nos The Jews of South Garolina w t$* e^ t^ 6^ A Survey of the Records at Present Existing in Charleston. To write an adequate and comprehensive history of the Jews of South CaroUna to- day is a task of enormous difficulty. Not that there is any dearth of material to him who has the patience and the industry to go after it, but because many valuable documents are no longer in existence; and, furthermore, because a vast amount of material bearing upon the history of South Carolina during the Revolutionary period, and indirectly, therefore, upon that of the Jews, is at present hidden away in Columbia, where it will be some years be- fore it will be available to the historian. The oldest records of the Congregation Beth Elohim, too, have disappeared. Those which I recently recovered, valuable though they be, only date from 180O. The oldest records, with the exception of one volume, were no longer in existence in 1844, which fact was elicited in the exam- ination of Solomon Valentine, the then Secretary of the Congrc tion in the trial of The State vs Ancker, of which I have written elsewhere. ("The Organ in the Synagogue," reprinted from The News and Courier, November, 1902.) Even that one precious volume is gone. But in spite of this I think that we can obtain from the rich historical material still remaining in Charleston, a tolerably good glimpse in outline of the history of the Charleston Jewish community— enough << at least to enable some future and more capable worker in this field, to fill in the details and reconstruct it in its entirety. Personally, I can only hope to gather up ^\ a few scattered threads; and I shall, as ( \ far as possible, let the records speak for themselves. The story of South Carolina is indeed a' thrilling one. From 1670, when it was first settled, down to this day, it has been one long tale of glorious achievement. In not a few things has this State set the pace to her sister States, but in nothing may she feel a more justifiable pride than in the broad and liberal principles on Which she was founded. "In the year 1669," we read in the rec- ords, "the Lords 'did encourage severall people to come in their Vessells to inhab- itt this part of their province and with the said people did alsoe send Fundamll Lawes, Constitucons under the hands & Scales of six of their Lordshipps bearing date 21st July, '69, as the unalterable forme & rule of Governmt for ever,' " (Langdon Cheves, Esq, in "Shaftesbury Papers"— Note to p 117.) This Constitution of John Locke (1669,) was a veritable Magna Charta of liberty and tolerance. South Carolina started right. My chief concern being the Jews of South Carolina, I would especially call attention to Article 87 of that Constitu- tion. It is to be found in the Shaftesbury Papers in the 5th volume of the Collec- tions of the South Carolina Historical So- ciety: "87. But since ye native* of yt place -wlio -will be concernd in or. plantations are utterly strangrers to Cliristianity, whose idollatry, igrno- rance, or mistake grives us noe rifflit to expell or use ym. ill, & tliose -wlio reuiove from other parts to plant tbere, Tf^ill unavoydably be of dlff- rent opinions concerning- matters of religion, ye liberty wliereof tliey Trill expect to liaA'-e alloTrecl yni., 4$: it Tvill not be reasonable for ns on this account to keep yni. ont yt civil peace may be inaintaind amidst ye diversity of opinions, & our agree- ment & compact vs'itb all men may be duly & faitlifully observed, ye violation whereof upon Trhat p'tence soever, cannot be Tvithout great oflEence to Almighty God, & great scandal to the true religion yt we p'fesse, & also yt heathens, Jues, and other dissenters from the purity of Christian religion may not be scared and kept at a distance from it, but by having an oppertunity of acquainting themselves with ye truth & I'casonablenes of its doc- trines, & ye peacablenes «& inoffen- civenes of its professors, may by good usage and perswasion, <& all those convincing methods of gentle- nes & meeknes sutable to ye rules & designe of the Ghospel, be w^one over to imbrace and unfeynedly re- ceive ye truth. Therefore any sea- ven or more persons agreeing in any religion shall constitute a church or profession to wch. they shall give some name to distinguish it from others." Little wonder, then, that the persecuted Jew, like the persecuted Huguenot and German Palatine, soon came here to find a, haven of rest. To be undisturbed in the possession of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," and to enjoy the privilege of worshipping God as his conscience dic- tated—these have ever been the ideals of the Jew, even as they were the ideals upon which this great Republic was established. For by far the greater part of his his- tory, in every country, some or all of these "inalienable rights of man " have been denied him. Here he could have them all, and in fullest measure. South Carolina welcomed him. welcomed him as a man, welcomed him as a brother; welcomed him as a citizen, and the Jew showed himself worthy of the confidence that was reposed in him. It is no idle boast to claim that there are none who have shed more lustre upon the annals of this State, or have done more towards its upbuilding, than have its Jewish citizens. When did the Jews first come here and where did they come from? Thereby hangs an interesting tale. In the Charleston Library there is a re- print of a unique volume entitled "A New Description of that Fertile and Pleasant Province of Carolina, by John Archdale, Late Governor of the Same." (London, 1707.) It was reprinted in Charleston in 1822. On page 22 there occurs the following interesting narrative: "Now that tlie Reader may plainly discern, that the Almighty and Om- niscient God, takes cognizance of Hnnian Affairs, and «lirects them hy a -tvise and prudent Chain of Causes, I shall relate some remarkable Pas- sages that happened anickly after that I entered npon the Government, which was the ITth of Angnst, 1<>95. There is a Nation of Indians call'd the lanimassees, ^vho formerly live«l under the Spanish Government, lint now live nndei* the English, ah«>ut 80 Miles from Charles-Tovk'n. Some ef these Indians going a Hunting, about i200 3Iiles to the South^vard, met with some Spanish Indians that lived about Saneta 3Iaria, not far from Augustine, the Seat of the Spanish Government; and taking them Prisoners, broitght them Home, designing to sell Ibein for Slaves to Barbitdoes or Juniaica as was usual; but I understanding thereof, sent for their King, and or- dered him to bring these Indians with him to Charles-Town, which accordinsly lie did: There were three 3Ien and one Woman; they \ conld speak Spanish, and I had a \ Jew for an interpreter, so npon ex- amination, I found they profess'd the Christian Reliftion as the Pa- pists do; upon which I thought in a most peculiar manner, they ought to he freed from Slavery; and there- upon ordered the King to carry . them to Augustine to the Spanish Governour with a Letter, desiring an Answer relating to the receit of them; who having receiv'd them; H^jit me the following Letter; So far as relates to this Aiiair, I copy it forth;" (Here follows the letter, which is of no interest to our investigation.) Who was this Jew who lived in Charles- Town in the year 1695? Can we find him elsewhere? Were there others liere at that early date? The i-ecords will h.elp us. In the Probate Records, 1694-1704, p. 133, Abraham Avilah, of Charles Towne, in ye County of Berkley and Province of Caro- lina, "for divers good causes and consid- erations me at this time especially move- ing and more especially out of trust and confidence which I repose in Mr Simon Valentine M-cht, malse him my true and lawfull attorney." This Power of Attorney is dated March 25, 1698. We meet with this, Simon Valentine sev- eral times in the old records. He writes his name Simon Valentyn. On page 339 of the same volume, Jacob Mears, of ye Parish of Port Royall, in ye Island aforesaid (Jamaica,) appoints "his trusty friend William Smith, of Carolina, merchant, his true and lawfull Attorney, to demand of Simon Valentine, of Carolina, shopkeeper, all and every such Debt and Debts, Sum and Sums &c, as may be owing to him." This deed is dated July 3, 1701. His name also appears on p. 410, on a document dat- ed January 24, 1704. In the volume, 1692-3, we find him several times as a surety on administration bonds. His name occurs on pp 248, 256, 280 and 357. The earliest of these documents bears the date of 1696. The last reference to this Simon Valen- tine is interesting, as it is the earliest rec- ord here of a Jew holding land. In the volume of Miscellaneous Records, 1714- 1717, (p. 233,) there is a record of a mort- gage of a farm of 350 acres from Mordicai Nathan to Henry Peronneau which land, the deed tells us, "was formerly purchased by the said Mordicai Nathan and Symond Valentine, Deceased., being Joyn purchers, whom the said Mordicai has sur- vived." It may be explained here, that according to the old law, when two people bought a piece of land in common, should one of them die, the land belonged to the survivor. This law has since been re- pealed by Statute. The next document of interest is an old will, that is to be found in the volume, "Wills, 1671-1727." Abraham Isack, of Cyty of New Yorke, "being bound to sea, and therefore being present in good health, but not knowing when it may please the Almighty God to take me out of ye world," makes his will. It is dated May 26, 1709, and was recorded in Charleston February 20, 1710. It is now some years before the records make further mention of Jews. In 1739 we find two documents concerning Joseph To- bias, Shopkeeper— one a lease and the other a transfer of property. They are to be found in the Mesne Conveyance Rec- ords. (W. 471 and PP 696.) We find this same Joseph Tobias in one of the invento- ries of an estate. (Mesne Conveyance, 1749- 50, p. 75.) The last of the records that I have been able to find occurs in the Probate Records for 1736-40. On p. 3 there is a letter from New York, dated November 25, 1743, and addressed to Messrs Daniel and Thomas La Roche, of Charleston. Mr Jacob Frank refers to his nephew, Mr Moses Solomons, and some difficulty which the said Moses Solomons had had with some London ship- ping house. On the next page David Franks, of Charles Town, Gent, declares that the letter signed Jacob Frank is the handwriting of his father. It would seem from another letter here recorded that Franks had connections in Lisbon. On page 300 there is a bond of Samuel Levy and Moses Salamons, of Charlestown, mer- chants, to Daniel La Roche & Thomas La Roche, of Winyau, for £2,605.6.8. Leaving the records let us now look at the Jews of early South Carolina, in their private life. As we have seen, the Jew here has never labored under any civil or religious disability whatsoever. As early as 1703 it is on record that Jews voted at the popular election for members of the Commons House of Assembly. This tolera- tion on the part of the Established Church party in South Carolina brought forth a protest from the bigoted Dissenters of that day, who complained that "At this last election, Jews strangers, sailors ser- vants, negroes and almost every French- man in Craven and Berkeley counties came down to elect, and their votes were taken; the persons by them voted for were returned by the Sheriff." (Rivers, "South Carolina," quoted by McCrady in "South Carolina Under the Proprietary Government," p. 391.) It is a pity that we cannot get a glance at the answer to this protest. It would be interesting, indeed, but it is unfortunately not available. The next point of interest in our inves- tigation is the question of how the Jews made a living in those early days. Here the Gazettes will help us. There were exceedingly few professional men in the Province in those days— doc- tors, lawyers and clergymen. With the exception of a few handicraftsmen and planters, the entire population subsisted by trade. Competition must have been very keen, for everybody seems to have had almost the same things for sale and to have advertised them in the very same way. Let us look at the advertisements in the South Carolina Ga^-ettes, between the years 1731 and 1750. The earliest Jewish names that I have found in the Gazettes occur in an ad- vertisement of August 17, 1734, When Messrs Carvallo & Gutteres announce that they "have to dispose of "Good Old Bar- bados Rum. Good Madei-a Wine. Musco- vado Sugar & Limejuice; Likewise some dry goods, &c, living in Church street, where formerly the printing office was." I am not quite certain that these were Jews. In the Gazette of November 22, 1735, Mr Carvallo advertises for sale "a very good Rhode Island Pacing-Horse," On September 14, 1738, Isaac De Pas in Union street offers to sell "Good White Sugar, very good Barbados Rum & very fine Citron Water," etc, etc. On February 20, 1744, he advertises his wares at his shop on Broad street, and on March 19, 1744, he announces to his patrons that "All gentlemen that have rice to dispose of may have two Parts in ready Cash and the Balance in Cordials of all sorts or any other goods that I have to sell." On August 25, 1739, we read the follow- ing: "To Be Sold in Union St, by Moses de Mattos, White, Milk, Ship, Middling & Brown Bread & Loaf Sugar. The same 8 may be had of Mr Tobias on the Bay. Also good Esopius Flour." He is still in Union street, on November 1, 1742. In the Gazette of April 3, 1742, there is an announcement of the "Half -Yearly Festival of the right worthy & amicable Order of UBIQUARIANS. Moses Solomon, Esq, is one of the Aedils. On December 16, 1745, Solomon Isaacs ad- vertises as the administrator of an estate, and on the same date Joseph Tobias an- nounces that as he intends to leave the Province in March, he would like those in- debted to him to come and settle. In the meantime, "I have most kinds of Cordial Drams to sell by Wholesale or Retail, Checks, Oznabrugs, hard Ware, Linnens & sundry other Goods. The last advertisement is that of Solo- mon Isaacs & Co, on October 10, 1748. They offer for sale Negro Cloth, woollen and linen goods, etc, "at the House on the Bay, in which Capt Colcock lives." So far the Records and the Gazettes. Summing up, then, our inquiry thus far We have found a Jew in Charleston in 1695. I believe that he came from Jamaica, where Jews have lived from a very early date. We also found other Jews here be- fore 1700. I believe that they came from London. We have followed the Jew in his daily life and as a citizen. We have seen how, socially and religiously, he was at peace with his neighbors. He lived the same life and followed the same occupa- tions that they did, taking his full part in the burdens as well as in the privileges of citizenship. There were other Jews in Charleston in the year 1750. Of these I shall tell in my next article. Till now, it is the Records in Charleston that have been speaking. THE DAGGETT FEINTING CO. Charleston, S. C. The Jews of South Carolina** 5^ f^m ^^ %^ J750-J783. A sympathetic critic, referring to the style in which my notes are being- pub- lished, remarks that "a history written in this manner would dismay the stoutest heart." Of course it would. But I am not writing history now. I am merely render- ing the data out of which alone history can be written, available for the future historian. Without facts there can be no history. After I have set out at length all that is kno^vn, it will be easy enough to put this material into proper shape. Even now I try to make the dry facts as interesting as I can. If I am uninterest- ing, it is not because I have not tried to be otherwise. There is another reason why I am going into minute detail. The old records are going to pieces. Twenty years from now, many of the documents to which I refer will no longer be legible. Some of them are already crumbling. The ink on the pages of many of the Gazettes is fading and if I have by my work preserved per- manently only a few records of the Jews of this State, the dulness of detail will be more than compensated. Let me further offer in extenuation this fact: By far the greater part of my ma- terial is unindexed. Even with accurate references to the Gazettes, the future worker may have to spend hours in look- ing up a single reference, for many of these papers were misplaced by the care- less binder, I have therefore striven to attain absolute accuracy in every one of my printed references and have confirmed each one of these references before re- printing my articles. My object in re- printing and distributing these pamphlets is mereiy to allow future correction and revision from material that may exist in the hands of others. When my material is in shape, I shall then attempt my his- tory. My present article will cover the period from 1750 till the end of the Revolu- tion, reserving for a special chapter the Jews in the Revolution. In my last article, I showed that quite a number of Jews lived in Charleston prior to 1750. In the list of members of the St Andrew's Society of the City of Charles- ton for 1740-1748, there are the names o* David Franks and Moses Solomons. We have already made the acquaintance of the latter in 1742 and 1743. Georgia was colonized in 1733 and we are told that a few days after its first settle- ment forty Jews arrived in Savannah. So illiberal was the iK)licy of the Trustees of the Colony that in 1741 the bulk of the Jews ieft it. Some went to Pennsylvania, others to New York and four, viz: Morde- cai Sheftall, Levi Sheftall, David de Oli- vera and Jacob de Olivera came to Charles Town. We do not meet with any of them, however, in the records prior to 1750. We have already seen that in 1748 there had been an idea discussed in London, of making a settlement of Jews in Charles Town. The original documents which I have published show that the negotiations came to nothing. In 1750, however, several Jews came to Charles Town and we read: ("Occident Vol. 1, p. 337. See aiso Year Book for 1883, p. 301.) that in that year the following Jews lived here: Moses Cohen, Isaac Da Costa, Abraham Da Costa, Joseph Tobias, Meshod Tobias, Moses Pimenta, David de Olivera, Morde- cai Sheftall, Levy Sheftall, Michael Laza- rus, Abraham Nunez Cardozo and Philip Hart. This same year (1750) saw the first beginnings of the Congregational history of K. K. Beth Elohim. The late Mr Nathaniel Levin, who wrote both the sketch in the Year Book and that in the "Occident," used the old record- book of Beth Elohim as tne source of his information. The volume is unfortunately no longer in existence. It recorded the fact that at the conclusion of the Jewisli New Year 5510 (1750,) a meeting was caWed for the purpose of organizing a congrega- tion. Moses Cohen was elected Chief Ftab- bl, Isaac Da Costa, Reaaer, and Joseph Tobias, President. The name selected for the Congregation was the same which it still bears: "Kahal Kadosn Beth Elo- him." (The Holy Congregation Beth Elo- him.) About the same time, the Hebrew Benevolent Society was established— a so- ciety that still exists and carries on the work of its founders. The Congregation was strictly orthodox and its ritual that of the Spanish and Portuguese communi- ties as practiced in London and Amster- dam. There is no necessity for me to enter here into the details of its internal econo- my or to refer to the various buildings in which the Congregation worshipped. These details are fully given in the articles be- fore mentioned and will be discussed when I write my history. I will state, however, that the best account of the early communal history of the congrega- tion is that given in the report of the State vs Ancker In Richardson's South Carolina Law Reports, Vol 2, pp. 245-286. FIRST CHIEF RABBI MOSBS COHEN. The ^organization of the Congregation Beth Elohim was brought about through the zeal of Moses Cohen. Who Moses Cohen was I do not know. He came from London in 1750 and we have seen that In that year he was elected the first Chief Rabbi. His full title was "Haham v' Ab Beth Din, (Chief Rabbi and Chief of the Beth Din or Ecclesiastical Court.) This was probably nothing more than a high- sounding title in imitation of the old Synagogue of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews at Bevis Marks, London, of which the Congregation Beth Ek)him is a direct offshoot. Of his activity in this com- munity I likewise know nothing. If he has left any literary remains, I am una- ware of them. The only references to him in the contemporary literature that I have been able to find occur in two advertise- ments in the South Carolina Gazette. In the Supplement to the Gazette of August 15, 1753, he advertises for "a runaway Dutch servant-girl about 10 years of age and 4 feet 6 inches high," and on October 21, 1756, his name is mentioned in a list of unrecorded plats. In my search amongst the records in Columbia, I found three grants made to him In the "Grant Book," dated 1755 and 1759. Moses Cohen, or as he is described on his tombstone, "The Right Reverend Moses Cohen, D. D." died on April 19, 1762. He is interred in the Coming Street Ceme- tery, which at that time was not yet the property of the Congregation Beth Elo- him, but the private burial ground of the family of Isaac Da Costa. He was much esteemed by his Congregation and in the Constitution of 1820 it is especially en- acted (Rule XX) that "On every Kippur night perpetually, the first "escaba" (prayer for the dead) shall be made for the Reverend Moses Cohen, deceased, be- cause he was appointed and confirmed the Reverend Doctor of this Congregation from its first establishment, and as such it is conceived every mark of respect is due to his memory." This custom has not been kept up in my time. When I came here in 1894, the list of those of whom special mention was to be made was not here and there was no one who could restore it. It was lost until I recently recovered it in New York. The next man to wTiom I devote atten- tion is an exceedingly interesting charac- ter—Isaac Da Costa. As we have seen he was the first Reader of the Congregation Beth Elohim. ISAAC DA COSTA. In the "Literary Diary" of Ezra Stiles, Vol I, p. 453, under the date August 2, 1774, there is the following interesting item: "In the Afternoon I was visited by Mr Acosta a Jew Huzzan of the Synagogue in Charleston, So Carolina. He is aet. 52, born in London & educated under Hochem Rabbi Nieto there till aet. 29. Then he came to America & in 1754 instituted a Synagogue at Charleston." (See Kohut: "Ezra Stiles and the Jews,' p. 134.) This entry is particularly valuable bo- cause from it, together with the data given in his death notice, we can positive- ly' establish the date of his arrival in Charles Town as 1750. Though Isaac Da Costa was trained as a Reader for the Synagogue and officially occupied that position, we find him short- ly after his arrival engaged in trade. We meet with him first as a shopkeeper, in the South Carolina Gazette of July 22, 1751. On May 28, 1752, he is on Broad street. On November 26, 1753, he advertises as an administrator of an estate. In Ihis year I find his name on the records of King Solomon's Lodge, No 1 — the oldest regu- larly constituted Lodge in South Carolina. On October 21, 1756, his name occurs in a "list of unrecorded plats." On June 30, 1757, he is still on Broad street, where he advertises "European and Indian goods." On November 17, 1758, he is in partnership with Thos Farr and the firm is now Da Costa & Farr. On April 7, 1759, he adver- tises as treasurer of Solomon's Lodge. On January 17, 1761, the firm is still Da Costa & Farr. They are extensive ship agents, (Nov 28, and Dec 5, 1761,) On Oct 30, 1762, Isaac Da Costa advertises alone— it is no longer Da Costa & Farr, In 1764, having some misunderstanding with his Congre- gation, Isaac Da Costa resigned his posi- tion as Reader. From an advertisement on Aug 3, 1765, he seems to have met with misfortune in business. On July 14, 1766, he advertises again. On April 2, 1772, he is agent for the Spanish Transport "The Diana." He is on King St. on April 19, 1773. On July 4, 1774, he embarked for Rhode Island and on Dec 12, he returns with Miss Da Costa and Mr Abraham Jacobs. In the Gazette of the State of South Carolina of July 8, 1778, we find him in partnership with his son, and on Nov 25 of that year he is away from town- there are three letters waiting for him at the Post Office. On July 21, 1779, we read that "At the last anniversary meeting of the Palmetto Society, Isaac Da Costa was elected one of the stewards." From the Royal Gazette of Mar 14, 1781, we learn that his estates were seized and confis- cated by the British. In the "Diary of Josiah Smith, Jr— one of the exiles from Charlestown to St Augustine, during the British occupation, 1780-1781," (unpublished MSS) he is mentioned among the "heads of families banished, who would not take protection." The date of his arrival In Philadelphia is here Riven as Dec 31, 1781. In 1782 we find his name, as well as that of his son enrolled among the original members of the Mikveh Israel Congrega- tion of Philadelphia. (Morals "Jews of Philadelphia, p. 15.) In 1783, he returns to Charleston and in February of that year he establishes the "Sublime Grand Lodge of Perfection." (Mackey's "Cryptic Ma- sonry, p. 151.) He died on Sunday, the 23rd of Nov, 1783, in the 62nd year of his age. Here is the notice of his death in the Gazette of the State of South Carolina," for Nov 27, 1783: "On Monday died, after a few days' ill- ness, by the wound of a splinter in his hand, Mr Isaac Da Costa, Sen, a respecta- ble and valuable citizen." Isaac Da Costa is buried in the private burial ground at Hanover street that still bears his name. He left no will, but letters of administration to his estate were granted to Mrs Sarah Da Costa, Jo- seph Da Costa and Samuei Da Costa on Mar 31. 1784. DA COSTA-PIMENTA. I do not know quite as much about Abraham Da Costa. He is, however, men- tioned in one of the most interesting doc- ments that have till now passed through my hands. It is a marriage agreement that reminds us of mediaeval times. In M. C. Records, Vol MM for 1763-7, p. 2^2, and bearing the date Feb 15, 1765, there are the Articles of Agreement be- tween Abraham Da Costa and Rebecca Pimenta and Leah Pimenta, her mother" • * Abraham Da Costa, "with the consent and good liking of the said Leah, cove- nants, promises and agrees to take Rebec- ca Pimenta to wife according to the rights and ceremonies of the Jews without por- tion to be demanded or required. Within the space of three months from the date of these presents * * * the said parties binding themselves each to the other in the sum or penalty of £3000 current money of South Carolina." In the Vol. "Miscellaneous" for 1767-1771, p. 479, there is a marriage settlement of Abraham Da Costa to Rebecca Pimenta. He seems to have had a business in Georgetown, for in the South Carolina and American General Gazette of Mar 26, 1778, he "informs his town and country friends that since the late dreadful fire, he is under an obligation to open a store at the upper end of King st, where he has to sell a great quantity of the goods late- ly sold at Georgetown, and some of the remains saved out of the above fire." In the Royal Gazette of May 22, 1782, he an- nounces that he has opened the "Irish Coffee House" on Broad st. I find his name only once in a real estate transac- tion, in 1779. (M. C, Vol B 5, p. 90.) Of David de Olivera I find no mention in the records. Jacob Olivera died in Charles Town soon after 17.50 and there is an inventory of his effects in the Probate Records. (Inventories 1751-3, pp. 409-10.) There is no reference to Abraham Nunez Cardozo, except the notice of his death in the S. C. G. for Nov 20, 1762. Here it is: NOV 17th.