History of Lehigh county, Pennsylvania and a genealogical and biographical record of its families, Vol. I, Part 38

Author: Roberts, Charles Rhoads; Stoudt, John Baer, 1878- joint comp; Krick, Thomas H., 1868- joint comp; Dietrich, William Joseph, 1875- joint comp; Lehigh County Historical Society
Publication date: 1914
Publisher: Allentown, Pa. : Lehigh Valley Publishing Co.
Number of Pages: 1158

USA > Pennsylvania > Lehigh County > History of Lehigh county, Pennsylvania and a genealogical and biographical record of its families, Vol. I > Part 38

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).

"With respect to military operations, they still continue and the number of persons confined in heavy irons increases. I before mentioned to you that some old men have suffered from their fetters. 'Several of them, who have been accou- tred, marched through the country under a heavy guard. Bail to any amount has been offered for their appearance to take their trial, but this would not suit the system of terror, nor would it act as a warning to those who may be disposed to vote as they think best at the next election. All the efforts that have been made, however, will not produce resistance, and when I tell you that a number of the troops who derive their author- ity from the Federal government, live at free quarters on the people, you will not question their patience."

Another officer writing from the same place, under date of April 10th, thus speaks of the ex- pedition, and the unhappy situation of things while the army remained in the country.

"We are now quartered in a Whig town where the people have always been true Repub- licans. It appears now to be converted into an actual war between Whig and Tory. The peo- ple of Quakertown I find have always been op- posed to those who advocate arbitrary measures, and the funding system and standing army. This

200

HISTORY OF LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

place, however, appears to have been one of the places where the greatest opposition has been made to the assessors, who, being many of them engaged in hostility against the revolution must, of necessity, have excited disgust and abhorrence in the breasts of those who had fought, or whose fathers had bled, in fighting against the British. The inhabitants are principally Germans. Nearly all the male inhabitants, on the approach of our army, fled from their homes, and their wives and children exhibit a very unhappy scene of dis- tress. Had I conceived that some things, which I have witnessed here could have taken place, I should never have given my consent to march a mile on the expedition.

"One effect produced by the distress is that every individual whom I meet, is disgusted, and a sentiment generally prevails, which, contrary to expectation, will, I apprehend, completely de- stroy the federal influence at the next election. Had the Governor seconded Messrs. Hartzell, and the Senator from this district, by ordering a single troop of volunteer horse that is here under drums, I am persuaded that this business, of which so much has been made, would have ter- minated within 24 hours that it took place; and that no other weapons than reasoning would have been found necessary. Great numbers of the peo- ple have surrendered ; there are about seven de- tained in irons and I am grieved to see among the suffering some old men, whose wrists are raw to the bone with the hand-cuffs. I would wish to see more humanity among my countrymen, but unhappily we copy too much the cruel and un- feeling practices of the English.

"A liberty pole had been erected in this place, which was cut down by force on the approach of the army. The inn-keeper, near whose house it stood, was arrested when we came up, although he had been previously at Philadelphia and given bail; but, when a volunteer army proceeds thus what would the people have to fear from mer- cenaries, who have no interest at stake, no prin- ciple but obedience to arbitrary orders."

A third letter written from the same point says :

"There are several of these poor creatures who are implicated by information, stirred up in the neighborhood, from the embers of old quarrels and animosities, whose distress is very great. Numbers of them, I am informed, are willing to give themselves up, relying on their innocence, provided they were sure of being admitted to bail ; but it is generally understood they will not. Pray, is there no magistrate in the city who has authority to receive bail? Is there no one who feels a sentiment that justice is incompatible with cruelty, and that the mildness of our laws does

not authorize the infliction of severe punishment before trial and execution? I can scarcely per- suade myself that I tread on the soil of Pennsyl- vania when I witness the sufferings of these poor, well-meaning but ignorant Germans. They were treated in no respect like citizens of the same country."

