Abraham Witmer' s Bridge

At the period immediately succeed-ing the RevolutionaryWar, there was nobridge along the King's Highway overthe Conestoga River. There was, how-ever, a public fording. A fordingstill exists, though now partly cover-ed over by the tracks of the Lancasterand Eastern Street Railway Company.The earliest move to secure a bridgeat this point proved ineffective, as ap-pears by the following minutes of theCounty Commissioners:

"1753—August 9.—The Commission-ers and Assessors met according toadjournment and settled the accountsof the county with Peter Worral,Treasurer, before the Justice andGrand Jury as in Page 108, and at thesame time agreed to build two stonebridges, one across the tail race ofWilliam Douglass' mill, in Caernarvontownship, on the Provincial Road lead-ing to Windsor Furnace, and the otherover Conestoga Creek, on the Provin-cial Road leading from Lancaster tothe city of Philadelphia. Then theyadjourned until to morrow.

"August 10.—The Commissionersand Assessors met according to ad-journment and allowed orders fromNo. 1 to No. 10, page 110. Then theywent to Conestoga Creek to view samein order to make a plan of a bridgenecessary to be built according toyesterday's minute."

"1754—February 6.—The Commis-sioners and Assessors met accordingto adjournment,.and having had undertheir consideration that the buildingof a stone bridge over ConestogaCreek, according to their minutes of

the ninth of August, last, page 109,will be a great burden on this county,the expense whereof will, by estimation,amount to near two thousand pounds,therefore, they prepared a petitionwith a plan thereof annexed, prayingthe assistance of the General As-sembly of this Province to contributetowards the undertaking, which peti-tion was this day signed by the Jus-tices, Grand Jury, Commissioners andAssessors.

"February 7.—The Commissionersand Assessors met according to ad-journment and appointed Isaac San-ders, one of the Commissioners, to at-tend the General Assembly of thisProvince with petition mentioned inyesterday's minutes, to obtain theirassistance in the premises." The Gen-eral Assembly evidently refused thepetition, and no further action wastaken by the county authorities assuch.

A little later, an attempt appearsto have been made to accomplish theobject by means of a lottery; but thiseffort must also have proved futile.The following is a copy of a ticketissued:

"Conestoga Bridge Lottery."1761. Numb. 5061."This ticket entitles the bearer to

such prize as may be drawn againstits/number, if demanded within sixmonths after the drawing is finished;subject to such deduction as is men-tioned in the scheme.

"JOSEPH SIMON."

On November 4, 1786, petitions werepresented to the General Assemblyfrom "a number of the inhabitants ofthe borough of Lancaster, and othersresiding on the east side of that partof the said Conestogoe Creek, wherethe great road leading from the bor-

rough to the city of Philadelphiacrosses the same," praying that alaw, entitled "An Act establishing aferry and building a bridge acrossConestogoe Creek, in the county ofLancaster" might be passed. AbrahamWitmer at that time must have residedon the east side of the Conestogoe. Asshown by the records, he owned con-siderable land on that side of theriver, and his deed shows that he onlyacquired the tavern property on thewest side on September 23, 1789. Itis said, in Evans' and Ellis' History ofLancaster County, that he first pur-chased the land on which the tavernwas built and afterwards, in 1789,acquired an adjoining tract. But thisstatement is incorrect. The convey-ance of 1789 includes in its descrip-tion the tavern plot, and after hisdeath his executor sold the whole ofthis land, the tavern with four acresand one hundred perches, to SamuelDiller, and the balance of fourteenacres, more or less, to John Schwartz.An old draft in the possession ofIsrael Carpenter, showing the coursesand distances of the tavern property,conclusively proves this claim. Thepetition to the Assembly was read andordered to lie on the table, and onNovember 7, it was read a secondtime, and referred to Mr. Hubley, Mr.Lowry and Mr. Findley, to report abill, if they deemed it necessary. OnNovember 15, the committee reporteda bill, which was duly read. At thesame time, petitions remonstratingagainst the proposed act were filed.On December 15 the bill was read asecond time, and a remonstrance of740 inhabitants of the county was pre-sented against it. No further actionseems to have been taken by the As-sembly at this session.

