USA > Maryland > Washington County > Hagerstown > A history of Washington County, Maryland from the earliest settlements to the present time, including a history of Hagerstown > Part 12
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 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94
The vote stood twenty-four in the negative to twenty-three in the affirmative in a House
65
OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND.
composed of fifty-eight members, thirty from the Western and twenty-eight from the Eastern Shore. Three members were absent or did not vote from the Western Shore, and eight from the Eastern. The voting members of the Western Shore where Mr. Hagar was best known, stood fifteen to twelve in favor of his eligibility, and the voting members of the Eastern Shore stood twelve to eight against it. On the affirmative we find the names of Thomas Johnson who in 1775 nominated George Washington as Commander-in-chief of the Conti- nental Ariny, and in 1777 became the first Gover- nor of the State of Maryland ; of Wm. Paca, signer of the Declaration and third Governor; and of Wm. Smallwood who distinguished himself as a General in the Revolutionary War, and became fourth Governor of the State. The most distin- guished name on the negative is that of Samuel Chase, in after years judge of the Supreme Court of the United States.
An examination of the law in the order in which it was read before the House in their de- liberation on Mr. Hagar's case, aside from its bearing on the legal status of a naturalized subject in 1771, shows conclusively that the contest was between the progressive spirits and the conserva- tive; for the law was against Mr. Hager's eligibil- ity.
The House of Delegates did not let the mat- ter rest here. The law as it stood did not allow Mr. Hager a seat, and the House proceeded to change the operation of the English laws by pass- ing a provincial law covering the ground, and thereby superseding them so far as they affected the right of a naturalized citizen to a seat in the House. This was done so expeditiously that it not only prevented similar injustice to other nat- uralized subjects, but enabled Mr. Hager to take his seat before the close of the session.
Mr. Hager was rejected Oct. 8th. Ocl 9th an order was passed for the issue of a new writ of election to the sheriff of Frederick County "to elect a delegate to serve in this present session of Assembly, in the stead of Mr. Jonathan Hager, whose seat is declared vacant." A committee was granted leave to bring in a bill "for vesting in such foreign protestants as are now naturalized or shall be hereafter naturalized in this province, all the rights and privileges of' natural born sub- jects." Mr. Hager's colleagues from Frederick County, and two others of the minority, with Mr. Chase of the majority in the vote of rejection,
were placed on the committee. The bill was brought in and read the first time Oct. 11th, the second time Saturday, Oct. 12th, sent to the Upper House Monday, Oct. 14th, and returned on the same day endorsed, "Read the first and second time by a special order, and will pass." Oct. 16th, "Mr. Speaker left the chair, and (with the mem- bers of this House) went to the Upper House, and there presented to his Excellency" the above bill and another for the adjournment and continuance of the High Court of Appeals. "Both which his Excellency passed into laws in the usual manner" "by sealing it with the Right Honorable the Lord Proprietary his Great Seal at Arms and subscrib- ing it on behalf of the Right Honorable the Lord Proprietary of this Province I will this be a Law."
Thus in eight days from the declaration of his ineligibility Mr. Hager was rendered eligible, for the new act conferred all the rights and privileges of natural born subject without the obnoxious proviso of the English law.
Nov. 16th, Mr. Hager, having been re-elected, qualified and took his seat to serve in his own stead, in time to vote in favor of that famous ad- dress to Governor Eden, protesting against his at- tempt to fix the fees of officers by proclamation, a subject which agitated the minds of the good people of Maryland until the opening scenes in the revolutionary drama distracted attention from all minor matters.
The act which gave Mr. Hager his seat reads : "Whereas many foreign protestants have already settled in this province, and others from the lenity of our government, the purity of our religion, and the benefit of our laws, may be hereafter induced to settle therein, if they were made partakers of the advantages and privileges which natural born subjects enjoy :
Be it therefore enacted by, etc., That all such foreign protestants who have been already natur- alized in this province pursuant to the directions of the Stat." 13 Geo. II., cap. 7-before quoted as that under which Mr. Hager was naturalized- "and all foreign protestants who shall be hereafter naturalized in this province pursuant to the direc- tions of the said statute, shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be natural born subjects, to all in- tents, constructions and purposes as if they, and every one of them, had been born within the kingdoms of Great Britain or Ireland, or within any other of his majesty's dominions, any law to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding."