The army marched from Millerstown to Al- lentown, but we cannot fix the exact date of leaving Millerstown. It was after April 15th for the troops were there then. They remained at Allentown only a few days, and, while there, do not appear to have been active in making ar- rests and committing excesses as at other points. While the army lay here an amusing occurence took place which is thus related by one who be- longed to the expedition :

"One night a sentinel, stationed near a wagon, reported that he heard some person about to make an attack upon it. The alarm was given, the drums beat to arms, and the whole command turned out. The arms were loaded with ball cartridge, and a member of Congress was sent out to reconnoitre, who, upon his return, re- ported that the enemy (insurgents) were in the rear of the baggage in great force. The troops marched to the point, and a platoon was ordered to fire. Some heavy groan was heard, and a body fell to earth. Some of the boldest ventured for- ward, and behold they had shot a bull which was making free with the forage that hung out of the tail of one of the wagons. The animal was paid for. This is believed to be the only thing the army killed on the expedition."

From Allentown the troops marched to Reading, in Berks county, where they arrived on Saturday, April 20, at one o'clock. Writs had been issued for the arrest of sixteen persons in Greenwich township, but fourteen of them came in and surrendered themselves, and the troops were sent in pursuit of the other two, but they could not be found. The army made no stay at this place, but almost immediately re- sumed the march for Philadelphia, where a por- tion of the cavalry arrived on the 22nd and the remainder, with General Macpherson, the next day. The regulars did not return to the seat of government at the same time as the volunteer corps, but remained encamped there for a while.

While the army was in Reading, the members of one of the troops of volunteer cavalry com- mitted a gross outrage upon the person of one of the most respectable citizens of the town, with- out the least cause or provocation, which created great indignation in the community.

This consisted in forcibly taking Jacob Schnei- der, the editor of the Reading Adler to the mar- ket house, and publicly whipping him, by the

20I

THE FRIES REBELLION.

order of his captain. The following is Mr. Schneider's own account of the affair, taken from the Adler, of April 22, 1799:

"On Saturday afternoon last, the troops, who were sent to seize some persons in Northampton, called 'insurgents,' on their return from that ex- pedition, arrived in this town, and last night and this morning they all, except the regulars, marched for their respective homes.

"It is an old proverb, but certainly a true one, that in every fold, be it great or small, there can be found rotten sheep, so it happened here. This army was small, yet it was not without its rot- ten members, and some extremely so. But among the whole there were none that exceeded Captain Montgomery's troop, of Lancaster Light Horse, not because, as they boasted themselves, it was their trade to catch rebels and abuse them-but because they carried their trade so far as to enter the houses and abuse peaceable and inoffending citizens, in a manner the most scandalous and cowardly.

"As for example, a part of them came to my printing office on Saturday last, not as men of character desirous of supporting the law and the security of the peaceable citizens, but like a ban- ditti of robbers and assassins. They tore the clothes from my body, and forcibly dragged me from my house before their Captain, who cer- tainly proved himself worthy the command of his corps. He ordered his troops to take me to the public market place and give me twenty-five lashes on the bare back, and they proceeded to obey his orders accordingly, and certainly would have fulfilled them exactly had not some of Cap- tain Leiper's troop, of Philadelphia, interfered, reproached them for their illegal and tyrannical conduct, in consequence of which only a part of Captain Montgomery's sentence was inflicted (six lashes)."

Complaint of this outrage was made to Gen- eral Macpherson by Colonel Heister and Colonel Frailly, but he did nothing, and no redress could be had. Mr. Schneider was anti-Federalist.

The prisoners in custody were confined in the common jail of the city of Philadelphia, until their trial. It is said their confinement was made unusually severe, and that an order was issued that none of the families or friends should be permitted to visit or hold intercourse with them, which was carried into effect.

The expedition, so far as its object was to trrest those who had disturbed the public peace in the counties of Bucks and Northampton, had been entirely successful, and the leaders of the so- called insurrection were in the hands of the Fed- eral authorities. The next step in the drama, or farce, for we hardly know which to call it, was

the trial, condemnation and execution of the prisoners; and the preliminaries to which this finale were urged with as much haste as common decency would permit.

TRIAL OF JOHN FRIES.

The trial of John Fries was the most extra- ordinary judicial proceeding our country ever witnessed. The political rancour which had raged with such fierceness during the closing scenes of the administration of Mr. John Adams, was carried upon the bench and into the jury box, and aided, no doubt, to determine the law and the facts of this case. The Judge evinced an apparent disposition to carry out the high handed measures which had been begun, and whether intentional or not, leaned with a strong bias against the accused.

The Circuit Court of the United States, before which Fries and the other prisoners were to be tried, commenced its session at Philadelphia on April 11, 1799, the Hon. James Iredell, one of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, being upon the bench. The case was attracting such widespread interest, the courtroom was filled with an excited and deeply interested multitude, as soon as the doors were thrown open. After the court was duly opened for business, Judge Iredell delivered his charge to the grand jury, a production which was char- acterized by great partisan bitterness. He re- viewed, at considerable length, the Alien and Sedition Laws, argued their constitutionality and said they were called for by the spirit of the times. He next passed to the case of Fries, which he noticed with considerable particularity. He contended, in advance of the trial, and in the absence of testimony to sustain his opinion, that the crime with which he stood charged was Treason; which, he said, consisted in opposing, by force of arms, the execution of any acts of Con- gress. The case was given to the grand jury, which retired to their room, where they made such examination of it as was necessary to satisfy their minds of the nature of the offence. When they returned into court they presented a true bill as against John Fries, who now stood in- dicted for Treason, the highest crime known to our law. The following is a copy of the in- dictment under which he was to be tried viz:

Indictment in the Circuit Court of the United States of America, in and for the Pennsyl- vania District of the Middle Circuit:

"The Grand Inquest of the United States of America for the Pennsylvania District, upon their respective oaths and affirmations, do present that

202

HISTORY OF LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

John Fries, late of the county of Bucks, in the district of Pennsylvania, he being an inhabitant of, and residing in the said United States, to wit, in the district aforesaid, and under the protec- tion of the laws of the said United States, and owing allegiance and fidelity to the same United States, not having the fear of God before his eyes, nor weighing the duty of his said allegiance and fidelity, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil, wickedly devising and intending the peace and tranquility of the said United States to disturb, on March 7, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine, at Bethlehem, in the county of Northampton, in the district aforesaid, unlaw- fully, maliciously and traitorously did compass, imagine and intend to raise and levy war, insur- rection and rebellion against the said United States ; and to fulfil and bring into effect the said traitorous compassings, imaginations, and inten- tions of him, the said John Fries, he the said John Fries, afterward, that is to say, on March 7, in the said year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine, at the said county of Northampton, in the district aforesaid, with a great multitude of persons, whose names at pres- ent are unknown to the Grand Inquest aforesaid, to a great number, to wit, to the number of one hundred persons and upwards, armed and arrayed in a warlike manner, that is to say, with guns, swords, clubs, stones, and other warlike weapons, as well offensive as defensive, being then and there unlawfully, maliciously and traitorously as- sembled and gathered together, did falsely and traitorously assemble, and join themselves to- gether against the said United States, and, then and there, with force and arms, did falsely and traitorously, and in a warlike manner, array and dispose them against the said United States, and then and there, with force and arms, in pursu- ance of such their traitorous intentions and pur- poses aforesaid, he, John Fries, with the said persons so as aforesaid traitorously assembled, and armed and arrayed in the manner aforesaid, most wickedly, maliciously and traitorously did ordain, prepare and levy public war against the said United States, contrary to the duty of his said allegiance and fidelity, against the Constitution, peace and dignity of the said United States, and also against the force of the Act of the Congress of the said United States, in such case made and provided.

(Signed) "WILLIAM RAWLE."

"Attorney of the U. S. for the Pennsylvania District."

The case was not immediately taken up, but other business on the docket occupied the time of the court until April 30, when it was called

up in order. Fries had employed eminent counsel to defend him, viz: Hon. Alex J. Dallas, father of Vice President Dallas, and Messrs. Ewing and Lewis. The United States were represented by Messrs. Rawle and Sitgreaves, the latter being a resident of Easton, in Northampton county, and at that time the United States Attorney for the Pennsylvania District. As soon as the case was called up, Mr. Lewis preferred the following motion, in writing, viz:

"And now the prisoner, John Fries, being placed at the bar of this Court, at the city of Philadelphia, being the place appointed by law for holding the stated sessions thereof, and it being demanded of him if he is ready for his trial for the treason in the indictment mentioned, he moves, oretenus, that his trial for the same offence may not be proceeded on here, and that the same may be held in the county in which the same acts of treason in the said indictment men- tioned are laid, and where the offence therein men- tioned is alleged to have been committed.

