Loyalists in Pelham Were Punished with Targeted Taxes in 1784 Following the Revolutionary War

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."

At the close of the Revolutionary War, Americans were justly angry toward their British oppressors and the so-called "Loyalists" who resided in America and supported Great Britain during the War.  Indeed, among the many manifestations of such anger were the extensive forfeitures of Loyalist lands forced by New York and other states including forfeitures of lands in the Manor of Pelham authorized immediately after the War.  See Thu., Jun. 23, 2016:  Original Record of Forfeiture Sale of Lands of British Loyalists in the Manor of Pelham; Fri., Aug. 03, 2007: Abstract of Sale of Lands of Joshua Pell of Pelham Manor by the Commissioners of Forfeiture in the Southern District of New York State in August, 1784; Wed., Aug. 30, 2006:  1786 Notice Requiring Filing of Creditors' Claims Against Forfeited Estates of Loyalists Including Joshua Pell of the Manor of Pelham.

Another effort to punish those who either supported the British during the War or remained behind British lines and refused to support the American cause was a New York statute enacted over the Governor's veto on May 6, 1784.  Entitled "An Act for raising £100,000, within the several Counties therein mentioned," the statute ostensibly imposed a large tax on southern New York including the Manor of Pelham to be used to reimburse the middle Western and Eastern sections of the State for the burdens and expenses those sections suffered during the War.  

In reality, the statute imposed a tax on residents of parts of southern New York including the Manor of Pelham that were controlled by the British during the War but exempted all residents who fled the region while it was in the control of the British (whether such refugees fled elsewhere in New York or to any other State).  In short, the statute was an effort to tax Loyalists who remained in the region controlled by the British during the War and stayed after the War.  According to a preamble to the statute, the tax purportedly was imposed by consent of those taxed, but as one author has noted "the detailed provisions for collection cast great doubt upon its voluntary character."  Reppy, Alison, The Spectre of Attainder in New York (Part 1), 23 St. John's Law Rev. pp. 1, 37 (Nov. 1948).

The statute provides a fascinating glimpse of the times.  It imposed a £100,000 tax apportioned among the following communities in southern New York:  (1) City and County of New-York (£56,000); (2) County of Suffolk (£10,000); (3) Kings County (£13,000); (4) Queens County (£14,000); (5) County of Richmond (£5,000); and (6) "that Part of the County of Westchester comprised in the Bounds of the Borough and Town of Westchester, the Township of East-Chester, the Yonkers, Manor of Pelham, New-Rochelle, Mamaroneck and Scarsedale [sic]" (£2,000).  The tax applied to the real property and personal property of "all the Freeholders, Residents and Inhabitants" therein.  

Significantly, the statute contained the following exemption:

"Inhabitants of the Southern District, not in the Power of the Enemy during the War, exempted from this Tax.

VII.  And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That every Person who being an Inhabitant in the Southern District of this State, at the Time of the Invasion thereof by the Troops of the king of Great-Britain, who removed from the said District into any Part of this, or any other of the United States of America, in Consequence of the said Invasion, and whose stated Residence has, from the Time aforesaid until the first Day of March, 1783, been in such Parts of this State, or any other of the United States, not in the Power or Possession of the said Troops, and every other Person whose stated Residence during the late War has been in such Parts of this or any other of the United States, not in the Power or Possession of the said Troops, shall be exempted from paying any Part of the Rate imposed in and by this Act.  That it shall and may be lawful to and for the Assessors, and they are hereby required to omit the Names of such Persons respectively, in forming the Assessment-Rolls directed in and by this Act, to be made by such Assessors."

Source:  Laws of the Legislature of the State of New York, &c. in Force Against the Loyalists, and Affecting the Trade of Great Britain, and British Merchants, and Others Having Property in that State, CHAP. LVIII:  An Act for raising £100,000, within the several Counties therein mentioned.  Passed May the 6th, 1784,  pp. 145-51 (London:  H. Reynell No. 21 Piccadilly, 1786).  

The statute further specified extensive procedures for having assessors determine the value of lands and personal property held by those subject to the tax.  It required the tax to be paid only in gold or silver coin and provided procedures for pursuing and even punishing those who refused, or failed, to pay the tax.  

The statute contains no indication as to why southern Westchester County including the Manor of Pelham (the Town of Pelham was not created by statute until four years later in 1788) was required to pay only two thousand of the one hundred thousand pounds required.  Most likely, however, the amount was comparatively low for southern Westchester including Pelham for at least two reasons.  First, the region was utterly devastated during the Revolutionary War.  It was part of the so-called Neutral Ground that was subject to marauding bands of irregulars known as "Cowboys" and "Skinners" that plundered the region and tormented, tortured, and even murdered its residents.  Little in the way of "wealth" remained.  Secondly, compared to the other more urban counties named by the statute, there were comparatively fewer residents in rural Westchester County to bear a share of the tax.

Nevertheless, the State of New York made its point.  It would continue to take its pound of flesh from Loyalists and others who failed to support the American cause during the War for Independence.

