New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-06-05
SOME POPULAR OBSERVATIONS.
EARLY NETWORK HISTORIANS.
WHAT wAssENAER AND BRoDHEAD SAY AS
TO THE NATIONALITY OF THE
EARLIEST SETTLERS
To the Editor Of The Tribune.

To the Editor Of The Tribune
Sir Presenting that the article on THE First
Settlers of New-York." by George Rogers HoWeii,
published In The Tribune Of May "a, was intendeo
rs n criticism upon article by the writer "hich
anneared in your pape: of Sunday, May IT, IT should
he said that there are some statements In the be-
ginning of Mr. Howelrs article the connection OF
which with the article b. the writer Is not APP
parent The writer did not mention Dr. OCal-
Ioehon's name Therefore the remarks about
O.Callaghan having changed Wassenaer's dates
should have been left out by Mr.. Howell Ihey
can have no place In this discussion
The authority from whom the write: did quote
is the learned John Romeyn Brodhead who was
by far the abes. of our Dutch historians. Inc
accomplished librarian Of the Historical Society.
William Kilby. says of him. He Is the best au-
;hority We have
Mr. Howell suggests that the weak spot" In the
writings Of some of our historians is that they have
accepted and repeated O Callaghan's citations fnOm
Wassenae: without apparently examining Vase
naer himself. He also bases much Of his argu-
ment upon the fact that he finds the date 1924 In
the margin Of page II, Vol. VII. of Wassenaer.
Unfortunately for Mr.. Howell Brodhead. who
was an expert in the Dutch and many other Ian
guages and searched two continents for docu-
ments connected with the early history or this
city. did read and weigh the evidence contained In
Vol VII page Ii. of Wassenaer. His is. there
fore no fault OF omission Mr. Howell alleges.
u
of New-York." In connection with his discussion Of
this topic the following references TO authorities,
upon which the reader will Go well ponder
"wassenaer. vii, II; xii, SO; Doc. Hist. n. Y, ILL.,
S5 43; Holl Doc H. 36s; Alb. Rec xiv. l67"
1t is worthy Of notice that ''Wassenaer. Vol. VII!
page H. is the first of Brodheads references. and
this is the identical page on which Mr.. Howell.
POUNDS his case. But Brodhead had seen other
documents. his references prove which were
more reliable than the history Of Wassenaer, the
| physician of Amsterdam"
Mr.. Howell has made the mistake while ACCUSE ,g
others Of omissions. Of emitting himself any men,
| ton Of one Of these documents which was quoted
by the writer IN his article of May Is. This docu-
ment is the report of the Board Of Accounts Of
New-Netherlands, made in l644. In which 1t was
said that in the 1922 and 1923 the Yves. India
| Company conveyed 90 ManhattaD) divers coonists
| under the direction of Cornez Jacoby May" doc.
| Col Hist of ~ Y. l. 149)
The second important document which Brod-
| head must have seen is the letter which was adj
dressed by Stuyvesant. In 1904 to the English COM
mander, Nicolis, in which the Dutch Governor
possession here. at the Manhottans Al or AZ years
Making the subtractions We get the dates 622 and
1923 which agree with the dates In the report OF the
| given in accordance with the Old Style. The ship
| New Netherland sailed in March. which was. at
that time. the beginning Of the year The develop
| of the ship had begun near the end Of the year
1922 and their elimination took tool place In May, 1873
finds in the margin in wassenaer. the following
questions may be offered: Was it misprint? Did
Brodhead's edition have this date. or instead
| 1923? Both In his translation from Wassenaer
found in the Historical socetys collections; and in
| departure Of the Waoons from Holland as in May
| 1923 Did Brodhead conclude. after a fair weigh
Ing Of all the evidence. that Wassenaer was In err
| rCr?
| The report Of the Board OF Accounts and Stuyve.
SAINTS letter are official documents. The writers
| had access 10 the best sources OF Information
| Wassenaer's statements are unofficial The "physi'
| clan Of Amsterdam" may have relied upon hearsay
| or conjecture. Clearly the two official documents
| above mentioned are reliable evidence. while In
Wassenaer there is an element of unreability: The
| accurate and astute Brodhead detected this ele
| Wassenaer he gave the date as II should be, l623
| Also In his History Of New-York.' he says Il. LOO
| "the spring Of the year 1923 was the era OF the
| first permanent agricultural colonization OF New
| Netherlands" by Walloons and other Frenchmen.
| Among more recent authors who agree with
| BfCdhead, the writer would mention Genera
| James Grant Wilson, the Editor Of THE Memoria
| History of w-York." General Wilson is a Dutch
| for his great work. He says q, l4D: Thirty OF
| the Walloon families were placed upon her 9TH
ship overwhelmingly. This nrst colonizint
| expedition TO New-Netherland reached the
| The following writer's also agree with Brod
| head: Charles NJ. Dozy. archivist. OF Ieyden. Hol
| land; b. j. Losing. Dr. b. F. De Costa and DR.. S
S. Purple, not forgetting Dr. Baird and Virle
first name Of this city, bestowed by the Waloons
was New-Avcshes. 1t is shown beyond contro
vorsy that the French Walloons founded this city
| In May. 1923 . .
But the writer would not disparage the Dutch
with Franklin ne believes that I'm the love Of lib
erty and bravery in defence OF 1t. Holland has beer
| our great example" .