Ulster County Under The Dutch - Chapters X-XIII



CHAPTER X - GOVERNMENT

FOR a correct understanding of the character of the government under which 
the people of Wildwyck lived a brief sketch of the legislative and 
judicial history of New Netherland should be given. June 3, 1661, the 
State's General of the United Provinces granted a charter of incorporation 
to the West India Company. It was an era of commercial monopoly and the 
charter was characteristic of the age. Not only was the company given a 
monopoly of trade in all the Dutch possessions in America, but it was 
invested with full powers of government. The will of the company, as 
expressed in its orders, was to be the law of New Netherland. The general 
supervision and management of the company was lodged in a board or chamber 
of nineteen members, distributed among different cities of Holland. The 
affairs of New Netherland were committed to the chamber of Amsterdam. In 
1624 the company appointed Peter Minuit Director General of New Netherland 
and a council of five members to assist him. To them was given supreme 
authority in the colony. They were also the tribunal for the trial of all 
cases, civil and criminal. To encourage emigration the West India Company, 
in 1629, granted the famous charter of "Freedoms and Exemptions." Under 
its provisions any member of the company who should, within four years, 
plant a colony of fifty persons, upwards of fifteen years of age, in any 
part of New Netherland, except the island of Manhattan, which the company 
reserved to itself, would be acknowledged a "Patroon of New Netherland." 
His colony could extend sixteen miles along the one side of the river or 
eight miles on each side and as far into the country as the situation 
would permit.

He became sole owner of the territory with the right to dispose of it by 
will. He was chief magistrate of his estate. He could create courts from 
which, if the matter in dispute involved more than fifty guilders, an 
appeal could be taken to the Director-General and Council. Kiliaen van 
Rensselaer, one of the directors of the company, in 1629 and 1630 
purchased large tracks of land from the Indians lying on both sides of the 
river near Albany. Under the charter he became the feudal lord of a vast 
estate embracing most of the present counties of Rensselaer, Columbia, and 
Albany, except Fort Orange and the land immediately about it. This immense 
estate was named the manor or colony of Rensselaerswyck. Most of the early 
settlers at Wildwyck came from it. The settlers at Rensselaerswyck were 
the mere tenants of the Patroon. Within his domain he claimed and 
exercised exclusive jurisdiction.

No appeal was allowed to the Director General and Council at Manhattan. On 
the other hand the governor and council claimed that the manor was subject 
to their jurisdiction. This led to an angry controversy between the 
parties lasting during all the history of the colony. At the request of 
Governor Kieft, in 1641, the masters and heads of families, residents of 
New Amsterdam, elected "Twelve Select Men" to consider public matters. 
This was the first the people had been recognized. Kieft and his council 
paid but little attention to their proceedings and soon forbade them to 
hold any further meetings, "as they tend to dangerous consequences, and to 
the serious injury both of the country and our authority." In 1643 the 
impending war with the Indians compelled Kieft to again turn to the 
people. A board of "Eight Men" were chosen to consider affairs. Beyond 
sending a memorial to the company and the States General describing the 
deplorable condition of the colony they did but little. July 7, 1645, the 
West India Company adopted an ordinance providing that thereafter the 
Supreme Council in New Netherland should consist of the Director General, 
a Vice Director and a Schout Fiscall. Provided, that in all cases in which 
the Schout Fiscall acted for the company, the military commander should 
sit in his stead, and, were the charge criminal, two persons should be 
"adjoined from the commonalty of that district where the crime was 
perpetrated." The company appointed Petrus Stuyvesant, Director; Lubbertus 
Van Binclage, Vice-Director, and Hendrick Van Dyck, Schout Fiscall. In 
1647 Stuyvesant found the treasury empty; the fort in need of repairs; the 
Indians threatening. It was thought wise to give the people some small 
voice in the government. So in August, 1647, an order was issued to the 
people to elect eighteen of the most "expert and reasonable persons" from 
whom the Director-General and Council would select "Nine Men as is 
customary in Fatherland," to give their advice when called on and to 
assist in promoting the wellfare of the country. Eighteen persons were 
elected from whom the Director-General and Council chose the "Nine Men." 
They were directed not to assist at private conventicles or meetings 
without the knowledge and advice of the Director and Council. Three of 
their number should once a week be admitted to the council, as long as 
civil cases were before it, and act as arbitrators in matters referred to 
them. The term of six expired annually. Twelve to succeed them should be 
nominated by the sitting board and from the twelve and the sitting board 
six should be chosen. The "Nine Men" represented Manhattan, Breukelen, 
Amersfoort, and Pavonia. They acted only in an advisory capacity. In 1650 
the States General recommended to the company that New Amsterdam be 
granted a burgher government. With great reluctance the company, in 1652, 
directed that a municipal government be established to consist of one 
Schout, two Burgomasters, and five Schepens, to be elected by the citizens 
in the manner usual in "this city of Amsterdam," to act as a court of 
justice with the right of appeal in certain cases to the Supreme Court of 
Judicature. In order to understand the nature of the government to be 
established for New Amsterdam we must turn to the political institutions 
of old Amsterdam. Burgher right was a very old institution in Holland. 
From a very early period, "the exclusive right to trade in Amsterdam was 
confined by law to such of its inhabitants as were burghers either by 
birth, purchase, intermarriage, or by a vote of the city." Native citizens 
acquired the right on becoming of age and registering their names; the 
others after the lapse of a year from the time of their enrollment. 
Burgher right conferred upon the holder not only freedom of trade but 
opened to him all offices under the city government. "He could not be 
arrested or imprisoned if he could procure bail, nor indicted nor tried 
for an offense after the term of one year." "If found guilty of a capital 
charge he was saved from attaint of blood and confiscation of property." 
Women could become burghers but, if the right was obtained by purchase, it 
could only be enjoyed while they were unmarried or widows. .They lost it 
if married to those not burghers and their children did not inherit the 
parent's privilege. On the death of the husband the mother was reinstated 
in her privileges. In 1652 the burghers of Amsterdam were divided into two 
classes, "Great and Small, giving to the wealthy for the sum of five 
hundred guilders ($200) the privilege of enrolling their names on the list 
of `The Great' who, alone, were to be invested with the monopoly of all 
offices and the exemption from confiscation and attainder in case of 
conviction of capital offences." The "Small" burghers had only freedom of 
trade and the privilege of being received into the different guilds. By an 
ordinance adopted in 1657 the "Great" and "Small" burgher right was 
introduced in New Netherland.

The "Great Burgher Right" was granted:--

First. To those Who had been or were in the high or supreme government of 
the country and their descendants in the male line.

Second. To all former and actual Burgomasters and Schepens of New 
Amsterdam and their descendants in the male line.

Third. To all former ministers of the gospel and those then in office and 
their descendants in the male line.

Fourth. To the commissioned officers of the militia, including the ensign, 
and their descendants in the male line, provided that they or their 
descendants in the male line had not lost or forfeited burgher right by 
not keeping "fire and light" agreeable to the custom of the city of 
Amsterdam.

Fifth. To all others on payment of the sum of fifty guilders.

The "Small Burgher Right" was given:--

First. To all those who had resided and kept fire and light within the 
city for one year and six weeks.

Second. To all born within the city.

Third. To all who had or should marry native born daughters of burghers, 
provided the burgher right had not been lost or forfeited by absence from 
the city or by not keeping fire and light within the city for one year and 
six weeks.

All persons who now or hereafter keep any shop, "however it may be 
called," in the city or its jurisdiction were bound to apply to the 
Burgomasters for the "Small Right" and pay twenty guilders for the same.

All servants of the company under wages, all passengers and new comers who 
settled elsewhere, provided they did so within six weeks were exempt from 
applying for the right for the exercise of "all sorts of handicraft and 
the practice thereof." It was refused to the Jews.

When this ordinance was first proclaimed only twenty persons applied for 
the "Great Right." Among them was Rachel Van Tienhoven, the widow or 
deserted wife of Cornelis Van Tienhoven. By an ordinance adopted in 1660 
it was provided : "That no newly arrived traders, Scotch factors or 
merchants shall be at liberty to transport or to send their goods from 
here to Fort Orange, or elsewhere, within the district of New Netherland, 
unless they have previously obtained burgher right here."

The government of the city of Amsterdam consisted of one Schout, four 
Burgomasters, nine Schepens, and a council of thirty-six members. The 
Schout, Burgomasters and Schepens composed a board called "the Lords of 
the Court of the city of Amsterdam." They were vested with the right to 
make all city laws and ordinances and had jurisdiction of all civil and 
criminal cases. The office of Schout was one of the most important both in 
Amsterdam and New Netherland. His powers and duties combined those of our 
sheriff and district attorney. He convened the court, presided at its 
meetings, proposed matters for consideration, counted and declared the 
votes. He prosecuted all offenders against the law and did not in such 
matters sit as a member of the court. Unless an offense was committed in 
his presence he could not arrest any person without first taking an 
information before the court in regard to the crime. He executed all 
judgments of the court.

In Amsterdam on the first of each year, all who had served as Burgomasters 
or as Schepens chose three persons to succeed those retiring. The three 
chose one other person and these constituted the Board of Burgomasters. 
They were the chief rulers of the city, "the principal church wardens; the 
guardians of the poor, of widows and orphans; and without their consent, 
no woman or minor could execute any legal instrument." Each Burgomaster 
attended daily, in rotation, during three months of the year, in the city 
hall, for the dispatch of public business, thus resembling our mayor. In 
January of each year the city council nominated fourteen citizens as 
Schepens to the Stadtholder, from whom nine were chosen as Schepens. They 
entered upon their duties February second or Candlemas day. They 
constituted a court of almost unlimited civil and criminal jurisdiction. 
The Burgomasters and Schepens, when assembled together, exercised 
legislative powers for municipal purposes.

Although the order of the West India Company directed that the Schout, 
Burgomasters and Schepens, who should constitute the government and court 
for New Amsterdam should be elected, Stuyvesant, who understood the real 
wishes of his employers, appointed all of them. This court was known as 
the court of the Schout, Burgomasters and Schepens. It had jurisdiction of 
all cases except capital. It also acted as a board of aldermen in 
municipal matters.

The Director General and Council reserved the right "to make ordinances or 
publish particular interdicts even for New Amsterdam. This court was 
created for and had jurisdiction only in New Amsterdam which, at the time, 
was understood to embrace only the lower part of the island of Manhattan. 
Similar courts, varied in their powers and duties as circumstances 
required, were established by orders of the council at Fort Orange, in the 
settlements on Long Island and at Wildwyck. Their jurisdiction and duties 
were prescribed in the ordinances creating them.

Such was the government of New Netherland. Government by the people, 
through their representatives, did not exist. The grand jury and trial by 
jury was unknown. The law of the land was to be found in the ancient 
customs and laws of the city of Amsterdam, and the ordinances enacted by 
the Director-General and Council.