"This motion was argued at length by Messrs. Dallas and Lewis and Ewing. The application was founded on the judiciary act, passed Septem- ber 24, 1789, the 29th section of which provides, "That in cases punishable with death, the trial shall be had in the county were the offence was committed; or where that cannot be done with- out great inconveniences, twelve petit jurors at least shall be summoned from thence." Messrs. Sitgreaves and Rawle replied on the part of the United States; when the court overruled the motion, both judges delivering opinions upon the points raised. One of the reasons given by Judge Iredell why the prisoner should not be tried in the county where the offence was committed was, that the inhabitants were in such a state of in- surrection, that a fair trial could not be had. All motions being now disposed of, the next thing in order was to fix a time for the trial, which was set down for the first day of May.

The prisoner being brought in and placed at the bar of the court on that day, was duly ar- raigned ; when the indictment was read to him, to which he pleaded "Not Guilty," and placed himself upon his country for trial. A jury was then drawn and empanelled, which consisted of the following persons: William Jolly, Philadel- phia; Samuel Mitchell, and Richard Leedom, Bucks county; Anthony Cuthbert, Alexander Fullerton, John Singer, Philadelphia; William Ramsey, Bucks; Samuel Richards, Philadelphia ; Gerardus Wynkoop, Bucks; Jos. Thornton, Philadelphia; Philip Walter, Northampton ; John Road, Northampton .*

*John Roth of Whitehall township.

203

THE FRIES REBELLION.

A question arose as to the last two jurymen being qualified, as they were Germans, and did not understand English, but it was agreed that any difficulty of that nature could be explained to them. Several of the witnesses being also Ger- mans, and not able to speak English, a Mr. Erd- man was, on that account, sworn in as inter- preter.

Mr. Sitgreaves opened the case on the part of the United States. He said, "Treason is de- fined in the Constitution of the United States, section III., art. III," in the words following : "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." He charged that Fries was guilty of treason in levying war. He then proceeded to elaborate upon the phraseology or description as adopted in our constitution, which is borrowed from the statute of Great Britain, passed in the reign of Edward the III, and which had never been changed. He then passed to an exposition of the full meaning of the word treason, as understood under our Constitution, and pointed out what is necessary to constitute the crime; and that, according to the definition of Lord Hale, it must consist both in levying war, and in levying war against the government of the United States- that if the people assembled in this hostile manner only to gratify a spirit of revenge, or for any other purpose independent of war against the United States, it would only amount to a riot. He reviewed, at considerable length, the leading operations of Fries and his friends, pointing out their combination and conspiracy to resist the federal authorities, and their actual resistance, with arms in their hands, at Bethlehem. He now called witnesses to prove the fact stated in his opening. Among those subpoenaed and called upon the stand were: William Henry, William Barnett, John Barnett, Christian Winters, Christian Roths, Col. Nichols, Philip Schlauch, Joseph Horsefield, John Mohallon, Jacob Eyer- ley, Samuel Toon, George Mitchell, Wm. Thomas, James Chapman, John Rodrock, Cephas Childs and others. In the main their testimony sustained the facts alleged by Mr. Sitgreaves, and most if not all the overt acts set forth in the indictment were substantially proved.

Among the witnesses called was Judge Peters, then upon the bench, who was examined more particularily as to the circumstances under which he issued warrants in Northampton county, and in relation to other facts within his knowledge previous to the examination of John Fries, on April 6th. At this stage of the trial the con- fession of Fries was read, the same which was

taken before Judge Peters, immediately upon his capture.

The prosecution having now rested their case, Mr. Dallas remarked to the court, that, though they wished to give as little trouble on the part of the defendant as possible, they desired to call two or three witnesses to prove that the indispo- sition which was manifested to permit the assess- ments to be made was owing to the uncertainty these people were in of the real existence of the law ; that the prisoner himself was under the idea that it was no law ; and that they had no inten- tion of opposing Congress by force of arms, but that they wished for time, in order to ascertain its real existence, and, if the law were actually in force, they wished, agreeably to their former custom to appoint assessors from their own re- spective townships; that it could be shown that Fries was perfectly quiescent after the proclama- tion, and that some of the witnesses were mis- taken as to some of the facts which they had sworn to. Mr. Dallas alluded to the fact, that since the jury had been impanelled, a newspaper in the city had attempted to intimidate the coun- sel and jury, to warp the sentiments of the latter, and to deprive the prisoners of the benefit of the best talent the bar could afford. He proceeded to an examination of the law of treason, and argued that none of the acts complained of amounted to the crime charged.