66
HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHICAL RECORD
Mr. Hager was re-elected a delegate to the Assembly of 1773. The committee on elections and privileges again reported, June 26th, that Jonathan Hager was not a natural born subject, "and is the same person who was returned a Dele- gate for Frederick County to the late General Assembly. October Session, 1771, and by the late lower House voted and declared to be ineligible for that cause." Frederick, the last Lord Balti- more, died September 14th, 1771, and as the legislature which passed the act of 1771 was called Oct. 2d, in his name and by his authority, doubts were entertained as to the validity of the laws passed by it. In case the laws were not valid; Mr. Hager was still ineligible. until they had been made valid by a new act confirming them. Here was a new difficulty, but the House made quick work with it. The report was read and they con- curred therewith, except that part relative to Mr. Jonathan Hager.
"Ordered, That that part be referred for con- sideration on the third day of the next session of Assembly. Ordered That the clerk of this House give Mr. Hagar notice thereof."
Mr. Hager continued a member of the House to the end of the session, though he had leave of absence from June 24th to July 3d. His name is found with the majority in several divisions, and he was placed on several committees .* It is be- lieved that Jonathan Hager was the first man to be naturalized in this country.
About a year after Capt. Hager's return from Annapolis on the 6th of November 1775, this active, able and most excellent man and citizen was killed at his saw mill on the Antietam Creek near the town. He was superintending the prep- aration of timber for building a German Reform- ed Church on a lot which he had given, when a log slipped, knocked him down and crushed him. As soon as he could be rescued from the log he was carried into a house near by and laid upon the floor. The pool of blood which ran from him stained the floor and the stain was well remembered by the late M. S. Barber who saw it when a young man. The house was pulled down not long ago. Miss Martha Lawrence his great granddaughter, had in her possession the silver watch he wore at the time and which has the dent made by the log in passing over it. He died in the midst of his usefulness, having contributed more than any
other citizen to develop the County in which he had settled. Had he lived one year longer, he would have had the satisfaction of seeing the town he had founded and named after his dear wife, the county seat of a new County named in honor of the patriot who had just been called to command the army which he was to lead to victory through a long and dreadful conflict. That Jon- athan Hager, had he been living, would have taken an active and honorable part in that conflict we cannot doubt. But he left a brave son to represent lim, in Jonathan Hager, Jr., who went into the army in July, 1776, being then about twenty years of age.
His active service at this time, however, lasted but a single month, for in August he was captured by the enemy at the battle of Long Island and carried to Halifax, Nova Scotia, where he was imprisoned in a. dungeon under the ramparts of the fort in which he probably contracted the dis- ease which caused his early death. Here he was visited after he had been imprisoned for a year, in the month of August 1777, by his sister's hus- band, General Daniel Heister. Under the English law which was at that time in force in Maryland, Jonathan Hager, Jr., being the oldest son inherited all of his father's large real estate. But the gen- erous young man did not propose to avail himself of a law which had always been distasteful to Americans, at the expense of his only sister, so im- mediately upon his father's decease he entered into a writing agreeing to convey to his sister the por- tion of his father's estate of five thousand acres, which he thought should rightfully be hers. But at this time he was not twenty-one years of age, and the deed or agreement had no binding force. Hager attained his majority while he was in prison, in 1727, and in August of that year General Heister.got leave of the Board of War to go to Halifax to get his brother-in-law, now of age, to make a good deed. This was readily effected. But still General Heister was not satisfied. It was impossible to have deeds drawn up and exe- cuted with proper formality at Halifax, and so Heister, upon his return went before the Legis- lature to obtain the passage of an act which should cure all defects in the deed. Such an act was passed in 1781, but with the proviso "that if the said Jonathan Hager shall at any time hereafter return into this State, and shall, within six months
*Jonathan Hager by Basil Sollers.
67
OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND.
thereafter, institute his suit in chancery against the said Daniel Heister and Rosannah, his wife, or her heirs or her or their assigns, and shall make it appear to the chancellor, that he did not volun- tarily, freely and fairly make and execute the said decd of conveyance, or that at the time of making and executing thereof, he had not attained the age of twenty-one years, that then this act shall cease to have any operation or effect."
