Chapter XLI: Section 8: provided minute directions for the distribution of the tracts (29)

“If it does not happen that you find them Dancing, the attack is to be made in the morning, just at a season when you have Light enough to Execute it, in which attempt your party are to march to the several houses, and bursting open the Doors, to rush in at once. Let the Signal for the general attack be the Discharge of one Firelock, in the Centre Division.

“If there are no Indians at the Several Towns, you are in such case to proceed with the utmost Caution and Vigilance to the Road which leads to Fort Duquesne, there to lye in Ambush and to intercept any Party or partys of the Enemy on the march to or from the English Settlements, and there to remain with the Design till the want of Provisions obliges you to return.

“I wish you all imaginable Success, of which the Opinion I have of your self, the Officers and Party under your Command, leave me no Room to doubt,

& am, Sir,
“Your Humble Servant,
“William Clapham.

“P. S.—You will not omit to post the Sergeant with a party on the other side of the River during the attack, according to Direction, in order to prevent the Enemy from escaping that way and to reserve always one half of your Fire.

“Given at Fort Augusta, Nov. 4th, 1756.”

A close examination of the route of march reveals to those at all familiar with the topography of that part of the State that the expedition crossed the river at Fort Augusta and marched through the ravine to the lower side of Blue Hill, into what is now known as Granger’s Hollow, and continued up the country on the west side of the river, passing through what is now Winfield, Lewisburg, West Milton, New Columbia and White Deer, where they evidently marched over the present Loganton road, following alongside White Deer Creek and then into the Nippenose Valley; thence over the hills and down again into McElhattan Gap, emerging at the river near Great Island.

This is the most direct route, and, as the Indians were good civil engineers and usually found the easy grades for their beaten trails, there is little doubt but that Captain Hambright and his sturdy band of chosen men surely experienced a hard, rough march, even for that early period.

He surely carried out his instructions, but what actually happened on this march is unknown, as no records of his report are to be found among the papers of that period. This is a matter of sincere regret, for the expedition was one of great importance.

It is believed from notes made on a time-stained paper now in the State Library that the first village visited was situated a few miles above the mouth of Pine Creek, opposite what is now the village of Pine, Clinton County. The paper bears the following indorsement: “4th Nov., 1756. Route of Capt. Hambright’s Secret Expedition, Inclos’d in Col. W. Clapham’s Ler of” (This sentence was unfinished).

Antiquarians inform us that many years ago great quantities of Indian relics were found at this site. It is only a short distance east of Great Island, and nearly the exact distance from Fort Augusta, by following the river, that is noted in Colonel Clapham’s letter.

----------

Disputed Boundary Lines Settled at Fort
Stanwix November 5, 1768

Notwithstanding the surrender to the Six Nations by the Proprietaries of Pennsylvania, in September, 1758, of “all the territory lying to the northward and westward of the Allegheny Mountains,” the white settlers continued to encroach on the hunting grounds of the Indians.

At the great treaty held at Albany, the Proprietaries purchased and received a deed dated July 6, 1754, for the land of the Province above Penn’s Creek, in what is now Snyder County.

The Indians afterward asserted they were defrauded in this sale; that the territory included lands they did not purpose selling and there was much dissatisfaction.

To settle their trouble a compromise was made at the Easton treaty, October, 1758, by the terms of which the Proprietaries authorized Richard Peters and Conrad Weiser to release and reconvey to the Six Nations all the territory lying northward and westward of the Allegheny Mountains which had been conveyed to the Proprietaries by the deed of July 6, 1754, “provided the Six Nations fully stipulate and settle the exact and certain bounds of the residue of the said lands included in the before-mentioned purchase.”

Following the successful termination of the Pontiac Conspiracy in 1764, the whites were less fearful of the Indians and settled in the Indian country with much more confidence. The Indians were quick to grasp the situation and made vigorous complaint to the Governor and all the other provincial authorities.

Proclamations were issued against the settlers without effect, and finally, February 3, 1768, the Pennsylvania Assembly passed an act on the subject. It was enacted that if any persons, already settled or afterward moved on unpurchased lands, neglected or refused to remove from the same within thirty days after they were required to do so by the Governor after notice prohibiting occupancy as aforesaid, being legally convicted, were to be punished with death without the benefit of clergy.

Three weeks after the enactment of the foregoing law Governor Penn issued a proclamation to every person to remove themselves and their families off and from the said lands on or before the first day of May next ensuing.

But proclamations, edicts and acts seemed to be of no avail, and the disputes between the whites and Indians became most acute. At length, in the summer of 1768, Sir William Johnson, the great English agent and true friend of the Six Nations Indians, determined to hold a great council with the Indians “not only for the purpose of renewing the ancient covenant chain between the English and the Indians, but to establish a scientific frontier.”

In preparation for this great council twenty large bateaux, laden with presents best suited to propitiate the Indians, had been conveyed to Fort Stanwix, now Rome, N. Y. Sir William Johnson ordered sixty barrels of rice and seventy barrels of provisions. When the council opened 3200 Indians were present, “each of whom,” wrote Sir William, “consumes daily more than two ordinary men amongst us, and would be extremely dissatisfied if stinted when convened for business.”

The Indians invited to the council began to assemble at Fort Stanwix early in October, 1768, and by the middle of the month the various officials expected to be present were on the ground. From Pennsylvania came Governor John Penn, the Reverend Richard Peters, Benjamin Franklin and James Tilghman.

