Historic Pelham

Presenting the rich history of Pelham, NY in Westchester County: current historical research, descriptions of how to research Pelham history online and genealogy discussions of Pelham families.

Friday, June 09, 2017

The Big Picture: Controversy in the 1880s Over Who Should Pay to Rebuild or Replace City Island Bridge


Recently I wrote about a pair of lawsuits brought by George H. Reynolds, President and Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Pelham Manor Protective Club, in 1883 against Town of Pelham Supervisor James Hyatt and the Westchester County Board of Supervisors to stop a tax levy against Town of Pelham residents to fund construction of a new City Island Bridge.  See Mon., Jun. 05, 2017:  For Once, Pelham Manor Mainlanders Told City Islanders "No" in 1883.  It turns out that the pair of lawsuits was part of a much broader and lengthier dispute over who, precisely, should fund replacement of the decrepit City Island Bridge.

The story seems to begin in 1882 when Pelham became locked in a battle with its next door neighbor, Mount Vernon.  Mount Vernon sought authorization to construct a new sewer system and, craftily, omitted from its proposal precisely where its sewerage outlets would empty.  City Island and Pelham mainlanders knew, of course, that Mount Vernon most likely would route such outlets into the Hutchinson River that served as the boundary between Mount Vernon and Pelham.  Such an outcome would endanger oystering, fishing, bathing, and recreational facilities at City Island, in Eastchester Bay and along the Pelham coast.  All of Pelham rose up to fight the sewerage plan and handily defeated it, leaving Mount Vernon to return to the drawing board.

 The following year, however, it was Mount Vernon's turn to seek sweet revenge against its neighbor.  The aging, decrepit, and downright dangerous City Island Bridge that connected mainland Pelham to little City Island needed to be replaced at a proposed cost of $20,000.  Pelham, quite simply, could not afford the cost.  Moreover, its taxpayers -- particularly those on the mainland -- balked at increasing the Town tax levy to fund the project.

 The Town of Pelham was able to get a bill proposed in the New York State Assembly to shift responsibility for the City Island Bridge to Westchester County.  According to the thinking of the Town, City Island was a regional recreational and vacation destination that served all of Westchester County.  Thus, it was only fair for the taxpayers of all of Westchester County to fund construction of a replacement City Island Bridge.  

 The Yonkers Gazette was the first to raise an alarm regarding Pelham's shenanigans.  It published a story reporting that Pelham was trying to shift responsibility for the City Island Bridge to Westchester County.  The Chronicle of Mount Vernon quickly took up the cudgel to oppose the Pelham proposal pending in the State Assembly.  The Chronicle wrote indignantly:

 "People who live in glass houses had better not throw stones.  The people of this village didn't ask the people of City Island to pay one cent toward the construction of our sewers but the people of City Island ask the people of this village to pay a lot of the cost of rebuilding and keeping their bridge.  If any should object, it strikes us that the people of Mount Vernon and other parties [should]."

 Within a short time, the State Assembly reported the bill to transfer responsibility for the City Island Bridge to Westchester County "Adversely."  The proposed bill died with no further action.

 As noted in the recent article "For Once, Pelham Manor Mainlanders Told City Islanders 'No' in 1883," left with no alternative the Town of Pelham proposed to levy taxes against all Pelham taxpayers to raise $25,000 to fund construction and subsequent maintenance of a new City Island Bridge.  The pair of lawsuits by George H. Reynolds followed and, eventually, blocked the proposed tax levy increase.

 The old wooden City Island Bridge was in such sad and dangerous shape, however, that the Town Board of Pelham, controlled by City Island Democrats, refused to give up.  After the lawsuits filed by George H. Reynolds blocked the proposed tax levy, the Town went back to the State Assembly and arranged proposal of a bill to allow the Town to issue bonds to fund replacement of the City Island Bridge.  That way, of course, annual repayment of portions of the principal and interest could be spread over a lengthy period of time so that Pelham taxpayers could more easily digest the necessary annual tax levy increase needed to service the bonds.  I have written about this development before.  See Wed., Jul. 20, 2016:  Bill Introduced in 1884 to Authorize the Town of Pelham To Build a New City Island Bridge.  See also Mon., Aug. 08, 2016:  More on Unsuccessful Efforts in 1884 by Town of Pelham to Replace the Wooden City Island Bridge.

 Once again, the initiative went nowhere.  The dangerous wooden City Island Bridge retained signs warning that it was too dangerous to cross for many, many more years as City Islanders, horse railroad cars, and visitors crossed back and forth.  Moreover, in 1894, Park Department Commissioners actually condemned the bridge.  See Thu., Dec. 04, 2014:  Park Department Commissioners Condemned -- But Didn't Close -- the "Dilapidated" City Island Bridge in 1894.  Yet, it was not until City Island, the City Island Bridge, and the area on the mainland adjacent to City Island were annexed in the mid-1890s that plans for replacement of the dangerous old bridge took flight.  

