County House, Part Six

Political Animosity in the 1790s

Part Five concluded with the election of October 1794 when Jacob Anderson was chosen as Sheriff, despite being attacked by his opponent William Lowrey. In addition to maligning Anderson, William Lowrey had actually taken him to court, claiming he was not a qualified freeholder. The court affirmed Anderson’s standing, but the case is especially interesting because of the people who backed Lowrey’s claim and because opposition to Anderson was rooted in political differences.

It was during the 1790s that the country’s political parties came into focus. The Federalist party preferred a strong central government, one that encouraged trade with Great Britain and other countries. Washington and Hamilton, as well as many former New Jersey Loyalists, supported that party.

Farmers were suspicious of a strong central government and tended to support the Democratic-Republican party. They had a strong following in the area around Flemington. Jefferson was its most notable supporter. The Democratic Republicans were better at organizing. They created local societies throughout the original 13 colonies and held regular meetings.

Political activity in the mid-1790s was triggered by Hamilton’s plan to finance the country’s debt by taxing certain items like distilleries. As mentioned in Part Five, this was a very unpopular tax.

In 1794, the tax collector for Hunterdon County, John Phillips of Maidenhead, announced he would be found at certain locations to collect the tax due on distilleries, carriages and coaches and “to grant licenses to retailers of foreign distilled spirits and wines, and to professional auctioneers.”¹

One of those locations was the tavern of John Anderson in Flemington, to be visited on November 26^th. I suspect that Anderson was willing to have the tax collector at his tavern because he sympathized with the Federalists and therefore approved of the tax. And I suspect this because Anderson participated in the suit by William Lowrey against Jacob Anderson.

Another event that helped radicalize and intensify political feelings was the Jay Treaty, something most of us (including me) know next to nothing about.²

THE JAY TREATY [1795]
A Hunterdon Controversy

The Jay Treaty between the United States and Great Britain was reached in November 1794. It was an effort to resolve major differences about who was entitled to the western lands, what moneys were owed as a consequence of the Revolution, and how to safely trade on the high seas. (I cannot do a deep dive here into the history of the treaty itself, so I will leave that to the enterprising reader.)

President Washington had named the country’s first chief justice, John Jay, to be the chief negotiator for the United States. Back then, when the court was new, it did not have a lot of cases on its docket (it decided only four cases in six years). Things were so slow that Jay was able travel to Great Britain to negotiate while still serving as chief justice.

The Treaty that Jay, a Federalist, arrived at was considered by both parties to be very accommodating to Great Britain and the merchant class at the expense of farmers.

After the treaty was signed, it was submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent. At first, the treaty was kept secret for fear that opposition would defeat it. It was ratified by the Senate on June 24, 1795, but still needed to be signed by the President.³

The treaty became a matter of considerable interest to the residents of Hunterdon County.

The Hunterdon Response

The first response was a meeting that took place in Flemington on July 23, 1795. We know about this because of a report on the meeting published in the New-Jersey State Gazette on July 28, 1795, provided by Lucius W. Stockton:

“The citizens of Flemington and vicinity met on Tuesday evening last to consider Jay’s treaty between the United States and Great Britain. After appointing Mr. Joseph Atkinson chairman, it was resolved that they had a high opinion of the ability and integrity of John Jay Esq. It was also resolved that the ability and tried virtue of our first magistrate [i.e., George Washington] does not require petitioning to do what is just and wise, and further, that the promotion of such petitions have a tendency to stir up the minds of people to anarchy, disorder and confusion. –Lucius W. Stockton, Secretary.”⁴

Joseph Atkinson, chair of the meeting, was the Flemington tavernkeeper who had been operating the crossroads tavern owned by his father-in-law George Alexander. (See County House, Part Five.) He was also in charge of the construction of the new courthouse in 1791. (See County House Part 2, A Tavern & A Courthouse)

Lucius Witham Stockton (1771-1811) was something else, as you will see. He was the son of Rev. Phillip Witham Stockton and Catharine Cumming of Princeton and studied law with his cousin Richard ‘the Duke,’ Stockton (1764-1828).

After Stockton was admitted to the bar in November 1793, he settled in Flemington, on property owned by his mother, Catharine Cumming Stockton. Less than a year later, while the contest for Sheriff of Hunterdon County was going on, Stockton was made clerk of the Court of Common Pleas, on September 30, 1794.⁵ Stockton was still clerk of the court in 1801 when he sued Samuel R. Stewart for debt. (See The Stewarts Of Flemington, County House Part 4.)

