17th Century Map of New Netherland Referencing Wiechquaeskecks in Pelham Region

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."

Sometime between 1654 and 1658 -- the precise date remains a mystery -- Arnold Colom of Amsterdam published a monumental sea atlas of the world.  Colom's "Zee Atlas" included what is believed to be the earliest Dutch sea chart of the New Netherlands.  Noted map authority Barry Lawrence Ruderman notes that "Jacob Theunisz Lootsman's chart is believed to pre-date it, but seems not to have been regularly published until later."  

Colom was a son of Jacob Colom, an Amsterdam printer, chart-maker, and bookseller.  Arnold Colom's sea chart of New Netherlands is "extremely rare on the market" according to Mr. Ruderman and sold most recently in a Swann Galleries auction on June 2, 2011 for $33,600.  A high resolution image of the map appears immediately below.

Colom, Arnold, “Pascaarte van Nieu Nederlandt uytgegeven door”

(Amsterdam, ca. 1656) (25.5 x 22 inches; hand-colored).  Source:

Ruderman, Barry Lawrence, Antique Maps Inc., Stock # 46535

(visited 24 Apr 2019).  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

Arnold Colom's sea chart of New Netherlands is significant for reasons other than its status as the first (or one of the first) such sea charts of the region.  Indeed, it depicts the region including today's Pelham and purports to label Natives in the New Netherland region.  It references "Manhattans," "Wickugick," and -- somewhat distant from Pelham and in the center of Long Island Sound -- "Siwanoys." 

Once again, like so many other 17th century Dutch maps of the region, this map seems merely to copy earlier references to supposed "Siwanoy" Natives in the region and places them distant from today's Pelham.  The map references "Wickugick" Natives (i.e., Wiechquaeskeck" Natives) near Pelham -- a group that, unlike "Siwanoys" is a group of Natives constantly referenced by that name in 17th century documents.

Detail from Colom, Arnold, “Pascaarte van Nieu Nederlandt

uytgegeven door” (Amsterdam, ca. 1656) (25.5 x 22 inches;

hand-colored).  Source:  Ruderman, Barry Lawrence, Antique

Maps Inc., Stock # 46535 (visited 24 Apr 2019).  NOTE:

Click on Image to Enlarge.

According to Barry Lawrence Ruderman, owner of Antique Maps Inc., this significant map may be the first sea chart of the New Netherlands (which included the region of today's Pelham).  Mr. Ruderman states, in part:

"Colom's sea chart is a landmark in the mapping of the region, depicting in a large scale the regions extending from the Dutch New Netherlands and New England in the north to South Carolina. 

Called by Koeman "the first sea chart of the New Netherlands," Colom's chart is both highly important and exceptionally rare. Along with Theunis Jacobsz' circa 1650 sea chart of the area from Nova Scotia to the Outer Banks, it is one of the two earliest sea charts showing the significant improvements resulting from the Dutch exploration and occupation of the region. Colom's map, which is the more focused of the two maps and constructed on a much larger scale than the Theunisz, is by far the more accurate of the two charts, drawing on Visscher's highly important Novii Begli, first published circa 1655. Burden observes that the Colom draws information from both Janssonius's Belgii Novi . . . map of 1651 and the first state of Visscher's significantly updated map, noting that: 

"The Delaware Bay and River and much improved . . . as is the area between Chesapeake Bay and the Outer Banks. Curiously two Jamestowns are depicted, one at the entrance to Chesapeake Bay. Remnants of [information Burden believes to have been derived from Jacobsz] survives such as the use of Bloemers kil on the west bank of Delaware Bay. There is no recognition of the Dutch victory over the Swedish colonies here. Long Island is one unified island,as Janssonius had depicted it, although like other areas of the map, it shows independent sources. A few English settlements are noted, such as Stamfoort and Nieuwer haven, but none appear in the Connecticut River Valley, only the Dutch fort of De Hoop. One large improvement . . . is the recognition of Boston as one of the three most important towns on that coast. It is not present on the Jacobsz, Janssonius or Visscher maps. 

The dating of the map has always been a mystery. In his monumental catalog of 1887, the legendary Dutch book and map seller, Frederik Muller & Cie, identified the Colom's map had being published in 1640 (item 902), while Stokes in The Iconography of Manhattan Island dated the charts as "before 1653?." Burden identifies 3 states of the map, each of which is extremely rare. Burden describes the map dated 1656 as the first state of the map, with subsequent states lacking the date. The second state includes the page number 13 in the bottom right corner, whereas the third state is number page 13."

Source:  Ruderman, Barry Lawrence, "The First Sea Chart of the New Netherlands" in Antique Maps Inc.:  Colom, Arnold, “Pascaarte van Nieu Nederlandt uytgegeven door” (Amsterdam, ca. 1656) (25.5 x 22 inches; hand-colored; Stock # 46535) (visited 24 Apr 2019).

Today's Historic Pelham article is another in a series intended to analyze 17th century maps that depict the Pelham region.  For examples of earlier such analyses, see:

Tue., Aug. 28, 2018: Seventeenth Century Maps that Depict the Pelham Region.

Thu., Apr. 18, 2019:  More Seventeenth Century Maps that Depict the Pelham Region and Local Native Americans.

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."

Seventeenth Century Maps that Depict the Pelham Region

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."

Maps, of course, provide an interesting glimpse of changes within our region since the earliest European explorers began traversing the area and attempting to chart and map it for others to follow.  Dutch and English cartographers began crafting such depictions that included the region around today's Pelham as early as 1614.  

The accuracy and reliability of such maps must be considered with extreme care, however.  Most were drawn and engraved in Holland or England and were crafted by reliance on earlier maps supplemented with interpretations of carefully recorded information from the logs of ships that since had visited the same region.  Indeed, many maps of the New York region included images of Natives, Native canoes and dugouts, Native palisades, and other such cultural resources but placed the locations erroneously.  As one example, some showed birch bark canoes off the shores of Manhattan, an unlikely scenario since the Natives of the region crafted dugout canoes, not birch bark canoes which were far more prevalent near Massachusetts.  

Many, many maps were crafted simply by beginning with a copy of an earlier map.  Thus, errors were repeated over and over in many instances for decades.  Still, much can be learned from reasoned consideration of such maps and the ways they depict particular areas.

