Brutal Assault on Split Rock Road in Pelham in 1859

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.

Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.

Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

For many years during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Pelham was a desolate and, occasionally, dangerous place.  As in the Old West, highwaymen preyed on travelers passing through Pelham on dark and deserted roadways.  There are countless news stories of highway robberies and brutal assaults on desolate Pelham roads during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

One such attack occurred on October 6, 1859.  Mrs. Elizabeth F. Roosevelt was visiting family in Pelham and New Rochelle.  That day she climbed into her carriage and headed for Throgg's Neck to visit friends.  

At about mid-day, she proceeded along "Pelham Road" (today's Shore Road) and approached Pelham Bridge.  She overtook a young man walking along the roadway shortly before she reached the bridge.  As she approached him, she was struck by the odd way he acted.  On hearing the approach of her carriage, he turned completely around and stared at her intently until she had passed entirely.  Mrs. Roosevelt drove over the bridge, took out her purse, paid the toll, and proceeded to Throgg's Neck to visit her friends.  

Towards evening, she hopped back in her carriage for the return trip.  She passed over Pelham Bridge onto Shore Road and continued to "Prospect Hill Road" (i.e., today's Split Rock Road that once extended from Shore Road to Boston Post Road).  After proceeding only a "short distance" on that road (onto the grounds of today's Split Rock and Pelham Bay Golf Courses), she was struck with a violent blow on the right side of her forehead "which was twice repeated."  She suffered a two inch gash that cut "through to the skull" and was beaten badly.  Before she became "insensible," she realized that while her horse continued to pull the carriage, a man by the side of the vehicle had his arms raised and was attempting to get in the carriage.  

There is no account regarding how Mrs. Roosevelt escaped.  All we know is that she "remained in a state of stupor" for two weeks after the brutal beating.  During the incident, she never saw the man's face, but she believed that she recognized "from the dress and portion of the person seen" before she became insensible that her attacker was the young man she had passed on Shore Road near Pelham Bridge earlier that day.  

Police soon arrested young Charles B. Smith, a "respectable" and well-connected young man.  He was indicted for assault and battery with intent to kill or rob Mrs. Roosevelt.  He hired the best and most-connected counsel possible.  The prosecutor's office responded by retaining one of New York City's most notable criminal lawyers of the day, John Sedgwick, to assist with prosecuting the case against Charles B. Smith.

The two-day trial of the criminal case was held at the Courthouse in Bedford, New York on June 5-6, 1860 before a panel of three judges of the Court of Sessions:  Hon. William H. Robertson, County Judge, presiding; Hon. Samuel Tompkins, a Justice of Sessions; and Hon. William Miller, a Justice of Sessions.  Because the matter was considered "one of importance" and involved such sensational charges against a well-connected young man, the courthouse was packed.  Former Connecticut Governor William T. Minor, who knew the young man, was in attendance.  

Things seemed bleak for the young man.  In addition to Mrs. Roosevelt's testimony identifying him as the man she passed on Shore Road and the man she believed attacked her, the prosecution entered evidence of compromising conversations the young man had with an investigator.  Although counsel on both sides of the case tried the matter "with much tact, courtesy, and ability," the eloquent performance of J. W. Tompkins, attorney for the defendant, seems to have been exceptional.  According to one account, the "argument of Mr. Tompkins for the prisoner was unsurpassed by his former efforts at the bar, for strength, ingenuity, and eloquence."  The same account noted that the "Court House was densely crowded with spectators; and during the summing up of counsel breathless silence prevailed."

The jury soon returned its verdict of not guilty.  Charles B. Smith was freed.  No other culprit seems ever to have been identified or charged.  Elizabeth F. Roosevelt, it seems, would have no justice for the attack on her by a highwayman on a Pelham roadway.

*          *          *          *          *

Below is the text of an account of the trial of Charles B. Smith.  It is followed by a citation and link to its source.  

"COURT PROCEEDINGS. . . . 

COURT OF SESSIONS.

This Court convened at the Court House in Bedford on Tuesday, the 5th instant.  Present -- Hon. WILLIAM H. ROBERTSON, County Judge, presiding;

SAMUEL TOMPKINS, Esq.,     }
                                                  }  Justices of Sessions.
WILLIAM MILLER, Esq.,           }

URIAH HILL, Jr., of Cortlandt, was appointed Foreman of the Grand Jury, and JOHN C. HOLMES, Esq., of Lewisboro, Clerk.  A large number of indictments were found, as follows:  2 for murder, 2 for robbery in the first degree, 2 for burglary in the third degree, 1 for grand larceny, 1 for attempting to poison, 3 for selling liquor without license, 2 for attempting to kill, and 4 for assault and battery.

The following cases were disposed of:

The People vs. Charles B. Smith.  --  This case was one of importance.  The prisoner was indicted for an assault and battery on Mrs. Elizabeth F. Roosevelt in Pelham, with an intent to kill or rob.  Governor Minor, of Connecticut, who had been his counsel in other matters, was in attendance on the first day of the term.  The prisoner was respectably connected.  The complainant by marriage was a niece of Judge Roosevelt.  Eminent counsel of the County were employed on either side -- Sedgwick of New York, a criminal lawyer of the first order, was also retained for the prosecution.  The case was tried with much tact, courtesy, and ability.  The argument of Mr. Tompkins for the prisoner was unsurpassed by his former efforts at the bar, for strength, ingenuity, and eloquence.  Other counsel, on both sides, made masterly arguments, of which they may justly be proud.  The trial continued to two days.  The Court House was densely crowded with spectators; and during the summing up of counsel breathless silence prevailed.  

The facts disclosed upon the trial were these:  Mrs. Roosevelt had been passing the season at New Rochelle.  On the 6th of October last she visited from friends at Throgg's Neck.  As she was passing over the river road [i.e., today's Shore Road], alone in her carriage, and approaching Pelham bridge, she discovered a man walking in the same direction.  On hearing the approach of her vehicle, he turned completely around and gazed at her until she passed.  This man she pronounced to be the prisoner.  This was about mid-day.  She drove over the bridge, took out her purse, paid the toll, and proceeded to Throgg's Neck.  On her return home, towards evening, after leaving the River road and proceeding a short distance upon Prospect Hill road [i.e., today's Split Rock Road that once extended from Shore Road to Boston Post Road], she received a violent blow on the right side of her forehead, which was twice repeated.  The wound was two inches and a half in length, cutting through to the skull.  She received other injuries.  After the infliction of the blows, she saw a man standing by the side of the wagon with his arms raised, and attempting to get in the wagon.  She did not see his face, but from the dress and portion of the person seen, she had no doubt that this man was the prisoner.  The horse passed on -- she became insensible, and for two weeks remained in a state of stupor, during which period her [illegible] in danger.

