words of patriotic defiance that shook the throne of King George III and
proclaimed to an astonished world the Declaration of Independence, that
same hall in which the Congress had continued to sit during the greater
part of that war, the State House in Philadelphia, was soon to witness
the assembling of such a body of men as in point of intellectual talent,
personal integrity and lofty purpose had perhaps never before been
brought together.
On the proposition of uniting the water of the Ohio and Potomac Rivers
deputies from five States met at Annapolis in September, 1786. Their
powers were too limited, and nothing was accomplished. This meeting was
not, however, without its beneficial effect, for there were assembled
men who deeply felt the depressed and distracted condition of the
country, and put their sentiments into action.
They drew up a report and an address to all the States strongly
representing the inefficiency of the present Federal Government, and
earnestly urging them to send delegates to meet in Philadelphia in May,
1787. Congress responded to this proceeding in February by adopting
resolutions recommending the proposed measure.
On the day appointed for the meeting, May 14, 1787, only a small number
of delegates had arrived in Philadelphia. The deliberations did not
commence, therefore, until May 25, when there were present twenty-nine
members representing nine States. Others soon arrived, until there were
fifty-five to respond to their names. Never, perhaps, had any body of
men combined for so great a purpose, to form a constitution which was to
rule a great people for many generations.
Washington was the outstanding figure, and then the idol of the whole
people. And there was Rufus King, Gerry and Strong, of Massachusetts;
Langdon, of New Hampshire; Ellsworth and Sherman, of Connecticut;
Hamilton, of New York; Livingston and Dickinson, of New Jersey;
Randolph, Wythe and Madison, of Virginia; Martin, of Maryland; Davies,
of North Carolina; Rutledge and Pickens, of South Carolina.
From our own great Commonwealth were Franklin, one of the profoundest
philosophers in the world, and, though nearly fourscore years of age,
was able to grasp and throw light upon the complex problems relating to
the science of government; Robert Morris, the great financier, of whom
it has been truthfully said, that “Americans owed, and still owe, as
much acknowledgment to the financial operations of Robert Morris, as to
the negotiations of Benjamin Franklin, or even to the arms of George
Washington.” Gouverneur Morris conspicuous for his accomplishments in
learning, his fluent conversation, and sterling abilities in debate;
George Clymer, distinguished among Pennsylvanians as one of the first to
raise a defiant voice against the aribitrary acts of the mother country;
Thomas Mifflin, ardent almost beyond discretion, in zeal for his
country’s rights and liberties; James Wilson, the most distinguished
lawyer in that body, and Jared Ingersoll, another of the great lawyers
of that day.
When the convention proceeded to organize, Robert Morris nominated
General Washington to preside, and he was unanimously elected. Standing
rules were adopted, one of which was that nothing spoken during the
deliberations be printed or otherwise published or made known in any
manner without special permission.
The delegates to the convention had been appointed merely with a view to
the revision or improvement of the old Articles of Confederation, which
still held the States together as a Nation.
Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, in opening the great discussion, laid bare
the defects of the Articles of Confederation, and then submitted a
series of resolutions embodying the substance of a plan of government,
similar to that suggested in letters of Washington, Madison and
Jefferson a few months previous.
The plan in question proposed the formation of a general government,
constituted as follows: The national legislature to consist of two
branches, the members of the first branch to be elected by the people of
the several States, and the members of the second branch to be elected
by the first branch; a national chief executive to be chosen by the
national legislature; and a national judiciary. Provision also was made
for the admission of new states into the Union.
Mr. Randolph’s plan had many supporters, but other projects were brought
forward, which occasioned angry debates for some days, and but for the
timely and healing wisdom of Dr. Franklin, the mentor of the
Constitution, might have broken up the body.
The debate closed September 17, and the result of the convention’s
labors was the formation of a constitution establishing a national
government on the principles that the affairs of the people of the
United States were thenceforth to be administered not by a confederacy
or mere league of friendship between the Sovereign States, but by a
government, distributed into three great departments—legislative,
judicial and executive.
