THE GIFT OF 
 
 .^a^vvvLlv. ■e^.^rWr..-^^ 
 
 A- ' 5-0f3i LS'JtlffOy 
 
'P'tj ^ t^ ^j: 
 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLOBD 
 
 
 
 PRINTEDINU.S.A. 
 
 Cornell University Library 
 F 142B7 C66 
 
 Jersey..:,a„,ievie 
 
The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924028827933 
 
I. 
 THE NEW JERSEY BOUNDARY. 
 
 BY 
 
 GENERAL JOHN COCHRANE, 
 
 Attorney-General of the State of Netv fork. 
 
 Reap before the New York Historical Society, 
 June 6th, 1865. 
 
I\ , \S"o \2,t- 
 
NEW- YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 
 
 At a stated meeting of the Society, held in its 
 Hall, on Tuesday evening, June Bth, 1865, 
 
 The paper of the evening vva3 read by Gen. John 
 Cochran, Attorney General of the State of New 
 York, Its subject being : — •' That the waters be- 
 ■ tween Staten Island and New Jersey, viz., the 
 ■'Kills, the Sound, and Raritan Bay, are not, nor 
 " ever were, New Jersey waters, but always have 
 " been and are parts of Hudson River, and the 
 " waters of New York." 
 
 On its conclusion, Mr. Charles t. Kirkland 
 submitted the following resolution ; 
 
 Resolved, That the thanks of the Society be 
 presentedto General Cochrane for his highly in- 
 teresting and Instructive paper read this even- 
 ing ; and that a copy be requested for the archives 
 of the Society. 
 
 After some remarks by Mr. John Romeyn 
 Brodhead, the resolution was adopted unani- 
 mously. 
 
 Extract from the minutes. 
 
 Andrew Wakren, 
 
 Recording Secretary. 
 
GEN. COCHRANE'S PAPER. 
 
 Mr. President : 
 
 A litigation, conducted by the State of New 
 Jersey, in the Courts of the United States, di- 
 rected to the water-boundary between her 
 and the State of New York, has been to me, 
 in my official capacity, the occasion of ex- 
 tended research among the records of the 
 earliest colonial periods. The results of these 
 labors, I am inclined to believe, will not be des- 
 titute of interest to the general mind, and, 
 although produced by proofs within the know- 
 ledge of the historian, yet, so little understood 
 are they, that I venture to communicate them to 
 the Historical Society of the State of New York. 
 
 The efforts of New Jersey to neutralize the com- 
 mercial advantages of New York and to pro- 
 mote her own aggrandizement are notorious. 
 Pew, however, are cognizant of their original 
 recklessness and the persistence of their subse- 
 quent prosecution. 
 
 It will be remembered that the Patent of 
 Charles II. to James, Duke of York, of the 
 29th June, 1674, conveyed to him the 
 
6 
 
 proprietary and jurisdictional right to the whole 
 country from Connecticut River to the Capes of 
 the Delaware, &c. 
 
 Exactly one month thereafter, James, Duke of 
 York, enfeoffed Lord Berkeley and Sir George 
 Carteret of all that land thereafter to be called 
 Nova Csesarea, or New Jersey. " adjacent to New 
 " England, and lying and being westward of 
 " Long Island, and bounded on the east part by 
 " the Main Sea and part by Hudson's River from 
 " a point in 41 degrees latitude.'' The two pri- 
 mary patents of March 12th, 1664, and June 
 24th, 1664, between the same parties, expressed 
 these same boundaries. 
 
 It is here, then, to be remarked, that the Patent- 
 ed New Jersey was thus originally limited, on 
 the eastern border, by the western shore of Hud- 
 son's River and by the Main Sea. No vicissitude 
 of conflicting events, nor fluctuation of royal 
 caprice, ever disturbed these bounds, They 
 withstood both the attritions of individual exas- 
 peration and the casualties of national change, 
 till an act of our own deliberation, in 1833, pre- 
 pared a Treaty, which, by its subsequent ratifi- 
 cation, receded them, easterly, from the westerly 
 margin, to the middle of the Hudson. In the in- 
 terval, however, of a century and a half, the 
 avaricious desires of New Jersey had not lain 
 torpid. Carved surreptitously from the side of 
 New York, under the opiates of one. Captain 
 John Scott, artfully discharged upon the drowsed 
 
senses of James, Duke of York, from the hour ol 
 her separation to the present, she has formed her 
 national life to the rugged career of incessant 
 competition with her parent State. 
 
 No one, however, familiar with the history ot 
 the past, will entertain as singular, this conduct 
 of New Jersey. She has had successful imitators 
 in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hamp- 
 shire ; and, if something has been shorn 
 from the lusty proportions of the primitive 
 New York, the conduct of these " Pelican 
 "daughters" has neither abated her strength, 
 nor irritated her sedate consciousness of supe- 
 rior power. 
 
 The earliest recorded evidence that I have 
 discovered, disposes the initiation of New 
 Jersey's enterprising encroachments, systematised 
 under the Patent of 1674, at the year 1681. 
 
 The proprietors of East New Jersey 
 had projected Perth Amboy, then the 
 capital of the Province, to be a port of entry. 
 Efforts, though of adverse event, had previously 
 directed merchandise to that place. The port of 
 New York still, however, maintained its exclu- 
 sive control of trade, and repressed all attempts 
 to rival and impair its commerce. It was then, 
 on the 28th of March. 1681, that the Lady Eliza- 
 beth Carteret, survivor of Sir George, one of the 
 original Patentees, wrote to Secretary BoUen 
 to present a claim to Staten Island ; and there- 
 upon, in the language of cotemporaneous history, 
 
8 
 
 " the people of East New Jersey pretended a 
 " right to the River, so far as the Province ex- 
 " tends, which is 18 miles up the River to the 
 " northward of this Place.'' (Manhattans.) 
 
 Quakers, in considerable numbers, had settled 
 in East New Jersey. Their desires, habitually 
 chastened and restrained, seem now, to have 
 been inflamed by the prospect of goodly gain ; 
 and the annals of the times declare them to have 
 been " especially vigorous with their pretensions 
 " to Staten Island." 
 
 We are here necessarily reminded that Staten 
 Island, from the period of the cession of the entire- 
 ty of New Netherland, by the Dutch, to Charles 
 II., by the Treaty solemnized at Westminster, 
 on the 19th February, 1674, had been possessed 
 and occupied under the authority of the Crown. 
 The Patent of his Charles to brother James, 
 Duke of York, had transferred to him, on the 
 29th of June following, this right of possession 
 and occupation, Included in the general grant ; 
 and the Duke, even after his Patent to Berkeley 
 and Carteret, of New Jersey, continued to pos- 
 sess Staten Island, as part of his Province of New 
 York, and that undisputed, until the interposed 
 claim of the Lady Elizabeth Carteret, in 1681. 
 
 It will be readily understood, that as long 
 as the water-boundary between New York and 
 New Jersey, described by the Patent on the 
 western shore of the Hudson's River and the 
 Main Sea, should be conceded to embrace Staten 
 
Island within the limits of New York, the waters 
 which separated that island from New Jersey 
 would be authentically ascertained the waters 
 of Hudson's River. But, such a concession 
 would have fatally terminated the pretensions of 
 Perth Amboy to the capacity of a Port of Entry, 
 by removing her virtually from the sea. There- 
 fore the claims upon the Island and to the waters 
 which surround it, being concurrently necessary 
 for the purposes of New Jersey, for the first time 
 since the discovery in 1609 were they formally 
 announced in 1681, as the basis of that contro- 
 versy with New York, which, with various events, 
 has survived even to our day. The reflection is 
 here apposite, that the right of property in, and 
 of jurisdiction over, Staten Island, being essen- 
 tial to the maintainance by New Jersey, of her 
 right to the waters which flow about the Island, 
 through the Kills, to the sea ; by the authority of 
 that right also, would the waters of Hudson's 
 River, in their progress to the sea, be restrained 
 to the single passage at the Narrows. But the 
 demonstration that the waters of the Hudson, in 
 their seaward current, debouch through both the 
 Narrows and the Kills, would not only have 
 exposed the futility of New Jersey's pretensions 
 to Staten Island, but have efl'ectually disposed 
 of her commercial rivalry with New York. 
 
 Unquestionably, the proximity of the times 
 which witnessed the Lady Elizabeth's preposte- 
 rous claim, to these earlier days, the history of 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 which abounds with its triumphant refutation, 
 accounts for the dormant interval of more than 
 a century, before its resuscitation in 1806. Then 
 recommenced, under the sanction of legislative 
 authority, the astive prosecution by New Jersey, 
 of her claims to the waters of the Hudson and 
 to Staten Island. New York resisted. The 
 Courts were resorted to ; the acts of chicane 
 prevailed and the Courts were abandoned. Com- 
 missions were created. The Commissioners con- 
 vened and failed. At length, in 1833. a final 
 effort proceeded from New York. It was recip- 
 rocated by New Jersey ; and an agreement was 
 the result, which, under the action of subsequent 
 Legislative ratification, ultimately, in 1834, assu- 
 med the solemnity of a Treaty. Its first Article 
 comprehending all of it provisions necessary to 
 the purpose of this paper, I content myself with 
 quoting it alone : 
 
 " Article First — The boundary line between 
 " the two States of New York and New Jer- 
 " sey, from a point in the middle of Hudson 
 " River opposite the point on the west shore 
 " thereof, in the forty-first degree of north lati- 
 " tude, as heretofore ascertained and marked, 
 " to the main sea. shall be the middle of the 
 "said river, of the bay of New York, of the 
 ■' waters between Staten Island and New Jersey 
 " and of Earitan Bay to the main sea, except as 
 " hereinafter otherwise particularly mentioned.'' 
 It is not to be suspected that either B. F. But- 
 ler, or Peter Augustus Jay, or Henry Seymour 
 
11 
 
 could, on the part of New York, which, aa a 
 party to the agreement they represented, have 
 trafficked the interests of the State, or have com- 
 promised them, by relinquishing to New Jersey 
 a moiety of the unquestioned rights of New 
 York. 
 
 Evidently their impression, that the Hud- 
 son communicated with the ocean only through 
 its single mouth at the Narrows, founded such 
 serious doubts of the tenability of New York's 
 right to the entire waters of the Kills, outward to 
 the ocean, as induced the relinquishment of a 
 portion of them, in consideration of the secure 
 enjoyment of the remainder, and of Staten Island 
 and other smaller islands within them. Recourse 
 to the arguments submitted on this subject, on 
 behalf of this State, and recorded at various 
 times within the present century , amply confirms 
 this supposition. In these, it is unequivocally 
 admitted that the water-boundary between the 
 two States pursues its southerly course along the 
 western shore of the Hudson, across the Kills to 
 the easterly shore of Staten Island, and thence , 
 directly over the intervening waters, to Sandy 
 Hook. Nevertheless, the unblenohed truth re- 
 mains, that the Treaty which parted with what- 
 ever portion of these waters, inconsiderately 
 sacrificed some of the best interests of the State. 
 
 This ill advised compromise has also produced 
 its legitimate fruits. It will have been observed 
 that the line which distinguishes the boundary of 
 
12 
 
 the coincident States, proceeds through the cen- 
 tre of the waters of the Hudson, of the Bay of 
 New York, of the waters between Staten Island 
 and New Jersey, and of Raritan Bay to the main 
 sea. Althoagh it admits of no reasonable dis- 
 pute, that the main sea is conterminous with a 
 line drawn from Prince's Bay Light House, on 
 Staten Island, to the mouth of Matteawan Creek, 
 ID New Jersey, and restrains, at that point, the 
 disintegrating force of the Treaty, some miles to 
 the westward of Sandy Hooli, yet, the State of 
 New Jersey, contending that the main sea flows 
 only without Sandy H lok, asserts, by an exten- 
 sion thereto of the central dividing boundary 
 line, her right to the southerly one half of the 
 Lower Bay of New York, inclusive of a substan- 
 tive section of the ship channel to the Harbor 
 of New York. 
 