The prosecution gave in evidence several conversations of the prisoner in reference to the attack, elicited by an employee of Matsell & Co., who is certainly one of the shewdest and most adroit men connected with that or any other police establishment in the country.  Other facts and circumstances were proved by the respective parties with a view of establishing the prisoner's guilt or innocence.  The Jury rendered a verdict of not guilty.  --  William H. Pemberton, District Attorney, James P. Sanders, John Sedgwick, for the People; P. L. McClellan, John S. Bates, J. W. Tompkins, for the prisoner. . . ."

Source:  COURT PROCEEDINGS. . . . COURT OF SESSIONS -- The People vs. Charles B. Smith, Eastern State Journal [White Plains, NY], Jun. 15, 1860, Vol. XVI, No. 6, p. 2, col. 4.  

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

Was Abraham Lincoln Ever in Pelham?

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.

Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.

Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

A number of American Presidents have had connections, however fleeting, to the Town of Pelham.  These include George Washington, Martin Van Buren, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Grover Cleveland, Warren G. Harding, and Chester A. Arthur.  In fact, like so many others, Pelhamites have proudly proclaimed for nearly two hundred years that "George Washington slept here."  According to tradition, on "several occasions" George Washington spent the night in a home owned by Colonel Philip Pell III (who was among Washington's senior leadership in the Continental Army and rode triumphantly with Washington into New York City on Evacuation Day).  Pell's home was located near today's Colonial and Cliff Avenues.  The home since was destroyed by fire.  See Barr, Lockwood, A Brief, But Most Complete & True Account of the Settlement of the Ancient Town of Pelham Westchester County, State of New York Known One Time Well & Favourably as the Lordshipp & Mannour of Pelham Also the Story of the Three Modern Villages Called the Pelhams, pp. 119, 143-44 (Richmond, VA: The Dietz Press, Inc. 1946).

I previously have written about connections between American Presidents and the Town of Pelham.  See, e.g.:  

Mon., Feb. 21, 2005:  Presidents Day Post: American Presidents and Their Connections To Pelham.  

Wed., Mar. 25, 2015:  Pelham Mourned the Death of FDR as His Body Passed Through the Town by Train on April 15, 1945.

Fri., Jun. 03, 2016:  More Newspaper Accounts of President Martin Van Buren's Visit to Pelham in 1839.  

Mon., Aug. 29, 2016:  President Grover Cleveland Passed Through Pelham Waters on August 22, 1894.

Today's posting to the Historic Pelham Blog explores whether one of the greatest American presidents, Abraham Lincoln, was ever in Pelham.  The only opportunity I previously have had to write about Abraham Lincoln involved the announcement of the assassination of President Lincoln that was delivered at the Rebel prisoner of war camp in Pelham on April 15, 1865.  See Fri., May 21, 2010:  The Announcement of President Abraham Lincoln's Assassination in Pelham, NY on April 15, 1865.  

With the critical transportation arteries of the New Haven line and the Boston Post Road that pass through the heart of Pelham, it truly should come as no surprise that Abraham Lincoln was, in fact, in Pelham.  Lincoln passed through the little settlement of Pelhamville on a New Haven Line night train the evening of March 10, 1860 during his campaign for the presidency.

Daguerreotype of Abraham Lincoln Probably

Taken in Springfield, Illinois on Sep. 23, 1858 by

Christopher S. German, From a Private Collection.

NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

Presidential campaigns today seem to begin as soon as Inauguration Day concludes and last nearly until the last polling place closes on election night.  That was not the case in the 1850s and 1860s.  

In early March, 1860, Abraham Lincoln was in the midst of his last few public campaign speeches before the Republican Convention in May and the November election.  On February 27, 1860, Lincoln delivered his famous Cooper Union speech, then known as the Cooper Institute speech.  The speech is considered by some notable historians to have been one of his most important speeches and the one most likely responsible for his victory in the presidential election.  He used the speech to demonstrate, based on his own painstaking research, that the Founding Fathers would have agreed with Lincoln's position that slavery should not be expanded into the western territories.

After his Cooper Union triumph that was widely-hailed and trumpeted by newspapers throughout the nation, Lincoln immediately embarked on a two-week speaking tour in the northeast.  He spoke at least every business day at campaign appearances during that time and attended other campaign events and local churches (and made a few speeches)  on the weekends. 

On March 6, Lincoln took the Hartford & New Haven Railroad to New Haven where he gave a rousing speech in Union Hall.  The following day, March 7, Lincoln took his special train to Meriden, Connecticut.  As Lincoln's train made stops between New Haven and Meriden, more than six hundred Republicans hopped aboard hoping to see Lincoln and attend his speech in Meriden.  According to one account, "[b]y the time the train reached Wallington the cars were so packed that a hundred people were left behind at the depot."  Jaffe, Eric, The King's Best Highway:  The Lost History of the Boston Post Road, the Route That Made America, p. 149 (NY, NY:  Scribner's, a Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 2010).  

Lincoln gave another inspiring speech in Meriden before a "raucous crowd three thousand strong."  Id., p. 150.  In the next two days he spoke in Woonsocket (near Providence) and in Norwich, Connecticut on Friday, March 9.  Lincoln then traveled to Bridgeport, Connecticut where, on March 10, he gave a rousing speech in the Town's largest hall, filled to capacity.

Lincoln's Bridgeport speech on March 10 was a modified version of his triumphal Cooper Union Address.  It was his last such "public talk" until he was elected President.  Id., p. 150.

Immediately after his Bridgeport speech, the exhausted presidential candidate "boarded a New Haven night train back to New York."  Id.  Within a short time, Abraham Lincoln passed through Pelham on the New York City bound New Haven Line train.  The New-York Daily Tribune reported Lincoln's train ride two days later.  

Most certainly, even if the exhausted candidate was awake at the time, he most certainly would have taken no notice of the tiny little settlement of Pelhamville within the Town of Pelham as the train hurtled through the area of the Pelhamville station.  There were no residences in the immediate area.  There was no lighting -- lamp lighting or otherwise -- in the area.  In short, the future president likely never even realized he had passed through Historic Pelham. 

*          *          *          *          *

Immediately below is the text of two items that form the basis for today's posting to the Historic Pelham Blog.  Each is followed by a citation and link to its source.

