USA > Pennsylvania > Lancaster County > History of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania : with biographical sketches of many of its pioneers and prominent men > Part 70
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 | Part 109 | Part 110 | Part 111 | Part 112 | Part 113 | Part 114 | Part 115 | Part 116 | Part 117 | Part 118 | Part 119 | Part 120 | Part 121 | Part 122 | Part 123 | Part 124 | Part 125 | Part 126
The Sener family has been closely identified with , junction of the Lancaster and Reading and Harris- the material and social history of Lancaster County for over a hundred years, the common ancestor hay- ing emigrated from Germany about the middle of the eighteenth century, and located at Lancaster. Gott- "and wealthy county of Lancaster. With the growth lieb Sener, son of John Sener, and grand-on of the and development of the place and its institutions, it is not inaccurate to state that Mr. Sener has been inti- mately identified since his removal there in 1863, and many of the evidences of progress and advancement that can be seen in the village have been inspired by his enterprise, publie spirit, and business taet and -aga- city. He has acted as the freight-agent of the Read- ing and Columbia Railroad Company since 1863, and as express-agent for the same company from the time first settler, was born at Lancaster, on April 23, 1800. He received only a limited education, and in Feb- ruary, 1816, went on foot to High Spire, Dauphin Co., where he apprenticed himself to the trade of cutlery manufacturer with his consin, John Sener. In August, 1820, he returned to Lancaster, and a short time after, in company with Daniel Hoffman, removed to Frederick City, Md., where he engaged in the cutlery business. He subsequently pursued i of the establishment of that branch of traffic. Hle
848
HISTORY OF LANCASTER COUNTY.
was one of the organizers of the Evangelical Lu- theran Church of the Holy Trinity of Ephrata, as- sisted actively in the building of the church edifice now in ue, and is an other and regular attendant he stilf holds. In integrity and enterprise Mr. Fry is regarded as one of the foremost citizens of his township. In religion he adheres to the faith of his ancestors, that of the Lutheran Church, of which both himself and wife are members.
of the church at the present writing. He was also the main instigator of the Ephrata National Bank, which was organized in February, 1881, with a capital of seventy-five thousand dollars, and of which he has since been president. Three unsuccessful attempts had previously been made to organize a bank at that place. Mr. Sener enjoys the respect and confidence of the community in which he dwells, and lends a cheerful support to all worthy local enterprises, whether of a material or spiritual character. He married, in 1864, Sarah Light, daughter of Dr. Wash- ington L. Atlee, of Philadelphia. Her death occurred in 1869. In June, 1874, he was united in marriage to Anna Y., daughter of Jacob and Elizabeth Yeis- ley, of Baltimore, Md., who is his present wife. Two children have been born of the union, viz., Miriam and Master Willie Sener, who died in the fourth year of his age.
MARTIN S. FRY.
John Fry, the great-grandfather of the subject of this biographical sketch, was of Swiss parentage, and resided in the township of Cocalico, where he was both farmer and miller. His six children were Jacob, Martin, Peter, John, Grace, and Mary. Peter, who was the grandfather of Martin S., was born on the homestead, where he succeeded his father in the eul- tivation of the farm. Ile married Sarah Houck, and had children, -- Curtis, Jacob, Daniel, Samuel, George, Isaac, Peter, Mary ( Mrs. Meily), and Eliza ( Mrs. Bricker). Mr. Fry's death occurred in November, 1824, near Ephrata. ITis eldest son, Curtis, was born in October, 1808, at the family home. He married Catherine, daughter of Christian Sheaffer, and had children : Martin S., William II., Isaac N., S. Le- mon, Lizzie ( Mrs. Shirk), Sarah (Mrs. Landis), and Emma (Mrs. Weidman). Mr. Fry's life was spent in farming occupations in the township of Ephrata, where his death occurred in November, 1875. His widow still survives and resides in Ephrata.
Martin S., their son, was born in the same town- ship May 1, 1833, when his youth was spent as a pupil at the neighboring public school, after which he engaged in farm labor. Ile was married in 1858 to Miss Catherine, daughter of Samuel Miller (de- ceased), of Ephrata. Their children are Horace M., A. Lincoln, S. Curtis, M. Elwood, John M., Emma May, and Mary Alice. Mr. Fry, in 1858, assumed charge of the paternal estate, which is still under his management.
Ile is in polities a Republican, and has been for having been made within its limits by Maryland
years an active and influential representative of his party in the county.
In 1867-68 he was honored with the chairmanship !
of the Republican County Committee, and in 1876 was appointed United States storekeeper and gauger for the Ninth District of Pennsylvania, which office
CHAPTER LVL.
