Value, Sooks lost or injured must he paid for. Cocnell University Library BX7740 .El 2 Report of some o1 the proceedings In the iiiiiiMiii olln 3 1924 031 037 637 Cornell University Library The original of this bool< 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/details/cu31924031037637 REPORT OF SOME OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF OLIVER EARLE AND OTHERS, IN EQUITY, AOAiirgT WILLIAM WOOD AND OTHERS; THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ; IKCLUDJNG THE OPINION OF THE COURT, AB PBONOUNCGD BT HON. LEMUEL SHAW, C.J., INVOLVING QUESTIONS BROUGHT INTO CONTROVERSY, BY A SEPARATION IN THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS IN NEW ENGLAND, IN 1845. PKEPAKED UNDER THE ADVICE OP THE COMPLAINANTS' COUNSEL, SIDNEY C. BANCROFT, COUNSELLOR AT LAW. BOSTON: LITTLE, BROWN AND COMPANY. 1855. Act of Cohffi-ess in the Vi Entered according to Act of Cohgi-ess in the year 1855, by LITTLE, BROWN AND COMPANY, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. PREFACE. The object |of the present publication is to presei-ve in a convenient form, some of, the more important and interesting proceedings, on the side of the party prevailing in the case of Earle et als. ■;;. Wood et als. ; and to exhibit the opinion of the Court in a form more accessible to the general reader than that of the judicial reports. The Bill in this case was filed at the April Term of the Court in the year 1845, and in the following November the pleadings were completed. Commissions were subsequently issued for taking depositions ; and evidence was, from time to time, up to October, 1849, taken in writing, which, being printed for the use of the Court, occupied two octavo volumes (one for each party) of nearly four hundred pages each. The evidence being so voluminous, we think it altogether inexpedient to attempt its publication in this work ; though it will be seen that copious references are made to it in the argu- ments of the counsel. The principal object of this suit is to have the Respondents, William Wood, Palmer Chace, Miller Chace, William Slade, Seneca Lincoln, and Philip Tripp, who claimed to be Over- seers of Swanzey Monthly Meeting, restrained by injunction of the Court, from further prosecuting the action at law to recover the lot of land on which Friends' Meeting-house in iv PREFACE. Fall River stands, which they had previously instituted against the Complainants. Another object is to have the Respondents, heirs at law of Jonathan Chace, Benjamin Slade, and Reuben Chace, original grantees in the deed of Elizabeth S. Danforth, dated in 1821, under which the lands in question are claimed for the use of the Society of Friends, decreed to convey the legal title of the lot of land in question, to the Complainants, in their alleged capacity of Overseers of Swanzey Monthly Meeting. It may be well to insert here an authentic statement of the original action, as abstracted from the records of the Court, brought against the Complainants by William Wood, Palmer Chace, Miller Chace, William Slade, Seneca Lincoln, and Philip Tripp, claiming to be Overseers of Swanzey Monthly Meeting, against the Complainants. It is as follows : — Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Bristol, ss. At the Supreme Judicial Court, begun and holden at Taunton, within and for said County of Bristol, on the third Tuesday of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-three. William Wood, Palmer Chace, and Miller Chace of Fall River, in said county, yeomen, William Slade of Somerset, in said county, yeoman, Seneca Lincoln of Norton, in said county, yeoman, and Philip Tripp of Freetown, in said county, yeoman, in their corporate capacity as Overseers of the Swanzey Monthly Meeting of Friends in said county, plaintiflFs, v. Edmund Chace and Jonathan Freeborn, both of Fall River in said county, yeomen, Oliver Earle and Simpson Buffinton, both of Swanzey, in . said county, yeomen, and David Shove and TheophUus Shove, both of Berkley, in said PREFACE. V county, yeomen, defendants. In a plea of land, wherein the said William Wood, Palmer Chace, Miller Chace, William Slade, Seneca Lincoln, and Philip Tripp, in their said capac- ity, demand of the said Edmund Chace, Jonathan Freeborn, Oliver Earle, Simpson Buffinton, David Shove, and Theoph- ilus Shove, seizin and possession of the lands and tenements following, with their appurtenances, that is to say, a parcel of land situated in said Fall River, containing ninety rods, and bounded, beginning at the south-west corner thereof, at the north-WBst corner of land of David Anthony and others, on Main street, and running thence easterly by said Anthony's land, fifteen rods ; thence northerly, 'on a line parallel with said street, six rods to a stake ; thence westerly by the land of Abraham Allen and others, fifteen rods to said street ; thence southerly by said street, six rods to the bounds first mentioned, together with the meeting-house of said Monthly Meeting and other buildings thereon standing. Whereupon the de- fendants say, they were seized of the demanded premises, with the appurtenances in their said capacity, in their demesne as of fee, within twenty years now last past, and ought still to be in the peaceable possession thereof. Yet the said Edmund Chace, Jonathan Freeborn, Oliver Earle, Simpson Buffinton, David Shove, and Theophilus Shove, have entered into the demanded premises and disseized the demandants thereof, unjustly and without judgment. To the damage of the said demandants as they say, the sum of ten thousa:nd dollars. This action was entered at the April Term, a. d. 1845, and firom thence continued from Court to Court to this Term. Now after a full hearing, it is ordered by the Court, that the plaintiffs be enjoined from further prosecuting their suit. Jas. Sproat, Clerk. True copy of record. Attest, Jas. Sproat, Clerk. VI PREFACE. The writ in the above action is dated February, 19, 1845, and is made returnable on the 3d Tuesday of April, 1845, as appears from the record. We mention these facts so that the reader may understand that the responsibility of originating the litigation between the parties, rests upon the Respondents. S. C. B. Salem, March 1st, 1851. CONTENTS Page Complainants' Amended Bill 1 Deed of Elizabeth S. Danpokth 7 Defendants' Answer 11 Deed OF Thomas WiLBOUK 15 Complainants' Supplemental Bill 18 Records op Yeauly Meeting 23 Defendants' Answer to Supplemental Bill . . . .40 Deponents' Names 106 Opening Argument BY Otis P. Lord, Esq 107 Closing Argument by R. Choate, Esq. 135 Opinion of the Court > 213 Final Decree 251 Appendix 255 OLIVER EARLE AND OTHERS AGAINST WILLIAM WOOD AND OTHERS IN EQUITY. The Hok. LEMUEL SHAW, Chief-Justice. The Hon. CHARLES A. DEWEY, ) The Hon. THERON METCALF, C Associate Justices. The Hon. GEORGE T. BIGELOW, ) EUFUS CHOATE, ESQ.. > _,_ ,^ , ^ , . OTIS P. LORD, ^s^_;\OfCounsdfc^tUCmnplainants. GEORGE WOOD, T. D. ELLIOTT ' „_ "' ' "' >• Of Counsel for the Respondents. • COMPLAINANTS' AMENDED BILL. To the Honorable the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court, holden at Taunton, within and for the County of Bristol. Humbly complaining, show unto your Honors, Oliver Earle and Simpson Buffington, of Swanzey, Theophilus Shove and David Shove, of Berkley, and Jonathan Freeborn and Edmund Chaee, of Fall River, all in the said County of Bristol, yeomen, as they are the overseers of the Swanzey Monthly Meeting of the people called Friends, or Quakers, and in that capacity, a body corporate for the purpose of taking and holding in suc- 1 2 EARLB ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. cession all grants and donations of real or personal estate made to the use of such Meeting, or to the use of any prepara- tive Meeting belonging thereto, and to alien or manage such real or personal estate, according to the terms and conditions of the grants and donations, and to prosecute and defend in any action touching the same, that heretofore, on or about the day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty-one, Elizabeth S. Danforth, then of Dor- chester, in the county of Norfolk, widow, by deed under her hand and seal, of that date, duly acknowledged and recorded, did convey unto Jonathan Chace, Benjamin Slade, and Reu- ben Chace, all of Swanzey, in the said county of Bristol, and their heirs and assigns, a certain tract or parcel of land in the said deed, particularly described, to a true copy of which said deed hereto annexed, the said complainants crave leave to refer as a part of this bill, and in and by the said deed, it was declared and plainly set forth, that the consideration of the said deed was paid by the said grantees to the said grantor, for and in behalf of the Monthly Meeting of the people called Quakers, known by the name of the Swanzey Monthly Meet- ing, that the said conveyance was made to the said grantees, in trust for the said Monthly Meeting at Swanzey, or such other Monthly or Quarterly Meeting as the Meeting of the said people called Quakers, at Swanzey aforesaid, for the time being, shall or may belong to, being in unity with the Yearly Meeting for New England, the intent and purpose of the said grantees, and of those by and in behalf of whom the said con- sideration money was contributed and paid, being to acquire the said lands for the site of a meeting-house, for the use of the Swanzey Monthly Meeting, in unity with the Yearly Meeting for New England. And your complainants further show, that after the said lands had been conveyed as aforesaid, a sum of money was raised by subscription among the members of the Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting, being the Quarterly Meeting to which the said Swanzey Monthly Meeting, by the usages and discipline of the said people called Quakers, belonged and was subordinate, which said Quarterly and Monthly Meeting then were in unity with the Yearly Meeting of the said people for New England, for the erection of a meeting-house on the said land ; and the meeting-house was erected for the use of the people of the said Swanzey Monthly Meeting, in unity with the said Yearly Meeting for New England, and afterwards, it being found the said meeting-house was not sufficient for the convenient accommodation of the said Monthly Meeting, a fur- ther sum of money was raised by contributions among and by the members of the said Monthly Meeting, in unity with the said Yearly Meeting and Quarterly Meeting, and the said meeting-house was sold, and the proceeds of such sale, and the sum Contributed as last aforesaid, were applied to the erec- tion of another and larger meeting-house on the same land, for the use of the people of the said Monthly Meeting, in unity with the said Yearly Meeting for New England, And your complainants further show unto your Honors, that the said people of the said Monthly Meeting, in unity with the said Yearly Meeting, continued to enjoy the use of the said meeting-house undisturbed and unquestioned, except as here- inafter mentioned ; and your complainants further show unto your Honors, that the said Jonathan Chace, Benjamin Slade, and Reuben Chace, have all deceased, leaving the following named children and grandchildren, some of them being under coverture, as is hereinafter mentioned, namely, Abner Slade, of Swanzey aforesaid, Elizabeth Shove, of Fall River aforesaid, widow, Hannah Earle, the wife of Oliver Earle, of said Swanzey, Susan S. Gifford, the wife of Lilly GifiFord, of said Swanzey, Content S. Earle, the wife of Weston Earle, of Dighton, in said county, Ruth B. Buffington, the wife of Moses Buffington, of said Swanzey, Phebe Chace, the wife of the said Edmund Chace, one of the said complainants, Rebeccah Shove, the wife of Abraham Shove, of Somerset, in said county of Bristol, heirs of the said Benjamin Slade, Philip Chace, of said Swanzey, Israel Chace, of Westport, in said county of Bristol, Levi Chace, late of said Swanzey, but now resident in the State of Illinois, Mary BufFum, ^vife of William Buffum of Salem, in the county of Essex, and Sibbel Buifum, wife of Edward Buffum, of said Salem, to whom and one 4 EARLB ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. Sarah Anthony, and one Martha Chace, who are since de- ceased, the said Jonathan Chace . devised by his last will, so much of the legal title in said land as was vested in him by the said deed thereof, and who are heirs at law of said Martha Chace, and to whom five sevenths parts of the legal title which was devised as aforesaid to said Martha descended, and Jonathan C. Anthony, of said Swanzey, Mary B. Slade, wife of Levi Slade, of said Somerset, Sarah C. Borden, wife of John H. Borden, of Tiverton, in the State of Ehode Island, etc., Gardner C. Anthony, of said Fall River, Daniel C. Anthony^ of Providence, in said State of Rhode Island, Elizabeth S. Mil- lard, wife of EUery Millard, of said Providence, to whose mother the said Sarah Anthony, one seventh part of all the legal title in the estate aforesaid, which was vested in said Jonathan Chace, was devised by him as aforesaid, and from said Sarah Anthony, the same, together with one seventh part of all the legal title aforesaid, which was devised by said Jonathan Chace to said Martha Chace, descended, and Ira Hallowell Chace, of the city and State of New York, to whom, one seventh part of all the legal title to said estate, which was devised as aforesaid by said Jonathan Chace to said Martha Chace, descended, and John B. Chace, of Taun- ton aforesaid, unto whose grandmother the said Reuben Chace devised by his last will, so much of the said legal title as was vested in him by the said deed ; from such devisee, the same descended to her only son and heir, named John B. Chace, and from him the same descended to the said John B. Chace, his only son and heir, and all the said persons on whom the said legal title has descended or been devised as aforesaid, and the said husbands of those who are under coverture, as afore- said, excepting the said Edmund Chace and Oliver Earle, who are plaintiffs herein, are made parties defendant hereto : and your complainants further show unto your Honors, that hereto- fore, namely, on or about the 26th day of August, now last past, your complainants were duly appointed overseers of the said Swanzey Monthly Meeting, and in that capacity are, by the laws of this Commonwealth, a body corporate, for the pur- poses heretofore set forth, and in such capacity, ought justly to complainants' amended bill. 5 have and hold the legal title to the said lands, in trust for the people of the said Swanzey Monthly Meeting, in uhity with the said Yearly Meeting for New England. And your com- plainants further show unto your Honors, that in and by the said deed, it is covenanted and declared, that for the more efTectual execution of the trusts declared by the said deed, the said grantees and their heirs, and each of them, shall and should at any time thereafter, upon the request and at the cost of the said Monthly Meeting, or such other Monthly or Quar- terly Meeting, as the Meeting of the said people at Swanzey, for the time being, shall or may belong to, being in unity with the Yearly Meeting for New England, or of any person or per- sons they may appoint in this respect, execute such further deed for the more effectual conveyance and assigning of the said lands for the uses and purposes of the said people, called Quakers, as by the said Yearly or Quarterly, or Monthly Meeting, or their or either of their committees may be devised, advised, or required. And your complainants further show unto your Honors, that the heirs of the said Jonathan Chace, Benjamin Slade, and Reuben Chace, have been directed and required by the said Monthly Meeting, and also by a com- mittee of the said Yearly Meeting, duly authorized therefor, at the expense of the said Monthly Meeting, to convey the said legal title to your complainants, and your complainants well hoped that the said heirs would have complied with such request and direction. But now so it is, may it please your Honors, that the said heirs refused to comply with such request, declaring that they Icnow not who are the true overseers of the said Swanzey Monthly Meeting; that William Wood, Palmer Chace, and Miller Chace, of Fall River, in the said county of Bristol, yeo- men, Seneca Lincoln, of Norton, in the said county, yeoman, and Philip Tripp, of Freetown, in the said county, yeoman, and William Slade, of Somerset, in said county, yeoman, de- fendants hereinafter named, pretend to be the overseers of the said Monthly Meeting, and entitled to receive and hold the legal title to the said lands, and that the said last-named per- sons claiming to act in the capacity of overseers of the said 1* 6 EARLE BT ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. Monthly Meeting, have instituted a suit at law against your complainants, returnable into this Honorable Court, next to be holden at Taunton, within and for the county of Bristol, on the fourth Tuesday of April, now current, wherein they demand of your complainants the said lands, and seek to recover the same. But your complainants charge that the said action at law is not brought against your complainants in their said corporate or official capacity ; that your complain- ants, in their private capacities, neither claim nor hold any legal title in or to the said lands ; that the said action at law cannot and will not raise or settle any matter really in contes- tation between the said parties ; that the said plaintiffs in the said action are not the overseers of the Meeting of people, called the Swanzey Monthly Meeting, nor are they overseers of any Monthly Meeting of the said people, in unity with the said Quarterly or Yearly Meeting, nor are they or either of them in unity with the said Quarterly or Yearly Meeting, nor are they or either of them competent, by the terms of the said deed, nor according to its true meaning and effect, to hold the same lands, or execute the same trust, nor ought they or any or either of them to be permitted to acquire or hold the legal title to the said lands, but the same ought justly to be con- veyed to the complainants, and be by them held in trust for the Swanzey Monthly Meeting of people called Quakers, in unity with the said Yearly Meeting for New England. To the end, therefore, that the complainants may have that relief which they can only obtain in a court of equity, and that the said defendants may answer the premises, but not upon oath or affirmation, the benefit whereof is expressly waived by the complainants, and that the said defendants, who are plain- tiffs as aforesaid in the said action at law, may be perpetually enjoined from further prosecuting the same, and that it may be declared that the said lands are charged with a trust in favor of, and ought to be held for, the use and benefit of the Swanzey Monthly Meeting of people called Quakers, in unity with the said Yearly RIeeting for New England, and that the said defendants, or so many and such of them as shall appear to have the legal title to the said lands, may be decreed to complainants' amended bill. 7 convey such legal title, free of all incumbrances done or suf- fered by them, or any or either of them unto your complain- ants, in their said capacity, to hold to them and their suc- cessors in their said ofRce upon the trusts aforesaid, and for such further or other relief as the nature of this case may require, and to your Honors seem meet : May it please your Honors to grant unto your complainants not only a writ of Injunction directed to the said WiUiam Wood, Palmer Chace, MiUer Chace, Seneca Lincoln, and Philip Tripp, and William Slade, enjoining them and each of them, their and each of their solicitors, attorneys, and agents, from further prosecuting the said action at law, but also a writ of Subpcena, directed to each of the said defendants, and com- manding each of them upon a certain day, and under a certain pain, to appear before your Honors and answer this bill, and do and receive' what to your Honors shall seem meet in the premises. B. R. Curtis, of Counsel for Plaintiffs. Deed. — Elizabeth S. Danforth to Jonathan Chace and Others. (copy.) Know all men by these presents. That T, Elizabeth S. Dan- forth, of Dorchester, in the County of Norfolk: and State of Massachusetts, widow, in consideration of two hundi-ed and twenty-five dollars, received to full satisfaction of Jonathan Chace, Benjamin Slade, and Reuben Chace, of Swanzey, all in the County of Bristol and State aforesaid, for and in behalf of the Monthly Meeting of the people called Quakers, known by the name of Swanzey Monthly Meeting, have given, grant- ed, bargained, and sold, and do, by these presents, give, grant, bargain, sell, alien, and fully, freely, and absolutely convey and confirm, unto them, the said George Shove, Jonathan Chace, Benjamin Slade, and Reuben Chace, their heirs and assigns, to and for the uses, intents, and purposes of the people called Quakers, forever, as set forth for the more effectual govern- ment thereof, in the covenanting clauses, by the said grantees, 8 EAKLB BT ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. as hereafter expressed — a certain lot or piece of land, situate in Troy, in the aforesaid County of Bristol, and bounded as foUows: — Beginning at the south-west corner of said lot, by the highway that leads from Tiverton to Taunton, and land of Eben Slade — thence running easterly, by said Eben Slade's land, fifteen rods — thence northerly by a line parallel with the aforesaid highway, six rods, to a stake — thence westerly, on a line parallel with the said Eben Slade's north line, fifteen rods to the highway — thence, by said highway, six rods, to the first-mentioned bounds — containing ninety square rods. To have and to hold the said granted and bargained prem- ises, together with aU their appurtenances, unto them, the said Jonathan Chace, Benjamin Slade, and Reuben Chace, as feof- fees, in trust for the said people, their heirs and assigns for- ever. And I, the said Elizabeth S. Danforth, for myself, heirs, executors, and administrators, do covenant and engage the above-demised premises, to them, the said Jonathan Chace, Benjamin Slade, and Reuben Chace, as well as the said people, their heu-s and assigns — against the lawful claims and demands of any person or persons whatsoever, forever here- after, to warrant, secure, and defend by these presents. And we, the said Jonathap Chace, Benjamin Slade, and Reuben Chace, do acknowledge the aforesaid trust, and hereby cove- nant and declare, that the true intent and meaning of these presents are, that we, nor our heirs, nor either of us, nor them, shaU make any claim or demand of, on, or to, the granted trust and premises in our own right, or for our own use, and for the more effectual executing and full performance of said trust, that we, and our heirs, and each of us and them, shall, at any time hereafter, upon the request, and at the cost and charge of the said Meeting, or such other Monthly or Quar- terly Meeting^ as the Meeting of said people at Swanzey, for the time being, shall or may belong to, being in unity with the Yearly Meeting for New England, or of any person or persons they may appoint, in this respect, make, do, and execute such further act and deed or devise whatever, for the more effectual conveyance and assigning of the said lot of ground with its appurtenances, to and for the uses and purposes of the said complainants' amended bill. 9 people called' QuaJcers, as by the said Yearly, Quarterly, or Monthly Meeting, or their or either of their committees may be devised, advised, and required. And we, the said Jonathan Chace, Benjamin Slade, and Reuben Chace, do hereby further covenant and declare, that it is the true intent and meaning of the conveyance to us as aforesaid, that we nor either of us, nor either of our heirs succeeding us in this trust, who shall be declared by the Yearly, Quarterly, or Monthly Meeting, to whicl^ he or they shall or may belong, to be out of unity or church fellowship with them, shall be capable of executing this trust or stand seized thereof, or of holding any right or interest whatever *n the granted premises, whilst he or they shall so remain out of unity with the said people, but in aU such cases, and also when any of us, or our heirs succeeding us in this trust shall depart this Ufe, it shall and may be the right of the clerks of said Monthly, Quarterly, or Yearly Meeting for the time being, or either of them, to enter into the said trusts, in behalf and for the use of said people, and hold the same in as full and ample a manner as we shall or may after the execu- tion of these presents. We, the said Jonathan Chace, Benja- min Slade, and Reuben Chace, for ourselves, our heirs and assigns, hereby quitclaiming, releasing, and conveying to the said clerks for the time being, or either of them, in case of our being declared out of unity, or dying as aforesaid, all right, title, interest, property, and demand whatsoever, in and to the aforesaid trust and granted premises, to the end that they either convey the same to such others as the Meeting may ap- point, or to hold the same as feoffees in trust for the people called Quakers, in unity with the Yearly Meeting for New England, as the said Monthly, Quarterly, or Yearly Meeting may, at any time hereafter, direct and require. In witness whereof, the said Elizabeth S. Danforth, Jona- than Chace, Benjamin Slade, and Reuben Chace, the cove- nanting parties to these presents, hereunto set their hands and affixed their seals, this day of the seventh month, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty-one. 10 EARLE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. Signed, sealed and de- ELIZABETH S. DaNFORTH, [l. S.] livered in presence of JONATHAN ChaCE, [l. S.] J. J. Sherburne, Benjamin Sladb, [l. s.] Francis Baylies, Reuben Chace, [l. s.] David Brayton, ) Witnesses to the signatures of Jonathan John Mason. ) Chace, Benjamin Slade, and Reuben Chace. Bristol, ss. August 1, 1821. Personally appeared the with- in-named Mrs. Elizabeth S. Danforth, and acknowledged the within instrument to be her free act and deed. Before me, Francis Baylies, Just, of Peace. Bristol, ss. October 29, 1821. Personally appeared the with- in-named Jonathan Chace, Benjamin Slade, and Reuben Chace, and acknowledged the within instrument, by them signed, to be their free act and deed. • Before me, John Mason, Just, of Peace. Received January 30, 1822, and recorded by Alfred Williams, Register, A copy from the 111th Book of Bristol County, (N. District) Land Records, pages 277 and 278. Attest, Joseph Wilbar, Register. April Term, 1855. Filed. DEFENDANTS' ANSWER. Bristol, ss. Supreme Judicial Court, April Term, 1845. In the case of Oliver Earle et al., Plaintiffs in Equity, William Wood et al., DefendaMs. Answer of William Wood, Palmer Chace, Miller Chace, Seneca Lincoln, Philip Tripp, and William Slade, Defendants to the Plaintiffs' Bill. These defendants, protesting and declaring that this Court have no jurisdiction in equity on the subject-matter of said bill, but that the plaintiffs have a fuU, complete, and adequate remedy at law, in respect to all the matters and things therein contained, — nevertheless, for answer to said bill, so far as they are. advised to make answer thereto, these defendants answering say, that they do not admit but deny that the plain- tiffs are overseers of the Swanzey Monthly Meeting of the people called Friends or Quakers, and in that capacity a body corporate for the purposes mentioned in said bill; that they admit and aver that, at the time mentioned in said bill, Eliza- beth S. Danforth, by her deed of that date, duly acknowledged and recorded, conveyed to Jonathan Chace, Benjamin Slade, and Reuben Chace, a lot of land therein described, for the purposes therein mentioned^ a copy of which said deed, for greater certainty, is hereto annexed and marked A, and which these defendants make a part of this their answer ; and the said lot of land was conveyed to said Jonathan, Benjamin, and Reuben, and to theii heirs and assigns to and for the uses, 12 EAULE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. intents, and purposes mentioned in said deed, and on the special trasts and with the covenants therein mentioned and declared, and no other,' and which said trusts were then ac- cepted and declared by said Jonathan, Benjamin, and Reuben, who then also signed and sealed said deed, and entered into the covenants therein mentioned ; and the title to said lot of land thereby became vested in the overseers of the Swanzey Monthly Meeting of the people called Friends or Quakers and their successors, who erected thereon a meeting-house for the use of said Monthly Meeting, and that said Meeting enjoyed the same as in said bUl mentioned. And these defendants, further answering say, that said Jonathan, Benjamin, and Reu- ben, afterwards deceased, and for aught these defendants know or believe, left heirs at law as in said bill mentioned, but these defendants say, that the heirs at law of said Jona- than, Benjamin, and Reuben, whoever they may be, hq,ve no title or interest whatever in said land and meeting-house, nor have they or any of them ever made any claim thereto, but that the title thereto, both legal and equitable, is fuUy vested in these defendants, as herein and hereafter declared, and that this Court have no jurisdiction in equity, by any decree upon the plaintiffs' biU of complaint, to compel the heirs at law of said Jonathan, Benjamin, and Reuben, or any of them, who- ever they may be, to convey said land and house as prayed for in the plaintiffs' said bill. And these defendants aver and say, that said Jonathan, Benjamin, and Reuben, received the said lot of land, and held said meeting-house as feoffees in trust for and in behalf of the Monthly Meeting of the people called Quakers, known by the name of the " Swanzey Monthly Meeting," and in and by said deed, also acknowledged and declared their trust as in said deed mentioned, and in and by said deed they covenanted, that " neither they nor their heirs, nor either of them, should make any claim or demand of, on, or to, the granted trust and premises, in their own right or for their own use," and that "when any of them or their heirs succeeding them ,in that trust should depart this life, it should and might be the right of the clerks of the said Monthly Meeting for the time being, defendants' answer. 13 or either of them, to enter into said trust in behalf and for the use of said people, and hold the same in as full and ample a manner as they should or might, after execution of said deed ; and thereby quitclaimed and released to said clerks for the time being, and each of them, in case of their dying as afore- said, all right, title, interest, property, and demand in and to the aforesaid trust and granted premises. And these defendants further answering say, that upon the execution of the deed aforesaid in manner aforesaid, the over- seers of the Swanzey Monthly Meeting, being a body corpo- rate for that purpose by law, took and held in succession the land aforesaid, and when a meeting-house was afterwards bmlt thereon, continued to hold the same and said meeting-house for the use of said Meeting up to the time of the filing of the plaintiffs' bill. And these defendants further answering say, that they do not admit but deny, that the plaintiffs were duly appointed overseers of said Meeting at the time mentioned in said bill, and deny that they are a corporate body, in manner set forth in said bill ; and deny that they are entitled to hold said land and meeting-house, as in said bill mentioned. But these de- fendants affirm and say, that they themselves are the overseers of said Monthly Meeting, having been duly appointed such on the twenty-sixth day of August, (except Philip Tripp who was appointed the month following,) one thousand eight hundred and forty-four, and then accepted said appointment. And these defendants further answering say, that in pursu- ance of the provisions, declarations, covenants, and trusts, in said deed mentioned, Thomas Wilbour, being then clerk of said Monthly Meeting, did enter into said trust in behalf and for the use of said people, and held the same in as full and ample a manner as said Jonathan, Benjamin, and Reuben, held the same, and did, on the twenty-sixth day of August, one thousand eight hundred and forty-four, by his deed of that date, duly executed and acknowledged and recorded, convey to these defendants, except the said Philip Tripp, as overseers as aforesaid, the land and house aforesaid, in pmrsuance of the appointment and direction of said Monthly Meeting, and the 2 14 EARLB EX ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. provisions and covenants and trusts aforesaid, — a copy of which said deed, for greater certainty, is hereto annexed, and marked B. By virtue of which last-mentioned deed, and the deed first above mentioned, these defendants now hold said lot of land and house, as a corporation, for the uses and trusts and purposes in said deeds mentioned. And these defendants further answering say, that the plain- tiffs have interrupted them in the possession of said meeting- house, and in fact dispossessed them thereof; and that in order to have and hold the same in pursuance of said deeds, and the trusts and uses therein mentioned, these defendants have instituted a suit at law against said plaintiffs, returnable to this Court at the time mentioned in said writ, 'vvherein they demand of the plaintiffs said lot of land and meeting-house, and seek to recover the same, as overseers as aforesaid, and for the uses aforesaid, and that they may duly execute the trusts aforesaid ; and they wholly deny the corporate capacity of the plaintiffs in this behalf, to have or to hold said land or house, or any interest whatever therein. And these defendants further answering say, that they are in all respects competent to hold said land and house, as over- seers of said Monthly Meeting as aforesaid, and to execute the trusts in said deeds mentioned, and in manner therein men- tioned ; that they and said Monthly Meeting are in unity with the Quarterly and Yearly Meetings of the said people, called Friends or Quakers, mentioned in said deeds, and that they are entitled by law to prosecute said suit to final judgment, and there is no equity to enjoin them not to do so ; and that the trial of said action will fully settle all matters in contro- versy or contestation between the parties to said bill. Wherefore they pray that they may not be so enjoined, but that they may be permitted to prosecute said action to final judgment, and that they may' be hence dismissed, and paid their reasonable costs in this behalf most unjustly sustained. William Wood, William Slade, Palmer Chace, Philip Tripp, Miller Chace, Seneca Lincoln. defendants' answer. 15 Bristol, April 23, 1845. Personally appeared William Wood, Palmer Chace, Miller Chace, and William Slade, being of the denomination of the people called Quakers or Friends, solemn- ly affirmed and declared that the facts and allegations con- tained in the foregoing answer, are, to the best of their knowl- edge and belief, true. Before me, Joseph E. Read, Just. Peace. Bristol, ss. April 24, 1845. Personally appeared Philip Tripp and Seneca Lincoln, being of the denomination of the people called Quakers or Friends, and solemnly affirmed and declared tRat the facts and allegations contained in the fore- going answer by them signed, are, to the best of their knowl- edge and belief, true. Before me, H. G. O. Colby, Just. Peace. [Here follows a copy of the deed of Elizabeth Danforth to Jonathan Chace and others, but as it corresponds with the copy annexed to the complainants' bill, it is unnecessary to repeat it.] Deed. — Thomas Wilbour to William Slade and others. [B.J Know all men by these presents, that I, Thomas Wilbour, of Fall River, in the county of Bristol and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, clerk of the Swanzey Monthly Meeting of Friends, in consideration of one dollar, to me paid by William Slade, of Somerset, Miller Chace, Palmer Chace, and William Wood, of Fall River, and Seneca Lincoln, of Norton, all in the county and Commonwealth aforesaid, overseers of the said Swanzea Monthly Meeting of Friends, the receipt whereof I do hereby acknowledge, do hereby give, grant, sell, and convey unto the said William Slade, Miller Chace, Palmer Chace, William Wood, and Seneca Lincoln, overseers as aforesaid, and to their successors in office, a certain lot of land, situate 16 EAKLB ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. in said Fall River, and bounded as follows, namely : Beginning at the south-west corner of said lot, at the north-west corner of land of David Anthony and others on Main street, and run- ning from thence easterly by said Anthony's land, fifteen rods, thence running northerly on line parallel with the aforesaid street, six rods to a stake, thence running westerly by land of Abraham Allen and others, fifteen rods to the street aforesaid, thence running southerly by said street, six rods to the first-mentioned bounds, — containing ninety rods, to- gether with the meeting-house and other buildings standing on said lot. Said premises to be held in trust by the said William, Palmer, Miller, and William and Seneca, and their successors in office, for the use and benefit of said Swanzey Monthly Meeting of Friends. For further particulars, reference may be had to the deed from Elizabeth S. Danforth to Benjamin Slade and others, trustees of said Meeting, and also a deed from Harvey Chace to Fall River Preparative Meeting. To have and to hold the aforegranted premises to the said Wil- liam Wood, William Slade, Miller Chace, Palmer Chace, and Seneca Lincoln, their successors and assigns, to the use and behoof of said Swanzey Monthly Meeting of Friends, forever. And I, the said Thomas Wilbour, in my capacity of clerk as afore&aid, for myself and my successors in office, do covenant with the said William Slade, Miller Chace, Palmer Chace, Seneca Lincoln, and William Wood, and their successors in office, that said Meeting is lawfully seized in fee of the afore- granted premises ; that they are free of all incumbrances ; that I am duly authorized to dispose of said premises in manner as aforesaid. That I have good right to sell and convey the same to the said William, Miller, Palmer, Seneca, and Wil- liam Wood, for the purposes aforesaid, and that I will war- rant and defend the same premises to the said William, Miller, Palmer, Seneca, and William Wood, and their successors in office forever, against the lawful claims and demands of all persons. In witness whereof, I, the said Thomas Wilbour, in my said defendants' answer. 17 capacity of clerk, being duly authorized and empowered herein, have hereunto set my hand and seal, this twenty-sixtU day of the eighth month, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-four. Thomas Wilbour, [l. s.J Signed, sealed, and delivered, in presence of us, James Ford, Nathan Buffington. Bristol, ss. August 26, 1844. Then the above-named Thomas Wilbour acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be his free act and deed. Before me, James Ford, Just. Peace. Filed, June 10, 1845. 2* COMPLAINANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL BILL. To the Honorable the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court, to be holden at Plymouth, in the County of Plymouth, for the Counties of Bristol, Plymouth, Barnstable, and Duke's County, on the fourth Tuesday next after the fourth Tuesday of Sep- tember, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and forty- five, and at Taunton and New Bedford, within and for the County of Bristol. The Supplemental Bill of Complaint of Oliver Earle and Simpson Buffington, of Swanzey, Theophilus Shove and David Shove, of Berldey, and Jonathan Freeborn and Edmund Chace, of Fall River, all in the said county of Bristol, respect- fully shows : that heretofore, on or about the 24th day of April, now last past, the complainants exhibited their bill of complaint to this Honorable Court, then sitting at Taunton, within and for the said county of Bristol, wherein among other things it was stated, that the complainants were (as they still are) the overseers of the Swanzey Monthly Meeting, of the people called Friends or Quakers, and in that capacity, a body politic or corporate, for the purpose of taking and holding in succession all grants and donations of real or personal prop- erty made to the use of such Meeting, and to alien or manage such estate according to the tefms and conditions of the grants and donations, and to prosecute and defend in any action touching the same. That on or about the day of July, a. d. eighteen hundred complainants' supplemental bill. 19 and twenty-one, one Elizabeth S. Danforth, by a deed of that date, conveyed certain lands in the same deed described, unto Jonathan Chace, Benjamin Slade, and Reuben Chace, in fee- simple, in trust for the said Monthly Meeting, or such other Monthly or Quarterly Meeting as the Meeting of the said people called Quakers, at Swansfey aforesaid, for the time being shall or may belong to, being in unity with the Yearly Meeting of the said people for New England, and that the intent and purpose of the said deed was, among other things, to declare such trusts as would vest the beneficial interest in the said lands in the said people, who were members of some Meeting fh unity with the Yearly Meeting for New England. And the said original bill doth further state, that the said Jonathan Chace, Benjamin Slade, and Reuben Chace, have all deceased, and the legal title to the said lands has descended to, and become vested in, their heirs at law, who are made parties defendant to the said original bill. And the said original bill further states, that in and by the said deed of conveyance, it is declared and provided, that for the more effectual execution of the trusts therein declared, the said grantees and their heirs, and each of them, shall and should at any time thereafter, at the request and cost of the said Swanzey Monthly Meeting, or such other Monthly or Quarterly Meeting as the Meeting of the said people at Swan- zey, for the time being, shall or may belong to, being in unity with the Yearly Meeting for New England, or of any person or persons they may appoint in this respect, execute such further deed for the more effectual execution of the said trusts, as by the said Yearly, Quarterly, or Monthly Meeting, or their or either of their committees may be devised, advised, and required, and that the said heirs at law have, by the said Monthly Meeting, and also by a committee of the said Yearly Meeting, duly authorized thereto, been required, at the expense of the said Monthly Meeting, to convey the said legal title to the complainants. And the said original bill further shows, that William Wood, Palmer Chace, Miller Chace, Seneca Lincoln, Philip Tripp, and William Slade, defendants named therein, pretend 20 EARLB ET ALS. V. 'WOOD BT ALS. to be the overseers of the said Swanzey Monthly Meeting, and to be entitled in such capacity, to hold the said lands, and execute the said trusts, but that in truth they are not the over- seers of the said Swanzey Monthly Meeting, nor of any Meet- ing in, unity with the said Yearly Meeting^ for New England, nor by the terms and effect of the said deed, are they or either of them, competent in any capacity to execute the said trusts ; but that the said defendants have brought a suit at law against your complainants in their private and individual capacities, to recover the said lands, and in that capacity neither of your complainants claim any legal title to the said lands. And the said original bill prays, that the said defendants, who are plaintiffs in the said action at law, may be enjoined from prosecuting the same, and that the said defendants, who are the heirs at law of the said trustees, may be "decreed to convey the' legal title of said lands to the complainants in their said capacity. And the complainants now, by leave of this Honorable Court, show unto, your Honors, that the said bill of complaint was duly filed and process to compel the appearance of the defendants taken out, and as respects the defendants in this Commonwealth, has been duly served and returned, and some of the said defendants have appeared and answered unto the said biU. And since the filing of the said original bill, namely, on or about the 15th day of June, now last past, the said Yearly Meet- ing of Friends for New England, was convened at Newport, in the State of Rhode Island, pursuant to the usages and disci- pline of that body, and being so convened, did among other things, proceed regularly and in the due course of their busi- ness, and according to the powers vested in the said Meeting, to hear and consider and decide, whether the said Swanzey Monthly Meeting, whereof your complainants are the over- seers, is the true Swanzey Monthly Meeting in unity with the said Yearly Meeting, and whether the complainants are the duly constituted overseers thereof, and whether the said de- fendants, WiUiam Wood, Palmer Chace, Seneca Lincoln, Miller Chace, Philip Tripp, and Wm. Slade, are overseers of complainants' supplemental bill. 21 any duly organized Meeting, in unity with the said Yearly Meeting, and after according to all parties interested reasona- ble opportunity to be heard, according to the usages and dis- cipline of that body, and after duly considering ,said matters, the said Yearly Meeting did, among other things, find, adjudge, and determine, that the persons who united with one Thomas Wilbour, under the name of the Swanzey Monthly Meeting, (being the pretended Meeting whereof the said defendants claim to be overseers,) are separatists frqm the said religious society, called the Yearly Meeting of Friends for New Eng- land, and out of its unity, and not entitled to be considered a Monthly Sleeting of the said Religious Society, and that the Monthly Meeting whereof your complainants are the over- seers, is the duly organized Swanzey Monthly Meeting of Friends, in unity with the said Yearly Meeting. And the said Yearly Meeting did also duly sanction and ratify the said act of its committee, requiring a conveyance to be made to your complainants, as is in the said original bill mentioned. And your complainants further show unto your honors, that by the usages and discipline of the said people called Quakers, all Meetings are subordinate unto the said Yearly Meeting, which has the rightful power and authority finally to decide all questions touching the organization and discipline of aU other Meetings, and especially to determine what Meetings, or bodies of men claiming to be Meetings, are, or are not in unity with the said Yearly Meeting, so that by force of the said acts of the said Yearly Meeting, and by force of the said deed of conveyance, and of the trusts therein declared, your complainants are conclusively shown to be entitled to receive and hold the legal title to the said lands, and to execute the said trusts, and the said defendants, William Wood, Palmer Chace, Miller Chace, Seneca Lincoln, Philip Tripp, and Wm. Slade, are conclusively shown to be out of unity with the said Yearly Meeting, and separatists therefrom, and incompe- tent to execute the said trusts, and having no right or title thereto as overseers of the said Swanzey Monthly Meet- ing, or otherwise. And your complainants further show, 22 EARLE ET ALS. V, WOOD ET ALS. that the said Yearly Meeting did other acts, material to this suit, as appears by the records thereof. And your complain- ants annex hereto a true copy of the Records of the said Yearly Meeting, touching the said proceedings, and crave leave to refer thereto as a part of this bill. To the end, therefore, that the said defendants^ who are named in the said original biU, namely, WiUiam Wood, Palmer Chace, Miller Chace, Seneca Lificoln, Philip Tripp, William Slade, Abner Slade, of said Svi^anzey, Elizabeth Shove, of Fall Eiver aforesaid, widow, Hannah Earle, the wife of said Oliver Eade, of said Swanzey, Lilly GifFord, of said Swanzey, and Susan S. Gifford, wife of said Lilly Gilford, Weston Earle, of Dighton, in said county of Bristol, and Content S. Earle, wife of said Weston Earle, Moses Buffington, of said Swanzey, and Ruth B. Buffington, wife of said Moses Buffing- ton, Phebe Chace, wife of said Edmund Chace, Abraham Shove, of Somerset, in said county of Bristol, and Rebeccah Shove, wife of said Abraham, Philip Chace, of said Swanzey, Israel Chace, of Westport, in said county, Levi Chace, late of said Swanzey, but now resident in the State of Illinois, Wil- liam Buffiim, of Sdem, in the county of Essex, and Mary Buffum, wife of said WiUiam, Edward BufFum, of said Salem, and Sibbel Buffum, wife of said Edward, and Jonathan C. Anthony, of said Somerset, Levi Slade, of said Somerset, and Mary B. Slade, wife of said Levi, John H. Borden, of Tiver- ton, in the State of Rhode Island, &c., and Sarah C. Borden, wife of said John H. Borden, Gardner S. Anthony, of said Tiverton, David C. Anthony, of Providence, in said State of Rhode Island, Ellery Millard, of said Providence, and Eliza- beth S. Millard, wife of said Ellery, and Ira Hallowel Chace, of the city and State of New York, and John B. Chace, of Taunton, in said county of Bristol, may, if they can show cause why the complainants should not have the relief hereby prayed, and may according to the best and utmost of their knowledge, remembrance, information, and belief, (but not upon oath or affirmation, the benefit whereof is expressly waived) full and true answers make to the premises, and that the complainants may have the same relief as they might complainants' supplemental bill. 23 have had if the facts hereinbefore stated by way of Supple- ment, had been stated in the said original bill, and such further or other relief in the premises, as to your Honors may seem meet. May it please your Honors to grant unto your complainants a writ of injunction, as prayed for in the said original bill, and also a writ of subpoena, directed to the said defendants, com- manding them and each of them to appear before your Honors at the rules, and to answer the premises, and do, and receive what to your Honors shall seem meet in the premises. Overseers of Swanzey Monthly Meeting, by B. R. Curtis, their Solicitor. E.. Choate, and B. R. Curtis, of Counsel with Complainants. COPT OF THE RECORDS OF THE YEARLY MEETING. At our Yearly Meeting of Friends for New England, held in Rhode Island, commencing with public Meetings for worship, at Newport and Portsmouth, on First day the 15th of the sixth month, 1845, and at Newport for discipline, on 2d day, morn- ing, IQth. By accounts received from our several Quarterly Meetings, we are informed, that they have appointed the following Friends as Representatives to this Meeting, namely : — From Rhode Island. Joseph Metcalf, Rowland Greene, Wm. Jenkins, Thomas Anthony, Nicholas Congdon, David Buffum, David Shove,01iver Earle, John Meader, Perez Peck, Beriah ColUns.* * These names of JRepresentatiTes from Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting ■were entered from the account signed by David Buffum, Clerk, which ac- count is preserved on file, with the accounts from the other Quarterly Meet- ings. A. S. Jr. 24 EARLB ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. Salem. Jona. Nichols,* Estes Newhall, John Page, Moses Huntington, Jr., Oliver D. Rogers, Abijah Johnson, Enoch Page, Herord Chase, Nathan Breed, of Lynn. Sandwich. Isaac Lawrence, John Howland, Wm. C. Taber, Prince Gardner,* Job Eddy,* Samuel Slade, Benjamin Tucker,* Isaac R. Gilford, Lemuel Gilford,! Moses F. Rogers. Smithfield. Daniel Clapp, Joel Marsh, James N. Fry, Moses Farnum, Benjamin "Wheeler, John Osborne. f Falmouth. Thomas Jones, John W. Minot, Caleb Jones, Nathaniel Stephens, Nathan Pope, Elisha Jones. Vassalboro'. Joseph Taber, Stephen Jones, Jr., Joseph H. Cole, Wm. Kitchen, Peter M. Stackpole, Clement Rackliff, Elijah Hussey. Dover. Joseph Tuttle,f Timothy Hanson, Benjamin Fry, Jacob K. Purinton, Walter Sawyer. Fairfield. Allen Wing, Joseph Taylor, Frederick Swan, Ezekiel H. Beane, David Douglas, whose names being called, they were all present but three, for whose absence a satisfac- tory reason was assigned. J Since reading the opening minute, another paper, addressed to " New England Yearly Meeting of Friends," having been laid upon the table, purporting to be an account from Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting, wherein Othniel Foster, Oliver Chase, John Mitchell, Thomas B. Gould, Nathan Buffington, ^Tohn T. Kenyon, Samuel Sheffield, Harvey Chase, and Charles Perry, are named as Representatives to said Meeting, whose names being called, it appeared that they were all present, which account was signed by Charles Perry, Assistant Clerk. There was also laid upon the table, a paper purporting to be " Extracts from the Minutes of Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting," and signed by David Buffum, clerk. And in order for the determination of the question, which of the two bodies, claiming to be Rhode Island Quarterly Meet» ing, is the legitimate Meeting ; after a time of free expression * Absent on morning of 1 7tli and afterwards, without any satisfactory rea- son given, 4. f Absent at first sitting, with satisfactory reason assigned, 3. I Whole number of Representatives, exclusive of K. Island, 48. complainants' supplemental bill. 25 of sentiment, it was decided as the general sense of the Meet- ing, (independent of those claiming to be members of Rhode Island Quarter,) to refer the consideration of the case to a com- mittee, consisting of the Representatives to this Meeting, now present from the several Quarterly Meetings, except Rhode Island ; and the Friends from the two bodies as Representa- tives to this Meeting from Rhode Island, are requested to ap- pear before said Committee, and represent their respective cases before them, and said Committee are desired fully to hear the said persons respectively, thus claiming to be Repre- sentatives /rom the bodies claiming to be Rhode Island Quar- terly Meeting, subordinate to this Yearly Meeting, and having so heard them and deliberated thereon, to report to this Meet- ing, at a subsequent sitting, their sense and judgment, which of those bodies is Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting, in unity with and subordinate to this Yearly Meeting, and entitled to send Representatives thereto; and also what persons are at the present time, the Representatives of that body to this Meet- ing. And as under present circumstances, it is not determined who are the Representatives from Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting, it is the conclusion of this Meeting, that no business can be properly entered upon, and that the Clerk now under appointment, continue to serve the Meeting, until this question is settled ; and that the article of discipline, requiring the Representatives to meet together at the close of the first sit- ting of the Yearly Meeting, for the purpose of proposing Clerks, be suspended at this time, or until the further direction of this Meeting. Adjourned to the fifth hour this afternoon. Afternoon — Met according to adjournment. One of the Representatives informed the Meeting, that they had had under consideration the subject committed to them this morning, but were not prepared to make a full report at this sitting. Soon after the Meeting was assembled, a person gave the information that a portion of the Representatives had been to- 3 26 BAELB ET ALS. V. WOOD BT ALS. gether, and proposed Thomas B. Gould, for Clerk, and Charles Perry, for Assistant Clerk, contrary to the direction of this Meeting, as by minute of this morning. The large body of the Representatives informed the Meet- ing that they had no knowledge of the proposition, and by a very general expression of the members of the Meeting, as well as of the Representatives, the course proposed was fuUy condemned ; but the persons thus nominated to act as Clerks, proceeded in writing, reading, and speaking, to the interrup- tion of Friends, and contrary to the expressed desire and direction of the Meeting, through its Clerk ; and under a sense of the entire impropriety of this course, as being contrary to the well-established order of our Religious Society, we solemnly protest against it, and warn our Friends of the serious conse- quences that wiU necessarily result from their uniting in this measure. On calling the names of all the Representatives from the different Quarterly Meetings, except Rhode Island, it appeared by their express declaration, that forty-one of their number were not consulted in relation to the appointment of Clerks, and that they now entirely dissent from the appointment of Thomas B. Gould and Charles Perry, while four made no response to the Clerk when their names were called. Three others of the Representatives have not been in attendance of the meeting, on account of indisposition. Forty-eight being the whole number of Representatives deputed to attend this Meeting, with the exception of those from Rhode Island. ' Adjourned to the ninth hour to-morrow morning. Third day, morning, the 17th. Friends again met, pursuant to adjournment. The names of the Representatives being called, with the ex- ception of those from Rhode' Island, they were all present but six, — for the absence of two of whom, satisfactory reasons have been given. Ethan Foster, Benjamin Tucker, and Prince Gardner, ap- peared in this meeting, and requested, as they declared, on be- half of what they called New England Yearly Meeting, the use of the table for their Clerks, appointed yesterday afternoon, complainants' supplemental bill. 27 and the occupancy of this house, and also the transfer to them of the books and papers of this Meeting. To -tfsrhich this Meeting replies, that New England Yearly Meeting, now regu- larly in session, cannot yield its table, its books or papers, or the occupancy of this house, to any other body or persons whatever. The Representatives from the several Quarterly Meetings (with the exception of those from Rhode Island) having at- tended to the services assigned them as a Committee of this Meeting, as by minute of yesterday morning, now presented a report, which was read. The persons named as Representatives in the account pre- sented to this Meeting, signed by David BufFum, as Clerk, were present in the Meeting. And Stephen A. Chace was desired to notify the persons named as Representatives from Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting, in the account presented to this Meeting, signed by Charles Perry, assistant Clerk. That the Yearly Meeting was about to take up and consider said report, and that they might be heard upon the subject, who attended to the service, and reported to the Meeting as fol- lows : — . " In compliance with the request of the Yearly Meeting, that I should notify the persons named as Representatives from Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting, in the account pre- sented to this Meeting signed by Charles Perry as Assistant Clerk, I proceeded to the yard adjacent -to the Meeting-house where we are assembled, and there found Othniel Foster, Oli- ver Chase, Thomas B. Gould, Nathan Buffington, Charles PeiTy, and divers other persons in their "company, to whom I stated that I was requested by the YcEirly Meeting to notify the persons named as Representatives in the account above de- scribed, namely : Othniel Foster, Oliver Chase, John Mitchell, Thomas B. Gould, Nathan Buffington, John T. Kenyon, Sam- uel Sheffield, Harvey Chase, and Charles PeiTy, that the com- mittee of the Representatives appointed by the Yearly Meet- ing yesterday to hear and report upon their claims as Repre- sentatives from Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting to this Meeting, had made report thereon ; which report was about 28 EAELE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. to be considered by the Yearly Meeting, at this time, and in this house, and that they might now be heard upon the sub- ject if they thought proper. 6 mo. 17, 1845. (Signed,) Stephen ,A. Chase." " To the Yearly Meeting of Friends, for New England." And after waiting a sufficient time for these last-named per- sons to appear, the Yearly Meeting proceeded to again read and deliberately consider said Report, which after a large and free expression of sentiment, was fully united with by the Meeting at large, (with the exception of Rhode Island Friends, who under the circumstances in which they were placed, for- bore to offer any sentiment thereon.) . And the Report being thus united with and accepted by Friends, (without a dissenting voice,) its conclusions were fully adopted and confirmed by this Meeting. The business which has occupied the attention of Friends being thus brought to a satisfactory result, — The names of the Representatives from Rhode Island Quar- ter, namely : .loseph Metcalf, Rowland Greene, WUliam Jen- kins, Thomas Anthony, Nicholas Congdon, David Buffum, David Shove, Oliver Earle, John Meader, Perez Peck, and Beriah CoUins, were now called, when they were found to be aU present. And the Representatives from the several Quarters were re- quested to meet together at the close of this sitting, and agree upon a Clerk and Assistant Clerk for the year, and report the same to the adjournment. Adjourned to the fourth hour this afternoon. Afternoon — Again assembled. Rowland Greene informed the Meeting, that the Represent- atives had had a full Meeting on the subject of Clerks, and were unitedly agreed in proposing Abraham Shearman, Jr., for Clerk of this Meeting, and also in proposing Samuel Boyd Tobey as Assistant Clerk, which was approved by the Meet- ing, and they were accordingly appointed to those services for the year ensuing. Abraham Shearman, Jr., Clerk. complainants' supplemental bill. 29 At a New England Yearly Meeting, held in 6th month, 1845. The joint Committee of men and women, Friends, ap- pointed to visit subordinate Meetings and individual mem- bers, produced the following Report, namely : — TO THE YEARLY MEETING. " The joint Committee of men and women. Friends, ap- pointed last year to visit subordinate Meetings and individual members, and under the du-ection of best wisdom, to labor for the promotion of love and unity, the maintenance of our Christian principles and testimonies, and the support of the discipline of the Chm-ch, Report, that the attention and care of the Committee was early turned to the condition of Swan- zey Monthly Meeting, a branch of Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting. " In Swanzey Monthly Meeting, for a long time past, there has been a want of that love and unity which are essential to the right conducting of the affairs of truth. About two years since, committees were appointed in that Meeting, to propose the names of Clerks and Overseers of the Society ; but they were unable to agree upon Friends for those stations. The state of this Meeting had claimed the attention of the Yearly Meeting's Committee, and also of a Committee of Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting, previous to our last Yearly Meeting, and much labor had been bestowed by them to remedy the existing difficulties, and to produce that organization of the Meeting, that would enable it to carry into effect the discipline, the ad- ministration of which had been seriously interrupted. " A number of the members of this Committee, with a number of the Quarterly Meeting's Committee then under ap- pointment, met with those two Committees of the Monthly Meeting, in the 7th month, and united with a part of them in their proposing to the Meeting the names of certain Friends for Clerks and Overseers ; with the exception of two or three individuals, all the members of these Committees of the Monthly Meeting, either united with the names proposed, or expressed their acquiescence therein. They were accordingly 3* 30 EARLB ET ALS. V. WOOD BT ALS. reported by those Committees to the Monthly Meeting, and the report was fully united with by the large body of the members of that Meeting. A few individuals opposed it, and the Clerk who was one of this number, refused to record the clearly expressed sense of the Meeting, although earnestly ad- vised to do so by the Yearly Meeting's Committee in attend- ance. And we are fully of the judgment, that Thomas Wil- bur, at Swanzey Monthly Meeting, in the 7th month, in re- fusing to record the clearly expressed sense of the Meeting, so far departed from the unity of the body, as to disqualify him from any longer holding the office of Clerk of that Meeting. " The condition of this Meeting, as it then stood, was pre- sented to the Quarterly Meeting, in the 8th month, which again appointed a committee to visit Swanzey Monthly Meeting, and assist in its due organization, that our Christian discipline might be supported, as in former days, to the honor of truth. " At the following Monthly Meeting, the individual who had previously acted as Clerk, still persisting in attempting to hold that station, contrary to the fully expressed sense of the Meet- ing, and of the Quarterly Meeting's Committee, and of the earnest entreaty and advice of this Committee; and the Monthly Meeting having again at this time, (with the excep- tion of those individuals who had manifested their opposition at the last Meeting,) united in the appointment, as Clerk, of the Friend, David Shove, who had been selected at the pre- vious Meeting, he proceeded to open the Meeting, and the Representatives from all the Preparative Meetings presented to him the reports from those Meetings, and all answered to the calling of their names. Notwithstanding this decision of the Meeting, the former Clerk, Thos. Wilbur, continued to sit at the table, and to form and read miniates. And to prevent con- fusion, Friends, after having read the minute of the Quarterly Meeting, appointing its committee, adjourned to a later hour in the afternoon, by far the larger part of the men's Meet- ing, and all the women withdrawing from the house, and mostly assembling again at the hour of adjournment, to trans- act the business of the Meeting. complainants' sopplemental bill. 31 " We are united in judgment, that the appointment of David Shove as Clerk of Swanzey Monthly Meeting, was according to the clearly expressed sense of the Meeting, which office he continues to hold. " We have endeavored during the past year, also, as way opened for it, to labor for the promotion of the further objects of our appointment, and to discharge the duties devolving upon us under it, according to the ability afforded. " All which we subtnit to the Yearly Meeting. " On behalf of the Committee, " Allen Wing. " Hannah Dennis. « Newport, 6 month 20th, 1845." Which being read and deliberately considered,' was fully united with, and their proceedings approved by this and the Women's Meeting. From the Minutes of the Yearly Meeting, ' Abr'm Shearman, Jr., Clerk. REPORT. A. To the Yearly Meeting of Friends for New England, now sitting. We, your Committee, to hear the several persons claiming to be Representatives to this Yearly Meeting from Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting, and to deliberate upon and report our judgment which of said persons ought to be so received, and also which of the -bodies claiming to be Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting, subordinate to this Yearly Meeting, ought to be recognized as such, now inform the Yearly Meeting, that we duly notified said persons, so claiming to be Representa- tives from Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting, of the time and place of our Meeting, to hear them upon the subjects com- mitted to us. Four of the persons named as Representatives in the account 32 BARLB ET ALS. V. WOOD BT ALS. signed by Charles Perry as Assistant Clerk, appeared before the Committee, and one of them speaking on behalf of the Representatives from that Meeting, stated that they declined entering into any investigation of the subject, as they denied the jurisdiction of the Committee in the case, — and then withdrew. Joseph Metcalf, Rowland Greene, Wm. Jenkins, Thomas Anthony, Nicholas .Congdon, David Buffum, David Shove, Oliver Earle, John Meader, Perez Peck, and Beriah Collins, named as Representatives in the account presented to the Yearly Meeting, signed by David Buffum as Clerk, and Eliza- beth Meader and Mary Shove, on the part of the Woman's Quarterly Meeting, represented by Sarah F. Tobey as Clerk, appeared and alleged to us, that in Swanzey Monthly Meet- ing, for a long time past, there has been a want of that love and unity which are essential to the right conducting of the affairs of truth. That about two years since, committees were appointed in that Meeting to propose the names of Clerks and Overseers of Society, but that they were unable to agree upon Friends for those stations. That the state of this Meeting had claimed the attention of the Yearly Meeting's Committee, and also of a Committee of Rhode Island Qviarterly Meeting, pre- vious to our last Yearly Meeting, and much labor had been bestowed by them to remedy the existing difficulties, and to produce that organization of the Meeting that would enable it to carry into effect the discipline, — the administration of which had been seriously interrupted. They fm-ther allege, that the Committee appointed at our last Yearly Meeting, " to assist and advise such Meetings and members as circumstances may require, and way open for," with a number of the Quarterly Meeting's Committee then under appointment, met with those two Committees of the Monthly Meeting in the seventh month last, and united with a part of them in their proposing to the Meeting the names of certain Friends for Clerks and Overseers ; that with the excep- tion of two or three individuals, all the members of those Com- mittees of the Monthly Meeting either united with the names proposed, or expressed their acquiescence therein: and they complainants' supplemental bill. 33 were accordingly reported by those Committees to the Monthly Meeting, and the report was fully united with by the large body of the members of that Meeting. A few individuals opposed it, and the Clerk, who was one of this number, refused to record the clearly expressed sense of the Meeting, although earnestly advised to do so by the Yearly Meeting's Committee in attendance. It further appears, that the following advice from the Yearly Meeting's Committee, was given in writing to the Monthly Meeting, at this time, namely : — "TO SWANZEY MONTHLY MEETING. " Dear Friends : — The Committee appointed by the Yearly Meeting, ' to extend a general care in its behalf for the preser- vation of love and unity among our members, the mainte- nance of our Christian principles and testimonies, and the support of the discipline of the Church, and in the ability that may be afforded them to assist and advise such Meetings and members as circumstances may require and way open for under the direction of best wisdom,' having, from a belief that our duty under our appointment required it, met with the Committees of your Meeting, appointed about two years since, to propose the names of Overseers and Clerks, and apprehend- ing that the cause of truth, and the right exercise of our Chris- tian discipline, urgently demands that there should be no fur- ther delay in the cases, were united in giving the following advice : — " It appearing by the voluntary declaration of those mem- bers of a Committee who were present, appointed, as we ap- prehend, without the authority of discipline, and out of the usual order of Society, to assist the Overseers, when they pre- sented a complaint against an individual, that they believed Edmund Chace to be innocent of the charges preferred against him by said individual, and that they did not intend in their report to the Monthly Meeting to impKcate him; we were united in judgment that this document ought not to be re- tained by the Monthly Meeting, nor among its papers, but destroyed. 34 EAKLE ET ALS. V, WOOD ET ALS. " The Committee on Overseers informed us that they had agreed upon five Friends for this station, and there being but one of them from within the limits of Fall River Preparative Meeting, it being usual to appoint two from that Meeting, in view of the circumstances, we were united in advising the Committee to propose to the Monthly Meeting to appoint Edmund Chace, in addition to those named, there appearing not to be any ground for the objections originally urged against this appointment. " The Committee in relation to Clerks informed us that they could not agree upon names ; and, after a full consideration of the case, we thought it right to advise the Committee to pro- pose to the Monthly Meeting to appoint David Shove for Clerk, and Jonathan Freeborn for Assistant Clerk; and we are now united in advising the Monthly Meeting to make these appointments, and to carry into effect these recommen- dations, beheving that hereby the best interests of the Monthly Meeting, and its- preservation in the unity of the Quarterly and Yearly Meetings, will be promoted. " On behalf of the Yearly Meeting's Committee. Roland Greene." They further alleged, that the condition of this Meeting as it then stood, was presented to the Quarterly Meeting, in the 8th month, which again appointed a Committee to visit Swan- zey Monthly Meeting, and assist in its due organization, that our Christian discipline might be supported as in former days, to the honor of truth. That at the following Monthly Meet- ing, the individual who had previously acted as Clerk, stUl persisting in attempting to hold that station, contrary to the fully expressed sense of the Meeting, and of the Quarterly Meeting's Committee, and of the earnest entreaty and advice of the Yearly Meeting's Committee ; and the Monthly Meet- ing having again at this time (with the exception of those in- dividuals who had manifested their opposition at the last Meeting) united in the appointment as Clerk, of the Friend who had been selected at the previous Meeting, he proceeded to open the Meeting, and the Representatives from all the complainants' supplemental bill. 35 Preparative Meetings presented to him the reports from those Meetings, and all answered to the calling of their names. That notwithstanding this decision of the Meeting, the for- mer Clerk (Thomas Wilbm-) continued to sit at the table, and to fornl and read minutes. And to prevent confusion. Friends, after having read the minute of the Quarterly Meeting, ap- pointing its Committee, adjourned to a later hour in the after- noon ; by far the greater part of the men's Meeting, and aU the women, withdrawing from the house, and mostly assem- bling again at the hour of adjournment, to transact the busi- ness of the Meeting. That the persons who sustained the former Clerk in his decision a,gainst'the judgment of the Meeting, with several women who were also disaffected towards Society, continued to hold what they called Monthly Meetings ; and that at Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting, in the eleventh month, they presented an account, purporting to come from Swanzey Monthly Meeting, which was not received, nor in any way ac- knowledged. That after the business of the Quarterly Meet- ing was concluded, these individuals, with a few from the other Monthly Meetings, both men and women, most of whom had for a length of time openly manifested a want of unity with Friends, remained in the house, and called themselves Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting, appointing Clerks, and (what they termed) a Committee to visit Subordinate Meet- ings. That this Committee, thus appointed, has since visited the Monthly Meetings, and attempted to sit in them, and to be recognized as a Committee from the Quarterly Meeting, organized as has been described, in a manner wholly irregular and unprecedented with us. That most of these individuals being already imder dealing, as offenders in their respective Monthly Meetings, and refus- ing to leave Friends select, for the support of our discipline, adjournment has been resorted to in order to be freed from this intrusion. That a few individuals have been found in each of the Monthly Meetings in Rhode Island Quarter, who, being disaffected towards the body of Friends, have, under the advisement of this Committee, united in forming what 36 EARLB EX ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. they denominate Monthly Meetings, assuming to themselves the names of those Meetings respectively. These allegations, and the remarks upon them by said per- sons named as Eepresentatives of Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting, in the account presented to the Yearly Meeting, signed by David Buffum as Clerk, we have solidly deliberated upon, and it is our judgment and sense, and we do accordingly report to the Yearly Meeting, — That the allegations of Joseph Metcalf and others, on be- half of the body claiming to be Rhode Island Quarterly Meet- ing, of which David Buffum and Sarah F. Tobey are Clerks, are true, as follows, namely : That at Swanzey Monthly Meeting, in the seventh month, the report of the Committees of, said Monthly Meetings, proposing David Shove as Clerk, and Jona- than Freeborn as Assistant Clerk, and Oliver Earle, Simpson Buffinton, Theophilus Shove, David Shove, Jonathan Free- born, and Edmund Chace as Overseers, was fully united with by the large body of the . members of that Meeting. That a few individuals opposed it, and Thomas Wilbur, the Clerk, who was one of this number, refused to record the clearly ex- pressed sense of the Meeting, although earnestly advised to do so by the Yearly Meeting's Committee in attendance. That at Swanzey Monthly Meeting, in the eighth month, Thomas Wilbur, who had previously acted as Clerk, still persisting in attempting to hold that station, contrary to the fully expressed sense of the Meeting, and of the Quarterly Meeting's Com- mittee, and of the earnest entreaty and advice of the Yearly Meeting's Committee ; and the Monthly Meeting having again, at this time, with the exception of those individuals who had manifested their opposition at the last Monthly Meeting, united in the appointment, as Clerk, of David Shove, he proceeded to open the Meeting ; and the Representatives from all the Preparative Meetings presented to him the reports from those Meetings, and all answered to the calling of their names. That the Quarterly Meeting of Rhode Island, in the eleventh month last, decided rightly, when they received the account from, Swanzey Monthly Meeting, signed by David Shove as Clerk, and acknowledged the Representatives named complainants' supplemental bill. 37 in that account from Swanzey Monthly Meeting. We are also united in judgment, that at said Monthly Meeting, in the seventh month, Thomas Wilbur was bound by the discipline and good order of our society, to record the clearly expressed sense of the Monthly Meeting, appointing David Shove as its Clerk, in accordance with the advice of the Yearly Meeting's Committee ; and by refusing to do so, so far departed from the discipline and usages of our Society, as well as from the subordination of inferior to superior Meetings, and individuals to the body, as to disqualify him from any longer holding the office of Clerk of Swanzey Monthly Meeting ; and said office thereupon became vacant. And it is further our sense and judg- ment, that at Swanzey Monthly Meeting, in the eighth month, David Shove was rightfully the Clerk, having been thereto duly appointed, and was, remained, and is the only properly consti- tuted Clerk of Swanzey Monthly Meeting. Thomas Wilbur, therefore, and others who continued to act with him as Clerk, under the name of Swanzey Monthly Meeting, sending Rep- resentatives to the Quarterly Meeting, in the eleventh month, we are united in considering as separatists from our religious Society, and out of its unity, and not entitled to be considered a Monthly Meeting of our religious Society. Those persons, also, who at the Quarterly Meeting, in the eleventh month, remained in the house after the Quarterly Meeting had concluded, under the name of Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting, and appointed a Clerk, received accounts, and Representatives from the body calling itself Swanzey Monthly Meeting, of which Thomas Wilbur was the Clerk, we are also united in judgment, are out of the unity of this Yearly Meeting, and not entitled to be represented in this Meeting, nor to be considered a Quarterly Meeting of our religious Society. It is, therefore, our united sense and judgment, that the accounts from Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting, signed by David BufFum, and Sarah F. Tobey, as Clerks, should be received as the true accounts from said Quarterly Meeting; and that Joseph Metcalf, Roland Greene, William Jenkins, Thomas Anthony, Nicholas Congdon, David Buffum, David 4 38 EARLE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. Shove, Oliver Earle, John Header, Perez Peck, and Beriah Collins, on the part of. the men's Meeting; and Elizabeth Wing, Elizabeth Meader, Deborah Collins, Hannah Dennis, Elizabeth Peckham, and Mary Shove, on the part of the women's Meeting, should be considered and acknowledged as the Representatives from that Quarterly Meeting to this Yearly Meeting. Which is submitted to the judgment of the Yearly Meeting. (Signed, as under,) Thomas Jones, Estes Newhall, Benjamin Fry, Moses Farnum, Daniel Clapp, Nathaniel Stevens, Nathan Pope, Isaac Lawrence, Timothy Hanson, John Howland, Samuel Sledd, Walter Sawyer, Allen Wing, Nathan Breed, Peter M. Stackpole, John W. Minot, Abijah Johnson, John Paige, Moses Huntington, Jr., Joseph H. Cole, Wm. C. Taber. Stephen Jones, Jr., Moses F. Rogers, Elisha Jones, Clement Rackliff, Elijah Hussey, Ezekiel H. Bean, Frederick Swan, Caleb Jones, Isaac R. Gifford, Enoch Page, Oliver D. Rogers, William Kitchen, Joseph Taylor, Benjamin Wheeler, Jacob K. Purinton, Joel Marsh, Herod Chase, James N. Fry, Joseph Taber, David Douglas, WOMEN REPRESENTATIVES. Mary Shepherd, Sarah Barnard, Abigail M. Hanson, Phebe Cobb, Patience D. Swan, Martha J. Hodges, Susan Howland, Sophronia Page, Chloe Douglas, Lydia R. Kelly, complainants' supplemental bill. 39 Lydia Hussey, Deborah B. Warren, Margaret Rackliff, Hannah Holder, Hannah Purinton, Lydia Allen, Ruth Fry, Alice Rathburn, Lydia F. Jenkins, Cynthia W. Huntington, Mary Chase, Eunice J. Rich, Hyrena T. Breed, Phebe Taylor, Hannah Morrell, Phebe R. Gifford, Hannah G. Sawyer, Susanna J. Bassett, Mary D.' Stack pole, Lydia E. Chase, Anne Macomber, Lydia F. Goddard, Mary Wing, (Sandwich,) Patience Buffum, Phebe N. Douglas, Alice Paige, Elizabeth Paige, Bethiah Hussey. This Report, marked A, and containing ten pages, is copied from the original report presented to the Yearly Meeting. By Abraham Shearman, Jr. At our Yearly Meeting of Friends, for New England, held on Rhode Island, from the 15th to the 23d inclusive, of the sixth month, 1845. The minutes of the Meeting for Sufferings for the past year, were laid before us and read ; followed by a very full expres- sion of the unity of this Meeting, with the care they have taken, and the results they have come to, in regard to the various important subjects that have engaged their attention. From the minutes of the Yearly Meeting. Abr'm Shearman, Jr., Clerk, DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO SUPPLEMENTAL BILL. Bristol, ss. Supreme Judicial Court. In the case of Oliver Earle et als., Plaintiffs in Equity, William Wood et ALs., Defendants. The joint and several Answer of William Wood, Palmer Chace, Miller Chace, Seneca Lincoln, Philip Tripp, and Wil- liam Slade, six of the defendants to the several matters and things in the said plaintiffs' present bill, stated and set forth by way of Supplement to the original bill in this case. These defendants, now and at all times hereafter, saving to themselves all and all manner of benefit and advantage of exception, or otherwise, that can or may be had or taken to the many errors, uncertainties, and imperfections of the said bill con- tained, arid especially protesting and declaring that this Court have no jurisdiction in equity on the subject-matter of this bill, but that the plaintiffs have a full, complete, and adequate rem- edy at law, in respect to all the matters and things therein con- tained, — nevertheless, for answer thereto, or to so much thereof as these defendants are advised that it is material or necessary for them to answer, severally answering say, that inasmuch as their answer to said original bill is not set forth in said Supple- mental Bill, they hereto annex a true copy thereof, marked A, together with the several deeds annexed thereto, marked A, B,^ ' These copies are omitted, as they fully appear on the preceding pages. defendants' answer to supplemental bill. 41 and say that the matters and things therein set forth are true ; that the plaintiffs are not Overseers of the Swanzey Monthly Meeting of the people called Friends, or Quakers ; that Eliza- beth S. Danforth conveyed to Jonathan Chace, Benjamin Slade, and Reuben Chace, a lot of land, as therein mentioned, and with the covenants and on the trusts and for the purposes therein mentioned, and which also was enjoyed as therein mentioned, but deny that the heirs at law of said Benjamin, Jonathan, and Reuben, or either of them, have any title or interest whatever in said lot of land, either legal or equitable, but aver that the legal and equitable title thereto is in these defendants, as Overseers of said Swanzey Monthly Meeting, to hold in trust for said Meeting ; and that this Court has no jurisdiction in equity, by any decree upon the bill of the plain- tiffs, to compel said heirs to convey the same, as in said bill prayed ; or if they might have such jurisdiction, by reason of • any covenant in said deed, this Court will and ought not to compel said heirs to do an unnecessary act, they having no title or interest whatever in the premises, and so are not bound by said covenants; and Thomas Wilbur, the Clerk of said Meeting, having entered into the trusts in said deed men- tioned, in behalf of and for the use of said Monthly Meeting, and in pursuance of the provisions of said deed, and the orders of said Monthly Meeting, conveyed the same to these defendants, as Overseers of said Meeting, for the use thereof; and they now claim to hold the same, not only by virtue of the deed of the said Clerk of the said Meeting, to the use of the said Meeting, but as a body corporate, authorized by the stat- utes of the Commonwealth to hold in succession all grants and donations of real or personal estate made to said Meeting : they claim to hold the same for the use of said Meeting under and by virtue of the deed of said Elizabeth. And the Swanzey Monthly Meeting, being fully qualified in all respects to receive the use of said lot of land, when said deed of said Elizabeth was given, did build their meeting-house thereon, and enjoyed the same until the interruption after mentioned ; and there is no condition or limitation in said deed by which said Meeting is to become disqualified to enjoy the same. 4* 42 EARLB BT ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. For greater certainty, these defendants hereto annex copies from the minutes of said Meeting, showing the appointment of said Wilbur as Clerk thereof, from time to time, and the defendants as Overseers^ and the orders of said Meeting re- lating to said deed of said Wilbur, to these defendants, and they affirm that they are true c6pies from said minutes, and that said minutes are true account of the proceedings of said Meetings. Said copies are marked B, C. While the said Meeting was so entitled to enjoy said house and lot, and these defendants were so Overseers thereof,' as aforesaid, they brought their action to vindicate their right of possession thereto : wherefore, the plaintiffs brought their said original bill, praying that these defendants might be enjoined not to proceed therein, while as yet, beyond aU controversy, said Meeting and these defendants were in full unity with the Yearly Meeting of Friends for New England, and fully en- titled to hold and enjoy said house and lot, according to the form of the said original grant. These defendants now admit, that proceedings have since been held by a body of Friends, calling themselves and their Meeting the Yearly Meeting for New England, such as are set forth in the bill of the plaintiffs, now filed by way of sup- plement to said original biU. And they do not admit that the minutes of said Meeting, filed with said bill, give a correct ac- count of the proceedings of that Meeting: and they protest and say, that by reason of any such Meeting, and of the pro- ceedings thereof, as set forth in said biU by way of supple- inent, the plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain their original bill of complaint, nor their bill by way of supplement thereto, but that the same ought to be disallowed. And these defendants ought not to be compelled to answer thereto, because they say that no facts existed at the time of the filing of said original bUl, by reason of which said bill could be maintained against these defendants ; and all the statements in said bill, which, if true, could have sustained the bUl, were fully met and answered by these defendants, by their solemn affirmation in answer thereto ; and if any facts have since occurred, or proceedings since had, by reason of which defendants' answer to supplemental bill. 43 said Monthly Meeting is no longer in unity with said Yearly Meeting, and, if for that cause, an original bill might have been maintained against these defendants, the plaintiffs should have filed such original bill, by which, if at all, they might have availed themselves of those facts and proceedings. But, it appearing as it does, that their whole title is vested upon those facts and proceedings, facts which did not exist when said original bill was filed, they cannot now bring in that, by way of supplement, without the introduction of which, their original bill could not have been maintained. Wherefore, these defendants pray that said supplemental bUl may he disallowed and dismissed, and no further proceed- ings be had thereon, and that they may have the same benefit of this, in their answer thereto, as they would have been en- titled to had they demurred or pleaded thereto. And now, these defendants reaffirming all and all parts of their said answer to said original bUl, further answering, say ; That the religious Society of Friends are duly organized under a regular form of government and rules of discipline, which are printed and in the hands of all the members, and which these defendants ask leave to refer to, and to make part of this their answer ; and the substance of which, so far as relates to the matter of the bUl of complaint of the plaintiffs, these defendants will state : — ■ " In order for the regular and easy proceeding in the service and discipline of the Church, Meetings are set up and estab- lished, suitable and subordinate one unto another, as Prepara- tive ; consisting of Friends belonging to one or more particular Meetings for worship : Monthly, consisting of as many Pre- parative as may usefully compose the same : Quarterly, to consist of as many Monthly Meetings as are thought useful to constitute the same : Yearly, consisting of eight Quarterly Meetings in New England. And these Meetings are account- able an,d subordinate; the Preparative to the Monthly, the Monthly to the Quarterly, and the Quarterly to the Yearly Meeting: so that if the Yearly Meeting be dissatisfied with the proceedings of any of the Subordinate Meetings, the Quarterly with the proceedings of the Monthly, or the Monthly 44 EARLB ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. Meeting, with the proceedings of the Preparative Meetings within its hmits, said Meeting ought with readiness and meekness to render a satisfactory account." The Monthly Meeting annually choose Overseers, who hold their offices until others are chosen or appointed. The Yearly Meeting also appoints a Meeting for Sufferings, consisting of not less than twenty-five members, who are desu-ed to take cognizance of all grievances arising in the Socieiy, wherein any Friend or Friends may be affected in his person or prop- erty, or in regard to our Christian testimony, to advise, coun- sel, and assist, as best wisdom may direct. The Quarterly Meetings are composed of the Monthly Meetings, and the Yearly Meeting is composed of the Quar- terly Meetings. The Yearly Meeting is held annually, at Newport, on Rhode Island, on the seventh day after the second sixth day in the sixth month ; the Meeting for worship on first day, at Newport and Portsmouth, and the Meeting for church discipline, on second day, at the ninth hour, in New- port. The former Clerk, or the Clerk of the Meeting for Suf- ferings, acts as Clerk for that sitting; at the conclusion of which sitting, the Representatives are to meet and agree upon a Clerk, and report the same to the adjournment. One of the peculiar and distinguishing characteristics of the Society of Friends, consists in their mode of transacting busi- ness, and arriving at conclusions ; in which, rejecting totally the principle that a majority, as such, is to rule, or decide, or govern, they arrive at a unity of resolution and action in a manner peculiar to themselves, and entirely different from that which is common to all civil and political and ecclesiastical bodies. They look and wait for a union of mind, and the result is produced-, not by a vote, or count of numbers, but by the yielding up of opinions, a deference for the judgment of each other, and an acquiescence or submission to the measure proposed. When a division of sentiment occurs, the matter is postponed for consideration, or entirely dismissed ; or after sometimes a temperate discussion, and sometimes a silent de- liberation, those who support, or those who oppose a measure, acquiesce in the sense of the Meeting, as collected and min- defendants' answer to supplemental bill. 45 uted by the Clerk. And he collects this sense, not by an actual count of numbers, or yeas and nays, but by an estimate of the prevailing sense of the Meeting, giving great weight to the opin- ions of the Elders, and Friends of solid weight of character. The Clerk draws up a minute, containing, as nearly as he can collect, the substance of the conclusion of the Meeting on the subject-matter proposed and discussed. This minute is then read to the Meeting, and either stands or undergoes an alteration, as appears by the silence, or discussion upon it, to be the sense of the Meeting. Thus, by the ancient and in- variable usages of the Society of Friends, no vote is ever taken ; and the Clerk is something more than a mere record- ing officer. He is, in some respects, a judicial officer, and usually selected from among the most grave and intelligent members. All power, not delegated to some one of the Meetings, re- mains in the individual members ; and the respective Meetings have no other, or greater powers, than those granted to them by the discipline. The Quarterly and Yearly Meetings each have their powers and duties defined in the book of discipUne, and, although the Monthly Meetings are subordinate to them, they have their rights also, as well as the individual members. In the Yearly Meetings, as well as in the Quarterly and Monthly Meetings, all cases, propositions, and motions are resulted by the verbal, or silent acquiescence of the members, collected by the Clerk of the Meeting. If a proposition be made, which does not accord with the sense of the Meeting generally, it is suspended or dismissed. The Yearly Meeting does not, of right, review the proceed- ings of the Subordinate Meetings, except in cases of an ap- peal, either by Meetings or members. The subordination of Meetings does not admit of the exercise of coercive or despotic power ; and the whole extent of the subordination is deiined in the book of discipline. Recourse to the Yearly INIeeting is seldom had from the Subordinate Meetings, except for advice in cases of uncom- mon difficulty arising in the Monthly, and Quarterly Meetings. 46 EAKLB ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. The Subordinate Meetings, when called upon by the Yearly- Meeting, must give a satisfactory account, that is to say, they must be ready with all meekness, to receive the advice of the superior Meeting, give it solid consideration, and give a satis- factory reason for the course which they have pursued, or pro- pose to pursue. In respect to the supremacy of the Quarterly Meetings over the Monthly Meetings, the discipline provides, that when the Quarterly Meeting shall come to a judgment respecting the Monthly, and shall have notified the same in writing- to the Monthly, and the Monthly Meeting shall not be satisfied there- with, the Monthly Meeting may appeal to the Yearly Meeting, against the judgment and determination of the Quarterly Meeting; and so in respect to the judgment and determina- tion of any Monthly Meeting, any person dissatisfied there- with, may appeal to the Quarterly Meeting. In respect to the disownment of Friends, (members of a Meeting,) or pronouncing them out of unity, by any Monthly Meeting, this is never done until complaint be first made, and notice given to the accused, that he may have opportunity to answer and be heard in his defence. So, also, when com- plaints are made against any Meeting, Quarterly, Monthly, or Preparative, they are not proceeded against, or disowned, or pronounced to be out of unity, until notice be first given to the Meeting; and opportunity afforded for a hearing and de- fence ; and, if the proceedings be in a Quarterly Meeting, notice must be given of their judgment, in writing, that there may be opportunity to appeal. There is no despotic power. No Meeting can be disfranchised, dissolved, disowned, pro- nounced out of unity, until regular proceedings be first had, notice, a hearing, a bond fide minute or record by a regular Clerk, and notice of sentence or judgment. Nor have the superior Meetings any power, by the book of discipline, to in- terfere with the organization and action of the subordinate Meetings, por by their Committees, or otherwise, to dictate to them who or what persons are by them to be chosen as Over- seers, Clerks, or other officers ; nor does their legitimate advice extend to such interference, nor have the Meetings for Suffer- defendants' answer to supplemental bill. 47 ings, or their Committees, or any of them, any such power or right ; but all such interferences are ustu-pations, and tend to the manifest interruption of the enjoyment of private rights, and full and unrestrained opinion and action. And now, these defendants further answering say, that the plaintiffs are not the true, legitimate, and legal Overseers of the Swanzey Monthly Meeting of Friends, and have no claim or color to be Overseers of said Meeting, except by the choice or appointment of a schism, and of separatists from said Meet- ing. That the true, legitimate, and legal Swanzey Monthly Meeting of Friends, is that whereof Thomas Wilbur has for many years been Qerk ; but that the plaintiffs only claim to be Overseers of a Meeting whereof David Shove is Clerk, which is, and at the time of the filing of the plaintiffs' bill was, a Meeting of Separatists from said Swanzey Monthly Meet- ing, whereof said Wilbur is Clerk. And further answering, these defendants say, that the Swanzey Monthly Meeting of Friends, of which Thomas Wilbur is Clerk, is an ancient Meeting, established and set up more than one hundred years since, that is to say, on the thir- teenth day of the eighth month, 1732, according to the usages and discipline of the Society of Friends, and, from the time of its establishment has always been acknowledged as a regular Monthly Meeting of said Society, by all the superior Meet- ings, Quarterly and Yearly, and by all the other Meetings subordinate to said Yearly Meeting, and has always been in full fellowship and unity with them all, and never was accused, impeached, or disowned by any of them, otherwise than by the proceedings referred to in said biU ; and, during that time, has been in the enjoyment of all the privileges of a Monthly Meeting of said Society; purchased lands, built houses of worship, and acquired civil rights, and especially the right to hold and enjoy their houses of worship, and the lands on which they stand, according to the laws of this Common- wealth ; and said Meeting cannot be deprived of its property, or its rights, by any collateral proceeding whatever. And, be- fore said Meeting shall be pronounced out of unity by said Yearly Meeting, or any Quarterly Meeting, so as injuriously 48 EARLB ET ALS. V. ■WOOD ET ALS. to affect their rights, civil or ecclesiastical, or to work a depri- vation of said house and lot of land, there must be a monition or citation firom the superior Meetings, a charge or accusation for said Meeting to answer, a time assigned for proofs, and having liberty to defend the cause, and except against proofs and witnesses, and a solemn, direct sentence, after proof and answer. These defendants further answering say, that the said Swanzey Monthly Meeting, of which Thomas "Wilbur is, and for many years has been Clerk, has always assembled in the most orderly manner, has always been conducted in strict accordance -with the discipline of said Society, and in strict conformity to its usages. The appointments of its officers, Clerks, and Overseers, have always been made upon the most careful and solid consideration, and the sense of the Meeting collected by the Clerk, with great care and conscientiousness ; and that all the late difficulties which have arisen in that Meeting have been caused by the improper interference of the Yearly and Quarterly Meetings' Committees, who have as- sumed powers which did not belong to them, either by disci- pline or usage among Friends; who undertook to nominate the officers, and assist in the organization of the Meetings ; and, upon their dictation being disregarded, promoted the setting up of a separate Meeting, thereby creating a schism, and justly incurring the name of Separatists. These defendants do not admit the statements made by the plaintiffs, nor by the Committee of a supposed Yearly Meet- ing by them referred to, in respect to the proceedings of said Monthly Meeting, of which said Wilbur is Clerk, nor the statement of his conduct as such Clerk, to be true, but wholly deny the truth thereof; and they refer to the minutes of that Meeting, a true copy of which is hereto annexed, and marked D, and which they affirm are correct and true, showing the proceedings of that Meeting, and the struggles and tiials of Friends in that Meeting, by reason of the unwarranted inter- ference in their proceedings, and their own peculiar and proper concerns, by the Committees of the Quarterly and Yearly Meetings. defendants' answer to supplemental bill. 49 And they affirm and say, that said Thomas Wilbur then was, now is, and for about twenty years has been the true, legitimate, and legal Clerk of that Meeting, according to the discipline and unvarying usages of the Society of Friends, and they refer to the paper annexed, marked B, which is a true copy from the minutes of said Meeting, in relation to his suc- cessive appointments to that office, and which is true in all respects. They further say, that said "Wilbur, during all the time of his being Clerk of said Meeting as aforesaid, had the entire confidence of the Meeting, and on the day mentioned in said minutes, that is to say, on the twenty-sixth day of the eighth month, one thousand eight hundred and forty-four, said Meet- ing being assembled according to ancient usage, said WUbur was sitting and acting as Cleric thereof, when John Header who was not a member of said Meeting, but professing to be a member of the Committee of the Yearly Meeting, requested the Meeting to pause awhile. He said he had a communica- tion to make, which was, that he, and others of said Yearly Meeting's Committee, had united in proposing to have David Shove Clerk of the Meeting, and that said Wilbur should leave the table, and that said Shove should sit there. Several members of the Meeting united in the proposition, and several members opposed it. There had before been divers caUs on said Wilbur by mem- bers of the Meeting, to open the business of the Meeting, and, on solid and conscientious consideration, the said Wilbur, agreeably to the usages of the Meeting, and of aU the Meet- ings of Friends, did not feel authorized to leave his seat, or to appoint said Shove fo be Clerk of the Meeting; and he pro- ceeded with the business of the Meeting. Said Meader then called upon said Shove to take his seat at the table, and said Shove said there was no room. Said Meader said he could take his seat somewhere else. Two persons, not members of the Meeting, aided him to a seat across the aisle, and gave him a board in his lap. Said Wilbur read the minutes of the preceding Meeting, and called on the Committees to report, which they did. Said 5 50 EARLE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. Shove then read a minute of his own, purporting to appoint himself Clerk of the Meeting ; and some other things, by way of business, were attended to by said Shove, when said Header, not a member of the Meeting, proposed to adjourn that Meet- ing, which was done by said Shove. But said Wilbur informed the members, that Swanzey Monthly Meeting was not adjourned; and the Meeting was continued to be held, and said Wilbur and others transacted the usual business of the Meeting. The residue left the house. And these defendants say, that said Wilbur was in the just performance of his duty when he declined to make a minute of the appointment of said Shove to be Clerk of the Meet- ing, and that he was conscientious and right in that refusal, and was in the proper exercise of his official duties, and, according to the usages of all the Meetings, he was bound not to make such minute, when so considerable a portion of the Meeting were opposed to it; and that he was the proper judge of the weight of numbers and character in favor and against the proposition. And these defendants further say, that the said John Meader and others, not members of Swanzey Monthly Meeting, acted on that occasion without authority, and beyond the scope of their authority if they had any. If they were appointed by both, or either the Yearly or Quarterly Meetings, to propose names for Clerk and Overseers, or to assist in the organization of the Meeting, and chose to act in accordance with such ap- pointment, it was their duty first to make known to the said Monthly Meeting the written authority with which they were clothed. But though they were repeatedly requested so to do, they declined, and refused to exhibit any such authority. But these defendants wholly deny that the superior Meetings have any power vested in them by the discipline or usages of the Society, to extend their advice so far to the Monthly Meeting, as to propose to them the persons to be Clerks or Overseers of the Meetings. And, more especially, they deny that the supe- rior Meetings are clothed with authority to assist in the organ- ization of the subordinate Meetings, in the manner in which said Meader and others undertook to do, or in any manner defendants' answer to supplemental bill. 51 whatever, except by sending or communicating to them their advice. That the interference of said Meader and others, not members of said Meeting, by the nomination of Clerk and Overseers, and assisting him to his seat, was altogether a usm-pation, a violation of the rights and privileges of the mem- bers of the Meeting, and not warranted or countenanced at all by the usages or discipline of the Society. No judgment or determination of any Quarterly or Yearly Meeting was, by said Meader and others, made known in writing to said Monthly Meeting, as the discipline requires. Nor do these defendants admit that any judgment or determination of any superior Meeting was made which authorized the said disor- derly acts of said Meader and* others. And if any such there were, they were not binding upon said Meeting, or upon said Wilbur, the Cle'rk thereof. For a more full statement of the manner in which said Shove and others separated from said Meeting, and the course of proceeding which preceded that transaction, the defendants again refer to said paper annexed, marked D. And thereupon, these defendants say, that the plaintiffs are not the Overseers of Swanzey Monthly Meeting of Friends, and not entitled to maintain their bill against these defendants. These defendants further answering say, that they do not admit, but deny, "that by the usages and discipline of the people called Quakers, all other Meetings are so subordinate to the Yearly Meeting, that the Yearly Meeting has rightful power and authority finally to decide all questions touching the organization and discipline of all other Meetings." They ad- mit that said Yearly Meeting, in the first instance, that is to say, when a Subordinate Meeting is first established, has the right and authority to determine whether or not such Meet- ing shall be in unity with the Yearly Meeting; but they answering affirm and say, that after the Yearly Meeting has admitted such Subordinate Meeting to unity, and such Sub- ordinate Meeting having, as such, acquired rights, civil and- ecclesiastical, the Yearly Meeting has not, by the usages or the discipline of the people called Quakers, or Friends, or by the laws of this Commonwealth, or the fundamental principles 52 EAKLB ET ALS. V. WOOD BT ALS. of justice, the right or the power, or authority, arbitrarily and without notice to such Subordinate Meeting, and without accusation and hearing, to disown such Subordinate Meeting, or pronounce them out of unity, and thereby to deprive the Meeting of its property or its rights, civil or ecclesiastical. These defendants further answering say, they do not admit, but deny, that by reason of the facts disclosed by said Supple- mental Bill, and the proceedings thereto annexed, the said Swanzey Monthly Meeting is shown not to be in unity with, but disowned by, the Yearly Meeting for New England. The inquiry which by said proceedings appears to have been insti- tuted, was founded upon the appearance of two bodies of per- sons, claiming to be Represeritatives of the Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting; and a Committee appears to have been appointed to examine into their respective pretensions, and to report upon the subject. The report was in favor of one of these bodies, in exclusion of the other, and a reason assigned for this report appears to have been, that one of those bodies represented a Meeting not in unity with the Meeting then assembled, and the Swanzey Monthly Meeting, of which Thomas Wilbur was Clerk, being represented in said Quar- terly Meeting, that Meeting was said to be out of unity with said Meeting. But this was not a proceeding instituted by the Yearly Meeting against the Swanzey Monthly Meeting. It is not in accordance with the discipline or usage, nor justice, equity, law, or right, that a Monthly Meeting should be dis- franchised in this collateral way. The Swanzey Monthly Meeting was not a party to the proceeding, and had no notice that such a proceeding was to be had, and their rights and privileges could not thus be taken away from them. Nor do the words of the proceedings necessarily intend that they were thus disfranchised. Taken in this milder sense, (and they should be so taken,) the meaning is to be restricted to the time and occasion. There might be reason ai that time, for giving a preference to one body of Representatives rather than the other. The unity spoken of might be applicable only to the conduct of the Meeting at the time of choosing the Represent- atives. With those proceedings they might not agree, might defendants' answer to supplemental bill. 53 not assent that they were right, and in that sense, the Yearly- Meeting might say they were not in unity. But to give the expression the sense of disfranchisement is not necessary ; and it should not be intended that the rights of the Meeting and of the members were thus summarily concluded and set at nought. But these defendants further answering say, that the pro- ceedings of said body of Friends claimed, in the bill of the plaintiffs, by way of supplement, to be the proceedings of the Yearly Meeting, they do not admit to be the proceedings of the true, legitimate, and Yearly Meeting of Friends for New England ; nor do they admit that the reports and statements exhibited in those proceedings, respecting the conduct of the subordinate Meetings and the Clerks thereof, to be true ; but contrariwise they say, that those proceedings are the proceed- ings of Separatists from said Meeting. And the proceedings of the true, legitimate, and legal Yearly Meeting, and the pro- ceedings -of the true, legitimate, and legal Swanzey Monthly Meeting, and of Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting, and of the conduct of the Clerks of those Meetings, are contained in the Minutes of those Meetings, true copies of which are hereto annexed, and marked D, E, F. And the defendants affirm and say, that said copies are true copies from the original minutes, and the original minutes are correct and true. These defendants further answering say, that they admit that there is a want of love and unity among the said Society of Friends, gi-owing out of a difference in religious tenets and doctrinal sentiments. But they allege and say, that the plain- tiffs and those whom they represent, (those of the illegitimate and illegal Swanzey Monthly Meeting, Rhode Island Quar- terly Meeting, and Yearly Meeting,) who have embraced re- ligious tenets and doctrinal sentiments diverse from, and con- trary to the orthodoxy of the Society, are properly chargeable with having originated said difficulties, and by means thereof caused a schism in the Society, and themselves have become Separatists therefrom. And further answering they say, that the religious society of Friends, or people called Quakers, are an ancient and well- 5* 54 EAKLB ET AIjS. V. WOOD BT ALS. known Society and body of Christians, who date their origin in England, in the seventeenth century, through the labors and ministry of George Fox, who is generally considered its founder. This religious Society is distinguished from gthers by doctrines peculiar to itself, and by a peculiar system of church discipline ; that these doctrines are clearly definable, being fully set forth and stated in the writings of George Fox, Robert Barclay, Wil- liam Penn, Isaac Pennington, George Whitehead, and others of the early Friends. And these defendants further answering say, that some of the doctrines which distinguish said Society from other religious denominations of Christians, have been from the first by said Society, and are still deemed by these defend- ants, fundamental and of vital importance ; and that there has been for several years past, a dispute and controversy existing in this Society, in consequence of certain members thereof having both privately and publicly, uttered, written, and printed, doubts of the correctness of these distinguishing doctrines, and promulgating opinions diametrically opposed thereto, and so attempting to undermine and overthrow those vital and funda- mental principles, and to change the character of the Society, and to bring in a new system of doctrines. Among these unsound and disaffected members of the Society, (who have been allowed to remain such, in conse- quence of the general forbearance,) Joseph John Gwrney^ of Norwich, in England, is prominent and conspicuous. He is a voluminous writer, of great influence and repute among those members of the Society who favor a modification of its princi- ples and doctrines ; and the extensive circulation of his writ- ings on these distinguishing points of doctrine, has contributed very materially to bring about a change in the religious opin- ions of many of the members of the Society, both in England and America. By reason of which change in their opinions, and their advocacy of this new system of divinity, his adher- ents have become generally and rightfully denominated Gur- neyites : while from the circumstance of a continued adherence to the original principles and sound doctrines in which the early members of the Society were united, which gave it an existence as such, distinguished it from others, and still forms defendants' answer to supplemental bill. 55 the outward bonds of its union, those who stand opposed to these innovations and modifications, are denominated Ortho- dox Friends. And these defendants further answering show, that the fol- lowing religious doctrines have always been held and main- tained by the Society of Friends, or people called Quakers, that is to say, — In the first place, they believe that the Scriptures are given by inspiration, and when rightly interpreted, are unemng guides, and, to use the language adopted by them, " they are able to make wise unto Salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus." They believe that the Spirit still operates on the souls of men, and when it does really and truly so operate, it furnishes the primary rule of faith. That the Scriptures proceeding from it, must be secondary in reference to this primary source whence they proceed ; but, inasmuch as the dictates of the Spirit are always true and uniform, all ideas and views which any person may entertain, repugnant to the doctrines of the Scriptures, (which are unerring,) must proceed from false lights. They believe, that according to the order of the Apostles' testimony, we must be washed and sanctified before we can be justified. Touching the doctrines of the Trinity, they seldom make use of the word, and have avoided attaching distinct person- ality to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and consider it a mystery beyond finite human conception, and take up the doc- trine as expressly laid down in the Scriptures, and have not considered themselves warranted in making deductions, how- ever specious. Such were the doctrines entertained, believed, and adopted by the Society of Friends, and such were the doctrines and sentiments entertained, believed, and adopted by the whole body of Friends in New England, at the time when said deed was given by said Elizabeth S. Danforth to said Swanzey Monthly Meeting, which has before been mentioned and set forth, and such were the doctrines and sentiments entertained, 56 EARLB ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. believed, and adopted by the members who composed said Monthly Meeting at that time, all Friends of that Meeting, and other Meetings then giving their testimonies thereto, which were well to be held and entertained by said Meeting ; and all which was well known to said Elizabeth when she gave said deed. And the same doctrines are still entertained, believed, and adopted by the Orthodox part of said Society, to which party the said Swanzey Monthly Meeting, and all its mem- bers, of whom Thomas Wilbur is, and has for many years been. Clerk, and of which these defendants are Overseers, be- long. These doctrines, anciently, and at the time of making said deed, and at the present time, are deemed fundamental, and essentially necessary to be entertained, believed, and adopted, by all who can rightly claim to be called Friends. And the defendants show, that the said Gurneyite party enter- tain opinions entirely and absolutely repugnant thereto. In regard to the first-named doctrine, he and they believe, that the moral law, as revealed in the Scriptures, applies to all circumstances, comprehends all conditions, regulates all mo- tives, directs and controls all overt acts ; that therein enough is revealed to direct our faith and regulate our conduct ; and that it is the Bible alone that fully reveals the nature and character of sin. Touching the doctrine of Justification, he and they believe that justification precedes sanctification ; that men are first fully justified, and subsequently sanctified. Touching the doctrine of Trinity, (as it is called,) he, the said J. J. Gurney, and those in unity with him, believe there are three distinct persons in the Deity ; that there is a plurality in the one God'; a plurality in the Divine Essence. And the defendants aver and say, that these discrepancies in religious doctrine between the Gurneyites and the Orthodox parties, are radical, and all-important in the opinion of these defendants, and the said Orthodox party. The Gurneyite party are not of the same faith with them and the ancient religious Society of Friends. And these defendants further answering say, that the un- sound publications and doctrines of the said Gumey, had not defendants' answer to supplemental bill. 57 only been extensively circulated within the limits of the said Yearly Meeting of Friends for New England, but that he attended that Meeting, and travelled extensively within its limits, having general communication with its members, held meetings among them, inducing great numbers to embrace his principles and doctrines. And in order to effect the change which should comport with the views of said Gurney, his partisans officially acknowl- edged their unity with him as a minister, and they appointed and organized a part of their own number to the exclusion of others, as a Committee of the Yearly Meeting, by the instru- mentality of the Clerk, who was of their party, and also a member of the Committee, " to exercise a general care on its behalf, and to visit Subordinate Meetings and individuals," professedly "for the preservation of love and unity, and the maintenance of our principles and testimonies." But they visited Subordinate Meetings, made unfounded charges against Friends remarkable for their faithfulness and the soundness of their principles, and induced the Meetings to notice them, con- trary to the discipline of the Society. They advised against the appointment of sound Friends to the services of the Society, and exercised their utmost en- deavors to promote their own partisans exclusively, to all important stations and affairs of trust. The difficulty in Swanzey Monthly Meeting was produced by the introduction of these unsound doctrines, and by the improper interference of these Committees ; and resulted in their separating them- selves from the Society, and setting up a new Monthly Meet- ing, in violation of the established order and discipline, in the manner before specially answered, and as stated in the pro- ceedings of the true Swanzey Monthly Meeting, heretofore referred to, paper D, annexed. The same machinery was put in operation by the Gurneyite party, at the next subsequent Quarterly Meeting of Rhode Island, in the eleventh month, to which the said Monthly Meeting belonged. The Representatives and accounts were duly sent up to that Meeting by the true and legitimate Monthly Meeting; but the presiding Clerk was a Gurneyite, 58 EARLB ET ALS. V. WOOD BT ALS. and was induced to refuse to receive them, notwithstanding the strong remonstrances of the Orthodox party ; so that the ancient principles and sound doctrines, and discipline of the ' Society could not be preserved without appointing a Clerk, and sustaining a Quarterly Meeting in accordance with its originally established and correct discipline ; which was done. The Gurneyites having seceded, the Representatives were received, the accounts passed, and the other usual business of the Meeting was transacted. The paper annexed, marked F, before referred to, contains a true account of this Meeting. These defendants further answering say, that the usual time for the Yearly Meeting having arrived, the Society of Friends assembled on Rhode Island, according to the provisions of their discipline. At this Meeting, the Gurneyite party were active in their attempts to secure such an organization of the Meeting as should secure their ascendancy in all the operations and transactions of the Society. In order to secure the ap- pointment of a Clerk from their own party, and contrary to the express order and provisions of the Book of Discipline, which require that the Representatives should meet at the close of the fkst sitting, on second day morning, and should agree upon a Clerk, and report the same to the adjournment, — they postponed the whole matter, and left the meeting-house. And thereupon, the Orthodox Representatives, as in duty bound, proceeded to agree upon Clerks, and reported the same, which, being fully united with by the sound Friends, they were accordingly appointed, and the usual business and transactions of the Yearly Meeting were gone through with. These pro- ceedings, and the measures which led thereto, showing the Gurneyite party to be Separatists from said Meeting, are here again referred to. See paper E. These defendants finally answering say, that the Gurney- ites, under whom the plaintiffs claim, are Separatists from the Society of Friends ; that they do not agree with Orthodox Friends in the belief of the fundamental, distinguishing, and ancient doctrines of the Society; and are opposed to them also in their order and discipline, as well as their religious be^ lief; that they have seceded from the faith, the order and the defendants' answer to supplemental bill. 59 institutions, and discipline of the Society ; yet, assuming the ancient names of the Meetings, and claiming the rights and- privileges, and the property of the Meetings ; and especially, that the Meeting claiming to be the Swanzey Monthly Meet- ing, of which David Shove pretends to be Clerk, is a body of Separatists, who have seceded from the true Swanzey Monthly Meeting, of which said Thomas Wilbur is, and has been for nearly twenty years, Clerk, and have no legal existence or au- thority to hold said house and lot, or to choose or appoint any persons to be Overseers of the Meeting, who can by law hold the same for their use. But contrariwise, the ancient Ortho- dox Meetings, Yearly, Quarterly, and Monthly, continue to be held by the ancient, true, legitimate, Orthodox, and legal So- ciety of Friends, and all the rights, privileges, and property of the Society, is held in trust for their Meetings, according to the original intentions and institutions of the Society, and the grantors thereof, and the laws and statutes of the Common- wealth in such case made and provided. And these defend- ants deny that the plaintiffs have or hold, or have any right in law or equity to have or hold, the lot of land or house in their bill mentioned, for the purposes there mentioned, or for any purpose whatever. But contrariwise, these defendants claim, that they themselves, as Overseers of the Swanzey Monthly Meeting of Friends, are entitled to have and hold SEiid house and lot of land, for the purposes mentioned in said deed of Elizabeth S. Danforth, before mentioned, both at law and in equity. All which matters and things these defendants are ready and willing to aver, maintain, and prove, as this Honorable Court shall direct, and humbly pray to be hence dismissed, with their reasonable costs and charges in their behalf most unjustly sustained. William Wood, Palmer Chacb, Miller Chace, Seneca Lincoln, Philip Tripp, William Slade. 60 EARLE BT ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. Bristol, ss. Fall River, November ISth, 1845. Then per- sonally appeared the above-i^amed William Wood, Palmer Chace, Miller Chace, and William Slade, kll being of the de- nomination of the people called Quakers or Friends, and sol- emnly affirmed and declared, that the facts and allegations in the foregoing answer, are to the best of their knowledge and belief, true. Before me, Louis Lapham, Just, of the Peace. Bristol, ss. Berkley, November l^th, 1845. Then personally appeared the within-named Philip Tripp, being of the de- nomination of the people called Quakers or Friends, tmd sol- emnly affirmed and declared, that the facts and allegations in the foregoing answer, are to the best of his knowledge and be- lief, true. Before me, Barzillai CRAi^y,, Just, of the Peace. Bristol, ss. Norton, November, 14i/t, 1845. Then personally . appeared the within-named Seneca Lincoln, being of the de- nomination of the people called Quakers or Friends, and sol- emnly affirmed and declared, that the facts and allegations in the foregoing answer, are to the best of his knowledge and be- lief, true. Before me, John Crane, Just, of the Peace. [B.] At Swanzey Monthly Meeting of Friends, held at Somerset, 2nd mo. 28th, 1825. The Committee continued at last Meet- ing respecting a Clerk and Assistant, reported Thomas Wilbur for Clerk, and David Shove, Assistant, which meeting the ap- probation of this Meeting, they are appointed accordingly for the ensuing year. Sd mo. 27th, 1826. The period for which the Clerk of this Meeting was appointed having expired, it is concluded to re- appoint Thomas Wilbur for that service for the year to come, or until another is appointed in his place. 2d mo. 26th, 1827. The time for which the Clerk and As- defendants' answer to supplemental bill. 61 sistant were appointed to serve this Meeting having expired, Benjamin Slade, Oliver Earle, and Oliver Chace, are appointed to confer with some suitable persons for that service, and re- port at our next Meeting. 3d mo. 26th, 1827. The Committee appointed at our last Meeting to confer with some suitable persons to serve this Meeting as Clerk and Assistant, report Thomas Wilbur as Clerk, and Samuel B. Chace, Assistant, which meeting the approbation of this Meeting, they are accordingly appointed to that station for the ensuing year. The Clerk not being present, David Shove is appointed for the day. Ath mo. 28th, 1828. The time for which the Clerks were appointed having expired, it is concluded to appoint Thomas "Wilbur as Clerk, and Samuel B. Chace, Assistant, for the ensuing year, or until others are appointed in their places. 6ih mo. 29lh, 1829. The time for which the Clerk and As- sistant were appointed to serve this Meeting having expired, it is concluded to appoint Thomas Wilbur for Clerk, and Samuel B. Chace for Assistant, for the ensuing year, or until others are appointed in their places. 6th mo. 28th, 1830. The time for which the Clerks of this Meeting were appointed having expired, Benjamin Buffinton, David Shove, and WiUiam Slade, are appointed to confer with some suitable persons for that service, and report at our next Meeting. 7th mo. 26th, 1830. The Committee appointed to confer with some suitable persons to serve this Meeting as Clerks, report Thomas Wilbur as Clerk, and David Shove, Assistant, which is accepted, and they are appointed to that service ac- cordingly, for the ensuing year, or until others are appointed in their stead. 3d mo. 29th, 1831. The time for which the Clerk and As- sistant were appointed having expired, it is concluded to ap- point Abner Slade, Richard Mitchell, and Theophilus Shove, to confer with some suitable persons for that service, and re- port their names at otir next Meeting. 9th mo. 26th, 1831. The Committee appointed to name a 6 62 EAELB BT ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. Clerk and Assistant, have proposed Thomas Wilbur for Clerk, and David Shove for Assistant, which being satisfactory to the Meeting, they are appointed accordingly, for the ensuing year, or until others are appointed in their places. 11th mo. 24:th, 1834. The Clerk and Assistant being absent, Harvey Chace was appointed Clerk for the day, and Abner Slade, Assistant. 1st mo. 26th, 1835. It appearing to the Meeting that the time for which the Clerk and Assistant were appointed is ex- pired, Edmund Chace, Theophilus Shove, Miller Chace, and Gideon Chace, are appointed to confer with some suitable persons for that service, and report their names at our next Meeting. 2d mo. 23d, 1835. The Committee appointed to name a Clerk and Assistant for this Meeting, not being ready to make a fuU report, are continued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. 3d mo. 20th, 1835. The Clerk and Assistant being absent, Harvey Chace was appointed Clerk for the day. ith mo. 27th, 1835. The Committee appointed to select a Clerk and Assistant, have named David Shove for Clerk, and Richard Mitchell for Assistant, which being acceptable to this Meeting, they are appointed accordingly for the ensuing year, or until others appointed in their places. 6th mo. 21th, 1836. It appearing to this Meeting that the time for which the Clerk and Assistant were appointed having expired, Edmund Chace and Theophilus Shove were ap- pointed to select some suitable persons for that purpose, and present at our next Meeting. 1th mo. 25th, 1836. The Committee appointed to bring for- ward the names of some suitable persons to serve this Meet- ing as Clerks, the ensuing year, not being ready to report, are continued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. 8th mo. 29th, 1836. The Committee appointed at our last Meeting, to bring forward the names of some suitable persons to serve this Meeting as Clerks, the ensuing year, having pro- posed David Shove as Clerk, and Richard Mitchell as Assist- ant, which meeting the approbation of this Meeting, they are appointed accordingly. defendants' answer to supplemental bill. 63 8lli mo, 28th, 1837. The time for which the Clerk and As- sistant were appointed having expired, Abner Slade, Clark Shove, and TheophUus Shove, are appointed to select some suitable persons for that service, and present their names at our next Meeting. 9th mo. 25th, 1837. The Committee appointed at om- last Meeting to select some suitable persons to serve this Meeting as Clerks not being ready to report, are continued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. 10th mo. 20th, 1837. The Committee appointed to select some suitable persons to serve this Meeting as Clerks, for the ensuing yetir, not being ready to report, are continued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. 11th mo. 27th, 1837. The Committee appointed to bring forward the names of some persons to serve this Meeting as Clerks, for the ensuing year, not being ready to report, are con- tinued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. 12th mo. 25th, 1837. The Committee appointed to select some persons to serve as Clerks for the ensuing year, presented Thomas Wilbur for Clerk, and Thomas S. Gilford as Assistant, which meeting the approbation of this Meeting, they are ap- pointed accordingly. 12th mo. 31st, 1838. The time for which the Clerk and As- sistant to this Meeting having expired, it is concluded to ap- point Robinson Buffinton, Edmund Chace, and David Shove, a Committee to bring forward the names of some suitable per- sons to serve this Meeting in that capacity at our next Meeting. 1st mo. 28th, 1839. The Committee appointed at our last Meeting to select persons to serve this Meeting as Clerk and Assistant, propose the reappointment of Thomas Wilbur for Clerk, and Thomas S. Gifford for Assistant, which being satis- factory to the Meeting, they are appointed accordingly for the year ensuing, or until others are appointed in their places. 1st mo. 27th, 1840. The time for which the Clerk and As- sistant to this Meeting were appointed having expired, we ap- point Edmund Chace and Palmer Chace, a Committee to bring forward names of suitable persons to serve this Meeting in that capacity, at our next Meeting. 64 EAELE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. 2d mo. 2ith, 1840. The Committee appointed to present names of persons to serve this Meeting as Clerk and Assistant, not being ready to report, are continued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. Sd mo. 30th, 1840. The Committee appointed to select a Clerk and Assistant to serve this Meeting, not being ready to report, are continued, and desired to report at ovir next Meeting. ith mo. 27th, 1840. The Committee appointed to select Clerks, are not ready to report, they are therefore continued, with the addition of Oliver Earle, and are desired to report at our next Meeting. 5th mo. 25th, 1840. The Committee appointed to select suit- able persons as Clerks not being ready to report, are continued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. &th mo. 29lh, 1840. The Committee appointed to select suitable persons as Clerks, are again continued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. 7th mo. 27th, 1840. The Committee in the case of Clerks, have reported Thomas Wilbur for Clerk, and James Chace for Assistant, v^rhich being satisfactory to the Meeting, they are appointed to those services for the ensuing year, or until others are appointed in then* place^. 1th mo. 26th, 1841. The time for which the Clerk and As- sistant for this Meeting were appointed having expired, it is concluded to reappoint Thomas Wilbur for Clerk, and Harvey Chace for Assistant, for the approaching year, or until others are appointed in their places. 7th mo. 25th, 1842. The time for which the Clerk and Assistant were appointed to serve this Meeting having ex- pired, it is concluded to appoint Oliver Earle, Oliver Chace, Theodore Shove, William Wood, Abraham Shove, and Philip Tripp, a Committee to take the subject into consideration, and present the names of Friends to serve in that capacity, at our next Meeting. 8th mo. 29lh, 1842. The Committee in the case of Clerk and Assistant not being ready to report, are continued, and de- sired to report at our next Meeting. 9th mo. 26th, 1842. The subject of Clerk and Assistant to defendants' answer to supplemental bill. 65 serve this Meeting is still continued under the care of the same Committee, who are desired to report at our next Meeting. 10th mo. 21st, 1842. The Committee in the case of Clerk and Assistant not being ready to report, are again continued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. 11th mo. 28th, 1842. The Committee in the case of Clerk and Assistant not being ready to report, are again continued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. 12th mo. 2m, 1842. The Committee in the cas^ of Clerk and Assistant not being ready to report, are again continued, and desire(ito report at our next Meeting. 1st mo. 30th, 1843. The Committee in the ease of Clerk and Assistant not being ready to report, are continued, with the addition of Simpson Buffinton, and desired to report at our next Meeting. [The subject was continued from time to time, as shown by the records, without any report being made by the Committee until the time of the following minute.J 8th mo. 26th, 1844. The Committee continued at our last Meeting, on the subject of Clerk and Assistant, not being ready to report, and one of their number proposing that said Committee be dismissed, it is concluded by this Meeting to release them from further attention to that subject. It now appearing to this Meeting that it would be best to reappoint Thomas Wilbur for Clerk, and to appoint William F. Wood for Assistant Clerk, they are so appointed for the year ensuing, or until others are appointed in their stead. A copy of a minute made 8th mo. 1830, to be found on Record Book, page 128. The subject of titles to the real estate of this Monthly Meet- ing, coming before the view of this Meeting, it is concluded to appoint Oliver Chace, David Shove, WiUiam Slade, Abner Slade, and Theophilus Shove, a Committee to investigate the subject, and pay such attention thereto as the security of such property may require, and report when accomplished. 6* 66 EARLE ET ALS. t), WOOD ET ALS. At a Monthly Meeting of Friends, held 2d mo. 1839, the foregoing Committee made the following report : — Our Committee of 8th month, 1830, on the subject of titles to real estate, report : — That they think it best that the titles to the several lots be- longing to this Monthly Meeting, be renewed, by a deed being granted to our Overseers, and their successors in office, for the benefit and use of Society, and that this be signed by the Clerk of this Meeting, in keeping with the law of this Common- wealth ; which is accepted, and Oliver Chace, William Slade, and David Shove, are appointed to attend to the foregoing transfers, on behalf of this Meeting, and see that the business is transacted in a legal manner, by proper acknowledgments from the Clerk, etc. At a Monthly Meeting, held 1st mo. 27th, 1845, the above last-mentioned Committee reported as follows : — To Swanzey Monihly Meeting of Friends. "We of the Committee appointed 2d mo. 1839, to attend to the transfer of the real estate of the S^y■anzey Monthly Meet- ing, Report, that we have paid some attention to the subject of our appointment, and in the discharge of our duty, we have had the lots whereon stands our meeting-house, in Somerset, the lot and house in Fall River, and that at Freetown, on which stands Friends' meeting-house, all transferred to our present Overseers, and their successors in office, for the benefit and use of Swanzey Monthly Meeting of Friends, — by hav- ing legal instruments drawn, signed, and properly acknowl- edged by the Clerk of the aforesaid Meeting, according to the directions given in the minute of our appointment, all of which we submit to the Meeting. (Signed) Wm. Slade, Oliver Chace. Fall River, 1st mo. 27th, 1845. defendants' answek to supplemental bill. 67 Which- is accepted by this Meeting, and ordered to be recorded, and they, the said Oliver Chace and Wm. Slade, are requested to continue their care to the same subject, and report when the business is accomplished. The foregoing extracts are true copies from the records of Swanzey Monthly Meeting of Friends. Thomas Wilbur, Clerk. [C] %th mo. 26th, 1833. Edmund Chace, Benj. Slade, Robinson Buffintoh, and David Shove were appointed a Committee to select and bring forward such names as would be suitable to serve this Meeting in the capacity of Overseers. 9th mo. dOth, 1833. The Committee appointed at our last Meeting to select some suitable names to serve this Meeting as Overseers, not being ready to report at this time, are con- tinued, with the addition of Eber Chsice, and requested to report at our next Meeting. 10th mo. 28th, 1833. The Committee appointed to select Overseers inform, that they are not ready to report, and are therefore continued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. llih mo. 1833. The Committee appointed to select Over- seers for this Meeting, not being ready to report at this time, are continued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. 12th mo. 30th, 1833. The Committee appointed to select Overseers for this Meeting, inform that they have paid some attention to the subject, but are not ready to report. They are therefore continued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. 1st. mo. 27th, 1834. The Committee in the case of selecting Overseers, not being ready to make a full report, are continued, with the addition of Oliver Earle and Theophilus Shove, and are desired to report at our next Meeting. 2d mo. 25th, 1834. The Committee appointed to select some suitable persons to serve this Meeting in the capacity of 68 BARLE ET ALS, V. WOOD ET ALS. Overseers, presented the following names, namely: Gideon Chace, Eber Chace, Theophilus Shove, 2d, MUler Chace, Theophilus Shove, and David Shove, which meeting the ap- probation of this Meeting, they are appointed to that service for the year ensuing, or untU others are appointed in their room, having the unity of the women herein. 3d mo. 30ih, 1835. This Meeting is informed that the time for which the Overseers were appointed has expired. Edmund Chace, Abraham Shove, Abner Slade, Robinson Buffington, Anthony Chace, and Harvey Chace, are appointed to confer with and report the names of some suitable Friends, to serve this Meeting in that capacity. ith mo. 27th, 1835. The Committee appointed at our last Meeting to confer with some suitable persons to serve this Meeting, in the capacity of Overseers, not being ready to make a full report at this time, are continued, and requested to report at our next Meeti^ig. 5t/i mo. 25th, 1835. The Committee appointed to confer with some suitable persons to serve this Meeting as Overseers, inform that they have given the subject some attention, but are not ready to make a full report ; they are again continued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. &th mo. 29th, 1835. The Committee appointed to confer with some suitable persons to serve this Meeting as Overseers, are again continued, they not being ready to make a full report at this time, and are desired to report at our next Meetir^. 7th mo. 27th, 1835. The Committee continued at our last Meeting, to bring forward the names of some suitable persons to serve this Meeting as Overseers, not being ready to report, are continued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. 8th mo. 31st, 1835. The Committee on the subject of select- ing some Friends to serve this Meeting in the capacity of Overseers, for the ensuing year, presented the names of Eber Chace, Abraham Shove, Theophilus Shove, Edmund Chace, Richard Mitchell, and David Shove, which meeting the appro- bation of this Meeting, they are appointed to that service for the ensuing year, having the concurrence of the women's Meeting herein. ANSWER TO SUPPLEMENTAL BILL. 69 Sth mo. 28lh, 1837. The time for which the Overseers were appointed having expired, Oliver Chace, David Earle, and Theophilus Shove are appointed to select some suitable per- sons for that service, and present their names at our next Meeting. 9lh mo. 25th, 1837. The Committee appointed to select some suitable persons to serve this Meeting in the capacity of Overseers, not being ready to report, are continued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. IQlh inc. dOlh, 1837. The Committee appointed to bring forward the names of some persons to serve this Meeting as Overseers ffer the ensuing year, presented the names of Abra- ham Shove, Miller Chace, Edmund Chace, Palmer Chace, Theo. Shove, and David Shove, which being united with by this Meeting, they are appointed accordingly, having the con- currence of the women's Meeting herein. 10th mo. 29th, 1838. Joseph Estes, Gideon Chace, Philip Tripp, Israel Buffinton, and Abner Slade, are appointed a Committee to select suitable names to serve this Meeting in the capacity of Overseers, and to report to our next Meeting. lllh mo. 26th, 1838. The Committee appointed at our last Meeting to bring forward names of suitable persons to serve this Meeting as Overseers, not being ready to report, are con- tinued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. 12th mo. 31st, 1838. The Committee appointed for that purpose, presented the names of the following Friends to serve this Meeting as Overseers, namely, Abraham Shove, Miller Chace, Edmund Chace, Palmer Chace, Theo. Shove, and David Shove, which being satisfactory to this Meeting, they are appointed accordingly, having the unity of the women herein. 12th mo. 30th, 1839. The time for which the Overseers of this Meeting were appointed, having expired, we appoint Israel Buffinton, Philip Tripp, Joseph Estes, Anthony Chace, and Moses Buffinton, a Committee to bring forward names of ^suitable persons to serve this Meeting in that capacity for the ensuing year, and report the same to our next Meeting. [The subject was continued on the records from time to 70 BARLE BT ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. time without any report being received until the following date.] 6th mo. 29th, 1840. The Committee at our last Meeting to bring forward names of persons to serve this Meeting as Over^ seers, are again continued and desired to report to our next Meeting ; and Oliver Chace, David Shove, and Robinson Buf- finton, are added to said Committee. 7th mo. 27th, 1848. The Committee continued at our last Meeting to present names for Overseers, report the following, namely, Miller Chace, Abraham Shove, Theophilus Shove, Job Chace, Theophilus Shove 2d, and David Shove, which being satisfactory to the Meeting, they are appointed accord- ingly for the term of one year, or until others are appointed in their places, having the unity of the women herein. 7th mo. 26th, 1841. The time for which the Overseers were appointed having expired, it is concluded to appoint Israel Buffinton, Robinson Buffinton, Oliver Earle, WiUiam Slade, and David Shove, a Committee to confer with suitable persons to serve in. that capacity, and report their names to our next Meeting. Sth mo. SOth, 1841. The Committee in the case of Over- seers, are not ready to report, and are therefore continued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. 9ih mo. 27th, 1841. The Committee having the care of pre- senting names of Overseers, not being ready to report, are still continued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. 10^/j mo. 25th, 1841. The Committee having the care of presenting names for Overseers, are again continued, and de- sired to report at our next Meeting. 11th mo. 29th, 1841. The Committee appointed to bring forward names of Friends to serve as Overseers, not being ready to report, are continued, and desired to report to our next Meeting. 12th mo. 27th, 1841. The Committee continued at our last Meeting, to name Friends to serve in the capacity of Over- seers, not being ready to report, and one of said Committee suggesting the propriety of discharging the Committee from further service, it is concluded to do so, and the Committee is therefore discharged. defendants' answer to supplemental bill. 71 It is concluded to reappoint our present Overseers, namely : Abraham Shove, Miller Chace, Theo. iShovp, David Shove, Job Chace, and Theophilus Shove 2d, to serve in that capacity for the approaching year, or until others are appointed in their places, having the unity of the women herein. 12th mo. 26lh, 1842. It now being one year since the Over- seers were appointed, it is concluded to appoint Robinson Buf- finton, Oliver Chace, Abner Slade, Philip Tripp, David Shove, William Wood, and William Slade, to present suitable names to our next Meeting for the service aforesaid. 1st mo. SOjh, 1843. The Committee appointed at our last Meeting to present the names of Overseers, not being ready to report, are continued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. 2d mo. 27th, 1843. The Committee appointed to present names of persons to serve in the capacity of Overseers, not being ready to report, are again continued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. 3d mo. 27th, 1843. The Committee in the case of Over- seers are not readjto report. They are therefore continued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. 4th mo. 24th, 1843. The Committee appointed to present names of persons to serve in the capacity of Overseers, not being ready to report, are continued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. 5th mo. 29th, 1843. The Committee appointed to present names of persons to serve in the capacity of Overseers, not being ready to report, are continued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. 6th mo. 26th, 1843. The Committee raised to present names of persons to serve in the capacity of Overseers, have paid some attention to their appointment, but not being ready to report in full, are continued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. 7th mo. 31st, 1843. The Committee continued at our last Meeting, to present names of persons to serve in the capacity of Overseers, not being ready to report, are desired to report at our next Meeting. 72 EARLB ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. 8th mo. 28th, 1843. The Committee appointed to present names of Overseers not being ready to report, are continued to that service, and desired to report at our next Meeting. 9th mo. 25th, 1843. The subject of appointing persons to to serve in the capacity of Overseers, is still continued under the care of the same Committee, who are desired to pay fur- ther attention to the subject, and report at our next Meeting. 10th mo. ZOth, 1843. The Committee continued at our last Meeting, on the subject of Overseers, are still continued to that service, and desired to report at our next Meeting. 12th mo. 2oth, 1843. The Committee on the subject of Overseers not being ready to report, are again continued for that service, and desired to report at our next Meeting. 1st mo. 29th, 1844. The Committee oh the subject of Over- seers not being ready to report, are continued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. 2d mo. 26th, 1844. Our Committee on the subject of Over- seers not being ready to report, are again continued, and de- sired to report at our next Meeting. 3d mo. 25th, 1844. Our Committee on the subject of Over- seers not being ready to report, are continued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. 4th mo. 29th, 1844. The Committee on the subject of Over- seers not being ready to report, are again continued, and de- sired to report at our next Meeting. 5th mo. 21th, 1844. The Committee continued at our last Meeting on the subject of Overseers, not being ready to report, are again continued, and desired to report at our next Meet- ing. &th mo. 2Ath, 1844. The Committee continued at our last Meeting on the subject of Overseers, not being ready to report, are again continued to that service, and desired to report at our next Meeting. Tth mo. 29th, 1844. Our Committee on the subject of nom- inating Friends to serve in the capacity of Overseers, are again continued, and desired to report at our next Meeting. 8th mo. 26th, 1844. The Committee continued at our last Meeting, to present names to serve in the capacity of Over- defendants' answer to supplemental bill. 73 seers, not being ready to report, they are released from further service, at the instance of a part of said Committee. And it is now concluded to appoint William Wood, WiUiam Slade, Miller Chace, Palmer Chace, and Seneca Lincoln, to the sta- tion of Overseers for the year ensuing, or untU others are appointed in their places. 9th mo. 30th, 1844. It is now concluded to appoint Philip Tripp to the station of an Overseer, in addition to those ap- pointed at our last Meeting; and the further addition of names is postponed for the present. [D.] An extract from the Minutes of Swanzey Monthly Meeting, held in Fall River, 12 month, ZOth, 1844. " Received at this time, a circular emanating from the Meet- ing for Sufferings, purporting to give a statement of facts per- taining to the recent separation in our Moiithly Meeting, as also in other branches of the Quarterly Meeting, which has been read, and the consideration of which has resxilted in the appointment of the following named Friends as a Cornmittee ; to take the subject into consideration, and if way should open for it, to prepare a correct and more detailed ac- count of the aforesaid separation, and present to our next Meeting. STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE. To Swanzey Monthly Meeting. We, your Committee ap- pointed to take into consideration the subject of the late sepa- ration in this Monthly Meeting, and to prepare if a way should open for it, a correct statement thereof, have endeavored to give attention to the subject of our appointment ; and having collected facts in relation thereto, have compiled the following brief statement of the same, together with the causes which led to such a result. 7 74 EARLE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. It would have been desirable in presenting this statement to the Meeting, which will probably remain a record of a part of its history, to have avoided inserting the names of individuals therein actively concerned. But in this essay, such a course it has been found, would render the account prolix or unintel- ligible. Although some incidents occurred, which were an indication of a diversity of religious sentiment, prior to the date here mentioned, yet it is thought sufficient for the present purpose, to comirience the account on the 26th of 7th month, 1841, when Israel Buffinton, Robinson Buffinton, Oliver Earle, WiUiam Slade, and David Shove, were appointed a Committee by the Monthly Meeting, to bring before the Meet- ing the names of persons suitable for Overseers. This Com- mittee, not being able to agree, were continued from time to time, until in the 12th month of the same year, at the sugges- tion of one of the Committee, (William Slade,) they were dis- missed from fm-ther service. And it was then proposed by Thomas Wilbur, that the former Overseers be reappointed, which was acceded to by the Meeting. These Overseers were Job Chace, Theophilus Shove, 2d, Abraham Shove, Miller Chace, Theophilus Shove, and David Shove* The causes which thus delayed the progress of the Com- mittee, and prevented them from performing the service as- signed them, it is believed are of sufficient importance to be here briefly detailed. It appears by the accounts given by the Committee, that several of them were in favor of nominating Edmund Chace, and would otherwise consent to no report, while others were not satisfied to nominate this individual, be- cause there was an unsettled difference between him and another Friend. Israel Buffinton objected also, for that and the further reason that E. Chace, had sent his father a pamphlet, (written by Joseph J. Gurney,) which, professing to set forth the doctrines of Friends, contained unsound sentiments. This objection he made in confidence, in an interview with another of the Comnuttee upon the subject of their appointment, hav- ing previously taken an opportunity with E. Chace, relative to * Those in Italics supported Joseph J. Gurney. defendants' answer to supplemental bill. 75 the pamphlet, but obtained no satisfaction. This objection was soon reported to E. Chace, who it appears, felt himself aggrieved ; for not long after, he called upon Israel personally, giving him to understand that he had been informed of his re- marks, and saying, " we cannot settle it between us ; I shall take the Church order with thee." Subsequently, two of the Overseers called I. Buffinton to an interview on this subject, and one of them required him to make concessions. He in- formed them, that he was wiJling to meet the accuser accord- ing to discipline, under the head of Detraction, (that being the charge,) with two or three Friends, and leave it for them to decide whefher he was justified in making the remark he did. This right he claimed before any further action should be taken in the case. Advice was now asked by one of the Overseers of several Friends, who cautioned him against carrying a complaint to the Monthly Meeting, before the accused should have had the preliminary hearing provided by. our discipline, — which course, the said overseer replied, was in accordance with his views. Notwithstanding these precautions, the two aforesaid Over- seers presented to the Monthly Meeting, in the 3d month, 1842, the following complaint. , " To Sioanzey Monthly Meeting of Friends. " Israel Buffinton, having indulged in a spirit of detraction, in violation of our Christian discipline, by accusing and charg- ing Edmund Chace with circulating unsound vsTitings; also aiding and abetting, or vindicating an unsound Friend ; and we, having had several interviews with him on that account, and he not evincing a disposition to render satisfaction, we submit the case to the Meeting for their disposal. Job Chace, Theophilus Shovje, Overseers." As this difficulty had existed several months, Friends gener- ally knew how the case stood, and were not prepared to re- ceive and record such a complaint, until those preliminary rights had been granted to the accused, which he informed 76 EAELE ET ALS. V. 