"ABRAHAM LINCOLN spoke on Friday at Norwich, Conn., and on Saturday evening at Bridgeport, whence he came on by the Night Express to this City, attending the churches of Drs. Beecher and Chapin yesterday.  He leaves this morning for home, by way of the Erie Railroad, having spoken once in New England for each secular day since his address in our City, two weeks ago.  Mr. Lincoln has done good work and made many warm friends during this visit."

Source:  ABRAHAM LINCOLN, New-York Daily Tribune, Mar. 12, 1860, Vol. XIX, No 5891, p. 4, col. 2.  

"Lincoln was not quite a Boston Post memory yet.  He rode the Shore Line train back to Providence for a speech in the nearby town of Woonsocket, then circled back along the Sound toward Bridgeport for his final talk, on March 10.  Immediately after this speech the exhausted orator, hungry for home, boarded a New Haven night train back to New York.  From there he would leave for Illinois, but not before strolling around the city one final time with James Briggs, the man who had originally invited Lincoln east.  By then, in the words of the Providence Daily Journal, Lincoln was 'as much of a favorite in New England as in his own State.'"

Source:  Jaffe, Eric, The King's Best Highway:  The Lost History of the Boston Post Road, the Route That Made America, p. 150 (NY, NY:  Scribner's, a Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 2010). 

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

1860 Auction Offering Pelhamdale Lots from the Estate of James Hay

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.

Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.

Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

On June 2, 1860, auctioneers offered for sale 110 acres of land between today's Boston Post Road and the New Haven Line.  The auction was the carve-up of one of the few remaining large sections of the vast estate developed by Philip Pell II in about 1750 when he built a farmhouse that now forms a portion of the basement level rear portion of the home known today as Pelhamdale, located at 45 Iden Avenue and listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places.  The auction notice published before the 1860 auction indicated that the land would be offered in parcels of "eight to ten acres each" on behalf of the estate of James Hay, deceased.

James Hay bought the Pell home and an extensive portion of the Pell estate in 1823 from the widow of David Jones Pell, a son of the original owner, Philip Pell II.  Hay expanded the home, named his estate "Pelhamdale," and changed the home essentially to the form seen today.  As Lockwood Barr stated in his History of Pelham (Plate XXV), Hay "made it one of the showplaces of Westchester."  Hay served as Town Supervisor of the Town of Pelham in 1842, 1844, and 1845.  

According to some sources, others bought other portions of the Pell estate from David J. Pell's widow in 1823:

"Upon the death of Colonel David J. Pell in 1823 his estate was divided and a large part of the farm was conveyed in 1827 to Nancy H. Ogden and upon her death became the property of her son, Nathaniel P. Ogden, who in turn conveyed it on April 7, 1836 to Francis Secor. The Ogden house was built about 1827 and was situated in front of the well near Wolf's Lane on the Secor land which is now the property of Mr. J. Manger. It was in this house that Mr. Ogden P. Pell was born in 1835. The house was destroyed upon the completion of the new Secor house. 

Another part of David J. Pell's estate was conveyed in 1833 to A. Wolf, who sold it in 1851 to the Pelhamville Land Co. This property constituted the major part of what is now known as the village of North Pelham. Another part of this vast estate including the old stone house became the property of James Hay in 1827, who named it Pelham Dale."

Source:  Montgomery, William R., The Old Stone House by the Bridge, The Pelham Sun, Oct. 21, 1927, p. 10, cols. 1-6.

The 1860 auction of the lands owned by James Hay did not include the home itself or the lot on which it stood.  The home and its lot were purchased by the Coudert family after James Hay's death.  Although some say the home known as Pelhamdale was used for a time thereafter as a boy's school, no reliable evidence to establish that assertion has yet been found by this author.  It is possible that researchers have been confused by the fact that a member of the Coudert family operated a very famous boys' school in New York City in the 1840s. 

The subdivided lots today form much of the land near Wolfs Lane between Boston Post Road and today's Colonial Avenue.  Many of the homes in that area can trace their title back to a purchase resulting from this auction conducted by A. J. Bleecker, Son & Co. on June 2, 1860.

*          *          *          *          *

Below is an image of the auction notice that forms the basis of today's posting.  It is followed by a citation and link to its source, as well as a transcription of its text to facilitate search.

1860 Sales By Auction Notice for Pelhamdale Estate

Lands After Death of James Hay, Owner of Pelhamdale

Source:  A. J. BLEECKER, Auctioneer -- ADMINISTRATOR'S

SALE OF PELHAMVILLE VILLA SITES [Sales By Auction

Notice], New-York Tribune, May 25, 1860, p. 2, col. 3 (Note:

Paid subscription required to access via this link).

NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

"A. J. BLEECKER, Auctioneer.
ADMINISTRATOR'S SALE OF PELHAMVILLE VILLA SITES.

A. J. BLEECKER, SON & Co. will sell at auction on SATURDAY, June 2, at 12 o'clock m., on the premises, 

110 ACRES OF LAND, 

divided into parcels of from eight to ten acres each, lying between the Boston Post Road and the New Haven Railroad, near the PELHAMVILLE STATION.  SALE POSITIVE.  Terms easy.

Particulars at No. 7 Pine st., or of LYON & PORTER, No. 25 Nassau st., N. Y.  By order of 

S. D. LYON, and 
W. S. POPHAM,
Administrators of the Estate of Jas. Hay, deceased.
(1,979)"

Source:  A. J. BLEECKER, Auctioneer -- ADMINISTRATOR'S SALE OF PELHAMVILLE VILLA SITES [Sales By Auction Notice], New-York Tribune, May 25, 1860, p. 2, col. 3 (Note:  Paid subscription required to access via this link).  

The Home Known as "Pelhamdale" at 45 Iden Avenue.
NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

*          *          *          *          *

I have written about the lovely historic home known as "Pelhamdale" (and "Pelham Dale") on numerous occasions.  For a few of many examples, see:

Thu., Oct. 20, 2016:  Fears in 1934 and 1935 that the Historic Home Known as Pelhamdale Would Be Razed.

Fri, May 13, 2016 1851:  Advertisement Offering Farm and Mansion Known as Pelhamdale for Lease.

Fri., Sep. 04, 2015:  Sale of the Pre-Revolutionary War Home Known as Pelhamdale in 1948.

Tue., Jun. 24, 2014:  Story of Pelhamdale, the Old Stone House by the Bridge, Once Owned by David J. Pell.

