Pelhamville residents were furious! They were more than furious. They were angry and bitter. They also were embarrassed, believing they had been duped by dishonest citizens of neighboring Pelham Heights.
As I have written before, during the winter of 1895-1896, a rumor began circulating throughout Pelhamville that the area was about to incorporate as a village (as had nearby Pelham Manor only a few years before). At the time, the area north of the New Haven line railroad tracks, often referenced as Pelhamville, had nearly eight hundred residents and two hundred voters. In contrast, the area just south of the New Haven line railroad tracks was under development and only had about 20 residents. That area was known, informally, as "Pelham Heights" or "The Heights."
Shortly after the rumors of incorporation began to circulate throughout Pelhamville, two petitions "mysteriously" began circulating throughout Pelhamville to change the name of the United States Post Office from Pelhamville to Pelham and to change the name of the New Haven line railroad station from Pelhamville to Pelham Station. Pelhamville residents gladly signed the petitions because, as one article put it, "[r]esidents felt a new pride in their village, as it bore one of the oldest names in Westchester county, and they dreamed of incorporation, and many improvements that would be possible under a village government." Indeed, Pelhamville residents were proud and happy when word came that both petitions had been granted and both the post office and railroad station would hence be known as "Pelham." Of course, all of Pelhamville assumed that their settlement was about to incorporate under the name of the "Village of Pelham." They were wrong.
Pelhamville residents failed to see the train coming down the tracks, so to speak. The tiny little development of "Pelham Heights," led by United States Congressman Benjamin L. Fairchild, stole a march on Pelhamville and incorporated as the "Village of Pelham" before Pelhamville could incorporate.
Pelhamville residents were shocked and angry. They believed they had been duped. They tried to determine who was responsible for distributing the "mysterious" name-change petitions that they had signed believing that Pelhamville would become the "Village of Pelham." Some believed the petitions were nefarious in nature had been started by residents of the Heights. Others disagreed and were of the view that the Heights had simply taken advantage of the situation. All Pelhamville residents agreed, however, that they were angry and that their post office and railroad station had been "stolen" from them -- figuratively speaking.
This story has been told before in Historic Pelham articles. See:
Tue., Jul. 01, 2014: Why Do We Call It the Village of Pelham Instead of Pelhamville? Because We Were Duped!
Fri., Apr. 15, 2005: How Pelhamville "Lost" Its Name!
While the story of how Pelham Heights stole a march on Pelhamville when it had the train station renamed "Pelham Station," the Post Office renamed "Pelham," and then incorporated the Heights as the "Village of Pelham" has been told before, few know how the bitter feelings between some members of the two communities simmered for more than a decade. In fact, a battle over names erupted yet again in 1906.
Even as late as a decade after incorporation of the Village of North Pelham and the Village of Pelham (the Heights), some officials of the Village of North Pelham simply had not forgiven Pelham Heights for the theft of the name "Pelham." The pain and anger, it seems, was still raw for some. Thus, when a dispute between the two villages broke out over work on the Fifth Avenue railroad overpass proposed by the railroad, North Pelham officials proposed an initiative to change the name of the railroad station from "Pelham Station" to "North Pelham Station."
During the regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Village of North Pelham held on September 7, 1906, the village trustees were angry with Pelham Heights officials for their reported refusal to cooperate with North Pelham to have the railroad perform work on the railroad overpass in a certain fashion preferred by North Pelham (a story to be told tomorrow). During the meeting, the North Pelham trustees instructed the Village Attorney "to take steps toward having the name of the village station changed from Pelham to North Pelham." According to the trustees, the "board took this action because if felt that those responsible for giving the station the name of Pelham had no right to do it."
To the satisfaction of the trustees, the Village Attorney pointed out that State law provided that "when a railroad passes through a village it shall bear the name of the village." Of course, there was no discussion of the fact that the railroad was the boundary line between the Villages of North Pelham and Pelham. Instead, the North Pelham Trustees and the Village Attorney focused on the fact that the station -- rather than the tracks -- stood on the North Pelham side of the boundary.
The Village Attorney informed the board that they could expect a fight from the Village of Pelham. Nevertheless, the North Pelham Trustees, led by Village President and local blacksmith James Reilley, authorized the Village Attorney to take steps to initiate the name change process.
One of the Trustees, Trustee David N. Algie, opposed the move. He argued it likely would "cost a good deal" to fight Pelham Heights and effect the name change at a time when "the village had no money to spare." His plea, however, fell on deaf ears. President Reilley "called attention to the fact that the way matters stood now there was no such place on the map as North Pelham. Trustee Barker thought that North Pelham should be the name of the station. 'We ought not to be ashamed to have the name changed,' he said."
