History of Washington County, Pennsylvania : with biographical sketches of many of its pioneers and prominent men, Part 38

Author: Crumrine, Boyd, 1838-1916; Ellis, Franklin, 1828-1885; Hungerford, Austin N
Publication date: 1882
Publisher: Philadelphia : H.L. Everts & Co.
Number of Pages: 1216

USA > Pennsylvania > Washington County > History of Washington County, Pennsylvania : with biographical sketches of many of its pioneers and prominent men > 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).

a bill for these reasons, that it did appear to him that the prosecution was founded in spite, and he submits to the Court whether they will order him to prefer a Bill. The Court examining the complaint of Joseph Joues made to Charles Foreman, Esq., the day of aforesaid, on which the motion is founded, and finding that the said Joseph Jones hath not said in his oath that the said Edward Cook, Esq., had or did dis- till whiskey or other spirits from Malt Wheat, Rye, Barley, or from other grain or from any meal or flour, or that the said Edward Cook, Esq., had used or mixed or caused, or procured to be used or mixed any of the same enumerated articles contrary to the Act of Assembly aforesaid, and the Court also calling for the said Jones and examining bim on his oath, and he, the said Jones, answering on his outh aforesaid that he cannot say that the said Edward Cook, Esq., used any of the articles above enumerated in order for the making or distilling whiskey or other spirits ; for which defect in the complaint aforesaid the Court will not order the Indictment aforesaid to be preferred." .

At this term of court an indictment for Forcible Entry and Detainer was found and process awarded against George McCormick, James Wood, Dorsey Pentecost, Benjamin Vanatre (Vanata), John Crow, Michael Springer, and Jonathan Johnston. There being no place west of the Monongahela for the administration of justice, contests as to land titles seem to have sometimes resulted in breaches of the peace. All these defendants were from what is now Washington County.

At January sessions, 1780, held January 4th, " The constables being called and none attending, the court remit the fines on account of the severity of the weather." No business interesting to the 1780. present residents of Washington County was transacted at this or any subsequent term until, per- haps, the January sessions, 1781, when

"Ou motion the Court do hereby erect that part of West Moreland County Included within the following Boundaries into a township; that is to say, Beginning at the west side of the Monongahela river, at the mouth of Peters creek, thence up the said creek to the head thereof, thence with a straight line to the head of Saw Mill creek, thence down Saw Mill creek, thence up the Ohio River to the mouth of the Mononga- hela, and thence up this last river to the place of Beginning; and do hereby name the same Wharton."

It will be observed that the whole of this new town- ship lay west of the Monongahela River, in what is now Washington and Allegheny Counties. When Washington County was soon afterward erected it was obliterated.

January term, 1781, was the last session of the Court of Quarter sessions of the Peace for West- moreland County prior to the erection of Washington County, but at April sessions, 1781. 1781, at which time our courts had not been organized, the Westmoreland County court continued an order for the view of a road from " Washington's Mill to Capt. Van Swearingen's ferry on the Mo- nongahela River and thence to Catfish Camp," and appointed Hezekiah McGrudin, Peter Reasoner, Wil- liam Morgan, Jacob Vanmetre, Joseph Morehead, and Alexander Morehead viewers. Gen. Washing- ton's mill was at the present Perryopolis, in Fayette County, and Van Swearengin, who afterward became the first sheriff of Washington County, was then just

158

HISTORY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

ferry.

opposite Greenfield, at which point he maintained a | the State has been established, though not yet actually marked, and it is found that west of the Monongahela River there is room for another new county of mag- nificent proportions, soon afterward to be erected. But, as has already been disclosed, from about 1774 to August, 1780, two governments were in collision, at times in bitter controversy, in an exercise of juris- 1 officials, over the same territory, embracing Wash- ington County as originally erected.

