History of Wayne, Pike, and Monroe counties, Pennsylvania, Part 24

Author: Mathews, Alfred, 1852-1904. 4n
Publication date: 1886
Publisher: Philadelphia : R.T. Peck & Co.
Number of Pages: 1438

USA > Pennsylvania > Monroe County > History of Wayne, Pike, and Monroe counties, Pennsylvania > Part 24
USA > Pennsylvania > Pike County > History of Wayne, Pike, and Monroe counties, Pennsylvania > Part 24
USA > Pennsylvania > Wayne County > History of Wayne, Pike, and Monroe counties, 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).

REMOVAL OF THE COUNTY-SEAT TO HONES- DALE .- The rapid growth of Honesdale fore- shadowed the ultimate removal of the seat of justice from Bethany to that place. It was looked forward to for several years prior to 1840 as an inevitable result of the increasing importance of the town, but was finally effected by a sudden movement. During the legislative session of 1840-1841 the friends of the mea- sure perfected arrangements with trustworthy men in each township, who, at an appointed time, started simultaneously and rapidly circu- lated petitions in their respective districts favor- ing the passage of a removal act. These, being placed in the hands of a partisan friend of the measure in Honesdale, were hurricdly taken to Harrisburg, and the passage of the act was secured before miany of its enemies in the

1 For the facts presented upon this topic the author is chiefly indebted to the brief but judiciously written sketch of the county issued by Thomas J. Ham in 1870.

126

WAYNE, PIKE AND MONROE COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA.

county were aware of the movement. The passage of the act was largely due to the influ- ence of Ebenezer Kingsbury, then State Senator. A strong attempt was made to kill the bill be- fore it was approved by the Governor, but it proved unavailing.

The exact site of the seat of justice in Hones- dale was fixed on May 4, 1841, where the commissioners appointed by the Governor met the county commissioners, and accepted the present site, east of the public square, as a joint gift from the Delaware and Hudson Canal Company and the Torrey estate.

The court-house was erected by Charles Jameson upon contract, and, upon its comple- tion, the Bethany court-house, together with certain real estate there, were sold to him for five hundred and ten dollars. The new build- ing was formally accepted November 8, 1843. The removal of the records from Bethany had been effected on the 21st of August preceding, and the first court was held in Honesdale Sep- tember 4, 1843.

The building soon proved insufficient for the accommodation of the county business, and to afford more ample quarters, an additional struc- ture was erected, styled the " fire-proof." This was a brick building, in which were located the county offices. It was erected in 1856 by Beers & Heath.

The present jail was erected in 1859 by Messrs. Kelly & McAndrews, and has since been repaired.

THE NEW COURT-HOUSE AND THE COURT- HOUSE WAR .- Even after the erection of the " fire-proof" or "county offices " building, in 1856, the court-house was noticeably insufficient for the growing demands of the county. The inadequacy of the court-room was gradually becoming apparent, and a few years later the court began to call the attention of the grand jury to the need of more suitable accommoda- tions. This body at length responded in re- ports setting forth the obvious defects of the building, and with accompanying recommenda- tions, of the following tenor :

AT SEPTEMBER SESSIONS, 1867.

" In regard to the Court-House, the grand jury cn- tircly coincide with the Honorable Court, in the sug-

gestions made on the morning of the 4th instant, and they believe the time has arrived for the considera- tion of the subject of the erectiou of a more substantial and capacious building than the one now occupied. The present term of court must have impressed every intelligent and thoughtful observer that the court- room is entirely inadequate to the wants of the people and the business of the county ; the space so limited as to render it very fatiguing to those required to at- tend court, either as witnesses or jurors, and the cou- sequent crowding of the room, and rendering the air exceedingly unpleasant,impure and unhealthy, and the accommodations of the bar and court so limited that the business cannot be dispatched, either promptly or pleasantly. Impressed with these views, which the jury believe to be correct, and so evident that they nced no argument to enforce, they consider it within their appropriate sphere of duty to recommend that the County Commissioners should have this subject before them in future levying of taxes, that they may, at no distant day, be prepared to enter upon the work of erecting such a building as is required, and as shall be a credit to the enterprise and good taste of the people of the whole county."

AT DECEMBER SESSIONS, 1867.