FULTON TOWNSILIP.1
Geographical and Topographical .- This town- ship was formed in the year 1844 by a division of Little Britain township; taking its name from Robert Fulton (the celebrated inventor of the steamboat ), who was born within its territorial limits.
It is bounded on the east by Little Britain ; on the south by Mason and Dixon's line, separating it from the State of Maryland; on the west by the Susque- hanna River (including all the islands therein, the western bank being the legal boundary ), and on the northwest by Drumore township.
Its extreme length from its northern point to the State line is between six and seven miles, and its width from the eastern bank of the river to the Little Britain line, about five miles.
The Susquehanna, as already seen, washes it on the west, the Octorara Creek forms a water front at its southeast angle for perhaps a mile and a half. The Conewago Creek enters it from Drumore almost at its northern extremity, and winds its way through a broad and fertile valley to the Maryland line on the south, traversing nearly the whole length of the ter- ritory, furnishing power for numerous mills along its course. The Little Conewago enters it from Little Britain, passes Thomas Smedley's mill, and enters the larger stream from the vast. Peter's Creek comes in from Drumore, ruus first a southerly course to Wieks' mill, then rather southwestwardly till it meets the Puddle Dock, which, rising near the middle of the township, runs in a winding westerly course, passing and giving power to George Hewes' edge- tool-factory, till it meets the former stream at Dor- sey's mill, and thence together seek the river at the lower end of Peach Bottom. Many small rivulets enter these larger streams in all parts of their course, making this township an exceedingly well-watered tract of country.
Pioneer Settlers and Land Warrants .- This township appears to have derived its earliest settlers from Maryland, quite a large number of locations authority at a very early day.
1 By John C. Lewis, Esq.
7
Martin A. Fry
849
FULTON TOWNSHIP.
Emanuel Grubb had three hundred acres patented | Be this as it may, in 1732 a parallel of demarcation to him Dec. 10, 1713, being two adjoining surveys, was finally agreed upon and partially run, so that one for one hundred acres and the other for two hun- |each party now knew nearly their own limits. And dred acres. To these he added afterwards one hun- ' now the list of Pennsylvania titles takes its com- dred and seventy-six acres and allowance, partly sur- meneement. It is more than probable that many set- tlements had been made by squatters previous to this, and a few titles were issued farther east at an earlier day, and nearer established centres of population. rounding the above by patent from the Proprietaries of Pennsylvania dated Ang. 5, 1747. He also became possessed of a part of "Three Partners," hereafter mentioned, as well as other lands which, after his death, were divided among his sons. The farms of the late G. B. Wood, Roger II. Kirk, late Jeremiah B. Haines, and James Black, Esq., were carved out of his possessions.
"Three Partners' Tract" was the name given to a large tract of land lying north of Cornwall's addition, containing seven hundred and sixty-eight acres, sur- veyed on a warrant to Ephraim Hoffman, dated in 1715, and patented to Thomas Jacobs Sept. 16, 1720. The farms of the late Gilpin Stubbs, Amos Smith (lately sold), Joseph Blackburn, Layman C. Black- burn, late Lewis Haines, Franklin Tollinger, with parts of other properties, are parts of this survey.
"Slate Hill Tract" of two hundred and twenty- five acres was patented to Thomas Johnson Aug. 24, 1726; now Jonas Eby, late heirs of James A. Cald- well and others. It was on the line of this land that Jeremiah Brown and James A. Caldwell had one of the heaviest law-suits ever tried in Lancaster County, costing, it is said, sixty thousand dollars ; though this seems to be almost beyond the bounds of possibility.
William Teague two patents for one hundred acres each ; one called " Teague's Endeavor," June 6, 1715; the other, " Teague's Forest," in the following year, 1716. These became the property of the Frazers, the former became the property of James Arbuckle, and was conveyed, with other land of his, to Robert Max- well, Oct. 27, 1800, and now belongs to Gilbert Max- well in part; the other tract lies partly in Maryland, being intersected by the State line, and belongs to the heirs of Jeremiah B. Haines (deceased), known as the " Frazer place."
Maryland Warrants .- Several other tracts are known to have been taken up by Maryland warrants and secured by Maryland patents, Mordecai Cloud, Nicholas Hiland, George Martin, and others being among those taking Maryland rights at this early day. It is well known that this territory was claimed by Lord Baltimore under his royal grant of 1632, and by William Penn and his heirs under his charter of 1681, and was long disputed between them.