*          *          *         *          *

The text of the statute on which today's Historic Pelham article is based appears immediately below, followed by a citation and link to its source.

"CHAP. LVIII.

An Act for raising £100,000, within the several Counties therein mentioned.  Passed May the 6th, 1784.

Preamble.  Reciting that heavy Burthens have been sustained by Part of the State, in Support of the War.

WHEREAS the several Counties in the middle Western and Eastern Districts of this State, and a Part of the County of Westchester have sustained many and heavy Burthens and Expences, in prosecuting the late War between these States and the King of Great-Britain.

And who ought to bear Part of Expenses

And whereas it is just and equitable, that all who participate in the Blessings derived from the Freedom and Independence which this State now happily enjoys, should contribute in the Burthens and Expenses whereby the same was obtained.

£100,000, deemed a Compensation for the Southern District.

And whereas the Citizens of the Southern District of this State, impressed with a just Sense of the Exertions and Sufferings of their Brethren in the other Districts, have by their Representatives declared their Readiness to afford a Testimonial of the Sense they have of the Exertions and Sufferings aforesaid, and it being conceived by this Legislature, that, if the Sum of One Hundred Thousand Pounds should be raised in the said Southern District, it would be such a Compensation to the other Districts as would prove satisfactory to the Citizens thereof, and that no future Compensation would be required from the Southern District:  And it being the Intention of this Legislature, that on all future Occasions where Burthens are to be borne by the Citizens of this State, each County shall be charged with a Proportion according to the relative Value of such County to the Whole.

Quota of different Counties in said District.

I.  Be it enacted by the People of the State of New-York, represented in Senate and Assembly, and it is hereby enacted by the Authority of the same, That there shall be raised within the City and County of New-York, the Counties of Suffolk, Kings, Queens, and Richmond, and that Part of Westchester County herein after described, the Sum of One Hundred Thousand Pounds; that the Quota of the City and County of New-York of the said Sum, shall be Fifty-six Thousand Pounds; the Quota of the County of Suffolk, Ten Thousand Pounds; the Quota of Kings County, Thirteen Thousand Pounds; the Quota of Queens County, Fourteen Thousand Pounds; the Quota of the County of Richmond, Five Thousand Pounds; and the Quota of that Part of the County of Westchester comprised in the Bounds of the Borough and Town of Westchester, the Township of East-Chester, the Yonkers, Manor of Pelham, New-Rochelle, Mamaroneck and Scarsedale, shall be Two Thousand Pounds.

How an Account of Inhabitants Estates to be taken.

II.  And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That the Mayor, Recorder and Aldermen, of the City and County of New-York, or the major Part of them for the Time being, shall meet and assemble at the City-Hall of the said City, within ten Days after the passing of this Act, and then and there issue their Warrants to the several Assessors of the said City and County, 

When and how to be assessed.

to take a true and exact Account of all the Estates real and personal of all the Freeholders, Residents and Inhabitants, within the several Wards of the said City and County (and liable to be assessed by this Act) for which they at the Time of issuing such Warrants shall be Assessor or Assessors, and true, equal, and impartial Assessments to make, and at such Day to be therein prefixed, no more than fifteen Days after the Time of issuing such Warrants, to the said Mayor, Recorder and Aldermen, or the major Part of them to exhibit:  

Assessments being made, how Warrants to be issued to Collectors, and Monies collected.

And when the said Assessments shall, by the said Assessors, be compleated, and a full Account of the same, made and cast up according to the pound Value of the Estates of Persons, by this Act liable to be assessed, then the said Mayor, Recorder, and Aldermen, or the major Part of them, shall issue their Warrants to the several and respective Collectors in the City and County (within fifteen Days after the Day on which such Assessments to be laid by the Assessors of the respective Wards as aforesaid shall have been exhibited) to collect the Monies so assessed, 

And paid to the Treasurer, by 1st of August next.

and pay the same from Time to Time to the Treasurer of this State never retaining in the Hands of any such Collector, more than the Sum of Five Hundred Pounds, and so that the Whole of the Monies to be raised in the said City and County, be paid to the said Treasurer of this State, on or before the first Day of August next.

Assessors to take an Oath before they proceed to assess.

III.  And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That each of the Assessors of the said City and County of New-York, shall, before he enters on the Performance of the Duties required of him by this Act, take an Oath before the said Mayor, Recorder, and Aldermen, or the major Part of them, in the Words following, viz.

Form of such Oath.

'I ________ do solemnly swear and declare, that I will well, truly, equally, and impartially, in due Proportion, according to the best of my Skill, Knowledge, and Understanding, assess and rate the Freeholders, Residents, and Inhabitants of the Ward for which I am Assessor, who are liable to be rated and assessed in Pursuance of the Law, entitled, "An Act for the raising the Sum of One Hundred Thousand Pounds within the several Counties therein mentioned, agreeable to the Directions of the said Law.'  

To be taken before Mayor, Recorder, &c.

Which Oath the said Mayor, Recorder, and Aldermen, or the major Part of them are hereby empowered, required, and directed to administer.

