X
EXAMINATION
OF A
BY THE
COMMITTEE OIw IliCOHPORATIOHS
TO THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
«GF
SOUTH CAROLINA,
IN DECEMBER, 1827,
UPON A LETTER
51 - TAKEN FOR A PETITION TO THE KOTTSE,
AND AS SUCH
REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE.
BY THE WRITER OF THE LETTER.
■ ■ VWVWWVWVVWWVVVVVWWX VWVWVW—-■
"Much ado about nothing."
"Behold my desire is that, mine adversary had written a"—report
FAYETTEVILLE, N. C.
Mi! vr. T) FOR TfJF AUTHOR AT THE EVANGFMO A T„ PRINTING OFFICE
1839.
My reasons for not having answered a year ago, the report which
is the subject of examination in the following pages, are stated in
another place. The reasons why it was not done more than a month
earlier, are, that the information which determined me to undertake
it at all, was not received for some-weeks after the adjournment of
the recent session of the Legislature of South Carolina; and that
there was also a delay of several weeks in the printing, from a press
of business, and a succession of unavoidable disappointments, in. the
office where the work was executed.
It may be proper to state also, that, with an expectation, of the
printer's being able at once to proceed with the work, several of the
manuscript sheets were, at different times, put into his hands, before
the subsequent ones were written. This has prevented my review¬
ing the whole together; and, in such a composition, may have given
rise to slight incongruities and repetitions that might otherwise have
been avoided or corrected.
It is possible, that some of those who saw a letter, addressed by
me to the committee, through their chairman, on the 29th January,
1828, may have so misconstrued a part of it, as to ascribe to it a
meaning at variance with the tenor of the following remarks. For
the sake of such persons,- if any such there be, I observe,. that a
little attention to the phraseology of the letter, and to the object for
which it was written, will correct the misconstruction.
M. MACLEAN
Fayeiteville, N. C. 28th February, 1829-
EXAMINATION, &c.
A writer of some distinction has remarked, that "it is best to live
down the calumnies of malice and the judgments of ignorance."
To the correctness and wisdom of this maxim, as a general rule of
life, I give^ny ready and cordial assent; but the discharge of our
duties in society will sometimes give rise to occurrences, which not
only justify, but require a departure from it. The occurrences to
which it is my pr-escnt purpose to advert, are, in my estimation, of this
character.
A committee of the Mouse of Representatives of South Carolina,
in one of its reports,,durii^g the session of 1827, makes against me,
by very evident implication, charges which, as circumstances have
turned out, I feel it due to myself and my friends, not to pass unno¬
ticed, even at this late day.
The malignant whispers and half-suppressed hints of worthless
and unprincipled individuals, I would, from a se?hse of self-respect,
pass by in perfect silence. The honest errors and misrepresenta¬
tions of sincere inquirers after truth, I might also leave to time
and the natural course of-events to correct. But the case is differ¬
ent, when charges cf serious import come through a respectable and
official body, whose motive;, cannot be suspected, and oneof whose
provinces it is, to inquire into facts, and report upon them.
However improbable such charges in themselves—however ridicu¬
lous they may appear upon examination—however absurd the train
of reasoning by which they are supported, they still carry with
them some semblance of authority; and therefore deserve respect¬
ful consideration.
I have been told, that no charges or imputations whatever were
intended to be made against me; and that therefore no notice of
the matter is called for. But w hether intended or not, they were
made; and the absence of design is no reason for not answering
them. If an awkward booby spit in your face, although you may¬
be convinced, from the accompanying circumstances, that the act
was unintentional, and therefore does not call for resentment, you
will still wash off the spittle, even when you have no fear that it can
poison or injure you. I have been told by others, that the paper
containing the charges has not been published; but lies buried a-
mongrubbish, and may never again be read; that it therefore can do
ine no injury. With whatever deference I view the opinions of
those who urge this as a reason against answering them, I do not
myself feel the force of it. He who dreads not the light, is not
content with darkness.
I proceed, then, to consider the charges. I do so, not from an ap¬
prehension that any who know me and whose opinion is worth re¬
garding would believe them; but from an unwillingness to be deem-'
ed too regardless of foul and false aspersions.
At a meeting held in the summer of 1827, on business preparato¬
ry to the organization of a church, at Darlington Court House, after
4
the transaction of the regular business for which the meeting had
been called, 1 suggested, in the course of conversation, the proprie¬
ty of applying to the State Legislature, at its succeeding session, to
incorporate our church* for the purpose of having the deed for our
lot made to officers or trustees, appointed by the corporation. Al¬
though this sug|estion was made, only as an intimation of a duty
which we would soon be called upon to perforin, pnl not with a
view of eliciting the opinions of the other members, about which I
' had no doubt; ^et, it may be well to mention, that all present mani¬
festly acquiesced in the expediency of the measure proposed; and
all, or nearlyall the lnale members, who were expected to unite in
the formation of the society, were present. The organization of the
society was, however, postponed longer than was at this time intend¬
ed. It did not take place until the second day befofe the sitting of
the. Legislature. During the meeting which was held for this pur¬
pose, I was so much occupied by sickness in ray family, and other
indispensable engagements, that the subject, "perhaps, never once
occurred to my mind; or if it did, I had Hot time to uttend to it.
Whether it occurred tomie for ten or twelve days afterwards, I have
now no recollection* At the end of that time, I addressed the fol¬
lowing letter,to the only mfimber Of the Legislature who resided in
our village: *
' Darlington C. H. 28fh Nov. 182/.
Dear Sir,—I have taken the liberty to trouble you, and through you, our
other Representatives in the State Legislature, with a request, on behalf of the
Presbyterian Church at this place, that you will procure for us, an act of incor¬
poration. 1 presume that no difficulty can arise from the want of a formal pe¬
tition, which would only unnecessarily consume a part pf die time of both houses,
and a committee. Amendments, for the incorporation of societies, are Some¬
times, oq motion, received, to the bill of incorporations, on its passage. And
where the Representatives of those wl^» are interested are agreed upon the
subject, I see no reason why any difficulty should ever arise. The church has
been but recently organized; at the meeting for which purpose, there was not
time to prepare and sign a petition. There has since been nb meeting; and the
members live so seatteringly, that it would be inconvenient to obtain their
names to a petition, in time for the present session I have transcribed, on the
opposite page, a form, from an old act, which, should it meet the approbation of
yourself (whom we consider our most immediate representative,) and your
colleagues, you will[please]to offer as an amendment to the bill of incorporations,
on some of its readings; and your petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
M. MACLEAX.
, - , Esq.
I saw Mrs. ——— yesterday evening. Your family are well. I hear the
ftage.horn, which hurries me. '
Few persons, if any, upon reading this letter can. doubt that it
was intended only for ik«ur {Darlington) Representatives in the Le¬
gislature." It was written in extreme haste, when I every moment
expected the sound of the mail-carrier's horn, after which no letter
deposited in the office could be sefit by the departing mail, unless
deposited immediately; and then only by special favour of the Post
Master. For a copy of the letter, and of the report given below,
If am indebted ,to the politeness of the gentleman to whom the let¬
ter was addressed, who procured for me the originals from the clerk
of the House of Representatives, and allo wed me to transcribe them.
My reasons for writing the letterwere, That although I did not
consider the business on which it was written one of great import¬
ance, 1 still thought it ought to be attended to, and did not expect
a
the society to be assembled in time, formally to petition the current
session of the Legislature;—That I had no doubt whatever,as well
from the fact stated above, as from the very nature of the case,
,that if the Society were assembled they would all, without hesita¬
tion, sign a forhial petition;—That t believed it.tobethe practice of
the General Assembly, to grant charters, as a matter of course, to
societies whose object is known to be a good one, when the members
representing the Districts where such societies are*located are uni¬
ted in their favour, and when no objection is made;—That the
slightest suspicion of any. possible objection to the incorporation of
the society never once arose in my mind;—That I doubted not that
all the Darlington delegation, as representatives of the interests of
their District jind all its citizens, would cordially co-operate in our
favour,so far as their co-operation was necessary;—ThaI- I had un¬
derstood from unquestionable authority, that the course I suggested
would be in order and was sometimes successfully pursued;—and,fi¬
nally, That, if any unexpected obstacle should present itself, I
supposed the matter would of*course end at once, without any fur¬
ther proceeding in regard to it. ♦ * *
A few days after the date of my letter, a sufficient number of
the society having unexpectedly met, they signed a blank petition
to be filled up and forwarded, which was accordingly done. In the
mean time, however, the -gentleman to whom, my letter had
been addressed receives it; and, with those of his colleagues in the
House* of Representatives, (for the respectable Senator, so far as I
have learnt, was not at all consulted, in the business,) determine,
for reasons, no doubt, in their estimation, good and sufficient, that-
the*sociefy shall riot be incorporated. * Had this determination end¬
ed all proceeding in regard to the aft'air, as most persons would prob¬
ably have expected it to do, no one should hear me utter a word of
complaint about it: for I never cOmplain of men, for exercising, in
their own way, the discretion clearly allowed them in any thing.
Or, notwithstanding the failure of the condition on which I had re¬
quested a specific amendment to the till of incorporations to be of¬
fered, if still.it had been thought proper to move the amendment,
and the motion had,the very next instant,been opposed and defeated,
by the member who made it, and his colleagues in the House,* even
of such a course, I would have taken no notice. But instead of this,
it is agreed, that my letter is a petition;!—that every citizen has a
"right to petition the government;"—aye, who can question it? a
constitutional right "peaceably to assemble and petition;"—and that,
therefore, my petition must be presented, and referred to the proper
committee. To be sure no valuable end is to be answered in doing
so; for it has already been decided, by those whose advice, it is
known, will prevail, that "the prayer of the petition shall not be
granted." But some regard is due to appearances, and rights 1—
*It isflue to one of the gentlemen here referred to, who has had considera¬
ble experience in public life, and who was not," at the time, a member of the
committee on Incorporations, to state", that he informed me he had never seen
m> letter until I showed it to him; and that any opinion which lie had formed
of its contents or design, and any advice which" he had given as to the manner
in which it should be disposed of, were predicated only upon an impression de¬
rived from conversation with others in regard to it.
^See the form of its conclusion!!!
G
constitutional rights ! I—-they are sacred things—to be neither
withheld nor violated, especially by those who are sworn to main¬
tain the constitution. My letter,—I beg pardon,—my petition, is ac¬
cordingly, in due form, folded, endorsed, presented, and referred;
and the committee proceed, with all due gravity, to delibcrateand re-
port upon it. Their report is, of course, "unfavorable." But if
merely this had been all, whatever I might have thought of the di¬
rection given to the affair, however grateful I might have felt for
the scrupulous regard entertained for my rights, I should have been
content to express my gratitude verbally, without putting my¬
self to the trouble of writing, or others to the trouble of reading'a
pamphlet on the subject.
The following is a literal copy of the report. It lias no name af¬
fixed to it—it must speak for itself:
"The committee ou incorporations, to whom was referred the petition of
Murdoch M'Lean, praying; the Incorporation of the Presbyterian church at
Darlington, respectfully report, that it was made to appear to them—that the
church in question had been built by the contributions of members of various
religious denominations, with the understanding, that it should be free to all,
—that the petition praying for incorporation as the "Presbyterian church at
Darlington" was informal, and was moreover unauthorized by the parties in¬
terested therein; for which reasons, the committee tare of opinion, that the
• prayer of the petition should not be granted."
On the back of the report are written the following words:
"Not granted. Informal, and, according to evidence, unjust."
From this report, it appears, that the committee had three several
objections to incorporating the Society, each of which involves a
charge against me. 1 shall proceed to consider them successively.
The first is "that it was made to appear to them, that the church in
question had been built by the contributions &c. with an understand¬
ing that it should he free to all "
If the committee here mean by the "church in question" which
"had been bvilt &c." the Society's House, they entirely misappre¬
hend "the prayer of the petition/' which was not that the house
should be incorporated, (for this had already been done by the car¬
penters)—but that certain individual human beings should be incor¬
porated into a Bonv politic, which should be known in law, as such,
and enjoy the privileges and immunities incident thereto. The er¬
ror of the committee, if they do mean the house, reminds me of an
anecdote communicated to me some years since, for relating which,
in this place, I trust I shall be excused.