 New York City opened the iron City Island Bridge that replaced the old wooden bridge on July 4, 1901. It took almost three years to build and cost $200,000.

"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.

 *          *          *          *          *

 Below is the text of a number of articles that relate to the subject of today's Historic Pelham article.  Each is followed by a citation and link to its source.  Some of the items quoted below reference the bridge as "The Pelham Bridge."  These references are incorrect.  The nearby Pelham Bridge spans Eastchester Bay and does not connect to City Island.  The dispute in the 1880s involved responsibility for the City Island Bridge.

 "THE PELHAM BRIDGE [Sic -- Should be "THE CITY ISLAND BRIDGE"]

 The following article appeared in the Yonkers Gazette.

 During a late session of the Board of Supervisors, a resolution to make the Pelham bridge a county charge was offered and referred to the judiciary committee, never saw light again, and it was hoped a very large majority of those most interested that this would be the last of an attempt to saddle the expense of a new bridge, entirely in the town of Pelham, upon the county at large.  But no, the matter has come up again -- this time in the state legislature, where Hon. S. W. Johnson has offered a bill to make the Pelham bridge a county bridge.  This bridge is now so old and dilapidated, that notices have been posted at either end, warning the public that it is not safe to cross it.  A new bridge will cost about $20,000.  If Mr. Johnson gets his bill through and the governor sign it, the new bridge will cost the seven towns in the county, the amounts set down in the table below.  And in addition will cost the county, for its care and painting, for the first four years after its erection, some $5,000 more.  The share of Yonkers in this expense will be, for the cost of the bridge, $3,842, and for the succeeding four years about $700 more.  The county ought not to be compelled to pay for this bridge any more than it should pay for the erection of bridges in the city of Yonkers.  Let Pelham build and pay for its own bridge.

 Towns                       Percent of tax                  Of $20,000
                                 paid by each town.           town pays--
Bedford.....................3.06                                     612.60
Cortlandt...................7.18                                  1,436.00
East Chester.............5.93                                  1,186.00
Greenburgh.............17.94                                 3,588.00
Harrison..................   1.72                                    344.00
Lewisboro................  1.32                                    264.00
Mammaroneck........   1.82                                    364.00
Mount Pleasant.......   4.55                                    910.00
New Castle.............    1.66                                   332.00
New Rochelle..........   4.73                                   946.00
North Castle............     .99                                   198.00
North Salem............   1.90                                   380.00
Ossining..................   5.78                                 1,156.00
Pelham....................   1.95                                    390.00
Poundridge..............     .57                                    114.00
Rye..........................   6.13                                 1,226.00
Scarsdale................   1.03                                     206.00
Somers....................   2.03                                     406.00
Westchester............    5.97                                 1,014.00
White Plains............    3.35                                    670.00
Yonkers...................  19.21                                3,842.00
Yorktown.................    2.08                                    416.00
                                _______                            ________


                                 100.00                             20,000.00

 Now if we were disposed to act toward the people of City Island in a retaliatory spirit, if we were inclined to treat this proposition of theirs as they did our last year in relation to our system of sewerage, we would call an indignation meeting, denounce this measure as an outrage on taxpayers of the county and appoint a committee to go to Albany to defeat their bill.  People who live in glass houses had better not throw stones.  The people of this village didn't ask the people of City Island to pay one cent toward the construction of our sewers but the people of City Island ask the people of this village to pay a lot of the cost of rebuilding and keeping their bridge.  If any should object, it strikes us that the people of Mount Vernon and other parties [should]."

 Source:  THE PELHAM BRIDGE, The Chronicle [Mount Vernon, NY], Jan. 26, 1883, Vol. XIV, No. 697, p. 1, col. 6.

"LET THE GALLED JADE WINCE!

 TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRONICLE.

 The article copied into your valuable journal from the Yonkers Gazette entitled 'Pelham Bridge,' and your editorial comments on the same are extremely unjust.  It is very evident that neither your 'esteemed contemporary,' yourselves or 'that very large majority most interested, &c.,' know anything about the facts of the case.  In my criticism thereon, I will confine myself to the facts, and will not enter into a discussion on the merits of the 'Mount Vernon Sewer question,' which is wholly foreign to the subject, and in no sense a parallel case.  The sewer is to benefit Mount Vernon alone, while doing actual injury to its neighbors, the towns of East and Westchester, Pelham, City Island, &c., whereas the 'City Island Bridge' is used by and benefits the people of the whole county, and the very gist of the application for this bill is that it is for the benefit of the people of the whole county, or at least a majority of the people of the county, irrespective of town lines and not the town of Pelham alone, (and here lies the difference).

