EXCHANGE
PAPERS READ
BEFORE THE
, FEBRUARY 4, 1916.
fjerself, as seen in f)*t oton tootfe0f)op."
THE POLITICAL HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF
LANCASTER COUNTY'S FIRST TWENTY YEARS,
1729-1749.
MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY MEETING.
VOL. XX. NO. 2.
PRICE TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER COPY
LANCASTER, PA.
1916
The Political History and Development of Lancaster
County's First Twenty Years, 1729-1749 - - 37
BY H. FRANK ESHLEMAN, ESQ.
Minutes of the February Meeting ----- 69
The Political History and Development
of Lancaster County's First Twenty
Years, 1729-1749 '
Partisan political sentiment existed
in Lancaster county at the time of
its creation in 1729, the division of
sentiment being on the very question
of organizing the county. The econ-
omical German-Swiss opposed the
erection of the county and threw
their political influence against the
project. They sent two petitions to
the Assembly praying that the new
county be not erected, because the
expense of local government here was
unjustifiable, so long as the govern-
ment of this section, as part of
Chester county, met all needs as they
saw it; especially as assessment and
taxation were only nominal here un-
der that regime. It mattered little
to them that there was very poor pro-
tection here, so long as demands of
governmental support were light. The
less government, the better. Lais-
sez faire was their doctrine. On
the other hand, the Scotch-Irish, Eng-
lisih and Quakers favored a separate
government, in the region west of the
Octoraro, because of its efficiency and
of the chance for office holding (Vol.
3, Votes of Assembly, pp. 76 & 78).
But almost coeval with the county's
erection two province-wide political
questions stirred infant Pennsylva-
nia. One was that of the issuance
of paper money to relieve the panic of
1723-8, owing to the scarcity of specie
ar metallic money; and the other was
the question of toleration of Catholic-
(37)
38
ism in the province. On the money
question our county divided, the trad-
ers and speculators clamoring for pa-
per money and the plain farmers op-
posing it. The government issued the
money and those who wanted part of
It gave mortgages on their land for the
same and were compelled to pay back
the interest and one-twelfth of the
principal each year. Thus the mass
of the people opposed the issue of pa-
per money and asked the Assembly
that coin be raised in value, and that
produce be made money (Vol. 2,
Votes of Assembly 335 & 6). Specu-
lators got much of it (Vol. 2 Votes of
Assembly 339 & 40 hereafter cited as
V. A.).
On the religious question, the people
of this county (as well as of the pro-
vince) were divided. February 20,
1729, the Quaker-English Assembly, in
a, message to the Governor, said "We
conceive it to be of greatest conse-
quence to the preservation of both the
religious and civil rights of the peo-
ple to prevent importation of Irish
papists into Pennsylvania" (Vol. 3 V,
A. 65). The Quakers and Germans
both were opposed to them. The
Irish and the English favored them.
The first distinct political party
cleavage in this county was upon the
question of "the common people's in-
terests versus the proprietors' inter-
ests" (The Penns).
1729. Judge Edwards was the favor-
ite son in the n'ew county, and for
Assembly received the highest vote.
John Wright had lost his popularity.
He was a member of Assembly in
1726; but was defeated in 1727 and
In 1728. In 1729 he received a small
vote, compared with Edwards. James
Mitchel and Thomas Read were the
other assemblymen-elect. Minor figures
compared with Edwards and Wright.
The members elected stood in the or-
(39)
fler of t\he size of their vote on the
returns set forth in "Votes of Assem-
bly" (Vol. 3 V. A. 95)
1730. The next year Wright was
the reigning political favorite and
Edwards fell to second place. Mitch-
el and Read were displaced by George
Stuart, third place; and John Mus-
grove was at the foot (Vol. 3 V. A.
124).
1731. At this election Wright and
Edwards were discounted. Edwards
tell to fourth place and Wright was
not elected at all. Wright was too
mild and weak for the rugged border
strife on the Susquehanna. Donegal
brought out Andrew Gal'braith, an idol
of the reigning Scotch-Irish element.
He received next to the highest vote
on the ticket. John Ooyle, a new
man, stood at the head. All the As-
semblymen of 1730 except Edwards
were defeated in 1731.
1732. This year Judge Edwards
stood next to highest on the ticket.
He was an austere judge, and sentenc-
ed the Maryland border rogues severe-
ly. George Stewart stood head.
Samuel Blunston now appeared and
stood third. He was very active m
keeping the unruly element on and
over Susquehanna, orderly and was in
great favor in the county and among
the political leaders of the province at
Philadelphia. (Pa. Arch. 314). An-
drew Galbraitb this year had a hard
political figftt with John Wright and
barely secured election, standing
lowest in the vote. Had not Wright's
friends used a ticket which could not
be counted, because not correct in
form, he might have defeated Gal-
braith. Wright had his friends use
a "short ballot;" and this, instead of
helping him, was his undoing. Those
tickets under the law could not be
counted. This is tin first use of a
short ballot in Pennsylvania. The
(40)
law required each voter to vote for
four members of Assembly. Wright
had a number of his friends not to
do so, and instead put only two
names on the ticket besides
Wright's; and neither of those names
to be Galbraith's. If he had
simply had them put a name on
instead of Galbraith's, so that the
ticket had four names on them, these
ballots would have been good and
Wright would have been elected.
Maryland contended that the Susque-
hanna River was the boundary of
Pennsylvania, and Wrig r t was not
strenuous enough in defending our
province against this encroachment.
The Governor of the Province paid
little attention to our border struggle
and disavowed countenancing the bat-
tle in Wright's wheat field where 300
soldiers of our county, under the
sheriff, moved against an -almost equal
number of desperadoes of the Mary-
land wilds under Cresap (1 Pa. Arch.
314 and 317). The report, says Blun-
ston, was current that the Assembly
also apologized to Maryland and blam-
ed it on "the Irish of Lancaster coun-
ty." (Do.). Bluns'ton said the Ger-
mans took no part in defense and "do
nothing but give their opinions and
find fault" (Do.). The political ques-
tion in our county in 1732 was the
Scotch-Irish policy of driving Mary-
land below the 39th degree of north
latitude (Do. 334) versus the "Dutch"
policy of allowing Maryland to en-
croach to the west bank of the Sus-
quehanna and the south bank of the
Juniata. The attorney general of the
province was given 20 1-bs. extra salary
on condition he would overcome crim-3
"more particularly in regard to the
county of Lancaster" (3 V. A. 164).
According to Rupp (p. 264) Andrew
Galbraith's wife went out electioneer-
ing on horseback in the fall of 1732
(41)
for her husband and made him many
votes.
