One of the most interesting and irritating episodes that became interwoven with the administration of Governor James Pollock was what was then known as the Erie Riots.

Pollock was seriously handicapped at the outset of his administration by the only Know Nothing Legislature in the history of the State. Nothing constructive came out of this session, but a movement was begun which led to the sale of the Main Line of the public works. In this the Governor was a strong advocate, and two years later the Legislature passed the enabling acts by which the Pennsylvania Railroad Company became the purchaser.

The Erie and Northwestern Railroad Company had built a short line to connect with the New York Central at Buffalo, and with the Lake Shore Line at Erie, by which a continuous railway line was made to the West. The several railroads at that time did not have uniform gauge, and the road west of Erie was of a different gauge than those east of that city, which was the most important connecting point; and all passengers and traffic were required to be transferred at Erie.

The necessities of the growing commerce required that the causes of this detention in transfer should be removed, both on account of the delay and the cost of handling of the freight, and the annoyance to the passengers in changing cars, all of which was because there was a difference of one or two inches in the gauge of the rails of the two lines.

The railroads therefore changed the gauge. This action aroused the hostility of the people of the city of Erie, whose sympathies the railway company seemed to have generally alienated and the battle progressed little by little until the entire community became involved in one of the mostmost disgraceful local conflicts of the history of Pennsylvania.

On December 9, 1853, two railroad bridges and many crossings were destroyed by a mob of women, and a great parade of the rioters was held amid the shouts of their sympathizers and jeers of their opponents.

The people, however, were not all on one side. They were in fact, about equally divided.

The contending forces were popularly known as “Rippers” and “Shanghais.” The former term was applied to those who favored the break of the gauge, as they repeatedly ripped up the tracks of the road.

This contest continued for several years and so completely inflamed the entire community that the prominent citizens became divided on the issue and ceased all social intercourse. They even carried that feeling so far that they would not worship at the same church.

Erie was an important county, and although reliably Whig, all political ties were disregarded and only those could be elected to the Legislature who would work for the repeal of the charter of the Erie and Northwestern Road.

After a long and bitter conflict the bill transferring the custody of the road to the State was passed and approved by Governor Pollock. The charter powers passed to the Commonwealth and the road in consequence was operated by State authorities.

The Governor appointed ex-Congressman Joseph Casey as State superintendent to operate the road. After struggling for a few months in vain efforts to harmonize the people and to maintain an open line of communication between the East and West, he resigned in disgust.

Governor Pollock then appointed General William F. Small, of Philadelphia, a veteran of the Mexican War and an experienced member of the State Senate, in the expectation that he would be able to calm down the belligerents and operate the line. After a few weeks on the job he resigned. The Governor urged his close friend, Colonel Alexander K. McClure, of Philadelphia, but formerly of Chambersburg, to assume the uninviting task.

Colonel McClure was given full authority to handle the situation as he thought best. He went to Erie and soon won the confidence of leaders of both factions, with many of whom he already had personal acquaintance.

Lined up against the railroad were such men of importance as Judge James Thompson, afterward Chief Justice of the State; State Senator James Skinner, Mr. Morrow B. Lowrey, later a member of the State Senate, and a large number of men prominent in the business circles of the city.

On the other side were men of like distinction, such as John H. Walker, former State Senator and president of the last Constitutional Convention; Senator J. B. Johnson, who was also editor of the Constitution, one of the leading papers of the city; Milton C. Courtright, a principal stockholder of the railroad company, and many others.

Each faction entertained Colonel McClure. The city was in distress; even its population had dwindled to about 5000. Business was at a standstill. The only question discussed in the home, shop, store, church or on the street was the railroad issue.

Colonel McClure endeavored to hold conferences with the leaders, but when one faction was willing to attend the other rebelled and vice versa. Finally he worked out a plan by which it appeared the road could be operated without interference.

Colonel McClure started East on a vacation, but only two days later received a dispatch stating that rioting had again broken out afresh, that Senator Johnson’s printing office had been destroyed and the materials burned in a bonfire on the street.

McClure returned and immediately got into communication with the leaders. It was learned that the mob spirit was to blame; the leaders had endeavored to restrain them, but without avail.

