CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY GIFT OF Anonymous Cornell University Library BX5960 .H31 Report of Harrison et al. vs. St. Mark's olln 3 1924 031 028 438 %? 53&0 Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/cletails/cu31924031028438 REPORT IJARRISON etal. vs. St. MARK'S Church, PHILADELPHIA. A BILL TO RESTRAIN THE RINGING OF BELLS SO AS TO CAUSE A NUISANCE TO THE OCCUPANTS OF THE DWELLINGS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE CHURCH. In the Court of Common Pleas, No. 2. (In Equity.\| BEFORE Hare, P. J., and Mitchell, Associate J. Philadelphia, February, 18'j'j. PRINTED BY ALLEN, LANE & SCOTT, No. 233 South Fifth Street. \- ■^a H3I Note. — 7%2> /5c>(?,^ contains all the pleadings and depositions used in the cause, also all documents submitted to the Court for their decision, together with reports of the arguments of Counsel and the opinion and decree of the Court — with the exception of summaries of the plaintiffs' affidavits prepared by both sides. G. L. H. ,1 I ■•iMiin D Y'l, ^ !_ CONTENTS. Pa^e Complainants' Bill, i-8 Defendants' Answer, 9-44 Petition of Stephen A. Caldwell ei al., 45, 46 Complainants' Affidavits, 47-153 Defendants' Affidavits, 155—240 Complainants' Rebutting and Supplemental Affidavits, 241-289 Affidavit of Dr. Howe, 291-303 Defendants' Supplemental Affidavits, 305-324 Complainants' Memorandum of Authorities, 327-342 Defendants' Memorandum of Authorities, 343-35^ Argument for Complainants, by William Henry Rawle, Esq., .... 355-414 Argument for Defendants, by P. Pemberton Morris, Esq., 415-440 Argument for Defendants, by George W. Biddle, Esq., 441-465 Argument for Complainants, by R. C. McMurtrie, Esq 467-484 Opinion of the Court, 485-491 INDEX. I.— COMPLAINANTS' AFFIDAVITS. I. Residents near Church. Page Andradi, Leontine, 74 Bass, John L., 262 Bayard, Mary, 248 Beecher, Dr. Abraham C. W., . 257 Bell, J. Lowrie, 257 Bell, Samuel, 264 Biddle; Mary D., 252 Biles, J. T 262 Bond, James, 271 Brice, P. H., 255 Brown, William, 287 Cadwalader, Richard M., ... 60 Cahoone, William J., 256 Carson, George C, ...... 265 Carver, Jacob, 249, 287 Catherwood, H. Wilson, .... 93 Clay, Richard E., • 263 Clinton, Bridget, 276 Clinton, James, 276 Coffin, Lemuel, 65 Colwell, Charles R., 66 Coxe, Brinton, 89 Davis, Sussex D., 266 Dentry, Amanda F., 94 Dentry, Caroline G., 95 Dentry, Mary R., 94 Dentry, Thomas G., 93 Dick, F. A., 87 Donaldson, Maggie, 275 Dulles, J. Heatly, 77 Dulles, Margaret W., 79 Dulles, Mary C 77 Dulles, Sophia H., 78 Dulles, William, 256 Page Edwards, Dr. Joseph F., . . . . 256 Eisenbrey, W. Harrison, .... 289 Executors of Joseph Harrison, Jr., 247 Fassitt, Annie, 85 Fassitt, Horace, 253 Fell, Albert D., . 258 Fisher, Coleman P 83 Fisher, Mary Read, 84 Fisher, Sarah W., 83 Fisher, William Read, 82 Franklin, Charles, 266 Franssen, E., 251 Free, Edward, 95 Free, George, 96 Gibson, Henry C, 92 Hansen, Mrs. R. W., 254 Harris, George W., 250 Harrison, Alfred C, 80 Harrison, Charles C, 81 Harrison, George L., . . . . 47, 277 Harrison, George L., Jr., .... 246 Harrison, John, 67 Harrison, Joseph, Jr., Executors of, 247 Harrison, Thomas S., 76 Hart, Byerly, 90. Hart, Mary H., 91 Hays, Henrietta M., 69 Hays, Dr. Isaac, 68 Hays, Dr. I. Minis, 119 Howe, Dr. Herbert M., .... 117 Hutchinson, Charles H., .... 253 Jackson, William H., 260 Kane, Mary, 277 Keating, Dr. John M., 288 (V) VI Page Keating, Dr. William V., .... 259 KingsleyJ. E 288 Lea, Frances, 251 Lea, George H., 245 Lea, Henry C 244 Lewis, John A., 253 MacKenzie, R. Shelton, LL.D., . 258 McCall, George, 79 McCauley, F. C, 254 McClellan, T., 262 McFarlane, Mary 275 Meigs, S. Emlen, 90 Mitcheson, MacGregor J., . . 56, 279 Newbold, John S., 64 Norris, Mary P., 71 Norris, Septimus E., 250 Norris, Dr. William F., . . . . 70 Parke, James 286 Parsons, James, 70 Page Parsons, Mary F., 72 Penrose, Walter E 249 Portuondo, Julius C, 261 Portuondo, J. F., 261 Powers, Thomas H., 252 Ridgway, John J., Jr., 86 Rogers, M. Edward, 87 Shober, Samuel L., 75 Smith, H. P., 265 Stevens, Right Rev. William Bacon, D. D., LL.D., .... 263 Stevenson, Cornelius, 267 Thomas, Dr. A. R., 114 Thomas, Dr. Charles M. 114 Tobias, Jo.seph F., 85 Trotter, Joseph H., 259 Wetherill, Christopher, .... 288 White, William 75 Wyeth, John, 255 2. Medical and Scientific. Page Agnew, Dr. D. Hayes, .... no Da Costa, Dr. J. M., 102 Gross, Dr. Samuel D., 113 Hartshorne, Dr. Edward, .... no Hays, Dr. L Minis, 268 Hodge, Dr. H. Lenox, .... in Howe, Dr. Herbert M., . . 269, 291 Hutchinson, Dr. James H., . . . 108 Le Conte, Dr. John L., . . . . 115 Mitchell, Dr. S. Weir, .... 97, 278 Morton, Dr. Thomas G., . . . . 115 Packard, Dr. John H., in Page Rackemann, F. W., 125 Shedaker, D. Hudson, 130 Smith, Dr. Albert H., 116 Snelling, Dr. Frederick G., . . . 122 Spayd, William H 134 Stills, Dr. Alfred, 112 Thomas, Dr. A. R 114 Thomas, Dr. Charles M., .... 114 Thomson, Dr. William, .... 105 Widdows, Prof. Frederick, ... 127 Wilson, Dr. EUwood, 109 3. Real Estate. Carver, A. B., . , . Cochran, Thomas, . , Etting, Horatio, . . , Fox, Daniel M., . . , Freeman, James A., . . Friedman, Leopold, . . Griffin, John A Guramey, Charles F., . Keenan, James M., . , Lespinasse, George L., Lewis, Lawrence, . . , 151 138 141 148 HS 283 149 142 137 284 13s Page McCay, S. Kingston, 143 Morgan, Homer, 283 Muirheid, Charles H., 144 Read, George R., . 284 Redner, Lewis H., 149 Rhoads, Joseph R., ...'.. . 146 Ritter, Abraham, 150 Stevenson, V. K., Jr., 283 Thomas, Joseph T 138 Wiegand, Adam E., 152 vn 4. Ringing at Calvary Church. Page I Page Smyth, Samuel K., 285 | Smyth, John 286 5. Architects. Page Dobbins, Richard J., 281 Hutton, Addison, 282 Page Sloan, Samuel, 280 6. Theological Professors. Page ] Page Goodwin, Daniel R.,D.D.,LL.D., 241 | Butler, Clement M., D. D., . . . 243 7. As to Explanatory Affidavits of Defendants' Witnesses. Page I Page Bell, Samuel, 264 I Shober, Samuel L., 75 Clay, Richard E., 263 j Smith, H. P. 265 Davis, Sussex D., '. 266 ' Stevens, Rt. Rev. Wm. Bacon, . 263 Franklin, Charles, 266 i Stevenson, Cornelius 267 8. As to recent Modification of Use of Bells. Page Page Bond, James, 271 Cadwalader, R. M., 272 Gibson, H. C, 274 Harrison, A. C, 274 Hartshorne, Dr. E., 273 Hays, I. Minis, ........ 268 Howe, H. M., 269 9. Plan. Page Howe, H. M., 291 II.— DEFENDANTS' AFFIDAVITS. I. Original Design and Construction of Church and Condition of surrounding Property. Page Reed, Elizabeth White, .... 156 Moss, Lucy B., 157 Page Armstrong, William 159 Bickley, Henry, i5o Diemer, George C, 159 Hunter, George W., 157 Webster, Edmund, 158 Wilmer, John R 155 2. Rectors, School-teachers and Sexton. Page Hoffman, Eugene Augustus, D.D., 161,238,305 King, Charles Gedney, .... 164 Page Mclntyre, Hannah M 165 Mclntyre, Sarah J 164 Moore, Robert, 166, 240 Vlll 3. Physicians. Page Bernardy, E. P., 170 Carter, Charles, 170 Hewson, Addinell, 166 Page Littell, S., 167 Roland, Oliver, 169 Van Pelt, Joseph K. T., . . . . 168 4. Near Residents. Page Andre, Leontine, 182 Ash, John M., 186 Bell, Samuel, 183 Biddle, Elizabeth B., 192 Biddle, James S., 311 Biggs, Hannah, 184 Blizzard, Adaline, 198 Brice, P. H., 310 Boldin, George, 179 Boldin, Rachel H., 180 Breed, WilUam P., D. D., . . . 177 Brennan, Peter N., 193 Byrnes, Elizabeth, 196 Cannon, Violet, 195 Carter, Ellen, 188 Carter, Eugenia, 191 Case, Elizabeth Jane, 200 Clay, Richard E 186 Clements, Reuben C, 177 Cresson, George V., 187 Davis, Sussex D., 188 De Ducastle, John, 193 Drayton, Henry E., 187 Dugan, Catherine 199 Dwyer, Charles P., 200 Ecclesine, Joseph B., Jr., . . . . 173 Fitzgerald, Michael, 196 Fleming, Eliza, 198 Franklin, Susan, 201 Graeff, John E., 189 Hall, Dr. Andrew D., 189 Harkins, Catherine, 195 Henderson, Mary Ann, 201 Hepburn, Caroline, 190 Hoffman, George E., 194 Jack, Dr. Louis, 171 Logan, Sarah E., 199 Page Moon, Samuel S., 172 Morgan, Virginia, 175 Meagher, Michael, 176 Miller, Anna R., 175 Maris, Dr. Richard, 178 McDavit, Thomas, 183 Massey, Robert V., 185 Mclntyre, Elizabeth, 196 Onderdonk, Elizabeth F., ... 184 Power, Catharine, 201 Redmond, Helen M., 185 Reilly, Philip, 182 Relf, Lucia N., 309 Rucker, Mrs. Irene, 173 Sayle, Arabella, 193 Sims, James P., ... 194, 216, 314 Sharpies, Annie M., 181 Sharpies, Francis W., 180 Shober, Samuel L 185 Sims, John C, 310 Smith, H. P., 182 Smith, Jesse E., 188 Smyth, Sophia E., 200 Spackman, Samuel, 192 Stevens, William Bacon, D. D., LL. D. 191 Stevenson, Cornelius, 175 Stewart, Eliza 199 Stuter, Margai'et, ....... 202 Taylor, Annie, 197 Tobin, Patrick, 178 Wainwright, Clement B., ... igi Wainwright, Joseph R., . . . . 190 White, Ella C, 174 White, Margaret Wharton, . . . 176 Wiltbank, Elizabeth M. 174 IX 5. Professional Bell-ringeks. Page Brown, William, 202 Le Sage, Thomas H., 206 Page Rahill, Charles 205 Wright, Robert, 204 6. Real Estate Experts. Page Barry, Joseph B., 208 Castle, James H 209 Carpenter, Edward, 210 Everly, Adam, 208 Page Haworth, Samuel, 210 Keyser, James D., 209 Sylvester, Frederick, 211 SCIENTIFIC. 7. As TO Height of Bells and Reverberation. Seiler, Dr. Carl, Page 312 8. Height of St. Mark's and other Church-bells — -Architects, &c. Page Bums, Charles M., Jr., 314 Congdon, Henry M., 213 Catanach, Adam A 212 Esling, Charles H. A., 216 Page Miller, John F., 214 Mills, Egbert, 215 Sims, James P., 194, 216, 314 Upjohn, Richard M. 214 9. Rectors, &c. of other Churches having Chimes of Bells. Page Battershall, Rev. Walton W., . . 226 Burroughs, Rev. Henry, .... 223 Caskey, Rev. T. F., 229 Dix, Morgan, D. D., 218 Foggo, Edward A., D. D., . . . 217 Gilliat, Rev. Charles G., Ph. D., . 230 Hitchcock, Rev. WiUiam A., . . 231 Hills, Rev. George Morgan,. . . 232 Morgan, William F., D. D., . . 220 Meiersmith, Matson, D. D., . . 225 O'Reilly, Rev. James, 222 Potter, Henry C, D. D. 228 Ritchie, Rev. Robert 224 Schenck, Noah Hunt, D. D., . . 227 Wood, Most Rev. -James Frederic, 221 10. Residents near other Churches having Bells or Chimes. Page Brown, Sarah M., 234 Edmunds, John, 235 Evans, Joseph R., 232 Evans, Susannah E., 233 Franklin, Mulvina, 235 Kilbride, George J., 238 Levick, Mary D'l., 234 Page Maloney, John, 237 Minich, Dr. A. K., 236 McManus, Patrick, 237 Noblit, Salom, 233 Polemann, Gertrude E., .... 235 Van Buskirk, Dr. J., 236 X II. As TO Asserted Change in Time of Ringing. Page Hoffman, E. A., 238 Moore, Robert, 166, 240 Page Sherlock, Joseph, 240 12. As TO Complainants' Theory of Lower Intellectual Organization. Page Meredith, Catharine K., . . 311 13. As to Complainants' Model and Colored Plan. - Page Evans, David, 306, 307, 315 14. As to Status of those claiming to be Pew-holders. Page Fuller, W. A. M., 308 15. As to similarity between Christ Church Bells and St. Mark's. Page Reed, Elizabeth W., 156 | Biddle, James S., 311 COMPLAINANTS' BILL In the Court of Common Pleas, No. 2, for the County of Philadelphia. Between George L. Harrison, Isaac Lea, Henry C. Gibson, Herbert M. Howe, James Parsons, William Read Fisher, Wil- liam F. Norris, Charles H. Hutchinson, M. Edward Rogers, Joseph T. Tobias, Horace Fassit and Richard M. Cadwalader, Complainants, apd The Rector, Church- Wardens and Vestry of St. Mark's Church in the City of Philadelphia, Defendants. The complainants aver as follows : — I. They are respectively the owners or occupants of resi- dences situate within a radius of an eighth of a mile from the corner of Locust and Sixteenth streets, in the said city. That portion of the city, particularly on the north and south sides of Locust street and also upon Walnut street, is covered by handsome and expensive residences, whose value, for the purposes of home-life, has been much enhanced by reason of their supposed immunity from nuisances, and in reliance upon that fact very large sums of money have been expended in buildings which are adapted to no other purpose than dwelling-houses. II. The defendants are a Protestant Episcopal Church cor- poration, incorporated in the year 1848. Soon after, the cor- poration purchased a lot of ground and built a church thereon, on the north side of Locust street, between Sixteenth and Seventeenth streets. It was built of brown stone, and the beauty of its architecture and the care with which its grounds were kept were justly considered to render the neighborhood more attractive, while the known usage of that religious society and the character of the congregation using the church-building authorized the belief that it would not be so used as to become a nuisance to the neighborhood. « III. As originally built, the church was without a spire. A tower, forming the base for a spire, was built at the same time as the church, but it was not until the year 1852 that the present spire was finished. No bells of any kind were ever used in the tower, the spire, or elsewhere in or about the church, from its completion in 1849, until the summer of the year 1876. In the month of June, 1876, the defendants caused to be placed in the said tower four large bells, being part, and but a part only, of what is known as a " chime." These bells the defendants have caused to be rung regularly before each and every service of their church, on each and every day of every week, and continuously for a period of between ten minutes and half an hour at each of these times. That is to say: — On Sunday, there is an early service at seven o'clock in the morn- ing ; another at half-past ten in the morning ; another at four in the afternoon, and another at half-past seven in the evening. Before the first of these services, the bell-ringing commences and lasts fifteen minutes; before each of the others it lasts half an hour, with the exception that very recently, and for the reason hereinafter given, the bell-ringing before seven in the morning has been temporarily suspended. On week-days. there is a service at nine in the morning and at five in the afternoon, and the bell-ringing commences from ten to fifteen minutes before each of these services, and is prolonged until the service begins. In addition, there are festivals and Saints' days, during which the services are more frequent than on ordinary week-days. In addition to the bell-ringing being thus so constant, it is, moreover, devoid of every quality which tends to allay the annoyance which overpowering noise produces. It is harsh, loud, high, sharp, clanging, discordant, and the noise produced by it amounts to and is, in fact, a nuisance which is intolerable. It shakes the walls of the houses — in those in the immediate neighborhood it renders conversation impossible — it disturbs rest and sleep, especially that of children and infants — it dis- tracts the mind from any serious employment — it lessens or destroys social and domestic intercourse and much of all that which goes to make up the peace and happiness of home- life. In summer, when the windows are obliged to be kept open, all of this is, of course, materially increased; and not only that, but the echoes which vibrate back and forwards between the walls of the church and the walls of the adjacent rooms are most distressing to the senses, and the noise is ren- dered more painful by the fact that the street is narrow, the houses high, and the bells are hung on a point on a level with or lower than the roofs of the opposite houses. The volume of sound is, moreover, greatly augmented by the rapid succes- sion in which the bells are rung, the strokes averaging about ninety-four to the minute. This nuisance, which is so great to those who are in health, is much intensified to those who are ill. In particular, this is so to those whose nervous systems are at all delicately organized; and to all, both those who are well and those who are ill, the nuisance (except the shaking of the walls) is not limited to the time during which the actual bell-ringing lasts, for the expectation of its beginning produces a nervous- ness and excitement which to all is painful and to some intolerable. Nor is the effect of the nuisance limited to the personal suffering of the complainants. It seriously affects the value of their property, and if it should be suffered to continue, and if the complainants or any of them be obliged to remove their homes, or if, for any reason, they should desire or be obliged to sell or rent their residences, a less price would be obtained for the same. By reason of the premises, the complainants are advised and aver that the said bell-ringing is a public and a private nuisance. And they further show that this bell-ringing does not come within the category of any of those employments which, being nuisances or in the nature of nuisances, courts have yet,, for various reasons and upon well-settled principles, declined to interfere with. It is not a secular work carried on for private profit or the support of a family— it is not part of the necessary apparatus or machinery by which a great city has its wants supplied — it is certainly not a work of benevolence, of charity or of education. And if the defendents pretend, as at times they do, that it is a necessary part of divine worship, the complainants charge this to be untrue, and as evidence thereof they aver that while there are nearly six hundred churches in the city of Philadelphia, a small proportion only have any bells at all, and but three have chimes of bells. And the fact that for the last quarter of a century the prosperity of the defendants has gone on increasing, during all which time they had not even a single bell, shows that bell-ringing is neither essential to their divine worship nor their worldly welfare. Nor can it be truthfully averred that noises of this kind are needed by the usages or rules of that body of Christians to which the defendants belong, as requisite for the complete performance of their ritual. And the complainants aver that such a pretense, if it shall be set up, is immaterial ; as no one is permitted, upon any such ground, to do an act which is unlawful in itself, nor does the law of the land tolerate injuries to person or property because 5 of any persuasion on the part of the wrong-doer that the act is necessary as a fulfillment of a duty on his part, even though it be a religious duty. And if the defendants pretend, as at times they do, that the ringing of bells is a necessary means of calling together their V congregation, the complainants aver, first, that whatever may have been, in former times and under different circumstances of civilization, the use of bell-ringing as an admonition of the hour of prayer and worship, yet that the introduction of watches and clocks has entirely superseded such use for all practical purposes ; and secondly, that such admonition, even if necessary, can be made just as effectually by a single bell as by a chime of bells. And at other times the defendants pretend that the neigh- borhood will soon become used to these noises, whereas the complainants aver that the experience of six months has shown ' that, with some possible exceptions of which they are igno- rant, the suffering produced by this nuisance increases with time. IV. Until the month of November, 1876, the complainants and others took no concerted action in the matter. The attach- ment of many of them to the church itself, to its form of worship and to the members of its vestry, their regard for the rector, and above all, their respect for the institution of divine worship, limited their intervention to friendly appeals and remonstrances, and these were frequently and earnestly made to different members of the corporation, and to those who might be supposed to influence them. But all these being utterly disregarded, a written communication signed by almost the entire immediate neighborhood was, on the first day of that month, addressed and sent to the defendants, in which, in respectful terms, their attention was called to the nuisance and the necessity of its abatement. To this communication, the defendants, by a solemn resolution of the vestry, " utterly denied the right of the residents in the vicinity to regulate in any way the manner or the time of ringing the bells of St. Mark's Church," and they added that the corporation would always be ready to consider any special appeal in any specified case of illness. Such a special appeal in a specified case of illness had, indeed, been made before that time by a physician on behalf of a patient, and the early morning bell-ringing was temporarily discontinued, with, however, the expression to the physician of the hope of the defendants that his patient would soon recover, as they desired to recommence the early bell-ringing as soon as possible. But still the complainants were unwilling to resort to litigation, and several private and pressing appeals have been recently and repeatedly made, up to the time of the filing of this bill, but with the only result that the complainants must depend entirely upon the mercy of the defendants. The complainants are advised and believe that they are enti- tled to the use and enjoyment of their health and their homes undisturbed by the acts of the defendants, hereinbefore set forth, and that they will be judicially protected in this right. This, however, the defendants deny, and assert that they are entitled to ring bells in any manner and at all hours and times that they may think fit, and aver that neither the complainants nor this court has any right whatever to interfere with their discretion; whereas the complainants charge that by the well-settled and long-established usages of this community and of the courts exercising equity jurisdiction, it is, and always has been, the custom and within the jurisdiction of this court to compel even the most necessary and useful trades to be so conducted as to time and place, that the neighbors may enjoy their rights undisturbed ; and inasmuch as some necessary trades are pro- hibited altogether, or are limited as to hours when necessary for the protection of the rights of others, so they insist that the jurisdiction is not the less extensive nor are the rights of citizens disregarded or lost when the unlawful act is one, not of utility, but at most a gratification of the senses by noise. Hence the complainants, having no adequate remedy at law, need equitable relief, which they pray, as follows : — 1. That the court will declare and establish the respective rights of the complainants and of the defendants in the premises. i 2. That it will declare and decree that any noises caused by ringing of bells at all, or, if not at all, excepting at certain hours of the day or night, to be fixed by the court, are un- lawful as to persons objecting. 3. That it will declare and decree, that during those hours of the day, if any such there are, at which the court shall consider that such noises are either desirable or not objection- able on the part of those who must hear them, the ringing must be confined to such periods of time as are necessary to effect some useful purpose, and will itself limit such time. 4. Or if the court should be of the opinion that it is lawful, against the wishes of the complainants, to make such noises without any useful purpose, but as a recreation to those con- cerned, that they will in a like manner appoint and designate the number of times, and the hours in the day at which the making such noise may be properly done, and limit the dura- tion of time in which it may be kept up or continued. 5. And that the defendants may be restrained by injunc- tion, preliminary until hearing and perpetual thereafter, from causing any noises to be made by the ringing of the said bells, or from causing any such noises to be made at any other hours or for any other lengths of time than the court shall by its decree declare and establish as reasonable, proper and lawful; and that the defendants be further restrained from making any such noises at such hours as the complainants are deemed entitled to be not unnecessarily disturbed in their homes, or in their sleep or rest, or at any time when certified 8 that any person living in the neighborhood is so far annoyed and distressed thereby as not to be able to obtain rest or sleep. 6. General relief. 7. And that process may issue, to compel the defendants to appearand answer the bill, and that writs of injunction may issue, as prayed for. Wm. Henry Rawle, R. C. MCMURTRIE, For Complainants. [NOTE. — The attempt to sustain the defendants' case upon Mr. Harrison's alleged "excessive nervous sensibilities," failed, and was not maintained outside of their "Answer," either by affidavit or argument. Indeed, the persistent reference to Mr. Harrison as the chief mover in this cause was wholly without foundation. (See Dr. Mitchell's affidavit, page 278 ; also, affidavits of Mr. Harrison, Mr. Mitcheson, and Mr. Cadwalader, pages 277, 279, 272 ) That there was less than a desire to ascertain the fact before making the assertion appears on page 34. There, a line is printed below Mr. H.'s signature, which is in his own handwriting in the original, opposite and above his signature, and was the reservation which his sons and himself made when asked to join in the "remon- strance" against the erection of St. Mark's bells, and conclusively shows that he could not have been the author of the paper. The motive for placing the memorandum below his signature, and for other alterations of originals, is quite obvious. R. C. McM.] DEFENDANTS' ANSWER. These defendants, not waiving any advantage of law by reason of the manifold errors and defects in the complainants' bill, but expressly insisting thereon, for answer to the said bill, or to so much thereof as they are advised is material to be answered, say : — I. The defendants admit that the complainants are respect- ively the owners or occupants of the residences referred to in the first paragraph of the bill ; but in further response to said paragraph they aver that the complainants Herbert M Howe, James Parsons, William Read Fisher, William F. Norris, Charles H. Hutchinson, M. Edward Rogers, Joseph F. Tobias, and Horace Fassit, are not the owners of the houses respect- ively occupied by them, but are merely tenants or occupants of the same for years or otherwise; and that they have, therefore, no standing at law or in equity to complain of any injury to rights of property in the same. A list of the registered owners of the several houses in which the com- plainants respectively live is hereto annexed, marked Exhibit (9) lO A. And these defendants further say that they admit the other allegations in the said paragraph to be true, with the reservation that if it is intended by anything therein stated to aver or imply that the expenditures referred to were made in the expectation or belief that bells would not be placed in the belfry of St. Mark's they deny that such averment or implication is true. On the contrary, all of the said residences, of which any of the complainants are owners, were erected after the building of the church was commenced, and the then original owners thereof were, therefore, affected at the time with notice of the intended user of the church ; and nearly all of the complainants who are owners of their said residences became so after public notice had been given that the design of placing bells in the belfry was in process of being soon carried out ; said notice being given in such a manner (as is hereinafter set forth) that all of such proposed owners had either actual knowledge of the facts, or such means of knowledge as could not, in law, be disregarded. The defendants expressly deny that any of the complainants have expended anything in the purchase, improvement or rental of their said residences upon the faith or belief that bells would never be placed in St. Mark's belfry. II. These defendants believe the facts set forth in the second paragraph of the bill to be true, with this qualification, viz., if the concluding words of the said paragraph are in- tended to assert that it was believed by any one that the church would not have bells, or that, having bells, they would not be rung and chimed in the usual manner, these defendants do not believe the assertion to be true. And they further aver that the belief that the church would not be so used as to become a nuisance to the neighborhood was just; and that in point of fact the church has not at any time heretofore and is not now used so as to be in any way a nuisance. On the contrary, the values of the property in the neighborhood, from Fifteenth to Eighteenth streets, on Locust street, have been very greatly enhanced by the II erection of said church-building and by the manner in which the same has always been and now is used. When the building of the church was commenced but one house was built and occupied on the south side of Locust street, between Sixteenth and Seventeenth streets, and that house was not owned or occupied by any one of the complain- ants, or by any one under whom they claim. The erection of the church made the neighborhood desirable for residences, improved especially the value of the vacant lots opposite, and was the principal cause of the handsome improvements which were subsequently made. III. The statements in the third paragraph of the bill are in some particulars accurate, but in many others incorrect, and in some utterly untrue. The exact facts as to the subject- matter of said paragraph are these : — The corner-stone of St. Mark's Church was laid in April, 1848. The church was first opened for divine service in Octo- ber, 1849. At that time the tower forming the base of the spire was built, and the spire itself was completed 185 1-2. The original plan of the church, which was carried out in the building of the same, provided for a tower and belfry large enough to hold a chime of bells. And when the tower was actually built it was arranged with a view to putting bells in it. That such was the object of the tower was evident from its external appearance, and must necessarily have been noticed by all who saw the building. The tower was expressly in- tended for bells, and an opening was left, both in the stone- work and wood-work over the church porch, through which the bells could be hoisted, and a solid, spiral, stone staircase leading from the base of the tower to the bell-chamber, which was at the top, was erected at considerable additional expense. The architect of the church was John Notman. The Rev. E. A. Hoffman, D. D., became the rector of the church in the spring of 1869, In the autumn of that year special collections for a " bell fund" were begun, and cards or circulars, containing a printed notice to that effect, were 12 distributed among the congregation in December, 1869, and posted on the church doors at that date, and from time to time since. At the same time the subject of the proposed purchase of bells was much discussed between members of the con- gregation and their friends, many of whom resided in the immediate neighborhood ; and had any person or persons, who were about to purchase or lease houses opposite to or other- wise in the vicinity of the church, been desirous of ascertain- ing (as these defendants are advised it was their duty to do) whether the tower of the church was to be speedily used for the purposes for which it was apparent that it had been origin- ally designed, such information could have been obtained without the slightest difficulty. It was, in fact, a matter of public notoriety, as to which no one interested in the locality could have avoided knowledge, unless he had deliberately and willfully abstained from inquiry. No notice whatever of any intended opposition to the purchase or subsequent use of bells was given to any of the church authorities by any of the neighbors; nor was any idea that such an opposition would be manifested by any of them suggested to or entertained by the defendants until the receipt of the communication herein- after referred to, in January, 1876, at which time the bells had been ordered and the work on them begun. On October nth, 1875, sufficient funds having then been obtained, the rector was authorized by a vote of the vestry to order from England four bells, part of a peal of eight. This order was accord- ingly given, and the bells were cast and sent to this country, arriving here on the 4th June, 1876. They were shortly after- wards placed in the tower, and were first rung about the latter part of June. The total cost of these bells and frame was 3.05. IV. The makers of the bells were Messrs. Mears & Stain- bank, of Whitechapel Bell Foundry, London, who are justly considered among the very best bell-founders in the world, and whose establishment is believed to be one of the oldest, bell-foundries in existence. The bells of Christ Church and 13 St. Peter's, in this city; of Trinity Church, in New York, and of many others in the United States and Canada, were cast by this firm, whose bells have always enjoyed a reputation of the highest kind for their musical qualities. And these defendants, in further response to the said third paragraph of said bill, aver that the said bells are not, either in their character or their location or their use, a nuisance, public or private, in any sense whatever ; but, on the contrary, that they are not only a proper, desirable and well-recognized portion of church equipment, but are advantageous to the neighborhood, by reason of the improvement produced in the values of property and the personal gratification and enjoy- ment which their use affords. (a.) Character of the bells. — The bells are a peal of medium weight. The bells of St. Stephen's and of Christ Church, of the Cathedral of St. Peter and St. Paul, of St. Bonifacius, and of St. Peter's (Roman Catholic) churches, and of Emmanuel and St. Johannes (Lutheran) churches, in this city ; of Trinity, Grace, and St. Thomas, in New York ; of St. Ann's, in Brook- lyn ; of St. Mary's Church, in Burlington, N. J. ; of St. Joseph's Cathedral, Buffalo ; of the churches in Charleston, S. C, and of many other churches in the United States and elsewhere, are much heavier. The respective weights of St. Mark's bells are as follows : — The largest or tenor bell, .... 2006 pounds. The seventh bell, 1407 The sixth bell, 1 167 The fifth bell, 983 " The bells are arranged on a diatonic scale — their musical notes being F, G, A and B*. The four bells which are ex- pected will be lighter, to wit : — The fourth bell 868 pounds. The third bell 75^" The second bell, 644 " The first bell, 588 " Making the weight of the eight bells, when completed, 8419 pounds. 14 The chiming of St. Mark's bells is not " harsh, loud, high, sharp, clanging and discordant," as is averred in the said third paragraph of the bill ; but the contrary of said averment is true, and the chiming is, in truth and fact, musical, mellow, soft, well-pitched, sweet and harmonious. The defendants deny that the walls of the houses in the neighborhood are shaken by said chiming ; on the contrary, the averment to that effect in the bill is believed to be not only inaccurate but absurd, as the bells are not sounded by being pulled or swung to and fro, but are chimed by means of small hammers which are suspended just inside the mouths of the bells, in the same manner as the hours would be struck if they were connected with a clock. Very little vibration is thus caused by the chiming, as the mass of metal is not put in actual motion. The bells were examined by experts immediately after their erection and were pronounced by them to be perfect in tune and of good tone ; which qualities they still possess. [b) Location of the bells. — The bells are hung in the bell- chamber of the tower. The)? are hung sixty-seven feet above the level of the curbstone. This is a proper and usual height at which to suspend bells, and greater than that at which many other church-bells are suspended in this city and elsewhere. They are hung twenty feet higher than the chimes of St. Stephen's, in this city, which are heavier, and from twenty to twenty-five feet higher than the bells of St. Joseph's Church, Willing's alley; St. Mary's Church, Fourth above Spruce, and St. Patrick's Church, Twentieth above Spruce. The bells are hung more than fifteen feet higher than the highest part of the roof of the house of complainant Harrison, and as high or higher than the peak of the roof of the com- plainant Isaac Lea, which is the highest house in the square. The said Isaac Lea did not purchase the lot of ground on which he afterwards erected his said house until May, 1852, at which time the said spire of St. Mark's Church was nearly completed. And the defendants further aver, that all of the 15 houses of unusual height in said immediate neighborhood were erected after said church and tower were built. If it is intended to imply that Locust street opposite St. Mark's Church is narrower than other parts of Locust street, or narrower than Chestnut, Walnut, Spruce or other principal streets, the defendants deny that such implication is correct ; on the contrary, the houses on the south side recede four feet from the building line, and the tower of the church recedes seven feet eight inches, while the body of the church and the school-buildings are set back a considerable distance, thus making the space between the buildings much wider than such space usually is, instead of narrower, as stated or implied in said complainants' bill, and very much wider than the space between Calvary Presbyterian Church and the buildings opposite to it in the adjoining square below. A table of measurements, showing the distances of the houses occu- pied by complainants from St. Mark's Church, and also com- parative widths on Locust street is hereto annexed, marked Exhibit B. A table giving the respective heights of the houses occupied by complainants is also hereto annexed, marked Exhibit B^. The defendants deny that the bells are hung at a point on a level with or lower than the roofs of the opposite houses, but aver that they are higher than the peak of the roof of the highest house in the neighborhood. {c.) Use of the bells. — The bells were first chimed for divine service on Sunday, June 25th, and rung on July 4th, 1876, and since that day have been chimed regularly for divine ser- vice ; the hours and duration of chiming on Sundays being the same as those which are usually adopted by the Protestant Episcopal churches throughout this country and by the churches in England and by Christian churches generally throughout North America. That is to say, before the 10.30 A. M. and 4 P. M. services on Sundays and also before the 7.30 P. M. services on Sundays (during that portion of the year when such evening services are held), the bells are i6 chimed from twenty to twenty-five minutes, and the lightest bell then tolled for five minutes. On Sunday morning, at seven o'clock, they were chimed for five minutes, viz., from a quarter before seven to ten minutes of seven, and the smallest bell tolled for the five minutes immediately preceding the beginning of the service, making in all ten minutes. The chiming for the seven o'clock Sunday morning service, re- ferred to as the "early bells," has been discontinued at the request of Dr. Mitchell, on behalf (it is believed) of Mr. Har- rison, one of the complainants, as hereinafter stated. On other days of the week the bells are chimed less frequently and continuously than is usual for services in similar churches in this country or in England. That is to say, they are chimed for five minutes and one bell is tolled for five minutes more, before the daily prayers of 9 A. M. and 5 or 6 P. M. Hence these defendants aver that this use of their bells is a reason- able and proper one and is in accordance with long-continued customs which prevail in places of religious worship of almost all denominations on both sides of the Atlantic, and especially among, "that body of Christians to which these defendants belong." The averment in the third paragraph of the bill that the strokes on the bells average about ninety-four a minute is incorrect. The average of strokes per minute is seventy to seventy-five when they are chimed, and only twenty to twenty-five when tolled. V. These defendants deny that the said bells are either a public or private nuisance, and they further deny that their chiming produces (as is alleged in the bill) effects and conse- quences injurious to the repose or the health or the property of the complainant, or of any of them. [a.) As to domestic comfort and repose. — The bell-chiming referred to does not shake the walls of the houses or render conversation in any of them impossible; it does not disturb rest or sleep, even those of children or infants ; it does not distract the mind from any serious or other employment; it 17 does not lessen or destroy social or domestic intercourse, or anything whatever of that which goes to make up the peace and happiness of home-life. On the contrary, the said bell- chiming, being in the opinion of many neighboring property- owners of a pleasant and agreeable character, has grown to constitute one of the chief attractions of the neighborhood and has materially added to, rather than detracted from, the enjoyment of social and domestic life among those residing in the vicinity. ^ [b.) As to health. — These defendants deny that the said bell- ringing has injured or impaired in the slightest degree the health of the complainants, or of any of them, or of any other person or persons in the neighborhood. On the contrary, in many instances the bell-ringing has proved a source of distinct and positive gratification to invalids, and has materially assisted their recovery or soothed and comforted their last sufferings. As it is not averred in the bill that the health of any one or more of the complainants has been in the slightest degree impaired or affected by the said bell-ringing, it is impossible for these defendants to expressly traverse or deny any such averment ; but if it is implied that any such consequence from said bell-ringing has, in point of fact, resulted to any of the complainants, these defendants deny that such an implication is true. And they aver that the alleged nervousness or ex- citement (if any in fact exists) produced by the expectation that the bells will ring is not, in truth, a natural consequence of the use of the said bells, but is due wholly to a morbid mental or physical condition of the person or persons (if any) by whom such expectation is entertained ; and is, moreover, not a matter over which or for the prevention of which the quia timet jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction of a court of equity will be exercised. (c.) As to value of property. — These defendants deny that the bell-chiming affects injuriously the value of the complainants' property, or that the four complainants, out of twelve, who are the owners of their dwellings would be compelled, in case they wished to sell or rent their houses, to accept a less price for the same in consequence thereof On the contrary, these defend- ants aver that quite as high (if not higher) prices could be ob- tained by many of said complainants for their properties since the bell-chiming began as could have been previously obtained. The value of the vacant building lots opposite the church and in the neighborhood was vastly enhanced by the erection of the church, and an extremely desirable class of improvements for said lots, to wit, handsome and elegant residences, was thereby secured, and the complainants, even if it were true, which it is not, that the chiming of the church-bells is a dis- advantage to their properties, cannot, therefore, be heard to complain of the burden imposed by the erection of the church whereof they or their predecessors in title have reaped and sustained the benefit. And these defendants further say, that the only danger of a depreciation in the values of the com- plainants' houses, which can by any posibility exist, is this, viz., that they themselves, by their unwise proceedings and by the absurd, untrue and exaggerated statements in their bill, may have misled some persons who have not been in- formed of the true state of the case, and have, therefore, tended to preate an erroneous opinion injurious to the value of their said properties. And the defendants further show to the court, in this con- nection, that it is not alleged or pretended by the complainants that they or any of them are injured, annoyed or damnified in their domestic comfort or health or rights of property, but that such injury or annoyance, if any, has been sustained or suffered by some person or persons to these defendants un- known, and whose names the complainants are unable or un- willing to state ; and that the bill is, for that reason, vague, uncertain and incomprehensible, and, therefore, defective in point of law, upon which defects the defendants pray that they may have leave to insist as grounds of defense with the same effect as if they had been set up as reasons for special demurrer to said bill. 19 VI. The defendants further show to the court that the chiming of bells, as at present conducted by them in the manner hereinbefore set forth, is a reasonable, decent and proper compliance with the ancient modes of announcing divine worship, practiced by churches of the communion to which the defendants belong, and practiced in this city for more than one hundred years ; that the said bell-chiming is in conformity with the recognized usage of such churches, and is also in accordance with the customs of churches of all de- nominations whatsoever in which bells are used throughout the civilized world. And the defendants deny that "while there are six hundred churches in the city of Philadelphia, a small portion only have any bells at all and only three have chimes," but aver the contrary thereof to be true, inasmuch as out of the churches in the said city a large portion have bells, and of these at least ten have chimes. Of these churches having chimes a particular statement is hereunto annexed, marked Exhibit C. And the defendants further show that bell-ringing, to even a greater extent, exists in this and all other large cities, in other establishments than churches, to wit, in schools, factories, workshops and other buildings ; and that such ringing is part of the ordinary and usual sounds of city life. And these defendants further aver that the chiming of St. Mark's bells is far less calculated to disturb, annoy, dis- tress or injure the complainants or any others than the noises of cars, wagons, steam-whistles, many other church-bells and other sounds to which said residents are and have for a long time been subject to, and of which they never have complained. And they further show that even if the chiming of defendants' bells may have produced, when first heard, a temporary annoyance to some of those who resided in the neighborhood, which these defendants deny, yet that the sound is one to which the ear becomes readily accustomed, and that all annoy- ance (if any ever actually existed) ceased, except where it is fostered by willful jjrejudices or heightened by nervous excita- bility. In any event, the annoyance is purely imaginary and very trifling. 20 And as to the averment in the said paragraph of the bill that "the introduction of watches and clocks has entirely superseded such use {i. e., as an admonition of the hour of prayer and worship) for all practical purposes," these defend- ants deny the same to be true, inasmuch as both watches and clocks were introduced at least three centuries ago, and the use of chimes and bells has greatly increased since that date, while in this country the use of watches and clocks was much anterior to that of chimes and bells. In fact, in the United States it is a matter of common experience that watches and clocks have been found inadequate for the purpose above mentioned, and hence the necessity for regulating them by bells and chimes. And this is especially so among the poorer classes who cannot afford the luxuries of well furnished resi- dences and whose home-life and much that goes to make up the peace and happiness thereof would be much lessened if they were deprived (as the complainants would like them to be) of the easy and (to them) inexpensive mode of ascertain- ing the hours for religious and other duties which is afforded by chimes and peals. A large number of such persons now reside in the vicinity of St. Mark's Church and are attendant upon its services (two of which services are entirely free), and rely to a great extent upon being summoned punctually there- to by the chiming of the bells. And even if such a result might be attained by the use of a single bell, yet the monoto- nous ringing of a single bell is far more calculated to produce discomfort to the nervous and the hypochondriacal than the music of a chime. VII. The defendants deny that until the month of Novem- ber the complainants and others took no concerted action in the matter, as is alleged in the fourth paragraph of the bill, and they deny all the other allegations fn the said paragraph, except such as are hereinafter admitted ; and they aver that the facts in the relation to the matter stated in the said fourth paragraph of the bill are as follows : — In January, 1876, after the bells had been ordered, and when 21 they were in process of being cast in the London foundry, a paper styled a memorial (and whereof a copy is hereunto annexed, marked Exhibit D), believed to be in the hand- writing of Mr. M. J. Mitcheson, signed by him and by George L. Harrison and others of the complainants, objecting to the placing of a chime of bells in the church-tower, was received by the vestry at their stated meeting in that month. The vestry, at their said meeting, passed the following resolutions, viz. : — "Resolved, That the signers of the remonstance be informed that the bells were ordered some time ago; that when the tower was built it was contemplated to place therein a chime of bells; that the vestry regret that owners of property in the neighborhood should consider themselves aggrieved by the action of the vestry in carrying out the original design of the corporation; and that they are confident that the annoy- ance will not be so serious as seems to be anticipated by the remonstrants." The letter communicating this resolution is marked Exhibit E, annexed hereunto. In answer to the above letter and resolution, Mr. Mac- Gregor J. Mitcheson, acting on behalf of the complainants and other neighbors, addressed a communication, dated January loth, 1876, of which Exhibit F, hereunto annexed, is a copy. On June 26th, 1876, another communication from the said MacGregor J. Mitcheson, still acting on behalf ot some of the complainants and other neighbors, was received, marked Exhibit G, hereunto annexed. This communication was received after the first Sunday upon which the bells were chimed, and at the next stated meeting of the vestry, the communication, as it had been already virtually answered in reply to the memorial above mentioned, was laid upon the table. 22 In the latter part of October, 1876, a son of the complainant Harrison called upon Rev. E. A. Hoffman, D. D., in reference to his father's alleged nervous condition, and objected to the chiming of the bells for the seven o'clock morning service, alleging that the expectation of the bells ringing at that time produced great nervousness in his said father, and vs^ould keep him avi^ake all the preceding night. On the 3d of November, Dr. S. Weir Mitchell, on behalf of his patients, addressed a note to Mr. Kirtley, a member of the vestry, in reference to stopping the " early bells," which note was shown by Mr. Kirtley, the next morning, to Rev. E. A. Hoffman, D. D., who ordered the "early bells" to be discon- tinued, and addressed a note to Dr. Mitchell, to which he received a letter of thanks the same day. These three notes were as follows : — 3D, 1524 Walnut St., Philadelphia. Dear Mr. Kirtley: — Some of my unlucky nervous patients are driven wild by the early bells of St. Mark's. If you have ever been in the way of ill sleeping, and have looked to the quiet of Sunday with anticipative comfort, you would under- stand how grave a matter this may seem to one of these folks. Pray help us to get rid of this annoyance — the early bells — Yours, faithfully, Weir Mitchell. Th. H. Kirtley, Esq. 1620 Spruce Street, 4 Nov., 1876. My Dear Sir: — Your note, which Mr. Kirtley brought me this morning, is the first intimation I have had that some of your nervous patients residing in the vicinity of St. Mark's are in such a condition as to be seriously injured by the ring- ing of the bells for the seven o'clock service on Sunday morn- ings. My congregation will miss the ringing of the bells for 23 those services very much, but, under the circumstances, I shall direct it to be discontinued at once. Trusting that our neigh- bors, under your skillful care, may soon recover. I am, very faithfully, yours, E. A. Hoffman. Weir Mitchell, M. D. 4TH Nov., 1524 Walnut Street, Philadelphia. My Dear Doctor: — I have to thank you very sincerely for your most kind and courteous note of this morning. You will be most warmly thanked by several persons, who I am sure will gain in some ways what your good people may lose in others. Very truly, yours. Weir Mitchell. The Rev. E. A. Hoffman, D. D. Copies of this correspondence are hereto annexed, marked Exhibits H, I and K. Dr. S. Weir Mitchell, one of the parties to said correspond- ence, is believed to be the physician alluded to on page 6 of the bill; and "the unlucky nervous patients" mentioned in Dr. Mitchell's letter of November 3d, 1876, are believed to consist either wholly or partly of the complainant, George L. Harrison.* The defendants aver that while they believed and were advised, and while they still are advised and still do be- lieve, and insist that the said chiming at a quarter before seven o'clock in the morning was entirely reasonable and proper, and was not, in fact, and could not in law be regarded as either a public or private nuisance, but was an entirely lawful, proper and justifiable exercise of an undoubted right; yet be- lieving that its suspension was asked in good faith, because of the nervous condition of said Harrison, they then were willing to subject themselves to the annoyance of a discontinuance of *See, in denial. Dr. Mitchell's affidavit, page 278. 24 the use of the early morning chime, as a matter of voluntary courtesy and neighborly kindness. And the said early chime was thereupon discontinued by direction of the rector, and has not been since resumed. Notwithstanding this action and disposition on the part of the defendants, the communication mentioned in paragraph IV. of the bill, and whereof a copy is annexed, marked Exhibit L, was addressed to them, and which requested, in substance, that the ringing of the " early bells" should be discontinued. *This communication is believed to be in the handwriting of the complainant Harrison. And the defendants further believe and aver that the said complainant constituted the class of "intensely sensitive persons" on whose behalf especially the communication was made. It is, therefore, eminently proper to reiterate, in this connection, the fact already stated, that three days prior to the presentation of this communication to the vestry a precisely similar request, on behalf of the same individual — a person whose many public and private virtues the defendants are always ready to freely admit — had been made to the rector and granted, and a letter of thanks for the concession written and received. (See the correspondence in Exhibits H, I and K.) This communication (Exhibit L), though dated November 1st, was not presented to the vestry until at a special meeting, on November 6th, 1876, and at the same time the accompanying paper from S. Weir Mitchell and other physicians, which is hereunto annexed (marked Exhibit M), was read. The rector then stated to the vestry the fact that on this subject he had already had a correspondence with S. Weir Mitchell, which he then read to the vestry, and stated that, in compliance with the request that had been made by said Mitchell he had directed the ringing of the early bells to be discontinued. Much surprise was felt that the com- plainant Harrison and others should persist in presenting a communication which prayed for that which had been already granted, and as the defendants did not wish by any act or * See letter of John S. Newbold, page 64, for correct account of this matter. 25 omission to be estopped from the assertion of their legal rights in the premises, they deemed it proper, in face of the reiterated demand, that an explicit statement of such rights should be made, accompanied by an expression of willingness on their part to hear and consider (through the rector) any special appeal for the cessation of the chiming of the bells in consequence of any specified case of illness. They accord- ingly passed the following resolutions : — " Resolved, That while the vestry entirely denies the right of the residents in the vicinity to regulate in any way the man- ner or the time of ringing the bells of St. Mark's Church, they feel confident that the corporation, through the rector of the parish, will always be ready, as the rector has already been, to hear and consider any special appeal that may be made for stopping the ringing of the bells in any specified case of illness. " Resolved, That the secretary be directed to communicate the above resolution to the petitioners." A copy of the letter conveying these resolutions is hereto annexed, marked Exhibit N. To these resolutions, of which a copy was forwarded to the complainants and the other signers of the communication, a reply was received, signed by two of the complainants, viz., George L. Harrison and Isaac Lea, and by MacGregor J. Mitcheson and others, of which Exhibit O, hereto annexed, is a copy. In this reply the correspondence of Dr. S. Weir Mitchell, onbehalf of his nervous patients, is entirely ignored, and the fact that the complainants' request for a discontinuance of the chiming for the early Sunday morning service had been granted is carefully avoided, and, although the writers of the reply well knew that the chiming had been discontinued, the implication is conveyed by their said letter that nothing had been done. A printed circular, containing what purported to be the correspondence between most of the complainants and the defendants, was subsequently issued by complainants, or 26 some one or more of them, " only for private use," from which circular all of the correspondence on behalf of the residents near St. Mark's, in relation to the bells, prior to November ist, 1876, was omitted ; and the said correspondence between Dr. S. Weir Mitchell, acting on behalf of one or more of said complainants, and Rev. Dr. Hoffman, which occurred during the period of time which said circular professed to cover, and which last-named correspondence showed that the request for a discontinuance of the early bells had been complied with, Xtfas also carefully omitted from said circular. This " private " circular was subsequently, by complainants, allowed to get into the daily newspapers, and largely in consequence of the suppressions, aforesaid, these defendants were, in the latter part of November, 1876, violently criticised by a portion of the Philadelphia press, for sttH ringing the early bells, which then had for several weeks been discontinued as a matter of courtesy to the complainant Harrison, and which then still remained discontinued, and which has not since been resumed. The complainants are believed to have then instructed counsel to institute these proceedings. These defendants, therefore, show to the court, that while they have always insisted, as they do now insist, upon their rights in the premises, as hereinbefore set forth, yet they have been willing to suspend the exercise of said rights in special cases from motives of charity and neighborly kindness, and that they did so suspend them in the case of these very complainants, that there cannot be a pretense, in morals, in equity or at law, of any necessity for the interference of this court. Vni. As to the averments contained in the latter part of the fourth paragraph of the bill (to wit, that portion of the said paragraph which is contained in the lower half of page 6), these defendants admit that the complainants are entitled to the use and enjoyment of their. health and their homes; nor do the defendants claim any right to interfere with or disturb the same ; and they aver and insist that by no act or thing 27 done by them and in the said bill set forth or referred to have they in any way interfered with or impaired the said use or enjoyment. Nor do these defendants pretend or claim that they are beyond the control or jurisdiction of this court; but they concede (if any such concession is needed) the right of the courts to interfere with them, as with any other persons, natural or artificial, when unlawfully infringing the rights of others. But these defendants expressly aver and insi.st that their conduct and action in and about the ringing of these bells, as hereinbefore particularly set forth, is a reasonable, decent and proper exercise of an undoubted legal right, recognized for over one hundred and twenty years in this very city, and that it is unlawful and inequitable that the complain- ants should, by process of law or otherwise, vex, annoy and harass these defendants in their said exercise of their just rights ; and that to restrain these defendants in the manner prayed for in said bill would be unjust and inequitable to the defendants, would seriously disturb the conduct of the religious worship - by their congregation, would affect injuriously the value of their church property, would cause them great pecuniary loss, and would be prejudicial, not only to the rights of these defendants, but also to the interests of the community at large. IX. And these defendants further show to the court that the complainants, upon their own showing, have not presented a case proper for the exercise of the equitable jurisdiction of this court, inasmuch as — 1. The case presented by the bill is not one in which an injunction ought to be granted in equity until the rights of the complainants are first established at law. 2. The remedy of the complainants (if any exists) is several and not joint. 3. The injuries complained of are not alleged to be suffered by the complainants. 28 4- The alleged nuisance, if public, can be redressed only on information of the Attorney-General or on allegation of special damage to one or more of the complainants, which is not pretended ; if private, the remedy must be several and not joint. Wherefore the defendants insist upon the above as grounds of demurrer to the bill. And they pray to be hence dismissed, with costs. The Rector, Church-Wardens and Vestry of St. Mark's Church, in the City of Philadelphia. E. A. Hoffman, Rector. Attest : W. A. M. Fuller, Accounting Warden. [seal] Geo. Tucker Bispham, P. Pemberton Morris, George W. Biddle, For Defendants. Philadelphia County, ss. Eugene A. Hoffman, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says, that the facts set forth in the foregoing answer, so far as they are stated on his own knowledge, are true, and so far as they are stated on information and belief, he believes them to be true. E. A. Hoffman. Sworn and subscribed before me, this thirty-first day of January, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. 29 EXHIBIT A. Please certify in whose names the following designated properties are registered : — 1526 Locust street, occupied by William F. Norris. 1530 Locust street, occupied by James Parsons. 1606 Locust street, occupied by H. M. Howe. 1614 Locust street, occupied by R. M. Cadwalader. 1620 Locust street, occupied by George L. Harrison. 1622 Locust street, occupied by Isaac Lea. 1630 Locust street, occupied by Horace Fassit. 1637 Locust street, occupied by William Read Fisher. 1703 Locust street, occupied by C. H. Hutchinson. 1705 Locust street, occupied by Joseph F. Tobias. 1707 Locust street, occupied by M. Edward Rogers. 161 2 Walnut street, occupied by Henry C. Gibson. G. T. B. To THE Registry Bureau, Department of Surveys. Department of Surveys, Registry Bureau, Philadelphia, January 24th, 1877. STREET. FORMER OWNER. PRESENT OWNER. DATE OF DEED. Locust S t. 1526 B. H. Yarnall et al., . . Estate Thos. Flemming, . Feb. 6, 1839. 1530 Geo. T. Lewis, trustee, Mary P. Norris, .... April 7, 1876. 1606 J. Gillingham Fell, . . Mary W. F. Howe, . . . May 22, 1876. I6I4 George Brooke Richard M. Cadwalader, Nov. 10, 1875. 1620 James Markoe, .... George L. Harrison, . . Sept. 26, 1 87 1. 1622 George R. Smith, . . . Isaac Lea, May 6, 1852. 1630 Thomas S. R. Fassit, . Clara F. Lewis, .... by Will. 1637 Henry Chancellor, . . William Brown, .... July I, 1834. 1703 C. T. Piatt el al., . . . Joseph Harrison, Jr., . . May 12, 1858. 1705 C. T. Piatt ^/^ feet. Isaac Lea, 62 y, " Henry C. Gibson, 64 " Herbert M. Howe, 52y. " James Parsons, . unknown. William Read Fisher, S3}4 feet William F. Norris, unknown Charles H. Hutchinson, (( M. Edward Rogers, unknown Joseph T. Tobias, (( Horace Fassit, . tower, i,8j4 feet, house, 40 feet Richard M. Cadwalader, . . . . 55 " The bells are hung sixty- sever 1 feet above the curbstone. EXHIBIT C. Peals or Chimes of Bells in Philadelphia. NO. OF WEIGHT OF BELLS CHURCH. MAKERS. LARGEST BELLS. BELL. PROCURED. Christ Whitechapel Bell Foun- dry, London, 8 2040 lbs. 1754 St. Peter's, .... Whitechapel Bell Foun- dry, London, 8 1680 " 1843 St. Stephen's, . . . Troy Bell Foundry, . . . 9 2738 " 1853 German Reformed, Salem, .... tt tt 3 1564 " St. Bonifacius', . . McShane Bell Foundry, . 4 3075 " 1876 Cathedral of SS. Pe- ter and Paul, . . Troy Bell Foundry, . . . 3 3012 " 1876 St. Peter's, R. C, . Bernhardt, Phila., .... 4 2500 '' Emmanuel, Luther- an, (( (< ^ ^ 3 2100 " St. Johannes, Lu- theran, tt tt 3 2100 " St. James the Less, St. Mark's, .... 4 Whitechapel Bell Foun- dry, London, 4 2006 lbs. 1876 32 EXHIBIT D. To the Rector, Wardens and Vestry of St. Mark's Church, Phila- delphia : The memorial of the undersigned citizens, residing in the vicinity of said church, respectfully showeth — I. That their houses have been located upon Locust street, and in near proximity thereto, by reason of the quietness thereof, and of its exemption from the ordinary noises even of all the leading streets of said city. And that the health of many of the residents thereon abso- lutely requires that their nervous systems should not be shocked by the sharp, sudden and loud noises inevitably issuing from a chime of bells when rung. II. That some of your memorialists have expended large sums of money in securing homes in this quiet locality ; and that the value of their property will be seriously impaired if bells are put upon your said church. III. That to maintain and perpetuate the comparatively noiseless character of said street, and to promote in part the comfort of those attending the services of your church, reso- lute opposition was made to the running of railway cars thereon, and your memorialists are advised that the scheme of laying a railway track upon this portion of Locust street has been abandoned. IV. That your memorialists have learned with profound regret that it is proposed to erect a chime of bells in the tower of said church ; that in their opinion the wants of the community and of church-members do not require the erec- tion thereof, whilst the frequent clanging of such bells, whether in ringing out a merry peal or in tolling a dirge for the departed, must inevitably cause distress and suffering to all sick persons and young children who may be within the 33 sound thereof, as well as those of delicate and sensitive nerv- ous organizations dwelling in the neighborhood thereof V. That your memoralists have been advised that the walls of said tower are not sufficiently deep, broad and strong to resist the strain which the ringing of a chime of bells therein would cause, and that the possible destruction of said tower and spire, perhaps with many lives, is an event to be appre- hended and most sedulously guarded against. VI. That in charitable deference to the comfort of the neighbors, the ringing of the bell at Calvary Presbyterian Church has been greatly abated and almost wholly suspended. Your memorialists therefore humbly beg that the liberal benefactions of your good people may be directed into a channel fraught with the happiest and most useful results that human efforts can produce ; and unattended with the great discomfort and pecuniary loss to the owners of real estate that the establishment of a chime of bells in said church must inevitably produce. And they will ever pray, &c. George C. Morris, 1600 Locust street. I appreciate these considerations, and estimate the damage to my property in addition to personal suffering, should the object referred to be carried into execution, at ;^5000. Joseph H. Dulles, 1602 Locust street. E. J. Lewis, 1628 Locust street. William V. Keating, M. D., 1604 Locust street. Jacob Carver, 1627 Locust street. H. M. Howe, M. D., 1606 Locust street. William Brown, 1635 Locust street. William Read Fisher, 1637 Locust street. MacGregor J. Mitcheson, 1608 Locust street. M. R. Thomas, 1629 Locust street. M. D. McCall, 1610 Locust street. 34 Isaac Lea, 1622 Locust street. I. Minis Hays, 1607 Locust street. Coleman M. Fisher, 1637 Locust street. Mary Bayard, 161 2 Locust sti'eet. George L. Harrison, 1620 Locust street. As to section 5, the last three signers express no opinion. Charles C. Harrison, 1618 Locust street. Alfred C. Harrison, 1616 Locust street. Horace Fassit, 1630 Locust street. E. P. Bernardy, M. D., 221 South Seventeenth street. EXHIBIT E. Philadelphia, January 7th, 1 876. Dear Sir: — I am directed to communicate to you the following resolution of the vestry of St. Mark's Church, em- bodying their action at their stated meeting on last Monday evening, upon the remonstrance against a chime of bells in St. Mark's Church, signed by yourself and others. Will you kindly communicate this to the other gentlemen whose names appear on the paper ? Very truly, yours, S. Wagner, Jr., Secretary. M. J. MiTCHESON, Esq. The vestry having received a communication from certain parties, owners of property in the vicinity of St. Mark's Church, deprecating the erection of a chime of bells in the tower of the church, " Resolved, That the signers of the remonstrance be informed that the bells were ordered some time ago; that when the tower was built it was contemplated to place therein a chime of bells ; that the vestry regret that owners of property in 35 the neighborhood should consider themselves aggrieved by the action of the vestry in carrying out the original design of the corporation ; and that they are confident that the annoy- ance will not be so serious as seems to be anticipated by the remonstrants." EXHIBIT F. Philadelphia, January loth, 1876. Dear Sir : — I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of 8th inst., enclosing the resolution of the vestry of St. Mark's Church, relative to the remonstrance of the neighbors against a chime of bells. I regret to say, in reply, that those who bought their houses in view of the unusual quiet of this street and under the belief that the bell-project had been considerately abandoned by the church, can see no reason for its resuscitation at this time. Nor can they believe that the mere fact of the bells having been ordered — in ignorance of the inevitable discomfort, if not prejudice to health, which their introduction would occa- sion to certain residents in this locality — will be deemed suffi- cient justification for disregarding the interests and wishes of every property-owner upon Locust street, between Sixteenth and Seventeenth streets, as made known by the remonstrance. Very truly, yours, MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON. Samuel Wagner, Jr., Esq., Secretary Vestry of St. Mark's Church. 36 EXHIBIT G. MacGREGOR J. MiTCHESON, Attorney and Counsellor at Law, Offices, No. 528 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, June 26th, 1876. To the Rector, Wardens and Vestry of St. Mark's Church, Philadelphia, Gentlemen : — I have been requested to ascertain whether it is your purpose to continue the ringing of your church-bells between 6 and 7 A. M. ? Upon Sunday last they startled some persons from sound sleep, bringing on violent headache, &c., utterly preventing religious observance of the day by thein at least. If, for the enjoyment of the handful of people who wish to attend your early service, but have no other means (?) of learn- ing the time to go to the church, you think it proper or justi- fiable to destroy the comfort of an entire neighborhood, those who have bought properties in the near vicinity of the church — for the purpose of living upon a quiet street, would like to be apprised of it. Trusting that the nuisance complained of was an inadvertence that will not be repeated, I am Yours, resp'y, M. J. MiTCHESON. EXHIBIT H. 3D. No. 1524 Walnut St., Philadelphia. Dear Mr. Kirtley. — Some of mj^unlucky nervous patients are driven wild by the early bells of St. Mark's. If you have ever been in the way of ill sleeping, and have looked to the quiet of Sunday with anticipative comfort, you would under- stand how grave a matter this may seem to one of these folks. Pray help us to get rid of this annoyance — the early bells — Yours, faithfully, Weir Mitchell. 37 EXHIBIT I. No. 1620 Spruce Street, 4 November, 1876. My Dear Sir: — Your note which Mr. Kirtley brought me this morning is the first intimation I have had that some of your nervous patients residing in the vicinity of St. Mark's are in such a condition as to be seriously injured by the ring- ing of the bells for the sevenvo'clock service on Sunday morn- ings. My congregation will miss the ringing of the bells for those services very much, but, under the circumstances, I shall direct it to be discontinued at once. Trusting that our neighbors, under your skillful care, may soon recover, I am, very faithfuly, yours, E. A. Hoffman. Weir Mitchell, M. D. EXHIBIT K. 4TH November [1876], No. 1524 Walnut Street, Philadelphia. My Dear Doctor. — I have to thank you very sincerely for your most kind and courteous note of this morning. You will be most warmly thanked by several persons, who I am sure will gain in some ways what your good people may lose in others. Very truly, yours. Weir Mitchell. The Rev. E. A. Hoffman, D. D. 38 EXHIBIT L. Petition Received by Vestry, November 6th, i 876, after THE Discontinuance of the Early Bell. To the Rector, Church-wardens and Vestrymen of St. Mark's Church, Gentlemen : — You are already aware that the establishment and the use of bells at St. Mark's Church encountered serious objection from residents in the vicinity of the church, and that the parties who anticipated the disturbance they would cause ventured to express to you their apprehensions in this behalf, as they intended, in the most respectful manner. The undersigned now beg to say that their fears have been fully realized, and that great distress has arisen to near neigh- bors from the frequent and protracted ringing of St. Mark's bells, so much so, that at the present time there are several persons who suffer impaired health from this cause and many families who are much disturbed thereby. The undersigned do not intend to prefer a request to discon- tinue the ringing of the bells excepting for a single service, and for this* relief they most earnestly appeal to you. It must be familiarly known to gentleman whose lives are devoted to the personal consideration and relief of suffering, that there is always a class of persons who have been ren- dered intensely sensitive by overstrained, though necessary, occupation in useful secular works, and devotion also to the pursuit of charitable and religious labors, and that delicate organizations, whether natural or acquired, must be painfully affected by the loud sounds, however musical, and the thrill- ing vibrations which attend the striking of the bells. For such as these more especially do we appeal to you to discontinue the ringing of the early morning service — the ex- pectation even of which disturbs or wholly breaks the repose of the entire night, and unfits the' sufferer for the enjoyment of Sunday rest or Sunday worship. * Not emphasized in original. 39 This concession and a reduction of the time given to bell- ringing at the other services will, we believe, compose the irritation and obviate the objections which disturb, though most reluctantly to themselves, so many of the neighbors and well-wishers of St. Mark's Church. It may be true that the offense and the resentment thus naturally created may not prove in any degree harmful to the interest of the honored church which you represent ; we should deplore such influence, but we are convinced that the consciousness of such exemption will not weigh with you in determining the question ; we rather commend to your thought this suggestion, that no individual of your body, if he could measure the amount of discomfort and suffering which is caused by the practice now pursued, could fail to have his sensibilities pained and his judgment determined to abate the evil. In conclusion, we believe that it may be confidently stated that rieither the religious interest nor the religious comforts of even the humblest attendant at St. Mark's Church would be interfered with. November 1st, 1876. George L. Harrison, 1620 Locust street. Isaac Lea, 1622 Locust street. MacGregor J. Mitcheson, 1608 Locust street. William V. Keating, M. D., 1604 Locust street. I. Heatly Dulles, 1602 Locust street. Margaret W. Dulles, 1602 Locust street. Jacob Carver, 1627 Locust street. Richard M. Cadwalader, 1614 Locust street. Horace Fassit, 1630 Locust street. William Brown, 1635 Locust street. D. H. Rucker, 1633 Locust street. H. M. Howe, 1606 Locust street. S. A. Caldwell, 1604 Walnut street. Alfred C. Harrison, 16 16 Locust street. 40 Joseph F. Tobias, 1705 Locust street. Mary Bayard, 16 12 Locust street. M. Edw. Rogers, 1707 Locust street. Sarah R. Colwell, 1519 Locust street. S. Emlen Meigs, 171 3 Locust street. Christopher Wetherell, 1529 Locust street. James B. Leonard, 17 16 Locust street. Lemuel Coffin, 15 16 Locust street. A. R. Thomas, M. D., 1628 Locust .street. C. M. Thomas, M. D., 1628 Locust street. Brinton Coxe, 171 1 Locust street. John J. Ridgway, Jr., 1706 Locust street. Coleman P. Fisher, 1637 Locust street. Walter E. Purves, 1624 Walnut street. Henry C. Gibson, 161 2 Walnut street. William Read Fisher, 1637 Locust street. James Paul, 1608 Walnut street. J. M. Da Costa, 1700 Walnut street. William F. Norris, 1526 Locust street. William White, 245 South Sixteenth street. Caroline G. Taitt, 15 18 Walnut street. Frank Olcott Allen, 247 South Sixteenth street. I. Minis Hays, 1607 Locust street. M. L..McCall, 16 10 Locust street. N. Chapman Mitchell, 321 South Seventeenth street. M. R. Thomas, 1629 Locust street. J. T. Macaulay, 1701 Locust street. George Read, 1637 Locust street. Charles C. Harrison, 161 8 Locust street. George L. Harrison, Jr., 1704 Locust street. Samuel L. Shober, 249 South Sixteenth street. Sarah Stratton, 1701 Locust street. A. M. Collins, 15 18 Locust street. C. H. Hutchinson, 1703 Locust street. 41 EXHIBIT M. Paper signed by Physicians. We, the undersigned, physicians, beg leave to call the attention of the rector, wardens and vestry of St. Mark's Church, Philadelphia, to the following : — In every community there is a large class of persons, in the enjoyment of average health, whose constitutions demand a quiet dwelling-place as indispensable to their well-being and happiness and to their usefulness to their families and to society. In addition, there are the sick, both acute and chronic, to whom quiet is essential for speedy and proper recovery or for the prevention of the aggravation of their disorders. In the practice of our profession we are constantly reminded of the truth of the foregoing, and recognize and deplore the injury often done our patients by the noise incidental to and probably necessarily connected with a large city. We have been cognizant of the annoyance and discomfort, and some of us even of the likelihood of injury to health, to members of the aforementioned classes, if the practice be continued, caused by the loud noise of St. Mark's bells, recently erected, and believing it to be our duty, when an evil arises, especially when it is not in any sense a necessary evil, to use our influence to abate it. Therefore, we earnestly and advisedly call the attention of the rector, wardens and vestry of St. Mark's Church to the evil influence exerted by the early, the frequent, and the. prolonged ringing of their bells, believing it to be prejudicial to health of some and to the discomfort of many of the residents of the neighborhood, some of whom have specially sought the locality on account of the quiet whichrit has heretofore enjoyed. Alfred Stille, M. D. S. Weir Mitchell, M. D. Ellwood Wilson, 212 South Fifteenth street. James H. Hutchinson. Albert H. Smith. 42 Edward Hartshorne. William V. Keating, M. D. S. D. Gross. John H. Packard, M. D. Francis G. Smith, Jr. H. Lenox Hodge, M. D. J. Cheston Morris, M. D. William Pepper. EXHIBIT N. Philadelphia, November 7th, 1876. To Messrs. George L. Harrison, Isaac Lea, MacGregor J. Mitche- son and others. Gentlemen : — At a special meeting of the vestry of St. Mark's Church, held on the 6th inst., your communication, dated November 1st, relative to the ringing of the bells of the church, was presented and duly considered. The following resolutions were passed by the vestry : — Resolved, That while the vestry entirely denies the right of the residents in the vicinity to regulate in any way the manner or the time of ringing the bells of St. Mark's Church, they feel confident that the corporation, through the rector of the parish, will always be ready, as the rector has already been, to hear and consider any special appeal that may be made for stopping the ringing of the bells in any specified case of illness. Resolved, That the secretary be directed to communicate the above resolution to the petitioners. I am, with great respect, very truly, yours, Samuel Wagner, Jr., Secretary of St. Mark's Vestty. 43 EXHIBIT O. Philadelphia, November 8th, 1876. 7!? Samuel Wagner, Jr., Esq., Secretary of St. Mark's Vestry, Dear Sir : — We have received from you the response of the vestry of St. Mark's Church, to a communication of our- selves and others, relative to the ringing of the bells of the church, addressed to the rector, wardens and vestrymen, under date of November ist. We beg to say, in order to prevent any misunderstanding on this subject, that the paper we presented was a respectful appeal to the vestry of the church to exercise their own authority in the premises, and that there was no indication of any claim or desire on the part of the signers to the petition " to regulate in any way the manner or time of ringing the bells of St. Mark's Church." We did, however, hope and expect that the reasons assigned for the moderate changes *we prayed for would have induced the authorities of the church to consider and act upon the petition, and by their favorable proceeding relieve the discom- fort and distress and consequent irritation which prevail in the neighborhood of the church. Respectfully, yours, George L. Harrison, Isaac Lea, MacGreGOR J. MiTCHESON and others. 44 TABLE OF DATES. Corner-stone of St. Mark's laid, . . . April, 1848. Church and part of tower completed, . . October, 1849. Tower and spire fully completed, .... 1851—2. Collection for bell-fund commenced, . December, 1869. Rector authorized to purchase four bells, October nth, 1875. Remonstrance from Geo. L. Harrison and others presented at vestry meeting, . January 4th, 1876. Arrival of bells, June 4th, 1876. Bells first chimed for service, . June 25th, 1876. Fresh remonstrance from Mr. Mitcheson, . June 26th, 1876. Correspondence with S. Weir Mitchell, Nov. 3d and 4th, 1876. Appeal of G. L. Harrison and others presented, November 6th, 1876. Bill for injunction filed, . . . January 2d, 1877. PETITION OF STEPHEN A. CALDWELL et al. The petition of Stephen A. Caldwell, residing at No. 1640 Walnut street; Walter McMichael, No. 1616 Walnut street; Rebecca Gibson, No. 1702 Walnut street; Caroline G. Taitt, No. 1518 Walnut street, and I. Heatly Dulles, No. 1602 Locust street, respectfully represents : — On the fifth day of January, 1877, a bill in equity, entitled as above, was filed in this court by the above-named complain- ants, setting forth that they were the owners or occupiers of certain residences, situate within a radius of an eighth of a mile from the corner of Sixteenth and Locust streets, in the city of Philadelphia, and that the bell-ringing as carried on by the defendants amounted to a public and a private nuisance, and it was therein prayed that the defendants should be restrained by injunction from continuing so to ring the bells therein mentioned. Your petitioners are the owners or occupiers of certain other premises, situate within the said radius, to wit, and, equally with the complainants, their property is depreciated, their rest broken and the enjoyment of their homes prevented by the conduct of the corporation defendant. Hence, as the rights of your petitioners will be affected by any decree made in this cause, they pray that they may be admitted to prosecute this suit as parties complainant, accord- ing to the usual course of practice of chancery. S.'A. Caldwell, Walter McMichael, Rebecca Gibson, Caroline G. Taitt, I. Heatly Dulles. (45) 46 S. A. Caldwell, being duly affirmed, says that the facts above set forth are just and true. S. A. Caldwell. Affirmed to and subscribed before me, this seventh day of February, A. D. 1877. R. L. Wright, [seal] Notary Public. City of Philadelphia, ss. Rebecca Gibson and Caroline G. Taitt, being respectively and severally affirmed, say that the facts set forth in the fore- going petition are true. Affirmed to and subscribed, February 8th, 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. I. Heatly Dulles, being duly affirmed, says that the facts set forth in the foregoing petition are true. Affirmed to and subscribed, this eighth day of February', A. D. 1877, before me. Joseph Mellors, [seal] Notary Public. Walter McMichael, being duly sworn, says that the facts set forth in the foregoing petition are true. Sworn and subscribed, this eighth day of February, A. D. 1877, before me. Joseph Mellors, [seal] Notary Piiblic. COMPLAINANTS' AFFIDAVITS. George L. Harrison, being duly affirmed, says: — I am one of the complainants in this cause. I now reside at 1620 Locust street, and have done so for six years. Im- mediately before this, I resided for four years at 1618 Locust street. In 1858 I built the two dwellings at the north-east cor- ner of Locust and Sixteenth streets, and lived in the lower one for seven years. The neighborhood where I reside has always been considered a very attractive one for its beauty, for its general quiet and its freedom from places of traffic of every kind, and its attractiveness was enhanced by its nearness to St. Mark's Church, whose fine architecture and tasteful grounds, and seclusion from all disturbing sights or sounds, induced the hope that the desirableness of this particular locality for a residence would be maintained. For the reasons here stated, I fixed my dwelling-place in that neighborhood — my present residence having cost me over ;^ 5 0,000. I am informed and believe that the present tower of St. Mark's Church was built at the same time as the church, viz., about 1849, and that in 1852 the present spire was added; but no bells of any kind were ever used in either until last year, when four bells were introduced there, of unusual size and power, as I believe, and which have been established at a distance from the ground very little beyond the height of the surrounding dwellings. When I knew that the bells were to be introduced, foreseeing the effect upon myself and my property, I applied to counsel, and was advised that I had no ground for the interference of a court until an actual using was done. That a party could not be prevented from putting up bells upon his premises, and that the remedy would depend upon their use. That I could not assume that they would be rung prejudicially, unlawfully, (47) 48 or even at all, until such a using had actually taken place. I therefore took no active measures in the matter, but merely united with my neighbors in a representation of the antici- pated grievance from the use of the bells. The defendants have caused these- bells to be rung and tolled— On Sundays, from 6^ A. M. until service at 7. " 10 " " ioj4. " 3)4 P. M. " 4- " "7 " " 7'A- On week-days, for 10 minutes between 8^ and 9 A. M. 10 " " 4^ " 5 P. M. I am not aware of the manner of their use on festivals and Saints' days, never being at my residence on these occasions; but I am informed and believe that at such times the ringing is more prolonged than on week-days merely. The early morning bell has been discontinued since and inclusive of November 5th, when the authorities of the church were advised of an intended complaint to the vestry; but I am informed and believe that, at the meeting of the vestry held to consider this complaint, a resolution was offered to discontinue this early ringing and was almost unanimously negatived. The reason for its prolonged stoppage, and for the later moderation of the use, clangor and vibration of the bells, I am not advised of These changes have certainly relieved the discomfort and the suffering materially. But as the whole matter is confessedly reposed in the will of a single individual, namely, the rector of the parish, I am of the opinion that no certainty, or even probability, exists of the continuance of the present partial relief under the existing mind and intention of the corporation. My occupations, for most of my life, have required much mental strain and a large draught upon my nervous sensi- bilities. My health, therefore, is best preserved now by free- dom from disquiet and disturbance, other than what are recognized as productive of general or individual advantage. 49 The ringing of the early morning bells caused me much loss of sleep by expectation of the disturbance, and the effect of the later ringings is painful and disturbing to both my wife and myself. On occasions when, from sickness in the family, my wife has lost the night's rest and has endeavored to obtain sleep in the afternoon the effort has been fruitless on account of the bell-ringing for afternoon service ; and it has become in her case and my own (when endeavoring to obtain rest of an afternoon, after fatiguing engagements) a necessity to postpone the opportunity for rest until after the cessation of the noise and vibration produced by the bells. This vibration is most disagreeable, resembling at all times the effect of a continuous electrical current throughout the system, or the whirr of circular-saw-mill. In my case, the evil of this unseasonable and immoderate bell-ringing is much enhanced by its anticipation, and this becomes much more objectionable than the occasional and uncertain noises which proceed from other sources, as for in- stance, fire-engines, locomotive-whistles, &c. Upon the whole, the home-feeling of imrnunity from intrusion, and the home privilege of exemption from unnecessary outside disturbances, are, in a great measure, lost ; and, if the practice of ringing the bells, which prevailed when complaint was first made, shall be resumed, I shall be forced to remove from the neigh- borhood, to my great loss and disappointment. St. Mark's Church itself has sympathized with its neighbors in the past, in their desire for that quiet and freedom from noises which all had reason to expect would prevail in the locality in which the church is situated, and she aided, by uniting, through her warden, in a petition, which also was enforced by a medical certificate, to prevent the passage of a railway along Locust street. The effort was made successful, to her manifest advantage as well as the comfort of the residents upon said street. As but few of the residents near the church were in the city for several months after the bells had been established in June last, no concerted action was taken until October. 5° It was with the greatest reluctance then that the neighbor- hood assumed the constrained attitude of presenting itself before the authorities of St. Mark's Church, with even its humble petition for relief, presented on the 6th of last November. This appeal was not, however, the first which was heard by the rector and at least some members of the vestry. Special appeals were made to both previous to this voice of the neighbors and the letter of Dr. S. Weir Mitchell, which accompanies his affidavit. The note of Mr. John S. Newbold, a then member of the vestry, appended to Mr. Cadwalader's affidavit, and which I saw him sign and offer for publication, will certify to these statements. The communication of November ist to the vestry of St. Mark's Church was accompanied by the certificates of a num- ber of the leading physicians of the city, and those papers and names were as follows: — To the Rector, Church- Wardens and Vestrymen of St. Mark's Church, Gentlemen : — You are already aware that the establishment and the use of bells in St. Mark's Church encountered serious objection from residents in the vicinity of the church, and that the parties who anticipated the disturbance they would cause ventured to express to you their apprehensions in this behalf, as they intended, in the most respectful manner. The undersigned now beg to say that their fears have been fully realized and that great distress has arisen to the near neighbors from the frequent and protracted ringing of St. Mark's bells, so much so that at the present time there are several persons who suffer impaired health from this cause and many families who are much disturbed thereby. The undersigned do not intend to prefer a request to dis- continue the ringing of the bells, excepting for a single ser- vice, viz., for what is called the early morning service, and for this relief they most earnestly appeal to you. It must be familiarly known to gentlemen whose lives are devoted to the personal consideration and relief of suffering SI that there is always a class of persons who have been rendered intensely sensitive by overstrained, though necessary, occu- pation in useful secular works, and in devotion, also, to the pursuit of charitable and religious labors, and that delicate organizations, whether natural or acquired, must be painfully affected by the loud sounds, however musical, and the thrilling vibrations which attend the striking of the bells. For such as these, more especially, do we appeal to you to discontinue the ringing for the early morning service, the expectation, even, of which disturbs, or wholly breaks, the repose of the entire night, and unfits the sufferer for the enjoyment of Sunday rest and Sunday worship. This concession, and a reduction of the time given to bell- ringing at the other services, will, we believe, compose the irritation and obviate the objections which disturb, though most reluctantly to themselves, so many of the neighbors and well-wishers of St. Mark's Church. It may be true that the offense and the resentment thus naturally created may not prove, in any degree, harmful to the interests of the honored church which you represent. We should deplore such an influence ; but we are convinced that the consciousness of such exemption will not weigh with you in determining the question. We rather commend to your thought this suggestion : that no individual of your body, if he could measure the amount of discomfort and suffering which is caused by the practice now pursued, could fail to have his sensibilities pained and his judgment deter- mined to abate the evil. In conclusion, we believe that it may be confidently stated, that neither the religious interests nor the religious comfort of even the humblest attendant at St. Mark's Church would be interfered with. November 1st, 1876. George L. Harrison, 1620 Locust street. Isaac Lea, 1622 Locust street. 52 MacGregor J. Mitcheson, 1608 Locust street. William V. Keating, M. D., 1604 Locust street. I. Heatly Dulles, 1602 Locust street. Margaret W. Dulles, 1602 Locust street. Jacob Carver, 1627 Locust street. Richard M. Cadwalader, 1614 Locust street.' Horace Fassit, 1630 Locust street. William Brown, 1635 Locust street. D. H. Rucker, 1633 Locust street. H. M. Howe, 1606 Locust street. S. A. Caldwell, 1604 Walnut street. Alfred C. Harrison, 1616 Locust street. Joseph F. Tobias, 1705 Locust street. Mary Bayard, 161 2 Locust street. M. Edward Rogers, 1707 Locust street. Sarah R. Colwell, 15 19 Locust street. S. Emlen Meigs, 171 3 Locust street. Christopher Wetherill, 1529 Locust street. James B. Leonard, 17 16 Locust street. Lemuel Coffin, 15 16 Locust street. A. R. Thomas, 1628 Locust street. C. M. Thomas, 1628 Locust street. Brinton Coxe, 171 1 Locust street. John J. Ridgway, Jr., 1706 Locust street. Coleman P. Fisher, 1637 Locust street. Walter E. Penrose, 1624 Walnut street. Henry C. Gibson, 161 2 Walnut street. Wm. Read Fisher, 1637 Locust street. James Paul, 1608 Walnut street. J. M. Da Costa, M. D., 1700 Walnut street. William F. Norris, M. D., 1526 Locust street. William White, 245 South Sixteenth street. Caroline G. Taitt, 1518 Walnut street. Frank Olcott Allen, 247 South Sixteenth street. L Minis Hays, 1607 Locust street. M. L. McCall, 1610 Locust street. M. R. Thomas, 1629 Locust street. S3 J. T. Macaulay, 1701 Locust street. George Read, 1637 Locust street. Charles C. Harrison, 161 8 Locust street. George L. Harrison, Jr., 1704 Locust street. Samuel L. Shober, 249 South Sixteenth street. Sarah Stratton, 1701 Locust street. A. M. Collins, 15 18 Locust street. C. H. Hutchinson, 1703 Locust street. PHYSICIANS' CERTIFICATE. We, the undersigned physicians, beg leave to call the atten- tion of the rector, wardens and vestry of St. Mark's Church, Philadelphia, to the following : — In every community there is a large class of persons in the enjoyment of average health whose constitutions demand a quiet dwelling-place as indispensable to their well-being and happiness and to their usefulness to their families and to society. In addition there are the sick, both acute and chronic, to whom quiet is essential for speedy and proper recovery, or for the prevention of the aggravation of their disorders. In the practice of our profession we are constantly reminded of the truth of the foregoing, and recognize and deplore the injury often done our patients by the noise incidental to, and, probably, necessarily connected with, a large city. We have become cognizant of the annoyance and discom- fort, and some of us even of the likelihood of injury to health to members of the afore-mentioned classes, if the practice be continued, caused by the loud noise of the St. Mark's bells recently 'erected ; and believing it to be our duty when an evil arises — especially when it is not in any sense a necessary evil — to use our influence to abate it, therefore we earnestly and advisedly call the attention of the rector, wardens and vestry of St Mark's Church to the evil influence exerted by the early, ^e. frequent and "Ca^ prolonged ringing of their bells, believing it to be prejudicial to the health of some and to the comfort of many of the residents of the neighborhood, some . 54 of whom have specially sought the locality on account of the quiet which it has heretofore enjoyed. (Signed Alfred Stille, M. D. S. Weir Mitchell, M. D. Elwood Wilson, M. D., 212 South Fifteenth street. William V. Keating, M. D. S. D. Gross, M. D. Francis G. Smith, Jr., M. D. H. Lenox Hodge, M. D. J. Cheston Morris, M. D. William Pepper, M. D. James H. Hutchinson, M. D. Albert H. Smith, M. D. Edward Hartshorne, M. D. John H. Packard, M. D. The action of the vestry of St. Mark's Church to the com- munications of the neighbors and the physicians and the reply thereto of the petitioners were as follows : — "Philadelphia, November 7th, 1876. " To Messrs. George L. Harrison, Isaac Lea, MacGregor J. Mitcheson and others, " Gentlemen : — At a special meeting of the vestry of St. Mark's Church, held on the 6th inst, your communication, dated November ist, relative to the ringing of the bells of the church, was presented and duly considered. The following resolutions were passed by the vestry : — "Resolved, That while the vestry entirely denies the right of the residents in the vicinity to regulate in any way the manner or the time of ringing the bells of St. Mark's Church, they feel confident that the corporation, through the rector of the parish, will always be ready, as the rector has already been, to hear and consider any special appeal that may be made for stopping the ringing of the bells in any specified case of illness. 55 "Resolved, That the secretary be directed to communicate the above resolution to the petitioners. " I am, with great respect, very truly, yours, " Samuel Wagner, Jr., " Secretary of St. Mark's Vestry!' " Philadelphia, November 8th, 1876. " To Samuel Wagner, Jr., Esq., Secretary of St. Mark's Vestry, "Dear Sir: — We have received from you the response of the vestry of St. Mark's Church to a communication of our- selves and others, relative to the ringing of the bells of the church, addressed to the rector, wardens and vestrymen, under date of November 1st. "We beg to say, in order to prevent any misunderstanding on this subject, that the paper we presented was a respectful appeal to the vestry of the church to exercise their own authority in the premises, and that there was no indication of any claim or desire on the part of the signers to the petition 'to regulate in any way the manner or time of ringing the bells of St. Mark's Church.' "We did, however, hope and expect that the reasons assigned for the moderate changes we prayed for would have induced the authorities of the church to consider and act upon the petition, and, by their favorable proceeding, relieve the discomfort and distress and consequent irritation which prevail in the neighborhood of the church. " Respectfully, yours, "Geo. L. Harrison, "Isaac Lea, "MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, "and others." I deem it proper to state in this affidavit the fact that Isaac Lea, whose residence adjoins my own on the west and who 56 has been in California for several months, has requested me to associate him in any proceedings in which I should be con- cerned whose purpose should be the stoppage or reduction in time of the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church. Geo. L. Harrison. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this thirtieth day of January, A. D. 1877. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. MacGregor J. Mitcheson, being duly sworn, saith: — My residence is No. 1608 Locust street, directly opposite St. Mark's Church, about one hundred feet from the belfry. I am a pew-holder in that church, although I usually attend service at another church. More than a year ago, viz., in December, 1875, I was called upon by persons in the neighborhood — who had just learned that the defendants meditated the introduction of a chime of bells — to prepare a remonstrance against this apprehended disturbance of the quiet which we had previously enjoyed. The paper was promptly signed by a number of the residents in this vicinity and forwarded to the defendants. I have not a copy of the paper itself, but it became the sub- ject of formal action on the part of the defendants, from whom I received the following communication: — Philadelphia, January 8th, 1876. Dear Sir : — I am directed to communicate to you the fol- lowing resolution of the Vestry of St. Mark's Church, em- bodying their action at the stated meeting on last Monday evening, upon the remonstrance against a chime of bells in St. Mark's Church signed by yourself and others. 57 Will you kindly communicate this to the other gentlemen whose names appear on the paper ? Very truly, yours, S. Wagner, Jr., Secretary of the Vestry. MacGrEGOR. J. MiTCHESON, EsQ. With this letter was the following resolution : — "The Vestry having received a communication from certain parties, owners of property in the vicinity of St. Mark's Church, deprecating the erection of a chime of bells in the tower of the church, " Resolved, That the signers of the remonstrance be informed that the bells were ordered some time ago ; that when the tower was built it was contemplated to place therein a chime of bells ; that the Vestry regret that owners of property in the neighborhood should consider themselves aggrieved by the action of the Vestry in carrying out the original design of the corporation ; and that they are confident that the annoyance will not be so serious as seems to be anticipated by the re- monstrance." Of course, nothing remained to be done ; but I am informed and believe that one or more of the neighbors applied to other counsel to restrain the putting up of the bells, but were advised that a court of equity would not anticipate that the bells would be used as a nuisance, and would hence refuse an injunction. This was my opinion. In June, 1876, four of the chime of bells arrived and their ringing began. The first result of the sudden awakening from sleep by the noise of the bells, was to give my wife and others very violent headaches ; — wholly preventing their going to church on Sun- day, if so disposed, and destroying their enjoyment of the rest of that day. Being consulted by some of the neighbors, I again ad- dressed the defendants by letter. No attention whatever was 58 paid to my communication, nor was the ringing of the bells suspended or abated in the least. The first ringing upon Sunday occupied twenty minutes, by the watch, before seven o'clock, A. M.; — that before each of the other services continued at least half an hour. The ringing during the week has varied from ten to twenty minutes before each of the daily services. In using the word " ringing," I do so in its popular and comprehensive sense, not in its limited and technical meaning only. I would then have filed a bill against the defendants : — but it was early in July, most of the residents of this street were out of town, and I indulged the hope that after the novelty of the church's new investment was over, and the rector and vestry had reflected upon the discomfort they were causing, they would voluntarily abate the evil. Hence, during the sum- mer months I avoided the recurrence of these Sunday morning headaches of my wife, by going out of town on Saturday after- noon and not returning to the city until Monday morning. Those who had consulted me, also left the city for the summer ; and litigation was thus temporarily deferred. Desiring to avert it entirely, I signed the appeal to the rector, wardens and vestry of St. Mark's Church, dated November ist, 1876; besides speaking to eight of the vestry- men, at different times, of the great annoyance and distress occasioned by the noise of their bells ; and endeavoring to bring friendly counsel and influence to bear upon the rector to mitigate the nuisance. It is due to the vestry to say, that some of their number were both willing and anxious to abate it at once ; but the official action of the defendants will appear in their resolution which forms part of the Harrison affidavit. From November, 1876, down to the date of suit brought, the bells have been rung upon an average of an hour and a half upon that Day of days when every one needs rest. The early Sunday morning bells had been rung up to Novem- ber; but as an act of special grace to certain invalids, on whose behalf Dr. Mitchell had appealed for an indulgence, 59 they were temporarily suspended, with an assertion that the congregation missed them, and the rector's hope that the patients would soon be well. This locality is densely crowded with dwellings and other buildings ; those upon the south side of Locust street are so high that a large part of the volume of sound coming from the bells is necessarily driven into them, the tower in which they are placed being directly in the north line of the street, and little, if any, higher than the tops of these houses. It is simply impossi- ble for persons occupying the front part of these residences, the back part of those on Walnut street, and some of the buildings upon Chancellor street as well as Erety street, to escape the clangor of these bells in the summer season, when the heat of the climate requires the opening of the windows. The din is heard through every room. Nor is it solely the distinct stroke of every bell that falls upon the ear. A dull reverberation is occasioned, that fills the air and seizes upon one's nerves, continuing as long as the ringing lasts and the prostrating effects much longer. If asleep, I have been invariably awakened by them and further sleep was out of the question. Other members of my family have been disturbed much more than myself by them. My wife, who has suffered from neuralgia for some time past, has been much distressed by the noise and reverberation. Whenever I have nervous sick headache, the too-frequent result of over-taxation of the nervous system at my office, my ultimate aim is the chamber of my house. Sometimes when I have just succeeded in falling asleep I have been startled by the bells and deprived of the refreshing influence which sleep alone can give. Upon one of these occasions, after enduring the clangor of the tuneless bells for at least ten to fifteen minutes, a single bell tolled out its melancholy sound one hundred and sixty-five times ; at another occasion, one hundred and eighty times, and on a third occasion [always by my own actual counting], one hundred and ninety times, — the reverberation lasting throughout. The bells have been usually struck heavily, rapidly and 6o irregularly, without regard to metrical rule, and with an utter disregard of their discordant sounds. I have known them to average from eighty to ninety strokes or more each minute. At a single ringing, the bells have been struck, by actual count, from fifteen hundred to two thousand times. It is proper to say, that since the filing of the bill in this cause, the ringing has been very much modified ; but even now the comfort of one's home is very materially diminished, and its value as a place of residence greatly impaired. Nor can one deduce from all the discomfort and positive distress it sometimes brings, the compensating reflection that it accom- plishes the slightest practical benefit to any human being. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON. Sworn to and subscribed before me, this thirty-first day of January, A. D. 1877. Robert D. Coxe, Commissioner. Richard M. Cadwalader, being duly sworn, says: — I am an Episcopalian, and have nearly all my life regularly attended St. Stephen's Church, in Tenth street, where my family still hold the family pew. I am now a pew-holder in St. James' Church. During the last summer, a pew at St. Mark's Church was placed at my disposal, and I had intended to procure sittings for my immediate family. I purchased my house — No. 1614 — on the south side of Locust street, in November, 1875. It is opposite St. Mark's Church, about seventy feet from the door. There were then no bells in the tower, nor did I know of any prospect of their being placed there. Could I have imagined the nuisance and excitement in the neighborhood produced by the bells I would not have purchased this property. In the month of June, 1876, four large bells arrived and were soon in use. They were at first rung constantly every day in the week, without 6i regard to time or hours. In a case of illness in my own family during the early part of July, the bell-ringing was ex- ceedingly and unnecessarily annoying. Supposing it might be required for the tuning and arrangement of the machinery, I did not openly complain, except to remark the absence of tone and sweetness in the bells themselves, and a curious dis- regard of the comfort of those living very near, which a few words from the Rector and Vestry might naturally have ex- plained away. A little later the ringing settled down to regular hours, viz., for twenty minutes before the seven o'clock service on Sunday mornings and half an hour before each of the other services — ten to ten thirty, three thirty to four and seven to thirty minutes past seven, — amounting to about two hours on Sunday. On week-days, from twenty minutes before nine to nine and four thirty to five, sometimes changing in hours only, according to the season, in the afternoon. During the months of September, October and the early part of November, the ringing was especially severe and fre- quent at all the hours mentioned on Sundays and week-days, and continuous from the moment of commencement prolonged to the hour of service. This is the cause of positive suffering to some, and great discomfort to all living in the square on Locust street from Sixteenth to Seventeenth streets, and to some directly in the rear of the church as well as on Walnut street. The bells themselves are loud and harsh, and have a high, clanging sound, rendered really distressing from the fact that they are rung by a person or persons utterly un- skilled in such matters. They are hung unusually low for a peal or chime, at the height, I am told, of sixty-five and a half feet only, while the roof of my house is fifty-five feet above the ground, those above me a little higher, and some on Walnut street from sixty to sixty-four feet. The city is very compactly built about us, and thus the sound strikes on the walls opposite, on those at the side and those in the rear, and seems to rebound from side to side as though in a well. These sounds coming so rapidly and so con- tinuously, one upon another, mingle together, producing a most 62 intolerable nuisance. Again the tower seems somewhat closed and there is constant vibration and whirr. All this is terribly- increased when the windows are up and the doors about the house open, in spring, summer and autumn, for the sound enters the rooms in the front of the house and echoes from wall to wall, rendering conversation impossible, interfering with the ordinary duties of a home. Up to the date of this affidavit, viz., January 30th, 1877, my children are con- stantly frightened from their sleep. Those of my family sleeping in front were always waked by the early morning bells, when such sleep was really necessary to those having the care of children rendered wakeful and nervous from slight ailments. The ringing of this early bell threw one broad awake as if by a shock, and as it lasted for twenty minutes, it was impossible to get to sleep again, and one was obliged to lie listening until one began the Sabbath morning in an embittered frame of mind. When up about the front part of the house, the windows being open, the noise inside causes a ringing in the ears, which is exciting and painful. On week-days, being absent at my business at most of the hours of the day; I, of course, do not feel the annoyance so greatly ; but it is a constant source of complaint and irritation among the members of my household, thus seriously interfering with a home especially sought because of the supposed attractions of the neighborhood. To my family and to those visiting my house, there was something particularly charming in St. Mark's Church. The beauty of its architecture, the care with which the grounds and Parish school were kept, and the air of seclusion and repose which it seemed to spread around the neighborhood suggested those ecclesiastical retreats which in England are so delightful to the traveler. But this feeling has almost given place to aversion. Those like myself living near, have not even in store for them the hope that they can become accustomed to the ringing of these bells, for after the lapse of more than six months from the time of their arrival, with the exception of the temporary suspension of the early 63 morning bell and the present changes in the periods of ringing since this bill has been filed, we still find them a great nui- sance, and now that the season of milder weather is approach- ing, when our windows will be more or less open, we know our sufferings will be increased. From personal examination and inquiry, I find that an ex- tremely small percentage of St. Mark's congregation reside within the sound of this noise, and hence that it is quite un- necessary as a means of calling its worshipers together. Indeed, one of the defendants, a member of the present Vestry, informed me that he was " in favor of the bells ; he lived too far off to be annoyed by them." And it does seem hard that our tempers are to be irritated, our homes deprived of their charm, and our health jeoparded by reason of a noise which is made for no one useful purpose, which is made solely for the recreation or fancy of those concerned, and which is stoutly claimed as an absolute right, depending solely upon the caprice of those who make the noise, for upon a friendly appeal being made to the rector in person, by prominent churchmen, the only satisfaction that could be obtained was that the Rector "had made up his mind, and further appeal was useless." In the annual report of the Parish work of St. Mark's Church, published on All Saints' Day, 1876 (which means the 1st of November), long after the complaints had been so nu- merous and so earnest, and on the very day of the date of the written remonstrance of the neighborhood, the Rector "takes pleasure in stating that the four larger bells of the peal of eight (which it was decided to procure for the church) arrived from London on Whitsunday last, by the American steamer ' Illinois,' and have been safely placed in the tower. * '^ Long may the bells continue to announce the Lord's Day, and to call the people to the House of Prayer." It is therein further stated that the four bells still required to complete the peal will cost about $500 each ; that the col- lections on Saints' days will be devoted to that purpose, and that " special donations of any amount may be dropped in 64 the box in the church porch, or will be thankfully received by the Rector." It is true that the early bell-ringing has been discontinued for the reason set forth in the affidavit of Dr. Mitchell in this cause, but we were distinctly given to understand by the de- fendants that this was temporary only, and that it is so is con- firmed by the annexed letter of Mr. John S. Newbold, until recently a vestryman of the church, published in one of the newspapers. As there are in the Episcopal Church many saints' and festival days, besides the service at different hours of every day in the week, it becomes a very serious question how to arrange the hours of sleep for children of different ages, the moments for duty or pleasure, for study, for repose or rest. And as the tone of the Rector and Vestry has been not only unsatisfactory, but defiant and dangerously aggressive, I have appealed to the courts to define the rights of those who have sought a home in a neighborhood because of its supposed immunity from nuisances. Richard M. Cadwalader. Sworn and subscribed before me, this thirtieth day of January, 1877. Wm. H. Myers, Notar)' Public. "To the Editor of 'The Times:' "There are one or two statements in The Times' article of Thursday which it would be unfair not to correct, and, as I had cognizance of the whole matter and special charge of the ' appeal ' to St. Mark's vestry (of which I was a member) of the residents of the neighborhood, it seems proper that I should make the correction. As to the stoppage of the bells for the early morning service of Sunday, November 5th, the expla- nation is as follows: — The 'petitioners' were informed that the meeting of the vestry to consider their complaint was called for Saturday, November 4th, and on that day the 6s petition was completed for submission to the vestry. The meeting was, however, postponed until Monday, and the sus- pension of ringing the early bells on the intervening Sunday could not have been anticipated by the petitioners, and there was no advice or direction given by the vestry at their meeting as to this matter. It therefore rests with the will of the rector and can be regarded solely as a temporary measure. I must also say that, before the preparation or presentation of the 'appeal' there were earnest personal efforts made to induce both the rector of the church and members of the vestry to discontinue the ringing of the bells for the early morning service, and the suspension of the ringing for the early service on the Sunday referred to was in answer to a strong appeal made specially to the rector by a physician, upon behalf of ' two or three sick patients,' and a letter to him written by a prominent member of the vestry, and was understood to be but temporary. "John S. Newbold. " Philadelphia, November 24th." Lemuel Coffin, being duly sworn, says : — I am an Episcopalian and a member of the church of the Holy Trinity, at Nineteenth and Walnut streets, in the city of Philadelphia. I have attended that church for the last eighteen years and have been a warden of the church ever since the organization of the vestry. It will be remembered that during the Centennial Exhibition a chime of bells was played in Machinery Hall, under the direction of Professor Widdows. At the close of the Exhi- bition I was consulted by the agent for the owners of this chime, who desired to know if I thought the church of the Holy Trinity would purchase it if it were offered to them. I told him that while some of us would be very glad to have a chime of bells, yet the objection to the bells used at St. Mark's 66 Church were so numerous and the complaints so frequent, that I did not think it worth while to bring it before the vestry, and nothing further was done about the matter. I reside at 1 5 16 Locust street and am familiar with the effect of the ringing of St. Mark's Church bells, both in my own neighborhood and in that nearer to the church. They have been rung since the beginning of last July, and with open windows at that time I can fully realize the truth of the re- mark of one who lives nearly opposite to the church, that in summer his daughters and himself were driven almost wild by the clangor and vibration of these bells. I signed an appeal to the vestry of St. Mark's Church to stop the early morning ringing and to reduce the use of the bells at other times. This petition was refused. Great distress is suffered by the practice pursued in the use of the bells in the closely-built neighborhood of St. Mark's Church, and in mild weather with open windows our residences will be rendered most uncomfortable and in many cases intolerable. I would not for any consideration live opposite St. Mark's Church, if the bells are to continue to be rung as they are at present, although personally I am not opposed to bells when the con- ditions for using them are favorable ; and I have no doubt that the value of property in the neighborhood of that church will depreciate greatly unless this ringing is obviated or moderated. Lem'l Coffin. Sworn and subscribed to before me, this twenty-seventh day of January, A. D. 1877. Geo. W. Roberts, [seal] Notary Public. Charles R. Colwell, being duly sworn, says : — When in Philadelphia, I reside at No. 15 19 Locust street. The bells established in St. Mark's Church are a source of much disturbance to me even since the frequency of their 6; ringing has been reduced. By their clangor and vibration, they disturb sleep, interrupt conversation and promote dis- quiet even with the windows closed. During the summer, when windows are necessarily open much of the time, I believe that the amount of ringing which has been practiced would render my residence most uncomfortable, and that it would become almost intolerable should the ringing of the 6^ A. M. bell be resumed. I consider that property in the vicinity of St. Mark's Church has been depreciated to a con- siderable extent by the introduction and use of St. Mark's bells. Charles R. Colwell. Sworn and subscribed before me, this twenty-ninth day of January, A. D. 1877. Henry D. Betts, [seal] Notary Public. John Harrison, being duly affirmed, says : — I live at No. 1520 Locust street, and have resided there since the year 1868. I know of the establishment of the bells in St. Mark's Church, and am aware of the general complaint which has been common in the neighborhood in consequence of the early and frequent and prolonged ringing of these bells. The clangor and vibration which this practice produces at such an unseasonable hour as the six and three-quarter o'clock bell, and the protracted noises at other times, viz., on Sundays and week-days and Saints' days, greatly disturb domestic comfort in many ways. They interfere with sleep, they harass the invalid, distress the sick and distract the suffering with headache. I consider the locality in which these bells are established and the position in the tower of the church which they occupy to be very inappropriate. The tower is low, much lower than that of other churches in which such bells are hung. The surrounding buildings are 68 almost entirely high structures, occupied by private families, and the noises and vibration must be received whether you like them or not, and the endurance is irritating and makes one's home uncomfortable, to say the least. If the bells were hung twice as high, say one hundred and twenty-five feet from the ground, and the early morning ringing permanently stopped, the Sunday ringing reduced to ten minutes, and the week-day ringing to five minutes before each service, this novel experience might be borne. As it has been practiced, residences are not desirable in the neighborhood and prop- erty will fall in value greatly unless the ringing of the bells is largely restrained. John Harrison. Affirmed to and subscribed before me, this 30th January, 1877. John Rodgers, [seal] Notary Public. Isaac Hays, M. D., being duly affirmed, says : — I reside at No. 1525 Locust street, about forty feet east of Sixteenth street, and have resided there for nearly twenty years. I am over eighty years of age and my health is en- feebled by the advance of years. I find that rest, tranquility and quiet are very important to my well-being. I am familiar with the times and duration of the ringing of the bells recently erected at St. Mark's Church and with their sound. Their sound is harsh, loud, clanging and discordant, and they ring continuoush'' for periods varying from ten minutes to half an hour. Particularly when the windows of my residence are open, as they necessarily are in spring, summer and autumn, the sounds of these bells are irritating and distressing to me and interfere with my peace and rest. In case of my sickness, and under these circumstances, I believe that their effects would 69 be greatly exaggerated, possibly even to the extent of inter- fering materially and injuriously with the natural course of the disease. Moreover, the state of my health has been such as not to permit me to leave town during the summer, when the nui- sance of the bell-ringing is the greatest. Isaac Hays. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this twenty-ninth day of January, A. D. 1877. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. Henrietta M. Hays, being duly sworn, says : — I have resided at No. 1525 Locust street for nearly twenty years. I am in the enjoyment of average health, except that I am subject to frequent nervous headaches, lasting at least twenty-four hours, and often much longer. During these periods the noise of the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church I find almost intolerable, and it greatly aggravates my suffering. Being familiar with the usual times and duration of the ringing of these bells, when I have a headache the apprehension of their beginning is almost as painful as the ringing itself, and their injurious influence lasts long after they have ceased to ring. At all times the noise of these bells is very annoying, par- ticularly in spring, summer and autumn, when the windows are open, and at any time it would arouse me from or prevent me from going to sleep. Henrietta M. Hays. Sworn to and subscribed, this twenty-fifth day of January, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGregor J. Mitcheson, Commissioner. 70 1526 Locust Street. January 26th, 1877. I, William F. Norris, residing at 1526 Locust street, hereby affirm that I have been much disturbed and annoyed by the resounding clangor and noise caused by the bells of St. Mark's Church. The bells are hung low and situated in a narrow street, and the sound given out by them is exceedingly loud and reverberates from wall to wall. The noise has been an annoyance to every one in the house, and a positive nuisance to invalid members of the family. William F. Norris. Affirmed and subscribed, this twenty-ninth day of January, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. James Parsons, being duly sworn, says : — I reside at 1534 Locust street, the south-east corner of Six- teenth. I occupy the rooms in the second story on the west side of the house, and one window fronts on Locust street and two windows open on Sixteenth street. My office is on the first floor and is also the north-west corner room, with a window on Locust street. The St. Mark's bell penetrates the external walls of the dwelling-house, though they are, I believe, eighteen inches thick, in spite of the brick and mortar, and when the wind comes from the church quarter the atmosphere becomes a conductor of the shock produced by the bells, and the concussion is transmitted into my office and rooms, where it is felt with distinctness. The jangling is kept up an uncon- scionable length of time. I timed the period during which it was protracted, by my watch, one Sunday evening while at tea, and found that it lasted three-quarters of an hour. It interrupted conversation in the dining-room and in every room, in the house, except the library in the second story ; there the window looks south and a small L cuts off the sound of 71 the bells. The disturbance is not only uncalled for, but it is wanton. No family in the immediate proximity to St. Mark's attends that church to my knowledge. I know, in the neigh- borhood, of only one family which attends St. Mark's, and the residence is sheltered from the noise by intervening houses, which break the force of the sound. James Parsons. Sworn to and subscribed, this twenty-seventh day of Janu- ary, A. D. 1877, before me. Joseph Mellors, [seal] Notary Public. Mary P. Norris, being duly sworn, says : — I live at the south-east corner of Sixteenth and Locust streets — No. 1534 Locust street, and am the owner of that residence. I bought the house and lot in October, 1857, ^"^ took possession on the 27th of that month. I have continued to reside on those premises from that time to the present date. When I first removed to 1534 Locust street, St. Mark's Church was not completed. I do not attend that church, but am a member of St. James' Church, now situated at the north- west corner of Twenty-second and Walnut streets. I do not know of any one in the immediate neighborhood who attends St. Mark's Church, and I do not believe that more than one or two persons residing within the distance of a square of St. Mark's attend that church. The neighbors in close proximity to St. Mark's attend other churches. The bells are a short distance from my residence and are not suspended high above the house. The sound is very loud and long-continued. Inside the house and in winter, when the windows are shut down and the double doors closed, the noise is sufficient to interrupt conversation and to distract my atten- tion, so that I await with impatience the cessation of the clangor. I am a greal deal at home, and the renewal of the bell-ringings at frequent intervals every day in the week is a 72 wearing strain upon my system. It occurs so often, and is protracted so long on each recurrence, that the irritation is clironic. An occasional annoyance, not repeated daily or at stated intervals, would not be such a trial, but the St. Mark's bells aggravate the disagreeable effect which they produce upon me by the sense of no respite or relief from the infliction, and no escape except by abandoning my home. The feeling of disquiet becomes oppressive. I have spoken of the effect in winter. In summer, I am generally out of the city, but it has not unfrequently happened that I have been detained in town late into the summer months or recalled to the city in midsummer by the illness of a member of the family. Fortunately no bells were then put up, or the noise would have been a torture, not only to the invalid, but to the other members of the family. The windows being open for fresh or cool air, every sound passes through the house without obstruction. The walls of the house afford some protection in winter and break, to some extent, the shock of the irritation, though even in midwinter the jar of the concussion is distinctly felt within the dwelling. Mary P. Norris. Sworn to and subscribed, this twenty-seventh day of Janu- ary, A. D. 1877, before me. ^ ,. " Joseph Mellors, [seal] , Notary Public. Mary F. Parsons, being duly sworn, says : — I reside at 1534 Locust street, on the corner of Sixteenth street. I have lived there since 1857, when my parents re- moved to the present residence. I occupy the suite of rooms in the second story, on the west side of the house. The St. Mark's bells disturb me in a variety of ways. I have an acute sense of hearing which catches the slightest movement of sound. The noise of loud talking in the street or any un- usual sound will awake me at night out of a sound sleep. I am often startled by an unexpected rattling of a window or 73 slamming of a door in the neighborhood. The ordinary racket incident to a city is to me an annoyance, but not a serious inconvenience. The rumbling of carriages on a ball- night at the Academy rouses me at once, as, of course, the alarm of fire does, but such disturbances are occasional, and soon pass away. The bells of St. Mark's are a very different grievance in kind and degree. The force of the metallic masses beaten without any interval of repose almost stuns my senses. Thunder, as much as I dislike it, is more endurable. The crash comes and rolls away, losing itself in the distance. The pounding of the bells is reiterated and multiplied so as to pre- vent any relief The vibration of the shock in my rooms is a distinct sensation, though the windows are shut down tight. The impression of the metal upon me is brutal force, which I can neither resist nor escape from. It dogs me in all parts of the house. The duration of the infliction is protracted on each occasion to at least a long half hour. The disturbance is not confined to Sunday, — it extends through the entire week, and the reiteration becomes after a time distracting. There is no let-up in prospect, and each day brings another burden to aggravate the sense of oppressiveness. My baby is, like my- self, quick of hearing. He starts up out of his sleep at the sound of the bells, apd it is impossible to put him to sleep again while they are in commotion. It often happens that he has gone to sleep before they began, and then he is kept awake until the siege is over and he can be tranquilized again. He has never been able to go to sleep or to remain asleep while the bells were ringing. If he could talk he would tell the amount of irritation to which he is subjected by the bells. The chimes make no pretension to music ; I would as soon speak of the music of a foundry, as call that jangling of metal Mary F. Parsons. Sworn to and subscribed, this twenty-seventh day of Janu- ary, A. D. 1877, before me. ^ i\/r -" ''' Joseph Mellors. Notary Public. 74 Leontine Andradi, being duly affirmed, saith : — I live with my mother, Madame Fannie Bosedevex, at No. 222 South Sixteenth street, and have lived there for one year and two months. The bells of St. Mark's Church are and have always been a perfect nuisance and distress to my mother. She is aged, is not very well, nervous and anxious for quiet in her home. This has been quite impossible for her to enjoy since the bells of St. Mark's Church have been set up. They have been rung early in the morning for twenty minutes, and at three other times on Sunday for half an hour each time ; so that Sunday, instead of being a day of rest to . her, is one of discomfort, worriment and affliction. In addi- tion, too, to the Sunday ringing, there is the ringing twice a day regularly during the week, besides special occasions and extra services. My mother's chamber is in the back part of the house, and consequently there is no escape from the bells whenever they are rung. They are a constant source of an- noyance and irritation to her when rung. I would like to have them stopped or materially reduced to the length of time of ringing, — especially on her account. For myself, I am in perfectly good health, and have become so much ac- customed to the bells that I am not distressed by them. I told this substantially to Rev. Dr. Hoffman when he called and got my affidavit. They are far worse ii) summer than they are now. My mother speaks very little English, and dislikes to meet strangers ; and does not give her affidavit for these reasons. L. Andradt. Affirmed and subscribed, January i6th, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. 75 William White, residing at No. 245 South Sixteenth street, below Locust, being duly sworn, saith : — I am one of the signers of the appeal addressed to the rector, wardens and vestry of St. Mark's Church, upon Novem- ber 1st, A. D. 1876, and desire to reiterate the sentiments and facts therein expressed. As a life-long Episcopalian I wish to testify, also, that the use of bells to assemble a congrega- tion for the services of the church is wholly unnecessary. People attend quite as much and as punctually without them as with them. St. Mark's Church has been in success- ful operation without them for many years past. Personally, they have been a serious discomfort to me. I suffer from insomnia, and my health requires that I should sleep in the morning. This the early morning bells have wholly de- stroyed. In summer, when the heat of the weather requires the opening of the windows, the ringing of the bells was positively a discomfort. William White. Sworn to and subscribed, January 25th, 1877, before me. Joseph Mellors, [seal] . Notary Public. Samuel L. Shober, being duly affirmed, says : — I wrote this letter to Mr. Cadwalader, as follows : — Thursday, January nth, 1877. My Dear Mr. Cadwalader : — I regret that I cannot comply with your request as to the affidavit. Dr. Hoffman called upon me a few days since and asked me pointedly whether I or any member of my family had been annoyed by the ring- ing of the bells since it had been discontinued at the early morning service. I felt compelled to answer in the negative, and, at his very earnest request, I so stated this in writing. I did it reluctantly, however, and only to avoid the possibility 76 of being summoned as a witness, in case the matter should be brought into court. I signed the paper to which you refer in ignorance that there had been any previous correspondence upon the subject and in entire sympathy with yourself and other friends residing in the immediate vicinity of the church, who, 1 can readily understand, must be very much annoyed by such constant, monotonous repetition of unmeaning rhythmical sound. Very truly, &c., Sam. L. Shober, R. M. Cadwalader, Esq. 2^g South Sixteenth street. Affirmed to and subscribed, this twenty-seventh day of Janu- ary, A. D. 1877, before me. Joseph Mellors, [seal] Notary Public. Thomas S. Harrison, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says : — I reside at No. 264 South Sixteenth street, above Spruce, in this city, and I have resided there about four years. I know of the general complaint by residents of the neigh- borhood against the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church. The effect of the early ringing of the bells is to awaken me from sleep, and also the members of the family. This is par- ticularly annoying early on Sunday mornings. At other times during the day the constant ringing has the effect to distract one's attention from reading or other occu- pation. I do further testify that the present ringing of the bells is a nuisance, as they are now located, and should not be per- mitted. Thomas S. Harrison. Sworn to and subscribed before me, this thirty-first day of January, 1877. John Rodgers, [seal] Notary Public. 77 I. Heatly Dulles, being duly sworn, saith : — I have lived at 1602 Locust street for twenty-five years past. The rooms occupied by me are in the front of the house. I have been and am much annoyed by the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church. I am a pew-holder in that church and attend its services. The ringing of the bells is wholly needless to inform me of the time to go to church. The church has been in operation for a quarter of a century or more, and has never had bells before and never needed them. The discomfort to which I have been subjected by the ringing of the bells has been such that I make a practice of leaving my room whenever they are rung, so as to avoid them as much as possible, by going to a part of the house less affected by them. In summer the noise goes all through the house, and it is quite impossible to avoid the annoyance. I have apprised different members of the vestry at different times of the great discomfort the bells occasioned to me and to my family. I consider that the existing mode and length of time of ringing the bells has materially depreciated the value of property in this neighborhood. I. Heatly Dulles. Sworn to and subscribed, January loth, 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. Miss Mary C. Dulles, residing at 1602 Locust street, being duly affirmed, saith : — ■ The bells of St. Mark's Church have affected my mother — Mrs. Joseph H. Dulles — and myself very painfully. My sister, Miss Dulles, has been equally disturbed by them. In June last, when they were first put up and after they had been ringing for a week or two, the distressing effect produced upon my mother was such that I spoke to Mr. M. J. Mitche- son, my late father's counsel, to see if they could not be stopped. The ringing of the bells made my mother quite ill 78 with headaches and great nervous prostration. Her early morning rest was destroyed. She could not take a nap towards the close of the day, which she had been accustomed to and which her health required, and the continuous rapid ringing of the bells for half an hour at a time upon the dif- ferent Sabbath services and for a less length of time at the different daily services during the week was a constant dis- comfort, wearing upon the nervous system of all of us, pre- ventive of conversation while the ringing lasted and virtually rendering the front of the house useless during the day. The reverberation of the bells was particularly oppressive and exciting. In summer it was almost unendurable at times. It is less objectionable in winter, but quite disagreeable in the front of the house. Mary C. Dulles. Affirmed and subscribed, January loth, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. Miss Sophia H. Dulles, being duly affirmed, saith : — I have read the affidavit of my sister. Miss Mary C. Dulles, and entirely endorse her statement as to prejudicial effect produced by the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church upon my mother, my sister and myself I live at 1602 Locust street. We avoided this distress during the greater part of the summer by going out of town. I consider that the house would be almost uninhabitable in summer if these bells were to be allowed to continue as they were rung during last summer. Sophia H. Dulles. Affirmed and subscribed, January loth, A. D. 1877, before me, MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. 79 Mrs. Margaret W. Dulles, affirmed:— I live at 1602 Locust street, and have been living there for twenty-five years. I own the house. The ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church has been a very, very great trial and distress to me. When they were first put up, last June, I was not well and could get no relief from them. My early morning slumber was destroyed, giving me violent head- aches. My afternoon siesta was prevented, and the clanging of the bells for half an hour at a time upon Sabbath, and at different times during the days of the week, was extremely painful to me. The suffering is greater in summer than in winter, owing to the windows being closed. But I have been obliged to abandon my chamber in the front of the house and to occupy a room in the rear 0/ the house, where the noise is not so great during the day. My nervous system is certainly disturbed by the ringing of the bells even now. In summer the effect is dreadful. I am now in my eightieth year. M. W. Dulles. Affirmed and subscribed, January loth, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. George McCall, residing at t6io Locust street, being duly sworn, saith: — I attend St. Mark's Church and live directly opposite to it — about one hundred feet from the bells. The ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church is very disagreeable, uncomfort- able and irksome. They are rung continuously for about half an hour before each of the Sunday services, three times a day; besides which, they are rung twice on every day of the week, regularly, in addition to the festivals, Saints' days and other special services ; and superadded to all this, the early morning 8o service, at 7 A. M., was regularly heralded by their ringing for twenty minutes each Sunday morning, waking up every one in the neighborhood, until they were temporarily sus- pended. The bells are struck heavily and rapidly, and being hung comparatively low, and the neighborhood being very compactly built up, and the houses on this street high, — almost up to the height of the bells, — the reverberation is positively painful to the ears and destructive of conversation. I speak now of the effect produced in winter. In summer, when the windows are open and the sound rushes through the house, the noise will be intolerable. Even now they give me a ner- vous headache. George McCall. Sworn to and subscribed, January i8th, 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner I, Alfred C. Harrison, residing at 1616 Locust street, do make the following affidavit : — I purchased the house No. 1616 Locust street in the fall of 1875 for my wife, and have occupied it with my family since that time. When the purchase was made, I had never heard that bells were to be established in St. Mark's Church, or I should certainly not have made it. My object in locating myself in that square was largely due to the fact that it was free from any disturbing element incident to city residences generally. I leave home usnally at 8j^ A. M., dine at three, and, with the exception of the dinner hour, have been generally absent from home during the entire day. I am not of very robust health. The effect of the ringing of the bells as practiced until, say, within the past two months, has been extremely disturbing. It made the front rooms of my house uncomfortable during the continuance thereof, even with the windows down. I anx satisfied that conversation in the ordinary tones of voice could not be maintained in the same rooms with the windows raised during the ringing of the bells. On occasions when I have required rest in sickness or from over-fatigue I have been un- able to sleep during the ringing of the bells, and when asleep before the commencement thereof, have always been awaked. We have changed the hours of sleep in the case of my child, under three years of age, in consequence of the disturbing effect upon her of the bell-ringing. She is in good health. My wife, who enjoys excellent health, has been invariably awaked from sleep by the 8^ A. M. bells, after the loss of the larger part of the night's rest. In fact, as far as the front rooms of my house are concerned, we are wholly regulated as regards repose by St. Mark's bells, and the enjoyment of my house has been most materially reduced by the same. I consider the value of my residence greatly depreciated, and if the bells had been introduced and used in the church when the property was offered to me, I should not have purchased it for occupancy at any price. I have no idea, belief or ex- pectation that I shall ever become so used to them as to enjoy the comfort and repose to which my family is entitled in their home. Alfred C. Harrison. Sworn to and subscribed before me, this twenty-ninth day of January, 1877. John Rodgers, [seal] Notary Public. Charles C. Harrison, being duly affirmed, says : — I own the residence No. 1618 Locust street, and during the season when I am in town I live there. I have done so since the fall of 1872. The bells established in St. Mark's Church are a source of disturbance to me. They disturb sleep, interrupt conversa- tion and promote disquiet and discomfort. And when the 82 windows are open in mild weather, I am confident that the amount of ringing which has been practiced would make my residence most uncomfortable, especially if the ringing of the 6^ A. M. bell were to be resumed. I consider that the value of my property has been largely reduced by the introduction and use of St. Mark's bells. Chas. C. Harrison. Affirmed and subscribed, this thirtieth day of January, A. D. 1 877, before me. MAcGREGOft J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. William Read Fisher, being duly sworn, says : — I reside at 1637 Locust street, being on the corner of Seven- teenth street, and have resided there since October 15th, 1875. Have been at times most seriously annoyed by the continued and persistent ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church. I sleep with my windows up always, and consequently hear the ringing of the early morning bell every time it rings. Since the temporary suspension of this bell, I and the whole family have experienced great relief. Being absent at my business from 9.30 A. M. to six in the afternoon, I am not annoyed by those between, but they are all a continued source of annoy- ance and irritation to my family, interrupting and even stop- ping conversation and spreading irritation throughout the house. I was attracted to the neighborhood for its quiet and opportunities to repose and rest for a business man, but would not again be willing to pay the same sum, and never would think of investing money in this neighborhood for a per- manent residence if the bells are permitted to be rung as they have been. Wm. Read Fisher. 83 Sworn to and subscribed, this twenty-fifth day of January, A. D. 1877, before me. Joseph Mellors, [seal] Notary Public. Coleman P. Fisher, being duly sworn, says : — I reside at No. 1637 Locust street with my brother and sisters. My brother and myself are accustomed to sleep with our windows up, and to rise late on Sundays, being all the week engaged at our business ; of course the early bell wakes us up all the year round when in town, and is irritating in the extreme. On Sundays they are particularly annoying, for they ring so often and so long and continuously. And this seems to me so unnecessary, for so few of the congregation live very near, and if they could hear them certainly a more moderate ringing would answer all the purpose. A little con- sideration on the part of the rector and vestry would afford great relief to the neighborhood. Coleman P. Fisher. Sworn to and subscribed, this twenty-fifth day of January, A. D. 1877, before me. Joseph Mellors, [seal] Notary Public, Sarah W. Fisher, being duly sworn, says : — I reside with my brothers and sister at No. 1637 Locust street. The bells of St. Mark's Church are a constant annoy- ance in our own household when the windows are up in mild weather ; they are really a nuisance. We had congratulated ourselves on the neighborhood before the bells were put up. It is impossible to sleep when they ring early in the morning or to rest in the afternoon, which every one may find necessary 84 in the spring and early fall. By going out of town early we avoid the annoyance during the summer ; but the appre- hension of being detained in town by sickness or other causes is quite distressing, if they are allowed to be rung, as I am informed and believe they did during July and the early autumn. Sarah W. Fisher. Sworn and subscribed, this twenty-fifth day of January, A. D. 1877, before me. Joseph Mellors, [seal] Notary Public. Mary Read Fisher, being duly sworn, says : — I reside with my brother, William Read Fisher, at No. 1637 Locust street. There- is no doubt that the bells of St. Mark's Church are a terrible nuisance to any family living thus near. I have known a servant to say, " I cannot understand until those bells stop." Lately, since the morning bell has been discontinued and the windows closed, the curtains up and the carpets down, and especially since the entire change in the manner and periods of ringing during the past two weeks, we have not been so much annoyed ; but on Sundays the ringing three times a day so continuously at a time, without any musical notes, but irregular and discordant, from bells that seem singularly harsh and high, creates a positive nuisance, and causes complaints from all in the house. Were any of us ill, the noise would be intolerable, aggravated by the feeling that it is entirely unnecessary, as we have a pew at the Church of St. James, in Twenty-second street. Mary Read Fisher. Sworn to and subscribed, this twenty-fifth day of January, A. D. 1877, before me. Joseph Mellors, [seal] Notary Public. 8s Mrs. Horace Fassitt, being duly affirmed, saith :— I have lived at Locust and Seventeenth streets for the past eight years. The bells of St. Mark's Church have been extremely exciting and worrying to me ever since they were put up. They are rung for half an hour at a time three times every Sunday, independently of the early service, for which they were also rung for from fifteen to twenty minutes, until temporarily suspended in November last. I have attacks of neuralgia from time to time, lasting for several days each time. On these occasions I have been almost maddened by the ring- ing of the bells. My whole nervous system being very much shocked by the noise and by the vibration which attends the ringing. Great prostration follows this excitement. It is preventive of conversation and very disagreeable and trying at all times, but in summer it is beyond endurance. Annie Fassitt. Affirmed and subscribed, January I2th, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. Joseph F. Tobias, being duly sworn according to law, says : — I reside at 1705 Locust street and have lived there ten years. I particularly sought this neighborhood because of its quiet, as my wife is an invalid, exceedingly nervous and sensitive. Ever since the arrival of the four bells of St. Mark's Church the whole immediate neighborhood has been in a state of irritation and excitement positively destructive to all peace and comfort. During the summer and early fall they rang the bells so excessively and violently, several times a day, on every day in the week, that we began to think of the church itself as a nuisance. My wife, who has been for years. 86 and is now, a patient of Dr. Mitchell's, has become a great sufferer. Sundays are not to her days of rest, for the ringing of the bells is more violent than on week-days. In the after- noons she is unable to obtain any rest, nor on any day in the week. The Sunday morning bells, continuing as they do for twenty minutes straight ahead, deprive business men of a little extra sleep on Sunday morning. My neighbors com- plain bitterly of these particular bells, and have talked of removing unless we can be relieved by the court. Joseph F. Tobias. City of Philadelphia, ss. Sworn and subscribed to before me, this twenty-fifth day of January, 1877. William H. List, [seal] Magistrate. John J. Ridgway, Jr., being duly sworn, says : — I own, and reside at, No. 1 706 Locust street, Philadelphia, distant about a square from St. Mark's Church. The bells of the church are only a half chime and are apparently unskillfully handled, producing a noise which is very jangling and offensive. The bell-ringing formerly took place at such an early hour in the morning as to be an intense annoyance to my family and myself. Since this has been discontinued and the change of season has enabled us to keep the windows shut down, the noise is less offensive. To those who are not so fortunate as to be a square away, but are in the front, rear and sides of the church, it must still be a serious nuisance, and should the early bell-ringing begin again and the other ringings continue as at present, my family and myself will be, in warmer weather, intensely annoyed. It must, moreover, affect very injuriously the value of the properties in the immediate neighborhood. Jno. J. Ridgway, Jr. 87 Sworn to and subscribed before me, this twenty-fourth day of January, A. D. 1877. E. S. Harlan, [seal] Notary Public. M. Edward Rogers, being duly sworn, says : — I reside at 1707 Locust street, about three hundred feet from St. Mark's Church. The ringing of the so-called chime has been a source of great and continued annoyance to myself and family. The ringing of the early Sunday morning bells invariably awakened me when it was not convenient to rise, and consequently made my home uncomfortable. Being fond of music I spent considerable time over it, and frequently find myself compelled to give up playing and singing in conse- quence of the unmusical clatter of the bells. I do not con- sider the bells melodious, neither are they in good tune. The ringing of the bells awaken my children at unreasonable hours for the comfort of the family, and although the annoyance until lately (since this suit has been commenced) was a great nuisance, we think the unmelodious clanging will be intoler- able when the season forces us to have the windows up and the doors open. M. Edw. Rogers. Sworn and subscribed before me, this twenty-seventh day of January, 1877. Wm. H. Myers, [seal] Notary Public. F. A. Dick, being duly affirmed, says : — I have resided at 1709 Locust street since 1873. Am a lawyer, in practice over thirty years. Am in good health, but at times return from my office to my home very tired at the close of the day. At such times I feel very much worried and distressed by the violent and protracted ringing of the St. Mark's Church bells, which destroys the repose and quiet so desirable at home. Before these bells were put up, our street was especially desirable for its^quiet and comfort; but since then it is much changed, and the dread of the ringing of the bells has much damaged our quiet and rest. I think this change has materially injured the value of the property in the neigh- borhood, and if continued will become so notorious as to give the neighborhood a bad name. If not living there, and this noise is to be continued, I think I would be unwilling to remove there. When I am well and strong I can endure the noise and shock as a merely disagreeable thing to be borne for a certain period, sometimes, I believe, about thirty minutes continuously; but I am sure when sick, or when any of my family should be sick, lying weak and confined to the bed, that this would become a very serious and dangerous matter, and I fully believe in certain stages of illness would lead to fatal consequences. Even when well, I find myself daily dreading the commencement of the noise, and if sick. I should think this apprehension would be almost continually present. The noise within my house seems to me much greater at some times than at others, and when at the worst is almost intoler- able even at the distance of fifteen to twenty feet from the window — I mean with the windows down. In the summer, with the aggravation of heat and sickness, this frequent and long-continued bell-ringing will be a most serious evil. Last summer some of my neighbors who had sickness in their family complained of it seriously. I have often been near the church in passing, while the bells were being rung with full force, and I can justly say that I consider the peace and comfort of dwellings on that block, on both sides of the street, as almost destroyed thereby. F. A. Dick. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this thirty-first day of January, A. D. 1877. , Wm. H. Myers, [seal] Notary Public. 89 Brinton Coxe, being duly sworn, says ; — I reside at 171 1 Locust street, at about the distance of one square from the steeple of St. Mark's Church. I was out of town a great deal during the warm weather of 1876. On my return- ing to my house in the autumn, my attention was called to the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church in general, and especi- ally to the early bells, which were rung on Sunday morning, at about a quarter before seven o'clock. I found these early Sunday morning bells very annoying, because it interfered with my sleep and night's rest. On the first Sunday morning after my return, which was, I think the first Sunday I slept in my house after the bells were started at the church, I was awakened by the noise. The weather was mild, and the doors, windows and shutters may have been more or less open. On the next Sun- day on which I slept in my house I happened to wake before the bell-ringing began ; but I believe that I could not have slept through it had I been asleep, for the noise was, I think, loud enough, violent enough and long enough not only to have awakened me, but to have kept me awake for a sufficient time to make it difficult or impossible for me to go to sleep again. It was especially so with me then, as for some time previously I had been sleeping badly. After this second Sunday, and before the following Sunday, as I recollect, I called upon the Rev. Dr. Hoffman, rector of St. Mark's Church, and pointedly complained of this early Sunday morning bell-ringing, and its interference with sleep. In answer to questions by me, the rector said that the authority over the bells was vested in the rector and church-wardens. He said, also, that the vestry had no share in that authority, although matters connected with the bells would be talked over with them. I made the formal request through him to the authorities over the bells, that the early Sunday morning bells should be stopped. I have, however, received no answer from either the rector or church-wardens. Since then the early bells have ceased ringing on Sunday mornings, which cessation, if perma- nent and not temporary, I shall consider a valuable relief, 90 especially during the mild and warm weather, when doors and windows are open. Brinton Coxe. Sworn and subscribed before me, this twenty-fifth day of January, A. D. 1877. William H. Myers, [seal] Notary Public. S. Emlen Meigs, being duly sworn, says : — I reside at No. 171 3 Locust street, about one square distant from St. Mark's Church. Last sumftier a member of my family, while seriously indisposed, suffered excessively from the noise made by the bell-ringing at that church, and was frequently awakened by it from sleep which at the time it was most important should have been had. In warm weather, when the windows were open, the annoyance to my family from this bell-ringing was so great as to make the neighbor- hood a much less desirable place of residence than it was before. At this season, when the windows are closed, the noise does not, of course, so penetrate the house. S. Emlen Meigs. Sworn and subscribed before me, this twenty-fifth day of January, A. D. 1877. Charles F. Van Horn, [seal] Notary Public. Byerly Hart, being duly sworn, says : — I reside in the house at the south-west corner of Six- teenth and Walnut streets. No. i5oo. I am generally at home from 6 P. M. until nine in the morning. Our house is high, and so arranged in the rear that a portion of the sound strikes 91 in its corners and rebounds. I have known the noise to be so loud and distracting that conversation was interrupted. In the case of my wife's late mother, Mrs. Horstmann, who died two months ago, great misery was caused to her from the bell-ringing, and great unhappiness to us from seeing her suffering. I think that since this suit has been commenced the bell- ringing is neither so violent, so rapid, nor so continuous. For instance, on Monday, January 22d, the evening bell commenced fifteen minutes before five and rang quite mildly for a few minutes, nor did they all seem to be rung, which has been some relief to the neighborhood. There can be no doubt that they lessen the enjoyment of a home, for the irritation caused by the interruption of business and pleasure extends through the household. On Sundays the noise is particularly irritating and annoying. It is generally supposed and feared that the nuisance lessens the value of property in the neighborhood, but it is such a difficult matter to determine the aniount, or to what extent, that I give no opinion on the subject. Byerly Hart. Sworn and subscribed before me, this twenty-sixth day of January, A. D. 1877. Wm. H. Myers, [seal] Notary Public. Mary H. Hart, being duly sworn says : — I reside at the south-west corner of Sixteenth and Walnut streets. No. 1600, where I have lived for thirteen years. I am generally at home at all hours. During the summer and early fall of 1876, the bells of St. Mark's Church were so con- stantly and continuously rung, and for so long a period at each ringing on every day of the week, as to cause great discom- fort and complaint about the house. In the case of my late mother, Mrs. Horstmann, who died in November last, they 92 produced real distress. My mother's diseases were, first, heart disease, and, second, paralysis. She was painfully ner- vous and susceptible to noises and shocks, and I have often heard her cry out, " Oh, I wish those bells would stop ! " Her sufferings were greatly increased and the tension of her nerves aggravated by the ringing, as she was often awakened by the bells from sleep which was most necessary to her, and into which she had been induced after much effort by those who attended her. The rector of St. Mark's Church recently called on me to obtain my opinion in this case, and I then stated to him the substance of what I have here said. Mary H. Hart, Sworn and subscribed before me, this twenty-sixth day of January, A. D. 1877. Wm. H. Myers, [seal] Notary Public. Henry C. Gibson, being duly sworn, says : — I reside at No. 1612 Walnut street, which property I own. The bells of St. Mark's Church are located about two hundred feet from my library windows. My family and I have been particularly annoyed and disturbed by the ringing of the church-bells for the early Sunday morning service. On Sun- day evening the bells ring for thirty minutes, affecting conver- sation in my library very unpleasantly. In the summer-time, with the windows raised, I believe that the clanging of the bells previous to the Sunday evening service would seriously interfere with conversation, if indeed it would be practicable at all. Henry C. Gibson. Sworn and subscribed before me, this twenty-sixth day of January, A. D. 1877. William H. Myers, [seal] Notary Public. 93 H. Wilson Catherwood, residing at 1708 Walnut street, being duly sworn, says : — I am a pew-holder of St. Mark's Church. The ringing of the bells of that church has always been a great annoyance and discomfort. It is neither a work of necessity nor mercy, and, in my judgment, ought to be abolished. It accomplishes no good purpose, and, as one of the supporters of that church, I wish to enter my solemn protest against producing so much physical suffering to persons of delicate nervous organizations and otherwise who live in the vicinity, and who must be, from the unavoidable vibration of the sound of the bells, most painfully affected whenever they are rung. I say unavoidable, because the bells have been hung in a tower which is. too low, in view of the height and nearness of the houses opposite to the church, on Locust street. Had the tower been raised to an elevation of a hundred feet or more, the effect would be less harsh and racking to one's system, as the noise might then pass over the roofs of the houses. In summer, it comes rushing into my back windows, destroying my rest and inter- rupting conversation. When the wind is southwardly, it is still worse. I deem the bells of this church a positive nuisance. H. Wilson Catherwood. Sworn to and subscribed, this twenty-seventh day of Janu- ary, A. D. 1877, before me. Joseph Mellors, [seal] Notary Public, Thomas G. Dentry, of 1628 Chancellor street, being duly affirmed according to law, deposes and says, that the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church is a great annoyance and I con- sider them a nuisance ; they are detrimental to my health. I am not well ; am nervous and the sound affects me very much. Deponent further says, that he has suffered from heart affec- tion and verily believes that if the bells had been rung during 94 his worst illness they would have caused his death. Deponent also says that the early ringing of the bells disturbs his morn- ing slumber ; that he works hard through the week and cannot rest on Sunday morning on account thereof. Thomas G. Dentry. Affirmed and subscribed to, this sixteenth day of January, A. D. 1877, before me. Joseph Mellors, [seal] Notary Public. Mary R. Dentry, of 1628 Chancellor street, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says, that the ringing of St. Mark's bells is very disagreeable and annoying to me ; that the noise interferes with my business (riveting china and glass), which requires much nerve-power to perform. Deponent also says that the noise caused by the immoderate ringing of the bells interferes with her conversation about her household duties. Mary R. Dentry. Sworn to and subscribed, this sixteenth day of January, A. D. 1877, before me. Joseph Mellors, [seal] Notary Public. Amanda F. Dentry, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says, that she considers the immoderate ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church as a nuisance. They are annoying to me. I am affected with disease of the nerves and the noise of the bells cause great suffering from headache and affection of the heart. Deponent further says that the noise is so great during the ringing of the bells that it is 95 hard to understand the conversation of those of the house- hold. Deponent also says that the early ringing of the bells have disturbed her rest. Amanda F. Dentry. Sworn to and subscribed, the sixteenth day of January, A. D. 1877, before me. Joseph Mellors, [seal] Notary Public. Caroline G. Dentry, of 1628 Chancellor street, being duly sworn, according to law, deposes and says, that the ring- ing of the bells of St. Mark's Church are very annoying to me. The noise is very disagreeable to me. The noise interferes with my conversation in and about the house as well when the doors are open as when they are closed. The noise interferes with my morning rest. It is impossible to sleep while they are being rung. Caroline G. Dentry. Sworn to and subscribed, this sixteenth day of January, A. D. 1877, before me. Joseph Mellors, [seal] Notary Public, Edward Free, being duly sworn, saith : — My brother and I own eighty-six (Z6) feet of improved property on Chancellor street, running through to Erety street. The bells of St. Mark's Church are a very great an- noyance to both my brother and myself My brother is at home ill, or he would make an affidavit. The bells are a very great nuisance. They make my head ache often. The noise of them comes right through our stables, which are between 96 Sixteenth and Seventeenth streets. At times, some of the horses, which are nervous, get very fidgetty when the bells are rung. Edward Free. Sworn to and subscribed, this sixteenth day of January, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. George Free, being duly sworn, saith : — I am engaged in business at Nos. 1602, 1604, 1606, 1616 and 16 1 8 Chancellor street. The properties run through to Erety street. My brother and I own them. St. Mark's Church is just back of us — extending from Erety to Locust street. The ringing of the bells of that church has proved a very great discomfort to me and to our men. The nature of my business (that of a livery stable) is such that neither I nor the drivers of our carriages can sleep regularly. Very often they are out at balls and parties until very late at night, and need to sleep in daytime. The bells of St. Mark's Church utterly destroy their and my rest, — waking us up the moment they begin to ring, and utterly preventing our sleeping while they are ringing, and for a considerable time after. They are rung often, long and heavily, and the noise rushes through the stables fearfully. In summer it is insufferable. It disturbs some of my horses very much. It startles them. One of them has broken his halter several times through the fright which it gave him. George Free. Sworn to and subscribed, January 22d, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. 97 S. Weir Mitchell, being duly sworn, says :- I am a doctor of medicine, and have been so for twenty-four years. For several years past I have given particular atten- tion to the treatment of nervous diseases, ancl am frequently called in consultation with others upon this branch of my profession. In the month of November last (1876), I heard many complaints among my patients and others of the noise caused by the bell-ringing at that church, which distressed them in various ways according to their various tempera- ments. Some were those who found it difficult to sleep on going to bed at night, and who naturally relied upon a morning sleep, more or less late, to make up for the loss of the night sleep. This morning sleep, of course, they lost by the early seven o'clock bell-ringing. It is more possible than probable that in a majority of such cases a sleep in the after- noon or evening might take the place of the lost morning sleep, but this was denied them by reason of another bell- ringing in the afternoon at five o'clock, and on Sundays at half-past four in the afternoon, and at seven in the evening. These taken together made the treatment of a certain class of diseases in that neighborhood almost an impossibility, and I was compelled to request one of the vestry of the church to discontinue the early morning bell-ringing. The request was granted in a note from the rector and the early bell-ringing was discontinued. As the correspondence has already ap- peared in the papers, I annex it hereto. It was not only the actual noise of the bell-ringing (and the reason of the noise and clangor of these particular bells is easily accounted for upon familiar principles of the laws of sound), but it was the expectation of their beginning which had a notable effect upon a certain class, in producing a painful nervous irritability and excitement. It is no answer to this to say that this is " imagination " and " mere nervousness." " Mere nervousness" is, perhaps, the most difficult and subtle disease with 'which modern science has to grapple, and it is diseased " imagination" 98 which fills our mad-houses. Every one knows that a person of average health going to bed with the intention of starting on a journey at an unusually early hour next morning will often sleep very restlessly, and sometimes not sleep at all. It is the expectation which deranges the normal condition of the brain. Of course, there are persons whose temperament ignores the operation of such influences, and who can truly say that neither the actual noise of the bell-ringing nor the expectation of it at all disturbs them. But what is true as to this class of placid temperaments is not true as to another class, which fluctuates with the varying health of the individ- uals of every community, and the difference in annoyance is immense as between the well man and the sick. Moreover, there is also a difference in this connection, not only between those who are ill and those who are well, but a difference, and a natural one, between men and women. The same rules of hygiene obviously do not apply equally to men who, from business or other causes, are away from their homes the greater part of the day, and to women whose vocations confine them more to their homes. Among the latter, it is very common, particularly in summer, to lie down and sleep during the hot hours of the afternoon. To invalids, the afternoon or early evening sleep may be just as important as the night sleep, and among infants particularly so. It would be folly to prescribe a narcotic at half-past four, when a patient was sure to be nervously thrown broad awake at five, and so of the other hours, and it therefore may come just to this — that the medical treatment of the neighborhood must be regulated by the hours of the defendants' bell-ringing. As to the bell-ringing at seven in the morning, it is scarcely necessary to say more than a word. There are those, but, perhaps, not a large class in this neighborhood, who habitually rise at daylight or soon after; there are others, whose habits of life are just as carefully measured, who rise much later, and neither class has a right to claim a peculiar merit over the other, though this is often done by the former. But Avhen habits of life are once formed, it 99 is difficult, and sometimes dangerous, to change them after a certain age ; and to insist that certain persons shall not be allowed to sleep after seven o'clock in the morning may be admirable in a boarding-school, but absurd among grown people living in an artificial state of society. To those of my own profession, used as we are to habitual violation of the laws of nature, and to go at once from a night-watch to our break- fasts and our daily duties, there are still times when we could snatch an hour or two of morning sleep which would better fit us for our business. One thing may possibly be said of this particular bell-ring- ing — that during the season when it causes greatest suffering, viz., the summer, the class likely to be most annoyed by it is absent from the city ; but the answer is, first, that many, espe- cially women and children, are detained in town during this time by sickness or other causes ; and secondly, that although this section of the town contains many who are rich, it also contains many who are poor, and who cannot fly from but must endure the pain. When it comes to the question of early Sunday bell-ringing, all that I have said is intensified. There is a large class of God-fearing Christians, as well as others, who begin their day of rest by an hour or two of extra rest. To many men, this is not luxury, it is necessity. The pressure of modern social life necessarily produces, especially among professional men, a degree of brain-tire, of loss of power to use the brain, of which the results are terribly alike, beginning with insomnia, irrita- bility, nervous excitement, cerebral derangement, and running the gamut of mischief down to paralysis and death. While it would be absurd to say that every one who was waked out of a deep sleep by a Sunday seven o'clock bell-ringing would get a paralytic stroke and die, I do say that a man whose brain has been sorely worked during the week, and whose brain-tire was habitually lessened by one, two, three or more hours of extra sleep on a Sunday, is pushed well on his way to disease by having that natural medicine withdrawn. For, as a distinguished modern author has put it, " The mere lOO procuring a regularly recurring oblivion of distressing impres- sions is no slight boon, and makes the sufferer more capable to bear his waking burden." ^ Of course, there are intellectual prodigies, whose brain development, combined with great physical power and an ordinarily utter absence of nervous excitability, enables them to do without those " let-ups," so to speak, which to some are a partial and to others an absolute necessity. But such men are abnormal. Nor is it an answer when some say that this bell- ringing never disturbs them, and that in particular, after a period of severe mental or physical strain, they have slept through it all. The instances are notorious of soldiers who have slept while on the march, and even during battle. In our own time, nearly every one who served actively during the late war can recall similar instances. But these things do not disprove general propositions ; they are simply striking exceptions. And that insomnia is not only one of the most dangerous, but also one of the most painful of diseases is shown by the fact that those who are suffering from it would willingly exchange it for almost any other form of disease. The multiplication of needless noises in modern life is beginning to attract scientific attention in Europe as a cause of discomfort (and therefore a superinducement to disease) in well people and a present injury to sick people. The last steamer brought over a number of the London Lancet, in which was an article upon the subject, referring particularly to unnecessary bell-ringing. And while it is true that no one can as yet expect to escape in our great cities from noises connected with manufactures and travel, but which the civilization of the future will certainly arrest, it is not too much to require that such noises should not be unnecessarily multiplied, but be limited to secular work and to the apparatus or machinery by which cities have their wants supplied. S. Weir Mitchell, M. D. Sworn and subscribed before me, this twenty-fourth day of January, A. D i877. ^ tt ■' ^ John Urian, [seal] " Alderman. lOI 3d November, 1876, No. 1524 Walnut Street, Philadelphia. Dear Mr. Kirtley : — Some of my unlucky nervous patients are driven wild by the early bells of St. Mark's. If you have ever been in the way of ill sleeping, and have looked to the quiet of Sunday with anticipative comfort, you would under- stand how grave a matter this may seem to one of these folks. Pray help us to get rid of this annoyance — the early bells. Yours, faithfully, Weir Mitchell. No. 1620 Spruce Street, 4th November, 1876. My Dear Sir: — Your note which Mr. Kirtley brought me this morning, is the first intimation I have had that some of your nervous patients, residing in the vicinity of St. Mark's, are in such a condition as to be seriously injured by the ring- ing of the bells for the seven o'clock service on Sunday mornings. My congregation will miss the ringing of the bells for those services very much, but, under the circum- stances, I shall direct it to be discontinued at once. Trusting that our neighbors, under your skillful care, may soon recover, I am. Very faithfully, yours, E. A. Hoffman. Weir Mitchell, M. D. 4th November, No. 1524 Walnut Street, Philadelphia. My Dear Doctor : — I have to thank you very sincerely for your most kind and courteous note of this morning. You will be most warmly thanked by several persons, who, I am sure, will gain in some ways what your good people may lose in others. Very truly, yours. Weir Mitchell. The Rev. E. A. Hoffman, D. D. I02 J, M. Da Costa, being sworn, says : — I am a doctor of medicine. I am now and have been for years actively engaged in the practice of my profession. Partly in consequence of living not far from St. Mark's, partly in consequence of knowing many who dwell in its more immediate neighborhood, — some of whom I attend pro- fessionally, — I have had the subject of the church-bells promi- nently brought to my notice. I have heard the bell-ringing greatly complained of It is by nearly every one regarded with disfavor, and by many considered an intolerable nuis- ance. The early morning bell roused persons from their sleep ; the afternoon bell prevents those to whom it was important, from habit or from indisposition, to obtain some repose, from so doing. I make these statements as they have been made to me by a number of patients. The bad effect of unwelcome noise on the sick and well alike is a matter easily ascertained. It renders, for instance, an attack of migraine an unendurable punishment ; it aggra- vates delirium ; it may make the difference in the sleepless- ness of a fever, between recovery and death. In certain inflammatory or irritative disorders of the brain, the effect of noise is most painfully witnessed. Do we not constantly see houses with tan before the door to lessen the sound of passing vehicles ? But what now will be the use of this, if the loud, discordant peals are almost at all hours to ring through the air ? In certain chronic conditions of the brain, noise becomes an irritation that takes away strength and impairs vitality. I attended, seme years since, a lady with beginning softening of the brain, to whom noise was so terrible and exhausting, that she prayed devoutly that she might not live to see another 4th of July. What would be her daily sufferings if now alive, and within easy reach, as she would have been, of the bells of St. Mark's ? Every stroke of the loud clangor would have rung discomfort or been a pang of distress. On those who are well, the effect of noise varies much according to the temperament. Some it does not annoy, or they become accustomed to it ; others it annoys extremely, I03 and they never become accustomed to it. It makes them irritable or greatly increases irritability. If not good sleepers, and the noise deprives them of, or curtails their rest, the irritability works into a positive injury. On little children, so dependant on sleep, and on sleep in the daytime, for their health, the bad consequences of being awakened or prevented from sleeping by loud sounds are self-evident; and I have often thought that the little ones in the neighborhood of the loud bell-ringing were likely in the spring and summer days to be among the greatest sufferers. Then there are men in all large communities, well in body, but with minds constantly on the stretch, whose habits and mode of life may have made them particularly sensitive to noises, and whose occupations are sadly interfered with by such disturbances. This class embraces many of the most thoughtful professional men, the original thinker and writer in science, the higher order of men of letters. These labor- ers are naturally the ones that make a community great, and many of them can do their best work only when unper- turbed, when their nervous force is not dissipated by jarring interruptions of unwelcome sounds. How true this is, is seen by the telling petition drawn up, and I think presented to Parliament, by a large meeting of men renowned in science, literature and art, praying to be relieved of the organ- grinding and other nuisances of sound, and setting forth that these interruptions interfered with their vocations. Charles Dickens was one of the committee, and spoke very feelingly of how much his work was thus retarded or spoiled. Persons of this kind naturally seek a quiet neighborhood, and to disturb them needlessly is to inflict injury on a community. That with the recognition of the greater and greater strain on the nervous centres produced by the conditions of our present civilization, this question of noise, and especially as connected with church-bells, is beginning to attract much at- tention, is readily proved by referring to the medical literature of the day. Thus the " London Lancet," a world-renowned exponent of scientific medicine, in an article on noises, notices I04 that " the pubhc at last are beginning to insist on the blessing of quiet, which has so long been denied them. The war, however, against noise, which has thus been successfully- inaugurated, must not be allowed to flag. Our working-hours as well as our brief seasons of repose are disturbed in many other ways besides the rattling of the traffic. The organ- grinder, the German band, the coster's yell, are instances of a tyranny over weak or strained nerves that ought to be sup- pressed. Church-bells, which in the country undoubtedly have a charm, become in the crovi^ded city a positive distress to many sick persons. Last year, the Queen, at the opening of Parliament, considerately gave orders that the Abbey bells should not be rung lest they might disturb the repose of a dear friend who was dying within the Abbey precincts. Are there not hundreds of sufferers in London who would be thankful to have a like consideration extended to them ? * * On Sunday, the ringing is not so hurtful to the invalid, since nearly all the churches keep the same hours, so that there is at least peace during the hours of service. * * It would be a great gain to the sick of the metrop- olis if the church-bells were permitted to ring only on the Sunday, and then but for a limited period." Of course where sound is melodious and pleasing — music rather than monotonous vibration — the evil lessens greatly, and the interruptions spoken of may be to some agreeable. But this cannot apply to the bell-ringing in question. I live in a neighborhood where I have been obliged to hear it. I have when sitting near an open window been repeatedly annoyed by it, and do not see how the most vivid imagination could construe the penetrating, harsh bell-tolling into music. J. M. Da Costa. Sworn and subscribed before me, this twenty-fourth day of January, A. D. 1877. James S. Smith, [seal] Notary Public. I05 William Thomson, being duly sworn, says : — I am a doctor of medicine, and have been so for twenty-two years. I have given special attention to the diseases of the eye and ear, and am frequently called in consultation with others upon these branches of my profession, and have, of course, had occasion to study the scientific laws of sight and sound. My attention has been particularly called to the noise made by the bell-ringing at St. Mark's Church. Soon after the bells were placed there, I was on my way to a consultation on a Sunday morning near the hour of service, and stopped directly opposite the church, in front of Mr. Cadwalader's house, to notice the extraordinary noise which the bell-ringing produced, and thought as I do now, that it was almost as intolerable a nuisance as could be produced by sound. The noise was not musical, and the difference * etween noise and music can be illustrated by rattling a tool-box, and by drawing a violin-bow across a tuning-fork. The sound of these bells was noise. It was sharp, shrill, harsh, loud and dissonant. The sound of a proper chime of bells, properly cast, properly hung (both as to elevation and mechanical adjustment), and properly rung, is music, which is defined to be " a combination of sounds in accord or harmony." The reason why these bells produce noise and not music there is referable to the simplest principles of the science of acoustics. The bells are placed in a tower at the height, I am informed, of sixty-five feet from the ground. Take this tower as a centre, we find a "well" formed round it, consisting imme- diately on the west and east of the houses of Mr. Carver and Dr. Hays, on the north by the rear of the Walnut street houses and on the south by the Locust street houses. Now everybody knows that the action of sound, like that of light and radiant heat, is a wave motion, and " every experiment on the reflection of light," says a distinguished scientist, " has its analogue in the reflection of sound." A lighted candle distributes the rays of light in every direction — vertical, lateral and in every degree of the circle — except, of course, directly io6 below the flame, where is the candle itself. Observe a chan- delier, opposite and between two mirrors, and you will see the lights reflected almost infinitely, because the rays of light have no way to escape, and are reflected from one mirror back to the other, and back again, and so ad infinitum. Although the waves of sound travel more slowly than those, of light, yet otherwise their action is the same, because the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection. From the tower of St. Mark's Church, as a centre, the waves of sound produced by the bells rush out ; a part goes up, a part goes laterally and a part goes downward. A great part of the lateral, and all the downward waves, strike most nearly the parish school-house, the houses of Mr. Carver and Dr. Hays, and the opposite houses in Locust street. From these, they are reflected exactly at the angle of incidence back to the church, or, it may be, first to the ground below, and then like a billiard-ball to the church, and so backwards and for- wards, the waves following each other in rapid succession. At a greater distance, they strike the rear of the Walnut street houses ; they also strike obliquely the walls of the Locust street houses near Sixteenth and near Seventeenth streets respectively, and are reflected back to the houses on the north side of that street, both below and above. The noise can also be heard elsewhere than in the line of these direct waves. It is now clearly proved that a sound-wave bends itself around opaque obstacles, though as it diffuses itself in the air at the back of the obstacle it is enfeebled in power, the obstacle thus producing a partial shadow of the sound. The sound-waves of this noise would therefore be heard at a much greater distance than I have named, but with less in- tensity, since this diminishes inversely as the square of the distance. These are the directions of these sound-waves when the windows are closed. When they are open, of course the waves enter the houses and are reflected back and forward in and among the several rooms, crossing each other and pro- ducing a multiplicity of echoes, the intensity of which alone I07 would render them distressing to the ear ; while positive pain is caused by the irregular, unrhythmical and discordant sounds caused by four bells placed and rung as these are. Passing from the scientific to the medical view of the sub- ject, it is familiar that the various nerves of the body have their origin in the brain, which is the seat of sensation. " It is the emotion excited by sugar in the nerves of taste," says the same author, "which, transmitted to the brain, produces the sensation of sweetness, while bitterness is the result of the motion produced by aloes. It is the motion excited in the olfactoiy nerves by the effluvium of a rose which announces itself in the brain as the odor of the rose. It is the motion imparted by the sunbeam to the optic nerve which, when it reaches the brain, awakes the consciousness of light, .while a similar motion imparted to other nerves resolves itself into heat in the same wonderful organ. * * But the nerves of taste are not competent to transmit the tremors of light, nor is the optic nerve competent to transmit sonorous vibration. For this latter a special nerve is necessary, which passes from the brain into one of the cavities of the ear, and there spreads out in a multitude of filaments. It is the motion imparted to this, the auditory nerve, which, in the brain, is translated into sound." When, then, the waves of sound reach and fill the cavity of the ear, they are driven against the tympanic mem- brane, which is stretched across the passage leading towards the brain. This, which closes the drum of the ear, is thrown into a state of vibration, its motion is transmitted to the ends of the auditory nerves, and thence along these to the brain, where the vibrations are translated into sound. Hence it is easy to see why melodious or rhythmical waves of sound affect the brain with pleasure, and waves of mere noise, particularly dissonance, with pain. And I am not sure but that the brain is not more sensitively affected by sound than by sight. Although an unpleasant sight will cause an involuntary closing of the eyes, yet this is often but momen- tary, while every one knows the actual suffering caused to a skilled musician by even a false note, and frequently persons io8 leave a concert-room unable to endure the discord of even musical sounds. Of course, there must be cases in which the brain, with its exquisite adaptability, accommodates itself to certain condi- tions which are exacted of it. But for this there is a penalty. The professional wine-taster or tea-taster loses all or nearly all sense of the pleasure of taste. Old artillerymen are often deaf, 'and I have frequently seen men accustomed to the riveting of bolts in boilers, whose deafness I could ascribe to no other cause than their trade. We all know that however pleasing to the eye light may be over darkness, yet we are not able, without pain, to regard the bright sun or the glare of a calcium light ; and in like man- ner loud and dissonant sounds, by their forcible impact upon the drum-head, give intense annoyance to the mind. It must be also remembered that the ear, unlike the eye, is provided with no protection, like the eyelids, to exclude or moderate the force of these irritants, but that in sickness or in health, asleep or awake, the vibrations of sound have free access to our nervous centres, and are capable of exciting intense pleasure or indescribable and intolerable pain. Wm. Thomson, M. D. Sworn and subscribed before me, this twenty-sixth day of January, A. D. 1877. Theo. D. Rand, [seal] Notary Public. James H. Hutchinson, being duly sworn, says; I graduated at the Medical Department of the University of Pennsylvania, in 1858, and have continuously practiced since that time. Last November, in common with several other physicians of this city, I signed a communication addressed to the vestry of St. Mark's, setting forth the fact that the frequent and prolonged ringing of the bells of that church might be the cause of much discomfort and even of injury to the health of some of the people living in the neigh- borhood, and have since seen no reason to change my views on this subject. I have also read Dr. Mitchell's affidavit carefully and fully concur in all that he says, I have had under my care patients whose restoration to health would have been seriously inter- fered with by noises even less harsh and jarring than that caused by the ringing of the bells in question, and know of many individuals in my circle of acquaintance to whom, in consequence of the possession of a nervous temperament, the frequent recurrence of the ringing would be the source of much annoyance, while its results in some cases might be considerably worse. James H. Hutchinson. Sworn and subscribed before me, this twenty-third day of January, A. D. 1877. Edward S. Harlan, [seal] Notary Public. Ellwood Wilson, being duly affirmed, says : — I have been engaged in the practice of medicine in Phila- delphia for more than thirty years. In November last, I, in common with several other physicians, signed a remonstrance addressed to the vestry of St. Mark's Church, indicating the injurious effects of the frequent and prolonged ringing of the bells of that church upon the sick of the vicinity. This com- munication was fully expressive of my convictions in the matter — convictions. which I still hold. I have read the affidavits of Drs. Mitchell, Da Costa and Hutchinson, and fully concur in the opinions therein set forth. Ellwood Wilson, M. D., 212 South Fifteenth street. no Affirmed and subscribed before me, this twenty-ninth day of January, A. D. 1877. Wm. H. Myers, [seal] Notary Public. Edward Hartshorne, being duly affirmed, says : — I am a doctor of medicine, and have practiced for nearly thirty-seven years. I reside at the north-west corner of Sixteenth and Walnut streets. I have read carefully the affidavits of Drs. Mitchell and Da Costa in the matter of St. Mark's bells, and entirely concur in the opinions therein expressed. Edward Hartshorne, 1601 Walnut street. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this twenty-seventh day of January, A. D. 1877. Wm. H. Myers, [seal] Notary Public. D. Hayes Agnew, M. D., No. 161 1 Chestnut street, being duly sworn, saith : — I have been a practising physician in the city of Philadel- phia for over twenty-five years. Am professor of surgery in the University of Pennsylvania. I have read the affidavits of Drs. Weir Mitchell and Da Costa in this case, and entirely agree with the statements therein contained. D. Hayes Agnew. Sworn to and subscribed, this thirtieth day of January, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGregor J. Mitcheson, Commissioner. 1 1 1 H. Lenox Hodge, M. D., No. 506 South Broad street, being duly sworn, says : — I have carefully considered the affidavit of Dr. S. Weir Mitchell, relative to the bells of St. Mark's Church, and entirely endorse the statements therein made. The subject is so pointedly and ably presented by him that further ampflification is needless. H. Lenox Hodge, M. D. Sworn to and subscribed, this thirtieth day of January, A. D. 1877, before me. Joseph Mellors, [seal] Notary Public. John H. Packard, 1926 Spruce street, being sworn, says: — I am a practicing physician in Philadelphia, and have been for twenty-four years. My private opinion is that church- bells in a city are needless, and my professional opinion is that the ringing of them is in many cases productive of seri- ous injury and annoyance to the sick, infirm and nervous, and especially to children. While no actual instances of injury to the sick from these bells have come under my notice, I am prepared, on general grounds and from my professional expe- rience, to endorse these statements of Drs. Mitchell and Da Costa in their affidavits. John H. Packard. Sworn and subscribed before me, this twenty-ninth day of January, A. D. 1877. Wm. H. Myers, [seal] Notary Public. 112 Alfred Stille, M. D., Professor of Theory and Practice of Medicine in the University of Pennsylvania, residing at No. 3900 Spruce street, in the city of Philadelphia, being duly affirmed, saith: — I have read the affidavits of Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Da Costa, respecting the injurious effects produced by the frequent and prolonged ringing of church-bells, and particularly those of "St. Mark's." I fully concur in their opinions. Of my own knowledge I can testify that their ringing is sometimes a cause of sore distress, and tends to aggravate nervous disorders, and to develop them in persons who are predisposed to them by tem- perament, or by the habits or accidents of their lives. The bells of St. Mark's are exceptionally mischievous in that they are hung nearer the ground than is customary in other churches, and only separated by the width of the street from houses which rise as high as themselves, while in nearly all other churches the belfry is more elevated or further removed from contiguous buildings. Before the establishment of a municipal fire department, the ringing of the bells of the engine-houses and of the engine and hose carriages had become an intolerable nuisance, and when the new system was introduced, suddenly a great calm fell upon the spirits of the community, for which every citizen felt devoutly thankful, and which became more perfect when the clanging of the station-house bell was silenced. The discomfort and injury which I have known to be in- flicted upon men, women and children, even in health, but still more during sickness, by these now-abated nuisances, I am very sure must be caused in a greater or less degree by church-bells which, like those of "St. Mark's," are so excep- tionably placed as to intensify the ordinary effects of loud and discordant sounds. . ^ Alfred Stille. Affirmed and subscribed, the twenty-ninth day of January, ■ ■ ''' Joseph Mellors, [seal] Notary Public. 113 Samuel D. Gross, being duly affirmed, says : — I am professor of surgery in the Jefferson Medical College of Philadelphia. I have been engaged in the active practice of medicine and surgery since 1828. I have read with great care the affidavits of Drs. S. Weir Mitchell, J. Da Costa, and William Thomson, and fully endorse the views therein ex- pressed concerning the injurious effects of the ringing of St. Mark's bells upon the residents in the vicinity of that church. Early last spring, as I was passing with some friends the church on Locust street, above Fifteenth street, when the bell was ringing for the evening service, the noise that greeted my ears was so horrible that every one involuntarily exclaimed, "Who would live in such a neighborhood?" The church seemed almost to shake with the disgusting sound. If such a noise grates harshly upon a healthy ear, it is easy to con- ceive how injurious its effects must be upon the ear of a nervous person, or upon a person laboring under disease, fatigue, grief, or anxiety of mind, and in need of sleep. The sound of the street organ, the harsh and discordant clatter of the parrot, the barking of a dog, and the song of the mocking- bird are, if daily or nightly repeated in the same neighborhood, a source of real suffering even to many persons in health. I know of no more annoying sound than the loud and discord- ant shriek of the newsboy, when one is in need of his siesta or of finishing his morning slumbers. I have been compelled more than once on such occasions to invoke the Mayor's services in behalf of invalids as well as in my own defense. The sound of my neighbor's piano, however melodious in itself, may, if of constant recurrence, become a source not merely of annoyance, but of great suffering, interfering with sleep and that mental repose so necessary to comfort and happiness. Even the chirping of our sparrows at the early dawn of a sum- mer's morning is to many persons a serious evil, especially when these birds are congregated in large numbers, as they are in some parts of our city. But I regard none of these as at all comparable to the nuisance caused by the ringing of church-bells, if long continued and frequently repeated. S. D. Gross. 114 Affirmed and subscribed before me, this twenty-ninth day of January, A. D. 1877. Wm. H. Myers, [seal] Notary Public. I have found the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's, particu- larly the early morning and the three half-hour ringings of Sunday, an unpleasant source of annoyance to members of my own family, although none are invalids, while patients even at the distance of three squares have not only com- plained of being disturbed by the same, but have evidently suffered from nervous irritation brought about by this cause. Upon the sick or nervously sensitive I consider the frequent and prolonged ringing of bells calculated to exert such a positively injurious influence as in many cases to retard the recovery of the former and to render miserable many of the latter. A. R. Thomas, M. D., 1628 Locust street. Affirmed and subscribed, January loth, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. I have found the discordant clangor of the bells of St. Mark's Church such a source of annoyance, both to the sick and the well, as to render a residence in the immediate neigh- borhood not only unpleasant but positively objectionable. Chas. M. Thomas, M. D., 1628 Locust street. Affirmed and subscribed, January loth, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. 115 Thomas G. Morton, M. D., being duly affirmed, says ; — I am a physician of twenty years' practice. It is my pro- fessional experience that in all communities, and in all neigh- borhoods, especially in crowded cities, there are constantly to be found a large number of feeble, sickly and otherwise indisposed persons, of all ages and of all temperaments, whose maladies are readily increased or aggravated by even .the most trivial noises. Some time ago, I had under my care two patients of marked nervous temperament, who resided near a prominent church in this city, who were so much annoyed by the commotion made by the children who attended Sunday- school, the ringing of bells and other noises, that chiefly from this cause they moved away ; the ringing of the bells especially producing much nervous excitement. Such cases are not uncommon, and it would seem that some deference should be paid to the public in this respect. I have carefully read the statements made by Drs. Stille, Da Costa, Mitchell and others, and fully concur with them in their views regarding the injurious effects of the present ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church. Thomas G. Morton, M. D. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this thirtieth day of January, A. D. 1877. Wm. H. Myers, [seal] Notary Public. John L. LeConte, being duly sworn, says : — I am a doctor of medicine, but do not at present practice the profession. I live at 1625 Spruce street, almost directly south of St. Mark's Church; the rear of my back-building is, therefore, about three hundred and fifty feet distant from the bell-tower. My pursuits, as a student of science, require me to spend much of the day-time in my house. During the warm weather, when the windows were necessarily open, the sound of the bells was very annoying, both in a small library in the ii6 second-story back-building and in my study — the third-story front room. Since the windows have been closed the noise is naturally less audible, and myself and family have become somewhat accustomed to it. But I observe, on certain occasions, that the members of the family, from fatigue or illness, are much more inconveni- enced than at others; and I can easily see how, in persons of less nervous force or less power of patience, such an annoy- ance might become of serious import. In this view I am confirmed by the exclamations of annoyance which have been made by visitors at my house, whose ears had not been sub- mitted to this gradual process of case-hardening which we in the neighborhood have had to endure. And I can further state, from the conversations I have had with many friends and acquaintances, men of profound religi- ous convictions, who have been unfavorably impressed with the noise of this so-called chime, that as an incentive to reli- gious thought or as an invitation to divine worship, it is a complete failure ; also, that in the minds of the much larger class of persons, who are not spiritually disciplined, the ring- ing of the bells will provoke ideas of objurgation rather than the prayerful utterances which the well-meaning purchasers doubtless intended to assist. John L. LeConte. Sworn and subscribed before me, this twenty-seventh day of January, A. D. 1877. Wm. H. Myers, [seal] Notary Public. Albert H. Smith, M. D., No. 14 19 Walnut street, Philadel- phia, being duly affirmed, saith : — I am a practicing physician, and have a considerable number of patients under my care at times in the vicinity of St. Mark's Church, upon whom I have been in attendance upon many occasions during the ringing of the bells of said 117 church. I can therefore say from personal experience and observation — I. That the loud, discordant clanging of these bells — hung in a low spire — is annoying and unnerving to adults in health, and destructive of the sleep of healthy children. II. That I haye seen in cases of severe sickness, occurring within their sound, very injurious effects actually produced in aggravating the symptoms of the patients and diminishing the efficacy of treatment. III. That I cannot doubt that in a case of extreme illness, where the condition was one nicely balanced between life and death, such disturbance of the nervous system suddenly pro- duced, as in the outburst of the bell-ringing, could easily turn the scale in favor of death. While there may be peculiar nervous organizations to which such violent sounds may be pleasing, — just as in some rare cases sights ordinarily disgusting, smells ordinarily foul, and tastes ordinarily nauseous, may be, to exceptional persons, the source of enjoyment, — yet I feel sure that to the mass of human beings as found in any class of people, what I have said would be applicable, and the personal testimony of all my patients within distinct hearing of the bells will fully con- firm my statements. Albert H. Smith. Affirmed to and subscribed, this twenty-ninth day of Janu- ary, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. Herbert M. Howe, M. D., residing at No. 1606 Locust street, being duly sworn, says : — I have lived with my family in our present house for five years. Early last July I came to the city for a few days, and staying at my house, had then my first opportunity of hearing ii8 St. Mark's bells. The weather was very hot, and the windows open, and as no effort had then been made to modify their ringing, they were pealed with the utmost vehemence. I re- member trying to write a letter during their ringing, and find- ing their noise most distracting, wrote my wife that a residence in Locust street was far less desirable than before the intro- duction at St. Mark's of this nuisance. I regret to record that further experience has but intensified this conclusion. The nearness of the bell-tower to the front rooms of our house makes them practically uninhabitable during the ringing of the bells, and when this operation is repeated always twice a day at least, for periods varying from fifteen minutes to half an hour, it is quite evident that the convenience and pleasure of the house is seriously interfered with. Especially is this so where young children are to be cared for. It is perfectly impossible for my children to sleep in the front part of the house immediately preceding the holding of any service at St. Mark's Church. I am subject myself to nervous sick head- ache of a very serious type, the attacks lasting from twelve to twenty-four hours always, and never being relieved until sleep is procured. During a recent sickness of this kind, having suffered greatly all day, I had a practical illustration of the acute aggravation to my symptoms produced by St. Mark's bells, when the five-o'clock service bells dispelled the sleep which was about to relieve me. I confess that the prospective inconvenience arising from the use of these bells leads me especially to hope that the Honorable Court will abolish or regulate their employment. If in the past they have been such a positive nuisance to this neighborhood, their use dur- ing the Lenten season, when church services are so multiplied, will be quite unendurable. It is a well-known fact that an infinitely small proportion of the residents within the sound of these bells have any connection whatsoever with St. Mark's Church, and therefore the great majority within their call have no interest in know- ing that a service is about to be held there. To all such, their discordant sounds come as a mere interruption of what they 119 are doing, if they are well, or as a positive scourge if they are sick. H. M. Howe. Sworn to and subscribed, this twenty-sixth day of January, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. I. Minis Hays, being duly affirmed, says : — I am a doctor of medicine and have been so for eight years. I reside at No. 1607 Locust street, adjacent to St. Mark's Church on the east, and have resided there for over three years. I am in the enjoyment of good health and am not of what is known as a nervous temperament. I have always heretofore considered Locust street, in the neighborhood of St. Mark's Church, one of the most desir able localities for residence in Philadelphia, particularly on account of its freedom from noises and other nuisances inci- dental to a large city. Since the middle of June last the peace of the neighbor- hood of St. Mark's Church has been greatly disturbed by the loud, harsh, clanging and discordant noise made by the ring- ing of four bells erected about that time in the church-tower. These bells are rung in the morning and evening of every day of the week for from ten to fifteen minutes, and three or four times on every Sunday for half an hour continuously (with the exception of the early morning bells) and in such rapid succession, as often as ninety-four or ninety-six strokes in the minute, that the sound of each bell reinforces its pre- decessors, thus greatly augmenting the total volume of sound. Then again, the rapid, long and loud ringing of these heavy bells — hung in a low tovver, with high residences opposite — produce;? a strong, reverberatory whirring, which would, I think, greatly interfere with any pleasant musical effect that the completed chime might be capable of. I20 The noise of these bells disturbs me as well as my family in the ordinary enjoyment of my home and sometimes pro- duces mental irritation, which greatly interferes with my more serious occupation. The quarter-before-seven Sunday morn- ing bell (rung for fifteen minutes continuously, but now temporarily suspended) awakens me out of my sleep, and the sound of the bells at all times, as heard in my house, is productive of annoyance and discomfort to me and my family. Fortunately, since the bells were erected, there has not been any sickness in my family, for if there were any, I believe this noise would tend to aggravate some symptoms of disease or to retard convalescence or to do both. From what I had been told by members of the vestry of the church and by others I had been led to hope that I might become so accustomed to the noise of the bells that in a short time I would not mind them, or, indeed, often would not notice their ringing. A seven months' experience, however, has satisfied me of the impossibility of my becoming insensible to their noise, which is now as much of a nuisance as when it first began. I have read the affidavit of Dr. S. Weir Mitchell, and fully concur with him in the opinion there expressed as to the in- jurious influence of this noise. As a recent example I may cite the following: — On Sunday, January 14th, 1877, my sister, who resides at 1525 Locust street, suffered from a severe idiopathic headache, which was greatly aggravated by the half-hour , morning and afternoon ringing of the St. Mark's bells. Shortly before seven o'clock of that evening my mother, in much anguish, came to me and said that my sister's suffering was so intense that, in view of her previous experience, she was extremely apprehensive at its prospective aggravation by the half-hour ringing at seven o'clock, and wanted to know what could be done to avert it. I told her that under the circumstances anodynes would be useless and that her only other resource was an appeal to the grace of the rector Of the church. Although extremely reluctant to make the latter, she felt that it was her imperative 121 duty to do whatever she could to ward off this dreaded addi- tion to my sister's suffering, and therefore immediately wrote and sent the following note to the rector: — " 1525 Locust Street, "Rev. Dr. Hoffman, " Sunday Evening. " Dear Sir : — My daughter has suffered intensely all day from severe headache, which has been much increased by the ringing of the St. Mark's bells. I feel very apprehensive of their effects this evening, and would be greatly indebted to you if you would have the ringing suspended this evening. "Very respectfully. "S. M. Hays." This note, although written and sent with all possible dis- patch, reached the rector after the bells had begun to ring. Within a reasonable time the ringing was intermitted for about fifteen minutes and then recommenced and continued for five minutes before half-past seven. For the respite of about fifteen minutes from aggravated suffering my mother and sister were extremely grateful. I may further state, as evidence of the recognized injurious influence of noise, that the London Lancet, a journal of uni- versally acknowledged authority in the medical profession, in an editorial article on street noise, says : — " Noise is not only a nuisance, but a sort of irritation that exhausts the strength and impairs the vitality of the brain it assails." — October 14th, 1876. From the above considerations I am decidedly of the opinion that on account of these bells the neighborhood of St. Mark's Church ceases to be a desirable locality for residence, and were I now seeking a home I would be deterred thereby from selecting one in that locality. L Minis Hays. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this thirtieth day of January, A. D. 1877. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, ^ Commissioner. 122 Frederick G. Snelling, being duly sworn, says : — I am a doctor of medicine in the city of New York. I graduated at the University of the City of New York in 1859, seventeen years ago, and have actively practiced my profes- sion there. I have carefully read the affidavits of Doctors Mitchell and Da Costa, and entirely concur in their views as to the evil effect of the bell-ringing complained of, both upon the sick and the well. Its evil effects upon the sick, or the feeble and nervous, can scarcely be overstated. In a course of lectures which I am preparing on " The Modern Practice of Medicine," in treating of nervous diseases I use the following language, embodying some of my conclusions : — * * * " You will remember that in dwelling upon the treatment of febrile diseases a short time since, I impressed npon your minds the fact that the type of disease seems to have undergone a change since the time of the older writers from the sthenic to the asthenic ; from what might be termed the openly inflammatory type to the passively congestive type; that you would find this change more strongly impressed upon the dwellers in cities than upon the rural populations, and that in the treatment of febrile disorders you are to insist upon complete tranquillity of the sick-room, upon freedom from intrusion, composure of the patient's nervous system, and absolute immunity from harassing and distressing sounds. " If this be true as regards the acute febrile disorders, how much more must it be true with regard to the class of disease we are now considering, viz., diseases of the nervous system . " All alienists, indeed I may say all writers, are agreed as to the alarming increase of disorders of the nervous system within a comparatively recent period. Our hospitals and asylums are thronged with the unhappy victims of mental disease, and our sanitariums and health-resorts with shattered wrecks, whose health and nerves have been destroyed in the daily wear and tear of life. " Surely there must be some reason for this, as also for the parallel fact to which I have called your attention, the manifest change in the type of disease. 123 " I think it may be accounted for by the difference of train- ing at the present day, and in the time to which I allude." "At that time, therefore, we may say, in general terms, that the training was muscular ; it is now almost exclusively nervous. The intellect is called into play at an early age ; perception is stimulated by mechanical toys and competitive schools ; confined dwellings and workshops have replaced the wholesome freedom of the open air, and exhaustion and alienation follow from the rush and struggle for daily exist- ence." " Therefore, we have this deplorable train of nervous dis- orders, which have so challenged the attention of the whole profession as to have been erected into one of the most im- portant of its specialties." " As a preliminary to all other treatment, therefore, you are to require in the management of acute nervous disorders the most absolute repose and tranquillity for your patient. He should be placed in a rear or remote apartment, cheerfully furnished and lighted, darkened if there be photophobia, but not to such an extent as to render objects indistinct or vague. All grotesque wall-papers should be carefully avoided, as they are apt to associate themselves with the delusions or delirium of the patient in the most dangerous and persistent way. Above all, no intrusive sounds should be allowed to reach him. Street sounds should be as much excluded as possible; bands, hand-organs, church-bells, street cries should be banished or silenced; but at the same time be careful to give the patient's chamber a sane and wholesome tone, and do not condemn him to the silence of the grave. " These details may seem to you , trivial and unimportant, but I can assure you that upon attention to them may depend the all-important question of life or death. It is a well-known fact that the death of the well-known English artist John Leach, was accelerated, if not mainly brought about by the 124 torment from hand-organs while suffering from a painful ner- vous disease." ******** In further illustration of this, I may add that Babbage, the author of the " Ninth Bridgewater Treatise," and inventor of the wonderful calculating machine, tells us in his autobiog- raphy, in the chapter on street nuisances, "On a careful retrospect of the last dozen years of my life, I have arrived at the conclusion that I speak within limit when I state that one-fourth part of my working power has been destroyed. Twenty-five per cent, is rather too large an additional income- tax upon the brain of the intellectual workers of this country to be levied by permission of the government." He also alludes to the fact that the effect of a uniform and continuous sound in distracting the attention, or in disturbing intellectual pursuits, is almost insensible as compared with one that strikes the nerves at long or unexpected intervals. The former may be even soothing in its effect, but the latter is such as to cause the constant strain of expectation, which soon deepens into apprehension — than which nothing can be more exhausting. It is no answer to all this to say, as no doubt some may conscientiously do, that they are not disturbed by the bell- ringing. Some may even possibly like it. There are persons who are color-blind — others who have no ear for music — some who are near-sighted — and others again who are deaf But in the same way that we would not apply on a question of color, of music, of sight, or of sound to any of these classes, so we must be careful not to deduce general propositions on such a subject as this, from the testimony of a class having placid lymphatic temperaments, with which is usually combined a lower degree of intellectual development. It is an obviously objectionable class to rely upon as a basis for generalization. F. G. Snelling. Sworn to before me, this 26th January, 1877. Thomas Kilvert, [seal] Notary Ptcblic, New York County. I2S F. W. Rackemann, being duly sworn, says : — I am now, and for thirty years have been, a professor of music, and for the last thirty years have resided in the city of New York. A chime of bells, to be complete," must always consist of not less than eight bells, forming an octave of five tones and two semi-tones. A peal of bells may consist of either three, four or five bells, but on these no definite medley can be played — only the changes can be rung, which, after a time, become exceedingly irksome to the listener. The finest chimes in the world are in some of the cathedrals of Europe, which always stand in open places and are surrounded only by low buildings. The belfries are so high, and the bells so small (while their number is sometimes increased to twenty- four, forming three octaves), that the sound reaches those below in sweet, harmonious strains, losing altogether the harsh clangor which is so disagreeable in the close ringing of bells. These bells are played from a key-board, as are all chimes, and are called " carillons," or, more correctly, " carillons-a-clavier," and from their wide range much more varied melodies can be played upon them, producing an effect more harmonious. But even these, if hung among high buildings on the same level, would be marred and con- fused by the impossibility of preventing the crossing of the sound-waves produced by striking against opposing structures. Every bell is "damped" after it is struck, — in other words, the vibrations are stopped; but, of course, this cannot be done' to the sound-wave which has already gone out and, moreover, has repeated itself against some neighboring building. It is clear that to be free from all disagreeable and jarring effects, amounting at times to a positive nuisance, a chime must consist of certainly one octave, must be hung far above all surrounding structures, and that the beauty of time is enhanced in proportion as the scale is increased and the size of the bells diminished. The churches in this city possessing chimes and peals of bells are as follows: — Trinity Church, situated at the corner of Broadway and Wall 126 street, has a chime of ten bells. The belfry is eighty-four feet above the sidewalk, and the surrounding buildings are lower than the belfry and are used entirely for business purposes. Grace Church, at Broadway and Tenth street, has a chime of eight bells and an accidental. The belfry is seventy-five feet above the sidewalk, and is above the roofs of all sur- rounding buildings. It is in a business portion of the city, and with the exception of the St. Denis Hotel, nearly oppo- site, and which is lower than the belfry, there are no residences in the immediate neighborhood. St. Ann's (Roman Catholic) Church, on Twelfth street, east of Fourth avenue, has a peal of four bells. The belfry is seventy feet above the sidewalk, and is above the roofs of all the surrounding buildings, which are either small, low brick residences of an inferior class or small shops. Zion Church, at the corner of Madison avenue and Thirty- eighth street, has a peal of three bells. The belfry is sixty feet above the sidewalk, and above the level of the surrounding houses, which are dwellings. The streets are wide, and the church is situated at the corner. St. Thomas' Church, at the corner of Fifth avenue and Fifty-third street, has a chime of ten bells. The belfry is one hundred feet above the sidewalk, and is above all the dwelling- houses and churches adjacent. The street is wide, and there are many open spaces, and the bells are hung entirely above any possibility of reverberating sounds. Trinity Chapel, on Twenty-fifth and Twenty-sixth streets, between Broadway and Sixth avenue, has a peal of five bells. The peak of the roof of the chapel is eighty-eight feet from the sidewalk, and the belfry is seventy-five feet above the sidewalk. All the surrounding buildings are either hotels or residences, some of which are higher than the belfry. This peal is a constant annoyance to the neighborhood, for being hung so low, the waves of sound strike against the church itself, and other surrounding structures, which give forth a new wave of sound in echo, and these coming in contact and 12/ crossing the successive waves from the peal itself, produce, in certain conditions of the atmosphere and the wind, confusion and dissonance most distressing to the ear. Moreover, as I have previously said, being only a peal and not a chime, no definite melody can be played, and hence results an irksome monotony of sound. F. W. Rackemann. F. W. Rackemajin, being duly sworn, says, that the facts above set forth, so far as stated of his own knowledge, are just and true, and so far as stated upon knowledge or information derived from others, he believes them to be true. Wm. H. Lee, [seal] Notary Public of New York County. Frederick Widdows, being duly sworn, says : — I am fifty-six years of age. I was born in England, and have studied the profession of music since I was six years old. I am an enthusiast as to chime-playing, and have given to it very devoted attention. I have been in this country since 185 1, and have frequently been called in as an expert as to matters connected with chimes of bells. I had the care of the chime of bells, thirteen in number, at the Centennial Ex- hibition, at Philadelphia. They were cast in Baltimore, through my suggestion, and I gave the firm the scale for casting. I rang those bells at Philadelphia at least twice every day, during the whole Exhibition, sometimes accompanied by a large band of music. The weight of the heaviest of these bells was three thousand five hundred pounds. They were hung in the top of Machinery Hall, at a considerable height above any building near. I am familiar with the chimes of bells at Philadelphia. I have played tunes on the chimes of Christ Church, which are very beautiful. Those bells are hung in the old-fashioned 128 English style, like the picture in Plate VI. of the Rev. Mr. Ellacombe's book on " Belfries and Ringers." I think that St. Peter's bells are hung in the same way, and so are those of St. Mark's; but the latter can be both rung and chimed- The bells of St. Stephen's Church are fixed in a frame and cannot be rung. There is a great difference between " ring- ing " and " chiming." In the former, the bells themselves, being fastened to a wheel, are swung. In the latter, the clapper is fastened to the pulling-cord and pulled against the bell. For " ringing," it is claimed that "it is only by the swinging of bells that the grand full tone can be brought out." For " chiming," it is claimed that " thereby soft and subdued harmonies can be produced." Ringing is performed by a man pulling a rope which goes round the wheel attached to the bell. Thus eight bells require eight men when ringing a peal. Chiming is best performed by a set of wooden levers, something like short, straight pump-handles, and one man, playing with both hands, can easily play a chime of eight or more bells without the least difficulty. At the Centennial, I had two rows or banks of levers, twenty-five in all, besides thirteen pedals. The object of the latter was to enable me to play a melody with an accompaniment at the same time. I consider, that it was the finest chime ever cast or played in this country, being full philharmonic pitch and in perfect unison or harmony with musical instruments. This was fully demonstrated to the entire satisfaction of musical critics. During the Exhibition, I called upon Mr. Lemuel Coffin to have this chime purchased for the Holy Trinity Church, whose tower is well suited for it, being over a hundred feet high, and whose members, I was told, were anxious to have a chime in it, but I was met by the objection that the feeling against St. Mark's bells was so strong that they were afraid to venture the experiment, or, as he put it, they were afraid it would be an annoyance to their neighbors. This was about the beginning of October. The bells were, I learn, afterward sold to Mrs. Stewart, of New York, but I believe they are still in Machinery Hall. 129 I first saw St. Mark's bells soon after they were put up, and before they were rung. I went to the tower with Mr. Brown, the ringer of St. Stephen's (who is an old English bell-ringer, and, as such, one of the most accomplished ringers in the country — I mean "ringers," not " chimers"), and introduced him to Dr. Hoffman, who was there. In the conversation that took place, I called attention to the fact that the bells had been tuned by cutting the edges, which I considered would interfere with the quality of tone. Mr. Brown also expressed surprise, and said he had never before seen any of Mears' bells so cut. Soon after, I went there to hear them rung. Mr. Brown had three ringers from Kensington, making with himself four. It was of a Saturday evening. Just outside the church were Dr. Hoffman and Mr. Wells, of the Evening Bulletin. The latter asked me what my opinion of the bells was. I said there was some- thing about them I did not like — -their tone was too harsh and metallic — there was not enough resonance about them. At Dr. Hoffman's suggestion, I moved my position several times, but still my criticism was the same, and I told Dr. Hoffman what a pity it was he did not wait till he got the full chime. I would not like to say positively that I told him that anyhow the bell-tower was not high enough ; but I do say, that even with a full chime of bells they should be hung not less than fifty feet (or thereabout) above the surrounding houses, and as to the effects of the present wave-sound among these houses, I entirely concur with the affidavit of Dr. William Thomson in this cause. On the evening I speak of, the bells were very well rung, reminding me of English bell-ringing, but still the reverberation was very great and dissonance was produced, simply because the waves of sound struck the houses at such a short distance and rebounded so as to give the effect of a duplicate sound. Through it all I, as an expert, could and did experience pleasure, but to those whose ears were not accustomed to bell-ringing, it perhaps gave pain. I have since heard these bells played with chime-hammers, which are attached to them, but they were apparently badly played. I do not think I have lately heard them rung. But whether they I30 are played or rung, it is impossible that they should give pleasure to the average ear, because, being but half an octave, it is impossible to play tunes or melodies, and whether there are four bells or eight, it is almost impossil5le that, hung at their present height, they can ever give pleasure. I have read the affidavit of Mr. Rackemann, and concur with it, with these exceptions : Trinity Church has only nine bells — an octave and a flat seventh. Grace Church has ten bells, or what is termed a ninth, with a flat seventh added. At least, unless they have recently changed. All these New York bells are hung very high above the houses, except Trinity Chapel, whose bells, I understand, are a very great nuisance, as they must be, for the reason stated by Mr. Racke- mann. F. WiDDOWS. Sworn and subscribed before me, this twenty-eighth day of January, A. D. 1877. James F. Allen, [seal] Notary Public of the District of Columbia. D. Hudson Shedaker, being duly affirmed, says : — I am the Surveyor and Regulator of the Third District of the city of Philadelphia. At the request of the complainants' counsel I have ascertained by triangulation the appoximate heights of the buildings which immediately surround St. Mark's Church, a statement of which I annex in tabular form. I also annex hereto, as part of my affidavit, a diagram or plot of the property, with the said heights marked thereon. D. Hudson Shedaker, Surveyor and Regulator Third District. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this twenty-ninth day of January, A. D. 1877. [seal] James W. Barr, Notary Public. 131 Approximate Heights of Buildings in the Vicinity of St. Mark's Episcopal Church. (Locations of Buildings ON plan annexed.) Locust Street. South Side. FEET. North Side. feet. No. 1630, . 40 No. 1637, • 33-50 No. 1630, tower, 56.50 No. 1635, • 33-50 No. 1628, . 51 No. 1633, • 33-50 No. 1622, . 62.50 No. 1631, . 33-50 No. 1620, . 48.50 No. 1629, . 48 No. 1618, . 59 No. 1627, . 48 No. 1616, . 59 No. 1607, . 42.50 No. 1614, . 55 No. 1612, . 51 No. 1610, . 53 No. 1608, . 52.50 No. 1606, . 52.50 No. 1604, . 54 No. 1602, . • 53-50 No. 1600, . 53.50 Note. — The heights on Locust street are taken to the eaves ; the roofs average from four to eight feet higher. Walnut Street. South Side. FEET. No. 1636, . ridge, . 52 No. 1634, (( 52 No. 1632, ti ■ 50 No. 1630, tt 50 No. 1628, ti 50 No. 1628, back end, 46.80 No. 1626, ridge, . 50 No. 1624, 53 132 No. 1624, back end, • 38 No. 1618, 60 No. 1618, back end, . 38 No. 1616, ridge, . • 52 No. 1612, back end, 64 No. 1608, ridge, . 63 No. 1606, n 63 No. 1606, back end. 53 No. 1604, ridge, . 63 No. 1602, 65 No. 1600, 65 Note.: — The roofs of above buildings average about six feet high. Sixteenth Street. West Side. No. 218 (South-west corner of Chancellor), No. 220, No. 222, No. 224 (North-west corner of Erety) No. 228 (South-west corner of Erety) No. 228 (South-west corner of Erety) Uor), . ridge. 39.20 ti 39-20 ti 39.20 ), 39.20 , . eaves. 40 • ridge, 44 Seventeenth Street. East Side. No. 211, No. 213, No. 2T5 (North-east corner of Chancellor), No. 219 (South-east corner of Erety), . No. 221, No. 223, No. 225 (North-east corner of Erety), . ridge. 45-50 45-50 45-44 40.76 40.50 40-50 40.50 133 Chancellor Street. South Side. FEET. feet. No. 1636, . . 25 No. 1618, . 29.50 No. 1634, . 25 No. 1616, . 29.50 No. 1632, . 25 No. 1614, . 31-50 No. 1630, . 25 No. 1612, . 30.70 No. 1628, . 25 No. 1610, . 30.70 No. 1626, . 25 No. 1608, . 30.70 No. 1624, . 25 No. 1606, . 37-50 No. 1622, . 33-50 No. 1604, . 37-50 No. 1620, . 33-50 No. 1602, . 37-50 North Side. feet. Greenhouse back of No. 16 12 Walnut street, ridge, 20 Back of No. 1608 Walnut stre 2t, ... 22.50 Back of No. 1604 Walnut stre( 5t, ... 19 North-west ( ;orn er of Sixteentl 1 street. 19 Erety Street. feet. Carpenter shop, back of Nos. 1634 and 1636 Chancel- lor street, ........ 24 Dwellings, Nos. 1629 and 1627, 21 Dwellings, Nos. 1625 and 1623 22 Stables, back of Nos. 1622 and 1620 Chancellor street, 22 Stables, back of Nos. 1618 and 1616 Chancellor street, 23.50 Stables, back of No. 1614 Chancellor street, . .21 Stables, back of Nos. 16 12, 16 10 and 1608 Chancellor street, ......... 20 Stables, back of Nos. 1606, 1604 and 1602 Chancellor street, ......... 34.50 Additional Heights. North-east corner of Sixteenth and Locust streets, . 52 North-west corner of Seventeenth and Locust streets, 60 St. Mark's school-house, average, . . . -35 134 Difference of Elevation of Streets from point "A," IN FRONT OF " BeLL-ToWER," St. MaRK'S PrOTESTANT Episcopal Church. POINT ON PLAN. LOCATION. FBET. B. Sixteenth and Locust streets, . . 1.30 below A. C. Seventeenth and Locust streets, 1.90 " " D. Seventeeenth and Erety streets. 0.85 " " E. Summit in Erety street, 225 feet east \ of Seventeenth street, . . J 1.20 above A. F. Sixteenth and Erety streets, 0.30 below " G. Sixteenth and Chancellor streets, . 0.40 above " H. Summit in Chancellor street, 220 feet \ east of Seventeenth street, . '. J I 80 " " I. Seventeenth and Chancellor streets. 0.20 below " K. Seventeenth and Walnut streets, . 1. 10 above " L. Summit in Walnut street, 1 5 1 feet \ west of Sixteenth street, . . J 9 Sn " " M. Sixteenth and Walnut streets. 1.70 " " D. Hudson Shedaker, Surveyor and Regulator Third District. January 26th, 1877. William H. Spayd, being sworn, says : — I am a carpenter and model maker, and have been fre- quently employed to make models to be used in patent cases and otherwise. Such models are, of course, required to be made with a considerable degree of mathematical accuracy. At the request of the complainants' counsel, I have made a model in wood of St. Mark's Church and the houses in its immediate neighborhood. It has a base of five feet five inches. I3S by four feet one inch and a half, and the scale is one-tenth of an inch to the foot. The measurements have been taken from the ground plan made by Mr. Shedaker, the surveyor and regulator of the district (which is on a scale of thirty feet to an inch), and his affidavit made in this cause. For the purpose of greater accuracy, I and my assistants have made frequent visits to the locality, and I believe the model to be a faithful and accurate representation of the church and the surrounding buildings. Wm. H. Spa yd. Sworn and subscribed to before me, this thirtieth day of January, A. D. 1877. Cornelius M. Smith, [seal] Notary Public. Lawrence Lewis, being duly sworn, says : — At the request of complainants' counsel, I have made an examination of the duplicate tax assessment books for the year 1876, in the office of the Board of Revision of Taxes. I find the following aggregate of assessments of real estate within the limits designated, that is to say : — South side of Locust street, from Sixteenth to Seventeenth street, . . . . . ^343,000 North side of Locust street, from Sixteenth to Seventeenth street, 69,500 [This is exclusive of the defendants' property, which is two hundred and twenty feet on Locust street by one hundred feet deep, and though assessed at ^150,000, is exempt from taxation.] South side of Walnut street, from Sixteenth to Seventeenth street, 486,500 Carried forward, 1^899,000 136 Brought forward, $899,000 North side of Walnut street, from Sixteenth to Seventeenth street, ...... 517,500 South side of Spruce street, from Sixteenth to Seventeenth street, ..... 238,250 North side of Spruce street, from Sixteenth to Seventeenth street, ..... 273,500 West side of Sixteenth street, from Walnut to Spruce street, ....... 194,000 East side of Sixteenth street, from Walnut to ' Spruce street (including corner properties as- sessed on Walnut, Locust and Spruce streets), 201,300 West side of Seventeenth street, from Walnut to Spruce street (including corner properties as- sessed on Walnut, Locust and Spruce streets), 139,500 East side of Seventeenth street, from Walnut to Spruce street, . . . . . . . 117,250 $2,580,300 Chancellor and Erety streets, .... $53,100 Latimer street, ....... 23,000 $76,100 South side of Locust street, from Fifteenth to Sixteenth street (exclusive of another church property assessed at $150,000, but exempt from taxation), ....... $121,500 North side of Locust street, from Fifteenth to Sixteenth street (exclusive of a church and school property assessed at $40,000, but ex- empt from taxation), ..... 162,400 South side of Locust street, from Seventeenth to Eighteenth street (including corner property assessed on Eighteenth street), . . . 114,000 Carried forward, $397,900 137 Brought forward, $397,900 North side of Locust street, from Seventeenth to Eighteenth street (including corner prop- erty assessed on Eighteenth street), . . 340,000 $737,900 Total aggregate of assessed value within the limits designated, $3,394,300 Lawrence Lewis. Sworn and subscribed before me, this twenty-third day of January, A. D. 1877. Wm. H. Myers, [seal] Notary Public. James M. Keenan, being duly sworn, says : — I reside in Germantown now. Two years ago I resided in West Philadelphia. I am engaged in the real estate business and in building operations. I am very familiar with the values of real estate in the city of Philadelphia, and am called upon constantly by the City, the Reading Railroad Company and individuals, to give testimony as to the value of real estate. I know the effect produced upon the value of property used as a residence by the erection of any nuisance in the vicinity. If I owned and lived in a house on Locust street within hearing of the chimes of St. Mark's Church, which, I am informed, ring several times on Sunday and frequently during the week, I should want to sell it, and I should expect to sell it at a sacrifice in consequence of this constant bell-ring- ing. I have no doubt whatever that the value of residences is reduced by the existence of noises which are calculated to disturb that quiet which most persons deem essential to domestic comfort. James M. Keenan. 138 Sworn and subscribed before me, this eleventh day of January, 1877. Harvey C. Warren, [seal] Notary Public. Joseph T. Thomas, being duly affirmed, deposes and says : — I reside at No. 18 16 South Rittenhouse Square, in the Eighth Ward of the city of Philadelphia, and have resided there for about twenty-one years. I am a member of the Philadelphia bar, familiar with the value of real estate in the city of Philadelphia, and especially with that of the western portion of the Eighth Ward. I have no doubt whatever that the value of real estate is affected by the establishment and maintenance of a set of church-bells which are rung re- peatedly on the first day of the week, and also at intervals during the week, in the neighborhood of such real estate, and within hearing of the occupants thereof If I owned a house on Locust street or Walnut street, between Sixteenth and Seventeenth streets, I should not expect to get within twenty per cent, of its price or value, if the bells of St. Mark's Church are permitted to be rung as at present. I would not purchase a house in that locality at any price for a residence unless the ringing of these bells was stopped. J. T. Thomas. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this eleventh day of January, 1877. Thos! J. Hunt, [seal] Notary Public. Thomas Cochran, being duly sworn, says : — Until January 1st, 1877, when I accepted the presidency of the Guarantee Trust and Safe Deposit Company, I was the president of the Board of Revision of Taxes of the City of Philadelphia, which position I held for over ten years. 139 In that position, my attention was necessarily called, both in a general and a particular way, to the value of all the real estate within the city, covering a space of over one hundred and twenty-nine and one-eighth square miles, and this naturally led to a scientific examination of the subject of values, and its incident taxation. I have many times been examined as an expert in important cases as to the valua- tion of real estate, and its liability to be depreciated or appreciated by reason of particular causes. It is obvious that causes which would depreciate one class of property would not so affect another. A factory of an average kind would depress property at Eighteenth and Walnut streets, and would not do so in the Nineteenth, Twenty-sixth and some other wards. In, those districts it would enhance property, because it would furnish occupation for the people of the neighborhood. A striking instance is shown on what is known as the Bush Hill estate, covering an area of over three hundred acres. In 1 8 14, when it was sought to be brought into the market, the Hamilton family were only too glad to have it taken up for factories; but within the last twenty-five years their area has been restricted within narrow limits, and the newly-improved portion is now one of the most beautiful in the city, being covered by private residences. If one or more factories were now to be placed in their midst, they would obviously depreciate values. So on buildings used for devotional or educational purposes. They are necessities, but still they may depreciate values, and again their necessity may cause them to be sought for. A public school, with hundreds of boys crowding in and out four times a day, filling the streets and making a noise, is an undesirable factor in a neighborhood of dwelling-houses. In some localities, it would much depre- ciate property. And hence it was that when, in 1874 or 1875, one of the best judges of real estate in this city, an owner and extensive builder, began to build houses at Thir- teenth street and Lehigh avenue, he particularly desired to have no public school built near them. But after the houses 140 became tenanted, he found that people would not stay be- cause their children could not be taught within a con- venient distance, and he was glad to have a school-house built there. I had read the affidavits of Messrs. Thomas and Keenan, in this case of St. Mark's bells, and, with the exception hereafter mentioned, I entirely agree with them as to the depreciation in the values of property which will result from the continuance of noise caused by the present bells of that church. The belt of property from Broad street to the Schuylkill and from Market street on the north to Pine street on the south, has been selected for private dwellings, which are not adapted to any other purpose. They are the most expensive and highly taxed dwelling-houses in the city. They are occupied by the richest class in this community. The personal tax for the Eighth Ward, which extends from the north side of Spruce street to the south side of Chestnut street, and from Seventh street to the Schuylkill, for the year 1876, is ^12,537,872, — more than four times as great as that of any other ward, — while the real estate assessment is ^42,086,200 ; the largest in the city, except one ward, which is about two millions more. The class who build, buy and live in such houses do so because they most nearly approach perfec- tion as to immunity from nui.sances. If a nuisance should be planted there, whether caused by smell or noise, a deprecia- tion will take place greater than in any other locality, because the occupants are naturally more sensitive to such annoyances, and being possessed of wealth can at any time avoid an inconvenience by moving elsewhere. The exception I desire to make is, that I do not agree with the affidavits as to a percentage. I do not think you can, at least not yet, measure the depreciation by an exact or hardly an approximate percentage. Instead of twenty per cent, as one of the witnesses has said, it might possibly sink to only ten per cent.; but it would more probably sink to thirty per cent. For with values of property, as with the human body, as soon as depreciation enters, it is apt to bring other 141 depreciations, and the result is the change of character for the worse of the whole neighborhood. It is notorious that property rented for nuisances bring pro- portionally more than any other class ; but this is more than compensated by the deteriorated condition of all the surround- ing neighborhood. Thus, the north and south sides of Walnut street, between Eighth and Ninth streets, occupied by a theatre, a varieties theatre, and nearly every other house a drinking saloon or the like, bring a far greater rental for the properties occupied for the business than it would otherwise do, and yet they are a bar to improvement between Eighth and Ninth streets. Nor do their evil effects stop there, for these annoyances contaminate the entire adjacent neighborhood, and most materially reduce both the rental and the selling value. The properties affected by the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church are entirely too far west for purposes of busi- ness, and if they, or any of them, should from any source of annoyance be rendered undesirable for residences, or if by reason of the present noise, or from other causes, the occu- pants should be driven therefrom, the uncertainty as to their future use would most materially depreciate the value of the whole neighborhood. This doubt I consider to be a strong element of reduction of values. And, indeed, I do not exactly know to what profitable use, for purposes of rental, these houses could be turned. Thomas Cochran. Sworn and subscribed before me, this eighteenth day of January, A. D. 1877. Wm. H. Myers, [seal] Notary Public. Horatio Etting, being duly sworn, saith : — I am and for ten years have been engaged in real estate business in this city. My office is at No. 71 1 Walnut street. I am familiar with property in the vicinity of St. Mark's 142 Church — at which members of my family have attended services for years. In the year 1875 I had the property No. 1614 Locust street placed in my hands for sale, by Mr. George W. Brooke, the owner of it. The property remained in my charge unsold for an unusually long time, although it was a very fine house. I learned that there was an apprehen- sion in the minds of some persons that it was intended by St. Mark's Church to put bells in the tower, but after further in- quiry I was satisfied, from information received from a vestry- man of the church, that there was so much opposition in the church to the erection of the bells that they would not be put up. Accordingly, when I had an application from Mr. Richard M. Cadwalader for the purchase of the property I did not con- sider it worth while to say anything to him about the possi- bility of the bells being hung and rung there, and I believe that he bought the house in ignorance of the proposed intro- duction of the bells. I have no doubt whatever that the continuance of the ringing of the bells at St. Mark's Church will materially depreciate the value of real estate in the neigh- borhood. The bells are hung comparatively low, especially in view of the character and height of the houses upon Locust street, and the further fact that it is a densely populated locality, so that there is no diffusion of the noise as in St. Peter's and other churches having bells, but the waves of sound necessarily strike against the fronts of the Locust street houses, particularly in such a way as to make the noise inevitably oppressive to the occupants of those residences. HoR. Etting. Sworn and subscribed, this twelfth day of January, A. D. 1877. Charles F. Gummey, being duly sworn, says : — I am a real estate broker in the city of Philadelphia, and have been so for nearly twenty years. It is a part of my business to know and consider the elements of value of 143 real property and also the circumstances which enhance or depreciate that value. I am very well acquainted with the value and character of the improvements in the vicinity of St. Mark's Protestant Episcopal Church. The buildings, with very few exceptions, are dwellings, and are mostly owned and occupied by a class of persons who need not subject themselves to annoyances that can be avoided by removal. There is no reason to suppose that these dwellings will be superseded by stores within any definite time, and if the bells now in the tower of St. Mark's Church should con- tinue to be rung, as set forth in the accompanying petition, thereby making the neighborhood undesirable for residence or preventing those in the vicinity from enjoying the comforts which they are able to obtain elsewhere, I am of opinion that the property in the vicinity will be depreciated to the extent of from twenty (20) to thirty-three (33) per cent, of its value — the latter figure ruling on the line of Locust street where some of the dwellings are but sixty or seventy feet distant from the bells, where several of the elements are wanting which make up the value of property on Walnut street, and where the high price it has heretofore commanded depends mainly upon the comparative retirement and the entire free- dom of the location from noise and annoyance that it affords to those residing there. Charles F. Gummey. Sworn and subscribed before me, this twelfth day of Janu- ary, A. D. 1877. Lisle Stokes, [seal] Notary Public. S. Kingston McCay, being duly sworn, doth depose and say: — I am a conveyancer, residing in the city of Philadelphia. Am familiar with the value of real estate, particularly so in the neighborhood of St. Mark's Church. I consider the present 144 bells in sajd- church an injury to property in the immediate neighborhood of the church; and since the erection of said bells have offered property placed in my hands for sale, nearly opposite the same, and believe I could have effected a sale of the same had it not been for the annoyance created by the constant ringing of said bells. The party with whom I was in treaty refused to purchase on this account. This part of Locust street is one of the most desirable in the city of Phila- delphia, as residences for persons who desire quiet, and in consequence has always commanded high prices ; but since the bells have been erected in the steeple of St. Mark's Church the noise and vibration have been so great as to cause great annoyance, and in my opinion to depreciate the value of property in that immediate location. S. Kingston McCay. Sworn and subscribed before me, this twelfth day of Janu- ary, A. D. 1877. John Rodgers, [seal] Notary Public. Charles H. Muirheid, being duly affirmed according to law, says : — I am familiar with the neighborhood of St. Mark's Church, and with the question now agitating the public mind as to the bells, by the ringing of which, it is claimed, that what was once a quiet and much-sought-after place of residence has become a very noisy one, and that thereby the value of the property is impaired. Through me Mr. Cadwalader purchased his present resi- dence. No. 1 6 14 Locust street, and as the agent of the Towne estate I sold to Mr. Alfred C. Harrison the adjoining property. No. 1616 Locust street. These gentlemen sought these houses on account of the attractions and quiet of the neighborhood, at a time when 145 there were no bells in St. Mark's Church, and when there was no expectation, to my knowledge, that any would be placed there. I am clearly of the opinion that the ringing of these bells in the early morning, and the excessive and continuous ringing of the same, not only on Sundays, but (as I am in- formed) on every day in the week, seriously impairs the value of property in front and in rear of the church, to what extent it would be impossible for me to state precisely, but I should judge the depreciation to be fully twenty per cent, or more. Chas. H. Muirheid. State of Pennsylvania, \ City and County of Philadelphia, j On this twentieth day of January personally appeared before me the within-named Charles H. Muirheid, who, being affirmed, says the facts set forth as within are true, to the best of his knowledge and belief Affirmed and subscribed before me, the day and year aforesaid. George N. Watson, [seal] Notary Public. County of Philadelphia, ss. James A. Freeman, being duly sworn, says : — I am in the real estate auction business and have been for years past. I know the value of real estate in the city of Philadelphia. I am acquainted with the neighborhood of St. Mark's Church. It is surrounded by houses of considerable value and occupied by persons who use them and will continue to use them as residences only. The ringing of bells — four large ones — twice a day during the week and three times on Sunday for any length of time would, in my opinion, be a source of great annoyance to a considerable number of the occupiers of the adjoining property 146 in proportion to the distance of their respective residences from the church, and the existence of such an annoyance or the liability to it would decidedly, in my opinion, tend to reduce the value of property in the neighborhood. It would deter a large number of persons from bidding on the prop- erties, and anything which will reduce the number of bidders necessarily has the like effect on the market value. James A. Freeman. Sworn and subscribed before me, a notary public, this twelfth day of January, A. D. 1877. H. Oscar Smith, [seal] Notary Public. Joseph R. Rhoads, being duly affirmed, says : — I am a member of the bar and of the Conveyancers' Associa- tion, and have been in business for fourteen years in this city. It is part of my business to know the value of real property and to consider .circumstances which tend to increase or diminish that value. I have, upon request, examined and considered the effect of the bells in St. Mark's Church, and the daily ringing of them, upon the value of property in that vicinity. The effect is limited to the area within which the sound extends to such a degree as to annoy or disturb the hearer. The vicinity of the church is occupied by dwellings. It will probably continue to be so occupied for an indefinite period. There is no reason to expect that commerce will there supersede dwellings by shops or factories. Many of the buildings around are high, and it is obvious that the effect of the sound must be vastly greater when confined in the area bound by the walls of the houses. Within that space the sound is certainly very loud. If the sound is sufficient within that area to disturb or annoy, the effect on property within that area will depend of course on 147 the use made of the bells. The ordinary sound of a church- bell is sufficient, in the early morning, to arouse sleepers in the vicinity. In warm weather, with open windows, it would be an exceptional person who would not be awakened by four large bells rung opposite his chamber windows. With the sick, nursing-women and children, this effect would be very serious. Therefore, if the bells are to be rung at hours in which persons desire to sleep, or in which women and children or sick people should sleep, this fact would prevent a large portion of the class likely to purchase such houses as lie within that area from buying. The effect of excluding a portion of the bidders for property is obvious. If the bells are to be rung only at hours in which healthy people are always up, the risk still remains that there might be sickness. If there is no power to prevent the ringing, but the caprice of any man must be relied upon, many prudent persons would decline incurring such a risk. But whatever may be the limits within which the ringing is to be confined, it is an accepted rule in business that the existence of such a thing is what we call a "drawback." No one having the means of purchasing the class of houses such as are built upon the street opposite the church, on Locust street and on the south side of Walnut street, in that square, would fail to consider any source of noise sufficient to attract attention throughout the house as an objection to a residence. The objection rises in degree exactly according to its extent. As soon as it arrives at a point which renders a class of persons miserable by constant annoyance, the property can only be sold to a very small class and at reduced price. Joseph R. Rhoads. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this twelfth day of January, A. D. 1877. H. Oscar Smith, [seal] Notary Public. 148 Daniel M. Fox, being duly sworn, says : — I am a conveyancer, have been in continuous practice for a period of over thirty-five years, and am at the present time president of the Conveyancers' Association of Philadelphia. Have had my attention called to the ringing of the church- bells of St. Mark's Episcopal Church, situate north side of Locust street, west of Sixteenth street, city of Philadelphia, and have been asked what my judgment and opinion are as a dealer in real estate as to the effect the ringing of said church- bells has upon the value of property in the neighborhood of said church. I am personally fond of hearing church-bells ring as a general rule, — the sound is unique, has a sweetness of tone agreeable to the ear, and besides it admonishes to religious duty ; but I can readily imagine such continued and daily ringing, and at such unreasonable periods, as to tire, disturb, startle and interfere with the comfort, ease and quiet, especially of weak, sick and nervous persons, and whenever bells are so rung, they become an intolerable nuisance, and naturally occasion an inclination to such inhabitants of houses in their vicinity to remove and seek a more quiet locality ; in such case property, however eligibly otherwise situated and orna- mentally constructed, must lose its attractiveness, and depre- ciation in value is sure to follow. If the bells in question are rung as above indicated, I would regard it to be damaging to the value of property within close hearing distance of said church. Daniel M. Fox. Sworn and subscribed before me, this twenty-fourth day of January, A. D. 1877. William B. Mann, [seal] Prothonotary Court of Cominon Pleas. 149 John A. Griffin, being duly sworn, says: — I am a real estate broker and know the value of real estate in Philadelphia. My attention has been called to the ringing of four large bells at St. Mark's Church, three times on Sunday and twice a day during the week, and my opinion asked as to its effect upon the value of the adjoining property. The continuance of such a course must necessarily be very annoying to the surrounding occupants, especially to sick and to children and women, and the liability to such annoyance would, if the properties were offered for sale, reduce the number of bidders to a considerable extent. It would exclude a large class of bidders and consequently the property would bring a considerable less price than it otherwise would. All circumstances which tend to exclude bidders as a class neces- sarily depress values. John A. Griffin. Sworn and subscribed, January I2th, 1877. W. F. Harrity, [seal] Notary Public. Lewis H. Redner, being duly affirmed, doth declare and say: — I am a conveyancer. Have been in business for twenty-four years, and have my office at No. 727 Walnut street. I know of the introduction into the tower of St. Mark's Church, Locust street, of four bells, and of the complaint of their use which has been made by those residing in the neighborhood of the church. I am familiar with that neighborhood and know the value of property there. The dwellings surrounding the church on all sides are for the most part high buildings and the blocks are compactly built. I am also aware that the tower of St. Mark's Church is low in comparison with those of the churches of the Holy Trinity, St. Peter's, and Christ Church, and believe that the early, frequent and protracted ringing of tlie bells must have a disturbmg, and, in summer, ISO a distracting effect upon the near neighbors of the church. I have recently heard the chiming of the bells and noted the very great vibration on Locust, between Sixteenth and Seven- teenth streets, the several tones of the bells sounding at one and the same time. For these reasons, it is clear that the number of bidders for such property would be much reduced, and that, therefore, the value of the property in the neighbor- hood will largely depreciate unless the ringing of the bells shall be much restrained in duration and frequency ; the per- centage of depreciation depending upon the distance of the residences respectively from the church. Lewis H. Redner. Affirmed and subscribed before me, the twenty-ninth day of January, 1877. Witness my hand and notarial seal. Edward S. Harlan, [seal] Notary Public. Abraham Ritter, being duly affirmed, saith : — I am engaged in the business of purchasing and selling real estate, &c., at No. 729 Walnut street. I live at No, 193 1 Spruce street, and am familiar with the property in the vicinity of St. Mark's Church. I have attended the services of the Protestant Episcopal Church in this city for forty-two (42) years — nearly all of my life. I am a member of that church. The use of bells by churches in this city is very exceptional. Very few of them have any bells at all. My observation and experience have satisfied me beyond a doubt, that they are wholly needless, either for a Sunday-school (having been a Sunday-school superintendent for seventeen years) or for church services. They form no part of the habitual or recognized ritual or accessories of the Episcopal Church. The ringing of bells at St. Mark's Church is and must necessarily be a great discomfort and annoyance to the imme- diate neighborhood. The practice of ringing them must, 151 therefore, necessarily make property, as far as affected by the noise, less desirable and less valuable. It would be hard to sell houses in that vicinity noiv for anything like the prices they would have brought before these bells were raised. I consider the value of property very much damaged thereby. Abraham Ritter. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this twenty-fifth day of January, A. D. 1877. Charles S. Potter, [seal] Notary Public. City and County of Philadelphia, ss. On the thirteenth day of January, A. D. 1877, before me, the subscriber, a notary public in and for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing in said city, personally appeared Alexander B. Carver, of the said city, conveyancer (residing at No. 1807 Walnut street), who, being duly affirmed according to law, doth affirm and say: — I am aware of the movement opposed to "the ringing of the bells" recently placed in the tower of "St. Mark's Episcopal Church," in said city, and am familiar with the neighborhood as well as with property in the vicinity of said church, and am clearly of opinion that the frequent "ringing and clangor" of those bells, with the vibration caused thereby, is injurious not only to the repose and quiet of the neighborhood, but very materially affects the value of property in close proximity to said church and in the vicinity thereof, to what extent I am unable to say. It would perhaps depend on the degree of objection that might be urged by purchasers thereof. The noise and vibration caused by the ringing of the bells would in most instances be objected to by those desirous of pur- chasing or owning a quiet residence, such as this neighbor- hood and its surroundings have heretofore made desirable and attractive. A. B. Carver. 152 Affirmed and subscribed before me the day and year aforesaid. Wm. p. Hibberd, Notary Public. Adam E. Wiegand, being duly affirmed according to law, says : — I am a conveyancer and have been in the business for thirteen years in this city. It is part of my business to know the value of real property and to consider circumstances which tend to increase or diminish that value. I have, upon request, examined and considered the effect of the bells in St. Mark's Church, and the daily ringing of them, upon the value of property in that vicinity. The effect is limited to the area within which the sound extends to such a degree as to annoy or disturb the hearer. The vicinity of the church is occupied by dwellings. It will continue to be so occupied for an indefinite period. There is no reason to expect that commerce will there supersede dwellings by shops or factories. Looking to the height of the buildings and the bells, it is obvious that the sound must be vastly greater within the area bounded by walls in which is the spire or tower of the church. Within that space the sound is certainly very loud. If the sound is sufficient within that area to disturb or annoy, the effect on property within that area will depend, of course, on the use made of the bells. They are certainly loud enough to awake ordinarily sound sleepers. In warm weather, with open windows, it would be a very exceptional person who would not be awakened by four large bells rung opposite his chamber windows. With the sick, nursing-women and children this effect must be increased. Therefore* if bells are to be rung at hours in which persons desire to sleep, or that the women and children or sick may sleep, this fact would prevent a large portion of the class likely to purchase such houses as lie within that area from buying. The effect of excluding a portion of the bidders for property is obvious. 153 If the bells are to be rung only at hours in which healthy people are always up, the risk would be that there might be sickness. If there is no power to prevent the ringing but the caprice of any man must be relied on,' many prudent persons would decline incurring it. But whatever may be the limits within which the ringing is to be confined, it is an accepted rule in the business that the existence of such a thing is what we call a "drawback." No one having the means of purchasing the class of houses such as cover the street opposite the church on Locust street, and on the south side of Walnut street in that square, would fail to consider any source of noise sufficient to attract atten- tion throughout the house as an objection to a residence. The objection arises in degree exactly according to the extent. As soon as it arrives at a point which renders a class of persons miserable by constant annoyance, the property can only be sold to a very small class, and at a great under value. In my opinion, the probable deterioration in values by the acknowledged fact that bells will continue to be rung three or four times a day on Sunday, and two times on week-days, for say twenty minutes at a time, would be not less than fifteen per cent. A. E. WiEGAND. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this twenty-sixth day of January, 1877. George W. Sedgwick, [seal] Notary Public. DEFENDANTS' AFFIDAVITS. AFFIDAVITS AS TO ORIGINAL DESIGN AND CON- STRUCTION OF CHURCH AND CONDITION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY. John R. Wilmer, being duly sworn, says : — I was one of the original vestrymen and corporators of St. Mark's Church. From the commencement of the enterprise of building the church to its completion and for ten years afterwards I was one of the wardens of the same. It was always contemplated by the vestry, and generally understood, that as soon as funds could be provided to place in the church- tower a chime of bells, for the reception of which the tower was specially arranged when it was built, such a chime would be placed there. The large expense incurred in building the church and put- ting up the parish buildings adjoining, and which had to be first provided for, necessarily postponed our getting a chime of bells. I never heard from any source any objection to the project, which was part of the original plan of the church. But for this purpose we would not have been obliged to erect so sub- stantial and expensive a tower. Jno. R. Wilmer. Sworn and subscribed before me, this fifteenth day of Janu- ary, 1877. James M. Higgins, [seal] Notary Public, Kings County, N. Y. (iSS) iS6 Elizabeth White Reed, being duly sworn, says : — My husband, the late Professor Henry Reed, was one of the original vestry of St. Mark's Church, and in the year 1848, when the church was building, and for many years after, we lived at 360 (now 1520) Locust street, less than a square off At the time the church was commenced there was only one house on the south side of Locust street, between Six- teenth and Seventeenth streets, which was built and occupied. This house belonged to Thomas Drake, and is now No. 1628. Two other houses were built, I think, about the same time as the church (in 1848), which belonged to Mr. Boker, now Nos. 1606 and 1608 Locust street. As late as the beginning of 1849 all the other lots in that square on the south side were vacant and many of them were not built upon for a number of years afterwards. I know that it was always the intention of the vestry to have a chime of bells in the tower ; it was only deferred on account of the expense. I am familiar with the tone of Christ Church bells. I notice no difference between the tone of the bells at St. Mark's and those at Christ Church. Calvary Presbyterian Church, in Locust street, above Fifteenth, was built before St. Mark's and has always had a large bell; this bell has always been rung before their services. It is a much louder bell than any bell at St. Mark's, and has an unmusical sound. It is not rung so long now as it used to be, the ringing having been diminished during the past year, or thereabouts, at the request, I understand, of some of the opponents of St. Mark's bells, some of whom live much nearer to Calvary Church than thay do to St. Mark's. Elizabeth White Reed. Sworn and subscribed before me, this twenty-fifth day of January, A. D. 1877. E. A. B. Brown, [seal] Notary Public. IS7 Lucy B. Moss, being duly affirmed, says: — I reside at No. 332 South Sixteenth street, Philadelphia. I have been a member of the congregation of St. Mark's Church and have attended the services there ever since it was built. I remember distinctly that when the church was first built it was proposed to put a chime of bells in the tower. It was generally expected that the bells would be in the tower in time to be rung at the wedding of one of the vestrymen, in the fall of 185 1. As a member of the congregation I have always understood that bells were to be placed in the tower as soon as the necessary funds could be obtained. Lucy B. Moss. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this twenty-fourth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. George W. Hunter, being duly sworn, says : — I am one of the wardens of St. James' Episcopal Church, Philadelphia, and have been in the vestry of that church for over twenty-seven years. I remember very well when St. Mark's was begun, in April, 1848. In May, 1849, when St. Mark's Church was consecrated (which was before con- solidation), there were twelve Episcopal churches in the city of Philadelphia, viz., Christ Church, St. Peter's, St. Paul's, St. James', St. Stephen's, St. Andrew's, Grace, Epiphany, Ascen- sion, St. Luke's, Atonement and St. Mark's. Of these churches Christ Church and St. Peter's had chimes, St. James' had a bell, and, I think, St. Stephen's also. Between May, 1853, and May, 1854, a chime of bells was placed in one of the towers of St. Stephen's. St. Mark's was planned and built for a chime of bells. Six of the remaining churches were built in the Grecian style of architecture, and had no bell- tower or other place provided for bells. Of course they had 158 no bells. It was always understood that St. Mark's would be furnished with a chime of bells when the expense could be afforded. George W. Hunter. Sworn and subscribed before me, this twenty-seventh day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Edmund Webster, being duly affirmed, says : — I reside at 203 1 Locust street. I am a member of the Society of Friends. In the fall of 1849 my father purchased a lot on Locust street, above Sixteenth, opposite St. Mark's Church, and built a house upon it, now No. 161 2 Locust street. We afterwards lived in this house about seven years. When our house was built there were only four other houses on the south side of Locust street, between Sixteenth and Seventeenth — two belonging to Charles S. Boker, one to James Markoe, and one to Thomas Drake. The two houses on the north side, immediately west of St. Mark's Church, now Nos. 1627 and 1629 Locust street, were not built until several years after our house. The vacant lots on the south side were greatly enhanced in value by St. Mark's Church, which, with its tower, had recently been built. The spire was not built until after- wards. The appearance of the tower gave me the impression that it was not unlikely bells would some day be placed there, and we certainly never had any reason to suppose that they would not. Edmund Webster. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this twentieth day of January, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. 159 George C. Diemer, being duly sworn according to law, deposes : — I reside at 1707 North Twenty-second street. My father and I, who were in partnership at that time, did all the mason- work in the erection of St Mark's Church, Locust street. My father has since died and I still continue the business. I have built a number of stone churches in this city and elsewhere. The foundation and walls of the tower of St. Mark's, which I built, were built in the best manner, and are quite strong enough to bear a heavy peal of bells. When the tower was building Mr. Notman, the architect, and one of the vestry told me it was intended for bells. We left openings through which the bells could be hoisted. As a builder it seems to me im- possible that the ringing of the bells should shake the walls of any building, unless it is directly attached to the tower, and then only in consequence of the tower itself being shaken. George C. Diemer. Sworn and subscribed before me, this sixteenth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. William Armstrong, being duly sworn, deposes and says: — I reside at Montgomery Square, Montgomery county, Pennsylvania. I am in my fifty-third year and am a master stone-mason and builder, and have been since about the year 1853. I have superintended the stone-work and building of many churches and public buildings in this city. I instance, among others, the Fidelity Trust Company, the Philadelphia Trust Company, the Guarantee Trust Company, the Second Presbyterian Church at Twenty-first and Walnut streets, St. James' Church at Twenty-second and Walnut streets, the Lutheran Church at the south-west corner of Broad and Arch streets, and the Episcopal Hospital at Front street and Lehigh avenue — all in the city of Philadelphia. i6o I know St. Mark's Church, Locust above Sixteenth street, in this city. I was foreman of the stone-work of the upper part of the tower and spire, which, were erected in the years 1851 and 1852. Charles Lacey was the builder of the spire. He was an accomplished and thorough mason. I have rarely, if ever, seen his equal in this respect. The upper part of the tower and spire are thoroughly well built. I was on the spot all the time during the erection of this work, and can speak positively on the subject. The heavy beams of the belfry floor were put in at this time for the purpose of the intro- duction and use of a chime of bells. It was believed that a chime of bells would be placed there. The mason-work and flooring are entirely sufficient for the bells now there and for the additional bells which will be needed to complete the chime. I was consulted by the rector of the church, the Rev. Dr. Hoffman, before the bells were put in, in the year 1876. I then re-examined the flooring and mason-work and found them entirely adequate for the purpose. William Armstrong. Sworn and subscribed before me, this twenty-ninth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Henry Bickley, being duly sworn, says : — I live at No. 1722 Locust street; have lived there about forty years. I have owned that house and house No. 1720, adjoining it, during all that time. When St. Mark's Church was begun, in 1848, only one house — Thomas Drake's — was built and occupied on the south side of Locust street, between Sixteenth and Seventeenth streets ; two unfinished houses were building for Mr. Boker, and three houses were built on the north side of Locust, just below Seventeenth street, owned by William Brown. The house in which Mr. Moon lives was also built. The remaining property in the square consisted of vacant i6i lots. The site of the row of high houses belonging to the estate of Joseph Harrison, deceased, on the north side of Locust street, above Seventeenth, was then a large vacant lot. The houses between Sixteenth and Eighteenth streets, built before the church was begun, were nearly all moderate-sized houses, about eighteen or nineteen feet front and some of them less. The church greatly improved the value of the surrounding property, and especially the vacant lots opposite. I am familiar with the value of real estate in the vicinity, and I am sure thirty-three per cent, would be a very low estimate of the improvement in value of lots opposite the church, upon the completion of the church. The lots opposite are one hundred and thirty feet deep, and sold shortly before the church was built, I believe, for eight dollars per foot. They would be worth now probably forty dollars per foot if vacant. I have been offered thirty dollars per foot for my side yard in the square above, which is ninety feet deep. I hear St. Mark's bells constantly ; they are far from being a nuisance ; they are neither harsh nor disagreeable, but very pleasant. We like to hear them, and I cannot understand how any one can complain of them, unless it be those opposed to all church-bells. Henry Bickley. Sworn and subscribed before me, this thirtieth day of Janu- ary, 1877. E. A. B. Brown, [seal] Notary Public. AFFIDAVITS OF RECTOR, SCHOOL-TEACHER, AND SEXTON. Eugene Augustus Hoffman, D. D., being duly sworn, de- poses and says : — I am the rector of St. Mark's Church, and have been so since the spring of 1869. I reside in the rectory at No. 1620 l62 Spruce street. I am familiar with the methods of bell-found- ing in England and in this country. I paid particular attention to the bells of St. Mark's when they were first placed in the tower, and have carefully listened to their chiming from time to time since. The bells are well made in every particular, and as perfect in tone as any to which I have ever listened. They are lighter in weight than bells which are usually placed in city churches, and cannot be heard as far as it is desirable that they should be. In my own residence their chiming is not usually heard unless a person is listening for it. When sitting in the house at the north-east corner of Locust and Sixteenth streets, which is about two hundred and twenty-five feet from the tower of St. Mark's, and near a window facing it, I have observed that the sound of their chiming has been completely drowned by the noise of a passing wagon. In the vestry-room attached to the church-building, when the assist- ant clergy and I have been preparing for divine service, we have been compelled to cease conversing with each other to listen whether the bells have stopped or not. When the bells were first hung I had them rung in full peal, and could not detect, with the closest observation, the slightest jar or tremor in any part of the tower or spire when they were all ringing at the same time. The concussion of the air and jar upon the tower is of course much greater when the bells are runghy swinging them with ropes attached to the wheels, than when they are chimed, i. e., struck, while stationary, with small ham- mers, similar to the manner in which they would be struck if connected with a clock to strike the hours. I do not believe it possible for their chiming, or even their ringing, to shake the walls of any of the houses in the vicinity. Recently I placed glasses filled with water on the sills of several of the windows of the school-house which face the church-tower, and which are about sixty feet from it, and could not detect the slightest agitation or tremor on the surface of the water when the bells were being chimed, whether the sashes were open or closed. I have for nearly thirty years past paid considerable atten- i63 tion to ecclesiastical architecture and the designing of churches. I have had built, under my own supervision, three churches, two school buildings, and a Gothic rectory attached to a church. In five churches which I have had under my charge before I became the rector of St. Mark's, the bells were not in any instance as high from the ground as those in St. Mark's tower. It is the general rule with architects in this country, in designing a church-tower, to place the floor of the belfry chamber about on a level with the eaves of the surrounding houses. This has been found by practical experiment to be the best height for the sound of the bells, and is considered the most advisable for other practical reasons. There are, however, a number of instances in this and in neighboring cities where the church-bells are hung lower than the eaves of the buildings in the neighborhood. St. Mark's bells are hung considerably higher than the foregoing general rule requires. I am well acquainted with the locality and surroundings of Trinity Chapel, New York. I am frequently at my father's house, which is in the neighborhood of it. The chapel stands in the centre of the block, fronting on Twenty-fifth street and running through to Twenty-sixth street. It is surrounded by the best class of private residences. The wall of its vestry- room on one side is close against a private residence. It has a chime of three bells, louder in tone than the bells of St. Mark's. They are hung in a small stone tower, the lowest one being about fifty-four feet from the ground. Between the bell-tower and the adjoining building there is an open space of about thirty feet. This building has six high stories. Its eaves are about seventy-five feet above the ground. It has been occupied for a number of years past as a hotel, and chiefly patronized by families taking apartments in it for the winter season. Some of its bed-room windows open directly towards the bell-tower, and although the bells are chimed twice daily and four or five times on Sunday, beginning before 7 A. M., the rector states that no complaint has -ever been made to him against them. Eugene Aug's Hoffman. 164 Sworn and subscribed before me, this twenty-ninth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] * Notary Public. Charles Gedney King, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says : — I reside at 1025 Clinton street. I am superintendent of St. Mark's Sunday-school and have been for the last three years. The school is held in a building adjacent to the church, within about sixty feet of the tower of the church and with several windows facing the tower. The school is in session on Sun- days during the ringing of the bells. The walls of the school building have never been shaken or the window-sashes jarred by the ringing of the bells. I am quite positive of this, as I have sat with my seat touching the walls during the ringing of the bells. The noise made by the bells does not in the least degree interfere with the teaching in the school, nor is it loud enough to interfere with ordinary conversation even when the windows are open. When engaged in teaching I am fre- quently not conscious of their ringing. I have never observed that the ringing of the bells has drawn the attention of the children from their lessons. I am positive it never has. They do not seem to notice that they are ringing. Charles Gedney King. Sworn and subscribed before me, this fifth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Sarah J. Mclntyre, being duly sworn according to law, doth depose and say as follows : — I am teaching the parish school in the building, within sixty feet of the St. Mark's church-tower. The windows i65 which face the tower are generally partially open. I have been so employed since June last. The school is in session on Sunday as well as on week-days. I am frequently occu- pied in teaching in the school while the bells are ringing. I have never observed any jar either of the walls or of the win- dow-sashes, nor does the noise proceeding from the bells ever distract the exercises in the school or interfere with ordinary conversation while they are ringing. I sometimes engage in teaching the Sunday-school held in the adjoining room in the same building during the afternoon sessions and have never found that the ringing of the bells has interfered with or dis- turbed in any degree the exercises of the school. Sarah J. McIntyre. Sworn and subscribed before me, this fourth day of January, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Hannah M. McIntyre, being duly sworn according to law, doth depose and say : — I am engaged as assistant teacher in the St. Mark's parish school. I have just heard read the affidavit made by my sister, Sarah J. McIntyre, in relation to the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church. I entirely agree with the statements she makes in reference to never experiencing any inconve- nience from the ringing of the bells. When engaged in teach- ing I frequently neglect to notice that they are ringing. The noise is not sufficient to interfere with ordinary conversation. Hannah M. McIntyre. Sworn and subscribed before me, this fourth day of January, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, £seal] Notary Public. 1 66 Robert Moore, being duly affirmed according to law, says : — I reside in the school buildings adjacent to St. Mark's Church. I am the sexton of St. Mark's Church, and chime the bells for service, except on Sundays. I have a number of times, both before and since my attention has been called to it, counted the number of times I strike the bells in a minute when chiming them for service, and have found them from seventy to seventy-five, and never more than the latter. I have also counted the number of times which the bells are struck in a minute by the young man who chimes them on Sundays, and find it the same as my own. When the single bell is tolled, we both strike it about twenty-three times in each minute. Robert Moore. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this twenty-fourth day of January, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. AFFIDAVITS OF PHYSICIANS. Addinell Hewson, being duly sworn according to law, de- poses and says : — I reside at the south-west corner of Twenty-first and Wal- nut streets. I resided about a year ago at Fifteenth and Wal- nut streets. I have been a practicing physician in Philadelphia for about twenty-five years. I have given considerable atten- tion to the treatment of nervous diseases. I have had and have now numerous patients in the immediate vicinity of St. Mark's Church. I have frequently been visiting the latter during the time of the ringing of the St. Mark's bells. I have experienced no inconvenience from the noise so made in con- versing with my patients, and on inquiry of those patients have been assured that it was no annoyance to them. In one instance, that of a lady patient residing within one hundred 167 and fifty feet of the church-tower, and who was an exceedingly nervous patient, I had the assurance that she had utterly ceased even to notice their being rung. I can also cite two other instances of patients, invalids, who took satisfaction and pleasure in listening to the ringing of these bells. I have often heard these bells ring, and I can state most positively that I do not consider them harsh or disagreeable in tone, neither high, sharp, clanging nor discordant. I have observed the fact that the ringing did not shake the walls of adjacent houses or jar their window-sashes. I have had the averment of patients in the immediate neighborhood that the early morning ringing failed to disturb their repose and sleep after it had ceased to be a novelty. I do not think that any one in the neighborhood had reasonable ground of complaint against the said bells. I have had nervous patients, who were very ill, residing in the immediate vicinity of churches in this city whose bells were larger, louder and harsher, rung at earlier hours and much more frequently than those of St. Mark's, who were not in my opinion in any way disturbed or injured by the ringing of those bells. On inquiry they have stated to me that they had long since ceased to notice their noise and on some occasions have complained when their customary ringing was for a short time omitted. Addinell Hewson, M. D. Sworn and subscribed before me, this fifth day of January, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Dr. S. Littell, being duly affirmed, says : — I reside at No. 1623 Spruce street, Philadelphia. I am a practicing physician and have been for forty years. I have heard the bells of St. Mark's since they were put up. I can hear them from the back part of my building. From the front part of the building they are sometimes inaudible. At the 1 68 back part of the building the sound of the bells is not loud enough to wake one from sleep or interfere with conversation even when the windows are open. No member of my family- has been disturbed or annoyed by the bells. My own bed- chamber is in the part of the house towards the church. I regard the tone and tune as clear and good and melodious and pleasant. I have never observed any injurious effect upon my patients from the ringing of these bells. People soon become accustomed to noises, even disagreeable ones, and fail to notice them. They are not a nuisance. I hear them ring with pleasure. I regret that the early morning bells were stopped, and would regret any restriction being placed upon the ringing of them. I own the house in which I live. I do not think that these bells have depreciated the value of property at all ; on the contrary, I think that when the chime is completed it will be one of the attractions of the neighbor- hood. I, as a physician, cannot see any reason why these bells should be interfered with, except in specified cases of very serious illness. S. LiTTELL, M. D. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this eighth day of Janu- ary, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Joseph K. T. Van Pelt, M. D., being duly sworn, says: — I reside at No. 1528 Spruce street, Philadelphia. I am a practicing physician and have been for twenty years. I have had patients in the immediate vicinity of St. Mark's Church. I have never observed any ill effects upon them from the ring- ing of St. Mark's bells. I have never heard any of them complain of being annoyed or disturbed by the bells. I can see no reason why the ringing of them should be interfered with, except in specified cases of very serious illness. I have a knowledge of music and a practical knowledge of acoustics. I have acted from early years as organist in several churches. 169 I have listened with particular care and attention to the ring- ing of St. Mark's bells. I do not think that they are harsh, loud, high or discordant, or that the noise produced by them is in any way a nuisance. I have been accustomed to notice with care other chimes of bells. I consider the chimes of St. Mark's as sweet and pleasing. I listen to the sound with great pleasure. I had a patient, about four years ago, in the immediate vicinity of a large chime of bells in this city. She was hereditarily and naturally a very nervous woman, — one of the most sensitive and nervous ladies I ever attended. Her complaints were all of a nervous character. I asked her whether the daily ringing of the bells did not annoy her. She said, oh, no ; she loved to hear them. The other mem- bers of the family — one of whom I had attended for a chronic nervous complaint — joined in this statement, I had an- other patient living immediately beneath a very ponderous bell. It rang frequently during the day and often at night. She said that she had become so accustomed to the ringing that she did not notice it. This lady was also of a nervous temperament. Joseph K. T. Van Pelt, M. D. Sworn and subscribed before me, this eighth day of Janu- ary, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Oliver Roland, M. D., being duly sworn, says: — I am senior resident physician in the Episcopal Hospital of Philadelphia, and have been for about eighteen months last past. We have a bell on the chapel attached to the hospital. It weighs two hundred and fifty pounds and hangs in an open belfry, within about seventy feet of the windows of the wards of the hospital. It is rung regularly for the chapel services every Sunday. The windows of the wards fronting the belfry are open when the bell is rung for about six months of the year. I have never known any patient in the wards to be 170 annoyed or disturbed by the ringing of the bell in any way, nor have I ever heard any of them make the least complaint of it. Oliver Roland, M. D. Sworn to and subscribed before me, this seventeenth day of January, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Dr. E. P. Bernardy, being duly sworn, deposes and says: — I reside at 221 South Seventeenth street, in the city of Philadelphia. My house adjoins the lot of the St. Mark's Church. I consider the bells of said church of no annoyance whatever, excepting in the case of sickness or a nervous dis- order. I signed the petition to have the bells stopped, con- sidering them detrimental in an exceptional case of sickness, my wife being sick at that time. So far from annoying me, I was unaware that the seven o'clock bell had been discon- tinued until told so a month afterwards. Eugene P. Bernardy, 221 South Seventeenth street. Sworn and subscribed before me, this eighth day of January, 1877. Albert B. Guilbert, [seal] Notary Public. Charles Carter, M. D., being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says: — I reside at No. 1632 Walnut street, Philadelphia. I have resided there since 1852. I am a physician by profession. I have never been disturbed or annoyed in any manner what- ever by the ringing of St. Mark's Church bells nor has any member of my family. We do not notice the ringing at all, unless attention is specially called to it. I think the immedi-. ate neighbors have not any reasonable cause of complaint, I/I except in cases of very serious illness. I do not believe that the value of property in the immediate neighborhood of St. Mark's has been depreciated by the ringing of the bells. In fact the value of the property near the church has been greatly increased by the building of the church. I do not think the sound of the bells is either harsh, loud, high, sharp, clanging, or discordant, or that the noise produced by them is in any way a nuisance. On the contrary I like to hear them. Charles Carter. Sworn and subscribed before me, this fifth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. AFFIDAVITS OF NEAR RESIDENTS. Dr. Louis Jack, being duly affirmed according to law, de- poses and says : — I reside at the north-east corner of Sixteenth and Locust streets, and I own the house in which I reside. I have resided there for about five years. The ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church does not jar the walls of my house. I have not found the ringing of the bells any disturbance to me, except once when I had the headache. Mrs. Jack does not complain of them. I never heard of my children being an- noyed by them or wakened by the ringing of the early Sun- day morning bell. I do not consider them a nuisance. I have one young child about three years old. So far as I can judge, the bells have not reduced the value of my property. The bells are not loud enough to interfere with conversation. Louis Jack. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this fourth day of Janu- ary, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. 172 Samuel S. Moon, being duly affirmed according to law, de- poses and says: — I reside on the north-west corner of Sixteenth street and Locust street, in the city of Philadelphia. My lot is forty-two feet on Locust street, one hundred feet on Sixteenth street, widening to fifty-two feet on the rear. The rear of my lot is ten feet from the church lot. I have resided at the same place for the last ten years. My house is within thirty feet of the church-building. The tower in which the bells are is not over one hundred and fifty feet from my house. Some of my windows overlook the church lot, and there is no obstruction between the tower and the windows to deaden the sound of the bells. I own the property in which I reside. My family consists of my wife, my daughter and myself. My daughter is an invalid, and has been for the last fifteen years. I have never found the bells of St. Mark's a nuisance in any degree — even when the windows were open in the summer season. I have never ob- served any jarring of the walls or rattling of the window-sashes when the bells were ringing. They are not loud enough to interfere with conversation at all. We notice them when they first begin, and if in conversation or engaged in work — reading or writing — soon cease to notice them. In my judgment, the value of property in that neighborhood has not been depreciated in any degree whatever by the ringing of the bells. Instead of being a nuisance, the bells are rather an enjoyment, and are an advantage to the property in the neighborhood. I consider the tone of the bells sweet and agreeable to listen to. I frequently stop work in my house, and open the windows to listen to them. When I returned to the city last summer, I heard the bells the next morning for the first time. They woke me up, but I went to sleep almost immediately, and have not heard them since in the morning. Neither I nor any member of my family has been disturbed by the ringing of the early morning bell. It was always rung before my hour for rising. Samuel S. Moon. 173 Affirmed and subscribed before me, this fifth day of Janu- ary, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Mrs. Irene Rucker, being duly affirmed according to law, doth depose and say : — I reside at No. 1633 Locust street, Philadelphia. We have been residing there for about a year. My husband, General Rucker, signed the petition to the vestry of St. Mark's to stop the early Sunday morning bell and shorten the time of the ringing of the other bells, because at first they were annoying to him. But since the early Sunday morning bell has been stopped the ringing is no longer an annoyance to me or to any member of the family. The noise made by them is not loud enough to interfere with ordinary conversation in the house. It does not jar the walls of the house nor rattle the windows. Frequently I do not notice the ringing of the bells unless my attention is called to it. Irene Rucker. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this fifth day of Janu- ary, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Joseph B. Ecclesine, Jr., being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says : — I reside at No. 1509 Locust street, Philadelphia, within three- quarters of a square of St. Mark's Church. My family consists of myself and wife and two children. My eldest child is about two years and eight months, and my youngest is not quite eleven months old. None of us have ever been disturbed by these bells. They frequently ring without our noticing unless our attention is for some reason attracted to them. Our sleep has never been disturbed by them. The young children do 174 not notice them at all. Instead of my property being depre- ciated in value by the bells of St. Mark's, I have refused a substantial advance for the house since the bells were put in the tower. J. B. EccLESiNE, Jr. Sworn and subscribed before me, this sixth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Mrs. Elizabeth M. Wiltbank, being duly affirmed according to law, doth say : — I reside at No. 1521 Locust street, in Philadelphia, within a square of St. Mark's Church, and own my residence. I hear the bells of the church daily, and am much pleased to do so. They do not in any degree whatever affect my com- fort, but on the contrary they add materially to my pleasure, and in my judgment their use does not impair the value of my real estate. Elizabeth M. Wiltbank. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this fifteenth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Ella C. White, being duly affirmed, says : — I reside at 1522 Locust street, Philadelphia. I have lived there for about a year. The bells of St. Mark's Church are not now any annoyance or disturbance to me. Ella C. White. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this sixteenth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. I7S Miss Virginia Morgan, being duly affirmed according to law, deposes and says : — I reside at No. 1524 Locust street, Philadelphia. I have resided there about five years. I do not experience any an- noyance from the ringing of St. Mark's bells, nor does any member of our family. I do not consider the bells a nuisance. My mother is very ill and nervous, but she has not been an- noyed by the ringing of the bells. V. Morgan. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this fifth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Cornelius Stevenson, being duly affirmed, saith : — I live at No. 1702 Locust street. Have lived there about three months. I personally have not been annoyed by the ringing of St. Mark's bells. Cornelius Stevenson. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this nineteenth day of January, A. D. 1877. E. A. B. Brown, [seal] Notary Public. Anna R. Miller, being duly affirmed, saith : — I live at No. 1720 Locust street. Have lived there about five years. Neither I nor my family have been annoyed by the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church. Anna R. Miller. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this nineteenth day of January, A. D. 1877. E. A. B. Brown, [seal] Notary Public. 176 Margaret Wharton White, being duly afifirmed, says: — I reside at No. 245 South Sixteenth street, Philadelphia. I have resided there for twenty-five years. I own the house in which I live. I have never been annoyed or disturbed by the St. Mark's bells, not even by the early Sunday morning bell, which was stopped. The sound of the bells is not loud enough to wake any of my family from sleep or to interfere with conversation even when the windows are open. The sound is not harsh, but agreeable to me. The ringing of them is a great convenience in fixing the time. I do not object to the bell being rung for the early morning service. I do not consider that these bells have depreciated the value of prop- erty in the neighborhood. Margaret Wharton White. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this eighth day of January, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Michael Meagher, being duly sworn according to law, says : — I reside at 225 South Sixteenth street, ninety feet from north-east corner of Sixteenth and Locust streets. I have resided there about ten years. I own the house and the adjoining property at 223 South Sixteenth street. We can hear the bells distinctly in my house, but they are not loud enough to interfere with conversation or our ordinary duties of the household. Neither I nor any of my family have ever experienced any annoyance or inconvenience at all from them. I enjoy hearing them ring, and so do the members of my family. I have never noticed any vibrations in the walls or window-sashes while the bells were ringing. I think they are an improvement to the neighborhood. I think they have added to the value of my property and other property in the neighborhood. I think that the ringing of them produces a 177 cheerful sound, and adds to the pleasure of living in the vicinity. Michael Meagher. Sworn and subscribed before me, this fourth day of Janu- ary, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Reuben C. Clements, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says : — I am engaged in business at 227 South Sixteenth street. I have just heard Michael Meagher make the above affidavit. I fully agree with him in the statement that the bells of St. Mark's are not an annoyance in any way whatever. On the contrary, they add cheerfulness to the neighborhood. I like to hear them, and would be sorry to have them stopped. Reuben C. Clements. Sworn and subscribed before me, this fourth day of Janu- ary, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. WiUiam P. Breed, doctor of divinity, being duly affirmed, saith : — I am pastor of the West Spruce Street Presbyterian Church. I live at No. 258 South Sixteenth street, and have lived there some nineteen or twenty years. Neither I nor any member of my family are disturbed in any way by the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church. On the contrary, we are rather pleased than otherwise, in fact the longer we hear them the more we like to hear them. I like to hear church-bells ring- ing in the city. In Antwerp there is a very large chime of bells, some of which are very heavy, in the tower of the cath- edral. When I was there I heard them ringing almost 178 constantly; they were struck in connection with the clock twice in each quarter of an hour, day and night, and at the completion of each hour quite a tune was played. To my ear, as a stranger, the sound of the bells, particularly at night, was very pleasing. W. P. Breed. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this nineteenth day of January, A. D. 1877. E. A. B. Brown, [seal] Notary Public. Richard Maris, M. D., being duly affirmed, says : — I reside at No. 270 South Sixteenth street, Philadelphia. I am a physician by profession, and have lived in my present residence for about twenty years. I have never been annoyed or disturbed by the bells of St. Mark's, and can see no reason why the immediate neighbors should be annoyed except in cases of peculiar illness. I have constantly heard other chimes of bells. I consider those of St. Mark's as very good bells and not harsh or discordant. I own the house in which I live. The bells have not injured the value of my property, and I do not believe that other property has been injured by them. Richard Maris. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this eleventh day of January, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Patrick Tobin, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says: — My place of business is 215 South Sixteenth street, in the city of Philadelphia. It is within one hundred and ninety feet of the north side of Locust street. I have been there since June last. I hear the bells of St. Mark's when they 179 ring. I have never been annoyed at all by them. The ring- ing is not loud enough to interfere with ordinary conversation, either in my office or on the sidewalk in front of it. I find the ringing of the bells more pleasant than otherwise. I like to hear them. I do not want them stopped nor the time of ringing shortened. P. TOBIN. Sworn and subscribed before me, this fourth day of January, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. George Boldin, being duly affirmed according to law, deposes and says: — I reside at 220 South Sixteenth street, Philadelphia, and have lived there for about five years. My house is not more than sixty feet from the church of St. Mark's. I have never found the bells of St. Mark's a nuisance, or been annoyed by them in any manner whatever. I enjoy the ringing of the bells, and would regret very much if they should be stopped. I do not think that the bells have depreciated the value of property in the neighborhood. On the other hand, I think they have improved it. The walls of the house were never jarred by the ringing of the bells nor the windows rattled. They are not loud enough to disturb conversation at all even when the windows are open. My daughter died on the i8th of October last, and was very ill for about three months pre- vious to that time. During her illness the windows were always open in her room. She was not in the least annoyed by the bells, even when rung at seven o'clock on Sunday morning. On the contrary, she enjoyed listening to them even to the day of her death, and waited impatiently for and eagerly anticipated their ringing. Geo. Boldin, No. 220 South Sixteenth Street. i8o Affirmed and subscribed before me, this fourth day of January, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Rachel H. Boldin, being duly affirmed according to law, deposes and says : — I reside at 320 South Sixteenth street. I am the wife of George Boldin. I have just heard his affidavit, and entirely concur in his statements. No member of my family, nor any one visiting our house, has ever been annoyed by the bells of St. Mark's Church. I have frequently gone into the yard to listen to them during the summer season. I consider it a privilege to have such a chime of bells in the vicinity of my residence. I consider the bells peculiarly sweet toned. I have resided in the immediate vicinity of Christ Church. The windows of my house opened on the church-yard. The bells of that church were rung not only Sundays, but also before each market-day — that is to say, on Tuesday and Friday evenings. We did not consider them a nuisance, but always enjoyed their ringing. There was no objection, so far as I know, made to the ringing of those bells. Rachel H. Boldin. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this fourth day of Janu- ary, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Francis W. Sharpies, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says : — , I reside at No. 218 South Sixteenth street, immediately in the vicinity of St. Mark's Church. I have heard the bells ringing for some time past and have not experienced in the I»I past, nor do now experience, any personal inconvenience what- ever, nor do I think they tend to depreciate the value of prop- erty in the neighborhood. Francis W. Sharples. Sworn and subscribed to before me, this ninth day of January, 1877. Albert E. Guilbert, [seal] Notary Public. Annie M. Sharpies, being duly sworn according to law, de- poses and says : — I reside at No. 218 South Sixteenth .street, Philadelphia. I have resided there about eighteen months. The house in which I reside is about eighty feet from St. Mark's Church. I have never been annoyed by the St. Mark's bells in the least. The noise made by them does not interfere with conversation in the house, nor does it jar the walls or shake the windows. They are not loud enough to attract my attention unless I listen for them or my attention is specially called to them. I would not object if they were louder. I consider these bells as the reverse of harsh and discordant. I think they are very sweet toned. I frequently go around into Locust street to hear them. I think they have greatly added to the value of property in the neighborhood. I would consider it a great loss if they were stopped or in any manner interfered with. I cannot understand why the neighbors should complain of their being rung or find fault with them. Annie M. Sharples. Sworn and subscribed before me, this fifth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, £seal1 Notary Public. l82 Philip Reilly, being duly sworn, says : — I reside at No. 266 South Sixteenth street, Philadelphia. I am in my eighty-third year. I have lived in my present resi- dence for about twenty years. I own the house in which I live. I hear the bells of St. Mark's Church, and am always delighted to hear them ring. They give me much pleasure. I have often listened with pleasure to Christ Church bells also. I can't understand how any man can object to the ringing of church-bells or how any one can consider them a nuisance. I think that property in this neighborhood is more desirable in consequence of the bells being put up. Philip Reilly. Sworn and subscribed before me, this sixteenth day of Janu- ary, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Henry P. Smith, being duly sworn, says : — I resided, until the 9th of December last, at No. 260 South Sixteenth street, Philadelphia. The bells of St. Mark's Church did not annoy me at all, on the contrary, I rather liked to hear them. H. P. Smith. Sworn and subscribed before me, this sixteenth day of Janu- ary, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Leontine Andre, being duly affirmed according to law, deposes and says : — I reside at 222 South Sixteenth street, Philadelphia. The bells of St. Mark's Church are not now annoying to me. At first they were, but I have become accustomed to them. They are not loud enough to interfere with conversation in i83 the house, even when the windows are open. They do not jar the walls of the house nor rattle the windows. L. Andre. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this fifth day of Janu- ary, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Thomas McDavitt, being duly sworn according to law, says : — My place of business is at 217 South Sixteenth street. I have been there for at least fourteen years. I have never been disturbed or annoyed by the ringing of St. Mark's bells. I rather like to hear them. The ringing of the bells is not loud enough to interfere with conversation either in my place of business or on the street in front of it. My place of business is one hundred and seventy feet from the north-east corner of Locust street and Sixteenth .street. Thomas McDavitt. Sworn and subscribed before me, this fourth day of Janu- ary, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Samuel Bell, being duly sworn, says : — I reside at No. 268 South Sixteenth street, Philadelphia. The bells of St. Mark's Church do not annoy me in any way whatever. Samuel Bell. Sworn and subscribed before me, this sixteenth day of Janu- ary, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. 