A reference to the early records of the Courts of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County would not disclose matters of public interest to our citizens. There can be but little importance attached to the ordinary civil causes of a court of justice after so long , diction, by judicial as well as other civil and military a time has elapsed, although for illustrations of the character of a people there can be but few better re- sources than to their courts of criminal jurisprudence. The reader is now asked to retrace his steps to the period immediately preceding the erection of West- moreland County, in order that a view may be had of this contest, long known as the " Boundary Con- troversy." For this purpose have the records of the Quarter Sessions of Westmoreland County been so fully abstracted. However, there is one record in the Common Pleas which may perhaps be of interest by way of showing not only the habits then occasionally indulged in, but also the promptitude with which the court whose dignity was insulted took notice of the matter of complaint. The following record is made CHAPTER XI. up at January term, 1774 :

" It appearing that F- D-, one of the attorneys of this court, the duties of his office not regarding, hath of late at divers times and places within the jurisdiction of this court been publicly and notoriously guilty of the shameful vice of Drunkenness, at which times and places afore- said he did publish several malicious passages highly reflecting on sev- eral magistrates of this county, and other mischiefs then and there did unbecoming the character and duty & office of an attorney of the court, It is ordered and considered by the court that the said F- D- for such his shameful misbehavior be suspended, and he is hereby suspended and precluded from further using the office, duty & business of an at- torney of this court."

It is a singular fact that in the records of Westmore- land County courts, either in the Quarter Sessions or in the Common Pleas, there is to be found but one trans- action which can be connected with the Boundary Controversy. The records of the Virginia courts, here- after to be examined, are full of causes relating to that contention. The single record referred to is the following, found at No. 76, July term, 1775 :

" Robert Hanna, Esq.,

v. John Connolly.

Capias Case C. C. C. & Ce. October, Ended says Plff .; PIff. for Defdt's App. accepted fees, Clerks fees 12-6."

The defendant in this action for damages was the Dr. John Connolly who has ever been notorious as the chief agent of Lord Dunmore in the exercise of his Virginia jurisdiction upon the Monongahela. Robert Hanna, the proprietor of Hanna's Town, the seat of justice for Westmoreland County until after Washington County was erected, was one of the county trustees or commissioners and also a justice, and was soon brought into contact with Lord Dun- more's . officials. The special subject matter of the action will doubtless hereafter be observed.

Omitting further references to the records of these old Hanna's Town courts, the reader has now been carried in our judicial history to the month of Jan- uary, 1781. At this time the western boundary line of

THE CIVIL AND LEGAL HISTORY .- (Continued.)

III.

The Boundary Controversy-The Virginia Title-The Penn Title-Ma- son and Dixon's Line-Beginning of Boundary Contention-Dr. John Connolly-Controversy opened-British abandon Fort Pitt, 1772.

The Boundary Controversy .- To write the his- tory of the contention called the "Boundary Con- troversy," the conflict of jurisdiction between Penn- sylvania and Virginia over the territory west of the Alleghany Mountains, is an undertaking arduous, not from lack of original material, but from the im- mense mass of documentary details, full of interest and importance. A volume could be composed with more ease than a chapter. The writer upon the sub- ject is constantly embarrassed with the riches which lie at his hand. His worry is not to find the infor- mation, but to select from that before him, Access to this richness of detail, however, is denied to the general reader.

This contest arose over the lands in which the homes of our own ancestors were first established in this western country. It divided a people who were harassed by Indian incursions, and though during the whole of it necessarily subjected to a common danger from a relentless and savage foe, soon were engaged with the additional burden of a war for in- dependence and liberty ; a civil contest, accompanied with great bitterness, continuing at the same time with an Indian war and a struggle, at times hopeless and depressing, with the tyrannous ministry of the mother-country. And the participants were our own early settlers, then engaged in conquering a virgin soil from the forest to fertility. Emigrants over the mountains from three governments-Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia-met together in the valleys of the Monongahela and Ohio, and in the hill country adjacent thereto. Different nationalities, the English,

159

CIVIL AND LEGAL-THE VIRGINIA TITLE.

Scotch, Scotch-Irish, Irish, Germans, and French, each were represented, and being without govern- ment at first, when they came to be organized for governmental protection, and that too in the midst of constant warfare with a savage foe, and of a war for independence of the mother-country, what wonder that bitterness should ensue and hostilities originate not to be ended for almost a generation of men? It will be seen how men became the extreme of parti- sans, either for Pennsylvania or for Virginia, and that had it not been for a common danger from a common foe which prevented too wide a separation, the es- tablishment of civil government with the protection of courts of justice and the administration of the laws would have been without doubt attended with much bloodshed.