As for the meeting on July 23^rd, Stockton’s wording, “stir up the minds of people to anarchy, disorder and confusion,” is very condescending and typical of how members of the Federalist party viewed the populous in general.

Stockton’s description of that meeting was also published in The Guardian; or New Brunswick Advertiser on August 4, 1795, with this slight difference: “After burning representations of such petitions, [the meeting] ended with general huzzas for the Executive of the United States.”⁶

Wilson & Stratford added this note: “In the issue of August 11, 1795 [in The New Brunswick Advertiser], it was stated that only a few persons attended this meeting and certainly none of the farmers of the area did so. See also a letter to the editor in the same issue.⁷

On August 8^th, The Independent Gazeteer [sic] of Philadelphia reported:

“The meeting at Flemington, at which the treaty was approbated, the Trenton paper [the New-Jersey State Gazette] represents as composed of between 10 or 15 persons, and the chairman is noticed as an enemy to our revolution, a known and active Tory.⁸

Wilson & Stratford added this note:

“See two letters to the editor in the issue of August 4^th, one by a farmer near Flemington, the other by ‘A Republican’ both written by men who obviously opposed the treaty. Both writers claimed that the meeting was a sham attended by only a few people. The second writer went so far as to question the patriotism of the chairman at the time of the Revolutionary War.”⁹

That chairman was Joseph Atkinson. This is the only reference I have seen to Atkinson as an “active Tory.” (He was not listed in The Loyalists of New Jersey by E. Alfred Jones.) For Democratic Republicans, the terms Tory and Federalist were interchangeable. In fact, in later political contests, it was common for people to accuse Federalists of having been Tories during the Revolution, even when they weren’t.

On August 14, 1795, a meeting about the Jay Treaty was held in Pennington in Hopewell Township. News of the meeting did not appear in the NJ State Gazette until Sept. 1, 1795:

“At a meeting of the inhabitants of Hopewell Township and its vicinity in Hunterdon County, to the number of about 100 . . . on 14^th August to consider the pending treaty between Great Britain and the United States, the Rev. John Blackwell was appointed to the chair. The treaty was read article by article whereupon it was resolved that this meeting disapproves of said treaty.”¹⁰

A committee was named to write up a report on the reasons for the disapproval. At about the same time, another meeting was held near Ringoes. Attendance was even larger than in Hopewell, up to 120 people. Colonel David Bishop was unanimously appointed to the chair. Sentiments and resolutions were about the same as those of the Hopewell meeting, with this additional one:

It was resolved that the conduct of a few of the inhabitants of Flemington, part of this township, to the number of 6, 8 or at most 10, styling themselves “the citizens of Flemington and vicinity” at a meeting on July 23d was highly improper and unbecoming.”¹¹

The small number of attendees at the Flemington meeting in July makes it seem rather suspicious, as if it was gotten up to present a false view of the area’s feelings about the Treaty. It was clearly not representative of the surrounding population who were very dissatisfied with it.

If only there was a record of who attended these meetings. I rather suspect that in addition to Lucius W. Stockton, the meeting at which Joseph Atkinson was chair was also attended by William Lowrey and John Anderson.

I also suspect that Sheriff Jacob Anderson was present at David Bishop’s meeting.

Jacob Anderson’s Travails

In October 1795, a reader of the New-Jersey State Gazette sent a letter regarding the Trenton Academy, opening with the observation: “Midst all this bustle about the Treaty, Election, &c. . .” The treaty did create ‘bustle,’ but Anderson’s election did also.

Jacob Anderson and William Lowrey were the candidates for Hunterdon County Sheriff in 1794 (as described in County House, Part Five.) Anderson was attacked by Lowrey and others for being unqualified by reason of his not being a proper freeholder (owner of real estate in Hunterdon County).

The attack took the form of an appeal to the NJ Supreme Court, asking for a certiorari, to rule that Anderson was ineligible to serve as sheriff. We know this because of a letter that Jacob Anderson wrote to the NJ State Gazette on June 26, published on June 30, 1795.¹²

But a week prior to Anderson’s letter of June 30^th, another one was published in the Gazette on June 23^rd, 1795 (but written on June 13^th).

From ‘Truth’ to ‘Farmer’

This letter, from a man who signed his name as “TRUTH,” was written in response to an earlier letter to the New-Jersey State Gazette from a man who signed his name as “A HUNTERDON FARMER.” Mr. Truth scolded Mr. Farmer for neglecting to identify himself when attacking Jacob Anderson.

