fine residence, in what is now the Fourth Ward of Milton and became its
most influential and revered citizen.
The following obituary appeared in Kennedy’s Gazette, published at
Northumberland, under date July 30, 1794:
“Died, the 22d inst., about sunset at Milton, Colonel Matthew Smith,
aged fifty-four years, being one of the first patriots for liberty; went
to Canada in the year 1775, and suffered extremities. He was once
prothonotary of Northumberland County. Was interred 23d inst., attended
by a large number of his friends and acquaintances, together with a
volunteer company of light infantry from Milton, conducted by Major
Pratt, and commanded by Captain James Boyd, who, marching about six
miles to Warrior Run burying ground and shedding a tear over the old
patriot’s grave, deposited his remains with three well directed volleys
and returned home in good order.”
Linn’s Annals of Buffalo Valley is authority for the statement that
these soldiers actually carried the body the entire distance of six
miles to the old cemetery, where his bones now repose. The dust of this
patriot, soldier and statesman lies within a few rods of the very fort
he rushed from Paxtang with his brave militiamen to protect. His grave
is unmarked and few have knowledge that he is buried there.
----------
Fries’ Rebellion or Hot-Water War Arouses
Governor, March 14, 1799
In 1798 the Federal Government enacted a direct tax law, which became
known as the “house tax,” and was unpopular in many parts of the
country, especially in some of the counties of Pennsylvania, and it led
to an insurrection known in history as “Fries’ Rebellion.”
The story of this insurrection, as told in “Pennsylvania Colonial and
Federal” by Jenkins, is as follows:
“The troubles between the United States and France at this time assumed
the form of active hostilities, and James McHenry, Secretary of War,
began to organize an army. The President was given authority to borrow
$5,000,000, and $2,000,000 more was to be raised by a new and odious
tax. This tax was direct, and fell upon houses, lands and slaves.
“For every slave between the ages of twelve and fifty years, fifty cents
was to be required of the owner. For every house valued at from $200 to
$500, twenty cents per $100 was required, while the tax was thirty cents
per 100 on houses valued from $500 to $1000.
“There were but few slaves in Pennsylvania, and as a result the tax fell
mainly on houses and lands. The value of the houses was determined by
counting the number and measuring the size of the windows. Houses with
but few and small windows were rated lower, and in order to save the tax
the farmers usually had small windows in their houses. Pennsylvania’s
share of the tax was $232,177.72.”
The assessors and collectors of the tax found very little difficulty and
opposition until the eastern part of the State was reached. It was in
the counties of Bucks, Montgomery and Northampton, almost within sight
of the Federal capital, that the opposition became alarming, arising
from the fact that the German people did not understand the law. Many a
farmer knew nothing of the tax until the assessor came around. The
people remembered the old hearth tax of Germany, and they thought this
tax was a revival of it.
Women set dogs on the assessors, and poured scalding water on them when
they tried to measure windows. This fact has also given the name “Hot
Water War” to the affair. In a number of townships, associations of the
people were formed in order to prevent the officers from performing
their duty.
In many places, violence was actually used and the assessors were taken
and imprisoned by armed parties. The insurrection rose to such a height
that it became necessary to compel the execution of the laws, and
warrants were issued against certain persons and served upon them.
Headquarters were appointed for the prisoners at Bethlehem but a number
of persons marched there and demanded the release of the prisoners. The
operations of the mob were so hostile that the marshals could offer no
resistance, so the prisoners were released.
The leading spirit in the opposition to the Government was John Fries, a
farmer’s son, born in Hatfield Township, Montgomery County, in 1750. He
learned the cooper trade and in 1779 married Mary Brunner, of Whitemarsh
Township. In 1775 Fries removed to Lower Milford Township, Bucks County.
He saw service in the Revolution. He also helped to put down the Whisky
Insurrection in Western Pennsylvania.
After settling in Bucks County, Fries became a traveling auctioneer and
journeyed from village to village in this employment. He and his dog,
Whiskey, were familiar figures in every country store. He could speak
German fluently and in his rounds had excellent opportunities to
denounce the tax.