Colonel McClure determined that no further efforts be made to harmonize the difficulty but that he would operate the road if it required a soldier upon every cross-tie to protect the property, whether the offenders wore trousers or petticoats.

Two leaders of each faction were invited to the Colonel’s room without either knowing the others were invited. Judge Thompson arrived on the hour, and soon ex-Senator Walker entered. Walker and Courtright on the one side and Thompson and Skinner on the other had had no social, business or personal intercourse for more than a year.

With unusual diplomacy Colonel McClure induced these leaders to shake hands and drink a friendly glass with him. Soon the others arrived and then before many moments the five were enjoying the genial hospitality of the colonel and the best supper that Brown’s Hotel could furnish. A game of cards was enjoyed until the sun appeared in the morning, when they all shook hands, each repaired to his own home and the Erie riots became only a bit of the history of Pennsylvania.

Count Zinzindorf arrived in Philadelphia December 10, 1741. He was full of enthusiasm, eager to preach the gospel to all men. His idea was to unite all Protestant denominations into a Christian confederacy.

Nicholas Ludwig, Count von Zinzindorf, was born at Dresden, Germany, May 26, 1700. In August, 1727, on his estate at Herrnhut (“The Lord’s Keeping”), in Saxony, he organized some three hundred persons, emigrants from Moravia and Bohemia, into a religious organization known indiscriminately as “The Church of the Brethren” and “Herrnhutters”—the forerunner of the United Brethren, or Moravian Church in America.

In 1733 this society had become a distinct Church and in 1737, Zinzindorf was consecrated Bishop, and was the “Advocate” of the Church until his death.

He came to America to inspect the Moravian establishments in general here, and especially to acquaint himself with the fruits of the Brethren’s labors among the Indians. He certainly did not come to this country with a view of founding Moravian congregations.

The nobleman’s activity consisted chiefly in preaching in Philadelphia and the neighborhood, and holding seven synods or free meetings of all denominations, most of them at Germantown, each lasting two or three days. These meetings were without practical results, but they surely served to awaken a greater interest in religious matters.

December 31, 1741, he appeared for the first time in an American pulpit, preaching to a large congregation in the German Reformed Church at Germantown. A few months later the Hon. James Logan wrote to a friend concerning Zinzindorf as follows:

“He speaks Latin and French, is aged I suppose between forty and fifty years, wears his own hair and is in all other respects very plain as making the propagation of the gospel his whole purpose and business.”

Zinzindorf’s stay in this country was a period of varied and strenuous activity. Few men could have accomplished in the same time what he did.

Dr. Gill, in his “Life of Zinzindorf,” says the Count gave the Indians among whom he went on his several missionary tours “a practical insight into the religion he came to teach by simply leading a Christian life among them; and, when favorable impressions had thus been made and inquiry was excited, he preached the leading truths of the gospel, taking care not to put more things into their heads than their hearts could lay hold of. His mode of approaching them was carefully adapted to their distinctive peculiarities.”

Early in the spring of 1741 David Zeisberger and his son David, John Martin, Mack and some four or five more of the Moravian Brethren, who had already established several missions in this country, began a new missionary settlement near the “Forks” of the Delaware, on land derived from William Allen, Esq., of Philadelphia, and lying at the confluence of the Lehigh River and Monacasy Creek, in Buck’s (now Northampton) County.

On Christmas Eve of the same year this settlement received the name of “Bethlehem” from Count Zinzindorf, who had arrived there a few days previously. Ever since then Bethlehem has been the headquarters in this country of the Moravian Church, now known as the “Church of the United Brethren in the United States of America.”

From Bethlehem and other Moravian mission stations the Brethren went out among the Indians, making converts and establishing new missions. The Indian wars had hardened the hearts of the New England Puritans against the aborigines, and it was left to the Moravians to preach a gentler creed to the Indians.

In May, 1742, Zinzindorf was called by the Lutherans of Philadelphia to be their pastor, but he declined, as he intended to journey to the Indian country.

