History of York County Pennsylvania, Volume I, Part 7

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 7

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).

This title was always recognized, and after the purchase made in 1736 the pro- prietary confirmed the licenses by regular warrants. They were likened by some to locations, by others to warrants. They had all the essential parts of a warrant, ex- cept in the single circumstance of the pur- chase money not being previously paid. They contained a direction to make a sur- vey, equally with a warrant, and it was the constant usage of surveyors to make sur- veys under them, in the same manner as under warrants and such surveys were ac- cepted in the office. (Lessee of Dunning vs. Carruthers, II Yeates, 17.)

In the case of Penn's Lessee vs. Kline (IV Dallas, 405) it is said, "In order to re- sist the Maryland intrusions, encourage- ments were offered by Sir William Keith, and accepted by a number of Germans, for forming settlements on the tract, which had been thus surveyed; and in October, 1736, Thomas Penn having purchased the Indian claim to the land, empowered Samuel Blunston to grant licenses for 12,000 acres (which were sufficient to satisfy the rights of those who had settled, perhaps fifty in number) within the tract of land, commonly called the "Manor of Springettsbury," under the invitations of the governor. But in addition to such settlers, not only the population of the tract in dispute, but of the neighboring county, rapidly increased." In 1736, Thomas Penn was in Lancaster, and signed warrants taken under Blunston's li- censes. The number of Germans who had formed settlements on the tracts is else- where mentioned as fifty-two. In Cal- houn's Lessee vs. Dunning (IV Dallas, 120) the inception of the plaintiff's title de- pended upon an extract from the record of licenses or grants by Blunston, dated March, 1735, which was merely a minute in

On the trial of the cause already men- tioned, evidence was given on each side to maintain the opposite position respecting the existence or non-existence of the Manor of Springettsbury, from public instruments, from the sense expressed by the proprieta- ries, before the Revolution, in their warrants and patents; from the sense expressed by the land warrants and patents issued since the Revolution; from the practice of the land office, and from the current of public opinion. The general ground taken by the plaintiff's counsel was : First, That the land mentioned is a part of a tract called or known by the name of a Proprietary Manor. Second, That it was a Proprietary Manor duly surveyed; and third, that the survey was duly made and returned before the 4th of July, 1776. The defendant's counsel con- tended: First, That Sir William Keith's warrant, being issued in 1722, without au- thority, all proceedings on it were abso- lutely void, and that neither the warrant nor the survey had ever been returned into the land office. Second, That Governor Hamilton's warrant was issued in 1762, to re-survey a manor which had never been legally surveyed, and was in that respect to be regarded as a superstructure without a foundation. Third, that the recitals of Gov- ernor Hamilton's warrant are not founded in fact, and that considering the survey in pursuance of it, as an original survey, it was void as against compact, law and justice,

HISTORY OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

the proprietor should assume, for a manor, quent change of government, the proprie- land settled by individuals.

The licenses granted by Thomas Penn, in 1736, to about fifty-two settlers, in differ- ent parts of the first, as well as second sur- vey, in which this is called the Manor of Springettsbury was strongly relied upon to show that, even at that early period, it had acquired this name. The tenor of the war- rants afterward granted for lands within this manor, varying from the terms of the common warrants, marked this manor land. There was testimony to show that the west line of this manor was always reputed to go considerably beyond York to Eyster's.

As some of the persons interested in the ejectments brought for lands in Springetts- bury Manor had purchased from the Com- monwealth, and it would be entitled to all arrears of purchase money if the proprietary title should not be established, the Legisla- ture had authorized the Governor to employ counsel to assist the counsel of the defend- ants. After the decision of the case of Penn's Lessee vs. Kline, the Legislature appointed James Ross and James Hopkins, Esqs., to take defense in the next ejectment, Penn's Lessee vs. Groff, (IV Dallas, 410), which was tried in the April term, 1806, and upon the same charge, the same verdict was given. The defendant's counsel, having tendered a bill of exceptions to the charge of the court, arrangements were made to obtain a final decision of the Supreme Court, upon a writ of error. It appears, however, from the journals, that the Legis- lature was not disposed to interfere any further, and terms of compromise were pro- posed and accepted by the parties. The resolution appointing Ross and Hopkins, counsel for the inhabitants of Springetts- bury Manor, was passed March 31, 1806. (P. P., 682. 8 Bioren, 474.)