Thu., Jan. 03, 2008:  Charges in 1808 Against Lieutenant-Colonel David J. Pell of Pelham that He "Indulges in Inebriety and Habitual Drunkeness." 

Thu., Oct. 26, 2006:  Genealogical Data Regarding David Jones Pell of the Manor of Pelham, Revolutionary War Officer. 

Mon., Oct 15, 2007:  Town Proclamation Recognizes Celebration of the 250th Anniversary of Pelhamdale at 45 Iden Avenue. 

Wed., Nov. 02, 2005:  Engraving by P.M. Pirnie Showing Pelhamdale in 1861. 

Thu., Oct. 13, 2005:  Two More Pelham Ghost Stories. 

Mon., Sep. 19, 2005:  The Long-Hidden Pastoral Mural Uncovered in Pelhamdale, a Pre-Revolutionary War Home. 

Mon., Apr. 11, 2005:  More From the William R. Montgomery Glass Negative Collection (includes photograph of fire at Pelhamdale on February 28, 1925). 

Tue., Mar. 22, 2005:  The 1790 U.S. Census Information for the Township of Pelham.

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

More on the Early History of Pelham Bridge Including Ownership of the Bridge Between 1834 and 1860

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.

Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.

Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

By 1860, Westchester County had begun to spend substantial sums on the repair and maintenance of Pelham Bridge even though it did not own the bridge. In fact, In 1860, the bridge was operated as a private toll bridge owned by Lawrence G. Fowler who had succeed to the 30-year franchise granted in 1834 to George Rapalje to operate the bridge until April 15, 1864.

Westchester County understood the critical importance of the Pelham Bridge which connected more populated regions of lower Westchester County with important shoreline communities such as Pelham, New Rochelle, Larchmont, and Mamaroneck. Unhappy with the continuing need to assist with repairs and maintenance of the bridge and contemplating the possibility of entirely replacing the decrepit bridge, Westchester began efforts to acquire "perfect title" to the bridge.

Difficulties Followed the Pelham Bridge From 1829 Until 1831

By 1829, something seems to have changed regarding Pelham Bridge.  On March 30, 1829, a petition was presented to the New York Assembly on behalf of the Eastchester Bridge Company "seeking leave to surrender their corporate rights."  

Almost immediately, on Friday, April 3, 1829, a bill was reported for the "relief" of the Eastchester Bridge Company.  

Within a short time, the legislature released a report on the petition for the relief bill.  The following is a citation to that report, that I have not yet been able to access:

"Eastchester Bridge Company
1829.  Rept. re. petition of Eastchester Bridge co. praying leave to surrender corporate rights and remove materials composing bridge.  (Assem. jol. 52 sess. 1829:  944-945.)"

Source:  Hasse, Adelaide R., Index of Economic Material in Documents of the States of the United States -- New York 1789-1904 Prepared for the Department of Economics and Sociology of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, p. 83 (NY, NY:  Carnegie Institution of Washington, Nov. 1907).

At about this time, an odd situation developed.  In 1831 an as-yet unexplained criminal information (a formal criminal charge which begins a criminal proceeding in the courts) was issued under the direction of the New York Attorney General in a case styled "The People vs. The President and Directors of the Eastchester Bridge Company."  An effort was made by the Sheriff of Westchester County to serve the criminal summons on unidentified individuals then serving as President and Directors of the company, but none could be found within the county.  More significantly, a legal notice published at the time stated "it cannot be ascertained that there now are, or within one year last past have been, any officers of the said corporation" suggesting, of course, that the company was defunct and no longer operating in any fashion.  Consequently, a local court authorized service on the group by publication in local newspapers.  For now, we are left to speculate regarding the nature of this intriguing criminal action against the President and Directors of the Eastchester Bridge Company. However, the picture that emerges is that the company that purportedly still owned the right to operate a toll bridge across the Hutchinson River at Eastchester Bay was nowhere to be found, likely prompting local citizens a short time later to petition the legislative authorities of New York State to authorize George Rapelje to construct a new Pelham Bridge.

Ownership Since 1834

On April 2, 1834, the Committee on Roads and Bridges of the New York State Senate issued a report on a petition received from residents of Westchester County to permit Pelham resident George Rapelje to construct a toll draw bridge over Eastchester Creek. The report provides an interesting glimpse of a portion of the history surrounding efforts to construct bridges over Eastchester Creek to shorten the distance from New York City and surrounding areas to Pelham. After authorization by New York State, George Rapelye built the bridge and operated it as a private toll drawbridge under the 30-year franchise scheduled to expire on April 15, 1864.

Upon the death of George Rapelye (sometimes "Rapalje"), on November 30, 1841 the executors of Rapelye's estate sold Pelham Bridge and the franchise to operate it as a private toll road to James M. Post. The following year, 1842, James M. Post duly assigned and transferred his right, title and interest in the bridge and its associated franchise to Ann E. Cavins and Wm Cavins. The Cavins owned and operated the toll bridge until May 1, 1857 when they sold it to Lawrence G. Fowler who stll owned the bridge in 1860.

Westchester County Board of Supervisors Arranges Purchase in 1861

By 1860, the Westchester County Board of Supervisors was growing tired of appropriating taxpayer money to help maintain and repair the increasingly-important Pelham Bridge -- a private toll bridge that was not owned by the County.  Westchester knew that the bridge needed to be replaced but, of course, was unwilling to fund such replacement unless it owned the structure.  Accordingly, efforts began to lobby the State of New York to authorize Westchester County to acquire Pelham Bridge.

On February 15, 1860, the New York State Senate passed a bill to authorize Westchester to buy Pelham Bridge.  The Assembly soon did the same and, on April 5, 1860, New York enacted into law a statute authorizing the purchase.  The statute stated:

"The board of supervisors of the county of Westchester are hereby authorized and empowered, at their annual session, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty, to purchase the bridge over Eastchester creek, in the said county, commonly known as the Rapelyea or Pelham bridge, upon such terms as they may agree upon with the lessee of said bridge, not exceeding the sum of four thousand dollars. . . . The said bridge, if purchased by the said board of supervisors, shall be forever a free bridge, and a charge upon the said county of Westchester."

For the next twenty months, the Westchester County Board of Supervisors worked to appropriate the funds necessary to purchase Pelham Bridge.  There was a study of the title to the bridge.  There were presentations over the value of the bridge and the cost to replace it.  There were successive votes related to whether to purchase the bridge.  And, in the midst of all this, the Board continued to authorize payments to fund maintenance and repair of the decrepit structure.

On November 20, 1861, the Westchester County Board of Supervisors finally took action.  According to its records, on that date:

"Mr. McClelan moved that the resolution levying $3,000 on the County to pay Lawrence G. Fowler for Pelham Bridge, be taken from the table. Carried.  On motion of Mr. Lane, the written Report of the District Attorney was accepted and ordered on file.  The question on the adoption of the resolution levying $3,000 to pay Lawrence G. Fowler for Pelham Bridge, was then taken, and decided in the affirmative: a majority of all the members elected to the Board voting in favor thereof." 

Finally, on December 4, 1861, the Westchester County schedule of accounts reflected the critical appropriation by the County of $3,000 to purchase Pelham Bridge.  The process had begun to take title and replace the bridge.

*          *          *          *          *

March 30, 1829:

"IN ASSEMBLY, 
Monday, March 30. . . . 

Petitions:  . . . of the Eastchester bridge company, for leave to surrender their corporate rights. . ."

Source:  IN ASSEMBLY, Daily Albany Argus [Albany, NY], Mar. 31, 1829, p.2, col. 4.

"IN ASSEMBLY,
Friday, April 3. . . . 

Mr. DAYTON, from the select committee, reported a bill for the relief of the Eastchester bridge company. . . ."

Source:  IN ASSEMBLY, Daily Albany Argus [Albany, NY], Apr. 4, 1829, Vol. IV, No. 1072, p. 2, col. 5.

March 3, 1831:

"IN SUPREME COURT, 3d March, 1831 -- The People, vs. The President and Directors of the Eastchester Bridge Company.  G. C. Bronson, Attorney General.

On filing an affidavit, and on motion of the attorney general, it appearing to the court that the writ of summons issued upon the information in the nature of a quo warranto filed in this cause, hsa been duly returned by the sheriff of the county of Westchester, not served, by reason that no officers of the said company could be found within the said county; and it also appearing to the court that the said writ was directed to the said sheriff of Westchester where the principal place of business of the said company was situated, and that, upon inquiry, it cannot be ascertained that there now are, or within one year last past have been, any officers of the said corporation; -- It is ordered, pursuant to the statute in such case made and provided, that a copy of this rule be published for four weeks successively in the state paper.  And it is further ordered, that the defendants appear and plead to the information filed in this cause within twenty days after the last publication of this rule, or in default thereof, that the attorney general, on filing an affidavit of the due publication of the rule, be entitled to enter the default of the defendants, and to proceed to judgment thereon, in like manner as if the writ had been returned duly served.  (A copy.)

JNO. KEYES PAIGE, Clerk.

mr 5-dlt 9IT6"

Source:  IN SUPREME COURT [Legal Notice], Daily Albany Argus, Mar. 5, 1831, p. 3, col. 2.    

February 15, 1860:

"NEW YORK LEGISLATURE.
-----
Senate.
ALBANY, Feb. 15, 1860. . . . 

The bill to incorporate the New York Homeopathic College was passed.

Also the bill authorizing the Supervisors of Westchester county to purchase the Pelham Bridge. . . ."

Source:  NEW YORK LEGISLATURE -- Senate, The New York Herald, Feb. 16, 1860, p. 10, col. 5.  

April 5, 1860:

"Chap. 168. 

AN ACT to authorize the board of supervisors of the county of Westchester to purchase the Rapelyea or Pelham bridge. 

Passed April 5, 1860; three-fifths being present. 

The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 

May purchase bridge over Eastchester creek. 

SECTION 1. The board of supervisors of the county of Westchester are hereby authorized and empowered, at their annual session, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty, to purchase the bridge over Eastchester creek, in the said county, commonly known as the Rapelyea or Pelham bridge, upon such terms as they may agree upon with the lessee of said bridge, not exceeding the sum of four thousand dollars. 

Bridge to be forever free 

[Section] 2. The said bridge, if purchased by the said board of supervisors, shall be forever a free bridge, and a charge upon the said county of Westchester." 

Source: "Chap. 168.  An Act to Authorize the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester to Purchase the Rapelyea or Pelham Bridge" in Laws of the State of New York, Passed at the Eighty-Third Session of the Legislature, Begun January Third, and Ended April Seventeenth, 1860, in the City of Albany, pp. 270-71 (Albany, NY:  Weed, Parsons and Company, 1860).

Wednesday, November 14, 1860:

"Mr. Lockwood offered the following resolution, which was adopted. 

Resolved, That a Committee of Three, to be compose of one from each Assembly District, be appointed by the Chairman of this Board to inquire into and report to this Board as to the propriety and expediency of purchasing the Rapelye or Pelham Bridge, as authorized by the last Legislature, passed April 5th, 1860." 

Source: Proceedings of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, At the Annual Meeting, at White Plains, For the Year 1860, Edmund G. Sutherland, Clerk, p. 9 (Yonkers, NY:  Office of The Yonkers Herald, 1861).

Thursday, November 15, 1860:  

"Mr. Robertson moved to re-consider the vote on the adoption of the resolution offered yesterday by Mr. Lockwood, authorizing the Chairman to appoint a Committee of Three, composed of one from each Assembly District, to inquire into and report to this Board as to the propriety and expediency of purchasing the Rapelye or Pelham Bridge. 

The motion to re-consder was carried; whereupon, 

On motion of Mr. Robertson, the resolution was amended, so as to authorize the appointment of 'a Committee of Six, consisting of two from each Assembly District.' 

The resolution, as amended, was then adopted." 

Source: Proceedings of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, At the Annual Meeting, at White Plains, For the Year 1860, Edmund G. Sutherland, Clerk, p. 11 (Yonkers, NY: Office of The Yonkers Herald, 1861).

Thursday, November 15, 1860, 2:00 p.m.:

"The Chair announced the following 

Committee on the Purchase of Rapelye or Pelham Bridge: 

2d District -- Alsop H. Lockwood, William L. Barker; 3d District -- Forst Horton, Hezekiah D. Robertson; 1st District -- William Cauldwell, Charles Bathgate." 

Source: Proceedings of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, At the Annual Meeting, at White Plains, For the Year 1860, Edmund G. Sutherland, Clerk, p. 14 (Yonkers, NY: Office of The Yonkers Herald, 1861).