 The injustice of compelling the town of Pelham alone to maintain this bridge is simply monstrous, and must so strike any person capable of forming an honest unbiased opinion.  Here is a bridge, as the petition shows, used almost wholly by the people of other towns, which this little town, Pelham, is expected to keep in repair at its own expense.  The proposition is absurd.  It is but fair and just that those who use it, should bear their portion of its expense.  The people who most use the bridge, as is clearly shown by the petition, come from towns who pay $8,000 of the $20,000, which the 'Yonkers Gazette' says will be the cost of the bridge, (but the fact is it will not cost one half of that amount), and they certainly should pay for it, in proportion to their use of it.  The people from the upper part of the county probably were not aware until the introduction of this bill of the existence of such a bridge and opposition from this direction might, with some show of reason, have been expected; but from Mount Vernon and Yonkers, I grieve to say it, comes with very bad grace.

 How often have its people in the heat of summer enjoyed the cool breezes of City Island with its clean waters to bathe in and its delicious oysters to tickle the palate; and will they have it said that they enjoy these delights at the expense of their neighbors?

 Should this effort to obtain justice be defeated, there are two courses left for Pelham to adopt, one to restore the bridge to a toll bridge, and the other to go to the legislature and ask for a bill to put up a handsome, permanent, iron structure at a cost of $50,000 or $60,000, which will be an ornament to the county, and have the county pay for it.  The county is now paying for dozens of bridges, which, according to your theory, should be paid for by the towns themselves.

 Pelham, January 27th, 1883.

 FAIRPLAY.

 The article from the Yonkers Gazette, concerning the City Island bridge, which we republished last week with a few comments of our own, less evidently caused the galled jades, who hoped to saddle their heavy burden on the county at large, to wince and wax wroth.  Out distinguished correspondent, who took so active a part in defeating the Mount Vernon Sewer Bill last year, says that the improvement our people sought then, and the one he seeks now, are in no sense parallel.  It makes a great difference, we admit, whether our ox gores his bull, or his bull gores our ox.  We also admit that the two cases are in one sense not parallel; we propose to pay for our improvement out of our own pockets, and he proposes to pay for his improvement out of his neighbors' pockets.  He objects to letting us make our own improvements at our own expense, and at the same time asks us to let him make his improvements at our expense.

 He says that the City Island bridge benefits the people of the whole county.  What silly audacity!  Of what use is that bridge to the people of Peekskill, Bedford, Katonah, Sing Sing, Tarrytown, and nine-tenths of the county.  We might just as well ask the people of the county to pay for the flag-walks and cross-walks in the streets of Mount Vernon; they are used by one hundred people in a day, where the City Island bridge is used by one.  What is there about a bridge, which should make that a charge on the whole county, any more than other improvements?  If the county is to pay for bridges, why not for roads, street lamps, etc., etc.  This town is now burdened with a debt of hundreds of thousands of dollars for boulevards.  We never asked the county to take this burden off of our backs.  The load was heavy, we were robbed right and left, but we never begged or squealed, or tried to shift our burden on some one else's back.  Take the Boston Post road for an illustration.  It is used by ten outsiders for every one of our own people who use it.  According to the argument of our distinguished correspondent, the county at large should pay for this road.  Indeed, our position is much stronger than his, for this reason:  most of those who travel on the Boston Post road, simply pass through a corner of our town on their way from one place to another outside.  We get very, very little benefit in the way of trade or otherwise, from their use of this road, while every one who travels over the City Island bridge, goes either to or from City Island, and those who use the bridge and are not residents of the Island, seldom go there except for business or pleasure, and in either case, the residents get a benefit.  Our correspondent says that 'the very gist of the application for this bill is, that it is for the benefit of the people of the whole county, or at least, a majority of the people of the county.'  Since that is the gist of his application, the bill should never pass, for the bridge is not, and never was for the benefit of the whole county, or a majority therein.  

 Our correspondent says it is monstrous to compel the town of Pelham alone to maintain this bridge.  It is no more monstrous than it is to ask the village of Mount Vernon alone to maintain its streets, avenues, sidewalks, and street lamps.  If our people alone use our streets and sidewalks, they of course should pay for them; if we can induce other people to come here and use our streets and avenues, we know it will almost invariably pay us to do so, and hence we cheerfully bear the expense.  The same rule applies equally as well to City Island and her bridge.

