Part 96
So portentous a crisis as this formed another epoch for the display of the intellectual and political attainments of American statesmen, and the ordeal was one through which they passed with the highest honor and with ever-enduring fame at home and abroad.
A change was now to be wrought. The same hall which had resounded with 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.