These ordinances embraced a wide range of subjects and touched the daily 
life of the citizen at almost every point. Banns of marriage must be 
published or proclaimed in the place where the parties resided. Stuyvesant 
would not allow the flimsy excuses or squeamishness of prospective 
bridegroom or bride to interfere with the rapid populating of the colony; 
neither would he stand for anything save the marital relation. So, it was 
enacted that after the third proclamation of banns the parties should, "if 
no lawful impediment occurs, cause their marriages to be solemnized within 
one month at the furthest, after the last proclamation, or within that 
time, appear and show cause where they ought, for refusing; and that on 
pain of forfeiting ten guilders for the first week of the aforesaid month, 
and for the succeeding weeks twenty guilders for each week, until they 
have made known the reasons for refusing." Dominie Blom notified his 
congregation at Wildwyck that he would enforce this ordinance. No man and 
woman should be at liberty, "to keep house as married persons before and 
until they are lawfully married, on pain of forfeiting one hundred 
guilders, more or less, as their quality shall be found to warrant, and 
all such persons may be amerced every month by the officer, according to 
the order and custom of our Fatherland."

None but legal weights and measures could be used and those were the ones 
in use in the city of Amsterdam.

To prevent damage to growing crops by animals running at large three 
persons should be appointed fence viewers for each village. They must 
inspect all fences and see that all persons who did not keep them tight 
were fined. A pound must be established in each village in which any 
person could impound all cattle found in the corn fields. Before they 
could be released the owner must pay six florins for a horse, four for an 
ox or cow, two for a calf, hog or sheep; one-half of which went to the 
pound keeper, the other half to the impounder or whoever made the 
complaint. If the animals were not released by sunset the fines were 
doubled and if not released on the second day, they were sold at public 
auction to the highest bidder.

Smuggling was strictly prohibited. Ordinance after ordinance prohibiting 
the sale of intoxicating liquors to the Indians was passed. Although every 
one recognized that this traffic was at the bottom of most of the troubles 
with the red men it could not be stopped. Slavery existed in New 
Netherland at a very early period and the settlers at Wildwyck held the 
black man in bondage. The support of the poor was, to some extent, left to 
the church. The magistrates appointed two persons "who shall go around 
every Sunday with a little bag among the congregation and collect the alms 
for the support of the poor of that place." In addition a part of the 
fines imposed by the courts for the violation of ordinances went for their 
maintenance.

All fighting, wounding, drawing of knives and assaults were forbidden 
under heavy penalties.

The observance of Sunday was strictly enjoined. No beer or liquor could be 
sold. No ordinary labor performed. No sports or games allowed. In order to 
prevent the waste of powder, carousing and accidents, all firing of guns, 
beating of drums, planting of May poles and the retailing of beer or 
liquor on New Year or May days was prohibited. No liquor or beer could be 
sold without license and payment of the excise. No tavern keeper could 
brew beer or liquor and no brewer sell at retail. In 1658 the maximum 
price that could be charged by brewers was fixed at, for a ton (about 40 
gallons) of strong beer, ten guilders in silver, 15 in beaver, 22 in 
wampum. A ton of small beer, 3 guilders in silver, 4 and one-half in 
beaver, 6 in wampum. By tavern keepers one-half gallon of beer, 6 stivers 
in silver, 9 in beaver, 12 in wampum. A can of French wine, 18 stivers in 
silver, 22 in beaver, 36 in wampum. A can of Spanish wine, 24 stivers in 
silver, 36 in beaver, 50 in wampum. A gill of brandy, 5 stivers in silver, 
7 in beaver, 10 in wampum.

In the same year the price of bread was fixed at a coarse wheat loaf, 
eight pounds, 7 stivers in silver, 10 in beaver, 14 in wampum. A rye loaf, 
eight pounds, 6 stivers in silver, 9 in beaver, 12 in wampum. A white 
loaf, two pounds, 4 stivers in silver, 6 in beaver, 8 in wampum.

Little, if any, coin circulated in the colony. The zeawan or wampum of the 
Indians was the circulating medium. Wheat and other grain was also used as 
a medium of exchange. Fines and penalties were imposed and debts paid in 
either. Wampum was made by the Indians from the inner surface of the shell 
of the clam and periwinkle. They were worked out into beads, mostly of two 
colors, white and a very dark purple, or black. They were generally 
cylindrical, being about ? to 7/16 in. in length and about ? to 3/16 in. 
in diameter. They were strung upon cords, these fastened together made a 
belt. Wampum was highly prized by the Indians. Necklaces of the same were 
used for personal adornment. Belts as a badge of rank and official dignity 
and in the ratification of treaties and solemn agreements. Many ordinances 
were passed regulating the use and value of wampum as currency. In 1641 
six strung beads passed for one stiver. In 1650 six white and three black 
strung for a stiver. In 1658 eight white and four black for a stiver. In 
1663 eight white or four black for a stiver. During the same year the 
price of a beaver in silver was eight guilders and a muddle and a half of 
wheat was worth one beaver, or about thirty cents a bushel.

The revenue for the colony was derived from an export duty on furs, duties 
on imported goods and the tenths of argricultural products reserved by the 
government as a consideration for lands granted. The revenue for the 
villages was obtained from an excise tax on liquors and beer, a tax on 
slaughtered cattle, and all or a part of the fines imposed on individuals 
for the violation of ordinances. A land tax was also imposed for various 
purposes.

As early as 1659 the people of Wildwyck had asked that a court be 
established so that everybody "could be made to go along." Their request 
was not complied with until May 16, 1661, on which day the DirectorGeneral 
and Council adopted an ordinance creating a court for Wildwyck. Evert 
Pels, Cornelis Barentsen Sleght and Elbert Heymans Rose (Roosa) were 
appointed Schepens for the term of one year from-the last of May, 1661. 
After the first year there were four Schepens. Before the expiration of 
each year the court transmitted to the council a list of "honest and 
decent persons," from whom two were appointed in the place of two 
retiring. Two remained in office "in order to inform the new," thus two 
served for two years. The Schepens must be "honest, intelligent persons, 
owners of real estate, promoters and professors of the Reformed religion."

During the existence of the court the Schepens were:--May, 1661, to May, 
1662, Evert Pels, Cornelis Barentsen Sleght, Elbert Heymans Rose. May, 
1662, to May, 1663, Pels, Rose, Albert Gysbertsen, Tjirick deWit. May, 
1663, to May, 1664, Gysbertsen, deWit, Thomas Chambers, Gysbert van 
Imbrogh. 1664, Chambers, van Imbrogh, Henderick Jochemsen, Jan Willemsen 
Hoochteylingh. The West India Company, on April 15, 1660, appointed 
Roeloff Swartwout Schout of the court, proposed to be established for 
Wildwyck. As we have seen he had rather a hard time in getting his job. 
Stuyvesant did not think him fit for the place and only commissioned him 
upon the pre-emptory order of the company. He was to hold office for four 
years. He took rank of the Schepens and was president of the court. He 
published and executed all orders relating to the village. He should see 
that no "whorehouses, whoremongers, or other similar bad houses" were 
permitted. He acted as prosecutor in all criminal matters. He made all 
arrests, examined the prisoner within four days, and within the same time, 
thereafter, must bring him to trial. He collected the votes of the court 
and acted as its secretary until one was appointed. If he were a party and 
when he acted as prosecutor or for the company he had no vote, but must 
leave the bench and one of the senior Schepens must preside. He received 
as compensation for his services one-half of all civil fines, one-half of 
all fees for tax and court notices and one-third of what fell to the 
village in criminal matters. The court met once a fortnight, "harvest time 
excepted."

Extraordinary meetings should not be held except upon the request of both 
parties to a cause who must deposit the costs of the court, three guilders 
for the president and fifty stivers for each Schepen. The court messenger 
gave twenty-four hours' notice to the Schepens of the time of holding each 
session. If any failed to appear, unless excused by sickness or absence, 
they were fined twenty stivers each and the president forty. Those late in 
arriving were fined twenty stivers for the benefit of those on time. A 
Schepen could not sit if he were a party to a suit or related to a party 
by consanguinity, "such as brothers, brothers-in-law or cousins in the 
first or direct line." In case of disagreement the minority must coincide 
with the majority, but could have their opinions entered on the record 
which must not be made public. The clerk kept the minutes of the 
proceedings, copies of which were transmitted to the council. He was 
allowed sixteen stivers for drawing a petition in civil proceedings, 
twenty in a suit for injuries and criminal cases "of the middle degree," 
and for a certificate and a copy twenty-four stivers. All judgments 
rendered by the court were subject to reversal by the Director-General and 
Council and to them all appeals were taken. The court was given 
jurisdiction of "all matters touching civil affairs" and could give 
judgment to the amount of fifty guilders without appeal. If the sum 
involved was greater the aggrieved party could appeal within ten days 
after judgment on giving security for the principal and costs of the 
action. All cases of crime must be referred to the Director-General and 
Council. The court must take information concerning the offense, arrest 
and detain the party charged, and send him and the information to the 
council. "Minor offenses, such as brawls, injuries, scolding, striking 
with fist, threats, simple drawing of a knife or sword without bloodshed" 
were left to the decision of the court, the condemned party to have the 
right of appeal. "All cases of major crimes, and delinquents charged with 
wounding and bloodshedding, whoredom and adultery, public and notorious 
theft, robberies, smuggling of contraband articles, blaspheming and 
profaning God's holy name and religion, slandering and caluminating the 
Supreme Government or its representatives, shall, after information, 
affidavits and testimony have been taken, be referred to the Director-
General and Council of New Netherland." The grand jury was unknown. The 
party accused had the right to give bail in all cases except murder, 
treason, arson and rape.

Two modes of trial existed in criminal matters. One an ordinary public 
trial in which the ordinary rules of evidence prevailed; the other, an 
examination before two Schouts, upon written questions. The penalties were 
fines, imprisonment, whipping, the pillory and death. The court was given 
no power to enact ordinances, rules or regulations even for village 
affairs. If they thought any such necessary they must be submitted to the 
council for its approval. In 1664 this provision was so far modified as to 
allow the court to enact "Provisional Ordinances," provided the same, with 
the reasons for their necessity, be first submitted to the council and its 
approval obtained. If this could not be done during the winter season or 
by reason of other inconvenience the court might execute such ordinances 
in an emergency on condition that they be submitted for confirmation at 
the first opportunity.

During the Indian war of 1663 Stuyvesant appointed the Schout, Schepens, 
the commander and lieutenant of the militia, and the captain of the train 
band, a council of war to take charge of all matters. Acting together they 
constituted the court during the war. In 1664 Wilhelm Beeckman was 
appointed commissary for Wildwyck. He also acted as Schout. He presided at 
the meetings of the court and in case of a tie had the casting vote. In 
the absence of the governor or his deputy he had supreme command.

