The Jews of Windsor, 1790-1990. Jonathan V. Plaut

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ Elmsley, as Chief Justice and chairman of the Land Board of York, had proclaimed in early 1798 that “Jews cannot hold land in this province.”³⁵ “For Jews who wanted a place where citizenship was not defined in such a way as to exclude them and where land would be granted equally to Jews and where there would be equality of opportunity,” Elmsley’s decision was potentially devastating.³⁶ Undeterred, Moses returned to Sandwich determined to achieve social justice.

      Upon his return, Moses David found that Sandwich had been designated as the Western District capital and, in a further attempt to promote its successful growth, government officials had built a courthouse and jail to uphold the law and provide a proper setting for building houses and businesses.³⁷ And recognizing the need for a Protestant place of worship to uphold British morality and loyalty, officials decided to place a “discreet clergyman” in Sandwich and give him a church there “as an antidote to American contagion.” They chose Richard Pollard, a merchant colleague of Moses David turned minister, to lead St. John’s, the mother parish of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Western District and State of Michigan.³⁸

      Neither the erection of government buildings nor inducements for private housing produced the anticipated building boom. A report received by the Executive Council at York from the Grand Jury of the Western District asserted that a great number of town lots in Sandwich granted in 1797 still remained unimproved, although the times stipulated for such improvements had expired.

      Grand Jury Report, Sandwich 8 July, 1800 to Council Chambers at York [Summary]:

      Great number of lots still unimproved, 3 years time limit gone; settlement of town impeded, long indulgence, bounty abused, no intentions of improving them sold to others, who could not originally obtain and many have deeds to lots without requirement of improvements.

      It has been represented to us by many individuals as a particular hardship, that they cannot obtain a grant of a Lot, although there are only seven or eight houses in the whole town, but that some of them (all British subjects) have been obliged to purchase, and others cannot obtain Lots upon any terms in a suitable situation for their Commerce.

      Recommend — to forfeit all the vacant or unimproved Lots in the town of Sandwich, and to grant them to the first applicants, under a restriction and build thereon in a certain limited time; by which means the County Town would soon be settled and add not a little to the wealth of the District.

      Brush cut and streets opened in said town immediately and require statute labour from Lot holders whether improved or not.³⁹

      Settlement of the town had been greatly impeded, streets were not yet opened and only seven or eight houses had been built. Many of the men who had been granted lots resided elsewhere and were holding these lots for speculation. Moses David was a perfect example of the individuals referred to in the Grand Jury report as suffering from the consequences of the government’s reluctance to enforce their own policies. Unwilling to await the recommended forfeiture process and blocked temporarily by Elmsley’s interpretation, Moses purchased a town lot from one of the original grantees — Jean Baptiste Barthe, a brother-in-law of John Askin. Moses purchased Lot 3 on the east side of Bedford Street and began making improvements. One of his improvements was the purchase of a house on an adjoining piece of property on August 6, 1801, from the innkeeper John Hembrow and one Robert Jonas for £14. (140 Designated as part of Lot No. 4, it contained “6 feet in front upon the said street by 50 in depth, making 300 square statute feet.”⁴⁰ John Askin sheds some light on the purchase of the Barthe property in a business letter dated September 8, 1801. It appears that Moses had an agreement with the Barthes, probably backed by a mortgage or some sort of payment scheme, but they no longer held the deed as they had borrowed from Askin using the deed as collateral. Askin informed Moses David that if he did not take the goods that were charged, “It’s your fault, not mine and as a consequence there can be no deductions made on the account.”⁴¹ Another letter written two-and-a-half months later by Askin, is significant. The letter states:

      Sir,

      Having your payments to make at this present time, I will thank you for the balance due me. My son John, I believe, mentioned that I had advanced in cash last year 77 pounds, 1 shilling New York Currency for the deed of the lot on which you have built. I need hardly tell you that if anything was to happen, Mr. Barthe, that if Mrs. Barthe and her son I thought proper to take advantage, I had the deed now in my possession you would lose the whole of your improvements.⁴²

      In his veiled threat to David, Askin was just applying some pressure on his fellow merchant about the outstanding account mentioned earlier. David contested the account and may have been withholding payment as a matter of principle or while awaiting legal advice. In any case, Moses completed his Lot 3 transactions with the Barthes in February and March 1803:

      Memorial of bargain and sale of Lot #3 on the eastside of Bedford Street in the Town of Sandwich in the county aforesaid containing 1 square acre of land and same more or less with all and singular the appurtenance and [to] have and to hold unto the said Moses David, his heirs and assigns forever, for and (in) consideration the sum of 16 pounds of the currency of this province, a receipt whereof the said Jean Batiste [sic] Barthe and Genevieve, his wife have acknowledged and which deed of bargain and sale is witnessed by Lewis . . . James Fields, and Thomas Smith, and is hereby required to be registered pursuant to the said act, by me the said Moses David the grantee named in the said Deed of bargain and sale.

      Witness my hand and seal at Sandwich aforesaid on this eighth day of March in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and three.

      [signed] Moses David⁴³

      As Moses pursued a private strategy, Sandwich real estate was in flux after the 1800 Grand Jury complaints. Although Moses purchased Lot 3 from the original grantees, he was ready to try and leverage that property and his improvements to claim a park lot for his improvements and building a residence on the property. As soon as Moses had struck a bargain with the original grantee, Barthe, he began his improvements and made application for a government granted park lot. In April 1801, David again applied for land in Upper Canada, this time requesting a park lot in Sandwich and forwarding a certificate from the churchwardens of Sandwich verifying that his building was already completed. When his petition received no answer, Moses reapplied on January 8, 1803. By this time, Moses must have been exasperated. He had complied with all of the requirements, was a resident of area, was committed, and, perhaps more importantly, he had a tradition of Jewish rights from Lower Canada. In demanding an answer, the Godfreys suggest that “his family’s long-time success in the colony and his position as a natural-born subject gave him the confidence to push for his rights.”⁴⁴

      In any case, on March 9, 1803, he went over Elmsley’s head directly to Lieutenant Governor Hunter. He recited his contributions to the growth and development of this frontier and challenged Elmsley directly by asking whether his petition had been rejected “under the idea that his religion precludes him from any grant in His Majesty’s Colonies.”⁴⁵

      The Lieutenant Governor referred David’s petition to the Executive Council headed by Henry Alcock, Elmsley’s successor. David’s application was approved and David was finally given letters patent to twenty-seven acres of land in the township of Sandwich on February 20, 1804.⁴⁶

      Moses David’s equal rights challenge went beyond Upper Canada or even British North America; he was demanding recognition of religious rights throughout the British Colonies. And his victory seemed applicable to other aspects of the colony’s life such as military positions and civil or government posts.

       Military and Government Posts

      Moses David had been participating in militia activities in one capacity or another since the early СКАЧАТЬ