Today's Historic Pelham Blog article presents details from a handful of important 17th century maps that included depictions of the region that later became Pelham.  In each instance, the detail is followed by a brief commentary that summarizes a little about the historical significance of the map viz-a-viz the Pelham region.  

There are far too many such 17th century maps to discuss in a single article.  Indeed, some already have been discussed in other Historic Pelham Blog articles.  See, e.g., Mon., Aug. 13, 2018:  There Seems To Be Another Early 17th Century Map that References Siwanoys.  Today's article, however, will begin what is planned as a series of intermittent discussions of such maps in an effort to document such material as it relates to the history of the little Town of Pelham, New York.  Each detail, on which visitors can click to see a higher resolution of the image, is followed by a citation to its source and a link to an image of the full map which, typically, can be magnified to very large size for study.

Detail from "Nova Anglia, Novum Belgium et Virginia + Bermuda majori mole

expressa" (New England, New Netherland, and Virginia, and Bermuda Drawn

on a Larger Scale).  1630.  By Mapmakers Hessel Gerritsz and Ioannes de Laet.

Source:  Christie's, LAET, Johannes de (1593-1649) and Hessel GERRITSZ

(1581-1632). Nova Anglia, Novum Belgium et Virginia.  Leiden, ca 1630.,

(visited Aug. 18, 2018).  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

This map is considered a landmark work.  It was prepared in 1630, barely five years after the founding of New Amsterdam and the construction of Fort Amsterdam. The detail above shows the region that became Pelham just left of center.  There are three significant references important to the history of the region.  There is a reference to "Helle gat" (today's Hell Gate where the so-called East River enters Long Island Sound, once a treacherous, boulder infested area where many vessels foundered).  There also is a reference to "Wecké" in the region which clearly is an early reference to Wiechquaeskeck.  The reference may have been a reference to the geographical feature referenced so often as "Wickers Creek" (and by many spelling variants).  However, because other nearby references on the map clearly indicate local Native peoples, this most likely is a reference to the Wiechquaeskeck Natives in the region.  If so, it is significant to note that it is the only such Native reference on the map in the Pelham region -- there is no reference to Siwanoys.  

A third significant aspect of the detail is the reference in the Long Island Sound waters off the shores of the Pelham region to "Aechipelago" (i.e., Archipelago) and the depiction of a host of islands off the shores.  This group of islands clearly would include the myriad such islands, islets, and rocky outcroppings off the shores of Pelham including City Island, Hart Island, Hunter's Island, Travers Island, Davids Island, the Blauzes, the Chimney Sweeps, and dozens of other such islets.

Detail from "Nova Belgica et Anglia Nova." (New Netherland and New

England.) 1635.  By Mapmaker Willem Blaeu.  Source:  "Nova Belgica

et Anglia Nova," New York Public Library Lionel Pincus and Prrincess

Firyal Map Division, Digital Image No. 434101 (visited Aug. 18,

2018).  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

Though published in 1635, this is an enhanced, engraved, and published version of Adriaen Block's early 1614 manuscript map of New Netherland and New England.  Unlike most of the other maps, this one is oriented with north depicted to the right on the map as seen by the viewer.  

This early map references "Wecke" (i.e., Wiechquaeskecks) roughly in the region of today's Pelham (with no reference in that region to Siwanoys).  The map also shows "Hellegat" and three references in the area to "Archipelagus" (or other spelling variants). 

Detail from "Nova Anglia, Novum Belgium, et Virginia" (New England,

New Netherland, and Virginia).  1636.  By Mapmakers Janssonius

Jansz and Johannes Jan.  Source:  Nova Anglia, Novum Belgium, et

Virginia, New York Public Library, Lionel Pincus and Princess Firyal

Map Division, Image ID 484206 (visited Aug. 18, 2018).  NOTE:

Click on Image to Enlarge.

Map collectors refer to this map as the "first state" of Janssoniu (or Jansson) Jansz's printed map plate that clearly was based on the above-referenced 1630 copper plate prepared by cartographer Hessel Gerritsz.  Because the map is based on the earlier 1630 Gerritsz map, the region of today's Pelham references the same three features important to Pelham history:  (1) Wecke; (2) Helle gaet; and (3) Aechipelago.

Detail from "Nova Belgica sive Nieuw Nederlandt." 1656.  Prepared by

Adriaen van der Donck and Included in van der Donck's "Beschryvinge

van Nieuw-Nederlant" Published in 1656.  Source:  "Nova Belgica sive

Nieuw Nederlandt," 1656, John Carter Brown Library Map Collection,

Brown University, Accession No. 02929, File Name 02929-1, Call No.

F656 D678b (visited Aug. 18, 2018).  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

This map is fascinating because it was created from a map drawn by Adriaen van der Donck, after whom today's Yonkers is named.  During portions of the 1640s van der Donck owned and developed a vast acreage awarded him by the Director-General and Council at Fort Amsterdam that encompassed a large swath of the southwestern portion of today's lower Westchester County.  Van der Donck actually resided in the region and served as, among other things, a guide and interpreter for the Dutch colonial authorities given his experience with local Natives.

That makes the map detail depicted above quite interesting given that it contains a reference to "Siwanoys" suggesting that a band of local Natives in the region was known as "Siwanoys."  Interestlingly, the map places such "Siwanoys" north and northwest of Stamford rather than in the Pelham region.  

The Pelham region, which is labeled "Freedlant," is shown as populated by the Natives known as "Manhattans" (who also are shown as located on today's Manhattan).  It is known that the Manhattans of the Island of Manhattan and the Wiechquaeskecks of the Bronx and lower Westchester County, both Lenape groups that spoke the Munsee dialect, were close and communicated and traded with one another via a significant trail that became Broadway and Old Boston Post Road.  However, most modern scholars agree that the Manhattans populated the Island of Manhattan while the Wiechquaeskecks populated much of the Bronx, Westchester County, and even southwestern Connecticut.

The map seems to copy other earlier maps in its placement of a reference to "Siwanoys" north of Stamford.  It also includes a reference to "Hellegat."  Though it references "Archipelago" in Long Island Sound well east of Stamford, it shows the Sound as the "Oost Rever" (East River) and depicts many small islands in waters off the shores of Freedlant.  

