Part 5

A review of the practice of the courts of Pennsylvania in the seventeenth century and as late as the eighteenth present many interesting subjects.

The power to erect courts of justice and to appoint all judicial officers in and for the Province of Pennsylvania was by the express terms of the charter conferred upon the Proprietary. But, in deference to the wishes of the people, Penn was willing to forego to some degree the exercise of this extraordinary right and the concurrence of the Assembly was invariably required to the bill for the erection of a court. The judges during the early years of the Province were also selected by the Provincial Council, the members of which were elected annually by the people in accordance with provisions of the Frame of Government.

The County Courts of the Province had their origin in 1673, under the Government of James, Duke of York, and were established in every county, “to decide all matters under twenty pounds without appeal,” and to have exclusive jurisdiction in the administration of criminal justice, with an appeal, however, in cases extending to “Life, Limbo and Banishment,” to the Court of Assizes in New York. These courts usually consisted of five or six justices, which met quarterly. No one learned in the law presided on the bench, no attorney was allowed to practice for pay. Juries were only allowed to consist of six or seven men, except in cases of life and death, and in all save those instances, the conclusions of the majority were allowed to prevail.

The first court held in the Province, the records of which are preserved, was held in Philadelphia January 11, 1682. There were six bills presented to the Grand Jury, all but one having to do with the highway. That one exception was a petition for a court house.

These tribunals lacked almost every element of distinctly English procedure, but were continued by Penn. Justices of the Peace were from time to time commissioned, some for the whole Province and some for a

## particular county. Their attendance at court was secured by the penalty

of a fine.

Twelve jurymen were subsequently provided whose unanimous opinion was required to bring in a verdict. The panel of jurymen was drawn in a highly primitive manner. “The names of the freemen were writ on small pieces of paper and put into a hat and shaken, forty-eight of whom were drawn by a child, and those so drawn stood for the Sheriff’s return.”

The civil jurisdiction of the County Courts was first distinctly defined in 1683, when all actions of debt, account or slander and all actions of trespass were by Act of Assembly declared to be originally cognizable solely by them. Other jurisdiction was given them by subsequent action of the Legislature.

The justices interfered to promote and defend the popular interests in all matters that were of public concern. In very early times they granted letters of administration. They superintended the laying out of roads, apportioned the town lots to responsible applicants, took acknowledgments of deeds and registered the private brands and marks of considerable owners of cattle.

They exercised, too, a supervision over all bond servants, regulated the sale of their time, afforded summary relief if they were abused by their masters, punished them with stripes or the pillory if they attempted to escape, and took care that they were at liberty to purchase their freedom on reasonable terms.

July 8, 1683, “Philip England made complaint against Sea Captain James Kilner, who denieth all alleged against him, only the kicking of the maid, and that was for spilling a chamber vessel upon the deck; otherwise he was very kind to them.”

They were also intrusted with other duties. The minutes of the Provincial Council for February 12, 1687–8, show that the County Court of Philadelphia was ordered to cause “stocks and a cage to be provided,” and was required “to suppress the noise and drunkenness of Indians, especially in the night, and to cause the crier to go to the extent of each street when he has anything to cry, and to put a check to horse racing.”

In 1702 the Grand Jury found true bills for the following offenses:

“John Simes, ordinary, and others, for keeping a disorderly house to debauch the youth. John was disguised in women’s clothes walking the streets openly, and going from house to house against the laws of God and this Province, to the staining of the holy profession, and against the law of nature. Edward James, a like offender, at an unreasonable hour of night.

“Dorothy, wife of Richard Conterill, is indicted also for being masked in men’s clothes, walking and dancing in the house of said John Simes at 10 o’clock at night. Sarah Stiver, wife of John Stiver, was also at the same house, dressed in men’s clothes, and walked the streets.”

It is quite probable that these indictments stopped any further attempts to hold “masquerade balls” in Philadelphia for some years.

