Resolved by the Select and Common Councils, That the resolutions of the Wardens of the city of Philadelphia; the report of the committee appointed by Councils and the Surveys by persons employed, together with other papers in relation to the navigation of the river Schuylkill, be printed in pamphlet form to the amount of 200 copies for the use of the members of Councils and others.

county of Philadelphia, report that they have attended Tried before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. to the duties assigned them by receiving and depositing the corner stone for the contemplated Washington Monument in the Hall of Independence, and ask to be discharged.

Philadelphia, to recover a penalty of $133 33 for marrying the plaintiff's apprentice. The cause was tried at March Term 1827, and a verdict taken by consent, for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court. At a subsequent term, the cause was argued by Joseph, M'Ilvaine and James Mahany, Esquires, for the plaintiff, and Henry Chester, and Charles Chauncey, Esquires, for the defendant, when judgment was entered for the defendant, to which the plaintiff took a writ of error to the Supreme Court.

The only question presented for the consideration of the Supreme Court was, whether the master of an indented apprentice, as distinguished from the master of an indented servant or servant by agreement could sustain an action for the penalty of £50, which is in certain cases recoverable under the supplement of the Marriage Act, passed in 1729-30. It was not denied that parents and guardians, and masters and mistresses of indented menial servants could sustain the action if they could satisfy a court and jury that they had been grieved by a violation

of the act.

THE OPINION OF THE COURT was delivered by Judge Kennedy;-and is as follows:

indented servants," &c. The second section then imposes a forfeiture of fifty pounds upon every justice of the peace, clergyman, minister, or other person who shall join in marriage, contrary to the provisions of these acts, "to be recovered in any court of record within this commonwealth, by bill, plaint, or information, by the person or persons grieved, if they shall sue for the same.