The proprietary manors were When reserved by the Legislature Proprietary to the Penns after the Revo- Titles lution, while their title to all Ended. other lands in the province was divested in favor of the Commonwealth. The royal grant of the Province of Pennsylvania to William Penn was an absolute one, and the quit rents reserved by him and his heirs, on the aliena- tion of lands therein, became their private property. By the Revolution and conse-

taries lost their right of preemption of un- purchased land, in which the Indian title was not extinguished. The grant to Penn was in free and common socage; but the Revolution and the act for vesting the es- tates of the late proprietaries in the com- monwealth and for the opening of the land office, passed in 1779 and 1781, abolished all feudal land tenures, and rendered them purely allodial in their character, even as to lands held by the late proprietaries in their private capacity. At the commencement of the war of the American Revolution, the proprietary went to Great Britain, where he remained, and in the year 1779, the Legis- lature of Pennsylvania passed the act "for vesting the estates of the late proprietaries of Pennsylvania in this commonwealth." It was held, however, in the courts, that the lands within the lines of the survey of the manor were excepted out of the general operation of the act, and were not vested in the commonwealth. The powers of govern- ment and rights of property were always kept distinct, the former being exercised by the General Assembly, and the latter by means of an agency, constituting what is called a land office. After the Revolution, the proprietaries had a land office to receive purchase money of lands and grant patents. The commonwealth did not receive the pur- chase money of lands included within the limits of manors, nor grant patents for them. There were, in fact, two land offices. The act of investiture contained the follow- ing :

"All and every estate of those claiming to be proprietaries of Pennsylvania, to which they were entitled on the 4th day of July, 1776, in, or to the soil and land con- tained within the limits of said province, together with royalties, etc., mentioned or granted in the charter of said King Charles ; the Second shall be, and they are hereby vested in the Commonwealth of Pennsyl- vania."

There was nothing in the act of 1779, which would lead to the opinion that the legislature was actuated by a spirit of hos- tility against the Penn family. The great object of the act was to transfer the right to the soil of Pennsylvania from the pro- prietary to the commonwealth. This was the great and national object. In addition

BORDER TROUBLES

to the private estates of the family, to manors actually surveyed and to the quit rents reserved on the lands sold within the manors, 120,000 pounds sterling are be- stowed on the family amongst other con- siderations, in remembrance of the enter- prising spirit which distinguished the founder of Pennsylvania. The line of par- tition between the commonwealth and the Penn family was to be drawn. It was proper that the commonwealth, and Penn, and the people of Pennsylvania, should be able distinctly to discern it. (Marshall C. J., 9 Wheaton, 267.)

To have suffered the Penn family to re- tain those rights, which they held strictly in their proprietary character, would have been inconsistent with the complete polit- ical independence of the state. The pro- vince was a fief held immediately from the Crown, and the Revolution would have operated very inefficiently toward complete emancipation, if the feudal relation had been suffered to remain. It was therefore necessary to extinguish all foreign interest in the soil, as well as foreign jurisdiction in the matter of government. (Gibson, J., 7 Sergeant and Rawle, 188.)

We are then to disregard the Revolution and these acts of Assembly as emancipating every acre of soil in Pennsylvania from the grand characteristic of the feudal system. Even as to the lands held by the proprieta- ries themselves, they held them as other citizens held under the commonwealth, and that by a title purely allodial. The State became the proprietor of all lands, but in- stead of giving them like a feudal lord to an enslaved tenantry, she has sold them for the best price she could get, and conferred on the purchaser the same absolute estate she held herself. ( Woodward, J., 8 Wright, 501.)

