David Franks: Colonial Merchant

11. Working Both Sides of the Street

Eleven working both sides of the street As the revolutionary crisis developed, things went from bad to worse for David Franks. First came his second legal defeat at the hands of Baynton, Wharton and Morgan. He had contested the quality of merchandise in their residuals at Fort Chartres and Kaskaskia based upon Murray’s assessment. The disagreement had gone on for years and had ended up in the courts, where Baynton, Wharton and Morgan were awarded what they claimed they were owed—slightly less than £10,000 for all the items purchased. A year went by without payment, and Thomas Wharton reminded his brother Samuel that David Franks still owed them money.1 Franks eventually paid, but not until the case had gone through the courts again. But Franks and Co. reaped some consolation by obtaining considerable merchandise they would otherwise never have been able to acquire in the nonimportation environment. Additionally, they had been able to reject some£1,500 to £2,000 worth of items they did not want, declaring their condition “non-saleable.”2 Meanwhile, Franks abandoned the candle business. Michael Moses had died in 1769 and was replaced in the partnership at the chandlery by David’s old friend Matthias Bush.3 Bush was Barnard Gratz’s brother-in-law and part of the Franks-Simons-Gratz-Levy group that enjoyed partnership “adventures ” together over the years. He also worked for a time as the clerk/ manager in David’s retail outlet in Philadelphia. Bush’s son, Nathan (Colonel Nathaniel), later took over his family’s part of the business. Four years later, however, the partnership was dissolved and the business was offered for sale.4 In December 1773 the Boston Tea Party had taken place, and ten days later the ship Polly, loaded with tea, arrived at the entry to the port of Philadelphia . Captain Ayres was met by a group of “Respectable Citizens” who David Franks 114 advised him not to bring the ship any nearer to the city. They suggested that he deliver his letters, pay his respects, and turn around and head home with his cargo intact. Ayres returned to the coffeehouse with the man in charge of the ship and its contents—none other than Gilbert Barkly, David’s former partner, now representing the East India Company. Handbills signed by “the Committee for Tarring and Feathering” promised severe treatment for docking the ship. Ayres and Barkly were persuaded to return their cargo to London until “after the Duty is repealed by Act of Parliament.”5 Most assuredly , a mob could be assembled in a very short time, even in Philadelphia, to resist new British taxation. The threat of it alone was sufficient. David Franks must have been sorely tempted to side openly with the resistance when the earl of Dartmouth, secretary of state for the colonies, shot down his western land claims at a single stroke. The process leading to that decision began in April 1774, when the Illinois & Ouabache Company petitioned the earl of Dunmore, then governor of Virginia, to “take the Petitioners, And their settlements into the protection of your Lordships Government of Virginia, and extend to them the Laws and Jurisdiction of your Colony.” Signing for the committee and the company were David Franks, William Murray, and John Campbell. The lands in question were the two Illinois country tracts that Murray had acquired from the western tribes. The dispute over whether Pittsburgh and areas west were in Pennsylvania or Virginia had been contested without resolution, and the company was taking no chances, playing to both sides of the dispute. Dunmore sent the petition to Lord Dartmouth, along with his reasons for recommending acceptance.6 Dartmouth’s reply was nothing less than violent. He lectured Dunmore at length about the restrictions dictated by the king related to settlement in the Indian territories west of the established line. He passed on the king’s command to “signify to your Lordship, His Majesty’s just displeasure that such a Proceeding as that to which your Letter refers should receive any degree of Countenance or Encouragement from you.” In a particularly selfrighteous mood, he added, “I am sorry I am obliged to say so much on this subject, but my Duty to the King is above all other Considerations,” and “in the case of the purchase made by Mr. Murray and others, I have only to add, that it is The King’s Pleasure that you do, in the most public and...