fever, which she contracted while nursing other victims of the plague.
----------
John Dickinson Writes First “Farmer”
Letter, November 10, 1767
In 1767 a bill was passed by Parliament which affirmed its right “to
bind the Colonies in all cases whatsoever” and levied duties on tea,
paper, glass and painters’ colors imported into the Colonies from Great
Britain, payable in America. This act, with several others, rekindled
the opposition of the Colonies. Again associations were formed to
prevent the importation of British goods and meetings called to resolve,
petition and remonstrate.
The first of the “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania to the
Inhabitants of the British Colonies,” appeared November 10, 1767, the
authorship of which gave John Dickinson, of Philadelphia, so much of his
celebrity.
They were published in every colony, also in London, and afterwards
translated into French in Paris.
Dr. Benjamin Franklin, who had formerly been an enemy of Dickinson wrote
the preface to the London edition; while the people of Boston, assembled
in a town meeting, voted Dickinson their thanks.
Letter No. 1 began: “My Dear Countrymen: I am a farmer, settled, after a
variety of fortunes, near the banks of the Delaware, in the Province of
Pennsylvania. I received a liberal education, and have been engaged in
busy scenes of life; but am now convinced that a man may be as happy
without bustle as with it.
“My farm is small; my servants few and good; I have a little money at
interest; I wish for no more; my employment in my own affairs is easy;
and with a contented, grateful mind, undisturbed by worldly hopes or
fears, relating to myself, I am completing the number of days allotted
to me by Divine goodness.”
Every man ought to espouse the sacred cause of liberty to the extent of
his powers and “The Farmer” offered some thoughts on late transactions,
praying that his lines might be read with the same zeal for the
happiness of British America with which they had been written.
He had observed that little notice had been taken of the Act of
Parliament for suspending the legislation of New York. This was
punishment for noncompliance by the Assembly of that Province with a
former act requiring certain provisions to be made for the troops. To
compel the colonies to furnish certain articles for the troops was, he
proceeded to show, taxation in another form and New York was being
punished for resisting such taxation.
In Letter No. 2, the “Farmer” took up the Act imposing duties on paper,
glass, etc., which he deemed a most dangerous innovation upon the old
practice of imposing duties merely for the regulation of trade.
Parliament had a right to regulate the trade of the colonies; but here
it was vowing the design of raising revenues from America; a right,
which, America felt, was inherent in her own representatives. This
taxation was attempted by the device of levying duties on certain
articles imported to the colonies. The effect of this was clearly
pointed out.
Great Britain had prohibited certain manufactures in the colonies, and
had prohibited the purchase of such manufactured goods except from the
mother country.
“If you once admit that Great Britain may lay duties upon her
exportations to us, for the purpose of levying money on us only,” he
wrote, “she will then have nothing to do but to lay those duties on the
articles, which she prohibits us to manufacture—and the tragedy of
American liberty is finished.”
In Letter No. 3 the “Farmer” explained there were other modes of
resistance to oppression than any breach of peace and deprecated, as
Dickinson did ever afterward, any attempt to make the colonies
independent.
“If once we are separated from our mother country,” he said, “what new
form of government shall we adopt, or where shall we find another
Britain to supply our loss? Torn from the body to which we are united by
religion, liberty, laws, affections, relation, language and commerce, we
must bleed at every vein.”
In the subsequent letters, the dangers to American liberty were
expiated, objections answered and the people urged to make a stand for
themselves and their posterity peaceably, prudently, firmly, jointly.
“You are assigned by Divine Providence, in the appointed orders of
things the protectors of unborn ages, whose fate depends upon your
virtue,” he said. “Whether they shall arise the generous and
indisputable heirs of the noblest patrimonies or the dastardly and
hereditary drudges of imperious taskmasters, you must determine.”
The effect of the Farmer’s letters was tremendous. About this time a
letter to Governor Penn arrived from the Earl of Hillsborough, dated
April 21, 1768, informing him that King George III considered the
circular letter from the Massachusetts Legislature, calling upon the
other colonies to send commissioners to New York City to consider a
united representation to the King and Parliament to be of a most
dangerous and factious tendency, and that Governor Penn should exert his
influence to prevail upon the Assembly of Pennsylvania to take no notice
of it, and to prorogue or dissolve that body.
The Assembly, September 16, resolved that the Governor had no authority
to prorogue or dissolve and that it was the undoubted right of the
Assembly to correspond with any of the American colonies to obtain by
decent petitions to the King and Parliament redress of any grievances.
Four days later the Assembly addressed a petition to the King, the
following day one to the House of Lords and another to the House of
Commons. Each of these paraphrased in softer language and adapted to
Pennsylvania the latter from Massachusetts.
