History of Bradford County, Pennsylvania, with biographical selections, Part 14

Author: Bradsby, H. C. (Henry C.)
Publication date: 1891
Publisher: Chicago, S. B. Nelson
Number of Pages: 1340

USA > Pennsylvania > Bradford County > History of Bradford County, Pennsylvania, with biographical selections > Part 14

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).

On the 27th of March, 1787, "an act for ascertaining and confirm- ing to certain persons, called Connecticut claimants, the lands by them claimed within the county of Lnzerne, and for other purposes therein mentioned," was passed.

The preamble is in the words: "Whereas, before the determin- ation of the claim of Connecticut, a number of its inhabitants, with their associates, settled upon and improved divers tracts of land, lying on and near the northeast branch of the river Susquehanna, and the waters thereof, and now within the county of Luzerne; and whereas parts of the same lands have been claimed under titles derived from the late Proprietaries of Pennsylvania, and those interfering claims have occasioned much contention, expense, and bloodshed, and this Assembly being desirous of putting an end to those evils by confirming such of the Connecticut claims as were acquired by actual settlers prior to the determination of said dispute, agreeably to a petition of a num- ber of the said settlers, and by granting a just compensation to the Pennsylvania claimants," etc. It enacted :

That all the said rights or lots now lying within the county of Luzerne which were occupied or acquired by Connecticut claimants who were actually settlers there, at or before the determination of the claims of the State of Connecticut by the decree aforesaid, (" the decree of Trenton,") and which rights or lots were particularly assigned to the said settlers prior to the said decree, agreeably to the regulations then in force among them, be and they are hereby confirmed to them and their heirs and assigns.

A great town meeting of the settlers was at once called to accept or reject this act. John Franklin prepared for a final rally against it. He literally preached against it from settlement to settlement, and from house to house. The assembly was held at Forty Fort- the first place the organized Connecticut settlers touched on their arrival, and, as it proved, the place where the last word was said. As might be supposed, the meeting was an excited one, and friend fell into wretched antagonism to friend. The act was accepted. Col. Jenkins asked, " what security have we, that if we comply, and put ourselves in your power, the State wouldn't repeal the law, and deal as treacherously as in the case of Armstrong?" His question proved to be a bitter prophecy.

It was at this juncture that Gen. Ethan Allen appeared on the scene. Pickering well knew his object. Pickering and Franklin, each permitted no movement of the other to escape notice. The time for decisive action had come. Regarded as the head of the conspiracy, John Franklin was, on the 2d of October, 1787, arrested for high treason, under a warrant issued by Chief Justice Mckean.

As Col. Pickering had personally assisted in the arrest of Col. Franklin, he deemed it prudent to flee to Philadelphia. While there,

138

HISTORY OF BRADFORD COUNTY.

the people chose him as a delegate of Luzerne county to the Convention called to ratify the Constitution of the United States. This was a cordial testimony to their belief in ultimate justice at the hands of the State. Having discharged that duty, he returned to Luzerne county, of which he was prothonotary, clerk of the peace, clerk of the orphans' court, register of wills, and recorder of deeds.

Franklin was cruelly treated, being ironed down in a cold, miser- able dungeon, with insufficient food, no clothing except the light suit he had on when arrested, prohibited all communication with friends and all nse of pen, ink and paper. Here he was kept nearly two years. His friends were desperately willing to do anything in their power to secure his release. June 26, 1788, they kidnapped Pickering, and proposed holding him as a hostage, or secure his influence for the release of Franklin. The kidnappers were pursued by Pickering's adherents, and were fired upon and serious wounds inflicted, when the pursuit was given over. This was the last time that blood was shed in the long and cruel contention. Pickering resolutely refused to yield to the demands of his captors, and was, after three weeks, released.

The arrest of Franklin, and the acceptance by the people of the "Confirming Law," no doubt arrested the movement for the new State, which had already gone to the extent of completing its frame of gov- ernment, and Oliver Wolcott had drafted its Constitution and arranged that Maj. William Judd, of Farmington, Conn., should be governor, and Col. Franklin, lieutenant governor.