Wright contested his defeat in the
Assembly Oct. 16 on the ground that
many tickets containing his name were
thrown out and that if they had been
counted he would have won. (3 V. A.
184). The Assembly heard the mat-
ter fully and decided that his short
tickets were invalid and illegal. He
was not out of Assembly long, since
George Stuart died soon after his
election, and Wright was elected to
his place, and took his seat March
18th, 1733 (Do. 185).
The political leaders at this time
in our county were John Wright,
Samuel Blunston, Robert Barker, Tho-
mas Edwards, Andrew Galbraith, An-
drew Cornish, Joshua Low, Samuel
Jones, Tobias Hendricks, John Mus-
grave, Caleb Pearce, Edward Smout,
James Mitohel (Donegal) and George
Stuart.
1733. In the autumn of 1733 Lan-
caster county's members in Assembly
stood in the following order, as to the
number of votes received from high-
d'st to lowest: Galbraith, Edwards,
Wright and Coyle. Wright held the
position of trustee of the general loan
office and also that of member of
Assembly. His enemies at home, to
oust him, tried to have a law pasised
against holding plural offices (3 V. A.
MOO). The Scotch-Irisih of Lancaster
itounty were banded into a political
oarty by reason of the border struggle.
The German-Swiss had crossed the
>3usquehanna river to settle, and a few
Scotch-Irish were there (3 Col. Rec.
477 hereafter cited C. R.). In every I/
Bounty of the Province, the political /
oarty lines were drawn between those
who would strengthen proprietary-
Khip in Pennsylvania, and those who
would weaken it those who favored
government by the common people.
(42)
Our county was, for many years,
ntrongly against the proprietary party.
The Scotch-Irish and Germans held
nimiilar views on this subject. The As-
sembly consisted of only one body of
men. There was no Senate as now.
But the Lieutenant Governor had au-
thority to appoint a council of 6 to 15
^nen, to whom legislation was referred,
and who acted much as the Senate
acts to-day. The Governor usually
made up his council of men of the
aristocratic order, men who were fa-
vorable to the Penns. During forty-
two years there was not a single Lan-
caster county man on the Council.
But in 1771 Edward Shippen, of Lan-
caster, became a member. (9 C. R.
745). There were few prominent men
in our county favorable to the pro-
prietor. Most members of Council
were Philadelphia men, where there
was strong proprietary sentiment. And
for a long time the alignment was
Philadelphia against the rural dis-
tricts. But there were Chester and
Bucks county men in ccfuncdl.
But in some respects, and at certain
times, the provincial powers in Phila-
delphia gave heed to popular will in
our county. The law allowed the peo-
ple to elect in each county two per-
sons for Sheriff and two for Coroner;
and then the Governor and Council
would select one of those two for
Sheriff and one for Coroner. Very
often the appointee was the person re-
ceiving the smaller vote, thus ignoring
the people's first choice. But in 1732
and 1733 they selected the one having
the highest vote in Lancaster county
(3 C. R. 464 and 521). During this
period our local politics was dull. It
was stated in council that the As-
sembly as then constituted were
"chiefly the same who have represent-
ed the Province the past many years/'
(4 C. R. 41).
(43)
1734. This fall a new political
power appeared in Lancaster county.
He seems to have bounded into lead-
ership at once James Hamilton. Of
the four members elected to Assembly,
he received the highest vote by far.
There was another new figure John
Emerson, of Blue Rock. He was next
highest in the vote. Galbraith stood
third and John Wright scarcely se-
cured election, standing lowest of the
four elected.
The most remarkable political event
in our county's first ten years of ex-
istence was the appearance and six
years leadership of James Hamilton.
From 1734 to 1739, inclusive, he was
political boss of the county. He was
of Scotch-Irish parentage, though born
in Virginia in 1710. But from early
childhood until 1734 he lived in Phila-
delphia. Thus it is very remarkable
that coming to Lancaster county to live
in May, 1734, a young man of 24, he
should in the fall of that same year be
elected to Assembly by the highest
vote of all the candidates and be five
times consecutively re-elected and al-
ways by the highest vote. A stranger
could not do that to-day.
This was due most prominently to
two powerful causes: First, to the
great fame of his wonderful father,
and, secondly, to the young man's
ownership of nearly a square mile of
land, right in the center of Lancas-
ter.
The father of James Hamilton was
then the greatest lawyer of America
for ten years Speaker of the Assem-
bly, from 1729 to 1739, when he
declined to serve longer. He was in
the very zenith of glory and power;
he wa,s in the ripest maturity of wis-
dom; he was the idol of the common
people, loved above every other man
in Pennsylvania, during the very time
(44)
his son appeared on the scene here.
And in 1735, when all the other law-
yers feared and refused to defend
the liberty of a poor printer in New
York against the King's charge of
libeling the Government,Andrew Ham-
ilton volunteered to defend him, and
he did so, acquitting Zenger, the de-
fendant, though the Court, the people,
and even the jury, at first, were
against him. In defending this hum-
ble man he well knew that he was
defending the liberties of the whole
American reople against the tyranny
of England; and for his known stand
for popular liberty, freedom of trade
and conscience, and for his achieve-
ment in this Zenger trial, Gouvenor
Morris has called him "the day star
of the Republic." The .son of such a
popular hero, if he were, like his fath-
er, also a discreet man, naturally drew
much prominence to him, and gave
him great advantage over other men
equally good, but less fortunate. All
the ages prove this, and likewise does
the present age prove it. Thus when
James Hamilton arrived in Lancaster
in 1734 he was known known better
than many estimable men who lived
here all their lives.
James, being the son of a great
father, the great man who presided
with such fairness and power over
the people's Assembly, naturally all
local politicians would be over-zeal-
ous to help James, if not for love's
sake, then for the sake of the polit-
ical advantage that would come to
them. I have no doubt at all that
Galbraith, Hendricks, Barber, Blun-
ston, Emerson, and other politicians
on the Susquehanna, helped him in
the river section, knowing that he
would help tLem in all parts of Lan-
caster county. The Hamiltons (An-
(45)
drew and James) and their relatives,
and among them, particularly, the
great political power, Wm. Allen, who
wag married to Hamilton's daughter,
were all close to the Governor and
Council. Nearly all political officers
were appointed by the Governor, and
this was another reason why anyone
desiring or holding office, any one
in politics, should flock to the sup-
port of a man who stood so close to
so much appointive power as did
James Hax ilton.
Here at Lancaster, too, James Ham-
ilton was making a new fame all his
own. He was not a lawyer, but a
business man. All the people of this
section needed a town with indus-
tries, and with people who could con-
sume farmers' products. The market
at Philadelphia was far away, anci
profits were lost in transportation.
