COLONIAL Cole Digges House Historic Structures Report

Contents

Preface

Thomas Pate built a home on Lot 42 in Yorktown shortly after 1700. As such it is the second oldest surviving home in the town. It was among the properties added to Colonial National Historical Park on the purchase of the Blow Estate by the Federal government in October 1968. The house "is architecturally important and contributes a good deal to the Main Street scene in the key 'Customhouse' — Nelson House — Grace Church Sector." Study of the building was incorporated into the Park's Resource Study Program and COL-H-14a was projected to cover the documentary aspects of this study. This proposal envisioned, and the report which follows offers, "as full a file as possible of detailed historical information about the house and its use, the grounds and occupants with particular emphasis on the 18th century."

The author is particularly indebted, in the issuance of the report in the form that it has here, to the services of Mrs. Francis McLawhorn of the Colonial staff who produced the working typed draft from a difficult long hand copy, and to Frances Gastellum of the Davison of History, who prepared the final copy.

Yorktown
October 15, 1969

Charles E. Hatch, Jr.

Thomas Pate and Lot 42

Thomas Pate, who likely was of the Pate family that settled early in Gloucester County, [1] evidently crossed the York to locate in the area of Yorktown where he was for many years a ferryman and where eventually he built the home in which he died in 1703. One of his court authorizations (or licenses) to maintain a ferry was issued on January 24, 1699, and he was, as he had been doing, to keep a ferry near Yorktown at the usual place commonly called by the name of the well "where the ships usually watered." As was often done, he sometimes kept an ordinary for travelers. [2] Such was true in 1694 when on March 25 he, as the ferryman, was granted license to keep an ordinary "att ye place called ye Well att Yorke Ferry." [3]

Thomas Pate became the first person to develop Lot 42 in Yorktown, though it was initially granted to a carpenter, John Seabourn, in 1691. Seemingly Seabourn failed to build upon it. [4] The lot went back to the trustees and became available to another choice. It "was purchased by Tho. Pate of ye Trustees for ye Portland in York county by deed bearing date of 11th day of August 1699." [5]

Evidently Pate was growing older and on April 4, 1703, he disposed of this property by "Deed of Guift" which was duly signed with "his Mark":

I Thomas Pate of York County & Parrish thereof doth of my free will and voluntary accord & for ye Restitution & Satisfaccon of Seven Years Service & also for her diligent care and trouble in Looking after me in this my Sickness & also for divers other weighty causes & Consideracons thereunto me Moving hath given & granted & do by these prsents give and grant wholly & Solely unto Joane Lawson wife of John Lawson of ye above named Parrish & County [York] my House & Lott in York Town ye said Lott being comonly known by this number (42). [6]

Pate's wife had abandoned her husband through desertion. This is clear from a court notice of May 24, 1703, in which Pate found it necessary to issue warning:

These are to give notice to all Christian People Whome it may Concerne that I Thomas Pate of York County do by these psents advise and forwarne all Persons whatsoever not to give Creditt to Elizabeth my Wife upon any Manner of Accounts wherein I may be Damnified [sic] she having absented her selfe from my house and Habitation... if any person or persons do give her Credit by Trucking or Trading or any other manner of Dealing it shall be to their owne Loss and Detriment. [7]

Thomas died before the end of the year and Joane Lawson as well as Elizabeth Pate appeared in court on December 24 to make Joane's "Deed of Guift" a matter of record. Elizabeth accepted the situation and made over her "Right of Dower Title & Interest" to Joane "for & in Consideration of ye Sume of Two pounds Sterl in hand payd." [8]

But Joane Lawson would not long remain in ownership of Lot 42, "together wt ye housing thereon and appurtenances." She sold it on September 17, 1705, to "John martin, me:chant" of York County for some "twenty pounds Sterling." [9]

John Martin

John Martin, having purchased Lot 42 in 1705, evidently continued in the occupation and use of it for the next eight years. Perhaps, it can be assumed that this and his storehouse, which he built at the foot of the cross (Read) street that went down to the waterfront from Main, just adjacent to his house, remained the base of his continuing mercantile endeavor.

Martin after ten years in the mercantile field may have decided to try his fortunes at seas. [10] When he sold Lot 42 together "wth his warehouse under ye bank comonly called & known by ye Name of Martin's Store" to "Mercht" Cole Digges he was designated "Marinner" in the deed. [11] This was in January 1713 and the sale price was ninety pounds sterling. Martin had built the warehouse himself as related in the deed of release to Digges—"with Warehouse Erected by ye sd Martin under ye bank commonly called & known by ye name of Martin's Store." This further related that lot and warehouse (or store) "All of which premises are now in ye actuall possession of ye sd Cole Digges by Vertue of One Indenture of Lease & Demise." [12]

Cole Digges and Son Dudley

Cole Digges was the son of Councilor Dudley Digges and the grandson of Edward Digges, who also served the Colony as councilor, as well as auditor-general, receiver-general, a Virginia agent in England, and governor for a two-year term, the latter during the period of the Cromwellian Commonwealth. [13] Edward had acquired the West family acres on the York River some five miles up river from the site of later Yorktown and developed the famous "E. D. [Edward Digges] Plantation" with its noted quality tobacco.

Governor Edward Digges' oldest son, William Digges, inherited the York River plantation and evidently lived here until he moved to Maryland, his wife's home colony, some time after 1679. He died in 1698 and his son rather quickly, in 1699, sold the "D. E. Plantation" to his father's brother, Dudley Digges, a younger son of Governor Edward Digges. It is not improbable that Dudley was, and had been for some time, in residence at, and in management of the home plantation. In this event his son Cole could have been born here in 1692. In any event, Cole's early youth would have been passed here with his father until the latter's death in 1710, Cole then being a young man of eighteen. [14]

Cole as the oldest surviving son inherited the "E. D. Plantation" as well as an established and going plantation, "Newport News," in Warwick County. The latter came to him through his mother, Susannah Cole. [15] It was early in his career when, in 1714, he bought the John Martin property in Yorktown, including the home on Lot 42 and the warehouse at the waterside. Even then, in the deed, he was designated as a merchant, indicating the direction his principal business interest was to follow. He would, however, continue the plantation operations and in due course before his death install his eldest son Edward on the "E. D. Plantation"[16] and likely son William, by due course of arrangements, on the Warwick operation, leaving at his death his town acquisitions in Williamsburg and more particularly those in Yorktown to his third son Dudley. [17] Both William and Dudley were "Infants under the age of 21" at the time of his death in 1744.

