USA > Delaware > History of Delaware : 1609-1888 > Part 29
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87
" Whereas, there are disputes depending between the respective pro- priutors of the provinces of Maryland and Pennsylvama, touching the Iunita or boundaries of the said provinces, where they are contiguous to rach other. And whereas, both partra are sincerely inclined to enter into a treaty in order to take such methods as may be advisalde for the final determining this and controversy, by agreeing upon such lines of other marks of distinction, to be settled as may remun for a perpetual boundary between the two provinces.
" It is, therefore, mutually agreed upon between the light Honorable Charles Lord Baltimore, proprietor and Governor of Maryland, and Hannah Penn, widow and executrix of William Penn, Esq , late pro- prietor and governor of Pennsylvania and Joshua tree of London, merchant, and Heury Gouldney, of London, linen draper, in behalf of themselves and the rest of the mortzagers of the province of Pentisyl- vania, that for avoiding of all manner of contentions or differences between the inhudutants of the sul providers, no person or persons shall be disturbed or molested in their posses-mos on either side, nor any land- Iw si,rveyed, taken up, ": granted in eitherof the sand provinces near the boundaries which have been cinimed or pre ended to be on either
" This agreement to continue for the space of eighteen months from the date hereaf, is which time 'tis hoped the boundaries will be det. r. maner and settled, and it is mutually agreed on by the sand parties that proclamations be issued out in the raid provinces signifying this agree-
1 " ('olonial B. words of Pennsylvania, Vol. iii , p. 214."
118
HISTORY OF DELAWARE.
meut for the better quieting of the people. And the heutenant gov. ernors and other proper officers of the respective provinces for the time being are directed and enjoined to conform thentrives agreeable here- unto, and to issue out proclamations accordingly upon the receipt hereof.
"In witness whereof, the parties above-named have hereunto set their hands this 17th day of February, 1,23.
" Witness-S. CLEMENT, BALTIMORE, CHA. LOWE, JAMES LOGAN, HANNAH PENN, JOSHUA GEE, IIENRY GOULDNEY."
The hope that upon the termination of this agreement the boundaries would have been settled may indeed have been sincere; but that either Lord Baltimore or the Pennsylvanians made any effort to bring about its realization does not in the least appear evident. The document at any rate put an end to the border disputes, but it was far from having any effect towards securing an ar-
Gordon
rangement on a permanent basis. Another deeade elpased before any prospects of such 'a settle- ment made their appearance.
In the summer of 1731 the controversy was again renewed, through the violence of one Holey, of Cecil County, who, with a number of others, had destroyed the feneing around the property of a man named Wherry, residing within the limits of Pennsylvania. By a rather curious series of ju- dicial processes, Holey was finally liberated, and Wherry was proseented on a charge of cutting Holey's timber. The defendant claimed that the timber was on his own proverty, which was situ- ated in Pennsylvania but the Cecil County jury, before which he appeared, decided that the land was in Maryland, in spite of all the agreements between the two provinces to render no decisions as to boundaries until the whole dispute was tin-
ally settled. At the same time a similar com: plaint was entered by an inhabitant of Kent County, who had met with like treatment in Mary. land. This arbitrary style of the Cecil cour :. greatly incensed Governor Gordon, and he a. once opened a correspondence with Governor Cal- vert, of Maryland, protesting against a continy. ance of the existing methods. Governor Calvert responded that on his side he had received com- plaints that the people of the three lower counties on Delaware had been committing similar depre. dations, and that only his indisposition had de- terred him from writing on the same subject. H .. then explained the Maryland position in the Wherry case, but the negotiations were left in a most unsatisfactory condition. In October of the same year (1731) another cause for friction arie out of the abusive actions of Captain Cresap toward the Indians on the eastern side of the Susquehanna. The complexity of the controversy whien grew out of the Cresap affair, doubtless exercised a great in- fluence in forcing the entire boundary question to a settlement, and we are therefore warranted in con- sidering the case in some detail. Penn had guar- anteed the Indians who settled on the Susque- hanna within his territory against all incursion- from the Maryianders on the opposite side of the river. Cresap being a native of Baltimore County, his interference with the Conostogoes was a mat- ter which rightfully required Governor Gordon's interference. It was not long, however, before Cresap entered a counter-claim against Edward Beddock and Rice Morgan, two Pennsylvanians, who, while he (Cresap) was taking them across the river, threw him overboard and carried off his boat. Cresap took his case before Justice Cornish, a Pennsylvania magistrate, and although the offenders were duly convicted, the question of boundaries again came up, it being a disputed point whether the offense was committed in Mary- land or Pennsylvania. Governor Ogle, of Mary- land, also took umbrage at an alleged statement of Cornish, who, as Cresap insisted, said that Mary- landers should not ask for justice in his court. Justice Cornish denied having said this, and his conviction of the prisoners would seem to have proven his impartiality. But notwithstanding this, Governor Ofle continued to write on the sub- ject, and the dispute continued through the spring of 1732 At this point Cresap was entirely sub- ordinated in the public mind to a report from London that an agreement had finally been reached between the contestants in the boundary dispute. The report was a little premature, but steps towards an actual settlement had really been taken. On May I0th. Lord Baltimore, of the one part, and John, Richard and Thomas Penn, of the other, agreed
" That in two calendar months from that date each party should
1
119
BOUNDARY DISPUTES AND SETTLEMENT.