Detail from "Pas caerte van Nieu Nederlandt en de Engelsche Virginies

van Cabo Cod tot Cabo Canrick"  1666.  By Mapmaker Pieter Groos.

Source:  Barry Lawrence Ruderman Antique Maps Inc., "Pas caerte

van Nieu Nederlandt en de Engelsche Virginies van Cabo Cod tot

Cabo Canrick" (visited Aug. 18, 2018).  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

This detail immediately above is from a significant 17th century Dutch map that illustrates the Atlantic coast of America from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras with, of course, an emphasis on the Dutch Colony of New Netherland.  Cartographer Pieter Goos published the map in De Zee Atlas ofter Water-Weereld, first published by Goos in 1666.  

There are a number of notable features in the region that became today's Pelham depicted on this map.  First, it once again includes a reference to "Hellegat" (similar to the earlier-referenced 'Helle gaet" references described above.  It also references the Pelham region as "Freedlant," a Dutch term that translates very roughly as "Freedom Land."  Not only did the Dutch know today's Pelham region as Freedlandt (with many variant spellings reflected in 17th century records) but also in the 1960s a massive amusement park operated in the same area (including the area where today's Co-op City stands) that was named "Freedom Land."  Additionally, it shows the Long Island Sound off of Pelham shores as "Oost Rivier" (i.e., "East River").  Finally, this map shows the "Archipelago" as an area of islands off Connecticut shores, although it continues to show many small, untitled islands and islets off the shore of "Freedlant."

 Detail from "Pas caerte van Nieu Nederlandt en de Engelsche Virginies : van

Cabo Cod tot Cabo Canrick" (Later Edition, 1676, of Map by Pieter Goos first Published

in 1666).  Source:  Pas caerte van Nieu Nederlandt en de Engelsche Virginies :

van Cabo Cod tot Cabo Canrick, New York Public Library Lionel Pincus and 

Princess Firyall Map Division, Digital Image No.  433976 (visited Aug. 18, 2018).

NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

This detail from a 1676 edition of a map first published by cartographer Pieter Groos in 1666 (see above) includes two interesting elements depicted in the region that became today's Pelham.  First, it once again includes a reference to "Hellegat" (similar to the earlier-referenced 'Helle gaet" references described above.  It also references the Pelham region, once again, as "Freedlant."

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."

There Seems To Be Another Early 17th Century Map that References Siwanoys

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."

As noted repeatedly in the Historic Pelham Blog, I long have argued that there were no local Natives who knew themselves -- or were referenced by others -- as "Siwanoys" despite the nearly two-hundred-year-old Pelham tradition to the contrary.  See Wed., Jan. 29, 2014:  There Were No Native Americans Known as Siwanoys.  

Quite a number of scholars on the subject likewise have expressed doubts that there was a group of local Natives that identified themselves (or were identified by others) as "Siwanoys."  For example, famed Native American scholar Ives Goddard once wrote:

“Some early deeds suggest that the [Long Island] Sound-shore residents were not organized in political groups distinct from their western neighbors, but evidence has been claimed nevertheless for a Siwanoy group extending east from the Bronx River . . . However, the name Siwanois is found only among early information of a general nature, not linked to specific individuals . . . The political groupings and proper designations for the Sound-shore Indians of Westchester and Fairfield counties thus remain obscure.” 

Source:  Goddard, Ives, Delaware in Handbook of North American Indians: Volume 15, Northeast, 213, 214 (Trigger, Bruce G., ed.; Washington, D.C. The Smithsonian Institution 1978) (citing De Laet 1909:44; Ruttenber 1872: 77-85; Bolton 1920: 246-69).

Research has not revealed to this author any instance of 17th or 18th century records referring to local Natives as "Siwanoys," "Sewanoys," or other such derivations.  Those who have considered the issue, however, long have known that there are at least two early 17th century maps that contain conflicting -- and unexplained -- references to what appear to be Siwanoys.  The first is the Adriaen Block map prepared in 1614 in connection with Block's voyage during which he "discovered" Long Island Sound.  A detail from that map appears immediately below with two red arrows added to the detail.  The arrow on the left depicts approximately where the lands that became modern Pelham are depicted on the map.  The arrow on the right shows the reference to "Sywanois." shown on the map in an area that depicts approximately where today's northeastern Massachusetts is found.

Detail from 1614 Adriaen Block Map with Arrow on Left

Showing Approximate Location of Today's Pelham and

Arrow on Right Pointing to "Sywanois." Near Today's

Northeastern Massachusetts.  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

There is another well-known 17th Century map by Nicolaes Visscher that was largely based on a map published by Joannes Janssonius in 1651 (which itself borrowed heavily from a 1635 map by Willem Janszoon Blaeu).  There are many later editions of the Visscher Map.  It is entitled “Novi Belgii Novæque Angliæ : nec non parties Virginiæ tabula multis in locis emendate / per Nicolaum Visscher nunc apud Petr. Schenk Iun.”  That map contains a reference to the area that the Dutch knew as “Freelandt” (also Vreelant, Vreedlant and Vreedlandt) – where Englishmen sponsored by Thomas Pell settled near an area known today as Westchester Square in the Bronx – as well as a reference to “Siwanoys” in an area roughly north of today's Stamford, Connecticut.  The map detail immediately below shows "Siwanoys" referenced in nearly the center of the detail in an area north of what is referenced as "Stamfort."  To the left (west) of the "Siwanoys" reference is a reference to the "Wickquaskeck" Natives.

Detail from an Edition of the Visscher Map with the Reference to

"Siwanoys" Near the Center of the Detail.  NOTE:  Click on Image

to Enlarge.

There seems to be a third map that contains a similar reference.  It is a map attributed to Dutch explorer Cornelius Hendrickson (also, Hendricksen) prepared in 1616.