Most in North Pelham, however, seemed to have forgotten the matter -- or at least let the matter go. Two weeks later, The Daily Argus reported that North Pelham residents didn't seem to care. According to the newspaper, "There seems to be very little talk relative to the action of the North Pelham trustees at their last meeting, when they instructed the village counsel, Attorney Breckenridge, of Pelham Manor, to take steps in having the name of the station changed."
At the next North Pelham Board of Trustees meeting held in late September, 1906, a local reporter prodded the Board on the matter. He asked them if they knew how many in North Pelham favored the proposed name change. According to the reporter in a subsequent news story:
"President Reilley . . . could not tell for certain, but was of the opinion that those in favor of the change were those who were with him in his election, and those who are not in favor of it constitute the forces who fought against him. According to this statement it looks as if the action of the trustees does not express the unanimous sentiment of the village."
The Daily Argus chastised the board, stating "it looks as if the village trustees have no money to spare for such a purpose, for in the end it will probably cost the village a considerable sum for legal services. A good watering cart is of more real benefit to this village at present than the changing of the name of the station. No North Pelhamite is really injured because the station is called Pelham, while on the other hand many are made to suffer from the dusty condition of the streets. The trustees can find many avenues for spending the village money, which, in the end, will be of far greater value to the village than paying an attorney for his efforts to merely have the name of a village station changed."
The newspaper's criticisms did not dissuade President Reilley and the Village Attorney. They pursued the matter directly with the railroad, citing State law to argue that because the station was located on the North Pelham side of the boundary, it had to be named for the Village of North Pelham.
Local residents decided to participate in the matter, though not as North Pelham desired. They began to flood the railroad with objections and requests that it deny the demand to change the name of the station. Finally, in early January, 1907, the railroad made up its mind.
During a meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Village of North Pelham held on January 7, 1907, Village Attorney Breckenridge read a communication from officials of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company. The railroad said that it "would not change the name of the passenger station from Pelham to North Pelham, as directed by the trustees through Mr. Breckenridge." The communication further stated that "a number of protests had been received from residents asking that the name of the station be not changed."
President Reilley of the North Pelham Board was not finished. The next morning he told a reporter that he was going to "compel" the railroad to change the station name. He further said "We expected this action of the company, but the matter has not been dropped by any means."
Though research has not yet revealed any further efforts by North Pelham officials to compel the railroad to change the name, clearly the effort eventually failed. Today (and ever since 1896), the station is (and has been) known as the "Pelham Station."
Map of Pelhamville Published in 1868. Source: Beers, F.W., Atlas
of New York and Vicinity from Actual Surveys By and Under the
Direction of F.W. Beers, Assisted By A.B. Prindle & Others, pg. 36
(NY, NY: Beers, Ellis & Soule, 1868) (Detail from Page 36 Map Entitled
NOTE: Click on Image to Enlarge.
* * * * *
"VILLAGES ARE IN A DISPUTE ABOUT NAMES
-----
North Pelham Wants Railroad Station Now Known as Pelham Changed at Once.
-----
TRUSTEES IN DEBATES OVER VARIOUS ITEMS
-----
North Pelham, Sept. 8. -- There is every indication that there is going to be a very merry time before long between the officials of the villages of Pelham and North Pelham because last night, at the regular meeting of the North Pelham trustees, steps were taken to have the name of the passenger station changed from Pelham to North Pelham. There is already friction on the railroad bridge matter as to which side of the bridge shall be altered for the widening of the roadway underneath. Now that the officials are determined to have the rights of the village recognized in the matter of having the name of the station changed to North Pelham instead of Pelham, interesting times will probably follow.
Village Counsel Breckenridge was instructed to take steps toward having the name of the village station changed from Pelham to North Pelham. The board took this action because it felt that those responsible for giving the station the name of Pelham had no right to do it. Mr. Breckenridge called the board's attention to the railroad law on the subject which states that when a railroad passes through a village it shall bear the name of the village. The station is on the North Pelham side and in Mr. Breckenridge's mind should be called North Pelham. 'Of course,' he said, 'there will probably be a contest in doing this thing.'
Trustee Aigle was not in favor of doing anything about it for he said it would cost a good deal and the village had no money to spare. Mr. Reilley called attention to the fact that the way matters stood now there was no such place on the map as North Pelham. Trustee Barker thought that North Pelham should be the name of the station. 'We ought not to be ashamed to have the name changed,' he said.
