Part 2

The Governor up to this time had said nothing on the subject, but in his Speech dissolving the Assembly on Nov. 25,[3] he breaks his silence and argues the matter at length. He begins by saying that their action has a very dangerous likeness to a desire to grasp the executive power, a result which would be destructive of their dependency on Great Britain, and of which the people of Great Britain might become jealous. He then goes on to show that their conduct is not only wanting in respect to their Sovereign, since the Governor is his representative, but even wanting in ordinary manliness and honesty, since they are striking at one who, (on account of his position,) cannot retaliate. The question as to whether the paper is not a false, scandalous and malicious libel he left to his superiors in England. He ends his statement of the matter, “As to the popular Out-cry you endeavor to raise, of the Liberty of the Press, I shall only say, that certainly this Liberty, as well as any other may be abused, to the injury of others; if an injury is done, a proper Remedy ought to be applied; and such a Remedy can never be thought a Restraint of any just Liberty. I am persuaded that no considerate man can think, that I offered any Obstruction to the Liberty of the Press, by forbidding the Printer to publish that one Paper at his Peril; if no Peril in doing it, neither the author nor Publishers of it can suffer by the Order; the proper Judges may in Time show, whether I did a Service or a Disservice to any, by such Warning.”

The Twenty-fifth Assembly came together in the Spring of 1748 and the old quarrel was resumed. On reassembling for the second Session in September an Address was drawn up in which former complaints were reiterated, and which the Governor refused to receive.[4] The Address was then printed in the Votes and Proceedings of the Assembly, and on Nov. 12th the Governor, in proroguing the Assembly, took occasion to complain of their method of procedure.

“In whatever your Governor and you differ, there is a legal Method for Redress. In my Message to you, I told you that I would do the Justice, to send a Copy of that Paper, which you call an Address, to his Majesty’s Ministers; which is sending it to the proper Tribunal for Redress, if I have done you any injury, by my refusing to receive it; but you seem to decline this legal Method; and by your publishing that Paper, under the name of an Address, in your Votes, and afterwards in a publick News Paper, published by the Printer of your Votes; you seem to place the dernier Resort in all Disputes between you and your Governor, in the Populace; how his Majesty may take this, or how a Parliament of Great Britain, may take your claiming, not only the Privileges of Parliament, but Privileges far beyond what any House of Commons ever claimed, deserves your most serious consideration.”[5]

Governor George Clinton was succeeded by Sir Danvers Osborne in the summer of 1753, but the latter meeting with a violent death the government devolved on James Delancey, the Lieutenant-Governor. The latter in his speech at the coming together of the Assembly took occasion to quote certain paragraphs from the Instructions given to Sir Danvers Osborne. These would naturally be of interest to all in the colony, and Hugh Gaine, the printer of the New York Mercury, published the paragraphs in his next issue. This provoked comment and the Assembly at once took action.[6]

“The House being informed that one Hugh Gaine, a printer, in the City of New York, had presumed in his Paper, called, the New York Mercury, of Monday, November the 12th, 1753, No. 66, to print and publish Part of the Proceedings of this House, particularly several articles of his Majesty’s Instructions to his Excellency, the late Sir Danvers Osborne, Baronet; and the said Paper being produced, and read,

Ordered, That the said Hugh Gaine, attend this House To-morrow, at 10 o’clock in the morning.

Ordered, That the Serjeant at Arms, attending this House, serve the said Hugh Gaine, with a Copy of this Order forthwith.”

Next day Hugh Gaine appeared at the Bar of the House; “being asked, whether he was the Printer of the Paper, called the New York Mercury, he acknowledged that he was; and then being asked, by what Authority he had therein printed and published an Extract of the Votes of this House; answered, that he had no Authority for doing it, and knew not that he did amiss in doing so; and that he was very sorry that he had offended the House, and humbly asked their Pardon.”[7]

The result was that after the matter had been discussed in the House the printer was called in, reprimanded, and allowed to go, on paying the costs.

In 1756 James Parker, who had in 1747 braved the wrath of Governor Clinton in order to obey the Speaker of the House, himself fell into disgrace. Parker and Wm. Weyman were at this time joint owners of the New York Gazette, or the Weekly Post Boy, and on the 15th of March, published an article entitled “Observations on the Circumstances and Conduct of the People in the Counties of Ulster and Orange, in the Province of New York.”

