Considerations on the petition and enclosures submitted to the director-general and council of New Netherland on the 2nd of this month by the mayors and schepens of this city presently serving. In as much as the director-general and council have presently no reason to believe that the petitioners, according to their repeated verbal declarations and earnest protestations, have no other aim than a due respect for and obedience to the honorable Company, as lords and patroons, and to the authorities appointed by them, as well as a proper interest in the particular welfare, peace and harmony of this country, community and city, the director-general and council have in consideration of these declarations and protestations given mature thought to their proposal. However, before giving a definite answer to the principle point, the director-general and council consider themselves duty-bound, for their own justification and for the better information and instruction of the petitioners as well as for the maintenance of the petitioners as well as for the maintenance of the honorable Company's privileges and the authority of its officers, to comment on the enclosure dated 27 November; and signed: Marten Crigier, P. L. vander Grift; in the margin: Cornelis van Werckhoven; and lower down: La Montagne.[1]
On the first point that the ensign, George Bacxter, and all the English commissioners would not acknowledge Mr. Werckhoven as a commissioner of the director-general and council; the reasons for this should have been stated, whether for incompetence or misbehavior, and also that the aforesaid Bacxter and the English commissioners would not allow that either the director-general or his representative should preside or be present. The director-general and council ask the petitioners and everyone else to consider whether this does not smack of rebellion, completely infringing upon and perverting the supreme authority of the commission and instructions of the director-general and council granted and entrusted by their High Mightinesses, the States-General and the Chartered West India Company. Concerning the second point, in which the aforesaid Bacxter and the English commissioners say in a written proposition that the director-general representing the Chartered West India Company would not protect them, the director-general and council declare this to be a false, perverted and forged calumny, and request the petitioners themselves to testify whether the director-general and council have not three times, with the assistance of faithful and loving subjects, sent out yachts and soldiers against the bandits and 2 or 3 times sent out soldiers on land, for which purpose the leaders or captains were authorized with proper commissions.
Concerning the third point, it is true that the commissioners of the director-general and council appeared upon summons and that after some debate, the director and council verbally informed the aforesaid commissioners that they were well satisfied and pleased that for the sake of peace the commissioners of the city should continue to live with the English commissioners from the adjacent villages in unity and harmony, giving the most liberal interpretation to the measuring of these words; however, it was by no means the intention of the director-general and council that subjects bound to the authority of the government by their oath and duty to allegiance and obedience should be allowed to enter with one another into a defensive and offensive alliance without the knowledge or order of their government and their council, much less that subjects should infringe on the high authority, vilify the commission received from our superiors, insult the commissioners appointed by the director-general and council under the aforesaid commission by publicly refusing to acknowledge them, and above all by passing resolutions without their knowledge, as was done by the aforesaid enclosure on 26 and 27 November.[2]
Concerning the fourth point, that the English commissioners declare the written answer of the director-general and council, stating their readiness to protect their subjects with the means given them by God and their superiors, unsatisfactory, and therefore must defend themselves and consider themselves as not owing any allegiance to the director-general, the tenor of which the director-general and council shall refer for the present time to their lords and superiors and let neutral parties be the judge; saying here only that ultra posse nemo obligatur,[3] the laws of nature teaches us that force may be repelled by force and that everyone has the right to defend and protect himself in a lawful manner. However, their statement that Jochum Pieterse, Willem Harckse and others have been robbed without anything having been done, the director-general and council declare to be false and calumnious, because on account of these robberies of Jochum Pietersz and the theft of horses immediately after the return of the director-general from fort Orange, three yachts under Poulus Leendersz and a land force of about 60 men commanded by Captain Crigier were sent out pursuant to the resolutions and commissions drawn up and passed for this purpose. With reference to our inability to protect these persons it should be remembered that the aforesaid persons and many others, contrary to the general order of the Company and the warnings of the director-general and council, have settled separately, far from villages, settlements or neighbors. Even if the director-general and council had or were to enlist hundreds of soldiers, whether at the expense of the Company or of the province of New Netherland, it would nevertheless be impossible to protect these separate settlers against robbers and thieves who come either under a cloak of friendship or are unknown and receive hospitable accommodations even by some English people, as the victims have stated. The fatherland too is not without instances of such robberies committed on separately living people; however, truly faithful and peace loving subjects have never taken that for an occasion to calumniate the government of our fatherland as unwilling or unable to protect them, much less claim not to owe any duty to their duly appointed authorities, as the English commissioners state without hesitation in the second and fourth paragraphs of the attached document.
Fifth, the answer given to the English by the commissioners from this city, according to their own statements on the 27th of November, in regard to the proposed alliance, and reported as well in the signed declaration among the attached documents, is not so much disapproved of by the director-general and council, because the mayor Marten Crigier and the schepen Paulus Leendersz have verbally and in detail given the reasons and motives for it, protesting earnestly that it was done for the sake of peace and without intention to prejudice thereby the authority and reputation of the lords-superiors nor their own or other people's damage, disadvantage or prejudice. What now furthermore concerns the petitions of the mayors and schepens, requesting that the director-general and council consent to and approve of the summons of some people from the respective Dutch villages and settlements in order to meet with the commissioners of this city and those from the dependent English villagers for the purpose of drawing up such a remonstrance to the lords-superiors concerning the country's peace and welfare as is deemed necessary, the following decision has been made on it:
