History of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, Part 29

Author: Ashmead, Henry Graham, 1838-1920
Publication date: 1884
Publisher: Philadelphia, Pa. : L.H. Everts
Number of Pages: 1150

USA > Pennsylvania > Delaware County > History of Delaware County, Pennsylvania > Part 29

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).

The next general public meeting of the operatives was at the old Providence Inn on Saturday evening, Nov. 20, 1847, when the following resolutions were unanimously adopted :

" Resolved, That the persons composing this meeting have been loog aud practically convinced of the injurious effect of the great number of hours now constituting a day's work in factories, upon the mental and physical powers of those subjected to such long-continued toil and confinement.

" Resolved, That this meeting hails with a lively satisfaction the io- creasing interest manifested by all the producing classes, and more par- ticularly the expressed sympathy aud support of the public press in aid of the present movement to ameliorate the condition of the factory operatives.

" Resolved, That we will continue our united exertions to procure hy constitutional and legal means the passage of a law reducing the time of labor in factories to ten hours a day, or fifty-eight hours per week."

These resolutions were urged in stirring addresses by Messrs. Webb, Cotton, Ashworth, Walker, and Fawley.

A meeting of operatives and workingmen generally was held at Sucatlr's Corner on Saturday evening, Dec. 4, 1847. Dr. Jesse Young having suggested some doubts about the constitutionality of a law reg-

ulating the hours of labor for adults, a spirited debate arose between him and Messrs. Ashworth, Fawley, and Walker, which continued for more than an hour. Hon. Joseph Engle (one of the associate judges for Delaware County) being present was solicited for his opinion, and stated that he believed the Legislature had power to pass laws to promote the moral and physical well-being of the citizens of the State, and as the present object of the operatives appeared to him to be expressly designed for that highly com- mendable purpose, he had no doubt of either the right or justice of such legislation.

The following Saturday evening, Dec. 10, 1847, a meeting was held in the school-house at Hinkson's Corner, which was addressed by Messrs. Ashworth, Holt, F. Pearson, and Greenwood. The following resolutions were adopted :

" Resolved, That in the opinion of this meeting the present system is more particularly injurious to children employed in factories, depriving them in a majority of cases from ever acquiring the rudiments of a common education, so essentially necessary to enable them to perform the duties devolving on them as citizens of this Republic.

" Resolved, That we believe that the confinement of female operatives for twelve or fourteen hours in a day is highly injurioue, depriving them of the opportunity of acquiring the necessary knowledge of domestic duties to enable them to fill their stations in well-regulated households, and deprives them of the means of acquiring a practical and useful edu- cation."

Similar meetings continued to be held, and peti- tions forwarded to the Legislature, and all other le- gitimate means used to obtain the passage of the much-desired law. On the 25th of March, 1847, the Senate passed the bill making ten hours a legal day's work in all factories in this State. It afterwards passed the House and became a law, to take effect on and after the 4th day of July, 1848.

As showing how the law was received at the time, we copy the two following editorials from newspapers contemporary with its passage :

"THE TEN HOURS' SYSTEM .- The propriotors of Fairhill Factory, in Philadelphia, have already extended the benefits of the ten-hour law to the operatives in their employ, and we understand that most, if not ell, of the manufacturers of the city and county will comply with the requisitions of the law immediately after the fourth day of next month." 1

Again,-

" We understand that a portion, if not all, of the manufacturere of cotton goods in this county (Delaware) have determined to close their factories for several weeks after the 4th of July next. It is said that most of them have a large stock of goods on hand, and failing to effect sales, they have concluded to await uutil the market becomes better."

Such were the differences of opinion among those who were supposed to be more pecuniarily interested in the future effects of the law. The actual effects of it I now proceed to show. The late John P. Crozer, who at that time was generally supposed to be the leading spirit in opposition to the new system, after a few years' trial when established, generously admitted the errors under which he had labored, and after- wards became one of its most friendly advocates.

1 July, 1848.

111

THE TEN-HOUR MOVEMENT.