One of our seaboard capitols being threatened, during the war of
the Revolution, with an immediate visit from the enemy, when the
Legislature was in session, a motion was made, to remove, for greater
security, into the interior. A member from the country, hearing
much said during the debate to which the motion gave rise, of the
delay and inconvenience which the house would experience from
the proposed removal, and supposing that the'object was to remove
the building, and that some of the members greatly over-rated the
power of the beasts of burthen, which must be used for that purpose,
rose and addressed the presiding officer as follows: "Mr Speaker,
I think I've a right to know something about these things; I've
been raised among bosses and oxens; and I tell you, all you can hitch
to this house, coukl'nt budge it one inch. I therefore move we go
and leave it."
7
If the committee mean by the "church in question" not the house
but the Society, their objection to its incorporation "that it bad
been built by the contributions of members 6f various religious de¬
nominations &c." is utterly groundless, any thing to the contrary
which may have appeared to them notwithstanding. If they mean
neither the house nor the Society, what can they mean?" They are
rational, thatis reasoning beings—they are respectable & well inform¬
ed men, who must be presumed to be acquainted with the correct,
or at least the intelligible use of words; and we must consider theii*
language accordingly. To do so,vthen, it seems to me thatwemust
.understand the word "church" to be used exclusively in neither of
the senses mentioned above, but in both, or either indifferently, as
suits the purpose cf the argument. "The church in question,"
that is, the church for the incorporation of which application had
been made, is certainly the Society; and this must have been the
meaning of the committee; again, the same "church in question"
which "had been built &c.'* is as certainly the house; and this must
also have been the meaning of the committee; otherwise this part of
.their report would be childish nonsense. Every reasoning mind, it
seems to me, must unquestionably come to the same conclusion.
If it be asked, how can the same word—not the word repeatedi—
not in a different, but the same connexion, and at the same time,
be correctly'used to signify two things so very different?—Although,
it is my business to examine, and not to defend the report or its
phraseology, farther than is necessary to sustain my interpretation
of it; yet, wishing to treat the committee with the utmost possible
respect, and satisfactorily to determine their meaning, if I can do
so, I shall attempt an answer to the question.
It is certain, then, thattheword "church" is used by good writers
in both the senses in which the committee use it; and seeing this is
the case, why not let it bear both at the same time, and in the same
place, as a man when he holds two compatible offices, for instance,
those of senator and 'elector, may contemporaneously exercise
the functions of both? And as when the same stone or pillar sup¬
ports two joined arches, and without lodging its individuality, so
completely enters into the composition of each that it always seems
to belong wholly to the one in connexion with which it is viewed,
while each arch is distinct and perfect in itself;—so, may not the
word "church" in its double sense and individual character sustain
a twofold relation to two propositions in a train of reasoning, while
it enters integrally into the composition of each, and each is com¬
plete in itself, the word bearing either of its proper meanings, ac¬
cording to the requirement of the proposition in connexion with
which it is considered? t J
Again, things equal to the same are equal to each other, and equij
valents may at pleasure be substituted, the one for the other: thus,
if your cane is three feet long and mine is three feet long, yours is
as long as mine, and mine is as long as yours, indifferently, and eith¬
er is as correct a measure as the other. So if cd be equal to 6, and
6 be equal to a, cd is also equal to a; and, in mathematical calcula
tion, any of these terms may be substituted for either of the others.
As also vi.is not only equal to 6, but is 6, so a is 6; and if we sup*
pose cd fo be the same as 2 multiplied by 3,* inasmuch as 2 tunes 3/
is 6, cd is also 6, ot cd is
8
So likewise, inasmuch as the Society aforesaid is a church* ana
the house aforesaid is also a church, and inasmuch as a church
is always and in all places a church, and one church is as much a,
church as another, what is it more than an identical propositio i to
say, the Society is the house. What is true of either, may, of course,
be affirmed of the other. When the Society petitiontd for incor¬
poration, the house may properly be said to have petitioned; and
when the house was built by cai penters, the Society may, with equal
propriety, be said to have been built in the same way: the eouunm«e
are therefore justified in reasoning from the one to the other; or in
using the word ♦'church'" to siguiiy either indifferently, or to signify
first the one and then the other, in the same connexion, as best suits
their argument, or the conclusion at which they aim; in tie same
way as the merchant, in measuring his cloth, may use his yard-slick
or "the marks on his counter, or if more convenient may use some¬
times the one and sometimes the Other, without affecting the cor¬
rectness of his measurement. Although it must be admitted, that,
in practical life, ti is not always equivalent to 6,for instance G apples
to-6 horses, yet, in abstract arithmetical calculation, C is al ways
6, and may be used as such. In like manner, although, in prac¬
tical life,"a church of stone or wood is not always equivalent to a
church of human beings, yet in abstract reasoning, a church is al¬
ways a church; and may be considered as such.
1 have now explained and defended, as well as lam able, in the
space which I can allot to the purpose, the committee's use of the
word "church." The general rule or principle which it establish¬
es, that objects designated by a common name, and (by parity of
reasoning) objects possessing a common property by which they can,
in common, be designated, may in logic be identified, while in fact
they retain their individual characters, must prove a mighty engine
of reasoning. In metaphyrics it will be what the lever is in me¬
chanics, a power by which a very small force may be made to over¬
balance a very great one; and its being introduced by'rneu in au¬
thority, renders it of course authoritative. There is no difficulty
in proving by it, that rocks are gold; for they are alike matter; and
that men are angels; for they are alike creatures. But the great dif¬
ficulty is, after proving it, to find them so* It can also be proved
that every biped man is a goose: For, man is a two-legged ani¬
mal;* a goose is also a two-legged animal; therefore man, (that is
every,two-legged man) is a goose. The committee, however, are
excepted; for a goose is fieriged; no one of the committee is fledged;
therefore no one of the committee is a goose. Corollary.—No one
of the committee is a two-legged animal. Other corollaries follow,
which will suggest themselves to the mind of every reader. I beg
the committer to be assured, that I here mean no disrespfect, person¬
al or official, to them, or any of them. 1 wish only to shew the
power and extensive applicability of the new method of reasoning
which they have introduced.
Whether the committee are entitled to the credit of originality
in the use of this extraordinary species of ratiocination, or are mere
copyists, I do not undertake to decide. Rumours floating in the
air have reached me, that i#t was invented by others, and adopted by
"Exceptions only prove the rule.
