DOCSLIB.ORG

The Counterfeiting Story

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Counterfeiting Story Counterfeiting in Morris County, New Jersey A Historical Perspective of John Pipes Sr. Robert J. Pipes The Pipes Family Home Page Updated March 2018 he counterfeiting story in colonial America has been told in various places. The subject appears in several local history books and at least one book has been published devoted entirely to the subject. TMuch of the counterfeiting activity was reported in the New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania col- onies from 1730 to 1770, although it occurred in almost all of the colonies at one time or another before the revolution. Most of the written accounts focus on the general political situation at the time and the feeble attempts of the colonial government to control or stop the perpetrators. Counterfeiting was a rampant crim- inal activity during those years, so what were the motives of the people involved? We try to explain why any- thing as serious as this was allowed to continue and why men of high regard in the community were involved. In general, the King’s government and the men who held positions of authority in the colonies for the King regarded counterfeiting as a serious crime and the penalty proscribed in the law was death. Howev- er, there seems to have been no match between the law and the punishments meted out. The colonists themselves seem to have regarded the crime as less than serious, which may not seem so strange when you consider the times. The people appointed to manage the justice system seem to have been very sensitive to taking actions that might further antagonize the citizens to even higher levels of dislike for the King’s rule. Most citizens at that time conducted their business with others using the barter system, as the goods and ex- cess produce they were able to secure from their farms were their only source of income. Working for pay was not the usual way of providing income. In addition, the King’s government prohibited the colonies from pro- ducing their own money at a time when the English currency in circulation in the colonies was in very short supply. This supply problem led to the eventual wide spread use of coins supplied by the Spanish government and produced in South America, which came to be know as “Pieces of Eight” or “Spanish Dollars”. The early issues of the coins used in the colonies were of generally poor quality and were manufactured in a manner which was easy to reproduce for anyone familiar with metal working. It required a metal slug or molten metal, a hand made die or mold, a hammer and a little larceny in the heart. The persons making the phony coins were sometimes referred to as “Coiners” or “Coyners” in the Olde English spelling observed on the court records. All of these circumstances led many colonists to view the money as “not worth much anyway”, “not reliable” and with much disregard. To make matters worse, many colonies started producing their own paper script which supposedly represented the metal coins used as backing or collateral, similar to our early use of “greenbacks” backed by gold and silver. These paper scripts were often not honored outside of the colony which produced them, nor even honored by every person or place of business in that same colony, leading to their lack of por- tability and exchange and to a general lack of regard for them. Another factor was the general lack of attention to fiscal matters by the government appointees, who often looked to England for direction and when it was not forthcoming, they elected to do nothing. Combining this lack of action with the general attitude of rancor between the appointed governors and the local elected assemblies and you end up with a situation that seemed to foster the lack of regard for local authority. The scripts also added a new twist because more people could acquire paper, ink and the plates needed to facilitate printing and copying and it didn’t even require the ability to read or write. The crime of counterfeiting was usually committed by two different levels of society. The most skillful and persistent perpetrators were small “gangs” of men who moved about and had only a limited ability to produce copies of the paper scripts but a persistence which made it profitable enough to take the risks involved. They seemed to be the type of men who typically committed petty crimes and misdemeanors and were usually in and out of the clutches of the local sheriffs and constables for one thing or another 1 anyway. They probably regarded this crime as another “easy mark”. They moved about and were very flu- id and crafty in there ability to recruit locals to get involved and would strike quickly and then move on. The second group of perpetrators are harder to understand as they were typically the type of men