Such was the state of feeling among the community at the time of which I write, 1848. Immediately an- terior to the passage of the act many good men were divided in their opinions as to the policy of such a law. A number contended that no power existed in a free government to determine how long a man should or should not work. There was some plausi- bility in the point, for it had not then been ascer- tained that the government possessed a police power in just such cases. But by public meetings, by pri- vate discussion, and particularly by the aid of the press, the popular mind was enlightened, and the pro- posed law began to be favorably looked on by the people. While it had its persistent enemies, it had the most generous and warm friends. Among the operatives themselves many opposed it. The writer was present at a shop-meeting at one of our large es- tablishments as a spectator merely, when one of the proprietors remarked that he did not think that a ma- jority of their hands wanted shorter time. Some of the operatives ventured to differ with him. "Well, now," he says, "suppose we try?" A division was called, and while there appeared to be a majority for the shorter time, that majority was but very small. This was not the case everywhere. The representa- tive in the Legislature from Delaware County in that year was Hon. Sketchley Morton, and he advo- cated shorter time with earnestness and zeal, and did all he conld to make it a success. The same could not be said of our then senator. The committee sent petitions signed by nearly twelve hundred operatives to the senator and representative for the district. The one to the House was duly presented by the represen- tative, but the one to the Senate was never more heard from. The committee wrote letters asking the rea- sons, but their fate was the same as that of the peti- tion. The name of Hon. Samnel Marx, of Lehigh County, being suggested to the committee, they wrote to him ; he consented, and did present the petition to the Senate, of which body he was then a member. Of course this required the circulation anew of peti- tions for signatures.

The friends and advocates of the cause had many other difficulties to contend against, prominent among which was to obtain a room wherein to hold their meetings for counsel and discussion. No public hall existed in the county, so far as remembered, except Garrett Hall, above alluded to, and the court-house at Chester. Sometimes a school-house could be ob- tained, and as the mills were long distances apart, the duties of the committee were difficult and fa- tigning. Saturday evening was the only night avail- able for the purpose, and then a distance of from two to five miles had to be walked after stopping time (stopping time then being four and four and a | half o'clock P.M. on Saturdays), and when much cleaning was required it would be five o'clock before leaving the mills. Thus the operatives had only two or three hours for discussion, without infringing

on the time absolutely required for natural rest. Of course, this is only intended as historical remi- niscences of those times as compared with the present experiences, and not as an argument pro or con. Differences of opinion existed then as now as to the wisdom of the measure asked for. It was then comparatively an untried experiment. But the law, in its most essential features, has been fully justified by more than a third of a century's experience. Still, like all things human, it has its imperfections. The committee, at its first sessions, was not a nnit as to the age at which a child should be allowed to com- mence work in a mill. Full discussions were had, and it was generally agreed, in the interests of all parties, that ten years was a suitable limit, below which the law ought to intervene, but the number of hours per day that the mill should be run at all was the objective point to which attention was mainly directed. It was contended that no power had a right to say how long or how little an adult person should be allowed to work, but that minors only were subject to the law's restrictions. That portion of the act regulating the ages between ten and thirteen years has been practically a dead letter during all the time since its passage, until a few months ago,-1882-83. Some five or more years since attention was called to infractions of the spirit of the law,-some mills run- ning until nine o'clock at night. This evil kept growing, until Mr. McGahee, an operative in one of the mills at Darby, in this county, called public at- tention to the manifest violations of the law in a let- ter addressed to a prominent newspaper, as also by posting copies of the act in public places in his neigh- borhood. This caused very general adherence to the law as it stands, while it also showed its weak points, its advantages and imperfections. Probably the time may come, and it is to be hoped in the interests of humanity that it may come soon, when all concerned, both employers and employed, may come together on common ground and agree upon some age, taking all the circumstances into consideration, the business itself, the interests of employers and employed, the claims of widowed mothers, the duties of humanity and of the State at large, and so amend the law as to be just and satisfactory to all interested, and its benefi- cent features kept intact. But this is a digression. Our purpose is not to recommend, but to give a his- tory of the movement itself.

The law as passed by the Legislature in the session of 1847-48 provided that it should go into effect on and after the 4th day of July, 1848. That time came, the law became operative, and in Philadelphia, Mana- ynnk, and other places was observed and worked harmoniously. Such was not the case in Delaware County. Strange to say that very shortly after the passage of the law it began to be foreseen that there was a probability that so far as this locality was con- cerned the act would be nullified. Many of its most active and zealons friends withdrew and songht other

112

HISTORY OF DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

means to secure a livelihood. A number of others remained at their homes, but went out on strike,- one of the cases where such a course can be justified in that it was a strike in favor of, and against a vio- lation of, law.

