*

*

1682. In addition to "the schoolhouse, with the land, woodland, and meadow thereunto belonging," he should receive "four pounds and eight shillings for the rent of the school field." "The said schoolmaster shall also be paid yearly by the worthy consistory the sum of four pounds for taking charge of the church service as voorlezer and voorsanger." "For the burial of the dead as much as is customary in the said town." In place then of the 400 guilders, wampum (worth $32), which Jan Tibout had been promised in 1681, Welp was now promised 8 pounds and 8 shillings, New York currency ($21). On the other hand the later tuition rates are somewhat higher than the earlier. An enrollment of 36 pupils would, together with the salary, have brought in almost identically the same annual income, namely, about $75. The consistory was not a party to this agreement. It would seem, however, that the committee had the consistory's approval in some form, else the contract could not so certainly say, "The said schoolmaster shall also be paid yearly by the worthy consistory the sum of four pounds, etc." On the whole, immediate direct control by the people even in detail is everywhere evident. The church as well as the school committee appear to be instructed by the town meeting.

Anthony Welp, thus elected, remained in charge until the beginning of the Revolution, thus finishing the list of Flatbush masters so far as this account is concerned. There is no reason to doubt that the school had been kept continuously from 1659.

So far reference has been had only to the village of Midwoud proper. Within the township was a subordinate village called Oostwoud, or the New Lotts, which was laid out in 1677. Separate population returns are not given; but D: Van Zuuren's church membership list of 16801 shows that then about one-fifth of all were living in the new settlement. The rate list of 1683 shows 48 heads of families in the whole town. There would be then in the New Lotts some 10 families. But true to the Dutch tradition they must have a school. Indeed, in the very patent itself of 1677 one lot of land was given to Rem Remsen, "schoolmaster of the town for the time being." Probably, however, this was hardly more than a legal device to set aside a lot permanently for school purposes.

The first definite move for a school was in 1680. In a meeting of the consistory it was decided that since the people of Oostwoud had increased both in families and children, it was "necessary that such means be adopted there for their instruction and education as are elsewhere made use of." The consistory therefore "at the request of

1 Flatbush consistory minutes, p. 165 ff.

2 Doc. hist. of N. Y., ii, 293-4.

This patent is in the Kings County Hall of Records Division of Old Towns Records.

the people of that place, decided that there shall be chosen there a regular public schoolmaster" "and accordingly on December 14, 1680, in the presence of the Magistrates, there was chosen therefor the person of Dirk Storm."1

The contract made then is similar in many respects to Jan Tibout's of the succeeding year. The school year was similarly divided into two parts. From November to May, Storm himself must be present in person to give instruction; and similarly during the rest of the year "if ten or more children come, or if those who do come shall make up the tuition fees of ten." But if from May to November "six or more children come" his wife was to give the instruction. The hours were the same as Tibout's; "and at each session before the beginning of the same, the sign shall be given with the horn or drum." The compensation was to consist of "one hundred and forty gulden in grain at market price, yearly." "The people shall also furnish the schoolmaster with a suitable dwelling-house with a well, and convenient for holding school therein." The school fees were the same as Tibout's and there was the same provision for evening school. The frontier character of the place is well shown in the 13th article: "above all this the people of Oostwoud promise in particular that they will each year clear one morgen [two acres] of land and root out the stumps and plough the ground * * *" The term of service was to begin January 5, 1681, and last for three years. The contract was signed on the left side by the consistory, on the right by the magistrates, below by the deputies of Oostwout, and "on the other side by the schoolmaster." 2

*

* *

The proper relationships between the two parts of the township in the payment of the school expenses came to be a subject of dispute. On the 4th of March succeeding the signing of this contract, the constable of the town brought suit against certain representatives of Oostwoud charging "that the people of Oostwoud are unwilling to pay town charges." The defendants answered "that certain of the magistrates in conjunction with the church consistory have made a contract for a schoolmaster and the building of a schoolhouse and that they are willing to contribute therefor, in case the old town also helped to bear their burdens." In rendering the decision the justices of the peace asserted that "the contract was proper to be carried out and that all common expenses which are authorized and approved by a majority vote must also be paid by the people in common, each according to his circumstances." 3

'Flatbush consistory minutes, p. 49. The italics in the last sentence are used to call attention to De Van Zuuren's wish and theory as to the part played by the magistrates in making the contract. 2 Ibid., p. 49 ff.