The practice in the court was simple. A summons commanding the party to 
appear at the next session of the court was served on the defendant at 
least one day before the meeting. "In case of arrest, or difference 
between strangers, when it may be served on the very day of the session." 
If defendant did not appear he could not thereafter question the 
jurisdiction of the court and was condemned to pay the cost of the 
summons. A second summons was then served and if defendant still failed to 
appear he was subject to additional costs. A third summons was then served 
and upon default judgment was rendered. If defendants presence was 
necessary a warrant of arrest was issued. Each party stated his case and 
could be sworn as a witness. If the court required further proof an 
adjournment was had and the testimony of witnesses taken either before the 
court or by written depositions made before a notary. Documents in the 
handwriting of a party were presumed to be genuine. Books of account, 
itemized and correctly kept, were received in evidence.

All affidavits, interrogatories, contracts, testaments, agreements, and 
other important documents in order to be used as evidence must be written 
by the secretary "or other authorized person unless by necessity it should 
be impossible to call on such person." Documentory evidence, dying 
declarations, and testimony supported by two witnesses was termed full 
proof. The testimony of one witness, half proof. Hearsay testimony was 
received as half proof and as corrobative evidence.

Matters in controversy were very frequently referred by the court to 
arbitrators to hear and decide.

Judgments were rendered payable in wampum, wheat or other grain. A 
specified time in which to pay was usually given. If not paid an execution 
was issued to the court messenger who demanded payment by the debtor in 
twenty-four hours. If not paid the messenger, in the presence of two of 
the Schepens, seized the personal property of the debtor and made an 
inventory of the same. The property was kept for six days and after notice 
had been given at one session of the court it was sold the next court day 
to the highest bidder. If sufficient personal property to pay the judgment 
could not be found the real estate of the debtor was sold upon four days' 
notice. Debts due the debtor could be attached and sold.

According to Dutch custom auction sales were continued during the burning 
of a candle, as it flickered out the property was struck off to the 
highest bidder.

The court administered the estates of deceased persons and had control of 
the property of minors in much the same manner as our Surrogates court, by 
administrators and guardians appointed by it. Deeds, mortgages and other 
instruments were acknowledged before the court and recorded in its 
minutes.

The court at Wildwyck held its first session July 12, 1661. Jacob Joosten 
was appointed court messenger and "to attend to all kinds of church 
service and services for the court," at the annual salary of two hundred 
guilders in wampum. Joosten had trouble in getting his pay. Schout 
Swartwout complained to the court that Joosten was "of little or no 
service to him," to which he replied that he had only received one hundred 
and fourteen guilders on account of his salary. The court admonished him 
to be more faithful in his duty and he would be paid "as soon as 
possible." Secretary Capito claimed half his fees and Joosten refused to 
pay. At last, in December, 1663, Jacob Boerhans, the collector, was 
directed to pay him fifty guilders in wampum out of the excise money on 
account. In April, 1664, he again asked for his pay and the court gravely 
informed him that he could not have it because the treasury was empty.

In October, 1661, the court fixed the price that Pieter Jacobsen could 
charge for grinding corn at eight stivers a bushel in wampum. As to those 
who had no wampum he could deduct a tenth part of the corn. Each of the 
parties to a suit were required to pay thirty-six stivers, to be advanced 
by the plaintiff, and collected from the defeated party, for rent of the 
court room: Tjerck Claesen deWit, although a Schepen, in a suit against 
Corenlis Bartensen Slecht, refused to put up the money, whereupon his 
colleagues on the bench informed him that his witnesses would not be 
admitted in the court room.

In February, 1664, the court ordered the collector to pay Aert Martensen 
Doorn forty-two guilders in wampum for rent of the court room. The 
litigation brought before the court was pretty much of the same nature as 
that of today. Actions for debt injury to property and slander were 
frequent. During the Indian war of 1663 a number of persons were fined for 
going to the fields to work without a guard of troops. The Sunday laws 
were strictly enforced and fines imposed for violations of the excise 
ordinances. The court was quite sensitive as to any criticism of its 
proceedings. Barent Gerretsen and his wife were placed under arrest for 
having said that the magistrates did not give them justice and because 
they "have several times poked fun at the court."

Hendrick Jochemse was fined twenty-five guilders and Elsjen Jans and 
Annetjen Aerts six guilders each, to go the poor, "for having used vile 
and nasty language before the court."

Aeltje Sybrants, wife of Mattys Roelofsen, was fined one hundred guilders 
for using vile and indecent language to the Schout on his going to her 
house with the order of the court notifying all persons not to sell strong 
drink to the Indians. Two-thirds of the fine went to the Schout and one-
third to Dominie Blom for the church. Cornelis Barentsen Slecht was 
confined in the guard house for refusing to render his account in the 
matter of the estate of William Jansen Seba.

In reading these old records one is impressed with the wonderful 
perspicuity of the legal documents and papers. All the acumen and 
sophistry of the modern lawyer could not twist their language into 
anything but its obvious meaning to any one of ordinary intelligence. The 
court was not troubled with the interpretation of obscure statutes or the 
reconciliation of conflicting authorities. Their decisions are clear cut 
and direct to the point.

They rendered justice, rough and ready perhaps, but exact justice. Here is 
the complete record of one case, famous in the annals of Ulster County.

"October 4, 1662, Grietjen Westercamp, plaintiff, vs. Pieter Jacobsen, 
defendant. Default.

October 17, 1662, Grietjen Hendricks Westercamp, plaintiff, vs. Pieter 
Jacobsen, defendant. Plaintiff demands of defendant why he denies his 
child. Defendant answers and says, "I have my doubts about it." Plaintiff 
says that defendant ruined her, and asks that he restore her honor. 
Defendant denies that he ruined her, and says "she must prove this to me," 
and also denies that he promised to marry her. He asks her when she became 
pregnant, and when she was delivered. Plaintiff says that defendant made 
her pregnant eight days before Christmas, 1661, and that she was delivered 
eight days before Kermis, 1662. Plaintiff says that she conceived at the 
mill, house of Pieter Jacobsen. Defendant requests two weeks' time. The 
Schout and Commissaries grant the defendant two weeks' time, and order 
plaintiff to prove at the next session that defendant ruined her.

November 1, 1662. Greitjen Hendricks Westercamp, plaintiff, vs. Pieter 
Jacobsen, defendant. Plaintiff exhibits to the Schout and Commissaries a 
certificate and deposition by seven women, who certify and declare that 
they were present at the birth of Grietje Westercamp's child, and that she 
swore three times that Pieter Jacobsen was the father of the child. The 
plaintiff asks for a vindication of her honor. The defendant says 
plaintiff did not behave as a decent girl should, and produces a 
certificate of Juriaen Westvael and his wife who declare that Grietjen 
Westercamp lay under one blanket with Jan van Breeman, with his daughter 
between them. Defendant, being interrogated, admits having conversed and 
lain with plaintiff, but did not promise marriage, and, besides gave her 
no money for it, and asks if a woman can be thirteen months and four days 
in the family way. The Schout and Commissaries order defendant to bring 
clearer proof at the court's next session.

January 9, 1663. Pieter Jacobsen, plaintiff, vs. Grietjen Westercamp. 
Plaintiff, by petition, asks to be released from defendant, so as to be a 
free man again and earn his living. Defendant requests fourteen days' 
time. The court again allows defendant fourteen days' time, and if she 
cannot bring proof, plaintiff shall receive the judgment of the court 
which, upon request, will meter out justice.

January 22, 1663. Pieter Jacobsen, plaintiff, vs. Grietjen Westercamp, 
defendant. Default.

February 6, 1663. Pieter Jacobsen, plaintiff, vs. Grietjen Westercamp, 
defendant. Plaintiff asks by petition that the court grant him justice 
against defendant. Defendant answers that plaintiff is the father of her 
child. He denies this, says it is not his child, and offers to affirm upon 
oath. Which he did before the court, saying, "I am not the father of the 
child: so truly help me God Almighty." Therefore, the court decides to 
allow plaintiff to marry any other person he pleases, and it is also 
thought proper, in view of several certificates previously shown by both 
parties to the court, that plaintiff shall, for the nonce, pay defendant 
two hundred guilders, on a former acknowledgement made by him that he did 
not compensate her for lying with her, and he is therefore bound to pay 
her for that service."

"Most upright judge." "O, upright judge." "O, learned judge." "A second 
Daniel, a Daniel."

This sad romance had, however, a happy sequel. The records of baptisms and 
marriages of the Dutch church at Wildwyck kept by Dominie Blom contain the 
following:--

"1661, October 1
Parents  Name of child and Witnesses and date of baptism sponsors
Pieter Jacobsen  "miller here"  Pieter Saertje  Staets Grietjen
1 Oct.  Willemje Jacobs Hendricks  Pieter Westercamp Hillebrantsen

1664
Jan Gerretsen, j. m. (young man) of Heerden and Grietjen Hendricks 
Westercamp, of Amsterdam in Nieunederlant, both resid. here.

"Dst nec virgo nec vidua." First publication of banns, 9 March; second, 16 
March; third, 23 March."

Good for you, Dominie Blom. You reversed the judgment of the court. You 
placed the hand of the church upon the head of the child and named him 
after him who Grietje declared was the father. Good for you, dominie, but 
you might have stretched a point and left that Latin off the record.

And Grietje, as the record shows, married the very best fellow in all the 
world and they lived happily together forever and a day. During the entire 
period covered by this history Stuyvesant was not only Director-General 
but as matter of fact he was the council. Its members were subservient to 
his commands. He ruled the colony. His will was law. He was obstinate, 
hasty, quick to anger, would not brook opposition and held a poor opinion 
of the people. Their voice did not weigh with him. They were meant to be 
governed and he was meant to govern them. "We derive our authority from 
God and the company, not from a few ignorant subjects," he declared, and 
he believed it and meant it. He was a devout member and a strong supporter 
of the Dutch Reformed Church. He would tolerate no other form of worship. 
He persecuted the Lutherans, the Baptists and the Quakers, and endeavored 
to drive them from the colony. He was a brave man, not moved by popular 
clamor or abuse. He knew the people and had their welfare at heart. He was 
an educated man, the son of a Dutch dominie. He believed in the education 
of the people and founded a public school. He was a thorough Dutchman. He 
was deeply interested both personally and officially in the welfare of New 
Netherland. He loved the fatherland with passionate devotion, and gave to 
her service the best years of his life. His ashes are mingled with the 
soil of the world's metropolis, whose foundations he helped to lay.

A government by a commercial monopoly could not last in New Netherland. 
Sooner or later the West India Company would have been compelled to 
relinquish the reins of power. Sooner or later the people would have 
governed themselves. They were the descendants of the men and women who 
had fought at Harlem and at Leyden, who had waged a hundred years' war for 
liberty, who had humbled the pride of Phillip II and forever driven the 
Spaniard from their country. Sooner or later independence from fatherland 
would have come and sooner or later, if the English had not come, who 
knows, the birth of a new republic might have been rung out from the bell 
in the steeple of the little church at Wildwyck, instead of the one in the 
belfry in Carpenters' Hall, Philadelphia.



