News of Pelham Published February 12, 1875

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.

Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

In early February, 1875 -- much like recent days in 2018 -- the Town of Pelham was in the midst of a brutal cold spell that froze much of Long Island Sound and the waters off the shores of Pelham with ice so thick that people, horses, sleighs, and more could cross on the ice safely from island to island.  The brutal cold, however, did not stop Pelhamites from enjoying an active social life and outdoor sports according to news of the Town published in a Mount Vernon newspaper on February 12, 1875.

In 1875, the Mount Vernon newspaper known as The Chronicle was in its sixth year of publication.  In its earliest days, the newspaper occasionally carried news of Pelham.  In those early days, Pelham Manor had not been settled much.  The settlement of Pelhamville was tiny and, as one might expected, generated little interest or news.  Indeed, most of the population of the Town of Pelham was concentrated on City Island and in the tiny nearby settlement on Shore Road known variously as Bartow, Bartow-on-the-Sound, and Bartow Station.  Thus, the earliest news of Pelham reported in The Chronicle focused on City Island.

In early February, with much of the Sound solidly iced over, Pelhamites were concerned about their safety.  Because it was possible to walk from island to island, prisoners held on Hart Island were escaping in droves -- simply walking away from the island on the ice to City Island and then to the mainland.  According to the February 12 news report, in one week alone "about thirty prisoners" escaped.

Pelhamites also were concerned about local environmental issues in early 1875.  The same news account reported the formation of a "committee" representing Pelham consisting of Town Supervisor James Hyatt, David Carll (shipyard owner and one of the most successful businessmen in Pelham), and Stephen Pell (a notable civic citizen and ancestor of John Pell, nephew of Pelham founder Thomas Pell).  On behalf of Pelham, the committee traveled to Albany to complain to lawmakers that New York City contractors were illegally dumping refuse in the waters between Throggs Neck and City Island risking destruction of the oyster beds in the region, the mainstay of the Town's principal industry involving the planting, harvesting, and sale of oysters.  The committee asked the lawmakers to enforce preexisting law banning such dumping. 

On the lighter side, the news account described a host of social and recreational activities undertaken (or planned) by Pelhamites that brutally-cold February in 1875.  For example, the Merry Ten of City Island planned a grand "calico ball" -- by invitation only -- at Leviness Hall on the evening of Monday, February 22, 1875.  

The "Merry Ten" was a social club based on City Island in the Town of Pelham during the latter part of the nineteenth century.  It seems to have been active from at least the early 1870's through at least the mid 1880's and, indeed, was described in one article published in [1882] as "an old organization of City Island."  See PELHAM AND CITY ISLAND, The Chronicle [Mount Vernon, NY], May 30, 1884, Vol. XV, No. 767, p. 3, col. 4 ("Last evening, the Merry Ten, an old organization of City Island, gave a complimentary ball, at Von Liehn's Hotel.").

In 1893, the highly-successful social club spawned a spin-off social club for the younger set known as "The Merry Ten, Jr."   The name "Merry Ten" was associated with unaffiliated social clubs throughout the United States in the 19th and early 20th centuries.  Social Clubs named "Merry Ten" can be found in San Francisco, Yonkers and even Lowell, Massachusetts.  There even was a dime novel story written by Harvey King Shackleford entitled "The Merry Ten; or, The Shadows of a Social Club. A Temperance Story."  I have written before about the "Merry Ten" of City Island.  See Wed., Sep. 03, 2014:  The Merry Ten Social Club of City Island in the Town of Pelham During the 19th Century.  

 Ticket:  "GRAND FANCY DRESS AND MASQUERADE BALL OF

THE MERRY TEN, TO BE HELD AT LEVINESS' HALL, City Island,

On Thursday Eve'g, Feb. 22d, 1872.  TICKETS, ADMITTING GENTLEMAN

AND LADIES, $1.00.  No Gentleman or Lady admitted on the floor, unless

Fancy Dressed and Masked, until after intermission.  J.M. FLYNN,

President. JOHN ADEMA, Sectretary.  M. KNAPP, Vice-President.

R. L. LINCOLN, Treasurer."  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

According to the same report, a charitable group named the Society of Earnest Workers formed by members of Grace Episcopal Church on City Island hosted a fundraiser consisting of an entertainment of tableaux and charades at Horton's Hall on the evening of Monday, February 8, 1875.  (A "tableaux," popular at the time, involved posing costumed people, objects and, sometimes, animals to represent a scene, famous picture, statue or the like.)  "Attendance was large" and the entertainment raised more than $10 to support the group's work.

