History of Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, Part 24

Author: edited by John F. Meginness
Publication date: 1892
Publisher: Chicago, Ill. : Brown, Runk
Number of Pages: 1650

USA > Pennsylvania > Lycoming County > History of Lycoming County, Pennsylvania > Part 24

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).

NEW TOWNSHIPS ERECTED.

With the "New Purchase" the area of the county, west of Lycoming creek and north of the river, was largely increased, and it was found necessary to divide the northwestern townships. At the August sessions, 1785, a petition was presented to the court praying for the organization of the new territory "for the purposes of order and a civil state of society," and asking the Court " to erect that part between Lycoming and Pine creeks, being near fifteen miles, into one township; and from Pine creek upwards into another township." This was done, the former receiving the name of Lycoming, and the latter that of Pine Creek.

Another petition presented to the court at the November sessions, 1785, resulted

Eng ªvy F G KernanNY

197

THE FAIR PLAY SYSTEM.

in the annexation of the lower end of Bald Eagle township (from opposite Lycom- ing creek, and extending up the south side of the West Branch of the Snsquehanna as far as opposite Pine creek, to include Nippenose valley) "to Lycoming township; and from the mouth of Pine creek, extending up the Bald Eagle valley as far as the mouth of Beech creek, up the south side of said branch as far as inhabited, and from Beech run a southerly course until it joins Potter's township, to Pine Creek town- ship." Bald Eagle as originally organized was about seventy miles long, and with the exception of Wyoming was the largest township in Northumberland connty. At August sessions, 1785, Washington township was set off from White Deer. Loyal- sock was formed at February sessions, 1786, from that part of Muncy lying above Loyalsock creek.

FAIR PLAY SYSTEM.

Charles Smith, Esq., of Sunbury, who compiled that invaluable work known as Smith's Laws, gives this clear insight into the causes operating to develop the Fair Play system, together with a resume of the land law of Pennsylvania, (Vol. II, page 195,) as it related to the code adopted by these settlers:

A set of hardy adventurers seated themselves on this doubtful territory, made improve- ments, and formed a very considerable population. They formed a mutual compact among themselves, and annually elected a tribunal in rotation of three of the settlers, who were to decide all controversies and settle disputed boundaries. From their decision there was no appeal, and there could be no resistance. The decree was enforced by the whole body, who started up in mass, at the mandate of the court, and the execution and eviction were as sudden and irresistible as the judgment. Every newcomer was obliged to apply to this powerful tri- bunal, and, upon his solemn engagement to submit in all respects to the law of this land, he was permitted to take possession of some vacant spot. Their decrees were, however, just; and when their settlements were recognized by law, and fair play had ceased, their decisions were received in evidence and confirmed by judgments of court.

This last accession of lands was called by the whites the "New Purchase," and when the Land Office was opened, May 1, 1785, emigrants rapidly flocked to the terri- tory for the purpose of taking up the choice lands. Nearly all the original settlers on this land previous to the "Big Runaway," returned to the land on which they had made improvements and claimed it by virtue of pre-emption right. Speculators were also on the alert to make purchases and the greatest activity prevailed. Sam- uel Wallis and some others, offered the Commonwealth £30 per hundred acres for all improvements, and fearing a like action to that which despoiled the Connecti- cut settlers at Wyoming, the Fair Play residents memorialized the Assembly with ' the following remonstrance:

To the Honorable the Representatives of the Freemen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

The petition of the subscribers, inhabitants of the county of Northumberland, most hum- bly sheweth: That your petitioners have lived for a number of years before the Revolution at and near the Great Island, on the West Branch of the River Susquehanna, and were the first settlers, and have made very considerable improvements without having procured any officers' rights under the former government, and were at the beginning of the war obliged to abandon our farms and fly to the interior parts of the State for refuge, where we were under the necessity of selling our stock for the support of our families.

We have lately understood that application has been made for the lands we have improved, and which we have defended at the risk of our lives. We humbly conceive that your honora- ble House will rather give the preference to those whose lives have been spent in endeavoring

198

HISTORY OF LYCOMING COUNTY.

to procure an honest livelihood on lands which were unappropriated, and we do conceive that the merits of defending the frontiers and being the most active against the savages will have its due weight with your honorable House. All that your petitioners desire is to have your sanction for retaining our improvements, and that those only who have been tillers of the ground and livers on the land-their rights alone shall be deemed valid for their propor- tiouable shares.