Governor Penn remained only for the preliminary negotiations, as important business of the Province compelled his early presence in Philadelphia.

Messrs Peters and Tilghman represented Pennsylvania as Commissioners. Connecticut, New Jersey, Virginia and New York were also represented by high officials.

Eight tribes of Indians, including the Delaware, the Shawnee and all the tribes of the Six Nations, were present in larger numbers, while many other tribes were represented by small delegations.

The Seneca went to this great conference armed as if going on the warpath. There were also present a large number of private citizens either through curiosity or by reason of some personal interest in the proceedings.

The records of this great council would indicate that Sir William Johnson and the Commissioners dined together. They formally drank various toasts, as was usual in those times. Frequently these toasts were drunk to the King’s health, and on one or two occasions the language used gave offense to certain of the King’s officers at the table. Once a minister proposed a toast “not to the King of England, but to the King that hears our prayers.” The trouble with the mother country was even then brewing.

Sir William opened the council by telling the Indians that “the King was resolved to terminate the grievances from which they suffered for want of a boundary, and that the King had ordered presents proportionate to the nature and extent of the interests involved.” The Indians retired and for several days were in private council.

The new boundary had been practically agreed upon at a treaty held in 1765, its course being diagonally through Pennsylvania from a point one mile above the mouth of John Penn’s Creek, Snyder County, to a point then called Oswegy, now Oswego, N. Y. Beyond that point, the direction in which the line should be run seems to have occasioned the greatest discussion.

The question was finally and satisfactorily settled, and a deed was made and signed November 5, 1768, by a representative from each tribe of the Six Nations, fixing and describing the boundary-line and granting the land east of it to the King of England. The actual sum paid for this vast territory was about $50,600.

From a point on the Allegheny River several miles above Pittsburgh, this historic line of property ran in a northeasterly direction to the head of Towanda Creek, proceeding down the stream to the Susquehanna; thence it went northward along the river to Tioga Point, eastward to Owego, and crossed the country to the Delaware, reaching it at a point a few miles below Hancock. From here it went up the Delaware to what is now Deposit, Broome County, N. Y. Thence the line went directly across the hills to the Unadilla, and up that stream “to the west branch, to the head thereof.”

The “Fort Stanwix Treaty Lines” through Pennsylvania included all or part of the present counties of Pike, Wayne, Susquehanna, Lackawanna, Luzerne, Bradford, Sullivan, Wyoming, Montour, Northumberland, Lycoming, Union, Clinton, Center, Clearfield, Cambria, Indiana, Armstrong, Allegheny, Westmoreland, Somerset, Fayette, Green, Washington and Beaver.

It was also at this treaty that the Proprietaries were actively concerned in the purchase of the Wyoming lands then claimed by the State of Connecticut. In this object the Pennsylvanians were successful.

----------

First Siege of Yellow Fever Checked in
Philadelphia November 6, 1793

Philadelphia was visited twice by the dreaded pestilence of yellow fever, first in the year 1793 and again in 1798. The general consternation which incited many to flee from the destroyer “produced scenes of distress and misery,” wrote Matthew Carey, “of which parallels are rarely met with, and which nothing could palliate but the extraordinary public panic and the great law of self-preservation. Men of affluent fortunes, who gave daily employment and sustenance to hundreds, were abandoned to the care of a Negro after their wives, children, friends, clerks and servants had fled away and left them to their fate.

“In some cases, at the commencement of the disorder, no money could procure proper attendance. With the poor the case was, as might be expected, infinitely worse than the rich, and many of these perished without a human being to hand them a drink of water, to administer medicine or to perform any charitable office for them. Various instances occurred of dead bodies being found lying in the streets, of persons who had no house or habitation and could procure no shelter.”

The cessation of business, in consequence of the plague, threw hundreds of poor people out of employment. Want and famine made their appearance. While the fatal atmosphere of contagion overspread the devoted city the most frightful exaggerations of the real condition of things were spread throughout the country, the consequence of which very soon became serious.

In nearly all the cities and towns, near and far, with a few humane exceptions, all intercourse with Philadelphia was prohibited. This added to the general distress.

The deadly disease swept away whole families. Eleven persons died in one house within a day.

Philadelphia with 50,000 population in 1792 was then not only the largest and busiest city of the Nation but its seat of government. The Congress moved from the city to Germantown; President George Washington and the members of his Cabinet and their families departed the city, and every person who could afford it followed their example.

One out of every five who remained in Philadelphia died. Churches and schools, as well as the stores and mills closed their doors. Half the houses stood empty. Those who ventured to walk abroad held over their nostrils handkerchiefs soaked in vinegar and avoided shaking hands with any one.

Grass grew high in the main streets. Carts passed the main thoroughfares to carry the bodies of those who had perished. The drivers called out at intervals, “Bring out your dead!”

The disease itself was horrible and filthy. The sick were gathered into hospitals, but these, unlike the great hospitals of today, added to their misery. They were mere barns where patients lay crowded together, without proper care. Nurses could not be obtained even at high wages, for to nurse the victims of yellow fever meant almost certain death.

Mayor Mathew Clarkson asked for volunteers to form a Committee of Safety which should do whatever seemed possible for the health of the city. Only twelve men in that greatest of American cities answered the call, so serious was the situation.

One of these volunteers was none other than the greatest man of his day, Captain Stephen Girard. Only two of these twelve volunteered to serve at the hospital, and these heroes were Stephen Girard and Peter Helm. Both possessed great wealth and might have fled the city to live in safety and comfort far from the scene of this horrible pestilence, but they nobly chose to help their fellow men and risk their own lives.