Friday, November 16, 1860:

"Mr. McClelan offered the folloing resolution, which was adopted: 

Resolved, That the Committee appointed to negotiate for the purchase of Pelham Bridge, be and they are hereby directed to ascertain and report to this Board -- 

The duration of the Charter thereof, the time when it will expire, and to whom it will revert: 

The present cash value thereof, whether the same is in good order, what repairs, if any, are necessary, and the probable cost thereof: 

Also, whether said Bridge is erected agreeably to the provisions of the Charter thereof; and if not, in what particular: 

And that the said Committee, in order to acquire said information, are hereby empowered to employ one or more competent persons, (if deemed necessary,) to aid them in arriving at a proper and just conclusion." 

Source: Proceedings of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, At the Annual Meeting, at White Plains, For the Year 1860, Edmund G. Sutherland, Clerk, pp. 19-20 (Yonkers, NY: Office of The Yonkers Herald, 1861).

Wednesday, December 5, 1860:

"Mr. Lockwood, from the Special Committee on the purchase of Rapayle [sic] or Pelham Bridge, presented a Report thereon, which was read as follows, and entered on General Orders, (No. 27:) 

To the Honorable the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester: 

The undersigned Committee, to whom was referred the resolution of this Board to enquire into and report to this Board as to the propriety and expediency of the purchase, by this Board, of the bridge known as the Rapelye or Pelham Bridge, for the purpose of making the same a free bridge, would respectfully report that your Committee have examined said bridge, and after consultation with others in relation to the same, would recommend the purchase of said bridge, for the purposes therein named, believing the demands of the public require the same to be made a free bridge; and wheras your committee find some defect in the present Act, passed April 5, 1860, authorizing this Board to purchase said bridge, would recommend the adoption of the following resolution: 

Resolved, That this Board purchase the Pelham or Rapelye Bridge, as soon as a good and sufficient title can be given for the same -- said title to be examined by the District Attorney of this County, and pronounced by him as perfect -- and that the County Treasurer be directed to pay fo the same out of any monies in his hands, not otherwise appropriated, to an amount not exceeding the sum of $3,000; and that the District Attorney be requested to give his earliest attention to the same. 

WHITE PLAINS, Dec. 1, 1860. 

A. H. LOCKWOOD,       ) 
FROST HORTON,         ) 
Wm. CAULDWELL,        } Committee on Pelham Bridge. 
CHARLES BATHGATE  ) 
H. D. ROBERTSON,      ) 
Wm. L. BARKER,           ) 

General Orders, No. 27." 

Source: Proceedings of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, At the Annual Meeting, at White Plains, For the Year 1860, Edmund G. Sutherland, Clerk, pp. 110-11 (Yonkers, NY: Office of The Yonkers Herald, 1861).

Thursday, December 6, 1860:

"Mr. Lockwood, from the Special Committee on the purchase of Rapalye or Pelham Bridge, reported, as amended by the Committee, the Report of Said Committee, (see General Orders No. 27.) 

Mr. McClelan offered the following resolutions as a substitute for the resolutions reported by the Committee: 

Resolved, That this Board deem it inexpedient at the present time, taking into consideration the large appropriations made by this Board, to purchase Pelham Bridge. Therefore, 

Resolved, That our Senator and Members of Assembly be requested to procure the passage of an Act authorizing the Board of Supervisors of this County to assume the control of, and maintain and support Pelham Bridge, after the Charter thereof shall have expired. 

The question was taken on the substitute, and decided in the negative -- ayes 4, nays 19, as follows: 

Ayes. -- Messrs. Flagg, Hallock, Hopper, and McClelan. 

Nays. -- Messrs. Baker, Barker, Bathgate, Cauldwell, Davids, Hatfield, Horton, Lippencott, Little, Lockwood, J. E. Marshall, W. Marshall, Jr., Miller, Mills, Robertson, Secor, Sutton, Tripp, and Twitchings. 

The questions was then taken on the adoption of the Report, and decided in the affirmative -- ayes 18, nays 5 -- as follows: 

Ayes -- Messrs. Baker, Barker, Bathgate, Cauldwell, Hatfield, Horton, Lippencott, Little, Lockwood, J. E. Marshall, W. Marshall, Jr., Miller, Mills, Robertson, Secor, Sutton, Tripp, and Twitchings. 

Nays -- Messrs. Davids, Flagg, Hallock, Hopper, and McClelan. 

On motion, the announcement of the result of the vote was suspended until the absentees could be sent for. 

Mr. Hunt coming into the room, the call of the absentees was demanded, and the Clerk accordingly proceeded to call. 

On the name of Mr. Hunt being called, Mr. Hunt declined to vote, for the present, and until he could examine into and ascertain the merits of the question. 

Mr. Baker moved that Mr. Hunt be excused from voting. 

Debate was had thereon. 

Mr. Robertson moved to lay the motion on the table. 

Carried. 

The absentees were again called, Mr. Hunt still not answering. 

Mr. Robertson moved to take from the table the motion to excuse Mr. Hunt, and demanded the ayes and nays. 

The Clerk called the ayes and nays, and a call of the absentees being demanded, the Clerk called the absentees. 

Mr. Hunt not answering to his name when it was called on the calling of the absentees. 

Mr. Baker moved that Mr. Hunt be excused from voting. 

Debate was had thereon. 

On motion of Mr. Cauldwell, Mr. Hunt was heard in relation to his refusal to vote. 

The motion was then put to excuse Mr. Hunt from voting on the motion to take from the table the motion to excuse him from voting on the motion to adopt the Report of the Committee, and carried. 

The Clerk then announced the result of the vote on the motion to take from the table the motion to excuse Mr. Hunt from voting on the motion to adopt the Report -- ayes 17, nays 5 -- as follows: 

Ayes -- Messrs. Baker, Barker, Bathgate, Cauldwell, Davids, Hallock, Hatfield, Lippencott, Lockwood, McClelan, J. E. Marshall, Miller, Mills, Robertson, Secor, Sutton, and Twitchings. 

Nays -- Messrs. Flagg, Hopper, Horton, W. Marshall, Jr, and Tripp. 

The question recurring on the motion to excuse Mr. Hunt from voting on the motion to adopt the Report of the Committee -- and debate having been had thereon -- it was decided in the affirmative -- ayes 15, nays 8 -- as follows: 

Ayes -- Messrs. Baker, Barker, Bathgate, Cauldwell, Davids, Flagg, Hatfield, Lippencott, Little, McClelan, W. Marshall, Jr., Mills, Sutton, Tripp, and Twitchings. 

Nays -- Messrs. Hallock, Hopper, Horton, Lockwood, J. E. Marshall, Miller, Robertson, and Secor. 

The Clerk then announced the vote on the adoption of the Report -- (as above,) -- ayes 18, nays 5." 