On September 14, 1787, a like peti-tion was read, presenting the same

bill, with the insertion of a clause forleaving an open space where travelersmight ford the creek; and on Septem-ber 16 and 20 it was consid-ered and debated, and on Septem-ber 21, it was read the second time,was debated by paragraphs, and or-dered to be engrossed for the purposeof being enacted into a law. On Sep-tember 22, 1787, it was finally passed.

The act recited that, "Whereas, ithath been represented to this Houseby the petitions of a considerable num-ber of the inhabitants of the county ofLancaster, that the erecting of a goodand substantial bridge across the Con-estogoe Creek, on the great road lead-ing from the city of Philadelphia tothe borough of Lancaster, in thecounty of Lancaster, would greatlybenefit the trade and general interestof the community, which at presentare considerably impeded by the fre-quent rise of the waters of said creekand the badness of the landing placeson each side, and, whereas, AbrahamWitmer, in order to effect an uninter-rupted communication between thecity of Philadelphia and the Westerncounties of this State, and at the sametime to obtain some advantages tohimself and family, is desirous oferecting a bridge as aforesaid acrossthe said creek at his proper cost andexpense, and, therefore, hath prayedthe General Assembly to vest the saidbridge when built in him, his heirs andassigns forever with liberty to demandand receive such toll or fees fromtravelers as hereinafter mentioned andexpressed, the said Abraham Witmerengaging for himself, his heirs andassigns, that, if, at any future day,the Legislature shall think proper tomake the same a free bridge, he orthey shall surrender and give up theirright to receive toll for the said bridgeupon reasonable compensation for his

trouble and expense, to be estimatedby indifferent persons chosen equallyby the parties as hereinafter is ex-pressed and declared. And, whereas,the plan proposed by the said AbrahamWitmer for erecting a toll bridge overConestogoe Creek appears to thisHouse to be beneficial to the public.Therefore, be it enacted, etc.

Section 1. provided that the propertyof the bridge, when built, should be inAbraham Witmer, his heirs and as-signs, forever, and that they might de-mand and receive toll from travelersand others, according to the follow-ing rates:

For every coach, landau, chariot,phaeton, wagon or other four-wheeledcarriage, the sum of 1 shilling and6 pence.

For every chaise, riding chair, cartor other two-wheeled carriage, thesum of 9 pence.

For every sled the sum of 1 shilling.For every single horse and rider.

the sum of 4 pence.For every foot passenger the sum of

2 pence.For every head of horned cattle,

sheep or swine the sum of 1 pence.Section 2 authorized Abraham Wit-

ner, his heirs and assigns, to erect andbuild, maintain and support, a goodand substantial bridge over and acrossthe said creek at the place aforesaid,"Provided nevertheless that a pas-senger on said road of twenty feetwide in a direct and straight line onthe north side and at both ends, wasleft free, open and clear of every in-cumbrance."

Section 3 declared that, if AbrahamWitmer and his heirs should exact ordemand greater or other rates thanprescribed by the Act, or should ne-glect to keep the bridge in good repair,they should, for every offense, forfeit£10, one-half of which should go to

the poor of the townships of Lancas-ter and Lampeter in equal portions,and the other half to the party com-plaining, to be recovered before anyJustice of the Peace of the county.An appeal was allowed within fivedays to the next Court of Quarter Ses-sions.

Section 4 allowed all poor persons,who were exempt from county ratesand levies, to pass and repass thebridge toll free.

And section 5 provided that, when-ever the Legislature should deem itexpedient to make the bridge free, itshould appoint three Commissioners,and Abraham Witmer, his heirs andassigns, should also appoint three,who, or any four, should ascertain thecompensation Abraham Witmer shouldreceive for his trouble and expense,and the same should be paid to himout of the treasury of the Common-wealth.

At May term, 1788, of the Court ofQuarter Sessions, a petition to thefollowing effect was presented to theCourt (see Road Docket No. 7, 1788-1791, pp. 33-34) : "On the petition ofAbraham Witmer and others, in-habitants of the county of Lancaster,setting forth that the said AbrahamWitmer, pursuant to an Act of Assem-bly of this State, is about to erect abridge over the Conestoga Creek onthe road leading from Lancaster tothe city of Philadelphia, but upon in-spection of the records of the Statethere does not appear any documentswhich ascertain the exact place wherethe said road crosses the said creek,by reason whereof great inconven-iences have arose to ascertain theproper place where the said bridge isto be erected, so as to correspondwith the road aforesaid, and prayingthe Court to appoint proper persons toview and lay out a road for the public

good, beginning at the center of theCourt House in the Borough of Lan-caster, and extend eastwardly alongthe accustomed road leading to Phila-delphia across the said creek to sucha convenient distance as may be neces-sary, so that the said Abraham Witmermay properly place the said bridgeover the creek aforesaid, to answerthe purposes in the aforesaid act men-tioned. The Court appoints JamesCrawford, Abraham Buckwalter, Sr.,George Graeff, Adam Weaver, JohnBrackbill and John Burkholder to viewthe said premises and that they, orany four of them, if they see cause,lay out the said road by courses anddistances in a manner the most usefulfor the public in general and least in-jurious to private property and makereport to the next Court." At Augustterm, 1788, a return was made to thisorder as follows (see Road DocketNo. 7, 1788-1791, pp. 51-52): "The per-sons appointed to view and lay out aroad beginning at the center of theCourt House, in the borough of Lan-caster, and extending eastwardlyalong the accustomed road leading toPhiladelphia across Conestoga Creek,having now made report in thewords and figures following, viz.: 'Tothe Worshipful Justices of the GeneralCourt of Quarter Sessions of the Peaceto be held at Lancaster for the countyof Lancaster on the first Tuesday inAugust next, we, the subscribers ap-pointed by your Worships to view andlay out the road within mentioned,have, pursuant to the within order,viewed the same, and do report thatwe see cause to lay out the same ac-cording to the courses and distancesfollowing; viz.: Beginning at thecenter of the Court House and extend-ing along the middle of King street, inthe borough of Lancaster N. 82E. 120 perches in the center of

said street in Adamstown, thence ex-tending along the middle of the oldaccustomed road leading to Philadel-phia N. 801/2 E. 168 perches, thence S.87 E. 65 perches and South 77 E. 188perches to a post in the middle of theroad placed about three perches froma beech tree standing to the southwardthereof, thence across ConestogaCreek S. 78 E. computed about 20perches, thence N. 81 E. 12 perches toa post opposite Andrew Graeff's smithshop, thence N. 75 E. 149 perches to apost on the north side of a black oakstanding in Martin Graeff's land at thedistance of about 33 feet, which saidroad so viewed and laid out by us wereturn to be of public utility and leastinjurious to private property, and willenable Abraham Witmer to place thebridge over Conestoga Creek agree-able to the directions of the Act of As-sembly for that purpose enacted. Inwitness whereof, we have hereuntoset our hands this 17th day of June,Anno Domini, 1788. James Crawford,Abraham Buckwalter, George Graeff,Adam Weaver, John Brackbill, JohnBurkholder.' " The Court thereuponapproved of and confirmed the saidroad, and it was ordered that the sameshould be forthwith opened, cut, clear-ed and bridged (if necessary), of thebreadth as the Court should thereafterdirect, according to the Act of As-sembly of this State in such casemade and provided. This order wasdirected "to the Supervisors of theroads and highways of the borough ofLancaster and township or town-ships through which the above de-scribed road runs."

The bridge built by Abraham Wit-mer under the act of 1787 was notthe present bridge. That one wasevidently a wooden bridge, and, there-fore, a much lighter structure. Whenit was erected, I cannot exactly say,

but in May, 1789, the road, leadingfrom the King's Highway northwardto what was known to us as Ranck'sMill, and before that as AndrewGraeff's Mill, was laid out, and itbegan as recited in the Court pro-ceedings "two perches west of Whit-mer's Bridge, nearly opposite thefourth pillar, on the west side of saidbridge and on the west side of Cones-toga Creek," etc. This and the formerrecords referred to fix, therefore,the time of its construction as be-tween June 17, 1788, and May, 1789.

All things have their day of use-fulness and new requirements renderchanges from time to time neces-sary. So it was with this bridge,which was soon found unfitted to theconditions which subsequently arose.To meet these changes the act ofApril 4, 1798, which supplemented theformer act of 1787, was passed, and init are to be found the reasons for afurther proposed improvement. Theact states that, "Whereas, by the actto which this is a supplement,Abraham Witmer, of the county ofLancaster, was authorized to erect,and in pursuance of that authority diderect, a bridge over the ConestogoeCreek on the great road leading fromthe City of Philadelphia to the bor-ough of Lancaster, and the saidAbraham Witmer has represented tothe Legislature that the said bridge,having been built without a view tothe making of the Philadelphia andLancaster turnpike road, is not con-structed of material sufficiently dur-able, nor calculated to sustain heavyburdens, which, since the completionof the said road, are daily passingover the same, and hath prayed theLegislature to pass a law to author-ize him to erect a bridge over thesaid creek upon that permanent andextensive plan which the importance

of the situation requires." Section 1of this act then authorized him tobuild and maintain a permanentbridge on any unoccupied part of thegreat road, immediately above and onthe north side of "his present bridge,"provided that he should, as soon as thenew bridge was completed, removethe old bridge and leave a passageof twenty feet on said road on thesouth side of the new bridge and atboth ends thereof for the use of allthose who might think proper to passand repass the creek without goingover the bridge. By section 2, therates of tolls and the penalties fortaking greater toll were fixed thesame as in the original act; andby Section 3, the Legislature might,when deemed expedient, make thebridge free by paying AbrahamWitmer such sums of money asit should be ascertained he wasentitled to for his right and title inthe bridge. Under the latter act thepresent stone bridge was construct-ed. It was finished on Thursday,November 13, 1800. A notice publish-ed in the Lancaster Journal on Wed-nesday, November 12, 1800, reads:

Conestogoe Bridge.It is with great pleasure

Abraham Witmer informs the pub-lic that his new bridge will becompleted to-morrow, on whichday, at one o'clock, the inscriptionstone will be fixed in the centerof the north wall of said bridge.The friends of Abraham Witmerand all other citizens desirous tosee the same are respectfully in-formed thereof.

The length of the bridge is 540feet, and the width of the roadway is19 feet in the clear. In the middle ofit, on the north wall, is a tablet whichcontains the following:

Erected byAbraham Witmer

M.D.C.C.XC.IX-M.D.C.C.C.A Law of an Enlightened

CommonwealthPassed April 4, 1798,

Thomas Mifflin, Governor,Sanctioned this Monument

of the Public Spiritof an

Individual.61 M. to P.

On the south side of the bridge,carved in the stone abutment, is thefollowing:

This BridgeWas Built byAbr. Witmer

andHis Wife

in the Year1800.

How much it cost to build, I can-not say with accuracy, as it was aprivate undertaking, and there areno records existing that I know ofwhich contain that data. The subse-quent proceedings concerning it,however, throw some light upon thatsubject, and I will briefly relate them.

