USA > Pennsylvania > Bradford County > Athens > A history of old Tioga Point and early Athens, Pennsylvania > Part 31
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
"I am with great respect thy sincere friend, "Timothy Pickering Esquire Philadelphia. JOHN DICKINSON."
Of these three letters 'tis a curious fact that the originals of the first and last are in Athens to-day; while that of Briarley we recently found among Mss. of American Philosophical Society, by whose courtesy it is reproduced.
Hoyt says that no publicity was given to the first letter until the trial of Van Horn vs. Dorrance, in 1795; he was shown the originals by Edward Herrick in 1879, but does not say where they were found. The first letter is in the handwriting of Whipple.
Query VIII. What was the Confirming Act?
Answer. Owing to the new disturbances growing out of the Trenton decree, a petition was sent to the Pennsylvania Legislature ask- ing that the Seventeen Townships might be confirmed to the Connecti- cut settlers therein. Whereupon was passed, March 27, 1787, what was called the confirming law. This may be found in 2nd Series, Penn- sylvania Archives, Vol. XVIII, p. 660. The purport was to confirm the title of every Connecticut claimant, who was an actual settler and owner of land, prior to the decree of Trenton; the Pennsylvania claim- ants in the same territory were to be given lands of equal value else- where in the State. Craft says: "This law was important, because it was the first unqualified acknowledgment on the part of Pennsylvania of the Connecticut claimants." The passage of the act, however, brought on a crisis ; while the Connecticut claimants voted to accept it, there arose such a storm of criticism that it was suspended one year from enactment, and repealed April, 1790.
Hoyt calls this repeal "a bad breach of public faith," but by it a step had been gained, and an important one. The effect of the repeal was to turn the whole matter over to the civil courts, though the Con- necticut settlers continued to occupy the land and were undisturbed. Many suits were brought for ejectment, but only one was tried, the
230
OLD TIOGA POINT AND EARLY ATHENS
famous one, still quoted, of Van Horn vs. Dorrance. Fisher says : "Such a case, involving history, romance, adventure and constitutional law, had seldom, if ever, been tried." It was decided against the Con- necticut claimant.
Query IX. How were the different rights designated ?
Answer. According to the rules of the Susquehanna Company, each township of five miles square was to be divided into fifty-three parts, each of equal quality ; fifty appropriated to the settlers, one for the use of schools, one for the church, and one for the first gospel minister who should settle in the township. At first, grants were made only at regular meetings of the Susquehanna Company ; but, as the bus- iness grew, a standing committee was appointed for this purpose. In accordance with votes of the company at various meetings, five kinds of rights came to be recognized, to wit: Original Rights, being those of original proprietors of company, who had paid from $2.00 to $15.00 for admission. Settlers' Rights, offered as a gratuity to a certain num- ber who would go on ground, and hold possession for a certain number of years, being offered to promote rapid settlement, and compete with Pennsylvania. Suffering Rights, which were additional grants, given as compensation to those who suffered losses in the conflicts with Pennsylvania. (The committee was empowered to lay out a suffering township on Muncy Creek.) Certificate Rights, granted to proprietors in the company who did not become actual settlers; these certificates were sometimes sold, and also used as currency or sources of specu- lation. Half-Share Rights, which from the organization of the com- pany men were permitted to purchase. "The shares issued by the Sus- quehanna Company increased from 850 to 1240, perhaps one hundred being granted for services rendered. A considerable number of half shares were given out, as many poor persons wished an interest in the purchase, and did not feel able to buy a whole right. Only 2000 acres were allowed on a whole share, 1000 on a half share. Prices of shares varied from $50. to $100. To preserve order, and prevent interfering claims, a land office was established; where, when shares were pro- duced to the amount of 16000 acres, a survey was made by an appoint- ed officer, a patent or grant of township issued and recorded; the shares being received or cancelled. For several years John Jenkins was surveyor-general, Joseph Biles his deputy." Miner, p. 145. Also, after the discontent created by Trenton decree, it was decided to en- courage further settlement by offering half-share rights "to every able- bodied and effective man who would move onto the land, submit him- self to the orders of the company, and agree to remain three years." These later half-share men were dubbed "Wild Yankees," to dis- tinguish them from the old settlers. This became a term of opprobrium, as will be seen later. Four hundred half-shares were to be so issued.
"No. 264.