Our people were sending petitions to
the Assembly to be allowed to make
whisky and rum out of tneir grains
and fruit, without paying a license,
so they did not need to transport their
grain and flour to Philadelphia, ana
lose their apples and peaches entire-
ly. James Hamilton was the very
man to ghn them what they wanted
and needed, and to solve the difficult
problem, which affected Scotch-Irish,
Germans, Jews, and all who lived
here.
His father, about 1730, became the
equitable owner of about 500 acres of
land in the heart of what is now our
city, and Hay 1, 1734, he and James
Steel, holder of the legal title, turn-
ed it over to James Hamilton. An-
drew Hamilton had already made a
partial plan of lots out of the tract,
and James completed the plotting and
bought additions to it, laying the
additions out in lots also. (Evans &
Ellis, No. 359 and 361.)
(46)
Thus was James Hamilton giving to
this section great material blessings
and, the people were ready to give
him any additional means of public
usefulness in their power. A place in
the Assembly would widen his oppor-
tunities to help them with their trade
troubles and their boundary disputes
with Maryland. This land-developing
project was a mammoth affair in those
early days. The 500 acres would make
2,500 lots about 50 by lov/ feet in
size; 10,000 people could be accommo-
dated with homes and business places
upon them; the people could get lots
for a trifle, provided they did not
mind a fair-sized ground rent being
collected out of them annually for-
ever; a population would be gathered
together; manufactories, trade and
the arts would grow; labor and the
markets would be stimulated, and alt
would prosper. No wonder Hamil-
ton could be the local leader political-
ly and otherwise, even if he were
only twenty-four years old.
Political success in Lancaster coun-
ty, in those days, at times turned
upon smaller events than in our day.
Heroism counted for more than now;
individuality had great opportunity to
make itself felt.
John Emerson owned Blue Rock
Ferry, on the Susquehanna (1 Pa.
Archives 413, hereafter cited A.), in
1734. He was a valiant fighter for Lan-
caster county's rights. Maryland put
a reward of fifty pounds up-on his head
and a like sum on Samuel Blunston.
Cresap was working very hard to
capture Emerson or to kill him and
get the reward (1 A. 413). On the
other hand, Emerson offered fifty
pounds reward for the capture of
Cresap, and gave his ferrymen orders
to go across (a mile below Washington
Borough) and capture Cresap (1 A.
(47)
411). Seven of his men went over
and attacked him. Blunston de-
plored the act in a letter to the Gover-
nor (Do. 410). It made Emerson a
hero among the Scotch-Irish and such
Germans as were not disaffected, and
he was sent to the Assembly as a
reward. This more gladiatorial role of
Emerson, to some extent, left the
doughty Galbraith in the twilight.
The new hero cast a shadow on him.
He stood in two shadows Hamilton's
and Emerson's. Wright stood lowest.
He was too pacific for these trouble-
some times on Susquehanna.
The political vortex of our county
during these days was in the western
part. All the county's Assemblymen
were from the river except Hamilton.
Robert Buchanan and Joshua Lowe,
Sheriff and Coroner, were from the
western border, too. The eastern por-
tion's events were of minor importance
during the border warfare. The Pro-
vincial political issue at this time
(what we would now oall the State's
Issue) was the increase of paper
money; and the local or county is-
sue was the border warfare.
1735. In the fall of 1735 Hamilton,
Edwards, Galbraith and Armstrong
were elected members of Assembly,
and their votes stood in the order
named. Thomas Armstrong got Coyle's
place. The clash of interests between
the proprietor and people continued.
Penn's aibsence made it stronger and
his death caused the feeling to be still
more intense. His sons were regard-
ed as intenneddlers by the people.
The question did not affect Lancaster
county politics.
1736. This year Hamilton, Gal-
braith, Armstrong and Edwards were
elected to the Assembly from Lan-
caster county. Edwards fell from sec-
ond to fourth place. Neither this year
nor in 1735 was John Wright elected.
(48)
Wright was successful only four times
in his candidacies for Assembly in
these first eight years of our county's
history 1729, 1730, 1733 and 1734.
This year was one of many troubles
in our county. In 1731 the Palatines
began settling across the Susque-
hanna (1 A. 483). By 1736 there were
many families on the west side and a
plot to drive out sixty families was
discovered (3 V. 288). Many of these
families accepted Maryland rule (4
C. 56). A battle occurred in Wright's
wheat field over the question (Do. 73).
The Five Nations claimed land anew
on Susquehanna (4 C. 88 and 94.) As a
plot originating in the southern part
of Chester county to steal the Ger-
man's land was discovered (4 C. 100
and 1), Higginbotham, a Maryland
desperado, and others, determined to
drive the Germans to the east side of
the Susquehanna (4 C. 149). He and
his party chopped down doors and de-
molished houses. Lancaster county
blamed the Provincial government for
inactivity (1 A. 530). This became a
political issue in our county, between
the fighters and non-resistants.
1737. And now came on the elec-
tion of 1737 in Lancaster county. For
Assembly James Hamilton received
753 votes; Andrew Galbraith, 540;
John Wright, 394, and Samuel Smith,
388. (American Weekly Mercury,
October 6, 1737.) Gordon Howard was
elected Commissioner of the county,
and six assessors were elected by the
following votes: William Maxwell,
673; Gerard Graham, 553; James Mor-
rison, 402; James Evans, 346; William
Allison, 383, and Thomas Elliot, 228.
(Do). This is the earliest list of Lan-
caster county election figures, that
can anywhere be found. The votes
cast for the year 1737 and 1738 appear
in the newspaper I have mentioned
above; but not for any other years,
(49)
even to the end of that paper's exist-
ence in 1746, nor even in the next
thirty years in the Pennsylvania Ga-
zette. And the earliest election
figures for Lancaster county, in the
"Archives" are those of 1757. (Sixth
Series of Penn, Arch. Vol. 11, p. 215).
In Lancaster county elections for
Assembly this year we observe that
Hamilton is still the leader the poli-
tical bo&s of the county. His vote is
forty per cent, a/bove Galbraith's, and
nearly double that of John Wright.
Galbraith has grown in popular favor,
rising from lowest vote in 1732, to
the next to lowest in 1734 and 1735
and next to highest in 1736 and 1737.
Judge Edwards is again defeated by
Sheriff Samuel Smith and Armstrong
by John Wright. This clearly shows
that all the politics of the county cen-
tered in the excitement on the Susque-
hanna river.
