Principles of Microeconomics 11th

Edition Case Test Bank

Full download at link:

Test Bank: https://testbankpack.com/p/test-bank-for-principles-of-

microeconomics-11th-edition-case-fair-oster-0133024164-
9780133024166/

Chapter 5
Elasticity
PRICE ELASTICITY OF DEMAND

1. What does elasticity measure?

Elasticity measures the response in one variable when another variable changes.

Diff: 1 Skill: Definition Topic: elasticity

AACSB:

2. Define price elasticity of demand. What does it measure?

Price elasticity of demand is the ratio of the percentage change in quantity

demanded to the percentage change in price. It measures the responsiveness of
quantity demanded to changes in price.

Diff: 1 Skill: Definition Topic: elasticity

AACSB:

3. Why isn't slope as useful as elasticity to measure the responsiveness of one variable to
another?

The numerical value of slope depends on the units used to measure the variables on
the axes. Thus, if two demand curves represent the same demand behavior but are
measured in different units (ounces versus pounds, for example), we will get two

125
Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.
126 Case/Fair/Oster, Principles of Microeconomics, 11th Edition

different measures of responsiveness. Elasticity does not have this problem because
it is calculated using percentage change.

Diff: 1 Skill: Conceptual Topic: slope and elasticity

AACSB:

4. Explain how it is possible for a downward-sloping demand curve to have a constant slope
but still have a variation of elasticity of demand along it.

Slope measures rise over run. However, elasticities measure percent changes in the
quantity demanded divided by the percent change in the price. Even along a linear
demand curve with a constant slope the demand is more elastic in the upper left-
hand corner and becomes less elastic as one moves down and to the right until it
becomes unitary and then inelastic.

Diff: 1 Skill: Conceptual Topic: slope and elasticity

AACSB:

5. What does it mean for a good to have a perfectly inelastic demand? Draw a demand
curve of this type. Explain why it has the shape that it does.

If a product has a perfectly inelastic demand, this means that the quantity
demanded does not respond at all to a change in price. This implies that the
demand curve will be vertical. No matter what the price is, quantity demanded is
always the same.

Diff: 1 Skill: Conceptual Topic: perfectly inelastic demand

AACSB:

6. Why is the price elasticity of demand generally a negative number?

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

 Chapter 5: Elasticity 127

The law of demand says that an increase in the price of a product will lead to a
decrease in quantity demanded. Thus, price and quantity demanded are inversely
related to one another. This means that if either the numerator or the denominator
of the ratio is positive, the other will be negative.

Diff: 1 Skill: Conceptual Topic: elasticity coefficient

AACSB:
7. If the elasticity of demand were positive what would this imply about the shape of the
demand curve? Why is it that we are unlikely to find a price elasticity of demand with a
positive value?

If the price elasticity of demand were positive this would mean that demand curve is
upward-sloping. We are unlikely to find a price elasticity of demand that is positive
because this would contradict the law of demand.

Diff: 2 Skill: Analytic Topic: elasticity coefficient

AACSB: Reflective Thinking

8. How does one determine whether demand is elastic, inelastic, or unit elastic?

If the absolute value of the price elasticity of demand is greater than one, demand is
elastic. If it is less than one, demand is inelastic. If the absolute value of the price
elasticity of demand is equal to one, demand is unit elastic.

Diff: 1 Skill: Conceptual Topic: elasticity coefficient

AACSB:

9. Assume a customer of natural gas is negotiating with his supplier over the telephone. At
the time prices of all the supplier’s competitors are precisely the same. The customer tells
the supplier that if he raises his price even one penny he will walk away. What does the
perceived demand curve for natural gas look like for this customer? Why?

The elasticity of demand is perfectly elastic. The demand curve is horizontal at the
current price. The customer is likely to behave this way since he sees that there are
other suppliers willing to offer the same price for essentially what he perceives to be
a homogeneous good.

Diff: 1 Skill: Conceptual Topic: elasticity

AACSB: Analytic Skills

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

128 Case/Fair/Oster, Principles of Microeconomics, 11th Edition

10. In the past dating was a fairly simple activity in the United States. If there was someone
you wanted to go out with you would call them or ask them to go out for dinner and a
movie. Nowadays it appears that many people are willing to pay large amounts of money
to professional dating services to find a compatible mate. This idea is not a new one but it
has increased quite dramatically in popularity. What does this suggest about what kind of
good dating services might be and why? Are we likely to find this type of service be
more or less prevalent in poorer countries?

The country has become much richer over the past few decades and even though
people want to date just as much today as they always have, the fact that they have
more disposable income that they can use to pay someone else to find them a date
probably means that dating services are a normal good. As a consequence this is
likely to be a less prevalent practice in poorer countries where there are lower
incomes and a decreased ability and willingness to pay.

Diff: 2 Skill: Conceptual Topic: normal goods

AACSB: Reflective Thinking

11. What does it mean for a good to have a perfectly elastic demand? Draw a demand curve
of this type. Explain why it has the shape that it does.

If a product has a perfectly elastic demand, this means that the quantity demanded
will drop to zero if the price rises. This implies that the demand curve will be
horizontal. At any price higher than P1, quantity demanded will be zero.

Price

Demand
P1

Q
Diff: 1 Skill: Conceptual Topic: perfectly elastic demand
AACSB:

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

 Chapter 5: Elasticity 129

12. Compare and contrast the two demand curves depicted in the graph below.

The figure on the left shows a perfectly inelastic demand curve. Price elasticity of
demand is zero. Quantity demanded is fixed; it does not change at all when price
changes. The figure on the right shows a perfectly elastic demand curve. A tiny price
increase drives the quantity demanded to zero. In essence, perfectly elastic demand
implies that individual producers can sell all they want at the going market price
but cannot charge a higher price.

Diff: 1 Skill: Conceptual Topic: perfectly elastic

AACSB:

13. In many large American cities it is common to witness private motorists pulling up to
municipal bus stations and allowing perfect strangers to ride into downtown with them in
order to take advantage of the high occupancy vehicle lanes that require two or more
drivers. Using the concept of elasticity of demand and total revenue explain why public
transit authorities might be concerned with this practice.

Public transit authorities may be concerned about this practice because it provides a
very good substitute for their services and may make municipal bus service more
price elastic and could have a deleterious impact on the revenue generated by the
public transit system.

Diff: 2 Skill: Conceptual Topic: price elasticity

AACSB: Reflective Thinking

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

Another document from Scribd.com that is
random and unrelated content:
welcomed, it being generally understood that he intended to spend the
remainder of his life in the Province.
The Proprietary believed the time was ripe for an entirely new form of
government and labored earnestly to obtain additional legislative
restrictions upon intercourse with the Indians in order to protect them
from the artifices of the whites. Penn conferred frequently with the
several nations of the Province, visiting them familiarly in their forests,
participating in their festivals and entertaining them with much
hospitality and state at his mansion at Pennsbury.
He formed a new treaty with the tribes located on the Susquehanna
and its tributaries and also with the Five Nations. This treaty was one of
peace. In 1701, William Penn took a second trip into the interior of the
Province.