An arrangement had been entered into between them that neither should grant lands in the disputed district till the title was settled; but while this ar- rangement was respected by the proprietaries of Penn- sylvania, it is said to have been disregarded by those of Maryland, so far that lands were offered in this dis- triet at half the price they were sold at elsewhere.1
Of such " settlements," it is probable that of James King was among the first. He had built a mill on Conowingo Creek (spelled Canarawango in all the ear- lier papers) some time before 1733, as in that year a road was laid out from King's mill to Octorara, thus proving by the record an older settlement both of himself and others, or the road would not have been needed. He was a Friend, or Quaker; his neighbors were perhaps of the same persuasion, and the direc- tion of the road clearly points to the Nottingham set- tlement of Friend-, and the place of meeting there as its objective point. King took out a warrant for his land Nov. 25, 1735, in which it is described as that "on which he has long been settled," thus adding proof of his early settlement. The survey contained tive hundred aeres, and long remained in the family, his son Michael having made three several additions thereto. Michael leaving no heirs, the whole prop- erty was divided between his two brothers, Thomas and Vincent, the former getting the southern part (including the "Cave Land," taken up by Michael), and Vincent the northern part. The original tract has all passed out of the family and name of King ; but the "Cave Land," together with other land pur- chased by James King, a son of Thomas, still belongs to his descendants.
William Fulton took up three hundred and ninety- three and three-quarter aeres on Conewingo Creek, which by warrant of Nov. 12, 1742, was resurveyed to James Gillespie (who had married his widow ), and who added subsequently three other pieces to said tract, making a total of five hundred and forty-six and one-quarter acres. On this, in 1751, he built a mill, the second on Conowingo Creek, so far as known, be- came involved in debt, and in the latter part of 1764 the sheriff' sold his property in two pieces,-the west- ern, with the mill and one hundred and eighty-two aeres, to George Ross and James Bickham, and the eastern, with three hundred and sixty-three aeres, or thereabout, to Robert Fulton, the elder, who also involved himself by the purchase and suffered a like fate. It is surmised by some that as Gillespie had married the widow of William Fulton, the claims of the heirs of said William Fulton formed a part of the liabilities for which his land was sold, and that as Robert Fulton became the purchaser he was one of those heirs. If this were so, it would make William Fulton the grandfather of the inventor, while other accounts assign that honor to a certain Alexander Fulton, who was, or had been, a resident of the same towuship ( Little Britain at that time). The mill
1 Mombert's " Authentic History."
53
850
HISTORY OF LANCASTER COUNTY.
property was sold by Ross and Bickham (residents of Lancaster City) to Jacob Gryder, Aug. 6, 1774, who sold it to Martin Gryder, Ang. 18, 1792. Martin de- vised to Christian and Martin Gryder. The mill passed into the hands of Joel Smedley, who rebuilt the mill in 1833, and all the other buildings subse- quently. It now belongs to Frank C. Pyle. The farm, after passing through several hands, is now owned by Elwood Smedley in part, and part by Montgomery R. Gryder, son of Christian Gryder aforesaid.
Walter Denny about the same time took up a large tract southwest of the above. This descended early to his son John, who, about 1756 or 1757, sold it to Joshua Brown, the ancestor of a large family of Browns, many of them still residents in the neigh- borhood, and some of them still on a part of the same property. Joho Denny went westward to the neighborhood of Pittsburg, where some of his de- scendants rose to distinction, HIon. Harmer Denny, who represented that district in the United States Congress many years ago, being one of them.
Daniel Carmichael took up one hundred and sey- enty-seven and three-quarter acres, Feb. 22, 1742-43, to which he afterwards added one hundred and six and three-quarter acres, and left it to his son Thomas, who sold one hundred and ninety-one acres and ninety-six perches to Joshua Brown, Jr., and Joseph McCreary and Alexander Ewing, exeentorsof Thomas Carmichael, to Abraham Medcalf, May 9, 1787. John Carmichael, another son of Daniel, had migrated to the western part of Pennsylvania, and " Carmichaels- town," near the Monongahela, in Greene County, owes its foundation to him and his descendants. The descendants of Joshua Brown still occupy most of the land thus purchased by him.