The article further reported that a minstrel entertainment group known as the Stony Swamp Minstrels intended to give "one of their pleasing entertainments" at Leviness Hall on City Island later that month.  Minstrel shows, of course, were 19th and early 20th century entertainments that, sadly, lampooned African-Americans in burlesque settings with comic skits, variety acts, dancing, and music performances.  Little is known of this minstrel group that appears to have been based in the City Island region and even owned an ice boat named the "Stony Swamp" that competed in local races.  Hopefully additional research will reveal more about the history of this minstrel group.

The Stony Swamp Minstrels raced their iceboat named the "Stony Swamp" on the ice of frozen Pelham Bay during that brutal cold snap in 1875.  The ice boat raced against other local ice boats including the Town Dock and the Graham.  One such race, held on the ice of Pelham Bay on Saturday, February 6, 1875, was somewhat unusual.  Two ice boats raced a horse-drawn sleigh on the ice.  The ice boats beat the horse-drawn sleigh soundly, beating it by one-third of the distance across the entire bay. 

19th Century Stern Steerer Iceboats Likely Similar to Those

Raced on Frozen Pelham Bay on Saturday, February 6, 1875.

NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

 And . . . THAT's the way it was in February, 1875, in the Town of Pelham.

*          *          *          *          *

"City Island.

The Merry Ten of City Island will give a grand invitation calico ball at Capt. Leviness' Hall on Monday evening Feb. 22nd.

On Monday evening last the members of the Earnest Workers gave an entertainment consisting of tableaux and charades at Horton's Hall.  The attendance was large and the proceeds netted over $10.

During the past week about thirty prisoners have escaped from Hart's Island and City Island.  People have been crossing from one island to the other for several days.

The residents of the Island have several ice boats, the Stony Swamp, Town Dock and Graham, in successful operation on Pelham Bay.  The Stony Swamp is owned by the minstrel troupe of the same name.

On Wednesday last several boats were a whole day in getting from opposite City Island to Throggs Neck.

The Stony Swamp Minstrels intend giving one of their pleasing entertainments at Leviness's Hall about the 28th inst.

On Saturday last a race took place on Pelham Bay between two ice boats and a horse attached to a [sleigh] but the horse was beaten one third of the distance across the bay.

On Monday a committee of gentlemen from this place consisting of David Carll, Stephen Pell and Supervisor Hyatt went to Albany for the purpose of protesting against the dumping of refuse matter by the contractors of New York between Throgg's Neck and City Island.  The committee requested our members to use their utmost endeavors to have the law in relation to the above abuse enforced.  It forbids the dumping of all refuse matter one mile from Sandy Point.  This action has been taken in prevention of the destruction of oyster beds beginning that part of the Sound spoken of above as a dumping ground." 

Source:  City Island, The Chronicle [Mount Vernon, NY], Feb. 12, 1875, Vol. VI, No. 282, p. 3, col. 2.

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."

Public Auction of John Barton's Planted Oyster Bed in Pelham Bay in 1854

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."

It is common to assume that 19th century City Island oystermen planted the waters surrounding City Island, then part of the Town of Pelham, with oysters.  That was not, however, always the case.  Oysterman John Barton presents an excellent example.

John Barton was a resident of New York City in the early 1850s.  He had a wife, Elizabeth, and three children:  Elizabeth (born about 1850), Cynthia (born about 1852), and Clorinda (born about October, 1853).  Barton planted and maintained a large oyster bed containing about two thousand bushels of oysters on the northerly side of Pelham Bay about half a mile below Pelham Bridge.

Barton died in New York City without leaving a will on November 19, 1853, leaving behind his wife three daughters.  He died at about the time of the birth of his daughter, Clorinda.  It appears that his principal asset at the time of his death was his planted oyster bed in Pelham Bay in the Town of Pelham.  Barton was buried in Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn.

On February 13, 1854, Elizabeth Barton formally renounced all rights to administer the estate of her deceased husband, John Barton.  On February 18, 1854, The Surrogate's Court, County of New York, appointed the Public Administrator, Peter B. Sweeny, to administer the estate of John Barton.

