USA > Pennsylvania > Fayette County > Uniontown > A history of Uniontown : the county seat of Fayette County, Pennsylvania > Part 36
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
John Q. Van Swearingen was elected additional law judge in November, 1907, his term to begin January 6, 1908.
A separate Orphans' Court was established in Fayette county when Governor Stewart approved the bill forming the same, May 25, 1907.
James Clark Work was the unanimous choice of the Fayette county Bar Association for the appointment as its first judge, and at a special meeting of the association held May 27th, he was notified to that effect.
Mr. Work received his commission as judge of the Orphans' Court May 31, 1897, and at the approach of the fall election he was placed in nomination by the Republican, the Democratic and the Prohibition parties and at the election he received al- most every vote that was polled, an honor never before be- stowed on any candidate. Judge Work entered upon his ten- year term the first Monday in January, 1908.
The Juvenile Court of Fayette county was established by the act of April 23, 1903, the first session of which was held before Judge Umbel on Saturday, January 5, 1910.
Under the act of assembly of May 1, 1901, a law library was purchased for the use of the bar, and on October 16, 1903, 1300 volumes were received and placed in the care of Joseph M. Oglevee, Esq., as librarian. Since which time the number of volumes has been increased to 5,000.
378
History of Uniontown, Pennsylvania.
On September 27, 1875, Lawrence L. Minor was appointed the first stenographer to the courts of Fayette county, which position he held until January 1, 1907, when he resigned.
The census of Fayette county of 1910, gave Fayette county the right to have a county controller, and Harry Kisinger of Brownsville, was appointed the first controller of the county. He opened the business of the office Wednesday, February 22, 1911, and at the fall election of that year he was elected to that office for a term of four years.
COUNTY OFFICERS.
The first register of wills and recorder of deeds and clerk of the Orphan's Court was Colonel Alexander McClean who was appointed to these offices December 6, 1783, and which he held until his death, January 7, 1834.
The first prothonotary was General Ephraim Douglass who was appointed October 6, 1783, which office he held until 1808, when he resigned.
The first district attorney of the county was R. Gilbraith, who was appointed in 1792.
The first sheriff for the county was Robert Orr, who was appointed in 1784, the sheriff of Westmoreland county holding over until that time on account of a misunderstanding of the election laws.
b
The first commissioners of the county were Zachariah Con- nell, Joseph Caldwell and Col. Thomas Gaddis.
The first coroner of the county was Henry Beeson, from November 21, 1786, to October 30, 1789.
The first treasurer of the county was General Ephraim Douglass from October 13, 1784, to 1800.
The first county surveyor was Col. McClean succeeding himself from the formation of the county to 1828.
The first associate judges were Nathaniel Breading, 1790; Isaac Meason and James Finley, 1791.
The first assistant district attorney was A. Plumer Austin.
DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS OF EIGHT MEMBERS OF THE FAYETTE COUNTY BAR.
Thomas H. Baird, Esq., was commissioned president judge of the newly formed Fourteenth Judicial District, July, 1818,
ar
an
er
on
at Eke
Fer
379
History of Uniontown, Pennsylvania.
and during his term on the bench of Fayette county, disaffec- tion arose between the court and several members of the bar, which, as time passed, increased in intensity until it was claimed that " the public confidence seemed to have been withdrawn alike from the bar and the court."
In a case on trial before Judge Baird at September Ses- sions, 1834, an old lady was called as a witness, and upon hearing her testimony the judge indulged in the remark that the old lady was " too willing a witness." Her son hearing this remark and knowing it was intended as a reflection on his mother's veracity, took immediate offense, and procuring a cowhide, waited until his Honor appeared on the street and used his weapon with powerful effect on the person of the judge. The assailant was immediately taken into custody and held for trial, and at No. 10 January Sessions, 1835, he pleaded guilty of as- sault and battery, and a sentence of fifty dollars fine, and costs, and imprisonment in the county jail for twelve calendar months, and gave security for good behavior for one year after the ex- piration of his term, was pronounced by Associate Judge Porter.
This event caused intense feeling throughout the county, and added fuel to the flame that had been long smouldering, and prompted the following communication from Judge Baird to Messrs. Ewing, Todd, Dawson and other gentlemen of the bar of Fayette county :
Friday Sept. 12th, 1834.