In 1703 three barbers were indicted for “trimming on the First day”; three persons were brought before the Court for playing cards; a butcher was in court for “killing meat in the street and leaving their blood and offals there,” another for “setting up a great reed stack on Mulberry Street, and making a close fence about the same.” Many runaways were publicly whipped.

In the year 1708 “Solomon Cresson, a constable of the City of Philadelphia, going his rounds at 1 o’clock at night and discovering a very riotous assembly in a tavern, immediately ordered them to disperse, when John Evans, Esq., Governor of the Province, happened to be one of them, and called Solomon in the house and flogged him very severely, and had him imprisoned for two days.”

In 1731, at New Castle, “Catherine Bevan is ordered to be burned alive, for the murder of her husband; and Peter Murphy, the servant who assisted her, to be hanged.”

----------

Pious Henry Antes Organized First Moravian Synod January 12, 1742

Pious Henry Antes assembled at his home in Germantown on January 12, 1742, thirty-five persons, representing eight distinct denominations of the Christian religion, and formed the first Moravian Synod.

Heinrich Antes (Von Blume) of a noble family in the Palatinate, was born about 1620. He left a son, Philip Frederick, born about 1670.

When Philip Frederick and his wife came to America they brought only the oldest, Johann Heinrich, born in 1701, and the youngest, Mary Elizabeth, along.

It is not known exactly when the Antes family arrived in America. The last time we find the name of Philip Frederick Antes in the Freinsheim Church book of baptisms is in September, 1716. The first time we find his name in America is in the Deed Book of Philadelphia County, in February, 1723, when there was recorded a deed conveying to Antes a tract of 154 acres along the Swamp Creek. In the deed Antes is described as a resident of Germantown. On April 9, 1742, he married Elizabeth Wayman. In 1725, Philip Frederick Antes lived in Frederick Township, where he died November 28, 1746.

Henry Antes, the son, was taught the trade of carpenter and mill-wright before coming to America. He was tall in stature, of a large frame, strong physique and enjoyed robust health.

After his father moved to New Hanover Township, Henry stayed in Germantown, where he engaged in partnership with William Dewees in the construction of a paper mill and grist mill, both at Crefeld along the Wissahickon.

On February 2, 1726, Henry Antes was married to his partner’s daughter, Christina Elizabeth Dewees, who was born in Pennsylvania in 1702. She died October 5, 1782. The ceremony was celebrated by John Philip Boehm, pastor of the German Reformed congregations of Falkner Swamp, Skippack and Whitemarsh.

His trade took him to various parts of the settled portion of Pennsylvania. His services were in constant demand. Antes became known to many people. He was thoroughly familiar with the streams, water power, forest and soil of many localities.

On September 2, 1735, he bought 175 acres in Frederick Township, near his father’s farm. In partnership with George Heebner he at once began the erection of a grist mill upon his own property, which for many years was known far and wide as Antes’ Mill.

Antes lived the rest of his life on his Frederick Township farm, except when temporarily called away, and during his short residence in Bethlehem among the Moravians.

In 1736 Antes had a quarrel with the Reverend Mr. Boehm, the cause of which is not known. Boehm said he had occasion to speak to Antes several times on necessary matters. A statement friendly to Antes said it was caused by Antes rebuking Boehm for unbecoming behavior. It was probably caused by Boehm speaking to Antes in protest at his close association with Bishop Spangenberg. At any rate Antes left Boehm’s church and became a Moravian.

In religious matters Henry Antes displayed much zeal and activity. He became known as the “Pious Layman of Fredericktown.” He taught the proper way of life to his countrymen, frequently calling them together in their homes for prayers, reading of the scriptures and exhortation. He was thus employed in Oley as early as 1736.

In 1740 a great religious revival occurred in Falkner Swamp. George Whitefield, the great revivalist, preached at the house of Christopher Wiegner at Skippack, then later in the day he preached at the house of Henry Antes. About two thousand persons, mostly Germans, with some Quakers, Dunkards, Swedes, Huguenots and other church people were in attendance.

Antes yearned for the unity of the followers of the Christian religion.