The Act of April 2, 1811, P. L. 223,declared that, "Whereas, it appearsthat there is due to the Common-wealth from the estate of WilliamHenry, deceased, formerly treasurerof Lancaster county, the sum of$12,018.34, being part of the arrears ofState tax due from the county ofLancaster; and whereas, it appearsthat the county of Lancaster has in-curred some expense and inconven-ience in furnishing the Legislaturewith a state house and other accom-modations for a number of years past.

Therefore (section 1) be it enacted,etc., that, as soon as the Commission-ers of the county of Lancaster shallhave paid unto John Joseph Henry thesum of $1,600, then the claim of theCommonwealth to the $12,018.34 duefrom the estate of William Henry, de-ceased, shall be relinquished to theCommissioners of the county of Lan-caster, for the purpose of purchasingand making free the bridge built byAbraham Witmer over the ConestogaCreek in said county." In the follow-ing year, namely, on March 27, 1812,an Act was passed, entitled "An Actto purchase and make free the bridgeover the River Conestoga, built byAbraham Witmer, in the county ofLancaster." This Act recited that,"Whereas by the Act and its supple-ment, authorizing Abraham Witmerto erect and maintain a toll bridgeacross the Conestogoe River, theLegislature reserved to itself thepurchase and redemption of saidbridge; and, whereas, by an Actpassed the second day of April, onethousand eight hundred and eleven,the sum of ten thousand four hundredand eighteen dollars and thirty-fourcents, arrearage of State taxes, duefrom the county of Lancaster, wasgranted to the Commissioners thereoftowards the purchase of said bridge;"therefore, by Section 1, James Mc-Farland, of the county of Schuylkill,George Nace, of the county of York,and John Ritchey, of the county ofDauphin, were appointed Commis-sioners on the part of the Common-wealth, who in conjunction with suchCommissioners, not being of Lancastercounty, as should be named byAbraham Witmer, should proceed toestimate the sum or sums that thesaid Abraham Witmer, his heirs andassigns, were entitled to receive, ac-cording to the true intent and mean-

ing of the Act of September 22, 1787,and its supplement of April 4, 1798,for the stone bridge across the Con-estogoe River, built and owned bythe said Witmer. Each Commis-sioner was to receive two dollars perday, which was to be paid out of thetreasury of the county.

By section 2 it was stipulated thatthe Commissioners appointed on be-half of the Commonwealth, havingbeen notified by the County Commis-sioners, and having fixed on a timeand place of meeting, which shouldnot be less that thirty days from andafter their notification, the CountyCommissioners should forthwith givenotice to Abraham Witmer, his heirsand assigns, of the time and place ofmeeting; and the Commissioners ap-pointed by this Act, as well as theCommisisoners appointed on behalfof Abraham Witmer, should, beforethey proceed to their duties, makeoath or affirmation that they would,with impartiality and fidelity, performthe duties assigned to them and re-port the proceedings under theirhands and seals to the Commissionersof Lancaster county as soon as theyconveniently could.

By section 3, it was also stipu-lated that, if four or more of the Com-missioners should not agree as to thesum which Abraham Witmer was en-titled to receive, the county Commis-sioners should inform the Governor,who should thereupon appoint a suit-able person, not being an inhabitantof Lancaster county, and that suchperson was constituted a com-sioner, and the sum awarded by amajority should be paid to Witmerby the Commissioners of the county.

Under section 4, it was providedthat, if Witmer, his heirs or assigns,should refuse or neglect to appointCommissioners, or should neglect or

refuse to receive the compensationawarded, for the space of ten daysafter the time fixed for the meeting orfrom the tender made by the CountyCommissioners of such sum, he shouldbe debarred from taking any toll fromand persons or persons passing saidbridge, and that, if he should taketoll contrary to the meaning of theAct, he should pay a fine of two dol-lars for every offense.

Under section 5, if the sum awardedby the Commissioners exceeded $10,-418.34, then the County Commission-ers, after paying the whole of theaward, were authorized to erect a gatenear or contiguous to the bridge andto receive tolls under the same regu-lations and restrictions as AbrahamWitmer was authorized to do.

And by section 6, it became theduty of the County Commissioners tolay before the Court of Quarter Ses-sions an account annually of the ex-penses incurred in maintaining andsupporting said bridge, as well asthe amount of tolls received, and thebalance was to be appropriated to theuse of the county, and when it appear-ed to the Court that the sum over andabove the $10,418.34, had been reim-bursed to the county, the Court, afterdue advertisement, was to declare thebridge to be free of toll.

Abraham Witmer having receivednotice from the County Commission-ers to meet on June 25, 1812, at thehouse of Samuel Slaymaker, in theborough of Lancaster, named threeCommissioners on his part. I havebeen unable to ascertain their names.But these Commissioners, togetherwith the Commissioners appointedon the part of the State, met on theday appointed and having heard theparties they made an award that thesum of $58,444.44 should be paid toWitmer. The County Commissioners

were dissatisfied with this result, andthey thereupon gave the followingpublic notice:

"Whereas, in pursuance of the Actof Assembly for making free thebridge over Conestogoe, the propertyof Abraham Witmer, the referees ap-pointed by the said Act have awardedthe sum of $58,444.44 to be paid tothe said Abraham Witmer, and as theCommissioners have taken the adviceof eminent counsel with respect to theconduct they ought to pursue and aredesirous to lay the said opinion aswell as all other matters relative tothe premises before their constituents,the public are, therefore, respectfullyrequested by the undersigned Commis-sioners that they will at their re-spective township meetings on Friday,the 19th of March next, elect twocitizens of their proper townships, tomeet at the Court House in theborough of Lancaster on Monday, the29th of March next, then and thereto advise with and to recommend toand instruct said Commissionerswhat they ought to do and perform inthe premises. February 27, 1813.Henry Shirk, John Bomberger." Theelection took place at the time statedin this notice, and, delegates havingbeen thus chosen, the County Commis-sioners, consisting of Messrs. Shirk,Bomberger and Christian Herr, Jr., onMarch 29, 1813, attended a meeting ofthese delegates of the county "relativeto Abraham Witmer's bridge." Theminutes of the Commissioners say that"the delegates resolved as follows, towit: Resolved, That to draw moniesfrom the treasury of said county forthe payment of said bridge would be adeviation from the original law pass-ed on that subject: Resolved, thatthe said Commissioners ought not topay for the same unless compelled bydue course of law;

"Resolved, That the proceedings besigned by the Chairman and Secretaryand published in Dixon's, Hamilton'sand Grimler's papers.

"Attest, James Caldwell. J. Buchan-an, Secretary."

The resolutions being unfavorable toAbraham Witmer, the County Commis-sioners refused to draw an order forthe award made by the joint Commis-sion, and thereupon Witmer obtaineda rule from the Supreme Court, toMay term, 1813, to show cause why a

mandamus should not issue, to com-pel them to make out an order on thetreasurer in his favor. After a hear-ing duly had before that Court, therule was discharged. Tilghman, C. J.,delivering the opinion of the Court,said: "The Commissioners say theyought not to draw the order, becausethere is not money in the treasurysufficient to answer it. No doubt theyspeak the truth and it appears to because insurmountable against issuingthe writ. Whether the Commissionershave done wrong in not taking meas-ures to have the money placed in thetreasury is not now the question. Ifthey have, we have no right topunish them in this way. What wouldit signify to draw an order on anempty treasury? The treasurer wouldrefuse payment, and there the matterwould end. We know very well thatno money can come into the Treasurybut by a tax on the county; and thattax the Commissioners cannot laywithout the co-operation of otherpersons, even supposing that the Actfor the purchase of the bridge author-izes the laying of a tax for the pur-pose of paying Mr. Witmer. If Mr.Witmer's object be attainable by wayof mandamus the first step must be toorder the proper persons to lay a tax;and it must be laid for the whole sum