It is interesting to compare Lancas-
ter county's vote with those of the
other counties this year. Our highest
vote was 753 for Hamilton, and for
the highest of the assessors (Maxwell)
it was 673. Philadelphia county's vote
(excluding the town) was904; Ches-
ter county's 724 and the Bucks county
figures are not given; but in 1738 that
county had 522. The city of Philadel-
phia cast for assessor, in 1737, only
207 votes (Weekly Mercury, Supra).
Thus we see our county was casting
as large a vote as Chester, larger than
Bucks and not much less than Phila-
delphia county though each of these
counties were nearly fifty years older
than Lancaster county. We were ac-
cused, however (as I shall show) of
being most malignant "repeaters and
ballot-box stuffers." We were a rough
frontier county.
1738. At the election this year in
Lancaster county for members of the
Assembly, James Hamiltpn received
(50)
1,019 votes; Andrew Galbraith, 933;
Samuel Smith, 795, and John Wright,
758 (Penna. Gazette, October 5, 1738).
The members were the same four who
were elected in 1737, and the only dif-
ference in their standing is that John
Wright, who received a larger vote
than Samuel Smith in 1737, now falls
below Smith, and received the lowest
vote on the successful ticket. Tine
county's vote this year all around was
60 per cent, larger than that of 1737.
And I find about 35 per cent, increase
in the votes of the other counties
The highest vote for Assemblyman
from Philadelphia was 1,303, from
Chester, 98, and from Bucks county,
522 (Do).
The newly-aroused political inter-
est seems to have been due to the ar-
rival of Governor Thomas during this
year, who superseded Gordon (4 C.,
288) ; the agitation about reviving the
{flax on liquor, which tax, nor any
other tax, had been needed since the
fir.st issue of paper money in 1723 (3
V., 302); and the hard times which
were now approaching because of the
scarcity of money (the paper money
allowed by England to be issued be-
ing short of that needed for business
and of the jaw authorizing its use), (3
V., 304 and 305). Lancaster county,
in common -vith the rest of the prov-
ince, complained of the hard times,
and began to complain loudly against
Penn's quit rents (3 V., 329).
This year Lancaster county elected
Andrew Douglass a member of its
Board of Commissioners; and George
Gibson, Andrew Work,Christian Stone-
man, John Powell and Emanuel Car-
penter, its Assessors. As candidates
from which the Governor should se-
lect a Sheriff the county returned Rob-
ert Buchanan and James Galbraith;
(51)
and as candidates for Coroner Joshua
Lowe and William Caldwell; and the
Governor selected Buchanan for Sher-
iff and Lowe for Coroner, these hav-
ing received the highest votes of the
people (4 C., 309).
Politics in the province at this time
was still; but a storm was coming.
Two political parties were about
forming in our county, as well as
throughout the province those hold-
ing appointive offices, their friends,
the Governor and his lesser dignitar-
ies and satellites in one party; and
the common people in the other.
(Bolles Pa. Prov. and State, 269).
There were also two other parties more
or less defined in the county and prov-
ince, lacking in leadership and pur-
pose one believing in narrowing the
functions of government and oppos-
ing possession of power for exclusive
use. They were opposed to public as-
sistance to paper money and the pub-
lic loan system, to inspection laws,
regulating of wages. Against them
were those w*ho believed in equalizing
the advantages of men by public ac-
tion. They believed in the omnipo-
tence of tiie province to cure all evils
by legislation. They were socialistic
in its better .sense (Do., p. 270). Lan-
caster county found itself in polit-
ical sympathy with this latter party;
but some few the more prominent
personages in our county, allied
themselves with the other party, not
desiring to help or interfere witfti pri-
vate life, modes and affairs.
This year Benjamin Franklin ap-
peared as a political factor in the prov-
ince, he being chosen as clerk of
Assembly (3, V. 352). He was a
strong friend of the German-SwisB
folk of our county.
1739. Considerable public feeling
(52)
was aroused among our people by an
attempt to divide the county. The
northeastern section attempted to se-
cede and to help erect a new county.
They presented a map showing the
new line (4 C., 317). Three months
later they renewed the effort. It met
stem opposition (Do. 335 and 3 V.
A., 343). Another effort, made in Au-
gust, failed (3 V. 346). Poem's collec*
. tion of quit rents also made a division
of political feeling. The Penns re-
fused to take anything except gold
and silver as payment, or English
money. Lancaster county voted to
give them a large bonus if they took
the Pennsylvania paper money in pay-
ment (3 V. 38). Our local Presbyter-
ians raised a small political issue by
refusing to ~-;iss the Bible in taking an
oath and petitioned the Assembly in
large numbers for another forn . The
oath by uplifted hand "Presbyterian
oath" was the result (3 V., 338).
In the county vote this fall for As-
sembly, John Wright stood highest,
rising from the lowest (3V 352).
Thomas Ewing stood second, Thomas
Lindley third, and Judge Edwards at
the foot of tlhe list. Ewing and Lind-
ley were n< men. They ousted Gai-
braith and Smith. The change in po-
litical leadership was very marked.
Hamilton \ad left Lancaster and
moved to the fine estate his father
had left him near Philadelphia. John
Wright was again political leader. The
Governor this year refused to ap-
point our county's first choice for
Sheriff, James Mitchell, and appoint-
ed our second choice, Robert Buch-
anan. But de did not appoint Joshua
Lowe, our first choice for Coroner.
(4 C., 352).
The first of that series of local po
litical events occurred this year.which
(53)
caused the Governor to depose Jonn
Wright as a Judge of Lancaster coun-
ty. It was this: Wright was a leader
in the Assembly of a resolution to re-
buke the Governor for his plan to
make a military expedition against
the Spaniards, in aid of England. This
caused the Governor's plans to fall (4
C. 371). A new political element ap-
peared in our local politics this year
an act was passed in 1739-9 to natural-
ize a large list of Lancaster county
Germans. This gave tihem political
rights, and they began to make them-
selves felt (Rupp 271), This year our
county was divided into eight polit-
ical sub-sections. (Do 274).
1740. The Governor had now set
the political pot boiling all over thy
province. Great Britain had ordered
him to issue letters of marque and re-
prisal (4 St. L. 469), and he used every
effort to make the people feel their
defenseless condition, and to make
them prepare for war against Spain
and France. He urged that war men
be elected to Assembly. This, he says,
caused the Quakens to "enter into
consultation and to exert their whole
power to procure a considerable ma-
jority of their own persuasion to be
chosen, to oppose all warlike prepara-
tions and this they publicly vowed.