Morgan Powell Cruelly Murdered by Mollie

Maguires, December 2, 1871

he bloody record of the Mollie Maguires began about the time

the Civil War was brought to a close and continued until
James McParlan, the able detective in the employ of the
Pinkerton agency, ferreted out these criminals and brought the
guilty to trials which resulted in their execution or long terms
of imprisonment.
The anthracite coal regions were not free of this scourge until 1877.
The Mollies were unusually active and bloodthirsty in 1865. August
25 of that year, David Muir, colliery superintendent, was killed in Foster
Township, shot to death on the public highway, in broad daylight, within
two hundred yards of the office in which he was employed.
January 10, 1866, Henry H. Dunne, of Pottsville, superintendent of a
colliery, was murdered on the turnpike, while riding to his home in his
carriage.
October 17, 1868, occurred the tragic death of Alexander Rae, near
Centralia, Columbia County.
 The next important outrage of this character was the murder of
William H. Littlehales, superintendent of the Glen Carbon Coal Mining
Company, March 15, 1869. He was killed on the highway in Cass
Township, Schuylkill County, while enroute to his home in Pottsville.
Then occurred the murders of F. W. S. Langdon, George K. Smith and
Graham Powell, each of whom was a mining official.
But the crowning act of the Mollie Maguires, up to the time James
McParlan was engaged by Mr. Allen Pinkerton to investigate the
workings of this nefarious organization, and the one reaching the
culmination of many previous and similar events, was the murder of
Morgan Powell.
This event exasperated the good people of the anthracite region to the
pitch where endurance ceases to be a virtue, and where only desperate
methods to put a stop to these crimes can be put in operation.
This unprovoked murder occurred December 2, 1871. Morgan Powell
was assistant superintendent of the Lehigh and Wilkes Barre Coal and
Iron Company, at Summit Hill, Carbon County.
The murder was committed about seven o’clock in the evening, on the
main street of the little town, not more than twenty feet from the store of
Henry Williamson, which place Powell had but a few minutes earlier left
to go to the office of Mr. Zehner, the general superintendent of the
company.
It seems that one of three men, who had been seen by different parties
waiting near the store, approached Mr. Powell from the rear, close beside
a gate leading into the stables, and fired a pistol shot into the left breast
of the victim. The assassin reached over the shoulder of Powell to
accomplish his deadly purpose.
The bullet passed through Powell’s body, lodged in the back near the
spinal column, producing immediate paralysis of the lower limbs, and
resulting in death two days afterward.
The wounded man was carried back to the store by some of his friends
and his son, Charles Powell, the latter then but fourteen years of age, and
there remained all night. The next day he was removed to the residence
of Morgan Price, where he died the following day.
Hardly had the smoke from the murderer’s pistol mingled with the
clear air of that star-lit winter evening, when the assassins were
discovered rapidly making their way from the scene of their savage deed
toward the top of Plant No. 1.
They were met by the Reverend Allan John Morton and Lewis
Richards, who were hurrying to the spot to learn what had caused the
firing.
Mr. Morton asked, as they halted on the rigging-stand, what was the
trouble, when one of the three strangers answered: “I guess a man has
been shot!”
Descriptions of the three men were remembered by the Reverend
Morgan and Mr. Richards, and the trio started forward in the direction in
which Mr. Powell had pointed when asked which way the attacking party
had gone.
“I'm shot to death! My lower limbs have no feeling in them!”
exclaimed Mr. Powell, when Williamson first raised his head.
No one could tell who shot him. The three suspects were strangers.
Patrick Kildea, who was thought to resemble one of them, was
arrested and tried, but finally acquitted, from lack of evidence to convict.
This, for the time, was the end of the matter.
When McParlan, disguised as James McKenna, was working on the
case of the murder of B. F. Yost, of Tamaqua, in 1875, he learned first-
handed from John Donahue, alias “Yellow Jack,” that he was the
murderer of Morgan Powell.
Donahue related the circumstances to his “friend” and named his two
confederates. He bragged of the affair as being a clean job.
He said the escape was easy, as they did not go ten yards from the spot
where Powell dropped, until the excitement cooled down, when, in the
darkness, they quietly departed from the bushes, and reached their homes
in safety.
The detective made mental notes of this disclosure, and his report
subsequently transmitted to his superiors was the first light upon this
crime, which had, for four years baffled the best efforts of the officers of
justice.
The time was not ripe to press Donahue for more details, but as the
detective was supposed to have recently assisted in a murder, Donahue
talked freely with him about others who were soon to be victims of the
Mollies.
In the fall of 1876, when the arrests of the Mollies were made, John
Donahue, Thomas P. Fisher, Patrick McKenna, Alexander Campbell,
Patrick O'Donnell, and John Malloy were taken in Carbon County,
charged with the murder of Morgan Powell, at Summit Hill, December 2,
1871.
The defendants were tried at different terms of the Carbon County
Court, at Mauch Chunk. James McParlan, the detective, now in his true
character, frequently appeared as a witness and testified to the
confessions of the Mollies.
They were found guilty as follows: Donahue of murder in the first
degree, Fisher of murder in the first degree, McKenna of murder in the
first degree, and O'Donnell as an accessory. McKenna served nine years
and O'Donnell five years’ imprisonment.
Thus was the death of Morgan Powell avenged.

General Anthony Wayne Defeats Indians;

Congress Ratifies Treaty, December
3, 1795

ongress ratified the treaty made at Greenville by General

Anthony Wayne, December 3, 1795. This is one of the few
such treaties the provisions of which were respected.
Anthony Wayne was a member of the convention which
met in Philadelphia and adopted a paper, drawn by John
Dickinson, which recommended the Assembly to appoint
delegates to a Congress of the Colonies. He was one of four
members of that committee who became distinguished generals in the
Revolution. His father had been an officer in the French and Indian War
and Anthony studied surveying, but his attention was more centered on
things military.
At the age of twenty he managed an expedition sent to Nova Scotia in
the interest of Great Britain. On the very day that the battle of Lexington
was fought he was made a member of the Pennsylvania Committee of
Safety.
He was made a colonel of one of the first regiments raised by
Pennsylvania and soon was engaged in the perilous Canadian campaign.
Wayne then was given command of Fort Ticonderoga, which Ethan
Allen had captured “in the name of the Great Jehovah and the
Continental Congress.” During this tour of duty he was made a brigadier
general and begged General Washington for more active service.
 He was called to general headquarters at Morristown and given
command of eight Pennsylvania regiments. These he taught to fight.
General Wayne fought bravely at Brandywine, and after Howe
captured Philadelphia Washington posted him to watch the British and
annoy them while the main army was being put in better condition to
meet the enemy.
Through the betrayal of his position by a Tory, Wayne’s command was
surprised at Paoli, when more than sixty of his soldiers were stabbed to
death by the British bayonets. It was due to no fault of General Wayne
and he managed to march away most of his men in good order.
Two weeks later the Battle of Germantown was fought and Wayne’s
troops had a chance to make a bayonet attack upon the same soldiers
who had rushed into their camp at Paoli. “They took ample vengeance
for that night’s work,” said Wayne. He was delighted to see his
Pennsylvanians beat the British at their own style of fighting.
Wayne’s troops suffered through the long winter following at Valley
Forge, and none worked harder to relieve their distress than did the
popular general.
Washington dispatched Wayne on a foraging expedition through New
Jersey for much-needed supplies, and in spite of several skirmishes with
British troops on the same mission Wayne brought back the supplies.
When Howe evacuated Philadelphia and Washington followed him
across New Jersey, it was Wayne who encouraged Washington to fight
the enemy. The Battle of Monmouth resulted, and it was Wayne’s line
which held back the British until Washington could move up the rest of
his army.
In Washington’s report to Congress about this battle he mentioned
only one general by name, General Anthony Wayne.
Wayne’s most daring exploit was the capture of Stony Point, on the
Hudson. This was accomplished by 1300 men in a bayonet attack at
night. Wayne was wounded and afterward was spoken of by envious
officers as “Mad Anthony.”
He performed conspicuous service at Yorktown, and was afterward
sent to Georgia, where he fought Indians as well as British. The State of
Georgia gave Wayne a rice plantation in token of gratitude.
After Washington resigned the active command of the army, General
Josiah Harmar, one of a family living along the Perkiomen, succeeded
him. Harmar led an expedition against the Miami Indians in the
Northwest in 1790, but was defeated.
 General Arthur St. Clair, who had been a major general of the
Pennsylvania Line and President of the Continental Congress, succeeded
Harmar. St. Clair at the time was also Governor of the Northwestern
Territory. He, too, suffered a humiliating defeat in a serious engagement
November 4, 1791, by the Miami, led by their chiefs and aided by Simon
Girty, the notorious Tory and renegade, another Pennsylvanian.
After his reverse Washington appointed Anthony Wayne a major
general and put him in command of the Army of the United States. The
Indians were aided by the British.
Within seven years they had killed 1500 people, and their object was
to prevent the settlements beyond the Ohio River.
General Wayne organized an army of 2631 men at Pittsburgh. A large
proportion of the soldiers were Pennsylvanians.
The war lasted more than two years. Wayne moved his army down the
Ohio, thence to the site of Cincinnati, to the Miami River, 400 miles into
the wilderness.
On August 20, 1794, at the Fallen Timbers he encountered a force of
2000 Indians and won the most important victory ever secured over the
Indian foes. Almost all the dead warriors were found with British arms.
Wayne laid waste their country and by the middle of September
moved up to the junction of the St. Mary’s and St. Joseph’s Rivers, near
the present City of Fort Wayne, Ind., and built a strong fortification,
which he named Fort Wayne. The little army wintered at Greenville, O.
The barbarians realized their weakness and sued for peace.
Wayne returned to Philadelphia to report his operations. As he
approached the city the cavalry troops met him as a guard of honor.
When he crossed the ferry over the Schuylkill a salute of fifteen guns
was fired, and the bells of the city pealed their acclaim. The people
crowded the sidewalks to catch a glimpse of the victorious general.
Congress voted him its thanks.
The following summer 1130 sachems and warriors, representing
twelve tribes or nations, met at Greenville on August 3 and concluded a
treaty the basis of which was that hostilities should permanently cease
and all prisoners be restored. The boundary line between the United
States and the lands of the several tribes was fixed. It made possible the
settlement of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and the West.
When this treaty was successfully concluded Wayne embarked in a
schooner at Detroit for his home in Chester County. He was taken ill
with his old complaint, the gout, and landed at Presqu’ Isle in great
physical distress. Before an army surgeon could reach him he died in the
Block-House there, December 15, 1796.
Bury me at the foot of the flagstaff, boys,” he ordered, and his
command was obeyed. Thirteen years later his son, Colonel Isaac
Wayne, removed his remains to Radnor churchyard, in Delaware County,
over which the Pennsylvania State Society of Cincinnati erected an
elegant white marble monument.

nti-Masonic Period Terminates in Trouble on December 4,

1838

n the campaign of 1838 Governor Joseph Ritner was

renominated by the Fusionist Whig-Anti-Masonic-
Abolitionist Party for the office of Governor, and
David R. Porter, of Huntingdon, was the nominee
of the Democratic organization for the same office.
The campaign was one of vituperation and
personal abuse of the candidates unparalleled in the history of politics.
When the news of the election became known it showed that Porter
had been elected by a majority of 5540 votes.
Immediately thereafter Secretary of the Commonwealth Thomas H.
Burrowes, who was also chairman of the Anti-Masonic State Committee,
issued a circular to the “Friends of Governor Ritner,” calling upon them
to “treat the election held on October 9 as if it had never taken place.”
This circular had the desired effect and the defeated Anti-Masonic and
weak candidates for the Legislature contested the seats of their
successful Democratic competitors on the slightest pretext.
Thaddeus Stevens said at a public meeting in the Courthouse at
Gettysburg that “the Anti-Masons would organize the House, and if
Governor Porter were declared elected the Legislature would elect Canal
Commissioners for three years and then adjourn before date fixed by the
new Constitution for the inauguration, and that Porter would never be
Governor.”
 As the time approached for the meeting of the Legislature on
December 4, trouble was anticipated and “Committees on Safety” were
appointed in nearly all of the counties, while many persons, especially
from the districts in which contests were expected, flocked to Harrisburg
to witness the result of the struggle.
It may not be generally known, but there had been a secret meeting
composed of Burrowes, Stevens and Fenn, none of whom was born in
Pennsylvania, at which were suggested some strong revolutionary
measures.
After the excitement was over the Legislature settled down to
business, and Governor Porter having been inaugurated, it was seriously
considered whether these men should not be tried for treason.
The House then consisted of 100 members, eight of whom were from
Philadelphia, whose seats were contested, and of the remaining number
forty-eight were Democrats and forty-four anti-Masonic Whigs. The
majority of the Senate belonged to the latter party, and consequently
promptly organized by the election of Charles B. Penrose as Speaker.
In the House the clerk read the names of the members as given him by
the Secretary of the Commonwealth.
Upon reading the returns from Philadelphia County it was discovered
that the legal returns had been withheld and fraudulent ones substituted.
This had been anticipated, as the Secretary of the Commonwealth had
determined to seat the minority members, thus compelling the majority
to be contestants and to witness the organization of the House. The
Democrats produced and read the true returns, as duly certified by the
Prothonotary of Philadelphia. This seated both sets of contesting
delegates and caused the wildest excitement.
At this moment Thaddeus Stevens moved that the House proceed to
the election of the Speaker. The clerk then called the roll of the Whig and
Anti-Masonic members and declared Thomas S. Cunningham, of Beaver
County, elected. He was conducted to the Speaker’s chair and took his
seat.
The Democrats paid very little attention to the movements of the
opposition and elected William Hopkins, of Washington County,
Speaker. Two members escorted Mr. Hopkins to the platform, where Mr.
Cunningham had already been seated.
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives thus enjoyed a double-
headed organization. The members of the House of each party were then
sworn in by their respective officers—fifty-two members who had
elected Mr. Cunningham and fifty-six members who elected Mr.
Hopkins.
After some necessary routine the Governor and the Senate were
informed the House was ready to proceed to business; then both bodies
adjourned their respective organizations to meet next day at 10 o’clock.
The Cunningham party did not wait until its appointed time. In the
afternoon they met again in the hall, and after being called to order by
their Speaker, he called Mr. Spackman, of Philadelphia, to act as Speaker
pro tem. Some Philadelphians who were in the lobby as spectators,
feeling indignant at the proceedings of the Cunningham party, went up to
the platform and carried Spackman off and sat him down in the aisle.
This interference from outsiders could not be resented by the rump
House and it immediately adjourned amid great confusion. They
afterwards met in Matthew Wilson’s Hall, until recently known as the
Lochiel Hotel. During these exciting scenes large crowds gathered
outside the Capitol and became boisterous. The aspect of affairs
appeared alarming.
While the foregoing incidents were transpiring in the House, there
were contests for seats in the Senate from several districts. Upon the
floor were members of the House, among them Thaddeus Stevens and
Secretary of the Commonwealth Burrowes, of Lancaster, who had gone
there with minority returns. These two individuals, who controlled the
Executive, were of the opinion that the first returns received were to
have precedence.
A large crowd in the rear of the Senate Chamber was composed of
excited and enraged citizens, especially toward those who were working
to seat Hanna and Wagner, of Philadelphia, in place of those legally
entitled to the seats. Threats of violence were heard.
The clerk had opened and read the returns, as far as Philadelphia.
When those were reached, Charles Brown, who had been elected on the
majority return, arose and presented to the Speaker what he said was a
copy of the true return, alleging the other false. The Speaker attempted to
stop him, but the crowd insisted that Brown be heard. Brown was
allowed to proceed, and during his remarks the crowds in the lobby and
gallery shouted, threatening violence to Penrose, Burrowes and Stevens.
The scene was now one of fearful confusion, disorder and terror, and
at last Speaker Penrose, unable to stem the current any longer,
abandoned his post, and with Stevens and Burrowes escaped through a
window in the rear of the Senate Chamber. The Senate adjourned until
next day.
 On the night of the first day of the session a large public meeting was
held in the Courthouse over which General Thomas Craig Miller, of
Adams County, presided.
The Governor then issued a proclamation which stated that “a lawless,
infuriated, armed mob, from the counties of Philadelphia, Lancaster,
Adams and other places, have assembled at the seat of government with
the avowed object of disturbing, interrupting and overawing the
Legislature of this Commonwealth and of preventing its proper
organization and the peaceful and free discharge of its duties. This mob
had entered the Senate Chamber and threatened the lives of the members
and it still remained in the city in force, etc.”
The Governor called upon the civil authorities, the military force of
the Commonwealth and the citizens to hold themselves in readiness for
instant duty.

