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 extensiveextensive 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.
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 horsebackhorseback 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.
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.
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 importanceimportance 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, 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 militiamilitia 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.
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.
“Lying in conversation” was fined half a crown, “drinking healths which may provoke people to unnecessary and excessive drinking” was fined five shillings, while the sale of beer made of molasses at more than a penny a quart was visited with a like penalty of five shillings for every quart sold.
No person could “Smoak tobacco in the streets of Philadelphia or New Castle, by day or by night,” on penalty of a fine of twelve pence, to be applied to the purchase of leather buckets and other instruments against fire.
Any person “convicted at playing of cards, dice, lotteries or such-like enticing, vain and evil sports and games” was to pay five shillings or to be imprisoned five days at hard labor, while those who introduced or frequented “such rude and riotous sports and practices as prizes, stage plays, masques, revels, bull baitings, cock fightings and the like” were either to forfeit twenty shillings or to be imprisoned at hard labor for ten days.
Smoking tobacco in the courtroom was an heinous offense. Luke Watson, himself a Justice, twice offended the Court on the same day in this manner and was fined the first time fifty pounds of tobacco, the second 100 pounds. In 1687 William Bradford was fined for swearing in the presence of the Justices, and Thomas Hasellum was fined for singing and making a noise.
Thomas Jones, who was wanted in court as a witness, was a hardened character and refused to appear. When two constables brought him into court he cursed at a horrible rate.
The records state “said Jones being brought into court, the Court told him of his misdemeanor, and told him he should suffer for it; he told the Court he questioned their power, so the Court ordered the Sheriff and constable to secure him and they carried and dragged him to ye Smith Shop, where they put irons upon him, but he quickly got the Irons off and Escaped, he having before wounded several persons’ legs with his spurs that strived with him, and when they was goeinggoeing to put him in the Stocks, before that they put him in Irons, he kicked the Sheriff on the mouth and was very unruly and abusive, and soon got out of the Stocks.”
An excellent law in the early days of the Province provided “that whereas there was a necessity for the sake of commerce in this infancy of things, that the growth and produce of this Province should pass in lieu of money, that, therefore, all merchantable wheat, rye, Indian corn, barley, oats, pork, beef and tobacco should pass current at the market price.”
Of this provision the people availed themselves largely. They frequently gave bonds to each other acknowledging their debts in kinds. Judgments were accordingly sometimes entered “for 172 pounds of pork and two bushels of wheat, being the balance of an account brought into court,” or for “32 shillings for a gun, and 150 pounds of pork for a shirt,” while, perhaps, the climax is reached in an entry of judgment for “One thousand of six-penny nails, and three bottles of rum.”
The early Provincial Courts were unusual peace makers and made peculiar awards.
In Chester County, in 1687, in an action of an assault and battery by Samuel Baker against Samuel Rowland was this award: “Samuel Rowland shall pay the lawful charges of this court, and give the said Samuel Baker a Hatt, and so Discharge each other of all manner of Differences from the Beginning of the World to this Present day.”
The sentences imposed were not unusually severe. The whipping post, the pillory and the imposition of fines were usually resorted to as punishments in preference to long terms of imprisonment. The services of the culprit were more desirable than to keep him within a prison’s walls.
The Constitution of 1776, as would be expected, was hastily prepared. Great excitement prevailed everywhere throughout the Province and the document was adopted with the same determined spirit which characterized all public movements during that thrilling period of our history.
Nothing less than the impending war for liberty could justify the methods that were employed to change the frame of government under which the people had lived for nearly a century.
The most effective improvement in this instrument could have been made by amendment in the regular manner, but this method would not have served to satisfy the determined purposes of the leaders of that day.
The chief objections to the Constitution were the existence of a single legislative body, and a council of censors consisting of two men from each city and county in the State to hold office for seven years.
The function of the censors were of a most extraordinary character. The members were to meet annually, and inquire whether the Constitution had been kept inviolate; whether the legislative and executive branches had carefully functioned; whether taxes had been justly levied and collected, etc. A majority vote of their number was sufficient to determine every action, excepting the calling of a convention to revise the Constitution, which alone required the consent of two-thirds of the council.