Permit us further to mention to your honorable House, that some evil disposed persons have lately sold the rights of other improvers in their absence, and have even gone so far as to make private surveys. We humbly conceive that your honorable House will make a distinction between those tillers and our claims. We can assure your honorable House that our inten- tion and real design is for complying with the terms of the Land Office, and we only wish that preference may be given to the real improvers.

Your petitioners are apprehensive some disputes may arise among us in setting lines, which we beg leave to request your honorable House to appoint men as a committee or other- wise, as you in your wisdom think best, to settle disputes and lines on the premises, as we con-' ceive disinterested men may prevent lawsuits and give the legal improvers and claimers their proportionable shares of the lands. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray.

The petition was signed by James Curry, William Dougherty, Thomas Forster, Joseph McMahan, John Fleming, John Baker, William Maginley, Peter Maginley, William Dunn, John Chatham, James Erwin, John Dougherty, John McKinney, William McMeans, Thomas Nichols, William Jackson, F. Hilor, J. Woodsides, Ben- jamin Warner, Samuel Fields, Fred Bodine, John Price, Edmund Huff, Brattan Caldwell, A. Kitelinger, Richard Manning, James Forster, John Hamilton, William Luckey, John Holmes, John McElwain, James Alexander, Adam King, Robert Holmes, Richard Suthern, James Stewart, Joseph Mahaffey, William Dougherty, John Jackson, David Hammond, William Walker, Edward Masters, John Arkl- ridge, Roger Brayley, Thomas Ferguson, Samuel Camel, James Jackson, Robert Reynolds.

The petition is endorsed: "Read one time, March 17, 1784."

Those familiar with county names will readily recognize a number on this peti- tion whose descendants live in this valley, while many others have faded out of exist- ence. One of the Fair Play commissioners, Caldwell, is a signer, and Richard Manning was one of the founders of Jersey Shore. Mckinney lived on Pine creek, whilst Hamilton, Jackson, and Dunn, were residents of what is now Pine Creek town- ship, Clinton county. Forster lived on Long Island, opposite Jersey Shore; McMeans on the "Long Reach," and the Doughertys, who were conspicuous, have their names perpetuated by a small run which empties into the river on the western · boundary line of Williamsport. There are others, too, who bore a conspicuous part in the early days of the settlement and contributed their full share towards improv- ing the country.

GRASPING FOR LAND.

The allusion in the petition to " applications " having been made for their improved lands refers to Samuel Wallis. As early as 1773 Wallis made an effort to acquire all the desirable lands lying on the river from Lycoming to Pine creek. Three of his drafts show the lines of his surveys: The first begins at a point on Lycoming creek near where Bridge No. 1 of the Northern Central railroad crosses that stream, or as the survey designates it, "opposite the point of the first large hill." The line then turned and followed what appears to be the route of the present public

199

THE FAIR PLAY SYSTEM.

road " to a marked locust on the side of the river a small distance below the mouth of Quinashahaque run, thence down the river by the several courses to the place of beginning." The " survey was made on the 22d and 23d days of June, 1773, for Samuel Wallis, in pursuance of seven orders of survey dated the 3d of April, 1769," and the tract contained 2,328 acres. The names of the seven persons to whom the applications were granted appear on the draft, but they are not familiar names of to-day. They were strangers who had obtained the grants and then transferred them to Wallis for "five shillings," which seems to have been the established price. This survey took in all the fine land lying on the river between Lycoming creek and Linden, and it was made on land which the Proprietaries of the Province had no control over.

A second survey commenced on the west of the locust tree, where the first sur- vey ended, and apparently followed the present public road "to a post on the bank of the river," and thence down the same to the beginning. This survey was made June 24th and 25th, 1773, " for Samuel Wallis, in pursuance of five orders of sur- vey dated April 3, 1769," and issued to that number of persons, and contained 1,547 acres. This survey took in that fine scope of farming land now known as "Level Corner." The only familiar names mentioned on the draft are those of Elizabeth Walton and Josiah Hews.

The third is a "draft of a tract of land situate on the north side of the West Branch of Susquehanna below and adjoining Pine creek, surveyed the 17th and 18th days of June, 1773, in pursuance of eighteen orders of survey dated the 3d day of April, 1769. It will be noticed by the dates that the work of surveying these three great tracts commenced at Pine creek and extended eastward.

The eighteen orders for this large tract were granted as follows:

No.