Troops Called Out in “Buck Shot War” on

December 5, 1838

mid all the excitement of the first day of the “Buckshot” War,
December 4, 1837, at the moment Governor Joseph Ritner had
issued his proclamation calling upon the people to disperse the
lawless element and to add further excitement, the State
Arsenal was seized by friends of the Governor, where large
quantities of powder and cartridges were stored. The
proclamation and call for troops and the seizure of the arsenal filled the
city of Harrisburg with intense alarm.
William Cochran, Sheriff of Dauphin County, issued a proclamation in
which he stated that at no time had there been any riotous proceedings,
nor any disturbances which rendered necessary his interposition as a civil
officer to preserve peace.
The following day, December 5, the Governor made a requisition on
Major General Robert Patterson, commanding the First Division
Pennsylvania Militia to furnish sufficient of his command to “quell this
insurrection.”
 General Patterson obtained from the Frankford Arsenal a supply of the
regular ammunition for infantry, which was then buckshot. About a
hundred of General Patterson’s command arrived in Harrisburg, on
Saturday night, December 8, and the next afternoon 800 troops arrived.
They were paraded through the streets to the public grounds in front of
the State Arsenal.
The general and his staff reported to the Governor. The door was
locked and barred, and the general could not gain admittance until the
Governor learned from a second-story window who was seeking an
entrance.
The Governor sent for his Cabinet, and five responded. They asked the
General many questions, among others, if he would obey an order of the
Speaker of the Senate, to which he replied in the negative. He said he
had not come on a political mission, and anyway, would not sustain a
party clearly in the wrong.
He was asked if he would obey an order from the Speaker of the
House. He replied he would not, for two reasons: They had two
Speakers, he did not know the right one, and he would not obey the
regular Speaker anyway, as he had no right to give him an order. He said
he would obey only the Governor, and then only when the Governor
gave him an order he had a right to give.
General Patterson refused to help seat either Speaker. He said the
House alone could do that. If ordered to fire, he would refuse to issue the
order. Nor would he permit a single shot to be fired except in self-
defense, if assailed by the rebels, or in the protection of public property.
The conference ended abruptly.
The Governor had called upon Captain Sumner, then in command of
the Carlisle Barracks, for troops, but he refused to send them to interfere
in political troubles.
Governor Ritner also wrote to President Van Buren, laying before him
a full account of the affair, requesting the President to take such
measures as would protect the State against violence. The Governor
named several Government officials who were active in the trouble.
The Governor’s party finding they could not get General Patterson to
install them in power, his troops were ordered home and a requisition
was made upon Major General Alexander, of the Eleventh Division of
State Militia, a citizen of Carlisle, and an ultra-Whig in politics.
Out of three companies only sixty-seven men responded. The
battalion, under the command of Colonel Willis Foulk, marched from
Carlisle to Harrisburg, December 15, arriving on the following day.
 There never had been occasion for soldiers and now as the Carlisle
troops arrived the disturbance in the Legislature was nearing an end. The
soldiers regarded the trip as a frolic.
On December 17 Messrs. Butler and Sturdevant, of Luzerne, and
Montelius, of Union County, three legally elected Whig members,
abandoned their Anti-Masonic associates and were sworn in as members
of the “Hopkins House,” which gave it a legal quorum over and above
the eight Democrats from Philadelphia whose rights the “Rump House”
disputed.
Finally on December 27, Mr. Michler, of Northampton County,
submitted a resolution which recognized that the House was now legally
organized, and it was adopted, by the close vote of seventeen yeas to
sixteen nays.
The committee called for in the resolution was named and waited on
the Governor, informing him the Legislature was organized.
With this reconciliation the returns were opened and read; the
amendment to the Constitution was declared carried and the election of
David R. Porter as Governor of the Commonwealth promulgated.
However, the animosity still existed, and resulted in the appointment by
both Houses of select committees to inquire into the causes of the
disturbances and other matters.
Mr. Stevens, the ring leader, refused at first to be reconciled, and
absented himself several months from the sessions of the House. It was
not until May 8 that his colleague in the House announced that Mr.
Stevens was now in his seat and ready to take the requisite qualifications.
Objection was made, and a resolution offered declaring that Mr.
Stevens had “forfeited that right by act in violation of the laws of the
land, by contempt to the House, and by the virtual resignation of his
character as a representative.” Action was postponed.
On the following day Mr. Stevens again appeared, and, through his
colleague, demanded that the oath be administered. This was on motion
postponed by a vote of forty-eight to thirty. Two days afterward Mr.
Stevens appeared a third time, but by a vote of fifty-three to thirty-three
the question was postponed, and a committee appointed to examine
whether he had not forfeited his right to a seat as a member.
On the 20th this committee reported that he was “not entitled” to his
seat.
The House, however, by declaring his seat vacant, caused an election,
when Mr. Stevens was again returned and appearing, was duly qualified.
 Mr. Penrose, the Speaker of the Senate, issued a manifesto “To the
People of the State,” explaining his participation in the proceedings of
December 4.
Subsequently a number of pamphlets appeared, chiefly of the facetious
class, which attempted to make a farce of what might have resulted in a
very serious affair. One of these severely criticized Secretary Burrowes
for withholding the correct and legal returns; Speaker Penrose for the
violation of his duty; the six Senators who were denounced as traitors
and the last paragraph was:
“Finally, if the leaders of the party who claimed to be ‘all the
decency,’ and were the first to cry out mob, had behaved themselves
honorably and honestly there would have been no ‘Buckshot War,’ and
perhaps they would not have so soon been compelled to witness the 'Last
Kick of Anti-Masonry.'”
The piper was now to pay and it took many years to heal the political
sores. The Anti-Masonic crusade had come to an end, and from that date
Masonry and Odd Fellowship, those “twin sisters of iniquity,” as
Thaddeus Stevens designated them, thrived more than ever. The term
“Buckshot War,” was a thorn in the side of its leaders.

De Vries Finds Entire Dutch Colony Destroyed,

December 6, 1632

he Dutch were the first Europeans to pursue explorations in the

New World, and as early as 1609, sent Henry Hudson on an
expedition to America, where he arrived at the head of
Delaware Bay, August 28 of that year. Hudson later sailed up
the New Jersey Coast and anchored off Sandy Hook,
September 3; nine days later entered New York Bay through
the Narrows, and entered the great river that since has borne his name.
The Dutch East India Company received glowing reports from its
navigator and immediately set in motion other expeditions to the New
Netherlands.
 Before 1614 a fleet of five vessels, under command of Captain
Cornelius Jacobson Mey, arrived in Delaware Bay, and two years later
Cornelius Hendrickson sailed up the Delaware and discovered the mouth
of the Schuylkill, the present site of Philadelphia.
In 1621 the Dutch West India Company was chartered and in 1623
Captain Mey built Fort Nassau about five miles above Wilmington, Del.,
on the eastern shore. Another settlement of a few families was made
farther north upon the same side of the river, but in 1631 no white man
had made a settlement on the west bank of the Delaware River.
In that year there came to the southern cape, now Henlopen, a party of
colonists from Holland, under David Pieterson De Vries, of Hoorn, “a
bold and skillful seaman,” and the finest personage in the settlement of
America.
On December 12, 1630, a ship and a yacht for the Zuydt Revier (South
River) were sent from the Texel “with a number of people and a large
stock of cattle,” the object being, said De Vries, “as well to carry on a
whale fishery in that region, as to plant a colony for the cultivation of all
sorts of grain, for which the country is well adapted, and of tobacco.”
These colonists made a settlement near the present town of Lewes and
called it Swanendael, or the Valley of the Swans. They built a substantial
house, surrounded it with palisades, and began their settlement. A few
weeks later the Walrus sailed on its return to Holland with De Vries
aboard, who left the colony in charge of Gilles Hosset, who had come
out as “commissary.” This colony was destined to be the most
unfortunate and of short duration.
Early in 1632 De Vries agreed with his associates in Holland to go out
to Swanendael himself. He fitted out two vessels, and with them set sail
from the Texel, May 24, 1632, to be in good time at his colony, for the
winter fishery. The whales, he understood, “come in the winter, and
remained until March.”
As he was leaving Holland the bad news reached him that Swanendael
had been destroyed by the Indians. The expedition proceeded, however,
and it was December 5 when they reached Cape Cornelius and found the
melancholy report only too true.
On the 6th De Vries went ashore to view the desolate place. He says:
“I found lying here and there the skulls and bones of our people, and
the heads of the horses and cows which they had brought with them.”
No Indians were visible, so he went aboard the boat and let the gunner
fire a shot to see if he could find any trace of them. The next day some
Indians appeared.
 In the conferences which followed, De Vries obtained some
explanation of the disaster. It seems to have been the result of a
misunderstanding. An Indian, who was induced to remain on board all
night December 8, rehearsed the story. Commissary Hosset set up a pole,
upon which was fastened a piece of tin bearing the arms of The
Netherlands, as an evidence of its claim and profession.
An Indian, seeing the glitter of the tin, ignorant of the object of this
exhibition and unconscious of the right of exclusive property,
appropriated to his own use this honored symbol “for the purpose of
making tobacco pipes.”
The Dutch regarded the offense as an affair of state, not merely a
larceny, and Hosset urged his complaints and demands for redress with
so much vehemence that the perplexed tribe brought him the head of the
offender. This was a punishment which Hosset neither wished nor had
foreseen, and he dreaded its consequences.
In vain he reprehended the severity of the Indians, and told them had
they brought the delinquent to him, he would have been dismissed with a
reprimand. The love of vengeance, inseparable from the Indian character,
sought a dire gratification; and, though the culprit was executed by his
own tribe, still they beheld its cause in the exaction of the strangers.
Availing themselves of the season in which many of the Dutch were
engaged in the cultivation of the fields, at a distance from their house,
the Indians entered it, under the amicable pretense of trade, and
murdered the unsuspicious Hosset, also a sentinel who attended him.
They proceeded to the fields, fell upon the laborers and massacred every
individual.
De Vries did not put the blame on Hosset, but the colony was ruined.
Neither did he chastise the natives nor send out a punitive expedition
against them; more bloodshed would not heal the wounds already made.
With a view to future fishing, he exchanged some goods with the
Indians, and made an engagement of peace.
On January 1, 1634, he proceeded up the river and on the 6th arrived
at Fort Nassau. It was now deserted, except by Indians. He was
suspicious of these, and traded with extreme caution. He remained in the
vicinity of the fort for four days, ever on the alert. He nearly fell a victim
here to the perfidy of the natives.
They directed him to haul his yacht into the narrow Timmer-Kill,
which furnished a convenient place for an attack, but he was warned by a
female of the tribe of their design, and told the English crew of a vessel
which had been sent from Virginia to explore the river the September
previous had been murdered. De Vries then hastened to Fort Nassau,
which he found filled with savages.
On January 10 he drifted his yacht off on the ebbtide, anchored at
noon “on the bar at Jacques Island” and on the 13th rejoined his ship at
Swanendael.
Jacques Island has been identified as Little Tinicum, opposite the
greater Tinicum which is now part of Delaware County. The kill in
which he lay was therefore Ridley, or perhaps Chester Creek. In either
case, it seems, De Vries was then within the State of Pennsylvania.
In April De Vries returned to Holland. Thus at the expiration of
twenty-five years from the discovery of the Delaware by Hudson, not a
single European remained upon its shores.
 Fires of Early Days; First Fire Fighting
Company Organized December 7, 1736

he City of Philadelphia had not been laid out one year until it
was visited by a fire, the sufferers being some recently arrived
Germans and for whose relief a subscription was made.
From this time until 1696 no public precautions seem to
have been taken against fire. In the latter year the Provincial
Assembly passed a law for preventing accidents that might
happen by fire in the towns of Philadelphia and New Castle, by which
persons were forbidden to fire their chimneys to cleanse them, or suffer
them to be so foul as to take fire, under a penalty of forty shillings, and
each house owner was required to provide and keep ready a swab twelve
or fourteen feet long, and a bucket or pail, under a penalty of ten
shillings.
No person should presume to smoke tobacco in the streets, either by
day or night, under a penalty of twelve pence. All such fines were to be
used to buy leather buckets and other instruments or engines against fires
for the public use.
An act was passed in 1700, applying to Philadelphia, Bristol,
Germantown, Darby and Chester, which provided for two leather
buckets, and forbade more than six pounds of powder to be kept in any
house or shop, unless forty perches distant from any dwelling house,
under the penalty of ten pounds. A year later the magistrates were
directed to procure “six or eight good hooks for tearing down houses on
fire.”
As the city grew, fires became more frequent, through faulty
constructed chimneys and the general use of wood for fuel. Mayor
Samuel Preston in 1711 recommended the purchase of buckets, hooks
and an engine. In December, 1718, the City Council purchased of
Abraham Bickley a fire engine he had imported from England for £50.
This fire engine was then in Bethlehem. It was the first fire engine
purchased by the city of Philadelphia.
 The first “great fire” took place between 10 and 11 o’clock on the
night of April 24, 1730. The fire started in a store along the wharf and
burned several stores under one roof, two cooper shops and an immense
quantity of staves on King Street, and two new tenement houses, all
owned by Mr. Fishbourne; a new house of Mr. Plumstead’s; John
Dickinson’s fine new house, and Captain Anthony’s house. Several other
buildings were damaged and much property fell prey to thieves.
This disastrous fire made the whole population realize that new fire-
fighting apparatus was needed. The City Council at once ordered three
fire engines and 400 leather buckets to be purchased in England and
provided twenty ladders and twenty-five hooks and axes.
A year elapsed, however, before two of the engines and 250 buckets
were received, and Mayor Hassel directed one to be stationed in the yard
of the Friends’ Meeting House, Second and Market Streets, and the other
on the lot of Francis Jones, corner Second and Walnut Streets.
The old Bickley engine was stationed in the yard of the Baptist
Church, on Second near Arch Street. As late as 1771 only six fire
engines comprised the entire force of the city.
A third engine was built in Philadelphia by Anthony Nichols, in 1733,
and other buckets were manufactured there. This is the first fire engine
ever built in Pennsylvania.
At a fire in January, 1733, this engine threw a stream higher than any
other engine had been able to do, but Nichols was not given another
order because his price was too high, he had “used wood instead of brass
and they feared it would not last long.”
In December, 1733, there appeared in Franklin’s Pennsylvania Gazette
an article on fires and their origin, and the mode of putting them out.
Another article suggested that public pumps should be built, and gave a
plan for the organization of a club or society for putting out fires, after
the manner of one in Boston.
Franklin was the author of both articles, and they caused such interest
that a project of forming such a company was soon undertaken. Thirty
joined the association, and every member was obliged to keep in order
and fit for service a certain number of buckets. They were to meet
monthly and discuss topics which might be useful in their conduct at
fires.
The advantages of the association were so apparent they became so
numerous as to include quite all the inhabitants who were men of
property.
 Out of this movement started by Benjamin Franklin was organized the
Union Fire Company, December 7, 1736, this being the first fire
company in Philadelphia. Among the early members were Franklin,
Isaac Paschal, Philip Syng, William Rawle and Samuel Powell.
The second company was the Fellowship Fire Company, organized
March 1, 1738; the third the Hand-in-Hand, organized March 1, 1742;
the fourth the Heart-in-Hand, organized February 22, 1743; the fifth the
Friendship, organized July 30, 1747; the sixth the Britannia, organized in
1750.
Richard Mason in 1768 manufactured engines which were operated by
levers at the ends instead of the side of the engine. These were
successful, and he continued to produce his engines until 1801.
Patrick Lyon, about 1794, became the greatest fire-engine builder,
when he invented an engine which would throw more water and with
greater force than the others. He built fire engines as late as 1824. The
“Reliance” and “Old Diligent,” built by him, performed useful service
until the introduction of steam fire engines in 1855.
The first truly great fire in Philadelphia occurred July 9, 1850, when
367 houses were destroyed on Delaware Avenue, near Vine Street.
On November 12, 1851, three lives were lost in a fire which destroyed
Bruner’s cotton factory.
The borough of Somerset was almost totally destroyed in 1833, and
again on May 9, 1872. In the latter conflagration 117 buildings were
destroyed.
On April 10, 1845, the city of Pittsburgh was visited by its first great
fire, which burned over a space of fifty-six acres of the business and
residential section.
December 15, 1850, the greater portion of the borough of Carbondale
was wiped out.
Chambersburg suffered first in Stuart’s rebel raid, October 10, 1862,
and again when General McCausland destroyed the beautiful Franklin
County seat, July 30, 1864.
Selinsgrove was visited by a terrible fire February 22, 1872, and
another fire almost wiped out the town October 30, 1874.
Mifflintown suffered by a great fire in 1871, again on August 23,
1873, and the borough of Milton was almost destroyed May 14, 1880,
when 644 houses and business blocks were burned from noon until 4
o’clock in the afternoon.
 Washington’s Headquarters in Several Bucks
County Mansions Began December

8, 1776

uring the Revolution General Washington established his

headquarters in no less than three of the old-time dwellings of
Bucks County.
When Washington crossed the Delaware into Bucks County,
Pennsylvania, with the rear guard of his army, Sunday,
December 8, 1776, he took up his quarters in the country
house of Mrs. Berkley, while the troops were stationed opposite the
crossing.
This dwelling was built in 1750, in the village of Morrisville. The
house is still in a fine state of preservation, occupies a commanding
situation, with a farm of one hundred and sixty-two acres belonging to it,
and is within the site once selected by Congress for the capital of the
United States.
In this house, George Clymer, a signer of the Declaration of
Independence, lived and died. It was then owned by his son, Henry
Clymer, afterwards it became the property of the Waddells.
Local tradition, seldom at fault in such cases, points this house out as
Washington’s quarters immediately after he crossed the river, and
mementos of the troops have been found in the adjacent fields.
After Washington had placed his troops in position to guard the fords
of the Delaware and prevent the enemy crossing, the headquarters of the
army, and the quarters of the commander-in-chief’s most trusted
lieutenants, were fixed at farm houses in the same neighborhood in
Upper Wakefield Township, where they were always within easy
communication.
General Washington occupied the dwelling of William Keith, on the
road from Brownsburg to the Eagle Tavern; General Green was at Robert
Merrick’s, a few hundred yards away across the fields and meadows;
General Sullivan was at John Hayhurst’s; and Generals Knox and
Hamilton were at Doctor Chapman’s over Jericho Hill.
The troops belonging to the headquarters were encamped in sheltered
places along the creeks, and not far removed from the river.
 This position for headquarters was selected on account of its
seclusion, its nearness to the river and because of its proximity to Jericho
Mountain. From the top of this mountain in the winter, signals may be
seen a long distance up and down the river.
Here, too, Washington was near the fords, at which the enemy would
attempt to cross, if pursuit was intended, and he was also within a half
hour’s ride of Newtown, the depot of supplies.
The three old mansions in which Washington, Greene and Knox
quartered, are still standing.
The Keith mansion was a two-story, pointed-stone house, twenty-four
by twenty-eight feet in size, built by William Keith in 1763.
The pine door, in two folds, set in a solid oaken frame, is garnished
with a wooden lock, fourteen by eighteen inches, the same which locked
out intruders when Washington occupied the house. The interior is
finished in yellow pine. At the time Washington used the dwelling the
yard was inclosed with a stone wall. The property, containing two
hundred and forty acres, and purchased by William Keith, of the London
Company, December 3, 1761, has never been out of the family.
The Merrick house, a quarter of a mile distant to the east, on the road
from Newtown to Neely’s Mill, is a pointed-stone dwelling, twenty by
twenty feet, and kitchen adjoining. It was bought by Samuel Merrick in
1773, and was for many years owned by Edward, a descendant.
When General Greene occupied the dwelling, the first floor was
divided into three rooms, and the family lived in the log end on the west.
As the house was not then finished, the General had the walls of the
rooms on the ground floor painted in a tasteful manner, with a picture of
the rising sun over the fireplace.
At that time Samuel Merrick had a family of half-grown children, who
were deeply impressed with passing events, and many traditions have
been handed down to the present generations.
General Greene purchased the confidence of Hannah, a young
daughter, by the gift of a small tea canister, which was kept many years
in the family. They told how the Rhode Island blacksmith lived on the fat
of the land while quartered at the house of their ancestor, devouring his
flock of turkeys, and monopolizing the only fresh milk cow, besides
eating her calf.
At the last supper which General Washington took with General
Greene at the Merrick house, at which the daughter Hannah waited upon
the table, she kept the plate from which the commander-in-chief ate as a
memento of the occasion.
 The Hayhurst house, where Sullivan quartered, was on the adjoining
farm to Keith’s, where this plain member of the Wrightstown meeting
lived with his family of five small children.
The Chapman mansion, the quarters of General Knox, is on the north
side of the Jericho Mountain, a mile from Brownsburg. It is still in
excellent condition.
Knox occupied the first floor of the east end, then divided into two
rooms. Alexander Hamilton, then a youthful captain of artillery, lay sick
in the back room.
A considerable portion of the Continental army found shelter in this
neighborhood immediately preceding the attack on Trenton, Christmas
Day, 1776, and Washington had his headquarters at a quiet farm house in
the shadow of Jericho Hill.
In August, 1777, the Continental Army tarried thirteen days on the
Neshaminy Hills, Bucks County, on the York road from Coryell’s Ferry,
now New Hope, until it received notice of the departure of the British
fleet, which had recently sailed from New York, and which was destined
for the capture of Philadelphia.
During this time Washington was quartered in the stone house not far
from the north end of the bridge over the Neshaminy, and on the left side
of the York road going south. It was long since known as the Bothwell
home.
A whipping post was erected on the opposite side of the road.
While Washington was quartered in this house Lafayette reported to
him for service in the Continental army; and in it was held the first
council of war at which Lafayette had a seat.
The army marched hence August 22, through Philadelphia, and then
engaged the enemy on the field of Brandywine.

Railroad Riots in Erie; Bridges Destroyed

December 9, 1853

ne of the most interesting and irritating episodes that became interwoven

with the administration of Governor James Pollock was what was then
 known as the Erie Riots.
Pollock was seriously handicapped at the outset of his
administration by the only Know Nothing Legislature in the
history of the State. Nothing constructive came out of this
session, but a movement was begun which led to the sale of
the Main Line of the public works. In this the Governor was a
strong advocate, and two years later the Legislature passed the enabling
acts by which the Pennsylvania Railroad Company became the
purchaser.
The Erie and Northwestern Railroad Company had built a short line to
connect with the New York Central at Buffalo, and with the Lake Shore
Line at Erie, by which a continuous railway line was made to the West.
The several railroads at that time did not have uniform gauge, and the
road west of Erie was of a different gauge than those east of that city,
which was the most important connecting point; and all passengers and
traffic were required to be transferred at Erie.
The necessities of the growing commerce required that the causes of
this detention in transfer should be removed, both on account of the
delay and the cost of handling of the freight, and the annoyance to the
passengers in changing cars, all of which was because there was a
difference of one or two inches in the gauge of the rails of the two lines.
The railroads therefore changed the gauge. This action aroused the
hostility of the people of the city of Erie, whose sympathies the railway
company seemed to have generally alienated and the battle progressed
little by little until the entire community became involved in one of the
most disgraceful local conflicts of the history of Pennsylvania.
On December 9, 1853, two railroad bridges and many crossings were
destroyed by a mob of women, and a great parade of the rioters was held
amid the shouts of their sympathizers and jeers of their opponents.
The people, however, were not all on one side. They were in fact,
about equally divided.
The contending forces were popularly known as “Rippers” and
“Shanghais.” The former term was applied to those who favored the
break of the gauge, as they repeatedly ripped up the tracks of the road.
This contest continued for several years and so completely inflamed
the entire community that the prominent citizens became divided on the
issue and ceased all social intercourse. They even carried that feeling so
far that they would not worship at the same church.
Erie was an important county, and although reliably Whig, all political
ties were disregarded and only those could be elected to the Legislature
who would work for the repeal of the charter of the Erie and
Northwestern Road.
After a long and bitter conflict the bill transferring the custody of the
road to the State was passed and approved by Governor Pollock. The
charter powers passed to the Commonwealth and the road in
consequence was operated by State authorities.
The Governor appointed ex-Congressman Joseph Casey as State
superintendent to operate the road. After struggling for a few months in
vain efforts to harmonize the people and to maintain an open line of
communication between the East and West, he resigned in disgust.
Governor Pollock then appointed General William F. Small, of
Philadelphia, a veteran of the Mexican War and an experienced member
of the State Senate, in the expectation that he would be able to calm
down the belligerents and operate the line. After a few weeks on the job
he resigned. The Governor urged his close friend, Colonel Alexander K.
McClure, of Philadelphia, but formerly of Chambersburg, to assume the
uninviting task.
Colonel McClure was given full authority to handle the situation as he
thought best. He went to Erie and soon won the confidence of leaders of
both factions, with many of whom he already had personal acquaintance.
Lined up against the railroad were such men of importance as Judge
James Thompson, afterward Chief Justice of the State; State Senator
James Skinner, Mr. Morrow B. Lowrey, later a member of the State
Senate, and a large number of men prominent in the business circles of
the city.
On the other side were men of like distinction, such as John H.
Walker, former State Senator and president of the last Constitutional
Convention; Senator J. B. Johnson, who was also editor of the
Constitution, one of the leading papers of the city; Milton C. Courtright,
a principal stockholder of the railroad company, and many others.
Each faction entertained Colonel McClure. The city was in distress;
even its population had dwindled to about 5000. Business was at a
standstill. The only question discussed in the home, shop, store, church
or on the street was the railroad issue.
Colonel McClure endeavored to hold conferences with the leaders, but
when one faction was willing to attend the other rebelled and vice versa.
Finally he worked out a plan by which it appeared the road could be
operated without interference.
Colonel McClure started East on a vacation, but only two days later
received a dispatch stating that rioting had again broken out afresh, that
Senator Johnson’s printing office had been destroyed and the materials
burned in a bonfire on the street.
McClure returned and immediately got into communication with the
leaders. It was learned that the mob spirit was to blame; the leaders had
endeavored to restrain them, but without avail.
Colonel McClure determined that no further efforts be made to
harmonize the difficulty but that he would operate the road if it required
a soldier upon every cross-tie to protect the property, whether the
offenders wore trousers or petticoats.
Two leaders of each faction were invited to the Colonel’s room
without either knowing the others were invited. Judge Thompson arrived
on the hour, and soon ex-Senator Walker entered. Walker and Courtright
on the one side and Thompson and Skinner on the other had had no
social, business or personal intercourse for more than a year.
With unusual diplomacy Colonel McClure induced these leaders to
shake hands and drink a friendly glass with him. Soon the others arrived
and then before many moments the five were enjoying the genial
hospitality of the colonel and the best supper that Brown’s Hotel could
furnish. A game of cards was enjoyed until the sun appeared in the
morning, when they all shook hands, each repaired to his own home and
the Erie riots became only a bit of the history of Pennsylvania.

