Mystery of the Steel Engraving of the Melon Farmer at Pelham Bridge

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

Today presents another Pelham history mystery and, hopefully, a solution to the mystery.

There is a lovely 19th century steel engraving entitled "RIPE AND READY PELHAM BRIDGE, WESTCHESTER CO. N.Y."  It depicts a melon farmer in a bucolic setting, working a lovely but small melon field that slopes to the water's edge with a bridge and buildings in the distance.  There is a small sailboat in the waters near the bridge and a number of rowboats pulled onto the opposing shore.  The engraving was prepared by "R. Hinshelwood" and is so marked.  

Robert Hinshelwood was an American engraver, etcher, and landscape painter known for, among other things, preparing mass production steel and wood engravings of popular paintings.  Hinshelwood was born in Edinburgh in 1812.  He immigrated to America in about 1835 and settled in New York City.  He worked for Harpers and other publishers and, later, for the Continental Bank Note Company.  He died after 1875 in New York and is best known for his landscape engravings.

An image of the "RIPE AND READY" steel engraving by Hinshelwood appears immediately below (as always, click on the image to enlarge it).

"RIPE AND READY PELHAM BRIDGE, WESTCHESTER

CO. N.Y." Steel Engraving by Robert Hinshelwood.  NOTE:

Click on Image to Enlarge.

This fascinating engraving raises interesting questions.  It purports to show the Pelham Bridge area on Eastchester Bay near City Island (at least according to the title of the engraving).  Careful inspection, however, suggests that the bridge depicted in the distance in the engraving is not the Pelham Bridge (either today's Pelham Bridge or its predecessors).  Moreover, the waters leading to the bridge seem far too narrow to be Eastchester Bay at the wide mouth of the Hutchinson River regardless of the direction from which the Pelham Bridge could be viewed in such a setting.  Additionally, the buildings in the distance do not seem consistent with what is known about structures at the Pelham Bridge during the 19th century.

All in all, the engraving doesn't "feel right" as a depiction of the Pelham Bridge area.

Further research now suggests the possibility that the engraving, indeed, does not depict the Pelham Bridge area but, instead, depicts an area near Glen Cove, Long Island.  

It turns out that, as often was the case with engravings by Robert Hinshelwood, the "Ripe and Ready" engraving was based on a painting.  That painting was one crafted by famed local artist Edward Gay of Mount Vernon.  An image of Gay's oil painting of the scene appears immediately below.

Oil Painting Signed "Edward Gay 1873" (Oil on canvas, 23" High x 35"

Wide).  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

Edward Gay was a noted American landscape artist.  According to one source:

"Edward Gay (1837–1928) was an Irish-American artist who specialized in landscape paintings. He was active in Mt. Vernon, New York and Cragsmoor, New York.

The 1848 Irish potato famine forced his family to move to America, when he was 11 years old. Gay trained in Albany on the advice of James Hart, his brother William Hart, and George Henry Boughton, artists who recognized Gay's talent while he was still a child. 

In 1862, Gay went to Karlsruhe in Germany to continue his studies under the artists Johann Wilhelm Schirmer and Karl Friedrich Lessing. In 1864 he returned to the United States and dedicated himself to landscape painting.  

Gay and his wife, Martha Freary, moved to Mt. Vernon, New York. The couple had a son, Duncan–also an artist–and a daughter, Ingovar.

Gay was a member of the New York Artists Fund Society, National Academy of Design, and the Lotos Club. He exhibited in museums and galleries throughout America and he painted murals for public libraries in Mt. Vernon, New York and Bronxville, New York.

Gay died in 1928 in Mount Vernon, New York."

Source:  "Edward Gay (Artist)" in Wikipedia -- The Free Encyclopedia (visited Nov. 17, 2019).

Edward Gay in His Studio in 1907.  Source:  "Edward Gay (Artist)"

in Wikipedia -- The Free Encyclopedia (visited Nov. 17, 2019).

NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

The original oil painting by Edward Gay on which the Hinshelwood engraving is based, recently was offered at auction by Butterscotch Auctioneers & Appraisers together with an example of the Hinshelwood steel engraving.  The lot, with a minimum of $6,000, passed without bid.

Significantly, the auction catalog noted that although the original stretcher of the painting had been replaced, sections of the original stretcher had been mounted to retain an inscription indicating that the painting depicted a "Glen Cover [sic] Waterway."  Indeed, the auction catalog entitles the painting as "The Pumpkin Patch, Glen Cove, NY."  

A detail from that portion of the oil painting showing the bridge in the distance appears immediately below.  

Detail from Oil Painting Signed "Edward Gay 1873".

NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

Given that the painting was created in 1873, we now can consider the version of the Pelham Bridge that stood at that time.  Indeed, the version of the Pelham Bridge that existed at that time was the so-called "Iron Bridge" built in 1869 and 1870.  (That bridge was replaced with the current Pelham Bridge that opened in 1908 and is scheduled for replacement in 2022.)  Immediately below is a postcard view of the "Iron Bridge" version of the Pelham Bridge.