Cole evidently succeeded in business and in 1729 entered a period of expansion for his facilities in Yorktown. The Virginia Council minutes relate for June 12 of that year:

Cole Digges Esqr on his petition hath liberty granted him to survey and have a patent for eighty foot square of the Beach below the bank at York Town adjoining to the place where his warehouse now stands for his convenience in building a commodious warehouse thereon with leave to extend a Wharf of the same breadth into the River for the more convenient landing of merchandizes provided the same do not obstruct or encroach on the publick landing or Street leading to the River. [18]

Undoubtedly he, like Thomas Nelson, Philip Lightfoot, John Ballard, and other fellow merchants, wanted a larger share of the now expanding Yorktown trade. He knew the value of land as well, purchasing additional acres in York County in 1726 and other lots in Yorktown to the total of four. Even before, he had been interested in virgin acres, some 12,000 in the fork of the Rapidan River in Spotsylvania County, though he would fail to pursue this and let the patent lapse by "failure to cultivate or Improve the same." [19] Like most merchants of the time he also busied himself with estate settlements and the execution of powers of attorney sometimes granted from business associates in England. [20]

With public service already a family tradition, Cole found himself in the House of Burgesses representing Warwick in 1715 and again in 1718. Prior to his initial election, however, he and his fellow elector, William Cole, had promised to serve without salary. The House of Burgesses saw this as improper, being a form of bribery, and a conflict-of-interest matter. Digges and Cole were refused their seats and declared not duly elected, whereupon the Governor issued a new writ for a Warwick election. The voters again returned Digges and Cole, and in this new election no irregularities were noted and no promised made by the candidates. Then they were allowed to take their seats. It is said that both men were of the governor's small party in the House.

It can be reported that, when Governor Spotswood was challenged in the matter of the misapplication of some of the Colony's laws, Cole Digges was foreman of the twenty-one man grand jury "called to study acquisations and complaints" against the governor. The "Grand Jury of the Dominion" was ready to report on April 18, 1719, and did not agree "on any bills or presentments" and "will readily Acquit You [the Governor] both of Misconstruing or perverting our Laws, of which you are wrongfully accused."

In just a few months Cole would be elevated to the Virginia Council. It was on December 9, 1719, that "A Copy of his Majesty's order in Council appointing Cole Digges, Esqr to be of his Majesty's Council of this Colony" was produced in Council. He remained a member and was in regular attendance for the next twenty-four years. [21]

Cole Digges married Elizabeth Power of York County; she was the daughter of Dr. Henry Power. [22] In addition to the three sons (Edward, William and Dudley), Cole and Elizabeth also had two daughters, Mary and Susannah. No doubt Cole found a good deal of satisfaction as he saw his children developing. Edward became a justice of the York County court in 1734. He also was made a militia officer in York County, and in 1736 began a sixteen-year sojourn in the House of Burgesses. William, too, after his father's death would sit for twenty years in the House and Dudley for even a longer time. Dudley would go on to become a leading patriot in the revolutionary cause in Virginia. [23]

Cole's sons and daughters would marry well. In August 1739 his oldest son Colonel Edward married Anne Harrison, "a Daughter of the late Honourable Nathaniel Harrison, Esq., deceas'd, who was one of his Majesty's Council, and Auditor, of this Colony. The announcement also noted that Anne was "an agreeable young Lady of Merit, and Fortune." Two weeks later Harrison's son, Maj. Benjamin Harrison, "was married to Miss Susanna Digges, Daughter of the Honourable Cole Digges, Esq." Like her new sister-in-law, she was "a very agreeable, deserving young Lady, with a Handsome Fortune." [24] Thus brother and sister married sister and brother.

When quite a young man, "Cole Diggs Gent" was "chosen a visitor and Governor of the College" of William and Mary and on June 13, 1716, "took the usuall oath for the due discharge of that trust." [25] A strong loyalty to the College remained in the next several generations of the family, and a number of Digges boys and young men enrolled here for their education, perhaps most of them finishing satisfactorily. [26] Even before his William and Mary appointment, there is record of Cole's interest in education, since he was one of the seventeen "Benefactors" named in 1711 "for a public scoule to educate children" in "York Hampton parish in York County." [27]

Though often operating on a wider scene, Cole Digges from all indications remained home-based locally on Lot 42. Certainly he spent most of his time in Yorktown, since in March 1737, "In obedience to these [the Governor's] Orders there was . . . a General Muster of the Militia of York County, under the Command of the Hon. Cole Digges, Esq: Lieutenant Colonel of that County." [28]

Col. Cole Digges died in 1744, and his family buried him in the family plot at the "E. D. Plantation" (now Bellfield). His son Edward erected a memorial over the grave "to ye Memory of a most indulgent Father." Edward said his father "Derived Dignity on every Scene, or tempted or betrayed to Nothing mean." [29]

Dudley Digges, Cole's youngest son, evidently came into possession of Lot 42 and other town properties with his father's passing in 1744 and his mother's death in 1750. It is not clear whether or not he lived at this location after his marriage in 1748, though in all probability he spent some of his early years here at the intersection of Main and the "cross street" that leads to the waterfront. In any case he did not remain here, as he built his own house up Main Street on Lot 77 adjacent to the "Great Valley," where there was another principal street connection to the waterfront. He erected his home in 1755, or in the next several years. [30] The records seem to be silent as to the use to which he put the Lot 42 development. It very likely became a rental property, perhaps the home even leased as a store. Dudley was not a business man following the mercantile line, though he may have built the two little shops on the Main Street in the west corner of Lot 42 that were on the property when he sold it in 1784. Significantly, by this date the old Thomas Pate residence had become known as the old brick storehouse. The deed to David Jameson, who bought the property for £175, reads in part: "the lot on which the old brick Store house and the two Shops stand one of which Shops is now occupied by John Moss a Tailor and the other by James Tyrie." [31] Clearly Lot 42 was now altogether a business property and had been bought for business purposes by a local business man and merchant.

Jameson and Others

Obviously David Jameson in 1784 acquired Lot 42 with its development for business expansion purposes, since he already had a residence in the Edmund Smith House on Lot 53— and had been there for some thirty years. From all indications he had been the first to occupy this residence, which was completed just after Smith's death in 1751, perhaps, near the time of his marriage to Smith's daughter Mildred, who inherited the property.

Jameson moved to Yorktown at the mid-point of the century and became a successful merchant and a leading Yorktown citizen. He was active in the revolutionary cause on both the local and State levels, coming to serve as Virginia's lieutenant governor when his next door neighbor, Thomas Nelson, Jr., was the State's chief executive. Jameson was of scientific bent and participated in the formation of the "Society for the Promotion of Useful Knowledge," organized in Williamsburg in 1773. [32]

The Lot 42 property remained in Jameson's ownership for a decade, until his death in 1793. This lot and his other properties then passed to his three nephews, one of whom, John, was a resident of Yorktown and possibly could have been in the use of Lot 42 at the time. In any case John Jameson then moved into the residence of David soon after the latter's death.

