Chapter V: Part 5

With him at the head table were seated: Hon. Edward D. White, Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; Hon. Thomas H. Carter, United States Senator from Montana; Hon. Robert J. Gamble, United States Senator from South Dakota; Hon. Joseph A. O’Connell, Congressman from Massachusetts; Hon. William Sulzer, Congressman from New York; Hon. John J. Fitzgerald, Congressman from New York; Hon. Michael F. Dooley of Rhode Island, Treasurer-General; Rear Admiral John McGowan of Washington, former President-General; Mr. Francis I. McCanna of Rhode Island; Hon. John D. Crimmins of New York, former President-General; Hon. Patrick J. McCarthy, Vice-President for Rhode Island; Hon. Victor J. Dowling, Justice of the Supreme Court of New York; Mr. Patrick Carter of Rhode Island; Hon. Edward A. Moseley of Washington, former President-General; Mr. David S. Barry of Washington; Hon. Maurice T. Moloney of Illinois; Rev. M. A. Quirk of Illinois; Mr. Michael H. Cox of Massachusetts; Mr. W. J. O’Hagan, Vice-President for South Carolina; Hon. Thomas B. Fitzpatrick of Massachusetts; Hon. Lawrence O. Murray of Washington; Mr. Bernard J. Joyce of Massachusetts; Hon. John F. O’Connell of Rhode Island; Hon. John Hannan of New York; Mr. Humphrey O’Sullivan of Massachusetts; Rev. Michael A. McManus of New Jersey; General D. F. Collins of New Jersey; Mr. Michael J. Jordan, Vice-President for Massachusetts; Mr. John L. Murray of New York; Mr. Patrick J. Haltigan of Washington; and Mr. Thomas Zanslaur Lee, Secretary-General of the Society.

The press was represented by the following gentlemen: Jerome S. Fanciulli, Associated Press; John Monk, _New York Sun_; A. P. Arnold, United Press Association; David S. Barry, _Providence Journal_; J. W. Bathon, _Washington Post_; Archie Jamieson, _Washington Herald_; James R. Quirk, _Washington Times_; and W. H. Landvorgt, _Washington Star_.

Divine blessing was invoked by Rev. Dr. Joshua P. L. Bodfish of Canton, Mass., after which a flashlight picture of the assemblage was successfully taken by the National Press Association of No. 1423 F Street, Washington, for the benefit of those who wished a photographic souvenir of the occasion.

The menu, which was finely served, was as follows:

Martinis

Lynnhavens

Clear Green Turtle

AMONTILLADO
Celery Salted Almonds Pim-Olas

Medallion of Bass a la Marguery
CHATEAU PERRON
Pommes a l’Etoile

Sweetbreads a la Conti
PONTET CANET
Petits Pois

Fresh Mushrooms sous cloche

Sorbet Renaissance

Quail Piquee sur Canape
CHAMPAGNE
Salade Romaine

Biscuit Tortoni Petits Fours

Camembert

Cafe Noir

White Rock Cigars and Cigarettes

After substantial justice had been done every part of the dinner, the President-General asked for attention and said:

“_Ladies and Gentlemen, as well as Honored Guests of the American
Irish Historical Society_: If I feel somewhat overawed, somewhat
oppressed, by the consciousness of standing in the place formerly
occupied by a man of such national, nay, international, reputation as
the President-General whom I succeed, all the more is it incumbent
upon me on this occasion to take my duty very seriously, and endeavor
to discuss with the sobriety and earnestness appropriate to one of my
profession the aims which this organization has in view, and the
things to be sought after or avoided in prosecuting those aims.

“Let me call your attention, particularly the attention of the many
new acquisitions whom I am so happy to see here tonight, to the five
words which form the motto upon our corporate seal: ‘_That the world
may know._’ The interpretation put upon that legend by another former
President-General, Thomas J. Gargan, of whom I must speak later on,
was this: ‘To place the Irish element in its true light in American
history.’ It is not necessary to warn you, at this stage of our
existence as a body, that the American Irish Historical Society does
not live either to pick holes in the coats of others or to trail its
own coat over the sod by way of challenge. Rather, I may say, the
purpose of our organization is defensive; to employ the armory of
historical truth in vindicating for men of Irish blood that place in
American history of which it has been defrauded either wilfully or
through ignorance. Many causes have contributed to create
misrepresentation on the one hand and honest misconception on the
other. We need not discuss these causes in detail just at present. I
am here to deliver a general address and not a special lecture in
history. But we all know, and every well-informed American is aware,
that the ignorant and the vulgar not so very long ago had but two
well-defined ideas about Irishmen: One, that they wore red whiskers
and carried hods; the other, that they loved a fight. The former of
these errors we strive to dissipate—and I think we have succeeded
notably—by the very fact of the Society’s existence and by the
publication of the annual journal with its roster of membership. As to
the latter, we are not, I fear, in a position to deny it without some
reserve. It may, however, be fairly claimed that this Society has
already done much to proclaim its sympathy with the arts of peace in
electing a member of my profession to be the immediate successor of
such a man as Admiral McGowan.

