Pennsylvania therefore the robber and the thief, whether man or woman, after receiving at the whipping-post thirty-one lashes well laid on, was condemned to wear in plain view on the left sleeve of the outer garment, between the shoulder and the elbow, a Roman T; the letter must be four inches each way and one inch wide, must be of red, blue or yellow cloth, as the magistrate pleased, must be worn from sunrise to sunset and for a period of six months. If found without the letter the penalty for the first offense was twentyone lashes, and for the second, thirty-nine lashes and a T branded on the forehead.

Every pauper who received any aid from any county, city or place, as also his wife and children, must wear on the sleeve of the outer garment in plain view a large P of red or blue cloth, and the first letter of the place to which he belonged.

In

The whipping-post and the stocks were conspicuous in every city and large town, and the ducking stool was still occasionally used. Pennsylvania counterfeiters of the colonial money were to be flogged thirty-one lashes, stood in the pillory, and have their ears cut off. Counterfeiters of the province brands were to be stood for two hours in the pillory on a market day. Any one who raised the denomination of a bill of credit was to have thirty-one lashes, was to be put in the pillory, and have his ears cut off and nailed to the post.

That punishments of these sorts were enforced down to and well into the nineteenth century there is abundant evidence. In the Essex Gazette of Rhode Island in 1771, William Carlisle was convicted of passing counterfeit dollars and sentenced to stand one hour in the pillory on Little Rest Hill, and next Friday to have both ears cropped, to be branded on both cheeks with the letter R, to pay a fine of one hundred dollars and stand convicted until sentence performed. In the Boston Post Boy of February 1763, it is recorded that at the Superior Court held at Charlestown last week, Samuel Bacon of Bedford and Merriam Fitch, wife of Benjamin Fitch of said Bedford, were convicted of being notorious cheats and of having by fraud, craft and deceit possessed themselves of fifteen hundred Johannes, the property of a third person, were sentenced to be each of them "set in the pillory one hour with a paper on their breasts and the words "A Cheat written in capitals thereon, to suffer three months imprisonment, and to be bound to their good behavior."

The Boston Chronicle of November 20, 1769, says: "We learn from Worcester that on the 8th instant one Lindsay stood in the pillory there one hour, after which he received thirty stripes at the public whipping-post and was then branded in the hand. His crime was forgery." At Salem, in 1801, one Hawkins stood on the pillory for an hour for the crime of forgery, and had his ears

cropped. In 1803, at Boston, two criminals were sentenced to stand one hour in the pillory for two days, and to be imprisoned two years.

In September 1787, the Boston court sentenced five thieves to be whipped, two set on the gallows, and a counterfeiter on the pillory. In 1789, eleven were sentenced in one day to be flogged in front of the State House. So late as 1817, in Philadelphia, a sailor was bound to the iron rings outside the wall of the Walnut Street Prison and flogged. In 1822, a felon was flogged on the campus of Yale College in the presence of the students. In 1824, a common scold was sentenced by a Philadelphia court of sessions to be ducked, but the sentence was not carried out because believed to be obsolete. In 1811, the Superior Court of Georgia, at Milledgeville, sentenced one Miss Palmer to be ducked in the Oconee, and in 1817, in the same state sentenced another. Later still Judge Cranch sentenced Mrs. Anne Royal of Washington, D. C., to be ducked in the Potomac. She was fined instead.

As we look back on these times and behold our country as it was when Washington took the oath of office for the first time, we see that very scanty recognition seems to have been given to the equality of men, or to their inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yet it would be the height of injustice to accuse the fathers of inconsistency. To have suddenly produced such a social condition as they had in mind,

to have recklessly removed from the statute books every law, to have ruthlessly broken down every custom or usage at variance with the new principles they had announced, would have been acts of disorganization of the worst kind. But they were in no sense disorganizers or anarchists. With a steadfast belief in the truth of their principles, they waited but for a chance to apply them decently and in order, and when that chance came they were applied, and the rights of man were steadily extended.