I shall not pretend to say whether your situation entitles you to your signature, or whether you are the same “friend to consistency” who once appeared on this subject unnoticed in the Gazette, or whether you are the friend, or the counsel, or attorney of the vanquished prosecutor of Mr. Anderson, . . .

This is typical of the way 18^th century writers suggested things instead of naming names. The ‘friend, counsel or attorney of the vanquished prosecutor’ was undoubtedly Lucius W. Stockton, and the vanquished prosecutor was William Lowrey.

I have not found the letter from Stockton that Mr. Truth was alluding to, probably published in June 1795, but apparently Stockton was accusing Anderson of not correcting something a “Mr. Day” had printed. Matthias Day was the printer and owner of the New-Jersey State Gazette. Stockton (Mr. Farmer) was complaining about “an advertisement” Anderson published way back on October 8, 1794, just prior to the election for sheriff that had mistakenly been changed from what Anderson wrote.

Stockton claimed that Anderson’s failure to make a correction might have affected the election, that voters might have given their votes “for some other good man.”

Mr. Truth responded that “there was then not any one in competition, whom the sober well-disposed part of the people; free from debt, thought a suitable man for sheriff” suggesting that William Lowrey was not such a person, and was not free from debt, which was true.

It is puzzling that Stockton waited so long to object to an event that took place nine months previously. Mr. Truth had a very low opinion of L. W. Stockton, calling him an “upstart, half-witted coxcomb,” and a high opinion of Jacob Anderson, who was “as good a sheriff (without exception) as this county ever had, and whose election, most manifestly for the public good, and to the great satisfaction of every upright disinterested man in the county” which “our supreme court has in due form of law confirmed.”

Lucius W. Stockton, Esq.

Stockton started out as a man of consequence in Flemington due to the stature of his relatives. (I have written about this family before: see Aristocratical Stocktons.)

He was the son of Rev. Phillip Witham Stockton (1746-1792) & Catharine Cumming (c.1748- ), and grandson of John Witham Stockton (1701-1758) of Princeton and Abigail Phillips (1708-1757). On his mother’s side he was the grandson of Robert Cumming & Mary Noble. His uncles were Gen. John Noble Cumming(s) and Richard Stockton, Esq. (1730-1781), who was married to Annis Boudinot. His cousin was Richard (the Duke) Stockton, Esq.

Sidenote: Stockton Borough was named in 1851 after U.S. Senator Robert Field Stockton (1795-1866, son of Richard & Mary Field Stockton) when a railroad station and a local post office were established there. Sen. Stockton was instrumental in the creation of the Delaware and Raritan Canal.

During the eventful year of 1795, Lucius W. Stockton married Elizabetha Augusta Coxe (1775- ) of the prominent Coxe family of Hunterdon. Her grandparents were Col. Daniel Coxe and Mary Johnson of Trenton. Her parents were Charles Coxe and Rebecca Wells of Sidney, in old Kingwood Township.

According to a family genealogy: “At the time of his marriage [in 1795], Lucius Witham Stockton was said to be ‘the handsomest man of his day.’

From at least 1795 to 1805, Stockton was a captain in the cavalry squadron (also called light horse or dragoons) of the Hunterdon Militia (which was one year late for the chance to ride with President Washington to put down the Whiskey Rebellion).

Anderson’s Response

Here is Jacob Anderson’s response, written June 26^th and published June 30^th. It sheds some light on what happened (with my emphasis in bold):

Jacob Anderson to the Electors of Hunterdon County.

My eligibility to the office of sheriff has been litigated in the supreme court of New Jersey upon a certiorari directed to the clerk of Hunterdon at the prosecution of William Lowrey Esq. who was a candidate for the office. You have seen that the certiorari was dismissed and I continued in the office, but there are some facts that you may not have heard which I think proper to mention. The objection to the validity of my election was that I had not been a freeholder for three years prior to the election. In support of this allegation Thomas Lowrey Esq. made oath that on 15^th September 1792 or 1793, but he thought the latter, he as federal Marshall for the District of New Jersey summoned me as a juror and that I informed him I was not a freeholder and should not attend. I publicly declare that Mr. Lowrey never summoned me but once which was on 16 September 1791. I have the summons under his own hand and a letter to Daniel Hunt Esq. [Jacob Anderson’s stepfather] of the same date in which he mentions that he has summoned me. Mr Lowrey should have whetted* his memory and not have relied upon the belief which is of a very elastic nature.