They told all who advised them to
moderation that the province belong-
ed to them (the Quakers), and that
all others were intruders, and that ir
they did not like their measures they
might move out of it." A consider-
able majority of them were returned.
He says: "They gave me to un-
derstand in their message that I was
to look upon them as an Assembly of
Quakers, and that any proposition
relating to arms was an invasion of
their rights." (Do). He also says the
(54)
whole year was spent in fruitless dis-
putes, and a new Assembly was chosen
in October, 1740, by which there was
as little reason to expect any more
provision would be made for defense
as there was by the former, and that
their yearly meeting (which, though
meant for religious concerns) they
used to direct civil affairs of govern-
ment, and by its order and power all
but three of the thirty members re-
turned were Quakers (4 St L. 470).
He further complains and accuses
that the Quakers this year deceived
the Germans into the fear and belief
that a military force would bring
them under a severe bondage, that*
the expense would impoverish them,
and that if any but the Quakers were
elected, the Germans would be drag-
ged down from their fars to build
forts. He said the Quakers spread many
other falsehoods by printed matter
among the Germans in the Dutch
^language (Do. 471). By this means,
'says Governor Thomas, every man
elected to the Assembly is a Quaker
except three in the whole province,
though, he says only one-third of tae
people are Quakers. Yet, he says,
from their Union they have a much
greater influence on all public affairs
than any other societies (Do.). This
gives us a great deal of light on the
political events in Lancaster county
in 1739 and 1740. It explains why
Galbraith and Smith, elected to the
Assembly in 1738, who were not Qua-
kers, were defeated in Lancaster comr
ey by Ewing and Lindley in 1739, who
were Quakers. It explain.? why John
Wright, chief of Quakers in Lancaster
county, got the highest vote that fall.
It explains why in Lancaster county,
in the fall of 1740, the Germans turn-
ed in with the Quakers and elected
(55)
Thomas Lindley.John Wright, Thomas
Ewing and Anthony Shaw (every one
of them a Quaker), to serve the coun-
ty in the Assembly, even defeating so
good a man as Judge Edwards^, who
was not now a Quaker having been
early proselyted (3 V. p. 424).
The political issue wa.s clearly
drawn now in Lancaster county, as
well as throughout the province. It
was the military party on the one
side, against the anti-military party
on the other side. The Governor view-
ed it as the loyalists to Britain on one
side and the disloyalists on the other
the Scotch-Irish and English church-
men and others on one side and the
Quakers and Germans on the other.
Here in Lancaster county the Ger-
mans largely predominated, and when
marshaled by the Quakers at thel
polls, they had no difficulty in out-
voting the Scotch-Irish. This seldom
happened. But it happened in 1739
and 1740, and likely the two following
years.
Governor Thomas, in a letter to
England, accused the Quaker Assem-
bly of 1739-40 of giving influential
Germans money to control elections,
and of giving like large bribes* to
members of Assembly, who showed
signs of not acting in harmony with
them, to prevent them from becom-
ing insurgents, from the organization
(4 St. L. 475). If the Germans took no
part before in politics they did so
now and henceforth.
This was the earliest division of the
people of Lancaster county and Penn-
sylvania into two clearly distinct
political parties. In 1738 the leading
candidates received nearly all the
votes cast. There were no parties no
formidable opposition, to acknowl-
edge candidates. In Philadelphia
county the head of the ticket received
(56)
1,301 votes; the head in Chester coun-
ty, 988 votes; in Bucks county, 522
votes, and in Lancaster county, 1.019
votes. Nearly all people voted for
them. But in 1739 those who were
leaders in 1738 found themselves
slaughtered by the resourceful Quak-
ers and allied Germans; and the new
party polled 555 votes in Philadelphia
county, 886 in Chester county, 382
in Bucks county and a majority in
Lancaster county (American Weekly
Mercury Oct. 4, 1739). The new.
Quaker-German party took over half
the votes which the old party candi-
dates were accustomed to secure.
These events brought out a full vote
in 1740. The Assembly-elect were all
Quakers but three. In Philadelphia
county the Quaker polled about 1,100
votes, and the opposition about 800,
except in the case of Thomas Leech,
who received the votes of both parties,
1,822 votes (Mercury Oct. 2, 1740).
The other counties figures are not ex-
tant, but Governor Thomas, in his com-
plaint to England, said the Quaker-
German party polled over half the
votes in all counties (4 St. L. 470).
1741. Political issue in Lancas-
ter county this year continued to be
abcfut the same as in the previous
year; but the success of the seven
regiments, of the province sent by
Pennsylvania to the campaign against
Carthagena gave the war party pre-
eminence. One result here in our
county wa s that the -non-resistant Ger-
mans and the local anti-war party
were derided and misrepresented
(Lyle, 126). Members of the church
of England were leaders of this move-
ment locally, as well as generally. The
Scotch-Irish aided it and the Governor
himself ordered it. It was intended to
punish the pacifists for this strenuous
part in politics. But the Quakers who
controlled the Assembly took the part
(57)
of their German alli-s. They said to the
Governor, "Who they are who look
with jealous eyes at the Germans, the
Governor has not told us. The Legis-
lature has generally admitted them to
the privileges of natural born sub-
jects. We look upon them to be a
laborous, industrial people. The Gov-
ernor was compelled to say in Janu-
ary, 1739, that the flourishing condition
of the province, was owing to the in-
dustry of those palatines." (4 C. 313).
This year John Wright was appoint-
ed head of a committee to protest
against the Governor's militarism.
Wright boldly attacked the Governor's
legal power to carry on his war meas-
ure. This caused political heat here
at home, between the war party and
the peace party (3 V. 430). Eighty-
five merchants of Philadelphia
accused the Assembly of Quakers of
malfeasance, of making our Province
helpless and of inviting attack by war-
like nations. (3 V. 433). Wright
criticized the Governor freely and in-
curred his disfavor and was deposed
as a Judge because of it (40. 482 and
9). A large party in Lancaster county
adhered to Wright and his principles.
Lancaster county had sixteen Justices.
The Governor reappointed the eignt
who were not Quakers, but dropped
the eight Quarkers (4 C 483). Speaking
from the Bench to the people of Lan-
caster county, this year, on taking
leave of his office, Judge Wright spoke
the views of his party, on the question
of the amount of military and political
power and authority which is safe
and of the point at which they became
dangerous (Rupp 276).
The election this fall resulted in
re-electing to Assembly those of 1740.