Hendrickson was a contemporary of Dutch explorer Adriaen Block whose 1614 map included a reference to "Sywanois."  (See above.)  Hendrickson's own explorations in North America have been described as follows:

"In November 1613 Dutch fur trader Adrian Block was preparing to return to Holland with a cargo of furs when his ship, the Tyger, caught fire and was destroyed while moored in the North River [i.e., Hudson River] near the tip of Manhattan Island. Over the winter, Block and his crew built the Onrust (Restless), which he used to explore the East River and Long Island Sound. The Onrust was 44.5 feet long with a capacity of 16 tons. Later that year, Block rendezvoused with Hendrick Christiaensen off Cape Cod. Before boarding the Fortuyn to return to the Netherlands, Block turned the Onrust over to Hendrickson. In 1614, Hendrickson navigated the Onrust, through Barnegat Inlet to the Toms River, which he charted, along with Barnegat Bay, and Great Bay to the south. Delaware Bay . . . In mid to late 1615 Hendrickson sailed into Godins Bay (Delaware Bay) and up the Zuyd Rivier (South River) to the Schuylkill River, searching for a site to establish a trading post for the Dutch West India Company. Hendrickson's voyage was made aboard the IJseren Vercken (Iron Hog), a vessel built in America. During the winter of 1614-15, some Dutch sailors remained at Fort Nassau to engage in the fur trade. Interested in the benefit of Dutch firearms, the Mohawk persuaded three to accompany them on a raid against the Susquehannocks. That spring the sailors were captured by the Susquehannocks who brought them south. In the course of his explorations Hendrickson he met a band of Susquehannock (Minquas) and ransomed the three for kettles, beads, and trade goods. In 1616 in Amsterdam he filed the first definitive map of the New Jersey coastline."

Source:  "Cornelius Hendrickson" in Wikipedia:  The Free Encyclopedia (visited Aug. 11, 2018) (endnotes omitted).  

It is this 1616 map by Hendrickson that contains a reference in an area well northeast of the Island of Manhattan that seems to relate to "Siwanoy."  The reference reads "Sauwanew."  A detail from the map appears immediately below with an arrow added on the left pointing to the area of today's Manhattan and an arrow on the right pointing to the "Sauwanew" reference.

Detail from 1616 Cornelius Hendrickson Map With Arrows

Pointing to Manhattan and to the Reference "Sauwanew."

NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

The association of "Siwanoy" with Pelham seems to stem from Robert Bolton Jr.'s efforts to detail a history of the "Aborigines" of Westchester County in the first edition of his History of Westchester County published in 1848.  See Bolton, Jr., Robert, A History of the County of Westchester From Its First Settlement to the Present Time, Vol. I, pp. vii - x (NY, NY:  Alexander S. Gould, 1848) ("INTRODUCTION. - ABORIGINES.").  Bolton seems to have relied on otherwise unexplained (and undocumented) references to "Siwanoys" and "Sywanois" in materials such as the Block and Visscher-Janssonius maps to assert that the Natives that once populated the Pelham region must have been known as Siwanoys.

There may or may not even have been a term in the Munsee dialect spoken by Lenape in the region that sounded like "Siwanoy."  A few years ago, John Alexander Buckland published an important and fascinating book on the Wiechquaeskeck Natives who once inhabited the Pelham region and sold land to Thomas Pell on June 27, 1654.  Entitled "The First Traders on Wall Street:  The Wiechquaeskeck Indians of Southwestern Connecticut in the Seventeenth Century," the book contains a fascinating claim.

According to the author, the term "Siwanoy" is a derivation of Munsee terms intended not as a "name" of a tribe or clan of local Natives, but rather a descriptive term that denoted an activity pursued not only by Natives in the region of today's Pelham, but also in other locations including Long Island, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts.  Buckland writes in his book:

"Over time, the Wiechquaeskeck have been called the 'Siwanoy.'  Siwanoy referred to their occupation, however, and was not their tribal name.  Many of their artisans made sewan, or wampum, along the shore, and they were the 'Siwanoy' ('oy' means people), or 'makers of wampum.'  Other Natives, who lived on Long Island, in Pennsylvania, and even in Massachusetts north of Boston, were also called 'Siwanoy.'"

Source:  Buckland, John Alexander, The First Traders on Wall Street:  The Wiechquaeskeck Indians of Southwestern Connecticut in the Seventeenth Century, p. xiii (Westminster, MD:  Heritage Books, 2009).  

Many authors have attempted to describe the origins of the term "Siwanoy."  Noted anthropologist and Lenape scholar Dr. David Ostreicher has stated that his research suggests that the term “Siwanoy” did not apply to a specific tribal band.  Rather, a word sounding much like “Siwanoy” was used by Native Americans to refer to other Native Americans nearby. “It was a loose term used to describe people who lived in an area and surrounding lands extending as far south as Delaware and as far north as New York, Connecticut or even – as suggested above – northeastern Massachusetts. No one today knows whether the term "Siwanoy" had any meaning to the Native Americans who lived in the area.  Dr. Ostreicher, however, indicates that “[i]t is guessed that the roots of the word ‘Siwanoy’ come from one of three other words meaning southerner, sea salt or wampum.” 

Source:  Notes of presentation by Dr. David Oestreicher Delivered at St. Paul’s Church National Historic Site, 897 South Columbus Ave., Mount Vernon, NY 10550 on Jan. 13, 2007; copy in files of the author.

With utterly no known 16th, 17th, or early 18th century Dutch or English records referencing local Natives as "Siwanoys," it seems clear -- to this author at least -- that there were no Natives who referenced themselves (or were referenced by others) as "Siwanoys."  That said, something must have prompted 17th century Dutch cartographers such as Block, Visscher, and Hendrickson to include references like "Siwanoys," "Sywanois," and
"Sauwanew" on their maps of the northeast.  Whether such references were to geographic features or local groups of Natives (or were merely mistaken references based on misunderstanding information communicated by Natives) we may never know.  Yet, once again, it seems clear that there were no Natives known as "Siwanoys."

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."

Pelham's 19th Century Boundary Dispute with New Rochelle

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."

As early as the 1860s, the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle began battling over the boundary between the two in the area nearest Long Island Sound.  There was an area of about fifty acres that both towns claimed.  A number of homes stood on the disputed land and New Rochelle collected property taxes on the properties despite the fact that Pelham claimed that the land was within the Town of Pelham based on a boundary set by surveyor Captain Abraham Bond and reflected in a filed map dated 1711 and reaffirmed in a surveyor's map of the Town of Pelham dated 1798 prepared by James Davenport.

In 1897, Town of Pelham Supervisor John M. Shinn convinced the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County to reaffirm the boundary reflected in the maps dated 1711 and 1798.  This, of course, effectively placed the disputed lands within the Town of Pelham, thereby permitting Pelham to collect real estate taxes on the properties within the disputed 50-acre tract.