The following incident in connection with the strike in justice to all parties should not be omitted from this record. While the strike was pending the late Simeon Lord and William T. Crook, two of the manu- facturers in this county, told their hands that they were willing to run their mills for ten hours if the rest would do so; that they would start on ten hours a day and try it for a month. If the rest did likewise they would continue so to run, but at the expiration of a month it was understood that they were free to do as the rest of the manufacturers did. This propo- sition was accepted and carried out in good faith on both sides during the term designated.

After a suspension for some time operations were resumed on the old system, and in violation of the law, notwithstanding the fact that by its provisions a penalty of fifty dollars was imposed on both the em- ployer and parent of children under thirteen years of age, permitted to labor in factories. For five long years this state of things continued, when some of the more conscientious of the manufacturers not de- siring to continue in this open violation of a plain law, proposed to the operatives that if they could in- duce the manufacturers of New England to join in the measure they would be willing to accede to their demands. Accordingly another movement was set on foot, meetings were again held, and a delegation con- sisting of the late John Wilde and Sandy M. Chal- lenger was appointed. They at once attempted to discharge the duties of their mission, but were met at the ontset by difficulties which were not unexpected. They were strangers (as it were) in a strange land. In an interview between the writer and Mr. Wilde after his return, the latter stated that they were some- what at a loss how and where to commence their work. In this emergency he bethought himself of Benjamin F. Butler, Esq., then a prominent rising lawyer of Boston (now 1883 the Governor of the State of Massachusetts), who entered heartily into their plans, and gave them all the information in his power. Mr. Wilde stated that to him was to be attributed whatever of success they met with. After their re- turn to Delaware County meetings were again called, at which the delegation gave an account of their stewardship. In the mean time the opposition to the law appeared to be dwindling away, and friends came to the aid of the workers. A general meeting was held at the court-house in Chester, at which the late Y. S. Walter, editor of the Delaware County Republi- can, presided, when it was agreed that a trial should be made of the effects of the new law. The late John P. Crozer was prominent in his endeavors to have the act put into practical operation, and after a few years' trial of the new, and as yet untried plan, was enthu-

siastic in its praise, the firm declaring that they got more work done per hour, or at a less rate of expense than ever before. Such is a brief outline of this little speck of nullification in the hitherto loyal county of Delaware. Although opposition existed, ofttimes in quarters where it was least expected, it was gratifying to find that the press of the county was uniformly on the side of the humble and weaker party. Y. S. Walter, of the Delaware County Republican, and Al- exander Mckeever, of the Upland Union, not only advocated the cause editorially, but threw open their columns for discussion on the merits of the question. Most of those who took an active part in the contest on this important measure have been called from the scenes of life; few only remain. But the work per- formed by their toils and labors continues as a blessing to posterity. A large portion of the privileges and opportunities now enjoyed by the working class, re- ligious, social, and otherwise, were shut out from the factory operatives of a third of a century ago. Who among us would wish to go back to that period with all that that implies? Who can tell what effects would have been produced different from what has been, if we had continued to uphold a system of fourteen or fifteen hours' continuons monotonous labor out of the twenty-four, instead of the liberal and enlightened method now in operation ?

CHAPTER XVI.

THE REMOVAL OF THE COUNTY-SEAT TO MEDIA.

IN considering the history of the removal of the county-seat from the ancient borough of Chester to Media, the present location, I must necessarily draw largely from the narrative of that event furnished by Dr. Smith, he having been an active advocate of the changes, although his recital takes coloring from his feeling somewhat in relating the incidents connected with that movement.

The first agitation of the measure occurred nearly thirty years before it was actually carried into effect, and is said originally to have been the outgrowth of political disappointment. Robert Frazer, a member of the bar of Delaware County, having been defeated in nomination for office by the delegates of Chester township and several of the districts lying in the im- mediate neighborhood of the county-seat, is said gave form and shape to the movement.