In March 1794 the three nephews, as administrators of the David Jameson estate, disposed of Lot 42—"being the Lott on which the Brick Store House and two Shops stand"—to one George Goosley of the "Town of York." The price, £175, "Current Money," was the same that Jameson had paid ten years before. [33]

There were two Goosleys, William and George, resident in Yorktown after the Revolution. Perhaps they were brothers and the children of Ephriam Goosley (who before the Revolution was "General Agent and Manager of the Virginia Fleet" trading between York River, the West Indies, Bermuda, and England) and Martha, his wife. There is evidence in the letters of the John Norton & Sons firm that Martha was also a manager, the "Manager of all Domestic Emergencies in the Town of York, and General Dispenser of Gossip." [34]

Prior to the Revolution, George Goosley seemingly was a ship captain in the employment of the John Norton firm. At the outbreak of the Revolution he was commissioned a captain in the Virginia navy and in February 1776 he commanded the Brig Liberty, a ship that was three-fourths in the ownership of the public and one-fourth the property of William Reynolds, a merchant of "York Town." He resigned in June 1776 but seemingly had other naval and army commands later, including the superintendency of trading vessels and captaincy of the Thetis. After the Revolution he received 5,133 acres for service as a captain in a State regiment. [35]

George Goosley retained ownership of Lot 42 for five years, selling it in August 1799 to John Southgate of the "Town of Norfolk" at a substantial rise in price, £250. The deed contained the now familiar language: "Being the Lot on which the Brick Store house and two Shops Stand." [36] Perhaps he contemplated a move to Richmond since the death of his wife, Mary, was announced in a Richmond paper, the Virginia Gazette, on March 17, 1804. Also, two years earlier he had been in communication with the governor with an offer to remove "the convicted slaves confined in the Penitentiary house of this Commonwealth" by transportation to and sale in the West Indies. He would get the profit after the expense of transportation and after repayment "into the public Treasury the sums drawn from it and expended in the purchase of the slaves." But this, and a second proposal, broke down and Goosley withdrew his propositions. [37]

John Southgate of Norfolk evidently remained owner in absentee and likely leased the Lot 42 property to local users. Twenty years later he, or a son of the same name ("John Southgate of the Borough of Norfolk"), and Frances Pressman his wife disposed of the property to Thomas Newman "of the Town & County of York" for $650. The deed detailed the property as "All that Lot or half acre of Land . . . denoted in the plan of the said Town by the figures 42 being the Lot on which the old Brick Store House now stands." After this sale there is no reference to the two shops indicating, perhaps, that they disappeared. [38]

Thomas Newman, IV, occupied and used the Lot 42 property and structures for several decades. Newman was from a long established Virginia family. His father, born in Richmond County in 1749, was the first Newman to settle in Yorktown. He served in the Revolution and was for six years (1789-1794) clerk of the Hustings Court in Yorktown. He died in 1798 and was buried in Yorktown. [39] His son Thomas Newman, IV, was born in 1795. He was 24 years old, and recently married to Eliza Burt, when he acquired the old Pate residence, which by now had served for quite some time as a store house. For Newman it became both his dwelling and a store. At the time of his death in 1853 Thomas was collector of customs at Yorktown. He was buried in the Newman plot in the Grace Church burial ground, where his tomb today is duly marked. [40]

Analysis of Insurance Policies

There are four insurance policies with a diagrammatic sketch in each of Lot 42 and its buildings. These policies cover the peirod from 1838 to 1860 [41] and deal with five units, Nos. A-E. The earliest policy is removed some sixty years from 1781 and Yorktown during the Siege; nevertheless, the policy may be suggestive of the situation of the land and buildings at that time.

The initial contract, dated in 1838, indicates that the dependency units, with the possible exception of the "stable," were at that time in poor condition, being described as "of but little value." In the case of the main unit, three of the policies confirm the "L" shape that exists today [42] and also shows on the Berthier billeting plan of Yorktown in 1781. [43] The units detailed in 1838 were:

A. Dwelling and Store

B. Small Wood Building

C. Small Wood Building

D. Small Wood Building

E. Stable

None of the policies shows structures that would indicate the two shops on the lot known to have been there earlier and shown (at least as structures) on the Berthier plan of 1781.

A. Dwelling and Store

All the policies detail the main building of the cluster as a "Dwelling and Store of Brick" covered with wood. All place it in the extreme south corner of the lot immediately adjacent to the streets, as it in truth is. Three policies denote it as having one and one-half stories. That of 1838 states one story though this terminology does not necessarily mean that any change occurred between this date and 1846. Being a dormered structure on its second floor, this would admit (by contemporary practice) of the building's designation as either a one, a one and a half or even a two story structure. The 1838 policy gives measurements of the two parts of the "L" as 47 by 32 feet and 17 by 22 feet. The only other policy to give a measurement is that of 1853. This was 39 by 57 feet though the sketch confirmed the "L" shape. The use of the building as both dwelling and store would indicate a double function for the house, a condition that it seems to have obtained even in its late colonial days.

B. Kitchen

Structure "B" was designated as a "Small wood building" in 1838 and 1846. It was denominated "wood kitchen" in 1853 and was consistently located some thirty feet behind the "Cross Street" leg of the "L" of the main dwelling and store.

C. Kitchen

This was labeled "Small wood Kitchen" and "Wood Kitchen" respectively in 1846 and 1853 and shown as a rectangle parallel with Main Street north of the principal unit in the group. This may have been new construction after 1838 as this policy delineated an "L" shaped structure here with its long side (labeled C) being perpendicular to Main and its short side (labeled D) pointing toward the cross street (Read). Units C and D then were joined and noted as "Small wood buildings."

D. Wood Building

Little can be said beyond the comments in "C. Kitchen" above.

E. Stable

This structure was noted as a "Stable" in 1838 and as a "wood stable" in 1846. A rectangular structure near the center of the lot, evidently a section if it (a "wood" shed) was added to its Main Street end between 1838 and 1846. In 1853 the whole unit was described as "Wood Lumber and Carriage house." The new "L" shape of the structure, if taken literally, would indicate a new building, but the imprecise delineation may not be controlling in this instance.

The policy of 1838 was drawn to Thomas Newman for "my building on my own land now occupied by myself." It was described in these bounds: "situate between the lot of Peyton Southall's heirs on the North-west, the church lot and Robert Anderson on the North East, [44] a cross street on the South East and the main street on the South west." He insured only the "Dwelling and Store," which he figured was worth $1,400. It was Newman, still in residence, who insured again in 1846 with an evaluation now of $1,320 for the "Dwelling and Store." Again the dependencies were not insured.

