerous accession of inhabitants,
the same grows daily sensible of a want of sufficient power
and authority, so to regulate and improve these great ad



20                   APPENDIX.
vantages, as might render it of further use and service to
the crown, to the advancement of morality and true reliionl, to their trade and navigation, to the better order,
rule and government thereof, and to the general good of
the whole body of people in this his Miajesty's colony of
New York.
" Ihe?-efore your Excellency's petitioners most humbly
pray, that your Excellency and the Honorable Council of
this colony will be favorably pleased to direct and order
his MIajesty's Letters Patent, under the great seal of the
colony, to pass in the Royal style, confirming and granting
to this city and Corporation, by the name, style, and title
of Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the city of New
York, all their lands, tenements, public buildings, and
hereditaments, wharves, docks, bridges, slips, ferries,
cranes, grants, Charters, liberties, franchises, free customs,
jurisdictions, emoluments and immunities, now and heretofore by them held and enjoyed; and that, for the greater
ease and encouragement of trade, the bounds and limits of
this city be enlarged, and do hereafter extend to and comprehend four hundred feet beyond low water mark on
Hudson's river, from the certain creek or kill, called Bestaver's Killitjie, southward to the Fort, and from thence
the same number of feet beyond low water mark around
the Fort and along the East river, as far as the north side
of a certain hill call Corlear's Hook; and that they may have
the soil thereof at a reasonable quit rent.
"That the Corporation may have the sole power and
authority of appointing ferries around this island, with the
profits, benefits, and advantages arising therefrom, with
such fees as shall be regulated by the act of Assembly.
" That they should have all the market-houses, slips,




APPENDIX.                   21
wharves, docks, cranage and wharfage, and profits which
may arise therefrom."
Various other powers, of a municipal or judicial nature,
are then sought for, which it is needless to particularize.
They also pray that the Corporation may have a confirmation and grant of the lands they held on Nassau Island, the
ferry houses and appurtenances thereunto.
MIr. Recorder (Aug. 10, 1729) presented to this court a
draft of a new charter and confirmation, &c., which was
read; and it was ordered that a Colmmittee examine the
same, and advise with Mir. Murray and such other counsel
as they think needful thereupon.
Proceedings of the King's Council.
Upon the charter being submitted to the Governor in
Council, it was referred to Mr. Van Dam, Mr. Clark, Mr.
Harrison, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Provost, Mr. Kennedy and
Mr. Philip Van Cortlandt to examine and report upon.[Minutes of Council, 1730-Albany Records.]
The Committee made a most elaborate report to the
Council, passing separately upon every clause, and sanctioning or modifying each successively. Among the important changes was one stopping the grant of the four
hundred feet at the Fort, and recommencing at Whitehall.
They also added a clause, providing that the wharves towards the rivers should be forty feet wide, for the convenience of trade and for defense. This provision is in the
charter.
The report being concurred in by the Council, it was
unanimously
" Resolved, That the Governor be advised to grant the
charter."-Ibid.




22.                   APPENDIX.
It was issued accordingly; and on the 11th of February,
1730, was presented to the Mayor by the Governor, with
mluch ceremony.-[Ibid., and Minutes of Common Council, New York, of that date.]
NOTE 10. -PAGI 26.
Recital in Alonltgonterie's Charter, 1730.
(After stating the charter of Dongan, &c., Queen Anne,
it proceeds:)
"By virtue, or under pretext thereof, the said inhabitants and citizens of the city of New York have held and
enjoyed, or have claimed to hold and enjoy, and still do
claim to hold and enjoy, the ferry, vacant land, profits,
privileges, and oth.ers the premises in the before-recite
letters patent mentioned and intended to be granted.
" And whereas, besides all the aforesaid particulars in the
said grant or iinstrument of the year 16S6, and in the before-recited letters patent of Queen Anne, mentioned or
intended to be thereby granted, the citizens and inhabitants
of the said city of New York have anciently held, or
claimed to hold, use and enjoy divers other rights, privileges, franchises, powers, profits, lands, tenements and
hereditaments, as well by prescription as by divers grants
and confirmations of and from divers governors, lieutenantgovernors, by the name of Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the city of New York, and by divers other names,
styles and titles, and otherwise.




APPENDIX.                     23
" And whereas, divers questions, doubts and opinions,
ambiguities, controversies and debates have arisen and been
made, as well upon and concerning the validity and force
of the said recited grant or writing, dated in the year of
our Lord 16S6, and the before-recited letters patent of
Queen Anne, as upon all and every other grant and confirmation of divers governors, lieutenant-governors, and
commanders-in-chief, made to our city of New York as
aforesaid, by reason of the variety of names, styles, titles
and incorporations aforesaid, and by reason that the beforementioned grant or instrunentj dated in the year of our
Lord 16S6, and the other grants and confirmations, were
made in the Governor's own name respectively, when they
should have been made in the respective names, styles and
titles of former kings and queens, our royal predecessor,
under whom they were governors, &c.
" And by reason, as some suggest and say, that the said
city, or inhabitants or citizens thereof; never were well,
regularly or legally incorporated, and for want thereof,
none of the said grants, confirmations and writings hereinbefore mentioned, could take effect or operate; and for
divers other defects in all or some of the aforesaid grants,
confirmations and writings.
" And whereas, the said," (the petition of the Corporation is then recited.) "And we, considering that the strength
and increase of this our province of New York does in a
great measure depend upon the welfare and prosperity of
ourt said city, wherein the trade and navigation thereof are
principally carried on, promoted and encouraged, and we
are desirous to give encouragement to the said city, inhabitants and citizens, and to remove, utterly abolish, and
wholly take away all and all manner of causes, occasions,




24                   APPENDIX.
and matters, whereupon such questions, doubts, opinions,
ambiguities, controversies and debates as aforesaid, or any
other questions or doubt may or can arise, in order thereunto," &c.
NOTE 11.-PAGE 27.
Act confirming the Charter, October 14th, 1732.
"An act of confirming unto the city of New York its
rights and privileges, passed October 14, 1732.
" 1st. Be it declared and enacted by the Governor, the
Council and the General Assembly of the colony of New
York, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the
same, that the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the
city of New York shall and may forever hereafter continue
and remain and a body corporate and politic in are facto et
nomine, by the name of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Comnzonalty of the city of New York; and by that name to sue,
plead, and be impleaded, and to answer and be answered,
without any seizure or forejudger for or upon any pretence
of any forfeiture or misdemeanor at ally time heretofore
done, committed, or suffered.
"2d. And be it enacted by the authority aforesaid,
that all and singular letters patent, charters, gifts, and
grants, sealed under the great seal of the colony of New
York, heretofore made and granted unto the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the city of New York, be, and
are hereby declared to be, and shall be, good, valid,




'APPENDIX.                   25
authentic and effectual in the law, against the king's Majesty, his heirs and successors, and all and every person
and persons whomsoever, according to the tenor and effect
of the said letters patent, grants, charters and gifts.
" 3d. And be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, that
all and singular letters patent, grants, charters and gifts,
sealed under the great seal of the colony of New York,
heretofore made and granted to the Mayor, Aldermen, and
Commonalty of the city of New York, be, and are to all
intents and purposes, hereby ratified and confirmed.
"And be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, that the
Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the city of New
York, and their successors, shall and may forever hereafter
peaceably have, hold, use and enjoy all and every the
rights, gifts, charters, grants, powers, liberties and hereditaments which have heretofore been given or granted
unto the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the city of
New York, by any letters patent, charter, grant or gift,
under the seal of the colony of New York.
" 5th. And be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, that
this present act shall be taken, accepted and reputed, to be
a general and public act, of which all and every the judges
and justices of the colony in all courts, and all other persons, shall take notice on all occasions whatsoever, as if it
were a public act of Assembly relating to the whole colony;
any thing herein contained to the contrary thereof in anywise notwithstanding."




26                    APPENDIX.
NOTE 12.- PAGE 27.
Minute of Colonial Statutes passed after the Charter of 1730.
The statute of 1732, respecting ferries, is hereafter
noticed.
It is sufficient here to observe, that there is not a clause
in it, except one, which could not have been made the subject of an ordinance, under a just construction of the
powers of the Corporation.
October, 1730.-An act was passed to prevent damages
arising from the running at large of swine; which gave
authority to impound, and, if not redeemed within a limited
time, to sell them at auction.
This was made perpetual by an act of the 14th September, 1739.
But on the 27th of February, 1751, it was enacted, that
it should be lawful for the Mayor, &c., in Common Council convened, to make and establish such laws and ordinances as they may deem expedient, for the purpose of preventing swine from running at large in any of the streets,
lanes or public places of the said city, and for impounding
or forfeiting all swine which shall be found so running at
large in said city, for such uses and purposes as the said
Mayor, &c., shall direct.
Certain acts'were passed for the better extinguishment
of fires, which conferred new powers upon the Corporation. (Act of December 16, 1737; of December 31, 1751;
of December 31, 1768; of December 30, 1769, and'of
April 1, 1774.)
A series of statutes was adopted respecting wells and
pumps (act 27th November, 1741; of December 12, 1753;




APPENDIX.                    27
of Decemzber 24, 1759; of October 20, 1764, and of
January 26, 1770). Another class of statutes related to
the Post road, and other roads within tile limits of the city.
(Act of 173S; of November 7, 1741; of November 25,
1751; of October 39, 1764, and of March 9, 1774. As to
wharves and slips, see act of September 21, 1744; of
January 27, 1770, and of February 16, 1771.)
As to bridges, see the act of March 10, 1774.
Various statutes were also passed in relation to streets.
Most of these acts will be noticed more particularlry, and
commented upon when their subjects are discussed.  I
shall then endeavor to point out where they appear to
have been superfluous, where necessary, and where merely auxiliary.
NOTE 13.-PAGE 28.
The letter of Governor Cosby is to be found in the London Documents of Mr. Broadhead, vol. 24. There is an
entry in the minutes of the Board of Trade, dated 22d of
August, 1734, in which they say, that the charter of M3ontgomerie is referred to in the act of 1732, but not transmitted; without which they could not properly judge of
the act. They direct the Governor to transmit a copy.(London Doe., vol. 25.)  No further notice of the statute,
nor of any act respecting it, can be found.




28                    APPENDIX.
NOTE 14.-PAGE 28.
Extract from the Commission to Sir Danvers Osborne.
"And you, Sir Danvers Osborne, by and with the consent of our said Council and Assembly, or the major part
of them, shall have full power and authority to make, constitute and ordain laws, statutes and ordinances for the
public peace, welfare and good government of our said
province; which said laws, statutes and ordinances are not
to be repugnant, but as near as may be agreeable to the
laws and statutes of this our kingdom of Great Britain;
provided that all such laws, statutes and ordinances be
within three months or sooner, after the making thereof,
transmitted to us under our seal of New York, for our approbation or disallowance; and in case any or all of the
said laws, statutes or ordinances, being not before confirmed
by us, shall at any time be disallowed and not approved,
and so sig-nified by its, our heirs or successors, under our or their
Privy Seal, unto you the said Danvers Osborne, or to the
commander-in-chief of our said provinces for the time being;
then so much and so many of the said laws, statutes and
ordinances as shall be so disallowed and not approved of,
shall from thenceforth cease, determine, and become utterly
void."
Dr. O'Callaghan has been so kind as to examine the Commissions of Slaughter, Fletcher, Belmont, Hunter and
Montgomerie, and they all contain the above clause in the
same words.




APPENDIX.                   29
NOTE 15.-PAGE 36.
The pamphlet in question is entitled " An Examination
of the Validity of the pretended Charters of the Cities of
New York, Brooklyn, 1852."
The following are the writer's objections and difficulties:
1st. He asks how the charter was delivered to the Mayor
on the 15th of February, 1730, when it is dated the 15th
of January, 1732?
The charter is attested as of the 15th of January, in the
fourth year of his Majesty's reign, George the Second,
which the writer will find was 1730, and the certificate of
Bradley is of the same date.
2d. That it did not pass the Council, or was submitted
to that Body, or that there is no indorsement on the instrument to that effect.
It was submitted to the Council, most thoroughly sifted
by them, ratified and unanimously approved.  The want
of an indorsement to that effect is really an objection not
worth refuting.
3d. That there is no indorsement upon it that Montgormerie consented to it, or proof that he did consent.
The seal of the province could not be affixed without
the Governor's consent; and, as he never sought to
break the charter, on the ground of its being surreptitiously
obtained, or on any other ground, it is no very extravagant
presumption that he did consent. It cannot be imagined
that the writer means that the consent must have been
indorsed on the document.
4th. It is objected that Montgomerie did not sign it.
Perhaps the judicial decision of Assistant Vice Chancel



30                    APPENDIX.
lor Sandford, that the signature of the king or governor, to
a patent or grant emanating from  the crown, was not
necessary to its validity, is equal in weight to the writer's
opinion.  (Bogardus rs. Trinity Church, 4 Sandford's
Ch. R.)
5th. It is next said, " that the consent of the Assembly
is wanting."
No man, before this, ever doubted that the king could
grant a charter, and empower his governors to do so. No
one has ever before imagined that the assent of a colonial
assembly was requisite for this purpose. If the king had
agreed to abridge his prerogative in this particular, it seems
reasonable to ask for some proof of it. The character of
Charles and James makes such a concession rather improbable.
6th. Again it is urged, that the charter was not sent to
the Board of Trade, submitted to the king, or received his
sanction.
It has been shown that such sanction was not necessary
for the passage of binding statutes. They were valid until
the king disaffirmed them. Much less could the royal approval be necessary for charters and patents.  The unrestricted power to issue them passed to the Duke of York,
and from him to his governors.
7th. The only glimmer of argument in the publication,
is that part of it which relates to the repealing act of
1823.
In a previous part of this work, many considerations
have been urged to show that this act could not repeal
either the statute of 1691 or that of 1732.  These considerations appear to the author to be unanswerable; but
if untenable, then the charters are left as they were before




APPENDIX.                   31
the acts; and, as nothing yet urged against them shakes
them in the most trivial degree, they were valid grants of
the kings of Great Britain, and are saved by the Constitution.
NOTE 16.-PAGE 78.
Boundaries of the ]Wards, October 6, 16S3.
At a meeting of the Mayor and Aldermen, at the City
Hall, the Sth day of December, 1683, the division of the
city and Corporation of New York, into six wards, is
agreed upon to be as follows:
THE SOUTH WARD. —" To begin at the corner house of
James Mathews, by the water side, and so northwards
along the Heer Graft (Broad street) to the house of Simon
Johnson Romaine; and from  thence westward up the
Beaver Graft to the corner house of Barent Coursen; and
from thence southward by the fort to the -water-side, including the Pearl street; and so to the house of James
Mathews, again."
THE DOCK WARD. —" To begin at the house of Mir.
Stephen Van Cortlandt, by the water side, and so northwards to the corner house of Gusie Denys, from thence
eastward to the house of Tryntie Clox; and so westward
to Mr. Van Cortlandt's again."
TIHE EAST WARD. —" To begin at the house of Thomas
Lewis, and fromt thence northward to the house of Law



32                   APPENDIX.
rence Keys; then along the wall to the corner house of
Miriam Levy, and so to Thomas Lewis' again, with all the
houses in the Smith's Fly, and without the gate on the
south side of fiesh water."
THE NORTH WARD.-" To begin at the house of Arian
Jansen Lagener; thence eastward along the Beaver Graft
and Princes street to the house of Christian Lawrence;
and so northwards to the house of Garet Hendrix, and
from thence westward to the corner of New street, and
thence southward to Arian Jansen, again."
THE WEST WARD.-" To begin at the house of Thomas
Coker, so northward to the gate, and from thence eastward along the wall to the corner of New street; and
from thence southward to the house of Peter Bestrede, and
from thence westward to the widow of John Johnson
Bestrede, and so to Thomas Coker, again."
THE OUT WARD. —" To contain the town of Harlem,
with all the farms, plantations and settlements on this
Island Manhattan's, firom  the north side of the fresh
water."
Mem. on these Boundaries.
The I-eer Graft is now Broad street.  The Beaver
Graft is Beaver street. Pearl street was that part of the
present Pearl street which lay west of Broad street, and
the part east of the same was Hoogh straat, or High street.
At least this was the case under the ordinance as to streets
of 1656. New street appears to have been the same as it
is at present. The house of Thomas Coker is mentioned
in the charter of 16S6, " as a messuage by the Fort," and
was reserved out of that grant.




APPENDIX.                     33
NOTE 17.-PAGE 78.
Boundaries of County of New York, in Act, Nov. 1, 1683.
"The city and county of New York to contain all the
islands commonly called Manhattan's Island, Manning's
Island, and the two Barn Islands; the city to be called as
it is, New  York, and the islands above specified, the
county thereof."-Copied from original act in the office of
Secretary of State.
Boundary of New York by Act of October 1, 1691.
"For as much as mistakes arise about the limits and
bounds of the respective counties, within this province,
for the prevention thereof1. "Be  it enacted by the commander-in-chief and
Council and Representatives, and by the authority of the
samne, that the said province be divided into twelve counties, as followeth:
2.," The county of New York to contain all the islands,
commonly called Mfanhattan's Island, Manning's Island,
the two Barn Islands, and the three Oyster Islands; Manhattan's Island to be called the city of New York, and the
rest of the islands the county."
Boundaries of the GCity in the Charters oy 1730, ~ 2.
" To begin at the river, creek or run of water, called
Spuyten Duyvel, over which King's Bridge is built, where
the said river or creek empties itself into the North river,
on the Westchester side thereof, at low water mark, and
so to run along the said creek, river, or run at low water
3




34                    APPENDIX.
mark on the Westchester side, unto the East river or
Sound; and from thence to cross over to Nassau Island,
to low water mark there, including Great Barn Island,
Little Barn Island, and Manning's Island; and from thence
all along Nassau. Island shore at low water mark, unto the
south side of Red Hook, and from thence to run a line
across the North river so as to include Nutten Island, Bedlow's Island, Bucking Island, and Oyster Island, to low
water mark on the west side of the North river, or so far
as the limits of our said province extend there, and so to
run up the west side of the said river at low water mark, or
along the limits of our said province, until it comes directly opposite to the first-mentioned river or creek, and
thence to the place of beginning."
NOTES 18 and 19. —PAGES 79 and 80.
Boundary of the County of New York, Act March 7th, 1788.
The county of New York to contain the islands called
MBanhattan's Island, Great Barn Island, Little Barn Island,
MB3anning's Island, Nutten Island, Bedlow's Island, Bucking Island, and the Oyster Islands, and all the land under
water within the following bounds:
"Beginning at Spuyten Duyvel creek, where the same
empties itself into Hudson's river, on the Westchester side
thereof, at low water mark, wherever the same now is or
hereafter may be, and so running along the said creek at
low water mark as aforesaid, on the Westchester side




APPENDIX.                       35
thereof, unto the East river or sound, and frooml thence to
cross over to Nassau Island to low  water mark there as
laforesaid, including Great Barn Island, Little Barn Island,
and Manning's Island, and from thence along Nassau Island
shore, at low water mark, as aforesaid, unto the south
side of Red Hook; and from thence across the North river
so as to include Nutten Island, Bedlow'slIsland, Bucking
Island and the Oyster Islands, to low water mark on the west
side of Hudson's river, or so far as the bounds of this State
extendl there, and so 7p along the west side of liudson's river, at
low water mark, or alongo the limits of this State, until it comes
directly opposite the first-mentioned creek; and thence to
the place where the said boundaries first began.'
[The boundary of New York, in the act of 1813, is precisely the same as the foregoing.]
Boundary it Revised Statutes, 1830, 3 R. S., p. 2.
4' The county of New  York  shall contain the islands
called Manhattan's Island, Great Barn Island, Little Barn
Island, MIanning's Island, Nutten Island, Bedlow's Island,
Bucking Island, and the Oyster Islands, and all the land
under water within the following bounds:
"' Beginning at Spuyten Duyvel creek, where the same
empties itself into Hudson river, on the Westchester side
fliereof, at low water mark, and running thence along the~
said creek, at low water mark, on the Westchester side
thereof, to the East river or sound; then to cross over to
Nassau or Long Island, to low  water mark; there, ineluding Great Barn Island, Little Barn Island, and Manning's Island; then along Nassau or Long Island shore, at
low water mark, to the south side of Red Hook; then across
the North river so as to include Nutten Island, Bedlow's




36                    APPENDIX.
Island, Bucking Island, and the Oyster Islands to the west
bounds of the State, until it comes directly opposite the
first-mentioned creek, and then to the place where the said
boundaries began."
[The variations are shown by the clauses in italics, in
the act of 1788, which are omitted in that of 1830. The
description on the New Jersey side adapts itself to the
boundary as settled by the Commissioners of the two
States in 1833.  The material change seems to be in
respect to low water, omitting the clause  "wherever the
samle now is, or hereafter may be," and the word "aforesaid," which implies the same.]
]NOTE 20.-PAGES 80, 81, 82.
Boundary of Kings County, November 1, 1683.
" Kings county to contain the several towns of Boshwyck, Bedford, Brooklyn, Flatbush, New Utrecht, and
Gravesend, with the several settlements and plantations
adjacent."-[Copied from the original act in office of Secretary of State.]
Boundary of Kings County, October 1, 1691.
" Kings county to contain the several towns of Boshwych, Bedford, Brooklyn, Flatbush, Flatlands, New
Utrecht, and Gravesend, with the settlements and plantations adjacent."




APPENDIX.                   37
Boundary of Kings County, October, 1788.
"The county of Kings to contain all that part of this
State, bounded easterly by Queens county, northerly by
the county of New York, westerly, partly by Hudson's
river and partly by the ocean, and southerly by the Atlantic Ocean, including Coney Island."
Boundary of Kings County-Act of 1813.
" The county of Kings to contain all that part of
this State bounded easterly by Queens county, northerly
by the county of New York, westerly, partly by Hudson's river and partly by the ocean, and southerly by the
Atlantic Ocean, including Coney Island and Barren Island;
and that the island on which the said three counties last
mentioned are situated, shall continue to be called and
known by the name of Nassau Island."-[Kings, Queens,
and Suffolk.]
Boundary of Kings County-R. S., 1830.
", The county of Kings shall contain all that part of the
State, bounded easterly by Queens county, northerly by
the county of New York, westerly by the middle of the
main channel of the Hudson's river, from the southern
boundary of the county of New York to the ocean, and
southerly by the Atlantic Ocean, including Coney Island
and Barren Island, together with all the islands south of
the town of Gravesend."
Description of Fire District in Act of April 2, 1801.
All, &c., comprised "within a line to begin at the East
river, opposite to, and to be drawn up the road that




38                   APPENDIX.
leads from the still-house, late the property of Philip Livingston, deceased, and including the said still-house and
the other buildings on the south side of the said road, to
and across the road leading from  Bedford, south of the
house now or late of John B. Johnson, and from thence
north-easterly, including all the houses on the east side
of the road last mentioned, to and including the house and
mills of John Jackson, at the East river aforesaid; and
from thence down the East river to the place of beginning."
Description of Fire District of Brooklyn, in Act of tAril 12,
1816.
That section of the town of Brooklyn, commonly known
by the name of the Fire District, and contained within the
following bounds, viz.:
"Beginning at the public landing, south of Pierpont's
distillery, formerly the property of Philip Livingston, deceased, on the East river, thence running along the public
road leading from said landing to its intersection with Red
Hook lane; thence along said Red Hook lane to where it
intersects the Jamaica Turnpike road; thence a north-east
course to the head of the Wallabought mill-pond; thence
through the centre of said mill-pond to the East river to
the place of beginning, shall continue to be known and
distinguished by the name of the village of Brooklyn."
Ciharter of Brooklyn, 1834.
Brooklyn was incorporated as a city-by the act of April
8, 1834. (Sess. Laws, 1834.) The city was divided into
nine wards. The five districts of the village, as before




APPENDIX.                     39
established, were declared to be the first five wards.  The
limits of the other wards are defined. Whenever they
come to the water side, the description is, " along the
Gowannus bay," "along the Wallabout bay," "along the
East river," " to the bay or river," or similar words.
The first six wards of' Brooklyn were defined by an act
of the Legislature, of the 9th of April, 1840. Where
the lines reach the water, they are described as running
to the river."
NOTE 21.-PAGE 83.
Act settling the boundary between New York and New Jersey,
Feb. 5, 1834.
The act recited a certain agreement made between the
Commissioners of the State, and declared it ratified on the
part of the State of New York. It is as follows:.
ARTICLE FIRST.-"The boundary line between the two
States of New York and New Jersey, from a point in the
middle of Hudson river, opposite the point on the west
shore thereof, in the forty-first degree of north latitude, as
heretofore ascertained and marked, to the mean sea, shall
be the middle of said river, of the bay of New York, of the
waters between Staten Island and New Jersey, and of Ra —
ritan bay, to the main sea, except as hereinafter otherwise
particularly mentioned.
ARTICLE SECOND. -" The State of New York shall retain its present jurisdiction of and over Bedlow's and Ellis'
Islands, and shall also retain exclusive jurisdiction of and




40                   APPENDIX.
over the other islands lying in the waters above mentioned,
and now under the jurisdiction of that State.
ARTICLE THIRD.-" The State of New York shall have
and enjoy exclusive jurisdiction of and over all the waters
of the bay of New York, and of and over all the waters of
the Hudson river, lying west of Manhattan Island, and to
the south of the mouth of Spuyten Duyvel creek, and of
and over the land covered by the said waters to the low
water mark on the westerly or New Jersey side thereof;
subject to the following rights of property and of jurisdiction of the State of New Jersey, that is to say:
ist. " The State of New Jersey shall have the exclusive
right of property in and to the land under water lying west
of' the bay of New York, and west of the middle of that
part of the Hudson river, which lies between Manhattan
Island and New Jersey.
2d. " The State of New Jersey shall have the exclusive
jurisdiction of and over the wharves, docks and improvements made and to be made on the shore, or fastened to
any such wharf or dock, except that the said vessels shall
be subject to the quarantine or health laws, and laws in
relation to passengers of the State of New York, which
now exist, or may hereafter be passed.
3d. " The State of New Jersey shall have the exclusive
right of the fisheries on the westerly side of the middle of
the said waters, provided that the navigation be not obstructed or hindered.
ARTICLE FOURTH.-" The State of New York shall have
the exclusive jurisdiction over the waters of Kill Van Kull,
between Staten Island and New Jersey, to the westernmost end of Shooter's Island, in respect to such quarantine




APPENDIX.                    41
laws, and laws relating to passengers as now exist, or may
hereafter be passed under the authority of that State, shall
also have exclusive jurisdiction for the like purposes of and
over the waters of the Sound, from the westernmost end of
Shooter's Island to Woodbridge Creek, as to all vessels
bound into any port in the said State of New York.
ARTICLE FIFTH.-'" The State of New Jersey shall have
and enjoy jurisdiction of and over all the waters of the
Sound, between Staten Island and New Jersey, lying south
of Woodbridge creek, and of and over all the waters of
Raritan bay, lying westward of a line drawn from the
lighthouse, at Prince's Bay, to the mouth of Mattawan
Creek, subject to the following rights of property, and of
jurisdiction of the State of New York:
Ist. " The State of New York shall have the exclusive
right of property in and to the land under water lying between the middle of the said waters and Staten Island.
2d.  "The State of New York shall have the exclusive
jurisdiction of and over the wharves, docks, anid improvements made and to be made on the shore of Staten Island,
and of and over all vessels aground on said shore, or fastened to any such wharf or dock, except that the said
vessel shall be subject to quarantine or health laws, and
laws in relation to passengers of the State of New Jersey,
which now exist, or may hereafter be passed.
3d. " The State of New York shall have the exclusive
right of regulating the fisheries between the shores of
Staten Island and the middle of the said waters, provided
that the navigation of the said waters be not obstructed or
hindered.
ARTICLE SIXTH. —" Criminal process, issued under the




42                    APPENDIX.
authority of the State of New Jersey, against any person
accused of an. offense committed within that State, or committed on board of any vessel being under the jurisdiction
of that State, as aforesaid, or committed against the regulations made or to be made by that State in relation to the
fisheries mentioned in the third article; and also civil
process, issued under the authority of the State of New
Jersey, against any person domiciled in that State, o.
against property taken out of that State to evade the laws
thereof, may be served upon any of the said waters within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the State of New York, unless
such person or property shall be on board of a vessel
aground upon, or fastened to, the shore of the State of
New York, or fastened to a wharf adjoining thereto, or
unless such persons shall be under arrest, or such property
shall be under seizure, by virtue of process or authority of
the State of New York.
ARTICLE SEVENTH.-"C Criminal process, issued under
the authority of the State of New York, against any person accused of an offense committed within that State, or
committed on board of any vessel being under the exclusive jurisdiction of that State, as aforesaid, or committed
against the regulations made or to be made by that State
in relation to the fisheries mentioned in the fifth article;
and, also, civil process, issued under the authority of the
State of New York, against any person domiciled in that
State, or against property taken out of that State to evade
the laws thereof, may be served upon any of the said waters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State of New
Jersey, unless the person or property shall be on board a
vessel aground upon, or fastened to, the shore of the State
of New Jersey, or fastened to a wharf adjoining thereto,




APPENDIX.                    43
or unless such person shall be under arrest, or such property shall be under seizure, by virtue of process or authority of the State of New Jersey.
ARTICLE EIGHTH. —" This agreement shall become binding on the two States when confirmed by the Legislatures
thereof respectively, and when approved by the Congress
of the United States."
NOTE 22.-PAGE 83.
Relative to the Controversy with New Jersey.
In a note of the revisers of 1S30 (vol. 3, R. S., 425), a
reference is made to the history of this controversy, as
detailed by Smith, in his History of New York, p. 228,
and to various acts of the Colonial Assembly, passed to
obtain a settlement of the boundary.
In the Journal of the Assembly (vol. 2, p. 393) is a
document, showing the violence with which this dispute
was carried on, and containing much interesting historical
matter.
In the year 1806, an attempt was made to adjust the
difficulty. New Jersey passed an act appointing commissioners, which was followed by New York. The attempt
failed, each party insisting upon their respective claims —
New Jersey that her territory extended to the middle of
the Hudson River, and New York that it was only to low
water mark, on the western shore.  [See the report of the
Commissioners to the Governor, Senate Journal of 1808,
p. 51.]




44-                  APPENDIX.
On the 6th of April, 1808 (1 R. S., 1813, p. 238), an
act of our Legislature was passed relating to this subject.
It recited the statute of New Jersey, of the 2d of November, 1806, appointing commissioners for the adjustment of
the line, as also the act of our own Legislature for the
same purpose. That the Commissioners had met without
coming to any agreement, and that it appeared by the report of the New York Commissioners, that the State of New
Jersey claimed, as comprehended in the grant from the Duke
of York to Carteret and Berkeley, the Hudson River, adfilu2m
aqute, as far down as Sandy Hook; but that New York had,
coeval with the commencement of the colonial government
of the two States, hitherto actually exercised or possessed
the jurisdiction over the Hudson River and Staten Island,
and the bay between it and Long Island, as a portion of
her rightful territory. The act then proceeded to declare,
that it was the duty of the Governor to sustain the jurisdiction of the State over the said territory until the State
should be evicted thereof by due course of law; and also,
that the whole of Hudson River, southward of the northern boundary of the city of New York, and the whole of
the bay between Staten Island and Long or Nassau Island,
should henceforth be deemed to be within the jurisdiction
of the city and county of New York, and that all the
offenses against the act should be cognizable in the courts
held in and for such city and county."
NOTE 23.-PAGE 94.
Form of a Grouind Brief.
We, William Kieft, Director General, and the Counsellors, in behalf of the High and Mlighty Lords, the States




APPENDIX.                     45
General of the United Netherlands, His Highness (the
Prince) of Orange, and the Noble Lords the Managers of
the Incorporated West India Company in New Netherland
residing, make known, that we on this day, the date underwritten, have awarded and granted unto Tymen Janzsen, a
certain piece of land lying and bordering on the Marsh
(valley), with the condition that the said ITymen shall, in
connection with the aforesaid land, possess in his own right
the marsh lying behind and before his land, which are
separated by Iils (creeks), and all this with the express
condition and terms that the said Tymen Jansen, or those
who, by virtue of these presents, shall obtain his action,
shall acknowledge the Noble Lords and States General, the
managers aforesaid, for their Lords and Patroons, under the
sovereignty of the High and Mighty Lords, the States General, and to their Directors and Counsellors here, shall in
all things be conformed as all good citizens are in duty
bound; provided, also, that the said Tymen shall submit
to all such burdens and imposts as by the Noble Lords
already have been directed, or hereafter shall be directed;
constituting over the same, the said Tymen Jansen, in our
stead, in the real and actual possession of the aforesaid
piece of land and marsh thereunto appertaining; giving
him  by these presents, full right, authority, and special
permission, the above described parcel of land to enter,
cultivate, and use in like manner as he has the right to do,
with other his patrimonial lands and effects, without our,
the Grantors, in our quality as aforesaid, thereof, any longer
having, reserving, or saving any part, action, or control
whatever; but to the behoof as aforesaid therefrom desisting, from  this time forth and forever; Promising this
Transport firmly, inviolably, irrevocably, to maintain, fulfill




46                   APPENDIX.
and execute, and to do all that in equity we are bound to
do, without fraud or deceit. These presents have been by
us undersigned and confirmed, with our seal of red wax,
here underneath suspended. Done at Fort Amsterdam,
this -- day of A. D. 1642, was undersigned,
WILLIA3M  KIEFT.
Lower down:
By order of the Noble Lords, the Director General and
Counsellors of New Netherlands, and was signed,
CORNELIUS VAN TIENHOVEN, Sec'y.
Confirmration of a Groulnd Brief.
RICHARD NICOLLS, Esquire, Governor, &c.
Whereas, there was heretofore a Patent, or ground brief,
granted by the Dutch Governor, William Kieft, to Govert
Lockerman and C. Lockerman, for a house and lot upon the
Island, towards the East river, (description.) The said
Patent, or ground brief, bearing date the 26th day of
March, 1.642. Now, for a confirmation unto the said Govert Lockerman in his possession and enjoyment of so much
of the premises as remains untransported, Know Ye, that
by virtue of the Commission, &c., I have ratified, confirmed,
and granted, and do hereby ratify, confirm, and grant unto
said Govert Lockerman, the parcels untransported, and to
all persons unto whom transports have been made, their
several parcels. To Have and Hold to them, their heirs
and assigns, forever.
The patent dated 18th April, 1667.
No. 24, see end of volume.




APPENDIX.                    47
NOTE 25.-PAGE 160.
Petition of 1702, for land wnder water on Long Island.
To his Excellency, Lord Viscount Cornbury, &c., &c.
The humble petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Connmonalty of the city of New York, most humbly showeth
unto your Excellency:
That your petitioners, by their charter, having a right
and interest in the ferry from this city across the river to
Nassau Island, and from the said island to this city again,
and to all the perquisites, profits, and advantages thereof,
which your petitioners perceive to fall much short of what
they might reasonably expect from the same, if the bounds
and limits of the said ferry were something extended on
the said island side, whereby to hinder and prevent that
privilege and liberty, which divers persons now take, of
transporting themselves and goods to and from the said
Island of Nassau over the said river, without coming to or
landing at the usual and accustomed place, where the said
ferry is kept and appointed, to the great loss and damage of
your petitioners, whose farmer of the said ferry complains he
cannot live upon, nor longer hold the same, though at a
modlerate and very easy rent; which mischief and inconvenience your petitioners know not better how to remedy
than by gaining a further interest on the shore adjoining to
the said island, so as to oblige persons to pay the rate and
duty of the ferry who pass and repass the said river with
themselves or goods, to or from any other part of the said
island, within the bounds and compass hereby prayed for,
than that where the said ferry is now kept; which being in
your Lordship's power alone to enable your petitioners to
do,




48                   APPENDIX.
We, your said petitioners, do most humbly beg of your
Excellency, that you would be pleased to grant unto us
and our successors, for the use and behoof of this city and
Corporation, under the seal of this province, all the vacant
land from high water to low water mark, fronting the harbor of this city, from the east side of the Red Hook, upon
Nassau Island aforesaid, to the east side of Wallabout, upon
the said island, for the better and more convenient taking
in and loading of passengers, corn, and other goods and
things bound to and fioml this city.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
(Read in Council, 11th March, 1702.)
The trustees for the.town of Brookland, in Kings county,
on Nassau Island, whose names are hereunder written, for
and on behalf of themselves and said town, enter a caveat
against the city of New York, or any particular person, for
having a patent for any land between high water and low
water mark, from Kickout and the Wallabout to Red Hook
in said township, till they be heard, &c. MIarch 16,
1702-3.
No further action appears to have been taken.
NOTE 26.-PAGE 164.
Grants of Land under water on Long Island.
On the 15th of August, 1764, a grant was made by the
Corporation of New York to Philip Livingston, of a parcel
of ground between high and low water, near Jeroleman
street. December 4, 1801, a grant to Ebenezer Pierpont;




APPENDIX.                    49
and another grant was made to him on the 23d of September, 1823. These were for strips in front of the land
known as the Pierpont property.
Between 1809 and 1817, a large number of grants were
made; and indeed the principal part of the strip from Atlantic street to a point on the north, near the Fulton Ferry,
is held under the grants of the Corporation.
On the 10th of April, 1850, a release and quit-claim
was given by the Corporation to W. F. Havemeyer and
others, in consideration of six hundred and fifty dollars, for
a strip near Baltic street, of about one hundred and thirty
feet in breadth, and extending about three hundred and
sixty-nine feet from high to low water miark.
NOTE 27.-PAGE 185.
Docum.ents as to the spcace between /zigih and low water ma.rk
around New Yorck.
January 21, 1691-2.-Upon summoning the inhabitants,
from the widow Lewis's house to the water gate, to produce their patents to show what claim  they had to the
ground before their doors to low water mark, upon perusal
of their patents it is found that MIr. Lawrence, iMr. Carsen,
and dMr. Dusen, and the late widow of Abrahan Leversen,
and Jabobus DO-, had no right by their patents, to any
ground before their houses; and Captain De Ray, on behalf of his father-in-law, doth declare, that he hath no pretense to any ground before his house.
Daniel Van Vort, his patent being, produced, eight days
4




50                   APPENDIX.
time is given him to make his defense, according to his
request.
The rest of the inhabitants did not appear.
February 5, 1691-2.-Upon the perusal of Daniel Van
Vort, his patent, the Common Council are of opinion that
all the land without the wall belongs to the city.
The wall was first established in 1653, being an entrenchment and line of palisade running through Wall street,
to Broadway, thence diagonally to near the river. In
the year 1699, the Common Council petitioned the
Governor to have it demolished, and the materials applied
in building the new City Hall.
In 11691 it was ordered that all the ground by the water
side, from the block-house to the hill, next to 3Mr. Beekman's, be sold.
The block-house was on the north-west corner of Wall
and Pearl streets, projecting beyond the wall of the city
The possession of Beekman was of a farm near Beekman
street, and appears to have vested in him as early as 1656.
Again, the proceedings with respect to what were known
as the extravagant grants of Governor Fletcher, throw
light upon this subject. In the year 1696-7, that governor had made various grants, among which was one to
Colonel Heathcote, of a portion of the King's Garden,
"runniniii to low water mark."  That garden was known
in Dongan's charter as a piece of ground by the gate,
called the Governor's Garden, and was especially excepted
out of the grant to the Corporation. By the statute of
1699, this patent to Heathcote was, with several others,
vacated and annulled; and it was provided, that no governor should devise or grant the King's Garden, the
Swamp, &ec., for a period longer than his own continuance
in office; saving, however, to the city of New York all




APPENDIX.                   51
their right to the Swamp, and to the ground behind the Queen's
Garden to lotw water mark. Queen Ann was then on the
throne. In the grant of Queen Ann, of 1705, to Trinity
Church, the Queen's Garden was included. After giving
the King's Farm, bounded on the west by Hudson's river,
it proceeds-" And also all our piece or parcel of land situate on the south side of the church-yard of Trinity
Churcl, aforesaid, commonly called and known by the
name of the Queen's Garden, fronting the Broadway on
the east, and extending to low water mark upon Hudson
liver, on the west."  Trinity Church, by a series of conveyances, became seized of the property (three hundred
and ten feet on Broadway), being the northern portion of its
possession, and the Queen's Garden constituted the southern
portion of its possession, probably commencing at a point
about opposite the centre of Wall street. The northern part
is marked on the map of 1695 as the burial-ground, and undoubtedly is the parcel spoken of in the charter of Dongan
as the new burial-place without the gate of the city,
erected by it at its proper cost. It ran to Hudson River.
Then on the 21st of May, 1751, Trinity Church received
from the Corporation a grant of water lots extending along
the whole line of their property, acquired either as the
burial-place or the Queen's Garden, described as adjoining
to the rear of their church-yard, and extending from each
side or corner of the rear of their ground, two hundred feet
into the river below low water mark; being of breadth on
the east side at high water mark four hundred and thirtyeight feet, and at low water mark four hundred and fortyeight feet.
It may be useful to advert to the title to the burialground in Trinity Church, as connected with this subject.