Reverend John C. Pyrlaeus, a minister of the Moravian Church, was called in his stead. There was a strong faction in the Lutheran Church hostile to the Moravians, and July 9, 1742, Pyrlaeus was forcibly ejected by a gang of ruffians from the church. Some of the congregation followed him, and this event led to the erection of the First Moravian Church in Philadelphia. Zinzindorf paid for its erection out of his own purse.

August 3, 1742, Count Zinzindorf visited Conrad Weiser at his home, on Tulpehocken, and there met the chief deputies of the Six Nations and some other Indians, who had been at the Philadelphia conference, and on their way home were paying Weiser a visit. Among them were Shikellamy and Canassatego.

With those chiefs the Count ratified a covenant of friendship in behalf of the Brethren, stipulating for permission for the latter to pass to and from and sojourn within the domains of the Iroquois Confederacy; not as strangers, but as friends and without suspicion, until such times as they should have “mutually learned each other’s peculiarities.”

In reply to the speech made by Zinzindorf, Canassatego said: “Brother, you have journeyed a long way from beyond the sea in order to preach to the white people and the Indians. You did not know we were here (at Tulpehocken). We had no knowledge of your coming. The Great Spirit has brought us together. Come to our people; you shall be welcome. Take this fathom of wampum; it is a token that our words are true.”

This “fathom” was composed of 186 white wampums, and was preserved by the Brethren for a long time, and was often used in conference with Indians.

September 24, 1742, Zinzindorf and Weiser set out on horseback for Shamokin and Wyoming. They were also accompanied by the Count’s daughter, Benigna, Anna Nitschmann, two Indians and John Martin Mack.

The Count kept a journal of his trip which is most interesting. The little company spent several days the guests of the great vicegerent, Shikellamy at Shamokin (now Sunbury), and then proceeded along the West Branch to what is now Montoursville, where they met the celebrated Madame Montour and her son, Andrew.

The Count and his companions remained with the Montours for four days, during which several religious services were held.

The party left October 9, under the guidance of Andrew Montour, and at the mouth of Warrior Run they took a southeasterly direction, striking the North Branch at what is now Bloomsburg, and thence traveled to Wyoming.

During his stay at this place they were several times seriously threatened by Indians, and Weiser finally persuaded the missionaries to depart, which they did on October 30. Zinzindorf returned to Bethlehem via Shamokin, arriving there November 8.

January 20, 1743, Count Zinzindorf set sail from New York for Dover, England, and never returned to this country. He died at Herrnhut May 9, 1760. He was the author of many sermons, hymns, catechisms and a number of controversial and devotional works. He published more than 100 works of prose and verse.

When the British army held possession of Philadelphia, September 26, 1777, to June 19, 1778, General Howe’s headquarters were in Second Street, the fourth door below Spruce, in a house which was before occupied by General John Cadwallader. Directly opposite resided William and Lydia Darrah, members of the Society of Friends.

A superior officer of the British Army, believed to be the adjutant general, fixed upon one of the chambers in the Darrah home, a back room, for holding private conferences, and two or more officers, frequently met there, by candle light, and remained long in consultation.

On December 2, 1777, the adjutant general told Lydia Darrah that they would be in the room at seven o’clock that evening; they would remain late, and that he wished the family to retire early to bed, adding that when they were going away they would call her to let them out and to extinguish their candles and fire.

She accordingly sent all the family to bed, but as the high officer had been so particular, her womanly curiosity was excited. She removed her shoes, and walked quietly to the door, when she placed her ear to the keyhole and listened to the conversation of the officers, which was held in subdued tones. She overheard the reading of an order which was to call out all the British troops on the evening of the 4th to attack General Washington’s army, then encamped at White Marsh.

On hearing this news she returned in her chamber and lay down. Soon after the officer knocked at the door, but she rose only at the third summons, having feigned herself asleep. Her mind was so much agitated that she could neither eat nor sleep, supposing it to be in her power to save the lives of thousands of her fellow-countrymen, but not knowing how she was to convey the information to General Washington, not even daring to communicate it to her husband.