The vote from highest to lowest stood,
Lindley, Wright, Blunston and Shaw
(3 C. 444). These men were the four
leading Quakers among the eight Jus-
(58)
tices the Governor deposed. Lancas-
ter county majority political opinion,
was strongly and bitterly opposed to
the Governor, and the big politicians
of the province. The Germans and
Quakers of Lancaster county had no
trouble now to hold their own against
the other political party in the county
and against the Governor and all his
power and patronage. The Governor
hit our county by appointing anti-
Quaker men for Sheriff and Coroner
Mitchell and Lowe, though they were
the county's second choice (4 C. 500).
1742. This year political feeling
was bitter, and more bitter than ever
before in county and province. The
parties were known as the city party
and the country party. In our county
the country party was the stronger.
The Germans all joined the country
party and their opponents began to
misrepresent them, calling them dan-
gerous and unpatriotic, and represent-
ing them so, even to the British Gov-
ernment.
The Mennonite Church was misrep-
resented. To set themselves right
they called r, meeting here in our
county and resolved to avoid any am-
bitious appearances or acts. They
understood that their prosperity and
rapidly-growing estates and wealth
made many people jealous. Political
capital was being made out of their
thrift. The same four Assemblymen
of 1741 for the county were re-elected
this year. Blunston was most popu-
lar. They were all Quakers. Their
political opponents were the Scotch-
Irish (3 V. 497).
The real local political parties were
the Assembly party and the Governor
party, the latter for military opera-
tions and the former against it. Here
at home the Governor's party men
were enticing servants to desert their
masters to join the army. Owners
who had paid for the time of their
(59)
servants years ahead lost the service
in this manner. Thus in the rural
sections the strength of the old As-
sembly party continued strong. The
new or Governor party lost most of
its strength as soon as it became a
war party. In our county the highest
vote for the war party had 99 votes
and the old party 1961. In Philadel-
phia county the new party polled 333
votes and the old one 1790. (See
Pennsylvania Gazette, October 7,
1742.) The fact that 1,742 votes were
polled in our county at this date
shows a good percentage, and the fact
that the Assembly party polled 1,480
of them shows that the Mennonite
brethren of those days here in our
county voted.
It was charged in a proceeding be-
fore the Assembly that this year man/
unnaturalized Germans voted, and
that some from other counties went
to Philadelphia to vote and help thi3
country party out there. One wit-
ness says that "300 unnaturalized
Dutchmen came down and tried to
vote" (3 V-, 564, and Gordon pp. 242
and 2).
Our county elected John Allison
County Commissioner, and Jacob
Huber, John Wright, Jr., . Andrew
Work, Benjamin Chambers, Hugh
Beale and John Brandsen asses-
sors (Gazette Oct. 7, 1742).
1743. In Lancaster county the po-
litical conditions this year remains
about the same as in 1742. The dis-
graceful proceedings at the last elec-
tion resulted in a movement for se-
curing peace at elections, for which
purpose a law was now introduced
into the Assembly (3 V., p. 506). That
election also taught those Germans
of Lancaster county yet unnaturalized
their importance in affairs of govern-
ment, and we find them, January 4th,
this year, petitioning to be allowed
to take affirmations instead of oaths.
(60)
and to be naturalized so that they
could enjoy the privileges of British
mibjects (3 V., p. 305).
The flour acts also helped to keep
the Pennsylvania people divided into
a country party and a city party.
This act demanded inspection of
flour. The farmers and country mil-
lers were opposed to it, and the mer-
chants strongly favored it. January
7th there were petitions filed by Lan-
caster county and Chester county in
Assembly, praying modification of the
law, so that they could sell more free-
ly (3 V., p. 153).
The election in Lancaster county
for Assembly this fall resulted in the
success of Anthony Shaw, Arthur Pat-
terson, Thomas Lindsey and John
Wright, and their vote ranged in the
order I have named them. Samuel
Blunston was defeated by Arthur Pat-
terson, but the cause of it I am not
able to tell. The election, however,
was a complete victory for the As-
sembly party. The forces in the coun-
ty were lined up as follows: The
county members of the Assembly and
their friends, the principal Quakers,
and the principal Germans of Lancas-
ter were the political workers for the
Assembly party, and the sixteen new
magistrates (justices and judges)
lately appointed by the Governor and
office-holders generally, the sheriff
and the coroner, whom he appointed
also (in part) electioneered for the
Governor's party.
The new man elected by Lancaster
county, Arthur Patterson, was not .
Quaker. He was Scotch Irish, and
naturally a Presbyterian in Done-
gal. Yet he was an adherent of the
Assembly party. He settled on the
Chickies in 1724 (Harris, p. 434). This
election of 1743 was his first appear-
ance in Lancaster county politics. But
he got in it to stay. He was re-elect-
ed to the Assembly every year, until
(61)
and including 1754 a term of twelve
consecutive years (Harris, p. 432).
Our county had a rough-and-tumble
special election toward the end of
October this year (1743) to fill the
vacancy caused by the death of
Thomas Lindsey. The sheriff of the
county was ordered to hold an elec-
tion for this purpose (3 V., 536). Ho
did so, and Blunston was successful.
The election was rough and irregu-
lar (Rupp, 288). The Irish tried for
the ascendency at the polls, and they
compelled the sheriff to take such
tickets as they approved. Yet they
failed. The matter came up in As-
sembly and the sheriff was compelled
to appear November 14 (3 V., 537).
The Assembly debated this, tumul
tuous election two days, and particu-
larly scored the sheriff for being sole
judge of election, exclusive of the in-
spectors, etc., and admonished that
such conduct was illegal, and an in-
fringement of the people's rights.
They reprimanded him (3 V., 538).
The end of it was that while he was
charged with these offenses and that
his returns appeared irregular, yet,
as there was no substantial proof, the
Assembly considered it was the re-
sult of mistake or ill-advice and not
of design; and the matter- was drop-
ped (Do. 538). Inasmuch as the elec-
tion of Blunston was a Quaker vic-
tory, while the sheriff was of the war
party, the Assembly (of Quakers)
felt that justice wauld be adminis-
tered by censuring the sheriff for the
manner of conducting the election,
and at the same time approving the
result. They could be severely just
in the first instance; but could afford
to be generous also in the second.
1744. This year the first great In-
dian treaty in Lancaster occurred.
Witham Marshe, who was present as
a secretary, called Lancaster a dirty
"Dutch" town, sixteen years old.
