USA > Pennsylvania > History of proprietary government in Pennsylvania > Part 13
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).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51
1 Conn. Col. Rec., xiv, p. 447 et seq.
2 Hazard, Annals of Pa., p. 484.
3 Pa. Col. Rec., viii, p. 621.
150
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[150
the charter of 1662 the only argument, and had the claim based on them been judiciously asserted when the boundary with New York was settled, Connecticut's title would have been very strong.I
Let us take up now the second consideration, namely that of Indian title. The company, having been organized with a membership of about 700, determined to perfect its claim by a purchase from the Indians. This was accomplished at the famous Albany Conference of July, 1754. Eighteen chiefs of the Six Nations, for the sum of £2000, agreed to sell all the territory claimed. It was bounded as follows : Beginning at 41º north latitude and at a point ten miles east of the Susque- hanna, the line extended northerly to 42°, and westward a hun- dred and twenty miles, thence southerly and easterly so as to inclose a parallelogram of about 7200 square miles.2 But this very tract had already been sold several times to the Penns. As already stated in the chapter on Indian affairs, twenty-three chiefs of the Six Nations, Delawares and Shaw- anese had sold to the proprietors, October 1I, 1736, all lands on both sides of the Susquehanna. Two weeks later they ex- ecuted a deed of confirmation, and promised to sell lands to no
1 " Connecticut is bounded on the west by New York." Penn MSS., Wyoming Controversy, Gov. Wolcott (of Conn.) to the Board of Trade, Dec. 31, 1750.
2 At the meeting of the commissioners from the various colonies at this time and place, it was resolved that, although the western boundary of Massachusetts and Connecticut was the South Sea, they should be limited by the Allegheny Moun- tains. This is about the western limit of the Indian deed to the Susquehanna Company. Pa. Col. Rec., vi, pp. 101, 104.
Subsequent to the purchase by the Susquehanna Company, another organization of persons in Connecticut, called the Delaware Company, secretly bought from certain chiefs all the region between the Wyoming purchase and the Delaware River. Miner, History of Wyoming, p. 69.
It may be said, however, that this Wyoming scheme was not confined entirely to residents of Connecticut, for in the Indian deed to the former company were named 638 grantees from Connecticut, 33 from Rhode Island, 10 from Pennsylva- nia, 8 from New York, and 5 from Massachusetts. Hoyt, Syllabus of the Contro- versy between Connecticut and Pennsylvania; Pa. Arch., Ist series, ii, p. 147.
151
IN PENNSYLVANIA
151]
one but the Penns. A portion of this territory was likewise included in a purchase from the Six Nations by the proprietors in August, 1749. Lastly, the Penns by a deed from the Six Nations, obtained a few hours before that to the Susquehanna Company, bought another tract, which included practically all lands west of the Susquehanna. Hence, so far as Indian sales constitute a real title, the claim of the proprietors seems well supported, though it was argued by the Connecticut partisans that for the Penns to purchase from the Indians lands within the bounds of the Connecticut grant was illegal. Further- more, the purchase of the Susquehanna Company was attended with considerable sharp dealing, if not with positive fraud. Some of the Indians were intoxicated, and others by smooth promises were inveigled into signing the deed.2 In fact the Indian councils in 1755, 1758 and 1763 denied the legality of this sale, and upon learning of an intended settle- ment by Connecticut people in the disputed section of country, sent a deputation to Connecticut to protest against such an act of trespass, as the lands were rightfully the property of the Penns. The proprietary officers also sent remonstrances to the Connecticut authorities. Then the governor of Pennsylvania wrote to the governor of Connecticut, asserting the exclusive right of the proprietors to all territory within their limits by charter, and protesting vigorously against any intrusion. At the same time he offered to grant the land on reasonable terms to such of the Connecticut people as might wish to settle
1 Pa. Col. Rec., vi, pp. 120-5 ; Smith, Laws of Pa., ii, 115, 116, 126, 129.
2 Miner, in his History of Wyoming, says, " Under the eye of the Pennsylvania delegation a purchase was made by the Connecticut people." But it is certainly absurd to suppose that the proprietary agents would have permitted the sale of any land within the charter limits of Pennsylvania. Further, Sir William Johnson intimated that the purchase was secured by fraudulent means, and in the treaty at Fort Stanwix in 1768, this act of the Connecticut people was a second time char- acterized in this way. See Pa. Arch., Ist series, ii, pp. 174-5; Pa. Col. Rec., vi, p. 129, x, p. 178; N. Y. Col. Doc., vi, p. 987 ; Hoyt, Syllabus, etc., p. 39; Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., xi, R. Peters to T. P., May 15, 1774.
