Historic Pelham

Wednesday, November 27, 2019

Take the Money and Run: Pelham Town Supervisor Sherman T. Pell and the Worst Political and Financial Scandal in Pelham History

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."

Small town scandals inevitably set small town tongues wagging. Pelham tongues were wagging from Pelhamville to City Island during the spring and summer of 1893. Democrat Sherman T. Pell, who had just completed seven years of service as Town Supervisor but recently had been defeated in his bid for reelection, had disappeared. So too, it seems, had much of the Town’s money. Rumors swirled. Pell was on the run. Pell was in Pittsburgh. He was in Florida. He was in South America.

This is the sad story of the worst political and financial scandal in Pelham history. It involved Sherman T. Pell who took the money and ran.

Background

Sherman T. Pell was a son of Samuel Pell. Samuel Pell, in turn, was a descendant of John Pell, so-called Second Lord of the Manor of Pelham (the first of the Pell family to reside, permanently, in the Manor of Pelham). According to one account, by 1850 Samuel Pell lived on City Island in the Town of Pelham working as an oysterman. Known as “Captain Pell”, he married Elizabeth Scofield and built a Second Empire style home that still stands at 586 City Island Avenue. The couple had twelve children including Sherman T. Pell, the oldest son (born in 1853).

The Samuel Pell House that Still Stands at 586 City Island Avenue,

Built in About 1876. NOTE: Click on Image to Enlarge.

It is believed that before his marriage Sherman T. Pell lived for a short time in the Samuel Pell House after it was built in about 1876.[1] Shortly after Samuel Pell built his beautiful home, Sherman T. Pell married Alzina Aurelia Rowland. The couple had two children.

Detail from a Samuel Pell Family Photograph Showing a Young

Sherman T. Pell Standing Behind His Mother, Elizabeth Scofield

Pell, at About the Age of Fourteen. This May Be the Only Surviving

Photograph of Sherman T. Pell. NOTE: Click on Image to Enlarge.

As a young man, Sherman T. Pell worked as a “provision merchant” in the South Street Seaport.[2] His firm, Seymour & Pell located at 237 Front Street in New York City, seems to have run into some difficulty in 1883. In an account entitled “Business Embarrassments”, The New York Times reported:

“Bradford S. Seymour and Sherman T. Pell, comprising the firm of Seymour & Pell, wholesale provision-dealers at No. 237 Front-street, made an assignment yesterday to Henry C. Henderson, giving a preference to [Sherman Pell’s father] Samuel Pell for $7,807.15. They succeeded J. W. Norris & Co., in September, 1879”[3]

According to another account, thereafter Sherman Pell “entered the real estate business.”[4]

Sherman Pell Enters Pelham Politics

Sherman Pell reportedly was popular in Pelham. People remarked that he carried the town “in his pocket.”[5] In 1885, Pell ran as a Democrat against Republican Robert H. Scott for Town Supervisor of Pelham. The election was a close one. Scott beat Pell by ten votes.[6]

The following year, Sherman Pell ran once again against Republican Robert H. Scott for Town Supervisor. The election was even closer than the previous one. On March 30, 1886, Sherman Pell won the election by a single vote, but not without the shadow of scandal.

Pell’s Republican opponent announced that he intended to contest the election. He alleged that Democrats had imported non-resident paupers from Hart Island to vote for Pell. According to one account, Scott said he would contest the election results “on the ground that 25 persons who voted for Mr. Pell were brought over from Hart’s Island, and that two-thirds of them were New-York paupers having no right to vote.”[7]

Election authorities declared Pell the winner of the 1886 election. Pell then worked tirelessly to consolidate his political power.

The Postmaster Flap

Soon Sherman T. Pell became known as “The little Democratic Napoleon of Pelham.”[8] He called in political favors and had himself appointed as local postmaster by the Democrat Grover Cleveland administration after he worked tirelessly toward Cleveland’s first term victory.[9]

The ham-handed way Pell gained the postmaster’s position and its $1,600 salary (about $56,000 in today’s dollars) upset most of the Town of Pelham. At the time, the acting postmaster was a popular City Island resident named James Hyatt. According to one news report, in seeking the appointment, Pell called in favors owed him by ex-Assemblyman Billy Catlin of Rye who was well-known to President Cleveland and had done him “valuable service.”[10]

When Pelhamites learned what Pell was trying to do, they circulated a petition opposing Pell’s appointment and asking that the acting postmaster, James Hyatt, be appointed permanently. According to one report, 190 of the 238 voters on City Island signed the petition.[11]

