Featured Sections
Social/Cultural Interest
American History
Search Engine
Family History

Main photo page
group photos

Vance: The Essays
About the Book

Prominent Family Members

Anne McC
Annie Criswell McC
Donald McC
Eliza McC
Henry McC
Henry McC II
Henry B. McC
James McC
James McC, Jr.
James McC, Sr.
Mary McC

Robert McC
Vance McC
William McC

Clara Alricks
Hamilton Alricks
Herman Alricks
Mary Alricks

Simon Cameron

Other McCormicks


Vance McCormick: Articles

Cleaning Up Harrisburg:
The Good Government Reforms
of Mayor Vance C. McCormick, 1902-1903

A Master’s project by Thomas C. Clark
The Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg, The Capital College, May 2000

SUMMARY:  The Progressive movement that swept America in the early nineteen hundreds brought reform to corrupt politics.  Boss-controlled machines that dominated all levels of  politics for years were harried by reformers intent on ending corrupt practices.  These reformers also desired to clean up cities physically and improve the lives of those with whom they worked.

The business and media elites in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania combined forces to bring progressive reforms to their city.  The state capital was badly in need of improvements to its appearance and sanitation.  The conduct of some city employees made its government an object of  ridicule.  In April 1902, Vance Criswell McCormick, a young but well-established businessman, was elected mayor with the help of the business community and the city’s two daily newspapers, The Patriot News, and The Daily Telegraph.  With their support, Mayor McCormick began a series of reforms that would clean up the city both physically and morally.

The new mayor clashed with the city’s undisciplined volunteer fire department.  A judgment handed down by the Dauphin County courts and legislation enacted by City Councils ultimately reorganized the entire department, bringing its administration and the discipline of its members under city control.  An examination of the corrupt accounting practices of two former mayors resulted in the recovery of money illegally withed from the city treasury, and the institution of new procedures to prevent further problems.  Throughout his first year as mayor, Mr. McCormick enjoyed the support of the city’s leading newspapers, which are the best surviving record of his accomplishments as mayor.


Vance Criswell McCormick served as Mayor of Harrisburg from April 7, 1902, through April 4, 1905.  This period was pivotal in the transformation of the city into a cleaner, more modern location worthy of its stature as the state capital.   Major projects were begun in water filtration, and sewerage to improve health and sanitation.  Mr. McCormick oversaw the paving of city streets, an expansion of the city’s existing but inadequate park system, a reevaluation of property values to improve the fairness of taxation, and the construction of new schools.  Additional public works were instituted to improve the physical condition of the city.

Mayor McCormick also began a series of reforms of the city’s administrative offices to improve their professionalism and honesty.  Employees of Harrisburg’s Police Department, Fire Department, and even the mayor’s office were known throughout the city for their corruption, low morale, and ineffectiveness.  Years of incompetent political appointments serving under little or no supervision left these parts of the city administration in an “every man or office for himself” condition. Mr. McCormick did not seem to be fully aware of the depth of the problems in these departments when he first took office.  Yet he began meaningful reforms by engaging in difficult legal battles with two former mayors and the city’s volunteer fire department to bring them to a new level of honesty and efficiency. 

In his first year as mayor, McCormick was able to bring the city’s fire department under control with the removal of volunteer members who endangered the city’s citizens and property or embarrassed the city by their behavior.  In particular, the mayor clashed with the Paxton Fire Company over control of the city’s fire stations and the behavior of their volunteer members.  New department rules were established to prevent future problems and to ensure fires were being fought properly.  

McCormick’s conflict with two former mayors of Harrisburg and their method of financial record keeping required the cooperation of Harrisburg’s City Councils.  This was a difficult and frustrating struggle with a disappointing conclusion.  Ultimately the city was able to recover missing funds and create an accountability structure to prevent similar problems.  The struggles with the fire department and the financial accountability of the mayor’s office are the focus of this paper.

Mr. McCormick’s goals in reforming the city of Harrisburg were similar to those of  the national  progressive movement.  The Populist movement that began in rural parts of the Midwest  in the 1890's sought reforms to restore big government to being sensitive to the needs of average people.   These reforms included the ballot initiative and referendum, the secret ballot and the party primary.  The movement gained strength  nominated William Jennings Bryan as its presidential candidate in 1896.  Bryan, a Democrat, adopted the main Populist positions, yet lost the presidential election to Republican William McKinley.  The free silver issue contributed heavily to Bryan’s failure, and the Populist movement faded from view during the Spanish-American War. 

Soon after the war, the ideals and reforms of the Populists were incorporated into a new Progressive spirit, and quickly absorbed by the major political parties, leading to democratic reforms in many states.  The movement made it to Washington D.C. almost by accident with the election of Theodore Roosevelt as vice-president in 1900, and his rise to the presidency ten months later.  George E. Mowry described the progressive movement as a great social reaction  against the political corruption and apathy of the late 1800's. [1]    In the course of fifteen years this movement “attempted, with a certain amount of success, to change the whole moral, economic, and political face of the country.” [2]

The progressive era began in cities in Iowa and Wisconsin where the Populist party originally recruited its strength.  Its goals on the city level were to end political machine rule and to clean up the problems associated with bossism, including inefficient utilities and general corruption.  The movement also included the attempts to make cities more enjoyable places to live.  To do this, cities needed to slow  crime rates, create parks and playgrounds, reduce disease, and create more efficient social services. [3]   The work of people such as Jane Addams and the photography of Jacob Riis served to heighten awareness of the intolerable conditions many city dwellers faced.  Those working for such governmental reforms came to be known as the “Goo goos” to their enemies.  Their enemies were often the political bosses of large cities and their cronies, who resorted to all types of corruption to keep themselves in power. 

In Harrisburg, the McCormick administration attempted to accomplish progressive reforms.  Mr. McCormick was a supporter of Theodore Roosevelt, the “City Beautiful” movement, and reforms in corrupt government. [4]   In his three years as mayor, Mr. McCormick began public works projects to improve the cleanliness of the city and reduce disease, including the organized paving of streets and the construction of a water filtration plant to eliminate typhus.  The city expanded its park system so residents could enjoy a bit of the country in the city.  The Harrisburg Traction Company and the Pennsylvania Railroad, both of which provided rail service in the city, were more heavily taxed and regulated to benefit the city’s citizens. 

Political bossism and corruption in the city government were targets for McCormick administration reform.  McCormick’s selection as a candidate and eventual victory in the mayoral election demonstrated his willingness to take on the Penrose Republican machine.  Considerable effort was expended in restructuring the city police force to reduce corruption.  The mayor’s office for some time had been loosely run, allowing for officials as high as the chief of police and the mayor to mishandle public funds for their personal gain.  The city’s fire department was brought under more strict control, and the improper behavior was reduced.  In this way Vance McCormick brought progressive ideals to Harrisburg.

The progressive movement expanded to the state level where it continued to work for the elimination of machine politics.  There it also sought to improve the lot of women and children, conserve natural resources, and prevent monopolies and trusts from practicing abuses on the average citizen.  Arthur Link described the progressive movement as “essentially a revolt of the middle classes--small businessmen and bankers, prosperous farmers, editors, clergymen, and other professional groups--against a state of affairs that seemed to guarantee perpetual control to the privileged few who owned the wealth of the United States.” [5]

Mr. McCormick certainly did not come from the middle class.  His family having been involved in business affairs for decades placed him in a very solid financial position.  This may have been a reason McCormick was an attractive candidate for mayor.   Since he was wealthy he could not be bought as other men possibly could.  McCormick represented several of the city’s elites in that he was connected to the business community through his family’s companies.  He was involved in the news media in that he owned the Patriot-News within a few months of his election.  He was a member of the Board of Public Works which spearheaded the drive for new parks, street paving and water and sewer systems.  Finally, he was, as a member of the city’s Common Council, already involved in the legislative branch of the city government.  While McCormick did not necessarily fit the traditional mold of a progressive politician because of his privileged background, he did have significant connections to groups involved in accomplishing the progressive agenda of beautifying cities and reducing political corruption.  In this regard he was somewhat akin to Theodore Roosevelt, who was wealthy yet connected to the progressive movement through other associations.

The difficulty with studying Mayor Vance McCormick’s first year in office and any reforms he inaugurated lies with the structure of city government.  The Mayor had less control than the city’s legislative branch over most political issues.  In the early 1900's Harrisburg operated under a strong legislative branch with a weaker executive branch.  The legislature consisted of a twenty member Common Council and a ten member Select Council elected from the city’s ten political wards.  These thirty men had the greatest responsibility for passing legislation.  The mayor was primarily responsible to enact the will of Councils. 

Common and Select Councils met biweekly through most of the year, debating and passing legislation; they formed subcommittees to study problems and recommend action to both councils.  Occasionally joint subcommittees handled particularly sensitive issues such as the investigation into former mayors’ wrongdoings.  The primary responsibility for enacting city improvements belonged to the legislature, not the Mayor.

The mayor was responsible only for enacting the will of the council and for the smooth operation of the city departments strictly under his care.  He could make suggestions to Councils, and could provide information by which they could make informed decisions.  But he could initiate no new major reforms, even in his own offices, without the approval of both Common and Select Councils.  While Mr. McCormick had the authority to carry out Councils’ wishes, he exerted direct influence over only his own administrative offices.  For this reason, the focus of this paper is on the reforms in the fire department and accounting procedures of the mayor’s office, since Mayor McCormick had the greatest influence in theses areas.  Still, any permanent reforms in these areas had to be approved by Councils.

An important problem in studying the McCormick mayoralty is the lack of official documentation from that time.  The Harrisburg City Archives holds information concerning public improvements started during the early 1900's, but has few documents that come specifically from the mayor outside of the Annual Reports of the city.  In addition, at the time I did my research on this subject, the city archives was closed to the public in preparation for the new Civil War museum to be constructed in the city.  Vance McCormick’s personal papers were donated to Yale University, but they begin two years after he left office.  The Historical Society of Dauphin County owns medals awarded to Mr. McCormick for his work on the Versailles Peace Commission, and has a few documents written by others that deal with his time in office, but none that were written by Mr. McCormick while he was in office.  The only contemporary record of events of the McCormick years as mayor is found in the city’s newspapers. 

In the early 1900s the Patriot News and the Harrisburg Daily Telegraph represented the city’s Democratic and Republican viewpoints respectively.  They are not perfect records of the administration’s operation, and they are not complete in their coverage of an issue from beginning to end.  All issues of the papers are on microfilm photographed in the 1960s; some are unreadable and others are damaged, making their use difficult.  But most old issues of those two newspapers are very useful and provide a sense of drama as the stories of investigations, charges, countercharges, and defenses are played out, often on a daily basis. 

While on occasion each newspaper had to retract a misstatement, or a part of a story was missing due to editorial mistakes, they now provide a continuous account of the action taken by Mr. McCormick to correct abuses discovered in the administration of the city’s fire department and the office of mayor.  Their editorial articles give an indication of the opinions Harrisburg’s  newspapers wanted the citizens to hold.  Although they are not perfect records of the influence Mr. McCormick had on cleaning up corruption in Harrisburg while he was mayor, they are the only records available at this time.


Vance McCormick was born on June 19, 1872 in Silver Spring Township, Dauphin County.  He was the second son of Colonel Henry McCormick and Annie Criswell McCormick, and the grandson of James I. McCormick. [6]   Both James and Henry McCormick were instrumental in founding and running some of Harrisburg’s most successful businesses, including the Harrisburg Bridge Company, Central Iron and Steel, and Dauphin Deposit Bank.  Educated in part at Harrisburg Academy, Vance McCormick left Pennsylvania to attend Yale University where he first became registered with the Democratic party.  He earned All-American status as a football quarterback, and was graduated in 1893. 

Returning to Harrisburg after college, McCormick began his political activities, which resulted in his election to Common Council from the fourth ward in 1900.  Young Vance was not as interested in business as were his father and grandfather; politics and journalism captured more of his interest. [7]    The 1902 campaign for mayor, when McCormick was only 29 years old, was an extension of his work on council to improve the city.  Dr. Horace J. McFarland, noted Harrisburg physician and a leader of the early 1900's reform movement in the city, was an ardent supporter of McCormick.  He stated “the city was cleaned up morally and physically as fast as this active young man could bring it about.” [8]  


The 1902 mayoral campaign began in January for the February 18th election.  Vance McCormick, the Democratic candidate, ran against Republican Dr. Samuel Hassler.  The issues on which the campaign was waged arose long before the official stumping began.  The city of Harrisburg was in great need of improvements to its physical appearance, and to this end, the Municipal League of Harrisburg  had been formed to raise interest and money for initiating a series of public works that would improve not only the looks of the city, but the health of its residents. 

From early on the city’s newspapers were involved in promoting city improvements.  From April 1901 through the election both the Harrisburg Telegraph and the Patriot News used text and pictures to arouse interest in how a new Harrisburg might look.  Editorial articles stressed the need to clean up the city, both physically and ethically.  News stories emphasized the improved conditions in other cities of similar size and importance, and worked to disprove the arguments of those who opposed them, dismissing them as uninformed purveyors of fear. 

The 1902 campaign for mayor of the city of Harrisburg was really a campaign for the city’s physical improvements in water filtration, sewer expansion, street paving, and park expansion.  It was a campaign more for improving the quality of life in the city than for party or personality.  McCormick won the election, and was responsible for administering the improvements made.  While it took months and in some cases years to begin the actual work on those physical improvements, the moral improvements in the city’s administration and fire department could begin right away, and they were brought to their conclusion, whether satisfactory to the new mayor or not, within his first year in office.


The city fire department was a loosely organized group of volunteers with inadequate equipment and a well known lack of discipline when McCormick took over as mayor in 1902.  Members of the department saw themselves as volunteers loyal to their own station rather than members of a city-wide effort.   While it was adequate in fighting fires, the force was a laughing- stock in some quarters of the city because of its lack of discipline and  rowdy behavior of its members.  The city did employ a fire chief and assistant fire chief, but outside of those two positions all others were volunteers. Throughout his tenure as mayor, Vance McCormick sought to professionalize the department by convincing council to pay a certain number of firefighters, eliminate stations, and update equipment. But by the end of his term, Councils had made progress toward updating the equipment and buildings, and a new code of conduct had been put into effect, but they still made little motion toward a fully paid department.

Outlining his plan for the department in his inauguration address, McCormick praised the firefighters for their dedication and excellent service.  He added that he was “fully convinced that the time has now arrived that there should be a paid department.  I recommend that your honorable bodies give this matter your earnest and prompt attention.” The new mayor noted that the cost of converting to a paid force would indeed be expensive, but the benefits would outweigh the cost.  He believed morale and discipline were greatly in need of improvement.  Paying a smaller number of firefighters would go a long way to correct those problems.  Closing some stations and redistributing the crews to other parts of the city would make firefighting much more effective. [9]

Eleven fire stations existed in the city in 1902, but they were not equally distributed to provide good coverage for all neighborhoods.  McCormick’s plan was to close some stations housed in inadequate buildings or located too close to other stations.  This led to conflict with those who served in the doomed stations.  Other areas of the city, in particular the Allison Hill section, did not have a neighborhood station for its protection.  But the improvement in the behavior of fire fighters was the most important issue to the new mayor immediately after he took office. 


 The problem of discipline on the force became apparent in the opening week of the McCormick  administration.  Just five days after his inauguration the mayor laid down the law to two firemen arrested for drunkenness on the job.  “I want the firemen to understand that the misuse of the engine houses and drunkenness on the premises of fire companies has to stop.” [10]   He stated that he did not want off duty firemen loafing about firehouses causing disruptions to the neighborhoods.  He called on all station leaders to enforce stricter discipline in their fire houses.  Punishment for the accused, who did not attempt to defend themselves, was severe.  Frederick Simons and Samuel Collins of the Good Will Fire Company both received jail time.  Two firemen from the Paxton Company fire house were arrested on similar charges the same day.  Both were sentenced to jail as well, but were bailed out by friends. 

After this incident a reporter from the Harrisburg Telegraph questioned the mayor about exactly what he meant when he gave orders to stop loafing about the firehouses.  McCormick replied that in no way did he mean that firefighters should only be at the fire house when on duty.  He wanted them to be there so they could respond to fires quickly.  The problem was when they were drunk. “No one objects to members staying about the engine and hose houses...but there has been too much loafing and drinking and the members should see to it that it is broken up.” [11]   Members of some companies felt they should resign en masse to protest the mayor’s actions, but the response to the questions asked by the Telegraph reporter relaxed the firefighters’ fears for the time.

The issue of drunkenness in the fire department worsened later in April when two Paxton Company volunteers were relieved of their duties by Chief Engineer George Lutz.  John Stucker and Thomas Mannum, a fireman and driver, respectively, were both found at the Paxton Company Station in an intoxicated condition.  When called before the mayor, Mr. McCormick fined them and sentenced them to prison.  He further directed Chief Lutz to ask the Paxton Company to expel the pair from membership, or face the closing of the station and removal of all equipment. [12]   Rather than expel the members, the Paxton Company officers, the mayor, and the chief engineer agreed to meet and discuss the issue and attempt to reach a negotiated settlement.

The meeting was held on the morning of May 3, 1902, but no agreement was reached.  The Mayor insisted that driver Thomas Mannum be discharged, since drunkenness on the force had to be stopped.  The company insisted Mannum should be given a second trial, since he was an accomplished horseman and the company would be inconvenienced without him.  No agreement was reached.  After the meeting, the Paxton officers decided that on previous incidents of a similar nature, the mayor had gone to councils for a dismissal.  The company decided it should test the limits of the mayor’s powers over the fire department either by conferring with council or by going to court. [13]              

The Mayor further explained his refusal to concede the next day by stating that Mannum was already on trial at the time of his arrest for a previous drunkenness problem, and had sworn off drink.  At that time the Mayor had threatened him with dismissal if found drunk again.  McCormick felt that “leniency at this time would be misplaced and ruin the discipline of both police force and fire department,” since members of both were under the same threat. [14]

The Paxton Company refused to discharge Mannum, and the mayor closed the station and confiscated all equipment as promised.  Under the mayor’s orders, Chief Lutz had the city-owned equipment removed from the Paxton Company and taken to the Friendship Company, where a crowd had assembled to see the excitement. Lutz found all the doors bound with locks his key could not open. The equipment was then taken to a private stable for storage.  The mayor made no mention of permanently closing the Paxton.  The Harrisburg Telegraph supported the mayor’s actions in an editorial on May 6, 1902: “Drinking at the engine houses has been entirely too common and the citizens generally will commend any and all efforts made to stop this practice.” [15]

McCormick explained his actions in the Telegraph that day.  He declared he had been in favor of reforming the fire department since before taking office.  McCormick added that for several years he had been observing the behavior of firemen outside their stations.  Complaints of drinking, vulgar and profane language, and disgraceful conduct on the sidewalks have been continuous.  While in office he determined to clean up the image of the fire department so that neighbors of the stations no longer would be forced off their front porches or behind closed windows by the behavior of fire fighters.  He would see to it that only sober men were in charge of stations and that discipline was enforced. [16]   Some firefighters suggested all volunteers should stage a city-wide insubordination to strike back at the mayor. 

On May 9th a city-wide volunteer fire department meeting was held to discuss how the stations would respond to the entire situation.  At that meeting it became apparent that the city’s stations were united behind the Paxton.  The announced purpose of the meeting, which was to be attended by three members of each station, was to propose to Councils new rules to govern the fire houses.  But only three stations sent delegates with authority to act.  Three others did not name delegations at all, and the remaining two stations sent delegates with the stipulation that they not bind their companies to any action. [17]   The companies which did appoint delegates decided on no specific strategy other than to wait until the Dauphin County Courts decided upon the injunction brought against the city by the Paxton Company. After the courts’ decision was made, the stations would jointly propose a new set of department rules to Councils.

The action filed against the city in court demanded an explanation of the authority by which the city had confiscated the apparatus from the Paxton.  Attorneys Hargest and Hargest, who represented the Paxton, believed the city had no right to take equipment belonging to an independent volunteer organization, and sought an injunction against the mayor and the fire chief to restore the equipment.  A hearing date for the injunction was set for May 13th.

Mayor McCormick presented to Councils his side of the case in writing on May 12th so the members would be officially apprised of the situation.  McCormick began his recitation of facts by stating “The conduct of certain members of some of the fire companies of this city has become such that the city’s property has become endangered, and the peace of the community disturbed, to such an extent that decent minded citizens have become thoroughly disgusted with existing conditions.” [18]   He related the story of the drunken behavior of several members of the Paxton company, detailing the actions he took to secure the city’s equipment and the closing of the company’s building. 

Judges Simonton and Weiss of Dauphin County heard the arguments concerning the injunction against the removal of the apparatus by the mayor on Friday, May 15.  At that time Hargest and Hargest argued for the Paxton that the equipment removed from the company was paid for at least in part by the company itself, thus the city had no right to remove it.  The City Solicitor, Mr. Daniel S. Seitz, countered that the equipment removed had been paid for by city funds, and therefore the city had the right to control its use.  The city had the duty to protect its firefighting equipment and the property of the general public from drunken firemen.  Ironically, before the hearing was over a fire alarm sounded outside, and the mayor and chief engineer both rushed out of the courtroom.  The members of the Paxton who were present stayed. [19]

Many witnesses were called to testify for each side, including Mayor McCormick, who stated again his intention to clean up the behavior of firefighters while they were on duty.  Several policemen and city authorities stated they had witnessed beer being carried into the firehouse or had received complaints about the conduct of firemen.  They also testified about how they had seen Mannum drunk at the scene of a fire.  After a total of approximately one hour’s testimony the defense rested its case, and after some clarifications of testimony were made, the hearing was ended. [20]   Three weeks later the city filed their answers to the Paxton company’s bill of complaint, and argument was set for June 17th, but was later postponed for one week.         

The actual case between the city and the Paxton Fire Company was argued on June 24, 1902.  Hargest and Hargest argued for the company that there had never been any ordinance passed by city council that authorized the creation of a fire department.  Therefore the mayor’s removal of a member of an independent and volunteer force was irrelevant.  The man could not be fired if he was not under the mayor’s jurisdiction.  The Paxton Fire Company did admit that the city and state governments granted it money and equipment to fight fires, but that this grant was not legally required.  Therefore it was not actually a grant, but a gift, and whatever the money was spent on was property of the company.   Any equipment stationed at the Paxton fire building was not the property of the city, but the property of the station and its volunteers.  The only connection between the Paxton and the city was that the fire chief and assistant chief were city employees, and city procedures were used at the scene of a fire.

Arguing for the city were attorneys Snodgrass, Gilbert, and Solicitor Seitz.  They contended that because the city paid for fire equipment, it was the duty of the mayor’s office to see that equipment was used properly and safely, and drunk firemen could not fulfill that duty.  Therefore the mayor had the obligation to end the threat of intoxicated firemen attempting to drive or operate dangerous equipment in an emergency situation.  Distributing fire fighting apparatus to stations was the duty of the mayor’s office, and that office could reassign equipment as it saw fit since the city had purchased that equipment.  If the opposition’s claim was accepted that the station could do as it pleased with apparatus purchased by the city, then any piece of city property in the hands of non-employees might be left to rot while the city stood helplessly by.  The claim that the Paxton men owned the equipment was ridiculous. [21]

The following day the city responded in court to the claims of the Paxton Company by producing the city ordinance creating a fire department.  In 1881 Mayor John C. Herman signed a bill that had been passed by both Councils adopting all existing volunteer fire companies into a city-wide department, and provided that all companies “organized, reorganized, or recognized should form the fire department under the superintendency of an officer to be known as the chief engineer.” [22]

No decision was made by Dauphin County courts until late in the year.  Meanwhile, conversations between the Mayor and the Paxton did not entirely cease.  The company was anxious to return to service, and to receive its yearly appropriation from the city to pay bills incurred during the suspension.  Driver Mannum, around whom much of the controversy swirled, kept the horses in shape during their long layoff, and had impressed the Mayor so much in several face to face meetings that McCormick agreed Mannum could be retained. [23]

Less than a week after this news was reported, the Mayor’s office asked that the case against the Paxton be reopened because more evidence had been found which could help the court reach its decision equitably.  The Paxton responded that any new evidence should not be admitted; the Mayor’s office had plenty of time to present all relevant information the previous April. [24]

In late November the Paxton elected new officers and undertook a practical reorganization.  The new leadership also agreed to reopen talks with the Mayor to bring about a resolution to the company’s problems.  While the Mayor was convinced that Driver Mannum would no longer be a problem, he insisted that Mannum resign with the understanding that he could be rehired later.  Once the new officers were installed and the members who caused the difficulty in the first place had resigned, the Mayor would consider returning the station’s apparatus before Christmas.  This was acceptable to the new leadership, although they were hoping for a faster resolution to the problem. [25]   Both sides compromised and agreed that no action of any sort would be taken until the court finally issued its decision.

That decision was handed down on Wednesday, December 10, 1902.  After more than seven months, Judge Simonton sided with the Mayor in his seizure of fire apparatus from the Paxton company.  He ruled that the city was the rightful owner of the equipment, there having been no evidence that the engine was ever given to the company as a gift.  For lack of discipline, the Mayor was entitled to do as he saw fit to protect the city’s investment in fire fighting equipment, and was permitted to reassign that equipment. [26]   The Paxton did not see the case as a total loss for their side, because Simonton’s opinion did state that the case should really have been decided by the Harrisburg City Councils.  Dauphin County’s courts could not effectively make a binding decision in the case since Councils controlled the company more directly.  Paxton decided to take its case to Councils for a decision on the return of their apparatus.

The company believed that Councils would return their apparatus quickly.  In light of the court’s decision concerning the removal of the equipment, the Paxton leadership met with Hargest and Hargest and drew up resolutions by which councils would require the mayor to return their equipment and pay the yearly requisition due them.  On December 16th the company unanimously approved the completed requests for Councils, and took action to expel two more of its members for poor behavior. 

As the nine month saga appeared to be nearing its resolution in December 1902, an event occurred that threatened to destroy all progress. On December 13th, two intoxicated members of the Paxton broke into the Friendship Engine House where the Paxton apparatus was being stored. They stole two pieces of equipment off the Paxton fire engine, claiming they needed it for business purposes.  Later the stolen equipment was found in the home of one of the accused.  Officers of the Paxton station immediately sent a letter to the Mayor informing him of this new discipline problem.  The letter stated the station would help the Mayor  mete out punishment.

On December 23, the Paxton Company held a special disciplinary meeting to take action against these latest miscreants, and to address the problem of  its members who had caused all the trouble in the first place.  The original two drunks, Levi First and John Stucker, were expelled from the membership.  Thomas Mannum, the driver whom McCormick had ordered expelled in May, was accused of further drunkenness since the removal of the Paxton’s apparatus.  Mannum resigned permanently from the organization even though McCormick had relented on his firing.  A new driver was hired.  His action, along with the expulsion of First and Stucker, brought the company into compliance with the Mayor’s original terms for reinstatement of the company and the return of their equipment.  The company voted to notify the Mayor of the developments, and ask for their equipment back. [27]

The December 30th Telegraph noted in one brief sentence the return of the company to service, “The Paxton Fire Company No. 6 reinstated into active service in the department only after bowing to the demands of Mayor Vance C. McCormick that had been imposed on them in May.” [28]   After informing the Mayor of the impending expulsion of several members for drunkenness and the resignation of Driver Mannus, McCormick responded by giving the company permission to reclaim its apparatus from the Friendship Company.  Chief Lutz was directed to return the engine, and after completing a thorough test, declared it fit for use.  About four in the afternoon,  December 31st, in front of a large crowd, the engine arrived back at the Paxton, and the controversy ended, the company having given in to the Mayor’s original demands. [29]


Councils gave their input into the Paxton situation on December 20.  In an attempt to prevent a repeat of the problem, they directed the chief engineer to draw up a new set of rules for the department.  On February 9th, 1903, Chief Engineer George Lutz submitted his new rules to councils, making some major changes to the function of the fire department. 

The new rules included structural changes in the department as well as behavioral changes by members of the force.  The Chief Engineer was given total control over equipment owned by the city and in possession of the various houses.  His responsibilities included making recommendations to Councils concerning the fire house buildings and the purchase of new equipment or the disposal of old.  He was placed in charge of all tests of the equipment and enforcing the rules of the department.