52                     APPENDIX.
The charter of 1697, to Trinity Church, recited a peti
tion of the church for a grant of a piece of ground without
the north gate of the city, in or near to a street called the
Broadway, in breadth on the east side as the said street
rangeth northward three hundred and ten feet, until you
come to the land of Thomas Lloyd; and from  thence toward the west by the said land until you come to Hudson
River, and thence southward along' the Hudson River, three
hundred and ninety-five feet, and from thence by the line
of our garden, eastward, unto the place of the said street
or the Broadway where it first begun.
This charter made no express grant of this piece of land.
In truth, it appears to operate only as a sanction or permission on the part of the Crown, so far as it had any power remaining, to use the land as a cemetery. The ground itself,
as before observed, was the new burial-ground erected at
the cost of the city, and confirmed to it by Dongan's charter; and in 1703 the Corporation made a conveyance of
the land to Trinity Church, describing it as all the buryingplace of the said city.
There is also a recital in the colonial act of the 27th of
June, 1704, that the church was in possession of this
ground, describing it nearly as it is described in the charter of 1697, except that the northern boundary line is
made to run along the north side of the burying-place continued to low water mark of Hudsbn River.  The grant
from the city is recognized in this act. Then in MIay, 1751,
as before observed, the church accepted the grant of the
water lots from high water along this piece of ground, as
wMell as the Queen's.Garden.
Thus, as to the Queen's Garden, we find a right in the
Corporation to low water mark recognized in the statute




APPENDIX.                     53
of 1699. Clearly this was the space between high and low
water, for the garden itself extended to the river, and
was expressly reserved out of Doncgan's grant. The patent
of Queen Ann professed to convey it, and yet Trinity
Church accepts a conveyance from the Corporation of this
intermediate'strip, as well as of a certain depth into the
river beyond it.
It would not be warrantable to press this circumstance
as decisive of the right, but it is a striking instance of the
claim of title of the Corporation to this strip, even in the
case of a piece of upland expressly reserved.
So as to the northern portion of the Trinity Church
possession, the recital in the charter of 1697 only carried
the boundary to the river. That charter probably did not
pass any title. The city had the title, and conveyed it
in 1703. The colonial act of 1704 recognized the title of
tile church. and perfected it, if it needed any aid. The
recital does indeed carry the line to low water. It is but a
recital. The true source of the ownership, viz.: the deed
of the Corporation, did not, it is supposed, go so far. If
it did, the right came from  that body; and if it did not,
still the right came from it under the grant of 1751.
Again, the grant of the King's Farm, by Queen Ann, in
1705, extended only to the river, being bounded on the
west by Hudson River, and the church or its assigns has
received grants of water lots in various places running
from high water. In 1773, November 18, for example, a
grant was made of a strip, six hundred and twenty-four
feet in length, beginning on the north side of Vesey street,
at high water mark, and so extending to the land granted
to the Governors of the College, adjoining Barclay street,
and from the north side thereof to the north side of Chanm



54'APPENDIX.
bers street to low water mark, and the soil under -water
from thence the whole breadth thereof, two hundred feet
into the Hudson-River.
Again, on the 23d of April, 1686, William Dyre conveyed to Thomas Lloyd a piece of land thus described:
" Beginning at the corner of the way or passage that leads
to the mill of Peter J. Mesier, and running southerly along
the highway to the church-yard or burial-place, as the
fence of said Dyre now standeth, four hundred and sixtyeight feet; from thence westerly upon a direct line as the
fence of the said church-yard or burial-place now standeth, to the water side of Hudson river, six hundred and
thirty-six feet, and so along the water side, four hundred
and sixty-eight feet, thence along," &c.
In October, 1694, Lloyd conveyed to John Rodman a
portion of this land. In May, 1695, he conveyed a part
of it to John Hutchins. Lloyd and his grantees had therefore a right to upland acquired before April, 1686. And
it is also clear that P. J. Mesier had acquired his title before that time. Yet we find that in 1699, Huddlestone,
Hutchins and Rodman applied to the Corporation, stating
that upon surveying their land, with a view to make
wharves, &c., there was found a strip belonging to the
Corporation, which they petition may be granted to them.
They describe their land as fronting the Hudson River, and
the strip in question prayed to be given them, as extending to low water mark.
In the case of Mesier's petition (April 15, 1701), he expressly asks for a grant from high to low water, and the
grant was for eighteen rods in length, at high water mark.
In fact, I have ascertained that the soil, below high
Water, in the North river, from  Battery place to the




APPENDIX.                    55
northern limit of the King's Farm, with only one exception, is derived from the Corporation.
That exception is of the land at the corner of Battery
place and Broadway. It appears that in 1729, this property, of fifty-four feet by one hundred and twelve, on the
south, and one hundred and thirty feet on the north side,
belonged to Charles Sleigh.  He, it will be noticed, is
mentioned in the description of the westward boundaries
in Montgomorie's charter, as owning a lot of ground, between which and a house and lot of Thomas Edes, the
street from the parade ran before the fort to the river.
This lot was mortgaged to A. De Peyster, in 1729. The
equity of redemption was released, and De Peyster conveyed it to Archibald Kennedy, in August, 1756. The
-mortgage of 1729 shows that Sleigh had then a right to
three hundred and ninety-two feet from the corner of
Broadway, westward, or two hundred and seventy feet
from high water mark, into the river.  (See records, 1729,
Register's office, New York.)  That brought his land to
near the east side of Washington street. Then, in 1770,
the Corporation made a grant of another one hundred feet
to Archibald Kennedy.
NOTE 28.-PAGE 186.
Grant of the four hundred feet in Charter of 1730, section 38.
"All the space of ground and soil of Hudson river, lying and being under the water of said river, to begin at a
certain place near high water mark, at the south end of a




56                    APPENDIX.
piece of uplaiid, which lies between the said river and a
piece of meadow ground or marsh, being the first piece of
meadow ground or marsh near Hudson river, to the southward of Greenwich, and fromn  whence the above-named
run of wa-tu,  called Bestaver's Killitjie or rivulet, runs
into Hudson river; from which place of beginning to extend or run to the south side of the street which runs fromn
our parade before our fort in New York, to Hudson's river,
south eighteen degrees thirty minutes west, on a straight
line, the distance being one hundred and twenty-five
chains; from which line to run a perpendicular breadth of,
and to comprehend four hundred feet from low water mark
into the Hudson river; the same containing eighty-two acres
and one half of an acre of land, or thereabouts.  Also all
that space of ground and soil of the East river, from the
north side of Corlaers Hook to Whitehall, beginning at
two large stones set on the south side of a small creek in a
marsh on the north side of Corlaers Hook, from whence to
the easternmost point of Corlaers Hook, the distance on a
straight line running south fifteen degrees thirty minutes
east, is forty chains and two rods; from thence to Whitehall, on a straight line running south, seventy-eight degrees thirty iminutes west, the distance is one hundred and
fifty-two chains; from which two lines to run a perpendicular breadth of, and to comprehend four hundred feet
fromn low water mark into the East river, the same contaming one hundred and twenty-seven acres or thereabouts, together with all benefits, easements, wharfs, ways,
hereditaments and appurtenances to the same belonging;
withll full power and authority at any time or times thereafter, to fill, make up, wharf and lay out, all and every
part thereof, and the same to build upon and make use of,




APPENDIX.                     57
in such manner as they and their successors shall see fit;
and all our estate, right, title and interest in and to the
same.  To have and to hold all and singular the premises
uato the said Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty, and their
successors, to their own proper use, benefit and behoof
forever.  Provided that nothing therein shall be construed
to empower the Mayor, &c., to wharf out before any persons
who have prior grants from us or some one of our predecessors, of quays or wharfs beyond low water mark, without the actual agreement of such persons, their heirs or
assigns, owners of such quays or wharfs; and also that of
the wharves to be built or run out, there should be left
toward the East and North rivers, forty feet broad, as well
for the greater convenience of trade, as to plant batteries thereon in case of necessity."
NOTE 29.-PAGE 188.
Ordinances of 1795 and 1796, as to South and Wlest streets.
" Whereas, the unlimited exclusion of this city into the
East River, by making further grants to the proprietor of
water lots, hath long been conceived injurious, if not ruinous to the internal and lower parts of the city, through
want of the necessary descent for carrying off the water
out of the streets into the river; and the Board judging
that a wide and spacious street along the front of the city
would tend very much to its ornament, convenience, and
safety, directed their Street Committee to cause a survey
and chart of the front of the city along the East River,




5S8                   APPENDIX.
with the line of such street marked thereon, to be made
and reported to the Board; and the said committee accordingly having reported the said chart, with the lines of the
said street, which is to be of the breadth of seventy feet,
and beyond which no further grants into the river are to
be made, or any buildings or wharves erected or made,
excepting such as the Board from time to time shall hereafter deem necessary for the safety of the shipping, and
the convenience of trade and navigation; and the Board
having frequently had the said chart with the lines of the
street run out and marked thereon, under consideration,
did this day, after making some alterations as to the course
of the lines of said street, agree to the same according to
the following description thereof, viz.: Beginning at a
point or station in the river, opposite the east side of the
Whitehall slip, two hundred  and twenty-nine feet six
inches (229 ft. 6 in.), from the corner of the south side of
Water street; thence in a direct line to a point or station
opposite the west side of Coenties slip, two hundred and
twenty-eight feet six inches (228 ft. 6 in.), from the corner
at the south side of Water street; then beginning at a
point or station opposite to the east side of Coenties slip,
one hundred and sixty feet (160 ft.), from the corner at the
south side of Front street; thence on a direct line to a
point or station opposite the western range of the Crane
wharf, three hundred and thirty-one feet nine inches (331
ft. 9 in.), from the corner at the south side of Water street;
thence on a direct line to a point or station opposite the
western boundary line of the grant to Thomas Barnes,
now belonging to Samuel Ackerly, three hundred and fifty
feet (350 ft.), from the south side of Water street; thence
on a direct line to a point or station opposite the west side




APPENDIX.                     59
of Rutgers' slip, four hundred (400) feet from the south
side of Cherry street; thence on a direct line to a station
or point at the east part of Corlears Hook, one hundred
and sixty (160) feet perpendicular from the south side of
Crown point street, at high water mark; which said line
is the inner side of the intended street of seventy feet
wide."
On the 10th of February, 1796, the same Committee
reported an alteration in the permanent line of the outer
street in front of the city on the East river, as was agreed
to on the 7th of April, 1795, which was also approved of by
the Board, and is as follows: "Beginning at a point as
laid down on the map, at the angle opposite Alderman
Beekman's house, which said point is froom the south side
of Water street at the continuation of the south-westernmost boundary line of the grant to Thomas Barnes, and
now  belonging to Samuel Ackerly, four hundred and
twenty (420) feet into the East river; thence running on
a course, as it appears on the map, N. S30 36' east, to a
point at the west range of Rutgers street, on the estate of
Henry Rutgers, deceased, which said point is from  the
south side of Cherry street, on a course south 30 15' east,
as said Rutgers street now  runs, five hundred and ninety
(590) feet into said East river; thence running on a course
as it appears on the map, north 87Q 15' east, to a point
into the East river at Corlaers Hook, which point is (after
measuring on a course of north 870 30' east) eight hundred and seventy (870) feet from  the east side of Ferry
street along Crown Point street; thence running at the
extent of said distance south 20 30' east, three hundred
and sixty. (360) feet from the south range of said Crown
Point street into  the river, to the said last-mentioned
point."




60                    APPENDIX.
ORDINANCE as to West street, 10th February, 1796."The Street Committee reported to the Board a description, from an actual survey, made of an outer street, along
the west side of the city, which is to be of the breadth of
seventy (70) feet, and beyond which no grants ought to
be made, and no buildings erected; which was read and
approved of by the Board. Beginning at the centre of
the arched bridge over the run of water called the Bestaver's Killitjie or rivulet, and running from thence in the
present range of Greenwich street, north 11 and 30' east,
one hundred and fifty (150) feet, to the south end of a
piece of meadow ground, or marsh (being the first piece of
meadow ground, or marsh, near the Hudson river, to the
south of Greenwich), and running thence along the said
point of upland, from  the west side of Greenwich street,
north seventy-eight degrees thirty minutes (78~ 30') west,
four hundred and twenty (420) feet into Hudson's River;
thence running on a course, as it appears on the map,
south, eleven degrees forty-five minutes (11Q 45') west, to
a point on the southern range of Duane street, which said
point is from the west side of Greenwich street, along
Duane street, on a course, as the said Duane street now
runs north, seventy-six degrees forty minutes (76Q 40'),
four hundred and forty (440) feet into the Hudson's River;
thence running from the said point, on a course southward,
seventeen degrees thirty minutes (17Q 30') west, to a point
at the north-easternmost range of the street or lane, between Kennedy's corner house and the Battery; which
said point is from the west side of Greenwich street, on a
course of north, sixty-eight degrees fifty minutes (68Q 50')
west, at the extent of three hundred and sixty (360) feet
into the Hudson River."




APPENDIX.                    61
On the 11th of July, 1808, the Street Commissioner
reported to the Common Council, that by a survey made
by himself and Mr. Loss, along the Hudson River, for the
purpose of directing the sinking the blocks for the piers at
the foot of Partition street, he finds that the line prolonged
by the survey of M3r. Magnin, as the west line of W7est
street, is not far enough into the water by near forty (40)
feet, if the line of West street be continued as it ought to
be, straight from Cortlandt street to Harrison street; so
that the pier to be built would be two hundred and ten
(210) feet in length, instead of two hundred and fifty (250)
feet, as stipulated. A resolution was adopted accordingly,
making a straight line from Cortlandt to Harrison street.
NOTE 30.- PAGE 188.
Petition for tlte Act of 1798.
The petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty
of the city of New York, in Common Council convened,
respectfully showeth: That as well for the ornament and
imoprovement of the city, as for the encouragement of the
trade and commerce of the State, and the safety of the
shipping at the wharves of the city, your petitioners have
lately directed a permanent street, of seventy feet wide,
to be laid out and completed, at and on the extremity of
their grants already made, and hereafter to be made, to individuals, on the East river, called South street, and on the
North or Hudson river, called West street, south and west
of which no buildings of any description are to be permit



62                    APPENDIX.
ted to be erected, so that vessels lying at the wharves may
be secured from fires.
That by reason of the curves and otherwise irregular
state of the shore at low water mark, in the East and North
rivers, at the time of the making of the grants of the predecessors of your petitioners (a general map of which, if
ever made, cannot now be found), such grants are deemed
to extend to unequal distances in both rivers, which occasions difficulties in making the permanent streets aforesaid,
regular; and that in many instances also, your petitibners
are willing, gratuitously, to give the soil, under the water,
on which those streets of seventy feet are to be made, yet
doubts are entertained whether your petitioners can compel any of the proprietors of the lots, fronting thereon (and
who may be unwilling), to make those streets for public
use, in any given reasonable time to be appointed by the
Common Council.
And your petitioners further show that part of their
plan aforesaid was to extend piers at right angles from
the said permanent streets into the rivers, at proper distances from each other, with suitable bridges; but doubts
have also arisen, whether your petitioners can compel the
individual proprietors of the wharves to sink and lay out
those piers, or, if they shall refuse, whether your petitioners will be authorized to sink and build those piers at the
expense of the city, and receive the wharfage, without incurring a breach of the conditions and covenants contained
in their grants to individuals.
The petition prayed that such powers should be conferred as should be proper to remove the difficulties and
doubts stated, or for such other provisions as should seem
meet.




APPENDIX.                    63
NOTE 3 1.-PAGE 1 88.
Act of April 3, 1798.
" Whereas, it would conduce to health and improvement
of the said city, as well as to the safety of such ships or
vessels as may be employed in the trade or commerce
thereof, that regular streets or wharves, of the width of
seventy feet, should be laid out and completed in front of
those parts of the said city which adjoin to the East river
or sound, and to the North river or Hudson's river, and
that piers should be extended from the said streets into the
said rivers respectively, at convenient distances from each
other, with suitable bridges for the accommodation of sea
vessels, and upon such a construction as to admit the currents of the said rivers at both ebb and flood, to wash away
all dirt and impurities. And whereas, the said Mayor,
Aldermen and Commonalty, by petition to the Legislature
under their common seal, have represented that they are
disposed to make the said improvement, but that from the
curvings and irregularities of the shores of the said rivers
in their original state-from the grants made by their
predecessors being deemed to extend to unequal distances
into the said rivers —and from  other causes, difficulties
have arisen as to the execution of a proper plan, and
doubts have been entertained whether they could compel
the proprietors of lots fronting on said rivers to make
those streets within a reasonable period, or to sink and
build those piers; and whether the petitioners could, without a breach of the conditions and covenants contained in
their grants to individuals, upon the refusal or neglect
of such proprietors, sink, build, and make those piers,
streets or wharves at their own expense, and receive




64                   APPENDIX.
wharfage as a compensation for the same; which doubts
and difficulties can only be removed by the aid of the Legislature."
Therefore, Be it enacted by, &c.,
~ 1. That it shall be lawful for the Mayor, Aldermen
and Commonalty to lay out, according to such plans as
they shall or may agree upon or determine, such streets
or wharves as are hereinbefore mentioned, in front of
those parts of the said city which adjoin the said rivers,
and of such extent along those rivers respectively as they
may think proper; and that as the buildings of the said
city shall be further extended along the said rivers, it
shall be lawful for the said Mayor, &c., from time to time,
to lengthen and extend the said streets and wharves.
~ 2. That the said streets and wharves shall be made
and completed according to the said plan, by and at the
expense of the proprietors of land adjoining, or nearest
and opposite to the said streets or wharves, in proportion
to the breadth of their several lots, by certain days, to be
for that purpose fixed by the said Mayor, Aldermen and
Commonalty, and that the respective owners of such of the
said lots as may not be adjoining to said streets or wharves,
shall also fill up and level at their own expense, according
to such plan, and by such days respectively, the space
lying between their said several lots and the said streets
and wharves, and shall, upon so filling up and levelling
the same, be respectively entitled to, and become the
owners of the said intermediate spaces of ground in fee
simple.
~ 3. If either of such proprietors should neglect or refuse to fill up and level such intermediate spaces of ground
by the times appointed, the Mrayor, Aldermen and Corn



APPENDIX.                   65
monalty may cause the same to be done on behalf of the
proprietors, and charge them with the expense; and it
was provided that if the said expense was not paid within
a time fixed in the act, with interest, the same might be
recovered by distress and sales, or by an action of debt.
The 4th section provided, that the sums so to be expended on behalf of the proprietors, and all sums of money
which might be assessed under the act for regulating the
buildings, wharves, and slips in the city of New York,
should be a real encumbrance and charge upon the houses
and lots in respect of which such assessment shall have
been made, and shall bear lawful interest until paid, and
shall be entitled to a preference above all other encumbrances upon the same; and the same with interest and
costs may be sued for and recovered in like manner as if
the said house and lots were mortgaged to the said MIayor,
Aldermen and Commonalty for the payment thereof.
The 5th section authorized the erection of piers in front
of the said streets or wharves. It will be particularly
cited under the head of Wharves and Piers, post sect.
NOTE 32. -PAGE 189.
Law of 1798, as amended, and now inforce.
SECTION 220 OF LAw OF APRIL 9, 1813. —"C And be it
further enacted, that it shall be lawful for the said Mayor,
A.ldermen and Commonalty to lay out, as far as the same
has not been already done, and according to the plan
agreed upon for that purpose, regular streets or wharves,




66                    APPENDIX.
of the width of seventy feet in front of those parts of the
city which adjoin to the East river or sound, and to
the North or Hudson's river, and of such extent along the
said rivers respectively as they may think proper; and as
the building of the said city shall be further extended along
the said rivers, it shall be lawful for the Mayor, Aldermen
and Commonalty, firom time to time, to lengthen and extendl the said streets or wharves."
SEC. 221 oF THE LAW OF 1S13, is precisely the same as
section 2, of the act of 1798, which is transcribed in Note
31.
SECTION 1 OF THE ACT OF APRIL 7, 1820.-Be it enacted, &c., " That if the proprietors of the lots of' land, or
land under water adjoining, or nearest and opposite to
the East river or sound, and to the North or Hudson's
river, in the city of New York, shall not respectively make
and complete, in proportion to the breadth of the said lots
of land, at their own expense, regular streets or wharves,
of the width of seventy feet, according' to the plan which
has been agreed iupon for that purpose, by the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty, and also fill up and level, at their
own expense, according to such plan, the spaces lying and
being between the said streets and wharves, called South
street and West street, and on a level therewith, that then
it shall be lawful for the said Mayor, &c., to cause the
siid streets or wharves, and the said intermediate lots or
pieces of land, or land under water, or any part thereof, to
be executed and done, for and on account of the said proprietors respectively, and if such proprietors shall not forthwith repay the said expense, with lawful interest therein,
from the time of the expenditure, that then it shall be lawful for the said Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty to levy




APPENDIX                     67
the same, together with the interest thereof, and all the
reasonable costs and charges attending such proceedings,
by distress and sale of the goods and chattels of such proprietors respectively, or by action of debt, in the Supreme
Court of this State, wherein it shall be sufficient to allege
generally that the defendants respectively are indebted to
the said Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty in a certain
sum of money expended on their account by virtue of this
act, and in such action any less sum than the one declared
for may be recovered, and full costs shall be given in their
favor.
~ 2. And be it further enacted, that whenever such
sums of money, or any part thereof, shall not be collected,
and the person to whom  said warrant shall be directed
shall make affidavit of this, demanding the same two several times of the respective proprietors of such lots
of land, or of land under water, as may reside in said
city, and that they have neglected or refused to pay the
same, or shall make affidavit that the proprietor or proprietors of such lots of land cannot be found in the said
city, then and in such case it shall and may be lawful for
the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of New York to
take order for advertising and selling the said lots of land,
or any of them, together with all the rights and privileges
thereunto appertaining or belonging, in pursuance of the
second section of the act entitled " An act for the more
effectual collection of taxes and assessments in the city of
New York," and the said second section of the said act
shall have the same application, and the like force to all
intents and purposes relative to the premises, which it has
relative to the premises therein mentioned.
~ 3. And be it further enacted, that every clause, co



68                   APPENDIX.
venant and condition in the several grants of the Mayor,
Aldermen and Commonalty of the said city, to the said
proprietors respectively, and their assigns, shall, notwithstanding this act, retain their full force and validity, and
shall be in no manner affected by the same, or by anything to be done or performed in consequence thereof; and
the said Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty shall have,
possess and be entitled unto the like payments, rights and
remedies by virtue of the said grants, as they might or could
have had, or would have been entitled to, if this act had
not been passed, and shall not, by the performance of anything herein contained, be deemed to have broken or infringed any of the covenants or conditions on their part
contained in the said grants.
NOTE 33. —PAGE 190.
Act of February 25, 1826.
It shall be lawful for the Commissioners of the Land
Office, and they are hereby directed, to issue letters patent,
granting to the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the
city of New York, and their successors, all the right and
title of the people of this State to the lands covered with
water along the easterly shore of the North or Hudson's
river, contiguous to and adjoining the lands of the said
Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty within the said city of
New York, at and from low water mark, and running four
hundred feet into the said river, from a point on the east



APPENDIX.                    69
erly shore of said river to Spuyten Duyvel Creek, otherwise called Kiing's Bridge Creek or Harlem  river; and
also all the land covered with water along the westerly
shore of the East river or sound, contiguous to and adjoining the lands of the said Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty, at and from low water mark, and extending four
hundred feet into the said East river or sound to Spuyten
Duyvel creek, otherwise called Harlem river. Provided
always that the proprietor or proprietors of the lands adjacent shall have the pre-emptive right in all grants made
by the Corporation of the city of any lands under water
granted to the said Corporation by this act.
NOTE 34.-PAGE 191.
Act of 1March 31, 1828, Session Laws, p. 163.-Extension of
Wl/est street to Great Kill Road.
West street, along the North or Hudson river, as laid
out and approved by the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the city of New York, shall be the permanent
exterior street on the North or Hudson river, from the
present northerly termination of West street to its intersection with a continuation of the Great KIill Road; and
all grants made or to be made by the said Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty, shall be construed as rightfully made
to extend thereto; and all the provisions of an act to reduce several laws relating to the city of New York into




70                    APPENDIX.
one act, passed April 9, 1813, and the several acts amendatory thereof and in addition thereto, shall be construed to
apply to said West street, herein and hereby made the
permanent exterior street as aforesaid.
NOTE 3.5.-PAGE 191.
Act of Janauary 18, 1830.-Battery to Albany Basin.
January 18S, 1830.-It was provided "that it should be
lawful for the Mayor, &c., of New York, vwhenever West
street should be made between the Albany basin and Battery place (late Marketfield street) in the said city, to
alter the plan or direction thereof, as heretofore laid out,
approved or agreed upon, in such manner that the line
thereof shall run parallel with the line of Washington
street; and that the easterly side thereof shall be one
hundred and eighty (180) feet distant from the westerly
side of Washington street, at the termination of the said
streets or Battery place, late Marketfield street, in the said
city."
NOTE 36.-PAGE 191.
Act of April 12, 1S37, establishing Thirteenth avenue.
The Thirteenth avenue, as laid out on a map made by
George B. Smith, City Surveyor, bearing date March tenth,




APPENDIX.                    71
eighteen hundred and thirty-seven, and approved by the
Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the city of New
York, by a resolution passed in Common Council, on the
twenty-eighth day of MIarch, eighteen hundred and thirtyseven (which map is filed in the office of the Street Commissioner of the city of New York), shall be the permanent exterior street or avenue in the said city, along the
easterly shore of the North or Hudson's river, between
the southerly line of Hammond street and the northerly
line of One Hundred and Thirty-fifth street.
" The several streets of the said city, as laid out on the
map or plan, made by the Colmissioners appointed by the
act entitled'An act relative to improvements, touching
the laying out of streets and roads in the city of New
York, and for other purposes," passed April 3, 1807, or
as subsequently established by law, southerly of, and including One Hundred and Thirty-fifth street, shall be continued and extended westerly along the present lines thereof,
from their present terminations on the said map or plan
respectively, to the said Thirteenth avenue. Also, the
Eleventh avenue shall be continued and extended on the
said map or plan along the present line thereof, firom Thirtysixth street to One Hundred and Thirty-fifth street.
" The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the city of
New York shall be, and they are hereby, vested with all
the right and title of the people of this State, to the lands
covered with water along the easterly shore of the North
or Hudson's river, between Hammond street and One
Hundred and Thirty-fifth street, and extending from the
westerly side of the lands under water heretofore granted
to the said Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the city
of New York, by letters patent, in pursuance of the act




72                    APPENDIX.
entitled'An act relative to improvements in the city of
New York,' passed February 25th, 1826, to the westerly
side of Thirteenth avenue. And the said letters patent
shall be construed so as to grant to the said Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty, forever, the said lands under
water, easterly of the westerly line of the said Thirteenth
avenue.
"' The proprietors of all grants of land under water or
of water lots heretofore made by the said Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the city of New  York, on the
easterly shore of the North river, shall have the pre-emptive right in all grants to be made by the said Mayor, Aldermien and Commonalty of the city of New York, of any
lands under water granted to them  by this act, adjacent
to and in front of the said lands under water so heretofore
granted; and the proprietors of lands having a pre-emptive right to grants of land under water by virtue of the
said act entitled' An act relative to improvements in
the city of New  York,' passed February 25, 1826, shall
have the same pre-emptive right in all grants made by the
said Mayor, Aldermen and Comnmonalty of the city of
New York, of any lands under water granted to them by
this act."
NOTE 37.-PAGE 1.91
Act of' May 13, 1846-Eleventh avenue.
By the second section, the proprietors of all forner
grants of land, under water, or of water lots adjacent to




APPENDIX.                    73
and fronting on the Eleventh avenue, between Seventeenth
and Nineteenth streets, shall have the pre-emptive right in
all grants to be made by the said Mayor, Aldermen and
Commonalty of the city of New York, of any lands lying
under water, or water lots lying  between Eighteenth
and Nineteenth streets, and the Eleventh and Thirteenth
avenues, as laid down on said map, on paying the following sums, in gross, as a consideration for the same, to wit:
For the grant of land under water, or water lots lying between Eighteenth and Nineteenth streets, and the Eleventh
and Thirteenth avenues, three hundred and sixty-eight
dollars; for the grant of land under water, or water lots
lying between Eighteenth street and the line of the centre
of the block between Seventeenth and Eighteenth streets
and the Eleventh and Thirteenth avenues, one hundred
and thirty-one dollars and thirty-three cents; and for the
grant of land under water, or water lots lying between
Seventeenth street and the said centre line, and the
Eleventh and Thirteenth avenues, one hundred and six
dollars and sixty-four cents.
NOTE 38.- PAGE 204.
Abstract of opinion of Judfge Talbnage, 1S37.
The learned counsel shows conclusively, that the claims
of owners of the upland lots is wholly untenable, as
the line of the streets never touched such a lot, and that
water lots only could have been referred to by the Legislature. He then states that it is obvious, from an inspec



74                   APPENDIX.
tion of the plan, for South street, as it was in  8 01, and
the plan of 1804, for West street, in the Street Commissioner's office, and from  the several plans of West and
South streets, as since altered, that most of West street,
on the North river, and of South street, on the East river,
were laid out further than four hundred feet from low
water mark. Hence most of these streets are upon lands
which were, at the time the plans were adopted, the property of the State. (The learned counsel, as I understand,
means that West street and South street, for the most part
of their respective lengths, were upon such land.)  In the
language of the statute, then, there were spaces lying and
being between the lots and the said streets and wharves.
Such a law was necessary to enable the Corporation to
build a street beyond the four hundred feet grant. The
law then authorized the street to be formed on the lands
of the State; and to provide the means of building it in
those cases where the water lots had been granted away,
it was provided that the owners thereof might be compelled to fill up the street and any space between their lots
and the street.
The act makes no provision for those cases where the
Corporation continue to own the water lots. It would be
pabsurd to apply the present provisions to lots owned by
the Corporation.  Such an application would empower
the Corporation to compel themselves to fill up a street
adjoining to or opposite their own property.  The act
was passed to reach two classes of cases only; the one
where the street or wharf was laid out within or contiguous to the four hundred feet grant to the Corporation; the
other where the street was laid out beyond the four hundred feet grant, and the water lot did not reach the street,




APPENDIX.                     75
but, in the language of the act, left a space lying and being between the lots and the streets or wharves.
"In the other, it empowered them to compel the owner
of the water lot, not contiguous but opposite to the street
or wharf, to fill up the street; and also to fill the space
between this lot and the street or wharf.  This statute,
therefore, has no reference to upland lots whatever."
He concludes —" The statute relates entirely to the nmanner in which the boundary streets of the city are to be
made, and its provisions are limited to this. If the water
lots reach the street to be constructed, and are granted
away by the Corporation, the proprietor thereof must make
the street opposite and adjoining his lot. If such lot does
not extend to the street, then the proprietor imust make
such street, and in addition fill up the intermediate space;
and upon so doing the fee of such intermediate space shall
pass to such proprietors."
The counsel refers to the case of Bergh vs. The Corporation, not reported.  The case was this: In 1809 or 1810,
Christian Bergh was in possession of several water lots, on
the East river, south of Corlaers Hook, having no grant
from the Corporation, but he was the owner of the adjoining upland to the water lots.  He filled in such lots and
made a wharf, insisting that, by the operation of the statute of 1807, re-enacting that of'1798, he had become
entitled to the lands filled in.  Upon a case made in an
ejectment suit, brought by the Corporation, and after argument, the court decided against his claim.  Bergh brought
a bill in Chancery, but before hearing, the suit was settled,
and he took a grant of the water lots.  Goerck's map of
1793 is marked in this cause as produced before an
Examiner.




.76                    APPENDIX.
NOTE 39. -PAGE 210.
Line of West street, under Ordinance of 1796.
The ordinance of 1796, laying out West street, fixes
three points1st. A point of upland on the west side of Greenwich
street, one hundred and fifty (150) feet north and along
Greenwich street, from  the centre of the arch or bridge
over Bestaver's Killitjie, from which point of upland there
is to be run (on a course north 7SQ 30' west,) four hundred (400) feet into the river.
The Bestaver's Killitjie was afterward known as the
Minetta Brook, and crossed Greenwich street in the vicinity
of Charlton street.  (See Loss's shore map, 1S07, in the
Street Commissioner's office.)
By the map of Loss, of June, 1807, in the possession of
Trinity Church, and much relied upon by our surveyors,
the line of even high water is to the west of Greenwich
street.  And in a grant with a nmap annexed, made to J.
J. Astor, in 1807, of water lots, in the vicinity of Charlton
street, it appears that from low water mark to the west
side of West street, as then set down, is two hundred and
ninety-eight (298) feet.  The map of Loss, before mentioned, makes the distance from the west side of Greenwich to the west side of West street about five hundred
and sixty feet.
2d. The next point established in the ordinance of 1796,
is at the foot of Duane street.  The line is from1 a point
on the southern range of Duane street, four hundred and
forty(440) feet into the Hudson river. By Magnin's map of
1S04, the distance froin the west side of Greenwich street




APPENDIX.                     77
to the west side of West is four hundred and eighty (4S0)
feet.  The change under the ordinance of 1SOS (ante, p.
47) will account for the difference.  The present line is as
follows: West street, seventy feet; Washington to West,
two hundred and sixty-two feet; Washington street, fifty;
and Greenwich to Washington, one hundred and sixty feet;
making five hundred and forty-two (542) feet.
Low water mark is here found to the west of Washington street, on Loss's map of 1807; of course, even includ-,ing WVest street, there was less than 332 feet from low
water occupied.
3d. The third point fixed in the ordinance of 1796 is at
the foot of Mlarketfield street.
It is from the west side of Greenwich street (on a course
west, 68~ 50') 360 feet into the river, and on the northwesternmost range of the street, between Kennedy's corner
house and the Battery.  Everything is here plain and
certain.
The title of Charles Sleigh, acquired before 1729, gave
him, as before observed, 270 feet into the river, from high
water mark. That mark was at the east side of First street,
which was nine feet two inches (9 ft. 2 in.) east of the east
side of Greenwich street.  Then, in 1770, A. Kennedy acquired by grant one hundred feet more, which carried his
line to the west side of Third street. This point was only
two hundred feet below low water mark, and two hundred
and fifty-seven feet three inches from the west side of
Greenwich street. The ordinance made the west line of
West street one hundred and two feet nine inches further,
or three hundred and two feet nine inches from low water
mark.
It appears by the maps, made in 1828, that the outer




78                    APPENDIX.
line of West street was laid down thirty-three feet six
inches further into the river, being three hundred and sixty
feet three inches from low water mark, and the street being
but sixty feet in width at this point, we have actually, even
at the present time, only three hundred and ninety-six feet
three inches from low water mark to the outer line of West
street.
And this is independently of the operation of the act of'
1S26, by which, in making West street parallel with Washington, the block was increased by sixty feet, and of course
West street pushed so much further into the river. M3agnin's map, of 1804, shows that block to be one hundred
and nineteen feet, and it is now one hundred and eighty.
By the same map, the distance from Greenwich to West
street, west side, is three hundred and fifty-eight feet.
It is then a clear demonstration that there was a space
of thirty-two feet nine inches between the extremity of the
grant to Kennedy, in 1770, and the east side of West
street, as fixed in the ordinance. It is also clear that this
space was within the four hundred feet belonging to the
Corporation.
Again, a series of grants was made, from 1739 to 1770,
from Mharketfield street to Albany Basin. That to Oliver
Delancey, in 1765, will illustrate and be sufficient, as it is
similar to the others. The grant first conveys the soil between the high and low water mark; then for two hundred
feet beyond. Three streets were to be made by him, of'
forty feet each, to be called First, Second and Third streets.
The exterior line of Third street was the end of the two
hundred feet, and of course the right of the city was but
half exhausted.
These were the only grants along this line which had
been made prior to 1798.




APPENDIX.                     79
I have taken pains to make a diagram of the grants and
the line of the ordinance from Marketfield street to Albany
Basin. In no place does West street, even in its outer
line, go beyond the four hundred feet.
There again it is manifest that there was an intervening
space between the termination of the grants and the inner
line of streets, and that space belonged to the Corporation.
I may advert to some other points on this river. Between Desbrosses street and Canal street, low water mark
is laid down just on the eastern line of ~Washington street.
This is less than three hundred feet ftom  the outer line
of West street.  (Map in Lib. E, p. 422, Book of Grants.
Comptroller's office, 16th Dec., 1807.)
Between Charlton and Hamersley streets, low  water
line is below Washington street. —(Map in Book E, p. 405.)
And from Washington to West, at Hubert street, it was
just about four hundred feet from low water to the outer
side of West street; and at Beach street about three hundred and eighty feet.  (Book E, p. 208.)
NOTE 40.-PAGE  10.
Line of South street, Tic.
The ordinance of 1795, with the amendment of 1796,
fixes four points on the line of South street, and I propose
to show the extent of the grants and location of the street
at, these points, as well as at a few others of importance to
understand the subject.