Of the early settlers of Washington County as originally erected it has already appeared that a large majority of them were from Virginia and Maryland, and it will be seen that many of them became the most earnest adherents of the Virginia usurpation ; yet, though dissatisfied for a time, some of them, the same persons afterward became of the most honorable of our people, and have left behind them descendants who have always been of our best citizens. The fair- minded reader will therefore make due allowance for partisan prejudice when he meets in the correspond- ence of early days with such terms as "Banditti," " Mobs," etc., frequently occurring therein ; for op- probrious epithets used in political excitements of the present day lose their force and become simply amusing after the heat of the struggle has passed away.

Though the first settlers raised their roof-trees west of the Monongahela as early as 1767, yet not until 1781 did Virginia cease to exercise an active juris- diction by her courts and judicial officers. Not until that date, or near it, did the settler know whether he belonged to Virginia or to the land of William Penn. And, indeed, in 1774 the proprietary government of Pennsylvania, pending the attempted adjustment of the controversy, proposed to Virginia a boundary line which would have left all of Washington County in her present limits, except a small portion in the neighborhood of West Brownsville, in the Virginia Pan Handle. It is not difficult to conjecture what would have been our fate had this proposition been accepted.

What was the origin of this Virginia usurpation, for usurpation it was? How did it happen that Vir- ginia had any of her territory upon our western border? How did she come to claim jurisdiction over the great Northwestern Territory north and west of the Ohio River, the mother of magnificent States of the Union? An attempt will be made to answer these questions with as much brevity and clearness as possible, and the reader will at once be led into the Boundary Controversy.

The Virginia Title .- The limit to the westward of the province of Pennsylvania was of course definitely known when the charter was granted, although the line itself was not established and marked for a whole century afterwards. To know, then, upon what the claims of the colony of Virginia were based, exami- nation must be made of the royal grants in which she was concerned. The first charter or patent was by Queen Elizabeth to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1583, and it had neither name nor bounds. 1583. Upon Raleigh's return the name Virginia was

given to the whole country. All to the southward of the Chesapeake, as low as the Gulf of Mexico, was called South Virginia, and all to the northward North Virginia. But the settlers under this patent, partly from misconduct, the opposition of the Indians, and other calamities, abandoned their efforts, and the patent became extinct.1

In 1602, James I. succeeded Elizabeth, and in 1606 issued a new patent incorporating two com- panies, called the South Virginia Company and the North Virginia Company, afterwards 1606. commonly called respectively the London

Company and the Plymouth Company. The South Virginia, or London Company, was not to go below 34°, nor the Virginia, or Plymouth Company, above 45°, but when they made their choice each was to be limited by a square of one hundred miles backward from the sea. The London Company, as it will now be called, settled at Cape Henry, and hence the one hundred miles square warranted by that patent could not have extended to the eastern base of the

Blue Ridge. But in 1609 the London Com- 1609. pany received a new patent with the bound- aries of their grant enlarged in the following terms :

" All those lands, countries, and territories situate, lying and being in that part of America called Virginia, from the point of land called Cape or Point Comfort, all along the sea-coast to the northward two hundred miles, and from the said Point or Cape Comfort all along the sea-coast to the southward two hundred miles : and all that space and circuit; of lands lying from the sea-coast of the precinct aforesaid up into the land throughout, from sea to sea, west and northwest; and also the islands lying within one hundred miles along the coast of both seas of the precinct aforesaid." 2

The terms of this grant are full of ambiguities, the chief of which is in the words "up into the land throughout, from sea to sea, west and northwest," as containing directions for the northern and southern boundaries. Shall the west line be drawn from a point two hundred miles north of Point Comfort, and the northwest line be drawn from a point two hun- dred miles south of Point Comfort? If so, then the London Company was limited to a triangle, the western point of which might reach, perhaps, to the Monongahela River, but at a point above and south of Morgantown, extending to no territory adjoining

1 Paine's Public Good, 8; quoting Oldmixou's History of Virginia.

2 The Laws of the United States respecting the Public Lands (Wash- ington, 1828), p. 81.

160

HISTORY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

our western boundary, as indicated by the following diagram :

COMPORT 200 MILES N.

N. W.

POINT

S. 200 MILES

But the interpretation of the ambiguous clause always claimed by Virginia to be the true one was, that the west line should be drawn from the southern end of the four-hundred-mile coast-line, and the northwest line from the northern end of the same, thus :

N.W.

200 MILES N

COMFORT

POINT

S.200 MILES.