Name.

No.

Name.

107

William Porter.

1147

.John Cummings.

118

Richard Setteford.

1373.

. Samuel Taylor.

318

.Thomas Morgau.

1546 Benjamin Cathrall.

327. Joseph Couperthwait.

1558. Peter Young.

464.

William Wilson.

1573. Samuel Nicholas.

592

John Sprogle.

1588

Samuel Nicholas.

608.

Isaac Cathrall.

1701

Thomas Bonnel.

Joseph Hill.

2127

.Henry Paul, Jr.

807

Joseph Paul.

2231

. Joseph Knight.

The line of survey is indicated as follows on the draft: " Beginning at a marked elm standing on the north side of the West Branch of Susquehanna above and at the mouth of Larry's creek, and turning thence N. 45° E. 400 perches, thence N. 67° W. 310 perches, thence S. 77° W. 765 perches, thence S. 51º W. 700 perches to Pine creek; thence down the said creek by the several courses thereof to the mouth; thence down the northerly side of the West Branch by the several courses thereof to the place of beginning at the mouth of Larry's creek, containing and laid out for 5,900 acres with allowance of six per cent. for roads and highways." This draft is signed: "John Lukens, Esq., Surveyor General, by order and direction of Jesse Lukens, per Samuel Harris." The latter, who seems to have done the field work, lived at Loyalsock and was an active man of the time. This draft is neatly drawn

200

HISTORY OF LYCOMING COUNTY.

and carefully notes every prominent point on the line, not omitting Long Island. This tract embraced every foot of ground on which the borough of Jersey Shore stands. The aggregate of the three drafts is 9,775 acres, and they took in all the land on which the Fair Play settlers dwelt. With these surveys hanging over their lands, is it any wonder they manifested alarm, and memorialized the Assembly to protect them ? If these grants should be declared legal they would be dispossessed of their claims and perhaps get nothing for their improvements.

But it turned out that his great scheme to gobble all these fertile acres came to naught, for the Assembly at once saw the injustice of ignoring the claims of the memorialists and straightway recognized them by passing this act, which may be found in the same authority (Smith's Laws,) as already cited:

And whereas divers persons, who have heretofore occupied and cultivated small tracts of lands without the bounds of the Purchase made as aforesaid in the year 1768, and within the Purchase made or now to be made, have by their resolute stands and sufferings during the late war, merited that those settlers should have the pre-emption of their respective plantations, it is enacted that all and every person or persons, and their legal representatives, who has or have heretofore settled on the north side of the West Branch of Susquehanna, between Lycomick or Lycoming creek on the east, and T'yadaghton or Pine creek on the west, as well as other lands . within the said residuary purchase from the Indians of the territory within this State (except- ing always the lands hereinbefore excepted,) shall be allowed a right of pre-emption to their respective possessions at the price aforesaid.

LITIGATION FOLLOWS.

As foreshadowed by the petitioners in their appeal, trouble arose in a number of instances about claims, lines, and titles, and much litigation followed. A few years ago a number of depositions relating to these land trials were found among the papers of Hon. Charles Huston, the eminent land lawyer, and published in the Penn- sylvania Magazine of History, Vol. VII, page 420.

In the case of Greer vs. Tharpe, William King, who located on the site of Jays- burg as early as 1775, testified " that there was a law among the Fair Play men by which any man who absented himself for the space of six weeks, lost his right to his improvement." King, it will be remembered, was the man whose wife was killed in the Indian massacre, June 10, 1778, on what is now West Fourth street, Williamsport. Tharpe was his brother-in-law.

In reference to this case Brattan Caldwell, one of the last Fair Play commis- sioners, testified :

In May, 1774, I was in company with William Greer and James Greer, and helped to build a cabin on William Greer's place (this was one mile north of the river and one-half mile west of Lycoming creek). Greer went into the army in 1776, and was a wagon-master till the fall of 1778. He wrote to me to sell his cattle. I sold his cattle. In July, 1778, (the "Runaway,") John Martin had come on the land in his absence. The Fair Play men put Greer in possession. If a man went into the army, the Fair Play men protected his property. Greer was not among the Sherman's valley boys [the witness no doubt refers to the early settlers of what is now Perry county, who were forcibly removed in May, 1750]. Greer came back in 1784.

The land on which the Greers settled was above Dougherty's run, not far from the western line of the city of Williamsport. They were brothers; James lived and died on the tract which was in dispute.