"These certify all Persons whom it may concern, that Matthias Holonback of Wyoming in the State of Pennsyvania is intitled to One Half Share in the SUSQUEHANNAH PURCHASE of Lands, according to the Vote of said Company for the disposal of Rights in said Purchase, at their Meeting held at Hartford, July 13, 1785.
"Certified "SAM'L GRAY, Clerk."
231
HALF SHARE CERTIFICATES
I dohouby bortity that Going Gove is admitted a half Share proprietor in the Susq? purchase Sont this to all the Benefits of any half Share profituctor in said Company. Agree able to a resolve of the Company at their meetingheld Cat Hertford July 13th 1785 ,0 provided the remains in said Country for the space of three years and Conforms him self as directed by said
Given under my handat 11 yoming this 10 De 101785- John Franklin Com ta
HALF-SHARE CERTIFICATE OF THE CONN. SUSQUEHANNA COMPANY
.
232
OLD TIOGA POINT AND EARLY ATHENS
(Endorsed on the back in the hand of Col. Franklin.)
"The within Certificate No. 264 Despos'd of to the within named Matthias Hollenback by me.
"Wyoming Feb. 28, 1786. JOHN FRANKLIN, one of the Committee."
"Entered in the Town of Athens for one right.
"Test, JOHN FRANKLIN."
A certificate of a Susquehanna Whole Share Right to Samuel Huntington, some time President of the Continental Congress, and for many years Gov- ernor of Connecticut :
"Windham 7th July A. D. 1773.
"These Presents Witness-That we the Subscribers, Committee of the Susquehanna Company: In consideration of Sundry beneficial Services done by Samuel Huntington, of Norwich, for said Company-Do hereby Institute him to one whole Share in the Lands in sd. Susquehannah Purchase in equal pro- portion, with the other Proprietors.
"ELIPHALET DYER "JED'A ELDERKIN "SAM'L GRAY "NATH'A WALES JR 1
Committee."
"Recorded on the Records of the Susquehannah Company.
"Liber E. Page 364, Sept. 6, 1796. "Attest-David Paine, Ass't Clerk."
Query X. What was the Intrusion Law?
Answer. In spite of the repeal of the confirming law, the Sus- quehanna Company continued their operations. By 1795 the present county of Bradford was covered by claims of their grantees, and by Pennsylvania warrants, both under and on top of them. Whereupon the State passed a new act designed to prevent intrusions on these lands, making such punishable by fine or imprisonment. This was called the Intrusion Law, and provoked sharp criticism. In 1801 a supplementary act was passed forbidding all future intrusions. Yankee settlers who came in after the decree of Trenton were now called Con- necticut intruders.
Query XI. What was the Compromise Act, and its consequences ?
Answer. On April 4, 1799, the legislature passed an act entitled "An act for offering compensation to the Pennsylvania claimants of certain lands within the seventeen townships." This was the Com- promise Act, though commonly called the Compromise Law, rendered necessary by the position of the Pennsylvania claimants, who were en- tirely out in the cold. By this act all claimants were required to re- lease or give up their titles to the Commonwealth. That being done, the Pennsylvanians were to be paid for theirs in money, and the Con- necticut claimants, who were actual settlers before the decree of Tren- ton, were to have their land given back to them by the State on making a small payment.
Under this act, commissioners were appointed to ascertain the quality, quantity and situation of lands in the Seventeen Townships, held by both claimants; to divide the land into four classes and affix the value to each class. These commissioners were Thomas Cooper, General Steele and William Wilson; their duties were difficult and delicate. The valuations were from eight and a quarter cents an acre to a sum not exceeding five dollars.
233
SUMMARY OF CONTROVERSY
The Connecticut settlers, though at first a little slow, finally came forward in large numbers and released. The Pennsylvania speculators would not release at all, and another act had to be passed in 1802 which allowed the Yankees a title without being sued by Pennsylvania claimants. In 1807 a final act was passed by which Connecticut claim- ants were not obliged to have occupied before decree of Trenton, and Pennsylvania claimants could release and be paid in money if they had acquired title before Confirming Act. In 1808 all powers of commis- sioners were suspended, and they were required to deposit their books, records, etc., in the land office of the State.8
Fisher says :
"Thus after a shameful waste of life, property and money, the legislature was compelled to do what it could have done just as well fifteen years before. What shall be said of such a history? If ever there was a quarrel unnecessary, wasteful and foolish, it was this dispute. Let us hope that something besides cruelty, devastation and wrong, resulted from that mistaken persistence of Con- necticut, a persistence which attempted to grasp a western empire which the lawful decrees of the British Crown had given to another Commonwealth."
Query XII. When did the controversy finally close ?
Answer. It has generally been said that the controversy closed in 1808, when the commissioners completed their work, according to the Compromise Act, yet it is high time for Tioga Point to claim her own. The controversy did not come to an end at Wyoming, or in 1808, but was transferred to Bradford County, where, with the exception of bloodshed, it was as bitter as ever, and may be said to have ended only with the close of the Welles-Matthewson case in 1827.9
The above quotations from the New York Regents' Boundary Report, prove a lamentable ignorance as to the excluded townships.
Having thus given, as it were, a bird's-eye view of the principal points of the controversy, let us reiterate Hoyt's outline; an exact ju- dicial view of the whole matter; as follows :
"The Royal Charters and Grants to Connecticut and Pennsylvania.
"The purchases by both colonies from the Indians.
"The possession taken by both parties.
"The decree of Trenton.
"The statutes of Pennsylvania after that decree, and the decisions of the courts under them." * * *
As to effects, "it involved the lives of hundreds, was the ruin of thousands, and cost the State millions. It wore out one entire generation. It was right- eously settled in the end. We can afford now to look at it without bias or bitter feeling." * In conclusion, "I. In the forum of Law, Connecticut, with a
8 For all these laws see Pennsylvania Archives, Second Series, Vol. XVIII. Here find Provost Smith's pamphlet, and some minutes of Susquehanna Company, also Governor Wol- cott's letter as mentioned, reports of commissioners, and much of interest to the student of State or local history.
9 "In 1808 the powers of the Commissioners were suspended, and the case between the State of Pennsylvania and the Connecticut settlers of the Seventeen Townships came to an end. (Note-Although the number of certified Townships is generally given as seventeen, an eighteenth, Athens, was apparently included in the confirmation to the settlers.)
"Certified Township No. 18, Athens, which was confirmed to the Connecticut settlers of the Susquehanna Company by the Compensation Act of 1799, was laid out in May, 1786, five miles square 'adjoining the State Line,' by John Jenkins, who began 'on the north line of the Susqa. Purchase, one mile west of the Tioga Branch,' (Chemung River). This survey was made a short time before the present boundary was run, and it is quite apparent from the plot of the township that the 'State Line' referred to was the temporary line laid out across the Susquehanna and Chemung valleys by William Maclay in 1784. This township was covered by Pennsylvania Lottery warrants laid out by Maclay in 1785."
234
OLD TIOGA POINT AND EARLY ATHENS
title regular on its face, failed justly. II. In the forum of Equity, the Connecti- cut settlers without other title than the 'possessio pedis,' prevailed rightly."
AUTHOR'S NOTE-In considering the continuation of the contro- versy, we are confronted with the gravest task in this history ; one that has seemed for years a veritable mountain, lofty and inaccessible. In vain have we sought a companion to assist us, in vain wandered around it, seeking some easy foothold. And now, having at last determined to scale its heights unaided, we pause affrighted. What shall be re- corded, what omitted? How present the matter clearly, judicially and impartially, and yet avoid the criticisms of our readers? In this we have not the able guidance as heretofore of Hoyt and Fisher ; for, cur- iously enough, like the Wyoming historians of the past, they did not follow the storm up the river; and made little or no mention of the Half-Share Settlers, the "Wild Yankee League," the excluded town- ships,9 or, indeed, of the most important of all, the proposed erection of an independent state (to be related in a later chapter). They seem, too, to be utterly ignorant of the long lawsuit which was the real close of the controversy, and which has been called "the most famous law- suit ever tried in Pennsylvania, which shook the Commonwealth from centre to circumference."
Wyoming and its many struggles has always so filled the public eye that there has been no room left for consideration of the Tioga Point region. The Trenton Decree has often been said to have prac- tically ended the Pennamite and Yankee controversy. But, when it ended at Wyoming, for Athens and her sister townships it had only just begun; for, as stated by a legislator of 1825, "In the sequel the opposition receded to the township of Athens, lying around Tioga Point." Suit after suit, in local and higher courts, ended in carrying the final controversy into the legislature. Wily politicians revived the quarrel when temporarily stilled, and local politics, county elections, and even State issues were affected for years; legislators finally being elected for the sole purpose of helping the one or the other side. Peti- tions and special acts were in order from 1819 to 1827. The journals of the house reveal whole sessions given over to heated discussion as to Connecticut and Pennsylvania rights. The final settlement, by a special act granting justice to both parties, closed what the newspapers of the day called "a long and painful controversy, which every year was a bill of heavy expense to the State."
The reader will easily see that to scale these heights one should be learned in the law; and will therefore be lenient to our shortcomings.
CHAPTER XIV
THE PERMANENT SETTLEMENT OF THE VALLEY
1783-1787
Pennsylvania Titles Under Province and State-The Coming of the First Settlers-Matthias Hollenback and "Hollenback's Store" Lockhart's Lottery Warrant-The Establishment of the State Line-Effect of the Decree of Trenton-John Franklin-The Half-Share Men or "Wild Yankees"-Cause of the Settlement of Ulster and Athens-The New State Project-The Intercepted Letters-Franklin Imprisoned-The Connecticut Gore
While much more than the cursory glance at the land controversy, as given in the previous chapter, would be required to understand af- fairs at Wyoming; enough has probably been recorded as an intro- duction to the history of Tioga Point. If needed for reference, it can easily be found elsewhere. Our readers, however, must have an intel- ligent idea of Pennsylvania titles, as they differed somewhat from those of other States, indeed, the student of the early history of this region must seek to fathom many mysteries. And to weave all the separate strands into one smooth thread of lucid and chronological history is as difficult as would be the task to a modern woman of converting tow and flax into a smooth thread by means of the old-fashioned flax wheel.
"Under the proprietary government lands were never regularly put in market, nor their sale regulated by law; but they were disposed of to whom, on what terms, in such quantities and such locations as the proprietor or his agent thought best; all the business of the Penn family being conducted accord- ing to the old feudal system, the inhabitants being merely tenants, paying quit rents to Penn's heirs, and having little interest in the affairs of the province of Pennsylvania, unless hired or persuaded to assist the proprietary family."1
Under the State, the landjobbers and speculators made the great- est confusion ; claim upon claim confronts us ; chamber surveys,2 actual
1 An interesting bit of Penn ways, relating somewhat to this locality, was found among the Mss. of the American Philosophical Society. John Penn instructed Stewart, Ogden and Jennings to dispose of lands on east branch of the Susquehanna as follows: 100 acres for seven years, leased for one ear of Indian corn per annum. At the end of seven years the settler to have an option on his land if the Penn's wished to sell.
2 Some idea of troubles arising from so-called chamber surveys (made on paper without examination of property) may be gleaned from a letter found among papers of the late Judge Herrick, written by a client holding title to land near Wysox. The whole group of letters from father and son were really pitiful.
William Buckley of Philadelphia, to Judge Herrick, 1816. (Buckley was the Pennsyl- vania claimant.)
"I know not how to reconcile the principles on which the citizens, I was going to say, are robbed of their property, for it seems an established one that it is wrested from them in every shape that advantage can be taken of them. I have pd. Taxes on those lands for many years, also the State purchase money; have obtained Patents, and complied with all the requi- sitions of the Laws to the best of my Knowledge. How are these things reconcilable on the rules of common equity? And I am now stripped of them by Persons that perhaps never pd. a cent Tax, or the state any consideration. The township or county receive taxes from me for Lands that I am not admitted to possess or dispose of. I am at times 'ready to exclaim
235
236
OLD TIOGA POINT AND EARLY ATHENS
surveys, deeds poll, titles under the Proprietaries, the new purchase, the State and the Connecticut claim. Settling rights, possessory rights, half-share rights, ejectments, etc. One's brain reels; yet it is con- solatory to be told by an able lawyer of the early lawsuits in Bradford County alone, when there were often as many as six overlapping claims, and, as he puts it, "Cords of wood piled up in the court room"; for often the claims could only be decided by the blazed tree, and the year of actual survey by the consecutive rings.
The fertile valleys of the upper Susquehanna were early looked upon by greedy eyes of others than the Connecticut settlers, and lands were carelessly disposed of here as elsewhere.
According to some lists in possession of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, the Penns made some grants of land under the original deed of pre-emption of 1736. One is specially noted of November, 1742, to Jno. Anderson, possibly the "honest Quaker trader," of later date. Other lands on and near "the Sasquahannah" were granted at same date. After the ratification of the pre-emption deed, the Penns advertised that they would receive applications for land on the east side of the Susquehannah in 1765, office to be open -June 1, although the first orders of survey seem to have been those of 1769.