152
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [152
there.' This failed to meet with approval in Connecticut. Thereupon in 1754 he sent a commissioner to that colony. On his return the commissioner reported, that the governor and other prominent officials in Connecticut declared that the purchase was of a private nature and really contrary to law.2
But whatever was the apparent attitude of the Connecticut officials, the company was strongly supported in its project. Many of the inhabitants, however, denounced the scheme as wild and preposterous, urging the great opposition that might be encountered from the Indians and the distance of such lands from the seat of government. But those interested in the undertaking had good reason to believe that it would be sanctioned by the General Court, and professed a willingness, in case the Penns interposed any objections, to have the matter judicially determined. Indeed they held a convention at Hart- ford, and chose a committee whose business it should be to make every effort to have members of the General Court elected who were favorable to the project, and would either confirm the Indian title or permit the company to petition the king for a charter of incorporation. Their efforts having been successful, the purchasers applied to the General Court for permission to form a distinct commonwealth, if the king would grant them a charter. The Court thereupon resolved that such a settlement would be a means to secure the friendship of the Indians, and to defend the king's dominions. It also gave the company liberty to make further Indian purchases, and recommended the petitioners to the royal favor.3 The Penns, upon receipt of this intelligence entered in all the colo- nial offices in London a caveat against the application, when- ever it should be presented.4
1 Pa. Arch., Ist series, ii, p. 176; Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., vi, Gov. Morris to Lieut .- Gov. Fitch, Nov. 20, 1754; to T. P., Dec. 26, 1754.
3 Penn MSS., The Wyoming Controversy, Report of John Armstrong.
3 The colony proposed would have been almost as large as Connecticut. Conn. Col. Rec., x, p. 378; Trumbull, Hist. of Conn., ii, pp. 470, 474-8.
* Penn MSS, Supp. Proc., T. P. to Peters, Jan. 9, 1761.
153]
IN PENNSYLVANIA 153
Having thus disposed of the claim by Indian title, we shall examine the question of actual possession, and trace the his tory of the controversy up to its final settlement after the Rev- olution. The crown lawyers previously mentioned had given their opinion that, if the country had been settled under the grant of 1681, it would be a matter of doubt whether the right of the occupants, or the title under which they held, could be invalidated by a prior grant, without actual settlement. The company, whose membership was rapidly increasing, and which included many persons of prominence, especially in the Gen- eral Court of Connecticut, determined to lay out 10,000 square miles of the purchase into shares. By the articles of associa- tion, each shareholder was bound within a given time to build a house, and clear a certain amount of land. Early in 1755 surveyors were sent by the company to lay out portions of the land along Lackawaxon creek, and in the Wyoming Valley. Accordingly, a settlement was made that year at Coshotunk near the Delaware, but a letter from the Earl of Egremont, founded on representations of the governor of Pennsylvania alleging that the settlement would occasion an Indian war, stopped further progress till 1760. About this time a large part of the 10,000 square miles had been surveyed, a few town- ships laid out, as well as mills and cabins built. Two years later several of the members of the company went in person, and commenced a settlement just below Wilkesbarre. In Oc- tober of that year it was destroyed by the Indians.
As if just aware of the fact that some collisions between Pennsylvania and Connecticut settlers had taken place, the governor of the latter colony, in 1762, issued a proclamation against the intrusion of its inhabitants into Pennsylvania.I
1 In 1760 the proprietors had requested the secretary of state to direct the gov- ernor of Connecticut to stop the intrusion of his people, in order to quiet the com- plaints of the Indians, which were occasioned by trespasses committed on lands set apart for them by recent treaties. But he thought the Connecticut purchase of 1754 had been fairly made, and therefore that they should obtain the attorney-gen- eral's opinion. The Penns assured him to the contrary. Thereupon he referred the matter to Sir William Johnson. P. L. B., vi, T. P. to Hamilton, Dec. 10, 1760.