The final draft of the Constitution was signed by all members present
except Randolph and Mason, of Virginia and Gerry, of Massachusetts.
Washington signed first, and as he stood, pen in hand, said: “Should the
States reject this excellent Constitution, the probability is that an
opportunity will never again be offered to cancel another in peace—the
next will be drawn in blood.” The other members solemnly signed the
historic document.
The convention, however, was not clothed with legislative power, nor was
the Continental Congress, competent to accept or reject it. It was
referred to the several States to be the law of the Nation when ratified
by nine of the States.
It was not until the summer of 1788 that ratification of the nine States
was obtained, beginning with Delaware, December 7, 1787, closely
followed by Pennsylvania, five days later, December 12, 1787, some by
large and some by very small majorities.
In New York the opposition resulted in serious riots. Of the thirteen
original states, Rhode Island was the last to accept the Constitution,
which she did in May, 1790.
----------
Attempt to Impeach Justices Yeates, Shippen
and Smith Fails, December 13, 1803
Thomas McKean became Governor of Pennsylvania December 17, 1799.
With the election of McKean there was at once a lively commotion
concerning the disposition of offices, and for the first time in the
history of the State the Governor found himself confronted with this new
and perplexing problem.
There never had been any radical change in the offices during the long
period of the Provincial Government, while the party of the Revolution,
after the war, with the single exception of Dickinson’s term, had been
in power until this time. But now the political ax was to be swung.
McKean knew how to swing it and the work suited his strong nature. His
course was sharply criticized, and party feeling during his entire
administration was exceedingly warm and bitter.
The Federalists in the Legislature made an attack upon the Governor for
holding the principles he enunciated, and the address of the Senate was
one of accusation instead of congratulation.
Governor McKean made a long reply, declaring that the objectionable
expressions were uttered before he assumed office, and that as regards
the removals from office he relied upon his right to make such changes
as he deemed proper, without accountability to any person or party.
In the address of the Democratic nominee for 1803 is used the following
language: “As Pennsylvania is the keystone of the Democratic arch, every
engine will be used to sever it from its place”—being probably the first
instance in which the comparison of the Commonwealth to the keystone of
an arch was used, and the origin of a figure of speech since very
common.
During the session of the Legislature, December 13, 1803, a memorial was
presented from Thomas Passmore, of Philadelphia, charging Justices
Jasper Yeates, Edward Shippen and Thomas Smith of the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania, with oppression and false imprisonment, the complainant
having been committed for contempt of court.
The matter was considered in General Assembly and the House recommended
that the court be impeached for high misdemeanors. Articles of complaint
were prepared and the impeachment sent to the Senate. It was not until
the subsequent session that proceedings were had when upon the final
vote in the Senate, 13 voted guilty and 11 not guilty. The
constitutional majority of two-thirds not being obtained the accused
were acquitted.
In this proceeding the chief point in connection was the extent to which
the common law of England was applicable or in force in Pennsylvania;
whether the justices had exceeded their authority in construing its
provisions and harmonizing them with the statutes then in force, and
also with peculiar exigencies of the case out of which the impeachment
had grown.
As an element of State history the affair of the impeachment of the
justices was of minor importance. In its relation to the jurisprudence
of the Commonwealth, it was a subject of great moment, and was discussed
and commented upon in all the populous States of the country, as the
beginning of a movement to set aside the strict teachings of English
common law and to establish precedents applicable to our own necessities
without especial regard to those which originally had been imported from
the Mother Country.
The time had come when an independent judicial system in this State was
made necessary, and this was one of the beginnings.
It can hardly be questioned but that partisan politics played some part
in the impeachment proceedings, as Justices Yeates, Shippen and Smith
belonged to the Federalist Party, and their impeachment would have made
three fine places for their opponents. It was ever thus.
A movement was started in 1805 by a faction of the Democratic Party for
revision of the Constitution. It grew out of the impeachment
proceedings, and the advocates of the measure proposed to make the
election of Senators annual, to reduce the patronage of the Governor and
to limit the tenure of the judiciary.