 Our distinguished correspondent says that people in the heat of summer, go to City Island and bathe in its clean waters, drink its cool breezes and tickle their palates with its delicious oysters; and then working himself up into a fine frenzy, he exclaims:  'and will they have it said that they enjoy these delights at the expense of their neighbors!'

 We hope not!  If any man tickles his palate with City Island oysters, he should pay for them; if he bathes in her clean waters, he should remunerate the City Islanders for the bath; if he drinks in the pure air of City Island, he should pay for it by the bottle, but we don't see why he should pay for getting to City Island to pay for these delicacies.  If he should, we don't see why those who don't go should also be compelled to enable him to go there.  If the City Islanders, who deal in 'palate ticklers,' 'clean, sound water,' and 'cool breezes,' don't think it will pay to make the road thereto free, let them exact toll of those who go to City Island for such luxuries; then the people of Peekskill, Bedford, Sing Sing and other places, who never have and never will know what it is to have their palates tickled, their bodies purified and their lungs expanded with the articles of City Island's commercial enterprise, will not have to pay for not going to get what they never have, and never will see, smell, feel or taste."

 Source:  LET THE GALLED JADE WINCE!, The Chronicle [Mount Vernon, NY], Feb. 2, 1883, Vol. XIV, No. 698, p. 2, col. 3. 

 "The New City Island Bridge.

 Should City Island bridge become a County charge, a new bridge will have to be built, and it will cost about $20,000.  If the bill to build this bridge should pass the Legislature now in session, each town will have to pay according to this table:

 Towns                       Percent of tax                  Of $20,000
                                 paid by each town.           town pays--

Bedford.....................3.06                                     612.60
Cortlandt...................7.18                                  1,436.00
East Chester.............5.93                                  1,186.00
Greenburgh.............17.94                                 3,588.00
Harrison..................   1.72                                    344.00
Lewisboro................  1.32                                    264.00
Mammaroneck........   1.82                                    364.00
Mount Pleasant.......   4.55                                    910.00
New Castle.............    1.66                                   332.00
New Rochelle..........   4.73                                   946.00
North Castle............     .99                                   198.00
North Salem............   1.90                                   380.00
Ossining..................   5.78                                 1,156.00
Pelham....................   1.95                                    390.00
Poundridge..............     .57                                    114.00
Rye..........................   6.13                                 1,226.00
Scarsdale................   1.03                                     206.00
Somers....................   2.03                                     406.00
Westchester............    5.97                                 1,014.00
White Plains............    3.35                                    670.00
Yonkers...................  19.21                                3,842.00
Yorktown.................    2.08                                    416.00
                                _______                            ________

                                 100.00                             20,000.00 


Source:  The New City Island Bridge, Eastern State Journal [White Plains, NY], Feb. 9, 1883, Vol XXXVIII, No. 44, p. 3, col. 2.  

 "NEW YORK LEGISLATURE.
-----
ALBANY, February 15. . . .
Assembly. . . . 
BILLS REPORTED. . . .

 Adversely -- Relative to the maintenance of the City Island Bridge in Pelham Westchester County.  Agreed to. . . ."

 Source:  NEW YORK LEGISLATURE -- ALBANY, February 15, The Evening Post [NY, NY], Feb. 15, 1883, 4th Edition, p. 1, col. 6.  

 [Though the article below clearly relates to the actual Pelham Bridge (as opposed to the City Island Bridge), it is transcribed here to show the burden Pelham faced in maintaining such bridges and roads during the 1880s.]

"PELHAM.

 We have seen deplorable roads in our own town but after passing over that portion of the road, between Lockwood's Bridge and Prospect Hill, we yield the palm to the town of Pelham.  The people in that part of the town justly complain of the inattention given to their roads, particularly this one, which, being the post road, is the great thoroughfare between New York and New Rochelle, and also between Mt. Vernon and City Island, and should therefore be kept in better condition.

 The repairs to Pelham Bridge were commenced on Monday last, by Mr. Henderson and the draw's now turned off.  A temporary foot bridge has been built for pedestrians, but vehicles cannot cross.  The inconvenience to the public is very great and Mr. Henderson will push the work of repairing the bridge to the utmost.  It will probably take about three weeks to complete the work, but Mr. Henderson expects to have the repairs far enough along in two weeks, so that the bridge may be used."

 Source:  PELHAM, The Chronicle [Mount Vernon, NY], Jul. 13, 1883, Vol. XIV, No. 721, p. 3, col. 3.
*          *          *          *          *

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.

 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.







Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

posted by Blake A. Bell @ 4:58 AM 0 comments

Monday, June 05, 2017

For Once, Pelham Manor Mainlanders Told City Islanders "No" in 1883


Throughout much of the 19th century, most of the population of the Town of Pelham lived on City Island -- not on the mainland.  Thus, initiatives to appropriate taxpayer funds for improvements on City Island were nearly always successful.  In contrast, initiatives to appropriate taxpayer funds for improvements on the mainland (including appropriations to repair roads and bridges on the mainland) often failed either at the ballot box or during votes taken at Town meetings controlled by City Island Democrats.  Residents of Pelham Manor, Bartow, Prospect Hill, and Pelhamville grew angrier by the year about their circumstances. As far as they were concerned, "City Island always voted no" regarding appropriations to improve mainland roads and the like.  The battle became one between the islanders and the mainlanders.

 Finally, in 1883, the Pelham Manor mainlanders said "no!" -- not in a vote, but in a lawsuit.

 At an annual Town meeting that City Islanders ensured was packed with islanders, a vote was held to authorize the Town of Pelham to seek authorization from the Westchester County Board of Supervisors to levy a tax against all Pelham taxpayers to raise $25,000 to repair City Island Bridge and $1,750 for general road purposes, most of which would go to repairing roads on the mainland leading to City Island Bridge.  Pelham Manor residents were furious.  Their roads were in horrendous condition.  They wanted something done.

 In 1883, Pelham Manor was not yet a village.  It was "governed" by agreement among the local residents by the Pelham Manor Protective Club, a vigilance club established in 1881.  George H. Reynolds was one of the most prominent members of the club.  In fact, he hosted many meetings of the club in his home.  He served as first President of the club.  In 1883, he served as President again, and was Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Club.  

 Residents of Pelham Manor felt that City Island Democrats governed corruptly via "machine" politics.  They felt that the Democratic Machine failed to represent their interests and that, through machine politics, it was able to control the appropriations process and dole out the funds for the principal benefit of City Islanders and the cronies of the Democratic Machine.  Indeed, an anonymous and sarcastic letter to The Chronicle published in Mount Vernon written at about this time claimed as much. See Tue., Jan. 19, 2016:  City Island Always Voted No.  

 George H. Reynolds brought a lawsuit against the Supervisor of the Town of Pelham, City Islander James Hyatt, seeking to block any tax levy to fund the bridge and roadway repairs sought by City Island.  The suit alleged that the tax levy should be blocked because appropriations were being handled in an unfair and unequal manner to benefit certain taxpayers at the expense of others.  At some point, perhaps the same time or perhaps later, Reynolds filed a second lawsuit against the Westchester County Board of Supervisors seeking similar relief. 

 At first it looked as though the lawsuit against Town Supervisor Hyatt might fail.  According to one news account, a local court initially entered judgment in favor of defendant, rejecting the claims made by Reynolds.  On Saturday, November 3, 1883, however, a local judge entered an order to show cause against the defendant directing that he appear before the court and "show cause why the judgment for the defendant should not be set aside and a reargument ordered."  Moreover, the court enjoined the defendant "from taking further proceedings in the matter until argument on the matter is heard."  It appears from a subsequent news report that, after hearing rearguments, on December 12, 1883 a local New York Supreme Court Justice entered judgment for defendant Hyatt again.  

 Newspaper accounts of the day do not specify the nature of the proceedings that followed.  Most likely an appeal was taken from the December 12 decision of the New York Supreme Court (the trial court level in New York). In any event, the attorney for George H. Reynolds (W. R. Lamberton) continued battling on behalf of Pelham Manor Protective Club President George H. Reynolds.  Finally, on Saturday, March 1, 1884, Lamberton filed in both lawsuits (the one against the Pelham Town Supervisor and the one against Westchester County Board of Supervisors) a notice of entry of final judgment in favor of plaintiff George H. Reynolds "for the relief demanded" in the complaints filed in each action.  As one news account put it:  "Those decisions annul the appropriation of $25,000 for City Island Bridge, and that of $1,750 for general road purposes -- both of which were carried at the last town meeting in Pelham."

 For once, the mainlanders of Pelham Manor said "no!" -- and it stuck.  For once, they had beaten "The Machine."

1881 Map of the Town of Pelham Showing the Mainland and the Islands
that Comprised the Town Before Annexation. Source:  Bromley, George
Washington & Bromley, Walter Scott, "Town of Pelham, (With) Pelham-
1881)" in Atlas of Westchester County, New York, From Actual Surveys
and Official Records, pp. 56-57 (Washington, D.C.: G.W. Bromley & Co.
1881).  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

 *           *          *           *          *

 Transcribed below is the text of a number of news articles concerning the lawsuits filed by George H. Reynolds in 1883.  Each is followed by a citation and link to its source.

