A history of Columbia County, Pennsylvania. From the earliest times., Part 33

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 33


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 WITNESS SILAS KARNS :- Another government witness ap- pears upon the scene under circumstances of a very peculiar character and full of instruction. He came into view in the Mc- Henry case for the first time, and fresh from the manipulation of the military authorities to whose jurisdiction he was amenable. For he was a non-reporting drafted man who had made terms with power and was transformed from a criminal to a witness, from being an object of vengeance to occupy a position of toler- ance and favor. The witness was Silas Karns (who was suppos- ed to have been concerned in the shooting affray in which Lieut. Robison was wounded) and he was produced under instructions


456


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


0


and conditions well calculated to spur his zeal in behalf of the prosceution. A world of meaning is contained in the following language obtained from his cross-examination in the McHenry trial :


"I am drafted in first three year's draft-in fall of 1863. Capt. Silver said, if I came here and testified I should be re- leased-and tell all I knew about this case, and Rutan's case, and the shooting of Robison."


Of course Capt. Silver acted under instructions and was not pri- marily responsible for this arrangement and for the manipulation of the witness, who, being within the grasp of power, was com- pelled to make the best terms he could. The military authori- ties at Harrisburg and the radical politicians who instigated thein, are the parties to be held responsible for all that was done in and about the trials including the preparation of testimony. And what did they do in the case before us ? Discharged Karns from all responsibility and took him into favor upon the express condition that he would tell them about the shooting affair and swear against Daniel MelIenry and Mr. Rutan. The latter ob- jects were of course the main ones. The Robison homicide was quite a secondary matter-it involved only the question of a life lost by violence-but the conviction of McHenry and Rutan was an important and darling object and to be accomplished by the use of all possible means. It was "a political necessity" that they should be convicted and punished, for they had been contu- macious to power and their acquittal would openly condemn their persecutors before the people.


Observe the temptation held out to the witness-exemption from army service; exemption from. all punishment for desertion (or not reporting for a whole year ;) immunity, for all possible participation in the homicide affray, and finally, employment and compensation as a witness. The road in one direction was made smooth and inviting, while an opposite course pointed to prison and bonds-to poverty, disgrace and punishment.


It must appear very remarkable to good unsophisticated peo- ple who supposed the military occupation had legitimate objects, that deserters were not pursued with vigor, and those concerned in shooting Robison sought out and punished. Although the


457


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


county was occupied by an army for months, at an expense of hundreds of thousands of dollars, very little was donc by it to accomplish the first of these objects, and (so far as the public knew) nothing to accomplish the last. It is true that descrters (non-reporting men) were not numerous here, and that a few of them left the county; but of those accessible scarcely any were arrested by the troops. Those reclaimed or secured to the public service were almost exclusively reclaimed or secured through the regular agency of the Deputy Pro- vost Marshal, either by voluntary reporting to him or (in a few cases) by arrest under his authority. The army ex- pended.its attention upon innocent citizens and watched the elections, but mostly lounged away its time in inglorious but ex- pensive idleness. We have seen too that when so-called desert- ers were arrested the main object was to make them witnesses against the citizen prisoners instead of securing them to the pub- lic service or punishing them for their dereliction of duty.


Karns was examined as a witness on the 15th of December 1864. As his testimony related entirely to the Rantz meeting we shall reserve it until we enter upon the subject of that meeting. In fact we shall rely upon parts of it in our exposition of the Rantz meeting as a valuable contribution to the cause of truth and justice.


THE WITNESS ADAM LUTZ :- This witness was examined against Rantz and Colley but not in the Daniel M'Henry case. He resided in the village of Benton, was a pump-inaker and farmer and about the time of the trials an inn-keeper.


In the Rantz case, Lutz testified that he had heard of the Rantz meeting but did not know its object, and that upon one occasion (the time of which he could not state) he had heard Rantz say that they (the people) should save their money to buy powder and lead to shoot the abolitionists. This remark was made after a failure to raise bounty money to clear the township. He further testified to a conversation with Rohr M'Henry, to which allusion has been already made, and which was manifestly intruded into the case without reason or justification. We omit it because it was wholly irrelevant to the case on trial and its introduction plainly unjust to an absent party.