(62)
The Assemblymen elected for the
county were Mitchell, Wright, Patter-
son and Blunston (Rupp, 307). Mitch-
ell, the new man, was an old politi-
cian. He was elected to the Assem-
bly in 1729 (3 V., 95), and now, after
fifteen years, he is elected again. All
tnese years he took an active interest
in local politics and held many posi-
tions excise collector in 1732 (3 V.,
176), and again in 1734 (Do. 203),
candidate for sheriff in 1734 and 1735
(defeated both times, 3 C., 576-615),
and re-appointed collector in 1736 (3
V., 280), helped to fight Cresap and
to burn his house (4 C., 135), de-
feated for sheriff in 1737 (4 C., 437) ;
in 1738 and 1739 again collector of
excise, in 1739 defeated for sheriff
(4 C., 352), but elected in 1744 to the
office, as well as to Assembly (4 C.,
500). This year England declared
war with France, and the issue soon
'extended to our province, and the
peace party and war party, locally,
were formed at once (Pa. Gazette,
May 24, 1744). As there was a fear
of attack upon defenseless Pennsyl-
vania, the war party received many
new supporters. The county now
had two peace party men in the As-
sembly (Wright and Blunston) ; the
other two were for defense and mili-
tary protection. The rank and file
of the county were anti-bellum. An-
drew Work was elected commissioner
and Martin Mylin, Robert Allison, An-
drew Boggs, Patrick Hayes, John Da-
vies and Jacob Mylin, assessors (Pa.
Gaz., Oct. 11, 1744). The war and
defense spirit had grown so active
here that in December Thomas Ed-
wards organized a company of pro-
vincial troops, mainly in Earl town-
ship (Volume 2, Sec. Ser. Pa. Arch.,
p. 489). Three months later William
Maxwell organized another company
1745. The politics of the county
bear no distinctive mark for this
(63)
year. The contest between Assembly
and Governor was closed harmoni-
ously (Bolles, 88). Venerable
John Wright was chosen Speaker of
Assembly (4 V., 21), but he was too
feeble to serve, and John Kinsey was
chosen in his stead (Do., 22). Our
county fully realized the need of mili-
tary defense now (4 V., 24), and our
Assemblymen voted for 3,000 pounds,
and then for 5,000 pounds for military
strengthening. The thought of de-
fense animated all parties (4 V., 13).
Over ninety vessels belonging to
Philadelphians had been captured by
the French and Spaniards (Pa. Gaz.,
May 16, 1745). The Government
openly advertised for servants to join
the army, and offered to buy from
their masters their time (Do., June
20).
For Assembly, Wright, Mitchell,
Patterson and James Wright were
successful. James Wright served
twenty-one years as Assemblyman for
Lancaster county out of the period of
1745 to 1770. (Harris, 624). The new
prison was begun this year.
1746. Our county's main question
this year was the need of money.
The treasuries of the county and of
the province were empty. Only paper
money was in sight. Quakers would
not help the Louisburg expedition (4
V., 38). Lancaster county became
frightened because of the boldness of
the Indians, who became treacherous,
knowing of the war. Our county
begged the Governor for guns to de-
fend themselves (5 ., 26). At last
four hundred guns were provided for
us, each one to give his note for his
gun (4 V., 25). Times were dull and
farm prices low (Gaz., Feb. 4, 1746).
The Governor dropped eight of our
justices of the peace and appointed
new ones in their stead (5 C., 3).
The Assemblymen elected were the
same as last year (Rupp, 307).
V
(64)
1747. The political condition of the
county was mild now. The Germans
and the Quakers had greatly changed
their attitude on the question of mili-
tary defenses and operations. A mili-
tary spirit in different degrees now
possessed every one. There were Lan-
caster countians in both the army
and the navy now. This was plain
from the number of Lancaster men
who were running away from their
masters (Gazette of April 9, July 2
and September 17), and also the num-
ber of Lancaster men deserting rrom
the army, viz.: William Erhard, Nich-
olas Fry, John Straw, James Carroll,
Roger Mountain, John Burns,Antliony
Bushong, Manchester Halloway and
others (Penna. Gazette, May 28 and
June 4, 1747).
A military spirit now pervaded the
province. The associators began
forming (Gazette, Nov. 26, 1747) A
meeting was held at Walton's school
house, on Arch street, and later a
great meeting, at which 1,000 persons
joined the Association. Elaborate
forms and Articles of Association
were drawn up (Gazette, Dec. 3). The
Association censured the Assembly
for lack of the sense of protection
They pledged themselves to form
companies and to drill; to form regi-
ments; to arm themselves; to serve
without pay; to elect a military coun-
cil, etc. Chester county organized a
branch (Do., Dec. 3). Lancaster
county also fell in with the spirit
Our county elected three Assembly-
men in favor of defense and war, if
necessary, Patterson, Webb and
Peter Worrall. John Wright was re-
elected as a final compliment to a
faithful servant.
1748. This year saw the real rise
of the military spirit in Lancaster
county. The Associators formed a
company in January, with Hugh Pat-
rick as Captain, Thomas McDowell as
(65)
Lieutenant and Thomas Grubb as
[Ensign. (Penna. Gaeztte of Jan. 26,
1748). By March Lancaster county
had another, company officered by Ga-
briel Davis as Captain, Robert Ellis
as Lieutenant and Edward Davis as
Ensign. (Penna. Gazette of Jan. 26.)
Another Lancaster county company
was announced, with Jas. Gillespie as
Captain, James Gilchrist as Lieuten-
ant, and Samuel Johnson as Ensign
(Do., March 15). And by the next
week the county of Lancaster had
regimental officers, Benjamin Cham-
bers as Colonel, Robert Dunning as
Lieutenant Colonel and Wililam Max-
well as Major,with fourteen companies
under them; each having a Captain,
Lieutenant and Ensign (Do., March
22). By April 25th the county had an-
other regiment of fourteen compa-
nies, fully officered. Their Colonel
was Thomas Cookson; Lieutenant
Colonel, James Galbraith, and Major,
Robert Baker (Do., April 25). And by
June the 16th a third regiment under
Colonel Gillespie, Lieutenant Colonel
Samuel Anderson and Major James
Whitehill (Do., June 16 ). In the
midst of these military preparations
news reached Pennsylvania about the
end of October that peace was pro-
claimed (Do., November 3).
In the midst of this spirit Lancas-
ter county on October 1, 1748, elected
the same four members to Assembly
as in 1747. Joseph Pugh was elected
sheriff and Isaac Sanders coroner
(Gazette of October 6).
1749. As soon as peace between
England and France was re-establish-
ed factional county politics was every-
where evident. The Assemblymen
elected were James Wright, Patter-
son, Calvin Cooper and Peter Wor-
rall. Wright and Cooper were the
new men. The election was a Quaker-
"Dutch" victory. Cooper and Wright
(66)
were Quakers. Worrall was the idol
of the Germans, and Patterson,
though Irish, was friendly with the
Quakers.