Among the proceedings of the Supreme Executive Council, January 25, 1787, ap- pears the following: "A letter from Tench Francis, Esq., requesting the delivery of a number of counterparts of patents for lands within the Manor of Springettsbury, granted by the late proprietaries of Penn- sylvania, now in the keeping of the secre- tary of the land office, was laid before the council ; and on consideration, an order was taken that the secretary of the land office be authorized and instructed to deliver to

John Penn and John Penn, Jr., or their attorney, counterparts of all such patents for lots within the Manor of Springetts- bury as upon examination shall appear to be entered into the Roll's office, taking their receipt for the same." And on September 22, 1788. the following appears: "A me- morial from John Penn, Jr., and John Penn, by their agent, Anthony Butler, containing a brief of their title to the Manor of Spring- ettsbury lying north of the city of Philadel- phia, was read together with several inclos- ures ; the memorial and inclosures were put into the hands of the committee appointed upon the petition of Thomas Britain and others.'

All the titles of lands in the borough of York are derived from the Penns. The quit rents were reserved and paid. The agency for the Penns was in the hands of John Cadwallader, of Philadelphia, and the local agent was Charles A. Barnitz, and afterward David G. Barnitz. The last pur- chase of lands within the bounds of the Manor of Springettsbury was made by David Keller, of Windsor township, in 1858, the title to the piece of land before that being only one of occupancy by his father. This occupancy, however, inured to all of his heirs as tenants in common.

CHAPTER IV BORDER TROUBLES

Mission of Hamilton and Georges-The Chester County Plot-Colonel Thomas Cresap.

The history of York County, by reason of the disputed proprietary claims, was in- augurated by disturbances which involved its first settlers in serious difficulties. They had settled themselves in one of those un- fortunate sections of country known to all history as border land. The persons who came west of the Susquehanna in quest of new homes, as citizens of the province of Pennsylvania, soon found that there were other claimants of the soil upon which they had planted themselves, coming here under the authority of the government of the province of Maryland. The broils and riots which followed in the wake of those who had first cleared the forests and sowed their

HISTORY OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

crops on this side of the river, filled the people, especially to those who dwell in the annals of that period with protests and re- locality where the occurrences took place. monstrances, criminations and recrimina- The first complaint as to in- tions, affidavits and counter affidavits, un- Governor trusions on the west side of the Gordon's Susquehanna, after the agree- ment of 1724, appears in a let- ter from Governor Gordon to Governor Calvert, on the 14th of Septem- ber, 1731 : Letter. paralled in the archives of any other govern- ment. While it is our duty, as Pennsylva- nians, to maintain the rights of the founder of this commonwealth, it is equally our duty to examine fairly the grounds upon which his rival proprietor on the south disputed these rights, and made claims of his own.

The people who are embroiled in differ- ences of the character exhibited in the docu- ments and traditions of that period, are not, as a general rule, to blame, especially in an age when the sentiment of loyalty to rulers made them regardless of the rights of others, in behalf of those who were ready and willing to protect them in their out- rages. The blame must rest with those in authority, who could have no cause for en- couraging unlawful claims, much less for the assertion of them by violent measures. In all frontier settlements there are fierce and reckless men who are eager to carry out, by any means, what they conceive to be the will of those in power, of whom they are the partisans. It is a remarkable feature in the details of those early disturbances, in which the interests of the rival proprietaries clashed, that the Governors of each prov- ince for the time being apparently believed and relied on the ex parte statements of their partisans on the one side or the other. It is not the Cresaps, and the Higgenboth- ams, whom we are accustomed to consider as marauders and disturbers of the peace, or the Wrights or Blunstons, whom, on the other hand, we consider the conservators of the peace, but those to whom was commit- ted the government of the respective colo- nies, and the welfare of his Majesty's sub- jects therein, who are properly to be made the subject of animadversion, if they failed to use all the means in their power to re- strain the evils existing, or from a spirit of partisanship closed their eyes to the real causes of those evils. The details of these disturbances and the mutual grounds of contention between the proprietaries are too tedious to relate. But a narrative of such incidents as led the respective pro- vincial governments into the bitter contro- versy, may not be without interest to our

I am further creditably informed that some per- sons of Maryland, having obtained grants of land from your offices, have pretended to lay them out over the river Susquehanna, where our Commissioners would never allow any survey to be made, not only on account of our agreement with the Indians, but also of that made with Maryland. Yet some of your people have pretended to large tracts thereof, which some, 'tis affirmed, lie many miles further north than this city of Philadelphia, and have further had assurance even to offer them to sale to some of our inhabitants, without making, on their parts, any scruple of the situation. "Tis now some months since I heard the rumor of this, but very lately I have had a much fuller confirmation of it.

