The efforts made by the Muhlenberg faction to win over the German Antimasons singularly failed, and but a few of them, led by Richard Rush, entered into the support of Muhlenberg.a

The northern counties of the State had received many favors from Wolf, and it was this section which displayed at this crisis the greatest enthusiasm for his cause. His supporters said:

When George Wolf was elected governor of Pennsylvania, the North was regarded more as a colony of outlaws than citizens of the State. We have now a firm prospect of having the State improvements extended through this section of the State. To whom are we indebted for this prospect more than George Wolf? He has boldly stepped forth and urged his measures upon the legislature. Is there a man in the North who can turn recreant to such a governor?

The people of Erie County, too, were indignant at the long neglect of their interests, and made an issue of the failure to extend the canal to the lake. At a meeting of the friends of the canal it was resolved "to support no man for the office of governor who was not its avowed and independent friend." Letters were addressed to all the candidates upon the matter, with the result that Wolf said it should be "completed without delay;" Ritner, as soon as the "circumstances of the State should justify it," and Muhlenberg admitted the work was "important," but did not commit himself."

One of the interesting phases of this campaign was the religious spirit connected with it. The Antimasons had long been called advocates of a union of church and state. The Wolf Democrats now imputed the same doctrines to Muhlenberg. "For upwards of eighteen years," says the Chester Democrat, "H. A. Muhlenberg professed to be a minister of the Message of Peace. * History portrays in glaring characters the danger of the unity of the civil with religious power. Would every Pennsylvanian resist the encroachments of religious upon civil power, let him on this ground alone refuse to give his vote to Rev. Henry A. Muhlenberg." a

*

* *

* *

a Pennsylvania Reporter, August 28, 1835.

Northern Banner, quoted in Pennsylvania Reporter, July 17, 1835. See also account of Center County Democratic meeting, Pennsylvania Reporter, September 11, 1835.

e Pennsylvania Reporter, September 11, 1835.

d Chester Democrat, quoted in Pennsylvania Reporter, September 25, 1835.

Wolf in turn was attacked by his political opponents for having appointed a man to a position through the influence of a Catholic priest. "We have read much about church and state in this contest," said the Pittsburg Manufacturer, "and from whom has it come? none other than those who for the last six years have priest-ridden the Commonwealth." It was declared repeatedly that "Catholicism, Masonry, and infidelity were combined to crush the liberty of the Republic." In those days of religious disturbance and bitter religious feeling such accusations were not to be despised, and formed valuable campaign literature. This was the beginning of the strong anti

Vote for governor of Pennsylvania, in 1835. (Philadelphia City for Ritner; Philadelphia
County for Wolf.)

Catholic feeling in Pennsylvania with which so many prominent
Antimasons, especially in the western part of the State, were
later connected."

The result of the election was an overwhelming victory for Ritner. He carried the southern part of the State and the western tier of counties, receiving 94,023 votes to 65,804 for Wolf and 40,586 for Muhlenberg. According to the Demo

a Pittsburg Manufacturer, quoted in Pennsylvania Intelligencer, September 24, 1835. b Mr. E. Wilson's valuable History of Pittsburg, compiled largely from newspapers, gives a good picture of the struggle in the city of Pittsburg.

c Pennsylvania Reporter, October 30, 1835.

Specifically, he carried Adams, Allegheny, Beaver, Bedford, Butler, Bucks, Crawford, Cambria, Chester, Cumberland, Dauphin, Delaware, Erie, Fayette, Franklin, Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, Lancaster, Lebanon, Lehigh, Luzerne, Lycoming, Mercer,

cratic account, 9 Antimasonic senators were elected, and in the lower house all but 28 were either Whigs or Antimasons. These two parties, if united, could control the lower house entirely, and on a joint vote both houses."

Montgomery, Philadelphia City, Somerset, Union, Washington, and York counties. Muhlenberg carried Berks, Columbia, Northumberland, Perry, and Schuylkill; all of these except Perry being adjoining counties. Berks was Muhlenberg's county, and had been the seat of political discontent for some time. In 1832 it had given Jackson 3,322 majority and Wolf but 323. Pennsylvania Reporter, June 19, 1835.

Berks, Schuylkill, and Northumberland also voted against the proposed convention for amending the constitution. Pennsylvania Reporter, October 30, 1835. Members from all these counties except Northumberland had opposed the improvement bill of 1835. Pennsylvania Reporter, April 7, 1835. These counties always elected Democratic members to the legislature, but were always decidedly opposed to the policy of Wolf. The split in the Democratic ranks undoubtedly caused the defeat of their party, although it must be admitted that the Muhlenberg ticket polled heavy votes in nearly all the eastern Antimasonic counties. Wolf carried 17 counties, 13 of which favored the convention. Every county in the State in which the German population predominated gave a majority against the convention. These counties were Lancaster, Berks, Schuylkill, Northampton, Lehigh, Lebanon, Dauphin, York, Montgomery. Union, Perry, Northumberland, and Somerset. Lancaster, the greatest Antimasonic county, gave the most votes against it, while Berks, the Muhienberg stronghold, was next. Besides these counties, Adams, Bedford, Bucks, Center, Chester, Delaware, Mifflin, Northumberland, Philadelphia City, Philadelphia County, and Juniata voted against the convention. The convention was, however, decided upon by a vote of 84,611 to 73,008. Pennsylvania Reporter, October 30, 1835.