who were arrested with our John Pipes Sr. These were men of some substance; family men, landown- ers, church members and small business owners, all of them upstanding members of the community. Some writers and family historians have tried to write this activity off as somehow being sim- ply rebellion against the King and activity that typically led to the rebellion. I personally think that there were other factors involved and we will investigate those factors further on in the article. Whatever the motives were, it is for certain that John Pipes Sr., Abraham Hathaway, Job Allen and sev- eral others were involved in counterfeiting in the mid to late 1740’s. They were discovered, indicted and arrested in 1748. The sheriff at the time, a man named Caleb Fairchild, allowed them to escape, perhaps with a “wink”. They were later tried before a King’s Court, given somewhat lenient sentences and released. They were later indicted again and made to appear for the escape from jail and made to post bonds and forfeit small fines. These second indictments and court appearances were held as late as 1752 and were apparently driven by Judge Robert Hunter Morris who had vowed to bring a halt to the counterfeiting. From “Colonial and Revolutionary Morris County” by Dr. Theodore Thayer Published by: The Morris County Heritage Commission - 1975 Printed by: Compton Press Inc., Morristown, New Jersey “When counterfeiting was rampant in Morris County, it was difficult to convict the perpetrators. Many of the counterfeiters were popular young men with many influential relatives and friends. Furthermore, many of the in- habitants did not look upon the crime as inimical to their interests; rather, they viewed the actions of the counter- feiters as clever and smart. In fact, to perhaps the great majority, the counterfeiters were popular heroes. They did not perceive the great harm which this form of lawbreaking could cause to a community. As early as 1744 there were several indictments against counterfeiters for altering paper money, but no arrests appear to have been made. Then in 1747, a whole ring of counterfeiters and passers of counterfeit bills were arrested and jailed. The number and good station in life of most of the men reveal the prevailing disposition toward counterfeiting. The names of the arrested were: Timothy Conner, Seth Hall, Jonathan Hathaway, John Pipes, Job Allen, Andrew Morrison, Abraham Southerd, Samuel Blackford, Sylvanus Totten, and David Brant, all of Morristown. In addition there were Abraham Hathaway, Jacobus Vanetta, John McNeal, Joshua Robins, Abraham Anderson, Robert Livingston, Court Timery, and Isaac Woortman. Through the laxity of Sheriff Caleb Fairchild, all the prisoners broke jail and escaped to the homes of friends and relatives. Governor Jonathan Belcher and his Council agreed that counterfeit- ers could not be convicted in Morris County and proposed that henceforth they be removed from the county for tri- al. The Assembly, however, disagreed, and the proposal was dropped. Chief Justice Robert Hunter Morris wanted Sheriff Fairchild prosecuted for allowing the prisoners to escape but no action was taken. It was not until the Court of Oyer and Terminer was established in Morris County in 1750, with Chief Justice Nevill presiding, that some of the counterfeiters were again arrested and brought to trial. David Brant was found guilty, fined £25, jailed for three months, and put on good behavior for seven years. Ebenezer David was fined £5, ordered to stand in the pillory one hour, jailed for six months, and put on good behavior for nine years. Jeremiah Wright received a fine of £10 for assisting the counterfeiters and was put on good behavior for seven years. Finally, Peter Salter was fined twenty shillings and put on good behavior for two years for counterfeiting pieces of eight. These sentences were light; after all, the law prescribed the death penalty for counterfeiters. It was not until 1752 that the county had another session of the Oyer and Terminer Court. This time nine persons were charged with assisting counterfeiters. The culprits, almost all of whom had been indicted in 1747, were Abraham Hathaway, Jonathan Hathaway, Job Allen, Andrew Morrison, John Pipes, Timothy Comer, Sylvanus Totten, Seth Hall, and Samuel Blackford. The Court, perhaps for lack of evidence, decided not to try the men at the time. They were all released in their own recognizance and ordered to appear at the next court. When it met again in September 1753, the men simply were given small fines on charges of misdemeanor and dismissed. Although the punishments handed down by the Court in 1750 and 1753 were light, the actions of the Court were such that counterfeiting did not again appear in Morris County for nearly twenty years.” 2 Although the record above did not mention the punishment handed down to our John Pipes, the sentence was recorded in the minutes of the courts.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Salem Witch Trials from a Legal Perspective: the Importance of Spectral Evidence Reconsidered
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 1984 The Salem Witch Trials from a Legal Perspective: The Importance of Spectral Evidence Reconsidered Susan Kay Ocksreider College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the Law Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Ocksreider, Susan Kay, "The Salem Witch Trials from a Legal Perspective: The Importance of Spectral Evidence Reconsidered" (1984). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539625278. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-7p31-h828 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE SALEM WITCH TRIALS FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE; THE IMPORTANCE OF SPECTRAL EVIDENCE RECONSIDERED A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of History The College of Williams and Mary in Virginia In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Susan K. Ocksreider 1984 ProQuest Number: 10626505 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest 10626505 Published by ProQuest LLC (2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Peace 'Bonds Zand Criminal Justice in Colonial 'Philadelphia
    Peace 'Bonds zAnd Criminal Justice In Colonial 'Philadelphia HE Founders of Pennsylvania had no love for English courts or English criminal justice.* During the period when they Thad been oppressed on religious grounds, the Quakers had been persecuted especially vengefully in the courts; intolerant English judges delighted in calling them before the Bench on any pretext, and then, when the Quakers refused to remove their hats, punishing them for contempt of court.1 When they established the government in their own province, the Quakers wanted to avoid creating their own oppressive judicial institutions. "Fear of judicial oppression . had a marked influence on the development of our courts ... and was the primary cause of that jealousy of the judiciary which was long a feature of local politics."2 This distrust of the judiciary took institutional form in a variety of measures designed to reduce the scope of the law and the role of courts, judges, and lawyers in the life of die colony. Most adjudicatory functions were entrusted to the laymen who staffed the provincial or local councils, and court procedures were designed to be simple enough to make lawyers unnecessary.3 Lawyers were discouraged from establishing practices.4 A system of arbitration—hopefully to take the place of * The research on which this essay is based was supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. The author wishes to thank Jeffrey D. Adelman, John Daly, and Marc J. Hershman. 1 Samuel M. Janney, Life of William Penn (Philadelphia, 1852), 27. 2 William H. Loyd, The Early Courts of Pennsylvania (Boston, 1910), 42.
    [Show full text]
  • Section VI the JUDICIARY 1. Judical Systems and Legal Procedures ^
    WBS\l::f^-^^iy!^-<''':~^B Section VI '^ THE JUDICIARY 1. Judical Systems and Legal Procedures ^ -;.';vv-i.;i-- :..,^.- .51^3. Bii^lpPl t,.- . :> ^^ m WW^'-'"'-^--^'- •.U...J.UM ^ 1 .) Jtidicial Systems and Legal Procedures STATE JUDICIAL SYSTEMS* fe- V HE LEADING development In the judi- . meeting, but has not been abandoned by Tcial world during the past bierinium its-sponsors. The coniprehensive proposJals was the adoption of a new constitu- of the Judiciary Commission of Colorado tion by the voters of New Jersey in Novern- met a similar fate in the legislature, except** ber, 1947, and the reorgaiiizationvOf that for much-amended bills for judiciaVsalary state's judiciary under it, efFecti\j)^eptem- increases and pensions. Court reorganiza- ber 15, 1948. The riew^diciiP structure tion proposials of varying scope are under is as simple as the old one was complex. It consideration in Florida, Georgia, Ohio, consists of a seven-man Supreme Court, and Texas. superseding the former sixteen-man Court There have been no changes in methods of Errors and Appeals; a unified Superior of selecting judges, in spite of much effort Court, superseding the former Supreme to that end throughout the country. Defi- Court, Court of Chancery, Prerogative nite proposals for jiidicial selection reform Court, and Circuit Courts; and the County were being agitated for in Alabama, Ar- Court, superseding and succeeding to the kansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,' jurisdiction of the former Common Pleas, Indiana, iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Ne- Orphans, Oyer and Terminer, Quarter braska. New York, iennsylvania, Texas, Sessions, and Special Sessions Courts. The Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wy- Supenor Court has a Law Division of eley- oming.
    [Show full text]
  • 268KB***The Law on Treasonable Offences in Singapore
    Published on e-First 14 April 2021 THE LAW ON TREASONABLE OFFENCES IN SINGAPORE This article aims to provide an extensive and detailed analysis of the law on treasonable offences in Singapore. It traces the historical development of the treason law in Singapore from the colonial period under British rule up until the present day, before proceeding to lay down the applicable legal principles that ought to govern these treasonable offences, drawing on authorities in the UK, India as well as other Commonwealth jurisdictions. With a more long-term view towards the reform and consolidation of the treason law in mind, this article also proposes several tentative suggestions for reform, complete with a draft bill devised by the author setting out these proposed changes. Benjamin LOW1 LLB (Hons) (National University of Singapore). “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”2 I. Introduction 1 The law on treasonable offences, more commonly referred to as treason,3 in Singapore remains shrouded in a great deal of uncertainty and ambiguity despite having existed as part of the legal fabric of Singapore since its early days as a British colony. A student who picks up any major textbook on Singapore criminal law will find copious references to various other kinds of substantive offences, general principles of criminal liability as well as discussion of law reform even, but very little mention is made of the relevant law on treason.4 Academic commentary on this 1 The author is grateful to Julia Emma D’Cruz, the staff of the C J Koh Law Library, the Lee Kong Chian Reference Library and the ISEAS Library for their able assistance in the author’s research for this article.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Amateur and Professional Judges in the Royal Courts of Late Medieval England
    Amateur and professional judges 2 The role of amateur and professional judges in the royal courts of late medieval England Anthony Musson The thirteenth and fourteenth centuries witnessed a rapid expansion in the scope of royal justice in England. The growing demand for legal remedies and the need to enforce public order led to an expansion in the activities of the Westminster courts and in the increasing provision of judicial commissions (some ad hoc, others on a more regular basis) in the shires.1 The expansion was inevitably accompanied by the need for a body of men willing and able to assist in interpreting the law and managing the complexities of litigation both in the central courts and in the sessions held in the provinces. A detailed examination of the personnel involved in royal justice would not be appropri- ate here, but this chapter will endeavour to provide an overview of the dy- namics of the administration of justice in late medieval England and an insight into the judiciary at work. The perception that justices engaged under royal commissions were either ‘amateurs’ or ‘professionals’ has to some extent reflected a conceptual divi- sion between ‘local’ and ‘central’ justice frequently invoked in the context of the emergence of the local magistracy and the staffing of other royal tribunals in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Put at its starkest, those acting in the central courts have tended to be regarded as ‘professionals’, while the justices of the peace have traditionally been seen as constituting the amateur wing of the judiciary. In many ways the distinction has arisen as a result of the directions taken in historical research.
    [Show full text]
  • L~R I~~~ L~Ijll~Lllltllitlllllfjfj~11111111 11 3 3009 00355 9285
    NEW JERSEY STATE LIBRARY · L KFN 2231 C44 1903 ~hlll ~ijUI~I~ l~r I~~~ l~ijll~lllltllitlllllfjfj~11111111 11 3 3009 00355 9285 Date Due NJ KFN 2231 C44 1903 c.2 Clevengep, William May, 1872, It'r The coupts of New JerseY New Jersey State Library Department of Education Trenton, New Jersey 08625 PRINTEO ,'" u.s.... CAT. NO. 24 161 ~ 0D1- ;}- r 0/ HE COURTS OF NEW JERSEY '­ Their Origin! Composition and Jurisdiction N..J KF By WILLIAM M. CLEVENGER (:1 eVE I" OF THE ATLANTIC COUNTY BAR It The ALSO Some Account of their Origin and Jurisdiction By EDWARD Q. KEASBEY OF THE ESSEX COUNTY BAR NJ KFN 2231 C44 Crij~ 2. 1903 PLAINFIELD, NEW JERSEY NEW JERSEY LAW JOURNAL PUBLISHING COMPANY 1903 PREFACES. The need of a concise and systematic account of the origin, composition and jurisdiction of the several courts of the State of New Jersey prompted the compiler in 1895 to print in the New Jersey Law Journal a series 1(. of articles based upon notes made while he was a clerk in a lawyer's office. The suggestion made in 1902 by the Board of Examiners for admission to the Bar that stu­ dents should refer to these articles is the excuse for the present publication in book form. Some changes have been made in the text by reason of the fact that the County court act has been declared unconstitutional. W.M.C. Atlantic City, N. J., May, 1903. COPYRIGHT, 1903, By The New Je'.ey Law)ou,nal Publi,l,ing Company.
    [Show full text]
  • Courts of Pennsylvania in the Eighteenth Century Prior to the Revolution
    THE COURTS OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION. In 1701 William Penn was called back to England to defend his proprietorship. Before his departure a general revision of the earlier legislation was undertaken at the sessions of the assembly held at New Castle in 1700 a td at Philadelphia in 1701. The acts there passed, one lhun- dred and fourteen in number, seem, in a sense, to have -been regarded as, supplying the previous legislation and were passed with the expectation of being presented to the privy council for approval, as required by the charter. In fact, when the board of trade inquired of Penn, on his return, as to whether the laws received from him were a complete body of all the laws of the province, he replied that he believed they were the present body of laws, and it will be noticed that the digests of the eighteenth century begin their compilations with the.Acts of 17oo.1 Among these acts was one of October 28, 1701, entitled "An Act for Establishing Courts of Judicature in this Prov- ince and Counties Annexed." 2 Its origin was as follows: Edward Shippen, for the two previous years chief justice of the provincial court, and John Guest, the then chief justice, both members of the council, brought into the assembly on October 7th, a bill for establishing the courts, which was "unanimously rejected." Some few days after, David Lloyd, who was not then a member of either council 6r house, proposed a bill which was voted to be adopted with amendments, and Richard Hallowell and Isaac Norris were appointed a committee to draw up the bill, with the amendments.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court
    Looking Back on a Glorious Past 1691-1991" Editors' Notes to Our Readers Judith S. Kaye Maryann Saccomondo Freedman This May Journal, marking the New York State Supreme Court s entry upon its fourth century, both celebrates that court s glorious past and looks to an equivalent future. History buffs as well as crystal-ball gazers should find their appetites well satisfied by this special Tricentennial issue. Looking Back on a Glorious Past The issue begins by looking back to May 6, 1691, when the New York Assembly passed a law establishing a "Supreme Court of Judicature," to be "Duely & Constantly Kept" at specified times. It is safe to pronounce after 300 years that the Assembly s mandate has been faithfully discharged. Through three centuries of evolution, Albert Rosenblatt revolution and reconstitution, the Supreme David Boehm Court endures as a premier bench serving, and advancing, justice throughout the State. The two articles introducing this Tricentennial issue span the three centuries. The first article, by Appellate Division Justice Albert Rosenblatt, breathtaking in its scope and efficiency, explores the firm foundations of the Supreme Court. A delightful wit, love of subject matter and deft hand in presenting it, are evident as well in Supreme Court Justice David Boehm s complementary tales of the courts, judges and lawyers of the Western frontier of New York State. Focusing on a single facet of Supreme Court history, Judge Phylis Bamberger traces the jury through 300 years, amply establishing her thesis that the jury both democratizes the legal process and reinvigorates allegiance to the fundamentals of democracy.
    [Show full text]
  • Seedtime of an American Judiciary: from Independence to the Constitution
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 17 (1975-1976) Issue 3 Bicentennial Symposium: Constitutional Article 5 Government - Strengths, Weaknesses, Future March 1976 Seedtime of an American Judiciary: From Independence to the Constitution William F. Swindler William & Mary Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the President/Executive Department Commons Repository Citation William F. Swindler, Seedtime of an American Judiciary: From Independence to the Constitution, 17 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 503 (1976), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol17/iss3/5 Copyright c 1976 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr SEEDTIME OF AN AMERICAN JUDICIARY: FROM INDEPENDENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION WmLAm F. SWInDLER* THE CLOSiNG OF THE ROYAL COu-RTS In the increasing disputes between the colonies and the mother coun- try preceding the war for independence, the nature of law and of the courts in British North America periodically came into question. Colonial leaders pointed retrospectively to the assumption, embodied in the earliest colonial charters, that the common law, modified to apply to the local needs of each settlement or "plantation," was the root stock of American jurisprudence.1 Once the issue of the authority of the common law in the colonies was belatedly raised, English authorities countered with the declaration that neither the common law nor the English Constitu- tion followed the flag except as England decreed.2 Essentiallv, this was the impasse on which the hope of avoiding revolution ultimately perished. Although their authority to do so might be called into question, the colonies proceeded to adopt or adapt the common law, setting up sys- tems of courts resembling the judicial structure remembered from Eng- * John Marshall Professor of Law, College of William and Mary.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial System of Ontario William Renwick Riddell