It has been urged by the counsel for the plaintiff in error, that the term "servant," in legal acceptation at least, embraces an apprentice. That this appears not only from Jacob's Law Dictionary, but from Viner, Blackstone, and others, who have classed apprentices with servants; have treated them as a species of servants, and laid down the law in respect to them under the title of "master and servant." This argument, if it prove any thing, proves more than the plaintiff claims, because it is admitted on his part, that hirelings are not embraced under either of the acts, yet nothing is more certain, than that they are embraced within the genuine term "servants" in its legal signification. But I think it apparent from the phraseology of these acts, that it was not the intention of the Legislature to employ the This was a writ of error to the District Court for the term "servants" in its legal genuine sense, and more city and county of Philadelphia. The plaintiff in error especially in the supplementary act which is the one was the plaintiff below, and brought this suit as the that imposes the penalty. The original act declares, master of an apprentice against the defendant, a clergy-that if servants shall procure themselves to be married man, to recover the penalty of fifty pounds for marry-without consent of their master or mistresses, that they ing the apprentice of the plaintiff without his consent. shall for such offence, "serve their respective masters This penalty was claimed to be recovered by the plain- or mistresses one whole year after the time of their servitiff for the violation of the Act of Assembly passed the tude by indenture or agreement, is expired." The terms 14th of February 1729-30, entitled "a supplement to employed in the supplementary act, are "indented serthe act, entitled an act, for preventing clandestine mar- vants," which are more definite, and perhaps more reriages." The only question which has been raised in strictive than the phraseology used in the original act. this case by the error assigned, is, whether an apprentice The supplement is in positive terms confined to the be embraced within the words "indented servants," cases of indented servants, and I will not say but what which by the Act, justices of the peace, clergymen, mi- this ought to be considered as explanatory of the denisters or other persons are prohibited from joining in scription of servants intended to be embraced by the marriage, without the consent of their masters or mis- first act, and that neither were intended to be extended tresses. The court below decided that such an action to other than indented servants. For the preamble to would not lie for the master of an apprentice although the supplement would seem to indicate, that its design it would by the master of a servant. was to provide a suitable punishment for those who In order to determine this question correctly, it may should join such servants in marriage as were prohibited be well to refer to the words of the original act, as well from marrying by the original Act, under a penalty of as the supplement. The original act, (1 Smith's Laws, having their term of servitude extended one year beyond 21,) among other things declares, that "if any servant or the term of their indenture or engagement. These acts, servants, shall procure themselves to be married, with- although it may be said, that in one point of view, they out the consent of his or her master or mistress, such are remedial, yet it must be admitted, I think, that they servant, or servants, shall for such their offence, each of are highly penal; for by the provisions of the first Act, them serve their respective masters or mistresses one the servant who offends against it, is made to serve his whole year after the time of their servitude by inden- master or mistress, one whole additional year whether ture or agreement is expired. And if any person being the master or mistress shall have sustained damage or free, shall marry with a servant as aforesaid, he or she not, by the servant's marrying without consent. And so marrying, shall pay to the master or mistress of the by the supplementary Act, the person who joins an inservant, if a man, twelve pounds, and if a woman, six dented servant in marriage is made to pay fifty pounds pounds, or one year's service; and the servant so being to the party grieved, that is, to the master or mistress married, shall abide with his or her master or mistress whether he or she shall have sustained any actual daaccording to the indenture, or agreement, and one year mage by it or not. I am therefore inclined to believe, that after as aforesaid." The preamble to the supplement, in the construction of these acts, we are bound to con(1 Smith's Laws, 180,) recites that, "whereas the good fine ourselves to what shall appear to have been clearly intention of an Act of Assembly of this province, enti- and manifestly the intention of the Legislature in passtled an act for preventing clandestine marriages, hathing them; and that this intention must be collected from been very much eluded by reason that no proper penalty the various parts of these acts taken together, and the is by the said law imposed upon the justice of the peace, terms used therein, as also from other acts passed about or other person marrying or joining in màrriage any the same time, and subsequently, in relation to servants person contrary to the intent and meaning of the said and apprentices, and not from our own notions of what act, for remedying whereof, be it enacted that no justice may, or ought to be considered as existing evils at the of the peace, shall subscribe his name to the publication present day on this subject, and therefore proper to be of any marriage within this province, intended to be considered as coming within the provisions of these acts. had between any persons whatsoever, unless one of I think that it may be safely affirmed, that at no period the persons at least, live in the county where such jus-in Pennsylvania has the term "servant" in common tice dwells, and unless such justice shall likewise have parlance been extended to an apprentice. An apprenfirst produced to him, a certificate of the consent of the tice has ever been considered as having and maintaining parent or parents, guardian or guardians, master or mis- a higher stand or grade in society, than him who is comtress of the person whose names or bans are to be pub-monly denominated a "servant." This distinction too, lished, if either of the parties be under the age of twenty- will appear to have been taken and to have existed in one years, or under the tuition of their parents, or be the mind of our legislative body as often as its atten

tion has been turned to servants and apprentices, and it has thought proper to legislate upon the subject. A reference to these acts will furnish the most abundant proof that whenever the legislature intended to pass or make any provision which was intended to embrace apprentices, that they have uniformly named them specifically: and no instance, I think, can be found, in any act of Assembly, where the two terms are used as synony-sons residing out of the state, without their consent, or

mous.

In the year 1700, (1 Smith's Laws, 10,) a little before the passage of the first act, involved in this case, an act entitled "an act for the better regulation of servants in this province and territory," was passed. The term servants, without any epithet of qualification or restriction, is used in this act, throughout, yet, it has never been supposed that apprentices were embraced within its provisions; certainly in practice they have not. The 3d section gives freedom dues, such as are therein specified, to those servants who shall have served faithfully for four or more years. Among the articles specified as freedom dues, are one new axe, one grubbing hoe and one weeding hoe, things that would be of little or no use whatever in almost every trade, art, or mystery that is learned in the character of an apprentice. The 4th section imposes a penalty of 5 days' service upon any "servant" who shall absent himself from his master's service without his consent for every day that the servant shall so absent himself, and such further satisfaction as to the county court shall seem meet-who are also to order the additional time to be served. Sons of the most respectable citizens in this State, as well during the time it was a province as since, have been bound out, to learn some art, mystery, trade, or occupation, such as that of husbandman, merchant, or some of the mechanic arts. Indeed, it is as likely as not that some of the sons of these very legislators themselves, who made some of these laws, were bound out as apprentices: and can it be imagined that they intended such regulations for apprentices? Most certain is it, that in practice they have never been so applied-which is at least strong if not conclusive evidence of the original design of these acts. By a supplement to this act, passed as late as the 9th of March, 1771, (1 Smith's Laws, 321) a summary remedy is provided to enforce some of the provisions contained in the original, without the least alteration of phraseology, showing that apprentices or their masters were not intended to be embraced.

so far as she or he had discretion and capacity, to express or signify the same: or to persons who were not of good repute, so as others of good credit and of the same persuasion might or could be had. But very different was the law as to servants who, at this time, were liable to serve any body, and to be transferred from hand to hand, so that they were not disposed of to perany regard paid to the religious profession, or even moral character of the master. On the 4th of March, 1763, "an act for the regulation of apprentices within this province," was passed, which was afterwards on the 29th of September, 1770, repealed by an act of that date, entitled "an act for the regulation of apprentices within this province." (1 Smith's Laws, 309,) The preamble to this act recites that, "whereas great mischiefs and losses had been sustained by the masters and mistresses of apprentices within this province, for want of some law to regulate their conduct and behaviour, during their apprenticeships, (not servitudes) to prevent their absenting themselves from their said masters or mistresses' service without leave-to punish them for any disorderly, immoral behaviour, and to make the covenants between them mutually binding. The state of things referred to and recited in this preamble, must be considered as true, and if so, the act of 1700, for the better regulation of servants in this province and territory, could not be considered as embracing apprentices. If this last act does not, it is equally clear, that the acts of 1701, and 1729-30, already referred to on the subject of marrying servants, cannot be extended to apprentices. But among other things, it is stated in the preamble of this act, of the 29th of September, 1770, for the regulation of apprentices, that there was no law to prevent their absenting themselves from their masters or mistresses service without leave. Now it is evident that this was not true, if the term "servants," as used in our acts of assembly, and used too without any qualifying or restrictive adjunct or phrase, be sufficient, and does include, apprentices. Because the very words of the 4th section of the act of 1700, (1 Smith's Laws, 10,) for the better regulation of servants in this province, are "and for prevention of servants quitting their master's service, Be it enacted, that if any servant shall absent himself from the service of his master or owner, for the space of one day, or more, without leave first obtained for the same, every such servant shall for each days' absence, be obliged to serve five days after the expiration of his or her time." &c. And in addition to this, a fee of ten shillings was allowed to any one who should take up or apprehend a runaway servant. Again, to estaact of 1700, for the regulation of apprentices, imposing a penalty on such as conceal, entertain, or harbour them, and by comparing these sections it will be seen, that the latter is substantially the same with the former, only that the term servants is used in the one, and the apprentice in the other, a thing altogether unnecessary, if the term servants had been understood to embrace and include apprentices in our legislative enactments. But while the legislature thought there was no difference between the person who should harbour and conceal a servant, and him, who should harbour and conceal an apprentice, having made the punishment the same; it is obvious that they have made a great distinction between the punishment to be inflicted upon an absconding servant, and that which is to be inflicted upon an absconding apprentice. In the case of the first, they have made him liable to serve five days for every one lost by his absenting himself without his master's leave, and to pay such damages, in further satisfaction to his master or mistress, as the court shall think proper to award. But in the case of the apprentice, the court can only imprison and confine to hard labour in case he should seem to be refractory, and unwilling to return to a faithful discharge of his duty. Also another very important distinction is made in favour of the apprentice, by this

That the term "servants," as used in these acts, was not intended to embrace apprentices, will appear still more clearly, if possible, from acts passed providing for them eo nomine. For by reference to these acts, we shall find that apprentices have not escaped the atten-blish what I before said, I refer to the 6th section of the tion of the legislature, but have been provided for, expressly by name, and that some of the provisions in respect to apprentices are substantially, if not verbatim, the same with some of those, which were in being at the time for servants, which would have been altogether unnecessary if they had been previously embraced under the term and idea of their being "servants." By an act passed March 27th, 1713, (1 Smith's Laws, 81,) Orphans' Courts were established, and by the 7th section of the act page 84, were authorized upon the application of the executors or administrators, of persons dying and leaving minor children, without regard to the value or amount of the estate which was left or descended to such children, or upon the application of the guardians or tutors of orphan minor children, "to order and direct the binding, or putting out of them, apprentices to trades, husbandry, or other employment as shall be thought fit;" subject, however, to some restrictions mentioned in the 12th section of the act, which go to prove, the great care and attention that the legislature had for apprentices, above servants. By this section they were not to be bound to persons whose religious persuasion was different from what the parents of such orphan, or minor professed, at the time of their decease, or against the minor's own mind or inclination,

act of the legislature for regulating apprentices, that has never been extended to servants. The court of quarter sessions of the proper county is thereby authorized to discharge an apprentice from his apprenticeship, and from all obligation contained in the indenture upon his part, if the court shall see, that the master or mistress has misused, abused, or evilly treated, or, shall not have performed his or her duty towards the apprentice. From a fair exposition of all these acts of Assembly on the subject, I feel satisfied that apprentices were not intended to be embraced under the term "servants," which is used in the acts of 1701, and 1729-30, as contended for by the plaintiff's counsel.

So far as we have any judicial lights upon this subject in this state, it appears to me, that they are rather against what the plaintiff's counsel contends for in this case. The commonwealth vs. Keppele, (1 Yates Repts 233,) determines a servant in Pennsylvania, to be a very different person from an apprentice, and denies all power to a guardian to bind out his ward as a servant, or to a parent to transfer a right to the service of his child, who is a minor, to pay the father's debt. Yet, for the purpose of making the ward, or the child an apprentice such authority does exist. In Tieber vs. Boos, (2 Yates 321,) the point which is made in this case was not decided. The court merely adjudged that the minor who was married by the defendant, not being either the servant or the apprentice, or the child of the plaintiff, he could not maintain the action. But the decision of the supreme court in this state in the case of Norris vs. Pilmore, (1 Yates 405,) establishes the right of the parent to recover the penalty of fifty pounds for marrying his minor son who was at the time, an apprentice to another person. Again, it has been decided in the case of Hill vs. Williams, (14 Sergt. and Rawle's Repts.287,) that but one penalty can be recovered under this act. These two cases come pretty near, if not quite to deciding the present case in favor of the defendant. It is reasonable and certainly very expedient that the person who is entitled to demand and receive the penalty should be certain, and that the act should receive such a construction as to render it certain who he is. If then, it be the parent, according to the decision of Norris and Pilmore, and but one penalty can be recovered, for the marriage of the same person, the necessary conclusion is, that this suit was not maintainable. But to say that the master of an apprentice should recover the penalty, would be to decide that a justice of the peace, clergyman, or other person, may with impunity marry the minor child of a father, or a mother, without their consent if such minor be an apprentice at the time, and his master or mistress give consent.

I cannot persuade myself that the good sense and feeling of the legislature of the state, could have intended to substitute the consent of the master or mistress of a minor apprentice, for that of the parent in a matter which not only concerned the welfare and happiness of the minor himself, but the well-being and happiness of his parents, and which was to endure not merely during the apprenticeship, but throughout life.