appoint commissioners, not more than seven, whereof three or more of Fach side may act, to mark out the boundaries atorerand, to levin at Fistliest sometime in October, 1232, and to be completed on or before To ember 25th, 15 8, and when so done, a plan thereof shall be signed, w aled and delivered by the commissioners and their principals, and shall *o elifered in all the pubhe othresan the several provinces and counties ; . I to recommend to the respective legislatures, to pars an art for per- .. ! ulating these boutularies at least once in three years The party Jefaniting, to pay to the other party on demand six thonand pounds sterling. "1
The last clause of the agreement gave it a tone of genuine earnestness, and, in fact, two days after the signatures were appended the Penns named Goy- ernor Gordon, Isaac Norris, Samuel Preston, James Logan, Andrew Hamilton, James Steel and Robert Charles as the commissioners on their part to treat with those appointed by Lord Balti- more. On the same day his lordship exeented a similar commission, nominating Samuel Ogle, Charles Calvert, Philemon Lloyd, Michael How- ard, Richard Bennet, Benjamin Tasker and Mat- thew Tilghman Ward, to represent his interests in the approaching convention. It was several months before these commissions reached America, and during the intervening time the correspond- ence between the two Governors was continued, though it was not of importance. Immediately upon the receipt of the papers, about the middle of August, Governor Gordon wrote to Ogle, sug- gesting New Castle as a suitable place for the joint meetings of the commissioners on both sides. The Marylanders preferred Newtown, as being more convenient, and it was arranged to meet at that place on October 6th.
But even while the negotiations were being con- ducted, the border warfare broke out in a more brutal form than ever before. Both parties ap- pear to have been at fault, and it is difficult to say which side is to be blamed for the initial move- ment. On the night of November 26th. John Lowe, of Baltimore County, was awakened by the marauders and made prisoner. He testified after- wards that one of the intruders was James Patti- son, and the second a constable of Lancaster County. Pattison threatened him with a.pistol, but he nevertheless resisted, whereupon six more fell on him. He was knocked down and dragged out of his house, and compelled to cross the Sus. quehanna on the ice, although he had lost his hat and one shoe in the struggle. The next morning he was taken before two justices of Lancaster County, Messrs. Samuel Blimston and John Wright. The only charge brought was that his son had threatened to kill some one, but as nothing was known to implicate the prisoner, the justices dis- charged him. The case well illustrates the extent to which these unwarranted aggressions were car- ried. Lowe had protested that there were magis- trates in Maryland who would apprehend him if he transgressed the law ; but this only elicited the reply from Pattison, who stood over him with a
1 Prond's " History of Pennsylvania," vol. il., 1+ 209
pistol, that the boundary of the territory was to be determined by the power of the people. Cresap was also mixed up in this affair as a witness against the Pennsylvanians, and soon afterwards he is again heard of as going into Lancaster County with a Maryland warrant, and carrying off a laborer named William Humphrey. This was precisely the same offen -- which he himself had complained of against the Pennsylvania authori- ities. Cresap had also become notorious as hav- ing threatened to shoot any officer from Pennsyl- vania who would attempt to apprehend a prisoner on the disputed territory. This trouble again resolved itself into a " boundary dispute," Cresap and his associates holding that the land was Mary- land soil, on the ground that it was within the fortieth degree of north latitude, while Joshua Low, the tax collector of Pennsylvania, testified that over four hundred inhabitants living south of that point had been paying tax to him without protest, and his position received the support of Governor Gordon and the other authorities of the province.