James Caldwell took up two hundred and twelve acres on Conowingo, east side, in 175], including the "Rock Springs" (which have given their name to divers places in the vicinity), and about the same time, or before it, on Aug. 2, 1750, purchased from Ann Alexander, then its owner, a part of "Slate Hill," estimated at eighty-five acres. Some time after this he purchased eight and one-half aeres on the west of this tract from Isaac Sanders, who, on Nov. 22, 1751, had taken out a warrant and had surveyed nineteen and one-quarter acres along the river-shore, and including the slate quarries at Peach Bottom, whose development afterwards led the way to the extensive lawsuit already mentioned. The Caldwell family held this Slate Hill property till within a very few years, when it was sold to George Dawson Coleman. James A. Caldwell, a grandson of the above James, served a term in the State Senate, being elected thereto in 1842.
Samuel Scott was an early settler in the township. His location is dated Feb. 15, 1742, for two hundred and thirty-five acres, 'to which he afterwards added six or seven other pieces, some by purchase, some by
warrant, amounting in the whole to five hundred and forty-four aeres and upwards, which descended to his children, and a part remains among his descendants to the present day. Samuel Wright ( Little Britain ), Marshall Wright, Amos K. Bradley, Andrew Hanna, and others are owners of the remaining part.
Joseph Adair also occupied a large traet in the southeastern section of the township, his survey being returned four hundred and twenty-two acres by war- rant of Aug. 20, 1750. IIe sold two hundred and eighty-seven and three-quarter acres to Samnel Coul- son, Oct. 29, 1764, the balance having been previously transferred to James Hanna. Coulson failed soon after, and the sheriff sold the above (with other land of his) to David Jenkins, Ang. 7, 1767. Jenkins lived, it appears, in Chester County, in the neighbor- hood of Waynesburg, where also he had large posses- sions. He placed his son Nathaniel on the above tract, where his grandchildren are still the possessors of the soil.
James Bradley had three hundred and eighty-six acres on Peter's Creek, which he sold to Daniel Stubbs, Sept. 10, 1767. ( His three warrants of Feb. 25, 1743, and June 6, 1747, and Dec. 20, 1752, were included in one return.) A large part of this is still the prop- erty of Thomas Stubbs and Joseph C. Stubbs. Daniel Stubbs sold to Vineent Stubbs, 10th November, 1785, who bought other lands, including the grist-mill at the confluence of Puddle Dock and Peter's Creek, long known as Stubbs' mill, now Dorsey's.
James Porter deserves mention as one of the early settlers in the neighborhood of Peach Bottom. Not indeed an original one, but as early as many who were. lle purchased fifteen acres of "State Hill." and took ont four warrants for adjoining lands, which were located in 1753 and prior thereto. One of these was on the river-shore, adjoining "Slate Hill" and the slate quarries, and including the lower ferry at Peach Bottom. His son William succeeded him, built the house now owned by Kirk Brown, Esq., then one of the best in the whole neighborhood, and therein started the first store, or grocery, in that vicinity. Hle was the grandfather of the late S. W. P. Boyd, Esq., who was sheriff of the county from 1860 to 1863, and held other offices of trust and confidence, among them that of jury commissioner.
William Montgomery was also an early settler within the limits of the township. His location was May 12, 1743, and it remained in the family for over one hundred years, when it passed into other hand -. It is now owned by John L. Patterson and Thomas R. Neel. John R. Montgomery, Esq., the distin- guished attorney of Lancaster, who died some years ago, was A lineal descendant of his, as was also David Montgomery, Esq., a noted justice of the peace in Little Britain township, as it was then. Dr. Mont- gomery R. Gryder, now of Oxford, Chester Co., but formerly of Felton township, where he still owns a farm, was also a descendant of the same ancestor.
1
851
FULTON TOWNSHIP.
The original farm contained three hundred and thir- property and its subsequent development led to the teen and three-fourths acres and allowance, besides which he owned another farm in Fulton township, and also one in Little Britain, now owned by George J. Beckius.
Other Pioneers .- Most of the original settlers have now entirely disappeared from the neighbor- hood, leaving neither name nor family to represent them. The names are retained in ancient writings, but those who bore them have passed from the knowl- edge of the present generation. Many of them are forgotten, and their former existence altogether un- known even to those who now own and occupy the lands that were cleared and cultivated by them. How few at the present day who cultivate their well- tilled acres can look back and see who it was that felled the primeval forest and first broke the virgin soil.
Of those who first settled within the present limits of Fulton township, it is believed that only the Kings and the Scotts can now claim to be residents of the land upon which their ancestors originally located. Some few may possibly claim descent from the origi- nal settlers through the female line, but even these are believed to be few and far between. Most of them, either to better their fortunes or for some other reasons, have migrated to other sections,-some to the South, some to the West, and some perhaps become totally extinct. The larger part of the Maryland names disappeared at an early day, and those that are not altogether lost are almost exclusively found on the southern side of the State line. Perhaps they became dissatisfied with the idea of living in a prov- ince different from that in which they had supposed themselves located, and wherein they had intended to live and die, and when the line was definitely set- tled, Jeaving their lands in Pennsylvania, they may have sold their possessions, pulled up stakes, and in perfect disgust returned to their beloved Maryland. Some did not'do this, but the vicissitudes and changes incident to human life have operated to produce the same effect.
