History of York County Pennsylvania, Volume I, Part 115

Author: Prowell, George R.
Publication date: 1907
Publisher: J. H. Beers
Number of Pages: 1372

USA > Pennsylvania > York County > History of York County Pennsylvania, Volume I > Part 115

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).

Schryack, who in 1743 assigned his title to Bartholomew Maul. Some time after Mar- tin Fry's death, and during the orphanage of these children, 137 acres of this land were surveyed by the proprietary's commis- sioner, contrary to the intent of the war- rant, for the proprietary's private use and benefit, and he sold a part of the same on grant to the inhabitants of York. Barthol- omew Maul, in 1747, had Thomas Cookson survey this disputed tract. Maul by his will, dated April 4, 1755, bequeathed to his wife and children all his real and personal estate. These various transfers brought about conflicting claims to this land. When Tobias and Martin Fry, the sons of the orig- inal grantee, became of legal age, they as- serted their rights. John Hay, who mar- ried Julia, daughter of Bartholomew Maul, in 1762, for £260 purchased a part of the original tract. Suits and counter-suits were brought by various claimants. The Hon. James Smith and George Stevenson were interested in these suits. John Hay became the owner of the lands northeast of the otwn, and some concessions were made by persons who owned lots of this land which they had purchased of the proprietary.

On August 9, 1750, Hermanus Bottstown. Bott obtained a patent from the proprietaries of Pennsyl- vania, John Penn and Richard Penn, for 297 acres of land, west of the Codorus Creek, adjoining the town of York, in the township of Manchester. He was an in- dustrious farmer, having emigrated from Germany a few years before and purchased a lot in York. In 1753, he conceived the idea of planning a town west of York, which was then but a small village. A sur- vey was made of a portion of Bott's tract, and about fifty lots were laid out. The main highway of the town was called King Street and was an extension of High or Market Street of York. This sturdy Ger- man intended to establish a town to com- pete with York, and in order to encourage persons to settle in it, offered a title to one lot of ground to any person who would agree to pay "a yearly quit rent of seven shillings and one penny forever or the value

A census of Bottstown was taken in the year 1783 by the township assessor. There were then 151 inhabitants. The names of . the property holders were Peter Lint, joiner; Michael Wise, Gottlieb Reichard, who owned four horses ; Jeremiah Schryack, Gabriel Derr, John Ernst, hatter; Mathias Detter, innkeeper; Andrew Wyer, Peter Engelmor, Martin Hap, John Haller, Henry Cunningham, Frederick Horn,

baker ; Widow Hoke, John Detter, saddler; John Kortz, tobacconist; Robert Bailey, gun- smith; Alexander Brown, hosier; Frederick Rothrock, saddler; Andrew Sneider, Robert Lewis, Jacob Bott, son of the founder of the town, owned eleven acres of land, one horse, one cow and six sheep and had a family of eight persons; Philip Rothrock, Philip Hoffman, Martin Bauer, George Fink, Nicholas Reisinger, Frederick Roemer, Frederick Eichelberger and Mathias Ament. The entire property valuation was 2,554 pounds in Pennsylvania currency.

For three-fourths of a cen- Freystown. tury, that part of the city known as East York, was the village of Freystown. Godlieb Frey owned a farm in this section, and in 1814, he laid. a large tract of land out into a town. He called the leading highway Market Street, because it was the extension of a street thereof in coin current according to the ex- of the same name in York. The street

WEST SIDE OF CENTRE SQUARE IN 1820

11.1

TIALLA . ... ....

WEST MARKET STREET FROM CENTRE SQUARE IN 1820

مخبر هية حديثة

639

THE CITY OF YORK

south of Market, now East King, was of the frogs, and that he wanted to move named " Low " and the third street on the out of that "Bull Frog Alley." This inci- Frey plan was named East Philadelphia. dent gave King Street the name, by which it is best known ever since. The industry of basket-making on this street yearly amounts to a large sum of money. The manager of one of these shops reported that he sold in 1884, of his own manufac- ture, $3,000 worth of baskets. In 1880, he sold $5,000 worth. These basket-makers are nearly all Germans and are industrious and prosperous. Those people in King Street who do not follow the basket-making bus- iness are called gypsies, and have their win- ter residence on this street, but as soon as spring comes they pull out with horse and wagon, and roam over the country, the men trading horses and the women telling fortunes, returning in the fall with greatly replenished purses.

