July 4, 1746. In General Assembly, the engrossed Bill entitled, an act to repeal an act therein mentioned, so far as it relates to the freeholders and inhabitants of the township of Brooklyn, in Kings County, within this colony, was read the third time, and upon Mr. Speaker’s putting the question, whether the Bill should pass, a motion was made by Col. Morris in the words following, viz.--As this Bill has been already ordered to be engrossed, by a majority of the House, and the question that now is put, is, whether this Bill shall pass; I must beg leave to give my reasons for opposing its passage. The first is, it is alledged by this bill, that the people of Brooklyn had a right, prior to the act passed in the year 1732, which was not proved, nor attempted upon the hearing before this house; but if we pass this Bill, we allow that right to be proved, and then it becomes our allegation, which I conceive, inconsistent with the honor and justice of this house, to alledge any thing in such a case, but what has been proved. The second is, it implies that the act in 1732, took away unjustly, a right from the people of Brooklyn, that they were entitled to. Thirdly, it implies, that the house have fixed the two points before mentioned, and then it will necessarily follow, that we have considered the rights of the Corporation,[9] as well as those of the people of Brooklyn; that we have not, I appeal to the house, who must allow, that no such right ever appeared to us, at least as a House, and for us to declare certain facts by a Bill, which has never been proved, will be doing, what I conceive, we ought not to do, if we make justice and equity the rule of our conduct. For these reasons, I move, that the Bill may be rejected. The question being put thereon it was carried in the negative, in the manner following, viz.----For the negative, Messrs. Chambers, Lott, Cornell, Hardenbergh, A. Lott, Bradt, Lecount, Gale, and Harring, 9. Affirmative, Messrs. Cruger, Morris, Richards, Van Horne, Clarkson, Verplank, Philipse, and Thomas, 8. Resolved, That the Bill do pass. Ordered, that Colonel Harring, and Mr. Hardenbergh do carry the Bill to the Council and desire their concurrence. By which it appears that it was considered by the House, as well as subsequently by the Supreme Court, that the right of the town was sufficiently proved, notwithstanding the assertions of Colonel Morris. This Bill by _some means_ was stifled in the Council,[10] and never became a law. During the Revolution the Old ferry was kept by Messrs. Van Winkle, and Bukett; at which period the usual charge for crossing was six pence for each passenger. August 1, 1795. The ferry from the foot of Main-street, Brooklyn, to the foot of Catharine-street, New-York, commonly called the New ferry, was established by Messrs. William Furman and Theodosius Hunt, lessees from the Corporation of the City of New-York.