The time left, however, was short. She must act promptly. She determined to make her way quickly as possible to the American outposts. In the early morning she informed her family that, as she was in need of flour, she would go to Frankford for some. Her husband insisted that she take her maid servant with her, but to his surprise she politely refused.

She got access to General Howe and solicited a pass through the British line, which was readily granted. Leaving her bag at the mill, she hastened toward the American lines and encountered on her way an American lieutenant colonel by the name of Craig, of the Light Horse, who, with some of his men, was on the lookout for information.

The officer recognized Mrs. Darrah as an acquaintance, and inquired where she was going. She answered, in quest of her son, an officer in the American Army, and prayed that the colonel might alight and walk with her. He did so, ordering his troops to keep in sight.

To Colonel Craig she disclosed her secret after having obtained from him a solemn promise never to betray her individually, as her life might be at stake with the British.

The colonel conducted her to a house near at hand, directed something be given her to eat, and he then hastened with all possible speed to headquarters, where he immediately acquainted General Washington with what he had heard.

Washington put in motion every possible preparation to baffle the meditated surprise.

Mrs. Darrah obtained her flour and returned home; sat up alone to watch the movement of the British troops, heard their footsteps as they silently marched away; but when they returned a few days after, she did not dare to ask a question, though solicitous to learn of the event.

The following evening the adjutant general came to the house and requested Mrs. Darrah to walk up to his room, as he wished to put some questions to her.

She followed him in terror; and when he locked the door and begged her, with an air of mystery, to be seated, she was sure that she was either suspected or betrayed.

He inquired earnestly whether any of her family was up the last night when he and the other officers met. She assured him that they all retired at 8 o’clock. He then observed:

“I know you were asleep, for I knocked at your chamber door three times before you heard me. I am entirely at a loss to imagine who gave General Washington information of our intended attack, unless the walls of the house could speak. When we arrived near White Marsh we found all their cannon mounted and the troops prepared to receive us, and we have marched back like a parcel of fools.”

Among the published correspondence of General Washington is a letter written by him, addressed Headquarters, Whitemarsh, 10 December, 1777, which is as follows:

“Sir—I have the honor to inform you that in the course of last week, from a variety of intelligence, I had reason to expect that General Howe was preparing to give us a general action. Accordingly, on Thursday night he moved from the city with all his force, except a very inconsiderable part left in his lines and redoubts, and appeared the next morning on Chestnut Hill, in front of, and about three miles distant from, our right wing.

“As soon as our position was discovered, the Pennsylvania militia were ordered from our right, to skirmish with their light advanced parties; and I am sorry to mention, that Brigadier General Irvine, who led them on, had the misfortune to be wounded and to be taken prisoner. Nothing more occurred on that day.

“On Friday night the enemy changed their ground, and moved to our left within a mile of our line, where they remained quiet and advantageously posted the whole of the next day.

“On Sunday they inclined still further to our left; and, from every appearance there was reason to apprehend they were determined on an action. In this movement their advanced and flanking parties were warmly attacked by Colonel Morgan and his corps and also by the Maryland militia under Colonel Gist. Their loss I cannot ascertain; but I am informed it was considerable.

“On Monday afternoon they began to move again, and instead of advancing, filed off from their right; and the first certain account that I could obtain of their intentions was, that they were in full march toward Philadelphia.

“The enemy’s loss, as I have observed, I cannot ascertain. One account from the city is that 500 wounded had been sent in; another is that eighty-two wagons had gone in with men in this situation. These, I fear, are both exaggerated, and not to be depended upon. We lost twenty-seven men in Morgan’s corps, killed and wounded, besides Major Morris, a brave and gallant officer, who is among the latter.”

In a second letter to Congress, dated Headquarters near the Guelph, 11, December, 1777, General Washington referred to the bravery of a Pennsylvanian as being the means of saving the army. There is hardly a doubt but that he had in mind the brave action of Lydia Darrah, one of the heroines of our country.

The establishment of a free nation resulted through the close of the war of independence, yet it also brought anxious solicitude to every patriot’s mind, and this state of apprehension increased with each succeeding year.