So far as we have any judicial authority bearing upon the question in this case, I think it is in favor of the defendant: and I would further observe, that there does not seem to be any strong reasons for extending the provisions of these acts against clandestine marriages to apprentices, and giving to their masters a right to recover the penalties as the party aggrieved, because they always have it in their power to protect and secure themselves against loss or damage that may be sustained by their apprentices getting married, without their consent, in the contract creating the apprenticeship. They can always have the covenant of the prentice and the parent, as an indemnity, if required; and when there is no parent, they can often in addition to the covenant of the apprentice himself, obtain that of the guardian, or some friend as a security against future

ap

The long report to the House of Representatives, on Lotteries, is concluded this week-we have received a report of the committee of Vice and Immorality, to the Senate on the same subject, giving a different construction to the several acts-also some other documents in relation to the particular case-which will be inserted next week. The whole matter, which is of great moment-will then be before the public.

In our last number we published an article on the early settlement of Columbia; in which the subject of the Paxton affair is introduced. We have received from a correspondent the following note remarking upon that artiticle. It is a somewhat singular coincidence-that the last "Columbia Spy" and we, were at the same time publishing an article on Columbia, the facts of both which are evidently derived from the same original source; but much more is detailed on many points in the the "Spy;" and as it contains also, statistics of the present period, we shall insert it entire next week. It merely alludes to the Paxton massacre; promising to give a correct account hereafter. It is desirable that this should be done while facts and persons are accessible, and to remove unjust imputations, from the inno

cent.

LANCASTER, February 28, 1832.

Dear Sir,-In the Register of Pennsylvania, number eight, February twenty-fifth, is an article headed “First Settlement of Columbia," containing assertions unsupported by evidence. The writer says "a company of Presbyterians from Paxtung township, under the name of Paxton boys." Why attribute such a barbarous murder to a respectable body of Christians, when the Paxton boys consisted of persons of several denominations of Christians. The statement relative to the magistrates of Lancaster and Capt. Robinson, does not accord with records, (see the article headed Paxton boys, on page 255 of the 7th volume of the Register, republished from the Lancaster Journal.) the "Episcopalian minister in Lancaster," the church had no resident minister at that period in Lancaster; I ask, therefore, for the evidence-produce the letter, the bare assertion in this case can have no weight. Fortunately there are persons living in Lancaster at this time who have a full knowledge of the facts, and who can prove the incorrectness of the writer's state

ment, if necessary.

Yours,

As to

VINDICATOR.

Printed by WM. F. GEDDES, No. 9, Library st. Phila.

REGISTER OF PENNSYLVANIA.

DEVOTED TO THE PRESERVATION OF EVERY KIND OF USEFUL INFORMATION RESPECTING THE STATE.

VOL. IX.-NO. 10.

EDITED BY SAMUEL HAZARD.

PHILADELPHIA, MARCH 10, 1832. NO. 219.

From the Columbia Spy.

We are indebted for the information contained below to a highly respectable lady of the Society of Friends, whose opportunities for gathering facts relative to the early history of the place, have been nume

rous.

Friends. Patience, another daughter of John Wright, was married to Richard Lowden-the present John L. Wright is their descendant by his mother. Elizabeth, daughter of John Wright, married Samuel Taylor, who was the owner of a large tract of land near where Strasburg now stands; he sold his property there, and once owned what is now called Wrightsville. The Wrights in this place at the present time are the descendants of James Wright, youngest son of John.

COLUMBIA-EARLY HISTORY OF, &c. About the year 1726 or 7, Robert Barber of Chester, Robert Barber kept the 250 acres next the lower hills; came to the eastern banks of the Susquehanna and took up 1000 acres of land, bounded on the north-west by the he came from Yorkshire in England. He had followed the Chicques hills, and to the south-west by what was after-sea for some years, and had been a prisoner in France. wards called Patton's hill. About 500 acres of this land He married Hannah Tidmarsh, in Chester or Philadelis embraced in what is now Columbia. At that time, the phia; she also came from England. Her father came noble river, pursuing its undisturbed course in solitude, to America sometime before the rest of the family, and or ruffled only by the light canoe of the Indian-the was accidentally shot by an Indian before her arrival. R. Barber settled farther from the river than the others. shore covered with lofty trees-must have presented a grand and imposing sight. The land was purchased of He built the brick house now occupied by J. Hinkle. He was sheriff of the county, and in consequence of the Jeremiah Langhorne, the agent of the proprietors. After the purchase, Mr. Barber returned to Chester, intention to make this place the seat of justice, a prison and in 1728, he, with Samuel Blunston and John was built near his house. It was a strong looking log Wright, together with their families, left their homes in building, and was pulled down not many years since. that place, and came to settle on the land which had In this prison, James, afterwards Lord Altham, was confined, having run away from his master.* R. Barber been taken up the year before. These persons were members of the Society of Friends. This journey was thought a very great undertaking; the country was uninhabited except by the Indians, who had their cabins in many places.

Samuel Blunston, was the most wealthy of the three; he took 500 acres of the land next to the upper hills, and

built where S. B. Heise now lives. The old house was pulled down some years since, to make room for the building which is now standing; the brick part of the building was afterwards built by him. His wife was a widow of the name of Bilton; her first husband kept a ferry over the Schuylkill. S. Blunston had no children; his estate went to two nieces, and is now held by the Bithels, their descendants.

*He came to this country in 1728, when quite young, and served his time as James Annesley, with a farmer, on the Lancaster road. From some cause he runaway from his master: he was caught and confined in the prison in this place. He was considered a great singer, and the neighbours frequently visited the prison-house, The events of his for the purpose of listening to him. life, furnished the ground work for Roderick Random, and the popular novel of Florence M'Cartey. The facts concerning this singular case are taken from the evidence given on the trial, and may be depended on as

authentic.

Arthur Annesley (Lord Altham) married Mary Shef John Wright took 250 acres of the land, and built his field, natural daughter of the Earl of Buckingham. By house where E. Wright and sisters now live; the her, in the year 1715, he had a son, James, the subject house has been much repaired and altered, but a part of this memoir. In the next year the parents had some of it remains as originally constructed. He came from differences, which terminated in a separation. The faManchester in England, among the early settlers of the ther contrary to the wish of the mother, took exclusive province-was a preacher of the Society of Friends, possession of his son James, and manifested much fondHis speech to ness for him, until the year 1722, when he formed some and for many years judge of the court. the grand jury may be seen in Proud's History of Penn- intimacy with Miss Gregory; and about the same time his wife died. Miss G. expecting now to become his wife, sylvania: he kept a store in Chester. He had two sons exerted herself greatly to alienate his affections from his and three daughters. John, the eldest, kept the ferry on the west side of the Susquehanna, and built the ferry-son, by insinuating that he was not his proper child. house there. Susanna, the eldest of the daughters, did She succeeded to get him placed from home, at a school In November, 1727, Lord Altham died; not leave England till some time after her father. She in Dublin. was a person of great note in this place; her education and his brother Richard, wishing to possess the estate was superior to most of her day: she was consulted in and title, took measures to get rid of his nephew, all difficult matters did all the writings necessary in James, by having him enticed on board an American the place was charitable to the poor, and gave medi- vessel, which sailed from Dublin in April, 1728. He cine gratis to all the neighborhood. Samuel Blunston was landed at Philadelphia, then in his thirteenth year, left all his estate to her during her life,and at his death she and sold as a redemptioner! and actually served out 12 She lived to a years in rough labour, until a seeming accident, in the and all the family removed to his house. great age; and died as she had lived, in the principles of year 1740, brought him to such acquaintance, as led, in the next year to his return home. The case was this: Two Irishmen, John and William Broders, travelling the Lancaster road, in the year 1740, stopt at the house near the 40 mile stone, where James was in service with an old German. These countrymen entering

• She defended the cause of the Indians who were murdered by the Paxton Boys, and wrote in answer to an Episcopalian clergyman of Lancaster, who took the opposite side.

VOL, IX.

19