 "WESTCHESTER COUNTY.

 In the suit brought by George H. Reynolds against James Hyatt, Supervisor of the town of Pelham, to restrain the levy of a tax of $25,000 for making repairs to the City Island bridge, Judge Dykman granted an order last Saturday to show cause why the judgment for the defendant should not be set aside and a reargument ordered.  The defendant is also enjoined, by the terms of the order, from taking further proceedings in the matter until argument on the matter is heard."

 Source:  WESTCHESTER COUNTY, N.Y. Times, Nov. 5, 1883, p. 8, col. 3 (Note:  Paid subscription require to access via this link).

 "WESTCHESTER COUNTY
-----
Epitome of the News. . . . 

 -- In the suit brought by George H. Reynolds against James Hyatt, supervisor of the town of Pelham, to restrain the levy of a tax of $25,000 for making repairs to the City Island bridge.  Judge Dykman granted an order last Saturday to show cause why the judgment for the defendant should not be set aside, and a re-argument ordered.  The defendant is also enjoined, by the terms of the order, from taking further proceedings in the matter until argument on the matter is heard. . . ."

 Source:  WESTCHESTER COUNTY -- Epitome of the News, New Rochelle Pioneer, Nov. 10, 1883, p. 3, cols. 6-7.

 "JUDGMENT REVERSED. -- In the action brought by George H. Reynolds against James Hyatt Supervisor of the town of Pelham, the Supreme Court rendered judgment on the 12th day of December last, in favor of the defendant, with costs.  On Saturday an order was entered by the plaintiff's attorney, reversing this judgment and rendering judgment for the plaintiff.  At the same time an order was entered in the action of Reynolds against the Westchester County Board of Supervisors, rendering final judgment for the plaintiff for the relief demanded in the complaint.  Those decisions annul the appropriation of $25,000 for City Island Bridge, and that of $1,750 for general road purposes -- both of which were carried at the last town meeting in Pelham.  The plaintiff has been represented in these suits by W. R. Lamberton, and the defendants by Martin J. Keogh."

 Source:  JUDGMENT REVERSED, The Yonkers Statesman, Mar. 3, 1884, Vol. I, No. 94, p. 1, col. 4.  

"PELHAM AND CITY ISLAND. . . . 

 On the 12th of December last a judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court in favor of James Hyatt, Supervisor, the defendant in the action brought by George H. Reynolds against him.  On Saturday last the plaintiff's attorney entered an order reversing the judgment and giving judgment for the plaintiff.  Another order was also entered in the suit of Reynolds against the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County, being final judgment for him for the relief demanded in the complaint.  The appropriations of $25,000 for a new bridge at City Island and $1,750 for road purposes are annulled by these judgments. . . .

 [I]f there is one appropriation that should be granted more than another it is certainly that one for repairing and grading City Island road and the one for bluestoning that portion of the road from City Island bridge to Marshals corner.  This piece of road has been for weeks past, literally in an impassable condition and no one could be more deeply impressed with the necessity of repairing it than the writer.  From the nature of this piece of road it would be a useless expenditure of money to attempt to repair it, by the method ordinarily employed, of putting clay or sand upon it."

 Source:  PELHAM AND CITY ISLAND, The Chronicle [Mount Vernon, NY], Mar. 7, 1884, Vol. XV, No. 755, p. 3, cols. 4-5.

 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."

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

posted by Blake A. Bell @ 5:10 AM 0 comments

Friday, December 16, 2016

The Fire that Destroyed the Miners' Powder Company of Pelhamville in 1878


As noted yesterday, during the final decades of the 19th century there were at least seven massive explosions at powder manufacturing plants near Pelham Bridge that rattled the Pelhams and left a trail of carnage, devastation, and death.  See Thu., Dec. 15, 2016:  Repeated Dynamite and Powder Manufacturing Explosions Rocked Pelham Bridge and Bartow.  For a time, the little settlement of Pelhamville feared that it might suffer the same fate.  As fate would have it, Pelhamville nearly suffered exactly the same fate.

 During the 1870s, famed engineer and Pelham Manor resident George Huntington Reynolds founded a company name Miners' Powder Company and established a dynamite manufacturing plant in Pelhamville about one hundred feet from the New Haven Line railroad tracks.  It is not known with certainty where the plant was located, but it seems most likely that it was not far from the foot of First Street near the Hutchinson River.  