— This day died, Abraham Car- dozo, first cousin to Madam Sarah Da Costa, of a hurt received the inth instant, in Rebellion-Road, to the great grief of his wife" HANNAH CARDOZO JOSEPH TOBIAS. I have already referred to Joseph To- bias, the first President of Beth Elohim. We found him here in 1739. There is this item concerning him in Columbia amongst the documents from the State Paper Of- fice in London: "List of persons qualified according to the Act for naturalising Pro- testants in his Majesty's Colonies in America. Joseph Tobias a Jew Certificate. Recorded 11 December, 1741." We meet with him several times in the office of Mesne Conveyance, He died Jan 29, 1761, aged 76. Masoad Tobias (pronounced Meshod) was the son of Joseph Tobias. He died on Feb 27, 1798, aged 57. He must therefore have been born in Charleston.. Joseph Tobias had a son Jacob, who died in 1773. He had another son Josep'h whose son, Jacob Tobias was a member of Capt Drayton's Militia Company in 1775. He died on Nov 16, 1775, aged 26. He could therefore hardly have seen service in the Revolution. Moses Pimenta, we are told, was "a man learned in the law and a teacher of the Jewish youth." In the "Inventories" 1756-8, estate of Solomon Isaacs, there is a note of his. Moses Pimenta apparently learnt by experience that teaching Jewish youth is by no means an easy road to affluence. Mordecai Sheftall and Levi Sheftall were the sons of Benjamin Sheftall, one of the original Jews who settled in Savannah. They are more closely connected with the history of that community, though they did business and for a while lived in Charleston. In the M. C. Records O 3, p. 501, Mordecai Sheftali, of the Province of Georgia, makes a marriage settlement, dated 1761, to "Prances Hart, of Charles Town, the daughter of Moses Hart, at present in the Hague in Europe." In the Volumes M 5, p. 308, and Z 4, p. 272, dated 1779, Levi Sheftall is described as being "of Charles Town." I shall give an inter- esting notice of one of these brothers in my next article. Of Michael Lazarus I know very little. He is in business on King st, on April 24, 1762. This is the only notice I have of him. I believe that the was the father of Marks Laaarus, whom we meet later, but I am not certain of this. PHILIP HART. Philip Hart, a native of Poland, was one of the officials of Beth Elohim. He was also a merchant (S. C. G., May 30, 1761.) He was a partner in the business of Sam- uel Isaacs, too, at Georgetown, (S. C. G., Jan 17, 1761.) I s'hall now proceed as far as possible chronologically. In the S. C. G. of Aug 17, 1752, we find an advertisement of Solo- mon Isaacs. We already met with him in 1745. He advertises again on April 24 and on Oct 9, 1755. He died before July 14, 1757, for in the Gazette of that date Peter Bacot advertises for the debts due to his estate. His will, proved Jan 14, 1757, men- tions his newphew, Samson Simson, of New York, as one o£ his executors. In the South Carolina Gazette of Aug 19, 1756, we have the first notice of Moses Lindo— the most conspicuous Jew in South Carolina in Provincial days. I have al- ready written of him in detail, and, there- fore, will only mention an exceedingly in- teresting reference to him. in a contem- porary diary: "Journal of a voyage to Charlestown in So Carolina, by Pelatiah Webster in 1765." Here is the entry: "Monday, 3. Dined this day with Mr Thomas Listen, a reputable mercht born here; is a man of great openess & polite- ness, of generous sentiments & very gen- teel behaviour; passed the afternoon very agreably in his sumer house with him & Mr L.indo, a noted Jew, inspector of Indi- go here." LIEUT JOSEPH LEVY. In the volume "Wills," 1754-8, p. 705, there is a "Commission from his Excellency to Joseph Levy to be Lieutenant of Captain Gaillard's Company in the said Regiment ut supra." (South Carolina Regiment of Foot under the command of Lieut Col Probart Howarth.) This commission Is dated Sept 3, 1757. In the S. C. G. of April 11, 1761, we read that "Lieut Levy is arrived at Congarees with 32 recruits for Col Middleton's Regl- ment from North Carolina." This Lieut Levy was one of the officers in the South Carolina Regiment in the Cherokee war of 1760-1. A copy of his commission, dated Sept 23, 1760, is in the office of Mesne Con- veyance here. We meet with this Joseph Levy in the Gazettes. He advertises on November 13, 1762. His last advertisement appears in the S. C. G. of Aug 6, 1772. In the S. C. G. of Oct 20, 1759, Isaac Levy makes a claim of title to lands in Savan- nah which have been announced for sale and gives notice to intending purchasers that they will buy lands without a clear title. He is going to petition his Majesty. On Nov 24, he publishes papers in proof of his own title. This Isaac Levy was a na- tive of New York who lived for some years in England. The full story of this case and its sequel is told in a paper read before the American Jewish Historical Society by Dr Herbert Friedenwald. (Vol 9, pp. 57-62.) In the Vol "Inventories," 1758-1763, p. 238, there is a document of Israel Levy, mer- chant of Charles Town, dated Nov 29, 1759. In the S. C. G. of Dec 16, 1760, Isaac Pinto advertises as a wholesale wine mer- chant. He advertises also on Feb 21, 1761, and on Jan 23, 1762. On Dec 11, 1763, we meet with Simon Hart. On Sept 25, 1762, we meet with Imanuel Cortissoz. I believe that I found him ear- lier, but I did not recognize his name at the time. In the Gazette of April 24, 1762, we first meet with Joshua Hart "on the Bay" He advertises steadily till April 28, 1777. On November 18, 1777, there is this notice: SEIXAS-HART. 'The same day (Wednesday) Mr Abra- ham Mendez Sexias, of the State of Geor- gia, was married to Miss Ritoey Hart, a young lady of the most amiable qualifica- tions, daughter of Mr Joshua Hart, of this town." This notice is interesting as an early ex- ample of inter-marriage between Portu- guese and German Jews. Such intermar- riages were by no means uncommon here in the early days. In later days they are exceedingly rare. In the Gazette of Sept 10, 1763, we meet with Jacob Jacobs. He leaves for Savan- nah, but is back again on April 7, 1779. On December 31, 1764, Dr Andrew Judah, a physician from London, advertises. His next advertisement states that he is from Holland. I am not certain whether he is a Jew. In the Gazette of Aug 18, 1766, we read: "On Friday, on the ship Queen Charlotte, Capt Reeves, from London, arrived (among others) Mr Mordecai Sheftall (for Georgia) and the Rev Mr Alexander." Who is this Rev Mr Alexander? He is possibly the Abraham Alexander who succeeded Isaac Da Costa as Reader of Beth Elohim, though Mr Levin in the "Occident" gives the date of his appoint- ment as 1764. We cannot always accept the statements in the "Occident," how- ever. The old writers were not so partic- ular about a year or two and many of their successors seem to be equally indif- ferent as to dates. He served Beth Elo- him without remuneration till 1784, when he ^resigned. In the Constitution of 1820 (Rule XX) It Is directed that "the sev- enth "escaba" shall be made for Mr Abra- ham Alexander, sen, deceased T^ho volun- teered his services to perform divine ser- vice." He, too, engaged in commercial pursuits and was highly respected in the community. He was one of the founders of Scottish Rite Masonry in Charleston. He died in 1816. In M. C. Records, Val M. M., 1763-7, p. 432, there is a deed of Solomon Levi. He mentions in it Bernard De Young-. On p. 579, there is a promissory note of Henry Isaacs, dated June 18. 1765, ana on p. 420 there is a deed of Isaac Ue Juyon, of Charles Town, dated "^nne 11, 1766. The deed mentions Emanuel Abrauams, whom we meet with prominently later. On Oct 27, 1766, amongst passengers ar- rived, are Mr Franks and daughter. In the Postscript to the Gazette of May 11, 1767, we meet with Philip Abraham and Samuel Nunez Cardozo. On June 1, 1767, we read that "On ti^s 26th inst Mr Lopez and many other passengers embarked for Rhode Island." The Lopez family, how- ever, did not settle in Charleston till after the Revolution. On July 6, 1767, Mr Joseph Jacobs arrived from Philadelphia and on Aug 3, we have mention of Francis Cohen. On Aug 1, IVil, Mordecai Myers advertises and again from Georgetown on Aug 25, 1772. On Sept 19, 1771 we meet with Myer Moses for tiie first time in the Gazettes, though he nad been living here for some years. On November 1, 1773, there is mention maae of Jacob Ramos and on December 6, 1773, we read the fol- lowing exceedingly interesting notice: FRANCIS SALVADOR ARRIVES. "More than one hundred passengers are come in the vessels that have arrived here since our last. Amongst them: FRANCIS SALVADOR." Picciotto in his "Sketches of Anglo-Jew- ish History," pp. 161-4, has given us a most interesting history of the Salvador family. Strange to say, we in Charleston know a great deal more about the iater story of two of the most illustrious mem- bers of that distinguished family— Joseph and Francis Salvador— than he does. Pic- ciotto seems to know nothing of their 13 later career. I will complete his narrative when I come to Joseph Salvador in the period after the Revolution. Suffice it for the present to say that the wealthy family of Salvador was over- whelmed by two disastrous misfortunes, the earthquake at Lisbon and the failure of the Dutch East India Company. These calamities brought the Salvadors to the brink of ruin. Joseph Salvador was still possessed of lands in America— 100,000 acres in Ninety Six District in South Car- olina. In the M. C. Records F 4, p. 243, there is a power of attorney from Josepli Salvador, Esq, of the City of London, merchant, now being in the city of Bris- tol, to Richard Andrews Rapley, dated Sept 25th, 1769. This document recites that Joseph Salvador owns 100,000 acres of land in South Carolina, that squatters had set- tled upon some of it and that he is about to make a right, true and legal recovery of all rent or arrears of rent then already due and that might thereafter become due * ♦ * and to keep others from obtaining possession in future, he gives the said Rapley, of the city of London, gentleman, (then on his departure into foreign parts,) his power of attorney to look after his af- fairs and authorizes him to sell some 45,000 acres. This deed is recorded in Charleston on Feb 14th, 1774. In 1773, Francis Salvador, the nephew and son-in-law of Joseph Salvador, deter- mined to come to South Carolina and we have seen that he arrived in Charleston in December of that year. The story re- lated in Picciotto that Mrs Joshua Mendes Da Costa, the daughter of Joseph Salva- dor, gave up a part of her marriage set- tlement to furnish funds for Francis Sal- vador's expedition, is not probable, nor is it borne out by our records here. On May 13, 1774, Francis Savador buys from Joseph Salvador per Richard An- drews Rapley, his attorney, 5160 acres o£ land, for a consideration of £14,000 lawful money of South Carolina. (O 4, p .12.) On May 16 he buys 921 acres more (M 4, p. 286. On June 1 he buys 300 acres of land adjoining his, from Michell Duvall, (M 4, p. 282.) On Feb 22, 1775, Joseph Salvador conveys a large tract of land to Rebecca Mendes Da Costa, widow, "to satisfy a judgment which the said Rebecca Mendes Da Costa had obtained against him," (T 4, p. 1,) and on March 8, 1775, Rebecca Mendes Da Costa sends to Francis Salvador, now in South Carolina, a letter of Attorney au- thorizing him to dispose of this land. (R 4, p. 430.) This transaction is apparently the basis of Picciotto's story, but had nothing to do with Francis Salvador's expedition, for he had been in South Carolina since Dec 1773. A DISTINGUISHED CITIZEN. Francis Salvador came to South Carolina in troublous times. The Revolution was brewing. Scarcely had he settled down when he threw himself heart and soul in- to the movement for independence. He came down to Charles Town as a Deputy from Ninety Six to the Provincial Con- gress of 1775, and such was the confidence that he inspired, that he was placed on several important committees. He was also a Deputy to the second Provincial Congress of 1775-6, the Congress which de- clared South Carolina an independent State. In July 1776, the Indians made a raid into Ninety Six District and mur- dered quite a number of the inhabitants. Col Andrew Williamson, commanding the Militia Regiment of Ninety Six District, collected his militia and proceeded against them and a detachment of regulars was sent from^ Charles Town to assist him, 15 Salvador seems to have been an aide to Col Williamson. At the battle which took place at Essenecca he met his tragic fate. I cannot give a better description of his life and character than that given in the 2nd Vol of Drayton's "Memoirs," pp. 347-9, nor is there a better account of his death than that given by Col Williamson in his letter to W. H. Drayton, published in Gibbes's "Documents," (1764-1776, p. 125.) I would only point out that this letter is erroneously headed and dated in Gibbes. I will let Drayton speak for himself: "He was the grandson of Francis Salva- dor, and the son of Jacob Salvador, of England, who died when his son Francis was about two years old. Shortly after his father's death, his mother gave birth to his brother, Moses, who is still living in The Hague, having married a daugh- ter of the Baron Suasso. Both of these young gentlemen were liberally educated by a private tutor and the best master, and were taught those accomplishments suitable to their wealth and rank in life. Upon coming of age, each of them in- herited £60,000 sterling, and Francis on his return from France, married his first cousin, Sarah Salvador, second daughter of Joseph Salvador, his uncle; receiving with her a portion of £13,000 sterling. Mr Francis Salvador, after this marriage, re- sided at Twickenham, near his mother and step-father, Abraham Prado, but hav- ing impaired his fortune by some unfor- tunate speculations, he came to South Carolina about the end of 1773, intending to settle here and have his wife, his son and three daughters from England with him, but his unfortunate death prevented their removal. * * * About the year 1774, Mr Francis Salvador purchased lands and negroes in South Carolina, and not wish- ing to live alone, he resided with his inti- mate friend, Richard A. Rapley, at Coro- i6 neka, commonly called Cornacre, in Nine- ty Six District. His manners were those of a polished gentleman, and as such he was intimately known and esteemed by the first Revolutionary characters In South Carolina. He also possessed their confidence in a great degree, as his lit- erary correspondences with them suffi- ciently proves, and at the time of his death both he and his friend, Mr Rapley, were of the ten Representatives for Nine- ty Six District In the General Assembly of South Carolina. When the Irruption of the savages brought distress upon his neigh- bours and one of their children sought refuge at his dwelling from the bloody tomahawk, his warm heart directed him to their relief. Against the savage foe he volunteered his services, and at the side of his friend Major Williamson, he re- ceived those wounds which sacrificed his life in the service of his adopted coun- try." From now on we meet with many new names. I have hitherto gone Into very minute detail, and w"hile my note-books contain practically exhaustive notices of nearly every Individual whom I mention, no useful end would be served by com- plete references. Newspaper advertise- ments and mortgages are very much ellke. I would call attention to this point, however, that there are very, very few men who lived in Charleston whom we will not meet In some connection or other in the records. I shall henceforth only mention names, save where there is ocoa- sion for special comment. DIRECTORY 1770-1782. Here, then, Is a complete directory of the Jews whom I find in Charleston be- tween the years 1770 and 1782: Aaron, Solomon. Abrahams, Emanuel. 17 Abrahams, Isaac Brisco. Abrahams, Joseph. Abrahams, Juda. Abrahams, Levy. Alexander, Abraham. Cardozo, David Nunez. Cohen, Abraham. Cohen, Gershon. Cohen, Is. Cohen, Jacob. Cohen, Moses. Cohen, Philip. Cohen, Philip Jacob. Da Costa, Abraham. Da Costa, Isaac, Sr. Da Costa, Isaac, Jr. Da Costa, Joseph. Da Costa, Samuei. De La Motta, Emanuel. Delyon, Abraham. Delyon, Isaac. De Palacios, Joseph, Sr. De Palacios, Joseph, Jr. Eliazer, Moses. Harris, Mordecai. Harris, Moses. Hart, Joshua Hart, Philip. Jacobs, Israel. Jacobs, Jacob. Jones, Samuel. Joseph, Israel. Laaarus, Marks. Levi, Solomon. Levy, Ezekiel. Levy, Hart. Levy, Michael. Levy, Moses Sim. '■ Levy, Nathan. Levy, Samuel. Minis, Philip. Mordecai, Samuel. Moses, Abraham. Moses, Barnart or Barnard, Sr. Moses, Barnart, Jr. i8 Moses, Henry. Moses, Jacob. Moses, Myer or Meyer. Moses, Philip. Myers, Joseph. Myers, Mordecai. Pollock, Samuel. (?) Pollock, Solomon, (?) (an express rider.) Salomons, Myer. Sarzedas, David. Sasportas, Abraham. Seixas, Abraham. Sheftall, Levi. Simons, Sampson. Simons, Saul. Solomo, Zadok. (?) Solomons, Joseph. Spitzer, Bernard Moses. Tobias, Jacob. Tobias, Joseph. Tores, Benjamin. To compile this list I have used every possible source of information, both here and in Columbia, viz: The various Ga- zettes, the records in the offices of Pro- bate and Mesne Conveyance, the "Grant Books" and finally the tombstones in the old cemetery here. I have even incorpo- rated some names of persons who have letters awaiting them at the postofflce. A few of these may not even have been res- idents of Charleston at all. Thei-e may be two or three who are not Jews and some, too, who were not here during the latter part of the Revolution. In all there are only 68 names. This paves the way for an intelligent discussion of the part played in the Revolution by the Jews of South Car- olina and which I reserve for my next article. 19 THE DAGGETT PRTQ CO. CHASN. 8. C The Jews of South Carolina.*. t^ ^ «^ «^ IlL The Jews in the Revolution, ^ ^ J< Jt Copyright The News and Courier, 1903. ^ J^ ^ ufi I have brought my story down to a most interesting period. To describe the part played by the Jews of South Carolina, or rather by the Jews of Charleston, for there is nothing in the records, with one or two exceptions, as far as I have been able to ascertain, of any other Jews of South Carolina who saw service in the field, is a task quite easy and yet difficult. Till now the story has not been written. A few traditional tales, distorted accord- ing as the imagination of the story-teller was more or less vigorous and still fur- ther distorted by the imagination of the editor, are all that we now possess. No attempt has hitherto been made to go to original sources. Hence it Is that the list of traditional items that found their way into the scrappy notices in Leeser's "Oc- cident" of fifty years ago have gone the rounds of the newspapers and the books, and have been so often repeated that they have come to be looked upon as narra- tives of fact. Read the story of the Jews of Charleston where you will, you will find nothing but the same old stories told over and over again. The trouble with all past writers without exception has been that they have made no attempt to ascertain the facts. Our present data are all of them traditions which, while containing a germ of truth, are like all traditions, largely unreliable. This is strange in view of the fact that historical material in Charleston is so abundant that it it is possible to write the story of the Jews of Charleston in the eighteenth century in almost as complete detail and with the same historical accuracy that one could write their history of twenty years ago. TTie newspapers are here al- most complete. The records are here al- most complete. All the historian needs is to know where to look, how to look and for what to look. This will furnish him with the facts and these will testify quite as eloquently to the value of the Jew as a citizen, as the glittering generalities and the specious absurdities that have till now passed current as history. We are, it seems to me, far enough removed from the scene to view the story in its true perspective. I shall continue, as before, to let the records as far as possible speak for themselves. THE JEW A GOOD CITIZEN. if it be the verdict of history that the Jew has been an important factor in the material development of every country in which he has lived, it is equally true that he has everywhere manifested his appre- ciation of the protection and freedom which have been vouchsafed to him by his willngness to bear the full burdens of citizenship even to the extent of ungrudg- ingly laying down his life in his country's defence. One needs no better illustration of Jewish patriotism than the story of the Jews of South Carolina. To appreciate the part that the Jews of this State played in the Revolution, however, one must pos- sess an adequate knowledge of the his- tory of South Carolina as well as a knowledge of the local field. Without this local knowledge one can at best only evolve a more or less imaginative picture from his inner consciousness— an un- worthy performance in these days of sci- entific attainment and honest research. But to come back to the story. In my last article I printed a list, Which I am satisfied is practically exhaustive, of all the Jews who were in Charleston between 1770 and 1782. I omitted a couple of names of men who, like Moses Lindo, died prior to 1775. In all there were 08 names. I would leave my readers under an entirely wrong impression, however, if I did not give them some further informa- tion about this list, Information that will change the aspect of this number materi- ally. Of these 68 names I am morally certain that one at least is not a Jew— Solomon Pollock. He was an express rider in the country and I obtained his name from a Revolutionary "indent" in Columbia. I have my doubts also about Moses Harris. Mordecai Myers belongs to Georgetown and is only here at the latter part of the Rev- olution. So does Abraham Cohen, though he was in the militia of Charleston during the siege. Ezekiel Levy has a letter wait- ing for him at the postofflce on April 21, 1779, which is still there on July 9. He prooably does not belong here at all. Mordecai Harris should be stricken from my list. His name appears on a petition printed in the South Carolina and Amer- ican General Gazette for November 26, 1778. This petition is half destroyed and I have since discovered is a Georgia peti- tion. The name of Joseph Solomon should be added. Benjamin Tores did not com© here till 1782. What has more bearing an our discussion, however, is the fact that of this number no less than 21 do not ap- pear In Charleston prior to 1779. Many of them came from Savannah in that year. Some came still later. Here is the list: Abrahams, Joseph. De La Motta, Emanuel. De Lyon, Abraham. De Lyon, Isaac. De Palacios, Joseph. Jacobs, Jacob. Levy, Hart. Levy, Michael. Levy, Samuel Minis, Philip. Moses, Barnart. Moses, Jacob. Moses, Philip. Myers, Joseph. Pollock, Samuel. Sasportas, Abraham. Seixas, Abraham. Sheftall, Levi. Simons, Sampson. Simons, Saul. Spitzer, Bernard Moses. Joshua Hart left Charleston in 1779 and did not return until 1784, when he makes an announcement to his old friends and customers. Bernard Moses Spitzer like- wise leaves for the West Indies in that year. It must not be forgotten, too, that there were Jews at this time in George- town, Camden, Black Mingo and Beau- fort, whose names appear in Charleston from time to time. With this preliminary explanation the way is now clear for a better understanding of our inquiry. THE STATUS IN 1775-6. I will now very briefly indicate the posi- tion of South Carolina in the Revolution. This is necessary for a correct under- standing of what follows. I shall make no attempt at fine writing, as my entire concern is to bring out the facts. South Carolina was a favored colony. She had none of the grievances, e. g. of Massachusetts. Her trade with the mother country was large. Her agricul- tural products were sold at good prices to England and her industries were fostered by generous bounties on the part of the home Government. Her only grievance was the question of "home rule" and that question was of little concern to the peo- ple at large. The only aggrieved ones were the intellectual and ambitious classes and with such a commercial pop- ulation could scarcely be expected to be in sympathy. The masses were naturally hostile to a revolution which threatened to disturb the quiet progress of a trade of which, having interests unlike those of New England, they had nothing to com- plain. The population of South Carolina, too. was a very mixed one. South Carolina was an English colony and the English are by nature loyal. So are the Scotch and they were numerous. The foreign set- tlers were opposed to the Revolution, and it is only what is to be expected, there- fore, that public opinion in South Carolina should have been well divided. Not that the sentiments of the masses were always known. To use a homely il- lustration: A merchant to-day, if he is wise, does not go out of his way to pro- claim his political views to every custom- er that enters his store. He could talk freely with far more impunity to-day than he could have spoken at the beginning of the Revolution. The commercial popula- tion simply watched the course of events, awaited developments and later on showed unmistakably where they stood. These facts are forcibly set forth in two bril- liant articles from the pen of W. Gilmore Simms in the July and October numbers of the Southern Quarterly Review for 1848— articles Which ought to be read and read again by all who are interested in the history of South Carolina. Jews are proverbially loyal to the ruling Power. As was the case with the rest of the population, Jewish sentiment was divided. We shall see later that there were a number of Jews whose sentiments were known to be Pro-British. The num- ber of Jews who served In the field, how^ ever and who rendered other service to the Revolutionary cause— in proportion to their total number— was phenomenally large. Of this the records leave no doubt. THE MILITIA JLAWS. Before referring to these records, how- ever, it would be well to glance at the militia system of South Carolina at the outbreak of and during the Revolution. I shall only take note of pertinent points. Every man between the ages of 16 and 60 who was able to bear arms was com- pelled to enroll himself in some militia company. Prior to 1775 he could enroll himself in any company he pleased, but subsequent to November 20, 1775, he could only enroll himself in the district of the regiment to which he belonged. (S. C. G. November 28, 1775.) By a resolution of the Provincial Con- gress, dated June 17, 1775, volunteer com- panies of not less than fifty might organ- ize themselves into a company of foot, choosing their own officers. (Supplement to S. C. G. September 7, 1775.) By the Act of 1778 a company consisted of 60 men. (Statutes of South Carolina, Vol 9, p 667.) In the same Act is it further enacted: "That there shall not be formed any vol- unteer company in this State after the passing of this Act." * * ♦ (Ibid p 667.) The duties of a militiaman were "to ap- pear completely armed once in every fort- night for muster, train and exercise," to do patrol duty and to be drafted for a limited time— usually 30 or 60 days accord- 6 ing to the season of the year, when deemed necessary by the Governor or Commander-in-Chief. (Ibid. See also Ga- zette of the State of South Carolina, March 10, 1779.) A man could furnish a substitute and thus be himself exempt from militia duty. S. C. G. March 10, 1779.) Amongst those exempt from military service are clergymen and teachers, (Statutes of South Carolina, Vol 9, p 620.) And here I would remark that it would seem that these militia laws were not very carefully observed. I find one pre- sentment after another of the grand juries calling attention to their neglect. I would likewise point out that every man was not physically able to do military duty. Many were excused. Moultrie himself tells us this in referring to those who surrendered after the siege. * * * "This threat brought out the aged, the timid, the disaffected and the infirm, many of them who had never appeared during the whole siege. * * * I saw the column march out and was surprised to see it so large; but many of them we had excused from age and infirmities." (Memoirs, Vol 2, pp 108-9.) We can now proceed intelligently to deal wi^h the records. These records are by no means as incomplete as we have hitherto thought. We have so many side sources of Information that I may claim that it is possible to present a picture of the part that the Jews of South Carolina played in the Revolution with almost ab- solute fidelity. We must, however, dis- miss completely the fictions of the early writers. SOURCES OF INFORMATION. What are these side sources of informa- tion? We have first of all the record and pension oflice and the bureau of pensions 7 at Washington; we have a vast number of Revolutionary records in this State. There is that wonderful Emmet Collection in the New York Public Library. There are a number of contemporary diaries available to us. There are the tombstones in our cemetery, and lastly the files of the newspapers, which rarely fail to men- tion military services in the obituary no- tices of deceased patriots. We have seen what Jews were here during th'e Revolu- tion. We shall soon see what a large por- tion of them we can account for. Let us now proceed with the story, which is plain sailing. The first real fighting in which the Charles Town militia were called into ser- vice—but the Charles Town militia took no part in the fight— was the battle of Fort Moultrie in June, 1776. Fort Moultrie was garrisoned by South Carolina regulars and the battle was fought by them alone. Of course the militia were in service in Charles Town, but they took no part in the engagement. There were quite a num- ber of Jews In the Charles Town militia. Who they were I shall tell later. There do not appear to have been any Jews amongst the South Carolina regulars. The result of the battle of Fort Moul- trie was to insure undisturbed peace to South Carolina from June, 1776, to May, 1779. Trade went on pretty much as usual. The people married and gave in marriage, and beyond internal dissensions on ao- count of the Loyalists there is nothing to be noted of interest. LUSHINGTON'S COMPANY. Between 1776 and 1778 Richard Lushing- ton was promoted to be captain in the Charles Town regiment of militia. His company Included nearly all of the Jews of Charles Town who fought in the Rev- olution, and that for reasons we have al- ready seen. Soldiers had to enroll them- selves in the district In which they lived. Richard Lushington's district extended on King street, from Broad street to Charles Town Neck— the modern Calhoun street. King street was then as now a principal business street and most of the Jews had their stores there. I could give the list of Jews who lived on King street, but this would serve no useful purpose. Of the names of Lushington's company that have come down to us I have in a former arti- cle pointed out, the Jewish names are in a decided minority. Lushington's company took part in sev- eral engagements. It fought in the battle of Beaufort in February, 1779. Here Jo- seph Solomon was killed. (Gazette of the State of South Carolina. March 10, 1779.) The Charles Town militia likewise took part in the attempt to recapture Savan- nah in the same year. Here David Nu- nez Cardozo distinguished himself. (See inscription on his tombstone here, also obituary notice in the Charleston Courier of July 10, 1835.) That the Jews both of Charles Town and Savannah had done their full duty to the patriot cause is attested by a splen- did piece of uncontradicted contemporary testimony. AN EXTRAORDINARY LETTER. I remember listening some twenty years ago— long before I left England— to a powerful Jewish sermon on the subject of "How Shall we Answer Calumny?" The preacher referred to the over-sensitiveness of Jews and their tendency to rush into print whenever any allusion was made to them which might be construed into a real or imaginary offence. He warned hia hearers that we Jews should be careful not to manifest irritation at the writings of every anonymous scribbler. If the de- fence becomes perpetuated, so does the attack. He illustrated his theme by a reference to the book of Josephus against Apion. This blundering ignoramus would never have been heard of but for Jose- phus's reply. I was forcibly reminded of both the sermon and the illustration when I came across the following letter in the South Carolina and American General Gazette of December 3, 1778. Mrs Crouch's paper containing the libel is no longer in existence, and while the attack has come down to us by reason of the reply, we have in this instance at least no cause to regret it. The style of the letter is quaint, but its contents are telling. Here it is: MR WEI>LS, On perusing Mrs Crouch and Co's paper of the 1st instant, I was extremely surprised to find, in a piece signed AN AMERICAN, a signature suf- ficient to lead every honest and judicious man to imagine, that whatever was said in so publick a manner, should Be ingenu- ous and true, assertions directly contrary. Here are his words: "Yesterday being by my business posted in a much frequented corner of this town, I observed, in a small space of time, a number of chairs and loaded horses be- longing to those who journeyed, come into town.