The border troubles next took a southerly course, and we find Kent County the centre of hostile operations The cause of this dispute arose out of the purchase of a piece of land by John Newton. He bought the property of a person who told him that it was held under a Maryland grant, and was situated in Dorche-ter County. Newton accordingly paid taxes for the first year to the Dorchester authorities, when he learned that the land was never granted to any one by Maryland. As it was situated in the doubtful territory, he preferred to become a resident of the lower coun- ties, and had it surveyed as a part of Kent County. For several years he paid his taxes into the Kent treasury, when the Dorchester magistrates levied on him. insisting that he was a resident of Mary- land. He applied to the justices of Kent County, who appointed a constable to protect him, but not- withstanding this, the sheriff of Dorehester raided his place and carried him off. The protecting constable gathered a force and put out in hot por- suit, and after a hot skirmish recaptured the prisoner. This gave rise to a most extensive series of letters between the Governors of the two prov. inces, the justices of Kent and of Maryland, and between private individuals, connected, directly and indirectly, with the affair. Governor Ogle de- manded the surrender of all who had attacked the sheriff of Dorchester County and released his pris- oner, but this was refused by the Pennsylvanians. The relations between the Marylanders and their opponents seemed more strained at this time than for many years, and yet in the whole correspond- ence both parties always gave expression to the sincere hope that the pending negotiations would result in a speedy settlement of the dispute, while
120
HISTORY OF DELAWARE.
each stubbornly contested for minor advantages in this subordinate quarrel.
But not even the more important transactions of the boundary commissioners were conducted without friction. They had met, according to agreement, at Newtown, in Maryland, in October, and after doing very little, adjourned on November 3d, to meet at New Castle on the 1st of the ensuing February. On February 15th, Lord Baltimore addressed a letter to Governor Gordon, complaining of the treatment of the Maryland commissioners, whom he had taken speriai pains te send promptly, in order to facilitate in every possible way the conduet of the negotiations. The Marylanders had arrived at New Casde in ample time to meet their engagement, but although they had repeatedly sent to the commissioners ap- pointed by the Penns, they had refused to come, and it was impossible to proceed with the business. Lord Baltimore also referred to certain improper behavior on the part of the Pennsylvanians towar:is his own commissioners while at New Castle, but did not mention details. He considered the action on this occasion as sufficient ground on which to claim the forfeit provided for in the original agreement, but agreed nevertheless, to hold another meeting on the first Monday in May, at Joppa, in Baltimore County. Governor Gordon in his reply evaded all reference to the ill treat- ment of the commissioners, as this was without foundation, but stated that the commissioners for his province declined to meet at Joppa, since it was situated at too great a distance from the points of most importance, which would have to be visited to determine the boundary lines. As New Castle was one of these places, and was of great prominence, owing to the fact that the cen- tre of the twelve-mile circle was there situated, he thought that was the most suitable place, and named April 16th as the day for convening the members of the commission 1
Thus the meetings were delayed and postponed until the time expired. These delays were plainly due to the machinations of Lord Baltimore, who though it was through his own suggestion that the proceedings of the commissioners had been insti- tuted, found, as matters progressed, that his ignor- ance of the geography of the country placed bim at considerable disadvantage, and therefore made use of all means to interfere with the progress of the commissioners. He had submitted a map of his own, placing Cape Henlopen about twenty miles below the mouth of Delaware Bay. A line was then to be run from this point due west, across the Peninsula From the middle point of this line -- that is, half-way between the two bays-a line was to be drawn northerly, so as to form a tangent to the circle, whose centre was at New Castle, and
1" Colonial Records of Pennsylvania," vol. iii. p. 500.