Even the succeeding race that took the places of the first have, like them, largely disappeared ; while some remain to the present day, others, like those who went before them, only stayed for a time, and in turn passed on to other climes. The MeCrearys, the Plummers, the Sidwells, and many more that might be named, where are they now ? and echo only answers, where !
But some have been more persistent. Joshua Brown, who purchased the Denny property, as we have seen, has left behind him a numerous progeny that for a century and a quarter have continued to occupy the land so bought, even to the fifth and the sixth gener- ations. They added other land to the original pur- chase, and on Nov. 1, 1776, the ferry property at Peach Bottom, including the slate quarries there, passed into their hands. These remain, at least in part, in their hands to-day. The purchase of this
heavy lawsuit already mentioned. Caldwell, who owned the adjoining land, anxious to share in the rich deposit, and finding that due allowance had not been made for variation of the needle between the date of the 'Maryland survey under which he claimed and held and the later survey of Brown's land, shifted his survey into its original position, lapping over on to Brown's survey on the west of him, and leaving a vacant strip between his land and Porter's survey on the east of him, for which he proceeded to obtain a warrant, and had a survey made to cover said vacancy. This shifting the line, and the consequent lapping over and interference, necessarily produced litigation, bitter and protracted, to settle the line and the rights of the parties. It was finally settled in favor of Cald- well, when Brown proceeded to develop what re- mained to him, and built up an industry profitable to himself and beneficial to the country. It was Jere- miah Brown, the elder, who owned these quarries, and whose heirs conducted them till a few years ago, when they were leased out, and, becoming unproduc- tive, are now suffered to lie in idleness. This Jere- miah Brown was perhaps one of the most wealthy men in the fower end of Lancaster County in his day. Ile was a director of the Bank of Pennsylvania, and a very extensive landholder. He divided his large and valuable estate among his three sons and three daughters, leaving them all very well off as regards the affairs of this world. His sou, Hon. Jeremiah Brown, was indeed honorable and honored. He was an active politician, and held many positions of honor and trust. In 1837 he was a member of the conven- tion that revised the Constitution of the State, sitting with Judge H. G. Long, Hon. Thaddeus Stevens, William M. Meredith, Esq., Joseph R. Chandler, Daniel Agnew, James Pollock, James M. Porter, George W. Woodward, and other shining lights of the commonwealth in that day. In 1840 and again in 1842 he was elected a member of Congress from Lancaster County, and in 1851 associate judge of the several courts of the county, holding the position for the constitutional period of five years. Another son, Slater Brown, was also honored with office by a vote of the people, being for some time an inspector of the county prison.
Robert Fulton, who, as we have seen, purchased a part of James Gillespie's farm, made but a short stay within the limits of the township, yet within that short stay an event transpired that not only gave a name to the township upon its separate organization, but wrought an important change in the affairs of the country and of the world. He took possession in 1765, and left in .1766, returning to the city of Lancaster, from which he originally came., But within that time a son was born unto him whose inventive genius has revolu- tionized the world and given him a name that will en- dure till time grows old. . The exact time of his birth is wrapped in obseurity, save that it was in the year
.
852
HISTORY OF LANCASTER COUNTY.
1765. Ilis enthusiastic and admiring biographer has learned no more, nor does he pretend to trace his an- cestry beyond his immediate parents, his mother's family name being Smith. Another writer makes her the sister of John Smith, and states that she came over with him from the north of Ireland in 1720, and married an Alexander Fulton, who was the father of Robert Fulton the elder, and lived in Little Britain. Three Fultons make their appearance in what was then Little Britain township,-William, as we have seen, at the Fulton House, as the predecessor of James Gillespie, in 1734; James Fulton, on Octorara Creek, by purchase, in 1753; and Alexander Fulton, at Oak Hill, in Little Britain, about the same time. This may be the Alexander Fulton who is referred to a> . the father of Robert Fulton the elder by Mary Smith, and grandfather of the inventor. John, Hugh, and Andrew Fulton, sons of his, as is supposed, were residents of Little Britain in 1763. In 1769 they have disappeared, none but Robert (father of the inventor) being then taxed.
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.