Gold and Silver only to be taken in Payment, and on Refusal to pay it, to levy by Distress, &c.

V.  And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That Gold and Silver Coins only shall be received in Payment for the said Rate.  --  That if any of the Persons so rated, shall neglect or refuse to pay the Rate imposed on them, the Collector shall levy the same by Distress and Sale of the Goods and Chattels of the Persons so refusing or neglecting; that where Distress and Sale shall be made in either of the Cafes above-mentioned, the Overplus, after deducting the Charges of such Distress and Sale, shall have been made -- 

For Want of Goods, to commence a Suit, before a Justice of Peace,

That for Want of Goods and Chattels whereon to levy the Rate, the Collector shall be, and is hereby authorised and required to commence a Suit in his own Name, before any Justice of the Peace of the County, and the Justice or Jury shall give a Verdict and Judgment for the Amount of the Sum at which the Defendant shall be so taxed, with Costs, upon the Rate Lists being duly proved to have been signed by the Supervisor or Supervisors or Justice; which is hereby declared to be conclusive Evidence to entitle the Plaintiff to recover;

Whole Authority is extended to all such Actions, &c.

and the Authority and Jurisdiction of such Justice is hereby extended to such Actions, notwithstanding the Sum to be sued for shall exceed the Sum of Ten Pounds:  And it shall an may be lawful to and for the Justice giving Judgment as aforesaid, and he is hereby strictly enjoined and required, to award Execution forthwith after such Judgment, and former Law to the Contrary in any Wise notwithstanding,

And direct a Return, &c.

therein directing the Officer to make Return of such Execution within ten Days from the Date of the said Execution, and to pay the Amount of the Rate to be paid by the Person against whom such Execution shall have been awarded, to the Collector who sued for the same, within fifteen Days from the Date of such Execution; or if the Person is committed to the Custody of the Sheriff, or cannot be found, to give such Collector a Certificate thereof, which Certificate shall be, by the said Collector, delivered to the Treasurer of the County, and who is hereby directed to credit the said Collector for the Amount of the Rate mentioned in such Certificate -- 

Collectors Allowance for collecting Rates.

That the Collectors shall be allowed, and are hereby authorised to retain in their Hands, out of the Rates by them collected, Four-pence in the Pound, for their Services in the Execution of this Act, except in the City and County of New-York, where the Collectors respectively shall only retain Two-pence in the Pound -- That the County Treasurer shall pay the Monies they shall respectively from Time to Time receive from the Collectors into the Treasury of this State, within fifteen Days next after the Days and Times in which the Collectors, by this Act, are directed and required to pay the same into the County Treasury -- 

And retain 8s. for every 100l.

That the several County Treasurers shall be allowed and are hereby authorised to retain in their Hands, out of the Monies they shall respectively receive from the Collectors, a Commission of Eight Shillings for every Hundred Pounds, for their Services in receiving the said Monies, and paying the same into the Treasury of this State.

Inhabitants of the Southern District, not in the Power of the Enemy during the War, exempted from this Tax.

VII.  And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That every Person who being an Inhabitant in the Southern District of this State, at the Time of the Invasion thereof by the Troops of the king of Great-Britain, who removed from the said District into any Part of this, or any other of the United States of America, in Consequence of the said Invasion, and whose stated Residence has, from the Time aforesaid until the first Day of March, 1783, been in such Parts of this State, or any other of the United States, not in the Power or Possession of the said Troops, and every other Person whose stated Residence during the late War has been in such Parts of this or any other of the United States, not in the Power or Possession of the said Troops, shall be exempted from paying any Part of the Rate imposed in and by this Act.  That it shall and may be lawful to and for the Assessors, and they are hereby required to omit the Names of such Persons respectively, in forming the Assessment-Rolls directed in and by this Act, to be made by such Assessors.

Assessors may summon any Persons before them, to examine them on Oath relative to Personal Property.

XXI.  And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That the Assessors or a Majority of them may, by Writing under their Hands, summon any Person actually resident within the City, Town, Manor, District, or Precinct, to appear before them at such Time and such Place within the City, Town, Manor, District, or Precinct, respectively, as they may think proper, to be examined on Oath (or if of the People called Quakers) on Affirmation, which Oath or Affirmation the Assessors, or a Majority of them, are hereby authorised to administer, touching the Value or Amount of any personal Estate; 

On Refusal to appear, such Persons to forfeit 5l. for each Offence.

and if the Person so to be Summoned, shall not, upon being served with such Summons, appear before the Assessors, or appearing, shall refuse to answer to Interrogatories upon Oath (or if of the people called Quakers) on Affirmation, touching the Value or Amount of the personal Estate or any person or Persons within such City, Town, Manor, District, or Precinct, the Person or Persons so offending, shall, for every such Offence, forfeit the Sum of Five Pounds, to be recovered with Costs in an Action of Debt, in the Name of the Treasurer of the County; and when recovered, paid in like Manner as last aforesaid, so as the person to be summoned, shall not be compelled to answer to any Interrogatories touching the Value or Amount of his or her Property.