1 84 Mrs. Hannah Biggs, being duly sworn accbrding to law, deposes and says : — I reside at 224 South Sixteenth street, Philadelphia, about sixty feet from St. Mark's Church. I have resided there since the 1st of July last. I have not been annoyed in any way by the ringing of the St. Mark's bells, nor has any member of my family. The noise made by the bells does not shake the walls of our house, nor does it disturb conversation at all. Even when the windows are open in summer I do not consider the bells loud or discordant in any way. They are very pleasant. I do not consider them a nuisance. They are a convenience in regulating the affairs of the family. I have never been wakened by them. They are not loud enough for that. I would be sorry if the ringing of these bells should be interfered with in any way. I think that these bells have in- creased the value of property in the neighborhood. Hannah Biggs. Sworn and subscribed before me, this fifth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Elizabeth F. Onderdonk, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says : — I have resided at No. 218 South Sixteenth street during the last six months, and do now reside there. I have heard the bells of St. Mark's ringing from time to time, and I do not regard them in any manner a nuisance, nor have they caused me any personal annoyance whatever. Elizabeth F. Onderdonk. Sworn and subscribed before me, this ninth day of January, 1877. Albert B. Guilbert, [seal] Notary Public. i85 Samuel L. Shober, being duly affirmed, says : — I reside at No. 249 South Sixteenth street, Philadelphia. As the bells of St. Mark's Church are now rung, they are not any particular annoyance to myself nor any member of my family. Sam. L. Shober. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this eighth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Robert V. Massey, being duly affirmed according to law, says : — I reside at 1626 Walnut street, in the city of Philadelphia, directly in the rear of St. Mark's Church. I consider that the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church is of no annoyance whatever, nor do they tend in any way to the depreciation of the value of the property in the neighborhood. R. V. Massey, Jr. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this eighth day of January, 1877. Albert B. Guilbert, [seal] Notary Public. Helen M. Redmond, being duly affirmed according to law, deposes and says : — I reside at 1634 Walnut street, Philadelphia. I have resided there about seven years. Neither I nor any member of my family has ever been disturbed or annoyed by the ringing of St. Mark's bells. I do not even notice their ringing unless my attention is specially called to it. Even when the windows are open in summer I am not annoyed. It is a great pleasure 1 86 to hear them rung. I would be very sorry to have them stopped or their ringing interfered with in any way. I own the house in which I live and think its value has been in- creased by the placing of the chimes in the tower of St. Mark's Church. H. M. Redmond. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this fifth day of January, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public, Richard E. Clay, being duly affirmed, saith : — I live at No. 257 South Seventeenth street; have lived there about six years. Neither I nor any of my family are annoyed by the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church. I should be glad to see the chime completed. Richard E. Clay. . Affirmed and subscribed before me, this thirteenth day of January, 1877. E. A. B. Brown, [seal] Notary Public. John M. Ash, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says : — I reside at No. 213 South Seventeenth street, Philadelphia. I have resided there since 185 1. I have never experienced any annoyance from the ringing of St. Mark's bells, nor has any member of my family. I hear them ring constantly, but they are not loud enough to interfere with conversation in the house. I have never noticed any shaking or jarring of the walls of my house nor any rattling of the windows. I do not consider the bells of St. Mark's harsh, by no means, nor sharp, nor discordant. I consider them good sounding. I 18; do not consider them in any sense a nuisance to the neighbor- hood. I own the property I Hve in. I do not consider that its value has been reduced «. particle by these bells. I would regret their being stopped or their ringing interfered with. They are not loud enough to arouse me from sleep. J. M. Ash. Sworn and subscribed before me, this fifth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. George V. Cresson, being duly affirmed, saith : — I live at No. 253 South Seventeenth street. Have lived there thirteen years. Myself and family have not been annoyed by the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church. I should be very glad to see the peal completed. I like to hear church-bells, and consider them a valuable addition to a church edifice. I consider their stated ringing a convenience in marking time. George V. Cresson. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this nineteenth day of January, A. D. 1877. ' E. A. B. Brown, [seal] Notary Public. Henry E. Drayton, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says : — I reside at 1626 Walnut street, in the city of Philadelphia, directly in the rear of St. Mark's Church. I consider that the ringing of the bells of the said church is of no annoyance in any respect, and that they do not tend to depreciate the value of property in the immediate neighborhood. Henry E. Drayton. i88 Sworn and subscribed before me, this eighth day of January, 1877. Albert B. Guilbert, [seal] Notary Public. Ellen Carter, being duly sworn, deposes and says : — I reside in the near vicinity of St. Mark's Church and have heard the bells ringing at different hours of the day, and do not consider them to be an annoyance to the neighborhood, nor have I suffered any personal inconvenience from their sound, but, on the contrary, like their sound, and would not have them discontinued. Ellen Carter. Sworn and subscribed before me, this eighth day of January, 1877. Albert B. Guilbert, [seal] Notary Public. Sussex D. Davis, being duly sworn, saith : — I live at No. 1609 Spruce street. Have lived there about three years. I can hear the bells of St. Mark's when they are ringing at the distance at which I live, which is about a square. They do not annoy me nor any of my family. Sussex D. Davis. Sworn and subscribed before me, this nineteenth day of January, A. D. 1877. E. A. B. Brown, [seal] Notary Public. Jesse E. Smith, being duly affirmed, saith : — I live at No. 161 1 Spruce street. Have lived there about a month, and during that time neither I nor any member of my family have been in any way annoyed by the ringing of St. 1 89 _ Mark's bells. I would also add that I like to hear the ringing of the church-bells. Jesse E. Smith. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this nineteenth day of January, A. D. 1877. E. A. B. Brown, [seal] Notary Public. John E. Graeff, being duly affirmed, saith : — I live at No. 162 1 Spruce street. Have lived there about eighteen months. Neither I nor any of my family have been annoyed by the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church. We shall rejoice when the full peal is completed by the four additional bells. I consider bells a desirable addition to a church. I should rejoice to have a bell in the steeple of every church in the city. John E. Graeff. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this nineteenth day of January, A. D. 1877. E. A. B. Brown, [seal] Notary Public. Andrew D. Hall, M. D., being duly sworn, says : — I reside at No. 1623 Spruce street, Philadelphia. I am a practicing physician, and have been for nearly twenty-three years. I hear the St. Mark's bells at my house. They are not loud enough to interfere with conversation. They do not disturb or annoy me nor any member of my family. The sound of them is not in the least disagreeable to me, — on the other hand I rather like it. I do not think the sound of those bells either high, harsh, loud, sharp, clanging, or discordant, or that it amounts in any way to a nuisance. I have young children in my family. I have never known them to be dis- turbed in any way. My office is in the back of my house and is in a direct line with the tower of St. Mark's and an open space between for the transmission of sound. I have never found the sound of the bells interfere with my office business. A. Douglass Hall. Sworn and subscribed before me, this eighth day of Janu- ary, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Joseph R. Wainwright, being duly affirmed, saith : — I live at No. 1627 Spruce street. Have lived there about eighteen months. At first the bells of St. Mark's Church annoyed rrie when the sound was new to me, but I soon be- came accustomed to it and now they are no longer any annoy- ance to me. I find the stated ringing of the bells a decided convenience in marking time. Joseph R. Wainwright. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this nineteenth day of January, A. D. 1877. E. A. B. Brown, [seal] Notary Public. Caroline Hepburn, being duly sworn, says : — I reside at 1 631 Spruce street, Philadelphia. I have been in this house for twelve years. Neither I nor any member of my family have ever been annoyed by the bells of St. Mark's. I have never been wakened by the early morning bell. I do not hear them unless my attention is called to them. Caroline Hepburn. Sworn and subscribed before me, this sixteenth day of Jan- uary, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public, William Bacon Stevens, D. D., LL. D., being duly affirmed, says : — I reside at No. 1633 Spruce street, Philadelphia. I have resided there for more than seven years. I am the bishop of the P. E. Church in the diocese of Pennsylvania, and have been for over fifteen years. Situated as my residence is, the bells of St. Mark's Church do not disturb me and have given me no annoyance, except when I have been sick, and then only when rung early in the inorning. Bells have been used in the Christian Church for more than twelve hundred years. In all Christian lands they are recognized as one of the most acceptable ^nd appropriate ways of calling the people together and of notifying funerals, marriage festivals, &c. Hence the common sentiment of civilized humanity seems to recognize them as useful adjuncts of divine worship. Wm. Bacon Stevens. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this twenty fourth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Clement B. Wainwright, being duly affirmed, saith : — I live at No. 1635 Spruce street. I have not been annoyed by the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church. I like to hear church-bells. Clement B. Wainwright. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this nineteenth day of January, A. D. 1877. E. A. B. Brown, [seal] Notary Public. Eugenia Carter, being duly sworn, deposes and says : — I reside at 1632 Walnut street, in the city of Philadelphia, in the immediate vicinity of St. Mark's Church. I have heard 192 the bells ringing and consider them of no annoyance what- ever, but on the contrary, consider their sound agreeable and pleasant to the ear. Eugenia Carter. Sworn and subscribed before me, this eighth day of January, 1877. Albert B. Guilbert, [seal] Notary Public. Mrs. Elizabeth B. Biddle, being duly affirmed, saith : — I live at No. 1 500 Locust street. Have lived there about thirty-eight years. I have not been annoyed by the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church. Eliz. B. Biddle. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this twenty-second day of January, 1877. E. A. B. Brown, [seal] Notary Public. Samuel Spackman, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says: — I reside at No. 211 South Seventeenth street, Philadelphia. I have resided there about two years. Neither I nor any of my family have been annoyed by the ringing of St. Mark's bells. The noise made by the bells would not interfere with conversation even with the windows open. I have never observed any jarring of the walls or rattling of the windows. The sound of the bells is rather pleasant than otherwise to me. I do not consider them a nuisance. I consider them rather useful in fixing the hour of the day. Samuel Spackman. Sworn and subscribed before me, this fifth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. 193 John DeDucastle, being duly sworn, says: — I reside at No. 244 South Seventeenth street, Philadelphia, and have resided there about two years. When the bells of St. Mark's Church were first put up we noticed their ringing, but they did not annoy us, nor do they now in any way what- ever. I like to hear them ring. I do not think they are loud or discordant. We like to hear them. They make a cheer- ful, pleasant sound. I was born in Paris and lived there many years. I have been accustomed to hear much louder bells ring there and much more frequently. I cannot see why any of the neighbors should complain of St. Mark's bells. I would be sorry to have them interfered with. John DeDucastle. Sworn and subscribed before me, this eleventh day of Janu- ary, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Peter N. Brennan, being duly sworn, says : — I am doing business at No. 244 South Seventeenth street, Philadelphia. The bells of St. Mark's Church do not annoy me and never did. I like to hear them. I do not want them interfered with in any way. Peter N. Brennan. Sworn and subscribed before me, this eleventh day of Janu- Robert N. Simpers, fsEALl Notary Public. Arabella Sayle, being duly affirmed, says : — I reside at No. 248 South Seventeenth street, Philadelphia, and have resided there for about thirty-two years. The bells of St. Mark's Church have never annoyed or disturbed me or 194 any member of my family in any way whatever. We are delighted to hear them ring. We would miss them very much if they were stopped. I hope they will not be interfered with in any way. Arabella Sayle. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this eleventh day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. George E. Hoffman, being duly sworn, says : — I reside at No. 259 South Seventeenth street, Philadelphia. The bells of St. Mark's Church do not annoy either myself or family. I have no objection to them whatever. Geo. E. Hoffman. Sworn and subscribed before me, this eighth day of Janu- ary, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. James P. Sims, being duly sworn, deposes as follows : — I reside at No. 261 South Seventeenth street, below Locust street. I have heard the bells of St. Mark's rung ever since the beginning of July, with the exception of three weeks in the summer, when I was away. I have a knowledge of music. They are pleasant sounding bells, and, in my opinion, there is no just cause for complaint against them. I was never troubled by the early morning Sunday bells, when they were rung. They did not begin to ring until quarter before seven. The bell of Calvary Presbyterian Church, although twice as far from our house as the bells of St. Mark's, sounds much louder and is really harsh and unmusical. That bell has been rung, to my knowledge, since 1857, when we moved to I9S Seventeenth street, and I never heard of anybody being in- jured by it. James P. Sims. Sworn and subscribed before me, the ninth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Catherine Harkins, being duly affirmed, says : — I live at 1623 Erety street. I have lived there since last June. The bells of St. Mark's Church do not annoy me in any way. I like to hear them ring. They do not wake us up from sleep. I would miss them if they were stopped. Her Catherine + Harkins. mark. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this eighth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] " Notary Public. Violet Cannon, being duly affirmed, says : — I live at 1625 Erety street. I have lived there about three years. I have two children, one eighteen months, the other four years old in March. I have never been annoyed by the bells of St. Mark's Church. They have never annoyed the children. They do not waken when the bells are rung. I like to hear them very much. They regulate the time. We go by them. We do not want them stopped. Her Violet + Cannon. mark. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this eighth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. 196 Michael Fitzgerald, being duly affirmed according to law, deposes and says : — I live at No. 1627 Erety street, Philadelphia, immediately in rear of St. Mark's Church, about thirty feet from the church- building. I have four young children, from eighteen months upwards. I have never been annoyed by St. Mark's bells. They never wake my children. I am glad to hear them ring ; they help to regulate the time. Michael Fitzgerald. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this eighth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Elizabeth Byrnes, being duly sworn, says : — I live at 1629 Erety street, immediately in the rear of St. Mark's Church, and have lived there four years. I have five children, from two years upwards. I have never been dis- turbed at all by the bells of St. Mark's. They have never wakened my children, even when the windows were open. I have no complaint to make against them. I am delighted to hear them ring, and think it would be a great pity to have them interfered with in any way. Her Elizabeth -|- Byrnes. mark. Sworn and subscribed before me, this eighth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notmy Public. Elizabeth Mclntyre, being duly affirmed according to law, deposes and says : — I reside at 16 14 Chancellor street, Philadelphia. I have lived there five years. I have a young grandchild in the 197 house. I have never been disturbed or annoyed by the bells of St. Mark's Church in any way whatever. They are not loud enough to interfere with conversation in the house. I do not consider them a nuisance. I like to hear church-bells ring. I see no reason to complain of them in any way. The windows of my house rattle with the smallest wind, but I never heard them rattled by the ringing of these bells. Elizabeth McIntyre. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this fifth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Annie Taylor, being duly affirmed according to law, deposes and says : — I reside at 1624 Chancellor street. My family have lived there for over forty years. When the bells of St. Mark's first began to ring they were a slight annoyance, because we were not used to them. But now I do not find them any annoy- ance whatever. I do not notice their ringing unless my atten- tion is called to it. They would not wake me up from sleep. The sound is not loud enough to interfere with conversation neither in the house nor in the back yard towards the church. I don't see why the neighbors complain of it. The noise would not waken a child in the house. Annie Taylor. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this fifth day of January, 1877. Robert N, Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. 198 Mrs. Eliza Fleming, being duly affirmed according to law, deposes and says : — I reside at No. 1626 Chancellor street. I have lived there about nine and a half years. I have young children from four years old and upwards. Neither I nor any of my family have been annoyed by the ringing of St. Mark's bells in any way whatever. We can scarcely hear them, unless in some way our attention is called to them. I do not know why any one should consider them a nuisance. They are a great convenience to us in regulating the time. We go by them. Mrs. Eliza Fleming. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this fifth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Adaline Blizzard, being duly affirmed according to law, says : — I reside at 1630 Chancellor street. I have lived there for two years and more. My husband works at night and has to sleep during the day. When the bells of St. Mark's were first put up they awakened him, but now he has become accustomed to them and they do not arouse him when asleep or annoy him. They often ring without my noticing them. They are a convenience in fixing the time. I like to hear them ring and do not want them stopped or the ringing of them interfered with. Adaline Blizzard. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this eleventh day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. 199 Eliza Stewart, being duly affirmed, says : — I live at 1632 Chancellor street, "yVe own the house. Our lot runs back to Erety street. I have been there for nineteen years. I do not experience any annoyance from St. Mark's bells, and have no complaint to make against them. Eliza Stewart. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this sixteenth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Catharine Dugan, being duly affirmed, says : — I reside at 161 8 Latimer street, Philadelphia. I have resided there about seven years. The bells of St. Mark's do not annoy me nor any member of the family. I like them very well. Her Catharine + Dugan. mark. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this eleventh day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Sarah E. Logan, being duly affirmed, says ; — I reside at No. 1620 Latimer street, Philadelphia. I like to hear the bells of St. Mark's ring. They do not annoy me nor any member of my family. Sarah E. Logan. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this eleventh day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. 200 Sophia E. Smyth, being duly affirmed, says : — I reside at No. 1622 Latimer street, Philadelphia. The bells of St. Mark's Church do not annoy me or any member of my family. I do not want them stopped. Mrs. Sophia E. Smyth. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this eleventh day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Charles P. Dwyer, architect, being duly sworn, says : — I reside at No. 1624 Latimer street, Philadelphia. I like to hear the bells of St. Mark's Church. I think they are very sweet toned and pleasant to hear. They do not annoy any one in the house — we are all pleased. C. P. Dwyer. Sworn and subscribed before me, this eleventh day of Janu- ary, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Elizabeth Jane Case, being duly affirmed, says : — I reside at No. 1626 Latimer street, Philadelphia. The bells of St. Mark's Church do not annoy me nor any member of my family. I like to hear them. Elizabeth Jane Case. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this eleventh day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. 20I Catherine Power, being duly affirmed, says: — I reside at 1628 Latimer street. The bells of St. Mark's do not annoy me nor any member of my family. We are delighted to hear them ring. Her Catherine + Power. mark. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this eleventh day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Mary Ann Henderson, being duly affirmed, says : — I reside at No. 1630 Latimer street, Philadelphia. I have lived there or next door for about two years. I like to hear the bells of St. Mark's Church, and they do not annoy me nor any member of my family. M. A. Henderson. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this eleventh day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notaiy Public. Susan Franklin, being duly affirmed, says : — I reside at 1632 Latimer street, and have for about nine years. The bells of St. Mark's Church do not annoy or dis- turb me or any member of my family in any whatever. Susan Franklin. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this eleventh day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notmy Public. 202 Margaret Stuter, being duly affirmed, says : — I reside at 1634 Latimer street, Philadelphia. The bells of St. Mark's do not annoy me or any member of my family in any way whatever. Margaret Stuter. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this eleventh day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. AFFIDAVITS OF PROFESSIONAL BELL-RINGERS. William Brown, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says : — I reside at 1320 North Tenth street, Philadelphia. I am a watchmaker. I sell organs also. I am a musician and un- derstand music. I am accustomed to play on several musical instruments. I am the bell-ringer at St. Stephen's, and have been for fifteen years. I am acquainted with the chime of Christ Church, also with St. Peter's, in this city, and with that of St. Mary's in Burlington. I am also familiar with chimes of bells in England, and have often taken part in ringing- matches there. I have been a bell-ringer for nearly forty years in this country and in England. St. Stephen's chime has nine bells, and weighs twelve thousand eight hundred pounds. The tenor bell weighs two thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight pounds. The bells are hung forty-five feet above the pavement. I measured it this morning. They were put in September, 1853. They are rung or chimed thirty minutes before each of the Sunday services, to wit, 10 A. M. to 10.30 A. M., 3.30 P. M. to 4 P. M., and from 7 P. M. to 7.30 P. M. We have two services through the week ordinarily, and a portion of the year a daily service. For each of the week-day services we ring the bells ten minutes. 203 I have never heard any complaint. I have never been asked to stop the bells because persons were sick. At one time there was a man very ill opposite the church. The old sexton went over to inquire whether it was any annoyance to him. He replied that it was no annoyance, and, in fact, he enjoyed hearing them ring. He lived about fifty feet from the church- tower, his house being directly opposite the church. When the St. Mark's bells were first put up I examined them care- fully. I tested them by ringing and chiming. I also tested each separate bell with an accurate tuning-horn, with the as- sistance of a practical bell-founder connected with McShane's bell foundry in Baltimore, who cast the Centennial chime. We found each bell in perfect tune with the rest. I consider them very sweet bells, and not noisy at all. They are as good as any chime I know in England, only much lighter. They are a very light chime. They are not high, harsh, loud, clanging, or discordant. I considered the chime of St. Mary's, Burlington, the best in the country before these bells were placed in St. Mark's tower. I consider St. Mark's bells quite equal to those of St. Mary's, only lighter and not so loud. When all the bells of St. Mark's were ringing at once, there was not the slightest jar or trembling in the tower or spire, nor any rattling of the glass in the windows of the tower or spire. It would not be possible for them to jar the buildings in the neighborhood or rattle the windows, even though the bells were four times as heavy as they are. In England it is customary to ring the bells in the city (chimes) thirty minutes continuously before each service. And this is the usual time that bells are rung for service in this country. The bells are hung about the same height from the ground in St. Mark's tower that they are usually hung in England. William Brown. Sworn and subscribed before me, this eighth day of Janu- ary, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary P^iblic. 204 Robert Wright, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says : — I reside at No. 421 Monroe street, Philadelphia. I am at present the bell-ringer at St. Peter's Protestant Episcopal Church in this city. I have been ringing there for about thirty-five years. We have eight bells, the largest one weigh- ing one thousand six hundred and eighty pounds. I am acquainted with other chimes in this country and am familiar with chimes in England. I have examined the bells of St. Mark's. I think they are in perfect tune. I think they are as sweet-toned as any that I have ever heard. I think them rather lighter than usual. They are not harsh, nor loud, nor high, nor sharp, nor discordant. They could not be better in tone than they are. The bells of St. Peter's are rung for thirty minutes continu- ously before the regular Sunday services, which begin at 10.30 A. M. and 4 P. M., also one bell before the early morning ser- vice, and for half an hour before the 7.30 P. M. service, when there is one. One bell is rung for five minutes for the Sun- day-school at 9 A. M. and 3 P. M. They are rung for half an hour before the services, which are held occasionally dur- ing the week at 11 A. M. One of the heaviest is rung for five minutes before the daily services at 9 A. M. and about 5 P. M. I have never heard of any complaints being made by the neighbors about the ringing of our bells. They have occasionally been stopped for a few days at a time in conse- quence of some specified case of severe illness. They have occasionally been rung for practice for an hour or an hour and a half at a time. I have myself chimed them for an hour and a half consecutively. I ring them on the 4th of July for half an hour or an hour at sunrise, twelve o'clock, and six o'clock and at other times through the day. I ring them also for more than on hour at midnight on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, and at sunrise on Easter Sunday morning. When on one or two occasions I was prevented from ringing the bells at these times the neighbors have complained, because they like to hear them. It is impossible for a chime of bells 205 the size of St. Mark's to shake the walls of the adjacent houses or even rattle the window-sashes. Robert Wright. Sworn and subscribed before me, this eighth day of Janu- ary, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Charles Rahill, being duly sworn, says : — I reside in Wilmington, Delaware, I have been accustomed to ring peals of bells in England and in this country for about thirty years. I was one of the ringers in the parish where I was born, namely, St. Nicholas, Deptford, county of Kent. It is on the outskirts of London. They had a peal of eight bells. The heaviest weighed a little over two thousand two hundred and forty pounds. I have also rung at St. Alphage, Greenwich, where there is a peal of ten bells, the heaviest one weighing two thousand eight hundred pounds; and also at St. Mary's Church, Woolwich, where there is a peal of eight bells, the heaviest weighing about one thousand six hundred pounds. I have also rung at St. Mary's Church, Lewisham, near Lon- don, where there is a peal of eight bells, the heaviest weighing two thousand four hundred and sixty-four pounds. I have also rung at St. Saviour's, Southwark, where there is a peal of twelve bells, the heaviest weighing five thousand eight hundred pounds. During the time I was in England I was engaged in a number of ringing-matches, averaging about three hours of continuous ringing. This is about the usual time; but these matches sometimes continue seven or eight hours. Since I have been in this country I have rung repeatedly at Christ Church and at St. Peter's in this city, and at St. Mary's, Burlington, New Jersey. I also rang in the ringing-match which took place in Christ Church on the ninth day of June, 1850. We were ringing for three hours and fifteen minutes continuously. I have rung the bells of 206 St. Mark's Church in this city. In my judgment they are, for their size and weight, the finest I have ever heard. They are in perfect tune and harmony. The ringing of the bells of St. Mark's could not shake the walls of the adjacent houses. I do not understand how any one can assert that they are harsh, or loud, or high, or clanging, or sharp or discordant. In England the bells of St. Mark's would be considered a light country chime. I am a musician and can play on the organ. I have a good ear for music. I can, therefore, say positively that the bells of St. Mark's are in perfect tune. In all my experience I have never heard of any complaint from people in the neighborhood of peals of bells. In England a parish church would not be considered complete without a peal of bells. In cities bells are usually much larger. The general custom is to ring the bells for half an hour before each of the Sunday services — in some cases they ring longer. So far as I know they ring for the same length of time on other days. They are usually rung on festivals and holidays for about a half hour at sunrise and at other times during the day. It is usual, also, to ring the bells for practice for an hour to an hour and a half on one evening in each week. There is no difference made in the time of ringing bells, whether the churches are surrounded by private residences or not. Charles Rahill. Sworn and subscribed before me, this sixteenth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Thomas H. Le Sage, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says : — I reside at 327 Allen street, Philadelphia. I have been accustomed to ring peals of bells in London and in this country for forty years. I was employed to ring the bells of 207 St. Botolph's Church, Bishopgate, where there were eight bells, of which the heaviest weighed three thousand three hundred and sixty pounds; of St. Sepulchre's, Snow Hill, where there were ten bells, of which the heaviest weighed about three thousand pounds ; of St. Andrew's, High Hol- born, where there were eight bells, of which the heaviest weighed about three thousand pounds ; and of St. Mary's, Islington, where there were eight bells, of which the heaviest weighed about two thousand pounds ; and I rang occasionally at St. Mary-le-Bow, Cheapside, where there are ten bells, of which the heaviest weighs about six thousand pounds. All of these peals of bells were in London. I have also rung the bells of St. Peter's Church in this city for seven years and the bells of St. Stephen's Church for seven years. I am also familiar with many other peals in this country and in England. I have listened to the bells of St. Mark's Church, and have also rung them. I consider them a light peal of bells. They are hung about the height that peals of bells are usually hung in church-towers. I consider them sweet and mellow-toned bells, and I am confident they are perfectly in tune and in harmony. They are, in my judgment, the opposite of harsh, loud, high, sharp, clanging or discordant. All of the churches at which I have rung the bells have residences on all sides of them. Several of them had resi- dences immediately adjoining the church-building. In Lon- don it is the custom to ring the bells for half an hour before each of the Sunday services. On other days they are rung from fifteen to thirty minutes before each service. I have rung in many ringing-matches in London, which are not uncommon there, and in which the bells were rung for more than three hours continuously. I also rung in a ringing- match with the bells of Christ Church of this city, on June gth, 1850, which occupied three hours and fifteen minutes. When at Christ Church we rang the bells for half an hour before each Sunday service and chimed them for the same period of time before the services on other days. We also rang them for about two hours or more on every Tuesday 208 and Friday evening. I have never known any complaints made that the neighbors have been disturbed by the ringing of bells, until the present complaint against the bells of St. Mark's Church. Thomas H. Le Sage. Sworn and subscribed before me, this sixteenth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. AFFIDAVITS OF REAL ESTATE EXPERTS. I, Joseph B. Barry, of the city of Philadelphia, conveyancer, hereby depose as follows: — I have been familiar with the value of real estate in Phila- delphia for thirty years. I am well acquainted with the neighborhood of Locust street, above Sixteenth street, where St. Mark's Church is situated. I have also heard the bells which are now in the church-tower. I do not think real estate in the vicinity is depreciated in any way by the ringing of those bells. I do not think they are any detriment to the property surrounding the church. The church property ma- terially improves the value of the surrounding property. It is much more difficult to buy a house in that square than to sell one. Joseph Barry. Sworn and subscribed before me, this eighth day of January, A. D. 1877. Edward Barry, [seal] Notary Public. Adam Everly, being duly sworn, says : — I am engaged in the business of selling real estate. I have a thorough knowledge of the marketable value and general p^' 209 salability of real estate in the city of Philadelphia. I am familiar with the ringing of the chimes of St. Mark's Church, passing the church several times each Sunday. In my opinion the value of property opposite and adjacent to St. Mark's Church is not depreciated nor is the sale or rental thereof retarded by the ringing of the bells of that church. Adam Everly. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this twelfth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. James H. Castle, of the city of Philadelphia, being sworn, deposes as follows; — I am familiar with the value of real estate in the city of Philadelphia. I have been engaged for many years in busi- ness which required my attention to be given particularly to that subject. I do not know of any depreciation in the value of the property in the neighborhood of St. Mark's Church, caused by the ringing of the bells recently put in the tower, nor do I believe that any depreciation has occurred from that cause. James H. Castle. Sworn and subscribed before me, this thirteenth day of January, 1877. E. A. B. Brown, £seal] Notary Public. James D. Keyser, being duly affirmed, says : — I am one of the assessors of the Sixth District, which em- braces that part of the Eighth Ward lying west of Thirteenth street, Philadelphia. My official duties have made me familiar with the value of the real estate in the neighborhood of St. 2IO Mark's Church. I am not aware of any depreciation in the value of the real estate in that neighborhood caused by the ringing of St. Mark's bells. James D. Keyser. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this nineteenth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Samuel Haworth, being duly sworn, says: — I am familiar with the neighborhood in which St. Mark's Church is situated. The value of property in that neighbor- hood is not, in my opinion, depreciated by the ringing of St. Mark's bells. Samuel Haworth. Sworn and subscribed before me, this nineteenth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Edward Carpenter, being duly sworn, says : — I am familiar with the values of real estate in the city of Philadelphia, having been in the real estate and conveyancing business for over thirty-three years. I resided for about four- teen years on Fifteenth below Spruce street, about two and a half squares from St. Mark's Church. I am familiar with chimes of bells, having often heard them. I consider a chime or peal of bells much less monotonous than a single bell and more agreeable. I am familiar with St. Peter's and Christ Church chimes and have also heard St. Mark's bells. I notice nothing unusual about the latter ; the character of the sound is the same as the others. I am familiar with property in the 211 neighborhood of St. Mark's Church, and do not think its value is depreciated by the ringing of St. Mark's bells. It is possible that the market value of such property might be injuriously affected by statements that the walls of houses in the vicinity are shaken by the vibrations of the bells, whether such state- ments were correct or not. E. Carpenter. Sworn and subscribed before me, this twenty-sixth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Frederick Sylvester, of the city of Philadelphia, being duly sworn, says : — I am a real estate broker, doing business at No. 203 South Sixth street. I am well acquainted with the value of real estate opposite to and in the vicinity of St. Mark's Protestant Episcopal Church, both prior and subsequent to placing bells in the steeple of said church. In my opinion there has been no decline in value of real estate in the vicinity of said church, caused by the ringing of said bells, the decline in value, if any, proceeding from the prevailing depression in real estate in all parts of the city. The value of Locust street as a place of residence is based more upon the respectability of the resi- dents on said street, the eligibility of the location and charac- ter of dwellings than upon its quiet. In my opinion very quiet streets usually are marked by stagnation in real estate situate on them, for instance, Clinton street, Girard street, DeLancey street, &c. ; but I do not wish to be understood as meaning that the ringing of bells, though enlivening the neighborhood, will increase the value of real estate therein. In my opinion, no one who desired to purchase in the said street or neighbor- hood would be deterred from so doing by reason of the ring- ing of said bells. The noise caused by these bells is no greater 212 annoyance than that caused by the ringing of the bell of Calvary Church, Locust street, near Fifteenth street, which has been done for years without objection by property-owners of the vicinity. I know of no house on Locust street, between Sixteenth and Seventeenth, which is offered for sale. Fred. Sylvester. Sworn and subscribed before me, this thirtieth day of January, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. AFFIDAVITS AS TO HEIGHTS OF ST. MARK'S AND OTHER CHURCH-BELLS. Adam A. Catanach, being duly sworn, says : — I reside at 1523 Christian street, Philadelphia. I am a car- penter and master builder. My father built the woodwork of St. Mark's Church. I placed the bells in the tower. I have measured the height at which the bells are hung recently. They hang sixty-seven feet above the curbstone in the street. They are from ten to fifteen feet above the roofs of the majority of the houses in the neighborhood and just above the ridge of the roof of the highest building in the vicinity. The tower of St. Mark's Church is well built and sufficiently strong, in my opinion, to carry a heavy peal of bells. There is no per- ceptible jarring or shaking of the tower when the bells are chimed. I have been in the school-house, which stands on the church lot sixty feet from the tower, when the bells were being chimed, and I could not perceive any jarring of the building or rattling of the windows. I have also measured the tower of the Church of the Mediator, on the corner of Nineteenth and Lombard streets, and find the bell which hangs in it and which is three feet six inches in diameter at its mouth is hung at forty-nine feet above the curbstone. I have 213 also measured the height at which the bell of " Bethany," corner of Twenty-second and Bainbridge streets, is hung, and find it to be about sixty-five feet above the curbstone. I was told by the sexton that it weighed one thousand six hundred pounds. I also measured the tower of Tabor Church (Pres- byterian), at Eighteenth and Christian streets. The bell, which is of steel and measures three feet six inches across the mouth, is hung forty-one feet above the curbstone. I have also measured the height at which the bell is hung in the tower of the Church of the Holy Comforter, corner of Nine- teenth street and Titan street, and found it to be forty-four feet above the curbstone. I have also measured the height at which the bell is hung in the tower of the Old Swedes' Church, Swanson below Christian street, and found it to be fifty-one feet above the level of the ground. I have also ex- amined the height at which the bell is hung in the tower of the Church of the Nativity, at the corner of Eleventh and Mount Vernon streets, and think it to be about fifty-five feet above the level of the ground. Adam A. Catanach. Sworn and subscribed before me, this twenty-fourth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Henry M. Congdon, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says : — I reside at West New Brighton, Staten Island, New York, and my place of business is in Trinity Building, New York City. I am an architect, and a fellow of the American Insti- tute of Architects, and have had much experience in the building of churches. In the erection of towers for bells, the height at which the bells are placed varies according to the- size and location of the tower with respect to the rest of the church-building. In the churches which I have erected, both 214 for city and country, the height of the bell-chamber has varied from fifty to sixty feet. Where the bells are hung in turrets or in bell-gables they are usually lower. Henry M. Congdon. Sworn to before me, this twenty-third day of January, 1877. E. W. Tyler, [seal] Notary Public {lop), N. Y. County, N. Y. John F. Miller, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says : — I reside in One Hundred and Forty-third street, New York, and my office is at 157 Broadway, New York. I am a pro- fessional architect, and have been practicing my profession for thirty years last past. My time has been mostly employed in designing and building churches. The height above the level of the ground at which bell-chambers are placed in church- towers in this country in the largest cities generally averages from fifty to sixty feet. In designing a church for any par- ticular locality the general rule is to provide a bell-chamber immediately above the level of the roofs of the neighboring buildings. John F. Miller. Sworn to before me, January 23d, 1877. S. S. Rowland, [seal] Notary Public, New York City. Richard M. Upjohn, being duly sworn according to law, de- poses and says : — I reside at 84 Woodhull street, Brooklyn, N. Y., and my office is III Trinity Building, New York. I am a practical 215 architect, and a fellow of the American Institute of Architects, and have been actively engaged in the practice of my profes- sion for over thirty years. Over one hundred church edifices have been erected in different parts of the United States in accordance with plans I have prepared. The general rule in the erection of church-towers is to put the floor of the bell- chamber about on a level with the eaves of the surrounding buildings. The height, therefore, would vary according to the locality. In churches which I have built the height of the bell-chambers have varied from forty to ninety feet above the level of the ground. Richard M. Upjohn. Sworn to before me, this twenty-third day of January, 1877. E. W. Tyler, [seal] Notary Public {log), New York County, N. Y. Egbert Mills, being duly sworn, doth depose and say, that he is fifty-six years of age ; that he is a carpenter and builder, residing in and doing business at No. 33 West Twenty-ninth street, in the city of New York ; that he did on the eighteenth day of January, 1877, carefully measure the height from the ground of the principal or largest bell in Trinity Chapel, in West Twenty-fifth street, in said city, and found the same to be fifty-four feet and six inches ; and also that he did on the same day carefully measure the height of the bells in Grace Church in said city, consisting of eight or more bells, and that the lower part of said bells was seventy-four feet from the ground; and further saith not. Egbert Mills. Sworn to before me, this nineteenth day of January, A. D. 1877. S. B.. GOODALE, [seal] Notary Public {120), New York County. 216 James P. Sims, being duly sworn, says : — I am by profession an architect. My office is No. 506 Walnut street, Philadelphia. The rule in building the belfry- stage of a church tower is to place it just above the ridge of the roof of the nave. This rule has been observed at St. Mark's Church. From fifty to sixty feet is a full height for the belfry-stage of a city church. Some are built higher than this, but they are exceptional cases. James P. Sims. Sworn and subscribed before me, this thirtieth day of Janu- ary, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Charles H. A. Esling, being sworn, says: — I reside at No. 224 South Tenth street, Philadelphia. I at- tend St. John's Church, Thirteenth street, above Chestnut. St. John's bell is rung daily at 6 A. M., 12 M. and 6. P. M., for the Angelus, and for about fifteen minutes at 6.15, 7.45 and 10 A. M. and 3.45 P. M. on Sundays. During Lent and on holy days it rings oftener. It is a loud bell and can be heard a long distance. It is hung about fifty feet from the pavement. The bell of St. Joseph's Church, Willing's alley, is hung about forty feet, and St. Mary's Church, Fourth, above Spruce, about thirty-five feet from the ground. At St. Joseph's Cathedral, Buffalo, they have a carillon of bells (which I have heard), the finest in this country. There are forty-three bells. The largest weighs five thousand and sixty- eight pounds. There are several weighing over three thou- sand pounds. Charles H. A. Esling. Sworn and subscribed before me, this thirtieth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. 217 AFFIDAVITS FROM RECTORS, &c, OF OTHER CHURCHES HAVING CHIMES OR BELLS. Edward A. Foggo, D. D., being duly sworn, says : — I reside at 340 South Sixteenth street, Philadelphia. I am the rector of Christ Church, and have been since 1869, and before that time was connected with the parish as assistant minister eight years. The present church building was erected 1727. Until comparatively a late period it was sur- rounded by private residences. My church has a chime of eight bells, weighing about ten thousand pounds. The largest weighs two thousand and forty pounds. They were placed in the church almost immediately after the erection of the tower. With the exception of the period when the British took possession of the city, when they were sent out of the city, they have been in use ever since. They have been usually rung on week days as well as Sundays for a half hour before each service. I believe that this has been the practice from the earliest time. I found that custom there when I became connected with the church about fifteen years ago. They are also rung for about an hour or more on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, and on some public occasions at the request of the mayor of the city. I have never heard of any objection being made by the neighbors to their ringing ; on the contrary, on several occasions I have heard persons in the neighborhood speak of the pleasure it gave them to listen to chimes of the old bells. I have never been asked to stop the ringing on account of illness. The bells were formerly rung on the evening preceding market-days — that is to say, on Tuesday and Friday evenings. They were rung at inter- vals during two or three hours to allow the country people an opportunity to hear them. I consider the use of these bells in the above way for divine service as reasonable and proper. I believe that these bells are rung in accordance with the custom of the Protestant Episcopal Church, both in this country and in Europe, wherever they have the chimes. I consider a chime of bells not only a proper and desirable, but 2l8 an important feature in the conduct of church worship. They have been used in connection with the churches almost since they first began to be erected. The loss of our chimes would be considered a very great injury by the parishioners and others. Noises of various kinds must necessarily exist in a large city. Near my church is a large sugar refinery, the large and shrill steam-whistle of which is heard several times every day, and interrupts by its continuous sounding for several minutes every lecture which I have on a week-day. Ed. a. Foggo, Rector of Christ Church. Sworn and subscribed before me, this eighth day of January, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, I^seal] Notary Public. Morgan Dix, D. D., being duly sworn according to' law, deposes and says : — I reside at 27 West Twenty-fifth street, New York. I am the rector of Trinity Church, New York, and have been since 1862. I have been connected with the church as one of its clergy since 1855. The present parish church is built upon the site on which two other buildings previously stood. It was finished in 1846. It has a chime of nine bells in the tower. The largest bell weighs three thousand and seventy-two pounds. They were placed in the tower in 1 846, and have been rung twice every day for service since that date. Trinity Chapel, which is also under my charge, has a peal of three good- sized bells, which were part of the chime which hung in the parish church that was pulled down to erect the present Trinity Church. Trinity Chapel was completed in 1856, and its bells have been continuously used daily throughout the year since that date. The bells of the church are rung or chimed on 219 Sundays for half an hour before the services, which begin at 10.30 A. M. and 3.30 or 4 P. M. They are also rung for five minutes before every early Sunday morning service at'7 A. M., when there is one. They are also rung for five minutes before the daily services at 9 A. IVI. and 3 P. M. throughout the year. They are also rung on all saints' and holy days throughout the year for half an hour before the eleven o'clock service, and on Thanksgiving Day, Washington's Birthday, and the Fourth of July about noon. On New Year's Eve they are rung for about an hour at midnight. The bells of the chapel are rung on Sundays for five minutes before the service at 7 A. M., for five minutes at 9 A. M. for the Sunday-school, for half an hour before the services at 10.30 A. M. and 3.30 P. M. and for half an hour before the 7.30 P. M. service from Advent to Easter. They are also rung every day for five minutes before the daily services at 9 A. M. and 4 P. M. I have never received any complaint from the neighbors against the ring- ing of the bells of the church or chapel. On the contrary, whenever the bells of the church are rung on great occasions, large numbers of people assemble, both within and without the church, to listen to them. Last New Year's eve Broadway was lined with carriages of persons who had come from a considerable distance to hear the bells, and at the close of the ringing the assembled crowd in the streets united with the bells and sang the doxology, accompanying the chimes. My residence is next door to the chapel. The bells which are rung at 7 A. M. have never awakened me, nor, so far as I know, do the bells disturb any member of my family. I also say as to the aforesaid use and time of ringing of the bells of the church that they are not peculiar to Trinity parish, and are in accordance with ordinary usage of the Protestant Epis- copal Church in this country. The use of bells in connection with Christian worship is of about one thousand four hundred years standing, during all of which time they have been deemed a suitable and necessary appendage to churches, chapels, and other ecclesiastical buildings. Morgan Dix. 220 Sworn to before me, this tenth day of January, A. D. 1877. S. B. GOODALE, [seal] Notary Public, New York Co. William F. Morgan, D. D., being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says : — I reside at No. I West Fifty-third street. New York. I am the rector of St. Thomas' Church, New York. I have been for the last twenty years. My present church was first opened in 1870. There is a chime of ten bells, which was placed in the tower in September, 1874. They have been used con- tinually since. The tenor bell weighs two thousand seven hundred and seventy-nine pounds, the whole chime ten thous- and five hundred and twenty pounds. My church has private residences on all sides of it. St. Luke's Hospital is located about two hundred feet to the north of it, with an open space between it and the hospital. On Sundays the bells are rung for fifteen minutes at 9 A. M., for the Sunday-school, for half an hour before the service at 10.30 A. M., and for half an hour before the service at 3.30 P. M., and for half an hour at 7 P. M., when there is an even- ing service. They are also rung for half an hour preceding the services on festivals and holy days which fall on week- days, and for fifteen minutes before all ordinary week-day services. My residence adjoins the church, and neither I nor any of my family have ever been disturbed by them, either in sickness or in health. I was once critically ill in a house directly beneath the tower of the Abbey Church at Great Malvern, England, which had in it a large and heavy chime of bells. They were rung for service several times every day, and they also sounded every quarter of an hour, day and night, in con- nection with the clock. During my illness I never experienced the least annoyance from them, but, on the contrary, was^ greatly comforted by listening to them. My disorder was 221 such as to cause me to be peculiarly susceptible to all dis- agreeable noises. When the bells of my church were about to be put up Rev. Dr. Muhlenburg, pastor of St. Luke's Hospital, expressed strong apprehensions lest the chime might interfere with the sick in the wards of the hospital, and addressed a letter of remonstrance to the rector and vestry, which was received by the latter with the respect due to the venerable pastor. It was not, however, unduly pressed, and before any action what- ever had been taken, it was ascertained by Dr. Muhlenberg himself that the chimes, so far from being a cause of discom- fort to the patients, had rather a soothing effect upon them. Upon going through the wards and putting the question to each patient he received a reply from all, save one, that the sound of the bells was extremely pleasant to them. The time of ringing the bells of St. Thomas' Church is not peculiar to the parish, but is in accordance with the usage of the Protestant Episcopal Church in this country. I consider a chime of bells not only a proper and desirable feature of a church building, but essential to the future development of the influence of instruction which a church is designed to impart. I should think that if the ringing of my church-bells was inter- fered with, in any way whatever, that a very helpful religious influence had been withdrawn, and that the permanent interests of the church had been endangered. William F. Morgan. Sworn to before me, on this tenth day of January, A. D. 1877. S. B. GOODALE, [seal] Notary Public, New York City. James Frederic Wood, archbishop of Philadelphia, being duly sworn, saj's : — There are in the city of Philadelphia about forty-five Roman Cathohc churches. About one-half of these are furnished 222 with a bell or bells. Some of them have four bells, some three, some two, but most of them have only one. All of our churches in the city would have bells, but in some there is no tower and in others there is not money in hand with which to purchase a bell. We consider bells as an integral part of the church and as exceedingly convenient and useful for many purposes in religious services. Our usual custom is to ring one bell every day at 6 A. M., at 12 M. and at 6 P. M. for the Angelas, or prayer commemorative of the incarnation of our Lord. On Sundays and festivals of obligation we ring one bell for service at 6, 71^, 9 and lo^^ A. M. and at 3.30 P. M. for vespers, or less frequently when there are not so many services. On great festivals, such as Christmas, Easter, &c., we ring all the bells perhaps twice a day, in sign of joy and in honor of the festivity. Bells have always been connected with religious services in many ways, and we would consider it a hardship to be pro- hibited their proper and reasonable use. I consider a full peal of bells a desirable acquisition to any church. tjAMES Frederic Wood, Archbishop of Philadelphia. Sworn and subscribed before me, this eighteenth day of January, 1877. \ Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Rev. James O'Reilly, being duly sworn, says : — I am the priest in charge of the Roman Catholic Church, St. Charles Borromeo, south-west corner Twentieth and Christian streets, Philadelphia. At the present time we have but one bell. It weighs three thousand and fifty pounds. It is one of the largest, if not the largest, church-bell in the city. It is now hung about eighty feet above the ground. We in- tend in the future to complete the chime, and had the present 223 bell cast with that objet in view. The bell is rung for about ten minutes three times every day, viz., at 6 A. M., 12 M. and 6 P. M. When rung at those times it is called the Angelus bell, and is intended to remind the people of the incar- nation of our Lord ; that He became man for us. That bell is rung in every Catholic Church, where there is a bell, throughout the world. There never has been any objection made to it. The bell is also rung every evening at seven o'clock, at the De Profundis. On Sundays the bell is rung in addition to the above for five minutes at 5.45 A. M., 7.20 A. M., 8.40 A. M., 10.20 A. M. and 10.30 A. M., also at 3.35 P. M., for the same length of time. In addition to the above the bell is often rung during funerals, and also on other special occasions, during the day and evening. I have never heard any complaint from the neighbors. On the contrary, I am confident that the people of the neighborhood delight to hear the bell ring. I find that it acts as a general regulator of time for the whole neighborhood. In my opinion, the Catholic Church would deeply regret any interference with the ringing of church-bells. They form a part of the outward ceremony of church worship, and have done so in all ages. James O'Reilly. Sworn and subscribed before me, this thirteenth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [sealI Notary Public. I, Henry Burroughs, of Boston, in the county of Suffolk and State of Massachusetts, clergyman, being duly sworn according to law, do depose and say : — That I reside at No. 82 Mt. Vernon street, in said Boston, and am the rector of Christ Church, situated on Salem street in said Boston ; that said church has a chime of eight bells, weighing in the aggre- gate seven thousand two hundred and seventy-two pounds,. 224 which was placed in the belfry in the year 1744, and have been in almost constant use since that date ; that they are rung or chimed or tolled for fifteen minutes before the Sunday services, at half-past ten A. M. and at 3 P. M., and for the same length of time before each service on holy-days and week-days ; that from the i8th of December until the first day January of each year they are chimed for one hour, from nine until ten o'clock, P. M., and on the last night of each year from nine until twelve o'clock ; all this being in accordance with the usages of the Protestant Episcopal Church of this country ; that I consider a chime of bells to be a highly de- sirable addition to a church building, and that the loss of ours would be felt by our parishioners and others to be a serious injury. Said Christ Church is closely surrounded by private residences, and is in the midst of a dense population. Henry Burroughs. Sworn and subscribed before me, this twenty-third day of January, 1877. Edward J. Jones, [seal] Commissioner for State of Pennsylvania. Robert Ritchie, being duly affirmed, says : — I am the rector of the Protestant Episcopal Church of St. James the Less. There are four bells in our church belfry. The bells are hung thirty-seven feet above the level of the ground. I reside within one hundred yards of my church, and there are several neighbors within the same distance. The bells are rung whenever we have service. They are frequently rung at seven o'clock in the morning and always at midnight on Christmas Eve. I have never heard any complaint from our neighbors at the ringing of our bells ; on the contrary, they have said that they all enjoy hearing them, especially when rung at midnight on Christmas Eve. I consider that 225 bells are a very valuable, in fact almost indispensable, adjunct to church service. They act as a continual reminder to the whole community of the existence of divine worship and of the duty of the people in regard to it. The Protestant Epis- copal Church would deeply regret any interference with the custom of ringing her church-bells — a. custom which has been derived from remote ages, and which is intimately associated with the deepest interests of Christian people. I live near a large woolen mill, the bell of which is rung three times a day for about ten minutes at a time. It is rung for the first time between five and six A. M. Different branches of the Read- ing Railroad are within a short distance of my house. The whistles of the engines are sounded and the bell rung at all hours of the night. The nature of the country greatly in- creases these noises through echoes. Neither the bells nor the whistles annoy me at all. They do not awaken me from sleep. I have long since become accustomed to them. Robert Ritchie. Afifirmed and subscribed before me, this twenty-fourth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Matson Meiersmith, D. D., being duly sworn, says : — I am Jay Cooke professor of homiletics and pastoral care in the Divinity School of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in Philadelphia. I have had charge of Congregationalist socie- ties in Brookline, Mass., and in Bridgeport, Conn. I was for five years the rector of Trinity Church, Newark, N. J., and for more than three years rector of St. John's Church, Hartford, Conn., and for a short time acted as assistant in charge of St. George's Church, New York. It is the customary usage in all the foregoing places to ring the church-bells for the period of half an hour more or less continuously before the Sunday services, and for about fifteen minutes before any week-day 226 services which maybe held. It is the custom in all towns and villages in Massachusetts, within my knowledge, to ring some of the church-bells every morning about seven o'clock, A. M., and at twelve M. and at nine P. M. I consider bells necessary to the perfect equipment of a church building. I consider their musical tones, from historical and familiar asso- ciations, eminently conducive to the pleasures and proprieties of divine worship. ' Matson Meiersmith. Sworn and subscribed before me, this twenty-fourth day of January, 1877, • Robert N. Simpers, , [seal] Notary Public. Walton W. Battershall, being duly sworn by me according to law, deposes and says : — I reside at No. 31 Lodge street, in the city of Albany. I am rector of St. Peter's Church, and have been for the past two years. My church has a chime of eleven bells, weighing in the aggregate twelve thousand pounds. They were placed in the belfry in the year 1875 and have been in constant use since that date. They are chimed or rung or tolled thirty minutes before the Sunday services, at lOj^ o'clock, A. M., jY^ o'clock, P. M. and for twenty minutes before service on saints' days. This is in accordance with the usages of the Protestant Episcopal Church in this country. I consider a chime of bells a highly desirable addition to a church build- ing. The loss of ours would be felt by my parishioners and others to be a serious injury. My church has private resi- dences in the immediate neighborhood. Walton W. Battershall. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this twenty-third day of January, 1877. ■ Scott D'M. Goodwin, [seai-] " Notary Public, Albany County, N. Y. 227 Noah Hunt Schenck, D D., being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says : — I reside at No. 144 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, New York. I am the rector of St. Ann's Church, Brooklyn, and have been the rector for nearly ten years. My church has a chime of nine bells, weighing in the aggregate seven thousand two hundred pounds, and the largest bell weighing two thousand pounds. They were placed in the towers in 1869, and have been in constant use ever since. They are rung for about twenty minutes and the small bells are tolled just before the services at 10.30 A. M. and 7.30 P. M. on Sundays, and some- times for about ten minutes at three o'clock for the Sunday- school. They are also rung from about fifteen to thirty min- utes about sunrise on Christmas Day and early in the morn- ing on Easter Day. They are also rung twice, and for about ten minutes each time, before the services on the festivals commemorative of our Lord, and for services on Friday even- ings and the daily services during Lent. The bells are also rung on public holidays and at midnight on New Year's eve ; they are are also rung on the occasion of weddings and funerals. My church is closely surrounded by the best class of private residences. I have never had a complaint made to me, that I can remember, against the ringing of the bells. I heard of some complaints when they were first put up, but of fully as many commendations. The sexton of St. Ann's, who is also the bell-ringer, has at times been requested to intermit the ringing of the bells in consequence of some speci- fied case of severe illness in the immediate vicinity, and again on several occasions has been thanked for the music of the bells. During the course of my ministry I have been rector of churches in Ohio, Illinois and Maryland, and in those States it is usual, as here, to give notice of divine service by ringing the bells a half hour beforehand. I consider this a proper and desirable custom. I think that a church is not perfect in its equipment with- out bells. They are sacred, historic and classic in all their 228 associations. My congregation value our bells very highly, would esteem it a loss to be deprived of them and have en- tertained the idea of erecting at some future time a new stone tower for their better accommodation. Noah Hunt Schenck. Sworn to before me, this twenty-fourth day of January, 1877. Martin Nichol, [seal] Notary Public, Kings County. Henry C. Potter, D. D., being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says v — I reside at 804 Broadway, New York. I am the rector of Grace Church, New York, and have been for eight years past. My church has a chime of nine bells, which were placed in the tower in the year 1873, and they have been used continu- ously ever since. They weigh thirteen thousand pounds. There are many residences in the vicinity. The bells are rung on Sunday for a quarter of an hour before the nine o'clock service, when there is one ; for half an hour before the services at 1 1 A. M., and about 4 P. M. ; also, on week- days for a quarter of an hour before all services. These ser- vices are for a portion of the year daily. The bells are also rung for about an hour at midnight on the eves of Christmas and New Year's days and in connection with other holidays. They are rung for weddings and funerals when requested. My residence adjoins the church, and is very near the church tower. The ringing of the bells has never disturbed me or any member of my family, nor awakened any of my children from sleep. I have never heard that the neighbors have been annoyed or disturbed by them in any way. The practice of ringing bells, as above recited, is in accord- ance with the usage and practice which govern the ringing of 229 chimes of bells in the Protestant Episcopal churches in this and neighboring cities. It was inaugurated in my church be- cause it was believed that the ringing of a chime of bells above the most thronged and crowded of American thorough- fares would be a means of recalling many, to whom such thoughts had, been unwonted, to thoughts of public worship and all that the church of God and its ministrations stand for. We believe and have had evidence that our bells have thus arrested the careless and aroused the heedless, and we believe them therefore to be a most useful and welcome agency in calling the attention of the multitude to the duty and privilege of Christian worship, and a means of inviting them to partici- pate in that worship. If the reasonable, customary, and time- honored ringing of church-bells should be prevented the church would be deprived not only of a right which has existed and been exercised for centuries, but of a most useful auxiliary to divine worship. Henry C. Potter, Rector of Grace Church. Sworn to before me, this twenty-fifth day of January, 1877. Wm. H. Falconer, [seal] Notary Public. Rev. T. F. Caskey, being duly sworn according to law, de- poses and says: — I reside at No. 257 West Third street, in the city of Williams- port, Pa. I am the rector of Trinity Church, and have been for the past four years. My church has a chime of nine bells, weighing in the aggregate fourteen thousand pounds. They were placed in the belfry in the year 1875, and have been in constant use ever since that date. They are chimed or rung or tolled for thirty-five minutes before the Sunday services at 10.30 A. M. and 7 P. M., and for ten minutes before each week-day service and daily during Lent. By connections with the clock in the tower a chime is rung every quarter hour during the day and night. I consider a chime of bells a 230 highly desirable addition to a church building. The loss of ours would be felt by my parishioners and others to be a serious injury. My church has many private residences in its immediate neighborhood, and upon the opposite corner to that on which my church stands is a large hotel, capable of accommodating from three to four hundred guests. I have never heard any complaint of the bells from any ohe. T. F. Caskey. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this twenty-fifth day of Januaiy, 1877. H. H. Blair, [seal] Protlionotary. Rev. Charles G. Gilliat, Ph. D., being duly sworn according to law, doth depose and say : — I reside at No. 408 Mahantongo street, in the borough of Pottsville. I am the rector of Trinity Church in said borough, and have been for nearly two years past. Trinity Church has a chime of nine bells, weighing in the aggregate nine thousand six hundred and seventeen pounds. They were placed in the belfry in June, 1874, and have been in constant use since that date. They are chimed, rung or tolled as follows, to wit : — The large bell, weighing two thousand four hundred and sixty-five pounds, is rung for fifteen minutes, and immediately followed by the ringing of the chimes for fifteen minutes, before morning and evening Sunday service, each ; and the same upon all the greater saints' days throughout the year. At Christmas, New Year's and Fourth of July the chimes are rung at midnight for half an hour or more. For ordinary week-day service twice a week throughout the year, daily through Advent, and twice a day through Lent, the large bell is rung for fifteen minutes previous to each service. The large bell is also rung for ten to fifteen minutes every Sunday morn- ing at nine o'clock, preparatory to morning service; and again for the same time, at half-past two o'clock, P. M., for Sunday-school service. I consider a chime of bells a highly 231 desirable addition to a church building. The loss of ours would be felt by my parishioners and others to be a serious injury. My church has private residences in its immediate neighborhood. Charles G. Gilliat. Sworn and subscribed before me, this twenty-sixth day of January, 1877. Christopher Little, [seal] Notary Public. Before me, a notary public within and for the county of Allegheny aforesaid, personally came Rev. William A. Hitch- cock, who, being duly sworn according to law, deposeth and saith that he resides at No. 138 Penn avenue, in the city of Pittsburg, Allegheny county, Pennsylvania; that he is the rector of Trinity Church, Pittsburg, and has been for the last two years; that the said church has a chime of bells, ten in number, and weighing in the aggregate twelve thousand six hundred and seven pounds. They were placed on the church building in the year A. D. l87i,and have been in constant use since that date. They are chimed or rung or tolled for thirty minutes before the Sunday service, at 10.30 A. M., 7.30 P. M., and for ten or fifteen minutes before each week-day service, This is, I believe, in accordance with the usage of the Protest- ant Episcopal Church in this country. I consider a chime of bells a highly desirable addition to a church build- ing. The loss of these would be felt by my parishioners and others to be a serious injury. My church has private resi- dences in its immediate neighborhood. William A. Hitchcock. Sworn and subscribed before me, January 24th, 1877. Wit- ness my hand and notarial seal. James A. McKean, [seal] Notary Public, 232 George Morgan Hills, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says: — I reside at No. 43 Broad street, in the city of Burlington, New Jersey. I am the rector of St. Mary's Church in said city, and have been so for upwards of six years just past. My church has a chime of eight bells, weighing in the aggregate about ten thousand pounds. They were placed in the belfry in the spring of the year 1866, and have been in constant use ever since that date. They are chimed or rung or tolled for twenty minutes before the Sunday services, at 10.30 A. M. and at 4 P. M., and for fifteen minutes before all week-day ser- vices, which are held at 9 A. M. and 5 P. M. each and every day throughout the year. This is in accordance with the usages of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. I consider a chime of bells a highly desirable addition to a church building. The loss of ours would be regarded by my parishioners and many others as a serious injury to themselves and the whole community. My church has private residences in its immediate neighborhood. Geo. Morgan Hills. Sworn and subscribed before me, at the city of Burlington, N. J., January 23d, A. D. 1877. Franklin Woolman, [seal] Notary Public. AFFIDAVITS OF RESIDENTS NEAR OTHER CHURCHES HAVING BELLS OR CHIMES. Joseph R. Evans, being duly affirmed, says: — I reside at No. 329 Pine street, Philadelphia, opposite St. Peter's Church. I own the house in which I reside. I form- erly resided next door, and have lived either in that house or my present residence ever since I was born. I have never been in any way disturbed by the bells of St. Peter's, nor has any member of my family. I am delighted to hear them. It 233 would be a great loss to the neighborhood if they were stop- ped. I am only too sorry that the bells are not rung as often as they used to be. They are now only chimed. I would give fifty dollars a year to have them rung. Joseph R. Evans. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this nineteenth day of January, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Mrs. Susanna E. Evans, being duly affirmed, says : — I reside at No. 329 Pine street, Philadelphia, opposite St. Peter's Church. I am of a very nervous temperament and very sensitive. I am not annoyed at all by the bells of St. Peter's ; on the contrary, I love dearly to hear them. I have lived at my present residence for thirteen years. I certainly would be very sorry if those bells were stopped. Susanna E. Evans. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this nineteenth day of January, A. D. 1 877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Salom Noblit, being duly affirmed, says : — I reside at No. 27 North Second street, Philadelphia, imme- diately opposite Christ Church. The bells of that church do not annoy me in any way ; on the contrary, I am delighted to hear them. My husband is a private watchman, and has to sleep during the day. I have a young child in my family. Neither my husband nor my child is disturbed in any way by the bells. They are never wakened from sleep by them. Mrs. Salom Noblit. 234 Affirmed and subscribed before mej this sixteenth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Sarah M. Brown, being duly affirmed, says: — I reside at No. 25 North Second street, Philadelphia, imme- diately opposite Christ Church. The bells of that church do not annoy me at all. I do not think any one ought to com- plain of them, except in cases of very serious illness. Sarah M. Brown. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this sixteenth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Mary D'l. Levick, being duly sworn, says : — I reside at No. 268 South Fourth, street, Philadelphia. The rear of our house is within about thirty feet from the St. Mary's bell. Our chambers open out to the rear toward the bell. The bell is rung every day at 6 A. M., 12 M. and 6 P. M., and on Sundays more frequently. We hear the bell very distinctly. It does not disturb us at all. On the con- trary, we rather like to hear it. If it were stopped we would miss it very much. We attend the Lutheran Church. Mary DT. Levick. Sworn and subscribed before me, this nineteenth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. 235 Miss Mulvina Franklin, being duly affirmed : — I reside at 266 South Fourth street. The room I occupy is not more than twenty feet from St. Mary's bell and the windows of some of my boarders are not over twelve feet from it. The bell does not annoy us at all. One of my boarders, whose window is nearest the bell, says. that she likes to hear it ring. The early bell does not awaken us from sleep. M. Franklin. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this nineteenth day of January, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. John Edmunds, being duly affirmed, says : — I am the librarian of the Mercantile Library, Tenth street, above Chestnut street, opposite St. Stephen's Church. The library is open every day from 9 A. M. until 10 P. M. The bells of St. Stephen's do not annoy me at all, nor any one employed at the library. I have never heard any one complain at the ringing, although the reading room is used by a large number of people. On Sunday afternoons when the bells are rung the reading room is generally full of readers. John Edmunds. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this nineteenth day of January, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. I, Gertrude E. Polemann, hereby depose as follows : — I live at 439 Girard avenue, directly opposite St. Peter's Roman Catholic Church, which is on the south-east corner of Fifth and Girard avenue. In the tower of this church they have four large bells, one or more of which are rung several times every day, and very frequently on Sundays and holy days. A bell rings every morning at five o'clock, at twelve 236 o'clock noon and in the evening about seven. Besides this, there is a large clock in the church-tower which strikes the hours and quarter-hours. The striking of the clock can be heard six or eight squares. When I have been away from home for some time the striking of the clock will interfere with my sleep for a night or two, but after that I do not notice it. When the hour is reached the bell strikes four times for the four quarters, and then, about half a minute after, strikes the hour, making at twelve o'clock, sixteen strokes. I never heard any one in the neighborhood complain of the bells as a nuisance. We find the clock a great convenience in the ay- ime. Gertrude E. Polemann. Sworn and subscribed before me, this sixteenth day of Jan- uary, 1877. ^ Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Before me, a duly commissioned and sworn notary public of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing in Philadelphia, personally appeared A. K. Minich, M. D., and J. W. Van Buskirk, M. D., known to me as reputable practicing physicians who, being duly sworn according to law, do depose and say, that their residences and practice lie in the immediate vicinity of St. Bonifacius' Roman Catholic Church, at Diamond and Mascher streets. Nineteenth Ward. That the chime of bells placed in the steeple of said church are rung at frequent inter- vals during each day; they each hear them; are not annoyed by their sound; have never had a complaint from a patient, neither have they heard others offer complaint of the sounds, which they consider rather as musical than otherwise. The chime referred to has been newly erected, and was rung for the first time just previous to Christmas, 1876. And further deponents say not. j ^^^ ^^^y.,^^, M. D., 2^01 North Second street. A. K. Minich, M. D., 2228 North Front street. 237 Sworn and subscribed to, this eighteenth day of January, A. D. 1877. J. Gordon Showaker, [seal] Notary Public. Patrick McManus, being duly sworn, says : — I reside at the south-east corner of Twentieth and Christian streets, Philadelphia. The house in which I live is immedi- ately opposite the Church of St. Charles Borromeo. The west wall of my house is about fifty feet from the east wall of the said church. The bell of the church is immediately over the north-east corner of the church building. The bell of the church is rung three times on each week-day and frequently on Sunday. It does not annoy me at all, and no member of my family complains of it. As a general thing the six o'clock bell, which is rung every morning, does not waken me from sleep, although my chamber window is immediately opposite the tower. Patrick McManus. Sworn and subscribed before me, this thirteenth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. John Moloney, being duly sworn, says : — I reside at the north-west corner of Twentieth and Christian streets, Philadelphia. I am immediately opposite the church of St. Charles Borromeo. I sleep in the second story of my house, and the windows of my room are about sixty feet from the bell. The bell does not annoy me at all. I like to hear it ring, especially on Sundays. John Moloney. Sworn and subscribed before me, this thirteenth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. ib.. 238 George J. Kilbride, being duly sworn, says : — - I reside at the north-east corner of Twentieth and Chris- tain streets, Philadelphia. I am a druggist. The bell of St. Charles Borromeo does not annoy me at all, nor any member of my family. It never wakens me from sleep when it rings at 6 A. M. I like to hear it ring very much. George J. Kilbride. Sworn and subscribed before me, this thirteenth day of January, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. AS TO ASSERTED CHANGE IN TIME OF RINGING, E. A. Hoffman, doctor of divinity, being duly sworn ac- cording to law, deposes and says : — I am the rector of St. Mark's Church, Philadelphia, and have been since the spring of 1 869. I have read the affidavits of George L. Harrison, MacGregor J. Mitcheson, Richard M. Cadwalader, Mary Read Fisher and Byerly Hart, contained in the bo6k of complainants' affidavits in the case of Harrison et al. vs. The Rector, Church-wardens and Vestry of St. Mark's Church. The statement of George L. Harrison, on page 48, that " the later moderation of the use, clangor and vibration of the bells" of St. Mark's, with the "prolonged stoppage" of the early Sunday morning bells, " have certainly relieved the dis- comfort and the suffering materially ;" The statement of MacGregor J. Mitcheson, on page 60, "it is proper to say, that since the filing of the bill in this cause the ringing has been very much modified;" The statement of Richard M. Cadwalader, on page 63, referring to "present changes in the periods of ringing since this bill has been filed;" 239 The statement of Mary Read Fisher, on page 84, "lately * * * and especially since the entire change in the manner and periods of ringing during the past two weeks, we have not been so much annoyed ;" And the statement of Byerly Hart, on page 91, "I think that since this suit has been commenced the bell-ringing is neither so violent, so rapid nor so continuous, * * '* which has been some relief to the neighborhood "; all imply- ing that there has been a change in the time and manner of ringing the bells during the last few weeks, are not correct. Neither the time nor the manner of chiming or tolling the bells for services in the church have been changed or modified since the bells were first used, with the exceptiori of discon- tinuing the chiming of the bells before the early Sunday morning services and intermitting it for a brief period in cases of severe sickness in thevicinity. The bells have been chimed by the same persons from the first. I can only account for the statements I have referred to. by the fact that the persons making them have either had their antipathy to the bells lessened unconsciously to themselves by becoming accustomed to their sound, so that their chiming is regarded by them as different or modified, or else when they came to weigh carefully the amount of annoyance to them, in order to state it in an afifidavit, they found it less than they had supposed. No application to me from any physician or other person on behalf of any specified case of illness has ever been treated otherwise than with respectful consideration, and every, such request for a cessation of the chiming, for a time, heretofore made, has been promptly granted. E.. A. Hoffman.' Sworn and subscribed before me, this third day of Febi'u- ary, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] ' ' 'Nota^''''Piiblic. ' ' i\ ,'7 i;; 240 Robert Moore, being duly affirmed according to law, says: — I reside in the school-buildings adjacent to St. Mark's Church. I am the sexton of St. Mark's Church and have chimed the bells for the daily morning and afternoon services, regularly, since last August to the present time. I have made no change in the time or method of chiming the bells for these daily services since I began chiming them in August last, nor have I received any instruction to make any change from the rector or any one else. I could not well make any mistake as to the time they are chimed, as there is a large clock in the bell-tower directly before my eyes. jy , , ■' , •' -^ Robert Moore. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this third day of Febru- ^'^' ^^77- Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Joseph Sherlock, being duly affirmed according to law, says : — I reside at 2129 Catharine street. I am employed to chime the bells of St. Mark's Church on Sundays, and have chimed them on Sundays ever since they were placed in the tower. I also chimed them for the daily services during July and August last. I have made no change in the time or manner of chiming the bells from the time I began chiming them to the present date, with the exception of having discontinued the chiming for the 7 A. M. service on Sundays since the first Sunday in November last, and when I have on two or three occasions intermitted chiming them in consequence of some case of sickness in the vicinity. With these exceptions I have not received instructions, from the rector or any one else, to make any change in the time or manner of chiming. Joseph Sherlock. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this third day of Febru- ary, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, £seal] Notary Public. COMPLAINANTS' REBUTTING AND SUPPLE- MENTAL AFFIDAVITS. AFFIDAVITS OF REV. DANIEL R. GOODWIN, D. D., LL. D., AND CLEMENT M. BUTLER, D. D. Daniel R. Goodwin, being duly sworn according to law, doth depose and say: — I am " Church of the Holy Trinity Professor of Systematic Divinity," in the Divinity School of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in Philadelphia, which position I have held since January, 1865. I have resided in Philadelphia since i860. I had before resided in Maine and Connecticut, and have been familiar with the Episcopal Church and its customs, as well as with other churches, not only in those States but in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. I officiated for some two years as the minister of St. Paul's Church, in Brunswick, Me., and for about a year at St. Luke's Church, Portland, Me. I had temporary charge of Christ Church, Hartford, Conn., about nine months; was rector of St. Gabriel's Church, Wind- sor, Conn., for six years, and was in temporary charge of St. Mark's Church (the defendants) for a period of eight months; this last, a connection which I have always remembered with great pleasure and with sentiments of sincere respect and affectionate esteem for the people of that church, so far as I made their acquaintance. I regard church-bells, especially in the country and country villages, as very desirable and useful appendages to church buildings. In the villages of New England they are often rung not only before the hours of church service, but at about 7 A. M., at 12 or I P. M. and at 9 P. M. ; but in these latter (241) 242 cases as a matter of public convenience, not by the church authorities or at their expense, but by the wish and at the expense of the municipal authorities or of the citizens. The neighbors used to desire the bells to be rung for their conve- nience, as, in the country, they usually breakfast at about seven, dine at noon or one o'clock, and retire to rest at nine, — when the bell-ringing was their curfew. I have not been accustomed to regard the ringing of bells as in any sense a part or parcel of Christian worship. The primitive church flourished through the whole period of its purity without the use of bells or chimes. They were intro- duced in the Middle Ages, and though connected with abuses, like many other things in those times, they had their use in reminding men of the fact and the hours of public prayers, — a use the more important when none had watches in their pockets and few had clocks at their homes. Under such cir- cumstances, the bells acquired, of course, pleasing and sacred associations. They were connected with thoughts of religion, and not with discomforts and annoyances and shattered nerves. But now the state of things is changed. Often our city churches, instead of standing in great open squares and being raised high above all other buildings, like the old cathedrals, are crowded thick around by lofty buildings. And not only so, but almost everybody has easy access to some timekeeper and needs no church-bell, or at least nothing more than the striking of a church-clock, to remind him of the hours of prayer. Thus, the ringing of church-bells has, in cities, become comparatively useless, and at the same time, under certain circumstances, a source of immensely increased inconvenience. It has little left to recommend it but a beautiful sentiment, and the echo of old and hallowed associations. I do not think these are to be thrust aside with contempt. Far from it. They are, in themselves, respectable, venerable and elevating. I would by all means have them left undisturbed when the enjoyment of them can do no practical harm, and, perhaps, where they have the right of prescription, of long and ancient 243 usage. In this latter case, the inconvenience that may result to others may be considered as assumed rather than im- posed. But, speaking not only as a moral man and a citizen, but as a religious man and a Christian, it would be my judg- ment that the gratification of no man's mere sentiment, how- ever beautiful and pleasing — of no man's mere associations, however hallowed and sacred and religious, should be allowed to weigh for one moment against great practical inconvenience to others, whether public or private — against the destruction or great depreciation of men's estates, or against real and extreme discomfort and annoyance to the daily lives of large numbers, not to speak of depressing the health and shortening the lives of many invalids in various degrees of nervous exhaustion and irritability. A real interest and practical advantage, whether private or public, may be set against various degrees of inconvenience and annoyance to other parties ; but mere sentimental and casual associations, however elevated their character, can have no weight whatever in such a scale. I should regard it as highly injurious to the Christian re- ligion if it should come to be associated with the greatest discomfort and nuisance of our daily civil life. Daniel R. Goodwin. Sworn and subscribed before me, this eighth day of Febru- ary, A. D. 1877. Joseph Mellors, [seal] Notary Public. I have been for several years " Mary Wolfe Professor of Ecclesiastical History," in the Divinity School of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in West Philadelphia, and during a ministry of forty years I have had charge of several churches, and having carefully read the deposition of Rev. Daniel R. Good- win, I fully concur in the opinions which it contains. C. M. Butler. 244 Sworn to and subscribed, this eighth d^y of February, A. D. 1877, before me. Joseph Mellors, [seal] Notary Public. AFFIDAVITS OF NEAR RESIDENTS. Henry C. Lea, being duly affirmed, deposes and says : — I am the son of Isaac Lea, one of the complainants in this suit. The said Isaac Lea was absent from Philadelphia dur- ing the whole of last summer until the end of September, and again left the city early in November for California, where he is now spending the winter. During the period in which he was thus at home I repeatedly heard him complain of the annoyance inflicted on the neighborhood by the bells of St. Mark's. At the time of his departure he hoped that the authorities of the church would listen to the remonstrance in which he joined, and when that failed to procure relief, and legal proceedings became necessary, he authorized me to have his name included among the complainants. In his correspondence he has repeatedly alluded to the matter, manifesting very great interest in it, and expressing the hope that it would be pressed " to the limit of the law." It so happened that personally I heard the bells but once in his house during his stay in the city, but on that occasion they made an impression that I shall not soon forget. The sudden crash coming while I was engaged in conversation with my father and sister was most startling. It reverberated through the rooms, and while it lasted rendered conversation difficult if not impossible. From this single experience I would hold that the value of property in the neighborhood must be most seriously impaired by a continuance of the infliction. No pecuniary inducement would tempt me to subject myself and my family to the insufferable annoyance it would cause, if it is to be perpetuated. The absolute suffering would be unrelieved by feeling that the torment 245 thus endured was of the slightest benefit, mental, moral or physical, to any human being, and would be aggravated by the reflection that it was wantonly inflicted to gratify a dis- eased vanity which approaches unsoundness of mind. Arguing from my own convictions, I should say that no one who can afford to enjoy the comforts of home life could knowingly be tempted to purchase or rent a residence within the afflicted district, and that, therefore, when the present occupants are driven away, the difficulty of finding successors will cause a very material decline in values. At my own residence, at the south-west corner of Walnut and Twentieth, only about three squares and a half in a direct line from St. Mark's Church, I have heard the bells but once, and then but faintly. This shows how completely the insuffi- cient altitude of the peal confines the sounds within a limited region in which they are intensified by multiplied reverbera- tion. Henry C. Lea. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this seventh day of February, A. D. 1877. Edward S. Harlan, [seal] Notary Public. George H. Lea, being duly sworn, says : — Last fall I lived with my grandfather, Mr. Isaac Lea, at his house, No. 1622 Locust street, and during that period I occu- pied the third-story front room. In the latter part of Sep- tember and the first part of October I was confined to it by an attack of diphtheria, during which time I suffered continual agony from the din and clatter of St. Mark's so-called chime of bells. No music was produced by them, — nothing but a continuous, unmeaning jangle, and, as my room was so near the church, they sounded as though each bell was struck directly beside my ears. Rest during the day was simply out of the question, as my nervous system was kept at its utmost 246 tension, hourly expecting the hideous noise to recommence. I experienced always a sensation of intense relief when once the clangor ceased, but only to change it in a short time for a feeling of the utmost nervous dread and expectation. Dr. Da Costa attended me during my illness, and I frequently complained to him of the suffering the bells caused me. I have known those bells to be rung for three-quarters of an hour at a time at some times of ringing, having "timed" them by the clock. The efforts of a professedly Christian church to maintain its right to intensify the mental and physical sufferings of a sick man, must be an edifying spectacle to the world that it professes to convert. I have frequently heard my grandfather, Isaac Lea, and my aunt, Frances Lea, com- plain that their rest was disturbed on Sunday mornings, and in the afternoons, daily, by the unmusical jangle of these bells, and my grandfather has on several occasions said within my hearing that he was extremely anxious to have the bells stopped. George H. Lea. Sworn and subscribed to before me, this seventh day of February, 1877. John Devlin, [seal] Magistrate. George L. Harrison, Jr., being duly affirmed, says : — I was one of the complainants in the petition of last Novem- ber to St. Mark's Church, to stop the early morning bells, and to reduce the ringing at other times. I live at No. 1704 Locust street and own that property. The frequent, loud and un- musical sounds proceeding from St. Mark's bells have dis- turbed myself and family ever since they were established. In the temperate weather, with open windows, they have been and will continue to be a source of the utmost annoyance. I am confident that the effect upon the value of property in the 247 neighborhood of the church is injurious, as lessening the number of bidders in case a sale was desired. Geo. L. Harrison, Jr. Affirmed and subscribed, February 6th, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. "We, the undersigned, executors of Joseph Harrison, Jr., deceased, being respectively , say, that we have charge of the real estate of the decedent, comprising, among other properties, the entire block of ground extending from Locust street to Chancellor street and from Seventeenth to Eighteenth street, including the row of dwellings upon the north side of Locust street. " The families of the gentlemen leasing this row of houses from the estate have been very much disturbed by the bells of St. Mark's Church, and one or more of them spoke of re- moving in consequence thereof " From what we have heard of the ringing of these bells, we are quite satisfied of the annoyance it has caused. " The Rev. Dr. Hoffman has been informed of this annoy- ance and discomfort to our tenants by one of the executors." The undersigned, being duly sworn, say: — The above affidavit was presented for signature to two executors of the estate of Joseph Harrison, Jr., deceased. Mr. S. B. Poulterer admitted that the bell-ringing had been complained of by some of the tenants, and said that if the property were^his own he would sign this affidavit, but as he stood in the relation of an executor only, he thought it better policy to withhold his signature. Mr. James L. Claghorn, the other executor, said that several tenants had complained to him of St. Mark's bells, and he hoped the result of the 248 present legal proceedings would be to stop the ringing. He would sign this affidavit in connection with Mr.' Poulterer, but did not wish to act alone in the matter. H. M. Howe, Wm. H. Myers. Sworn and subscribed before me, this first day of February, 1877. Edward S. Harlan, [seal] Notary Public. Upon this thirtieth day of January, A. D. 1877, before me, personally appeared Mary Bayard, of the city of Philadelphia, widow of James Bayard, Esq., who, being by me duly affirnied, doth depose and say, that she is the owner and occupant of dwelling-house known as No. 1612 Locust street, in the said city, and hath resided there for eleven years last past, or thereabout ; that the said dwelling is situate opposite to the edifice known as the Protestant Episcopal St. Mark's Church ; that the noises made by the ringing of the bells of said church have greatly annoyed a relative of deponent who resides with her ; that she believes that the frequent and stated use of said bells will lessen the market value of the said dwelling, and that if now looking for another residence deponent would be unwilling to buy or occupy a house in the near vicinity of said church, as she verily believes that in cases of sickness in such neighborhood the sounds of said bells would be very annoying and probably injurious to the sick. Mary Bayard. Affirmed and subscribed before me, the day and year aforesaid. P. O'DONNELL, [seal] Notary Public. 249 City and County of Philadelphia, ss. On the thirtieth day of January, A. D. 1877, before me, the subscriber, a notary public in and for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing in the said city, personally appeared Jacob Carver, of the said city, conveyancer, who, being duly affirmed according to law, doth affirm and say : — I reside at No. 1627 Locust street, adjoining St. Mark's Episcopal Church in said city. Four bells have recently been placed in the tower of said church, the frequent " ringing and clangor" of which is not only intensely annoying, but preju- dicial to repose and, consequently, to health. In conditions of decided indisposition their noise is intolerable. I have reason, also, to believe that the effect of the vibration caused by the ringing said bells has been and will be to injure the properties .in proximity to said church, thereby depreciating their'value. Jacob Carver. Affirmed and subscribed before me, the day and year afore- said. Charles Carver, [seal] Notary Public. Walter E. Penrose, being duly sworn, says : — I live at No. 1624 Walnut street, and am familiar with the noise caused by the bells of St. Mark's Church. Some- times the ringing makes the rooms in the back of our house uninhabitable. They disturb our rest, and have often seriously interfered with conversation. The ringing of these bells has been a source of constant and serious annoyance to the entire family. Walter E. Penrose. Sworn and subscribed before me, this sixth day of Feb- ruary, A. D. 1877. Wm. H. Myers, •[seal] Notary Public. 250 George W. Harris, being duly affirmed, says : — I reside at No. 17 15 Locust street, in one of the houses belonging to the estate of the late Joseph Harrison, Jr. I am familiar with the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church ever since their establishment in the church last summer. I observe a decided moderation of sound in their use latterly. In the summer and fall the noise produced by them was much greater.- I consider the early, viz., the 6^ A. M., bell to have been particularly objectionable, and the immoderate use of them, which was practiced at one time, disturbing to the neighborhood. I believe, also, that it will have a depreciating influence upon the value of the real estate in the immediate neigborhood if not restrained. Geo. W. Harris. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this ninth day of February, A. D. 1877. Wm. H. Myers, [seal] Notary Public. Septimus E. Norris, of the city and county of Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania, being duly sworn, doth depose and say: — That he resides at 1708 Locust street, which is within a square of St. Mark's Church, and is very much annoyed by the clashing of the bells of said church. That he finds said bells particularly disagreeable in the early morning, and con- siders them very objectionable to the neighborhood. Septimus E. Norris. Sworn to before me, this ninth day of February, 1877. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, 251 Miss Frances Lea, affirms : — I have been living twenty-three years at 1622 Locust street. The great recommendation in selecting the neighborhood by my father as a place of residence was its quietness. This has been effectually destroyed by the placing of the bells in St. Mark's Church. To those living as near as ourselves they are a daily torture, especially, as has been fully experienced, in a time of sickness. Being hung so low, the vibration of the air which they produce through the house is almost as much a cause of suffering as the sound itself During the ringing of the bells conversation is precluded, even in the back part of the house, while it is almost an impossibility to remain in any room in the front. ' Frances Lea. State of California, 1 >ss. County of Santa Barbara, J Affirmed before me and subscribed to in my presence, this thirty-first day of January, A. D. 1877. H. Stoddard, [seal] Notary Public. E. Franssen, being duly sworn, says : — I reside at No. 1506 Locust street, Philadelphia. I have, among many others, been disturbed by the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church. The immoderate and frequent ringing has made home uncomfortable, and must, in case of sickness more especially, be very distracting. I consider the use of these bells, as it has been practiced, injurious to the value of property and hope it will be discontinued. E. Franssen. Sworn and subscribed before me, this seventh day of Feb- ruary, 1877. Wm. H. Myers, [seal] Notary Public. 252 Mary D. Biddle, being duly aiifirmed, says : — I reside at No. 1623 Walnut street and own the property. At this season of the year the bells of St. Mark's Church do not cause us much annoyance. In the mild weather, how- ever, the noise will be annoying, principally because the bells are so harsh and unmusical. In cases of illness then the constant and prolonged ringing would produce much irrita- tion and discomfort. I am very familiar with the immediate neighborhood, and know that it is an intolerable nuisance to those living on Locust street between Sixteenth and Seven- teenth streets. In the spring, summer and autumn they will suffer greatly, and I deeply sympathize with them. Property must be greatly depreciated. Nothing would induce me to live there. Mary D. Biddle. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this seventh day of February, 1877. Wm. H. Myers, [seal] Notary Public. Thomas H. Powers, being duly affirmed, says : — I reside at No. 161 8 Walnut street. Am familiar with the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church and consider the noise and vibration which result from it as not only very objectionable but disagreeable. This did not exist when I purchased the property. My reason for not having made an earlier affidavit is that I am a member of a Reformed Episco- pal church, and, therefore, any opposition on my part was liable to be misunderstood. Thomas H. Powers. Affirmed to and subscribed before me, this ninth day of February, 1877. John Rodgers, [seal] Notary Public. 253 . Horace Fassitt, 1630 Locust street, being duly sworn, saith : — I own this property and am decidedly averse to the bells of St. Mark's Church. They are a positive nuisance, to my fancy. The modification in the mode of ringing the bells since suit brought has been a subject of remark. There are occasional rests and the bells are not so heavily struck. They are still harsh, discordant and rung out of all reason. Horace Fassitt. Sworn to and subscribed, this ninth day of February, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. Charles H. Hutchinson, 1703 Locust street, being duly sworn, saith : — The bells' of St. Mark's Church are a positive nuisance. They are rung too often and too long. They are discordant and harsh. I consider them abominable, and think they ought to be suppressed. C. H. Hutchinson. Sworn to and subscribed, February 9th, 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. John A. Lewis, No. 250 South Sixteenth street, being duly affirmed, saith : — I own this house, and desire to say that my family has been very much distressed by the bells of St. Mark's Church. They are an unqualified nuisance, and have been so ever since they were put up. • John A. Lewis. 254 Affirmed and subscribed, this ninth day of Febr,uary, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. Mrs. R. W. Hansell, No. 254 South Sixteenth street, being duly affirmed, saith : — The bells of St. Mark's Church are a positive distress to myself and family. The noise of them comes rushing into the house in a most painful manner. I have noticed the change in the mode of ringing the bells during the last few weeks. They have been modified. They are nevertheless a decided nuisance. In winter they are not so annoying as in summer ; but when I have a headache — to which I am subject — it is impossible for me to sleep while they ring, and I could not occupy a back room of my house. R. W. Hansell. Affirmed and subscribed this ninth day of February, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. F. C. McCauley, being duly sworn, says : — I live in the near vicinity of St. Mark's Church, at 1707 Locust street, and have heard the bells rung since last June. They are, in my judgment and to my experience, a great nuisance, and disturb the neighborhood with useless noises. In summer the discomfort will be, of course, infinitely greater. I consider that they will cause the real estate in the neigh- borhood greatly to depreciate, if they are not restrained. F. C. McCauley. 2S5 Sworn to and subscribed, this sixth day of February, A. D. 1877. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. John Wyeth, No. 1511 Locust street, being duly sworn, saith : — The bells of St. Mark's Church have proven a very great annoyance to my family ; two members of which, having been confined to their rooms by sickness, for three or four months, respectively, suffered very seriously from the constant and long ringing. Within the last few weeks, the ringing has not been so frequent or so long continued. In my judgment, the continuance of the ringing will prove a serious injury to the value of property in the neighborhood. To me, it would be an insuperable objection to the purchase of property in the vicinity. John Wyeth. x Sworn to and subscribed, February 6th, 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. P. H. Brice, being duly sworn, says : — I reside at No. 161 3 Spruce street. Even at this date the bells of St. Mark's Church are a nuisance, and I*am anxiously hoping that they will be stopped. P. H. Brice. Sworn and subscribed before me, this sixth day of Febru- ary, 1877. Henry Polsz, [seal] Notary Public. 2S6 William Dulles, being duly sworn, says : — I reside at No. 262 South Sixteenth street, and own the property. At this distance from the bells of St. Mark's Church, when the windows are down and the early morning bell has been suspended, they have not been so great a nui- sance, but they do annoy me and my family. When the windows are up in the mild weather and in summer they will be an intolerable nuisance. William Dulles. Sworn and subscribed before me, this sixth day of Febru- ary, 1877. Philip A. Cregar, [seal] Notary Public. Joseph F. Edwards, M. D., No. 260 South Sixteenth street,, being duly sworn, saith : — My family has suffered very much from the loud, discord- ant and protracted ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church.. I am anxious that the nuisance should be suppressed. Joseph F. Edwards. Sworn to and subscribed, February 6th, 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner^ William J. Cahoone, No. 225 South Seventeenth street,, being duly sworn, saith : — I consider the bells of St. Mark's Church a nuisance. They ring every day twice, and three times on Sunday. They are discordant, harsh and noisy. The noise rushes down into the back part of the house in a very horrible manner. I look forward with dread to the ringing next summer, unless the bells are meanwhile suppressed or regulated as to- 257 the length of time and number of times that they are to be rung so as to be no longer a nuisance. I sympathize with the complainants in this bill, and earnestly hope their prayer will be granted. W. J. Cahoone. Sworn to and subscribed, this seventh day of February, A. D. 1877, before me. MagGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. J. Lowrie Bell, No. 255 South Sixteenth street, being duly sworn, saith : — St. Mark's Church bells were a great nuisance to my family during last summer. They were a positive distress to my wife. They are less offensive now, as the windows are down ; but I wish that they were suppressed, and am in entire sym- pathy with the complainants. The bells are very discordant and disturbing. This house belongs to me legally. I hold it in trust. J. LowRiE Bell. Sworn to and subscribed, February 7th, 1877, before me. MacGregor J. Mitciieson, Commissioner. Abraham C. W. Beecher, M. D., No. 225 South Seventeenth street, being duly sworn, saith : — The bell-ringing of St. Mark's Church is and has always been a most decided nuisance, interfering with me when at work, and now and again disturbing my rest. They seriously interfere with my professional work. The bells are harsh, loud, discordant and disagreeable, and rung out of all reason. Of late, say within the past few weeks, 258 the bell-ringer has modified the ringing of the bells and makes repeated efforts to suggest a tune out of the four bells; but he has in no case succeeded, it only makes the noise more disagreeable on that account. Still the bells are less noisy and less rapidly rung than they used to be. In summer, when one's windows are up, the noise is simply intolerable. I wholly sympathize with the complaint filed in this case and desire its success. A. C. W. Beecher. Sworn to and subscribed, this seventh day of February, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Com missioner. R. Shelton MacKenzie, LL. D., 17 12 Locust street, being duly sworn, saith : — The bells of St. Mark's Church are hung too low, — are harsh, discordant and rung far too long and too frequently. From my experience of them, they must be a distressing nuisance to those living opposite to them. R. Shelton Mackenzie. Sworn to and subscribed, this eighth day of February, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. Albert D. Fell, being duly sworn, says : — I live at No. 1523 Locust street. The bells established in June last in St. Mark's Church are familiar to me by the disturbing noise which they have made in my place of residence. They have been in use since last June, and 259 continue to annoy me. The 6^ A. M. bell was excessively obnoxious, breaking one's sleep at an unseasonable hour. Although this has been discontinued, I have reason to believe that it is only temporarily. I dread the approach of the mild weather when the open windows will let in the full force of the clangor of the bells. Albert D. Fell. Sworn to and subscribed before me, this eighth day of February, 1877. John Rodgers, Notary Public. Joseph H. Trotter, No. 255 South Seventeenth street, being duly affirmed, saith : — I own this property, and my family has been much annoyed by the bells of St. Mark's Church, which both I and they con- sider to be an utter nuisance. They are harsh, loud, discordant, rung too long and too frequently. They have been modified somewhat during the last few weeks, which has been a sub- ject of remark in my household. They are, nevertheless, a nuisance. Joseph H. Trotter. Affirmed and subscribed, this eighth day of February, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. William V. Keating, M. D., No. 1604 Locust street, being duly sworn, saith : — I am decidedly of the opinion that the bells of St. Mark's, rung as they were last summer and fall, were completely sub- versive of the peace and comfort of the neighborhood, and would in many cases militate seriously against the recovery of 26o invalids. • The bell-ringing last summer and fall was a serious nuisance. I am also convinced that there has been an im- portant modification in the ringing of the aforesaid bells within the last month, and believe it to be the duty of the vestry- men of the church to have these bells rung so as to promote peace, comfort and harmony in our neighborhood, and not to ignore the claims of Christian courtesy, charity and personal rights. William V. Keating, M. D. Sworn to and subscribed, February 8th, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissio7ter. William H. Jackson, being duly sworn, says: — I reside at No. 1523 Locust street, in the city of Philadel- phia. I have been much annoyed by the ringing of the bells which were put up last summer in St. Mark's Church. I con- sider them a nuisance, and that the discomfort they cause to the neighborhood far outweighs any gratification which the remoter attendants of St. Mark's Church may receive or fancy to receive from the noise of the bells. The neighbor- hood of St. Mark's Church is very closely built up, and there is no vacant space for the dispersion of sound and vibration. It is driven in upon the ears of those who live in that vicinity, and the effects of this disturbance is to be dreaded in case of sickness. The 6^ A. M. bell, temporarily discontinued, was an invasion of one's home-rights which few could have sup- posed a religious body would have perpetrated. In the short days of the year this ringing was done before daylight, and created the utmost annoyance. In summer the distress was and must continue to be intolerable, if the bells are not restrained. Wm. H. Jackson. 26l Sworn to and subscribed before me, this eighth day of Feb- ruary, 1877. John Rodgers, Notary Public. J. F. Portuondo, being duly sworn, says : — I am a tobacconist, and live at the south-west corner of Seventeenth and Locust streets. I am acquainted with the ringing of St. Mark's Church bells. They have moderated their use of late, but the early morning bell, when it was used, was very distressing to my nerves, and I was disturbed by the too much ringing. I do not mind them as they are rung now, but in summer I should be much annoyed. J. F. Portuondo. Sworn to and subscribed, February 6th, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Co7nmissioner. Julius C. Portuondo, being duly sworn, saith : — I live at south-west corner of Seventeenth and Locust streets. The ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church is very noticeably moderated from what it used to be. It cer- tainly has been so. It is softer. As rung last summer and fall, it was a very great nuisance. I would much rather that they were stopped altogether. J. C. Portuondo. Sworn to and subscribed, February 6th, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. 262 J. T. Biles, being duly affirmed, says : — I am a carpenter, and live at 336 South Sixteenth street. My shop is in Vaughn street, above Locust street. I know about the bells of St. Mark's Church, and from my own experience of their long and constant and early ringing, I can and do sympathize entirely with the neighbors in their complaints. I am of the opinion that in such a closely-built-up neighbor- hood, the loud noises produced by the bells must be seriously disturbing, and make the neighborhood undesirable for residences. J. T. Biles. Affirmed and subscribed to, February 6th, 1877, before me, MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. I entirely corroborate the affidavit of my partner. T. McClellan. Affirmed and subscribed, February 6th, 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. John L. Bass, being duly sworn, says : — I reside in Vaughn street, and distinctly hear the bells of St. Mark's Church when they are rung. My house faces the church, and the noise is driven directly into my house. It is a terrible nuisance ta myself and family at all times The bells rung at six and three-quarters o'clock in the morning as they used to be, and as I understand will be resumed, if not restrained by the court, were intensely annoying, distur- bing the sleep which we had a right to enjoy, and causing much discontent and irritation. John L. Bass. 263 Sworn to and subscribed, February 8th, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. EXPLANATORY AFFIDAVITS OF WITNESSES FOR DEFENDANTS. Right Reverend William Bacon Stevens, D. D., LL. D., being duly aiBrmed, says : — I clearlyand distinctlydeclare thatthe first partofmyaffidavit of the 24th of January, 1877, was given solely in reference to my personal annoyance from the ringing of the bells, which, I stated, I did not feel by reason of the situation of my resi- dence, having houses between it and St. Mark's, which broke the sound. I have frequently felt and said that the early morning bell, viz., at a quarter before seven, ought not to be rung, and that the bells at other times ought not to be rung as long as they now are, because I believe that in both cases they cause distress and suffering to many persons more directly under the sound of the bells than I was. Wm. Bacon Stevens. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this eighth day of February, 1877. Witness my hand and notarial seal. Lewis H. Redner, [seal] Notary Public. Richard E. Clay, being duly affirmed, says : — On January 13th, 1877, I made affidavit as follows, at the request of Dr. Hoffman and Mr. Fuller, defendants in the case of Harrison and others against St. Mark's Church : — "I live at 257 South Seventeenth street. Have lived there about six years. Neither I nor any of my family are annoyed 264 by the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church. I should be glad to see the chimes completed." Since making the above affidavit, I have seen the affidavits made by parties residing nearer St. Mark's Church, and also the affidavits of experts in the real estate business, and I now declare that I should not be willing to reside under a more direct influence of the bells of the said church, and am satis- fied that under such circumstances myself and family would suffer great annoyance from the immoderate use of the bells, producing so great noise and vibration, and can understand how families so situated suffer from the same. I am of opinion, also, that the practice referred to will have the effect, if continued, of depreciating the value of real estate in the neighborhood of the church. Richard E. Clay. Affirmed and subscribed, this seventh day of February, A. D. 1877, before me. Joseph Mellors, « [seal] Notary Public, Samuel Bell, being duly sworn, says : — On January i6th, 1877, 1 gave the following affidavit in the case of Harrison et al. vs. St. Mark's Church, viz. : — " I reside at No. 268 South Sixteenth street, Philadelphia. The bells of St. Mark's Church do not annoy me in any way whatever." In making the above affidavit, I did so only as an expression of the extent to which I was individually affected, and did not intend to convey the impression that others would not be dis- turbed by the noise and vibration of the bells, or that persons living more directly under their influence, or persons in 265 delicate health, would not be greatly annoyed by the ringing of the bells. Samuel Bell. Sworn to and subscribed, this seventh day of February, A. D. 1877, before me. Joseph Mellors, [seal] Notaiy Public. H. P. Smith, being duly sworn, says : — I made an affidavit in the case of Harrison and others against St. Mark's Church, on January i6th, 1877, as follows: — " I resided, until the gth of December last, at 260 South Six- teenth street, Philadelphia. The bells of St. Mark's Church did not annoy me at all, on the contrary, I rather liked to hear them." I now state that I should be unwilling to reside opposite to the church, or in a locality where the noise and vibration from the bells were directly forced upon my attention and expe- rience, and that I am quite clear in the conviction that under such circumstances the bells would be a nuisance. My house was far enough off from the bells to deaden the sound very materially. H. P. Smith. Sworn and subscribed, this seventh day of February, A. D. 1877, before me. Joseph Mellors, [seal] Notary Public. George C. Carson, being duly affirmed, says : — I reside at north-east corner of Sixteenth and Spruce streets, and can readily understand how persons living in the more 266 immediate neighborhood of the church are annoyed by the ringing of St. Mark's bells, especially the delicate and in times of sickness. Geo. C. Carson. Affirmed to and subscribed, this seventh day of February, A. D. 1877, before me. Joseph Mellors, [seal] Notary Public. Sussex D. Davis, being duly sworn, says : — I wrote this letter to Mr. Cadwalader : — 213 South Sixth Street, February 9th, 1 877. My Dear Mr. Cadwalader: — Yours of this date received, in which you ask me whether I approved of the "bells of St. Mark's Church," or whether I meant in my affidavit that I lived sufficiently far off to escape the annoyance. In reply I would say that I live too far away for them to annoy me, but can readily understand how they can annoy those who live in the neighborhood. Yours, truly, Sussex D. Davis. Sworn and subscribed before me, this eighth day of Febru- ary, 1877. William H. Myers, [seal] Notary Public. Charles Franklin, 1632 Latimer street, affirmed: — I desire to supplement the affidavit to Rev. Dr. Hoffman, by the qualification expressed in Mr. Samuel Bell's second affidavit (February 7th). My wife concurs with me in this. I wish to add, also, that for some weeks past the style of 267 ringing has been very perceptibly modified. It has been softened. Instead of the straight, hard ringing for half an hour at a time, there are rests in it, and an apparent attempt to give the outline of one or more tnnes. Charles Franklin. Affirmed and subscribed, February 9th, 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. Cornelius Stevenson, being duly affirmed, says : — I gave, on 19th January, an affidavit to defendants, in case of Harrison et al. vs. St. Mark's Church, in the following words : — " I live at No. 1702 Locust street. Have lived there about three months. I, personally, have not been annoyed by the ringing of St. Mark's bells." Since making the above affidavit I have read the affidavits of other neighbors of St. Mark's Church and of experts in the real estate business, and now express the belief that the practice of ringing the bells, if continued, will have the effect of depreciating the value of real estate in the immediate vicinity of the church. At the time of making the above affidavit I understood that the early morning bells had been permanently stopped. Cornelius Stevenson. Affirmed and subscribed to before me, this 9th of February, A. D. 1877. Joseph Mellors, [seal] Notary Public. 268 AS TO MODERATION OF TIME OF RINGING SINCE FILING OF BILL. I. Minis Hays, being duly affirmed, says : — I have read the affidavits of George L. Harrison, MacGregor J. Mitcheson, Richard M. Cadwalader, Mary Read Fisher and Byerly Hart, contained in the book of complainants' affidavits, and declare that the statements therein made, implying that there has been a change in the manner of ringing the bells during the last few weeks, are correct, as is shown by the following statement :— Between the first day of October and the first day of De- cember, 1876, I frequently and at various times counted the number of strokes to the minute of the St. Mark's bells. I found that at these times they often reached as high as ninety- four or ninety-six and they never fell below seventy-eight to the minute, and by far the larger proportion of strokes were over eighty-six to the minute. Since the filing of the bill of the complainants in this cause the diminution in the frequency of the strokes and in their loudness has been a matter of notoriety among th^neighbors. On the only Sunday in January last on which I carefully counted the strokes, they averaged about fifty-five to the minute. On Sunday morning last, the fourth day of Febru- ary, I counted the strokes for nineteen minutes and found that they ranged from forty-five to sixty-five to the minute, and averaged fifty-six strokes. So that taking the maximum number of strokes (ninety-six), frequently noted between October ist and December ist, and comparing it with the maximum number (sixty-five), on the 4th of February, I find a diminution in number of almost exactly one-third; and in comparing the minimum numbers (seventy-eight and forty-five) in the same way the diminution appears still greater. The diminution in the number of strokes per minute is produced by prolonging the intervals between the peals as well as between the strokes. Moreover, I believe that since the diminution of the 269 number of strokes to the minute there has also been a dimi- nution in the violence with which the bells have been struck; but not possessing any other means than the sense of hearing of measuring the loudness of the sound at various times, I am unable to demonstrate this. I have read the affidavit in this cause made under date of February 3d, by E. A. Hoffman, doctor of divinity, and rector of St. Mark's Church, in which he says that " neither the time nor the manner of tolling the bells for services in the church has been changed or modified since the bells were first used." I can only account for this incorrect statement by the fact that the rectory has been judiciously located on the south side of Spruce street, between Sixteenth and Seventeenth streets, and that there, according to the affidavit of the rector, made on the twenty-ninth day of January, the chiming is so indistinct that it " is not usually heard, unless a person is listening for it." I. Minis Hays. Affirmed to and subscribed, this eighth day of February, A. D. 1877, before me. Joseph Mellors, [seal] Notary Public. Herbert M. Howe, M. D., being duly sworn, says : — I have read the affidavit of the Rev. E. A. Hoffman, rector of St. Mark's Church, stating that there has been no change in the time or manner of ringing or chiming the bells since last June. This statement, I am prepared to say, is incorrect. I have timed and counted the strokes on many occasions since my return to the city last September, and while they were generally over eighty, and sometimes nearer one hundred, in the minute, during the autumn, they have within the past few weeks averaged very much lower. I have counted them by the watch recently, and have found them to average from forty to sixty strokes per minute. I would have kept careful records of the countings, if I had 270 imagined that such data could ever have been needed. My first motive in counting was my curiosity to know how many times the bells could be hammered in a given period, as at one time it seemed as if the chimer was trying to make the highest possible score. Upon my return to the city, in the middle of January, after a two weeks' absence, I was espe- cially struck with the more moderate manner of ringing the bells, and then made the count of strokes again, for the pur- pose of comparison. There has been quite as much difference made in the in- tensity of the strokes on the bells as in the number of them. I frequently spoke of it as having somewhat the same effect as if St. Mark's had been moved about a square further dis- tant. The degree of noise, of course, I have not been able to measure, but except it can be shown that the bells or some- thing else, has so entirely perverted my hearing that I could not discriminate between the report of a small howitzer and a huge columbiad, there is no question as to the strictest accuracy of my statement. I may add that every occupant of my house, including servants, and friends who have occasion- ally stayed with me, have commented upon the same change. The visitors certainly had not become used to the chiming. The effort which has been made to improve the ringing has of itself made a "change." If one may judge from the ring- ing, the operator at first was a novice, who made nothing but noise, and the recent futile attempts at tunes (made futile by less than an octave of notes to deal with) shows a change in " the manner of chiming or tolling the bells " which perhaps can be better noted by those who have the full music (?) of them than by one in whose " residence their chiming is not usually heard unless a person is listening for it." This statement of Dr. Hoffman is suggestive, for it cannot be supposed that the sound coming from a bell weighing more than a ton would not travel a distance of about one hundred and seventy yards with great distinctness, were it not obstructed and absorbed by intervening buildings. H. M. Howe. 2/1 Sworn and subscribed before me, this eighth day of Febru- ary, A. D. 1877. William H. Myers, [seal] Notary Public. James Bond, No. 1608 Locust street, being duly sworn, saith : — I occupy a room directly opposite to St. Mark's Church, and have a very distinct knowledge of the ringing of its bells. For some weeks past the change in the mode of chiming them has been very marked ; the modification has been repeatedly noticed and spoken of in the family. In illustration of this, I may be permitted to say that, upon Sunday afternoon, December 3d, A. D. 1876, I counted, by my watch, the number of times the bells were struck. In eighteen and a half minutes they were hammered one thousand five hundred and forty-five times, besides the tolling off for five minutes — one hundred and fourteen times. This was shorter than the usual time devoted to this work, but the bells were struck sharply, quickly, without regard to time or musi- cal rule — producing a harsh, discordant sound and great reverberation. This was their usual mode of ringing the bells, until within a few weeks past, when the style of ringing was changed — the rapidity of the strokes reduced, and an effort made to indicate certain tunes, such as are sometimes used to the familiar hymns, " Onward, Christian Soldiers ; " " Rock of Ages," &c. The execution of these airs was very defective, but clear enough to show what was attempted. On Sunday afternoon last I timed them again, and in twenty minutes the bells were struck, by my count, one thou- sand two hundred and ninety-seven times, besides the tolling off, which again took five minutes, and numbered one hundred and eleven times — the whole occupying twenty-five minutes. The ringing was not uniform on this occasion, being faster 2/2 one part of the time than at another, and giving less frequent rests. The aggregate result of the ringing upon the date first quoted was eighty-three and a half strokes to the minute, while that upon the last Sunday afternoon was sixty-four and a half to the minute. Upon both of these occasions both Mr. and Mrs. Mitcheson kept separate and distinct counts, and our results were almost the same — their count on last Sunday being somewhat less than mine. Mr. Mitcheson also counted seven distinct minutes, which averaged fifty-five to the minute. My brother made them sixty to the minute in the morning. Upon Sunday evening the bells were again rung for fully half an hour — their usual length of time. James Bond. Sworn to and subscribed, this eighth day of February, A. D. 1877, before me. Joseph Mellors, [seal] Notary Public. Richard M. Cadwalader, being duly sworn: — In reply to the affidavit of the Rev. E. A. Hoffman, rector of St. Mark's Church, as to the change in the time and manner of ring- ing the bells, I repeat that there has been a change since they were first hung in June last, and especially since this suit has been commenced. In the latter case, it may be due to the attempt to produce musical notes, which, apart from the natural harsh- ness of the bells themselves, — impossible, because they are only four of an octave, — still make fewer strokes to the minute, coming more regularly, and not so violently nor so continu- ously, as stated in the affidavit of Byerly Hart. As to our becoming accustomed to the sound, or finding it not so great a nuisance as sjupposed, on the contrary, the annoyance in- creases. Since Saturday, February 3d, the ringing has become more violent. On Sunday, February 4th, I counted, by the watch, sixty-five strokes to the minute. This, though a dif- ference of nearly three thousand strokes a day (not including 273 the early morning ringing), less than on Sundays of the early fall, is yet in excess of the Sundays just after the bill was filed. On Sunday evening, February 4th, the ringing from seven to seven-thirty was so violent that my children were unable to sleep until the service commenced. This naturally causes us anxiety as the spring approaches. It will then be impos- sible to keep the doors and windows closed. Perhaps our greater misfortune is that the rector, every member of the vestry, and nearly the whole congregation live too far away to understand the annoyance. In the sworn answers of the defendants (which I am ad- vised is, according to the course and practice of chancery, always deemed and taken to be one of the most solemn records of the court), it is deliberately averred that our co-plaintiff, Mr. George L. Harrison, "constituted the class of intensely sensitive persons," on whose behalf especially the communi- cation was made. Mr. Mitcheson, in his recent affidavit, dated February 3d, 1877, distinctly disproves this averment; and I now dispose of the averment or suggestion that Mr. Harrison was chiefly instrumental in the prosecution of this litigation. The contrary is the truth. Richard M. Cadwalader. Sworn and subscribed before me, this eighth day of Febru- ary, 1877. , William H. Myers, [seal] Notary Public. Edward Hartshorne, M. D., 1601 Walnut street, being duly affirmed, saith : — I am sure that there has been a modification in the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church of late. Other members of my household have noticed it, and it has been a matter of remark in the family. I feel justified, by my general profes- sional experience and by some special personal experience 274 during a recent illness, in expressing my sympathy with the petitioners in their application for relief, as I am satisfied that the ringing must be injurious as well as annoying to the resi- dents of the houses in the immediate neighborhood of the church, which are not shielded by the intervening houses, and I desire to be so placed upon the record of this case. Edward Hartshorne. Affirmed and subscribed, this eighth day of February, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. Henry C. Gibson, No. 161 2 Walnut street, sworn: — I have noticed a very marked change in the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church since this suit was brought. The force of the blow in striking the bells is not so great, nor is the ringing so rapid, while the rests are more frequent than before. It is still a great nuisance, and the bells are rung far too long and too often. They ought to be abolished entirely, or very materially reduced. Henry C. Gibson. Sworn to and subscribed, February 8th, 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. Alfred C. Harrison, being duly sworn declares, as follows : — I have noticed a decided change in the manner of ringing the bells of St. Mark's Church of late. The change was not gradual but apparently sudden, and seemed to be attendant upon an attempt to create musical sounds by the use of the bells, which, however has been a failure. This modification 275 consists not only of diminution in the number of strokes, but also of the force of the blows upon the bells. On Sunday afternoon, February 4th, I counted the number of strokes for ten minutes, between half-past three and four o'clock, and found it to be five hundred and sixty-seven, or less than fifty-seven per minute. It is my clear impression and belief that, in the fall, and perhaps early winter, the average number of strokes amounted to not less than ninety per minute. Alfred C. Harrison. Sworn to and subscribed before me, this ninth day of Feb- ruary, 1877. John Rodgers, [seal] Notary Public. Mrs. Mary McFarlane, No. 3 Greenville place (running east and west, between Fifteenth and Sixteenth and Walnut and Locust streets), being duly affirmed, saith : — The bells of St. Mark's Church do not ring so hard or so long as they used to. I have noticed this for some weeks past. Her Mary -f McFarlane. mark. Affirmed and subscribed, February 6th, 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. Mrs. Maggie Donaldson, No. 5 Greenville place, being duly affirmed, saith : — The bells of St. Mark's Church used to be a great annoy- ance to me. They are not so bad now, as they do not ring so 276 loud or so long as they used to ; but to the sick they are very bad, and in summer they will be a great nuisance again. Maggie Donaldson. Affirmed and subscribed, February 6th, 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, ''■' Commissioner. James Clinton, No. i Greenville place, being duly sworn, saith : — The bells of St. Mark's Church are a great nuisance. They ring far too often — too long, and too loud. The early morn- ing bell was a great disturbance. In summer, the noise comes rushing down this place fearfully. The bells always woke me up and I could not sleep while they were ringing. James Clinton. Sworn to and subscribed, February 6th, 1877, before me. MacGregor J. Mitcheson, Commissioner. Mrs. Bridget Clinton, No. i Greenville place, being duly affirmed, saith : — The bells of St. Mark's Church are a great annoyance and distress to me, and have been so ever since they began. I was ill last fall, and last month for a whole month, and they were very painful and racking to me by their frequent and long-continued ringing. I think they ought to be stopped or reduced more than they have been yet. Her Bridget + Clinton. 277 Affirmed and subscribed, February 6th, 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. Mary Kane, No. 4 Clinton avenue, being duly affirmed, saith: — The ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church is a great nuisance. The sound comes rushing down here fearfully. All of us think them a great nuisance. They are rung far too often and too long. They are far worse in summer than now ; and now they are not rung so hard or so long as they used to be. When the windows are open it is a great dis- comfort. Mary Kane. Affirmed and subscribed, February 6th, 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. AFFIDAVITS DENYING ANIMUS. George L. Harrison, being duly affirmed, says : — I am one of the petitioners in the bill, " George L. Harrison and others vs. The Rector, Church-wardens and Vestrymen of St. Mark's Church." I have seen defendants' answer to the bill, and Exhibit D. accompanying said answer, on page 32, being a remonstrance of Joseph H. Dulles and others against the establishment of bells in said church. I have seen on page 38 of said answer, the " Remonstrances from George L. Harrison and others, presented at vestry meeting, January 4th, 1876." I notice, also, certain letters of MacGregor J. Mitcheson, marked Exhibits F and G, in said answer and exhibits of de- fendants. 2/8 I do now affirm that as to the remonstrance above noted, I had, to the best of my knowledge and belief, no intimation or information of its existence or intended preparation or sub- mission, until it was offered to me for my signature, at which time about all the signatures attached to it had been made, and that in signing it, I made the reservation noted on page 34, sixth line from top, which was accepted by Charles C. Har- rison and Alfred C. Harrison, and afterwards signed by my- self and sons. I also affirm that as to the letters of M. J. Mitcheson, Esq., resulting from this remonstrance, I have never seen them nor the answer until this day, February 3d, 1877, nor have I known anything about them. George L. Harrison. Affirmed to and subscribed before me, this third day of February, A. D. 1877. John Rodgers, [seal] Notary Public. S. Weir Mitchell, M. D., being duly sworn, says : — I have seen the answer of defendants in the case of Harri- son and others against St. Mark's Church, and have read these words on page 23, viz. : — " Dr. S. Weir Mitchell, one of the parties to said corres- pondence, is believed to be the physician alluded to on page 6 of the bill, and the ' unlucky nervous patients,' mentioned in Dr. Mitchell's letter of November 3d, 1876, are believed to consist, wholly or partly, of the complainant, George L. Har- I do now swear that, in writing the letter referred to, I did not have the said Harrison solely or even chiefly upon my mind ; that the relief asked for was more especially meant for another person, who still suffers from the early bell-ringing; 279 and that the said George L. Harrison knew nothing of my correspondence with the rector of St. Mark's Church until it was over. S. Weir Mitchell, M. D. Sworn and subscribed, this third day of February, A. D. 1877. John Urian, [seal] Alderman. My attention having been invited to the printed copy of the first memorial referred to in this case, as it appears upon pages 32, 33 and 34 of defendant's Exhibit D, I notice a mistake in the printing, as follows : — The name of George L. Harrison should have been placed beloiv instead of above the sixth line on page 34, so that it should read thus: — "As to section five, the last three signers express no opinion. " George L. Harrison, 1620 Locust street. " Charles C. Harrison, 161 8 Locust street. "Alfred C. Harrison, 1616 Locust street." To the best of my recollection and belief, neither of these gentlemen saw this remonstrance until after it had been signed by most of the residents upon Locust street, between Sixteenth and Seventeenth streets. Mr. George L. Harrison was not the originator of that remonstrance. It was prepared by my- self. My honored friend, client and near neighbor, (the late) Joseph H. Dulles, was particularly averse to the introduction of the bells. The " fifth section " referred to was prepared in consequence of the expressed opinion of two persons familiar with the ringing of bells in English cathedrals and churches, that if a full chime of bells were swung in the tower of St. Mark's Church — as usually swung in England — it might be attended with serious danger. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON. 28o Sworn to and subscribed, this third day of February, A. D. 1877, before me. Robert D. Cox, Commissioner, ARCHITECTS. Samuel Sloan, of the city of Philadelphia, being duly sworn, says : — I am an architect, and have been in full practice for more than thirty years. My office is at No. 152 South Fourth street. In the course of my practice I have designed over three hun- dred and fifty churches throughout the United States. Provision for bells has been made in many of these, and in all cases (but most especially in cities) care has been taken to give a free and unobstructed area to the transmission of the sound of bells. This, of course, can only be effected by locating the bells at a height greater than that of surrounding buildings. For if the buildings be above, or even on a level with the bells, the wave of sound must either recoil — causing echo — or drop to the ground, giving a harshness to it, on account of its obstruction. The sound-wave is governed, as is the sea-wave, by the currents of air — the force of wind raising the wave so as to waft it over what in a calm state of the atmosphere might prove an obstruction. Hence, it is necessary to give sufficient height to bells to raise their sound-wave effectually above the influence of calm weather. The proportions governing such height to be com- puted with the distance of the obstruction from the bells. I am familiar with the situation and surroundings of St. Mark's Church, on Locust street, in this city, and consider the chief ob- jection to its bells to be that they are in too close proximity to the neighboring houses, checking the progress of the sound-wave, especially on days when the atmosphere will not assist its raising the sound-wave over those levels; and in order 28l to assure a perfect freedom from the present difficulty I deem it necessary to elevate them not less than thirty feet above their present location. I have read the affidavit of Richard M. Upjohn, No. 1 1 1 Trinity Building, New York, who is an architect, but not Richard Upjohn, the architect, in which he lays down the following rule: — "The general rule in the erection of church towers is to put the floor of the bell-chamber about on a level with the eaves of the surrounding buildings." I dissent from his opinion in regard to this rule, for the reasons already re- ferred to, and further state, as corroborating evidence to sus- tain my objections, that, in the city of Venice, where there are many chimes of bells, and where the subject of acoustics as applied to bells has been studied more thoroughly than in any city in the world — in that city the canals and streets are unusually narrow, and the buildings generally very lofty ; the bells in all cases are of much greater height than the surround- ings. I will venture the assertion, from my personal observation, that the lowest bell-chambers are more than fifty feet above the house-tops. My attention was professionally attracted in this direction, and I made it a point for study. The chime of bells in " St. Mark's" of that city are over or about three hun- dred feet from the pavement. I ascended this campanile to the height of the bells, for the purpose of examining their dimensions and arrangement, while on my visit to that city. Samuel Sloan. Sworn and subscribed before me, this day of February, A. D. 1877. Wm. H. Myers, [seal] Notary Public. Richard J. Dobbins, being duly sworn, says : — I am extensively engaged in building, and am acquainted with the value of real estate in all parts of the city of Phila- delphia. I have built largely on my own account, and it is 282 necessary that I should understand whatever may influence values, beneficially or otherwise. I have been engaged in the business of a builder for twenty years, and the total sum of transactions in my profession will' not fall short of twenty millions of dollars. I know about the bells of St. Mark's Church, and that the matter has been agitated, ever since their establishment, by individuals and families who suffer from their immoderate use. I have also read the carefully-prepared paper of Thomas Cochran, in relation to the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church as to its effect upon the value of property in the neighborhood of the church. I agree with him in every point he makes in that relation. I should not expect to obtain within fifteen per cent of the amount for any property in the neighborhood mentioned with the bells in use there, as I should expect in their absence. They are certainly, in this respect of the case, a decided nuisance. R. J. Dobbins. Sworn and subscribed before me, this sixth day of February, A. D. 1877. A. S. L. Shields, [seal] Notary Public. Addison Hutton, being duly affirmed, says : — I have been a practicing architect for fourteen years. In that time about twenty churches have been erected from my designs, most of them in this city. None of the latter have bells, their projectors believing the annoyance to the neighbor- hood would outweigh their usefulness. This is a question which has been seriously discussed in nearly every case. Addison Hutton. Affirmed and subscribed, this eighth day of February, 1877. Edward S. Harlan, [seal] Notary Public. 283 REAL ESTATE— NEW YORK. V. K. Stevenson, Jr., No. 4 Pine Street, N. Y. I am of the opinion that the ringing of bells in the early- morning, and the excessive and continuous ringing of the same, not only on Sundays but on every day in the week, seriously impairs the value of property in front and in rear of a church. V. K. Stevenson, Jr. City and County of New York, ss. The above affidavit sworn to before me, this eighth day of February, 1877. Geo. B. McCloskey, [seal] Notary Public, New York County. New York, 2 Pine St., February 8th, 1877. I am of the opinion that the ringing of bells in the early morning, and the excessive and continuous ringing of the same, not only on Sundays but on every day of the week, seriously impairs the value of property in front and in rear of the church and in the immediate vicinity. Homer Morgan. Subscribed before me, this eighth day of February, 1877. George T. Mortimer, [seal] Notary Public, New York County. Real Estate Office of Lespinasse & Friedman, No. 3 Pine Street, New York, February 8th, 1877. I am of the opinion that the ringing of the bells in the early morning, and the excessive and continuous ringing of 284 the same, not only on Sundays but on every day in the week, seriously impairs the value of property in front and in rear of the church. Leopold Friedman, Of Lespinasse & Friedman. The above affidavit sworn to before me, this eighth day of February, 1877. (75) Geo. B. McCloskey, [seal] Notary Public, New York City. EDWD. H. LUDLOW, MORRIS WILKINS, GEO. R. READ. E. H. Ludlow & Co., Auctioneers and Real Estate Agents, (Established 1836,) Office, No. 3 Pine Street, New York, February 8th, 1877. We are of the opinion that the ringing of bells in the early morning, and the excessive and continuous ringing of the same, not only on Sundays but on every day in the week, seriously impairs the value of property in front and in rear of the church. Geo. R. Read, For E. H. Ludlow & Co. City and County of New York, ss. The above affidavit sworn to before me, this eighth day of February, 1877. (75) Geo. B. McCloskey, [seal] Notary Public, New York County. Real Estate Office of Lespinasse & Friedman, 3 Pine Street. New York, February 8th, 1877. I am of the opinion that the ringing of the bells in the early morning, and the excessive and continuous ringing of 285 the same, not only on Sundays but on every day in the week, seriously impairs the value of property in front and in rear of the church. Geo. L. Lespinasse. City and County of New York, j.y. The above affidavit sworn to before me, this eighth day of February, 1877. (75) Geo. B. McCloskey, [seal] Notary Public, New York County. RINGING AT CALVARY CHURCH. Samuel K. Smyth, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says : — I am the sexton of the Calvary Presbyterian Church, situated on the south side of Locust street, between Fifteenth and Sixteenth streets, in the city of Philadelphia, and I have been sexton of said church, continuously, since the year 1853. The bell on said church is rung on Sunday morn- ings at ten o'clock for five minutes, and then stopped for fifteen minutes, and rung again for five minutes. On the evenings of Sundays, at seven o'clock in the winter season, and at half-past seven o'clock in the summer season, the bell is rung for five minutes ; it is then stopped for fifteen minutes, as in the morning, and then rung again for five minutes. On Wednesday evenings of each week the bell is rung for five minutes at eight o'clock — for five minutes only. The bell is not rung on any other occasion, except on Thanksgiving Day, and for the same length of time as on Sundays. Sam'l K. Smyth. Sworn and subscribed before me, this twenty-ninth day of January, A. D. 1876. John Rodgers, [seal] Notary Public. John Smyth, being duly sworn according to law, deposeth and saith: — I have read the deposition of Samuel K. Smyth, the sexton of the Calvary Presbyterian Church, and the facts stated therein are true. I have charge of the bell-ringing for said church, under the direction of Samuel K. Smyth, the sexton. I give two strokes to the bell every twenty seconds or six strokes to the minute — that is, I give one pull to the bell-rope every twenty seconds, which will give two strokes to the bell in that time, and three pulls to the rope will give six strokes to the minute. John Smyth. Sworn to and subscribed before me, this twenty-ninth day of January, A. D. 1877. John Rodgers, [seal] Notary Public. AFFIDAVITS OF NEIGHBORS. James Parke, being duly affirmed, says : — My residence is No. 1 620 Chancellor street, and I am in the employ of Mr. Thomas H. Powers, residing at 161 8 Wal- nut street. My dwelling is directly in the rear of St. Mark's Church, and I am, of coiarse, quite familiar with the ringing of their bells, with which my family have been much dis- turbed. The 6.45 A. M. bell of Sunday, which has been dis- continued since November last, was the most objectionable. I am opposed to the use of these bells. James Parke. Affirmed to and subscribed before me, this ninth day of February, 1877. John Rodgers, [seal] Notary Public. 28; William Brown, No. 1635 Locust street, being duly sworn, saith : — I own Nos. 1631, 1633, 1635, 1637 and 1708 Locust street, and have owned them over thirty years. I am satisfied from the affidavits that I have seen that the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church is a serious annoyance to many of the neighbors. I would like that they should be obviated. William Brown. Sworn and subscribed, February loth, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. City of Philadelphia, ss. Jacob Carver, residing at No. 1627 Locust street, in the city of Philadelphia, being duly affirmed, saith : — The change in the ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church, during the past few weeks, has been very marked. They are not rung so loudly, rapidly or constantly, and the frequent ringing is less prolonged than formerly. This fact has been a subject of remark in the family. I still consider the ringing of the bells a great nuisance and utterly unnecessary for any laudable purpose. February 9th, 1877. Jacob Carver. Affirmed and subscribed, February 9th, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner, 288 J. E. Kingsley, No. 1719 Locust street, being duly affirmed, saith : — I consider the bells of St. Mark's Church a nuisance and that they ought to be suppressed. J. E. Kingsley. Affirmed and subscribed, this ninth day of February, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. Christopher Wetherill, No. 1529 Locust street, being duly affirmed, saith : — The ringing of the bells of St. Mark's Church has been very perceptibly changed during a few weeks past. They are not rung so loudly, so continuously or so violently as they used to be. The bells were so annoying and distressing to Mrs. Wetherill, during her illness, that we were obliged to change our room. I deem the ringing of the bells wholly heedless. I am and have been for many years a member of the Episcopal Church. Christopher Wetherill. Affirmed and subscribed, this ninth day of February, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. John M. Keating, M. D., No. 222 South Sixteenth street, being duly affirmed, saith : — I am the tenant of this property, and have been so for over two years. The bells of St. Mark's Church are a great nuisance in the spring, summer and autumn particularly. During the last few weeks the ringing of the bells has been 289 very perceptibly modified, both as to hardness, constancy and loudness, rapidity of stroke, monotony and continuance. I am quite certain as to the modification, and to the effort to play tunes, which, though highly unsuccessful, is nevertheless a change. I have never known any noise in the street to drown the sound of the bells. John M. Keating. Affirmed and subscribed, February 9th, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. W. Harrison Eisenbrey, 17 17 Locust street, being duly sworn, saith : — The bells of St. Mark's Church have been an unqualified nuisance to myself and family ever since they were put up. They are harsh, discordant, loud, rung for an unconscion- ably long time and far too frequently. I deem them wholly needless, and trust they will be suppressed. W. Harrison Eisenbrey. Sworn to and subscribed, February 9th, A. D. 1877, before me. MacGrEGOR J. MiTCHESON, Commissioner. AFFIDAVIT OF Dr. HOWE. H. M. Howe, being duly sworn, says ; — The plan which accompanies this is a faithful and accurate copy of a tracing supplied by the Survey Department. The only deviations from it are as follows : — 1622 Locust street, Mr. Isaac Lea's property, is shown on tracing as three lots, and 1630 Locust, Mr. Horace Fassitt's property, includes the lot which is now 1628, Dr. Thomas' residence. Calvary Chapel is shown as three house-lots, and Dr. Isaac Hays' lot, 1525 Locust, is shown as two. Mr. Thomas Powers' lot, 161 8 Walnut, is shown as two lots. Mary P. Norris' property, 1534 Locust street, is shown on tracing as three lots. AH the properties above Sixteenth street, above referred to, have had their division lines corrected by D. Hudson Shedaker's plan, shown in front of complainants' affidavit book. Those below Fifteenth have been corrected approximately, including the showing of Greenville place, running out of Vaughn street. They are all substantially correct, and show the relative position of properties occupied by those who have made affidavits as witnesses. I have painted on the margin of plan small patches, indi- cating the system of coloring used in showing the attitude toward the "bell questibn" of the various residents in the neighborhood of the church, and I append to this a list of references, showing the authority in the several affidavit books for painting them in the colors shown. Complainants and witnesses for complainants are colored black. Those who have given affidavits to both complainants and defendants, black, with red line around number of house. (291) 292 Those in which different members of the same family have given affidavits to both parties, black, with green line around number of house. Those who have signed a remonstrance only against the bells, gray. I thus verify the plan : — COMPLAINANTS' AFFIDAVITS. Locust Street, above Sixteenth Street. No. 1600 — George C. Morris. Remonstrant. Defendants' Answer, page 32. (Painted gray.) No. 1602 — Margaret Dulles. Witnesses for complainants. Affidavits, pages 'j'j, 78, 79. First and second remonstrance, Defendants' Answer, pages 32 and 38 (Exhibit D). See also application of Stephen Caldwell, I. Heatly Dulles et al., praying to be allowed to become complainants, handed to court Saturday, February loth, 1877. Pewholder in St. Mark's Church. No. 1604 — William V. Keating. First and second remon- strance, pages 32 and 38 Defendants' Answer. Witness for complainants. Supplemental Affidavits, page 259. No. 1606 — Herbert M. Howe. Complainants. First and second remonstrance, pages 32 and 38 Defendants' Answer. Witness for complainants. Affidavits, page 117. Supple- mental Affidavits, page 269. No. 1608 — MacGregor J. Mitcheson. First and second remonstrance, pages 32 and 38 Defendants' Answer. Wit- ness for complainants. Affidavits page 56. See affidavit of James Bond, Supplemental Affidavits, page 271. Pewholder in St. Mark's Church. No. 1610 — McCall. First and second remonstrance, pages 32 and 38 Defendants' Answer. Pewholder. George Mc- Call, witness for complainants, page 79 Complainants' Affi- davits. 293 No. 1612 — Mary Bayard. First and second remonstrance, pages 32 and 38 Defendants' Answer. Witness for com- plainants. Supplemental Affidavits, page 248. No. 1614 — Richard M. Cadwalader. Complainant. Second remonstrance, page 38 Defendants' Answer. Witness for complainants. Affidavits, pages 60 and 272. No. 1616 — A. C. Harrison. First and second remonstrance, pages 32 and 38 Defendants' Answer. Complainants' Affidavits, pages 80 and 274. No. 1618 — Charles C. Harrison. First and second remon- strance, pages 32 and 38 Defendants' Answer. Complainants' Affidavits, page 81. No. 1620 — George L. Harrison. Complainant. First and second remonstrance, pages 32 and 38 Defendants' Answer. Complainants' Affidavits, page 47. Supplemental Affidavits, page 277. No. 1622 — Isaac Lea. Complainant. First and second remonstrance. Defendants' Answer, pages 32 and 38. Com- plainants' Supplemental Affidavits, pages 244, 245, 251. No. 1628 — Thomas. Second remonstrance. Defendants' Answer, page 38. Witness for Complainants. Affidavits, page 114. No. 1630 — Horace Fassitt. First and second remonstrance, pages 32 and 38 Defendants' Answer. Complainants' Affi- davits, pages 85 and 253. North Side. No. 1637 — Fisher. Complainant. Witness' affidavit, pages 82, 83, 84. First and second remonstrance, Defendants' Answer, pages 32 and 38. House is owned by William Brown, who signed both remonstrances, and is a witness for complainant. Affidavits, page 287. No. 1635 — Brown. (William Brown above mentioned.) No. 1633 — D. H. Rucker. Second remonstrance, page 38. William Brown, owner. See his affidavit. Mrs. Rucker has made affidavit for defendants. Defendants' Affidavits, page 173. 294 No. 1 63 1 — Brown, owner. Witness for complainants. Affi- davits, page 287. No. 1629 — M. R. Thomas. First and second remonstrance, Defendants' Answer, pages 32 and 38. No. 1627 — Carver. First and second remonstrance, De- fendants' answer, pages 32 and 38. Witness for complain- ants. Affidavits, page 287. No. 1607 — I. Minis Hays. First and second remonstrance, pages 32 and 38 Defendants' Answer. Witness for complain- ants. Affidavits, pages 119 and 268. Locust Street, below Sixteenth Street. No. 1507 — E. Franssen. Witness for complainants. Affi- davits, page 251. No. 1 5 16 — Lemuel Coffin. Witness for complainants. Affi- davits, page 65. Signed second remonstrance, page 38 De- fendants' Answer. No. 15 18 — Collins. Remonstrant. No. 1520 — John Harrison. Witness for complainants. Affidavits, page 67. No. 1526 — William F. Norris. Complainant. Affidavits, page 70. Signed second remonstrance, page 38 Defendants' Answer. No. 1534 — James Parsons. Complainant. Affidavits, pages 70 and 72. No. 15 1 1 — John Wyeth. Witness for complainants. Sup- plemental Affidavits, page 255. No. 15 19 — Charles R. Colwell. Witness for complainants. Affidavits, page 66. Second remonstrance, page 38 Defend- ants' Answer. No. 1523 — Albert D. Fell. Witness for complainants. Affi- davits, page 258. Also, William H. Jackson, page 260. No. 1525 — Isaac Hays, M. D. Witness for complainants. Affidavits, pages 68 and 119. No. 1529 — Christopher Wetherill. Witness for complain- ants. Supplemental Affidavits, page 288. 295 Locust Street, above Seventeenth Street. No. 1700 — Portuondo. Witness for complainants, page 261. No. 1702 — Stevenson, Cornelius. Affidavits for complain- ants and defendants. See defendants' book, page 175, and Complainants' Supplemental Affidavits, page 267. No. 1704 — George L. Harrison, Jr. Second remonstrance. Defendants' Answer, page 38. Witness for complainants. Supplemental Affidavits, page 246. No. 1706 — John J. Ridgway. Witness for complainants. Affidavits, page 86. Second remonstrance, page 38 of Defend- ants' Answer. No. 1708 — Septimus E. Norris. Witness for complainants. Affidavits, page 250. William Brown, owner. See his affi- davit, page 287. No. 17 1 2 — R. Shelton MacKenzie. Witness for complain- ant. Affidavits, page 258. No. 1716 — Leonard. Remonstrant. The following from 1701 to 1719, inclusive, are part of the estate of Joseph Harrison, Jr. See affidavit of Herbert M. Howe et al., Supplemental Affidavits of complainants, page 247. No. 1701 — Macauley. Second remonstrance. Witness for complainants. See Supplemental Affidavits, page 254. Miss Stratton. Second remonstrance, page 38 Defendants' Answer. No. 1703 — Hutchinson. Complainants' witness. Supple- mental Affidavits, page 253. Second remonstrance. Defend- ants' Answer, page 38. No. 1705 — Joseph F. Tobias. Complainant. Witness. Affi- davit, page 85. Second remonstrance, page 38 Defendants' Answer. No. 1707 — M. Edward Rogers. Complainant and witness. Complainants' Affidavits, page 87. Second remonstrance, Defendants' Answer, page 38. No. 1709 — F. A. Dick. Witness for complainants. Affi- davits, page 87. 296 No. 171 1 — Brinton Coxe. Witness for complainants. Affi- davits, page 89. Second remonstrance, page 38 Defendants' Answer. No. 17 1 3 — S. Emlen Meigs. Witness for complainants, page 90. Second remonstrance, Defendants' Answer, page 38. No. 17 1 5 — George W. Harris. Witness for complainants. Supplemental Affidavits, page 250. No. 1717 — W. Harrison Eisenbrey. Witness for complain- ants. Supplemental Affidavits, page 289. No. 1719 — J. E. Kingsley. Witness for complainants. Sup- plemental Affidavits, page 288. Spruce Street. No. 1535 — George Carson. Witness for plaintiffs. Supple- mental Affidavits, page 265. No. 1609 — Sussex D. Davis. Witness for complainants. Supplemental Affidavits, page 266. Made affidavit for defend- ants. See their book, page 188. No. 161 3 — P. H. Brice. Witness for complainants. Supple- mental Affidavits, page 255. See Defendants' Supplemental Affidavits. No. 1626 — ^John L. Le Conte. Witness for complainants. Affidavits, page 115. No. 1633 — Right Rev. William Bacon Stevens. Witness for complainants. Supplemental Affidavits, page 263. Also for defendants. Defendants' Affidavits, page 191. Chancellor Street. Nos. 1602, 1604, 1606, 1616, 1618 — George Free, Edward Free. Witnesses for complainants. Affidavits, pages 95 and 96 (five lots). No. 1628 — Dentry. Witnesses for complainants. Affidavits, pages 93, 94, 95. Walnut Street. No. 15 18 — Caroline G. Tait. Complainants. See petition of Stephen A. Caldwell et al. to be admitted as complainants. 297 Signed second remonstrance, page 38 Defendants' Answer. Pewholder and parishioner in defendants' church. No. 1600 — Byerly Hart, Mary Hart. Witnesses of com- plainants. Affidavits, pages 90 and 91. No. 1604 — Stephen A. Caldwell. Complainant. See pe- tition. Second remonstrance, see Defendants' Answer, page 38. No. 1608 — James Paul. Second remonstrance. See page 38 Defendants' Answer (painted gray). No. 16 1 2 — Henry C. Gibson. Complainant and witness. Affidavits, page 92. Supplemental Affidavits, page 274. Second remonstrance, page 38. No. 1616 — Walter McMichael. Complainant. See pe- tition. No. 161 8 — Thomas H. Powers. Witness for complainants. Affidavits, page 252. No. 1624 — Walter Penrose. Witness for complainants. Supplemental Affidavits, page 249. No. 1700 — J. M. DaCosta, M. D. Witness for complainants. Affidavits, page 102. No. 1702 — Rebecca Gibson. Complainant. See petition. No. 1708 — H. Wilson Catherwood. Witness for complain- ants. Affidavits, page 93. Pewholder St. Mark's Church. Walnut Street. North Side. No. 1623 — Mary D. Biddle. Witness for complainants. Supplemental Affidavits, page 252. No. 1601 — Edward Hartshorne, M. D. Witness for com- plainants. Supplemental Affidavits, page 273. Sixteenth Street. No. 268 — Samuel Bell. Witness for complainants. Sup- plemental Affidavits, page 264. Made affidavits for defendants. See defendants' Affidavits, page 183, 298 No. 264 — Thomas S. Harrison. Witness for complainants. Affidavits, page 76. No. 262 — William Dulles. Witness for complainants. Supplemental Affidavits, page 256. No. 560 — H. P. Smith. Witness for complainants. Sup- plemental Affidavits, page 265. Made affidavit for defend- ants. Defendants' Affidavits, page 182. Has moved away. Now occupied by Joseph F. Edwards, M. D. Witness for plaintiffs. Supplemental Affidavits, 256. No. 255 — Mrs. R. W. Hansell. Witness for plaintiffs. Sup- plemental Affidavits, page 254. No. 250 — John A. Lewis. Witness for plaintiffs. Supple- mental Affidavits, page 253. No. 222 — Leontine Andre. Witness for complainants. Affidavits, page 74. This witness made affidavits for defend- ants as to herself personally, but at the same time mentioned the substance of the second affidavits as to her mother. See Defendants' Affidavits, page 182. John M. Keating, M. D. Witness for complainants. Page 288. No. 255 — J. Lowrie Bell. Witness for complainants. Sup- plemental Affidavits, page 257. No. 249 — Samuel L. Shober. Witness for complainants. Affidavits, page 75. Made affidavit for defendants. Affi- davits, page 185. No. 247 — Signed remonstrance, page 38 Defendants' An- swer. No. 245 — William White. Witness for complainants. Affi- davits, page 75. Signed second remonstrance, Defendants' Answer, page 38. Mrs. White has made affidavit for defend- ants. Defendants' Affidavits, page 176. Seventeenth Street. No. 225 — Abraham C. W. Beecher, M. D. Witness for complainants. Supplemental Affidavits, page 257. Also, Wil- liam J. Cahoone. Supplemental Affidavits, page 256. 299 No. 25s — Joseph H. Trotter. Witness for complainants. Supplemental Affidavits, page 259. No. 257 — Richard E. Clay. Witness for complainants. Sup- plemental Affidavits, page 263. Made Affidavits for defend- ants. Defendants' Affidavits, page 186. Latimer Street. No. 1632 — Charles Franklin. Witness for complainants. Supplemental Affidavits, page 266. See Defendants' Affi- davits, page 201. Greenville Place. Clinton Avenue. No. I — Mrs. Bridget Clinton. Witness for complainants. Supplemental Affidavits, page 276. James Clinton, ditto. No. 3 — Mrs. Mary McFarland. Witness for complainants. Affidavits, page 275. No. 4 — Mary Kane. Witness for complainants. Affidavits, page 277. No. 5 — Mrs. Maggie Donaldson. Witness for complainants. Affidavits, page 275. Vaughn Street. No. 225 — John L. Bass, witness for complainants. Supple- mental Affidavits, page 262. Nos. 221 and 223 — J. T. Biles and T. McClellan, two wit- nesses for complainants. Affidavits, page 262. 300 DEFENDANTS' AFFIDAVITS. Locust Street. South Side. . No 1500 — Elizabeth B. Biddle. Witness for defendants. Defendants' Affidavits, page 192. Parishioner. No. 1522 — Miss Ella C. White. Witness for defendants. Defendants' Affidavits, page 174. Parishioner. No. 1554 — Miss Virginia Morgan. Page 175. Parishioner. No. 1702 — Cornelius Stevenson. Page 175. See Complain- ants' Affidavits, page 267. No. 1720 — Anna R. Miller. Page 175. No. 1722 — Henry Bickley. Page 160. North Side. No. 1509 — Joseph B. Ecclesine, Jr. Page 173. No. 1 521 — EHzabeth M. Wiltbank. Page 174. No. 1533 — Louis Jack. Page 171. Spruce Street. No. 1609 — Sussex D. Davis. Page 188. See Complainants' Supplement, page 266. No. i5i I — Jesse E. Smith. Page 188 Defendants' Affidavits. No. 1 62 1 — John E. Graeffi Page 189 Defendants' Affidavits. No. 1623 — Andrew D. Hall. Page 189. Parishioner. No. 1627 — Joseph R. Wainwright. Page 190. No. 1 63 1 — Caroline Hepburn. Page 190. No. 1633 — Rt. Rev. William Bacon Stevens. Page 191. See, also. Supplemental Affidavits, page 263. No. 1535 — Clement B. Wainwright. Page 191. Walnut Street. No. 1626 — Robert V. Massey. Page 185 Defendants' Affi- davits. Henry E. Drayton. Page 187 Defendants' Affidavits. 30I No. 1632— Charles Carter, M. D. Page 170. Member of the vestry of defendants' church. Mrs. Carter. Page 188. Parishioner. Miss Eugenia Carter. Page 191. Parishioner. No. 1634— Miss Redmond. Page 185. South Sixteenth Street. East Side. Nos. 225, 223— Michael Meagher. Page 176 Defendants' Affidavits. Reuben C. Clements. Page 177. No. 217— Thomas McDavitt. Page 183 Defendants' Affi- davits. No. 215— -Patrick Tobin. Page 178 Defendants' Affidavits. Tenant Philadelphia Riding Club. West Side. No. 270— Richard Maris. Page 178 Defendants' Affidavits. No. 268 — Samuel Bell. Page 183. Made affidavit /r^? com- plainants. See Supplemental Affidavits, page 264. No. 260 — H. P. Smith. Occupied this house until Decem- ber 9th, 1876, before the bill was filed. Defendants' Affida- vits, page 182. At the time the bill was filed, occupied by Joseph F. Edwards, who has given affidavit to complainants. Supplemental Affidavits, page 256. No. 258— William P. Breed, D. D. Page 177 Defendants' Affidavits. N. W. corner Sixteenth and Locust — Samuel Moon. Page 172 Defendants' Affidavits. Parishioner. No. 224 — Mrs. Hannah Biggs. Page 184 Defendants' Affi- davits. Parishioner. No. 222 — Leontine Andre. Page 182 Defendants' Affi- uavits. See, also. Complainants' Affidavits, page 74. No. 220 — George Boldin. Pages 179 and 180 Defendants' Affidavits. 302 No. 218 — Annie Sharpless. Page 181 Defendants' Affida- vits. Elizabeth Onderdonk. Jrage 184 Defendants' Affidavits. South Seventeenth Street. East Side. No. 261 — James P. Sims. Page 194 Defendants' Affidavits. No. 259 — George E. Hoffman. Page 194 Defendants' Affi- davits. No. 253 — George V. Cresson. Page 187 Defendants' Affi- davits. No. 221 — E. P. Bernardy, M. D. Page 170. Also signed remonstrance, page 32 Defendants' Answer. No. 213 — John M. Ash. Page 186 Defendants' Affidavits. Parishioner. No. 211 — Samuel Spackman. Page 192 Defendants' Affi- davits. Seventeenth Street. West Side. No. 248 — Arabella Sayle. Page 193 Defendants' Affidavits. No. 244 — Peter N. Brennan. Page 193 Defendants' Affida- vits. Latimer Street. No. 1618 — Catharine Dugan. Page 199 Defendants' Affi- davits. No. 1620 — Sarah E. Logan. Page 199 Defendants' Affi- davits. No. 1622 — Sophia E. Smyth. Page 200 Defendants' Affi- davits. No. 1624 — Charles P. Dwyer. Page 200 Defendants' Affi- davits. No, 1626 — Elizabeth Jane Case. Page 200 Defendants' Affidavits. 303 No. 1628— Catherine Power. Page 201 Defendants' Affi- davits. No. 1630 — Mary Ann Henderson. Page 201 Defendants' Affidavits. No. 1632 — Susan Franklin. Page 201. See Complainants' Supplemental Affidavits, page 266. No. 1634 — Margaret Stuter. Page 202 Defendants' Affi- davits. Erety Street. No. 1623 — ^Catherine Harkins. Page 195 Defendants' Affi- davits. No. 1625 — Violet Cannon. Page 195 Defendants' Affidavits. No. 1627 — Michael Fitzgerald. Page 196 Defendants' Affi- davits. No. 1629 — Elizabeth Burns. Page 196 Defendants' Affi- davits. Chancelior Street. No. 1614 — Elizabeth Mclntyre. Page 196 Defendants' Affi- davits. No. 1624 — Annie Taylor. Page 197 Defendants' Affidavits. No. 1626 — Eliza Flemming. Page 197 Defendants' Affidavits. No. 1630 — Adeline Blizzard. Page 198 Defendants' Affi- davits. No. 1632 — Eliza Stewart. Page 199 Defendants' Affidavits. H. M. Howe. Sworn and subscribed before me, this fourteenth day of February, A. D. 1877. W. H. Myers, [seal] Notary Public. DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVITS. DENIAL THAT APPEALS IN CASE OF SICKNESS HAVE BEEN DISREGARDED. E. A. Hoffman, D. D., being duly sworn, says : — I am the rector of St. Mark's Church, Locust street, and have been since 1869. I have read the statement of I. Minis Hays, on pages 119- 121 of Complainants' Affidavits, in reference to the request to suspend the ringing of St. Mark's bells in consequence of his sister, who resided at 1525 Locust street, suffering from a "severe idiopathic headache." The facts of the case, as within my knowledge, are as follows : — The note from " S. M. Hays," on page 121, was handed to me at my residence, on Sunday evening, January 14th, 1877, after the bells had begun to ring for the evening service. I went immediately around to the church (noticing as I went that the bell of Calvary Church, which is much louder and much nearer 1525 Locust street than St. Mark's bells, was ringing steadily), and directed the ringer of St. Mark's bells not to chime them any more that evening, but simply to toll the smallest bell for a few times when the service ought to begin. This direction was carried out by the ringer. The statement of complainants' counsel, referring to the case of Mrs. Horstmann, as follows: — "At the corner of Sixteenth and Walnut streets, when the woman was in her dying agony, whenever she heard those horrid sounds coming upon her, en- treated and implored a cessation of it. That was communicated to these gentlemen and produced no effect upon them," — I believe to be wholly devoid of even a shadow of truth. As (30s) 3o6 far as I am concerned it certainly is. I did not know and never heard, directly or indirectly, of Mrs. Horstmann's illness, or that she was disturbed in any way by St. Mark's bells, until so informed by her daughter, Mrs. Hart, about four weeks since; a considerable time after her death and after the bill in this case was filed. Her immediate relatives apparently did not consider the annoyance to Mrs. Horstmann so serious in her lifetime as to induce them even to write a note or make a request on the subject. E. A. Hoffman. Sworn and subscribed before me, this sixteenth day of Feb- ruary, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. VERIFICATION OF DEFENDANTS' PLAN. David Evans, being duly sworn, says : — I am a surveyor and draughtsman. I made the annexed plan from the city atlas of the several wards of the city of Philadelphia, pub- lished by G. M. Hopkins, enlarged to a scale of fifty feet to the inch. I carefully compared the same with the records in the Survey Department of Philadelphia and found it to be accurate. The premises colored in black represent the houses respectively occupied by the complainants in the above case. The houses occupied by those residents making affidavits that the bells of St. Mark's Church are an annoyance to them are colored blue ; the premises occupied by medical experts of the vicinity making affidavits that the bells are a nuisance are co\oxe.A green ; the property of the church is colored orange; the premises occupied by those making affidavits that the bells are not an annoyance (including those to whom it is a pleasure) are colored red ; those premises which are uncolored indicate those who take no part in the controversy, but are neutral. David Evans. 307 Sworn and subscribed before me, this second day of Febru- ary, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. AS TO GROSS ERRORS IN HEIGHT OF COM- PLAINANTS' MODEL. David Evans, being duly sworn, says : — I am a practical surveyor and engineer. I have carefully measured the height of St. Mark's tower, and find it to be eighty-two feet four and a half inches above the curb, and like- wise the heights of the ridge of the roof of the following houses on Locust street, viz.: — 1606, 1608, 1616, 1618, and 1622 Locust, and also 1612 Walnut street. I have also carefully examined the model of the vicinity of St. Mark's Church pro- duced in court on last Saturday. This model is in many par- ticulars incorrect. It is said by its maker to be made on a scale of ten feet to the inch. Measured by this scale, the tower of the church in the model is eighty feet, or two feet four and a half inches lower than it should be. Nos. 1606 and 1608 Locust street measure on the model seventy-four feet. Their true height is sixty-four feet five and a half inches. The model therefore makes them appear nine feet six and a half inches higher than they really are. Nos. 1616 and 1618 Locust street measure on the model seventy-one feet to the ridge of the roof The real height is only sixty feet, and the model, therefore, shows those houses eleven feet higher than they really are. No. 1622 Locust street measures to ridge on the model seventy-six feet. The actual height is sixty-six feet nine inches, making the house in the model nine feet three inches higher than it really is. No. 161 2 Walnut street measures on the model seventy feet. The actual height is sixty-seven feet three inches. The model thus shows it two feet nine inches too high. The house No. 1637 Locust street measures on the model thirty-eight feet to the eaves. The measurement of Mr. Shedaker, noted in complainants' paper- book, makes the height thirty-three and a half feet. The 3o8 model therefore makes No. 1637 four and a half feet too high. The actual height of the belfry windows by measurement is nine feet eight inches. The approximate height of the windows is given by Mr. Shedaker at seven feet. All the heights given in complainants' plan in their paper-book are only " approxi- mate heights," obtained by triangulation. The model conveys to the eye, especially on Locust street, a very incorrect idea of the relative height 'of the church-tower and the neighbor- ing houses. The tower is represented two feet four and one- half inches too low and the houses as specified, from nine feet three inches to eleven feet too high. My measurements were taken by leveling from the tower. David Evans. Sworn and subscribed before me, this ninth day of Febru- ary, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. AS TO STATUS OF H. W. CATHERWOOD AND OTHERS CLAIMING TO BE PEW-HOLDERS. W. A. M. Fuller, being duly sworn, says : — I am the accounting warden of St. Mark's Church, and have been for about five years. I have read the affidavits of M. J. Mitcheson, page 56 ; I. H. Dulles, page JJ ; H. W. Cather- wood, page 93; A. R. Thomas and C. M. Thomas, M. D., page 114; in complainants' printed affidavits. *MacGregor J. Mitcheson's name does not appear in any way on the church books. He does not own a pew or rent one from the church. I have seen him at St. Mark's occasionally. He is a vestry- man of Grace Church, Twelfth and Cherry, and habitually attends that church. *H. W. Catherwood is not the owner of *Although the gentlemen referred to in this affidavit do not (rwn pews in St. Mark's Church, they are both of them renters of pews. Their names are respectively on the pews Nos. 24 and 56, as well as on the list of pew-holders hung up in the church vestibule. One of them holds several receipts for pew- rents, and the other the endorsement of the warden on a check that states on its face that it was for his pew-rent. 309 a pew or a renter from the church. His name appears in no way on the church books. He has no vote. I believe he is a sub-tenant of a pew owned by another person, and that some members of his family attend the services. He is mistaken in supposing that he "is one of the supporters of the church." I. H. Dulles is a pew-holder, but other members of his family attend, I understand. Calvary Presbyterian Church. Drs. A. R. Thomas and Charles M. Thomas, who live now at No. 1628 Locust street, and one of whom says a residence in the immediate neighborhood of St. Mark's " is not only unpleasant but positively objectionable," both formerly resided at 937 Spruce street. They moved away from Spruce street on or about October 3d, 1876. When they moved into the square opposite St. Mark's the bells had been ringing for over three months, and the early Sunday bell was ringing steadily, so that their choice of a new residence did not seem to be affected . by the bells. W. A. M. Fuller. Sworn and subscribed before me, this ninth day of Febru- ary, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. ADDITIONAL NEAR RESIDENTS. Lucia N. Relf, being duly affirmed, says : — I reside at 1619 Walnut street, and have resided there about fifteen years. There is a vacant lot on the south side of Walnut street, opposite part of my house, through which I can see some of the houses on the south side of Locust street. I can only hear the sound of the bells of St. Mark's Church in the front rooms of my house, and even there they are not loud enough to attract my attention, unless it is called to them. I have never known any of my family to complain of them. We are not in any way annoyed by them. My husband was an invalid for several years, and very ill for a week before his 3IO death, which occurred in December last. He occupied the second-story front room, and I never knew him to complain of being annoyed by the bells in any way whatever. I also had a lady friend who was quite ill at my house during De- cember and January last. She occupied the third-story front room. She told me that the bells did not annoy her in the least, indeed she liked to hear them ring. Lucia N. Relf. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this seventh day of February, A. D. 1877. E. A. B. Brown, [seal] Notary Public. John C. Sims, being duly sworn, says : — I live at No. 261 South Seventeenth street. I own the house. I have never been annoyed by the ringing of St. Mark's bells. None of my family have ever been disturbed by them. Two of my grandchildren have been with me since November, one about five years old and the other two ; they have never been awak- ened by the bells. John C. Sims. Sworn and subscribed to before me, a notary public of the State of Pennsylvania, in and for the city and county of Phila- delphia, this eighth day of February, 1877. John C. Sims, Jr., [seal] Notary Public. Philip H. Brice, being duly sworn, says : — I reside at No. 1613 Spruce street. I have given an affi- davit against St. Mark's bells at the request of one of the complainants. I am equally annoyed by the bell of Calvary Presbyterian Church. I am opposed to all church-bells in my immediate neighborhood. P. H. Brice. 311 Sworn and subscribed to before me, this ninth day of February, A. D. 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. James S. Biddle, being duly sworn, says : — I reside at No. 1714 Locust street, and own the house. I have lived here twenty-two years. I am familiar with the ringing of St. Mark's bells and have not found them any an- noyance to myself or to any member of my family. We do not consider them harsh or discordant, but pleasant toned. I am familiar with Christ Church and St. Peter's bells, having been an attendant at both those churches. I notice no material difference in the sound of St. Mark's bells from the sound of those bells. I should not suppose that a person in ordinary health need be at all annoyed by them. I have no knowledge of any case of sickness where there has been an omission to intermit the ringing. The early bell waked me up the first Sunday on which it was rung ; after that it never disturbed me or any member of my family. According to my experience, persons may become so accustomed to noises occurring periodically, much louder than that of these bells, that they wholly cease to notice them. James S. Biddle. Sworn and subscribed before me, this fourteenth day of February, A. D. 1877. E. A. B. Brown, [seal] Notary Public. AS TO THEORY OF LOWER INTELLECTUAL ORGANIZATION. Catharine K. Meredith, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says as follows : — I reside No. 1830 Delancey Place. I resided at No. 216 South Fourth street up to the fall of 1873, between two and 312 three months after the death of my father, the late Wilham M. Meredith. We resided in Fourth street nearly twenty years. Our house was within a short distance of St. Mary's Church, in Fourth, above Spruce, and of St. Joseph's Church, in Willing's alley, which is opposite to our house. We could also hear the bells of Christ Church and St. Peter's Church distinctly when the wind was favorable. No member of our family was in the least annoyed by the ringing of the bells of any of these churches. When we first moved there the ring- ing of the bells was very noticeable; after a short period, however, we became accustomed to the sound, and we never remarked their ringing except for some special purpose — never remarked them unless we gave special attention to them. My father listened for the chimes with pleasure, and during his last illness he used to watch for them and remark on the beauty of them. I have often heard him say it was the pleasantest kind of music. For several years I have taught Bible-class in Christ Church ; I still teach there. The room in which I teach is almost directly under the bells. When I first began teaching the noise was noticeable, and I first thought that I could hardly teach with the ringing of the bells, but after two or three Sundays I became entirely accustomed to it, nor do they annoy any member of the class. Catharine K. Meredith. Sworn and subscribed before me, this ninth day of February, A. D. 1877. Oscar R. Meyers, [seal] Notary Public. SCIENTIFIC. As TO Height of Bells and Reverberation. Carl Seller, M. D., being duly sWorn according to law, deposes and says : — I reside at 1608 Pine street, Philadelphia. I am a practicing physician and have been for the past five years. I have made 313 diseases of the throat and ear my specialty, and have paid particular attention to the study of acoustics. I have examined the bells of St. Mark's Church and listened to them when they have been chimed, and find — 1. That they are hung above the highest point of the roof of the highest house in the neighborhood. They are hung as high as those" of Christ Church, which I have measured. 2. That there is nothing peculiar in the sound of St. Mark's bells, nor does it differ from the sound of other good bells of similar weight — their dissonant overtones being so feeble as not to be heard at any distance from the bells. 3. That the four bells, corresponding to the tones F, G, A and B flat of the diatonic scale are in tune with each other. The direction of the wind influencing, as in all cases of sound- ing bodies, the pitch according to the position of the observer. 4. That the reflection of the sound of the bells from the houses on the opposite side of Locust street is very slight and does not amount to an echo, owing to the fact that only hard and smooth surfaces are good reflectors of sound, while rough, uneven and porous surfaces, such as brick walls and brown stone fronts of houses, absorb and consequently deaden the greater part of the sound striking them at any angle. 5. That no vibration or jarring of the house nearest to the tower took place while the bells were being chimed. This I tested by means of the pendulum and the water-level. 6. That I found no more difficulty in conversing with a friend in any part of Locust street, between Sixteenth and Seventeenth streets, while the bells were being chimed, than is experienced while a cart, wagon or carriage is passing. Carl Seiler, M. D., 1608 Puie street. 314 Sworn and subscribed before me, this sixteenth day of Febru- ary, 1877. E. A. B. Brown, [seal] Notary Public. James P. Sims, being duly sworn, says : — Richard M. Upjohn is the active member of the firm of R. & R. M. Upjohn, architects, New York, and has been for a number of years. He is a man of forty-five to fifty and his father is now quite an old gentleman. Richard M. Upjohn is one of the most prominent architects in this country, and certainly is as prominent as any architect in Philadelphia, and much more so than most architects here. The suggestion in Mr. Samuel Sloan's afifidavit that Richard M. Upjohn is not "the" Upjohn of the present day is absurd. Mr. Upjohn's professional opinion would be generally considered, among architects, to be infinitely more valuable than that of Mr. Samuel Sloan. As Mr. Sloan is quite deaf, his opinion on the subject of sound is even less valuable than his opinion as an architect. Mr. Sloan is or was, I understand, a member of Calvary Presbyterian Church. Henry M. Congdon, of New York, is one of the best church architects in the country. James P. Sims. Sworn and subscribed before me, this fourteenth day of February, 1877. Robert N. Simpers, [seal] Notary Public. Charles M. Burns, Jr., being duly sworn, says : — I am an architect, and familiar with the prominent architects of the country. Richard M. Upjohn and Henry M. Congdon are among the first architects in this country. Their pro- fessional opinion, especially in a matter relating to church architecture, would be considered among architects to be as valuable as that of any of the profession. Charles M. Burns, Jr. 315 Sworn and subscribed to before me, this fifteenth day of February, A. D. 1877. Chas E. Henry, [seal] Notary Public. AS TO GROSSLY DECEPTIVE CHARACTER OF PLAN "VERIFIED" BY HERBERT M. HOWE. David Evans, surveyor, being duly sworn, says :— I have carefully examined the colored plan presented to the court on February loth, 1877, on behalf of complainants, which has only been furnished to me to-day. The plan which I prepared and which was presented in court on February 3d, 1877, was subsequently borrowed by complainants' counsel for a day or two, and when returned no objection was made to its accuracy. When application was made this week, on behalf of defendants, for an inspection of the complainants' (or Howe) plan, which had been objected to by Mr. Biddle as untrustworthy, answer was made that it was not yet ready, until, on February 15th, it was learned that it had been sent to the judges without any previous inspection by defendants' counsel, as had been agreed on in open court. Herbert M. Howe swears that he has since "verified" this plan, which should have been verified before it was presented in court. Part of this "verification" has consisted in changes made by said Herbert M. Howe since the plan was first presented. The red and green lines "around the number" (see H. M. Howe's affidavit, page 292), which feebly indicate that premises colored black should not be so designated, have been made since the plan was objected to by Mr. Biddle. It is due to Mr. Sheda- ker, the district surveyor, to state that he had nothing what- ever to do with this last plan, which is believed to be the pro- duction of said Herbert M. Howe, one of complainants. The only plan made by Mr. Shedaker for complainants is the very correct one which is lithographed and bound in front of complainants' first book of affidavits. When a surveyor 3i6 makes a plan he invariably signs his name to it. No such signature is attached to this plan. I consider the Howe plan to be grossly inaccurate and open to these objections: — 1. That a generally deceptive effect is given to the plan by coloring whole lots black, including large side-yards and other places where there are no dwellings. 2. That a number of special instances occur where houses occupied by persons who have made affidavits for defendants are colored exactly the reverse of the truth. GENERAL DECEPTIVENESS. Unless the wealthy owner of a large house, with ample open grounds, has proportionably greater rights in a court of law than the occupant of a small house, the Howe plan con- veys a very false impression to the eye of the relative strength of the parties litigant. It is no answer to this to say that there is an outline around each property. Whole lots are colored in a solid black, as if they were entirely built on. To illustrate this unfairness, Mr. Parsons' house, which is a large double one, only occupies about on&-Jifth of the area covered in black. The 'rest is a large side and rear yard and stable. The same criticism is applicable to the house of Isaac Lea ; and verification of my statement is easy by refer- ence to No. 1622 Locust street, on Mr. Shedaker' s plan. In looking at the Howe plan the eye cannot fail to be deceived by the aggregate amount of black. To further illustrate this : — The space covered in black, representing the houses of Isaac Lea and James Parsons, two of the complainants (in both together of which I understand not over eight grown persons reside, exclusive of servants), is equal to that covered on 1618, 1620, 1622, 1624, 1626, 1628, 1630, 1632 and 1634 Latimer street; 1623, 1625, 1627 and 1629 Erety street; 1614, 317 1624, 1626, 1630 and 1632 Chancellor street; 218, 220, 222 and 224 South Sixteenth street; 21 1, 213, 221 and 253 South Seventeenth street, or twenty-six houses, whose occupants have made affidavits for defendants. The large properties on Walnut street colored black only increase this false impression. In making my plan I sought to make the houses as nearly alike as possible, except giving each person who had a wide front the benefit of it. The " Supplemental Affidavits " of complainants, which were taken after the Saturday on which the case had been half argued, end on page 286. Other affidavits are referred to in the affidavit of Herbert M. Howe, as on pages " 269, 270 and 271." No such pages were in the printed and bound copy furnished by complainants on the second Saturday of the argument, nor were such produced in court or furnished to defendants' counsel. Such affidavits, if they exist, must have been inserted after the argument of the case had been wholly concluded and after the court had said that no more affidavits for complainants would be received. Of course, as such affidavits are not in the case and defendants do not know what they are, they are excluded from my verification. Twelve houses are colored black (or favorable to complainants) on the Howe plan, which should not be so colored. All the errors of the Howe plan are in favor of complainants and against defendants. SPECIAL DECEPTIVENESS. The brevity of the time prevents a full exposure of the special inaccuracies, some of which are as follows : — Locust Street. 1604 is colored black. Dr. Keating does not say that he is now even annoyed at all. He refers to last summer and fall. 1610 is colored black. The owners and occupants of this 3i8 house expressly declined to make affidavit on either side. George McCall is a minor, staying temporarily at his aunt's, and is in no proper sense either tenant or occupant. During the week he is occupied in a manufactory where boilers are hammered. This house should be marked neutral. 1612 is marked black. Mary Bayard does not say that she is or was annoyed. 1629 ij colored grey. This house should be colored red, as the owner and occupant has made affidavit that she is not annoyed. H. M. Howe includes this owner (page 294), M. R. Thomas, in the list of those favorable to complainants. 163 1 is colored black. No affidavit on either side is given by the occupants of that house. It should be marked neutral. 1633 is marked black, and the name of Mrs. Irene Rucker has been carefully omitted by H. M. Howe from his "verified" list of defendants' affidavits (see page 300), as was also that of Mrs. Thomas. In the case of 1633 (Gen. Rucker's), a "green line is drawn around the number," as indicating that "different members of the family have sworn differently," while the con- trary is the truth. That this was not entirely accidental is indicated by the fact, that while Mrs. Rucker's name is omitted in the list of defendants' affidavits, reference is made on page 294 to the fact that she made affidavit for defendants, and it is implied that General Rucker has made affidavit for complain- ants, which is not true. 1529 is marked black. No affidavit was ever produced from this house; it should be uncolored. 17 1 7 is colored black. No affidavit from this house was produced. 17 19 is colored black. No affidavit from this house was produced. 1600 Locust street (George C. Morris) is included by H. M. Howe under the head of "complainants' affidavits" as a "remonstrant." (See page 292.) Mr. Morris has steadily re- fused to make an affidavit on either side, and should be marked neutral. The fact that he remonstrated before the bells were 319 put up and has refused to take part against the church since their ringing is certainly no more favorable to complainants than to defendants. Spruce Street. 1535 (George C. Carson) is colored black. He does not say he is annoyed, but that "he can readily understand how" others may be. 1609 is colored black, with red line. Sussex D. Davis says, "they do not annoy me or any member of my family." This house should be colored red. 1633 is colored black, with red line. Wm. Bacon Stevens says, the bells "have given me no annoyance, except when I have been sick." This house should be marked red. Walnut Street. Caroline G. Tait (15 18 Walnut street) is a sister of Henry C. Gibson (161 2), an original complainant. Rebecca Gibson (1702) is his mother and Walter McMichael (1616) is his tenant. None of these three, though they are introduced as additional complainants and colored black, make any affidavits as to annoyance or otherwise. 1604 is colored black. S. A. Caldwell makes no affidavit. 1700 is marked black. Dr. Jacob M. Da Costa does not say he is annoyed, but that a lady patient, some years dead, would be annoyed if now alive. 1623 is marked black. Mary D. Biddle does not say she is now annoyed, but "will be" and "sympathizes." 1601 is colored black. Edward Hartshorne, M. D., does not say he or his family are annoyed. South Sixteenth Street. 268 is colored black, with small red line. Samuel Bell said, the bells "do not annoy me in any way whatever." Never 320 contradicted this. Should be marked red. His second affi- davit is perfectly consistent with the first statement. 222 marked black, with green line. Made affidavit that the bells "are not now annoying to me." Makes proxy affidavit "for her mother," who can't speak English, saying the mother is annoyed. 245 is marked black, with green line. Mrs. Margaret W. White, the owner, testifies that she is not annoyed and was not by the early bell, and that the sound of the bells is "agree- able" to her. Her son, a young gentleman, who is troubled with insomnia, has made affidavit in contradiction to his mother. This house, in fairness, should be colored red, not black. 249 is colored black, with small red line. Samuel L. Shober says, in what is called an affidavit for complainants, when "pointedly asked" if he or any member of his family "had been annoyed," he "felt compelled to answer in the negative." This house should be colored red. South Seventeenth Street. 257 is colored black. Richard E. Clay testified that neither he "nor any of his family have been annoyed." He now says he is deterred by the statements of some of the neighbors from wishing to " live nearer." This house should be colored red. Latimer Street. 1632 is colored black, with green line. This is in the same position as the house of Samuel Bell, and should be colored red. Vaughan Street. 221 is colored black. The occupant of this house (Farley) has made no affidavit. It should be marked neutral. 223 is marked black. It is not a dwelling, but a carpenter shop. 321 My opinion is, that any one who relies on the Howe plan will be much deceived. My summary of dwelling-houses in the square between Walnut and Spruce and Sixteenth and Seventeenth, of which St. Mark's bell-tower is almost the exact centre is as follows : — Summary of Affidavits. Whole number of dwelling-houses, ... 98 In this square there are of complainants, . . 9 Of owners or tenants who swear that they are annoyed, ........ 20 29 Total, .... Of persons who say they are not annoyed (includ- ing those who are positively gratified), . . 47 Of those making no affidavits on either side, but who are neutral, ...... 22 98 Stables are excluded from this computation. The above includes all the supplemental affidavits of complainants down to the closing argument on February lOth. If Samuel Bell, Sussex D. Davis, Bishop Stevens, Richard E. Clay, Leontine Andre and Mulvina Franklin, who gave second affidavits, but none of which contradict their first affi- davits, which were for defendants, were stricken from the list entirely, there would be — For complainants, .... ... 29 For defendants, ........ 41 Neutral, 22 Stricken out, ........ 6 98 322 I made careful 'copies from the records of the Survey De- partment of the registered owners, and made very careful personal examination of the locality covered by the plan. I desire to add that I am not a member of nor do I attend the Episcopal Church, and that my connection with this case has been simply as a professional surveyor and engineer. David Evans. Sworn and subscribed before me, this sixteenth day of Feb- ruary, 1877. E. A. B. Brown, fsEAL] Notary Public. ADDENDUM TO DEFENDANTS' BRIEF. In view of the additional authorities submitted by com- plainants' counsel to the court, after the close of the argument, counsel for defendants present the following suggestions : — This is a case where judicial legislation is sought to restrain " church bells," and St. Mark's is only selected as a beginning. The medical testimony is against " church bells " generally. Dr. Packard says " church bells in a city are needless!' (Page III Complainants' Affidavits.) Dr. Mitchell's is a " polished essay" "against the multiplication of needless noises in modern life." (Page 100.) Dr. Gross, who testifies against Calvary bell, protests against " the ringing of church bells." (Page 113.) The complainants utterly fail to show any difference between the bells of St. Mark's and those of Christ Church or St. Stephen's. As to height, Christ Church bells are as low and St. Stephen's much lower. When St. Mark's tower was built the place for the bells was made from twenty to thirty feet higher than the roofs of the houses built when the church was commenced. At that time the opposite lots were 323 almost entirely vacant. It cannot be pretended that an expensive church-tower must be altered every time a neigh- bor chooses to put an extra story on his house. Proof is ample that the sound of St. Mark's bells differs in no material respect from those of Christ Church. See testimony of Mrs. Elizabeth W. Reed, Rachel H. Boldin, James S. Biddle, in addition to which is the testimony of four professional bell- ringers, page 202 Defendants' Affidavits. And, especially, see testimony of Carl Seller, M. D., Defendants' Supplemental Affidavits, page 312. The act of 35 and 36 Victoria, c. 61, referred to in complain- ants' argument, does not apply to church-bells. If it did, it is not in force in Pennsylvania, and this court cannot introduce it. If it is true, as it may ably be argued, that certain noises might well be prohibited in large cities, the remedy is by legislation ; not by a straining of the power of injunction. As to health, although the bells have been ringing eight ino7it]is, not a solitary instance of injury to any specified person has been proved, much less injury to any complainant. Episcopal churches have certainly as much right to the customary use of bells as Roman Catholic churches, and St. Mark's has the same rights as Christ Church, St. Peter's, and St. Stephen's. Roman Catholic churches have for years rung bells daily, at 6 A. M., in some of the best neighborhoods of Philadelphia. St. Mary's and St. Joseph's Churches furnish illustrations of this. If such ringing had been unlawful, there were enough able lawyers living in the neighborhood to find it out. It certainly was not illegal for an Episcopal church to ring an hour later only once a week. Calvary Presbyterian Church rings a larger and louder bell one square below St. Mark's. The kind of church the bells are on sometimes has more influence upon the likes or dislikes of some neighbors than either the height or the weight of the bells which are rung. Some of the most distant objectors in this case are more emphatic in their language than those who 324 live immediately opposite. (See pages 66 and 93 of Complain- ants' Affidavits.) The nearest neighbors are much more moderate in their statements. Geo. Tucker Bispham, P. Pemberton Morris, George W. Biddle, For Defendants. COMPLAINANTS' MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES. The jurisdiction is unquestionable. Two such cases are now actually pending in co-ordinate branches of this court. In the Abattoir Case (Sellers vs. Penn- sylvania Railroad Company (C. P., No. i, December Term, 1874, No. 3), the "plant" of more than a quarter of a million of dollars has been allowed to be made by the defendants, at their own risk, and liable to be wholly lost to them, if a nui- sance shall hereafter be made out.