Before Freystown was laid out, a con- spicuous stone dwelling house stood on the North side of Market street. It was built before the Revolution and for many years was the residence of Rev. Robert Cathcart, D. D., pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, of York. Thomas C. Hambly, a prominent member of the York County bar, resided in this dwelling and then sold it to Henry Kauffelt. Freystown grew slowly, having a small population as late as 1860, when the Civil war opened. Isaac Runk, one of the early merchants, carried on a successful business for a period of thirty years. Henry Sleeger owned a cabinet making shop; he was also an undertaker. Charles H. Frey, a leading citizen of Spring Garden township, resided in this village, the time of his death. He also served as

and was justice of the peace from 1866 to Smysertown.

county surveyor and was secretary of the a century by Samuel Smyser. Before it

Spring Garden Fire Insurance Company. He took an active part, in the development of the town which began to grow into prom- inence about the year 1875. In the year 1890, a vote of the people was taken, which resulted in the annexation of Freystown to the city of York.

The Spring Garden band, a noted musi- cal organization, originated in the year 1855. Almost its entire membership enlist- ed in the army, as the military band of the 87th Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteers, tled in 1745 . and served in the army until regimental

George Hay Kain, a member of the York bands were discontinued in the fall of 1863. County Bar, who in 1907, prepared a digest The Goodwill Fire Company was organ- ized in 1839.

Basket making has been an important industry on King Street. Nearly every house of the street, on both sides, is a bas- ket factory, employing from five to ten The Stevenson plot, made in 1754, in- cluded all the territory which was incor- oprated in the borough in 1787. It included an area of 4371/2 acres, according to his es- timate. Within the territory bounded north by Gas Alley, east by Queen Street, south by College Avenue and west by the Codorus, his plan fixed the location of the streets and alleys as they now exist. The plot also laid hands. This street was humorously called "Bull Frog Alley," a name given to it about 1830, by John Frey, who, with his father, lived in a small one-story frame house-the only one then on the street. The adjoining land was then swampy and marshy, and contained a large number of frogs, so that they kept up a continual noise during the evening and night, and John Frey, a boy of out lots and streets west of the creek, but about twelve years of age, claimed that he these locations do not conform to the pres- could not sleep on account of the croaking ent lines, which were possibly fixed by Wil-

That section of the city west of Penn Street and south of Princess was owned for half was annexed to the city the land had been laid off into lots and a large number of houses built. The village became known as Smysertown, in honor of the owner, who was born near York in 1813, and died in 1899. He was married to Rebecca, daugh- ter of Dr. Robert Lewis, of Dover, and left no descendants. In his will he bequeathed to the Children's Home of York, a large farm in West Manchester Township, upon which his great granfather, Mathias Smyser, set-

of the Laws and Ordinances relating to the City of York, has furnished the succeeding articles describing the different annexations to the borough and city, the division into wards, Public Common and Potter's field.

640

HISTORY OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

liam Matthews who surveyed that territory in 1765. A third survey of the town was made in 1768 by John Lukens, incident to his survey of Springettsbury Manor, by which survey the area of the town was fixed at 4461/2 acres. A fourth survey was made in 1805 by William Alexander, under an order from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Pennsylvania, the survey being made for use in the litigation arising over Springettsbury Manor. The territory north of Gas Alley is supposed to have been laid out into lots by Lukens, while certain lands, forming a part of the proprietary rights, on both sides of the creek, were laid out by Alexander, this be- ing known as Coates' addition. Hays' addi- tion, in the northern and northeastern por- tion of the borough was laid out in 1814 by the heirs of John Hay, and other private property was laid out into lots from time to time by various owners. All these addi- tions, however, were within the limits of the borough.