Undated Postcard View of "PELHAM BAY BRIDGE, PELHAM BAY

PARK, NEW YORK."  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

The bridge depicted in the Edward Gay painting, like the bridge in the Hinshelwood engraving of the same scene, bears no resemblance to all or any portion of the Pelham Bridge that stood across Eastchester Bay in 1873, the date of the Edward Gay painting.  

Although it is unknown why Robert Hinshelwood entitled his steel engraving of the same scene to include a reference to "Pelham Bridge, Westchester Co. N.Y." it seems certain the engraving is mistitled.  The scene does not depict Pelham Bridge.

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

Oyster War Involving City Island Oystermen Against Connecticut Oystermen in 1873-75

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."

During the late 1860s, a giant natural oyster bed was discovered by oystermen off the harbor of Bridgeport, Connecticut.  Enterprising oystermen throughout the region harvested hundreds of thousands of bushels of seed oysters and carried them to oyster planting grounds in New York, Connecticut, and even New Jersey.  For several years the giant oyster bed served as "a never failing source of supply to the oyster planters" of surrounding states.

In 1873, however, something changed.  Connecticut oystermen "joined together to monopolize" the bed and began to exclude oystermen from other states from harvesting seed oysters -- actually, any oysters -- from the bed.  New York oystermen, including those based on City Island in the Town of Pelham, were furious.  Indeed, they asserted that although the bed was off the harbor of Bridgeport, Connecticut, it actually was located in New York waters.

Yet another oyster war began.

Port Washington, Long Island oystermen were the first to throw down the gauntlet.  On March 15, 1873, a large number of them met formally and voted to approve the following resolutions:

"Whereas the oystermen of the State of Connecticut are endeavoring to prohibit and prevent the oystermen of this place, and others of the State of New York, and who are citizens thereof, from catching seed oysters in certain portions of the waters of Long Island Sound, more especially off the harbor of Bridgeport, as has ever been our custom and right; and whereas we believe said bed of oysters to be within the boundaries of the State of New York, as we are informed by competent counsel and other reliable authority, and none but citizens of this State (New York) have a right to work said bed; and whereas we are satisfied that large quantities of territory belonging to said State of New York have been taken up and planted with oysters in violation of law and the rights of the people of this State, more especially off Norwalk Islands, Shippan, Darien and other places; therefore, be it

Resolved. That, while we are and have ever been willing to share our rights and privileges in common with our neighbors, if the oystermen of Connecticut attempt to deprive us of or curtail those rights, that we, the oystermen and citizens of the State of New York, are determined to resist further encroachments and assert and maintain those rights which belong to us.

Resolved.  That we claim that the bed known as the Bridgeport bed is in New York State waters, and that only the citizens thereof have the right to catch oysters thereon.

Resolved.  That such grounds in this State as have been taken up and planted at Norwalk Island and other places by the oystermen of Connecticut be reclaimed from them for the use of our own citizens.

Resolved.  That a committee of five be appointed to confer with the oystermen of City Island, Oyster Bay, Staten Island, Little Neck and other places to insure co-operation.

A considerable sum of money was then raised and the meeting adjourned to meet at the call of the Chair."

New York oystermen defied their Connecticut brethren and harvested oysters off Bridgeport Harbor.  On Thursday, May 29, 1873, however, things became more heated.  The New York smack Henrietta Scott was harvesting oysters in the area when it was boarded by five men who demanded that the two-man crew of the smack provide some evidence of their "authority" for harvesting oysters in the area.  When no such "evidence" was forthcoming, the five men overpowered the crew of the smack and had a tug tow the smack back to Bridgeport.  There, the men instituted a civil lawsuit alleging trespass on the oyster bed against the captain of the smack, Harry Scott.  Captain Scott was about to become a famous man.

Skirmishes continued and New York oystermen continued to slip in and out of the giant bed.  Within months the New York legislature decided to look at the matter.  The legislature adopted a resolution "calling for information relative to the respective rights of Connecticut and Long Island to the oyster-beds of the Sound."  It seems that the legislature was contemplating enactment of legislation to address not only "a question of boundary between Connecticut and New-York," but also claims under an old colonial charter under which New York claimed its boundary extended to low water mark on the Connecticut shore and Connecticut claimed the boundary line was in the middle of the stream between two shores.  As one Assembly member stated, "the disputed questions involve millions of dollars worth of property, beside excited feeling and prejudice between the residents of the two shores."

The oystermen, of course, could not be bothered to wait for a tortoise-like investigation followed by a log-rolling legislative process.  Oysters and the money they brought were at stake.