The Public Administrator seems to have moved with exceptional dispatch to dispose of Barton's estate valued at less than $500 (about $20,000 in today's dollars), presumably because his widow and three daughters had little in the way of assets with which to survive.  Only one week later, on February 25, 1854, an auction notice appeared in the New York Herald.  It provided as follows:

"AUCTION. -- PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR'S SALE OF two thousand bushels of planted oysters, belonging to the estate of John Barton, deceased, as they lay, on the northerly side of Pelham Bay, one half mile below the bridge.  The above oysters will be sold at the public house of Mr. Wells, on City Island, on Tuesday, March 7, at 1 o'clock, P. M. Terms cash.

PETER B. SWEENY.

Public Administrator, 51 Chambers street, N. Y."

Source:  SALES AT AUCTION -- AUCTION -- PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR'S SALE, N.Y. Herald, Feb. 25, 1854, p. 5, col. 5.

No record yet has been located indicating whether the auction was held at the "public house of Mr. Wells, on City Island" nor any results if it was held.  Yet, this brief little slice of Pelham history demonstrates that even in the early days of oystering in Pelham waters, not all oystermen were City Island residents.

*          *          *          *          *

"SALES AT AUCTION.
-----
AUCTION. -- PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR'S SALE OF two thousand bushels of planted oysters, belonging to the estate of John Barton, deceased, as they lay, on the northerly side of Pelham Bay, one half mile below the bridge.  The above oysters will be sold at the public house of Mr. Wells, on City Island, on Tuesday, March 7, at 1 o'clock, P. M. Terms cash.

PETER B. SWEENY.

Public Administrator, 51 Chambers street, N. Y."

Source:  SALES AT AUCTION -- AUCTION -- PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR'S SALE, N.Y. Herald, Feb. 25, 1854, p. 5, col. 5.  

*          *          *          *          *

Page 001 of Petition for Letters of Administration for

Estate of John Barton.  Source:  Petition for Letters

of Administration of John Barton in New York Surrogate's Court,

New York County, Box 0008-28986, Surname:  A-Z, 1854 (New York

County, New York) p. 1 of 3 (Note: Paid subscription required to access

via this link).  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

"Surrogate's Court.
-----
In the Matter of the Administration of 
John Barton
Deceased.

Petition, &c.

[Signed] H. Henderson, Proctor."

Source:  Petition for Letters of Administration of John Barton in New York Surrogate's Court, New York County, Box 0008-28986, Surname:  A-Z, 1854 (New York County, New York) p. 1 of 3 (Note: Paid subscription required to access via this link).

Page 002 of Petition for Letters of Administration for Estate

of John Barton.  Petition for Letters of Administration of John Barton

in New York Surrogate's Court, New York County, Box 0008-28986,

Surname: A-Z, 1854 (New York County, New York) p. 2 of 3 (Note:

Paid subscription required to access via this link).

NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

"Surrogate's Court. -- County of New-York.
-----
In the Matter of the Administration of the Goods, Chattels and Credits of
John Barton, 
Deceased.
-----

To the Surrogate of the County of New-York.

The petition of Peter B. Sweeny the Public Administrator in the City of New York, 

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -- upon information & belief as follows

That the petitioner is informed and believes, that John Barton late of the City of New York departed this life at the said City of New York on or about the nineteenth day of November 1853 without leaving any last will and testament, to the knowledge, information or belief of the petitioner; and that said deceased died possessed of certain personal property in the State of New-York, the value of which does not exceed the sum of about Five hundred Dollars -- dollars, as your petitioner has been informed and believes.  That the said deceased has left him surviving a widow Elizabeth Barton and three children ^ all minors ^ to wit Cynthia aged four years Elizabeth aged two years and Clorinda aged four months -- 

That said deceased was at, or immediately previous to his death a resident in the City and County of New York -- by means whereof the ordering and granting administration of all and singular the goods, chattels and credits whereof said deceased died possessed in said State, and also the auditing, allowing and final discharging the accounts thereof, belong unto the Surrogate of the said County.  [Following is struck through:  That your petitioner has caused the notice to be served and published as is required by law, and as approved by affidavits accompanying this petition.]

Your petitioner therefore prays that you will appoint him administrator of all and singular the goods, chattels and creidts which were of said John Barton deceased.

Peter B. Sweeny
Public Administrator in the City of New-York.

H. Henderson, PROCTOR.

STATE OF NEW-YORK          }
                                                }  ss.
City and County of New-York  }

On the 18th day of February A. D. 1854 before me came the above named Peter B. Sweeny and made oath that he has read the foregoing petition subscribed b] David y him, and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated to be on his information or belief; and as to those matters, that he believes it to be true.