The petition was presented to the Grover Cleveland administration. Cleveland promptly appointed Sherman T. Pell as postmaster, effectively ending James Hyatt’s employment. Pelhamites were “indignant at the insult which the President has put upon them by his deliberate disregard of their wishes.”[12]

Not long afterward, another local dispute foreshadowed what was to come. Sick of Pell’s heavy-handed tactics, Town officials began calling for an investigation of him in 1890. A New York City newspaper, writing of the dispute, stated:

“Justice of the Peace John P. Hawkins accused Supervisor Sherman T. Pell of trying to ‘boss’ the town, of mismanaging its finances, failing to report his transactions to the Justices, and acting generally in so negligent a way that the tax rate has been raised very materially.”[13]

A group of Pelham residents decided to act. Twenty-five of them filed a special petition to commence a proceeding before New York Supreme Court Justice Bartlett seeking “a summary investigation of the financial affairs” of the Town on the grounds that “public moneys are being unlawfully and corruptly expended.”[14] Justice Bartlett promptly dismissed the proceeding, finding that the petition was based on mere rumors and lacked the factual allegations necessary to support entry of an order directing an investigation of Town of Pelham finances.[15]

Sherman Pell had defeated his opponents again. That said, local residents were sniffing around the edges of his administration and Town finances. Pell, however, was emboldened. He sued one of the principal proponents of the petition, John F. Scheller of City Island, for defamation, seeking $10,000 in damages.[16]

First the provisioning business failure, then allegations of voting fraud, then calling in political favors to destroy a man’s livelihood for his own benefit, claims that Pell acted as a Democrat “Boss” who was mismanaging Town finances, failing to report financial transactions, and driving up the Town tax rate, and now a court proceeding asking for a financial investigation of Pell – what might be next? Pelham soon would learn.

The 1893 Town Supervisor Election

For the next couple of years, Pell secured successive, close (and some would say “suspect”) reelections to retain his position as Town Supervisor.[17] In 1893, however, Pell faced stiff competition in his reelection bid from Republican William McAllister. The 1893 Town Supervisor election turned out to be Pelham’s own version of the hanging chad dispute that marked the 2000 U.S. presidential election.

On Tuesday, March 28, voters in Pelham went to the polls to choose between Pell and McAllister. Early the next morning, The New York Times reported that Democrat Sherman T. Pell had won the election.[18]

The following day, however, the Times retracted its report, saying “William McAllister, Republican, was elected in the town of Pelham, instead of Sherman T. Pell, Democrat.”[19] Subsequent reports indicated that on election night, “the count showed that Mr. McAllister had been successful by a narrow margin of two or three votes."[20] Pell demanded a recount.

Two constables reportedly guarded the ballots for nearly a week “to prevent their being tampered with.”[21] On April 6 a recount gave Sherman T. Pell an incredible sixty-five vote lead. According to one account:

“An examination of the ballots to-day showed that the apparent majority of Mr. McAllister had been caused by an error on the part of some of the Inspectors. In many cases the Inspector in detaching the numbered stubs had failed to follow the scored line, and in this way had torn into the tickets and thus cut off Mr. Pell’s name. The recount gives Mr. Pell a majority over Mr. McAllister of sixty-five votes.”[22]

Pelham Republicans cried foul and demanded another recount. When the Town Board (led by Sherman T. Pell) refused, the Republicans applied to New York Supreme Court Justice Jackson O. Dykman (also known as J. O. Dykman) in White Plains for an order directing such a recount. Justice Dykman issued the order, but four members of the Town Board still refused to conduct the recount: Sherman T. Pell, John P. Hawkins, Charles Wand, and Ethan Waterhouse.[23]

Justice Dykman had a simple solution to the standoff. He imposed $250 fines against each of the four men, held them in contempt of court, sentenced them to imprisonment for thirty days in the county jail and issued arrest warrants to be executed by the Sheriff.[24] Soon the Republican candidate, McAllister, was declared the winner.

It turned out that there was a significant reason that Pell had orchestrated such a vigorous scam to retain his elected position. He had been engaged in a fraud involving Town funds for years. The jig was up.

Where Is Mr. Pell?