at once, for the Act for the purchaseof the bridge makes no provision forpartial payments. There can be noapportionment of the toll; Witmer isentitled to take it all until he receivespayment of the whole sum awarded.In short, the payment of so large asum does not seem to have been anevent contemplated by the Legisla-ture; and whether this Court wouldthink itself justified in compellingthe county to raise it, without an Actof Assembly explicitly directing it, isa point on which I have not made upmy mind. I recommend it to theserious consideration, however, of Mr.Witmer and his counsel before anotherapplication is made to this Court." SeeCommonwealth ex rel. Witmer v. TheCommissioners of Lancaster county,6 Binney, 5. The counsel of the coun-ty in this proceeding were ThomasDuncan, Moulton C. Rogers and Wil-liam Jenkins, Esqs., and they receivedfor their services the sum of $1,500.

Abraham Witmer died on July 10,1818, in the seventieth year of his age.It is said that he was buried in thegraveyard of Mellinger's MennoniteChurch, on the Philadelphia turnpike.There is, however, no mention of hisburial there in the church records, andno stone marks his grave. His will wasproven July 28, 1818, and letters testa-mentary on his estate were granted tohis brother, David Witmer, his broth-er-in-law, Christian Herr, and JohnNeff, the other executors, having re-nounced. Negotiations were thenagain entered into with the countyfor the purchase of the bridge, but nofinal conclusion was arrived at untilAugust 8, 1827, when David Witmer,as executor of Abraham Witmer, de-ceased, made a deed to Abraham Gib-bon, Samuel Keller and EmanuelReigart, Commissioners of Lancastercounty, "for all that certain stonebridge erected across the River of

Conestoga, on the turnpike road lead-ing from the city of Lancaster to thecity of Philadelphia, situate, beingand standing across the river afore-said, in the townships of Lancasterand Lampeter, in Lancaster county,aforesaid, generally known anddesignated by the name of Witmer'sBridge." The consideration namedin the deed is $26,000. As this sumwas deemed inadequate by the execu-tor, the privilege was granted to himto collect, if he could, by private sub-scription, sufficient to over the al-leged deficiency in the price. To ac-complish that end, subscription paperswere circulated over the county,reading as follows: "Whereas, a ma-jority of the Commissioners of Lan-caster county have entered into acontract with David Witmer, executorof Abraham Witmer, deceased, to pur-chase and make free of toll Witmer'sBridge, over the Conestoga River, inLancaster county, but have not agreedto give the sum demanded by the saidDavid Witmer for the same, but havestipulated that the said David Witmermay try to raise by subscription suchfurther sum as may satisfy him formaking the said bridge free of toll;and in order to accomplish so de-sirable an object, we, the subscribers,do hereby agree to pay to the saidDavid Witmer the several sums sub-scribed by us, as soon as the bridgeshall be declared free of toll, and notoll to be demanded from the sub-scribers until a failure of the con-tract." The amount collected in thisway, as appears by the executor's ac-count, was $2,585.51. Some of theamounts subscribed were as low asfifty cents. Under the fifth and sixthsections of the Act of 1811, it was,as you will remember, stipulated that,if the sum awarded for the bridgeexceeded $10,418.34, the County Com-missioners, after paying the whole

award, might erect a gate near thebridge and receive toll until thecounty was reimbursed; but, under theagreement of purchase, the bridge wasmade free, and from that time to thisit has been a county bridge and pre-sumably free from toll. Whether ornot it is included in the mileage forwhich toll is paid along the turn-pike, I cannot say; but it should notbe, for the turnpike company doesnot own an inch of it, and never did.