 The determination of this claim of right 
 has already received juridioial judgment ; and 
 will, doubtless, require the ultimate decision 
 of the Supreme Court of the United States. 
 Should it be repressed, as there is no good rea- 
 son to doubt that it will be, an important en- 
 quiry would ensue into the rights of New York 
 in the Lower Bay, from the mouth of Matteawan 
 Creek to Sandy Hook. Having originally been- 
 within the jurisdiction of James, Duke of York, 
 if never conveyed by him, as part of New Jersey, 
 to Carteret and Berkeley, evidently it would 
 still enure to New York . Besides, therefore, the 
 
13 
 
 service rendered to geographical verity by a 
 collocation of the authorities which attribute the 
 waters which surround Staten Island, exclusively 
 to Hudson's River, the establishment of the fact 
 is essential to the validity of the tenure by which 
 New York shall, in the future, retain possession 
 of her ship channel. 
 
 Through this prefatory narrative, therefore, 
 have I, at length, attained the subject to which 
 your attention is invited, but which will, per- 
 haps, be the better adjusted to the historical 
 evidence hereafter adduced, if submitted in the 
 form of a proposition. Accordingly I propound 
 
 that THE WATEKS RETWEEN StATBN IsLAND AND 
 
 New Jersey, the Kill van Coll, the Sound and 
 Earitan Bat, or by whatever other baptismal 
 names they or their parts may have been, ok 
 are now designated, together with all the 
 
 WATERS WHICH LAVE StaTEN IsLAND SHORES, 
 WERE, FROM THE PERIOD OK THEIR DISCOVERY, 
 KNOWN AND ACCEPTED, AND SHOULD PROPERLY NOW 
 BE CONSIDERED, THE WATEKS OF HuDSON's RiVER. 
 
 When Hudson, carefully consulting his sound- 
 ings, " went in past Sandy Hook" on the evening 
 of the 3rd of September, 1609, he moored the 
 Half Moon in "The Bay." A boat's crew pro- 
 ceeding upward to the north, on a subsequent day, 
 (September 6th,) we are told that they passed 
 through the Narrows, into a commodious har- 
 bor, "with very good riding for Ships.'- In 
 their further progress northward, they discovered 
 
14 
 
 the Kills in " a narrow riuer to the Westward 
 " betweene two Hands." The exploration of this 
 river disclosed to them "an open Sea," now 
 called Newark Bay. When the Half Moon first 
 left her anchorage in " The Bay," (September 
 11,) Hudson cautiously passed through the Nar- 
 rows, " went into the Riuer,'' and again found 
 moorage near the mouth of the Kills, in •• a very 
 "good Harbour for all windes.'' 
 
 This simple statement of Hudson's discovery, 
 purges effectually the clouded medium of subse- 
 quently distorted narrative; and our neutral vision 
 has direct access to " the bay,'' the " harbor," the 
 "western river," and "the open sea,'' unpervert- 
 ed into unnatural lineaments by the false names 
 imposed by accumulating ignorance or design ; 
 and representing them as they lay, and as un- 
 changed they lie, in physical aspect, the only dis- 
 tinguishable " bay'' below, the " narrow straits" 
 above,the estuary, roadstead, or "harbor"' within, 
 the " river" conducting the upper waters to 
 the west, and beyond that, the " open sea" in the 
 distance. If now we apply to this fluvial system, 
 the nomenclature adapted to it by the proper 
 names since borne by the river which originated 
 it and the ports on its banks, " the bay" be- 
 comes the Great Bay of the North River ; " the 
 " Harbour," the Harbor or Port of New York ; 
 and " the narrow river to the westward" and " the 
 " Narrows" at the south, the mouths through 
 which the waters of the Hudson discharge them- 
 selves through the Great Bay into the main sea. 
 
15 
 
 Here, then, ia probably the most fitting place for 
 the remark, that the confirmation of this hypothe- 
 sis will be the explosion of the injurious theory 
 upon which the Treaty of 1834 ceded to New 
 Jersey one half of the rights of New York to the 
 waters of the Hudson, and of those which sepa- 
 rate Staten Island from New Jersey, together 
 with the lands under them, upon the very com- 
 mon error of mistaking the harbor of New York 
 for the bay of New York, and of imposing the 
 name of Raritan Bay on a portion of the waters 
 of the Great Bay of the North River, 
 
 I proceed now to the proofs that apply to the 
 hypothesis. 
 
 At page 366 of the first volume of Brodhead's 
 Colonial Documents, and at pages 19 and 22 of 
 the fourth volume of O'Callaghan's Documentary 
 History of New York, will be found a fragment, 
 entitled,"Informationrelative to taking up of land 
 " in New Netherland. By Cornells van Tien- 
 " hoven, Secretary of the Province. Translated 
 " from the Dutch. 1650." I extract from it, 
 the following passage : "In the Bay of the North 
 " River, about two miles from Sandy Hook, lies 
 " an inlet or small bay. <"»n the south shore of 
 •' said bay, called Neyswesinck there are right 
 " good maize lands." 
 
 Says Brodhead, {History of New York, i, 
 525) : " The patroon (Melyss) now went (Au- 
 " gust 5, 1650) to his colonie at Staten Island, 
 " ' for the greater security ' of which, Van Dinck- 
 
16 
 
 " lagen had just before purchased from the Rari- 
 " tans, for Van de Capellan, the lands 'at the 
 " south side, in the Bay of the North River.' " 
 
 Staten Island having in 1630. and while New 
 Netherland was held by the Dutch, been ceded 
 by the Indian owners to Michael Pauw, and by 
 him reduced to possession. Gov. Lovelace, after 
 the English conquest, and on the 13th April, 
 1670, purchased the same, for the Duke of York, 
 from the Sachems and proprietors of the island 
 (Book of Patents,— Off. Sec. State,— iv, 62.) 
 The Patent is from Aguepo, Wanenes, Mingua, 
 and others, true Sachems, &c., proprietors of 
 Staten Island, and grants " all that island lying 
 " and being in Hudson's River, commonly called 
 " Staten Island, and by the Indians, Aquehonga 
 " Manacknong, having on the south, the Bay and 
 " Sandy Point ; on the north, the river and the 
 " city of New-York, on Manhattan Island; on the 
 ■■ east, Long Island ; and on the west, the main 
 " land of After Coll or New Jersey.'' 
 
 At page 661 of Learning & Spicer's Collection. 
 will be found the Monmouth Patent, issued by 
 Governor Nioholls, April 8th, 1665, to Goulding, 
 Spioer, Gibbons, and others. It was extinguished 
 by the Dutch conquest of 1673 ; but, was sub- 
 sequently, on the 9th ot November, 1674, re- 
 vived by Governor Andros. In both 1665 and 
 1674, the boundary of the Patent ran " from 
 " Sandy Hook, along the Bay, to land across the 
 " mouth of Raritan River," &c. 
 
17 
 
 A description of New Netherland, trans- 
 lated from De 2vieuwe en Orihekende Weereld. 
 &c., door Arnoldas Montamis. (Amsterdam, 
 1671.) appears on pages 73 and 76 of the 
 fourth volume of O'Callaghaa's Documentary Hist 
 of New York, wherein this passage occurs : ■ ■ Ad- 
 •■riaenBlok and Godyn soon discovered here di- 
 ■' vers coasts, islands. harbours, and rivers. Among 
 •■ the rivers is t)ie Manhattans or Great Kiver. by 
 " far the most important, which disembogues into 
 " the Ocean by tivo loide mouths, washing the 
 " mighty island of Matouwacs. The south en- 
 " trance was called Port May or Oodyn's Bay : 
 " Midway lies Staten Island, and a little further 
 "up. the Manhattans, so called from the people 
 " which inhabit the mainland on the east side 
 •' of the river.'' 
 
 Governor Dongan, when writing to the 
 Lord President of the Council. 22d Febru- 
 ary, 1686, says. (Whitehead's East Jersey 
 under Proprietary Governme^ds, i, 218.) " We 
 "in this Government, look upon that Bay that 
 •' runs into the sea at Sandy Hook, to he Hudson 
 " River." 
 
 The proprietors of East New Jersey having 
 petitioned the King to make Perth Amboy a 
 Port of Entry, by au order in Council, dated 
 October 25th, 1697, the same was referred to the 
 Board of Trade for their opinion thereon. Sub- 
 sequently, and on the 25th of November of that 
 same year, the opinion of the Board of Trade 
 3 
 
18 
 
 having been laid before the King in Council, his 
 Majesty approved the same, and thereupon was 
 pleased to dismiss the petition of the proprietors 
 of East New Jersey. Among the reasons assigned 
 by the Board of Trade adverse to the prayer of 
 the petitioners, and which reasons were approved 
 by the King in Council, at the Court at Kensing- 
 ton, are these, viz.: •' That at the separation of 
 " the Jerseys from the Province of New Yorke, 
 " the citty of NewYork was the Common port for 
 " both. That it is in no place that we know of, 
 " either in England or elsewhere, usuall, to have 
 " two ports independent on each other in one and 
 " the same River or within the same capes or 
 " outlet into the sea : such a practice being 
 " manifestly liable to great inconveniences. TJiat 
 "Perth Amhoy lies on one side of the mouth of the 
 "same river which rims by the citty of New York 
 " {that river being divided by an Isld called Stolen 
 " Island,) and is within the same capes." {New 
 York Colonial Manuscripts, xli., 135.) 
 
 On the 7th day of December, 1700, LordBello- 
 mont, then Governor of New York, ordered Col. 
 Romer " to measure the distance across the Nar- 
 " rows, and to sound the depth of water there, as 
 " well as in a second arm of Hudson's River called 
 " the OoU, between Stolen island and Mast 
 " Jersey, and to ascertain whether any ships and 
 " bombketches could come around byAmboy and 
 " consequently attack the city of N. York. 
 
 " Item, to select a couple of places both at the 
 " Narrows and the Coll, where suitable fortificar 
 
19 
 
 " tions could be erected and the enemy be there- 
 " by forestalled in his undertakings." On the 
 13th day of January, 1701, Colonel Romer, after 
 reporting the accomplishment of his Instructions 
 respecting the Narrows, proceeds : '• In regard 
 " to the other hranch of the Hudsons river 
 " called the Coll, between Staten Island and 
 " East Jersey, I have sounded it from Amboy 
 " to Tampsons point and Elizabeth town,and find 
 " from Amboy to the abovenamed points, 8. 7, 6, 
 " 5, and 4 fathoms of water,'' &c., &c.. {Colonial 
 Doeuments, iv., 836, 837.) 
 
 Impregnable as is the uniform tenor of record 
 evidence, it is confirmed by the testimony of 
 ancient maps. 
 
 The earliest map of New Netherland, which 
 has been preserved to our times, is the cele- 
 brated "Ca7'te Figurative" which was annexed 
 to the memorial presented to the States 
 General, on the 18th of August, 1616, by the 
 " Bewindhebbers van Nieuw Nederlandt, 
 " praying for a special Octroy," &c. It was dis- 
 covered at the Hague in 1841, by the energetic 
 and capable historian of our State, Hon. J. 
 Romeyn Brodhead, and a fac-simile thereof is 
 to be found in the Colonial Documents of New 
 York, i, 13. However imperfect the delinea- 
 tions, this map represents unmistakably the 
 River Mauritius (now Hudson) as it washes 
 the margin of Manhates Island, and, enlarging 
 thence its course to the ocean, swells into an 
 
20 
 
 expansive Bay. which encloses Staten Island, and 
 ultimately passes at " Sand punt." into the 
 main sea. 
 
 Nicholas Visscher's map of New Belgium, 
 New England, and also a paH of Virginia, first 
 published in 1656, and periodically issued, from 
 time to time, till 1682, may be seen at the State 
 Hall, in Albany On this map, no name is given 
 to any ither river than the Veisohe (Fresh or 
 Connecticut) and Maqaas (Mohawk) rivers. The 
 course of other rivers, however, (the Hudson, 
 Raritan, &c.,) is described. The waters south of 
 Staten bland are named thereon "Port May of 
 " Godyn's Bay.'' This having been the Dutch 
 method of expressing an alias, it is oonstruable 
 as Port May or Godyn's Bay. in conjunctive 
 honor of May, one of the earliest Dutch naviga- 
 tors, and of Godyn, one of the most ancient of 
 the New Nethei'land patroons. 
 
