USA > Pennsylvania > Luzerne County > Wilkes-Barre > A history of Wilkes-Barre, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania : from its first beginnings to the present time, including chapters of newly-discovered early Wyoming Valley history, together with many biographical sketches and much genealogical material. Volume III > Part 86
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 | Part 95 | Part 96 | Part 97 | Part 98 | Part 99 | Part 100 | Part 101 | Part 102 | Part 103 | Part 104 | Part 105 | Part 106 | Part 107 | Part 108
With the passing of these two characters, at practically the same time, from the scene of their antagonistic activities, there ends much of the glamor of romance which envelops the early history of Wilkes-Barre and the Wyoming Valley. A single Chapter will serve to conclude what echoes remain of the unique struggle between Connecticut and Pennsylvania, for the political mastery of a district whose history was made unique in the annals of America, by reason of this controversy. For a subsequent Chapter of this volume has been reserved a discussion of hesitating yet successful processes of law, Court interpretation and common sense, which finally quieted the titles to individual rights of soil of the Susquehanna Purchase.
*From Mrs. Murray's Paper (ante).
CHAPTER XXXIV.
AGGRESSIVE LEADERSHIP AT WYOMING IS MISSING-FAILURE OF THE "CON- FIRMING LAW" AND ITS REPEAL-THE "INTRUSION ACT" A MOCKERY- REVIVAL OF THE SUSQUEHANNA COMPANY WITH ATHENS AS A HUB OF RESTLESS ACTIVITIES-THE "COMPROMISE ACT OF 1799"-ADVERSE COURT DECISIONS-ABILITY AND SINCERITY OF THE "COMPROMISE COMMISSION" INSPIRE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE-RIGHTS OF SOIL FINALLY DETERMINED.
"'Tis distance lends enchantment to the view And robes the mountain in its azure hue." Campbell.
"Midnight! the outpost of advancing day! The frontier town and citadel of night! The watershed of Time, from which the streams Of yesterday and tomorrow take their way, One to the land of promise and of light, One to the land of darkness and of dreams." Longfellow.
When Colonel Pickering and Colonel Franklin took their several ways from Luzerne County, there was lacking an aggressive leadership of the two factions of settlers whose animosities, for a period of over thirty years, had caused turmoil, strife and bloodshed throughout the wide domain of the Susquehanna Purchase. The Decree of Trenton, in 1782, had settled, for all time, the question of political jurisdiction of the contending states, over a then huge wilderness of nearly five million : cres, dotted by infrequent settlements, among which Wilkes-Barré stood first in population and importance. In view of a refusal of Congress to further consider the case, or of Connecticut to actively interest itself in its lost province, there had remained but one course open to that faction of settlers who refused to accept either the Decree itself, or the laws of Pennsylvania, as binding upon them. The independent state idea offered a seemingly plausible way out of the difficulty. But this idea, as preceding Chapters have disclosed, was not to reach fruition. Nor was a later revival of the plan, as will be seen, to be more successful in accomplishment.
Had the right of soil, or in other words, the individual title to the lands, been settled by the same Decree, or, had it been justly determined by Pennsylvania, within a reasonable time after the Decree was promulgated, hundreds of lives might have been spared, the ruin of thousands averted and the loss of millions to that Commonwealth saved. In the end, after wearing out a generation, the whole business was settled-and satisfactorily in the main.
To reach an understanding of this final adjustment of an unparalleled case in the nation's history, a brief review seems required of legislation, incompetent
1650
1651
and conflicting at the start, but eventually so clarified by subsequent amendment as to meet the situation .*
The first step taken by Pennsylvania to quiet these troublesome titles at Wyoming, was the passage of the Confirming Law, March 28, 1787. The purport of the act, as has already been seen, was to confirm a title, recognized as inherent in such Connecticut claimants as were acttial settlers upon their claims prior to the Decree of Trenton. To those deriving title to the same lands from Penn- sylvania, a just compensation in other landst was to be deemed a sufficient con- sideration for surrendering the disputed title to the state. Pennsylvania kept all anchor to windward, however, in one of the conditions of the measure. Section nine of the act provided, in brief, that within eight months from its passage, the Connecticut claimants were to produce their claims before commissioners appointed to hear them, "clearly describing their lands and describing the grounds of their claims, and also adducing the proper proofs, not only of their titles, but of their situations, qualities and values of the lands so claimed, to enable the Board to judge the validity of such claims and of the quantities of vacant lands proper to be granted as equivalents (to Pennsylvania claimants.)"
How impossible it was for the settlers to avail themselves of the requirements and privileges of the act within the time limit, was expressed in a letter of protest from Colonel Pickering, to the Council, dated at Wilkes-Barré, February 27, 1790. In substance the protest contended:
"That the conditions expressed in the Act were complied with, on the part of the Connecti- cut claimants, as far as it was practicable, and they were not bound to perform impossib lities, that eight months 'rom the time of passing the act were allowed them to get information of it, and to present their claims; that the commissioners appointed to receive and examine these claims were required to meet, for that purpose, in Luzerne county, in two months next after the passing of the Act; that owing to successive resignations of General Muhlenberg. General Heister, and Joseph Montgomery, Esquire, those examinations did not commence till some time in August ; that the seizure of John Franklin, on the 2nd of October, for his questionable practices and designs, occasioned a sudden insurrection of his adherents, of whom a very small number had any pre- tensions to land under the Confirming Law; that a few days before this arrest, Colonel Balliot, one of the commissioners, had gone home to his family; That Colonel Pickering, himself another of the commis ioners, having personally, in sight of the people, and with arms in his hands, as- sisted in securing Franklin, and preventing any attempts to rescue him, and thus rendered himself obnoxious to the resentment and sudden vengeance of his partisans, was advised to retire to some secure place until their heat should subside; That Colonel William Montgomery, the other com- missioner, seeing the storm gathering, immediately after Franklin was taken, had left the county to go home; That the commissioners having thus separated, never again assembled, the time limited for the presentation of the Connecticut claims expiring so soon after as the 28th of Novem- ber, following: That since th's event, (referring to his own abduction,) the county has remained in perfect quiet, the laws having as free and complete operation as in any other county."
Then arguing against the repeal of the Act, he added:
"That the people rely on the magnanimity and good faith of the State, for the execution of the grants made to them by the Confirming Law; That in this expectation, their industry is manifestly increased, they have begun to build more comfortable houses, to erect barns, and to extend the improvements on their lands; That a repeal of the law would check this rising in- dustry, stop further improvements, revive ancient jealousies and animosities, and perhaps, des- troy the peace of the country."
Colonel Pickering's connection with Wyoming's affairs was directly attribut- able to this law. To exercise political jurisdiction over the territory covered by the Decree, without permitting its citizens a voice in government to the same extent, at least, as they had enjoyed under Connecticut, was not consonant with
*To the student of this phase of the County's history, "A Brief of Title in the Seventeen Townships in the County of Luzerne", a pamphlet published in 1879 by Hon. Henry M. Hoyt, and containing in full, his scholarly address before the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, is recommended
+The main ground stated by the United States Circuit Court, in 1795, for declaring this Act unconstitutional, was that compensation was required in terms of land, rather than in terms of money for the surrender of Pennsylvania titles. This was the celebrated case of Vanhorne's Lessee vs. Dorrance, referred to at length in this Chapter.
1652
American ideals nor to be tolerated by the settlers. With the erection of Luzerne, as a County of Pennsylvania, came Colonel Pickering, holding five offices from the County itself, and a still more important post as the head of the Board to put into effect the terms of the Confirming Law. As has been seen, the Law itself was suspended after a year and a day of operation and repealed April 1, 1790.
Two weeks prior to the actual repeal, Colonel Pickering, at Philadelphia, was in touch with the situation, but powerless to stay its trend. On March 16, 1790, he wrote as follows :*
"The Committee made their report to the House yesterday that it was now proper and necessary that the Confirming Law should be repealed. Six of the Committee out of 9 agreed to this report. *
* The decision will so materially affect the settlers I shall stay here to see * the issue. I feel an interest beyond any other person to prevent a repeal; for I am a claimant under the Connecticut title equal perhaps to any other but in the value of my land; and it was by my persuasions that the people were induced to submit to the Government of Pennsylvania in confident expectation that their lands would be confirmed, and that once being confirmed, the law would never be repealed. [ assured them they might rely on the good faith of the State; and it was to convince them of my firm belief in that good faith, that I first became a purchaser of lands under the Connecticut title-thus placing myself on the same footing with themselves. If the law should now be repealed, their jealousy will lead them to suspect that I was the willing instrument of deception. My situation therefore is a cruel one. If the State had not passed the Confirming Law, I should never have moved with my family to that Country, but have renounced that and my offices together. I should then have lost but five or six months in the measures preparatory to their submitting to this Government. I have now wasted three precious years of my life in this business, attended with great loss of property, and many perils and sufferings. But a Federal Court (and I trust, even a State Court) will eventually do right to the people, agreeably to the tenour of the Confirming Law."