Proviso.  By the 7th Section of an Act of the 26th November, 1784, all legal Remedy against any Collector barr'd.

Provided always, That no such Evidence shall be conclusive for forming any Assessment, but that the Assessors shall be at Liberty to determine the actual Value of such personal Property as aforesaid, by such Evidence as aforesaid, or any other Means, which in their Judgment, may be deemed most proper for estimating such actual Value.

Lands vested in the State, not to be taxed, i.e. the forfeited Lands

XXVI.  And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That any Lands vested in the People of this State, as Sovereign thereof, shall not be subject to be rated by Virtue of this Act."

Source:  Laws of the Legislature of the State of New York, &c. in Force Against the Loyalists, and Affecting the Trade of Great Britain, and British Merchants, and Others Having Property in that State, CHAP. LVIII:  An Act for raising £100,000, within the several Counties therein mentioned.  Passed May the 6th, 1784,  pp. 145-51 (London:  H. Reynell No. 21 Piccadilly, 1786).  

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."

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

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.

Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Old City Island Bridge" Source: "Chapter XX: City Island"

in History of Bronx Borough City Of New York Compiled for

The North Side News By Randall Comfort, p. 59 (NY, NY: North

Side News Press: 1906). NOTE: Click on Image to Enlarge.

*          *          *          *          *

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

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

The following article appeared in the Yonkers Gazette.

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

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


                                 100.00                             20,000.00

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

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

"LET THE GALLED JADE WINCE!

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRONICLE.

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

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

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

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

Pelham, January 27th, 1883.

FAIRPLAY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The New City Island Bridge.

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

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

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

                                 100.00                             20,000.00 


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

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

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

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

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

"PELHAM.

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

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

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

*          *          *          *          *

To learn more about the City Island Bridge, early efforts to develop a bridge from the mainland to City Island and about Benjamin Palmer, Samuel Rodman, and others involved in efforts to build such a bridge, see the following.

Mon., Jun. 05, 2017:  For Once, Pelham Manor Mainlanders Told City Islanders "No" in 1883.

Mon., Aug. 08, 2016:  More on Unsuccessful Efforts in 1884 by Town of Pelham to Replace the Wooden City Island Bridge.

Wed., Jul. 20, 2016:  Bill Introduced in 1884 to Authorize the Town of Pelham To Build a New City Island Bridge.

Wed., May 06, 2015:  Another Interesting History of City Island Published in 1901.

Fri., Mar. 13, 2015:  An Important History of the City Island Bridge Built in 1868 and the Way Brothers' Ferry That Preceded It.

Mon., Dec. 15, 2014:  Brief History of City Island Including the Legend of the Macedonia Hotel with Photographs Published in 1906.

Thu., Dec. 04, 2014:  Park Department Commissioners Condemned -- But Didn't Close -- the "Dilapidated" City Island Bridge in 1894.

Tue., Oct. 07, 2014:  Legislative History of the 1775 Statute Authorizing Construction of City Island Bridge.

Fri., Oct. 03, 2014:  1775 Statute Authorizing Construction of City Island Bridge.

Tue., Jul. 22, 2014:  Stories of City Island Bridge Published in 1892.

Wed., May 28, 2014:  Description of City Island in the Town of Pelham Published in 1868.

Wed., Mar. 10, 2010:  1899 Article About City Island's New Bridge Describes History of Area and Includes Wonderful Images.

Wed., Dec. 05, 2007:  Photograph of the Old Wooden City Island Bridge.

Tue., Dec. 26, 2006:  1775 Statute Authorizing Samuel Rodman and Benjamin Palmer to Build City Island Drawbridge.  

Tue., May 02, 2006:  Benjamin Palmer's Advertisement in 1756 To Raise Subscriptions To Fund a Free Bridge From Manhattan.

Wed., May 17, 2006:  More About Benjamin Palmer's Involvement With Raising Funds for a Free Bridge from Manhattan. 

Fri., May 05, 2006:  1763 Announcement That City Island in the Manor of Pelham Has Been Laid Out in Lots for Sale.

Mon., May 15, 2006:  Resales of Lots in the 1760s on the Island Known Today as City Island.

Thu., Apr. 19, 2007:  An Account of How Soldiers Were "Recruited" in Pelham in 1758 for the French and Indian War.  

Mon., Jan. 29, 2007:  Palmer Family Offers One Thirtieth of City Island for Sale in 1785.

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."

Is It Possible The First Pelham Bridge Built in About 1815 Was Repaired After Near Destruction by a Storm?

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."

The first Pelham Bridge over the Hutchinson River where it empties into Eastchester Bay was built by about 1815 and was destroyed within its first few years by a major storm.  According to longstanding conventional wisdom, the bridge was not rebuilt until 1834 when George Rapelje built a replacement bridge and received the right to charge tolls on the bridge for thirty years.  Is it possible that the conventional wisdom is wrong?  Is it possible that a replacement bridge or, perhaps, a temporary structure was built on the remnants of the original Pelham Bridge?  Today's posting to the Historic Pelham Blog will explore this possibility.