Immediately after the completionof the bridge, the travel on the turn-pike was very heavy, and continuedto be so until about the time the rail-road superseded it as a method oftransportation. The tolls during thisperiod frequently amounted to fromtwenty-five to thirty dollars a day.From July, 1818, up to the time of thesale by the executor, there was paid tohim for toll $22,060.98%. But, afterthe railroad was built, the traffic onthe turnpike fell off, and the bridgereceipts would have suffered in likemeasure. The proceedings whichwere taken to dispose of the variousportions of the turnpike road, and howthe turnpike was thereby finallyplaced under its present ownership, Ipropose to fully narrate at anothermeeting of the society.

Many distinguished men passedalong the turnpike and over thisbridge in early days. In June, 1800,President John Adams made a journeyto Washington by way of Lancasterand Frederick, and in September,1815, Joseph Bonaparte, ex-King ofSpain, known then as the Count deSurvilliers, passed through on hisreturn from Washington to New York.Daniel Webster and his wife, in theircarriage of bright yellow, with awooden bucket underneath, and drivenby their negro coachman, often camethis way on their road to the capital,stopping frequently, over night, at

Gossler's Hotel, in Columbia. On oneoccasion, when the Chesapeake Bayand the lower river were impassableon account of the ice, a large numberof Senators and Congressmen, in-cluding Rufus Choate, took this route.

I am afraid Abraham Witmer metthe fate which falls to the lot of manypublic spirited citizens. When hedied, his estate was heavily involved.The amount realized from the sale ofhis real and personal estate, as well astolls, up to the year 1839, was $103,-493.97½, and all of it was expendedin the payment of his debts. Therewas even then a balance of severalthousand dollars unpaid. The heirs,as is usually the case when disap-pointed in their expectations, chargedhis brother, David, as his executor,with maladministration of the estate,and in 1830, they filed exceptions toone of the executor's accounts. Theseexceptions were referred to NathanielLightner, George Musser and IsraelCarpenter, as auditors, who reportedthat, outside of a small error of about$69,76, the account was correct. Theauditors charged for their servicesfive dollars each. As a matter of fact,Abraham, when he died, owned hisbrother a large amount of money, forto August term, 1817, No. 152, he con-fessed a judgment in the latter's favorfor $10,000.

And here ends the story of AbrahamWitmer's Bridge, so far as I have beenable to ascertain it. This magnificentstructure yet stands to attest thesolditity and completeness with whichthe work was done. This bridge wasone of the first of its kind in theState, and it excites admiration to thisday. The man who conceived andcompleted it is, in my judgment, en-titled to be gratefully remembered byour citizens and to have his nameperpetuated in the records of thissociety.

file:///Volumes/LCHS%3BLCHSFS01/OCR%20Journal%20Project/PDF%20Biblio%20Info/Pwebrecon.cgi.txt

Author: Landis, Charles Israel, 1856-1932.

Title: Abraham Witmer's bridge / by Judge C. I. Landis.

Primary Material: Book

Subject(s): Witmer, Abraham. Bridges--Pennsylvania--Lancaster County. Conestoga Bridge (Lancaster, Pa.) Witmer's Bridge (Lancaster, Pa.)

Publisher: Lancaster, Pa. : Lancaster County Historical Society, 1916

Description: 155-174 p. : ill. ; 23 cm.

Series: Journal of the Lancaster County Historical Society ; v. 20, no. 6

Call Number: 974.9 L245 v.20Location: LCHSJL -- Journal Article (reading room)

================================================================================

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Institution NameInstitution AddressInstitution Phone NumberInstitution E-mail Address

file:///Volumes/LCHS%3BLCHSFS01/OCR%20Journal%20Project/PDF%20Biblio%20Info/Pwebrecon.cgi.txt [7/15/09 11:33:54 AM]

Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 10Page 11Page 12Page 13Page 14Page 15Page 16Page 17Page 18Page 19Page 20Acr63858.tmpLocal Diskfile:///Volumes/LCHS%3BLCHSFS01/OCR%20Journal%20Project/PDF%20Biblio%20Info/Pwebrecon.cgi.txt