History of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, with biographical selections, Part 20

Author: Bradsby, H. C. (Henry C.)
Publication date: 1893
Publisher: Chicago : S. B. Nelson
Number of Pages: 1532

USA > Pennsylvania > Luzerne County > History of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, with biographical selections > Part 20

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).

There were large quantities of such lands held by Connecticut settlers. 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 beginning, had no life or operation, and is in precisely the same state as if it had not been made. If so, the plain- tiff's title remains in full force.

2. If the confirming act is unconstitutional, the conditions of it have not been performed, 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 Repealed.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 the disputed lands and rid the State of the burden of compensation; and while many actions were brought in eight years, there were 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 cer- tain lands within the seventeen townships in the county of Luzerne." The law fixes the status of the conflicting claimants, and appoints Isaac Wheelon, of Chester county; Thomas Boude, of Lancaster county, and General William Irvine of Cumber- land 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 meditation on the part of the State between the conflicting claimants.

The Pennsylvania claimants, refusing or neglecting to execute releases, were to

162

HISTORY OF LUZERNE COUNTY.

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 Connecticut 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 lands 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 1,000 Connecticut people had exhibited their titles. All the lines in the seven- teen townships had been again surveyed, and certificates issued to the holders. These certificates were conclusive between Connecticut claimants, but did not con- clude a Pennsylvania claimant.

Of the compromise act of 1799, in the case of Barney vs. Sutton, 2 Watts, 36 Scott, president judge of the Luzerne common pleas court sums up the whole thus: " At last the legislature adopted the expedient of acting as mediators between the Connecticut and the Pennsylvania claimants, for the purpose of putting a final end to the controversy. The act was strictly the act of mediation. It proposed terms of settlement and compromise to the parties, and the controversy was finally hap- pily settled. The judge then gives the following as pertinent history of the long- drawn-out contention:

At the commencement of the Revolution settlements had been effected in most, if not all, of the seventeen townships, and in many of them extensive improve- ments had been made. The settlers were a hardy, intelligent, brave and patriotic people. During the Revolutionary struggle neither the sufferings and privations which they endured nor the menace of the executive authority of Pennsylvania could drive them from their settlements, nor could the offers of British gold tempt them to abandon their country or the common cause of liberty and independence in which they were engaged. They had become so numerous that they furnished nearly 1,000 men for the regular service. They did still more. They sustained, single handed, for more than three years, a frontier war, during the most gloomy period of the Revolution, and successfully repelled an enemy "whose known mode of warfare spared neither age nor sex nor condition." On July 3, 1778, they were attacked by a numerous body of Indians, British and tories, and in one disastrous battle nearly the whole settlement were reduced to widowhood and orphanage. The feeble remnant that escaped soon mustered and returned to the settlement, and until the close of the war presented a barrier to the incursions of the savage foe.

This is a mere skeleton of the early history of this settlement. It would require a volume to fill it up. But enough has been noticed to satisfy any one not blinded by interest or prejudice of the equitable claims of these people. They came into possession under color of title, such a title, too, as they honestly believed to be good, and in which they were induced to confide by a government claiming juris- diction over the territory. Was this circumstance nothing as a ground of equity? Were the improvements and possession of the country nothing? Were the sacri- fices and sufferings and privations of the people in defence of the country and in the common cause nothing ? Are such a people to be considered outlaws? To this last question I adopt the answer of the late chief justice in the case of Satterlee us.

163

HISTORY OF LUZERNE COUNTY.

Matthewson: "God forbid! They are not to be so considered." Considerations like these have uniformly been regarded as sufficient in Pennsylvania to ground an equity. The principle has been carried further. Our statute books and the decisions of our courts furnish numerous instances where like considerations have been deemed sufficient grounds of equity in favor of those who had taken possession of lands without title or color of title, and in favor of those who had taken possession in violation of the positive enactments of the legislature, as in the case of lands not purchased of the Indians.

"Half-share Men."-An act of the assembly, March 11, 1800, repealed the general act for the limitation of actions to be brought under the act of March 26, 1785, within the seventeen townships, or in any case where title is claimed under the Susquehanna company.

April 6, 1802, an act was passed by the legislature, which the court, in the case of Irish vs. Scovell, 6 Binn, 57, fully explains when it says: "The manifest object of this act appears to have been to continue the kindness which had been extended to the seventeen townships, but to cut up by the roots the title of Connecticut in all other parts."

