A history of Columbia County, Pennsylvania. From the earliest times., Part 32

Author: Freeze, John G. (John Gosse), 1825-1913
Publication date: 1883
Publisher: Bloomsburg, Pa. : Elwell & Bittenbender
Number of Pages: 594


USA > Pennsylvania > Columbia County > A history of Columbia County, Pennsylvania. From the earliest times. > Part 32


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


The sentences of several of the prisoners whose convictions were mentioned were as follows: Benjamin Colley, one year, at labor; Joseph Vansickle the same; Valentine Fell and John Lemons each six months, also with labor,(Col. Dem. Feb. 4, 1865,) Mr. Fell's trial was concluded January 14, 1865, and was, we be- lieve, the last of those already referred to.


We have said that Wessels, the Judge Advocate, rejoiced greatly over his success in those early trials and looked forward with confidence to his coming reward. But one of the remaining cases gave him some concern and as proceedings upon it progress- ed, no little trouble. It was that of Daniel M'Henry, Treasurer of Columbia county, whose conviction was greatly desired but who showed from the outset an unmistakable disposition and in-


445


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


tention to make vigorous fight and to overcome if possible the enormous difficulties which stood in the way of a full, fair and triumphant defense. He was not allowed to go home and pre- pare for trial, nor was there much to encourage continued resist- ance in the circumstances which surrounded him. His counsel even (who were very intelligent gentlemen,) advised him that a defense would be useless, as in their opinion, the commission would convict without much regard to any evidence which inight be produced, and the Judge Advocate whose control over the re- sult was almost absolute, was evidently hostile and anxious to convict him. Nevertheless our friend from Stillwater remained unmoved and undiscouraged in the position he had taken, and we say advisedly that the people of this county generally, as well as his fellow prisoners were under deep obligations to him for his exhibition of courage, fortitude, energy and sound judgment at that time. Thereby he secured their vindication as well as his own-the turning back of the tide of radical defamation which theretofore had moved on unchecked, and the regular collection of evidence for a righteous judgment by history upon the subject of this military occupation.


His friends collected his witnesses with the advantage of the light afforded by the previous trials, and (after vexatious and expensive delays interposed by the prosecution) his case was fully heard and an honorable judgment of acquittal was pronounced. But pending the consideration of his case, the case of Stott E. Colley was called for trial (Nov. 21, 1864,) and a large part of his witnesses were examined in Mr. Colley's defense, thus narrowing the field of investigation when his own case was proceeded with on the 14th of December. The evidence taken in the two cases inust therefore be considered together in order that we may pos- sess ourselves of complete information when we come to examine the charges or articles of accusation against the prisoners. Those charges were very nearly the same in all the cases tried, but only in the cases of Mr. Colley and Mr. M'Henry was full defence made and records in all respects satisfactorily made up.


On the Colley trial the veracity of Edward M'Henry (the prin- cipal Government witness) was successfully assailed and his credit broken. The character and purposes of the Club meetings of 1863 were also shown to have been entirely lawful and innocent


446


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY


and the important fact that the last one of them had been held more than a year before the occupation, was put beyond dispute. In that trial too, and still more fully in the trial of Mr. M'Henry, the Rantz meeting of August 14th, 1864 was explained and re- lieved from most of the imputations cast upon it by the prosecu- tion, while the fact that it had been held after the troops came to the county and therefore could not have caused their being sent here, was placed in bold relief. This evidence met and exploded all the general charges upon which the prior convictions had ta- ken place. Absolutely nothing was left of all the matters of gen- eral accusation against the prisoners, and the occupation stood ut- terly condemned before its own extraordinary and partial tribunal -the Military Commission-and in the presence of all the people. By the unanimous acquital of Mr. Colley and Mr. M'Henry slan- der was silenced and the political raid upon Columbia county placed forever beyond justification or excuse.