with a radius of twelve miles. From the point o eentiet with the circle, however, it was to exten ; dine north nutil is i: ached the same latitude a> :. point fifteen miles south of the most souther's part of Philadelphia. A lice due west from th. point, myether with the ure of the New Casti. eirele, was ta form the southern boundary of Penn sylvanin. The lower line, extending west from Cape Henloper, and the northerly line were to have served as southern and western boundaries . the lower counties . This was Lord Baltimore's owa proposition, and was the basis fixed in the articles of May 10, 1732, on which the commi -- sioners were to act. This view of the situa- tion of Cape Hentopen was what the Penns hal always desired, and they were, consequently, ouly too eager to as-ent. No record remains of the proceedings of the commissioners on the occasion- when they did come together ; but it is quite evi- dent that as soon as Lord Baltimore discovered his error he interposed every possible obstacle >0 as to prevent the completion of the work before December, 1733, at the expiration of which time the commissioners were to be discharged. He was eminently successful in this scheme, and after all the laborious negotiations, the dispute still re- mained onsettled. It would not be proper to say that it was no nearer settlement than before, as the terms of the agreement of 1732 actually formed the basis of operations when the final boundaries were drawn by Mason and Dixon, in 1763.
What action the Penns took to secure indem- pity from Lord Baltimore we shall see later, but for the present we must follow up the border troubles, which were not in the least interfered with by the appointment of the commissioners. One of the sufferers was Samuel Moncey, of Mur- der Kill Hundred, in Kent County. At the re- quest of three strangers, who afterwards proved to be Jacob Heynman, Peter Rich and William Underling, and who stated they had lost their way, MIoncey offered to go with them about a mile, on being promised a pistol for his services. He had not gone far, however, before he was seized by the men, and taken to Cambridge jail ; he was next removed to Annapolis, and was in irons for six weeks before he was finally released. Jared Rothwell was likewise arrested in New Castle County by Cecil County magistrates, and similar occurrences on both sides were continually reported as growing out of the doubtful titles to land occupied by the parties concerned. An at- tempt to check the-e broils was made in 1734 The initiative was this time taken by the Governor and Council of Pennsylvania, by the appointment of two commissioners to treat with the Lieutenant- Governor of Maryland, and "conclude on such 2 " Memoirs of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania," vol. i. p. isit'
BOUNDARY DISPUTES AND SETTLEMENTS.
121
measures as may best conduce to preserve peace between both governments, and to prevent irregu- larities for the future, until the boundaries shall be actually run and marked out " The commissioners were Andrew Hamilton and John Georges, and the papers were issued on May 14th. They at once set out for Maryland, and arrived at Annapolis on the 20th. The negotiations were at once begin, each side opening with the declaration that it was the most aggrieved. The oral proceedings resulted in nothing, and Mesers. Hamilton and Georges then presented a formal paper, setting forth their side of the question, and requesting some form of agree- ment. Governor Ogle, in reply, proposed to refer the whole matter to the King. It was evident that Ogle was endeavoring to evade the matter The commissioners then drew up a second document, expressing their desire to come to an immediate agreement, and in response to this, Ogle flatly refused, asserting that the commissi n- ers had acknowledged themselves to be without sufficient authority. He had only reached this conelusion from a most unwarranted miseonstrue- tion of a phrase in their letter to him, and it be- came elear that the mission would prove fruitless. The Pennsylvanians dauntlessly persisted in send- ing a third letter, but waited in vain for a reply. Thus terminated another effort at settlement.