A company foreman position was established for each fire house.  The foreman’s  responsibilities were to control his company and to keep all equipment clean and functioning.  He was to report any malfunctions directly to the chief or assistant chief.  Each company engineer was responsible to keep the engines in good repair and operate them sensibly at fire scenes.  Drivers were given instructions on how to drive sensibly, not racing other apparatus to fires and returning to their respective stations in such a way as to not cause danger.

Precedents were established for conduct at fire scenes.  Rules dictated how fire hose was to be run, how companies must cooperate with each other in loaning equipment and returning it to its owners, and who was responsible for maintaining equipment.  Protocol was set for chain of command at fire scenes.  Punishments for disobeying these rules were established.  A final section of the new rules strictly prohibited liquor from being brought to any engine house and members from appearing at fire houses in an intoxicated condition.  Punishments for individual offenders and for stations involved in breaking the rules were set forth. [30]    The Telegraph found the rules to make so much sense that it was a wonder that such policies had not been enacted years before. [31]

Yet the new rules could not prevent all controversies, as shown only a few days later.  On a cold, fourteen degree Tuesday in February 1903, a small fire broke out on Grand Street, and two stations were called to the scene.  The firemen arrived with their hose wagons pulled by four horses instead of the normal two.  They had no horses left to haul the fire engine, so it was left behind.  Fortunately the fire was easily contained, and no great damage was suffered. [32]  

A new order came out of the chief engineer’s office the next day.  All fire stations were to show up at emergencies fully prepared to fight fires, and not spend precious time and manpower returning to the station to collect equipment left behind.  The firemen countered that they had double teamed the hoses to get the hoses to the scene more quickly through the blizzard-like snow that had fallen the day before.  They would have returned to the station to collect the engine if they thought it was necessary.  Since the fire was small and the engine was not needed, no one took the horses back to the station to collect the engine.  Expressing surprise at the new order, the firefighters declared they would obey the order; they would not fight it. [33]   They agreed that what the chief declared should be done, they were just surprised that Lutz would issue such a statement concerning what they believed was a good decision in light of the weather conditions. [34]   This minor conflict with the fire department shows that the firefighters’ attitude toward the city administration had changed from conflict to cooperation.


One of the most difficult issues uncovered by the McCormick administration was the allegations of wrongdoing by the previous two mayors, Dr. Fritchey and Dr. Patterson.   As early as September 1902 it was rumored around city hall that Fritchey’s record keeping was not in proper order.  The amount of fees collected by the Fritchey administration and turned in to the city treasury was quite small when compared to the statistics of the McCormick administration. 

The Telegraph questioned Mayor McCormick about the rumored investigation on September 11, 1902, asking “Is there any truth in the report that you have threatened to prosecute ex-mayor Fritchey unless he pay to the city government money alleged to be collected in fines and not yet paid over to the city?”  McCormick responded “There is no truth whatever to it.  I have made no proposition to Dr. Fritchey.”  He went on to add that if ever such an investigation was to take place, it would be announced by the proper city officials.  McCormick did note that his friends had many times brought to his attention the differences in the fees his administration had generated for the city compared to those of the Fritchey administration. [35]

Despite the denials at that time, McCormick’s office was preparing a report on apparent irregularities which was presented to Councils’ Finance Committee  just over one month later.  On October 16, 1902, Mayor McCormick sent a brief message to Councils that he would present a communication on that subject.  When he did so, a subcommittee with full powers to investigate was arranged, and preparations for a lengthy and thorough investigation began.  Both Fritchey and Patterson remained tight-lipped despite what the Patriot was calling a “political volcano.” [36]

The Finance Committee was composed of Select members Craiglow, Sterner, Umberger and Walter, as well as Common members Thompson, Pass, Brubaker, Kreidler, Jennings, Roberts, and Peters. The investigating subcommittee consisted of Councilmen Umberger of Select, and  Pass and Brubaker of Common.  At the request of both Fritchey and Patterson, the subcommittee decided that all meetings should be held publicly.  The subcommittee first met on October 22, 1902, but at that point had little work to do other than establish rules and procedures, having received no specific charges or allegations from the mayor’s office.

 On Friday, October 31, 1902, Mayor McCormick sent a long letter to the investigation subcommittee detailing the misuse of city money.  It was  a bombshell in the city.  The mayor’s statement to council, dated October 29, 1902,  outlined four specific charges which according to McCormick “[showed] the misuse of public money and the violation of the law in the administration of the Mayor’s Department and in the conduct of the Police Force of this city. [37]

 The first charge stated that the county reported paying Mayor Fritchey’s office $4,606.60 for costs arising out of criminal cases emanating from the county.  The Harrisburg City Controller  showed in that same period, the mayor’s office had paid into the city treasury a total of $4,785.34 for all fines and costs collected.  Thus Mayor Fritchey had paid into the city treasury in three years only $178.74 more in fines and costs than he had been paid by the county office.  In other words, under two hundred dollars had been collected from all “fines, fees, costs, licenses, and other money which he was required to collect and for which he was accountable to the city of Harrisburg.”  In addition, an examination of city records, supported by the testimony of witnesses showed that an additional $1,282.41 was paid into the mayor’s office for fines, fees, and licenses, but never relinquished to the city treasury. [38]

Second, a partial examination of records of Mayor Patterson’s most recent tenure in office from April 1896 through the beginning of April 1899 showed that $718.17 more was collected than was turned over to the city’s treasury.  This amount did not include costs collected for service of subpoenas and criminal processes.  This, McCormick believed, warranted an investigation by councils to discover if any money was missing. [39]

The third item included state laws which allegedly had been violated by city policemen collecting fees for serving subpoenas and being paid a small amount of money for their efforts.  The charge contained lengthy quotes from Pennsylvania state laws showing how money collected by mayors was to be handled, and what compensation policemen were entitled to for serving of subpoenas and other paperwork.   Pennsylvania’s state law P.L. 277, Section 2, passed June 8th 1874, required that “All fees and costs pertaining to the office of Mayor in the several cities of this State shall, after this Act goes into effect, be paid into the City Treasury.”  Also, according to P.L. 208, Article VII, Section 3, the mayor of a city was required to charge for services and should pay over “the same into the City Treasury, monthly, according to a statement thereof verified by oath or affirmation before the Comptroller and file it with him.”  P.L. 299 of May 1889 allowed policemen to serve as agents of the city to serve legal papers and collect fees for doing so.  Those fees were to be returned to the mayor’s office and paid monthly to the city treasury.  Lastly, P.L.1897 was cited which required policemen be paid a salary and prohibited them from keeping any additional money collected for any service rendered. The point of presenting documentation of the law was to demonstrate that all four had been violated by Mayor Fritchey’s administration, even though he had been warned about it by the City Controller’s office. [40]

 Finally, McCormick charged that officials of the city had required fees to be paid of “traveling showmen, proprietors of lunch wagons, flying horses, and exhibitors of wares and amusements” for the consideration of allowing them to display their business in public.  No record was kept of such fees collected, and no money for such items was ever surrendered to the treasury although it was clear that those collecting the fees were officials of the city.  This charge included the assertion that no state legislation allowed a city to collect such fees in the first place.  Any city official who indicated to vendors that the city could sell its permission to conduct business may have been doing so illegally. [41]

Mayor McCormick concluded his message to Councils by stating that every citizen of Harrisburg, the Councils, and the mayor’s office were entitled to a full investigation of such charges and an accounting of where the money that should have been returned to the city treasury had gone.  The need for such an investigation was self evident.  Since the mayor’s office had no legal standing to conduct such an exhaustive investigation, Councils would be the correct body to do so, and that investigation should begin quickly. [42]

Almost as a footnote, a fifth allegation was made.  This indicated that there was reason to believe the city employed “a regular system by which gambling houses, houses of ill-fame, speakeasies and crooks have not only been permitted to carry on their illicit occupations, but have actually been protected therein....” [43]

To support these claims City Solicitor Seitz offered reports from the county auditors and the city controller, showing the amounts paid to the mayor’s office by Dauphin County and the total amount of money paid from the mayor to the city.  With a difference of only $178.74 paid to the treasury, the mayor had paid more than he had received.  But that amount of difference was to have covered all fines and fees collected by the city over and beyond payments made from the county. 

Mr. Charles Bergner, attorney for Dr. Fritchey, responded that McCormick’s figures were out of order because of certain city policies.  The fees the solicitor alleged should have been surrendered were the nothing more than the fines levied by the city.  They were not evidence that payment was actually made.  City Solicitor Seitz countered that when the city imposed a fine it was only reasonable to assume that in the normal course of business that fine would be collected if the man was discharged.  But Bergner argued prisoners were often discharged without payment in certain circumstances.  If poor persons could not pay their fines, they were assigned jail time instead.  Often the cost of incarceration was greater to the city than setting the person free and dismissing the fine. [44]   The city saved money by fining a person but never collecting.  Over Bergner’s objections, Seitz was allowed by Committee Chairman Umberger  to enter the receipts “for what it may show,”  for the subcommittee’s investigation. [45]

Solicitor Seitz next called witnesses to show that the county had paid Mayor Fritchey’s office for serving subpoenas, but some of that  money had never been paid over to the city. Constable Harry Emanuel testified that he had been directed by Fritchey to serve subpoenas for the county.  The county paid him for each delivery; he pocketed a small amount as payment for his services and turned the rest in to the city.  After further questioning by Seitz, Emanuel claimed the money he had paid to the city went directly to Chief of Police Kautz. Emanuel claimed he could have taken more money for himself if he and Chief Kautz had a formal arrangement to do so; delivering these subpoenas was more of a personal favor to Kautz done in return for previous favors, so he only kept a small amount. [46]

John Morgan was also called to testify that he had returned fees from subpoenas to Police Chief Kautz. As a detective on the police force, Morgan had in 1899 served subpoenas for the county on cases  arising from the city of Harrisburg.  Morgan had served the subpoenas, marked them as served, and turned the fees over to Chief Kautz, keeping none for himself.  He stated he did not know where the fees went after turning them in. [47]   A third man with similar experiences of serving subpoenas and returning fees was examined.  Police Detective Morrisey also claimed to have kept no fees for himself, turning them all in to Chief Kautz.  After that he had no knowledge of what happened to the money. [48]

Attorney Bergner, defending  the former mayor, interrupted at this point to ask for clarification on the direction of all this testimony, which was in his view repetitive and going nowhere.  Solicitor Seitz responded that he intended to show how a large number subpoenas were served by members of the city police force during the terms of Mayor Fritchey, and that the fees paid for such service had been made by people with no connection whatsoever to the city government.  This was done so the money paid by the county to the city could be split between the deliverers and the Chief of Police, in violation of state law requiring all such money to be placed in the city treasury.