•%
the committee; which I mention, that I may not be thought to do in¬
justice to any one. But inasmuch as I have found the new system
set forth,by exemplification,in a tangible and official shape,in the re¬
port, I have chosen to consider it there, that 1 may be in no danger
of mistaking tlie language in which it is set forth, which, in this
kind of reasoning, is of peculiar importance.
Although,however, I can see clearly enough,how and why the com¬
mittee use the word k 'church" in a double sense as they do, it would
be uncandid in me to deny, that I have not intellectual acumen
enough to see as clearly the conclusiveness of their reasoning,in the
sentence in which they thus use it. I have not been able to trace out
the relation of their conclusion to their premises. If, for the sake
ot clearness, we change their form of expression into the common
form, and supply what all must admit to be implied by the context,
we shall have the following syllogism, viz. Petition has been made
to incorporate (a Society called) The Presbyterian Church at Dar¬
lington; (a house called) the Presbyterian Church at Darlington was
built so and so; Therefore the Presbyterian Church at Darlington
"should not be incorporated." This, to my mind, is about as con¬
clusive as the following: Jack wants his supper; snow is white;
therefore Jack should not get his supper. I may not do the reason¬
ing of the committee justice; but if I do not, it is because I cannot
understand it. I most sincerely wish to treat it fairly. I would
think the following might possibly be the meaning:—The Society is
the house; and it is not common for the Legislature to incorporate
houses; were it not for the reference to the manner of building the
house; and were it not that this reply would probably occur to some
of the committee: The house is also the Society; and it is com¬
mon to incorporate Societies. My difficulty in arriving satisfacto¬
rily at the meaning of the sentence which I am examining, may a-
rise from the want of a proper application of the principles which
I, a little while since, traced out: I may not carry them tar enough;
and indeed, I begin to suspect, that I have not fully fathomed the in¬
novations made'by the committee upon our old systems of logic.—
Perhaps I ought to call them improvements; but I cannot do so, out
of mere compliment, unless I had a more perfect knowledge of
them, and saw more clearly their practical utility.
I have searched for some authority,or example,to justify or illus¬
trate that part of the committee's reasoning, now under considera¬
tion; but could find none precisely in point. The nearest to it, is a
sentence contained in a charge to a jury,by an able and very learn¬
ed jurist, which I feel bound, in justice to the committee, to quote;
for to many, if not to most minds, the authority of precedents, and
great names, is the most cogent argument which can be applied, es¬
pecially on subjects of depth and obscurity,like the present. T am
sorry tnat I cannot give the name of the judge, which was suppres¬
sed, no doubt, for the best reason in the world. But the work from
which I quote, (Wise Men of Gotham^ 168.) is sufficient authority*,
The case is,
Quominus") Action on the case to recover damages
vs. I for fraud in the sale of a pair of un-
Cobbler. J sound boots.
The learned justice, after some very appropriate preliminary re¬
marks., proceeds: "The mere act of measuring a man for a pair of
10
boots, is, in the eye of the common law,in the nature of a covenant
with warranty:—and why? a shoemaker's measure is either of parch¬
ment or paper:—if of parchment, the covenant or warranty is the
stronger. Now, gentlemen of the jury,it cannot be necessary to in¬
form you, that all covenants are written on either parchment or pa¬
per; and according to the reasoning of the common law, the sub¬
stance or material made use of in measuring a man for a pair of
boots, being the same with that used in all covenants, it follows
from analogy, that it is in the nature of a covenant with warranty."
I do not mean to say, that this reasoning is precisely analogous to
that of the committee. For,in the former, there is some loose con¬
nexion between the premises and the conclusion, by means of a
strip of paper or parchment; but in the latter, I can see none what¬
ever:—and it is possible that 1 may have been led to associate the
two cases, only because I do not well understand either: like a gen¬
tleman of my acquaintance, who, confounding, or perhaps identify¬
ing the stomach and lungs, often speaks of throwing up bile from
the lungs.
Although the mode of reasoning used in the above extract, comes
nearer, in my judgment, to that used by the committee, than any
thing recorded which I can recollect, of sufficient respectability to
be relied on as authority; there is a tradition of a speech having
once on a time been made in a legislative assembly, against a bill to
incorporate a certain Society, or rather perhaps to save it from be¬
coming unincorporated, which,if authentic, might perhaps be consi¬
dered more appropriate. The orator's name, I do not know, if he
had any: All I know is,thatheis reported (verbally) to have made
the following speech: "I cannot support the bill, because its
friends voted on red paper." He is said to have been an honest,
plain, practical man; and,according to the tradition,there was,in his
mind,a very suitable relation, between his opposing the bill and his
reason for doing so; but this relation was not "made to appear." He
shewed only the extreme links of his chain, without proof of inter¬
mediate ones. This may also have been the case with the commit¬
tee. There may be some relation between their opposing the in¬
corporation of a certain Society, and their reason for it, that a cer¬
tain house was built in a certain way, and that too, not by the So¬
ciety; but they have not made this relation to appear, and I cannot
imagine what it can be. I think I am therefore justified in not ad¬
mitting its existence.—De non apparentibus et non existentibus
eadem est ratio.
Whatever defects may belong to the committee's mode of writing
and reasoning, it has,at least,one advantage, conciseness; by which
it saves labour, paper, and time. Now the labour saved would earn
money; the paper saved would cost money; and "time is money;"
besides whicn, saving time is equivalent to extending life. There-
Fore, this kind of reasoning may be said to save money and prolong
life to enjoy it. This advantage, it must be admitted, is gained at
the expense of conclusiveness; which some might consider a defect
in any system of logic. But may not even this be an advantage, in
a world like ours? for if all men reasoned conclusively, all would
conclude alike; and form the same opinions. The consequence
would be, that all would be induced to pursue the same occupation;
1.1
and thus,much of the present variety, and perhaps also of the acti¬
vity, in the character of society, would be lost. Unless indeed,
from a kind of insensible imitation, 1 have, in this instance, as perhaps
also in others, glided imperceptibly into something not unlike the new
and inconclusive manner of reasoning adopted by the committee.
