Was John Test a Corrupt Sheriff?

Peter Thompson, in his book Rum Punch and Revolution: Taverngoing & Public Life in Eighteenth Century Philadelphia (Univ of Pennsylvania Press, 1998; p. 22), suggests that John Test, if not corrupt, had a conflict of interest. In his capacity as sheriff he was charged with enforcing the law and prosecuting the owners of unlicensed taverns. On the other hand, he was the owner of a legally licensed tavern. While he does not explicitly state the charge, the implication of corruption is clear. Thompson writes: There are...revealing testimonies to the first Philadelphians' willingness to put private profit before public morality by involving themselves in the liquor trade. Thomas Wynne, who as its speaker was the man charged with representing the Pennsylvania assembly in negotiations with Penn over a provincial charter, was presented by a grand jury soon after his arrival in the city for keeping a public house without a license. John Test, sheriff of Philadelphia County, and Thomas Hooton, chairman of the Philadelphia grand jury, men with responsibilities for prosecuting unlicensed houses, each built a tavern on their city lots. (pp. 22-23) This paragraph is not about public morality and the vice of consuming alcohol -- instead Thompson focuses on Hooton's and Test's conflict of interest. Conflict of interest may be merely a theoretical possibility or it might lead to real results, i.e., corruption. Thompson is suggesting that by owning taverns, Hooton and Test abused their positions of authority to enrich themselves.

It is an interesting thesis. If it were true it would give us a fascinating detail about the character of John Test beyond the mere fact that he owned a tavern thus contributing, according to Thompson, to public immorality. Is it true that John Test was a corrupt sheriff who abused his authority to further his own interests in selling ale, Madeira, and Jamaica rum? Unfortunately, Thompson's thesis itself has a serious and fatal flaw. John Test served a one-year term as sheriff of Philadelphia. His term expired 1683. In addition, there is no evidence that he owned a tavern until 1689--six years after retirement as the sheriff. It wasn't until 1692 that he purchased the lot at the corner of Walnut and Front Street which is the probable location of The Skales Tavern. So much for intrique involving our ancestor. Thompson is literally correct: John Test as sheriff had civic “responsibilities for prosecuting unlicensed houses” and he did build a tavern on his city lot. But he was not sheriff and did not have any authority to prosecute unlicensed tavern operators during the time that he owned The Skales Tavern. He had no conflict of interest based on ownership of a tavern so therefore he could not have been corrupted on the basis of such a conflict of interest. Clearly one may question the practice of a government authority or regulator governing himself. It almost inevitably leads to corruption. John Test was not regulating his own activities as a tavern owner. Twenty years later, in 1705, John Test was indicted by the Grand Jury of Chester County for selling liquors without a license. See the Index for the story.

Thank you to Igino Marini for his
IMFELLEnglishPRORegular font.

Reference: Peter Thompson, Rum Punch & Revolution: taverngoing & public life in eighteenth century (Univ of Pennsylvania Press, 1998).