Of these two men Girard took the post of greatest danger, the interior of the hospital. There for two months he spent a large part of each day, nursing his patients. No money could pay for such services and Girard would have accepted no return. Moreover, he went with his own carriage to the houses where the sick lay, entered them, and drove with them to the hospital.

At last the benevolence of the inhabitants elsewhere came to their relief, and contributions in money and provisions were poured out with a liberal hand, which relieved the physical distress. But it took the return of cold weather to check the fever and on November 6 the citizens who had fled at the beginning of the plague began to return, and from that day conditions rapidly improved.

In the plague of 1793 the mortality was 3293, as reported by the “Minutes of the Committee.”

In this scourge there were on Market Street and north thereof 1178 houses shut up and 1066 open, and 1152 deaths. Of the white inhabitants 4627 fled, 7332 remained in the city, and of the colored inhabitants 64 fled out of the city and 474 remained.

South of Market Street 1009 houses were closed and 969 remained open and occupied, 1068 died, 4289 fled and 6133 remained, and 174 Negroes fled and 833 remained to face the plague.

In the Northern Liberties 302 houses were closed and 822 remained occupied; 546 died, 1751 fled and 4943 remained; 28 Negroes ran away and 205 remained.

In the district of Southwark 239 houses were empty and 742 occupied; 527 died, 1239 whites fled and 4521 remained, and 24 Negroes fled and 234 remained.

Thus in the city 2728 houses were closed on account of the occupants fleeing the city or dying and 3599 remained occupied. More than 12,000 inhabitants fled the city, while 25,000 remained and came into close contact with the fever victims.

The figures given here were taken during the month of November, when the cooler weather was beginning to check the ravages of the plague. According to the statisticians of that day, the average of those who fell victims to the fever amounted to more than six and one-third persons to the house.

Among those attacked were Governor Thomas Mifflin and Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury in President Washington’s Cabinet.

Both recovered and on November 14 the Governor issued a proclamation stating the pestilence had ceased and fixing a day of thanksgiving, fasting and prayer. The disease was considered to be conquered about November 6, and from that time confidence returned.

When the city was again desolated by yellow fever in 1798 the deaths reached an enormous rate and much greater than in 1793.

In the month of August, 1798, the deaths in Philadelphia were 621 and in August, 1793, 264; in twelve days in September, 1798, 720 died, and during the same days in 1793 there were 290 deaths reported. From August 8 to October 3, 1798, there were 2778 deaths, and in this same period in 1793 there were 1847 deaths, so it is safe to predict that about twice as many deaths occurred in the second plague as in the first.

----------

Philadelphia Merchants Rebel Against
Stamp Act in Great Meeting,
November 7, 1765

The relations between the colonies and the mother country at end of the French and Indian War would doubtless have continued friendly had the latter not seen fit to pursue a new policy toward the former with respect to revenue and taxation. The colonies, until then, had been permitted to tax themselves.

The first act of the British Parliament aiming at the drawing of a revenue from the colonies was passed September 29, 1764. This act imposed a duty on “clayed sugar, indigo, coffee, etc., being a produce of a colony not under the dominion of his Majesty.”

In the colonies it was contended that “taxation and representation were inseparable, and that they could not be safe if their property might be taken from them without their consent.”

This claim of right of taxation on the one side and the denial of it on the other was the very pivot on which the Revolution turned.

England maintained her position in this matter, and in 1765 the famous Stamp Act passed both Houses of Parliament. This ordained that instruments of writing, such as deeds, bonds, notes, etc., among the colonies should be null and void unless executed on stamped paper, for which duty should be paid to the Crown.

The efforts of the American colonists to stay the mad career of the English Ministry proved unavailing. Dr. Benjamin Franklin, then in London as the agent of the Province of Pennsylvania, labored earnestly to avert a measure which his sagacity and extensive acquaintance with the American people taught him was pregnant with danger to the British Empire; but he did not entertain the thought that it would be forcibly resisted.

The opposition to the Stamp Act was so decided and universal that Lord Grenville, to conciliate the Americans, asked their agents to suggest the person to have the sale of the stamps in their respective colonies. Franklin named his friend John Hughes, who in the Assembly had been voting with the opponents of the Proprietaries.

Franklin’s enemies tried to make much capital out of this participation in the introduction of the stamps, while Hughes and Galloway tried to lay the blame for the popular outburst upon the Proprietary Party in both contrivance and connivance.

Massachusetts Assembly suggested that the various Houses of Representatives or Burgesses in America send committees to a meeting in New York City on the first Tuesday of October, 1765, to consider a united representation to the King and Parliament.

The Assembly of Pennsylvania decided unanimously that it ought to remonstrate against the Stamp Act, and appointed as its committee Speaker Fox and Messrs. John Dickinson, George Bryan and John Morton. Nine resolutions on the subject of the “unconstitutional impositions” were adopted unanimously.

Mr. Hughes feared being mobbed during the joy of celebration incident to the change of ministry in England. He sat at his home, armed, watching for an attack on his house, but at midnight those whom he feared dispersed, after burning a “stamp man” in effigy.

Hughes wrote to Governor John Penn and to Mr. Dickinson, the master of the ship which brought the stamps, that he had received no commission to take charge of them. The ship then lay at New Castle, afraid to proceed farther, but on October 5 she sailed up the river to Philadelphia, escorted by a man-of-war.