But to return to the report "1 have found it!!! I have found
it!!!" I see the meaning of the committee. 1 no sooner looked,for an
instant,at the report, forgetting the stift rules of the schools—raising,
as it were, the spectacles of the logicians, and looking, as a plain,
practical man, unsophisticated by even a smattering of the doc¬
trines of artificial systems, would have done at first, with my natu¬
ral opticks—loosed from the trammels of rules which require, and
lead us to expect, that in every train of reasoning, the conclusion
must bear some intelligible relation to the premises—than I perceiv¬
ed the light beginning to shine; and I saw—reader, if you have half
an eye, and will look at the report in the same way, you too will see,
if indeed you have not long since seen—that as pill-boxes, or cruci¬
bles, in being packed, are, in order to save room, nested, one with¬
in another, so the brief clause which contains the committee's first
objection, and for the meaning of which we have been so long sift¬
ing and searching, manifestly involves the following propositions;
and, perhaps, means nothing else. First: The house occupied by
the society,on behalf of which, "petition" for incorporation had been
made, is not exclusively and rightfully theirs; Secondly: lncorpo-
ting the Society would settle upon them this house, to the prejudice
of other claimants: and these propositions as manifestly involve a
Third: That I the petitioner for incorporation, attempted, (and
the intimation is not very obscure, in a subsequent part of the re¬
port, that the attempt was clandestine) to procure that to be done,
which would filch from my neighbours their property; with a pre¬
tence, too, of advancing the sacred purposes of religion, by means
so utterly at variance with its holy precepts.
Having now come to the meaning of the committee, and to the
first of their charges against me, I proceed seriously to answer it.
In doing so, I wish scrupulously to avoid any thing like a miscon¬
struction of their language. I have no disposition to make a man
of straw in order to demolish it. If, however, the fairness of the
interpretation which I have given to the part of the report under
consideration, could be doubted, it is fully confirmed by the en¬
dorsement, "unjust." And the respectable author will hardly de¬
ny,that, when he penned it, there was on his mind some impression
corresponding to what I have stated. The same impression must
also have been made on the mind of every one who read or heard
the report, and who fell in with its reasoning.
Let no one say, then, that this is a light offence, with which I am
charged, by so high authority. In moral turpitude it equals,—in
baseness, it if possible, surpasses direct theft or robbery. He
who could be guilty of it, is restrained only by the strong arm of
the law, and the force of public opinion, from appropriating to him¬
self the first horse, or the first anything, on which he could lay his
hands.—He who could resort to low trick or stratagem—who could
avail himself of the imperfection of the law, and the advantages
which it gives him over the ignorant and unwary, in the acquisi¬
tion of property for himself or others, or in the accomplishment of
any of his purposes, is a prowling wolf, whatever garb lie may wear,
■whatever character he may sustain. He is more to be contemned
than the convicted felon; for his moral felony is often committed
under the wily and deceptive guise of insinuating hypocrisy, which,
I was about to say, is the most—but I will say, is one of the most
detestable of vices. I meet the charge,openly and fearlessly. It is
false—or true, as the premises on which it rests are so. If either
of the two first propositions stated above to be involved in the first
paragraph of the committee's report, can be disproved, the third
proposition, or the charge implied by them, falls to the ground.
As to the first of these propositions, that the house is not the pro¬
perty of the Society, it must depend upon the deed ot conveyance
for the lot on which the house stands. This deed conveys the lotto
individuals named, in trust for the Presbyterian Church, at Dar¬
lington C. H. for the purpose of erecting and keeping up thereon a
house of worship. These may not be the precise words of the deed,
for I quote partly from memory; but I am sure that they give the
meaning,without a shadow of variation. -And as to the understand¬
ing among the original contributors to building the house, the
agreement, to which they affixed their names, will probably be con¬
sidered at least as good evidence of it,as any thing which may have
appeared to the committee. From this instrument,' the following is
an extract: '■'■We whose names are hereunto stft)scribed promise to
pay to the sums annexed to our names for the purpose of
building a Presbyterian Church in, or near the village of Dar¬
lingtonBoth these instruments contain the condition, that, when
the house is not occupied by the Presbyterians, regular clergymen of
other denominations shall be allowed the privilege of preaching in it.
This is the only condition in either of the instruments which can
have any bearing on the question. And I presume that no one who
had seen these instruments, or who had such a knowledge of them
as would warrant an attempt to state their contents in "evidence,"
could ever for a moment think, that this condition invalidates, or in
any way affects the right of property in the house. I am very sure
that none of the parties to this agreement could have entertained the
opinion,that this condition gave them the power to embarrass the so¬
ciety in the exercise of any of its functions or rights; and I am far
from suspecting, that, if they had the power, any of them would be
disposed to exercise it. The feelings which prompted the liberal
contributions made by them, for building the house, were of a more
generous and honourable character. If, then, the house was alrea¬
dy the property of the society, to obtain it for them could have
been no part of my object, in applying for incorporation, even upon
the supposition that if it had not been theirs, an incorporating char¬
ter would give it to them;—or, that I had been ignoramus enough
to be of opinion that it would. I do not doubt, however, that it was
made to appear to the committee, from the "evidence" before them,
that the "church in question" was not the property of the "church
in question;" that is, that the house was not the property of the So¬
ciety. Let us suppose, for a little, that this appearance had been a re¬
ality. Would an incorporating charter give it to them? The com¬
mittee, if they mean any thing, were undoubtedly of opinion that
it would. And the committee ought to have had so much knowl¬
edge, at least, as was essential to the proper discharge of the sim-
15
plcst duties assigned them. They ought to have known the gene¬
ral nature, and rights, and powers of incorporations; otherwise*
how could they understanding^ decide upon any particular appli¬
cation for bringing one into existence? How could they judge of the
good or evil which it might produce in the community? As well could
an Apothecary's apprentice navigate a ship* or the most ignorant
sailor judge of medicines,, who might mistake arsenic for calomel
—or even any two-legged animal judge whether or not a given pa¬
per is a petition. To express a doubt, that the committee had some
acquaintance with the elementary principles of that branch of le¬
gislation entrusted to thenv would almost be to charge them with
incompetency for the services in which they had engaged. All
must admit, that the very fact of their appointment, and underta¬
king to serve, is, of itself, prima facie evidence that they knew
something about the business. And what stronger evidence than
prima facie? We can judge of evidence, only from appearance}
and that, which, in this respect, is of the first character, must be
most conclusive. Ought it not to convince any man? But
"He who's convinced against his will
"Is of the same opinipn still."