458


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


In the Stott E. Colley case, (November 23d, 1864), the testimony of Lutz was as follows :


Adam Lutz, sworn :- "Reside in Benton ; know prisoner. Last harvest, about July, got into conversation with him about the draft and about election. He claimed Woodward was elected ; Curtin put in by intrigue. IIe stated we could never whip the South ; we had been whipped in every engagement, lost every battle. He said our armies were all cut up while the south was in good fighting order. He said we could not fill up our armies ; volunteering was played out, and there was no use in drafting. I asked him why they couldn't fill the armies by drafting ; he said they did not intend any more men should be sent south to be slaughtered. I told him if a draft was made it would be enforced. He said, if the Government undertook that there would be war at home, and the bloodiest times I ever heard tell of. He said I would be sorry that I had ever left the party.


Cross-examined :- We came nearly to having blows. We talked some before that day. He said we had never given the South any chance to come back in the Union. He spoke in the way I stated."


Upon the face of the above testimony it appears that the parties to the conversation had a warm dispute about politics-that they had "talked some before that day"-and that there must have been inore of the discourse between them than that reported. There is here great opportunity for mistake not only as to the actual language used but also as to the connection in which it was utter_ ed.


But the declarations of Colley, (assuming the fact that they are reported with substantial correctness,) fall short of criminality. However improper and censurable they may be thought to be, their utterance violated no law and could justify no conviction. And it is to be remembered that they were spoken in excitement and not deliberately, and that they were very probably provoked.


THE WITNESS ROBERT LA FAYETTE COLLEY :- This person will make but a single appearance in our narrative, as we have the re- cord of his testimony in one case only; but while he remains be- fore us for inspection we shall endeavor to do him justice. Here


459


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


is what he said on the 23d November 1864, on his brother's trial, when the question was whether the latter, who had already un- dergone nearly three months of dungeon life, should be further persecuted and punished :


R. L. F. Colley, sworn: I live in Benton, a shoemaker by trade, I know Stott E. Colley ; he is my brother. On Monday evening after they met at Rantz's, I heard Stott E. Colley say, in Benton town, "if the soldiers came on that side of the bridge they would butcher every devil, or d-d one of them." He had a gun ; I saw two others with guns that evening-Mathias Kline and Valentine Fell. Through the day saw squads of near twenty armed men ; some had arms, some few had none. I heard Philip Knouse say, their intention was to give the soldiers fight on their way from Bloomsburg to Benton. If they found them too strong they would lay in the brush. If the soldiers come up and behaved themselves they would not disturb them. If they disturbed, or endeavored to arrest the drafted men, they intended to fight them. He said he knew the drafted men had no peace for a long time and they would not stand it any more. P. Knouse left that night; not heard of him since the arrest.


Cross-examined: There was a good deal of excitement in town. I was no nearer to my brother than across the street. I suppose he was excited. There was great excitement in the neighborhood. My brother was not present when P. Knouse spoke what I have detailed. I think I saw him that day ; I saw him at Appleman's. It was a common talk that the soldiers would burn the houses of the drafted men."


We have already examined the evidence and general status of six of the witnesses called by the prosecution in the Harris- burg trials. Those which remain may be disposed of more briefly with two notable exceptions. We are anxious on the one band to present all the testimony against the prisoners or its full sub- stance, and explain who the persons were by whom it was given, and on the other to avoid prolixity and undue minuteness of de- tails. Our narrative to be fair, exhaustive, satisfactory and con- clusive, must be reasonably full in exhibiting the evidence upon both sides ; but we will consult the convenience of our readers


460


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


by being as concise as possible in our further citations and state- ments.


Against Daniel M'Henry were examined six witnesses in addi- tion to those before mentioned. Five of these we shall now dis- pose of, reserving one for future treatment.