The following brief sketch of the greatest leader of his time in the settlement of northern Pennsylvania, was written by Edward Herrick, Esq., of Athens, in this county :

Col John Franklin was born at Canaan, Litchfield Co., Conn., September 26. 1749 ; removed to Wyoming in the spring of 1774 ; was many years an acting magistrate under Connecticut; captain of an independent company during the Revolutionary war. and, while attached to Sullivan's expedition against the Indians, was wounded in the attack on Chemung ; member of the Assembly of Connecticut in 1781; in October, 1787, he was arrested on a charge of treason against the State of Pennsylvania, for "endeavoring to subvert the government, and to erect a new and independent State in the room and stead thereof ; " was confined in Philadelphia nearly two years, a great part of the time heavily ironed, released on bail, and never brought to trial ; in 1792, he was elected high sheriff of Luzerne county, while an indictment for treason was, still hanging over him, was commissioned and served ; in 1795, 1796, 1799, 1800, 1801 1803, he was a member of Assembly from Luzerne county ; by the act of April 2, 1804, a small portion of Luzerne county, including his farm, was set off to Lycoming county ; this act was avowedly for the purpose of keeping him out of the Legislature, but in 1805 he again appeared in that body as a member from Lycoming ; in 1789 he removed to his farm in Athens (then Luzerne, now Bradford county), which was laid out to him under Connecticut title, and there resided until his death, March 1, 1831. He never accepted nor recognized a Pennsylvania title, but after his death, his heirs were required to purchase that title to his farm.

In the settlement of northern Pennsylvania he was the recognized leader, making annual pilgrimages to New England, and bringing back hosts of industrious settlers, whose descendants, to this day, preserve the virtuous character of their Puritan ances- try ; the people whom he brought thither. he never forsook. Their battles he fought in the courts, the Assembly, in newspapers and pamphlets, and, if necessary. with his strong right arm, with a zeal, persistency and fidelity which deserved for the cause he thought to be right, a better fate.

The "Confirming Act " failed of execution. The reasons therefor

139

HISTORY OF BRADFORD COUNTY.

are best given in Col. Pickering's own words: "The conditions ex- pressed in the contract (he refers to the act), were complied with on the part of the Connecticut claimants, as far as it was practicable, and they were not bound to perform impossibilities : that eight months from the time of passing the act were allowed them to get informa- tion of it, and to present their claims : that the commissioners appointed to receive and examine those 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 2d of October, for his treasonable practices and designs, occasioned a sudden insurrection of his adherents, of whom a very small number had any pretentions to land under the confirming law : that a few days before this arrest, Col. Balliot, one of the commissioners, had gone home to his family: that the subscriber, another of the commissioners, having personally, in sight of the peo- ple, and with arms in his hands, assisted in securing Franklin and pre- venting any attempt to rescue him, and thus rendered himself obnox- ious to the resentment and sudden vengeance of his partisans, was advised to retire to some secure place until their heat should subside : *

* that Col. William Montgomery, the other commissioner, seeing the storm gathering, immediately after Franklin was taken, had left

* * the country to go home : * that, the commissioners having thus separated, never again assembled, the time limited for the presenta- tion of the Connecticut claims expiring so soon after as the 28th of November following ; * * that, since this 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 (his paper is written 27th Febru- ary, 1790): "That the people rely on the magnanimity and good faith of the State, for the execution of the grants made to them by the con firming 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 industry, stop further improve- ments, revive ancient jealousies and animosities, and, perhaps, destroy the peace of the country. But, to say nothing of the attempt. as a breach of public faith, it may be worth while to inquire, 'whether such repeal be in its nature possible ?'" He goes on to treat the act as a "contract," or "treaty of peace."

The Landholders, however, were not without power in the Assem- bly. Using the conduct of the people as a cause or pretext, the act was suspended on the 29th of March, 1788.

Act Repealed .- The seal to this final act was prepared by the sus- pension act, through no fault, be it remembered, on the part of the Connecticut claimants The cross purposes that had arisen among the people themselves and the clamor of the landholders, brought the pressure that resulted in its repeal, April 1, 1790. This act of crown- ing bad faith was strongly resisted by many leading men of Pennsyl-

140

HISTORY OF BRADFORD COUNTY.

vania, and among others some of the most noted lawyers of Philadel- phia. Col. Jenkins' anxious, prophetic question had, indeed, at last been answered. Still the people went on quietly and hopefully. Although the law was repealed, by it Pennsylvania had distinctly recognized their rights in the case, and they settled in the conviction that some- how, at some time, their titles would be secured, and justice be done. The Susquehanna Company proceeded actively with their operations. What is now Bradford county was at once laid out in townships-not continuous with any municipal subdivision of the State. By the year 1795, it is said that what is now the entire territory of the county was covered with the "claims" of these grantees, and at the same time by " warrants" from Pennsylvania on top of them.

The Intrusion Law .- April 17, 1795, a statute was passed enact- ing penalties and punishment against any person taking possession, or intruding upon lands within the limits of Northampton, Northumber- land or Luzerne counties, except by right obtained from the Common- wealth.

Section 6 excepts any claims of persons claiming under " the con- firming act" of 28th March, 1787, etc. The exception took " the seven- teen townships " out of the effect of the act.

Under this act John Franklin and John Jenkins, et al., were indict- ed at August sessions, 1801, in Luzerne county, and a special verdict found against them. It was removed by certiorari into the Supreme Court. There the act was held constitutional, but the defendants were discharged on other grounds. Commonwealth vs. Franklin et al., 4 Dallas, 255, 316. (The arguments of counsel as reported here are worthy of attention).

It was held under this act " that the contract in this case (for the sale of lands) is illegal, being founded on a breach of the law, and, of consequence, a void contract." Mitchell vs. Smith, 1 Binney, 110.

This act is known as the " Intrusion Law," and has been subjected to much harsh criticism.

At length on the 21st April, 1795, the case of Vanhorne's lessee vs. Dorrance, 2 Dallas, 304, came on to be tried in the Circuit Court of Pennsylvania District. It was ejectment for a little tract of about twelve acres. Selected as a test, the plaintiff naturally brought it on the best title which could be produced. Jared Ingersoll, Jona. D. Sergeant and William Tilghman appeared for the plaintiffs. William Rawle, William Lewis and Joseph Thomas appeared for the defendants.

There was the fullest latitude in the testimony. All the charters and deeds, hereinbefore referred to, were put in evidence. The sur- veys and possessions of the tract in controversy were given. Col. Dennison, for the defendent, detailed his entry upon the lot in 1770, and the incidents of the first Pennamite war. William Gallop gave in evidence an account of "the massacre." Col. Pickering narrated the events of the second Pennamite war, and of the reception of the Con- firming Act. Robert Morris stated how, while a member of the Assembly in 1786-87, he, at first, was in favor of calling out the militia to expel the Yankees, but became an advocate for the act. The resolves of Connecticut-the records of the Susquehanna Com-

141

HISTORY OF BRADFORD COUNTY.

pany-Smollett's History-acts of Congress-the conduct of Patter- son's and Armstrong's troops-Col. John Henry Lydius' deposition as to the execution of the famous Indian deed of 11th July, 1754 (Mr. Tilghman hands this deed to court and jury, to show its suspicious face), were all put in evidence.

It was such a case as had never been tried in Europe or America.

It sufficiently appeared that the defendant had the earliest and a continued possession. The plaintiff claimed under a " warrant of sur- vey," executed 15th March, 1771.

Judge Patterson gave the jury binding instructions, and made short work of the Connecticut title.

I. "The title under Connecticut is of no avail, because the land in controversy is ex-territorial ; it does not lie within the charter bounds of Connecticut, but within the charter bounds of Pennsylvania. The charter of Connecticut does not cover or spread over the lands in question. Of course, no title can be derived from Connecticut."

The declaration that the land " does not lie within the charter bounds of Connecti- cut " ia here, for the first time in the history of the controversy, judicially made. This was not decided by the court at Trenton-their decree was only that, at the date of it, the "jurisdiction" and "pre-emption" wasin Pennsylvania as against Connecticut. This conclusion may have grown out of acts of " dereliction " or "estopel,' since the date of charter, as well as out of a queation of original " charter bounds."

Nor did it follow that "of course, no title could be derived from Connecticut." The judge does not advert to the facts from which the court at Trenton made the distinction between "jurisdiction " and "private right of soil"-that the defendant's title had been created under another sovereign actually exercising jurisdiction-that the jurisdiction had been recognized by the United States in various ways, notably by accepting the troops from Wyoming, the Twenty-fourth Connecticut Regiment, as part of the Continental line-by accepting, absolutely, the cession of western territory from Connecticut under the same title the defendant held-that ( by sufferance or otherwise) Pennsylvania had permitted the de facto government of Connecticut to be maintained at the situs of the land in dispute-and that in the origin and progress of the whole business there were such circumstances as might give the defendant title, independent of the will of Penn- sylvania, previous to the 30th December, 1782.

2. The "Indian deed " was summarily dismissed as one "under which the Connecticut settlers derive no title."

3. As to the title under the Confirming Act of 1787.

An act calling upon an individual to surrender or sacrifice his whole property for the good of community, without receiving a recompense in value, would be "a monster in legislation, and shock all mankind. The Legislature, therefore, had no authority to make an act diveating one citizen of his freehold, and vesting it in another, without a just compensation." * *

"The next step in the line of progression is whether the Legislature had authority to make an act divesting one citizen of his freehold and vesting it in another, even with compensation.

"The existence of auch power is necessary; *

* and if this be the case, it can not be lodged anywhere with so much safety as with the Legislature."

Such a case of necessity, and judging too of the compensation, can never occur in any nation; * * even upon full indemnification, unless that indemnification be ascer- * tained in the manner which I shall mention. * * Here the legislation must stop; * they can not constitutionally determine upon the amount of compensation, or the value of the land."

That can only be done-" by the parties "-" by commissioners mutually chosen by the parties "-or, " by the intervention of a jury."

By the act, the Pennsylvania claimanta are to present their claims to the "Board of Property," who are --

1. To judge of the validity of their claima.

2. To ascertain, by the aid of commissioners, appointed by the Legislature, the quality and value of the land.

142

HISTORY OF BRADFORD COUNTY.

3. To judge of the quantity of vacant land to be granted as an equivalent.

"This is not the constitutional line of procedure. * * By the act, the equivalent is to be land. No just compensation can be made, except in money.

" It is contended that the Legislature must judge of the necessity of interpoaing their deapotic authority. Be it so. Did there exist also a State necessity that the Legis- lature, or person solely appointed by them, must admeasure the compensation, or value of the lands seized and taken, and the validity of the title thereto ? Did a third State necessity exist, that the proprietor must take land by way of equivalent for his land ? And did a fourth State necessity exist that the value of this land-equivalent muat be adjusted by the Board of Property, without the consent of the party, or the interference of a jury ? Alas ! how necessity begela necessity. *

* ' Omnipotence in legislation is despotism.' In short, gentlemen, the Confirming Act ia void .; it never had constitu- tional existence; it is a dead letter, and of no more virtue or avail than if it had never been made."

In its application to the exact facts of the case of Vanhorne v8. Dorrance, this expo- sition is undoubtedly correct. The act applied to thia state of facts was unconstitutional for the reason stated. But at the time the confirming law was passed, the State was proprietor of a large portion of the lands which the aettlera held. The State had the power and right to give away her vacant lands (vacant as to her titles), and it is the bet- ter opinion that this law waa binding on the Legislature in favor of an "actual settler, before the decree of Trenton," for whose land, at the date of the act, there had been issued no Pennsylvania title. In that respect, the confirming law was not " of no more avail than if it had never been made." Mr. Rawle, iu his dissentient, goea further, and saya : " 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 ia permanent and per- petual upon the subjects to which it relates, a repeal, although it may destroy the law, can not diminish the effect it has already produced."

Judge Patterson proceeds to the mode of executing the law : "The estate of the Pennsylvania claimants was not divested on the passing of the act ; it was not divested on presenting the claim on the part of the Connecticut settlers.

" The intention of the Legislature was to vest in Connecticut claim- ants, of a particular description, a perfect estate to certain lands in the county of Luzerne; but then it was upon condition," which, of course, must be complied with.

" If the Legislature had authority to make the confirming act, they had also the authority to suspend it. * * Of course, there is an end of the business. The parties are placed on their original ground-they are restored to their pristine sitnation."

This would not be accurate as to the class of Connecticut settlers just referred to. As to them, the grant by the act was a good one- for a sufficient consideration recited in the act-they had a right of title, which a subsequent Legislature could not defeat. "The inten- tion " the judge refers to had been executed, irrepealably, as to them.

Judge Patterson did not regard the repealing act of April 1, 1790, bad, either as "an ex post facto law," or as "a law impairing the obli- gation of a contract."" Yet he says, himself: "If the property to the lands in question had been vested in the State of Pennsylvania, then the Legislature would have had the liberty and right of disposing of or granting them to whom they pleased, at any time, and in any manner.

There were large quantities of such lands held by Connecticut set- tlers. Surely, as to such, the repealing law was "ex post facto," and "impaired the obligation of a contract," and as such, was contrary to the Constitution of the United States.

Judge Patterson closes pungently :

1. The confirming act is unconstitutional and void. It was invalid from the begin-

143

HISTORY OF BRADFORD COUNTY.

ning, had no life or operation, and is in precisely the same state as if it had not been made. If so, the plaintiff's title remains in full force.

2. If the confirming act is constitutional, the conditions of it have not been per- formed, and, therefore, the estate continues in the plaintiff.

3. The confirming act has been suspended; and

4. Repealed.

All of which was perfectly true in its application to the facts of the case, and the verdict was properly for the plaintiffs.

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and stricken from the dockets without trial.

It was said Vanhorne fled the country, and process could not be served on him, and that Dorrance's attorney, Thomas, disappeared mysteriously with the papers in the case. Hence, but little or no results came of the case. It opened the courts whose records were soon burdened with cases where the Pennsylvania claimants hoped to gain possession of tbe disputed lands and rid the State of the burden of compensation; and while many actions were brought in eight years, there was the barren results of this one being partly tried.

Compromise Act of 1799 .- This was the beginning of the end. The law was passed April 4, 1799, " offering compensation to the Pennsylvania claimants of certain lands within the seventeen townships in the county of Luzerne." The law fixes the status of the conflicting claimants, and appoints Isaac Wheelan, of Chester county; Thomas Boude, of Lancaster county, and Gen. William Irvine, of Cumberland county, commissioners to examine all questions concerning claims to land in the seventeen townships, and divide the claims into four classes to be known as, first, second, third and fourth class, and for paying damages according to the respective classes. The act is long and directory, and was intended as one of mediation on the part of the State between the conflicting claimants.

The Pennsylvania claimants, refusing or neglecting to execute releases, were to be paid in land or money. The Connecticut claimants, with the memory of the repeal of the " Confirming Act " fresh in their minds, were little disposed to act or take the benefit of this law.

April 6, 1802, an act was passed requiring the commissioners to survey, value and certify the whole of each tract claimed by Connecti- cut people, and turned the Pennsylvania claimant, who had not released, over to the mercy of a jury to award his compensation.

In 1805, the Westmoreland county records were authorized to be deposited with the recorder of deeds in Luzerne county, and certified copies made evidence.

April 9, 1807, Pennsylvania claimants, under title previous to the " Confirming Act," were permitted to release, and the commissioner in examining Connecticut claims "shall not require the same lands to have been occupied prior to the decree of Trenton, but the same Jands to the several applicants certify, if under the rules and regulations of the Susquehanna Company, at any time they should otherwise thereto be entitled." This commission was abolished March 28, 1808.

These laws were executed with intelligence and fidelity. By October 20, 1802, about one thousand Connecticut claimants had exhibited their titles. All the lines in the seventeen townships had been again

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.

History of Bradford County, Pennsylvania, with biographical selections, Part 14

Author: Bradsby, H. C. (Henry C.) Publication date: 1891 Publisher: Chicago, S. B. Nelson Number of Pages: 1340

Author: Bradsby, H. C. (Henry C.)
Publication date: 1891
Publisher: Chicago, S. B. Nelson
Number of Pages: 1340