All the vessels in the harbor put their flags at half-mast, the bells of the State House and Christ Church were muffled and tolled until evening, and two Negroes with drums summoned the people to a meeting at the State House. This sent Robert Morris, Charles Thomson, and others to Hughes, who was very ill at his home, asking him to resign, or at least to promise not to execute his office.

The crowd, Hughes said, was stirred up by the son of Franklin’s great enemy, Chief Justice Allen.

On the following Monday, Hughes gave assurance that neither he nor his deputies would act until King George’s pleasure be known, or the law be put into execution in other colonies, or the Governor commanded him.

Hughes wrote to the Commissioners of the Stamp Office that he would perform his duties if his hands were sufficiently strengthened, but in due time he resigned.

On November 7, 1765, the merchants of Philadelphia assembled at the Court House, where they adopted nonimportation resolutions which were embodied in an agreement soon signed by almost everybody who could be described as a merchant or trader, setting forth that the difficulties they labored under were owing to the restrictions, prohibitions and ill-advised resolutions in recent acts of Parliament.

These measures had limited the exportation of some of the produce, increased the expense of many imported articles and cut off the means of supplying themselves with sufficient specie even to pay the duties imposed.

The Province was heavily in debt to Great Britain for importations, and the Stamp Act would tend to prevent remittances, and so it was hoped the people of the Province would be frugal in the consumption of all manufactures except those of America or of Ireland, coming directly thence, and that the merchants and manufacturers of Great Britain would find it to their interest to befriend them.

The subscribers agreed and pledged their honor to direct all goods ordered from Great Britain not to be shipped and to cancel all former orders until the Stamp Act be repealed. The ships already cleared for Great Britain owned by the merchants were allowed to bring back the usual bulky articles but no dry goods, except dye stuffs, and utensils necessary for carrying on the manufactures, and to sell no articles sent on commission after January 1, 1766.

The committee which circulated this agreement for signatures, and was appointed to see to its being carried out, was composed of Thomas Willing, Samuel Mifflin, Thomas Montgomery, Samuel Howell, Samuel Wharton, John Rhea, William Fisher, Joshua Fisher, Peter Chevalier, Benjamin Fuller and Abel Jones.

In February Franklin was examined before the House of Commons, when he told them there was not enough gold and silver in the colonies to pay the stamp duty for one year. He gave it as his opinion that the people of America would never submit to paying the stamp duty unless compelled by force.

Parliament had only the alternative to compel submission or to repeal the act. It was repealed March 18, 1766, but accompanying it was the one known as the Declaratory Act, more hostile to the American rights than any of its predecessors. This act affirmed “that Parliament have, and of right ought to have power to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever.”

The news of the repeal reached America in May and caused unbounded demonstrations of joy. Though the Quakers generally would not have violently resisted the execution of the law, they shared with others the joy produced by the tidings of the repeal.

----------

Expeditions Against Indians—Franklin Sails
for England, November 8, 1764

Soon after John Penn assumed the office of Lieutenant Governor, November, 1763, he convened the Assembly and presented General Gage’s request for 1000 men, to be used in the proposed Indian campaign, which was granted, together with a vote of credit for the additional force necessary “to frustrate the further wicked designs of those lawless rioters.” This had reference to the “Paxtang Boys” and their bold attack upon the Conestoga Indians, December 14, 1763.

Sir William Johnson, of New York, who had charge of Indian affairs for the Royal Government, having learned of both the above massacre and those in the Nain and Wichetunk settlements, a short time previous, and being possessed of the actual facts, was particularly anxious to acquaint the Six Nations with the details, and thus remove any bad impressions as to the faith of Pennsylvania in dealing with friendly Indians. It was most vital that there should be no alienation of the Six Nations from the English interest.

The affair of the Paxtang Boys was happily settled without any unfair or unwise hardships and the attention of the authorities again turned to bigger problems and those more difficult of solution.

Early in 1764 extensive measures were resolved upon for the reduction of the Indians. General Gage determined to attack them on two sides, and to force them from the frontiers by carrying the war into the heart of their own country. One corps was sent under command of Colonel Bradstreet to act against the Wyandot, Ottawa, Chippewa and other nations living upon or near the lakes. Another, under command of Colonel Henry Bouquet, was sent to attack the Delaware, Shawnee, Mingo, Mohican and other nations between the Ohio River and the lakes.

The two commands were to act in concert. Colonel Bradstreet was directed to proceed to Detroit, Michilimackinack and other places, and on his return to encamp and remain at Sandusky, and prevent the Western Indians from rendering aid to those on the Ohio, while Colonel Bouquet was to attack the latter in the midst of their settlements.

Part of the Forty-second and Sixtieth Regiments were assigned to Colonel Bouquet, to be joined with 200 friendly Indians, and provincial troops from Pennsylvania and Virginia. The Indians never came and Virginia could not spare any men, but Pennsylvania furnished the one thousand men, which was its quota. The Provincial Assembly also voted 50,000 pounds to maintain it.

This force was reduced by the desertion of 200 before leaving Carlisle, and of others at Fort Bedford. Those remaining, with a very few regulars, and less than 200 Virginians, made up the army of Colonel Bouquet, which advanced from Fort Pitt in October, 1764, and marched ninety-six miles to Muskingum, mostly through a wilderness which the savages had deemed their sure defense.

This expedition appearing in such force in the heart of the enemy’s country overawed the Indians, who sued for peace. The Delaware, Shawnee and Seneca agreed to cease hostilities. Many white people held as prisoners were liberated.