The petition to the King referred to the settlement of the province when
it was only a wilderness with a view of enjoying that liberty, civil and
religious, of which the petitioners’ ancestors were in a great measure
deprived in their native land, and also to extend the British empire,
increase its commerce and promote its wealth and power.
With inexpressible labor, toil and expense, and without assistance from
the mother country, that wilderness had been peopled, planted and
improved.
It was conceived that by no act had the people surrendered up or
forfeited their rights and liberties as natural-born subjects of the
British Government; but those rights had been brought over and were
vested by inheritance.
The duties and taxes for the sole purpose of raising revenue imposed by
parliament upon the Americans, they not being represented in that body,
and being taxable only by themselves or their representatives, were
destructive of those rights and without precedent until the passage of
the Stamp Act.
Whenever the King had had occasion for aid to defend and secure the
colonies, requisitions had been made upon the Pennsylvania Assemblies,
who with cheerfulness granted them, and “often so liberally as to exceed
the abilities and circumstances of the people.”
It was essential to the liberties of Englishmen that no laws be made
which would take away their property without their consent, and even if
this taxation had been constitutional the present law was injurious to
the mother country as well as America. And lastly, the revenue was to be
applied in such colonies as it should be thought proper. Thus
Pennsylvania would pay, without their consent, taxes which might be
applied to the use of other colonies.
----------
In Anticipation of War with France General
Washington Arrives in Philadelphia,
November 11, 1798
On November 11, 1798, General George Washington, who was then
lieutenant-general of the army, arrived in Philadelphia to assume charge
of matters in relation to the threatened war with France, and was
received by the troops of horse and a large number of uniformed
companies of foot.
On the 24th President John Adams, who had left the city on account of
the recurrence of the yellow fever, returned, and was received with
salutes from the sloop-of-war “Delaware,” Captain Stephen Decatur, and
Captain Matthew Hale’s Ninth Company of Philadelphia Artillery, which
was stationed near Center Square.
The presence of John Jay, of New York, in England to make a treaty with
Great Britain aroused the French to a sense of the importance of
observing its own treaty stipulations with the United States, which had
been utterly disregarded since the war with England began. Jay’s treaty
with England, November 19, 1794, caused such a division of the Americans
that they were all either Frenchmen or Englishmen in their politics.
Genet, the French minister, received the most flattering attention from
the day he arrived until he was recalled. When Adet, his successor,
ordered all Frenchmen in America to wear the tri-colored French cockade,
everybody in Philadelphia wore it.
On January 4, 1795, a new decree was issued, giving full force and
effect to those clauses of the treaty of commerce, signed in 1778, with
the United States.
When the news of the failure of the Americans to elect Thomas Jefferson
President reached France, the Directory issued a decree, March 2, 1797,
purporting to define the authority granted to French cruisers by a
former decree. It was intended to annihilate American commerce in
European waters.
The treaty with America was modified as to make American vessels liable
to capture for any cause recognized as lawful ground of capture by Jay’s
treaty.
They also decreed that any Americans found serving on board hostile
owned vessels should be treated as pirates; in other words, American
seamen, impressed by the British, were made liable to be hanged by the
French.
On January 18, 1798, a sweeping decree against American commerce was
promulgated by the French Directory.
In consequence of this insolent attitude of the French Directory and the
continued seizures of American vessels by French cruisers, the
popularity of France had declined, and it soon became evident that the
country was slowly but surely drifting into war.
On March 5, 1798, President Adams informed Congress of the failure of
the mission of the American Envoys, and accompanying this information
was a message from the French Directory to the Council of Five Hundred
urging the passage of further objectionable laws against American
commerce.
A few days later Congress was informed that the representatives of
Prince Talleyrand, one of the French ministers, had demanded a bribe of
£50,000 for the members of the Directory and a loan to the Republic, in
consideration of the adoption of a satisfactory treaty.
Great excitement was caused by the publication of these facts. In every
section of the country was re-echoed the vigorous language of Charles
Pinckney: “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.”
Governor Mifflin and his associates in the State Government openly
sympathized with France, and in the Pennsylvania Senate the feeling in
favor of France was still very strong. On March 20 that body adopted
resolutions declaring that the representatives of Pennsylvania bear
their public testimony against war in any shape or with any nation
unless the territories of the United States shall be invaded, but more
especially against the people with whom our hearts and hands have been
lately united in friendship.
In the House, however, the resolutions were received and laid upon the
table, but never taken up for consideration.
The councils of Philadelphia passed resolutions in favor of sustaining
friendly relations with France, but strongly endorsed the Federal
administration in its conduct of the matter. A great meeting of the
merchants and traders of Philadelphia was held, April 11, when an
address to the President was adopted, which expressed regret at the
failure of the negotiations with France, and their determination to
support the Government.
Popular indignation at the conduct of France was rapidly intensifying,
and the publication of a new patriotic song, “Hail Columbia,” greatly
stimulated the agitation.