"They would cheerfully adopt the recommenda- tions of the September grand jury, in relation to a new court-house, and would suggest that means be derived and carried into execution to create a fund, with which, at no distant day, the County Commis- sioners may enter upon the work of erecting a suitable and commodious court-house, which will meet the wants and demands of our rapidly growing county, and of necessity increased business."

AT FEBRUARY SESSIONS, 1868.

" They would further suggest, that means be derived and carried into execution to create a fund, with which, at no distant day, the County Commissioners may enter upon the work of erecting a suitable and commodious court-house, which will meet the wants of our rapidly increasing and growing county."

The matter was further discussed as time went on; but, although the need of a more commodious court-house was generally recog- nized, the people were not quite ready to in - cur the expense of its erection. At December Sessions, 1871, the grand jury, in reporting on the county buildings, said,-

"They would not recommend the rebuilding, or changes and repairs, to auy great extent, of the county buildings, until a future time, when thic necessities would be greater, and the resources corre. spondingly larger to bear the burden of expenses."

At December Sessions, 1873, the grand jury said, in relation to the county buildings,-

WAYNE COUNTY COURT HOUSE

127

WAYNE COUNTY.

"We believe them all that is necessary for the present, and we recommend that the commissioners commence no new work unless absolutely necessary."

At May Sessions, 1875, the recommendation for the erection of a new court-house was re- newed ; the grand jury, in a report on the county buildings, saying,-

" They would further report that they have con- sidered the question of a new court-house, and do recommend that such a building be erected as soon as the financial condition of the business interests will admit."

In November following, a new Board of Commissioners was elected-viz: Thomas Brown of Texas, and George Foote of Salem, Demo- crats ; and Francis A. Oppelt, of Sterling, Re- publican. During the canvass, the "court- house question " was among the issues discussed ; and, as the industrial depression commencing in 1873 was then seriously felt in the county, the prevailing sentiment was adverse to the im- mediate erection of a new building.

At February Sessions, 1876, the grand jury, in reporting on the county buildings, said,-

"They would further report that they have con- sidered the question of a new court-house, and do recommend that such a building bc erected as soon as the financial condition of the business interests of the county will admit; that the present building is in- adequate for the proper accommodation of the county, and that it is poorly ventilated."

The court, at the same sessions, supplemented this with the following recommendation :

"In view of the crowded state of the court-room, for the past year, and the manifest necessity for en- larged accommodations for the people of the county who have business in the court, as lawyers, jurors, parties and witnesses, and the very imperfect ventila- tion of the court room, we cordially approve of the report of the grand jury on this subject, and recom- mnend to the County Commissioners to carry out the same by at once maturing plans and crecting the foundations of the new building the coming season. They can thus distribute the expenses through the years necessarily required for the erection and com- pletion of a new building, which shall meet the wants of and be a credit to the county, and not impose un- necessary burdens upon the taxpayers.

"C. P. WALLER, President Judge. " OTIS AVERY, "H. WILSON, S Associate Judges."

May 11, 1876, the commissioners adopted the following resolution :

" WHEREAS : The erection of a new Court-House has been recommended by four Grand Juries of this county and their recommendations approved by the court, and has also been recommended and earnestly urged by large numbers of the citizens of the county, including many of the heaviest tax-payers; and

" WHEREAS: No opposition has been developed in any tangible form, and a new Court-House is urgently demanded by the present condition of the county buildings, and by the growing necessity for increased facilities and conveniences in the conduct of judicial proceedings and the business of the several county offices ; and

WHEREAS: The present time is especially favor- able for such an undertaking, both from the low price of labor and material and the desirability of giving additional employment to labor in our own com- munity :- Therefore

Resolved, That in view of the circumstances herein referred to, it has become the bounden duty of the Commissioners to proceed at once to take the neces- sary steps for the construction of a Court-House suited to the wants and means of the county.

" F. A. OPPELT, " GEORGE FOOTE, " THOMAS BROWN,

Com's."

Plans were accordingly prepared, and early in July ground was broken for the new court- house. The work proceeded under the im- mediate supervision and direction of Commis- sioner Brown, who was an experienced practical builder ; and at the close of the season the foundation was completed and a portion of the brick superstructure laid. The amount thus expended, as shown by the financial statement for the year, was $29,528.19, and the expendi- tures were approved by the county auditors on their examination of the matter in the following January.