The first annexation to the Annexations. borough was made by de- cree of the Court of Quarter Sessions May 7, 1883, and included 142 acres, 130 perches in Spring Garden Town- ship, adjacent to the south section of the borough. A second annexation was made April 21, 1884, and included 424 acres, 72 perches, adjacent to the southwestern, western and northwestern sections of the borough, partly lying in Spring Garden Township and partly in West Manchester Township. This area comprised the two villages known as Bottstown and Smyser- town, together with a section then recently opened by the West End Improvement Company. Another annexation was made January 16, 1885, the territory included in this addition containing forty acres, 109 perches in Spring Garden Township, adja- cent to the northeastern section of the bor- ough. The fourth and last annexation to the borough was made January 12, 1886, and in- cluded sixty-seven acres, forty-eight perches in Spring Garden Township, adjacent to the southeastern section of the borough.

The territory included within the original borough limits, together with that added by the four annexations mentioned, was incor- porated into the City of York, January II, 1887, since which time two annexations

of territory have been made, one by an or- dinance, approved January 24, 1900; the other by an ordinance approved March 23, 1900, both being enacted in accordance with the petitions of three-fifths of the tax- able inhabitants of the respective sections. The first of these annexations included that section of Spring Garden Township, east of the city, known as Freystown, while the second included a portion of West Man- chester Township, north of the city, known as Fairmount.

In addition to the annexations mentioned there were several unsuccessful attempts made to annex territory to the borough. On February 6, 1879, the town council passed an ordinance to annex Smysertown, but litigation arose and the ordinance was repealed January 20, 1880, in order to save the imposition of costs upon the borough. August 27, 1883, the Court handed down a decree for the annexation of 429 acres, 70 perches west of the Codorus being practi- cally the territory included in the annexa- tion of 1884, but exceptions to this decree were filed and final confirmation was re- fused. October 26, 1883, the grand jury reported adversely on the question of an- nexing Freystown and adjacent territory, the whole tract containing 478 acres, 158 perches. All of the territory thus attempt- ed to be annexed is now included in the city, by virtue of subsequent annexations.

As originally incorporated the

Division borough of York formed one

into election district. It was divided wards. into wards by an act of Assembly approved April 2, 1822, the por- tion lying north of Market Street, forming the North ward, and the portion lying south of Market Street, the South ward. By an act approved February 24, 1853, those portions of the North and South wards lying west of the Codorus were form- ed into the West ward, while a second act, approved March II of the same year, prac- tically repeated the same provisions. By Act May 7, 1859, five numbered wards were created; the First Ward lying east of George Street and South of Market Street: the Second Ward lying east of George Street and north of Market Street; the Third Ward lying west of George Street, north of Market Street, and east of the Co- dorus creek ; the Fourth Ward lying west

----

641

THE CITY OF YORK

of George Street, south of Market Street the town was divided into lots, the remain- ing portion being left open to accommodate the growing needs of the population. The titles to such lands remained in the propri- etaries, but the lands were used freely by the inhabitants as pastures for their cattle and for other purposes, there being a record of complaint on the part of the proprietaries that some of the inhabitants had gone on their lands and rendered them practically worthless by taking off all the clay and making it into bricks. These lands were laid out and sold as there was a demand for them, but the demand grew slowly, and in 1787 the charter of the borough mentions the "Commons, as well on the south side of the said borough as on the west side of the Codorus Creek, * * which commons ought to be not only beneficial and convenient for the inhabitants, as an outlet and pasture ground for their cattle, in the meantime, but in time to come may be appropriated for the future extension and increase of the building of the said borough." and east of the Codorus Creek; the Fifth ward lying west of the creek. In 1875 a movement was instituted for the creation of new wards out of the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth, and commissioners were appointed in each case by the Court of Quarter Sessions of York county. The commissioners appointed on the division of the First Ward recommended that a new ward, to be known as the Sixth, should be formed, by a report filed and confirmed nisi April 13, 1875. This report for some rea- son was recommitted to the commission- ers again, presented and confirmed nisi August 23, and absolutely, November 29, 1875. The reports recommending the creation of the Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Wards, out of the Second, Fourth and Fifth were presented and confirmed nisi April 12, 1875, and no exception being filed, became confirmed absolutely. Commissioners hav- ing been appointed to inquire into the ad- visability of dividing the Sixth Ward, re- ported April 20, 1885, in favor of the crea- The lands thus described as " Commons," included much more territory than was af- terward included in the Public Common which is now transformed into Penn Park. tion of the Tenth Ward out of a part of the territory, and their report was confirmed December 9, 1885. The question of erect- ing new wards out of the Fifth and Ninth About the year 1800, John R. Coates, as agent for the late proprietaries, laid claim to the lands lying within what was known as Springettsbury Manor, which included the lands occupied by the borough. This claim was based on the assumption that the act of legislature, passed in 1779, by which the Wards was submitted to the voters of the respective districts at the February election in 1891. The vote in the Ninth ward re- sulted in a tie and the ward was accordingly not divided. In the Fifth Ward the vote was in favor of the creation of a new ward which was accordingly formed, and desig- titles of the Penns were vested in the state, nated the Eleventh Ward, by a decree made February 19, 1891. The Twelfth and Thir- teenth Wards were created out of newly an- nexed territory, by decrees dated February 12 and April 9, 1900.