Flatbush town records, 107: 18.

This is a clear case of town charges for school purposes, for building the schoolhouse, and also apparently for the salary, as no reference to paying Storm's salary is found in either the deacon's accounts or the church master's accounts. The question of paying the charges, however, was not yet settled. The following November (24) it was "voted by the inhabitants of Midwoud and Oostwoud and approved by the constable and overseers that the old town of Middewoud shall be held to pay its portion of the town's expenses and the salary of the minister; likewise Oostwoud: the latter promises to build a parsonage and school house and keep same in repairs; and to pay the teacher's salary (one hundred and forty guilders a year)."1

* * *

When Storm's contract expired it was renewed on much the same terms. Only he was not to demand "any salary in particular * * * Nevertheless, all who have plow and draught animals at Oostwoud, shall be bound to plow one day for him or harrow or draw loads or work in some other way with horses and draught beasts.” The contract was to continue at the pleasure of the parties, either to give the other a quarter's notice before a change.2

Either Storm never received the salary on his original contract or he was disposed to claim a salary in spite of the renewal contract, for the minutes of the court of sessions (1685) recite that—

an agreement [was] read between Derick [Dirk] Storm and Joseph Hegeman, Cornelius Berrien, John Stryker, William Guilliamse, and others in behalf of ye town of Flatbush, uppon which Storm prayed a sallary may be allowed him for serving the town as schoolmaster to their children. Court Stephens and Symon Jansen to examine ye accounts and agreement between them, and these partys to stand to their determination.3

It is interesting to note that the case was brought against these men as agents acting "in behalf of ye town of Flatbush," no mention being made of the church's connection. The same thing is apparent in the statement that Storm had been "serving the town as schoolmaster to their children." This may be taken as settling the question-if indeed it were a question-as to whether the school was a town or a church school. Legally, Storm was a public schoolmaster in the employ of the town. How the suit was decided by the commissioners does not appear.

This school at New Lotts was maintained continuously from its inception in 1680. While the information regarding it is not as full as is that respecting the school at Flatbush proper, there seems abundant justification for the assertion made. The list of schoolmasters can not be made out with any fullness. Storm probably taught through 1686. Jores Van Spyk, of whom nothing else is known, was in

1 Flatbush town records, 104: 200-1.

2 Flatbush consistory minutes, p. 52.

Strong, op. cit., p. 37. Both contracts must have been read; since some of these names are on one and some on the other paper.

.

charge in 1687 and 1688, and possibly a part of 1689.1 Following him was a man whose full name is not even known:

Mr Davit was Voorlezer and schoolmaster of Oostwoud for ten months service in the year 16% according to the statement of Mr Johannis Mortier's book and amounts to f 208-0.2

This is significant as showing not only this otherwise unknown service, but as indicating that the churchmasters were under obligation to this Mr David at the rate of 250 guilders a year. There was a schoolmaster the next year, though we do not know his name." Possibly it was Daniel Martineau, who was the incumbent from 1692 to 1700, at a salary for part of the time of 200 guilders annually and afterwards at 250 guilders."

So far as appears, the immediate successor of Martineau was Jan Langestraat, who was paid a salary of 260 florins a year from 1701 to 1706, inclusive. After this our records are very scattered, being mostly confined to repairs made by the churchmasters. In 1712 the schoolhouse was rented out. This could easily mean that some resident householder was schoolmaster and taught in his own dwelling. Jan Suydam was apparently living in the house in "171," for we find in that year a payment made by the churchmasters "to Jan Suydam for two hinges for a door on the schoolhouse at New Lotts." As he was afterwards voorlezer and probably schoolmaster at Flatlands, and was at this time voorlezer at Flatbush, it may be that he was schoolmaster at the time that these and other repairs were made on the New Lotts schoolhouse.