The Assembly at its meeting on the 16th took the matter up on the ground that it reflected on the conduct and composition of the House. The Serjeant at Arms was directed to bring the printers to the Bar. Parker was out of town, but Weyman appeared, and being asked how he had come to print it said that he done so merely as a piece of news, and went on to say that he believed it to have been written by the Rev. Hezekiah Watkins, a clergyman of Newburgh, Ulster County, and that he was heartily sorry for the mistake. The House then;[8]

“Resolved, That the Piece ... contains sundry insolent, false, and malicious Expressions, calculated to misrepresent the conduct of the Representatives of the People of this Colony.

Resolved, That the Author of the said Piece has attempted by false and malicious Misrepresentations, to irritate the People of this Colony against their Representatives in General Assembly, and is therefore guilty of a high Misdemeanor and a Contempt of the Authority of this House.

Resolved, That James Parker and Wm. Weyman, for having published the said Piece in their Weekly Paper, are guilty of a high Misdemeanor and a Contempt of the Authority of this House.

Resolved, That James Parker and Wm. Weyman, be for their said offense, taken into the Custody of the Sergeant at Arms attending this House.”

Four days later Parker presented a petition setting forth that on receiving news of what had happened he had at once returned and surrendered himself; that the writer of the piece was Mr. Watkins, as he could easily prove; and the petition goes on to say “that when he received the said Piece, he thought it contained sundry indecent Expressions, and thereupon struck them out, but is sorry that he left sundry Matters, which though they seemed not to be malignant to him at the Time, appear now to be so; that he humbly confesses his fault in printing the said Piece; that he had no design to give Offense thereby, promised to be more circumspect for the future, and humbly begs the pardon of the honourable House: And therefore humbly praying (having long experienced the Kindness of the Honourable House) a Dismission from the Custody in which he now is.”

A week later the House took the matter up, and a motion to that effect having been made by Capt. Richard, Parker and Weyman were discharged from custody.

The House having been prorogued shortly after this, it was not until it came together again that the matter of the Revd. Mr. Watkins received attention. On Oct. 15, 1756, a motion was made by Capt. Walton that Mr. Watkins be ordered to attend the House. Accordingly he appeared on the 22nd and admitted the fact of authorship said that he had had no intention of acting disrespectfully but that the condition of affairs in Ulster and Orange Counties had caused his zeal for the welfare of the people to carry him too far; and that he was heartily sorry. In spite of his explanation he was ordered into the custody of the Sergeant at Arms, and the Minutes of the next day (Oct. 23,) set forth his Petition in which he went over at greater length the explanation he had given orally the day before. After some discussion of the matter he was ordered to be brought to the Bar of the House where he was reprimanded by the Speaker and then discharged.

Another case very similar to the last was that of Samuel Townsend, a Justice of the Peace of Queen’s County. Some of the so-called “Neutral French” had been quartered upon Long Island, and Samuel Townsend wrote, in reference to their uncared for condition and misfortunes, a letter to the Speaker which the latter laid before the Assembly on Mar. 16, 1758, and Townsend was ordered to appear and explain the matter. Having examined him the House[9]

“Resolved, That the letter ... contains sundry indecent and insolent Expressions, reflecting on the Honour, Justice and Authority of this House.

Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That the said Samuel Townsend, for writing and sending the said Letter, is guilty of a high Misdemeanor and a most daring Insult, on the Honour, Justice, and Authority of this House.

Ordered, That the said Samuel Townsend remain in the Custody of the Sergeant at Arms attending this House.”

Next day a long petition was presented in which Townsend begged “leave, humbly to express his Uneasiness and Sorrow, for having wrote the said Letter; and at the same time, to declare that he did not intend thereby to cast any Reflection upon the Conduct or Dignity of this House, and that he shall for the future be more cautious to avoid every occasion of exposing himself to their Censure or Reproof.

Your Petitioner therefore most humbly Prays, that the sincere Acknowledgement of his Sorrow and Uneasiness may prevail upon this honourable House, to treat him with all that Levity and Compassion, to which the Innocence of his Intention herein declared, and the real Regard he has for the Honour of this House, may entitle him, and discharge him from the Custody of the Sergeant at Arms.”

After this had been read Townsend was ordered to the Bar, and, having been reprimanded by the Speaker, was discharged.

The growing dissatisfaction with the home government was fanned into open opposition when the news arrived in the colonies that the Ministry, not content with the restrictions which it had placed upon the growing trade of the Atlantic coast towns, had decided to introduce direct taxation by a duty on stamped paper. The popular press in New York was filled with articles against the Stamp Act, but these articles were far exceeded in number and influence by handbills which were posted throughout the town, and read and discussed by all the inhabitants. The Assembly passed all this over, in silence, tacitly permitting what but a short time before would have brought any one suspected of complicity in the writing or printing of the same to its Bar.

