Chapter 12, Section 3
Madison
THE HOLLAND LAND COMPANY.
The rest or major part of the territory within the present limits of this
township was covered by warrants to The Holland Land Company, and
because so much of the area of this township was thus covered (as well as
portions of other townships), a sketch of that company is here given.It was organized at the city of Amsterdam, in the Kingdom of Holland, in
the latter part of the eighteenth century. Its original members were Wilhelm
Willink, Nicholas Van Staphorst, Pieter Stadnitski, Christian Van Eghen,
Hendrick Vollenhoven and Rutgert Jan Schimmelpenninck, of that city; at least
those are the names mentioned in a prevention patent for a tract called
“Normandy,” dated October 7, 1799. They were joint tenants, subject
to the right of survivorship, except, perhaps, for about sixteen years. The
act of assembly of Pennsylvania, March 24, 1828, provided that the act of
March 31, 1812, abolishing survivorship in joint tenancy, should not apply to
the lands held by that company in this state and sold under either the former
act or the act of March 31, 1823, which were acts enabling them and their
vendees, though, aliens, to sell and purchase their lands, as though they were
not aliens. Stadnitski, Van Eghen and Van Staphorst died prior to April, 1805,
and subsequently Willink, Vollenhoven, Van Henkelom and Schimmelpenninck.The original members, it is said, had loaned large amounts of money, either
directly to the United States, or, indirectly, to Robert Morris, to aid in
achieving American independence. As they preferred to invest the amount which
they received, after the close of the revolutionary war, in this country, they
purchased from Morris, in 1792, an immense quantity of land west of the
Genesee river, in the State of New York, on which they, as one of their agents
stated, lost $3,000,000. They acquired, about the same time, inchoate titles
to numerous tracts of land in Pennsylvania, on both sides of the Allegheny
river, in the territory included in the purchases from the Six Nations, at
Fort Stanwix, October 23, 1784, and from the Delawares and Wyandots at Fort
McIntosh in January, 1785. The boundaries of these purchases began “at
the south side of the Ohio river, where the western boundary of the State of
Pennsylvania crosses the said river, near Shinglo�s old town, at the mouth
of Beaver creek, and thence by a due north line to the end of the forty-second
and beginning of the forty-third degrees of north latitude, to the east side
of the east branch of the river Susquehanna, and thence by the bounds of the
purchase line of 1768 to the place of beginning,” which included all the
northwestern part of this state, except the triangle bordering on Lake Erie,
which, having been purchased from the Indians by the United States, January 9,
1789, by the treaty at Fort Harmon, for �1,200, was conveyed by the
latter to Pennsylvania, March 3, 1792, for $150,640.25. “The Holland
Company,” said Judge Yeates, at March term, 1800, in the Commonwealth vs.
Tench Coxe, “have paid to the state the considerable money of 1,162
warrants, and the surveying fees on 1,048 tracts of land, besides making very
considerable expenditures by their exertions, honorable to themselves and
useful to the community, in order to effect settlements. Computing the sums
advanced, the lost tracts, by prior improvements and interferences, and the
quantity of 100 acres granted to each individual for making a settlement on
their lands,” i. e., west of the Allegheny river, ” it is
said, that, averaging the whole, between $230 and $240 have been expended by
the company on each tract of land they now claim.”Forty of those tracts, within the original limits of Armstrong county, that
is, between Toby�s creek, now Clarion river, and the purchase line, were
covered by warrants to Herman Le Roy and John Linklain, of the State of New
York. William Bayard, of the same state, appears to have succeeded to Linklain�s
interest in these tracts prior to April, 1805, for he and Le Roy were then two
of the complainants in the bill of interpleader in the circuit court of the
United State for the district of Pennsylvania, in which Jesse Waln, Isaac
Wharton, in his lifetime, David Lewis, Samuel M. Fox, in his lifetime, and
John Adlum,7 citizens of the United State, were defendants. That
proceeding was instituted for the purpose of ascertaining to whom and in what
proportion belonged the title, estate, and interest to 145 tracts of land and
unsatisfied warrants in this state, which had been sold for taxes due the
United States, and conveyed by John Smith, United States marshal for the
district of Pennsylvania, by his deed dated May 23, 1805, to Paul Burti, who
purchased for the company. These tracts were, of course, claimed by both
complainants and defendants. After hearing the bill and answer, October 31,
1807, it was ordered and decreed by the court that a conveyance be made to the
defendants Waln, Wharton�s heirs and Lewis, in proportion to their claims,
and in favor of Fox�s heirs and Adlum for the residue. In obedience to that
decree Burti, in whom, as agent of the complainants, was the legal title,
conveyed to the defendants their respective portions of these tracts, February
25, 1812, of which partition was made among such of the defendants as were
living and the heirs of such as were dead, by virtue of the act of March 28,
1814, and its supplement of February 6, 1815.Twenty-five of the tracts covered by warrants to H. LeRoy & Co.
contained, respectively 990 acres, and some of the other fifteen of them
contained more and others less that that number. They aggregated 38,872 acres.