8

But if Suydam was schoolmaster at the New Lotts he did not hold the position after 1719, for on September 22 of that year the following interesting item appears in the churchmasters' accounts: "Paid to the school dame at Oostwoud for a bottle of rum when the well was made, 3 guilders.'

To us the school dame is the most interesting feature of the scene; for, apart from the possible summer teaching of the wives of Tibout, Storm, and Van Ekelen, this is the first and only instance noted of a school dame among the American Dutch. Their wish to find a voorlezer and voorsanger in the schoolmaster undoubtedly had marked effect in making them prefer a master to a mistress. We know nothing more of this dame, not even her name. The bottle of rum evidently meant that the neighbors were called in to help with the well, and some "good cheer" was useful in helping the cause along. Throughout the whole period the churchmasters were making repairs on this schoolhouse. In 1736 in particular they seem to have

1 Flatbush deacons' accounts, i, 70a, 75 B.

2 Flatbush churchmasters' accounts, p. 122.
Flatbush deacons' accounts, i, 80 B.

Flatbush churchmasters' accounts, pp. 118,

125, 128, 138, 147, 149, 150.

Ibid., pp. 154, 158, 162.
Ibid., p. 169.

1 Ibid., p. 185.

8 See p. 208.

Loc. cit., p. 192.

refitted the schoolroom, planks for a table, glass for the windows, "an hourglass for the schoolmaster." 1 What a vivid reminder of the past is this hourglass, a past that seems entirely gone. It is worthy of note that it is "for the schoolmaster." The dame was not a permanent institution.

After Langestraat in 1706, neither deacons nor churchmasters of Flatbush seem to have concerned themselves with financial remuneration for either voorlezer or master for the New Lotts. Probably they felt that the schoolhouse and lot was sufficient pay. Quite possibly, if we had fuller information, some compensating consideration would appear. The public interest is shown in the action of a town meeting in 1740 when it was decided that the surplusage from the "interest of the bonds which the church masters have in their possession * * * shall be used for the repair of the church and school (that is, the Low Dutch schoolhouse in Midwoud) and the schoolhouse in the New Lands." The next and last reference so far found has already been seen in the newspaper advertisement of 1758:

Also such another person wanted for the New Lotts; but if this last be well qualified to teach reading and writing English only, he may have good encouragement by applying to John Vandeveer and Johannes Lott living in the aforesaid precinct of Flatbush.3

It is interesting to note that while Flatbush proper was willing to have the English language alongside of the Dutch, the people of the New Lotts were willing to have English alone. It may be that these lived more in touch with their English neighbors; and it may be that one who had command of both languages was harder to find. The absence of arithmetic from the curriculum is worthy of note.

The evening school must, it seems, be taken as a regular institution at Flatbush and probably throughout the American Dutch. Jacob Joosten's contract of 1670 included in the schedule of school fees, "for evening school, reading, and writing, 3 gl." In 1678 Jan Emant, apprenticing his son to learn the smith's trade, stipulated that the boy should receive his board, clothing, and instruction in the evening school in winter. Dirk Storm's contract at the New Lotts in 1681, Tibout's contract at Flatbush in 1681, and Van Ekelen's at Flatbush in 1682, its renewal of 1683, all contrast in the schedule of tuition charges the rates for day school with those for evening school; Van Ekelen's of 1682, saying, "He shall receive from those who attend the day school, for a speller or reader, three guilders a quarter, and for a writer, four guilders. From those who attend evening school, for a speller or reader, four guilders, and for a writer, six guilders shall be given."

In another Flatbush apprenticeship (1695), the master agreed to furnish "washing, sleeping, victuals, and drink * * * also (to)

1 Loc. cit., p. 229.

3 See p. 183.

2 Flatbush town records, 106: 113.

* See p. 168.

Flatbush town records, 101: 32. • Strong, op. cit., p. 113.