" Dissatisfaction had for some time existed among the people of the upper part of the county," says Dr. Smith, "on account of the seat of justice being situated on its southero margin. The people of the towa- ship of Radnor, residing much nearer to Norristown, the seat of justice of Montgomery County, thao to Chester, petitioned for the aonexation of their township to that county. The fact that the taxee of Mont- gomery were lower than those of Delaware is also said to have had ao influence in promoting this movement. Be this as it may, the prospect of losing one of the best towoships in the county was a matter of seri-

113

THE REMOVAL OF THE COUNTY-SEAT TO MEDIA.

oua alarm, when its amall dimensions ware taken into consideration. The diacontented in the other remote townships seeing that the loss of Radnor would weaken their strongest ground of complaint, deter- minad to test the question of a removal of the seat of justice of the county to a more central situation. Accordingly a general meeting of the inhabitants of the county, ' both friendly and unfriendly' to the pro- posad removal, was convened on the 8th of Juna, 1820. The meeting was unusually larga and very respectahle, and after the subject of re- moval had been discussed very fully and rathar freely, a vota was taken which reaulted in favor of the removalists. Removal uow became the leading topic nf discussion throughout the county. All party distinc- tions became merged iu it, and the most ultra politicians of opposite parties united cordially on a removal or anti-removal platform. Maet- ings were held, and nominations were made accordingly. The ballot- box ahowed the anti-removalists in the majority. George G. Leiper, of Ridley, and Aboar Lawie, of Radnor, both anti-removalista, were elected to the Assembly. The anti-removaliats, by the nomination of Mr. Lewia, had secured nearly the whole vote of Radnor, under the belief that the alaction of the anti-removal ticket afforded them the only chance of being annexed to Montgomery County. The teat was not regarded by the removaliats aa satisfactory, and thay petitioned the Legislature for redreas, hut certainly with but small hopes of succesa. In their me- morial, which ia very long, they eat forth the fact of the effort of Rad- nor to be attached to Montgomery County, the dilapidated condition of tha jail, the inaalnbrity of the air of Chester, the danger of the records from attack from an enemy, the badnesa of the water, etc. And finally,' they aay, ' to satisfy the Legislature that nothing is asked for by the petitionera which would throw any uureasonahla expense on the county, assurances are given by one of the inhabitants-perfectly re- aponsible and competeut to the undertaking-that he will give an obli- gation to any one authorized to receive it, conditioned to erect the public buildinga upon any reasonable and approved plan, for the aum of fifteen thousand dollars, to be paid in seven years, by inatallmanta, if the convenience of the county should require credit-and to take the prea- ent buildinga aod lots at Chester at a fair valuation aa part pay.' ... Thia petition was drawn, aigned hy nine hundred and ninateeu citizena. The number who sigued the remonstranca is not known."

On March 21, 1821, Mr. Evans, of Chester County, presented the petitions-there were nineteen of them -from the inhabitants of the county of Delaware to the House of Representatives, praying for the re- moval of the seat of justice, and on March 31st, Mr. Lewis, of Delaware County, presented to the House twenty-five remonstrances from inhabitants of the county against such removal, and the petitions and remonstrances were laid on the table.

" The people of Radnor," said Dr. Smith, "appeared to relax thair efforts to obtain legislation to authorize the townahip to be annexed to Montgomery County. At the next election, John Lewis and William Cheyney, both removaliata, were elected members of the Assembly, but from soma causa they failed in obtaining the much-desired law author- izing the seat of justice to be removed to a more central aitnation. The question after this effort appears to have been allowed to elumber for a time. It was, however, occasionally diacussed, and the removalists maintained a atrict vigilance to prevent any extensiva repairs being mada to the public buildings at Chester."

The project slumbered for nearly a quarter of a century, but in the latter part of the year 1845 was revived with redoubled ardor. The court-house at Chester was sadly out of repair, while the old jail was dilapidated and falling into ruins, and it became ap- parent that in the near future the county would be compelled to expend a considerable sum of money on the public buildings at the ancient seat of justice. Hence the removalists on Nov. 22, 1845, called a public meeting at the Black Horse Tavern, in Middletown, "to take into consideration the propriety of removing the seat of justice to a more central position." The | town."

result of this meeting was a call to the several town- ships on the 5th of December following " to elect two delegates in each, to meet on the 6th of December at the Black Horse Tavern; the delegates appointed to vote for the removal of the seat of justice, or otherwise, also to decide upon those (the sites) designated by this meeting, which of them shall be adopted." The following-named places were presented as suitable locations for the public buildings : County property, in Providence; Black Horse, in Middletown ; Ches- ter; Rose Tree, in Upper Providence; and Beau- mont's Corner, Newtown."