CHAPTER XI - THE CHURCH

THE tenets of Calvinism as established by the Synod of Dordrecht for the 
Reformed Protestant Dutch Church was the national religion of Holland and 
of New Netherland. The oath of office, taken by the magistrates of 
Wildwyck, contained the provision, "that we will maintain and exercise the 
Reformed Church service and no other." The public exercises of religion 
were not allowed to any sects in Holland except the Calvinists. But all 
others were permitted to exercise their worship in private houses, which 
were in fact as if public, the places of preaching being spacious and of 
sufficient size for any assembly. The Prince of Orange, on accepting the 
office of stadtholder, declared to the world that he would "maintain and 
promote the Reformed religion and no other," but "that he should not 
suffer any man to be called to account molested, or injured for his faith 
and conscience." While for reasons of state he was obliged to issue a 
proclamation prohibiting the public exercise of the Romish religion, the 
document declared that it was not intended, "to impose any burden, or make 
inquisition into any man's conscience."

Dutchmen for near a century had waged a war to achieve liberty of 
conscience. What they had obtained for themselves they were willing to 
grant to all men. Holland became the refuge of the persecuted of every 
sect and every creed. Even the Puritan of New England imbibed from her 
free air, most of the faith for which he has been canonized. The Lutheran, 
the Baptist, the Quaker, the Jew, and the Catholic found a home in New 
Netherland and a place to worship God according to the dictates of their 
own conscience. but now, at the call of religious fanaticism, a glorious 
record was dimmed, the lustre of a precious heritage tarnished.

Stuyvesant was a bigot. On February 1, 1656, he and his council issued an 
ordinance forbidding all meetings, whether public or private, differing 
from those of the Reformed Dutch Church. Every person who took part in 
such meetings as preacher, reader or singer was fined one hundred pounds 
and every person found in such meetings twenty-five pounds. This law, the 
first against liberty of conscience that disgraced the statute book of the 
colony was instigated by the two Dutch dominies, Johannes Megapolensis and 
Samuel Drisius. Stuyvesant saw to it that this statute remained no dead 
letter. William Wickendam, a Baptist, was banished from the colony. Robert 
Hodgson, a Quaker, was chained to a wheel barrow with a negro and, on his 
refusal to work, was beaten with a tarred rope until he fell to the 
ground. But the law could not be enforced. Public opinion was against it. 
The English at Flushing openly refused to obey it. The West India Company 
disapproved of it and wrote Stuyvesant not to allow any more such statutes 
to be published, "but suffer the matter to pass in silence, and permit 
them free worship in their houses." The observance of Sunday was strictly 
enjoined. A number of ordinances were passed forbidding all unnecessary 
labor, sports, and the sale of liquor on that day. That of 1661 relating 
to Wildwyck, provided that no person on Sunday should perform "any work at 
his ordinary business, whether plowing, sowing, mowing, threshing, 
winnowing, transporting wood, hay, straw, or grain, grinding or conveying 
any goods to or from the strand, on the penalty of one pound Flemish for 
the first time, double as much for the second time, and four times double 
as much for the third time." No one should give entertainment in taverns 
or "sell or give away, under any pretext whatsoever, beer, wine, or any 
strong drink," and if any one was found drunk on Sunday he was fined one 
pound Flemish for the benefit of the officer and should be confined in the 
watchhouse during the pleasure of the magistrates. The court enforced this 
ordinance. The Schout charged that Mathys Constapel (the gunner) tapped 
(sold drinks) on Sunday and he denied it. Pieter van Alen was fined for 
"receiving people and selling them brandy during the sermon." Aert 
Jacobsen was fined one pound Flemish for taking a load of beer to his 
house on Sunday. Aert Jansen was fined six guilders for having "fired a 
shot on Sunday during the sermon."

Proclamations appointing days of fasting, prayer and thanksgiving were 
usually issued once a year. On such days, "all exercises of playing tennis 
or ball, hunting, fishing, driving, ploughing, mowing, all illicit 
amusements as dicing and hard drinking during divine service" were 
prohibited. Capito, the Schout, demanded that the court punish Mattheu 
Blanshan because, "after the second beating of the drum, he churned some 
milk on the day of fasting and prayer. Defendant answers that the drum 
beat only once, and that he had no milk for his calf, and he never in his 
life did this before." His plea was of no avail. He was fined six 
guilders, one-half for the church. An ordinance provided that whereas, it 
was necessary that the youth from childhood up be instructed "in the 
principles and fundamentals of the Reformed religion," the children should 
after divine service, in the presence of the dominie and elders, be 
examined, "as to what they have committed to memory of the Christian 
commandments and Catechism, and what progress they have made; after which 
performance, the children shall be dismissed for that day, and allowed a 
decent recreation." With all the world calling to them to come out of 
doors and play, think of those children, sitting there on the butt end of 
a log, trying to answer questions such as these:--

"What is thy only comfort in life and death?"

"Whence knowest thou thy misery?"

"What dost thou believe concerning the Holy Ghost?"

O poor little kids. O poor little kids.

They were pious people down there in Esopus. Away back in 1658, in 
appealing to Stuyvesant for aid against the Indians, they exclaim:--
"Christ did not desert us, but assisted and saved us and gave his own 
blood for us, Christ has gathered us in one sheepfold, therefore let us 
not desert each other, but rather help each other to alleviate our 
sufferings." They met on Sundays at the house of Jacob Jansen Stoll, where 
the scriptures were read, psalms sung, and prayers offered. Andries van 
der Sluys was precentor, i.e., leader, reader, chorister. In 1660 Jacob 
Joosten, the court messenger, acted in that capacity. There must have been 
trouble in getting van der Sluys paid for his services for in 1664 Aert 
Martensen Doorn sues Cornelis Barentsen Slecht for fifty guilders, "his 
share of the salary of the former reader, Andries van der Sluys."

During Stuyvesant's visit to Esopus in 1658 he had promised the people 
that their request for a dominie would be complied with. He entered into 
correspondence with the directors of the West India Company with the 
result, that the Rev. Hermanus Blom, who had been received into the 
Classis of Amsterdam January 4, 1655, was sent over, arriving at New 
Amsterdam in the ship "de Otter" in 1659. Blom, with Dominie Megapolensis, 
who had been preaching at Fort Orange and New Amsterdam, proceeded to 
Esopus, and on Sunday, August 17, 1659, Blom preached in the morning and 
afternoon. So well did the people like him that, on the same day, Jacob 
Jansen Stoll, Thomas Chambers, Juriaen Bestvaal, Jan Broersen, Dirck 
Goebsertsen, Jacob Jansen Stoutenborgh, Jan Jansen, Hendrick Cornelissen, 
Pieter Direksen and Cornelis Barentsen Slecht addressed a letter to 
Stuyvesant requesting that Blom be appointed their pastor. They promised 
to "treat him decently" and in order that he should be able to sustain 
himself "and be more encouraged in his work" they agreed to make a good 
"bouwery" for him, "provide it with a house, barns, cows and other cattle 
as proper to tend the land" so that he might cultivate it himself or hire 
it out advantageously. If he left or if he should die the "bouwery" to 
remain for the support of a minister.

Blom returned to Amsterdam for his final examination and ordination. On 
February 16, 1660, he was examined by the Classis of Amsterdam and 
preached on the text, "But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the 
love of God perfected; hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he 
abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked. Brethren, 
I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had 
from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard 
from the beginning."

The Classis liked the sermon and having passed the examination he was duly 
ordained "to the ministry with the laying on of hands" and sent to Esopus 
with the prayer, "the Almighty God, who has called this minister to the 
service of his church enrich him more and more with all talents and the 
blessings of his Holy Ghost, so that his labors may be crowned with 
abundant success, to the glory of his name, and salvation of men, and 
reward and adorn him, at the appearance of the great Shepherd of Sheep 
with the never fading crown of eternal glory."

Before leaving Amsterdam Blom married Anna Broeckhuysen. Blom returned to 
New Amsterdam in 1660. In consideration of the "cloth" Stuyvesant let him 
come in without payment of duties. Owing to the trouble with the Indians 
at Esopus he and Dominie Selyns, who had come over with him to be pastor 
at Breuckelen, remained some time at New Amsterdam, for which Stuyvesant 
allowed them one beaver per week for board and lodging.

The directors of the company wrote Stuyvesant that Blom was sent over, "at 
a yearly salary of six hundred guilders, the balance up to one thousand or 
twelve hundred guilders, which is to be raised by the community must not 
be counted and paid to him by them, but by your honors, as chief 
magistrates, for reasons which your honors will easily comprehend; the 
proper manner in which this is to be carried out is left to your honors 
judgment."

Quite crafty. The company wanted Blom to understand that he was not only a 
servant of the Lord but their servant, as they did the paying. Blom 
arrived at Esopus September 5, 1660. He preached his first sermon 
September 12, 1660. On the 26th of December, of the same year, he 
administered the Lord's Supper to Anna Blom, Jacob Joosten, Jacob Burhans 
and Maddelyn Jorisse, his wife; Anton Crepel and Maria Blanschan, his 
wife; Andries Barentse and Hilletjen Hendricks, his wife; Margriet 
Chambrits, Roeloff Swartwout and Eva, his wife; Cornelis Slecht and 
Tryntje Tysse, his wife; Albert Roosa and Meylke de Jongh, his wife.

The first baptism recorded is that of Sophia, the child of Hendrick 
Martensen, of Coppenhage, soldier, and Margriet Meyringh or Meyers, his 
wife, on December 11, 1660. The first marriage, that of Jan Jansen, 
carpenter, and Catharyn Mattysen on October 3, 1660. Between 1660 and 1665 
he baptised forty-eight children and married fourteen couples.

In 1661 the village built a parsonage for the dominie. It cost 3007.8 
guilders ($1,202.96). Stuyvesant purchased six thousand bricks for it at 
Fort Orange. It was thatched with straw or reeds until 1669, when tile 
were used. Divine service was held in it until a church was erected. It 
was also used as a school house and for public purposes. Previous to its 
erection Blom had been living in an upper room of the dwelling of Juriane 
Westvael, for which the village paid eighty florins rent. The court 
imposed a fine of eighteen guilders on Thomas Chambers for refusing to 
cart materials for the parsonage. As we have seen, in 1661, a land and 
excise tax was levied to pay for the parsonage. It is evident that the tax 
was not sufficient to cover the cost for in 1664 Fop Barense asked the 
court for fifty-seven and one-half schepels of wheat and one hundred and 
fifty-four guilders in wampum, amounts due for building the parsonage, and 
Paulus Cornelisen wanted one hundred and eight guilders in wampum for 
bricks for the same. Jan Willemsen Hoochteyling, one of the deacons, 
rendered an account showing that of the church money one hundred and 
fifty-five guilders, thirty-five stivers in wampum and from the poor 
money, three hundred and fifty-nine guilders in wampum had been used for 
building the parsonage. He asked the court where he could obtain payment 
and was politely informed by the magistrates that there was no money in 
the treasury, that they had no authority to raise any and he must wait 
until Stuyvesant came.