By reasons of annexations . of territory, boundaries of the different wards were en- larged from time to time by decrees of the Court. August 27, 1883, additions were made to the First, Sixth and Eighth Wards; August 25, 1884, to the Fifth and Ninth Wards; April 20, 1895, to the Second and Eighth Wards; April 19, 1886, to the Tenth Ward, and February 12, 1900, to the First, Eighth and Tenth Wards.

did not affect the lands within the Manor. If this claim could be substantiated, it would affect every landowner in the Manor, for those who had acquired their titles from the proprietaries would be obliged to pay heavy arrearages of quit-rents, all titles granted by the Penns being subject to an annual payment or quitrent, while those persons who had acquired their land from the State would have no title thereto and would lose not only their land but also what they had paid for it and the money they had spent in improving it. Naturally great excitement prevailed, and numerous confer- ences were held between the citizens of the borough and those who represented the claims of the late proprietaries, the result

PUBLIC COMMON.

When York was laid out in 1741, only a of which was an agreement entered into portion of the territory within the limits of between a committee of citizens and a rep-

642

HISTORY OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

resentative of the Penns, on February 23, or purpose whatever." In 1816 this tract 1805. This agreement provided certain was bounded on the east by George Street north by New Street (now College Avenue ) west by Water Street and south by lots of Samuel Ilgenfritz, Christian Hildebrand and Imfeld's heirs, it being provided, that the portion of the land fronting on George Street, and 250 feet deep might be sold at any time with the concurrence of the legis- lature. On March 2, 1842, the legislature consented to such sale, the proceeds to be applied to the payment of the borough debt, and this portion of the tract was accordingly sold, remained unimproved for seventy-five years, being used as a pasture, as a place for the holding of military encampments, circuses, and for various other purposes. In 1891 a number of public spirited citizens secured permission from the city councils to improve the tract at their own expense, which was accordingly done, and the tract is now known as Penn Park, a more extend- ed description of which will be found in another part of this volume.

terms of payment, on compliance with which, by any owner, all arrearages of quit- rents on his land should be settled and all future quitrents should be extinguished. The lots belonging to religious societies and the Academy lot were, however, "to be released gratis." The agreement further provided for "twenty acres as a Public Com- mon on the south side of the town and east side of the creek to be conveyed to the cor- poration to be laid off in a square as near as may be." All other of the lands called Common were to be sold out in lots of not more than five acres with convenient alleys. One of the conditions of this agreement, al- though not expressed therein, was that the Legislature of Pennsylvania should pass an act, releasing all claims to any lands within the borough of York, and such an act was accordingly passed March 7, 1805, the pre- amble of which recites "that the freeholders of said borough, willing to avoid law suits, have made an advantageous contract" with John R. Coates, agent of the late proprie- taries, for the settlement of the disputes. This act provided that all right, interest and claim of the Commonwealth to all lands in the borough held or occupied under title from the late proprietaries should be re- leased to the person or persons holding the same, and all right, interest and claim of the State to the remainder of the lands within the borough were released to the borough itself. Neither the agreement mentioned, nor this act, affected any titles outside the borough limits. Although the conditions of the agreement were thus al. most immediately complied with, it was not until eleven years later that the heirs of William Penn carried out their part of the agreement by conveying this Public Com- mon to the borough.

