Historic Pelham

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.