Of the fourteen hundred acres of his father's estate that Hager conveyed to his brother-in-law for his life with the fee in his sister, five hundred acres lay betweeen Elizabethtown and Jeru- salem "adjoining the lands of Jacob Rohrer, Michael Fackler, the town of Elizabeth to Jolin Stull's land, thence by the same and the land of Jacob Funk, so as to include the plantation then in the tenure of Harmon Clopper." Upon this tract Heister laid out the addition to Hagerstown known as Heisterboro. The other nine hundred acres were to be laid out by Joseph Sprigg, Samuel Hughes, Daniel Hughes, Dr. Henry Schnebley, George Shaver, Isaac Baker and George Swingle. Five lots lying in Elizabethtown were also con- veyed in the deed. Thesc lots were described as being in the tenure of Thomas Simmes, the Reverend Mr. Young and Dr. Noah Hart, one lot on which Harmon Clopper formerly built a small log house and a lot opposite the Calvinist new church.
This conveyance to Rosannah Heister occas- ioned protracted litigation, some history of which is given in the following "Orders of Publication" taken from the proceedings of the Court of Chan- cery :
In Chancery, Jan. 25, 1832. Robert Hicks & Magdeline his wife, Christian Hager and others, VS.
Samuel Heister, David Beaver & Catherine his wife, Ellen Davis, Abraham Landis & Rachel his wife, Rebecca & Joseph Vanderslice, Mary Leah, John & Henry Heister, Jonathan and Elizabeth, William & Charles Heister & Freder- ick Shultze, John, Mary & William Shultze, Isaac, Catherine & Willianı, Daniel J. & John P. Heister, Edward Climer & Maria his wife, Rebecca Echert, Juliana and Jonathan Miller and James R. Riley, and others.
The object of the bill filed in this cause is to obtain from the Defendants a conveyance of four- teen hundred acres of land, lying in and near
Hagerstown, in Washington County, in the State of Maryland, and several town Lots, in Hagers- town, and a sale of part thereof and an account of the rents and profits of the whole. The Bill states, that a certain Jonathan Hager of Frederick, now Washington County, died in the year 1775, intestate, seized of five thousand acres of land in said County, of which the said lots and fourteen hundred acres above mentioned are part, leaving two children, Rosannah & Jonathan Hager, to the last of whom, all the said land descended. That the said Jonathan Hager, thic younger, executed and delivered to his said sister Rosannah, an agree- inent to convey the aforesaid lots and fourteen hun- dred acres to her in fee, and that Daniel Heister, with whom she afterwards intermarried, represent- ing that he had obtained in 1777 from the said Jonathan Hager the younger, then a prisoner in Halifax, a deed of said property to himself in fee, petitioned the Legislature of Maryland in. 1781, to pass an act vesting the said property in himself and wife in fee, but finally agreed to accept an act vesting the same in the said Rosannah in fee, and reserving a life estate to him and from that time until their respective deaths claimed and had the actual seisin and possession thereof-that the said Jonathan Hager the younger, returned to Mary- land, married and died leaving an only Child, Elizabeth, afterwards married to Upton Lawrence -that the said Daniel Heister & wife also removed to Maryland and died, the said Daniel in 1804, and the said Rosannalı in 1810, seized & possessed of the said lands in fee, and that the said Eliz- abeth devised to David Hager one of the Com- plainants, one of the said Lots and all the residue of her property comprising the said fourteen hun- dred acres, to be sold by her executors and the proceeds after the payment of debts to be divided among the Complainants, but that the whole of said property has been intruded upon by sundry persons and possessed in violation of said trust. That the said Daniel Heister in 1822, procured to be recorded certain pretended deeds of said prop- erty for himself and the said Rosannah to Wm. Heister in fee, and for said Wm. Heister to hin- self in fee, which if ever executed were without consideration covenous and void, and that the said Daniel, pretending to be seized in fee of said lands by virtue of said deeds, died in 1804, without issue, having made a will by which said property is at- tempted to be devised to his wife for life, remain- der in fee to his three brothers, John, Gabriel and
68
HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHICAL RECORD