After Mr. Rawle had argued the constitutional definition of treason to the court, in support of the positions taken by his colleague, Mr. Sit- greaves, Mr. Dallas opened the case for the de- fendant in an able and eloquent speech. He re- viewed the whole ground, all the testimony of the witnesses produced by the United States, and denied that from the facts proved there was any- thing like the levying of war against the United States. He argued that treason could not be made out of the act alleged, and that at most it was but conspiracy to resist the execution of an unpopular law. He explained the disadvantages under which the prisoner appeared before the · court, and spoke of the popular resentment that had been engendered against him; and he called upon the jurors to drive from their minds every- thing like bias, and to give the prisoner the ad- vantages of every reasonable doubt they might entertain of his guilt. Having concluded, he called three witnesses, John Jamison, Israel Rob- erts and Everhard Foulke, to prove the facts he had alleged.

The testimony on both sides being closed, Mr. Ewing opened the case to the jury for the de- fendant, and was followed by Mr. Sitgreaves and Mr. Rawle, for the United States. The

204

HISTORY OF LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

jury was then charged by both judges at con- siderable length, who reviewed all the facts of the case, and the law bearing upon it, showing a strong bias against the prisoner. The case was then given to the jury which retired to their room, and after an absence of about three hours came in with a verdict of Guilty. The trial had occupied the undivided attention of the court from the first to the ninth of May, and during all this period the public mind was in the greatest possible state of excitement, and the attendance upon the trial large. The jury did not separate the whole time. When the verdict was an- nounced, it was received with satisfaction or dis- approbation according to the political bias of the persons present ; for, strange as it may seem, poli- tics was mixed up with the whole of the affair.

The court met on the 14th day of May to pronounce sentence upon the prisoner. As soon as court was opened, Mr. Lewis, one of the counsel for Fries, asked for a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted, which caused judgment to be suspended, and the pris- oner was remanded back to jail. The ground upon which this motion was based, was that John Roth, one of the jurymen on the trial, had de- clared a prejudice against the prisoner after he was summoned as a juror on the trial. He read depositions to substantiate the facts stated. Mr. Lewis was sustained in the application by Mr. Dallas, who advanced additional reasons for a new trial. The motion was argued at consider- able length by counsel, and the two judges de- livered separate opinions. The court was di- vided in opinion, Judge Iredell being in favor of, and Judge Chase opposed to, a new trial ; but the latter finally yielded to the former upon the ground that a division in the court might lessen the weight of the judgment if finally pronounced, and a new trial was accordingly granted. Before the second trial came off the yellow fever broke out in Philadelphia, which caused a removal of the prisoners to Montgomery county where they remained until the fever had abated, when they were returned to Philadelphia. The late Hon. James M. Porter, of Easton, wrote us the fol- lowing interesting recollections of his residence at Norristown, at that period, which we publish in full :

"I was very young at the time of those trans- actions, but I still have a recollection that they transpired. When the yellow fever prevailed in Philadelphia, I think in 1799, Isaiah Wells, Esq., was sheriff of Montgomery (perhaps jailor at that,) and the prisoners were removed from Phil- adelphia to Norristown. Mr. Wells was very kind and allowed the prisoners great liberties, in going out and returning to the jail. Several of

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 Lehigh county, Pennsylvania and a genealogical and biographical record of its families, Vol. I, Part 38

Author: Roberts, Charles Rhoads; Stoudt, John Baer, 1878- joint comp; Krick, Thomas H., 1868- joint comp; Dietrich, William Joseph, 1875- joint comp; Lehigh County Historical Society Publication date: 1914 Publisher: Allentown, Pa. : Lehigh Valley Publishing Co. Number of Pages: 1158

Author: Roberts, Charles Rhoads; Stoudt, John Baer, 1878- joint comp; Krick, Thomas H., 1868- joint comp; Dietrich, William Joseph, 1875- joint comp; Lehigh County Historical Society
Publication date: 1914
Publisher: Allentown, Pa. : Lehigh Valley Publishing Co.
Number of Pages: 1158