*whetted, as in sharpening a knife on a whet stone.

Also, John Anderson Esq., late sheriff, in support of the certiorari deposed that he summoned me as a juror about 20 July 1792 or 1793 and that I informed him that I was not a freeholder and should not attend. The elasticity of memory has carried Mr. Anderson astray also. I did attend and was sworn on the jury.

I do not mean to be a candidate for the office of sheriff at the next election. I mention it now so that candidates and electors may have a fair opportunity and more time to consider than they could have on the day of nomination. Bethlehem, 26 June 1795.¹³

This is where I found out that Jacob Anderson’s opponent in the election of 1794 was in fact William Lowrey. Also, that it was William Lowrey who had asked the New Jersey Supreme Court to order a writ of certiorari. Also, that John Anderson had testified against Jacob Anderson, as did Thomas Lowrey, William’s father. And finally, that the certiorari was dismissed.

SIDENOTE: I checked the deeds for Jacob Anderson, looking for the properties sold by Sheriff Anderson at public sale. It was common for the Court of Common Pleas or the Chancery Court to find in favor of complainants suing debtors for nonpayment, which would result in the sheriff seizing the debtor’s property and putting it up for public sale, to go to the highest bidder.

There were no such sales for Jacob Anderson. All of Anderson’s recorded deeds in the County postdate his time in office, and none of them refer to him as “late sheriff of Hunterdon County.”

The Stockton-Anderson Confrontation

On October 9, 1795, two Hunterdon residents, Daniel Pursell and Cornelius Coryell, sent a letter to the NJ State Gazette, Trenton, addressed to “the Inhabitants of Hunterdon,” which was published on October 13^th.

“Regarding Jacob Anderson & L. W. Stockton. We the subscribers having heard that misrepresentations had been made of a transaction between Lucius W. Stockton and Jacob Anderson Esq., high Sheriff of the County of Hunterdon, at Flemington on the 29th of September last, and having been personally present make the following statement thereof.

“Mr. Stockton on the day mentioned, in company with several gentlemen of the county, went to the courthouse to see a person who an hour before had been committed for debt and was lodged in the debtor’s room, but Mr. Anderson refused to allow Mr Stockton to see the prisoner. Anderson called Stockton a meddling fellow, and Stockton retorted that he, Anderson, was a scoundrel. A brief scuffle ensued, after which more words were exchanged in which Anderson charged that it was Stockton who was responsible for the court action which brought into question Anderson’s election and further that Stockton had written against him in the papers. [my emphasis] Stockton said if he was concerned in the certiorari brought to set aside Anderson’s election, it was his duty; and so to writing in papers against Anderson, if any person had written improperly there was a mode of redress.

“Witness our hands this 9th day of October 1795. Daniel Pursell, Cornelius Coryell. Note. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Prall [?] were both present during the foregoing transaction, but their being from home renders it impossible to obtain their statement.”¹⁴

So many questions arise from this depiction. Who was Stockton’s client? Why did Anderson prevent him from seeing his client? Pursell & Coryell stated that Stockton had ‘written against’ Anderson in the papers—what papers?

Following this incident, Lucius W. Stockton, as was typical of him, sued Jacob Anderson in the Court of Common Pleas, which complaint was scheduled for hearing in its October Term 1795. Unfortunately, the minutes of the Court of Common Pleas in Hunterdon County for the year 1795 only list the “writs returnable this term” without a description of how the case was handled. The first writ on the list was “Lucius W. Stockton v. Jacob Anderson / trespass. Lucius W. Stockton attorney Rules J. Griggs coroner.” What a coroner would have to do with the case is a mystery. Perhaps Griggs was Stockton’s client.

So now we know that it was Lucius W. Stockton, secretary of that meeting on July 23, 1795 in support of the Jay Treaty, who, on behalf of William Lowrey, brought the unsuccessful court action against Jacob Anderson in 1794. The aggravation this caused probably convinced Anderson not to run for re-election in 1795.

Once Jacob Anderson had made it clear he would not run for Sheriff again, several people were recommended as candidates. No one took the approach that Jacob Anderson did, of announcing his candidacy himself. The names suggested of men to succeed Anderson were Arthur Gray, Thomas Bowlby, Esq., Capt. Stephen Burrows, James Gregg, Joshua Anderson Jr. and Major Elias Phillips.

