Perhaps the most famous of these runaway was Benjamin Franklin who broke his indentures by running away from his brother James in 1723 for New York City. Since the apprenticeship was legal contract the law between the master and the apprentice the law gave the master the right to take action to recover errant apprentices and if necessary take the apprentice by force.

Additional Items for reference:

Gardner Letter of 1808
      Letter dated June 29, 1808 from Master Mast Maker Peter Gardner regarding his apprentices Jesse Barnes, Davy Gardner and William Howard to Secretary of the Navy Robert Smith.

Fox Letters of 1809
     Two 1809 letters regarding the six apprentices of Master Shipbuilder Josiah Fox and other Washington Navy Yard employees.

Apprentice Indenture Documents
      Additional letters, circulars, and documents.

The Washington Navy Yard was for nearly two centuries the District of Columbia's largest employer and had has many as 50 apprentices working at the Navy Yard prior to 1814. Early naval regulations allowed Master Mechanics wide discretion as to the hiring and training of their apprentices. Naval regulations did specify the minimum age of apprentices, the specific number of apprentices each Master Mechanic might hire and the wage rates for apprentice labor. While indentured apprentices were paid by Department of the Navy they were in every sense the apprentice of a specific Master Mechanic. The District of Columbia like most major eastern cities required a signed indenture or contract specifying the duties and responsibilities of both parties in some detail. Originally both parties to such indentures received a signed copy of the document while another was made for the records of the District of Columbia. Today these apprentice indentures are part of the collection of the District of Columbia Archives. These indentures have great value to historians and genealogists since they also allow us to see reflected the social concerns of the era provisions made for schooling and admonitions against visiting playhouses and gambling.

These indentures are a fine picture in miniature of a world of trade and crafts which for the most part no longer exist. Maritime trades, like block maker, spar maker, ship caulker, sail maker and ship carpenter all of which prevailed in the early Washington Navy Yard, went into steep decline with the coming of steam propulsion. Two of the WNY Master Mechanics named in these indentures, John Davis of Abel and George McCauley are both listed on a WNY pay document dated May 1819 at
http://genealogytrails.com/washdc/wny1819.html

The rapid building of iron ships during the American Civil War mean that many of maritime trades of the older wooden navy would never recover. This change is most dramatically reflected after the 1880's when the Washington Navy Yard became exclusively a builder of naval ordinance and was renamed the Naval Gun Factory and the principal trade is machinist.

FRANKLAND, Eleanor
FRANKLAND, Henry William
FRANKLAND, Thomas
PASCOE, Charles
SANDFORD, William

Bell School

      Such an accusation occurs in a letter journeyman Mast Maker, Thomas Simmons wrote to Washington Navy Yard Commandant Thomas Tingey dated 20 June 1808. In his letter Thomas Simmons, accused his supervisor, Master Mast Maker, Peter Gardner of five violations of WNY regulations. Specifically Simmons accused Gardner of, taking wood chips for his personal use and sale, two, taking flannel from the Navy Store and using it for a shirt for his black slave, three, taking a bottle of sweet oil for his personal use, four, feigning sickness to work at his residence and five, falsifying documents regarding his apprentices qualifications and experience. Peter Gardner and Thomas Simmons had earlier business dealing and had also argued over money Simmons believed Gardner owed him. Later Gardner would state that Simmons had threatened him with a loaded rifle.

      Commandant Tingey after first informing Robert Smith, Secretary of the Navy, appointed three naval officers to review the charges against Gardner. The fifth charge was the most serious. That charge was did Peter Gardner make false statements regarding his apprentice's length of service for his own enrichment? On the 26 of June 1808 the three officers reported to Tingey they found Peter Gardner innocent of the first four of the charges but guilty of the fifth, that of making false statements, regarding "the service of his apprentices by which he obtained and enjoyed an augmentation of their pay- "Two of Gardner's written statements were used as part of the evidence the three officers believed sustained the charge. As a consequence Tingey recommended Peter Gardner's removal from federal service.

      While Peter Gardner's letter (extract below) provides considerable insight into the early apprenticeship system its real importance is how apprentices Jesse Barnes, William Howard and enslaved apprentice Davy Gardner were treated. Both Peter Gardner and his boss Josiah Fox were unique in having enrolled their own slaves as apprentices in what came to be considered elite shipyard trade's that is ship joiner and mast maker respectively. While it's not possible to determine their actual motivation perhaps altruism, more likely profit or maybe a combination of both such apprenticeships were rare may well have angered white employees. Indeed Davy Gardener and Josiah Fox's two enslaved ship joiners Edwin Jones and William Oakley AKA William Fox were the last African Americans to work in either of these trades at WNY for over a century.

      About the latter part of the year 1803, your memorialist was requested by Samuel H. Smallwood (who's certificate is hereunto annexed) to take his negro man into the Mast Shed, that he might be instructed in the Mast making business, in consequence whereof, & at the special order of Capt. Cassin, your memorialist took him into his shed. For the first three or four months, the said Davy received 75 cents per diem; but his improvement was such that his wages were afterwards raised to one dollar per diem of which first augmentation of wages, the said Smallwood, and not your memorialist received the advantage. All of which matters and things will appear by a reference to the certificate above mentioned.

      Seven months after the entrance of the said Davy, to wit in the August 1804, he was bought by your memorialist & continued in his constant profession in constant employment at the mast making business until the time when the first letter of the 21^st of August 06 was written by your memorialist. At the time the letter was written by your memorialist, no regulations existed for augmenting the wages of apprentices by the custom of the Navy Yard, a discretionary power vested in the superintendent of the Navy Yard, Capt Cassin, of augmenting the wages of apprentices according to their skill and improvement, and to the time they to worked in their employment. The said Davy, at the time, the date of the said letter, had worked as an apprentice in the mast making business nearly three years and during that time had acquired the reputation of skillful industrious workmen. In consequence of which circumstances, your memorialist, conceiving that the said Davy was justly entitled to an augmentation of wages wrote the letter above mentioned to the said Josiah Fox requesting the wages of the said Davy might be augmented, but not withstanding - the representations made in said letter, the wages of the said Davy were not at that time increased, nor was the letter ever acted upon.

      Previously to the date of the other letter of the 22nd of January 1807, a regulation had been made in the Navy Yard, that apprentices were to be allowed for the first year of their employment 80 cents per diem, for the second years $ 1.20, and for the third year $ 1, 60, for the fourth year [illegible] of pay. In consequence of the said regulation, the second letter of the 28^th of Jan 1807 was written by your memorialist requesting an increase of pay for the said Davy, who was then receiving only $ 1.20, although he was then in his third year even if the calculation is made from the time the said Davy came into your memorialist possession and was consequently entitled to an increase of pay. But your memorialist contents that he was justified in counting all the time the said Davy worked with him at the mast making business whilst he belonged to Mr. Smallwood, as he was then employed in the same manner, and had the same opportunities of improving himself in the knowledge of his business, as all other apprentices, and consequently there is no misstatement in his letter of the 18^th January 1807.

      With respect to the two other apprentices your memorialist presumes that Jesse Barnes and William Howard are intended. "In requiring an augmentation of pay of the first, he was guilty of an impropriety by the accusation above mentioned, and Barnes was at the time the third year of his apprenticeship, having commenced in August 1804 and was only receiving $ 1.25 per diem, instead of that to which he was entitled." Your memorialist also believes he did not in the said letter say that his said apprentice had then worked three years; but that he was going on in his third year, but he has no copy thereof he may be mistaken.

      The other apprentice William Howard commenced service in Jan 1805; but was not put on the pay roll at the Navy Yard until two months after, as by his certificate unto annexed will appear. This circumstance actuated the Court in believing your memorialist guilty of a false hood in the statement contained in his letter. But, on [illegible], it will be found, that whatever point of the subject if viewed, the said Howard has been with me twenty months, as stated at the time the said letter was written.

[Undated note to Josiah Fox ] Davy Gardner has been 3 years Last December & is in his 22 years of his age, he has 10 Months to Stay Jesse Barrens has been 2 years Last August & is in his 21 year of age - he has 7 months to stay Wm Howard has been 2 years the first of Feb Next & is in his 21 year of his age he has 8 months to stay.
I am yours
      Peter Gardner

 
[Undated note] David Gardner was purchased from Mr. Smallwood & is Gardner's property on the Navy Yard Books on the 1st August 1804 - 2 December 1806 Mr. Gardner reports him as having served as 3 Years in his trade in consequence his pay was raised to [illegible]

I have three apprentices two that have service three years and one twenty months, knowing them to be far advanced in practical knowledge of their business and not inferior to may I am requesting an augmentation of pay so far as to place them with others of equal abilities such a reasonable request I beg for your favorable attention and am with all due respect

[Addressed] To Josiah Fox Esq.

Yr Most Obedt Servant Peter Gardner Aug 21st 1806

Peter Gardner Master Mast Maker and "Davey Gardiner" apprentice are both listed on the 1808 roll of WNY employees
Washington navy Yard 1808 Reduction In Force
Peter Gardner Master Mast Maker is also listed in a series of letters of 1808 from the Secretary of the Navy Robert Smith to Commodore Thomas Tingey regarding employment
Secretary of Navy Letters

Secretary of the Navy Robert Smith, after considering all the evidence found Peter Gardner simply to valuable to dismiss and (7 September 1808) decided. Gardner could continued as Master Mastmaker of the Yard upon the following conditions "That 250 Dollars shall be deducted from his pay, that is from the day he shall be reinstated, he shall receive at the rate of 750 per annum only instead of 1, 000$ per annum - and if his absence from the Yard was entirely his own act then he is to be allowed no pay - whatever for that period. If his absence was not his own conduct, then he is allowed his pay for that period."

Peter Gardner's immediate superior Josiah Fox considered Gardner a competent workman and in a letter to Gardner's attorney John Law wrote the following in support of his continuing employment.

					Washington City 26th July 1808 

Dear Sir, 

	I was favor'd with your letter of the 26th this morning and in reply state, that I have 
been attached to this Navy Yard upward of 4 years, during that time I have never Mr. Gardner 
to commit any transaction whatever of an improper nature, but on the contrary he has given 
me great satisfaction in the line of his profession. 

	It becomes injustice to him, to declare that he is fully competent to the duties of his 
Station of Mast Maker in every respect, and I think his dismissal would be a loss to the Public 
Service - With respect to this apprentices I always thought he was reasonable and which I 
think, his communication at various times on this subject, sufficiently evidenced.

	I t may not be amiss to notice, that there has existed the Navy Yard for some time 
past a party, who appear desirous of injuring Mr. Gardner in the Public estimation.  I have 
been informed they have thrown out threats against me, and many worthy Citizens in this 
place - of the existence of such party / or organized Association proof can be given  -

				With great respect I am &c 

					Josiah Fox 

John Law Esquire 

Josiah Fox : For a biography of Josiah Fox see : Biography of Josiah Fox

Edwin Jones and William Oakley AKA William Fox see: 1809 Manumissions by Josiah Fox

Transcription:
      This transcription was made from the National Archives and Records Administration Record Group 45 microfilm of the letters of Commodore Thomas Tingey to the Secretary of the Navy Paul Hamilton dated 10 August 1809 and Secretary Hamilton's letter of 11 August 1809 to Commodore Tingey. In transcribing these letter, I have striven to adhere as closely as possible to the original in spelling, capitalization, punctuation and abbreviation (e.g. "Do" or "do" for ditto or same as above) including the retention of dashes, ampersands and overstrikes. Where I was unable to print a clear image or where it was not possible to determine what was written, I have so noted in brackets. Where possible, I have attempted to arrange the transcribed material in a similar manner to that found in the letters and enclosure.