Twenty-eight tracts were covered by warrants to Wilhelm Willink & Co., of
which one contained 880 acres, and each of the rest 990 acres, aggregating
27,610 acres. Those tracts appear to have been taken up both by Le Roy &
Co. and Willink & Co. under the act of April 8, 1785, according to which
the secretary for lands in the above-mentioned late purchases, except north
and west of the Ohio and Allegheny rivers and the Conewango creek, not
exceeding 1,000 acres in one application, after the price had been reduced by
the first section of the act of April 3, 1792, to �5 per 100 acres of the
land in those purchases east of the Allegheny river and Conewango creek, which
were not subject to the rigid conditions of settlement of those on the other
side of those streams.The Holland Company soon after its organization appointed Paul Burti, an
Italian gentleman, of Bloekley�s Retreat, Philadelphia � whose house, now
stands on the grounds of the Pennsylvania Hospital for the Insane, is occupied
by Dr. Thomas S. Kirkbride8 � Harm Jan Huidekoper, a Holland
gentleman, of Meadville, their agents and attorneys-in-fact, the latter being
designated in one of the former�s letters of attorney to David Lawson,
“the general superintending agent.” They not only sold lands
belonging to the company, but in some instances acquired and held in
themselves the legal title to some of the latter�s tracts, and as grantors
conveyed tracts and parcels of tracts to purchasers. Patent for various tracts
were granted to them in trust for the company. For instance, John Smith,
United States Marshal for Pennsylvania, conveyed to them October 16, 1804, the
interest of James Wilson, who was a prominent member of the convention of this
state for the ratification of the Federal Constitution, in thirty tracts,
partly in Brodhead�s former district No. 6 Huidekoper released his part to
Burti March 16, 1811, more or less of which the latter conveyed to the company�s
vendees. The records of this conty show incidentally that Robert Beatty was
their sub-agent for the sale of Holland lands east of the Allegheny and south
of Toby�s creek prior to 1811. Burti executed two letters of Attorney to
David Lawson August 19, 1811, one authorizing him to sell lands warranted to
Willink & Co. and to Le Roy & Co., to receive moneys on contracts of
sale, and such as were due on contracts made by Beatty, and to be subject to
the instructions that he might from time to time receive from either Burti or
Huidekoper. He continued to act as such until 1817-18.Some of the company�s extensive sales in the fifth and sixth, or Brady�s
and Brodhead�s, districts were: By Burti, as attorney-in-fact, by article of
agreement, May 2, 1816, to sell to Benjamin B. Cooper, of Coopersport, New
Jersey, 253 tracts, some of which were in this county, or such person or
persons as the latter should appoint, provided that title should not be made
to any of them until all the purchase money should be paid. Proceeding not in
chronological order, Burti conveyed to Cooper the legal title in him to 47
tracts, covered by warrants to Le Roy & Co., dated December 13, 1792, some
of the patents for which were granted to him, and others to him and Huidekoper,
in 1812 and 1813; and the same day Burti, as attorney-in-fact for the company,
conveyed 25 other tracts, covered by warrants to Willink et al., dated
December 13, 1792, for which patents were granted to them August 26, September
6, October 14, November 4, 5, 6, 1802. The consideration expressed in each of
these conveyances was $1, whence it is inferrible that the full consideration
was paid at some other time, and perhaps in some other way than by cash.
Cooper executed his letter of attorney to David Lawson November 18, 1816.
Cooper and Charles C. Gaskill entered into an agreement April 1, 1818,
authorizing the latter to sell the lands which the former had agreed to
purchase from the company, May 3, 1816, in farms of not less than 50 or more
than 500 acres each. Under that agreement it was made optional with Gaskill to
take about 100,000 acres of those 253 tracts, at any time in three years after
the date of the agreement, at $2 per acre, with interest from January 1, 1819,
in ten annual payments, or at an annual ground-rent of 14 cents per acre,
redeemable at any time before January 1, 1830, at $2 per acre and arrearages
of ground-rent; or to take 5 per cent on all sales of those lands that he
might make. He must have accepted the last-mentioned condition, as Mrs.