This new party assumed the name of “Constitutionalists,” while those
opposed styled themselves “Friends of the People.” The controversy for
some reason was carried on with much bitterness.
Governor McKean strongly opposed another constitutional convention, and
in a message expressed his views as follows:
“The organization of the judicial power of Pennsylvania has been long
and fairly condemned. But there is not a defect suggested from any
quarter which the Legislature is not competent to remedy. The authority
of the Judges may be restricted or enlarged. The law they dispense,
whether statute law or common law, may be annulled or modified. The
delay of justice may be obviated by increasing the number of judges in
proportion to the obvious increase of judicial business or by
instituting local tribunals, where local cases demand a more constant
exercise of jurisdiction.”
Although the constitutional convention was not held, the proposition
found many supporters in all parties. Under the changed conditions
McKean’s friends knew that Editor Duane’s influence would seek to defeat
his renomination for Governor if possible. The nomination for Governor
was then made by a legislative caucus.
The legislative nominating caucus at Lancaster dissolved in confusion.
Some were for McKean, while others equally enthusiastic were for Simon
Snyder, the speaker of the House. The “Freeman’s Journal” characterized
Snyder as a “Pennsylvania Dutchman” and intimated that even Duane in the
“Aurora” did not give him a very hearty support. The campaign was
spirited. Numerous societies were formed and addresses in German
broadcast.
Governor McKean was elected by 5601 majority and once more found himself
supported by those from whom he had broken away only a few years before.
The Constitutionalists soon disappeared from the political stage.
The re-election of the Governor was not without its losses, however, for
soon afterward he became involved in libel suits with Duane, Dr. Leib
and others, while they in the spirit of retaliation presented the
Governor for impeachment on charges of abuse of the executive power.
The impeachment proceedings were hardly more than a revival of the old
political troubles in which envy and jealousy played the leading roles.
The committee of the House investigated the charges and reported to the
House, when a vote was taken which resulted in a tie. The division was
strictly on party lines, and the matter was therefore indefinitely
postponed. The Governor’s reputation was in no wise injured in the
unfortunate action.
The Governor, in a message to the General Assembly, reminded the members
that “libeling had become the crying sin of the Nation and the times.”
He strongly denounced a condition which permitted the prostitution of
the liberty of the press, the overwhelming torrent of political
dissension, the indiscriminate demolition of public characters, and the
barbarous inroads upon the peace and happiness of individuals, etc.
----------
John Binns and Samuel Stewart Fight Last
Duel in Pennsylvania December
14, 1805
Dueling was prohibited by an act of Assembly in Pennsylvania March 31,
1806, and it is a fact that the passage of this prohibitory measure was
due wholly, or in a great degree, to a duel which had occurred between
John Binns and Samuel Stewart December 14, 1805.
The prominence of the antagonists had much to do with the public feeling
which followed this affair.
Binns was the owner and editor of the Republican Argus, of
Northumberland, the most influential newspaper published at that time in
the State save the Aurora, of Philadelphia, and Binns was the agency
which, a few years later, drove that paper out of publication.
Samuel Stewart was a resident of Williamsport, where he enjoyed a wide
political influence, which made him the object of attack in the
opposition newspapers.
John Binns in his autobiography says: “On Saturday, November 2, 1805,
while I was in the public ball alley, in Sunbury, with a yellow pine bat
in my right hand, tossing a ball against a wall, waiting for Major
Charles Maclay to play a game, a very tall, stout stranger came to me
and said:
“‘My name is Sam Stewart, of Lycoming County; your name, I understand,
is John Binns, and that you are the editor of the Republican Argus.’ I
answered: ‘You have been correctly informed,’ ‘I wish,’ said he, ‘to
know who is the author of the letters published in that paper signed
“One of the People.”' ‘For what purpose?’ said I. ‘Because,’ said he,
‘there are some remarks in one of them which reflect upon my character,
and I must know the author.’