Exaggerated statements of conditions at Wyoming, cross purposes of different interests, petitions for repeal, ill defined views of the real scope of the act, activities of the land jobbing lobby and bad faith, contributed to the senti- ment apparent in the Assembly. That the stiff necked conduct of the settlers themselves was seized upon as the mainspring of repeal, is evident from the pre- amble to the repealing measure:
"Whereas", so runs the preamble, "By an act entitled 'An act for ascertaining and con- firming to certain persons, called Connecticut claimants, the lands by them claimed, within the county of Luzerne, and for other purposes therein mentioned,' It is, among other things, enacted, that certain commissioners therein named, or thereafter to be appointed, should, within a limited time, meet together within the said county, for the purpose of receiving and examining the claims of the said claimants, and ascertaining and confirming the same. And Whereas, When these commissioners had met, in pursuance of the said law, they were interrupted in their proceedings by the combinations, threatenings, and outrageous violence of certain lawless people in the said county of Luzerne, and obliged to fly for the preservation of their lives. And Whereas, Doubts have also arisen concerning the construction, true intent, and meaning of said law, for which, and other causes, it hath become very difficult to determine the same, and to adjust the compen- sation to be made to those persons who will be divested of their property by the operation of the said law, if the same shall be carried into effect. And Whereas, The time in which these commis- sioners were to receive claims has expired, but their other powers still remain, which, if immed- iately executed, without further provisions and regulations being previously made, will tend to embarrassment and confusion." Be it Enacted, &c.
The Act itself is as follows;
"Section 1. Whereas, An act of Assembly, enacted the twenty-eighth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, entitled 'An act for ascertaining and confirming to certain persons, called Connecticut Claimants, the lands by them claimed within the county of Luzerne, and for other purposes therein mentioned,' hath been found, in its principles and oper- ations, to be unjust and oppressive, inasmuch as it divested many citizens of this State of their lands without their consent, and without making them any just compensation; And l'hereas, Depriving individuals of their property in such a summary way is unconstitutional, and of the most dangerous consequence; And Whereas, Said act was enacted by the Legislature hastily, without due consideration had, and proper information of the magnitude of the grant; And Il'hereas, Carrying said act into effect would impose a grievous burden on the good citizens of this State, to make compensation to those who would thereby be divested of their property; And Whereas, The reasons set forth in the preamble of said act do not appear sufficient to warrant any legislative interference or departure from the established rules of justice, in respect to private property, nor hath had the effect proposed:
*This letter appears among the unpublished correspondence of William Samuel Johnson, sometime President of Columbia College, the original heing on file in the Massachusetts Historical Society.
1653
"Section II. Be it Enacted, &c., That the act, entitled 'An act for ascertaining and con- firming to certain persons called Connecticut claimants, &c., *
* * be and the same is hereby repealed, and all proceedings had under said act are hereby rendered void, and declared to be null and of no effect; and all titles and claims which might be supposed to be affected by said act are hereby re-vested in the former owners, in as full and ample a manner as if the said act had never been enacted, anything in the same to the contrary notwithstanding.
"Section III. And Whereas, It hath been represented to this House, that judgment has been obtained iu sundry actions of ejectment brought in the Court of Common Pleas for the county of Northumberland, for sundry tracts of land now lying within the county of Luzerne, at the suit of persons claiming under titles derived from the late Proprietaries of Pennsylvania, in which judgment by default has been recovered against persons holding such lands by virtue of rights, or titles derived from or under the State of Connecticut, and it is right and just that the defendants in such actions should not be dispossessed without a trial by jury: Be it therefore enacted by the authority aforesaid, That no writ or writs of Scire Facias, or Habere Facias Possessionem, shall issue from the said court to revive such judgments, or to carry them into effect; but original suits in ejectment, for recovery of any such tracts of land within the said county, may be brought at the suit of such Pennsylvania claimants or any of them."
The third section of the repeal seemed to recognize an undetermined right in the Connecticut settlers to their possessions. The unusual power is therein assumed of reversing judgments in ejectment obtained against them by Pennsylvania claimants, and of compelling the latter to institute new suits to try their rights.
This recognition, intangible and inferential as it may seem, served to hold Wyoming in check. There were those who remembered the anxious question of John Jenkins, at the stormy meeting at Forty Fort, two years before, as to a possibility of this very repeal. Colonel Pickering evidently remembered the incident for, on April 8, 1790, he wrote from Philadelphia, to his wife, the following:
"I hope the people will not be disheartened about the repeal of the Confirming Law. Every disinterested man of sound judgment condemns the repeal, and says it will avail nothing to the Pennsylvania claimants. Many members of the Assembly, who voted for the repeal, have since said openly that they suppose the Connecticut claimants will hold the lands; but, the Pennsyl- vania claimants having generally desired the repeal, they were willing to gratify them, and thus rid the State of the burthen of the compensation. The people ought not to blame me. I have done everything in my power to prevent the repeal, and am determined to stand by them to the last. How great and laborious have been my exertions in this affair, I expect Mr. Gore and Mr. Butler will inform the people. *
* * No doubt Franklin and Jenkins, and a few others, may triumph. But they have no cause; it is owing to their unwarranted schemes and measures that the Commissioners were interrupted in the examination of the claims, which alone gave a handle first to suspend and then to repeal the law. Mr. Lewis (the ablest lawyer in the State) and Mr. Rawle, (another lawyer), both members of the General Assembly, have protested against the repeal. Mr. Peters joins them in the opinion that the repeal will avail nothing. The opinions of these three gentlemen will have more weight with men of sense, than the opinions of as many hundreds of such men as those who voted for the repeal. Mr. Morris, Mr. Clymer, and Mr. Fitzsimons, all celebrated characters, are entirely and warmly on our side. Doctor Johnson, of Connecticut (whom the People of Wyoming know), is of the same opinion,-that the confirming laws cannot be made void. My letter to him on the subject, and his answer, I also enclose, as well as a letter from Judge Brearly, who was one of the Commissioners of the Federal Court at Trenton. I enclose also a copy of a second letter from Doctor Johnson. Be careful of all these papers; and if Mr. Bowman lends them to others to be read, desire him to take the uiccessary caution against their being lost. I wish them to be read by all who are honestly desirous of ob- taining information on the subject."
Interesting also, in this same defence of the settlers against an arbitrary repeal of the Law, whose terms, if extended to meet the situation at Wyoming, might have promptly solved a question as peculiar as it was important, is a Dissentient, filed at the time, by a minority of the members of the Assembly, who stated their objections to the repeal in no uncertain terms :*
The following is a copy of the minority report:
"Dissentient from the vote adopting the report of the committee in favour of repealing the act entitled 'An act for ascertaining and confirming to certain persons called Connecticut claim- ants, the lands by them claimed within the county of Luzerne, and for other purposes therein mentioned.'
"Ist. Because we consider the act which the resolution adopted by the House, proposes to repeal, to be either in the nature of an absolute, or a conditional grant to the Connecticut settler s *See, "Pennsylvania Archives," XI1 : 325.
.
1654
If the latter, it has not yet been proved to our satisfaction, that the insurrection at Wyoming, which occasioned the commissioners to fly, proceeded from a general determination to resist the authority, and reject the bounties of this State, or from the turbulent dispositions of some of the adherents of John Franklin, who were incensed at his sudden and secret arrest ; few of whom could derive any benefit from the law which the commissioners were then carrying into execution, and consequently, it has not appeared with that clearness which the importance of the subject requires, that there has been any breach of the implied condition of the law, viz: that the Connec- tient settlers would submit to the authority of the State.