O0                   APPENDIX.
The first point was at Whitehall. The inner line of
South was to be two hundred and twenty-nine feet six
inches firom the south side of Water street, now Front.
Goerck's map, of 1793, makes the distance the same, and
the present line, as measured, is two hundred and thirty
feet two inches.
The grants at this place running along the line of Whitehall are as follows:
One to David Clarkson, of the 12th of May, 1732; another to Anthony Rutgers, also of the 12th of MIay, 1732;
and a third to Anthony Rutgers, of the 11th of October,
1734.
The first conveys a lot of ground and croft (one of seven
lots, lately sold), lying on the west side of the dock and
weigh-house, between the Weigh House street and the
street called the Broadway, fronting north on Custom
House street; on the south fronting a street forty feet wide,
called Whitehall street; west, by Broadway; east, by lot
No. 2, and being one hundred and eight feet nine inches in
depth on Broadway, and on the east side one hundred and
seven feet nine inches.
The next grant (viz., to Rutgers) is for another of the
lots sold as aforesaid (No. 7), described as a lot of ground
fronting on. Whitehall street to the north, bounded on the
west by the street called the Broadway, on the south by a
new street to be made, of forty-five feet wide; east by a
lot sold R. Livingston; being one hundred and thirty-six
feet deep on the street called the Broadway, and the same
depth on the other side.
The third grant, that of 1734, was of a lot of ground, to
be made land, and gained out of the East river, now being
under water, between the Great Dock and Whitehall, be



APPENDIX.                     8s
ing the corner lot on the east side of the street, to be continued, called the Broadway; contiguous to the south end
of the lot No.s 7, lately purchased by A. Rutgers; and
which lot is to extend in length from the south end of the
said lot number seven (7) two hundred and forty-five feet
into the East river or harbor.
Rutgers coveranted to make a street or wharf of forty-five
feet wide on. the north end, or inward part of the water lot
granted; and another at the outward part thereof, at the
south end of the lot in the East river or harbor.
The  Custom  House street was the Dock street of
Goerck's map of 1793, and, at present, part of Pearl street.
On the map of 1728, we find the Custom Hou-se laid down
on the north side of the street, but it is called, on that map,
Dock street.  The space of ground sold in 1732 is vacant
on this map.
Whitehall street, of these grants, was the Dock street
wharf of 1772; the Little Dock street of' 1793, and is now
Water street. o The new street to be mnade is at present
Fronut street
The depth of these grants, fron Pearl street, Nwas, in the
aggregate, five hundred and twenty-nine feet nine inches;
-the two hundred and forty-five feet including the inner
street, now Front.  The depth, by Goerck's map of 1-793,
was five hundred and fifty-nine feet eight inches to South
street, and by- present accurate maps it is five hundred and
fifty-nine feet seven inches.   The difference is twentynh1e feet four incheso  The distance from the south side of
Water street to South street is four hundred and eleven
feet eight inches.
If we assume (as is generally considered the fact) that
the south side of Water street generally represents low
6




82                    APPENDIX.
water mark in that vicinity, then we have the depth of the
grants, from that point, three hundred and eighty-one feet
(136 x 245), leaving nineteen feet, part of the four hundred not granted.
And then, as South street was laid down four hundred
and eleven feet eight inches (411 S) from the south side of
WTater street, it follows, on this assumption, that there
were eleven feet eight inches of land of the State to be
filled up, and the street to be made of seventy feet, entirely on the State ground; the whole being four hundred
and eighty-one feet eight inches.
The Corporation, however, undoubtedly construed the
charter-grant to give them the power over four hundred
and forty feet from low water mark-the forty feet to be
kept open for public uses. In fact, then the Corporation
sought here only forty-one feet eight inches extension beyond what they had a right to use.
A notice of the grants at the corner of Moore street will
be useful in this particular.
The first was a grant to Stephen De Lancey, 12th of
May, 1732, of three of the seven lots sold as before stated,
viz., Nos. 1, 2, and 5, and bounding lots Nos. I and 2,
iorth on Custom House street; in the rear on Whitehall
street; east along Weigh House street one hundred and
seven feet six inches; west by the lot sold Clarkson. No.
I was the corner lot, running along Weigh House street
one hundred and seven fet six inches.
The next is a grant to John Moore, of the 12th MIay,
1732, for lot No. 4, one of the seven lots before mentioned;
bounded on the south by a new street, to be made, of
forty-five feet wide, to run along East River or harbor;
west by lot No. 5; north by Whitehall street, and east by




APPENDIX.                    83
the Weigh House street, being one hundred and thirty-six
feet along Weigh House street. Weigh House street is
now Moore street.
Next was a grant to John Moore, of the 11th October,
1734. This was of a water lot, to be made land, and
gained out of the East River, on the west side of the
street running along the west side of the Great Dock,
commonly called the Weigh House street; and fronting
and contiguous to a certain new house and tenement lately
built by the said John  boore, on lot No. 4, lately purchased by hinm; which lot extends, in length, from the
south side of such new house or tenement two hundred
and forty-five feet into the East River or harbor, and is in
breadth, on -the north side, fronting and contiguous to such
new house, thirty-one feet six inches, and in the rear, onr
the East River, thirty-two feet six inches. Northerly, by
aforesaid new house and lot of ground; easterly, by part
of a street or wharf of twenty feet at least, to be built by
said John Moore; southerly by the East River or harbor,
and westerly by the lot to be granted to S. De Lancey;
with a covenant to make a street or wharf, forty-five feet
wide, on the north end or inward part of the lot (this is the
present Front street); and also to make a street or wharf
at the south end of tile lot, in the East River, at the outward part thereof, of forty feet wide.
Then there was a grant to Lambert Moore, October,
1796. After reciting the grant to John Moore, in October, 1734, extending from  the new house or tenement
lately built, two hundred and forty-five feet into the East
River, with a covenant to make a street forty feet wide on
the outer part, it proceeds: "And whereas, the Common
Council, for improving the accommodation of shipping,




84                     APPENDIX.
have determined that a new street or wharf, to be called
South street, of seventy feet in breadth, be made in the
East River, in front of the water lots between Whitehall
slip and Mioore street, by reason  rhereof the said street, of
forty feet in width, in the river at the south end of the
water lot granted to the said John [Moore, will become
unnecessary; and have agreed to extend the lots of the
said proprietors respectively between the Whitehall slip
and Moore street, to the new street of seventy feet wide,
to be called South street."
The grant is then made of sixty-four feet (64) from the
south end of the former grant up to South street.  The
grantee covenants to mnake South street.
Thus, the Corporation give to MIoore sixty-four feet, in
order to bring himn up to South street; or twenty-four feet
beyond the exterior line of the street, to be Bmade under
his grants, and the forty feet intended for that street.
At this point, also, the grants prior to that of 1796
extended three hundred and eighty-one feet from the south
side of Water street, leaving nineteen feet not granted.
The Corporation, in 1796, granted this strip, with the forty
feet reserved for the street and five feet more.
These statements have been made on the supposition of
Water street representing low water mark.
But there are stronger reasons for thinking that low
water mark, fiom. Whitehall street east to Moore street,
was at or about the north side of the present Front
street.
1. In the year 1732, a division was made into lots by the
Corporation, of all the space from the south side of Custom House street (Pearl) to the north side of a street to be
made (now Front street).  The ground was divided into




APPENDIX.                     85
seven parcels and sold.  Three of these lots ran from Custom House street to Whitehall street, near Water; and
four of them fromn the latter street to "a street to be made
of forty-five feet along the East River."  All these lots are
bounded 6" on Broadway," or "Broadway continued," on
the west; and by Weigh House street on the east.
The lots are described as " all that certain lot or parcel
of land," in the samre manner as upland lots are described.
Now, although the soil between high and low water is
sometimes described as a water lot, or soil under water,
yet the soil beyond low water is never described except as
land under water,'' soil to be gained out of the river,''a water lot,' &c. In the grants to Eve Provost and
others, in 1772, for example, the grant is first, "' of a piece
or parcel of land to low  water mark, and then of land
under water, two hundred feet into the East river." And
yet a resolution of the Corporation, passed the 16th day of
September, 1733, a grant of land running to low water
mark is expressly stated to be a water lot.  (Minutes of
Common Council of that year.)
In the year 1724, the Corporation divided the same
parcel of land (as I consider it) into lots, with a view of
selling it. It appears, from a memorial to the Governor,
that his interference had been requested by some owners
of land in the vicinity.
The Corporation in this document assert their undoubted right to the property, admitting their error in not applying for a designation of such spots as would be suitable
for forts, &c. Of course, in 1724, their right extended to
low water only.
In the grant to John Moore, of 1734, the line is " from
the new house or tenement then lately built, two hun



86                    APPENDIX.
dred and forty-five feet in the East river."  This new
house must have been on the northerly side of Front street,
and it is extremely improbable that between 1732, when
Moore got the land, and 1734, he built a house below low
water mark.
Every map of the city, and of these localities, will, I
think, confirma this conclusion.  On that of 1728, we find
the space called Whitehall much wider than afterward;
while on that of 1755, we see the three blocks formed out
of this space, from Moore street, west, and sold in 1732
and 1734. The west and east docks, as they were termed,
lay further east.  On the map of the Battery (Atlas No.
7, Street Commissioner's office) we find, in 1774, the water
line at the eastern end of the Battery, nearly opposite to
Front street.  The surveyors, whom  I have consulted,
consider this line not as designating precisely either high
or low water, but the general or average course of the flow.
The upland of the Battery clearly ran as low as Front
street, and there is nothing to warrant the supposition
that from that point to  llMoore street the shore so receded
as to make a material change in the line, although further
east, toward Broad street and Coenties slip, the tide did
trench deeper into the land.
The next point of the ordinance is at the west side of
Coenties slip. The inner side of the intended street is to
be two hundred and twenty-eight feet six inches from the
corner of the south side of Water street.  Goerck's map,
of 1793, makes the distance the same. The map in the
Book of Quit Rents makes it two hundred and twentyeight feet eight inches.
The present distances from Water street are as follows:
From Water to Front street, one hundred and fifty-two




APPENDIX.                     87
feet four inches; Front street, forty-five feet; and Front
to South street, two hundred and twenty-eight feet six
inches; in all four hundred and twenty-five feet ten inches.
From  Pearl to Water street is one hundred and five feet
five inches.
In 1772 a grant was made to A. & F. Van Cortlandt, by
the following description: "All that certain ground and
water lot opposite two dwelling-houses fronting the street
commonly called the Dock street wharf, belonging to
them; the said street lying between such houses and the
lot hereby granted; bounded northerly by said Dock
street wharf, which is to be enlarged and made of the
breadth of forty feet, easterly by the pier of the said
Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty, southerly as far into
the river as the right of the Coi:poration extends, westerly by
the lot granted to Peter Jay."
In the previous part of the grant it is recited, that the
Corporation mean to convey " as far into the river as the
pier on the east side" (of the lot granted), "belonging to
the Mayor, &c., doth extend."
There is a covenant to build a street of forty-five feet
wide, at the distance of one hundred and fifty-two (152)
feet from  Dock street wharf; and also to build a street
forty feet wide " at the extreme end of the water lot, being
so far in the river as the right of the Mayor, &c., extends."
The pier referred to in this grant was erected by the
Corporation between 1728 and 1755. It does not appear
on the map of the former year, but is laid down in that of
the latter.  It is also upon the map of Rutzer, of 1766,
and Hills, in 1782. It was called the Albany pier.
It was before shown that the depth from the present
south side of Water street is four hundred and twenty-five




88'APPENDIX.
feet ten inches; but frol VVater street, as it was in 1770,
four hundred and forty feet ten inches. Therefore, if the
south side of Water street, in 1770, represented low water
mark, the ordinance extended forty feet beyond the right.
But if low water was forty feet south of this point, then
the ordinance lays out the street just at the end of the
right.
Now it is a striking circumstance that on the map of
Rutzen, of 1766, and on the excellent map of Hills, of'
1782, the boundary line of the Dock Ward and South
Ward is given, and the line of the Dock Ward is some
distance beyond the extremity of the pier. That boundary was clearly intended to follow the description of the
Wards in Montgomerie's charter, and therefore shows the
extent of the four hundred feet as given by the 38th section of such charter. On the map of 1782, especially the
end of the pier is within the limit of the four hundred
feet by at least forty feet.
The Corporation pier, therefore, would, on this supposition, run three hundred and sixty feet below low water,
whatever was its length from high to low water.
The pier was built about the year 1750. A resolution
was adopted on the 22d of April, of that year, directing it
to be made according to a draft then submitted.
All these considerations warrant the conclusion, that
the street under the ordinance was laid down just about
the extremity of the four hundred feet, and was so intendedo
The grant was to the whole extent of the right, and the
street was therefore at its extremity. And the Corporation
seem to have assumed that they could lay out the street,
not only of forty, but seventy feet wide beyond this limit.
There is also a series of grants made in 1772, between




APPENDIX.                      89
Broad street and Coenties slip, which deserve attention.
None other of the same class are to be found.
That to W~illiam  Milliner, on the east side of Broad
street, may be taken as a sample.  It is bounded northerly
by a street called Dock street wharf, easterly by the lot
granted to; southerly, as far into the river as
the right of the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty extends; westerly by Broad street.  There is a covenant to
make a street or wharf along the side, and another to make
a street on the extreme end of the lot granted, to be forty-five
feet wide, at the end of twenty years.
The next point of the ordinance is at the eastern side of
Coenties slip. It is one hundred and sixty (160) feet from
the corner of Walker street.  The distance upon Goerck's
map, of 1793, is the same, and by late measurements it is
one hundred and fifty-nine feet five inches.  The distances from  Pearl to South street are as follows: Pearl
to Water street, one hundred and twenty-six feet; Water
street, forty-five feet; Water to Front, one hundred and
seventy-five feet; Front street, fifty feet; and Front to
South street, one hundred and fifty-nine feet five inches,
being in all five hundred and fifty-five feet five inches.
From  the south side of Water to South street is three
hundred and eighty-four feet five inches.
Grants.
1. To Conrad Ten Eyck, in 16S7, for ninety-five feet
from  the Dock street; on the south, the boundary was
the East river-doubtless high water.
2. To Conrad Ten Eyck, in 1697, bounded northerly by
the house and ground of Ten Eyck; southerly by the




90                    APPENDIX.
wharf or street fronting the East river, being in depth
thirty-one feet nine inches.  It is described as at low
water, meaning, I apprehend, about low water, because,
among other reasons, there was a covenant to make a street
or wharf, of thirty feet, at the end of the premises granted,
fronting the river.
Now at this period the Corporation could not authorize
the erection of a wharf below low water. It is a fair cons
clusion that they did not exceed their power, until clear
proof of the fact is produced. Therefore the outer end
of this wharf was either at low water, exactly, or within
low water mark.
Next, there was a grant made in 1750, to Samuel Ten
Eyck, of a water lot of ground No. 1, to be made land
and gained out of the East river, opposite to the south
side of a certain messuage or tenement, and lot of ground
of his the said Samuel Ten Eyck, which fronts the east
side of the slip, commonly called Coenties slip, the street
commonly called the Dock street wharf, lying between
the said messuage and lot of land and the water lot hereby
to be granted, to extend in length from the south side of the
Dock street wharf, two hundred feet into the East river,
bounded northerly by the street commonly called the Dock
street wharf (which is to remain a public street and highway, of forty-five feet in breadth ); southerly by the East
river harbor of the city, and westerly by a pier, wharf or
street, of twenty-five feet in breadth, to be made by said
Samuel Ten Eyck, and fronting to the aforesaid slip or
dock, called Coenties dock. There was a covenant by Ten
Eyck, to make a street or wharf of fifteen feet wide in the
inward part of the ground, granted to him contiguous to
and adjoining the street called the Dock street wharf, so




APPENDIX.                      91
as to make the said street mnore spacious by adding fifteen
feet thereto (which would make it forty-five feet).  Also
that he could make another street, of forty feet wide, "at
the distance of two hundred feet from Dock street wvharf,
as it now is at the outward part thereof in the East river."
"Grant to Mary Ten Eyck, 1772, all that water lot, No.
16, to be made land out of the East river, opposite to a
certain house fronting the street or wharf, called Cruger's
wharf, belonging to the said Mary Ten Eyck, to extend in
length from the south side of the said street, called Cruger's wharf, two hundred feet into said East river or harbor, and is in breadth twenty-four feet.  Northerly by the
street called Cruger's wharf, easterly by water lot No. 17,
granted to John Moore, southerly by the East river or
harbor, and westerly by the pier to be built by said Mary
Ten Eyclk."
A covenant to add five feet on the inward part of the lot
granted, adjoining the present wharf or street, of forty feet,
so as to make it five feet wider, and a covenant to make a
street or wharf;, of forty feet, on the outward part of the
lot granted next to the East river or harbor.
The grants then give an extent of line firom the south
side of Water street, as it was in 1760, of four hundred
and forty feet.  The present line, as before shown, is three
hundred and eighty-four feet five inches.  Add fifteen feet,
which was taken off the grant of 1750, to widen Water
street, and we have three hundred and ninety-nine feet five
inches, or, in other words, we have four hundred feet (less
a few inches) from the outer side of the wharf to South
street of the ordinance, as it now  is. And then, if the
extremity of that wharf may be taken as low water mark
(as it scarcely can admit of a doubt, it may be) we




92                    APPENDIX.
have the exact four hundred feet granted up to South
street. Forty feet more are granted, but it is to be made
a street; and that street was entirely onb the extremity of
the grants.
If it is asked how the Corporation came, then, to grant
four hundred and forty feet from low water (as in other
cases it did), I answer, that, the mlore the examination I
have nmade extends, the more strong becomes my belief
that they acted on the assumlption that they were entitled
to use, absolutely, the full four hundred feet; to build
upon it, for example, leaving the forty feet open and unobstructed in front. This is a question of moment, and will
be afterwards noticed more fully.
The line between Wall street and Maiden lane admits
of' a precise determination. I have found a diagram of
Mr. Colden, Surveyor-General, made in 1721, which is very
useful. It is in the. Council minutes at Albany of that
year. Garret Van Horne, Thomas Clarke, Rip Van Dam
and others petitioned the Governor for patents to extend
the wharves upon the shores of the East river, from Rip
Van Dam's corner, at the lower end of Maiden lane, to the
corner of Thomas Clarke, two hundred feet from the present wharf. (Jan. 18, 1721-2.)
The Common Council of New York opposed the grant.
February 1, 1721-2. The Surveyor-General laid before
the Board a map of the soil of the river, petitioned for by
E. Van Horne and others, describing the place of the
wharves and that of low water mark.
November 1, 1722; it was ordered, with the advice of
the council, that the prayer of Van Horne, &c., be granted;
that the breadth of' the street between the present houses
and the improvements be forty feet; that the same be for



APPENDIX.                     93
ever hereafter called Burnet's street; that the street called
King street be continued on the same straight line on
which it now is, at the common charge of the grantees.
The map of the Surveyor-General lays down Thomas
Clarke's corner on the north-east corner of Wall street,
and what is now Water street. The existing wharf was
twenty-nine feet wide; and it is evident from that mnap, as
well as the maps in the Street Commissioner's office, that
the two hundred feet was to extend from the south side of
Water street; as it then was, being sixteen feet further
north than its present line; five more were subsequently
added.
The grant is recited in Lib. D, p. 557 of Grants.  The
two hundred feet begoan on the south side of the wharf.
Upon the survey is the following memorandum: "'N. B.
The tide this day did not fall lower than the foundation of
the present wharves.  Jan'y 26, 1721-2."
Then Burnet's key was to be enlarged eleven feet, making it forty feet wide; and on the 28th of October, 1765,
a grant was made to Cornelius P. Lowe: " Whereas, the
said C. P. Lowe is possessed of a certain lot of ground on
the southerly corner of Burnet's key, containing in breadth
in front on said key thirty-five feet three inches in breadth,
on the south-west side, fronting the street on the easterly
side of the slip on Rotten row, thirty-three feet four
inches —grant all that certain water lot, &c., opposite to a
certain house and lot of ground belonging to said C. P.
Lowe, to extend from the wharf or key into the river;
two hundred feet in breadth towards the river, thirty-five
feet nine inches.
To leave forty feet at the end of the water lot granted
for a street, to be opened when deemed necessary.




94                    APPENDIX.
Afterward, the ordinance of 1795-6 having been passed,
and South street laid down, the Corporation made a grant
to John Murray, Jr., dated the 10th May, 1797, before
the act.
The grant recites that the Corporation had lately laid
out a new street, to extend along the front of the southeast side of the city on the East river, and to be of the
breadth of seventy feet; and had determined to grant to
the proprietors of the water lots fronting on the said
river all that vacant ground or soil under water, lying
and being between the southern extent or bounds on the
said river, of the water lots heretofore granted and the
said new street on the river called South street.
That Murray was the proprietor of certain lots gained
out of the river, between Front street and the river,
bounded westerly by the wharf on the east side of Wall
street slip, and had prayed a grant from the termination
of' his lots to the new street.  The Corporation grant
him  a depth of sixty-six feet six inches.  The northern or
inner part of the said new street being along the street
or pier on the east side of Wall street slip, at the distance of two hundred and twenty-one feet six inches from
the south side of Front street.
The present distances are as follows: Water to Front
street, one hundred and fifty-four feet; Front street, forty
feet wide, and Front to South street, two hundred and
twenty-one feet six inches; in all four hundred and fifteen feet six inches.  Add the eleven feet-the enlarged
width to Water street, under the grant of 1721-and
we have four hundred and twenty-six feet and six inches.
It results that from low water, as it is, stated to have
been in 1721, there was granted  into  the river four




APPENDIX.                    95
hundred feet exactly, viz.: two hundred in 1721, and
two hundred in 1763.  The grantee in the last grant
was to make the street of forty feet out of his two
hundred feet, and at its extremity.  Then, in 1797, the
Corporation grant to Murray this forty feet, absolutely,
and twenty-six feet six inches more.
At the corner of Maiden lane, the present distance to
South street from Water is four hundred and forty-two
feet, viz., one hundred and fifty-four feet, fifty-seven feet,
and two hundred and thirty-one feet; add the eleven feet
before mentioned, and we have four hundred and fifty-three
feet. Here then there was a space of fifty-two feet on land
of the State, between the limit of the grants and the inner
side of the street.
At Crane  lthaif.-A further point established in the
ordinance, is at Crane Wharf. The line there is three
hundred and thirty-one feet eight inches (331 8), fronm
the south side of Water street to the inner line of South
street.
Crane Wharf is laid down on Goerek's map, of 1793,
about the foot of Beekman street, had it been continued
in the course it then ran. When Beekman street was extended below Pearl, it took in the upper portion of Crane
Wharf, all the ground granted to Robert Crommeline, in
1750, and to his executors in 1804, and a strip of about
eleven feet from the soil granted to Robert Livingston, in
1750, and to Joanna Livingston, in 1804, leaving the residue of these grants bounded by the western side of Beekman street.
These latter grants will then sufficiently show the extent
of the soil granted in the vicinity of Crane Wharf.
That to Robert Livingston, of the 12th of February,




96                    APPENDIX.
1750, was for lot No. 7, being a water lot, and land to be
gained out of the East river, bounded northerly by a certain street, formerly called Queen street Wharf, now Water
street; easterly by R. Crommeline's lot (No. S); southerly
by the East river or harbor; westerly by lot No. 6, being,
in front and rear, fifty-six feet nine inches (56 9), and in
length on each side of the East river or harbor, two hundred (200) feet.
There was a covenant to add fifteen feet from the inward part of the premises granted, to Water street; so as
to make it more spacious, adding fifteen feet to it.
There was another covenant to make a street or wharf
on the outward part of the lot granted, of forty feet in
width.
On the 4th of January, 1804, a grant was made to
Joanna Livingston, of a water lot, or land under water,
situate between Front and South streets, bounded northwesterly by Front street, south-westerly by a lot granted
L. Lefferts, south-easterly by South street, and north-easterly by a lot granted to the executors of R. Crommeline.
Being fifty-six feet nine inches (56 9) on Front and South
streets, one hundred and fifty feet (150) in depth on the
north-easterly side, and one hundred and forty-eight feet
on the south-westerly side, as by a map of a piece of
ground between Beekmian and Peck slips, and Front and
South streets, made July 6, 1803, by Joseph Tillagin, City
Surveyor, and copied page 84 (Records of Grants), will
appear.
There was a covenant to build South street seventy feet
wide, in front of, and contiguous to, the premises granted.
The length under the ordinance, as before observed, was
three hundred and thirty-one feet eight inches from Water




APPENDIX.                     97
street. By Goerck's map, of 1793, it is 331 feet 9 inches.
On the assumption that low water was at the south side
of Water street, as it was in 17 50, we must add ([[5) fifteen
feet to this amount, making three hundred and forty-six
feet nine inches, the depth from low water.
As the extent of the grant, prior to 1798, was but two
hundred feet, there was actually a space of one hundred
and forty-six feet nine inches between the extremity of the
grant, and the inner line of intended street, a space unquestionably belonging to the Corporation.
Again, the grant of 1804 purports to reach South street,
and did so with a small variation, arising, no doubt, from
the west side of Beekman street not corresponding exactly
with Crane Wharf. It was for one hundred and forty-eight
feet on one side, and one hundred and fifty feet on the
other-an average of one hundred and forty-nine feet,
making three hundred and forty-nine feet as the extent of
all the grants from low water.
But the present line on the west side of Beekman street
is three hundred and fifty feet ten inches from the present
south side of Water street.  The fifteen feet taken to widen
Water street makes three hundred and sixty-five feet ten
inches, thus leaving, at the present time, thirty-four feet
two inches of the four hundred feet in South street, and
the residue on the land of the State, viz.: thirty-five feet
ten inches.
Again, the present distances are as follows: Water
street to Front, one hundred and forty-four feet four
inches; Front street, fifty feet six inches; and Front to
South, one hundred and fifty-six feet, being three hundred
and fifty feet ten inches. We find by Goerek's map, of
1793, that Front street was not then opened, but was laid
7




98                    APPENDIX.
down as fifty feet wide. The grants and the present distances correspond thus:
From  Water to and including Front street was two
hundred feet by the grant; but fifteen feet was to be taken
to add to Water street, and forty feet to make Front street,
leaving one hundred and forty-five feet. The present distance is one hundred and forty-four feet four inches. Front
street was to be forty feet wide, and is fifty feet-an addition of ten feet. Front street to South was, by the grant,
say one hundred and fifty feet, and is one hundred and
fifty-six feet, so that sixteen feet was added at the extremity of the grant, the inner line carried so much
further into the river when South street was finally made.
These observations and statements will in general apply
to the whole line between Peck slip and Beekman slip.
The next point is at the south-westerly line of the grant
to Thomas Barnes, now belonging to Samuel Ackerly, four
hundred and twenty (420) feet from the south side of Water street, into the river. A grant was made to Thomas
Barnes on the 1st of May, 1752, describing the water lot
as bounded northerly by Water street; easterly, by another lot granted to John Beeknman, being ninety-seven
feet eight inches in front, eighty-nine feet four inches in
the rear, and two hunired feet in length, into the East
river.
There was a covenant to widen Water street fifteen feet,
by taking so much from the inner side of the lot granted;
and also to make a street or wharf of forty feet on the
outward part of the lot.
This lot granted to Barnes was fifty feet seven inches
westerly fiom the west side of what is now  Roosevelt
street, on Water street, and thirty-four feet from the same
on Front street.




APPENDIX.                    99
Various grants were made, at the same period, from
what is now Roosevelt street, both to the eastward and
westward; and there is no point along the line at which
the grants come within a hundred feet of exhausting the
four hundred feet.
The further grants in this vicinity, up to the line of
South street, were generally made in 1S17, and subsequently.
And lastly, the eastern point of the ordinance is at Corlaer's Hook. The ordinance of 1795, as amended in 1796,
establishes South street at Corlaer's Hook, almost precisely as it now exists, viz.: three hundred and sixty (:360)
feet fiom the south side of Crown Point street, now Water
street, at high water mark. By the maps used in the case
of Furman vs. The Corporation, copied from those on file,
it appears that the distance from the south side of Water
street to the south side of South street is three hundred
and ninety (390) feet, thus made up: Water to Front
street, one hundred and thirty feet; Front street, fifty
feet; Front to South street, one hundred and forty feet;
and Soutlh street, seventy feet.
But high water mark appears to be about thirty feet
south from the south-west corner of Water and Corlear's
street, leaving about three hundred and sixty feet from
high water. Goerck's map of 1793, although indistinct at
this point, yet shows a line which I think corresponds with
the ordinance. The conveyance of the adjoining soil was
only to high water before 1793, and the Corporation had
made no grant of land under water prior to that time.




100                    APPENDIX.
NOTE 41.-PAGE 2213.
Imn)ositionl for Improvement on particulctr Property.
Onl the lst of January, 1658, it was made a subject of
discussion, in the Court of Burgomasters, whether the
paving of " The Brewer street" should be at the expense
of the city, or whether the owners of the houses and lots
should each pave before his own possession.
It was decided, on the 24th January, 1658, that the
street should be paved with cobble-stones, under the oversight of certain persons, with the presiding Burgomasters,
and after the completion of the work they were to assess
the expense proportionately upon each house standing on
the streets. (Records Burgomasters, N. Y.)
The Dutch annals abound with similar instances.
The thorough and learned examination which this subject underwent in the consummate argument of AIr. Spencer, and the opinion of the Court in the case of Adriance
vs. The MIayor, &c., renders it unnecessary to enumerate
instances under the Colonial government. I refer to one
case wvhich was not adverted to: In the statute of 1791,
for improving John street, there was a provision that the
Comm1issioners should assess so much of the damage, as they
thought reasonable, upon the Corporation (the public at
large), and the residue upon the owners assumed to be
benefited. Theoretically, this, perhaps, is the true principle; and a relic of it is found in the present provision of
assessing one-third of the value of buildings upon the Corporation.




APPENDIX.                   101
NOTE 42.-PAGE 21S.
Report of Ed. Taylor and Judg2e Inzgcaham,  S837.
That the petitioners are the proprietors of several water
lots on the North or Hudson river, between the termination of Cedar street and Battery place, and they petition
for a grant to them of the land under water between the
front or westerly line of their grants and the line of West
street, as now established by law. Along the whole line
of West street, from Cedar street to Battery place, the line
of the street is established to the westward of the line of
all the water grants in that part of the city, but not at
equal distances. In some cases the grants have been made
after West street was laid out, but before the present
lines were established; and, in others, the grants being
made to the line of Third street, as originally laid out,
leaving, thus, along the whole line, spaces of unequal width,
between the exterior width of the water grants and the
exterior line of the city.
These spaces would naturally be sought for by the owners of the water grants, and petitions to that effect have
several times brought the subject before the Common
Council. The difficulty seems to have been in settling the
terms on which the grants should be made.
" In accordance with the practice heretofore pursued by
the Corporation, the various committees to whom this subject has been heretofore referred, have recommended grants
to be made to the proprietors, instead of the Corporation
taking the land to itself; and have endeavored to fix the
amount of compensation, either by way of quit-rents, or
immediate payment, in some respects equivalent to the ad



102                  APPENDIX.
vantages derived. None of the plans recommended were
ever adopted, and the matter has remained unsettled. As
it will soon be necessary to complete the filling up and
building of West street, your Committee, in fixing the
terms, have inclined to place them so low that it is believed no dissatisfaction whatever can be felt by the proprietors, and have also fixed a period within which the grants
shall be taken, so that, at the expiration of the period, no
complaint can be made if the Corporation, on their own
account, fill up and make those portions that may not be
granted."
The Committee then recommended the rates, and period
for the proprietors to take out the grants.
The report was adopted.
NOTE 43.-PAGE.22.
Tlhe Right of the Crown to the Soil under Watelr.
Selden.'s Mare Clausum, 256; 1 Roll. Ab., 168-4; Hale,
De Portubus, 12. The third subdivision is —" What evidence is there of the king's property in the shore; that is,
the ground between the ordinary high water and low
water mark?
" For the third, it is admitted that, de jure commwune, land
between the high water and low water mark doth belong
to the king " (5 Rep. 107, Constable's case, Dyer, 326),
although it is true that such shore may be, and commonly
is, parcel of the manor adjacent, and so may belong to a
subject; yet, prima facie, it is the king's. So the shore




APPENDIX.                     103
of an arm of the sea belongs to him, as well as the shore
of tile sea."
The case cited by Lord Hale, Newcastle, and the Prior
of Tinmouth, 20 Ed., 1, and that in the Exchequer, 8 Car.,
1, are pertinent.
" The subject may acquire the right-I. By the king's
charter or grant, he may grant a navigable river, that is,
an arm of the sea, the water and port thereof.  He may
also grant a manor'cum litore maris cidenr acdjacente; and
the shore itself will pass, though in gross, and not parcel
of the manor."
Other instances are mentioned of words in a grant sufficient to carry the soil.
"2. By prescription.  The shore may belong to the
subject, and not only belong to a subject in gross, which
may possibly suppose a grant before time of memlory, but
may be parcel of a manor."
The case of' the RZoyal Fishery.  (Davies' Rep., 149.)
"The king hath the same prerogative and interest in the
branches and arms of the sea, and navigable rivers, so
high as the sea ebbs and flows in them, which he has in
alto mare; and this is manifest by several authorities and
records."  (Citing Selden Mare Clhusum, 251; 1 Roll.,
168.)  " The letters patent to thle Lord High Admiral (4
Inst., 142) grant the goods, &c., in the sea, and ivfra fluxnm  ct refluxucz   maris seu aqzce at p2lnitudinem."  " The
shore is that ground that is between ordinary high and
low water mark.  This doth, prima facie, and of common
right, belong to the king, both in the shore of the sea, and
the shore of the arm of the sea. It is certain that what
the sea overflows, either at high spring tides, or at extraordinary tides, comes not, as to this purpose, under the




104                   APPENDIX.
denomination of litus maris, and consequently the king's
title is not to that large extent, but only to land that is
usually overflowed at ordinary tides. That, therefore, I
call the shore that is between low and high water mark."
(Hale, De Portubus, cap. 4.)
The Supreme Court, in IRogers vs. Jones (1 Wendell,
237), thus states the law: " The right of the king extends
over all lands, as well such as are covered by water as
such as are not. In England, it hath always been holden
that the king is the lord of the whole shore. HIe has the
property tam aquCa quam soli, and all profits of the sea, and
all navigable rivers. So also he has the property of the
soil in all rivers which have the flux and reflux of the sea,
and not the lord of the nmanor adjoining, without grant
or prescription; but by a grant or prescription a subject
may have the interest in the water and soil of navigable
rivers."
Judge Strong, in delivering the opinion of the court in
Whitney vs. Corporation, quotes this, as well as other
parts of the opinion, and adds: " In the case of Rogers
vs. Jones, the patent from the Colonial government conveyed within the boundaries which it described, the whole
of the harbor of Oyster Bay, which was a navigable
water; and it was decided that it was a valid conveyance
of the land under water, and vested the title in the patentee.  A principle of the commnlon law, laid down and,sanctioned by such eminent jurists as Chief Justice Hale,
Chief Baron Comyn and Judge Blackstone, should be considered as settled."
Chief Justice Hosmer, in East Haven vs. Hemingway
(7 Conn., 196), explicitly lays down the law: "There is,no doubt concerning the competency of Charles II. to




APPENDIX.                   105
convey the land in question to the Colony of Connecticut.
A river, where the tide ebbs and flows, is an arm of the
sea, and the shore is that space of ground which is between ordinary high water and low water mark. The
title of the king, prima facie, to all ports and arms of the
sea up to high water mark, and to the soil thereof, has
long been established law; and, as an undoubted consequence, it is settled, that he may grant the property of the
soil between high and low water mark to a subject or
corporation."
Rex vs. Smith, Douglass, 425; Lansing vs. Smith, 4
Wendell, 20; Middleton vs. Prichard, 3 Scammon's Illinois
Rep., 5 10; Middletown vs. Sage, 8 Conn. Rep., 221; Canal
Comm. vs. The People, 5 Wendell, 423; Bell vs. Slack,
2 Wheaton, 508; Coles vs. Waddington, 2 McCord, 580;
Cox vs. The State, 3 Blackford, 294; Ex-parte Jennings,
6 Cowen, 618.
Blundell vs. Catterall, 5 Barn. and Ald., 26S, Bayley, J., says: " By the sea shore, I understand the shore
between the high and low water mark, and the property
of this is pIrima facie in the king. It may, indeed, by
grant or prescription, belong to the subject; but, until the
contrary is shown, the presumption is that it belongs to
the king. See, also Lopez vs. Andrew, cited 3 3Manning
& Ryland, 474. In the London Law 3Iagazine (vol. 45, p.
70) is a notice of Sergeant MIerewether's argument in the
case of The Attorney General vs. The Corporation of London in 1844. The infornmation set forth, that by the royal
prerogative the ground and soil of the coast and shores of
the sea around the kingdom, and the ground and soil of
every port, haven and arm of the sea, creek, pool, and navigable river thereof, into which the sea ebbs and flows, and




106                   APPENDIX.
also the shore lying between high and low water mark,
belongs to her Majesty.
In 1849, December 8, the argument in question was
addressed to the Lord  Chancellor, and was afterward
published.
The case is to be found in the 2d vol. of IMcNaughten
and Gordon's Reports; but it came up merely on exceptions to a report of the insufficiency of the answer, and
the Lord Chancellor observed that the question discussed
did not then arise..The writer cites the case of the Duke of Beaufort vs.
The Mayor, &c., of Swansea, 3 Exch. Rep., 413 (1849),
as incidentally settling the question against the right of
the Crown.
The case was trespass for breaking into the plaintiffs
close. The place was between high and low water.  Several charters from King John, Edward I., II. and III., were
produced, and evidence of many acts of ownership, in
mlodern times, was produced to show that the locus in quo
was part of the seignory of Gower.  The judge told the
jury that the question was whether the locus was part of
the seignory of Gower; that the documentary evidence in
law did not necessarily carry a right, and that they must
look to all the evidence and say whether, by grant or prescription, the land had passed to those under whom the
Duke claimed.
The jury, in answering a distinct question put to them,
found, that the land between high and low water mark
was part of the seignory of Gower.
The decision of the court is thus expressed-Pollock,
C. B.: " In substance, the direction of the court is thisHere is a grant of the seignory of Gower. What is the




APPENDIX.                   107
seignory of Gower?   The judge says, you cannot define
the seignory merely from these words; you cannot say
that the spot which the plaintiff claims is his, as being part
of such seignory merely from  such words.  But if. by
usage, which is of so long standing that we may presume
it to be contemporaneous with the grant itself, the sea
shore in question has always been considered to be part
of the seignory, then you will take the grant and the
usage together, and you are to form your own opinion.
I think the direction perfectly right. Parke, B., noticed,
"'; that the word'terra,' used in the grant, was equivalent
to the word' nmanor.' That the authorities are clear that
sea shore may be part of the -manor. Lord Hale and
Lord Coke affirm it, and modern usage was admissible
to explain the meaning of an ancient grant."
Nothing can be more obvious than that this case supposes the title derived from the crown, and determines
only that phraseology, incompetent" of itself to pass the
space, may be interpreted by long usage so as to comprehend it. If this is not a recognition, impliedly, of the
right of the crown to grant, and that the crown is to be
considered as having granted in that case, no words can be
used which will contain the proposition.
Calmlady vs. Rome (6 Comm. Bench Rep., 861, 1S4S)
is also cited. It is a case of precisely the same character
as that in the Exchequer.  There was a grant of a manor,
without words expressly conveying the litus maris. But
there were words granting " the creek of the sea," " several fishery," and other rights of an extensive description.
Acts of ownership by the lord of the manor on the sea
shore adjoining, such as the exclusive taking of sand, sea
weed, stones, &c., were admitted in evidence to show that
the shore was parcel of the manor.




10S                   APPENDIX.
And Patterson, J., put the case to the jury thus: " It is
for you to say, whether, from the evidence laid before you,
you can satisfactorily arrive at the conclusion, that the sea
shore was granted by the crown to the ancestors of 3Mr.
Calmnady-that is to say, that the sea shore was parcel of
the manor.:'
The plaintiff had a verdict, and a new trial was refused.
"The right of wreck, according to Lord Hale, affords
a strong presumption that the soil is intended to passand there was a considerable body of evidence to show
that the plaintiffs were the owners of the soil."
The argument of the Reviewer in the London Magazine,
before referred to, appears to amount to this, that Lord
Hale was a believer in witches, and on some occasions held
very high prerogative doctrines.  This principle of reasoning would destroy  Aristotle's logic, because he was a
heathen.
NOTE 44.- PAGE 223.
Chancellor Walworth, in Lansing vs. Smith, 4 Wendell,
says: " The king owned the soil under all the waters of
navigable rivers and arms of the sea, including the shore
or banks, to high water mark. He held the right, not for
his own benefit, but for the benefit of his subjects at
large, who were entitled to the free use of the sea, and of
all tide waters, for the purposes of navigation, fishing, &c.,
subject to such restrictions and regulations as the crown or
parliament might prescribe.  By 3Magna Charta, and
many subsequent statutes, the powers of the king are




APPENDIX.                   109
limited, and he cannot now deprive his subjects of those
rights, by granting the public navigable waters to individuals. But there can be no doubt of the right of parliament in England, and of the legislature in this State, to
make such grants, when they do not interfere with the
vested rights of individuals. The right to navigate the
public waters of the State, and to fish therein, and the
right to use public highways, are all public rights, belonging to the people at large."
I am unable to reconcile this language, in its latitude,
with the express decision in in Rogers vs. Jones (1 Wendell,
237). The point of a right in the crown to grant a fishery
in severalty was made and argued by counsel. The record presented it so distinctly, that if the court had supposed the crown disabled from  making it, the judgment
must have been different. The court distinctly examine
the subject-distinctly pass upon the operation of Magna
Charta, and explicitly decide that it had not impaired the
prerogative in this particular.
But a difference may be pointed out, that although the
right of fishing may be granted in severalty, this would not
interfere with the free navigation of the waters, which a
grant of a part of the soil covered by them for private
purposes would do.
With reference to general principles, it is clear that it is
essential, for the purposes of trade and navigation, that
keys and docks should be erected. The common law did
undoubtedly place the ownership of the soil for such purposes in the crown, to be exercised directly, or by grant or
license to others. Of the expediency and extent of such
grants or licenses, the crown was to judge, subject to the
intervention of the judicial tribunals. I cite a single case




110                  APPENDIX.
among a multitude. Decree in a cause. Paschoe, S Car.
1-In Exchequer-Hale de Portubus. It was decreed
that the soil and ground lying between Wapping Wall
and the River Thames is parcel of the port of London,
and therefore all the houses from, &c., to &c., belong to
the king.
The title was thus laid in the bill or information:
1st. That the river Thames flowed and reflowed; 2d.
That consequently it was an arm of the sea; 3d. That it
was the king's port. And from all these it was concluded,
that the land, between the high and low water mark, was
the king's land, and accordingly so decreed.
Again. The court in Rogers rs. Jones pass upon this
point also. They say, " It thus appears that by the common law the king was seized of all the lands under the
navigable waters of the realm, and entitled to grant and
convey them. It is argued, however, that the exercise of
such a power was prohibited by Magna Charta. They
proceed to examine and refute this proposition.  They
adopt the reasoning of the counsel (D. S. Jones, Esq.),
that Sir Mathew Hale had explained the intent of 3agllna
Charta in this particular. The king had been accustomed
to put as well fresh as salt waters in defenso, for his private
recreation, in fishing and fowling. And it was the intent
of the statute to prevent this being done, except as to
such rivers as were in defense in the time of Henry the
Second.
Again, the decision of Whitney vs. The M3ayor, &c., distinctly sanctions and recognizes the charter of MIontgomerie as a valid source of title in the Corporation of
New York to the four hundred feet below low water.
It is true, there are opinions of several judges (no deVLIIVCCLV rJLIV~li I VI IW~ ~n




APPENDIX.                    111
cision) supporting the doctrine of an abridgment of the
power of the crown by the statute referred to. See opinion
of Judge Randolph, in Gough vs. Bell, 1 Zabriskie, 156;
of Judge Green, Ibid., 2 Zabriskie; and of Ch. J. Taney,
16 Peters, 367.  They cannot diminish the force of our
own positive decisions. Besides the leading case of Rogers vs. Jones, upon the right to grant fisheries, see Davies' Rep., 511; Brinck vs. Ritcihmeyer, 14 John. Rep., 355,
and cases; Hooker vs. Cummings, 20 John. Rep., 90; Collins vs. B unburg, Iredell, 277; Ibid., 5 Iredell, 118; Fleet
vs. Hegerman, 14 Wendell, 42; Peck vs. Lockwood, 5
Day's Rep., 22.
NOTE 45.-PAGE 223.
Right of Bathing.
The case of Catterall vs. Blundell (5 Barn. and Aid., 26S)
settled, that there was no common right of bathing in front
of the shore, where the shore, the locus in quo, had been
actually granted to the lord of the manor. Justice Holroyd
states this to be the question.
NOTE 46.-PAGE 224.
Absolute Right of Parliament and State.
It cannot be necessary, upon this point, to do more than
refer to the cases before noticed, especially to Lansing vs.
Smith, 4 Wendell, 20.