Pennsylvania Reporter, October 23, 1835.

CHAPTER XV.-THE ANTIMASONIC-WHIG ALLIANCE IN POWER.

As soon as the session opened it became evident that not only was the Whig-Antimasonic combination supreme but also that several of the Muhlenberg Democrats showed a tendency to unite with them as well. In the senate, Cunningham, a member from the western part of the State who was understood to be opposed to Van Buren, was elected chairman; while in the house, Middleswarth was elected speaker."

In his inaugural address Ritner defined his policy toward the State improvements as follows:

With the vast debt already contracted before us, prudence would forbid the undertaking of any new, separate, and independent work, until those now in operation and in progress, prove by actual experience to be capable of sustaining themselves, and furnish evidence that they will, in a reasonable time, extinguish their original cost, without resort to taxation. But where further extension of the public works is necessary, to render those already made or in progress, profitable, and beneficial, economy and sound policy, and a just regard for the interests of the people, would require such extension to be authorized and completed.

His policy was soon put to the test, for both houses passed a resolution authorizing the canal commissioners to purchase and place additional locomotives upon the railroads of the Commonwealth. He returned this with his veto, and the remark "I regard this as the first question that has arisen, involving those principles of reform and economy for the support of which I stand pledged before my fellow-citizens." How the matter of improvements was finally settled will be

a Pennsylvania Reporter, December 4, 1835. The Reporter estimated that a Muhlenberg man was elected clerk and an Antimason assistant clerk. Two of the printers are called Muhlenberg men and one a Whig. Cunningham received 20 votes to his opponent's (Reed) 10. He received all the votes of the Muhlenberg men, the Whigs, and the Antimasons. In the house, Niles-estimates that there were 45 Antimasons, 26 Whigs, 17 Wolf men, 12 Muhlenberg men. Niles Register, XLIX, 230.

b Pennsylvania Reporter, December 18, 1835.

e Pennsylvania Reporter, January 5, 8, 1835. Niles Register, XLIX, 292. Hazard, XVI, 394.

considered in connection with the establishment of the United States Bank, where it properly belongs.

That Ritner looked upon his election as a triumph of Antimasonry is evident from the following statement from his message:

The supremacy of the laws, and the equal rights of the people, whether threatened or assailed by individuals, or by secret sworn associations, I shall, so far as may be compatible with the constitutional power of the Executive, endeavor to maintain, as well in compliance with the known will of the people, as from obligations of duty to the Commonwealth. In this endeavor I shall entertain no doubt of zealous cooperation by the enlightened and patriotic legislature of the State. The people have willed the destruction of all secret societies, and that will can not be disregarded, a

In accordance with this recommendation a committee was appointed to inquire into Masonry, and on December 7 Mr. Stevens, chairman of that committee, reported a bill entitled "An act to suppress secret societies bound together by unlawful oaths." On December 19 a committee of five, with Stevens as chairman, was appointed to investigate the evils of Freemasonry, with power to send for persons and papers, and January 11 was fixed as the date for an investigation before the committee." As the witnesses took no notice of the summons, the next day Mr. Stevens made a report that the committee had summoned George Wolf and others to appear before them, but that they had all denied the authority of the house and the committee to serve process upon them, and had refused by letters to appear. He then offered a resolution that "attachments issue to compel the attendance of George Wolf, John Neilson, and other delinquent witnesses."d On January 14, after much debate, it was decided by a vote

a Pennsylvania Reporter, December 18, 1835. See also Harvey, History of Lodge No. 61, F. and A. M., and the American Free Mason, Louisville, Ky., II. This gives a Masonic history of Antimasonry.

Pennsylvania Reporter, December 8, 1835, American Daily Advertiser, December

25, 1835.

e Harrisburg Chronicle, January 11, 1836. American Sentinel, January 12, 1836. d Harrisburg Chronicle, January 14, 1836. Governor Wolf in his letter said: "I respectfully, but solemnly repeat my protest against and utterly deny the right of the committee: of the House of Representatives itself: or any human power to interfere with my constitutional rights as a free citizen of the State of Pennsylvania, with my privileges as a free agent, or with indulgence of my predilections to form such associations, not prohibited by law nor violating any provisions of the Constitution, as I may from time to time think proper, or to interrogate me concerning the same, or to compel me to answer in anywise in relation thereto. I therefore respectfully decline appearing before the committee as requested by the subpoena." Franklin Repository, January 19, 1836. Harrisburg Chronicle, January 14, 1836.

* * *