“With this demand I declined to reply, but said: ‘If there be anything
in them untrue it shall be corrected.’ Stewart, who was standing at my
right side, instantly threw his left arm across my breast and with it
held both my arms tight above the elbows and at the same time threw his
right arm across the back of my head, violently pushing the end of his
forefinger into the corner of my right eye, evidently with intent to
tear it out of my head.
“Upon the instant I struck him, with all the strength I could command,
over the shin with the edge of the yellow pine bat, which I fortunately
had in my right hand. This severe blow made Stewart instantly snatch his
finger from my eye, and seizing me around the waist with both arms
lifted me from the ground and endeavored to throw me down.
“This attack and struggle took place in the ball alley of Henry
Schaffer, into whose hotel I went and wrote a note, which was handed to
Mr. Stewart forthwith by Major Maclay, Sunbury, November 2, 1805. ‘After
threatening me like a bravo, you have attacked me like a ruffian. Some
satisfaction ought to be rendered for such conduct. If you have the
spirit and the courage to meet me as a gentleman, and will appoint time
and place and meet me with pistols, accompanied by a friend, what has
passed shall be overlooked by John Binns.’
“To this note Mr. Stewart returned a verbal answer, by Major Maclay,
that he was going to the city, but would be back in two or three weeks,
when he would acquaint Mr. Binns of his arrival and give him time to
send to Buffalo (Union County) for Major Maclay, who, he presumed, would
attend Mr. Binns as his friend on the occasion.
“On the day of its date I received a note, of which the following is a
copy, from Andrew Kennedy, the printer of the Northumberland Gazette,
who informed me Mr. Stewart was at his house, and requested that any
answer I thought proper to send should be sent there.
“‘Northumberland, Dec. 13, 1805.
“‘When I received your challenge I was at that time on my way to the
city, and had it not in my power to meet you, but now I am here, ready
to see you. You will therefore, mention the time and place, and you will
have it in your power to try my spirits that you so much doubted; it
must be immediately; let me hear from you.'
“To this note I forthwith returned the following answer:
“‘Yours I have just received. You are aware that my friend Major Maclay
is to attend me; so soon as he arrives, I shall be ready; I shall send
for him immediately, and expect he will lose no time in coming to
Northumberland, in which case I presume every necessary arrangement can
be made between him and your friend this evening and we can meet
tomorrow morning.’
“Immediately after writing the above note, I wrapped a pair of pistols
in my great-coat pocket and walked about half a mile to the house of
William Bonham, where I had directed that my horse, and any answer sent
to my note, should be forwarded. While waiting at Bonham’s, Major Maclay
arrived. I made him a statement of all that had passed between Stewart
and myself, put him in full possession of my opinion and wishes, and he
went to Northumberland to settle the time and place.
“On Maclay’s return, he informed me that the meeting was to be at 7
o’clock the next morning behind Lawshe’s house, opposite Derrstown,
where we agreed to sleep that night.
“We were on the ground at 7 o’clock just at the gray of the morning. In
a few minutes, we saw Stewart and Kennedy coming down the lane. After
mutual salutations, Maclay and Kennedy then retired and after some
conversation, stepped eight paces and placed Stewart and myself at the
extreme ends of the line. Maclay then said: ‘Gentlemen, it is agreed
between Kennedy and myself, that if either of the parties shall leave
his ground until the affair is finally settled, such party shall be
regarded as disgraced.’
“The seconds then tossed up to determine which of whom should give the
word. Maclay won. The pistols were presented and discharged so
simultaneously that but one report was heard. Neither of the balls took
effect. Maclay then addressed Kennedy and said, ‘You had better consult
your principal, and I will do the same.’ Maclay’s first words to Binns
were, ‘Kennedy is a scoundrel. He is determined, if he can, to have you
shot.’ Binns said, ‘Very well, you know the terms agreed upon and we
will carry them out.’