"2nd. Because if the grant is absolute, it is obligatory upon the State, and can only be revoked upon the terms mentioned hereafter. We conceive that a law vesting an interest conveys the most (authentic) and (solemn) title that can be annexed to property, after which the State has not the same power over the law which it most unquestionably possesses over its own acts of another nature. But in no instance can the power of repealing laws affect their obligations while in force, and consequently, if the effect of the law while in force is permanent and perpetual upon the subject to which it relates, a repeal, although it may destroy the law, cannot diminish the effect it has already produced.
"3rd. Because, although it is universally conceded that private property may at any time be taken for public uses, yet it can only be so taken on condition of making full and adequate compensation to the private proprietor; and hence it may follow that the State, from whatever motives, having conveyed the title to the lands in dispute, under certain terms and modifications to the Connecticut settlers, will at a future day be liable to make a more expensive compensation to those settlers, than the whole amount of the demands of the Pennsylvania claimants.
"4th. Because it is introducing a most dangerous principle to repeal a law of any kind from an impression, however strong, that the Legislature was deceived at the time of passing the law. A law contrary to the constitution, may and ought to be repealed; for in that instance there is a certain guide, which although it may be disobeyed, cannot be misunderstood. But to pass our own judgment in a legislative manner, upon the sufficiency of the motives which induced a former Assembly to enact a law of the nature of that which it is now proposed to repeal, and to collect those motives from other sources than the law itself, appears to us to endanger the auth- ority even of our own proceedings, by rendering them liable at a future day, to be subverted in the same manner, with perhaps still less evidence, than we have to proceed upon. And it will directly tend to destroy the order, safety and happiness, derived from civil society; for as the obligation of the laws is rendered less solemn and conclusive, the Legislature will naturally become less impressed with their importance, and the people will gradually learn to disregard their authority .
Signed, "William Rawle, "Jacob Hiltsheimer,
"Richard Thomas, "Henry Denney,
"Richard Downing, Jr., "Samuel Ashmead.
"Lawrence Sickle,
"Obadiah Gore,
"Jonathan Roberts, "Herman Hershard."
"The 'reflections' that occur to me on the events since the Decree of Trenton would be something like these," says Hoyt, in his "Brief of Title," pre- viously mentioned :
1. "The decision was most unexpected. and came upon the settlers without any organized sentiment among them. They, plain men, looked forward to, and had reason to expect, a re-hearing, or the formation of a new tribunal. 2. "Pennsylvania authorities meant to deal equitably with those 'who actually resided on the lands at Wyom- ing before the decree' and the 'families of those who fell fighting the savages,' but were perplexed how it could be done 'without a violation of the rights of property, in a multitude of instances, those lands having been granted by Pennsylvania to many individuals who insisted on their titles, and pleaded the sanction of laws.' (President Dickinson to Governor of Connecticut, March, 1784.) She had not yet reached the manifest equity, and plain duty, of giving the 'Yankees' the very lands they had improved and defended. She ought instantly to have quieted them in their farms and improvements.
3. "The Commissioners in their first act in 1783, against the spirit of their instructions, alarmed the set- tlers and closed the door to 'conciliation' by the declaration 'that Pennsylvania would not and could not deprive her citizens of their property.'
4. "The landholders reached the climax when they put forward their unfeeling 'compromise' that 'the settlers might remain one year, the widows of those who had fallen hy the savages, a year lunger.'
5 "The Connecticut settlers placed themselves in a position of contending for other claims than their own when they refused the offer (ungenerous as it was) on the ground that 'we cannot, as we are joint tenants, with a much greater body of joint proprietors than are here, without their consent, give up our claims to those lands in dispute.' The impediments, all the way through, arose from blending the case of those who settled before the Decree with non-residents, and others who came afterwards, under the Susquehanna Company. In point of justice, the cases were absolutely different.
6. "Connecticut officials and laws no longer ruled the settlers. They waited, sullenly, for Pennsylvania to act. They justly considered themselves in possession, as they were, and had been since the year 1770. 7. "When Pennsylvania did act, she sent two companies of soldiers to uphold her flag, and Alexander Patter- son as her civil magistrate. He was, in fact and in truth, the agent of the Landholders, and his zeal for his 'constit- uents' absorbed his functions as an officer of the State. He was insolent, unreasoning, and cruel. This line of action necessarily inspired first alarm, then contempt, and finally retaliation.
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.