GILBERT C. M'WAINE, EsQ., of Shickshinny, formerly of Hunt- ington township, testified to remarks made by Daniel M'Henry at a meeting in Benton, in June, 1863. The witness says that he attended the meeting to obtain volunteers, (we suppose to fill the quota of Huntington township,) that he showed his authority and gave public invitation. M'Henry thereupon said that "it was his opinion the quickest way to put down the rebellion was not to furnish a man or a dollar." Upon his cross-examination, how- ever, the witness testified further, that M'Henry "argued the cause of the war; said the troubles were brought about by the abolitionists and the war might have been settled on the basis of the Crittenden compromise, I think he did say if we would pass the Crittenden compromise to the Constitution we need not fur- nish men or money. He made a remark that they should wait patiently and appeal to the ballot-box; I do not think he said anything disloyal. He opposed the carrying on of the war to liberate the negroes ; he favored carrying on the war for the Con- stitution and the Union."


Taken together. this testimony exhibits a political argument, which, whether correct or not, was innocent and was one of com- mon and open use during the war. It may have been prompted in part at that time by the attempt of the witness to obtain men to be credited on the quota of a district in another county, thus stripping M'Henry's neighborhood of available means for filling their own. At all events what was said was simply an expres- sion of opinion as to what should be done to restore the Union, and it was not an expression of hostility to the enforcement of law.


CHAS. GIBBONS of Benton township, a farmer, testified that he attended the Rantz meeting (Aug. 14, '64) in the forenoon but left about one o'clock. He further stated that he had "attended three or four of the so-called secret meetings; never saw M'Henry at one, nor ever heard of his attending any." His testimony con-


461.


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


cerning the Rantz meeting, we will reserve until that subject shall be reached.


JONAS DOTY of Fishingcreek township, farmer, was called to prove declarations made by M'Henry three years before in a conversation with him. They were improbable in character and evidently colored and perverted if not manufactured outright. Upon objection made by counsel for defendant the Commission rejected this testimony and it was struck from the record.


AARON SMITH of Benton township, farmer, testified that he at- tended one secret meeting at the house of Peter Case. He was a member. The oath as near as he could remember was this :- "to be true to the Constitution and the laws of the United States ; the signs were not to be revealed." On cross-examination he added, "that was all that I ever knew about the oath ; Daniel M'Henry was not there." This witness was also examined as to the remarks of M'Henry at the Benton. meeting in 1863 about not giving money, or men, to the war, the way it was carried on. His testimony upon this was very much the same as that given by Esq., M'Waine, though somewhat less distinct and emphatic.


WM. EVANS of Fishingcreek, boatman, was examined on the subject of secret meetings but without any very satisfactory re- sult. He "attended so-called secret meetings ; one or two, could not say positively," but it turned out that he attended but one which was at the Savage School House in March, 1863. The date is important as fixing the time wlien those club meetings were in vogue, and this witness is worth looking after because he is the only one who locates Daniel M'Henry in one of those meetings. The witness appears in his testimony timidly anxious to escape responsibility. He says, "I was partly a member ; I never went through ; I was invited ; I never was there but once ; I was the only one [initiated] : I did not get through." Subse- quently he says, "I attended no secret meetings after that time. I did not walk far down [to the meetings ;] I went boating ." The fact was, the witness was afraid and confused before the Commission ; he had the terror of military power before his cyes, and hence his scattered answers and discla mors. Although in- itiated and sworn he says he was only partty a member ; he did


462


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY


not get through ; he did not walk far to the meeting, and he went boating as quickly as possible !


As to the oath taken by him and the object of the meeting, Evans proceeded to say-"the oath, near as I can recollect it, was to support the constitution of the United States and the Union. The Constitution of the United States was to be the Constitution of the society. * I cannot recollect whether we were to support all laws of the land. I got there by being told there was to be a meeting at the school house. It was public; the house was all open. It was not considered a meeting to resist the draft. It was purely political ; not for purpose of resisting the draft." He also said: "there were twenty to twenty-five persons present ; would not say the number ; Daniel M'Henry made a speech there. Can't recollect what he said. It was a political speech. John Savage, Charles Kramer, William J. Kramer, Alexander Kramer and one of the M'Henry's were there; also Levi Lunger."


This concludes the testimony of a government witness about a secret meeting which was open ! about a disloyal assemblage which was sworn to support the Constitution of the Union.