١
154
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[154
The complaints aroused by these quarrels and petty disturb- ances caused Sir William Johnson to write to the Board of Trade that he feared their injurious influence on the Indians. This led the king, in October, 1763, to direct that the contend- ing colonies should each appoint commissioners to go to Wyoming and proclaim his commands that the intruders should depart and abandon their enterprise. The execution of the order was prevented by the outbreak of Pontiac's war. During its continuance the operations of the Susquehanna Company ceased. But it was not easily dismayed, and while preparing to send å large number of settlers, dispatched Col. Eliphalet Dyer with a petition to the king. While Dyer was still in England, and in defiance of the royal proclamation, the company resolved to have five townships, each five miles square, surveyed, and to grant each of these to forty settlers, on condition that they would remain on the ground and de- fend their claims against invasion. These townships were subdivided into sections of 400 acres, three of such sections being reserved for the ministry and schools. Though there had been a steady influx of settlers from Connecticut for fifteen years, the fact did not become very noticeable till 1769, at which time a stockade was erected and called "Forty Fort.I"
All these proceedings had been carefully observed by the Pennsylvania authorities. In 1754, Gov. Morris stated that, as some of the Connecticut people had persuaded a few frontier settlers to join them, he believed more vigorous measures than writing to governors and magistrates should be employed. He suggested that the women and children should be seized and sent back to Connecticut, but the men should be impris- oned for a brief period as a warning to others. "I don't doubt," said he, "that Connecticut will amuse and give good words till a great number be settled, and then bid defiance." ? His view was not at first concurred in by the proprietors, be- cause they believed the whole scheme to be merely the crea-
1 Trumbull, p. 471; Hoyt, pp. 19-20.
2 Hoyt, p. 18.
155
IN PENNSYLVANIA
155]
tion of some speculators and likely to fail. Indeed, they even favored such a settlement as a protection against the French, provided the Indians were not disturbed and that the settlers took their titles from Pennsylvania." The governors of that province however realized the danger, issued several procla- mations against the intruders, and sent letters to the Connec- ticut authorities setting forth the tendencies of such an illegal method of settlement.2
At length the proprietors awoke to the situation and leased for seven years to certain individuals 100 acres each within the disputed section, on condition that they would duly defend their property. In January, 1769, the lessees took possession of the blockhouse and cabins left by the massacred settlers in 1763, and laid out for the proprietors the manors of Stoke and Sunbury on the west bank of the Susquehanna, right in the heart of the valley.3 Previous to this time it is somewhat doubtful whether any land within the disputed region was held by settlers under grants from the Penns, whereas we have seen that under sanction of the company a number of settlers had already taken up claims.4 From the standpoint of possession, then, the balance is slightly in favor of the Connecticut claim- ants. The proprietors continued to offer special inducements to people who would hold their possessions against the Con- necticut trespassers.5 The company in turn made very advan- tageous offers, so that many of the Pennsylvania settlers found it profitable to take titles from Connecticut.
Now begins that civil strife in miniature known as the
1 Penn MSS., T. P. to Peters, Apr. 14, 1754.
2 Pa. Col. Rec., v, pp. 768, 774, 777 ; vi, pp. 255, 275.
3 For this reason, among others, many of the neighboring settlers sympathized with the Connecticut people.
4 Gov. John Penn, in his conference with the Connecticut commissioners in 1773, asserted that for many years land had been granted within the limits claimed by Connecticut. Conn. Col. Rec .. xiv, p. 475. But see Hoyt, p. 27.
5 P. L. B., ix, T. P. to John Penn, May 9, 1769.
I56
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [156
" Pennamite and Yankee War." In February, 1769, the first " forty " Connecticut settlers arrived, and besieged the garrison in the Wilkesbarre blockhouse. When three of their leaders had been invited into the fort for conference, they were seized and sent to Easton. Here they were speedily bailed out, and returned to Wyoming. Then the " Forty Fort " was stormed by the sheriff and a posse from Northampton County, and the garrison treated as before. In April another detachment ar- rived and erected a fort. Again the sheriff with difficulty secured a posse, for most of the people in that region sympa- thized with the newcomers, and the same thing happened.
In 1770 the attention of the Board of Trade was called to these disturbances. In its report thereon, the Board con- demned the outrages committed by both parties, but decided that the matter lay within the jurisdiction of Pennsylvania. The report, however, was caused by the fact that the persons employed by the company, when summoned before the Board, deprecated any violence and stated that they had had no instructions to defend the proceedings of the settlers, or to represent them as sanctioned by the government of their colony.I Thereupon the proprietors directed Gov. Penn le- gally to eject the intruders, or to receive them as tenants ; but in event of an expensive contest, they intended to try their legal right by appeal to England.2 But the futility of this scheme of receiving the invaders as tenants was too obvious to merit serious consideration. Emissaries from Connecticut busied themselves in stirring up the people against the juris- diction of the proprietors, going so far that the Pennsylvania assembly in 177 I passed the riot act, with resolutions strongly condemning their actions, and offering a reward for their ap-
1 Penn MSS., The Wyoming Controversy, Report of a committee of the Board of Trade, July, 1770.
2 P. L. B., x, T. P. to Tilghman, Feb. 26 and March 27, 1770; to Fell, Feb. 7, 1770; to Richard Penn, July 24, 1770; to Wilmot, July 29, 1770; Penn MSS., Private Correspondence, v, Richard Penn to T. P., July 26, 1770.
157
IN PENNSYLVANIA
157]
prehension; in accordance with which the governor issued another proclamation." But the struggle continued with un- abated vigor.2 Forts and blockhouses were built, besieged, and captured. Pennsylvania adherents were imprisoned in the forts of the New Englanders. Connecticut partisans were imprisoned at Philadelphia as hostages for the removal of the others, and prosecutions were commenced against the frontier settlers in order to prevent them from joining the intruders.3
The proprietors then petitioned the king in 1771 to have the boundary between Pennsylvania and Connecticut determined, but the Board of Trade adhered to its previous opinion.4 The president of the council in Pennsylvania wrote to Gov. Trum- bull of Connecticut, inquiring by whose authority such vio- lent measures were employed. He replied that the persons concerned had had no orders from himself or the General Court, and that he was sure the Court would not countenance any violence in vindicating the rights of the Susquehanna Company.5 The Pennsylvania assembly refused to have any- thing further to do with the disturbances, claiming that it did not affect the general government.6 Not long after this, in a conflict of arms, the Pennsylvania contingent was defeated and compelled to surrender.7 Pennsylvania temporarily desisted from the struggle; but the inhabitants of Wyoming continued to extend their settlements, laid out townships, erected fortifi-
1 Penn MSS., Private Correspondence, v, Richard Penn to T. P., May 29, 1771.
2 For the details see Pa. Col. Rec., ix, and Pa. Arch., Ist series, iv, passim ; Miner, History of Wyoming, pp. 102-182; Pearce, Annals of Luzerne County, Pp. 58-119.
3 P. L. B., x, Proprietors to Tilghman, Jan. 28, 1771.
4 P. L. B. x, Wilmot to John Penn, Dec. 12, 1771. 5 Hoyt, p, 22.
6 Pa. Col. Rec., ix, pp. 680-7 ; Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., xi, R. Hockley to T. P., Feb. 29, 1772.
7 The articles of capitulation ran as follows : A certain number of armed men should depart uumolested ; men with families might remain two weeks to remove their effects; and the sick and wounded should be allowed proper attention. Penn MSS., The Wyoming Controversy.
158
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[158
cations, levied and collected taxes, passed laws, and established a militia.
Meanwhile the General Court of Connecticut had appointed a committee to search for all evidences of title, and had sent to its agents in England all such evidences to be embodied in a statement which should be presented to the crown lawyers. We have seen what was their decision respecting the charter. Relying on their further opinion that, if the governor and company of Connecticut thought it prudent or expedient to make such a claim, it would be proper for them to apply to the king to appoint commissioners in America for the purpose of settling the matter, the Connecticut legislature, in October, 1773, resolved that it would support the claims of the colony under its charter. Thereupon commissioners were appointed to treat with Gov. Penn, and were instructed to join with him in an application to the crown for the appointment of commis- sioners to decide the controversy, or with him to agree upon measures to preserve order among the inhabitants.I A con- ference was thereupon held at Philadelphia in December, 1773. Gov. Penn, acting in the behalf of the proprietors, refused to join in an application to the crown, lest he should thereby ad- mit the Connecticut claim, though he stated that the pro- prietors would readily answer any application which Connecti- cut separately might choose to make. The commissioners from that colony rehearsed all its pretensions by charter, Indian purchase and possession ; and to facilitate the exercise of jurisdiction, proposed that the settlers from each colony should, until the dispute could be decided, register their names separately at an office erected for the purpose. They dwelt upon the delay and expense incident to a decision by the Privy Council, and believed that the affair could be best settled by agreement, or by reference to arbitrators from neighboring col- onies. At any rate they desired a temporary line of jurisdiction to be established. Gov. Penn replied to their arguments,
1 Conn. Col. Rec., xiii, pp. 366, 427, 518; xiv, pp. 161-2.
159
IN PENNSYLVANIA
159]
dilating particularly on the failure of Connecticut for ninety- two years to assert its claim. He stated that, as the disputed territory had been recently erected into a county, no tempo- rary line could be run. He asserted, also, that the disturb- ances could not cease till the Connecticut people had left the region, and the case had been legally decided. The Con- necticut commissioners answered that the acquiescence of Connecticut with regard to the Pennsylvania grant had no more weight than the acquiescence of Pennsylvania in the Connecticut grant. The negotiations, however, proved fruit- less.I
In January, 1774, the Connecticut legislature resolved that its agents in England should be instructed to prosecute the colony's claim. In answer to an application from the people at Wyoming, it also incorporated the town of Westmoreland with the following boundaries : east by the Delaware, north by the northern line of Connecticut, west by a north and south line drawn fifteen miles west of the valley, and south by the southern line of Connecticut. Though annexed to Litchfield County, Connecticut, the town was given practical autonomy.2 At the same session the General Court enacted that suitable persons should be employed to ascertain the northern and southern boundaries of Connecticut, and the governor was de- sired to issue a proclamation forbidding any persons to settle any land in Wyoming without the consent of the General Court. In answer to this Gov. Penn of Pennsylvania, Febru- ary 28, 1774, commanded that no regard should be paid to orders given by any person presuming to act by virtue of in- structions from the authorities of Connecticut.3 Thereupon, in May, 1774, the Connecticut General Court resolved to petition the king to determine the boundaries, and the proprietors in turn asked the crown to render an opinion against this
1 Conn. Col. Rec., xiv, p. 465 et seq. Pa. Col. Rec., x, pp. 111, 118-128, 153. 2 Ibid., xiv, p. 218. 3 Pa. Col. Rec., x, p. 153.
I60
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[160
petition, lest by any attempt to decide the boundaries the claim of Connecticut might be admitted.I
In response to this request of the proprietors, and for the purpose of examining the case preparatory to the issue of such an opinion, the Board of Trade summoned before it the Con- necticut agents. But because American affairs had become so threatening, that action upon the petition was deferred till the proprietors gave up in despair. At one time war between the two colonies seemed inevitable. In December 1775, Col. Plunkett of Northumberland county, in which the Wyoming Valley was largely situated, with about five hundred men, act- ing under orders from Gov. Penn, endeavored to drive out the settlers. About three hundred of them at Nanticoke repulsed him, with considerable loss on both sides. Then Congress in- terfered with a resolution that the contending parties should cease hostilities until the dispute could be legally settled.
Soon after the surrender of Cornwallis the supreme execu- tive council of Pennsylvania, in accordance with the ninth article of the constitution of 1781, petitioned Congress to es- tablish a court to determine the matter. Congress complied, and August 28, 1782, appointed seven commissioners, five of whom, November 19, organized the court at Trenton. On the thirtieth of the following December, they decided that the state of Connecticut had no right to the lands, and that the preemption and jurisdiction of the territory belonged to Penn- sylvania.2 Connecticut acquiesced in the decision, and in 1800 renounced by legislative act all territorial and jurisdic- tional claims to any section of country west of the eastern boundary of New York.3
1 Conn. Col. Rec., xiv, p, 262; Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., xi, Wilmot to John Penn, Aug. 11, 1774.
2 Fa. Arch., Ist series, ix, pp. 679-725.
3 Hoyt, pp. 47-48.
161
IN PENNSYLVANIA
161 ]
III
Virginia.
In 1749 George II was induced to grant 500,000 acres of land on the branches of the Ohio to an organization known as the Ohio Company, most of whose members were residents of Virginia. The purpose of the grant was to establish a settlement as a barrier for the colonies against the French, and as a means of monopolizing the trade of the western Indians." Since Virginia by the charter of 1609 had a somewhat indefinite claim to all lands west and northwest of her coast line, and extending to the Pacific, and in order to prevent such difficulties as might arise from the settling of large tracts west of the mountains, the proprietors at once tried to obtain a royal order for the running of the boundary line between Virginia and Pennsyl- vania,2 but their effort failed. Thereupon they made an agree- ment with members of the Ohio Company in England that they would instruct the governor of Pennsylvania to enter into any reasonable measures to assist the governor of Virginia in building a fort on the Ohio, with the stipulation that the latter would give assurance that the settlement thus made should not be prejudicial to the rights of the proprietors in that region, and that bona fide settlers should be secured in their tenure. In case any of the company's land fell within the limits of Pennsylvania, it was agreed that it should be held of the Penns. In turn the proprietors promised that in case the settlements of the company did extend into Pennsylvania, they would grant the land free of quit rent for seven years or more, provided that it should not be held for speculation; and ex-
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.