112                  APPENDIX.
In the late English case of Abraham vs. The Northern
Railroad Company, Queen's B., 18.51 (Eng. case, Law and
Eq., Phil. ed., vol. v., p. 255), the company had received
authority, by an act of parliament, to run their road on
the bank of the River Ause, a navigable stream; and such
right was not questioned, as legally conferred by the
statute.
NOTE 47.-PAGE 224.
Cases on PRights of Riparian Owners.
In Lansing vs. Smith, Court of Errors, 4 Wendell, 9,
J. Quackenboss was the original owner of a lot of upland,
extending to the Hudson river. In 1814 the Commissioners of the Land Office granted to him a water lot adjoining
his property, on which he built a wharf. The Chancellor
says:" What were the rights of the owner of the land
adjacent to this wharf before the patent was granted? The
bank of the Hudson river, between high and low water
mark, belonged to the people of the State, and he had no
better right to the use of it than any other person."
He distinctly recognizes the principle, that the State
might make a grant of land under water without any regard to any supposed pre-emptive claim in an adjoining
owner. The statutes had only restricted the Commissioners from doing so.
The statute referred to in the opinion expressly forbade
the Commissioners from  making a grant of land under
water to any one but the proprietor of the adjacent land.
(1 R, S,. 208.)  The subject is forcibly argued by Judge




APPENDIX.                    113
lMason, in Furman vs. The Mayor of New York, Superior
Court, 1851.  "It results from the nature of the estate to
the crown, or the government in the property, that the
riparian owner does not possess this right. There cannot
be two owners to the same piece of land. Lord Hale
quotes two decisions in which the claim of the riparian
proprietors against the king was held to be invalid.  (De
Portubus, p. 13.) If the owner has the estate in fee, it
follows that it can be granted.  There is no such qualification in the books that the soil cannot be granted to any
person but the riparian proprietor."
It is very true, a right to the soil, or a right to acquire it
by occupation and improvement, are very distinct from a
mere right to have the first offer when the owner decides
to sell. Yet, even the latter is inconsistent with the entire power over a perfect absolute estate in fee. The preemptive right, as before stated, is expressly conferred in
the statutes of I807 and 1826, granting soil under water
to the Corporation.
I have elsewhere observed, that even in the States (New
Jersey and Pennsylvania), for: example, where the right of
docking, &c., is held to be in the shore owners, the fee of
the soil is not considered to be in them; but a right to acquire it upon making the improvement. This is well exemplified in a case in 26 Maine Reports, where, under the
Massachusetts ordinance of 1661, giving a right to adjoining owners to a certain extent, the court held that until
possession was actually taken, and the separate right
asserted, the waters remained, for many purposes, in comion.
In Gould vs. The Hudson River Railroad Company (Court
of Appeals, 1852), it was definitely settled that there was
8




11 4:                 APPENDIX.
no such riparian, right, in the adjoining owner of land upon
a navigable water, as to prevent the State from making
such use of the soil under water, for a railroad, or otherwise, as it should think fit.
In the case of the United States vs. Ruggles (United
States Circuit Court, Nov., 1861), the bill was filed for an
injunction to restrain the defendant front building a dock
adjoining the Navy Yard, by which the free navigation of
the East River was obstructed, and ingress and regress to
and from the Navy Yard was interfered with.
The Government had purchased the site of the Navy
Yard from the State sixty years before, and had made
large improvements at the place. The defendant was the
owner of a lot of land adjacent to and west of the Yard,
and fronting also on the river, and had procured from the
Commissioners of the Land Office of the State a deed of
the land, in part covered with water, extending into the
river between six and seven hundred feet.
The boundary line of the parties was not at right angles,
but struck the shore in an oblique direction.
The general course of the river at this place is nearly
east and west, and the course of the boundary line, and
which is extended into the river, is north forty-two degrees and thirty minutes east, the effect of which is to
carry the line thus extended into the water across a part
of the water-frontage of the Navy Yard, which, as claimed,
when the docks are erected, as contemplated by the
defendant, will interfere with the free ingress and egress
of vessels, and otherwise seriously impair the use of the
yard, and will also have the effect to alter the channel of
the river, and of the waters of the Wallabout Bay, by
deposits of silt and sand, and render access to the yard
difficult and hazardous.




APPENDIX.                    115
The grant to the defendant by the Commissioners was
made under an act of the State, passed April 10, 1850,
which authorized them to grant land under waters of navigable rivers and lakes, as they may deem necessary to
promote the commerce of the State, or proper for the
beneficial enjoyment of the same by the adjacent owner;
"but no such grant shall be made to any person other
than the proprietor of the adjacent lands; and any such
grant that shall be made to any other person shall be
void."
Judge Nelson said: "In our judgment, the true construction of this statute is, that the grant of the water-lots,
authorized to be made to the adjacent proprietor of the
land, must be confined to a line starting at the intersection
with the shore, and extending at a right angle with the
thread of the stream, or at a right angle into the lake, without any regard to the course or direction of the line upon
the land. It is apparent that this is the only construction
upon which the intent and purpose of the statute can be
carried into effect.  The case in hand illustrates the practical difficulty attending any other construction. The Government, as well as the defendant, is an adjacent proprietor, within the meaning of the statute, and is entitled to
the grant of water-lots in front, or, at least, no other party
is entitled to it, according to its express terms. And yet,
the grant to the defendant, if allowed, has already appropriated a considerable portion of this very water frontage.
We shall, therefore, restrain the defendant from erecting
his dock upon any portion of the water-lots granted, lying
east of a line drawn front the intersection of his eastern
line with the shore, in conformity with the interpretation
given to the statute, as above explained.




116                  APPENDIX.
"And even with this modification, we shall not at present
interfere with the preliminary injunction, inasmuch as we
are not sufficiently advised from the proofs in the case that,
with the line drawn in conformity with the true meaning
of the statute, as above given, and the docks to be erected
confined to the remaining portion of the grant, the effect
would not be to seriously interfere with the fair and full
enjoyment of the rights and privileges belonging to the
Government as proprietors of the Navy Yard. The large
amount of money expended in its erection and improvements, as well as its great public importance and use, and
the danger of imperiling them, lead to caution and hesitation upon a question involving all these considerations. A
mistake might result in a public calamity. Before, therefore, we shall interfere with the preliminary injunction
heretofore granted, the case must go before a Master pro
hac vice, whom we shall appoint, to inquire into the effect
of the dock to be erected, even with our modifications
stated, upon the free ingress and egress of vessels to and
from the Navy Yard."
NOTE 48.-PAGE 224.
Restrictions upon Powers of State.
The most important restriction upon the right of the
crown consists in its inability to make a grant which shall
impair the navigation of the river; in technical language,
which shall be a purpresture. Whether the proposed erec



APPENDIX.                   117
tion is against the jus publicumn or not, is a question of facts
to be determined upon, an indictment for a nuisance, or
upon a remedy, known in the English law as the writ ad
quod damnurn.  In some cases an injunction may be obtained. The whole law is so most clearly stated by Sir
Matthew Hale, that I have transcribed the passage with a
statement of other leading cases.
De Portubus Maris, 1.  He enumcrates, among nuisances of ports, "the straitening of the port, by building too far into the water, where ships or vessels might
have formerly ridden. It is to be observed, that nuisance
or not nuisance, in such case, is a question of fact. It is
not, therefore, every building below high water mark,
nor every building below low water mark, that is ipso
facto, in law, a nuisance; for this would destroy all
the keys that are in all the ports of England. And it
would be impossible for the king to license a new wharf,
or key, whereof there are a thousand instances, if, ipso facto,
it were a common nuisance. Indeed, when the soil is the
king's, the building below high water mark is a purpresture, or encroachment or intrusion upon the king's soil;
which he may either demolish, or seize, or arrest, at his
pleasure; but it is not ipso facto a common nuisance, unless, indeed, it be a damage to the port and navigation. In
the case, therefore, of building within the extent of a port
in or near the water, whether it be a nuisance or not, is
questio facti, and to be determined by a jury. See, also,
Hind vs. 3Mansfield, Noy, 108.
The case of the Attorney General vs. Johnstone, in Ch.
1819, 2 Wilson's Rep., 95, is instructive upon this point.
It was an information by the Attorney General and bill by
the Relator, for an injunction against proceedings which,




118                  APPENDIX.
it was alleged, would be a purpresture in the river Thames.
The defendant had been indicted for creating a nuisance,
and that indictment was pending.  The injunction was
continued until the result of the indictment.
The city of London claimed the right of soil in the
place in question, under various charters and acts of the
crown.
The Lord Chancellor held, that whether the right of soi
between high and low water mark was in the crown or in
the city, was immaterial; or whether the city of London
had the right of conservance merely. The questions were,
whether the court had jurisdiction to prevent a nuisance
being completed; and whether there was ground enough
to treat the encroachment in question as such, at least,
pending the indictment. If such was the case, the court
would exercise the jurisdiction, whoever might have the
right of soil.
" It is my present opinion, that the crown has not the
right, either itself to use the title to the soil between high
and low water mark as a nuisance, or to place upon that
soil what will be a nuisance to the crown's subject. If
the crown has not such a right, it could not give it to the
city of London, nor could the city transfer it to any other
person."  On a subsequent day he renewed the statement
that wherever the title was, it was clear that it could not
be used as a nuisance to the king's subjects. "I take it
to be clear that, primafacie, a grant includes the water between high and low water mark, when it covers the soil,
and that those who think proper to inclose that soil are
bound to show that they can take it away without injury
to' his majesty's subjects.'
The indictment mentioned in this case was tried before




APPENDIX.                   119
Lord Tenterden. (2 Starkie, 511.) His direction to the
jury and the subsequent case of Rex vs. Russell (6 Barn.
& Cres., 56) are fully stated in The King vs. Ward (4
Adol. & Ellis, 392). In the latter there was an indictment for a nuisance for erecting an embankment in a navigable river. Lord Denman adverted to the direction of
the Judge, in Rex vs. Russell, which he states to have
been this: "If you think this is placed in a reasonable
part of the river-that it is not of any public benefit, or
the benefit resulting from it is not equal to the public inconvenience which results from it, then you will find a verdict for the crown. If, on these points, you are of a different opinion, then you will find for the defendants."
Lord Denman proceeds —" In  substance, therefore, it
would seem that they were to find the defendant not
guilty, if his act, indicated as a nuisance, was productive,
on the whole, of more public benefit than public inconvenience." It is this direction which Lord Denman criticises and objects to. His views are, that the advantages
are to the navigation, to the very rights, the invasion of
which is treated as a nuisance. " The advantage gained
ought to be closely connected with the inconvenience resulting, or rather with that which would have been an inconvenience if it were not absorbed in the superior advantages. In the infinite variety of active operations always
going forward in this industrious community, no greater
evil can be conceived, than the encouragement of capitalists and adventurers to interfere with known public rights,
from motives of personal interest, on the speculation that
changes may be rendered lawful by ultimately being
thought to supply the public with something better than
what they actually enjoy."




120                  APPENDIX.
The direction of Lord Denllnan, on the trial before him,
-was, that the jury should find, " whether the causeway,
in its altered state, was a nuisance to the navigation of the
river,:and whether the public benefit was greater than the
inconvenience, or was counterbalanced by the public benefit derived from it."
The jury found a verdict that the erection was a nuisance; but the public benefit exceeded the inconvenience.
This was held to amount to a verdict of guilty upon the
indictment.
Lord Tenterden, in Rex vs. Russell, expressed it to be
his opinion, that the inquiry ought merely to be, whether
the navigation and passage of vessels over this public and
navigable river was injured by the erection.
The case of the Attorney General vs. Parmentier is one
of great importance on this subject. It is to be found in
the sixth volume of the Philadelphia edition of Exchequer
Reports. Chief Baron McDonald there says: "It is perfectly clear, that all the soil under the salt water, between
high and low water mark, belongs to the crown.  Such
property has certainly been, as it may be, transferred in a
great many instances, to the subject; but that is always
subservient to the public rights of the king's subjects
-generally. It is compared by Lord Hale to the case of
a highway.  The private rights of the crown may be
disposed of, but not the public right of the subject.
Renwisck vs. Moore, 3 Hill's Rep., 621.
The dam over the Harlem river called Macomb's Dam
was built under an act of the legislature, passed the 8th of
April, 1813. A section provided, that the dam should be
so constructed as to admit the passage of boats and vessels
accustomed to navigate the river;, and a penalty was im



APPENDIX.                  121
posed for any obstruction or delay in such passage. There
was evidence of frequent obstructions; that at high water,
boats could not go through at all; and that, as there was
no draw, vessels with masts could not go through. The
dam  had been built twenty years. The defendants removed the dam between three abutments, and took away
one abutment. A verdict was found for the defendants.
Per Curiarm. "The Harlem river being navigable, Macomb and his assigns would, independently of the statute,
have been guilty of a public nuisance in building the dam.
The only effect of the statute was to vest a power in him
to build and maintain a dam in the manner prescribed by
the legislature. It follows, that any excess or irregularity
in the exercise of that power, by which the navigation became obstructed, was 1ro tanto a public nuisance."
The Court then decide, that the remedy, by abatement,
was not gone by reason of a continuation of a nuisance
more than twenty years; that there was no case denying
that the remedy, by abatement, was in all respects concurrent with that by indictment.  It was also held, that the
addition of a penalty by a statute, for a common law offense,
is merely cumulative, and, unless negative words were
used, would detract nothing from the remedies before
allowed.
The case of Hart vs. The Mayor, &c., of Albany, 9
Wendell, 607, is very instructive upon this as well as other
topics.  The power of a corporation, at least, of one
charged with the conservation of a river, to abate a nuisance,
is recognized. See also note 56, p. 201, Wetmore vs. Tracy,
14 Wendell, 255.
See some English cases in note 43; also, Wingfield vs.




122                 APPENDIX,
Crenshaw, 1 Hen. & Munff., 474; 26 Maine Rep., 128;
Bady vs. Weeks, 3 Barb. S. C. Rep., 158; Story, ~ 923-925.
See State of Pennsylvania vs. Wheeling Bridge Co., 18
Howard U. S. Rep., 421.
NOTE 49.-PAGE 225.
State Decisions.
NEW JERSEY.-In no State of the Union has the subject received a more thorough investigation than in New
Jersey.
The first case of importance is that of Arnold vs. Munday, 1 Halstead Rep., 1. It was decided that the patents
granted by the king to the Duke of York carried the right
to navigable rivers as a royalty appurtenant to the government and sovereignty, and not as an estate or right to
property in fee. The grants of the Duke to the proprietors
on the shore had the same, and no greater, operation.
When the proprietors surrendered the right of government to Queen Anne, this right of sovereignty went with
it. No estate or property was retained.  The State succeeded to the power of both king and parliament, and
become invested with this royalty. Therefore, the assigns
of the proprietors had no exclusive right of fishing or oystering in these waters, unless by grant from the State;
which not appearing, the privilege remained in commoir.
The Chief Justice observed, upon the trial, that a grant
bounded on a navigable river extended to the edge of the
water-to high water when the tide was up, and to low
water when it was down-and that the intermediate space




APPENDIX.                     123
might be appropriated by the owner of the adjacent land
to the building of wharves, &c.  But when the case was
argued before the full bench, he said " that a grant of land,
bounded upon a river or other water, which is navigable,
and where the tide ebbs and flows, extends to the edge of
the water only, that is to say, to high water mark only."
The next case is Gough vs. Bell (1 Zabriskie's Rep.,
156). In that it was held1. That the title in the country, which vested in the
British nation, was that of discovery, and was held by the
king in trust for the public.  Such matters as were part
of the sovereignty or regalia were subject to the restrictions then imposed on their alienation by the law of England.
2. The crown could not grant a several fishery in navigable rivers, or arms of the sea; and, consequently, could
not grant the soil under water; a grant which would involve the destruction of the fishery.
3. The right to navigable rivers and arms of' the sea
was included in the surrender to Queen Anne, by the proprietors of East Jersey, as a part of the sovereignty, and
at the revolution vested in the State.
4. The shores of navigable rivers and arms of the sea,
where the tide ebbs and flows, which includes all between
high and low water mark, is part of the sovereignty, and
belongs to the State, not to riparian owners.
5. A riparian owner, by filling up in front of his premises, does not become entitled to the land so filled up.
6. A boundary to or along a navigable river, bay, &c.,
extends to high water mark only; but a grant of land, in
a question of jurisdiction, to low water.*
i" In Palmer vs. Smith, 6 John. Rep., 133, it was decided, that where anl
act extended the boundaries of a town over navigable waters, it was to be




124                   APPENDIX.
7. The land under navigable waters, bays, and arms of
the sea, are part of the public domain, and the legislature
may grant and alien them. However expedient and proper it might be to make such a grant to the riparian owner, it was not obligatory on the State to do so.
The same case of Gough vs. Bell came again before the
court, under some additional facts. The important one
was, that the place of the trepass had been occupied, filled
in, and improved by the owner of the adjacent upland before the grant was made by the State.
Gough vs. Bell, 2 Zabriskie, 441.
In this it was decided, C. J. Green:
1. That no title to land under water could be made under the proprietors of East Jersey.  They had no right.
This was definitely settled in Arnold vs. MIunday, and
Martin vs. Waddell.
The locus in quo was originally between high and low
water. But, at the time of the alleged trespass, it had
been filled up and occupied as a meadow by the owners of
the adjoining shore.
2. " The ancient rule of the common law was, that the
title of owners of land bounded by the sea or by navigable rivers, where the tide ebbs and flows, extends to ordinary high water mark only. The title to the shore, between ordinary high and low water mark, as well as the
-title to the soil under water, belongs prima facie to the sovereign." Citing various cases.
3. This title, which by the common law of England is
vested in the king, upon the revolution became vested in
intended as only made for the purpose of jurisdiction, and did not give the
property in the soil under water. The town of Flushing had not, therefore,
the right to prohibit the catching of clams below low water.




APPENDIX.                  125
people. In the State the rule of the common law, as to
the limit of the right, remains unaltered. High water
mark constitutes the boundary between the proprietors and
the title of the sovereign.
The point is fully settled in Arnold vs. Munday and Martin vs. Waddell.
4. The title to the shore of navigable rivers, between
ordinary high and low  water mark, being vested in the
State, may be granted to individuals by the legislature, as
by parliament in England.
5. The views expressed upon this power of the legislature in the same case, when formerly before the court, are
reaffirmed. The Chief Justice says he concurred in the
views of Justice Randolph.
6. Although the authorities are not uniform, yet the
better opinion appears to be, that since Magna Charta, the
English sovereign has no power to alien the public domain.
7. A grant of the waters, to the utter destruction of navigation and fishery, would not only be a grievance, but an
infringement upon the Constitution of the United States.
S. The plaintiffs made title under a grant from the State
in 1836.
It appeared that the owners of the upland adjoining the
place in question had filled in the premises, and raised them
above the level of the tide prior to the grant.
9. The Chief Justice then enters into a full and elaborate argument, leading to the conclusion, that this occupation and improvement of such soil under water, before and
without the intervention of the State on behalf of the public right, was by the custom  and common law of New
Jersey (sanctioned impliedly by many statutes) sufficient
to vest the title in the upland owner.




126                  APPENDIX.
Justice Carpenter inclines strongly to the opinion that
the title to the strip between high and low water mark,
as matter of law in New Jersey, vested in the adjoining
owners.
Justice Randolph delivered a dissenting opinion. See
also the case of Martin vs. Waddell, 16 Peters, 307.
PENNSYLVANIA.-The positions established by the Courts
of Pennsylvania may be collected from the following cases:
Randall vs. The Delaware and Raritan Canal Company,
Wallace's Rep., 290; Bennett vs. Boggs, 1 Baldwin's Rep.,
72; Naglee vs. Ingersoll, 7 Barr, 194.
They appear to determineThat previous to the revolution, the channel and waters
of the Delaware, below Trenton, so far as the same were
navigable, in the common law sense of the term, were
vested in the King of England.
That the rights of the shore proprietors on the Delaware
river, to low water mark, existed in colonial timres, and
had been recognized by New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and in
various States. But below this, the State is the owner of
the river in full sovereignty, and no one can acquire a
right in it but by grant or prescription.
The statement of the learned judge, in Naglee vs. Ingersoll, 7 Barr, 94, that in England and this country the
space between high and low water mark, on navigable
rivers, belongs to the owners of the adjacent soil, is certainly an error. But as applied to the bed of the stream,
the true rule of the English law cannot be better expressed than in this opinion. The bed of the navigable
river is there vested in the crown, and here in the Comnmonwealth, for the use of the whole community; and no
private man can challenge an individual interest therein.




APPENDIX.                  127
He cites Bennett vs. Boggs, Baldwin's Rep., 72, upon the
question of encroachments.
MASSACHUSETTS AND MAINE.-In Arundel vs. lMcCullock,
10 Mass. Rep., 75, the law is laid down thus: It is a settled principle of the English and American law that the
right of soil of owners of land bounded on the sea or
navigable rivers, where the tide ebbs and flows, extends to
high water mark, and the shore belongs, in common, to
the public; and the people may grant it to private persons, or it may be the property of an individual by prescription, which presupposes a grant.
Inhabitants of Charlestown vs. County Commissioners,
3 Metcalf, 202. "It cannot be doubted that a navigable
stream may cease to be such, by the application of the
soil, under legislative authority, to other purposes;
as if the legislature were to authorize the erection of a
solid damn over a navigable creek, and permit the land to
be filled up, and converted into house lots."  State vs.
Pratt, 19 Pickering, 191.
MARYLAND.-The cases of Broome vs. Kennedy, 5 Harris & Johnson, 195; and Wilson vs. —, 11 Gill. & John.,
353, refer to this subject.
It was stated by one of the judges, in the first case, that
the proprietors under the Bridge grant had the right to
grant the land covered by a navigable river, without interfering with or affecting the public or common right of
navigation and fishing, and that the grantee, whose grant
bounded on the river, would hold land left by the recession of the water, or by alluvion, or filling in. The State
of Maryland was invested with all the rights which the
King of Great Britain enjoyed.




123                   APPENDIX.
Buchanan, J., held that, at the common law, the right to
the soil under navigable rivers was in the king of England; and it was equally clear that he had the capacity to
dispose of it, sub modo. " The subject has de communi jure
an interest in a navigable stream, such as a right of fishing
and navigation, which cannot be abridged or restrained by
any charter or grant of the soil or fishery, since MIagna
Charta, at least.
Where the State had not granted the right, all the soil
under water belonged to it.
In Wilson vs., ante, it is declared that in Broome
vs. Kennedy the court had settled the principle that the
State had the right to grant the soil covered by navigable
waters, subject to the public or common right of fishing and
navigation; and, for the purpose of protecting such public
right of navigation from infringement, the legislature passed
the law of 1783, appointing wardens of the port of Baltimore. The right to improve, which had been given to the
owners of the lot by the act of 1 749, was made subject to
the jurisdiction of the Board of Wardens, whose permission
was necessary before any wharf could be made into the
harbor.
It is clear, from the statutes cited in this case, that the
language of Judge Buchanan must be modified. He puts
the King and the State, as to the power of granting the
soil, upon the same footing. And these acts of the legislature plainly authorize an improvement, by docking, &c.,
which would change, abridge, and perhaps somewhat impair navigation. We come back to the great principle of
the English cases. Is it so serious an obstruction as to be
a nuisance?
DELAWARE. —Bates vs. The Railroad Company, 4 Har



APPENDIX.                  129
rington, 389. The Wilmington and Susquehanna Railroad
were incorporated by an act of the legislature of Delaware,
in 1832, with power to lay out a road from the Pennsylvania to the Maryland line, to enter upon and take lands,
&c., the damages to be ascertained by five persons, appointed in the manner prescribed.
By the 16th section, " if it was found necessary to pass
over any navigable river or creek by a bridge, or other
edifice, the company was to constitute and keep in repair
a sufficient pass or draw over the channel, or deepest part
of said river or creek, for the purpose of letting vessels pass
and repass."
An act of 1837 authorized the company to convert the
drawbridge, erected by it over White Clay Creek, into a
permanent bridge, and to keep the draw closed, or dispense with it altogether.
By another act of 1839, the company was authorized to
keep a permanent bridge over Boat Creek, at place where
a bridge was then erected; but the owners of the land adjoining could sue out a writ ad quod damnunm to ascertain
the damages which they would sustain by reason of the
bridge being without a draw.
All these acts were passed, upon the company's application, and were accepted by it.
In 184.5 an act was passed, extending the benefits of the
act of 1839 to the owners of the land on White Clay Creek,
or Red Clay Creek, to enable them to recover damages
theretofore sustained in consequence of any act or obstruction theretofore done or constructed, or thereafter to be so,
by the company.
This act was not accepted by the company.
The plaintiff was owner of a mill-seat above the bridge
9




130                  APPENDIX.
over White Clay Creek, and sued for damages under this
last statute. The bridge had been made in 1835, without
a draw; and was made a permanent bridge in 1837. In
1839, it being partially injured, a new pier was built,
occupying about four feet more of the stream of the creek.
The creek was within the State of Delaware, navigable
to vessels with masts, up to the mills, before the bridge
was erected; and the tide ebbed and flowed up to and
above the bridge.
It was decidedThat the State Legislature could not pass an act impairing the obligation of the contract, under the Constitution
of the United States. That the State courts, as well as
those of the United States, were bound to treat any such
act as a nullity.
That the charter and amendments, giving the power to
make the bridge over the creek a close bridge, was a contract with the company; that it was made in 1837, without any provision for allowing damages to owners; that
the act of 1845, compelling the payment of such damages,
was an infringement of vested rights, and a violation of
the contract.
That the Legislature of Delaware had the right to
authorize the obstruction of such a water-course as that in
question, which, so far as navigable, was wholly within
the State of Delaware. The case of Wilson vs. Black Bird
Creek, 2 Peters, 251, settled this.
The shore owners had no greater rights to the stream
than the public at large.
CONNECTICUT.-East Haven vs. West Haven, 7 Connecticut Reports, 196.
The premises in question were the soil, with the wharf




APPENDIX.                 t131
and shore thereon, built between high and low water, on
the east side of Dragon river. The river was an arnn of
the sea, where the tide ebbs and flows, and was navigable
for large vessels adjoining the premises.
The plaintiffs claimed title, first under a charter from
Charles II., and an act of the assembly of 1685.
Ch. J. Hosmer said: "There is no doubt concerning the
competency of Charles II. to convey the land in question
to the colony of Connecticut. A river, where the tide
ebbs and flows, is an arm of the sea; and the shore is that
space of ground which is between ordinary high water and
low water mark. (Hale, p. 1, ~ 4.) The title of the king,
prima Jfcie, to all parts and arms of the sea to high water
mark, and to the soil thereof, has long been established
law; and, as an undoubted consequence, it is settled that
he may grant the property of the soil between high and
low water mark to a subject or a corporation," citing the
usual authorities.
The court then decide, that the right had not passed to
the plaintiffs, under a certain grant of the General Assembly of Connecticut.
The title of the defendants was made out to the adjoining upland lots from the general assembly, and the court
then proceed to determine that, by the custom and 6ommon law of Connecticut, they had not precisely a title or
estate in, but a right or franchise to dock out and occupy
the soil between high and low water in the front of their
possessions.
This, indeed, was subject to the paramount right of the
public, that navigation should not be impaired.
See also, Trinck vs. Lawrence, 20 Conn., 120.
NORTH CAROLINA.-Tagan vs. Armistead, 11th Iredell's




132                   APPENDIX.
Law Reports, 433, affirming Wilson vs. Forbes, 2 Dev., 30;
and Collins vs. Benbury, 3 Iredell, 277; and 5 Iredell, 118.
" All waters which are actually navigable for sea vessels,
are to be considered as navigable rivers, without regard to
the ebb and flow of the tide.
"No one is entitled to the exclusive right of fishing in
any navigable water, unless such right be derived from an
express grant by the sovereign power, or, perhaps, such a
length and kind of possession as will cause a presumption
of such grant."
NOTE 50.-PAGE 240.
Stattates as to, ordcering of Wharves, Piers, and Slips.
Act of October 3, 1691.  (1 S. & L., 8.)
This statute was the law of the Colony and the State
until the 16th of April, 17S7. The latter act was, in its
provisions, in the present matter, almost identical with the
former.
Act of April 16, 1787.  (1 Gr., 441.)
"Whereas, for the encouragement of the trade and commerce of this State, it is necessary that the buildings,
streets, wharves, and slips, in the city of New  York,
should be regulated with uniformity, for the accommodation of inhabitants and shipping, wherefore, to remove all
impediments that may retard so necessary a work,
Be it, &c., That it shall and may be lawful to and for




APPENDIX.                   133
the Mayor, &c., in Common Council convened, from time
to time, to make such by-laws, ordinances, rules, and
orders, for the better arranging and regulating, with uniformity, such new buildings, as after the passage of this
act shall be erected for habitations, or for the purposes of
trade and commerce; and also, for regulating and altering
the streets, wharves and slips, in such manner as shall be
most commodious for shipping and transportation. Also,
from time to time, to nominate and appoint two or more
discreet personsto be the surveyors of the buildings, streets,
wharves, and slips of the said city, whose office and duty
it shall be to direct and see that all buildings, wharves,
streets, and slips to be laid out or altered in the said city,
be regulated with uniformity, &c.
By the second section, if in laying out, for the fiture, any
streets, or wharves, or slips, the Common Council should require for such purposes the ground of any person, they
shall give notice, and a jury shall be empanneled, &c.
These two sections were re-enacted almost verbatim, in
the act of the 3d of April, 1SO1. Sections 1 and 2.
And by the 219th section of the act to reduce, &c.,
April 9, 1813, the substance of these provisions is thus
enacted:
It shall be lawful for the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the city of New York, in Common Council convened, to lay out wharves and slips in the said city, whenever and wherever they shall deem it expedient; and if, in
so doing, they shall require, for such purposes, the ground
of any person or persons, they shall give notice thereof to
the owner, or parties interested in such ground, or his, or
her, or their agent or legal representative. And, to the end
that reasonable satisfaction may be mnade for all such




134                   APPENDIX.
ground as shall be necessary for the uses aforesaid, the said
Common.Council shall and may treat with the owners, or
persons interested therein, or his, or her, or their agent or
legal representative, and if any such owner or owners shall
refuse to treat in manner aforesaid, then, and in such cases,
it shall and may be lawful to and for the Mayor or Recorder, and any two or more Aldermen, by virtue of this act,
by a precept under their hands and seals, to command the
Sheriff of the said city and county of New York, to empannel and return a jury to appear before the Mayor's
Court of the said city, at any term thereof, not less than
three weeks from the date of such precept, to inquire of
and assess the damages and recompense due to the owner
or owners of such ground, or his, or her, or their agent
or legal representative; and at the same time to summon
the owner or owners of such ground, or his, her, or their
agent, or legal representative, by notice, to be left at his,
her, or their most usual place of abode, to appear before
such Mayor's Court, on the day and at the place in such
precept to be specified; which jury being first duly sworn,
faithfully and impartially to inquire into and assess the
premises, shall inquire of and assess such damages and
recompense as they shall, under all the circumstances,
judge fit to be awarded to the owner or owners of such
ground, for their respective losses, according to their several interests and estates therein.  And the verdict of such
jury, and the judgment of the said Mayor's Court thereupon, and the payment of the sum  or sums of money so
awarded and adjudged to the owner or owners thereof, or
tender and refusal thereof, shall be final and conclusive for
all intents and purposes, against the said owner and owners, his, her or their respective heirs, executors, administrat



APPENDIX.                     ]35
ors, and assigns, claiming any estate or interest of, in, or
to the same ground; and it shall thereupon be lawful to
and for the said Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the
city of New York, and their successors, to cause the same
ground to be converted to and used for the purposes aforesaid.
Piers, Slips, and Wharves.
The provisions as to the laying out the wharves or streets,
called South street and West street, in the act of 1798, are
before transcribed.  They were contained in the first four
sections.
In relation to piers and slips, I shall first state each section of the law as it now exists, and then its history.
The 224th section of the act of 1813 is as follows:
It shall and may be lawful for the said Mayor, &c., to
direct piers to be sunk and completed, at such distance and in
such manner as they, in their discretion, shall think proper,
in front of the said streets or wharves so adjoining and extending along the said rivers, and the said piers to be connected with the same by bridges, at the expense of the
proprietors of the lots lying opposite to the places where
said piers shall be directed to be sunk, and by such days
and times as the said Mayor, &c., may, for that purpose,
limit and appoint; and if the said proprietors shall neglect
or refuse to sink or make the said piers or bridges, according to the direction of the said Mayor, &c., it shall be lawful for the said Mayor, &c., to sink and make the said piers
and bridges, at their own expense, and to receive to their




136                    APPENDIX.
use wharfage for all vessels that may at any time or times
lie or be fastened to the said piers, or bridges, which they
shall so make as aforesaid [or it shall be lawful for the said
Mayor, Aldermen, &c., to grant the right of making such
piers and bridges, and the right of receiving the profits
thereof, to any person or persons, in fee or otherwise, upon
such ternms as they shall think proper].
This provision, down' to the last passage between brackets, was the fifty-fifth section of the act of 1798, and the
seventh section of the act of April 3d, 1801, with slight
verbal changes. The clause between brackets was first
enacted in the statute of 1806, being the third section of
that statute.
The 225th (two hundred and twenty-fifth) section of the
act of 1813, is as follows:
6" It shall be lawful for the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty to grant to the owners of lots fronting on any of
the said streets, of seventy feet, their heirs and assigns, a
common interest in the piers to be sunk in front of such
streets, in proportion to the breadth of their respective
lots, under such restrictions and regulations, and within
such limits as the said Mayor, Aldermen, &c., shall deem
just and proper."
This provision was first enacted in the eighth (8) section
of the act of 3d April, 1801, in exactly the same words.
(2 Webster, 129.)
The 226th section of the act of the year 1813 provides:
"That every clause, covenant and condition in the several grants of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of
the city, to the said proprietors respectively, or those under
whom they claim, to be kept, observed, or performed by the
grantees respectively, and their respective heirs, executors,




APPENDIX.                    137
administrators, and assigns, shall, notwithstanding this
act, retain their full force and validity, and shall be in no
manner affected by the same, or by any thing to be done
or performed in consequence thereof; and the said Mayor,
Aldermen, &c., shall have, possess, and be entitled to the
like payments, rights, and remedies, by virtue of the said
grants, as they might or could have had, or would have
been entitled to, if this act had not been passed; and shall
not, by the performance of anything herein contained, be
deemed to have broken or infringed any of the covenants
or conditions on their part, contained in the said grants."
This was a re-enactment of the 5th section of the act
of 1788, and the 9th of that of April 3, 1801.
Section 227th of' the act of 1813.  "No building, of any
kind or description whatever, other than the said piers
and bridges, shall at any time hereafter be erected upon
the said streets or wharves, or between them respectively,
and the river to which they, respectively, shall front and
adjoin."
This was the 7th section of the act of 1.798, and the
10th of that of April, 1801.
Section 228th of the act of 1813. "It shall and may be
lawful for the said Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty, at
their own expense, to cause piers and bridges to be sunk
and completed in such places and manner as they shall
think eligible, between the Whitehall slip and the east
side of the Exchange slip (Broad street), of the said city,
so as to form a basin for the safety and accommodation of
sloops and other vessels using the trade of the said city;
"And, also at their ovwn expense, to cause such and so many
other public basins to be formed and completed in the said
city, as they may deem necessary for the trade thereof,




138                   APPENDIX.
and to take to their own use the slippage or wharfage
arising from the same; any law, usage, or custom to the
contrary notwithstanding.
"IProvided always, that nothing herein contained shall be
construed to deprive any persons who may have made
piers by the direction of the said Mayor, &c., in pursuance
of the act entitled'An act for regulating the buildings,
streets, wharves, and slips in the city of New York' (act
of April 3, 1801), of any legal right which they thereby
may have acquired, or to interfere with any private property, or right, or privilege, held under grants of the said
Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty, or otherwise."
This provision is almost verbatim in the first section
of the act of the 2d of April, 1806. (1 Webster and Sk.,
514.) The preamble to that act recited, that from  the
great extension and increase of the said city, its trade and
inhabitants, it had become necessary to provide additional
walls, piers, slips, and basins in the said city, for the
accommodation and safety of vessels of different descriptions.
Section 229 of the act of 1813. "It shall and may be
lawful for the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the
city of New York to reserve all that part of the water adjacent to the wharves of the said city, from  the east side
of Coenties slip to the west side of Whitehall slip, for the
sole accommodation of sloops and other market vessels,
using the trade of the said city, from the 20th day of'
March to the 20th day of December, in each and every
year, and that during the time aforesaid, no registered or
sea vessel shall be suffered to use the slips or wharves,
within the above described limits, without special permission, any law, usage, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding."




APPENDIX.                   139
This enactment was first made on the 26th of January,
1808 (5 Web., 250), in an act entitled "An act to amend
the act for the better government of the city," &c.
Section 230 of the act of 1813. " In all cases where the
said Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty shall think fit,
for the public good, to enlarge any of the slips in the said
city, they shall be at liberty and have full power so to
do; and, upon paying one third of the expense of the
necessary piers and bridges, shall be entitled not only
to the slippage on that side of said piers which shall be
adjacent to such slips, respectively, but also to one half
of the wharfage to arise from the outermost end of the
said piers."
This is identically the second section of the act of 1806,
when it was first enacted.
Section 231 of act of 1S13. "In all cases where any of
the proprietors of lots lying opposite to the places or
streets where piers shall have been or may be directed to
be sunk, pursuant to the powers contained in the act last
aforesaid (the acts last referred to were those of April 3,
1801, and of the 16th April, 1787), or in this act, shall
neglect or refuse to join with the other proprietors in sinking and making such piers and bridges thereunto appertaining, or to pay his, her or their proportion of the expense
thereof, then, and in every such case, the said Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty may, at their election, join with
the other proprietors in making and finishing the said piers
and bridges; and shall become entitled to the proportion
of wharfage which the said proprietors, so refusing or
neglecting, would have been entitled to, if they had joined
in making the said piers and bridges."
This was first enacted in the fourth section of the act of
April 2, 1806.