 Reynolds became famous during the Civil War when he designed and oversaw the construction of the steam engine that powered the famed Union ironclad Monitor that battled the Merrimack (the CSS Virginia) on March 9, 1862.  He became an expert elevator engineer sought worldwide for his specialty.  Most interestingly, he received a host of patents for so-called "dynamite guns" (powerful artillery pieces that delivered large explosive charges).  He became consulting engineer of the Pneumatic Dynamite Gun Company of New York and superintended the gun construction of the dynamite cruiser Vesuvius.  I have written of George H. Reynolds before, including an extensive biography of him.  See Wed., Feb. 24, 2016:  What is Pelham's Connection to the Civil War Ironclad USS Monitor that Fought in the First Battle of Ironclads? 

 It appears that George H. Reynolds never really announced plans to open a dynamite manufacturing plant in the tiny community of Pelhamville.  Instead, he simply began constructing the facilities.  Curious local residents soon learned of the purpose and united to oppose the plant.  Reynolds assured them that his plant was different.  He claimed that he had developed an entirely new explosive composition that was "not explosive" until joined with a particular fulminate that had to be exploded by percussion.  He further assured that the fulminate (a product of fulminic acid often used as a detonator) "would be added elsewhere," thus ensuring that his new dynamite plant was a safe new business for the benefit of the little settlement of Pelhamville.

 Reynolds seems to have been persuasive.  By 1878, and likely before, the Miners' Powder Company was up and running in Pelhamville, only one hundred feet away from the main New Haven Line railroad tracks. . . . 

 Samuel J. Sparks was hired as the engineer of the facility.  He had important, long-standing ties to Pelhamville.  Samuel J. Sparks was a brother of William H. Sparks, a builder in Pelhamville in the 1860s and 1870s and owner of William H. Sparks & Co., a Pelhamville construction firm.  During the 1860s, Samuel Sparks served as a clerk and book-keeper for William H. Sparks & Co.  Though Samuel left Pelhamville for a time thereafter, by 1878 he was back and working at the Miners' Powder Company.  

 Reynolds claimed to have a "secret ingredient" that, in effect, rendered his explosives inert until he added the secret ingredient elsewhere.  Did he?  Within a short time, the Miners'' Powder Company was sued in a patent infringement action that revealed the formula for its dynamite.  Assuming the formula disclosed at the time was accurate, it is hard today to identify a secret ingredient.  The purportedly "secret formula" was:

 Nitroglycerine . . . . 33.00%
Nitrate of soda . . . . 49.88%
Charcoal, wood and partially charred wood . . . . . . . . 17.21%
Ash . . . . . . . . . 1.18%"

 Source:  United States Naval Institute Proceedings, Vol. X, p. 223 (Annapolis, MD:  U.S. Naval Institute, 1884).

 Based on the many other dynamite formulae published at about the same time, the formula used at the Pelhamville facility must truly have had a "secret ingredient" because, except for very tiny differences in the percentages of identical components, the formulae of many local competitors seem to have been essentially the same.  

Residents of Pelhamville simply could not get over their fear of the dynamite works next to the railroad tracks.  One news story noted that the plant "occcasioned considerable anxiety to [New Haven Line] passengers as they ride up and down the road, lest an explosion should occur as they pass the works."  That fear nearly came to pass on February 4, 1878.

 That day, the buildings of the Miners' Powder Company in Pelhamville were bulging with a "considerable quantity of materials" used in the manufacture of dynamite cartridges including nitroglycerin, several hundred pounds of the explosive ready to be packed into cartridges, and a considerable number of complete cartridges in packages ready for use.

 Plant engineer Samuel J. Sparks and several employees were on the site at about 8 o'clock in the morning when a fire of "mysterious origin" broke out.  No one hesitated a moment.  Everyone fled for their lives the moment the fire was discovered.  Within moments it raged throughout the dynamite works.  I have, in fact, written about this terrible fire before.  See Thu., Apr. 23, 2009:  Pelhamville Fire on February 4, 1878.

 No one even tried to extinguish the fire.  Members of the Mount Vernon Fire Department were summoned and started for the scene of the fire.  When the volunteer firemen learned that it was the dynamite works in Pelhamville that was burning, they reportedly "wheeled about and returned, having on a previous occasion witnessed the terrible effects of a nitro-glycerine explosion in the neighborhood."

 The fire completely destroyed all the buildings of the dynamite works.  There was, however, no explosion.  Perhaps there was something to Reynolds's claim that his explosives included a secret ingredient that rendered them less dangerous.  In any event, the plant was a complete loss.  Though the losses totaled about $3,000, there was no insurance covering the plant.  Within a short time, Miners' Powder Company was dissolved (in 1881).  See Smythe, R. M., ed., Obsolete American Securities and Corporations, p. 466 (NY, NY:  R.M. Smythe, 1904) ("Miners' Powder Company.  Office in New York.  Dissolved 1881.").  The tiny settlement of Pelhamville became a little safer.  