Meantime the public mind had become much agitated on the subject. The most exaggerated ideas as to the probable cost of the building gained credence, and the people were, very generally, apprehensive of an extravagant and unnecessary outlay. Throughout the summer the discontent increased; and when, early in September, the County Conventions of the two parties met, it was expected that they would express some opinion and announce some policy on the subject. The opponents of the court-house formed a majority in both parties, and could easily have controlled both conven- tions had they taken the trouble to attend the

128

WAYNE, PIKE AND MONROE COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA.

primary meetings. But, with the political habit of mind long characteristic of the American citizen, they took it for granted that party action would follow public sentiment without any action by members of the party, and that no practical measures were required to give effect to the public will. Hence, but a small proportion of either party attended the primaries, while the great majority of both remained at home, complaining that " the party " paid no attention to public opinion, and that the people had no voice in the management of their own affairs. As might have been expected, the conventions took no action on the court-house question, but gave their attention solely to the business of looking after offices.

The county tickets being thus placed in the field, with no official declaration by the con- ventions on the question paramount to all others in the popular mind, attention was naturally directed to the attitude of the candidates on this subject. Isaiah Scudder, of Bethany, and Charles W. Gilpin, of Sterling, the candidates for Representatives, and Giles Greene, of Salem, the candidate for associate judge, on the Repub- lican ticket, were known as "anti-court-house men." The Democratic party being in a majority, the views of its nominees for these offices became the subject of more anxious in- quiry. For some time these candidates main . tained in public a non-committal attitude. Finally, however, they were forced into posi- tive action by the course of events.

Among prominent Democrats who had at- tended the Democratic County Convention as spectators was Dr. Rodney Harmes, of Pleasant Mount. He was a pronounced "anti-court- house man," and strongly urged his party to take a decided stand on the court-house question. Disgusted with the course of the convention, he returned home, resolved that if the candidates failed to express some positive convictions dur- ing the month he would make an effort to sc- cure more direct action by the people. The month passed with the candidates acting after the manner of their kind-hedging with a view to secure the support of each element of the party without cutting loose from the other. Meantime the public mind was in a most in-

flammable condition, and struggling with in- articulate anger to make its purpose clear, and to indicate a distinct line of action. It needed only the man to determine how and when to apply the torch and fire the popular heart with a definite aim. While the situation was thus apparent to all, it fell to Dr. Harmes to take the initiative in giving voice to the popular feeling, defining the popular purpose, and direc- ting popular action. At his suggestion, an " Anti-Court-House Convention " was held in Pleasant Mount, September 27th, at which res- olutions were adopted condemning the action of the officials concerned in the erection of the new court-house, and a committee was appointed to canvass the county in behalf of the move- ment, and to report nominations for Representa- tives one week later. At the second meeting, October 4th, William M. Nelson, of Equinunk, a Democrat, and Butler Hamlin, of Salem, a Republican, were nominated for the Legis- lature. Orrin Lester, chairman, and J. F. Bass, secretary, were declared permanent officers of the organization ; and the convention adjourned for one week. Mr. Hamlin declined the nomination for Representative; Frederick W. Farnham, of Hawley, was subsequently named to fill the vacancy, but he, too, declined. Mr. Nelson went to Honesdale, and, after a con- ference with the Democratic candidates and County Committee, William A. Smith, one of the candidates for Representative, withdrew from the ticket, and Mr. Nelson was substituted. At the same time A. R. Howe, the other Democratic candidate for Representative, pub- lished a letter which was construed as an anti- court-house deliverance ; and a week later Michael Brown, the Democratic candidate for associate judge, followed with a letter of sim- ilar import. The latter, however, came too late to be effective. Messrs. Nelson and Howe were the successful candidates for the Legis- lature, while Mr. Greene, the Republican can- didate, was elected associate judge.

Early in 1877 the commissioners began preparations to resume work on the court-house. As a preliminary step, they passed a resolution, January 16th, to submit to the people the question of an increase of debt under the act

129

WAYNE COUNTY.

of April 20, 1874. The valuation of property was $1,777,726. The existing debt was $22,570.49. The increase proposed was $106,000, being six per cent. of the valuation. The increase was voted on at the township elections in February, and negatived by a de- cisive majority-the vote in its favor being 1119, to 3238 against it.