140                   APPENDIX.
Section 232 of act of'1813. "In all cases a notice to the
proprietors of lots, inserted in two of the public newspapers printed in the said city, for six weeks successively,
shall be sufficient notice to all the said proprietors of the
said directions of the said Mayor, &c., for sinking and completing such piers and bridges, without specifying therein
the name of the said proprietors; and an affidavit, made
before a Judge of the Supreme Court or Master in Chancery, of the due publication of such notice in manner
aforesaid, shall at all times thereafter be deemed prima facie
evidence thereof; and every such proprietor, who shall not
begin the making of such piers and bridges by the period
for that purpose appointed, or who shall not contribute
his proportion of the expenses thereof, as the same shall
accrue, shall be deemed and taken to have neglected and
refused to comply with the said directions, according to
the intent and meaning of the last-mentioned act."
This was first enacted in the fifth section of the act of
April, 1806.
The 233d, 234th and 235th sections of the act of 1813 empower the Corporation to make regulations in certain particular cases, or give certain remedies and penalties which
do not properly belong to the branch of the subject now
considered.
The 236th section is as follows: "It shall be lawful for the
said Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty, in Common Council convened, to make such by-laws and ordinances as they
shall, from time to time, think proper, for regulating
wharves, piers and slips in the said city."
The 269th section of the act of 1813 must also be adverted to. " In all cases where the said by-laws and ordinances (of the Corporation) shall require any thing to be




APPENDIX.                  141
done by, or with respect to the property of several persons, or in relation to the filling up, altering or amending
any of the public slips in the said city, the said Mayor,
Aldermen, and Commonalty, in Common Council convened,
shall cause the expense of such works to be estimated and
assessed in the same manner as is directed in and by this
act, with respect to the paving and regulating the public
streets in the said city; and where the same shall relate to
the filling up, altering or amending the public slips, as
aforesaid, one-third of the expense attending the same shall
be borne by the said Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty,
and the residue by the said persons in the vicinity, who
may be benefited thereby, and in other cases such expenses shall be borne by the persons, respectively, upon
whom the same may be assessed, as aforesaid.'
This enactment was made in a statute of the 2d of
April, 1803, entitled " An act to invest the 3Mayor, &c,,
with adequate powers in relation to certain objects of importance to the police and health of the said city." (3
Webster, p. 229, ~ 4.)
This act was originally limited to three years. By the
statute of 2d April,!806, the above clause was made
permanent, and finally embodied in the 269th section of the
act of 1813.
A statute passed April 10, 1830 (Sess. Laws, 1830, p.
342), authorizing the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty
to make such by-laws and ordinances as to them should
appear fit, to designate and appropriate such of the public
wharves, piers and slips of the said city as they may deem
expedient, and such private wharves and piers in the said
city, as the owners thereof, respectively, may apply to
have so designated, or appropriated for the exclusive use of




142                   APPENDIX.
steamboats or of any other class or description of ships or
vessels; and to restrain and prohibit any ship or water craft
whatsoever from  colling into, or lying, mooring, or anchoring at or within any wharf, pier, or slip of the said
city, except such as shall be so designated for their use,
respectively, and to impose such penalties as they may
think reasonable.
Another statute connected with this subject was passed
on the 20th of April, 1835. It was provided that "it should
be lawful for the Common Council of the city of New
York to order and direct that any private wharf, pier,
dock, bulkhead, or land, within the limits of the said city,
be deepened by excavating or removing the earth and dirt,
or sand therefrom, and to cause the same to be done
in such places and at such times as are necessary and
proper."'" ~ 2. The expense of conforming to any such order or
direction, or of carrying the same into effect, shall be estimated and assessed upon or among the owner or owners of
every dock, pier, wharf, bulkhead, piece of land, water
right or privilege, near or adjacent to which any such
water may be deepened, and which may in any manner be
benefited thereby, in proportion, as nearly as may be, to
the advantage which each shall be deemed to acquire."
The third and fourth sections relate to the manner of
carrying the provisions into effect.
Statutes respecting T/Wharfage, Rates, Ac.
On the 21st of September, 1744, an act was passed to
establish the rates to be taken for wharfage of ships and
other vessels, using the three wharfs therein mentioned.




APPENDIX.                  143
It is recited" Whereas, The owners and proprietors of the wharf, called Burnett's Key, in the city of New York, have, by their
petition, set forth to the General Assembly that an act, entitled' An act for regulating the rates to be taken for
ships and other vessels using the wharf called Burnett's
Key, in the city of New York,' passed in the eighth year of
his majesty's reign (22d June, 1734), will expire, by its
own limitation, on the first of December next, and praying
that the same might be continued, &c.
"And whereas, the owners and proprietors of another
free wharf, between the Smith's Fly slip (Maiden lane) and
Burling slip, in the East Ward, have prayed that they may
be entitled to the like wharfages, and be under the same
regulations, as the proprietors of Burnett's Key are now,
or shall be entitled to."
The act then established the rates of wharfage, according
to the tonnage of the vessels. Other provisions were
made; and, by the sixth section, the owners of the three
wharves, or the major part of them, might choose a wharfinger or overseer, who should have the ordering and regulating of the wharves, and of the berths of the ships or
vessels.
By the eighth section, nothing therein was to impair the
right which the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the
city of New York had to the dock, and to the several slips
therein beforementioned. On the 1st of May, 1754, this
act was continued, being to expire, by its own limitation,
on the first of December ensuing.
On the 19th February, 1756, the chief provisions of this
act were renewed in another act, and extended to two
other wharves, one of them between the slips called Rodman slip and Burling slip.




144                  APPENDIX.
There was a similar reservation of the rights of the Corporation to the slips and docks. This act was to continue
until the 21st of January, 1770. On the 21st of January,
1770, this act was substantially renewed, and on the 21st
of February, 1771, was, in some particulars, amended.
And on the 17th of April, 1784, a general act was passed
to establish the rates of wharfage and cartage within the
city of New York. (1 Greenleaf, 92; 2 ibid., 354.)
On the 6th of April, 1795, the statute of 1784 was
amended. This statute was renewed and amended on the
3d of April, 1801. Another amendment took place on the
24th March, 1809, and again on the 1Sth of June, 1812.
And, lastly, all the provisions of these statutes were
combined in the general act of 1813 to reduce certain laws,
&c., in the 0212th and six following sections.
NOTE 51.-PAGE 257.
Abstract Opinion —R. Emmet, Esq.
Document No. 52, B. Ass. Ald., vol.'201.
The learned counsel states, that it was proposed to form
a public slip or basin at the foot of Clinton street, on the
East river, and for that purpose to build a pier opposite to
certain premises granted to Anna Bancker, in 1804, by the
Corporation. The parties interested had declined uniting
in erecting the pier; and the question was, if the Corporation could do so at their own expense, without infringing
upon any right held under the grant.




APPENDIX.                    145
The counsel then states the provisions of the grant, observing that it included the space occupied by Front
street, down to the river, but no part of Clinton street;
that there was no specific grant of wharfage.
He then proceeds to state his reasons for the proposition, that the grantees took, under their grant, the
right to wharfage on that part of Front street, coextensive with their grant; and he proceeds —" The next
inquiry is, what impediment does such right offer to the
construction of the pier in question by the Corporation?
The act of the Legislature makes it lawful for the Corporation to lay out wharves and slips in the city, whenever
and wherever they deem it expedient, and to direct piers
to be sunk and completed at such distances and in such
manner as they, in their discretion, shall think proper, in
front of the streets and wharves adjoining and extending
along the rivers.  The reason and propriety of vesting this
power ia the Municipal Government of a great commercial city must be obvious; nor would it be going too far
to say, that many private rights must; be held and enjoyed
in reference and subordinate to its exercise. Of such a
character, I conceive the right of wharfage, in the present
instance, to be."
NOTE 52.-PAGE 277.
Petition of 1702, for Ferry Charter.
To his Excellency, Lord Viscount Cornbnury, &c., &c.
The humble petition of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the city of New  York, most humbly showeth
unto your Excellency:
10




146                  APPENDIX.
That your petitioners, by their charter, having a right
and interest in the ferry from this city across the river to
Nassau Island, and from the said island to the city again,
and to all the perquisites, profits and advantages thereof,
which your petitioners perceive to fall much short of what
they might reasonably expect from the same, if the bounds
and limits of the said ferry were somewhat extended on
the said island side, whereby to hinder and prevent that
privilege and liberty, which divers persons now take, of
transporting themselves and goods to and from the said
Island of Nassau over the said river, without coming to or
landing at the usual and accustomed place, where the said
ferry is kept and appointed, to the great loss and damage
of your petitioners, whose farmer of the said ferry complains he cannot live upon, nor longer hold the same,
lthough at a moderate and very easy rent; which mischief
and inconvenience your petitioners know not better how
to remedy than by gaining a further interest on the shore
adjoining to the said island, so as to oblige persons to pay
the rate and duty of the ferry who pass and repass the
said river with themselves or goods, to and from any other
part of the said island, within the bounds and compass
hereby prayed for, than that where the said ferry is now
kept, which being in your Lordship's power alone to
enable your petitioners to do.
We, your said petitioners, do most humbly beg of your
Excellency, that you would be pleased to grant unto us
and our successors, for the use and behoof of this city and
Corporation, under the seal of this province, all the vacant
land fromn high water to low water mark, fronting the harbor of this city from the east side of the Red Hook, upon
Nassau Island aforesaid to the East side of Wallabout, upon




APPENDIX.                  147
the said island, for the better and more convenient taking
in and loading of passengers, corn, and other goods and
things bound to and from this city.
And your petioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
(Read in Council, 11th March, 1702.)
The Trustees for the town of Brooklyn, in Kings county, on Nassau Island, whose names are hereunder written,
for and on behalf of themselves and said town, enter a
caveat against the city of New York, or any particular
person, for having a patent for any land between high
water and low water mark, from Kickout and the Wallabout to Red Hook in said township, till they be heard,
&c. March 16, 1702-3.
No further action appears to have been taken.
NOTE 53.-PAGE 277.
Petition of C. Sebring,for Ferry Grant, 23d January, 1707.
To his Excellency, Edward Viscount Cornbury, &c.:
The petition of Cornelius Sebring, of Kings county, on
the Island of Nassau, showeth. That your petitioner is
seized and stands possessed of a certain farm on the Island
of Nassau, directly over and against the centre of the city
of New York, being a most fit and convenient place for a
ferry, to and from the said city, for the transportation of
passengers, goods, wares, merchandise, cattle, corn, and
other commodities, to the great use and benefit of many of
the inhabitants of the said city and island, considering the




148                  APPENDIX.
situation as aforesaid, and which can be of ino hurt- or
damage to the old ferry, it being not as convenient for
that ferry to send their boats to the south end and centre
of the city, where he purposes to send his.
Your petitioner therefore humbly prays your Excellency
to grant unto your petitioner her r Majesty's Letters Patent,
under the great seal of the province, for establishing a
ferry over the East river or Sound, to be limited on the
Island of Nassau on the one side by the old ferry, and on the
other side by the Red THook, and on the side of New York,
between the slip, at Captain Theobald's, unto the great
bridge, for the loading and landing of all persons, goods,
wares and merchandise, except cattle, to be landed at or
near the slaughter houses (nevertheless, not excluding the
old ferry boat from the places aforesaid), under'such regulations and such prices for transportation, and small quit
rent or acknowledgment, as to your Excellency shall seem
meet.
New York, 23d January, 1707-8.
A considerable number of citizens agreed that such a
ferry would be of advantage to the city, if the price of
transportation was not excessive.
NOTE 54.- PAGE 278.
Petition of 1708,Jor land on Nassau Island,for Ferry Grant.
To his Excellency, &c.:
The humble petition of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the city of New York, most humbly showeth:
That the petitioners having a right and interest in the




APPENDIX.                   149
ferry from this city to Nassau Island, and from the said
island to the city again, and to all the profits and advantages thereof, perceive it to fall far short of what they might
reasonably expect from the same, if the bounds and limits of
the said ferry were something extended on the said island
side, thereby to hinder and prevent that privilege and
liberty which divers persons now take of transporting
themselves and goods: to and from the said Island of Nassau over the said river, without coming to, or landing at
the usual and accustomed place where the said ferry boats
are kept and appointed, to the great loss and damage of
the petitioners (the profits thereof being wholly appropriated for the public service and government of the said
city), and it being obvious to your petitioners that some
private persons, for their own use and gain, have solicited
your Excellency for another ferry on the said island, fronting to this city, which, if granted, would be of great damage
to this Corporation, and all the inhabitants thereof, as the
petitioners humbly conceive, would in time, not only prove
injurious to the trade and commerce of this city, but also
be a means to lessen the income of her Majesty's revenue,
established upon trade, to the general decay of the province,
the improvement thereof employed now in traffic being
scarcely able to maintain the inhabitants now in this city,
whose livelihood does only rely thereon.
Your Excellency's petitioners therefore most humbly
pray that your Lordship will be favorably pleased to take
the premises into your prudent consideration, and order
her Majesty's grant unto the petitioners and their successors for all the vacant and unappropriated ground on Nassau Island, front high water to low water mark, fronting
unto this city'from the place called the Wallabout, unto




150                  APPENDIX.
the Red Hook, against Nutten Island, for the better improvement and accommodation of the said ferry; and also
that your Excellency would be further pleased to order
unto the petitioners and their successors her Majesty's
grant of confirmation for the said ferry on both sides'of the
said Driver, with power to establish one or more ferries, if
there shall be occasion, and to make by-laws for the more
orderly regulation thereof, at such reasonable rates and
under such moderate quit-rent as your Lordship in your
great prudence shall see meet.
And your Excellency's petitioners as in duty bound shall
ever pray, &c.
EBENEZER WILLSON,   WILLIAIM SMITH,
JOHN TUDER,           CHRISTOPHER DENNE,
)D. PROVOST,         JOHN HENDRICK BREVOORT,
RICHARD WILLETT,    PAUL DRO1LHET,
ALFRED SWOERTS.       E. BLAGGE.
April 8, 1708. —Read, and granted-a warrant to be
prepared for the Attorney General to draw a patent or
charter.
NOTE 55.-PAGE 281.
Statute of 1732:, as to Ferries.
The act recites, that whereas the rates and prices of the
ferriage of men, horses, &c., and all other goods transported
over the ferry, between the city of New York and the
Island of Nassau, were heretofore regulated by the Mayor,
Aldermen, and Commonalty of the said city, to whom that




APPENDIX.                   151
ferry belongs; and for the avoiding of disputes, the aforesaid ferriage was afterward established for the term of seven
years, by an act of the General Assembly, entitled, &c.,
passed in the fourth year of his late Majesty's reign, and
the same having been generally approved of, was, by
another act passed in the first yea' of his present Majesty's
reign, continued until the 12th day of June, 1733. And
whereas, the rates and prices of the ferriage aforesaid are
full well approved, and allowed to be reasonable and
moderate.
The first section then prescribes the rates of ferriage.
The second fixes the various penalties upon passengers for
refusing to pay the rates; and the third upon the ferryman
for not landing at the place appointed, and for taking more
than is allowed by the act.
The fourth section directs, that it should and might be
lawful for the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the
city of New York to take the rates of ferriage before
fixed, " and shall and may establish and keep one or more
ferry or ferries between the said city of New York and the
Island of Nassau, for the better and more easy transportation of passengers."
The fifth gave liberty to the owners on the water side
to transport their own goods or commodities in their own
boats or canoes, but not to bring over the goods of other
person or persons, with or without hire.
And the sixth section was as follows:
"And forasmuch as the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the city of New York have been for many years past,
and still are legally and solely seized of the ferry aforesaid,
and that they have, at their own great cost and charges, not
only purchased lands on Nassau Island, at the place where




152                  APPENDIX.
the said ferry has always been kept, but likewise erected
there houses, stables, and a pen for the accommodation of
travelers, passengers, drovers, horses and cattle, and a convenient bridge or landing for boats to come at, and go off
from. Be it therefore enacted by the authority aforesaid,
that no other person or persons whomsoever, other than
the said Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the city of
New York, their successors and assigns, shall presume to
erect and keep a ferry between the city of New York and
Nassau Island, for carrying or bringing of any passengers,
horses, cattle, hogs, sheep, goods, wares, merchandise, or
other commodities or things whatsoever, over the said ferry
hereby rated and established, for any hire, wages, or reward
whatsoever, or without such, under penalty of fifty pounds
for every such offense, with full costs of suit; one moiety
thereof to his majesty, his heirs and successors, toward the
support of his government in this colony, and the other
moiety thereof to such person or persons as shall prosecute
and sue for the same, to effect, in any court of record
within the said colony, wherein no protection or wager of
law or more than one imparlance shall be allowed."
The seventh section directed the ferrymen to hang up
a table of the rates at some conspicuous place.
NOTE 56.-PAGE 283.
Ferry Act of 1813, 2 R. S., 355.
The first section (being the 45th section of the act to
reduce into one act the laws concerning the city of New
York, vol. 2, R. S., p.a 355) prescribed the rates of passage




APPENDIX.                    153
from the city of New York to the Island of Nassau, and
from the Island of Nassau to the city. "Whenever a certain rate of ferriage is fixed for any particular quantity
or weight of goods, a proportionable rate shall be taken
for any greater or less quantity or weight of the same
goods.
" If any person shall refuse to pay the rates of ferriage
thus established, he shall forfeit and pay the ferryman
treble the rate to which he was liable by the act, to be
recovered with costs in any court having cognizance
thereof.  (~ 46.)
"It shall be lawful for the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the city of New York to demand and receive
the rates and prices of ferriage aforesaid, for the said ferriage from and to the said city as aforesaid, and they may
establish and keep one or more ferries between the said
city and the Island of Nassau aforesaid."  (~ 47.)
The 4Sth section fixes a penalty of two dollars and fifty
cents, for taking any other or greater rates of ferriage than
those settled in the act.
The 49th section provides for the mode of giving publicity to the rates, by putting up lists thereof in a conspicuous place at the ferry houses.
The 50th and 51st sections relate to the marking of the
boats in a particular manner, and to the hours of running
at different seasons of the year.
The 52d section is as follows: " That it shall be lawful
for any inhabitants of the town of Brooklyn to transport
their own goods in their own boats, from  the Island of
Nassau to the city of New York, and from the city of New
York to the Island of Nassau, without giving any ferriage




154                   APPENDIX.
for the same. Provided, however, that if any such inhabitants,
under color or pretext of transporting his or her own
goods only, shall carry or bring over the said ferry the
goods of any other person of what kind soever, with
or without hire or reward, every such inhabitant shall
for every such offense forfeit and pay to the ferryman of
such ferry two dollars aad fifty cents, to be recovered,
with costs of suit, before any justice of the peace, or
court having cognizance thereof."
53d section is as follows —" That no person other than
the said Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty shall erect
and keep a ferry between the said city and Nassau Island, for
carrying or bringing any passengers, horses, cattle, hogs,
sheep, goods, merchandise or other things whatsoever over
the said ferry hereby rated, with or without any hire or
reward, under the penalty of one hundred and twenty-five
dollars for every such offense."
The 54th, 55th, and 56th sections prescribed a sufficient
number of men to be attached to the barges and other
boats, the dimensions of the barges, &c. These regulations,
from the introduction of steam ferry-boats, have fallen
into disuse.
By the 57th section, the Harbor Masters of the city, for
the time being, shall be the persons who shall, on the complaint of any person, determine whether the ferry boats
are kept in proper order.
The 58th section regulates the mode of recovering
the penalties, and their application.




APPENDIX.                   155
NOTE 56 CONTINUED.-PAGE 293.
Cases as to rights and property in Ferries.
Mills vs. The County Commissioners (3 Scanimon's Rep.,
55, Illinois).  The Legislature of Illinois had by an act
authorized St. Clair county to establish a ferry across the
river Mississippi.  Commissioners had located the ferry
and road leading to it. The county court was authorized
to cause the land covered by the location to be condemned,
and the damages to be paid to the owner, and then to enter
upon the land, and establish the ferry. The mode of ascertaining the damages by a jury was then prescribed, and
an appeal given.
The appellants were owners of the lands taken, for considerable distance above and below the point, and had
enjoyed a former ferry on their land for the space of
thirteen years, called St. Lewis Ferry. The question arose
on the refusal of the judge, at the trial, to give instructions
that these ferry rights should be estimated, in making up
the value to be allowed to the appellants.
The court say, "it is a principle of common law that
ferries are publici juris, and can be granted by the sovereign power. If this be admittted, it follows that riparian
proprietors are not thereby entitled to the franchise."
"Has our statute changed this firm principle?  The act
entitled, &c., gives the owners of land, adjoining to or
embracing the water course over which a ferry is proposed
to be established, a preference over others, provided the
privilege shall not have been granted to any other person;
thus clearly recognizing the common law principle, and
implying a power in the public to make the grant to persons other than the owners of the land."




156                    APPENDIX.
The court proceed to notice that the appellants had
only shown possession of thirteen years, but no license or
grant, and had not therefore proven themselves entitled to
the ferry franchise.
We must advert to the fact that the doctrine as to
navigable rivers is applied to the Mississippi.
IMills vs. The County of St. Clair (2 Gilman's Illinois
Rep., 197).
The grant by an act of the Legislature of Illinois, passed
in 1S19, was as follows: 6' That S. Wiggins, his heirs and
assigns, were authorized to establish a ferry on the waters
of the Mississippi, near the town of Illinois, in this State,
to run the same from lands at said place that might belong
to him.  And that no person except those who had ferries
then established at that place should establish a ferry of
that description aforesaid (viz.: by boats to be propelled
by steam, horses, oxen, or other four-footed animals),
within one mile of the ferry established under that act."
But by another section it was provided, that if the provisions of the second section should appear to be injurious
to the public good, then such section might be repealed.
The ferry was accordingly located at a given point. In
1833, the Legislature repealed the second section of the
act of 1819.
In 1839, the Legislature appointed commissioners to
locate a road and ferry across the Mississippi river; and
the commissioners proceeded to take three hundred feet of
the land of Wiggins' assigns, upon the river, no compensation being granted for the damage done to the franchise.
In 1821, a further act was passed, authorizing Wiggins,
his heirs, and assigns, to remove his ferry on any lands
which might belong to him, or them, on the said AMissis



APPENDIX.                   157
sippi river, under the same provisions as were prescribed
in the act of 1819.
The new ferry, under the act of 1839, was located below
the tract first acquired by Wiggins, and on which his
ferry was established. He had purchased this tract.
The court stated the following propositions: " That the
grant of a ferry franchise by the Legislature of a State,
unless limited by some general law, or some restrictive
provisions in the grant itself, is necessarily exclusive to
the extent of the privilege thus conferred. When a grant
has once been made by the legislative authority, to the
extent of the rights conferred by it, the power which made
it is exhausted, and it cannot be taken back or transferred
to another, until the public interests or welfare shall demand its resumption, and provision shall have been made
for just compensation to the owner."  Such a contract,
however, is always subject to an implied reservation in
favor of the sovereign power, that whenever the public
good requires, or the exigencies of the State demand it, all
the rights and privileges may be resumed, upon adequate
compensation being made.
The cause went up to the Supreme Court of the United
States (8 Howard, 569). The first grant, that of 1819,
was held operative, contrary to the opinion of the court
below. It was concluded that the Legislature meant to
give the same time to the party, eighteen months, for the
acquisition of the lands, as he had for running the ferry.
Wiggins was confined in running the ferry, under the
act of 1821, to the ground then owned by him. He could
not afterward go beyond that tract to other land not then
owned by him. Whether he could have changed his location within the limits of the tract actually owned, was not
a question before the court.




158                   APPENDIX.
It was also held that the establishment and regulation of
ferries across navigable streams is a subject within the
control of the government, which may exercise its power
by contracting with individuals. This general principle
was not open to controversy.
In North Carolina the right to establish ferries is recognized as in the sovereign authority, but the privilege must
first be, offered to the owner of the bank where it is
intended to be fixed.  If he refuse, the grant may be
made to another, compensating the owner for the use of
the soil taken. (Pipkin vs. Winns, 2 D. Rep., 402, overruling Raynen vs. Dowday, 1 Murphy, 279.)  This is also
the rule in Kentucky and in Tennessee.  (Harvie vs. Carmlack, 6 Dana, 242; Allen vs. Fansworth, 5 Yerger, 189.)
In these cases the rule was fully recognized, that a first
right of privilege was the result of statutory provision, not
a rule of law binding upon the State.
The case of Young vs. Hanson (6 Georgia Rep., 130)
settled:
Ist. That the owner of land on the banks of a river had
not, as matter of right, the privilege of keeping a public
ferry. This right to do so could only be by grant, actual
or implied.
2d. That the State had a right to erect bridges wherever
it was deemed necessary for the convenience of the public.
3d. That a bridge might be established, and a keeper
appointed, without any regard to ownership of the soil.
The franchise or right to keep bridges or ferries should,
however, be conferred upon the owners of the soil, rather
than on strangers, if practicable and consistent with the
public welfare.
The   -  Bridge Company had been incorporated by




APPENDIX.                   159
the Legislature, with ordinary powers to enter upon and
take lands for their purposes. The plaintiff had used a
ferry from his land for about thirteen years, but without a
grant from the State, although the title to his land adjoining was derived from it.
It was decided that he had no right to ferry across the
river, and no property therein; and that the act of incorporation of the Bridge Company was lawful, and authorized
them  to take his land, making compensation as provided
for in their charter.
See also the great case of The Canal Co. vs. The Railroad Co. (4 Gill and Johnson, 1).
Costar vs. Brush (25 Wendell, 628.)  The plaintiffs
were holders of a lease granted by the Corporation of New
York for the establishment of a ferry between Beekman
slip and the old ferry at Brooklyn (now called Fulton Ferry), in which the Corporation covenanted that they would
not establish or permit any other ferry between New
York and Brooklyn, south of the ferry at Catharine slip.
The case involved the legality of this covenant.
The court said, "It is insisted that the grant of the
right establishing ferries, nmade to the Corporation, was a
franchise to be exercised for the public good, and that any
restriction imposed upon itself in the exercise of this power
was illegal. The short answer to all which is, that the
Corporation possessed the same power in respect to the
establishment of ferries across the East River that before
belonged to the Crown or Legislature; and the exclusive
privileges extended to the lessees of the Fulton Ferry were
fully within its municipal authority, and binding both
upon the city and the public."




160                   APPENDIX.
NOTE 57.-PAGE 99, 329 AND OTHERS.
Titles as existing in 1686.
I have found several points connected with this subject
so useful, and so troublesome to ascertain, for any particular
case, as to induce me to state —
1. The periods of the administration of the several Colonial Governors;
2. The distances on the chief streets or highways, which
tend to illustrate the subject; and
3. lMeasurements of distances useful in locating particular Dutch ground-briefs or transports.
DATES, GOVERNORS, &C.
1623 to 1632, Peter AMinuit, Governor and Director General.
1633 to 1638, Wouter Von Twiller, Governor and Director General.
March, 1638, to M3ay, 1647, William Kieft, Governor and
Director General.
Iay, 1647, to August, 1664, Petrus Stuyvesant.
1664, 26th August, surrender to the English.
1664, August, to August, 1668, Richard Nicholls, Governor.
1668, August, to July, 1673, Francis Lovelace, Governor.
1673, August, Dutch Governor, Anthony Colve.  Provisional Instructions.
1674, November 10th, Restoration to the English, under
the treaty of peace.
1674, November, to August, 1683, Edward Andross, Governor.




APPENDIX.                  161
1683 to spring of 1689, Thomas Dongan, Governor.
1689 to 1691, Jacob Leisler, under Committee of Safety.
16S9, 11th December, Leisler as Lieutenant-Governor.
1691, March to July,      Sloughter as Lieutenant-Governor.
1691, July, to August 1692, Richard Ingoldsby, Governor.
1692, August, toApril, 1698, Benjamin Fletcher, Governor.
1698, April, to 5th Mar-ch, 1701, Earl Bellamont, Governor.
1702, May, to 170S, Lord Cornbury, Governor.
1708, December, to 1709, May, Lord Lovelace, Governor.
1710 to 1719,       Hunter, Governor.
1720 to 1728, William Burnett, Governor.
1728, April 15th, to July 1st, 1731, John Montgomery,
Governor.
1731, July, to 1st of August, 1732, Rip Van Dam, of the
Council.
1732, August 1st, to 7th March, 1736, William  Cosby,
Governor.
1736 to 1743, George Clarke, Lieutenant-Governor.
1743 to October, 1753, Governor Clinton.
1753, two days, Sir Danvers Osborn.
1753 to 1755, James Delancey, Lieutenant-Governor.
1755, Sir Charles Hardy.
1760 to 1761, Lieutenalnt-Governor Colden, in the absence
of Sir Charles Hardy and in that of Governor Monckton.
1761, October, to 1765, Robert Monckton.
1765 to September, 1769, Sir Henry Moore.
1769, Lieutenant-Governor Colden administered the Government.
1771, July to March, 1780, William Tryon.
1780, March, to the peace, Major-General Robertson.
11




162                    APPENDIX.
DISTANCES.
On Broadway (west side):
FT. INm
From  Battery place  (Marketfield) to
Morris street. -. —----------   461.07
Morris street..........  32.04
Morris to Rector street, south
side-..e........... 641.03
Rector street.-...       -.......   42.06
Rector to Thames street. -       431.05
1609.01
Thames street.         -. -20.00
"   Thames to Cedar street..1....   101.00
Cedar street -.-............. 34.05
Cedar to Liberty street. —----  126.08
Liberty street -.............. 36.10
Liberty to Cortlandt street....   226.04
Cortlandt street -X-. —           50.02
Cortlandt to Dey street.         222.06
Dey street. - --- --  --  ---     40.00
Dey to Fulton street....-...  153.06
Fulton streetf -----------—. -   57.03
_    _- -1064.08
" Fulton to Duane street..     18...... 17.09
Duane street.......... - -  -    40.00
"   Duane to Leonard street..-.. 677.10
Leonard street..-......... 50.00
Leonard to Canal street.- -... 1076.00
Canal street                     101.00
Canal to Prince street...... 2007.03
Prince street. -        -..  50.00
"   Prince to Art street..-......   2226.05




APPENDIX,                      163
Broadway (east side):
FTr. IN.
From  Walker to Maiden lane....-.    843.00
Maiden lane........ -.  50.00
"   Maiden lane to John street.... 168.00
John street........... 44.08
John to Fulton street....200.11
Fulton street, 54.08 (formerly)..  32.00
"   Fulton to;a point 36 feet from
Ann street...............     31.0,0
44"  Chambers to Duane street..... 455.00
4"   Duane to Catharine lane,.... 637.00
4   Catha'rine lane to White' street.. 579.00
"   White to Howard street....   823.00
On Greenwich street:
From  Marketfield  (Battery place) to
Fulton street.           o-..2766.00
Fulton street o.....   -......     61.03
GC   Fulton to Duane street........1892.00
Duane street.....               64.00
"   Duane to Canal street.........2549.00
Canal street --        —............. 101.00
6   Canal to Chariton  (Bestaver's
Killitjie) street.. -..... —.o  1000.00
Charlton street..............  50.00
Charlton to Christopher street. 2000.00
Christopher street-... -.  60.00
"   Christopher to Gansevoort street,2313.00




164                    APPENDIX.
Broadway to east side of Greenwich street:
Ft. IN.
At Marketfield street.-         165.00
" Morris street.-  241.00
Rector street.... 405600'~ Fulton street.  S —      -843.00
"Chamnbers street............ 1424.00
" Duane street.. ----  1548.00;' Walker street.          -2..165.00
W;all street (north side):
From  Broadway to Pearl street)..  1258.07
Pearl street..                   40.03
C6  Pearl to north-east side Water (including Water) street...... 204.08
Maiden lane (north side):
From Wall to Queen (Pearl) street.-1392.00
On Queen (Pearl) street:
From  Wall to Maiden lane.. - -..-      494.00
Maiden lane....... a....... 52.00
"'  Maiden lane to John street... -. 394.00
John street......  -             49.00
"   John street to Fulton      300
Fulton  street to Beekman.337    7.00
1040.00
Beekman street.....-      -    36.00
Beekman to Frankfort street...   750.00
Frankfort to Vandewater street. 500.00
"   From Vandewater to Duane st... 215.00
Thomas (or Duane) street..       50.00




APPENDIX.                     165
FT. IN.
From  Duane to Chatham street...... 450.00
Chatham street.......   60.00
"   Chatham street to Broadway. -1390.00
On, Chatham street and Bowery (east side): 
From its beginning, say 36 feet
from Ann street to N.
W. point Times building ----------------  750.00'"  thence to Frankfort st... 200.00
950.00
Frankfort street....          0.00
Frankfort to Thomas (Duane) st. 680.00
Duane street, (before late widening)..40.00
Duane to Pearl street --—..-  460.00
Pearl street.                    50.00
"    Pearl to Roosevelt street..- -. 170.00
Roosevelt street..............  50.00'   Roosevelt to Oliver street...... 530.00
Oliver street. -   --- -- --   40.00
O liver to Catharine-street...... 210.00
Catharine to Grand street......1730.00
Grand street...7..  0.00
"   Grand to north side Houston
street..      - -... 2065.00
On Chatham street and Bowery (west side):
From Tryon Row to Pearl street..... 900.00
Pearl street............ —..  100.00
"   Pearl street to a point opposite
centre of Roosevelt street..  140.00




166                   APPENDIX.
FT. I.
From  Roosevelt to Mott street.-... 390.00
Mlott street....                55.00,, Mott to Doyers street.           230.00
Doyers street -.-.... —. -. 55.00
"   Doyers to Walker street....          810.00
Walker street........          50.00
"   Walker to Grand street-....   831.00
Grand street.......    - -       70.00
Grand to Prince street....... 1429.00
Prince street.. O................ 52.00
" Prince to Art st. (Astor place)..2688.00
Art street (Astor place):'
From the Bowery to Greenwich lane 2930.00'"   Greenwich lane to Fitzroy road.2030.00
Fitzroy road (or Gansevoort st.)
to high water mark, Hudson
River...... -...  1450.00
On Cherry street:
From  beginning to Roosevelt street... 400.00
Roosevelt street......  40.00
Roosevelt to James- street...    345.00
James street............. 40.00
"   James to Catharine street......  440.00
Catharile street............. 40.00'"   Catharine to Rutgers street....1818.00
Rutgers street...............  60.00
6   Rutgers to Corlaers street... 3123.00
Across Corlaers street.... e....  60.00
G'  that point -.to Houston street
(north)..e..,  6 O......2460.00




APPENDIX.                          167
Mieasurements.
A Dutch foot...11 Dutch inches.
A Dutch foot..... 113 English inches.
An English foot... 12 inches.
A  Dutch rod....    Sometimes 11, 12, and 13 Dutch feet.
A Rhineland perch. 12 Rhineland feet.
An English rod... 16.6 English feet.
A Dutch rod....121 -2o0,   say 4 or 3 inches.*
A  chain English..100 links.
do.                 66 feet.
A  link.....  7,,o  inches.
An acre..           1752 lots of 25x100, 43,560 feet to an
acre.
A pole....          16 feet 6 inches.
Very frequently the number of rods in a Dutch grant,
when  compared  with  the  actual distances on  a  street
which can be proved to have been the location, requires
* In the Encyclopedia are the following statements: A Rhineland foot
(12 whereof make a Rhineland perch), being taken at 696 parts —
An English foot is 6751.
The Amsterdam foot 629.
An English foot 1000 parts 12 inches.
A Rhineland foot 12, 396-1000.
In the Dictionary of Weights and Measures (Baltimore, 1850) the Rhenish
rod is stated at 12, 476-1000 English inches.
The Amsterdam old measure at 12, 72-1000.
The proportion of 629 the Amsterdam foot of the Encyclopedia (M.
Picard), to 675 1-2 English, is about a sixth, 11 1-6 inches.
From the Amsterdam measure at the City Hall, Mr. Child, Superintendent of the encroachment survey, has estimated the Dutch rod to be
12 246-1000 English feet.
Sometimes the rod is stated at 18 feet, and sometimes at 12 feet, in the
Dutch ground briefs and transports. Frequently the measure is Rhineland
measure.
Mr. Valentine has computed the Dutch rod to be 12, 74 or 8 inches.




168                  APPENDIX.
at least 14 feet to the Dutch rod. This would be a serious embarrassment if a strict survey and definite boundaries were essential, and would then require more critical
examination.  For my purposes,-to show  the Dutch
origin of the most of the titles, it is not of moment.
Where (as is largely the case) the adjoining owners hold
under Dutch grants, the precise limits between them is
not of consequence.
Numerous measurements and comparisons have made
me conclude to take 12 6 inches as the measure of a
rod. This corresponds better than any other with lines
which are already located and defined.
Diagram No. 1.
A. 1650. Grant to Jan Martyn. Lot to the east of the
strand of the North River, having to the north
the house and lot of Martin Cregier; to the
east that of the widow of Pieter Cock; to the
south a certain wagon way; to the west the
strand of the North River; length on east side
six (6) rods 3 feet; on the west along the
river, six (6) rods; on the south side, four rods
seven feet (4.7); on the north side three (3)
rods 3 feet.
I have not traced how the title to this parcel
came to Pieter Cock, or the derivation from
him. I think it is the lot mentioned as that
of Thomas Coker, reserved in Dongan's charter. At any rate, it is found to have been
vested in Charles Sleigh, in 1729, with another
strip.




I)IAGRAM?1
tdeatuyc~"il~ jIl/i% lit/i Jbt1(Af 11/ef/~ji~ (2I(%19 IfSr~
IiiYirk-elfidd J frreel i wax~ uboull< t-en it! /?( ~ri
of' (Jr6- Teeri w It  Stre
f/ie,,,, dviuaae, t} Ra Bitterv-Place, tol~i/vi  Sde olfRector I'i 11     iZ
SCP9.
Na o
0  the -[i                                                                             I- u w  R p aly' 
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-D o                                                                       I
7   -f                -`1 )1        gI~    j H;T:   ~5r                                i 
B~        ~ C                                     -------------
i~~~~~~~~~~~~12 /1. to (/1/iz~ it/cl                                    L~








APPENDIX.                   169
A. 1729. Mortgage by Charles Sleigh to A. De Peyster.
Equity of redemption released, and1756, August. A. De Peyster to Archibald Kennedy.
In the Montgomery charter of 1730, the line
of the West Ward runs between the house of
Charles Sleigh, and that of Thomas Edes.
The front of Sleigh on Broadway was 54 feet;
depth 112 feet south side, and 13 north side.
He had acquired a grant of 270 feet from high
water mark. High water mark was 122 feet
from the corner of Broadway.
B. 1648. To Gerrit Dowman.
Geri'it Dowman to Pieter Cock.
1067, February. Confirmation to Anatie, widow of
Pieter Cock. Lot on the east side, 4 rods 6
feet; south side, next to the fort (8.7); next
to the stand, west side (4.7).
C. 1643. Governor Kieft to Martin Cregier. Lot for a
house and garden lying north of the fort, extending from the house about west, 9 rods
2 feet; towards the fort, south, 6 rods 9 feet;
again, about east, with a great outpoint, 14
rods 6 feet; further, to the place of beginning,
4 rods 5 feet.
1645. A lot north of the fort, north of Martin Cregier.
It extends on the west side, in length, 11 rods
3 feet; on the north side, 7 rods 9 feet (7.9);
on the east side, 9 rods 9 feet (9.9); on the
south side, next to Martin Cregier, 11 rods 9
feet.
1666. Confirmation by Nicolls to M. Cregier (Lib. 13,
Albany Records, for both parcels).




170                  APPENDIX.
D. 16-. Widow of Jacob Jansen to Francis Broane.
1665, January. Francis Broane to Van Tright.
1668, May 5. Confirmation to him. A lot to the west
of Broadway, having to the south the lot of
Captain  Cregier; to the west the strand;
north, the house of C. Van Ruyven; east and
west sides 32 feet; in length, from the street to
the water side.
1650, January 8. Gerrit Dowman to Peter Stoutenbergh.
1654, December 3. Peter Stoutenbergh to J. H. SteedMlan.
1655, March 17. J. H. Steedman to Jacobus Backer.
House and lot northward of Fort Amsterdam,
and the Beaver's path on the North River, and
south of the house of Dominie Megapolensis;
breadth, east and west sides, 32 feet; in depth
same as the adjoining lots.
E. 1643, July 3. Ground-brief, Kieft to J. J. Rooy.
1649, August 13. J. J. Rooy to Abram Verplanck.
1650, April 15. A. Verplanck to Dirck Bensick, for a
part.
1656, January 21. Ab. Verplanck to Dominie J. Megapolensis for residue.
1656, August 3. Dirck Bensick to Dominie Megapolensis.
First. Lot, west side of the great highway; south
by Jacob Backer; west by the river; north
by the other part of Megapolensis' lot; east
by the highway; front on the highway, 4 rods
9 feet; depth, south side, 12 rods 9 feet;
north side, 9 rods 5 feet (9.5).




APPENDIX.                  171
Second. Bounded by the common highway;
west by the river; north by the lot of —-;
south by the lot sold     (Bensick); on the
street, 4 rods 3 feet; length, one side, 12 rods
4 feet; the other 9 rods 5 feet.
F.: 1650, May 23, Governor Stuyvesant to
1652, August 18, -, to Dirck Ness.
1655,   "   31, Dirck Ness to Cornelius De Bruyn.
1657, June 2, Cornelius De Bruyn to R. Jansen Hoorn.
A house and lot on the great highway, southward of the church-yard, and northward of the
lot of Hans Styn. Front on the street or east
side, 3 rods less 1 foot. Rear 3 rods 1 feet;
length, north and south sides, 9 rods 4 feet.
Before April, 1672, R. Jansen Hoorn to Judith Stuyvesant.
1672, April. Judith Stuyvesant to Peter Tinkham (Lib.
A, p. 132).
1693, December. Peter Tynkham to B. Le Roux (Lib.
16, p. 268). Lot of ground on Broadway,
having to the north the old church-yard, to
the south the lot of the widow of Luyckers
Derickse. Length, north and south sides, 9.4
to the water-side; on Broadway, 3 rods.
G. The Church-yard.
1656, January 24. Resolved, that it is necessary to
establish a grave-yard at some other suitable
place, or put in order where it now is. (Minutes
Burgomasters.)
1665, June. Church-yard ordered to be repaired.