 Whitehead, in his East Jersey under Proprietary 
 Governments, prefixes to the title page of the vol- 
 ume (Edition of 1846) a copy of A. van derDonck's 
 map of 1656. Neither the Hudson River, nor the 
 Kills, nor Newark, nor Raritan, nor New York 
 Bays are nominally inscribed upon it. But the 
 entire waters adjacent to Staten Island on the 
 southerly side, are denominated Port May or 
 Godyn's Bay, and Sandy Hook rejoices in the 
 appellation of Sant-Punt or Godyn's-Punt. 
 
 In the same volume, coincident with page 88. 
 Mr. Whitehead furnishes the copy of a map of 
 
21 
 
 the settled portion of New Jersey, projected and 
 described in the year 1682. It confines the name 
 of Earitan to the river now known as such, but 
 represents none for the waters from its mouth to 
 Sandy Hooli. It is inscribed with this note : 
 " The great Grant from Qov. Nioholls extended 
 " from Sandy Point, up the Raritan some dis- 
 " tance and twelve miles to the Southward. 
 " 1665." As will be recollected, this grant, 
 herein before cited as •' The Monmouth Patent,'' 
 bearing the date of 1665. was bounded "from 
 " Sandy Hook, alonrj the Bay, to and across the 
 " mouth of the Raritan River." &o. The map of 
 1682 thus singularly concurs with the Patent of 
 1665, in protecting " the Bay'' from the infectious 
 waters of the Raritan. 
 
 On Cadwallader Colden's map of the Hudson 
 and Mohawk Rivers, in 1719, no name appears 
 for the waters that surround Staten Island, 
 though the Earitan River is named. 
 
 Brodhead's Hist, ofihe State of K T. furnishes a 
 prefatory map of New Netherland, according to 
 the charters granted by the States General, on the 
 11th October. 1014, and 3rd June, 1621. I can 
 refer to no higher or more reliable authority 
 than the solemn judgment, deliberately express- 
 ed, of this distinguished author ; nor can I more 
 appropriately close this series of citations than 
 with that imprinted with the recommendation 
 and assurance of his superior caution and dili- 
 gence. This map inscribes the waters at their 
 
22 
 
 length, which lave Staten Island on the north- 
 west, with the name of the Kill van Kol ; those 
 washing it on the south are denominated Port 
 May and Coenraet's Bay; while Sandy Hook pre- 
 sents the names of Colman's Point, Godyn's 
 Point, and Sand Hoeok, in exempliSoation of the 
 periodical nomenclature of the varying times. 
 
 From the Calender of Land Papers at Albany, 
 may be collected indisputable proof that the 
 right to, and the jurisdiction over, the waters by 
 which Staten Island is surrounded, were ascribed 
 to the province of New York. 
 
 In volume xii., page 18, occurs the Petition 
 of Adoniah Sohregler, in 1736, to the Colonial 
 Council, praying a Patent for a ferry from the 
 nearest part of Staten Island (right across the 
 meadows) to Elizabeth Town Point in East 
 New Jersey ; and in volume xiv., page 82, 
 under date of September l."), 1750, is entered the 
 Petition of Jacob Corson, praying a Patent for a 
 ferry between his land and Staten Island, and 
 the shore of Bergen in East New Jersey. 
 
 Error has been charged to the Commissioners 
 of the Treaty of 1834. in having mistaken the 
 harbor of New York for the bay of New York. 
 The designation of the waters of the Hudson 
 within the harbor, as the Bay of New York, and 
 the application of Raritan Bay to those beyond 
 the Kills, are the inherent errors which the Trea- 
 ty furnishes, as will now be shown, of this mis- 
 taken view of the Commissioners. 
 
23 
 
 It has been, I think, satisfactorily proved that 
 what is now erroneously, though popularly, 
 termed the Lower Bay, is the true Bay of New 
 York. Still, evidence may be multiplied till the 
 truth becomes conspicuous, that the baptism of 
 " the Bay" never was conferred on any other 
 portion of the waters of the Hudson, till the 
 habitual corruptions of the vulgar tongue enticed 
 and betrayed an intelligent community into the 
 injurious conversion of a roadstead •'or estuary of 
 the sea into the Upper Bay of New York. 
 
 When Michael Pauw, on the 22nd ot Novem- 
 ber, 1630, purchased "Ahasimus," now called 
 '• Horsimus,'' and "Arusiok," they were described 
 as " extending along the river Mauritius (Hud- 
 " son) and Island of Manhattan, on the east side; 
 " and the island of Hoboken Hacking, on the 
 ■'north side; and surrounded by marshes, sufS- 
 •• ciently for district boundaries." As his pur- 
 chase, including the whole neighborhood of 
 Paulus Hook or Jersey City, was bounded on 
 the east by the river, it is evident that, in 1630, no 
 " Bay" had yet made a northerly progress to 
 that point. 
 
 I have come now, at last, in the chronological 
 procession of historical facts, to the considera- 
 tion of the not inconsiderable part, which the 
 perverted sense entertained of the phrase, "Ach- 
 •' ter Call," has enacted in this chapter of errors. 
 
 The word Coll is Dutch, and signifies a bay. The 
 knowledge of the name having been accessible 
 
24 
 
 to all participants in the usual fund of informa- 
 tion, the common theme of every neighborhood, 
 at all times, it was inconsiderately applied to 
 those waters most immediately visible, whose 
 body did not derogate from the popular idea of 
 the dignity of a Bay We have seen that the 
 port or harbor of New York was the victim of 
 he delusion; and -Achter Cull,'' the early desig- 
 nation of ]^ewark Bay, was readily and naturally 
 rendered into the "After Bay" of the English, 
 relatively to its position behind the upper Bay 
 of New York. But the terra '-Achter," or After, 
 was predicated only of localities in the interior 
 and behind those bordering the sea coast : and, 
 while redressing the prevailing error which, 
 generally, has referred the signification of the 
 Dutch Kills to their relation to either Newark 
 Bay or to an upper Bay of New York, if the un- 
 interrupted current of authority attributes, as we 
 have seen that it does, the "Kill van Cull," or 
 " the River of the Bay," to that mouth of the 
 Hudson which, through the Kills, discharges its 
 waters into '• The Great Bay." then will we have 
 no difficulty in determining that the '-Achter Cull'' 
 was named from its position '• behind" the same 
 " Great Bay." 
 
 Indeed, so important an object in the land- 
 scape of the eai-ly New Netherlaud was " The 
 Bay," and so grateful to our adventurous an- 
 cestors were its geographical magnificence and 
 commercial prominence, that not only the 
 
2S 
 
 inland waters of Newark Bay but also the 
 Hackensack country, and even the wide spread 
 New Jersey, were known only, with reference 
 to it, as the land of "Aohter Coll." In the 
 Journal of New Netherland within the years 
 1641, '42, '43, '44 '45 and '4i) {Colonial Docu- 
 ments, i., 179-183), Hackingsack is spoken of as 
 "Achter Coll ;" and at a meeting of the Honor- 
 able Council of War, holden in Fort Willem 
 Hendrick, on the 18th of August, 1673 {Colonial 
 Documents, ii., 576), deputies are recorded to 
 have come into Court, from the towns of Wood- 
 bridge, Schroasburg and Middletown, situate at 
 Achter Coll ; while Captain John Berry, William 
 Sandfort, Samuel Edsall and Laurens Andriessen 
 appearing before the Council, " requested such 
 " privileges as were granted and accorded to all 
 " other, the inhabitants of Achter Coll, lately 
 " called New Jersey." 
 
 It will also be remembered, that the Patent, 
 April 13th, 1670, from the true Sachems and 
 proprietors of Staten Island to Governor Love- 
 lace, herein before quoted, bounds the island 
 " on the west, by the main land of " Achter 
 Coll, or New Jersey." While thus not only 
 Newark Bay, but Hackensack and all New 
 Jersey reposed in the solemn shade of the Great 
 Bay, how probable it is, that still another Bay in 
 the upper Hudson's River, would have also been 
 pronounced an Achter Coll ? That it was not, is 
 an authentic denial of the supposed existence of 
 any such bay. 
 
26 
 
 I have now concluded the detail of the earlier 
 historical evidence, which directs unequivocally 
 to the conclusion, that the Hudson River empties 
 itself, through its two mouths, the Narrows and 
 the Kills, into the Bay of New York, which flows 
 past Sandy Hook into ihe sea. The introduction 
 of two additional authorities, however, is re- 
 quisite, not only to the symmetry, but to the 
 completeness of the proof. 
 
 The one is that of a name of diffused re- 
 putation, everywhere held in reverential obser- 
 vance. I mean the name of Judge Egbert 
 Benson ; and I cite from his Memoir, at page 
 93 : •' The Dutch called the Bay, bounded 
 " on the south by the Oc;an, on the east by 
 "Long Island, on the north partly by the 
 "mouth of the Hudson and partly by the shore 
 " of New Jersey, and on the west wholly by the 
 " shore of New Jersey, and, Staten Island consid- 
 " ered as lying within it, ' The Great Bay of New 
 " ' Netherland,' and so-called, as van der Donck 
 " expresses it, propter Excellentiam, eminently the 
 " Bay. Newark Bay, from its relative situation 
 " to the Great Bay, they called Het achter Ou.ll 
 " literally, the Back Bay; Cul, borrowed from the 
 " French Cul de sac, and also in use with the Dutch 
 " to signify a Bay. Achter Cul, found in very 
 " early writings in English, referring to it, cor- 
 " rupted to Arthur Gull's Bay ; the passage from 
 " it into the Great Bay, they called Hel Kill van 
 " het Cul, the Kill of the Cul, finally come to be 
 " expressed by ' the Kills.' '' 
 
27 
 
 The other authority is that of the historiographer 
 of our State. " 'Aohter Cul' or 'Achter Kol' now 
 " called ' Newark Bay,' was so named by the Dutch 
 " because it was 'achter' or behind the Great Bay 
 " of the North River. The passage to the Great 
 "Bay was known as the ' Kil van Cul,' from 
 " which has been derived the present name of 
 " the ' Kills.' The English soon corrupted the 
 " phrase into Arthur Cull's Bay. (Brodhead's 
 History of New York, i, page 313, note ) 
 
 I may now, I trust, be permitted to think that 
 the proposition submitted, that all the waters 
 which surround Staten Island are the waters of 
 the Hudson River, stands substantiated by abun- 
 dant proof To be sure, they receive important 
 contributions from Newark Bay and from the 
 Rahway and Raritan Rivers of New Jersey. I 
 do not contend that they drain the same basin 
 through which the Hudson and its tributaries 
 pass, nor, that their systems are the same. Still, 
 have these rivers no more efficacy in the crea- 
 tion of Bays by the discharge of their affluence 
 into the Hudson and the Great Bay at its mouth, 
 than has been attributed to the York, or the 
 Rappahannock, or the James Rivers, of cutting, 
 at their mouths , from the Chesapeake Bay, sub- 
 sidiary Bays of their own. The affix of Rari- 
 tan Bay, therefore, to any portion of the waters 
 of the Great Bay of New York, I submit, should 
 be expunged from the map at the Bibliopotists, 
 and expelled from our physical geography, as a 
 
28 
 
 New Jersey heresy, crept into our orthodox 
 waters, only to fret and divide them. 
 
 New York, not once only, but twice, and thrice, 
 and again, has yielded of her cardinal rights and 
 of her imperial proportions, to the construction 
 «and establishment of independent States, as, I 
 think, she unwisely, in 1834, parted with a 
 moiety of her right to her way of access to mari- 
 time wealth. The irrevocable past I would not 
 seek to reclaim ; but, surely, its lessons should 
 engraft In the future, vigilance, wisdom, and re- 
 solution. 
 
 John Cochbanb. 
 
 New York, June. 
 
II. 
 MR. BRODHEAD'S REMARKS 
 
 Before the New York Historical Society, 
 June 6th, 1865. 
 