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1919 Judicial System of Ontario William Renwick Riddell Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Riddell, William Renwick, "Judicial System of Ontario" (1919). Minnesota Law Review. 2505. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/2505 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW VOL. III JANUARY, 1919 No. 2 THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF ONTARIO WHEN, in 1791, the Province of Upper Canada began its sep- arate existence, it consisted in fact of considerably more territory than the present Province of Ontario. The Royal Proclamation of October, 1763,1 had created a "Government" of Quebec, the western boundary of which was a line drawn from the southern end of Lake Nipissing to the point at which the present inter- national boundary crosses the St. Lawrence. But the Quebec Act of 17742 much enlarged the Province of Quebec; the south- ern boundary was extended along the St. Lawrence, Lake On- tario, the Niagara River, the south shore of Lake Erie to the west- ern limit of Pennsylvania, then south along the western limit to the Ohio River and down the Ohio to its junction with the Mississippi, then "northward" to the Hudson's Bay Company's Territory. (The word "northward" was long afterwards authori- tatively interpreted as meaning "up the Mississippi.") 3 1 This Proclamation may be read in Shortt & Doughty's Constitutional Documents 1759-1792, published by the Dominion Archives or in the Re- port for 1906 of the Ontario Archives.
    [Show full text]
  • Revolutionary American Jury: a Case Study of the 1778-1779 Philadelphia Treason Trials, The
    SMU Law Review Volume 61 Issue 4 Article 4 2008 Revolutionary American Jury: A Case Study of the 1778-1779 Philadelphia Treason Trials, The Carlton F. W. Larson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Carlton F. W. Larson, Revolutionary American Jury: A Case Study of the 1778-1779 Philadelphia Treason Trials, The, 61 SMU L. REV. 1441 (2008) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol61/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. THE REVOLUTIONARY AMERICAN JURY: A CASE STUDY OF THE 1778-1779 PHILADELPHIA TREASON TRIALS Carlton F.W. Larson* ABSTRACT Between September 1778 and April 1779, twenty-three men were tried in Philadelphiafor high treason against the state of Pennsylvania. These tri- als were aggressively prosecuted by the state in an atmosphere of wide- spread popular hostility to opponents of the American Revolution. Philadelphiajuries, however, convicted only four of these men, a low con- viction rate even in an age of widespread jury lenity; moreover, in three of these four cases, the juries petitioned Pennsylvania'sexecutive authority for clemency. Since it is unlikely that most of the defendants were factually innocent, these low conviction rates must be explained by other factors. This Article offers such an explanation, and, in the process, uses these trials as a case study of jury service in late eighteenth-century America.
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania Magazine of HISTORY and BIOGRAPHY
    THE Pennsylvania Magazine OF HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHY Controlling the Opposition in Pennsylvania During the American Revolution HE legislative record for the state of Pennsylvania during the American Revolution presents a picture of harsh people T unyielding in their determination to stamp out all opposi- tion. Not only were severe punishments mandated for behavior considered dangerous to the American cause, but, during periods of threatened or actual British invasion of the state, small groups of men were given extensive discretionary power to defend Pennsyl- vanians from internal as well as external enemies. Had these groups wished to eliminate personal or political opponents, either by execu- tion or banishment, they had the power to do so. In practice, however, this did not happen. Instead, harsh measures were par- tially invalidated by juries refusing to indict or convict, by the Supreme Executive Council exercising its power of pardon after conviction, or even by the legislature passing special acts exempting certain individuals from the full force of a particular law. This is not to say that all defendants received fair treatment before the law or that some did not suffer unjustly. Although the "declaration of the rights of the inhabitants" in the Pennsylvania constitution of 1776 promised accused persons rights long recognized 3 4 ANNE M. OUSTERHOUT January under English and provincial law, often many so-called disaffected1 persons were deprived of these rights during the Revolution. At first, after the Declaration of Independence, unsettled condi- tions in Pennsylvania made it difficult for opponents of separation to secure fair treatment by law. A convention in the summer of 1776 drew up a state constitution which was so controversial that it divided Pennsylvania society for many years.
    [Show full text]