The triennial assessment was about to be re- vised ; and after the vote against an increase of debt, the commissioners, sitting as a board of revision, decided to raise the valuation suffi- ciently to enable them to incur the indebtedness necessary to complete the court-house, under the act of 1874, without the sanction of a popular vote. They accordingly increased the aggre- gate valuation to $8,312,134. The revision which resulted in this increase was com- pleted March 20th; and the period fixed for hearing appeals began April 16th and ended May 4th. March 21st the commis- sioners adopted a resolution to increase the debt of the county to an amount not ex- ceeding one hundred and sixty thousand dol- lars-about two per cent. of the revised valua- tion-to be secured by bonds ; with a provision for levying the tax required for payment of the interest and the redemption of the bonds.

The vote on the increase of indebtedness had shown the magnitude of the opposition to the plans of the commissioners; and the " anti- court-house party," having thus learned its strength, prepared for action against the new project of bonding the county. An organiza- tion was quickly effected, funds were subscribed, and counsel employed, for the purpose of test- ing in the courts the right of the commissioners to procced. Hon. E. O. Hamlin and George S. Purdy were retained, together with A. Ricketts, of Wilkes-Barre, one of the most distinguished equity practitioners in the State ; and May 9, 1877, a bill in equity was filed by William Holbert and forty-six others as plain- tiffs, in behalf of the citizens and tax-payers of the county, against the commissioners.

The bill set forth the action already taken by the commissioners in relation to the crection of a new court-house; the debt already incurred, and the increase proposed ; the revision of the

assessment and increase of valuation ; and the intention of the commissioners to destroy the old court-house. It averred the illegality of these proceedings, and prayed for an injunction restraining the commissioners from proceeding further with the erection of a court-house until they were lawfully empowered so to do; from issuing bonds, increasing the county indebted- ness, or levying a tax for the erection of public buildings; and from tearing down or injuring the existing court-house.

A motion for a preliminary injunction was argued before Judge Dreher, May 14th and 15th, the counsel for the commissioners being Wm. H. Dimmick, C. S. Minor, G. G. Waller, H. M. Seely and H. Wilson.

The commissioners, in their answer, set forth the three successive reports of grand juries, and the recommendation of the court, as their authority for the erection of a new court-house ; averred that their expenditures on the new building had been duly approved by the county auditors ; that the assessors had returned the taxable property far below its value, and that the valuation had been revised, raised and equal- ized, as required by law; admitted their inten- tion to increase the county indebtedness to an amount not exceeding $160,000, including the debt already contracted, and to remove the ex- isting court-honse whenever it became necessary or proper so to do ; and denied that their action in the premises was in any manner unlawful.

On the hearing, the plaintiffs proposed to im- peach the reports of the grand juries by the affidavits of various grand jurors that no such reports were made ; that they were not agreed to by twelve grand jurors ; or that the affiants had no recollection of a vote on the question.

The defendants produced counter-affidavits by other grand jurors; certified copies fron the records of the Court of Quarter Sessions, showing that the reports were read and ordered by the court to be published in the county papers, and that at February Sessions, 1868, it was ordered that a copy of the report be fur- nished to the commissioners ; and the affidavit of William H. Ham, then clerk of the court. that he had read the reports alond in open court, in presence of the grand jury, by dirce-

130

WAYNE, PIKE AND MONROE COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA.

tion of the court, and that in cach case the president judge stated to the grand jury that the court approved their recommendation, and ordered the reports to be filed and published in the county papers.

The counsel for the defense objected to the admission of affidavits by grand jurors to im- peach their own reports. The counsel for plain- tiffs, in support of such testimony, cited the act of 15th April, 1869, providing that " no interest or policy of law shall exclude a party or person from being a witness in any civil proceeding," etc., and argued that as such testimony had previously been inadmissible on the ground of public policy, the act of 1869, in removing that ground, had made the testimony admissible.