Navy Yard Wash: 10^th August 1809 Sir

      In pursuance of your instructions desiring information relative to the Apprentices of Mr. Fox, where appointment has been considered no longer necessary - And also respecting the situations of the others persons whose Appointments cease- I called on Mr. Fox for a list of his apprentices, which he states as follows -

Kirby Needham of	Hampton Va	Apprenticeship	expires	Dec. 1809
Jno.W. Massenburgh	Norfolk Do.	Ditto	Do	12 July 1810
Hugh K. Meade	Kentucky	Ditto		9 Sept 1811
Wm L. Spotswood	Fredericksburg	Ditto	D	18 Oct 1811
Fred Jones	D	Ditto	D	8 July 1813
William Fox,	slave of Josiah Fox	Ditto	D	31 Dec 1809

      Mr. Fox states that as the suddenness of his dismissal, prevents his leaving his "Books" in that settled which they ought to be, and "being desirous to act in an honorable manner, at the close of his official duties" purposes that the remainder of the present moth be allowed for that purpose -

      I therefore respectfully submit for your approbation that Mr. Fox be continued in pay the residue of this month, in order to bring up his Books, and deliver them to me; with a regular statement of the balances of all materials on hand, heretofore under his cognizance and superintendence -

      That, he be allowed three months (the present included to arrange for and dispose of his apprentices; during this term, to receive their pay as at present, for every day to work in the Yard - And at the expiration of the three months Viz 1^st of November next, he may transfer to the Master Joiner, to one of the foreman of the Yard; such of his Apprentices as are not otherwise provided for, having over one year to serve -

      That Mr. Bartholomew Byrus, late Master Rigger, consequence of his good conduct while in the service; and having to remove himself & family from this City , to a distant former residence be allowed and paid, the residue of his quarterly salary and house rent, namely to the 30^th September next ensuing - with liberty to withdraw convenient to him -

      That Mr. William Small, late mathematical instrument maker, having a residence in this City and a profession to follow for his maintenance, be allowed and paid the residue of his present month wages, immediately on closing his accounts, for tools and materials, belong to the Department of the Navy Storekeeper and obtaining his receipt for the same clear of all defalcations -

I have the honor to be
      Very respectfully
      Sir Yr Obedt Servt
               Thos Tingey

Capt. Thomas Tingey       Navy Yard

Navy Dept. 11 Aug 1809

      I have received your letter of yesterdays date. Mr. Fox may be allowed the whole of this present month to prepare & finally to settle his accounts and upon settling them satisfactorily he may be paid up to the 1st of Sept.

      All the apprentices of Mr. Fox excepting Wm. Fox may be continued in the Yard till 1st day of Sept, and after that day, if the public should require their services in the Yard, I shall have no objection to their being continued in the Yard at reasonable compensation for their services. Wm Fox must be dismissed immediately.

      To cover the loss sustained by Mr. Byers in consequence of my letter to him informing him that his appointment was revoked he may be allowed the Salary & house rent to the 1st of Oct. next with the liberty to withdraw from the Service immediately.

      Mr. Small may upon Settling his accounts satisfactorily be paid up to the 1st of Sept.

[Signed]
Paul Hamilton

Commodore Thomas Tingey Commandant Washington Navy Yard 1750-1829 for biography
Biography of Commodore Thomas Tingey

Paul Hamilton 1762-1816 Secretary of the Navy for biography Biography of Paul Hamilton

Josiah Fox 1763-1847 Shipbuilder for Biography Biography of Josiah Fox

William Oakley AKA William Fox see Manumission of William Oakley aka William Fox

William Small maker and repairer of mathematical and navigational instruments briefly employed at WNY. His position was abolished in 1809. Small set up a shop and remained in the District of Columbia.