So thoroughly is Pennsylvania entitled to the credit of this successful expedition, which not only restored so many of her men, women and children to their families, but it had the chief part in securing peace to the adjoining colonies.

The Legislatures of Maryland and Virginia did not contribute a penny to the expense, but left Colonel Bouquet personally liable for the pay of the volunteers from those provinces. The Pennsylvania Assembly in due time came to his relief, and also paid for this.

By the agreement of 1760 the Assembly was allowed to tax the Proprietaries’ lands upon certain conditions. The Assembly tried to have the language of the bill changed so that the Proprietaries’ land would not be taxed “only as high as the worst lands owned by the settlers” was taxed, but no such change was allowed.

Indeed, harmony was scarcely to be expected between one of the Proprietary family, as Governor on the one side, and the Assembly on the other.

The Assembly was compelled to yield to the necessities of the province, but the conduct of Governor John Penn so incensed the Assembly, that it was determined by a large majority to petition the King to purchase the jurisdiction of the province from the Proprietaries, and vest the Government directly in the Crown.

Joseph Galloway sponsored the resolutions which resulted in the petition being signed by three thousand five hundred persons and addressed to King George III.

There was much opposition from leading men in the province against throwing off the proprietary dominion, and these were not alone of the Quaker belief.

Isaac Norris, the venerable Speaker; John Dickinson, afterwards distinguished in the Revolution; the Reverend Gilbert Tennant, and the Reverend Francis Allison, representing the Presbyterian interest, with William Allen, Chief Justice, and afterward father-in-law of Governor John Penn, were strong leaders in opposition to the measure.

The Quakers, on the other hand, supported it, and were sustained by several successive Assemblies. The argument which lined up the Presbyterians with those who opposed the change in Government was the important question of defending the province, and particularly their brethren on the frontiers. It mattered comparatively little whether the Proprietaries or the richer inhabitants paid for this protection.

They also feared that under the Crown the Church of England might become the Established Church. The majority, which wished to divest the Founder’s descendants of their authority, were the strict followers of the Founder’s religion.

Dickinson was re-elected to the Assembly, as was Norris, even though he did not desire to return to that body. Galloway and Franklin were defeated, the latter by twenty-five majority out of 4000 votes. Only two of the ten members from Philadelphia were in favor of the change of Government.

Norris was again elected Speaker, but dissensions arose which caused him to resign the speakership, when Joseph Fox was elected to succeed him. He appointed Dr. Franklin as an additional provincial agent in London, and directed him to go with all dispatch, and urge the adoption of the measure before the British Ministry.

Franklin sailed for England on November 8, 1764, being escorted by 300 admirers, to Chester, where he embarked.

He took with him a copy of the resolution which the Assembly, upon hearing of the proposal in England of a stamp act or some other means of revenue had passed, acknowledged it a duty to grant aid to the Crown, according to ability, whenever required in the usual constitutional manner.

Franklin found, on his arrival at London, that he had to contend with a power far stronger and more obstinate than the Proprietaries themselves, even with the very power whose protection he had come to seek.

----------

Governor Simon Snyder, Prey of Kidnappers,
Died November 9, 1819

Simon Snyder, three times Governor of Pennsylvania, was born in Lancaster County, November 5, 1749, and died in his beautiful stone mansion in Selinsgrove November 9, 1819.

Snyder had been defeated in the gubernatorial contest of 1805, but his election was not long delayed.

Alderman John Binns, editor of the Democratic Press, then the most powerful political leader in the State, was Snyder’s closest friend and adviser and soon influenced such a current of popular sentiment toward his friend’s candidacy that William J. Duane and Dr. Michael Leib were compelled to support Snyder even though they realized Binns would be more potent in guiding his Administration.

Snyder carried every county except six and defeated James Ross by 28,400 votes.

No sooner had the election occurred than the Governor was importuned to appoint Dr. Lieb to the office of Secretary of the Commonwealth, but the astute Executive named N. B. Boileau, of Montgomery County, to that important place.

Governor Snyder was re-elected in 1811 and again in 1814, being the last Governor of Pennsylvania to serve three terms.

There were many thrilling events during the nine years of his Administration, the most important of which was the War of 1812–14.

The Chief Executive of no State in the Union performed his part more patriotically or with a firmer determination than did Governor Snyder.

A month before the formal declaration of our second war with England he had issued an order drafting 14,000 men as the quota of Pennsylvania for the general defense. His several addresses to the Legislature were of the most patriotic fervor and he deserved the hearty support which was generously given him.

During the trying period of the war, Governor Snyder exhibited many splendid traits of character, and met every emergency with determined courage and the consciousness of having performed his full duty.

Pennsylvania has been remarkably free from crimes against officials holding high office, and yet the nearest attempt was a plot to kidnap Governor Snyder.

Early in the year of 1816 Richard Smith, as principal in the first degree, and Ann Carson, in the second degree, were tried in Philadelphia before the Hon. Jacob Rush and his associates for the murder of John Carson, her husband. The trial resulted in the conviction of Smith and the acquittal of Ann Carson.

Richard Smith was a lieutenant in the Twenty-third Infantry Regiment U. S. A. He was of Irish descent, a nephew of Daniel Clark, of New Orleans, and heir to his estate, worth in excess of $1,000,000.

Ann Carson was the most captivating beauty of the underworld and the most notorious character in the State, according to the newspapers of a century ago. She married a Scotchman, Captain John Carson, a dissipated ex-captain of the United States Navy, who was nearly twice her age.

