If the "someone" to whom the amount is promised the "bearer", the modern term is "bearer security" (bearer bond, bearer note, bearer bill, etc.), i.e., payable to holder/bearer at the time payment is due, thus endorsement is not necessary to transfer. Chris On 3/23/07, j. gonigam <gonigam@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Howard-- > > Criminey. I've looked at that page at least five times. Another example > of > my overlooking the > obvious. Kinda interesting that the voyages listed start out with a lot > of > WIC-owned ships > but later on privately-owned vessels predominate. > > Coincidental to my hypothesis that ship's owners might have sold the debts > for passage to > New Amsterdam in New Amsterdam, last night I found in an article in the > latest "Smithsonian" > that in England in the 18th century there was an instrument called a "note > of hand" which was > essentially an unsecured promissory note to pay a specified amount to > somone > at a specified > time. Apparently notes in hand were bought and traded back and > forth. The > only way I can figure for that to work is if the notes were endorsed over > as > today with a third-party check, the point being that in such a case > there'd > be no record of the debt transfer except on the instrument itself. > > Thanks to Peter Christopher for the explanation of why there's so little > in > the way of > records relating to the WIC. Pulped. Dear Lord. > > I guess the bottom line is there were a lot of ways for there to have been > no record of > who, if anyone, paid for a passage. > > --pete > ---- Original Message ----- > From: "Howard Swain" <hswain@ix.netcom.com> > To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 6:29 PM > Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Ship fares and ownership (was: Theunis / > VanArnhemgenealogy) > > > > Hi Pete, > > > > From: "j. gonigam" <gonigam@gmail.com> > > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 3:24 PM > > Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Theunis / VanArnhem genealogy > > > > > > > Dear Howard-- > > > > > > Your wondering if anyone bothered to pay the DWIC for outstanding > > > debt after the British took over New Amsterdam is interesting. It > > > might have been simple for Sara to just walk away from the debt under > the > > > circumstances. On the other hand, I'd think that if any debts incurred > under > > > the Dutch regime were uncollectable due to the change in the colony's > > > ownership a company run by canny Dutch businessmen would sell them at > a > > > discount to some canny British businessmen who would hope to collect > on > them > > > at full value. It's how they do it today and these old businessmen > seem > to > > > have been surprisingly sophisticated in matters of finance. > > > > In the Bailey article I cited previously, she has a quote from James > Riker > > to the effect that he thinks that after the English had confiscated the > Company's > > property they were going to try to collect these debts. > > > > > Be that as it may, I'm not sure Sara owed passage to the West India > Company. > > > You and Lorrine have both used phrasing implying that WIC owned or at > least > > > controlled "De Trauw" and perhaps the other ships on the Ships' > List. I > > > haven't been able to find a clear explication of the shipping setup > anent > > > New Netherlands or the WIC but I have found several references to > > > "merchants", "shipowners", WIC-licensed privateers and WIC-chartered > > > ships. Perhaps WIC owned ships outright but the odds and ends that > > > I've found suggest at least some of the traffic between Netherlands > and > > > New Netherlands (and apparently at least Boston and Virginia) > > > was via independently-owned merchant vessels. > > > > The DWIC had hundreds of ships. I think most were used in the > privateering > > against the Spanish and in trade in the Caribbean. See "Early Dutch > Emigration > > to America" by Hoffman NGSQ 29: 81ff. > > > > This chart: > > http://olivetreegenealogy.com/nn/mm_shipnyam.shtml > > shows who owned which ship. De Trouw is shown with a private owner, > > owner not named. > > > > Searching CDNY for de Trouw, I found a couple of interesting mentions. > > In II:60 it is referred to as a private trader in Feb 1659. > > In XIV:433-4 at the same date is mentioned that there were colonists > > now going on it at the expense of the Company. > > > > If the same conditions still applied to the 1664 voyage, then Sara > Teunis > > could have gone on a private ship, but still owed the Company. > > > > Regards, > > Howard > > hswain@ix.netcom.com > > Standard Source Abbreviations: > > > > http://www.newyorkfamilyhistory.org/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=96 > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >