The Fair Play Settlers of the West Branch Valley, 1769-1784 Part 6

For example, the right of settlement included not only the approval of the Fair Play men, but also the acceptance of the prospective landholder by his neighbors. Allusions to this effect are made in the Coldren deposition as well as in the Huff-Latcha case. Eleanor Coldren's deposition, made at Sunbury, June 7, 1797, concerns the disputed t.i.tle to certain lands of her deceased husband, Abraham Dewitt, opposite the Great Island. Her comments about neighbor approval demonstrate the point. She says, for instance, that

... in the Spring of 1775, Henry Antes and Cookson Long, two of the Fair-Play Men, with others, were at the deponent's house, next below Barnabas Bonner's Improvement, where Deponent's Husband kept a Tavern, and heard Antes and Long say that they (meaning the Fair-Play Men) and the Neighbors of the Settlement had unanimously agreed that James Irvin, James Parr, Abraham Dewitt and Barnabas Bonner should ... have their Improvement Rights fitted....

She speaks of the resolution of the claims problem "as being the unanimous agreement of the Neighbors and Fair-Play Men...."[30]

William King, who temporarily claimed part of the land involved in the dispute between Edmund Huff and Jacob Latcha, also refers to neighbor approval in his deposition taken in that case. He said, "I first went to Edmund Huff, then to Thomas Kemplen, Samuel Dougherty, William McMeans, and Thomas Ferguson, and asked if they would accept me as a neighbor...."[31]

Land tenure policy is noted by this same William King in the case of _James Grier_ vs. _William Tharpe_. Repeating what we have already pointed out in the case of _Hughes_ vs. _Dougherty_, King testified that "there was a law among the Fair-play men by which any man, who absented himself for the s.p.a.ce of six weeks, lost his right to his improvement."[32] In the Huff-Latcha case, King recounts the case of one Joseph Haines who "had once a right ... but had forfeited his right by the Fair-play law...."[33]

The forfeiture rule was tempered, however, in cases involving military service. Bratton Caldwell's deposition in _Grier_ vs. _Tharpe_ is a case in point. Caldwell, one of the Fair Play men in 1776, declared that "Greer went into the army in 1776 and was a wagon-master till the fall of 1778.... In July, 1778, the Runaway, John Martin, had come on the land in his absence. The Fair-play men put Greer in possession. If a man went into the army, the Fair-play men protected his property."[34]

Meginness mentions a similar decision in the case of John Toner and Morgan Sweeney.[35] Sweeney had attempted to turn a lease for improvements in Toner's behalf to possession for himself, but the Northumberland County Court honored the Fair Play rule concerning military service and decided in favor of Toner.

The summary process of ejectment utilized by the Fair Play men, occasionally with militia support, is evident from William King's deposition in the Huff-Latcha case. King, having sold his right to one William Paul, recounts the method as follows:

William Paul went on the land and finished his cabin. Soon after a party b[r]ought Robert Arthur and built a cabin near Paul's in which Arthur lived. Paul applied to the Fair-play men who decided in favor of Paul. Arthur would not go off. Paul made a complaint to the company at a muster at Quinashahague[36] that Arthur still lived on the land and would not go off, although the Fair-play men had decided against him. I was one of the officers at that time and we agreed to come and run him off. The most of the company came down as far as Edmund Huff's who kept Stills. We got a keg of whisk[e]y and proceeded to Arthur's cabin. He was at home with his rifle in his hand and his wife had a bayonet on a stick, and they threatened death to the first person who would enter the house. The door was shut and Thomas Kemplen, our captain, made a run at the door, burst it open and instantly seized Arthur by the neck. We pulled down the cabin, threw it into the river, lashed two canoes together and put Arthur and his family and his goods into them and sent them down the river. William Paul then lived undisturbed upon the land until the Indians drove us all away.[37] William Paul was then (1778) from home on a militia tour.[38]

Although land disputes offer doc.u.mentary evidence of the Fair Play system, it seems quite likely that the tribunal's jurisdiction extended to other matters. A few anecdotes, obviously based quite tenuously upon hearsay, will suffice to ill.u.s.trate. Joseph Antes, son of Colonel Henry Antes, used to tell this story: It seems that one Francis Clark, who lived just west of Jersey Sh.o.r.e in the Fair Play territory, gained possession of a dog which belonged to an Indian. Upon learning of this, the Indian appealed to the Fair Play men, who ordered Clark's arrest and trial for the alleged theft. Clark was convicted and sentenced to be lashed. The punishment was to be inflicted by a person decided by lot, the responsibility falling upon the man drawing the red grain of corn from a bag containing grains of corn for each man present. Philip Antes was the reluctant "winner." The Indian, seeing that the decision of the "court" was to be carried out immediately, magnanimously suggested that banishment would serve better than flogging. Clark agreed and left for the Nippenose Valley, where his settlement is a matter of record.[39]

Another anecdote, if true, gives further testimony to the justice of Fair Play. In this instance, a minister and school teacher named Kincaid faced the Fair Play tribunal on the charge of abusing his family. Tried and convicted, he was sentenced to be ridden on a rail for his offense.[40] Here again, the tale, though legendary, is made plausible by the established fact of Kincaid's residence in the area.[41]

Doubtless the most notable political action of the Fair Play settlers is their declaration of independence, which Meginness calls "a remarkable coincidence" because "it took place about the same time that the Declaration was signed in Philadelphia!"[42] Aware, as were many of the American colonists in the spring and summer of 1776, that independence was being debated in Philadelphia, these West Branch pioneers decided to absolve themselves from all allegiance to the Crown and declare their own independence. Meeting under a large elm on the west bank of Pine Creek, mistakenly known as the "Tiadaghton Elm," the Fair Play men and settlers simply resolved their own right of self-determination, a principle upon which they had been acting for some time. Unfortunately, no record of the resolution has been preserved--if it was actually written. However, the names of the supposed signers, all bona fide Fair Play settlers, have been pa.s.sed down to the present.[43]

As every careful historian knows, no declaration was signed in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776, except by the clerk and presiding officer of the Continental Congress. Consequently, the Pine Creek story arouses justifiable skepticism. However, there does seem to be some evidence to substantiate this famous act.

First of all, Fithian's _Journal_ gives insight into the possible motivation for such independent action. In an entry for Thursday, July 27, 1775, he writes of reviewing "the 'Squires Library," noting that "After some Perusal I fix'd in the Farmer's memorable Letters."[44]

Fithian was reading John d.i.c.kinson's _Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania_, which he had come across in the library of John Fleming, his host for a week in the West Branch Valley. d.i.c.kinson's dozen uncompromising epistles in opposition to the Grenville and Townshend programs both inspired and incited liberty-lovers. Furthermore, Fleming himself was a leader among the Fair Play settlers, and may have been aroused to action by the eloquence of d.i.c.kinson's expression. Every idea is an incitement to action and the ideas of _Letters from a Farmer_, which made d.i.c.kinson the chief American propagandist prior to Thomas Paine, reached into the frontier of the West Branch Valley.

The best contemporary evidence in support of the Pine Creek declaration is found in the widow's pension application of Anna Jackson Hamilton, daughter-in-law of Alexander Hamilton, who was one of the early settlers and a prominent leader along the West Branch of the Susquehanna. Mrs.

Hamilton, whose pension application and accompanying statement were made in 1858, lived within one mile of the reputedly historic elm. In her sworn statement she says, "I remember well the day independence was declared on the plains of Pine Creek, seeing such numbers flocking there, and Independence being all the talk, I had a knolege of what was doing."[45] Her son John corroborates this in his statement that "She and an old colored woman are the only persons now living in the country who remembers the meeting of the 4th of July, 1776, at Pine Creek. She remembers it well."[46] Mrs. Hamilton was ninety years old at the time of her declaration, which was made some eighty-two years after the celebrated event.[47]

Following the outbreak of the Revolution and the meeting of the Second Continental Congress, the Fair Play system of the West Branch Valley was soon augmented by another extra-legal organization, the Committee of Safety. Ostensibly created for the purpose of raising and equipping a "suitable force to form Pennsylvania's quota of the Continental Army,"

it soon exercised executive authority dually with the a.s.sembly.[48] The Council of Safety was inst.i.tuted as the successor to the Committee of Safety by a resolution of the Provincial Convention of 1776, then meeting in Philadelphia to draw up a new const.i.tution for Pennsylvania.

It was continued by an act of the a.s.sembly that same year. It functioned from July 24, 1776, until it was dissolved on December 6, 1777, by a proclamation of the Supreme Executive Council.[49] Locally, however, the towns.h.i.+p branches continued to function and were still referred to as "committees."

It appears from the resolutions and actions of the local committee that the Fair Play men maintained jurisdiction in land questions, but that all other cases were within the range of the committee's authority. In fact, a resolution dated February 27, 1776, a.s.serted that "the committee of Bald Eagle is the most competent judges of the circ.u.mstances of the people of that towns.h.i.+p."[50] This resolution was made in conjunction with an order from the county committee to prevent the loss of rye and other grains which were being "carried out of the towns.h.i.+p for stilling."[51] Although cautioned against "using too much rigor in their measures," the committee was advised to find "a medium between seizing of property and supplying the wants of the poor."[52] The county committee even went so far as to recommend the suppression of such practices as "profaning the Sabbath in an unchristian and scandalous manner."[53] In April of 1777, the county committee required an oath of allegiance from one William Reed, who had refused military service for reasons of conscience.[54]

Although Bald Eagle Towns.h.i.+p did not, at this time, extend into Fair Play territory,[55] it is interesting to note that the local committee, whose three members frequently changed, often included settlers from that territory or those who were in close a.s.sociation with the Fair Play men.[56] The Revolution apparently gave a certain quasi-legality to the claims of the "outlaws" of the West Branch Valley.

One further political note is worthy of mention. After Lexington and Concord and the formation of the various committees of safety, the civil officers of Bald Eagle Towns.h.i.+p, that is to say the constable, supervisor, and overseers, were often chosen from among settlers on the borders of, or actually in, Fair Play territory.[57]

The politics of fair play then was nothing more than that--fair play. It was a pragmatic system which the necessities of the frontier experience, more than national or ethnic origin, had developed. The "codes" of operation represented a consensus, equally, freely, and fairly arrived at--a common "law" based upon general agreement and practical acceptance. There were subsequent appeals to regular courts of law, but, surprisingly enough, in every instance the fairness of the judgments was sustained. No Fair Play decision was reversed. Furthermore, the frequency of elections and the use of the principle of rotation in office were additional a.s.surances against the usurpation of power by any small clique or ruling cla.s.s. Popular sovereignty, political equality, and popular consultation--these were the basic elements of fair play.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] _Colonial Records_, X, 95. The Fair Play settlers were outlawed by a proclamation of the Council signed by Governor John Penn on Sept. 20, 1773. The proclamation was issued "strictly enjoyning and requiring all and every Person and Persons, already settled or Residing on any Lands beyond the Boundary Line of the Last Indian Purchase, immediately to evacuate their illegal Settlements, and to depart and remove themselves from the said Lands without Delay, on pain of being prosecuted with the utmost rigour of the Law." The "Last Indian Purchase" referred to here is, of course, the Stanwix Treaty of 1768.

[2] Smith, _Laws_, II, 195.

[3] Richard W. Leopold and Arthur S. Link (eds.), _Problems in American History_ (Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1957), p. 22. The entire first problem in this excellent text deals with the question of authority in American government.

[4] This Fair Play system was certainly not unique, for other frontier societies employed the same technique, even down to the ruling tribunal of three members. See Solon and Elizabeth Buck, _The Planting of Civilization in Western Pennsylvania_ (Pittsburgh, 1939), pp. 431, 451.

However, it must be pointed out that the Bucks' "Fair Play" reference is based on Smith, _Laws_, II, 195, which Samuel P. Bates used in "a general application of the practice to W. Pa. areas after 1768," in his _History of Greene County, Pennsylvania_ (Chicago, 1888). This was the interpretation given in a letter from Dr. Alfred P. James to the author, July 17, 1963. Dr. James also says that "It is possible that there are evidences of Fair Play Men t.i.tles in the court records of Was.h.i.+ngton and Greene Counties."

[5] This designation was often employed to cla.s.sify those settlers who took up lands beyond the limits of the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768, that is to say, west of Lycoming Creek on the north side of the West Branch of the Susquehanna.

[6] Russell, "Signers of the Pine Creek Declaration of Independence," p.

5. Mrs. Russell, whose historical accuracy can be verified through her indicated sources, refers to old borough minutes of Jersey Sh.o.r.e as her source for the names of the tribunal of 1776, namely, Bartram Caldwell, John Walker, and James Brandon. Upon discussing the matter with her, I learned that a clipping from an old Jersey Sh.o.r.e paper, now lost, which described the minutes, was her actual source. However, adequate doc.u.mentation and meticulous research characterize her work.

Furthermore, Bratton Caldwell (he signed his name Bartram) is also labeled a Fair Play official by Linn, "Indian Land and Its Fair Play Settlers, 1773-1785," p. 422. Linn's identification comes in the case of _Greer_ vs. _Tharpe_, Greer's case being a pre-emption claim on the basis of military service.

[7] "Eleanor Coldren's Deposition," _Now and Then_, XII (1959), 220-222.

The deposition reads "That in the Spring of 1775, Henry Antes and Cookson Long, two of the Fair-Play Men, with others, were at the deponent's house...."

[8] Oscar T. Barck, Jr. and Hugh T. Lefler, _Colonial America_ (New York, 1958), pp. 258-260. Although Barck and Lefler indicate in this section on "The Colonial Franchise" that universal suffrage did not prevail in the colonies, they do note the significance of "free land,"

of which Fair Play territory was an excellent example.

[9] _Ibid_, p. 260.

[10] William Cooke to James Tilghman, _Pennsylvania Archives_, First Series, XII, 286-287.

[11] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Fourth Series, III, 545-546.

[12] _Report of the Commission to Locate the Site of the Frontier Forts of Pennsylvania_ (Harrisburg, 1896), I, 390, 392, 394-418.

[13] Smith, _Laws_, II, 195.

[14] Linn, "Indian Land and Its Fair-Play Settlers," p. 424. This six weeks provision is noted in the deposition of John Sutton in the case of _William Greer_ vs. _William Tharpe_, dated March 13, 1797.

[15] _Ibid._, 422. Bratton Caldwell, one of the Fair Play men, indicates this practice in his deposition in the _Greer_ vs. _Tharpe_ case.

[16] "Eleanor Coldren's Deposition," pp. 220-222.

[17] Linn, "Indian Land and Its Fair-Play Settlers," pp. 422-424.

William King, in his deposition taken March 15, 1801, in _Huff_ vs.

_Satcha_ [sic], in the Circuit Court of Lycoming County, notes the use of a company of militia, of which he was an officer, to eject a settler.

Linn errs in his reference to the defendant as "Satcha." The man's name was Latcha, according to the Appearance Docket Commencing 1797, No. 2, Lycoming County.

[18] _See_ nn. 6 and 7, p. 33.

[19] Smith, _Laws_, II, 195. _See also_, pp. 31 and 32, this chapter, in which the excerpt from this source is quoted verbatim.

[20] _Supra_, p. 33.

[21] _Infra_, Chapter Six. The question of leaders.h.i.+p in conjunction with the problems of this frontier is discussed in Chapter Six.

[22] The Appearance Dockets and Files were checked for Northumberland County from 1784 to 1795 and for Lycoming County from 1795 to 1801.

These records, obtained in the offices of the respective prothonotaries, produced thirty-seven cases in Northumberland and twenty-two in Lycoming County dealing with former Fair Play settlers. Unfortunately, only four were reviews of actual Fair Play decisions.

[23] Northumberland County originated in 1772 and Lycoming County in 1795. Clinton County was not created until 1839.