On March 4, 1661, Thomas Chambers, Cornelis Barentsen Slecht, Gertruy 
Andries, Roeloff Swartwout, Alaerdt Heymensen Roose, and Juriaen Westvael 
agreed in writing to give Blom as a salary for the first year, to commence 
September 5, 1660, the "sum of 700 guilders in corn, at beaver valuation, 
in case his farm should fail, and we promise further to put the farm in 
good order, according to contract, as soon as the land has been allotted 
and to raise that sum at the latest for the coming farming season. The 
subscribers to the seven hundred florins were:

Thomas Chambers	fl. 100
Dirck de Goier fl. 20
Jacob Jansen Stoll 100
Hendrick Sewantryger 20
Cornelis Slecht 50
Matys 20
Willem Jansen 50
Marten Harmensen 25
Jacob Jansen Stoutenbergh 50
Jan de Backer 12
Jan Broersen 15
Jan de Brabander 15
Willem Jansen 30
Juriaen Westvael 50
Albert Gouertsen 20
Pieter Dircksen 60 

Blom's path at Wildwyck was not strewn with flowers. As we have seen, he 
got into a row with the magistrates as to whether they or the church 
should administer the estates of persons dying without heirs, in which 
controversy Stuyvesant decided against him. In those old days, as in the 
present, the dominie's salary was always in arrears. Then, as now, the 
people desired spiritual food but were backward in furnishing material 
provender to he who served it. In December, 1663, Deacon Roosa asked the 
court that the dominie be paid his salary because the consistory had made 
default. The magistrates held that as the contract of March 4, 1661, was 
only for a year the congregation should agree with Blom for the remaining 
years. The dominie was compelled to resort to the court and in this year 
obtained judgments against a number of his parishoners for their share of 
his salary, among whom was this same Deacon Roosa. In February, 1664, the 
dominie addressed a letter to the court, again asking for his pay, 
concluding as follows: "I leave it to the judgment of the Honorable Court 
here itself whether it is not a sad and grievous thing that a minister of 
the Word of God is, as here, compelled, with such trouble and pains, to 
seek for, and request of and through the court, his long since earned 
salary, the which has never been seen or heard of in Christendom." And in 
1668, after his return to Holland, the good dominie, as he disappears from 
the records, plaintively appeals to the Rev. Classis "that a report may be 
made of his edifying ministry there (at Wildwyck) to the Hon. Directors of 
the West India Company, in the hope that something may be granted him on 
the arrears in his salary."

Dominie Blom was a brave man. An honest, conscientious man. None other 
would take his new-made wife out in the wilderness to preach the gospel of 
the Lord. He proclaimed the faith that was in him. A rare trait in these 
days. He fought with his people amid the smoke and flame of their homes in 
the Indian uprising of 1663 and, among the ruins, tenderly gave the 
consolation of his faith to the stricken. All honor to him and his memory. 
Here is a specimen of his eloquence:

"The Lord our God will make all turn out to the best for his church, and 
for the peace and quiet of the whole land. The mercy of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, the love of God the father, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost 
be and remain with you, my worthy colleagues forever; and may the Triune 
God give us all together after this strife, the crown of immortal glory; 
and should we no more behold each other here, may we see each other 
hereafter in our Bridegroom's chamber, securely sheltered behind the blue 
curtains of the Heavens--in the third Heaven of Abraham's bosom, where 
shall be joy without sorrow, and a never ending gladness, always and 
forever; and receive altogether the hearty greeting of me who am one of 
the least of the servants of Christ Jesus in the work of the Lord."



CHAPTER XII - WILDWYCK AND ITS PEOPLE

THE Indians gave names to localities, mountains and streams descriptive of 
the same. In 1655, Stuyvesant called Esopus Waerinnewangh, evidently after 
the tribe Waerranawongs, who frequented the mouth of the Rondout Creek. 
The word probably means "hollowing," "concave site," "cove," "bay," 
descriptive of that locality.

Dominie Megapolensis, writing in 1657, says that eighteen miles up the 
North River there is a place called by the Dutch "Esopus or Sypous," by 
the Indians "Atharhacton." The word probably means, a large field, an 
extent of country, land cleared and ready for tillage, descriptive of the 
land about Esopus. The deed from the Indians to Thomas Chambers, August 5, 
1657, calls the several parcels of land conveyed by it Machstapacick, 
Nachainekceck, Sepeeckcoe, Naranmapth, Wiwisowachkick. Cornelis Barentsen 
Slecht, in his petition for a deed of land he had bought of the Indians, 
says it was called by them Wichquanis. In 1661, Volckert Jansen and Jan 
Thomasen purchased of the Indians half of "an island lying Eastwards in 
the Kill by aforesaid Volckert Jansen's and Jan Thomasen's bouwery, 
including the little island near by, called by the Indians Nanoseck, and 
by the Dutch, Little Cupper's Island."

The location of the stockade, as built in 1658, has been given in a 
previous chapter. The Rev. John Miller, who visited in Kingston in 1695, 
made a map of the village as it then existed. He says "it is quadrangular 
and stockaded round, having small horn works at convenient distances, one 
from the other, and in proper places. It is in circumference near as big 
as Albany, but as to number of houses not above half so big; on the south 
side there is a particular part, separated from the rest by a stockade, 
and strengthened by a block house and a horn works wherein are six guns." 
The "particular part" having an additional stockade was at about the 
corner of Wall and Main streets, now occupied by the church yard of the 
First Reformed Church, where stood the church and burying ground. The 
"small hornworks" were at North Front street and Clinton avenue; at about 
North Front and Green streets; at the corner of Main and Clinton avenue 
and on Green street at the head of John.

Dominie Blom, in his description of the Indian attack upon Wildwyck in 
1663, says, "The houses were converted into heaps of stone." The dominie 
is speaking metaphorically. He was writing only five years after the 
building of the village in 1658. It is entirely clear from the records of 
the village that the dwellings of the people were log or board cabins of 
one story with a loft or garret. They had a chimney of stone or brick on 
the outside and a large open fireplace within. Some had wooden chimneys 
and others none, the fire being built on the floor, the smoke floating up 
through an opening in the roof. The houses were thatched with straw or 
reeds, which grew in inexhaustible quantities along the creek. At the time 
of the building of the stockade in 1658 the houses of the settlers, which 
were on both sides of the Esopus Creek, were torn down and moved within 
the stockade. This could hardly be if they were built of stone. The 
ordinances passed relating to dwellings clearly show how they were 
constructed. In 1659, the people of Wildwyck asked Stuyvesant that some 
order be made "regarding the thatch-roofs of houses, in which people live 
and make fires without chimneys." In 1661, an ordinance relating to 
Wildwyck was passed which provides that no person shall have any plastered 
or wooden chimneys, or kindle any fire in houses with walls or gables made 
of straw, or in the center on the floor of other houses covered with 
thatch, unless there be a good, solid plank ceiling and directs that fire 
wardens be appointed to inspect all chimneys. Brick and tile were used in 
building the parsonage, probably for the chimney and fireplace. This 
building, which was also used for the church and other public purposes, 
was thatched with straw or reeds. In July, 1669, the court ordered it be 
repaired and that it be covered with "straw or reed." In September of the 
same year this was reconsidered and it was ordered to be roofed with 
tiles. In 1662, Pieter de Rexmer sued Willem Jansen Stoll for "panes of 
glass sold and set" and in 1663 Huybrecht Bruyn brought an action against 
Jan Jansen for plastering walls, showing that conditions were improving. 
From all this it is clear that the old stone houses of which Kingston is 
so justly proud and which are all too fast disappearing are the product of 
a day later than that covered by this work.

The low lands bordering the Esopus Creek were devoid of forest and ready 
for the plow. For years they were the granary of the colony and the State. 
Even now their fertility is unsurpassed. As early as 1658 the farmers had 
sown nine hundred and ninety schepels (about 722 bushels) of wheat. A 
grist mill was necessary and one was built about 1661. It stood near the 
northwest corner of the stockade, the junction of the present Green and 
North Front streets. The power was furnished by what has since been known 
as the Tannery Brook, across which a dam was constructed. There was a gate 
in the stockade at this point and a road over the dam led to the New 
Village (Hurley). It was through this gate that the messenger rode on June 
7, 1663, with the tidings that the New Village had been destroyed by the 
Indians. Pieter Jacobson was the miller. In 1661, his charges for grinding 
corn were fixed by the court at eight stivers (16 cents) per bushel, from 
those who had no wampum he could deduct the tenth part. On March 31, 1664, 
Pieter Jacobsen van Holsteyn and Pieter Cornelissen, partners, mortgaged 
"their mill" to Nicolaes Meyer, merchant at Manhattan, for sixty-one 
schepels of wheat. During the Indian war of 1663, the mill was used as a 
barrack for the troops. In the same year Jan Albertsen van Steenwyck was 
granted a lot "below the fort on the bank of the kill to the southward of 
Barent Gerritsen's, to be used as a tannery and garden."

At the time of building the stockade in 1658, three carpenters came from 
Fort Orange, whom Stuyvesant had hired "to make a bridge over the kill." 
In September of the same year it was, with the exception of one beam, 
swept away by a freshet so that it could not be repaired, and the farmers 
were not willing to build a new one before winter. Some local historians 
state that this bridge was over the Esopus Creek. They are mistaken. The 
bridge was over the Tannery Brook near the northwest corner of the 
stockade. This brook was, within the memory of some now living, a 
considerable stream. As has been stated, it furnished sufficient power for 
a mill. The Esopus Creek was at least a quarter of a mile from the 
village. The settlers on its further side had removed their dwellings 
within the stockade. There would be no necessity for a bridge except to 
reach the lands on the other side of the creek, which was done for many 
years thereafter, by fording. Besides the Esopus was a large stream, given 
to sudden and very high freshets, to bridge it in those early days was too 
much of an undertaking for a few settlers with limited appliances. Just 
when another bridge was built over "the kill" the records do not state.

In March, 1662, Cornelis Barentsen Slecht sued Geertruyt Andrisse for one 
hundred forty-six guilders, ten stivers, "heavy money" advanced for 
building "the bridge." In 1663 Schout Swartwout complained that Aert 
Jacobsen had spoken disrespectfully of the court "at the bridge." In the 
same year the Schout asked the court to fine Henderick Jochemsen for 
having violated the ordinance of June 4, 1663, "in that he was in the 
field near the bridge without permission and a convoy." The defendant 
admitted "that he was at the bridge, as a sentry, as he with others 
present had to repair the bridge, but being unable to work because of a 
lame hand he therefore stood sentry for the laborers."