'WOOD ET ALS. the Meeting had not been done. This statement was con- firmed by one of the Overseers, who signed the complaint. It was proposed to return the complaint to the Overseers, that the accused might avail himself of every right guaranteed by our discipline ; but the only one present of those who pre- fened it, declined taking it back. After various propositions and considerable discussion, at length a Friend proposed that a few members should be ap- pointed to assist the Overseers in adjusting the difficulty, which being generally agreed to, the Clerk soon after informed the Meeting that he had made a minute, which, if it met the views of Friends, might be adopted ; otherwise he would en- deavor to make such alteration as the Meeting might agree upon. The minute was then read as foUows, namely : — " This Meeting concludes to appoint a Com- mittee to assist the Overseers of this Monthly Meeting, in the adjustment of some unpleasant affairs, appertaining to the well-being of society at large, and also to individual privi- leges ; " which being accepted by the Meeting, the Clerk called for names to constitute the Committee. Whereupon, those who had urged the reception of the complaint, began nominat- ing faster than the Clerk could write their names. Some hav- ing declined, the following names were taken ; William Slade, Oliver Chace, Thomas S. Gifford, Oliver Earle^ and Thomas Wilbur. Here let it be observed, that this was the case wherein the Clerk and some other Friends have been accused of seriously interrupting the administration of the discipline. A part of this Committee had an interview, and proposed a time for meeting upon the subject of their appointment, and the rest beirig notified thereof, acceded to the proposition. At a subsequent Monthly Meeting, inquiry being made whether the Committee were ready to report, one of them re- plied, that the minute of their appointment did not require them to report. At the Monthly Meeting in the 5th month, the same individual who before made the inquiry, called again for a report ; and one of the Committee informed the Meeting, that although they were not required by the minute of their appointment to report, yet they had a statement of their pro- B'EFBNDANTS' ANSWER TO SUPPLEMENTAL BILL. 77 ceedings, which they were willing should be read for the infor- mation of Friends ; and the proposition being united by the Meeting, it was read. The following extract embraces all the facts in this statement, namely : — " The undersigned of the Committee appointed by the Monthly Meeting, in the 3d month last, to assist the Overseers in the adjustment of some unpleasant affairs, &c., and one of the Overseers feel willing to give to the Monthly Meeting the following statement, as the result of their investigation and labors. A difference between two individuals, which had resulted in a complaint brought by one of them to the notice of the Overseers, and by them to the Meeting, was a case which seemed to give origin to the afore- said appointment, and which claimed the immediate attention of the Committee. With a view of effecting as speedy a set- tlement of this unhappy affair as might be, they concluded on an early interview of the Committee, Overseers, and individu- als concerned. But in consequence of severe sickness and death in the family of one of the Committee, the Meeting was finally postponed until the 7th day of the 16th of 4th month last ; of which time, the Overseers and parties concerned, had due notice. At this Meeting, the undersigned, and the indi- vidual accused, were all that were present ; the accuser having previously declared to one of us, that he had no case with the accused ; that he saw or knew of no reason why he should be present. "We therefore concluded that he must have given up the case, as far as he was personally concerned ; so that the case remained only between the person accused, and the con- stituted authorities of the Monthly Meeting, and came proper- ly and entii-ely within their province, to investigate, adjust, and settle, if circumstances favored such a disposition of it. Or in case we were mistaken as to the accuser's motives in declining to meet with us ; and that he still intended to prosecute the case in a manner behind the scene, it appeared to the under- signed, that he had lost his case by default. For it is very clear that the intention and design of our discipline in such cases is, that the accuser, before bringing the case to the notice of the Monthly Meeting, and thus impeach the character of a Friend unheard, shall be brought face to face wi±h his brother, 78 EARLB ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. in the presence of a number of witnesses. "We therefore, on behalf of the Society, whose servants we are, made a pretty thorough investigation of the whole matter ; solicited evidence as to the offending declaration, and did then there come to the conclusion, that it was not such as to warrant the Monthly Meeting in withholding from the individual accused, the rights and privileges of a member of society. And after extending to him such advice as the nature of the case and circumstances seemed to require, (and with which he manifested a cordial disposition to comply,) we drew up in writing our tender ad- vice and admonition to the accuser, which was presented to him by one of us in person, in a letter form, he being at the same time informed of the object and nature of the communi- cation ; but which he refused to accept, peruse, or hear read." Signed, Miller Chace, Oliver Chace, William Slade, Thomas Wilbur. The disturbance of our religious Meetings produced by these proceedings, was afterwards much prolonged by Edmund Chace, who several times called up the subject therein ; and Jelhro F. Mitchell, with some others of the Quarterly Meeting's Com- mittee, were prevailed upon to visit Israel on the subject, taking E. Chace in their company, who in this interview ad- mitted the fact of sending the pamphlet to Benjamin Bufhn- ton, but would not admit that it contained unsound doctrine. And Israel being now called upon to make an acknowledg- ment, could not allow that the sentiments in said pamphlet were sound, for upon this point solely, the charge rested. In a subsequent interview with Jethro F. Mitchell, I. BufHnton told him he was willing to leave this point to the Meeting for Sufferings ; but a decision by them has never been obtained. In the 7th month, 1842, the Monthly Meeting appointed Oliver Chace, Oliver Earle, William Wood, Abraham Shove, Theophilus Shove, and Philip Tripp, a Committee to propose to the next Meeting, the names of suitable persons to serve the Meeting as Clerk and Assistant. In the 1st month, 1843, defendants' answer to supplemental bill. 79 Simpson Buffinton was added to the Committee, who were continued from time to time, untU the 7th month, 1844, when, as will hereafter be seen, three only out of the seven, signed a report, and presented it to the Meeting. It seems best in this place to allude to the progress of this Committee, and the untiring efforts of a part of them to ac- complish the object of their appointment. "We say a part, because others many times, failed to meet and cooperate with the rest, on the business committed to them. A report, signed by William Wood, Philip Tripp, and Oliver Chace, was presented to the Meeting, in the 8th month, 1843, proposing Thomas Wilbur for Clerk, and Joseph Estis for Assistant. This was objected to by Edmund Chace and others^ on the ground that it was not signed by the whole Committee. And as the reception of it was not urged on account of the objection by a few Friends, it was not adopted; though a larger portion of the Meeting had united with the nomination. The Committee was continued. In the 12th month, 1842, Robinson Buffinton, Oliver Chace, Abner Slade, Philip Tripp, William Wood, William Slade, and David Shove, were ap- pointed a Committee to propose to the next Meeting the names of suitable persons for Overseers. This Committee were continued from time to time, not being ready to make a united report. The major part, however, labored industriously, appearing anxious to produce a unity of sentiment, and ac- complish the object of their appointment, whUe some of their number appeared more indifferent, and for several months failed to meet with the rest, at the times agreed on. Things being in this state, in the 8th month, 1843, Oliver Chace, Wil- liam Wood, and William Slade, signed and presented a report to the Monthly Meeting, proposing Miller Chace, Oliver Earle, David Shove, Philip Tripp, Palmer Chace, and Joseph Estis, for Overseers. This report was objected to by Edmund Chace, David Shove, and a few others, upon the old ground that it was not signed by all of the Committee ; and it not being ac- cepted, the Committee was continued. In the ninth month following, a report was again offered to the Meeting, signed 80 EARItB BT ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. by "William Slade, William "Wood, and Abner Slade, propos- ing for Overseers, Miller Chace, Oliver Earle, David Shove, Joseph Estis, and Mmk Anthony, and the signers of this report stated, that the other members of the Committee present, had consented to this nomination. But Robinson Buffinton denied having agreed to it ; and Edmund Chace objecting to its being read, it was not done, and the Committee v^rere continued. At a subsequent Meeting, when John Meader was present, the aforesaid Committee having informed the Meeting that they had agreed upon no report, John made some very perti- nent and applicable remarks, saying, in substance, that Friends should be condescending, yielding their own will, preferring one another, &c. "William "Wood said, that as one of the Committee, his object had been to make a suitable selection ; he had endeavored to give up his own will in the matter, and had consented that the three Friends, who could not see their way clear to unite with the others, should propose half the names. In responding to this, John Meader said that he, ("William "Wood,) and those acting in unison with him, ought to give up all; that the others should make no compromise, because they were acting in the Truth — or in other words to same effect. It seems proper, here, to go back a little in our account, and allude briefly, to the action of superior Meeting and their Committees, in relation to Swanzey Monthly Meeting, that the reader may see how little their labors, (i. e. those of the Committees,) were calculated to preserve love and unity, and maintain the discipline and order of our Society, when they insisted on the appointment, as an Overseer, of the individiial who complained of a Friend for his objection to unsound writings, and urged upon the Meeting the reception of minor- ity reports in favor of their views, totally disregarding the con- scientious objections of many Friends. In the 8th month, 1842, the Quarterly Meeting appointed a Committee to visit South Kingstdn and Swanzey Monthly Meetings, on account, as was alleged, of deficiencies in the answers to the queries. Some of this Committee visited Swanzey Monthly Meeting at divers times, without giving defendants' answer to supplemental bill. 81 any very definite advice. And in the 9th month of the next year, Jonathan Dennis, one of the Committee then in attend- ance, said in substance, that our Monthly Meeting was large and respectable, and he believed, as capable of transacting its business as any other within the Quarter; and thought his services in that capacity were pretty much accomplished, and did not know that he should come any more. This same Friend, at the ensuing Quarterly Meeting, in the 11th month, 1843, proposed that the Committee should be dropped ; and added remarks similar to those expressed in the Monthly Meet- ing, that he thought Swanzey Monthly Meeting was capable of transacting their own business. But the Clerk thought they had better be continued, and to have a care over all the Monthly Meetings. This proposition not being objected to, though approbated only by the voice of two or three, was adopted, by the Clerk making a minute to that effect. This Committee, subsequently, attended our Monthly Meet- ing occasionally ; and at one time, one of them informed the Meeting, that the course it had pursued, in declining to accept a complaint from the Overseers, and appointing a Committee to assist them, was not in accordance with discipline, wrong, and unprecedented ; that there was no place of judgment be- tween the Overseers and the Monthly Meeting. [Thus, as it would seem, making it obligatory on a Monthly Meeting always to record and act on a complaint presented to it, under all circumstances, — which position would set the Overseers above the Meeting, instead of their true place, as its servants.] The Clerk informed, that our records show that such a course had been pursued by Swanzey Monthly Meeting several times, long ago ; and that difficulties had been settled by that means without coming again before the Meeting. The Committees of Swanzey Monthly Meeting, which had been some time standing, on the subject of Clerks and Overseers, were verbally informed in the 7th month, 1844, that the Yearly Meeting's Committee wished to meet with them at Somerset, on the 7th day previous to our Monthly Meeting. They accordingly met with them there, together with some of the Quarterly Meet- ing's Committee, although a subsequent time had been agreed upon for the Committee to meet. 82 EARLB ET ALS. V. WOOD BT ALS. The Committees of the Superior Meetings requested those of the Monthly Meeting, after making an effort to come to an agreement, to report progress to them. It appeared that the Committee on the subject of Clerks, did not agree upon any report ; neither was any form of one drawn up at that inter- view. That, on the subject of Overseers, agreed upon a selec- tion of five names, but the sixth name was urged by a portion of the Committee, prevented four from signing the report. On representing their condition to the Committees of the Superior Meetings, the Yearly Meeting's Committee took the responsi- bility of adding the sixth name, which was that of Edmund Chace, and solicited the Committee to sign it; who fully offered their reasons for not doing so. These were again offered in the Monthly Meeting, as will appear. At our Monthly Meeting, the second day following, some of the Yearly Meeting's Committee were in attendance, and handed to the Clerk a minute of their appointment. The Clerk requested that this minute might be retained by him until he should record it, that we might know when any of them were in attendance with us. But Roland Greene, one of the Committee, replied that it was not necessary, adding, " we always carry it with us." And so they withdrew it. The subject of Clerk and Assistant coming before the Meeting, there was laid on the table the following report, namely : — " To Swanzey Monthly Meeting. " "We of the Committee, in the case of Clerk and Assistant Clerk, report, that we have been together since our last con- tinuance, and there did not appear to be any prospect of our agreeing on names to fill those places. Whereupon we propose, with the advice of the Yearly Meeting's Committee, David Shove as Clerk, and Jonathan Freeborn as Assistant Clerk, which we submit to the Meeting. " Swanzey, 27th of 7th month, 1844. " Theophiltjs Shove, " Oliver Earle, "Simpson Buffinton." defendants' answer to supplemental bill. 83 It may be noticed, that this report is signed only by tliree of the Committee of seven.^ Of the time when, and place where, it was prepared and signed, others of the Committee were not notified. A communication was passed to the table from the hand of Roland Greene, about the same time of the above report, which is as follows : — " To Swanzey Monthly Meeting. " Dear Friends, — The Committee appointed by the Yearly Meeting to extend a general care on its behalf for the preser- vation of love and unity among our members, the maintenance of our Christian principles and testimonies, and the support of the discipline of the Church ; and in the ability that may be af- forded them to assist and advise such Meetings and members as circumstances may require, and way open for, under the direc- tion of best wisdom, having from a belief that our duty under our appointment required it, met with the Committees of your Meeting, appointed about two years since to propose the names of Overseers and Clerks, and apprehending that the cause of Truth, and the right exercise of our Christian disci- pline urgently demands that there should be no further delay in the cases, were united in giving the following advice. It ap- pearing, by the voluntary declaration of those members of a Committee who were present, appointed, as we apprehend, without the authority of discipline, and out of the usual order of Society, to assist the Overseers when they presented a com- plaint against an individual, that they believed Edmund Chace to be innocent of the charges preferred against him by said individuals, and that they did not intend, in their report to the Monthly Meeting, to implicate him,^ — we were united in judg- ^ Abraham Shove was one of the Committee, but being in ill health, -we believe he did not act in that capacity after SiMPSOif Buffinton was added* in the first mo. 1843. " The admission here alluded to, made by two of the Committee of the Monthly Meeting, relative to Edmund Chace's innocence, refers only to his motives in circulating unsound Doctrines, (they being charitably disposed towards him,) and not to the chaises subsequently alleged against him. 84 EAKLB ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. ment, that this document ought not to be retained by the Monthly Meeting, nor among its papers, but destroyed. " The Committee on Overseers informed us that they had agreed upon five Friends for this station, and there being but one of them from within the limits of Fall River Preparative Meeting, it being usual to appoint two from that Meeting, in view of the circumstances, we were united in advising the Committee to propose to the Monthly Meeting to appoint Edmund C/iace in addition to those named, there appearing not to be any grounds for the objections originally urged against this appointment. " The Committee in relation to Clerks, informed us that they . could not agree upon names ; and after a full consideration of the case, we thought it right to advise the Committee to pro- pose to the Monthly Meeting to appoint David Shove for Clerk, and Jonathan Freeborn for assistant Clerk. And we are now united in advising the Monthly Meeting to make the appoint- ments, and to carry into effect the recommendations, believing that hereby the best interests of the Monthly Meeting, and its preservation in the unity of the Quarterly and Yearly Meet- ings, will be promoted. " On behalf of the Yearly Meeting's Committee. " R GLAND Greene. " Swanzey, 7th month, 29th, 1844." " A Friend requested the Clerk to read from our Discipline, on page 118, relative to the right of a Monthly Meeting to ap- peal ; which request was complied with. He then inquired of the Yearly Meeting's Committee, whether the written advice now presented by them was intended as the written notice there alluded to, and to be used as the means by which this Monthly Meeting should be dissolved, unless appealed from. The Yearly Meeting's Committee did not condescend to make any reply ; and the same inquiry was afterwards made by sev- eral Friends, when William Jenkins replied, that the Yearly Meeting's Committee knew their own views best ! Considerable discussion took place while the report of a part of our Committee, as above, was pending, and various opin- defendants' answer to supplemental bill. 85 ions were expressed ; and the Clerk endeavored to come to a sense of the Meeting on the subject, and made a minute, re- ferring it to our next Meeting under the care of the same Com- mittee. The Clerk was then inquired of, by an individual, upon what grounds he collected the sense of the Meeting, to author- ize him to make such a minute ? He stated that his judgment was based upon the expression of the most substantial mem- bers of the Monthly Meeting ; those whose lives and deport- ment were most exemplary, and the most in conformity with our discipHne. And that the report being a minority one, it was based in part upon.the judgment of a majority of a very solid and judicious Committee. And furthermore, it has been the usage in this Meeting for a great length of time, and has been handed down to us by many pious and worthy Friends, who have now gone to rest, that when any considerable portion of the Meeting were ad- verse to a measure, that measure should not be carried over their heads ; but quietly wait until the Meeting should become more united. John Header objected to such a rule. The Clerk further said, it is to be observed^ that the minute which has now been made, does not carry foi-ward the measure under consideration, but leaves it where we found it. The Clerk then called on the Committee intrusted with the nomination of Overseers, for their report, and Robinson Bvffinton brought to the table the following communication, viz. : — " To Swanzey Monthly Meeting of Friends. " We, your Committee, appointed to select names of Friends for Overseers, present the following : — Oliver Earle^ Simpson BiiJ/inton, Theophilus Shove, David Shove, Jonathan Freeborn, Edmund Chace, The latter name was added by the advice of the Yearly Meeting's Committee.* Abner Sladb, Robinson Buffinton. " Swanzey, 7th month, 29th, 1844." , in presence of j J. J. Sherburne, Francis Baylies, David Brayton, ) Witnesses to the signatures of Jonathan John Mason, ) Chace, Benjamin Slade, and Reuben Chace." How, then, do we define and limit the trust created by this deed ? Thus. It is a trust for the use of the people called Quakers in New England, beiriff in unity with the Yearly Meet- ing for New England ; which trust is placed under the imme- diate management and direction of the Swanzey Monthly Meeting, being in unity with the Yearly Meeting aforesaid, but subject to the ultimate and general superintendence and con- trol and administration of the. said Yearly Meeting. And by the qualification, " being in unity," we mean standing in that relation, amd that just subordination to and amnection with the Yearly Meeting and its Quarterly Meetings, which the eccle- siastical polity of Friends expects and prescribes. Let me attempt to show, first, by a critical inspection of the terms of the deed, that such is exactly or substantially the trust created by it. 1. In the first -place, then, that I may attend to the several CLOSING ARGUMENT. 141 branches of our description in their order, as they have just been enumerated, " the trust is for the use, in a general and comprehensive sense, of the people called Quakers in New England, being in unity with the Yearly Meeting" The language of the granting part of the deed expresses it even more generally, as, " for the people called Quakers," with- out indicating, in terms, what Quakers, or where they are. " I give, grant, etc., to the said Shove, etc., to, and for the uses, intents, and purposes of the people called Quakers, for- ever," etc., etc. But that the intention of the parties was to limit it to t]iose of New England, is quite plain. The local situ- ation of the estate ; the object for which it was procured ; the whole frame of the polity of Quakers ; the language of the deed, considered as a whole, place this out of all doubt. In spirit, creed, and all which impresses a specific and dis- tinguishing character upon a religious denomination, Friends everywhere are one ; but they exist in certain independent distributions called Yearly Meetings. Of these there are in the world in all nine, — seven of them in the United States. These meetings correspond by epistle, and interchange of courtesies, and counsels ; they accord a measure of recognition and regard to each other's proceedings, and twice on this con- tinent, before the late separation in New England, once in the ninth month, 1828, at Mt. Pleasant, Ohio, six of these Yearly Meetings, and once in the seventh month, 1829, at Philadel- phia, — seven being all the Yearly Meetings in this country, have met by Representatives, in voluntary general convention, asserting, however, no power of government. In truth, they are wholly distinct and independent; each in forming and administering its own discipline, and I suppose that the just construction of a grant of land within the limits of any one of them, to a resident within the same limits, for the use of Quakers, however generally conceived in point of expression, would restrain it to the particular Yearly Meeting where the land lay, and the grantee in trust lived. We shall hereafter see that other clauses in the deed, so completely subject this estate to the control and administra- tion of the Yearly Meeting of New England in so many words, 142 EARLE ET. ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. as to exclude all question of what family of Quakers they were who were intended to be the beneficial owners. 2. But the second qualification of the trust is, that the Qua- kers within the limits of the New England Yearly Meeting, to' whose use it is created, shall be " inuniti/" with that New Eng- land Yearly Meeting. It is true that in the granting part of the deed, this qualifica- tion of unity with the Yearly Meeting is not in terms afforded to the designation of the cestui que use. But the reason of the omission here is obvious. In this part of the deed the language deems all the Quakers within the Yearly Meeting of New England to be as one. It assumes them to be a unit; distinguished from all other people, and united to one another by a community of doctrine, and a com- munity of polity and discipline ; and for this people thus knit to one another, — thus discriminated from the rest of men, — for this people as a unit, it declares the trust. The grand as- certainment and designation of the beneficiary grantee is all that is here immediately aimed at. How he shall enjoy the grant, — by what organic instrumen- talities it shall be administered, — what specific qualifications depending on the structure of the Quakers' ecclesiastical system each individual recipient is to possess, — all this is postponed to the latter clause of the deed. For the present, here it was enough to say, that the use is for " the Quakers of New Eng- land, as a whole." Absolute unity pervading and identifying all the members •of that whole, is assumed of course. But it would have been needless and unsuited to the ofiice of this part of the grant, to say, "for the Quakers of New England" in unity with the Yearly Meeting of New England, because the Yearly Meeting is only the representative organ of that very whole for whom the trust is raised. Unity of the constituency, regarded as one, with the Repre- tative, regarded by one, is implied necessarily. But subsequent clauses, and just as, and where we should expect it, bring this qualification very prominently to view. CLOSING AEGUMENT. 143 After the grant and the habendum, in order to secure the ad- ministration of the grant to its grand purpose, the benefit of the Quakers of New England, specific provisions "for the more effectual government thereof," are introduced in the form 6f covenants of the trustee. That is to say, provision is made for subjecting it to con- trol, management, and disposition, in a certain order, to certain meetings ; and it is observable that the moment the deed ar- rives at this, — the moment it comes to speak of less than the whole people called Quakers as a whole, — the moment it comes to details, and to define with precision and care the conditions of enjoyment, or power in regard to the subject-matter, — then it solicitously introduces this qualification of being in unity, and thenceforward we find it in every paragraph. One passage, for my immediate pvirpose, will be enough. There is found towards the conclusion of the deed, a provis- ion for the substitution of other trustees in the place of those created by the deed, the original grantees therein, upon the event of their death or becoming out of unity with the Yearly, Quarterly, or Monthly Meetings, and here it is declared in so many terms that such substituted trustees shall hold, if not ordered to convey, " in trust for the people called Quakers in unity with the Yearly Meeting for New England." K the substituted trustees are to hold for a people in unity with that Yearly Meeting, surely the original trustees were to hold for a people also in unity with the same meeting. 3. The third feature of the trust in the deed is, that it is placed under the immediate management and direction, and to be administered for the primary benefit of the Swanzey Month- ly Meeting in unity with the Yearly Meeting of New England. I. It is under the immediate management and for the benefit primarily of the Swanzey Monthly Meeting. The grant does not declare this in terms, but the circum- stances make it certain. The land lies within the territorial limits of that Monthly Meeting. The consideration is paid "for and in behalf of" 144 EARLB BT ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. - that meeting. Further acts of assurance are to be executed "at the cost and charge" of that meeting, "or of such other Monthly or Quarterly Meeting as the meeting of the said peo- ple at Swanzey, for the time being shall or may belong to," indicating a particular interest and power in the people of that particular locality. The Discipline, page 69, devolves on Monthly and Quarterly Meetings the care of " meeting-houses, burial-grounds, and char- itable bequests," and enjoins that they look into and secure titles, supply and substitute trustees in the event of death, or for other causes, " or rhake any alterations," and " timely and careful inspection," so that the benefit of the property may be secured to Friends. Within the spirit of this ordinance, the primary management and control of such an estate as this would fall to the Monthly Meeting within which it lay. The allegations and concessions of the parties touching the relations of the Monthly Meeting to this property, as we find them in the pleadings, come in aid of my position. It seems agreed on both sides, that after the execution of the Danforth deed, the meeting-houses successively were built on the land conveyed by contributions of members of the Swan- zey Monthly Meeting, and the Quarterly Meeting to which it belongs, "for the use of the said Monthly Meeting;" and that these houses were occupied and enjoyed by the said Monthly Meeting, thence until the origin of the difficulties resulting in this litigation. Both sides agree, too, by their pleadings, that such an interest was created by the deed, that the Overseers of the Swanzey Monthly Meeting took it under the statute in their capacity of overseerSj which assumes and requires that it should have been a grant, in some sense, to the use of that particular meeting. 11. But this Swanzey Monthly Meeting, for whose benefit it is primarily granted, and to whose management ii is in the first instance subjected, is to be a Monthly Meeting " in unity with the Yearly 31eetingfor New England." I have adverted to those provisions in the deed, and those considerations which show that wheresoever the "people called CLOSING ARSUMENT. 145 Quakers,'-' are in a general way indicated as the cestui que use, the qualification of unity with the Yearly Meeting is always contemplated. But see how much more pains are taken to make it clear that such unity is the indispensable- condition on which this Monthly Meeting is to take, hold, do, or be any thing in relation to this subject-matter. 1. In the first place, such are the express terms of the instru- ment. The very first covenant of the trustees undertakes that, " for the more effectual executing and full performance of said trust, they will, upon the request and at the cost of the said Monthly Mfeeting, or such other Monthly or Quarterly Meeting as the meeting of said people at Swanzey, for the time being shall belong to — being in unity with the Yearly Meeting for New England — execute for the conveyance, etc., etc." In this passage, the words " being in unity, etc.," qualify " the said meeting," as well as " such other Monthly Meeting." Grammatically they do so ; and there is besides, manifestly no reason why any subsequent Monthly Meeting should be re- quired to be in unity, which does not require the then Monthly Meeting to be so. The truth is, the meeting then existing was in unity ; and the language is designed to secure the continued existence of that qualification, in that, and all its successors. Unity, then, in terms, is made a condition of one act and one power of the Monthly Meetings, to wit, the directing of further assurances or conveyances by the trustee, for the more effectual performance of the trust. But if necessary for this, is it not for a,U acts, all powers, and all enjoyment in relation to the subject? 2. In the next place it is carefully provided that the estate, interest, and powers of the grantees in trust in the deed, shall cease whenever they shall be declared to be out of unity either with the Monthly, Quarterly, or Yearly Meeting. " We, the said J. Chace, Slade, and R. Chace, do covenant, etc., etc., that it is the intent of this conveyance, etc., etc., that neither of us, etc., shall be capable of executing this trust, or shall 13 146 EAKLB ET ALS. V. TVOOD ET ALS. stand seized thereof, or hold any right or interest whatever, in the granted premises, whilst he or they shall so remain out of unity ; " and in such case provision is made for other trustees to fake their place. Thus, then, no one can be a trustee who is not in unity with the Yearly Meeting. We have seen already that when the deed speaks of the " people called Quakers " as the cestui que trust, it means, because it expressly requires, that they shall be in unity with the Yearly Meeting. How, then, can it, by possibility, have been the intention of the parties that the Monthly Meeting, which is at once, in a certain and just sense, both trustee and cestui que trust, — partaking of the nature, powers, and right of both, — should not' be in unity with the Yearly Meeting ? We see that the trustees first named in the deed must be in unity. We see that the people called Quakers, — when spoken of as the general cestui que trust, — must be in unity. Must not the Monthly Meeting, which is both trustee and cestui que trust, also be in unity ? That meeting is in one sense a cestui que trust, in so far as it is that portion of the people called Quakers, the larger cestui que trust, which primarily and chiefly is to enjoy ; and it is in one sense trustee, inasmuch as it has some peculiar powers of immediate management and control. In both sides of its character, then, — so to speak, — it is bound to be in unity with the Yearly Meeting. 3. Another aspect of the deed conducts necessarily to the same conclusion. It is an instrument scarcely intelligible on any other supposi- tion than that all the parties to it, and all parties in interest, assume and mean that the Monthly Meeting, Quarterly Meet- ing, and Yearly Meeting shall all, at all times, utter one will and be of one mind. Look at its provisions. The grantees agree to make further conveyance of the premises, "a< the request of the Monthly Meeting, for the use of the people called Quakers, as by the said Yearly, Quarterly, or Monthly Meeting, or their or either of their Committees may be devised, CLOSIN& AEQUMBNT. 147 advised, and required." Of course, this language expects and intends that all these Meetings shall " devise, advise, require, and request," to use all its terms, exactly the same thing, at the same time, or that just what any one requires shall be as matter of course what the others require. The imagination of a conflict of views never enters the mind of the deed. If it had, it surely would have been provided for. Take another provision. If the grantees, named in the deed, become out of unity with the Monthly, Quarterly, or Yearly Meeting, or die, " it shall and may be the right of the Clerks of said Monthly, Quarterly, or Yearly Meeting, for the time being, or either of them, to enter into the said trusts in behalf and for the use of said people and hold the same," etc., etc., etc. But how if these three Clerks and their respective constitu-. ent meetings, are not like-minded ? Who, then, is to enter and hold? Like-minded, therefore, certainly it is supposed and intended they shall be. Again. If the grantees axe declared by the Yearly, Quar- terly, or Monthly Meeting, to be out of unity with them, we see that their trust expires. Does not the wording of that contingency demonstrate that all proceeds on the assumption that he who is out of unity with one, is necessarily out of unity with all ; that either may declare for all ; and that each is one with all ? Once more. The Clerks of the Monthly, Quarterly, or Yearly Meeting, " or of either of them," having entered upon the vacated trust, may " convey the same to such others as the Meeting may appoint, or to hold the same as feoffees in trust for the people called Quakers, in unity with the Yearly Meet- ing for New England, as the said Monthly, Quarterly, or Yearly Meeting may at any time hereafter direct and require." But suppose these meetings differ on the point of direction and appointment. It is submitted that such a deed as this could never have been framed by persons of the least degree of intelligence, if it had not been perfectly understood that all these meetings are buF members of a common body in a due subordination to one another ; if the possibility of dissenting policy ; of an- 148 EARLE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. tagonism ; of want of unity inter sese had been dreamed of ; if it had not been supposed that all " directions, requests, devisings, or advisings," of any or all, would be the consistent expression of a single will speaking with equal certainty and effect through every one of these, its organs. If, at every place where the words Monthly Meeting, or Quarterly Meet- ing occur, you supply the words, " being in unity with the Yearly Meeting," the deed is intelligible, and provides effectu- ally enough for its own execution. This is to read it with the eye of Friends. It is to interpret it by the conventional rea- son of Friends, which understands when a meeting is spoken of without more, that a meeting in its normal and healthy state, and relations, and action, is meant of course. Inspected .by any other eye, and subjected to any other interpretation, the deed is a riddle and an absurdity. But a somewhat broader view conducts us to the same con- clusion. I take it, that independently of its particular expres- sions, certainly without the aid of any language so unequivo- cal and m-esistible in its meaning and implications as that which I have been examining, I take it to be generally true, that where a grant is made as here, primarily for the benefit, and subjected to the immediate administration of a local religious Society, — which is itself part of an entire and large ecclesiastical polity or system, — a Society holding for example the place which a Monthly Meeting holds in the Quaker Dis- cipline, or a local Conference in the Methodist Episcopal Order, — one component in a vast aggregate and series, bound together by a fundamental law of union and interdependence and subordination, — in such case, unless the terms of the grant are express to the contrary, it is ever to be construed as made on the condition and under the qualification that the local Society continues to remain subject to the fundamental law of the Chm-ch, . a part of the original whole ; and if it becomes dislocated, independent, and antagonistical, it can hold no longer. Such, on such a grant, is ever primd facie, the reasonable intendment. The grantor, or whoever originates and*shapes the grant in such a case, understands the ecclesiastical system CLOSING ARGUMENT. 149 itself, of which the local Society is parcel. He is a Friend. He is a Methodist. He seeks the preservation and advance- ment of his Church as an entirety. He grants to the one that he may build it up ; not to give a premium and supply wea- pons for revolt to overthrow it. And, therefore, it is a just conclusion that he grants to the local Society, as being, and whilst, in unity with the general Society. He grants " to A. and his heirs, tenants of the Manor of Dale," and whenever the heirs of A. cease to be tenants of that Manor, their estate determinates. And so is the point upon authority. The case of Gibson et al. V. Arr^strong et al., 7 Ben Munro, 481, decided in the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, gives evidence of great famil- iarity with the principles applicable to this species of contro- versy, and is very instructive. By a deed, pursuing the form prescribed or recommended in the Book of Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, a parcel of land in Mays- ville was granted to trustees, upon trust, to build thereon a house of worship " for the use of the members of the Metho- dist Episcopal Church in the United States of America." Upon this deed it was holden, — 1st. That "notwithstanding the apparent comprehensive- ness of the terms in which the use is declared in favor of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, the actual use, that is, the use of the preniises by occupancy and for ac- commodation and immediate control of them as a place of worship, was intended to be secured to the local congregation or Society, subject to the rules and regulations prescribed by the higher authorities of the Church." pp. 490, 491. So here the primary beneficiary, and immediate manager, is the Monthly Meeting at Swanzey. 2d. But in that case, as in this, two organized societies were before the Court, each claiming to be the local congrega- tion of MaysvUle, for whom primarily the trust was created. The ancient Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States had been divided, de facto, in twain, and had become two 13* 150 EAELE BT ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. Churches, a Northern and Southern. One of the organiza- tions, claiming to be the Maysville Local Society, adhered to the newly created Methodist Episcopal Church South, and recognized its General Conference as the supreme ecclesiasti- cal power to which alone it owed subjection, and to which alone it stood related. The other disregardcid the alleged divis- ion of the Church ; adhered to the old one ; acknowledged the jurisdiction of its General Conference ; and disclaimed all subordination and relation to, and aU knowledge of, the new Church of the South. It became necessary, then, for the Court to determine which was the true local society of the deed of trust. To do this, it became necessary to inquire whether the local society took and held under any, and what condition or quali- fication. And, therefore, this important principle was estab- lished, — that the grant supposed and required that the cestui que trust should " occupy and maintain that true position of subordination and connection, which, according to the rules and discipline and authoritative action of the Church, properly be- longs to the entire society." It followed, that, as between the jarganizations claiming to be the local Church, that which pos- sessed the qualification of unity was the true one ; and that which was out of unity had forfeited its participation in the grant. Whether the principle thus established, was, in the opinion of that learned Bench, a mere interpretation of the particular terms of that deed, or the enunciation of a doctrine applicable generally, and primd facie, to all grants for the benefit of socie- ties standing in the relation of mefmbers of a larger ecclesiastical body, may not be quite so clear. I submit, that, in any view, the deed in the case at bar, should, under the circumstances, receive the same construction. It would be a grant, then, for the Swanzey Monthly Meeting, so long as it- shall be in just and due subordination and relation to, and connection with, the Church or Society of Quakers in New England. Of that Church and Society, the Yearly Meeting is the supreme pow- er ; and unity with the Yearly Meeting, therefore, is the appro- priate expression of the healthy, normal, and legal state of the subordinate body. CLOSING AUGUMENT. 151 Not only must the Monthly Meeting, which is primarily benefited, having the immediate management, be in unity with the Yearly Meeting, but the ultimate superintendence, control, and disposition of the trust rest.with the Yearly Meet- ing ; and in any case, if that sovereign body, I mean of course the true one, directs a disposition of the estate, — a conveyance, for example, — the trustee is bound to make it. Such a dire(>- tion, I shall soon remind the Court, has been given in this case. I find this ultimate power of the Yearly Meeting in the terms of the deed, interpreted by resort to the ecclesiastical polity of Quakers, as both parties to this controversy under- stand that polity. I do not mean to assert, or discuss a power in that meeting, to divert the trust from, " the people called Quakers," or even from those whd belong, or come nearest to the locality of the Swanzey Meeting. I guard my proposition thus. The Year- ly Meeting may compel any disposition of the estate it pleases, provided it be still administered for the benefit of the people at Swanzey, called Quakers, being in unity. Advert thus to the terms of the deed. It has been shown to the Court, by the citation of numerous provisions therein, that various dispositions are to be made of the estate, accordingly as the Monthly, or Quarterly, or Yearly Meeting shall direct. Thus. The gi-antees named in the deed agree expressly to make conveyances, as those meetings, or either of them, or the Committees of either of them, shall devise, advise, or require. If the grantees die, or go out. of unity, " it shall and may be the right of the Clerks of said Monthly, Quarterly, or Yearly Meeting for the time being or either of them to enter," and take in trust. And having so entered, the Clerk shall hold or convey, " as the said Monthly, Quarterly, or Yearly Meeting may at any time hereafter direct and require." That the fram- ers of this deed assumed that actual and ecclesiastical unity would forever subsist between all these meetings, I have al- ready argued, and it is certain. But suppose an interruption of that unity. Suppose three 152 EARLE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. irreconcilable wills. Suppose two organizations claiming each to be the Monthly Meeting ; one obeying and agreeing with the Yearly Meeting ; the other in revolt against it. Who then may direct and require the conveyance ? Whose Clerk then is to enter on the vacant trust ? Whose will then provides for the c6ntingency ? I answer, that in such a conflict the supreme legislative and executive body, the Yearly Meeting, takes, as a thing of course, the power given, in contingency, by the deed. This results, as matter of construction, from the mere fact that it is higher than the others. In a conflict of inferior and superior, in a system of subordination like this, the" deed must be held to intend that the superior decides authoritatively. But when it is recollected that the Yearly Meeting is not merely technically higher, on a scale of rahk, than the other, but is the supreme legislative and executive body of the Church ; that it has the power, conclusively, to determine between any two competing Monthly or Quarterly Meetings, which is in, and which is out of unity ; that it may establish and may dissolve even Quarterly Meetings, and thus indirectly dissolve Monthly Meetings also ; may change the whole discipline of the Church ; may, by Committee, visit the subordinate meetings, and give advice in regard to their action, it becomes too clear for argu- ment, independently of any mere interpretation of the mere terms of the deed, that, in the last resort, the power of control- ling the administration of this trust, is absolutely its own. Such, then,- is the trust with which, as the general object of of the Bill, we seek to have this estate declared to be charged, and upon which we seek to have a conveyance of it decreed or sanctioned ; that is to say, a trust for the use of the people called Quakers in New England, being in unity with the Year- ly Meeting for New England, placed under the immediate management and direction of the Swanzey Monthly Meeting, being in unity with the Yearly Meeting aforesaid, but subject to the ultimate and general superintendence and control and administration of the said Yearly Meeting. Assuming this to be an accurate designation of the trust, I proceed to the more particular ground on which we contro- CLOSING ARGUMENT. 153 vert the case made by the answers, and sustain that made by the Bill. The Complainants are overseers, duly chosen, of one of the two organizations claiming to be the Swanzey Monthly Meet- ing of the Danforth deed. The original grantees in the deed are dead, and their heirs at law are one class of the Respondents to the Bill. And the first ground on which we place our title to the relief sought, is this narrow one, — that by the express terms of the deed, the grantees covenant that they and their heirs shall make such further conveyance of this estate, as by the Yearly, Quarterly, or Monthly Meeting, or their, or either of their Committees shall be advised and required, and that the Yearly Meeting has, in terms, directed a conveyance to be made to these Complainants. Let me first establish the facts. 1. It is certain then that a body authorized to act for the Yearly Meeting, did, before the filing of the Bill, direct the heirs at law of the original grantees to convey this estate to these Complainants in trust, and that this act was subsequent- ly ratified and confirmed by the Yearly Meeting. The original and supplemental Bill both aver this fact, and neither answer denies it. The witnesses, Stephen A. Chase, Jervis Shove, Thomas S. GifFord, Samuel Boyd Tobey, prove it. It is established by their evidence that on the 8th of April, 1845, before the filing of the Bill, the Meeting of Sufferings, at a special meeting thereof, held on that day at Providence, made a minute in the following terms : — " By information now presented to us, it appears that suits at law have been commenced by those who have separated from our religious society in Swanzey Monthly Meeting, in order to gain possession of property within the limits of that meeting belonging to the society, and it appearing that the meeting-house lot at Fall River was granted originally to Jonathan Chace, Benjamin Slade, and Reuben Chace, (all de- ceased,) to hold in trust for the Monthly Meeting, and that they or their heirs were by said deed directed to convey the 154 BARLB ET ALS. V. WOOD BT ALS. same as they shall be required by the Yearly, Quarterly, or said Monthly Meeting, or either of their Committees, so that the same may be enjoyed by the inembers of the said Monthly Meeting in unity with the Yearly Meeting for New England. We do, therefore, on behalf of the Yearly Meeting, request and direct the heirs aforesaid to convey the said land to Oliver Earle, Simpson Buffington, Theophilus Shove, David Shove, Jonathan Freeborn, and Edmund Chace, the present Overseers of Swanzey Monthly Meeting, to be by them held, or their suc- cessors in office, for the use and benefit of said meeting in unity with New England Yearly Meeting, agreeably to the tenor of the deed." (See pp. 136 and 138, Complainants' Evidence.) That the Meeting for Sufferings had authority, in behalf of the Yearly Meeting, to give this direction, is clear from the evidence of Chase, p. 96, and Boyce, pp. 74, 75, of Complain- ant's Proofs, and from the Discipline, p. 70. It is in evidence also, p. 136 of Complainant's Proofs, that the record of this result or order was laid before the Yearly Meeting then next holden in 1845, conformably to ancient usage in that behalf, and that the Yearly Meeting " did approve of and confirm " the doings of the Meeting for Sufferings in the premises. In pursuance of this direction, a demand was made on the heirs at law, of a conveyance to the overseers named therein, who are the Complainants in this Bill. This is proved by Chase, p. 105 ; Thomas S. Gifford, p. 33 ; Jervis Shove, p. 42. The heirs refused ; alleging, as appears, p. 20, that they recog- nized and were willing to execute the trust, but could not ven- ture to assume to decide which of the two Societies, claiming to be the Swanzey Monthly Meeting, was the true one. And, now, on these facts, are we not entitled to a convey- ance by the express terms of the deed 1 Have not the ances- tors of these heirs, in whom the legal title is vested, in so many words covenanted for a conveyance to such persons as the Yearly Meeting shall direct, and has not that Meeting directed a conveyance to us ? Certainly the heirs at law are bound by the language of the deed to convey to us. And what objection can the other CLOSING AKGTJMENT. 155 Respondents, claiming to be overseers of thS competing Monthly Meeting, interpose ? Do not their rights also depend on the deed ? And if we have rightly interpreted it, as repos- ing in the Yearly Meeting the power to appoint new trustees, has not the appointment of these plaintiffs put the matter at rest? It has seemed to me that this very narrow view of the cause is so decisive, if well pondered, that I am induced to pause for a moment to reconsider its foundation. It may be said, that it cannot have been the intention of the deed to authorize the Yearly Meeting, ex mero motu, and expleni tudink potestatis, to take this estate from the Swanzey Monthly Meeting, being in unity, and give it in trust to other persons, for other beneficiaries arbitrarily designated, and, there- fore, it may be said that something more than mere appoint- ment of trustees and declaration of cestui que trust by the Yearly Meeting is needful to be shown. We must go, it may be said, somewhat deeper into the merits of this business, and determine, by other aid, which is the true Monthly Meeting, before we can allow the claim of either. That broader view I mean hereafter to attempt. But, in the mean time, I main- tain that this deed does give to the Yearly Meeting the power to direct the conveyance to us which here we seek. It need not be inquired whether the Yearly Meeting can divert the' estate from the " use of the people called Q,uakers in New England." Let it be conceded that it cannot. I think it cannot, It is in the last resort to administer the trust forever for the benefit of that people. The granting clause of the deed, the habendum, all the covenants of the grantees, every thing, puts forward that large and general trust as the .sole end of the conveyance. But nobody will pretend that the minute I have above recited, directing a conveyance to these pldntiffs, " to be by them held, or their successors in office, for the use and benefit of said meeting in unity with New England Yearly Meeting," is a diversion of the fand from the " people called Quakers in New England." That object of the trust surely it respects and executes. Nor need it be inquired whether the deed intends to author- 156 EARLB ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. ize the Yeai^ Meeting to take the estate from the true Swan- zey Monthly Meeting, being in unity, and give it, suppose, to another Monthly Meeting, also in uni^y, but in a remote part of New England. I have argued that a benefit to a particular vicinage, or local- ity, of Quakers in unity, seems to be primarily of the purposes of the conveyance, and I need not now contend that this may be arbitrarily and capricious]y disappointed by the ultimate superintendent of the trust. But this is the question. Subject to the general use of all Quakers in New England, and subject to the special use of the Swanzey Monthly Meeting, being in unity ; does not this deed clothe the Yearly Meeting with authority, in ihe event of two Societies presenting, themselves, each claiming to be the Swanzey Monthly Meeting, each composed of persons living in Swanzey, or the immediate vicinity of Swanzey, one of which only can be in unity, while the other must be in a con- dition of disobedience and insubordination ; does not the deed, on that state of facts, authorize the true Yearly Meeting to direct a conveyance to the overseers of one of the claimants, in trust for the Society which elects them, and does it not make that direction conclusive ? I submit that it does, and that no other construction will satisfy all the language. Certainly the letter of the deed is express Jo give this authority. It is perfectly consistent with those clauses which secure a benefit to the Quakers of New England in general, and those of Swanzey and its vicinage in particular. It devolves no more absolute power on the Yearly Meeting than other provisions suppose and intend it to possess. Everywhere it is provided in the deed, that persons and Societies out of unity shall be neither trustees nor cestui que trust ; but more than this, it supposes and intends that the Yearly Meeting may declare loho is out of unity, and that who- soever is so declared, shall neither be trustee, nor hold any right or interest whatever in the estate granted. Is not that as large a power as this of directing a conveyance of the estate gi'anted? Practically would it not come to just the same CLOSING ARGUMENT. 157 thing ? If the Yearly Meeting, by the deed, may thus, by a simple declaration of out of unity, determine who shall not have the estate, is it strange that they should also be author- ized by the deed to determine wlio shall have it ? Is there any improbability, a priori, that all the parties, being Quakers, taught by the Discipline to recognize the Yearly Meeting as the Supreme 'Head of the Church, and inclined, by custom and sentiment, to repose in it an absolute trust ; averse beyond all other men to litigation, and appreciating the necessity to provide a final arbiter within the bosom of their own order, that they should do, just what their language aptly expresses, intentionally make that tribunal such an arbiter ? 2. But on a broader ground the complainants are entitled to the relief they seek. Irrespective of the direction given by the Yearly Meeting, and even if that Meeting is not author- ized by the terms of the deed to durect a conveyance to the use of any but the true Swanzey Monthly Meeting, these complainants are still entitled to their relief, because they are the overseers of the true Monthly Meeting. The parties before the Court are two Boards of Overseers, each asserting that the body which elected it, was, and is, the true Swanzey Monthly Meeting, and each claiming the estate given by the Danforth deed, upon the allegation that it repre- sents the true Meeting. The real parties are the two organiza- tions, if such they may be called, thus represented by their respective Boards of Overseers. At the date of the deed there was one Swanzey Monthly Meeting, united within itself, in unity with its Quarterly Meet- ing, in unity with the Yearly Meeting for New England ; in regard to whose legal ecclesiastical character and identity, there was no question. This meeting continued to exist exactly as then it did, until August, 1844, at which time there occurred a de facto separa- tion of its members into two bodies. Each of these claims to be the original and true Monthly Meeting, and declares the other to be Separatists by schism. Each has elected its Clerk and its Board of Overseers. One, composed of by far the 14 158 BARLE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. larger number, is the real Complainant ; the other is the real Re- spondent. One only is the Swanzey Monthly Meeting, entitled by the deed. "Which of the two is it ? |i. I submit, then, that the association represented by its over- seers, the Respondents to the Bill, are not entitled to the estate, because they are not a Swanzey Monthly Meeting' " in unity " with the Yearly Meeting of New England, and do not, therefore, possess the qualification made indispensable by the deed, as we have construed it. In the discussion of this proposition, I assume that the whole case, including so much of it as is presented by the Supplemental Bill, and answer and proof taken thereunder, is all properly before the Court, and that all of it may be resorted to for the grounds of decision and relief. I shall examine it as if every fact on which I rely were proved to have existed before the filing of the original Bill. Within the settled course of Chancery, I am quite sure we have the right so to present the cause. The authorities on the printed brief put that matter at rest. The proposition is, then, 1st, That the so called meeting, rep- resented by the Respondents, is nofy whatever else it is or lacks, a Monthly Meeting " in unity with the Yearly Meeting for New England." J£ that is not, the meeting represented by the Complainants, is ; the proof of one proposition involves that of the other. To determine, then, whether the Respondents' meeting, — so, for an abbreviated expression I may call it, — is or is not in unity with the Yearly Meeting, consider fii'st the facts compos- ing and evidencing its actual relations to the Yearly Meeting, and then their legal or ecclesiastical quality. Begin with the facts. The evidence then places it out of all dombt that from the 7th month, 1844, to the time of the closing of the proofs, there has been between the Respondents and the Yearly Meeting, in point of fact, a want of unity in a certain sense, and to a cer- tain extent ; that it had its origin in a disagreement of opinion in regard to the subjecting John Wilbur to discipline; has been aggravated and embittered by a distrust, groundless, but CLOSING ARGUMENT. 