“Mr. Maclay came between the antagonists and said, 'Gentlemen, I think
this business has gone far enough and may be amicably and honorably
adjusted. To effect this I propose that Mr. Stewart shall apologize for
the attack he made upon Mr. Binns, and then Mr. Binns declare that the
publication which gave offense to Mr. Stewart was not made from any wish
to wound the feelings or injuriously affect the character of Mr.
Stewart, but because Mr. Binns believed it to be true and that it was a
matter proper for public publication.’”
After a pause Mr. Stewart made the required apology and Binns made the
declaration which his friend proposed.
The matter being thus satisfactorily arranged, the parties shook hands
and at a tavern in the neighborhood they and their friends breakfasted
together. Stewart and Binns continued friends.
Stewart was elected to the Assembly from Lycoming County by the Federal
Party and every year voted for John Binns, then editor of the Democratic
Press, of Philadelphia, as a director of the Pennsylvania Bank.
----------
Pennsylvania Troops Mustered for Mexican
War, December 15, 1846
During the second year of Governor Francis R. Shunk’s administration the
war with Mexico was begun. Pennsylvania was authorized to furnish six
regiments of infantry. Two were mustered into the service, the first on
December 15, 1846, at Pittsburgh, under command of Colonel Wynkoop, the
second on January 5, 1847, also at Pittsburgh, under command of Colonel
Roberts, who was succeeded by Colonel Geary.
The gallant services of the troops on the fields of Mexico at Vera Cruz,
Cerro Gordo, Chepultepec and the City of Mexico, their bravery and
valor, secured the highest commendation of their venerated chieftain.
During Governor Shunk’s administration the economic condition of the
State was greatly improved. The financial storm was passed and men were
recovering from their reverses. Banks were clamoring for charters, but
the Governor limited the number and refused to sponsor the establishment
of a system of free banking, such as was in operation in several States.
It was during Governor Shunk’s term that the Legislature enacted the
first law extending to women the rights of property. There also was a
change made in the law relating to the separation of married persons.
In 1847, Governor Shunk was re-elected for a second term. Early in the
year 1848 he was attacked with a pulmonary trouble which soon assumed a
serious character. Just as the remnants of our brave and heroic troops
were returning from the battlefields of Mexico with their laurels,
Governor Shunk suffered a severe hemorrhage of the lungs, on the morning
of July 9. On that day, feeling that his days were numbered, the
Governor wrote a letter of resignation to the people of Pennsylvania and
a few days later, July 20, 1848, died. His body was laid to rest in the
old Lutheran burying ground at the Trappe.
Governor Shunk was succeeded by William Freame Johnston, the Speaker of
the Senate, according to the provisions of the Constitution, the vacancy
occurring three months before the general election. The Acting Governor
issued the necessary writs for the election of a Chief Magistrate, which
resulted in the election of Senator Johnston. The new Governor was a
native of Greensburg, Westmoreland County.
The attention of the Legislature having been called to the neglected and
suffering condition of the insane poor of the State, in 1844, there was
provision made for the establishment of an asylum to be located within
ten miles of the seat of Government. The citizens of Harrisburg, with
the aid of a liberal appropriation by Dauphin County, purchased a farm
adjoining that city, and in 1848, the commissioners appointed by the
State began the construction of the first building erected by the
Commonwealth for the reception and care of the indigent insane.
The Fugitive Slave Law was passed by Congress during Governor Johnston’s
administration, and the excitement incident to the return of fugitives
under it, soon became a subject of heated discussion. In 1851 a serious
riot occurred at Christiana, Lancaster County, and in other localities
the arrest of fugitive slaves led to bloodshed.
Under the administration of Governor Johnston, the records of the
Provincial and State Government, which had remained in single manuscript
copy in a very confused condition, were preserved.
In compliance with the Governor’s recommendation, an act was passed
authorizing the appointment of a suitable agent to select and
superintend their publication. Samuel Hazard, of Philadelphia, was
delegated, and under his supervision twenty-eight volumes of colonial
records and Pennsylvania archives, containing a vast amount of original
papers of incalculable value and interest were published.