“So far to establish what I take to be the solid reasons which justify
the existence of such a society as ours. Now let me call your
attention to an absolutely indispensable condition of our success in
the future, as it has been, I think, one great factor of our success
in the past. It is our aim to make better known the Irish pages of
American history. These pages do not refer, let us remember, to any
one section, type, class or creed of Irish-descended Americans, but to
all without discrimination. And this function of our Society evidently
will never be, could never have been, effectively discharged without a
hearty collective effort to sink all differences of religious belief
and of political connections. We must continue to act, within our own
body and in pursuit of our common object, independently of those
sectional, religious or political ties which bind us individually as
loyal citizens and as sincere Christians. From the days of Brian Boru
and of Dermot McMorough down to our own time we know that that little
isle where grows the ‘chosen leaf of bard and chief’ has been a prey
to the invader only because the invader knew how to foment dissension
among its native sons. Gentlemen, this essential quality of our
organization is both forcibly and happily borne in upon us in these
days when we hear that the land of our fathers is at last beginning to
assert its power as a political unit by realizing that very idea of
being ‘Irish first,’ that idea of national unity, her neglect of which
has been the comfort of her enemies in times past.

“Their proneness to dissension has been more or less facetiously
accounted for by the theory that the Irish are a nervously high-strung
race, who find a pleasant counter-irritant in the ‘man-enobling
conflict.’ It has been said that an Irishman would rather fight
another Irishman than a man of alien race, simply because he
recognizes in an antagonist of his own blood the most promising
opportunity of a truly exciting battle.

“The memory is still fresh upon me of that important event at which I
had the honor of assisting on the 16th of last month, the unveiling of
the beautiful tablet placed in the State House at Providence, Rhode
Island, to the glorious memory of Major-General John Sullivan of
Revolutionary fame. We all know that this splendid and public-spirited
memorial is one of the achievements of the past year on which our
Society has reason to congratulate itself. Let the still fresh memory
of that proud occasion be my excuse for dwelling at such great length
upon the warlike qualities of the Irish race. For these qualities, in
truth, are quite generally admitted by both friends and enemies. Our
more pressing call, it seems, is to emphasize the achievements of the
Irish race in peace. After listening to those eloquent tributes in the
Providence State House from the lips of Governor Higgins, Ex-Governor
Lippitt and others, it was borne in upon me how easily a public man’s
peaceful achievements may be eclipsed by his military exploits. John
Sullivan was, as our tablet records, a statesman of distinction; as a
jurist he left his mark upon the legal history of New Hampshire, and
yet it is almost exclusively as the patriot soldier that he lives
today in the popular mind.

“Another hero of the American Revolution whose memory we must tonight
recall with especial satisfaction was Commodore John Barry. We have
the right, gentlemen, and I think that we should insist upon it
strenuously in these days, to call Barry the Irish father of that
splendid American navy of which we are all so justly proud. And it is
matter for congratulation that, since our last annual meeting, and
largely through our own organized efforts, historical justice is now
at last to be done to the man who was a commissioned Captain in the
American navy when Paul Jones was only a Lieutenant. A prominent site
has been officially chosen for a statue of Barry at the national
capitol, and we have every reason to hope that the work will be
executed by some sculptor of great repute of Irish descent.

“But, proud as we must all feel of Irish services to the Republic ‘on
the decks of fame’ and on many a stricken field, is it not rather our
duty as an organization to shed the light of history upon Irish
services in the council chamber and the law court, in science and
scholarship, and the fine arts? In the retrospect of the year that is
gone, what Irish-descended American can fail to thrill with pride at
the spectacle of that distinguished and at the same time enthusiastic
assembly which paid honor to the memory of Augustus St. Gaudens, a
native of Dublin, and the foremost American sculptor of our own day?

“And in this retrospect we have to include at least one example of the
type of Irish descendant which rises to eminence in the peaceful
professions in our late-lamented and highly-respected
President-General, Thomas J. Gargan, whose obsequies in Boston last
fall were the occasion of so impressive a manifestation of civic
gratitude and esteem. Surely his life was in itself a powerful effort
to ‘place the Irish element in its true light in American history.’
Eminent in the legal profession in a community where the standards of
that profession are especially high, he also gave to the state of
Massachusetts as a trusted official such services as were duly
acknowledged by the presence in his funeral cortege of the Mayor of
Boston, the present and past Governors of Massachusetts, and an
immense multitude of citizens. And if this great lawyer’s career
brilliantly illustrated the truth that the Irish race excel in other
things besides fighting I must not pass over in silence that other
departed fellow-member, Major John Crane of New York, a man whose
career was illustrious both in war and in peace, a citizen who first
turned his back upon commercial success in order to take up arms for
what he considered the cause of the Republic, and then, when he had
won glory for himself in four years of active military service,
returned to the peaceful pursuits of commerce to achieve a place among
the leading merchants of New York, and at last to dispense his
honorably-acquired wealth and to apply his talents and his time in the
charitable relief of poverty and suffering.

“I have purposely left to the end of this retrospect my sincere
tribute to the memory of that man whose death, coming in the interval
since our last annual meeting, has been a peculiar loss to us as a
body. In addressing you two years ago, my distinguished predecessor,
Admiral McGowan, said, referring to our then Secretary, Thomas
Hamilton Murray: ‘A competent secretary is a priceless possession for
any society, and we have been especially fortunate in this respect.’
The distinguished Admiral was speaking in the presence of Mr. Murray
when he uttered those words. What may we not add now that death has
removed the restraints imposed in such circumstances by modesty and
good taste. Thomas Hamilton Murray was indeed a man to whom the
American Irish will forever owe a debt of gratitude for his work along
that line which we, as a society, have especially taken for our own.
He was a journalist by profession, an ornament, I may say, to American
journalism, as so many good American Irish have been; and before this
Society had come into existence he had already anticipated its aims,
by rendering out of his own initiative and his own exertions no
insignificant service toward placing the Irish element in its true
light in American history. From its very inauguration our Society was
aware that no other man in all the length and breadth of this country
could have held his position with so much advantage to the cause which
we have at heart. To say nothing of that which many of us must feel in
the removal of a dear friend, the Society cannot but be conscious of
the calamity it has sustained in the loss of this truly ‘priceless
possession’ to whom our rapid success in the past has been so largely
due.