159 perhaps sincere, of one party concerning the orthodoxy of the other ; that it has existed from its origin to this hour ; that it has manifested itself by a series of the most unequivocal acts of collision and disagreement, terminating at length in this consummation, to wit, that on the one hand the Respondents formally severed their relations to the Yearly Meeting, denied its existence, set up a competing body in its place, to which they have given the same name, and on which they have sought to bestow the same incommunicable powers, and that on the other hand, the Yearly Meeting formally declared the Respondents out of unity, and disowned them as members of the Society of Friends. To this extent, there is on the evidence no room for dispute at all. I have not yet arrived at the inquiry who is right or who is wrong ; who observes or who violates technicalities of proceedings ; I speak for the present to the actual state of the case, the want of unity in fact. And upon this I have said, — first, that it had its origin in a disagreement of opinion as to certain disciplinary proceedings, in the case of John Wilbur ; which disagreement was embit- tered by a distrust, or the expression of distrust, by the party of these Respondents, in regard to the orthodoxy of those who conducted, or advised those disciplinary proceedings ; to wit, the Yearly Meeting and all who adhered to it. Is there a doubt that such was its origin ? The universal evidence in the cause establishes it. The Respondents thought and professed that Joseph John Gurney, a minister of the so- ciety travelling in this country, and bringing with him certifi- cates of approval from the London Yearly Meeting of Friends, was unsound in the faith. How erroneous was this opinion of him I shall hereafter have occasion to consider. But the Respondents, and those with them, entertained and manifested it in many modes. One of their number who discharged the most vehement part in these manifestations of distrnst of Gur- - ney was John Wilbur. That far greater number, whom these Complainants represent, thought that these manifestations, and the proceedings to which they led, so unusual and so exti-eme, were violative of the discipline of Friends ; and they labored 160 EARLB BT ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. to dissuade him from persisting in them. These labors proved unavailing ; and for these alleged violations of discipline, and not to punish his faith, or vindicate our own ; not on, or for, matter of religious opinion in any sense, but for breach of dis- cipline he was prosecuted pursuant to discipline ; and finally, and regularly disowned. Those who sympathized with Wil- bur regarded all this as unwarranted ; and they professed that they also believed that the prosecutors of Wilbur, held the same alleged heresies with Gurney, and that under pretext of enforc- ing discipline, they masked and enforced opinions which they were ashamed to own. And thus grew up a disagreement in fact about disciplinary proceedings, but aggravated and inten- sified by the odium theologicum, — w^ithout which, indeed, the whole course of the Respondents would be totally inexpli- cable. Hereafter I shall submit, that all that time we held the same faith which we and which Friends, have always held ; that we assumed the vindication of no unsound book, sentiment, or man ; and that if we do not hold the true faith of our denomi- nation, no man on earth holds that faith to-day. What we said and all that we said was, that the course pursued by John Wilbur and his helpers in relation to Gurney, was a palpable violation of discipline ; and what we did, and all we did, was to try, and condemn it as such by the discipline. So much for the undisputed origin of the want of unity which exists in fact. It is equally out of dispute that from this embittered dis- agreement, — itself a want of unity in one sense, there broke out in the 7th or 8th month of 1844, a series of manifested want of unity, — a series of overt acts and conduct, beginning with less, and ascending to the greater, — till it has terminated in a schism, secession, and rending in twain, — sQwide, so perma- nent, and so formally evidenced, that it is perfectly absurd to speak of the parties being in unity in the sense of the deed, or in any other sense known to the theology of Friends, or to the general language of men. Pursuing my plan of avoiding all discussion, at this moment, of the right or wrong of parties or acts, I narrate the successive stages of the actual disruption. CLOSING ARGUMENT. 161 The first step taken that way, was taken by the Respondents. Theirs was the first open act or menace of the visible separa- tion, whose history I am to trace. What was that act ? It was to disregard and hold for nought the authoritative counsels of the Quarterly and Yearly Meetings ; conveyed to them in due form ; and in a crisis and under circumstances in which compliance with them was duty ; and non-compliance was ac- tual insubordination. That insubordination was the first act which evidenced, increased, and made permanent the existing want of unity. Is this open to controversy ? What are the facts ? The Court will have seen in the proofs that in consequence of the disagreement concerning the disciplining of John Wilbur for the cause just stated, there had been for more than two years pre- vious to 7th month, 1844, in this Swanzey Monthly Meeting, a manifested and open want of love and of concord, showing itself by a failure, for nearly or quite two years, to elect Over- seers and Clerk, WeU, this failure of election for so long a period, created an urgent and clear case for the interposition of the Yearly and Quarterly Meetings, by their accustomed organs of advice, their committees. It had become, in its at- tendant circumstances, a scandal to the society. It involved a breach of discipline, and a departure from usage. The Disci- pline requires an annual election of Overseers. Usage requires an annual election of Clerk. No such election had been ef- fected. The old Clerk continued to hold his seat upon his theory that as long as tone Friend can be found to lift his finger in opposition to change, the incumbent keeps his place, and the existing status is unalterable. For nearly or quite two years, then, there existed a case of want of what the Book of Discipline, page 42, calls " love, unity, and concord," — a pro- tracted and open disagreement tending to scandal ; tending to danger, and marked by peculiar sharpness and intensity be- cause it did not spring from personal preferences of one can- didate to another ; but fi:om settled convictions in regard to disciplining John Wilbur. According to their convictions on that subject exactly, the meeting finally disagreed. Those who thought those proceedings unwarrantable resisted the election 14* 162 EA^LE BT ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. of Shove for Clerk; those who approved those proceedings declared for him. On this case of actual want of unity, manifested by a de- parture from the accustomed, ancient, and proper course of a Monthly Meeting, was it not fit that the superintendent body of the society should interpose ? What are the objects, and what the powers of the Yearly Meeting ? Does not the Discipline — I read from the 42d page — inform us that it exists — among other ends — " for a great* and weighty oversight and Christian care of the affairs of the churches pertaining to our holy profession and Christian communion; that good order, true love, unity, and concord may be faithfully followed and maintained among all of us as a peculiar people ? " Observe, also, the series of subordination of meetings ; and the powers and duties which flow from that subordination. " These meet- ings (Discipline, page 43) are to continue subordinate and ac- countable, thus : The Preparative to the Monthly, the Monthly to the Quarterly, and the Quarterly to the Yearly, Meeting ; so that if at any time the Yearly Meeting be dissatisfied with the proceedings of any of the said Meetings, or the Quarterly Meeting with the proceedings of any of the Monthly Meetings, or the Monthly Meeting with the proceedings of any of the Preparative Meetings within its limits, such meetings ought with readiness and meekness to render a satisfactory account accordingly." On that case — under this authority, so clear and useful ; in the exercise of that " great and weighty oversight and Christian care of the affairs of the Churches," to the end that " good order, true love, unity, and concord," might be revived and then faithfully followed ; and because' that they were so justly dissatisfied with the proceedings of this Monthly Meeting, and to cause this disagreement to cease by applying solid sense to appease or regulate it ; — on such a case, and with such powers, and for such ends, the Yearly Meeting sent a Com- mittee who attended this Monthly Meeting in the 7th month, and again in the 8th month, 1844. The Quarterly Meeting also appointed a Committee who attended in the same 8th month. They sent them to advise and assist in carrying CLOSING AEGUMENT. 163 through its business against the dissension, and in reintroduc- ing and establishing there, the order, discipline, and unity of the Church. And now I hold it up as the first act of the Respondents in this series of manifested " want of unity with the Yearly Meeting," that they refused to follow the advice of these Committees. They rejected their assistance ; as far as they could they nullified it ; and formally and unequivocally, by act and speech, they pronounced the conduct of those who fol- lowed that advice, and accepted that assistance, and proceeded according to it, — they pronounced such conduct schismatic and without effect. Is this to be in unity with the bodies which sent these Committees ? I do not just yet move the question of the power of the Yearly and Quarterly Meetings to send such Committees as these, to give such advice and render such assistance as these gave and rendered. I am still merely displaying the existence and progress of the want of unity in fact. And in that view it is enough that those Meetings — on that occasion — asserted the power to send such Committees to do what they did ; that they formally acted on the assertion; that the Committees were there under that assertion of power, and for the declared purpose of doing those acts; and that they gave the most express and formal notice to the Monthly Meeting, that whoso complied with their advice would remain in unity ; and whoso refused to comply, would thereby be deemed to be out of unity. This is enough if it is proved. It is proved. Begin with the powers which were assumed to be given to these Commit- tees. What powers did the Yearly Meeting assume to give its Committee ? What powers, for the last hundred years, has that Meeting uniformly assumed to give its Committees ? Why, power and duty " to extend a general care, on our behalf, for the pres- ervation of love and unity among our members ; the main- tenance of our Christian principles and testimonies; and the support of the discipline of the Church ; and in the ability that may be afforded them, to assist and advise such Meetings 164 BARLE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. and members as circumstances may require, and way open for, under- the direction of best wisdom." See the record evidence of the creation and powers of this very Committee which advised and assisted the Swanzey Monthly Meeting in the 7th and 8th months, 1844. It is on page 149 of Complainant's proofs, (run over the evidence from pages 139 to 160 of those proofs,) and find spread out, at length, the records of the ac- tion of similar Committees of the Yearly Meeting, for a cen- tury — placing it out of aU question that just such powers have been uniformly devolved upon th6 Committee of that great superintending body of the Friends ; and have been unin- terruptedly exerted. And now note how large and how specific are those powers. They are " to extend a general care on our behalf for the pres- ervation of love and unity among our members, the mainte- nance of our Christian principles and testimonies, and the sup- port of the discipline of the Church, and in the ability that may be afforded them to assist and advise such Meetings and members as circumstances may require, and way open for, under direction of best wisdom." Appreciate how pregnant is this brevity of expression. They are not to " advise," and leave it there. They are to " assist " also. And how much the power to assist adds to the power to advise, is well ex- plained on pages 80 and 81 of the Complainants' proofs, and the explanation is by nobody objected to. Assist in what ? In doing that which on the spot, under the circumstances, they think — obeying " the direction of best wisdom " — is required to preserve unity and support the discipline of the Church. In this particular case, they were " to assist " in the terminat- ing of that long and repeated postponement of a new elec- tion, — persisted in, because the heads of some few Friends were lifted against a new election ; itself an indulged and scandalous want of concord, and violation of the spirit of the discipline. How were they to assist ? By interposing their solid sense and judgment on behalf of the Yearly Meeting whose organ they were ; and by the authenticity and suprem- acy of that solid sense and judgment, so interposed, to com- pose the discord, and to restore the law. How they were to CLOSING ARGUMENT. 165 • assist ; and whom they were to assist; and whom they were to discountenance; they, on the spot, under best wisdom, were to judge. Who was the true meeting, and who the se- ceder or disturlser ; in whom the solid sense of the assembly was found, and in whom it was wanting, they there and thus were to determine ; and then by all the means which they judged appropriate, by all recognized ecclesiastical means ; by announcing the consequences of refusal to comply ; by declar- ing for which candidates the solid sense preponderated ; are they to render the assistance for which they are deputed. They are acting for the Yearly Meeting, ascertaining upon the spot, and by*inspection, ipso aspecto, which is the true Monthly Meeting, — united and subordinate; subject I need not say, always to the revisal of the Yearly Meeting itself. Deputed with these powers, and to these ends it is perfectly certain next, that they notified distinctly to this same Monthly Meeting, who they were, and for what they had come, and what were their powers. They did so in the 7th month. This appears by the record of Thomas Wilbur, the Clerk of the party of the Respondents, on page 21 of their evidence, who, in his minute made in the 7th month, sets forth. " We have, at this time, the company of divers friends of the Yearly Meet- ing'is Committee, whose company is acceptable to us, ' with a copy of their appointments' " Who this Committee were, and by name, you find on page 66, of the Complainants' proofs, and page 2d, of the Respondents' proofs. Their appointment was duly minuted — Complainants' proof, page 66 — aijd six of them were, in the 7th month, present at the Monthly Meet- ing, with a copy of that appointment. ^ In the 8th month the same Committee, under the same ap- pointment, were again present. The Monthly Meeting then knew that it was the same Committee, under the same ap- pointment. Boyce, page 72 of Complainants' proofs, and Thomas Wilbur, page 13 of Respondents' proofs, put this at rest. The testimony of every witness on both sides concurs that the entire proceedings of the meeting passed with full knowledge, and constant recognition that the Committee at- tended from and for the Yearly Meeting ; under an appoint- 166 EARLE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. f ment assuming to confer the amplest powers of advice and assistance ; and that they were in the actual exercise of those powers. Observe with what perfectly intelligent and pointed contempt Amos C. Wilbur is found on page 45 of Respon- dents' proofs, denying the authority of the Yearly Meeting's Committee and saying, " that as he understood the discipline, Monthly Meetings were to choose their own officers, and that it did not confer the right on others, to do it for them," — and on page 73 of Complainants' proofs as saying that " he did not see by what authority the Yearly Meeting's Committee came into their meeting and undertook (as he said) to do their busi- ness." So then the committee are present with powers broad, and precise too, as were ever conferred by a Yearly Meeting of Friends ; and these powers, and the fact that they were actu- ally exerting them, notified in the fullest rnanner. More than this. At the Monthly Meeting of the 8th month, a Committee of the Quarterly Meeting attended with that of the Yearly Meeting. "When was that committee appointed ? It was appointed by the Quarterly Meeting, to which the do- ings of the 7th month Monthly Meeting had been reported. For what was it appointed ? Expressly for the purpose of as- sisting in effecting a choice of a Clerk, according to the disci- pline, by carrying through the election of David Shove. He had been presented again and again for that office. To that office he was, according to the discipline, duly elected on the 7th month, but Thomas Wilbur, tlie old Clerk, the sympathi- zer with John Wilbur and with the Respondents, refused to make record of it, and thereupou this committee of the Quar- ly Meeting was appointed to go, and in conjunction with that of the Yearly Meeting, for the declared purpose of removing the long scandal of dissension, by duly organizing the Monthly Meeting, and perfecting the election of its officers. Six of them attended accordingly. It is said that if this Quarterly Meeting disapproved the pro- ceedings of the Monthly Meeting of the 7th month, it ought not to have received the account of its doings. The answer is ready ; that every thing sent up in that account to the Quar- CLOSING ARGUMENT. 167 terly Meeting, was done, and in the account appeared to have been done, before it was disclosed that Thomas Wilbur had refused to minute the election of Shove as Clerk. Down to that act, and down to the time of the disclosure of that act, all appeared regular. When that appeared, the true remedy was the appointment of a committee to deal specifically with it ; and that remedy exactly was resorted to. Let me say, too, that of the presence, and the purpose, and the powers of this Committee of the Quarterly Meeting, the Monthly Meeting of the 8th month had full notice. John Meader — page 203 of the Complainants' proofs — in answer to the 29th interrogatory, testifies that a member of the com- mittee of the Yearly Meeting stated in that Monthly Meeting, " that the minute of advice which was offered to that meeting in the preceding month, had, with a communication from the Yearly Meeting's Committee, been laid before the Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting, and had received the approval of that meeting, and that the Quarterly Meeting in the discharge of its duty had appointed a committee to assist Swanzey Monthly Meet- ing in its due organization and in the maintenance of the good order and discipline of the Society, and that this committee was then present." The same fact of notice appears on pages 72 and 73 of our proofs ; and the Respondents' witness, Buffinton — pages 66, 67, 73 — affirms it. But these two Committees of the Yearly and Quarterly Meetings, went further than to notify their powers, and give their advice. They earnestly urged its acceptance, and an- nounced in the most formal and unequivocal expression that whoso resisted and refused to comply, would be thenceforth out of unity ; and out of subordination. This has been doubted in argument, but the proof is over- whelming. I refer the Court to the testimony of eleven wit- nesses, nine on the part of the Complainants, two on the part of the Respondents, who affirm that the Committee notified them in so many terms, or in substance, that if they rejected the advice, they would be considered out of unity with the Yearly Meeting. The witnesses are these and these are the portions of their evidence. 168 EAKLE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. Called by the Complainants. I" Samuel Boyce, ans. 31, p. 75. John Mfiader, ans. 29, p. 204. Perez Peck, ans. 31, p. 187. Jarvis Shove, ans. 8, p. 41. Thomas S. Gifford, ans. 7, p. 31, 32. Jacob H. Vining, ans. 8, p. 59. Azariah Shove, ans. 8, p. 47. Abner Slade, ans. 8, p. 51. Gideon C. Smith, ans. 8, p. 180. Called by the Respondents. Amos C. Wilbur, ans. 5, p. 46, 2d paragraph. John T. Kenyon, ans. 5, p. 87, 88. What was the advice given by these two committees, thus attending with these powers so notified, and what kind of assist- ance they rendered, the Court knows. To put away this scandal of disagi-eement from the meeting ; to restore concord and to administer discipline, they advised the election of Shove as Clerk, and of Oliver Earle, Simpson Buifington, Theophilus Shove, David Shove, Jonathan Freeborn, and Edmund Chace, as Overseers ; and to that consummation their assistance was contributed. It is the first act of the Respondents in the outward mani- festation of want of unity, that they rejected the advice and the assistance with scorn. They braved the scandal of actual collision with the Committees in whose presence the powers, the claims, the dignity of Yearly and Quarterly Meeting were represented. Those claims, that dignity, they treated with contempt. They talked in reference to the labors of the com- mittee of the Yearly Meeting in the 7th month, and horse- jockeying. This coarseness of language, and this outbreak of contumely they indulged, in that very moment of worship ; it is more than the consultation of an oracle to take the sense of a meeting of Friends ; and to discern in one's own conscious- ness and to recognize in the kindred and answering spirit of another, the " best wisdom." What was the next act of the Respondents ? The Swanzey Monthly Meeting which the Complainants represent, accepted the advice and assistance of the Committees and made elec- tions accordingly. ■ For this they were at the moment de- nounced as schismatic and disorderly ; they were threatened with prosecution for disturbance of a religious meeting, and the CLOSING ARGUMENT. 169 Revised Statutes appealed to, to color the threat ; and their or- ganization, in compliance with advice of the committees, the Respondents, from that day to this have refused to recognize, and have proclaimed to be spurious and invalid. This was their next act. What followed ? A succession of conduct, equally, or still more a manifested expression of want of unity; equally, or still more effectual to place themselves practically out of unity. Not only did they deny, to that Monthly Meeting, which pre- served its organization by compliance with the advice of the Yearly Meeting, and which has maintained ever a perfect unity, of opinion, Affection, and act, with that Yearly Meeting, — not only have they persisted in denying to it the name of Monthly Meeting, but theyliave organized, and do maintain another, directly usurping its name, and its rights. In 11th month following, (1844,) they assisted in organizing a new Quarterly Meeting, other than the Quarterly Meeting then, theretofore, and ever since recognized by our Monthly, and our Yearly Meeting, — and directly usurping its name and rights ; and then placed their own Monthly Meeting in sub- ordination to it. And finally, in 6th month, 1845, they actually assumed to establish a new Yearly Meeting of their own, — other than the old ; other than the true ; to which creature of their own hands, their Monthly and their Quarterly Meetings, also creatures of their own hands, have been declared subordi- nate ; to which they have become united ; and to which they have transferred the affections, the recognition, the " account- ableness," — all which in our Discipline and usage, the mem- ber owes to the head. Contemplate this last and crowning act. On the morning of the sixteenth day of the 6th month, 1845, the Yearly Meeting, which has existed since 1670 ; which George Fox visited personally in 1673, assembled, and ad- journed to the afternoon, then to reassemble and complete their organization. It assembled again in the afternoon ; and ad- journed again to meet the next morning. It met accordingly, and again in the afternoon, and completed its organization. And, meantime, these Respondents, and those who sympathize with them, — eighty to one hunclred in number, men, women, 15 170 EARLE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. and minors,- had enacted the play of organizing another Yearly Meeting; had demanded our books of record for its use ; had filed off first into the yard, and then into a Baptist meeting-house, — leaving the true and ancient Yearly Meeting, with its nine hundred or one thousand adherents in their ac- customed place, at their proper work, in possession of their un- impaired identity, and undiminished rights. Now, if theirs is the true Yearly Meeting, that is one thing. If alleged heresies have compelled them to form a new Yearly Meeting or have extinguished ours, that, too, would require separate and particular consideration. But if ours is the only Yearly Meeting, as is scarcely denied in argument, and as here I assume, is there any sense of the word unity, which can pos- sibly be predicated of their relations to thfs Yearly Meeting ? Why, nothing is clearer than this, that a Monthly Meeting, which acknowledges subordination to a Quarterly Meeting, which has been declared out of unity by the Yearly Meeting, does thereby place itself out of unity with the Yearly Meet- ing. I refer the Court for this to the following witnesses on the part of the Complainants, — uncontradicted, I believe, by any- body : — S. Boyce, p. 71, ans. 24. S. A. Chase, p. 95, ans. 24. Thomas Antony, p. 170, ans. 24. Perez Peck, p. 185, ans. 24. John Meader, p. 202, ans. 24. Benj. W. Ladd, p. 233, ans. 24. Elijah Coffin, p. 259, ans. 24. Thos. Willis, p. 283, ans. 24. Enoch Lewis, p. 304, ans. 24. Hugh Balderston, p. 324, ans. 24. Aaron Stalker, p. 338, ans. 24. See also Discipline of New England Yearly Meeting, pp. 42, 43. Yet that, is exactly the position of the Respondents' Monthly Meeting ; they are in unity with a Quarterly Meeting, which our Yearly Meeting pronounced out of unity with itself. But far beyond all this. How can it be pretended that he, who, on the territory, by the side, within the circle of the Yearly Meeting, — on the very spot whereon all agree, one only can stand, — sets up another, — how can it be pretended that he still remains in unity with the old and rightful first oc- cupant ! The act which he does, — in so far as operative against the existing and true Yearly Meeting, is, of course, revolution- ary and void. But void though it be, it publicly, formally,, and CLOSING ARGUMENT.' 171 forever severs the tie which united the revolter to the establish- ment. The treason, which leaves the State unharmed, totally and fatally changes the relations of the traitor who assailed it, to the State, which he assailed in vain. Let me read a passage or two from the case of Hendriclcson v. Decow, Saxton's Chancery Reports, pp. 602 and 606. " The connection and subordination are constitutional and indispensable, insomuch that if any Quarterly Meeting with- draws itself from its proper Yearly Meeting, without being in due and regular manner united to some other Yearly Meeting, it ceases to be a Quarterly Meeting of the Society of Friends. In like manner of the other meetings, down to the lowest. So that if a Preparative Meeting withdraws from its peculiar Monthly Meeting, and does not unite with another of the same head, or some other legal and constitutional head, or, in other words, some one meeting, it does, from the moment, and by the very act of withdrawal, cease to be a Preparative Meeting of the Society of Friends." " Every Preparative Meeting within those bounds which is through and by appropriate links connected with, and subordi- nate to, the Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia, is a ' Preparative Meeting of the people called Quakers.' And any Preparative Meeting, or assemblage of persons calling themselves a Prep- arative Meeting, not thus connected and subordinate, is not a Preparative Meeting of that people." Within this doctrine, the Respondents have placed them- selves out of unity with the Yearly Meeting, whose existence they deny, and whose supremacy they cast away, and whose name and place they have fashioned an idol to usurp. I have completed my relation of the acts of the Respondents practically manifesting want of unity between their Monthly Meeting and the true Yearly Meeting. Add now to this the fact that the Yearly Meeting has in due form declared them to be out of unity ; and has declared their Quarterly Meeting to be out of unity ; and that the true Quarterly Meeting, which is still in unity, has made the same declaration, and the actual relations of the parties are before you. And now we arrive at the question, — partially anticipated 172 EAELB ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. already, whether this Monthly Meeting, so long and in such sense out of unity, is not out of unity in the sense of the deed ? Out of unity with the Yearly Meeting in fact, is it not out of unity with it in law ? Is not the want of unity so far formally, and technically evidenced and declared, that the Court will take notice of it in adjudicating upon rights depend- ing on the deed ? Does not the Court judicially see that the Respondent's Monthly Meeting is not in unity with the true Yearly Meeting ; that, therefore, it is not the party for whom the deed creates the trust ; that the Complainants' Monthly Meeting is in unity, and, therefore, is the party for whom the deed creates the trust ? I submit that by many acts on both sides, the legal status, which consists in being out of unity, is sufficiently ascertained and announced. 1. In the first place, the act of the Respondents in attempt- ing to erect another Yearly Meeting, upon the reiterated alle- gation that ours is not the true Yearly Meeting, is of itself a formal and unequivocal withdrawal from unity with the Year- ly Meeting thus abjured, after which they cannot be heard to say in a court of law that they any longer continue in unity with it. I assume for the moment, then, that ours is the true Yearly Meeting ; and of course the Yearly Meeting described by the deed ; and if so I ask this question : Was it the intent of this grantor — recognizing, as thus she does, this as the true Yearly Meeting; declaring as she does again and again — such we have seen to be the just construction of the deed — that the Monthly Meeting which is to take the beneficial interest, must be one which is in due and fit subordination to that Yearly Meeting ; which recognizes its supremacy according to the discipline ; which follows its advice, accepts its assistance, and owns itself to be a member of the same great and identi- cal system of polity, — was it the intent of such a grantor, that after a collection of persons assuming the name of Monthly Meeting, had thus waged the deadliest form of ecclesiastical hostility against this Yearly Meeting, by setting up a compet- ing and incompatible supremacy, that they should still hold CLOSING AKGTJMENT. 173 the fund ? A fund provided, and most carefully dedicated and secured for the strengthening the hands of one Yearly Meet- ing, — is it the design of the deed of dedication that it shall go to a rival and a usurper ? 2. But this want of unity has been ascertained and declared by the other party, again and again, according to the established forms and principles of this ecclesiastical polity ; and therefore the Court will adjudge on it as a fixed fact. I suppose it quite clear that the grantor by such a deed as this, creating a trust for a Monthly Meeting standing in that subor(Hnate relation to a superior body, required by the disci- pline, and called unity, intends to refer it to that superior pow- er, — proceeding according to its own constitution, to deter- mine whether the inferior body is, or is not, in unity. The law presumes that "such was her intention ; and it will carry it into effect. Who is and who is not in unity with the true Yearly Meeting, the true Yearly Meeting must decide. Act- ing upon a case within its jurisdiction, its judgment is conclu- sive. This is a universal principle. If the case is within the final jurisdiction of a tribunal high or humble, ecclesiastical or secular, that tribunal is the sole and absolute judge of the question of notice to the parties ; of the facts and of the law ; and in every other forum its determination will be assumed to be right. From the cases on the brief, I select and read a pas- sage from Gibson et al. v. Armstrong et al, 7 Ben. Munro, 481, to which I have referred before, " Any dispute between individuals and the society in regard to the fact of membership, or the rights pertaining to that rela- tion, must present an ecclesiastical question, of which the de- cision by the tribunals of the Church would, in general, be re- garded as final by the civil power." " The appointment by the proper authority, of a preacher for one of the portions of a divided society and its reception of the preacher thus appointed, constitute a mutual recognition, which being found to exist in favor of one portion and not of the other, must, unless in some most extraordinary case, go far to satisfy the mind of the judge, that the party thus recsgnizing 15* 174 EARLB BT ALS. V. V^OQJi ET ALS. and recognized by the proper authority, stands legitimately and properly in the place of the entire original society, and is clothed with its rights. And if the authority thus recognizing and recognized by one of the parties, be tl?e accustomed au- thority, having- by the general laws and usages of the Church jurisdiction over the entire original society, this circumstance will furnish a strong and primd facie, a satisfactory proof of right, throwing upon the other party the burden of showing clearly that the accustomed jurisdiction had ceased to be legiti- mate, and had been properly displaced by another, which being possessed of the true authority, and recognizing this last party and being recognized by it, had conferred upon it the evidences of right as the representative of the original society. It is not enough for a party contending against the accustomed au- thority, and the accustomed evidences of right, to found its claim upon a doubtful question, whether that organ of the as- sociation usually exercising the jurisdiction in question may not have lost it by some act of its own in violation of the laws of the Church. It is for the authorities of the Church, in the first instance, to judge of an infraction of its laws, and to de- termine whether, the ecclesiastical jurisdiction belonging to any particular body or functionary of the association had been for- feited by such infraction. The civil Judge might greatly ap- prehend that he would be transcending his proper sphere, if he were to interpose, in the first instance, to determine such a ques- tion and to enforce his judgment upon it. He would at least lend a reluctant ear to a claim founded on the alleged invalid- ity, in view of the. law of the Church, of an act done in the accustomed manner . by the accustomed organ of authority, and sanctioned or acquiesced in by aU other recognized organs of the Church. The party setting up a claim on the ground of such alleged illegality, should at least plant itself upon some opposing act or judgment of some recognized organ or body in the Church having authority to act or to judge in the premises. At any rate, if a minority of the local society can, on the ground of a strict right, and of its own determination to resist an alleged infraction of the laws and organization of the Church, claim the intervention of the civil power against the CLOSING ARGUMENT. 175 majority, having in its favor the accustomed evidences of right, it must bring itself and its claim clearly and conclusively with- in the right as indicated by the terms of the deed, and by the rules and discipline to which it refers. And this it can scarce- ly do, when it acts not only in opposition to the accustomed local authority, but also in defiance of the highest tribunals of the Church." The grantor in the deed before the Court, adopts this very principle. " Neither of us " — the trustees are made to say — " neither of us who shall be declared by the Yearly, Quarterly, or Monthly Meeting to which we belong, to be out of unity or Church fellowship with them, shall be capable of exercising this trust." Declaration by the superior body, establishes the fact conclusively. Acting upon this principle, the very Yearly Meeting, which I assume for the present to be the true one, and with which of course the Respondents must be in unity or they have no part in this fund, has formally declared them out of unity! It has done this upon a case completely within its jurisdiction ; upon notice which it deemed sufficient, and was sufficient ; upon proof and trial of facts, — and it has in many ways formally and unequivocally acted upon the truth and reality of such a declaration. Let me first recite what the Yearly Meeting has done in this behalf: — 1. I have said that on the 8th month, the Committee of the Yearly Meeting announced in the Swanzey Monthly Meeting, that they who did not follow the advice, would be deemed out of unity. 2. On the 8th day of the 4th nionth, 1845, the Yearly Meet- ing, by the Meeting for Sufferings, directed the heirs of the original grantees in trust to convey this very land to our Over- seers. 3. And finally, on the 17th day of 6th month, 1845, the Yearly Meeting formally declares them out of unity — in these terms : " Thomas Wilbur, therefore, and others who continued 176 BARLB ET AhS. V. WOOD ET ALS. to act with him' as Clerk, under the name of Swanzey Month- ly Meeting, sending Representatives to the Quarterly Meeting in the 11th month, we are united in considering as separatists from our religious society and out of its unity, and not entitled to be considered a Monthly Meeting of our religious society." Now to appreciate the significance and validity of these acts in point of ecclesiastical law, observe what was the subject with which the Yearly Meeting had to deal, and how it came before them. It is not the case of a Yearly Meeting suddenly laying hold of an undistracted and harmonious Monthly Meeting, and declaring it out of unity, or declaring it dissolved or disowned. No such thing. The exact case was, that on a certain day, two meetings, de facto, such were found to exist, each claiming to be the true one, and each claiming at first, to put and keep itself in subordination and unity with our Yearly Meeting. From that moment, thenceforward, until all is over, each was making perpetual claim ; each knew that the other was litigat- ing against it ; each was at all times before the same superior body, down to 6th month, 1845, perpetually representing and pressing its pretensions. Thenceforward, therefore, it was a question of affirmative recognition, or of disallowance by the Yearly Meeting. Each was seeking for itself such recogni- tion ; each had full notice that the other was doing the same thing, and seeking the same thing ; and each knew as the Court knows, that every act of the superior power, recognizing one, and refusing to recognize the other, is, for substance, a declaration, on full notice, and on full hearing, that one is, and the other is not, in unity. Bearing this in mind, observe now, in how many ways, and on how many occasions, the Respon- dents have been declared out of unity with that body, to whom they at first preferred their claim ; and to whom they continued to do so, until, finding themselves disowned by it, they devised another of their own, whose ear they might not need to weary with so unavailing a prayer. 1. The Committees of the Yearly and Quarterly Meetings, in the Monthly Meeting of the 8th month, 1844, gave most CLOSING AKGUMENT. 177 formal notice that those who did not comply, would be deemed out of unity. We prove this by a host of witnesses. The Respondents did not comply ; their Monthly Meeting did not comply. If the Yearly Meeting did not reject and disallow this action of its Committee ; if, on the other hand, they adopted and approved it, this adoption and approval formally declares the Respondents out of unity on notice. But as- suredly the Yearly Meeting did adopt and approve of the doings of the Committee, and of this declaration among the rest, that non-compliance would place out of unity. 2. Proceed to an act even more unequivocal. I have already stated, that on the 8th of the 4th month, 1845, the Yearly Meeting, acting by its Committee, the Meeting for Sufferings, addressed to the heirs at law of the original grantees a direc- tion, in these terms : — " By information now presented to us, it appears that suits at law have been commenced by those who have separated from our religious society in Swanzey Monthly Meeting, in order to gain possession of property, within the limits of that meeting belonging to the Society ; and, it appearing that the meeting-house lot, at Fall River, was granted originally to Jonathan Chace, Benjamin Slade, and Reuben Chase, (aU deceased,) to hold in trust for the Monthly Meeting, and that they or their heirs were by said deed directed to convey the same as they shall be required by the Yearly, Quarterly, or said Monthly Meeting, or either of their Committees, so that the same may be enjoyed by the members of the said Monthly Meeting in unity with the Yearly Meeting for New England. We do, therefore, on behalf of the Yearly Meeting, request and direct the heirs aforesaid to convey the said land to Oliver Earle, Simpson Buffington, Theophilus Shove, David Shove, Jonathan Freeborn, and Edmund Chace, the present Overseers of Swanzey Monthly Meeting, to be by them held, or their successors in office, for the use and benefit of said meeting in unity with New England Yearly Meeting, agreeably to the tenor of the deed." See pp. 136 and 138, Complainauts' Evidence. 178 EARLE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. This act I have shown it was competent for the Meeting for Sufferings to do, and -the Yearly Meeting distinctly ratified it afterwards. So, then, there is a direction to convey this very land to the overseers of our Monthly Meeting. On what does such a direction proceed? Why, only on this; that our Monthly Meeting is deemed in unity, and the other not. Only the one in unity is known to the deed, or as trustee, or as cestui que trust, can take any thing under it. To direct a conveyance to us, then, involves the most unequivocal declaration that we are in unity, and acts on it. Before I proceed to the final act of the Yearly Meeting, I must remind the Court of that very important one of the Quarterly Meeting of which David Buffum was Clerk, in 11th month, 1844. The facts are undisputed, they are proved by Thomas Wilbur himself; and they are, that at that Quarterly Meeting, tw<.) sets of persons, claiming to be Representatives' of Hwan- zey Monthly Meeting, presented thcn)selves and solicited rec- ognition : and that the Quarterly Meeting, which down to thai, moment is admitted liy everybody to have been, and to be, the true Quarterly Meeting, recognized and admitted the Monthly INIeeting of the Complainants, — the meeting which owned Shove for its Clerk, and disowned the other. This decision was of course upon the fullest notice ; both parties were directly before it ; the direct question came regularly up, and was determined. This act, certainly until reversed by the Yearly Meeting, instantly, completely, and formally put the Respondents, — Wilbur and his associates, out of unity. How did they meet this ? By an act of their own just as unequivo- cal, just as conclusive against themselves, - - by a poor attempt to organize a new Quarterly Meeting — spurious, schismatic, and revolutionary as they — itself, in its very creation, a cast- ing off and denial of subordination and unity, by which they could be recognized. 3. There is a final act of the Yearly Meeting speaking more plainly stUl. It is a declaration in so many words that CLOSING ARGUMENT. 179 " Thomas Wilbur, therefore, and others who continued to act with him as Clerk, under the name of Swanzey Monthly Meet- ing, sending Representatives to the Quarterly Meeting in the 11th month, we are united in considering as separatists from our religious society, and out of its unity, and not entitled to be considered a Monthly Meeting of our religious society." Who shall say that this does not ascertain and declare con- clusively, the fact that the Respondents are out of unity ; and, therefore, that they cannot partake, under this deed, in this fund? 1. I have hot heard it doubted that the true Yearly Meeting has the power to declare a Monthly Meeting- so calling itself — out of unity ; and that this conclusively determines the fact. Sm'ely, at least, in a case of two claiming each to be the true and only Monthly Meeting, it may declare which is so. But this I have argued ; and it is not disputed. 2. It has been suggested that this declaration was only col- laterally made. Is this so ? The language is direct and clear, I am sure. " We are united in considering them as separa- tists from our religious society, and out of its unity, and not entitled to be considered a Monthly Meeting of our religious society." This is tolerably plain speech. Well, the question of whether they were in unity or not, was directly before the Yearly Meeting at the time. What was. the subject of deliberation with the Yearly Meet- ing ? This precisely : which, of two sets of persons, each claiming to be Representatiyes of a true Quarterly Meeting, ought to be admitted as such by the Yearly Meeting ? Well, on what did that depend ? On the question, which was the true Quarterly Meeting. And on what did that depend? Partly, at least, on the question, which was the true Monthly Meeting. 'One Quarterly Meeting had recognized our Month- ly Meeting ; the other Quarterly Meeting had recognized the Respondents' Moiithly Meeting. These recognitions having been deliberately made with full knowledge of the facts, were proper to be weighed, as part of the evidence, by which to 180 EARLE BT ALS. V. WOOD BT ALS. determine which was, and which was not, the true Quarterly Meeting. This made it necessary to inquire which Monthly Meeting was legitimate, and which spurious ; and the result of that inquiry was, that " Thomas "Wilbur, therefore,, and others, who continued to act with him as Clerk under the name of Swanzey Monthly Meeting, sending Representatives to the Quarterly Meeting in the 11th month (that of the Respon- dents), we are united in considering as separatists from our religious society, and out of its unity, and not entitled to be considered a Monthly Meeting of our religious society." The subject, therefore, was directly before the Yearly Meeting ; brought before it by the Respondents themselves ; and was passed on in the ordinary course of business. It is plain, then, that if the Respondents' Monthly Meeting can be deemed to have had notice that the subject of its legiti- macy was under consideration of the Yearly Meeting, there is an end of the matter. But this is too clear for controversy. 1. I have said that the claim to be recognized as the true Monthly Meeting, must be deemed to be always pending before the Yearly Meeting, — from the moment when two com- petitors for that . distinction emerged to view, until it was decided. Every act of recognition, or disallowance, therefore, is done on notice. 2. I say next, that the tribunal which had jurisdiction of the case, and of the parties, is the exclusive judge, of the suffi- ciency of notice. The decisions on the brief are full to this principle. 3. I say further, that on the facts before them they had far better means of judging whether the actual notice was sufficient, than we can possess ; and yet that we can also discern decisive reasons on which they should have held the actual notice to be sufficient. It was a controversy which had existed for two years. Lines of division were sharply drawn ; and men were perfectly known. They knew perfectly well that the same per- sons who created and composed the Respondents' Monthly CLOSING ARGUMENT. 181 Meeting, were engaged in creating, and to a great extent com- posed that very Quarterly Meeting which was then soliciting to be recognized ; created it exactly because the other Quar- terly Meeting refused to own that Monthly Meeting, and owned ours. The Respondents' Monthly Meeting, therefore, was before the Yearly Meeting in and by the Respondents' Quarterly Meeting ; a body created to admit and receive them ; identical, to some extent, in the very persons composing it ; identical precisely in opinion, aim, and sympathy ; perfectly possessed of all the facts on which its legitimacy or spurious- ness depended ; and deeply concerned to display and press its claims. Theft Monthly Meeting knew perfectly that two Quar- terly Meetings would compete for admission to the Yearly Meeting; and they also knew that their jQuarterly Meeting had not one word to say for itself, but this, that it recognized the true Monthly. They knew, therefore, perfectly, the very day and hour when their own claims would be under investi- gation ; and they knew that some of their very best members would then and there, in their character as Representatives of the Quarterly Meeting, be present to represent them. The Yearly Meeting knew this too. And knowing all this, could it not better judge than we can, whether, the substance of notice having been given*, its technical forms needed to be com- plied with ? And yet do we not see, even by our less_ perfect lights, that more formal notice would have been an idle cere- mony? There are two other grounds, one broader and one narrower, on which the notice in this cause, to the Respondent Monthly Meeting, that the legal existence of that meeting was to be passed on by the Yearly Meeting, will be thought sufficient. 1. I suppose that it is quite well known to every Friend, — certainly to every collection of them assuming to be called a meeting, — that at every Yearly Meeting all proceedings of dis- cipline fbr the twelve months before it is holden, may in some form or another be brought under revisal. That body is the ultimate and supreme power of this Church. All things may go up for review ; the number of its meetings ; who and what 16 182 EAELB BT ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. they are ; who are to be accredited representatives in a case of competition ; who is in and who out of unity ; the general state of the society, is the ordinary and well understood mat- ter of its deliberations. Every Friend knows that it cannot even organize without adjudging among rival subordinate meetings when there are such rivals. The great mass of Friends ; all who have leisure to attend ; a representation at least of every Quarterly Meeting, and of every importa;nt dis- sension in every meeting, are there. Its doings are anticipated with interest; and they are known with certainty by all. When, therefore, Stephen A. Chase gave express notice, as he affirms he did, at this very Yearly Meeting, to those who sym- pathized with Wilbur and the Respondents, that this subject was being acted on, he and aU well knew that further notice would carry information to no human being who felt the least degree of interest in the matter. 2. There is a narrower ground than this, on which this point may be disposed of This Swanzey Monthly Meeting is bound to know, and does know, that the Quarterly Meeting whose Committee attended to advise and assist them in the 8th month, 1844, might and would bring the whole proceedings of that month, formally before the next Yearly Meeting ; and that a]b such Yearly Meeting they would be reviewed and judged. It is an established principle in this polity, that if a Monthly Meeting refuse to take the advice and submit to the judgment of a Quarterly Meeting, it m£iy appeal against the judgment of the Quarterly Meeting to the Yearly Meeting; and if it will not take advice, and will not appeal, the Quar- terly Meeting may bring the affau- before the next or succeed- ing Yearly Meeting. See the Discipline, p. 118. Such was this exact case. This Monthly Meeting of the Respondents refused to take the advice and submit to the judg- ment of the Quarterly Meeting. They refused to appeal. They considered the subject of appeal and did not prosecute it. (See page 46 of Respondents' proofs.) They knew then, CLOSING AKSUMENT. 183 according to the principle of the Discipline just stated, that the Quarterly Meeting " might bring the affair before the next or succeeding Yearly Meeting." In point of fact it is in evi- dence, (page 168 of Complainants' proofs,) that after having accepted the report of their Committee setting forth the pro- ceedings of the 8th month, in the Monthly Meeting, the Quar- terly Meeting in the 5th month, 1845, directed their Clerk to furnish the Yearly Meeting with an account of those proceed- ings. He did so. (See page 19 of Pleadings.) The subject, then, "was regularly there ; and the Respondents were bound to know, and perfectly did know, that there it was, and there it would be opSu for reexamination. I submit, then, that after all, there is but one question, and that is. Is ours the true Yearly Meeting ? If it is, this branch of the controversy is ended. With this Yearly Meeting the Respondents personally, officially, and as a Monthly Meeting, are out of unity ; that is, they are out of that just relation and due subordination to it, which the discipline and polity of Friends expect and prescribe ; and which this deed requires as the condition of title. Was, then, that Yearly Meeting which thus on the 17th of 6th month, 1845, declared them out of unity, the true Yearly Meeting wherein are embodied the legislative, judicial, and executive supremacy of Society ? The Respondents, by their acts and their answer, deny this. Their better instructed counsel scarcely do so ; or they do so on a single gi'ound. In argument they have not denied it at all on any ground. Their brief of points, page 11, says only that the Complainants have not proved the legitimacy of this meeting ! I should rather think that imtil some proofs of its having ceased to be legitimate were afforded, we could not be called on to set it up. This Yearly Meeting was duly established in 1670, in a time, or soon after a time when to be a Friend was to be, in the view of an intolerant public, beyond the protection of the law. Down to the middle of June, 1845, by concession of everybody, it had continued to exist, without the interregnum or anarchy of an hour, in peace, in war, in persecution, — in all fortunes, — and it is conceded by everybody, that up to the 184 EAELE BT ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. end of the forenoon sitting of June 16th, its first day of busi- ness, its genuineness remained undoubted ; its powers perfect ; its supremacy absolute, according to the polity. That it continued to exist until it had declared these per- sons out of unity, and they had themselves done all they might to sever their tie to it, is certainly a presumption of law, which shall serve /or owrjiroq/" until they show the contrary. And on the argument no such attempt has been made. In their proceedings somewhere, the Respondents complain that the Yearly Meeting — having to decide between two sets of representatives of the Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting, committed the subject for inquiry and report to a committee of the representatives — excluded the contesting applicants; and that, instead of choosing the Clerk at the opening of the afternoon meeting, as is the usage, and the general language of the Discipline, they really deferred it until the next day, and until they could ascertain who were to act in the choice of Clerk. The counsel do not repeat any thing so trivial. They appreciate that both acts were reasonable and regular. They, at least, appreciate how absurd it would be, in the language of the Chancellor in Saxton, p. 624, to pretend to see any thing in them, "subversive in the slightest degree of usage or disci- pline ; and least of all of such vital influence as to break asun- der the bonds of union, disfranchise the meeting, — deprive it of constitutional existence, disrobe it of its ability any longer to execute its ancient and appropriate functions, and to release from their allegiance all who previously owed fealty and sub- mission to it." The truth exactly is, that the precise circumstances in which they were placed were not anticipated nor provided for by the Discipline. That code, anticipating only the more frequent case that no controversy exists as to who are to act in choice of officers, directs them to choose at a certain time. But here it became a question who were to act in the choice. This in its nature required first to be determined, and they decided to determine that first. They made no change in the discipline. They applied it sensibly to an omitted case. Who is frantic enough to suggest that this act ipso facto annihilated the CLOSING ARGUMENT. 