And it thoroughly accomplished its purpose, but was attended with some unfort- unate circumstances, but of these it is necessary here to notice only such as were enacted within Luzerne county. The "half-share" men were often called the " Wild Yankees"-they realized that they were beingruthlessly outlawed-and Col. John Franklin, the Satterlees, Kingsburys and Spaldings were their friends, and in some respects their leaders. Acts of bloody violence were committed. Col. Arthur Erwin, an extensive land owner in the north part of the county, was shot dead while sitting in the door of Mr. McDuffie, of Athens; the Rev. Thomas Smiley, at that time living eight or ten miles up the Towanda creek, while acting as an assist- ant agent under the "intrusion law," was tarred and feathered. Col. Abraham Horn had been appointed by the Pennsylvania landholders to put the "intrusion law " in force, and at once entered upon his duties. In June, 1801, he went to Bradford county, but, apprehending danger from the violent oppression of the peo- ple, he stopped at Asylum. Rev. Thomas Smiley had written to the agent that nearly all the forty settlers on Towanda creek would renounce their Connecticut

titles, and purchase of the Pennsylvania claimants. A conference was held at Asylum. Mr. Smiley was commissioned a deputy agent, and furnished with the necessary papers. July 7 he obtained the signature of nearly forty to their relinquishments and submissions, and started for Asylum. A meeting was held, and the " Wild Yankees" determined that the business must be stopped. About twenty men from Sugar Creek, Ulster and Sheshequin, armed and diguised, started in pursuit. Mr. Smiley, hearing the arrangements of the conspirators, went down to Joshua Wythe's, near Monroeton, where he remained until dark, and then stopped for the night at Jacob Granteer's. The parties followed him and broke into the room where he was sleeping, captured his papers, burned them, and led him down to the creek, tarred and feathered him, and the leader giving him a kick told him to "go." John Murphy, David Campbell, Jacob Irvine, Ebenezer Shaw Stephen Ballard and Benjamin Griffin were presented to the grand jury for this, but no bill was found.

Gov. Hoyt concludes with the following propositions:

1. In the form of law, Connecticut, with a title regular on its face, failed justly.

2. In the form of equity the Connecticut settlers, without other title than the possessio pedis prevailed rightly.

This is the condensed story of the " seventeen townships," the " Connecticut claims"-the "first and second Pennamite and Yankee wars," as well as the story of the settlement of northern Pennsylvania and the unequaled bravery,

164

HISTORY OF LUZERNE COUNTY.

patience and endurance of our distinguished forefathers. A chapter of deep interest to every student of American history; the central individual figure in it all was Col. John Franklin, the representative of Connecticut. To this day men in considering it are liable to confuse the two and only questions in it all into one question, and thereby bias their own otherwise better judgments. These questions should have been kept distinct, namely, right of jurisdiction and the right of soil, and in this light would have been easily settled. The actual settlers cared nothing as to the jurisdiction over them, and it must be conceded that on both sides pur- chasers bought good titles, that is, the individual acted in good faith, and the authorities on each side had good color of authority to dispose of the soil. In this view the judicial question for the courts should have been simply one of priority of claim, regardless of which faction either party belonged to or claimed under. When the Trenton decree was promulgated it was the plain duty of Pennsylvania to have promptly accepted that as a settlement of all questions in her favor of jurisdiction, and at once recognize every title of the Connecticut claimants, and this would have incorporated the colony as good and loyal citizens of the State, and have ended forever all dispute or bad blood. The State erred in making itself a partisan in the question of soil, a mere agent or attorney, intent upon land-grabbing in behalf of its clients, regardless of all questions of equity or even justice, and it proceeded in a long course of evictions that were not only unjust, but utterly cruel. Ae seen above, in the end the State had to become a mediator-the very thing it should have done at first. It did this only when Connecticut ceased to trifle with the question, and set about in earnest a bold defence of its long-suffering people. After the thing had run on a hundred years or more, and the people had suffered an unbroken stream of wrongs to which they had been led by the promises of Connecticut, then it roused up and boldly said to ite colonists, if you can get justice in no other way than by forming yourselves into a new and separate State, we will back you even to the bloody issue. This action of Connecticut brought bere Ethan Allen and his followers, flushed with his successes in Vermont, and it is estimated that by the time the mediatory act of Pennsylvania, 1799, was passed, there were 10,000 people in the valley, ready to carve out with their sharp swords the new State; that these men, made desperate, could have defended themselves against the world. Many of the ablest and purest men of the State were now taking sides with the Connecticut claimants, and happily the authorities saw the gathering cloud and promptly, though now impossible of fairness and equity, took the only step it could take, and the end came.