The summary process of ejectment in vogue among the Fair Play men is

201

THE FAIR PLAY SYSTEM.

described by William King in a deposition made March 15, 1801, in Huff rs. Latcha, in the circuit court of Lycoming county. He says:

In 1775 I [King] came on the land in question. I was informed that Joseph Haines claimed the land. He asked £30 for it, which I would not give. He said he was going to New Jersey, and would leave it in the care of his nephew, Isaiah Sutton. Some time after I heard that Sutton was offering it for sale. I had heard much disputing about the Indian land, and thought I would go up to Sutton's neighbors and inquire if he had any right. I first went to Edmund Huff, then to Thomas Kemplen, Samuel Dougherty, William McMeans, and Thomas Ferguson, and asked if they would accept me as a neighbor, and whether Isaiah Sutton had any right to the land in question. They told me Joseph Haines had once a right to it but had forfeited his right by the Fair Play law, and advised me to purchase. Huff showed me the consentable line between Haines and him. Huff's land lay above Haines's, on the river. I purchased of Sutton, and was to give him £9 for the land.

I did not come to live on the land for some weeks. One night, at a husking of corn, one Thomas Bond told me I was a fine fellow to be at a husking while a man was taking posses- sion of my plantation. I quit the husking, and Bond and I came over to the place, and went into a cave, the only tenement then on the land, except where Sutton lived, and found some trifling articles in the cave, which we threw out. I went to the men who advised me to go on the land, all except Huff and Kemplen; they advised me to go on, turn him off and beat him if I was able. The next morning I got some of my friends and raised a cabin of some logs which I understood Haines had hauled. When we got it up to the square, we heard a noise of people coming. The first person I saw was Edmund Huff foremost with a keg of whiskey, William Paul was next with an axe, and many more. They got on the cabin, raised the Indian yell, and dispossessed me and put William Paul in possession. I and my party went off. Samuel Dougherty followed me and told me to come back and come on terms with Paul, who had money and would not take it from me for nothing. I would not go back, but waited for Dougherty, who went for Paul. The whole party came and brought the keg along. After some conversation, William Paul agreed to give me £13 for my right. He pulled out the money, gave it to Huff to keep until I would assign my right. I afterwards signed the con- veyance and got my money.

William Paul went on the laud and finished his cabin. Soon after a party bought Robert Arthur and built a cabin near Paul's, in which Arthur lived. Paul applied to the Fair Play men, who decided in favor of Paul. Arthur would not go off. Paul made a complaint to the company at a muster at Quinashahague that Arthur still lived on the land and would not go off, although the Fair Play men had decided against him. I was one of the officers at that time and we agreed to come and run him off. The most of the company came down as far as Edmund Huff's, who kept stills. We got a keg of whisky and proceeded to Arthur's cabin. He was at home with his rifle in his hand and his wife had a bayonet on a stick, and they threatened death to the first person who would enter the house. The door was shut, and Thomas Kemplen, our captain, made a run at the door, burst it open and instantly seized Arthur by the neck. We pulled down the cabin, threw it into the river, lashed two canoes together and put Arthur and his family and his goods into them and sent them down the river. William Paul then lived undisturbed upon the land until the Indians drove us all away. William Paul was then (1778) from home on a militia tour.

It will be noticed that King says a " cave" was the "only tenement" on the place at the time, and in it he probably lived. This shows that "dug outs," among settlers on the western plains are not new for they were in use in the West Branch valley over 117 years ago. And although King was dispossessed, Paul did not want his improvement for nothing and paid him for it. This show that the code did not sanction robbery, but aimed to protect all the settlers in their rights and claims. Huff was a typical frontiersman and figured in many exciting affairs. It appears that he was a "moonshiner " also, to use a modern phrase, and his whiskey

202

HISTORY OF LYCOMING COUNTY.

was a powerful factor in adjusting the dispute between King, Paul, and Arthur. He was conspicuous as a Fair Play man in the enforcement of their laws, but in later years, when the civil law went into operation, he became a lawbreaker and made himself so obnoxious in the community that his house (or "fort" as it was sometimes called) was pulled down and he and his family expelled from the settle- ment, like Arthur was some years before. Captain Kemplen was killed by the Indians at the mouth of Muncy creek in March, 1781. What became of Arthur is unknown. Paul was the owner of the land on which Jaysburg was built. He afterwards sold it to Latcha, who laid out the town. All these exciting events-or nearly all-occurred on the land lying west of Lycoming creek, and now embraced in the Seventh ward of the city of Williamsport.