MICHAEL J. JORDAN.

Of Boston, Mass.

Vice-President of the Society for Massachusetts.
]

“In the year that has passed our Society has singularly suffered from
the loss of many of its ardent and enthusiastic workers. These
pioneers of our organization have been summoned from our midst, but
the heritage they have left is beyond measure or computation. Their
memory will always be fragrant with the sweetness of their lives, and,
whilst we chant their requiem, may they enjoy the hosannas that are
sung for them in their happier abode.

“Coming now to the actual aspect of our life as an organization, we
may congratulate ourselves, I rejoice to say, upon a thoroughly sound
and vigorous condition. Most especially would I single out for mention
the astonishing success of our new membership committee. That
committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. John J. Linehan, was
appointed in New York City, I need hardly remind you, scarcely two
months ago, with the object of promoting the numerical increase of our
membership, while of course taking due care that its quality should
not fall below the standard which we had thus far maintained. So
zealously and efficiently has the work of the committee been done, so
just and cordial has been the appreciation of the Society’s aims, that
within one month 125 new and good names were added to our roster, and
the total increment, I believe, since the appointment of the
committee, amounts at the present moment to something over 200. I am
sure that we all heartily welcome these new recruits, and in voicing
that welcome let me express the hope that every man of the new squad
intends to do his utmost for the furtherance of our great aims.

“To do this, gentlemen, no mere machine action of the Society will be
adequate. Our work is, remember, a work of enlightenment, therefore a
work dealing with the intellect of our times and our country, and not
to be accomplished without intellectual exertion. Now while societies,
academies and universities have their immense value as a directive and
unifying apparatus, the intellectual forces which operate under their
control must of necessity be individual. To be effectual all effort
must be controlled by system, but the most perfect system without an
abundance of individual effort must be like an elaborately-constructed
piece of artillery without a sufficient supply of ammunition.

“Our system has now been elaborated by the inauguration of the
_Recorder_, to be published at stated periods and which will serve as
a vehicle for such notices on topics of American Irish history as the
zeal and enterprise of individual members may prompt. It is
confidentially hoped that the supply of such material will be both
abundant and rich in quality, and that our _Recorder_ will become in
itself a valuable magazine of information in those lines of research
which are the Society’s special province.

“Let me even urge on members the advantage to our cause that would be
attained if every one of us will make a point of forwarding to the
Secretary-General, Judge Lee, who has assumed, in addition to the many
exacting duties of his present office, that of editor of our
_Recorder_, any newspaper clippings or other material concerning
contemporary happenings relating to our work.

“Finally, gentlemen, it is in no perfunctory spirit that I here
publicly render thanks to the members of our official staff, without
whose zealous coöperation our year could not have been brought to the
happy and glorious conclusion in which we rejoice tonight. Since the
death of our beloved Secretary-General six months ago Judge Thomas Z.
Lee of Rhode Island has fulfilled in large measure the colossal duties
of that office, and to whom the Society owes more than mere words of
thanks. With him I associate in my heartfelt gratitude our esteemed
and respected Treasurer-General, Mr. Michael F. Dooley, whose devotion
to our work and our interests has been, I may say without
exaggeration, heroic. And, gentlemen, I must not conclude without
expressing in both my own behalf and that of the Society as a whole
those thanks which are fairly due to the various committees who have
so successfully carried out the work of organizing this meeting. I
hold that the manner in which that labor of love has been performed
has been in itself a very positive demonstration of the faculty of
concerted action which belongs to our race, at least on this side of
the Atlantic, if not everywhere and always. And now I conclude with my
personal thanks to all who are here tonight, especially the ladies,
who have given a fine atmosphere to this occasion and without whose
hearty and sympathetic countenances our gathering could not have been,
as I am confident it will be, a memorable one in the history of the
American Irish Historical Society.”

HON. PATRICK J. MCCARTHY: “Rhode Island proposes three cheers for the ladies.”

This suggestion met with a hearty response, and was quickly followed by similar proposals from representatives of Boston and New York.

PRESIDENT-GENERAL QUINLAN: The first toast on the program is “The President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt.”

This was drunk standing and was followed by three ringing cheers. The orchestra then played “The Star Spangled Banner,” which was sung by the assemblage.

PRESIDENT-GENERAL QUINLAN: We will now turn to the serious aspect of this page in our history. This evening we are especially honored, ladies and gentlemen, by having at this table one of the most distinguished men, not only in the United States, but in the world. Without further ado, without further expression, because it is like carrying coals to Newcastle, I will go on and introduce to you Hon. Edward D. White, Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Mr. Justice White was greeted with hearty applause and cheering as he arose, and, after order was restored, he spoke as follows:

“_Mr. President-General, Gentlemen of the American Irish Historical
Society, Ladies and Gentlemen_: When the privilege was extended to me
of coming here tonight there was also a request which was by me
declined, to respond to one of the set toasts. This was done because
it has been my wont since taking up judicial duty in Washington to
eschew as far as I could public speech-making, because the thought has
always been mine that if public speech-making were indulged in, even
occasionally, the habit might grow and thus I might become what it
seems to me is an abomination—a too loquacious and indiscreet
speech-making judge. Strange as it may seem to any of you who have had
to go over ponderous judicial opinions, the result of judicial work is
to cause one to hesitate about words. They come to the one who does
such work to be things which may be productive of great wrong if
misused or misapplied. True as this is as to judicial work generally,
it is more so when the character of that work in our own country is
considered. Under our system judicial duty is not confined to the
settlement of controversies between men. It is more extensive, since
it controls man in his relations to government and the relations of
government to the individual. It involves the power to limit
government itself, since upon it is cast the ultimate duty to maintain
the Constitution and apply its limitations. It, therefore, in a sense
not only restrains both the national and State governments, but
regulates their relations one to the other. From this all-embracing
extent of the judicial authority it must be apparent that in our own
country much more than in any other the discharge of judicial duty
involves the dealing with subjects of the most acute public concern,
where passion and political agitation are flagrant. When these things
are considered it is certain that the performance of the judicial
function in our country—to paraphrase the words of the Romans—involves
the science of all things human and divine, the knowledge of all
things good and evil.

“With these thoughts in my mind I stand up upon the generous
solicitation of your President and look into your kindly faces and
form the purpose to say a few words concerning your and my duty to
preserve the institutions of government with which we are blest, and
with the thought comes the admonition that I must be circumspect and
say nothing which ought not to be said. Indeed, as I speak, there
comes unbidden to my mind that beautiful prayer of the Catholic
Liturgy where the Priest, as he approaches the Gospel, invokes the aid
of Almighty God to cleanse his mouth as with a living coal in order
that his lips may be worthy to syllable the inspired subject which he
is about to approach.

“Before I say anything further, however, let me briefly establish my
right to be among you tonight upon a more intimate basis than that of
a mere guest. This can hardly be done because of my being an Irish
American, for I am only of Irish blood on my father’s side in the
fourth generation. But my right to be one of you from another point of
view is quite apparent. In the state in which I was born there lived
an Irish American bearing the name of White. At a public dinner—I do
not believe it was an Irish American affair—he sat near one whose name
was O’Rourke. Leaning over to him he said: ‘Mr. O’Rourke, what
countryman are you?’ ‘What countryman?’ said O’Rourke. ‘I am an
Irishman. Why do you ask me?’ ‘Because I thought from your name you
might be a Frenchman,’ was the reply. Quick came the retort: ‘That is
more than I can think of you, for I can kick a White out of every sod
in Ireland.’

“But there is a deeper claim than mere name on my part to be one of
you, since going back over my whole life from the time when I sat as a
boy learning to read out of a primer, down to this night, I can look
back to nothing of joy or sorrow, of success or failure, where some
Irish American friend did not stand near me aiding in the realization
or accomplishment of the one or sustaining and supporting in
submission to the other.

“When the French Republic was born some one asked a great French
orator to prove its existence. He said: ‘The Republic is like the sun;
blind is he who sees it not.’ And so tonight I shall not attempt to
recount the many and priceless services from the days of the
Revolution to this time which the Irish American has rendered to the
upbuilding of this great and free country which we possess and enjoy.
Why should this be done, since their services shine down the pathway
of our national life with an effulgence so bright that blind indeed
must he be who sees them not.

“The question which I ask myself, therefore, is not the superfluous
one of what the Irish Americans have done for our country, but what
they owe it. By what means were they enabled to render the great
services which they have rendered? The answer is clear. Their
possibilities arose from the wise, the free institutions which our
forefathers founded and under the shelter of which the Irish Americans
were enabled here to seek a haven and to establish their new homes,
thus affording them the opportunity of rendering the services which
they have rendered to the expansion and preservation of our
institutions.

“This being true, I ask myself the question, and I ask of each one of
you, how best can we honor them? How best can we show our appreciation
of the great work which they have done? The answer comes spontaneously
to the mind: By preserving and perpetuating those institutions which
have blessed them so much and which they have in return so helped to
establish and preserve.

“As I look, Mr. President, at present conditions in our country, there
are indications to my mind of great danger to our institutions. It
seems to me I observe a tendency in the minds of the people to forget
how vital to their perpetuation is the preservation of all the wise
limitations which our forefathers ordained. It seems to me that there
is a growing forgetfulness of the fact that the liberty which our
fathers founded was not license but a liberty restrained by law; that
the government which they established was one of limited powers and
divided authority, national and local, each fulfilling their separate
functions and each intended to move in their allotted sphere like the
orbs of the Sidereal universe, thus securing the plenitude of local
rights whilst at the same time obtaining national power and authority,
not unlimited, but confined to its allotted orbit.

“I say that it seems to me there is a tendency to forget these things
because it is observable at the present time that wherever an evil
obtains which needs remedying the tendency of the public mind is to
attribute the evil, not to a mistaken administration, but to the
existence of some one of those great safeguards upon the preservation
of which our institutions depend. So also it seems to me it is
observable that there is a great tendency in the public mind, whenever
it is deemed that a wrong requires remedy, to grow restive under the
restraints imposed by constitutional limitations, to regard them as
antiquated or obsolete, and thus seek to redress the wrong without
regard to those limitations, forgetful of the great truth that
whatever may be the temporary good to be accomplished by a disregard
of the fundamental limitations of our Constitution, such good is
insignificant in comparison with the untold harm which must result
from overthrowing the very foundations upon which our government rests
and by the adhering to which alone it can endure.

“Again, it seems to me that this tendency in the mind of the people
generally finds manifestation in the exertion of the powers of
government. There seems to me to be a growing tendency to chafe at the
limitations on power which the Constitution imposes; to seek to
accomplish some temporary good by means deemed to be the most direct,
wholly without reference to the question whether the resort to such
means will conflict with or set at naught those essential limitations
upon power which the Constitution was expressly adopted to secure.