172                 APPENDIX.
G. 1665, November. Resolution, that the old church-yard
or burying-ground, in Broadway, be divided into
four lots of 25 feet each, and sold at public
auction.
1654. -     to Dominie Samuel Drisius. A piece of
land on the west of the common wagon-way,
in the rear of the burying-ground. In length,
on the east side, 12 rods 2 feet; on the west
side, 12 rods 38 feet; in breadth, on the south
side, 6 rods, and on the north side, 6 rods
1. feet.
H. 1649, May 4. Governor Stuyvesant to Paul Leendertse. Lot, west side of the Broadway, south
of Hendrick Van Dyck's. Breadth, 6- rods;
toward the strand, 7 rods; length, 14 rods.
Confirmed July 13, 1677.
1654, May 4. Brief for an addition, to the south and
west, to the church-yard, of 1 rod 7 feet, and
another strip, on the north side, next to Van
Dyck, of 1 rod 1 foot. Confirmed as above.
I.      Governor Stuyvesant to Hendrick Van Dyck.
1649, May 4. Lot, west of the Broadway; to the north
of P. Leendertse, and to the south of the
orchard of the West India Company. Confirmed 26th July, 1677 (Lib. 2, p. 79, Albany).
Breadth, 6} rods.
K.      The orchard or garden of the West India Company.
1649. Peter Stuyvesant, Governor, to Nicholas W. Stuyvesant. Lot, west of the great public highway;
south, by Hendrick Van Dyck; north, by
Baltar N. Stuyvesant. Along the road, 7~
Rhenish rods; in length, on both sides, 20
rods; on the west side, along the river, 7-2 rods.




APPENDIX.                  173
K. 1649. Governor Stuyvesant to Baltar N. Stuyvesant.
Lot, west of the great public road, bounded
south by N. W. Stuyvesant; in front, on the
road, from north of the garden of the Noble
Company (having to the north), its breadth is
7-~ Rhenish rods; on each side, 20 rods; on
the west side, along the river, 7j- rods.
In a series of five grants, set forth in Valentine's
Manual for 1860 (25th May, 1656), a conveyance, by Governor Stuyvesant to the Burgomasters of the city, or to Burgomasters by
name, of May 9, 1656, is set forth.  The
premises are, undoubtedly, the same as contained in these grants to the Stuyvesants. The
boundary of the southern of the lots is Van
Dyck's parcel; and of the northern, the garden.
The distances sufficiently correspond. The title
must have got back between 1649 and 1656.
L. 1652, April 2, Lubbert Van Drinklagen to Jacob Helleckers.
A house and lot on the North River; north by
Hendrich Gerritsen; east by Mr. Drincklagen;
south by the Company's Garden; west by the
river shore.  In length, ten rods; in breadth,
eight rods, less one foot.
1654, Nov. 5, Jacob Helleckers to Dominie Samuel
Drisius, for same premises.
M. 1649, April 29, Cornelius Groesen to L. Van Dinklagen.
L. Von Dinklagen to -
to Hendrick H. Obe.
1657, August 13, IH. H. Obe to Jacobus Vis.
A house and lot on the west side of the great




174-                 APPENDIX.
highway, about the land port; width on the
street, four rods; on west side, four rods; depth,
seven rods six feet four inches.
0. 1657, July 30. Lubbertus Von Drinklage to Christian
Barentzen. A lot on the west side of the highway on the wall; width, on the north side, 8
rods 1 foot 7 inches; on the south, 7 rods 7
feet 9 inches; depth, 12 rods 6 feet 7 inches.
Being premises conveyed by Cornelius Groesen
to said Lubbertus Von Drinklage, 20th March,
1655.
1657. Nov. 17. Charles Barentsen to Cornelius Pluvier.
A house and lot on the west side of the highway, bounded, east and north, by the highway
and city wall; westerly by Dominie Drisius,
and soitherly, by house and lot of Jacobus
Vis and the Company's Garden; width, on
east side, 3 rods 4 feet 5 inches; depth, north
and south sides, 7 rods 5 feet; the west side,
in breadth, 8 rods 6 feet.  The length on the
north side, which is the wall, is 8 rods 7 feet
7 inches; the south side, 7 rods 7 feet 9 inches,
being wide in the rear; the west side, 8 rods
1 foot; being premises conveyed to said Barentsen, 17th February, 1654, and 30th July,
1657.
2. Is the boundary on the north of the parcel L,
in the deed of April 2, 1652. I have not been
able to find the grant to Gerritsen. I invite
Mr. Valentine's attention to it.




APPENDrX.                  175
P. The Lutheran Church.
In a petition of this church, made, I judge, in
1684, it is stated that they had first built out
of the gate, but had been obliged, by Governor Colve, to tear their building down. That
they then got a patent for a piece of ground
within the gate, and that the patent was mislaid (Doe. His. N. Y., vol. iii., p. 484).
24th Feb., 1609 (Lib, 8, p. 195), The boundaries
of the Lutheran Church parcel are, on Broadway, 82 feet 6 inches; in the rear, 62 feet;
north, on Rector street, 97 feet; south, by J.
R. Livingston's. See also Deed Book A, p.
204, Albany Records.
R. The Queen Garden.
Among the exceptions or reservations in the 16th
section of Dongan's charter is, " the piece of
ground by the gate, called the Governor's
Garden."
1696. Governor Fletcher made, among his other extravagant grants, one to Colonel Heathcote of
a portion of the King's Garden, running to
low water mark.
1705. Grant by Queen Ann to Trinity Church; " also,
all our piece of land, situate on the south side
of the church-yard of Trinity Church aforesaid,
commonly known by the name of the Queen's
Garden, fronting the Broadway on the east,
and extending to low water mark, upon the
Hudson River, on the west."




176                  APPENDIX.
The whole line of Trinity Church property is
391 feet on Broadway, to Rector street on the
south. As the burial-ground was 310 feet of
this front (see Diagram No. 2, post), Trinity
Church took but 81 feet of garden.  Rector
street was 42 feet, and, I think, was included
in the garden. The depth to the river (high
water mark), say Greenwich street, was about
400 feet.
Diagram No. 2.
A. The New Burial-g-round.
Recognized in DIongan's charter, 1686, as the
new burial-ground without the gate of the
city, aid having been built and appropriated
by it. (Section 1.) The second section granted, ratified and confirmed this and other parcels to the Corporation.
1703. Grant by the Corporation of the city to Trinity
Church of this parcel of ground. (Deed in
possession of Trinity Church.)
1704. June 27.  Colonial statute reciting that the
church was in possession of " a parcel without
the north gate of the city, in or near a street
called the Broadway; in breadth, on the east
side, as the said street rangeth northward,
three hundred and ten feet (310); on the south
side by the line of our garden." (Smith &
Livingston, vol. 1, p. 60.) The grant to Trinity
Church is recognized in this statute.
The northern point on Broadway was 40 feet




~/i
JAGLIAM~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~... N....:/(~~~~~/(
/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~-                                                                "~.:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L-~ /, /~I
77~~~~~~\.,,.'/:;W~~~~~'/
"~~~~~~~~/1k
7 i3 t;j.i
/7-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-s ~s\' ii i',i'/4~~~~~~~4
/7'~~~~~~~~~~~tP
/    J 1 iI                                  ~~,~ ~~t~~~  
Ii   i /,',o?//                                                                               20/?/t'/      ~.~
//
Ii                                     Ka: I/i/i
ii~~~~~~~ ~                                                                          2&6   fi to  aii 
-~  K:                                                            Dis'ta.,ce b y JMcasizrc,,zut.,
-!:~_.'-~...: of Thuvnte.                                                          1051.5'~-~                                         7.5'_1~o~~~~ZJ~r at l4-fCt i;'. 10.50'7    // v                                                   o.-  i
~ ~..            ~ o.i/   e     i    / o    l
~~~~~~~~~'P.~i~tMt~ 1 -:''?.'Z'''.}r.[,t.O:.{??O'/:!-[.I.z._''../'n.
j~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.?.eZ,. //,e'./e.,ez.,~,..:,',.vz,,t/']r/./.








APPENDIX.                   177
fronm the south side of Thames street, the present south line of Trinity Buildings. In depth
it ran to the Hudson River.
1697. The charter of Trinity Church recited a petition
for a grant of a piece of ground without the
north gate of the city, in or near a street called
the Broadway; in breadth, on the east side,
as the street rangeth, 310 feet, until you come
to the land of Thomas Lloyd; and from thence
toward the west, by the said land, until you
come to Hudson River; and thence southward,
along Hudson river, 395 feet; and from thence
by the line of our garden, eastward, unto the
place of the said street or Broadway, where it
first began.  The charter made no express
grant of this piece of land.
The title undoubtedly rests upon the grant from
the Corporation of New York.
B. 1644. April 25. Ground brief of Governor Kieft to ran
Jansen Damen. Confirmed by Nicolls, October 3, 1667. (Lib. 2, p. 110, Albany Records,
Secretary of State.)  A parcel of land lying on
both sides of the highway, to the north of the
fort.
"The piece that lies between the river and the
aforesaid road, extending seventy-five (75) rods
north-east; on the northern side, unto the
beach, sixty-one rods and a half (61-); on the
south side, unto the beach, thirty-eight rods
(3S); then in an irregular line sixty-eight rods,
(68). There is a projecting point on the north
side."
12




178                   APPENDIX.
B. 1667. September 18. Records New York, Book A, p.
101, for a part of this parcel.
1662. Deed for another parcel. (Ibid., p. 110.)
1663. March 6. Deed for another parcel. Confirmed
September 12, 1667.
16S7. February 10th. Christina Capoens to WTm. Dyre.
Lot without the land port; east by the highway; south by the church-yard; west by the
strand of the North River; north by Lanmbertse, 65 feet by 36 rods. (Lib. 5, p. 161.)
Mathias Nicolls to Wm. Dyre. Lot bought of
Lambertse; west side of the highway, 56 feet
by 20 rods. Also, lot adjoining the same, 145
feet wide, extending from the highway to the
river. (Lib. 5, p. 237.)
1686. April 23. Wmn. Dyre to Thomas Lloyd. Beginning at the corner of the way or passage that
leads to the mill of Peter J. iMesier, and running  southerly along the highway to the
church-yard or burial-place, as the fence of
said Dyre now standeth, 468 feet (four hundred
and sixty-eight); from thence westerly, as the
fence of the said church-yard now standeth, to
the water of the Hudson river, six hundred and
thirty-six feet (636), and so along the water
side four hundred and sixty-eight feet; thence
along MIesier's land to the place of beginning.
(Lib. 13, p. 202.)
1667. Deed on behalf of heirs of Jan Jansen Damen to
Oloff Stevensen Van Cortlandt, for part of this
parcel —on the highway or east side 18170 rods;
in length, from the highway to the strand.
(Lib. A, p. 101.)




APPENDIX.                  179
B. 1791. March 15. Deed from daughters of John Van
Cortland to Cornelius Ray, southerly corner
Broadway and Thames street. On Broadway,
40 feet; along Thames, 169.6. Easterly, along
ground Trinity Church, 106 feet; various
courses in rear, about 46 feet. (Lib. 46, p. 436.)
This defines the southern point.
1730. October 4. Lib. 31, p. 303. Deed from George
Ryerson and Hannah his wife, the widow of
Teunis Dey. That Teunis Day was seized of
a lot on the west side of the highway, having
to the north the farm formerly of his Royal
Highness, now called the King's Farm; on
the south the land of Oloff Stevenson (Van
Cortlandt), containing, before and behind, 18
rods and 7-10ths of a rod, and in length from
the highway to the water side. Survey by
Lodge annexed. On Broadway 309 feet 1 in.
NA,:51 10. 868 feet 8 inches on the King's
Farm; W. and rear, 308 feet 6 inches, on high
water mark; south 765.8. High water mark
at middling tides.
It is matter of clear proof that the land thus
given to Damen in 1644 ran froml the point
40 feet south of Thames street to the boundary of the King's Farmn, and that is established
as either on the south or the north side of
Partition (Fulton) street.




18                   APPENDIX.
Diagram No. 3.
Tho King's Farm. Dominic's Bowery, Dominiec's Hook, A4c.
The property of Trinity Church includes several parcels.
In the case of Bogardus vs. Trinity Church (4 Sandf.
Ch. R., 635), ib is deposed to, that the possession and
ownership of the Church was as follows: From Partition
street, along the North River, to the street now called
Christopher; on the east, from  Partition street, along
Broadway, to a point between Reade and Duane; then
the boundary left Broadway, and, crossing- Duane at some
distance to the west, ran along the estates of Rutgers,
Bayard, and Herring, to Christopher street.
The letters patent of 1705 describe the land as follows:
Bounded on the east partly by the Broadway, partly by
the common, and partly by the swamp; and on the west
by Hudson River.
There are four distinct parcels of the Church property
traceable. There are others not defined.
1. The southern portion lay between Fulton (Partition)
street (south side); high water mark, say Greenwich street,
on the west side; a line somewhat north of Warren on the
north side; and Broadway on the east side.
2. The southern portion of the Dominie's Bowery.
3. The northern portion of the same.
4. A more northern parcel, acquired from Dirck Decker's heirs.
A large parcel upon Canal street, which must have
belonged to Jan Celes, called Old Jans, but which cannot be traced as to the history of the title; and other parcels to the northward.




')-'                    o\XtIA*
~~~~~~_{AG-_i                                                                                            W/
N.~~~~~
~ d:'f""-.i; ~,j)!
/~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0  ft to fli jc',B;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1/'!'''i
4~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /'~c,:, 
~,i  ~, i i i~',' i iil
i i:,.qI,/ i    > D l!'ie!!)                                                                                                     ft. ta
i: ii!~i ",i'"~       ~..                                                                                                       /
~~Zi ii i i I.   ~ ~        ~         k"        ~~ —~. /
R~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~      ~     ~      ~     ~     ~     ~    (L ft. toa inch








_d/YTcli7~cji 7: jir
i / i
i
iii 1) IIZGIPPAM_ N 414
~~'.!//
i,6p~_a?,f~;;r~Oji i`
i i'''
j'ii iI
i;;I i(llll
iii'i
iii 3 iT-7/?.
j d)BZ~2~rzr' aHbljrZ-TJ
i i VJ' i
I!1;ii
i'
i i iji " i
iI;
i ?\2'
Ie
i I i
i/ i C~
P;4(
ii i I re
j j
ii: — J
i/ii i i;da3 O
r\s i ti
i                                  
i/ii: I I Z;r;c;
iiiI i i i, I 1LrP $/
i, Ict IPi
G7';'1Jtjk!!II &' P-l
i'
i i y"/
)hZ
IPblyt I I Wess' f6i~onwcy
a P
a
i i IB3
j i
j
I\) )I  G
R
o Qj
"""""""""""""""""""" I O'Ii j ji I
j / iI j i'
j
I j1.ca,~ //
ii;
i. i i
o
I iS3\X J
i I;c8
~u
j, c;.Prrrcp/
ii!l                                          j`i~I
I 1
o rZi.
zs c5,PCt;p,
8
I - .-..- i _ ) 2-L/;ZZjcp,~
30 ft.rfo ck;n z;lch.








APPENDIX.                   181
I. The Southern Parcel.
The south line of this parcel was the south side of
Partition street. All the evidence in Bogardus vs. Trinity
Church (4 Sandf. Ch. Rep., 630), the maps of the church
property, and the cession of Partition street, show this.
The northern limit of this parcel was about sixty feet
north of Warren street. The proof of this is shown in
the memorandum upon the next parcel.
The south side was 868 feet 8 inches, according to
Lodge's survey (ante, Diagram No. 2). On the north side
it is about 1,460 feet, bringing it to high water mark.
The title remained ungranted down to the date of the
patent to Trinity Church of 1705, and passed by that
grant, the annulling act of 1699 being repealed by the act
of 1704, which itself was not repealed till 1708. See 22
N. Y. Rep., p. 44, &e.
Within this parcel lies the grant from  Trinity Church
to Columbia College of land between Barclay and IMurray streets, from Church street to the river.
Diagr'am.No. 4.
1654. Sept. 20. Governor Stuyvesant to Annetje Jans,
widow of Everardus Bogardus (Lib. 25, No.
14).
Parcel C. A piece of land lying on the Island Manhattan,
along the North River, beginning at the palisades (fence) near the house at the river side,
and running north by east to the division line
of old Jans' land; it is in length 210 rods;
then, going along the fence of the said old
Jans' land south-east, it reacheth to a certain!




182                  APPENDIX.
swamp, and is in breadth 100 rods; and striking along the swamp south-west, it is in
length 160 rods, and from the swamp to the
river side, extending west, in breadth 50 rods.
Parcel B. The land which'lies southerly of the hounse,
and east of the division line of the Company's
land, begins at the Palisades, and runs south to
the post and rail fence of the Company's land
without obstruction to the road, is in breadth
sixty rods; in length, on the south side, along
post and rails, 160 rods; on the east side, to the
gate of the Kalch Hook, in breadth 30 rods;
and in length on the north side, along the Kalch
Hook to the division line of the aforesaid
piece of land, running west, in length 100
rods, containing together 31 morgen  (62
acres).
1670, March 9. H. Johannis Van Brugh, in right of
Catrina Roeloff, his wife, and attorney of Peter
HIartgers, William  Bogardus for himself and
his brothers Roelson and Jonas Bogardus, and
Cornelius Van Bursum, in right of Sarah Roeloft his wife, and by assignment of Peter Bogardus, all children and lawful heirs of Annetzie Roeloff, late widow of Dominie Bogardus,
deceased, for a valuable consideration transported and made over to the Right Honorable
Colonel Francis Lovelace, his heirs and assigns, their farm orbowery, called the Dominie's
Bowery, lying and being on Manhattan Island,
towards the North River, the quantity of the
land amounting to about sixty-two acres, as
in the former ground brief from Governor




APPENDIX.                  183
Stuyvesant, bearing  date the 4th of July,
1651, and the confirmation thereupon from
Governor P. Nicolls, bearing date the 27th
of 3March, 1667, is more particularly set forth.
(Lib. A, N. Y. Records, p. 122.)
This granted all the shares, except that of Cornelius
Bogardus, one sixth. (See 4 Sandford's Ch. Rep., 635.)
Lease from Sir Edward Andross, Governor, 25th March,
1677, to Derek Seekers, for the Duke's Bowery or Farm,
for sixty-three acres of land. (4 Sandf., Ch. Rep., 646.)
Lease, 19th August, 1697, Governor Fletcher to the Corporation of Trinity Church, of G' our farm, called and known
as the King's Farm, on the Island of M3anhattan," for a
term of years. Annulled by act of Assembly May 12, 1699.
Lease, Miay 9, 1700, " for our farm, called and known as
the King's Farm, for so long as Lord Cornblury should
continue Governor."'
Lease, 24th January, 1704, from Corporation of Trinity
Church to George Ryerse, of the land called " the Queen's
Farm," for five years.
Letters patent, under the Great Seal of the Province,
from Viscount Cornbury, dated 23d November, 1705, in the
name of Queen.Ann, to the Corporation of Trinity Church
for those several parcels of land, formerly called the Duke's
Farm and the King's Farm, and then known by the name
of the Queen's Farm, as the same were then in the occupation of George Ryerse, bounded on the east, partly by
the Broadway, partly by the Common, and partly by the
Swamp, and on the west by Hudson River (Book of Patents, No. 7, p. 338).
From the leases, and other sources, it appears, that the
transport to Lovelace, by the heirs of Bogardus, was not
treated as to him individually, but was held on behalf of
the Crown.




184:                  APPENDIX.
For the further history of the title and present position,
see Bogardus vs. Trinity Church, 4 Sandf. Ch. Rep., 635,
&c., and The People vs. Trinity Church, 22 N. Y. Rep., 44.
The northern line is defined in some particulars with
entire accuracy by the map in possession of Trinity Church;
by a map in possession of Mr. E. Smith, Surveyor, copied
from a map of Marschalk, of the farm  and meadow  of
Catherine Rutgers, dated Oct. 1, 1763, and from a survey ill
the office of the Secretary of State, made to adjust the lines
between Rutgers and Trinity Church (Book 19, p. 332).
Howell's map of the Calk Hook of 1689 (tin case, office
of Register, N. Y., No. 16), and the map on the conveyance of the Hospital grounds by Rutgers (Register's office,
N. Y.) may also be referred to usefully.
The southerly line of the Calk Hook and the northerly
line of this part of the King's Farm  correspond. The
point on Broadway is 83 feet 3 inches north of Reade street;
about 95 feet from the southerly side of Duane. The
south-easterly part of the four parts into which the Calk
Hook was divided, ran 105 feet west of Broadway at this
point; then the southern line of the south-west part
(which came by conveyances to Rutgers) ran as follows:
Along the King's Farm, north 59 west, 3 chains 74 links;
then north 50 west, 1 chain 53 links; then north 41.30
west, 2 chains 70 links; then north 46.30 west, 1 chain;
then north 25 west, 1 chain 40 links, to the meadow;
then north 74 west, 80 links; then north 38.15 west, 1
chain 60 links; then north 51 west, 4 chains 90 links; then
north 8.15 west, 1 chain 90 links; then north 8.15 east, 2
chains.
We have, then, a distance varying in course but little
from  a general north-west line, of about 1171 feet, and




APPENDIX.                  IS5
along the Calk Hook and the meadow. This brings that
line a little beyond Hudson street. The line of the northern boundary of this parcel of the Dominic's Bowery is
100 rods, or 1250 feet.
Again, the line in Broadway is stated to be thirty rods to
the gate (or entrance) to the Calk Hook. This 375 feet
brings it to about sixty feet north of Warren street, and the
whole claim and evidence in the Bogardus case (4 Sand. Ch.
Rep., 620) show that this was the southern point of the
Dominic's Bowery. The Palisades were about this line.
(See Hill's map, 17S2.)  The line on Broadway is ninetyfive feet south of Duane, to some point between Warren
and Chambers..Agoain, one line is sixty rods (750 feet), and plainly
meant for the length on the westerly side. The line on
Greenwich street, from near Warren to about Duane, is
750 feet.
But then arises a difficulty which I cannot explain. The
south line is 160 rods in the ground brief. The line from
Broadway to Greenwich street is about 1,500 feet on
Chambers, or about one hundred and twenty rods.
I cannot but think that a mistake exists as to the length
of this line.
C.       Northerly Parcel of Dominie's Bowery.
The more northerly parcel of the Dominic's Bowery is
described in the ground brief as 210 rods along the
strand; then south-east 100 rods, along old Jan's land, to
the Swamp; along the Swamp, south-west, 160 rods;
then west to the strand, fifty rods. (4 Sandf. Ch. Rep.,
699.)  The river line may be traced with some certainty.
Taking the whole of that line from between Chambers




1S86                  APPENDIX.
and Warren streets, we have 270 rods (60 and 210); or
3,375 feet. This, following the course of the river, at high
water, will reach to about WVatts street. The northern
boundary was old Jan's land, in 1654, and at the confirmation in 1667.
And on the map made by Marschalk in 176.3,* we find
old Jan's land laid down on North River, about 231
feet north of the northerly line of Canal street.
On the same map, a straight line along old Jan's land
from the river would give twenty-one chains, 1,419 feet.
It is, however, extremely irregular. One hundred rods
is 1,250 feet. The other line runs 160 rods from old Jan's
land south-wvest.
On the Diagrams four and five, the lines of the 100 rods
and 160 rods are dotted out, on the courses and distances,
as if the figure was a regular one. The lines thus run include, both at the upper and lower ends, a parcel of the
Swamp, granted by patent of the Crown of 1733. This, I
think, is easily explained. By Dongan's charter there was
reserved to the Crown the King's Farm, with the Swamp,
next to the same land, by the " Fresh Water." The patent
of 1705 to the church, bounded the King's Farm on the
east partly by the Swamp. There can be no doubt that
the Swamp was reserved out of this patent, and subsequently passed to Rutgers.
I do not think it a serious objection to this view, that
old Jan's land in fact lay north of the Swamp.  The
ground brief of 1654 carries the line up to old Jan's
land; but the Swamp intervened.  One of two things is
probable-the ground brief did include the part of the
A most valuable map of Anthony Rutgers' farm and meadow, in the
possession of Edwin Smith, Esq., City Surveyor.




APPENDIX.                  187
Swamp on the river, and some portion of it to the eastward, though not covered by the patent of 1705; or old
Jan had the occupation of the Swamp. The former is a
very plausible explanation.
1758. IMay 23. Dirck Dey, heir at law and grandson
of Dirck Seckers, to Trinity Church. A lot,
&c., bounded west by land belonging to Jan
Celes, known by the name of old Jan's land,
between said land and a certain swamp; the
said swamp having on the east the land of
Peter SantQme, now belonging to Nicholas
Bayard, so stretches to the said swamp next
to the land of Jan Celes, alias old Jan's land,
south-east and by south; it contains five and
twenty (25) rods; then going east-south-east,
somewhat more southerly, seven and thirty
(37) rods; then going east-north-east thirty
(30) rods; north, somewhat easterly, eight and
forty rods on both sides of the swamp; containing nine acres, two roods, and two perches.
(Lib. 54, p. 523, N. Y.)
Christopher Santome's land is mentioned in a
ground brief of Dec. 15, 1644.  Governor
Kieft to Gratian Dangola.
1667. Oct. 19. Confirmation by Nicoll to Christopher
Santome and Maria Dangola (Book 2, p. 131);
one of the boundary lines runs along old Jan's
land; about ten acres.




1SS                   APPENDIX.
By reference to the case of Bogardus vs. Trinity
Church (4 Sand. Ch. Rep., p. 646), it will be
seen that Governor Andross leased to Dirck
Seckers the Duke's Bowery or Farm for thirty
years from  1677.   An ejectment was tried
against the church in 1760, in which this lease
was given in evidence on its behalf.  Cornelius
Vanderburgh was described as in possession.
Korning states that Seckers lived on the premises.
17S3. Trinity Church to Abraham Mfortier. (Lib. 21,
224-227, Secretary State.)
Ratzell's map shows this parcel quite distinctly.
It runs about five hundred feet above Bestaver's
Killetjie, which is the distance from  Charlton
street (the Killetjie) to Harmersley street.
1797. May 1. Lease to Aaron Burr for twenty-six
acres, three roods, thirty-six perches land, between Spring and Hamersley streets; Greenwich street on the west; and a line four hundred and fifty feet easterly from  -udson street
on the east, excepting a block between Vandam, Morton, Greenwich, and Hudson streets.
Lease for lot No. 1 of the Church farm to Cornelia
Rutgers and Leonard Lispenard, 26th March,
1758, for 77 acres, three roods, thirty-two
perches, excepting three acres twenty-three
perches adjoining Broadway and the Palisades.
17.0. Lease by Trinity Church to Burnham  (4 Sandf.
Rep., 651), four acres of ground at the north



i : ii;l —-—'i —- Bq^-P P~' r —--— 7 —-----—,
torz.. T;B 'iie c ; ~
I.ii; o/ DICIAM SDj.
r. jt
i
I: I:~Si i 
21:i,,
BB,,, L: i
cgj c;
C": i
i..e
i "5,
i j G- c i rz  a 77i!  %CY ji: i**`
j-Lp
i, i
i:r:
~- ~ c "\
I i jiij -L rre gR i i
J~"
__i! Zd Jui s  —"cc; i!
iiII i'o :::::::::
i I ( h j
iprk;r;pPI i I; j (B j
1 i Ii ii I;v//; i:l j''; i ii r'I n r r
i;f
I' p: j
ii r:i;jii \i1 \jr
i?e~ r i
rli.:i c-~-,1 i; ii II
li'l / /
s::i;" "                                             /"C                                                                                                                  //
C.ai i1,iiI it i
X
i;i i;;~if Ig~! //
i i:i PP, i 22
i
2, i
ir-                                                                                         i
i; ii j
r q
i -*p?;l i/i j/
I I iiI i
r I   j
CIS cb
2,3 ii
i i! r
i i
ii: ii'kli;i;iii
// /:
j
i/i' r
iI j
i 1
i;
ii ji CJ;IJZrJL /~ P/
ii'i ii I:,i;ji
i I
i i i j f
r E) ILZ~J
I i,,
ii: i
iii
i i,
iil(i!:I 1FZ If i0/
j:ii iii ii~iti,i;:::; I; i ii
lil''
lfc2
i I'Pf:
i I
CZ C
~r~e
cJ r
//
I
i
c' i
t,L~  "4" -- __. — --- ~ —---
O'yj5 e50 bOD
JO
// 1_,000 Feet:
b; //








APPENDIX.                 189
west corner of the Church farm; northerly by
land of Sir Peter Warren; easterly by land of
Elias and Henry Brevoort; southerly by the
Church land; westerly by the Hudson River.
Very extensive searches have proved unavailing to enable me to trace the sources of the title to much of this
upper portion of Trinity Church property.
Diagram No. 5.
A. The Swamp.
The description, as given in the.Colonial act of 1699,
and in the Royal Patent of December, 1733, is as follows:
(See the account of the title ante, vol. i., pp. 121-126.)
Beginning at a stake set in the ground on the south side
of the said pond (Fresh Water Pond), and at the north-east
corner of the land belonging to William Merritt; thence
running along the south side of the said swamp and pond
by the upland to the beach on the east side of the Hudson
River; so along the beach to the upland; thence crossing
a small gut of the said swamp, to the land on the east
side thereof; thence by the said land as it runs, to the
east side of the Tanyards, and thence to the place where it
began, containing in all 70 acres.
This description does not clearly indicate it, but there
is no doubt the grant took in the strip west of the Calk
Hook, and down to near Duane, east of that part of the
Dominie's Bowery. See the map of 1763, before referred to, and the memorandum on the Calk Hook.
By Letters Patent, dated 12th August, 1731, Governor
Crosby granted to Anthony Rutgers a parcel of ground
called the Swamp and Fresh Pond, by the description
above mentioned.
On the 31st of December, 1733, George II. granted a




190                 APPENDIX.
patent, under the sign manual, to Rutgers, reciting the
Colonial act, prohibiting grants by governors for a longer
time than their continuing in office, and making the grant
himself.
By Dongan's charter of 16S6, section 3, all the vacant,
unpatented, and unappropriated lands lying and being
within the city of New York, with all rivulets, coves,
water courses, and ponds in the city and island, were
granted to the corporation.  By the 37th section of Montgomery's charter, this grant was renewed in similar terms,
with the exception of Fort George, the Governor's Garden,
and the land called the King's Farm, with the swamp next
the same.
Why, under Dongan's charter, this swamp land did not
pass to the Corporation, is not clear. Under Montgomery's,
it possibly may be comprised in the terms the swamp
next the King's Farm, although how this could extend to
the swamp adjoining Fresh Water is not very intelligible.
However, the corporation appear to have recognized the
title; for, by a grant to Anthony Rutgers, of the 15th of
September, 1739, they recite the King's patent to him,
and his expenses in draining, and give him a lot on the
Hudson River.  The Rutgers heirs were before stated,
and the partition deeds of 1748 and 1751.
Deed 24th of August, 1790, from Anthony Barclay and
executors of M1ary Barclay, to John Jay. Beginning on
the east side of Ann street, extending along the pond or
marsh, and along Fresh Water, bounded by the same, and
by land of Nicholas Bayard, and part of land mortgaged to
Mary Barclay. (Lib. 46, p. 351.)
Deed 27th June, 1792, by executors of Mary Barclay to
Stockholm and Brooks, part of lands mortgaged by Anthony Barclay to Mary Barclay. (Lib. 43, p. 139.)




APPENDIX.                  191
Deed 27th June, 1792, from executors of Anthony Rutgers to Boyd. Recites that the premises are part of the
swamp lands contained in the above patents. (Lib. 47, p.
429.)
B. See AMem. on Diagram No. 4.
C. N. Bayard. See Mem. on Diagram No. 11 and 12.
D. I have been unable to find how Jan Celes, called
Old Jans, got his title, or the extent of his possession. We
see that his land constituted a boundary in the Bogardus
transport of 1659, in Santome's of 1667, and in the deed
from Dirck Dey to Trinity Church, of 1758. I have no doubt
this description is from an old deed. Certainly Trinity
Church owned the ground at that time. It can scarcely be
doubted that Dirck Seekers (whom Dirck Dey represented)
got his title from Old Jans, and I have no doubt that the
parcel granted to Trinity Church in 1758 lies on the parcel marked D. 2 on this diagram.
Diagram No. 6.
1701. Nov. 13. Bastian Elliss, of the Bowery, in the
county of New York, husbandman, to John
Hendrickse Brievort, of the Bowery aforesaid.
All that ffann or bowery, situate, lying and being in the Bowery, within the county of New
York aforesaid, bounded on the east by the
King's highway leading from the city of New
York to the town of Hlarlaem, north to the
land now in the possession of Ryne, the brickmaker, to the west by the land of Gerrett
Dowe, and to the south by the land of John
Clapp, and doth contain in quantity, as by four
severall patents, the one granted from Richard
Nicolls, Governor, to Manuell Sanders, upon




192                  APPENDIX.
the 16th day of October, 1667, which said
parcell was since granted and sold by Mary
Van Angola, widdow of Manuell Sanders, deceased, to the said Bastian Ellise, by deed bearing date the 15th day of Aprill, 16S4, also one
patent granted from Richard Nicolls, Governor,
to Ffrancisco Negro, upon the 16th day of
October, 1667, which said parcell was granted
and sold by the said Ffrancisco Negro to the
said Bastian Ellise, by deed bearing date the
15th day of April, 1684; alsoe, one patent
granted from Richard Nicolls, Governor, to Egbert Wouters, upon the 15th June, 1664, which
said parcell was granted and sold by the heirs
of Egbert Wouters, after his decease, to the
said Bastian Ellise, as by deed bearing date the
20th of May, 16S3, more at large will appeare.
Alsoe, one patent granted from Richard Nicolls,
Governor, to him, the said Bastian Ellise,
upon the 18th December, 1667; as also one
certain parcell of land containing twelve acres,
more or less, as may appear by the patent of
Gerrett Dowe, lying on the common way yt
leads from the Bowery lane to the Bass Bowery, and is bounded to the land of Egbert
WVouters and Hendrick Van Schayck, as also one
certain parcell of salt meadow, situate, lying
and being upon the west side of Hudson's River,
and is joyning to the south to Theunis Ides, and
on the north of Jacob Kowenhoven.
Deed in possession of E. Dewitt, Esq.
1664. April 7. Governor Stuyvesant to Peter Stouten



APPENDIX.                  193
burgh. A piece of ground near unto the Bowery, belonging to Governor Peter Stuyvesant,
o the west of the great highway; to the north
of Cosyne Gerritse; and to the south of Direk
Michaels; in breadth 24 rods; then a line running N. W. and by W. and W. N. W., and between both in length one hundred (100) rods,
and the other side, N. W. and by W., one hundred and thirteen (113) rods. About eight agres
t6,67. Sept. 3. Confirmation by Nicolls. Stated to be
13 acres instead of 8, which was a nmistake..608. May 26. Governor Nicolls to Cosyne Gerritse.
Land lying near Mynheer Stuyvesant's Bowery,
on the west side of the great highway; on the
north side of the Negroes' lot; on the south
side of Peter Stoutenburgh; abutting on the
west with a way that is by a certain swamp; a
line runiing on both sides N. W. and by W. and
W. N. W., between both, iteontaining in breadth
16 rods, and in length 100 rods, being about five
acres, or two morgen and four hundred. Together with a house and garden.
Before 1736, this, or a part of this property
becamne vested in Richard Perro.
1736. July. Will of Richard Perro.
1754. Jan. 19. Deed from John Perro, and others, heirs
of Richard Perro, to Jellis Mland-eville. (Lib.
137, p. 66.)
13




194                    APPENDIX.
Land on the west side of the Bowery, between
lands formerly granted to Solomon Peters,
now of Elbert Herring, and the land granted
to Francisca Cartagena; on the north side, adjoining Solomon Peters (now  Herring), 46
rods; on the north to Francisca Cartagena, 44
rods; breadth on the Bowery, 27 1-2 rods;
rear to other land of Herring, 18 rods, as the
same was formerly granted to Otto Grim.
1767. August 18. Deed from John Perro,, and others,
heirs and devisees of Richard Perro, to Andrew
Elliott. E.. by land of Asie Ryckman; N. by
land of Andrew Elliott; west by the Minetta
water; S. by the road leading to Greenwich.
(Lib. 38.)
1767. Oc$. 10.  John Perro, and others, devisees of
Richard Perro, to A. Ryckman and Rachel, his
wife, a daughter and devisee. Recites that the
parties were seized of the lot of ground on both
sides of the lane leading to Greenwich, from
the highway, and a partition.
John Hendrick Brevoort died in 1718, and
left John, Abraham  and Ann, by one wife;
Elias and Hendrick by another.*
I am indebted to Mr. J. Carson Brevoort for these particulars of the pedigree. He states that Hendrick Sansom Van Brevoort, from Bridevoort, in
Gueldersland, was the first settler; was born in 1630, and John Hendricksen Brevoort was his son or grandson.




APPENDIX.                  195
1765.  Hendrick Brevoort and Elias Brevoort to Elbert Herring. (Lib. 41, p. 125.) A piece of
ground of 40 acres, 2 roods, 14 perches, bounded southerly partly by land of Nicholas Bayard, and partly by land in the possession of
Adam Vanderbergh; westerly by the King's
Farm; northerly and easterly by land of Sir
Peter Warren.
(See map of Herring's farm, No. 46, Record
office. The above comprises lots 12 to 19.)
The Free Negroes.
In October, 1667, Governor Nicolls prefaced a series of
confirmations of ground briefs thus: "Whereas, there was
heretofore, that is to say, in the years 1659 and 1660,
several grants made by the Dutch Governor, Petrus Stuyvesant, unto certain free negroes, for several small parcels
of land lying upon the Island Manhattans, along the highway, near unto the said Governor's Bowery." (Lib. 2, pp.
119-132.) The confirmations are then entered.
A plot marked No. 1. To C. Santome.
Along the wagon path, 32 rods, the length on the south
side 46 rods, on the west side 39, and on the north side 38
rods. Bounded south by land of Anthonie Sopie; north by
Manuel De Ross.
(Santome to Bastiani. Bastiani to Hermanus Rutgers.
Lib. 30, 58.)




196                  APPENDIX.
No. 2. —lanizel De Ross.
Along the wagon path 19 rods; south side by C. Santome,
19 rods; north side, along land of Lucyas Pieters, 19 rods.
No. 3.-Lucyas Pieters.
Along the wagon path 17 rods; south side 32 rods; west
side 17 rods; north side, along land of Solomon Pieters the
Negro, 31.
No. 4.-Solomon Pieters.
Along the wagon path, 22 rods; south side, 63 rods; west
side 19 rods; north by Otto Grim, 46 rods.
No..5.-Otto Grim, 15 May, 1664; confirmed 24 December, 1667.
Along the wagon way, length on the south side next to
Solomon Pieters, 46 rods; north side, adjoining Francisco
Cartagena, 41 rods; by the highway, 27 rods; behind 18
rods.
NTo. 6.-Francisco Cartagena.
Containing in breadth, along the wagon path, 11 rods and
1-2; in length, on the south side, along the land of Otto
Grim, 44 rods; behind, on the west side, 14 rods; and on
the north side, along the land of Assento, 40 rods.
No. 7. -- Assento
In breadth, along the wagon path, 15 rods; on the south
side, along the land of Francisco Cartegena, 40 rods; behind,
on the west side, 15 rods; and on the north side, by the
land of Manuel Pieters, 28 rods.




APPENDIX.                  197
No. 8.-Domingzo Angola.
A lot near Stuyvesant's bowery; in breadth, along the
wagon path, 13 rods; in length, on the south-west side,
15 1-2 rods; along Assiento's land, 11 rods; and along
Winm. Anthony Portuges, 14 rods.
No. 9. —Anthony Portuges.
In breadth, along the wagon path, 34 rods; on the south
side, along by the land of Domingo Angola and Christina, 70
rods; behind, on the west side, 31 rods; and on the north
side, along the gardens of Groot Manuel, Manuel Sanders,
and Claes De Nesser, 70 rods.
1644. Dec. 15. Kieft to Gratian Dangola, a free Negro, confirmed to Christofel Santome and 3Maria
Dangola, 19 Oct., 1667. (Book 2, p. 131.)
A parcel, &c.,stretching from the land of Cleyn
3Manuell to that of 3Maryche, E. and E. by S.,
then further, to the land of Peter Tumbeer, S.,
somewhat more easterly, it containing 20 rods,
on both sides; along by the land of Jan Francisco and Peter Tombeer, 41 rod; also stretching west, and somewhat to the south, to a certain valley, or piece of meadow ground, it
makes 37 rods; then going along to old Jem's
land, N. W., somewhat more northerly, 40
rodg, to the land of Cleyn Anthony; and along
by the said Anthony's land, E. and by N.,
somewhat more northerly, 23 rods; then E. and
by N. and E. N. UE, to the first descent, 65
rods;, in all ten (10) acres, or 5 morgen, 595
rods.