The situation had changed by 1853 [45] and Thomas Newman was dead. The lot and its structures were now owned by his heirs, though his wife (now a widow), Susannah Newman, had an interest for life. Evidently she lived in Williamsburg since William E. Wynne occupied the premises (likely rented). The evaluation now was placed at $2,400. This increase may reflect some improvement in the "Dwelling and Store," or possibly and, most plausibly, a general rise in values. It is, however, somewhat substantial. The policy noted that: "The building A is contiguous within thirty feet to three wood buildings." These were the dependencies which were given no value, or insurance.

The situation in 1860, when the insurance was reduced to $1,500 was essentially the same since "Susannah Newman [remained] tenant for life" and still lived in Williamsburg and William E. Wynne continued to occupy the premises. Notations on the policy would indicate its continuance in 1866 and again in 1870, the value in each instance being $1,506. The insurance premium, an item of note, was $18.48 (1.75 percent) in 1866 and $21.12 (2 percent) in 1870.

In the Yorktown County Land Books at the turn of the last century, the values assigned to the Pate House and lot compared favorably with similar structures though the general trend was downward, pointing, it seems, to deteriorating conditions. Amounts below include both house and lot: [46]

Late Years and Restoration

Mr. J. R. Chandler of Yorktown knew the property when Mrs. Elizabeth Cooper was in operation here at the turn of the century. [51] He remembers her as "an English lady" who kept a store here and also had a livery stable on the property. At the time Mrs. Cooper had a dining room in the basement of the house and it was quite ample as the house had a full basement. He remembers, too, that there was a nice orchard on the property and she, as she had requested, was buried in this orchard. [52]

The "said Elizabeth A. Cooper died seized and possessed" of Lot 42 and its development some time prior to August 30, 1901, when her heirs sold the property to John Cruikshank of Yorktown, who added it to his considerable acquisitions in the town and its environs. The next year (1902) he sold a part of Lot 42 and six years later (1908) another part of the lot, leaving the old house on the corner but with little more ground associated with it than what the house itself occupied—a strip about the width of a house and a hundred feet deep. Finally in 1909 he sold the house and its site to J. C. Robinson and F. D. Cock of Elizabeth City County. [53]

The sale of the old Pate House was included among a number of parcels that Robinson and Cock bought, all for $750. For the next decade it seemingly saw a number of uses. It served as a cement company office and there was a period, too, in which it was the home of the First National Bank of Yorktown. [54] Its purchase by Mrs. Carroll (Helen L.) Paul of Michigan, who was then living in Yorktown, likely saved the old structure. This came about on December 24, 1921, when she, for $3,000, acquired the site of the house "with privileges and appurtenances thereunto belonging." [55]

It was four years after her purchase of the Pate House and the south corner of Lot 42 on which it stood that Mrs. Paul restored the structure. This was in 1925, and indications are that at the time of purchase the condition of the structure was not at all good. "Through more than two centuries," one historian reported, "the staunch old dwelling [had] withstood war, fire and decay." [56] But time took its toll and in late years a variety of uses, and perhaps some neglect, hastened the process of deterioration. Evidently, however, the main fabric of the structure was still basically sound.

It is quite clear from the photographic record of the house, a record that dates from Civil War times, that there had been a number of changes in the house, in its fenestration and, more basically, in its southwest and northwest chimney stacks. A Brady photograph shows these chimneys coming straight up at the peak of the roof and of good exterior bulk, very likely the original condition. [57] Between the Civil War and the time of the Centennial in 1881, these were changed. [58] The bases remained fixed, but the stacks were angled backward and then up behind the roof peak, allowing space for a second floor and centered end window, in each instance to improve second floor lighting and ventilation. There was further change in the southeast stuck at the time of restoration. Then the chimney was buried within the wall of the house. The porch, or covered way, along the Read Street side of the building, which was added to and then subtracted from the structure in the late decades of the last century and the early part of this century, is of passing moment but of little consequence to the basic structure of the building.

The restoration of the Pate House evidently was concerned only with the home qualities of the structure and with no thought to the store, or store-residence, aspects which it had come to have before 1781 and which it retained for some decades thereafter.

As early as May 1923 there was interest in repairing the Pate House (then referred to as the "Cooper House" but soon to be noted for a time as the "Dudley Digges House") with some thought to its old character. [59] When approached regarding some work on the house, Weaver Brothers of Newport News, through its manager, M. C. Weaver, fortunately recommended instead that it be given architectural direction: "the only way that we can see that this work can be successfully executed is to have a thoroughly competent and practical architect make full-size details for all millwork involved, establish all openings and layouts and treat each portion of the work to meet particular conditions. [60] He further recommended that the piecemeal approach, then contemplated, would not be as satisfactory as doing "the entire job at one time."

This led eventually to the employment of John H. Scarff, of the Baltimore architectural firm of Wyatt & Nolting, who wrote the owner, Mrs. Carroll Paul (then of Marquette, Michigan) on April 14, 1924:

I have your letter of April 11, regarding the restoration of your late seventeenth century brick cottage in Yorktown, VA. It is very gratifying to me to have been recommended to you by Professor Gardner of the M.I.T., and I should be glad to undertake the restoration, both because it promises to be a congenial task and because you suggest it might lead to other work in Yorktown. [61]

Actually it was in June that the restoration agreement was reached, and the architect was on the scene on July 11 making a detailed reconnaissance. [62] He toured the house with Mrs. George D. (Emma Leake) Chenoweth who, with her very sick husband, would occupy the house after its restoration. Scarff was well pleased with what he saw and, quickly warmed to the challenge, becoming immediately concerned with matters of water and electric supplies, sewage disposal, drainage, heating, and the like. He immediately wrote his employer, Mrs. Paul: [63]

The construction of the house I found as follows. The brick walls are good; the first floor joists, as far as I could see, will have to be replaced, as they have rotted. The second floor joists and the roof rafters appear to me satisfactory. . . the window frames are in very poor condition, and the sash there are not the original ones in practically all cases, seems to indicate that we must have new window frames and sash throughout.

There was need, too, for a new roof and for this Scarff "would much prefer the wood roof ['best grade cypress shingles'] to any other kind" though in this he would eventually settle, because of fire hazard, for non-fading green slate in random width, and be very pleased with its effect.

There were other matters, too, such as a wet cellar and the lowness of the house in relation to streets, sidewalks, and ground line. He was also troubled by the existing chimney on the southeast side of the house, believing that originally it was like that on the opposite end of the house—"that tall narrow chimney, at that end of the house is very objectionable to me." He concluded his preliminary account: "I think not only your house, but its location opposite the Custom House and York Hall, is charming, and I am in perfect sympathy with your desire to restore it, and not to remodel it, and we shall use every effort to keep the spirit and at the same time make it a practical restoration." Prior to his departure he "went with Mrs. Chenoweth and Mr. Aplin (the Superintendent of York Hall) through York Hall, and we discussed the very important question of who we could get to do the work."

This now set the stage of serious discussion and planning in which architect and owner (sometimes with an assist from her husband) sought to get the expression that each wanted, with compromise frequent here and there. To an important degree, too, Mrs. Chenoweth, a close friend of Mrs. Paul, and the expected occupant, made these negotiations even more complex, lacking as she did a good deal of the architectural and aesthetic feeling shared by the architect and Mrs. Paul. Major decisions were needed in regard to many aspects as room use, adequate stairway, access to the second floor and the basement, the location of the kitchen, plumbing and bathrooms, electric power, and cellar entrances.

In the discussions, there were major matters, among the myriad of detail, that needed resolution.

1. This included the depressed location of the house. "I am raising," Scarff reported, "the first floor approximately seven inches, which will materially help the condition at the main Entrance door. This is about all it can be raised to have the staircase headroom practical and keep the window sill at a normal relations." [64]

2. Scarff wrote farther on July 28: "The east chimney I contemplate taking down and re-building on the inside of the wall."

3. "The partitions between the hall and the Dining Room and Living Room, I have indicated in wood, as characteristic of the period." [65]

4. The long room (parallel to Main Street) in the basement came in for a lot of discussion. Scarff thought of it being treated as "a Colonial Kitchen." He had anticipated that there would have to be "four inches of brickwork for the support of the new first floor joints," but in the end this was not deemed necessary. Here he favored whitewashed brick walls and a brick floor. But Mrs. Paul had other ideas for this. "My idea is to make this large room, with heavy boxed beams across the ceiling, and whitewashed brick walls except across the fireplace end, which would have chamfered boards in the old style, a combination of museum, and assembly room for D.A.R. meetings, and other gatherings." [66] This area would not, however, be completed in the project.

5. "The lines of the house [on the exterior]" Scarff summarized, "have been kept intact, with the porch to the rear, repeating the lines of the old porch, now collapsed. The front window of the dining room will be a repetition of the front windows in the living room; the present door from the dining room to Reid [Read] Street will be a similar window," [67] he continued.

6. There was much consideration of an addition at the Read Street northeast end of the house to accommodate a variety of things (pumphouse, kitchen, toilet, shower) until it was eventually reduced to the now existing modest and simple, lean-to-type of new appendage. Most living functions were incorporated in the main house. [68]

7. At one point Mrs. Paul considered that the "dining room" as a "room, like the basement assembly room, would be more or less at the service of visitors; a room where books and maps and historical data could be kept for consultation, and where Mrs. C. would do business without disturbing the privacy of the Living Room." [69]

When the project got underway, it remained "the intention of this restoration to preserve the spirit of an early Eighteenth Century cottage in all details." This fact, it had been noted, was even to be a consideration in estimating. And in the formal plans and specifications (both dated January 26, 1925), [70] and in the work itself there were interesting details some of which seem pertinent here.

1. It was specified that:

Great care must be taken with the brick work, so that when the work is completed the cottage will appear in good condition never restored. To this end it is contemplated leaving the existing white wash and matching it as nearly as possible with weak new white wash, broken bricks will not be replaced, but only structurally bad places in the wall repaired. All old bricks salvaged and in good condition will be reused, and old bricks should be used if procurable in preference to new (care should be taken to preserve the glazed blue headers in old brick). The size of the old brick is 2-1/2" x 4" x 8".

Any new bricks were to have the same size. "The brick work, will only be repointed where thought necessary for the preservation and safety of the building." [71]

It is of interesting note, as Scarff related on June 15, 1925, that the search for old brick was successful:

We were fortunate in obtaining enough old Brick to complete the work. Mr. Owings [Pate House Restoration Superintendent] located a chimney on some Government land, and was at first told he could have it, but when the C. O. learned that it was for private benefit, he said permission to sell would have to be obtained from the War Department. A few days later, Aplin, as President of the local Garden Club, was presented with the chimney, but he was unable to throw it, and called on Owings for Assistance. Owings threw it in an hour or two with a truck, and was presented with two loads of old brick for his trouble, which was all we wanted. [72]

2. It was stipulated that: "First floor construction over Colonial Kitchen," Main Street basement section, was to have two 12-inch I-beams, "with bearing plates and shelf angles, supporting wood joists. It is contemplated at some future time to box these in. The wood joists will be what old suitable timber that can be procured in the neighborhood." [73] These steel beams remain visible in the basement and are uncovered.

3. In regard to the roof it was stipulated that it be "carefully placed to give the appearance of an old roof where the ridge sags slightly." This was "to prevent the mechanical appearance of a newly constructed roof." This was considered "an extremely important feature of the house" requiring "unusual care . . . in laying to secure an irregular and uneven effect." [74]

4. There was an interesting specification for: "All interior wood work except floors [which was] to be first coated with a saturated solution of permanganate of potash, and after that is dried a water stain is to be applied of walnut crystals repeated until proper color is obtained. Some experimenting will be necessary to obtain the effect of old pine that has never received any finish." [75]

5. Plastering was required to be done with "a steel trowel [to get the] colonial finish, and not the hard smooth finish of modern plastering." [76]

6. Early in the work there was an interesting find: "Mr. Marshall has just told me," wrote Scarff "that in tearing down the partition between the Dining Room and rear stair hall an old doorjamb and a portion of a boarded wall was uncovered. The detail of the doorjamb corresponds exactly to what was shown on our working drawings, and the boarding is of pine, which confirms me in my original plans. (We are planning to re-use the old pine boards)." A little later (March 27) Scarff reported further: "A very pretty segmental arch has been uncovered at this doorway, between the Sitting Room and the rear wall, and I think it gives a decided note of interest, and as it is undoubtedly original, I decided to leave it, and put a pair of doors here in the arch." [77]

Architect Scarff strongly recommended outside shuttered windows as a desirable feature and wrote: "Now for the precedent. The cottage at one time had outside shutters, some of them (of good detail and by no means modern) are now stored in the lean-to. They were attached to the frames with wrought pin hinges which indicates a respectable antiquity. However, you will note in the Addenda to the specifications that this item is to be decided later when our diminished bank account may add an eloquent argument for omission!" [78] They were, however, purchased near the close of the project and the architect "was able to salvage some of the old shutter hardware." [79]

7. On March 16, 1925, Scarff recorded: "Both the second floor and the roof construction are mostly sound, but need reinforcement, which is being added now."

Working plans came in January 1925 and the contractor, it was decided, would be the John E. Marshall Building Company of Baltimore (with special attention from its president, Morgan Marshall) whose on-site field representative was Superintendent W. Owings. Mr. Marshall Dadds of Yorktown, who "was employed by Norcross during the restoration of York Hall," was signed on as a carpenter. Owings came to Yorktown early in March to get the work underway and to remain with it. He brought, or at least he planned to bring, his wife and son with him for the duration. [80]

The work, begun in early March, went well, for on June 1 Scarff could report to Mrs. Paul:

I spent the morning of May 30 in Yorktown and found that the brick work had been completed, and the plastering, with the exception of pointing up. The roof was three quarters on, and enough old flooring had been salvaged to lay the two (second floor) bed rooms on Main Street. Glazing had started, and the fitting of the sash and doors. The staining of the interior mill work is progressing, and both fireplaces are completed. The Sitting Porch is on, with the exception of the floor, and framing for the Kitchen porch has been begun.

The work continued to go well and the project was essentially complete by mid-July 1925. On the 22nd Scarff wrote that he was going to Yorktown on the 29th with Mr. Marshall "and that will probably be our last visit." Then he added in a humorous vein: "I hope we will see the cottage completed and on the day of its completion, a classic (like the parthenon.)" [81] Within a few days the house was turned over to Mrs. Chenoweth, who occupied it in last August. It would be October before the owner could inspect the completed restoration.

Following its restoration, the Pate House again became a home and it still functions entirely as a residential unit. Mrs. Chenoweth and her husband found it a delightful place to live though he would not enjoy it very long. She, the first and long-time regent (26 years) of the Comte de Grasse Chapter, Daughters of the American Revolution, continued in residence here after her husband's death, until her own death in 1947. The sale of the property by Mrs. Paul to George Waller Blow in 1946 made no change in this arrangement. [82]

Though a Blow acquisition, the House was never integrated into the York Hall Estate and, on the death of Mrs. Chenoweth, it became basically a rental property. It was being managed as such when the United States acquired it, along with York Hall and other Blow properties in Yorktown, in October 1968. Prior to this the larger part of Lot 42 had been acquired by the United States. This has paved the way for the restoration of the identity of the lot, an identity which pertained in all of its historic period. [83]

Strategically located at an important and busy intersection in Yorktown, the Pate House is a principal relic of Yorktown," [84] having been built "when roofs were excessively steep and when a story-and-a-half form was typical." [85] It has been described as a house "built in the early American style of architecture . . . [with its] steep slanting roof dormer windows, high chimneys and small-paned windows; a dormered L extends back from one end." [86] Its interior, as restored, is partly pictures in five plates in Edith Tunis Sale's Colonial Interiors. [87]

In appraising the architectural qualities of the home, Clyde F. Trudell concluded that it is "an example of all that was fine and most lasting in Colonial domestic architecture . . . and such is its outward charm that few traveling Darbys and Joans but have exclaimed on driving by, 'That is exactly the sort of house we have always wanted.'" [88]

Illustrations

(Note: not included in this report)

Endnotes

¹Thomas was a family name. It was Richard Pate who patented 1,154 acres on the north side of the York and represented Gloucester County in the House of Burgesses in 1653. He died in 1657 and a nephew, John Pate, of Gloucester administered his estate. Col. John Pate was named a County justice in 1660 and a decade later took the oaths as Councilor. It is of record that "John Pate, Esq., dying possessed of a considerable estate in this County, and his wife, being out of the County, Mr. Thomas Pate his brother's son" was named administrator. Lyon G. Tyler, Encyclopedia of Virginia Biography (New York, 1915), I, 131, 302.

²Tyler's Quarterly Historical and Genealogical Magazine, I, 213, 258.

³York County Records, Deeds, Orders, Wills, No. 9 (1691-1694), p. 314.

⁴Deeds, Orders, Wills, No. 9, p. 82, and No. 11 (1698-1702), p. 382.

⁵Deeds & Bonds, No. 3 (1713-1729), p. 12.

⁶Deeds & Bonds, No. 2 (1701-1713, p. 100.

⁷Deeds & Bonds, No. 2, p. 138.

⁸Deeds, Orders, Wills, No. 12, p. 112.

⁹Deeds & Bonds, No. 2, pp. 100, 138. A court entry of the same date, December 24, 1703, reads: "Thomas Pate late of this County Deced his Deed of Guift of a Certain House & Lott of Portland Lying in York Town being numbered (42) to Joane Lawson was this Day by her Psented in Court And also ye Assignment of Elizabeth Relict of ye Said Deced Thomas of her Right & Dower to ye said House & Lott." Deeds, Orders, Wills, No. 12, p. 167.

¹⁰Earlier, in 1703, Martin had bought property in the "Great Valley" area from another merchant, John Penton; however, in 1705 he had sold this back to Penton. Perhaps he saw Lot 42 and the waterfront area near it as a better location. Deeds & Bonds, No. 2, p. 124.

¹¹Deeds & Bonds, No. 3, pp. 12-13; Orders Wills, No. 14 (1709-1716), p. 297. "All that his lott or half acre of Land Scituate in York Town in ye County of York containing Ten poles in length & Eight in breadth being part of ye Port land . . . wch Lott is known & distinguished by ye number (42)."

¹²Deeds & Bonds, No. 3, p. 13.

¹³Mary N. Stanard, Virginia Historical Register (Baltimore, Md., 1956—reissue of 1902 edition), pp. 15-43; Lyon G. Tyler, Encyclopedia of Virginia Biography (New York, 1915), I, 48, 223.

¹⁴"Pedigree of a Representative Virginia Family," William and Mary College Quarterly, 1st Series, I, 140-54.

¹⁵Susannah Cole was the daughter of Col. William Cole of Warwick, a councilor and sometime Secretary of the Colony.

¹⁶York County Records, Wills and Inventories, No. 19 (1740-1746), pp. 492-93.

¹⁷Charles E. Hatch, Jr., "Dudley Digges House Dependencies: Colonial National Historical Park." (National Park Service report issued in April 1969 by the Division of History, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation), pp. 3-6.

¹⁸Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia, edited by H. R. McIlwaine, IV (Richmond, Va., 1930), 207-08.

¹⁹Calendar of Virginia State Papers, edited by William P. Palmer, I, (Richmond, 1875), 212; Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XXXIII, 175-76; Edward M. Riley, "History of the Founding and Development of Yorktown," typed manuscript report dated March 20, 1942, p. 105; Tyler's Quarterly Historical and Genealogical Magazine, VI, 277.

²⁰William and Mary Quarterly, 1st Series, II, 8; Virginia Gazette, Williamsburg, September 1, 1738, p. 4, c.1.