Conveyed the conveyance was made by to Borough John R. Coates, in his own right and as attorney in fact for John Penn, to the Burgesses and Inhab- itants of the Borough of York. The deed conveyed a tract of land "containing about twenty acres and used as a Public Common," the land "to be kept as a public and open Common forever for the use of the said borough and to and for no other use, intent

It may be proper to say a few

Manor words in regard to the dispute over Titles. Springettsbury Manor, mentioned above in relation to the sketch on the Public Common. After the Revolution the Legislature of Pennsylvania passed an act by which all the estates of the late pro- prietaries were vested in the Commonwealth in return for the payment to the proprieta- ries of 130,000 pounds sterling. This act, however, did not affect the private estates of the Penns, nor "the lands called and known by the name of Proprietary Tenths or Manors," provided these manors had been surveyed and returned into the land office before July 4, 1776. As stated in another part of this volume, Springettsbury Manor had been surveyed in 1722, but the survey had never been returned to the land office. It was re-surveyed in 1768, however,

On June 11, 1816, however, and this survey had been duly returned.

The late proprietaries made no claim to the lands within Springettsbury Manor, nor did they claim payment of any of the quit- rents, which had been reserved until about the year 1800. Previous to this time it had been supposed that the title to all these lands was in the Commonwealth and nu- merous persons had purchased vacant lands from the State, improving them at great expense. The consternation aroused by

--------------

---------

643

THE CITY OF YORK

this claim of the proprietaries was great, affecting not only the residents within the Manor, but also the State itself, for if sus- tained it would take away from the State the title to all lands which still remained vacant, and would also debar the State from its right to the payment of a large amount of purchase money which remained unpaid. The proprietaries brought suit to enforce their claims in the Circuit Court of the United States, and the legislature by resolution approved April 4, 1803, author- ized the governor "to direct the attorney general and to employ one other able coun- sel" to assist the attorneys for the land own- ers in the trial of these suits. Two years later the legislature appointed a commis- sion to inquire into the matter and to effect a compromise, if possible, but no settlement could be effected. Meantime the inhabi- tants of the borough entered into the agree- ment with the above mentioned, and the State released all its claims to lands within the borough but not to any lands within the Manor outside the borough limits. In 1806 the legislature employed additional counsel, (James Ross and James Hopkins) to de- fend the suits brought by the proprietaries until final decision should be had. The lit- igation in the Circuit Court resulted in fa- vor of the proprietary rights and in 1813 an act was passed for the refunding of all money paid by land holders within the Ma- nor for the invalid titles which they had se- cured, but the dispute in regard to these titles continued for a number of years and finally the question came before the Su- preme Court of the United States, where in 1824, Chief Justice Marshall, in an elaborate opinion, upheld the claim of the propri- etaries.

The deed of 1816 which conveyed Potters' Field. the Common to the Borough of York also conveyed two lots of ground, called "Potters' field," this field "to be kept as a public burial place forever, and for no other use, intent or pur- pose." It is not certain how early this land began to be used as a public burial ground but it continued. to be so until 1897 when it passed into the possession of the York School District. The imposing High School building was erected on the site. Attempts had been made for some years previous to secure land for this purpose.

In 1891 the legislature enacted a bill in- tended to effect the purpose, but it was ve- toed by the Governor. At the next session of the legislature the attempt was more successful, and an act was passed under which the school district was granted au- thority to take the land and pay such dam- ages therefor as might be assessed by viewers to be appointed by the Court. After these damages had been assessed however, litigation ensued and the act under which the school district had proceeded was de- clared unconstitutional by the County Court and the decision affirmed by the Su- preme Court. Afterward, proceedings be- ing taken under another act of assembly, the tract was sold at public sale to the school district. A part of the proceeds arising from this sale was required to be used by the city for the purchase of another public burying ground to be used for the same purpose as the original field, and the remainder of the purchase money was or- dered to be invested and the income used for the maintenance of this field. A new field, situated in the borough of North York, was purchased in June, 1807, and the bodies from Potters' Field were removed to their new resting place. After the pur- chase of these burial grounds and payment of the costs and expenses of re-interment of the bodies there remained a balance of $1,500, the interest of which is annually appropriated for the maintenance of the field.

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 York County Pennsylvania, Volume I, Part 115

Author: Prowell, George R. Publication date: 1907 Publisher: J. H. Beers Number of Pages: 1372

Author: Prowell, George R.
Publication date: 1907
Publisher: J. H. Beers
Number of Pages: 1372