Last night's meeting was full of interest from the moment President Reilley called the board to order at 8:30 until 10:30, when Trustee Barker made the motion for adjournment. After the reading of the minutes of the previous meeting a communication from Henry Fritz laid over from the last meeting, asking for a sidewalk in front of his house in Second avenue, was considered. Nothing was done about the matter.
Attorney Breckenridge informed the board that he would go before Judge Keogh soon in the matter of securing a motion relative to the substitution of himself for Attorney Fairchild as counsel in the railroad bridge matter for the village of North Pelham.
The matter of having the name of the passenger station changed to North Pelham, then came up with the above mentioned results.
Highway Commissioner Barker gave his report verbally relative to the condition of the sidewalk on the west side of Eighth avenue, from 250 feet south of Fourth street, to 410 feet north of Fourth street, which certain property owners at the last meeting of the board petitioned the board to raise to a grade of at least six inches above the crown of the road.
Mr. Reilley thought that if the board raised that sidewalk, others
-----
(Continued on Page Two.)
VILLAGES ARE IN A DISPUTE ABOUT NAMES
-----
(Continued From Page One.)
in the village would want the same thing done to their sidewalks. It was finally decided that the board should examine the locality Sunday afternoon before taking any action on the petition.
President Reilley informed the board that he had received word from counsel for Mr. Lowry that if the board should not decide at the meeting Friday night to pay the bill of $200 due Mr. Lowry for the building of the culvert on First street, he would bring an action against the village. Commissioner Barker stated that he had been all through the culvert; had examined it carefully, and had found no change in it. Mr. Algie thought that as it had been passed on by the inspector and as Mr. Lowry had stated that he had completed the work according to specifications, etc., the bill ought to be paid in order to save the village extra expense. It was resolved, Mr. Barker voting in the negative. He said, 'This whole board knows that that work was not done according to specifications. You are paying $600 for a $400 job. I'm in favor of allowing the bill to stand as it is.'
Mr. Gardner, representing the Sanborne Map factory of North Pelham, was then presented to the board by President Reilley. Mr. Gardner wanted to know if there was any way of providing a sewer system for the factory, which is nearing completion. He thought that if the management of the factory could get any encouragement relative to a sewer system, it might change some of their plans. He thought that the taxes of the factory would furnish quite an income to the village and would assist materially in paying for the sewage system.
Mr. Algie informed Mr. Gardner that the question of sewage was one which would have to be decided on by the taxpayers at an election. He was also instructed to visit the village board of health relative to the sewage matter. The question of natural drainage was brought up by Mr. Gardner and it was finally voted that the Sanborne Map factory be permitted to lap pipe from Seventh street along Fourth avenue, through Sixth street, to Fifth avenue, to take off the surface drainage.
Trustee Algie called the attention of the board to the appropriation made by the old board for sidewalks on the east side of Fifth avenue for a certain distance. He said that the people were talking about the appropriation. President Reilley thought the sidewalks were unnecessary as there were no houses on that side of the street. He also thought that it would cost too much to keep them in condition, as the dirt would be washed down continually from the abutting embankment. He said, 'You must remember there are a lot taxes not paid.' Mr. Barker moved that the sidewalk question be laid over. It was carried, Mr. Algie dissenting.
The matter of laying out the street on the corner of Sixth avenue and Second street was brought up. Certain members of the Brotherton family living near Attorney Rupert had complained to Mr. Reilley to the effect that the street had been utilized as a lawn and that he had told them not to cross the lawn. They consequently had no means of access to Fifth avenue. Mr. Rupert was present at the meeting last night and explained the situation. He said that he had taken a little pride in his surroundings and had simply cleaned the street up and cut the grass there. After he had the weeds cut down, he simply kept the place looking respectable by keeping the lawn cut. He stated that he had simply done it for the good of the place.
Mr. Reilley asked Mr. Rupert if he had ever restricted anyone from going over the lawn. He replied 'never.' President Reilley then had a letter read dated November 5, 1904, written to Mrs. H. G. Brotherton, and signed Henry L. Rupert, attorney in fact for Effie V. B. Rupert. It read, 'The owner of lot 54 on Bryson map, Pelhamville, would thank you to refrain in future from trespassing upon any portion of the lawn or paths thereof on the way to and from your home. I trust you will not make it necessary for me to do more than to call your attention to this matter, as it is, and has been very unpleasant, and must cease.'
Immediately after this letter was read, Mr. Rupert stated that it had nothing whatever to do with the present case. He said that when that letter was written the street was full of weeds and tall grass and the Brothertons had made a path right across his lawn. He stated that he was in favor of opening the street and doing whatever was right, but he wished to be understood in the matter. It was finally voted that the highway commissioner be directed to give the line of Sixth avenue and Second street, in order to show the sidewalk line and build a path three feet wide.