Several years after this marriage Captain Carson sailed for China, in command of the ship Ganges, and nothing more was heard of him for four or five years, and his wife believed he had perished at sea.

During his absence Ann Carson became infatuated with the dashing young Lieutenant Smith, who occupied an apartment in her home.

In the fall of 1815 Captain Carson appeared at the home and his estranged wife had no welcome for him.

For the following several months the trio lived a life of continual strife. One evening in January, 1816, the two men met in the parlor of the Carson home on Second and Dock Streets, when Smith shot and killed Carson.

The murderer was taken before Alderman Binns, who committed him to prison on a charge of murder. As already stated, Smith was convicted and Mrs. Carson acquitted.

Mrs. Carson immediately planned to save Smith from the scaffold. She was able to command the services of the most desperate criminals.

Both Smith and Mrs. Carson knew that the Alderman and editor had great influence with Governor Snyder, and their first effort was to bring pressure upon him to obtain a pardon for the condemned man.

Binns refused to interfere, and in addition published a caustic warning against any attempt to stay the course of justice. Never had there been so much feeling manifested in the desire to obtain a pardon for murder as on this occasion.

Ann Carson conceived the scheme to kidnap Binns and hold him as a hostage for Smith. This plan failed. Then the desperate criminals endeavored to coerce Binns into their measures by planning to kidnap his son, who had been christened Snyder, after the then Governor. The boy was not quite six years old, but daily went to his school.

This plot was communicated to Binns and the child was kept in his home, and that plot also failed.

Then the notorious and desperate Ann Carson determined to kidnap the Governor himself, and keep him in custody, under a threat of being put to death, if he did not grant a pardon for Smith.

The very night this scheme was determined on, it was, through a lay-cousin of Lieutenant Smith’s, communicated to John Binns, who immediately dispatched the details of the plot to the Governor, who was then at his home in Selinsgrove.

Ann Carson, accompanied by two ruffians named “Lige” Brown and Henry Way, set out from Philadelphia on horseback to Selinsgrove. At Lancaster, Way robbed a drover, but was badly beaten over the head and easily captured. The others, however, made their escape and proceeded on their nefarious errand.

Governor Snyder hastened to Harrisburg, where he swore out a warrant against the woman, and she was apprehended and held in $5000 bail, which was furnished by her friends. She returned to Philadelphia.

Way escaped from jail after nearly killing his jailer and was never captured. Lieutenant Smith was executed.

Mrs. Carson’s subsequent career was merely a succession of crimes, in which she affected the disguise of a demure Quakeress. It was in this disguise she was detected passing a counterfeit note on the Girard Bank. She was sentenced to seven years in the Walnut Street prison.

A writer says she was appointed matron in the women’s ward, where her cruel treatment drove the female convicts to revolt and that Mrs. Carson was killed during one of these uprisings.

John Binns in his “Recollections” says that while in prison she was a kind and most attentive nurse.

The latter is true. Ann Carson died in prison April 27, 1824, of typhus fever, which she contracted while nursing other victims of the plague.

----------

John Dickinson Writes First “Farmer”
Letter, November 10, 1767

In 1767 a bill was passed by Parliament which affirmed its right “to bind the Colonies in all cases whatsoever” and levied duties on tea, paper, glass and painters’ colors imported into the Colonies from Great Britain, payable in America. This act, with several others, rekindled the opposition of the Colonies. Again associations were formed to prevent the importation of British goods and meetings called to resolve, petition and remonstrate.

The first of the “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies,” appeared November 10, 1767, the authorship of which gave John Dickinson, of Philadelphia, so much of his celebrity.

They were published in every colony, also in London, and afterwards translated into French in Paris.

Dr. Benjamin Franklin, who had formerly been an enemy of Dickinson wrote the preface to the London edition; while the people of Boston, assembled in a town meeting, voted Dickinson their thanks.

Letter No. 1 began: “My Dear Countrymen: I am a farmer, settled, after a variety of fortunes, near the banks of the Delaware, in the Province of Pennsylvania. I received a liberal education, and have been engaged in busy scenes of life; but am now convinced that a man may be as happy without bustle as with it.

“My farm is small; my servants few and good; I have a little money at interest; I wish for no more; my employment in my own affairs is easy; and with a contented, grateful mind, undisturbed by worldly hopes or fears, relating to myself, I am completing the number of days allotted to me by Divine goodness.”

Every man ought to espouse the sacred cause of liberty to the extent of his powers and “The Farmer” offered some thoughts on late transactions, praying that his lines might be read with the same zeal for the happiness of British America with which they had been written.

He had observed that little notice had been taken of the Act of Parliament for suspending the legislation of New York. This was punishment for noncompliance by the Assembly of that Province with a former act requiring certain provisions to be made for the troops. To compel the colonies to furnish certain articles for the troops was, he proceeded to show, taxation in another form and New York was being punished for resisting such taxation.

In Letter No. 2, the “Farmer” took up the Act imposing duties on paper, glass, etc., which he deemed a most dangerous innovation upon the old practice of imposing duties merely for the regulation of trade.

Parliament had a right to regulate the trade of the colonies; but here it was vowing the design of raising revenues from America; a right, which, America felt, was inherent in her own representatives. This taxation was attempted by the device of levying duties on certain articles imported to the colonies. The effect of this was clearly pointed out.

Great Britain had prohibited certain manufactures in the colonies, and had prohibited the purchase of such manufactured goods except from the mother country.