Excitement soon became most intense, however, when it was learned that Lord Baltimore had made application to the King to confirm his charter or grant of the three lower counties. At the request of the mayor and citizens of Philadelphia, the Governor convened the Assembly of the pro- vince to consider this latest step of Lord Baltimore. Little was done, however, except to give expression to the alarm felt at this attempt to usurp the lower counties. In reply to Governor Gordon's address, the Assembly, referring to the efforts of Lord Baltimore to secure the territories npon Delaware, said they thought " it would be attended with eon- sequences truly unhappy to the inhabitants of this province, not only disuniting those whom the same form of government, administered under the pro- prietaries and Governors, and a similitude of in- elinations and interests have elosely united, but in diminishing our trade, depriving many of us of our properties, and destroying those religious and civil liberties which were one of the chief inducements to the first planting of this colony." The Penns fought with all their might against granting the ["tition. They cited Lord Baltimore's voluntary surrender of this territory by the agreement of 1742, as his own acknowledgment that the title was vested in the Penns. The consequence was that, in order to test the validity of this agreement, the Penns were ordered to tile a bill in chancery against Lord Baltimore, demanding the fulfillment of the provisions of the agreement. The bill was
accordingly filed, in 1735, by John, Richard and Thomas Penn, but, with the proverbial delay of the Chancery Court, it was fifteen years before the decision was rendered.1
The interval was characterized by border troubles of a violent nature. In April, 1735, a complaint was entered by Patrick Thomas, of Kent County, Maryland, that James Mullen, Edward Banbury and James Reilly, of Dover, with some others, had dragged him from his house to the Dover prison. The most serious of these frays was an attack on the house of Thomas Cresap. Cresap, as we have seen above, was a desperate character, who was continually mixed up in the disputes on the boundary, but had, nevertheless. attained some prominence in Maryland affairs. The attack was doubtless made by Pennsylvanians who had suffered
Soten Ceny
at his hands. It was not long, however, before Cresap is found at the head of a band of fifty men, invading Lancaster County, and attempting to settle a dispute which would rather have been a matter for the consideration of the Governors. During this raid, among others, Knowles Daunt was killed, and Cresap was captured and charged with his murder. The controversy which arose out of this occurrence forms a monotonous record of letters and depositions. It was followed by outrages, however, which soon disgusted both sides. and made them equally anxious to end this constant state of open warfare. Both the Maryland and Pennsylvania Assemblies forwarded addresses to the King, requesting this interference to put a stop to the disorders. They were immediate in their effect, and brought from the King the following order in Conneil, dated August 18, 1737. It is commanded
1 McMahon, " History of Maryland, " p. 40.
1
122
HISTORY OF DELAWARE.
"that the Governor of the respective provinces of Maryland and Penn- sylvania, for the time being, do not, upon pain of incurring His Majesty's displeasure, perint or suffer any tumult or runts or other ant- nigeuns disanders to be committed of the bordereof their respective provinces ; but that they do immediately put a stop thereto, an 1 ,48 their attnost ende evers to preserve peace and good order amongst all His Majesty's subject- under their government thatating the saul borders. His Majesty doth hereby enjoin the sand bovernors thit they do not make grauts of any part of the lands in contest between the proprietor respectively, nor any part of the three lower counties, commonly called New Castle, Kent and Sussex, not permit any person to settle there, ot even to attempt to make i settlement thereon, till His Majesty's pleasure shall be further signthed. "
It will be noticed that the three counties of the present State of Delaware were always the most prominent cause of the dispute. The King's order, however, had some effect in alaying the trouide and at length, in May, 1738, the proprietors came in person before the Council at Kensington, and agreed to accommodate their difference -. The new arrangement referred particularly to land- in the neighborhood of Philadelphia and the Susquehanna, the lower counties having been freed from the border wars since the promulgation of the King's order in Council. In fact, in the agreement drawn up between the proprietors. it was distinetly stated " that there being no riots that appear to have been committed within the three lower counties of New Castle, Kent and Sussex, it is therefore not thought necessary to continue the latter part of the said order in Council, as to the said three lower counties."1 Two commissioners were appointed on each side to draw the lines as provided for-Richard Peters and Lawrence Growden for Pennsylvania, and Col. Levin Gale and Samuel Chamberlaine for Mary- land. The temporary agreement for the preserva- tion of peace while the work was in progress placed all land above the point fifteen miles sonth of Philadelphia, and not occupied by either, in possession of the Penns, and all south of it, in the hands of Lord Baltimore. This, of course, refers only to the disputed territory on either side of the Susquehanna. The survey was commenced in the spring of 1739, and progressed with some rapidity, although the Pennsylvanians claimed that their brother commissioners proved to them "that men of skill can find a thousand objections against the doing of a thing that they have no mind to." The Marylanders first opened a discussion as to the method of measurement, insisting on measuring horizontally and not superficially, wherever the hills presented a chance of loss to them by the latter process. Next, a controversy arose over the Gunther's chain used by the surveyor, and when these disputes had been settled, the death of Colonel Gale's son called him away, and Mr. Chamberlaine refused to proceed in his absence. Not desiring to have a good work thus ob-tructed, Governor Thomas issued instructions to the Pennsylvania commissioners to continue the work alone, and Messrs. l'eters and Growden continued the line westward to a point eighty-eight miles west of the
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.