To which complaint there was the fol- lowing reply from the Governor of Mary- land :

"As to what you mention of our people taking up lands high up the river Susquehanna, I shall endeavor to enquire into it as soon as possible, till when I must beg leave to defer any further answer on that head." (I Archives, 294.)

It would appear from this that whatever settlers there were over the river at that period in the territory, now the county of York, were ostensibly there without the knowledge or consent of either government. The sequel will not bear this out. The com- plaint came first from the Indians to the government of Pennsylvania. A letter from Samuel Blunston, of the 3d of October, 1731, contains a message from Captain Civility to Governor Gordon, that "the Conestoga Indians had always lived in good friendship with the Christian inhabitants of Pennsylvania, and have behaved themselves agreeable to their treaties with them. That William Penn had promised them they should not be disturbed by any settlers on the west side of the Susquehanna, but now, contrary thereto, several Marylanders are settled by the river on that side, at Conejo- hela. And one Cresap particularly, is very abusive to them when they pass that way. And had beat and wounded one of their women, who went to get apples from their own trees. And took away her apples. And further said, that as they shall always take care their people do us no hurt, so they

- ----

--- -- - -- 1 1

--- ---------------- 4 1 1 !

1 I .

1 E 1

1 .

1 1 1

--- -- --- ----- 1

İ 1

BORDER TROUBLES

also expect we shall protect them." Archives, 295. )

This incident, trivial as it may

Complaints seem, introduces and exposes

Against the character of the principal

Cresap. participant, on the side of Maryland, in our border trou- bles. In this same letter it is said, in a post- script, "that James Logan had said he should be glad if Cresap could be taken," and Samuel Blunston writes, "we have now just cause to apprehend him for a breach of the law in entertaining and protecting a bound servant, belonging to one of our peo- ple, and threatening to shoot any person who shall offer to take away said servant. If you think it will be of any service to the government to have him taken, he believed it may be done." According to an affidavit of Thomas Cresap, made by him on the 29th of January, 1732, he had lived on the west side of the Susquehanna river since the 10th of March, as tenant of Lord Balti- more, by virtue of his lordship's grant and patent. He was the owner of a ferry oppo- site a point on the river called Blue Rock. The incident which occasioned his affidavit requires mention, because it first drew the governors of the rival provinces into angry controversy. He made oath that one day, about the last of October, he heard the re- port of three guns at the Blue Rock, the signal usually made by people who want to come over the river. That he and Samuel Chance, who was a laborer with him, went over the river, and that he saw two men and a negro whom he took into his boat. He then details an assault upon him, that after a struggle they threw him into the river, out of his depth, and went away with his boat and his servant, and that he was rescued from an island after night by an In- dian. He complained to a magistrate in Pennsylvania, Mr. Cornish, against the men, and when he demanded a warrant the magistrate inquired where he lived. He said he was an inhabitant of Maryland, a tenant of Lord Baltimore, upon which the magistrate told him he knew no reason he had to expect any justice there since he was a liver in Maryland.