There is in me a kind of republican independence and stubborn¬
ness, which makes me occasionally think for myself, and always!
adhere to my ow n opinions till they are changed—till stronger enter
in and drive~them out. I will admit, however, that some of them
maybe so difficult of access, that even stronger ones can hatdly
reach them. This may be the case in the present instance. I
would, by no means, be disrespectful towards the committee. I
hope, that mere difference of opinion, and freedom in expressing
that difference, will not, in this land of freedom, be construed in¬
to disrespect; although they from whom I differ are, or were men
high in authority. 1 will take the Liberty then to say, that I be¬
lieved, and I am constrained still to persist in believing,against the
high authority opposed to me, that incorporating the society would
go just as far towards giving to them the State House in Columbia,
the Court House in Pendleton, St. Michael's in Charleston, or any
other property, public or private, as the "church in question," sup¬
posing it not to be theirs. There are two other incorporated socie¬
ties in the same village. If the doctrine of the committee be true,
why do they not seize upon the "church in question,"—or upon any
goods and chattels in the village or district? or why did not one of
these societies, as soon as they were incorporated, claim the house
in which they held their meetings? And if bodies politic are desti¬
tute of consciences, as is sometimes said of them, why do not the
numerous corporations in the State swallow up all the houses and
lands, or at least all the churches, within its limits? 1 have from
boyhood held the opinion, and it is hard to give it up at once, that,
in this country, property is held by more secure tenures;—and that
questions of right, in regard to it, are to be decided by other tests
than whether there are corporate societies in its neighbourhood. In¬
deed, being one of the people, I trust I may be allowed, without
subjecting myself to the imputation of arrogance, to express a
doubt, whether we the people have given power to our servants the
legislators to take by statute, or to our servants the judges to take
14
decision, the property of the humblest individual among us, and
give it to any corporation, without value returned.
Wherefore, it is evident, that, in making the application which I
did on behalf of the society, I could not have intended or expected
to interfere, in any way, witli the rights of others.
Here it occurs to me, that some may suppose the committee in¬
tended to ascribe no improper design to me;—that they looked only
to what, in their opinion, would be an incidental consequence ot
granting "the prayer of the petition," and what I might possibly not
have foreseen. But I hardly know which would be the more disrepu¬
table, the imputation of stupidity made by the report, according to
such a supposition, or the imputation of dishonesty made, accord¬
ing to its opposite. The supposition, however, is not probable; for
the first and prominent consideration, with the committee, is the
effect upon the relation of property; and they could hardly suppose
that a thing, in their estimation so very plain, entirely escaped the
consideration of one, having even such a knowledge of incorpora¬
tions as induced him to ask "a charter for one, although he might not
have had sense enough to know when his petition, for that purpos'e,
wanted the essential formality. The committee, undoubtedly,
viewed the matter in the same light with an honest citizen, who, a
short time afterwards, in a Conversation about the church, remark¬
ed to me, in the simplicity of his heart, that he heard I had "tried
atCoIumbia to have the house established,"/, e. settled upon the Soci¬
ety. The idea having once been fixed upon their minds, that the
object of the application was to interfere with, or, in some degree,
change the rights of property, they seem to have suffered themselves
to be carried away with it, until, being lost in a kind of somnambu-
lating drearn, they must have actually forgot what they were doing,
and fancied themselves a court of Common Pleas, sitting in judg¬
ment upon the claims of parties litigant. For I find it almost im¬
possible to persuade myself that they could have been men, who,
with their senses and attention in proper exercise, would, as a com¬
mittee on incorporations, reason in the way they did.
I proceed next to consider the committee's objection to the form
of the "petition J' They say, "it was made to appear" to them
that the petition*"-was informal." Charge implied.—incompeten¬
cy for business with a meddling forwardness to engage in it.
This objection is very much like that of the superintendent
of an armory seriously made to the form of a mnsktt, when in
fact, it is only a horseman's pistol misnamed musket, by some blun¬
dering agents, and under that name submitted to his inspection.
Can it be possible that the committee did mistake such a letter,
when they had it before them, and they were, or ought to be delibera¬
ting upon it, for a petition intended to be presented to either branch,
or to both branches of the legislature? If they did, I would be al¬
most tempted to hint, even if the hint should be deemed ungene¬
rous, that their doing so might be construed into a kind of remote
collateral evidence of their liability to somnambulism, or at least
to error in decidinga more abstruse and important question, than, to
what class of papers the letter should be referred—a question more
extensively affecting the exercise of their official functions, and on e
on which I have already intimated that I take the liberty to diffe r
from them, viz: How far the relations of property are changed by
an incorporating charter?—just as a man who, in day light, falls in-
15
to a small ditch, may be considered liable, in the dark, fto fall into
a great ditch: And if the committee did err in both these cases, on
wi.at question relative to their official duties were they not in dan¬
ger of error?'THumanum est enare. Verbutn sat—
I he last objection to incorporating the society is, that it appear¬
ed also 4'the petition was moreover unauthorized by the parties in¬
terested therein.' Here it may he possible to mistake the meaning
of the committee. If by the ''parties interested" they mean those
contributors to building the house who are not members of the so¬
ciety, these were riot in the least interested in the "petition:" if
they were, it was their interest that the society should be incorpo¬
rated, which would enable them permanently to hold their proper¬
ty; and the privilege of these parties in the "church in question,"
would thus be the more certainly secured to them and their succes¬
sors. If the meaning is, that the "petition" purports to be author¬
ized by the society while it is not, it is, to say the least of it, and less
perhaps than ought to be said, an inexcusably negligent statement
of what, a very little attention to the face of the paper before them,
would have shown not to be a fact. If the meaning is, that the socie¬
ty might not be desirous of incorporation, it is contrary to all proba¬
bility, and is disproved by the fact that they did, a very few days
afterwards, formally petition; if signing a petition, and regularly
forwarding it to one of their representatives, can be called doing
so. That a state of things, which none of them anticipated, and
which ought not to have existed, prevented the presentation of then*
petition, does not impair the force of the evidence which it affords
of their wish. The state of things to which I allude, is, that the
subject had been previously before one branch of the Legislature.