MR. BRODHEAD'S REMARKS. 
 
 At the meeting of the New York Historical 
 Society, on Tuesday, the 6tti of June, 1865, the 
 Honorable ,Iohn Cochrane, Attorney-General of 
 the State of New York, read an interesting paper, 
 which he had prepared, showing that "the Kills," 
 and other waters between Staten Island and 
 New Jersey, are really part of the Hudson 
 River, and New York waters. 
 
 Before the President put to vote the resolution 
 of thanks, which the Society unanimously adopt- 
 ed : 
 
 Mr. John Rometn Brodhead said, that the 
 paper just read by his old friend and colleague 
 in public service. General Cochrane, was very 
 gratifying evidence that our ablest statesmen did 
 not always allow themselves to be drawn wholly 
 away from scholarly pui'suits, by the claims of 
 official duty, or the clamorous demands of mere 
 partlzan politics. It was not oftei that the 
 highest law-officer of the State was found to 
 possess, either the taste or the training of a 
 historical student ; and when such an accomplish- 
 ed specimen was actually caught, it would be 
 well to prize him as a sort of modern " lusus natu- 
 "roB." The Attorney-General's paper, however, 
 suggested a point, which was of great interest in 
 American history, and particularly in New 
 Jersey history ; and which, up to this moment, 
 was believed to be entirely novel. 
 
 Mr. Brodhead. proceeded to state it, as follows : 
 
 The constant opposition of the early Colonial 
 authorities of New York to the dismemberment 
 of its territory as granted by King Charles the 
 
32 
 
 Second to his brother Jamee, in March, 1664, by 
 the Duke of Yorli's transfer of " Albania," or 
 New Jersey, to John, Lord Berkeley, and Sir 
 George Carteret, in the following June, is, of 
 course, familiar to those acquainted with Ameri- 
 can history. 
 
 The transfer was a very improvident act, which 
 the Duke afterwards regretted, and which he 
 would never have executed, if he had been pro- 
 perly advised. It was done in haste ; while the 
 expedition sent to seize New Netherland was 
 yet at sea ; and, apparently, through the cojolery 
 of the infamous Captain John Scott. No steps 
 were taken by the Duke's grantees to secure 
 their own possession of New Jersey, until dis- 
 patches were received from Nicolls that he had 
 conquered New Netherland from the Dutch. It 
 was not until June, 1665, that Philip Carteret 
 arrived in America, as Governor of New Jersey ; 
 and then, for the first, Nicolls learned what had 
 been so unwisely done by his chief, after he had 
 left England. For ten months, he had exercised 
 undeniable authority over the entire region be- 
 tween the Hudson and the Delaware, by virtue 
 of his commission, as Governor from the Duke 
 of York, of 2d April, 1664. As soon as he heard 
 the unwelcome news, Nicolls wrote earnestly to 
 the Duke, remonstrating against his improvident 
 cession of New Jersey ; and proposing that 
 Berkeley and Carteret should give up their prize, 
 and take, in exchange, the territory on the Dela^ 
 ware, which had been reduced from the Dutch : 
 {New York Colonial Documents III, 105 ; Ohal- 
 mers' Poliiical Annals—who gives the date erro- 
 neously, as November. 1685, — 624, 625.) On the 
 9th of April, 1666, Nicolls urged the same sug- 
 gestion to Lord Arlington, the English Secretary 
 of State : {Colonial documents III, 113, 114.) 
 When he returned to England, the late Governor 
 of New York carried with him a letter from 
 
33 
 
 Maverick, his fellow Royal Commissioner, to 
 Lord Arlington, dated 25th August, 1668, in 
 which the inconvenience of the Duke's release of 
 New Jersey was demonstrated : ( Colonial Docu- 
 ments III, 174. 
 
 The presence of NicoUs at Court, however, 
 seems to have eflfected, what much trans-Atlantic 
 correspondence might never have accomplished 
 Its first fruit was to drive Captain Scott, the 
 contriver of the New Jersey release, in disgrace 
 from Whitehall. Its next result was an authori- 
 tative judgment that Siaten Island belonged to 
 New York, and not to New Jersey. Moreover, 
 the personal representations of NiciUs convinced 
 the Duke of York that he had been duped into 
 doing a very foolish thing, when he severed his 
 American province. James, accordingly, took 
 steps to regain New Jersey. It was not difficult 
 for him to do this. Sir George Carteret was in 
 Ireland, of which he had been appointed Lord 
 Treasurer, in 1667 Lord Berkeley, who had 
 been one of the commissioners of the Duke of 
 York's private estate, had just been detected in 
 the basest corruption, and was now turned out 
 of all his ofBces at Court, {Pepys, Bohn's ed., 
 1858, III, 167, 172, 174, 331, 1V.'29,\ Burnet, I., 
 i:67.) He was glad enough to win the Duke's 
 favor by offering to surrender New Jersey to 
 him ; and Carteret, at Dublin, willingly con- 
 flrraed his partner's offer, especially as they were 
 to receive the Delaware territory in exchange. 
 
 The evidence of this interesting, and hitherto 
 unknown feature in American Colonial History, 
 has recently come to light in the " Winthrop 
 Papers," now in course of publication by The 
 Massachusetts Historical Society. On the 24th 
 of February, 1669, Maverick wrote from New 
 York, to Governor Winthrop, of Connecticut, 
 that Governor Lovelace had just received a let- 
 ter from his predecessor, Nicolls, at London, an- 
 
84 
 
 nounclng that " Staten Island is adjudged to be- 
 " long to N: Yorke. The L. Barkley is under a 
 " cloud, and out of all his offices, and offers to 
 " surrender up the Patent for N. Jarsey. Sir G: 
 " Carterett, his partner, is in Ireland, but it is 
 " thought he will likewise surrender, and then 
 " N. Yorke will be inlarged." (Massachusetts 
 Bistorical Society's Collections, XXXVIL, 315.) 
 Carteret appears to have promptly assented to 
 the proposed surrender ; and the transaction 
 was regarded on all sides as complete, for Sir 
 George wrote to his brother Philip, the Proprie- 
 tors' Governor at Elizabethtown, in June, 1669, 
 that " New Jarsey is returned to hia Royall 
 " Highnes, by exchange for Delawar, * * * 
 " some tract of land, on this side the river & on 
 " the other aide, to reach to Maryland bounds." 
 (Massachusetts Historical Society's Collections, 
 XXXVIL, 319.) 
 
 Yet, while man proposes, God disposes. Nei- 
 ther the surrender nor the exchange thus ar- 
 ranged were ever accomplished. The restora- 
 tion of Charles the Second to the Sovereignty, 
 which that grand old statesman, Oliver Crom- 
 well, had administered with such splendid 
 ability, was followed by the most disgraceful 
 poltroonery which marks the annals of syco- 
 phantic and title-loving Englishmen. The Court 
 became vicious, to a proverb. Sir George Car- 
 teret was expelled the House of Commons, for 
 corruption, in the autumn of 1669 ; but he still 
 held his place of Treasurer of Ireland. Early in 
 the spring of 1670, Lord Berkeley, the disgraced 
 swindler of the Duke of York, was, by the favor 
 of the king, made Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, 
 where he joined his co-partner Carteret. Both 
 the New Jersey grantees were also proprietaries 
 of Carolina, of which Berkeley had just become 
 Palatine, on the death of the Duke of Albemarle. 
 At this moment, Lord Baltimore, an influential 
 
35 
 
 Irish peer, revived his old claim to the Delaware 
 territory, which he insisted belonged to himself, 
 as proprietor of Maryland, and not to the Duke 
 of York, as the English representative of its 
 ancient Dutch owners, {Colonial Documents, III., 
 70, 113, 186.) 
 
 This Delaware question was a very nice one, 
 for it raised several ugly points about the ori- 
 ginal title to New Netherland, which the English 
 had usurped from the Dutch. It was handled 
 very gingerly for several years, and was not 
 definitely settled against Maryland, hy the Privy 
 Council, until 1685. Meanwhile, Lord Baltimore 
 was a powerful peer of Ireland, and might give 
 her Lieutenant and Treasurer much trouble, if 
 they made him their personal enemy. On com- 
 paring notes at Dublin, Berkeley and Carteret 
 thought it their best policy to let the Duke of 
 York fight out the Delaware question with 
 Lord Baltimore in London ; and, in the mean 
 time, they evaded the fulfilment of their agree- 
 ment with James, and retained New Jersey. 
 After the death of Nicolls, in 1672, they even 
 prevailed on the Duke to write to Lovelace, 
 fully recognizing their rights as grantees of the 
 Province. In August, 1673, the whole of ancient 
 New Netherland, including New York, New 
 Jersey, and Delaware, was reconquered by the 
 Dutch. The treaty ofWestminster restored these 
 acquisitions to Charles the Second, in February, 
 167i. In the following June, the King, by a 
 new Patent, regranted to his brother James, the 
 entire territory of New York and New Jersey. 
 What the Duke did after he received his second 
 Patent, it is not my purpose now to explain. I 
 will only remark that the decision which, in 1669, 
 adjudged Staten Island to belong to New York, 
 has never been disturbed. 
 
 From this history of the matter, it is clear that 
 if Berkeley and Carteret had performed their 
 
36 
 
 agreement with James, in 1669, the State of New 
 York, at this moment, would have included the 
 present State of New Jersey. The partners who 
 surrendered their patent would, doubtless, have 
 received a patent for Delaware directly from the 
 King. After the treaty of Westminster, all par- 
 ties would have stood as they did before the 
 Dutch war The controversy with Lord Balti- 
 more would not have been protracted until the 
 accession of James the Second. But the inscrut- 
 able wisdom of the Almighty decreed that human 
 weakness should work great ends ; and — as far 
 as we can now see — it is owing to the faithless- 
 ness of Berkeley and Carteret to the Duke of 
 York, in 1670, that New Jersey exists as an In- 
 dependent State. 
 
III. 
 MR. BRODHEAD'S LETTER 
 
 To THE Editor OF "The Gazette," ENCosmo a 
 Copy of h,s Letter to Mr. Wh.tehead, 
 
MR. BRODHEAD'S LETTER. 
 
 New York, 25th July, 1805. 
 Henry B. Dawson. Esq., Editor of The Yonkkrs 
 Gazette. 
 
 Sir : As a note from William A. Whitf bead. 
 o1' Newark, N. .J., induced me to write out my 
 remarlis, at tlie meeting of our N. Y. Historical 
 Society, on the (1th of June last — which, at your 
 request, were published in The Yonkeics Gazette 
 — it seems to be proper that I should commiuii- 
 cate to you the following copy of a letter whicb 
 I addressed to Mr. Whitehead, in reply, enclosing 
 those remarks, as they appeared in your issue of 
 the 8th instant. 
 
 I am. Sir, 
 
 Sincerely yours, 
 
 John Romeyn Broduead. 
 
 [ENCLOSURE.] 
 MR. BRODHEAD'S letter TO MR. WEITEHEAD. 
 
 New York, 8th July, 1865. 
 
 WiTXTAM A. Whiteheau, Esq., &c., Newark, N.J. 
 
 My nuAR Sir : According to my promise, in 
 
 acknowledging your note of the 7th ultimo, I 
 
 nclose a copy (from The Yonkers Gazette, of 
 
40 
 
 this date,) of my remarks at the meeting of our 
 New York Historical Society, on the 6th of June. 
 
 I think it is now proved that Staten Island 
 was adjudged to bdong to New York, as early as 
 1669 ; and that, in the same year, Berkeley and 
 Carteret agreed to restore New Jersey to the 
 Duke of York. 
 
 It would have been as well, perhaps, if I had 
 added, in my remarks, that Lovelace's purchase 
 of Staten Island from the aboriginies, in 1670, 
 shows, further, that at that time, all parties con- 
 curred in recognizing The Duke, as the only 
 European Proprietor of that Island. 
 
 He certainly was so, at the Dutch reconquest 
 in 1673 ; and he became its grantee, directly 
 from the King, a second time, in 1674. The 
 Duke's subsequent release to Carteret, (in sever- 
 alty,) of the same year, must, of course be taken 
 as not including Staten Island ; because identical 
 words of descriptiim. with those in his first release 
 to Berkeley and Oarteret, are employed ; and be- 
 cause, under those words, the Island had been 
 " adjudged " to belong to New York. 
 