²¹Stanard, Colonial Virginia Register, pp. 46, 102; Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia 1712 . . . 1726, edited by H. R. McIlwaine (Richmond, 1912), pp. Viii, ix, xxviii, 257; Richard Lee Morton, Colonial Virginia (Chapel Hill, N. C., 1960), II, 439; Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia, III, 318; Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, IV, 350-52.

²²Henry Power's wife, the mother of Elizabeth, was the daughter of the Rev. Edward Foliott of York County's Hampton Parish. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XXXIII, 25.

²³"Pedigree," The William and Mary Quarterly, 1st Series, I, 144-45, 211; the Hatch "Dudley Digges House Dependencies" report (pp. 5-9) has a detailed summary relative to Dudley Digges; Tyler, Encyclopedia of Virginia Biography, I, 223.

²⁴Virginia Gazette issues of August 10 and 24.

²⁵Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, IV, 168.

²⁶There was at least one exception, that of Col. Edward Digges' son Cole, it being of note in the College records for May 3, 1756, that: "Resol: unanimously, Yt Cole Digges & Matthew Hubard [another York County lad] be expelled ye College of W & Mary not only for yir remarkable Idleness & bad Behaviour in general, but particularly for whipping ye little Boys in ye Grammar School-for Obstinacy & Disrespect to ye Grammar Master, & refusing to answer before ye President & Masters ye complaints made agt ym." The William and Mary Quarterly, 1st Series, II, 256.

²⁷This mention was in William Stark's deed for a quarter of an acre of ground to "said gentlemen who have bin at the charges of building a Scoulhouse." Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XXXIII, 28; William and Mary Quarterly, 1st Series, IV, 199.

²⁸The governor had ordered the command officers in the "Counties joyning to the Sea, and the Bay, to muster and discipline the Militia, and to have them in Readiness, in case of Need." Virginia Gazette, March 18, 1737, p. 4, 3. 1.

²⁹From the tomb at Bellfield.

³⁰Hatch, "Dudley Digges House Outbuildings" report, pp. 9ff.

³¹Deed Book, No. 6, p. 223.

³²Charles E. Hatch, Jr., "The Edmund Smith House on Lot 53 in Yorktown and Some of Its Associations," National park Service, Division of History, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, report for Colonial National Historical Park, now being processed. The section on "David Jameson and His Nephew John" constitutes a more detailed treatment of Jameson.

³³Deed Book, No. 7, p. 121.

³⁴Frances N. Mason (editor), John Norton & Sons . . . Merchants . . . Papers, (Richmond, 1937), p. 510. But there also was a helpful side as well to Martha as the provision in the will of Richard Ambler in 1765 indicates. He wrote: "It is my desire that Mrs Martha Goosley be paid out of my Store Goods the value of Twenty pounds in consideration of her care in attending my dear daughter in her last sickness if Mrs Gooseley should die then the twenty pounds be paid to her Children." William and Mary Quarterly, 1st Series, XIV, 129.

³⁵Mason, John Norton & Sons, pp. 82, 136; Calendar of Virginia State Papers, edited by W. H. Flournoy, VIII, (Richmond, 1890), 98, 105, 125, 126, 210; John H. Gwathmey, Historical Register of Virginians in the Revolution: Soldiers, Sailors, Marines: 1775-1783 (Richmond, 1938), pp. 316-17; Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, II, 358; Robert Armistead Stewart, The History of the Virginia Navy in the Revolution (Richmond, 1934), pp. 44, 191. The brig Liberty was "a large man of war of 18 guns" and "another transatlantic voyager." By one report she was required to carry a good deal of pig iron ballast due to her "peculiar shape." In due course the State took her whole adventure and with Capt. Thomas Lilly of Gloucester in charge she was outfitted principally for the protection of York River and the inhabitants on its shores. Stewart, Virginia Navy, pp. 44, 191.

³⁶Deed Book, No. 7, p. 298.

³⁷Calendar of Virginia State Papers, edited by H. W. Flournoy, IX (Richmond, 1890), 305, 306, 309; Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XX, 286. William Goosley of Yorktown also saw service in the Revolution, being captain of a company of "Minute Men" in 1776 as also of a York militia company. He as well provided "Arms & Provisions" for "the Troops at York," and also "10 Cords of wood & c" being paid 163 pounds and 8 pounds respectively in 1776 and 1777. William, in 1773, had married Ludwell Harrison, daughter of Benjamin Harrison of Wakefield in Surry County, and thirteen children had followed in the next twenty-six years. He became established in Yorktown even before the Revolution and had been securing "Books" through John Norton & Sons as early as 1768. After the war he was elected to the town's first common council and selected as one of the first four aldermen in 1787. When he gave permission for his daughter Frances (then 19 years old) to marry James Brown of Richmond in 1802, George Goosley was one of the two witnesses. William, still a resident of York, died on December 31, 1809. Gwathmey, Historical Register pp. 316-17; Tyler's Quarterly Historical and Genealogical Magazine, IX, 95-96; Virginia Magazine, VIII, 306 and XVII, 342, 337, 339; William and Mary Quarterly, 1st Series, VII, 39-40, and XIV, 277; Mason, John Norton & Sons, p. 39.

³⁸Deed Book, No 8, P. 535. A John Southgate in Norfolk was one of a building committee of four that, after the fire of March 9, 1827, which destroyed Christ Church, found a new (the present) site for a new church and proceeded with a new structure, completed in November 1828. It was John Southgate, too, who, at his home on Catherine Street, entertained Bishop Chase during the laying of the cornerstone of the Norfolk Academy in 1840. The Lower Norfolk County Antiquary, I, 152, 155, 162; William and Mary Quarterly, 2nd Series, II, 114.

³⁹"Newman Family, Yorktown Branch," Tyler's Quarterly Historical and Genealogical Magazine, VI, 277-79; IX, 96; and X, 197-98.

⁴⁰"Newman Family," Tyler's Quarterly, VI, 277-79. Thomas' son, Thomas Newman, V, would fight in the Confederate Army and later serve as York County's treasurer for a time. It was noted in 1932 that Thomas Newman, VI, had "an old ledger kept by his grandfather for his business in Yorktown. He kept his store in the building known at present as the Digges House [now Pate]." The entries in the book were said to be from January 1835 to April 1848 for a general merchandise business. Letter from Assistant Park Historian Elbert Cox to Archivist, University of Virginia, Lester J. Cappon, February 16, 1932, in Colonial National Historical Park, Lot 42

⁴¹Mutual Assurance Society of Virginia policies Nos. 8618 (1838), 14292 (1846), 17662 (1853), and 21,357 (1860). Copies of these records in the Virginia State Library are in the files of Colonial National Historical Park at Yorktown.