The State debts operated severely on all classes, to meet the payment of which was impossible. This and kindred troubles, financial and governmental, impressed the people with the gloomy conviction that the great work of independence was only half done. It was felt that above all things a definite and organic form of government—reflecting the will of the people—should be fixed upon, to give energy to national power and success to individual and public enterprise.

So portentous a crisis as this formed another epoch for the display of the intellectual and political attainments of American statesmen, and the ordeal was one through which they passed with the highest honor and with ever-enduring fame at home and abroad.

A change was now to be wrought. The same hall which had resounded with words of patriotic defiance that shook the throne of King George III and proclaimed to an astonished world the Declaration of Independence, that same hall in which the Congress had continued to sit during the greater part of that war, the State House in Philadelphia, was soon to witness the assembling of such a body of men as in point of intellectual talent, personal integrity and lofty purpose had perhaps never before been brought together.

On the proposition of uniting the water of the Ohio and Potomac Rivers deputies from five States met at Annapolis in September, 1786. Their powers were too limited, and nothing was accomplished. This meeting was not, however, without its beneficial effect, for there were assembled men who deeply felt the depressed and distracted condition of the country, and put their sentiments into action.

They drew up a report and an address to all the States strongly representing the inefficiency of the present Federal Government, and earnestly urging them to send delegates to meet in Philadelphia in May, 1787. Congress responded to this proceeding in February by adopting resolutions recommending the proposed measure.

On the day appointed for the meeting, May 14, 1787, only a small number of delegates had arrived in Philadelphia. The deliberations did not commence, therefore, until May 25, when there were present twenty-nine members representing nine States. Others soon arrived, until there were fifty-five to respond to their names. Never, perhaps, had any body of men combined for so great a purpose, to form a constitution which was to rule a great people for many generations.

Washington was the outstanding figure, and then the idol of the whole people. And there was Rufus King, Gerry and Strong, of Massachusetts; Langdon, of New Hampshire; Ellsworth and Sherman, of Connecticut; Hamilton, of New York; Livingston and Dickinson, of New Jersey; Randolph, Wythe and Madison, of Virginia; Martin, of Maryland; Davies, of North Carolina; Rutledge and Pickens, of South Carolina.

From our own great Commonwealth were Franklin, one of the profoundest philosophers in the world, and, though nearly fourscore years of age, was able to grasp and throw light upon the complex problems relating to the science of government; Robert Morris, the great financier, of whom it has been truthfully said, that “Americans owed, and still owe, as much acknowledgment to the financial operations of Robert Morris, as to the negotiations of Benjamin Franklin, or even to the arms of George Washington.” Gouverneur Morris conspicuous for his accomplishments in learning, his fluent conversation, and sterling abilities in debate; George Clymer, distinguished among Pennsylvanians as one of the first to raise a defiant voice against the aribitrary acts of the mother country; Thomas Mifflin, ardent almost beyond discretion, in zeal for his country’s rights and liberties; James Wilson, the most distinguished lawyer in that body, and Jared Ingersoll, another of the great lawyers of that day.

When the convention proceeded to organize, Robert Morris nominated General Washington to preside, and he was unanimously elected. Standing rules were adopted, one of which was that nothing spoken during the deliberations be printed or otherwise published or made known in any manner without special permission.

The delegates to the convention had been appointed merely with a view to the revision or improvement of the old Articles of Confederation, which still held the States together as a Nation.

Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, in opening the great discussion, laid bare the defects of the Articles of Confederation, and then submitted a series of resolutions embodying the substance of a plan of government, similar to that suggested in letters of Washington, Madison and Jefferson a few months previous.

The plan in question proposed the formation of a general government, constituted as follows: The national legislature to consist of two branches, the members of the first branch to be elected by the people of the several States, and the members of the second branch to be elected by the first branch; a national chief executive to be chosen by the national legislature; and a national judiciary. Provision also was made for the admission of new states into the Union.

Mr. Randolph’s plan had many supporters, but other projects were brought forward, which occasioned angry debates for some days, and but for the timely and healing wisdom of Dr. Franklin, the mentor of the Constitution, might have broken up the body.

