The History of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia. S. J. Quinn
case five of the eight justices were necessary to constitute the court. This court had the same power and jurisdiction that the hustings court had under the act of 1781, but the members were ineligible for the Common Council and they had no power to lay a tax for the support of a night watch.
At this election the voters were also to elect by ballot twelve persons as members of the Common Council of the town, who were to continue in office for one year and until their successors should be elected and qualified. The powers of the Common Council should be the same as had been previously conferred upon the Mayor, Recorder, Aldermen and Common Council of the town “in Common Hall assembled.” The Common Council, at their first meeting, were to elect one of their number to the office of Mayor and another to the office of Recorder. It was the duty of the Mayor to preside over the deliberations of the body, and, in his absence, the Recorder was to discharge that duty. The Mayor, or in his absence, the Recorder, or any two members of the Council, could call a meeting of the body, but it required seven members present to constitute a quorum. After the Council assembled in the first meeting after the election of the members, and elected the proper officers, the body then consisting of the Mayor, Recorder and the other ten members elected as common councilmen, constituted the “Common Hall” of the town, and all ordinances were adopted by that body.
HALF OF THE TOWN DESTROYED BY FIRE.
In the year 1807 Fredericksburg was visited by a terrible conflagration which destroyed nearly one-half of the town. It was in October of that year, when the town was almost depopulated, the citizens, old and young, having left their homes to attend and witness the horse racing just below town, on “Willis’s Field” farm. The fire broke out in the dwelling house of Mr. Stannard, which was located on the lot where the residence of Mr. George W. Shepherd now stands, on the north corner of Princess Ann and Lewis streets. A high wind prevailed at the time, the house was inflammable, the weather very dry, and in a short time the fire swept down Main street, the flames leaping from house to house to Henderson’s store, on the south corner of Main and Amelia streets; thence down both sides of Main to George street, destroying every building in its track except Henderson’s corner, which alone escaped destruction. The Bank of Virginia, which stood on the spot where Shiloh Baptist church (old site) now stands, on Water street, although more than a quarter of a mile from where the fire originated, was the second house to take fire and was entirely consumed. Mr. Stannard, at whose residence the fire started, was lying a corpse in the house at the time of the fire, and his remains were rescued from the flames with great difficulty.
Preparations to rebuild the burnt district were at once commenced, and buildings of a more substantial character took the places of those destroyed and prosperity again smiled upon the town. Yet strange to say the square on the west side of Main street, from Lewis to Amelia, then in the business part of the town, and now in the residential part, although before the fire was lined with buildings, was without a building until some five years ago. A tool chest, saved from destruction in this fire, by the debris of the building falling upon it and covering it up, and which escaped the destruction wrought in town by the Federal soldiers in December, 1862, is now in the possession of Police Officer Charles A. Gore. It was the property of his grandfather, Jacob Gore, who had been working at Mr. Stannard’s a few days before the fire occurred and left it there temporarily.
FREDERICKSBURG AN IMPORTANT POSTAL POINT.
Fredericksburg, as early as 1820, was a very important point for mail distribution, and the mail matter of not less than five States was assorted here and sent on to its destination. About the breaking out of the War of 1812 mail matter to Fredericksburg rapidly increased, and continued to increase, for several years, which necessitated a change in the method of transporting the mails from Washington, an increase of pay, and finally scandalous reports were put in circulation which resulted in a congressional investigation.
A paper on this investigation, prepared by Henry Castle, Esq., Auditor, from the records in the Postoffice department, and kindly furnished us, will prove interesting.
“The year 1820 had arrived; James Monroe was President and Return J. Meiggs, Jr., of Ohio, was Postmaster General. There were then over three thousand post offices, and the revenues had increased to $1,000,000 per annum, a sum considerable in excess of the expenditures, a feature which seldom characterized the service after that date. It appears from the records that vague rumors of certain irregularities had been afloat throughout the country and in the ‘public prints’ for some time, and that they finally assumed such a tangible shape that a resolution was introduced into the United States Congress providing for an investigation of the charges.
“A committee of the House of Representatives, of which Hon. Elisha Phelps was chairman, proceeded in accordance with instructions of the House, in due form and great deliberation, to investigate the general conduct of the office under Postmaster General Meiggs, and especially the features which had been subjected to more immediate criticism. Mr. Meiggs’s service, as Postmaster General, extended from March 17th 1814, to June 26th 1823, a period of more than nine years. The gravest of the charges made against his administration were substantially as follows:
“First. That he had introduced an irregular financial system which had led to serious losses of the public funds.
“Second. That he had illegally and improperly increased the compensation of certain contractors for carrying the mail.
“With slow formality and tedious reiteration of assurances of distinguished consideration, the solemn committee of the Honorable House of Representatives, and the Honorable Postmaster General, finally reached a point where questions were asked and answered and a tolerably clear understanding of what had really occurred may be gained. The statement of the Postmaster General, divested of all its superfluities and reduced to its simplest form, showed no dereliction in either case, but read at this late day gives an almost ludicrous insight into the diminutive transactions which then sufficed for this great, free and intelligent Republic.
“Postmaster General Meiggs’s answer to the second charge was perhaps even more interestingly significant as a revelation of the day of small things. He admitted that he had increased the compensation of contractors for carrying the mails, but justified his action on the ground of an imperious necessity.
“The case as he explained it was this: His predecessor in office had about the year 1813, let a contract to certain parties for transporting mail from the Seat of Government at Washington to Fredericksburg, Virginia, a distance of seventy miles. This great mail route, which would now be termed a trunk line, carried substantially the mail for the five States of Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. The contract provided that these mails should be carried by stage coach in summer and, as the roads were impassable in winter, they were to be carried on horseback.
“But,” says the Postmaster General, “by the increased popular interest in the war of 1812, correspondence was greatly stimulated and the circulation of the public journals was enormously increased. Consequently, it was found impracticable to transport all this heavy mail for five States, on horseback from Washington to Fredericksburg; therefore contractors were authorized to place a sulky, or curricle service thereon and the remuneration was increased accordingly.
“This explanation was apparently satisfactory to the Honorable Committee as it certainly appears very reasonable on its face, and will appeal to man’s inherent sense of justice even in this exacting era. The final action of Congress is not contained in the records, but it was no doubt exculpatory since, as shown above, Postmaster General Meiggs, continued to discharge the duties in his high office for several years thereafter.”
AMENDATORY ACT OF 1821.
Under the previous acts of the Legislature, extending the limits of the town and providing for laying out streets, and the amendments thereto, it was claimed that mistakes had occurred and irregularities had resulted therefrom. In order to correct these mistakes, and provide for the better government of the town, an amendatory act was passed by the Legislature in the year 1821. In that act the Common Council was authorized and empowered to elect the Mayor from their own number or from the body of the citizens, and in case he was elected from the Council, thus creating a vacancy in that body, it was to