It is true that particular charges of disloyal discourse were made against the prisoners, or some of them, in addition to the general matters of accusation. So far as these related to Mr. Col- ley and Mr. M'Henry their futility and injustice will appear when we come to recite the evidence in their cases. But we will here remark concerning these charges against he prisoners generally, that they were quite secondary or subordi- nate to the main ones before mentioned, that they were supported by very doubtful or tainted testimony in most cases, and that they were in their very nature vague, uncertain or suspicious. Besides, the discourses which the prosecution attempted to prove under this head of accusation were almost invariably mere improprieties of speech and their utterance could not constitute a criminal of- fence. In fact, the alleged disloyal remarks of some of the pris- oners were obviously introduced upon their trials rather as con- firmatory of the general charges of criminal conduct made against them, and to color their cases with odiumn, than as distinct and substantive offences.


Before proceeding to sum up the cases of Stott E. Colley and Daniel M'Henry with a detail of the particulars which gave them peculiar interest, we shall lay a solid foundation for our remarks by reciting the main parts of the testimony both for the prosecu- tion and the defence.


447


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


EDWARD M'HENRY AS A WITNESS :- This person was a non-re- porting drafted man and was unquestionably guilty of active opposition to the enforcement of the conscription laws, and that both by speech and conduct. He was arrested on the 19th of September 1864 in a state of intoxication and placed in the jail at Bloomsburg. There he was visited by two of the leading radicals of the town. He was taken on to Harrisburg and held in confinement there until the 22d of October, when he was re- leased upon condition that he would become a government wit- ness. The negotiation with him was finally concluded by Col. Albright, and he was suddenly transformed from a culprit to a patriot, was put on government pay, and became the main sup- port and instrument of the prosecution, in all the trials which subsequently took place. Upon his testimony, mainly, all the earlier convictions were had, and therefore an examination of that testimony, of the contradictions to which it was subjected and of his general character and credibility, become important in our investigation.


In the Daniel M'Henry trial, on the 14th of December, he testi- fied as follows :


Edward M' Henry sworn :- "I am a carpenter and reside in Benton township, Columbia county ; know Daniel M'Henry ; I was at Rantz's barn about the 14th of August last. The mecting was to resist the soldiers at Bloomsburg from taking the drafted men. The meeting was gathered when I got there at 11 o'clock ; I sup- pose 100 to 125 there. There were some specches made, Samuel Kline made the first one: He advised them to form into squads or companies to resist the soldiers ; nothing else said. Daniel M'- Henry was the next speaker, I understood him to say; 'these were critical times ; he thought they were unanimous in resisting the draft, the people were unanimous in resisting the draft and the soldiers.' That is all I recollect of his saying that day ; I gave them a little speech ; I spoke in favor of resisting the soldiers ; I told them as the old men were encouraging it, and as we were drafted and had not reported, we could do no better than resist ; I said more but don't recollect. I did not hear any other speech. Daniel M'Henry spoke a couple or three minutes ; the speaking was about 2 or 3 o'clock in the afternoon. A por-


448


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


tion of the meeting was armed; I suppose about one half were. The meeting formed into squads-almost all. There were five squads, Samuel Kline was Captain of one squad, Jacob Shultz of another, a young man from near Orangeville of another, Elias Kline another. I was the other. The squads elected their Captains. These squads did not afterwards resist the soldiers that I know of ; from what I understood the soldiers were too strong. Part of the squads went to the mountain to keep out of the way. I heard the story that the soldiers were coming to burn and destroy property. Some believed it and some did not. We resisted the soldiers to prevent the drafted men from being taken.


I attended so-called 'secret meetings'; I was a member, I joined in the spring of 1863 in Jackson township, near the Union church, We were required to take an oath, which was, 'to support the Constitution of the United States and resist the conscription act.' William E. Roberts administered the oath to me. It was not a secret meeting at Ezekiel Cole's; I think Col. Tate and Daniel M'Henry made speeches there; I heard him (D. M'Henry) say, that they ought not to furnish a man or a dollar towards the war; I don't know whether he was on the stand or not ; I do not re- collect that he said anything about the draft in his speech. Do not recollect of seeing Daniel M'Henry at any of these secret meetings ; I live several miles from him ; I never attended any secret meetings in his neighborhood.