The records furnish no testimony that there were any residents within the 
present limits of Ulster County, except in and about Wildwyck and the New 
Village, up to the time of the surrender to the English in 1664, except 
possibly "the old sawyer." The records do not disclose his name but the 
story has long been told that "the old sawyer" in the early days lived 
upon the bank of the Hudson near the mouth of the Esopus creek in the 
present town of Saugerties. Captain Cregier's journal of the Indian war of 
1663 mentions some Catskill Indians being near "Sagers Kill." This stream, 
called the Saw kill or Sawyers kill, is in the northern part of the town 
of Saugerties and empties into the Hudson near the mouth of the Esopus 
creek at Saugerties village. The act of 1683 dividing the province of New 
York into counties makes this stream the northern boundary of Ulster 
County and the southern boundary of Albany County. On June 26, 1663, de 
Desker writes Stuyvesant that the Catskill Indians had said that the Dutch 
at Wildwyck should keep quiet "else all the houses on this side the 
Sagerskil would be burned." In the same year Cregier informs Stuyvesant 
that all the Indians above "Sagertjen" had agreed not to harm the Dutch. 
In the treaty of 1677 between Governor Andros and the Indians, by which 
they cede lands north of Kingston, it is stated that the Chief Kaelcop 
declared, "that he had ceded to the 'old sawyer' his claim upon a kill, 
called the 'Sawyer's Kill,' and the land stretching up to the boundary of 
the land belonging to the Katskil Indians along the river as far as the 
mountains above." In a survey of what is now the greater part of the 
village of Saugerties, made by order of Governor Deagan in 1785, the land 
is described as "being a piece of land called the Sagiers." A very careful 
writer upon all that pertains to the early history of Ulster County says 
that he has identified the "old sawyer" with Barent Cornelis Volge--also 
spelled "Vogel." That he has come into possession of an ancient deed, 
dated April 10, 1684, given by Volge to Richard Heyes, in which Volge 
describes himself as "late upon Hudson's river near Esopus, Sawyer." The 
deed conveys to Heyes--"a certain tract or parcell of land commonly knowne 
by the name of the Sargertuys Scituate, lyeing and being at a certaine 
Creeke or kill commonly called the Mother Kill and thence Runing along the 
said Hudson's river northerly to a Certaine small Island called by the 
name of Wanton Island, and from thence Due west into woods into the hills 
or Mountaines and sem along the same mountaines Southerly to the said 
Mother Kill and see down the said kill to the mouth thereof, where the 
land first began." The deed states that the land had been conveyed to 
Volge by Christopher Davis and Andrews Devors, date not given. It also 
recites that Volge had:--"Made great improvement thereon by building of 
houses, barns, Stables and Saw mills, all of which were unhappily 
Destroyed by the Indians. Since which, that is to say, in the years of our 
Lord, 1683, the Aforesaid Cornelisse built Another House upon the same for 
further Improvement of the Premisses."

The mystery that surrounds the "old sawyer" is not whether such a person 
existed but whether he carried on the business of a sawyer, had a saw mill 
on the Saw creek as early as the time he is first mentioned. According to 
the above deed the establishment of Volge was an extensive one. If it 
existed the settlers at Wildwyck must have known of it. If there was a 
mill why did Stuyvesant, in 1658, go to the trouble to go away up to Fort 
Orange for plank for the guard house? When was the plant destroyed? During 
the Indian troubles of 1655 or during the wars of 1659 or 1663? In all the 
voluminous record of the period there is not a word concerning such a 
plant or even that there was a settler in Ulster County north of Wildwyck. 
The deed to Volge does not state when the buildings had been erected or 
when destroyed. It was given twenty years after the "old sawyer" first 
appears in the record. However the question may be answered one fact 
remains. His memory is secure. His cognomen still lives in the name of the 
village and the town of Saugerties.

Wherever a Dutchman went the bell of a school house soon rang. At a time 
when half the population of England could neither read or write Holland 
had her universities and her colleges and above all placed the spelling 
book and the reader in the hands of every child. In 1658 Andries van der 
Sluys taught the children of Esopus reading and writing. In 1660 and 1662 
Jacob Joosten was schoolmaster. In 1666 Willem La Montagnie conducted a 
day and night school both winter and summer.

The population of Wildwyck and the New Village can only be approximately 
stated. At the time of building the stockade in 1658 there were "thirty 
fighting men" and a total of sixty or seventy people. In February, 1660, 
Stuyvesant stated to his council that the Esopus contained two or three 
villages, "each of twenty to twenty-four families." After the massacre of 
June 7, 1663, there were "sixty-nine efficient men."

Lots at Wildwyck were granted to forty-five different persons. Up to the 
time of the surrender to the English in 1664 land patents had been issued 
to sixteen persons other than those to whom lots had been granted. The 
excise tax of 1661 was levied against sixty-seven persons and the land tax 
of the same year against thirty-four. From all the data the total 
population at the time of the surrender to the English in 1664 was between 
two hundred and two hundred and fifty. The population was a cosmopolitan 
one. There were Dutch, English, French and German. The representatives of 
the last three wielded the greater influence in affairs.

Up to the time of the surrender to the English in 1664 the following 
patents or grants of land had been made to the below mentioned persons. A 
morgen is a little over two acres.

1653, Nov. 8, Thomas Chambers, Esopus, 38 morgens.

1654, Aug. 29, Juriaen Westphael, Esopus, 32 1/2 morgens. 

1656, Sept. 25, Christoffel Davits, Esopus, 36 morgens.

1657, March 27, Johan de Laet, widow of Johan de Hulter, Esopus, 500 
morgens.

1662, March 10, Thomas Chambers, "Pissemans Hoek," Esopus, 4 1/2 morgens.

1662, Dec. 7, Cornelis Barentsen Slecht, Esopus, 25 morgens.

1663, April 16, G. G. van Schaick and others, a new town, Esopus, 33
morgens.

1663, April 20, Philip Pieterse Schuyler, a new town, Esopus, 34 morgens.

1663, April 25, Jan Broersen and others, Wildwyck, 25 morgens.

1663, April 25, Jan de Wever, Esopus, 21 morgens.

1663, April 25, Anthony Crepel (Crispell), Kaelacp's land, Esopus, 8
morgens.

1663, J. Jans Oesterout, a lot, Wildwyck.

1663, Matys Blanchan, a lot, Wildwyck.

1663, April 25, Cornelis Wynkoop, near Esopus, 12 morgens.

1663, April 25, Louis DuBois, near Esopus, 20 morgens. 

1663, April 25, Roeloff Swartwout, near Esopus, 20 morgens.

1663, April 25, Henderick Cornelise, van Holsteyn, near Esopus, 2 morgens.

1663, April 25, Lambert Huyberts (Brink), near Esopus, 21 morgens.

1663, April 26, Jan Tomassen, near Esopus, 33 morgens. 

1663, April 28, Volckert Jans, 33 morgens.

1663, Dec. 10, Nicolaes Varleth, Esopus, 21 morgens.

1664, April 22, Thomas Chambers, Esopus, 22 morgens. 

1664, May 12, Margaret, wife of Chambers, 48 morgens. 

1664, May 17. Fredrick Philips, lot, Wildwyck.

1664, Aug. 19, Petrus Bavard, Esopus, 130 morgens.

1664, Aug. 19, Albert Heymans Roose (Roosa), a plantation, Esopus.

The patent to Johan de Laet was claimed to cover the village of Wildwyck, 
but this was denied by Stuyvesant. 

The patents to van Schaick, Schuyler, Crepel, Wynkoop, DuBois, Swartwout, 
van Holsteyn, Brink, Tomassen, and Volokert Jans were for land at the New 
Village (Hurley).

The cows were pastured in one common herd under the charge of a 
"cowherder." Catelyn, the Walloon, complained to the court that the 
cowherder did not drive her cows home in time and that he did not drive 
them home for two days. He replied that as she did not drive her cows to 
the herd, he could not take care of them. The court rendered the very 
sensible judgment that, "Catelyn shall drive her cows to the herd and that 
the defendant shall then take care of them."

Many of these pioneers could not write. They signed by making their mark. 
In this connection it should be remembered that each person chose a 
particular mark and always used it in signing instruments. His mark was 
synonymous with his name and is the most certain way of identifying 
persons bearing the same name.

Some of the people indulged in the luxury of linen shirts, the boys wore 
"leather breeches," while the women decked themselves with ribbons.

In 1657 the directors of the West India Company wrote Stuyvesant that "a 
redoubt at the Esopus" would be advantageous but the finances of the 
company would not permit it. Stuyvesant, however, went ahead and in 1660 a 
redoubt or fort was built on the Rondout creek, near its mouth.

Some soldiers were kept there and an officer to see that no liquors went 
to the village until they were entered with Jacob Burhans, the collector 
of the excise. After its erection the Dutch called the place "Rondhout." 
Authorities differ as to the meaning of the word Rondout. One that it 
means "standing timber." Another that it is a commercial term for "masts" 
or round timber, but is never applied to standing timber. That. the Dutch 
used the term palisades for logs set in the ground to form a stockade and 
also used the word "blockhuys" for a blockhouse so that there is no reason 
for thinking that the fort was called Rondout because it was built of logs 
or protected by palisades. That there is no Dutch word corresponding to 
redoubt. That the Dutch used the French term "redoute," pronounced in the 
French way. Another that the word has sometimes been derived from the 
Dutch "rondeel," meaning a round tower at the corner of a fortification. 
Another eminent Dutch scholar that the word would seem to be derived from 
the Dutch "rounduit," meaning "roundly out" or "out round," but what 
connection that could have with a fort on the creek it is difficult to 
see. Whatever may be the meaning of the word it has been perpetuated in 
the name of the former village of Rondout and the Rondout creek.

Nearly every one drank brandy and beer. The excise tax which was collected 
from all who purchased liquors was levied against sixty-seven persons, 
nearly all the adult male population. Dominie Blom paid fifty florins, 
only exceeded by Hendrick Jochems, seventy-five florins; Jacob Burhans, 
seventy-one florins; Barent Gerritzen, sixty-five florins; Cornelis 
Barentsen Slecht, seventy florins; and Thomas Chambers, eighty-four 
florins.

Barent Gerritsen and Mattheu Blanchan ran brandy distilleries, and Slecht 
a brewery. Mathys Roelefsen sued Aert Aertson Otterspoor; Jonas Ransou 
sued Evert Pals; Storm Albertsen sued Baerent Gerritsen; Elassjan Ransou 
sued Pieter Hillebrantss for brandy sold to them. Jonas Ransou owned up 
that he owed Elsjen Jans for "one can of brandy, one turkey, and three 
musjens (half pints) of brandy." Pieter van Alen was fined for selling 
brandy "during the sermon." Jan Baronse Amersfort and Sara Gilliasen were 
fined for smuggling liquors.

The Schout charged Mattheu Blanchan, who had a distillery, with violating 
the ordinance forbidding distillers from selling at retail in that he had 
sold, "a half anker of brandy to his brother-in-law, Lowys Dubo" (DuBois). 
The entire court went on horseback to the New Village and found the brandy 
at the house of DuBois. Blanchan was fined one hundred and twentyfive 
guilders, "one third to the poor, one third to the bench and one-third to 
the Schout. Blanchan appealed to the Court at New Amsterdam. Its 
magistrates wrote the court at Wildwyck that Stuyvesant had said that 
Blanchan owed no fine. They therefore advised that the matter between the 
Schout and Blanchan "be arranged and settled in love and friendship."