Brief History

According to longstanding history of the Pelham Bridge, on March 6, 1812, the New York State Legislature enacted a statute incorporating the "Eastchester Bridge Company" to build a bridge over the Hutchinson River where it empties into Eastchester Bay.  The bridge was built shortly afterward and is believed to have been completed by about 1815.  In 1817, the Westchester and Pelham Turnpike Company was incorporated to construct a turnpike from the causeway at Westchester to the bridge.  That bridge came to be known as "Pelham Bridge" -- the name it bears today.  Even in its first iteration, Pelham Bridge was a draw bridge to permit masted ships to pass. 

On April 12, 1816, the company was authorized by the Legislature to sell its property and toll franchise for a period of forty-five years. Within its first few years, however, the first Pelham Bridge was destroyed by a storm.  The second bridge was built in 1834 by George Rapelje, with the right to charge tolls for a period of thirty years, but the supervisors of Westchester County purchased the bridge in 1860 and made it free.  The bridge was replaced with an iron bridge constructed in 1869-1870.  That bridge, in turn, was replaced by the present larger bridge, opened by the New York City Department of Bridges on October 15, 1908.

When Was the First Pelham Bridge Constructed?

A local real estate advertisement published on March 18, 1815 describes the bridge as "the new bridge lately erected across the mount of East Chester Creek."  (See full advertisement quoted below.)  Thus, it seems certain that the bridge was completed at least by mid-March, 1815.  

The bridge, it seems, was built between June 4, 1814 and March 18, 1815.  This can be deduced from an advertisement published on June 4, 1814 stating:

"EASTCHESTER BRIDGE COMPANY.

PROPOSALS will be received by the Company for the building of a Stone Bridge across Eastchester creek, from the town of Pelham to Throgs-neck, the distance across computed about thirteen hundred feet; any person inclining to contract for the erection thereof are desired to call on Mr. JAMES HARVEY, in the town of Pelham near New-Rochelle, county of Westchester, who will exhibit a survey of the creek, and enter into such other explanations as may be required.

May 13 -- 3w"

Source:  EASTCHESTER BRIDGE COMPANY, New-York Evening Post, Jun. 4, 1814, p. 4, col. 5.  See also  EASTCHESTER BRIDGE COMPANY, New-York Evening Post, Jun. 2, 1814, p. 4, col. 5; East-Chester Bridge Company, Connecticut Courant, May 31, 1814, p. 4, col. 2.  

When was the First Pelham Bridge Destroyed by a Storm and Flood?

Within about a year of the completion of the first Pelham Bridge and perhaps sooner, the new structure was destroyed by "an extraordinary storm and flood."  The destructive storm may have occurred only a few months after the bridge was built.  Indeed, on October 18, 1815, an illuminating advertisement appeared in the New-York Evening Post suggesting that something -- perhaps the storm -- had damaged the piers of the "East-Chester Bridge."  The advertisement stated:

"NOTICE TO DOCK BUILDERS.

PROPOSAL will be received by Mr. James Harvey in the town of Pelham, to repair the damages done to the Piers of the East-Chester Bridge, if made immediately.

Pelham, October 16, 1815.

Oct 17 iw"

Source:  NOTICE TO DOCK BUILDERS, New-York Evening Post, Oct. 18, 1815, p. 3, col. 4.  

Certainly by March 11, 1816, the first Pelham Bridge had been destroyed.  On that date, according to a newspaper report, the New York Assembly was referred a petition described as:

"Petitions referred -- . . . declaratory of an act, entitled an act to incorporate the East Chester bridge company, passed March 6, 1812 -- of Herman Le Roy and others, stockholders in the East Chester bridge Company, praying that a law may be passed, authorising them to make such sales as are therein mentioned, and upon certain conditions, there particulalry specified."

Source:  Legislature of New-York, House of Assembly, Monday, March 11, New York Herald, March 16, 1816, p. 3, col. 2.  

New York State soon passed such a law.  Within a month, on April 12, 1816, it passed "AN ACT for the relief of the President and Directors of the Eastchester Bridge Company and their Creditors" with a preamble that stated, in part, as follows:

"it is represented to the legislature, by the stockholders in the corporation created by the act, entitled 'an act to incorporate the Eastchester bridge company,' that the bridge erected by the said company, over the Eastchester creek, in pursuance of the said act, has been destroyed by an extraordinary storm and flood; That the funds of the company are inadequate to rebuild it; and that the said corporation is moreover largely indebted to the builders and workmen who were employed in its erection."

The statute authorized the President and Directors of the Eastchester Bridge Company to sell at auction "the remains of the said bridge, and all the other property and estate of the said corporation, to the highest bidder or bidders."  It further provided that the purchaser would be "authorized to rebuild the said bridge, in the manner required by the said act, provided the same be completed by the first day of August, in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventeen."