* In the Gas Nuisance Case (Children's Hospital vs. Bumm (C. P., No. 3, December Term, 1875, No. 1047), ^^ injunction issued at once as to part of the defendant's process (though the question involved was so grave a one as that of derangement of part of the machinery or apparatus of a great city), it being considered to be " a pubhc and a private nuisance"; and a commission is now * The court said at the close of its opinion : — " If the establishment as a whole or in any part of it should offend against the law it can be promptly suppressed ; and we propose to keep control of this case until the experiment has been fully tried, and also to impose terms regulating the construction of the cattle-yard and abattoir, so that every safeguard which has been or can be properly suggested shall be applied. " Before making any order upon the present motion we will require the defend- ants to file in the cause a plan of the proposed construction, the ad interim injunction to stand until the plan has been examined and approved by the court. " If the defendants choose to erect their buildings and construct their cattle- yards, when the order refusing the special injunction shall have been made, they will go on at their own risk. Nothing can be decided now but the question of the special injunction; if, upon final hearing on bill, answer and proofs, a case should be made out against them, any order which shall now be made will in no degree embarrass the court in entering such a judgment as the proof may require ; and even if a final injunction should be refused it leaves the defendants liable to prosecution, or to be restrained at any time thereafter, if their business should be so conducted as to be a nuisance, either to individuals or to the public generally." (327) 328 » actually in session to enable the court to determine how the remaining nuisance may be effectually abated with the least injury to the great body of citizens by depriving them of light* Without pausing to notice the settled doctrine of courts of law and of equity as to nuisances arising from pollution of the air, pollution of water, obstructions of highways and * The decrees, so far as is material, are as follows : — "And now, this fifteenth day of April, A: D. 1876, this cause came on to be heard upon a motion for a preliminaiy injunction as prayed in the bill, and was argued by counsel ; and it appearing to the court from the affidavits filed, both by the complainants and defendants, that the deposit of oyster-shells on the premises of the defendants, described in the bill, and their manufacture into lime on the said premises, as well as the exposure of foul lime after its use for purifi- cation of gas by the defendants, is a public and private nuisance, it is ordered and decreed — " Firsi. — That upon security being entered in the sum of $5000 the defendants be restrained from bringing to and depositing upon the said premises any oyster- shells or other substances which shall emit offensive or injurious smells or gases. "Second. — That they be restrained from the manufacture of lime upon the premises, either by the burning of oyster-shells or in any other way whereby offensive or injurious smells or gases are generated. " Third. — That they be restrained from depositing or leaving on the premises any accumulation of foul or spent lime, whereby offensive and injurious odors are generated, other than such lime as may have been produced in the purification of gas within the forty-eight hours prior to its deposit. And as to the remaining prayers in the bill, to wit : — " Fourth. — That in any process which may be used by the defendants for the manufacture of gas they be restrained from the use of such means as may cause offensive and injurious smells and gases to be spread over the neighborhood; and "Fifth. — That the defendants, after such reasonable notice as to the court shall seem proper, be restrained from manufacturing gas on the said premises," The court does now hold the same under advisement for future action thereon. " And now, this fifteenth day of July, 1876, the court do, in accordance with the prayer of the petition presented on the 29th of April last, appoint Drs. Robert E. Rogers and George F. Barker as commissioners, who shall, on or before the first day of October next, report to the court in what manner and within what time it may be possible or expedient to grant the relief prayed for in the third, fourth and fifth prayers of the complainants' bill or any of them. And it is ordered that the said commission shall, in the performance of their duties, have free access to all the works of the defendants." 329 navigable streams, obstructions of light and the like, it is proposed only to refer to the authorities as to nuisances arising from noise. I. Noise creating physical discomfort, detrimental to HEALTH AND DEPRECIATING TO PROPERTY, IS ALWAYS RESTRAINED BY INJUNCTION, EVEN VSTHEN PRODUCED IN THE EXERCISE OF A USEFUL AND LAWFUL TRADE OR OCCUPATION. " It is now well settled," says the only modern treatise on " The Law of Nuisances" (a very able text book), " that noise alone, unaccompanied with smoke, noxious vapors or noisome smells, may create a nuisance and be the subject of an action at law for damages, in equity for an injunction, or of an indictment as a public nuisance." Wood on Nuisances, chapter xvi., " Noise and Vibration," section 542, et seq. So in another recent able treatise it is said : — " Mere noise, from whatever cause, will, on a proper case being made out, be a sufficient ground for an injunction." Bispham's Principles of Equity, section 441, page 400. And as to what is " a proper case being made out," the following language of an English judge is quoted in almost every nuisance case that occurs : — " Ought this inconvenience to be considered in fact as more than fanciful, more than one of mere delicacy or fastidious- ness, as an inconvenience materially interfering with the ordi- nary comfort, physically, of human existence ; not merely according to elegant or dainty modes and habits of living, but "And now, December nth, 1876, it is ordered that Thomas R. Brown, chief engineer of the Philadelphia Gas-works, be added to the commission heretofore appointed herein, and that the commission thus constituted be continued, with directions to report to this court within twenty days a specific and detailed method and plan whereby, in their opinion, the several complaints set forth in the bill herein can be redressed, and the time required to accomplish the same, and that the report herein be recommitted." The time has very recently been extended, and experiments are being made at the works under the supervision of the commission. 330 according to plain and sober and simple notions among the English people?" — -Per Knight Bruce, V. C, Walter vs. Selfe, 4 Gex and Smale, 322. Or, as has been well stated by an author already quoted : — " Whatever, by producing physical discomfort, renders houses in the neighborhood unfit for residences will be a nuisance, and not the less so because there may be persons whose habits of life have brought them to endure the same annoyance with- out discomfort." — Bispham on Equity, section 439.* The cases are carefully collected and arranged in " Wood on Nuisances," page 582, et seq., and the law as to noise alone as a nuisance is thus stated by Lor'd Romilly, M. R., in Cramp vs. Lambert, L. R., 3 Eq. Cases, 409, where noise and smoke, proceeding from the manufactory of iron bedsteads, were enjoined, although the factory was in a manufacturing town and the plaintiff's house apparently over one hundred and seventy feet distant : — "I consider it to be established by numerous decisions that smoke unaccompanied with noise or noxious vapor, that noise alone, that offensive vapors alone, although not injurious to * Citing the well-known case of Cleveland vs. Citizens' Gas-light Company, 5 C. E. Green, 201 ; in this the court says : — " To live comfoitably is the chief and most reasonable object of men in acquir- ing property as the means of attaining it, and any interference with a neighbor in the comfortable enjoyment of life is a wrong which the law will redress. The only question is what amounts to that discomfort from which the law will protect- " The discomforts must be physical, — not such as depend upon taste or imagina- tion. But whatever is offensive physically to the senses, and by such offensiveness makes life uncomfortable, is a nuisance ; and it is not the less so because there may be persons whose habits and occupations have brought them to endure the same annoyance without discomfort. Other persons or classes of persons, whose senses have not been so hardened, and who, by their education and habits of life, retain the sensitiveness of their natural organization, are entitled to enjoy life in comfort as they are constituted. The law knows no distinction of classes, and will protect any citizen or class of citizens from wrongs and grievances that might perhaps be borne by others without suffering or much inconvenience. The com- plainants have houses built and held for the purpose of residence by families of means and respectability, and anything that by producing jihysical discomfort would render them unfit for such residence or drive such families from them is a nuisance which the law will restrain." ;, ;33I health, may severally constitute a nuisance to the owner of adjoining or neighboring property ; that if they do so sub- stantial dapnages m^y be recovered at law, and that this court, if applied to, will restrain the continuance of the nuisance by injunction, in all cases where substantial damages could be recovered at law. EUiotson vs. Fortham and Soltan vs. De Held are instances relating to noise alone. In the former, damages were recovered in an action at law, and in the second, an injunction was granted on account of sound alone. * * * The law on the subject is, I apprehend, the same, whether it be enforced by action at law or by bill in equity. In any case where a plaintiff could obtain substantial damages at law he is entitled to an injunction to restrain the nuisance in this court." And the same principle has frequently been recognized and acted upon ; thus the noise of a smith's forge in an adjoining house has been enjoined. Bradley vs. Gill, Lutwyche, 69. So of the noise and jar from a printing-press. Robertson vs. Campbell, 13 F. C. (Scotch), 61. So of a stable adjoining a house used as a hotel and where the stable had been used as such for over fifty years. . Ball vs. Ray, Law Rep., 8 Ch. App., 467. "I entirely agree," said Mellish.L. J., "with what has been said by the lord chancellor, that when in a street like Green street the ground floor of a neighboring house is turned into a stable, we are not to consider the noise of horses from, that stable like the noise of a piano-forte from a neighbor's house or the noise of a neighbor's children in their nursery, which are noises we must reasonably expect, and must to a consid- erable extent put up with. A noise of this kind, if it ma- terially disturbs the comfort of the plaintiff's dwelling-house, and prevents the people from sleeping at night, and still more, if it does really and seriously interfere with the plaintiff's trade 332 as a lodging-house keeper, beyond all question constitutes an actionable nuisance." So in the recent case of Erodes vs. Saillard, Law Rep., I Chan. Div., 692, the defendant was restrained from permit- ting the noise of his horses to annoy the plaintiff, and the master of the rolls (Sir George Jessel) said : — "If there were no authority on the question, I should have felt no difficulty about it, because I take it the law is this : that a man is entitled to the comfortable enjoyment of his dwelling- house. If his neighbor makes such a noise as to interfere with the ordinary use and enjoyment of his dwelling-house, so as to cause serious annoyance and disturbance, the occupier of the dwelling-house is entitled to be protected from it. It is no answer to say that the defendant is only making a reasonable use of his property, because there are many trades and many occupations which are not only reasonable, but necessary to be followed, and which still cannot be allowed to be followed in the proximity of dwelling-houses, so as to interfere with the comfort of their inhabitants. I suppose a blacksmith's trade is as necessary as most trades in this king- dom; or I might take instance of many noisy and offensive trades, some of which are absolutely necessary and some of which, no doubt, may not only reasonably be followed, but to which it is absolutely and indispensably necessary for the wel- fare of mankind that some houses and some pieces of land should be devoted ; therefore I think that it is not the test. If a stable is built — as this stable is, not as stables usually are — at some distance from dwelling-houses, but next to the wall of the plaintiff's dwelling-house, in such a position that the noise would actually prevent the neighbors sleeping, and would frighten them out of their sleep, and would prevent their ordinary and comfortable enjoyment of their dwelling- house, all I can say is, that is not a proper place to keep horses in, although the horses may be ordinarily quiet." And the same doctrine was applied upon similar facts in Dargan vs. Waddell, 9 Iredell (N. C), 244. 333 So in Bishop vs. Banks, 33 Con., 118, the bleating of calves held over night at a slaughter-house was enjoined at the suit of an owner of a dwelling-house six hundred feet distant. "It is found," said Park, J., "that the annoyance to the petitioner, proceeding from this cause, was so great at times as to drive him and his family from the occupancy of that part of his house nearest to the premises of the respondent. The case presents an extreme case of the kind, — one that will constitute a nuisance, if a nuisance can be produced from such cause. In the cases of Whitney z'.f. Bartholomew, 21 Conn., 113, and of Brown vs. Illius, 27 id., 84, this court distinctly recognize the doctrine that a nuisance may be produced by offensive sounds in the prosecution of business lawful /«' se. * * * It is difficult to conceive of any noise more destructive to the comfort and happiness of a family than the constant wailing of animals in distress in the immediate vicinity of their residence. Enjoyment under such circum- stances would require nerves of brass and a heart of steel." So in Roskell vs. Whitworth, 19 Weekly Reporter, 804, the noise and vibration occasioned by a steam-hammer used in the defendant's manufactory was enjoined at the suit of a neighboring church and school, who complained that this noise and vibration di.sturbed the congregation and interfered with the scholars. The defendant in his answer denied all the allegations of the bill, and asserted that " steam-hammers are essential to his work, and that he cannot carry on his business without them."* But Bacon, V. C, in granting the injunction, said : — " I am satisfied, and do find as matter of fact, that the use by the defendant of his steam-hammer has produced, and will, unless checked, continue to produce, an unjustifiable nuisance * So in the Gas Nuisance Case, the engineer of the works swore positively that it was impossible to purify gas from any other than oyster-shell lime burned i n the premises, but the court promptly enjoined the process notwithstanding. 334 to the plaintiffs ; that the comfortable enjoyment of their resi- dence is grievously disturbed ; that the services of their church are interrupted; that the business of their schools is injuriously impeded and that their property has been damaged by the defendant. The law upon the subject is perfectly clear, and is established by the case (among other cases) of Lady Gort vs. Clark, 1 6 W. R., 569, where the plaintiff complained of the use by the defendant of a saw worked by a steam-engine, which produced such a vibration as entitled the owners of adjoining houses to redress." So in Scott vs. Firth, 10 Law Times (N. S.), 240, in a com- mon-law action of nuisance for the noise caused by a steam- hammer in a rolling-mill, -the defendant pleaded that the griev- ances complained of were caused in the reasonable and proper exercise of his trade in a reasonable and proper manner. But, said the court, " in law that was no answer to the action." So of noise from a boiler-factory. Fish vs. Dodge, 4 Denio (N. Y.), 311. And the illustration of all this is shown by the course taken in England, whose people are the most practical in the world. The act of 35 and 36 Victoria, c. 61, provides that " No person shall use or employ in any manufactory or any other place any steam-whistle or steam-trumpet for the pur- pose of summoning or dismissing workmen or persons employed without the sanction of the sanitary authority, and every person offending against this section shall be liable to a perlalty not exceeding five pounds, and to a further penalty not exceeding forty shillings for every day during which such offense continues." But it is unnecessary to go outside of our own State. In Dennis' W. Eckhardt, 3- Grant's Cases, 390, a tinsmith, who conducted his business in such a manner as to disturb his neighbors, was enjoined from continidug to rse his tvcrkshop at 335 all. "The noise of the hammering and pounding in sUch an establishment," said Thompson, J., " we well know is usually very great, and the affidavits describe it as intolerable in this instance, so much so, that the complainant and his family can scarcely hear each other converse, have been obliged to abandon their chambers next to the shop, and are every night and morning deprived of their rest by the persistent hammer- ing of the defendant. * * * j cannot doubt that a constant annoyance, which at law cannot be abated, is never remedied by damages. The loss of health and sleep, the enjoyment of quiet and repose and the comforts of home cannot be restored or compensated in money ; it may afford consolation, but it does not remedy the evil, if that goes on, to be paid for by installments. The law operates on the past only, while equity can and will act on the present and future, will abate the nuisance itself and restore the injured party to his rights. In this case a suit or suits would not be an ade- quate remedy for the evils complained of, in my opinion. But we should not iriterfere by preliminary injunctions, except in cases of irreparable mischief or injury. Have we not such a case here? It may be asked if the mischief is not irreparable which entails the want of health as a consequence of annoy- ances. A chancellor does not wait till noisome trades and unwholesome gases kill somebody before he proceeds to restrain, or that the threatened destruction of pictures, charts, &c., has taken place. His remedy is preventive, and if the tendency of the acts complained of be injurious, so that the injury may be irreparable, he will proceed to prevent them. * * * I am therefore of opinion that the defend- ant should be restrained from using his tin and sheet-iron workshop as a workshop until further order of the court." II. A FORTIORI WILL THE JURISDICTION BE EXERCISED WHEN THE NOISE IS C/AW£C£55^i?K. K Thus, Mr. Wood says, in his treatise:— "A distinction is also made between noises arising from 336 lawful trades and those arising from malicious or mischievous motives, or such as are produced for no useful purpose." Wood on Nuisances, section 549, page 587. Thus, making a noise with a speaking-trumpet has been held to be a nuisance. Rex vs. Smith, i Strange, 704. In Inchbald vs. Barrington, Law Rep., 4 Ch. App., 338, the noise produced by a circus was considered to be a nuisance. " We have now before us," said Selwyn, L. J. (page 396), " the evidence of the plaintiff and his wife, corroborated by that of seven independent witnesses, showing that the noise of the performances was heard inside the houses to such a degree as materially to interfere with the comfort of the inhabitants, according to ordinary habits of life. This evidence is uncontradicted, and I am of opinion that it establishes a case of nuisance calling for the interference of this court." So in Walker vs. Brewster, Law Rep., 5 Eq. Cas., 25, a band of music playing twice a week and the letting-off rockets was held to be a nuisance as to a complainant three hundred feet distant. " Having regard to the fact of this court having restrained the ringing of bells (Soltau vs. De Held), I confess I have a strong opinion that the setting up a powerful brass band, which plays twice a week for several hours in the immediate vicinity of a gentleman's house, is a nuisance which this court should restrain." — Per Wood, V. C. Hence, as a matter of course, church-bells fall di- rectly WITHIN this line OF DECISION. In Martin vs. Nutkin, 2 Peere Williams, 266, the complain- ant's wife was much disturbed by the ringing of the parish bell at five o'clock in the morning, and was about giving up 337 her house and removing into another parish, when it was in- timated to her by the parish that she might purchase her quiet if she so desired. Accordingly the plaintiffs agreed to build a cupola and erect a clock and new bell, and the defendant agreed not to ring the five o'clock bell during the life of the complain- ant ; which promise was kept for about two years, when the ringing was recommenced at the instigation of an ale-house keeper, who had been chosen church-warden. And upon a bill filed, an injunction was granted to stay the ringing, which, upon appeal, was affirmed, as, said the court, "the ringing of the five o'clock bell did not seem to be of any use to the parish, though of very ill consequence to the com- plainants." If it be said that this was a case of contract, whose specific performance was thus decreed, the same remark cannot apply to the familiar case of Soltau vs. De Held, 2 Simons (N. S.), 133 (A. D. 185 1), where, at the suit of a single citizen, an in- junction was granted to restrain a church from continuing to ring a peal of bells in such manner as to cause any nuisance, disturbance and annoyance to the plaintiff, who lived in a neighboring house. The church had a peal of six bells, of the following weight and size : — CWT. QRS. LBS. SIZE IN FEET. DIAM. INCHES. The 6th bell, 9 20 3 3 " sth " 7 3 7 2 II " 4th " 6 I 3 2 9 ■' 3d " 6 22 2 7 " 2d " 4 3 9 2 4 " ist " 4 I II 2 3 38 2 14 338 Which, on Sunday, November 9th, 185 1, and on the follow- ing Sunday, were rung as follows : — One bell at 8.45 A. M. for five minutes. One bell at 10.20 A. M. for five minutes. Three bells at 10.45 A. M. for five minutes. One bell at 6.30 P. M. for five minutes. Three bells at 6.50 P. M. for five minutes. The plaintiff in his bill set forth this ringing, and that the defendants threatened and intended to ring peals of the six bells, and to ring on week-days and also to ring the chapel bell. That the tolling of the bells on these two Sundays had caused considerable annoyance to him and his family, render- ing it impossible to read or write without difficulty. That one of his daughters, being in a delicate state of health, the plaintiff was obliged to remove her to some more quiet place of residence. That the value of his house was diminished. That the ringing of peals of bells or the ringing of bells or a bell for any purpose, religious or otherwise, ought not to be per- mitted, if it occasioned a nuisance or annoyance to any person or persons residing in the neighborhood, and the prayer of the bill was that the defendant might be restrained from permit- ting the bells to be rung in such manner as to annoy the plaintiff The only affidavits presented were those of the plaintiff himself and one other person (see pages 154, 156). The injunction was granted, and Kindersley, V. C, said, " This is not a public nuisance. * A peal of bells may be and is no doubt an extreme nuisance, and perhaps an intolerable nuisance to a person who lives within a few feet or yards of them ; but to a person who lives at a distance from them, although he is within reach of their sound, so far from being a nuisance or inconvenience, it may be a posi- tive pleasure." (Page 143.) " With respect to the neighbors, we have no means of knowing who those neighbors are or how they live. All that we are told is, that they do not 339 consider the ringing a nuisance. Therefore, I consider the fact of its being a nuisance sufficiently established by the affidavits which have been made on the part of the plaintiff. Moreover, one ought to take into consideration the actual circumstances proved and not at all disputed, namely, that these bells are of a most unusual weight and size ; that they are placed in a steeple which is almost in front of the plain- tiff's house and in a place which was the court-yard of the mansion-house before it was divided into two houses. When you consider those circumstances it is hardly necessary to produce affidavits to show that it must be an intolerable nuisance to have such large bells ringing, though for a short period of time and only on Sundays, so near to the plaintiff's house, and it is to be remenjbered that the plaintiff" has not gone .to the bells, but the bells have come to him. Then, I may further observe, in connection with this point, that the plaintiff swears that he is informed and believes that the de- fendant threatens and intends, not only to continue tolling or ringing the last-mentioned bells every Sunday, in manner last aforesaid, but also to ring peals of the last six bells, and also to toll and ring on week-days, and also to toll and ring the bell of the chapel, and there is no contradiction to that, and therefore I must take it that there is the intention, or, at all events, the reservation of the right on the part of the defend- ant to ring as much as he pleases. " * * * I am of opinion that this is such an incon- venience, and such an invasion of the domestic comfort and enjoyment of a man's home, that he is entitled to come and ask this court to interfere." And the decree was " to restrain the defendant, and all persons acting under his direction or by his authority, from tolling or ringing the bells in the plaintiff's bill mentioned, or any of them, so as to occasion any nuisance, disturbance and annoyance to the plaintiff and his family, re- siding in his dwelling-house, in the bill mentioned. In thus wording the injunction, I am following what was done by Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce in Walter vs. Selfe." 340 If it be urged against the authority of this carefully con- sidered case, that there had been a previous trial at law in which the plaintiff had recovered forty shillings damages, the answer is — 1. The bill was filed, as to the past, for the two Sunday ringings referred to, and as to the future, for the threatened prospective additional ringing. 2. The opinion clearly shows that the court considered the plaintiff entitled to relief, entirely irrespective of the previous action ; and, 3. The doctrine that a trial at law, or even an issue, must pre- cede an injunction, has for years been discontinued in England, and was never the practice here. In the case already referred to of Roskell vs. Whitworth, supra, page 7, Bacon, V. C, said, " It cannot be disputed, that so far as the law and practice of the court are concerned, the question thus raised is of vast importance. If, as the defendant insists, the court is power- less to dispose of the questions raised without the assistance of a jury, that assistance must be invoked ; and the question must remain undecided, until a verdict satisfactory to the court shall have been pronounced, for I need not observe that in no case would the court be satisfied until its own judgment went along with the opinion expressed by a jury. But, as I enter- tain a very clear conviction on this subject, I think it right that I should express it on this part of the case. I have no doubt that, at all events, the court being satisfied of the exist- ence of a nuisance which it has the power to abate or redress, whether public or private, has not hesitated — I may say could not in justice and reason hesitate — to exercise its jurisdiction and authority." So much for the practice. If it should be contended that a court of equity will not interfere because these complainants 341 have an adequate remedy at law, the answer is given in the words of the author already quoted. " If the nuisance is a constantly-recurring grievance, the court will interfere as a matter of course, to prevent interminable litigation and a multiplicity of suits." Wood on Nuisances, section 799, citing numerous au- thorities. And the two cases noticed at the beginning of this brief, viz., the Abattoir Case and the Gas Nuisance Case, show that this general doctrine is recognized and enforced by this court. It remains to notice the defense. 1. There are those who are not annoyed, and some who even like the noise. This is completely answered by the authorities already cited. 2. Bell-ringing is an established custom of the church. The simple answer is that no custom, rite, belief, privilege or the like, ever justifies a violation of law. The best illus- tration is the celebrated case of Stockdale vs. Hansard (9 Adolphus and Ellis, i), where Hansard, the publisher of the parliamentary debates, being sued for libel, pleaded in justifi- cation an order of the House of Commons to print and publish the report of the inspectors of prisons which con- tained the supposed libel, to which the plaintiff demurred, assigning for cause " that the known and established laws of the land cannot be superseded, suspended or altered by any resolution or order of the House of Commons, and that the House of Commons, in Parliament assembled, cannot by any resolution or order of themselves, create any new privilege to themselves inconsistent with the known laws of the land, and that if such power be assumed by them, there can be no 342 reasonable security for the life, liberty, property or character of the subjects of the realm." It is matter of popular as well as legal history that this demurrer was sustained by the exhaustive judgments of the Court of Queen's Bench. Wm. Henry Rawle, R. C. MCMURTRIE, ' For Complainants. DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES. It is undoubtedly true that courts of equity exercise, as one of their most important functions, a jurisdiction which enables them to secure to the citizen the enjoyment of his home free from molestation or annoyance (prejudicial to his health and comfort) by such act of his neighbors as the court, with a due regard for the rights of others and the principles adopted for the government of such cases, has adjudged to be nuisances. At the same time it is also well settled that the Court, in determining whether acts or things complained of as nuisances are so or not, should not be influenced by the caprices or idiosyncrasies of individual complainants, or be constrained by the tastes or antipathies of the exceptionally nervous and over-fastidious, particularly when the act complained of is not a nuisance per se. And above all it is of the essence of judicial equity that it should be no respecter of persons, — the high and the low are alike in this presence. With due reference to our friends who have filed this bill, we cannot but think that it offends against both these well- settled limitations of the court's jurisdiction. This bill starts with a statement which, if it is inserted as adding force to the prayer for relief, violates one of these limi- tations. The essential part of the prayer is "that the complainants be not unnecessarily disturbed in their homes or in their sleep or rest, or at any time when certified that any person living in the neighborhood is so far annoyed and distressed thereby as not to be able to obtain rest or sleep." Stress is laid in the first paragraph of the bill on the fact that the complainants are owners or occupiers of premises on (343) 344 the north and south sides of Locust and Walnut streets, covered by handsome and expensive residences, on which large sums of money have been expended. As to such things equity is impartial. The health, the sleep and the comfort of all citizens equally are the objects of the court's protection. Pauperium tabernas regumqiie turres are alike to it. Rhodes vs. Dunbar, 7 P. F. Smith, page 286. The same misconception of the sphere in which equity acts appears again, as we think, in the third paragraph of the bill, at the foot of page 3, where it is stated " the nuisance is greater to those whose nervous systems are at all delicately organized," and " the nuisance is not limited to the time during which the actual bell-ringing lasts, for the expectation of its beginning produces a nervousness and excitement which to all is painful and to some intolerable." Equity does not go to such over-sensitive natures to ascer- tain where to place the limit to annoyances which may be re- strained as nuisances. The true criterion we take to be this : — To be a nuisance restrainable in a court of equity, the act must be shown to be such as would be so considered by the average citizen in fair bodily and mental health. Any other test would be so uncertain as to render the safe investment of money or improvement of property altogether impossible. No man could tell when there would settle down beside him one of those natures, wrought to the highest pitch of nervous sensitiveness by the stimulating effect of over- culture in special directions, which would not bear the contact, or, perhaps, even the presence, of ordinary mortals ; or even the most delightful of nature's productions. We have all heard of persons whose organizations are so delicate that they cannot endure the presence of a rose, and who would be thrown into convulsions by the emanations from a conservatory. Would it do for such an one to ask the court to shut up his neighbor's green-house or bid him to move to some region ungraced by handsome and expensive residences? The court certainly would not say so. The sturdy and manly common sense of the people for the 345 administration of justice among whom the English equity system was devised, and from whom it has been adopted by us, would never have consented that the whims, caprices or nerves of that estimable class of citizens should control the business, pleasures or habits of the rest of the community. Lord Justice Knight Bruce, in Walter vs. Selfe, 4 DeGex & Smale, 322, uses this language with reference to the case then before him : — " Ought this inconvenience to be considered, in fact, as more than fanciful, more than one of mere delicacy or fastidiousness, as an inconvenience materially interfering with the ordinary comfort, phys-ically, of human existence ; not merely according to elegant or dainty modes and habits of living, but according to plain and sober and simple notions among the English people ? " This is accepted as the proper account of the matter by Vice-Chancellor Kindersley (quoting the very words), in Soltau vs. DeHeld, 2 Sim., N. S., 133. (Reported also in vol. IX. Eng. Law and Eq. Rep., 133.) Also, by Lord Selborne, in Gaunt vs. Finney, L. R., 8 Ch. App., 8 ; in Ball vs. Ray, L. R., 8 Ch. App., 468 ; by Thayer, P. J., in Blanchard vs. Reyburn, i Week. N., 329, and by Ch. J. Thompson, in Sparkawk, vs. The Union Pass. Railway Co., 4 P. F. Sm., 427. These observations are also found in that case : — " Noises which disturb sleep, bodily rest, a physical necessity, noxious gases, sickening smells, corrupted waters and the like, usually affect the mass of the community in one and the same way, and may be testified to by all possessed of their natural senses, and can be judged of by their probable effect on health and comfort, and in this way damages may be perceived and estimated. Not so of that which only affects thought or meditation." — Per Thompson, C. J., in Sparhawk vs. Union Pass. Railway Co., 4 P. F. S., 427-8. See, also, the words of Sir G. Hellish, L. J., in Ball vs. Ray, L. R., 8 Ch. App., 47 1. The case was one of alleged nuisance, — noise by horses. " I entirely agree with what has been said by the lord chancellor, ' that when in a street like Green street, the ground floor of a neighboring house is turned into a stable, we are not to consider the noise of horses from that stable like the noise of a piano-forte from a neighboring house, or the 346 noise of a neighbor's children in their nursery, which are noises we must reasonably expect, and must, to a considerable extent, put up with.' And in the same case Lord Selborne said, ' In making out a nuisance of this character {i e., from noise) there are always two things to be considered — the right of the plaintiff and the right of the defendant.' " " If the houses adjoining each other are so built that from the commencement of their existence it is manifest that each adjoining inhabitant was intended to enjoy his own property for the ordinary purposes for which it and all the different parts of it were constructed, then so long as the house is so used there is nothing that can be regarded, in law, as a nuisance wliich the other party has a right to prevent. On the other hand, if either party turns his house or any portion of it to unusual purposes, in such a manner as to produce a substantial injury to his neighbor, it appears to me that that is not, according to prin- ciple or authority, a reasonable use of his own property, and his neighbor, showing substantial injury, is entitled to pro- tection." And the case of Broder vs. Saillard, L. R., 2 Ch. Div., 702 (also a case of noise by horses in a stable adjoining plaintiff's dwelling), was ruled on the same principles by Sir G. Jessel, Master of the Rolls. See also Crump vs. Lambert, L. R. 3 Eq., 411. And in the case of the Attorney-General vs. The Sheffield Gas Consumers' Company, 19 Eng. L. and Eq. Rep., 639, on page 652 the following language was used : — "All these cases of nuisance or no nuisance arising from particular acts must, from the nature of things, be governed by particular circum- stances. I take it that all these questions are of this nature. Are you using the matter which is the subject-matter of inquiry in a reasonable way and are those the uses for which it was con- templated?" See Huckenstein's Appeal, 20 P. F. Smith, 103. Dunbar vs. Rhodes, 7 P. F. Smith, 274. Richards' Appeal,. 7 P. F. Smith, 105. In the case of Walker z/5. Brewster, Law R., 5 Eq., 25, and Inchbold vs. Robinson, Law Rep., 4 Ch. App., 388, certain 347 noisy entertainments were restrained as nuisances, and were distinguished from private parties, because of tiie profit made at them, to the annoyance of his neighbors. — Sir Page Wood, V. C, L. R., 5 Eq., 32. Again, there are things which the average citizen will, with- out hesitation declare to be nuisances, which the chancellor will deny to be such, but only annoyances, and will not interfere to prevent them. They must be submitted to as among the irremediable ills of the common lot which men in communi- ties must make the best of Thus, we find in St. Helen's Smelting Co. vs. Tipping, 1 1 H. L. Cas., 650, Lord Westbury used this language: — " With regard to simple personal discomfort, the personal inconvenience and interference with one's enjoyment, one's quiet, one's personal freedom, anything that injuriously affects the senses or the nerves, may depend upon the circumstances of the place. If a man lives in a street where there are nu- merous shops, and a shop is opened next door to him, which is carried on in a fair and reasonable way, he has no ground for complaint because to himself, individually, there may arise much discomfort from the trade carried on in that shop." The judges of this court would not confine that observation to the case of a street in which there are already shops. Lord Selborne, in Gaunt vs. Finney, L. & R., 8 Ch. Ap., vol. 8, pages II and 12, says : — There may, of course, be such a thing as a legal nuisance from noise in a manufacturing or other populous town, of which the case of Soltau vs. De Held is an example. But a nuisance of this kind is much more difficult to prove than when the injury complained of is the demon- strable effect of a visible or tangible cause, as when waters are fouled by sewage, or when the fumes of mineral acids pass from the chimneys of factories or other works over land or houses, producing deleterious physical changes which science can trace and explain. A nuisance by noise [supposing malice to be out of the question) is emphatically a question of degree. If my neighbor builds a house against a party-wall next to my own, and I hear through the wall more than is agreeable to me of the sounds from his nursery or music-room, it does not 348 follow {even if I am nervously sensitive or in infirm health) that I can bring an action or obtain an injunction. Such things, to offend against the law, must be done in a manner which, beyond fair controversy, ought to be regarded as exceptive and unreasonable." And then he commends the use made in argument of a citation from Tuke on the Influence of the Mind on the Body, namely, " that the thought uppermost in the mind, the predominant idea or expectation, makes a real sensation from without assume a different character. A ner- vous or anxious or prepossessed listener hears sounds which would otherwise have passed unnoticed, and magnifies and exaggerates into new significance, originating within himself sounds which at other times would have been passively heard and not regarded." See, also, Harrison. z/j. Good, L. R., ii Eq., 338. Depreciation in value of a house because of something done in adjoining property does not make that something a nuisance. The case of Harrison vs. Good, which, singularly enough, was a bill filed by Charles Harrison against .St. Mark's Church, Marylebone, and others, arose out of a covenant in a deed by which the vendee covenanted that he, his heirs or assigns, "will not do or suffer to be done upon the premises anything which shall be, or be deemed to be a nuisance to Henry Samuel Eyre, or any of the tenants, or the occupiers for the time being of the adjoining property, or the houses to be built thereon." St. Mark's, Marylebone, acquired the lot for the purpose of erecting a parish school. The bill charged that the school, if estabhshed, would " greatly diminish the value of the respec- tive properties of the complainants," and prayed for an injunc- tion to restrain " the defendants, their architects, &c., from establishing any national or parochial schools " on the lots. Sir James Bacon, V. C, says : — " The word ' nuisance ' is a word perfectly well known to the law, — it means only one thing. In common parlance, ' nuisance,' no doubt; is applied to a great many things wholly different from, and others not at all like, the definition which by law is given to the word nuisance. But if it does not mean only that signification which the law has put upon it, I am at a loss to know what it 349 does mean, because if I enlarge it in some degree, I must enlarge it, perhaps, in a greater degree, and if I were to substitute the popular word ' annoyance ' for the legal term 'nuisance,' I do, not know how I could stop, if any person entitled to the benefit of the covenant should allege to me that the thing which was being done was diagreeable or distasteful to him. It would be, I think, reducing the cove- nant to absurdity if I were to extend it so as to include mere matters of personal antipathy. That which would be odious and almost intolerable to one man others might not care a straw about. I say, therefore, that I am confined entirely to the meaning of the word ' nuisance ' as I find it used in and applied by the law. " I would not have it supposed that I am not perfectly sen- sible of the great disadvantage which will happen to the plaintiff, Mr. Dangerfield, if this school should be established in the place where it is proposed, and I have no doubt that the value of his property will be depreciated. But the case which was referred to is by no means an authority for the proposition that, because a depreciation in value would take place, the owners of adjoining property suffering depreciation have therefore a right to call that a ' nuisance' which they fail to prove otherwise to be a nuisance." [In the case of Doe vs. Keeling, i M. & S., 95, the cove- nant was not to carry on any trade. In Kemp vs. Sober, i Sim. (N. S.), the word " annoyance" occurred in the covenant.] Diminution of the value of complainants' premises is not a ground for equitable interference. Fishmongers' Co. vs. East India Co., i Dick., 164. Attorney-General vs. Nichols, 16 Vesey, 343. Rhodes vs. Dunbar, 7 P. F. S., 290. Though no doubt it is true that if a nuisance is shown to exist, and in consequence of it there is a diminution of value, the extent of the diminution may be evidence to show how great the nuisance is. But it is in itself no evidence that the act from which it springs is a nuisance. See Soltau vs. De Held, 9 Eng. Law and Eq. Rep., page 122, at foot. 350 These being the principles upon which the chancellor acts in the exercise of his jurisdiction to restrain acts not unlaw- ful in themselves or per se nuisances, let us see where, under the proper application of these principles, the case of the plaintiffs come. The act complained of is the chiming of church-bells from a regularly-established church, — certainly not an unlawful act, or one per se a nuisance. This the bill intimates without directly averring the act to be unlawful in itself. The universality of the use of the church-bells in Christian countries is known to the court as a matter of history, and amply established in this case by the defendants' affidavits. The great interest taken in them by. the body of the people, shown by our affidavits and reference to books, is also well known, and effectually negatives the idea that the chimes are, per se, a nuisance, or ever can be a public nuisance. The evidence in the cause, interpreted by the principles above set forth, shows that ^these bells are not a private nuisance in any sense, and certainly not in any sense which this court will undertake to abate. The doctrine that the complainant cannot be answered by showing that he came to the nuisance, will not avail these plaintiffs. That is true only when the nuisance is a pubHc one. See Smith vs. Phillips, 8 Philada. R., lo. Numerous cases are cited by Judge Thayer, — all cases of public nuisances. There are two English cases where injunctions were granted against ringing church-bells. One was Martin vs. Nutkin, 2 Peere Wms., 266, where the ringing of the five o'clock morn- ing bell disturbed Lady Howard, who was " of a sickly and weak constitution," and had her house "very near the church." She was about parting with her house, when an agreement was entered into between her and the vestry, by which she agreed to " build a cupola to the church and erect a clock and new bell," provided that during the lives of herself and husband the " five o'clock bell should not be rung." A written covenant was entered into and " the five o'clock bell was silenced for about two years." Subsequently, a new warden coming into office, it was again rung, and an injunction 3SI to stop it was granted, very properly, m aid of the covenant. It is plain that if the simple and expeditious remedy of an injunc- tion had existed in the first place Lady Howard would not have gone to the expense of erecting a cupola, clock and new bell. The, other case is Soltau vs. De Held, 2 Sim. (N. S.), 133. This was the case of a Roman Catholic chapel in London, built in what had been the court-yard of a large mansion- house before it was divided into two houses, one of which two houses was occupied by the plaintiff. This Roman Catholic chapel was held to be under a disability, the Vice-Chancellor saying, that the building, " although called a church by those who use it, is not a church in the eye of the law. * * It is but a chapel ; it is no church ; it has no legal privilege of having bells in the same way as a parish church has!' The Vice-Chancellor also said : — " It is to be remembered that the plaintiff has not gone to the bells, but the bells have come to him." It was conceded by all that the parish churches rang their bells and chimes longer than the defendants. Besides, the case was peculiar in its circumstances and was practically undefended. There was but one affidavit for the defense, and that by a person who cfld not say how near he lived to the bells. In Soltau vs. De Held there could be no pretense that the complainant came to the nuisance. In this State no churches are under a disability. All are on a footing of equal rights, and all have the rights to the usual and proper accom- paniments of a church — including bells and chimes, when they can afford them. The chimes of Christ Church, Philadelphia, have been rung since 1754. Religious societies have always been liberally upheld in their rights in Pennsylvania. From the above review of the law it is believed that the following propositions (which are applicable to the case at bar) may be deduced, viz. : — I. Every one living in a populous, thickly-built community, must make some sacrifice of personal convenience in regard to the noise and bustle of traffic and of pleasure, for the sake of the advantages derived from the convenient and close inter- course of civic life. Sparhawk vs. Union Passenger Railroad, 352 4 P. F. Sm., 430; Rhodes vs. Dunbar, 7 id., 287; Tipping vs. St. Helen's Smelting Company, 11 H. L. Cas., 650. II. Again, while trades and pursuits which materially affect the health and comfort of the citizen cannot be carried on to his detriment, still the injury complained of must be of a real, substantial kind, such as plain men and women will reason- ably feel to be such. See opinion of Thompson, C. J., in Sparhawk vs. Union Passenger Railroad, 4 P. F. Sm., 427; Walter vs. Selfe, 4 DeG. & Sm., 222 ; Salvin vs. North Brance- peth Coal Company, L. R., 9 Ch. App., 709; Blanchard vs. Reyburn, I Week. N., 529; Butterfield vs. Klaber, N. Y. Sup. Ct, MSS. III. There is no difference in this respect, consequently, between the dwellers in one street and those in another, or between the occupants of large and costly mansions and the tenants of small and humble residences. The law looks with the same eye upon both. Rhodes vs. Dunbar, 7 P. F. Sm. IV. Fixed habits and usages are taken into account in all such considerations. ^ V. If there is a conflict of testimony so as to leave in doubt the question of injury, courts will not enjoin, but will send the complainants to a court of law to first establish the injury by a trial, and if it be found real and substantial, will then forbid it. Kerr on Injunctions, 208-9. Eaden vs. Frith, i Hem. &. M., 573. Imperial Gas Light Co. vs. Bradbent, 7 H. L. Cas., 371. VI. The complainants cannot sue jointly. The injury (if any) must necessarily be several. Hudson vs. Madison, 12 Sm., 418; Davidson vs. Isham, i Stockt., 186. See, also, the remarks of Judge Strong, in Sparhawk vs. The Union Passen- ger Railroad Company, 4 P. F. Sm., 415. Geo. Tucker Bispham, P. Pemberton Morris, George W. Biddle, For Defendants. ARGUMENT FOR COMPLAINANTS, BY WILLIAM HENRY RAWLE, Esq. Mr. Jlawle opened the argument for the complainants. With submission to the Court, I will try to condense what I have to say within the smallest possible compass. To that end, your Honors have already been furnished with printed copies of all the testimony, and with a brief of the authorities on which we shall rely. I will begin, as they would say in a criminal court, with the corpus delicti. (Turning to the model.) Here is the corpus delicti. This niodel, which is of wood, whose base is five feet five inches by a width of four feet one inch and a half, is made on a scale of one-tenth of an inch to a foot. You see that the bells of this church are, at their sound-bow, at a height of sixty- three and a half feet from the pavement. You see the propor- tion which this bell-tower bears to the roofs of the surrounding houses, — it is scarcely above the roofs of some of them. This, to the east, is the house of Dr. Hays (pointing), a hundred and twenty feet from the tower, and this is the house of Mr, Moon, just twenty feet farther off. Dr. Hays was driven nearly crazy, and Mr. Moon was delighted. These are the houses, on Locust street, of Mr. Mitcheson, Dr. Howe, Mr. Cadwalader, Mr. Lea, &c. This is Erety street, on which the gable end of the church stands. These are the rows of stables, upon Erety and Chancellor streets, at a height of only thirty feet, over which the waves of sound, as they rush from (355) 3S6 the bell-tower, have a full sweep against these back-buildings of the houses on Walnut street. Here you see them. This is Mr. Gibson's green-house — this his picture gallery. You see how, owing to the position and construction of all this neighborhood, both south and north, the waves of sound must, towards the south, strike the opposite walls and thence be reflected to and fro, and must, towards the north, to use a homely expression, " wobble about " among these back- buildings. And in order that nothing may be wanting, here you see, just west of Mr. Powers' house and almost directly opposite the bell-tower, an open space through which the wave-sounds rush, as through a funnel, and strike the southern front of the Walnut street houses on their northern side. A similar convenience, just above Mr. Lea's house, on Locust street, allows the sound to travel through to Spruce street. The correctness of this model is sworn to by Mr. Spayd, on page 134. He is a professional model-maker for patent cases and otherwise. The measurements have been taken chiefly from those furnished by Mr. Shedaker, the official surveyor and regulator of the district, whose affidavit is upon page 130, and whose ground-plan is prefixed to our volume of testi- mony, and partly from actual measurements made on the spot by Mr. Spayd and his assistants. Of course (for nothing human is perfect, as we shall find presently in this cause), there may be some slight inaccuracies, but for all practical purposes this model leaves little with which fault can be found. So much for the corpus delicti. Now the assessed valuation of all this property — I mean solely of the houses here shown on this model — is, exclusive of the houses on Sixteenth and Seventeenth streets, ^952,100, and this excludes the defendants' church, which is assessed at ^150,000, but which is exempt from taxation. Your Honors and ourselves contribute our. quota of the ;^3500 a year which the community pay in order that this church may flourish. Mind, I have no objection to this. Whatever may be the 3S7 private opinion of some that, as was decreed eighteen hundred years ago, "all the world should be taxed," I merely allude to it here to show that the defendants have, at least, no right to presume upon their position. As regards their exemption from contribution to the load of taxation which now weighs us down, they are but tenants by sufferance. I shall detain your Honors but a brief space as to the law of this case. And, first, the jurisdiction is unquestioned and unquestionable. It has been exercised in two branches of this Court in two notable cases within less than two years. One was the abattoir case, in which the Court, in the face of such an array of testimony as I have rarely seen, most wisely, as I now think, suffered a great experiment to be tried, and permitted the defendants to make a "plant" of more than a quarter of a million of dollars, upon terms which cannot be misunderstood. "Before making any order upon the present motion," said the Court, "we will require the defendants to file in the cause a plan of the proposed construction, the ad interim injunction to stand until the plan has been examined and approved by the Court. If the defendants choose to erect their buildings and construct their cattle-yards, when the order refusing the special injunction shall have been made, they will go on at their own risk. Nothing can be decided now but the question of the special injunction; if, upon final hearing, on bill, answer and proofs, a case should be made out against them, any order which shall now be made will in no degree embarrass the Court in entering such a judgment as the proof may require; and even if a final injunction should be refused, it leaves the defendants liable to prosecution, or to be restrained at any time thereafter, if their business should be so conducted as to be a nuisance, either to individuals or to the public generally." I trust the abattoir may be a success. Unlike my learned senior opponent, I look beyond the mere interest of my client in a cause. I think that the solving of the problem of how a great city may most cheaply and best be fed, soars far 358 above the petty question of whether plaintiff or defendant shall win ; and, in spite of that significant warning which was given us not a week since by the health inspector as to pos- sible danger in the coming season from this abattoir, I would fain believe with that man of science, Professor Chandler, of New York, that, with the exception of making lime out of oyster-shells and their decomposed animal matter, there is no operation incidental to the machinery of a great city which cannot be carried on without being a nuisance. And there- fore I was and am glad that that decision was against me. The defendants were beaten to death, and nothing saved them but the sagacity of the court, which is allowing, tenta- tively, a great experiment to be tried, keeping its grip on the possible failure. It may be that the end is not yet. Next, and very recently, was what is called the City Gas- works case. This was more difficult of management, because we had to deal with the machinery for supplying a great city with light. Of course, the last thing I sought was an absolute injunction. It would be a very poor consolation that our houses should not smell badly, if we had to sit in the dark. Of course the defendants swore lustily not only that oyster- shell lime was the only lime, but that it must be burnt on the premises, or else the city's gas was as nothing worth; yet the inhuman Court, considering — I quote from the decree — " that the deposit of oyster-shells on the premises of the de- fendants, and their manufacture into lime, as well as the ex- posure of foul lime after its use for purification of gas by the defendants, is a public and a private nuisance," forthwith en- joined the manufacture of lime ; and as to the more serious matter of the perfect purification of spent lime, and the abso- lute removal of the Gas-works, the Court has appointed a commission, two professors of our University, whose names are widely known. Dr. Barker and Prof Genth, who are now actually and anxiously engaged in the full course of experi- ment upon the subject. Need I say more as to the jurisdiction? 359 In the memorandum of authorities which I had the honor to submit to the Court, I have carefully excluded all save those which bear directly upon the question of noise. " It is well settled," says Mr. Wood, for whose recent able treatise on the law of nuisance the profession is so deeply grateful, " that noise alone, unaccompanied with smoke, noxious vapors or noisome smells, may create a nuisance and be the subject of an action at law for damages, in equity for an injunction, or of an indictment as a public nuisance." To come nearer home, I take pleasure in citing the learned treatise on Equity of my opponent, Mr. Bispham, and I may be pardoned for citing him, for he was my pupil and seems to have learned good law from me. " Mere noise," he tells us, " from whatever cause, will, on a proper case being made out, be a sufficient ground for an injunction." And what is " a proper case made out " ? Let the answer come from an English Vice-Chancellor: " Ought this inconvenience," said Sir Knight Bruce, in Walter vs. Selfe, 4 De Gex and Smale, 323, "to be considered in fact as more than fanciful, or as one of mere delicacy or fastidiousness — as an inconvenience materially interfering with the ordinary comfort, physically, of human existence, not merely according to elegant or dainty modes and habits of living, but according to plain and sober and simple notions among the English people ?" But we need not cross the Atlantic for our law. Once more let me quote Mr. Bispham. "Whatever, by producing physical discomfort, renders houses in the neighborhood unfit for residences, will be a nuisance, and not the less so because there may be persons whose habits of life have brought them to endure the same annoyance without discomfort." And for this he cites the well-known case of Cleveland vs. The Citizens' Gaslight Company, 5 C. E. Green, 201. "To live comfortably," said the Chancellor, "is the chief and most reasonable object of men in acquiring property as the means 36o of attaining it, and any interference with a neighbor in the comfortable enjoyment of life is a wrong which the law will redress. The only question is what amounts to that dis- comfort from which the law will protect. " The discomforts must be physical, — not such as depend upon taste or imagination. But whatever is offensive physi- cally to the senses, and by such offensiveness makes life un- comfortable, is a nuisance ; and it is not the less so because there may be persons whose habits and occupations have brought them to endure the same annoyance without discom- fort. Other persons or classes of persons, whose senses have not been so hardened, and who, by their education and habits of life, retain the sensations of their natural organization, are entitled to enjoy life in comfort as they are constituted. The law knows no distinction of classes, and will protect any citi- zen or class of citizens from wrongs and grievances that might perhaps be borne by others without suffering or much incon- venience. The complainants have houses built and held for the purpose of residence by families of means and respecta- bility, and anything that, by producing physical discomforts, would render them unfit for such residence or drive such families from them, is a nuisance which the law will restrain." " The law knows no distinction of classes." Yes, and the Holy Church knows no distinction of classes; for is not one of the most beautiful of her prayers that one "for all sorts and conditions of men," the same whose closing sentences are so applicable to our clients, commending to His "fatherly goodness all those who are any ways afflicted or distressed, in mind, body or estate." Lord Romilly, in 1867, enjoined a man from manufacturing iron bedsteads, though in a manufacturing town, and the plain- tiff's house was apparently as far off as one hundred and seventy feet. He said, " I consider it to be established by numerous decisions that smoke unaccompanied with noise or noxious vapor, that noise alone, that offensive vapors alone, although not injurious to health, may severally constitute a nuisance to the owner of adjoining or neighboring property; that if they 36i do so substantial damages may be recovered at law, and that this court, if applied to, will restrain the continuance of the nuisance by injunction, in all cases where substantial damages could be recovered at law." Ball vs. Ray, in 8 Chancery Appeals, was decided as late as 1873. There, too, the law knew no distinction of classes. The plaintiff kept a small private hotel in Green street, Grosvenor Square, and we all know the intense respectability of that neighborhood. The defendant was a captain in the Life Guards. The latter's stable adjoined the former's house, and had been used as a stable fo]' fifty years. The defendant altered it somewhat, and kept more horses than had been there before. The plaintiff alleged and proved that the horses had been a nuisance and that his lodgers had left in consequence, and of course the defendant alleged and proved that there was no nuisance, or at any rate, not greater than had been before, and so thought the Master of the Rolls, who dismissed the bill without costs. But this was reversed by the Court of Chancery. Lord Selborne considered that the defendant had made an unreasonable use of his property, and that he was bound in each case that it be not used to the det- riment of the plaintiff's comfort or the value of his property, and Lord Justice Mellish added: — " I entirely agree with what has been said by the Lord Chancellor, that when in a street like Green street the ground floor of a neighboring house is turned into a stable, we are not to consider the noise of horses from that stable as like the noise of a piano-forte from a neighbor's house, or the noise of a neighbor's children in their nursery, which are noises we must reasonably expect, and must to a considerable extent put up with. A noise of this kind, if it materially disturbs the comfort of the plaintiff's dwelling-house, and prevents the people from sleeping at night, and still more, if it does really^and seriously interfere with the plaintiff's trade as a lodging-house keeper, beyond all question constitutes an actionable nuisance." And the decree was that the defendant be enjoined from keeping any horses on his property so as to occasion any nuisance to the 362 plaintiff, his family and lodgers, and an inquiry was ordered (under the late statute) to ascertain the damage sustained by the plaintiff. Very like this case was that of Broder vs. Saillard, in i Chancery Division Cases, decided but a few months ago, and which was also a case of horses. The eminent Master of the Rolls, Sir George Jessel, said, with respect to the question of noise, " It is very hard on the defendant, who is a gentleman with three horses in his stable, and whose horses do not appear to make more than the ordinary noise that horses do, if he is not allowed to keep his horses in his stable. On the other hand, it is very hard on the plaintiffs if they cannot sleep at night and cannot enjoy their home because the noise from the stable is so great as seriously to interfere with their rest and •comfort. The question is as to which side the law inclines. " If there were no authority on the question, I should have felt no difficulty about it, because I take it the law is this: that a man is entitled to the comfortable enjoyment of his dwelling- house. If his neighbor makes such a noise as to interfere with the ordinary use and enjoyment of his dwelling-house, so as to cause serious annoyance and disturbance, the occupier of the dwelling-house is entitled to be protected from it. It is no answer to say that the defendant is only making a reasonable use of his property, because there are many trades and many occupations which are not only reasonable, but necessary to be followed, and which still cannot be allowed to be followed in the proximity of dwelling-houses, so as to interfere with the comfort of their inhabitants. I suppose a blacksmith's trade is as necessary as most trades in this king- dom ; or I might take instance of many noisy and offensive trades, some of which are absolutely necessary, and some of which, no doubt, may not only be reasonably followed, but to which it is absolutely and indispensably necessary for the welfare of mankind that some houses and some pieces of land should be devotpd ; therefore I think that it is not the test." And the injunction was to restrain the defendant from keeping any horses on his premises so as to annoy the plaintiff or his family. 363 So in a recent case in Connecticut, where the noise enjoined proceeded from the bleating of calves, though at a distance of six hundred feet. " It is difficult to conceive," says Park, J., " of any noise more destructive to the comfort and happiness of a family than the constant wailing of animals in distress. Enjoyment under such circumstances would require nerves of brass and a heart of steel" — such nerves as are possessed by Mr. Moon, in that house (pointing to model) — such a heart as is possessed by these defendants, who make every room in their neighborhood a torture-chamber. Nor is it a defense to say that these things are carried on in the exercise of a man's legitimate business. In Roskell vs. Whitworth, in the 19th Weekly Reports, the noise and vibrations of a steam-hammer were complained of by a neighboring church — for you see that a church can not only inflict pain but also suffer it — and the defendant asserted among other things that "steam-hammers are essential to his work; that he can not carry on his business without them." They always say that. In the Gas-works case the defendants swore stoutly that they could not light this city unless they were allowed to poison its people by burning decomposed animal matter in oyster-shells ; but the court thought otherwise and enjoined them promptly. And so the Vice-Chancellor said, " I am satisfied, and do find, as matter of fact, that the use by the defendant of his steam-hammer has produced, and will, unless checked, continue to produce, an unjustifiable nuisance to the plaintiffs; that the comfortable enjoyment of their resi- dence is grievously disturbed ; that the services of their church are interrupted ;" — pray mark the distinction : it is wrong for any one to disturb a church, but it is right for a church to disturb whom it pleases — " that the business of their schools is injuriously impeded, and that their property has been dam- aged by the defendant. Tlie law upon tlie subject is perfectly clear!' So in Scott vs. Firth, in 10 Law Times, in a common-law action of nuisance for the noise caused by a steam-hammer in 364 a rolling-mill, the defendant pleaded that the grievances com- plained of were caused in the reasonable and proper exercise of his trade in a reasonable and proper manner. But, said the court, " in law that was no answer to the action." And the best illustration of all this is found in the way in which the English, who are the most practical people in the world, have acted through their parliament. The act of 35 and 36 Victoria provides that "No person shall use or employ in any manufactory or any otherplace any steam-whistle or steam- trumpet for the purpose of summoning or dismissing workmen or persons employed without the sanction of the sanitary authority, and every person offending against this section shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds, and to a further penalty not exceeding forty shillings for every day during which such offense continues." I have often wished that this statute had an ex-territorial effect, for they have a pleasant way in West Philadelphia of calling workmen together by the shrieking of steam-whistles at early morning, which, I am sure, must annoy one of your Honors as much as it does myself But it is unnecessary to go outside of our own State. There is the case of the tinsmith (Dennis vs. Eckhardt). Now, if there is any occupation more harmless than another, it is that of a tinsmith. He has to make our own household imple- ments, but he has to make them with a noise. He has to use a hammer. I will call your attention simply to what the court did. Here was a man who supported his family by the sweat of his brow, yet he was enjoined from carrying on his business at all. The injunction of Judge Thompson was : — " I am, therefore, of opinion that the defendant should be restrained from using his tin and sheet-iron workshop as a workshop until further order of the court." But if this be the law when the noise is useful and necessary, a fortiori is it so when the noise is unnecessary ? Mr. Wood tells us that; — "A distinction is also made between noises arising from lawful trades and those arising from malicious or mischievous motives, or such as are produced '36s for no useful purpose!' Of the usefulness of the purpose for which these bells are rung, I shall say a word presently. Thus, making a noise with a speaking-trumpet has been held to be a nuisance. So, in the recent case of Inchbald vs. Barrington, in 4 Chancery Appeals, the noise produced by a circus was en- joined. Lord Justice Selwyn said that the noise of the per- formances was heard within the houses "to such a degree as materially to interfere with the comfort of the inhabitants, according to ordinary habits of life" In another late case (Walker vs. Brewster, 5 Equity Cases), a band of music playing twice a week and the letting off of rockets was enjoined at the suit of a plaintiff three hundred feet off. And hence, as a matter of course, church-bells fall directly within this line of decision. In a case as long ago as Peere Williams (that is, about the year 1720), the plaintiff's wife was much disturbed by the ringing of the parish^bell at five o'clock in the morning, and was about giving up her house and removing into another parish, when it was intimated to her by the parish that she might purchase her quiet if she so desired. Accordingly the plaintiffs agreed to build a cupola and erect a clock and new bell, and the defendant agreed not to ring the five-o'clock bell during the life of the complainant; which promise was kept for about two years, when the ringing was recommenced at the instigation of an ale-house keeper, who had been chosen church-warden. And upon a bill filed, an injunction was granted to stay the ringing, which, upon appeal, was affirmed, as, said the court, " the ringing of the five-o'clock bell did not seem to be of any use to the parish, though of very ill consequence to the complainants !' Our learned opponents will tell us that this was a case of contract, whose specific performance was thus decreed, but the same remark cannot apply to the familiar case of Soltau 366 vs. De Held, 2 Simons (N. S.), 133 (decided in 185 1), where, at the suit of a single citizen, an injunction was granted to restrain a church from continuing to ring a peal of bells in such manner as to cause any nuisance, disturbance and annoy- ance to the plaintiff, who lived in a neighboring house. This church had a peal of bells, the heaviest of which was about half the weight of the heaviest bell in St. Mark's tower, namely, about one thousand pounds. These bells were rung not, as here, twice on every day of the week in addition to the excessive Sunday ringing, but were rung only on Sunday and only for five minutes at a time. Nor were they commenced at the unseasonable hour these defendants begin to ring. Thus they were rung five minutes at 8.45, 10.30, 10.45 A. M., 6.30 P. M. and 6.50 P. M., and this only on Sunday. The plaintiff in this case was one single man — not a crowd — not an excited, an indignant, an exasperated population, such as has been most reluctantly obliged to come before your Honors humbly seeking for relief, — but one single man ; yet so sound a lawyer as Vice-Chancellor Kindersley enjoined those bells. The plaintiff in his bill set forth among other things that the defendants threatened and intended to ring peals of the six bells, and to ring on week-days and also to ring the chapel bell. That the tolling of the bells on these two Sundays had caused annoyance to him and his family, rendering it impossible to read or write without difficulty. That one of his daughters, being in a delicate state of health, the plaintiff was obliged to remove her to some more quiet place of residence. That the value of his house was dimin- ished. That the ringing of peals of bells or the ringing of bells or a bell for any purpose, religious or otherwise, ought not to be permitted, if it occasioned a nuisance or annoyance to any persofi or persons residing in the neighborhood, and the prayer of the bill was that the defendant might be restrained from permitting the bells to be rung in such maner as to annoy the plaintiff The only affidavits presented were those of the plaintiff himself and one other person. 367 The injunction was granted. The Vice-Chancellor said, "This is not a public nuisance. * * ^ p^^j of bdls may be and no doubt is an extreme nuisance, and perhaps an intolerable nuisance to a person who lives within a few feet or yards of them; but to a person who lives at a distance from them, although he is within reach of their sound, so far from being a nuisance or inconvenience it may be a posi- tive pleasure. * * With respect to the neighbors, we have no means of knowing who those neighbors are or how they live. All that we are told is, that they do not con- sider the ringing a nuisance. Therefore, I consider the fact of its being a nuisance sufficiently established by the affidavits which have been made on the part of the plaintiff. Moreover, one ought to take into consideration the actual circumstances proved and not at all disputed, namely, that these bells are of a most unusual weight and size; that they are placed in a steeple which is almost in front of the plaintiff's house and in a place which was the court-yard of the mansion-house before it was divided into two houses. When you consider those circumstances it is hardly necessary to produce affida- vits to show that it must be an intolerable nuisance to have such large bells ringing, though for a short period of time and only on Sundays, so near to the plaintiff's house, and it is to be remembered that the plaintiff has not gone to the bells, but the bells have come to him. " * * * I am of opinion that this is such an inconvenience, and such an invasion of the domestic comfort and enjoyment of a man's home that he is entitled to come and ask this court to interfere." The decree was — (and I will say in passing that a careful examination of all the decrees in the cases I have cited will disclose that they run all in one form, namely, that the defendant be enjoined from a continu- ance of his acts to the annoyance of the plaintiff) — to restrain the defendant and all persons acting under his direction or by his authority from tolling or ringing the bells in the plaintiff's bill mentioned, or any of them, so as to occasion any nuisance, disturbance and annoyance to the plaintiff and his family,. 368 residing in his dwelling-house, in the bill mentioned. " In thus wording the injunction," said the Vice-Chancellor, "I am following what was done by Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce in Walter vs. Selfe." If it be urged against the authority of this case that there had been a previous trial at law in which the plaintiff had recovered damages, the answer is — 1. The bill was filed, as to the past, for the two Sunday ringings referred to, and as to the future, for the threatened prospective additional ringing. 2. The opinion clearly shows that the court considered the plaintiff entitled to relief, entirely irrespective of the previous action; and, 3. The doctrine that a trial at law or even an issue must precede an injunction has for years been discontinued in England, and was never the practice here. In the case already referred to, of Roskell vs. Whitworth, the court said, " It cannot be disputed, that so far as the law and practice of the court are concerned, the question thus raised is of vast importance. If, as the defendant insists, the court is powerless to dispose of the questions raised without the assistance of a jury, that assistance must be invoked ; and the question must remain undecided until a verdict satisfactory to the court shall have been pronounced, for I need not observe that in no case would the court be satisfied until its own judgment went along with the opinion expressed by a jury. But, as I enter- tain a very clear conviction on this subject, I think it right that I should express it on this part of the case. I have no doubt that, at all events, the court being satisfied of the existence of a nuisance which it has the power to abate or redress, whether public or private, has not hesitated — I may say could not in justice and reason hesitate — to exercise its jurisdiction and authority." The point taken by our learned opponents, that the case should go to a jury, is — like that of the denial of the right of 369 the plaintiffs to sue jointly — one of those legal nine-pins which my learned opponent has so often set up for me to bowl over. They are old acquaintances. Both of them were on exhibition in the abattoir case and the Gas-works case, and neither of them was a success. May I ask, what need have we of a jury here ? In the search after truth, which alone you seek, have you not everything, on one side or the other, within these two or three hundred printed pages of affidavits? Of course, you will not take everything for verity — you will make allowance for human frailty — allowance for an outraged, excited, suffering population, from whom comes now this cry for mercy — and allowance for that obsti- nate doggedness which the world's history has shown to proceed from a fixed resolve to carry one's point, backed up by a false sense of religious duty which knows no variable- ness neither shadow of turning. Your Honor will brush away these fringes, and, reading between the lines, will sift out the truth from both. Not that in my clients' cause there is much which cross-examination would shake ; it is the old story of oppression, of suffering, of piteous appeal, met by contempt, by the sneer, the smile, the curt denial. History repeats itself No ; we need no jury here. There are two defenses: — First. — There are some who are not annoyed, and some who even like the noise. That I will answer by referring again to the learned treatise of my friend, for he says it much better than I could. "Whatever by producing physical dis- comfort renders houses in the neighborhood unfit for resi- dence will be a nuisance, and not the less so because there may be persons whose habits of life have brought them to endure the same annoyance without discomfort!' So much for that. Second. — Bell-ringing is a long-established custom of the Church. The simple answer is that no custom, rite, belief or privilege ever justifies a violation of law. If a Thug were, on his trial for murder in a court in India in which our 370 Anglo-Saxon law is administered, to set up as his defense for having strangled another, that it was part of his religious belief so to do, what justification would that be deemed? If a man should say to his wife, " I have been reading such a charming book about Utah, and Brigham Young must have such a lovely time, and I quite agree with him, and seel I have just married all these ladies, and I hope you will be so happy together ! " your Honors would simply send him to the penitentiary. The best illustration of all this, however, is the great case of Stockdale vs. Hansard, where, as we all know, Hansard, the publisher of the parliamentary debates, being sued for libel, pleaded in justification an order of the House of Commons to print and publish the report of the in- spectors of prisons which contained the supposed libel, to which the plaintiff demurred, assigning for cause "that the known and established laws of the land cannot be superseded, suspended or altered by any resolution or order of the House of Commons, and that the House of Commons, in parliament assembled, cannot by any resolution or order of themselves create any new privilege to them- selves inconsistent with the known laws of the land, and that if such power be assumed by them there can be no reasonable security for the life, liberty, property or character of the subjects of the realm." Never was there a case of greater importance, never one more exhaustively argued, more carefully considered. The decision, as we all know, was that even the prerogative of parliament, that broad shield which can shelter so much behind it, can justify a violation of the law of the land. "The privileges of the house," said one of those illustrious judges, "are my own privileges, the privileges of every citizen of the land. I tender them as dearly as any member possibly can; and, so far from con- sidering the judgment we pronounce as invading them, I think that by setting them on the foundation of reason, and limiting them by the fences of the law, we do all that in us 371 lies to secure them from invasion, and root them in the affec- tions of the people." When, therefore, these defendants, clothed all over with all that pertains to holiness, and having, in the person of their rector, that Apostolic Succession which has come down from those whose name it bears, range themselves defiantly before this court, and say, not only now by the lips of their counsel, but by a solemn resolution of their vestry, that "they utterly deny the right of the residents in the vicinity to regulate in any way the manner or the time of ringing the bells of St. Mark's Church," I turn to the case of Stockdale vs. Hansard, and tell them and their counsel that the right which was denied the highest tribunal on earth, the House of Commons, whose general power no judge in England can question, is not vested in the Rector, Church- wardens and Vestry of St. Mark's Church. So much for the law. We turn now to the facts. A day or two ago, I asked my colleague to sketch for me some- thing like the outline of a probable charge of one of your Honors, if this were an action at law for damages. With that great strong sense — better than all of what some men call "eloquence" — which makes him so formidable before a jury, he has in a few sentences thrown together what I wanted. Please suffer me to read it. This is an action for damages for annoyance to the person, and injury to property, by certain noises made by the defend- ants. To entitle the plaintiff to recover, these noises must be of a character which amounts to what the law calls a nui- sance. The nuisance, if it exists, arises from the effect pro- duced upon the residents in the house of the plaintiff by the noise. Are they of such extent and for such length of time and at such hours as to produce that sort of annoyance that amounts to a nuisance ? A certain amount of this annoyance is incident to human life, certainly in places where men con- gregate. 372 As to the extent, these are the undisputed facts: — 1. That the instruments are made for that purpose. Sound, and sound to be heard outside of the defendants' premises, is the object of using the bells. 2. The metal is framed to produce the largest amount of sound. 3. The form is adapted most carefully to give out the great- est volume, and to be heard at the greatest distance. 4. The size. A ton of bell-metal can scarcely be struck without producing a great noise. 5. It comes at interval's, each time a blow is struck, like the noise of an explosion. 6. The position in which the bell is placed, surrounded by solid walls. Look at the effect of artillery in streets, as compared to that on a river. In the one case, it shivers glass, shakes houses and sometimes deafens. The expansive capacity in the other instantly deadens the sound. Then consider the positive evidence of the effect. Can it be doubted that in houses situated as the plaintiff's, sleep is impossible during the ringing? As to negative evidence, its importance rests on this. Does it prove that there is no such noise as is alleged ; not whether being there, the witnesses are not annoyed? People vary in this respect. A large portion of our popu- lation delighted in the hideous noise that our unpaid fire de- partment formerly made whenever they got into the street. Boys delight in beating drums, kettles, &c. We do not inquire whether they like it, when by the police we compel quiet. 373 Then comes the real question for a jury. There is of necessity a certain amount of noise in all crowded cities. Business cannot go on without it. The rule has always been that this must be reasonable as to time and amount; one of those annoyances which all people must submit to or leave town. But what is the object of this noise? It is not pretended that any object of utility is served. Nothing comes from it. It is not caused in manufacturing. Now if a machine produced so much noise as to disquiet and annoy the neighbors, there is, of necessity, a conflict of rights — the right to earn a living and the right to a quiet enjoyment of home. And the first inquiry would then be, is the noise necessary? Is it reduced to a minimum? It is only then that we are very careful to weigh the relative rights of the contestants. It cannot be pretended that it is necessary. Froni their organization, until last June — over nineteen years — the defend- ants used no bells at all. But supposing it were proved not only that the noise was wholly unnecessary, but that an inexpensive process would prevent it — will not that weigh heavily? Does it not remove the fear, which is always a most pressing consideration, that your verdict will injure an- other pecuniarly? But, further. Suppose it were proved that the machine when doing its appointed work was noiseless, but that the noises were caused entirely for the gratification of the workmen — that they had an idiosyncrasy by which they enjoyed noise and clatter of metal, and for this purpose had put up bars of bell-metal which were pounded together by the machine when in motion — would a jury be nice in weighing the extent and effect of such noise ? Now, wherein does this case differ from that? The bells have no connection with the religious services. They are silent during the service. They can serve but two purposes only: — (i) To give notice of the meetings; (2) or to gratify the congregation by the noise, — or it may be the music. The question then comes to this: — How much noise may I 374 make for my amusement to which my neighbor must submit? Test it by supposing some hundreds of the inhabitants of this city saw fit to put up such contrivances in their back yards. Obviously all the neighbors' houses would be made unin- habitable to many people, especially the sick, the old, the infants and all persons having what are called nerves. Now the defendants have no more right to make noises than every other inhabitant. If the defendants have a right to ring bells of this size, to the annoyance of their neighbors, then every man has a right to have his dinner-bell just as large, and to ring it just as much. There remains to consider the defenses. 1. Numbers of persons testify they are not annoyed, and some that they like the noise. The only importance of this is, if it disproves the fact that the plaintiff is annoyed, or rather, is in such manner annoyed, that the defendants have the right to annoy him. If you should be of the opinion, from the evidence, that the plaintiff is one of those fastidious men who complains of trifles, he can not recover. If, however, the comfort of his home is interfered with, then it is immaterial that others are gratified and not annoyed. There can be no case of nuisance in which somebody does not wish it to continue. 2. That it is the custom of the Anglican Churches. Whether the law of England gives an exceptional liberty to the established church to create nuisances, we do not stop to inquire ; it is not a part of the common law which we brought with us. And even if it were, it is sufficient to say that it was decided in a very celebrated case that even the House of Commons itself, whose general power is beyond the reach of any judge in the kingdom, cannot license a violation of the rights of an individual. The question for you, therefore, is, does this sound or noise injuriously affect the comfort of the plaintiff or impair 375 the value of his property as a residence ? If it does, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. I think if your Honors were to charge a jury in this case, you could scarcely crowd in fewer sentences more practical sound sense than is found in these words. As now I approach the facts in this cause, I feel bound to say — and I say it very gravely — that I deeply deplore the spirit which these defendants have persistently shown from January, 1876, when there went up the first wail from these tortured inhabitants, and which they treated with contempt, down to the thirty-first day of January, 1877, when their answer is sworn to, in which they say : — " The only danger of depreciation in value of the plaintiffs' houses which can possibly exist is this, namely, that the com- plainants themselves, by their unwise proceedings, and by the absurd, untrue and exaggerated statements in their appeals, may have misled some person or persons who have not been informed as to the true state of the case." I regret to read these words coming from members of the Church of Christ. I regret that such a thing should bear the signature of eminent counsel ; of my friend Mr. Bispham, my own pupil, in whose success I feel a reflected pride ; of my friend Mr. Morris, the Gamaliel at whose feet I have so often delighted to sit; and of my friend Mr. Biddle — that legal duelist, whose sword is always ready to be drawn on either side of any cause. I regret that such words should have found their place in any paper placed upon the records of this court- Never, I trust, did I use the words "unwise" or "absurd" in equity pleading, and I trust I never did even in the heat of argument. Such things are not seemly. Upon page 32 of their answer is printed the first remon- strance which the defendants received. They allege that our bill is untrue, in that wherein it states that " until the 376 month of November, 1876, the complainants and others took no concerted action in this case." I had thought that this was so. It was not until within the last few days that I ever learned that this remonstrance had been presented. I never saw it until the day before yesterday, when I saw it printed in the answer of the defendants. It is dated as far back as Janu- ary, 1876, bears as the first signer the name of Mr. George C. Morris, and contains those of some of the best people in our community. It is almost piteous in its tone. It has some- thing that goes through you like the wail of the Miserere. They seem to write as men have been known to sign their confessions, with fingers still quivering with the torture of the rack. Why, if I had known of that remonstrance when I drew my bill, would I have been such an idiot as to have left it out ? It is one of the strongest points in my case, that be- fore ever a bell was put in that tower our people come forward and said, " Stay your hands ere you do this ! " What is the answer ? It is one of those self-satisfied pro- ductions which only come from vestrymen. It is very curious. It is curious that there are men in every community, of ex- treme shrewdness and judgment, who manage their private affairs with eminent tact and success, all of which they carry into the business corporations of which they are directors, but who, when they get together on a vestry board, lose these qualities, which seem to ooze away like Bob Acres' courage from the ends of his fingers. I have known the most extraordinary things done by men sitting as a vestry which the same men could not bring themselves to do in any other capacity. Now, the answer of this vestry to the remonstrance is charmingly complacent. They said that, " the bells were ordered some time ago ; that when the tower was built it was contemplated to place therein a chime of bells ; that the vestry regret that owners of property in the neighborhood should consider themselves aggrieved by the action of the vestry in carrying out the original design of the corporation; and that they are confident that the annoyance will not be so serious as seems to be anticipated by the remonstrants." A 377, very self-satisfied answer, and, of course, there was nothing to be done. I come, now, to the affidavit of Mr. Harrison, There breathes through the spirit of the defendants' answer a certain personal antagonism toward the eminent man who heads the list of complainants in this cause. Several things have been recklessly said of him which I must here stamp as untrue, and I use the word advisedly. It has been said that he, and he alone, was the " unlucky nervous patient" on whose behalf Dr. Mitchell made his appeal. I have the best authority — that of Dr. Mitchell himself — for saying that he was not that per- son. The defendants swear : — " Dr. Weir Mitchell, one of the parties to said correspondence, is believed to be the physician alluded to on page 6 of the bill ; and ' the unlucky nervous patients ' mentioned in Dr. Mitchell's letter of November 3d, 1876, are believed to consist either wholly or partly of the complainant, George L. Harrison." In reply to this, Dr. Mitchell says : — " I do swear that I did not have the said Harrison wholly or chiefly -on my mind. The relief asked for was for another person, and the said George L. Harrison knew nothing of said correspondence until after it was over." Mark how a plain tale shall put them down. Now ju.st here I say plainly that if Mr. Harrison is to-day what physicians call " nervous," it is a thing for which you and I and the community have to thank him. It has been by his incessant and successful labor as president of the Board of Public Charities for many years, and in the performance of other self-imposed duties which neither you nor I nor the community will ever know of (for his own left hand knoweth not what his right hand doeth) that part of his strength is now labor and sorrow. " My occupations for most of my life," he tells us modestly, " have required much mental strain and a large draft upon my nervous sensibilities. My health, therefore, is best preserved now by freedom from dis- quiet, and disturbance other than what are recognized as productive of general or iridividual advantage." 378 And while the defendants, in their answer, with one breath almost mockingly speak of him as " a person whose many public and private virtues the defendants are always ready to freely admit," almost in the same sentence they twit him with his " nervous condition," and roundly swear, most incor- rectly as I have shown, that he " constituted the class of ' intensely sensitive persons ' on whose behalf especially this communication was made." I blush, may it please the Court, to read such things in the defendants' answer, and it is for you to say whether, after so large a part of an honored life spent in relieving the pains of others, the rest of it is to be tortured by such recreations as these defendants delight in. Notwithstanding, however, his diseased imagination, Mr. Harrison had at least mind enough to consult counsel — a sure test of the mens sana in corpore sano — even my learned opponents must acknowledge this ; and if he had gone to my learned opponent, he would have been assured that never was there such an angel of light as he, and never such fiends of darkness as the Rector, Church-wardens and Vestry of St. Mark's Church. But he went to my colleague, and here is the result : — " When I knew that the bells were to be introduced, fore- seeing the effect upon myself and my property, I applied to counsel, and was advised that I had no grounds for the interference of a Court until an actual using was done. That a party could not be prevented from putting up bells upon his premises, and that the remedy would depend upon their use. That I could not assume that they would be rung preju- dicially, unlawfully, or even at all, until such a using had actually taken place. I, therefore, took no active measures in the matter, but merely united with my neighbors in a repre- sentation of the anticipated grievance from the use of the bells." The bells arrived. They were put up, the parish record tells us, just before Whitsunday, which, being interpreted, means, last year, the 4th of June. It is the fashion of a certain class of high-church people to date their letters either on a Saint's 379 day or on the eve of a Saint's day ; and I sometimes think they put off their writing till such auspicious periods arrive. It looks so nicely—" Eve of All Saints." The bells arrived. They were placed in the tower, and soon their crash disturbed the peace and excited the profanity of even the God-fearing community whose fate it was to hear them. Mr. Mitcheson hurries to the relief of his clients, and writes, on the 26th of June, to the defendants : — ' " Gentlemen : — I have been requested to ascertain whether it is your purpose to continue the ringing of your church-bells between 6 and 7 A. M. ? Upon Sunday last they startled some persons from sound sleep, bringing on violent headache, &c., utterly preventing religious observance of the day by them at least. "If, for the enjoyment of the handful of people who wish to attend your early service, but have no other ineans of learning the time to go to the church, you think it proper or justifiable to destroy the comfort of an entire neighborhood, those who have bought properties in the near vicinity of the church, for the purpose of living upon a quiet street, would like to be apprised of it. Trusting that the nuisance complained of was an inadvertence that will not be repeated, I am, &c." In reply to this courteous, but properly indignant letter, the defendants, mindful that charity suffereth long and is kind, envieth not, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things, — treated him as you would not treat a beggar who craved food at your back gate. There is no answer. Nor was Mr. Mitcheson the only one who was spurned like a cur by the defendants. Mr. Brinton Coxe called upon the rector. He thus describes his visit and the result : — " After this second Sunday, and before the following Sun- day, as I recollect, I called upon the Rev. Dr. Hoffman, rector 380 of St. Mark's Church, and pointedly complained of this early Sunday morning bell-ringing, and its interference with sleep. In answer to questions by me, the rector said that the author- ity over the bells was vested in the rector and church-wardens. He said, also, that the vestry had no share in that authority !' Oh ! the vestry have no authority over the bells ! They are to sit by and smile, I suppose, " although" he went on to say, " matters connected with the bells would be talked over with them!' How good of the rector and the church-war- dens ! though it is puzzling to a simple mind to know what is the use of talking over a matter with men who are not allowed to have any say about it. " I made the formal request through him to the authorities • over the bells, that the early Sunday morning bells should be stopped. I have, however, received no answer from either the rector or church-wardens." Of course not. It is not for such people as Mr. Mitcheson and Mr. Coxe to be asking questions of church dignitaries like these ! Then came the summer, and what was the summer? Mr. Cadwalader tells us that, owing to sickness in his family, he was obliged to remain in town during the early part of July; that at first the bells " were rung almost constantly every day, without regard to time or hours. The bell-ringing was exceed- ingly and unnecessarily annoying. Supposing it might be required for the tuning and arrangement of the machinery, I did not openly complain, except to remark the absence of tune and sweetness in the bells themselves, and a curious disregard of the comforts of those living very near, which a few words from the rector and vestry might naturally have explained away." Dr. Isaac Hays — over whom the angel of death has of late stretched his black wings, now mercifully folded, let us hope for long — Dr. Hays, who is now over eighty years old — Dr. Hays, who has all his life been known and honored among us, and whose health is, he tells us, enfeebled by the 38i advance of years, says that the state of his health has not permitted him to leave town in summer : " Particularly when the windows of my residence are open, as they necessarily are in spring, summer and autumn, the sounds of these bells are irritating and distressing to me and interfere with my peace and rest. In case of my sickness, and under these circumstances, I believe that their effects would be greatly exaggerated, possibly even to the extent of inter- fering materially and injuriously with the natural course of the disease." Dr. Thomson says : — " Soon after the bells were placed there, I was on my way to a consultation on a Sunday morn- ing near the hour of service, and stopped directly opposite the church, in front of Mr. Cadwalader's house, to notice the extraordinary noise which the bell-ringing produced, and thought as I do now, that it was almost as intolerable a nuis- ance as could be produced by sound." Dr. Thomson has some right to be heard on this subject. He is one of three men among us who have made themselves reputations here and elsewhere, for their skill in diseases of the eye and ear. He has given us a careful scientific . affi- davit — just the kind which my learned opponent delights to sneer at — in which he tells us how it is that the waves of sound stream out from this tower upon the walls of these houses, and rebound at the same angle as that at which they strike, back to the church again, and how among the rear ends of these Walnut street houses they vibrate, making a jargon of dissonant and conflicting sounds. Dr. Howe also tells us that early last July he came to the city for a few days, and, " staying at my house, had then my first opportunity of hearing St. Mark's bells. The weather was very hot and the windows open, and as no effort had then been made to modify their ringing they were pealed with the utmost vehemence. I remember trying to write a letter during their ringing, and finding their noise most dis- tracting, wrote my wife that a residence in Locust street was far less desirable than before the introduction at St. Mark's of 382 this nuisance. I regret to record that further experience has but intensified this conclusion." Fortunately for some of these neighbors, they are possessed of such means as enable them to go to their country places or elsewhere during the summer. It is not so with all. It is not so with respect to the inhabitants of these stables in Erety street and Chancellor street. There is a family of Dentrys, who have a reputation for skillfully mending china. They, probably, cannot go out of town. The livery-stable keepers cannot leave town. Some of them tell us how they are dis- tressed. George Free tells us that some of his horses are annoyed. My learned friend will find this a fine opportunity to sneer, — for he has not yet learned that a sneer is not an argument — and he will be very happy, I doubt not, on the question of nervousness in horses; but it is no sneering matter to me to be nearly a cripple for life by being thrown by a ner- vous horse, and one of your Honors once had a nervous horse, which, I fancy, you will not soon forget. Pass we now from the summer to the autumn. We come to the letter of the 3d of November from Dr. Mitchell to one of the vestry: — "Dear Mr. Kirtley: — Some of my unlucky nervous patients are driven wild by the early bells of St. Mark's. If you have ever been in the way of ill sleeping and have looked to the quiet of Sunday with anticipative comfort, you would understand how grave a matter this may seem to one of these folks. Pray help us to get rid of this annoyance — the early bells." You see how that note was thrown off, in the midst of pro- fessional distractions, with great good temper, but with the anxious feeling that the health of his patient was at stake. Now comes the answer from the rector. I ask you to read this letter and to read it between the lines. At first sight, it gives the impression that it is the first time the rector knew that any human being objected to this early ringing. It 383 would seem to be written by an apt disciple of that sect which was founded by Ignatius Loyola. " This is the first intimation that I have had that some of your nervous patients are in such a condition as to be seriously injured by the ringing of the bells for the seven o'clock ser- vice." (The first intimation that any oi Dr. Mitchell's patients are liable to be injured!) "My congregation will miss the ringing of the bells for those services very much, but, under the circumstances, I shall direct it to be discontinued at once. Trusting that our neighbors, under your skillful care, may soon recover" — (that is, in order that the ringing of the bells may be recommenced), — " I am very faithfully, yours, " E. A. Hoffman." Mark the different tone of the response. " My Dear Doctor. — I have to thank you very sincerely for your most kind and courteous note of this morning. You will be most warmly thanked by several persons, who I am sure will gain in some ways what your good people may lose in others." Then comes the petition to the defendants of November 6th. Can anything be more moderate than its tone ? " You are already aware that the establishment and the use of bells in St. Mark's Church encountered serious objec- tion from residents in the vicinity of the church, and that the parties who anticipated the disturbance they would cause ventured to express to you their apprehensions in this behalf, as they intended, in the most respectful manner. "The undersigned now beg to say that their fears have been fully realized and that great distress has arisen to the near neighbors from the frequent and protracted ringing of St. Mark's bells, so much so that at the present time there are several persons who suffer impaired health from this cause and many families who are much disturbed thereby. 