The election of James Wright and
Cooper and Patterson was sure and
easy. The burden of the fight was be-
tween James Webb and Peter Wor-
rall. The Germans threw their
strength to Worrall and elected him.
Webb charged fraud and contested
Worrall's election before the Assem-
bly.
Webb in his petition to the Assem-
bly set forth that at the late election
there were gross frauds whereby ha
was not elected; that the good people
are thereby defeated of their privi-
lege. Many of the voters in the county
also joined in a petition setting forth
that at the late election the people
crowded in a body, and that they
stuck their tickets in the end of
cloven sticks, and committed other
frauds; that tickets were put in by
boys; that many voted several times;
that the number of votes received
were more than double the number
of the people who were present; that
the officers did not put any on oath
or call for any tests. By reason of
all this they pray the election to be
declared void (4 V., 117-18). Novem-
ber 22 the Asembly took the case up
and heard many witnesses. The tes-
timony was that the election was tu-
multuous; that no regular list could
be taken of the voters' names; that
votes by proxy were allowed; that il-
legal votes was received by inspec-
tors, especially by Christian Herr, an
inspector; votes from minors receiv-
ed; that persons not legally chosen
inspectors received votes as inspec-
tors; that many people voted three,
four and five, and even ten, times;
that one of the candidates (Worrall)
who is returned as elected encour-
(67)
aged giving in more than one vote by
the same person; that the number of
voters attending did not exceed 1,000,
though the tickets found in the box
were more than 2,300 (4 V., p. 122,
and Rupp., p. 299).
The defense was that only two tick-
ets were taken by proxy, but the own-
ers of the tickets were in view, the
tickets were taken from minors to
get rid of them, but they were not put
in the box; that those elected inspec-
tors soon after starting in were pulled
away from their tables, and that the
number of voters present was as
great as the number of votes cast (4
V., p. 123). The case went over to
1750, and January 2d the Assembly
resumed considering it (4 V., p
126). Several witnesses were heard
the next day and the list of taxables
of Lancaster county was produced,
showing there were 4,598 to show
there was no duplication in voting or
repeating (4 V., 126). The next day
the case was up again, and the repre-
sentative who was charged with en-
couraging plurality of votes in favor
of himself, on his oath, purged him-
self, and also by witnesses supported
the same (Do., p. 127).
The sheriff of the county was called
in at the end of these proceedings
and severely censured for this irregu-
lar election, and especially for mak-
ing himself judge and inspector and
clerk of the election, and for having
intoxicated persons on the board, and
for not having the tally sheets, and
for not suppressing disorder and sup-
pressing fraud (4 V., 127-8). After all
this the sheriff had the "cheek" to
present a bill for twenty pounds ex-
penses in defending his crooked elec-
tion. The Germans had full control
of the election, and from this time
onwards were the masters in our
county politics.
We cannot tell how many of the
(68)
2,300 votes Webb received, and how
many Worrall received. One thing is
clear, and that is, that at this time
it was alleged, only 1,000 voters out of
4,598 entitled voters came to the polls.
The roughness and dangers of an
election surely kept many away.
Some political feeling was aroused
this year by the proceedings to erect
York county (4 V., 107-119). Petitions
were filed against it on the ground
that to cut so many people off would
leave tax burdens too heavy on the
remainder (4 V., 100). Fully nine-
tenths of those living over Susque-
hanna were German (Pa. Arch. 3d
Ser., Vol. 21).
The Governor this year changed
the list of justices of the peace con-
siderably. He dropped several and
appointed new ones, and greatly en-
larged the number of them.
Such were the political conditions
of our county in the first twenty
years of its existence. Human nature
was the same then as now, and peo
pie took violently opposite views on
nearly every public question.
Minutes of February Meeting
Lancaster, Pa., Feb. 4, 1916.
The February meeting of the Lan-
caster County Historical Society was
held in their room in the A. Herr
Smith Library Building on Friday
evening. President George M.
Steinman occupied the chair. The
librarian, Miss Lottie Bausman, pre-
sented her annual report which show-
ed that many donations had been re-
ceived during tiie past year.
Miss Elizabeth G. Armstrong and
and Miss Kate Hartman. both of
Lancaster, were elected to member-
ship in the Society; and Mrs. Return
Fahnestock, John A. Nauman, Esq.
and Mr. Harry M. Hoover, all of Lan-
caster, were nominated for member-
ship.
The suggestion of the secretary,
Mr. Charles B. Hollinger, in his annu-
al report, to the effect that a social
affair be held in connection with one
of the monthly meetings was accept-
ed and a committee was appointed to
arrange for it.
The librarian was authorised to
purchase several books. It was sug-
gested by D. F. Magee Esq., that the
Society should see fit to purchase old
manuscripts, books or curios that per-
tain to the early history of Lancaster
county.
The donations received during De-
cember and January included: "Old
Schuylkill Tales," from Mrs. Ella
Zerbey; the address of D. B. Landis
at the Ben Franklin Club banquet
on Jan. 17, from D. B. Landis; a
(69)
number of the Society's pamphlets;
four numbers of the "Memphis Ap-
peal" published at Atlanta, Ga., in Au-
gust, 1864, issued just when Sherman
was getting ready for his march to
the sea, presented by Mrs. M. Alex-
ander; and a "hound iron" taken
from a government wagon used during
the Revolutionary War, from William
J. McCaa, Esq., of Churchtown. T.
Roberts Appel, Esq. explained that
this particular hound iron was made
at Valley Forge and is a fine sample
of those used at Windsor Forges.
The paper of the evening was "The
Political History and Development
of Lancaster County's First Twenty
Years 1729 to 1749" by H. Frank
Eshleman, Esq. The paper was very
interesting and told of stirring politi-
cal elections and local factional
fights connected therewith, the pro-
minence of James Hamilton in the
political arena for a time; the Quak-
ers, Germans, Scotch-Irish, English
and other elements and their part in
local political and industrial life.
Mr. H. Frank Esiileman of the com-
mittr on indexing twenty volumes
of the Historical Society proceedings
appealed for volunteers to assist in
the work. It was intimated that a
number of members of the Society
will respond.
PPTI IDKI
RETURN TO the circulation desk of any
University of California Library
or to the
NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
Bldg.400, Richmond Field Station
University of California
Richmond, CA 94804-4698
ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS
2-month loans may be renewed by calling
(510)642-6753
1-year loans may be recharged by bringing
books to NRLF
Renewals and recharges may be made 4
days prior to due date.
DUE AS STAMPED BELOW
AUG281999
FOI
12,000(11/95)
U.C.BERKELEY LIBRARIES
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