On November 24, 1741, Count Zinzindorf came to Philadelphia to unite the leading men of the several denominations in Pennsylvania for evangelical work. John Bechtel indorsed the movement, and Henry Antes issued a call for the first meeting in furtherance of this object to be held in Germantown. In order to command the confidence of German colonists it was necessary that the movement be recommended by one well known to the people, so Antes issued the call.

Because the movement did not meet with success in the way anticipated Henry Antes really died of a broken heart. The Moravian Church, however, was one of the results.

During the session of the Moravian Synod, March, 1745, at the home of Henry Antes, he offered the use of his farm and buildings and his mill for the brethren to be used as boarding school for boys.

On June 3, 1745, the school was started with thirty-four scholars. Christina Francke Christopher, of Bethlehem, was superintendent, and John C. Heyne, a teacher. The Moravians named it Mount Frederick School, and it was the first nonsectarian school in Pennsylvania.

Antes and his family, excepting two sons, John and Henry, who remained as pupils, moved to Bethlehem. Here he gave his whole time to the temporal affairs of the Moravians. He planned and superintended the building of the first mills, dams, bridges and houses at the different Moravian settlements.

On December 15, 1745, he was appointed by King George of England, to be Justice of the Peace for Bucks County, in which Bethlehem was then a part. October 27, 1748, Henry Antes was appointed business manager of the Moravians.

In 1750 Antes withdrew from the Moravians, because he did not approve of the introduction of the wearing of a white surplice by the minister at the celebration of the Eucharist.

During the summer of that year the white scholars were transferred to the schools at Oley and Macgungie and the Indians and Negroes to Bethlehem, and in September, 1750, Mount Frederick School was closed and Henry Antes moved back to his farm.

In 1752 Antes was appointed justice of the peace for Philadelphia County, but at this time his health was broken, caused by an injury received during the construction of the Friedenstal Mill, near Nazareth.

On August 25, 1752, Antes accompanied Bishop Spangenberg to North Carolina. Antes was in miserable health and returned home in the spring of 1753. He was an invalid until he died July 20, 1755.

He was buried by the Moravians in the family graveyard beside his father. Bishop Spangenberg preached the funeral sermon. Ten pall-bearers from Bethlehem carried his body to its final resting place.

Antes left four distinguished sons: Frederick, a delegate to the Provincial Convention in Carpenters’ Hall, a colonel of the Sixth Battalion of Philadelphia County Militia, which participated in the Battle of Brandywine, etc. He removed to Northumberland where he held many important positions of honor and trust, and was president judge of the county. He was the father-in-law of Governor Simon Snyder; William, a lieutenant colonel in the Revolution; John, a Moravian who suffered untold agonies in a mission field in Egypt; and John Henry, Lieutenant Colonel in Revolution, sheriff of Northumberland County and the pioneer settler of what is Nippenose Valley in Lycoming County. Five daughters also survived Pious Henry Antes.

----------

General Simon Cameron Defeated Colonel Forney for United States Senate, January 13, 1857

Great excitement prevailed all over the State of Pennsylvania, and the Democracy of the great Commonwealth were thrown into intense perturbation and indignation, January 13, 1857, by dispatches from Harrisburg announcing that Representatives Samuel Manear, of York County, William H. Lebo, and G. Wagenseller, of Schuylkill County, Democratic members of the Legislature, had not only refused to support John W. Forney, the caucus nominee of their party for United States Senator, but had given their votes to the opposition candidate, Simon Cameron.

Forney was one of the favorites of the Philadelphia Democracy at this time, and they were moved to the warmest feelings of resentment by the base treachery which had removed from his grasp the cherished object of his ambition.

Meetings were held by various clubs and organizations, denouncing the traitors in unmeasured terms. The names of Manear, Lebo and Wagonseller remained for many years synonymous with corruption.

At Harrisburg the hotels long refused to receive them, and in Philadelphia and other places there yet remain some who have not forgotten to regard them with contempt.