 The claim set up in 1681, by the representa- 
 tives of bir George Carteret, was, as you know, 
 never admitted by the Duke's authorities ; who 
 felt that the original adjudication of 1669— which 
 gave Staten Island to New York — could not be 
 disturbed. 
 
 Yours, very .sincerely, 
 
 John Rometn Brodhead. 
 
 / 
 
IV. 
 A REVIEW 
 
 OF 
 
 GENERAL COCHRANE'S PAPER, 
 
 MR. WILLIAM A. WHITEHEAD. 
 
MR. WHITEHEAD'S REVIEW OF 
 GENERAL COCHRANE'S PAPER. 
 
 There are some questions wbioh, however thor- 
 oughly discussed aad definitely settled, will 
 " ever and anon '' be evoked from a sleep of years 
 by enquiring, mercurial spirits, with a demand 
 for a rediscussion and a resettlement, although 
 nothing may have occurred while they have lain 
 dormant to warrant the procedure, althougli no 
 new light may have arisen to illumine what was 
 before dark, or any good purpose be effected by 
 their revival. For a time, factitious circumstances 
 may infuse into a question of this kind, some sem- 
 blance of vitality and importance ; but, however 
 potent may be the influence of Error, or however 
 protean the forms it may assume, if Truth has 
 been ever elicited, the looker-on may quietly 
 await the issue, conDdent that the vexed question 
 will ere long, be restored to its wonted state of 
 repose. 
 
 Such is the character, such the present posi- 
 tion, and such the ultimate fate of the question 
 which was made the subject of e.'ttended com 
 ment, by the Hon. Mr. Cochuane, in a paper rea(' 
 at the June meeting of the New York Historical 
 Society. 
 
 Nothing has occurred rendering it advisable to 
 change the present mutual boundaries of, or to 
 
44 
 
 distuib the friendly relations existing between, 
 the States of New York and New Jersey ; no new 
 information of essential importance effecting the 
 points formerly at issue, has been gathered ; and 
 only the fact that, a high law officer, connected 
 with the Executive Department of ■ the State of 
 New York, has reviced the topic, and given bis 
 views, respecting it, publicity — not only by their 
 presentation to such a distiriguished body as the 
 New York Historical Society, but by printing 
 them in full over his own name — gives to it a 
 temporary interest. It is the intention of this 
 review to facilitate the return of the subject to 
 the shades whence it was drawn. 
 
 The theme which Mr. Cochkaxe gravely pro- 
 pounded, and which he so elaborately discussed, 
 was the assertion "That the waters between 
 " Statex Island and Nhw Jeiiset, the Kill Van 
 ■' Coll. the Sound and Raritan Bay, ok by what- 
 
 " EVER other baptismal NAMES THEY OB THEIR 
 
 " i",\ltts may have been, ob abe now designated, 
 " togkther with all the waters which lave 
 " Staten Island shores, were from the period 
 '■ ok their discovery, known and accepted, and 
 •' should properly now be considered, the wa- 
 " ters op Hudson's River." 
 
 The proposition is a simple one, and its opera- 
 tion, if established, equally so : the aim and effect 
 of the learned gentleman's paper being, to cut off 
 New Jersey from any water privileges, excepting 
 such as she may enjoy on her ocean-beat coast, 
 or in Delaware bay, and place her, a suppliant, 
 
45 
 
 at the feet ol New York, for peniiissiciu to enjoy 
 in quietude, tlie riglits wliich sbe derives from the 
 same source that conferred upon Ijer larger and 
 more opulent sister State, the germs of her jjros- 
 perity. 
 
 Mr. CocuKANK is met at the threshold of bis 
 investigation by certain " baptismal names " 
 borne by the waters leferred to, which he con- 
 ceives to have been " imposed by accumulating 
 " ignorance or- cZesisfn;" and seems to imagine 
 that, the generations past and gone, possessed 
 neither eyes to perceive where physical peculiar- 
 ities required the conferment ol special appella- 
 tions, nor judgment to determine what those ap- 
 pellations should be : his own acquaintance with 
 the localities, and his own experience in navigat- 
 ing these " falsely " named waters, /especially 
 qualifying him to succeed where they so signally 
 failed. 
 
 In order that his positions may be fairly and 
 fully presented, the following extract from his 
 paper is given at length : 
 
 " When Hudson, carefully consulting his sound- 
 ings, ' went in past Sandy Hook ' on the evening 
 of the Srd of September, 1609, he moored the 
 Half Moon in ' Tlie Bay.' A boat's crew ])ro- 
 ceeding upward to the north, on a subsequent day, 
 (September 6th,) we are told that they passed 
 through the ^farrows, into a commodious har- 
 bor, ' with very good riding for Ships.' In their 
 further progress northward, they discovered 
 the Kills in '■ a narrow riuer to the Westward 
 ' betweene two Hands.' The exploration of this 
 river disclosed to them ' an open Sea,' now 
 
46 
 
 called Newark Bay. When the Half Moon first 
 left her anchorage in ' The Bay,' (September 
 
 11,) Hudson cautiously passed through the Nar- 
 rows, ' went into the Riuer.' and again found 
 moorage near the mouth of the Kills, in • a very 
 ' good Harbour for all windes.' 
 
 " This simple statement of Hudson's discovery, 
 purges effectually the clouded medium of subse- 
 quently distorted narrative; and our neutral vision 
 has direct access to ' the bay,' the ' harbor,' the 
 ' western river,' and ' the open sea,' unpervert- 
 ed into unnatural lineaments by the false names 
 imposed by accumulating ignorance or design ; 
 and representing them as they lay, and as un- 
 changed they lie, in physical aspect, the only dis- 
 tinguishable ' bay ' below, the ' narrow straits ' 
 above, the estuary, roadstead, or ' harbor ' within, 
 ' the river ' conducting the upper waters to 
 the west, and beyond that, the ' open sea' in the 
 distance. If now we apply to this fluvial system, 
 the nomepclature adapted to it by the proper 
 names since borne by the river which originated 
 it and the ports on its banks, ' the bay ' be- 
 comes the Great Bay of the North River ; ' the 
 ' Harbour,' the Harbor or Port of New York ; 
 and ' the narrow I'iver to the westward ' and 
 ' the Narrows ' at the south, the mouths through 
 which the waters of the Hudson, discharge them- 
 selves through the Great Bay into the main sea. 
 
 "Here, then, is probably the mostfltting place for 
 the remark, that the confirmation of this hypothe- 
 sis will be the explosion of the injurious theory 
 upon which the Treaty of 1834 ceded to New 
 Jersey one-half of the rights of New York to the 
 waters of the Hudson, and of those which sepa- 
 rate Staten Island from New Jersey, together 
 with the lands under them, upon the very com- 
 mon error of mistaking the harbor of New York 
 for the bay of New York, and of imposing the 
 name of Earitan Bay on a portion of the waters 
 of the Great Bay of the North River." 
 
47 
 
 The reader will please notice that Mr. Cocn- 
 rane's " Great Bay of the North River " is simply 
 " the bay " of Hudson and other navigators ; and 
 as such it will be considered. 
 
 On proceeding to advance his proofs applying 
 to his hypothesis, he places prominently among 
 them, and relies greatly upon, the testimony af- 
 forded by Maps ; but it is a singular fact that 
 not one, ancient or modern, confers upon " the 
 " bay '' any cognomen conveying the idea that 
 its waters are sufficiently homogeneous with 
 those of the North River to authorize the adop- 
 tion of the restricted appellation suggested by 
 the Attorney General. 
 
 The earliest geographers on their earliest maps 
 — those quoted by Mr. Cochkanb — leave it un- 
 named, as being simply an arm or portion of the 
 Atlantic Ocean : or, when they do give it a spe- 
 cific appellation, designate it as " Port May '' or 
 " Godyn's Bay" or "Coenraet's Bay,'' not recog- 
 nizing Its relation to the North River. But these 
 specific names soon disappeared ; and the cora- 
 inon sense of each and every generation since, 
 has been in entire accordance with the present 
 nomenclature, which is warranted by the physi- 
 cal peculiarities and configuration of the shores 
 and shoals ; as a general appellation, to the 
 whole expanse of the waters referred to, would 
 be necessarily indefinite and conseqiiently inap- 
 propriate- Convenience, propriety, and fact co- 
 incide in designating the waters to the west of 
 the peninsula of Sandy Hook as those of "San- 
 
48 
 
 dy Hook Bay ;'' in considering those immediate- 
 ly south of the Narrows, ap constituting " the 
 " lower Bay," in contradistinction to the one 
 above ; and those waters lying south of Staten 
 Island, received from the Raritan River and 
 Staten Island Sound, as " Raritan-bay." It is 
 not usual to claim for this last a more extended 
 locality than it is strictly entitle'd to. It is not 
 made to encroach upon " the lower bay ;" but, 
 in conjunction with " Sandy Hook bay," laves 
 the shores of New Jersey and Staten Island ; and 
 contributes its quota to the ocean, through the 
 Main Channel at Sandy Hook. 
 
 It is a noticeable circumstance that Mr. Coch- 
 rane considers those maps which leave this 
 expanse of water loithout a name, as substantiat- 
 ing its claim to the specified title he suggests, no 
 matter what may have been the definite object 
 had in view by their projectors. For example, 
 he draws attention to a Map in " East Jersey 
 " under the Proprietors," and says, " it confines 
 " the name of Earitan to the river now known 
 " as such, but represents none for the waters' 
 " from its mouth to Sandy Hook ;'' and he stiles 
 it " a Map of the settled portion of New Jersey 
 "projected and described in the year 1682 ;'' 
 adding, " th(^ map of 1682 thus singularly concurs 
 " with the patent of 1665, [The MonmouthPatenf] 
 " in protecting ' the Bay ' from the infectious 
 " waters of the Raritan." 
 
 Now the author of the work referred to ex- 
 pressly states (page 123) that the map " was 
 
49 
 
 " compiled [for his work, pvblished in 1846,] from 
 "various sources"— for what? To "give the 
 " reader an idea of the extent of the settled por- 
 '■ tion of the Province" in 1682. That was its 
 purport, nothing more. If he had entertained 
 the remotest idea that his map would have been 
 referred to, to prove the non-existence of 
 Raritan Bay, because of his omission to insert 
 these words, it may be safely assumed that they 
 would have been there. The Attorney-General 
 should award him credit for not being influenced 
 in the preparation of his map, by "the corrup- 
 " tions of the mother tongue " to which he 
 alludes in his paper. 
 
 To strengthen his position, Mr. Cochrane gives 
 two extracts, which connect with •' the Bay '' 
 the adjuncts which he covets. 
 
 Cornelius Van Tienhoven, Secretary of the 
 Province of New Netherland, speaks of it in 
 1650, as " the Bay of the North River ;'' and the 
 Patroon Melyss purchased from the Indians, 
 the same year, some lands " at the south side, in 
 " the Bay of the North River ;" and with a little 
 more research some few like instances might 
 have been discovered ; but it is safe to assume 
 that in all such instances the appellation was not 
 intended to partake of the exclusive character 
 which Mr. Cochrane would give it. Thus, for 
 example — and one example will suffice, although 
 others might be furnished — De Razieres, in his 
 letter to Blommaert, says, " I arrived before the 
 " Bay of the great Mauritze River, sailing into 
 
50 
 
 " it about a musket shot from Godyn's Point 
 " into Goenrad'' s Bay, where the greatest depth 
 " of water is, etc." {Collections New York Histor- 
 cal Society, Second Series, ii. 342,) recognizing 
 the existence among navigators at that early 
 period of a speciflc appellation for a portion of 
 "the Bay;" and it is a noticeable circumstance 
 that De Vries, who probably went in and out of 
 " the Bay,'' a greater number of times than any 
 other navigator, during the domination of the 
 Dutch, never conferred upon it a title connecting 
 it exclusively with the North, or Hudson's 
 River. 
 
 But is there any thing remarkable that a great 
 ver should not carry its name with it to the 
 ocean ? There are many streams along our coast 
 which, after placidly meandering through the 
 country, conferring beauty upon the landscape 
 and bestowing benifloent gifts upon the Inhabi- 
 ants, seem to decline having their names identi- 
 fied with the rougher and world-tossed waters of 
 the ocean. The cases are too numerous to admit 
 of the conjecture, that the failure of the stream 
 of the Hudson to carry its name to Sandy Hook 
 is an exception " originating in ignorance or de- 
 " sign.'' To insist so strenuously upon revising 
 the present nomenclature, in order to identify 
 the waters of " the bay '' with those of the river, 
 rgues some weakness in the positive proofs that 
 they are identical. 
 
 But it is essential to Mr. Cochrane's theory 
 that he should establish this point; and the 
 
51 
 
 greater part of his paper is devoted to its devel- 
 opment aad illustration ; the applicability of his 
 quotations, in a simple histoiioal enquiry, not 
 being always apparent. He quotes Governor 
 Dongan, who says " We, in this government, 
 " [New Yorli] look upon that Bay, that runs into 
 "the sea at Sandy Hook to be Hudson River.''' 
 This was in 1686 — in a letter, by the way, which, 
 for its partizau antagonism to the Proprietors of 
 New Jersey, probably led to his recall by the 
 Duke of York, whose interests he was trying to 
 subserve — and it seems that in 1865 there are 
 some in " this government '' equally blind to the 
 distinction between the bay and the river. 
 
 Mr. Cochrane also quotes two other documents, 
 one a Report upon the controversy respecting 
 the commercial privileges of the Port of Amboy, 
 in 1697; and the other a letter from an Engineer, 
 who responds to the dictation of his superior by 
 reporting the depth of water " in the other branch 
 " of the Hudson's river," called •' the Col,'' in 
 1701; both of a character similar to that of Gov- 
 ernor Dongan's letter, intended as assertions of 
 claims yet unestablished ; and about as conclu- 
 sive as iwoofs, as w juld be the counter assertions 
 of the Governor and Proprietors of Bast Jersey, 
 or as the assertions, current some time since, that 
 the new Police Law of New York was unconsti- 
 tutional, or the right ot a State to secede unques- 
 tionable—the Port question having been subse- 
 quently settled adversely to the claims of the 
 New York authorities, as the last two opinions 
 
52 
 
 have been effectually disposed of contrary to the 
 wishes of those who advocated them. 
 
 Mr. Cochrane considers the " impregnability '' 
 of his record evidence confirmed by the '• tes- 
 " timony of the ancient Maps ;" but an impar- 
 tial enquirer will soon have reason to be satisfied 
 that their testimony is of little value. 
 
 He says of the celebrated "Carte Mgurative," 
 [N. Y. Gol. Doc. i., 13 :] ■' However imperfect 
 " the delineations, this map represents unmistak- 
 " ably the River Mauritius (now Hudson) as it 
 " washes the margin of Manhates Island, and, 
 " enlarging thence its course to 'he ocean, swells 
 " into an expansive Bay, which encloses Staten Is- 
 " land, and ultimately passes at ' Sand punt,' into 
 " the main sea.'' 
 
 This is a correct description of the map ; and 
 similar delinations in other maps — the " swelling 
 " into an expansive Bay, enclosing Staten Is 
 " land " — showing as much water on the west 
 side of the island as on the east, afford a clew to 
 the authority upon which some of the writers of 
 the time describe the locality, and account for 
 the opinions entertained in England respecting 
 it ; the knowledge of most of the parties being 
 derived solely from the imperfect topographical 
 details of these maps. But this very " Carte 
 "Figurative'' of date 1616, ignores Mr. CooH- 
 rane's theory, by giving the name of " Sand 
 "bay "to the expanded sheet of water which, 
 he would have us believe, the " accumulating 
 " ignorance " of modern times, and the " corrup- 
 
53 
 
 " tions of the mother tongue '' prevent being oall- 
 '• ed the Bay of the North River." 
 
 This same title of " Sand-bay," so applied, 
 will be found also on Jacobssi Map of "Americae 
 ■' Septentrionalis" of 1621, in the possession of Dr. 
 O'CaUaghan ; a/ac simUe of which will be found 
 in the same volume of the New York Colonial 
 Documents that contains the '■ Carte Piijurative." 
 
 The description given by Ogilby (which ap- 
 peared simultaneously with that of Montanus, 
 from whom Mr. Coohrank quotes through a 
 modern translation,) was evidently based upon 
 the map of " Nova Belgii Quod nunc Novi Jorck 
 '• vocatur,'' contained in his ponderous volume. 
 As it is uncertain whether Montanus copied Ogil- 
 by, or Ogilby Montanus, the extract ishere given 
 as it appears in the contemporaneous English — 
 " The Manhattans, or Great River, being the 
 '• chiefest, having with two wide Mouths wash'd 
 " the mighty Island Watouwaks, falls into the 
 " Ocean. The Southern Mouth is call'd Port 
 " May, or Qodyn's Bay. In the middle thereof 
 " lies an Island call'd the States Island, and a 
 " little higher the Manhattan,'' &c. ( Ogilby's Ame- 
 rica, Edit, folio, l(i71, p, 170 ) Now Ogilby's map 
 was derived from Vander Donck's, which places 
 Staten Island in the centre of an expanded bay — 
 having its specific title it will be observed — 
 forming what Ogilby calls the " Southern Mouth" 
 of the Great River, the other, or northern mouth, 
 being Long Island Sound : " Watouwaks," or 
 more properly Matouwacs being the designation 
 
54 
 
 of Long Island, whose shores were thus washed. 
 Why does not Mr. Coohkane furnish a new title 
 for Long Island Sound ? The testimony of Mon- 
 tanus and Ogilby is as potent and applicable in 
 that direction as in the other. 
 
 It will be perceived, therefore, that it is 
 neither philosophical nor wise to base arguments 
 upon descriptions framed from delineations 
 acknowledged by Mr. Cochrane himself, to be 
 rude and imperfect. If maps of this character 
 are reliable as evidence, he might claim with 
 equal propriety that theHudson has three mouths; 
 and refer for proof to Van der Donok's map, 
 which makes a stream, which is called the 
 " Groote Esopus River," to connect with the 
 Delaware, affording another outlet for the waters 
 of the Hudson. He might thus have received 
 into its capacious bay not only Staten Island, 
 but the whole of New Jersey, and have quoted 
 authority for it also ; for Wynne, in his history, 
 says, " West Jersey has an easy communication 
 " by the river Esopus viith New York.'' 
 
 But it is unnecessary to pursue this portion 
 of Mr. Cochrane's argument further : indeed in 
 view of one physical fact which will be educed 
 presently, it need not have been discussed at all ; 
 but, before proceeding, some notice must be 
 taken of his labored endeavor to make the appe- 
 lation, "Achter Coll," given to Newark Bay, 
 derive its significance from its lying back or 
 west of the bay on the east side of Staten Island, 
 
65 
 
 rather than from its relatioa to what is known as 
 the upper bay or harbor of New York. 
 
 The meaning of the words is well understood 
 to be Behind or Back of the Bay ; and the bay 
 meant, would seem to be at once made manifest 
 by the Inquiry, " Where did the people live who 
 used the term?'' There was a perfect propriety 
 in the dwellers upon Manhattan Island conferring 
 the title upon a sheet of water which lay behind 
 or beyond the bay which intervened between it aiid 
 them ; but the appellation wonld have possessed 
 neither significance nor appropriateness, had it 
 been derived irom the position of the inner 
 expanse of water with reference to the lower 
 bay, as it did 7iot lay back of, or beyond, that 
 bay to them, but in an entirely different direction. 
 
 It is somewhat remarkable that Mr. Cochkane 
 shonld quote Mr. Brodhead in support of his 
 views and " to complete '' his proofs. That 
 historiographer says (p. 313) " 'Aohter Cul,' or 
 " ' Achter Kol,' now called ' Newark Bay,' was 
 " so named by the Dutch, because it was ' achter ' 
 " or 'behind' the Great Bay of the North River. 
 " Thepassage to the Great Bat was known as 
 " the Kill van Cul," from which has been de- 
 rived the present name of " the Kills '' — and he 
 quotes Benson as his authority. Both writers 
 evidently intended by " the Great Bay of the 
 " North River,'' the bay north of Staten Island : 
 " the Narrows " Ttot " the Kills " being unques- 
 tionably the passage to the lower bay, which Mr. 
 
66 
 
 Cochrane wishes to have considered the " Great 
 " Bay." 
 
 " Achter Coll " from being first applied to the 
 watei- only, gradually, as population spread and 
 settlements began to be formed on the shores of 
 Newark Bay, became the appellation for the 
 land also, both northward and southward, until 
 the whole of East Jersey would occasionally be 
 designated as " Achter Coll ;" but the name, 
 under the English rule, was soon lost ; and the 
 student of the geography of the State would 
 scarcely recognize in the name of " Arthur Kull,'' 
 applied to the Sound between Staten Island and 
 the main, south of Newark Bay, all that is pre- 
 served of the original appellation of " Achter 
 " Coll." North of the bay and running into 
 New York bay, the stream still retains the appel- 
 lation conferred at the same early period, the 
 " Kill van KoU,'' or more commonly " the Kills." 
 as stated by Mr. Brodhead. 
 
 It is susceptible of demonstration from docu- 
 mentary evidence, that the specific appellations 
 borne by the waters referred to are not of mod 
 ern introduction ; are not the result of " corrup- 
 " tions of the Mother tongue ;" have not origina- 
 ted through "accumulating ignorance'' or through 
 any nefarious " design" to absorb the Hudson, 
 but are simply appropriate titles which the phys- 
 ical configuration and position of the localities 
 have rendered necessary. They date back, for 
 the most part, and particularly is it the case with 
 the nomenclature of the waters west of Staten 
 
57 
 
 Island, to times anterior to the transfer of New 
 Netherland to the English ; and it is safe to 
 afiBrm, that no one acquainted with the localities 
 would venture to express the opinion that such 
 a specific nomenclature should give place to the 
 general appellation of '• Hudson's River ;'' for, 
 as has been intimated already, if it had not been 
 thought advisable to show how little foundation 
 there was for Mr. Cochkane's theory, even as 
 presented with hi^ chosen authorities, the state- 
 ment of one single physical fact would have suf- 
 ficed to refute his arguments. 
 
 Mr. CoOHiiANE is a military as well as a legal 
 General. Let it be supposed that, with the 
 skilfully trained eye of an experienced command- 
 er, he has selected a bold and adventurous de- 
 tachment from among the watery hosts of the 
 Hudson, and having placed himself at its head, 
 he floats off' with a strong ebb tide on an expedi- 
 tion to the ocean by the way of the new mouth 
 of the river that he has discovered. On ap- 
 proaching " the Kills" his detachment is con- 
 fronted and most unceremoniously jostled, turn- 
 ed around, impeded and opposed by a concourse 
 of watery particles, very similar to those com- 
 posing his more regular organization, but pur 
 suing a directly contrary course. On inquiring 
 into the cause of this rough treatment, the Gen- 
 eral is informed that he has wandered beyond 
 the lines of the hosts of the Hudson, and is in 
 collision with the advanced guard of the con- 
 joined forces of the Passaic and the Hackensack, 
 
58 
 
 coming from the Blue Hills of New Jersey, and 
 proceeding with all speed and irresistible velo- 
 city to a general rendezvous at Sandy Hook. 
 Finding all endeavors atprogress in that direc- 
 tion useless, the north corner of the new month 
 being effectually closed against him, the General 
 proceeds, we will suppose, to execute a flank 
 movement ; if he cannot get in at the north, he 
 may through the south corner ; so falling in with 
 the advancing columns of the Passaic and Hack- 
 ensaek, he takes his detachment with them into 
 the lower bay, and watching his opportunity, he 
 joins some returning battalions wending their 
 way westward (oward the southern end of 
 Staten Island. By skilful management he pre- 
 vents any of his force from being sent off with a 
 scouting party up the Raritan, and is congratu- 
 lating himself that, by continuing with the main 
 body, proceeding northward through the Sound, 
 be is making rapid progress up the Hudson, 
 when, lo ! he finds that he and his detachment 
 are being moved bodily to the westward into 
 Achter Coll Bay. Again he resorts to strategy. 
 .Succeeding in getting off the direct line of pro- 
 gress, he stealthily conducts his detachment to 
 the right into slack water, and moves onward for 
 awhile. Soon, however, is he interrupted and 
 opposed by an overwhelming force that ridi- 
 cules any attempt by his puny detachment to 
 advance in that direction, and he finds himself 
 and his command absorbed and carried off to re- 
 join the column they had sought to escape from — 
 
59 
 
 victims to the grasping propensities of New 
 Jersey. 
 