“With this danger confronting us may I not say that if we would honor
and reverence the memory of the Irish Americans who have done so much
for the upbuilding of our institutions, that we may best do it by
seeing to it that the institutions which they have helped to build up
shall be preserved in all of their integrity. Ah, then, if we would
perform the duty of honoring those who have gone before, let us each
and all fix in our hearts the enduring purpose to see to it that these
evil tendencies are corrected and thereby renew and revivify our
resolution to preserve and perpetuate our institutions.

HON. VICTOR J. DOWLING.

Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

Jurist, Author and Historian.
]

“With this in mind, before I take my seat let me propose to you a
toast: ‘The Irish American of today, and the Irish American to come.
May they honor and reverence the memory of their forerunners by
bringing the splendor of their courage, the generosity of their
devotion and the keenness of their intellect to the perpetuation of
the government which the fathers founded, embodying, as it does,
liberty restrained from license, government, both national and local,
with limited and defined powers in the continued existence of which
our future of peace and prosperity are bound up and in whose
perpetuation the hopes of all mankind who value true liberty are so
intimately involved.’”

Mr. Justice White’s eloquent and graceful address received the closest attention, and great applause and cheering followed the stirring toast at the end.

PRESIDENT-GENERAL QUINLAN: “Ladies and Gentlemen, some time ago I was present at an entertainment where the orator of the occasion bore an international reputation. The chairman of the evening took an hour and a quarter to introduce the gentleman, but his speech lasted only a quarter of an hour. Now I could take an hour and a half to introduce the next speaker to you, but I will just announce his name, the Hon. Victor J. Dowling, Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, who will respond to the toast “Irish Pioneers in New York.””

Judge Dowling said:

“While we know that an Irishman was in Columbus’ crew on his first
voyage to the New World, we have no means of ascertaining whether any
of his countrymen were on the ships of either Verrazano, Gomez or
Hudson, upon the first three occasions when the Bay of New York was
seen by Europeans. The mystery which has enveloped the early life of
Hudson and which shrouded his end surrounds as well many of the
details of his memorable cruise. We do know that besides the captain
there were but two aboard that vessel out of its total equipment of
from sixteen to twenty men who spoke English—Robert Juet of Limehouse,
England, the captain’s clerk, who kept the journal of the voyage, and
one John Colman, a sailor, referred to as an Englishman by Juet, but
who may have been of Irish descent. He was evidently an experienced
seafaring man and a follower of Hudson’s, for in the first known
reference to the latter, which is the record of his voyage of
discovery for the Muscovy Company, April 19, 1607, in search of a
passage by way of the North Pole to Japan and China, Colman was one of
the sailors. As Hudson passed the Highlands of Navesink September 1,
1609, and entered the lower bay, he was so impressed with its beauty
that he described it as ‘a very good land to fall in with, and a
pleasant land to see.’ On September 6 a boat’s crew was dispatched
from the ship and, entering and passing the Narrows, beheld the first
view of Manhattan Island. The land encircling the bay was covered with
trees, grass and flowers and the air was filled with delightful
fragrance. On their return the crew were attacked by Indians in two
canoes, and John Colman was killed by an arrow piercing his throat—the
first blood offering to the approaching civilization which was to
revolutionize the hitherto peaceful scene.

“While the Dutch occupation of New Amsterdam continued, we find no
positive traces of Irish names or inhabitants, save in two instances.
One is the mention of the Irishman from Virginia who went to
confession to Father Jogues in 1643, while the latter was temporarily
sojourning in the town after his rescue by the Dutch from the hands of
the Indians, and who advised the latter of the presence of Jesuit
fathers in Virginia. The other is the name, several times appearing,
of ‘Thomas, the Irishman,’ concerning whom I have been able to collect
many scattered items. His real name was Thomas Lewis, although he is
to be found referred to at various times as ‘Thomas, the Irishman,’
‘the Irishman,’ and Lodewycksen or Lodewycksz, as well as by his
proper name. He was the captain of one of Director Stuyvesant’s war
yachts, which served for a dispatch-boat as well.

“His was an interesting career, and I am glad to be able to present
some of its salient features, which may enjoy at least the merits of
novelty. He was born in Belfast, and becoming involved in the
Cromwellian wars, his family was dispersed, his two sisters first
flying to Holland for refuge, where they afterwards died. They were
followed by Lewis, who upon their death applied to the West India
Company at Amsterdam and was by them sent to New York. In the
Directors’ letter to Director Stuyvesant and his Council (June 14,
1656), they notify the latter: ‘In the ship _Blauwe Duiff_ (Blue Dove)
goes also over Thomas Lodewicksen, carpenter, for whom the Company,
too, paid the fare, on condition of his remaining in New Netherland
for three years, or if he leave before he must refund the passage
money to you in Holland coin or its equivalent.’ The _Blauwe Duiff_
arrived here September 5, 1656. Lewis appears to have gone to Albany
(then Fort Orange) for in 1658 he was in partnership there with
Reynier Wisselpennigh as carpenters and builders and they sued the
local church for 270 guilders for building the ‘Doop-huysie’
(baptistry) and received the full amount. In 1661 his partner and he
had differences over the cost of fitting out a sloop they were
building. He must have come to New Amsterdam shortly thereafter, as
the court records here show. In the meantime he had married, in Fort
Orange, Geesje Barents.