Cooper, February 8, 1819, executed a release of her dower to every person that
had purchased, and that might thereafter purchase, any of those lands from
Gaskill by virtue of the above mentioned agreement between him and her
husband. Gaskill, as Cooper�s executor, conveyed some parcels after Cooper�s
death.The company, by their attorney-in-fact, conveyed 65 tracts, partly in this
county, July 27, 1816, to Sommers Baldwin, then of Troy, Jefferson county,
Pennsylvania, but formerly of Fairfield county, Connecticut, for $75,284.06,
for which he gave his obligations, for securing which he gave his mortgage on
those tracts, May 28, 1819, to Burti and Vanderkemp. The latter became the
sole mortgagee on the death of the former, which occurred some time after
March 19, 1823. Baldwin sold or agreed to sell 38 parcels of these tracts,
varying in quantity from four acres to a thousand, to Hewlett Smith, of New
Haven county, Conn., and thirty-five others. Baldwin died intestate, without
having satisfied that mortgage. Henry Jack, of Jefferson county, was appointed
administrator of his estate, against whom judgment was obtained for the
above-mentioned amount, on which writs of levari facias were issued to
the sheriffs of Armstrong and Indiana counties, on which Jacob Mechling,
sheriff of the former county, sold 13 tracts covered by warrants to Le Roy
& Co., and the same number, covered by warrants to Willink & Co., to
Vanderkemp, for $500; and Clemence McGarra, sheriff of Indiana county, sold 33
LeRoy & Co. tracts and 13 Willink & Co., tracts to Vanderkemp for
$1000. Both of these sales were in December, 1826. The name of Vanderkemp was
used in those proceedings in trust for the company. He executed a letter of
attorney to Gaskill, June 16, 1825, authorizing him to sell those lands, and
he continued in charge of those Holland lands in this, Indiana and Jefferson
counties until the spring of 1849.On August 14, 1816, Burti, as holder of the legal title, conveyed 21 LeRoy
& Co. tracts, partly in this county, for $15,120, and, as
attorney-in-fact, 27 Willink & Co. tracts, for $19,000, August 14, 1816,
to Oliver W. Ogden, of New Germantown, New Jersey, for the aggregate amount of
which he gave his mortgage thereon to Burti and Vanderkemp, and appointed
David Lawson his attorney-in-fact to sell those tracts, which, however, he
re-conveyed to Burti and Vanderkemp May 3, 1819, for $34,682, and they
executed their letter of attorney August 9 to Eben S. Kelly, authorizing him
to satisfy mortgage, which he did September 15.Several of the company�s tracts in this county were sold for taxes.
Thomas Hamilton, county treasurer, sold one of them to the county
commissioners, October 10, 1818; Samuel Matthews, county treasurer, one,
October 25, 1820, and eleven others, October 1, 1822, which the commissioners
conveyed to Vanderkemp, March 24, and he to Willink & Co., November 7,
1826.The act of March 31, 1823, authorized the company to sell their lands and
their vendees to purchase them, though they or any of them were aliens,
notwithstanding any previous law to the contrary.In 1849 the surviving members of the company were Walrave Van Henkelom,
Wilhelm Willink, Jr., and Gerret Schimmelpenninck, Rutgert Jan�s son. On
April 26 they, by their attorney-in-fact, John Jacob Vanderkemp, whom the
company had appointed as such and as the successor to Paul Burti, deceased,
September 5, 1824, conveyed all their lands, tracts, pieces and parcels of
land, tenements and hereditaments that had not been previously conveyed,
including all outstanding contracts for the sale and purchase of their lands
in Armstrong, Indiana and Jefferson counties, to Alexander Colwell, Dr. John
Gilpin, Horatio N. Lee, of the borough of Kittanning, Alexander Reynolds and
David Richey, then of Madison township, in this county, embracing 23,083 acres
and 45 perches of unsold land, and about 55,000 acres subject to executory
contracts, for $50,000 � the vendors not to be liable for the payment of
money due or to become due on these contracts, or for any judgments, mortgages
or other evidences of debt arising from any of these contracts. Reynolds
entered into a conditional agreement with his co-purchasers, August 11, 1835,
to purchase their several interests in about 21,000 acres of these lands for
$26,130. By divers transfers that agreement was consummated, and these
interests became vested in him and P. Jenks Smith, of Philadelphia. All the
lands which were included in the purchase from the Holland Company, except
about 1,000 acres, have been sold at such an advance that the last purchasers
have realized handsomely from their ventures, besides a considerable amount
still due them on executory contracts. Some of those lands have since become
so valuable that they cannot now be purchased for less than twenty-six times
the price for which Reynolds and his co-purchasers sold them.The sketch of the Holland Company has thus far been confined to its
operations east of the Allegheny river and Conewango creek. It remains to be
stated what obstacles they had to meet and overcome in their purchases on the
other side of those streams, in the presentation of which it is necessary to
keep in mind the provisions of the act of assembly of April 3, 1792, entitled
“An act for the sale of vacant lands within this Commonwealth.” The
first section relates to the price and sale of lands within the purchase of
1768, east of the Allegheny river and the Conewango creek. The other sections
relate chiefly to the sale and purchase of the lands north and west of the
Ohio and Allegheny rivers, and west of the Conewango creek, and, among other