Source: Proceedings of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, At the Annual Meeting, at White Plains, For the Year 1860, Edmund G. Sutherland, Clerk, pp. 131-32 (Yonkers, NY: Office of The Yonkers Herald, 1861).

Thursday, December 6, 1860, 2:00 p.m.:

"Mr. Lockwood, from the Special Committee on the purchase of Rapalye or Pelham Bridge, presented a Supplemental Report, which was read as follows: 

To the Honorable the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County. 

The undersigned Committee, to whom was referred certain resolutions of enquiry, offered by the Supervisor of Eastchester, beg leave respectfully to report that, upon examination, your Committee find that on the 15th day of April, 1834, an Act was passed by the Legislature of this State, authorizing Rapelye, his heirs and assigns, to build a Toll Bridge over the Eastchester Creek; such charter to continue for the full term of thirty years, which charter will expire on the 15th day of April, 1864; and that on the 30th day of November, 1841, said Bridge was sold by the executors of George Rapelye, then deceased, to James M. Post; and that on the ___ day of ___, in the year 1842, the said James M. Post duly assigned and transferred his right, title and interest to Ann E. Cavins and Wm Cavins; and that also on the first day of May, 1857, the said Ann E. Cavins and William Cavins duly assigned and transferred all their right, title and interest in said Bridge to Lawrence G. Fowler, the present owner of said Bridge. 

Your Committee are, at present, unable to inform this Board whether said Bridge was constructed in strict compliance with said charter, but that pursuant to said charter, the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas, of Westchester County, have appointed a Committee to examine said Bridge, after its completion, and if, in their judgment, the same was built pursuant to said charter, the said Judges were directed to file a certificate with the Clerk of the County, to whose files your Committee would respectfully refer. 

Your Committee would further report that in their judgment, and from the best information your Committee have been able to obtain, consider the said Bridge worth at least the sum of $5,000. That the same could not now be built for less than $12,000. 

And as far as your Committee have been able to ascertain, they would respectfully report that, in their opinion, the present structure would revert to its present owner, who would have full power to remove any and every part of the same, and the County of Westchester put to an expense of rebuilding said Bridge, or be compelled to purchase the same at, perhaps, an exorbitant price. 

All of which is respectfully submitted. 

Dated December 7, 1860: 

A. H. LOCKWOOD,       ) 
Wm. L. BARKER,          ) 
Wm. CAULDWELL,       } Special Committee on Pelham Bridge 
FROST HORTON,         ) 
CHARLES BATHGATE, ) 
H. D. ROBERTSON,      ) 

On motion, the Report was adopted -- ayes 20, nays 1 -- Mr. McClellan voting in the negative." 

Source: Proceedings of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, At the Annual Meeting, at White Plains, For the Year 1860, Edmund G. Sutherland, Clerk, pp. 136-38 (Yonkers, NY: Office of The Yonkers Herald, 1861).

Wednesday, November 13, 1861:  

"Messrs. Badeau, Hatfield, Lippencott, Robertson, and Hopper, made explanations and remarks on the condition and in relation to the repairs on Pelham Bridge. 

Mr. Badeau thereupon offered the following resolution, which was adopted: 

Resolved, That there be a Committee of Three appointed by the Board to examine the repairs on the Pelham Bridge, and report what further repairs, in their opinion, are necessary at this time. 

The Board thereupon appointed the following Supervisors as such 

Committee -- Messrs. Purday, Brown, and Valentine. 

On motion of Mr. Cauldwell, 

Mr. Badeau was added to the Committee." 

Source:  Proceedings of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, At the Annual Meeting, at White Plains, For the Year 1861, Edmund G. Sutherland, Clerk, p. 7 (Yonkers, NY: Office of The Yonkers Herald, 1861).

Tuesday, November 19, 1861:

"Mr. Lippencott. from the same Committee [Committee on Roads and Bridges], presented a Report on the bill of Abraham Hatfield and Samuel Lippencott, for materials, labor, and disbursements, on Pelham Bridge, which was read as follows: 

To the Honorable the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester: 

The Committee on Roads and Bridges, to whom were referred the bills of Abraham Hatfield and Samuel Lippencott, for work done and materials furnished for Pelham Bridge, respectfully report that they have examined the bill of Abraham Hatfield, with the vouchers therefor, and find it correct. The sum paid by Mr. Hatfield, amounts to one thousand two hundred and forty-nine dollars and sixty seven cents

.....................$1,249.67 

The amount received by A. Hatfieild, from the sale of the old lumber is

........................... 79.50 

The balance due Mr. Hatfield from Co. is therefore $1,170.17 

They have also received the bill of Samuel Lippencott, (with the vouchers therefor,) amounting to the sum of four hundred and seventeen dollars and seventeen cents, ($417.17,) and find it correct. Your Committee therefore recommend the passage of the following resolution: 

Resolved, That there be levied, assessed and collected on the real and personal property of the County of Westchester, the sum of one thousand five hundred and eighty-seven dollars and twenty-four cents, to pay the bills of Abraham Hatfield and Samuel Lippencott for services rendered and materials furnished for Pelham Bridge. 

All of which is respectfully submitted. 

Dated November 19, 1861. 

SAM'L LIPPENCOTT,   ) 
II. D. ROBERTSON,      } Committee on Roads and Bridges. 
A.B. REYNOLDS,         ) 

(General Orders No. 3.)"

Source: Proceedings of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, At the Annual Meeting, at White Plains, For the Year 1861, Edmund G. Sutherland, Clerk, pp. 52-53 (Yonkers, NY: Office of The Yonkers Herald, 1861).

Tuesday, November 19, 1861, 2:00 p.m.:

"Mr. Mills presented the Report of William H. Pemberton, District Attorney, on the title to Pelham Bridge. 

Mr. Purdy moved to refer the report back to the District Attorney, with the request that he make it conform to the terms of the resolution of the last Board under which the report was made. Carried." 

Source: Proceedings of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, At the Annual Meeting, at White Plains, For the Year 1861, Edmund G. Sutherland, Clerk, pp. 69-70 (Yonkers, NY: Office of The Yonkers Herald, 1861).

Wednesday, November 20, 1861:

"Mr. Hatfield offered the following resolution: 

Resolved, That there be levied and assessed on the County of Westchester, and collected, the sum of $3,000, to pay Lawrence G. Fowler for Pelham Bridge, as per certificate of Henry Willets, County Treasurer. 

On motion of Mr. Robertson, the resolution was laid on the table. 