“On October 17, 1662, Reiner Wisselpenninck brought suit against
‘Tomas, the Irishman’ in the Mayor’s Court at the City Hall, to
recover a balance of six beavers due for a half-interest in a bark,
and two beavers for a barrel of tar. Defendant counterclaimed and
plaintiff had judgment for three beavers only. On May 29, 1663,
certain tobacco contained in the bark of ‘Thomas, the Irishman’ and
belonging to Samuel Etsal was attached in a suit against the latter.
Hendrick Zanzen Smith sued Gysbert Frerickzen October 2, 1663, and in
that action an attachment was levied on moneys belonging to defendant
in the hands of ‘Thomas, the Irishman.’

“In June, 1663, Director Stuyvesant sailed from Manhattan to Wildwyck
(Kingston) on Lewis’ yacht, and on the 15th of the month while lying
in the ‘Long Reach’ (North River) he sent a message to the magistrates
at Fort Orange, in the course of which he noted ‘this is written in
haste on board of the Irishman’s yacht.’

“In the correspondence between Director Stuyvesant and Captain Cregier
at the Esopus and in the minutes of the government of the latter
reference is made five times in 1663 to the arrival of Lewis at ‘the
redoubt’ at Esopus from Manhattan; on August 5th, on September 1st
(when he and Claesje Hoorn came in their yachts) and on September
17th, 19th and 21st. On all these occasions he is referred to as
‘Thomas, the Irishman.’ In an order of the Council, August 29, 1663,
Tomos Lodewyck and Claes Lock were ordered to await orders from
Captain Cregier before the Redoubt (Roudont). This was during the
Indian war in the Esopus.

“Thomas Lewis was an active and successful man, and in addition to
being a ship-owner and pilot was evidently engaged in trade and in the
sale of liquor. He first figured in the Mayor’s Court February 5,
1667, when he was sued by John Danrell, and the matter was referred to
arbitrators. On the 7th of the same month he contributed eight beaver
skins to the support of the minister. He was engaged in a long
controversy with Simon Turcq in 1668 over 230 planks, which he claimed
to have theretofore paid, and out of which rose a suit against Poulus
Leenderson for ninety of the same boards. In 1669 he was sued by
Warner Wessels, the city farmer, for taking into his house ’1 hogshead
of rum and 3 anckers of stilled waters’ without accounting therefor.
This suit he won. But he lost an action brought by Hendrick Obe to
recover f.79.5 in wampum for the excise duties on some wine and beer.
At a Council meeting held at Elizabethtown, New Jersey, November 7,
1671, it was ordered that no corn or provision be transported out of
the Delaware River except what was then aboard the sloop of Thomas
Lewis, then in the river, for which he was given a special license. In
1672 he sued William Waldron for borrowing his boat without his
consent, and then setting it adrift, when it was thereafter found by
John Benneco at Staten Island, who demanded salvage. The defendant was
mulcted in the salvage and was directed to turn the boat over to the
owner, who was to send his boy to the island to take possession of it.
At a council held at Fort James January 27, 1673, permission was given
to all vessels from this point to go up the Delaware River above New
Castle, upon producing the Governor’s certificate in consequence of a
complaint concerning Capt. Lewis’ sloop. During the Dutch
re-occupation of the city, when war again threatened, we find in the
‘Records of New Amsterdam’ ‘that the Schout, Burgomasters and Schepens
being assembled “Collegialiter” in the City Hall of New Orange March
10, 1674, they sent for the skippers and barquers of the city, when
they were notified of the Governor General’s order that no more than
two sloops shall go at once to Willemstadt and Esopus, and one to the
South river, and that they sail alternately to be determined by lot;
also that no passengers be conveyed without passports.’ Whereupon the
skippers making known in turn their views, ‘Thomas Lewis is satisfied
with what the Governor and Council decree.’

“We find records of trips made by him to Virginia, Boston, Rhode
Island and the Delaware (South) River from 1665 to 1669, carrying
merchandise of all kinds. September 26, 1671, Governor Lovelace
promises ‘Mr. Tom’ at the Delaware to send him information by Peter
Alrick ‘who tomorrow will embark in Tom the Irishman’s yacht.’ In
1675, he was appointed to make a calculation of the expense for
building a new church in conjunction with Adolph Pieters and Abraham
Jansen. We find that in 1678 he owned a sloop called the _Katharine_.

“In a list of the richest inhabitants of New York made February 19,
1674, Thomas Lewis is credited with the possession of property valued
at 6,000 florins, Holland currency, only sixteen appearing therein as
being wealthier. At the time of the English occupation he owned real
estate on the west side of Pearl Street between Wall and William
streets, then known as the Water Side, then valued at $10,000; also on
the South Street (now William) between Hanover Square and Wall Street.

“From the records of the baptisms in the Dutch church we learn that he
had eight children, named, respectively, Barent, Cornelia, Leendert,
Catharina, Cornelia, Thomas, Cornelis and Rachel. Anthony Brockholst
was one of the witnesses at the baptism of the last named in 1678. The
descendants of Barent, Leendert (or Leonard) and Thomas are scattered
throughout the Hudson Valley, and the family name appears at various
times in the records as Lenwis, Leuis, Lieuwens, Lieuwes, Lieuwis,
Lievens, Lievenszen, Lieuens, Liewensen, Liewes, and Liewis. In the
New York Genealogical and Biographical Record (Volume XXXIV) the date
of Thomas Lewis’ death is given as September 24, 1684, and his age as
56. His will was admitted to probate under Governor Dougan, April 1,
1686, and letters testamentary were issued to his wife Geesie Lewis.
She then lived with her daughter Catharine along the Strand (Lang
Strant) and they were members of the Dutch church. Her sons then
living were Barent, Thomas and Leonard, with the eldest Lodiwick
(apparently born at Fort Orange) who at the time of his father’s death
was living with Lewis Thomson at Belfast, and thereupon returned to
New York, where he died without issue.