things, fixed the price of those lands at �7 10s. per 100 acres to
such persons as would settle, cultivate and improve them or cause them to be
settled, cultivated and improved; required each tract not to contain more than
400 acres, its shape to be oblong, the full quantity of each warrant to be
surveyed in one entire tract, and not to contain in front on any navigable
river or lake more than one-half its length or depth, and ten per cent surplus
to be allowed and paid for when the patent should be granted. The phraseology
of the ninth section, and especially of its proviso, occasioned much
difference of opinion as to the intent of the legislature, and, consequently,
a great deal of litigation.That section required that a warrant should not be issued or a survey made
in that part of the state to vest any title in the lands there unless the
grantee had, before the date of his warrant, made or caused to be made an
actual settlement thereon by clearing, fencing and cultivating at least
two acres for every 100 acres contained in one survey, erecting thereon a
messuage for the habitation of man, and residing or causing a family to
reside thereon for the space of five years next following his or her first
settling of the same, if he or she should so long live; and in default of such
settlement it should be lawful for the Commonwealth to issue new warrants,
reciting the original ones, and that actual settlements and residence had not
been made in pursuance thereof, and so often as default in those respects
should be made, and that new grants should be made subject to all the
regulations in the act. “Provided always, nevertheless, that if any such
actual settler, or any grantee in any such original or succeeding warrant
shall, by force of arms of the enemies of the United States, be prevented
from making such actual settlement, or be driven therefrom, and shall
persist in his endeavors to make such actual settlement as aforesaid,
then, in either case, he and his heirs shall be entitled to have and to hold
the said lands in the same manner as if the actual settlement had been made
and continued.”Along with the requirements of that act should also be kept in mind the
specially perilous condition of that part of the state, resulting from the
then pending Indian war. The perils to settlers, or those who attempted to
settle there, were fearfully enhanced by the disastrous defeat of Gen. Harmar
in October, 1790, and that of Gen. St. Clair, in November, 1791. It is a well
established fact that settlements by the whites in that region were unsafe
until 1796. There was, nevertheless, a great contrariety of opinion on the
bench, at the bar, and among the people as to the requirements of that section
and its proviso respecting the settlement to be made, and the persistent
endeavors required to effect a settlement under these perilous circumstances,
on those lands.One portion insisted that the conditions of actual settlement and
residence, required by the act, were dispensed with, on account of the
prevention for two years after the date of a warrant by Indian hostilities,
and that the warrant-holder was not bound to do anything further, but was
entitled to a patent. Another portion insisted that the right under the
warrant was forfeited at the expiration of two years, without a settlement,
and that actual settlers might then enter on such tracts and hold them by
making a settlement.A great deal of litigation resulted from the contrariety of construction of
that act, which for nearly a quarter of a century, was suffered to dishearten
many people from settling that particular region, even after the perils from
the Indian hostilities had ceased. It seems strange that the legislature, when
it became apparent how great a difference there was in the construction of the
act, did not so amend or supplement it as to relieve it from that difference
and check the resultant evils. Chief Justice Tighlman intimated in Hazard�s
lessee vs. Lowery,9 that the ninth section was
“expressed with such obscurity as to have occasioned great diversity of
opinion among men of the first abilities.” And Justice Yeates in the
hereinafter-mentioned motion for a mandamus on the secretary of the land
office said in reference to that act, he had hoped “that the difficulties
attendant on the present motion would have been brought before the justice and
equity of the legislature for solution, who are compelled to deliver the law
as they find it written, for decision.” And further on in the same case,
he continued: “Though such great disagreement has obtained as to the true
meaning of this ninth section, both sides agree in this, that it is worded
very inaccurately, inartificially and obscurely.” It is passing strange
that the legislature did not, after those severe judicial criticisms, correct
the faulty phraseology of that section and its proviso. Because legislative
wisdom and acumen were not thus exercised, the Holland Company, as well as
numerous individuals, were involved in expensive litigation.Source: Page(s) 259-285, History of Armstrong County, Pennsylvania by
Robert Walker Smith, Esq. Chicago: Waterman, Watkins & Co., 1883.
Transcribed December 1998 by Jeffrey Bish for the Armstrong County Smith
Project.
Contributed by Jeffrey Bish for use by the Armstrong County Genealogy Project
(http://www.pa-roots.com/armstrong/)Armstrong County Genealogy Project Notice:
These electronic pages cannot be reproduced in any format, for any
presentation, without prior written permission.
Return to the Chapter 12 Index
Return to the Historical Index
Return to the Smith Project
About Author