384 " The undersigned do not intend to prefer a request to dis- continue the ringing of the- bells, excepting for a single ser- vice, viz., for what is called the early morning service, and for this relief they most earnestly appeal to you." Then comes this sentence: — "It must be familiarly known to gentlemen whose lives are devoted to the personal consid- eration and relief of suffering, that there is always a class of persons who have been rendered intensely sensitive by over- strained, though necessary, occupation in useful secular works, and in devotion, also, to the pursuit of charitable and religious labors, and that delicate organizations, whether natural or acquired, must be painfully affected by the loud sounds, however musical, and the thrilling vibrations which attend the striking of the bells." Another chance for a sneer from my learned friend, — he whom I have seen fly with a reeling brain to the tropics in the midst of a business season, to patch up a nervous system overstrained by professional work. Does any one know better than he how true this sentence is? But he will laugh at it; he will deride the people who have nerves, and will cry, " Moon's your man ! " Mr. Moon, who lives in this corner house, and swears roundly that he likes the noise, though he don't go quite as far as the defendants themselves, who swear in their answer that it has " grown to constitute one of the chief attractions of the neighborhood." It may be so to some, and I envy them, for they must be people gifted, as one of our medical witnesses tells us, with " that placid, lymphatic temperament, with which is usually combined a lower degree of intellectual development." Such people are doubtless the happiest; for, if they have fewest pleasures, especially those of an intellectual kind, they have also the fewest pains. Listen to the last sentence. How courteous it is: — "In conclusion, we believe that it may be confidently stated that neither the religious interests nor the religious comforts of even the humblest attendant at St. Mark's Church would be interfered with." 38s And that is signed by such people as Mr. Harrison, Mr. Cadwalader, Mr. Dulles, Mr. Coxe, the Misses McCall, Mrs. Bayard, and more than forty others. What accompanied this petition ? A certificate from four- teen of the most eminent physicians we have, who say: — " In every community there is a large class of persons in the enjoyment of average health whose constitutions demand a quiet dwelling-place as indispensable to their well-being and happiness and to their usefulness to their families and to society. In addition there are sick, both acute and chronic, to whom quiet is essential for speedy and proper recovery, or for the prevention of the aggravation of their disorders. "We have become cognizant of the annoyance and discom- fort, and some of us even of the likelihood of injury to health to members of the afore-mentioned classes, if the practice be continued, caused by the loud noise of the St. Mark's bells recently erected; and believing it to be our duty when an evil arises — especially when it is not in any sense a necessary evil — to use our influence to abate it, therefore we earnestly and advisedly call the attention of the rector, wardens and vestry of St. Mark's Church to the evil influence exerted by the early, ^& frequent and ^& prolonged ringing of their bells, believing it to be prejudicial to the health of some and to the comfort of many of the residents of the neighborhood, some of whom have specially sought the locality on account of the quiet which it has heretofore enjoyed." Now comes the answer. Observe — " Resolved, That while the vestry entirely denies the right of the residents in the city to regulate in any way the manner or the time of ringing the bells of St. Mark's Church, they feel confident that the corporation " — the corporation 1 why what have they to do with it ? Months before the rector had told Mr. Coxe that the vestry had no share in the authority over the bells ! So mark what follows — " that the corporation, through the rector of the parish " — I can fancy him interlining these words, for he is as careful of his prerogative as was George III. 386 and much after the same fashion — "through the rector of the parish, will always be ready, as the rector has always been, to consider any special appeal for stopping the ringing of the bells in any specified case of illness." But the illness must not be long ! The patient must hurry up and get well ! " My congregation will miss the ringing of the bells very much," the rector has said in his note written just four days before ; " trusting that our neighbors, under your skillful care, may soon recover," — just so do they make haste to heal up the scars of the " cat " on a man's back, in order that he may be soon able to undergo the remainder of his flogging ! How courteous and gentle was the answer : " We beg to say, in order to prevent any misunderstanding on this subject, that the paper we presented was a respectful appeal to the vestry of the church to exercise their own authority in the premises, and that there was no indication of any claim or desire on the part of the signers to the petition to regulate in anyway the manner or time of ringing the bells of St. Mark's Church. We did, however, hope and expect that the reasons assigned for the moderate changes we prayed for would have induced the authorities of the church to consider and act upon the petition, and by their favorable proceedings relieve the discomfort and distress and consequent irritation which prevail in the neighborhood of the church." On which side of this cause does charity sit? In their sworn answer — " These defendants deny that the bell-ringing has injured or impaired the health of the complainants, or any of them, or of any other person or persons in the neighborhood." Will you kindly turn to the testimony of Dr. Hays, on page 119. " On Sunday, January 14th, 1877, my sister, who resides at 1525 Locust street, suffered from a severe idioipathic headache, which was greatly aggravated by the half-hour morning and 387 afternoon ringing of the St. Mark's bells. Shortly before seven o'clock of that evening my mother, in much anguish, came to me and said that my sister's suffering was so intense that, in view of her previous experience, she was extremely apprehensive at its prospective aggravation by the half-hour ringing at seven o'clock, and wanted to know what could be done to avert it. I told her under the circumstances ano- dynes would be useless and that her only other resource was an appeal to the grace of the rector of the church. Although extremely reluctant to make the latter, she felt that it was her imperative duty to do whatever she could to ward off this dreaded addition to my sister's suffering, and therefore imme- diately wrote and sent the following note to the rector : — " ' Dear Sir : — My daughter has suffered intensely all day from severe headache, which has been much increased by the ringing of the St. Mark's bells. I feel very apprehensive of their effects this evening and would be greatly indebted to you if you would have the ringing suspended this evening.' "This note, although written and sent with all possible dis- patch, reached the rector after the bells had begun to ring. Within a reasonable time, the ringing was intermitted for about fifteen minutes and then recommenced and continued for five minutes before half-past seven." The ringing was recommenced, and the ink scarcely dry upon the note he had received ! I suppose that the anguish which the rector felt from not hearing the bells ring was so great, so infinitely greater than that which Miss Hays was suffering, that by one of those " irresistible impulses" — a thing of which of late we have begun to hear in our criminal courts, and which has saved many a neck from the gallows — he rushed to the sexton and cried, " Begin to ring ! begin to ring ! I can not stand this dreadful silence longer!" And so the bell- ringing and Miss Hays' sufferings both recommenced. It is very painful thus to contrast, in this sketch of the his- tory of this proceeding from January, 1876, to January, 1877, 388 the different attitude of the plaintiffs and the defendants. And even now, when sadly we come before your Honors with our story, we are met by language carefully chosen, drawn by counsel, supervised and corrected by all that talent which this vestry boasts — for here I see round me in this bril- liant audience not only the eminent men of business who compose this board, but its members learned in the law, our friends Mr. Conarroe, Mr. Fallon, Mr. Wagner — sworn to by the rector, attested by the warden, bearing the seal of the church, yet couched in language most intemperate; language which I am almost tempted to ask your Honors to strike from this record as " scandal and impertinence." But it is the old story. It was said by a very great and good man, who lived in the middle of the fourth century, that " no wild beasts are so ferocious as angry theologians," and the history of the world has confirmed it. But yesterday I read this sentence in a leader in the Tribune : — " While the conflict between the Court of Arches and a Ritualistic rector is one of the uppermost topics of discussion in England; while the rector of St. James', Hatcham, is defying Lord Penzance and his Bishop, and his church is barricaded by zealous churchmen within and attacked by furious rioters without; while fiery Archdeacon Denison is declaring that his friend Arthur Tooth will never surrender, but will fight the good fight to the end, like Mr. Purchas and Dr. Dykes, who have been slain in the same battle for conscience and church liberty, — the American Ritualists seem to have lost their nerve and influence." It has been the intolerance of those who for near two thou- sand years have preached the Gospel of Peace, which has given nerve to the arm and point to the sword of those who have fought against it. The sad fact that more desolation and suffering has been caused by the acts of those who "profess and call themselves Christians," than by all other classes put together, has furnished to such pens as those of 389 Hume and Gibbon in the past, and of Lecky, and Stephen, and Matthew Arnold in the present, their most terrible argu- ments. I grieve that it is so. I grieve that such men write. The intellectual delight which they convey is buried under the gloom of thought which it begets. Perhaps there are few men of much mental vigor — except those, of course, and there are many, who purposely refuse to allow themselves to think upon that subject, and perhaps they are right — who have not, at some period of their lives, passed through the ghastly chasm of unbelief The philosophy which is learned in that terrible region is flattering to the intellect, and it may even bear up a man in ordinary trials ; but when real distress comes on us — when in particular the hand of God is stretched out and strikes down that which is nearest to us of all the world — our garb of philosophy drops, and we stand helpless and naked. I have passed through that valley of the shadow of death, and so can speak of that which I do know, and while I will not now yield in the depth and sincerity of my belief to any — no, not to this rector, — there will still remain to me " so long as memory holds its seat in this distracted globe " the scars which the contemplation of religious intol- erance — intolerance just such as his — has left behind. In my professional experience I have never met with just such a man. In fiction I have. Among the delightful novels of Mr. Anthony Trollope is one, " He knew he was right." A man of education, of position, of means, conceives that his wife, one of the best of her sex — which is saying a great deal — fancies some one else, and hence comes endless misery. He treats her unkindly; he deserts her; he watches her with a detective ; he makes every one wretched, • and himself the most so. His friends, his family and hers, point out his error; produce to him evidence; appeal to every feeling of his nature. No I " He knew he was right." And so the sad tale drags on till it ends in death ; death, in the arms of her whose happpiness he had struck down ; death, tempered by the merciful revelation of how utterly he had been wrong. Such 39° a revelation has not yet come to this rector. He still " knows he is right." In reading with renewed pleasure, yesterday, that most de- lightful book, "Green's History of the English People," in that part where with so much ability he sketches the character of Elizabeth, is an extract from a letter from Philip's envoy to his master : — " This woman," said he, " is possessed by a hundred thousand devils." And, really, when I look upon the extraordinary proceedings of these defendants, it would seem as if something of that same disease had crept into this corporation. No doubt they are sincere. No one ever doubted the sincerity of Ferdinand and Isabella. No one ever doubted the sincerity of Bloody Mary or of Philip. And yet there is not an educated class in the world which does not condemn them all. But still the same spirit remains in human nature, however differently it may crop out. In the annual report of the parish work of St. Mark's, dated on All Saints' day, — which means the 1st of November, the day of the date of our second remonstrance, and of which report the proof and the revise and the re-revise of this pretty book must have been read and re-read after Dr. Mitchell's letter, and after the remonstrance had been received and probably acted on, — the rector "takes pleasure in stating that the four larger bells of the peal " had arrived and been safely placed in the tower, and actually goes on to say : — "Long may the bells continue to announce the Lord's Day, and to call the people to the House of Prayer." Is it not inconceivable ? And then in his affidavit he says the bells " cannot be heard as far as it is desirable that they should be." He wants to enlarge the area of torture ! On page 17 of their answer, after the denial that any one's health had ever been impaired "in the slightest degree" (which I have contradicted), the defendants gravely say : — " On the contrary, in many instances, the bell-ringing has proved a source of distinct and positive gratification to invalids, 391 and has materially assisted their recovery or soothed and comforted their last sufferings." Please turn to page 91 and read what Mr. Byerly Hart tells us : — " In the case of my wife's late mother, Mrs. Horstmann, who died two months ago, great misery was caused to her from the bell-ringing, and great unhappiness to us from seeing her suffering." Then turn to the next page and read what the daughter, Mrs. Hart, tell us : — " In the case of my late mother, Mrs. Horstmann, who died in November last, they produced real distress. My mother's diseases were, first, heart disease, and, second, paralysis. She was painfully nervous and susceptible to noises and shocks, and I have often heard her cry out, ' Oh, I wish those bells would stop !' Her sufferings were greatly increased and the tension of her nerves aggravated by the ringing, as she was often awakened by the bells from sleep which was most necessary to her, and into which she had been induced after much effort by those who attended her." May it please the Court, there is one of the petitions in our Litany, in which we pray to be delivered " from all blindness of heart." May that prayer reach these defendants ! It were merciful to believe that they are blinded. Else the mind refuses to conceive how a few minutes before half-past ten o'clock, they should give an order which turns every sick room into a torture-chamber, and a few minutes after that time, should pray — " That it may please thee to preserve all women in the perils of child-birth, all sick persons and young children, and to show thy pity upon all prisoners and captives." The women in peril, the sick persons and the young children, as there they lie tortured by the defendants' orders, need all the efficacy of the defendants' prayers ! 392 But I cannot allow these defendants, nor this rector, to claim originality as to their mode of torture, however they may be masters in the art. We read in all the medical books a story of a Chinaman who was sentenced to death by being kept awake, and watched by those who never let him sleep. His agonies were inconceivable, and at last he begged for any other form of death known even to that barbarous people — that he might be burned, buried alive, torn in pieces, any- thing but this ; and he died on the nineteenth day in horrible agony. But I must claim for my own profession the origi- nality of having first reduced this practice to something like system. For it was in the year 1529, that Massilius, a lawyer of Bologna, published his "Tractatus de Questioni- bus," in which he claimed to be the inventor of the torture which consisted of depriving the prisoner of all sleep. And as our sufferers lie and endure this torment, not for crime committed, not for heretical belief, but simply that the de- fendants may be amused or indulge in sesthetical sentiment, there must rush through their minds — " Methought I heard a voice cry ' Sleep no more, Macbeth doth murder sleep, the innocent sleep. Sleep that knits up the raveled sleave of care ; The death of each day's life, sore labor's bath, Balm of hurt minds, great nature's second course. Chief nourisher in life's feast." And sleep comes not at their call ! I shall not dwell upon the testimony in this case. I shall not contrast the affidavits of Harrison, and Cadwalader, and Coffin, and Norris, and Dulles, with those of Michael Fitz- gerald, and Catharine Harkins, and Adeline Blizzard, and Patrick Maloney, many of whom cannot even read or write. These are they who say they " like " these things. Nor shall I contrast the testimony of such physicians as Weir Mitchell, Da Costa, Thomson, EUwood Wilson, Hartshorne, Agnew, Stille, Gross, Le Conte, Smith and others, some of them professors in our great colleges, and nearly all of them men whose names are known in Leipsic and in London almost as 393 they are here — I shall not, I say, contrast the thoughtful state- ments they have given us, with the little bleats from that very slender band of doctors which the defendants have, doubtless with some form of torture, squeezed out of them. One only do I know who can be at all said to practice his profession. Another has not felt a pulse for thirty years, and as for the other four, my life has been so obscure that I never heard of them. One tells us he has been practicing for forty years. If so, he has been sadly outstripped, for most of our men of science, with scarcely half that experience, seem to be shadowed with heavier laurels. Nor upon the question of the depreciation of real estate shall I contrast such authorities as Thomas Cochran, and Muirhead, and Wiegand, and McKay, and Fox, and Redner, and many more — with those on the other side, who shall be nameless. They say so little that really it's a wonder why they say it at all. I have a single word in reference to that chorus of witnesses who say that they "like the bells." That, also, is an old acquaintance. My learned opponent had the like of these in the abattoir case. One said, speaking of that filth-hole at Hestonville, which, I believe, has since been suppressed : — • " It is true that the stock-yard is very badly graded and very seldom cleaned, and the consequence is that it is very muddy in wet weather from the feet of the cattle tramping the ground. Notwithstanding all this, I have neither preceived, except occasionally, in very mucky weather, any odor arising from it whatever ; and then the odor was like that arising from a barn-yard. To me it was rather of a pleasant character!' ■ And then I hunted up the avocations of the other choristers, and found that one drove a manure cart ; another kept a paint shop; several others were drovers; another manured a truck garden; and so on with all except two, one of whom Sold tobacco, and the other groceries, to the peculiar population which goes to make up a drove-yard. They all " liked the ■ 394 smell." Well the wind is tempered to the shorn lamb, and it is a blessed thing that it is so. Why, it is the greatest trash in the world ! When Judge Allison paid that second visit to the hog-killing place at Hackensack (where we nearly fainted), just as we turned a cor- ner, and the stench from the fat-rending boiler struck us like the blast from a furnace, there were seated the workmen as close to it as they could get, with round, happy eyes, eating their dinners ! They had been ordered to go there by the wily defendants, one of whom told the story with great glee after- wards. Other of their witnesses told of how invalids came to the slaughter-house and held their cups under the slashed throats of the animals and caught the hot blood which they drank, and they " liked it." In the Gas-works case it was stoutly sworn, not only that every one of the workmen "liked it," but that the spent-lime stench was a sovereign cure for the intermittent. It is all summed in what Prof. Chandler told us in the Gas-works case : — "The argument always raised, that the workmen in offensive trades are strong and healthy, is without weight. It is due to several causes : first, only strong and vigorous men can work at such trades ; second, offensive odors lose their effect on strong men who make up their minds to bear them, and who have ceased to be annoyed by them ; third, the effect of offensive odors is more visible on delicate persons, as infants, women, invalids and convalescents, who are entitled to protection which, while they may not produce immediate death, or even sickness, cause loss of appetite, nausea and a general lowering of the tone of the system, which makes them easy victims to diseases which they would otherwise successfully combat." If other authority were needed, why our learned opponent, Mr. Bispham, tells us in his admirable treatise that it is no answer to a charge of nuisance that " there may be persons whose habits of life have brought them to endure the same annoyance without discomfort." Dr. Snelling, of New York, thus puts it on page 124 : — " It is no answer to all this to say, as no doubt some may 395 conscientiously do, that they are not disturbed by the bell- ringing. Some may even possibly like it. There are persons who are color-blind, others who have no ear for music, some who are near-sighted, and others again who are deaf. But in the same way that we would not apply on a question of color, of music, of sight, or of sound to any of these classes, so we must be careful not to deduce general propositions on such a subject as this from the testimony of a class having placid lymphatic temperaments, with which is usually combined a lower degree of intellectual development. It is an obviously objectionable class to rely upon as a basis for generalization." Then, as to that class which "never heard a complaint!" Why, in the abattoir case, my learned opponent paraded a man from Chicago — a great man — the Commissioner of the Board of Health, who swore that in all the time that he was in office he " never heard a complaint " of the stock-yards at Bridgeport; but, unfortunately for him, we also sent to Chicago and had any number of witnesses, one of them the mayor of the city, who swore that the reason no one ever complained to Dr. Miller was because he was so utterly worthless that it was of no use to complain to him ; but that as to the fact of the nuisances, one of them had caused great mortality ; another had been indicted criminally and convicted; and the "Bridge- port Stenches" had been made the subject of an exhaustive series of articles in the Chicago Tribune (which I have here, in court, to-day), which has a circulation of over forty thou- sand. And yet Miller had "never heard a complaint ! " Still, even of that particular class of witnesses who say they " like it," there are others who do not, and I must crave a little tolerance for men's different avocations. There are the Frees', who kept this livery stable, whose coachmen have to do such unhallowed things as taking us to and from balls, &c., and therefore sleep late ; of course they are disturbed by this noise. As I left my office, towards four o'clock this morning, I met 396 one of our friends, the editor of the oldest newspaper we have. I asked him if he generally got home about that time. He said yes. If people must have their newspaper in the morning, somebody must sit up to see that the last news got in. Of course he has to sleep late into the morning, which is not a very ungodly thing for him. But if he had to live opposite St. Mark's bells, do you suppose he could get the rest he needed ? No; we must be tolerant as to hours, tolerant as to classes, tolerant as to " all sorts and conditions of men." If Catharine Hawkins or Michael Fitzgerald sue here before your Honors, they have the same rights — no more, no less — as the richest of these complainants ; all are equal before the law; and in like manner the richest of these com- plainants have the same rights — no more, no less — as any of these witnesses whom the defendants produce. I shall only notice particularly three of the affidavits on the other side. The first is that of Mrs. White, who resides at No. 24s South Sixteenth street, and says: — "I have never been annoyed or disturbed by the St. Mark's bells, not even by the early Sunday morning bell, which was stopped. The sound of the bells is not loud enough to wake any of my family from sleep or to interfere with con- versation even when the windows are open." Turn now to our own affidavits. We have the testimony of Mr. William White, who also lives at 245 South Sixteenth street ; my learned opponents will not permit me to say that he is the son of Mrs. White, as it is " not upon the record," but living in the same house, and bearing the same name, I hope it is not extreme to presume that he belongs to the same family. He says : — " I am one of the signers of the appeal addressed to the rector, wardens and vestry of St. Mark's Church, upon November ist, A. D. 1876, and desire to reiterate the senti- , ments and facts therein expressed. As a life-long Episcopalian I wish to testify, also, that use of bells to assemble a congre- gation for the services of the church is wholly unnecessary. 397 People attend quite as much and as punctually without them as with them. St. Mark's Church has been in successful operation without them for many years past. Personally, they have been a serious discomfort to me. I suffer from in- somnia, and my health requires that I should sleep in the morning. This the early morning bells have wholly destroyed. In summer, when the heat of the weather requires the opening of the windows, the sound of the bells is a positive dis- comfort." Next, Mr. Shober, who gives the defendants, on January 8th, this affidavit :— " I reside at No. 249 South Sixteenth street, Philadelphia. As the bells of St. Mark's Church are now rung, they are not any particular annoyance to myself nor any member of my family." On page 75 of our affidavits he gives the following expla- nation : — "January nth, 1877. " I regret that I cannot comply with your request as to the affidavit. Dr. Hoffman called upon me a few days since and asked me pointedly whether I or any member of my family had been annoyed by the ringing of the bells since it had been discontinued at the early morning service. I felt com- pelled to answer in the negative, and, at his very earnest request, I so stated this in writing. I did it reluctantly, however, and only to avoid the possibility of being summoned as a witness, in case the matter should be brought into court. I signed the paper to which you refer in ignorance that there . had been any previous correspondence upon the subject and in entire sympathy with yourself and other friends residing in the immediate vicinity of the church, who, I can readily un- derstand, must be very much annoyed by such constant, mo- notonous repetition of unmeaning rhythmical sound. " Next, Leontine Andradi, who says on January 5th, 1877: — "I reside at 222 South Sixteenth street, Philadelphia. The 398 bells of St. Mark's Church are not now annoying to me. At first they were, but I have become accustomed to them." On the sixteenth day of January, the same lady says: — "I live with my mother, Madam Fannie Bosedevex, at No. 222 South Sixteenth street, and have lived here for one year and two months. The bells of St. Mark's Church are and have always been a perfect nuisance and distress to my mother. She is aged, is not very well, nervous and anxious for quiet in her home. This it has been quite impossible for her to en- joy since the bells of St. Mark's Church have been set up." She says farther: — "They are a constant source of annoy- ance and irritation to her when rung. I would like to have them stopped or materially reduced to the length of time of ringing, — especially on, her account. For myself I am in perfectly good health, and have become so much accustomed to the bells that I am not distressed by them. / told this sub- stantially to Rev. Dr. Hoffman when he called and got my affi- davit. They are far worse in summer than they are now. My mother speaks very little English, and dislikes to meet strangers; and does not give her affidavit for these reasons." You see she told the rector the circumstance, and knowing it, look at the affidavit he drew for her to sign! "/have become accustomed to them.' No word about the mother, though he had just been told how she was tortured! Shade of Ignatius Loyola. I must say one word about Dr. Bernardy, who swears as one of that little band of doctors. He signed the first remonstrance, that of January, 1876, in which he says that " the health of the residents require that their nervous systems should not be shocked by the sharp, sudden and loud noises inevitably issuing from a chime of bells when rung." The other day he yields to the rector's blandishments or tortures, and says : — " My house joins the lot of the St. Mark's Church. I consider the bells of said church of no annoyance whatever, excepting in the case of sickness or a nervous disorder. I signed the petition to have the bells stopped, considering them 399 detrimental in an exceptional case of sickness, my wife being sick at the time. So far from annoying me, I was unaware that the seven o'clock bell had been discontinued until told so a month afterwards." Oh, that is it ! It was his wife who was sick at the time. Why, his charity not only begins at home, but it stays at home ! For the sufferings of the wives of others he cares not, and in this he sets a fine example to the neighborhood, for what business has he with other people's wives ? I have referred to these witnesses simply because they pre- sent the somewhat novel spectacle of the same persons being witnesses on both sides of the same cause, — a sight which your Honors, who have been in the habit of trying causes for years, have perhaps not frequently seen. I shall not dwell upon the thoughtful affidavits of those scientific men whose names are known on both sides of the Atlantic, who have given us the benefit of their cultivation, their reflection and their large experience. Just one or two sentences at the close of Dr. Thomson's : — " Hence it is easy to see why melodious or rhythmical waves of sound affect the brain with pleasure, and waves of mere noise, particularly dissonance, with pain. And I am not sure but that the brain is not more sensitively affected by sound than by sight. Although an unpleasant sight will cause an involuntary closing of the eyes, yet this is often but momentary, while every one knows the actual suffering caused to a skilled musician by even a false note, and frequently per- sons leave a concert-room unable to endure the discord of even musical sounds. It must be also remembered that the €ar, unlike the eye, is provided with no protection, like the eyelids, to exclude or moderate the force of these irritants, but that in sickness or in health, asleep or awake, the vibra- tions of sound have free access to our nervous centres, and ■are capable of exciting intense pleasure or indescribable and intolerable pain." 400 In our bill we had referred to the fact that the expectation of the bell-ringing was distressing to many (how true this is appears from Miss Hays' case), and as to this the defendants are very sarcastic. They aver — " That the alleged nervousness or excitement (if any in fact exists) produced by the expectation that the bells will ring, is not in truth a natural consequence of the use of the said bells, but is due wholly to a morbid mental or physical con- dition of the person or persons (if any) by whom such expectation is entertained." Let Dr. Mitchell speak :— " It was the expectation of their beginning," says he, at page 97, " which had a notable effect upon a certain class, in pro- ducing a painful nervous irritability and excitement. It is no answer to this to say that this is ' imagination ' and ' mere nervousness.' ' Mere nervousness' is, perhaps, the most diffi- cult and subtle disease with which modern science has to grapple, and it is diseased ' imagination' which fills our mad- houses. Every one knows that a person of average health going to bed with the intention of starting on a journey at an unusually early hour next morning will often sleep very rest- lessly, and sometimes not sleep at all. It is the expectation which deranges the normal condition of the brain. Of course, there are persons whose temperaments ignore the operation of such influences, and who can truly say that neither the actual noise of the bell-ringing nor the expectation of it at all disturbs them. But what is true as to this class of placid temperaments is not true as to another class, which fluctuates with the varying health of the individuals of every commu- nity, and the difference in annoyance is immense as between the well man and the sick." And I suppose the defendants think the following words are the height of absurdity. I can, in advance, see my learned 40I friend smile at "such far-fetched wanderings." But hear them : — " When it comes to the question of early Sunday bell-ring- ing, all that I have said is intensified. There is a large class of God-fearing Christians, as well as others, who begin their day of rest by an hour or two of extra rest. To many men this is not a luxury, it is necessity. The pressure of modern social life necessarily produces, especially among professional men, a degree of brain tire, of loss of power to use the brain, of which the results are terribly alike, beginning with in- somnia, irritability, nervous excitement, cerebral derangement and running the gamut of mischief down to paralysis and death. While it would be absurd to say that every one who was waked out of a deep sleep by a Sunday seven o'clock bell-ringing would get a paralytic stroke and die, I do say that a man whose brain has been sorely worked during the week, and whose brain tire was habitually lessened by one, two, three or more hours of extra sleep on a Sunday, is pushed well on his way to disease by having that natural medicine withdrawn. For, as a distinguished modern author has put it, ' the mere procuring a regularly recurring oblivion of distressing impressions is no slight boon, and makes the sufferer more capable to bear his waking burden.' " Dr. Da Costa, too, in language which my learned friend may smile at, but which I regard with a very different feeling, says :— " The bad effect of unwelcome noise on the sick and well alike is a matter easily ascertained. It renders, for instance, an attack of migraine an unendurable punishment ; it aggra- vates delirium ; it may make the difference in the sleeplessness of a fever, between recovery and death. In certain inflam- matory or irritative disorders of the brain, the effect of noise is tnost painfully witnessed. Do we not constantly see houses with tan before the door to lessen the sound of passing 402 vehicles ? But what now will be the use of this, if the loud, discordant peals are almost at all hours to ring through the air. In certain chronic conditions of the brain, noise becomes an irritation and takes away strength and impairs vitality." And are these following words ridiculous ? "There are men in all large communities, well in body, but with minds constantly on the stretch, whose habits and mode of life may have made them particularly sensitive to noises, and whose occupations are sadly interfered with by such dis- turbances. This class embraces many of the most thoughtful professional men, the original thinker and writer in science, the higher order of men of letters. These laborers are naturally the ones that make a community great, and many of them can do their best work only when unperturbed, when their nervous force is not dissipated by jarring interruptions of unwelcome sounds." These affidavits are sad things to read, — sad on account of their truth. There is something ghastly in having the thing brought so terribly home to us. There is not probably a man of much prominence in our profession, or in the medical pro- fession, who has not, at some time of his life, and doubtless more than once, and some of us constantly, felt that just a little more, and all would go. There is not one of us who has not been forced at the summer vacation, and even at other times, to leave everything and seek entire distraction — to cross the seas, or live among half savages by the camp-fire. There is not one of us who has not to exercise daily care; almost to weigh and measure what we eat and drink, to preserve as best we can the hours of our sleep ; and when the extra strain comes on, when the mind, kept in training like a race-horse or a prize-fighter, is called upon for still increased exertion, and we break through our habits, we know that it is only by God's mercy that the punishment does not come then and there. 403 And when we are at our best; when our minds seem clearest and most strong ; when the brain answers to the call upon it as a ship to its helm, even then there is the ever-present knowledge that Damocles' sword hangs over us; that the blow may come at any moment, and that dread thing, paralysis, shatter mind and body in an instant ! It comes, then, with an ill grace from my learned friends to laugh at our "essay-writing" and to say, in the sworn language of their clients that this, like our clients' sufferings, is "purely imaginary and very trifling." But is this so ? Have their sufferings been imaginary — have they been trifling? It gives me great pain to again advert to this painful part of my case, but I shall not shrink from it. I have already touched upon the piteous case of Mrs. Horstmann ; nor was she the only one. Dr. Stille, one of the professors in our University, tells us : — "Of my own knozvledge, I can testify that their ringing is sometimes a cause of sore distress, and tends to aggravate nervous disorders, and to develop them in persons who are predisposed to them by temperament, or by the habits or acci- dents of their lives." So eminent a man as Dr. Albert Smith, whose peculiar line of practice makes him peculiarly fit to judge, who has at times "a considerable number of patients under his care in the vicinity of St. Mark's Church," says : — " I can therefore say, from personal experience and obsei-va- tion — "i. That the loud, discordant clanging of these bells — hung in a low spire — is annoying and unnerving to adults in health, and destructive of the sleep of healthy children. "2. That I have seen in cases of severe sickness, occurring within their sound, very injurious effects actually produced in aggravating the symptoms of the patients and diminishing the efficacy of treatment. "3. That I cannot doubt that in a case of extreme illness, where the condition was one nicely balanced between life and 404 death, such disturbance of the nervous system suddenly pro- duced, as in the outburst of the bell-ringing, could easily turn the scale in favor of death." And yet the defendants — "deny that the said bell-ringing has injured or impaired in the slightest degree the health of the complainants, or of any of them, or of any other person or persons in the neighbor- hood. On the contrary, in many instances the bell-ringing has proved a source of distinct and positive gratification to invalids, and has materially assisted their recovery or soothed and comforted their last sufferings!' " Soothed and comforted their last sufferings ! " Instinct- ively, we think of that time when, before the soul of Mrs. Horstmann took its flight, and her body writhed in pain, there came out the sharp cry, — or it may have been the low moan, — " Oh, I wish those bells would stop ! " " Soothed and comforted their last sufferings ! " May it please the Court, not many weeks since, I saw in the Spanish chamber in Memorial Hall one of those dreadful pictures which, some generations ago, men painted. A prisoner lay stretched upon the rack and with a brazier of fire at his feet, while the man of God, with the bare feet, the tonsure, the frock and the knotted cord, bent over him, and while with the one hand he motioned to the executioner to give the rack's lever yet another turn, with the other he held high the Cross of God, so that when the soul should depart through the torture inflicted by the one, the pain might be taken away by the consolation imparted by the other. " Soothed and comforted their last sufferings ! " Rather say, it seems to me, it is " Murder Considered as one of the Fine Arts." A word as to the depreciation in the value of property. The property upon the south side of Locust street, between Sixteenth and Seventeenth, is assessed at $343,000. Upon the north side of Locust street it is only $69,500. The reason 405 why this is so small is, that ;g 150,000 worth of real estate is occupied by the church, which pays nothing. The property on Chancellor and Erety streets is worth ;^56,ioo, and on the south side of Walnut street, 1^486,500, making a total of ^952,100. Our experts — and better men I do not know, especially Mr. Cochran, who, in his quiet way, has one of the coolest heads I ever saw — say that, of necessity, the value of this property must be depreciated by this bell-ringing. It is what real- estate men call "a drawback," and people will not move into a neighborhood where there is a drawback. Those who have moved into this neighborhood because of the attractive sur- roundings of the church and the freedom from noise, will move out of it, because these incidents are withdrawn. Mr. Cochran says: — " I do not agree with the affidavits as to a percentage. I do not think you can, at least not yet, measure the depreciation by an exact or hardly an approximate percentage. Instead of twenty per cent., as one of the witnesses has said, it might possibly sink to only ten per cent.; but it would more prob- ably sink to thirty per cent. For with values of property, as with the human body, as soon as depreciation enters, it is apt to bring other depreciations, and the result is the change of character for the worse of the whole neighborhood." The joke which will be made about this, will neither affect Mr. Cochran personally, nor your Honors' estimate of his affidavit. We find the value of the real estate, of which the geo- graphical limit is given by Mr. Lewis, on page 137, to be about ^3,394,000, which produces to the city about ;$73,ooo of annual income from taxation. If we reduce this, twenty per cent, the loss in assessed value would be ^639,000, and the loss to the city would be ;^i4,6i8 a year. If the shrinkage should reach thirty per cent, as suggested by Mr. Cochran, the shrinkage would be nearly ^1,000,000, and the loss to the city about ^22,000 a year. So that it is not enough that the church itself should not pay its quota of taxation (about ^3500 4o6 a year), but the city must also lose from ^15,000 to ^22,000 a year in order that these defendants may have the opportunity of ringing their bells. I think the price is high. A word as to these bells compared with other bells. The lovely Christ Church chime was put up in 1754, and in a hundred and twenty years no one has ever been heard to do aught but love and praise them. The reason is not only be- , cause of the loveliness of the chime itself, but because of the relation which the bell-tower bears to the neighborhood. And the neighborhood of Christ Church has, before now, been that which none of us will ever see again anywhere. Until the present century, almost all of those whose names we hold now in high honor lived within the sound of those bells, — Robert Morris, and Shippen, and Franklin, and Washington, and a host more, — and they found no fault with Christ Church chime. And Washington and Franklin, to say nothing of the others, were not, I am told, men of placid, lymphatic temperament, with which is usually combined a lower degree of intellectual development. No one has ever complained of the bells of St. Peter's. Hung high above the houses, and with the great open space around them, their sound-waves flow through the air, filling it with music, and calling up every hallowed association. No one has ever complained of the bells of St. Stephen's. True, they are hung rather low, but still the direct waves have room to escape over the immediate neighborhood, of which the houses are low, and every one knows that nobody lives there. On Sunday, the neighborhood is deserted. Although at that church, to which I have the happiness to belong, we think that we are sufficiently high-church for most purposes of getting to heaven, we have not yet tried the experiment of planting Jacob's ladder on week-days upon the business com- munity which swarms around us. 407 In the defendants' answer, they give the height of two or three bell-towers here, but those selected are exceptionally low, and they refer to the heights of several bell-towers in New York. But why give us the low ones and keep out the high ones ? See what the truth is, as to these heights : — " Trinity Church, situated at the corner of Broadway and Wall street, has a chime of ten bells. The belfry is eighty- four feet above the sidewalk, and the surrounding buildings are lower than the belfry and are used entirely for business purposes. " Grace Church, at Broadway and Tenth street, has a chime of eight bells and an accidental. The belfry is seventy-five feet above the sidewalk, and is above the roofs of all sur- rounding buildings. It is in a business portion of the city, and with the exception of the St. Denis Hotel, nearly oppo- site, and which is lower than the belfry, there are no residences in the immediate neighborhood. " St. Ann's (Roman Catholic) Church, on Twelfth street, east of Fourth avenue, has a peal of four bells. The belfry is seventy feet above the sidewalk, and is above the roofs of all the surrounding buildings, which are either small, low brick residences of an inferior class or small shops. " Zion Church, at the corner of Madison avenue and Thirty- eighth street, has a peal of three bells. The belfry is sixty feet above the sidewalk, and above the level of the surrounding houses, which are dwellings. The streets are wide, and the church is situated at the corner. "St. Thomas' Church, at the corner of Fifth avenue and Fifty-third street, has a chime of ten bells. The belfry is one hundred feet above the sidewalk, and is above all the dwelling- houses and churches adjacent. The street is wide, and there are many open spaces, and the bells are hung entirely above any possibility of reverberating sounds. " Trinity Chapel, on Twenty-fifth and Twenty-sixth streets, between Broadway and Sixth avenue, has a peal of five bells. 4o8 The peak of the roof of the chapel is eighty-eight feet from the sidewalk, and the belfry is seventy-five feet above the sidewalk. All the surrounding buildings are either hotels or residences, some of which are higher than the belfry. This peal is a constant annoyance to the neighborhood, for being hung so low, the waves of sound strike against the church itself, and other surrounding structures, which give forth a new wave of sound in echo, and these coming in contact and crossing the successive waves from the peal itself, produce, in certain conditions of the atmosphere and the wind, confusion and dissonance most distressing to the ear." This is the testimony of Professor Rackemann, a distin- guished man in his profession, which is music. I have often thought of late, that the author of " Daniel Deronda " must be gifted with second sight, for never was there a more strik- ing original of her Herr Klessmer than he. I should add that this eminent musician concurs with Dr. Thomson in his affidavit. A word here as to the fears of Mr. Brown, the ringer at St. Stephen's, and other professional bell-ringers. They look on this case much in the same way as stage-coaches and omni- buses used to look on locomotives and horse-cars, when first introduced ; they fear their occupation will be gone. I spent last Sunday morning in the bell-tower of the Method- ist Metropolitan Church, in Washington, at a height of a hundred and forty feet above the ground, where Professor Widdows was instructing me in the mysteries of bell-chiming. (I don't know what the President and other worshipers at the church must have thought of the extraordinary sounds which came from that tower, as the professor showed me by experi- ment the difference between music and noise. They must have thought the bells were, like these defendants, "possessed !") Well, he showed me a letter from Brown, written in a minor key, saying sadly, " They tell me this is only the first case. They are going for all the bells, and if so, bell-metal will be 409 cheap before long." Be not cast down! No such frightful things will come to pass. The defendants have told us that these bells were made by " Messrs. Mears & Stainbank, of Whitechapel Bell Foundry, London, who are justly considered among the veiy best bell- founders in the world, and whose establishment is believed to be one of the oldest bell-foundries in existence." Sir Edmund Beckett, a distinguished man of science in his way, and who was president of the commission for the erection of the great Westminster clock, tells us, in his well- known book on " Clocks, Watches and Bells," which has gone through six editions : — " The Mears' of Whitechapel for a good many years had a monopoly of church bell-founding, with the usual result of monopolies, for they turned out some wonderfully bad bells, though their predecessors in the last century, and the early part of this one, made some famous peals. * * * -phg Mears' are extinct, and have been succeeded by a Mr. Stain- bank ;" and then, after telling how the Mears' two first peals at the Royal Exchange were " so bad that after being twice paid for they were condemned to be re-cast again," and how " Mears' great bad bell of York, which is thicker on one side than the other, ought to be treated in the same way," he gives an account of the terrible botch which they made of the Big Ben at Westminster. So you see that the defendants' praise is as inaccurate as their scolding. And here it is interesting to recall the fact that some years ago, in 1865, when this rector had a parish in Burlington, a chime of bells was ordered for the church, and the Mears', being written to by our friend Mr. Castle, sent over the speci- fication. It did not suit the rector, and he writes Mr. Castle accordingly. The latter sent the Mears' an extract from the rector's letter. " I would hardly be inclined," said the rector, "to allow them to make any bell of the peal thinner in the sound-bow than directed. They may make them thicker if 4IO they desire. And I am inclined to believe from my read- ing" — mind, he is instructing "one of the oldest belF-founders in existence " — " from my reading, that the nearer they keep to the proportion of the metals specified, the better the quality of the bells. Still, on this point, I would not insist very strenuously. I would have them follow the ' Doncaster pattern' as far as possible in all particulars," &c., &c. Now, if there is a set of people in the world who are " respectable," it is English " trades-people," and others who working for their living, supply the wants of the " upper classes." If they have a fault, it is that they are too subser- vient. But this was a sort of thing that even the Mears' could not stand, and they wrote back : — " If you will allow us to make your new bells as we think best, we will guarantee you a fine peal. More than this we cannot say. If you prefer it, we will make them according to the plan recommended by Mr. Hoffman ; but in that case we cannot guarantee the quality, as we do not approve either the metal or form. With every respect to that gentleman, we must repeat, that we are the most experienced bell-founders in the world, and although we do not write books, deliver lectures, or puff ourselves in other ways, we believe we know our business both theoretically and practically." How the rector liked it I can't imagine, but, at least, he has the comfort to feel that " He knew he was right," and then when, in the following year, the bells arrive and are put up, he writes, ecstatically : — " The bells are beautifully made, of excellent tone and tune, and nothing could be better than the hanging. I do not hesitate to say that I consider it the finest peal in the country 1" Well, repentance came to him in that case. Let us hope that the same godly virtue may come to him in this. A word as to the testimony of Professor Widdows. He has studied the profession of music for fifty years, and is "an enthusiast on the subject of bell-chiming." He tells us the 411 difference between chiming and ringing, and gives us an account of the chime which he had at the Centennial Exhi- bition, and then brings us directly home to those very St. Mark's bells, which he criticizes in the presence of the rector himself: — "I first saw St. Mark's bells," says he, "soon after they were put up, and before they were rung. I went to the tower with Mr. Brown, the ringer of St. Stephen's (who is an old English bell-ringer, and as such, one of the most accomplished ringers in the country — I mean 'ringers,' not 'chimers'), and intro- duced him to Dr. Hoffman, who was there. In the conversa- tion that took place, I called attention to the fact that the bells had been tuned by cutting the edges, which I considered would interfere with the quality of tone. Mr. Brown also ex- pressed surprise, and said he had never before seen any of Mears' bells so cut. Soon after, I went there to hear them rung. Mr. Brown had three ringers from Kensington, making with himself four. It was of a Saturday evening. Just outside the church were Dr. Hoffman, and Mr. Wells of the Evening Bulletin. The latter asked me what my opinion of the bells was. I said there was something about them that I did not like — their tone was too harsh and metallic — there was not enough resonance about them. At Dr. Hoffman's suggestion, I moved my position several times, but still my criticism was the same, and I told Dr. Hoffman what a pity it was he did not wait till he got the full chime. I would not like to say positively that I told him that anyhow the bell-tower was not high enough ; but I do say, that even with a full chime of bells they should be hung not less than fifty feet (or there- abouts) above the surrounding houses, and as to the effects of the present wave-sound among these houses, I entirely concur with the affidavit of Dr. William Thomson in this cause." We have had the man of science speaking theoretically; we have had the accomplished musician, and here is the practiced bell-ringer ; both of the latter speaking from expe- rience, both telling us the same thing, and both concurring with Dr. Thomson's evidence. 412 He goes on to say: — "On the evening I speak of, the bells were very well rung, reminding me of English bell-ringing; but still the reverberation was very great, and dissonance was produced, simply because the waves of sound struck the houses at such a short distance and rebounded so as to give the effect of a duplicate sound. Through it all, I, as an expert, could and did experience. pleasure, but to those whose ears were not accustomed to bell-ringing, it perhaps gave pain. I have since heard these bells -played with chime- hammers which are attached to them, but they were apparently badly played. I do not think I have lately heard them rung. But whether they are played or rung, it is impossible that they should give pleasure to the average ear, because, being but half an octave, it is impossible to play tunes or melodies ; and whether there are four bells or eight, it is almost impossi- ble that, hung at their present height, they can ever give pleasure! ' He also tells us of another thing, which, in this Chris- tian desert, is a charming oasis — an illustration of that law, "Do unto others as you would that men should do unto you." I do not know whether these words are actually blot- ted out of the Bible read at St. Mark's, but if the defend- ants do read them in their beautiful church, they take care to forget them the very moment they leave it. Professor Wid- dows tells us: — "During the Exhibition, I called upon Mr. Lemuel Coffin to have this (the Centennial) chime purchased for the Holy Trinity Church, whose tower is well suited for it, being over a hundred feet high, and whose members, I was told, were anxious to have a chime in it; but I was met by the objection that the feeling against St. Mark's bells was so strong that they were afraid to venture the experiment, or, as he put it, they were afraid it would be an annoyance to their neighbors." Mr. Coffin must also be heard, for it does honor even to that honorable man. He says: — " At the close of the Exhibition I was consulted by the agent for the owners of this chime, who desired to know if I 413 thought the church of the Holy Trinity would purchase it if it were offered to them. I told him that while some of us would be very glad to have a chime of bells, yet the objection to the bells used at St. Mark's Church were so numerous and the complaints so frequent, that I did not think it worth while to bring it before the vestry, and nothing further was done about the matter." There speaks a true Christian, — not a man who " knew he was right," and who rides his hobby without regard to others. He will not even run the risk of having this chime tried {though it is pronounced beautiful and their tower is high), lest it should give offense to his neighbor. As a member of the Church, I would be the last man on earth to interfere with any part of its beautiful service. I am even tolerant as to many things which some good people look upon as anathema maranatha — processions, and bowings, and •candles, and incense, and vestments, and the like, which seem more appropriate on the stage than in the sanctuary. I am tolerant of these, because I think it is better to worship God with a little nonsense, than to have more wisdom and not worship at all. But this bell-ringing is no part of divine service. The bells are never rung while worship, and praise, and prayer are going on. Nor are they aids to the prosperity of the parish, because for nineteen years they have never had a bell of any kind. And thus, while I would not interfere with them in that which really pertains to their service, I humbly ask that they shall not interfere with us in the happiness and comfort of our liomes. May it please the Court, there is, I conceive, a broad and a narrow view to be taken of the questions in this cause. The ■one embraces the issues of life and death ; of sickness and health ; of soundness and unsoundness ; of sanity and mad- ness. Recall, for a moment, the words of those eminent men ■which I so sadly read before you. Think of the class whom 414 you are asked to despise — "the thoughtful professional men, the original thinker and writer in science, the higher order of men of letters." Think of the sufferings of those whose pain you are asked to ignore ; women and little children, and those upon whom the shadow of death is creeping. The other view is that these defendants wish to ring their bells in order to amuse themselves, or to indulge in sentiment. Hence we are here. To this end, therefore — to the end that they may not, by that which is no part of their religious belief, by that which is no part of their ritual, by that which is no part of their worldly gain, that they may not thus persist in what I cannot but call their unholy purpose — we have humbly and with reluctant steps come before you for relief and aid. We cannot doubt that you will stretch forth your hands and give us that relief and aid ; and when oil shall have thus been poured upon these troubled waters; when this excited population shall have been calmed; when the dying shall have been saved from death, and the sick taken up their bed and walked ; when peace shall again reign over this once happy neighbohood ; vi^hen God's day shall no longer be a Dies IrcB, ushered in by all that is bitter and unchristian, but hailed as a day of rest and happy worship ; when the rector shall feel no longer that " He knew he was right;" when he can read to his people, without a pang at his heart, the Warning and the Exhortation in that holiest of our services ; when blindness of heart shall have been taken away from these defendants ; when to peace of body and peace of mind shall be added that peace of God which passeth all understanding — then can he and those who are now ranged with him in this sad contro- versy, in all reverence and contrition, kneel in their church and send up the prayer, the last in our Litany: — "That it may please thee to grant us true repentance; to forgive us all our sins, negligences and ignorances ; and to endue us with the grace of thy Holy Spirit, to amend our lives according to thy holy Word." So may it be. It rests with your Honors. ARGUMENT FOR DEFENDANTS, BY P. PEMBERTON MORRIS, ESQ. I will look at this matter in its legal aspect, which I think has been misapprehended on the other side, and will review the questions of fact, which I think have been equally misap- prehended. Before passing to that I wish to say a word about this plan of the locality which Mr. Rawle designated as the corpus delicti. The real height of the church and surrounding houses is not accurately shown on this plan. The roofs of the houses are represented as relatively several feet higher than they really are. As to the supposed charge to the jury drawn by my learned opponent, I think if he had been really on the bench he would have been more precise and kept closer to the law than he has in this paper which has been solemnly read to you. Turn now to the law of the case as I understand it. I have no doubt of the jurisdiction of your Honors in a matter of this kind. It is undoubtedly true that equity exercises as one of its most important functions the jurisdiction which enables it to secure to the citizen the enjoyment of his home free from molestation and annoyance from such acts of his neighbors as the Court with a due regard to the rights of others and the principles adopted for the government of such cases has ad- judged to be nuisances. I think that that defines the full power of this Court. It is to be exercised with the limitations which the law implies, and which do not appear in the cases which have been referred to by my learned friend on the other side, as will be seen when the real facts as they exist in (415) 4i6 this case are comprehended by the Court. There is this limitation to the power of the Court. It is settled that in determining whether specified acts are or are not a nuisance the Court is not to be influenced by the caprices or the tastes or the antipathies of individuals, and that the exceptionally nervous and fastidious are not to have their case consulted to the exclusion of other members of the community, particu- larly when the thing they complain of is not what is techni- cally called a nuisance, i. e., a public nuisance per se. Above all, it is the essence of all judicial equity that it shall be no respecter of persons. The high and the low are both alike before it. I think the bill drawn by our friends offends against both these limitations to the power of the Court. The prayer, of the bill is — " That the defendants be further restrained from making any such noises at such hours as the complainants are deemed entitled to be not unnecessarily disturbed in their homes or in their sleep or rest, or at any time when certified that any person living in the neighborhood is so far annoyed and dis- tressed thereby as not to be able to obtain rest or sleep." Then, to give emphasis to that prayer, the bill starts with the averment that the twelve complainants are — " Respectively the owners or occupants of residences situate within a radius of an eighth of a mile from the corner of Locust and Sixteenth streets, in the said city. That portion of the city, particularly on the north and south sides of Locust street and also upon Walnut street, is covered by handsome and expensive residences, whose value, for the purposes of home-life, has been much enhanced by reason of their supposed immunity from nuisances, and in reliance upon that fact very large sums of money have been expended in buildings which are adapted to no other purpose than dwelling-houses." If that is stated with the idea that it adds any strength to the prayer which these complainants make for relief then I say that it offends against that rule of equity, i. e., that all conditions of men are alike in its presence, and that the 417 proper form of this bill should have taken no notice of the riches or the property or the amount of money spent upon the residences of the complainants. Then the bill, as I think, offends again, on page 3, in its mode of stating the nuisance of which the plaintiffs complain. They aver that — "To all, both those who are well and those who are ill, the nuisance (except the shaking of the walls) is not limited to the time during which the actual bell-ringing lasts, for the expectation of its beginning produces a nervousness and excitement which to all is painful and to some intolerable." We may commiserate persons who are in the condition of suffering that sort of annoyance by anticipation, but all the cases will show that they are not persons for whom the court will interfere to prevent the lawful acts of their neighbors in the proper use of their property. The true criterion I take to be this — to be a nuisance restrainable by a court of equity an act must be shown to be such as would be so considered by the average citizen in fair bodily and mental health ; and particularly is this so when the act complained of is one of those acts which do not do visible injury to property, but act only through the mind and upon the feelings of individuals. Any other test would be so uncertain as to render the safe investment of money in the improvement of property impracticable. Nobody could say how soon there would come and sit down beside him some •one who could not put up with any of the ordinary uses to which other people devote such property, and who would say, " Because I cannot live comfortably in my house you cannot stay here." There are, indeed, some cases in which that which is done by a man in connection with his own prop- erty is liable to be called a public nuisance — a nuisance to every average person who comes within reach of it. The law will say to such a person, " If you will establish an affair of that kind" you cannot say to any citizen who sits down beside you, " You came to the nuisance." But this is not so where the alleged nuisance is only a nuisance because of the 4i8 particular tastes or idiosyncrasies of the men who choose to come to it. That, I think I can say, is a well-defined rule of law. We have derived our' system from England. The common sense of the English people would never have consented that a court of equity should, on such grounds, interfere with the usual habits of the people. So we find Lord Justice Knight Bruce, in Walter vs. Selfe, using this language : — " Ought this inconvenice to be considered in fact as more than fanciful, more than one of mere delicacy or fastidious- ness, as an inconvenience materially interfering with the ordi- nary comfort, physically, of human existence ; not merely according to elegant or dainty modes and habits of living, but according to plain and sober and simple notions among the English people ? " . This is accepted as the proper account of the matter by Vice-Chancellor Kindersley in the bell case. (Soltau and De Held.) It is recognized as the law to govern that class of cases in this country and quoted with approbation by Thompson, C. J., in Sparhawk vs. Union Passenger Railway, 4 P. F. S., 427. I refer, also, to the words of Sir G. Mellish, in the case of Ball vs. Ray, which was a case of alleged nuisance ; " noise made by horses." " I entirely agree with what has been said by the lord chancellor, ' that when in a street like Green street the ground floor of a neighboring house is turned into a stable we are not to consider the noise of horses from that stable like the noise of a piano-forte from a neighboring house or the noise of a neighbor's children in their nursery, which are noises we must reasonably expect, and must, to a considerable extent, put up with.' And in the same case Lord Selborne said, ' In making out a nuisance of this character {i. e., from noise), there are always two things to be considered — the right of the plaintiff and the right of the defendant.' " 419 " If the houses adjoining each other are So built that from the commencement of their existence it is manifest that each adjoining inhabitant was intended to enjoy his own property for the ordinary purposes for which it and all the different parts of it were constructed, then so long as the house is so used there is nothing that can be regarded, in law, as a nuisance which the other party has a right to prevent. On the other hand, if either party turns his house or any portion of it to unusual pur- poses, in such a manner as to produce a substantial injury to his neighbor, it appears to me that that is not, according to principle or authority, a reasonable use of his own property, and his neighbor, showing substantial injury, is entitled to protection." L. R., 8 Ch. App., 471. The applicability of that to this case is that here was a church built in 1849, — a Gothic church, — with its tower and belfry built in 1851. Before any of these houses were erected the church built its tower, thus giving notice to all the world that when they were able to purchase it there would be a chime of bells within that tower. There was no sense in the tower without it. That is the designed use to which a tower, when so built, is appropriated, and to which it is intended to be appropriated. As I will show your Honors, we do not only draw that as an inference from seeing the tower there, but we have the testimony of witnesses that that was the purpose for which the tower was erected. In the case of the Attorney-General against the Sheffield Gas Company the following language was used (page 346 of Defendants' Memorandum of Authorities) : — " All these cases of nuisance or no nuisance arising from particular acts must, from the nature of things, be governed by particular circum- stances. I take it that all of these questions are of this nature. Are you using the matter which is the subject-matter of inquiry in a reasonable way and are those the uses for which it was contempla ted f" 420 With regard to simple personal discomfort, we find these words used in the case of St. Helen's Smelting Company vs. Tipping, II House of L. Cas., 650, by Lord Westbury: — " With regard to simple personal discomfort, the personal inconvenience and interference with one's enjoyment, one's quiet, one's personal freedom, anything that injuriously affects the senses or the nerves, may depend upon the circumstances of the place. If a man lives in a street where there are numerous shops and a shop is opened next door to him, which is carried on in a fair and reasonable way, he has no ground for complaint because to himself, individually, there may arise much discomfort from the trade carried on in that shop." The judges of this court would not confine that observation to the case of a street in which there were already shops. We have these words concerning noise from Lord Selborne, in Gaunt vs. Finney; — " There may, of course, be such a thing as a legal nuisance from noise in a manufacturing or other populous town, of which the case of Soltau vs. De Held is an example. But a nuisance of this kind is much more difficult to prove than when the injury complained of is the demonstrable effect of a visible or tangible cause, as when waters are fouled by sewage, or when the fumes of mineral acids pass from the chimneys of factories or other works over land or houses, producing deleterious physical changes which science can trace and explain. A nuisance by noise {supposing malice to be out of the question) is emphatically a question of degree. If my neighbor builds a house against a party-wall next to my own, and I hear through the wall more than is agreeable to me of the sounds from his nursery or music-room, it does not follow {even if I am nervously sensitive or in infirm health) that I can bring an action or obtain an injunction. Such things, to offend against the law, must be done in a manner which, beyond fair controversy, ought to be regarded as exceptive and unreason- able." 421 And then he commends the use made in argument of a citation from Tuke on the Influence of the Mind on the Body, namely : — "That the thought uppermost in the mind, the predominant idea or expectation, makes a real sensation from without assume a different character. A nervous or anxious or pre- possessed listener hears sounds which would otherwise have passed unnoticed, and magnifies and exaggerates into new significance, originating within himself, sounds which at other times would have been passively heard and not regarded." We come now to the case of Harrison vs. Good, which, singularly enough, was a bill filed by Charles Harrison against St. Mark's Church, Marylebone, and others. It arose out of a covenant in a deed by which the vendee covenanted that he, his heirs or assigns, "will not do or suffer to be done upon the premises anything which shall be or deemed to be a nuisance to Henry Samuel Eyre, or any of the tenants or the occupiers for the time being of the adjoining property or the houses to be built thereon." St. Mark's, Marylebone, acquired the lot for the purpose of erecting a parish school. The bill charged that the school, if established, would " greatly diminish the value of the respect- ive properties of the complainants," and prayed for an injunction to restrain " the defendants, their architects, &c. from establishing any national or parochial schools" on the lots. Sir James Bacon, V. C, says: — "The word 'nuisance' is a word perfectly well known to the law, — it means only one thing. In common parlance, 'nuisance,' no doubt, is applied to a great many things wholly different from, and others not at all like, the definition which by law is given to the word nuisance. But if it does not mean only that signification which the law has put upon it, I am at a loss to know what it does mean, because if I enlarge it in some degree I must enlarge it, perhaps, in a greater degree, and if I were to substitute the popular word ' annoyance ' for the legal term ' nuisance,' I do not know how I could stop." 422 These being the principles on which the Court acts in ap- plying the rules of equity in such cases as these, we must look where the complainants' bill will put them in regard to what they allege to be a nuisance. The act complained of is the chiming of church-bells from a regularly established church, — certainly; in no sense and by no court ever held to be in itself an unlawful act or a nuisance per se, an act which the vice-chancellor, in the case of Soltau vs. De Held, said could never be a public nuisance, for reasons which he gave in deciding that case, although he did then restrain the ringing of the bells in that suit. I suppose I need scarcely say anything to your Honors upon that point, church bells having been rung for at least a thousand years in all Christian countries, and particularly in England. It has been done in this country since its earliest settlement and in this city since the year 1754; and from that time down to this, in all the cities of this country, wherever the wealth of congregations permitted and their tastes inclined, that way, and it was never supposed that they were doing anything which was violative of law or exposed them in any way to be forbidden by the courts of the land. I have before me a pamphlet which shows that a large chime of bells has just been presented by one of the judges of the Court of Common Pleas in Lycoming county to one of the churches in Williamsport. It is alleged even if this be so, the ringing itself is but a matter of amusement for the rector and vestry and those who have the particular churches in charge, and therefore should not be regarded by the court. That this is not the view which is taken by the body of Christians to which this church belongs (although it is alleged in the bill to be a fact), I will show by the affidavits of a few prominent members of that communion and of other communions. The first I will read to your honors is the affidavit of the bishop of this diocese. He says: — "Bells have been used in the Christian Church for more than twelve hundred years. In all Christian lands they are 423 recognized as one of the most acceptable and appropriate ways of calling the people together and of notifying funerals, marriage festivals, &c. Hence the common sentiment of civilized humanity seems to recognize them as useful adjuncts of divine worship. " Wm. Bacon Stevens." The Rev. Dr. Foggo makes the same statement. So does the Rev. Morgan Dix, D. D., and the Rev. William F. Mor- gan, D. D. The latter's affidavit is of special value because he experienced opposition when he erected his chime of bells. It appears that his church was directly opposite a hospital, and it was feared that the bells might be an injury to the patients. Upon questioning the patients, however, after the chimes were in operation, it was found that the sound of the bells was pleasant to them. We have the affidavit of Archbishop Wood, who speaks in the warmest terms of the bells. He says: — " There are in the city of Philadelphia about forty-five Roman Catholic churches. About one-half of these are furnished with a bell or bells. Some of them have four bells, some three, some two, but most of them have only one. All of our churches in the city would have bells, but in some there is no tower and in others there is not the money in hand with which to purchase a bell. We consider bells as an integral part of the church and as exceedingly convenient and useful for many purposes in religious services. Our usual custom is to ring one bell every day at 6 A. M., at 12 M. and at 6 P. M. for the Angelus, or prayer commemorative of the incarnation of our Lord. On Sundays and festivals of obligation we ring one bell for service at 6, 71^, 9 and 10^ A. M., and at 3.30 P. M. for vespers, or less frequently when there are not so many services. On great festivals, such as Christmas, Easter, &c., we ring all the bells perhaps twice a day, in sign of joy and in honor of the festivity. " Bells have always been connected with religious services 424 in many ways, and we would consider it a hardship to be pro- hibited their proper and reasonable use. I consider a full peal of bells a desirable acquisition to any church." The Rev. Henry C. Potter, D. D., gives some excellent reasons for the use of bells. He says : — "The practice of ringing bells, as above recited, is in accord- ance with the usage and practice which governs the ringing of chimes of bells in the Protestant Episcopal churches in this and neighboring cities. It was inaugurated in my church because it was believed that the ringing of a chime of bells above the most thronged and crowded of American thorough- fares would be a means of recalling many, to whom such thoughts had been unwonted, to thoughts of public worship and all that the church of God and its ministrations stand for. We believe and have had evidence that our bells have thus arrested the careless and aroused the heedless, and we believe them therefore to be a most useful and welcome agency in calling the attention of the multitude to the duty and privilege of Christian worship, and a means of inviting them to partici- pate in that worship. If the reasonable, customary and time- honored ringing of church-bells should be prevented the church would be deprived not only of a right which has existed and been exercised for centuries, but of a most useful auxiliary to divine worship." It is in this spirit that the poet has said, " The bells them- selves are the best of preachers," because they call those who do not by habit or inclination come to church, or who may be wandering about the streets or reclining indolently at home. These know, when the ringing falls on their ear, that the call is " one which summons them to prayer," and is a con- stant witness, to friend and foe, of the presence of Christianity. This is the spirit in which the bells were introduced into the church in the beginning, and the spirit in which many Chris- tians hold to them and require them yet on their places of worship. I want to say a few words on the case of Soltau vs. De Held, 425 which is the only case I have been able to find which bears really upon this case. You will see that there is a strong line of demarcation between that case and the present. It was not a case in which a corporation designing to build a hand- some church near a vacant part of the city did so to the extent that their present means would allow, and erected a handsome Gothic church and tower which, as a centre, has attracted many to the neighborhood ; but this was a case in which, in a thickly populated part of a city, in a building which had been used for a private residence for years, a portion of that resi- dence was purchased by a Roman Catholic society to be used as a chapel, and upon that chapel was erected a bell, hung immediately over and rung directly in the ears of a gentleman who for a long time had occupied the other portion of the house. It is true, that before this case came finally to be heard, that these parties erected a chapel in the yard, and put bells on that, and these also were enjoined ; but the decision did not turn on that point. The vice-chancellor also said : — " It is to be remembered that the plaintiff has not gone to the bells, but the bells have come to him." Then the language of the plaintiff in that case, describing the nuisance which had come to him, was in the strongest and most positive form into which it was possible to put an allegation of nuisance, i. e., that it would drive him from his house if not abated. Then there was no answer. The matter was practically undefended. There was but a single affidavit for the defense, and that of a gentleman who did not consider the thing a nuisance. But, as the vice-chancellor said, this gentleman does not tell us where he lives, so that we do not know what he knows about it; we cannot allow his testimony to contradict the affidavit of the plaintiff I consider that case to be entirely distinguishable from the case which you have before you. In the first place it was an undefended case. There was no evidence to the contrary of that which is alleged on the part of the plaintiff. Here there is abundant evidence. But in addition to that, there is the 426 fact that this man who was offended by that nuisance had been living in his own quiet house for years when these people came and put a bell over his head despite his remon- strance and his earnest entreaties to the contrary. The evidence in our case is that when St. Mark's was built in the way in which I have described it held out in its incom- plete condition notice of what was intended. The complain- ants say it attracted them. They or the builders of the houses they occupy may be considered to have said, "we will put our- selves down here ; we do not consider that the church is not quite finished ; that these gentlemen intend to put a bell there. There is a doctrine which says that if they are charged with sustaining a nuisance, they can't say, ' Ah ! but you came to the nuisance.' That does not apply in a case like this." It would be monstrous injustice in a case in which there is full notice given in the fact of a thing's being incomplete be- cause there is not present means to complete it, that those who come around it and make themselves "pleasant and com- fortable" in that part of it which they like, should make them- selves masters of the situation and say to the corporation, " You shall not make this church what you intended ; we want to come there, and you shall not make this church a perfect thing. We intend it shall remain as it is." Whatever the law may have ruled in cases of public nuisances, I do not believe this Court will enjoin or interfere in such a case as that. Here is a plot of the vicinity. The bill starts out with the allegation that these complainants are parties residing within one-eighth of a mile of St. Mark's Church. I ask your Honors' attention to the condition of the square between Sixteenth and Seventeenth streets and Walnut and Spruce. There are ninety-eight houses in that square. Seven of these houses are occupied by complainants in this bill. Ten of them are occupied by persons who have given affidavits on the side of the complainants in this bill. Fifty-one are occupied by per- sons who make affidavits in favor of the defense, and thirty of 427 them by parties who refuse to take any part in the controversy. We have indicated them here by colors. The complainants are marked in black (perhaps that is significant on the part of the church; I had nothing to do with the colors); the sympathizers with the complainants are marked blue ; the sympathizers with the defense are marked red; and those who are neutral are no color at all. Among those who refuse to take part in this controversy are four occupants of houses on the south side .of Locust street, i. e., directly opposite St. Mark's Church, and three on the same side as the church. There is one complainant and one sympathizer on the north side of Locust street, and three who make affidavits for the defense. In Chancellor street and Erety street there are sixteen affidavits for the defense, four who are neutral and one for the complainants. The discrep- ancy between this and the fact that there are four Chancellor street affidavits in the book of the complainants is that the four persons who made affidavit were occupants of one house. Some of those who made affidavit are not noted, because we did not count stables as dwellings, or know that they were occupied as such. I will also call your attention to the fact that in the complain- ants' bill there are some exaggerated and extravagant state- ments that have not been proved by affidavits or otherwise. Among other things it is asserted in the bill that the vibra- tions produced by the ringing of these bells are so great as to shake the walls of the houses. We find not a word of testi- mony to establish that allegation. They allege that the bells are hung lower than the roofs of some of the adjoining houses. That we have denied and proved our denial by testimony. The mouth of the bell is sixty-five feet above the curb. The highest house on Locust street, according to their own esti- mates (No. 1622), is sixty-two feet six inches high. The affi- davit of Catanach says : — "The bells hang sixty-seven feet above the curbstone. They are from ten to fifteen feet above the roofs of the majority of the houses in the neighborhood and just above the ridge of 428 the roof of the highest building in the vicinity. The tower of St. Mark's Church is well built and sufficiently strong, in my opinion, to carry a heavy peal of bells. There is no perceptible jarring or shaking of the tower when the bells are chimed. I have been in the school-house, which stands on the church lot sixty feet from the tower, when the bells were being chimed, and I could not perceive any jarring of the building or rattling of the windows. I have also measured the tower of the Church of the Meditator, on the corner of Nineteenth and Lombard streets, and find the bell which hangs in it, and which is three feet six inches in diameter at its mouth, is hung at forty-nine feet above the curbstone. I have also measured the height at which the bell of Bethany, corner of Twenty- second and Bainbridge streets, is hung, and find it to be about sixty-five feet above the curbstone. I was told by the sexton that it weighed one thousand six hundred pounds. I also measured the tow^r of Tabor Church (Presbyterian), at Eighteenth and Christian streets. The bell, which is of steel and measures three feet six inches across the mouth, is hung forty-one feet above the curbstone. I have also measured the height at which the bell is hung in the tower of the Church of the Holy Comforter, corner of Nineteenth street and Titan street, and found it to be forty-four feet above the curbstone. I have also measured the height at which the bell is hung in the tower of Old Swedes' Church, Swanson, below Christian street, and found it to be fifty-one feet above the level of the ground. I have also examined the height at which the bell is hung in the tower of the Church of the Nativity, at the corner of Eleventh and Mount Vernon streets, and think it to be about fifty-five feet above the level of the ground." (Reads affidavits of Congdon, Miller, Upjohn and Sims, architects, without comment. Also, reads affidavit of Charles Esling, relative to St. John's Church.) There is another observation with regard to the testimony offered by the complainants. Mr. George L. Harrison, who seems to be entirely content with what is doing there now, assumes that there has been some great change in the ringing 429 of the bells since this bill was filed, whereas, in truth and in fact, there has been no change at all, except that the early morning bell has not been rung. That was granted on appli- cation on behalf of invalids, as appears in the correspondence between Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Hoffman, and as it would always be on application in particular cases. Mr. Isaac Lea, the next complainant, makes no affidavit. He is alleged to be out of the city. Mr. Henry C. Gibson, who resides on Walnut street, and the rear of whose house is two hundred and fifty feet from the church, makes an affidavit on which I would be willing to submit the case. Mr. James Parsons makes an affidavit which does not come up to what is necessary. Charles H. Hutchinson and Horace Fassit make no affidavits. Not even all the.se complainants are sufficiently interested in this matter to give your Honors a statement of how far they have been injured. I will call your attention to a few of the complainants' affi- davits, which seem to be insufficient. These affidavits all disclose facts which are of importance to the defense. Among other things, the dates at which the complainants became residents of the neighborhood. Mr. Harrison says, " I have resided at 1620 Locust street for six years. Immediately before this I resided for five years at 1618 Locust street. In 1858 I built- the two dwellings at the north-east corner of Locust and Sixteenth streets and lived in the lower one seven years." So he came there long after the possession of all the rights which the building of the church and tower gave us. He further says: — " The neighborhood where I reside has always been con- sidered a very attractive one for its beauty, for its general quiet and its freedom from places of traffic of every kind, and its attractiveness was enhanced by its nearness to St. Mark's Church, whose fine architecture and tasteful grounds and seclusion from all disturbing sights or sounds induced the hope that the desirableness of this particular locality for a residence would be maintained." He takes advantage of what we have done there, and then 430 coming to us, undertakes to control us, and say that we shall not complete our own property. Mr. Harrison also gives us the hours at which the bells were rung. He says : — " The defendants have caused these bells to be rung and tolled— On Sundays, from 6^ A. M. until service at 7. " 10 " " io>^. " 3>^ P. M. " . 4. " 7 " " lyi. On week-days, for 10 minutes between 8^ and 9 A. M. 10 " " 4^ " 5 P. M." Yet one would think from the complainants' bill that the bells were rung during the whole twenty-four hours, or at least from early morn to set of sun. Mr. Harrison further says : — " The early morning bell has been discontinued since and inclusive of November 5th, when the authorities of the church were advised of an intended complaint to the vestry ; but I am informed and believe that, at the meeting of the vestry held to consider this complaint, a resolution was offered to discontinue this early ringing and was almost unanimously negatived. The reason for its prolonged stoppage and for the later moderation of the use, clangor and vibration of the bells, I am not advised of These changes have certainly relieved the discomfort and the suffering materially." Here is the affidavit of Dr. Hoffman to the effect that there has been no change in the ringing of the bells, except that the ringing of the early bell has been discontinued. (Reads new affidavits of rector and sexton.) (Court adjourned.) On Saturday last I devoted what I had to say to the law of the case, pointing out, as I thought, how the legal princi- ples laid down for proceedings in cases of this kind excluded the plaintiffs in such a case as this from the decree which they ask from your Honors. I will not go into the law of the case again, except to allude to one case which I find in this yellow paper book of our friends on the other side, which 431 strikes me as the play of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet left out. It is the case decided in our own Supreme Court at nisi prills, in which the opinion was delivered by our own Chief Justice Thompson. A whole page is devoted to the setting forth the facts of that case, which is an application to restrain a tinsmith, who had opened a shop near to his neighbor's dwelling, from carrying on his trade in that posi- tion. The inference is drawn that a man who opened a tin- shop in a place near the dwelling of anybody else would not be allowed to carry on his trade in the ordinary and usual way. Your Honors will see from the few lines I will quote from this case how inadequate the report given us is to con- vey the facts of the case. " The case in hand is the shop of a tinsmith and sheet-ironworker, who, it seems, has erected his shop, a very thin, loose building of boards, some eight feet from the sleeping-rooms of the plaintiff, and there carries on work, generally beginning in the morning before daylight, and resuming it again in the evening at about eight o'clock and keeping it up till eleven o'clock at night." It was that extraordinary use of his tinshop, early in the morning and late at night, which I understand the court to have enjoined. The language of the printed book would lead us to understand that it was a general restraint ; but the restraint actually was from the exercise of that noisy trade during certain hours of the night. I pointed out on last Saturday the defects in the plaintiffs' bill and the failure to prove or sustain the allegations, such as they were. I turn now to show how the defendants' affidavits sustain the answer to the points made by the complainants. We allege — and that is one of the points to which I especially wish to call your attention — we allege that it was part of the original plan of the church to have a chime of bells, and that we are therefore now in the use of this building which we have erected in the legitimate way in which it was intended to be used from the time of its commencement. We have four affidavits on that point from persons who are competent ' to give evidence. The first is that of John Wilmer, who was 432 one of the originators of St. Mark's Church. He states that the plan at the time of the erection of the church was to have a chime of bells. Then we have the affidavit of Mrs. Elizabeth White Reed, who not only speaks of what was intended, but of the condition of the neighborhood at the time the church was built. She says : — " My husband, the late Professor Henry Reed, was one of the original vestry of St. Mark's Church, and in the year 1848, when the church was building, and for many years after, we lived at 360 (now 1520) Locust street, less than a square off. At the time the church was commenced there was only one house on the south side of Locust street, between Sixteenth and Seventeenth streets, which was built and occupied. This house belonged to Thomas Drake and is now No. 1628. Two other houses were built, I think, about the same time as the church (in 1848), which belonged to Mr. Boker, now Nos. 1606 and 1608 Locust stfeet. As late as the beginning of 1849 all the other lots in that square on the south side were vacant, and many of them were not built upon for a number of years afterwards. I know that it was always the intention of the vestry to have a chime of bells in the tower ; it was only deferred on account of the expense." Then we have the testimony of Miss Lucy Moss, who was cognizant of these intentions, and says that she knows it was the intention, when the church was built, to have a chime of bells ultimately in the tower. Mr. George Hunter, who has been actively connected with church affairs, and has had knowledge of St. Mark's Church since it was begun in 1849, says that he knows that it was a part of the plan of those who got up the church to have a regular chime of bells in the tower of that church. Then we say that the chime is a good one and that it is not too heavy for the locality. It is a chime of which the heaviest bell weighs only two thousand and six pounds. It is what is called by the professional bell-ringer " a light country chime." Dr. Hoffman describes it as a "light chime," and this will clearly appear when we compare it with some of the large bells 433 of some of the famous chimes in the world. There is one bell at Moscow which weighs one hundred and twenty-seven thousand eight hundred and thirty-six pounds. There is another in the same church weighing over thirty-nine thou- sand pounds. We have one at Vienna weighing thirty-nine thousand and seventy-eight pounds. The great bell at St. Paul's, London, weighs eleven thousand pounds. " Great Tom," at Oxford, weighs over sixteen thousand pounds. (We know that on this great bell every evening at nine o'clock one hundred and one strokes are made in honor of the number of scholars on some foundation.) The bell at St. Dunstan's, Canterbury, weighs seven thousand seven hundred and forty pounds. On this side of the Atlantic we have the great bell at Montreal, weighing thirty thousand two hundred and forty pounds, and another in the same city weighing six- teen thousand three hundred and fifty-three pounds. What is to be said of our little chime, the heaviest bell of which weighs only two thousand pounds, one of the lightest chimes, probably, in any large church in ariy great city ? Then as to the times at which these bells are rung. They ■were rung (and I will take Mr. Harrison's affidavit for the time) — On Sundays, from 6^ A. M. until service at 7. " 10 " " io}4. " 1% P. M. " 4- " 7 " " 7%- On week-days for 10 minutes between 8^ and 9 A. M. 4% " 5 P. M. Then the whole time on week-days at which these bells were rung (allowing that they rang the whole quarter hour each time) was only half an hour between the morning and the evening. Now it is certainly a very extraordinary state- ment for any person in health to make, that this was such a continuous clangor that they were not able to attend to house- hold dutiesj not able to listen to conversation and that their 434 children could not sleep. Now (I am not very well informed as to children's habits, but) I believe that children are usually up by eight o'clock and do not usually go right to sleep again, and that the day sleep is usually taken about noon (at least that is the time at which it would probably be most beneficial to the infants). Now we say that this use of the bells is a reasonable one, such as was contemplated at the erection of the church, and using the language of Lord Cranworth and applying it to this case, we say : — " We take it that all these questions are to this end : are you using the matter which is the subject matter of inquiry in a reasonable way, and are these uses those for which it was contemplated ?" It is hardly necessary for me to say that that question must be answered in the affirmative — that there can be no allegation of excessive ringing in such ringing as that. If any use at all were con- templated of a church-tower and bells they could not be used in a more moderate way. I now ask the attention of your Honors to the affidavits of the professional bell-ringers. The affidavits of two of these, Prof Ruckemann and Prof Widdows, have been given on the other side, and we are told that these gentlemen are so promi- nent in the department in which they speak that other affiants ought not to be heard. The four affidavits made on the part of the defendants are made by persons of quite as high stand- ing and quite as capable of speaking on the subject as those on the other side. The first is Mr. William Brown, who says : — "I reside at 1320 North Tenth street, Philadelphia. I am a watchmaker. I sell organs also. I am a musician and understand music. I am accustomed to play on several musi- cal instruments. I am the bell-ringer at St. Stephen's, and have been for fifteen years. I am acquainted with the chime of Christ Church, also with St. Peter's, in this city, and with that of St. Mary's, in Burlington. I am also familiar with chimes of bells in England, and have often taken part in ring- ing matches there. I have been a bell-ringer for nearly forty 435 years in this country and in England. St. Stephen's chime has nine bells and weighs twelve thousand eight hundred pounds. The tenor bell weighs two thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight pounds. The bells are hung forty-five feet above the pavement. I measured it this morning. They were put in September, 1853. They are rung or chimed thirty minutes before each of the Sunday services, to wit, 10 A. M. to 10.30 A. M., 3.30 P. M. to 4 P. M. and from 7 P. M. to 7.30 P. M. We have two services during the week ordinarily, and a portion of the year a daily service. For each of the week- day services we ring the bells ten minutes. I have never heard of any complaint. I have never been asked to stop the bells because persons were sick. At one time there was a man very ill opposite the church. The old sexton went over to inquire whether it was any annoyance to him. He replied that it was no annoyance, and, in fact, he enjoyed hearing them ring. He lived about fifty feet from the church-tower, his house being directly opposite the church." Then he goes on to speak of St. Mark's bells, and says that^ except, perhaps, the chime at St. Mary's, Burlington, they are the best in this country. There is no evidence as to the height of the dwellings opposite St. Stephen's Church. (Mr. Rawle, "It is the Mer- cantile Library, a one-story building!") Says Robert Wright: — "I am the bell-ringer at St. Peter's Church in this city." He has examined the bells at St. Mark's and thinks them perfectly good bells. He tells us how the bells are rung at St. Peter's : — "The bells of St. Peter's are rung for thirty minutes con- tinuously before the regular Sunday services, which begin at 10.30 A. M. and 4 P. M., also one bell before the early morn- ing service, and for half an hour before the 7.30 P. M. service, when there is one. One bell is rung for five minutes for the Sunday-school at 9 A. M. and 3 P. M. They are rung for half an hour before the services, which are held occasionally during the week at 1 1 A. M. One of the heaviest is rung for 436 five minutes before the daily services at 9 A. M. and about 5 P. M. I have never heard of any complaints being made by the neighbors about the ringing of our bells." He also says : — " I ring them also an hour at midnight on Christmas eve and New Year's eve and at sunrise on Easter morning. When on one or two occasions I was prevented from ringing the bells at these times the neighbors have com- plained, because they liked to hear them !" 