Mr. Badeau moved that a Committee of Three be appointed to wait on the District Attorney, and request him to appear before the Board and give his opinion in relation to the title to Pelham Bridge. Carried. 

The Chair announced, as follows: 

The Special Committee to wait on District Attorney, &c. -- Mr. Badeau, Mr. McClelan, and Mr. Tripp." 

Source: Proceedings of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, At the Annual Meeting, at White Plains, For the Year 1861, Edmund G. Sutherland, Clerk, p. 70 (Yonkers, NY: Office of The Yonkers Herald, 1861).

Wednesday, November 20, 1861:

"The Special Committee to wait on the District Attorney and request him to appear before the Board and give his opinion in relation to the title to Pelham Bridge, reported that they had performed the duty assigned them, and that the District Attorney was now present. 

On motion, the report was accepted, and the Committee discharged. 

The District Attorney, upon being requested by the Chairman to state whether a good and sufficient title to Pelham Bridge could be conveyed by Lawrence G. Fowler to the County, replied that he had examined the title and pronounced it perfect, and that the County would, by the purchase of the bridge from Mr. Fowler, obtain a good and sufficient titled to it. 

Mr. McClelan moved that the resolution levying $3,000 on the County to pay Lawrence G. Fowler for Pelham Bridge, be taken from the table. Carried. 

On motion of Mr. Lane, the written Report of the District Attorney was accepted and ordered on file. 

The question on the adoption of the resolution levying $3,000 to pay Lawrence G. Fowler for Pelham Bridge, was then taken, and decided in the affirmative: a majority of all the members elected to the Board voting in favor thereof." 

Source: Proceedings of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, At the Annual Meeting, at White Plains, For the Year 1861, Edmund G. Sutherland, Clerk, p. 71 (Yonkers, NY: Office of The Yonkers Herald, 1861).

Wednesday, November 20, 1861: 

"General Orders No. 1 -- being the Report of the Committee on Roads and Bridges, on the bill of William G. Livingston, for survey and map of Pelham Bridge -- was taken up, considered , and adopted: a majority, of all the members elected to the Board voting in the affirmative. * [Footnote * states: "* -- See Clerk's Note to the Committee's Report."] . . . 

General Orders No. 3 -- being the Report of the Committee on Roads and Bridges, on the bills of Abraham Hatfield and Samuel Lippencott, for labor and disbursements on Pelham Bridge -- was taken up, considered, and adopted: a majority of all the members elected to the Board voting in the affirmative." 

Source: Proceedings of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, At the Annual Meeting, at White Plains, For the Year 1861, Edmund G. Sutherland, Clerk, p. 74 (Yonkers, NY: Office of The Yonkers Herald, 1861).

Schedule of County Accounts, December 4, 1861: 

"APPROPRIATIONS. . . . To pay Lawrence G. Fowler, for Pelham Bridge. 3,000.00" 

Source: Proceedings of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, At the Annual Meeting, at White Plains, For the Year 1861, Edmund G. Sutherland, Clerk, p. 190 (Yonkers, NY: Office of The Yonkers Herald, 1861).

"Pelham Bridge in 1865 From a sketch by W. J. Wilson"

Source: Jenkins, Stephen, The Story of the Bronx From

the Purchase Made by the Dutch from the Indians in

1639 to the Present Day, Opposite p. 318 (NY and 

London: G.P. Putnam's Sons The Knickerbocker Press,

1912).  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

*          *          *          *          *

Below are examples of previous postings that address the histories of the various Pelham Bridges that have spanned Eastchester Bay for the last two centuries.

Tue., Oct. 11, 2016:  Is It Possible The First Pelham Bridge Built in About 1815 Was Repaired After Near Destruction by a Storm?

Wed., Oct. 1, 2014:  Bridge Keepers of the Pelham Bridge from 1870 to 1872.

Mon., Jul. 21, 2014:  Image of the Second Pelham Bridge Built in 1834 From a Sketch Created in 1865.

Thu., Jul. 17, 2014:  Sabotage Brought Down the 70-Ton Draw Span of Pelham Bridge in 1908 and Delayed its Opening. 

Tue., Jun. 10, 2014: Construction of the Concrete Arch Pelham Bridge.

Mon., May 12, 2014: The March 6, 1812 New York Statute Authorizing Construction of the Pelham Bridge.

Tue., Sep. 22, 2009: Names of Early "Keepers of Pelham Bridge" Appointed by Westchester County.

Thu., Jan. 08, 2009: Another Brief History of The Pelham Bridge.

Thu., Jan. 1, 2009: A Brief History of Pelham Bridge.

Wed., Jan. 2, 2008: New York State Senate Report on Petition by Inhabitants of Westchester to Allow Construction of Toll Bridge Across Eastchester Creek in 1834.

Tue., Aug. 28, 2007: The Laying Out of Pelham Avenue From Fordham to Pelham Bridge in 1869.

Wed., Jul. 4, 2007: 1857 Real Estate Advertisement for Sale of the Pelham Bridge.

Fri., Jul. 22, 2007: 1857 Real Estate Advertisement for Sale of "Country Seat" at Pelham Bridge.

Fri., May 18, 2007: Celebration at Pelham Bridge in 1872.

Wed., May 16, 2007: Board of Supervisors of Westchester County Vote to Build New Iron Bridge to Replace Pelham Bridge in 1869.

Tue., May 15, 2007: The Owner of the Pelham Bridge Hotel Sold it for the Princely Sum of $22,000 in 1869.

Mon., May 14, 2007: Plans to Widen Shore Road in the Town of Pelham in 1869.

Fri., May 11, 2007: A Sad Attempted Suicide at Pelham Bridge in 1869.

Thu., Dec. 08, 2005: The First Stone Bridge Built Across Eastchester Creek in Pelham, 1814-1815.

Thu., Aug. 18, 2005: The Opening of the New Iron "Pelham Bridge" in 1871.

Tue., Aug. 9, 2005: Cock Fighting at Pelham Bridge in the 19th Century.

Thu., Jul. 21, 2005: Today's Remnants of the Bartow Station on the Branch Line Near City Island.

Tue., Jun. 28, 2005: The Hotel and Bar Room at Pelham Bridge.

Thu., Mar. 24, 2005: The Bartow Area of Pelham in the 19th Century: Where Was It?

Wed., Mar. 23, 2005: Prize Fighting at Pelham Bridge in 1884.

For more about the Pelham Bridge and its history, see Pelham Bridge, Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia, available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelham_Bridge (visited May 6, 2014).

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.

Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."