At the request of Gilbert Fox, a young actor, Joseph Hopkinson, of
Philadelphia, then twenty-eight years of age, wrote “Hail Columbia” to
accompany the air of “The President’s March,” which had become very
popular in Philadelphia.
This new song was first sung by Fox at his benefit in the theater, April
25, 1798, and excited the wildest applause. The words were caught up and
repeated throughout the country.
Among other demonstrations in support of the Government was a meeting of
youths between eighteen and twenty-three years of age, April 28, at
James Cameron’s tavern.
Resolutions were passed approving the action of the Federal Government,
and a committee was appointed to prepare an address to the President. On
May 7, more than twelve hundred of them each wearing a black cockade
marched in procession to the home of President Adams.
On the following night parties of men wearing the French cockades
appeared on the streets and made some disorder, in consequence of which
the Citizens’ Volunteers were placed on guard at the mint and arsenal,
and troops of cavalry paraded the streets at night.
The newspapers contributed not a little to the excitation of feeling.
Editor William Cobbett was particularly violent and Benjamin Franklin
Bache, in the Aurora, was almost as vehement.
The citizen military organizations were most active and during the
summer months assembled frequently and performed various evolutions.
Early in June, Governor Mifflin addressed a circular letter to militia
officers, requesting their co-operation in preparation of measures for
defense.
The necessity for Lieutenant-General Washington and his army soon
passed. The trouble with France was brought to a satisfactory result
through diplomatic channels and President Adams issued a proclamation
calling for a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer, on April
25, 1799, over the happy event.
----------
First Jury Drawn in Early Courts of
Province on November 12, 1678
The early judicial history of Pennsylvania presents striking features of
interest to two classes in the community—the professional lawyer and the
student of history.
To the former it must be a matter of curiosity and interest to study the
first rude means devised to administer justice between man and man—to
discern among the transactions of those early times the rise and
development of institutions and practices.
But to the student of history the subject affords a different kind of
interest. He finds gratification in the manner, customs and modes of
thought once prevalent in these early courts.
In them he finds traces of the past life of the Nation, learns of the
matters which then interested the people, the nature of their
industries, the extent of their commerce, the character of their
education, the attention paid to their morals, and even the depth of
their religious convictions.
The early courts of what is now Pennsylvania had their origin in 1673,
under the government of James, Duke of York.
After the Swedish settlements on the Delaware were conquered by the
Dutch, the Swedes were directed to concentrate in villages, but they
never did so. Among the places named for this purpose was Upland, now
Chester.
The Swedish magistrates were permitted to remain in office—a
conciliatory policy which was imitated by the English when they came
into possession of Pennsylvania.
The Dutch divided the western shore of the Delaware into three counties
or judicial districts, the most northern of which was called Ophlandt,
its capital being Upland. This division was recognized and continued by
the English.
In 1676, under Governor Andross, the Magistrates of Upland were Peter
Cock (Cox), Peter Rambo, Israel Helm, Lace Andries, Oele Swen, and Otto
Ernest Cock, all Swedes.
At the court at Upland, November 13, 1677, Captain Hans Jargin was
ordered “to fit up the House of Defense for the use of the court at its
next sitting.” The court previously had been holding its sessions at the
house of Neeles Laersen, who kept a tavern, a troublesome fellow, whose
daughter seems to have taken after her father, both having appeared
several times in court.
On November 12, 1678, complaint was made against Laersen for building a
fence which stopped the usual path of travel over the meadow. The Court
ordered him to remove the obstruction.
At the same session of court the case of William Orian vs. John D'haes
was called. It was an action on a book account for the sum of 167
guilders, and the first jury known to have been called in Pennsylvania
was impaneled.
The names of these original jurymen were Hans Moens, Dunk Williams,
Xtopper Barnes, Edmund Draufton, Peter Jockum, Isaac Sanoy, Jan
Hendricks, Jonas Kien, Moens Cock, John Browne, Jan Boelson and Henry
Hastings.
The verdict was for the plaintiff for the full amount of his claim which
had been disputed.
These early county courts were vested with criminal jurisdiction in all
save cases of heinous or enormous crimes. Treason, murder and
manslaughter were outside their cognizance. Trials for larceny,
swearing, laboring on the first day of the week, assault and battery,
shooting or maiming the prosecutor’s hogs, unduly encouraging
drunkenness, selling rum to the Indians and offenses against the public
morality and decency constituted the great bulk of the criminal
business.
“Lying in conversation” was fined half a crown, “drinking healths which
may provoke people to unnecessary and excessive drinking” was fined five
shillings, while the sale of beer made of molasses at more than a penny
a quart was visited with a like penalty of five shillings for every
quart sold.