Bergner tried to have all testimony about these collections declared irrelevant because he knew of no law that required such fees belong to the city.  In his opinion any fees paid were the property of the collector, not the city; therefore, who served the subpoenas was irrelevant unless it could be definitely established that such a law existed, and if corroborating testimony on each instance could be found there might be some relevance to such testimony against the Police Chief.

After some discussion with attorneys for both sides, the subcommittee determined to hear the remaining testimony,  in case it might be relevant, and to complete a study of the law later.  If the law was found to require payment of subpoena fees into the city treasury, then the testimony would be accepted.  If no such law was found, then the testimony would be discarded with only a loss of time in the exercise.  Subcommittee Chairman Snodgrass reminded his colleagues that the mere existence of a law was not the only question to be decided.  If the law did exist, it would only raise more questions about a grave offence against the city by a high city official. 

After this interruption,  Patrolman Michael Casey and Sergeant J. E. Worden were called and examined along the same lines.  Their testimony was much the same as the others in that they had served subpoenas but had not turned in all fees to the city.  The Committee then adjourned its first formal meeting. [49]

The following Thursday, November 6, 1902,  the subcommittee met again to continue the hearings about the subpoenas.  As on the previous Friday, the city was represented before the subcommittee by City Solicitor Seitz and two former Deputy Attorney Generals, Snodgrass and Gilbert.  Dr. Fritchey was defended by Attorney Bergner.  New to the defense teams were Attorney Detweiler and Representative George Kunkel for ex-mayor Patterson; Senator Fox, also new,  represented the interests of former Chief of Police Kautz.  City Patrolmen Lescure, Rodgers, Thompson, Keefer, Bowman, Fleck, and Keller all testified that they had served subpoenas for the county government on witnesses for city criminal cases but had not personally collected any fees.  Each of them had signed the returns over to Chief Kautz.  Many of these men had only distant recollections of how many subpoenas they may have served, or how much money may have been collected.  They had all signed for returns and turned the money over to Kautz.  One witness, county Detective James T. Walters, was asked if he thought it funny that the Chief of Police asked him to collect money that belonged to the city instead of doing it himself.  Walters could not remember what he thought, only that he was doing the Chief a favor. [50]   This concluded the testimony about the subpoenas.

Solicitor Seitz then changed the topic to examine the payment of licenses into the city treasury.  He called to the stand Mrs. Cyrus Palm who had run a flying horse amusement in the city.  Seitz questioned her as to why she had paid the license; she responded that she knew she had to pay one, so she went to the city to find out when and where.  She was told to arrive at the mayor’s office around nine o’clock one evening and pay by check.  She did so, paying $25 by check made out to Mayor John A. Fritchey and signed by Mrs. Palm and her husband.  The check was deposited at Dauphin Deposit Bank. [51]   This testimony was intended to show the former Mayor kept this particular license fee for himself, although no evidence was presented to show the money had not been properly submitted.

Sergeant Warden, who had testified about subpoena fees at the previous hearing, was recalled to talk about fines collected by the city.  He indicated that he had arrested six men one late evening in June and that they were brought in on charges of disorderly conduct.  The six were given a hearing and fined $4 a piece, which each paid immediately.  Thus police Lieutenant Forbes collected $24 dollars from the six men, and all were released, but no record of the fines appeared in the court docket for that evening.  Warden could not state what happened to the $24 after Forbes collected it, only that no record of the case appeared in city court dockets. [52]

Testimony by a grocer named S. S. Pomeroy was not allowed as evidence.  Pomeroy’s situation showed that he had been robbed of between $400 and $600 in December, 1901,  by a group of boys.  The boys were arrested and met with Mr. Pomeroy in the Mayor’s office, where a deal was reached by which the boys repaid the money to Pomeroy.  Solicitor Seitz questioned what Pomeroy had to pay to the Mayor’s office for working out the settlement, but attorneys Bergner and Fox objected that the payments were irrelevant since the only money involved was all Pomeroy’s money to begin with.  No payment was due the Mayor’s office, and no evidence existed indicating that any had been received.  Committee chairman Umberger then threw out Pomeroy’s testimony. [53]

The next meeting of the committee was held on Thursday the 13th.  At this time more evidence was presented showing the Mayor’s office had not kept proper accounting of money received for sales of licenses.  T. J. Weeks testified that he had paid to run a lunch wagon in the city on several occasions, totaling $290 for rights to sell in Market Square.  Charles Moss of Germantown testified that he paid $1 per day, or a total of $156 to Chief Kautz or the Mayor’s clerk for the right to sell candy in the city.  Sergeant O’Donnell explained how he had required numerous street salesmen to apply for licenses in the Mayor’s office.  Attorneys for both Fritchey and Kautz objected to this testimony, stating that it was irrelevant because the city had no right to collect such fees--they were the personal property of those who collected it.  Therefore it was beyond the scope of the committee to investigate it. 

William Carpenter testified that he had been arrested a number of times during the Fritchey administration.  In one instance he was arrested in his home for running an nonlicensed speakeasy, which was forbidden by city ordinance.  On that occasion he paid $7 directly to Chief Kautz and was released.  Again Bergner objected to this testimony because it went beyond the committee’s commission to investigate.  His objection was overruled and admitted to the evidence with objections.

Several others testified about their arrests and payments of fines.  Included in this number were Sallie Levan, William Hoffman, and Michael Capin, who was denied a receipt when he asked.  Inkum Jones stated that he had been arrested so many times he couldn’t remember the total.  At one point he was being arrested “three or four times every week.” [54] This made him confused as to what happened each time he was taken to the Mayor’s office, but he did recall having to pay $2.50 to Chief Kautz for his release.  None of the incidents testified to appeared in the records of the mayor’s office. [55]

When the subcommittee next assembled in the chambers of Select Council on Monday, November 24, 1902, the Telegraph proclaimed the end of the investigation was in sight.  On this occasion, witnesses continued to testify how they paid the Chief of Police for their release.  The difference between this hearing and previous ones was that the sums of money paid were much greater.  Joseph Stepney of Lancaster paid one hundred dollars for his release.  Harry Weaver had paid over fifty dollars, most of which was paid so the prosecutors would drop their case.  The rest went to the Mayor’s office for costs and expenses. [56]  

The prosecution was unable to show conclusively who the money was paid to each in each instance, which the defense was sure to make note of.  The Telegraph summarized the night’s hearing by holding “that the evidence tends to show that there was carelessness in the manner of conducting the business of the Mayor’s office during the Fritchey administration; that money was collected by city officials; that money was collected by city officials illegally and legally of which no record exists and which was not turned into the city treasury, but evidence has not been submitted to prove that the ex-Mayor received any money that should have been turned over to the city.” [57]

On December 1, the committee met to work on allegations against the Patterson administration. He also was charged with keeping money that should have been surrendered to the city for himself.  In the absence of Solicitor Seitz, Lyman D. Gilbert argued for the city.  He used records of the county commissioners and the city treasury to indicate that during the 1896 through 1899 term of Mayor Patterson, a shortage of $676.67 existed between the amount of money that should have been delivered to the city and the total of what actually was.  If the committee desired, the mayor’s office could deliver documentary and testimonial evidence to demonstrate this.  Committee chairman Umberger declared the committee wished to have it all. [58]

The city concluded its presentation of evidence to the subcommittee on December 3, 1902.  On that evening, six more men testified that they had paid fines at the mayor’s office for which there was no record.  One witness called did not appear; Seitz introduced his affidavit as evidence.  Finally, City Controller Gough testified that only once had he received statements of fines and costs collected, and that was at the request of the Controller’s office. [59]

Some fireworks erupted as Seitz attempted to read into the record statements from several other witnesses who were not present.  This testimony was to be substantially the same as before; people had paid fines for which no record existed in the ex-mayor’s books.  Mr. Bergner objected to the public reading of these items since they were not sworn statements.  Bergner had no objection to the reading of sworn statements, but since these were not sworn he felt they might unfairly prejudice the mind of the public because there would be no opportunity to cross-examine absent witnesses. 

Seitz continued by announcing to the committee that he would proceed to show the methods of bookkeeping, and the shortcomings in the business conduct of the Fritchey office.  He also informed the committee that he intended to show that the original police blotter had been burned in the furnace of the mayor’s office by Clerk Shaner, who was since deceased.  At this point both Bergner and Fox objected, repeating that the jurisdiction of the subcommittee as established by the mayor was to investigate the charges of missing funds and no more.  The committee could not be engaged in what had happened to records from the mayor’s office. 