But a peculiarly offensive piece of writing finally was taken notice of. It was about a month after the riot of Nov. 1st, 1765, (when the Stamp Act was due to go into effect,) on which occasion some damage had been done to the fort and batteries, that,[10] “Mr. Lott, Clerk to this House, presented on the 26th instant, a sealed Letter to the House, directed in the words following, viz. ‘To the General Assembly of the Province of New York.’ Which Letter was delivered to him, the said Lott, by his Clerk who had received it from a Person unknown; and was enclosed in another Letter directed, ‘To Mr. Lott, Mercht. in New York,’ and the same being read, was in the words following: ‘on Receiving you are to read the in Closed in the open assembly of this Province New York as you are Clark and whare of fail not on your perrel.

(Signed) FREEDOM.’”

* * * * *

And then the Letter addressed to the General Assembly being opened and also read, was in the Words following: ‘Gentlemen of the House of Representatives you are to consider what is to be Done first Drawing of as much money from the Lieut. Governors Sallery as will Repare the fort and on Spike the Guns on the Battery and the next a Repeal of the Gunning Act and then thare will be a good Militia but not before and also as you are asetting you may Consider of the Building Act as it is to take place nex yeare wich it Cannot for thare is no Supply of Some Sort of meterials Require’d this Law is not Ground on Reasons but thare is a Grate many Reasons to the Contrary do Gentlemen we desire you will Do what Lays in your power for the Good of the public but if you take this ill be not so Conceited as to Say or think that other People know noting about Government you have made these Laws and say they are Right but they are Rong and take a way Liberty, Oppressons of your make Gentlemen make us Sons of Liberty think you are not for the Public Liberty, this is the General Opinion for this part of Your Conduct.

by order Signd. one and all FREEDOM’

1765 Nov. 26.

“The House then proceeded to the Consideration of the said Letters, and having fully weighed and Examined the same;

Resolved, Nemine Contradicente,

That, said Letters are Libellous, Scandalous and Seditious, containing many indecent and insolent Expressions, highly reflecting on the Honour, Justice and Authority of, and an High Insult and Indignity to this House; and are designed and calculated to inflame the Minds of the good People of this Colony, against their Representatives in General Assembly.

Resolved, Nemine Contradicente,

That the Author or Authors of the said Letters is, or are, guilty of an High Misdemeanor and a most daring Insult on the Honour, Justice, and Authority of this House.”

They then resolved to present an Address to the Governor calling on him to offer a reward of £50 for the discovery of the Author or Authors, and say that the House will provide means to meet the expense.

Writing under date of Sept. 23, 1765 to Secretary Conway in England, Lieutenant Governor Colden remarks on this general subject:[11]

“Soon after it was known that Stamp Duties were by Act of Parliament to be paid in the Colonies, virulent papers were published in the Weekly Newspapers, filled with every falsehood that malice could invent to serve their purpose of exciting the people to disobedience of the Laws and to Sedition. At first they only denied the authority of Parliament to lay internal taxes in the Colonies but at last they have denyed the Legislative Authority of the Parliament in the Colonies, and these papers continue to be published.

I agreed with the Gentlemen of the Council that considering the present temper of the people this is not a proper time to prosecute the printers and Publishers of the Seditious Papers. The Attorney General likewise told me that he does not think himself safe to commence any such Prosecution.”

And in another letter to Secretary Conway under date of Oct. 12, 1765,[12] he again refers to the matter.

“Since the last which I had the honour to write to you of the 23d of September, this town has remained quiet the inflammatory Papers continue to be published, exciting the People to oppose the execution of the Act of Parliament for laying a Stamp Duty in the Colonies. The most remarkable of these Papers is enclosed. This was distributed along the Post Roads by the Post Riders. I examined the Post Master in this place to know how this came to be done. He assured me that it was without his knowledge; that he had examined the Post Riders and found that one or more Bundles of them were delivered at Woodbridge, New Jersey, to the Post Rider, by James Parker Secretary to the General Post Office in N. America. Parker was formerly a printer in this place and has now a printing Press and continues to print occasionally. It is believed that this Paper was printed by him. The Gentlemen of the Council think it prudent at this time to delay making more particular inquiry least it should be the occasion of raising the Mob which it is thought proper by all means to avoid.”

(_To be continued._)

[Illustration]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Minutes, General Assembly, Oct. 27, 1747.

[2] Minutes, General Assembly, Oct. 27, 1747.

[3] Minutes of General Assembly of that date.

[4] Minutes, General Assembly, Oct. 19 and Oct. 21.

[5] Minutes, General Assembly of that date.

[6] Minutes, General Assembly, Nov. 13, 1753.

[7] Minutes, General Assembly, Nov. 14, 1753.