George Huntington Reynolds in Photograph Published
IL: J. H. Beers & Co., 1903). NOTE: Click on Image To Enlarge.

*          *          *          *          * 

 Below is the text of a number of articles that provide information about the Miners' Powder Company and the fire that destroyed the dynamite works on February 4, 1878.  Each is followed by a citation and link to its source.  

"NO INSURANCE.
-----

 About eight o'clock yesterday morning some frame buildings at Pelhamville, Westchester county, owned and occupied by the Miners' Powder Company, were discovered on fire ,and in a very brief period were totally destroyed, none present manifesting a disposition to use any efforts to extinguish the flames at the risk of their lives, and the fire laddies of Mount Vernon, after starting for the scene of destruction, on learning from whence the alarm proceeded, wheeled about and returned, having on a previous occasion witnessed the terrible effects of a nitro-glycerine explosion in the neighborhood.  The buildings and contents destroyed were estimated to be worth about $3,000, upon which there was 'no insurance.'  It is understood that the buildings will be rebuilt as soon as possible.  At the time the erection of the buildings was commenced the residents of the vicinity, becoming aware of the purpose for which they were to be used, protested against them, but they were assured that the composition was not explosive except in connection with a certain fulminte arranged to act by percussion, which would be added elsewhere.  The mysterious origin of the fire, and the fact that all the employees at the works fled as soon as the fire was discovered, led the residents of the place to infer that the cartridges manufactured there for blasting purposes are not quite so harmless in their character as they had been led to suppose.  The location of these powder works is only about one hundred feet from the tracks of the New York and New Haven Railroad, a fact which has occasioned considerable anxiety to passengers as they ride up and down the road, lest an explosion should occur as they passed the works.  At the time of the fire the buildings contained a considerable quantity of materials used in making the compound, also several hundred weight of the mixture prepared for the manufacture of cartridges and a number of complete cartridges in packages, all of which were consumed without any explosion.  The engineer, Mr. Samuel J. Sparks, escaped from the building in his shirt sleeves, leaving his coat and watch to be consumed.  As there was no fire used in the building except that under the boiler in the engine room the origin is involved in mystery."

 Source:  NO INSURANCE, N.Y. Herald, Feb. 5, 1878, p. 5, col. 5.  

 "LOSSES BY FIRE.
-----

 A frame building belonging to Miners' Powder Company, at Pelhamville, Westchester County, took fire shortly after 8 o'clock yesterday morning and in a short time was totally destroyed; no insurance.  The loss is roughly estimated at $3,000.  The cause of the fire is a mystery, and can only be accounted for on the hypothesis of spontaneous combustion.  The company manufactures an explosive for blasting purposes.  It is composed of nitro-glycerine with charcoal, sawdust, &c. as absorbents, is put up in the form of compact cartridges, and is asserted to be non-explosive, except in the use of a certain fulminate arranged to act by percussion, and which is added at the warehouses in New-York, so that the cartridges at the factory will burn freely, but only as fuse or roman-candles do.  It is claimed also, that a secret ingredient is used in the admixture which renders the cartridges non-explosive. . . ."

 Source:  LOSSES BY FIRE, N.Y. Times, Feb. 5, 1878, p. 5, col. 5.  

 "The Miners' Powder Company's Buildings Destroyed.

On Monday morning last some frame buildings at Pelhamville, owned and occupied by the Miners' Powder Company, were discovered to be on fire, and in a very brief period were totally destroyed, none present manifesting a disposition to use any efforts to extinguish the flames at the risk of their lives.  The buildings and contents destroyed were estimated to be worth $3,000, upon which there was no insurance.  The location of these powder works is only about 100 feet from the tracks of the New York and New Haven Railroad, a fact which has occcasioned considerable anxiety to passengers as they ride up and down the road, lest an explosion should occur as they pass the works.  At the time of the fire the buildings contained a considerable quantity of materials used in making the compound, also several hundred weight of the mixture prepared for the manufacture of cartridges and a number of complete cartridges in packages, all of which were consumed.  The engineer escaped from the building in his shirt sleeves, leaving his coat and watch to be consumed.  The origin of the fire is unknown.  It is understood that the buildings will be rebuilt as soon as possible."

Source:  The Miners' Powder Company's Buildings Destroyed, Eastern State Journal [White Plains, NY], Feb. 8, 1878, Vol. XXXIII, No. 43, p. 3, col. 4. 

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

posted by Blake A. Bell @ 4:40 AM 0 comments