Only one week later, on April 19, 1816, notice appeared in a local newspaper whereby a committee consisting of Pelham residents John Hunter, James Harvey, William Bayard, and Tolbert Roosevelt provided public notice that "all the remains of the bridge lately erected by the said Company across the Eastchester Creek, and all the estate of the Company" would be sold at public auction "at the Tontine Coffee House, in the city of New-York, on Friday the seventh day of June next, at twelve o'clock at noon."  No report of the resullt of the public auction, if it was held, has yet been found.  That said, it certainly seems that the first Pelham Bridge was not rebuilt by August 1, 1817.  There are, however, intriguing suggestions that some form of bridge, temporary or otherwise, may have been built on the site (or on the remnants) within five or six years.

Some Real Estate Advertisements Later Reference a Bridge at the Site

 On March 31, 1821, a real estate advertisement offering the old George Rapalje estate on Pelham Neck for sale made no mention of a bridge across Eastchester Creek.  In contrast, six years earlier when the bridge was first erected and before its destruction by an "extraordinary storm and flood," an advertisement for sale of the same property made much of the "new bridge lately erected across the mount of East Chester Creek."  This certainly suggests -- but certainly does not establish -- that the first Pelham Bridge had not yet been rebuilt.  

Nearly one year later, however, Peter and George Lorillard offered for sale a 105-acre tract in the same area by referencing in their advertisement the Pelham Bridge.  The ad stated:

"Also, 105 acres of land in the town of Pelham, adjoining East Chester Creek, near the bridge; being about 18 or 20 miles from this city."

Was this merely an imprecise reference to the remnants of the first Pelham Bridge that had been destroyed by the storm?  Alternatively, is it possible that a permanent (or even temporary) bridge had been constructed on the remnants or, perhaps, in place of the remnants?

A real estate advertisement apparently offering the same 105-acre tract two years later on February 2, 1824 once again made much of the fact that the tract adjoined "East Chester Creek and Pelham Bridge."  Moreover, the following year on March 5, 1825, a real estate advertisement offering the Lorillard property at Eastchester Bay for sale once again referred specifically to the property as "adjoining East Chester Creek and Pelhams Bridge, bout 16 miles from this city."

Perhaps most intriguing, in 1827, a bridge referenced as the "East Chester Bridge" was offered for lease together with a "Toll House, shed and garden."  Obviously an offer to lease a bridge -- rather than remnants -- strongly suggests the bridge was rebuilt in some fashion, temporarily or otherwise (assuming the reference to "East Chester Bridge" is a reference to the bridge over the Hutchinson River at Eastchester Bay).  See below for quote of entire advertisement with link to source.

Until more dispositive evidence can be uncovered, we can only speculate.  These real estate advertisements published in 1822 and later make specific reference to a "bridge" at the location -- not "remnants" or "remains" of any such bridge.  Rather than simply omitting any such reference at all as seems to have been done when the March 31, 1821 advertisement offering the Rapelje tract was published, the later advertisements contain an express reference to such a "bridge."

Although no person or group seems to have purchased the bridge and the estate of the Eastchester Bridge Company and replaced the bridge by August 1, 1817 as required by the relief statute, it seems at least plausible to speculate that some form of bridge -- temporary or otherwise -- may have been crafted on the remnants of the bridge destroyed be the "extraordinary storm and flood" that occurred in about the first few months of 1816.  

Whether there ever was a bridge at the site -- temporary or otherwise -- in the years shortly after the first Pelham Bridge was destroyed, it is clear that a replacement bridge was built at the site in 1834 by George Rapelje, with the right to charge tolls for a period of thirty years.  Until dispositive evidence is located, we are left to wonder if the bridge built in 1834 was the second -- or third -- bridge on the site.

"Pelham Bridge in 1865 From a sketch by W. J. Wilson"

Source: Jenkins, Stephen, The Story of the Bronx From

the Purchase Made by the Dutch from the Indians in

1639 to the Present Day, Opposite p. 318 (NY and 

London: G.P. Putnam's Sons The Knickerbocker Press,

1912).  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

*          *          *          *          *

Below is the text of a number of items on which today's posting to the Historic Pelham Blog is based.  Each is followed by a citation and link to its source.  

"FARM.

FOR SALE the valuable farm on which the subscriber now lives, (formerly the property of Geo. Rapelye, Esq.) on the manor of Pelham county, Westchester, 15, 1-2 miles from the city of New-York, and adjoining the new bridge lately erected across the mount of East Chester Creek, containing near 200 acres, and is bounded on three sides by the waters of the sound, of which there is a full view, and of all vessels passing up or down.  There is on said farm a large well built dwelling house, and farm house, barn, carriage house, stable, grainery [sic], dairy, smoke house, sheep fold and house, with racks complete for 200 sheep, and other necessary out buildings, three orchards in full bearing, of the best grafted apples, with a great abundance of every other kind of fruit; 50 acres of fresh meadow, a proportion of salt meadow, about 30 acres of wood land, the rest under first rate pasture land, the whole capable of being made excellent meadow, and in quality of soil is surpassed by none in the county.  Attached to which is a large body of sedge.  100 loads of drift stuff may yearly be collected from the shores, the waters of which abound with all kinds of scale and shell fish.  For further particulars apply on the premises.