[8] Minutes, General Assembly, March 19, 1756.

[9] Minutes, General Assembly, Mar. 23, 1758.

[10] Minutes, General Assembly, Nov. 29th, 1765.

[11] Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N. Y., VII, 759.

[12] Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N. Y., VII, 767.

EARLY DAYS IN LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA (1805-1845)

[Excerpts from an address by the late W. P. Ryman, Esq., of Wilkes-Barré, Pa., before the Wyoming Historical and Geological Society.]

THE EARLIEST SETTLERS AND THEIR IMPROVEMENTS

The difficulties of settling Dallas township were very great. It was comparatively an easy thing to cut a path or road along the banks of Toby’s Creek and find a way even to its source, but to settle there alone, many miles from any clearing, and meet the wolves, bears and other wild animals, which were terrible realities in those early days, saying nothing of the still pending dread of the prowling Indian, was a very serious undertaking.

When a small boy I heard Mr. Charles Harris, then an old man, tell some of his early recollections, which ran back to about the time of the battle and massacre of Wyoming. He told us of the Indians who once came into the house where he and his mother were alone and demanded food. There being nothing better they roasted a pumpkin before the fire and scraped it off and ate it as fast as it became soft with cooking. He also told us about his father’s first settling on the westerly side of Kingston Mountain at what is still known as the “Harris Settlement” about two miles north of Trucksville. He said that his father worked all the first day felling trees and building a cabin. Night came on before the cabin could be inclosed. With the darkness came a pack of wolves, and, to protect his family, Mr. Harris built a fire and sat up all night to keep it burning. The wolves were dazed and would not come near a fire, and when daylight came they disappeared. To pass one night under such circumstances required bravery, but to stay, build a house, clear a farm and raise a family with such terrors constantly menacing exhibited a courage that commands our highest esteem.

Among those who came in the first decade were Joseph Worthington and wife--the latter a daughter of Jonathan Buckley. They came from Connecticut in the year 1806 and settled near Harvey’s Lake. His first house was built of logs, and stood on the hill about a quarter of a mile from the eastern inlet to Harvey’s Lake. When he first moved into that country there was no road from Huntsville to Harvey’s Lake except a bridle path. Mr. Worthington cut a way through and built a house when his nearest neighbor was miles away and no clearings in sight anywhere. Wolves were then very numerous and bold at night, and the only way Mr. Worthington could protect his family from their assaults was for all to climb the ladder to the second floor and pull the ladder up after them. Mr. Worthington used to say that his life during those early days was most lonely and disheartening.

THE VILLAGE STORE

The best of the first stores in Dallas would hardly be dignified by that name now. Only a few necessaries were kept in any of them, and “necessaries” then had a much scantier meaning than now. A few of the commonest and cheapest cotton cloths were kept in stock; the woolen goods used for winter wear, for both men and women, were all homespun. It took many years for the storekeepers to convince the farmers that they could buy heavy clothes of part wool and part cotton that would be as durable and cheaper than the all wool homespun. The time spent on the latter was counted as nothing, and the argument failed. A few other goods of kinds in daily use, such as coffee, tea, sugar, molasses, tobacco, powder, shot and flints and rum were of course necessary to any complete store. Hunting materials and supplies were in great demand. A hunter’s outfit at that time was proverbially “a quarter pound of powder, a pound of shot, a pint of rum and a flint.” The flint was the box of matches of that day. Before the invention of the lucifer match, the matter of keeping fire in a house, especially in winter time, was one of extreme importance in that sparsely settled country. Everyone burned wood then, about there, and fire was kept over night by covering a few “live coals” with ashes in the fireplace. Sometimes this failed, and then, if no flint and punk were at hand, some member of the family had to go to the nearest neighbor, probably a mile or more away, and bring fire. It is not difficult to imagine their sufferings during the winters in this respect. Had food, clothing and other things been plenty and good, this hardship could have been better endured; but they were not, and worst of all, there were almost no means of procuring them. There was an abundance of game and fish for a time, but they did not satisfy a civilized people.

EARLY AGRICULTURE

The only plow in use then was the old-fashioned shovel plow. The only iron about it was the blade, which was about the shape of an ordinary round-pointed shovel. This was fastened to the lower end of an upright post. To the post were attached handles to hold it with, and a beam or tongue to which the team could be hitched. This plow was jabbed into the ground here and there between roots, stumps and stones, and with it a little dirt could be torn up now and then. There was no patent plow in use then, nor could it be used there for many years after we settled in Dallas. Nor could we use a cradle for cutting grain. At that time the ground was so rough, and there were so many stumps and roots and stones, that we had to harvest at first with a sickle.

CROPS AND PIGEONS