The debate closed September 17, and the result of the convention’s labors was the formation of a constitution establishing a national government on the principles that the affairs of the people of the United States were thenceforth to be administered not by a confederacy or mere league of friendship between the Sovereign States, but by a government, distributed into three great departments—legislative, judicial and executive.

The final draft of the Constitution was signed by all members present except Randolph and Mason, of Virginia and Gerry, of Massachusetts. Washington signed first, and as he stood, pen in hand, said: “Should the States reject this excellent Constitution, the probability is that an opportunity will never again be offered to cancel another in peace—the next will be drawn in blood.” The other members solemnly signed the historic document.

The convention, however, was not clothed with legislative power, nor was the Continental Congress, competent to accept or reject it. It was referred to the several States to be the law of the Nation when ratified by nine of the States.

It was not until the summer of 1788 that ratification of the nine States was obtained, beginning with Delaware, December 7, 1787, closely followed by Pennsylvania, five days later, December 12, 1787, some by large and some by very small majorities.

In New York the opposition resulted in serious riots. Of the thirteen original states, Rhode Island was the last to accept the Constitution, which she did in May, 1790.

Thomas McKean became Governor of Pennsylvania December 17, 1799.

With the election of McKean there was at once a lively commotion concerning the disposition of offices, and for the first time in the history of the State the Governor found himself confronted with this new and perplexing problem.

There never had been any radical change in the offices during the long period of the Provincial Government, while the party of the Revolution, after the war, with the single exception of Dickinson’s term, had been in power until this time. But now the political ax was to be swung. McKean knew how to swing it and the work suited his strong nature. His course was sharply criticized, and party feeling during his entire administration was exceedingly warm and bitter.

The Federalists in the Legislature made an attack upon the Governor for holding the principles he enunciated, and the address of the Senate was one of accusation instead of congratulation.

Governor McKean made a long reply, declaring that the objectionable expressions were uttered before he assumed office, and that as regards the removals from office he relied upon his right to make such changes as he deemed proper, without accountability to any person or party.

In the address of the Democratic nominee for 1803 is used the following language: “As Pennsylvania is the keystone of the Democratic arch, every engine will be used to sever it from its place”—being probably the first instance in which the comparison of the Commonwealth to the keystone of an arch was used, and the origin of a figure of speech since very common.

During the session of the Legislature, December 13, 1803, a memorial was presented from Thomas Passmore, of Philadelphia, charging Justices Jasper Yeates, Edward Shippen and Thomas Smith of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, with oppression and false imprisonment, the complainant having been committed for contempt of court.

The matter was considered in General Assembly and the House recommended that the court be impeached for high misdemeanors. Articles of complaint were prepared and the impeachment sent to the Senate. It was not until the subsequent session that proceedings were had when upon the final vote in the Senate, 13 voted guilty and 11 not guilty. The constitutional majority of two-thirds not being obtained the accused were acquitted.

In this proceeding the chief point in connection was the extent to which the common law of England was applicable or in force in Pennsylvania; whether the justices had exceeded their authority in construing its provisions and harmonizing them with the statutes then in force, and also with peculiar exigencies of the case out of which the impeachment had grown.

As an element of State history the affair of the impeachment of the justices was of minor importance. In its relation to the jurisprudence of the Commonwealth, it was a subject of great moment, and was discussed and commented upon in all the populous States of the country, as the beginning of a movement to set aside the strict teachings of English common law and to establish precedents applicable to our own necessities without especial regard to those which originally had been imported from the Mother Country.

The time had come when an independent judicial system in this State was made necessary, and this was one of the beginnings.

It can hardly be questioned but that partisan politics played some part in the impeachment proceedings, as Justices Yeates, Shippen and Smith belonged to the Federalist Party, and their impeachment would have made three fine places for their opponents. It was ever thus.

A movement was started in 1805 by a faction of the Democratic Party for revision of the Constitution. It grew out of the impeachment proceedings, and the advocates of the measure proposed to make the election of Senators annual, to reduce the patronage of the Governor and to limit the tenure of the judiciary.

This new party assumed the name of “Constitutionalists,” while those opposed styled themselves “Friends of the People.” The controversy for some reason was carried on with much bitterness.

