Research

Series:

Scanned Document:

Noble, Honorable, highly Esteemed, Wise, Prudent and Discreet Lords:

Your letter dated 17 July reached me the 26th of this month together with enclosures. A response to the latter must be delayed until the departure of Jan de Kaper, because Peter Lourens is most anxious to leave at once. I shall only relate what happened in regard to the crime committed by Schout van Sweringen.

As soon as Mr. d'Hinojosse had examined his letters, he sent for his council; however, before they left for there, I went to Mr. Willem's house where Mr. La Grange had spent the night. I informed them of details concerning the case and of a copy of Mr. d'Hinojosse's letter. Since Peter Alrichs was with the schout when they pursued the fugitives, I requested that he be allowed to come in. Mr. Willems himself called him in, and I asked him whether our discharged soldiers had placed an armed Indian in firing position. He answered, no, but that the Indian (who was hired to guide the soldiers) had sat down on a stump or fallen tree a short distance from the soldiers. He further stated that the potter, Tomas Vorst, who was employed as skipper or rower in the canoe, and who had brought no weapon, had the Indian's gun and was placed in firing position with the others. Therefore Mr. d'Hinojosse's writings concerning this matter appear to be without foundation. Also, in time I shall prove that the depositions taken at Foppe Jansen's were not done abusively, but that the deponents asked, admonished and offered me more than ten times to furnish depositions, adding that if they did not do it, and you were to hear of the affair, it would not be good for me, as you can learn from Mr. Factoor.

After the director and council met here for about four hours, they sent me the enclosed summons. After reading it, I requested that the messenger take care of it because I was informed that Mr. d'Hinojosse has said (since Mr. Andries Hudde had something copied here on 22 June) that he would have Hudde's head if he came here again to have anything copied.

Fop Janssen has been assessed a fine of f12 (so he says) because, at my request, he took down the testimony of the deceased. Mr. d'Hinojosse claims that I induced Fop Janssen to do it and therefore he considers the testimony to be worthless. Consequently, I intend to do nothing more in this matter except in the presence of two members of the court, which I have been unable to do so far, although I requested the same three times on the 26th and twice on the 27th by way of the messenger. Also, I still cannot obtain a written response, only a verbal one. First I was told that such was unneccessary and could be done in the presence of two burghers provided that it was copied by his clerk; the second time [ I was told ] that it could be done before the court; the third time, that Mr. Herder and Mr. Willems had been commissioned [ to do it ]. When I came to New Amstel around noon on the 27th, in order to collate my desposition, I asked the messenger what time the commissioners had set to begin [ the proceedings ]. He said that he still had no orders from the director to summon them. After sending him again to Mr. d'Hinojosse, he reported that Mr. Willems was to come at once to the fort for a meeting, but if I wished I could make use of Mr. Herder. I replied that I neither would nor could do this because Mr. d'Hinojosse would not allow me to bring a clerk here, and withheld me his [ clerk ] together with the appointed commissioners. I therefore considered it necessary to transmit the enclosed citation and protest.^[1] I am still waiting for a reply. For this reason I deem it necessary that the fiscal be sent here to assist me, because I have no one who can council me. Meanwhile I shall proceed to the extent which my meager ability, in all reasonableness, allows. A deposition will be required here of Dominicus Sybrants, cadet, which was apparently sent to you with the deposition of Hendrick Dyck. It will agree because both were together with the deceased.

Herewith I commend you to God's protection, remaining, after wishes for a long life and a prosperous administration,

In haste. New Amstel,
28 July 1662.

Your most obedient servant,
Willem Beeckman

[ P.S.: ] My Lords, the schout is still permitted to walk about with a sword at his side; only Jan Webber posted security [ for him ] on the 26th of this month that he would appear in person at the meeting on the 28th. This is for your guidance.

Willem Beeckman.

Notes

References

Translation: Gehring, C. trans./ed., New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, Vols. 18-19, Delaware Papers: Dutch Period, 1648-1664 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.: 1981).A complete copy of this publication is available on the New Netherland Institute website.