Fries was present at a meeting in February, 1798, at the house of Jacob
Kline, near the point of union of the four counties of Montgomery,
Bucks, Lehigh and Berks. Fries assisted in drawing up a paper in
opposition to the tax, which received fifty-five names. He also pledged
himself to raise 700 men to resist the tax. His expressions against the
law were very violent, and he threatened to shoot one of the assessors,
Mr. Foulke, through the legs if he proceeded to assess the houses. Fries
and his partisans followed and persecuted a number of the assessors,
chasing them from township to township.
Fries was armed with a large horse pistol, and a man named Kuyder
assisted him in command. Learning that the marshal had taken a number of
prisoners, the rioters determined to rescue them. Fries drew up a paper
at his own house, setting forth their design, and the next morning more
than twenty followers appeared in arms. They then set out for Bethlehem
to release the prisoners. The marshal was intimidated and the imprisoned
rioters were released.
The Government became greatly alarmed at these proceedings. The
President issued a proclamation commanding rioters to disperse. He also
called upon the Governor and militia of Pennsylvania to assist in
maintaining order. Governor Mifflin issued a proclamation March 14,
1799, and on March 20 the cavalry from Philadelphia, Chester,
Montgomery, Bucks and Lancaster Counties was called out and encamped at
Springhouse, Montgomery County. Here General MacPherson issued a
proclamation to the rioters. Proceeding to Quakertown, the army began to
make arrests and to scour the country in search of rioters.
After releasing the prisoners at Bethlehem, Fries returned to his old
employment, but was arrested while holding a vendue. At the cry of the
soldiers he leaped to the ground and fled to a swamp. He was arrested
for treason, and with some thirty others taken to Philadelphia for
trial.
The case of Fries was called up in Federal Court at Philadelphia on
April 30, 1799. His lawyers were Alexander J. Dallas and Messrs. Ewing
and Lewis. Messrs. Rawle and Sitgrave were the counsel for the United
States. The verdict was guilty, but as it appeared after the verdict
that one of the jury, previous to being empaneled, had expressed the
opinion that Fries ought to be hanged, a new trial was granted. The
second trial was called April 29, 1800. At the former trial Fries’
lawyers argued at great length that the offense was only riot and not
treason. They cited many cases in support of their view. But the Court
relied upon the definition of treason in the Constitution.
Fries’ counsel then refused to appear further in the case. He was again
declared guilty, the Friday for the hanging was named and the sheriff’s
posse was selected.
The cause of Fries was espoused by the old Republican Party and by a
number of newspapers throughout the State. The Aurora denounced the
action of the officers and charged that the Army lived in free quarters
on the inhabitants. The Adler, a German paper published in Reading also
condemned the course of the Government and claimed that the troops
imposed upon the people as they marched through the country. Discussion
on the subject became so bitter that it entered into National and State
politics and became an important issue.
In the meantime National political affairs were so developing that
President Adams was led to pardon Fries.
----------
Mollie Maguires Murder Wm. H. Littlehales,
March 15, 1869, Which Brings
Detective McParlan to the
Coal Regions
The bloody record of the Mollie Maguires during the decade 1865 to 1875
marks the darkest and most terrible period in the history of the
anthracite coal regions of Pennsylvania.
This was a secret organization, composed of lawless Irishmen, who
resorted to murder in its most cowardly form, to attain their ends and
satisfy their revengeful feelings toward mine owners, superintendents
and bosses, and also justices of the peace and borough officials who had
the integrity to administer justice, and not cringe before these
criminals, when under arrest.
The members of this organization became unusually active and
bloodthirsty in 1865. On August 25 of that year David Muir, a colliery
superintendent, was cruelly murdered in Foster Township, Schuylkill
County; January 10, 1866, Henry H. Dunne, superintendent of a colliery
and one of the leading citizens of Pottsville, was murdered on the
public road, near his home.
There were other crimes committed by the members of this organization,
but those which most aroused the indignation of the public were where
prominent men were killed from ambush for no apparent reason than that
they held responsible position in a coal company.