New York oystermen continued their assault on oyster beds off the Connecticut shores.  In May of 1874, Connecticut oystermen decided to seek revenge with a counter-attack.  A flotilla of about two hundred oystering vessels descended upon planted oyster beds maintained by the oystermen of Sayville, Long Island.  The Connecticut vessels harvested more than $50,000 worth of oysters from the beds (nearly $1.5 million in today's dollars).  A local newspaper reported:

"The Suffolk County Oyster Planters' Association, of Sayville, composed of about one hundred members, having some 200 acres under lease, near Nichols' Point, have been almost entirely cleaned out, and the Society broken up.  Much indignation is felt over the matter, and it was feared at one time that the parties would come in hostile collision, but milder counsels prevailed, and those who planted under the leases, have resolved to try the uncertain issue of the law for redress.  If the law will allow one man to reap where another man has planted, it is high time, in our estimation, that a stronger and more just law was enacted.  If the people own the bay bottom they own no oysters, except those that grow naturally, and to rob another of oysters, bought, paid for and planted, even though they are planted in the wrong place, and contrary to law is an outrage upon the commonest rights of property.  We hope this matter will be thoroughly sifted and the wrong placed where it belongs."

Cooler heads may have prevailed in that instance, but the oyster war continued for many months.  Indeed, in October, 1875, several New York boats were caught by Connecticut oystermen harvesting oysters off Connecticut shores yet again.  The Connecticut oystermen successfully boarded and seized the New York vessels.  It seemed this brought the matter to a head.  

According to one news report, a truce was announced to allow the civil trespass case against Captain Scott to be decided by the courts and, hopefully, resolve the matter.  The report stated:

"Mr. Bullock, of Bridgeport, counsel for the seizers, received a letter from Mr. Scudder of New York, requesting that no further proceedings be taken toward a condemnation of the boats seized, pending a decision in the courts of 'Scott vs. Ketcham,' the main case to determine the constitutional and jurisdictional rights of Connecticut over the oyster interest.  A consultation was had in New York Wednesday between Judge Shipman, H. J. Scudder, counsel for New York, and Mr. Bullock of Bridgeport, in which it was determined to release the seized boats upon pledges from the New York interest as represented by Mr. Scudder that pending a final adjudication of 'Scott vs. Ketcham,' no encroachments upon the oyster beds of our coast by New York parties shall again occur, and upon further pledges by the owners of the boats seized that their boats should not be permitted to return.  It is therefore well understood that Connecticut oystermen shall be no further annoyed by non-residents or oyster boats owned outside of the State.  The first hearing -- 'Scott vs. Ketcham,' probably will be had during the Autumn.  The schooner Undine was the first to be released, and the other boats now held will soon be realized." 

Yet another oyster war was paused.  Scott vs. Ketcham, it seems, is a story of its own -- to be continued. . . . . 

*          *          *          *          *

"OYSTER CONTROVERSY BETWEEN TWO STATES. -- 

Our readers will recollect that some five years ago there was a large bed of oysters found in the Long Island Sound, off the harbor of Bridgeport, Conn., from which hundreds of thousands of bushels of seed oysters were caught and carried to the different harbors and planting grounds and planted not only in this State, but in New Jersey and Connecticut; since which time said bed has been a never failing source of supply to the oyster planters of these States.  It now appears that though this oyster bed is in New York State boundaries, the oystermen of Connecticut have joined together to monopolize the working of said bed to the utter exclusion of all others, and this without a shadow of law or right.he T  On the other hand, the oystermen of this State are determined to protect their rights and interests, and are holding meetings and raising money to carry the war into Africa.  At a large and earnest meeting of the oystermen of Port Washington, L. I., and vicinity, held at the above place March 15, 1873, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted -- John Mackey, Sr., in the chair, and W. S. Weeks, Secretary: -- 

Whereas the oystermen of the State of Connecticut are endeavoring to prohibit and prevent the oystermen of this place, and others of the State of New York, and who are citizens thereof, from catching seed oysters in certain portions of the waters of Long Island Sound, more especially off the harbor of Bridgeport, as has ever been our custom and right; and whereas we believe said bed of oysters to be within the boundaries of the State of New York, as we are informed by competent counsel and other reliable authority, and none but citizens of this State (New York) have a right to work said bed; and whereas we are satisfied that large quantities of territory belonging to said State of New York have been taken up and planted with oysters in violation of law and the rights of the people of this State, more especially off Norwalk Islands, Shippan, Darien and other places; therefore, be it

Resolved. That, while we are and have ever been willing to share our rights and privileges in common with our neighbors, if the oystermen of Connecticut attempt to deprive us of or curtail those rights, that we, the oystermen and citizens of the State of New York, are determined to resist further encroachments and assert and maintain those rights which belong to us.

Resolved.  That we claim that the bed known as the Bridgeport bed is in New York State waters, and that only the citizens thereof have the right to catch oysters thereon.

Resolved.  That such grounds in this State as have been taken up and planted at Norwalk Island and other places by the oystermen of Connecticut be reclaimed from them for the use of our own citizens.

Resolved.  That a committee of five be appointed to confer with the oystermen of City Island, Oyster Bay, Staten Island, Little Neck and other places to insure co-operation.

A considerable sum of money was then raised and the meeting adjourned to meet at the call of the Chair."

Source:  OYSTER CONTROVERSY BETWEEN TWO STATES [Special Notice], N.Y. Herald, Mar. 25, 1873, No. 13,365, p. 1, col. 2.  

"The oyster boats owned by New York dealers have been withdrawn from the Connecticut coast.  This has been done because the smack Henrietta Scott was captured off Point-no-Point, about five miles from Bridgeport harbor, last Thursday by five men.  The captors say that the foreign boat was dredging for oysters on a forbidden bed.  When asked to show their authority they would not or could not comply; but overpowering the two men on board the Henrietta Scott, towed her to Bridgeport harbor with the tug Knickerbocker, of Bridgeport, with which they had overhauled her.  Harry Scott, captain of the captured vessel, had a suit for trespass instituted against him at Stratford, Conn.  He says, if he is beaten, he will appeal to the United States Court, and make it a test case.  The oystermen throughout the city are ready to fight the matter to the end. -- Sun."
Source:  [Untitled], Queens County Sentinel [Hempstead, NY], Jun. 5, 1873, Vol. 16, No. 1, p. 4, col. 6.  

"ALBANY.
-----
AFFAIRS AT THE STATE CAPITAL. . . . 
THE LONG ISLAND OYSTER WAR. . . .

The resolution offered in the Assembly by Mr. Prince, and adopted, calling for information relative to the respective rights of Connecticut and Long Island to the oyster-beds of the Sound, contemplates further legislation to test the constitutional questions involved.  An appropriation of $1,500 was made in the Supply bill last year to defray the expenses of litigation on the subject, but the terms of the appropriation were not sufficiently broad to cover all the questions that arise in the case.  It is not only a question of boundary between Connecticut and New-York from the use of the oyster-beds.  New-York claims that, under the old Colonial charter, her boundary extends to low water mark on the Connecticut shore, while Connecticut claims that the boundary line is in the middle of the stream between the two shores.  Mr. Prince says the disputed questions involve millions of dollars worth of property, beside excited feeling and prejudice between the residents of the two shores. . . ."

Source:  ALBANY -- AFFAIRS AT THE STATE CAPITAL. . . . THE LONG ISLAND OYSTER WAR, N.Y. Tribune, Jan. 8, 1874, Vol. XXXIII, No. 10,224, p. 1, col. 4.  

"The Oyster War.

Some two weeks since we spoke of a raid made by the oystermen of Brookhaven upon the oyster beds at Sayville, but then, not having the full particulars, we now publish the following lengthy account of the same affair from the Babylon Signal, under the caption of 'An outrage under cover of Law:'

For the past ten or twelve years the oystermen of Sayville have devoted considerable attention to the planting of oysters in the Bay opposite that place, some by authority from Brookhaven, (which town still holds jurisdiction over the waters set off when the town of Islip was formed;) others operated under the oyster act of 1866.  The bottom occupied was taken from portions of the Bay where there were planted, and the business has grown into an important one, many thousands of dollars being ingested in the stocking of the beds.  It seems in the management of this business many planters had not conformed to the strict requirements of the law, in the fact that they had occupied more land than the law allowed, though barren of natural oysters originally.  Acting on this latter fact, the oystermen from different parts of Brookhaven town, with a fleet of 200 boats, appeared on the Sayville beds in April, and have been actively engaged since taking up the oysters planted by the Sayville men.  Remonstrance in some cases prevailed, but not to the extent of saving the oysters, except in some instances where the parties held leases from Brookhaven, but not all of these were respected.  It is estimated that over $50,000 worth of planted oysters have been taken up and carried away by men who never planted an oyster within miles of these beds.  The Suffolk County Oyster Planters' Association, of Sayville, composed of about one hundred members, having some 200 acres under lease, near Nichols' Point, have been almost entirely cleaned out, and the Society broken up.  Much indignation is felt over the matter, and it was feared at one time that the parties would come in hostile collision, but milder counsels prevailed, and those who planted under the leases, have resolved to try the uncertain issue of the law for redress.  If the law will allow one man to reap where another man has planted, it is high time, in our estimation, that a stronger and more just law was enacted.  If the people own the bay bottom they own no oysters, except those that grow naturally, and to rob another of oysters, bought, paid for and planted, even though they are planted in the wrong place, and contrary to law is an outrage upon the commonest rights of property.  We hope this matter will be thoroughly sifted and the wrong placed where it belongs."

Source:  The Oyster War, Sag-Harbor Express [Sag Harbor, Long Island, NY], May 28, 1874, Vol. XV, No. 46, p. 2, col. 5.

"Oyster War.

A few days ago mention was made of the capture in Connecticut waters of several boats owned in New York and engaged in fishing for oysters.  Mr. Bullock, of Bridgeport, counsel for the seizers, received a letter from Mr. Scudder of New York, requesting that no further proceedings be taken toward a condemnation of the boats seized, pending a decision in the courts of 'Scott vs. Ketcham,' the main case to determine the constitutional and jurisdictional rights of Connecticut over the oyster interest.  A consultation was had in New York Wednesday between Judge Shipman, H. J. Scudder, counsel for New York, and Mr. Bullock of Bridgeport, in which it was determined to release the seized boats upon pledges from the New York interest as represented by Mr. Scudder that pending a final adjudication of 'Scott vs. Ketcham,' no encroachments upon the oyster beds of our coast by New York parties shall again occur, and upon further pledges by the owners of the boats seized that their boats should not be permitted to return.  It is therefore well understood that Connecticut oystermen shall be no further annoyed by non-residents or oyster boats owned outside of the State.  The first hearing -- 'Scott vs. Ketcham,' probably will be had during the Autumn.  The schooner Undine was the first to be released, and the other boats now held will soon be realized.  --  New Haven Courier."