Gentlemen :
You have no doubt long been aware that the occurrence of a variety of disagreeable circumstances in the conduct of our business in court, has rendered my situation often exceedingly painful and perplexing. It is possible I have had my full share in the causes which have led to this state of things. I think, however, upon reflection, you will be satisfied that in a great de- gree it has been owing to the irregular manner of the bar in the trial of causes. It is unnecessary to go into particulars at this time. It has been the subject of complaint and of conflict, distress- ing to me and unpleasant to you. Finding a remedy hopeless with- out your aid, I have frequently brought my mind to the con- clusion that perhaps I ought to withdraw and give you the op- portunity of getting in my room some other gentleman who would have your confidence and co-operation. This determina- tion has heretofore been yielded to the advice of friends upon
380
History of Uniontown, Pennsylvania.
whose judgment I have relied. Early in the present week requested an interview with you, that we might talk these mat ters over, and perhaps agree to an united effort for reform You were prevented from meeting as proposed. In the mear. time the occurrence of a brutal attack upon me by a ruffian. growing out of a trial in court, has more and more convinced me of the necessity of coming to some conclusion, that may prevent the repetition of such outrages. On this subject I wish not to be misunderstood. The act of a brute, or bully can never drive me from the post of duty or of honor, I thank God that in the performance of my official functions I have been preserved from the operation of fear as I hoped have been from favor or affection. I never, I repeat, have been deterred by an apprehension of personal danger, although I have often been aware of peril. I have known that there was causes for it. The inadvertant-but as I think, indiscreet indulgence of side bar remarks, indicative of dissatisfaction with the decisions of the court, and perhaps some times of contempt have been calcu- lated to make a lodgment in the public mind injurious to the authority and respectability of the court, and particularly of myself its organ, and has had a direct tendency to rouse the malignant passion of a disappointed or defeated party. I have often observed or been informed of these things, and thought they might lead to disastrous consequence. A correct, judicious man, if he thinks his case has not been correctly decided, will seek redress in the legitimate mode only, or if that is not ac- cessible will submit to it, as we all do to unavoidable misfor- tunes, a ruffian, however, if told by his counsel that injustice has been done him in the administration of the law, may feel dis- posed to seek revenge on the Judge. In the case referred to I think the cause and effect can be distinctly traced. The earnest- ness and positiveness of the counsel in this trial, and expressions thoughtlessly dropped afterwards, perhaps inflamed an un- principled fellow to make the attack. It may be, however, that it would not have occurred had he not been encouraged by other persons. I have only my suspicions, and make no charge against any one. I exculpate the counsel in that case, and I exculpate the whole bar from the most distant idea of producing such a catastrophe. All that I mean to say is, that the practice I have mentioned has a direct tendency to incite to such outrages, and that in this particular case (in connection with other causes)
: 1
381
History of Uniontown, Pennsylvania.
it did lead to the violence. This same cause may produce the same effect. I must be always exposed to such consequences if matter of excitement continues to be furnished to wrong headed brutal suitors. If I could have the confidence and sup- port of the bar, and the assurance of a change in their manner towards each other the office I hold would be rendered dignified, honorable and pleasant, but otherwise, it must be altogether in- tolerable. On my part there is no want of good feelings, and I take this occasion to declare, that there is not one of you for whom I entertained unkind sentiments. On the contrary there is no one whose interests I would not advance or whose honor I would not maintain so far as in my power. As to myself I have no right to claim your friendship though I should be glad to have it, but I think in the discharge of my official duties, I ought to have your courtesy and respect and when I err, for- bearance in manner and recourse directly to the proper remedy (which I am always disposed to facilitate) and not to inflamma- tory expressions, or disapprobation or contempt addressed to the public or the party. I have thus disclosed to you frankly my feelings and views. In reply I wish your sentiments and determinations as to the future in relation to the grievances I have presented, and propose therefore that you should take a few minutes to confer together and inform me of the conclu- sion to which you may arrive at.
I am truly yours, &c.,
T. H. Baird.
To the above communication the gentlemen addressed made the following reply :
Uniontown, Pa., Oct. 3d, 1834.
