Assembly, to meet at some central part of the State, and there nominate such person as a majority of the Republicans may think most eligible to fill the office of governor. At a meeting held in Philadelphia not long afterward, the Delaware county plan was approved. This is said to have been a scheme of Duane to defeat the renomination of Snyder, but as the members of the legislature were strongly in favor of Snyder, the old method was sure to result in his renomination, while with a differently constituted convention the result might have been doubtful. County after county, however, declared in favor of Snyder and the old plan of nomination. On the 6th of January, 1808, the legislative caucus requested the counties not represented by Republicans in the legislature to send delegates in proportion to the number of their representatives, to meet at Lancaster jointly with the legislative caucus and make a nomination; and this was done on the 7th of March.

The same plan was adopted in 1811, but was abandoned on the last renomination of Snyder, but as he was not eligible for a fourth term, the "Aurora" advocated a separate convention, from which officeholders should be excluded. The party leaders did not take kindly to the suggestion, doubting their ability to find citizens who would be willing to serve in such a convention without compensation, and advised that the people should either send delegates or appoint their members of Assembly. A convention was therefore called in this manner, which nominated Findlay, in which all the counties except two or three were represented. Of the one hundred and thirteen members, sixty-nine were not members of the legislature. To these proceedings not all were willing to submit. The other element in the party contended that such a body was an irregular caucus, and would be controlled by the officeholders; therefore, in 1816, this faction also held a convention at Carlisle and passed strong resolutions against the legislative caucus, and advised that a separate convention should meet in Carlisle in June the next year and nominate a candidate

for Governor. This was done, the convention representing fourteen counties, and Joseph Hiester, an influential and wealthy German farmer living near Reading, was nominated.

It would not have been in harmony with the past to have not attempted, at least, to impeach some judges during Snyder's administration, and accordingly, during the last session of the legislature when he was Governor, an attempt was made to impeach the three judges of the Court of Common Pleas, consisting of the counties of Lancaster and York. The charge was that two lawyers had collected a judgment and not paid over a portion to their clients, and that the judges refused to aid the owners in collecting it, and declined to punish their attorneys for their alleged misconduct. The judges were tried in March, 1817, and were acquitted of the charge.

CHAPTER X.

FINDLAY'S AND HIESTER'S ADMINISTRATIONS -1817-1823

NR

OTWITHSTANDING Hiester's support by the Federalists, Findlay was elected. He was born at Mercersburg. Franklin county, in 1768, of Scotch-Irish parentage. A follower and admirer of Jefferson, his introduction into office was as a brigade inspector of militia, which, in those days, was something of an honor. In 1797, when in the thirtieth year of his age. he was elected to the House of Representatives. Four years afterward he was again elected a member, and voted against the impeachment of Justices Shaffer, Yeates and Smith. His conduct concerning Judge Brackenridge is worthy of notice. The judge addressed a letter to the House after the presentation of Passmore's petition, requesting to be impeached, not for any act of his own, but for his approbation of the conduct of the other justices just mentioned. The House thought that the letter was disrespectful and referred it to a committee of which Findlay was chairman. The committee decided against indulging the judge in his request, but, willing to gratify him in whatever martyrdom there might reasonably be for him, determined on an investigation of his official conduct and recommended the appointment of a committee to prepare an address to the Governor, asking for his removal from office. Of this Governor McKean, as we have seen, made short work.

In 1807 Findlay was elected state treasurer, and was constantly re-elected until chosen Governor. It was at that time a

legislative office, and on some occasions he received all the votes of that body; on all others his majority was very large.

Findlay's election as Governor was warmly contested, the Federalists supporting his opponent. His majority was 7,059, yet his opponents disputed his election, and contended that a certificate ought not to be given him until the dispute was settled. The Assembly decided otherwise, his certificate was given to him and he was inaugurated. The committee that was appointed to

consider the truth of the charges then proceeded to investigate them. Three petitions had been presented: one from Philadelphia signed by sixty-nine persons, another from Lancaster signed by fifty-four persons, and a third from Cumberland county signed by seventy-four. Fraud, violence and corruption were charged, though no evidence was brought before the committee to sustain these charges. The petitioners stated that it was manifest on the face of the returns, and from a reference to the amount of taxable population stated in the last census, that the numbers were too disproportionate to be the effect of any but illegal votes.

The report of the committee consisted chiefly in combating this statement and showing that the increase in population was sufficient to cover the votes given at the election. "The number of taxable inhabitants in the State as taken in 1807 was 138,285 and in the census of 1814, 165,427, making the average annual

increase 3,877; adding 11,631, the increase of three years, to the taxables of 1814, gives 177,058, for the taxables of 1817. The number of votes for governor at the late election was 125,543, which is 51,515 less than the taxables of that year." The committee therefore saw no evidence in these figures of illegal voting.

"The proportion of the votes to the taxables in Philadelphia city and county at the last election was somewhat less than the proportion of the votes to the taxables in the same city and county in 1808, but it was considerably greater than the proportion of votes to the taxables in 1805 and in 1799. We may thence conclude that at the last election nearly all the qualified voters of the city and county of Philadelphia exercised their privilege of voting, and also that the great disproportions between the number of votes and the number of taxables in Philadelphia city and county is permanent, and the result of continued and uniform causes. At all the warmly contested elections of 1799, 1805, 1808 and 1817, we find that the number of votes in proportion to the taxables in all the counties of the State was greater than the number of votes in proportion to the taxables at the same elections in the city and county of Philadelphia. How is this to be accounted for? Do not these facts prove that in the country generally the number of legal voters is greater in proportion to the taxable inhabitants than in Philadelphia city and county, or must we adopt the inference of the petitioners and ascribe the difference to no other cause than to the foulest corruption and perjuries overspreading every part of the State at every election, excepting only the city and county of Philadelphia?

"The census of taxables includes every taxable person of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, whether male or female, resident within their respective township, ward or district, and the right of voting is confined to those male persons above twentyone who have resided in the State for two years preceding the election and within that time paid State or county tax, and to the sons between twenty-one and twenty-two of voters thus qualified.