(I fined for the assault. This deposition was sent to the Governor of Maryland, and a full account of the matter was also sent to Lord Baltimore. Governor Ogle sent a copy of the deposition to Governor Gordon, and complained in his letter of the saying by Cornish, that he knew no reason why Cresap had to expect justice there, since he was a liver in Maryland. And that Cresap was in great fear of other injuries from the behavior of the magistrate and other cir- cumstances, and that some Indians said they were offered a good reward by John Cartlidge, of Conestoga, to drive Cresap and his family off his land and burn his house. The affidavit of Cresap also stated that a great number of horses and mares, which were claimed by James Patterson and others, inhabitants of Pennsylvania, had been very injurious and troublesome to him and his neighbors, in throwing down their fences and destroying their corn. This matter of the horses becomes important, because of another incident arising out of the killing of the horses, which led to the arrest and incarceration of persons on both sides, and my Lord Baltimore became a par- ticipant in the scenes that were enacted on this border land of ours. To the letter of Governor Ogle, Governor Gordon replied, among other things, that "Cresap, believing himself aggrieved, applied to one of our magistrates, telling him that he was an in- habitant of Maryland. In which application it must be owned that he had a large share of assurance, for Justice Cornish lives more northerly than Philadelphia, and Cresap's dwelling, by his own description of the Blue Rock, cannot be less than five miles north- ward. That justice had been administered in Pennsylvania, and that as to the fray, the government was in no way concerned in it, unless justice was denied, which was not the case. "For 'tis plain the whole amounts to no more than that a quarrel happened between Cresap and some others in Penn- sylvania, which he thinks fit to call Mary- land."

It appears from this and

Maryland Intruders. throughout the whole contro- versy, that the Pennsylvanians continually resented the intru- sions of the Marylanders into their territory, above a designated line, while on the other

It appears, however, that the magistrate granted Cresap his warrant, and that the men were apprehended and bound over to court, and were indicted, convicted and hand the Marylanders, with the connivance

HISTORY OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

of their government, refused to recognize that line and collisions occurred necessarily incident to settlements under such conflict- ing claims. The lands about the Codorus and Conewago were attractive, as Gover- nor Gordon wrote in the course of the cor- respondence, "and some Maryland gentle- men cast their eyes on those lands made valuable by the neighborhood of our in- habitants, and it suited their purposes to settle such persons there as would intimi- date Pennsylvanians, and give some coun- tenance to their claims." In the year 1729, Charles Carroll, as appears by a petition of his, about the time of the commencement of our border troubles, located a warrant of 10,000 acres on the vacant lands lying on Pipe Creek, and Codorus and Conewago Creeks, and lands contiguous, according to the accustomed method used within his lordship's province. This location was in possession of the surveyor of Baltimore County and was renewed from time to time.

Charles Carroll states in his petition that. apprehending some cultivation made during James tled, according to Governor the former location, which the said warrant Patterson. Gordon, on Springettsbury Manor, for several years, but because it was a manor he had no patent. could not effect, he had obtained a special warrant to take up the same on express terms. About the 14th of June, 1732, he Patterson had a plantation on this side of the river, but resided on the east side. He had, it appears, a number of horses neces- sary for carrying goods and skins in his trade with the Indians. Some of the family of John Lowe killed his horses, whereupon he came in the night time with a warrant, and the sheriff's posse, to arrest two of Lowe's sons, Daniel and William Lowe. But they also seized John Lowe, the father, and he, being brought before Justices Blunston and Wright, and nothing appear- ing against him, was discharged. Affidavits made by John Lowe and Thomas Cresap were sent to Governor Ogle, representing the arrest to have been made with great violence. In Cresap's affidavit it is repre- sented that Patterson had said he would let them know that they were prisoners of and John Ross went to view the lands, the better to inform themselves how to finish a survey of the same, and on the 21st of that month they came to the house of John Hen- dricks, on the Susquehanna River. The complaint of Carroll was that while they were at Hendrick's house several persons came there with a warrant from Justice Wright to arrest John Tradane, of the prov- ince of Maryland, resident at Monocacy, and which they were told was intended to try whether they would interfere, by object- ing to the power of Pennsylvania. But they took no notice of the proceedings. Carroll complained that John Wright, Jr., a son of the Justice, had said "that in case the hom- iny gentry hindered their executing the warrant, they themselves should be put in prison, and that the best of their hominy \Pennsylvania. Cresap said that if Lord gentry in Maryland should not get them Baltimore would not protect them in their rights and land, they, the inhabitants of the west side of the river, must appeal to the King. To which Patterson answered "that they had no business with the King, or the King with them, for Penn was their King." out, and that if the Governor were there they would serve him in the same manner ; that they would teach them to come to take their lands, and that neither they nor their Marylanders should come there to make a hominy country of their lands." He com- Such were the representations sent for

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 7

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