Source:  Oyster War, Queens County Sentinel [Hempstead, NY], Oct. 14, 1875, vol. 18, No. 20, p. 2, col. 6.

*          *          *          *          *

The oystering industry was, for decades, a critically-important economic activity in the Town of Pelham.  Many residents of City Island made their living from the industry or ran businesses that catered to the oystermen.  Accordingly, I have written about Pelham oystering and various oyster wars such as that during the 1870s that is the subject of today's article, on many, many occasions.  See, e.g.:

Wed., Jul. 05, 2017:  Pelham's Most Entrepreneurial Oysterman Was Forced To Sell His Steam Engine Oyster Dredge in 1882.

Tue., Jun. 27, 2017:  John E. Price of City Island, One of Pelham's Earliest Commercial Oystermen.

Thu., May 11, 2017:  Nineteenth Century Fake News: Announced Discovery of Another Great Oyster Bed in 1871 Led to a Near "Oyster Riot".

Wed., Mar. 29, 2017:  Important Description of the Oyster Industry in Pelham in 1853.

Thu., Feb. 11, 2016:  Was a City Island Hotel Keeper Among the First to Learn of the Great Oyster Bed Discovered in 1859?

Wed., Jun. 24, 2015:  The 1895 Oyster War Involving City Island Oystermen - Part I.

Thu., Jun. 25, 2015:  The 1895 Oyster War Involving City Island Oystermen - Part II.

Mon., Dec. 01, 2014:  Jury Finds City Island Oystermen Guilty of Stealing Oysters from Planted Bed in 1878.

Tue., Nov. 11, 2014:  Efforts by Herman Le Roy, Jr. of Pelham to Build an Oyster Pond in the 1830's.

Thu., Aug. 07, 2014:  Oysterman Joshua Leviness of City Island Accused of Stealing Oysters Near High Island in 1883.

Tue., Feb. 04, 2014:  Pelham: Once Oyster Capital of the World.

Thu., Mar. 25, 2010:  Discovery of "The Great Oyster Bed" in Long Island Sound in 1859.

Wed., Mar. 24, 2010:  The Oyster War of 1884 Between Glen Cove and City Island Intensifies.

Tue., Mar. 23, 2010:  Yet Another "Oyster War" in 1884; Glen Cove Officials Feud with City Island and Connecticut Oystermen.

Mon., Mar. 22, 2010:  77-Year Old City Island Oysterman Joshua Leviness Reminisces in Testimony Provided in 1884.

Fri., Mar. 19, 2010:  The New York Legislature Stepped Into the Oyster War on Long Island Sound in 1895.

Thu., Mar. 18, 2010:  1859 Town of Huntington Record Reflecting Dispute with City Island Oystermen.

Wed., Mar. 17, 2010:  Report of September 13, 1884 Tour of Oyster Beds by Captain Joshua Leviness of City Island.

Tue., March 16, 2010:  More on 19th Century Oystering in Pelham - Descriptions of Oyster Beds Off Hart Island, City Island and in Pelham Bay Published in 1887.

Mon., Mar. 15, 2010:  More on 19th Century City Island Oyster Industry - City Island Oystermen Complaint of Pollution.

Fri., Mar. 12, 2010:  Early History of Oystering in the Waters Off City Island in the Town of Pelham.

Thu., Mar. 11, 2010:  The "Great Oyster War" Between City Island and Tarrytown in 1877 and 1878.

Thu., Dec. 3, 2009:  Pelham News on May 30, 1884 Including Allegations of Oyster Larceny and Meeting of the Pelhamville Improvement Association.

Mon., July 30, 2007:  1885 Report Notes Decline of Oyster Industry Near City Island in the Town of Pelham.

Fri., Jul. 27, 2007:  Possible Origins of the Oyster Feud Between City Islanders and Huntington, Long Island.

Thu., Jul. 26, 2007:  Pelham's City Island Oystermen Feud with Long Islanders in 1869.

Fri., Apr. 13, 2007:  Oystermen of City Island (When It Was Part of the Town of Pelham) Pioneered Oyster Cultivation.

Fri., Jan. 26, 2007:  A History of the Early Years of City Island When it Was Part of the Town of Pelham, Published in 1927.

Mon., Sep. 18, 2006:  A Brief Description of Oystering in Eastchester Bay and at Pelham Published in 1881.

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."

1873 Committee Report on Proposal to Have Westchester County Purchase City Island Bridge

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."

In 1872, the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County appointed a special committee to study and prepare a report regarding whether the county should purchase (and take over) City island Bridge between the mainland and City Island, then a part of the Town of Pelham.  The initiative was pushed by Pelham Town Supervisor Benjamin Hegeman who served as supervisor from 1861 until 1873.  Today's Historic Pelham article provides background and context for the report issued by the special committee.