Cross-examined: Can't say I was arrested for same offence as that charged on defendant. I was a drafted man and did not re- port; I can't say who arrested me or where I was arrested. The first I knew I was in the county jail, and I was drunk ; I was in confinement from the 19th of September till the 22d of October ; I got my liberty. I do not know that any drafted men but myself were set at liberty. Col. Albright told me if I would make a clean breast of the difficulties up Fishingcreek, as far as I knew, I could have my liberty. I was not drunk at Rantz's. I don't remember of having said at Rantz's that we would trim apple trees and would turn the ditches. I did not understand that the meeting at Rantz's was occasioned by fear of the Harveyville boys. Absalom M'Henry was at Rantz's, I heard Daniel M'Henry's speech dis- tinctly, I was examined in these Columbia county prisoner cases. A question submitted here by counsel for Defendant, but object-


449


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


ed to] I do not recollect that I threatened that I would convict Daniel M'Henry ; I do not recollect that I said in the cars coming to Harrisburg I knew what to say and would say it. Daniel M'- Henry had no more to do with the meeting at Rantz's than I had. [A question by Mr. Herr for defence, objected to and overruled.] I told men we were drafted, had not reported and the best thing we could do was to resist. The next day Valentine Fell asked me to go up with him to Sugarloaf to get people to turn out and I went with him.


Re-examined by Prosecution :- The secret mectings were call- ed "Knights of the Golden Circle," I do not know when I joined; I do not know any name used when I was initiated.


Re-cross Examined :- Sometimes the meetings were called "Knights of the Golden Circle" by way of reproach and sometimes not.


The foregoing testimony of Ed. McHenry, which is exact and complete as given by him, may be taken as his revised and final statement of fact. But was he a credible witness ? Let the fol- lowing statement made by an honorable gentleman, in the Daniel McHenry trial, answer :


Jesse Hartman sworn :- "I reside in Sugarloaf township, and am a farmer. I know Edward McHenry. I had a conversation with him in Benton and also in Harrisburg. He told me in Ben- ton: "if the conscripts would stick to him till he got them to- gether, he would soon drive the hell-hounds (the soldiers) out of the county." I met him in Harrisburg at Park House, the time of Colley's suit; I said, 'Ed. McHenry you have altered your opinion since I spoke to you at Benton.' He said "they had caught him, and hand cuffed him, and he could do no better than swear as he did, and that the innocent at such times must suffer with the guilty.".


But we go further; we will cite the strong testimony upon his character which was given on the Colley trial.


Jacob Welliver, farmer of Benton, testified that he had known Ed. McHenry twenty years, and that his reputation for truth and. veracity was bad. He would not believe him upon oath where he was particularly interested.


450


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


William Ash, a farmer of same neighborhood, testified that he knew Ed. McHenry and that his reputation for truth was not very good.


William Brink, of Jackson township, testified: "I know Ed. McHenry, his reputation is pretty bad. I would not believe him on oath."


Hiram Ash, testified : "McHenry's reputation for truth is not good, I do not think that I would believe him on oath. I would not.


Cross Examined: "I think it pretty hard for him to tell the truth. He is a man not of his word. I do not know of his hav- ing given evidence : I have known him otherwise to speak false."


John Savage. a farmer of Jackson township, another witness, said he knew Ed. McHenry and his reputation for truth was not good.


Martin A. Ammerman, of Fishingcreek said he lived a dis- tance from Ed. McHenry who was considered a rowdy. It was a hard question to say whether he would believe him on oath.


Moses Yocum, farmer, of Benton, testified : "I know Ed. Mc- Henry, his reputation for truth is poor. I think I would not believe him."


Cross Examined: "Would not believe him in anything he had an interest in ; he would not tell the truth. He has been drinking and cutting up since a boy. I have heard him swear he would do so and so, and then do the reverse."


Hon. Iram Derr : "Ed. McHenry's character is not good ; so the people say."


Samuel Rhone, Esq., of Benton, said : Ed. McHenry's reputa- tion is not very good."


John O. Dildine, of Benton, said : McHenry's reputation is inot good; not well enough acquainted to say whether I would believe him on oath,"


These citations of testimony will answer. we suppose, on the question of character, especially in view of the fact that not one witness was called on behalf of the prosecution to sustain Ed. McHenry against this strong impeachment.


451


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


THE WITNESS RICHARD STILES :- This person, who may be rank- ed in position if not in importance next after Ed. M'Henry, was a swift and willing witness for the prosecution, and though his rev- elations of fact were not very important nor at all reliable in their details, they were well intended to secure the party objects of the prosecution.


Upon the Rantz trial, in October, Stiles testified that he heard of the Rantz meeting on the 14th of August, but was not there ; that he attended a meeting at the Ash's School House about the last of March 1864, at which twenty to twenty-five men were present ; he believed the school directors called the meeting to know whether the people would be willing to be taxed to raise a bounty for volunteers. Some were in favor of the proposition and some were not. "Rantz was opposed; advised the people to keep their money to buy arms to fight at home. John R. Davis said, 'John, we can't do it, we are too weak.' Rantz said he thought not; he had been to Bloomsburg that day; just came from Bloomsburg. He said lawyer Freeze had told him, Illinois was about seceding and the State of New York was about to go out of the Union. Rantz said, Abolition leaders had seven pock- ets and never were satisfied till they got them all full of money. Meeting adjourned to meet again without doing anything." The witness proceeded to state a conversation he had with Elias M'Henry on 14th of August, and another which he had with Rantz in 1862, in which the latter said his son Jonas was not of age to be enrolled, and made declarations similar to that above mentioned about fighting at home. He (the witness) "went on and left him talking."


Stiles then detailed a conversation he had with William Apple- man in the spring of 1863, in regard to secret meetings, as fol- lows :- "I said to him 'I heard you had a secret meeting at Ash's School House.' I told him I understood they were sworn to re- sist the draft; I understood him to say they were not sworn at all ; he said they did take upon themselves an obligation to sup- port the constitution of the United States and of the State of Pennsylvania. I told him I had been straightly informed the ob- ject was to resist the draft, and if so, they would all be arrested and put into prison ; and he replied, 'there would not be prisons enough to hold us.' My sister, Mrs. Peter Appleman, informed


452


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


mne of the object of the meeting ; also Daniel Karns, who said he had been in, but not till it was finished, unless he would be one of them." In answer to questions by the Commission witness told some particulars he had heard about the Rantz meeting of the 14th of August, and said he had seen men armed going to and returning from it.


"Cross-examined: The meeting I speak of [concerning boun- ties] at Ash's School House was the first meeting. They adjourn- ed to meet again without coming to a conclusion ; I think Sam- uel Rhone was chairman ; I think there was a vote taken ; I think the majority that night was in favor of raising the money. Rantz did not vote at all; voting was by raising the right hand ; I kept a sharp look out ; there was but one more meeting ; then a committee was appointed to canvass the sub-districts ; John J. Stiles, Thomas Davis, William Appleman, John R. Keeler and others ; I do not remember if Lemon's hauling was on that day or not ; Rantz did not oppose my nomination for Sheriff ; I consider Rantz a man that talks considerable."


Examined by the Commission: "I can't state who voted in the minority at the meeting to raise bounties. There was a neg- ative vote taken. I think Rantz voted against it, and spoke right out against it."


REMARKS -1. Stiles said, on direct examination, "the mecting [to raise bounties] adjourned without doing anything." Then, 0 1 cross-examination, "they adjourned to meet again without coming to a conclusion." But pressed by further questions he finally gave to himself a flat contradiction by saying : "I think there was a vote taken ; I think the majority that night was in favor of raising the money."


2. Speaking of the same meeting he said, on cross-examination "Rantz did not vote at all ; voting was by raising the right hand; I kept a sharp look out." But again he flatly contradicted him- self in saying, in answer to a question by the Commission, "I think Rantz voted against it and spoke right out against it."


3 Stiles' narrative of what was said by Rantz at the meeting must be greatly exaggerated, if not a gross fabrication. Samuel


453


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


Rhone, Esq., who was President of the niceting, testified subse quently, that he "did not hear Rantz make any remarks ; made no public speech ; heard no remarks from Rautz;" and no witness was called to corroborate Stiles. Besides, Esq. Rhone testified further, that within a week after the meeting Rautz told him "we must help the boys, the tax will be high but we must try and pay it :" and William Appleman testificd, "I took subscription for bounties, John Rantz subseribed $100.00 for himself, and $25.00 for another man. These were voluntary subscriptions in addition to the tax."


4. Stiles says that in his conversation with William Apple- man concerning the sceret (or Club) meetings, he understood him to deny that the members were sworn at all. But immediately afterwards he admits that Appleman told him they took an obliga- tion to support the constitution of the United States and the con- stitution of Pennsylvania, which was in fact the very oath of ini- tiation as shown by abundant testimony upon the several trials.