“But there are some names of merchants doing business here from 1643
to 1647 which, if not English, must be Irish, and while the present
ascertainment of their exact nationality seems hopeless, yet careful
research might still enroll them in the honor roll of Irish pioneers.
These were Rev. Francis Doughty, the English minister, residing in
Pearl Street, between Whitehall and State streets, who on March 28,
1647, received a grant of 6,666 (Dutch) acres of land at Mespath
(Newtown patent); Robert Butler, residing on the same street, between
Stone and Bridge streets; Michael Pickett, residing on Broad Street,
near Beaver; and Thomas Sanderson, residing on Beaver Street, who
received grants of land on this island July 13, 1643, October 25,
1653, and September 14, 1665.

“There was a Jan Patrickx or John Patrick here in 1653 and a James
Code or Cody in 1658. Thomas Higgins was sued for value of 275 pieces
of firewood on November 20, 1661, and by Thomas Hall for the return of
a saw January 31, 1662.

“Among the names of those to whom grants of land under the Dutch
occupancy were made were Thomas Hall, Thomas Chambers and George
Holmes, each receiving more than one grant; the first two took the
oath of allegiance to the English authorities between October 21 and
26, 1664.

“The English capture of New Amsterdam in 1664 did not, so far as we
have any records, lead to any influx of Irish settlers here. So novel
was their coming that we find reference made as a remarkable fact to
the presence of the person, unnamed, who is supposed to have been the
first direct Irish immigrant to New York, being an Irish girl, a
servant in the household of Isaac Allerton, a well-known English
tobacco merchant, and who was working therein in 1665, shortly after
the English occupation. Little could she have dreamt of the host of
her sister voyagers who brought to this country the spirit of
devotion, of self-sacrifice, of faithful discharge of duty, which
ultimately forced itself upon the grudgingly-given attention of the
community and admiration for which as well as for the tenderness and
purity of the women of the Irish race was the most potent force in
tearing down the wall of hostility and hatred which intolerance and
ignorance had reared in the way of the progress of the Irishmen in
this country towards recognition, equality and success.

MR. JOHN J. DALY.

Of New York City.

An Earnest and Helpful Member of the Society.
]

“Patrick Hayes must have been a resident of the city for some years.
He apparently came from the colony of Maryland. We find a record of
his service as a juryman in the Mayor’s Court on many occasions during
the year 1666. He evidently was a tapster and hotel-keeper, for he had
controversy with the excise in 1667. He must have been engaged in
general business as well, for in suits between third parties moneys
were attached in his hands in 1667 and he sued various parties for
goods sold in 1667 and 1668. In two of these cases Thomas Carr was a
joint plaintiff. In the action of William Urgent against John Ashman
for slander, June 2, 1668, he was a witness to prove his knowledge of
the plaintiff as a freeman in the province of Maryland. John Daaly was
a plaintiff in two suits in the Mayor’s Court in 1670. John Quigly
figures as a plaintiff in the Mayor’s Court against Ralph Huddison
August 15, 1671, when he sued successfully to recover £16, 10 sh., for
earthenware sold. He served as a juror in the same month, and was one
of the arbitrators appointed in the suit of Samuel Bach and David
Gomer against the Ketch Betty (attached). Dennis McKarty sued Thomas
Edwards, master of the Ketch ‘Society’ in the Mayor’s Court October
24, 1671, to recover £5 for cutting and chipping logwood, and
recovered judgment. He was himself sued by Samuel Hall November 14,
1671. Thomas Griffin was one of the public cartmen of the city
February 13, 1672.

“During the intervening years, until the Dutch re-occupation in 1673,
when its name was changed to New Orange, the city saw but few Irish
faces and the list of the burghers contains no Irish names. Upon the
re-cession of the city to England in 1674, when English rule became an
assured fact, it is reasonable to suppose that some Irish arrivals
must have been noted. Yet we can only surmise that from the names as
we afterwards find them on the rolls. So, in 1674, Andrew Clare is
recorded as owning land on Pearl Street, between Whitehall and State
streets; in 1677, we note as residing here, William Walsh; in 1680,
Abraham Corbett, a distiller, residing on Broadway near Exchange
Place, and William Cox, flour merchant, residing on Hanover Square; in
1691, Lawrence Reade; in 1695, John Morris and Peter Matthews; in
1698, William Morris; in 1702, Thomas Flynn, surgeon, and Patrick
Crawford; in 1703, John Barr, Thomas Carroll, Richard Flemming,
Bartholomew Hart, Henry Mooney and Peter Moran; in 1708, Anthony
Lynch; in 1710, Thomas Kearney; in 1711, James Maxwell. All these were
freemen. In 1696, the then Governor Fletcher returned to the home
authorities a list of eleven Irish Catholics residing in the city,
none of whom was a burgher nor a landowner. Captain Evans, of the
_Richmond_ frigate, who was here with the Governor, was the son of an
Irish shoemaker.