185 Yearly Meeting of two centuries ? Certainly not the counsel of the Respondents. There is, however, one ground on which the Respondents insinuate that this Yearly Meeting ceased to be the Yearly Meet- ing of New England, or, at least, they would say that they acquired the right to set up another in its stead, — in regard to which the Complainants feel great sensibility, although they indulge no apprehension. And that is, that the meeting in certain fundamental particulars had deserted the faith of Friends. Compared with the question which this insinuation raises, all others in the case sink out of my client's view. I shall treat it according to their sense of its importance, rather than according to my own of its difficulty. A charge of a fundamental change of creed ought to be made, if it is made at all, with clearness and precision and certainty. My first difficulty here is to discover what the Re- spondents really intend to say. The allegations in the answer are not very distinct. But the propositions upon the brief of the leai-ned counsel, and still more the propositions they advance in argument, are too vague to be even understood. All that I can make of them is, 1st, that they really abandon the more intrepid, and more intelligible, but totally groundless matter of the answjer ; and 2d, that they would say that the Yearly Meeting has identified its doctrines with those of Joseph John Gurney, whatever that may mean, or whatever it may amount to. I suppose that it is necessary for the Respondents, whatever they allege, to prove that this Yearly Meeting in its collective capacity, has deserted the old and orthodox creed of Friends, and adopted a new one ; and that it has, therefore, ceased to be the Yearly Meeting of our polity and discipline and deed of trust, and made it necessary or proper to establish another which is. And now that such a proposition will receive the sanction of your Honor's judgment upon evidence so vague, equivocal, and worthless, in the face of such a declaration as was put forth by this body in 1845 of the things which they most assuredly believed ; a declaration which is universally admitted to be 16'' 186 BARLB ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. absolutely orthodox, and open to no criticism, but that it is shamelessly and afFrontively hypocritical, if it is not sincere, — I have no apprehension. To discuss the matter at length, and with feeling, might intimate an anxiety concerning it which I do not acknowledge. It might also engage me in meditations " to which humanity is unequal." His non est nunc locus. Let the Complainants speak for themselves. In 1845, after the Respondents had separated themselves, this Yearly Meeting deemed itself called upon to set forth their faith. Of that declaration, hear a portion of the emphatic and comprehensive language : — " Under our present circumstances, we are called upon again to set forth our faith; and we do therefore unequivocally declare, that the following testimonies, composed mostly of extracts from early writers in the Society, whose writings have ever been approved and sanctioned, are, and ever have been, our faith and belief upon the subjects referred to therein; and we do earnestly and affectionately entreat aU our members to hold fast the profession thereof, without wavering." Now what foUows, are a series of extracts from the Fathers of Friends, and from that creed, digested and promulgated in 1829 and 1830 by a representation in a sort of federal Quaker Convention in Philadelphia, to record their faith before the world, after the great Hicksite schism. These are, word for word, from the Fathers of Friends, or firom the creed of aU the Yearly Meetings of Friends throughout the United States. If this declaration is sincere, its orthodoxy is above reproach. And where is the evidence that it is not the belief of these venerable men ? Where is the evidence that it is not the belief of every man and woman in unity ? There is not a particle. Our inquiry I know is concerning the collective opinions of the body ; and even if here and there an individual or many could be found whose sentiments, or whose modes of expression had become to some extent modified, nothing can be so absurd as to say that this destroys the Yearly Meeting, or authorizes another person to set up another meeting. But where, I call again, is the evidence that one man or woman in unity does not assuredly believe this creed in its exact formu- CLOSING AKGTTMENT. 187 lary ? I deny its existence. I think I do not overstate the matter jvhen I say that every witness whom we have produced and examined to this point, — they cannot fall far short of thirty, — has expressly affirmed that he holds the creed agreed on and promulgated by the Friends in Philadelphia, called " The Testimony of Friends on the Continent of America," and fully unites with the declaration of the Yearly Meeting for New England of 1845 upon various Christian doctrines. Surely, surely the leaders of this body ; those who must be taken to represent its opinions,'and control its actions, and express and utter its solid, sense, approve themselves, under the solemnity of a direct appeal to their conscience in a court of law, to be, in the article of Faith, of the purest age of their order. What more can we do in the tribunals of the civil magistrate, to manifest our soundness ? I have little need, then, to advert to the suggestion put forth ■ on the printed brief of the counsel of the Respondents, that these divisions are attributable to the preaching and writings of Joseph John Gurney. There is a sense in which this is true ; just as there is a sense in which the wars of Gustavus Adolphus are attributable to the ministry of the author of Christianity, The suggestion — if it be left as the brief leaves it — illustrates nothing and proves nothing. To make any thing of this it must be carried further. And do they mean to say that his opinions are unsound ? What have we ; what have the merits of this controversy ; what has this Yearly Meeting, or any member of it in unity, to do with the sound- ness or unsoundness of his opinions ? And yet let me turn aside from the necessities of the argu- ment, and without the instruction of my clients but for the vindication of literature, genius, and philanthropy, and even in this behalf seek to do justice, if not to the living yet to the dead. I think it quite clear that in some of the voluminous' writings — twenty separate publications, besides occasional pamphlets, some of them large treatises — of that brilliaht, unwearied, and admirable person — around whose grave, made by hands of Friends in the burying-ground of the Friends' meeting-house, in whose communion he died as he had lived; the whole 188 EARLE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. population of the city of Norwich gathered in mourning' — it is quite true, I think, that they have culled out an expression — three or four expressions, which, detached from their context, without regard to the quo animo — the subject-matter, the pre- cise proposition he was contending for or against — are not, in language at least, quite in accordance with the.received/ormw- la of Friends on these transcendent mysteries. But there is no proof in this cause that on any one tenet, his deliberate opinions, — when more guardedly announced, with his mind directed to the exact and precise statement of the opinion as .an article of faith, — were in the least degree unsound, accord- ing to the standard of soundness accepted by Friends. We have his sentiments declared by himself under solemnity of affirmation, in answer to an inquiry by Stephen A. Chase. What does he say 1 " Joseph John Gurney of Earlham in the county of the city of Norwich, a minister of the Gospel in the Society of Friends, on his solemn affirmation, saith that the declaration contained in the foregoing part of this sheet, and printed in eight columns, is a true and honest declaration of his Christian faith, on the several articles therein stated ; and that to the best of, his knowledge and belief, he has held the same sentiments for more than thirty years." (Complainants' Proofs, pp. 116, 117.) That this affirmation is ti'ue, the Court, — all men who knew him — will believe. That the creed thus copiously drawn out and avowed, is sound as a creed of Qua- kerism, I jchallenge the learned counsel ; I challenge those who reviled or feared and pursued him through life, and have not yet relented — to disprove. He seems totally un- conscious of departure from the faith of the Society. He quotes and adopts in every article the language of the au- thoritative standards. He declares that his own belief can- not be better stated than in their hallowed and plain expres- sion. I capnot presume to have ascertained by critical colla- tion, whether the language he thus quotes as embodying his tenets, loses the sense in which the venerable writers em- ployed it by being taken away from the context. But if it does not — and it is inconceivable that it should ; and his manliness and integrity afford assurance that it does not — if CLOSING ARGUMENT. 189 that language meant in the use of its author, what it appears to mean, then his creed is the creed of Quakers. If Fox and Penn and Barclay were sound; if the faith of Friends yet lives on earth, he was sound ; and lived and died its implicit believer. How has it happened, then, that they think they fix any colorable imputation on his orthodoxy? How came it to be drawn in question ? Two considerations help to explain it. 1. The social position of Gurney, and the field and charac- ter of his labors, exposed him to be observed with some solici- tude and distrust. He was bred at Oxford. He had a large fortune. His brother was a member of Parliament. His sis- ter, Mrs. Elizabeth Fry, earned a fame as a philanthropist not less pure, scarcely less wide or permanent than that of How- ard. He was himself a philanthropist, and, in the best sense, a reformer — in politics — in education, in regard to slavery — of great zeal and activity in England and on the continent, and in both hemispheres. In this way he was brought in con- tact more, perhaps, with the general English and American mind — with the great common stream of thought, sentiment, and language, than other eminent Friends, Associated with Churchmen in the British and Foreign Bible Society — with Wilberforce and Denman on the slave-trade ; the correspon- dent of Henry Clay; the friend of Guizot — his field of labor was large ; his intercourse various ; and his manner, his ad- dress, his vocabulary were exposed to be tinged by some pe- culiarities of color ; and himself to be narrowly and jealously watched. And yet out of a life of fifty-eight years — active and public thirty-five of it — out of voluminous publications, and a daily speech, these jealous and timorous observers can find only a half dozen expressions, and hold them up — a hand- ful of unrejoicing berries cuUed out of a whole prairie harvest of orthodoxy — as evidence of unsoundness ! I have no doubt at all also, that there is another satisfactory explanation of any exceptional expression in his writings. Like aU who hold systematic creeds, the Quakers, and Gur- ney as one of them, held tenets which are each intrinsically 190 BAKLB BT ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. 'true, but which stand in a certain artificial adjustment to each other, — of sequence, or importance, or province. Soundness of faith is the holding of each and all in the true adjustment. Preeminent of these is the relative position and work of the Spirit and the Scriptures. Now it happens to every man — and to the soundest as well — that he has sometimes occasion, instead of concerning himself with the adjustment and reconciliation of such tenets, to be urging the intrinsic importance of a particular one ; and nothing is more common in animated writing than this alio in- tuitu, — to seem to overstate the particular tenet itself, if it were to be considered as the repeating a creed. Thus Gurney held the primary guide to be the Spirit. But he held that Scripture is given by that Spirit ; and is able to make wise ; and perhaps thought Scripture is the true test, whereby to know whether interior lights are false or not. So do the Re- spondents. (See Respondents' Answer.)* Well, holding these opinions of Scripture to be genuine Quakerism, like all good Quakers, he advocated reading and circulating and teaching of the Scriptures ; and he was a member of the British and Foreign Bible Society, which has given them to the world without comment — to every race — its own, in its own speech. Now in pressing this grand duty of circulating Scrip- ture — in which all agree, does literary justice, or practice, or the rule of any creed or society, require that he should stop at the close of every period, to say, " all this is subordinate to our doctrine of the Spirit " — may he not take the matter of sys- tematic adjustment and subordination, of this tenet to others, for granted, and press the particular tenet in hand on its own individual merits ? Is he to put his whole body of divinity into every thing he says or writes ? And yet, if you take a sentence in a composition so constructed, out of its context ; and above aU, out of the object and end of the particular com- position, and hold it up by itself — animated, warm, and in- tense — it is perfectly easy to show that it is overstated in re- lation to the other antagonism of the same faith. So it has * See page 55. CLOSING ARGUMENT. 191 happened to Gurney. Writing to persuade men to send the Scriptures to China, he may have said they could make wise unto salvation. Writing to show that the grounds of justifica- tion are the Saviour's death, he did not pause or turn aside to remind the reader that that shedding of blood is vain to him whom the Spirit does not wash and cleanse. But in what school is this held to evidence heresy ? I well remember the complaint Burke makes of a similar injustice to him. He lived under a government of Kings, Lords, and Commons, and held the constitutional faith of Englishmen, that each in its place and order was indispensable. Yet in his long life, when, sometimes one of these was at- tacked, sometimes the other — sometimes as he had occasion to press the importance of one, sometimes of the other — as either seeme(J not adequately appreciated ; and thereupon dull men, or jealous men, or timorous m6n, called out, you are in- consistent. — You were a republican in 1774. You have grown a worshipper of the Lords, and of the Crown, in 1793. His answer, in the appeal to the Old Whigs, is so admirable, and so apposite, that I read a passage from it. " He who thinks that the British Constitution ought to con- sist of the three members, of three very different natures, of which it does actually consist, and thinks it his duty to pre- serve each of these members in its proper place, and within its proper proportion of power, must (as each shall happen to be attacked) vindicate the three several parts on the several principles peculiarly belonging to them. He cannot assert the democratic part on the principles on which monarchy is sup- ported ; nor can he support monarchy on the principles of de- mocracy ; nor can he maintain aristocracy on the grounds of the one, or of the other, or of both. All these he must support on grounds that are totally different, though, practically, they may be, and, happily, with us they axe, brought into one har- monious body. A man could not be consistent in defending such various, and, at first view, discordant parts of a mixed Constitution, without that sort of inconsistency with which Mr. Burke stands charged. " As any one of the great members of this constitution hap- pens to be endangered, he that is a friend to all of them chooses 192 EAELE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. and presses the topics necessary for the support of the part at- tacked, with all the strength, the earnestness, the vehemence, with all the power of stating, of argument, and of coloring which he happens to possess and which the case demands. He is not to embarrass the minds of his hearers or to incumber or overlay his speech, by bringing into view at once (as if he were reading an academic lecture) all that may and ought, when a great occasion presents itself, to be said in favor of the other members. At that time they are out of the Court ; there is no question concerning them. "Whilst he opposes his de- fence on the part where the attack is made; he presumes that for his regard to the just right of all the rest, he has credit in every candid mind. He ought not to apprehend that his rais- ing fences about popular privileges this day, will infer that he ought, on the next, to concur with those who wopld pull down the throne ; because, on the next, he defends the throne, it ought not to be supposed that he has abandoned the right of the people." He is not to apprehend that because he is pressing the Scriptures upon the heathen, that he is intending to put out that greater light of the Spurit for Friends. I continue the quotation. " A man who, among various objects of his equal regard, is secure of some, and full of anxiety for the fate of others, is apt to go to much greater lengths in his preference of the objects of his immediate solicitude than Mr. Burke has ever done. A man so circumstanced often seems to undervalue, to vilify, almost to reprobate and disown those that are out of danger. This is the voice of nature and truth, and not of inconsistency and false pretence. The danger of any thing, very dear to us, removes for the moment every other affection from the mind. When Priam had his cold thoughts employed on the body of his Hector, he repels with indignation, and drives from him with a thousand reproaches his surviving sons, who with offi- cious piety crowded, about him to offer their assistance. A good critic (there is no better than Mr. Fox) would say that this is a master-stroke, and marks a deep understanding of na- ture in the father of poetry." But, after all, the question is not on the soundness of CLOSING ARGUMENT. 193 every sentence, or every actual sentiment of Joseph John Gur- ney. • u The true question is this ; was Joseph John Gurney's recog- nized position among English Friends such — and did he come so formally accredited to us — and did he so conduct himself while here, that we might receive and treat him as we did — and yet ourselves remain sincerely true, and steadfast in the creed of Friends, according to our solemn declaration in 1845. That is the question. Well, now, it is certain that, up to the time when he came here, he was — in the judgment of English Friends, as ex- pressed by hfs own Yearly Meeting, to whom he was best known, and who were best able to pronounce on the whole ag- gregate effect, tendency, and quality of his writings, speech, and life — he was perfectly, sound. These exceptionable sentences had been written. But English Friends had seen him come home from the amenities and seducements of Oxford, to sit down to the silent and solitary study of their tenets, and rise up a fixed believer ; they saw his outgoings and incomings down to the mature age of forty-nine or fifty — and they were more just, more manly, more politic, than to snatch a few such passages, as evidence" of heresy, even to that extent — still less as sufficient to outweigh the general effect, and tenor, and use- fulness, and daily beauty, of a whole life ; and they gave him'a recommendation of soundness in the form of a Liberating Cer- tificate, and he came among us. Now, that this warranted — that it required, us to receive him as a minister ; to hear him if we pleased ; to protect him from irregular traducings — but to accuse him in due form, if he proved unsound — is clear. And is not that just what the Yearly Meeting did ? What treatment have they extended to him evinc- ing sympathy with heresies ? They treated him as a Christian minister of their order — entitled to kindness, respect, and pro- tection from irregular and objectionable attack. And is it not perfectly clear that by discipline and usage this was due firom them — if not to him, to the Yearly Meeting of London ? Is any thing clearer than, that full faith and credit were due to the liberating certificate of that body ? That which comity of 17 194 EAKLB ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. nations — which international law, sanctions between the armed governments of the earth — hostile races, Saxon, German, or . Slavonian — is it not due from the brethren of this household — severed by the sea — but bound together from London to Van Dieman's Land by the mystic tie ? Does anybody contradict this? They insisted that whUe here he should be protected from irregular attacks, and tried by his life among us. If he uttered a word of unsoundness, their " law was open, and there were deputies." The Discipline points the mode of prosecution, and to that they deterrnined that his assailants should conform. They stood resolute that the discipline of two centuries should not be violated to reach even an imputed heresy — left behind, forgiven, and blotted out, by the manliness of English Quakers in consideration of the affluence of practical orthodoxy which attended it ! For this alone, they became suspected of sharing the opin- ion which was thought objectionable. Because they insisted that bearing such a certificate he should be received as an ortho- dox minister down to the time of his arrival ; that he should be judged by his works after he came hither ; and if any man had ought here to allege against him, he should do it according to our ecclesiastical law, and not by slander and reviling and irregularity of persecution, — they have ceased to be the Yearly Meeting of New England ! There would be more decency in this, if it could be proved that while in this country, Gurney — within the knowledge of any one of these Complainants, or of those who sympathize with them, and hold unity with the Yearly Meeting, ever ut- tered a heterodox sentiment. But of such proof there is not a particle. One of the Respondents' witnesses, Thomas B. Gould, testifies that he heard him preach unsoundly. What was the heresy he does not remember, or he does not tell. Does the witness pretend that any of us heard the ser- mon ? Certainly not. Does he pretend that he preferred any accusation against him, according to the discipline, for so preaching ? No. They say we have circulated Gurney's books. But mark the exact state of the proof. CLOSING ARGUMENT. 195 1. In the first place it is not pretended that we ever did any thing in regard to the circulation of his books, but expressed our general approval of the acts of Trustees under the will of Obadiah Brown. That person, a Friend, created a trust in the year 1822 for distributing publications, — not intended, however, to be exclusively confined to works of Friends. Under that trust many thousands of volumes, first and last, have been circulated ; and after it had thus been made, for more than twenty years, to pour the currents of morality, religion, and literature over the Quaker mind, it so happened that, iix 1844, a list of the books, which for the eight previous years had been circulated, was laid before our Meeting for Sufferings. That meeting made a minute encouraging the Trustees in their gen- eral labors ; and at the next Yearly Meeting this act, with the other doings of the Meeting for Sufferings, came before it ; they expressed approbation, and they stand by it to-day. It turns out now that the Respondents have found in this list some two hundred copies of a work entitled " Observa- tions ; " and Hobson (page 339 of Respondents' evidence), says this book was written by Gurney. They say, too, that in this work, originally published in England, there are xin- sound opinions. Suppose it so for the argument ; but in what edition of it ? There have been several. Are the imputed here- sies in all of them ? Are they in the edition in the list which came under the eye of the Meeting for Sufferings, and from them to the Yearly Meeting of New England of 1844. No, — indeed. There is not in that edition the slightest trace of unsoundness, — not even the " Philadelphia Appeal," invoked by the Respond- ents, and which has reviewed these proceedings to show the world that it totally misapprehends the matter, not even that appeal gives any correct representation of what it objects to in that edition of the Observations. The appeal quotes from the book twenty-six lines to attempt to show its unsoundness, and by a note at the bottom of the page, states that " the passage between brackets " (two lines of this to them objectionable matter) is omitted in an edition printed in New York in 1840. See Philadelphia Appeal, pp. 47, 48. 196 EARLB ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. Whereas of those twenty-six lines, more than fourteen are omitted in the New York edition of 1840, the one purchased by the Trustees, and what remains on the subject of prayer, is sound if Robert Barclay is sound. — [See Appendix A.] Besides, the book came to us accredited and sanctioned by the highest weight of authority. It has been published under the auspices of the London Yearly Meeting ; and under those of the New York Yearly Meeting ; and Thomas Kite, who is proved by the Respondents' witnesses in Philadelphia, to have been esteemed a sound minister in the Society, himself pub- lished an edition of it ! What, then, does this charge of ap- proving the circulation of the " Observations " amount to ? Why, that, aware of the general manner in which for so many years the Trustees had discharged the trust ; casting our eye over the list, and discerning that in its general character, it was unobjectionable and excellent, we saw in it two hundred of this work, — and that, knowing that in that edition, at least, there was nothing for jealousy even to object to ; recognizing it as a book put into circulation by two Yearly Meetings, and by an individual Quaker publisher of the highest character, we did not subject the catalogue to a very microscopic inspection, but recorded our encouragement of the labors of the Trustees in a few and general terms ! Is this to go for proof of heresy in us, or of sympathy with a heretic ? What more ? The counsel read portions of the testimony of Wilbur, Gould, Perry, and HiH, to show, in the mo^t vague, general, and delusive language, that the Yearly Meet- ing adhered to Gurney, favored him, and above all, adopted a plan of " putting down all men who raised an honest testi- mony against him." Read by the counsel, this proof sounded like something. Sifted, it is worthless. AU this adhering to, and favoring of Gurney, was exactly and merely recognizing his certificate, and judging^ him by his works here. And this purpose of " putting down honest testimony," is nothing in the world but Wilbur's interpretation of their act, and their motives in proceeding against him for violating the discipline in his mode of assailing Joseph John Gurney. Does he pre- CLOSING ARGUMENT. 197 tend that for any attempt to proceed against Gurney accord- ing to discipline, he was threatened, or prosecuted? No. Does he pretend that for criticizing any word spoken here, or written here, we complained ? No. Does he deny that we sincerely thought his mode of assailing Gurney violated dis- cipline, — and for that prosecuted 1 No. Is there a scrap of evidence that our pretended concern for discipline was a mask to cover the introduction of Gurney's alleged unsound opin- ions, and that we were indifferent to the truth or falsehood of his opinions ? None whatever. Wilbur and his friends anonymously and irregularly tra- duced Gurney. This the Discipline forbids ; and we subjected him to discipline, according to the Discipline, for violating it. Does this warrant a charge of our " suppressing honest testi- monies " given according to our law against him ? You re- strain, and you punish a mob for lynching an individual. Do you thereby discourage the giving of evidence against him, in support of an indictment in a court of law ? Does Wilbur pretend that the least degree of embarrassment was put in the .way of his disciplining Gurney to his heart's content ? Noth- ing like it. They say that our Yearly Meeting gave him a returning cer- tificate. Had he not earned it? What evil had he done? How did they know that he had been unsound here ? If they believed its contents to be true they were bound to give it. Hear it : — " Our beloved friend, Joseph John Gurney, having acceptably attended this Yearly Meeting in 1838, and subsequently visited nearly all the meetings constituting it, and held many among those not of our religious society, and also visited the families of some meetings ; and being again acceptably with us at this time, and apprehending that his labors of love in this country are nearly closed, we feel engaged to inform you that, during his sojourn among us, his public ministry has been acceptable and edifying, his private labors instructive and encouraging, and his life and conversation consistent with his Christian pro- fession, manifesting an ardent engagement for the promotion of the cause of truth, and the welfare of his fellow men," 17* 198 EAELE BT ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. Did not every Yearly Meeting in the United States, but one, give him a good returning certificate ? And now I am ready to dismiss the defence of the sound- ness of the faith of our Yearly Meeting. Your Honors have heard their own solemn declaration of faith ; and that declara- tion is admitted to be of orthodoxy, absolute and unquestion- able. If they were sincere in making it, the matter is at rest for ever. That they were sincere is a presumption, not less of law and of reason than of charity ; all our observation of life ; all our knowledge of the sect, and of the men, prepare us to believe it ; great numbers of those who have taken a lead- ing part in these proceedings have, under the solemnity of af^ firmation, declared their adoption of that declaration ; not one unsound sentiment or expression has been proved on one man or woman now in unity ; their treatment of Gurney, itself the only matter of colorable insinuation against them, is not only reconcilable with the soundness of their faith, but was de- manded of them by the spirit of their religion, and of all relig- ion, and by the express commandment of their law. I shall not deny that some Friends may have conceived a suspicion, or distrust that we had adopted what they charac- terize as his objectionable opinions. And yet, when I call to mind the actual evidence ; that Joseph John Gurney came among us in 1837, and left us as long ago as 1840, bearing with him these returning certificates; that it is not pretended we have done a solitary act since, except putting forth a decla- ration of faith admitted to be orthodox ; that it was not till the supplemental answer was put in, in November, 1845, after this bill was filed and months after they had set up their new Yearly Meeting, that a definite charge of heresy against the Yearly Meeting as a body, was ventured; that until June, 1845, every one of the Respondents recognized this as the true Yearly Meeting, though they disobeyed it ; tha;t those who disobeyed it did never pretend it to be unsound ; that their own new Yearly Meeting, — formed in 6th month, 1845, — opened a correspondence and solicited relations with that very London Yearly Meeting, which had sent Gurney here to scat- ter the manna of his pernicious eloquence, — in view of these CLOSING AKGUMENT. 199 things, I think I have gone very far in admitting that they do, any one of them, sincerely distrust us. In the language of another, — "I admit their sincerity, but I am amazed at their existence." Ours, then, is the only Yearly Meeting of New England. To this all Friends consent. Every Yearly Meeting but those of Philadelphia and Ohio recognize us. And the women's meeting of Ohio, more wise then their brethren, still give us the right hand of fellowship, and keep up their Christian cor- respondence with us. No one recognizes that of the Respon- dents. Philadelphia and Ohio, even, do not recognize them. They do not deny that we are the Yearly Meeting, but they misjudge us on hearsays, of our administration, and they cen- sure or criticize us. And on the points whereon they censure, time ; and the concurrent opinion of every other Yearly Meet- ing — notified so formally ; will, I doubt not, lead them to reconsider and approve, or at least, excuse. Meantime we greet them weU. I submit, then, that on the case actually and completely before the Court, we show that these Respondents, — as de facto overseers of a. de facto meeting, — ought not to hold, enjoy, and administer this trust; because they are openly and by formal expression and declaration — their own — ours — out of unity with the Yearly Meeting ; or in other words, out of that just relation and subordination to it, which the Disci- pline expects and prescribes, and the trusts of the deed require. The same evidence establishes that the Complainants are overseers of the only Monthly Meeting, that which is in unity, and therefore entitled to the trust. At what precise and artificial point of time, or stage of the proceedings, this state of being out of unity, so as to draw after it the consequence of losing, and gaining title by the deed, may be deemed to have firs^eompletely existed ; need not be inquired. The successive steps, and the consummated and legally manifested result, are before the Court. There was first a want of unity in fact, even before, certainly in, ithe 7th and 8th months, 1844, which might or might not terminate in formal and adjudged want of unity; and which has so ter- 200 EARLE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. minated. In 7th month it was so. The Yearly Meeting by their Committee, advised, and that advice was rejected. In the 8th month it was so ; and more so. The Yearly Meeting by their Committee again advised. The Quarterly Meeting united in it. Some — and those the greater number — com- plied, and became, or rather remained, a Monthly Meeting wholly in unity. Others — the Respondents — refused to com- ply, denied that they were any longer a Monthly Meeting, and set up another in opposition to, and practically at least, already out of unity with the two superior meetings. In the 11th month, the matter advanced further. The new Monthly Meel- ting, acting with a few other persons, set up a new meeting, which they called a Quarterly Meeting ; thus practically deny- ing the existence of the old one, with whom we kept united ; which new meeting was out of unity with the Yearly Meet- ing, and with us. In 4th month, 1845, the Yearly Meeting, by the Meeting for SuflFerings — thus far admitted by everybody to be the only one — discerning this want of unity, and ap- preciating whereto it must grow, assumed direction of this trust fund, and directed its conveyance to us. In the 6th month, 1845, those who formed their new Quarterly- Meeting, acting with a few from some of the other quarters, set up a Yearly Meeting of their own, in opposition to the true one ; and in the same 6th month, 1845, the true and only Yearly Meeting formally and finally pronounced and promulgated that the Respondents were out of unity ; and thus legally and technically manifested the existence of that exact state of things, which makes the equity of our bill, and entitles us to the fund according to the terms of the deed. These are the "steps ; and this the result, open at a single view. On this entire case the Court wiU decide. And yet I propose to go a step further, and to submit that, irrespective of this declaration of the '!^arly Meeting — itself perfectly con- clusive — and anterior to that, the want of unity contemplated by the deed, and decisive of the title, would be found by this Court to be proved by the evidence in the cause. I submit that in, from, and after the 7th month, 1844, the conduct of the Respondents was totally irregular, and violative of discipline ; CLOSma ARGUMENT. 201 and that of the Complainants was regular and legal ; and that as a result of that irregularity, and that violation of discipline, from and after the 7th month, or certainly ever after the 8th month, the Complainants became and continued the true Over- seers of the true Monthly Meeting; and the Respondents ceased to be such ; and that, therefore, irrespective of, and prior to, any subsequent action of anybody, our rights under the deed became fixed ; and we became entitled upon the disci- pline to demand of the Quarterly and Yearly Meetings all which they afterwards actually did on om: behalf. Turning, then, to the proceedings of the 8th month, we find that in the 8th month, that Monthly Meeting which owned David Shove for its Clerk, elected the Complainants' Over- seers. If that was the true Monthly Meeting, they became and are the Overseers entitled to this trust. I have shown that it was such, by one line of argument ; that is, by the proof that it is the only Monthly Meeting in unity. But on a narrower ground, and by a line of argument — to some extent other, though consistent — lam to maintain that it was the true Monthly Meeting. Well, then, it was so because the Clerk which it acknowl- edged was the true Clerk ; and because the former Clerk, Wil- bur, had ceased to be the true Clerk. His meeting, therefore, was a nullity ; and his Overseers, like himself, were nobody. How do we show, then, that David Shove became the true Clerk ? We place it on the general ground that, upon the evidence, he must be deemed to have become, in the 8th month Meeting, duly elected ; and that the refusal of the old Clerk the month before to minute that fact is a void act. And we say he was duly elected, — 1st. Because the Committees of the Yearly and Quarterly Meetings, then present to advise and assist in putting an end to the disagreement by accomplishing an election, advised the election of Shove ; and that that advice was complied with by a portion — hereafter I shall show it to have been a majority — of those present; and that the Committees then and there declared that whoever so complied would be deemed in unity, and whoever supported Wilbur in holding, as Clerk, a separate 202 EARLB ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. meeting, would be deemed out of unity. I say that an elec- tion made in compliance with such advice, so enforced, did duly and effectually make Shove the Clerk. 2d. He is to be deemed duly elected, because, from the first — by all the modes in which they could act, and as fast as they could act — the Quarterly and Yearly Meetings recog- nized him as the true Clerk, and recognized nobody else. 8d. He is so, because the majority — the solid sense, of the meeting was with him, and against Wilbur. And the minute of Wilbur to the contrary is a void act, because, — First, it is shown by evidence competent and over- whelming, not to be true. Second ; it is shown that he was under the influence of a theory, and a temper, which unfitted him to record the true sense of the meeting. And, third ; that he was actually disqualified to act in the 8th month by what had happened in the 7th month ; to wit, by his refusal to minute the choice of Shove. Of these, briefly, each in order : — / 1. I submit, first, that the fact that Shove was elected in compliance with the advice of the Committees of the Yearly and Quarterly Meetings then present, and declaring that they who took this advice and adhered' to this meeting should be deemed in unity, and they who aided Wilbur to set up a sepa- rate meeting should be deemed out of unity, — this fact made him, from the first, the true Clerk, and his Meeting the true Meeting ; and the other Clerk, and his Meeting, schismatical from the first, — certainly so, until the superior bodies should reverse the proceeding ; and as they have ratified it, it remains so as from the beginning. I have shown already under the former branch of argument, that the authority which the Yearly Meeting assumed, and meant to give to its Committee, was broad enough, and spe- cific enough, to empower, and to require that if, under the cir- cumstances of the case, they thought — guided by best wis- dom — a particular election necessary to terminate a long, scandalous, and dangerous disagreement, and restore unity and concord, they should advise such election, and should assist in CLOSING ARGUMENT. 203 effecting it by a declaration that it should be deemed a test of unity. It is needless to read again the terms of the authority assumed to be given ; but I may ask the Court to take ■wdth them the further fact, that ever after the 7th month the Yearly and Quarterly Meetings' Committees determined to advise the election of Shove, as the mode fittest to overcome the disa- greement ; that those committees advised it, and declared that whoever complied would remain in unity, and whoever sup- ported Thomas Wilbur in holding a separate meeting would be considered out of unity. But now the question may be, had the superior meetings power to sdhd such committees to render such assistance ? There is some apparent discrepancy of opinions on the evi- dence — though more apparent than real ; and when we turn from that, and ascend to the Discipline and usage, aU is per- fectly clear. 1. In the first place, twelve witnesses for the Complainants, declare for substance their opinion that the Yearly Meeting had this power. It was quite incautiously said in argument that this kind of testimony is chiefly from Chace and Boyce, whose connec- tion with the controversy exposes them, it is said, to bias. I do not imagine that the suggestion would much weaken your Honors' confidence in such men. But Coffin, the Clerk of the Indiana Yearly Meeting-^ the largest Yearly Meeting in the world ; Willis, of the Yearly Meeting of New York ; Stalker, the Clerk of that of North Carolina ; Balderston, the former Clerk of that of Maryland ; and Ladd of that of Ohio, — every one of them out of the influence of this excitement, substantially concur — with some differences of expression — in the same opinion. 2. In the next place, of the Eespondents' witnesses, all — or all but one, agree that there is a right of the Yearly Meet- ing to advise, and a duty of the Monthly Meeting to obey ; and they differ from ours, only in regard to the form and mode in which disobedience is to be proceeded upon. Two of these are, or have been Clerks. 204 EAELE ET ALS. V. WOOD BT ALS. Let me here observe, that in answer to the cross-interroga- tories, every Philadelphia witness agrees with the testimony of Samuel Settle, given in the Camden trial. This appears in the Defendants' proofs, in answer to the 78d question, on page 179. "We ask them for substance, Do you not agree with the testimony substantially of Samuel Settle ? They all reply, Yes. Now to Settle, his questions, and his answers, wer,e such as these : — " Question. Has a Quarterly, or other superior meeting, authoritative power over an inferior meeting, when no case has been referred to it ? " Answer. Yes. I consider it has an authoritative and su- pervisory power. " Q. Is the power to lay down a meeting, a matter of express discipline, or matter of usage ? "A. I consider it a matter. of express discipline, arising out of the subordination which the Discipline points out. " Q. When a matter of difficulty is referred for the advice and assistance of the superior meeting, can the superior meet- ing do more than afford its advice ? " A. If its advice is foUowed, it is all that is requisite ; but if it is not foUowed, they may enforce it. " Q. The meeting is bound to take the advice ? " A. Yes, the meeting is bound to take the advice." Now, if the power is conceded, and the duty conceded, the mode of enforcing it must rest with the superior meeting. By a Committee on the spot, they may declare — that one will be considered out of unity and the other in unity, or they may direct the Committee to report to them ; and then, on the report, act and declare. All this is mere detail and mode. If no settled usage, and no text of discipline, to the contrary is shown, they may exert the admitted authority either way. 3. In the next place, practically, the advice of such Com- mittees has been universally followed. Such is the testimony of every witness in the case who speaks to it. We produce a series of the records of the visits of such Committees, begin- ning in 1759 and terminating in 1847. (See Complainants CLOSING ARGUMENT. 205 evidence, pages 139 to 152 ; then 153 to 160,) which present the same gratifying result. I submit that this remarkable fact proves not only how admirably the minds of Friends are trained to subordination ; but that this specific power of the Yearly Meeting to advise and assist in this mode, and to this extent, has been found judicious and important. 4. Turning, finally, to the discipline, and the ecclesiastical polity of this church, it seems to me equally clear. 1. I think it is the result of the discipline, and of the univer- sal evidence, that the right to direct what shall be done in given exigencies is, in the last resort, in the Yearly Meeting. The difference of witnesses, is a difference merely as to the when, where, and how the superior power shall interpose. But that the Yearly Meeting — continuing such, and sound in faith — is supreme in matter of discipline, is the result of every thing in the evidence. Some such there must be ; and this church — by consent of laity and ministers, as evidenced by the usage . of centuries — has placed it there. There is no sovereignty behind, and greater. There is no constitution, but the text of the Discipline, overriding it. See if the Book of Discipline does not bear this out. On page 42 it is said, the Yearly Meetings are charged with " a great and weighty oversight and Christian care of the affairs of the churches pertaining to our holy profession and Christian communion ; that good order, pure love, unity, and concord may be faith fully' followed and maintained among all of us, as a peculiar people called and chosen out of the world and the errors and corruptions thereof." But will your Honors look at the 43d page ? " These meet- ings are to continue subordinate and accountable thus : the Preparative to the Monthly, the Monthly to the Quarterly, and the Quarterly to the Yearly Meetings ; so that if at any time the Yearly Meeting be dissatisfied with the proceedings of any of the said meetings, or the Quarterly Meeting with the pro- ceedings of the ■ Monthly Meetings, or the Monthly Meeting with the proceedings of any of the Preparative Meetings, with- 18 206 EAELE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. in its limits, such meetings ought with readiness and meekness to render a satisfactory account accordingly." The satisfac- tion of the Yearly Meeting is the law of that church. That which shall de facto satisfy the Yearly Meeting is to be done, and the duty of the subordinate meeting is to afford satisfac- tion in fact. An account in this vocabulary, means to make a statement of facts ; to render a satisfactory account, therefore, means to cause the facts to become and be satisfactory. Noth- ing is left, in other words, but that, from the highest to the lowest, if the Yearly Meeting is dissatisfied with the proceed- ings of any other meeting, the duty of that meeting is to do what shall be satisfactory to the Yearly Meeting. I suppose it is not possible better to express it. So far all agree. The doubt among witnesses seems to be as to how or when the supreme will shall interpose. Well, now, in some classes of cases, the Discipline prescribes, and it must be followed. A meeting is to be laid down, for example, or a member is to be disowned, in certain cases. But many cases are special, and elude all such precise prescription, and then the supreme power judges for itself. Emphatically must it have been so here. Here was a protracted refusal to agree in making the annual election, some members supporting the Yearly Meeting, and some opposing it. It was no case for laying down a meeting. There was a very good meeting. But it was distracted by an indecorous and prolonged quarrel, producing a standstill and a scandal. Now, that it was the business of the Yearly Meeting to put an end to this some- how, is clear. The Discipline, page 42, shows that it is charged with this duty. It shows it to be charged with "a great and weighty " oversight and care, that unity and concord may obtain. Dissatisfactory proceedings, demanding the sub- stitution of satisfactory, existed. In all this there was no case for laying down any thing or anybody. It was a case for en- forcing disciphne, obedience, and the establishment of rightful authority — leaving everybody in his place, if he would com- ply. Be it that they might have laid down the meeting. Still they mig-ht do less, and might do this. The mode not being pointed out, they judge of mode. And where is the harm in CLOSING ABGUMENT. 207 the actual mode proceeded in? Was it not better than to dis- solve and annex ? Could not the same cry be raised, and with as much reason, if they had dissolved and annexed ? Might it not, if they had singled out individuals, and tried and dis- owned them ? What they did was the least they could do. Why should they have proceeded at once to the extreme med- icine of their constitution ? The mildest only was tried. They put an end to the immediate scandal ; and they left every dis- satisfied Friend to his sober second thought. Truth to say, the cavil about modes is here mere cavil. Let a passage from Barclay be remembered and applied. — [See Appendix B.] On the 'power, then, of the Yearly Meeting to clothe its Committee with this authority, I suppose there is no question. It was competent perfectly thus to accomplish the election of Shove. It was competent to propose and enforce this test of unity. In all this there is nothing that is not analogous per- fectly to that other peculiarity of our policy, according to which not numbers, but weight ; not noise, not nonsense, but solid sense, are to direct. What is it but to say that if the solid sense of a disturbed local meeting is appealed to in vain, and is found unequal to its functions, the solid sense of the higher authority may be appealed to ? They may call this arbitrary polity. But they must admit it to be Quaker polity, and useful polity. 2. The next fact I rely on to show that David Shove became Clerk, and his meeting the true one, is that every Quarterly and Yearly Meeting holden afterwards, and as fast as they could, recognized them and disowned the other. On this there is no controversy. What is the effect ? By relation, from the start, our Clerk, and our meeting, are ascertained to be true. Which is true, and which is not, depehds on their relations to the whole ecclesiastical system of which they are part. What those relations were to be, or were, could indeed be discerned then ; but they became more defined and certain with every month ; and now they are unmistakable. But at last we only now certainly know what did then truly exist. 208 EAELE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. 3. In the next place', there was a Quaker majority, that is, the solid religious sense of the meeting for compliance with the advice to elect Shove. I think it quite clear, first, that un- der the circumstances the old Clerk is not to be deemed as conclusively reporting the fact of majority. Even if he were not disqualified and out of unity by the refusal of the 7th month, so as to be ineligible — which we submit on the proofs — the court sees enough to warrant the judgment that his minutes are not here to be deemed conclusive — nor his count, or estimate, of muph weight. Now let me remind your Hon- ors, that this business of taking the sense of the meeting, is in the nature of a religious service. The Clerk is supposed to be under the influence of the Spirit by which he can recognize that kindred spirit by which the others are influenced, and the very moment we can show that he was unfitted to judge of this kindred spirit he was necessarily unfitted to act as Clerk. In the first place he acted under a total misapprehension of his duty. Primarily he is to collect the sense of the meeting, according to all the testimony, and not himself decide. Thomas Wilbur the Clerk has the idea that he is to decide. In the next place his eye was jaundiced and his judgment perverted with regard to the very men who took part in the disciplinary proceedings respecting the elder Wilbur. Under the influence of such distrust as that he could not recognize the influence of that spirit, which the Clerk is supposed to distinguish. He saw in each of them, a sympathizer in the doctrines of Gurney. How could he count such men, in making up the weight or solid sense of the meeting ? There they stood before him in his judgment heretics. The moment we bring him under such an influence as that, we show him entirely incompetent to discern and pronounce upon the solid sense of that meeting. We know now, that that large numerical majority, in every man of whom, he thought he recognized an unbeliever in dis- guise, were as true believers as himself. The facts are not as he supposed them to be. In the next place he was under a theory, and he avows it, which is discountenanced by every other particle of testimony in this case ; and that is, that nothing was to be considered a CLOSING ARGUMENT. 