Here is an inventory, taken in 1663, of the property left by Hendrick 
Leoman. One gelden, one large brewing kettle, one sword and belt, one 
trunk without key, wherein was found, one letter case containing letters, 
and a note book with memoranda of outstanding debts and accounts, one old 
gray suit, one old gray colored pair of breeches, one new gray suit, two 
pair black woolen stockings, one new black hat and hat box, one bar lead, 
four small pieces of Haarlem cloth, one clothes brush, one trunk, two 
cravats, three handkerchiefs, one package containing about a pound of 
lead, one wagon frame, with iron tires."

Stuyvesant's proclamation of March 24, 1660, appointing that day as a day 
of fasting and prayer throughout the colony forbade all "illicit 
amusements as dicing and hard drinking" during divine service on that day 
shows some of the "amusements" of the people. On February 12, 1664, 
Dominie Blom, in the name of the consistory of the church, petitioned the 
magistrates of Wildwyck: "that the public, sinful and scandalous 
Bacchanalian days of Bastenseen (Shrove Tuesday), coming down from the 
heathens from their idol Bacchus, the god of wine and drunkenness, being 
also a leaven of Popery, inherited from the pagans, which the Apostle, in 
I Cor. 5, admonishes true Christians to expurge, may, while near at hand, 
be prescribed in this place by your Honors." The court informed the 
dominie that it would be glad to comply with the request "so far as its 
instructions permit." This petition. probably was aimed against the custom 
long prevalent "among the farmers of Gelderland and the borders of the 
Rhine to assemble at Shrovetide to `Pull the Goose,' which custom was 
introduced into New Netherland as early as 1654. On such occasions a 
goose, whose neck and head had been previously smeared with oil or soap, 
was fastened by a rope between two poles. Horsemen then entered the lists 
and, driving at full gallop, made an attempt to seize the prize. They 
would often miss their mark and fall to the ground. He who succeeded in 
bearing off the goose was declared king of the festival." Then, as now, 
the servant girl was a problem hard to solve. Gritodgen Hillebrants asked 
the court why her master, Juriaen Westgaer, discharged her. He replied 
that "when he was sick she went out every day and returned home late at 
night, and that he then said to her, 'where you have been during the day, 
go there also at night.'" The court would not listen to any such plea and 
ordered him to pay her "a quarters year's wages."

The people of Wildwyck were rather sensitive as to their reputation. 
Barent Gerritsen pommeled Hey Olfersen because he called him a scoundrel. 
Hey Olfersen charged Hester Douwens with calling him a thief. She told the 
court: "This is plain enough, because he took out of my house at night 
some flour and some pieces of meat, as set forth in the summons. I also 
miss a beaver, an otter, and a half beaver, as well as an anker of small 
beer, and the person who stole the one I guess must also have taken the 
other." Hey said he had taken some meat and flour at night because he was 
hungry "as she would not give me food and I was working for her I tried to 
procure it, since there was little or no food for sale here." The court 
let Hey out on bail that he might prepare his case and suspended judgment 
until the arrival of the "Noble Lord General." Hester pursued Hey even in 
his grave, for in September, 1663, she appeared in court, demanding seven 
schepels of wheat that his estate owed her.

On July 4, 1662, Mathys Blanchan appeared before the court and demanded 
vindication of his honor. He said: "That Juriaen told his wife that it was 
reported that Dirck Adriaensen said to her he had seen Matheu Blanchan 
beat Juriaen Westvael's pig. Defendant Juriane Westvael and his wife admit 
having heard this from Dirck Adriaensen, and state that Pieter Janson also 
heard it. Defendant Direk Adriaensen denies this, and says he did not say 
so. The Schout and Commissaries order the parties to preserve the peace, 
and sentence Dirck Adriaensen to pay a fine of six guilders for the poor."

Gysbert van Imbrogh sued Altsen Sybrants for calling him a Jew and a 
sucker. She defended upon the ground that he had called her a heap of 
dung.

Tryntje, the wife of Slecht, told the court that she was sorry that she 
had called the "Noble Lord Johan de Decker a bloodsucker." "She spoke 
while depressed and discouraged because of the many misfortunes that had 
befallen her through the savages." The court preferred "mercy to the 
severity of justice" and therefore fined her only twenty-five guilders in 
wampum, "for the benefit of the church."

Paulus Paulusen sued Eva Swartwout for saying he stole twelve chickens. 
Gerret Fooken and Pieter Cornelissen testified that they "did not 
personally hear that plaintiff stole twelve chickens from her, but that 
they heard that she said, while plaintiff chased a hen out of the barn, 
'Whoever would do the one would do the other.'"

The wife of Cornelis Barentsen Slecht was midwife of the village.

The court records are almost entirely free of complaints for criminal 
offenses. None of the graver crimes, murder, arson, rape, or burglary 
appear. Those that were made were almost all for assault and it is evident 
that the parties charged were simply "on a spree." This is a most 
remarkable fact and speaks volumes for the character of the people.

Thomas Chambers was charged with wounding Jan Jansen, his brother-in-law, 
with a knife.

Jonas Ransou charged Mathys Roeloofsen with "murderously attacking him at 
night." Hey Olfersen complained that Barent Gerretsen "beat and kicked him 
and trampled upon him." The defendant admitted it and said that he did it 
because Hey called him a scoundrel. The court referred the matter to 
arbitrators. The Schout charged Paulus Tomassen with assaulting him and 
threatening to shoot him. The defendant said he was drunk and does not 
know what occurred. The court ordered defendants to settle with the Schout 
"or to work one month on the dam, at his own expense, and to pay all costs 
that have been incurred; and in case he cannot arrive at a settlement with 
the Schout, that he shall give bail to the court against running away, or 
shall be chained while working on the dam." On November 20, 1663, the 
Schout complained that Tjerck Glaesen (de Witt), who was then a 
magistrate, was armed with a knife in the house of Albert Gysbertsen and 
acted "as if he wished to kill every man, woman, and child." The court 
advised that as defendant had settled with Gysbertsen "he shall remain 
away from the bench until he shall have settled and adjusted this matter 
with the Schout." The parties must have got together because on December 
18, DeWitt is once more upon the bench.

The following are the values and quantities of the Dutch coin, weights and 
measures referred to in this work: A stiver, two cents. A guilder, forty 
cents. A pound Flemish, two dollars and forty cents. A daelder, sixty 
cents. A Dutch mile, 4.611 statute miles. A morgen, 2.103 acres. An anker, 
10 gallons. A schepel, 0.764 bushels, about three pecks. A muddle, four 
schepels. A musjen, a half pint. A vim, a stack of 104 to 108 sheaves of 
grain.

As we have seen in the chapter devoted to "Government," little if any coin 
circulated in the colony. A beaver was the standard of value, and was 
worth about eight guilders, $3.40. Wampum was the circulating medium. Its 
value was fixed by ordinance and constantly fluctuated between six or 
eight white and three or four black beads for a stiver. All financial 
transactions were carried on in wampum, wheat or other grain. Wheat in 
1663 was worth about thirty cents a bushel; at Wildwyck, in 1664, ninety 
cents. Three schepels of oats were worth one of wheat. The following are 
some of the prices paid at Wildwyck: Two cows, two hundred guilders in 
corn. One cow, one hundred and fifteen guilders. A pig, five and six 
schepels of wheat. A team of horses, four hundred guilders in wheat. 
Another team, six hundred guilders, beaver value. One horse, one hundred 
and six schepels of wheat. An anker of brandy, forty schepels in oats. An 
anker of wine, eighty guilders in wampum. A hat, six schepels of wheat. A 
pair of shoes, one half schepel of wheat. Three blankets, eleven guilders 
each. Two and one quarter ells duffels, seven guilders, four stivers. Two 
thousand brick, two muddle of wheat. Rent of a farm for five years, two 
thousand guilders. Rent of a house, four guilders per month. Rent of a 
house for a year, forty guilders. A house, barn and lot sold for seven 
hundred guilders in wheat and oats. Land sold for ten or twelve guilders 
per morgen. Interest ranged from ten to twelve per cent. Two days mowing 
grass, two schepels of wheat. One day's work, two guilders in wampum. 
Putting up two brandy stills, an axle with which to grind, and a malt 
kiln, fourteen schepels of wheat. Threshing per day, one guilder, ten 
stivers in wampum. Harvesting, two guilders, ten stivers in wampum. Making 
a plow, three beavers. Wages of a boy for the first year, ten schepels of 
wheat and a pair of "leather breeches." For the second year, fifteen 
schepels of wheat. Thirteen days' carpenter work, ten schepels of wheat. 
The Sergeant of the militia got twenty guilders per month, the soldiers 
eight to ten guilders. The fare from Manhattan to Wildwyck for a man, his 
wife and children was sixteen guilders in wampum.

Gysbert van Imborch sued Gerret Fooken for "a quantity of thirty-three and 
one-half schepels of wheat due him from defendant and his partner, Jan 
Gerretsen, in which sums are included six schepels of wheat for shaving 
and doctor's bill for Jan Gerrets, for a whole year. He also demands from 
defendant two schepels of wheat for doctor's fee during his sickness after 
said time."

Here is Doctor Imboroch's library: In folio, a Dutch Bible. History of 
Emanuel Van Meteren. Titus Livinus, in Dutch. Medicine book of Christopher 
Wirtsungh. Medicine book of Johannes DeVigo. Medicine book of Ambrosius 
Paree. Book on the mixing of wine. A Versaly & Valuerda Anatomy. Frederick 
Henry of Nassau, his life and works. In Quarto, Johan Sarcharson. General 
exhibit of Holy Writ. Bacchus Wonderworks. Bernhard Van Sutphen Practice. 
Sebastian Frank's World's Mirror. Receuil of Amsterdam. A German (work on) 
medicine and products of art. A written medicine book. A German manual of 
the Catholic Faith. Another written medicine book. Redress of the nobility 
of Holland by Johan Geul. In Octavo, Two books on the perfection and 
perspicuity of the Word of God, by Albert Hutteman. A French Catechism. 
Bee-hive of Aldegonde. Arithmetic, by Jan Belot Dieppois. Chronicles of 
the lives and works of the Kings of England. Medical remarks by Nicolaes 
Tulp. German medical manual, by Q. Apollinaron. d'Argenis, by J. 
Barckilaj. Confession of faith, by P. Paulus Van Venetien. Treatise on the 
faith, by Henry Hexman. Examination of surgery, by Mr. Cornelis Herls. A 
written medicine and student book. German song book. Book on surgery, 
without a title. Arithmetic, by Sybrand Hansen Cardinael. In Duodecimo, 
Characteristics of the children of God. Jan Tafhn. The Golden Harp. Royal 
road to Heaven. Two tracts, by Petrus Molinej. Meditations on the 51st 
Psalm. Twelve "Devotions," by Philip Kegel, in German.

School books in quarto, 8 Stories of David. 3 last wills. 17 beautiful 
proofs of man's misery. 3 General Epistles.