“It is significant that we first begin to notice Irish names after the
administration of Governor Dongan had commenced. The commanding
position held by an Irishman for the first time in Colonial history
must have attracted to this colony many of his less favored
compatriots, who found here not only a haven of refuge where they
could practise their religion, but a favored spot where under his
enlightened sway the hope of entire civil liberty was near
realization. The life and services of Thomas Dongan have never
received their just recognition at the hands of historians, nor do we
realize the debt, which, as citizens of a great city, we owe this man
whose conceptions of liberty were far in advance of his time. At the
risk of triteness I cannot forbear epitomizing his career, for it is
that of the first Irishman who not only figured prominently in the
city’s history, but, as well, moulded its future and made it possible
of achievement. Thomas Dongan, second Earl of Limerick, was born in
1634 at Castletown, County Kildare, Ireland, the youngest of the three
sons of Sir John Dongan, Baronet. His mother was a sister of Richard
Talbot, Earl of Tyrconnel and Lieutenant-Governor of Ireland. The
family removed to France after the execution of Charles I, when Dongan
entered the army and was commissioned by Louis XIV, in an Irish
regiment, where he rose by degrees to the rank of Colonel. Returning
to England after the Restoration, after declining an offer of
preferment in the French Army, he was commissioned and an annual
pension of five hundred pounds given him. In the same year, 1678, he
was sent as Lieutenant-Governor to Tangier under Lord Inchiquin, where
he served for two years, returning to London to spend the life of a
man of society and a favorite at Court. Through the influence of the
Duke of York he was made Governor of the Province of New York, his
jurisdiction including parts of Maine besides Long Island, Martha’s
Vineyard, Nantucket and all the land from the Connecticut River to
Delaware Bay. He was also commissioned Vice-Admiral. Arriving in New
York August 25, 1683, from Nantasket, he had on the way hither
promised the inhabitants of the easterly end of Long Island that ‘no
laws or rates for the future should be imposed but by a General
Assembly’—but a slight foretaste of what he was really to accomplish.
The population of the city was then less than four thousand and it
extended from the Bay to the entrenchments along Wall Street. From the
Collect Pond (the site of the Tombs) to the northwest towards the
North River extended a marsh of seventy acres. From the Bouweries to
Harlem there stretched a wood haunted by bears and wolves, and within
the city walls themselves bear hunts took place in the orchards, one
located between Cedar Street and Maiden Lane. Under his rule, general
hunts were held to exterminate wolves from the city. The inhabitants
were largely Dutch, but there were many French Huguenots and some few
English. In this rather primitive community, great things were about
to be done for liberty. Pursuant to his instructions from the Duke,
Dongan ordered an election of a ‘General Assembly of all the
freeholders by the persons whom they shall choose to represent them,’
in order to consider with the Governor and Council ‘what laws are fit
and necessary to be made and established for the good weal and
government of the said colony and its dependencies and all the
inhabitants thereof,’ with full liberty of consultation and debate
among the members. All laws passed were to be subject to the veto of
the Governor, and if approved by him were to be submitted to the Duke
of York, remaining effective until disapproved by him. It is to the
glory of Dongan that he not only approved but initiated many of the
revolutionary measures afterwards enacted. On September 13, 1683, a
date memorable in the city’s history, the Freeholders of New York,
Long Island, Esopus, Albany and Martha’s Vineyard were notified to
elect representatives to meet in General Assembly in New York City on
October 17th. Seventeen delegates responded, whereof four were from
New York and Harlem. This first popular representative assembly met at
Fort James, and Matthias Nicoll was speaker. Fourteen acts were
passed, whereof the most important was, ‘The Charter of Liberties and
Privileges granted by His Royal Highness to the inhabitants of New
York and its dependencies.’ This was declared to be enacted ‘for the
better establishing the government of this province of New York, and
that justice and right may be equally done within the same.’ Among the
provisions of this well-named Charter of Liberties were those
providing for at least a triennial session of the General Assembly;
that every freeholder and freeman should have the elective franchise
without constraint or imposition; that majorities should decide every
issue; that representatives should be apportioned among the counties;
that the members should enjoy all the privileges of members of
Parliament; and in fine extending to the inhabitants of this colony
all the rights and privileges which Englishmen at home enjoyed under
Magna Charta and the provisions of English law. Entire freedom of
conscience and of religion were guaranteed to all peaceable persons
‘which profess faith in God by Jesus Christ,’ and the privileges of
all existing churches and their discipline were protected. No tax was
to be levied without the consent of the Governor, Council and
Assembly, thus recognizing the principle which the people had wrested
from Mary of Burgundy, in 1477, by the charter called ‘The Great
Privilege.’ And thus, for the first time in America, the people were
recognized as having legislative power and authority. Accepted by the
Governor and proclaimed October 31, 1683, a new standard was set for
popular liberty and popular aspiration so that Governor Hunter was
able to write to Dean Swift, in 1704, ‘this is the plan of government
they all aim at and make no scruple to own.’ The Duke of York accepted
this charter October 4, 1684, but when he became King James II he
refused to confirm it as being too liberal and implying too much
recognition of the people as a political entity, and it died by his
veto October 4, 1684. But the seed had been sown, and its growth could
not be stopped. At the same session, courts of justice were by statute
provided for; the naturalization of aliens was prescribed, and twelve
counties were established in the province. To add to the other
landmarks of his administration, a charter was granted to New York
City April 27, 1686, which has since continued to be the basis of our
municipal laws, rights, privileges, public property and franchises.
‘It was worded with care and showed that those who framed it were
possessed of a broad and enlightened sense of the sanctity of
corporate and private rights.’

“During all his busy rule, Dongan was kept occupied with questions of
statesmanship which none but an able and resourceful man could have
handled; whether adjusting boundary disputes with New Jersey,
Pennsylvania or Connecticut, or outgeneralling the Governor General of
Canada at his own game; whether negotiating with the Indians or
planning combinations with the other colonies to resist French
aggression or undertake offense operations;—in every phase of his
varied activities he displayed resourcefulness, tact and power.