Today we seem to think nothing of hopping onto I-95 with an EZ-Pass and paying tolls to travel the highway, cross the Tappan Zee, and -- frankly -- travel throughout the region.  Things were similar in the 19th century, though Westchester County decided to do something about it.  

In the 19th century there were tolls everywhere in the region as well.  The Harlem Bridge was a toll bridge.  Pelham Bridge was a toll bridge.  The Westchester Turnpike and Post Road, otherwise known as the section of today's Boston Post Road that passes through Pelham Manor, was a toll road.  Other bridges and highways in the county required tolls as well.  

The people of Westchester were not happy about it.  Thus, Westchester County pursued a lengthy initiative to open its bridges and thoroughfares to free use.  It rebuilt the Harlem Bridge and removed the toll.  It purchased Pelham Bridge from stockholders and made it a free bridge.  It purchased the Westchester Turnpike and Post Road and opened it to the public.  And, in 1872 and 1873, it considered purchasing City Island Bridge, then a toll bridge that exacted cash from every Pelhamite who used the bridge to get to and from their homes and businesses on the island.  

On December 8, 1872, during a meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County, Pelham Town Supervisor Benjamin Hegeman proposed a resolution to appoint a committee of three people to prepare a special report to the board regarding "the propriety and expediency of purchasing the City Island Bridge."  Under the Board's rules, the resolution was laid over until the following day.  The following day, the Board of Supervisors adopted the resolution.

Several days later, on December 23, 1872, the Chair of the Board of Supervisors, F. M. Carpenter, announced that he had appointed three members to the Special Committee to prepare a report on whether to purchase the City Island Bridge.  They were Odle Close (Supervisor of the Town of North Salem), Edmund G. Sutherland (Supervisor of White Plains), and George W. Davids (Supervisor of New Rochelle).   

The Committee worked for the next two weeks to study the matter, come to its conclusions, and prepare its special report.  The matter, however, was controversial and the Committee could not reach a consensus.  The Supervisors of White Plains (Mr. Sutherland) and New Rochelle (Mr. Davids) supported purchase of the City Island Bridge to make it free.  Supervisor Close of North Salem apparently opposed such a purchase.

On January 4, 1873, a "majority" of the Committee (i.e., the two members who supported purchase of the City Island Bridge) presented a report to the full Board of Supervisors.  The brief report, quoted in full below, sheds fascinating light on the history of the City Island Bridge.  

The report noted that City Island had a population of about one thousand.  It noted the economic importance to the County of the small island in the Town of Pelham.  It emphasized the importance of the oyster and ship building industries on the island and further noted that of the roughly 300 acres of land on the island, 250 acres were devoted to farming with a great deal of "gardening" on the remaining 50 acres.  

The report recounted a little of the history of the City Island Bridge.  It noted that the City Island Bridge Company was chartered in 1864 by an act of the State Legislature with a capital stock of $50,000.  Of that capital stock, the company issued $33,700 worth of shares to fund construction of the first wooden City Island Bridge which opened on July 4, 1869.  The bridge cost $33,689.98 to construct.  A majority of the stock was purchased by Pelham residents.  The remainder was bought by residents of Westchester County, New York City, and Brooklyn.  According to the report, the non-Pelham residents bought the stock "not as a valuable investment, but to afford a relief to the people of Pelham in getting to and from City Island, which is a portion of said town."

The report recounted the recent history of the County in acquiring and opening to the public toll bridges and toll roads throughout the County.  It then concluded that:

"The town of Pelham has been called upon to pay its equal share, according to the taxable property of its inhabitants, of the expenses incurred in the purchase for erection and and repair of turnpikes and bridges, without enjoying an equal share of the benefits derived therefrom.  The undersigned are therefore of the opinion that the people of Pelham are justly entitled to relief at the hands of the County from the onerous and oppressive special taxation in the form of heavy tolls which they are called upon to bear in passing from one part of said town to another part of it.  No other town in the County is situated like the town of Pelham, it being divided by a body of water which cannot be crossed in the absence of a bridge except by a ferry boat or other vessel.  In view of these facts and circumstances the undersigned do not hesitate to recommend the purchasing of City Island Bridge, providing it can be purchased at a sum not exceeding $25,000, one half of the purchase money to be advanced by the County and the other half by the town of Pelham."

In effect, the report concluded that unlike most other toll roads and toll bridges acquired by the County and made free, the City Island Bridge would be acquired by the Town of Pelham and Westchester County.  Pelham residents, therefore, would pay more than other residents of the County for maintenance of the bridge since a portion of both their County and Town taxes would pay for such expenses.

The report concluded by recommending passage of the following proposed resolution:

"Resolved, That the Senator from this District and the Members of Assembly from the County be and they are hereby requested to procure the passage of an Act at the ensuing session of the Legislature, to authorize the Board of Supervisors of this County to purchase, at their discretion, City Island Bridge, at a cost to said County not exceeding $12,500, provided the town of Pelham shall pay the balance of the cost of said purchase, and that the said Act also provide for the issue of the bonds of the County and the bonds of the town of Pelham necessary to cover the amount of said purchase."