The result of this unforeseen defeat of Colonel Forney was the loss of an accomplished publicist and statesman, and to give Philadelphia, in the career which opened before him a few months later, its most eminent journalist.

The story of this political event is interesting to students of the history of our state.

When Hon. James Buchanan was appointed Secretary of State, by President Polk, in 1845, he resigned from the United States Senate to accept the cabinet portfolio.

This vacancy brought into the political limelight Simon Cameron, then one of the leaders of the Democratic Party in the State.

Cameron had arisen from his printer’s case in his native county of Lancaster, and had attained prominence as a newspaper publisher in Doylestown and Harrisburg, and had been appointed to the office of Adjutant General by Governor Shulze, when he was but thirty years of age. He had extensive banking and large iron interests for that day. He had become a wealthy and influential man.

On account of his business interests he did not give enthusiastic support to Polk, yet held his grip on the management of the party in Pennsylvania.

There were a number of prominent candidates for the senatorship to succeed Buchanan, one of whom was the able George W. Woodward, who finally received the nomination of his party, and there did not seem to be a ripple on the political surface.

But Cameron saw his opportunity, and with the power of the canal board, which he controlled, together with a combination of Protection or Cameron Democrats with the Whigs, Cameron defeated Woodward, and served from 1845 to 1849. His election was a keen disappointment to President Polk and Secretary of State Buchanan.

The new Republican Party became a national organization in 1856.

Former Senator Simon Cameron was in the Know Nothing organization but was smarting under his long and bitter contest for Senator in 1855, when he was defeated by former Governor William Bigler.

Colonel John W. Forney was chairman of Democratic State Committee and had absolute charge of the battle that was fought for the election of James Buchanan, to whom he was romantically attached.

In the event of Buchanan’s election Forney was assured the editorship of the Washington Union, the organ of the administration, and the Senate printing. There were subsequent developments which led the President to assent to the sacrifice of Forney, and when tendered a cabinet position, the President was forced to recall it.

President Buchanan then turned to the Legislature of Pennsylvania, which was still Democratic, and asked that Colonel Forney be elected United States Senator.

The Democratic Party was demoralized in 1856, when many of its most distinguished members supported Fremont, and in this condition, the party lines were rather closely drawn. The Senate stood fifteen Democrats to eighteen opposition, and the House had fifty-three Democrats to forty-seven opposition, giving the Democrats three majority on joint ballot.

The nomination of Forney was not cordially supported by those who were smarting under the defeat he had given them in October, but there were very few who were favorable to Cameron, and certainly not one-fourth of the members would have preferred him as a candidate.

But Cameron, with his exceptional shrewdness as a political manager, saw that he could depend upon the resentments against Forney among the opposition members to support him if he could assure them of his ability to defeat Forney.

Cameron was most fortunate in having in the Senate as one of his earnest friends Charles B. Penrose, of Philadelphia, a former Senator, and a man of ripe experience and great political sagacity. He was quite as earnest in his desire to punish Forney as he was to promote his friend, General Cameron.

Cameron was not nominated in the caucus, but had the assurance from Representatives Lebo, Manear and Wagonseller, all Democrats, that they would vote for him if their votes could elect him.

This information was communicated to Senator Penrose, who very shrewdly stated to the Republican caucus that the defection of these three votes would elect General Cameron, if they would unite in their support. The Republicans refused to take any action until the members could have absolute information as to the Democratic defection.

Penrose had the caucus name three members who could be trusted and he would arrange for an interview. This was held at Omit’s Hotel, and Lebo, Manear and Wagonseller gave the assurance required, and the committee reported the fact to the caucus, but they were pledged not to divulge the names of the three persons.

The caucus was somewhat distrustful, but agreed to vote once for Cameron.

The voting took place only in joint convention, and when the House and Senate met, the compact was carried out to the letter, and Cameron was elected over Forney for a full term senatorship.

The whole arrangement was conducted with such secrecy that not one of the opposition legislators had any idea as to what Democrats had bolted, and the Democrats themselves did not doubt the fidelity of any of their members.