And, finally, if the meaning is, that the application was made by
me, in the form in which it was, from the slightest apprehension that
it would not fully meet the approbation of the whole society, and of
all others, who could have, or who could feel, the least concern of any
kind, in the matter, except enemies to Christianity and good order;
—or, with a design to take the slightest advantage, in any way
whatever, of any person whatever, I can make no other reply, than,
that it is utterly destitute of the shadow of foundation in truth. *
And yet, if there was evidence to that effect before the committee,
I will not say that it was utterly impossible for the witness, if he
was so little acquainted with the facts about which he had underta¬
ken to testify, as not to know that the house was the property of the
society, and so ignorant as to be of opinion that incorporation would
give it to them, and, at the same time, so misguided by the workings
ofhis own heart, as to judge most erroneously of the principles whiclx
regulate human action-I will not say positively, that, with all these
allowances, it was utterly impossible for him to believe his evidence
to be true. If in this I err, it is on the side of charity. Should it
be even suspected, that this language implies any thing, partaking
* I am very far from intending to treat the committee with any want of cour¬
tesy or respect. I mean only to state a truth, without at all intimating
that they designed to admit into their report any erroneous or improper state¬
ment. And yet I am certain that the unjustifiable, if not inexcusable preju¬
dice excited by their strange notions, in regard to the object of my letter,
caused them to admit into tlie report what, with any thing resembling states¬
manlike views of the subject before them, tlmy must have deemed altogether
Inadmissible. ...
I + If others led the committee into these errors, and did so from ignorance,
thl result was what might be expected When the blind lead the &c If they
did it not from ignorance, I shall not here impure why they did it. [ This note
1 was, from inadvertence? at first omitted■ ]
iti
in thd least decree of harshness, I hope it will be borne in mind,
that the language is both general and conditional; and I beg that no
one will think of applying it to himself, unless he feels it to be ap¬
plicable—unless he knows that he deserves it by having given evi¬
dence of the character alluded to.
.When I first saw the report, which was during the extra-session
of the Legislature, in January, 1828, I determined to answer it at
once, unless justice should be done me, by cancelling, or modify¬
ing it, or in some other way. The committee, upon my pointing
out their errors, manifested a disposition, nem. con. to correct
them, if any course could be devised, by which they would be ena¬
bled to do so. I suggested the following:—That the chairman should
move, in the house, a re-consideration of the question on agreeing
to the report, for the purpose of recommitting it. If the recom¬
mitment should take place, the committee might then ask to be dis¬
charged from the further consideration of the subject, and the ''pe¬
tition" might afterwards, by leave, be withdrawn; which, to the sat¬
isfaction of all parties, would bring the matter back to the point
at which it ought originally to have stopped;—or, the committee,
having the matter again before them, could make what disposal of
it they might deem proper.
Although a few weeks had elapsed since the taking of the vote,
'which it was proposed to re-consider,and the Legislature had, in the
mean time, adjourned; yet, inasmuch as the session was accounted
the same, as to all forms of proceeding, and the paper was as com¬
pletely in the power of the house, as at the moment after it was ac¬
ted upon, the case seemed to me to come within the general parlia¬
mentary* rule, in regard to re-consideration. If there was a special
rule of the house, limiting the period of re-consideration, to a short¬
er interval than that which had, in this instance, elapsed, I doubt¬
ed not that the house had power to suspend it. And a request to
re-consider,by the chairman of a standing committee, made in obe¬
dience to instructions from the body over which he presided, for
the purpose of enabling them to correct errors of the character of
some of those in this report, seemed to me to form so strong a case,
that it would certainly meet with as favourable a hearing and deci¬
sion by the house, as a due regard to the essential principles of de¬
liberative or parliamentary order would admit of.
The original Chairman of the committee being absent, and the
gentleman whose name stood next in order, and who acted as Char-
man, being unwilling to make any motion on the subject, in the
* I use the word Parliamentary here, in reference, not to the British Parlia¬
ment, but to deliberative or legislative bodies in this country, and particularly
to Congress, the most respectable of them. On this subject, Jefferson's Man¬
ual is, I believe, considered authority. The following is an extract from this
work. "The rule permitting a re-consideration of a question, affixing to it no.
limitation of time or circumstance, it may be asked whether there is no limi¬
tation? If after the vote, the paper on which it is passed has been parted with,
there can be no re-consideration; as if a vote has been for the passage of a bill
and the bill has been sent to the other house. But where the paper remains^
as on a bill rejected, when, or under what circumstances, does it cease to be
susceptible of re-consideration? This remains to be settled." Sec. XLIII. p.
139. Although this, like most other parts of the manual, has reference to the
United States' Senate, for which the work was written, yet being general in its
reasoning, and of general application, it may be CQnsidered of as general au¬
thority as any part of the book,
lr
House, without previously ascertaining that it would be considered
in order by the Speaker, was good enough to call, at once, upon
that officer, who, as I understood, expressed to him the opinion that
the report could, by no course, be put again into the power of the-
committee. I, on the same evening, took the liberty of calling on
the Speaker, and explaining to him my views; but he still adlfered
to the opinion formerly expressed. He thought it was too late for
a motion to re-consider.
I would, notwithstanding, have procured the motion to be made,
for gentlemen inferior to none in the House for respectability and
intelligence, were of opinion that it would be in order; but I ap¬
prehended that hardly any motion, with the disadvantage of an ap¬
peal from the decision of the Chair, and the influence of the fright¬
ful objection "dangerous precedent," would at that time prevail;
considering the extreme restlessness manifested by the members,
when in session, on any other subject than that for which they were
specially convened.
In the course of my conversation with the Speaker, he suggested
as the best means of answering the report, that petition for incorpo¬
ration should be made by the church to thenext session; a favourable
report on which petition would be an answer to any imputations im¬
plied by the former report, and would have the same record, with
" something like the same publicity. Although this seemed to be a
very slow, and on that account, as well as on some others, not a
perfectly satisfactory method of accomplishing the object, I yet de¬
termined to wait for it, and depend upon it; not doubting that the
Society would petition. I did so for the following reasons.