A major lawsuit followed.  That lawsuit took several years to resolve with the courts eventually siding with Pelham and adjudging the boundary consistent with the 1711 and 1798 maps, thereby finding the disputed 50-acre tract to be within Pelham.  

Still, the dispute simmered.  It was not until 1927 when the Westchester County Board of Supervisors passed a law defining the boundary by metes and bounds that, once again, followed the boundary set by the 1711 and 1798 maps and seemed consistent with the boundary as shown in a map of the area published by John F. Fairchild in 1898.

I have written about this dispute on numerous occasions.  For examples, see:

Mon., May 11, 2015 1798:  Surveyor's Map of the Town of Pelham And Copy of 1711 Map of Pelham Border with New Rochelle.  

Tue., Feb. 10, 2009:  Another Article About the 19th Century Boundary Dispute Between Pelham and New Rochelle.

Mon., Sep. 17, 2007:  Articles About the 19th Century Boundary Dispute Between Pelham and New Rochelle.

Thu., Mar. 16, 2006:  1869 New York Herald Article About Pelham's Boundary Dispute With New Rochelle.

In 1899, in the midst of the lawsuit that eventually settled the matter and shortly after a temporary legal setback for the Town of Pelham, the Supervisor of the Town of New Rochelle had the County Clerk enter into the minutes of the Annual Session of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester much of the legal material from the lawsuit that reflected New Rochelle's temporary victory.  Today's Historic Pelham history article transcribes that material for future research purposes.

Image of Original Surveyor's Map by James Davenport Entitled "Town of Pelham

West Chester County Scale Twenty Chains to an Inch James

Davenport. Surveyor. 22nd February 1798."

NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

Image of Copy of James Davenport Surveyor's Map Entitled 

"Town of Pelham West Chester County Scale Twenty Chains to

an Inch James Davenport. Surveyor. 22nd February 1798."

NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

Copy of 1711 Bond Map Drawn by James Davenport Entitled

"Map of the Town of New Rochelle, Westchester County. Drawn from

an ancient map, which was surveyed by Abraham Bond in 1711,

by Jas. Davenport."  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

*          *          *          *          *

"Annual Session OF THE Board of Supervisors, Westchester County, N. Y. 1898-'99
-----
FRIDAY, MARCH 10th, 1899.

Board met pursuant to adjournment.

Mr. Secor in the chair and a quorum of members present. . . . 

Mr. Shinn presented the following affidavit, writ of prohibition and order of the court:

SUPREME COURT, WESTCHESTER COUNTY.

State of New York, City and County of New York } ss.

John M. Shinn being duly sworn, deposes and says:

I.  That he is the supervisor of the town of Pelham, a municipal corporation, in the county of Westchester and state of New York, and has been such at all the times mentioned herein.

II.  That heretofore and on or about March 16th, 1898, the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County upon proceedings duly instituted on behalf of the Town of Pelham under Section 36 of the County Law, and after hearing testimony on behalf of the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle and upon a report of its Judiciary Committee, passed the following act.

'AN ACT to fix, locate, establish and define the disputed boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle in the County of Westchester, passed pursuant to Section 36 of Chapter 686 of the Laws of 1892, and acts amendatory thereof, and supplementary thereto, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, at a regular meeting duly assembled on the 16th day of March, 1898, at least two-thirds of all the members elected thereto being present, and voting therefor, 28 votes being cast in favor of and 1 vote against its passage, do enact as follows:

'Section 1.  Whereas, the boundary line between the towns of Pelham and New Rochelle has been in dispute and application having been duly made in accordance with the statute to have such boundary line located and defined.

'Section 2.  Therefore, resolved, that the disputed portion of said boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle shall be, and the same is hereby fixed, located, established and defined as follows:

'Beginning at its northern point at the centre of the Hutchinson River, seventy three feet south of the centre of the bridge known as the Archer Bridge, and running thence southerly through or about the north end of the stone wall at the northeast corner of the Jacob Heller property, marked 'o' upon a map, and through the intersection of the old stone wall forming the boundary line between the properties of B. F. Corlies, Sycamore Park and others, with the stone wall marking the southerly side of the old Boston Post Road, said intersection of said straight line with the line surveyed by Schuyler & Crosby as the town line, south of the angle at the northerly edge of the big swamp as shown upon map No. 615 on file in the office of the Register of Westchester County, said intersection point being marked 'C' upon annexed map.

'The said dividing line between the towns as herein described, being the same, as near as can be determined, as shown upon a map made by Captain Bond in the year 1811, and as laid down on a copy of said map made by John Davenport in 1798, and now on file in the office of the State Engineer and Surveyor.

III.  This act shall take effect immediately.'

That said Board of Supervisors thereafter and on or about April 1st, 1898, duly adjourned sine die.  

Section 3.  That thereafter the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County composed of the newly elected supervisors of the several towns and cities in said county, elected in the Spring election of 1898, met on or about April 15th, 1898 pursuant to a call for a special meeting:  that at said meeting Michael J. Dillon, the newly elected supervisor from the town of New Rochelle, introduced the following proposed resolution or act 'An act or resolution to repeal:

'An act to fix, locate, establish and define the disputed boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle in the County of Westchester, passed pursuant to Section 36 of Chapter 686 of the Laws of 1892 and acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, at a regular meeting duly assembled on the 16th day of March, 1898.'

That on or about April 22nd, 1898 at a subsequent meeting of said board, said resolution was submitted to a vote of the board against the objection and protest of deponent as supervisor of the Town of Pelham in the following words:

'That the Board of Supervisors have no jurisdiction on the ground that the line has been established by a previous board and that the act has become a part of the Statute Law of the State of New York, and that if New Rochelle disputes the boundary line as establshe by that act, the only way that another line can be established is by petition to this board in accordance with Section 36 of the County Law under which the present line was established.'

