Page:History of the University of Pennsylvania - Montgomery (1900).djvu/326

XLVI.

During the preparations for the first commencement there arose the beginnings of a contention in which the Provost largely figured. It was in the case of Judge Moore of Chester County, against whom as early as March, 1757, petitions were being sent up to the Assembly praying his removal for sundry alleged acts of injustice and cruelty. These the Assembly deferred the consideration of for several weeks, but the petitions accumulated. At last in August a hearing of both parties is had, and Judge Moore presents a paper in general contradiction of the petitions. Adjournment is had, but instead of appearing he sends in a Memorial denying authority of Assembly, as all matters charged against him were cognizable by common law. The House continued the case and took testimony from the petitioners, and finally on 27 September adjudged him guilty, and addressed Governor Denny requesting him "to remove William Moore from the office of Judge of the Court of Common Pleas and Justice of the Peace and from all other publick Offices, Posts and Employments." The animus of all this lay in the imputed enmity of the Friends in the Assembly to Judge Moore, as he had taken a prominent part in the attacks on the Friends for their Peace principles when war was hovering on the borders of the Province. The address to the Governor was by order of the House published in the Gazette, where many of the official documents reached the public eye. Judge Moore took umbrage at this; and the Assembly having adjourned on I October, and the election for the new Assembly shortly recurring, he deemed it important to submit a counter address to the Governor, which was also inserted in the Gazette; his language was free and aggressive, for the body which had maligned him was in his opinion dead; but the new Assembly composed mainly of the same members accepted his address as an attack on their dignity, and 6 January, 1758, they summoned him and also William Smith to the Bar of the House to answer such questions as should then and there be put to them. Mr. Smith's connection with this was due not only to the general suspicion that he was the author of