Governor McKean strongly opposed another constitutional convention, and in a message expressed his views as follows:

“The organization of the judicial power of Pennsylvania has been long and fairly condemned. But there is not a defect suggested from any quarter which the Legislature is not competent to remedy. The authority of the Judges may be restricted or enlarged. The law they dispense, whether statute law or common law, may be annulled or modified. The delay of justice may be obviated by increasing the number of judges in proportion to the obvious increase of judicial business or by instituting local tribunals, where local cases demand a more constant exercise of jurisdiction.”

Although the constitutional convention was not held, the proposition found many supporters in all parties. Under the changed conditions McKean’s friends knew that Editor Duane’s influence would seek to defeat his renomination for Governor if possible. The nomination for Governor was then made by a legislative caucus.

The legislative nominating caucus at Lancaster dissolved in confusion. Some were for McKean, while others equally enthusiastic were for Simon Snyder, the speaker of the House. The “Freeman’s Journal” characterized Snyder as a “Pennsylvania Dutchman” and intimated that even Duane in the “Aurora” did not give him a very hearty support. The campaign was spirited. Numerous societies were formed and addresses in German broadcast.

Governor McKean was elected by 5601 majority and once more found himself supported by those from whom he had broken away only a few years before. The Constitutionalists soon disappeared from the political stage.

The re-election of the Governor was not without its losses, however, for soon afterward he became involved in libel suits with Duane, Dr. Leib and others, while they in the spirit of retaliation presented the Governor for impeachment on charges of abuse of the executive power.

The impeachment proceedings were hardly more than a revival of the old political troubles in which envy and jealousy played the leading roles. The committee of the House investigated the charges and reported to the House, when a vote was taken which resulted in a tie. The division was strictly on party lines, and the matter was therefore indefinitely postponed. The Governor’s reputation was in no wise injured in the unfortunate action.

The Governor, in a message to the General Assembly, reminded the members that “libeling had become the crying sin of the Nation and the times.” He strongly denounced a condition which permitted the prostitution of the liberty of the press, the overwhelming torrent of political dissension, the indiscriminate demolition of public characters, and the barbarous inroads upon the peace and happiness of individuals, etc.

Dueling was prohibited by an act of Assembly in Pennsylvania March 31, 1806, and it is a fact that the passage of this prohibitory measure was due wholly, or in a great degree, to a duel which had occurred between John Binns and Samuel Stewart December 14, 1805.

The prominence of the antagonists had much to do with the public feeling which followed this affair.

Binns was the owner and editor of the Republican Argus, of Northumberland, the most influential newspaper published at that time in the State save the Aurora, of Philadelphia, and Binns was the agency which, a few years later, drove that paper out of publication.

Samuel Stewart was a resident of Williamsport, where he enjoyed a wide political influence, which made him the object of attack in the opposition newspapers.

John Binns in his autobiography says: “On Saturday, November 2, 1805, while I was in the public ball alley, in Sunbury, with a yellow pine bat in my right hand, tossing a ball against a wall, waiting for Major Charles Maclay to play a game, a very tall, stout stranger came to me and said:

“‘My name is Sam Stewart, of Lycoming County; your name, I understand, is John Binns, and that you are the editor of the Republican Argus.’ I answered: ‘You have been correctly informed,’ ‘I wish,’ said he, ‘to know who is the author of the letters published in that paper signed “One of the People.”' ‘For what purpose?’ said I. ‘Because,’ said he, ‘there are some remarks in one of them which reflect upon my character, and I must know the author.’

“With this demand I declined to reply, but said: ‘If there be anything in them untrue it shall be corrected.’ Stewart, who was standing at my right side, instantly threw his left arm across my breast and with it held both my arms tight above the elbows and at the same time threw his right arm across the back of my head, violently pushing the end of his forefinger into the corner of my right eye, evidently with intent to tear it out of my head.

“Upon the instant I struck him, with all the strength I could command, over the shin with the edge of the yellow pine bat, which I fortunately had in my right hand. This severe blow made Stewart instantly snatch his finger from my eye, and seizing me around the waist with both arms lifted me from the ground and endeavored to throw me down.