Immediately upon presentation of the Special Report by the Committee, Odle Close of North Pelham moved that consideration of the report by the Board of Supervisors "be indefinitely postponed."  The Board voted 14 to 4 in favor of postponing consideration "indefinitely."

This initiative to have Westchester County and Pelham purchase the City Island Bridge and make it free withered on the vine.  

"Old City Island Bridge" Source: "Chapter XX: City Island"

in History of Bronx Borough City Of New York Compiled for

The North Side News By Randall Comfort, p. 59 (NY, NY: North

Side News Press: 1906). NOTE: Click on Image to Enlarge.

*          *           *          *          *

"WEDNESDAY, December 8 [sic; should be 18], 1872.

Board met pursuant to adjournment. . . .

Mr. HEGEMAN presented the following resolution:

Resolved, That a Committee of Three 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 City island Bridge, connecting said City Island with the main land in the town of Pelham.

Laid over under the rule."

Source:  ANNUAL SESSION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF WESTCHESTER CO., p. 342 (1873).  

"THURSDAY, December 19th, 1872.

Board met pursuant to adjournment.

Present -- F. M. CARPENTER, Esq., Chairman, and a quorum of members. . . . 

2 O'CLOCK P. M.

Board reassembled.

Present -- F. M. CARPENTER, Esq., Chairman and a quorum of members.

Mr. HEGEMAN called up the resolution presented by him yesterday, relative to City Island Bridge, whereupon said resolution was considered and adopted. . . ."

Source:  ANNUAL SESSION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF WESTCHESTER CO., p. 361 (1873).   

"MONDAY, December 23, 1872.

Board met pursuant to adjournment. . . . 

2 O'CLOCK, P. M.

Board re-assembled. . . .

The Chair announced the following Special Committees:

On City Island Bridge, Messrs. Sutherland, Close, and Davids.

Source:  ANNUAL SESSION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF WESTCHESTER CO., p. 371 (1873).  

"SATURDAY, January 4, 1873.

Board met pursuant to adjournment. . . . 

1 1/2 O'CLOCK, P. M.

Board re-assembled. . . . 

[Page 448]

Dated January 4, 1873.

CHARLES E. JOHNSON,
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.

Mr. SUTHERLAND, from Special Committee on purchase of City Island Bridge, presented the following report thereon:

To the Board of Supervisors:  

The undersigned, a majority of the Special Committee to whom was referred the question of the propriety of purchasing City Island Bridge, respectfully report, that they have had the matter under consideration, heard parties in relation thereto, and from the evidence presented and the circumstances of the case, have arrived at the following conclusions.

First -- That the City Island Bridge Company was chartered by an act of the Legislature of 1864, with a capital stock of $50,000, with the privilege of extending the amount to _________.  [Left blank in the original.]  That a majority of the stock was taken by a few liberal and public spirited residents of the town of Pelham, and the balance by persons in various sections of the County, and in New York and Brooklyn, who were induced so to subscribe therefor, not as a valuable investment, but to afford a relief to the people of Pelham in getting to and from City Island, which is a portion of said town.

Second -- That City Island, between which and the main land of said town the bridge is located, contains a population of about 1,000 persons, a portion of whom are engaged in the oyster business, one of the important industries of the country, and another 

[Page 448 / Page 449]

449

portion in ship building.  The Island contains about 300 acres, and 250 of which are devoted to farming purposes, and gardening is also carried on in the Island to a large extent.

Third -- That City Island Bridge was erected at a cost of $33,689.98, and was completed and opened for use on the 4th day of July, 1869, as a toll bridge.  It is built of the best timber, and is a substantial structure.  The shares of stock issued amount to $33,700.

Fourth -- The policy of the County, some years since initiated of opening our bridges and other thoroughfares to free use and travel, is in the opinion of the undersigned a wise policy, for obvious reasons which need not be here enumerated.  The Harlem Bridge, formerly a toll bridge, is now a free bridge, it having been rebuilt at the expense of the Counties of Westchester and New York.  Pelham Bridge, also formerly owned by an incorporated Company, exacting toll for passing over it, has been purchased from the stockholders, paid for by the County, and is now a free bridge.  The Westchester Turnpike and Post Road has likewise been purchased from the stockholders, and paid for partly by the County, and partly by the town, through which it passes, and its toll gate removed.  The Five Mile Turnpike in the upper part of the County was also purchased from the stockholders and made a free public highway.  The Central Bridge over Harlem River was erected at a joint expense of the Counties of Westchester and New York -- the Westchester portion of said expense being borne partly by the towns of Morrisania and West Farms, and partly by the County at large.  City Island Bridge is the only bridge or thoroughfare in the County of Westchester on which tolls are now exacted from our citizens.  