In the land disputes Amariah Sutton testified, July 5, 1800, that he came to the plantation on which he then resided in 1770. That Joseph Haines, who was his relative, came from New Jersey a few years after, and began to improve on the tract of land at the mouth of Lycoming creek, on the Indian land side, making his home at his, Sutton's, house; that in the course of three years he returned to New Jersey and never came back. "We were all driven off by the Indians in May, 1778."

John Sutton, a relative of Amariah, made his deposition regarding his knowledge of these claimants, March 13, 1797, as follows:

I came to Lycoming creek in 1772, went to the Indian land in 1773, and have lived there ever since, except during the "Runaway." There was a law of the Fair Play men, that if any man left his improvement six weeks without leaving some person to continue his improvement he lost the right to push his improvement. After the war I was one of the first to come back. I believe that William Tharpe and myself were the two first men who came to the Indian lands. I never understood that William Greer's claim extended as far as where Tharpe now lives; the improvement made by William Greer was near the house in which Greer now lives. A man named Perkins lived on the land in dispute between William Greer and William Tharpe. In the winter of 1775-76, Thomas Kemplen bought out Perkins, and Kemplen sold to James Armstrong, commonly called "Curly Armstrong." I saw William King living iu the cabin in which Tharpe now lives. I sold my place which adjoined William Tharpe's to John Clark. I came back after the war with the first that came in '83. William Dougherty lived on Tharpe's land, after him Richard Sutton. Sutton lived in the cabin in '84 or '85. I am sure he lived there before Mr. Edmiston came up to survey.

Samuel Edminston, to whom he refers, was the deputy surveyor of district No. 17, which embraced the Indian, or Fair Play, land. He made the survey of the William Greer tract, 302 acres and 148 perches, December 4, 1788, on a warrant- issued May 6, 1785. The return of survey calls for John Sutton's land on the east, and Widow Kemplen and John Clark's land on the south.

After the passage of the act giving original, or Fair Play, settlers a "right of pre-emption to their respective possessions" at a certain price, it was laid down as a rule that to establish their claim it must be shown that the claimant had made an actual settlement before 1780, and no claim was to be admitted for more than 300 acres, and the consideration tendered to the receiver general of the Land Office on or before the 1st of November, 1785. Several cases of litigation arose among settlers which were decided under the pre-emption clause. The first was John Hughes against Henry Dougherty, tried in 1791. The plaintiff claimed under a warrant of May 2, 1785, for the premises, and a survey made thereon the 10th of January, 1786. On the 20th of June, 1786, the defendant entered a caveat against the

203

THE FAIR PLAY SYSTEM.

claims of the plaintiff, and on the 5th of October following took out a warrant for the land in dispute, on which he was then settled. Both claimed the pre-emption of 1784. The facts given in evidence are as follows:

In 1773, one James Hughes, a brother of the plaintiff, settled on the land in question, and made some small improvements. In the next year he enlarged his improvement, and cut logs to build a house. In the winter following he went to his father's, in Donegal, in Lancaster county, and died there. His elder brother, Thomas, was at that time settled on the Indian land, and some of the Fair Play men, who assembled together, made a resolution, (which they agreed to enforce as the law of the place,) that " if any person was absent from his settlement for six weeks, he should forfeit his right."

In the spring of 1775 Dougherty came to the settlement, and was advised by the Fair Play men to settle on the premises which Hughes had left. He followed their advice and built a cabin. John Hughes, the plaintiff, soon after appeared and claimed the improvement in the right of his brother; and, aided by Thomas Hughes, he took possession of the cabin. Dougherty rallied his friends and a fight ensued, in which Hughes was beaten and driven off, and Dougherty retained possession. He continued to improve, built a house and stable, and cleared about ten acres of ground. In 1778 he was driven off by the Indians and went into the army. When the war closed both parties returned and laid claim to the land. A suit followed, when the jury, after hearing the evidence and arguments, decided in favor of Dougherty.

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 Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, Part 24

Author: edited by John F. Meginness Publication date: 1892 Publisher: Chicago, Ill. : Brown, Runk Number of Pages: 1650

Author: edited by John F. Meginness
Publication date: 1892
Publisher: Chicago, Ill. : Brown, Runk
Number of Pages: 1650