“This attack and struggle took place in the ball alley of Henry Schaffer, into whose hotel I went and wrote a note, which was handed to Mr. Stewart forthwith by Major Maclay, Sunbury, November 2, 1805. ‘After threatening me like a bravo, you have attacked me like a ruffian. Some satisfaction ought to be rendered for such conduct. If you have the spirit and the courage to meet me as a gentleman, and will appoint time and place and meet me with pistols, accompanied by a friend, what has passed shall be overlooked by John Binns.’

“To this note Mr. Stewart returned a verbal answer, by Major Maclay, that he was going to the city, but would be back in two or three weeks, when he would acquaint Mr. Binns of his arrival and give him time to send to Buffalo (Union County) for Major Maclay, who, he presumed, would attend Mr. Binns as his friend on the occasion.

“On the day of its date I received a note, of which the following is a copy, from Andrew Kennedy, the printer of the Northumberland Gazette, who informed me Mr. Stewart was at his house, and requested that any answer I thought proper to send should be sent there.

“‘Northumberland, Dec. 13, 1805.

“‘When I received your challenge I was at that time on my way to the city, and had it not in my power to meet you, but now I am here, ready to see you. You will therefore, mention the time and place, and you will have it in your power to try my spirits that you so much doubted; it must be immediately; let me hear from you.'

“To this note I forthwith returned the following answer:

“‘Yours I have just received. You are aware that my friend Major Maclay is to attend me; so soon as he arrives, I shall be ready; I shall send for him immediately, and expect he will lose no time in coming to Northumberland, in which case I presume every necessary arrangement can be made between him and your friend this evening and we can meet tomorrow morning.’

“Immediately after writing the above note, I wrapped a pair of pistols in my great-coat pocket and walked about half a mile to the house of William Bonham, where I had directed that my horse, and any answer sent to my note, should be forwarded. While waiting at Bonham’s, Major Maclay arrived. I made him a statement of all that had passed between Stewart and myself, put him in full possession of my opinion and wishes, and he went to Northumberland to settle the time and place.

“On Maclay’s return, he informed me that the meeting was to be at 7 o’clock the next morning behind Lawshe’s house, opposite Derrstown, where we agreed to sleep that night.

“We were on the ground at 7 o’clock just at the gray of the morning. In a few minutes, we saw Stewart and Kennedy coming down the lane. After mutual salutations, Maclay and Kennedy then retired and after some conversation,conversation, stepped eight paces and placed Stewart and myself at the extreme ends of the line. Maclay then said: ‘Gentlemen, it is agreed between Kennedy and myself, that if either of the parties shall leave his ground until the affair is finally settled, such party shall be regarded as disgraced.’

“The seconds then tossed up to determine which of whom should give the word. Maclay won. The pistols were presented and discharged so simultaneously that but one report was heard. Neither of the balls took effect. Maclay then addressed Kennedy and said, ‘You had better consult your principal, and I will do the same.’ Maclay’s first words to Binns were, ‘Kennedy is a scoundrel. He is determined, if he can, to have you shot.’ Binns said, ‘Very well, you know the terms agreed upon and we will carry them out.’

“Mr. Maclay came between the antagonists and said, 'Gentlemen, I think this business has gone far enough and may be amicably and honorably adjusted. To effect this I propose that Mr. Stewart shall apologize for the attack he made upon Mr. Binns, and then Mr. Binns declare that the publication which gave offense to Mr. Stewart was not made from any wish to wound the feelings or injuriously affect the character of Mr. Stewart, but because Mr. Binns believed it to be true and that it was a matter proper for public publication.’”

After a pause Mr. Stewart made the required apology and Binns made the declaration which his friend proposed.

The matter being thus satisfactorily arranged, the parties shook hands and at a tavern in the neighborhood they and their friends breakfasted together. Stewart and Binns continued friends.

Stewart was elected to the Assembly from Lycoming County by the Federal Party and every year voted for John Binns, then editor of the Democratic Press, of Philadelphia, as a director of the Pennsylvania Bank.