It was further contended, on the part of the plaintiffs, that the record showing no recommen- dation by the court until February, 1876, there was not the concurrent action of the grand juries and the court which the law required ; the act of Assembly providing that "It shall be lawful for the Commissioners of any County, having first obtained the approbation of two successive grand juries, and of the Court of Quarter Sessions of such County, to cause to be erected," etc. As to the proposed increase of indebtedness to $160,000, it was contended, first, that the increase of valuation was unlaw- fully made ; and, second, that even if lawful, it was not fixed, determined and adjusted until the final revision on appeals ; hence, that "the last preceding assessed valuation," at the time of the vote to increase the debt, was that fixed by the preceding triennial assessment, $1,777,- 726; and this proposed increase of debt to $160,000 being more than two per cent. of this valuation, was therefore unlawful, under the provisions of the Constitution (Article IX, Sec- tion 8).

The court, in deciding the case, held, (1) That if any fraudulent or fictitious report had been filed in the Court of Quarter Sessions, it could be corrected only by that court, and not by the Court of Common Pleas, to which the application for an injunction was made ; (2) That there was no evidence of such fraud, the reports having been read in presence of the grand jury, and directed to be published. "If

any juror did not agree to such report, it was his privilege then and there to make his protest, when all the jurors could have been heard, while their recollections were fresh, and the record made to conform to the facts;" that if the record, years afterward, could thus be in- peached, " there would be no safety to persons acting npon the faith of such records; and in- stead of looking among the records of the Court for the proceedings and doings of the grand jury, the County Commissioners, before they would be warranted in procccding in the erec- tion of new public buildings, would have to interview the members of the grand jury to ascertain whether the record is correct; " (3) That the "interest or policy of law " intended by the act of 1869 did not include the case of a grand juror testifying in relation to his own finding (citing Tioga v. South Creek, 25 P. F Smith 437); (4) That the court was not lim- ited as to time in affirming the recommendation of the grand jury, and that the law did not require the action of the court and the grand jury to be contemporaneous ; (5) That the re- vision of the assessment and increase of valua- tion were lawful and regularly made, and that " the Court cannot interfere by injunction be- cause of extravagant or unequal valuation, more especially as the law has provided a specific remedy by appeal ;" (6) That the revision of the assessment and adjustment of the valuation were not complete until the final action of the commissioners on appeals, which was not con- cluded until May 4th, but that a loan subse- quently made, not exceeding two per cent. of the valuation as then fixed, would not be in ex- cess of two per cent. of " the last preceding as- sessed valuation," within the meaning of the act of 20th April, 1874; (7) That "if the circumstances under which the Commissioners propose to remove the old building should arise, they certainly will have the right to re- move it."

But while refusing the injunction, for the reasons given, Judge Dreher called attention to the act of 9th April, 1868, which provides that " When two successive Grand Juries in any county of this Commonwealth have reported in favor of the erection or repair of public build-

131

WAYNE COUNTY.

ings, which report has been approved by the Court of Quarter Sessions, and the funds on hand in the County Treasury shall not be suffi- cient to defray the necessary expenses of the erection and repair of said buildings, it shall be lawful for the County Commissioners to borrow the money necessary, and issue the bonds of the county therefor. Provided, That before such loan is contracted the Commissioners shall pre- sent a statement of the financial condition of the county to the Court of Quarter Sessions of the county, and secure the approval of such Court for such loan." He added,-

"The Commissioners have no right to con- tract a loan, or issue bonds therefor, for the purpose of erecting a court-house, or any public building, until they have secured the approval of the Court of Quarter Sessions. They are therefore as effectually restrained from con- tracting a loan or issuing bonds for erecting a court-house, until they get the approval of the Court of Quarter Sessions, as it would be possi- ble for the Court of Common Pleas to restrain them by injunction. If they should attempt to contract a loan, or issue bonds, or to collect any special tax to pay such loan or bonds, without the approval of the Quarter Sessions, the Com- mon Pleas would enjoin them.

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 Wayne, Pike, and Monroe counties, Pennsylvania, Part 24

Author: Mathews, Alfred, 1852-1904. 4n Publication date: 1886 Publisher: Philadelphia : R.T. Peck & Co. Number of Pages: 1438

Author: Mathews, Alfred, 1852-1904. 4n
Publication date: 1886
Publisher: Philadelphia : R.T. Peck & Co.
Number of Pages: 1438