One will see that, if the latter interpretation were correct, the northwest line would run through the heart of Pennsylvania, passing east of Lake Erie; while the southern boundary running due west, the two would never meet, and Virginia would have owned the greater part of the whole continent. In con- sidering this astounding result, however, in the view of

this interpretation, it must be remembered that when the charter or patent to the London Company was granted it was supposed that the South Sea (Pacific Ocean) was much nearer to the Point Comfort coast- line than it really is; for not long before this Sir Francis Drake, from a mountain in the Isthmus of Darien,1 had seen both the South Sea (Pacific) and the Atlantic, and in 1608, when the London Company were soliciting their patent, an expedition was organized to find a passage to the South Sea by sailing up the James River. And Capt. John Smith was once com- missioned to seek a new route to China by ascending the Chickahominy.2 Without discussing further the propriety of either interpretation of the antiquated ambiguities of this ancient patent, let it be said that, as will perhaps appear hereafter, Virginia always while yet a colony and when she had become a State, referred chiefly to this charter of 1609 as authorizing her jurisdiction, not only over the Monongahela and Ohio Valleys, but also as giving to her an ownership of the entire Northwest Territory. This jurisdiction over the Northwest Territory she refused to cede to the United States, though her refusal endangered the confederation, until in 1781, when, no longer able to resist the influence of other States, especially that of Maryland, she finally gave way so far as to abandon her claims over lands north of the Ohio River, with a condition, however, that the United States would guarantee her right to the territory south and east of the Ohio. This guarantee the Congress of the United States refused, and in 1784 the condition was with- drawn and the cession made absolute.3 The reader who will examine fully the history of the cession made by Virginia of her jurisdiction over the Northwest Terri- tory will be struck with this fact, that no sister State or government, nor the Congress of the confederation, ever at any time recognized her right to such juris- diction. Only for the sake of perfecting the Union, such as it then was, was there any respect paid at all to her pretensions.

This absence of respectful recognition was doubt- less owing to another matter of fact in the colonial history of Virginia, to which reference may be made as rendering unnecessary any discussion of the ambiguous terms of the charter or pat- 1624. ent of 1609. That fact was that in 1624, prior to the grant of Maryland to Lord Baltimore, as well as prior to the grant of Pennsylvania to William; Penn, the charter to the London Company was dis- solved in the English courts by a writ of quo war- ranto,4 and from a proprietary colony, somewhat like

1 Paine's Public Good, 14.

2 Maryland's Influence in founding a National Commonwealth, 8; Stith's History of Virginia, Sabine's Reprint, 77; Paine's Public Good, 18.

8 For a full and satisfactory discussion of the subject here referred to the reader will examine " Maryland's Influence in founding a National Commonwealth, a paper read before the Maryland Historical Society, by Herbert B. Adams, P.D., Baltimore, 1877;" also Paine's Public Good. 4 To Trinity Term, King's Bench, 1624; Chalmer's Annals, p. 62.

161

CIVIL AND LEGAL-THE VIRGINIA TITLE.

that of William Penn, Virginia from that time be- came a crown colony. On March 22, 1622, the In- dians had made a preconcerted attack on the white settlers scattered through distant villages on both sides of James River, and massacred three hundred and forty-seven men, women, and children.1 "Some time after this massacre," says Oldmixon, as quoted by Thomas Paine,2 "several gentlemen in England procured grants of land from the company, and others came over on their private accounts to make settlements ; among the former was one Captain Mar- tin, who was named to be one of the Council. This man raised so many differences among them that new distractions followed, which the Indians observing took heart, and once more fell upon the settlers on the borders, destroying without pitying either age, sex, or condition. These and other calamities were chiefly imputed to the mismanagement of the pro- prietors, whose losses had so discouraged most of their best members that they sold their shares, and Charles I., on his accession to the throne, dissolved the com- pany, and took the colony into his own immediate direction. He appointed the Governor and Council himself, ordered all patents and process to issue in his own name, and reserved a quit-rent of two shil- lings sterling for every hundred acres."