Fifth -- By a special Act of the Legislature passed in 186_, [Left blank in original] the bridges over the Croton River, including its branches, were thenceforth made a charge upon the County at large, and many thousands of dollars

[Page 449 / Page 450]

450

have been expended in the construction of iron and other costly bridges over that river, and no session of the Board of Supervisors passes in which more or less money is not required to be expended in the repair and superintendence of these expensive structures.

Sixth -- The town of Pelham has been called upon to pay its equal share, according to the taxable property of its inhabitants, of the expenses incurred in the purchase for erection and and repair of turnpikes and bridges, without enjoying an equal share of the benefits derived therefrom.  The undersigned are therefore of the opinion that the people of Pelham are justly entitled to relief at the hands of the County from the onerous and oppressive special taxation in the form of heavy tolls which they are called upon to bear in passing from one part of said town to another part of it.  No other town in the County is situated like the town of Pelham, it being divided by a body of water which cannot be crossed in the absence of a bridge except by a ferry boat or other vessel.  In view of these facts and circumstances the undersigned do not hesitate to recommend the purchasing of City Island Bridge, providing it can be purchased at a sum not exceeding $25,000, one half of the purchase money to be advanced by the County and the other half by the town of Pelham.

To this end the undersigned recommend the passage of the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Senator from this District and the Members of Assembly from the County be and they are hereby requested to procure the passage of an Act at the ensuing session of the Legislature, to authorize the Board of Supervisors of this County to purchase, at their discretion, City Island Bridge, at a cost to said County not exceeding $12,500, provided the town of Pelham shall pay the balance of the cost of said purchase, and that the said Act also 

[Page 450 / Page 451]

451

provide for the issue of the bonds of the County and the bonds of the town of Pelham necessary to cover the amount of said purchase.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

E. G. SUTHERLAND,     }
                                        } Special Com. on Purchase of City Island Bridge.
GEO. W. DAVIDS.          }

Mr. CLOSE moved that the consideration of said report be indefinitely postponed.

The Chair put the question upon the motion and it was determined in the affirmative -- ayes 14, nays 4.  

On motion of Mr. CLOSE the Board adjourned until Saturday, January 18th next, at 10 1/2 o'clock, A. M."

Source:  ANNUAL SESSION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF WESTCHESTER CO.  pp. 448-51 (1873).  

*          *          *          *          *

To learn more about the City Island Bridge, early efforts to develop a bridge from the mainland to City Island and about Benjamin Palmer, Samuel Rodman, and others involved in efforts to build such a bridge, see the following.

Fri., Jun. 09, 2017:  The Big Picture: Controversy in the 1880s Over Who Should Pay to Rebuild or Replace City Island Bridge.

Mon., Jun. 05, 2017:  For Once, Pelham Manor Mainlanders Told City Islanders "No" in 1883.

Mon., Aug. 08, 2016:  More on Unsuccessful Efforts in 1884 by Town of Pelham to Replace the Wooden City Island Bridge.

Wed., Jul. 20, 2016:  Bill Introduced in 1884 to Authorize the Town of Pelham To Build a New City Island Bridge.

Wed., May 06, 2015:  Another Interesting History of City Island Published in 1901.

Fri., Mar. 13, 2015:  An Important History of the City Island Bridge Built in 1868 and the Way Brothers' Ferry That Preceded It.

Mon., Dec. 15, 2014:  Brief History of City Island Including the Legend of the Macedonia Hotel with Photographs Published in 1906.

Thu., Dec. 04, 2014:  Park Department Commissioners Condemned -- But Didn't Close -- the "Dilapidated" City Island Bridge in 1894.

Tue., Oct. 07, 2014:  Legislative History of the 1775 Statute Authorizing Construction of City Island Bridge.

Fri., Oct. 03, 2014:  1775 Statute Authorizing Construction of City Island Bridge.

Tue., Jul. 22, 2014:  Stories of City Island Bridge Published in 1892.

Wed., May 28, 2014:  Description of City Island in the Town of Pelham Published in 1868.

Wed., Mar. 10, 2010:  1899 Article About City Island's New Bridge Describes History of Area and Includes Wonderful Images.

Wed., Dec. 05, 2007:  Photograph of the Old Wooden City Island Bridge.

Tue., Dec. 26, 2006:  1775 Statute Authorizing Samuel Rodman and Benjamin Palmer to Build City Island Drawbridge.  

Tue., May 02, 2006:  Benjamin Palmer's Advertisement in 1756 To Raise Subscriptions To Fund a Free Bridge From Manhattan.

Wed., May 17, 2006:  More About Benjamin Palmer's Involvement With Raising Funds for a Free Bridge from Manhattan. 

Fri., May 05, 2006:  1763 Announcement That City Island in the Manor of Pelham Has Been Laid Out in Lots for Sale.

Mon., May 15, 2006:  Resales of Lots in the 1760s on the Island Known Today as City Island.

Thu., Apr. 19, 2007:  An Account of How Soldiers Were "Recruited" in Pelham in 1758 for the French and Indian War.  

Mon., Jan. 29, 2007:  Palmer Family Offers One Thirtieth of City Island for Sale in 1785.

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."