In early May, William McAllister called on ex-Supervisor Pell and asked for the Town’s account books and moneys. According to McAllister, “Mr. Pell then stated that he would deliver all books, vouchers, and moneys to me on Thursday, May 18.”[25]

McAllister dutifully appeared on Mr. Pell’s doorstep on May 18. McAllister later told one reporter:

“’his wife informed me that he had sent her a message from New-York City by his brother, Henry Pell, stating that he was compelled to go to Pittsburg on business and thus could not keep his appointment with me. I have called at Mr. Pell’s residence every day this week, and his wife has stated to me that she had received no word from her husband, and that she did not know where he was. I hope Mr. Pell will return and thus put an end to the various ugly rumors that have been put in circulation. If he does not return we will be compelled to take legal measures. What these measures will be I cannot say, as the matter is now in the hands of my counsel, Martin J. Keogh.’”[26]

Ex-Supervisor Pell had provided a $10,000 bond in support of the good faith discharge of his fiduciary duties as Town Supervisor. There were several additional bondsmen including his father, Samuel Pell.[27] Soon the additional bondsmen wished they had never agreed to bond Sherman Pell’s performance of his duties. Indeed, Samuel Pell eventually was required to sell his house as a consequence of his son's dishonesty.

The newly-installed Town Board tried its best to audit Sherman T. Pell’s accounts. Initially the Board concluded “there was an apparent balance of moneys in his hands of $1,700.”[28] According to one report:

“Nobody knows where that money is, nor does anybody know where Mr. Pell is. He has been away from home for several days, and his counsel is reported to have said that he is in Florida looking after legal matters connected with the Carll estate which have arisen through a recent decision of the Court of Appeals giving a grant of land under water. In the absence of the ex-Supervisor’s books it is impossible to say how much he has taken in since his account was audited and how much he ought to turn over to his successor. He officially receives the taxes collected by the Receiver of the town, back taxes, excise moneys &c. The amount is variously estimated at from $8,000 to $10,000. It is not supposed that the town will lose anything, even if Mr. Pell is unable to meet the demands made upon him by the Town Board, as one of his bondsmen is James Hyatt, a wealthy City Island butcher. Mr. Hyatt was Mr. Pell’s predecessor in office. [sic]”[29]

Another report indicated that an audit of Pell’s accounts on March 27, 1893 showed a cash balance remaining in his hands of $8,585, but it was believed that “the total at this date will considerably exceed that sum.”[30]

Little did they know the extent of Sherman T. Pell’s defalcations.

The Scandal Grows Darker

By June 10, 1893, the extent of Pell’s scheme was becoming clearer. For years Pell had executed notes on behalf of the Town, forged the signature of the Town Clerk, and sold the forged bonds on Wall Street to obtain funds ostensibly on behalf of the Town. According to a variety of reports, in this fashion he raised amounts that totaled between $30,000 and $100,000.[31] All of the money – and Pell – remained missing. Moreover, Sherman T. Pell left his wife behind. He also left his father, Samuel, and his brother, Percy, holding the bag. They were two of his bondsmen who had provided $10,000 bonds to secure the honest performance of Sherman Pell’s duties as Town Supervisor.

Pell’s scheme was devilishly simple. State law at the time required the collectors of taxes in the various Towns of Westchester County to provide Town Supervisors with a sworn statement of unpaid taxes owed by Town taxpayers. On or before May 1 each year, each Town Supervisor was authorized “to borrow, upon the credit of the town, a sum not exceeding the amount of the unpaid taxes” reported by the collector for use of the Town.[32] Pell dutifully arranged for such borrowings from a single bank each year with the full knowledge and participation of the Town Clerk. However, he also went to other banks and presented multiple sets of forged “certificates” for the same authorized amounts of unpaid taxes (i.e., municipal bonds) that he sold to different banks to avoid detection. In this fashion he collected tens of thousands of dollars about which no one in Pelham knew until it was too late.

As things turned out, Pell’s house of cards had begun to collapse more than a year before he lost the election in March 1893. Broadway Savings Institution of the City of New York acquired seven of the forged notes. In February 1892, the bank commenced an action against the Town of Pelham seeking $6,800 payment on the seven notes. The summons in the action reportedly was served on then Supervisor Pell, but he “put in no defense and judgment was taken against the town by default and was entered April 2, 1893.”[33]

These seven notes were not the only ones Pell had forged. By June 10, the Town of Pelham was aware of seven additional notes held by Broadway Savings Institution of the City of New York totaling an additional $7,600. Other banks in Westchester County held even more such notes. As The New York Times reported on June 11, 1893, “the financial affairs of the town are beginning to look worse than most of the townsfolk had expected.”[34]