198                  APPENDIX.
Recites original brief to Gratian Dangola,
that the title had devolved on Maria, his wife,
who had since married Christoffel Santome.
The only information I have obtained, as to these free
Negroes, is the following:
By the Charter of Privileges and Exemptions, the West
India Company was to supply the colonists with as many
blacks as they conveniently could.
In Secretary Van Tienhoven's answer to the remonstrance from New Netherlands, he says: " In regard to the
letters of manumission, which the Director was so good as
to grant to the Negroes who had been the Company's
slaves, they were set free in return for their long service,
on condition that their children remain slaves."
1659. Stuyvesant to C. Santome.
1667, Oct. 16. Nicoll's confirmation to C. Santome.
Before 1679, Nov. 1. Santome to Sigusmund Lucas.
1679, Nov. 1. S. Lucas to Henry Bastiansen. Henry
Bastiansen left Mary, his widow, who married
Jacob Stille.
1696, April 23. Jacob Stille and 3Mary, his wife, widow
of Henry Bastiansen, to Richard Ashfield. (Lib.
21, p. 143.)
1697, January 12. Richard Ashfield to Jacob Stille. (Lib.
21, 261.) Certain parcels on the island MIanhattan, at the Bowery, beyond the Fresh Water. One
parcel lying along the highway, marked No. 1,




APPENDIX.                 199
containing in breadth, along the wagon way, 32
rods; in length on the south side, by the land of
Anthony Sopy, 46 rods; behind, on the west side,
39 rods, and on the north side, along the land of
Manuel De Ross, 38 rods.
1659. Stuyvesant to Gratian ID'Angola.
1667, October 19. Confirmation to Christopher Santome
and MIaria )'Angola, his wife.
Before 1679. Santome to S. Lucas.
1679, November 1. Lucas to H. Bastiansen. (Book 6,
154.)
1696, April 23. Jacob Stille and Mary, his wife, widow
of Henry Bastiansen, to Richard Ashfield. (Lib.
21, p. 143, N. Y.)
Richard Ashfield to Jacob Stille. (Lib. 21, p. 261.)
All land at said Bowery, stretching from the
land of Cleyne Manuel to that of Marycke, east
and east and by south, then further to the land of
Peter Tamboer, south, somewhat more easterly,
containing twenty rods on both sides of the land
of Jan Francisco and Peter Tamboer, one and fifty
rods; then stretching west and- somewhat to the
south to a certain valley or piece of meadow, seven
and thirty rods; then going along to Old Jan's
land, north-west, somewhat more northerly, forty
rods to the land of Cleyne Anthony, and along
his land, east and by north, somewhat more north



200                   APPENDIX.
erly, three and twenty rods, and east and by north
and east-north-east to the first descent, sixty-five
rods-in all amounting unto about ten acres or
five morgen five hundred and ninety rods, as in
both the aforenamed patents of confirmation is
particularly set forth.
1679, May 16. Phillip Phillipson to Henry Bastiansen —a
parcel of ground, lying in the negroes' plantation,
between Wolfert Webber's and said Henry Bastiansen, containing about four morgen.
Henry Bastiansen to Jacob Stille.
1667, Oct. 19. Claus Manuel, attorney, to Ana, a free
negrine, widow  of Andrew D'Angola, to Jacob
Stille, a parcel; before, Peter Tamboer; and behind
it, Johan De Witt, in said negroes' plantationeast and by north, 51 rods; north, 30 rods; northnorth-west, 54 rods; north-east, and north-east and
by east, 41 rods; 6 acres, 3 rods;-granted to Ana
Negrina, by confirmation, 19th October, 1667.
1681, April 11. Michael Manuelson, and heir of 3Ianuel De
Spingler to Jacob Stille, land in negroes' plantation, to east of Henry Kierstede, beginning at
Jolyns Bradly's land, stretching to other negroes'
land, containing, as it lies, east and by south, to
the wagon way, 83 rods; along the wagon way
towards the west, 32 rods; then northerly, to a
mark on the corner or nook of J. Briell's land,
T2 rods.
Patent of confirmation, 19! Oct., 1667.




(ire, a Ift /!  oaROd   6dp&nOx y /otr 4 el                             IDJLAGiRAM   No 7
%//~~//        Wt/ho zarr.d a dazzmqjtr of;   Pter/W7:n'"eu~z
at?                                                                                          er'\/1/'
Ch-~.~rch l'(7'",Ii,iT~b f~ctii~l  2  4  6  8  10    12
_______I_._...._.___.. I..








APPENDIX.                  201
1667, Oct. 16. Confirmation to Anthony Anthony.
Vested in the Deacons.
The Deacons to Jacob Stille.
1696, April 22. A parcel along the highway, between
Christopher Santome's and Manuel De Spangui's,
in breadth before, towards the wagon path, 16
rods; behind, 30 rods; length on each side, 55
rods.
D.
I have been unable to find how Jan Celes, called Old
Jans, got his title, or the extent of his possession. We see
that his land constituted a boundary in the Bogardus transport of 1639; in Santome's of 1667; and in the deed from
Dirck Dey to Trinity Church, of 1758. I have no doubt
this description is froni an old deed. Certainly Trinity
Church owned the ground at that time. It can scarcely
be doubted that Dirclk Seckers (whom Dirck Dey represented) got title from Old Jans; and I have no doubt that the
parcel granted to Trinity Church il 1758 lies in the parcel
marked D. 2, on this diagram.
Whoever will find out who Old Jans was and the land
owned by him, and how he got and parted with it, will
deserve the thanks of every New York antiquarian.
Diagram No. 7.
Tho map from which this diagram is taken shows that
the property was vested in Sir Peter Warren, in 1773. He




202                     APPENDIX.
was a naval officer in command at New York, and received from the Corporation of the city a grant for about ten
acres of ground, situate on the Bowery lane, at the corner
of Abingdon road, near Twenty-first street, with the land
of Peter Horne on the north.  His whole property amounted to 266 acres.
A copy of this map is in the possession of Edwin Smith,
Esq., City Surveyor.*
Oloff Stephen Van Cortlandt died before 1683. Left
Stephen, Jacob, John, Maria, married to Van Renssalaer,
Catharine, wife of John Delavall, and afterwards of Frederick Phillips, Cornelia, wife of Barent S. Schuyler, and
Sophia, wife of Andrew Zetter.
Stephen Delancey married a daughter of Stephen Van
Cortlandt. (Deed, April 12, 1700, to S. Delancey.)
Sir Peter Warren married a daughter of Stephen Delancey. This must have been before 1747.
In 1768, Ann, one of Sir Peter Warren's daughters, was
married to the Earl of Abingdon. (See deed, Lib. 53,
p. 1.)
The Earl of Willoughby married another daughter.
1646.  Governor Kieft to Oloff Stevensen Van Cortlandt. Land north of the plantation of Leesbore; extending up from the strand east by
O I take this occasion to say that, as I believe, the most valuable collection of maps and surveys, to be found in the city, is in the possession
of Mr. Smith. It is the result of the labors of an old and most valuable
officer, his father, George B. Smith, and of his own researches. It would be
of great service if this collection could be procured for public use.




XPPETDIX.                  203
south one hundred (100) rods till to the wagon
road from Saponikan; then eighty (80) rods
along the road; then all the way through the
valley to Saponikan at the strand; and thence
along the strand to the place of beginning.
1711. Sept. 1. Volkert Van Borsurn to Dirck Benson, of Saponikan, alias Baassen Bowery
(Greenwich). Land within the village aforesaid, bounded south by land of Johannes Thomason; north by land of Bastian Ellison; eastward by the highway that leads to the Baassen
Bowery; and west by the Hudson River, being
23 morgen or 46 acres. Also, another parcel
of land at the Baassen Bowery, butted to the
south by the highway aforesaid; to the north
by the land of Jellis Mandeville; to the east by
the highway that leads to the Great Kills; and
west by the Hudson River; being 8 morgen or
16 acres. (Lib. 30, p. 228.)
16S6. Nov. 2. The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of New York to Arian Cornelissen. A
parcel of ground in the outward in Baassen
Bowery, containing sixteen (16) acres of
ground; bounded north-west by Mandeville;
north-east by Solomon Pieters; south-east by
the highway; and south-west by Garrett
Basse Johnson. (Grant, Comptroller's office.)
1691. April 2. Arian Cornelissen Van Schaick and
wife to Gerrit Douw. All that dwelling-house
and farm situate near the Baassen Bowery;




204                  APPENDIX.
bounded to the west and north-west by the
highway; to the north-east by the land of
Peter Jacobson and the land of Solomox
Peters; and to the south-west by the highway; thence by the Cripple Bush and the land
of Gerritt Basse Johnson; south-westwardly
and to the south-eastward by the Cripple Bush;
containing 134 acres, as surveyed by Leonard
Beckwith Nov. 11, 1690.
1677. Confirmation by Andross, Governor, to Wolfert
Webbers, Hendrick Cornelius and Bastian Ellison, for 35 acres of ground near the place
called the Sand Hills. Webbers and wife to
Gerrit Douw for one-third of such parcel as
possessed by him. This deed recites a partition among the owners.
1672. March 11. F. Lovelace to Allard Anthony.
Piece of land toward the North River, near the
Bowery, called the Bengoe Bowery, also by
the Indian name of Sapponikan, otherwise
North Wyck or North Wittis; having on the
north side 120 rods, on the west 54 rods, on
the east 18 rods, in all containing seven morgen and one hundred and twenty rods, or about
14 acres and one-half. (Vol. 3, p. 105.)




rf~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- - 
-~~                                                                                     ~~~~~~~~ \I'-'.      /,\
$sae8 ~ ~ ~ ~     ~       ~       ~       ~       ~      ~       ~.                          /, 
<~~S X                                                        i~t                                      /-'a\
_i \\                                                                                                                                   ~\+   )':'
\~~~~" &                                                 SsS/!  
L 0,      ",
a0  b E                                  ~c1\A/
it                                 ////'~~~''''~~~~ —~~~~  1   Ar  
//"/                           tU~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e
_, /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,








APPENDIX.                  205
NOTE 57.
Memorandum on Diagram No. 8.
A.
1673, October 14. Dutch Governor Colve to Cornelius Van
Borsum. A certain parcel of land lying on Manhattan Island, north-west from the windmill, beginning at the north end of the highway leading
to the Calk Hook, and containing in breadth,
fronting on the west side the highway, 24 rods;
in the rear, on the east side, likewise 24 rods; in
length on both sides, as well along the Calk Hook
as on the south side, 44 rods.
1680, June 16. Will of Cornelius Van Borsum, making
his wife, Sarah, his universal heir.
1693, July 29. Will of Sarah Roelofi, demising the property to her children.
1696, April 10. Confirmation by Governor Fletcher to
Johannis Kip, Abrm. J. Van Vleeck, and William
Teller.
They took as Trustees.
See Smith vs. Teller, 10 John. Rep., 347.
1795, January 9. Deed of partition between W. W. Kip,
Abraham J. Van Vleeck, John and Samuel Kip,
and others (Albany Records).
3lap annexed, made by Goerck and Bancker,
Miay 7th, 1795.




206                  APPENDIX.
1796, October 6. Deed from Kip, Breese, Van Vleeck and
Denniston to the Corporation of New York, for
the triangular piece on Broadway, south side of
Chambers street, being 838 feet on Broadway.
Release of lots in exchange on Augustus street.
The road that leads to the Calk Hook was afterwards Broadway. See the diagram by D. Grim,
made 1742; Valentine's Manual for 18-56, p. 426,
and Minutes of the Common Council, 1760, of
Marschalk's survey (Ibid., p. 429).
B.
Richard Nicolls, Esq., &c. Whereas there was
a patent or ground briefe heretofore granted by ye
Dutch Governor, Petrus Stuyvesant, unto Paulus
Schrick, for a certain lott of land, lying and being
upon this island Manhattan, on ye south-west syde
of ye Fresh Water, and on ye east-south-east syde
of ye Chalkie Hook, conteining in breadth on ye
south-east syde fowre rod in length, on ye southwest syde fowre and twenty rod, so going forward south-south-west, it is more eighteen rod,
and on ye west-south-west syde, two and twenty
rod, then a line running, neare said Hook, east
and by north, it makes seventeen rod, and so
north-north-east, somewhat more easterly, twenty
rods, then againe forward, east-south-east to ye
said Hook, it is eighteen rod, and amounteth in
all to about fower acres, or two morgen and five
hundred twenty-eight rod, which said patent or
ground briefe, so grannted as aforesaid, bearing




APPENDIX.                 207
date ye 31st day of January, 1662, was upon ye
19th day of May, 1666, transported and made
over unto Jacob Kipp, with all ye title and interest therein, by Maria Teller, ye now wife of Williamn Teller, left widdow and executrix of Paulus
Schrick, deceased. Now for a confirmation unto
him, ye said Jacob Kipp, &c. The patent is dated
September ye 16th, 1667. (Albany Records.)
Before 1695, the property became vested in William
Merritt.
169S, October. William  Merritt to William  Janeway.
(Lib. 9, p. 103, New York.)
Map in tin case 111.
1708. Exchange between Janeway and the Corporation of
New York, reciting the above ground brief, and
conveying various lots to Janeway, and settling
boundaries.
It is a demonstration that the property in this
deed included the property in the above ground
brief; and it is impossible to reconcile all the
lines and courses.




208                  APPENDIX.
NOTE 57.
Memorandum on Diagram No. 9.
Kolk Hook.
This piece of ground extended from the King's
Farm, between Reade and Duane streets on the
south, to near Canal street on the north, and
about Church street on the west (at the southern
side), and along the borders of the Fresh Water,
on the eastern side.
Pedigree and Dates.
Jan Jansen I)amen received a ground brief from
Governor Kieft, dated 15th March, 1646, for this
parcel. Left Ariana Cuilyie his sole heiress. She
married Gulyn Vinge. Their children were Jan
Vinge; Rachel, who married Cornelius Van Tienhoven; Christina, married to IDirck Volkerson;
and Maria, married to Abraham Verplanck.
Peter Stoutenburgh, describes himself, in a deed
14th June, 1685, as one of the assigns of Christina,
one of the heirs of Ariana Cuilyie, sole heiress of
Jan Jansen Damen.
Granted by ground brief of Governor Kieft to
Jan Jansen Damen, 15th March, 1646; confirmed
to his creditors and heirs by Nicolls, on the 3d
of October, 1667. Described in the ground brief
as " the land heretofore, ten years ago, leased to
said Jan Jansen Damen, in size, according to the
map of the same, twenty morgens, three hundred




~o~  \            D                    lAGRAM   N? 9.
/                                                 hullo
I2~i to   P   ISac:   f'.I/
/!
/       6~~~ ij~~~:]o~..e-."'T.i~\
~~~~~~~~~g/,                                   — oles e
\l
~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'                    i __j~Tx>2f  "      /
ds~~~~~~N
\\~~~~~~~~ //
~            i~~"      ~B~f
T es                               -riod./6r
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~R~ ilPt~








APPENDIX.                 209
and eighty-six rods."  This is marked in the deed
as Chalk Hook. (Book of Patents, Secretary's
office.)
It appears that there was a partition made the
17th of April, 1671, between the owners of Chalkie
Hook. (Lib. 25, p. 110, Register's office.) They
are named as Gulyn Verplanck, John Vangee (no
doubt Jan Vinge), Thomas Lodwickson, and Christopher Hooghtland. The deed is stated to be on
the records of the city.
There is in the Register's office a map of Chalkie
Hook, made by J. Howell, dated April, 1689.
(Map No. 116.) On this there appear four lots:
No. 1 is the south-westernmost, and is marked
Abraham Verplanck; No. 2, the south-eastern,
marked Jan Vinge; No. 3, the north-western,
marked Thomas Lewis; and No. 4, the northeastern, marked Jacobus Van Cortlandt.
On the 19th September, 1698, Isaac Verplanck
and others, describing themselves as heirs of Abraham Verplaneck, executed a power of attorney to
John Abeal to convey real estate.
Under that power, 27th February, 1699, J.
Abeal conveyed to William Huddlestone " all that
tract or lot of ground, in the city of New York,
bounded south and west by the King's Farm,
north by the land late of Thomas Lodwickson,
deceased; and on the east by the land of John
Vangee, deceased; containing five morgen and
two hundred and ten rods, and called No. 1, being
14l




210                   APPENDIX.
the fourth part of a certain field, called the Calkie
Hook, as appears by a deed of partition, &c.
June, 1703. (Lib. 25, p. 114.) Deed from Win.
Huddlestone to Capt. Richard Hill for the same
premises.
14th December, 1713 (Lib. 31, p. 115), Richard
_Hill conveys the same premises to Anthony Rutgers (Jr.), the foarth part of the Calckie Hook.
Map made by Goerck, in 1790, of property late
of Anthony Rutgers (map No. 486, Register's
office), on this, the northern boundary is Leonard
street, and the line continues on Broadway to the
Hospital grounds. Behind the Hospital grounds,
its southern boundary is Barley (Duane) street;
and the ground of the English Church, all along
on the west.
Again, the Hospital ground was conveyed by a
deed from Anthony Rutgers, dated the 23d June,
1772.  (Lib. 45, p. 213.)  A survey, made by
Bancker, is annexed.
The street is laid down as Broadway, of eighty
feet in width.
In January, 1795, there was a division of property at Calckie Hook. (Lib. 27, p. 94.)
It is impossible to doubt that one of the lots of
the Chalkie Hook division of 1671 is thus ascertained; and that it ran from the King's Farm, on
the south (about Duane street), to Leonard street,




APPENDIX.                  211
on Broadway, and extended on Duane street to the
east line of the King's Farm.
This line varied, as the upland varied, which it
pursued.
Again, the north-western lot is marked, on the
map of 1689, as belonging to Thomas Lewis.
On the seventh day of October, 1669, Petrus
Stuyvesant makes a transport to Thomas Lewis,
in which is recited the ground brief of Kieft to J.
J. Damen, of 15th March, 1646, a transport by
Damen's heirs and executors to Augustine Herman, 17th October, 1661, and of Herman to Stuyvesant. Stuyvesant then conveys one quarter of
the land called the Kolk Hook to Thomas Lewis.
(Lib. A, N. York, p. 102.)
The North-east parcel.
Deed 29th September, 1760 (Lib. 35, p. 3S2),
recites a division of three quarters of the parcel of
ground called the Calck Hookl near the Fresh
Water and land of Henry Rutgers, deceased, between the children and devisees of the late Jacobus
Van Cortlandt. That on such partition lot No. 2
fell to the share of Frederick Van Cortlandt, containing three acres and forty-five perches; lot No.
3, to John Chambers, and lot No. 4, to Peter Jay
and Mary, his wife.
Frederick Van Cortlandt devised his lot No. 2
to his two sons, Frederick and Augustus.
Deed from Augustus and Frederick Van Cort



212                  APPENDIX.
landt to the Corporation, dated in 1774, for an
acre of land on Great George street.
Partition deed in 1810 between Peter Jay Monroe and Peter Jay (deed of cessions, p. 160), showing a line on Broadway, beginning 72 feet from
White street. Its length on the south side exted to Collect, now Centre street.
NOTE 57.
Mem. on Diagram No. 10.
A.
1697. Governor Fletcher to nine persons.
1774. Partition recited in a deed of this date.
A parcel vested in G. Shaw. See Loss' Map
of 1800. (Lib. 101, p. 29.)
B.
1653, Oct. 16. Governor Stuyvesant to Paulus Schrick, a
tract of land near Fresh Water, 2 morgen and a
half.
1656, June 20. Governor~Stuyvesant to William Beekman,
tract of land adjoining the above.
1661, April 15. William Beeklman to Dominie Megapolensis, for the land granted to him.
1662, September 28. Paulus Schrick to Dominie Megapo



DIAGRAAI -N1-.-? 10
I Pe, vh,, W,,J,    if)
CI'S    Idd
If
C-ro
-A
1-1 J"








D  <-B 6>A~     I~r11 Aou
sL                                  /
3~~NTN
A/
~~~~~~~~o~4ot ~ fitchv~a
/.- o. cl,O > 
Ad   /                                  I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'








,a1url i $ 15  017
r —--------- ----— r- ~-~r       ~ L 
/          \
~L~j
/
I                          t,', tt>
/
/
&
I
i~~~~~~~ / /J 
~eZ/                         (~~~~~~~~~~~~~
S~~~
~.u.zn,_g7,' -,s~ay'?~zni)ff>,'... —_ 
j?././viMS+  S'/).f/2sli~~~~~~~~~~~~~gir.,.'.,~
/,; d,.:;,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,,..,,.~~~~jL~~$
S~ ~ ~ ~~~~~'  671/?4/wI 
//
"''"'  --
zc~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\' ~.
7 "   -' -' -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   4~ ~~  "' —.. ~ 
/-d                                                                                             /
/ /
~/                                         /                                                  7/
R.,??'' //
ftZp    /                                    /?%36_K_ I~iV}t








C APPENDIX.                213
lensis and Ruivens, fbr the land granted him as
above.
1667, January 15. Confirmation by Nicolls of the above
parcels.
1673. Became vested in P. Wolfert Webbers.
1699, July 22. P. W. Webbers to Philip Minthorne, for
part of the above.
1699. P. W. Webbers to Jacques Fontaine, for part of
above.
1713. Webber to P. Minthorne.
1715. Fontaine to P. Minthorne.
All the parcels became thus vested in P. Minthorne.
1749. Will of P. Minthorne-power to sell.
1761, November 21, Jacob Read and others, executors,
&c., to John Kingston (Lib. 36, p. 486).
The boundaries in this deed are important.
Bayard's Farm —Diagrams Nos. 11 and 12.
Bayard acquired about 9 acres of this farm on
the south side from Augustus Herman,, which the
latter held under a ground brief.
Governor Fletcher to Nicholas Bayard, 21st
June, 1697 (Lib. 15, p. 130). Grant and confirmation of a farm called Smith Hill, to the eastward
of the Fresh Pond and Swamp: beginning on the




214                  APPENDIX.
highway at the north-east corner of the orchard
belonging to Hendr. Selyns; thence west 2.30,
north 5.54; thence southerly 28 links to the
fence of W. Webber; then, by said fence, west,
27, north 10.65, to the Fresh Pond; then, by the
said pond and swamp, to the free negroes' ground;
thence, by their fence, to the land of Jacob
Stillie; thence, by his fence, as it runs to the
highway; thence, by the highway, to the place of
beginning. East by the highway, north by the
free negroes, south by W. Webber and Hend.
Selyns, west by the swamp-13-5 acres besides the
swamp.
Map of N. Bayard's farm, made by Marschalk,
January 15, 1752.
Nicholas Bayard to Stephen Bayard, September
10, 1762. (Lib. Secretary of State, 19, p. 370.)
See maps of Bayard's East and West Farms, in
possession of E. Smith, City Surveyor. The division line, Broadway, was arbitrary.
Authorities for Diagram No. 13.
1644, April 25. Ground brief from Governor Kieft to Jan
Jansen Damen.  Confirmed by Nichols 3d October, 1677. (Lib. 1 Patents.)  Under-lease to Damen in 1639.
Descri2tion. [Two pieces of land.] The piece on
the eastern side extends along the public road 50
rods; on the south side, next to the Company's




DIAGRAMI N~? 13.~ 
D'
b'7i~
0.-'~~~~~~~~~~~~P
~x~~A
~~~~~~~~~vej~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C,P'
/~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/
R-M
A-Tynmvy~fanxew -16-1k
C, L,  /I~,                                   6:








APPENDIX.                  215
land, south-east a little easterly, 72 rods, 9 feet, 5
inches, to the land of Tymen Jansen; then 52 feet
and two-thirds next to the land of Jansen, till by
the beach east by south and east-south-east 37
rods, 3 feet, along by the aforesaid land, to the lot
of Maryn 17 rods, 8 feet, and extends further from
the north end on the east side of M3faryn's land,
next to the road running between the Secretary
Van Tienhoven, and the said land of Jan Damen,
throughout, till to the starting-point at the common lighway.
See translation in the Confirmation and Manual of
1840.
A series of deeds from  Peter Stoutenbergh,
Abraham Verplanck, Lucas Tienhoven, John
Vangee (Vinge), and Jacob Kip and wife, to John
Knight, dated 14th December, 1685, for 908 feet on
Wall street, by 80 feet in depth. (Lib. 13, various
pages.)  Recital of the grant to Damen as the
source of title.
Confirmation by Nichols to Peter Stoutenbergh,
22d Sept., 1667. (Lib. 21, pt 176.)
Series of deeds from Gerrit J. Roose and Lucas
Van Tienhoven, Executors of Jan Vinge, for property on Tienhoven street (Pine), generally in 1691.
(Lib. 18, N. York.)
Deed to Jonas Bartelf by Jan Vinge, and others,
Ist May, 1671 (A., page 24, N. Y.), 229 feet on
Broadway.
Rachel Van Tienhoven to E. J. Van Tammnerer,




216                  APPENDIX.
1662 (Lib. 5, p. 225,' Secretary State), "west by
the highway, 6 rods."
Jan Vinge, &c., to Peter. Stoutenberghi, west
by the highway 40 feet, 139 depth. (Book 2, Albany, 116.) Peter Stoutenbergh to Dutch Church,
7th Nov., 1.700 (Lib. 25, N. York), west by
Broadway. Gerrit Roose and Lucas Van Tienhoven, Executors of Jan Vinge, to Morris & Jones,
29th July, 1693, northerly to a street called
Maadge Paadge; easterly by South street (William), southerly by Little Queen. (Lib. 18, N.
Y., p. 252.)
Jan Vinge and Peter Stoutenbergh, " Trustees of Rachel Van Tienhoven, one of the right
heirs of Jan Jansen Darnen," to John Andrianzien,
23d October, 1665. (Lib. A., p. 13, N. York.)
Jan Vingeto Van Niss and others, 16th October,
1684 (Lib. 13, p. 43, N. Y.), on Maadge Paadge,
recites ground brief of April 25, 1644.
A. of Diagram 13.
1640. Governor Kieft to Tymen Jansen, for land in Smith's
valley. (Lib. 1, 13.)
1641, August 26. Hendrick Jansen to Maryn Andriasen.
(Book 1, p. 20, Albany Dutch Translations.)
B.
1642, April 27. Maryn Andriasen to Jan Jansen Damen,
land in Smith's valley. (Ibid., p. 270.)




APPENDIX.                 217
1644, June 14. Kieft to Cornelius Van Tienhoven.
1667, Oct. 3. Confirmation by Nicolls.
A certain parcel of ground upon the island Manhattan, towards the East river, between the said
river and the common highway, on the north side
of the land belonging to Jan Damen, being separated by the wagon way and the lot of Frederick
Lubbertse; then going to that of Lawrence Cornelius, it stretcheth along the strand of the East
river, east and by north, somewhat more easterly,
and contains forty-six rods one foot; then along
by the land of Philip De Truyn, north, somewhat
westerly, thirty (30) rods; so further to the aforementioned highway, north sixteen, and north-west
and by north one hundred and two rods, four feet;
along the same way, south-west, somewhat more
westerly, thirty-eight rods two feet; further along
the wagon path, south-south-west, twenty rods;
south and by west, eighty rods; south and by
east, five rods; south-south-east, thirty rods; southeast, twenty-nine rods four feet; and further to the
first descent, ten rods five feet; being twenty-four
acres, or 12 morgen 234 rods.
The confirmation recites that portions had been
transported.
1656, Aug. 16. Cornelius Van Tienhoven to Wilhelm
Beekman-house and lot on the East river, in the
Smith's valley, south by the river, east, west, and
north by land of Van Tienhoven. With front
and rear 80 Rhineland feet; depth on west side,




21S                  APPENDIX.
10 rods 2 feet; on east side, 12 rods 7 feet,
of premises patented to said Van Tienhoven 14th
June, 1644.
1656, Oct. 16. Van Tienhoven to Henry Breser for another parcel east of the above lot, to Beekman.
South, the river, width, front, and rear, 30 Rhineland feet; depth, 121~ feet one side, 13 rods 1~feet east side; part of premises patented 14th
June, 1644.
1649, Aug. 4. Transport of a parcel to A. S. Hanks (Lib.
2, p. 108)..
1650, Jan. 29. Transport of anotherpart to John Laurens
(Lib. 2,,p. 13).
1649, August. Transport to Dirck Volkerson. Confirmed
Sept., 1667.
Before 1658, a parcel came to be vested in Oloff
S. Van Cortlandt.
The bulk of this property came to be known
as " The Shoemaker's Field," derived from Van
Tienhoven, as follows:
Nicoll's confirmation of October 3d, 1647, was
to the heirs and creditors of C. Van Tienhoven.
1671, July 1. Lucius Van Tienhoven, Jan Vinge, and Peter Stoutenbergh to John Smedes, for the farm or
bowery heretofore belonging to Cornelius Van
Tienhoven. (Lib. 1, Albany.)
1675, March 20. John Smedes to Conrad Ten Eyck, Aar



APPENDIX.                  219
sen Laren, Jacob Abrarnmse, and John Harpending, for about seventeen acres. (Lib. 1, p. 126,
Albany.)
1674. Orloff Stevens Van Cortlandt to Cornelius Clopper,
for an adjoining parcel.  (Lib. 5,152.)
677. Cornelius Clopper to Ten Eyck, Leersen, Abranlse,
and Harpending. (Lib. 6, p. 135.)
1596, Sept. 14. Partition deed among the same. (Lib. 28,
p. 128, N. Y.)  A map is annexed. The general
description is between Broadway and G. Van
Clift's land, and Maiden lane and Beekman's farm.
The north-eastern limit was about 117 feet north
of Fair (Fulton) street.
The description of one parcel is important. It
is —north-west by the street called Broadway, and
along said fence, as it was then fenced in, 580 feet
(by the ground brief, 38 rods 2 feet), on the northeast by the ground commonly called the Governor's Garden, and some part of the Commons,
being along said Garden and Commons 160 feet;
on the south-west by Maiden lane.
Lubbertse's land. C. of Diagram, No. 13.
1643, June 26. L. C. Vandewell to Frederick Lubbertse,
for lot next described, with probably another
parcel.
1658, Jan'y 10. Frederick Lubbertse to Jan Peeck, lot in
Smith's Valley. East, by house of L. C. Vanderwell; south, by the shore of the East river; xvest,




220                  APPEFDIX.
by the Maiden lane, and north by the meadow
of Oloff Stevensen. South side, 7 feet 4 inches;
north side, 7 rods 7 feet; depth, east and west
sides, 17 rods 4 feet 3 inches.
1677, Feb. 18. John Smedes to Henry Rankin. (Lib.
12, p. 11.)
1681, Aug. 11. Henry Rankin to  Dirck Vandereliff,
(Book 12, p. 61.)
1640. Governor Kieft to Philip De Truyn. (Book G. G.
Dutch Records.) A piece of land near the Smith's
Valley, having C. Van Tienhoven on the southwest, and David Provost on the east-north-east,
extending in breadth from Van Tienhoven's land to
Bestaver's Cripple Swamp 40 rods, at 12 feet to the
rod, west-south-west, and east-north-east, in length
along to the strand, 68 rods; north by west, and
south by east, by the land of David Provost; in
breadth, along the strand in the Smith's Valley, to
the fence of David Provost, 48 rods.
Before August 27, 1654, became vested in Isaac
De Forest.
1654, Aug. 27. Isaac De Forest to Thomas Hall, for the
same parcel, by th~e same description.
1667, April 15. Confirmation by Nicolls to Ana Hall.




APPENDIX.                 221
1670. Anna Hall, widow of Thomas Hall, to William
Beekman. (Lib. A., p. 115.)
In 1671, a boundary of the adjacent lot to the
eastward, belonging to Balthazar Bayard, is " land
of William Beekman."
1647, April 10. Philip De Truyn to Isaac Ollerton. (Lib.
4, p. 92, Albany.) Transport, out of the withinmentioned land, unto Isaac Ollerton, a certain
parcel thereof, stretching north from the strand to
the highway, being in breadth 1 rod and,eth,
and in length, along the said way to the lot of
William Goulder, 46 rods; and so back again from
the way to the strand.
1692, March 15. William Beekman to Thomas Hoock, a
parcel of ground on the eastward, near the Ferry
House, beginning at a certain great tree, extending thence northerly to the highway, 108 feet;
thence westerly along the highway, 103 feet;
thence southerly to the shore side, 68 feet; then
easterly along the shore side, 100 feet, all English
measure, to the Great Stone.
(1.) Bestaver's Cripple Bush, or Swamp - Beekman's
Swamp.
Vested in the Corporation by the Charter of 1.686.
1733, July 20. Granted by the Mayor, Aldermen, and
Commonalty, to Jacobus Roosevelt.




.222                 APPENDIX.
1734, February 27. Partition deed of that parcel of land
known as The Cripple Bush, containing 4 acres and
a half. Bounded on the south by land lately of
William  Beekman; on the west-north-west and
northerly by land lately claimed by Jacob Leister
and Margaret Vandewater; easterly, by land
claimed by Cornelius Clopper, and the heirs and
devisees of Theophilus Elsworth. (Lib. 32, p.
482.) A map accompanies the deed.'Queen
street lies to the south-east, from 190 to 220 feet
distant.
The boundaries of this piece of ground can,
from the map and deed, be laid down with accuracy. They are given very roughly in the diagram.
The outline is all that is required for present purposes.
2 acnd 3 oJ Diagcram 13.
1642, M!iarch 10. Governor Kieft to Govert Lockerman
and T. Vandclergriest. A house and lot of land on
the East River, as the same is fenced in by David
Provost; which fencing begins at a brook of
fresh water emptying into the East River, up till
to the land of Cornelius Van Tienhoven, whose
palisades extend from the long highway towards
the East River, as may be seen by the marks
made by him; then bordering on the aforesaid
land (Van Tienhoven's), from the fence to the
great tree, which is on the right division line between Philip De Truyn and Van Tienhoven, the
said Philip's palisades extending from said tree




APPEEDIX.                  223
north-east by east, and east-north-east to Bestaver's
Cripple Bush; and from the East River north-west
and north-north-west, between both, up to the
said swamp. And since, from old time till now,
there has been a wagon-way running to the great
highway, betwixt the land which we sell to Lockermaan and Vandergriest, and the farm of the said
Tienhoven, it is ordered that, until the land hereby
conveyed shall be enclosed, Tienhoven may use
the road as it is; afterwards to be used as a
private road between the parties.
Some facts are of moment in locating this parcel.
Elsie Leisler, wife of Jacob Leisler, was a daughter of Govert Lockerman. In 1682, Govert Lockerman and Miaatje, his wife, and Jacob Lockerman
conveyed to Jacob Leisler all the estate of their
father and mother, and of Cornelius Dircksen, in
the city of New York. (Lib. 23, p. 75.)
A map of Leisler's property is referred to in a
conveyance of Peter Delancy to William Croilius,
1749. (Lib. 57, p. 636.) A copy of this map is
in the possession of Edwin Smith, Esq., city surveyor. It shows a line on Chatham street of 660
feet, commencing about 100 feet south of Frankfort street. It came within 170 feet of Thomas,
now Duane street. It ran on the line of Frankfort
street 840 feet, then north-east about 462 feet,
then 250, and 298 feet to Chatham street.
The valuable map of the Corporation lands,
compiled by Bancker, in 1773, shows that the




224                 APPENDIX.
Corporation property extended from the southwest corner of Pearl, for about 671 feet on Chatham street; then touching Leisler's land.
The parcel marked No. 2 in the diagram was
certainly vested in William Beelkman before 1685.
I am inclined to think it belonged to him as early
as 1656.
The description of the Vineyard, according to
the survey of 1685, bounds it on the south-east by
William Beekman's land.
In 1656 William Beekman petitioned the burgomasters and schepens, stating that certain persons claimed a right of way through his farm, and
requested that they might be called upon to show
their title. The claimants stated that they and
their neighbors had for many years herded their
cattle on the commons, and that there had been a
right of way there before that time. (Dutch
Records, New York, 1656.)
I think this explains the clause in the ground
brief of Kieft to Lockerman of 1642, of a wagon
way, running between the land of Tienhoven and
that granted to Lockerman; and this wagon way
must, I think, have run about the line of Ann
street. An examination of Line's map, supposed
to be of 1728, will strongly corroborate this view.
Following Ann street down to Gold street, and
then along Gold street, we will get the line of
Tienhoven on the south-west, and of De Truyn to
the Cripple Bush, on the south-east.




APPENDIX.                  225
Again, the map of Beekman's pasture (vol. 2S,
p. 382, N. Y. Records) shows about 635 feet on
Kip street (NassaWu  That carries it close to the
Leisler line. The line of the same map on Queen
street is 572 feet. That corresponds nearly with
the De Truyn line.
No reasonable doubt can be entertained, of the
-fact, that this part of Beekman's property, marked
No. 1, was part of the ground brief to Lockerman,
of 1642.  We get Van Tienhoven's fence palisades extending from the long highway, (clearly Broadway,) on one side. Certainly, this was
the northern line of the grant to Van Tienhoven,
of 1644; running over that line, we reach De
Truyn's line, and run along his line to the Swamp.
Thus far, there is very little obscurity, and no
room for doubt, upon a careful examination.
Parcel marked 3 on Diagram  No. 13.
This belonged to Jacob Leisler, and his connection with Locklerman maker it nearly certain that
it came fronm the latter. It must, then, have been
part of the grant of 1 642 to him.
1640. David Provost.
1671, June 10. Purchase by Balthazar Bayard, at public
auction, parcel of ground described as No 1; 3
morgen 45 rods-6 acres 34 perches.  (Lib. 32,
p. 235.) All that lot, &c., in the Smith's Vly
or Valley, called Lot No. 1, east of the lot of William Beekman, stopping with the south-east side,
15




226                  APPENDIX.
with the land of Beekman; north-west and westnorth-west side to the Cripple Bush Swamp, and
to the lot No. 2, beiir the separation line between
the two; from the point of the Cripple Bush to
the fence, south-south-east; with the south-southeast and south-east side to the highway, and
with the north-east side to the fence; being 3 morgen 45 rods.
16S3, January 25. Conveyed by Balthazar Bayard to
Creetjie, widow  of H. Vandewater, Theophilus
Elsworth, and Harman Jansen (Lib. 13, p. 38),.3 morgen 45 rods.
1697, July 17. Partition deed and map, Lib. 12, p. 235.
Divided into three parcels.
Boundary of parcel 3, the northerly lot. Beginning at the south-east corner of Leisler's fence,
on the north side of the Swamp; thence by the
said fence north, 21, east 5 chains SO links, to the
highway; then east 9.30, south, 3 chains; then
southerly by the highway to the Clopper division
(Jansen House), so to the Swamp, and then to the
place of beginning.
The line of front, on Queen street, of the whole
parcel, is 1,008 feet.
The southern parcel has its south-west boundary on Beekman's land.
NOTE 57.-DIAG-RAM NO. 14.
East side of Chathan and Bowery.
The outlet of the Fresh Water forms a natural point of




C~~~:            ";y~~~~~';)~~~d PSOUM -id Yur)9U19
41                    $.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~16,'51d~~~~~~B
j:\il~~~~~~~~~~~h;P'S ~ ~~~~~~~~-Il Y f-ldW-;
~~l~c~P   ~~i~d ~~y~?u~~Od O
~~fi C ~~                ~     ~           0~C-i(Sip 1-td-RI
1   9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6
OV911f~~~~~~~'k Ob~SGd-d    L-    da~~~~~o~~~~k,~qz
~~~23 gfqf11jpd~tydlrdp'o    X   09
~~~~~;.~~:i// ~za~~~lcr~~/~~,l)SI'"/~fz.1f
NP~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~j iLI
i   c~~~~~s  d a ~~~~'~~~' lSS                                 0'~~~- )
~~~Zt~~~~~~~i Y"U'IP~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ t)7








APPENDIX.                   227
starting, with the location of the grants in this vicinity. It
was called the Ould Kill, the outlet of Fresh Water, the rivulet from Fresh Water. At what point it flowed out of the
pond is not very clear. From the map of Lines, of 1728,
from the shape of the ground, even yet apparent, and from
Ratzell's map, this must have been between Pearl and
Orange streets. It crossed Chatham street about one hundred feet above the junction of Queen street(Pearl). This
is shown on Lines' map of 1728, distinctly; and there was
the bridge.
Its course to the East River, from this point, is defined
in Montgomerie's charter of 1730, giving the boundary of
the Montgomerie ward, which runs c" through the middle
of South street to the rivulet which runs from Fresh Water
into the East River; from thence along the said rivulet, so
far as it goes, till it empties itself into the East River.
The map of Lieutenant Ratzell, of 1764, shows this line
to be Roosevelt street until near Cherry, and then a variation to the north-east to James street, where it enters
the river.
The line of the MIontgomerie ward, on this map, runs
through William  street up to Frankfort, where William
ended, and then was continued in precisely the same direction till it struck the Fresh Water.
But the stream flowed through a considerable expanse
of swamp or meadow land, as is shown on Lines' map.
This was known as Wolfert's meadows, and the low ground
as Wolfert's valley.
By an act of the Legislature of April 1, 1792, commissioners were appointed to fill up the tract called the mea



228                  APPENDIX.
dows, bounded northerly by Chatham street, southerly by
the rear of the lots on the northerly side of Cherry street,
westerly by the rear of the lots on the easterly side of
Queen street, and easterly by Catharine street.
The Fresh Water Pond had another outlet on its western
side, running into the Hudson R;iver. It is possible, however, that this side was only the draining of the swampy
ground and did not actually connect. I have heard my
father say that he has often skated from river to river,
walking across Chatham street at the bridge.
A.,
1650, A pril 2. Governor Stuyvesant to Wolfert Webbers.
A piece of land lying beyond Fresh Water, between the land of Cornelius Jacobson Stille and the
valley or meadow ground, being in length from the
beginning of' the Kill, along the highway to the
mark which divides Cornelius Jacobson's land, 51
rods, stretching north-east further in length along
said Stille's land 40 rods, south and by west; along
the valley to the Hook 66 rods (north*) west;
then along the hills to the beginning, 48 rods
northerly.
1670, June 18. Confirmation by Nicolls to Annette, widow
of Wolfert Webbers.
1670, Nov. 11. Annette Webbers, widow, to A. L. Mott.
A. L. MIott to Arnoult Webbers.
Arnoult Webbers to Lawrence Colvell.
w An error-should be west.