[Signed] David M. Sweeny
Comm'r [Illegible]"

Source: Petition for Letters of Administration of John Barton in New York Surrogate's Court, New York County, Box 0008-28986, Surname: A-Z, 1854 (New York County, New York) p. 2 of 3 (Note: Paid subscription required to access via this link).

Page 003 of Petition for Letters of Administration for Estate

of John Barton.  Source:  Petition for Letters of Administration of

John Barton in New York Surrogate's Court, New York County, Box

0008-28986, Surname: A-Z, 1854 (New York County, New York)

p. 3 of 3 (Note: Paid subscription required to access via this link).

NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

"Surrogate's Court
County of New York
In the Matter of the goods &c
John Barton dec'd

I Elizabeth Barton of the city of New York widow of John Barton late of the city of New York deceased do hereby renounce all right and claim to administration of the goods, chattels and credits of the said intestate -- 

Witness my hand New York aforesaid this 13th day of February A.D. 1854,

Signed in the
Presence of
Marcus B. Butter

[Signed] Elizabeth Barton

City and County of New York

Marcus B. Butter of said city being duly sworn doth depose and say that he is a resident of the [Following is struck through city and County] County of Richmond and State of New York that he knows Elizabeth Barton the person described in and who executed the foregoing renunciation that he saw her sign the same and that he subscribed his name as a witness thereto.

James M. Sweeny
Comm'r of [Illegible]"

Source:  Petition for Letters of Administration of John Barton in New York Surrogate's Court, New York County, Box 0008-28986, Surname: A-Z, 1854 (New York County, New York) p. 3 of 3 (Note: Paid subscription required to access via this link).

Letters of Administration Appointing New York City Public

Administrator Peter B. Sweeny as Administrator of Estate

of John Barton Who Died Intestate.  Source:   Letters of Administration

of John Barton in New York Surrogate's Court, New York County,

Letters of Administration (New York County, New York), 1743-1866;

Index, 1743-1910:  Letters, Vol. 58 (1853-1854), p. 309 (Note:  Paid

subscription required to access via this link).

NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

"TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW-YORK

Peter B. Sweeny, the Public Administrator in the City of New-York.

SEND GREETING

Whereas, John Barton lately departed this life intestate, living aat or immediately previous to his heath an inhabitant of the County of New York, by means whereof the ordering and granting Administration of all and singular the goods, chattels, and credits, whereof the said intestate died possessed in the State of New York, and also the auditing, allowing and final discharging the account thereof, doth appertain unto us; and we being desirous that the goods, chattels and credits of the said intestate may be well and faithfully administered, applied and disposed of, do grant unto you, the said Peter B. Sweeny, Public Administrator aforesaid full power, by these presents, to administer and faithfully dispose of all and singular the said goods, chattels and credits:  to ask, demand, recover and receive the debts, which unto the said intestate whilst living, and at the time of his death did belong; the debts which the said intestate did owe, as far as such goods, chattels and credits will thereunto extend and the law require; hereby requiring you to make or cause to be made, a true and perfect Inventory of all and singular the goods, chattels and credits of the said intestate, within a reasonable time, and return a duplicate thereof to our Surrogate of the County of New York, within three months from the date of these presents; and if further personal property, or assets of any kind not mentioned in any Inventory that shall have been so made, shall come to your possession or knowledge, to make or cause to be made in like manner, a true and perfect inventory thereof, and return the same within two months after discovery thereof; and also to render a just and true account of administrqation when thereunto required; and we do by these presents depute, constitute and appoint you the said Peter B. Sweeny, Public Administrator aforesaid, administrator of all and singular the goods, chattels and credits of said John Barton, deceased,

In Testimony whereof, we have caused the Seal of Office of the Surrogate of said County to be hereunto affixed.  WITNESS, ALEXANDER BRADFORD, Surrogate of said County, at the City of New-York, the eighteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty four, and of our Independence the seventy eighth.

[Signed] A. B. Bradford,
Surrogate."

Source:  Letters of Administration of John Barton in New York Surrogate's Court, New York County, Letters of Administration (New York County, New York), 1743-1866; Index, 1743-1910:  Letters, Vol. 58 (1853-1854), p. 309 (Note:  Paid subscription required to access via this link).

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."

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

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.

Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.

Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

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

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

Yet another oyster war began.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*          *          *          *          *

"OYSTER CONTROVERSY BETWEEN TWO STATES. -- 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The Oyster War.

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

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

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

"Oyster War.

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

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

*          *          *          *          *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.

Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."