Thus Virginia became a crown or royal colony, and ever after until the Revolution so remained. And the distinction between a colony and a province, such as was Pennsylvania, is well known. Whatever rights are secured to the proprietor of a province cannot be infringed or altered by the crown without the consent of the proprietor, nor abrogated unless by judgment of law founded on some act of commission working a forfeiture or dissolution. But a royal colony is a mere creature of the royal will ; its boundaries, all its machinery of government, may be modified, altered, or annulled at the royal pleasure and discretion.3

Now, merely adverting to the fact that, in case of a colonial government, possession and settlement alone could give title against a like colony (though 1763. not against a province such as Pennsylvania),

about the last act of the English king affect- ing the limits imposed upon Virginia was the royal proclamation of Oct. 10, 1763. It commences by re- citing that by the late treaty with France the crown had received valuable and extensive acquisitions of territory in America ; that letters patent had been issued for the establishment within the countries ceded to the crown of " four distinct and separate governments, styled and called by the names of Que- bec, East Florida, West Florida, and Grenada." It then marks out the boundaries of these governments, after which it proceeds to annex certain new districts of country to the province of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Georgia; but the country between the

- -

Alleghanies and the Mississippi is not included in any of these. Without annexing the territories lying upon the Monongahela and Ohio, the proclamation con- tains the following provisions, which in effect confine Virginia beyond the Alleghany Mountains :

" And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our interest and the security of our colonies, that the several nations or tribes of Indians, with whom we are connected and who live under our protec- tion, should not be molested or disturbed in the possession of such parts of our dominions and territories, as, not having been ceded to, or pur- chased by us, are reserved to them or any of them as their hunting- grounds ; we do therefore, with the advice of our privy council, declare it to be our royal will and pleasure that no governor or commander-in- chief in any of our colonies of Quebec, East Florida, or West Florida, do presume upon any pretence whatever, to grant warrants of survey, or pass any patents for lands beyond the bounds of their respective governments, as described in their commissions. As also that no gov- ernor or commander-in-chief of our colonies or plantations in America, do presume, for the present, and until our further pleasure be known, to grant warrants of survey, or pass patents for any lands beyond the heads or sources of any of the rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean from the west and northwest, or upon any land whatever, which not having been ceded to or purchased by us, as aforesaid, are reserved unto the said Indians or any of them."

Undoubtedly this, a royal decree, limited Virginia to the ridges of the Alleghanies. True, its force was " for the present and until our further pleasure be known," yet no subsequent decree removed the limitation. True, by the treaty of Fort Stanwix, in November, 1768, the lands west of the Alleghanies were purchased from the Indians, and true, also, that subsequent to that treaty Lord Dunmore granted war- rants and passed patents for lands west of those moun- tains ; but it is also true that for these unauthorized official acts the Virginia Governor was re- proved by Lord Dartmouth, the English Sec- 1776. retary of State.4 Virginia, thus limited, so remained until the colonies became American States. Her occupation of lands upon the waters of the Mo- nongahela and the Ohio was therefore an usurpation.5

It is admitted that Pennsylvania, being a proprie- tary province, could not have been, and hence was probably not intended to be, affected in the right to make settlements upon the western waters by the proc- lamation referred to. Though she could not have been deprived summarily of the right, her policy had constantly been not to permit settlements on lands not purchased from the Indians, and when that dis- ability was removed by the treaty of Fort Stanwix, she

4 Public Good, 24.

5 At December term, 1843, of the General Court of Virginia, was heard , the case of the Commonwealth of Virginia v. Peter M. Garner et al, for an alleged abduction of slaves.

The defendants had met the slaves at the water's edge on the Ohio side of the Ohio River, and were aiding them from their boat, when they were seized by Virginians in ambush upon the bank. The place of the commission of the offense was laid to be in the State of Virginia, that State claiming that all that river to the top of the northwest bank was within its jurisdiction ; and that question was about the only one before the court. Hon. Samuel F. Vinton appeared for the defendants, having been appointed by the government of Ohio, and in an able argument, which was printed and is preserved, the whole subject discussed in these pages was exhaustively examined. The final decree of the court was that the offense complained of was not committed within the jurisdiction of the State of Virginia.

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 Washington County, Pennsylvania : with biographical sketches of many of its pioneers and prominent men, Part 38

Author: Crumrine, Boyd, 1838-1916; Ellis, Franklin, 1828-1885; Hungerford, Austin N Publication date: 1882 Publisher: Philadelphia : H.L. Everts & Co. Number of Pages: 1216

Author: Crumrine, Boyd, 1838-1916; Ellis, Franklin, 1828-1885; Hungerford, Austin N
Publication date: 1882
Publisher: Philadelphia : H.L. Everts & Co.
Number of Pages: 1216