First, because I was extremely unwilling to bring the affair be¬
fore the public: not certainly from a fear of a full and thorough in¬
vestigation of it, for all my readers must be satisfied that, in this
respect, I had nothing to fear; but from its partaking so much of a
personal character, that it ought not, without very strong reasons,
to be presented to the public; and from its being of such a nature
that an examination of it might possibly give pain to individuals,
who, however much they erred, could have been influenced by no
improper motive in what they did.
And Secondly, because such a course coincided with what I have
made a general rule of life, not to let the arts of misrepresentation
turn me out of my course; but to "go forward,'' and, if they lie
in my way, to tread them under foot, if they do not, to let them
spend their venomous strength and die a natural death.
Long before the next session, however, I dissolved my connexion
with the Society, by removal; and it was, of course, out of my pro ¬
vince to interfere in any way with their business. Fhey did not
petition. I therefore have no alternative but to suffer the report
which I have been considering to pass unanswered, or to answer it
directly. I have chosen the latter course. But for the present, at
least, 1 can do nothing more than circulate such a statement of the
affair, where it may seem necessary, as shall enable those who see it
to judge for themselves. .
My readers now see the reason for my delaying so long what
ought perhaps to have been done ayear earlier; or whatsome of them
may be of opinion, ought not to have been done at aH-
It is not to the decision of the committee that I object- * »i..
S
18
seeing they made a report, ought to have been conformed, as it was,
to the will of those who represented "the parties interested therein."
Nor do I consider the committee chargeable with the erroneous
statement of facts embraced in their report. What I object to, in
them, is their anomalous reasoning from these assumed facts; and
the implications made by this reasoning.
"But," it may be asked, "what could they have done? Had they
dropped this part of their report, there would not have been enough
left to warrant its decision.'' Then they ought to have followed
truth withersoever it would lead them. "This might have contra¬
vened the will of those whose will ought to prevail in the matter."
Then they ought to have assigned that as the reason of their decis¬
ion; or they ought to have asked to be discharged from the further
consideration of the petition, as no petition, as a paper which ought
Hot, under existing circumstances, to have been referred to them.
And this is, perhaps, the only proper course which they could have
pursued in the business. "But this would not have been sufficient¬
ly respectful to their fellow members, at whose instance the paper
was referred to them." It would, however, have been conformable to
the dictates of justice; which should have been deemed a paramount
consideration. If their fellow members erred, let the responsibili¬
ty rest upon them. The sooner, in general, errors are corrected, the
better.
I never suspected the committee, who knew nothing of me per¬
sonally, of intention to do me injustice. But this, so far from being
a reason against answering them, is a strong one in favour of it.—>
If it be said that I ought to have been more indulgent towards mere
error and inadvertance; I reply, that I wish the consequences of
men's errors and inadvertencies to fall, as far as possible, on them¬
selves, and not on me. However much I respect the committee, I
respect myself more. They ought to have been more circumspect.
They ought to have admitted nothing into their report tending "un¬
justly" to inculpate any individual, though a stranger to them.
If I have spoken freely, it is of the public conduct of public
men) which any citizen has a right freely to canvass; and the right
is, if possible, strengthened, when he has a peculiar personal con¬
cern in it. If I have sometimes treated the subject lightly, it was
because it seemed to require such treatment. Towards the mem¬
bers of the committee, personally, I have no unkind feeling. On
the contrary, I was treated with so much politeness by some of
them, in my interviews with them, on the subject of their report,
that I feel a grateful acknowledgement to be due to them on account
of it; and I would be pained to think they were hurt by any thing
which I have found it necessary, injustice to myself, to say.
I regret that it has been necessary for me to extend the publicity
of a document, which the author would probably have prepared with
greater care, had he anticipated such an event. But the fault, if
there is any, is not mine. The paper is public property; and were
I denied the right of answering it, would be more liable to be mis¬
understood and misrepresented, than if it had been printed with the
journal of the body among whose papers it lies filed. When I de¬
termined to print the report, I would have applied for an official co¬
py, were it not that I knew such application must be in vain, owing
to the distance at which the clerk of the House of Representatives
19
resides from the seat of Government. Although I know not what
are the rules of the House in regard to the publication of documents,
I have printed the report without hesitation; taking it for granted,
that there can be no rule which could forbid the publishing, in any
way, of a paper which had, in fact, been already published by the
House itself, in being publicly read by an officer, a part of whose
duty it was to do so.
My pamphlet is longer, and contains more matter of a kind that
may be deemed superfluous and irrelative, than I intended when I
first sat down to it, or even when the first sheets were put into the
hands of the printer. But when an American writes partly for A
merican Statesmen, particularly legislators, complaisance, perhaps,
requires something "lengthy;" just as when "you are in Rome, you
should do as Rome does." The reasoning of this sentence is,I think,
as cogent at least as that of the committee. I shall therefore not e-
rase it, as upon reviewing,I was somewhat inclined at first to do.—=
The Latin quotations will be understood by the learned statesmen,
who, by their punctiliously faithful discharge of their public duties,
gave occasion to the quotations "in question." If any mere Eng¬
lish reader has the least curiosity to understand them,it is,perhaps,
best not to gratify it; or he will most probably feel some disappoint¬
ment.—If I have misapplied technicals, my meaning will still be un¬
derstood.
In conclusion, I remark, that I have cause to believe, the nature
and object of my application on which the report was made, are
still misunderstood, by some persons in the neighborhood of the
church. For the sake of such,I observe,that the church would de¬
rive only two advantages from incorporation. The first is, that they
could more easily and safoly hold any property which they now
own,or may hereafter acquire. But incorporation could give them
no additional property; it could interfere,in no way whatever,with
the rights of others, previously existing. The second advantage
would be, that their property would be exempt from taxation. It
is now liable to a tax, which the collecting officer can no more fail
to exact,'without a violation of the high and solemn obligations of
his office, than he can any other tax of his district. The law makes
no distinction; and it vests no discretion in him to make any, how¬
ever strongly the benevolence of his feelings may incline him to do>
so. This tax, according to the construction recently, and perhaps
still, given to the revenue law in that district, would be an object
to the'Society worthy of consideration. Although corporate bodies
have other privileges, the church might never have occasion to avail
itself of any of them.