On the 22nd of November 1864, Stiles was examined as a witness against Stott E. Colley and testified to declarations made by the latter a year before, and also to an attempt of intimidation directed against himself by some person wholly unknown. We give his testimony as it was delivered.


"Richard Stiles, sworn :- I reside in Benton township; a far- mer. I know Stott E. Colley, for fifteen years or more. I was an enrolling officer for the first ninc month's drafted men ; also revised third enrollment after second enrollment.


I received a letter about the 1st of last May, [Evidence of the contents of the letter objected to by the Defense but admitted by the Commission. ] Found a letter nailed in a coffin and the lid turned down. Letter was left as a solemn warning-charged me with dragging my friends and neighbors to a field of slaughter in defence of an inferior raee of beings-gave me solemn warning. [Letter produccd. ] At one time at in Benton township had a conversation with the aeeused. It was about one year ago, after the election of 1863. He contended if there had been a fair election Woodward would have been Governor. It was through


454


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


fraud Curtin was elected. The Democrats would try the ballot- box once more; if they had not fair play there would be blood spilt.


Cross-examined :- Prisoner never threatened or intimidated me; I do not know who wrote the letter produced. I think the con- versation with him was in November 1863, about one month after election."


THE WITNESS NATHAN J. HESS -Of all the witnesses examined for the prosecution whose testimony was relevant and important this one perhaps is least liable to criticism or censure. It is true that we can detect a few inaccurate statements made by him, and we are at liberty to suppose that his intelligence was not of a high order, but he docs not seem to have been actuated by any mali- cious or base motive or to have been misled by unworthy passions. He was examined as a witness in all the trials of which we have records before us-those of Rantz, Colley, and M'Henry-and mainly in regard to the Rantz meeting of August 14th 1864. When we come to treat of that meeting as a distinct subject of investigation, the testimony of Hess will become most valuable, and will be freely used. It will exhibit (indirectly at least) the cause of that meeting as alleged in defence upon the trials, and also the circumstances under which it assembled. Unfortunately the witness was not present at the meeting in the afternoon. He says, he went to it "about 10 o'clock and staid until 12. The meeting had adjourned to go to dinner when I left; I did not return after dinner." We have not therefore, the advantage of his testimony as a check upon other statements of what took place and was said in the afternoon, but as far as it goes it has its value and will be made available for our purpose of ascertain- ing and exposing the whole truth in regard to the Rantz meeting.


In the Colley trial, Hess testified to a remark by the defendant about a future fair election and spilling of blood if it should not be had, almost identical in terms with that testified to by Richard Stiles upon which we have already commented.


In the Rantz trial Hess was examined as to his knowledge of a secret meeting at the house of Peter Case, but nothing important was elicited. He was not, therefore, examined upon that point in the subsequent cases. We only refer to his testimony concern-


455


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


ing that meeting for the purpose of saying that the witness was in error regarding its date. He fixed it, "about a year ago," which would be in October 1863, whereas it was in fact held many months before that date, as was fully shown by other testimony. Hess says there were no speeches made at the Case meeting ; that he was not initiated as a member of the club or association, and that he did not know its object. He had heard the meetings called "Knights of the Golden Circle," (but does not say when, or by whom; "don't know if that was the name or not."


Hess had served in the war but returned home 5th of August 1864. Afterwards and at the time of the trials he was, as he says, in no regular employment. His invited presence at the meetings above mentioned is, in itself, some evidence that they were innocent in character. It is believed he was induced to be- come a government witness in order to save his father from a threatened arrest. Every effort and influence possible were used in the days of the occupation to make up evidence against our citizens. It was sought with avidity and used without scruple. It was invited from all quarters and sometimes extorted or sub- sidized. Fear, interest, family affection and party passion were each appealed to for the false, perverted or irrevelant testimony which should consign innocent men to dungeons and gloss over and conceal the iniquity of their arrest and punishment. That Nathan J. Hess did not swear more strongly and unfairly under the pressure of power, was due to his own scruples of honor or of conscience and not at all to any sense of justice or of moral obli- gation in those who employed him.




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.