THE WITNESS CHARLES M. DODSON :- James M'Henry, Esq., of Cambra, Luzerne county, was arrested at daylight on the morning of August 31st 1864, and hurried across, four miles, to Benton church in this county, where the other prisoners were assembled. Without examination he was then taken with the others to Fort Mifflin and was kept in confinement until December, or for a period of more than three months. At the end of that time he was in- formed that the military authorities had nothing against him and was discharged and permitted to return home. And who was James M'Henry ? A merchant of Cambra, of intelligence and character, who had committed no offence nor given the slightest provocation for his arrest to the military authorities. His stand- ing in the community was attested, subsequent to his imprison- ment, by his election and re-election to the Legislature as a Rep. resentative from Luzerne county. When arrested he had his name upon a note in Bank, along with Edward Hughes, for the amount of $2,000 to raise bounties for volunteers to fill the quota of Huntington township.


Mr. M'Henry's arrest was upon the information, it is believed,


463


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


of Charles M. Dodson a young man of Benton township who had been in the army, but was at home on leave. Engaging in the business of government informer, runner and witness, he had his leave extended and thus escaped active service and danger for many months. He took witnesses to the military camp in Benton against D. L. Chapin, Esq., and perhaps others, gave information himself, and was at Harrisburg several times as runner and wit- ness.


Dodson's story against James M'Henry was that he had heard the latter make a speech in opposition to the draft, a speech of an inflammatory and disloyal character, in the fall of 1863, in the up- per end of Benton township. Upon this statement of his, which was a complete falsehood, the arrest and long imprisonment of Mr. M'Henry were based. The facts were, that at the meeting in question (which was held pending the election for Governor in 1863) political speeches of an ordinary character were made by a Mr. Wagner (who had been a soldier and a republican) and by others. James M'Henry being present and called upon, made some remarks in favor of Judge Woodward, the Democratic can- didate for Governor, stating his personal knowledge of him and of his high fitness and character as a candidate. Confining him- self to that subject his remarks were brief and had no reference whatever to the draft or any other general question of discourse or debate.


Ascertaining by good fortune what testimony Dodson proposed to give against him before the Military Commission, Mr M'Henry prepared himself for trial in the most effectual manner and urged that his case should be heard. For a month or more, however the prosecution delayed the hearing while efforts were made to se- cure additional evidence against him. Mr. Wellington Hughes of Cambra, an honorable gentleman and a republican, was asked to become a witness against his neighbor; in fact we believe he was sent for or brought from one of the western states to testify. But he declared he knew nothing against Mr. M'Henry. Addi- tional witnesses failing the prosecution, and a large number of reputable men standing ready to contradict Dodson, the further persecution of Mr. M'Henry had to be abandoned. Dodson, utterly discredited and impotent for further mischief, could only make the wretched and miserable excuse, that he had been mistaken-


464


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


that it was not James M' Henry who had made the disloyal speech, but another man.


Dodson's father had resided for years about two miles from Cambra and the family were accustomed to trade at that place. Mr. M'Henry's store and Mr. M'Henry himself were as well known to them all, as was any place or man in the whole country. It was therefore just impossible that young Dodson could have mis- taken any other person for James M'Henry at the Benton meet- ing of 1863.


THE WITNESS NATHANIEL L. CAMPBELL :- This witness appeared late upon the scene at Harrisburg to testify against Daniel M'- Henry, but he succeeded in making up for himself a somewhat remarkable record. Testifying to an interview and conversation between himself and M'Henry at Stillwater in February, 1864, he was confronted and contradicted by four or five credible wit- nesses upon every material point of his evidence. In short, his story was completely overthrown, and his appearance instead of aiding the prosecution contributed to secure an honorable ac- quittal for the defendant. We will now proceed to give his tes- timony literally and in full, following it with a recital of the over- whelming testimony in reply.