V.  That said board duly convened pursuant to said order and writ on May 31st, 1898, and said resolution of April 22nd, 1898 was declared duly rejected.  That at said meeting Michael J. Dillon, supervisor of New Rochelle, moved 'that the vote by which the repeal resolution and act relating to the boundary line between the Towns of New Rochelle and Pelham, declared adopted at a meeting of this board held on April 22nd, 1898 be reconsidered, and that the same lay over and be acted upon at the next special or regular meeting of this board.'  Deponent as supervisor of the Town of Pelham objected and raised the following point of order 'that the Board of Supervisors have no jurisdiction on the ground that the line has been established by a previous board, and the act has become a part of the Statute Law of the State of New York and that if New Rochelle disputes the boundary line as established by that act, the only way that another line can be established is by petition to this board in accordance with Section 36 of the County Law under which the present line was established' also 'that this board having been called together for a certain specific purpose by a writ issued out of the Supreme Court and that purposes having been accomplished any further business transacted by this board would be illegal and void.'  The chairman decided to admit the motion made by said Michael J. Dillon.

VI.  That a special meeting of the said board has been called for Thursday, July 14th at 10.30 a.m. at White Plains at which certain specified business will be considered as also 'such other and further business as may come or be brought before the meeting.'  That deponent is informed and verily believes that the said motion of said Michael J. Dillon offered on May 31st, 1898 on behalf of the Town of New Rochelle a municipal corporation will be acted upon by said board, and said motion carried.

VII.  That the said board has no jurisdiction to entertain said Dillon motion as proceedings by the Town of New Rochelle to change disputed boundary line must be taken according to the provisions of Section 36 of the County Law; that the board having made a determination upon disputed facts, on a judicial hearing, the matter became res judicata; that the said order of the court allowing a writ of peremptory mandamus to issue, is also conclusive upon the said board on the questions of procedure and jurisdiction and the facts set forth in said order.

VIII.  That adequate relief can only be had by writ of prohibition, restraining the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County from further proceeding in this matter.

IX.  That no previous or other application has been made for a writ of prohibition thereon to any judge or court.

Wherefore, the Town of Pelham prays that a writ of prohibition be issued out of this court directed to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester and to the Town of New Rochelle, commanding the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County to refrain and desist from any further action in the premises.

JOHN M. SHINN, 
Supervisor, Town of Pelham.

Sworn and subscribed to before me this 13th day of July, 1898, }  ss.

ROBERT A. STEWART, 
Notary Public 221,
New York County.

At a Special Term of the Supreme Court held in and for the County of Westchester at the County Court House in the Village of White Plains on the 21st day of May, 1898.

Present Hon. Jackson O. Dykman, Justice.

EXHIBIT A.

Supreme Court, Westchester County.

The People of the State of New York on the relation of John M. Shinn as Supervisor of the Town of Pelham

-  against  -

Chauncey T. Secor as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County, Edwin R. Hopkins as Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County and The Board of Supervisors of Westchester County.

On reading and filing the affidavit of John M. Shinn, as Supervisor of the Town of Pelham, verified the 26th day of April, 1898, and the notice of motion therein dated the 26th day of April, 1898, of an application for a writ of peremptory mandamus with proof of due service thereof upon all of the defendants herein, and upon all the proceedings had herein, and it appearing from said papers that the relator is the Supervisor of the Town of Pelham, Westchester County, New York; that on proceedings heretofore instituted by the Town of Pelham under Section 36 of the County Law relating to the establishment of disputed boundary lines between Towns, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester on or about March 16th, 1898, passed an act entitled

'An act to fix, locate, establish and define the disputed boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle in the County of Westchester, passed pursuant to Sections 36 of Chapter 686 of the Laws of 1892 and acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto by the Board of Supervisors of the County of of Westchester at a regular meeting duly assembled on the 16th day of March, 1898 at least two-thirds of all the members elected thereto, being present, and voting therefor, 28 votes being cast in favor of and 1 vote against its passage, do enact as follows:

'Section 1.  Whereas the boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle has been in dispute and application having been duly made in accordance with the statute to have such boundary located and defined.

'Section 2.  Therefore, resolved, that the disputed portion of said boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle shall be and the same is hereby fixed, located established and defined as follows:

'Beginning at its northern point at the centre of the Hutchinson River, seventy-three feet south of the centre of the bridge known as the Archer Bridge, and running thence southerly through or about the north end of the stone wall at the northeast corner of the Jacob Heller property, marked 'O' upon a map, and through the intersection of the old stone wall forming the boundary line between the properties of B. F. Corlies, Sycamore Park and others, with the stone wall marking the southerly side of the old Boston Post Road, said intersection of said straight line with the line surveyed by Schuyler & Crosby as the Town Line, south of the angle at the northerly edge of the big swamp as shown on map No. 615 on file in the office of the Register of Westchester County, said intersection point being marked 'C' upon annexed map.

'The said dividing line between the towns as herein described being the same as near as can be determined as shown upon a map made by Captain Bond, in the year 1811 and as laid down on a copy of said map made by John Davenport in 1798 and now on file in the office of the State Engineer and surveyor.

'Section 3.  This act shall take effect immediately.'

That thereafter said board adjourned; that thereafter and on or about April 15th, 1898 the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County composed of supervisors from the different cities and towns of the County of Westchester elected in the Spring election of 1898, met in special meeting; that at said meeting the Supervisor of the Town of New Rochelle, Michael J. Dillon, offered the following resolution and proposed act, entitled 'An Act or resolution to appeal.'

'An Act to fix, locate, establish and define the disputed boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle in the County of Westchester, passed pursuant to Section 36 of Chapter 686 of the Laws of 1892 and acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, at a regular meeting duly assembled on the 16th day of March, 1898,' which resolution was laid upon the table.

That on or about April 22nd, 1898 said resolution and proposed act was taken from the table and submitted to a vote of the said Board of Supervisors by the chairman thereof, Chauncey T. Secor, against the objection and protest of the relator in the following words:

'That the Board of Supervisors have no jurisdiction on the ground that the line has been established by a previous board and that the act has become a part of the Statute Law of the State of New York, and that if New Rochelle disputes the boundary line as established by that act, the only way that another line can be established is by petition to this board in accordance with Section 36 of the County Law under which the present line was established.'