It is believed that George Bryan and James Cannon were the authors of this unusual provision. Both were ardent patriots.
The Constitution fairly reflected the political opinions of those opposed to the English Parliament.
The office of Governor was swept away, and the Constitution of 1776 provided that the Supreme Executive Council should choose one of its number President, whose duties were those of the Chief Executive.
Every effort to secure a revision of the Constitution proved unavailing and public opinion waited impatiently for the first seven years to pass, in the hopes that a revision would then be possible. If the enemies of the Constitution were numerous and bitter, it had also many enthusiastic supporters.
The Council of Censors assembled, as the Constitution required, on November 13, 1783, and continuing in session nearly a year, adjourned finally September 25, 1784. Frederick A. Muhlenberg was elected President.
Various amendments were discussed and strong difference of opinion manifested, but in the address of the freemen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, at the close of their labors, they recommended a continuance of the frame of government.
They say, “if with heart and hand united, we will all combine to support the Constitution, and apply its injunction to the best use of society, we shall find it a source of the richest blessings. We would earnestly recommend this to you. Give it a fair and honest trial; and if after all, at the end of another seven years, it shall be found necessary or proper to introduce any changes, they may then be brought in, and established upon a full conviction of their usefulness, with harmony and good temper, without noise, tumult, or violence.”
A majority of the members favored amending the Constitution, so that the Legislature should consist of a house of representatives of 100 members and a legislative council of twenty-nine members; that the executive power be vested in a Governor with a veto power; that the Judges should be appointed by the Governor to serve during good behavior, with fixed salaries and that the Council of Censors should be abolished.
Twelve Councilors favored and nine opposed these amendments, a two-thirds vote could not be had. The majority issued an appeal, as did the minority. Then followed a pamphlet war on the action of the convention, lasting all summer. It was not, however, especially bitter.
On resuming its sessions the Council then assumed its rights under the Constitution, but could arrive at no definite conclusion, and finally resolved “that there does not appear to this Council an absolute necessity to call a convention to alter or explain or amend the Constitution.” This report was adopted by a vote of 14 to 8, a marked change in the opinion of some of the censors since their previous action.
This change was occasioned by the people. A petition signed by 18,000 persons had been sent to the Council of Censors, opposing all changes in the Constitution. Then, too, George Bryan had been elected from Philadelphia to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of a Conservative. Bryan was a radical of the radicals, and his election was sensed as an indication of the drift of public sentiment.
President Muhlenberg admitted early in the summer that the Conservatives were beaten, and attributed it to the “blind passion and mad party spirit of the common crowd.” General Joseph Reed thought their chief mistake was in presenting too many amendments. Bryan was severely attacked, and was characterized as the censor general of Pennsylvania.
In justification of their cause the censors simply issued an address to the people and then adjourned. They admitted that there were defects in the Constitution, but they could not agree on the changes. Even this address lacked unanimity, for twelve voted for it and nine opposed it. Thus the Constitution, which had been assailed so long, weathered the first storm and still remained unchanged.
The discontent with the Constitution did not die with the inaction of the censors. The old confederation was now expiring and the chaos was becoming darker than ever. Finally when all authority was gone, and the people had suffered enough for the lack of it, they were willing to adopt another constitution containing the principles of enduring life.
The movement that led to the ratification of the Federal Constitution by Pennsylvania gave the proponents of a new constitution the suggestion that a convention should be called to adopt another constitution for Pennsylvania.
The necessary steps were then taken, and the Legislature, acting upon petitions addressed to it, after many heated debates, reported the resolutions from the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendations.
By this time it was clearly evident the majority of the people desired this in preference to a new Constitution made by the Council of Censors.
Furthermore, the Bill of Rights recognized the people as possessed of all the necessary powers in the premises. The report recommended a plan for the election of members to the proposed convention, and method of procedure. The resolution was adopted by a vote of 39 to 17.
The learned members of the Council of Censors did not agree; indeed, there was a strong and general feeling, especially among the most influential and intelligent, that the Constitution of 1776 was inadequate, and was still more so since the close of the war, when the situation was entirely changed.changed. On November 24, 1789, the convention met to revise the Constitution.