----------

Railroads Fight to Enter Pittsburgh. Great State Convention January 14, 1846

It was but natural that the great undeveloped wealth of the Mississippi Valley should attract those who had any vision as to the future of this vast country. This enormous wealth must be dumped into the great cities planted along the Atlantic seaboard.

General Washington, skilled surveyor that he was, early trained his eyes westward, and he spent much time in outlining plans for connecting the Potomac and Ohio Rivers by means of a canal. Twenty-five years after his death the Erie Canal was opened, when the merchants of Philadelphia and Baltimore realized they must awaken or succumb.

Baltimore believed a railroad should be built to the West. The Baltimore and Ohio, first of all great railroads, shows by its name the purpose for which it was incorporated. Pennsylvania, however, undertook to connect the West by a system of combined railroads and canals.

From the first both cities looked to Pittsburgh as the logical terminus of their improvements. Then began a struggle of Philadelphia-Baltimore rivalry, which lasted for forty-three years, from 1828 to 1871.

In 1828 Pennsylvania had given a charter to the Baltimore and Ohio, by which it could construct its line through Southwestern Pennsylvania to Pittsburgh. The members of the Legislature at that time did not consider future competition, for the State works had not been built.

The charter was granted for fifteen years, and, in 1839, another act extended its provisions until 1847. This act, among other onerous conditions, was discriminating in favor of traffic to Philadelphia; it also contained a heavy State tax on freight, and the company could not accept it.

The Pennsylvania State works from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh were completed in 1834. When the charter of the Baltimore and Ohio expired in 1843, the road was completed only as far as Cumberland.

The company tried to obtain better terms from Pennsylvania. The residents of the western part of the State were all eager for an additional outlet to the coast, but the Philadelphia politicians were unwilling to yield any concession to their Baltimore rivals.

Several years later it was admitted that the State works would never provide adequate transportation facilities to the West, even though in excess of $10,000,000 had already been expended and the State seriously involved. Pennsylvanians were made to realize that railroads were superior to canals and that the commercial solution of Philadelphia lay in a central railroad to Pittsburgh.

The feeling in all three cities reached fever heat. The legislative hall was the battleground and all interests were well represented. The battle centered on the bill granting right of way through Pennsylvania to the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.

Public meetings were held in Philadelphia and elsewhere. A State railroad convention was held at Harrisburg, January 14, 1846, where resolutions were adopted favoring the Central Railroad scheme and against the Baltimore and Ohio right of way grant.

The people of Pennsylvania believed since a railroad must be built it would be better for it to be run entirely through Pennsylvania and be a Pennsylvania institution. They also felt that if the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad was given the franchise, it would be next to impossible to raise money to build the Pennsylvania Railroad.

Pittsburgh business interests were fearful if the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad was refused admission to Pennsylvania that road would extend its rails farther down the Ohio to Wheeling, perhaps, and thus control river trade, which had been long enjoyed at Pittsburgh. Many meetings were held in Pittsburgh urging the support of the Baltimore bill. It must also be understood that State prejudice held back railroads from entering other States. In 1846 States rights theories were more potential than they are today.

In this connection the position of the Baltimore and Ohio was unfortunate and interesting. Either Pennsylvania or Virginia must charter the company before a road of great importance could be built. Neither State was willing to do so.

The Baltimore and Ohio bill was defeated in the Senate February 23, 1846, by a single vote. Philadelphia rejoiced and Pittsburgh was sad. The Senate reversed itself February 26, and Philadelphia was maddened beyond reason.

On April 10 the Baltimore bill passed the House, with an amendment providing that the grant to the Baltimore and Ohio should be null and void if the Pennsylvania Railroad obtained subscriptions of $3,000,000 in capital stock, of which $900,000 must be paid in cash by July 31. The bill passed the Senate and was signed by Governor Shunk, April 21.

Every effort was exerted to procure the subscriptions, a house-to-house canvass resulting in 2600 subscriptions. Nearly all of which were for five shares or less.