School books in octavo, 100 Catechisms. 23 Stories of Joseph. 102 A. B. C. 
Books. 27 Arts of Letters. 19 large "Succinct Ideas." 20 small "Succinct 
Ideas."

9 "steps" of youth. 13 proofs of human misery. 8 books of the Gospel and 
the Epistles. 48 "Succinct Ideas," by Jacobus Borstius. 1 "Short Way," by 
Megapolensis.

Among other effects left by the doctor were, a barber's saw, a wig with a 
wreath, a wine glass with pewter foot, a barber's grindstone and a blue 
shaving towel.

At the auction of his property in 1665 a schepel of wheat was valued at 
six guilders, of rye at four and one-half guilders, buckwheat, three 
guilders; oats, two guilders; barley, four guilders; white peas, four 
guilders; gray peas, five guilders; a milch cow sold for one hundred and 
fifty guilders; two milch goats and a young buck sixty-four guilders; 
three winter hogs, two males and one female, twenty-one guilders.



CHAPTER XIII - AFTERMATH

THE city of Kingston is usually called that Old Dutch Town. Its early 
settlers are devoutly believed to have been simon-pure Dutchmen and their 
descendants are very proud of their lineage. In part, this is true. But it 
is a misnomer. The Amsterdam of the old world and the Amsterdam of the new 
were as cosmopolitan as New York City is to-day. They were the abode of 
nearly every race and cities of refuge for every persecuted sect, 
Catholic, Protestant, Quaker and Jew. This was true, to the extent of its 
population, of Esopus and Wildwyck. While the Dutch element predominated, 
other nationalities were represented and these constituted many of the 
most prominent and influential citizens. Matthew Blanschan, Louis DuBois, 
Anthony Crispell, Nicolas DePuy, the Hasbrouck brothers and others were 
French. Every Pels, a Pomeranian. Hendrick Schoonmaker, a German; Pieter 
and Huybrecht Bruyn, Norwegians. Christopher Davis, William Carpenter and 
others, English. Above and beyond all the first pioneer, he who led these 
Argonauts to the new El Dorado, the most influential man in the 
settlement, he whose word went further than even that of Stuyvesant, was 
the red-headed English carpenter, Thomas Chambers.

While it does not fall within the period covered by this history, it may 
be well to briefly relate the story of the planting of the village of New 
Paltz, about sixteen miles south of Kingston, as it concerns many of the 
first settlers of Wildwyck. In the Indian war of 1663, when Wildwyck and 
the New Village (Hurley) were burned, among those carried away captives by 
the Indians were the wife and three children of Louis DuBois, two children 
of Matthew Blanschan and the wife and child of Anthony Crispell. The story 
of the expedition led by Captain Kregier to rescue the captives has been 
told in Chapter VII. Among his company was Louis DuBois and Anthony 
Crispell. This small armed force followed the Wallkill river to the 
present town of Shawangunk where they found the fort of the Indians, which 
was destroyed. The captives were rescued and the power of the Indians 
forever broken so they ceased to be a terror and a menace to the whites.

Between this time and 1677, Jean and Abraham Hasbrouck, Louis Bevier, Hugo 
Freer, Christian Deyo and others had settled at Kingston or Hurley. All of 
these, including Louis DuBois and many of the early settlers were French 
Huguenots from the Palatinate, that ill-defined territory roughly embraced 
in what in 1871 was Alsace and Lorraine and Wurtenburg in Germany. They 
desired a home by themselves in which they could freely speak their own 
language, practice their own religion and have their peculiar manners and 
customs. Louis DuBois and those who had been in the expedition of 1663 had 
not forgotten the beautiful valley of the Wallkill. So in 1677 Louis 
DuBois, Abraham DuBois, Isaac DuBois, Christian Deyo, Pierre Deyo, Abraham 
and Jean Hasbrouck, Andrew and Simon LeFevre, Louis Bevier, Anthony 
Crispell and Hugo Freer purchased of the Indians a tract of land lying in 
the present town of New Paltz on both sides of the Wallkill river. This 
purchase was afterwards confirmed by patent of Governor Andros. Thus was 
laid the foundation of the village of New Paltz, named from the "Pfals," 
as they called the Palatinate. Other Huguenots found here a home and for 
many years it continued to be a French Huguenot settlement. Its settlers 
and many, very many of their descendants were strong, able men, who in 
large measure, have shaped and controlled the history of Ulster County.

A word to those who are interested in tracing their descent from the 
Dutch. Because the name you bear appears in the Dutch records and sounds 
Dutch, do not be sure that it is so. The Dutchmen who kept the records 
spelled an English, French or German name phonetically, thus making it 
appear to be a Dutch name. In using the records the system of nomenclature 
employed by the Dutch should be kept in mind. They had, except in few 
instances, no surnames. Those who had seldom used them. A person's name 
was simply John, or Peter or Hendrick. John had a son who was named 
Cornelis and it would be written Cornelis Johnsen. That is, "sen" or "se" 
would be added to the name of the father, signifying the son of. Cornelis 
would have a son named Martin. His name would not be written Marten 
Johnsen but Martin Cornelisen or Cornelise. You would search the records 
in vain for a Martin Johnson. The Dutch "van" means "of" or "from" and was 
used to designate the place from whence the person came or the place of 
his residence or nativity. Thus the name of the first Van Buren who came 
to this country was Cornelis Maesen, that is Cornelis the son of Maes, the 
Dutch for Thomas. He sailed from Holland in 1631 and settled at 
Rensselaerswyck, now Albany. His name appears in the log-book of the ship 
in which he sailed from Holland as Cornelis Maessen van Buren, thus 
designating that he came from the Province of Buren in Holland. The names 
of neither of his children are written Van Buren. Thus the son Martin is 
Martin Cornelissen, never Martin Maessen, or Martin Van Buren. It is not 
until the grandchildren of Cornelis Maessen that Van Buren was adopted and 
used as the family name.

This is true of all the "Vans." It does not follow that the particular 
"Van" whose name you bear was a Dutchman. Holland, as has been said, was 
very cosmopolitan, and the Van Buren, or Van Etten, or Van Slyke or any 
other of the many "Vans" may simply mean the place from which he sailed or 
in which he lived. The high-sounding "Van" from whom you trace your 
descent of which you are so proud may have been some very common John of 
almost any nationality. My paternal ancestor Cornelis Maessen, came to 
this country under a contract with Kiliaen Van Rensselaer, to work for him 
for three years, "no exception as to any kind of work being made" at his 
manor of Rensselaerswyck. His coat of arms must have been an axe, a 
shovel, a pick, a hoe and a flint lock.

But few of the Dutch settlers could write. They signed documents by making 
their mark. Each person had his own particular mark. The most certain way 
of identifying one person from another who has the same name is by a 
comparison of such marks.

The Dutch were a strong people. They had spent centuries in wresting their 
half-submerged land from the waters of the ocean. Over a century in a 
struggle with the most powerful nation in Europe to achieve liberty for 
themselves and their children. They were educated far beyond any other 
people of Europe. They were brave, honest, frugal, pertinacious, intensely 
conservative, strictly kept the conjugal tie, believed in an ever-living 
God and their religious creed. They were afraid of and bent the knee to no 
man. Such were the people who settled the land of the Esopus and peopled 
the valley of the Hudson. They have left their impress upon every page of 
the history of the Empire State and, in large measure, their influence has 
controlled, shaped and fashioned the path that the Great Republic has 
trod.

In order to know the real history of Wildwyck we must know who and what 
its people were. What did they do. How did they live. What were their 
beliefs and their ideals. What were they striving to accomplish. These 
matters I have endeavored to portray in the preceding pages. Let us 
briefly recapitulate. Why did they come to the Esopus. I have told you 
that the first settlers came from Rensselaerswyck. Go read the lease 
between Kiliaen van Rensselaer, its patroon, and Thomas Chambers and you 
will receive your answer. His tenants were his serfs, his slaves, his 
chattels. The blood of an Englishman ran in the veins of Chambers. For 
generations his fathers had asserted that across the threshold of their 
homes even the King of England could not pass without permission. And 
those Dutchmen up there. They were the descendents of the men and women 
who for over a hundred years had battled for freedom, for the right to 
govern themselves without the aid of prince, king or emperor. And so, to 
attain liberty, freedom, for the right to plant their feet upon a spot of 
ground and to say to all the world hands off, this is mine, they braved 
every danger, faced every peril and came down to the land of the Esopus.

They lived in small log huts thatched with straw or reeds. They wore 
coarse clothes and in winter were clothed in skins. They subsisted upon a 
little grain, pork, beef, game and fish. They were afraid of neither man, 
God or the devil, but they laid deep the foundation of the Empire State.

At a time when over one-half the population of England could neither read 
or write, Holland had her colleges and her universities and above and 
beyond all, her public schools. The blood of the fatherland asserted 
itself. One of the first things these Dutchmen did wag to employ a teacher 
for their children. They knew that the school house was the cradle of 
liberty. They wished their children to have a better education than they 
had enjoyed. They desired that every child should have an equal chance 
with every other child. The bell of every school house that rings out in 
the Great Republic is rung by the spectral hand of a Dutchman.

These pioneers were Godfearing men and women. To them the Bible was really 
the word of God. Higher criticism had not yet appeared. To them the 
Dominie was really the servant of God. He was reverenced and obeyed. His 
opinions were respected and upon nearly every question turned the scale. 
He was the leading man of the community and guided and in part controlled 
all that was done. The church and this old faith moulded and fashioned 
their lives. It lifted them to a nobler level and a higher plane. It made 
them better, purer men and women. It sustained them in every hour of trial 
and every hour of peril and to its influence we can trace nearly all the 
good they accomplished.

Some of these pioneers brought their wives with them. Others married here. 
The record contains but little concerning the woman of Wildwyck. From 
scattered data in the records and musty old papers her portrait may be 
truly painted. She had large hands, large feet and was usually of very 
ample proportions. She never dreamed of trying to reduce fat. Go down to 
New York and watch the immigrants land and you will see thousands very 
much like her.. She was what the dainty dame of to-day would describe as 
rough, coarse, ignorant, uncultivated. If she were here to-day there are 
but few, very few women who boast of belonging to polite society and of 
their descent from this same woman who would dream of inviting her to 
their table, yet, in large measure, she made possible the sumptuous home 
they enjoy. But she was a woman in all that the word implies. She assisted 
her husband build their log hut, plant the grain and gather the crops. She 
was a good cook and there was rarely a servant in her home. In the absence 
of the men, at the appearance of the Indian, she grasped the rifle, 
gathered her children about her and defended them even unto death. She 
reared her children to reverence God, to go to church, to become decent, 
pure, honest men and women. She had no other thought than the welfare of 
her family and her home: In short, she was what God Almighty designed a 
woman to be-the noblest, the holiest thing on earth, the helpmate of her 
husband and the mother of mankind. Such is the picture of these old 
settlers as I read it in the records. May their virtues be emulated by us. 
Their sins have long ago been forgiven and forgotten.