William Heister, in fee, who and others, claiming under them, intruded upon said lands and kept the complainants, the infants, out of possession. The bill further states that Upton Lawrence and Elizabeth his wife, only child of Jonathan Hager, the younger, in 1810 instituted an action of eject- ment in Washington County against the said John, Gabriel and William Ileister, for the recovery of the said fourteen hundred acres, in which a ver- dict was found on the opinion of the Court and judgment rendered for Defendant, but the said judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeals and on a second trial a verdict was found and judgment rendered for plaintiff, from which the defendants appealed, but while the said appeal was pending, the said parties finding that if the said land should be eventually recovered by the said Lawrence and wife, it would still be subject to the trust vested by the will of the said Rosannah, entered into a compromise of the said suit and appeal with a view to defraud the Complainants, the basis of which was to divide the said property and perfect the said deeds from Daniel Heister and wife to William Heister, and from him to said Daniel, by an ex post facto act of the Legislature, and applied to the Legislature for the enactinent of a statute for that purpose, and in anticipation thereof, in December 1806, all the said confeder- ates executed a deed of said property to Roger B. Taney and Elie Beatty. to lay the same off in Lots and sell the same, for more conveniently carrying the said compromise into effect. and finally suc- ceeded in obtaining an act (referred to in the bill,) suited in termis to the object of their conspir- acy, and the said suit was reversed by consent in the Court of Appeals, reinstated in the County Court docket. and there entered agreed ; and that the said trustees proceeded to sell some of the property and divide the residue between the par- ties to said compromise, who afterwards sold out to others, who purchased with full notice of the Complainants' claim. That the said John, Ga- briel and William Heister are dead, leaving certain persons mentioned in the bill, including the absent Defendants, their heirs or devisces, or claiming titles to said property under them. The bill fur- ther states, that all the Defendants above enumer- ated in the title of this suit, do not reside in the State, and prays that the defendants may be di- vested of all title to the said property and com- pelled to convey the same to the complainants, and that the trustees under the will of the said
Rosannah Hcister may be compelled to carry the said trust into effect by a sale of the same, that the Complainants may take the said property or proceeds of the sale at their election, that the Defendants may account with Complainants for the rents, issues and profits of said property, and prays general relief.
In Chancery, Jan. 25, 1832. Elizabeth Lawrence,
VS. Christian Hager the elder, Robert Hicks and Magdalena his wife, Christian Hager the young- er, Upton Lawrence Hager and Catherine Hager, Samuel Heister, David Beaver and Catherine his wife, Ellen Davis, Abraham Lan- des and Rachel his wife, Rebecca and Joseph Vanderslice, Mary Leah, John and Henry Heister, Jonathan, Elizabeth, William and Charles Heister, Frederick, John, Mary and William Shultze, Isaac, Catharine E., William Daniel I., and John P. Heister, Edward Climer and Maria his wife, Rebecca Eckart, Juliana and Jonathan Miller and James R. Riley, and others.
The object of the bill filed in this cause is to be put in possession of, and to be paid the rents, issues and profits of fourteen hundred acres. of land and other real estate, in Washington County, in the State of Maryland, which descended to the Complainants. The Bill states, that Jonathan Hager the elder, died intestate in 1775, leaving two Children, Jonathan Hager, Jr., father of the Complainant, who was his heir, and a daughter named Rosanna, afterwards married to Daniel Heister & who died without issue. That he intend- ed to have made a will, devising seven hundred acres of land, in Washington County, to the said Rosanna in tail remainder in fee, to the said Jona- than Hager the younger, but never perfected it, and after his death, the said Daniel Heister pre- vailed upon the said Jonathan Hager, Jr., to agree in writing. that upon his arrival at age, he would convey fourteen hundred acres of the said land to the said Rosanna. That in 1776 the said Jonathan Hager, Jr., enlisted in the American Army, was taken prisoner by the British, carried to Halifax and attained the age of twenty years while there in 1677. immediately after which, the said Daniel Heister arrived there, prevailed upon him to convey the said fourteen hundred acres, not to the said Rosanna but to himself in fec, but the said deed being defective, the said Daniel
69
OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND.
applied to the Legislature of Maryland to make it valid, but the Legislature in lieu thereof passed a law vesting the same in the said Daniel for life and the remainder in fee in the said Rosanna.