209 conclusion of the meeting so long as one raised his head against it. He said, that was his custom. But that is not Quaker discipline. On the contrary it is to depend upon the solid sense of the meeting ; and if there is not a perfect accord- ance in judgment, those who are the least solid are expected to yield. As long as a single person who distrusted the pro- ceedings against the elder Wilbur, should hold up his head, he could not decide against such person on his own theory. I find Mr. Wilbur, therefore, in a frame of mind unsuitable to that office, — which required him on his own theory to have obeyed the injunction of Holy Writ: " Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground." — [See Appendix C, T. Wilbur's evidence.] I miss all this in Thomas Wilbur. More than this I find him in a temper unsuitable to that solemnity. A Clerk, pro- fessing by the aid of the Spirit, to read it in others, talking of horse-jockeying in reference to the labors of "the Yearly Meet- ing's Committee, and proposing to trust to luck for the appoint- ment of an Overseer! (See PlaintiflPs evidence, pp. 67, 69.) That eye surely was darkened ; and how great was that dark- ness! And finally, he was disqualified to collect, or minute the sense of the meeting, by his refusal to minute the election of Shove in the 7th month, according to the advice of the Yearly Meeting's Committee. The effect of this is, that although he may not yet be technically out of unity, he is disqualified for holding office. That one technically in unity may be so dis- qualified, the Respondents' witnesses admit. See particu- larly Thomas Wilbur, pp. 14, 15, answers 55, 56, and 59 ; Wm. F. Wood, p. 83, ans. 46 ; John T. Kenyon, p. 91, ans. 47 ; N. Buffington, pp. 101, 102, ans. 46, 47, and 54 ; John WUbur, p. 163, ans. 35, 36, 37, 38, and 40 ; C. Perry, p. 234, ans. 38. That such was his case, is submitted. What he had done in the 7th month meeting was this. He refused to minute that Shove was elected, according to the advice of the Yearly Meeting's Committee, when the solid sense of the meeting was clearly declared for Shove, and every member of that 18* 210 EARLB ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. Committee, then and there declared that his minute, continu- ing the subject of the appointment of Clerk, did not express the solid sense of the meeting — notwithstanding which, he refused to alter it. The effect of this upon his relations to the Society and his qualifications for office is thus and well stated on pages 27, 28, of the pleadings. " We are also united in judgment, that at said Monthly Meeting, in the 7th month, Thomas Wilbur was bound by the discipline and good order of our Society to record the clearly expressed sense of the Monthly Meeting appoint- ing David Shove as its Clerk, in accordance with the advice of the Yearly Meeting's Committee ; and by refusing to do so, so far departed from the discipline and usages of oiu: Society, as well as from the subordination of inferior to superior Meetings, and individuals to the body, as to disqualify him from any longer holding the office of Clerk of Swanzey Monthly Meet- ing; and said office thereupon became vacant." — Report of Committee of Representatives to Yearly Meeting; 1845. It is on these grounds that we maintain, that the single fact that the minutes of Wilbur refuse to recognize the election of Shove, does not exclude us from the proof, that a decisive majority of the meeting counted not by the head only, but by religious weight of character, voted for Shove. And the proof is overwhelming. That a large actual and numerical majority, of at least equal solidity and sobriety, man for man, united in his election, admits not a shadow of doubt. 1. In the first place such is the weight of evidence of wit- nesses on this trial. The respondents examine five to the point. One of them says nothing. This leaves four: the two Wilburs, Wood, and Kenyon — the last of whom says the change of Clerk was united in by a number of the mem- bers, though he thinks more objected. The Wilburs say only that more expressed objections to Shove, than expressed favor. But this goes to expression only ; not to the manifested opin- ions of the whole. Against this we produce six, who concur in explicitly affirm- ing the weight of members, and the weight of character. CLOSING ARGUMENT. 211 Some testify to the 7th month Meeting ; some to the 8th ; and they show that twenty-five or more members spoke in favor of Shove, and from ten to fifteen, one witness says twelve to eighteen, against it, or in that proportion. For 7th month — page 69 — Samuel Boyce says twelve to eighteen spoke in opposition, and two or three times that num- ber spoke in favor of receiving the advice and making the ap- pointments. Abner Slade — page 50, answer 5th — says twenty-five were in favor, and ten against it; and he gives names and ages. J. Meader — page 201 — says more than twice as many were in favor of accepting the advice as there were who opposed it. Thos. S. Gifford says — page 30 — upwards of twenty-five were in favor, and twelve to fifteen against. Jervis Shove — pp. 38, 39 — says about twenty-five and perhaps more in favor, and twelve to fifteen against. Azariah Shove says — page 47 — twenty -five to thirty were in favor, and ten to fifteen against — the opposition from forty- five to seventy-five years of age; those in favor fi-om forty to seventy years. For 8th month. John Meader — pp. 203, 204 — says the meeting, by a fiill expression, united with the appointment of David Shove as Clerk. Samuel Boyce says a solid and weighty part of the meeting, by a very general expression, were in favor of it, and A. C. Wilbur, I. Buffington, and a few others, opposed it — see page 73. Thos. S. Gifford — pp. 31, 32 — says there was a pretty full expression of satisfaction and unity with the ap- pointment of David Shove as Clerk ; and the same opposition as there was in the 7th month. Jervis Shove — p. 40, ans. 7 — says many in the meeting were in favor of it, and a few op- posed it. J. H. Vining says — page 58 — that the proposition to appoint David Shove as Clerk was united with by a large majority of the meeting. Add two considerations. No Preparative Meeting meide any return to Wilbur. On adjournment, and separation of members, when it be- came perfectly impossible not to discern the preponderance of numbers, those who favored Shove were three to one. 212 BARLB ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. 2. In the next place, the fact that our numbers, larger com- paratively, were acting in . compliance with the advice of the Committees of the Yearly and Quarterly Meetings — if com- pliance were a duty — ^^ invests them with a weight and solidity of character, entitling them to a fair appreciation in this count. Yet this it was exactly which made it impossible for Wilbur to see them. 3. In the third place, consider that the Committees of the Yearly and Quarterly Meetings, every member of them who was present, concurred in the opinion, and stated it, that the solid sense of the meeting — gathered according to usage of Friends — having regard to numbers and weight, was clearly for Shove. These persons did not vote. But they did observe — as coolly, and under as high a wisdom as WUbur, at least. If Shove was thus duly elected Clerk of the Swanzey Monthly Meeting in the 7th month or the 8th month, the Meeting which then and thenceforward owned him for Clerk was the true Monthly Meeting ; and there existed no other. They who were elected Overseers by that meeting are the true Overseers ; and they are Complainants in the cause. The duty of recognizing them as such attached, under the Dis- cipline, upon the Superior Meetings ; and the whole series of acts of recognition from that time not merely determine them to be the body and the officers alone in unity, but they rightly determine them so to be ; and they determine them to have been so from the moment that two sets of Clerks and Over- seers and two Meetings, began to compete for the honor and for the rights of legitimacy. And thus, on both grounds, we are entitled to a decree in our favor. To that decree all who own the name of Friends will bow ; and this litigation, so unpleasant to their feelings, so unwonted in their habits, will give place to the calm, and the concord which they cultivate, and by which they are characterized. OPINION OF THE COURT. The Opinion of the Court was delivered by Hon. Chief- Justice Shaw, and, as afterwards drawn up by him, was as follows : — The case which this Court are now called upon to decide, affecting the rights and interests, and depending on the rules and usages, of the large and respectable denomination of Christians, known as Quakers, is regarded by the parties and their respective friends and adherents, as one of great impor- tance to thewell-being of the Society. This importance does not so much depend on the amount of property involved in this particular case, as upon the principles on which it must be decided, and the extent to which these may affect the rights of others interested in the same questions. This is a suit in equity, brought by the Plaintiffs, describing themselves, and claiming title to the property described, as Overseers of the Swanzey Monthly Meeting of the people called Quakers. They set out a deed, more particularly stated hereafter, made by Elizabeth S. Danforth in August, 1821, to Jonathan Chace, Benjamin Slade, and Reuben Chase, all described in the bill as since deceased, and the bill is brought against many persons named, as the heirs at law of the said grantees, and also against William Wood, Palmer Chace, Miller Chace, Seneca Lincoln, Philip Tripp, and William Slade, who allege themselves to be the Overseers of Swanzey Monthly Meeting, the Complainants averring and charging, that the said Wood and others, are not the true Overseers of 214 EARLE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. Swanzey Monthly Meeting, that their claim is a groundless pretence, and that the Complainants are the true Overseers. The subject of the controversy is a tract of land situated in the town of Fall River, (formerly Troy,) with a meeting-house standing thereon. The object of the bill is to ask this Court, as a court of equity, to declare a trust respecting saidlot and meeting-house, that the same is held by those of the defendants, described as heirs of Chace and others, the original grantees in trust for the use, benefit, and accommodation of the Swanzey Monthly Meeting, and to make and execute conveyances accordingly in execution of such trust ; to declare and decree, that said William Wood and others, the other Defendants in the bill, are not the true, legitimate, and authorized Overseers of said Swanzey Monthly Meeting, but that the said Earle and others, the Complainants, are the true, legitimate, and authorized Over- seers of the S\yanzey Monthly Meeting, entitled to all the privileges of that character ; that as such they are now clothed by the laws of this Commonwealth with corporate powers to enable them to take and hold real estate, to them and their suc- cessors, as a corporation ; and their object is to obtain a decree, declaring a trust in their favor, vesting the legal estaj;e in said lot and meeting-house, in them and their successors, and re- quiring the Defendants to convey the same to them accordingly. The Respondents, Wm. Wood and others, by their answer deny that the Plaintiffs are the true and legitimate Overseers of said Swanzey Monthly Meeting, but, on the contrary, they allege that they themselves are such true and legitimate Over- seers, and that either by force of a deed of Thomas Wilbur annexed to their answer, they are already seized of the said estate, in fee, in their corporate capacity, to hold to them and their successors, for the use of said Monthly Meeting ; or, if the fee and legal estate in the premises still remain in the heirs of the original grantees, the other Defendants in this Bill, then they admit that said estate is held by such heirs, in trust for Swanzey Monthly Meeting ; but they aver, that they are the true and authorized Overseers of said Swanzey Monthly Meet- ing, and they insist that said trusts ought to be declared in , OPINION OF THE COURT. 215 their favor, and the legal estate to be conveyed and released to them accordingly, in execution of the said trust. This Bill was filed in April, 1845, and an answer was put in. Subsequently, in October of the same year, a Supple- mental Bill was filed by the Complainants, which, after recit- ing fully the substance of their former Bill, proceeds to state, that after the filing of the former bill, to wit, in June, 1845, the Yearly Meeting of Friends for New England was convened at Newport, in the State of Rhode Island, pursuant to the usages and discipline of that body ; that being so assembled and duly organized, they proceeded to consider the conduct and doings of the Swanzey Monthly Meeting, and also of the Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting, of which Swanzey Monthly Meeting was a component part, and the proceedings of said Quarterly Meeting ; and that the said regular Yearly Meeting upon a review of all the proceedings in relation to the regu- larity of the respective bodies, each claiming to be the true Monthly Meeting, declared the body, of which David Shove was Clerk, and by whom the Complainants were chosen Overseers, to be the true Swanzey Monthly Meeting ; and that the body of which Thomas Wilbur was Clerk, and by whom the Respondents were chosen Overseers, was not the ti-ue and legitimate Swanzey Monthly Meeting. It further alleges that the said Yearly Meeting confirmed and established the doings of said Swanzey Monthly Meeting of which David Shove was Clerk, and of the Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting of which Buffiim was Clerk, and directed the conveyance of the estate in controversy to be made to the Complainants as such true and legitimate Overseers. The Defendants put in an answer to the Supplemental Bill, protesting that the Court has no jurisdiction, and that the Complainants have an. adequate remedy at law; they never- theless answer, setting forth in extenso and reiterating their former answer ; — they annex the original deed from Elizabeth S. Danforth to Chace and others, also a deed given subse- quently, on the 26th of August, 1844, and purporting to be a deed of Thomas Wilbur as Clerk of Swanzey Monthly Meet- ,ing, to themselves as Overseers, in trust to hold the same for 216 EAKLB ET ALS. Z). WOOD ET ALS. said Monthly Meeting ; — they deny that the heirs of Chace and others, the original grantees, have any estate or interest, legal or equitable, in the premises, and that the Court has any jurisdiction to compel those heirs to convey ; and aver that Thomas Wilbur was and is Clerk of said meeting, that he entered into the trusts in said deed mentioned, and conveyed the same to these Defendants ; and they now claim to hold the same, not only by virtue of the deed of said Clerk, but as a body corporate, authorized by the statutes of the Common- wealth to hold in succession all grants and donations of real or personal estate to said meeting. They admit that certain proceedings were had, after the filing of the former Bill, before a body of Friends calling themselves and their meeting the Yearly Meeting for New England ; but they deny that the pro- ceedings are correctly set forth in the Bill, and deny that their title can be affected by such subsequent proceedings, and pray that the supplemental Bill may be dismissed. They then proceed, after reaffirming their former answer, to set forth that the Society of Friends are duly organized under a regular form of government and rules, setting out their or- ganization into Preparative, Monthly, Quarterly, and Yearly Meetings, accountable and subordinate; that the Monthly Meetings annually choose Overseers who hold their offices until others are chosen or appointed ; that the Yearly Meeting appointed a Meeting for Sufferings, to take cognizance of any grievanofes, in the intervals between Yearly Meetings, and to counsel and assist, as best wisdom may direct ; they state how Quarterly and Yearly Meetings are composed, and set forth their peculiar mode of deciding deliberative questions, not by a majority, but by the solid sense of the meeting, to be collect- ed, declared, and minuted by the Clerk, who is the presiding member ; they set forth at large the usual mode of proceeding, and proceed to allege that the defendants are the true Over- seers, and that the Complainants have no claim or color to be Overseers, except by the choice of a schism, and of separatists, and they set forth the proceedings of the Monthly Meeting of which Thomas Wilbur was Clerk and the Quarterly Meeting of which Wilbur was Clerk and Perry assistant, as true meet- OPINION OF THE COURT. 217 ings, in unity with the Yearly Meeting. They deny that the said Swanzey Monthly Meeting is shown not to be in unity with, but disowned by the Yearly Meeting for New England. But they further answer that they do not admit the proceed- ings set forth in the supplemental bill to be the proceedings of the true legitimate and legal Yearly Meeting, but that they were proceedings of separatists from said meeting; and aver that the proceedings of the true Meetings, Monthly, Quarterly and Yearly, are those set forth in true copies of minutes an- nexed. They admit a want of love and unity in the society, and attribute it to a difference of religious tenets and doctrinal sentiments, Imd aver that the plaintiffs and those whom they represent, have adopted unsound doctrines, advocated by Gurney, and are called Gurneyites, whilst they and their friends, adhering to the original principles and sound doc- trines of the society, are called Orthodox Friends. They set forth what the true doctrines are, how they are in effect changed by the writings and doings of Gurney, and that the Gurney- ites have taken unfair and unwarrantable means, to get their own friends and partisans into all places of influence, and to obtain an ascendency in the control of the society ; that at the Yearly Meeting they have departed from the usage and disci- pline of the society, in postponing the nomination of a Clerk ; that the orthodox representatives, as in duty bound, proceeded to agree upon clerks, and reported the same, which being fully united with by the sound Friends, they were accordingly ap- pointed, and the usual business was gone through with ; and they set forth the proceedings, and thereupon conclude that the Gurneyite party were the separatists. Finally, they insist that the Gurneyites, under whom the plaintiffs claim, are sepa- ratists from the Society of Friends, do not agree in the behef of the fundamental doctrines of the Society, and are opposed to its order and discipline, and especially that the Monthly Meet- ing, of which David Shove pretends to be the Clerk, are sepa- ratists, and have seceded from the true Swanzey Monthly Meet- ing, of which Thomas Wilbur was Clerk, and have no legal existence, and have no right to hold the said lot, or to choose or appoint Overseers for that purpose ; but contrariwise, claim 19 216 EARLB BT ALS. V. 'WOOD ET ALS. said Monthly Meeting ; — they deny that the heirs of Chace and others, the original grantees, have any estate or interest, legal or equitable, in the premises, and that the Court has any jurisdiction to compel those heirs to convey ; and aver that Thomas Wilbur was and is Clerk of said meeting, that he entered into the trusts in said deed mentioned, and conveyed the same to these Defendants ; and they now claim to hold the same, not only by virtue of the deed of said Clerk, but as a body corporate, authorized by the statutes of the Common- wealth to hold in succession all grants and donations of real or personal estate to said meeting. They admit that certain proceedings were had, after the filing of the former Bill, before a body of Friends calling themselves and their meeting the Yearly Meeting for New England ; but they deny that the pro- ceedings are correctly set forth in the Bill, and deny that their title can be affected by such subsequent proceedings, and pray that the supplemental Bill may be dismissed. They then proceed, after reaffirming their former answer, to set forth that the Society of Friends are duly organized under a regular form of government and rules, setting out their or- ganization into Preparative, Monthly, Quarterly, and Yearly Meetings, accountable and subordinate; that the Monthly Meetings annually choose Overseers who hold their offices until others are chosen or appointed ; that the Yearly Meeting appointed a Meeting for Sufferings, to take cognizance of any grievances, in the intervals between Yearly Meetings, and to counsel and assist, as best wisdom may direct ; they state how Quarterly and Yearly Meetings are composed, and set forth their peculiar mode of deciding deliberative questions, not by a majority, but by the solid sense of the meeting, to be collect- ed, declared, and minuted by the Clerk, who is the presiding member; they set forth at large the usual mode of proceeding, and proceed to allege that the defendants are the true Over- seers, and that the Complainants have no claim or color to be Overseers, except by the choice of a schism, and of separatists, and they set forth the proceedings of the Monthly Meeting of which Thomas Wilbur was Clerk and the Quarterly Meeting of which Wilbur was Clerk and Perry assistant, as true meet- OPINION OF THE COUHT. 217 ings, in unity with the Yearly Meeting. They deny that the said Swanzey Monthly Meeting is shown not to be in unity with, but disowned by the Yearly Meeting for New England. But they further answer that they do not admit the proceed- ings set forth in the supplemental bill to be the proceedings of the true legitimate and legal Yearly Meeting, but that they were proceedings of separatists from said meeting; and aver that the proceedings of the true Meetings, Monthly, Quarterly and Yearly, are those set forth in true copies of minutes an- nexed. They admit a want of love and unity in the society, and attribute it to a difference of religious tenets and doctrinal sentiments, 'and aver that the plaintiffs and those whom they represent, have adopted unsound doctrines, advocated by Gurney, and are called Gurneyites, whilst they and their friends, adhering to the original principles and sound doc- trines of the society, are called Orthodox Friends. They set forth what the true doctrines are, how they are in effect changed by the writings and doings of Gurney, and that the Gurney- ites have taken unfair and unwarrantable means, to get their own friends and partisans into all places of influence, and to obtain an ascendency in the control of the society ; that at the Yearly Meeting they have departed from the usage and disci- pline of the society, in postponing the nomination of a Clerk ; that the orthodox representatives, as in duty bound, proceeded to agree upon clerks, and reported the same, which being fully united with by the sound Friends, they were accordingly ap- pointed, and the usual business was gone through with ; and they set forth the proceedings, and thereupon conclude that the Gurneyite party were the separatists. Finally, they insist that the Gurneyites, under whom the plaintiffs claim, are sepa- ratists from the Society of Friends, do not agree in the belief of the fundamental doctrines of the Society, and are opposed to its order and discipline, and especially that the Monthly Meet- ing, of which David Shove pretends to be the Clerk, are sepa- ratists, and have seceded from the true Swanzey Monthly Meet- ing, of which Thomas Wilbur was Clerk, and have no legal existence, and have no right to hold the said lot, or to choose or appoint Overseers for that purpose ; but contrariwise, claim 19 218 EAKLE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. that they are the trae Overseers, and entitled to hold the said estate. Both parties rely upon the deed of Mrs. Danforth, as the groundwork of their respective claims of title, whether legal or equitable. This deed is an extraordinary document, upon which it is extremely difficult to put any satisfactory construction, accord- ing to the rules of law applicable to conveyances. The di- rect and palpable object was, to sell a lot of land to the Society of Friends to build a meeting-house upon, and give them the entire and perpetual use and disposition of the land. But how this was to be accomplished according to the rules of law, how and in whom the legtd title was to be placed, and how it was intended that the title should be continued and perpetuated, it is extremely difficult to ascertain or even conjecture, from the terms and provisions of this deed. It may be proper and useful to state in the outset, that at the time when this deed was executed, there was no enact- ment in the laws of Massachusetts, providing a method by which the Quakers, as a religious community, could take and hold real estate in succession. It was stated and assumed in the argument, that such a power is provided by our law ; but it was not stated, I believe, that this power is of compara- tively modern origin, and did not exist in 1821. Such a pow- er had been granted to certain officers, of other religious bodies, not incorporated, such as the deacons of Congregational churches, for the use of their churches, the wardens and vestry of Episcopal churches, for the use of their several churches, by the provincial act of 28 Geo. 2, passed in 1754. This was reenacted by Stat. 1785, c. 51, and embodied and its powers extended by Rev. Stat. c. 20, § 39. But, as we understand it, this power was first extended to the Society of Friends, consti- tuting the Overseers of each Monthly Meeting a corporation, or vesting those who may be Overseers for the time being with corporate powers, to take and hold estate in succession, by Stat. 1822, c. 92, passed February 11, 1823,* The Quakers * This statute is as follows : "An act, in addition to 'an act for the better OPISaON OF THE COURT. 219 never formed into parishes, or regularly incorporated religious societies, for the support and maintenance of public worship, and therefore being mere aggregate bodies of individuals until the above act was passed vesting the Overseers of Monthly Meetings with qualified corporate powers, there was no mode in which real estate could be appropriated and set apart for their use, except by trust-deeds in which the estate might be vested, as at common law, in certain persons and their heirs, in trust to permit the society to have the entire possession and enjoyment of such estate. Up to a comparatively recent pe- riod, there was no court of equity in this Commonwealth, competent to take cognizance of such a trust and enforce it ; but probably the conscientious sense of duty, on the part of trustees, would have afforded sufficient security to the benefi- ciaries, for the enjoyment of their rights. In recurring to Mrs. Danforth's deed, it seems to us, that it was very inartificiaUy drawn.* It recites that the consideration, a pecuniary one, of two hundred and twenty-five dollars, was paid by Chace, Slade, and Chace, for and in behalf of the Monthly Meeting; it grants the premises to four persons, namely, George Shove, and the same three before mentioned, and their heirs and assigns ; and in the habendum and the resi- due of the deed neither is Shove's name mentioned, nor does he execute with the other three, to giye effect to the declara- securing and rendering more effectual grants and donations to pious and char- itable uses.' The Overseers of each Monthly Meeting of the people called Quakers shall be deemed so far a body corporate, as to take and hold in suc- cession all grants and donations of personal estate, made by any person dwell- ing within the territorial bounds of said Monthly Meeting, and of all real estate situate within said bounds, made or hereafter to be made to the Yearly, Month- ly, or Preparative Meetings of the Quakers, to said Overseers, or to the use of any of said meetings, or the poor thereof; and to alien or manage the same ac- cording to the terms and conditions on which the same may have been made ; and in the name of said Overseers for the time being, to prosecute or sue for any right that may have vested in said Overseers, the poor of said meetings, or in any of said meetings, in consequence of such grant or donation : Provided, that the income of the grants and donations to any one of such meetings, for the uses aforesaid, shall not exceed the sum of five thousand dollars per an- num." * See copy of deed on p. 7. 220 EARLE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. tions of trust contained in it. After the granting part to them and their assigns, the deed adds, "to and for the uses, intents, and purposes of the people called Quakers, forever, as set forth for the more effectual government thereof, in the covenanting clause by the said grantees, as hereafter expressed," habendum to said Chace, Slade, and Chace, " as feofees in trust, for the ^aid people, their heirs and assigns forever." It will not be necessary to recite the residue of this deed, so familiar to all parties concerned, in order to render intelligible the comments we propose to make on it. It does not appear by the deed, that the grantees, by them- selves, or with Shove, were the Overseers of any Monthly Meeting, or even that they were Quakers, unless this is to be inferred from the subsequent mention of their being in unity. But if they were Overseers of any Monthly Meeting the deed did not profess to convey the estate to them in their corporate capacity ; if it had, and there had been any law in force, au- thorizing them to take in their corporate capacity, the estate would have immediately vested in them as such corporation, and there would be no occasion to resort to the principle of a shifting use. The deed seems to have been to them and their heirs in fee, and as they were capable as individuals of taking and holding, in that capacity, to them and their heirs, it is man- ifest, that the entire estate in fee passed from Mrs. Danforth, the grantor. Then how did the legal estate vest ? Indepen- dently of the statute of uses, it would undoubtedly vest in Chace, Slade, and Chace, and their heirs, in fee simple. But it seems extremely difHcult to regard this as a conveyance to uses, within the statute which transmutes the use into posses- sion and gives a seizin. It was in terms, " to and for the uses, intents, and purposes of the people called Quakers." Treating the whole instrument as the act of the grantor and grantees, it is difficult to consider it as a conveyance, intended to have any other effect, than to vest the fee in the grantees, in trust for the Friends, as a body. We are now considering the ques- tion as to the vesting of the legal estate, and it is necessary to keep in mind the plain distinction between the legal estate and the beneficial interest. OPINION OF THB COURT. 221 There was no person in being named as cestui que use, capable of taking seizin of real estate; of course the estate could not vest ia any such power. The Overseers had not their corporate powers, enabling them to take seizin ; the unin- corporated aggregate body could not be cestui que use, because it had no capacity to take. Nobody is named as entitled to the use and benefit, capable of taking under the statute.. Treating the latter part of the deed, (that which purports to be the act of the grantees only,) if it is proposed to bring it under the operation of the statute as a covenant to stand seized, the difficulties seem insuperable ; there is no good consideration in kindred or affinity for such covenant, no covenantee, and no definite designation of any legal use. If the clause be relied on, which provides, that if the grantees or their heirs shall be declared out of unity, and they shall not be capable of execut- ing this trust, or stand seized thereof, but the Clerks respec- tively may enter, etc. and hold, etc., this is simply void as con- trary to the rules of law. It is not a defeasance upon a condi- tion subsequent on the happening of some contingency, which defeats the whole estate, and authorizes the grantor to enter,- and revest in himself his former estate; but it is an attempt, by a limitation over, after an estate in fee granted by deed, upon the happening of a contingency, to divest the estate, and grant it over, which cannot be done. But it seems hardly necessary to pursue these technical inquiries further upon the effect of this deed upon the legal estate, because it is conceded, or it must be conceded, that if any Clerk could enter and hold, it must be the true Clerk, and if Thomas Wil- bur was the true Clerk, and took any estate in the premises or any power to convey, and did convey any estate to the De- fendants, it was after the statute, and must have been a con- veyance to them and their successors. Overseers, etc., in their corporate capacity, and they could only hold as long as they continued to be the true and legitimate Overseers ; and if they ceased to be so, and another body of officers came to be the true Overseers, the latter were successors, with a right to take and hold the estate, by force of the statute. In one respect, perhaps, this question might be material ; if the ques- 19* 222 EARLB KT ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. tion were between the two sets of Overseers, upon the mere legal title, this Court would have no jurisdiction as a court of equity. It seems, therefore, proper to add, that it does not appear that the original grantees or their heirs have ever been declared out of unity, and, therefore, it does not appear that that con- tingency ever happened. " There is also another contingency stated on which it may be the right of the Clerk, by the terms of the deed, to enter, and that is, when " any of us or our heirs succeeding us in this trust shall depart this life." All the remarks made upon the contingency of being declared out of unity, defeating the estate and limiting it over, would apply still more strongly to this. If this should be construed literally, that is, in case any one of the grantees should depart this life, that the whole estate should go over, then no heir could ever take, and this is directly repugnant to the whole grant, habendum, and covenants, which limits the estate to them and their heirs. The only sound construction is, " when the first grantees and all their heirs die." This would be to limit an estate in fee over, after the decease of all heirs ; and it is void by the rules of law. But if it would have been valid, the contingency has not yet happened. On the whole, the Court are of opinion that by this deed the estate vested in the grantees in fee personally, and at their decease went to their heirs; that Wilbur, the Clerk, had no authority to enter ; that he took no seizin by that entry ; that he conveyed none by his deed to William Wood and others ; and that the legal estate remains vested in the heirs of the original grantees. But in another aspect it appears to us, that the deed in ques- tion has all the qualities and characteristic features of a regu- lar deed of trust, by which it was intended to vest the fee in the grantees, as feoffees in trust, the legal estate to be held by them and their heirs (or the heirs of the survivor), for the benefit and accommodation of an aggregate body of indi- viduals, not a corporation, but recognized by law as a religious body, associated for the purposes of maintaining public wor- ship, and other purposes incident thereto, and upon the further trust, to transfer and convey the fee, upon due notice and OPINION OP THE COURT. 223 request, to the appointees of the Swanzey Monthly Meeting of Friends. Let us examine the deed briefly in this view. Whether an instrument shall operate as a transfer vesting an estate, or as creating a trust cognizable by a court of equity, does not depend much upon the employment of the terms " use " and " trust ; " but rather upon the object, pur- pose, and construction of the whole instrument. Were it otherwise, however, the words " use " and " trust," are both so freely used in this deed, and so indiscriminately, that they would afford little aid in determining the construction and effect of the conveyance. After stating the consideration, as paid by Chace, Slade, and Chace, for and in behalf of the Monthly Meeting of the people called Quakers, known by the name of Swanzey Monthly Meet- ing, the grantor proceeds to give, grant, bargain, and sell, to them, their heirs and assigns, to and for the uses, intents, and purposes, of the people called Quakers, forever, as set forth in other parts of the instrument, the lot of land in question. The habendum to them and their heirs designates them as feoffees in trust. The covenant of warranty is to and with them and their heirs and assigns, as well as to the said people (i. e. called Qua- kers). As a covenant of warranty, this last clause is purely void ; " said people," are not parties, were not incorporated, had no capacity to take, the grant was not to them, and the covenant could only be coextensive with the grant. The resi- due of the instruinent is rather the act, declaration, and stipu- lation of the grantees, explanatory of the character and relation in which 'they take the grant, and consent to hold it, and con- nected with the grant, only by a reference to it, in the granting part. As a clear and distinct declaration of trust, under the hands and seals of the grantees simultaneous with the grant, it is above aU exception, and would be so if it were a separate in- strument. They acknowledge and declare, that they take and hold the premises in trust, and that they are to take no right to the premises to their own use ; and for the more effectual and full performance of said trust, they stipulate that they and their heirs, at the cost and request of said Monthly Meeting, or such 224 EARLE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. other meeting as the said people of Swanzey, for the time be- ing shall belong to, being in unity with the Yearly Meeting for New England, will do such further act, as may be advised, etc. As a covenant for further assurance, this is bad, because there is no covenantee ; but as a declaration that they hold it in trust for the appointees, of a Friends' Meeting, and in trust to make a good and valid legal conveyance to such appointees on due notice, it appears to be legal and valid. The residue of the instrument, declaring that if the grantees or their heirs should be declared out of unity, or should die, the Clerks might enter and convey, or hold as feoffees, and also the clause of release and quitclaim to such Clerks upon such contingency, we think are void as affecting the legal estate, for reasons already given. The clause of release and quitclaim, cannot have any legal ef- fect, for the reasons aheady stated, and further, because it is an attempt to create an estate in fee, to commence infuturo, upon a contingency and in persons not ascertained. As bearing upon the point, that the grantees were not to hold the estate for their own, but for the use and benefit of the Society of Friends, which may be accomplished by treating it as a con- veyance in trust, but cannot by treating it as a use, this part of the instrument is in harmony with all the other parts, and with its general tenor. It appears to us that this construction is conformable to the intention of the parties, so far as the intention manifested by the deed can be carried into effect by the rules of law ; and if the instrument discloses an intention to create an estate contrary to the rules of law, such an intention can have no influence in determining its construction. And we think such a trust for the use of a well-known re- ligious community is valid, and may be carried into effect, al- though the cesluis que trust and beneficiaries are a voluntary association of individuals, designated only by a general name and .description. All gifts and grants, in trust, for the support of public worship and religious instruction, or for the advance- ment of piety, morality, and useful education, are valid as char- itable trusts, and will be carried into effect by this court as a court of equity. Nor is it material whether the large equita- OPINION OF THK CODET. 227 go back to the law which was in force in 1821, which was Stat. 1785, c. 62, § 4, by which, after a preamble stating some reasons for it, this authoritative construction should be given, to grants or devises to two or more persons, constituting them estates in commoii and not in joint tenancy. The act has no special exception of conveyances in trust, but the exceptions are thus stated ; unless it is stated that the grantees or devisees shall hold jointly, etc., or unless other words be therein used, clearly and manifestly showing it to be the intention of the parties, that such lands should be held as joint estates, and not as estates in common. When the manifest purpose of the conveyance, as apparent in the whole tenor of the deed, would be best promoted by construing it a joint tenancy, and defeat- ed or impaired by a contrary construction, it has been held un- der this exception, that the words manifested an intent to cre- ate a joint tenancy ; as in case of a grant to husband and wife, Shaw V. Hersey, 5 Mass. 521 ; or a mortgage to partners to secure a joint debt, Appletan v. Boyd, 7 Mass. 131 ; Goodwin V. Richardson, 11 Mass. 469. In these cases such a construction was almost necessary to give effect to the conveyance, and, therefore, the intention was presumed. In case of a trust, such construction, though con- venient, and afterwards introduced by statute, could hardly be regarded as necessary, and therefore, we cannot say that the words used, did plainly and manifestly show an intention to create a joint tenancy. We are, therefore, of opinion that the grantees took an estate in common, which descended to all their heirs. This is probably a question of very little practical impor- tance ; all the defendants summoned as heirs of the grantees have suffered the'bill to be taken as confessed, and have prob- ably no objection to a decree which may be made on the sub- ject. Whether the fee is in the heirs of one or aU of the gran- tees is immaterial except for the sake of regularity. Supposing the deed of Elizabeth S. Danforth to be a good valid deed and conveyance in trust, the next question is, who are the beneficiaries or the cestuis que trust, competent to claim the performance of the trust. 228 BARLB ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. There being a valid grant of the legal estate to Chace,-Slade, and Chace, and their heirs, creating a good legal estate in fee, to support a trust, who can claim it under the provisions of this deed ? It being for the uses of a religious body to support public worship and religious instruction, and thus a recognized charity, it is no objection to it, that the persons to be benefit- ed are uncertain, not definitely, designated, that they are an unincorporated, voluntary association of individuals. Bartlett v. Kivff, 12 Mass. 537 ; Going v. Emery, 16 Pick. 107 ; Burr v. Smith, 7 Verm. 241 ; Vidal v. Girard, 2 How. 128. Many other authorities might be cited, but the last is directly in point, embraces a full discussion of the subject and a review of the authorities, and is itself a decision of the highest au- thority. At the time when Mrs. Danforth's deed was executed, there was no law in force, giving to the Overseers of Monthly Meet- ings, or to any other persons holding any office or appointment, in the Quaker community, a corporate character or capacity to take and hold property in succession ; the persons, therefore, designated in said deed as beneficiaries, were unincorporated individuals. According to the rule above stated, however, this circumstance is no valid objection to the conveyance or to the constitution of such trust, if in point of fact the persons thus designated can be ascertained. When, therefore, property is conveyed or devised to one per- son by name as the Treasurer of a voluntary society, in trust for such society, the legal estate vests in the Treasurer, in his natural capacity, to hold in trust, and the beneficiaries, or cestuis que trust, will be ascertained by any competent evidence prov- ing association and organization under a particular form, the choice of officers, the keeping of minutes, the issuing of reports, the annunciation of its objects, and the like. Tucker v. Sea- meris Aid Society, 7 Met. 188. The conveyance thus made by the Danforth deed, being to persons capable of taking and holding real estate in trust for persons not capable, the question is, upon the terms of the deed, who these latter persons were. We think it is plain that they were the persons constituting the Swanzey Monthly Meet- OPINION OF THE COURT. 229 ing of the people called Quakers. It was suggested in the course of the argument, that the trust was general and not for any particular class of Quakers, and perhaps some single clauses would give color to such an argument. But taking the whole deed together, and construing it in reference to Qua- ker usages, we think it was for a class or community of Qua- kers, living within a certain local and defined territory, and de- signated as Swanzey Monthly Meeting. The consideration was paid, for and in behalf of the people so designated ; and, though the habendum was in trust for the people called Quakers for ever, and in the covenanting clauses it is declared to be in trust " for s!lid people," the stipulation is, that at the cost and charge of said Meeting, to execute such further deed, etc. By the evidence, relative to the constitution and usages of the So- ciety of Friends, a Monthly Meeting is a local division and designation, and embraces all those who reside within such local limits. We are of opinion, therefore, that the trusts in this deed, although in two or three places it may seem to be for Friends generally, yet, construed as a whole, were for those Friends residing within the local limits of Swanzey Monthly Meeting, as then constituted. It is hardly necessary to refer to the exception in the deed, namely, that the trust is to con- vey to such persons as the Swanzey Monthly Meeting, or such other Monthly Meeting, as said people at Swanzey, for the time being, shall or may belong to, being in unity with the Yearly Meeting for New England, shall appoint, etc. This re- fers to a fact not contested, which is, that by the constitution and usages of the Society of Friends, it is competent for the Quarterly or Yearly Meetings, within their respective limits, to fix and alter the limits of Monthly Meetings, and to set up and lay down Monthly Meetings, and in the latter case, -to annex the people of the meeting laid down, to another Monthly Meet- ing ; and the clause recited looked to that contingency, and adapted the trust accordingly, giving the beneficial interest to the same people, though annexed to another Monthly Meeting. But, as it is not suggested, that the Swanzey Monthly Meet- ing has ever been laid down, or the limits of its territory chaniged, the contingency affecting the trust has not happened, 20 230 EAKLE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. and the trust remains as if no such change had been pro- vided for. We are then to consider the effect of the statute, passed soon after this conveyance. Stat. 1822, c. 92, already cited. It was undoubtedly intended to put the Society of Friends on the same footing with congregational'churches, and other eccle- siastical bodies not incorporated, but voluntarily associated together for the purpose of spiritual edification and mutual discipline, and for the celebration of religious rites and ordi- nances. The policy of these laws was, not to incorporate the whole body of voluntary associates, as in cases of territorial or poll parishes ; but to invest some known and designated officers and functionaries, chosen and set apart, according to the constitution and usages of such respective ' bodies, with corporate powers to take and hold property in succession, in trust for the unincorporated association, often fluctuating and varying in numbers and members. Such had been previously done in respect to the larger and more numerous ecclesiastical bodies, constituting deacons of Congregational churches, and the wardens and vestry of Episcopal churches, corporations for this purpose. The Legislature were undoubtedly well in- formed of the constitution of the Society of Friends, — that all belonged for the time being to some Monthly Meeting, and such Monthly Meeting had officers, called Overseers, charged with the care and arrangement of their secular officers ; it was therefore enacted, that Overseers of each Monthly Meeting of the denomination of the people called Quakers should be deemed so far a body corporate as to take and hold in succes- sion all grants, etc., made or to be made to such meetings, to said Overseers, or to the use of any such meetings, or the poor thereof, to alien or manage, etc., and in the name of said Overseers /or the time being- to prosecute, etc. These provis- ions are substantially reenacted in Rev. Sts. c. 20, § 46. By the statute of 1822, the rights and powers of the Over- seers of Swanzey Monthly Meeting with all others were de- fined and enlarged. Before, they had a right in equity, as cestuis que trust, to require an execution of the trust, by per- mitting them, and the Monthly Meeting of which they were OPINION OF THE COURT. 231 Overseers, to use, occupy, and enjoy, in undisturbed possession, the lot in question, with the buUdings erected upon it. After the statute, they had a right to a coifveyance of the legal estate, and when conveyed, to hold it to them and their succes- sors in office, in perpetuity, for the use and benefit of their Monthly Meeting. The effect of thus clothing officers, chosen annually or otherwise, for the time being, with corporate powers, is, by force of law, and "for useful and beneficial ends, to give to per- sons holding certain offices, though in fact frequently changing the character of perpetuity and unbroken continuance, which is the peculiar characteristic of a corporation, and is well illus- trated by the ancient principles applied to a corporation sole. Weston V. Hunt, 2 Mass. 500. The same rule applies where, by statute, like corporate powers are vested in several officers, periodically elected, who are to take in succession: — as wardens and vestry of an Episcopal church ; Montagtie v. Smith, 13 Mass. 405 ; the deacons of a Congregational church ; Stebbings v. Jennings, 10 Pick. 172, and Page v. Crosby, 24 Pick. 211 ; or town offi- cers ; Overseers of Poor of Boston v. Sears, 22 Pick. 122. The theory of law is, not that churches, towns, or other ag- gregate bodies, corporate or unincorporated, choose persons to be a corporation ; but, being chosen to offices recognized by law and usage, such as deacons, wardens, and vestry, overseers, and the like, the law takes effect, and proprio vigore annexes the corporate capacity to the office, and no act of transfer is necessary to transmit the property, when once vested, from the incumbent to his successor. It follows as a necessary conse- quence, that however frequently the incumbents are changed, the property changes as frequently, so that, in contemplation of law, it always remains in the incumbent for the time being. Assuming, then, as from the foregoing view of the law we think it must be assumed, that the Overseers of the Swanzey Monthly Meeting of the people called Quakers, are entitled by right to demand and require a conveyance to them of the estate in question, we are brought to the question, whether 232 EAELB ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. Oliver Earle and his associates, the plaintiffs, constitute that board of Overseers, or whether Wm. Wood and his associates, part of the defendants, hold that relation, and entitle them- selves to the conveyance. For the convenience of designating them, I shall call them simply plaintiffs and defendants. From the view of the law which has thus been taken, it is entirely manifest, that there can be but one regular legitimate and legal Monthly Meeting, and but one authorized set of Overseers. It is a question of property ; the nature of prop- erty consists mainly in the right of control, and the power of disposing of any estate, real or personal. There cannot be two adverse owners of the same thing at the same time ; the disposing power and dominion of one proprietor is conclusive against the same in any other. However plausible, therefore, may be the grounds of claim of title on each side, however minute the line of distinction between them, and how great the difficulty of discovering it, we know there is such a line, and it must govern in deciding the question ; and pronouncing in favor of one, is necessarily pronouncing against the other. Again ; the law which gives corporate powers to certain oflficers or functionaries, whether of corporations, voluntary as- sociations, or religious bodies or communities, assumes that the existence and identity of such bodies or associations, and the due and proper election or appointment of the officers and persons so designated, may be proved by competent evidence, adapted to the nature of the subject. Where there is no legal incorporation, the constitution, organization, and proceedings of such bodies may be proved like other facts, by articles of association formally adopted or generally assented to, and by the usages of the body. In the case of Congregational churches, the identity of the church is ascertained and identi- fied by that of the incorporated parish, in which it is gathered ; and the authority of deacons to take in a corporate capacity, by proof of their election according to usage. And so in the Episcopal, and all other incorporated religious societies. Where the right is claimed by officers of a religious society not incor- porated, the right may be proved by the fact of association, OPINION OF THE COURT. 