Supervisor McAllister was the first to discover the extent of Pell’s scheme. Shortly after he became Town Supervisor, he learned of the default judgment entered against the Town. He obtained copies of the notes and viewed the originals in the bank’s possession. He arranged for the bank to show the original notes to the Town’s counsel and to the Town Clerk who confirmed that the “signatures” were forgeries.[35]

Lawsuits Fly

The Town of Pelham applied to New York Supreme Court to set aside the default judgment entered against it on the grounds that the notes were unlawfully issued and that the Town Clerk’s countersigning signatures were forgeries. The Court set aside the default judgment and reopened the case for further proceedings.[36]

The bank, in turn, commenced at least one additional lawsuit against the Town of Pelham on the seven additional notes.[37] Other banks sued to recover on other notes. In late July or early August 1893, the Town of Pelham filed a civil action against Sherman T. Pell, Samuel Pell and Percy W. Pell to recover on the $10,000 bond.[38]

Bondsman Samuel Pell, Sherman’s father, saw the handwriting on the wall. He sold his home to one of his daughters shortly before the Town of Pelham sued him on the bond. According to one account:

“On June 30th [1893], a little over a month before the Town of Pelham brought suit against him and Percy for $10,000, Samuel Pell sold [his house on City Island] and the lots on the west side of Main Street to his daughter Lydia Scofield, who had inherited considerable property from her late husband and had developed an extensive and successful real estate business.”[39]

Initially, a verdict was rendered against the Town of Pelham finding the Town liable to Broadway Savings Institution of the City of New York to pay off seven notes worth $7,600, $85 interest and an additional $250 “allowance.”[40] An appellate court quickly overturned that decision, directing that a new trial be held.[41]

Things got even more interesting when New York City annexed portions of Pelham including City Island in 1895. New York City assumed the “debts” represented by the forged bonds and took over the defense of the actions by the Broadway Savings Institution and several other savings banks seeking payment on the notes. According to a report published in 1898, the case was tried before Justice Smith of the New York Supreme Court in the spring of 1898 and a verdict was rendered in favor of the City.[42] This meant the banks would have to bear the losses.

Conclusion

Sherman T. Pell, as they say, was never heard from again. A news account published years later in 1906 claimed that Pell was “said to have died in South America a few years later, a penniless tramp.”[43] Other accounts suggest that he fled to Florida though nothing more was heard of him.[44] Sherman Pell's wife, Alzina Aurelia Rowland Pell, soon moved to Brooklyn, then to Belvedere, California, and died in Los Angeles in 1929. Census records for the intervening years before her death list her as a "widow."

Captain Samuel Pell, Sherman Pell’s proud father who had been forced to sell his beloved home on City Island, died in 1894 shortly after the scandal broke.[45] Pelham weathered the defalcations and dishonesty of Sherman T. Pell, apparently without serious financial loss. But the scheme did have an impact on Pelham. Among other things, construction of the original firehouse located in Pelhamville (on Fifth Avenue on today’s parking lot next to the present firehouse) was delayed until early 1895 because another appropriation had to be made and levied in taxes due to financial uncertainties created by the scandal.[46]

ENDNOTES

[1] New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, Samuel Pell House, 586 City Island Avenue, Borough of the Bronx, Built c. 1876, p. 3 (Oct. 29, 2002) < http://s-media.nyc.gov/agencies/lpc/lp/2115.pdf > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).

[2] Id.

[3] Business Embarrassments, N.Y. Times, Apr. 14, 1883, Vol. XXXII, No. 9861, p. 8, col. 2 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20489199/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). See also Business Troubles, The Brooklyn Union [Brooklyn, NY], Apr. 19, 1883, Vol. XX, No. 183, p. 1, col. 8 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/541840896/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).

[4] Samuel Pell House, supra, n.1, p. 3.

[5] No Tidings Yet of Mr. Pell, N.Y. Times, May 28, 1893, Vol. XLII, No. 13,029, p. 9, col. 7 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20536988/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).

[6] City and Suburban News – Westchester County, N.Y. Times, Apr. 2, 1885, p. 8, col. 5 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20355513/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).

[7] Westchester County, N.Y. Times, Apr. 3, 1886, Vol. XXXV, No. 10,791, p. 8 col. 3 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20503908/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).

[8] City Island, The Daily Argus [Mount Vernon, NY], Dec. 16, 1892, p. 1, col. 7 < https://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%2018/Mount%20Vernon%20NY%20Daily%20Argus/Mount%20Vernon%20NY%20Daily%20Argus%201892/Mount%20Vernon%20NY%20Daily%20Argus%201892%20-%200853.pdf > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).

[9] National Capital Notes, Democrat and Chronicle [Rochester, NY], Apr. 19, 1888, p. 1, cols. 4-5 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/135100307/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019); Lord Pell’s Descendant Gets an Office, The Evening World [NY, NY], Apr. 19, 1888, Evening Edition, p. 1, col. 3 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/50639419/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).

[10] City Island’s “Reform” Postmaster, New-York Tribune, May 4, 1888, Vol. XLVIII, No. 15,146, p. 10, col. 3 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/85633796/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Pelham’s Little Row, The Sun [NY, NY], May 23, 1890, Vol. LVII, No. 265, p. 2, col. 5 < https://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%209/New%20York%20NY%20Sun/New%20York%20NY%20Sun%201890%20Feb-July%20Grayscale/New%20York%20NY%20Sun%201890%20Feb-July%20Grayscale%20-%201382.pdf > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).

[14] Pelham Won’t Be Investigated, The Brooklyn Daily Times [Brooklyn, NY], Aug. 20, 1890, p. 1, col. 8 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/555837424/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).

[15] Id.

[16] Campaign Lies and Libels, The Standard Union [Brooklyn, NY], Apr. 3, 1891, Vol. XXVIII, No. 7, p. 2, col. 4 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/542270223/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).

[17] See Barr, Lockwood, A BRIEF, BUT MOST COMPLETE & TRUE ACCOUNT OF THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ANCIENT TOWN OF PELHAM WESTCHESTER COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK KNOWN ONE TIME WELL & FAVOURABLY AS THE LORDSHIPP & MANNOUR OF PELHAM ALSO THE STORY OF THE THREE MODERN VILLAGES CALLED THE PELHAMS, p. 172 (Richmond, VA: The Dietz Press 1946) < https://www.ancestry.com/interactive/21802/dvm_LocHist007642-00057-0 > (visited Nov. 23, 2019) (noting that Sherman T. Pell served as Supervisor from 1886 to 1893). See also Elections in Westchester County, The Sun [NY, NY], Mar. 28, 1888, Vol. LV, No. 210, p. 2, col. 7 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/79114460/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019); Westchester Elections, N.Y. Times, Mar. 27, 1889, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 11,724 p. 4, col. 6 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20380735/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019) (indicating Pell had been reelected Town Supervisor as a “Democrat”); Democrats in a Majority – Result of the Town Elections in Westchester County, N.Y. Times, Mar. 30, 1892, Vol. XLI, No. 12,666, p. 1, col. 3 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20521661/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019) (noting that early returns indicated that Sherman T. Pell likely had been reelected Town Supervisor on the Independent and Republican tickets); County Legislators 1892-3, The Daily Argus [Mount Vernon, NY], Apr. 5, 1892, Vol. 1, No. 4, p. 2, col. 1 < https://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%2018/Mount%20Vernon%20NY%20Daily%20Argus/Mount%20Vernon%20NY%20Daily%20Argus%201892/Mount%20Vernon%20NY%20Daily%20Argus%201892%20-%200014.pdf > (visited Nov. 23, 2019) (providing a “correct list of the Supervisors elected” including “Pelham – Sherman T. Pell, Dem.”).

[18] See Westchester Elections – Supervisors and Town Officers Chosen – Sharp Contests, N.Y. Times, Mar. 29, 1893, Vol. XLII, No. 12,978, p. 5, col. 2 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20507176/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).

[19] Westchester County Supervisors, N.Y. Times, Mar. 30, 1893, Vol. XLII, No. 12,979, p. 9, col 3 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20508111/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).

[20] See Trouble at City Island, The Evening World [NY, NY], Apr. 6, 1893, p. 4, col. 2 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/78944284/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). See also Mr. Pell Is Supervisor of Pelham, N.Y. Times, Apr. 7, 1893, Vol. XLII, No. 12,986, p. 5 col. 4 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20513235/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).

[21] Id.

[22] Id.

[23] Pelham Citizens To Be Fined – Judge Dykman Declares Them in Contempt for Not Recounting the Town Vote, N.Y. Times, Apr. 30, 1893, Vol. XLII, No. 13,005, p. 3, col. 4 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20525216/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).

[24] Id.

[25] Ex-Supervisor Pell Missing – Considerable Money of the Town of Pelham in His Hands, N.Y. Times, May 27, 1893, Vol. XLII, No. 13,029, p. 10, col. 6 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20536372/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).

[26] Id.

[27] Id. See also No Tidings Yet of Mr. Pell, N.Y. Times, May 28, 1893, Vol. XLII, No. 13,029, p. 9, col. 7 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20536988/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).

[28] Id.

[29] Id.

[30] Ex Supervisor Pell Missing, Buffalo Evening News [Buffalo, NY], May 27, 1893, Vol. XXVI, No. 41, p. 5, col. 3 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/327111418/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019). Other reports suggested up to $28,000 in Town cash was missing. See News In Brief, The Standard Union [Brooklyn, NY], May 27, 1893, p. 8, col. 7 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/542157609 > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).

[31] Compare Pells of Pelham Sued – The Town Wants Them To Pay $10,000 on a Bond They Gave for a Relative, N.Y. Times, Sep. 8, 1893, Vol. XLII, No. 13,118, p. 8, col. 3 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20386157/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019) (stating “In May Pell absconded, and the town believes he took with him $30,000 belonging to the Public Treasury”) with “Honest John Shinn” Short – Ex-Supervisor of Pelham’s Accounts out $17,971, N.Y. Times, Jun. 20, 1906, Vol. LV, No. 17,679, p. 1, col. 2 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20356428/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019) (stating that Sherman T. Pell “forged the Town Clerk’s name to $100,000 worth of bonds and sold them in Wall Street”).

[32] Broadway Sav. Inst. of City of New York v. Town of Pelham, 83 Hun 96, 63 N.Y. St. Rep. 814, 31 N.Y.S. 402, 402 (App. Div. 2nd Dep’t 1894) (citing the provisions of Chapter 193, Laws 1877, entitled “An act to amend chapter 610 of the Laws of 1874 entitled an act to authorize the sale of lands for the nonpayment of taxes and for the collection of unpaid taxes in the several towns of the county of Westchester”).

[33] Signatures Were Forged – Affairs of Ex-Supervisor Pell of Pelham Assume a Darker Aspect, N.Y. Times, Jun. 11, 1893, Vol. XLII, No. 13,041, p. 8, col. 4 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20543424/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).

[34] Id.

[35] Id.

[36] Id.

[37] Id. See also Suit Against the Town of Pelham, N.Y. Times, Jun. 1, 1893, Vol. XLII, No. 13,033, p. 8, col. 4 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20539034/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).

[38] See Pells of Pelham Sued – The Town Wants Them To Pay $10,000 on a Bond They Gave for a Relative, N.Y. Times, Sep. 8, 1893, Vol. XLII, No. 13,118, p. 8, col. 3 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20386157/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019); Samuel Pell House, supra, n.1, p. 3.

[39] Samuel Pell House, supra, n.1, p. 3.

[40] See Town of Pelham Must Pay, N.Y. Times, Mar. 31, 1894, Vol. XLIII, No. 13,267, p. 9, col. 6 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20449806/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).

[41] See Broadway Sav. Inst. of City of New York v. Town of Pelham, 83 Hun 96, 63 N.Y. St. Rep. 814, 31 N.Y.S. 402, 402 (App. Div. 2nd Dep’t 1894).

[42] Old Town of Pelham Bonds – Indebtedness Assumed by the City Declared Fraudulent and Void, N.Y. Times, Jun. 7, 1898, Vol. XLVII, No. 15, 103, p. 12, col. 4 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20612745/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).

[43] “Honest John Shinn” Short – Ex-Supervisor of Pelham’s Accounts out $17,971, N.Y. Times, Jun. 20, 1906, Vol. LV, No. 17,679, p. 1, col. 2 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20356428/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).

[44] Samuel Pell House, supra, n.1, p. 3.

[45] Obituary Notes, N.Y. Times, Mar. 30, 1894, Vol. XLIII, No. 13, 292, p. 5, col. 2 < https://www.newspapers.com/image/20449192/ > (visited Nov. 23, 2019).

[46] Village of Pelham, Village of Pelham Online: Village News – Interviewed in 1935 Mr. Edinger Told An Interesting Story (visited Apr. 24, 2005) http://www.villageofpelham.com/home/00-00-35.shtml (an archived copy of the article is available via the Way Back Machine via https://web.archive.org/web/20030304032321/http://www.villageofpelham.com/home/00-00-35.shtml) (visited Nov. 23, 2019).

Labels: 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891, 1892, 1893, Crime, James Hyatt, Scandal, Sherman T. Pell, Town Supervisor

Friday, June 09, 2017

The Big Picture: Controversy in the 1880s Over Who Should Pay to Rebuild or Replace 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."

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.