⁴²One policy, that for 1846, shows a "T" shape with the larger top of the "T" parallel with Main Street.

⁴³See Illustrations Nos. 1-5.

⁴⁴The plot shows "R. Anderson" and "Church wall" about equally spaced along this side of the lot. In 1846 the plot noted it as "Robert Anderson's and Church Yard lots."

⁴⁵The policy was drawn by Special Agent Robert Anderson after evaluation by Appraisers William S. Mallicote and William Rowelle.

⁴⁶Lots in 1879 and 1880 ran about $40 and $50 each; in 1891 they varied from $40 to $200, but were normally about $50 (the Pate House Lot being $100); in 1911-12 the variation was between $75 and $100.

⁴⁷Listed in the name of Elizabeth Bent.

⁴⁸Mrs. E. A. Cooper (who was formerly a Bent) was the name given in the tax list.

⁴⁹W. A. Cooper, Est.

⁵⁰F. D. Cock and J. C. Robinson.

⁵¹Recounted during an interview with the author on August 27, 1969.

⁵²Later, Mr. Chandler related, her remains were moved into the adjacent Grace Church burial ground by the purchaser of the orchard area (John S. DeNeufville). The grave is not now marked.

⁵³Deed Book, No 25, pp. 343, 464 and No. 29, pp. 330, 511.

⁵⁴Recollections of J. R. Chandler; Illustrations Nos. 11 and 12. The Bank, in due course, built its own home on the adjacent corner across Read Street.

⁵⁵Deed Book, No. 38, p. 121.

⁵⁶Elizabeth Ballentine Huntley, Peninsula Pilgrimage (Richmond, c. 1941), pp. 302-03.

⁵⁷See Illustration No. 5.

⁵⁸See Illustration Nos. 6-8. Also evidences of change can still be seen clearly on the exterior walls of the structure itself.

⁵⁹Letter of Mrs. George D. Chenoweth to Weaver Brothers, May 12, in the file of Pate House restoration correspondence, labeled "Dudley Digges House-Plans-Yorktown," in Colonial National Historical Park. This is here after noted as "Restoration File." In addition to correspondence, the file includes a set of four blueprints for the "Restoration of Cottage for Mrs. Carroll Paul" by Wyatt & Nolting, Architects (Keyer Building, Baltimore, Maryland), dated January 26, 1925. These cover: (1) the basement floor, (2) the first floor, (3) the second floor, and (4) some elevations. Also, there is an original "Property Plan" sketch dated July 30, 1924.

⁶⁰Weaver to Chenoweth, "Restoration File."

⁶¹"Restoration File." On August 11 Architect Scarff wrote Mrs. Paul: "What do you think of York Cottage for a name? The alliteration in Dudley sounds almost like a joke."

⁶²Letters of Scarff to Mrs. Paul, June 21 and July 12, "Restoration File."

⁶³Letter of July 12, "Restoration File."

⁶⁴Scarff to Mrs. Paul, July 28, 1924, "Restoration File." In an earlier letter (July 17), he had written that the drainage was a serious matter in the absence of a sewer: "when the new road was put through Main Street, its level was put at about two feet above the existing sidewalk. If a permanent sidewalk is ever put in Yorktown, past your cottage, its level will consequently be about two feet, six inches, above the level of the first floor. There is no way of raising the level of the first floor sufficiently to have it bear the right relation to this future sidewalk without undertaking extensive and expensive alterations to your cottage that would seriously alter its appearance."

⁶⁵Letter of July 28, "Restoration File."

⁶⁶Mrs. Paul to Scarff, August 19.

⁶⁷Letter of July 28.

⁶⁸Letter of August 10, Mrs. Paul to Scarff, "Restoration File."

⁶⁹Letter of August 19.

⁷⁰Preliminary "Memoranda of Specifications," August 27, 1924, and final "Memoranda of Specifications," January 26, "Restoration File." In a letter of August 19, 1924, Mrs. Paul urged: "Lets see just how much of the old irregularity we can keep, and fit our modern changes in so that when we get it done, it won't look like an old house done over at all, but as if it had always been that way."

⁷¹"Specifications," August 27.

⁷²Very possibly this was a chimney at Ringfield, or Bellfield, Plantation.

⁷³"Specifications," January 26.

⁷⁴"Specifications," August 27 and January 26. On March 7, 1925, Scarff wrote: "My idea has always been in regard to this roof that it should, when finished, be inconspicuous, and should only show upon detailed observation a soft and proper texture. I have always thought the York Hall roof its worst feature." ("Restoration File.") On May 20, 1925, Scarff exulted, "The roofer was on the job with the slate, and we together laid a portion on the Main Street roof, which I trust will put me in mind for the medal." ("Restoration File.")

⁷⁵"Specifications," January 26.

⁷⁶"Specifications," August 27.

⁷⁷Scarff to Mrs. Paul, March 7 and 27, 1925.

⁷⁸Scarff to Mrs. Paul, March 16, 1925. Mrs. Paul was cost conscious to some degree. Initially she earmarked $10,000 for the work, yet when the work was completed she had paid the contractor almost twenty thousand (See letter of July 12, 1924, with note dated October 30, 1925. The letter is one from Scarff to Mrs. Paul, "Restoration File").

⁷⁹Scarff to Mrs. Paul, July 6, 1925.

⁸⁰Scarff to Mrs. Paul, July 28, 1924; February 27, 1925; and March 7, 1925.

⁸¹Scarff to Mrs. Paul, letters of July 30 and September 4.

⁸²Recollections of Mrs. Herndon (Bethany Renforth) Jenkins of Yorktown in discussion with the author in October 1969; Deed Book, No. 61-A, p. 450. was sold for $15,000. Mrs. Paul, now a widow, was still in residence in Marquette County, Michigan.

⁸³At the time of purchase by the United States, the occupants were Mr. and Mrs. Charles A. Williamson, who still remain. Mr. Williamson is a writer and public relations consultant and an avid promoter of Yorktown history and its message.

⁸⁴Wallace Nutting, Virginia Beautiful (New York, 1935), pp. 40, 122.

⁸⁵Lawrence A. Kocher and Howard Dearstyne, Shadows in Silver: A Record of Virginia 1850-1900, in Contemporary Photographs (New York 1954), p. 23. This has a view of the house dating from before 1900.

⁸⁶Farrer, Old Virginia Homes Along the James, pp. 210-11.

⁸⁷Second Series (New York, 1930), pp. 19, 59, 73, 142, and 143. These include the "Stair Hall," living room, dining room, a doorway, and a doorway and paneling.

⁸⁸Trudell, Colonial Yorktown, p. 104.