The Solicitor argued that the methods of bookkeeping must be admitted, since they were the very foundation of the case against Dr. Fritchey.  The charges brought before the committee were based on poor bookkeeping, and must be allowed for council to be fully informed.  After some discussion, the committee voted two to one not to accept this further testimony,  Mr. Umberger voting in favor of acceptance. [60]

After a brief discussion with his colleagues Gilbert and Snodgrass, Seitz offered to produce a witness who could testify as to the destruction of the mayor’s blotter by Clerk Shaner.  The committee agreed to hear this information, and Patrolman Wholforth explained how Mr. Shaner had told him of the destruction of the records only two weeks prior to Mayor McCormick’s inauguration. 

Counsel for the city then asked if the committee would hear its testimony concerning the protection of houses of ill repute by the city police force, but the committee declined since it had only been authorized to hear charges of nonreturned fees.  The committee then declared the public portion of the proceedings to be at an end.  Any further investigation would be done in private meetings. [61]

Five days later Mayor McCormick sent another communication to Councils asking for further investigation into the allegations of blackmail by the police department.  In this letter McCormick informed Councils that the allegations in his former communications concerning the shortages of funds had been proven through further investigation by his office.  He requested that if it was true that funds collected by the service of subpoenas was not required to be turned in to the city treasury by state law, then Councils should quickly enact legislation to ensure that it was.  Finally, the new Mayor asked that his office’s allegations of blackmail by the Police Department concerning licenses and franchises be looked into by the Finance Committee or its already established subcommittee.  A full and thorough investigation was warranted of these serious charges. [62]

But the Police Committee, to whom the communication was sent, was not receptive to the Mayor’s call for further investigations.  A meeting was called on Monday, December 15, to read the Mayor’s latest communication and decide what action if any to take.  The clerk read the letter to the committee, and related that earlier in the day Select Council had referred the letter to the Police Committee to conduct a full investigation.  Common Council had simply referred the letter to the committee.  The clerk also informed the Committee that a resolution had been passed asking the city solicitor “to frame such laws as will collect such existing defects in the police regulations of the city.” [63]

After the communication was read, Police Committee Chairman Fosse asked the pleasure of his committee with reference to the matter at hand.  There was no response.  No committee member wanted to make a motion that a subcommittee be formed to conduct the necessary business, possibly because any member who did so would undoubtedly be made the chair of such a subcommittee.  After an uncomfortable silence, Mr. Craiglow moved that the city solicitor be instructed to draw up new regulations for the police department.  This motion was seconded and passed.

Another five minutes of silence passed without further action.  Finally Mr. Brubaker made a motion that further action by the committee be postponed until such time as the Solicitor submit his report to Councils.  There was another period of silence before Mr. Craiglow seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously. [64]

Councilman Foose had been assigned to look in to the allegations that “the last administration provided protection to gambling houses, speakeasies, houses of ill fame, and crooks.” [65]    Unfortunately, the committee never met to discharge its duty.  On several occasions a meeting of the Police Committee was called to assemble, but a quorum of members was never present.

The Patriot criticized Foose for not doing anything that indicated he seriously meant to conduct an investigation, nor even making a “manly” attempt to raise a quorum at committee meetings.  Committee members Calder, Craiglow, Hoover, Moody, Shertzer of Select Council and Birch, Brubaker, Fry, Kreidler, Roberts and Slentz of Common Council were putting the city in danger of losing respect in the eyes of the citizens for its lack of action.

The Patriot also chastised the public for its apparent lack of interest in the matter.  A full page was devoted to a story entitled “The Shame of Minneapolis,” in which similar accusations were charged against the government of that city.  Like Harrisburg, the crimes of the leaders were largely ignored by the citizenry until a grand jury handed down its first indictment.  Then the passions of the populace were aroused, and reforms began to take place.

The newspaper insisted this should not be the case in Harrisburg.  Similar accusations were being charged against its former leaders, and some of the current leaders were dragging their heels in doing anything about it.  This would soon turn the city into a laughingstock among other similar cities, and would encourage future generations of leaders to engage in similar corruption.  Once city councils began an investigation, the Patriot predicted, apathy on the part of the citizens would disappear just as it had in Minneapolis--Council had to get the investigation going. [66]

Finally on Monday, March 2, 1903, the Umberger Investigation Subcommittee returned  its report to the Finance Committee of Councils, explaining how it had held “several private meetings” as well as public meetings in the chambers of Common Council for investigative purposes.  Also contained in the report were communications from Mayor McCormick to Councils, its Finance Committee, and ex-mayors Fritchey and Patterson. The Subcommittee report was approved and sent to the full Councils for action. 

The entire text of the subcommittee report was included in the Tuesday, March 3, 1903 edition of the Patriot morning newspaper, including letters from the Mayor to the Councils, testimony of witnesses, and charges against the former mayors.  The first reprinted letter was that of McCormick to Councils, dated October 13, 1902.  In it, McCormick informed Councils of the discrepancies in city books as compared to county books, indicating after a partial investigation that money collected by the mayor’s office had not been appropriately returned to the city treasury. 

A second was a copy of McCormick’s letter to Fritchey stating that such charges would be made to Councils and an investigation requested.  The third was Fritchey’s response to that letter, indicating his shock that any such accusation could be made against his administration--that while he was heavily occupied with his medical profession some of the details of the mayor’s office had been delegated to trusted subordinates, and as far as the ex-mayor knew, those details such as returning money to the city treasury had been handled.

Also included in the subcommittees report were the five formal charges made by the McCormick administration against the Fritchey administration, and the Mayor’s request that Councils begin a thorough investigation.  The subcommittee included its own fact finding report, based largely on the testimony given before by witnesses.   Objections by counsel for the defendants was given, as was the solicitor’s rebuttals to such objections.  The inferences made by the solicitor as to the burning of the dockets were explained by the subcommittee to be a normal course of business of the mayor’s office.

In doing so, the purpose of a police record, or blotter, was discussed.  According to a personal investigation, the blotter was an informal record of the proceedings of the charges made against a person and fines assessed.  This was done at the time of the hearing.  The blotter was in turn used to fill in a more formal and complete record at a later time.  In effect, the blotter contained notes to be explained formally when time allowed.  Thus, the blotter was not an official record of the money received by the mayor’s office.  Burning of police blotters was common, since they were not legal records, but simply reminders.

As to the issue of collection of fees for licenses, the solicitor provided to the subcommittee a record of such fees paid amounting to $399, the implication being that this was all that was collected by the Fritchey administration in its three year term.  Counsel for Fritchey argued that this money did not belong to the city since no ordinance existed determining it to be so.  The subcommittee reported “With this contention we have no patience.” [67]   If the money did not legally belong to the city, it certainly did not belong to Mayor Fritchey.  He was morally, if not strictly legally, bound to turn over the proceeds of such licenses to the city treasury.  The money was collected by city officials for the conduct of private business in the city, and could in no way be construed to belong to any individual.

The report also expressed disapproval of the way in which Fritchey’s subordinates had handled money, and declared that the mayor must be responsible for the actions of those under his authority.  While the mayor did not personally collect money from fines or fees, those who did so under authority of his office were responsible to the mayor for proper disposal of those fees.  If they handled them inappropriately, the mayor was ultimately responsible. 

But no evidence was produced to link the mishandling of such money directly to the mayor.  “We...find that no money in excess of the amount of money paid into the City Treasury was traced as paid directly into the hands of ex-Mayor Fritchey.  Of course, a great deal of money was paid at the Mayor’s office to his subordinates; but no money was traced as paid personally to the ex-Mayor in excess of the amount paid by him into the city treasury.” [68]   The subcommittee then produced a list of fees which according to the witnesses’ testimony and affidavits should have been paid to the city treasury, and required that Mayor Fritchey be held responsible for the total amount of $826.25.

The report condemned high officers in the Mayor’s office for their obvious perversion of justice.  “From the testimony we find that a regular system of extortion was carried on in and out of the Mayor’s office by a couple of the higher police officers during the term of ex-Mayor Fritchey.  There is no evidence before us that Mayor Fritchey was cognizant of these matters.”  While the Mayor may not have been personally responsible for this, his carelessness in not eliminating it could not be excused.  “The testimony discloses that persons who went to the Mayor’s office for justice were fleeced of their money by police officers, who were employed by the city to protect its citizens.  We cannot find words strong enough to condemn such practices.” [69]   Again, the subcommittee did not find that Fritchey was responsible for such abuses.

As to the charge that Mayor Fritchey made no monthly reports to the city Controller’s office as required by law even though asked, the subcommittee found “an evasion of law.”  This they reported as a finding of fact, but made no further comment.  Concerning the charges made against similar abuses of ex-Mayor John Patterson’s office, the subcommittee found the wrongdoing to be less serious.  Since Mayor Patterson had furnished the necessary reports to the Controller’s office, and the fines levied were roughly equal to the amount of fines paid, the subcommittee was satisfied to accept the explanation advanced by Fritchey’s attorneys that not all fines assessed were actually paid.  The dockets used as evidence by Solicitor Seitz were not considered strong enough evidence to conclusively state that all money received should have been paid directly to the city treasury. 