233 and the election of such officers, according to the rules and usages of such. associations, to be proved like other facts, by documents and by testimony. This is eminently true of the Society of Friends, who, it is believed, neither in their smaller or local divisions, or in their larger character as a denomination of Christians, have ever beeri constituted corporations by law. Nothing can be clearer, however, than that there is such a community of Christians as Quakers ; they are numerous and respectable ; they have had so prominent a place in New England, and they are marked with so many peculiarities, that their existence is easily proved. But in regard to their action and mode of proceeding, so far as the right of property is concerned, there is ah intrin- sic difficulty which must have H^en seen and felt throughout this lamentable controversy, and this elaborate litigation. This arises from the peculiar mode of acting and deciding in aggre- gate bodies, not by a numerical or any other fixed majority of votes, given by those authorized and qualified to give a voice upon any question ; but upon the solid sense of the aggregate body, having regard to age, character, judgment, piety, and numbers combined, to be gathered and ascertained by the Clerk, who is uniformly the presiding officer. However well calculated this may be to promote the great spiritual objects of the Society, to secure harmony, unity of feeling, and religious peace, it is little calculated to afford a practical rule of action, and stand as certain proof where there is any actual conflict of opinion, and where, from any cause, controversy actually arises- In a numerous body of all ages and capacities, there must be much uncertainty where the utmost honesty and impartiality prevail. But clerks must be human beings, and although in theory aided and assisted by an overshadowing power, and wisdom greater than their own, yet it may be darkened and obscured by human predilections. If there be any strong party feeling upon a theological controverted question, or any other, the clerk will be something more than human, if he do not participate in it. As a presiding officer he has a voice, — his own judgment is to be put in the scale with others in ascer- taining the solid sense of the meeting ; and though he is honest 20* 234 EARLE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. and sincere, and earnestly desires to be guided by best wisdom, there is danger that he may be unconsciously influenced by it to allow too much weight to the predilections of his friends, and somewhat too little to that of his opponents. But the testimony, it is believed, is uniform on both sides, that this is the only mode in which the doings of aggregate bodies of Quakers in Monthly, Qusirterly, and Yearly Meet- ings, as well as those of Committees and select bodies from them are conducted, and the results of them ascertained. But the legislature have declared that Overseers of Monthly Meetings of Quakers, for the time being, shall be corporations, and take and hold property in succession ; it assumes, therefore, that such Overseers may be appointed or chosen, and may be superseded by others, and of#ourse that these facts, like all other facts upon which rights of property depend, are capable of judicial proof by competent and appropriate evidence ; of course, it is the proper province of courts of justice, in order to the adjustment of such rights, to investigate and ascertain these facts, by the best evidence which the nature of the case affords, whether entirely satisfactory or otherwises. Before coming directly to the evidence, it seems necessary to inquire what is the true test or standard, to decide which is the true Monthly Meeting, and who are the true Overseers. Several things are conceded, or so proved, as not to admit of doubt. Regarding the Society of Friends as a religious body and an ecclesiastical organization, there is a very regular order and system of action, management, and government, and a regular subordination of the inferior to the superior. They are divided into Preparative, Monthly, Quarterly, and Yearly Meetings. The Preparative Meetings, it is believed are designed mainly to facilitate the attendance on meetings for worship, within the limits of a large Monthly Meeting. But the main business, disciplinary and administrative, is done in Monthly Meetings. Each Monthly Meeting is subordinate to a Quarterly Meeting, composed of several Monthly Meet- ings, and the Monthly and Quarterly Meetings are subordi- nate to the Yearly Meeting for New England, which includes he whole territory of New England, excepting Vermont and OPINION OF THE COURT. 235 that part of Massachusetts west of Connecticut River. Each Yearly Meeting is independent of all others, and different Yearly Meetings have no other connection than that which results from Christian fellowship and courtesy. It is also admitted that the rules of Discipline, as altered and amended from time to time are referred to the Committee of Sufferings by the Yearly Meeting for New England, reported to, approved, and adopted by them, and are of high and unques- tionable authority, throughout the limits of this Yearly Meet- ing. The Committee of Sufferings is actually a Committee of the Yearly "Meeting, having a general supervising and advisory jurisdiction, in the intervals of Yearly Meetings, and oc- casionally charged with special additional duties. The dif- ferent Yearly Meetings, in America and England, keep up a friendly and fraternal communication with each other, by means of epistles, visits, and liberating certificates, or general letters of recommendation from one to another ; but there is no subordination acknowledged of any one to another, or to aU the others. From this view of the constitution, organization, and ac- knowledged usages of the Quaker body, it appears that the Yearly Meeting has a final and controlling jurisdiction in all matters of faith and religious duty, of administration and dis- cipline, as well as manners and conduct, of all Quakers within its limits. It is final and conclusive, because there is no superior body which can call its decisioris in question. It is conclusive, in the sense in which the judgments of the highest Court are conclusive, not because it is necessarily wiser or better than those of other Coiirts, but because it is the tribunal of last resort, and the constitution and laws have created no tribunal to reexamine its decisions. We have already stated, that the plaintiffs and defendants each claim to be the Overseer of Swanzey Monthly Meeting, and demand a conveyance of the property. K the difficulty rested here, it would probably be very easily, and would long since have been settled by the Quarterly Meeting, or in case of dissatisfaction, then by the Yearly Meeting, to which both. 236 EARLB ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. in the ordinary course of procjeeding in the Society of Friends, would acknowledge subjection. But this protracted contro- versy, and the voluminous mass of evidence taken in it, dis- closes the unhappy fact, that there are two conflicting bodies, each claiming to be the regular Rhode Island Quarterly Meet- ing, to which Swanzey Monthly Meeting belongs, with its regular officers, and also two distinct and conflicting bodies, each claiming to be the true and legitimate Yearly Meeting for New England, duly organized and conducted according to the Discipline and Usages of the Society. Each, therefore, claims to be approved, sanctioned, and confirmed by the Superior Meetings, to which its own is admitted to owe sub- ordination. We are thus necessarily driven to the inquiry which of these conflicting organizations is the true and legitimate successor, or to speak more accurately, which of the two Yearly Meet- ings for New England, the two Rhode Island Quarterly Meet- ings, and the two Swanzey Monthly Meetings, are the actual, identical, and real Yearly, Quarterly, and Monthly Meetings of the Society of Friends of those respective designations, and have continued so in one unbroken line, from a period anterior to this controversy to the time of the commencement of this suit. The one must be so ; when this is shown, it will also be shown that the other is not so. By what test shall this question of identity and continuity be determined ? At one stage of tjjis controversy, it seemed to be supposed that it would depend mainly upon soundness of faith, an ad- herence to or dissent from speculative theological opinions and belief, and much evidence was taken upon that subject, and it was alluded to in the learned arguments addressed to us. It would seem to be inconsistent with the nature and princi- ples of the Quaker system, as far as it is disclosed in the case before us, to be bound down, as a body, as a Christian denom- ination, to a precise and unbending rule in matters of specula- tive opinion. They profess to believe in the continued influence and presence of the Holy Spirit, to the mind of each indi- vidual, humbly waiting for its manifestation to aid in the dis- OPINION OF THE COUET. 237 CO very of divine truth. It would seem, therefore, that they must suppose it possible, that new truths may be discovered and so manifested as to require the assent of the true disciple, and thus add something to his existing faith. It is also true, as we understand, that they profess to believe that the Scrip- tures are given by inspiration, and are the unerring guide to Christian truth ; and if any man supposes he has an inward light, contrary or repugnant to the truth of the Scriptures, it cannot be a true light. But perhaps there is no inconsistency in believing that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are a true and unerring guide to divine truth, yet that all the truths of Sci^pture have not been made manifest to the imperfect mind of man, and in the language of Father Robinson, of Ley- den, that " more truth is yet to break forth from the Holy Scriptures." Should such be the fact ; should the testimony of the Scriptures and the influences of the Holy Spirit concur in bringing to the conviction of humble, sincere, and inquiring minds, the knowledge of further Christian truths, manifested with a brilliancy and clearness not to be mistaken ; it seems perfectly consistent with the avowed principles of the Society of Friends to adopt and sanction them, although they were not known to Pennington, Barclay, Fox, and the respected Founders of their Society, and under a full belief, that if the same light had been thrown on the same truths in their day, these sincere and seeking men would have humbly and devotedly embraced them. We would not be supposed by this, to intimate that the Quakers have no creed, no theological tenets, to which they are strongly attached, and no superintending watchfulness over the soundness of the faith of their members and subordinate meetings, or that thpy allow any great latitude of discussion to their members, on theological subjects. On the contrary, the Discipline expressly prohibits the publication of all writ- ings relating to their religious principles or testimonies, unless . first laid before the Meeting for Sufferings, for their advice and concurrence, and their approval of them obtained. What we mean to say is this ; that if after solid and weighty consideration, humbly and conscientiously awaiting the guide 238 EARLE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. of best wisdom, the Yearly Meeting should fully unite in the proper as well as the Quaker sense of that term, in adopting some modification of their creed, or of their speculative opin- ions, adhering to their great principles of love and fraternal duty, it would, upon their professed principles, seem too much to say, that they would thereby cease to be Quakers, and cease to be the Society of Friends. Especially, we think, this could not be asserted by meetings and individuals, subordinate to them, who owe, ecclesiastically, allegiance to them, and to whom, so long as they remain subordinate, the decisions are final and infallible as well in matters of faith, as of conduct. All disaffected members, having full liberty of conscience, might undoubtedly dissent from such opinions, and adopt dif- ferent tenets ; perhaps they might, by so doing, become better theologians, better Christians, and better men ; but they would cease to be Friends in unity with such Yearly Meeting and with the Meetings and individuals subordinate to it. Such dis- senting individuals might form themselves into Yearly, Quar- terly, and Monthly Meetings, but this would be a new organi- zation and not the identical body to which they had been formerly attached. We should be unwilling to say, that there may not be a de- parture from the fundamental principles on which the Society is founded, on the part of the Yearly Meeting, the responsible head and representative of the whole body, in fact the Society itself, so deep and radical as to destroy its identity with the Society of Friends who had been invested by law with the en- joyment of property and civU rights. But if such a case be possible, it would seem to be a suicidal destruction of the body itself, leaving its property derelict. If heresy should infect in- dividuals only, however numerous, they might be disowned and cut off and the body remain sound, but if the ultimate and infallible judge of what is essential to Quakerism, judges wrong, who, in pursuance of any of the forms or principles or discipline of Quakerism, shall declare the heresy or pronounce the disownment? But it is not necessary to pursue such a remotely possible supposition ; we have barely alluded to it by way of protest against the conclusion, that no departure from OPINION OP THE COURT. 239 Christian truth and the principles of Quakerism, can be so great as to work a dissolution of the Society. But we are saved the necessity of going further into this supposed test from creeds and opinions. The unhappy con- troversy indeed arose out of a jealousy or apprehension on the part of some of the Quaker body, that another part were covertly circulating and endeavoring to promote false doc- trines in the Society ; but we have no evidence, that any or- ganized Meeting, Monthly, Quarterly, or Yearly, took any step as a body to promote or establish any opinion or tenet of be- lief, not entirely correct. The charge on the part of John Wil- bur and hi^ friends was, that the friends of the present plain- tiffs, in the Monthly Meeting of the party with whom they were cooperating in the Quarterly and Yearly Meetings, were en- deavoring to advance and promote the works and tenets of Joseph John Gurney; which, however, they denied. The charge was made against the Quarterly Meeting of which Buf- fum was Clerk, and the Yearly Meeting of which Abraham Shearman, Jr. was Clerk. It is now conceded, that at the last- mentioned Yearly Meeting, 1845, a narration and declaration was put forth, in which they avow and state their belief, in a manner admitted to be in conformity with the ancient testimo- nies of Friends, and satisfactory to those who affix the imputa- tion of heresy to that same Yearly Meeting. This is said to be eleventh hour repentance; made to avoid the mischievous and dangerous consequences of what they had already done. But we see nothing penitential in it, no acknowledged change of belief or conduct, but a declaration of what then were and ever had been the doctrines and tenets held by them. Nor do we see any evidence that any other or different opin- ion had been advanced. The argument strongly urged is, that the opinions of Gurney were unsound, and that the friends of Gurney have endeavored covertly, and by insidious means, to gain a predominance in the Quaker body, and that they had in fact gained an ascendency in the Quarterly and Yearly Meetings. This is an imputation of wrong motives and purposes in individuals. No proof appears to establish 240 EARLB ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. the truth of such imputation upon individuals, or if such mo- tives did exist, that they have ever induced any Meeting to adopt any measure for the promulgation of false doctrines or unsound opinions. We are then brought to test this question, by that which upon full consideration we consider the correct and proper standard, to wit, whether Oliver Earle and his associates, the plaintiffs, or Wm. Wood and his associate, the defendant, were the true, rightfully appointed Overseers of Swanzey Monthly Meeting, according to the Discipline, acknowledged to be the constitution and to embody the ftindamental laws of the So- ciety of Friends, expounded by the general usages of those persons of most experience and judgment, who have acted un- der it, and acknowledged its authority. The precise question in issue here is, whether the plaintiffs at the time this suit was brought, in April, 1845, were entitled in equity to a conveyance of the estate granted by Elizabeth S. Danforth. If they were Overseers duly appointed according to the system of ecclesiastical polity, acknowledged by the So- ciety of Friends, they were the officers contemplated and desig- nated by the statute as Overseers of the Monthly Meeting. Words and terms in an act of legislation, relating to a class of persons, including all religious sects and denominations, must be expounded and applied, according to the sense and meaning in which they are known to be used in such class or denomination. The terms, " ministers," " deacons," " wardens," " vestry," and the like, when used in statutes as designating " officers," must be held to apply to persons thus designated in the church or community to which the statute relates, and to persons appointed or set apart to hold those offices, according to its constitution and usages. The legislature in providing means for holding property in succession, for the use of Quakers, and designating Overseers of Monthly Meetings for that purpose, must have intended Overseers appointed, or, set apart, in an orderly manner, ac- cording to the fundamental rules and usages of Quakers. The plaintiffs then must show, in order to entitle them as a corpo- OPINION OF THE COURT. 241 ration to a conveyance of this property, that they were Over- seers so constituted, and so by force of the statute were de facto a corporation, competent to take and hold the property. We must therefore inquire and judge, by this standard, of the correctness and regularity of the proceedings by which each party claim to be a corporation by force of the statute ; yet it is proper to remark that this is an issue, collateral and incidental to the direct issue before us, which is that of equitable title. It follows, therefore, that although we must inquire and decide judicially, by their rules, upon the regularity of the proceedings, it is not with a view of affirm- ing them, 'or setting them aside, but simply because it is incidental to the question of title which we must decide. We have no power to decide judicially, and directly affirm or annul the acts of individuals, or of Monthly, Quarterly, or Yearly Meet- ings, which are brought before us in the case, but simply to ascertain facts, upon which the real issue before us depends. One further remark it seems proper to make before going to the evidence. This suit was brought in April, 1845. Subse- quently, in June, 1845, the Yearly Meeting at Newport took place, at which proceedings were had, having a bearing on this case. By a supplemental bill, filed by the plaintiffs afterwards in October, 1845, the proceedings of this meeting were set forth. The supplemental bill was answered under protest, and much evidence was taken on it. It was objected, however, that these proceedings having occurred after the suit was brought, the court could not take notice of them. If this objection does not come too late, of which we express no opinion, we think it is not well founded. I shall not pause at present, to give the authorities on which this opinion is based, but simply to say, that although the doings of the Year- ly Meeting in June, 1845, have a bearing, and an important bearing, upon the question, still that question is, whether the plaintiffs had a title in April, 1845. They now claim no title which originated in the proceedings of the Yearly Meeting, or is founded in them. The bearing they have is to show, by re- lation back, whether the plaintiffs or the defendants, held that relation of Overseers of Swanzey Monthly Meeting, to which 21 242 EAKLE J)T ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. the law annexed the powers of the corporation competent to require a conveyance of the Danforth estate. 1. The first direct question of fact upon the evidence, relates to the doings of Swanzey Monthly Meeting in July and Au- gust, 1844. A more extended reference was made to the evi- dence, when the opinion was given ; but it is here briefly al- luded to, for which the testimony of Thomas Wilbur, Seth Da- vis, David Shove, John Meader, Azariah Shove and others may be referred to. There had been a growing dissatisfaction for some time in that Monthly Meeting, of which Thomas Wilbur had long been Clerk ; a committee had been appointed long previously, according to usage, to report the name of a suitable person for Clerk, but had been unable to agree ; the disorderly condition of that Monthly Meeting had attracted the attention of the Quarterly and Yearly Meetings, or that of the Committee of Sufferings, and Friends, from them attended to advise and as- sist. At the meeting in July, the business was opened by Thomas Wilbur ; in the course of it, David Shove was nomi- nated, not by any committee, as his opponents say irregularly ; others testify, that his appointment was united with by the meeting ; but this is denied ; and it appears that it was not declared by the Clerk, nor did he relinquish his seat. At the August meeting there was a fuller attendance of Friends from the. Quarterly and Yearly Meetings, and one of the contro- verted questions is, how far according to discipline, they could act, in advising, influencing, or directing the proceedings. Before the meeting was opened by the Clerk, Meader requested a pause and made a statement of the doings of the previous meeting, and proposed that the meeting should unite in the ap- pointment of David Shove, which one side testify was fuUy done, which the other party deny. Thomas Wilbur did not relinquish his seat, but persisted in acting as Clerk, and con- siderable disorder ensued. Taking the peculiar manner in which the sense of meetings is ascertained, it is very questionable whether the proposed nomination of the July meeting by three out of the Committee OPINION OP THE COtJRT. 243 of seven nominating David Shove as Clerk was regular ; and as the sense of the meeting in its favor, was not declared and minuted by the then acknowledged Clerk, it can hardly be maintained by other evidence, that he was chosen. But the meeting in August was attended by a Committee of the Quar- terly Meeting and other Friends ; at this meeting David Shove at the opening, whether regularly or irregularly, was declared, and proceeded to act as Clerk, till the adjournment was an- nounced ; but Wilbur still claimed to act, and when the meet- ing was declared adjourned, he and his friends refused to rec- ognize the adjournment, but continued, and after Shove and his friends 'iiad retired, proceeded to organize, choose a Clerk and Assistant, and Overseers and Representatives to the Quarterly Meeting, and adjourned. The meeting of which Shove claimed to be Clerk, also chose Clerk, Overseers, and Representatives. Earle and his associates were chosen Over- seers by the latter; Wood and his associates were chosen Overseers by the former. The actual division took place here. Without recapitulating the evidence, which is very volumi- nous, we should be inclined to the opinion, that at the August meeting Shove must be taken to be the authorized Clerk ; that those who remained after the adjournment was announced, and elected Wilbur Clerk, and Wood and others Overseers, acted irregularly, and became seceders ; and if Shove had been im- properly elected, they should have sought their remedy by an appeal to the Quarterly Meeting, and ultimately, if need be, to the Yearly Meeting. But if the case depended solely or mainly on this point, we should go into a more minute and thorough examination of the evidence, as to the ex- clusive authority of the Clerks for the time being, to propose every question, and especially as to the right and power of Committees of the Quarterly and Yearly Meetings and other Friends, to attend, advise, and act at Monthly Meetings. 2. The next inquiry is, concerning the regularity and proceed- ings of the Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting of which Buffum was Clerk, held in November, 1844. The Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting was the ecclesiastical 244 EARLE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. Superior, to which Swanzey Monthly Meeting was subordinate, and owed submission and obedience. In this respect the Society of Friends are similar to religious communities acting under a hierarchy or regular church government, as the Catholic, Epis- copal, Presbyterian, and Dutch Reform Churches. "We are so accustomed to the independence and absolute freedom of each church, as recognized by Congi'egationalism, that we may not duly appreciate the obligation of obedience to ecclesiastical authority. Men are not bound to be Quakers ; but if they would be Quakers and brethren in unity with each othet, and with their common superiors, they must conform to their rules and judgmetit. As the facts in regard to the Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting, in November, 1844, are scarcely controverted, we may as well take the statement from the testimony of Thomas Wilbur. It is conceded that, at the opening of this Quarterly Meeting, David Buifum was Clerk, as he had been several years ; the Meeting, therefore, was opened, and proceeded regularly to business. Of course it must so continue till the organization was changed, by the appointment of another Clerk. Accounts were presented and Representatives approved, as well from the body claiming to be the Monthly Meeting, of which David' Shove was Clerk, as from that of which Thomas Wilbur was Clerk. The term " accounts" is used technically, and is under- stood to be a written return of the Monthly Meeting authen- ticated by its Clerk, to the Quarterly, stating answers to certain standing queries respecting its condition, notice of any business to which the attention of the superior is asked by the inferior, and also the names of the Representatives chosen to attend and form the Quarterly Meeting. The accounts sent by the Meeting, of which Shove was Clerk, were received, and the Representatives from that Meeting recognized ; those from the Meeting of which Wilbur was Clerk were not. The ac- count of the former was read and adopted as emanating from the genuine Monthly Meeting, and at the same time the Quar- terly Meeting appointed a few persons to have the care of that Monthly Meeting for a time. The witness then goes on to state, that as David Buffum did not appear disposed to trans- OPINION OF THE COURT. 245 act the regular and legitimate business of the Quarterly Meet- ing, it was proposed to appoint another Clerk in his place, but it was not done until David BufFum and his party had ac- complished their business and left the house, when the Repre- sentartives retired to another part of the house to report suitable persons, etc., who returned and proposed Thomas Wilbur for Clerk of Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting, and Charles Perry for Assistant Clerk, who were united with, by those present, and they proceeded to do the business of the Meeting. It appears by a minute of the proceedings of this Meeting, that the Representatives of no other Monthly Meeting voted in it, except those appointed by the Swanzey Monthly Meeting, of which Thomas Wilbiu- was Clerk. These minutes contain a special report, drawn up by a com- mittee to be entered on their minutes in which they seek to palliate and justify their proceedings, on the ground of undue influence and oppression on the part of those who have as- sumed to be ruling members in the Quarterly Meeting, and who have also supported a certain writer or writers of doctrines at vauance with the long-established principles of the Society; they defend themselves and testify against the course and pro- ceedings of those ruling members of Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting, for the reason that they have separated themselves, and departed from the order of the Society. It appears to us clear, from the evidence, that this attempt to set up another Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting under Wilbur, as the true meeting, was wholly null and void. The Quarterly Meeting opened and proceeded under Buffum until it was closed by adjournment ; during this time a proposal was made by some one, not stated by whom, certainly not by the Clerk Buffum, or by any committee, but it is conceded that it was not adopted. This meeting, thus constituted in regular form under Buffum, did act upon the subject of deciding which was the true Swanzey Monthly Meeting. Both accounts were be-, fore it ; the Representatives of both were present ; those of the Wilbur meeting urged the admission of their claims, but the account signed by David Shove was read and adopted, as emanating from the genuine Monthly Meeting. Both could 21* 246 EARLE ET ALS. V. WOOD BT ALS. not be received ; one was entitled to be received ; a decision between them must be made, and the adoption of the one was necessarily the rejection of the other. We think it manifest, from the evidence, that this attempt on the part of the Representatives of Swanzey Monthly Meeting, after the regular Quarterly Meeting had closed, to set up another Quarterly Meeting, was wholly unwarranted, contrary to discipline and to usage ; that they themselves considered it irregular, and a proceeding which required an apology ; but the apology, for the reasons given, fails, and cannot justify them in separating and setting up another meeting with the character of a regular Quarterly Meeting. The reasons might satisfy their own consciences in separating, but in doing so, they put themselves out of unity, and ceased to be Quakers or Friends in unity. For these reasons the Court are of opinion, that the ques- tion, which of the Monthly Meetings was the true one, was within the jurisdiction of the regular Quarterly Meeting, of which Buffum was Clerk ; that it was directly before them ; that they decided it ; and that that decision must stand, until reversed or modified by the Yearly Meeting. 3. We are then brought to the consideration of the doings of the Yearly Meeting for New England, held at Newport, in June, 1845. For reasons already given, we think these proceed- ings are rightly before us, because they relate back to and affect the question, who were the true Overseers of Swanzey Monthly- Meeting when the suit was brought. The Yearly Meeting is recognized as the tribunal of last resort ; its decisions of all matters within its jurisdiction are conclusive, and all true Friends are bound by them. But here again we are met with the difficulty that there are two bodies, each claiming to be the true Yearly Meeting ; whilst it is clear that one only can justly have that character, and exercise this unquestionable controlling power. Nor is it safe to decide this question upon minutes and records alone, because each has its Clerk and minutes, which may appear fair and regular, but the jurisdiction must be decided by the evi- OPINION OF THE COURT. 247 dence. It is not necessary to consider this evidence minutely. It is clear that when the meeting met at Newport, Abraham Shearman, Jr. was the acknowledged Clerk ; on Monday, the first day for business, he opened the meeting, and the business proceeded in due order. But there were two accounts, and two sets of Representatives from Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting, and the question was, which should be received, and this required immediate consideration. It was provided by the Discipline, and had been the usage of the Yearly Meeting after the forenoon adjournment of the first session of the meet- ing for business, for the Representatives of all the Quarterly Meetings to assemble and agree on the nomination of a suit- able person for Clerk, to be reported to the Yearly Meeting in the afternoon. On account of this difficulty, of there being two sets of Representatives from one Quarterly Meeting, the meeting before the adjournment, agreed to refer the question, which was the true body of Representatives, to the Representa- tives of all the other Quarterly Meetings, and that the appoint- ment of a Clerk should be postponed, instead of being made at the afternoon session of the same day. The Representa- tives from the Wilbur Meeting declined to appear and submit their case to the other Representatives as a Committee, and in the afternoon, when the Yearly Meeting again assembled. Prince Gardner proposed that Thomas B. Gould should be Clerk, and said that some of the Representatives had met ac- cording to Discipline and nominated him. A very large num- ber of all the other Representatives denied that any such nom- ination had been made, yet as some united in the appointment of Gould, he was declared elected, but not by the Clerk. It appears to us very clear, upon the evidence, that though this action was made the occasion of boldiJig a separate meet- ing under Gould, yet that as a legitimate Yearly Meeting, it was altogether irregular and void. Gould's own minute seems quite conclusive. Giving an account of this meeting, after a long recital of grievances, oppression, heresy, and misconduct, on the part of leading men, he states, that it was regularly formed under Shearman as Clerk ; that the question, as to which set were the true Representatives, was referred to the 248 BARLB BT ALS. V. 'WOOD Bff ALS. other Representatives, and states the reasons why those coming from the Wilbur meeting, declined so to submit the question, and proceeds to state, that in the afternoon. Prince Gardner, on behalf of the Representatives from Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting, and some of those from Sandwich Quarterly Meet- ing, reported that they had been together and were united in proposing the name of Thomas B. Gould for Clerk of this meeting for the ensuing year, and of Charles Perry for As- sistant Clerk ; and the nominations being fully united with, bi/ those who have been for some years laboring under much op- pression, for the support of the order and discipline and of the testimonies and doctrines of our religious Society upon their original foundation, they were accordingly appointed. This was the basis of the secession, and of .an attempt to organize a separate Yearly Meeting. The only apology for offering such a nomination by Gardner at that time, after the meeting had agreed to postpone the appointment of Clerk till after the decision of the other question, was, that the Disci- pline so required it. But the Discipline was the act of the Yearly Meeting, prescribing a convenient general rule, adapted to ordinary occasions ; but the power which could make, could modify or suspend this rule, and had done so. The Clerk, declared to be chosen, in his minutes does not venture to as- sert that his nomination was united with by the meeting, but only by those who had been oppressed. The only reason assigned by way of justification or apology, is, that they and their friends had been oppressed. Whether this justification could have availed, had such oppression been proved to be done, or sanctioned by the Yearly Meeting, would present a very different question. But at this time the Yearly Meeting had done lio act, refused no application for redress, declared no heretical opinion, nor taken any step to be com- plained of. The argument is, that they were bound to choose a Clerk on the first day ; suppose it be so, and that they failed of duty in that respect, does that dissolve the Society, or warrant a small minority, against the declared sense of a great propor- tion of all the members present, to do an act, which can only OPINION OF THE COUET. 249 be done in pursuance of the solid sense of the whole body, taken, declared, and minuted by its only acknowledged regu- lar officer? On the evidence, the court are of opinion, that the Yearly Meeting, attempted ,to be formed under Gould, was not and scarcely professed to be, formed according to discipline ; but that they separated to avoid the rightful authority and con- trolling action of the Yearly Meeting, to which they were sub- ordinate ; and although they professed to do this, for what they ;deemed to be good cause, yet they thereby became sepa- ratists, and ceased to be in unity with the Society of Friends ; but that the Yearly Meeting of which Shearman was Clerk, was rightly formed and conducted as the Yearly Meeting for New England, and that they had done no act to forfeit their rights and claims to the supremacy belonging to them by the disci- pline and fundamental law of the Society. 4. Supposing, then, that the Yearly Meeting of which Shear- man was Clerk was duly constituted as the Yearly Meet- ing for New England, the Court are of opinion that they had jurisdiction of this question, and that they acted and decided definitively on the subject. The question was directly before them, which were the true Representatives ; and this depended on the question, which were the true Monthly and Quarterly Meetings ; they considered it necessary to settle this, before proceeding to the principal business of the meeting, in order to give the legitimate representatives of Rhode Island Quar- terly Meeting their just voice and weight in its proceedings. The reception of one set, as true and legitimate, was the rejec- tion of the other. Was this question fairly decided ? According to discipline all Friends at a Yearly Meeting act in its deliberations- and doings ; but there are seven or eight Representatives, deputed from each Quarterly Meeting to the Yearly. This question was referred to all the representatives except the two contesting sets. They were a select body, apparently impartial ; they gave notice to both parties of the time for hear- ing them ; afterwards made their report to the Yearly Meeting, 250 EARLB ET ALS. V. WOOD BT ALS. and gave notice to those to whom the report was adverse, that it was to be taken up and acted on.; they declined to attend ; and after solid consideration, it was adopted and entered on the minutes of the Yearly Meeting. At the same meeting a narration was put forth as the offi- cial and authoritative judgment pf the meeting adopted by them, and ordered to be authenticated as their act, in which the complainants are recognized and declared to be the rightful Overseers of Swanzey Monthly Meeting, appointed in Au- gust, 1844. We have already alluded to the objection, that the jurisdic- tion of the Yearly Meeting, of June, 1845, was superseded or suspended by the pendency of this suit, by which the jurisdic- tion was transferred to this court. We see no weight in this objection ; the jurisdictions are over different questions, and exercised diverso intuitu. The one determines a rule of order and regularity- of discipline ; the other, a question of property and equitable right. The one acts directly upon the doings of a subordinate body, and approves or reverses them ; the other inquires into their regularity, to ascertain and declare the rights dependent on them. It was intimated in the argument, that the rights of the Monthly Meetings, could not, by the Discipline, be drawn in question before the Yearly or Quarterly Meeting, without a complaint of misconduct, notice, and an opportunity to an- swer. But there was no question here, as to the rights of the Swanzey Monthly Meeting; but as to the claims of certain individuals to be the rightful Overseers, Representatives, and officers of the Swanzey Monthly Meetings. On the whole ease, the court are of opinion, that the Com- plainants are entitled to a decree for the establishment of their title to the land and meeting-house, as prayed for in their Bill. FINAL DECREE. The following is a certified copy of the final decree passed by the Court : — " Bristol, ss. Supreme Judicial Court, November Term, 1852, " In the case, Oliver Earle et als., in Equity, v. William Wood et als. " And now this cause having been heard, and having been argued by counsel, therefore, upon consideration thereof, it is ordered and adjudged and decreed as follows, to wit : — That the defendants, WiUiam Wood, Miller Chace, Seneca Lincoln, Philip Tripp, and WiUiam Slade, named as plaintiffs in a certain suit at law, described in said BUI, be and hereby are perpetually enjoined from further prosecuting the said suit at law, and from all further proceedings therein ; and that all further proceedings in said suit at law be perpetually stayed by this injunction ; and that the lands described, and in said action at law demanded, be, and they hereby are declared to be charged with a trust in favor of, and that they are held for, the use of the Swanzey Monthly Meeting of the people called Quakers, in unity with the Yearly Meeting of said pebple for New England ; and that the following named heirs at law and devisees of Jonathan Chace, Benjamin Slade, and Reuben Chace, named in said Bill as the grantees of Elizabeth S. Dan- forth, to wit : Abner Slade, Elizabeth Shove, Susan S. Gifford, 252 EARLB ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. ■wife of Lilly Gifford, and said Lilly, Content S. Earle, wife of Weston Earle, and said Weston, Ruth B. BufEngton, wife of Moses Buffington, and said Moses, Rebecca Shove, Philip Chace, Israel Chace, Levi Chace, Sybil Buffum, wife of Edw. BufFum, and said Edward, Jonathan C. Anthony, Mary B. Slade, wife of Levi Slade, and said Levi, Sarah C. Borden, wife of John H. Borden, and said John H., Gardner C. Anthony, Elizabeth S. Millard, wife of EUery Millard, and said EUery, Ira Hallowell Chace, and John B. Chace, against whom this Bill is to be taken for confessed, be, and they hereby are decreed, at the cost and charge of said Monthly Meeting, to convey so much as has been vested in them of the legal title to the said lands described in said Bill, which, by the said deed of the said Elizabeth S. Danforth, was vested in the said Jonathan Chace, Benjamin Slade, and Reuben Chace, and their heirs on the trusts aforesaid, for the use and benefit of the said Swanzey Monthly Meeting, of which the said Complainants are hereby adjudged to have been, as in said Bill alleged, the only consti- tuted and appointed Overseers, to the Overseers thereof, to hold to them in their said capacity as Overseers, and their successors in said office, upon the trust aforesaid, and that a perpetual injunction is hereby granted them, the said heirs and devisees,, and each of them, restraining them, and every of them from setting up any right or claim in themselves by vir- tue of said deed of Elizabeth S. Danforth, and that a per- petual injunction against the said William Wood, Miller Chace, Seneca Lincoln, Philip Tripp, and William Slade, who are plaintiffs in said action at law, be, and hereby is granted to restrain them from setting up or claiming any right or title to the said lands, under or by virtue of a certain instrument named in the answers to the Bill and Supplementary Bill pur- porting to be a deed of Thomas Wilbur of the lands aforesaid, but by which said deed no legal or other title passed to the grantees therein named, and from setting up or claiming any title or right thereto, under claim of being Overseers of said Swanzey Monthly Meeting : and it is further ordered and decreed that the said last-named defendants, being plaintiffs as aforesaid,, in the said action at law, pay to the Complainants, APPENDIX. [(See S. Ohoate's Argument, p. 196.] The edition of J. J. Gurney's "Work, entitled " Observations on the Distinguishing Views, etc.," — two hundred copies of which were con- tained in the list of books, as purchased by the "Trustees of Obadiah Brown's Benevolent Fund," and which list was laid before the Meeting for Sufferings of New England Yearly Meeting in 1844, was printed at the press of Mahlon Day & Co., in New York, in 1840. The passage objected to by the " Philadelphia Appeal," stands as fol- lows in this edition of the "Observations," p. 198. " It has often been remarked, that the secret breathing of the soul, •and the inaudible sigh of the broken spirit, are prayer in the sight of God ; and this is certainly true ; but we ought not to rest satisfied with these alone. Prayer flowing from the heart, and yet flowing in words, was plainly commanded by our Saviour, when he said, ' After this man- ner therefore pray ye, our Father/ etc. (Matt. vi. 9.) " To the occasional use of the prayer which our Lord condescended to recite, I cannot conceive that any reflecting Christian can for a mo- ment object ; yet I do not understand our Lord's words as rendering this form imperative ; but only as enjoining upon us to pray after this manner ; that is, in such clear and emphatic words, as shall plainly ex- press our humble adoration of God, and our earnest entreaty for his grace and preservation." Lnmediately following the above passages in the "Observations," but not noticed by the " Philadelphia Appeal," Joseph John Gurney writes ss follows : — 256 EAKLB ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. " Can we, then, rightly express ourselves in prayer, even in private, unless our hearts are prepared for the duty? I believe not. The mere appearance of prayer, without a miW to pray — a dry, formal use of words, without life and feeling — can yield no glory to God, and no benefit to man. The great principle that ' God is a Spirit,' and that ' they who worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth,' appUes in all its force, to our private as well as public devotions ; and we learn from the Apostles, that the prayers and. thanksgivings of Christians ought to be ' in the Spirit,' (Eph. vi. 18,) ' in the Holy Ghost,' (Jude20)." The agreement of these views with those of Robert Barclay may be seen from the following extract. ' From Bolert Barclay's Work, entitled " Qitakerism Gonjirmed." " Another instance brought by the students, is, that an heretic for- bearing prayer a year or two, or his whole lifetime, may justify him- self of this doctrine. To this it was answered, that though he may pretend, yet he hath no just ground from our principle : for we believe, that all men are bound to pray often unto God, yea, daily ; and that God doth inwardly call and move all men often unto prayer, during the day of their visitation : and when that is expired, or when at any other time they want that inward call or influence through unfaithfulness, they are still bound ; and if they pray not they sin, because they ought to have an influence. But that our account saith, all have not utter- ance to pray in words, is no excuse for heretics: for they must needs acknowledge, as well as we, that all have not utterance, who may be good Christians ; seeing some that are naturally dumb, may be good Chris- tians, and yet they must confess, these have not utterance. Also many good Christians who have no natural impediment, do want utterance in a spiritual way, to speak or pray vocally in the hearing of others at some times ; although we believe it is given at times to aU that are faith- ful {who have no natural defect) that they may pray vocally, or in the hearing of others; but how often, it is more than we can determine, seeing it is not revealed. But if any fail of this utterance through un- faithfulness, their sin is nothing the less, if they omit prayer. "And thus their last two instances are answered. For we do afiirm with great freedom, that all who are faithful to the Lord, never want sufficient inspiration or influence to wait upon God, fear him, love him, desire his grace, and divers other inward duties. We say no£ APPENDIX. 257 all : for some inward duties, such as meditation on a particular subject or place of Scripture are not always required, more than it is always re- quired to speak ; but if they be unfaithful, we deny not, but they may and will want them. And in that case, although they want inspirations and influences, they are bound to pray, yet not without them, but with them. As a man that wanteth both money and goods to pay his debt, yet is bound to pay his debt ; yet he must not, nor ought not to pay it with- out money or goods. The example is clear, and the application is easy." — Barclmfs Worhi, Philadelphia edition, printed hy Thomas Kite, 1831. Vol. III. pp. 131, 132. B. [/See R. Choate's Argument, p. 207.] " I affirm and that according to truth, that as the church and assembly of God's people may and hath power to decide by the Spirit of God in matters fundamental and weighty, (without which no decision nor decree in whatever matters is available,) so the same church and as- sembly also in other matters of less moment, as to themselves, (yet being needful and expedient with a respect to the circumstance of time, place, and other things that may fall in,) may and hath power by the same Spirit, and not otherwise, being acted, moved, and assisted, and led by it thereto, to pronounce a positive judgment ; which, no doubt, will be found obligatory upon all such, who have a sense and feeling of the mind of the Spirit ; though rejected by such, as are not watchful, and so are out of the feeling and unity of the life. And this is that, which none that own immediate revelation, or a being inwardly led by the Spirit, to be now a thing expected or dispensed to ■ the saints, can without contradicting their own principle deny; far less such, with whom I have to do in this matter, who claiming this privilege to par- ticulars, saying, ' that they being moved to do such and such things, though contrary to the mind and sense of their brethren, are not to be judged for it ; ' adding, ' why may it not be so, that God hath moved them to it ? ' Now if this be a sufficient reason for them to suppose as to one or two, I may without absurdity suppose it as well to the whole body. And therefore as to the first, to wit, — " The nature of the things themselves. If it be such a thing, the 258 EARLB ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. , doing or not doing whereof, that is, either any act or the forbearance of any, may bring a real reproach or ground of accusation against the truth professed and owned, and in and through which there may a vis- ible schism and dissension arise in the church, by which truth's enemies may be gratified, and itself brought into disesteem ; then it is fit for such, whose care is to keep all right, to take inspection in the matter, to meet together in the fear of God, to wait for his counsel, and to speak forth his mind, according as he shall manifest himself in and among them. And this was the practice of the primitive church in the matter of circumcision. For here lay the debate : some thought it not needful to circumcise the Gentiles ; others thought it a thing not to be dispensed with ; and no doubt, of these '(for we must remember, they .were not the rebellious Jews, but such as had already believed in Christ) there were, that did it out of conscience, as judging circumcision to be still obligatory. For they said thus ; except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. Now what course took the church of Antioch in these cases? Acts xv. 2. They determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them should go unto Jeru- salepi, unto the apostles and elders about this question. We must not _ suppose they wanted the Spirit of God at Antioch, to have decided the matter, neither that these apostles neglected or went from their inward Guide in undertaking this journey ; yet we see, they judged it meet in this matter to have the -advice and concurrence of the apostles and elders, that were at Jerusalem, that they might be all of one mind in the matter. For there is no greater property of the Church of Christ, than pure unity in the Spirit, that is, a consenting and oneness in judg- ment and practices in matters of faith and worship (which yet admits of different measures, growths, and motions, but never contrary and contradictory ones ; and in these diversities of operations, yet still by the same Spirit, the true liberty is exercised, as shall be declared here- after) : therefore prayeth Christy that they all may be one, as he and the Father is one.'' — Barclay's Anarchy of the, Ranters — Barclay's Works, Phila. Edition, 1831, Vol. I. pp. 517, 518, 519. APPENDIX. 259 C. [(See a. Ghoaie's Argument, p. 209.] From the answer of Thomas "Wilbur, the Clerk of Swanzey Monthly Meeting before the separation, to the fourth interrogatory in chief: — " Unlike most other bodies, either ecclesiastical or civil, the Society of Friends impose much responsibility on persons acting as clerks of their meetings. Hence they endeavor to confer this appointment on persons of known sobriety and integrity, and persons whose judgment and weight of religious character, entitles them to the entire confidence of their Ftfiends, for it sometimes happens that very much depends on the deliberate and judicious manner in which questions as to what is the true sense of the Meeting, are decided by the Clerks. The Society of Friends never decide questions by majorities, but where a difference of opinion exists, it is frequently spoken of in much freedom and gentle- ness, and almost always in much submission to the judgment of those whoso opi»ions may conflict with our own ; but where unanimity of opinion is not come to by the speakers, neither party yielding to the opinion or views of the other, and both press the question, then it becomes the painful duty of the Chrk to decide the question at issue,* by declaring what is, in his judgment, the solid sense of the meeting, and this he does by taking into view the weight of religious experience, and character of those who have shown their views on the point to be settled. " The Clerk is not to let his own peculiar views bias him to this or the other side of the case, but to seek as much as may be for that wis- dom which never errs, that his decisions may savor of truth and right- eousness. The foregoing is, as I understand, the manner of doing business among Friends generally. But Swanzey Monthly Meeting has for at least twenty or more years past, pursued a course somewhat different, and perhaps rather peculiar to itself. After my attachment to said meeting a question arose upon which a difference of opinion existed, and continued so to exist in spite of discussion, when an aged and influential man arose on the gallery seat, and observed, 'that as we have long bBen in the practice of standing stiU when we cannot go forward unitedly, it is my judgment that we do not now depart from this precept of Holy "Writ, but that the subject be continued.' * The italics are the Compiler's. 260 EARLE ET ALS. V. WOOD ET ALS. " This opinion was at once adopted by the meeting, and this has been the uniform practice of Swanzey Monthly Meeting to the present time, with a solitary exception, wherein one individual stood against the entire meeting, until the Clerk decided that the sense of the meeting was against him, when he arose and yielded the point very harmoni- ously, and much to his own credit. No other original question (with the exception just mentioned, where said individual stood against the entire meeting) has to my knowledge ever been carried over the head of a single Friend during my connection with Swanzey Monthly Meeting. " I have not been much in the way of attending other Monthly Meet- ings than those constituting Ehode Island Quarterly Meeting, all of which I have occasionally attended. I have attended New York Yearly Meeting once, and also Philadelphia Quarterly Meeting some time since, and as far as I have had an opportunity of judging, I think the mode of action first spoken of has pretty generally been followed by the Clerks of Meetings for business." EERATA. Page 70, 8th line, insert 1840 for 1848. Job Chace should be in Italics. Meeting should be Meetings. insert as between us and a. Complaints should be Complainants. and should be of. for and to malce read and to order them to make. power should be person. their should be then. a should be any. Officers should be Affairs. it is should be they are. Overseer should be Overseers. devotedly should be devoutly. Associate, the defendant should be Associates, the defendants in should be on. Meetings should be Meeting. " "5, 30th " 101, 19th " 109, 21st " 132, 24th " 168, 25th " 214, 11th " 221, 3d " 221, 4th " 227, 32d " 230, 25th " 235, 29th " 235, 34th " 237, 26th " 240, 8th " 241 36th " 250, 29th