Mr. Rupert wanted to know if he could continue to cut the grass in the street. Mr. Algie made a motion to that effect but it was not seconded. Mr. Breckenridge thought that Mr. Algie had not better make a motion like that which concerned public property. If the village did not disapprove of Mr. Rupert cutting the grass that was enough. Mr. Algie would not withdraw the motion. 'May I walk on it?' asked Mr. Rupert.
The treasurer's report was presented but as the balance on hand at the last meeting did not tally with the amount carried over, the latter being larger by several hundred dollars, it was voted that the report showing a balance of $1,215.13, be referred back to the treasurer for correction. The meeting then adjourned."
Source: VILLAGES ARE IN A DISPUTE ABOUT NAMES -- North Pelham Wants Railroad Station Now Known as Pelham Changed at Once -- TRUSTEES IN DEBATES OVER VARIOUS ITEMS, The Daily Argus [Mount Vernon, NY], Sep. 8, 1906, Whole No. 4414, p. 1, col. 5 & p. 2, col. 3.
"Events in North Pelham
-----
CHANGE OF NAME
-----
Of Passenger Station Has Not Been Settled as Yet.
-----
The expected struggle between the trustees of the villages of Pelham and North Pelham relative to changing the name of the passenger station from Pelham to North Pelham has not as yet materialized. There seems to be very little talk relative to the action of the North Pelham trustees at their last meeting, when they instructed the village counsel, Attorney Breckenridge, of Pelham Manor, to take steps in having the name of the station changed.
President Reilley of the village of North Pelham was asked how many were in favor of the change and how many were not in favor of the village of North Pelham itself. He could not tell for certain, but was of the opinion that those in favor of the change were those who were with him in his election, and those who are not in favor of it constitute the forces who fought against him. According to this statement it looks as if the action of the trustees does not express the unanimous sentiment of the village.
While it is admitted that from the standpoint of law the station should be called North Pelham, and there are those who have pride enough in their village to want it changed to that name, it looks as if the village trustees have no money to spare for such a purpose, for in the end it will probably cost the village a considerable sum for legal services. A good watering cart is of more real benefit to this village at present than the changing of the name of the station. No North Pelhamite is really injured because the station is called Pelham, while on the other hand many are made to suffer from the dusty condition of the streets. The trustees can find many avenues for spending the village money, which, in the end, will be of far greater value to the village than paying an attorney for his efforts to merely have the name of a village station changed."
Source: Events in North Pelham -- CHANGE OF NAME -- Of Passenger Station Has Not Been Settled as Yet, The Daily Argus [Mount Vernon, NY], Sep. 27, 1906, p. 5, col. 1.
"Events in North Pelham.
-----
NOT TO CHANGE NAME.
-----
Railroad Station Will Remain Pelham as Heretofore.
-----
At the regular meeting of the village trustees Friday night, Counsellor Breckenridge read a communication from the officials of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company which stated that the company would not change the name of the passenger station from Pelham to North Pelham, as directed by the trustees through Mr. Breckenridge. The communication further stated that a number of protests had been received from residents asking that the name of the station be not changed.
The president of the village said this morning that the company would be compelled to change the name of the station according to the railroad law. He said: 'We expected this action of the company, but the matter has not been dropped by any means.'
The full board was present at last night's meeting. The minutes of the last meeting were read and approved. On motion of Trustee Barker, it was voted that a bill of John Lowry for extra work on the brook ordered by the board of health be paid. The bill amounted to $41.
A petition and request to appropriate a sum of money in the next budget for a sidewalk one hundred feet on Fourth street and fifty feet on Sixth avenue, signed by Jacob Heisser, was read to the board and placed on file. No action was taken on the same.
A draft was ordered drawn in favor of the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company amounting to $9.46. Counselor Breckenridge brought up the matter of the abutments at the railroad bridge, and as the court at White Plains will give the counsellor [sic] a hearing on the widening of the eastern abutment instead of the western abutment, it was decided to examine the abutments next Sunday.
The treasurer's report showed a balance on hand amounting to 4574.67."
Source: Events in North Pelham -- NOT TO CHANGE NAME -- Railroad Station Will Remain Pelham as Heretofore, The Daily Argus [Mount Vernon, NY], Jan. 7, 1907, p. 7, cols. 3-4.
Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Labels: 1906, James Reilley, North Pelham, Pelham Heights, Pelham Station, Pelhamville Depot, Pelhamville Station, The Heights, Village of North Pelham, Village of Pelham
