It appears from the following order, that the Court of Sessions of Kings County, exercised some authority over the ferry between Brooklyn and New-York. October 7, 1690. “Whereas much inconvenience does arise by several negroes coming on this Island from New-York and other places, and from this Island to New-York. It is ordered, that the ferrymen shall not bring or set over any negroes or slaves upon the Sabbath day, without a ticket from their masters.”
Acts have been passed by the Colonial and State legislatures for the purpose of regulating the ferries between this town and the City of New-York, in the following chronological order:
November 2d, 1717, an act was passed, which was revived in the year 1726, and again in 1727. October 14, 1732. Another act was passed for the same purpose. By this act it was provided, “That the ferryman for the time being, shall not impose, exact, demand, or receive any rates or ferriage for any goods or things whatsoever, transported by any of the inhabitants living alongst the River at or near the Ferry on Nassau-Island, in their own boats or canoes,” provided that the same be their own goods or commodities. This act continued in force until the 28th of February, 1789, when another act was passed regulating the ferriage, and containing a similar proviso. April 9, 1813. The last mentioned law was re-enacted, with the same provision.
The winter previous to the prosecution of the suit between Hendrick Remsen, and the Corporatiun of the City of New-York, the inhabitants of Brooklyn made an attempt to obtain from the Colonial legislature, a further confirmation of some of their rights, particularly relating to the ferry; on which application the following proceedings were had.
January 30, 1745-6. In General Assembly, a petition of the Trustees of the town of Brookland, in Kings County, in behalf of themselves, and the freeholders and inhabitants of the said township, was presented to the House and read, setting forth, That a great number of the inhabitants of the said township, living near the ferry from Nassau-Island to New-York, and having their chief dependence of supporting their families by trading to the New-York markets, are by one act of the General Assembly, entitled, an act to regulate the ferry between the City of New-York and the Island of Nassau, and to establish the ferriage thereof, passed in the sixth year of his Majesty’s reign, debarred from transporting their goods in their own vessels, to the said markets, which exposes them to very great hardships, difficulties and expences, and therefore humbly praying that they may have leave to bring in a bill to relieve them from the aforesaid hardships. Upon a motion of Major Van Horne, (of New-York) ordered, that the Clerk of this house serve the Corporation of the City of New-York, with a copy of the said petition forthwith.
In General Assembly, April 12, 1746, Mr. Abraham Lott, according to leave, presented to the house, a bill entitled, “an act to repeal an act therein mentioned, so far as it relates to the freeholders and inhabitants of the township of Brooklyn, in Kings County, within this colony;” which was read the first time, and ordered a second reading.—Ordered, that the Corporation of the City of New-York, be served with a copy of the said bill.
April 18, 1746. In General Assembly. The bill entitled, an act to repeal an act therein mentioned, so far as it relates to the freeholders and inhabitants of the township of Brooklyn, in Kings County, within this colony, being offered to be read a second time, Capt. Richards (of New-York) moved, that the second reading of the said bill might be deferred until the next meeting of the House, after the first day of June next; which was agreed to by the House and ordered accordingly.
June 20, 1746. In General Assembly. A petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty, of the City of New-York, was presented to the House and read, setting forth, That the Corporation having been served with a copy of a bill now before this House, entitled, an act to repeal an act therein mentioned, so far as it relates to the freeholders and inhabitants of the township of Brooklyn, in Kings County, within this colony; do conceive that the passing the said Bill into a law, may affect their ancient rights and freehold, and therefore humbly praying that they may be heard by their Counsel against the said bill, at the bar of this House, on Friday next, ordered, that the Trustees of the township of Brooklyn, be heard by their counsel in support of the said Bill, at the bar of this house, on Friday next, and that Mr. William Smith appear for them. Ordered, that the Clerk of this house serve the parties with a copy of these orders forthwith.
June 27, 1746. In General Assembly. The House being informed, that the Corporation of the City of New-York were attending with their Counsel to be heard against the Bill; and that the Trustees of the township of Brooklyn, were also attending with their Counsel to be heard in support of the said Bill; both parties were called in, and the counsel on both sides having been fully heard, for and against the said Bill, they were directed to withdraw; and the Bill being read the second time, the question was put,—whether the said Bill should be committed, and carried in the affirmative in the manner following:—Affirmative, Messrs. Lott, Chambers, Stillwell, Livingston, Harring, Cornell, Abraham Lott, Lecount, Bradt, Nicoll, Hardenbergh, and Gale 12.—Negative, Messrs. Richards, Cruger, Clarkson, Van Horne, Philipse, Morris, Verplank, and Thomas, 8.
July 4, 1746. In General Assembly, the engrossed Bill entitled, an act to repeal an act therein mentioned, so far as it relates to the freeholders and inhabitants of the township of Brooklyn, in Kings County, within this colony, was read the third time, and upon Mr. Speaker’s putting the question, whether the Bill should pass, a motion was made by Col. Morris in the words following, viz.—As this Bill has been already ordered to be engrossed, by a majority of the House, and the question that now is put, is, whether this Bill shall pass; I must beg leave to give my reasons for opposing its passage. The first is, it is alledged by this bill, that the people of Brooklyn had a right, prior to the act passed in the year 1732, which was not proved, nor attempted upon the hearing before this house; but if we pass this Bill, we allow that right to be proved, and then it becomes our allegation, which I conceive, inconsistent with the honor and justice of this house, to alledge any thing in such a case, but what has been proved. The second is, it implies that the act in 1732, took away unjustly, a right from the people of Brooklyn, that they were entitled to. Thirdly, it implies, that the house have fixed the two points before mentioned, and then it will necessarily follow, that we have considered the rights of the Corporation,[9] as well as those of the people of Brooklyn; that we have not, I appeal to the house, who must allow, that no such right ever appeared to us, at least as a House, and for us to declare certain facts by a Bill, which has never been proved, will be doing, what I conceive, we ought not to do, if we make justice and equity the rule of our conduct. For these reasons, I move, that the Bill may be rejected. The question being put thereon it was carried in the negative, in the manner following, viz.——For the negative, Messrs. Chambers, Lott, Cornell, Hardenbergh, A. Lott, Bradt, Lecount, Gale, and Harring, 9. Affirmative, Messrs. Cruger, Morris, Richards, Van Horne, Clarkson, Verplank, Philipse, and Thomas, 8.