Nothing more fitting could conclude this chapter, which is a mere compilation from the historical lecture of Gov. Hoyt before the society, than the words of the same gentleman used in an address delivered at the base of the monument July 3, 1891. Of all men living perhaps not one is so well qualified to treat the subject so profoundly, judicially and understandingly as Ex-Gov. Hoyt, who for years investi- gated all sides of the question as a lawyer and student in cases in which he was engaged, where the cold, impartial truth alone could avail:

The Wyoming massacre was a most deplorable episode. It had no necessary con- nection with the orderly development of history in this valley. It was an incident which happened to occur here, but which was produced by no local causes, and, as I think, was not inspired by local considerations. From 1769 to 1799 a controversy between the purchasers under the Susquehanna company and the State of Pennsylvania, wore out one whole generation of men in itself. I myself have never seen any histor- ical connection between that controversy and the massacre. At the same time the partisans of one side of that controversy were the victims of the massacre, and hence the tendency to identify the controversy with the massacre. I think it well, here and now, to get right, historically, on this question, and to try and arrest the tide of resentment which is apt to arise against the State in which our ancestors

S. H. Dodson

167

HISTORY OF LUZERNE COUNTY.

finally concluded to make their homes. The descendants of those who fought are enjoying the fruits of those fields and mines over which it was waged. The pith and core of that conflict seems to be located on Abraham's Plains. It was a war to the knife on the broad arena of natural rights, law and politics. If it had arisen in the days of Pericles at Athens it would not have developed more self-poised and alert disputants. The 6,000 Yankees had not only purchased rights but had the pluck to stand for them with arms.

We shall always preserve grateful and reverential memories of the men who fell here. But you, their descendants, are entitled to claim kin to the framers of Magna Charta and the Declaration of Independence. The massacre came at an interval when the controversy with Pennsylvania was not being waged. After the failure of the attempt under Pennsylvania by Col. Plunkett, in 1775, and up to the decree of Trenton in 1782, there was a suspension of hostilities here under the direction of congress. Then came the second Pennamite war, the passage of the confirming act of 1787, its repeal in 1790, and the uncertain but never hopeless expectation of final relief, which came under the compromise act of 1799. In the progress of these events a generation had come and gone. The most intelligent believed that their settlement was under a good title from Connecticut. As Justice Breckenridge said in Carkuff vs. Anderson, "they were not trespassers."

That these isolated frontiersmen should have known and stood by their rights with intelligence and devotion, is to this day a wonder and amazement to the impar- tial student. Connecticut never protected or defended them. Their patient resist- ance outlasts the ill-timed and cruel attempts of the State, in 1784, to dispossess them-though the efforts of the State's agents was merciless and irresponsible. After the decree of Trenton the settlers expressed their willingness to observe the laws, but insisted on being confirmed in their possessions. The decree finding the land claimed by Connecticut belonged to Pennsylvania, did not affect the private possessions of individuals. Pennsylvania kept the equity of the settlers in abey- ance until April 4, 1799, when the legislature passed an act for offering compensa- tion to the Pennsylvania claimants of land in the seventeen townships. Then the possessions of the Connecticut settlers were confirmed and Pennsylvania claimants took their compensation. Thus closed the controversy.

Some of the disputants in those various troubles have left their mark on other portions of the history of the country. Col. John Jenkins was the main spokesman and penman of the Connecticut people. His papers and addresses exerted a power- ful influence on his constituents. But he finally linked his fortunes to the "half share men." Timothy Pickering, who came here as the agent for Pennsylvania and was prothonotary of Luzerne county on its first organization, was mainly instru- mental in passing the confirming law of 1787, and was a stanch adherent of the cause of the settlers. Gen. John Armstrong's last act here, where he was wantonly harsh in attempting to dispossess the settlers, was a parting shot at the men he could not subdue, and he called the people vagrants and desperadoes. In view of the heroic life work of the men who stood up for their possessions, refusing to become abject slaves, and always willing to accept the provisions of a just govern- ment, we will accept the lineage he assigned to our predecessors. In Upham's Life of Timothy Pickering he delivers a catholic judgment of Pennsylvania, refer- ring to her lenient course in the controversy, reflecting honor upon her wisdom and humanity. At different times she took many of the settlers prisoners and confined them at Easton, not executing upon them any military or judicial penalties; treating them, not as wicked, but as misguided men, and allowing them to be discharged. Such a course is entitled to commendation and honor. No conflict accompanied by so much provocation is so little stained by cruelty or has a better record for bravery and endurance then this over the Wyoming lands. The same author also presents a charitable view of the Connecticut settlers and the conditions which they felt.

168

HISTORY OF LUZERNE COUNTY.

They had built houses, barns and cultivated the soil. Naturally such a man will hold his own and fight for it against the world. And the possession becomes endeared by association, and consecrated by special experiences of blood and woe. Those who escaped the tomahawk and scalping knife had come back again from their refuge. The invincible, indestructible community persevered in the contest against all odds, and no power, civilized or barbarian, could root it out.

With judicial impartiality he concludes thus: Upon balancing the facts and evi- dence we are brought not to the conclusion usually the result of a fair consideration of the whole subject in like cases, that both parties were in the wrong, but that hoth parties were substantially in the right.

CHAPTER VII.

WAR.

WHISKY INSURRECTION-THREATENED FRENCH WAR-ROW WITH ENGLAND-WAR OF 1812-15 -MEXICAN WAR-CIVIL WAR-ETC.