October 17, 1868, Alexander Rea was murdered near Centralia, Columbia
County, and this crime was the most heinous up to this time. Arrests
were made, and a strong chain of circumstantial evidence made out by the
Commonwealth against them. One of the accomplices even gave out the
facts which caused the apprehension of the others.
Separate trials were granted by the Columbia County Court, and Thomas
Donahue was tried first. He was defended by Messrs. Ryon, Freeze,
Strouse, Wolverton and Marr. He was acquitted February, 1869. The
others, Pat Hester, Peter McHugh, and Pat Tully, were not then placed on
trial.
But the next and most important outrage committed by the Mollie Maguires
was the murder of William H. Littlehales, superintendent of the Glen
Carbon Coal Company, in Cass Township, Schuylkill County.
This crime occurred March 15, 1869, on the main highway leading from his
home to the mines. The act was witnessed by several persons, but the
assassins escaped.
It was this act which caused Hon. Franklin B. Gowen, President of the
Philadelphia and Reading Railway Company, and the Philadelphia and
Reading Coal and Iron Company to send for Mr. Allan Pinkerton, and
engage his services in dispersing this murderous crew.
Mr. Pinkerton accepted the employment offered him and assigned to the
principal task a young man named James McParlan, a native of Ireland,
aged twenty-eight years.
McParlan set out on his mission Monday, October 27, 1873, in the
disguise of a vagabond Irishman seeking employment in the mines, and as
a criminal who was seeking refuge from crimes committed in the vicinity
of Buffalo, N. Y.
He assumed the name of James McKenna, and as such won his way into the
confidence of the Mollies, joined their organization and became known as
the most desperate Mollie in all the anthracite region.
Many others were murdered after McParlan arrived in the region. He
prevented murder when it was possible to do so. He warned those who were
to be victims through Mr. Franklin, superintendent of the Philadelphia
and Reading Coal Company, with whom he kept in daily contact by clever
correspondence.
Up to the hour that James McParlan arrived in Schuylkill County, no
information had been obtained concerning the identity of those who
murdered Littlehales, nor had it been possible to convict a single
Mollie Maguire in any court where they were brought to trial.
Another crime which McParlan was sent to investigate was the murder of
Morgan Powell, at Summit Hill, Carbon County, which occurred December 2,
1871. These were enough to occupy the time of a man even as clever as
Detective McParlan alias James McKenna.
During the more than two years that McParlan lived among the Mollies he
did not learn the murderers of Littlehales but succeeded in bringing to
justice many other murderers.
The arrests quickly followed one another when once begun early in 1876.
The trials began in Mauch Chunk in March. While McParlan did not testify
in the first case he furnished very valuable information, and greatly
assisted the prosecution.
Then followed the arrest and trial of others in Pottsville, Mauch Chunk
and Bloomsburg with the conviction of many.
McParlan went upon the stand in the trial of James Carrol, Thomas Duffy,
James Roarty, Hugh McGehan, and James Boyle, for the murder of B. F.
Yost, which occurred at Tamaqua, July 6, 1875. This trial was held at
Pottsville, before a full bench of Hon. C. L. Pershing, D. B. Green and
T. H. Walker. James Kerrigan, a Mollie, was a witness for the
Commonwealth.
The trial of Thomas Munley in June, 1876, in the same court, for the
murder of Thomas Sanger and William Uren, brought Mr. F. B. Gowen into
the case and the delivery of his wonderful speech, which will ever
remain one of the greatest in the history of the criminal courts of our
State.
The Mollies were convicted of murder in the first degree and paid the
extreme penalty on the gallows.
Many other Mollies were hanged, and on May 21, 1877, Governor J. F.
Hartranft issued warrants for the execution of eight of the Mollie
Maguires, which brought to an end the bloody record of this nefarious
organization.
----------
David Wilmot, Author of Proviso, Died at
Towanda, March 16, 1868
David Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, retired from Congress after six years of
service, March 4, 1851, with his name more generally involved in the
political discussion of the country than that of any other of our
statesmen. He was born in Bethany, Wayne County, Pennsylvania, January
20, 1814, and died in Towanda, March 16, 1868.
After acquiring an academic education wholly by his own efforts he was
admitted to the bar in Wilkes-Barre in 1834. He at once located at
Towanda, the county seat of Bradford, where he commenced his career and
to which place he brought great and lasting honor.
He took a leading part in the support of Van Buren for the presidency in
1836, and in 1844 he was elected to Congress from the Twelfth District,
then composed of the Counties of Bradford, Susquehanna and Tioga.
At that time there existed much friction with Mexico over the boundary
line, also ominous signs of a determined effort to extend slavery beyond
its then existing limits, tariff agitation, trouble with Great Britain
in the Oregon region, and other grave questions of national import.
The admission of Texas as a State, March 1, 1845, which was favored by
Wilmot and his party, was followed by the war with Mexico a year later.
A bill was introduced August 8, 1846, which authorized the placing of
$2,000,000 at the disposal of President Polk for the purpose of
negotiating peace with Mexico and the crucial hour in our history had
arrived. The prospect of the erection of future slave States out of
Mexican territory aroused the anti-slavery sentiment of the North, and
among the most pronounced of the dozen or more anti-slavery Democrats
was David Wilmot.
At a conference of anti-slavery Democrats was presented what became
known as the Wilmot proviso, of which the text was a repetition of the
Jefferson proviso to the ordinance of 1787, except that it was framed
for the present situation. The following is the full text: “Provided,
that as an expressed and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any
territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, by virtue of
any treaty that may be negotiated between them, and to the use by the
Executive of the moneys herein appropriated, neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of such territory,
except for crime whereof the party shall be first duly convicted.”
When offered by Wilmot the proviso produced the utmost consternation in
the House, as many members had become alarmed at the anti-slavery
sentiment in their districts. The House was in committee of the whole,
and to the surprise of both sides the proviso was adopted by a vote of
83 to 64, the Democrats of the North supporting it with but three
exceptions.
An effort was made in the Senate to remove the proviso, but the last day
of the session the gavel fell while the proviso was being debated, the
first instance in which a bill was defeated by speaking against time in
the Senate.
Wilmot was vehemently assailed by most of the leaders of his party, but
the growing anti-slavery sentiment in the North only served to inspire
Wilmot in his great battle, and he developed wonderful power as a public
disputant.
Wilmot’s contest for re-election in 1848 attracted the attention of the
whole Nation, and his triumph did much to strengthen the anti-slavery
movement throughout the North.
Opposition to the Wilmot Proviso was finally forced as a cardinal
doctrine of the party. When Wilmot came up for re-election in 1850 he
was nominated at the Democratic primaries, but the newspapers opposed
him and his defeat was regarded as one of the first duties of those who
desired the success of the Democracy against him, and it appeared as if
a Whig was sure to be elected.
Conservative Democrats suggested that both the Democratic candidates
withdraw and select another upon whom all could unite. Wilmot promptly
agreed on condition that the one nominated would sustain his
anti-slavery faith and be personally acceptable to himself. He was asked
to suggest a man, and he named Galusha A. Grow, then a young member of
the bar in Susquehanna County, who had studied law with him.
Grow was found by a committee in his mountain retreat and hurried back
to make his battle. He was elected and became the Speaker of Congress in
the trying days of the Civil War.
The year Wilmot retired from Congress he succeeded Hon. Horace Willston
on the bench of the judicial district then composed of Bradford,
Susquehanna and Sullivan Counties, and ably served in that capacity
until 1857, when he resigned to become a candidate for the governorship
against William F. Packer, by whom he was defeated. After his defeat,
Wilmot, by appointment of Governor Pollock, resumed his place on the
bench and served until 1861.
When Wilmot cast his lot with the Republican Party he was recognized as
a leader in the first national convention in 1856. He was tendered the
nomination as Vice President on the ticket with Fremont, which was
declined. He was chairman of the Committee on Resolutions and to him
belongs the honor of drafting the first platform of the Republican
Party.
In the campaign of 1860 Wilmot was a delegate at large and was honored
by being selected as the temporary chairman of that historic body that
nominated Abraham Lincoln.
Wilmot was a candidate for Senator in 1861, but Simon Cameron held the
balance of power in the contest, and gave the victory to Edgar Cowan.
Later during the same session when Cameron resigned his seat in the
Senate to enter the Cabinet of President Lincoln, as Secretary of War,
Wilmot was chosen to succeed him.
At the end of his two years’ term the Democrats had carried the
Legislature by one majority and made Charles R. Buckalew, of Columbia
County, the Senator. Soon thereafter he was appointed by President
Lincoln Judge of the Court of Claims, which position he held until death
terminated his remarkable career.
His vigor was much impaired during the last few years of his life by
steadily failing health, and he was finally able to give but little of
his time to his judicial duties, and March 16, 1868, he quietly passed
away in his home at Towanda.
In the beautiful suburbs of the town may be seen Riverside Cemetery, and
near the public road stands the simple marble headstone of the grave of
David Wilmot, with his name and date of birth and death on the inner
surface, and on the outer surface, where it can be seen by every
passerby, is inscribed the text of the Wilmot Proviso.
----------
First Excise Laws of Pennsylvania Enacted
March 17, 1684
The first excise tax in Pennsylvania was imposed by the Assembly of the
Province March 17, 1684, in an act entitled “Bill for Aid and Assistance
of the Government.”
This act seems to have been prompted by a record in the minutes of the
Assembly for February 20, 1684: “The Govr. & Provll Councill have
thought fitt. from the Exteriordinary in the Case, to place Patrick
Robinson as administrator to Benj. Acrods Estate, and to have a recourse
to this board from time to time.
“Wheras, the Verdict of the Coroner’s Jury was, that Benj. Acrod killed
himselfe with drinke, wch might give the Province a pretence to his
Estate therin. The Propor & Govr. Relinquished all his Claime thereunto
in Council, and desired ye Council to take Care that some person be
appoynted to take Care of ye Estate of ye sd Acrod, for ye paymt of his
debts, and the remaineder to be disposed of according to Law, &c.”
At the session held on March 26 a bill was read that it should be left
to the Governor and Provincial Council to discuss with Indians matters
concerning the use of rum among them. Another bill was read which
prohibited bargains being made “when People are in Drinke.” This bill
was passed.
The objectionable features of the first excise bill passed by the
Assembly were soon after repealed and not again renewed until the year
1738, when the Provincial Assembly, August 14, heard a bill “sent by the
House of Representatives, entitled an Act for laying an Excise on Wine,
Rum, Brandy and other Spirits.” This bill was passed without amendments
and signed by Lieutenant Governor George Thomas, August 25, 1738.
This bill proved to be very unpopular, and it remained in force only a
few months.
In 1744 this subject was again revived when at the session of the
Provincial Council held May 25 Lieutenant Governor Thomas in a message
sent to him by the Assembly was advised among other things that “We are
also of the Opinion that it will be for the Interests of Our
Constituents to make further Provision concerning the Excise Act and we
have a bill before us to this Purpose; and we hope these Bills, and such
others as shall be truly useful to the Province, when offered, will meet
with the Governor’s assent. And we, on our Part, shall then Cheerfully
make Provision for his Support for the Current Year, equal to any
granted for the like Time to either of his immediate Predecessors.”
This bill proposed an excise tax as a means of providing money without
resorting to a general tax, not only to be used to purchase arms and
ammunition for defense, but as well to answer such demands as might be
made upon the inhabitants of the Province by his Majesty for distressing
the public enemy in America. This bill, like the former ones, was not
long in operation.
March 31, 1764, a bill was passed by the Assembly and Council and signed
by Lieutenant Governor John Penn, which tended to suppress “Idleness,
Drunkenness, & other Debaucheries, within this Government.”
The attention of the Assembly was once more called to the excise as a
productive source of revenue on February 24, 1772, when Lieutenant
Governor Richard Penn laid before the Council a bill sent to him by the
Assembly, entitled “An Act for the support of the Government of this
Province making the Excise on Wine, Rum, Brandy, and other spirits more
equal, and preventing Frauds in the Collecting and paying the said
Excise.”