In its conclusion, the subcommittee found that in light of all the evidence presented, the rules and regulations concerning the handling of financial matters in the Mayor’s office were totally inadequate to regulate the duties of that office.  To that end, four recommendations were made.  First, an ordinance should be passed requiring all fees returned to the Mayor’s office for the service of subpoenas by city police officers be handed over to the city treasury monthly, with an itemized statement of the same.  Second, an ordinance be passed requiring that all money received from licenses be advanced to the city controller’s office monthly with an itemized sworn statement of the same.  Third, enacting of an ordinance requiring the city controller to audit the books of the mayor’s office yearly, and fourth, the enacting of an ordinance requiring the mayor’s office to keep a cash book recording all moneys collected from any source.  This book would be open to the inspection of the city controller, Treasurer, and Councils, and would be a public record belonging to the city. [70]

The newspaper editorials were highly critical of the Umberger report, branding it as a “whitewash” of the issue.  In an article entitled “Where the report leads,” the Patriot scathingly argued that the issue of corruption in the Mayor’s office was not the worst--even more awful was the ineffective investigation run by the subcommittee charged with the investigation.  “The question of public morality and the administration of public trust is more to be considered than the amount of money misappropriated--a fact Mr. Umberger and his committee seem to have overlooked.” [71]   The article went on to condemn the suggestion that a repeat of the issue could be avoided in the future by passing a new set of city ordinances.  All the misdeeds alleged by the City Solicitor were already punishable under state laws; there should be no need for new city ordinances.  Besides, if Fritchey were to pay the city treasury only the $686.51 suggested by the committee, why shouldn’t the current administration run a similar racket?  Mayor McCormick might be well served to pad his own pockets and expect a future Umberger committee to whitewash the issue again. [72]

The next day the Patriot  took up the issue of the Patterson end of the investigation.  The Umberger committee found only $178.74 to be missing from Fritchey’s  accounts, and asked him to reimburse the city for that amount.  The Patriot figured this to mean that the administration collected on average only $1.09 per week for all fees, fines and licenses issued by the city for 3 years.  Mayor Patterson surrendered over $3,000 during his term, and McCormick over $4,000 in his first 10 months.  The committee should know this but made no comment directly about it.  In light of these facts, the whole Fritchey administration looks ridiculous, and his attorney’s assertion that any mistakes were due to carelessness or the treachery of subordinates are fooling no one.  Apparently, the Patriot declared, the Umberger committee did not want to know the truth, which explains why neither Fritchey, Kautz, nor police lieutenant Forbes were called before the committee to testify.

March 6, 1903, the Patriot expressed its surprise at the report’s failure to find fault with Fritchey himself.  The committee stated “From the testimony introduced before us and from personal investigation we find nothing that in any way reflects on the honor, honesty, or integrity of ex-mayor Patterson or his administration.”  The paper questioned what investigations had been done and by whom.  Its fear was that no one outside of the three men on the committee ever heard of the personal investigation. [73]

The next day the Patriot continued its assault on the subcommittee’s report, charging that the Umberger committee has done only a perfunctory examination of the evidence against the two ex-mayors.  The only evidence the paper knew to be heard against them was the evidence presented by the McCormick administration, which was limited by the law in its presentation of evidence.  Only councils could conduct a full inquiry into the matter.  Since the committee allegedly did no independent investigation, they must be attempting to shield Dr. Fritchey from anything more serious than carelessness.  The editorials that day charged that some of the inaction on the part of the Umberger committee was due to the fact that the Police Committee did even less to perform its part of the investigation. [74]

Select Council approved the report of the Umberger Commission on March 9, 1903, accepting the findings of the committee charged with investigating the crimes and requiring City Solicitor Seitz to proceed along the lines suggested in the report.  Common Council met and took  up the same issue that evening.  Frustration with the way the investigations had been carried out was apparent.  Mr. McCullogh moved the Police Committee to be discharged of its duty concerning police protection of houses of ill repute, speakeasies, and the like.  A second was made by Mr. Ferree.  Some heated discussion ensued.  Mr. Fry asked of McCullogh “I want to ask the gentleman a plain, pointed question.  What benefit will the city derive from such an investigation as he proposes?”  McCullogh’s response was somewhat indirect; he asked that if an investigation was unwarranted, why had councils decided to conduct one in the first place? “If these officials of the Police Department are not guilty of the serious crimes of which they stand charged, they should be cleared.” [75]

Councilman Pass, who had heard the charges against the former mayors as a member of the Finance subcommittee, objected to the motion.  He felt the resolution should not be passed out of deference to the absent Foose, who was not at fault for the malfunction of his committee.

Foose himself had not missed a meeting he had called, although he was absent at the time this discharge was discussed.  Council felt it would be unfair to strip the Police Commission of such an important responsibility when its chairman was not present to participate in the discussion. [76]

Pass also argued that the investigation could do the city no good.  His feeling was that the entire issue had been brought up only to serve the personal ambitions of one man, and he would have no part in aiding those ambitions.  Since the city was under a new administration anyway, there was really no need in his view to dig up dirt on previous mayors.  He did not believe “the city of Harrisburg would not be bettered one iota” if the investigation were to continue. [77]   At that point, McCullogh dropped his motion to discharge until such time as Mr. Foose could attend and explain his subcommittee’s failures.  He felt that if no good was to come to the city as a result of the investigations, he would support dropping it.  Since Councils had instigated the inquiry, they could stop it at any time they pleased.

Another round of strife broke out when Common Council was asked to approve the report from the Committee to investigate the charges against the former mayors was brought up.  Mr. Slentz moved that the Common Council concur with the action of the Select Council and urge the city solicitor to proceed along the lines suggested in the report.  When McCullogh asked what were the suggestions, and Fletcher also indicated he did not know, Mr. Ferree asked that they be read aloud.  City Clerk Miller read them at length, and Mr. Wagner moved that Common concur with Select.

Again, McCullogh asked what exactly the city solicitor was to do, because as far as collecting funds the solicitor could do nothing.  Pass felt the solicitor would know his duty and act accordingly.  Chairman Fletcher pointed out that such things could not be taken for granted, insinuating that more specific directions to the solicitor would be desirable, but no such motions were ever made. [78]   Mr. Fry thought the solicitor was to ensure collection of $686.51 from Dr. Fritchey, and draw up new rules to prevent such mistakes from being made again.  At that point the motion to concur was passed.  The Telegraph made no mention, but the Patriot did conclude its report by including Fry’s comments that any further investigation should be handled by the Dauphin County District Attorney’s office, and any more charges should be handed down by a grand jury. [79]

The Patriot’s editors reacted angrily to such opinions that the city would benefit from a new set of rules.  It argued that Councils’ referral of the report to the Solicitor to draw up a new set of rules was a “mere trifling” with the evidence presented, adding that such a plan was “puerile” and “unworthy.”  The only rules needed were decency and fair play, not a new batch of rules. [80]

Within the next few days action on the entire investigation slowed to a halt.  Foose did call for one more meeting of his subcommittee to be held on March 12, 1903, but once again a quorum was not present, and the meeting was not held.  The Patriot that day alleged that the political bosses who controlled Foose had been planning inaction on the police protection issue all along, and Foose was simply carrying out their orders.  Perhaps, the paper said, it was smarter of the Foose subcommittee to not meet at all than it was for the Umberger subcommittee to prepare a useless report that only whitewashed the issues.

The investigation of the allegations into wrongdoing by former mayors did reach a sort of conclusion on Tuesday, March 24, when ex-mayor Fritchey appeared at the city treasury to pay what councils stated he should.  After waiting in a short line of city residents there to pay taxes, Fritchey stepped to the counter just after 2 o’clock in the afternoon and paid the treasurer the $686.51 the Umberger committee said he owed.  Treasurer Royal immediately gave the Dr. a receipt, and place the check into the city treasury.  The implication of the honest handling of money paid by a dishonest man was clear. [81]

That same day Solicitor Seitz returned his letter to councils asking for greater clarification of what they wanted him to do.  His writing reflected some frustration: “I am at a loss to know what action you desire me to take.”  The only thing he saw in the committee report was that he was to recommend enactment of certain ordinances.  He asked council to advise him further. [82]   But Councils were not inclined to do so when they again took up the matter on Monday, March 30.

On that date, a motion to send the Umberger report to the District Attorney to file charges as he saw fit was defeated by a vote of 16 to 2  in Common Council.  A moment later the solicitor’s letter was addressed.  Mr. Bernheisel made a motion to receive and file the letter from the solicitor because he saw “nothing more to do with it”.  There was no second, and a long pause ensued.  At last Mr. Hoverter asked if the committee had any further suggestions to pass along, since it was their report.  His comment was rebuffed by Mr. Umberger who noted the committee was not all in attendance.  Finally, Mr. Fox charged the committee “Come on, show your colors!”  But there was no response.  The Council president asked for a second to the motion, but there was none, so he ordered the solicitor’s letter received and filed.  There was no objection, and the matter came to an end as far as councils were concerned. [83]


Vance McCormick’s first year as Mayor of the city of Harrisburg, lasting from April 7, 1902, to April 7, 1903, was successful in that great progress was made on important physical improvements to city’s appearance and sanitation.  A much more difficult task for the new mayor was to clean up the city’s accounting procedures and fire department, which for years had been stains on the city’s reputation.  Upon taking office, Mr. McCormick promised to reorganize  the fire department so it would be better able to limit damage throughout the city.  He also intended to stop the poor behavior of fire fighters from diminishing the quality of life for neighbors of the fire stations.

This goal was accomplished through the closure of the Paxton Fire Company for most of the year and the seizure of the company’s apparatus.  The Paxton’s equipment was not returned nor was the station reopened until the company submitted to the Mayor’s original demands that incorrigible members be dismissed.  The legal battle required to do this pitted the city against firefighters who considered themselves independent volunteers not under the control of the city government.  The Dauphin County courts decided in the city’s favor as far as ownership of apparatus and the validity of control of the stations, but recommended that Councils should be the place such disputes be handled in the future. 

Accordingly, Harrisburg’s city councils directed the Fire Chief to draw up a new set of rules of conduct at fire scenes and in fire stations for all members of the volunteer forces.  The new rules, labeled as common sense by the city’s newspapers, brought the fire department under the more direct control of the Fire Chief and regulated the behavior of members, providing for strict punishments for violators.

In the reorganization of the Mayor’s office’s accounting practices, Vance McCormick faced a different type of battle.  Even though the residents of the city suffered under the unfair and illegal practices of the previous two mayors, they showed a general apathy for reforming such practices.  Both city newspapers cried out for the public’s attention on the matter, but the desired interest never grew.  Neither were Councils supportive of prosecuting the wrongdoing or reforming the system.  Even though McCormick felt the need for Councils to properly investigate his charges that Mayors Fritchey and Patterson had kept city money for themselves, the city councils were reluctant to do so.  Ultimately Councils conducted little investigation beyond what was done by the McCormick’s office and made no clear recommendations on how to write policies preventing such problems from recurring.  Mayor McCormick was able to bring about reforms for his own administration, but was unable in winning the approval of Councils for across the board changes or even for punishing those who were accused of improper activity.

Throughout both investigations, the city’s newspapers, The Patriot News and the Harrisburg Telegraph, were strongly supportive of McCormick’s attempts to reform the city government.  Since so many high profile physical improvements were being accomplished, it only made sense that the city clean up its ethical deficiencies as well.  Even though McCormick was a Democratic mayor, the Republican Telegraph most of the time agreed that the fire department was a menace to the city and needed reform.  Possibly Colonel E. J. Stackpole, editor of the Telegraph, believed the efforts against the fire companies would fail and thus lead to embarrassment for the Democratic mayor, but the wording of the articles and editorials seems to genuinely be in favor of ridding the city of a danger.  It does not appear that the Telegraph was looking for a way to embarrass Mayor McCormick.  The Telegraph also worked to publish daily records of the investigation into the accounts of the former mayors.  This may be due to the fact that most corruption occurred during the tenure of Democratic Mayor Fritchey, and any ammunition against the opposition party was welcome.  But again the Telegraph never printed a story attempting to make political gains on the imperfections in the Mayor’s case against the former mayors.

The Patriot was more engaged in the prosecution of ex-mayors Fritchey and Patterson than in the fire company problems.  Most of the coverage of the controversy between the city and Paxton Fire Company was from the Telegraph, only occasional articles in the Patriot mentioned the dispute, and then usually not in great detail.  On the corruption issues, the Telegraph gave more attention to the daily proceedings of the investigation, but its conclusions were the same as the Patriot’s in that it wanted the corruption of previous mayors prosecuted by Councils and future incidences prevented.

By the end of his first year in office, the good government reforms of the Progressive Age had begun to transform the Harrisburg city government.  Mayor McCormick had succeeded in restructuring the city fire department to bring it more under control.  He had only partially succeeded in reforming the accounting practices of the mayor’s office and prosecuting former mayors who seemed to have made a personal profit through improper accounting.  Throughout both episodes the newspapers of Harrisburg supported his efforts in creating a better Harrisburg that would be a shining light to guide its people  into the new century.

After serving his three year term as mayor McCormick was prevented from running for a second term by the state constitution, but he did not cease acting as a political reformer.  Soon after he left office, the Harrisburg Patriot, which McCormick had purchased in August 1902, uncovered the graft scandal involved with the construction of the new state capitol building.  He helped his party recover after a bitter three way loss in the gubernatorial race in 1910.  McCormick later served as a delegate-at-large to the Democratic national convention in 1912, and played an important role in having Woodrow Wilson nominated. [84]  

Two years later McCormick ran for governor of Pennsylvania, smashing the Guffey Democratic machine to gain the party nomination.  In the general election he won forty six of the state’s sixty seven counties, but he  lost in Philadelphia, Allegheny, and Dauphin Counties after attacking the statewide Penrose Republican political boss system.  President Wilson named McCormick chair of the Democratic National Committee in 1914, and after overseeing Wilson’s successful reelection bid, turned down several requests to serve as ambassador or cabinet member. 

McCormick spent time as a presidential advisor on the World Trade Board of the Versailles Peace Conference after World War I, after which he served as a delegate to the Democratic National Conventions of 1920 and 1924.  After that time McCormick retired from national politics and returned to Harrisburg and his business interests. [85]   He was married in 1925 to Mrs. Gertrude Howard Olmstead, the widow of former Congressman.  McCormick had been friends with the Olmsteads, even serving as an usher in their wedding.  This marriage provided McCormick with five step children, but no children of his own. Throughout his years in Harrisburg, McCormick promoted all forms of municipal improvement, including physical improvements, social events, concerts, Kipona, the Harrisburg Symphony, the Art Association of Harrisburg, and the United Arts Fund. [86]    McCormick died in 1947 at the age of seventy four years.

[1] George E. Mowry,  Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Movement  (New York: Hill and Wang,  1946),  p. 10.

[2] Ibid. p. 10-11.

[3] George E. Mowry,  The Progressive Era 1900-1918: Recent Literature and New Ideas.  (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1968, 2nd ed).  This publication is part of a series by the American Historical Association intended to print in concise fashion the latest scholarship in specific areas of American history.

[4] Paul Beers, Profiles From the Susquehanna Valley, (Harrisuburg: Stackpole Books, 1974),  p. 174.

[5] Link, Arthur S.  American Epoch: A History of the United States Since the 1890's.

Alfred A. Knopf.  New York: New York.  1955. p. 68-69.

[6] Eggert 168.

[7] Eggert 171.

[8] Beers 172.

[9] Annual Reports of the City of Harrisburg 1902, p. 22.

[10] Patriot News  12 April 1902.

[11] Harrisburg Telegraph  14 April 1902.

[12] Patriot News  1 May 1902.

[13] Harrisburg Telegraph  3 May 1902.

[14] Patriot News  6 May 1902.

[15] Harrisburg Telegraph  6 May 1902.

[16] Harrisburg Telegraph 7 May 1902.

[17] Harrisburg Telegraph 10 May 1902.

[18] Patriot News 13 May 1902.

[19] Harrisburg Telegraph  16 May 1902.

[20] Harrisburg Telegraph  17 May 1902

[21] Harrisburg Telegraph  24 June 1902.

[22] Harrisburg Telegraph  25 June 1902.

[23] Harrisburg Telegraph  11 Nov 1902.

[24] Harrisburg Telegraph  17 Nov 1902.

[25] Harrisburg Telegraph  9 Dec 1902.

[26] Patriot News  11 Dec 1902.

[27] Harrisburg Telegraph  24 Dec 1902.

[28] Harrisburg Telegraph  30 Dec 1902.

[29] Harrisburg Telegraph  31 Dec 1902.

[30] Patriot News  10 February 1903.

[31] Harrisburg Telegraph  10 Feb 1903.

[32] Patriot News  19 Feb 1903.

[33] Patriot News  19 Feb 1903.

[34] Harrisburg Telegraph  20 Feb 1903.

[35] Harrisburg Telegraph  9 Sept 1902.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Patriot News  1 Nov 1902.

[38] Patriot News  1 Nov 1902.

[39] Patriot News  1 Nov 1902.

[40] Patriot News  1 Nov 1902.

[41] Patriot News 1 Nov 1902.

[42] Patriot News 1 Nov 1902.

[43] Patriot News 1 Nov 1902.

[44] Patriot News 1 Nov 1902.

[45] Harrisburg Telegraph 1 Nov 1902.

[46] Patriot News 1 Nov 1902.

[47] Patriot News 1 Nov 1902.

[48] Patriot News 1 Nov 1902.

[49] Patriot News 7 Nov 1902.

[50] Patriot News 7 Nov 1902.

[51] Patriot News 7 Nov 1902.

[52] Patriot News 7 Nov 1902.

[53] Patriot News 7 Nov 1902.

[54] Patriot News 13 Nov 1902.

[55] Patriot News 13 Nov 1902.

[56] Patriot News 13 Nov 1902.

[57] Harrisburg Telegraph 25 Nov 1902.

[58] Harrisburg Telegraph 2 Dec 1902.

[59] Harrisburg Telegraph 4 Dec 1902.

[60] Harrisburg Telegraph 4 Dec 1902.

[61] Harrisburg Telegraph 4 Dec 1902.

[62] Harrisburg Telegraph  9 Dec 1902.

[63] Harrisburg Telegraph.  9 Dec 1902.

[64] Harrisburg Telegraph 9 Dec 1902.

[65] Patriot News 25 Feb 1903.

[66] Harrisburg Telegraph  4 Feb 1903.

[67] Patriot News  3 Mar 1903.

[68] Patriot News  3 Mar 1903.

[69] Patriot News.  3 Mar 1903.

[70] Patriot News  3 Mar 1903.

[71] Patriot News  4 Mar 1903.

[72] Patriot News  4 Mar 1903.

[73] Patriot News.  6 Mar 1903.

[74] Patriot News  7 Mar 1903.

[75] Patriot News  10 Mar 1903.

[76] Patriot News  10 Mar 1903.

[77] Patriot News  10 Mar 1903.

[78] Patriot News  10 Mar 1903.

[79] Patriot News  10 Mar 1903.

[80] Patriot News  10 Mar 1903.

[81] Patriot News  25 Mar 1903.

[82] Patriot News  25 Mar 1903.

[83] Patriot News  31 Mar 1903.

[84] Beers 173-174.

[85] Beers 174.

[86] Beers 175



This online project is a joint venture between Penn State University and The Historical Society of Dauphin County, where the McCormick Family Papers are kept.

Vance McCormick - Home
McCormick Family Papers - Home

Center for Pennsylvania Culture Studies - Home