No person could “Smoak tobacco in the streets of Philadelphia or New
Castle, by day or by night,” on penalty of a fine of twelve pence, to be
applied to the purchase of leather buckets and other instruments against
fire.
Any person “convicted at playing of cards, dice, lotteries or such-like
enticing, vain and evil sports and games” was to pay five shillings or
to be imprisoned five days at hard labor, while those who introduced or
frequented “such rude and riotous sports and practices as prizes, stage
plays, masques, revels, bull baitings, cock fightings and the like” were
either to forfeit twenty shillings or to be imprisoned at hard labor for
ten days.
Smoking tobacco in the courtroom was an heinous offense. Luke Watson,
himself a Justice, twice offended the Court on the same day in this
manner and was fined the first time fifty pounds of tobacco, the second
100 pounds. In 1687 William Bradford was fined for swearing in the
presence of the Justices, and Thomas Hasellum was fined for singing and
making a noise.
Thomas Jones, who was wanted in court as a witness, was a hardened
character and refused to appear. When two constables brought him into
court he cursed at a horrible rate.
The records state “said Jones being brought into court, the Court told
him of his misdemeanor, and told him he should suffer for it; he told
the Court he questioned their power, so the Court ordered the Sheriff
and constable to secure him and they carried and dragged him to ye Smith
Shop, where they put irons upon him, but he quickly got the Irons off
and Escaped, he having before wounded several persons’ legs with his
spurs that strived with him, and when they was goeing to put him in the
Stocks, before that they put him in Irons, he kicked the Sheriff on the
mouth and was very unruly and abusive, and soon got out of the Stocks.”
An excellent law in the early days of the Province provided “that
whereas there was a necessity for the sake of commerce in this infancy
of things, that the growth and produce of this Province should pass in
lieu of money, that, therefore, all merchantable wheat, rye, Indian
corn, barley, oats, pork, beef and tobacco should pass current at the
market price.”
Of this provision the people availed themselves largely. They frequently
gave bonds to each other acknowledging their debts in kinds. Judgments
were accordingly sometimes entered “for 172 pounds of pork and two
bushels of wheat, being the balance of an account brought into court,”
or for “32 shillings for a gun, and 150 pounds of pork for a shirt,”
while, perhaps, the climax is reached in an entry of judgment for “One
thousand of six-penny nails, and three bottles of rum.”
The early Provincial Courts were unusual peace makers and made peculiar
awards.
In Chester County, in 1687, in an action of an assault and battery by
Samuel Baker against Samuel Rowland was this award: “Samuel Rowland
shall pay the lawful charges of this court, and give the said Samuel
Baker a Hatt, and so Discharge each other of all manner of Differences
from the Beginning of the World to this Present day.”
The sentences imposed were not unusually severe. The whipping post, the
pillory and the imposition of fines were usually resorted to as
punishments in preference to long terms of imprisonment. The services of
the culprit were more desirable than to keep him within a prison’s
walls.
----------
Council of Censors First Met Under Constitution
of 1776, November 13, 1783
The Constitution of 1776, as would be expected, was hastily prepared.
Great excitement prevailed everywhere throughout the Province and the
document was adopted with the same determined spirit which characterized
all public movements during that thrilling period of our history.
Nothing less than the impending war for liberty could justify the
methods that were employed to change the frame of government under which
the people had lived for nearly a century.
The most effective improvement in this instrument could have been made
by amendment in the regular manner, but this method would not have
served to satisfy the determined purposes of the leaders of that day.
The chief objections to the Constitution were the existence of a single
legislative body, and a council of censors consisting of two men from
each city and county in the State to hold office for seven years.
The function of the censors were of a most extraordinary character. The
members were to meet annually, and inquire whether the Constitution had
been kept inviolate; whether the legislative and executive branches had
carefully functioned; whether taxes had been justly levied and
collected, etc. A majority vote of their number was sufficient to
determine every action, excepting the calling of a convention to revise
the Constitution, which alone required the consent of two-thirds of the
council.
It is believed that George Bryan and James Cannon were the authors of
this unusual provision. Both were ardent patriots.
The Constitution fairly reflected the political opinions of those
opposed to the English Parliament.
The office of Governor was swept away, and the Constitution of 1776
provided that the Supreme Executive Council should choose one of its
number President, whose duties were those of the Chief Executive.
Every effort to secure a revision of the Constitution proved unavailing
and public opinion waited impatiently for the first seven years to pass,
in the hopes that a revision would then be possible. If the enemies of
the Constitution were numerous and bitter, it had also many enthusiastic
supporters.
The Council of Censors assembled, as the Constitution required, on
November 13, 1783, and continuing in session nearly a year, adjourned
finally September 25, 1784. Frederick A. Muhlenberg was elected
President.
Various amendments were discussed and strong difference of opinion
manifested, but in the address of the freemen of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, at the close of their labors, they recommended a
continuance of the frame of government.