Columbia-Philadelphia County PA Archives Biographies.....Fritz, Andrew Lucius unknown - living in 1899
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/pa/pafiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Joy Fisher sdgenweb@yahoo.com July 4, 2005, 8:10 pm

Author: Biographical Publishing Co.

HON. ANDREW LUCIUS FRITZ, of Bloomsburg, whose portrait is presented on the
opposite page, was born in Sugarloaf township, Columbia County, Pennsylvania.
His ancestors lived on Chestnut street, Philadelphia, during the Revolutionary
War. They took an active part in the scenes incident to that time. His
great-grandfather, Philip Fritz, moved with his son, our subject's grandfather,
to northern Columbia County, and purchased a large tract of land. Philip Fritz
was the first school teacher and justice of the peace of that part of the
county. According to history he was "a great scholar and a local public
character of more than ordinary influence."

  Our subject's father, Jesse Fritz, was a farmer and he purchased and lived
upon the "old homestead," where he was a justice of the peace for a number of
years. The subject of this sketch worked on the farm in the summer and went to
school in winter, for a number of years, and began teaching school at the age of
fifteen, following that profession for a period of six years. He went to several
institutions of learning and acquired a thorough academic education. He has
always been a laborious student. He studied law with ex-United States Senator C.
R. Buckalew, and has been in active practice at Bloomsburg since his admission
to the bar. He has a large practice in Columbia and adjoining counties, and has
been called to try cases before the Supreme and Superior Courts of his state.
When a student-at-law, he was appointed as deputy by three sheriffs in
succession, and had charge of the sheriff's office of Columbia County in the
absence of the sheriff until his practice compelled him to give up the position.
He has been receiver of taxes, town auditor, solicitor of the Bloomsburg Poor
District, and counsel for a number of municipalities, and he was secretary of
the town council for a number of years until he resigned. Through these
positions and by his kind and obliging disposition, he made many friends and
became well-acquainted with the people of his section of the state.

  In 1884, Mr. Fritz was elected to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives,
receiving the highest vote on the Democratic ticket. In 1886, he was renominated
without opposition and was elected, running ahead of his ticket at the general
election. In 1891, he was elected as a member to the proposed constitutional
convention from the senatorial district composed of the counties of Columbia,
Montour, Lycoming, and Sullivan. He was again elected a member of the House of
Representatives to the session of 1893, and was renominated without opposition
and re-elected in November, 1894, for a fourth term, which had never before been
given to a person in this section of the state. During his last term, he served
on the ways and means, appropriation, and judiciary general committees, an honor
given to no other member of that session, that of serving on the three most
important committees of the House. He was a member of the judiciary general
committee during his four terms of office. In the session of 1895 he was the
Democratic caucus nominee for speaker of the House. In 1896 and also in 1898, he
received the nomination for Congress from Columbia County; but at the
congressional conference, composed of four counties, he was defeated for the
district nomination on the claim that his county was not then entitled to the
nomination.

  Mr. Fritz is a good speaker and he carried into public life the same
indomitable will, and honesty and industry that has characterized him in private
life. As a member of the Pennsylvania Legislature, he has made a reputation that
few have equaled. During the session of 1887, on a bill to "equalize taxation,"
Mr. Fritz made a lengthy speech, from which we quote the following: "Mr.
Speaker, the equalization of taxation between all classes of persons and all
classes of property is a subject worthy of the consideration of this House.
Session after session of the Legislature, petitions and memorials have been
presented from all parts of the state, and perhaps more requests have been made
by the people of this Commonwealth for a change in our system of taxation than
for any other object. The farmers and real estate owners in my section of the
state are almost unanimously in favor of some measure that will more equally
divide the burdens of taxation. I therefore ask the indulgence of the House for
a few minutes on this question. While it will be admitted that it is impossible
to make an exact equalization of taxes upon persons and property, no one will
deny that there should be a more equal division than our present tax laws give us.

  "There is no subject before the Legislature that more directly and deeply
interests the people than taxation. It cannot be denied that great inequalities
exist. The burden of local taxation for county, school, poor and road purposes
falls almost entirely upon real estate. Unequal taxation and other
discriminations, have greatly depreciated the value of farm land and real estate
in general in this Commonwealth. I have heard it said that if we do not exempt
certain classes of personal property and certain industries from taxation that
they would be driven out of the state—I might say out of existence. But there is
another class of taxpayers that these burdens fall heavily upon—more heavily
than any other in the state, I mean the farmers and real estate owners.
According to the Constitution of the state "all taxes shall be uniform on the
same class of subjects." The burdens of taxation should be equalized on all
classes of persons and all classes of property. The high and low, the rich and
poor, should be taxed in proportion to the valuation of their property.
  "The capital of the farmer and real estate owner is taxed four or five times
as much as the capital of corporations. This is certainly an unwarrantable and
unjust discrimination, oppressive to real estate, and contrary to the spirit of
the Constitution and natural equity. It should seem, if any distinction were
made, it would be in favor of that form of capital that is most productive— in
favor of the hard working, laboring classes of this Commonwealth. But all that
we ask is that there should be an equalization, as near as may be, of the
burdens imposed on each form of property. The farm lands and real estate in
general are suffering to-day from the onerous burdens of taxation, and the cry
for its relief comes to us from a class in the community whose appeals should be
carefully considered—the owners of homes and the tillers of the soil. The
irregularity is too great against the majority of tax-payers of this
Commonwealth—the farmers and laborers— and a change must come sooner or later.

  "Those who have made the subject a study are almost unanimous in the opinion
that corporate and personal property has not and does not bear a fair share of
the burdens of taxation. It is therefore our duty as representatives of the
people of this great Commonwealth, to give heed to the demand made by the great
majority of citizens of this state —the largest class of property owners. They
have been knocking at the doors of this Legislature, with petitions and
memorials ever since the session opened, and they are still waiting to be heard
on this question—hoping and expecting that some relief, at least, will be given
them. Every unbiased student of our financial policy will admit that there is an
unfair division of our taxes at the present time. This inequality is apparent to
all. Now, sir, knowing these facts, is it not our duty as legislators to place
upon the statute books some law which will make a more equal division of these
burdens?

  "The farm and the workshops should bear their share of the public burden; so
should the corporations, the bonds, the stocks and other moneyed capital and
personal property of the state. The practical operation of our present law is
that the corporations and personal property pay but a small portion of our
taxes, which adds to the burdens on real estate, while the latter is taxed
without regard to the actual interest of the owner in it. This presents a proper
subject for action, and the suggestion that real and personal property should be
placed upon an equal footing, for all purposes of taxation, is worthy of most
serious consideration.

  "Why, sir, Mr. Speaker, the farmers, the mechanics, the laborers, who own
small homes, and all other classes who have the bulk of their money invested in
real estate and who constitute more than four-fifths of the citizens of this
Commonwealth, are asking us to pass some law in reference to making a more equal
division of these burdens. It cannot be denied that money owners do not pay
one-fourth as much in proportion to the amount of property or income as the
owners of real estate, which, in the present as in the past, bears the heavy
burdens of municipal taxation. The property of a corporation is no more sacred
than a farm or the small home of a laborer. Both are property and are protected
by the laws which surround them. Should not each bear its share of the burdens
of the state and local taxation in proportion to their value and income? Shall
we throw aside and refuse to listen to the requests of three-fourths of the
tax-payers of this state? It is our duty as representatives of the people, in
passing laws, to treat all classes alike. The corporations, the farmer, the
mechanic, the laborer, and all other classes of citizens should be put on an
equal footing. Shall we throw the arms of protection around the corporations and
the wealthy moneyed men, who constitute only a small portion of the citizens,
and not heed to the wishes of all other classes? It is our duty to pass laws,
not for one particular class of men, but in the interests of the whole people.
Generally the corporations and other personal property make an annual net return
of from five to twenty per cent. The farm and other real estate in Pennsylvania,
after deducting insurance, taxes, improvements, repairs and hired labor incident
to managing the same, does not yield a net return of more than two and one-half
per cent, upon the amount invested.

  "Now, Mr. Speaker, no one will deny that great inequalities exist and that
some change should be made in our system of taxation, so that the burdens upon
real estate will be somewhat removed. If the corporations and other personal
property are paying at the present time one-fourth or one-fifth as much tax as
the real estate, according to the valuation of each class of property, there
should be no objections to the passage of a law that will make a more equal
division. If the real estate is paying four or five dollars tax to every dollar
paid by corporations and other personal property, and the valuation of the one
class is about equal to the other, is it reasonable to object to a change in the
system of taxation? Why, sir, some of our corporations are almost entirely free
from taxation, while their net income is from two to ten times as great as the
income derived from real estate. Is it any wonder that real estate has been
depreciating in value, and that the owners thereof are pressed down with the
burdens of overtaxation and other discriminations? Where one class of property
is compelled to not only bear its own burdens, but the burdens of all other
classes, is it any wonder that there is a great depreciation in value?

  "All classes of property should pay, as near as may be, its share of the taxes
for all purposes of this Commonwealth; or, at least, our present system of
taxation should be changed so that there will be, as near as possible, an equal
division according to the income or value of the respective properties.
  "I am not here to defend any particular class of property or persons, but I
wish to treat all alike. When I see and know that there are unreasonable
discriminations against certain classes, I feel it my duty to advocate some
measure that will have a tendency toward removing the objectionable features
from our present tax laws."

  The following is an extract of a speech delivered by Mr. Fritz in the House of
Representatives in 1895, on the "Superior Court" Bill:

  "Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most important bills which has been before
the Legislature for consideration during this session. Great changes are
proposed in the judicial system of this state, which should be carefully
considered by every member of this House before the final vote is taken. The
future rights of this great Commonwealth are at stake. The rights of property
are involved. In taking this matter into consideration various questions arise.
Will this change be for the best interests of the people of this state? Has the
Supreme Court become so overburdened with work that it demands relief from the
present Legislature? If relief is necessary, is this the best method to obtain
it? Will the proposed court meet the requirements of the suitors for which it is
intended? Will it not be cumbersome, dilatory, expensive and not satisfactory?

  "This bill provides that a court of intermediate appeals shall be established,
to be called the Superior Court, to be composed of judges learned in the law,
whose terms of office shall be ten years. This court of appeals shall be a new
Supreme Court. A Supreme Court for certain cases where the value of the real or
personal property, or the amount of money in controversy, in any single action
or claim is not greater than one-thousand dollars. If this bill should pass we
would then have two Supreme Courts. Two courts whose decisions are intended to
be final. The one for the poor suitors of this Commonwealth, which will be much
less perfect and inferior to our present Supreme Court. Mr. Woodward, a judge of
the Supreme Court of this state, in referring to this question said: T do not
want to say to the poor man who has a five-hundred dollar law suit that he is
not to have just as good a chance of litigation as the rich corporation and the
rich millionaires among us. I do not want to include that in the law. It is
ungracious. There is nothing in me that does not instinctively rebel against
such suggestion.' The first question which we should ask ourselves is, are the
people demanding a new court? Do they want it? Is it necessary that they should
have it? Since this bill has been on the calendar I have been inquiring as to
whether or not it is necessary, and whether it is the proper measure to relieve
the Supreme Court, and I have found very few, not even among the judges
themselves, who think it is necessary and who favor its passage. It would be
expensive and would not give the relief for which it was intended. It is a bill,
which if it becomes a law will give a few men of this Commonwealth fat
positions, which with the expenses of putting in operation the new court will
take annually from the pockets of the people about one hundred thousand dollars.
I have been informed that the present judges of the Supreme Court are not in
favor of a law of this kind. Some of the greatest legal minds which this state
has produced have been opposed to an intermediate court. They believed and
advocated the principles of our present system, one of original jurisdiction,
such as we have in every county in the state at the present time, and one of
last resort whose decisions are final—known as the Supreme Court. Chief Justice
Gibson, than whom there has been none more distinguished, declared that our
system of courts in Pennsylvania are the best in the world, and that the
principles which it contains can be used and carried forward for centuries as
the most simple and easy method of establishing justice and protecting the
rights of the people. Some of the greatest and best legal lights of the state
are opposed to the provisions of this bill. A large number of able lawyers 'of
this state are now candidates for a seat upon the bench of this superior court.
They with their friends have created a strong sentiment among the legislators in
favor of this bill. But the people of this state are not asking for it, and they
are, as far as can be learned, very much opposed to it. This court would be
expensive and useless and would not relieve the Supreme Court, for which it is
intended. It would be injurious to the best interests of the people of this
Commonwealth, and, as a distinguished jurist once said, would be a 'court of
delay.' It would, be against a prompt administration of justice. It has been
said that this intermediate court is necessary for the relief of the judges of
the Supreme Court. This was the talk twenty years ago when the Constitution of
this state was adopted,—when the able men of that convention decided against an
intermediate court. It was spoken of fifty, seventy and one hundred years ago.
It was tried under the name of a circuit court and failed. It was established in
the early history of this state and abolished, and again was re-established and
abolished. Other states look upon Pennsylvania as having a good judicial system.
A system which stands entrenched in the public confidence. It has been handed
down to us by our forefathers, as the best judicial system which has yet been
devised by man. It has stood the test of a century. Shall we now begin to tear
it to pieces and try some new method which will be unpopular with the people,
dilatory, and very expensive? It has been the experience where systems similar
to the one proposed by this bill prevails, that after the cases have been tried
by a court of original jurisdiction and have gone to an intermediate court, that
very few cases stop there. The parties interested are not satisfied until the
court of last resort, or the Supreme Court, has pronounced the final decree.
This new court is intended to be final for all cases of less value than
one-thousand dollars, yet under its provisions any good lawyer could carry any
case to the Supreme Court, no difference what the sum may be which is involved.
Thus you will see that it is a bad law for the poor man who is determined that
the Supreme Court should decide his case. He must first have the case decided by
the intermediate court and after the long delay and expense he is compelled to
carry it up to the Supreme Court. Is it right that we should pass a law which
will discriminate against the interests of the poor classes of people of this
Commonwealth? All the classes should be on an equal footing. The small case
should be properly decided and carefully considered as well as the large. The
five hundred dollar case of the poor man may involve principles which if
properly decided will do more good than the five thousand dollar case of the
millionaire. It is not just and right that we should limit the cases by a money
standard. The most important principles may be involved in the case in which the
money value is small. Any amount the Legislature may fix in the bill is bad.

  "Poverty has disadvantages enough without marking it in the laws of the state.
Under the provisions of this bill a poor man with a small case would be unworthy
to go to the Supreme Court. No difference how important the principles to be
decided, the court of final resort is prevented from giving its opinion, because
the money standard, as provided in this bill, declares it to be beneath its
dignity and not worthy of a hearing. I believe, sir, that some small cases have
as good right to go to the Supreme Court as a case involving fifty thousand or
more. I do not believe it is just or right for the Legislature to pass a law
which will discriminate between the rich and poor. The poor man's case may be
more precious and valuable to him than the five million dollar case may be to
the millionaire.

  "Every man who wants to take a case from the court of original jurisdiction to
the highest judicial tribunal of the state should have the right, and if we pass
a law to deprive him of this right we are taking away from him that personal
privilege which the founders of this great government intended that all should
enjoy. The high and low, the rich and poor, should all be treated alike.

  "Although it is intended by the projectors of this new court that it shall be
final, yet every case which may be taken from the lower courts to the
intermediate court can be carried from the intermediate court to the Supreme
Court, no difference how small the case or what amount may be involved. This can
be brought around if so desired by the parties, by any lawyer who handles his
case carefully. I am well satisfied that the people of this great Commonwealth
do not want this new court. They are opposed to it. I believe that if a vote was
taken to-day upon this question by the people of this state that nine-tenths
would be found to be against it. One of the great objections to this law will be
the delay which it will cause to suitors. A poor man may have everything- he
owns involved in a law suit. The case is tried in the common pleas and one of
the parties is not satisfied with the decision and an appeal is taken to the
intermediate court and it is there delayed a year, or perhaps two, and the case
is decided, but the party who loses is determined to have his case tried by the
highest judicial tribunal and it is carried up, and after the delay of a year or
more a final opinion is given and the poor suitor, whether he gains or loses,
has paid out by way of lawyer fees and expenses as much or more than is involved
in the case. This bill also provides that when an appeal is taken to an
intermediate court a bond must be given, conditioned to pay the costs of the
appeal, not only to the intermediate court but to the Supreme Court. The suitor
must prepare himself at once to go through two courts, above the court of
original jurisdiction, doubling the expense and doubling the delay. This great
expense and delay will generally have to be borne by a class of citizens of this
Commonwealth who are the least able to bear the burden. It will be a
discrimination against the humble, law-abiding citizen, the laborer, the farmer,
the mechanic and others who have small incomes and limited means, and who have
been forced into court in order to secure certain rights to which they believe
they are justly entitled.

  "Under our present system any lawyer can draw up his precipe for a writ of
error in the Supreme Court, and there is not much delay, unless one of the
parties has taken and allowed the case to go into court for the purpose of
delay. The only reason which has been given or which can be given in favor of
this bill is that the Supreme Court is behind, and that it has a vast amount of
work on hand. This has always been the case and always will be so long as cases
are taken and held in court for the purpose of delay. Every lawyer of this House
knows that a list of cases that is behind, whether in the Supreme Court or in
the lower courts, has a tendency to increase its length. It is said that our
judges of the courts of common pleas, as well as the judges of the Supreme
Court, are overworked, but there is no evidence of this except that there is a
long list of untried cases. What is the present cause of this long list and of
this delay? Why, sir, I know it to be a fact that to-day there are thousands of
cases in the lower courts in this state which are intentionally delayed by the
parties. It is the same in the Supreme Court. Cases are taken into all courts
for the purpose of delay. Either one party or the other has some excuse which,
under the present rules of the court, entitle them to a continuance, and in this
manner the cases are sometimes delayed for years. It is the fault of the parties
and the attorneys which cause this great delay and long list of cases now before
the Supreme Court, as well as the common pleas, and then we hear the cry of
'overburdened courts' and 'worn-out judges.' Let all of our courts adopt more
strict rules, which will stop the intentional delay, and the lists will become
small. The courts will then not be overburdened with business, because a large
number of cases which now are taken into court for delay would be settled by the
parties. Our courts would then not be overburdened and no one would think of
establishing a new court."


Additional Comments:
Extracted from:

Book of Biographies of the Seventeenth Congressional District
Published by 
Biographical Publishing Company of Chicago, Ill. and Buffalo, NY (1899)


This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/pafiles/

File size: 24.7 Kb