Nathaniel L. Campbell, sworn :- "I reside in Centre township, Columbia county ; a farmer, I know Daniel M'Henry. I attempted to fill the quota of our township in February last, attempted to fill quota by hiring volunteers, paying a I


local bounty of $200, in addition to Government bounty. I had a conversation with Daniel M'Henry ; it was in Febru- ary 1864. I stopped at Daniel M'Henry's and got my horse fed and dinner, as I was returning home. I live above Bloomsburg; I stopped. He commenced talking about the war. He remarked war was waged against the South by the black abo- litionists of the North to free the negroes. I told him I thought he was mistaken. He said men going down there to fight now were not going to fight for their country; they were going to fight for their money, you know. He said they were really mur- derers and ought to be shot before they went there or ought to be shot when they got there or when they came home. He remark- ed, the volunteers were reatly murderers and ought to be shot be-


465


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


fore they went there, or after they got there, or (I think he put to it) as soon as they came home. I told him I thought it was bet- ter hiring men than to be drafted. He remarked, he would not give a pence of money to hire volunteers and he would not go himself. I remarked if he was liable to draft he would have to go as well as me. I remarked, Government would not draft and leave him at home and take me. He either said he was armed and prepared or he would arm himself; if he had to die he would die at home and have a decent burial. I said I thought he was foolish. He might shoot down an officer and he would either be shot down or hung. He said we have 500 men ready to defend him or any other drafted men-was the way he expressed himself -or any other drafted man in the neighborhood I undertsood him; I remarked I had heard a report of that kind in the neigh- borhood before but I did not believe it; but, I said, suppose that to be the case I think I remarked it was merely a matter of moon- shine to attempt to resist the government, the government would send enough men up there to take the whole of them. He said that was not all; there was half a million of men in the United States armed and ready at a moment's warning, all they wanted was a man that had nerve and courage to strike the first blow. I remarked, if that was really true the country was in a worse situation than I supposed it was, but if there was not a man in half a million that had nerve enough to strike the first blow it was not very dangerous. He insisted that a majority of the peo- ple in the North were opposed to carrying on the war any fur- ther and the South would eventually whip us and there would be a rising up of the people in the North against the prosecution of the war. He talked on for a considerable time and insisted the war was unjust and a war to free the negroes and I insisted the war was just. He talked on for near one hour. I had no other conversation with M'Henry but that time. I never conversed with him before that time. He said if drafted he was armed or would arm himself and fight at home.


Cross Examined. I went into Benton township to raise men to fill our quota. I do not know that Daniel M'Henry was filling quota of his township. Did not come to high words in attempt- ing to get men out of his township. I did think he was excited ;


466


HISTORY OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.


we parted good friends. I told him I was a Jackson Democrat. He thought it strange. We were not both greatly excited. The words were not spoken in presence of any one about to volunteer. There were four men in the bar-room ; they were strangers to me. I had accomplished my business and was about to return home. The words had no influence on me. I do not know that they had on any other person. I had got the men I needed. He said the majority of the people of the North were opposed to carrying the war further ; that the South would eventually whip us and there would be an uprising in the North. His opinion was that the war was carried on to free the negroes. That opinion was carried through all his conversation. I do not recollect that he mention- ed slaves. I understood the half million of men were to defend men that were drafted, I could not tell who were present ; there were four persons present. I did not know them. They stood behind the stove and M'Henry at the bar. It was previous to the 27th of February last."


CONTRADICTIONS OF THE WITNESS N. L. CAMPBELL :- These were no less than twelve in number, and covered all the material points in his testimony as given heretofore. It will be remembered by our readers that Campbell stated in his testimony that "there were four persons present" when he had his conversation with Daniel M'Henry at Stillwater in February 1864. Those persons seem to have been James Edgar, W. B. Kline, Moses M'Henry and Wm. Raber, of whom the three first named were called as witnesses for the defensc. By them Campbell was flatly contra- dicted in the following statements made by him :- 1st. That D. M'Henry "commenced talking about the war' and the South ; 2d, "that he talked on for near one hour ;" 3d, that "he insisted the war was unjust;" 4th, that he said the men going down South to fight "were really murderers and ought to be shot ;" 5th, that he said "he was armed or would arm hiniself" to resist if drafted; (6th, that he said "he would not give a pence of money to hire volunteers or go himself ;" 7th, that he said there were "five hun- dred men ready to defend him or any other drafted man" (of the neighborhood as the witness understood;) 8th, that he said "there was half a million of men in the United States armed and ready :at a moment's warning" to resist the draft; and 9th, that he said




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.