Count Zinzindorf, Moravian Church

Founder, Arrives December
10, 1741

ount Zinzindorf arrived in Philadelphia December 10, 1741. He

was full of enthusiasm, eager to preach the gospel to all men.
His idea was to unite all Protestant denominations into a
Christian confederacy.
Nicholas Ludwig, Count von Zinzindorf, was born at
Dresden, Germany, May 26, 1700. In August, 1727, on his
estate at Herrnhut (“The Lord’s Keeping”), in Saxony, he
organized some three hundred persons, emigrants from Moravia and
Bohemia, into a religious organization known indiscriminately as “The
Church of the Brethren” and “Herrnhutters”—the forerunner of the
United Brethren, or Moravian Church in America.
In 1733 this society had become a distinct Church and in 1737,
Zinzindorf was consecrated Bishop, and was the “Advocate” of the
Church until his death.
He came to America to inspect the Moravian establishments in general
here, and especially to acquaint himself with the fruits of the Brethren’s
labors among the Indians. He certainly did not come to this country with
a view of founding Moravian congregations.
The nobleman’s activity consisted chiefly in preaching in Philadelphia
and the neighborhood, and holding seven synods or free meetings of all
denominations, most of them at Germantown, each lasting two or three
days. These meetings were without practical results, but they surely
served to awaken a greater interest in religious matters.
December 31, 1741, he appeared for the first time in an American
pulpit, preaching to a large congregation in the German Reformed
Church at Germantown. A few months later the Hon. James Logan wrote
to a friend concerning Zinzindorf as follows:
“He speaks Latin and French, is aged I suppose between forty and
fifty years, wears his own hair and is in all other respects very plain as
making the propagation of the gospel his whole purpose and business.”
Zinzindorf’s stay in this country was a period of varied and strenuous
activity. Few men could have accomplished in the same time what he
did.
Dr. Gill, in his “Life of Zinzindorf,” says the Count gave the Indians
among whom he went on his several missionary tours “a practical insight
into the religion he came to teach by simply leading a Christian life
among them; and, when favorable impressions had thus been made and
inquiry was excited, he preached the leading truths of the gospel, taking
care not to put more things into their heads than their hearts could lay
hold of. His mode of approaching them was carefully adapted to their
distinctive peculiarities.”
Early in the spring of 1741 David Zeisberger and his son David, John
Martin, Mack and some four or five more of the Moravian Brethren, who
had already established several missions in this country, began a new
missionary settlement near the “Forks” of the Delaware, on land derived
from William Allen, Esq., of Philadelphia, and lying at the confluence of
the Lehigh River and Monacasy Creek, in Buck’s (now Northampton)
County.
 On Christmas Eve of the same year this settlement received the name
of “Bethlehem” from Count Zinzindorf, who had arrived there a few
days previously. Ever since then Bethlehem has been the headquarters in
this country of the Moravian Church, now known as the “Church of the
United Brethren in the United States of America.”
From Bethlehem and other Moravian mission stations the Brethren
went out among the Indians, making converts and establishing new
missions. The Indian wars had hardened the hearts of the New England
Puritans against the aborigines, and it was left to the Moravians to preach
a gentler creed to the Indians.
In May, 1742, Zinzindorf was called by the Lutherans of Philadelphia
to be their pastor, but he declined, as he intended to journey to the Indian
country.
Reverend John C. Pyrlaeus, a minister of the Moravian Church, was
called in his stead. There was a strong faction in the Lutheran Church
hostile to the Moravians, and July 9, 1742, Pyrlaeus was forcibly ejected
by a gang of ruffians from the church. Some of the congregation
followed him, and this event led to the erection of the First Moravian
Church in Philadelphia. Zinzindorf paid for its erection out of his own
purse.
August 3, 1742, Count Zinzindorf visited Conrad Weiser at his home,
on Tulpehocken, and there met the chief deputies of the Six Nations and
some other Indians, who had been at the Philadelphia conference, and on
their way home were paying Weiser a visit. Among them were
Shikellamy and Canassatego.
With those chiefs the Count ratified a covenant of friendship in behalf
of the Brethren, stipulating for permission for the latter to pass to and
from and sojourn within the domains of the Iroquois Confederacy; not as
strangers, but as friends and without suspicion, until such times as they
should have “mutually learned each other’s peculiarities.”
In reply to the speech made by Zinzindorf, Canassatego said:
“Brother, you have journeyed a long way from beyond the sea in order to
preach to the white people and the Indians. You did not know we were
here (at Tulpehocken). We had no knowledge of your coming. The Great
Spirit has brought us together. Come to our people; you shall be
welcome. Take this fathom of wampum; it is a token that our words are
true.”
This “fathom” was composed of 186 white wampums, and was
preserved by the Brethren for a long time, and was often used in
conference with Indians.
 September 24, 1742, Zinzindorf and Weiser set out on horseback for
Shamokin and Wyoming. They were also accompanied by the Count’s
daughter, Benigna, Anna Nitschmann, two Indians and John Martin
Mack.
The Count kept a journal of his trip which is most interesting. The
little company spent several days the guests of the great vicegerent,
Shikellamy at Shamokin (now Sunbury), and then proceeded along the
West Branch to what is now Montoursville, where they met the
celebrated Madame Montour and her son, Andrew.
The Count and his companions remained with the Montours for four
days, during which several religious services were held.
The party left October 9, under the guidance of Andrew Montour, and
at the mouth of Warrior Run they took a southeasterly direction, striking
the North Branch at what is now Bloomsburg, and thence traveled to
Wyoming.
During his stay at this place they were several times seriously
threatened by Indians, and Weiser finally persuaded the missionaries to
depart, which they did on October 30. Zinzindorf returned to Bethlehem
via Shamokin, arriving there November 8.
January 20, 1743, Count Zinzindorf set sail from New York for Dover,
England, and never returned to this country. He died at Herrnhut May 9,
1760. He was the author of many sermons, hymns, catechisms and a
number of controversial and devotional works. He published more than
100 works of prose and verse.

General Washington Praises Lydia Darrah

to Congress December 11, 1777

hen the British army held possession of Philadelphia,

September 26, 1777, to June 19, 1778, General Howe’s
headquarters were in Second Street, the fourth door below
Spruce, in a house which was before occupied by General
John Cadwallader. Directly opposite resided William and
Lydia Darrah, members of the Society of Friends.
 A superior officer of the British Army, believed to be the adjutant
general, fixed upon one of the chambers in the Darrah home, a back
room, for holding private conferences, and two or more officers,
frequently met there, by candle light, and remained long in consultation.
On December 2, 1777, the adjutant general told Lydia Darrah that they
would be in the room at seven o’clock that evening; they would remain
late, and that he wished the family to retire early to bed, adding that
when they were going away they would call her to let them out and to
extinguish their candles and fire.
She accordingly sent all the family to bed, but as the high officer had
been so particular, her womanly curiosity was excited. She removed her
shoes, and walked quietly to the door, when she placed her ear to the
keyhole and listened to the conversation of the officers, which was held
in subdued tones. She overheard the reading of an order which was to
call out all the British troops on the evening of the 4th to attack General
Washington’s army, then encamped at White Marsh.
On hearing this news she returned in her chamber and lay down. Soon
after the officer knocked at the door, but she rose only at the third
summons, having feigned herself asleep. Her mind was so much agitated
that she could neither eat nor sleep, supposing it to be in her power to
save the lives of thousands of her fellow-countrymen, but not knowing
how she was to convey the information to General Washington, not even
daring to communicate it to her husband.
The time left, however, was short. She must act promptly. She
determined to make her way quickly as possible to the American
outposts. In the early morning she informed her family that, as she was
in need of flour, she would go to Frankford for some. Her husband
insisted that she take her maid servant with her, but to his surprise she
politely refused.
She got access to General Howe and solicited a pass through the
British line, which was readily granted. Leaving her bag at the mill, she
hastened toward the American lines and encountered on her way an
American lieutenant colonel by the name of Craig, of the Light Horse,
who, with some of his men, was on the lookout for information.
The officer recognized Mrs. Darrah as an acquaintance, and inquired
where she was going. She answered, in quest of her son, an officer in the
American Army, and prayed that the colonel might alight and walk with
her. He did so, ordering his troops to keep in sight.
To Colonel Craig she disclosed her secret after having obtained from
him a solemn promise never to betray her individually, as her life might
be at stake with the British.
The colonel conducted her to a house near at hand, directed something
be given her to eat, and he then hastened with all possible speed to
headquarters, where he immediately acquainted General Washington
with what he had heard.
Washington put in motion every possible preparation to baffle the
meditated surprise.
Mrs. Darrah obtained her flour and returned home; sat up alone to
watch the movement of the British troops, heard their footsteps as they
silently marched away; but when they returned a few days after, she did
not dare to ask a question, though solicitous to learn of the event.
The following evening the adjutant general came to the house and
requested Mrs. Darrah to walk up to his room, as he wished to put some
questions to her.
She followed him in terror; and when he locked the door and begged
her, with an air of mystery, to be seated, she was sure that she was either
suspected or betrayed.
He inquired earnestly whether any of her family was up the last night
when he and the other officers met. She assured him that they all retired
at 8 o’clock. He then observed:
“I know you were asleep, for I knocked at your chamber door three
times before you heard me. I am entirely at a loss to imagine who gave
General Washington information of our intended attack, unless the walls
of the house could speak. When we arrived near White Marsh we found
all their cannon mounted and the troops prepared to receive us, and we
have marched back like a parcel of fools.”
Among the published correspondence of General Washington is a
letter written by him, addressed Headquarters, Whitemarsh, 10
December, 1777, which is as follows:
“Sir—I have the honor to inform you that in the course of last week,
from a variety of intelligence, I had reason to expect that General Howe
was preparing to give us a general action. Accordingly, on Thursday
night he moved from the city with all his force, except a very
inconsiderable part left in his lines and redoubts, and appeared the next
morning on Chestnut Hill, in front of, and about three miles distant from,
our right wing.
“As soon as our position was discovered, the Pennsylvania militia
were ordered from our right, to skirmish with their light advanced
parties; and I am sorry to mention, that Brigadier General Irvine, who led