APPENDIX.                  229
1680, May 4. Lawrence Colvell to William Merritt. (Lib.
6, p. 170.)
1698, May 10. William Merritt, Mayor, &c., to William
Janeway.  (Lib. 9, p. 462, Albany.)  A further
confirmation by Governor Dongan is also recited.
Mortgage by Janeway to Noy Willy.
1699, March 15. Release by Janeway. Recital of an act
of Parliament and virtual foreclosure.
1731, July 31. Noy Willy to Christopher Bancker.
A lot of land beyond Fresh Water, between land
late of Jacob Stille, now of Harmanus Rutgers,
and the valley or meadow ground.  Beginning at
a certain creek that cometh out of the Fresh
Water where it crosses the present high road;
thence along the high road, 51 rods, to the mark
dividing the land of Stille; along said Stille's laed
40 rods to the meadow; along the meadow, on a
direct line westwardly, 44 rods; thence northwardly to the place where it began, 48 rods; excepting a lot sold Price, and another sold Gomez,
on the 17th December, 1729.
1792. Arian Bancker to Isaac Roosevelt. (Lib. 48, p. 6.)
Refers to a map of a division between Jacobus
Roosevelt, John Roosevelt, Christopher Bancker,
and executors of Anthony Rutgers.  West by
Queen street.
1765. Leonard Lispenard to John Hutchings (37, 804).
East in front by Roosevelt street, northerly by
road leading to Boston.




.230                  APPENDIX.
1771. William Bancker to Jacobus Roosevelt, for various
lots on St. James street. (Lib. 64, p. 223.)
The map of the Corporation lands, compiled by
Marshall in 1766, from various surveys, puts down
on the east side of Pearl street, on Chatham, "Lands
purchased by Roosevelt, Bancker, and others."
It must be that the grant to Webbers of 1650
came down to the present Pearl street, although the
beginning is from the kill or creek running from
Fresh Water, which was, by Montgomerie's charter and Ratzell's map, Roosevelt street.
B.
It may be satisfactorily proven that the parcels I have marked B on this diagram were derived
under the ground briefs and Dutch transports
next specified; but I have not been able to locate
the division boundaries with anything like accuracy. The whole land was undoubtedly covered
by one or the other of them.
1642, March 10. Kiieft to Govert Lockerman. See description in Mem. on Diagram No. 13.
1653, July 28. Govert Lockerman to Thomas Stevenson.
A parcel of land, with houses, on Manhattan Island,
situate at the East River, on the point at the west
side of the Fresh Water Little Creek, bounded
north, along the valley called Wolfert's Valley; on
the west by the lot of Harry Bresar; breadth on
the west side 14 rods; on the north side, in length,
unto the end of said. point, 31. rods..




APPENDIX.                  231
1654, October 6. Thomas Stevensen to William De Groot
and Jan Peck.
1657. Win. De Groot to Dirck Claesen Van Luwerden.
1680, September 4. Direk Claesen Van Luwerden to
John Ewouts and Claesen. (Lib. 12, p. 485.)
1654, July 3. Governor Kieft to Tymen Jansen. A parcel
of land on the Island Manhattan, beginning at the
creek where the Fresh Water runs into the East
River, and extends to Bestaver's Swamp. (Lib.
2,.p. 13.)
Govert Lockerman married the widow of Tymen Jansen. Balthazar Bayard married a daughter of G. Lockerman.
1671, August 10. Maritjie Jans, widow of Govert Lockerman, Balthazar Bayard, Hans Kiersted and Jacob
Lockermanl to Thomas Delavall.
Lot of ground at the ferry, formerly belonging
to Egbert Boerum  (Quere the Ferry), and a parcel of meadow, with a strip of upland, abutting
upon the south-west side, with the lot of Henry
Brasier; with the north-east side upon the Ould
Kill; with the south-east side upon the highway
along the East River, and with the north-west side
upon the highway, being 3 morgen 85 rods. Recited to have been sold at public outcry.
1672, May 20. Delavall to Elias Puddington.
1672, July 10. E. Puddington to John Payne, reserving
the orchard from the north end thereof, at the




232                  APPENDIX,
furthermost point of the cherry-trees; and so from
thence to the river, as comprehended between the
cherry-trees and the lot of Henry Bresier.
1708. Robert Puddington to Richard Sackett. (Lib. 26,
p. 314.)
1713, May 22. Robert Puddington to  Thomas  Huth.
(Lib. 28, 23.)
1769, lMay 2. Jacobus Rosevelt, Evert Bancker, Anthony
Rutgers and wife, and others, including the executors of John Rosevelt, to Hendrick Rutgers.
Parcel of meadow ground at Hughsen's Point in
the outward part of the meadow ground belonging
to said Jacob Rosevelt and others, to the eastward
of a street laid out on Hendrick Rutgers' plan as
Catharine street, beginning at the corner part of
the south boundary of said Rutgers' land at the
East River, running northerly along said Catharine street 508 feet, then easterly along the upland
of H. Rutgers' land 50 feet, then south-easterly
110 feet along said upland, then south-westerly
along said upland 396 feet to the said corner part;
containing ten lots, as laid down on a plan of such
meadow, all frontingwesterly on Catharine street,
excepting two lots left for streets, and lot 203,
being property of the heirs of Henry Barclay, they
not being party to the instrument.  (Lib. 18,
p. 228, Albany.)
1765, Oct. 30. Andrew Barclay and others, executors of
Rev. Henry Barclay, to Anthony Rutgers. (Lib.
38, 117.) Lot of land lying on the south along the




APPENDIX.                   233
East River, east by the Ould Kill and land late of
Harman Rutgers, north along the highway or
road, and on the west by the road or Queen street,
referred to, in part at least, in deed of Augustine
Herman to Wolfert Webbers of January 10, 1685.
The act of the Legislature of April 1, 1792
(Sess. Laws, ch. 69) defines these meadows.  It
appoints commissioners to fill up the track called
the Meadows, bounded northerly by Chatham street,
southerly by the rear of the lots on the northerly
side of Cherry street, westerly by the rear of the
lots on the easterly side of Queen street, and easterly by Catharine street.
C.
1647. Kieft to Cornelius Jacobsen Stille.
Before 1668. Transport of one half to Augustine Herman.
1672, July 9. Augustine Herman to John Payne.  A
parcel of upland (without the marsh), heretofore
belonging to C. J. Stille, being one half of 22
morgen of upland of said Stille, beyond Fresh
Water, near Corlaer's Hook, having to the east
(west) the Fresh Marsh or Meadow; to the south
the river and Scheppen Louw's point; to the west
(east) the lot of Cornelius Jacobsen Stille, and to
the north the land of the said Stille, 11 morgen
or 22 acres (Lib. A., N. Y. Records, 141), as in
patents as to length and breadth is set forth.
1732, June 20. Thomas Fayerweather, grandson  and
heir-at-law of John Payne, to Hermanus Rutgers




234                   APPENDIX.
(Lib. 23, p. 28). A certain piece of land lying
over the Fresh Water, near Corlaer's Hook, along
the East River, and which was mortgaged by
John Payne, of Boston, to Augustine Hermans.
1750, June 20. Will of Hermanus Rutgers (Surrogate's
office, N. Y., Lib. 18, p. 347). Devises (part of)
the land bought of Thomas Fayerweather to certain persons, beginning at the corner post, and
running eastward 1,700 feet; northward 200 feet;
then westward 1,700 feet, and then southward to
beginning 200 feet (7-"%- acres).
D.
Bowery No. 6.
1647, March 18. Governor Kieft to Cornelius Jacobson
Stille. Land, &c., known as the Bowery No. 6,
heretofore in the possession of Wolfert Gerritse,
containing, according to the surveyor's certificate,
about 57 acres, or 28 morgen and a half.
Before 1668. Cornelius Jacobson Stille to Augustine Hermans for one half of such premises.
166S, August 10. Confirmation by Governor Nicoll to
Francisca Hermans. Recites the ground brief to
Stille, and, " Now said Cornelius Jacobson Stille
having transported one half to Augustine Hermans, it is confirmed."
1685, January 10. Francisca Hermans, as attorney for
her father, Augustine Hernoans, to Wolfert Webbers and Hendrick Cornelissen. One half of a




APPENDIX.                 235
certain farm or Bowery, upon the Island Manhattan, near Fresh Water, being the Bowery No. 6,
heretofore granted to Cornelius Jacobson Stille,
containing, about 57 acres, or 28 morgen and a
half, as more at large appears by the patent of confirmation, dated 10th of August, 166S, excepting
the lot of salt meadow belonging to said farm
(Lib. 9, p. 132, Albany).
1728, June 9. Neltjie Van Schaifk, widow, and Jacob
Van  Schaick and others, heirs of Hendrick
Cornelissen Van Schaick, to Harmanus Rutgers
(Lib. 33, p. 21). A farm near Fresh Water Hill,
on the east side of the Bowery Lane; beginning
at the north-west corner of the barn, and running
along the fence east 51 chains and a half to the
north-east corner of the land; then south 1.16,
along the fence 23 chains to high water mark;
then along high water mark south 83.30 west
6 chains to the point of rocks; then north 50 west
7 chains; then north 74.30 west 6 chains 35
links, ranging with the fence in the meadow;
then from high water mark north 7 west 3 chains
45 links; then north 74 east 3 chains to the division fence between Janeway and Van Schaick;
then north 85 west along the fence 38 chains to
the north-east corner of the Jews' Burying-ground;
then north 16.30 west 4.70; then north 61.30
east 4.25; then north 18 east 1.80 to the place of
beginning. Bounded north by land of Governeur &
Company, east by land of Gouverneur, south by
the river and Janeway's land, west by the wagon
road or highway, containing 28 morgen.




236                  APPENDIX.
Also a piece of meadow land adjoining Steenwyck and Van Cortlandt, and F. Herman, conveyed to Hendrick C. Van Schaick by the Mayor,
Aldermen, &c., 1st September, 1687.
E.
Bowery No. 5.
1645, December 13. Governor Kieft to Cornelius Clasen.
1653, March 22. Cornelius Clasen to William Beekman.
1667, August 10. Confirmation by Nicolls to William
Beekman. (Lib. 2, p. 91, Albany.)
Beginning at the north end of Cornelius Jacobson (Stille) land, or the Bowery No. 6; stretching
along the said land east by south 242 rods; then
north-east 68 rods to the Pannebacker Bowery;
then next to the same west and west and by north
230 rods; then south-south-west by the wagon
path, 60 rods; containing 50 acres, 25 morgen.
Before 1728, became vested in Isaac Gouverneur.
Before 1741, became vested in James Delancey.
1765, October 31. Agreement between Hendrick Rutgers
and James Delancey, for settling a division line
between them. (Lib. 48, p. 304.) Two roads to
be laid out (see Ratzer's Map). Roads were Division and Little Division streets, now Montgomery.




APPENDIX.                   237
F.
Pannebacker Bowery, or No. 4.
1646, February 17. Governor Kieft to Garret Jansen Van
Oldenbach. A piece of land formerly known by
the name of the Pannebacker's (Tile Baker's)
Bowery, extending (from) next the land of Cornelius Claesen, along the wagon road till to Hans
Kierstede's plantation, and further on straight
through the woods to the division line of Laendert
Aerden; (then) till the place where three ways
meet of the inside wagon-road; containing fortyfive and a half morgen and 125 rods. (About
91 acres.)
1715. Garritt Van Oldenbach to Mathys Hope (Lib. 31,
211), for fifteen acres of ground, at the Bowery in
the outwards; being bounded on the south side
by the land of Giles Silly; on the east by a certain swamp and land of Jan Pierters; having to
the north side the land of Mrs. Van Cortlandt and
Maritjie Solomons; which have been for twentytwo years in the peaceable possession of Marian
Vap Schaick, measuring fifteen acres.
G.
Before 1647. Governor Kieft to Claes Van Esland; Claes
Van Esland to Jan Cornelissen.
1647. Jan Cornelissen to Wolfert Webbers.
1670, June 17. Confirmation by Lovelace to Anecke




238                  APPENDIX.
Webbers, widow of Wolfert Webbers:
"A  certain piece of land upon the Island
Manhattan, lying and being at the east end of
Cornelius Claes (Claesen), and stretching from the
land of Cornelius Jacobsen to the wagon-way, north
and by east 80 rods; along the wagon-way east
and half a point northerly, 76 rods; further south
and by east, half a point easterly, 90 rods; so
west, half a point southerly, to the fence then belonging to Edward Manell, 52 rods; and along
the fence unto the land of the aforementioned
Cornelius Claes, 52 rods west and by north to the
first descent; in all, 25 acres and 152 rods."
1670, Nov. 11. Anna Webbers, widow of Wolfert Webbers, to A. Moll (Lib. A., p. 122):
"Two parcels of ground, the first near Corlaer's
Hook, amounting to about 25 acres; and the
other lying beyond Fresh Water, between the land
of Cornelius Jacobson Stille and the valley, as in
the patents will appear."
1671, March 17. A. Moll to Cornelius Steenwyck and
Oloff S. Van Cortlandt. A parcel of land near
Corlaer's Hook, as described in the ground brief
to Claes Van Esland.
Before 1728 became vested in Isaac Gouverneur.




APPENDIX.                   239
H.
1645. Ground brief to Cornelius Aartsen.
1669. Sept. 16. Confirmation by Lovelace to heirs of
Cornelius Aartsen.
1669-70, Jan. 16. Arian Cornelissen, Hendrick Cornelissen, and Lysblrt Cornelissen, heirs of Cornelius
Aartsen, to John Berry. Land on the east end of
Cornelius Jacobson (Stille), and west end of Corlaer's plantation.  It stretches from  the strand
through a piece of meadow which reaches to Cornelius Jacobson's land, north and by east 76 rods;
from said Jacobson's land to Corlaer's plantation,
east and by north 70 rods; nearly west by said
Corlaer's land; to the strand of the East River,
south and by west a half strooks (northerly), 120
rods; in all, 22 acres, or 11 morgen 200 rods.
Corlaer's Hook.
Before 1658. Wouter Van Twiller and Council to Jacob
Van Corlaer.
Jacob Van Corlaer to Cornelius Van Tienhoven.
1645, July. Cornelius Van Tienhoven to Conrad Van
Curler.
1667, June 9. Conrad Van Curler to William Beeknman.
1667, Aug. 10. Confirmation by Nicolls to W. Beekman
(Lib. 2, Patents, p. 90, margin paging, 73).
"A certain parcel of land on the Island Man



240                  APPENDIX.
hattan, commonly known as Corlaer's Hook,
bounded by the lands of Cornelius Aartsen and
Wolfert Webbers on the west side; on the south
and east sides with the East River; on the north
side with the highway, stretching along the land
of Laendert the Boor, in length 128 rods; containing about 76 acres, or 38 morgen and 496 rods.
As also a piece of meadow ground or valley, lying
to the north of Corlaer's Hook, over a small creek;
having on the west side the land of Laendert the
Boor (Aarden); on the east side the river, about ten
acres or five morgen; with a parcel of fresh meadow where the said Hook goeth out by the Bowery
of Cornelius Steenwix and Oloff Stevens Van
Cortlandt, being about four acres, or two morgen
and 32 rods."
168S, Nov. 6. Jacobus Van Cortlandt to Hendrick Selyns.
One half of the farm and tract of land, known as
Corlaer's Hook, inherited from his father, Oloff S.
Van Cortlandt.
1687, Oct. 21. Release by the Mayor, &c., to Francisca
Hermans. Beginning by the bank of the upland,
called Corlear's Hook, runs east by south 2.15
easterly 88 rods to the river, then along the
river side, but in a straight line south and by west
7.45 west 12 rods; then west and by north 84 rods,
to the upland, so northerly to the beginning.
Bounded north by land of Stephen Van Cortlandt; east by the river; south by the meadow
of Hendrick Cornelissen; west by the upland of




APPENDIX.                   241
S. Steenwyck and Jacobus Van Cortlandt; 5 acres
3 roods 24 perches, English measure.
1.701. Abraham Gouverneur, Recorder of the city. (Manual, 1857, p. 527.)
1741, June 12. Henry Courteen and Mary Gouverneur,
Peter De Reimer, son and heir of Isaac De Reimer,
jr., Cornelius Low, jr., and Hanna, his wife, late
Joanna Gouverneur; Margaretta Gouverneur, John
Hall and Magtalina, his wife,, late Gouverneur;
John Broughton and Alida, his wife, late Gouverneur; Nicholas Gouverneur, son and heir of
Isaac Gouverneur, and Lewis Morris, jr., which
said Joanna, Magtalina, Margaretta, Alida, Nicholas
Gouverneur, and Lewis Morris, jr., are executors
of Isaac Gouverneur, deceased —To  James Delancey. (Lib. 21, p. 84, Albany.) All that certain
tract and parcel of land or farm, situate in the outward of the city of New York, to the northward
of Fresh Water, and commonly called the Dominie's farm, containing 269 acres of land, little more
or less, according to a certain draft thereof mad
by James Howell, surveyor, on the 5th of April,
1689.
(See will of Isaac Gouverneur, Surrogates' office,
New York.)
Blyvelt's Bowery.
1645. Ground brief of Governor TKieft to  Laendert
Aarden. A farm called Blyvelt's Bowery, lying
16




242                  APPENDIX.
behind Corlaer's plantation, extending from the
valley next said plantation to a valley 170 rods;
further on west, sixty rods (60), all to the wagon
road; further along the wagon road, north by east,
a little east, 115 rods-then south, 35 rods, next
to the land of the Schout, till to the valley about
west.
1653, October 30. Transport by    -       to Thomas
Hall.
1667, October 30. Thomas Hall to Steenwyck and Oloff
Stephen Van Oortlandf.
1734, September 5. Brune Brinkley to James Delancey
(Lib. 32, p. 489). Land on the east side of the
highway called the Bowery Lane, between the
land late of Thomas Ackers, now of Isaac Depeyster, and the land formerly called Dominie Sellyn's
pasture, now in possession of James Delancey,
about 18 acres of land.
Depeyster's land is shown on Ratzer's map,
adjoining James Delancey.
Mr. Smith states the Delancey farm comprised
about 339 acres, and the Van Cortlandt piece, 15
acres-making 354. Gouverneur's deed to Delancey conveyed 269 acres. The Corlaer's Hook parcel was 76 acres; the meadow over the creek,
10, and fresh meadow, 4 acres —make 359 acres.
The above located parcels make 50-1-91+25+
22 —188 and 76 is 264 acres, which probably were
the parcels conveyed by Gouverneur's devisees to
Delancey. How he got the residue, I have not
traced.




APPENDIX.                   243
NOTE 58. —PAGE 344.
In this note will be found some statements of the action
of the Corporation upon closing streets, and the principles
which have governed them.  Nothing can exceed the
equity and sound judgment which has, in general, controlled their course in this matter.
Acts of Corporation o, Closing Streets.
A most elaborate report was made upon this subject to
the Board of Aldermen, on the 25th of October, 1833
(Documents 1833, No. 32), by the Committee on Laws,
&c., of which Judah Hammond, Esq., was chairman.
Some of its leading propositions and facts are of importance. It is observed that the declarations of trust contained in the 178th section of the act of 1813 was intended
as a general declaration of trust in the tenure under which
the streets are held in the city of New York, and that the
enactment is declaratory of the common law, as it was
understood, before and at the time of passing that act, in
relation to the estate which the Corporation have in the
public streets and roads.
After a full statement of the statutory provisions, the
report proceeds: " What, then, is the conclusion to which
these premises would seem to conduct us, as the fair construction of several statutes, but that the land so acquired
by the Corporation, should be offered in payment of the
damages awarded to the adjoining proprietors in the case
of closing streets and roads, so far as it will go, if the individuals entitled t damage will receive it at the price at




244                   APPENDIX.
which the Commissioners have estimated it. If they will
not take the lands, the Corporation is free from  any restraint, and may sell them to the highest bidder."  " The
Corporation have, as a general principle, always regarded
the individual proprietors of the adjoining lands as having
the pre-emptive right in lands so situated, and have, as a
general rule, always conveyed the lands either at the sum
assessed for them by the Commissioners, including interest
and charges in the case of gores, and generally for the
damages ill case of discontinued streets and roads. Of
late, however, a desire has crept in to obtain a higher price
for these lands.
" The Commi-tee infer, that if the Corporation determine to sell these lands, the adjoining owner has the, first
right of purchase, and may take them, in lieu of money,
for his damages, at an equalized valuation, paying or receiving the difference between the amount of his damages,
and the value of the land, if there be any."
A number of examples are then stated, in. which the
Corporation pursued this system.
It appears that, in March, 1832, the Corporation deviated
from their ordinary course, and in relation to the Warren,
Fitzroy, and Southampton roads, it was determined not
to sell at private sale, but at public auction, at a rate
equal to the amount assessed, with twenty per cent. added,
and charges.
In Mlarch, 1833, however, it was resolved to sell such
parts of the said closed roads as were contiguous and
opposite to the lands of certain petitioners, at prices to be
fixed by two appraisers, and an umpire. And a general




APPENDIX.                  245
rule was embodied in a resolution, that in all cases when
roads, streets, lanes, or alleys, should be closed by law,
the owner of the adjacent land should have the pre-emptive right to such part of the same, to the centre thereof,
as may lie opposite and contiguous to his property, at such
price as may be determined by appraisers and an umpire;
provided he elect to purchase within sixty days after the
actual closing.
The report cites another document, made on the 5th of
August, 1833, in which the Committee on Finance advert
to the proposition whether the price of the land to be fixed
by appraisers may not be the actual value at the time of
appraisement, or what other rule would be proper.
NOTE 59.-PAGE 370.
Cessions of Streets.
A large number of cessions to the Corporation of land
for streets are transcribed into a book in the office of the
Street Commissioner. I notice some of them.
A cession of Ferry street, in the Swamp or Cripple
Brush, 27th 3March, 1759, twenty feet wide, Lib. 1, p. 1.
Other portions were ceded, 5th March, 1759. Ibid., 5.
Trinity Church to the Corporation, 9th April, 1761, (Ibid.,
p. 7), for Lumber street, and First, Second and Third
streets, for the length of the Trinity Church adjoining
property; part of Thames street; Partition streets Vesey
and Barclay, from Broadway to the river; Robinson street




246                   APPENDIX.
to the College ground; Murray, Warren, Chambers and
Reade; Chappel street, from the College ground to Reade,
and Church street, from Partition to Reade.
On a map annexed to this deed of cession, Broadway is
laid down up to Reade street. Spring Garden appears
commencing between Fulton and Ann streets, and running
beyond the turn on Chatham street. The phraseology of
this deed is-That the grantors remise, release, and forever
quit-claim to all and every the said streets, as laid down
on the several maps or plans annexed, to have and to hold
all and singular the respective streets and their right, title
and interest therein, unto them, the said Mayor, &c., and
their successors;, to be and remain forever public streets
and ways for the inhabitants of the city, and all others
passing and returning through or by the same, in the same
manner as the other public streets of the said city now
are or lawfully ought to be.
Columbia College, by a, deed of June 1, 1791, completed
the cessions of the streets, laid out the Trinity Church
ground; and N. Bayard on the 9th of January, 1749, perfected the cession of Thames street. See also cessions of
Greenwich and Washingtoni streets, 20th June, 1797;
and of Hudson, from Barclay to the Pasture fence, at
Moore street.
A series of cessions was made by proprietors when
Broadway was opened, from Art street to about Sixteenth
street. They comprise the whole of the strip in the street,
except from Art to between Ninth and Tenth streets, belonging to the Sailors' Snug Harbor.
One of them  recites, that Broadway was to be made




APPENDIX.                  247
from the ground of Captain Randall to a house known by
the name of the White House, and then conveys the strip
of the owner.
In these deeds of cession, full and sufficient words are
used to convey the fee. And the use is thus declared: " In
trust, that the same be kept open as a public street, for
the use and benefit of the inhabitants of New York, forever," or in similar words.
A map is referred to in many of these grants, as made
by Magnin, and dated August 10, 1804. I have not been
able to find it. The maps in Atlas No. 8, in the Street
Commissioner's office, will supply the loss, to a great
extent,
NOTE 60.- PAGE 384.
Roads distinguishedfirom Streets.
As early as February 22, 1669, an order was
made in Council, as follows (Minutes of Council,
111 56). The order is: An order for laying out a
convenient wagon way between the city of New
York and Harlem, made in Council, February 22,
1669. Four Commissioners were appointed, two
for New York, and two for Harlem.
(See orders, warrants, &c., II., 336.)
1671, April. Whereas, the road between this city and the
village of New Harlem is impassable, it is ordered




248                   APPENDIX.
that the overseers of roads and the magistrates of
Harlem  lay out a suitable road, and that it be
made by the citizens of Harlem  in conjunction
with those living on the other side of Fresh Water,
each within their respective limits.
1672, February. Whereas, the road to Harlem is still unfinished, and many complaints have been made,
therefore, -overseers are appointed to urge the inhabitants to go on with the work, and to impose
fines for neglect.  (Extracts from MIinutes, Valentine's Manual for 1862, p. 517.)
On the 14th of February, 1679, a Commissioners' return was made as follows:* "In pursuance of an order received from the Governor and
Magistrates of this city, bearing date the 5th of
May, 1679, unto us underwritten for the staking out the new highway, and apprising the same
specified in the said order, we have in obedience
thereunto, to the best of our skill, staked out
the said highway, and do apprise the land contained in the said way at twenty (20) guilders
per rood, Dutch measure, according to each
owner's land brief, excepting that part fronting
to the street of Roulofe the Butchers, formerly
belonging to the widow of Urin Planke, which 28
rods or thereabout sould unto the Carpen. Hogenar, and now taken up in the highway for eight
hundred guilders, which we judge ought to be allowed to the said widdow. Humbly offered to the
I am indebted to Mr. George H. Moore, Librarian of the Historical
Society, for these valuable documents.




APPENDIX.                 249
Gouvernour and Magistrates from whom we received our order.
Under our hands, this 14th of May, 1679, New
York.
JOHN LAWRENCE,
JOHANNAS VAN BRUGE.
Measurers of land
ADOLP PETERS,   for the toune
SEURT OLFERT, f commonly cal:!ed
J   Roemneestrs.
I cannot account for the difference of time between the date of the order in Council, and the
Commissioners' return, assuming that the return
was under that order of 1669.
NOTE 60.- Continued.
Act of 1703. The act of the Colonial Assembly, of June 19,
1703, referred to in the text, provided for laying
out a public highway in the various counties in
the State. The provision as to New York was as
follows: " That there be laid out, preserved, and
kept forever in good and sufficient repair, one
public, common, and general highway, to extend
from the now scite of the city of New York,
through the city and county of New York, and
the county of Westchester, of the width of four
rods, English measure, at least, to be continued
and remain forever the public, common, general
road and highway from the said city of New York
to the adjacent colony of Connecticut."
Commissioners for executing the act were named




250                APPENDIX.
in it for the several counties.  Those for New
York were William Anderson, Clement Elsworth,
and Peter O'Blenis.
The Commissioners were to lay out the roads
within eighteen months. Their office was to last
three years. They were empowered to allow and
direct the felling, cutting out, carrying away, and
consuming any living trees for the clearing of the
road or highway; might remove any fence which
obstructed such road or highway, giving a reasonable time to the owner to remove the same.
They were to return to the Clerk of the county,
respectively, a full and perfect report and description of the manner and extent of every road laid
out by them, and the Clerk was to record the
same.
At the expiration of the three years, the surveyors of the highways, under the act of the Province to regulate highways,. &c., (that of 6th
May, 1691,) were to superintend the roads.
The Commissioners appointed under this act for
New York laid out a road, or highway, from New
York, through Westchester county,! to Connecticut. Their survey was made and filed on the 16th
of June, seventeen hundred and seven (1707). It
is as follows:
" Pursuant to an act of the Assembly, made in
the second year of her said Majesty's reign, for
laying out, &c., public common highways through
this province, and another act made in the fourth




APPENDIX.                  51
year of her Majesty's reign, for enlarging the time,
&c., we, being appointed Commissioners for laying
out the said roads and highways, through the Island of New York, have viewed and laid out the
same as follows:
" To begin from the gate at Spring Garden to
Fresh Water, the course east by north. Also,
from the gate at the end of Queen street, by a
small turning northerly, until it meets with the
other road at Fresh Water. From thence, by
small turning, to the tree in the highway upon
the hill; so along the said lane to the furthermost
house in the same, the course being about northnorth-east.
"From the said last house, the road for Kingsbridge to run along the fence upon the right
hand, and so, as the road now Iyes, to Kip's Runs.
From thence north-north-east to the bridge beyond
the hill; from thence by the corner of Turtle
Bay farm to the top of the next hill, about eastnorth-east; from thence to the Sawkill Bridge,
north-east, a little northerly. From Sawkill
Bridge along Mr, Codrington's fence, taking some of the corner thereof, to the Halfway House, about north-east.  From  thence
along the lane to the next hollow about north;
from thence to Meyers, north-east, and thence
to the run by Barent Waldron's, north-north-east.
From thence along the fence, and so by John
Kierse's house on the right hand, two corners of
the fence on the left hand being taken in, and so




252                  APPENDIX.
along as the road now lyes to Hendrich Oblimus's,
and from thence along the road as it now lyes,
leaving the run of water on the left hand until
you come to the Deep Bridge; from thence along
the foot of the hill, which is to the left, about half
a mile; then turning to the left and leaving the
swamp on the right hand, as the road now is, unto
Nagel and Dycknian's Run; from thence as the
way now lyes, leaving the fence on the left hand,
through the ground of the said Nagel and Dyckman, by the house where the said Dyckman now
lives and over his bridge; and so forward as the
road now is unto Kingsbridge, the main course
being north, a little easterly.'
" From  the Bridge by the Half-way House the
road turns to the right hand, and so over the
Creek to Harlaem, and from Harlaem by the lane
as it now lyes to Jodhannes Myers, where it meets
with the main road."
" From the house at the end of New York lane,
there is likewise to lie a road, turning to the left
hand, the course being northerly, and so by Great
Kills, and forward as the said road now lyes, unto
Teunis Edis's, and Captain D'Keys, through the
said Edis's land."
" Also, from Rebecca's house in said New York
lane, there is to be a road as it now lyes unto
Greenwich, the said road running to the leftward
of the house late of Captain Douw, deceased."
"6 All of the aforesaid roads are to be and re



APPENDIX.                  253
main of the breadth of four rods at least. Witness our hands this 16th of June, in the sixth
year of her Majesty's reign, in An. Dom. 1707.
Will. Anderson, Clement Elsworth, Pieter V.
O'Blienis."
By the sixth section of the act of the 7th November, 1741, cited in the text, it was provided,
that, " as doubts and scruples have arisen about the
course of the road from Spring Garden Gate, at
the end of the Broadway, towards Fresh Water,
that the said road shall for ever thereafter be on a
straight line or course from Spring Garden aforesaid, through the new road lately cut through the
hill, hy the house of Captain John Brown, where
the windmill formerly stood,, until it meets with
the old road."
In June, 1774, the Corporation ordered that
the street, beginning at the house of Andrew Hopper, nearly opposite St. Paul's Churchyard, and
leading to Fresh Water, should be called Chatham
street (Lib. 7, p. 327 Minutes).
The point of beginning of this road, Spring
Garden, is easily located. It was at the northern
end of the Shoemaker's field.
The location of the house of Andrew Hopper
is defined by a deed from Tbomnas White to him,
of 1775 (Lib. 40, p. 359).
So, on Lines' map of 1728, we find a windmill
on a spot about the present line of Duane street,




254                  APPENDIX.
and Lieutenant Ratzer's map shows that the hill
stretched across Chatham street.  Hill's map of
1782 shows this more distinctly, and such hill
was in the line of Chatham street for some distance.
Accordingly, the most ancient road turned from
Chatham street, about Duane, and wound round
into Pearl street, as is plainly shown on Lines'
map of 1728. It pursued, I judge, the course of
Thomas street.
The gate at the end of Queen street, mentioned
in the act of 1703, is, no doubt, referred to in the
resolution of the Common Council of the 15th of
September, 1735, directing the surveyor to lay
out a public road from the house of Benjamin
Peck, in Queen street, to the Fresh Water, as the
same was laid out on the 21st June, 1707, by
Anderson and others, and appointed by the act of
Assembly made in the second year of Queen Anne,
1703, entitled, &c.
The house of Benjamin Peck is ascertained by
a deed from William Beekiman to him, of the 30th
May, 1718, and was about 150 feet easterly from
the corner of Beekman and Pearl streets. It was
bounded south by high water mark. It was
known on the partition deed of 1708 as No. 217.
The Bloorningdale Road appears to have been
opened under the act of 1708. In the act of 25th
November, 1751, cited in the text, this fact is
recited, and it is provided that such road, from




APPENDIX.                 255
the dwelling-house of John Horn, through Bloomendale district to the house of Abraham Hoogland,
should be kept in order by the inhabitants of that
district, and they were exempted from working on
the Post Road leading from New York to King's
Bridge.
On Ratzer's map of 1764, the road to Bloomendale is laid down diverging from the Post Road,
rand plainly just at the point of Twenty-third street,
where it left the latter road, until within a few
years, upon Madison square being enlarged and
opened.
Sir Edmund Andross, in 1670, issued a patent
to Solomon Peters, whose widow and heirs conveyed to John Horn and Cornelius Webber.'The parcel of ground was close to this point of
commencement, and thus the location of John
HIorn's house is indicated. (Valentine's History of
New York, and map, p. 379.)
In a very valuable map, made by G. Bancker,
in August, 1773, of Sir Peter Warren's property,
in the possession of Edwin Smith, Esq., one parcel
of such land is located at the corner of the Bowery
and Abingdon road. It was a parcel of ten acres,
and was granted to him by the Corporation of New
York. On the opposite side of Abingdon road, the
property is marked as of John Horn. The location is just above Twenty-first street, on the
Bowery.
On the 1st of April, 1760, T. Marschalk, one of




256                  APPENDIX.
the City Surveyors, presented a survey of the
Bloomingdale Road, beginning at the north-east
corner of Sir Peter Warren's land; running from
the corner of said land north 11.45 east, above
10 chains, thence north 14 chains, to the east side
of a large split rock, in the middle of the road,
about 10 yards to the north of Peter Van Orden's
house.
Approved of, with the addition, that the road
there be 4 rods wide, and done at the expense of
the Corporation; afterwards, to be kept in repair
by the inhabitants of the Bloomingdale division.
1791, May 30. Committee reported, that great benefit
would arise from laying open a new road from
Bloomingdale to Fort Washington, and, on viewing the road, find it easy to extend the present
road, terminating in lands of Nicholas De Peyster,
through the lands of said De Peyster and others,
and falling in with the present high road to IKingsbridge, somewhere about the lands of Dr. Brodhurst and Widow Watkins. The Committee ask
power to have survey made, which is granted, and
to be submitted to this Board.
1792, Feb. 17. Petition of Charles Ward Apthorpe and
others, that Bloomingdale Road be continued to
Morris House.  Referred.
1792, MIarch 12. Counter petition of inhabitants of Harlaem. Referred.
1792, October 22. Street Commissioners ordered to cause a
survey of the contemplated road from Bloomingdale Road to Heights of Harlem, and report.




APPENDIX.                   257
We observe that the survey of 1707 includes
two roads besides the Post Road.
One of these roads was the Sandy Hill road,
and road to Greenwich, with which it connected.
On Ratzer's map, 1766, these roads are laid down
very distinctly, and also on Hill's map, 1782.
On the latter, part of it is called the road to Greenwich. It is described also as running to the left of
Captain Douw's house. On diagram No. 6 Gerritt Douw's land is located behind the Brevoort
parcel.
And there can be little doubt that the other
road was what was subsequently called the Abingdon road.
Ratzer's map shows this road  commencing
about Twenty-first street, and running about
north by west. It is not named on such map.
To a considerable extent we can establish the
line of the old road to Harlaem with accuracy.
1. A road ran from about opposite St. Paul's
Church over the common as far as Duane street,
and on the line of Chatham street. It then turned
short to the eastward, and ran on a winding course
south-east, east by south, east, and north by east
into what is now the line of Pearl street, and
came into the present Chatham street on such
line, about 100 feet south of the bridge on Roosevelt street. Lines' map of 1728 shows its course
plainly.
17




2,58                  APPENDIX.
That this road so far ran over the common
lands of the city, is quite clear. Among other
proofs, Bancker's compilation of surveys, dated
in 1773, shows this as to the line from Chatham
street through Thomas or Duane, to the point
near the bridge.
That this line of road was used before the
ordinance of 1669, is also clear. It may be that
it was legally established under such ordinance.
2. The Commissioners under the act of 1703
opened the line of Chatham street, from Spring
Garden (near Ann street) to Fresh Water, that is,
the bridge about Roosevelt street. From Thomas
(Duane) to the bridge, it was entirely new. They
also opened a road on the line of Queen street
(Pearl), from  a point as before shown, 150 feet
east from the corner of Beekman and Pearl, up to
the present line of Chatham street.
3. From  the bridge (Fresh Water), the act of
] 703 recognizes that a road was in use, and locates
it thus: " From thence by a small turning to the
tree in the highway upon the hill; so along the
said lane to the furthermost house in the same,
the course being about north-north-east.
It can be clearly proven that, as far as the Brevoort property at least, near Eleventh street, the
road, adopted in 1703, was the identical highway
used and known as early as 1659. The ground
briefs referred to in explanation of the Diagrams




APPENDIX.                   259
6, 9, 10, 11, 12, and the patent to Bayard of
1697, show this plainly.
I have a strong impression that it was also
identical as high up as the turn at the present
Madison square, a little below Twenty-third street,
where the Old Post Road proper commenced, bending to the eastward. This, I think, was 6" the end
of the New York lane" mentioned in the act.
It was where Horn's property lay, and where the
Abingdon road led to the Great Kills. In part
it ran over the line of a pre-existing road.
Middle Road.
1792. Petition to have the road leading to the Powder
Magazine repaired.
1i791. Committee ordered to view the Middle Road at
Inklebergh, and report.
The Committee, on obtaining a profile of the
Miiddle Road, submit a profile of about 1,600 feet
between the bridge near the Powder-house and
William Ogden's gate, which deserves the first attention.
The Bloomingdale Road was open, and is laid
down on Ratzer's map of 1766. The middle road
is not, although there is apparently a road on the
hill, commencing about Thirty-fifth street, and
running northerly. A lane ran down to the Post
Road.




260                  APPENDIX.
NOTE 61.-PAGE 382.
Commissioners on Encroachments.
The reports made under the act of March 30, 1855, and
of that of April 16, 1860, are very important and voluminous. One was transmitted in January, 1856 (Senate
Doc., No. 3); another in January, 1857 (Senate Doc., No.
40); and the last in January, 1862 (Senate Doc., No. 10).
The importance of these reports, and especially of the
shore maps, with which the last is accompanied, cannot
be too highly estimated. They have been mnade with the
highest skill and care, and will tend greatly to determine
rights, and abridge litigation.
Washington square.
From accident, the memorandum upon this parcel of
property was omitted at its proper place.
The property consisted of about ninety lots of ground,
on the old Sandy Hill lane. It was purchased in 1797 for
a potter's field, from the estate of Win. S. Smith.
In October, 1827, proceedings were had in the Supreme
Court, by which the ground was taken for a public square.
ADDENDA.
iThe case of the People vs. Bartholomew, mentioned in
the text (vol. I., p. 363), as heard at General Term, has
not yet been decided-June, 1862.