XII Philadelphia — 1793
The prospects of Philadelphia were brightening up under the influence enterprising men exercised over its commercial interest; and up to 1794 the manufactures, trade, and general business were rapidly extending and improving. Mathew Carey, speaking of our city and prospects, in a pamphlet published in 1793, says,—
“From the period of the adoption of the Federal Government, at which time America was at the lowest ebb of distress, her situation had progressively become more and more prosperous. Confidence, formerly banished, was universally restored. Property of every kind rose to, and in many instances beyond, its real value; and a few revolving years exhibited the interesting spectacle of a young country with a new form of government emerging from a state which had approached very near to anarchy, and acquiring all the stability and nerve of the best-toned and oldest nations.” In this prosperity, which revived the almost extinguished hopes of four millions of people, Philadelphia participated in an eminent degree. Numbers of new houses in almost every street, built in a neat, elegant style, adorned, at the same time that they greatly enlarged, the city. Its population was extending fast: even at that period the number of vessels that entered the port was 1050. Philadelphia still retained its predilection for old sites and associations; for up to this period, and even long afterwards, the main place of business was Front and Water Streets, extending along those streets from Race down to Almond. Front Street below Market, extending down to Walnut, was the great commercial centre of trade. It was here Thomas Bradford, the root of the present generation of that name, was prominent as an editor of the newspaper called “The True American:” his office was on the west side of Front Street, below Market, No. 8. This property was subsequently sold to John Moss, Esq., upon the site of which he built a store especially for his business. Bradford sold out “The True American” to Thomas T. Stiles.
In 1791 the post-office was at No. 7 South Front Street, on the east side. Robert Patton was postmaster: he was appointed to that position August 25, 1791. In 1793 it was removed to No. 36, in the very centre of the trade and commerce of the city.
The building of the “Insurance Company of North America” stood at the southeast corner of Front and Walnut Streets. Ebenezer Hazard, formerly postmaster-general, was the Secretary. The custom-house was also on Front Street near Walnut Street: it occupied seventy-six feet front, and ran through to Water Street.
Much of the early prosperity of this city was due to Benjamin Franklin, who early in life made it his dwelling-place. His business motto was PROGRESS.
The fever of 1793, the most malignant scourge our city ever witnessed, not excepting the cholera of 1832, threw a saddening gloom over all things, paralyzing the energies of men and carrying terror among the women and children. A writer of the time, speaking of it, says, “The consternation of the people of Philadelphia at this period was carried beyond all bounds. Dismay and affright were visible in almost every person’s countenance. Most of those who could by any means make it convenient fled from the city. Of those who remained, many shut themselves up in their houses, being afraid to walk the streets.”
Business was at a stand, if not entirely suspended. That of the post-office went on as usual. In September, however, the postmaster informed the public that, in consequence of the indisposition of two of the letter-carriers he deemed it necessary to request all those who dwelt south of and in Chestnut Street, and in Front and Water Streets and north of Market Street, to call or send for their letters for a few days. Some of the postmasters in the different States used the precaution to dip Philadelphia letters into vinegar with a pair of tongs before they handled them! Several of the subscribers to Philadelphia papers made their servants sprinkle them with vinegar and dry them at the fire before they would venture to touch them.
One hundred years ago, Benjamin Franklin, seeing that Philadelphia was gradually declining in the scale of progress, awoke the Rip Van Winkles of Quakerdom by imparting to them new ideas, furnishing to their mental view more enlarged notions of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and inaugurating a system of education and philosophy which has made his name famous in the world’s history.
His connection with the postal department placed it before the people in a new and improved light, extending trade and commerce by its means to such an extent that in the year 1810 Philadelphia was the leading commercial city in the Union.
Philadelphia, however, lost sight of one important fact in connection with her commercial interest, and that was (to use a speculating phrase) “never to lose a trick” in the game of opposition with others. Thus, while New York was studying the taste of the town in regard to fashions of dress and works of art, for which European nations were then celebrated, Philadelphia was engaged in looking after her manufacturing interests. The consequence was that in the year 1811 New York, taking advantage of her seaboard situation, took the lead in importations, and her market became celebrated for its rich style of dress-goods, and her stores equally so for their gorgeous display of Parisian finery. Instantly that current of trade which had set in so favorably for Philadelphia changed its course to her rival city, and merchants from the South and West flocked there for what, we regret to say, our city was unable to furnish to the extent its facilities afforded.
It seems as if Philadelphia succumbed at once to New York, and permitted the Western and Southern trade to pass away from her without a struggle. For years the commerce of Philadelphia had kept pace with the general progress of the country, but in a moment of weakness, or from some local or political cause, her merchants, whose industry and enterprise had been proverbial in all countries, gave up their shipping interest to a rival city, which the latter has successfully maintained ever since. By this act Philadelphia became an inland city.
If we neglected our shipping, it cannot be said we neglected our manufacturers. They have had ample reason to be grateful for such encouragement, as the city has the honor of being considered second to none in the country,—at least in this department. We have surpassed New York in many important branches of mechanics, and excelled every other city in the Union, perhaps in the world, in manufacturing locomotives and other essential auxiliaries to steamboats, railroads, &c.
Post-Office
As trade and commerce progressed, the postal department extended its operations, and the Philadelphia post-office was not behind those of other cities in furthering the cause of the great postal institution of the country.
The postal boundaries of our country extend over an area ten times greater than those of England and France combined; three times as large as the whole of France, Britain, Austria, Prussia, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Holland, and Denmark together; one and a half times larger than the Russian Empire, and only one-sixth less than the area covered by sixty states and empires of Europe. The entire area in 1853 was 2,983,153 square miles.
Claiming for Philadelphia, and justly, too, credit for its postal as well as its commercial reputation, we will pass over some years and bring our readers down to a later date. First, however, we annex a list of postmasters of Philadelphia from 1791.
Perhaps no other city in the Union can boast of a list of names in their postal department of men, both as regards character and business qualifications, equal to those we furnish here, and who filled the office with so much honor and credit. We are not, however, so clannish in our notions of locality as to include all the names mentioned here as being entitled to such credit: we make a few exceptions: those exceptions and the reasons are a part of the secret history of post-offices. Several of them have gone to that “bourn from whence no traveller returns,” and those that still live live honored and respected.
List of Philadelphia Postmasters
Robert Patton, appointed August 25, 1791.
Michael Leib, appointed February 14, 1814.
Richard Bache, appointed Feb. 26, 1819.
Thomas Sargeant, appointed April 16, 1828.
James Page, appointed April 11, 1833.
OFFICE BECAME PRESIDENTIAL, JULY 9, 1836.
James Page, reappointed July 9, 1836.
John C. Montgomery, appointed March 23, 1841.
James Hoy, Jr., appointed June 26, 1844.
George F. Lehman, appointed May 5, 1845.
William J. P. White, appointed May 9, 1849.
John Miller, appointed April 1, 1853.
Gideon F. Westcott, appointed March 19, 1857.
Nathaniel B. Browne, appointed May 30, 1859.
Cornelius A. Walborn, appointed April 20, 1861.
The past history of our city shows that the post-office was but a minor consideration on the part of the historian who attempted to speak of its institutions. Even those whose business it was to furnish statistics and local facts invariably overlooked the post-office. A glance back through the vista of time presents to the eye a panoramic view of the buildings which were used for postal purposes; and a more motley architectural picture scarcely ever presented itself to sight. From the time Benjamin Franklin had his office in a portion of his printing-shop to the present, we cannot find the department ever blessed with even a decent building for postal purposes until the one now occupied for that special service was erected.
True, the Old Coffee-House on Second Street was the centre of trade, and merchants often met there to discuss commercial matters and secure their foreign papers and letters: still, it was not calculated for the general business of the postal service. From 1793, passing along from street to street, we at last come to Dr. Jayne’s gloomy building, where, amid the sound of steam-engines, the fumes from eating-houses, and the dead-rat smell from lager-beer saloons, we find the operations of the great postal business of the city moving on. The very atmosphere was as injurious to the health of the employees as its dark and dingy appearance was painful to those who visited it.
Emerging from this, we come into a new and beautiful building, erected on Chestnut Street below Fifth. For this edifice, so conveniently situated, so light and airy, so admirably adapted to postal business, the community is solely indebted to Postmaster Cornelius A. Walborn, Esq.
A Glance at the Philadelphia Post-Office From an Architectural Point of View
The Philadelphia post-office was completed and ready for the transaction of business on the 23d of March, 1863. It is situated on Chestnut Street, between Fourth and Fifth Streets, adjoining the custom-house. The contrast between these two buildings is most remarkable: one presents the view we have in classic illustrations of the Parthenon of Athens; the other, disdaining all the associations which the history of Greece and Rome throws around our ideas of classic architectural beauty, looms up before us, blending the style of the rural districts of France (Alaon) with that of the city of Paris in the seventeenth century.
The Exchange of Paris (La Bourse), in the Rue Vivienne, seems, at least in part, to have furnished for our post-office the idea for its architectural construction. This is more observable in its Attic design, known in the modern French school as the “masked Attic.” The front of the Philadelphia post-office is cased or veneered with white marble, and, in connection with the peculiar Attic style, presents an appearance by no means flattering to the architect who designed it.
Modern architects consult variety rather than harmony in drawing their plans. Thus, foreign ornaments of a more classic form are occasionally mingled with them: hence we have presented to us an incongruous style, offensive alike to good taste and judgment.
The Philadelphia post-office reminds us very much of the Paris post-office (Hotel des Postes), which is situated east of the Palais Royal: it has a handsome front, but in its tout ensemble does not present to view much architectural beauty either in style or design. France, like England, never considered the architecture of a country as being inseparable from its history: hence her public buildings present to view the combined peculiarities of the styles and eras of the sixteen different orders which have marked the progress of architecture since the building of the great temple of Samos.
In this country, with few exceptions, we have not studied architecture with an eye to a national feature: on the contrary, our artists have copied the styles of all nations, from which designs are made to please the eye only, without regard to originality or the age in which we live. This cannot be called an architectural construction, but rather an adaptation of Grecian models to the buildings of our own time. There is no originality here.
A building may be well arranged for all purposes of mere convenience, but in reality, if destitute of harmony in its outward appearance, it cannot be called an architectural construction. This remark will apply to the buildings in our country generally, and equally, as stated, to those of England and France.
If the Philadelphia post-office is devoid of these requisites as regards its exterior, its interior makes full amends.
Every department is so constructed and arranged that there is no clashing or cause of impediment in the general routine of its business. Each man has his position, each bureau its place, and over all the chief clerk, from an elevated position, has an eye to every action and movement of the employees. To Cornelius A. Walborn, Esq., the present efficient postmaster [1866], is the department indebted for the admirable arrangements of the Philadelphia post-office.
In speaking of the outward appearance of “our post-office,” we may be singular in our ideas of what constitutes architectural beauty, and others may appreciate what we censure. It is not, however, altogether a matter of taste with us, but a sense of what constitutes harmony. In every thing that owes its existence to nature alone, there is harmony. It is, in fact, the music of the spheres joining chorus with the growth of plants and flowers, which the ancients believed came blooming into life with music; or, as the poet says, it may be “the language of some other state, born of its memory.” Thus, in all things imitative of nature there should be harmony. Why not in art?
Perhaps there is no other block of buildings in this city that presents a greater variety of architectural incongruities than does that wherein stands the Philadelphia post-office. It may be called a picturesque view of brick, marble, and mortar thrown together without regard to order, style, or harmony.
Let the classic reader cast his eyes over the topographical view of Olympia as seen from the walls of Altis, glancing down through the “Sacred Grove” and along the Alpheus River: you will see even at that period, 440 B.C., how strictly the ancients adhered to harmony. The Temple of Jupiter and the Prytaneum or Senate-house, although widely different in their architectural designing, bore nevertheless a remarkable similarity in style, so as to preserve what might be termed classic harmony. Near to the Mount of Saturn stood the Temple of Juno. In the Temple of Vesta, the Theatre, the Hypodrammon, even to the Stables of Œnomaus and the Workshop of Phidias, the same harmonic traits in style and design were observable. Every thing was classic, every thing artistic.
How is this feature observed with us? Speaking of the block alluded to above, embracing the custom-house, the post-office, the Philadelphia Bank, the Farmers’ and Mechanics’ Bank, &c., perhaps the following scene from R. B. Sheridan’s “School for Scandal” will give a better description of the style of architecture characterizing each than any thing we could furnish.
The several characters are describing the personal appearance of a lady:—
“Crabtree.—She has the oddest countenance, a collection of features from all corners of the globe.
“Sir Benjamin.—She has, indeed, an Irish front.
“Crabtree.—Caledonian locks.
“Sir Benjamin.—Dutch nose.
“Crabtree.—Austrian lips.
“Sir Benjamin.—The complexion of a Spaniard.
“Crabtree.—And teeth à la Chinoise.
“Sir Benjamin.—In short, her face resembles a table d’hôte at Spa, where no two guests are of a nation.”