Edward Herrick, Jr., thus treats of the early surveys hereabouts (see Craft's "History of Bradford County," p. 271) :
"That part of the township of Athens lying east of the Susquehanna river was embraced in the purchase from Indians by Proprietaries, at the Fort Stan- wix treaty of 1768. In the year 1773 Charles Stewart,3 deputy surveyor of the State, made surveys and laid warrants for the lands in that purchase. There were three warrants laid in Athens, embracing all the level lands directly east of the village; to wit, Jacob Whetmore of 3053 acres, No. 25; John Stover of 322} acres, No. 1790; and David Trisler of 2802 acres, No. 16. The title to these three warrants subsequently passed into Jos. Wharton of Philadelphia, from whom the settlers derived their title when it became necessary to purchase the Pennsylvania title in order to retain their lands."
So much for Mr. Herrick's research. Access has recently been given the author to a quaint old Indian basket, in which were hidden many bits of history practically undisturbed for fifty years or more. Among the old papers therein was "an order of survey issued to John Lukens, Surveyor-General, by the Proprietarys of Pennsylvania," bear- ing date 3d April, 1769, No. 25, for "a certain tract of land situate on the South East side of the North East Branch of the Susquehanna, about two miles above the mouth of the Tihogo in Northumberland
O Tempora, O Mores. I prefer compromise to litigation, but, if impossible I am determincd of any Redress to be had. And I am spared with life I will seek Justice. I want nothing farther." (The above was written on hearing that arbitrators had decided in favor of Con- necticut settlers.) In this case there proved to be no actual survey, and the chamber survey incorrect, one corner extending thirty rods into the river.
3 After the purchase of 1768, which embraced the eastern portion of the State, Charles . Stewart was the first deputy, being appointed in March, 1769, for that part of the purchase west of the dividing ridge between the Delaware and Susquehanna. He it was who made the detached surveys in the Wappasening Valley surrounding Nichols before the Revolution.
In some early lawsuits actual survey in this locality was doubted. But the diaries of the Moravian missionaries of Wyalusing and Sheshequin (see Craft note books) tell of the coming of surveyors to Sheshequin May 10, 1769, mentioning Stewart by name, as coming with John Anderson and "three of their surveyors." 'This party is also mentioned as at Wyo- ming in some old accounts in collections of Historical Society of Pennsylvania. May 12, 1771, Ettwein again mentions a surveyor at Sheshequin. It has generally been said that the first surveys were made in 1772.
237
THE FIRST SETTLER
County." While there are several similar orders of survey in the Her- rick collection in Tioga Point Museum, there are none but this that differ from his description. For while Stover's and Trisler's tracts did pass to Joseph Wharton, it was not so with Whetmore's, or as he signs himself, Jacob Witmore of Lancaster County. There is no evidence that he was ever in this locality ; but of his tract, now known as the Ovenshire farm, there is a complete chain of conveyances to the pres- ent owner, all found in the old Indian basket: first the order of survey of 1769 ; next a deed to Matthias Slough of Lancaster, consideration £5, date March, 1780. Nothing is known of Slough except that only six days later he deeds the tract to William Patterson of Cumberland County, consideration 5s., lawful money of Pennsylvania. Here we will make a break in the chain to introduce the first settler on this tract.
The first, and often the most disputed point in the history of a local- ity, is who was the first settler, and what the date of his settlement? While family traditions make history for the members of that family, it is for the historian to bring to notice documentary records, always indisputable evidence.
In May, 1783, Captain Simon Spalding4 came to settle on the fertile flats now known as Sheshequin, a name originally belonging to the old Indian town "Tschetschequinmink," west of the river. These were unusual plains where the Sullivan land forces had encamped in 1779, with Capt. Spalding in command of a company, at which time he resolved to return. He reported the "Indian grass" as high as his head when he sat on horseback. Naturally, this attractive location was covered by Penn grants, to which some of the present owners trace their titles. Some occupants held on a possessory right. But Spald- ing's companions were all Connecticut settlers, and most of them pur- chased their titles under the final grant of old Ulster. They were, Joseph Kinney,5 Benjamin Cole, Hugh Forseman, Thomas Baldwin,
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.