Answer denying Hendrick van Dyck's petition

Scanned Document:

Reply to the attached petition:

The director-general and council have never been informed that the petitioner was sent as fiscal to New Netherland by their honorable High Mightinesses, but rather by the honorable lords-directors of the Chartered West India Company in which capacity he has been employed and known, as far as his behavior and ability merits. What goods of Jacob Rynties have been confiscated appears in the inventory officially made in the presence of the director-general and council. How and why they were confiscated appears in the judgment, and the Company has entered an account of the income in the general and private books for whose approval the petitioner's request has been referred; however, the director-general and council suspect that the petitioner has incorrectly determined or falsely claimed that the goods were confiscated because of trade of contraband with the Indians rather than because of the theft and sale of the honorable Company's weapons, according to the judgment. And moreover, it is well-known and apparent from the proceedings that the act was not uncovered through the vigilance of the petitioner but through the diligence of the director-general and councillors themselves who placed the offender in the petitioner's custody from which he escaped. At first the petitioner began to act by summons, as against a fugitive and violator of the lords' waterways, for which the offender was not punished with banishment. Also, from the confiscated beavers some were claimed by Claes Bordingh and others, who also were due restitution or satisfaction on behalf of the honorable Company- Therefore, the petitioner's request for a just third share [      ] the judgment states expressly that [      ] judgment is viewed strictly, the goods of Jacob Ry [      ] have been confiscated for the profit of the [      ] Company and whatever therein may be considered ] just which the director-general and council [      ] condemn at their discretion. Done at New Amsterdam in New Netherland, 24 December 1653; below was written: By order of the honorable director-general and council; and was signed: Cornelis van Ruyven, secretary.

Cor: van Thienhoven, fiscal, plaintiff against Claes Bordingh, defendant; the plaintiff has submitted a written request for the discovered contraband goods. The defendant asks for a copy of the request. The director-general and council order that a copy be furnished to the defendant for reply on next Saturday. Done at Amsterdam in New Netherland, 24 December 1655.[1]


Thus given in the record. It is either an error for 1654 or it was added the following year.


Translation: Gehring, C., trans./ed., New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, Vol. 5, Council Minutes, 1652-1654 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.: 1983).A complete copy of this publication is available on the New Netherland Institute website.