The roads on the 6th of December were in a wretched condition, so much so that the delegates representing several of the townships were unable to attend, while in others no meetings had been held. On that day the following townships were represented : Birmingham, Dr. Ellwood Harvey, J. D. Gilpin ; Chester, John K. Zeilin, Y. S. Walter ; Upper Chester, Robert R. Dutton ; Concord, M. Stamp, E. Yarnall ; Edgmont, E. B. Green, George Baker ; Marple, Abra- ham Platt, Dr. J. M. Moore; Middletown, Joseph Ed- wards, Abram Pennell; Newtown, Eli Lewis, Thomas H. Speakman; Nether Providence, R. T. Worrall, Peter Worrall; Upper Providence, Emmor Bishop, Thomas Reese ; Thornbury, Eli Baker, Daniel Green ; Tinicum, Joseph Weaver, Jr.

A vote being had on the proposed sites, the result showed eight votes in favor of the county property, six for the Black Horse, six for Chester, aud two for the Rose Tree, but finally the county property re- ceived twelve votes, a majority of delegates present.1 The result obtained was not satisfactory to the anti- removalists, and a bitter wordy war was waged in the newspapers of that day. An attempt was made to reconcile the conflicting elements by the committee appointed at the meeting of the 6th of December, and to that end a meeting was called at the hall of the Delaware County Institute of Science, on the 30th

1 In Dr. Harvey's copy of Smith'e " History of Delaware County," ia the following manuscript note in the doctor's handwriting : " After voting with the minority against removal, I was urged by several other dele- gates to vote for a choice of locations, but refused to participate in that part of the proceedings, having no other choice than Cheater."

Dr. Henry further notes: "I was a delegate in the first convention held to consider the matter, and opposed removal in accordance with my own convictiona and the instructiona of my constituants. On fur- thar consideration of the subject, I changed positiona, believing the majority should have a chance to settle the queation, and alao believing Cheater would thrive more without it (the county-saat) when har ener- giaa ware better directed than towards living off the county offices aud legal busineaa of the county. I thought Media would be a miserably poor place and Chester very prosperoua. Media has done better than I expected, and ao has Chester."

Hon. Johu M. Broomall, in hia " History of Delaware County for the Past Century" (a centennial historical eketch, published in 1876, page 9), saya, in referring to the causea of removal, " For many years the popularity of Chester had been upon the wane. Ita people had given offense by endeavoring to rule the county, and only partially succeeded. Jurors, partiea, and witnessea believed themselves to be imposed upon by high charges, aud they knew themselves to be eneered at and ridi- culed by the lavern idlers, who constituted moat of the /lite of the

114

HISTORY OF DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

of that month. The meeting was well attended, and an address to the people of the county formulated, as well as two different petitions to be circulated for sig- natures, desiring the Legislature to enact a law sub- mitting the question to a popular vote. At the time the Hon. William Williamson, of Chester County, was senator for the district, and Hon. John Larkin, Jr., was the member in the House from Delaware County, and, although both of these representatives were favorable to a law submitting the controversy to the vote of the people, yet neither favored an act in which the site of the proposed county-seat should be left as a future matter to be decided. Hence, when the bill submitted in the House in that form was called up, Mr. Larkin objected to it, for that reason, and it was defeated. In 1846, Hon. Sketchley Morton was elected to the Legislature, and at the session of 1847, when the act providing for the removal of the seat of justice, submitting the matter to the popular will whether the county-seat should be continued at Chester, or be removed to a point not more distant " than one-half of a mile from the farm attached to the house for the support and employment of the poor of Delaware County," nor more than a half-mile from the State road leading from Philadelphia to Baltimore, Mr. Morton, although adverse to the measure, voted in favor of the bill, and it was adopted. As the time for the election drew nigh, the public excitement was fanned to fever heat, and the newspapers teemed with lengthy articles urging the peculiar views of the vari- ous writers on the question at issue, which in the lapse of years has become very uninteresting reading.

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 Delaware County, Pennsylvania, Part 29

Author: Ashmead, Henry Graham, 1838-1920 Publication date: 1884 Publisher: Philadelphia, Pa. : L.H. Everts Number of Pages: 1150

Author: Ashmead, Henry Graham, 1838-1920
Publication date: 1884
Publisher: Philadelphia, Pa. : L.H. Everts
Number of Pages: 1150