“If you once admit that Great Britain may lay duties upon her exportations to us, for the purpose of levying money on us only,” he wrote, “she will then have nothing to do but to lay those duties on the articles, which she prohibits us to manufacture—and the tragedy of American liberty is finished.”

In Letter No. 3 the “Farmer” explained there were other modes of resistance to oppression than any breach of peace and deprecated, as Dickinson did ever afterward, any attempt to make the colonies independent.

“If once we are separated from our mother country,” he said, “what new form of government shall we adopt, or where shall we find another Britain to supply our loss? Torn from the body to which we are united by religion, liberty, laws, affections, relation, language and commerce, we must bleed at every vein.”

In the subsequent letters, the dangers to American liberty were expiated, objections answered and the people urged to make a stand for themselves and their posterity peaceably, prudently, firmly, jointly. “You are assigned by Divine Providence, in the appointed orders of things the protectors of unborn ages, whose fate depends upon your virtue,” he said. “Whether they shall arise the generous and indisputable heirs of the noblest patrimonies or the dastardly and hereditary drudges of imperious taskmasters, you must determine.”

The effect of the Farmer’s letters was tremendous. About this time a letter to Governor Penn arrived from the Earl of Hillsborough, dated April 21, 1768, informing him that King George III considered the circular letter from the Massachusetts Legislature, calling upon the other colonies to send commissioners to New York City to consider a united representation to the King and Parliament to be of a most dangerous and factious tendency, and that Governor Penn should exert his influence to prevail upon the Assembly of Pennsylvania to take no notice of it, and to prorogue or dissolve that body.

The Assembly, September 16, resolved that the Governor had no authority to prorogue or dissolve and that it was the undoubted right of the Assembly to correspond with any of the American colonies to obtain by decent petitions to the King and Parliament redress of any grievances.

Four days later the Assembly addressed a petition to the King, the following day one to the House of Lords and another to the House of Commons. Each of these paraphrased in softer language and adapted to Pennsylvania the latter from Massachusetts.

The petition to the King referred to the settlement of the province when it was only a wilderness with a view of enjoying that liberty, civil and religious, of which the petitioners’ ancestors were in a great measure deprived in their native land, and also to extend the British empire, increase its commerce and promote its wealth and power.

With inexpressible labor, toil and expense, and without assistance from the mother country, that wilderness had been peopled, planted and improved.

It was conceived that by no act had the people surrendered up or forfeited their rights and liberties as natural-born subjects of the British Government; but those rights had been brought over and were vested by inheritance.

The duties and taxes for the sole purpose of raising revenue imposed by parliament upon the Americans, they not being represented in that body, and being taxable only by themselves or their representatives, were destructive of those rights and without precedent until the passage of the Stamp Act.

Whenever the King had had occasion for aid to defend and secure the colonies, requisitions had been made upon the Pennsylvania Assemblies, who with cheerfulness granted them, and “often so liberally as to exceed the abilities and circumstances of the people.”

It was essential to the liberties of Englishmen that no laws be made which would take away their property without their consent, and even if this taxation had been constitutional the present law was injurious to the mother country as well as America. And lastly, the revenue was to be applied in such colonies as it should be thought proper. Thus Pennsylvania would pay, without their consent, taxes which might be applied to the use of other colonies.

----------

In Anticipation of War with France General
Washington Arrives in Philadelphia,
November 11, 1798

On November 11, 1798, General George Washington, who was then lieutenant-general of the army, arrived in Philadelphia to assume charge of matters in relation to the threatened war with France, and was received by the troops of horse and a large number of uniformed companies of foot.

On the 24th President John Adams, who had left the city on account of the recurrence of the yellow fever, returned, and was received with salutes from the sloop-of-war “Delaware,” Captain Stephen Decatur, and Captain Matthew Hale’s Ninth Company of Philadelphia Artillery, which was stationed near Center Square.

The presence of John Jay, of New York, in England to make a treaty with Great Britain aroused the French to a sense of the importance of observing its own treaty stipulations with the United States, which had been utterly disregarded since the war with England began. Jay’s treaty with England, November 19, 1794, caused such a division of the Americans that they were all either Frenchmen or Englishmen in their politics.

Genet, the French minister, received the most flattering attention from the day he arrived until he was recalled. When Adet, his successor, ordered all Frenchmen in America to wear the tri-colored French cockade, everybody in Philadelphia wore it.

On January 4, 1795, a new decree was issued, giving full force and effect to those clauses of the treaty of commerce, signed in 1778, with the United States.

When the news of the failure of the Americans to elect Thomas Jefferson President reached France, the Directory issued a decree, March 2, 1797, purporting to define the authority granted to French cruisers by a former decree. It was intended to annihilate American commerce in European waters.

The treaty with America was modified as to make American vessels liable to capture for any cause recognized as lawful ground of capture by Jay’s treaty.

They also decreed that any Americans found serving on board hostile owned vessels should be treated as pirates; in other words, American seamen, impressed by the British, were made liable to be hanged by the French.

On January 18, 1798, a sweeping decree against American commerce was promulgated by the French Directory.

In consequence of this insolent attitude of the French Directory and the continued seizures of American vessels by French cruisers, the popularity of France had declined, and it soon became evident that the country was slowly but surely drifting into war.

On March 5, 1798, President Adams informed Congress of the failure of the mission of the American Envoys, and accompanying this information was a message from the French Directory to the Council of Five Hundred urging the passage of further objectionable laws against American commerce.