That in February 1782, the said Rosanna being deceived by the said Daniel and deluded into the belief that he intended to make a bona fide Sale of the said property, and remove to Philadel- phia, joined with him in a deed thereof to his Brother William Heister, who immediately re- conveyed the same to the said Daniel, both of which deeds were inoperative-That the said Jonathan Hager, Jr., being then on his return to Maryland, petitioned the Legislature for an act repealing the aforesaid law which actually passed the House of Delegates, but said Daniel Heister filed a cross petition, in which no mention was made of the said deeds from himself and wife to said William Heister and from William Heister to him, and directing the said Jonathan Hager from his purpose by an offer of a reason- able compromise, the said law which would have passed the Senate also, was arrested in that body, of which the said Daniel taking advantage refused to carry the same compromise into effeet- That after the law of 1781, the said Daniel and Rosanna took possession of the said property, and remained in possession thereof until their respeet- ive deaths, which took place, that of Daniel in 1804 and of Rosanna in 1810; Rosanna hav- ing made a will, but by which she did not intend to devise the said property, sup- posing that she had been divested of all right in it by the said deed-That immediately after her death, Upton Lawrence, the husband of the complainant, brought an ejectment for the said property against John, Gabariel and William Heister, devisees of the said Daniel, and at the trial thereof, in 1811, the County Court deeided, that the said deed from Daniel Heister and wife, to William Heister, was sufficient in law to estop the said Rosanna from elaiming the said property, which decision was reversed by the Court of Ap- peals, at December term, 1813, by which it was eonelusively settled that the said deed was void, and that a fee simple estate in the said property was vested in the Complainant ; aeeordingly a procedendo having issued, a verdiet and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, from which the de- fondants appealed. but the same must necessarily have been affirmed but while the eause was denend- ing in the Court of Appeals, the said Upton Law-
rence, being desirous of holding the said property in his own right, to which the Complainant would not consent, agreed with the said defendant to divide the said property, also without her eonsent ; & agreed futher, to apply to the Legislature to eon- firm the said deeds from Heister and wife, to Wil- liam Heister, and from him to said Daniel, and if the Legislature should refuse to confirm them, that the said judgment should be affirmed-That applieation was aceordingly made to the Legisla- ture, who passed a law for that purpose, but the purpose was eoneealed under the guise of a general bill with a general title-That, in further pursu- ance of said agreement, the said parties to it applied to the Court of Appeals to revise their for- mer devision, which they refusing to do, the eause was "entered reversed by the Court," and in the County Court was entered "agreed"-That while the application to the Legislature was pending, the said Heister conveyed the said property to Roger B. Taney and Elie Beatty, in trust, which deed was delivered as an escrow to be returned in ease the Legislature should refuse to pass the said law -That the said Upton Lawrence died in March, 1824, and that Christian Hager and others claim- ing the said property as devisees of Rosanna Heis- ter, have filed their bill in this Court against the complainant the heirs of Upton Lawrence and the divisees of Daniel Heister, and those claiming un- der them, to which bill she has answered.
The Bill then prays that the complainant may be put in possession of her said inheritance thus wrongfully and unjustly detained from her, and that the defendants may account with her for the rents and profits of the same sinee the death of Upton Lawrence, and prays general relief -- The bill further states that all the defendants above enumerated in the title of this suit, reside out of the State of Maryland.
Jonathan Hager, Jr., married Mary Madeline Orndorff, daughter of Major Christian Orndorff, who lived near Sharpsburg. She was very beauti- ful, and it is said that at the age of fifteen years she rejected Gen. Horatio Gates while he was a guest at her father's house early in the Revolution- ary War. Jonathan and Mary Madeline Hager had one daughter, Elizabeth, who beeame the wife of Upton Lawrence, a leader of the Hagerstown Bar. Jonathan Hager. Jr., died December 18, 1798. The next issue of the Hagerstown, "Wash- ington Spy" contains this notice: Tuesday, De- eember 18, 1798, died, Jonathan Hager, Esq.,
70
HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHICAL RECORD
proprietor of this town. He has left a young widow to lament the loss of an affectionate hus- band and an only daughter, a tender and affection- ate father. His general character was that of an honest inan, a friendly neighbor and a peaceable citizen."
Jonathan Hager's widow was courted by the great lawyer, Luther Martin, but rejected him because of his intemperate habits. She subse- quently married Capt. Henry Lewis. Mr. and Mrs. Upton Lawrence had nine children. One of them married Robert J. Brent, a distinguished lawyer of Baltimore. One of the daughters married Wil- liam Keyser, of Baltimore. Mr. Robert J. Brent, Jr., and other descendants of Jonathan Ilager, living in Baltimore, a few years ago erected a monument to the founder of Hagerstown in Zion Reformed Church yard at Hagerstown.
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.