That said resolution received an affirmative vote of 16 supervisors and a negative vote of 12; that said Chauncey T. Secor as chairman thereupon declared said resolution and act carried and thereafter Edwin R. Hopkins as clerk of said board, thereupon entered said decision in his minutes.  That said Chauncey T. Secor thereupon, upon motion made, appointed a committee to pass upon the question of the alleged disputed boundary line between said Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle, and the said clerk entered said resolution and appointment in his minutes of said board meeting.  That the said Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester consists, and on April 15th and 22nd, 1898, did consist of 22 members.  That by Section 17 of the County Law it is provided that every act or resolution of the Board of Supervisors shall require for its passage the assent of a majority of the supervisors elected.  That said alleged act or resolution of April 22nd required for its passage the affirmative vote of 17 supervisors; that the aforesaid decision of said Chauncey T. Secor as chairman was contrary to the law in such cases made and provided, and was illegal and wrong; that he should have declared such resolution or act to appeal lost, and rejected; and that the motion to appoint a committee upon the question of the alleged disputed boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle should not have been entertained by said Chauncey T. Secor as chairman, nor should he have appointed a committee thereunder.  That said unlawful and illegal acts of said Chauncey T. Secor caused said Edwin R. Hopkinsas Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to enter upon the minutes of the meetings of said board of April 15th and 22nd, 1898 a record of wrongful and illegal acts.

And after hearing G. K. Heath, Esq., in Support of the motion and J. Addison Young, Esq. in opposition theretof,

Now on motion of Henry G. K. Heath, Esq., attorney for the relator, 


It is ordered that a Peremptory writ of mandamus forthwith issue out of and under the seal of this court directed to Chauncey T. Secor as chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County; to Edwin R. Hopkins as clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County and to The Board of Supervisors of Westchester County, requiring said Chauncey T. Secor as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County to declare lost and rejected the proposed resolution or act offered by Michael J. Dillon as supervisor of the Town of New Rochelle, entitled 'An act or resolution to repeal.'

'An Act to fix, locate, establish and define the disputed boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle in the County of Westchester, passed pursuant to section 36 of Chapter 686 of the Laws of 1892 and acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, at a regular meeting duly assembled on the 16th day of March, 1898,' which proposed resolution or act was submitted to the vote of the Board of supervisors of Westchester County on April 22nd, 1898; and further to declare out of order a certain resolution offered at the meeting of said board on April 22nd, 1898, empowering said Chauncey T. Secor as chairman to appoint a committee to pass upon the question of the disputed boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle, and to revoke said appointment of said committee made thereunder.  And requiring said Edwin R. Hopkinis as clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County to correct the minutes of the meeting of said board on April 22nd, 1898, so that it shall appear that said resolution offered by Michael J. Dillon on April 16th, 1898, to repeal the act of March 16th, 1898, and which was submitted to the vote of the Board of Supervisors on April 22nd, 1898, was lost and rejected.  That the motion or resolution to appoint a committee to pass upon the disputed boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle offered on April 22, 1898, was declared out of order by the chairman of this board, and that no committee was appointed thereunder.

And requiring you, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, to forthwith convene at the County Court House in the village of White Plains to take such proceedings as may be necessary to carry into effect the order of this court as contained in said writ of peremptory mandamus to be issued thereunder.

It is further ordered that the relator recover from the defendants the sum of ten dollars costs of these proceedings.

Enter.

J. O. DYKMAN, J. S. C.

Supreme Court, Westchester County.

The People of the State of New York on the relation of John M. Shinn as Supervisor of the Town of Pelham

--  against  --

Chauncey T. Secor as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County, Edwin R. Hopkins as Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County and The Board of Supervisors of Westchester County.

EXHIBIT B

The People of the State of New York to Chauncey T. Secor as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County; to Edwin R. Hopkins as Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County:

Whereas the relator as Supervisor of the Town of Pelham has upon due notice to all of the defendants herein made application to this court at a special term thereof, held in and for the County of Westchester, for a writ of Peremptory Mandamus directed to the defendants herein to have said defendants perform their several duties as prescribed by law, and

Whereas this Court has by order duly made and entered in the office of the Clerk of the County of Westchester on the 21st day of May, 1898, ordered and directed that a writ of peremptory Mandamus issue directed to the defendants as prayed for in the application of the relator herein.

Now therefore, we being willing that full and speedy justice be done in your behalf,

Command you and each of you firmly enjoying that immediately upon the receipt of this writ that 

You the said Chauncey T. Secor as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County to declare lost and rejected the proposed resolution or act offered by Michael J. Dillon as Supervisor of the Town of New Rochelle entitled 'An act or resolution to repeal.'

'An Act to fix, locate, establish and define the disputed boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle in the County of Westchester, passed pursuant to Section 36 of Chapter 686 of the Laws of 1892 and acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, at a regular meeting duly assembled on the 16th day of March, 1898.

Which proposed resolution or act was submitted to the vote of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County on April 22nd, 1898, and that you declare out of order a certain resolution offered on said April 22nd, 1898, empowering you as chairman to appoint a committee to pass upon the question of the disputed boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle and that you revoke the appointment of such committee made under the foregoing resolution.

That you Edwin R. Hopkins, as Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County correct the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County of April 22nd, 1898, so that it shall appear that said resolution offered by Michael J. Dillon on April 15th, 1898, to repeal the act of March 16, 1898, was lost and rejected.  That the motion to appoint a committee to pass upon the disputed boundary line between the Towns of Pelham and New Rochelle offered on April 22nd, 1898, was declared out of order by the chairman of said board, and that no committee was appointed thereunder.

And that you The Board of Supervisors of Westchester County forwith convene at the County Court House in the village of White Plains to take such proceedings as may be necessary to carry into effect the mandate of this court as provided in this writ.

LEVERETT F. CRUMB, 
(Westchester Couonty Seal)     Clerk.

The People of the State of New York 
to
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, and to the Town of New Rochelle.

Whereas, The Town of Pelham in the County of Westchester, by John M. Shinn, its supervisor has presented to the supreme court of the state of New York, on the 13th day of July, 1898, the fact upon affidavit that the board of supervisors of Westchester County, without jurisdiction and legal authority, are about to and threaten to entertain and pass a motion offered by Michael J. Dillon, supervisor of the town of New Rochelle, which would set aside and repeal an act of said board, duly passed March 16th, 1898, fixing the disputed boundary lines between the towns of New Rochelle and Pelham, after having heard all parties interested upon proceedings instituted to fix and determine such disputed boundary line pursuant to Section 86, of the county law.

Wherefore, The Town of Pelham, has prayed relief of our court and our writ of prohibition in that behalf, we therefore being willing that the laws of our state should be observed, do command youo that you desist and refrain from taking any action upon a certain proposed resolution or motion offered by Michael J. Dillon, as supervisor of the town of New Rochelle, May 31st, 1898, to reconsider a vote by which the repeal resolution and act, relating to the boundary line between the towns of New Rochelle and Pelham Manor [sic], was declared adopted at a meeting of this board, and that said board desist and refrain from taking action of any nature tending to affect the act of March 16th, 1898, passed by said board, fixing the disputed boundary line between the towns of New Rochelle and Pelham, and that you show cause before a special term of the supreme court, of the state of New York, at a special term thereof to be held at the county court house, in the village of White Plains, Westchester County, on the 23rd day of July, 1898, at ten o'clock in the forenoon or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, why you should not be absolutely restrained from any further proceeding in respect to said act of March 16th, 1898, which fixed and determined the disputed boundary line between the towns of New Rochelle and Pelham, and from all and any action tending in any manner to effect, limit or avoid said act of March 16th, 1898.

Witness, Hon. William D. Dickey, justice of the supreme court, in and for the second judicial department, at the county court house, in the city of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, and county of Kings, this 13th day of July, 1895.

By the Court,
[SEAL.]     LEVERETT F. CRUMB, Clerk.

HENRY G. K. HEATH, 
Attorney for Relator, 
Office and P. O. Address,
No. 6, Union Avenue,
New Rochelle, N. Y.

At a special term of the supreme court, held in and for the second judicial department, at the county court house, in the city of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, and county of Kings, on the 13th day of July 1898.

Present, Hon. William D. Dickey, Justice.

The People of the State of New York, on the Relation of the Town of Pelham,

against,

The Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester, and the town of New Rochelle.

On reading and filing the petition of John M. Shinn, Supervisor of the town of Pelham, verified July 13th, 1898, and on motion of Henry G. Heath, attorney for said petitioner.

It is ordered that a writ of prohibition issue out of this court, to the board of supervisors of Westchester County, and to the town of New Rochelle, commanding the said board of supervisors of Westchester County, to desist and refrain from taking any action upon a certain proposed resolution or motion offered by Michael J. Dillon, as supervisor of the Town of New Rochelle, on May 31st, 1898, to reconsider a vote by which the repeal resolution and act, relating to the boundary line between the towns of New Rochelle and Pelham, was declared adopted at a meeting of said board, held on April 22nd, 1898, and that the same lay over and be acted upon at the next special or regular meeting of this board, and that said board desist and refrain from taking any action of any nature tending to affect the act of March 16th, 1898, passed by said board, fixing the disputed boundary lie between the towns of New Rochelle and Pelham, and that said writ be returnable on the 23rd day of July next, at the opening of the court on that day, at a special term of this supreme court to be held in the county court house in the village of White Plains, Westchester County.

Enter in Westchester Co.

Enter

WILLIAM D. DICKEY,
J. S. C.

Granted July 13, 1898.
WM. P. GREEST,
Clerk.

Mr. Dillon presented the following order of the court 'denying motion for writ of prohibition' and moved that all papers in the case be entered upon the minutes, which motion was declared carried:

At a special term of the supreme court held in the county court house, in White Plains, on the 23d day of July, 1898.

Present -- Hon. Martin J. Keogh, Justice.

The People of the State of New York, on the relation of John M. Shinn, as Supervisor of the town of Pelham

against

Chauncey T. Secor, as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County, Edwin R. Hopkins, as Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County, and the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County.

The defendant herein, the board of supervisors of Westchester County, having by their counsel appeared when the writ of prohibition granted herein was returnable and filed their separate return thereto, and the town of New Rochelle also having appeared by its counsel and filed a return to said writ of prohibition.  Now, after reading and filing the affidavit upon which the writ of prohibition was granted and the order for said writ of prohibition, and the writ of prohibition bearing date July 13th, 1898, and after reading and filing the said returns of said writ made as aforesaid, that after hearing Henry G. K. Heath, Esq., in support of a motion for a permanent order or writ of prohibition, in the above entitled proceedings, and J. Addison Young, the attorney for the defendants, aforesaid, in opposition to said motion.

It is ordered and adjudged, that said motion be and the same hereby is denied, and that the relator is not entitled to a writ of prohibition absolute, and that his application therefore be and the same hereby is denied.

It is further ordered that the said defendants recover from the said relator, the sum of ten ($10) dollars costs on this motion.

MARTIN J. KEOGH,
Justice.

State of New York, Office of the County Clerk of Westchester County. } ss.:

I have compared the preceding with the original order denying motion, filed in this office on the 10th day of September, 1898, and do hereby certify the same to be a correct transcript therefrom and of the whole of such original.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name, and affixed my official seal this 10th day of March, 1899.

(Seal) 

LEVERETT F. CRUMB,
County Clerk of Westchester Co. . . . 

 Mr. Dillon moved a reconsideration of the vote just taken on the resolution presented by him, which motion was declared lost.

Mr. Dillon offered the following act:

An act to repeal an act entitled, 'An act to fix, locate, establish and define the disputed boundary line between the towns of Pelham and New Rochelle, in the county of Westchester, passed pursuant to Section 36 of Chapter 686 of the laws of 1892, and acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, by the Board of Supervisors of the county of Westchester, at a regular meeting assembled on the 16th day of March, 1898.'

Section 1.  The act passed by the board of supervisors of Westchester County, on March 16th, 1898, entitled, 'An act, to fix, locate, establish and define the disputed boundary line between the towns of Pelham and New Rochelle, in the county of Westchester, passed pursuant to Section 36 of Chapter 686 of the laws of 1892, and acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, by the board of supervisors of the county of Westchester, at a regular meeting assembled on the 16th day of March, 1898,' is hereby repealed.

(Continued on fourth page.)

Board of Supervisors.
-----
(Continued from first page.)

Section 2.  This act shall take effect immediately.

Laid over. . . ."

Source:  Annual Session OF THE Board of Supervisors, Westchester County, N. Y. 1898-'99, The Eastern State Journal [White Plains, NY], Mar. 18, 1899, Vol. LIV, No. 52, p. 1, cols. 4-8 & p. 4, col. 1.

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."