A few days later Congress was informed that the representatives of Prince Talleyrand, one of the French ministers, had demanded a bribe of £50,000 for the members of the Directory and a loan to the Republic, in consideration of the adoption of a satisfactory treaty.

Great excitement was caused by the publication of these facts. In every section of the country was re-echoed the vigorous language of Charles Pinckney: “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.”

Governor Mifflin and his associates in the State Government openly sympathized with France, and in the Pennsylvania Senate the feeling in favor of France was still very strong. On March 20 that body adopted resolutions declaring that the representatives of Pennsylvania bear their public testimony against war in any shape or with any nation unless the territories of the United States shall be invaded, but more especially against the people with whom our hearts and hands have been lately united in friendship.

In the House, however, the resolutions were received and laid upon the table, but never taken up for consideration.

The councils of Philadelphia passed resolutions in favor of sustaining friendly relations with France, but strongly endorsed the Federal administration in its conduct of the matter. A great meeting of the merchants and traders of Philadelphia was held, April 11, when an address to the President was adopted, which expressed regret at the failure of the negotiations with France, and their determination to support the Government.

Popular indignation at the conduct of France was rapidly intensifying, and the publication of a new patriotic song, “Hail Columbia,” greatly stimulated the agitation.

At the request of Gilbert Fox, a young actor, Joseph Hopkinson, of Philadelphia, then twenty-eight years of age, wrote “Hail Columbia” to accompany the air of “The President’s March,” which had become very popular in Philadelphia.

This new song was first sung by Fox at his benefit in the theater, April 25, 1798, and excited the wildest applause. The words were caught up and repeated throughout the country.

Among other demonstrations in support of the Government was a meeting of youths between eighteen and twenty-three years of age, April 28, at James Cameron’s tavern.

Resolutions were passed approving the action of the Federal Government, and a committee was appointed to prepare an address to the President. On May 7, more than twelve hundred of them each wearing a black cockade marched in procession to the home of President Adams.

On the following night parties of men wearing the French cockades appeared on the streets and made some disorder, in consequence of which the Citizens’ Volunteers were placed on guard at the mint and arsenal, and troops of cavalry paraded the streets at night.

The newspapers contributed not a little to the excitation of feeling. Editor William Cobbett was particularly violent and Benjamin Franklin Bache, in the Aurora, was almost as vehement.

The citizen military organizations were most active and during the summer months assembled frequently and performed various evolutions.

Early in June, Governor Mifflin addressed a circular letter to militia officers, requesting their co-operation in preparation of measures for defense.

The necessity for Lieutenant-General Washington and his army soon passed. The trouble with France was brought to a satisfactory result through diplomatic channels and President Adams issued a proclamation calling for a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer, on April 25, 1799, over the happy event.

----------

First Jury Drawn in Early Courts of
Province on November 12, 1678

The early judicial history of Pennsylvania presents striking features of interest to two classes in the community—the professional lawyer and the student of history.

To the former it must be a matter of curiosity and interest to study the first rude means devised to administer justice between man and man—to discern among the transactions of those early times the rise and development of institutions and practices.

But to the student of history the subject affords a different kind of interest. He finds gratification in the manner, customs and modes of thought once prevalent in these early courts.

In them he finds traces of the past life of the Nation, learns of the matters which then interested the people, the nature of their industries, the extent of their commerce, the character of their education, the attention paid to their morals, and even the depth of their religious convictions.

The early courts of what is now Pennsylvania had their origin in 1673, under the government of James, Duke of York.

After the Swedish settlements on the Delaware were conquered by the Dutch, the Swedes were directed to concentrate in villages, but they never did so. Among the places named for this purpose was Upland, now Chester.

The Swedish magistrates were permitted to remain in office—a conciliatory policy which was imitated by the English when they came into possession of Pennsylvania.

The Dutch divided the western shore of the Delaware into three counties or judicial districts, the most northern of which was called Ophlandt, its capital being Upland. This division was recognized and continued by the English.

In 1676, under Governor Andross, the Magistrates of Upland were Peter Cock (Cox), Peter Rambo, Israel Helm, Lace Andries, Oele Swen, and Otto Ernest Cock, all Swedes.

At the court at Upland, November 13, 1677, Captain Hans Jargin was ordered “to fit up the House of Defense for the use of the court at its next sitting.” The court previously had been holding its sessions at the house of Neeles Laersen, who kept a tavern, a troublesome fellow, whose daughter seems to have taken after her father, both having appeared several times in court.

On November 12, 1678, complaint was made against Laersen for building a fence which stopped the usual path of travel over the meadow. The Court ordered him to remove the obstruction.

At the same session of court the case of William Orian vs. John D'haes was called. It was an action on a book account for the sum of 167 guilders, and the first jury known to have been called in Pennsylvania was impaneled.

The names of these original jurymen were Hans Moens, Dunk Williams, Xtopper Barnes, Edmund Draufton, Peter Jockum, Isaac Sanoy, Jan Hendricks, Jonas Kien, Moens Cock, John Browne, Jan Boelson and Henry Hastings.

The verdict was for the plaintiff for the full amount of his claim which had been disputed.

These early county courts were vested with criminal jurisdiction in all save cases of heinous or enormous crimes. Treason, murder and manslaughter were outside their cognizance. Trials for larceny, swearing, laboring on the first day of the week, assault and battery, shooting or maiming the prosecutor’s hogs, unduly encouraging drunkenness, selling rum to the Indians and offenses against the public morality and decency constituted the great bulk of the criminal business.