Dear Sir :
We have delayed replying to your letter, under date of the 12th September 1834, addressed to the members of the bar of Fayette county, until the present time, to afford an opportunity for consulting together, and also for mature reflection upon the matters to which you refer. We regret in common with your Honor, that we have not been able in harmony and with satis- faction to ourselves and the people of the county, to transact the business of our courts. The public confidence seems to be withdrawn alike from the bar and the court. Perhaps your Honor's retiring from the bench, as you have intimated a
ec
ay
k
382
History of Uniontown, Pennsylvania.
willingness so to do, and giving the people the power to select another, would be the means of producing a better state of things, and a more cordial co-operation from all sides in the dispatch of the business of the county. This expression of our views is made in candor and sincerity without a wish to inspire one unpleasant thought or unkind feeling; but under a sense of duty to the county in which we live to your honor and to ourselves.
Very respectfully, Yours, &c.
John M. Austin, John Dawson, Joshua B. Howell, John H. Deford, Joseph Williams, Robert P. Flenniken,
Rice G. Hopwood, William McDonald, William P. Wells.
The above communication was postmarked Uniontown, Pa., November 7, 1834, and addressed to Thomas H. Baird, Esq., Williamsport, Washington county, Pa., to which Judge Baird replied as follows :
Harlem, Dec., 15th, 1834.
Messrs. Austin, Dawson, Howell, Deford, Williams, Flen- niken, Hopwood, McDonald, and Wells, members of the Fay- ette County bar :
Your communication dated 3d Oct. (postmarked Nov. 7th) which purports to be an answer to my letter of 12th Sept., came to my hand on Saturday night last. It had been withheld from me by my friends during my recent illness, from an apprehension it might produce an increased excitement prejudicial to my health. In this they were mistaken. I have experienced too much of the ills of this life, and at present too many causes of agitating concern to be greatly disturbed by it. Perhaps, were it not for the knowledge of human nature which I have dearly bought, I might have been surprised and pained to receive such a paper from persons standing to me in the relation that you do. Not one of whom I have ever intention- ally injured in thought, word or deed. I was, however, pre-
a
383
History of Uniontown, Pennsylvania.
pared for such an expression of your views, though there are some signatures I did not expect to see. Had your letter been framed immediately in answer to mine, and put into my hands at the time, I do not know what course I might have adopted in the hurry of my feelings. I certainly have often entertained a thought of leaving my situation, influenced by a regard of my personal comfort-and I will add also, from considerations to- wards you, that spring more from my heart than my head. This purpose I often yielded to the judgment and advice of my friends. I have also repeatedly said that unless a reform could be effected in the mode of doing business in court, I would not continue in office. I immediately after the commencement of last term, to which I referred in my last letter; I hastily ex- pressed my intention never to return to the county. This pur- pose was formed not on account of the immediate outrage, which I was aware I could sufficiently punish, but because I believed, as I still do, that the ruffian was instigated by others .- It is not my recollection, that I declared in my com- munication to you, any present design of abandoning my office at your request, and I am confirmed in this idea, from the fact that a judicious friend strongly remonstrated against such an intimation being given. But if I had even so expressed myself, subsequent reflection, long before I received your letter, had abundantly convinced me that it would be wrong to do so at this time and under the circumstances in which I am placed in my official relation to you and to the people. The station I hold is not mine, nor is it yours. It belongs to the public, and has been conferred upon me, without my solicitation, by the constitutional agent. Unless from private consideration I think proper to give it up, and the right to do so is recognized by law, it cannot be taken from me but in the way the people have designated. It would be a violation of their rights, and a dere- liction of duty, if I could be constrained or influenced to aban- don it by any other process. I am now satisfied that I ought not to have addressed you as I did. It was compromising the dignity of the office entrusted to me, to solicit from you a reform in your manner of conducting your business at the bar when I ought to have compelled it. In concurrence with my brother judges, I should have prescribed the order and discipline of the court and enforced obedience. This error, however, also pro- ceeded more from my heart than from my head ;- and you are
384
History of Uniontown, Pennsylvania.
the last persons in the world who ought to complain of it. Henceforth it will be my endeavor to correct this mistake ;- and depend upon it, if there is not a reform, without making it a matter of compact with you, it will not be my fault. But, however, I might be disposed to resign my office, from motives of private convenience and peace of mind, which I have a right to do, or perhaps from a wish to indulge you in a desired preference for some other person in my stead, the propriety of which I now doubt; yet still, the terms of your communication entirely preclude me from doing so without yielding my personal and judicial honor. You undertake to assert that, "the public confidence seems to be withdrawn alike from the Bar and the Court." If the first part of the proposition is to be understood as an admission of the state of things in relation to yourselves, it is not my business to combat it ;- but I deny your right or warrant to make the latter allegation. It is of grave import and deliberately set forth, for you took time as you say, " to afford an opportunity of consulting together, and also for mature re- flection." It is the basis of your request, that I should resign ; for the other matters, in relation to the manner of conducting the business of the court, you were well aware was in your power to adjust: undoubtedly, therefore, it involves a charge of official delinquency ;- such as would warrant the removal of the judges either by impeachment or address .- " Public confi- dence " is indeed the only foundation on which must rest the usefulness, respectability and authority of the courts: if that is destroyed all that is valuable in our judicial institutions must fall and the personal honor of the judges be involved in the general ruin. To weaken or impair then, that faith which the people ought to have in the integrity and capacity of these who administer their laws, is a great public mischief. Certainly there is no way more calculated to produce such a result, than to assert that such is the present fact. The laws will not allow, that the people have "withdrawn " their " confidence " from their judicial agents, unless, it has been so ascertained in the mode prescribed in the constitution. It cannot be tolerated that the official standing of judges is to be tested by the sneering remarks we may hear on the streets, or the vituperation of bar-room consorts .- I leave it to you therefore, as a matter of professional opinion to say-whether it would not be indictable as a libel, for any one to publish in writing, that the " public
JUDGE THOMAS H. BAIRD.
385
History of Uniontoren, Pennsylvania.
confidence is withdrawn " from a court. Perhaps when mem- bers of the bar so far forget the "fidelity" to which they are bound, as to promulgate such a declaration, a discreet but de- cisive exercise of the summary power vested in the judges, over the conduct of their own officers, may be considered the most obvious and proper course. On this point it would be prema- ture in me to express an opinion now. Your communication will be before us at the next term and after deliberate examination and hearing, the decision of the court will be pronounced .- There is another matter which I think it proper to apprise you of, with the hope that a satisfactory explanation will be offered. I have understood that a report is in circulation, eminating from some of you, that I have charged the whole bar, with being concerned in the outrage lately committed upon me .- If it is true that such an idea has been thrown abroad, it is so base a perversion of language that I cannot conceive the malignity of the heart that could engender it. When such means are em- ployed to excite popular prejudice, it would not be surprising if " public confidence " should be " withdrawn"-from me at least .- My letter will show for itself ;- and I defy the ingenuity of Satan himself, to make out any such thing-on the contrary I think it contains a distinct exculpation of the whole bar from the most distant thought of producing such a catastrophe. The whole matter in relation to that outrage, will be before the court at the next term,-and the associate judges will be called upon to sustain, and assert the violated authority and dignity of the judicial office by the exercise of their summary power of punishing such gross contempt. At the last sitting, I made up my mind to take no step myself, as it might be thought I acted under excited feelings; and the public prosecutor, who is considered as particularly representing the people in relation to such things did not think proper to present to the court the propriety and necessity of this course. It is, however, indis- pensable; for a judicial tribunal that cannot protect itself, with- out resorting to another tribunal for aid or redress, must cease to exist.
In conclusion, I will only say, that upon mature reflection it is my determination not to resign at present; and that it is also my abiding determination never to resign upon the ground stated in your letter. I hope to be able to take my seat on the bench in Fayette county, on the first Monday of January
386
History of Uniontown, Pennsylvania.
next .- If I have lost any degree of the public confidence, it shall be my endeavor to regain it, by a faithful performance of my judicial functions. With the aid of my brother judges, I will try to preserve the order and discipline of the court by a discreet but energetic exercise of the power which the law gives us; and perhaps you may be satisfied that the laxity, which has no doubt, been a considerable cause of complaint was more owing to my kind feelings towards you than to any want of moral courage to encounter the consequences that may result from the honest discharge of public duty; I shall per- form my official functions with sincere desire to do right- and I shall expect from members of the bar that they behave themselves with all good fidelity to the court as well as to the clients.
I am, &c., Thomas H. Baird.
At a Court of Common Pleas held at Uniontown, January 6, 1835, before Judge Baird and his associates, Charles Porter and Samuel Nixon, the following action was taken, viz .:
A rule was granted upon Jno. M. Austin, John Dawson, Joshua B. Howell, J. H. Deford, J. Williams, A. Patterson, R. P. Flenniken, R. G. Hopwood, Wm. McDonald, and Wm. P. Wells, to show cause why they should not be stricken from the list of attorneys, &c.
On the next morning the members of the bar presented to the court, the following :
" The undersigned who are required by a rule of court, entered to show cause why they should not be stricken from the list of attorneys, present this answer to that rule .-
We earnestly, but respectfully protest against the legal power and authority of the court to enter and enforce such a rule for the cause alleged.
The rule appears to be founded and predicated on the letter of the undersigned, addressed to Judge Baird, dated October 3, 1834. To enable a full understanding of the whole matter, a letter of Judge Baird, dated September 12, 1834, is herewith presented (see letter).
It is evident that the letter of the undersigned, which con- tains the supposed offensive matter, is a reply and a response to the letter of Judge Baird, to them addressed. It is certainly
387
History of Uniontoren, Pennsylvania.
respectful in its terms, and, as is sincerely believed, and posi- tively asserted contains neither in word, meaning, nor intention, the slightest contempt or the least disrespect to the court or any of its members.
The respondents would be entirely at a loss to compre- hend how it could be possible to give the letter, from its terms, an offensive interpretation were they not informed from an- other source, that the following paragraph is considered ob- jectionable, "The public confidence seems to be withdrawn alike from the bar and the court." We by this paragraph ex- pressed our honest conviction, and intended no contempt to the court. It is a response in some measure to that part of Judge Baird's letter in which he himself says that the circumstances to which he refers " were calculated to make a lodgement in the public mind injurious, to the authority and respectability of the court and particularly of himself its organ."
It will be perceived from the two letters referred to that the correspondence did not take place between the bar and the court-it was between the respondents and Judge Baird at his instance and request. The occurrence asserted as constituting some undefined offense did not take place in presence of the court-it took place out of court and in pais.
Far, very far, therefore, are we from being guilty of any offense against the court. As to Judge Baird personally, the letter distinctly and unequivocally states that our views were " made in candor and sincerity, without a wish to inspire one unpleasant thought or unkind feeling."
John M. Austin, John Dawson, Joshua B. Howell, Wm. P. Wells,
Alfred Patterson, J. H. Deford,
Wm. McDonald,
J. Williams, R. P. Flenniken, R. G. Hopwood.
388
History of Uniontown, Pennsylvania.
This answer having been read, it was pronounced by the court as insufficient, because it did not embrace the publication of the correspondence .- The respondents then asked the rule to be postponed until the afternoon, when they would make an- swer to that part of the supposed offense also-which was granted.
In the evening the respondents presented the following as their second answer :
The undersigned, after reiterating the protest contained in a former answer, make this further reply to the rule entered yesterday against them.
When the former answer was prepared it was not known that the publication of the correspondence between the bar and Judge Baird in the newspapers constituted a portion of the sup- posed offense against the court; the record not presenting that aspect of the case.
They now reply to this matter, and to cause a more perfect understanding thereof, they present herewith a letter from Judge Baird to the undersigned, dated December 15, 1834. We now ask that the three letters on record may be carefully ex- amined in connection with our former answer to the Rule to show cause. We cannot but think that the court will then be satisfied that the last letter of Judge Baird contains imputations and strictures not warranted by any thing said in our communi- cation to him when properly understood. In some way the existence of the controversy reached the public ear. It imme- diately assumed a false shape in connection with an assault committed upon the Judge by a suitor in court. Misapprehen- sions about the nature of the correspondence was produced. For want of correct information, false assertions were made and false inferences drawn. It became a public matter involving seriously public interest. The correspondence related to public affairs. The letter by no means being private and confidential, we consider it our imperative duty, in justice to ourselves, and in justice to the public, to lay the whole correspondence as it really was, before the whole community. It was accordingly done and for the purpose intimated. The court will clearly perceive that in this act there was no offense committed against the court, but was a proceeding rendered every way necessary,
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.