Feb 2     rf

JAMES HARVEY."

Source:  FARM [Advertisement], New-York Evening Post, Mar. 18, 1815, p. 4, col. 3.

"CHAP. CXXXII.

AN ACT for the relief of the President and Directors of the Eastchester Bridge Company and their Creditors.

Passed April 12, 1816.

Preamble.

WHEREAS it is represented to the legislature, by the stockholders in the corporation created by the act, entitled 'an act to incorporate the Eastchester bridge company,' that the bridge erected by the said company, over the Eastchester creek, in pursuance of the said act, has been destroyed by an extraordinary storm and flood; That the funds of the company are inadequate to rebuild it; and that the said corporation is moreover largely indebted to the builders and workmen who were employed in its erection, and praying legislative aid and relief in the premises; Therefore,

Remains of the bridge may be sold

I.  BE it enacted by the people of the State of New-York represented in Senate and Assembly, That it shall and may be lawful for the president and directors of the said company, to sell, at public auction, in the city of New-York, all the remains of the said bridge, and all the other property and estate of the said corporation, to the highest bidder or bidders, and thereupon to grant and convey the same to the purchaser or purchasers thereof; Provided, that six weeks notice of the time and place of such sale be given in the nearest newspaper printed in the county of Westchester, and also in two of the public newspapers printed in the city of New-York.

Avails to be applied to the company's debts.

II.  And be it further enacted, That such conveyance being duly acknowledged or proved, shall be recorded in the clerk's office of the county of Westchester; and that the monies arising from such sale, after paying all incidental expenses attending the same, shall be applied in the first place to the payment of the debts of the said corporation, and that the residue and surplus of the said monies, shall be divided and paid to and among all the stockholders in the said company, in proportion to the number of shares which they may respectively hold therein.

The purchasers may rebuild the bridge.

III.  And be it further enacted, That the purchaser or purchasers at such sale, and his or their assigns or associates, shall be and hereby are authorized to rebuild the said bridge, in the manner required by the said act, provided the same be completed by the first day of August, in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventeen; and in case the same shall be so completed by that day, then the said purchaser or purchasers, his or their assigns and associates, shall thereafter be considered as the stockholders of the said company, in proportion to the sums they shall respectively pay and advance towards the said purchase, and the rebuilding of the said bridge an other necessary objects:

And be a body corporate for 45 years.

And they and their successors shall be and continue a body corporate and politic, by the name, and with all the powers, privileges and immunities mentioned in the said act, and in the act to amend the same, for and during the term of forty-five years from the passing of this act, and no longer, any thing in the said acts, or either of them, contained, to the contrary notwithstanding:  Provided always,

This act not to prevent prosecution against the former company.

IV.  And be it further enacted, That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to bar or prevent any public prosecution, or any action or actions, which any person or persons would have if this act had not been passed against the said president and directors, or against all or any of the stockholders of the said company, or against any person or persons who is, are or have been in their employ, or to prevent the abating of any nuisance."

Source:  "CHAP. CXXXII:  AN ACT for the relief of the President and Directors of the Eastchester Bridge Company and their Creditors" in Laws of the State of New-York, Passed at the Thirty-Ninth, Fortieth and Forty-First Sessions of the Legislature From January 1816 to April 1818, Vol. IV, pp. 149-50 (Passed April 12, 1816) (Albany, NY:  William Gould, and David Banks and Stephen Gould, 1818).

"NOTICE.

THE subscribers being a Committee, appointed for that purpose by the President and Directors of the Eastchester Bridge Company, hereby give notice, that in pursuance of an act of the legislature of this state, passed on the 12th day of April instant, entitled 'An Act for the relief of the President and Directors of the Eastchester Bridge Company and their creditors,' all the remains of the bridge lately erected by the said Company across the Eastchester Creek, and all the estate of the Company, will be exposed to sale at the public auction, at the Tontine Coffee House, in the city of New-York, on Friday the seventh day of June next, at twelve o'clock at noon.

The purchaser or purchasers at such sale, will be entitled to all the privileges and immunities heretofore granted by law to the said Company, for the term of 45 years from the 12th instant, on condition that the bridge is rebuilt by the 1st day of August, 1817.  -- By order of the Board of Directors of the Eastchester Bridge Company.

JOHN HUNTER,             )
JAMES HARVEY,            }     Committee
WM. BAYARD,                 )
TOLBERT ROOSEVELT, )

Pelham, April 19, 1816.           ap 22law6w"

Source:  NOTICE, New-York Evening Post, May 18, 1816, p. 4, col. 2.  See also NOTICE, The Evening Post, May 9, 1816, p. 1, col. 4 (same text).  

"Beautiful Country Residence

TO LET, (and immediate possession given,) the country seat of George Rapelje, Esq. in the Manor of Pelham, Westchester county, about 17 miles from the city of New York; containing about 65 acres in a good state of improvement, with a commodious mansion and suitable out houses, garden, orchard, &c.  The premises being bounded on three sides by the waters of the Sound, can scarcely be excelled for combining beauty of prospect with ample facilities for fishing and fowling.  Part of the furniture of the house will be let if required.  Enquire at 234 Broadway.