— Upon inspection of their faces and enquiry, I found them to be of the TRIBE OF ISRAEa:,— who, after taking every ad- vantage in trade the times admitted of in the State of Georgia, as soon as it was at- tacked' by an enemy, fled here for an asy- lum, with their ill-got wealth— dastardly turning their backs upon the country when in danger, which gave them bread and pro- tection—Thus it will be in this State if it should ever be assailed bj' our enemies — Let judgment take place." I am apt to think, Mr Printer, that the gentleman Is either very blind, or he is willing to make himself so; for I am well convinced, had he taken the trouble of going closer to the chairs, he would have found that what he has thus publickly as- serted was erroneous and a palpable mis- take, as he might have been convinced they were of the female kind, with their dear babes, who had happily arrived at an asylum, where a tyrannical enemy was not at theirs or their dear offsprings heels. I do, therefore, in vindication of many a worthy Israelite now in Georgia, assert, that there is not, at this present hour, a single Georgia Israelite in Charles Town; and that so far to the contrary of that gentleman's assertion, I do declare to the Publick, that many merchants of that State were here on the 22d ult, and on being informed of the enemy landing, they instantly left this, as many a worthy Gentile knows, and proceeded post haste to Georgia, leaving all their concerns un- settled, and are now with their brother citizens in the field, doing that which every honest American should do. The truth of this assertion will, in the course of a few days, be known to gentle- men of veracity, who are entitled to the ippellation of Americans. The Charles- town Israelites, I bless Heaven, hitherto have behaved as staunch as any other citi- zens of this State, and I hope their fur- ther conduct will be such as will invali- date the malicious and designing fallacy of the author of the piece alluded to. I am. Sir, Yours, etc, A real AMERICAN, and True hearted ISRAELITE. Charleston, Wednesday, December 2, 1778. We next meet with Lushington's com- pany at the siege of Charles Town in 1780. Here our information concerning the Jews who fought in the militia is most com- plete. The original papers of Gen Lin- coln, who was In command of the Ameri- can army in South Carolina in 1780, are still In existence and are to be seen in the "Emmet Collection" in the New York Public Library. Appreciating the value of this priceless collection, our Ex-Mayor Courtenay, whose services in preserving and rendering available rare documents relating to South Carolina cannot be over- estimated by our people, and with him our present Mayor J. Adger Smyth, incor- porated many valuable documents from this collection, relating to the siege of Charlestown, into the "Year Book" for 1897. Three of these documents are espe- cially interesting in our investigation. JEWS IN THE SIE3GE. The defence of Charles Town is unique in the history of beleaguered cities. That it withstood a siege of two months against such overwhelming odds must excite the admiration of all Who read the story. Its doom was sealed from the first, but not until provisions had given out and all the ammunition was practically spent; not until the British were within twenty yards of the American lines, and every hope of assistance was cut off, was there ever a thought of surrender. But the in- evitable came at last. All hope being gone and further resistance being impossible, to avoid a useless slaughter the principal inhabitants of Charles Town and a num- ber of the country militia petitioned Gen Ijlncoln to surrender. These petitions have came down to us and on them are many Jewish names. There are three lists— one of civilians containing 300 names appended, including many Jews, another of country militia with 111 names, but no Jews, and a third, of country mili- tia, with 345 names appended, In- cluding many Jews. I reproduce the two p^etitions that contain the names of Jews with their fac simile signatures. One of these signers, Joseph Myers (?)— the name is illegible— it will be seen, tries to make "his mark" in script Hebrew. From his Hebrew signature "Joseph," he appears to be almost as il- literate in that language as he was in English. I am Indebted to Mayor Smyth for his courtesy in permitting these repro- ductions and for the loan of the cuts. Here, then, are the petitions: PETITIONS TO GEN LINCOLN. I. To the Honorable Major General Lin- coln— The Humble petition of divers Inhabi- tants of Charleston in behalf of them- selves and others, their fellow citizens— Sheweth That your petitioners being In- form'd the difficulties that arose in the Negotiation yesterday, and the day pre- '^edlng, related wholly to the Citizens, to whom the British Commanders offer'd their estates, and to admit them to their parole as Prisoners of War; and your pe- titioners understanding it is an indisputa- ble proposition, that they can derive no advantage by a perseverance in resist- ance; with every thing that is dear to them at stake, they think it their Indis- pensable duty, in this perilous situation of affairs, to request your Honor will send out a flag, in the name of the people. In timating their acquiescence in the terms propounded. Charleston, 10th May, 1780. 13 (Three hundred names are attached to this petition. Among them are:) Markes Lazarus. Solomon Aaron. Philip Minis. Is Da Costa, Jr. Joseph Solomons (x.) Gershon Cohen. Jacob Jacobs. Zadok Solomo? Meyer Moses. Joseph de Palacios. Philip Hart. David Sarzedas. Abraham Moses. Joseph De Palacios. Joseph Myers (x) II. To the Honorable Major General Liln- coln The Humble petition of divers Country Militia on behalf of themselves and others their fellow citizens— Sheweth That your petitioners being in- form'd the difficulties that arose in the ne- gotiation yesterday and the day preceding related wholly to the Citizens to whom the British commanders offered their es- tates and to admit them to their parole as prisoners of w^ar, and your petitioners un- derstanding it as an Indisputable propo- sition that they can derive no advantage from a perserverance in resistance, with every thing that is dear to them at stake, they think it their Indispensable duty In this perilous situation of affairs, to re- quest your Honor will send out a Flag In the name of the people Intimating their acquiescence In the terms proposed.— ^l<^^/«/ V-' /i^/i^-!. y^.^£ i i* j»» oc -«-* i^*^^^^*xc.ejj 4a>Tey!^^*^^«^ y^^^ln.j, y^^lL^ ^\ . . 'S^xS^^^ -__^^^ ^"iiPjf^M^ O^f^^^ ^A^^ ^ A^' SZ^C^^^ n j^^tf^jt^^u % %^';!i: »<^y/>fc g^^>>>^^,^-r> (Here are appended the names of Field- officers and men— in all 345 namea, amongst which are the following:) Philip Moses. Abraham Cohen. Myer Salomons. Moses Harris (?) Philip Jacob Cdhen. Jacob Moses. Juda Abrahams. Moses Cohen. Emanuel Abrahams. Samuel Polak. Samuel Jones. Barnard Moses, Junr. I. Cohen. Samuel Mordecai. OTHER JEWISH SOLDIERS. We have on this last petition the names of 13 and possibly of 14 Charles Town Jews who served in the militia during the siege. There are several others whose names haVe come down to us. Marks Lazarus, who is apparently a civilian, in May 1780, saw service in 1776, 1779 and 1780. He was a sergeant major. I have before me a copy of his war record from the bureau of pensions. (See also obituary notice in the "Southern Patriot" of November 7, 1835.) He was afterwards one of the petitioners to Clinton, David Nunez Cardoza was also a ser- geant major. I have already referred to him. His obituary notice informs us that "he marched with the Grenadier corps from Charleston to the Lines before Sa- vannah, and as first non-commissioned officer of Capt Boquet's company, volun- teered and led the Forlorn Hope in the assault on the British lines." Abraham Seixas was a captain of mili- tia here, but fought as a lieutenant in the Continental line in Georgia. He went to 15 Philadelphia in 1782, but returned to Charleston later. Joseph Solomon we have already seen was killed at the battle of Beaufort. Jacob Cohen we are told in the "Diary of Josiah Smith, Jr," was "one of the prisoners on parole, that were sent on board the prison ship Torbay and Schoon- er Pack Horse, the 17th of May, 1781." It is worthy of note that his name is not mentioned in any of the lists of these prisoners in Garden, Moultrie, Ramsay, Drayton, Gibbes or McCrady. Of Jacob I. Cohen, who is referred to by all writers, I have till now found no men- tion in any of the records here. Nor have I found anything with reference to Capt Jacob De T-.eon, or Capt Jacob De La Motta, of Charleston, who are supposed to have fought at the battle of Camden. I would like to have some authority for the story that these men together with Major Nones carried off the wounded De Kalb from the field. It is strange that none of the contemporary writers mention it. It is remarkable, too, that Lossing, who has preserved so many traditions in his "Field Book of the Revolution"— and he is particularly gossippy in his story of this battle— should know nothing about it. The names I have mentioned are all that I have till now been able to discover in the records. There may be some more that I may yet find, but these will not be many. It would be unreasonable to expect it. An entire population never fights, but those who don't fight or who are physi- cally unable to fight— and these will al- ways form a goodly portion of a popula- tion—are able to render other service that Is equally valuable. As a matter of fact, during the siege of Charleston, the trou- ble was not the lack of men. All the early writers have noted the fact that had there been more men, the only purpose they i6 could have served would have been to make provisions scarce in a shorter time. Of men who rendered good service to the American cause and who were not flg-ht- ers we have also documentary evidence. PATRIOTIC CIVILIANS. In the North American Review for July, 1826, p 73, Isaac Harby referring to the Jews in the Revolution writes: "My ma- ternal grandfather contributed pecuniary aid to South Carolina, and particularly to Charleston, when besieged by the Brit- ish. My father-in-law was a brave gren- adier in the regular American army, and fought and bled for the liberty he lived to enjoy, and to hand down to his chil- dren." The maternal grandfather of Isaac Harby was Meyer Moses and his father- in-law was Samuel Mordecai. To the ser- vices rendered by Meyer Moses Gen Sum- ter testified in after years in a letter to Franklin J. Moses, a grandson of the Jewish patriot, who had died in 1787. There were, and I believe still are, in Columbia the original letter and a testimonial from Oen Sumter of similar purport. I re- produce only the latter: South Mount, October 11, 1831. I certify that I was well acquainted with Myer Moees, Esq, Merchant In Charles- ton, So, Ca. I understood and believed that he was friendly and attached to the American cause during the Revolution. I further understood and believe that his treatment to the American wounded and prisoners were such as to entitle him to the good wishes and gratitude of all those who had the success of the Revolution at heart. After the fall of Charleston his treatment to the wounded and prisoners Who were taken and sent to Charleston was extremely friendly and humane, they being in the greatest possible distress. 17 Moreover I have understood and believed that on these occasions he expended a considerable sum in relieving them, (Signed) Thos Sumter. Mordecai Myers, of Georgetown, was an- other man who furnished supplies to the American army. (See Gibbes's "Docu- ments," (1781-2,) pp 182-3. See, however, also Gibbes (1776-1782,) p 160, "Gen Marion to Col P. Horry.") LOYALISTS IN CHARLESTON. I have already referred in this article, to the division of sentiment that existed among the population of South Carolina and of Charleston at the outbreak of and during the Revolution. The Gazettes print the names of some who "embarked under an unhappy delusion" for other parts. (See list in Gazette of the State of South Carolina for July 8, 1778.) We read of many who "left the State to join the enemies thereof." (Ibid! November 24, 1779.) Charleston, in fact, wa^ full of Brit- ish sympathizers— witness the large lists of petitioners to Clinton, of addressers of Cornwallis and of Clinton and Ar- burthnot. In conversation with Moultrie, after the surrender, Capt Rochfort, a British officer, remarked: "Sir, you have made a gallant defence, but you had a great many rascals among you who came out every night and gave us information of what was passing in your garrison." (Moultrie's Memoirs, Vol 2, p 108.) Many at first, naturally enough, were very care- ful as to how they betrayed their real sentiments. When Charleston surrendered, however, they did not hesitate to show what their sentiments really were, others thinking that South Carolina would finally remain a British province, and hoping to save their property, sincerely returned to their allegiance. Still others were by ne- cessity compelled to accept British pro- i8 taction. (See Ramsay's South Carolina, pp 120 et seq.) Referring to the Jewish merchants, Ramsay remarks that: "While prisoners, they were encouraged to make purchase* from the British merchants who came with the conquering army, and after they had contracted large debts of this kind, were precluded by proclamation from sell- ing the goods they had purchased, unless they assumed the name and character of British subjects." (Ibid.) This could only have been the case with a minority. The majority did not take protection or swear allegiance, but left C?harles Town after the surrender. PE3TITIONS TO CLINTON. About August or September, 1780, many citizens of Charles Town presented a pe- tition to the Commandant setting forth "that they were very desirous to show every mark of allegiance and attachment to his Majesty's person and Government, to which they were most sincerely well affected, and, therefore, humbly prayed that they might have an opportunity to evince the sincerity of their profeesione." This petition was referred to "gentlemen of known loyalty and integrity, as well as knowledge of the persons and charac- ters of the inhabitants, in order to repbrt the manner In which the Memorialists had heretofore conducted themselves." This committee reported favorably in the cases of 166 citizens, including the follow- ing Jews: Joseph Myers. Saul Simons. Abraham Alexander. Moses Eliazer. Philip Cohen. Marcus Lazarus. Philip Moses. (The Royal South Carolina Gazette, Sep- tember 21, 1780.) 19 Of these Marcus (Marks) Dazarus and Philip Moses had been soldiers in the war, and for some or other reason now swore allegiance. Abraham -Alexander was the minister of Beth Elohim and the Syna- gogue constitution of 1820, (Rule XX,) tells us that Rabbi Moses Eleizar wae "a learned man in the laws of God, and until his death had taught the youth of this congregation and manifested tmremitted zeal to promote religion in this country." There is no evidence to show and no rea- son for supposing that these men were not expressing their real convictions when they signed the petition to Sir Henry Clin- ton. It is worthy of note that in a subse- quent petition for protection of 211 citi- zens, published in the Royal Gazette of July 11, 1781, nothing is said about the pe- tition being referred to a committee of citizens of known loyalty and integrity, etc. In this second petition such a refer- ence was unnecessary. The petitioners had been admittedly Anti-British. The Royal Gazette and the Royal South Carolina Gazette, published during the pe- riod of British occupation, show the fol- lowing Jews as doing business here during that period: Joseph Abrahams. Jacob Jacobs. Delyon and Moses Isaac Delyon. Gershon Cohen. Emanuel Abrahams. Abraham Cohen. Abraham Da Costa. Of these Emanuel Abrahams and Abra- ham Cohen had fought in the war. All of these men, however, must either have taken protection after the surrender or have been known to have been Well af- fected or at least not openly hostile to the British cause. Most of them had been do- ing business here right along since 17TO. Those whose sentiments were known to have been hostile were sought out by the British and banished. Amongst these was Isaac Da Costa, Sr, whose estates we have seen were promptly seized and con- fiscated by the British and himself ban- ished. We have likewise seen Jacob Oohen put on board the prison ship. Isaac Delyon was a known Tory and his property was amerced after the Revolu- tion. He came here in 1779. There would doubtless have been other amercements, but the records do not show any wealth among the Jews who remained here in business during the period of British occu- pation. Levi Sheftall was likewise a Loy- alist. Be it ever remembered, however, that there was as much true patriotism in the Loyalist as there was in the most ardent Revolutionist. In my search in Columbia I examined many thousands of "indents," or certifi- cates entitling the holder to payment of sums due for services rendered in the war. There was not a single one made out in favor of a Jew. The date of these indents explained the reason. They were all for services rendered subsequent to 1780. After May, 1780, the Charles Town militia were prisoners on parole and very few afterwards took the field. Some did, but there was a special reason in their case. We know what became of the Jew- ish population. THE MAJORITY STEADFAST. Most of the Jewish merchants did not and would not take protection, but left for Philadelphia after the surrender of Charles Town, and in 1782 we find 10 Charles Town Jews in the list of original members of the Mickveh Israel Congrega- tion. There were other Jews, doubtless, who do not appear on the list. (See Mo- rals "Jews of Philadelphia," p 15.) The ten names I refer to are those of Isaac Da Costa, Sr, Isaac Da Costa, Jr, Samuel Da. Costa, Philip Moses, Israel Jacobs, Jacob Cohen, Ezekiel Levy, Abraham Sasportas, Abraham Selxas and Solomon Aaron. These men came back afterwards when peace was restored. So much, then, for the evidence of the records. I must now say a word about the tra- ditional story. The most careful investi- gation has failed to reveal the large num- ber of Jews who are supposed to have borne arms in the Revolution. Men who write history ought to have some sense of proportion. I believe that my list is prac- tically exhaustive and that I am perfectly safe in asserting that never at any time during the Revolution were there 60 Jews in Charleston between the ages of 16 and 60. It is highly improbable that there were 50, and of these, of course, many did not fight. This we know positively. There is another way, however, in which we arrive at the same conclusion. We are told that in 1791 Beth Elohim Congregation consisted of 53 families, numbering up- wards of 400 persons. So complete has been my investigation that if I desired to do so I could enumerate these and go even into the details of their family his- tory. We know who came here after the Revolution, when they came here and where they came from. By this double method of calculation the chances of er- ror are reduced to very narrow limita. Three or four names may yet be brought to light and perhaps as many who served in the militia, but more than this number I do not believe will ever be found. TRADITIONS UPSET. But how about the company of Jews which is referred to by every past writer and the company of volunteers command- ed by Capt Richard Lushlngton and or- ganized in 1779? Prior to 1779, in which year, as we have seen, there was a large accession from Savannah, a company com- posed entirely or almost entirdly of Jews is a manifest Impossibility. A company of volunteers in 1779 is likewise an impos- sibility, in view of the Act of 1778, which declared that "there shall not be formed any volunteer company in this State after the passing- of this Act." This is surely conclusive. Of Lushington's company we have information from several sources. He must have commanded about 60 men. Several rolls of militia companies are in existence and they all contain about this number and the Act itself prescribes thi.s number as a company. I have the names of over 20 Non-Jews in his command. This speaks for itself. It is easy enough to account for the tra- dition In this case. We have seen that nearly all the Jews of Charleston who fought, fought In Lushington's command. We have seen also the reason of this. From the number of Jews in this company it got the name of the "Jew Company." Forty years afterwards, time enough for legend and fancy to have had full play, we find the writers and speakers— and there was some excuse for them— referring to Lushington's company of Jews. In fur- nishing material for a plea for toleration for the Jews of Maryland a little exag- geration was pardonable, particularly in the early days, but there is no such ex- cuse for men who undertake to write his- tory. Historians do not incorporate news paper clippings into their work without investigation, nor do such newspaper clip- pings even when used in debate become authoritative sources of reference. Such "authorities" are good enough for men who only use second-hand sources of in- formation in their work and who under- take to write a hundred years of history in as many minutes. It is not to the 23 credit of our time that such superficial work is received with approbation. Need I say anything about that other statement— the "remarkable fact" that nearly all the Jews who served on the field served as ofl[icers? It is on the face of it so puerile that I will not even discuss it. With the exception of Capt Seixas, there were a few non-commissioned ofl^cers, but these are only officers by courtesy. A company of Jews— and nearly all officers! Kentucky is not as original as we have been led to believe. And is not the tale that the facts unfold glorious enough? The Jews of South Car- olina furnished the Revolution with Fran- cis Salvador, one of its most trusted lead- ers. In proportion to their numbers they furnisTied at least as many men as did their neighbors and gave as freely of their means to the cause. I claim no more, but is it not enough? THE DAQQETT PRTQ CO. CHASN. S. C. THE JEWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA . , . fj^ j^ tfi ^ A Survey of the Records at Present Existing in Charleston. ...BY... Dr. BARNETT A* ELZAS, Rabbi of K. K. Beth Elohim. ^^W ^^^ ^^^ 4^^ IV J 783— 1800. •^ ^ «^ J^ [Reprinted from the Charleston News and Courier, May, 1903.] The Jews of South Carolina*** v^ %i^ J^ «^ IV. J783— J800. «^ o* «^ «^ [Reprinted from The News and Courier.] ^ J^ Jft Jft With the present article I taring my sketches of the Jews of South Carolina to an end. The most interesting part of the story remains yet to be told. I am reserv- ing that for my book, which I hope to see published next year. It will take me many months of patient work, however, before I can sift and digest the almost endless material that I have gathered during the last eight years. To collate carefully the long-lost records of K. K. Beth Elohlm is Of itself a formidable task. Before proceeding to-day, however, I regret that I have again to pay a little at- tention to the notable Huhner, of New York. I thought that I had done with him, but he is apparently very dissatis- fied. I begrudge the space that I am giv- ing up to him, for he is literally incor- rigible. There are some, however, who are Interested in this matter, who keep newspaper clippings, and who may happen to have preserved that gentleman's "last word" in the American Hebrew. (P 493.) For them I propose to keep the record straight, Huhner and the American He- brew notwithstanding. I do not propose either to allow the impression to be given that my criticism was in any way unfair or unwarranted. Of the twenty undeniable mistakes of fact in Mr Huhner's thousand-word arti- cle he selects eight in which he imagrines he has a g-ood defence. He even under- takes to correct our ignorance. We shall see how well he succeeds. I shall refer to his statements in the order in which they are made in his "last word:" First. As to Myer Moses. Says Mr Huh- ner: "Nowhere, either in the Year Book for 1886 or in the Statutes, do we find Jr after Mr Moses's name, and the name is invariably found as Myer, not Meyer, as Mr Salley has it." Mr Huhner is right. The writer in the year book does not add Jr to the name, nor had he any occasion to do so. Had he dreamt, however, that the time might come when Mr Huhner would undertake to write on the history of South Carolina and make a man who had died in 1787 either a member of the Legislature in 1810, or a Commissioner of Education in 1812, he would doubtless have added this landmark and other infoi-ma- tion for his guidance, but unfortunately he was not to know this. As for the spell- ing "Meyer," which Mr Huhner thinks is invariably "Myer," it is interesting to ob- serve that the father wrote his own name "Meyer Moses"— I published his autograph signature recently— and in the office of mesne conveyance here, where the deeds are supp>osed to be true copies of the orig- inals, the name of the son is never spelt in any other way. Mr Huhner next proceeds to enlighten us as to what is meant when "we" sp>eak of board of education, and claims again that the Act of 1811 was the beginning of the public school system as such in South Carolina. "This is the view," says Mr Huhner, "taken by all writers of impor- tance." This is Mr Huhner, but not fact. McCrady will certainly be accepted as a 1 writer of importance on matters relating to South Carolina; indeed, this distin- guished author has given us the most comprehensive study on this subject that has till now appeared. Let the student read McCrady's essay on "Education in South Carolina" in Volume 4 of the Collec- tions of the South Carolina Historical So- ciety, and he will find overwhelming proof that the public school system of South Carolina, was a gradual evolution and that the Act of ISll merely modified the system that had been in existence uninterruptedly for over 100 years. In this essay, which was considered of sufficient importance to be reproduced by the United States Bureau of Education, McCrady mercilessly exposes the superficiality of McMaster and no one familiar with the literature of the history of South Carolina would to-day think of quoting that writer as an au- thority. Such authorities are good enough for historical scribblers and historical "in- corporators," but we have a right to de- mand better knowledge of the sources from men who write in encyclopaedias and who proclaim themselves specialists. With reference to Moses Lindo, Mr Huh- ner can only repeat what he said in his first letter, as though repeating what he said in his first letter would alter the fact that he had stated in his paper that Moses Lindo was "among those who were in the army," or that "Inspector Ceneral for South Carolina," as he calls him in his ar- ticle in the Encyclopaedia, is meaningless except as a military title. Mr Huhner again tangles himself up with Salvador. In his article Mr Huhner informed us that Salvador was a mem- ber of the "Colonial Assembly" as early as 1774. I will not go over the ground again — it seems to be too much for him— but will merely point out that not a single one of Mr Huhner's authorities show him to be a member of any body earlier than 1775. Perhaps Mr Huhner's mind can take so much in. Mr Huhner next tells how it came to pass that he knew nothing about Jewish Tories in Charleston. Though the Peti- tion to Clinton is referred to by McCrady, that author does not specifically mention the Jewish names, nor are they given in any of Mr Huhner's books, so that it is unfair to say that he ought to have known about them. He knew that Sabine's "Loy- alists" mentioned Isaac Delyon; he knew that Isaac Delyon had been amerced as a citizen of South Carolina, but further re- search (sic) convinced him that the indi- vidual mentioned belonged to Georgia! "Mr Salley is in error," he says, "in con- cluding that Isaac Delyon belonged to Charleston. He probably had some prop- erty there, but that was all. The author- ities mentioned by Mr Salley do not refer to a South Carolina Tory." (!) Mr Huh- ner is really funny, though he does not seem to possess a very keen sense of hu- mor. Mr Salley, of course, knew what he was writing about— Mr Huhner makes the story up as he goes along. Isaac Delyon became a resident of Charles Town early in 1779. He advertises regularly in the Gazettes for many years, at first in part- nership with Barnart Moses, then in busi- ness by himself. The deeds— and there are many of them In the office of mesne con- veyance here— describe him as "Of Charles Town, merchant," yet Mr Huhner, with an assurance that is amazing, boldly tells his readers that "he probably had some prop- erty there, but that was all." Nor is he any more successful in his attempt to show that Mordecai Sheftall was Commis- sary General for South Carolina and Geor- gia. His own authorities refute his con- tention. 4 Most remarkable, finally, is Mr Huhner's defence of Lushington's company of Jews, and this in the face of the evidence that was adduced against it. We have, he says, the positive statement of Col Worth- ington in 1824, a letter to Jared Sparks, and even a statement in Fishell's "Chronological notes" prepared in 1860. We are not warranted in disregarding such "positive proof!" I do not think it necessary to add anything to what I have already written on this subject. There is no doubt about it, Mr Huhner is a genius. I regret that my style of criticism does not appeal to him. I confess that I don't like it myself, but I like Mr Huhner's methods still less, in dealing with which one need not be too particular as to the- choice of ways and means. But I must re- turn to my subject. In my monograph on Joseph Salvador 1 thought that I had exhausted the refer- ences to him in the records of South Car- olina. There is one document, however, that I had not found by reason of the fact that it was not recorded here till 1804. For the sake of oompleteness I will mention it here. It shows that Joseph Salvador was still poorer than I imagined him when he came to South Carolina. The deed is recorded in the office of mesne conveyance on September 19, 1804. (N 7, p 140.) It is dated March 2, 1775, between Joseph Salvador on the first part, and Phineas Serra, Moses Isaac Levey (Levy,) Emanuel Baruk Louvado (Louisada.) Nathan Modigliani, Solomon D'Anynilar (D'Aguilar,) Samuel Haine, Joseph Fran- co, David Franco, Jacob Consalo, (Con- sales,) Rebecca Mendes Decosta, Benja- min D'Anynilar, (D'Aguilar,) Jacob Fran- co, Francis Franco— all of London— who had advanced and lent to him the sum of £3,000 in certain proportions. He makes over to them 59,900 acres of land excepting such tracts as had been already sold by Rapley, his attorney, and the tract se- cured to Rebecca Mendes Da Costa. My story to-day will cover the period from the end of the Revolution to the year 1800. There is nothing very remarlc- able that happened in this period, nor were there any Jews here of special prom- inence. Most of those who had left during the period of British occupation returned in 1783, or shortly after. The Jews had suffered in common with their neighbors, and many of them, comparatively wealthy before the Revolution, had to begin the battle of life all over again. Many of them engaged in the "Vendue," or auc- tioneer and brolcerage business. They seem to have possessed the confidence of the community and to have soon re- gained their former flourishing condition, a circumstance that roused the envy of their less successful competitors, for we find more than one spiteful reference to them in the Gazettes of this period— a sure sign of hard times. (See e. g. Gazette of the State of South Carolina for September 8, 1785.) Commercially, South Carolina recovered rapidly from the effects of the Revolution, and in the years succeeding that epoch- making event there was a great influx of Jewish population. Jews came here from everywhere— from England, Germany, FYance, Russia, Poland, Curacoa, Jamai- ca, St Eustatius, St Domingo, Newport, New York and Philadelphia. I hope in the near future to publish in full the complete list of inscriptions on the tomb- stones in our old cemetery, which grive us a vast amount of information concerning the origin of many of our early settlers. In 1800 or shortly thereafter Charleston had the largest Jewish population in America. Communally, too, we notice a great de- velopment during the period under con- sideration. From 1750 to 1757 the small congregation worshipped in a small wood- en building in Union street, near Queen street. From 1757 to 1764 they were at 318 King street, near Hasell street, in a house "standing back in the yard." In 1764 they purchased the old burial ground at Coming street from Isaac Da Costa. (M. C, Volume 3, p 108.) I shall tell the story of this old ground, which is still in use, elsewhere. In the same year the Synagogue was removed to a building in Beresford street, near King, where they remained till 1781, when they rented a lot and brick building in Hasell street from Joseph Tobias. This building had been occupied as a cotton gin factory, and was now altered and arranged as a place of WKjrship. It was known as the "Old Syn- agogue." This property, with an adjoin- ing lot, was afterwards purchased from the estate of Joseph Tobias in 1792. (M. C, Volume M 6, pp 45 and 48.) This was not the site, however, on which the present Synagogue stands. The site of the "New Synagogue" was bought from Susannah Quince in 1791. (H. 6., p 98.) In 1791, we are informed, the Congrega- tion had increased to 53 families, number- ing upwards of 400 persons. In this year it became incorporated by an Act of the Legislature. (Statutes of South Carolina, Volume 8, pp. 161-3.) The petition for in- corporation is preserved in the "Occi- dent," Volume 1, pp. 384-5. I believe that the original is still in Columbia, though I was not able to put my hands on it dur- ing my recent visit there. It is entitled "The petition of the wardens and elders of the Jewish Congregation in Charleston, called Beth Elohim or House of God." This brings me to a very interesting ques- tion: Was "Beth Elohim the name of the old Congregation, or was it only called Beth Elohim for short? As far as I know the question has never been raised. I was particularly struck by two be- quests in the will of Joseph Salvador, (which I printed in full abstract, with the exception of a single item, which I de- signedly omitted.) and which are as fol- lows: £100 sterling to Joseph Da Costa, m trust to pay the same to the Portuguese Congregation in the City of Charleston, known by the name Beth Elohim Unveh Shallom, or the House of the Lord, and Mansion of Peace," and to Mr Gershon Cohen £20 sterling for the German Jewish Congregation in the City of Charleston, known by the name of Beth Elohim. or House of the Lord," To doubt the evidence of such a record one must have the most positive of proof, yet this record is not without its diffi- culties. Unfortunately the old "Return Books" are no longer in existence. These would have helped us materially in our inquiry. First, as to the name "Beth Elohim Un- veh Shallom," the late Nathaniel Levin, who wrote his sketch of this Congregation in 1843, and who undoubtedly had seen our oldest' book of records, does not refer to it except by its present name, Beth Elo- him, nor does any ether writer, but that is not strange, seeing that practically nothing new was written until I published my article in the Jewish Comment, and which was largely "incorporated" with re- markable variations in the article in the Jewish Encyclopaedia. In 1784 David Co- hen leaves five guineas to K. K. Beth Elo- him. (Wills A, p 359.) In 1787 Joseph Myers leaves three-fourths of his ©state to K. K. Beth Elohim. (Wills B, p 128.) It loolced very much as tliough there was some mistake in Salvador's wilL In historical matters, however, it does not pay to jump at conclusions. I waited pa- tiently and was rewarded a few days ago by stumbling across another will, which settled the question. In the same vol- ume, (Wills A, p 597.) Moses Molina leaves £15 sterling to the "Portuguese Jew Con- gregation of Beth Elohim Unve Shalom." There might be a mistake in one will, but hardly in two. We may, therefore, take it as proven, that the original name of the Charleston Congregation was not "Beth Elohim," but "Beth Elohim Unveh Sha- lom," and that it was called "Beth Elo- him" for brevity. But we are not yet out of difficulty. Do we know anything of a German-Jewish Congregation in Charleston in 1786, known by the name of "Beth Elohim?" Apart from this reference in the will of Joseph Salvador, I know no place where such a German-Jewish Congregation is men- tioned. Though there are many bequests in the wills to Beth Elohim, there is not a single one to a German-Jewish Congre- gation. This is remarkable in view of the fact that with few exceptions these be- quests were made by those who were not Portuguese Jews by birth. None of the contemporary writers who have referred to the Charleston Jewish community, so far as I have till now been able to ascer- tain, know of more than one Congrega- tion and place of worship. Besides this there is the fact that in the eighteenth century the custom was not usual among German Jews of giving names to congre- gations or synagogues. And if they gave such a name to a congregation in Charles- ton, would they have given the same name as that which the Portuguese Congrega- tion bore? And, finally, there is no rea- son for the existence of such a congrega- tion here in 1786. All writers have taken particular pains to emphasize the fact of the prejudice or antagonism that existed between the German and Portuguese Jews. There is no trace of such prejudice or antagonism in the history of the Jews of South Carolina prior to 1800. German and Portuguese Jews intermarried freely, and the only lines of demarkation be- tween them were the natural dis- tinctions of birth and education. As a matter of fact, except at the very be- ginning of the communal history of Beth Elohim, German Jews have always formed a decided majority. When the eight cor- ner-stones of the "New Synagogue" were laid in 1792, of the eight men who laid laid them: Israel Joseph, Philip Hart, Lyon Moses, Isaac Moses, Eimanuel Abra- hams, Mark Tongues, Hart Moses and Abraham Moses Sr, seven, I believe, were German Jews, and of the committee of arrangements on this occasion— Daniel Hart, Gershon Cohen and Moses C. Levy, two at least, if not all three, were German Jews. I do not care to be dogmatic, espe- cially in the face of record evidence, but I would certainly like some additional proof of the existence of a German-Jewish Congregation here in 1786. Till further proof is adduced I shall continue to doubt. But I must get back to my main theme. In 1792, the Synagogue being too small, the Congregation determined to erect a larger place of worship. The members contributed liberally and the requisite $20,000 was soon raised. I shall not go into details here. These details are fully given, both in the Occident (Volume 1, pp 386-89,) and also in the Year Book for 1883. (Pp 806-8.) The corner-stones were laid on Fri- day, September 14, 1792, with elaborate ceremonial, conducted "by the rules and regulations of the ancient and honorable fraternity of Free Masons." The Synagogue was completed in 1794 and was consecrated on Friday, the 19th of September, of that year. At this con- secration there were present Governor Moultrie, the civil and military officers of the State, the municipal authorities, the clergy and many citizens. There is a no- tice of the ceremonies in the South Caro- lina State Gazette of September 20, 1794. But I must again go back a little. On the establishment of the Federal Govern- ment in 1790 the Jewish community of Charleston addressed a letter of congrat- ulation to Wai^hlngton on his elevation to the Presidency. They also joined the Jew- ish Congregations of Philadelphia, New York and Richmond in a similar letter. I will not rei)nnt these letters, which can be referred to in the Year Book for 1883, Pp 303-5. Washington's reply to the in- dividual letter is printed in the Year Book for 1884, pp 280-1 and to the joint letter, in Wolf's "The American Jew as Citizen and Patriot," pp 58-9. The original reply to the Charleston Congregation was probably bunit In the great fire of 1838. The character of the Jewish community in 1790 may be judged by the following in- cident, which has been preserved to us in the Occident. (Volume 1, pp 339-40.) In that year a Constitutional Convention was held in Columbia and in the election of delegates to that Convention the Jews took an active part. Grateful for the as- sistance which the Jews had rendered him, one of the elected delegates sent the following communication to the vestry: To the Vestry of the Jewish Congrega- tion: Gentlemen: I feel myself greatly obliged by the assistance I received from you and the niembers of your Congregation at the tate election. If the enclosed can serve the poor, or be of any use in any respect to the Congregation, I request their ac- ceptance of it, to be applied in any such manner as they shall think proper. I shall be glad' of any future opportunity of ren- dering any service to the Congregation. Your obliged and humble servant. CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT. The following reply, re-enclosing the or- der for 50 guineas, was sent to Mr Knight: Mr C. Knight- Sir: Your favor of the 26th ultimo, with the enclosed acceptance for fifty guineas, has been laid before our body, for which token of esteem we are extremely obliged to you, but when we consider the motive that has induced you to offer it, consist- ent with the tenor of your letter, we can- not on any consideration think of ac- cepting it, as it may be suggested at some future period that the members of our commiunity were to be bought. We have, therefore, thought necessary to re- turn it, assuring you, we shall entertain a deep sensii'biUty of your good intentions. We remain your o'bedient servants, Jacob Cohen. President of the Congregation K. K. B E. During the period we are now discuss- ing the Jews of South Carolina do not ap- pear to have taken any very prominent part In public life. There are only a few references to Jews Who occupied public offices. Solomon Cohen was postmaster for Georgetown in 1794. and Abraham Co- hen filled the same position in 1797. Eleaaer Elizer was postmaster in Green- ville in 1794 and Abraham Seixas was keeper of the Work House in Charleston In 1797, and for several years subsequently. Nor do we find many Jews in the profes- sions at this period. In 1795 I find men- tion of a Dr Sarzedas. I am not certain whether he was a physician, but I know that he kept a drug store. After 180O, how- ever, the Jews of Charleston played a conspicuous part in Art, in Science and in Literature, to all of which they made emi- nent contributions. What they did in these spheres I shall relate elsewhere. They at- tained considerable prominence, commer- cially, however, principally, as I have al- ready stated, in the "Vendue" business. One of these "Vendue masters " has left us an advertisement which gives us a good insight into the miscellaneous na- ture of a brokerage business of those days. It is to be found in the South Carolina State Gazette for September 6, 1784. I reproduce it for its unique char- acter. I have not met with anything like It In the Gazettes: ADVERTISEMENT. ABRAHAM SEIXAS, All so grracious. Once again does offer His service pure For to secure Money in the coffer. He has for sale Some negroes, male, Will suit full well grooms, He has likewise Some of their wives Can make clean, dirty rooms. For planting, too, He has a few To sell, all for the cash. Of various pHce, To work the rice Or bring them to the lash. The young ones true, If that will do, May some be had of him To learn your trade They may be made. Or bring them to your trim. 13 The boatmen ^reat, Will you elate They are so brisk and free; What e'er you say, They will obey, If you buy them of me. He also can Suit any man With land all o'er the State; A bargain, sure. They may procure If they dont stay too late. For papers he Will sure ag-ree. Bond, note or publick debt; To sell the same If with good name And buyer can be met. To such of those As will dispose He begs of them to tell; By note or phiz, What e'er it is That they have got to sell. He surely will Try all his skill To sell, for more or less. The articles Of beaux and belles. That they to him address. The following is a fairly complete direc- tory of the Jews of Charleston from 178S to 1800. I omit all names that we have met heretofore. It must be supplemented, however, by my list of members of K. K. Beth Elohim for 1800, which I have already printed. Aaron, Solomon, Jr. Aarons, Jacob. Abendanone, Joseph. Abrahams, Abraham. Abrahams, Isaac. Abrahams, Jacob. Abrams, Moise. Alexander, Abraham, Jr. Azuby, Rev Abraham. Barret, Solomon. ' i 14 Benedix, Isaac. Benzakin, Joseph. Bush, David Oanter, David. Canter, Emanuel. Canter, Joshua. Cantor, Jacob. Cantor, Jacob, Jr. Cohen, Jacob A. Cohen, Levi. Cohen, Mordicai. Cohen, Solomon. Cohen, Solomon I. Da Costa, Aaron. De La Motta, Isaac (or Motta.) De Leon, Jacob. De Lieben, Israel. Depass, Ralph. Derkheim, Myer. E'lizer, Eleazer. Gomes, Elias. Harby, Isaac. Harby, Solomon. Harris, Andrew. Harris, Hyam. Hart, Abraham Levy. Hart, Alexander Moses. Hart, Bernard. Hart, Daniel. Hart, Ephraim. Hart, Hart Moses. Hart, Naphtali. Hart, Nathan. Hart, Simon. Hart, Simon M. Hyams, Samuel. Hyams, Solomon. Isaacks, Moses. Isaacs, Abraham. Jacobs, Abraham. Jacobs, Samuel. Jonas, Joshua. Joseph, Solomon Moees. Lazarus, Aaron. Levi, Abraham. IS Levi, Solomon. Levy, Hyam. Levy, Hyam E. Levy, Lyon. Levy, Mordecai. licvy, Moses. Le\T. Moses C. Levy, Reuben. Levy, Solomon, Jr. Lopez, Aaron. (From Newport.) Lopez, David. Marks, Humphry. Milhado, Benjamin. (From Jamaica.) Moise, Abraham. (From Cape Francois.) Moise, Cherry. Moise, Hyam. (From Port au Prince.) Moses, Isaac. Moses, Lyon. Moses, Philip. (From St Eustatius.) Myers, Abraham. Myers, Israel. Moses, Joseph, Jr. Nathan, Abraham. Nathan, Solomon. Nathans, David. Noah, Manuel. Pimentel, Aaron. Philips, Benjamin. Philips, David. (From Jamaica.) Polock, Solomon. (From Newport.) Saraedas, Moses. Seixas, Abraham Mendes. Simons, Montague. Solomons, Francis. Suares, David. (From Curacoa.) Tobias, Isaac. Woolf or Wolfe, Solomon. With this I bring my story to an end. I hope that I may be deemed to have made a not unimportant contribution to the his- tory of this State and to the story of the Jews In America. ELlxas, 3aTn«tt ftWaVstn, THE JEWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA RECORD OF FIRST NATURALIZA- TION IN THE3 PROVINCE. Dr Elzas Makes Some Interesting^ Discoveries in tlie State House in Columbia— The Text of the Act of 1G97 "for the Making Aliens Free * * * and for Granting- Liberty of Conscience to all Protestants." [Reprinted from the News and Courier.] At the request of The News and Courier to take a trip to Columbia and "have a look," I paid a flying- trip to the State Capital this week in search of more rec- ords of the past. Early on Monday morning I wended my way to the Secretary of State's oflice, where the treasures are to be found in richest profusion. I found my friend, Gantt, at his post and he at once placed himself at my disposal. It was but a few minutes before I felt that I owned the State House. As my time was limited I soon had all hands at work. An ordinary official would have put me down as a very exacting visitor. Not so the genial Gantt, however, who is him- self quite an enthusiast on historical mat- ters. He knows exactly what he has and where to find it, and his amiable assist- ance to me during my short stay will be ever remembered. 1 must cut my story short this time, but will say that I did not find what I was looking for— and I now understand why— but I found something else of the utmost value in determining a number of hither- to doubtful points with reference to the early story of the Jews of South Carolina. I shall next week publish these documents in full. I found numerous small items of inter- est. Two land grants to Moses Lindo, e. g., of which there are no records in Charles- ton. I fotind mention of a Jewish phy- sician in Charleston in 1772, and various miscellaneous matters that I have added to my note book. There was one document that I was very pleased to discover, particularly be- cause one would least expect to find it where it is. It occurs in the volume: "Grants, Sales etc," D. 1703-1709. It is the first record of the naturalization of a Jew in South Carolina and is dated 1697. It is made out in the name of Simon Val- entine. We have met this Simon Valen- tine before. My readers will remember him as one of the Jews whom we found in Charleston prior to 1700. He was a merchant, evidently of means, and figures in numerous transactions in the records. We found him several times as surety on administration bonds. The document is exceedingly interesting and I copy it in full: CAROLINA The Rt Honble Joseph Blake Esqr, one of the true and absolute Lds, and Pro- prietors of the Province of Carolina, Com- mandr in Chief vice Admiral and Gover- nor of South Carolina: To all Judges Justices Magistrates ministers and officers Ecclesiastical and Civil and to all psons whatsoever to whome this shall come to be seen, heard, read or known GREETEING KNOW Yee that Simon Valentine Mercht; an alien of ye Jewish Nation borne out of the Crown of England hath taken his oath of Allegiance to our Sov- ereigne Lord William ye Third over Eng- land Scotland France and Ireland King &c Defender of ye faith and hath done every other thing wch by an act of as- 2 sembly made att Charles Town in ye ninth Yeare of ye Reigne of our Sovereign Lord King Willm, &c, Anno Dom: One Thousd Six hundred ninety Six and Seven enti- tled an Act to make alien free of this pte of the Province and for gi-anting Liberty of Conscience to all Protestants as one is required to do And is fully and effectu- ally to all Intents Constructions and Purposes Qualified and Capacitated to have use and Enjoy all the rights Privi- leges Powers and Immunities Given or Intended to bee given to any Alien then Inhabitant of South Carolina by the aforesd Act to Certifie wch I have here- unto Sett my hand and Caused the Pub- lick Seale to be affixed at Charles Town the Twenty Sixth day of May Anno Dom. one Thousd six hundred ninety and seaven JOSEPH BLAKE. There is a very interesting thing to be noticed in connection with the Act under which Simon Valentine is naturalized. The original Act is not now in existence, but a copy of it is to be found in Trott's "Laws of Carolina," p. 61. I copy the parts of interest to our inquiry. An Act for the Making Aliens Free of this Part of this Province, and for Granting Liberty of Conscience to all Protes- tants. WHEREAS Prosecution for Religion hath forced some Aliens, and trade and the fertility of this Colony has encouraged others to resort to this Colony, all which have given good testimony of their hum- ble duty and loyalty to his Majesty and the Crown of England, and of their fideli- ty to the true and absolute Lords and Proprietors of this Province, and of their obedience to their Laws, and their good affections to the inhabitants thereof, and by their industry, diligence and trade have very much enriched and advanced this Colony and Settlement thereof: I. BEJ IT RNACTTED • • ♦ That all AlieriH, malft and fomale, of whut nation HCH^vc-v, which now are InhabltantH of South Ciirollna, tholr wIvoh and children, Hhall have, uhc and enjoy all the rlghtH, prlvllcKCM, tiOwerH and InimunltltiH what- woever, which any i>erHon may, can, might, could, or of right ought to have, u«e und enjoy; and they Hhall he from henceforth adjudged, reiiuted and taken to be In every coiullllon, reHpect and de- gree, as free lo all In leu in, puriJOHCH and conHtructlouH, aH If they had been and were born of English parentH within thla F'rovlnce. ♦ ♦ * Vr. AND WHKREAS Beveral of the prenent InhabltantH of this country, did tninHport IhcinHelveH into thin l^rovlnce. In h<»|K^H of enjoying the liberty of their conHclem^eH accordltJg to their own per- HWaHlon, which the Royal King CharUiH the Hecond, of bleHH«!d m<'mory. In hlH gradouH (charter was pleaHed to Impower the LordH ProprletorH of thin Province to grant to the lriiial)llan(H of thin Province for to eiicouriiKf « [Reprinted frotn the Charleston News and Courier, Feb. 1903.] DOCUMENTS Relative to a proposed settlement of Jews in South Carolina in i74&. Before resuming my narrative of the story of the Jews of Charleston, there are certain preliminary considerations to be made. The communal history of the Jews of Charleston dates from 1750, though, as we have seen, Jews lived here for over fifty years before this. They were certainly here in sufficient numbers to have met for regular worship twenty years before, though they were neither numerous nor wealthy enough to organize a congrega- tion with a special place of worship and with a quota of paid officials. How did the Jews come here? Did they come to Charleston as a colony, as did the Jews of Savannah? When did they come? Here facts and local traditions are in conflict. Local tradition tells that some time be- tween 1732 and 17S9, Moses Cohen the first Haham or Chief Rabbi, came to Charles- ton bringing with him from London a set- tlement of Jews, who afterwards formed the first congregation K. K. Beth Elohlm. This tradition can no longer be accepted. The State Paper Ofllce in London has preserved an immense number of docu- ments relating to South Carolina. Thirty- six iarge volumes of these MSS documents have been copied and are available in Columbia. I was much gratified recently In my research to find amongst these pa- pers the entire data relative to a pro- posed settlement of Jews in South Caro- lina in 1748. These papers settle the ques- tion absolutely. Before giving them in de- tail, however, I must again quote Picciot- ti's "Sketches of Anglo-Jewish History"— an indispensable work for the historian of the Jews of South Carolina. This is what Picciotto has to say on the subject: "The questions of labor, of the poor, and of emigration," he writes, (pp 152-3,) "ap- pear to have vexed the minds of the chiefs of the Sephardi community during last century, just as they bewilder at present other important bodies. Notwithstand- ing the presence of many persons in af- fluent circumstances among the Jews, the poor unfortunately have always been in greater numbers than the totality of the Hebrew population warranted. A hun- dred years ago the Jews possessed no mid- dle class. There were perhaps 150 to 200 families that might be considered rich, about two-thirds of which belonged to the Spanish and Portuguese congregation. Then we should find at most as many families engaged in small retail trade, and finally we should see a floating mass, at least five times as numerous as the other two classes together, consisting of huck- sters, hawkers, journeymen and others, either verging on pauperism or steeped hopelessly in its abyss. To endeavor to diminish the strain of pauperism by emigration the Sephardi Congregation in 1734 appointed a commit- tee to apply for grants of land in Georgia, which the British Government was freely distributing to intending emigrants under certain conditions. This committee re- mained standing for some years, but we do not gather that it led to any practical results. Three years afterwards the com- mittee reported that some lands in Caro- lina had been offered to them, and that they were negotiating on the subject. In 1745 this committee was still in existence, and obtained an extension of powers and an allowance to cover expenditure. After this time we hear no more of it, and it is fair to assume that had it achieved any- thing worth recording it would have beea recorded." Picciotto is correct in his surmise. There had been a proposition to settle Jews in South Carolina, but the negotia- tions came to nothing. Here are the doc- uments in full and they are now published for the first time: From the B. P. R. O. JOURNALS B. T. Vol. 56. Public Records of South Caroiina, Vol. 23, 1748-1749. 6TH APRIL 1748. Read the following order of the Lords of the Commee. of Council viat. Order of the Lords of the Committee of Council for Plantation Affairs, dated the 26th March 1748 referring to this Board the humble petition of John Hamilton, Esqr, praying for a Grant of 200,000 Acres of land in the Province of South Carolina and directing them to report their opinion thereupon. 19TH, APRIL 1748. ' The Board pursuant to the Minutes of the 6th instant, took into their Consider- ation three orders of the Lords of the Committee of Council for Plantation Af- fairs, referring them to the humble peti- tion of John Hamilton Esqr. for a Grant of 200,000 Acres of Land in South Carolina. After some time spent therein, the Sec- retary was directed to write to Mr Ham- ilton to attend the Board on Wednesday the 27 instant, upon the subject of the said petition 27TH. APRIL* 1748. Mr Hamilton attending as desired, their Lordships had some discourse with him concerning his petition for a Grant of 200,000 Acres of Land in South Carolina, referred to them by an order of the Lords of the Committee of Council, mentioned in the minutes of the fith Instant, and he acquainted their Lordships, that he had entered into Engagements with Mr Solo- mon da Costa and other eminent Jews re- siding here, as also with other Persons for the Transportation of People and pro- viding them Necessaries to carry on his intended Settlement, and that a consider- able sum of Money had been advanced for that purpose; Whereupon their Lord- ships desired that he would bring such Persons as he had engaged with upon this Occasion, that the Board might receive all necessarj' Satisfaction in this Affair and likewise that he would lay before them such conditions as he had entered into with them, and Friday the 29th, was ap- pointed for his further attendance. 29TH APRIL 1748. (MEMORANDUM.) Mr Hamilton attended this day as de- sired by the Minutes of the 27th Instant upon the subject of his Petition for a Grant of 200,000 Acres of Land in South Carolina but there not being a sufficient Number of Commissioners present to con- stitute a Board the Consideration of this Affair was postponed to another Oppor- tunity. 5TH JULY, 1748. Read a letter from Mr Hamilton to Mr Pownall dated the 30th of June 1748 inclos- ing A further Proposal upon his Petition praying for a Grant of 200,000 Acres of Land in South Carolina. Resolved to take Mr Hamilton's said Pe- tition into Consideration tomorrow Morn- ing and the Secretary was directed to write to Mr Hamilton to desire his At- tendance tomorrow morning at Eleven o'clock. 6TH JULY 1748. Mr Hamilton attending as desired, their Lordships had some Conversation with him upon the subject of his Petition for 200,000 Acres of Land, in the Province of South Carolina, whereupon he acquainted their Lordships, that he desired to take up no more land at first than should be sufficient to settle the People he should carry over with him at the proportion of 100 Acres for every white person Jews or Christians, and so from time to time to take up the like Quantity for every per- son he should bring into the Province, the Land to be granted to him upon a Cer- tificate from the Custom House Officer in the Province of the Number of Persons imported— the Land to be taken up rough and smooth as it runs and as near to- gether as possible, and in order to show a further Probability of his making a Set- tlement he acquainted their Lordships that a Gentleman whose name was Hempe was ready to engage to send him as many German Protestants as he should have Land to settle upon from time to time as he should have occasion for them; Where- upon he was directed to attend again on Friday and to bring that Gentleman with him and likewise to reduce his Proposall into writing and lay the same before the Board. 8TH JULY 1748. Mr Hamilton attending as desired by the Minutes of the 6th instant laid before the Board the following further Proposals up- on his Petition for a Grant of 200,000 Acres of Land in the Province of South Carolina Vizt. That he may be irititled by His Majes- ty's Order to take up from time to time no more than 100 Acres of Land for each White Person Jews as well as Christians he shall bring into, and that shall after- wards be brought to settle in the said Province under his Direction; And that he may be intitled to take up none by virtue of such order but upon a certificate of an Officer of the Customs that the People are arrived in the Province, upon whose Account he is to take it up. That the Lands shall be run out from time to time, where he can have it good and bad as it runs as near together as possible, all the Lands to be taken up to be free of Quit Rent for the first ten Years from the Date of each Grant under the Seal of the Province and afterwards to pay 4s. Proclamation Money per ann. for every hundred Acres. At the same time Mr Hamilton ac- quainted their Lordships that Dr Hempe whom he was to have brought with him, was prevented by his other Affairs and would attend their Lordships on Tues- day next. 26TH JULY 1748. Their Lordships further took into Con- sideration Mr Hamilton's Proposals men- tioned in the Minutes of the 8th Instant, and ordered the said Proposals to be sent to Mr Solomon da Costa, for his opinion thereupon, and whether he and the rest of the Jews concerned with Mr Hamilton are willing to engage in the said under- taking upon these Proposals, agreeable to what they had before agreed upon, men- tioned in the Minutes of the 22nd, of De- cember. 8TH DECEMBER 1748. Read a letter from Mr Solomon Da Costa to the Secretary dated the 2nd day of Sept 6 1748 relating to Mr Hamilton's last Pro- posal on his Petition for a Grant of 200,000 Acres of Land in South Carolina signify- ing that If the Board think proper to comply therewith, they will then consid- er in what manner to carry the same into Execution. Ordered that the Secretary to write to Mr Solomon Da Costa to know positively Whether he and his Associates will ad- here to their former Proposition of ad- vancing £6000 In case the Board shall think proper to recommend the making a Grant to Mr Hamilton according to his said Proposal. 13TH, DECEMBER 17i8. Read a letter from Mr Solomon Da Costa dated the 12th day of Dec. 1748, in answer to one from Mr Hill mentioned in the Min- utes of the 8th, Inst, desiring him to ac- quaint the Board, that the Intention of himself and his Associates was to make the first Outset with £2000 and they should increase that Sum, if they found it answer their Expectations. Ordered that the Draught of a Report to the Lords of the Committee of Council, be prepared pursuant to their Lordships order referring Mr. Hamilton's Petition for 200,000 Acres of Land in South Caro- lina mentioned in the Minutes of the 6th of April last which their Lordships are of Opinion, will not be fore His Majesty's Service to comply with, Mr. Hamilton not having laid before the Board anything that can induce them to think that he can carry his Proposals into Effect as a Foundation for making such Grant. 14TH DECEMBER 1748 The Draught of a report to the Lords Committee of Council upon Mr. Hamil- ton's Petition for 200,000 Acres of Land In the Province of South Carolina Ordered to be prepared by the preceding Day's Min- utes was laid before the Board agreed t« transcribed and signed. B. P. R. O. South Carolina B. T. Vol 15 1 9 26th March 1748 At the Council Chamber Whitehall the 26th of March 1748 By the Right Honorable the Lords of the Committee of Council for Plantation Affairs. His Majesty having been pleased by His Order in Council of the 22nd of this In- stant to referr unto this Committee the humble Petition of John Hamilton Esqr, Setting forth That there are great Tracts of Land in the Province of South Carolina lying ungranted and uncultivated, and that having discovered an Improvement in Manufacturing Plantation Pitch and Tar, and also a Species of Essential Oyl which will be useful in all His Majesty's Domin- ions. He has engaged with some Merchants of Fortune and Integrity who have agreed to advance a large Sum of Money to make an extensive Settlement and to advance all necessary Sums from time to time for transporting Inhabitants to that Prov- ince, and therefore humbly praying, that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to grant him 200,000 Acres of Land in South Carolina to be taken up together in a con- venient Place for Manufacturing and Shipping off those Commoditys for Eng- land, if so much can be had together in such convenient Place, if not, that the Petitioner may take it up in Parcels not less than 12,000 Acres in a Parcel, and not more than Ten Miles Distant from each other, if such Parcels can be so tak- en up, without the lands of others inter- fering, and that the Petitioner may be at Liberty to take up th^same from time to time as he shall bring People to settle thereon, and to have the whole compre- hended in one or more Grant or Grants as it shall appear expedient. And that the Quit Rent may be remitted for the first Ten Years from the date of each Grant, and afterwards to pay the usual Quit Rent of Four Shillings Proclamation Money per Annum for each hundred Acres— The Lords of the Committee this day took the said Petition into their Con- sideration and are hereby pleased to referr the same (a Copy whereof is hereunto an- nexed) to the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations to Consider there- of, and Report their Opinion thereupon to this Committee. w. SHARPE. To the Kings m.ost Excellent Majesty In Council The humble Petition of John Hamilton Esqr. Sheweth That Your Majesty having most exten- sive Tracts of Land in Your Province of South Carolina, lying ungranted and un- cultivated which were they settled with industrious People would at the same time increase the Revenue of the Crown the Trade and Navigation of England, and the Strength of that and the Adjacent Pro- vinces. That your Petr. having discovered an ef- fectual Improvement in the Manufactur- ing the Plantation Pitch and Tar, which will excell all other, and prove very ad- vantaglous to your Majesty's Navy, and all British Shipping, and may soon save this Nation great Annual Sums of Money which now goes to Sweden &c. for those Commoditys, as also a species of Essential Oyl which will be as usefull in all your Majesty's Dominions. That In order to make an extensive Set- tlement and extend the Manufacture of those useful Commoditys In the said Prov- ince which Is peculiarly adapted thereto, as also to the raising of other Produce of principal use in several British Manu- factures, Your Petitioner has engaged with him some Merchants of Fortune and Integrity, who have agreed to advance a large Sum of Money for that purpose, and to advance hereafter all necessary Sums from time to time for transporting In- habitants they are to send carry on the Trade &c. Wherefore as very extensive tracts of Land wlli be requisite to Parcel out to such People as the benefit of car- rying on these Advantageous Manufac- tures, and raising such Produce, will in- duce to remove to the said Province un- der the Direction of Your Petitioner. Your Petitioner therefore most humbly Prays Your Majesty will be graciously pleased to grant to Your Petitioner 200,000 Acres of Land in the said Province to be taken up together in a convenient Place for Manufacturing and Shipping off these Commoditys for England, if so much can be had together in such convenient Place if not, that Your Petitioner may take it up In Parcels not less than 12,000 Acres, in a Parcel, and them not more than Ten MUes distant from each other, if such Parcels can be so taken up without the Lands claimed by others interfering. And that Your Petitioner may be at liberty to take up the same from time to time as he shall bring People into the Province to Settle thereon, And to have the whole Comprehended in one or more Grant or Grants as It shall appear most expedient. And that the Quit Rent may bo remitted for the first Ten Years from the date of each Grant made under the Seal of the Province, and afterwards to pay the usual Quit Rent of Four Shillings Proclamation 10 Money p€r Annum for each hundred Acres. And Your Petitioner wiil ever Pray. Received April ye 3d Read Do ye 6th 1748 B. P. R. O. South Carolina B. T. Vol 15 1 11 (30th June 1748.) Sir I am extremely sory yt ye unfortunate Situation. I have brought myself into, thro' ye pure honesty of my intentions, should lay me under a necessity of giving- repeated trouble where I would rather oblige. I herewith send you a Proposal, which I hope will appear to the Lords a testi- mpny that it is not my View, as I would not have a power to take great Tracts of the Kings Lands whether I can settle it or not; for as I perceive yt to be ye great Complaint, so I would avoid it, knowing I can make my doing so Subservient to the Service of the Crown, under their LfOrdships Instructions. When the Board is at leasure to Consid- er my Petition, I hope you'll be pleased to Communicate this Proposall to their Lordships, and believe at ye same time yt 'tis ye view of ye Danger my Situation threatens me with which has made me more anxiously pre perhaps is prudent; but as I did intimate to the Lords what extraordinary Case is I hope their goodness will excuse ye of my Zeal to be in a condition to Serve my Country in a w wants It, and save my Fortune now at Stake for yt Enterprize I am Sir Tour most humble Servt. I. HAMILTON. Stafford Buildings ye 30 th of June 1748 P. S. I would have waited on you with the indos'd proposal was I not much in- disposed. To Pownell Esq. II INCLOSURE. Mr Hamilton's Proposalls on his Petition praying for 200,000 Acres of Land In South Carolina. He proposed to be at liberty to take up no more than 30,000 Acres at first Survey, so much being about the quantity which will be sufficient to parcel out to the Peo- ple he takes over to the Province with him. And that he shall not have power to take up any more after that, till the People are ariv'd in the Province who he is to settle upon It, but that upon a Cer- tificate of an Officer of the Customs to the Governor, that such people are ariv'd the Petitioner may then be intitled to take up 200 Acres for each white Per- son that shall come to him, so much be- ing the Proportions generally allowed by their Lordships in former Grants. The Petitioner being bound this way he humbly presumes effectually prevents him from locking up the Land as has been usual for 10 Years whether it is settled or not, in as much as he cannot take up any, after the first 30,000 Acres, but as he brings People into the Province to Settle upon it; which is asking but just what he can settle, and no more. That he will take up the first 30,000 Acres altogether in such Convenient place as he can have it, and all other parcels he may afterwards take up shall adjoyn to the first, or be as near it as possible, and be obliged to always take up the Land good and bad, rough and smooth as it runs; and the Governor to make Grants of each parcel as it shall be taken up All the Land to be taken up to be free of Quit rent for the first ten years, from the date of each Grant under the Seal of the Province, and afterwards to pay 4s Proclamation money per Ann for each 100 Acres. Reed July 1st 1748 Read Do 5th B. P. R. O. South Carolina B. T. Vol 15 I 11 1st July 1748. Mr Hamilton's Proposall upon his Pe- tition praying for Land in South Carolina. That he may be intitled by His Majes- ty's Order of Council, to take up from time to time 100 Acres of Land for each White Person, Jews as well as Christians he shall brinjc into, and that shall after- wards be brought, to settle In the said Province under his direction: And that he may be intitled to take up none by vir- tue of such Order but upon a certificate of an Officer of the Customs, that ye People are arived in the Province upon whose Account he is to take it up. That he will run the same out from time to time, where he can have it, and good and bad as it runs, and as near together as possible. J. HAMILTON. Reced July 7th 1748 Read Do 8th B. P. R. O. South Carolina B. T. Vol 15 I S6 (2d September 1748.) Sir The reason why I did not sooner answer their Lordships question with relation to Mr Hamilton's last Proposal (which was delivered to me sometimes since by Mr Powneil, and which I now return to you inclosed) is because Mr Francis Salvador & Mr Benjamin Mendes Da Costa, who are to be concerned with me in that Af- fair, live all the Summer in the Country, and come to Town but once or twice a Week about their Affairs, and therefore have not been able to have a Meeting with them upon that Subject till this week. When having taken the same into Consideration, we think that if their Lord- ships shall be pleased to grant Mr Hamil- ton's request in any shape, It will at all events be fore ye Advantage of the Pub- lick; And when they shall so have done, we will consider in what manner to carry the same Into Execution. I remain with great respect their Lord- ships &c. Sir. Devonshire Square Bishopgate Street London Friday Morning 2d Sept, 1784 Yr most humble Servt. Thos. Hill Esqr. Solomon Da Costa. Reed Sept ye 3d 1748 Read Dec 13. B. P. R. O. South Carolina B. T. Vol 15 I 37 Devonshire Square London Monday Morning 12th Dec 1748. Sir Tour favour of the 9th Instant, I re- received last Saturday when I could not return immediate answer as you require In their Lordships names, by reasons of the day; and also because it was neces- sary to shew it to my Associates, and consult with them the answer. Which having done, I have now the Honour to acquaint their Lordships (thro your means) that our intention was to make the first Outsett for Two Thousand Pounds, laid out in things necessary for the establishment of our undertaking, in such manner as Mr Hamilton should have advised, and should not have scrupled to encrease it to three times that sum or even more, if we found it answered our expectations, as well with regard to the Publick good, as to our Advantage. I have endeavoured so to explain my self as not to be thought ambiguous, and con- clude assuring you that I am Sincerely Sr Your most humble Servt. SOLOMON DA COSTA. 14 Thos Hill, Esqr Reed Decbr ye 13th 1748 Read Ditto. There are no further references to the subject. The negotiations had evidently come to an end. The above documents make clear these facts: That there was an accession to the Jewish community in Charleston in 1750, that the Jews who came here from Lon- don, came not as a colony, but as individ- uals and that those who came did not be- long to the pauper class, who were as- sisted to emigrate here in order to re- lieve the strain and stress of relief work at home. This is in perfect accord with the information which we gather from the other source*. 15 THE DAGGETT PRINTING CO.. Chak^lbston, S. C. MOSES LINDO. ^^^ 9^r^ V^ <^^ A Sketch of the Most Promment Jew in Charleston in Provincial Days. • • • BY • « • Dn BARNETT A* ELZAS, Rabbi of K* K. Beth Elohim. ^2^ %5^ c^^ <^^ [Reprinted from the Charleston News and Courier, Jan. 1903.] MOSES UNDO, %3^ t^^ ^^ A Sketch of the Most Prominent Jew in Charleston in Provincial Days, The subject of this sketch is a most in- teresting figure in the early days of South Carolina's history. Who Moses Lindo was, I do not know. I only know what is related of him in that wonderfully rich and priceless collection of Gazettes that is to be found in our own Charleston Library alone, I have as yet made no at- tempt to trace him in London. I shall do so later and I am satisfied that I shall have no difficulty in finding out something more about him. I am personally ac- quainted with several members of the Lindo family in London, which has been notably connected with the Spanish and Portuguese community of that city for several generations. Picciotto in his charming "Sketches of Anglo-Jewish His- tory," (p. 124,) makes mention of a Moses Lindo, Jr, as a prominent member of the "Deputies of British Jews," a body ap- pointed "To watch all Acts of Parliament, Acts of Government, laws, libels, ad- dresses, or whatever else may affect the body of Jews," and which is to-day the most influential organization of Jews in the world. He may be a son of our Moses Lindo, The latter was himself an impor- tant personage in London prior to his coming to South Carolina. He himself tells us (January 19, 1767:) "I have been allowed to be one of the best judges of Cochineal and Indico on the ROYAL EX- CHANGE, for upwards of 25 years past, and have not been thought unworthy (when Sir Stephen Theodore Jansen rep- resented the city of London in Parlia- ment) to be called with Mr Samuel Torin and Mr Daniel Valentine, to give my sen- timents of Carolina Indico to the hon. House of Commons of Great Britain." Suffice it to say, then, that he was an expert indigo sorter, in London, who, no- ticing that a particularly fine grade of in- digo was received from South Carolina, changed his headquarters in 1756 from London to Charles-Town. The rest of hi.s story cannot be better told than by the Gazettes themselves. We first meet with Moses Lindo in the Gazettes, some three months before he arrives in Charles-Town. The following is the first notice of him and appears in the supplement to the "South Carolina Gazette" of Thursday, August 19, 1756, "A Correspondent in London, has sent us the following Advertisement, and with it proper Directions for making L.ime Water to subside Indico. "To the Printer of the Public Adver- tiser: "SIR: "I HAVE examined the major Part of the Carolina Indico entered this year, and have the Pleasure to find a considerable Quantity equal to the BEST French; and tho* there is some inferior to the Sight by 3s. 6d. per Pound, yet on using it as under, I am convinced the Inferiority is not more that Is. 6d. a Pound. Therefore, Sir, your publishing this, will be a singular Service to the consumer, and consequently oblige. "Your constant Reader, "Moses Lindo, Wormwood-street. "The Carolina of the above Sortment must be ground finer than the French, and cast into Blood-warm Water three Days before Use, drawing off the Water every 24 hours, and casting fresh, and adding a 5th Part more Madder than usual. The Cause of its not working free Is, that some of the Makers at Carolina are unacquainted when their Lime-Water is proper to subside the Indico." "THE DIRECTIONS. "The proper Lime-Water for Indico must be the Third Water: The First cast away after four Hours, the Second after eight; but the Third must stand ten, which will be more Ascid than alkaline. The Crust that rises on the Water must be carefully taken off, otherwise it will cause the Mould, which would appear in the Indico white, to be the colour of rusty Iron. "It would be greatly to the advantage of the Maker, if the Pieces were an Inch and a half square." FROM LONDON TO CHARLES TOWN. The next notice of Moses Lindo is the announcement of his arrival In Charles- Town. "MOSES LINDO gives this public No- tice, that he is arrived from London, with an Intent to purchase Indico of the Growth and Manufacture of this Province, and to remit the same to his Constituents in London, classed, sorted and packed in a Manner proper for the foreign market.— If any are desirous to know upon what Credit, and to what Extent he purposes to carry on his Branch of Business, he begs leave to refer them for Particulars to Mr John Rattray, who is possessed of his Papers, and to whom he is recom- mended." (The South Carolina Gazette, Novem- ber 11, 1756.) The magnitude of Lindo's business transactions may be gathered from the following: "Whereas I have employ'd the Sum of One Hundred and Twenty Thousand Pounds Currency in the Produce of this Country, besides 30,000 Pounds in Prize- Goods and other Articles, all which are paid for, as appears by my Receipt-Book, except about 3,800 Pounds Currency, 2,000 of which does not become due 'till the 22d Instant. The Remaining 1,800 Pounds I have my objections for not paying. "NOW THIS IS TO GIVE NOTICE, to every Gentleman, Planter and Trader in this Province, who has any Demands on me, that they come and receive their Money from the 15th to the 25th Instant. If any One should take the Liberty of contradicting the above Advertisement, oi give out any other malicious Insinuation, in order to prejudice me in the Good Opin- ion of those I have dealt with, I shall esteem it one of the greatest Favours done to me, to let me know the same by a Line, and their Names shall be concealed. And if such Information comes from a person of middling Circumstances, on due Proof thereof, I do hereby promise to re- ward him with the Sum of Five Hundred Pounds Currency. "I return my Thanks to those Gentle- men who assisted me in taking my Bills for 12,000 Pounds Sterling; and to the Planters of Winyah and those of the Southward, for giving me the Preference of their Indico. And do hereby assure them, that (if it please God I live 'till the next Season) I will not let their Fine In- dico Fall under 20 Shillings per Pound, having all the Reason to believe I shall have 200,000 Pounds Currency to lay out the ensuing Year in that Article; where- fore I hope they will not be discouraged. ""MOSES LINDO Whoever is desirous of being informed what I paid for what I bought, may know of William Branford, John Hutchin- son, John Butler, William Gibbs, Jonas Butterfield, Andrew Gowan, &c, &c. "N. B. — If any Person is willing to part with a plantation of 500 Acres, with 60 or 70 Negroes, I am ready to purchase it for ready money. Please to leave a Line di- rected to me at Mrs Shepard's in Tradd- street, and Secrecy shali be observed if not agreed on." (Supplement to the South Carolina Ga- zette, March 10, 1757.) A SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTER. Moses Lindo was not only an expert in- digo sorter, but was also a scientific ex- perimenter with dyes. He sought to en- courage investigation, likewise, on the part of others by offering prizes for dis- coveries if they proved to be of value. Witness the following: "Mr Timothy: "I HAVE made Trial of Two CRIM- SON DYES lately discovered in this Prov- ince; and in Justice to Mr John Story of Port Royal, Carpenter, I am obliged to declare, that I find his Crimson called JOHN'S-BLOOD, answers all the Pur- poses of Cochineal; for it dyes a fine Crim- son on Cotton, so as to stand washing with Soap- Lees; and it is my firm Opin- ion will likewise dye Scarlet. I have sent Samples of it Home, via Bristol, that, when approved of in London, by Messrs George Farmer and George Honour, two eminent Dyers there. The said Mr Story may be entitled to Part of the Reward of- fered by the Society for encouraging Arts, to such as can fix a Scarlet or Turkey Red on Cotton. "And as there are many Roots and Weeds to be found in this Province and Georgia, that Will dye REDS, I shall be obliged to all who will meet with such in their Way, to send me a Pound dried in the Shade; that I may make Trials of them. And if the Discoverers be persons in middling Circumstances, and what they produce to me be proven a DYE, I will re- ward them with Fifty Pounds Currency, and use my best Endeavors to obtain for them further Gratuities from the Dyers' Company in London. "I am sensible, Mr Timothy, you are ■*. Well-wisher to the Interest of this Prov ince and the Mother-Country; therefore, hope you will not omit publishing in your Gazettes any Hints tending to the Ad- vantage of both whenever such are offered you; and thereby, amongst others oblige "Your Constant Reader, "MOSES LINDO. "Charles-Town, July 16, 1759." (South Carolina Gazette, Saturday, July 28, 1759.) Moses Lindo's contract with the Lon- don house which he represented having expired, and their agent having failed to pay for the indigo consigned to them, as also his annual allowance, he next an- nounces that during his stay here he would mark Carolina Indico, First, Sec- ond and Third Sort, as he had done for them on a reasonable commission. He does not expect to be paid unless the in- dico so sorted "adds credit to this prov- ince and profit to those who chuse to ship that article," so as to prevent impositions by the purchasers of Carolina Indico in England. (South Carolina Gazette, November 14, 1761.) "AS GOOD AS THE FRENCH." In the next notice he announces that in consequence of his advertisement of the 12th of November last, several gentlemen have left their indico to his care. He assures the public that out of the twenty thousand weight on board of the vessels under convoy, there are 18,000 as good as the French. Should it appear at home to the purchasers of it, that he has not de- monstrated it as such, he says that it will be doing the gentlemen here a piece of service if they will signify his fault in Lloyd's Evening Post, under the attesta- tion of Messrs Mark Hudson Peter Fearon, Aaron Lara and William Richard- son, eminent brokers in this and other dyes. "To whose judgment only I submit, as well as to their equity in doing me justice, whether they ever saw so large a parcel of Carolina indico so even sorted as not to differ in value two pence ster- ling per pound from the first lot to the last." Lindo had met with such marked suc- cess in his business, that he roused the jealousy of his competitors, who seem to have spread false reports concerning him. He reta:iates in this same advertisement. "As some purchasers of Indlco may imagine that by this advertisement I want to get more indico to sort, 1 do hereby declare that I will only do it for those that 1 am engaged with, they being well known to capital people, and capable of purchasing as much indico of the planters as I can well attend to." He indignantly denies that he owes more than 3,000 guin- eas in this pi'ovince than is due to him at home, 'as some people have through their correspondence insinuated to my friends and relatives.' The advertisement ends with a humor- ous touch of scorn: "Sealed with my seal, well known in most markets in Europe for these 25 years, as always prime indico, which to this time of life I have not yet forfeited; and it is to me really a diversion to see some peo- ple in this town pretend to be judges of the quality of indico, to one that has had the experience of upwards of thirty years in it; and I wish they may not, by which they have shipped on board the fleet, ex- perience the presumption." (South Carolina Gazette, February 27, 1762.) The importance of the indigo industry to the province of South Carolina may be appreciated from the following historical facts: Indigo began to be cultivated in South Carolina in 1744 and was exported to England as early as 1747, where it attract- ed considerable attention. Great Britain was consuming annually 600,000 pounds weight of French indigo, paying for it £150,000 pounds sterling, and the statistics showed an annual increase of consump- tion. In 1748 Parliament passed an Act, allowing a bounty of six pence per pound on indigo from the British Colonies. This stimulated the South Carolina production and in 1754 the export of indigo from Charles Town amounted to 216,924 pounds, and shortly before the Revolution, had risen to 1,176,660 pounds. (Year Book for 1883, pp. 402-3.) The man who had done more to en- courage this inxportant industry (the greatest source of revenue in those days to South Carolina) than anyone in the province was Moses Lindo. This is clear- ly evident from the following: "The services heretofore rendered to this province by Mr Moses Lindo, in as- certaining the quality and establishing the reputation of our indico-manufacture, both at home and at the foreign markets, in April last induced many gentlemen of rank and fortune, merchants, planters and others, to give him the following tes- timonial of their opinion of his abilities, in writing, and of the necessity of having a public inspector, subscribed with their names, viz: "In order to brioig our indico-produce into reputation at home as well as at for- eign markets, it becomes necessary to have a proper person qualified to ascertain the value of our First Sort. We mer- chants, planters, principal traders and others, do, therefore, hereby certify under our hands, that Mr Moses Lindo, of Charles-Town, merchant, is the only per- son kown to us, capable of rendering this province further service in that article, if he is willing to undertake ascertaining the same and to grant his certificate for the First Sort." This testimonial was signed by the Hon William Bull, Lieutenant Governor, 5 Members of his Majesty's Council, the Speaker and 19 Members of the late Com- mons House of Assembly, 41 merchants and 7 "considerable planters of, or deal- ers in indico." THE LEADING INDIGO PLANTERS. Because of the local interest attaching to the names appended to this testimonial, I print it in full: *Hon William Bull, Esq. Lieutenant Governor; the Hon Othniel Beale, Esq, *Henry Middleton, John Guerard, *John Drayton and *Daniel Blake, Esqrs, mem- bers of his Majesty's Council. Benjamin Smith, Esq, Speaker, and ♦Thomas Middleton, *Winiam Moultrie, *P©ter Manigault, William Scott, *Thomas Bee, *William Blake, William Roper, "^Robert Pringle, *Thomas Lynch, ♦Raw- lins Lowndes, *Benjamin Dart, *John Ainslie, *Thomas Ferguson, *John Parker. ♦James Parsons, ♦William Maxwell, ♦Doet John Murray and *Sir John Colleton, members of the late Commons House of Assembly. Messrs John Chapman, John Torrans, John Greg, John Poan, ♦John Smith, Thomas Liston, ♦Paul Douxsaint, ♦Miles Brewton, Henry Peronneau, Thomas Corker, John Lloyd, Arthur Peronneau, William Ancrum, Lambert Lance, *Rich- ard Downes, John Benfield, Henry Lau- rens, Georg-e Appleby, John Logan, Martin Campbell, John Neufville, Edward Neuf- ville, Thomas Ellis, John Scott, Thomas Farr, jun, James Poyas, Evan Jones, •John McQueen, William Guerin, John Parrham, Robert Smyth, Peter Bacot, James Laurens, George Ancrum, Thomas Shirley, George Inglis, Robert Rowand, John Nowell, Samuel Peronneau, Peter Mazyck and Thomas Moultrie, merchants. Andrew Johnston, John Moultrie, jun. William Gibbes, Job Milner, Alexander Fraser, John Mayrant, William Brand- ford. Considerable planters of, or dealers in inddco. (Note— The gentlemen with the mark * prefixed to their names are likewise con- siderable planters of indico.) In consequence of the above testimonial and an application to the Governor, his Excellency, on Tuesday last, was pleased to order the following commission to be issued, viz: SOUTH CAROLINA: By his Excellency THOMAS BOONE, Esquire, Captain General, and Governor in Chief, in and over the said Province. TO MOSES LINDO, GENTLEMAN: WHEREAS, several of the most consid- erable inhabitants of the said province, as well planters as merchants, have by a writing signed by them, certified, that, in order to bring the indico produce into reputation at home and at foreign mar- kets, it is become necessary to have a proper person qualified to ascertain the First Sort; and that the said Moses Lin- do is the only person known to them ca- pable of rendering the province further service in that article, if he is willing to undertake ascertaining the same, and grant his certificate of its being the First Sort. And, whereas, the said Moses Lin- do, in order to give such his certificates the more weight and authority In Great- Britain, has made application to me, that he may be appointed Surveyor and In- spector-General of Indico in the province aforesaid. I, therefore, in consideration of the premises, and being convinced of the fitness and ability of the said Moses Lindo for discharging the said office, do hereby nominate, constitute and appoint you the said Moses Lindo to be Surveyor and Inspector-General of the Indico made in the said province, for the ends and pur- poses above mentioned. This commission to continue during pleasure. Given under my Hand and Seal at Charles-Town, this 21st day of September, Anno Dom. 1762, and in the second year of his Majesty's reign. THOMAS BOONE. By his Excellency's command. George, Johnston for John Murray, Dep Sec. (South Carolina Gazette, September 25 1762.) The next notice in the Gazette Is an an- nouncement of Moses Lindo officially as Surveyor and Inspector General of In- dico. It is as follows: MOSES LINDO. Surveyor and Inspector-General of IN- DICO made in South Carolina, GIVES THE FOLLOWING NOTICES: That as there is at present no obligation on any merchants or planters to submit their Indico to his inspection, or on him to take that trouble for nothing, he will be ready and willing, after the 16th in- stant, to inspect any parcel for either, as- certain the FIRST SORT, and his certifi- cate therefor for the small consideration of ONE per cent on the value of the Indi- co so certified. That he will make no distinction of per- sons in inspecting and giving certificates, in regard to the quantity, but will with equal readiness serve a planter who brings only 50 tb to market, as him who may bring thousands. That where any differences arise, on al- lowances to be made for bad mixtures, the accidental dampness, or designed wet- ness of Indico to disguise the quality, he will expect TWO per cent for his decision and ascertaining the value; i. e., ONE per cent from the seller, and as much from the buyer. That all orders gentlemen intend to fa- vour him with, to purchase Indico on their accounts for exportation, must be delivered to him, or left at Messrs Inglis, Lloyd & Hall's, on or before the 16th in- stant; after which he will receive no more till those then in his hands are compleat- ed. And, that no planter or other person may complain that he means to injure them (which is far from hs intention) he declares, that he will not buy another parcel, till they have tried the market eight or ten days; when he will purchase, on orders upon some of the principal houses in town, at three months' credit. N. B.— He begs pardon for having omitted among the subscribers to the tes- timonial or certificate, in consequence of which he obtained his commission from the Governor, to give the printer the fol- lowing gentlemen's names: * * * (South Carolina Gazette, October 9, 1762.) THE THREE SORTS OF INDIGO. A few days later Moses Lfindo an- nounces: That he has opened an office on Mr Beresford's wharf, where constant at- tendance will be given every day in the week. (Saturdays, Sundays and holidays observed at other offices, excepted,) from 8 o'clock in the morning till 1 in the af- ternoon, in order to survey, inspect and grant certificates for all parcels of indico that shall be brought to him for that purpose of the FIRST SORT. That he will not give his certificate for any indico, unless the planter produces a proper certificate of its being the growth of his plantation. That for declaring the first sort, and granting his certificate thereof, he ex- pects to be paid at the rate of twenty shillings currency, for every hundred pounds weight of indico mentioned in such certificates, and the like sum for settling any difference between buyer and seller, on every hundred pounds weight. That if any planter, in eight days after obtaining his certificate for the First Sort, desires him to procure a purchaser for the same, he in that case expects to be paid 5 per cent commission, if such indico is not In any merchant or factor's hands; but if in a merchant or factor's hands, then only 20s per cent. That he will not sort, .garble and seal the First, Second and Third Sorts of in- dico of the present crop for exportation, but for the following gentlemen, who fa- voured him with their orders for that purpose before the 16th instant, or by orders obtained from them; for which his Charge will be 3 per cent, Casks and all other expences included. That all his fees must be paid him be- fore the delivery of his certificates. That he will not accept, or undertake to execute any orders from Europe or from any of his correspondents elsewhere, to purchase indico for them this crop. And, That if any unfair dealings should be discovered, by fraudulent mixtures, after he has given his certificate for any par- cels of indico, he is determined to expose such intended imposition. That after the first day of February next, he will not act in this or any other capacity, in purchasing or declaring the qualities of indico, until some regulation is made by Act of Parliament to encour- age the planting and manufacturing that valuable dye. * * * (South Carolina Gazette, October 23, 1762.) The following will give an idea of the prices brought for South Carolina Indico of the first sort: "MOSES LINDO, Inspector and Survey- or-General of South Carolina INDICO. Having granted certificates for the FIRST SORT, sold at the prices opposite to the names of the respective makers (which he declares to be equal in quality to the best French that has been taken during the last or present war) viz: s. d. "His Honor the Lieut, Gover- nor's, sold at 27 6 per lb George Saxby, Esq 40 per lb John Moultrie, jun, Esq 40 per lb Sir John Colleton, Bart 30 per lb Mr Edmund Bellinger 30 per lb Alexander Fraser, Esq . .26 and 40 per lb Mr Charles Elliott 23 per lb David Deas, Esq 27 6 per lb Mr George Marshal 24 per It) John Pamor, Esq 27 per lb George Seaman, Esq 26 per lb Mrs Mary M. Daniel 23 per lb Mr William Campbell 21 per It) Mr William Pearson 25 per lb Mr Philip Porcher 27 6 per lb Mr James Laroach 22 6 per lb Mr James Commander 25 per lb Mr William Johnson 27 6 per lb Part of which is now on board the Bos- cawen, capt David Jenkins, commander, bound for London. IN THIS PUBLIC MANNER Requests, that the commissioners of liis Majesty's customs in London, will desire 15 or 16 gentlemen, merchants, salters and brokers, conversant in this trade, to In- spect the said indico when landed, and declare their sentiments thereon in all the public papers. And, whereas, several other parcels of hidico have been shipped on board the said frigate, by divers persons, in like pack- ages, which have not been inspected or surveyed by him, he has, therefore, thought proper to give a certificate for every cask that has undergone his inspec- tion, and been sealed by him, specifying In the margin the kind, weight and tare, and registered the same in his office; which certificates Mr William Richardson, broker in London (one of the best judges of indico now left in England) will take care to cancel after inspection. This pre- caution is so eventually necessary for tne interest of a colony where any manufac- tures are produced, that in England the law has made it felony punishable with death, to counterfeit, imitate or alter any public inspector's mark." (South Carolina Gazettte, January 15, 1763.) In his next notice Mr Lindo refers to his last big shipment. "When the last 55 hogsheads arrive in England, I flatter myself the world will be satisfied of my integrity of heart and the uprightness of my intentions; as well as be convinced, that I have devoted myself to the service of my native country, and equally so to this province; for, if the indico that has undergone my inspection, and obtained my certificates, shall be proved equal in quality to the best French (which I am confident it will) in that case £12,000 sterling per annum bounty will be saved to the Government, and the planter here always sure of getting 25s currency a pound for the First Sort, and in propoi- tion for the Second and Third, which will be sufficient to encourage them to go on in the planting and manufacturing that valuable dye." * * * IGNORANCE OF SOME PRETENDERS. It would thus seem as If Moses Lindo had been meeting with criticism and op- position. He ends his long letter: "Your publishing this letter may prevent some X3 evil-minded persons continuing to insinu- ate, that, sensible of my superior knowl- edge and experience in all dyes and drugs to any in Europe or America, I only take the advantage of exposing the ignorance of some pretenders to the like, which is not my intention. I must, however, say that no person whatever, that has not been ten or twelve years constantly em- ployed as a broker of indico, can be a competent judge of that article, or the true value of each quality; therefore, an error in judgment after that time must be deemed a crime, not an oversight." (South Carolina Gazettte, March 26, 1763.) In his next notice Moses Lindo an- nounces amongst other things, that he will not purchase any Indico himself, in less than three or four days after it has been surveyed; when, if no better price can be obtained for it than his valuation, he will receive it at that, and pay for the same as he has hitherto done. (South Carolina Gazette, October 22, 1763.) In the Gazette of March 24, 1764, we read that "Moses Lindo, Esq; has lately been presented with the commission appointing him Surveyor and Inspector-General of Indico, under the great seal of the prov- ince." We continue to meet with Moses Lindo in the Gazettes for some years longer. Sev- eral of the advertisements are of no par- ticular interest, others are extremely in- teresting. For the sake of completeness. I shall jot down all the references to him in chronological order. He advertises on October 8, 1764. In his advertisement of May 4. 1765. he refers to "All the iniquitous practices whicn have been committed with Carolina Indico," and which he declares he will never countenance." AS A MEDICAL EXPERT. The next item is very amusing. It oc- curs in the Gazette of July 28, 1766. Moses Lindo in his investigation into the proper- ties of "roots and weeds," makes a valua- ble medical discovery, and, while not. as far as I know, a member of the medical profession, he is public spirited enough not to desire to retain the boon for himself, so he writes this letter to the Gazette: "MR TIMOTHY: "HAVING lately made a valuable dis- covery, the CURE of that grievous and common disease among the Negroes, 13 called the YAWS. * * * I beg leave to make use of the channel of your paper to make the Recipe public for the good of mankind, without the least view to my private advantage; and to request that such gentlemen whose negroes have been, or may be cured, will make the same pub- lickly known, so as to be communicated to his Majesty's other American domin- ions. I am yours, &c. MOSES LINDO, Inspector General of Indico. RECIPE TO CURE THE YAWS, &c. To a pound of Poke root, add three ounces of Tobacco, and an ounce of Ro- man Vitriol, boil the same in five quarts of water, till reduced to a gallon, and strain it. With this, wash the infected part three times a day. A pint is suflfi- cient for ten or twelve days. At the same time use a diet drink, made of Two pounds of Lignum Vitae shavings, four ounces of the bark of Sas- safras root, four ounces of Anniseeds, and half a pound of brown sugar, boiled in four gallons of water till reduced to three. The patient to take a pint a day, mixed with three pints of water for twenty days. Being a member of the medical fraterni- ty, and morally bound by the ethics of the profession— one rule in the code of which is, that all valuable discoveries are to be- come the property of all, I hasten to an- nounce my discovery to my confreres and hope that they may find the recipe as use- ful for the cure of the "Yaws," as did its original discoverer Moses Lindo. Moses Lindo advertises again on No- vember 10, 1766, and on January 19, 1767, he writes a long letter to Mr Timothy on the present status of Carolina Indico abroad. "I have lately observed with concern, in an account of a public sale of 12 casks of French, and 23 of Carolina Indico on the 28th of August last * * * that all the French sold at 4s 5d per lb, while only one cask of the Carolina allowed to be fully as good as the best French, obtained no more than 3s 8d, and all the rest sold amazingly low." He attributes the dif- ference to a combination at home among the importers of foreign indico, to dis- courage its cultivation in his Majes- ty's Colonies. He "publickly avers" that the Carolina Indico, which he distinguishes as FIRST SORT, properly prepared by the 14 dyer, will yield a superior dye to the very best French. He ought to know more cer- tainly than the generality of people for "I have been allowed to be one of the best judges of Cochineal and Indico on the ROYAL EXCHANGE, for upwards of 25 years past; and have not been thought un- worthy (when Sir Stephen Theodore Jan- sen represented the city of London in Par- Jiament) to be called with Mr Samuel To- rin, and Mr Daniel Valentine, to give my sentiments of Carolina Indico to the hon. House of Commons of Great Britain." OUR FIRST PLEA FOR "PROTEC- TION." Lindo was a man of resources and a true protectionist. He suggests, that as there exists a prejudice of 25 per cent against Carolina Indico brought about by the com- bination, that the British Parliament, in- stead of continuing the present bounty, should lay Is a pound duty on all the French, exported from Britain and which would save no less than £12,000 per an- num to the Government, and at the same time give sufficient encouragement to cul- tivate 1,500,000 tb in his Majesty's Colonies, for the use of British manufactories. * * * As Inspector-General of Indico in this province (though without a salary) he thinks it his duty "to rescue that valua- ble branch of our staples from the ma- lign influence of designing men," as far as it lies in his power. m the Gazette of October 10, 1771, Moses Lindo has a lengthy communication in defence of the custom of packing Carolina Indico in the Spanish shape. "Judges," hie says, "never buy from outward appear- ance; they will examine its inward Quality. Therefore, there can be no Fraud in the Imitation." He quotes in defence of his contention the custom of mercers who, in order to get off their fine silks, are often obliged to call them French, though wholly wove in Spitalfields. He makes several observations on Carolina, Florn- da and Guatemala Indico and ends by the statement that he has the interest of this country "as disinterestedly as much at heart" as any native, and is resolved to spend the remainder of his days here, where merit will meet with its reward, without partiality, from the highest to the lowest of its inhabitants. 15 In the Gazette of July 23, 1772, Moses Lindo advertises that it would afford him great satisfaction, if three or four per- sons, well experienced in the Indico busi- ness, would undertake the sorting and garbling of Indico for exportation, by which means that valuable produce might recover its reputation both at home and at foreign markets. His own services are only at the disposal of his regular pa- trons, whose names are appended * * * On August 6, 1772, there is an announce- ment that Moses Lindo, Esq, has resigned the Place of Inspector-General of Indico for this province. On August 20, 1772, Lindo publishes a letter to Henry Laurens, Esq, containing his reasons for refusing to act any longer as Inspector-General of Indico. He would not seal certain classes of Indico "and bring disgrace on the Seal with a Crown over G. R." He would still continue, how- ever, to serve his friends, if his knowl- edge can be of any use to them. On November 12, 1772, he advertises again vindicating the action he has tak- en. SENDS A TOPAZ TO THE QUEEN. The next item is a most interesting one and deserves to be investigated if only for curiosity, by some English-Jewish an- tiquarian. It occurs in the Gazette of March 15, 1773. "Moses Lindo, Esq, his Majesty's In- spector General of Indico, having, about eight years ago, accidentally met with, and for a Trifle purchased, a Stone (among others) found in this province, which he judged to be a WATER SAP- PHIRE or TOPAZ, and then declared to be too valuable a jewel to be possessed by any other than the Queen of England, making a Vow, that it should be sent to her Majesty; we hear, has accordingly sent the same, in the Eagle Packet-Boat, by the Hands of the Right Hon Lord Charles-Greville Montague, to be present- ed to her Majesty. The size and shape of this Stone is like Half a Hen's Egg, and the Weight 526 Carats." I confess that I am curious as to the subsequent fate of this stone and I pro- pose to try and find out something fur- ther about it, i6 On September 6, 1773, Lindo publishes a lengthy letter to Mr John Ledyard, of Melksham, in Wiltshire, pointing out many fallacies in t.^e statements made abroad concerning Carolina Indico and showing him how he may prove his own statements by actual experiment, the ma- terials for which he is sending him. This letter is a splendid illustration of Lindo s patriotic feeling and of his untiring efforts in behalf of the province. On November 22, 1773, Lindo makes a statement of the fight he is making against the combination in London against Carolina Indico. He recites what he has done to promote the welfare of the prov- ince and refers to a recommendation that is to be made to the General Assembly to allow him a yearly salary besides fees. He has not become wealthy as the result of his work: "Should any accident befall me thro' the infirmities of age or other- wise, I am persuaded it is not difficult for j-ou, or any of my friends to conceive how very wretched a being would be Yours, &c, "MOSES LINDO." He still signs himself Inspector-General o£ Indico. On December 27, 1773, there is a notice that 13,000 pounds weight of Indico, be- longing to two planters, were last week sold by Mr Samuel Prioleau, jun, at a Dollar a pound to Moses Lindo, Esq; In- spector-General, who has declared that the whole quantity is equal if not superior to any French that, in the many years' experience he has had, has gone thro' his hands, or fallen under his observation. DIES HERE IN 1774. Moses Lindo died in 1774. The South Carolina Gazette in which he had adver- tised so extensively for so many years. makes no mention of his death, but in the South Carolina Gazette and Country Jour- nal of Tuesday, April 26, 1774. we read: Charles-Town April 26, DIED, Moses Lindo, Esq; for many years Inspector- General of Indico in this Town. There is but one notice more and that in the South Carolina Gazette of May 23, 1774: "Moses Lindo, Inspector-General of Indico, having departed this life, his Es- tate and Effects • * * will be sold at public outcry on Saturday, the 11th of June next." * * • 17 I have thus kept track of the subject of my sketch from the time he landed in South Carolina till his death. Moses Lin- do left no Will. The inventory of his es- tate, dated May 17, 1774, and appraised at £1,199.17.8 is recorded in the Probate Office Book V, p. 591. It has been a pleasure to me to perpetuate the memory of this public spirited and patriotic Jew who was a resident of Charles-Town from 1756 to 1774, He is but one example of many of his faith who have contributed in no small way to the upbuilding of this great country. rH THE DAGGETT PRINTING CO., Charleston, S. C. OLD JEWISH CEMETERIES. htheire: the early settlers in- terred THEIR DEAD. — —^^ Dp Barnett A. Elasas Investigates a; Traditional Jewish Burial Ground on Archdale Street, bnt Finds More Hibernians than Hebrevrs — The Story of a Long-Forgrotten Ceme- tery on Hanover Street. One of the most notable traits in the character of the Jew, is his almost sub- lime devotion to his dead. This tender feeling for his departed loved ones has al- ways existed and the Jew is significantly taught in his sacred writings that the highest form of "loving-kindness"— the ideal, indeed, of loving-kindness, is that shown to the dead; for, as the rabbis well point out, it is a manifestation of unselfish love, inasmuch as it can seek no return. No matter where the Jew is scattered and dispersed, his first care is to acquire a burying place for his dead. Hence it is that we often find a Jewish cemetery be- fore an organized synagogue or congrega- tion exists. As a general rule, wherever a handful of Jews are found there will also be found a synagogue for worship, a school for the education of the young, and a burial-ground for the dead. The communal history of K. K. Beth Elohim of Charleston dates back to 1750, but I am satisfied that several years at least before this date the Jews of Charieston met regularly for public wor- ship. In my investigation into the history of this community I was puzzled to know where the old settlers who had died here— and I know of many— were laid to rest. The oldest tombstone we have is that of the Right Rev Moses Cohen, D. D., the first Chief Rabbi of the congregation, in the Coming Street Cemetery, and bears the date 1762. As I just observed, many Jews died here before that time. Where were they interred? After diligent inquiry I was told that there was an old burial-ground in Arch- dale street, which tradition said belonged to the Jews. I went on a tour of inves- tigation to the place indicated and only after several visits did I one day find the large gate open, so that I could gain ac- cess. I was already enjoying the antici- pated delight of making a find. But, alas, for the vanity of an antiquarian's hopes. The graveyard was full of O'HooIigans, O'Briens, O'Shaughnessys and O'Flynns and I came away convinced that I had made a mistake. "When you are investi- gating," I said to myself, "investigate for yourself and don't believe all that people tell you, or you will often be fooled." I have several times since experienced the profound truth of this graveyard medita- tion. I was as far from solving the mystery as I was before, but subsequent reflection made the matter clear to me. I had vis- ited an old plantation not long ago and had noticed a plot railed off, which was the family burial-ground. "Might not the Jews likewise have had their private burial-grounds in olden times?" I thought. I know now that there were several such in Charleston. The Tobias family e. g. buried their dead on their plantation at Hobcaw, near Mount Pleasant, but this has long since been turned into a ploughed field. Our oldest cemetery at Coming street, we are told in the deed, was originally purchased in 1754 by Isaac Da Costa, "For a private burying-place for his own family." Then there is the Han- over street ground, which Isaac Da Costa afterwards purchased in place of the former, for the same purpose. This brings me to the subject of my article. I was fortunate enough not long ago to find a copy of the old ConstiLut'.on of K. K. Beth Elohim of 1820 in New York. There is none here, and as I could not ob- tain the original I had a transcript made of it. It is a most interesting document, and I shall have a good deal to say of it at some future time. Rule IX of that Constitution reads as follows: "There shall be One Congregational Burial Ground only, wherein all the de- ceased members of this Congregation shall be interred, provided, that this law shall not extend to any family place of inter- ment already established; namely, that of the Tobias family, in which no other than that family and its nearest relatives may be interred with the honors of this Con- gregation. * * * This law considers the Burial Ground, heretofore called the Da Costa's, to be properly belonging to the family of Isaac Da Costa, sen., deceased, into which his near relatives are permitted to be interred and no other person, not even such per- sons as have relations already deposited there; provided nothing in this law shall extend to the exclusion of Mr Emanuel De La Motta, his wife and children." * * * We know the Da Costa ground, which is still used, but where was the "place of interment of the Tobias family?" I don't know. The Tobias family doesn't know. The oldest member of K. K. Beth Elohim doesn't know. Here comes the next link in the puzzle. I was examining an old Charleston di- rectory of a little earlier date than the constitution to which I referred. I was struck by the following items: HEBREW BURIAL GROUND (PUB- LIC,) COMING ST. HEBREW BURIAL GROUND (PRI- VATE) 2, HANOVER ST. Was this a printer's mistake? Likely enough, seeing that there were many typographical errors in the book. Or were there really two burial grounds on Han- over street? Was the other one that of the Tobias family, long forgotten? For some days I was too busy to find out, but the thing worried me and at last I went to look for myself. It was no easy matter to discover what I was looking for, but at last, at the end of a small lot hidden from view from the street, I saw tombstones, and after climbing over a dilapidated brick wall I found myself in reality in an old eighteenth century private Jewish Burial Ground! Here are the inscriptions of the tombstones: In Memory of— Samuel Levy— of Cam- den— who departed this life— June 20th, 179ft— aged 18 years. In Memory of— Abraham S. Abraham- son of Samuel Abraham— who departed this life— on Edisto Island— September the 26th 180&— aged 20 years one month and 15 days. To the— Memory— of— Mr Henry Moses— who departed this life on Monday the — 11th February 1814— In the 68th year of his age. Sacred— to the— Memory— of— Mrs Eliza- beth Moses— who departed this life on the —19th day of January 1819— in the 75th year of her age. Sacred— to the Memory of— Mrs Miriam Hyams— wife of— Samuel Hyams— and daughter of— Eleazer and Judith Levy- Born in Charleston So. Ca. in the— year 1780 and a resident there— until her death on the— 19 of January 1821 * * * In memory of— Eliza Henrietta Levy— the infant daughter of Chapman and Flora Levy— who departed this Ufe— the 7th day of March 1822— -aged 1 year and 17 days. Rosalie Lambert— third daughter of Wil- liam and Rachel Lambert died 30th Aug. 1835 (child.) Marion J. Tobias died 19th July 1836 (child.) Sacred— to the Memory— of— Henry J. Harby Sen.— Born 12th October 1799— died 14th September 1841. (?) Charles Ferdinand Smith— Son of Thomas and Everleen Smith (infant) d. July 1849. Henry J. Harby Junr— Born 1843 d. 1852, Sacred— to the Memory of— My mother- Rebecca Harby— Born 2d Oct 1768— died 31st Dec 1854— aged 87 years 2 months 29 days. Sacred— to the memory of— Catherine Frances— wife of C. F. Whippey— died 5th Nov 1858. Isaac Tobias—Born Feb 10th 1796— died Jan 28th 18G0. Tobias Harby— born Sept 22nd 1836-died April 17th 1860. Sophie Tobias— died Feb 13, 1866 (child.) Sacred— to the Memory of— Miss Caro- line D'L. Harby— Born May 4th ISOl— Died Jan 6th 1876. I thought that I had solved the mystery of the Tobias burial ground, but no one to whom I spoke of the matter could give me any information about it. With the kind assistance of my friend, Mr Henry De Saussure, I searched the title and found that this cemetery was conveyed in 1798 by Betzje Henrickson to Henry Moses, Solomon Moses, Meyer Derkheim, Samuel Hyams, Benjamin Tores and Solomon Harby in trust "as a burying ground and place of interment for the said * * ♦ and their descendants, and also such other person and persons professing Judaism, as the Trustees for the time being or a majority of them shall for that purpose approve of." Strange it is, however, that the consti- tution of 1820, should not have referred to this ground, and still stranger is it that none of the old members of Beth Elohim should know anything about a Jewish burial ground that has been used as late as 1876. Barnett A. Elzas. [Reprinted from The News and Courier.] The Jews of Charleston. ♦♦ ^* c5^ c^* A Review of the Article "Charleston** in Vol. 3, of the Jewish Encyclopaedia. ^ ,^ S v,^<^' By Dr. BARNETT A. ELZAS, Rabbi of K. K. Beth Etohim. «^ «^ «^ [Reprinted from The Charleston News and Courier, December, 1902.] I have been an enthusiast on the sub- ject of the Jev/ish Encyclopaedia from its inception. It is an epoch-making work in the history of the Jews and of Judaism, and too much praise cannot be bestowed upon the genius who first promoted it and the publishers whose enterprise has ren- dered its publication possible, ffen years ago the possibility of carrying a work of such magnitude to successful completion would have been looked upon as a fan- tastic dream of a visionary. We all rejoice to-day in the fact that the Jewish Ency- clopaedia is now a reality. The third vol- ume has just come to hand and is a most welcome addition to its predecessors. There is one article, however, that dis- figures this otherwise excellent volume; an article that is without parallel in the number of errors that it contains, and of errors that could never have been made had the article been entrusted to one who was in the slightest degree familiar with his subject, or to one, even, who knew enough to use the available materials of others who have pursued the same line of investigation before. I regret that the article happens to be "Charleston." I would not have gone to the trouble of reviewing this article in detail but for the fact that we are fast approaching the time when the complete story of the Jews in America will have to be written. The Jewish Encyclopaedia is itseif going to furnish much of the material for the fu- ture historian. When the time comes for this story to be written— and It cannot be delayed much longer— the Jews of Charles- ton will be found to occupy a far more prominent place in the picture than many now imagine, for Charleston has from the first been marked as a maker of histor;-, and the Jews of Charleston have never been insignificant in the community to which they belonged. I will now proceed to an examination of this remarkable article — for the article is, in truth, a most remarkable one. It is written by Mr L. Huhner, A. M., LiL.. B., of New York, contains about a thousand words and more mistakes in those thou- sand words than I have ever met with in any single volume in the whole course of my reading experience. Mr Huhner is a prominent member of the American Jewish Historical Society, who, I am told, has made a specialty of South Carolina Jewish history. In the bibliography at the end of his article he refers twice to him- self—one reference being to an article that is not yet published. It is well that we have it, even if only from Mr Huhner himself, that he is an authority on the subject on which he writes; we certainly would never have suspected it from this specimen of his handiwork. The article begins, as an article on Charleston should begin, with the infor- mation that Charleston is in South Caro- lina, which is in the United States. But Mr Huhner cannot even tell that straight. He incidentally notes that it is the "capi- tal of the county of the same name." Such a misuse of terms is surprising in one educated for the Bar. Charleston is the county seat, but not the capital of Charles- ton County. In America States have capi- tals and not counties. Next follow references to the earliest mention of a Jew in Charleston and to Locke's Constitution. Both of these refer- ences are absolutely correct and are wor- thy Of special mention on that account. There is little else of which the same can be said. In the next item we are informed that "in 1702 Jews appeared in numbers and they seem to have influenced a general election." This is very vague, but I will not examine it too closely. Mr Huhner evidently does not understand the quota- tion from Rivers with reference to the bigoted Dissenters who protested in 170^ against the "Jews aliens" who had voted in the last election. The protest was against the legality of the election and bad nothing to do with its result, for the Jewish vote had not affected it. In the list of the earliest members of Beth Elohim Meshod Tobias appears as "Michael" Tobias; Mordecai Shef tail's name is spelt "Sheftail"— a clear misprint, and I^vy Sheftall's name is omitted. The next item of information is really funny. Moses Lindo is rightly quoted as the most conspicuous man among the Jews of South Carolina in provincial days. Mr Huhner refers to him as "Inspector General for South Carolina!" He evidently ly takes Lindo for a military man. Any- one who has read the newspapers of the period knows that Undo was "His Ma- jesty's inspector general of Indico" (in- digo) and later also of tobacco. We now come to the interesting period of the Revolution. Here Mr Huhner is at his best as a manufacturer of history. At the outbreak of the war, Mr Huhner tells us, the most prominent Jew was Francis Salvador, "who resided near Charleston, and whose remains are interred in the old Charleston Cemetery." Salvador, he further informs vis, "was a member of the Colonial Assembly as early as 1774, and of the Provincial Congress as well. He was one of the leading patriots of the South." This brief notice of Salvador is extra- ordinary, coming, as it does, from one who has written a special monograph on him for the Jewish Historical Society. Francis Salvador was certainly his name, and Francis Salvador was as certainly a patriot. But Francis Salvador did not live near Charleston, but at Ninety Six, which is in the northwest of the State, almost as far from Charleston as one could get without leaving South Carolina. Nor was Salvador "a member of the Colonial As- sembly as early as 1774." There never was such a body in South Carolina as "the Co- lonial Assembly." There was a "Commons House of Assembly of the Province of South Carolina," 'but no House was elected after Salvador came to America. Salvador came to South Carolina during the latter part of 1773, and the last elec- tion for the Commons House of Assembly ever held in South Carolina took place in 1772. Nor are Salvador's remains interred in the old Charleston Cemetery. Salvador met his tragic end at Essenecca, some fifty miles from where he lived. (See Huh- ner's "Francis Salvador" in publications of American Jewish Historical Society, Vol 9, p. 120.) He may have been buried where he fell or he may have been carried to his own plantation. We have no infor- mation on the subject. It is Joseph Sal- vador who is burled here— the uncle and father-in-law of the patriot— and he is buried, not in the old burial ground here, (Coming street,) but in the Da Costa ground. (Hanover street.) "During the struggle for independence," we are next informed, "the Jews of Charleston distinguished themselves by their patriotism. Not a single case of Toryism was to be found among them." This would indeed be a remarkable fact were it true and a notable exception to traditional Jewish loyalty to the sover- eign Power. The veriest tyro, however, who knows anything at all of the history of South Carolina during the Revolution, could not be guilty of writing such non- sense. There were numbers of Jewish Tories in Charleston at the outbreak of the Revolution, and we have no reason to be ashamed of it. There was as much of patriotism in the Tory as there was in the most ardent Revolutionist and we meet wixh the very best in South Carolina as loyal subjects of the Crown. I need not mention names, McCrady has enough on the subject for anyone who desires the in- formation. There is no excuse for such ignorance in a man who pretends to have looked into the original sources for his facts— and no man can write history with- out doing •^his— else he is liable to be in hot water all the time. In the well known "Petition to Sir Henry Clinton," signed by 166 citizens of Charles Town, there are the names of seven well known Jews, (including some of Mr Huh- ner's "patriots") This petition sets forth that the petitioners "were very desirous to shew every mirk of allegiance and at- tachment in their power to his Majesty's person and Government, to which they were most sincerely affected, and, there- fore, humbly prayed that they might have an opportunity to evince the sincerity of their professions." In the Proclamation dated September 19, 1780, we are informed that "The said Me- morials and Petitions had been referred to gentlemen of known loyalty and integrity, as well as knowledge of the persons and characters of the inhabitants, in order to report the manner in which the Memorial- ists had heretofore conducted themselves; and that they having made their report in favor of the persons undermentioned (166 names, including the aforesaid 7 well- known Jews,) Notice is hereby given that if they will apply at the State House ♦ * * and there * * * subscribe a declara- tion of their allegiance, they will receive a certificate, which will entitle them to use tne free exercise of their trades or pro- fessions, and the privileges enjoyed by the other loyal inhabitants of Charles-town." (The Royal South Carolina Gazette. Thursday, September 21, 1780.) In the list of those whose estates after the Revolution were "amerced in a fine of 12 per cent ad valorem," there is likewise a well-known Jewish name. (See "Statutes of South Carolina, Vol VI, p. 633. But we are not yet through \rith Mr Huhner's story of the Revolution. Mr Huhner next refers to the traditional "Corps of volunteer infantry"— which in the next line is magnified into a regiment (!) "composed almost exclusively of Israel- ites," and "which was organized in 1779." "This regiment," Mr Huhner continues, "subsequently fought at the Battle of Beaufort." This special corps of King street Jewish merchants is, I am satisfied, one of the myths of history. Mr Huhner evidently 6 refers to Capt Richard Lushington's Com- pany of the Charles-Town Regiment of Militia. This contained several Jews, the names of whom have come down to us, but they are not those mentioned by Mr Huhner. This regiment was not organized in 1779, but had been in existence since 173S and had merely entered the service of the Revolutionary Government of the State. Nor did this regiment serve at the Battle of Beaufort, but only a detachment of it. I will not here discuss the names re- ferred to by Mr Huhner as having served on the field. He mentions only nine men. He informs us tliat Mordecai Sheftail was commissary general for South Carolina and Georgia. It is strange that Mr Heit- man does not put him down as a Continen- tal officer if he occupied such a position. He certainly did not hold this office for the State of South Carolina. The statement, too, that most of the Jews served as offi- cers, is not a fact, as I shall elsewhere show. Major Nones belongs to Philadelphia, and Mordecai Myers to Georgetown and not to Charleston. Among the Jews who held high offices in the State during the early portion of the nineteenth century are mentioned Myer Moses, a member of the Legislature in 1810, and Franklin J. Moses, Chief Jus- tice of South Carolina. Franklin J. Moses was not Chief Justice until after the Con- federate war. Amongst "other" prominent Charleston Jews during the early part of the nine- teenth century we find Myer Moses, one of the first "Commissioners of Education." Mr Huhner evidently thinks that lie is dealing with two people. There were two distinguished men who bore the name of Myer Moses. The above references, how- ever, are both to Myer Moses, Jr. Nor was he "one of the first "Commissioners of Education." There was no such office in existence at that time. Myer Moses, Jr, was one of the "Commissioners of Free Schools"— a purely local office, which had been in existence for upwards of a hun- dred years before Myer Moses, Jr, was elected to it. The first Jewish Reform movement be- gan in Charleston in 1824 and not in 1825, as stated by Mr Huhner. Isaac Harby was a prominent member of that movement, but he never was edi- tor of the City Gazette. John Geddes, Jr, was editor in Harby's day. The second split in Congregation Beth Elohim, in consequence of the introduc- tion of the organ, took place in 1840 and not in 1843, as Mr Huhner states. And lastly, the item with reference to the part played by the Jews of Charleston in the Confederate war, can only be read with feelings of contempt and disgust. Here it is: "At the outbreak of the civil war the Jews of Charleston joined their Gentile brethren in the Confederate cause. One of the prominent soldiers of the Confederacy was Dr Marx E. Cohen." (!) N'o one ques- tions the gallantry of this young soldier, who was shot at Bentonville, but why se- lect him alone of the hundreds who ren- dered equally signal service to their State? I uismiss the paragraph without further comment. One might wonder, however, whether such notices are inserted at ad- vertising rates. I could have said much more, but for- bear. Mr Huhner has covered himself with glory. He has erected to himself a monument more lasting than bronze. If anyone can point out the like of his work in the literature of ignorance, I would liled, he devoted a portion of his time to the improvement of the condition of the needy. He not only gave largely to all existing Institutions, but was ever seek- ing new plans for conquering the hydra- headed evil of pauperism. Now he would help to establish a new society, like that Intended to assist Jewish young men in earning their livelihood by hard work, and which, unfortunately, was unsuccess- ful. At another time he would be found asking permission of the Wardens to- en- ter into a speculation on behalf of some deserving families in humble circum- stances. He was always a liberal donor to the necessitous. Joseph Jessurun Rod- rigues was a partner in the well-known house of Francis and Joseph Salvador which, after the death of Sampson Gideon, repeatedly negotiated loans for tlie British Government. We cannot tell at precisely wTiat period the name of Salvador was first adopted, but certainly it must be in the early part of the last century, though it does not occur in the Sj-nagogue regis- ters until about 1760. "Personally, Joseph Salvador, to style him by the most familiar designation, was popular, and enjoyed considerable repute among Jew and Gentile; albeit, when he appeared in a theatre on one occasion after the passing of the Naturalization Bill in 1753, he and his party were hooted, and were constrained to withdraw, to the utter disgrace of the civilized and Chris- tian audience. The principal part of his career was accompanied by unbounded prosperity. He had vastly increased the wealth he had inherited, and he was the first Jew who had been appointed Direc- tor of the East India Company. He con- structed a handsome house in White Hart Court, Bishopgate street, which bore until recent times, if it does not still bear, his name; and in the N. E. corner of one of the cellars may yet be seen the founda- tion-stone, with an inscription laid upon it by his daughter, Judith Salvador. He also was the oxvner of a country residence, with an extensive park, at Tooting. "Joseph Salvador was less fortunaite in his latter days. Misfortunes began to be^ fall him. He lost heavily in consequence of the earthquake at Lisbon, he holding much property in various shapes in that city, though this did not appear to affect him much. It was the failure of the Dutch East India Company that brought ruin on him, and that proved almost a calamity to many of the rich Portuguese Jews of England and of Holland. This disaster was a great blow to those com- munities, from which they found it diffi- cult to recover. As for Joseph Salvador, he never raised his head again. All his available property in Europe little by lit- tle disappeared; and his last days were spent in obscurity. The family were still possessed of some tracts of land in Amer- ica, which were in charge of a steward. A nephew of Joseph Salvador, Francis, de- termined to undertake a voyage to the new continent. It is said that Mrs Joshua Mendes Da Costa, a daughter of Joseph Salvador, gave up a part of her marriage settlement to furnish funds for the ex- pedition. Francis started to retrieve the family fortunes. In due course letters came advising his safe arrival to the new continent, and announcing his intention of seeking his property. He never wrote again. A long silence ensued, and then it •was reported that the unhappy Salvador had been murdered and scalped by In- dians ! "It is related that in 1802 an Amierican arrived in Amsterdam and waited upon Mrs Texeira de Mattos, Salvador's eldest daughter, and offered her $10,000 to sign a deed giving up all claim on the American property. The lady declined the transac- tion. In 1812 the stranger once more re- turned and repeated his offer. He al- leged that he was the grandson of Salva- dor's former steward; that the land in Mr Salvador's time had been a tract of bar- ren forests and utterly valuless; that now it was covered with villages and towns and that he himself had a good holding title thereto. Finally he added that, dur- ing the War of Independence, British sub- jects had forfeited all their rights to prop- erty in the United States, and that she could advance no claim whatever to the land. Under these circumstances Mrs Texedra De Mattos, who was 80 years of age at that time, and who had not the slightest idea as to the State or part of the Union in which the demesne was sit- uated, accepted the sum rendered and signed the required assignment, which thus conferred a valid selling title on the descendant of the steward. The last male representative of the family of Salvador or Jessurun Rodrigues was a member of Lloyd's, and is believed to have died about 1830. In this manner terminated that an- tient and honorable lineage." ("Sketches of Anglo- Jewish History," pp 161-4.) Let us now look at our Charleston rec- ords and see what they have to tell us. They will enable us to separate the facts from traditions which, while containing an element of truth, are largely erroneous. First as to the date at which the nam© of Salvador was first adopted. The Charleston College is the fortunate pos- sessor of a most interesting document, the orig-inal "grant of arms" from the Herald's Colleg-e, liondon, to Francis Sal- vador, tlie grandfather of the Revolution- ary patriot. This document has been copied by Mr A. S. Salley, Jr, and was printed in the South Carolina Historical Magazine for January, 1902. In his applica- tion for this grant of arms in 1744 Francis Salvador states that he is a son of Joseph Salvador, late of Amsterdam, and that he was made a citizen of England, (as Fran- cis Salvador,) in 1719. It is worthy of note, however, that in the records of the old Devis Marks Synagogue, London, which have been printed in the "Memorial Vol- ume written to celebrate the 200th anni- versary of the inauguration of the An- tient Synagogue of the Spanish and Por- tuguese Jews" ("not published— for pre- sentation only,") and a copy of which was generously presented to me by the Haham and the Mahamad of that Congregation, the names of Jessurun Rodrigues, Jacob Jessurun Rodrigues and Joseph Jessurun Rodrigues occur in the lists of members between 1760 and 1764. Tt would thus seem that the name of Salvador had already been adopted by the family in Amster- dam—possibly even in Portugal in their commercial transactions, while they still retained the original name of Rodrigues or Jessurun Rodrigues in the Synagogue. It is not unreasonable to surmise that Sal- vador was the Marrano name of the fam- ily. And now for the records. We have seen that when misfortune overtook Joseph Salvador he was still possessed of land in So/uth Carolina, in- deed, he was a very extensive land-owner, for he owned no less than 100,000 acres. The history of this land is very interesit- ing. In the Mesne Conveyance Records, Vol F 3, p 133, we have the deed of Joseph Sal- vador's purchase of this land recorded. It is dotted November 27, 1755. John Hamil- ton, late of the Parish of St George, Han- over Square, in the County of Middlesex, but now of Charles Town, in the Province of South Carolina, in consideration of £2,000 sterling-, money of Great Britain, sells to Josepli Salvador, of Ldme sftreet, merchant, 100,000 acres of land situated at Ninety Six, in the Province of Soiith Car- olina. We hear nothing further of this land till 1769, when, as we have seen, Jo- seph Salvador gives Richard Andrews Rapley, then on his departure into for- eign parts, his power of attorney to look after his interests in South Carolina and to sell some 45,000 acres. (F 4, p 243.) The records show that Rapley succeeded in disposing of a good portion of this land. The first transaction on record occurs after the arrival of Francis Salvador in South Carolina, In Vol O 4, p 12, we have a mortgage recorded (I erroneously re- ferred to this as a simple conveyance in my lasit article) from Joseph Salvador per Rapley to Francis Salvador, of 5,160 acres of land at Ninety Six. It is dated May 31. 1774, though the transaction was concluded before Francis Salvador left England, In October, 1773. On October 29, 1773, Joseph Salvador per Rapley sells to AbraTiara Prado, Francis Salvador's step-father, 1,062 acres for a consideration of £2,124, lawful currency of South Carolina. (F 4, 191.) On the same date he sells to Abra- ham Prado, 1,638 acres more. (F 4, 200.) On May 16, 1774, he sells to Francis Sal- vador 921 acres. (M 4, 286.) On May 24, 1774, he sells 1,480 acres to Mathew Ed- wards. (M 4, 358.) On June 20, 1774, he sells to Andrew Williamson 1,795 acres. (M 4, 362.) On February 23, 1775, we have seen that Joseph Salvador conveys to Rebecca Mendes Da Costa 20,000 acres of land, to satisfy a judgment which she had obtained against him. (T 4, 1.) On March 31, 1775, he sells to John Lesley 450 acres. (Z 4. 286.) On December 8, 1777, he sells to Nicholas Eveleigh 3,022 acres. (Y 4, 236.) On April 13, 1778, he sells to Benjamin Mitchell 300 acres. (Z 4, 282.) On April 29, 1778, he sells 1,480 acres to Nicholas EJve- leigh. (Y 4, 238.) Also another tract of 3,900 acres, (Y 4, 241,) and a third tract of 1,048 acres. (Y 4, 243.) On October 6, 1779, he sells to John McCord 500 acres. (K 5, 57.) On November 3, 1779, he sells 1,013 acres to Thomas Sanders. (N 5, 201.) The last recorded deed is dated April 21, 1783, when Joseph Salvador, "having occasion for the sum of £1,000, mortgages his plan- tation, "Cornacre," of 5,160 acres, to Wil- liam Stephens, of Lime street, London, Packer." (N 5, 81.) In 1783 Joseph Salvador was still in Lon- don. All his transactions till now have been made per Richard Andrews Hapley, his attorney. He had been living on the money he obtained from the sale of his lands in South Carolina— comparatively little in truth— but it is pleasant to know that he must have had enough to live on comfortably. As we have seen he had till now disposed of about half of his prop- erty. He was still possessed of some 50,000 acres of land. In 1784, when Joseph Salvador was 84 years of age, he came to South Carolina. On April 3, 1784, there is a deed recorded in Charleston of Joseph Salvador, "now 6T Ninety Six District," revoking his former letters of attorney to Richard Andrews Rapiey. (K 5, 135.) It is surely pathetic to think of a man at his time of life com- ing to a new world to seek the wreckage of his former fortune. He did not remain long, however, at Ninety Six, for on Au- gust 9, 1785, we find a power of attorney recorded from William Stephens to Joseph Salvador, "now of Charles Town." (S 5, 143.) 8 Of his life and doingrs in Chiarleston we know nothing-, for the records are silent. We should indeed like to have known something of how he spent the last months of his life. Let us hope that he spenit them happily. He did not live long after his arrival here. In the Charleston Morning" Post and Daily Advertiser of Saturday, December 30, 1786, there is the following notice of his death: •'Yesterday died, JOSEPH SALVA- DORE, Esq; aged 86 years. He was form- erly a most eminent merchant in England, being one of those whoi furnished that GJovernment with a million of money in two hours' notice, during the rebellion in the year 1745; and likewise was one of the greatest landholders in this country,' ' Joseph Salvador is buried in the old Da Costa burial ground at Hanover street. He rests next to his friend, Isaac Da Cos- ta. Here is all that is left of the inscrip- tion on his tombstone, the dashes showing where the edges of the slab are broken: — cred to the memory o — Isurune Rodrigues other— — oseph Salvadore of C'oron— Fort 96 in the Province of Carolina and late of Tooting in the Kingdom of Grate B— he was one of the Elders— of the Portuffeuse Jewish- He likewise was F. R. S,— Governer of several Hos — He was a respectable- bearing misfortunes with— & resignation to the will of— Almighty God trusting in h— Departed this transitory lif— Eve of Sabath 8 of— 5547 which answers— of December 1786— May his soul enj — Thus died this "representative of gen- erosity, kindliness and courtliness," as Pic- 9 ciotto calls him. His will made on Octo- ber 7, 1782, whilst he is still in Liondon, is recorded here in the Probate Court (Wills 1786-1793.) He bequeathes all his real es- tate in Great Britain or elsewhere, to- gether with his plantations, etc, in South Carolina, to his daughters, Abigail Salva- dor, Elisebah Salvador, Sosannah, other- wise Susannah Salvador and William Stephens, of London, packer. In addition he gives £1,000 to each of the above named daughters. He leaves £100 in trust to Wil- liam Stephens to be paid to such person or persons as his daugliter, Judith Mendes Da Costa Salvador, wife of Mr Joshua Mendes Da Costa, shall appoint by note or writing, or in default of such direction, to herself for her own and separate use. He also leaves to her an annuity of £50 a year. He leaves to Sarah Salvador, widow of Francis Salvador, Esq, £10 and £100 to William Stephens. To his grandson, Ja- cob Salvador, he leaves £100, when he be- comes 21, and to his granddaughters, who may be living at the time of his decease, £200. He leaves £100 to the Portuguese Jews' Synagogue of the city of London. The residuary estate is to go to his daughters. In a codicil made at Charleston on No- vember 11, 1786, he adds "his worthy friend Joseph Da Costa" to the list of his execu- tors." He leaves to him in trust £100 ster- ling "to pay the same to the Portuguese Congregation in the City of Charleston, known by the name of Beth Elohim Un- veh Shallom, or the House of the Lord and Mansion of Peace," and to Mr G^er- shon Cohen £20 sterling for the German Jewish Congregation in the City of Charleston, known by the name of Beth Elohim, or House of the Lord. I believe that there is a mistake here and I shall refer to it again in my next article. To his clerk, Michael Hart, he leaves £100 sterling. There is another codicil added on De- cember 27, 1786. Joseph Salvador is on his death bed. He oannoit sign his name any more, but makes his mark. It reads as follows: "Fifty pounds more to Mr Michael Hart, my clerk; twenty-five pounds to Mrs Jane Davis; twenty pounds to Mr Charles Brown and a hundred pound to Mrs Sary Da Costa, widow." The subsequent history of the Salvador estate, is somewhat uncertain. Picciotto's story of the American's visit to Mrs Texeira De Mattos is probably apocryphal. It is strange that Joseph Salvador does not menUon her in his will. The story is highly improbable for reasons that are self-evident. We know, however, that there was considerable litigation in after years about those lands, which have al- ways been known as "the Jews' lands." It is impossible to ascertain the details to- day, for the records of Abbeville County, In which Ninety Sixty was formerly sit- uated, were burnt many years ago. The late Judge McGowan had a good deal to say on the subject in an article which, I believe, he printed in The News and Cou- rier, but I have not the reference at hand. Thus ends the singular story of the chequered career of a nohle philanthropist. We are proud to perpetuate his memory and proud to think that his ashes now mingle with those of our own beloved dead. [Reprinted from The News and Courier.] THE OAaOCTT PRTQ OO OHASN.8.C. THE ORGAN IN THE SYNAGOGUE. An Interesting: Chapter in the History of REFORM JUDAISM In America. H-.^^* By Rabbi Barnett A, EUai, Not once alone m recent years have the Courts been invoked to settle dispute® of a purely religious character. In this re- spect, too, history has a curious way of repeating Itself. The accidental stumbling across an old volume of South Carolina Law Reports has furnished me with a full account of what was, without doubt, the ablest and most hotly contested ease of the kind on record. It is one of the landmarks in the history of Reform Juda- ism in America, and is to be found in Richardson's South Carolina Law Re- 'Ports, Vol 2, pp 245-286: The State vs Ancker. The spirit ol' progress was first mani- fested in the Synagogue of Charleston in 1824, when the "Society of Reformed Israelites" was organized. The distin- guished Isaac Harby, one of its leading spirits, and whose Anniversary Address, in 1825, has come down to us, had removed to New York in 1828. His loss must have t)een severely felt, but the movement he had helped to inaugurate continued till about 1839 or 1840, when it came to an end, its members reaffiliating with the old con- gregation, Beth Elohim. The old Synagogue had been destroyed by the great fire of 1838. It is Interesting to note that amongst the many things I recently discovered is a large oil painting, at the back of which is this inscription: "Interior of K. K. B. E., of Charleston, S. C, destroyed by the great fire of April, 1838. painted from recollection and dedi- cated to the members of that congrega- tion by Solomon N. Carvalho." This Syna- gogue—the one that is still used by Beth Elohim— was rebuilt in 1840. As just men- tioned, considerable accession to its mem- bership was made by the reaffiliation of the members of the "Society of Reformed Israelites." Though this Society had now ceased to exist, its spirit was still alive. The time seemed favorable, and a move was made to introduce an organ into the Synagogue as an accessory to worship. This was the first organ ever introduced into a Jewish place of worship in America. This innovation, however, was stoutly re- sisted by many of the older members, but the progressive party, being now in the majority, carried the day. The minority withdrew and worshipped elsewhere, and in 1844 carried the case to the Courts. The case was argued before Judge Wardlaw in 1845, the most brilliant legal talent of the day being arrayed on either side, King & Memminger for the appellants, and Petigru & Bailey, contra. The dominant party gained the verdict, which was affirmed when the case reached the Court of Errors and Appeals in 1846. The opin- ior> was delivered by Judge Butler and is a magnificent document. One marvels at the acumen therein displayed. Though the question of tlie organ is no longer a living question with us, there are questions of principle involved on which the Court passed, which questions are of perennial interest. J therefore, reproduce part of the opinion. It is worthy of careful study, even at this late day: "It is almost impossible to reduce mat- ters grooving out of a difference of opinion to such a definite form as to subject them to judicial cognizance. Rights and fran- chises are such matters as have legal ex- istence and may be protected by law. Speculative disputes must be left, in some measure, to the arbitrament of opinion. To suppose that an uninterrupted harmony of sentiment can be preserved urvder 'the guarantee of written laws and constitu- tions, or by the application of judicial au- thority, woiild be to make a calaulation that has been refuted by the history of all institutions like that before us. Neith- er is it practical to frame laws in such a way as to make them, by their arbitrary and controlling influence, preserve, in per- petuity, the primitive identity of social and religious institutions. "The granite promontory in the deep may stand firm and unchanged amidst the waves and storms that beat upon it, but human institutions cajinot withstand the agitations of free, active and progressive opinion. Whilst laws are stationary, things are progressive. Any system of , laws that should be made without the principle of expansibility, that would, in some measure, accommodate them to the progression of events, would have within it the seeds of mischief a.nd violence. When, the great Spartan law-giver gave his countrymen laws, with an injunction never to change them, he was a great violator of law himself. For all laws, however wise, cannot be subjected to Procrustean lim.itations. Cesante ratione cessat lex is a profound and philosophi- cal principle of the law. These remarks are miore particularly true in reference to matters of taste and form. Let the old- est member of any civil or religious cor- poration look back and see, if he can, in any instance, trace the original identity of his institution throughout its entire history. Those who now, in the case be- fore us, insist with most earnestness an a severe observance of ancient rites and forms would hardly recognize or under- stand the same, as they were practiced by their remote ancestors, who founded the Synagogue. The Minhag Sephardm was a ritual o'f Spanish origin; and, al- though it may yet obtain in different coun- tries, yet how differently is it observed. If two Jewish congregations, one from Po- land and the other from Spain, were* to be brought together, whilst professing to be governed by the same rituals, they would probably find themselves unable to understand each other in their observa-ncea of them. "The Jews in every part of the world, by whatever forms they may be governed, could, no doubt, recognize the general spirit and prevailing principles of their religion to be essentially the same. But in mere formf a resemblance could not be traced with anything like tolerable uni- formity. "As practiced and observed in Charles- ton in 1784, and for many years afterwards, exercises in Spanish were connected with it. They have been long since discontin- ued; long before the commencement of this controversy. Religious rituals mere- ly, not involving always essential princi- ples of faith, will be modified to some ex- tent by the influence of the political insti' tutions of the countries in which they are practiced. In a despotism, where tolera- tion is a sin to the prevailing religion, re- ligious exercises will be conducted in se- cret or in occult form.s. Faith and doc- trine may take refuge in these for safety. On the contrary, in a country where tol- eration is not only allowed, but where per- fect freedom of conscience is guaranteed by constitutional provision, such devices will not be resorted to. Language itself is continually undergoing changes; clum- sy expressions of rude language will give way to modern refinement. There are those in every church who would be shocked at the change of expression in re- spect to the tablets or books that contain the prayers and more solemn forms of re- ligious rituals. At this time there are many who oppose any change of style in the editions of the Bible. It is not sur- prising that those who have been accus- tomed to one form of expression should have associations with it that they could not have with another. And it is so of all religious forms and cei'emonies. The feel- ings of such persons should never be treat- ed with indifference or rudeness. They de- serve respect and are to be regarded as useful checks on reckless innovation. Matters of this kind must necessarily be- long, and should be committed, to the ju- risdiction of the body that has the right of conducting the religious concerns of ec- clesiastical corporations. Charters are granted to such corporations, upon the ground that they can carry out their ends with greater efficiency than if they were left to individual exertions and the opera- tion of the general laws of the land. The parties before us who are opposed to re- form contend that dangerous changes have been made in the form of their wor- ship, particularly as it respects the intro- duction of instrumental mu.sic. It is not pretended but that the organ, the instrument complained of was in troduced by the constituted authori- ties; but the ground taken is, that this authority has been exercised to do that which is against the provisions 5 of the charter, which guarantees that the Minhag Sepharclim should be a ritual of the congregation, and that it did not al- low of instrumental music as a part of it. The objection is to the mere form in which the music is used and practiced in this congregation. I suppose it might be admitted that in its origin such a ritual was practiced without the aid of instru- mental accompaniment, but to suppose that the exact kind of music that was to be used in all former time had been fixed and agreed upon by the Jewish worship- pers who obtained this charter would be to attribute to them an impracticable un- dertaking. That such music was not used is certain; but that it might not in the progress of human events be adopted would be an attempt to anticipate the de- cision of posterity on matters that must be affected by the progress of art and the general tone of society, and which couid not be controlled by arbitrary limitation. As this was a subject that could not be well reached, much less continually con- trolled by the judgment of this Court, we think the Judge below very properly ex- cluded all evidence in relation to it. "Evidence was offered on a graver sub- ject, touching the faith and religious pro- fessions of. the majority that introduced and established the organ. It might be sufficient to say that the party which has been charged with heterodoxy in this re- spect profess to adhere to the ancient faith of the Jews. They do not occupy the position of those who openly disavow the faith of the founders of the synagogue. If they were to do so, it would be time for the Court to say how far it would take cognizance of the rights of the minority under the terms of their charter. How can a Court ascertain the faith of others except by their professions? Can it be done by the opinions of others, and if so, 6 by whose opinions? It is said that no two eyes can see exactly at tlie same distance, and, perhaps, no two minds have exactly the same conceptions of the same subjects, particularly of matters of faith and or- thodoxy. The unexpressed sentiments of tlie human mind are liard to be found out, and it is a delicate office to assume a jurisdiction over its operations when they are to be reached by the opinions of others or conjectural inference. Expressions and acts may give tolerable information, upon which the judgment may act and deter- mine. "In this case suppose the Judge below- had opened the inquiry as to the faith and doctrines of the dominant party, where would he have loolted for information? Surely not to the minority or any others who might occupy an adversary position. Could he have trusted to the testimony that might have been procured and given from other sects and denominations of Jews in other countries? And if so should he have consulted those who live in Pales- tine, in Germans', in England or in the TTnited States? He might have assumed the power to do thi.<^, but it would have been a wilderness of power with scarcely a compass to guide him. It would have been to go into the labyrinth of curious and recondite learning, without a clue by which he could escape from its bewilder- ing perplexities. He would have had an- other difhculty, that is, to determine whose testimony he would have taken, for both parties, no doubt, had ready and able advocate.? for their respective doc- trines. It seems to me it would have been hard for a civil magistrate to give a defi- nite, much less a satisfactory, judgment on such subjects. We, therefore, concur in the propriety of the course pursued by the Judge below in respect to these mat- ters. If the Court can be called upon to 7 settle by its decision such disputes it would be bound to require parties to con- form to its standard of faith— a judicial standard for theological orthodoxy!" (Pp 270-274.) Times liave changed since then, and even consefvative congregations now have the organ in their places of worsliip. We take everything as a matter of course nowa- days, and are too apt to forget the cost at which our privileges were bouglit by our forefathers. Amongst the precious relics of the battles for religious progress that have been waged, let us ever cherish the memory of the brave struggle of the Jews of Charleston in 1840. A HISTORY OF Congregation Beth Elohim^ Of Charleston, S. C* ^^w ^^V ^^ Compiled from Recently Discovered Records, BARNETT A. ELZAS, It Rabbi of the Congregation* l^v ^fi^ %P^ Inscribed to the present members of K. K. B. E. [Reprinted from the Charleston News and Courier, Nov. 1902.] A HISTORY • • of the * * Congregation Beth Elohim, of Charleston, S. C, Compiled from recently discovered records, i^v i^v ^^v The investigation into the history of early communities is one that possesses a rare fascination for him who has a liking for this work. Such a one, how- ever, must bring to bear upon his task endless patience and equally limitless in- dustry. In the absence of direct docu- mentary evidence his work will be at- tended with the greatest difficulty, and the reconstruction of the history of a community at the distance of a hundred years will be next to an impossibility. I attempted to do this some time ago in the case of the Charleston Jewish community, but, after years of patient work, was far from satisfied with the re- sults of my labors. Fortune favored me recently, however, and by a curious acci- dent I was enabled to do in a single hour what years of diligent searching had failed to accomplish. The accident I refer to was the recovery from an old trash box of the books of the congregation K. K. Beth Elohim from 1800 on. They had probably lain there undisturbed for half a century, for no one seems to have had any knowledge of them. These books are in a remarkable state of preservation and throw an interesting light on the early history of the Charleston community. I may add that these records were sup- posed to have been burnt in Columbia by Gen Sherman during his march through South Carolina, together with other prop- erty belonging to Beth Elohim. I always had an idea, why I don't know, that these books had never been destroyed and have often so expressed myself. My disbelief has invariably called forth only a smile, but circumstances have proved that in this instance at least my surmise was correct. Suppose one wished to find out, as I did, what Jews were living in Charleston in the year 1800, how would he proceed? He would go first to the old City Direc- tories, which were first published here at the end of the eighteenth century. These were printed in the old Almanacs. A couple of names would be all that he would find. He would next turn to the "Gazettes" of the day, and the advertise- ment columns would furnish him with perhaps another naif-dozen names. He would now visit the offices of the Probate Court and of Mesne Conveyance, and a few more names would reward his indus- try. He would next turn his steps to the auditor's office and consult the tax books if available. He would learn that the early tax rolls are no longer in existence, the earliest being dated 1865. And lastly, he would pay a visit to the old Jewish cemeteries, at Coming and Hanover streets, but these would not give him much additional material. From all these sources together he could hardly be cer- tain of more than twenty-five or thirty names. The recovery of the Treasurer's book of K. K. Beth Elohim for 1800-1810 is a dis- covery of no small importance. Besides the general information it furnishes of the early history of the Charleston Jew- ish community, it may help to identify a number of names that are now being broug-ht to light in the Revolutionary records that are being collated in the Secretary of State's office in Colum- bia. But to return to the Congregation Beith Bl'oihim in 1800. It was at that time one of the richest Jewish congregations in America and included among its members several distinguished men of Revolution- ary fame. It had 107 contributing mem- bers, and its incomte for that year was £802.12.1. The Rev Abrahami Azubee Was minister; Israel Davis, schochet, (killer of caJttle for the use of Jews;) Hart Levy, sexton; Lyon Levy, secre'tary; Israel de Lieben, treasurer, and Hyam Jacob, in- spector of meat in the market. The sial- aries were fairly large for those days. The minister received £100 per annum; the schoohet, £60; the seacton, £45; the secre- tary, £20, and the meat inspector £20. Amongst either item's of expense for the year 1800 we find: "Wax and making can- dles, £58; charity for the transient poor, £10; for sick persons and doctors' bills £34;- allowances to sundry poor, £82; pen- sion to sundry poor, £20, and expenses of Kahano, (tabernacle,) £30." The accounts are audited by Emanuel D. L'Motta and Benjamin Ricardo. It is interesting to note that much of the congregational income was derived in those days from voluntary "offerings." Those of Daniel Hart for the year 1800 amounted to £50.5.6. The treasurer's petty cash book also shows numerous fines that were imposed on the members. These were, I surmise, inflicted upon those who Were absent when their turn caime to be called up to the law or who refused con- gregationial offices to which they were elected. The following is a complete list of mem- bers for the year 1800: Aaron, Solomion. Abendanone, David. Abendanone, Joseph. Abrahams, Isaac. Abriahams, Jacob. Abralhams, Moses. Abrams, Molse. Albergo, Judah. Alexander, Abraham, Sr. Alexander, Abraham, Jr. Alexander, Judah. Azubee, Abraham?. Canter, Emanuel. Canlter, Isaac. Oanter, Jonathan, Canter, Joshua. Cantor, David. Ca,ntor, Jacob. Cardoza, David. Coben, Abraham, Sr, (Georgetown.) Cohen, Abraham, Jr. Cohen, Barnard. Coben, Gershon. Cohen, Henry. Cohen, Jacob. Cohen, Mordecad, Cohen, Moses. Coihen, Philip. Cohen, Solomon, Jr. Davis, Israel. D'Azvedo, Isaac. De Leon, Jacob. De Lieben, Israel. De L'Motta, Emanuel. De Pass, Ralph. Elizer, Eleazar. Elizer, Isa;ac. Emanuel, Emanuel. Gomez, Jacob. Harris, Andrew. Harris, Jacob, Sr. Harris, Jacob, Jr. Hart, Daniel. Hart, Simon M. Hyiamis, David. Hyams, Samuel. Hyams, Solomon. Jacobs, Abraham. Jacobs, Barnard. Jacobs, Hyam. Jones, Abraham*. Jones, Samuel. Joseph, Israel. Joseph, Joseph. Joseph, Jjizer. Joseph, Sol M. Judaih, Jacob. L.abat, David. Lazarus, Aaron. Lazarus, Marks. Levy, Emanuel. Levy, Hart. Levy, Jacob. Levy, Lyon. Levy, Moses C. Levy, Nathan. Lopez, Aaron. Lopez, Abram. Lopez, David. Lyon, Mordecai. Manheim, Sol. Marks, S. M. Milyado, Benjamin. Moise, Aaron. Moise, Sherry. Moralles, Jacob. Moses, Abraham. Moses, Isaac. Moses, Isaiah. Moses, Lyon. Moses, Myer. Moses, Solomon. Myers, Israel. Myers, Samuel. Nathan, David. Nathan, Solomon. Perrera, Jacob. Phillips, Benjamin. Phillips, David. Poole, Isaac. Ricardo, Benjamin. Rodrigues, Abraham. Sasportas, Abraham. Seixas, Isaac. Seixas, Mrs. Sheftal, Sheftal. Simons, Montague. Simons, Sampson. Simons, Samuel. Soares, Jacob. Scares, Jacob I. Solomon, Joseph. Solomons, Levi. Tobias, Isaac. Tobias, Jacob. Tobias, Joseph. Tobias, Mrs. In addition to these names I find the following as contributors, though not regular members: Aaronson, Woolf. Alexander, Moses. Da Costa, Isaac. Harris, Hyam. Lazarus, Simon. Levy, Reuben. Levy, Zachariah. Lopez, Samuel. Marks, Hyam. Moses, Isaac, Jr. Solomon, Israel. From the above one may get a tolerably good idea of what the Charleston Jewish community was as far back as 1800. It was a splendid community and worthy of its subsequent history, when twenty-four years later, under the impetus of gifted leaders, it inaugurated the regime of Reform Judaism in America, the end of which is not yet. BETH BLOHIM IN 1801-02. There were many accessions to the Con- gregation Beth Elohim in 1801, several of the present members of that synagogue dating the arrival of their fathers from that year. In 1802 I find 125 names on the books. The income of the congregation has been increased to £955 13s 2d; the Rev A. Azuby is still minister; David Cardozo, treasurer; Israel Davis, schochet, and Joseph Cohen, sexton. The items of ex- pense are similar to those of the year 1800. There is one interesting item in the cash book, viz: A fine of £20 inflicted upon Abraham Isaacks. There were several who were fined this amount between 1800 and 1810, and it is gratifying to note that they paid their fines without demur. As I sug- gested in my former article, these fines were probably inflicted upon those who refused offices to which they were elected. In this connection one recalls the fact that the imposition of such a fine in the old Bevis Marks Synagogue of London, England, lost the Elder D' Israeli to the synagogue and to Judaism and led perhaps to the baptism of the young Benjamin D'Israeli, The following is the list of new contri- butors to the congregation. I omit those occurring in the list of 1800: Abendanone, David. Abendanone, Hyam. Abrahams, Emanuel. Abrahams, Hyam. Azevedo, Isaac. Barrett, Judah. Canter, Abraham. Canter, David. Canter, Jacob. Canter, John. Canter, Rebeccah. Cohen, Barnet. Cohen, Jacob, Jr. 7 Cohen, Joseph. Florance, Zachariah. Goldsmith, Abraham. Goldsmith, Moses. Gomez, Elias. Hart, Nathan. Hertz, M. Hertz. Isaacks, Abraham. Isaacks, Abraham, Jr. Joseph, Lazarus. Joseph, Samuel. Levi, Simon. Marks, Humphry. Melhado, Benjamin. (Milyado?) Mesqueta, Ralph. Messias, Solomon. Moise, Hyam. Mordecai, David. Mordecai, Samuel. Moses, Isaac C. Moses, Joseph. Motta, Emanuel. Motta, Isaac. Motta, Judah A. Motta, Sarah. Myers, Lewis. Myers, Michael. Nettling, Solomon. Nettling, The Widow. Ricardo, Joseph. Ricardo, Ralph. Riverra, Abraham R. Russell, Samuel. Seixas, Isaac M. Seixas, Richa. Sheftall, Mordecai. Sheftall, Sarah. Solomons, Alexander. Solomons, Chapman. Solomons, Joseph. Solomons, Nathan. Tores, Abraham. In addition to the names enumerated I find the following on the books for 1800- 1802.: Albergo, Moses. Cantor, Isaac. Cohen, Benjamin. Da Costa, Aaron. De Ltyon, Isaac. Emanuel, Michael. Etting, Elkan. Hart, Henry. Jacob Hyman. Joseph, Barnet. Levi, Barnard. Levi, David. Levi, Judah. Lyon, Levi. Manheim, Israel. Mendez, Aaron. Milhado, David. Morris, Henry. Myers, Lewis. Myers, Moses. Myers, Solomon. Nahar, Moses. Russeil, Solomon. Sheftal, E. Simons, Israel. Simons, Moses. Solomons, Benjamin. Snares, David I. Tongues, William. Vallance, Moses. Zemach, Abraham. It is only fair to add that several of the names in the above lists may be duplicat- ed, owing to the phonetic spelling that prevailed in those early days, also owing to the fact that the lists are made up from two sets of books, one the work of a capable secretary, and the other the work of a man less capable. Betb BloUlm in 1803-5. In my former articles I pointed out the importance of the recovery of such lists as those I have printed. Lists of names are dry reading, but they ofttimes tell a tale as interesting to the student of his- tory as do the relics of bygone ages to the geologist or ethnologist. My task is nearly done and I shall print but one more list — always omitting the names that have occurred before. From 1803-5 the congregation Beth Elohim held its own, both in numbers and income. The details of its expenditures for these years are without especial interest. Here are its contributors: 1803. Barrett, Abraham. Cohen, Solomon I. Cohen, Wolf. Davega, Moses. Emanuel, Nathan. Goldsmith, Isaac. Harby, Solomon. Hart, Joseph. Hart, Solomon. Henry, Maurice L. Isaacks, Solomon. Levy, Leon. Levy, Solomon. Levy, Solomon, Jr. Melhado, Emanuel. Mears, Simon. Moses, Fishel. Moses, Levy. Nathan, Nathan. Phillips, Solomon. Seixas, Ratse. 1804. Agular, Joseph. Cohen, Samuel. Cohen, Solomon, (Philadelphia.) Coleman, Sylvester, Goldsmith, Samuel. Harris, Hyam. Hart, Leo. Hart, Mathias. Hertz, A. M. Isaacs, Sampson. Lazarus, Isaac. Lewis, David. Lobell, Moses. Lopez, Joseph. Marks, Alexander. Marks, Mark. Messias, Abraham. Monsanta, Rodrigues. Morales, Doc. Moses, David. Myers, Mordecai. ^ Nathan, A, M. Nathans, David. Solomons, Hart. Solomons, Hertz. Suares, Isaac. Suryuy, Joseph. Woolf, Rachel. 1805. Brandon, David. Corree, Jacob. Goldsmith, Solomon. Goodman, Dr. Hendricks, Sarah. Hertz, Alexander. Jacobs, Samuel. Kurshedt, . Marks, Solomon. Moise, Benjamin. Monsanta, M. R. Moses Chapman. Moses, Levy. Pereyra, . Simon, Michael. Solomons, Mark, Solomons, Solomon. Beth Eloblm In 1806-10. With the accompanying lists for 1806-10 I bring my articles to a conclusion. The only item worth noting in the list of ex- penditures is one in 1809, when £34.3.2 is appropriated for "the entire completion of Mikva," (ritual bath)— an appurtenance now only found in the most orthodox of Jewish congregations: 1806. Barnerd, Alexander. Buley, Jacob. Cohen, Jacob I. Emanuel, Isaac. Harby, Isaac. Harris, Moses. Jacobs, Jacob. Lazarus, Jacob. Lazarus, Joseph. Lyon, Moses. Moses, Israel. Simfpson, Michael. Woolf, Isaac. 1807. Cohen, Hyam. Frideburg, — . 1808. Carvalho, Emanuel, N. D. Heydenfeld, I. Hyams, Isaac. Levine, Lewis. Ottolengui, Abraham. Phillips, Jacob. Pinto, David. 1809. Cohen, Jacob, D. Cohen, Mordecai S. Goldsmith, I. M. Henry, Joel. Hertz, Jacob. Lyon, Solomon D. Mordecai, Goodman. Morris, Simpson. Phillips, Aaroik Phillips, Abraham. Pollock, Levy. Solomon, Aaron. 1810. Cohen, Abraham, (Edisto.) De Pass, Joseph. Goldsmith, Morris. Heydenfeld, Jacob. Lipman, — , (from New York.) Martin, M., (from Jarrtaica.) Morley, N. iMordecai, Noah. Moses, Andrew. Offen, Jacobus, V. Samuel, Joshua. Sheftall, Doctor. Simons, Saul, (Georgia.) Many of the names enumerated in these lists are well-known names of men who shed glory upon themselves and their country during the critical period of the Revolution. Their descendants are still with us, active members of Beth Elohim. Some of the names are no longer remem- bered and it has been a grateful task to rescue them? from oblivion. May the pres- ent generation be inspired by it to prove themselves worthy of the past record of their congregation, than which there is none that excels in dignity and glory. THE DAGGETT PRINTING COMPANY, CHARLESTON, S. C.