 Did General Cochrane ever Icnow of a 
 mouth of a river through which some portion of 
 its stream did not run in one coatinuous ebb and 
 flow of tide ? But what the tides of " the Kills," 
 '• the Sound'' and " Raritan bay" refuse to do for 
 the Hudson, they do regularly, each and every 
 day, for the Passaic and the Haoliensack : in 
 other words, •■ the Kills" is the northern mouth of 
 those rivers emptying into New Vorli bay, as 
 Benson and Brodhead say : " the Sound" is 
 their southern mouth, emptying into Raritan bay. 
 Would General Cochkane have announced to the 
 New York Historical- Society that •■ the waters 
 "of the Hudson in their seaward current, debouch 
 '•through both the Narrows and the Kills," or 
 that " the Hudson River empties itself, through 
 "its two mouths, the Narrows and the Kills, into 
 "the Bay of New York ?" — would he have thought 
 it necessary to prepare his elaborate paper — had 
 he known that, not a drop of the water of the Hud- 
 son flows through the passage hettoeen Staten 
 Island and the mctiii ? 
 
 With this fact established beyond controversy, 
 that no waters of the Hudson ever " lave the 
 "Staten Island shores" on the west, this Review 
 might close ; but a sense of what is due to truth 
 and history prompts some reference to, and com- 
 ment upon, the nature of the impeachment of 
 New Jersey before the public thus made by the 
 Attorney-General of her sister State of New 
 
60 
 
 York, and the manner in which she has been 
 arraigned. 
 
 Mr. Cochrane says, " The efforts of New Jer- 
 " sey to neutralize the commercial advantages of 
 " New york, and to promote her own aggrandize- 
 " ment are notorious ;•' that " recklessness" and 
 " persistence" have characterized the pros- 
 ecution of her '■ avaricious desires ;" that, 
 " carved surreptitiously from the side of New 
 " York, under the opiates of one Captain John 
 " Scott, artfully discharged upon the drowsed 
 " senses of James, Uuke of York, from the hour of 
 " her separation to the present, she has formed her 
 " national life to the rugged career of incessant 
 " competition with her parent State ;'' and is elo- 
 quent in the use of expletives such as the ''en- 
 " croachments," " pretentions," " preposterous 
 ■' claims," &o., of New Jersey, exhibiting feelings 
 of irritability and hostility towards the State, 
 which, considering his official position, comity 
 alone should have led him to restrain. Let these 
 accusations receive a brief examination. 
 
 The rig'W of Jjmes, DnkeofYork, as grantee 
 of his brother, Charles II., to convey to others 
 that part of his domain now constituting New 
 Jersey, does not seem to be questioned, and the 
 intimate relations known to have existed be- 
 tween him and those to whom he disposed of it 
 (See Pepy's Diary and Correspondence) war- 
 rants the assertion that the conveyance was in- 
 tended to be full and complete, according to its 
 tenor, whither " surreptitiously" obtained or not. 
 
61 
 
 He was dealing with personal friends and not 
 striving to outwit strangers, by only keeping 
 " the word of promise to the ear," and fully ex- 
 pected that the territory he described, with all 
 its advantages and privileges, would pass into 
 their quiet possession. His subsequent acts 
 clearly prove this ; for on the 23d November, 
 1672, more than eight years after the grant, in a 
 letter to his Governor, Lovelace ; on the 29th of 
 July, 1674, in a new grant to Sir George Carteret, 
 in severalty; in another, on the 10th October, 
 1680, to Sir George's grandson and heir ; and on 
 the 14th March, 1682, in still another grant to 
 the twenty-four proprietaries, did he reaffirm, in 
 the most emphatic manner, the rights, powers, 
 and privileges originally conveyed. Mr. Brod- 
 head is of the opinion that, although the same 
 words of conveyance were used in all these 
 documents they cannot be assumed as covering 
 Stateu Island, because Governor NicoUs, writing 
 to Lovelace in 1669, informs him that " Staten 
 " Island is adjudged to belong to New York ;" 
 but the well-understood sentiments of NicoUs in 
 relation to the transfer of any part of New Jer- 
 sey to Berkley and Carteret, render it very neces- 
 sary to know by whom it was so "adjudged:'' 
 it was not, certainly, by any legal tribunal, or 
 the question of title would thereafter have been 
 definitely settled ; but if " We of this govern- 
 '• ment,'' as Dongan expressed himself, were the 
 only arbiters, it is not surprising that the de- 
 cision should have failed to meet with general 
 
62 
 
 ftcceptaace. It cannot be fairly presumed that 
 euch a curtailment ol the original limits of his 
 grant should hsbve been ■' adjudged," by James ; 
 and nothing appear on the face of his subse- 
 quent grants to indicate any intention to change 
 the boundaries : — grants made long after the 
 " opiates of one Captain John Scott'' must have 
 lost their effect. 
 
 These boundaries were , so explicit, that it is 
 surprising there should have been any difference 
 of opinion about them. It will do no harm to 
 reproduce them here, inasmuch as they are only 
 given in part by Mr. Cooheane : 
 
 " All that trad of land adjacent to New Eng- 
 land and lying and being to the westward of 
 Long Island and Manhattan Island, and bound- 
 ed on the east, part by the main sea and part by 
 Hudson River, and hath upon the west Dela- 
 ware Bay or river, and extendeth southward to 
 the main ocean as far as Cape May at the 
 mouth of Delaware Bay : and to the northward 
 OS far as the northernmost branch of the said 
 Bay or River of Delaware, which is in forty-one 
 degrees and forty minutes of latitude, and 
 orosseth over thence in a straight line to Hud- 
 son's River in forty-one degrees of latitude, 
 which said tract of land is hereafter to be call- 
 ed by the name or names of New Cseserea or New 
 Jersey." 
 
 Could language be used more definite ? On 
 the east a river and the ocean — on the west 
 and south a river and a bay — on the north a 
 straight line extending from a point in 41 deg. 
 40 min. N. L. on one river to a point in 41 deg. 
 N. L. on the other. Yet, it seems, the attempts 
 
of New Jersey to retain what was so clearly in 
 word and Intention conveyed to her is character- 
 ized by Mr. Cochrane as indicating an avaricious 
 and grasping spirit. Let a map of the States of 
 New Jersey and New York be examined, and it 
 will be found that the north partition point in 
 their boundary is neither at the •' northernmost 
 " branch of the Delaware " nor " in 41 deg. and 
 " 40 min. of latitude '' but at 41 deg. 21 min. 
 37 sec! nearly twenty miles of latitude south 
 of where it should be ; causing about two hun- 
 . dred thousand acres of the soil of grasping New 
 Jersey to lie on the New York side of the line ; 
 and had the wishes, aims and projects of the 
 latter entirely succeeded, the line would have 
 been still further south. 
 
 It would be impossible to compress within 
 reasonable limits the particulars of the nego- 
 tiations that led to this result : if the details are 
 desired, they can be found in the eighth volume 
 of the Proceedings of the New Jersey Histor' 
 iyil Society. No one can give them an impar- 
 tial examination without being satisfied that, if 
 there were any " avaricious desires " exhibited 
 through the long period during which the con- 
 troversy lasted, it was not on the part of New 
 Jersey. 
 
 Let the same map be looked at with reference 
 to the eastern boundary. A stranger examin- 
 ing its details, with the view of locating the lines 
 named in the grant from James, would most 
 naturally suppose that Staten Island — being part 
 
64 
 
 of the land westward and southward of Long 
 Island and Manhattan Island — belonged to New 
 Jersey; and it may be admissable here, although 
 it has not been intended in this review to touch 
 upon any legal points or technicalities, to draw 
 attention to a passage from the argument of the 
 New Jersey Commissioners in 1828, showing 
 what should be the effect of a literal carrying 
 out of the peculiar phraseology of the grant : 
 
 '• Hudson river and all the dividing waters are 
 notoriously to the westward of Long Island and 
 Manhattan Island, and therefore within the de- 
 scriptive words of the grant. Iheland to the west- 
 ward of these islands passed by express words. 
 This term [told] is of great extent in its legal 
 operation, including all above and all below the 
 soil, and therefore embraces all the lands west- 
 ward covered by water. Unless the words de- 
 scribing the land granted are rejected, New Jer- 
 sey must begin where those islands end. Nor ought 
 they be departed from in favor of the grantor, 
 because he has added a general boundary, calcu- 
 lated to make it vague and uncertain. If a 
 conflict exists between a particular description 
 and a general boundary, the latter ought to 
 yield to the former, for it is an established rule 
 in the construction of deeds, that if the grantee's 
 words are sufficient to ascertain the lands in- 
 tended to be conveyed, they shall pass, although 
 they do not correspond to some of the particulars 
 of the description. Then as no doubt can exist 
 of the intention to pass all the lands to the west 
 of these two islands, the additional description 
 which makes the eastern boundary to be the 
 main sea and the Hudson, ought not to lessen or 
 impair the benefits of the grant in favor of the 
 grantor, and against the grantees." 
 
 How does it happen then, that New Jersey 
 
65 
 
 with all her avaricious and aggrandizing tenden- 
 cies should have failed to secure the possession 
 of Staten Island ? 
 
 A student of our Provincial history needs not 
 to he informed of the opposition made by 
 Nicolls, whom the Duke of Yox-k had appointed 
 Governor of all his possessions in America, to 
 the transfer of New Jersey to Berkley and 
 Carteret ; it has already been adverted to. Be- 
 fore he was aware of the transfer he had exer- 
 cised authority over the tract and bestowed 
 grants upon persons intending settlements at 
 Blizabethtown and in Monmouth County ; and it 
 was not calculated to add to his amiability or 
 courtesy towards the Proprietors' Governor, 
 Philip Carteret, who arrived in 1665, to have 
 those grants very summarily nullifled by his 
 superior. Carteret's attention being engrossed 
 by the weighty cares and responsibilities incident 
 to his peculiar position in a new land, among 
 strangers, with few, if any, trusty advisers, all 
 expedients and measures for peopling and 
 governing the Province untried, it is not sur- 
 prising that questions concerning boundaries or 
 territorial rights, should for a while have been 
 left untouched. It is not to be supposed, how- 
 ever, that, because, as Mr. Cochrane states, he 
 has failed to discover any " recorded evidence " 
 of the " Initiation of New Jersey's enterprising 
 '' encroachments " upon Staten Island, prior to 
 1681, that her right thereto was not previously 
 thought of and asserted. It is susceptible of 
 9 
 
66 
 
 proof that acts of jurisdiction were performed 
 by New Jersey, prior to that date, not only upon 
 the island, but over the surrounding waters, in 
 issuing patents and establishing ferries — one 
 ferry, between Communipau and New York, was 
 licensed us early as 1669, by Governor Carteret ; 
 and another was established between Bergen, 
 Communipau, and New York in 1678 : Mr. CocH- 
 BANE has discovered an application made to the 
 New York authorities for the establishment of 
 one in 1750, nearly a century later, and con- 
 siders that a proof of jurisdiction over the 
 waters being ascribed to that province. "Will 
 he accord equal sufficiency to the prior cases in 
 New Jersey ? 
 
 But as many of the inhabitants of the city of 
 New York, both Dutch and English, had their 
 plantations on Staten Island, their relations had 
 been and continued to be altogether with that 
 place and government ; and of course the autho- 
 rity of the functionaries of New York became 
 more firmly established with each passing year. 
 Yet there are not wanting, evidences of a con- 
 viction in the minds of some of the first men of 
 that province, that Staten Island had passed • 
 from under their control. Thus in 1668, Samuel 
 Mavericke, one of the King's Commissioners, in 
 a letter to Secretary Arlington, says plainly — 
 when objecting to the transfer of New Jersey to 
 Berkley and Carteret :— " The Duke hath left of 
 " his patent nothing to the west of New York. * * 
 " Long Island is very poor and miserable and 
 
67 
 
 " beaide the city there are but two Dutch townea 
 " more, Sopus and Albany,'' Staten Island was 
 too important a settlement to have been left out 
 of this summary had it been regarded as yet a 
 part of New York. If no doubt was entertained, 
 how comes it that, as the Winthrop Papers show, 
 NicoUs should think it of interest to announce 
 that the island had been '■ adjudged to New 
 " York." 
 
 It will be remembered also, that negotiations 
 were on foot for an exchange of New Jersey for 
 other possessions on the Delaware ; and that the 
 exchange was thoughi at one time to have been 
 perfected. This of course would repress any 
 formal attempts by Governor Carteret to possess 
 himself of the island; and, shortly after, came the 
 Dutch to reconquer the country and unsettle the 
 relations between the people and the govern- 
 ment. So that the point made by Mr. Cochrane, 
 of the postponement of the " enterprising en- 
 " croachments'' of New Jersey until 1681, if 
 well taken, is susceptible of explanations show- 
 ing it to have been perfecty consistent with an 
 unshaken belief in the sufficiency of New Jersey's 
 claim. 
 
 The repeated conflimations of the original 
 boundaries by the Duke, have already been 
 adverted to. They cannot be otherwise con- 
 sidered than as virtual rebukes of the aggressive 
 disposition of his governors, and established 
 beyond doubt his own intention to concede all 
 his rights within those bounds ; for although his 
 
68 
 
 Secretary, Warden, at one time expressed some 
 doubt as to whether the successors of Sir George 
 Carteret (" for whom the Duke hath much es- 
 " teeme and regard '') would receive from him 
 equal favor, yet we ilnd the same Secretary, as 
 late as November, 1680, writing, that his Royal 
 Highness had been pleased " to confirm and re- 
 " lease to the Proprietors of both Moities of 
 " New Jersey all their and his Right to any Thing 
 " besides the Rent reserved, which heretofore may 
 " have been doubtful, whether as to Government or 
 •' to Publick Dutys in or from the places within 
 '• their grants." Is it at all surprising that, with 
 such documents in their possession, the proprie- 
 tors should have contested the occupancy of 
 Staten Island by New York? or that from that time 
 to the year 1833, New Jersey should have con- 
 sistently asserted the superior validity of her 
 claim ? Should her course in doing so. without 
 any resort to ultra measures to enforce it, bring 
 upon her contumely and unwarrantable asper- 
 sions ? 
 
 Notwithstanding all the proceedings of New 
 York calculated to exasperate her people — the 
 forcible arrest and abduction of her citizens 
 from her own soil, even from the very wharves 
 of Jersey City, under processes from New York 
 Courts — the neglect often shown to the appeals 
 of New Jersey for some action that might lead 
 to a settlement of the controversy — even actual 
 insults, most pointedly evinced by the passage 
 of an Act by one of the Legislative houses, in 
 
69 
 
 1827, at the very time when Commissioners werein 
 session at Albany, discussing terms of compromise, 
 which declared the boundary of New York to 
 extend to low water mark along the whole of 
 the New Jersey shore : notwithstanding all 
 these acts of attempted or successful aggression, 
 New Jersey has ever shown not an avaricious 
 but a conciliatory and liberal spirit never more 
 clearly shown than in the terms she finally 
 acceded to, by which she relinquished Staten 
 Island and other possessions, in order that she 
 might rescue her rights m the adjoining waters 
 from the dbsoriing tendencies of New York. 
 
 One other topic is presented by Mr. Cochrane, 
 which must be noticed before this Eevieio of 
 his remarkable paper is brought to a close. It 
 is intimated therein, that the determination of 
 New Jersey's claims " will doubtless require the 
 "ultimate decision of the Supreme Court of the 
 " United States.'' 
 
 The Supreme Court of the United States has 
 never before, probably, been held in terrorem 
 over New Jersey. Asserting no claim not found- 
 ed in right, asking nothing she might not reason- 
 ably expect to be granted, and ever ready to 
 make all proper concessions for the preservation 
 of peace and promotion of harmony, the decis- 
 ions of the Supreme Court have rather been 
 sought than avoided in all controverted cases, as 
 likely to bring with them satisfactory results. 
 This disposition has been remarkably evinced in 
 
70 
 
 the progress of the diaoussiona with New York 
 respecting boundaries. 
 
 Who proposed, in 1818, the appointment of 
 Commissioners to prepare a statement of facts 
 relative to the controversy, to be submitted to 
 the Supreme Court for its decision ? New Jersey ! 
 By whom was the proposition left, not only un- 
 responded to, but unnoticed ? New York ! Who 
 was it that, in 1828, declined to recommend a 
 reference of the matter to the Supreme Court, as 
 suggested by the Commissioners of New Jersey ? 
 The Commissioners of New York ! What, even- 
 tually, was the principal inducement New York 
 had for the appointment of the Commissioners 
 who agreed upon the terms of settlement in 1833 ? 
 The commencement of a suit in the Supreme 
 Court, with the view of having the just claims of 
 New Jersey established ! The fact is indisputa- 
 ble, that the unwillingness to bring the matters 
 at issue to a judicial decision, has all been 
 on the part of New York. Why then, after 
 New Jersey has thus fairly manifested her de- 
 sire to abide by the decisions of the tribunal of 
 last resort, does the Attorney General of New 
 York think it necessary to threaten her there- 
 with ? Why, after more than thirty years acqui- 
 escence in, and, it is believed, cordial coopera- 
 tion on the part of both States to carry out, the 
 terms of the agreement entered into in 1833, is it 
 now thought becoming for so prominent an ofB- 
 cer of the State of New York to call in question 
 in BO public a manner, the propriety of that 
 
71 
 
 agreement, If not, indeed, its binding force ? 
 Doubtless, if Benjamin F. Butler, or Peter Au- 
 gustus Jay, or Henry Seymour were 1 iving, the 
 Historical Society of New York might have it 
 demonstrated that, aa Commissioners of New 
 York, they did not assent, in that agreement, to 
 any thing which " trafScked " away " the inter- 
 " ests of the State," or -'compromised them by 
 " relinquishing a moiety of the unquestioned 
 " rights of New York." It is no part of the wri- 
 ter of this Beview to vindicate them ; that must 
 be left to others. 
 
 The agreement of 1833 was intended to be 
 perpetual, every formality being observed calcu- 
 lated to give it a duration commensurate with the 
 existence of the States themselves, having been 
 confirmed by the legislatures of both, and sanc- 
 tioned by a special law of Congress, " made in 
 " pursuance of the Constitution," and conse- 
 quently of supreme authority, " any thing in the 
 " Constitution or Laws of any State to the con- 
 " trary notwithstanding.'' Is it at all probable 
 that the Supreme Court could, if it would, or 
 would if it could, set aside an agreement thus 
 made and thus ratified ? Surely, any attempt to 
 disturb the amicable relations existing between 
 the two States, by suggestions of the kind put 
 forth by Mr. Cochrane, cannot but be considered 
 impolitic, unjust, and unwarranted by any cir- 
 cumstances of the time. 
 
 Enough has been said to show how erroneous 
 in all respects are the views the gentleman has 
 
72 
 
 promulgated in consequence of his misconcep- 
 tion of the true topography of the district under 
 discussion. Technicalities of law have not been 
 touched upon, as their discussion entered not 
 into the intentions of the writer ; but had the 
 claims of New Jersey been submitted, as she 
 desired, to the decision of the Supreme Court, 
 the results would probably have been more fa- 
 vorable for her interests. 
 
 The length of this Review precludes any dis- 
 cussion of the terms of the agreement of 1833-4 
 fixing the boundaries as they now are. Although 
 so inconsiderately denounced by Mr. Cochrane, 
 they will be found on examination to have been 
 framed in a spirit of anxious solicitude to put 
 an end forever to the disputes between the two 
 States, the concessions being for the most part 
 made by New Jersey, and it is hoped that, neither 
 by word nor deed, may the good understanding 
 then arrived at, be disturbed. W. A. W. 
 
 Newabk, New Jersey, August, 1865. 
 
 Note. — The views expressed in the foregoing 
 Review, at variance with the opinion of Mr. 
 Brodhead — that the grant by the Duke of York 
 to the twenty-four proprietors of Bast Jersey in 
 1682, although repeating the original boundaries, 
 should not be considered as including Staten 
 Island, because in the intermediate time NicoUs 
 announced that the island had, by some one, 
 been "adjudged to New York," despite those 
 boundaries, — are fully sustained by the proceed- 
 ings of a Council held at " Port James, Feb. 16, 
 
73 
 
 " 1683--4 ;" called, apparently, for the express 
 purpose of oonsidering the limits of that grant, 
 and by subsequent circumstances growing there- 
 out — {New York Minutes of Council, Liber. 1683- 
 88.) 
 
 At that Council Mr. Recorder, afterward At- 
 torney General, Grahame, said, " he believed in 
 " that clause, 'whole intire premises,' [conveyed 
 by the previous grant to Berkley and Carteret,] 
 "was to be understood only the intire tract of 
 "land, and the other clause, ' as far as in him 
 " ' lyeth,' made a doubt whether the Duke had 
 "authority so lar :" and while in doubt, it was 
 suggested that a remonstrance should be sent 
 to his Royal Highness, showing the " incon- 
 " venienoe of suffering East New Jersey to come 
 " up the river." The question involved was evi- 
 dently the extending of East New Jersey " up 
 " the river," opposite Manhattan Island. No 
 doubts seem to have been entertained as to the 
 effect of the grant upon Staten Island and sur- 
 rounding waters ; for the Duke, as if to set at 
 rest all questions growing out of the formerly ex- 
 pressed boiindaries, not only repeated them and 
 conveyed the eastern moiety of " the whole in- 
 " tire premises," but added, " together with all 
 " Islands, Bats, &c.,'' words not in the original 
 grants; and inserted the further significant clause 
 " As also the free Use of all Bays, Rivers and 
 " Waters, leading unto or lying between the said 
 " Premises, or any of them, in the said Parts of 
 " East New Jersey, for Navigation, free Trade, 
 " Fishing, or otherwise." 
 
 That these words were considered by the 
 Council as covering Staten Island and its waters, 
 is conclu-ive from the fact that Captain John Pal- 
 mer, the largest holder of lands on Staten Island 
 under New York grants — one of the Council 
 subsequently, axul present at the meeting referred 
 to by invitation of the Governor — not esteeming 
 11 
 
74 
 
 his property there safe without a title from the 
 proprietors of East Jersey, immediately thereafter 
 applied to them for patents, and on the 26th May 
 following, obtained them for seven tracts of land, 
 covering in all 4,500 acres. 
 
 The letter also of the Earl of Perth and his 
 associates, dated August 22d, 1684, written in 
 consequence of the proceedings of this Council, 
 states expressly, "Wee Doubt not both the Duke, 
 " and they [his Commissioners] are fully con- 
 " vinced of our right in everie Respect ; Both 
 " of Gouerment, Ports, and Harbours, free trade 
 " and Navigation, and hauing spoke to the Duke, 
 "wee found him verie just, and to abhorr the 
 " thought of allowing any thing to be done oon- 
 " trary to what he hath past under his hand and 
 " seall." 
 
 It may be, therefore, safely asserted that no 
 idea was entertained by the Duke of York of de- 
 viating from the strict letter of the grants, hy 
 which Staten Island must be considered a? hav- 
 ing been adjudged to New Jersey, not only be- 
 fore Nicolls' letter was written, but as in the last 
 instance noted, more explicitly still, thirteen 
 years thereafter, in the most authoritative and 
 legal manner.