I N 1756 the proprietaries of Pennsylvania imposed an excise duty on all distilled spirits, but the law being very unpopular, was soon repealed. The people of this colony, like all the pioneers of America, put their faith deeply in religion, and a little "suthen for their stomach's sake," whisky being their vernacular bever- age here, while rum held undisputed possession of New England. All agricultural products from this section were transported originally by pack-horses, and the transportation companies that were the forerunners of these long railroad trains that now go screaming over the hills and through the valleys, were men who had numbers of pack-horses, that were manned by a crew of two men, one on a lead- horse and one in the rear. A horse could carry four bushels of grain; made into whisky he could carry the equal of twenty-five bushels, thus was saved the labor of five horses out of six. Distilleries were therefore among the first necessities of the pioneers. To be caught by a neighbor with the bottle empty was unpardonable; it was an article of common family use.

In 1791, however, after the power to impose taxes, duties, imposts and excises had been delegated by the States to the federal government, congress established an excise duty or tax of fourpence per gallon on all distilled spirits. This law pro- duced open insurrection in western Pennsylvania, where large quantities of whisky were annually manufactured.

The people of Washington, Fayette, Alleghany, and other counties viewed the law as an act of oppression. They stigmatized it as unjust, and as odious as those laws of England which led to the Revolutionary war, and they considered them- selves justified in forcible opposition to its enforcement. But they did not discrim- inate between their duty and obligations as citizens of a free government, and their allegiance as subjects of the British crown.

The excise officers of the government were arrested by armed parties, who were painted and otherwise disguised. Some were tarred and feathered; others were con- veyed into deep recesses of the woods, divested of their clothing, and firmly bound to trees. County meetings and conventions were assembled, inflammatory speeches were made, and denunciatory resolutions adopted. The dwellings, barns and dis- tilleries of persons who spoke in favor of the law, or exhibited the least sympathy for the government which enacted it, were consumed by fire; and even Pittsburg,

169

HISTORY OF LUZERNE COUNTY.

which did not take an active part with the rebels, was threatened with total destruction.

In 1792 congress reduced the tax, but this did not satisfy the insurgents, the Monongahela whisky manufacturers, and the farmers who supplied them with grain. The country continued in a state of insurrection. After all mild and dis- suasive measures had failed, in 1794, Washington being president, it was resolved to raise and equip an army for the purpose of quelling the insurrection. A force of 15,000 men was assembled, of regulars and volunteers, from the States of Pennsyl- vania, Virginia, Maryland and New Jersey. Gov. Lee, of Virginia, had the chief command. Mifflin was governor of this State, and one of the commanders. All the governers and commanders were ordered to meet in Pittsburg, to hear com- plaints and take testimony, as the malcontents should be arrested and brought before them. Among the first to tender their services to the government were the Luzerne volunteers, Capt. Samuel Bowman; attached to a battalion of light infantry, under Maj. George Fisher. Capt. Bowman marched out September 1, 1794, reaching where is now Pittsburg, with fifty men. The Captain was an old officer of the army of the Revolution; brave and experienced, and in his company were some of his old soldiers. The following is the muster-roll :

Captain, Samuel Bowman; lieutenant, Ebenezer Parrish; ensign, Arnold Colt; sergeants, John Alden, Daniel Spencer, John Freeman; corporals, Archibald White, Oliver Parrish, Robert Lewis, Thompson Holliday; fifer, Peter Yarrington; drum- mer, John Wright; privates, Samuel Young, Solomon Daniels, John Cochran, Elihu Parrish, James Sitey, Thomas P. Miller, Peter Grubb, Arthur McGill, James Johnston, Joseph Headsdale, Daniel Alden, Simon Stevens, Warham Strong, David Landon, Gideon Underwood, Jeremiah Decker, James Robb, Sale Roberts, Partial Roberts, Rufus Drake, Benjamin Owens, John Earl. Charles Bowes, Curtis Grubb, Thomas Jeayne, Joseph Grimes, Jesse Tompkins, William Harris, Jesse Coleman, John Talliday and Cofrin Boldwell.

The gathered 15,000 troops spread terror among the "Tom the Tinker," as the whisky boys were called, and a general surrender soon followed, and "Johnny came marching home." In suppressing this rebellion no precious Luzerne blood was spilled, but is was quite evident to the "rebels" that "Barkis is willin' " so far as the people of the county were concerned. From beginning to end the cam- paign lasted three months.

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 Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, with biographical selections, Part 20

Author: Bradsby, H. C. (Henry C.) Publication date: 1893 Publisher: Chicago : S. B. Nelson Number of Pages: 1532

Author: Bradsby, H. C. (Henry C.)
Publication date: 1893
Publisher: Chicago : S. B. Nelson
Number of Pages: 1532