'i e., complained of their not being rung. Mr. Charles Rahill says : — " I have been a bell-ringer for about thirty years. I have rung the bells of St. Mark's Church in this city. In my judgment they are, for their size and weight, the finest I have ever heard. They are in perfect tune and harmony. The ringing of the bells of St. Mark's could not shake the walls of the adjacent houses. In England the bells of St. Mark's would be considered a light country chime. I am a musician and can play on the organ. I have a good ear for music. I can, therefore, say positively that the bells of St. Mark's are in perfect tune." Thomas H. Le Sage says : — " I have been accustomed to ring bells for forty years. I have listened to the bells of St. Mark's Church, and have also rung them. I consider them a light peal of bells. They are hung about the height that peals of bells are usually hung in church towers. I consider them sweet and mellow toned bells and am confident they are perfectly in tune and in harmony. They are, in my judgment, the opposite of harsh, loud, high, sharp, clanging or discordant. " All of the churches at which I have rung the bells have residences on all sides of them. Several of them had resi- dences immediately adjoining the church building. In Lon- don it is the custom to ring the bells for half an hour before each of the Sunday services. On other days they are rung from fifteen to thirty minutes before each service." Then Mr. Rackemann, who is the great authority produced upon the other side, gives an account of the height of Trinity 437 Chapel bells, in New York, in which he was obviously mis- taken. He puts them some twenty feet higher than they really are. His affidavit is explained and shown to be erroneous by the affidavit of Dr. Hoffman, who has lived in the neighborhood, and also by the affidavit of Egbert Mills, which you will find upon page 215 of our book : — " Egbert Mills, being duly sworn, doth depose and say, that he is fifty-six years of age ; that he is a carpenter and builder, residing in and doing business at No. 33 West Twenty-ninth street, in the city of New York ; that he did on the eighteenth day of January, 1877, carefully measure the height from the ground of the principal or largest bell in Trinity Chapel, in West Twenty-fifth street, in said city, and found the same to be fifty-four feet and six inches. And also that he did on the same day carefully measure the height of the bells in Grace Church in said city, consisting of eight or more bells, and that the lower part of said bells was seventy- four feet from the ground ; and further saith not." We come then to questions of the depreciation in value. The evidence on that subject is altogether in favor of the defendants. Depreciation of property is not alleged by any one of the affidavits made by the complainants personally. (Interrupted by the Court.) Judge Hare said : — The court does not desire to hear that part of the argument. Any depreciation of property must depend on injury to the person. It is not necessary to show anything in that regard in case no injury to the pei'son is made out. Mr. Morris. — I will only say then that, on the part of the defendants, ten persons residing in the neighborhood say that they do not believe their property has depreciated in value, and Mr. Ecclesine says he has refused a substantial advance on his house since the bells were placed in the tower. That is worth a thousand affidavits of experts, which are mere matters of opinion. With regard to this matter of " experts," in 9 L. R. Ch. App., 710, Lord Justice Sir W. M. James says: — "The one 438 thing which is unmistakably established by the evidence on both sides is the utter worthlessness of affidavit evidence in such a case as this." Lord Justice Sir G. I. Turner, i L. R. Ch. App., page 352, says, that "with all possible respect to the scientific gentlemen who have given their evidence, I think that much more weight is due to the facts which are proved than to the conclusions drawn from scientific investigations." Mr. Ecclesine's affidavit then will outweigh all the experts. The medical experts are worth no more on a question of this kind. A more numerous array is presented by our friends on the other side, and they are more ambitious in the essays they have given us (for their affidavits amount to essays on particular subjects), but they are men of no greater standing than the gentlemen who testify on the other side, and, indeed, the gentleman who stands at the head of the list on the part of the defense is known to be the peer of any man in any part of the world. It is useless, therefore, to say, " Oh ! the set of unknown men you have got." It is not so. The evidence of experts, however, such as it is, is useless in the presence of the evidence of several parties who testify for the defendants. Mr. Moon's testimony, for instance, is not a matter of specula- tion. After describing the noise of the bells, which failed to rattle the windows or produce any inconvenience whatever, he says : — " My family consists of my wife, my daughter and myself My daughter is an invalid, and has been for the last fifteen years. I have never found the bells of St. Mark's a nuisance in any degree — even when the windows were open in the summer season." There is a permanent invalid who likes to hear the bells rung. I refer also to Mr. George Boldin's testimony, on page 179. He says :— " I reside at 220 South Sixteenth street, Philadelphia, and have lived there for about five years. My house is not more than sixty feet from the church of St. Mark's. I have never found the bells of St. Mark's a nuisance, or been annoyed by theni 439 in any manner whatever. I enjoy the ringing of the bells, and would regret very much if they should be stopped. I do not think that the bells have depreciated the value of property in the neighborhood. On the other hand, I think they have improved it. The walls of the house were never jarred by the ringing of the bells nor the windows rattled. They are not loud enough to disturb conversation at all, even when the windows are open. My daughter died on the i8th of October last, and was very ill for about three months previous to that time. During her illness the windows were always open in her room. She was not in the least annoyed by the bells, even when rung at seven o'clock on Sunday .morning. On the contrary, she enjoyed listening to them even to the day of her death, and waited impatiently for and eagerly anticipated their ringing." We have Dr. Thomson's theory of acoustics, the application of which is based on the assumed height of the houses on the south side of Locust street, which we have shown to be seve- ral feet lower than they are represented to be by the complain- ants, so that the waves of sound would pass clear of the roofs of these houses and disseminate themselves abroad. No more sound, therefore, would go below than would come from a bell hung in a higher steeple. The waves of sound must go down in order to strike and reverberate, so it makes no differ- ence in that respect. But with all due deference to these gentlemen, and I doubt not they know a great deal, but I believe that they know very little about it at the best. (Interrupted by the court. Judge Hare said : — " Taking the average height of the bell as a centre, and describing a circle around that, I think it could be ascertained what proportion of the waves of sound would proceed in any given direction. It could be strictly ascer- tained how much would infringe on any wall at a given height and at a certain distance, and it could be shown how much the effect would be increased or diminished by raising or lowering the bell-tower. Mathematical formulas could be deduced, which would give us the exact results.) 440 The affidavit of Mr. David Evans (page 307) gives the exact altitudes. All the heights given on the plaintiffs' plan are approximate only. The model represents the church tower too low and the neighboring houses too high. (Judge Mit- chell. — " Does Mr. Evans say how he made these measure- ments?" " Mr. Morris. — I think his were made by leveling in the tower. When he says the tower is of such a height, he means the belfry, not the spire, but the square part") I have but one or two words more, which I am induced to say, because the learned gentleman on the other side said of the corporation of St. Mark's Church, that it was "possessed of a hundred thousand devils." I don't know what the gentleman is possessed by who could make such a remark. I have here a list of charities, of which the rector of that church is the head, and to which the gentlemen and ladies connected with it give their time and their money. There are Sunday- schools, parish schools, industrial schools for girls, mothers' meetings, employment societies, ladies' missionary aid socie- ties, a workingmen's club and institute (one of the most valuable instruments of charity among the poor which it is possible to imagine). They comprise within these limits all those very charitable acts of clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, relieving the sick and providing secular education, combined with religious instruction ; acting through all these channels to bless the poor of the neighborhood, thus carrying the gospel to them. I will not say in response to the charge of a "hundred thousand devils" that my learned friend is possessed of anything worse than an extraordinary spirit of contradiction. ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENDANTS, BY GEO. W. BIDDLE, Esq. May it please your Honors, if I consulted my own wishes on this occasion, you would not be troubled with a single remark from me ; for, after the very comprehensive, logical statement of my learned colleague and his application of the few principles of law governing such cases as these, it is really quite unnecessary to go any further. But it seems to be sup- posed that we should trouble you on both sides a little longer, and I proceed to discharge my duty in this case as best I may, knowing that in treading ground which has already been trod so thoroughly, I must necessarily indulge in a good deal of repetition. Your Honors have been told that there are certain well- defined principles of law by which all controversies like the present are to be tried. What are they ? No one has a right to expect in a thickly-peopled, closely- built community the serenity and repose that is peculiar to the rural districts. He necessarily makes, or at least in law he is expected to make, some sacrifices. He receives in return the reciprocal advantages which result from closer communion with his fellows. It would be manifestly unfair to ask everything and give nothing. The law says that there is a certain surrender, even going so far as to what may be termed the submission to annoyance, on the part of those who live where people most do congregate. Again, from what has been said, follows this necessary con- sequence, that while, of course, the law forbids the exercise of noxious trades in such a community, it is not every mere annoyance, every mere inconvenience that is arrested by its hand. There must be substantial injury to comfort and to (441) 442 property subordinately after the injury to comfort is well established. It must, in the language of all the judges who have spoken on the subject, be "such a real injury as plain people — plain men and women — really feel." It must not be fanciful ; it must not be imaginary ; it must not be such as hyper-sensitive people style an annoyance. It must be measured, so to speak, by a rational standard. Again, all rules of defining what such injuries are, must depend upon and be connected with the known habits and usages of the particular community. A noise, for instance, that may be very tolerable in the daytime might not be so in the silent watches of the night. Usage, custom, therefore, must enter largely into such considerations. Of course the law frowns relentlessly upon all distinctions which are supposed to exist between streets and properties as such. A man in Locust street living in a large, well-appointed residence has, in regard to these injuries, no higher claim to the benevolence of the court than the man living in his rear, provided the latter is as near to the supposed scene of injury, although his residence may be of a very different kind. A Mr. Fit^erald or a Mr. Tobin or a Mr. McDevitt has quite as high a title to relief as any of the highly respectable plain- tiffs named in this bill. If houses count for very little, cer- tainly names count for rather less. Again, what is abundantly clear, and what I suppose will hardly be denied by the distinguished gentleman who is to close the argument for the complainants, is this, that where the extraordinary remedy of the sudden, abrupt intervention by injunction is asked the case must be very free from doubt. The chancellor will not be expected to stretch out his very long arm unless the case is a plain one and the defense ad- mits it, or at least the testimony is so overwhelmingly on the part of the plaintiff that a trial by jury is rendered unnecessary. Again, in cases like this, each man stands upon his own ground. You cannot tie together a dozen or half-dozen of complainants, living more or less remote from the supposed scene of injury, and expect to give additional strength to 443 your case by thus binding them together as one plaintiff. It is a blunder in pleading to do so, — a blunder well recognized in the books. I recollect some years ago when it was neces- sary to apply this doctrine in regard to the church at the corner of Broad and Arch streets. I had the good fortune to be retained for the plaintiffs in that case, and although my adversary was one of the most lenient of men as well as the ablest of advocates, — the late Mr. Cuyler — I did not dare to trespass against this rule, and I, therefore, brought suits in the name of each of the plaintiffs separately. The reason is obvious. A man living within fifty feet may have a scintilla of show of right ; while a man living at the end of the radius, described in the bill, can hardly say that his case entitles him to the same relief as the man who lives opposite the bells. Lastly, the owner stands on an entirely different footing from the renter. It is really the interest of the renting plain- tiffs that the nuisance should go on, because if this enormous depreciation of property takes place, hired houses in the neighborhood that now rent for ^1200 will come down to ;^8oo, and Mr. Hutchinson and Mr. Tobias and other gentle- men of that ilk will be largely compensated in their pockets, which will be a solatium to their wounded feelings, I have no doubt. Now having laid down what I believe are the tests by which you must measure and settle this controversy, what is it really all about ? It is a very pretty quarrel as it stood when it left the hands of my distinguished friend Mr. Rawle. When it was tricked out and dandled into something like legal vitality by his able hands, it had the appearance of reality. But after all, sirs, this is nothing but a counterfeit presentment. The moment you come to apply to it any of these common-sense tests you will find it melt away into very thin air indeed. " Advancing civilization," we are told in one of the affidavits, " having successfully attacked all other grounds of abuse, is now engaged in a crusade against noise." It is delightful to hear this. Delightful to many of us who are annoyed, as 444 many of us have been, although we have never yet filed a bill against it, by piano playing, especially in summer ; but the time will come, I suppose, when the precincts of this court will be invaded by such bills as have been filed in the county court of another city of this State. Bells, we are told — (By THE Court. — " Is there too much air for you, Mr. Biddle ?" Mr. Biddle. — " No, sir. We are indeed attended to-day by a very unusual, but certainly a very delightful audience. These bright eyes, which rain influence and bestow the prize are here in very large numbers to-day, and it is an additional stimulus to our efforts." Judge Hare. — " The air I was speaking of, Mr. Biddle." Mr. Biddle. — " I like dotk, sir, very much indeed.") Why, sir, this subject presents a very wide. field for the investigator and ecclesiologist. I do not, of course, propose to go over it. But we have been told that this time-honored custom has existed for more than half of the civil life, even, of our own community. Christ Church bells have been tolled here for one hundred and twenty years, and no man ever dreamed that they were a nuisance. Yet we all know that when they were first put up the city scarcely extended beyond Fourth street. Among the venerable and distinguished men who have controlled the affairs of that parish were many of the ablest lawyers of their day, — the Shippens, the Tilghmans, and, in later times, the Binneys and other men of that kind. They never supposed that they were invading the domestic comforts or legal rights of the people who lived around the church, or I am sure that long since those delightful tones would have been hushed. It has been reserved for a different race, with less robust nerves (I will not say with less robust minds), to make this wonderful discovery. It is an advance movement in this crusade that has been taken up. But, may it please the court, because gentlemen deal with abstractions, courts are not to be called upon to consider the possible per- fection to which we may one day attain. They must take things just as they are, and measure out the law accordingly. Clocks and watches are undoubtedly most useful inventions. 445 but they do not, allow me to say, even to the fortunate pos- sessors of them, bring those reminders which the sound of bells in a large city is wont to do. When you are called upon to strike a blow at a custom that has had its existence for a thousand years you must go a little beyond the inquiry that is made rather superficially in this bill. You must allow something for habit, something for the feelings of the worship- pers, something, if you please, for sentiment. Recollect that the sound of these bells is inseparably connected in the hearts and thoughts of almost every one with the worship of Almighty God. It has been a theme of a great deal of beautiful thought and beautiful expression, and you would really tear a large leaf out of the literature of the language which we enjoy if you would blot what is called the influence of these instru- ments by which we are summoned to the ministrations of the sanctuary. I admit that noise may, under certain conditions and at certain times, be a subject of regulation by the courts. I ad- mit that a tinsmith who carries on his trade at the dead hour of night to the disturbance and the destruction of the comfort and repose of those who lodge within a few feet of him is a proper subject of legal reprehension. But I do not admit that while he works at his trade, or while any one works at a trade of which noise is the necessary accompaniment, the law can interfere, because I know very well that by authorities, which this court will feel itself bound to obey, the opposite has been repeatedly decided. Even in the case of the tinsmith I find just those limitations which my friend, Mr. Morris, attributed to it. So, in the trip-hammer case, they were allowed to go on, although the noise was incessant and involved discomfort by the shaking and vibration of buildings. The wise judge, the late Chief Justice Thompson, could not bring himself, though urged with great force of argument, to do anything more than restrain the defendants from exercising their avo- cation between the hours of seven in the evening and six in the morning. 446 I have said that this case was, after all, an illusory one. It lacks the true riitg (if I may be allowed even metaphorically to refer to a bell in this argument) ; it wants reality. No one can look through the record without being struck with the extravagance and exaggerations of the statements in it. In- correct in regard to the law, it is very incorrect in regard to matters of fact. Thus we are told, on page 3 of the bill, after that re- markable description of the noise emitted by these really very sweet-toned bells, as " high, loud, clanging, discordant and sharp," that " it amounts to a nuisance which is intolerable ;" " that it shakes the walls of the houses in its immediate neigh- borhood ; " that it " renders conversation impossible." " It disturbs rest and sleep." I understand the vibration theory is abandoned. I do not see any affidavit pointing in that di- rection on the part of the complainants. I do see some very decided ones on the side of the defendants. Although my friend Mr. Rawle found a little to say about the bells in every possible aspect, I do not think he said much about vibra- tions or vibratiuncles. That, I suppose, is to be turned out of court. There is thus one very large over-statement which must count against the plaintiffs ; for when you come to look calmly over this case, outside of the statements and counter- statements of counsel, in the quiet of your closets, you will observe there this large overstatement in regard to one sup- posed cause of injury. How is it about the rest? Now we are told that this street is " narrow." That is an inaccuracy, if by this statement it is meant that it is narrower than Spruce street or Walnut street, for I am told that here it is precisely of the same width. And in point of fact, so far from being a " well," as the houses on the south side recede somewhat, and the tower itself recedes somewhat, though the buttresses may not, there is really a wider space between the south side of the tower and the north side of the houses on the opposite side of the street than is usually the case when residences are built up close to the street line, which is fifty feet in width. 447 There are some other inaccuracies. There is a very marked inaccuracy in regard to the number of chimes and bells in our own community. The chimes are stated as three. In one of our affidavits they are shown to be ten, excluding the corpus delicti. St. Mark's bells are numerous, nor are they confined to the imaginary church of which Mr. Rawle spoke the other day, to what he called the "Anglican Church." I do not know of any Anglican Church in this country. I know what the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America is; I know what the Lutheran Church is; what the Roman Catholic Church is. I am not aware of the existence of any Anglican Church in this country. I know that these particular bells pealed out very lustily on our Centennial Fourth of July, which was not a very mute recog- nition of the fact that we had some time ago severed our connection with the parent country. All denominations resort to these, may it please the court. The German Lutheran Church of St. Johannes, on Fifteenth street, between Poplar and Parrish streets, a district covered with noble residences, has a chime and a very agreeable chime. So the church of St. Peter and St. Paul has a chime. So in all parts of the city there are chimes in addition to the glorious cymbals of Christ Church and of St. Peter's, which at least to one humble individual afford very great enjoyment. There are other inaccuracies of statement. - The time of ringing and the number of strokes are very inaccurately stated ; so inaccurately given in the bill that when these com- plainants and their friends come to apply the tests of clocks and watches and to count carefully before they swear, they are unconsciously deluded into the notion that these bells are now ringing at a more moderate rate and with less sound than they were before this bill was filed. This is one of the signifi- cant facts of the case, showing how unconsciously the opera- tion of time has slowly removed and is slowly removing this cause of trouble from the complainants. They are getting used to it, and that which was strange and singular and unusual in the sacred precincts of that street, which, like the 448 island of the lotus-eaters, appears to be a place " in which it always seemed afternoon." They are now becoming used to being stirred up a little by these summons to worship, and those who in this bill began to scoff, — perhaps something worse, — a word that rhymes with worse, — may be induced to go to pray. I hope so. There is still another inaccuracy and a very important one. I put it to the candor of my distinguished friend who is to follow me, were any man to read this case as stated in this bill, would he not inevitably conclude that something, the like of which has never been known in the city of Philadelphia, had taken place in that neighborhood since the twenty-sixth of last June? Why, sir, these bells were hung, according to the statement of these complain- ants, " unusually low," and these reverberations, about which we have heard so much, were created by the sound strik- ing against the walls of the houses lying to the south, and rebounding and bounding back again ; — going on in a way in which one of the experts describes sound as being usually transmitted, not in a circle, as he states, but rather in a sphere ; for as it goes in all directions its transmission would be in the manner of an ideal sphere. Judge Hare. — " It would be spherical, if the whole amount was represented, but that part which strikes the tops of the houses is properly represented by a horizontal circle." Me. Biddle. — " But as they are certainly at some height above the comb of the roofs of the opposite houses this horizontal wave would be dissipated beyond and perhaps strike the Spruce street houses. It certainly does, we are told by the affidavits, not only strike those living on the south side of Walnut street, but from the affidavit of a most esti- mable affiant, which has been introduced into the case since last Saturday, we find that it goes to the north side of Walnut street and causes great trouble there. I wonder we have not some affidavits from Chestnut street." These-general inaccuracies of statement should count very largely against the prayers of this bill. The plaintiffs have 449 really been so disturbed by this imaginary evil that they are not in a proper condition to enter a court of justice at all. They have long since, I am told, ♦abandoned churches, and certainly they are hardly prepared to come into a court of justice. They have not been able to settle down into accu- racy of statement. They do not know precisely, so far as any written statement of their case entitles us to speak, what their ground of complaint is. They have a general restless feeling of annoyance, and that is about all. It is not altogether imaginary. I do not believe that at all. Any unusual devia- tion from our fixed habits, even if it be in the main a pleasur- able deviation, causes us a certain amount of annoyance. It is the first step, according to the French proverb, which costs. They have not yet become accustomed to the first step, except in so far as they have been unconsciously betrayed into stating that this noise is now less frequent and more moderate. There the work of time begins, and if they were let alone, if they were kept out of court, why their feelings would soon be so toned down they would scarcely know, even within this immediate circle of the operation of the bells, that there was anything like the noise which has been described in this bill and in these affidavits. Why, sir, the affidavits are of a most extraordinary charac- ter. I could scarcely believe that I was reading testimony in a court of justice when I read some of these statements. One of these gentlemen, a man of the highest ability and standing, has actually mistaken the street and the church. He is refer- ring his sense of discomfort to Calvary Church, the modest Presbyterian church with the two minarets, between Fifteenth and Sixteenth streets. My friend Mr. Willson, one of its elders, is undoubtedly anxiously awaiting the decision of this case. I will read the affidavit, sir, that there may be no mistake. Listen to this. Our friends on the other side, perhaps, will obtain a correction of this. (They have already got several corrections under the intimation of my friend Mr. Morris that some of the complainants had not sworn to injuries, — they have scared up two of them since last Saturday,— perhaps they ■450 ■will git this corrected.) It is Dr. Gross who says, "Early last spring, as I was passing the church on Locust street, above Fifteenth street." Dr. Gross was walking by Calvary Church. As they have joined twelve plaintiffs here in this bill, why did they not bring in Calvary Church among the defendants and dispose of the whole quarrel at the same time? Why not? As Mr. Cochran refers to schools in his affidavit, why not bring in the school which is on Locust below Fif- teenth ? Here is a real cause for complaint. Why not bring in the Academy of Music ? That may be a little outside of the radius. I can imagine the suffering of the people living opposite the Academy in what is called the ball season, when the people go home at three or four o'clock in the morning, and the hacks drive around, taking up the ladies and gentle- men who trip it on the light fantastic toe in those delightful regions. There, sir, you may talk of disturbed repose, unless, like my friend Mr. Rawle, the people don't go to bed till three or four in the morning. I don't know how the babies are in that neighborhood. I do not know what their idiosyncrasies are, but I should suppose they ought to be wrapped in the a.rms of Morpheus about the time people are returning from the balls that are given there. Let me turn to another affidavit. I turn to it with reluc- tance. It only shows you the effect of habits. While my friend Mr. Rawle (in one of those many allusions to Mr. Rawle with which he enlivened us during this rather stupid case), while he says that he went home at three o'clock in the morning preceding this argument, we find our friend Mr. Mitcheson going home at three o'clock in the afternoon, and when he attemped to take a little repose he is disturbed by the quarter of five o'clock bell, which jangles him out of his afternoon siesta. So between going home early in the morn- ing and going home early in the afternoon, it is impossible to ring a bell any time to suit all these people. We can't ring a bell anyhow to please them. We may say as the old woman did to the eels which she was skinning, " There's no satisfyin- you, anyhow!" 451 One of the criticisms that Judge Thompson made as decisive of the question of a preliminary injunction, was in the " Sunday Car" case, which had a good many points of general resemblance to this case. There was the same ex- travagance of statement, the same affidavits as to injury of property on one side of the street, and of benefit to property in houses exactly opposite. There were the same affidavits as to the disturbance of domestic peace and religious feeling. Now, what does this judge say about that? " Divines, medi- cal men, business men, property-holders were in numbers examined, and with the exception of the medical men, stood generally on opposite sides of the question. Property-holders on the same street testified to exactly opposite effects. In a case so circumstanced, an English chancellor would not attempt to decree until the right was established by a trial at, law, — either by an issue sent to a jury or by an action at law." Now, sir, this case goes a little beyond what Judge Thompson commented upon, as conclusive against the granting of a preliminary injunction. Not only have we persons within the same distance from the sound of the bells, though in different houses, swearing in opposite directions, but we have two inmates of the same house swearing precisely contrary to each other ; and what is still more remarkable, we have the same gentleman swearing both ways. I understood Mr. Rawle to say this with an air of triumph. Here is a lady of high intelligence, who says, on page 176 of the defendants' book : — " I reside at No. 245 South Sixteenth street, Philadelphia. I have resided there for twenty-five years. I own the house in which I live. I have never been annoyed or disturbed by the St. Mark's bells, not even by the early Sunday morning bell, which was stopped. The sound of the bells is not loud enough to wake any of my family from sleep or to interfere with conversation even when the windows are open. The sound is not harsh, but agreeable to me. The ringing of them is a great convenience in fixing the time. I do not object to the bell being rung for the early morning service. I do not 452 consider that these bells have depreciated the value of prop- erty in the neighborhood." Then we have an affidavit, on page 75 of the complainants' book, of a gentleman, who says : — " I reside at 245 South Sixteenth street. Personally, these bells have been a serious discomfort to me. I suffer from insomnia, and my health requires that I should sleep in the morning. This the early morning bells have wholly destroyed. In summer, when the heat of the weather requires the open- ing of the windows, the ringing of the bells was positively a discomfort." We learn a great deal from these two affidavits. First of all we learn that inmates of the same household are differently affected by the same sounds. Then we learn that bell-ringing, once a week, at seven o'clock, "wholly destroys the sleep" of one of the inmates, I use the exact language of the affidavit, and, lastly, we are taught this psychological fact, that when a young gentleman don't get up in the morning, to which we used to apply a very different epithet, it is "insomnia." The young men or young women who lie abed late are " troubled with insomnia." We are advancing far. We have got on this cru- sade against noise, and we have become so refined that "sloth" and " laziness " are not to be found in our vocabulary. When a fellow comes down late to breakfast, and makes himself gen- erally disagreeable at not finding everything Jiot, he has been " troubled with insomnia!" Truly, sir, good old-fashioned, plain notions, which we have been taught to believe had a place in our lives, will not even exist anywhere else, except in a court of justice. Here they will remain, I feel pretty sure, because our standard is that of " plain men and women." We do not pay high regard to persons of either sex whose nerves are so hypersensitive that bell-ringing once a week destroys their natural rest, though the bell-ringing is at as late an hour as a little before seven o'clock in the morning. It reminds one of the old nursery jingle of the two pretty men who lay in bed till the clock struck ten, when one reads some of these affidavits. They turn night into day. The world is not made 4S3 for them at all. If they wish and are able to lie in bed as late as that, it is their own lookout, but the law is not to be com- pelled to mete out a remedy for their fancied grievances. Now, may it please your Honors, this really is this case, this is the whole of it, this is the " head and front of this offending," which makes, to use the gloomy descriptive oratory of Mr. Rawle, the rooms beside that church "torture-cham- bers." Let us see what it is that makes " torture-chambers." Our answer says : — " On other days of the week (except Sun- days), the bells are chimed less frequently and continuously than is usual for services in similar churches in this country or in England, that is to say, they are chimed for five minutes and one bell is tolled for five minutes more, before the daily prayers of 9 A. M. and 5 or 6 P. M." Now, is it possible that this learned court's time should be taken up for six or eight hours on two continuous Saturdays with discussing the griev- ances of people who say they are annoyed by the chiming and pealing of bells ten ininutes twice each day? Good heavens! what are we coming to? A bell lighter than the bell at Christ Church, lighter than the bell at St. Stephen's, a mere hand-bell alongside of some of the bells of whose mag- nificence we were informed by our friend Mr. Morris — tolling ten minutes twice a day, is to be imagined to destroy the com- fort and repose and domestic happiness even of the residents of Locust street I Why, sir, it is preposterous. It is, indeed. Even if they were what the plaintiffs say they are — " high, loud, harsh, sharp, clanging, discordant" — why the copper- smith was allowed to hammer from 6 A. M. till 7 P. M.,. and the trip-hammer was allowed to be used all day close by the very nice residences in Green street near the open- ing of the Park! It is preposterous, ridiculous, a mere coun- terfeit presentment of one of the most unreal cases that ever was intruded into a court of justice; destitute of justice, it has not a leg to stand upon. What is most significant is the fact that not one human being residing in the neighborhood of Christ Church, St. Peter's or St. Stephen's can be found, even 454 with all the diligence of our learned adversaries, to swear that they have ever been annoyed in that way — not one human being residing within the radius of a mile around can be dragged into an affidavit that he or she or it, the babies in- cluded, were deprived of one moment's sleep. It is perfectly preposterous ; I use the word advisedly. It has nothing to recommend it but the graceful oratory and the talents of the gentlemen who have been selected to represent the case in this court. Such merit as it has, it owes entirely to their zeal and to their ability. I must now take up the Sunday nuisance, in justice to the plaintiffs. I will begin with the earliest : — " On Sunday morn- ing, at seven o'clock, they were chimed for five minutes, viz., from a quarter before seven to ten minutes of seven, and the smallest bells tolled for the five minutes immediately preceding the beginning of the service, making in all ten minutes." Bear in mind, lest I should forget it, that the Angclus bell of every Roman Catholic Church in this city and in every part of the world tolls at 6 A. M. throughout the year, three- quarters of an hour earlier than the earliest of these bells. Then, " before the 10.30 A. M. and 4 P. M. services on Sundays and also before the 7.30 P. M. services on Sundays (during that portion of the year when such evening services are held), the bells are chimed from twenty to twenty-five minutes, and the lightest bell then tolled for five minutes." Now that is the very head and front of the whole offending in this case. On secular days, ten minutes twice a day, and on Sundays at hours when all other bells (including the Calvary bell, which deceived one of these gentlemen in the way I pointed out) all over the city and country are tolled. There is no irregularity of hour, may it please your Honors. If they chimed at some extravagant hour of the day, something might be said of it. But 10.30 is the hour for morning service in every church in the city ; and from 3.30 to 5 in the afternoon and from 7 to 8 in the evening is the usual hour for the second service. This is the whole case. Let me refer to the case in 3d Grant. I have sent for the 45S, decrees, and have brought them into court (Dennis, p^. Eek-;, hardt, November 29th, 1862): — "It is ordered by the court, that the defendant, his servants and workmen, be restrained by the injunction of this court from pounding and hammering, in the frame shop now used by him as in the plaintiff's bill mentioned, altogether" (that shop, you remember, was but; eiglit feet from the bedstead of the plaintiff and a smaller distance than separates me from this learned court), "and from so pounding and hammering in any other part of his, house before 7 A. M. and after 6 P. M." , This is the writ of injunction, so you see my learned; friends were altogether mistaken in their law. The hammer- ing went on in the house more persistently, I doubt not (for such is human nature), by reason of the stoppage in the shop.: Now take the case of Foster vs. Farrell. I will read passages from the bill. We will see what Judge Thompson did, who was a man of great practical wisdom: — "The work (they speak of steel manufacture) is partially accomplished by con-' tinual pounding by means of an immense hammer of enor- mous weight, which is propelled by steam, and while in operation every stroke of this hammer jars and shakes the houses in the vicinity, causing the windows and shutters to rattle incessantly. The violent concussions produced by the hammer has shaken some of the houses in the vicinity to such an extent that some of the owners have felt that danger to the walls would follow." " The noise and vibration are intolerable and distracting in their character, preventing some persons in the neighborhood from reading or writing." " When long protracted, this noise produces a sense of uneasiness amounting to torture. This deprives the plaintiffs as well as many other persons in the neighborhood of the repose and quiet of home. One of the complainants has been compelled thereby to abandon his residence." " The work done in the manufactory is carried on till a. late; hour in the night, frequently until midnight, and, on some 456 occasions, during the whole of the night, thus destroying rest and repose, and taking away the sleep of many persons." The affidavits covered the ground of the bill, and what do- we find was done ? Here is the decree : — "Thursday, May gth, 1867. — It was orddred and decreed, that the said defendants and each of them, and their respect- ive agents and servants, be each of them here restrained from working the steam-hammer now in use at the factory situated at Pennsylvania avenue and Twenty-fourth streets, or from using any steam-hammer, on any day for any time between the hours of seven o'clock in the evening and six o'clock in the morning." Now with that case before you, which I can say was fought with some zeal, you find that that learned judge restricted them only between 7 P. M. and 6 A. M., i. e., the hours of natural rest and repose and nothing more. Any other rule would make this community, — while it might make it a habi- tation for people of highly organized temperament, people the opposite of lymphatic and of an undue intellectual develop- ment, — it would make it a real city of the dead. When the hum of traffic and the noise of business cease to be heard' throughout Philadelphia, it will have to look to God alone for its preservation. A town, in the streets of which the grass grows, is not exactly the place for that advanced state of civili- zation which would substitute clocks and watches for bells !! "Excelsior" must be their motto, even if they perish, as their great prototype, with his banner upward, did! They do not want sluggishness, sir. They do not want this lymphatic re- pose which is so extolled by some of the counsel. They want something contrary, — the bright and highly organized temperament, and they must, therefore, accept it on just the same conditions with the rest of the world. I do not know that much remains to be said. If there were only one case in the world, and that case were the St> Mark's Church-bells, more extended remarks might not be out of place ; but I believe this Court has something else to do than to hear about these bells. I must, however, refer to 457 one of the statements of the bill which strikes me as a little singular. It is the summary of the whole case, and I suppose will be the basis of the argument which will be made for the plaintiffs in conclusion. I must endeavor, as I have not been forewarned what it will be, in some respects to anticipate it. Here is the gravamen in this fourth page of the bill. "And they further show that this bell-ringing does not come within the category of any of those employments which, being nuisances or in the nature of nuisances, courts have yet for various reasons and upon well-settled principles declined to interfere with." (This is a misapprehension of the law, if it is meant that any court of justice ever declined to interfere with a nuisance.) "It is not a secular work carried on for private profit or support of a family — it is not part of the necessary apparatus or machinery by which a great city has its wants supplied" — (as if there were none but physical wants in this world of ours) — it is certainly not a work of benevolence, of charity or of education." " And if the defendants pretend, as at times they do, that the ringing of bells is a necessary means of calling together their congregation, the complainants aver, first, that whatever may have been, in former times and under different circumstances of civilization, the use of bell-ringing as an admonition of the hour of prayer and worship, yet that the introduction of watches and clocks has entirely superseded such use for all practical purposes ; and secondly, that such admonition, even if necessary, can be made just as effectually by a single bell as by a chime of bells. I hardly know how to characterize the gentleman who could have penned these sentences. He certainly never could " With fond affection And recollection Have thought upon those pleasant bells. Whose sounds so wild would. During his childhood. Fling over his cradle Their magic spells." 458. He must have been made of that hard and brassy nature, which was spoken of the other day in connection with one of the affiants on our side. I have, since this calse began, had- furnished me quotation after quotation — -the embodiment of the beautiful thoughts of the great writers of our tongue — one this morning as I came into court, from that most beautiful of poems, which holds its tenure upon our heart just as strong to- day as when it was first written, "A winter walk at noon " — ■ - " There is in souls a sympathy with sounds, And as the mind is pitched the ear is pleased With melting airs or martial, brisk or grave. Some chord, in unison with what we hear. Is touched within us, and the heart replies. How soft the music of those village bells. Falling at intervals upon the ear In cadence sweet, now dying all away. Now pealing loud again and louder still. Clear and sonorous, as the gale comes on ! With easy force it opens all the cells Where memory slept." Cowper, sir, was not opposed to bells. And how beautiful those two touching little ballads from our own poet Long- fellow, about the Belfry of Bruges. " But amid my broken slumbers, Still I heard those magic numbers. As they loud proclaimed the flight And stolen marches of the night. Till their chimes in sweet collision. Mingled with each wandering vision. "And I thought how like these chimes Are the poet's airy rhymes. All his rhymes and roundelays. His conceits, and songs, and ditties, From the belfry of his brain. And here we have the truth. " Scattered downwards, though in vain. On the roofs and stones of cities !" 459 Judge Mitchell. — " If you desire to say anything about the new affidavits filed by the plaintiffs, you had better do so, as this is the last opportunity for argument on your side." Mr. Biddle. — " I do not know that there is anything new in them." Mr. McMurtrie. — "There is nothing new, to a lawyer." Mr. Biddle. — "Let me look at them, then. I suppose that 'to a lawyer' means to a man who thinks exactly as the plaintiffs' counsel think." In looking over this new testimony, I find what may be called apologetic affidavits. These plaintiffs were somewhat irritated, I infer, that some of the gentlemen who made affida- vits on our side should have been audacious enough to speak their sentiments as they were within them, and doubtless, from the tenor of some of these fresh affidavits, I should suppose they had been hauled over the coals for it. I find, also, two or three affidavits of persons rather remote from the corpus delicti, one at 1624 Walnut, one at 1708 Locust and one at 1506 Locust. That mu.st be pretty near the end of the radius. One says, "They do not cause much annoyance now, but thinks the noise in mild weather ivillhe annoying." As my friend Mr. Rawle says, this affidavit comes under the catalogue of "contingent injury." One of these affiants says, " I deeply sympathize with you." So do I, for I think this case will have to be added to that list of cases in which Mr. Rawle told us the defendants were beaten to death on the facts, but somehow managed to go out of court with a judgment in their favor." Then there is Mr. Powers, who says that the reason he did not give an affidavit before is "because he is a Reformed Episcopalian!" Mr. Charles Hutchinson comes forward under the advice of counsel and the intimations of Mr. Morris. He says a great deal. " The bells of St. Mark's are a positive nuisance." That is swearing to a conclusion of law. Lawyers arc apt to do these things. " They ring too often and too long. I 460 consider them abominable, and think they ought to be sup- pressed." That might be called a very strong affidavit. Here is Mr. Brice who figures also on both sides. We have a Price affidavit, too. Mr. Brice is the man who is opposed to all bells. He prefers t\iQ " status quo ante bellum," I sup- pose ! He lives at 1613 Spruce street. In one he says, "I think these bells are a nuisance, and earnestly hope they will be stopped." One of our zealous friends obtained this from him : " I have given an affidavit against St. Mark's bells. I am equally annoyed by the bell of Calvary Church. I am opposed to all bells in my immediate neighborhood." Here is one from a lady we all know. I will hand it up to the Court. It is a very beautiful one — a very touching one. Here is one from a distinguished literary gentleman, who ought not to have said that, for he must have read " The Bells of Shandon," and, perhaps, heard them. Anumber of these are as to the modifications of the ringing, which now exists — in their imagination only, because the man who rings says he cannot be mistaken. Another one says that since making his affidavit on our side he has seen affida- vits of parties residing nearer the bells, and is satisfied that if he lived so near as tliey do he would be annoyed by the bells ! That is very much like, "But if you had a brother, would he, &c." Mr. Samuel Bell, who dispenses his court favors with great impartiality to counsel on both sides, says he only gave his affidavit on our side as " an expression of the extent to which he was individually affected." It was hardly necessary to get an affidavit of that kind. That might have been inferred. I would have taken Mr. Rawle's word for that ! Here is another lawyer who says he lives too far away to be himself annoyed, but can easily understand how they may annoy those who live in the neighborhood 1 There is a class of affidavits on our side which are most impressive. They touch me. Mr. Rawle thought that men and women with certain names had no right to make affidavits at all. They certainly touch me. Bear in mind that each and every complainant in this case is able to, and does (they tell 461 us so), retire from the city during the oppressive summer weather. The late Chief-Justice Read, in that masterly vindi- cation of the Sunday car-rtjnning, who put himself fairly and squarely on the ground of their being a work of necessity and charity, said, " There is a large class of people who are making affidavits against these Sunday cars who go away during the oppressive heats of the summer; but these people whom you are trying to prohibit from using this cheap and easy con^vey- ance have no opportunity of getting fresh air at all except on Sundays. As a work of charitable necessity I say he was right, and I would like to see anybody attempt to stop them now ! " So with these people — these people living in the small streets in the rear of that church. Mr. Boldin's affidavit has been referred to, and a more respectable, refined-looking gen- tleman I never saw. He lives on the west side of Sixteenth street, a little north of Mr. Moon's. He gives us his expe- rience and that of his daughter, who afterwards died. She looked for these bells with pleasure, because they woke up delicious memories. I do not array the physicians against each other. It is an invidious task to attempt. I will not follow my friend Mr. Rawle, and criticize the professional standing of gentlemen because they fairly think they are right and I am wrong. I have no words in my vocabulary for any such criticism. I think them altogether wrong, and I know they are wholly uncalled for. Dr. Van Pelt and Dr. Addinell Hewson and Dr. Littell are quite as much entitled to give an opinion as the eminent gentlemen on the other side. This court will not attempt to weigh, in any scales which they possess, the professional merits of these gentlemen. Here are people of a different grade, if you please. There are three orfour of their affidavits which I must read. Here, on page 195, is the kind of affidavit I wish to call your attention to. I will premise by saying that many of them, a good many of them, are signed by a mark, which is very expressive. It shows exactly what their condition is. 462 Here is Catherine Harkins : — " I live at 1623 Erety street. I have lived there since last June. The bells of St. Mark's Church do not annoy me in any way. I like to hear them ring. They do not wake us up from sleep. I would miss them if they were stopped." Violet Cannon has lived in the same street three years; she has "two children, one eighteen months, the other four years old in March. I have never been annoyed by the bells of St. Mark's Church. They have never annoyed the children. They do not waken when the bells are rung. I like to hear them very much. They regulate the time. We go by them. We do not want them stopped." Elizabeth Byrnes says : — " I live at 1629 Erety street, immediately in the rear of St. Mark's Church, and have lived there four years I have five children, from two years upwards. I have never been dis- turbed at all by the bells of St. Mark's. They have never wakened my children, even when the windows were open. I have no complaint to malce against them. I am delighted to hear them ring, and think it would be a great pity to have them interfered with in any way." Here is Mrs. Mclntyre, who lives in Chancellor street : — " I have never been disturbed or annoyed by the bells of St. Mark's Church in any way whatever. They are not loud enough to interfere with conversation in the house. I do not consider them a nuisance. I like to hear church-bells ring. I see no reason to complain of them in any way. The win- dows of my house rattle with the smallest wind, but I never heard them rattled by the ringing of these bells." Here is Annie Taylor, who gives us the whole case in ten lines. She also lives in Chancellor street. " When the bells of St. Mark's first began to ring they were a slight annoyance,, because we were not used to them. But now I do not find them any annoyance whatever. I do not notice their ringing unless my attention is called to it." 463 Mrs. Fleming, who lives in the same street, has "young children from four years old and upwards. Neither I nor any of my family have been annoyed by the ringing of St. Mark's bells in any way whatever. We can scarcely hear them, un- less in some way our attention is called to them. I do not know why any one should consider them a nuisance. They are a great convenience to us in regulating time. We go by them." Adeline Blizzard comes next. This is quite a remarkable affidavit : — " I reside at 1630 Chancellor street. I have lived there for two years and more. My husband works at night and has to sleep during the dry. When the bells of St. Mark's were first put up they awakened him, b/it now he has become accus- tomed to them and they do not arouse him when asleep or annoy him. They often ring without my noticing them. They are a convenience in fixing the time. I like to hear them ring and I do not want them stopped or the ringing of them interfered with." Why, sir, these affidavits are worth a thousand such as those produced on the other side. These are the affidavits of people who really dwell in their houses. All these women are there the whole day. Of course, if any annoyance were caused in the manner in which it is described in the bill, they would be the first to detect it. They literally live and move and have their being just in that narrow circle. You are asked here to gratify some over-sensitive people, to widen still more largely that inevitable breach which must always exist between the more and less favored in the com- munity, and to deprive the latter of this little daily pleasure in their lives of hard toil and privation. T/tej cannot retire from the city when the torrid sun is sorching us all. T/iey must remain there. T/iejy are not annoyed. It brings relief to the monotony of their daily avocations, and although their names may be such as I have read (Blizzard, perhaps, is not a highly aristocratic name), they have their rights and should not have their little pleasures disturbed. It is unwise in the 464 last degree to make so disgustingly conspicuous the great gulf by which they appear to be separated from the rest of this community. The plaintiffs ought to be satisfied with what they have got, and let others have something too ; and if this really is to any of them (which I doubt), I say it under cor- rection), if this should prove an annoyance as it goes on, as I doubt not it will go on, — let them retire to some other place. They are able to strike their tents and move to another camp- ing ground ; there is no restriction upon them. Let them cross the Schuylkill or go farther West; let them follow Horace Greeley's advice, whether young or old. And as the enemy advances, as he is sure to do, notwithstanding the in- troduction of clocks and watches, let them still move onward, and they may become a sort of moral and social Daniel Boone, and retire from the invasion of these disgusting noises, as the traffic, and the pleasure, aye, and the wishes — the lawful wishes — of the rest of the community prompt them to have bell-towers and bells in them, which are going to swing (I do not like to use any word that sounds like defiance), but they are going to clang on, accordant or discordant, notwithstanding this movement. For if these bells are to be stopped what is to save Christ Church bells? What will save St. Stephen's? You cannot lay down one law for Locust street, and another for Second street or Tenth street. It won't do. No law can be dispensed in that kind of way. Now I am about to close. Enough and more than enough has been said in this case to satisfy you that the ills complained of are imaginary, or, if not imaginary, of so light a measure that a court of justice never should have been troubled with the complaints of these gentlemen in the way it has been. They must submit to the inevitable, necessary annoyance (if it rises to the dignity of an annoyance), just as the rest of the world do. They must bear in mind, that from the first fkm establishment of Christianity in this world of ours, these instru- ments have always been associated in the hearts and minds of worshippers with the service of the church. They are, in a word, a necessary part of the equipment of a church, certainly of a Saxon church, as opposed to the Italian church. That 46s is a church with a tower and a spire above it, which is designed for bells, and nothing else. As the spire points heavenward, in the direction which it is supposed we ought to strive to reach, so the bells are admonitions to us at all seasons, not only on Sundays, but on every day. I do not know anything more touching or more thoughtful than that arrestation, even for a moment, which a man will involuntary make when he hears these bells, reminding him that the Saviour took upon him our flesh for our advantage. I remember a scene in a romance by the celebrated Charles Lever, where, when the English army was in Spain, Mike, the servant of one of the officers, and a Spanish soldier, threw themselves upon their knees together at the ringing of the Angelus bell. Their worship had a community of religious feeling which knew no tongue. Are we to blot all this out because a man goes home at four o'clock in the afternoon and wants to sleep till ten in the morning? It is one of the most preposterous and ridiculous things that ever was thought of Their complaints have been respectfully and courteously listened to, and I was amazed at the sort of comment that was made upon this gentleman who sits near me, when, with a Christian grace and courtesy, he instantly responded to the eminent physician who said that some of his nervous patients were annoyed by the bells. I would say to these complain- ants, in the language of the greatest of all who have lived within the sound of church-going bells (the church at Strat- ford being very much like St. Mark's in its general appear- ance), — " If ever you have looked on better days ; If ever been where bells have knolled to church ; If ever sat at any good man's feast ; If ever from your eyelids wiped a tear. And known what 'tis to pity and be pitied, — Let gentleness your strong enforcement be," — and not mingling in the wranglings and vexations of courts, which (take my word for it) will do more harm and injury to the over-wrought nervous system than all the bells on all the churches in this good city of Philadelphia. CONCLUDING ARGUMENT FOR COMPLAINANTS, BY R. C. McMURTRIE, Esq. The question in this case has been very ably argued, and with one very great advantage to ourselves, i. e., instead of having one of those uncomfortable things called arguments, that nobody can tell what was meant to be said or what par- ticular point was meant to be urged, we have had undoubt- edly a perfectly systematic and very clear statement of all that can be said in justification of what has been done by these defendants. Therefore, if I am able to reply to the argument, I shall have no difficulty in knowing precisely what it is that I have to reply to. I beg to call the attention of the court to what is the exact point before you, and to the attempt that has been made, whether intentionally or not, of putting this case somewhat upon a false issue. The question in this case has nothing on earth to do with the question whether other bells, or bells generally, may be rung. The only question is whether these particular bfiUs, in this particular locality, by reason of some incident we know not what, have or have not caused to these complainants that which the law calls a nuisance, and which is not to be permitted. I protest against any one supposing for a moment that there is anything in the slightest degree offensive attaching to bells that have been permitted in this city for years past. On the contrary, this fact, that no objec- tion is made to them, is one of the strongest points in the case on our own side. There was exhibited to your Honor, by my friend Mr. Morris, a map to show to you the locality from which the sound proceeds and the locality of the persons who allege this to be an injury, and of those who do not. We have a (467) 468 map prepared and colored so that your Honors can see pre- cisely what are the houses in which those persons live who united in the protests and affidavits or as parties to the bill. You see that those that are marked black have all united in this proceeding, and those that are marked pink have united in opposing the proceeding. I will hand it to your Honor. There was a remark made in the course of this argument which I wish to dispose of first. If there shall be any doubt as to the correctness of the measurements made by each side, and that shall be considered as a disputed material fact, it is one on which you are able to obtain certainty by sending an expert and ascertaining the relative heights with scientific exactness, because any one by fixing an instrument called a level on the ridge of two or three of the tallest houses on Walnut or Spruce streets, could determine whether the bells are below the tops of the houses or how far they were above them. I hand your Honor a memorandum of some of the authori- ties which I propose to mention. As to misjoiner — Spencer vs. London Railway Company, 8 Simons, 193. Cleveland vs. Citizens' Gaslight Company, 5 C. E. Green, 201. Abattoir case, 32 Leg. Int., 106. Umfreville vs. Johnson, 10 Chanc. App., 580. Wier's App., 24 P. F. Smith, 230. Prior occupancy — Wier's App., 24 P. F. Smith, 241. Wood on Nuisance, 3, 4, 745. Estoppel — Crowder vs. Tinckler, 19 Vesey, 627. Harris vs. Taylor, 2 Phillips, 209. Attorney-General vs. Leeds, 5 Ch. App., 594. Bickett vs. Morris, i H. L. Scotch App., 57-60. Hoy vs. Sterrett, 2 Watts, 331. 469 Extent of noise that will be enjoined — Inchbald vs. Robinson, 4 Chanc. App., L. R., 388. Time never sanctifies. All can exercise same privilege as any one — Commonwealth vs. Van Sickle, 4 Clark, 86. Having stated what was the exact point to be met here, and before stating the grounds on which the defendants justify their conduct, I beg to call attention to what I deem the mate- rial point in this case, and which has been passed over in the argument, whether because deemed immaterial or unanswer- able I cannot say. This fact I cannot help thinking (and I have endeavored to think honestly) is a most material fact, and which distin- guishes the case from all similar cases I have ever seen in the books. It is this — that so far as there is anything attained by what is complained of, it is a thing wholly without any conceivable purpose except either amusement or else what I believe is called aesthetic enjoyment; that mere pleasure, whether it is from musical sound, or whether it is from associ- ation, or whether it is from some supposed connection with the usages of the early Church ; that this alone is the motive — the justifying motive on which they rely. No conceivable purpose of utility ; no conceivable purpose of advantage, moral, intellectual, or physical is even pretended on the part of these defendants. Now it must be obvious — every one has seen throughout the books — that the great trouble with regard to nuisance has been, not that some one wishes the nuisance to continue, — there never was a nuisance since the world began which some one did not wish to be continued, or it would have stopped without litigation ; but in all the cases except this one there has been no instance in which the defendant has not come in to justify the nuisance with the plea that there has been some purpose of human utility which has been subserved by the thing that has been done. In all the cases the courts have had that most distressing thing to solve 470 I presume it is distressing for a man to sit in judgment be- tween two persons, on one of whom he must of necessity in- flict more or less of injury. If it is his duty to do it, it is of necessity as painful, perhaps, as to be sentencing the unfortu- nate wretches convicted in the other building). Now the argument that has been made on the other side has divided itself into — first, the question of ancient usage, and secondly, the question of prior possession of the premises Joined with that is that which has no place here, but which has been woven in as if it belonged to it, i. e., something in the nature of what we call " estoppel," by the invitation or per- mission or acquiescence by which we have induced these persons to invest their money in these things, and by reason of which we ought not to be permitted to complain. Then the argument comes to the real question, whether there has been that degree or extent of injury inflicted that will justify this court in interfering in the way we have asked. There is also a point made in the answer to the bill, which is alluded to by the gentleman who last spoke, that there is a misjoinder on the part of these plaintiffs, and that the remedy should be several. This notion is certainly now utterly ex- ploded. I have given you the authorities. When that point was first made, in looking myself over the law, I found an authority which I supposed (and the result proved that I was right) had put an end to any possibility of a doubt. There was a demurrer to a bill like ours, in which several persons united in such a proceeding. When I saw that Mr. Wigram had argued that demurrer, but had not made that point, I said to myself, " That to my mind is better than any decision. If a pleader like Mr. Wigram has omitted to make a point like that, it cannot be a good one." The fact that such a man allowed the case to be decided against him without making the point was to me conclusive. I found that in 12th Simons the point had been made and maintained, and that it was decided that two persons could not unite against a common nuisance because their properties were several. We pursued our investigations, and further found that that had been blown 471 up. In our own courts (24 Smith's Reports) a bill was filed by a person named Weir and twelve other persons, owning their separate tenements, to enjoin the erection of a powder- mill in the neighborhood; and there it was seriously and solemnly settled, by authority in our own State, that a number of persons having divers degrees of interest could unite in such a proceeding. It had, however, been previously settled in England in the most elaborate manner, in a case where there were two persons who did so join, and the court held that as to one of them, the annoyance was not sufficient, and the bill was dismissed as to him, and he was required to pay part of the costs, but the injunction was granted as to the other party. Now as to this point of ancient usage, I hardly know how it is intended to be used. If it is to be used as custom creating a law, your Honors will see that, unless the circumstances are similar, the argument fails, for you can never plead a custom unless you show that you are within the custom ; and unless they can show, which they have not pretended, that the ancient usage of bells which they have cited produced upon the parties living in the neighborhood the same effect that these bells pro- duced upon these parties, they have not advanced their argu- ment, for it is conceded on all sides that sound is per se no nuisance. Noise is not per se a nuisance. It is a relative term. The noise of the church-bell in the village on the plain, cited from "The Task," was at a distance. I was surprised at my friend, when he read that beautiful extract from Cowper's poem, that he did not read from the preceding page the "argument" of the poem, — " Sweet sounds of distant bells." It was that which Cowper was speaking of, not the question whether or not it would be pleasant to have his ear placed immediately under a big bell; not the question whether the sound of a big bell weighing a ton was to be shot into a man's ear. Who has not known the agony inflicted by a thoughtless child screaming into one's ear ? You might as well argue from the fact that the sound of children playing on the village green a quarter of a mile off is pleasant, that therefore a child may be permitted to yell into your ear. It is the yelling of these bells 472 that is Complained of, — that these men have placed these bells under a sounding-board composed of houses filled with human beings and within sixty feet of the sound. There is no doubt of the fact that if you should level all the houses the sound would be sweet enough. It is very likely that all this testi- mony about the harshness of the bells is not true in the literal sense; that they judge the harshness of the bells from the resonance of the effect produced by the bells. It is unquestion- able. Take the illustration of a cannon. What is the sound of a cannon from a ship firing a salute in the harbor a quarter of a mile distant ? It is a soft, sweet sound. Did you ever stand between decks and hear a cannon fired? It draws the blood from the ears. Though you are behind the gun, and the explosion is outside the vessel, the blood trickles from the ears, and I suppose a ship never came out of action in which the men who served the guns were not deafened. Again, as to this question of ancient custom, if they mean that by reason of it they have got possession of the right to put this thing upon us, nuisance or no nuisance, I utterly deny it. There is no such law, there never was any such law. I will read your Honors here a word from a very admirable judge — Judge Sergeant. "It is said that the defendant has acquired by lapse of time and undisturbed possession the right to maintain it though it be a nuisance. I deny this to be the law. No one has the right to erect a nuisance and defend it by possession for any length of time." As to this alleged prior possession of the locality and ex- penditure, it is not true upon their own showing. What have they shown that they had possession of? The right to erect a spire ! They have put a tower and spire there. Now, if it was the question whether that tower and spire was a nuisance, it might be very fairly argued, " You have allowed that thing to remain there nineteen years, and you are not going to en- join it now." But if they used that spire for the purpose of bringing down electricity in such a manner as to endanger the lives of the neighbors, they may say, " You saw us erect such a spire, knowing it might be employed in this way ! " But on 473 what conceivable ground has a man a right to infer that be- cause a church has put up that harmless thing, a tall building, that therefore they are going to use the tall part of the build- ing for the purpose of making a din and a clatter which will make the neighborhood intolerable twenty years afterwards. It does not apply at all. The same argument was applied in Crowder vs. Tinkler. They said, " You have seen us erect this powder-mill and you have made no complaint." Then it was pleaded that that was such conduct as amounted to en- couragement. Said Lord Eldon, " There must be something more than passive conduct represented as giving encourage- ment." Passive submission to a man's putting up a building is an acquiescence in his putting up the building; it has nothing at all to do with acquiescence in the use he is going to make of it. There is a case of nuisance for the manufacture of gas. It was there said, till that was shown to be a nuisance the court could not possibly interfere, because till it was shown to be annoying there could by no possibility be a nuisance. The court said, " There can be no laches, no delay, no acquiescence where there is nothing to acquiesce in." In 5th Chancery Appeals there is one of the best illustra- tions of this rule. There was an act of Parliament authorizing certain public authorities to build a sewer connecting certain villages or towns with a certain stream, but with the provision that they should cause no nuisance. They had been fifteen years in building the sewer, when a bill was filed to restrain the use of it. The argument was pressed hard : " You saw us erect this thing, and knew what it was for ; knew it was dis- agreeable. You saw us doing this thing for fifteen years and never complained." All the judges agreed that " where the legislature has licensed an act the plaintiff has no right to assume that it will be a nuisance, and till it is ascertained to be a nuisance they have no standing in court ; " and hence there could be no laches or acquiescence. It was on that ground that the advice was given which is stated in the affidavits. When notice was given that the bells 474 were to be put up, the advice was given (and I think correctly given, though I gave it myself) that " you have no right to complain against a man putting up bells. It is no nuisance till they a.r& rung. You cannot restrain a man from putting up a thing until he does something that injures you with it. When he is using it (unless of necessity the use is injurious, and nobody pretends that it is of necessity injurious, — only experience can prove that), and if it is proved to be a nuisance, then comes your time." In i House of Lords, Scotch Ap- peals, the same principle was settled. What is the extent of this doctrine which they press ? That everything which is built is notice to the world of every possible use that can be made of it; so that if you don't complain of the building you are estopped from complaining of any use to which the owner may turn it. To what extent do we go? If this thing is licensable, then the erection of a church-steeple itself gives an easement over my property in the neighborhood, and they have a right to emit their sounds over my property, and I have no right to put anything there which interferes with it and makes it injurious to the neighborhood, but the whole neighborhood must be kept in such a condition that the sound of the church-bells will not be a nuisance ; and the result is simply that they have a restriction on all the surrounding premises as to the height at which they may erect their build- ings, i. e., what the law calls an easement, which you know is utterly destructive of the value of property. How far must the radius be? It must be a radius just so far that the erec- tion of a house does not serve as a sounding-board to make the sound disagreeable. This thing has been settled, however, in our own courts. One would think that they had gathered these arguments from the old mode in which the statute of charitable use was con- strued. There is a case in which an administrator, under this statute, devised to charitable uses the property that he held in trust as administrator, and the courts did actually hold that the property belonging to another man could thus be used because of the virtue of this statute. In other words, the 475 charity sanctified the theft ; for it was nothing more nor less than theft. But what is our own principle, upon which was decided one of the most famous cases in this State (Hoy vs. Sterrit) ? That you cannot get a right over another man's property until you have done that which enables him to sue you. Until you have done that for which an action lies, the statute of limitation or lapse of time does not begin to run. This is a point on which we have differed from the law of New England. That is the case of a mill-dam. Judge Rogers said, "What right had you got? What had you done that the man could sue you for ? How can it be possible that you could acquire a right over another man's property until you have done something for which he could sue you ? " The real question is, is this a nuisance ? not is it a public nuisance ? It would be that only if it interfered with the people in the street. With that I have nothing to do; the Attorney-General has to do with that. The question is, " Is it a nuisance as to the owners of the property which is opposite ?" The effect of a number of these affidavits has been very much misunderstood. Your Honor does not suppose that I procured the affidavit of a man who lives at Fifteenth and Spruce, and who says that it is excessively annoying and makes his " friends curse and sweaf all the afternoon," as an evidence of injury done to him; nobody supposes I would file a bill for a man living at that distance. What we use these affidavits for is this : to show that if a re- markably strong, healthy man, living at a distance of a quarter of a mile, is annoyed in this way, what must be the feeling of the man who lives within fifty feet? That is the object of such affidavits. If the sound extends around all the distance which they cover and produces effects the most distinct and disagreeable at remote distances, when it comes through other houses, what must be the effect upon the inmates of the houses which are required to receive it in its strength ? The real persons who are complaining here are the persons who live within that square directly opposite the church, not one of whom but has been heard to say that the sound is 476 excessively disagreeable, and all of whom have made affi- davits to this bill. The real question is, Is this a nuisance to them? Now I beg you to observe the materiality of that of which I first spoke. What is the object of this noise? What is the thing to be gained ? Unquestionably if this were Mr. Bald- win's factory and the question was whether you were to stop works in which there were two million dollars invested and a thousand men earning their living through it, and a number of families dependent for their support upon the capital invested there, you would be very extreme to mark the rights of a party asking to put an end to all this because he was annoyed by it. But what do these defendants say is the object of this bell-ringing ? They say it is a call to prayer. . There is not a single individual that has been examined or given affidavit who says he has been called to prayer by it, — not one. It is supposed that there are persons who are so called. They are not found. The real ground and there is no concealing it — there is no pretense to conceal it — is that it causes a pleas- urable, enjoyable sensation, either from musical tones or from some association with the past. I will put it a little stronger than they have put it. Suppose it were a call to workmen ; suppose, instead of being a church, it was a factory, and they used this bell, weighing a ton, and chimed it for twenty minutes early in the morning, to call their workmen to work. I want to know whether anybody in the world supposes that a man, for the convenience of calling his men to work, would be permitted to annoy the neighbor- hood by such a sound? Put it, then, a little milder. A tavern-keeper wishes to call his guests to dinner, and selects a bell weighing a ton, and tolls it and chimes it for twenty minutes before each meal. I want to know whether that would be permitted in a neighbor- hood where there were people who complained of it as these people complain ? To what extent have the courts gone in administering the law, according to " simple, plain English habits ?" When 477 the noise caused by an amusement was sufficiently loud to penetrate the walls of an adjoining house and interrupt con- versation, that was declared to be a ground upon which the court could enjoin it as a nuisance. "You have no right to carry on a business for the amusement of persons whereby the neighborhood is annoyed even to the extent of interrupting conversation in the next house." That was the case in 4th Chancery. Now, may it please the Court, I must be here permitted to remark upon the very singular tone of the last argu- ment. We were scoffed at, sneered at, laughed at as over- sensitive, over-refined people, because we don't like this noise, because we don't like to be waked up in the morning, we don't like to have nervous headaches made agonizing, we don't like to have old ladies driven from their rooms, we don't like to have dying women shriek in their agony, " Oh, I wish those bells would stop !" We are too sensi- tive ! And what is it all for ? Why, for the gratification of that which we think the most refined and the most sensi- tive, i. e., the pleasures of the imagination, the associations of the past, the habits of the past ! I must say, sir, I have been amazed when I hear that men are to be held up to ridicule because they don't like their homes to be made so noisy that they cannot hear ordinary conversation ; and that for the en- joyment of a set of persons who don't live in the neighborhood and therefore don't suffer any torture. If you are going to apply the law to the inevitable and useful; if you compel men at an expense to carry on their business with the least possi- ble amount of noise; if you compel factory-owners to consume their smoke, though at an expense, because the smoke annoys the neighborhood; if you compel men to silence their machin- ery, if it can be silenced at an expense, I want to know on what ground it is that these people have the right, for the sake of their enjoyment, to keep up an unnecessary noise. I do not know that it is even set up, as it was in De Held " case, that this is a necessary duty. There the priest had no hesitation in swearing that the bell-ringing was a necessary 478 part of divine worship ; as necessary as reading, as necessary as praying, as necessary as singing, as necessary as kneeling. But the law says with regard to that — what? "There is no religious liberty to do things contrary to law." What is en- franchised in this country, and generally by the civilized world, is thought, opinion, — not conduct. We punish men without hesitation for doing things which they believe to be right. If they have violated the law of the land we ask no questions as to whether they think it right or wrong. Don't we levy a tax on the Quaker to sustain a war which he thinks it is criminal for him to pay ? Then I utterly protest (and I say it is entirely in the line of my argument and a very necessary part of it) against this untrue definition of that very wise phrase, " plain English habits." Why, who are they that suffer here ? Are they the dandified, the refined, the delicate, that are too nice to set the sole of their foot upon the ground ? No. It is the sick and the old and the young and the nursing-women, — one-third of humanity at least, in its normal condition, in every city. Like the poor, they are always with us. The law protects them, and protects them in their rights ; and their feelings and sufferings are as much entitled to respect as that of the coppersmith. It is not true that a man's or a woman's ears and nerves must be reduced or elevated to the condition of those of the man who hammers copper-kettles before he has a right to complain of the annoyance of sound! What are the facts ? You have here the fact that there is a bell weighing a ton. There are a great many smaller ones. There is a book here (a book of a man who is no opposer of bells, but who has made them a study — Sir Edward Beckett), a book which tells us this: There is a bell at Doncaster that weighs thirty hundred weight (that is a ton and a half This bell weighs a ton). That bell, struck by a clock-hammer, has been heard eleven miles over the country ! That is far- ther than a thirty-two pounder would be heard — nearly as far as a general engagement, where one hundred guns are firing 479 as fast as they can. Now, sir, the point of what I have to say- thereon is this: If the striking of a clock-hammer upon a bell weighing a ton and a half can reach the ear distinctly eleven miles off, what must be the condition of the ear of the man within fifty feet of the sound of that bell which is to traverse eleven miles ? Moreover, we have all had some experience of a fashion that has happily gone out, of what men always called an infernal clatter — I mean the sounding of gongs. I had sup- posed, in my ignorance, that a gong was louder than a bell. The same authority says : " Gongs, like thin bells, sound very ill except when you are near them, but have less power than a bell cast into metal *of a much higher note." You cannot make as much noise on a gong as you can on a bell made out of the same weight of metal made thicker. A gong usually weighs about fifty pounds ; now conceive of a gong weighing a ton, and that gong struck in a place confined with walls sixty feet apart ! Now, sir, if a party of boys or young gen- tlemen or ladies or anybody, else were, for their own gratifi- cation, to bring a gong weighing a ton and pound it beside the residence of anybody, how long would the police allow them to play there ? What I want to call attention to, and it is no jesting matter, is, what conceivable right have these men, that every indi- vidual in this town has not to do the same thing ? It there- fore undoubtedly follows, and so Judge Sergeant says in the case referred to, that if these men have the right to do this, I have the same right. I can erect, if I am idiot enough to do such a thing, a chime of bells in my back yard, and amuse myself with chiming and pealing and ringing them, and my neighbors have no right to interfere. I can plead ancient usage: "Why, has it not been ancient usage, ever since the Saxons came into England, to ring these things?" Now, if you will stop machinery ; if you will force a man to go to expense to reduce his machinery to the minimum of sound ; if you will stop a man from calling his men to work by such bells as these' I utterly deny that^ there can be any 48o distinction between the right of an association, because it calls itself a religious association (which it undoubtedly is), and that of one which calls itself a secular association. There is no one right in this community that infringes upon the right of their neighbors which one has not as well as the other. That is what Judge Sergeant pointed out. " A pig-sty is as justifiable in the centre of a city as it is in its furthest corner. If one within its limits is sanctioned, a man will have a perfect right to establish another opposite this court house." Judge Sergeant was a far-seeing man. He was emphatically a lawyer — a lawyer who saw that there were certain things which were fixed facts, and which could not be frittered away. If one man has a right, another man has of necessity the same right. Then it comes down to this monstrous thing, that any body of men may associate themselves into a club in this town, and, for their own amusement, make the neighborhood wretched by ringing bells ! What are the different justifications? You must ask: " What do you do this thing for ? " "A call to prayer," say the defendants. Another set of men say, " A call to labor." Is not one as sacred as the other ? Does any man or woman pretend that I may not do that to call my men to labor which the rector of this parish may do to call his flock to prayer ? Is there one single act which the law will justify in the one case that it will not justify in the other? " I do this for the pleasure of association ; " "I do it for the pleasure of my chil- dren." It is the same thing if the rights exist. " All these things are licensable." Licensable when ? and how ? Licensable if the parties injured consetit. I can, if I choose, license a nuisance upon my own property. I can allow a man to run the waste water from the top of his house on my land, if I choose, but until he gets my consent he com- mits a nuisance if he allows it to run there. Just so here : until these men get a license from the men whose houses are rendered wretched, just so long are they without any justifica- tion. Does the fact justify their assertion that they have the right 48i to do as they do ? that they have a right to inflict on us this suffering ? There was, among the books handed to Mr. Biddle to quote, a passage which I think is telling. He did not read it. Here it is : " Reader, has it ever been thy lot to be within close ear- shot of a ringing match, at which eight or ten sets of ringers contended for a prize of gold ? We were awakened one morning by a sweet concourse of 'plain bobs,' which in- duced at first delicious reverie, the sounds mingling with our dreams. We arose early, determined to combine the enjoyment of what we heard was a ringing match with our ordinary avocation, but we found that we could not settle to our work. When an hour had passed, we became nervous and irritable, and resolved to ride into the distant forests and be at peace. We returned in the early evening and found the ringing still continued. Night came, but locks, bars, and shutters could not exclude the sound. No hope arose for any quarter, because some sets had still to ring. The pain became intolerable. Our slumber, induced by exercise, was feverish and conscious of the ringing, and when at last they ceased, we could scarcely realize the silence." Now, sir, for the facts. I had hoped that there would not be so much reference to the facts (and there are some facts that I would willingly have pretermitted, for I have on more than one occasion endeavored to make a covenant with myself that I would let that sort of thing alone), but it is per- sisted that there is nothing here that any man man ought to complain of "There is a great over-statement" it is said, as to vibration ; it is treated with scorn. " Nobody has asserted it." Here is a lady living further off than any one of the persons that I assert are the real persons injured, — living in the square below these people, — living in a brick house with a wall eighteen inches thick ! " The jar and the concussion are distinctly felt within the dwelling." The shock, says another, " is distinctly felt." It would seem as if counsel sup- posed that what is called the shock to the wall, means that the walls actually trembled! 482 Judge Hare. — Like the walls of Jericho ? Mr. McM. — Yes, sir. I remember once sitting in my office when a powder magazine blew up at Wilmington. It seemed as if the window had been dashed in and then dashed out. This is a branch of the subject about which your Honor knows something. I know nothing. It is scientific. It is, as I understand it, a vibration of air, communicated through the walls, which has the same effect on the senses as if the walls had shaken. Everybody knows that when a loaded wagon goes over the cobble-stones it feels as if the walls shook. That was all that was intended to be asserted. But what is it they claim here ? They would have you believe that they have stopped these morning bells. Yes, they have stopped them with the request that we would hurry and get over this nervousness, for they lose a great deal of pleasure, and they are going at it again as quick as you let them alone! That is their claim of rights. It is their claim of right that is the frightful thing. It was remarked with a great sneer and a great laugh that there was an affidavit as to horses breaking their halters. If anybody suppose that we filed the bill in order to protect these horses, it would be a justifiable ground of ridicule. It was cited as a test of the unusualness, — the violence of the thing. If my body is shaken so violently that my watch is stopped, and if I claim compensation for the stoppage of my watch I am justly turned into ridicule. But if I use that to show to what extent I have been shaken, I think I have used a very sound argument. When, therefore, I say that horses in a stable are so shocked with this noise that they break their halters, I think I have helped to prove that human beings are likely to suffer excessively. I cannot imagine a sound which, at the distance of these stables, will drive a horse so wild that he will break his halter, that must not inflict great pain upon those people who live close by. Let us look at these complaints which Mr. Morris says do not amount to that degree which constitutes, in the eye of the law, a nuisance. There was "loss of sleep caused by expecta- 483 tion of disturbance ;" " they were painful and disturbing, ren- dering all efforts to sleep useless ;" " the effect was that of an electrical current," " it caused headache ;" " spoiled the en- joyment of the rest of the day;" " nervous, prostrating effects continuing long afterwards." It caused suffering to some and discomfort to all. The noise " rendered conversation impossi- ble ;" " children are prevented from sleeping." The objections were so great as to prevent another church from buying a chime. Residences are rendered intolerable ; people " would not live there for any consideration." Disturbing sleep, in- terrupting conversation, rousing infants, distressing the sick 1 Is all this nothing ? There are three persons who have testified here to whose particular cases I would call your attention. There is one lady who is eighty years old. She is a woman in as good strong health as a woman eighty years old can be. Those who know her know the value of her testimony. She is driven from her room. She " suffers horribly," " cannot re- main in her chamber at all," " is compelled to seek refuge in another part of the house." Then there is another lady who has a daughter guilty of being sometimes afflicted with neuralgic headache, agonizing, as people who have them have told me. You see exactly the extent of the mercy that you may expect from these people. When informed of this special case and entreated to stop these bells, there was a cessation for fifteen minutes, but the dreadful sound must be made for five minutes afterwards, "at least five minutes of enjoyment I must have, even at the expense of the torture of a woman with the neuralgic headache !" When the doctor begs relief, he is told substantially " get your patients well as soon as you can, for we miss our pleasure!" One woman at the corner of Sixteenth and Walnut implored in her dying agony that they might be stopped. That fact was communicated to these merciful gentlemen after the lady died, and produced no more effect upon them Mr. Biddle (interrupting). — We deny that it was communi- cated. No request was made in that case. 484 Mr. McMurtrie. — I did not say that any request was made. Mrs. Hart says that she communicated the fact to Dr. Hoffman when he called — and after this fact was made known, there is a denial of any right whatever to interfere with the ringing, an utter disregard that such circumstances are likely to exist at any time. Now I want your Honors to guard yourselves (and that is the greatest fear I have in this case. I read these things for that) against supposing, as you would have naturally supposed, that you could safely trust this community in the hands of the persons who regulate these matters, and that men of that stamp, of that standing, of that breeding, cannot possibly violate the first principles of the Christian and gentlemen. But I want your Honors to see and to know that they have in- voked and insisted upon the law of the land in all its coarse- ness and vulgarity. They want their legal rights and are going to have them, and exercise them, and if we can get our rights, we will get them by the law of the land and not otherwise. It is indeed a most wonderful psychological phenomenon to me, and it is a comment upon the remarks of one of the greatest of the English, Dr. Arnold, that " the trouble of troubles, the difficulty of difficulties, is to read the New Testament in the language of the Englishman of the present day," i. e., that he can really read what is there. When I see and know that on every Sunday morning in the Eucha- ristic service, there is read as the summary of all the law and the prophets, of all that God has ever taught, " as ye would that men should do to you do ye even so to them ;" and this is the result, this is the end and effect of the teaching, that when the sick and the dying, as well as the well and strong, say they are rendered miserable by these things, they are told " we are enjoying them, you have no rights, — we protest utterly against your rights or that of any other power to in- terfere with us in doing what we will with our own !" OPINION OF THE COURT. Hare, P. J. — The case presented on either side of this con- troversy is one calculated to arrest attention. On the part of the complainants, it is averred that the defendants have caused four large bells to be hung in the church-tower of St. Mark's, at a distance of not more than twenty yards from the houses on the opposite side of Locust street, and nearly on a level with the roofs ; that the tower is in the immediate vicinity of the complainants' residences, and that the bells are rung at various, times during the week and on Sundays, and produce a sound which is so overpowering as to cause not onlyannoyance, but serious injury to the complainants ; that they are all much disturbed, and that in the case of some of them, who are in- valids, needful repose has been broken, and acute attacks of nervous pain have been brought on or aggravated by the dis- cordancy and volume of the sound, while others of them have suffered in the persons of their parents, wives, or children. The statements are sustained and corroborated by the testi- mony of physicians of high standing, who concur in saying that such effects may naturally arise from such a cause, and Dr. Da Costa and Dr. Mitchell add that they know from ob- servations made in the course of their own practice that the sound of St. Mark's bells has been at times, during illness, a source not only of suffering, but of danger. It is alleged, on the other hand, by the defendants, that bell- ringing and the chiming of bells date from a remote period in the Christian Church ; that they have been received with general favor and acceptance, and that it would be difficult to find any great poet, from Dante down to our own times, whose verse does not bear witness to this truth ; that the sounds so much complained of are not a mere accidental accompaniment, (485) 486 but have from associations become an integral part of the cele- bration of the Sunday, which brings an opportunity for rest to all ; and that the court should be slow to believe that a custom hallowed by the observance and sanctioned by the assent of successive generations of worshipers can be injurious, and that, in fact, in the present case, as will be apparent on exam- ining the testimony, if some persons inveigh against the bells which give occasion for this suit, other and not less numerous voices are raised in their behalf The court is, consequently, asked to infer that, if the sufferings for which the bill seeks relief are not imaginary, they are the inevitable offspring or accompaniment of nervous disease, although a morbid or ex- cited fancy attributes them to the peals issuing from the tower of defendants' church. It seems from what has been said that the case may con- veniently be considered under two heads : — First, Is the injury complained of real, and do the complainants suffer from the cause alleged? Second, If the answer to this inquiry is in favor of the bill, are the defendants entitled to continue the ringing, notwithstanding the suffering which it may produce ? The former inquiry is not so much one of law as of fact, and therefore imposes a painful responsibility on the court, by carrying it into a vague and boundless region where laymen and lawyers meet on a common ground, and all well-consid- ered opinions have an equal claim to respect. It is, moreover, the material inquiry, as covering the moral ground on which every legal determination must ultimately rest. If the act of the defendants in setting up these bells and causing them to be rung be one that must in the ordinary course of events be a source of pain and suffering, the defendants will, we are convinced, be among the first to acknowledge that no right should be so exercised ; and we are equally sure that such would be their judgment although the injury were confined to a small circle and although the chief sufferers from it were the aged, the infirm, and women in the perils of child-birth and young children. This, then, is a point upon which all else turns, and in determining it we can, fortunately, appeal to 487 rules which give little scope to the mere personal views or inclination of the judge. When a witness who denies is confronted with another, of equal credibility, who affirms, and the negation is not neces- sarily inconsistent with the existence of a fact which must be true unless the affirmation is false, that conclusion should be adopted which reconciles both statements. A bystander as- asserts that the bell of a locomotive was rung as the train approached a railway crossing. Another maintains the con- trary, but on being cross-examined admits that all he knows of the matter is that no such sound reached his ear. The just inference is that both speak the truth, and, if so, the bell was rung. Few rules for determining the result of conflicting evidence are more frequent in occurrence or more satisfac- tory in practice than this. Applying a like test to the case in hand, where the witnesses in certain houses say that they were pleasurably affected by sounds which the witnesses in other houses describe as a cause of pain, it will appear that such testimony is not necessarily conflicting, and that we are not reduced to the disagreeable necessity of supposing that either statement is inaccurate. This would be true if the affiants resided in the same mansion, and were all in the normal condition which attends on health, and applies a fortiori to the testimony which comes from Walnut street as contrasted with that borne by the inhabitants of Locust street, between Sixteenth and Seventeenth streets, and relating to the effects upon those among them who are subject to the pressure of disease. The similarity which exists among mankind while they are well, and authorizes us to infer that like causes will produce the same results, is replaced under the influence of ill-health by divergences which not only render the sufferer unlike his fellows, but may for the time being seem to render him a denizen of some other world. The sense of one patient may be dulled by his malady, while those of another become preternaturally acute, and are tortured by that which brings pleasing reminiscences to the first. In like manner the complaints of the owners and occupiers 488 of the houses in Locust street would not be sufficiently answered by the affidavits from Erety and Chancellor streets if all the testimony from those quarters were to the same effect, which is by no means the case. The laws of sound are uniform, but their operation is controlled by causes that can- not always be readily ascertained. A recent paper by Mr. Tyndall gives some remarkable instances of this phenomenon, and I believe that the most expert men of science would hesitate to declare beforehand in what spot echo would best or oftenest reflect the voice. One circumstance is apparent in this case even to an unscientific eye, that the houses in Locust street, rising as they do nearly to the level of the belfry, are exposed to the full force of the waves of sound which pour forth from its windows, and which pass over the humbler roofs in Erety street, although, only according to the affidavits of Thomas and Mary Dentry, to break resonantly on the dwellings which they occupy further on in Chancellor street. The truth is that a casual or uninterested observer can no more predict or account for the seemingly wayward course of the vibrations which constitute sound than he can tell where the undertow renders it dangerous to venture into the surf, or than the mariner can anticipate which of the coming seas will rise above the rest and break on board his vessel. It does not necessarily detract from the force of these con- siderations if, as the defendants contend, the chiming of St. Mark's bells does not affect persons whose nerves have not been touched by disease. The question in every case should be, Do the acts complained of tend, by a natural sequence, to produce injury, and not. What is the condition of persons who suffer from the wrong ? Disease and age come as certainly in the course of nature as life and health, and are -a reason why the court should extend rather than withdraw its protect- ing arm. Upon the first branch of the case, therefore, we are unable to avoid the conclusion, after an examination of the testimony on both sides, that the sound of these bells does cause annoy- ance and suffering, which is not imaginary or only felt by the 489 hyper-sensitive, but is real and substantial and extends to several classes of persons : the very young, the aged, the sick, and those who, though not invalids, have somewhat declined from the fortunate condition of robust health, who are found in all places and among all conditions of life, and whose rights in all neighborhoods the law should sedulously guard. The remaining inquiry is whether, regarding the defendants' acts as prejudicial, they are done in pursuance of a right that cannot be questioned or restrained. To answer this question we have only to consider what their conduct is and the way in which it operates. The rule sic utere tuo ut alienum non Icedas is not of universal application, and it has been said " that there are many cases in which a man may lawfully use his own property so as to cause damage to his neighbor, if it be not injicriosum." Acton vs. Blundell, 12 M. and W., 324, 341. Where no contract, custom, or statutory rule prohibits, one may dig a trench on his own land although the effect is to render the adjacent land incapable of sustaining a wall or house which has been built on it. But it also seems that "if my land adjoins that of another and I have not, by building, increased the weight upon my soil, and my neighbor digs in his soil so as to occasion mine to fall in, he may be liable to an action." Wyatt vs. Harrison, 3 B. and Ad., 71. Humphries vs. Brogden, 12 Q. B., 739, 744. Harris vs. Ryding, 5 M. and W., 60. Wakefield vs. Buccleugh, 4 Eq. Cases, L. R., 613. However this may be, and whether damage occasioned by the exercise of an absolute or exclusive right be or be not a cause of action, it is clear that rights which others share should be exercised with a due regard for their interest. A man may do ordinarily what he will with his ground, but he has no such dominion over the streams that pass through or the air that floats over it. The air and water are so far common property, that no one can be entitled to do that which will render them a source of injury, or unfit for the general use. As the atmosphere cannot rightfully be infected with noxious smells I'im^ms -i-tli3im|mts^'" frfrt^+t-i-i. -^f-riHtrt