Mb 29 tf"

Source:  Beautiful Country Residence [Advertisement], New-York Evening Post, Mar. 31, 1821, p. 3, col. 4.  

"ABOUT 280 ACRES OF LAND.

A valuable farm for sale, situated at the 14 mile stone, which is divided by the Boston Post Road, in the town of West Chester, containing a Farm House, and other out houses, all enclosed with good stone wall.  The land is well calculated for a grazing farm.

Also, 105 acres of land in the town of Pelham, adjoining East Chester Creek, near the bridge; being about 18 or 20 miles from this city.  For particulars, apply at No. 42 Chatham street.

PETER & GEORGE LORILLARD.

Jan 25 1m"

Source:  ABOUT 280 ACRES OF LAND [Advertisement], New-York Evening Post, Feb. 8, 1822, p. 4, col. 2.

"FOR SALE. . . . 

1 farm at Pelham, adjoining East Chester Creek and Pelham Bridge, about 15 miles from this city, containing 15 acres, occupied by C. Valentine. . . ."

Source:  FOR SALE [Advertisement], New-York Evening Post, Feb. 2, 1824, p. 4, col. 1.  

"--FOR SALE--
* * *
One hundred and fifty acres of Land in the town of Pelham, adjoining the East Chester Creek and Pelhams Bridge, about 16 miles from this city. . . 

GEORGE LORILLARD."

Source:  --FOR SALE--, New-York Evening Post, Mar. 5, 1825, p. 4, col. 1.  

"TO LET,

The East Chester Bridge, with the Toll House, shed and garden, to a small family, that would be willing to accommodate a number of Boarders for the ensuing year.  It is viewed as one of the best stands for a tavern in that neighborhood.  Possession will be given immediately.  For further particulars, apply to THOMAS C. TAYLOR, 41 Robinson st. or at his house, Bowery Hill.

m26 tf"

Source:  TO LET, The New-York Evening Post, Mar. 27, 1827, p. 3, col. 5.

*          *          *          *          *

Below are examples of previous postings that address the histories of the various Pelham Bridges that have spanned Eastchester Bay for the last two centuries.

Wed., Oct. 1, 2014:  Bridge Keepers of the Pelham Bridge from 1870 to 1872.

Mon., Jul. 21, 2014:  Image of the Second Pelham Bridge Built in 1834 From a Sketch Created in 1865.

Thu., Jul. 17, 2014:  Sabotage Brought Down the 70-Ton Draw Span of Pelham Bridge in 1908 and Delayed its Opening. 

Tue., Jun. 10, 2014: Construction of the Concrete Arch Pelham Bridge.

Mon., May 12, 2014: The March 6, 1812 New York Statute Authorizing Construction of the Pelham Bridge.

Tue., Sep. 22, 2009: Names of Early "Keepers of Pelham Bridge" Appointed by Westchester County.

Thu., Jan. 08, 2009: Another Brief History of The Pelham Bridge.

Thu., Jan. 1, 2009: A Brief History of Pelham Bridge.

Wed., Jan. 2, 2008: New York State Senate Report on Petition by Inhabitants of Westchester to Allow Construction of Toll Bridge Across Eastchester Creek in 1834.

Tue., Aug. 28, 2007: The Laying Out of Pelham Avenue From Fordham to Pelham Bridge in 1869.

Wed., Jul. 4, 2007: 1857 Real Estate Advertisement for Sale of the Pelham Bridge.

Fri., Jul. 22, 2007: 1857 Real Estate Advertisement for Sale of "Country Seat" at Pelham Bridge.

Fri., May 18, 2007: Celebration at Pelham Bridge in 1872.

Wed., May 16, 2007: Board of Supervisors of Westchester County Vote to Build New Iron Bridge to Replace Pelham Bridge in 1869.

Tue., May 15, 2007: The Owner of the Pelham Bridge Hotel Sold it for the Princely Sum of $22,000 in 1869.

Mon., May 14, 2007: Plans to Widen Shore Road in the Town of Pelham in 1869.

Fri., May 11, 2007: A Sad Attempted Suicide at Pelham Bridge in 1869.

Thu., Dec. 08, 2005: The First Stone Bridge Built Across Eastchester Creek in Pelham, 1814-1815.

Thu., Aug. 18, 2005: The Opening of the New Iron "Pelham Bridge" in 1871.

Tue., Aug. 9, 2005: Cock Fighting at Pelham Bridge in the 19th Century.

Thu., Jul. 21, 2005: Today's Remnants of the Bartow Station on the Branch Line Near City Island.

Tue., Jun. 28, 2005: The Hotel and Bar Room at Pelham Bridge.

Thu., Mar. 24, 2005: The Bartow Area of Pelham in the 19th Century: Where Was It?

Wed., Mar. 23, 2005: Prize Fighting at Pelham Bridge in 1884.

For more about the Pelham Bridge and its history, see Pelham Bridge, Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia, available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelham_Bridge (visited May 6, 2014).

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."