Epilogue

Elias Phillips, Esq.

Elias Phillips (c.1745-1797) of Maidenhead Township won the election.¹⁵

Shortly afterwards, on November 1, 1795, Elias Phillips, Esq. of Maidenhead purchased from Joshua Corshon, who was sheriff from 1786 to 1788, property owned by John Phillips that was seized due to John Phillips’ outstanding debt of £1,403.6.0.¹⁶ It was Elias Phillips who had sued John Phillips, and Sheriff Corshon who seized John Phillips’ 10-acre lot with a dwelling house, grist & sawmill on Assunpink Creek.

Elias Phillips served as Sheriff from Nov 1795 to October 1796. After that he was named as clerk to the Board of Justices & Freeholders of Hunterdon County in 1797,¹⁷ but he died intestate in early 1797. Administration of his estate was granted on March 13^th to John Phillips of Maidenhead, the same person Elias Phillips sued in November 1795.

Note: Undoubtedly there is a family connection between Elias and John Phillips, but I have not found it. He may have been related to the tax collector John Phillips, who visited the Anderson tavern on November 26, 1794. Any Phillips genealogists who can enlighten me here are most welcome.

John Anderson, Esq.

As for former Sheriff and tavernkeeper John Anderson, he wrote his will on April 28, 1799, leaving his real estate, consisting of a large property on the Delaware River, to his children. There was nothing in the will about a tavern lot in Flemington. Anderson died the next day at the age of 59. His executors, Joshua & John Anderson, sold the farm at public auction to satisfy his creditors.

Sheriff William Lowrey

Lowrey did not prosper. On May 10, 1799, William Lowrey was imprisoned for unpaid debts, along with six others. He sent a notice to the New Jersey State Gazette, published on Dec. 10, 1799.

Public Notice, is hereby given to the Creditors of the Subscriber, now in actual confinement for debt, in the gaol of the county of Hunterdon, that the inferior court of common pleas, in and for said county, have appointed Wednesday the 15th of January next, at ten o’clock in the forenoon, for the said court to attend at the courthouse at Flemington, to hear what can be alleged for or against the liberation of the subscriber from confinement, as an insolvent debtor, pursuant to the acts of Assembly in such case made and provided. [signed] William Lowrey, Flemington, December 4, 1799.¹⁸

A subsequent notice dated January 9, 1800, was published in the Universal Gazette, Philadelphia to the same effect.

I do not know whether Lowrey was released from jail. On the day of the hearing, January 15^th, Lowrey assigned to Richard Heath his interest in a one-acre lot in Kingwood, located “on the road through Baptistown,” which he had purchased in 1790 from Wm Coolbaugh. Even though deeds of assignment were usually recorded, Lowrey’s was not.

William Lowrey died intestate, on March 13, 1802. ¹⁹ Find-a-Grave states that he died in Kingwood and was buried in the Oak Summit Cemetery.

A year later, on April 8, 1803, William’s father, Thomas Lowrey, wrote his will leaving a bequest to William’s daughters Mary and Abigail, with this proviso: It was not to be paid unless Martha Lowrey their mother released all claim of dower in the estate of her late husband.

On August 30^th, Martha Lowrey quit claimed her dower right in a tract of 27 acres, being “commonly called the Swamp Lott, adjoining land of George Arnwine,” to Thomas Lowrey in exchange for the payment of one dollar annually.

Thomas Lowrey died on Nov. 10, 1809. I do not know if Martha continued to receive the annual $1 payment. She did not die until August 29, 1835. By then she was living in Trenton, but apparently not with either of her daughters. Daughter Mary married Thomas Alexander and Abigail married Wilson Housel, both of whom lived in the vicinity of Flemington.

On August 26, 1803, Administration of William Lowrey’s estate was granted to his wife’s uncle, John Sherred. Thomas Lowrey and John Snyder were his fellowbondsmen. The date seems odd—who was administering the estate for the year & a half after Lowrey’s death?

After John Sherred died in 1810, administration of William Lowrey’s estate was assigned to Richard Heath. On July 12, 1813, Richard Heath, as assignee of Wm Lowrey Esq., conveyed to Thomas Gordon, Esq. of Flemington, for $60, a one-acre lot in Kingwood on the road through Baptist Town, bordering a lot of Wm Halliday (now Wm Britton).²⁰

The Epilogue, describing the lives of Lucius W. Stockton
and Jacob Anderson, is continued in County House, Part 7.

Footnotes: