s»«9r,": 
 
 ml 
 
 ii 
 
0* s'*^'* ^> 
 
 4 O 
 
 
 
 
 0° .^^ 
 
 
 -f 
 
 ^oV^ 
 
 
 ^.^ '^^ 
 
 ,X O. 
 
 
 
 -^0 
 
 "v^, 
 
 -^ q 
 
 ;> 
 
 
 
 'bV 
 
 -^■ 
 
 ^^0^ 
 
 ♦ TC^^.tV," ^ 
 
 ^oV 
 
.\ -?.. .^ 
 
NARRATIVE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 PROCEEDINGS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 MONTHLY MEETING OF NEW-YORK, 
 
 AND THEIR 
 
 SUBSEQUENT CONFIRMATION 
 
 B Y THE 
 
 QUARTERLY AND YEARLY MEETINGS, 
 
 INTHECASEOF 
 
 ISAAC T. HOPPER. 
 
 " Upright men shall be astonished at this, and the innocent shall stir up 
 himself against the hypocrite.". ..Job .xvii. 8. 
 
 " Abhor detraction, the sin of fallen angels and the worst of fallen men." 
 
 William Penn. 
 
 N E W - Y O R K : 
 
 PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR 
 M DCCC XLIII. 
 
 
H. lUEWIO, PRIKTIB 
 79 Vese»-8t.. N. V. 
 
NARRATIVE, &c 
 
 The arraignment and subsequent disownment of 
 Charles Marriott, James S. Gibbons, and myself, 
 by the Monthly Meeting of New- York, having given 
 rise to much misrepresentation, and having also 
 created considerable speculation and excitement in 
 different parts of the country, I have thought it right 
 to give a brief history of my case, and some facts 
 connected with it. Upon much reflection, I have 
 believed such a course is due to myself, and to the 
 Society of Friends, with which I have been con- 
 nected, and which I have sincerely loved from an 
 early period of my life. 
 
 On the morning of the 29th of third month, 1841, 
 I was called upon by Amos Willets, who requested 
 me to meet the overseers of the Monthly Meeting 
 of New-York on the evening of the same day, 
 at Hester-street Meeting-house. My son-in-law 
 James S. Gibbons, had received a similar request 
 from another overseer. Charles Marriott was absent 
 from the city. We met accordingly, and instead of 
 finding the overseers of Hester-street Preparative 
 Meeting merely, we were surprised to find assem- 
 bled those of the other two Preparative Meetings, 
 viz. Rose-street and Brooklyn. There were pre- 
 1 
 
sent on this occasion, Amos Willets, Thomas Car- 
 penter, and Stephen Valentine, of Hester-street ; 
 George T. Trimble, Robert Hicks, and Nathaniel 
 S. Merritt, of Rose-street ; and Richard Field and 
 John Leggett, of Brooklyn. The interview lasted 
 not quite an hour and a half. 
 
 The cause of our being thus arraigned was an 
 Article which had appeared in the " National Anti- 
 Slavery Standard," of the 25th of the same month. 
 The interview was wholly devoted to the ascertain- 
 ment of the character and extent of our connection 
 with that paper. They neither reasoned nor re- 
 monstrated with us — they did not advise us, nor did 
 they give us any opinion in relation to the matter 
 for which they had arraigned us. They agreed to 
 take our cases to the Preparative Meeting before 
 they separated, and the next morning, in less than 
 fifteen hours after this interview, one half of which 
 "was probably spent in sleep, we were informed of 
 their determination. 
 
 On the ] St day of fourth month, my case was ac- 
 cordingly taken to the Meeting. I was present. 
 After a portion of the regular business had been 
 attended to, Amos Willets remarked, that, as Isaac 
 T. Hopper's case was to be introduced to the Meet- 
 ing, he thought he had better withdraw. I remarked 
 in reply that, until the case was introduced, I had 
 the right to remain, and I should remain. Amos 
 then observed, that such a course was unusual. I 
 Replied, in substance, that my course was not to be 
 
governed by what others might have done, and that 
 I should avail myself of the privilege granted by the 
 Discipline. The clerk for the day then read as 
 follows : — 
 
 "Isaac T. Hopper is charged with being con- 
 cerned in the support and publication of a paper 
 which has a tendency to excite discord and disunity 
 among us." After a short pause I rose, and, as 
 nearly as I can remember, remarked as follows. 
 
 " I am growing to be an old man. Seventy win- 
 ters have already passed over my head, and it is not 
 likely that I shall see many more. I love the So- 
 ciety of Friends, and its principles, and its testimo- 
 nies ; and particularly the doctrine of the Inward 
 Light, which I have endeavoured to make the rule 
 of my life, and which I can now say is the confidence 
 and support of my declining years. 
 
 " I have been a diligent attender of our meetings 
 for many years — I have fell a deep and abiding in- 
 terest in the Society, and have honestly laboured 
 for its welfare according to my ability. On the 
 present occasion I can say — -and I feel thankful that 
 it is so — that I have no unkind feelings towards any 
 one. I am also thankful that I can say with reve- 
 rence, and in some degree of humility, I believe 
 in the doctrine of Scripture : ' If our hearts con^ 
 demn us, God is greater than our hearts and know- 
 eth all things : but if our hearts condemn us not, 
 then have we confidence towards God,' Having 
 |,his confidence I fear no evil." 
 
I was now about to leave the meeting, when a 
 friend said he wished to say a few words before I 
 left. I observed to him that if he had an}'^ thing to 
 say to me he had better do it private!}^, but if it was 
 for the meeting, I did not wish to hear it. I then 
 left the house. I was afterwards informed that he 
 proposed that the meeting should return the case to 
 the overseers, and appoint a committee to unite 
 with them in re-considering the subject. This sug- 
 gestion created considerable discussion, and occu- 
 pied the meeting for about an hour and a half, and 
 seemed likely to prevail, when Amos Willets and 
 Thomas Carpenter, two of the overseers, said they 
 should decline having any thing more to do with 
 the case ; upon which it was ordered to be foward- 
 ed to the Monthly Meeting. 
 
 It is proper that I should here pause in my ac- 
 count of the proceedings of the Monthly Meeting, 
 and refer to some facts and circumstances which 
 have had a tendency to bring the Society in this 
 city into its present difficulties. 
 
 The American Anti-Slavery Society was formed 
 in the latter end of the year 1833. Many respecta- 
 ble persons joined it, and its influence was soon felt 
 in the community, and in order to counteract their 
 efforts, a meeting of the citizens was called by the 
 following advertisement, which was published in 
 the Journal of Commerce, on the 26th of eighth 
 month, 1835 : — 
 
5 
 
 Public Meeting. — The undersigned, citizens of 
 New-York, having witnessed with regret the con- 
 duct of some imported travelhng incendiaries, as- 
 sisted in their attempts to create sectional jealousies 
 by a few misguided native fanatics ; and being 
 anxious to prove that these individuals constitute but 
 a very small portion of this community — to con- 
 vince our Southern brethren that we are ever sin- 
 cerely desirous to cultivate the most friendly and 
 honourable intercourse with them — to disclaim and 
 deprecate, in the most unqualified terms, any inter- 
 ference with their constitutional rights on the slave 
 question, and to assure them that this city is de- 
 cidedly hostile to the movements of the Abolition 
 faction, — do hereby invite a public meeting of the 
 citizens to be held at the City Hall, on Tuesday 
 next, the 27th inst,, at 4 o'clock p. m., for the pur- 
 pose of adopting such resolutions on this subject as 
 may be thought proper and expedient. 
 
 This call, than which it is difficult to conceive of 
 any thing more inflammatory, was signed by many, 
 among whom were several members of the Society 
 of Friends, some of whom seemed to be much 
 alarmed lest their business should suffer by their 
 being identified with abolitionists. They seemed to 
 Imve no scruples in joining with others in opposing 
 the measures of the friends of human liberty, but 
 they considered it very objectionable to mix with 
 others in pleading for the oppressed. I have never 
 1* 
 
heard that those persons who signed the call were 
 ever censured for the part they took in this matter. 
 
 This fear was not very remarkable when it is 
 remembered, that many Friends were largely en- 
 gaged in dealing in the produce of slave labour, and 
 " by this craft have their wealth ;" and some actually 
 had business establishments in the South, It was 
 not long before cautions were given in our meetings, 
 particularly those for disciplinary purposes, against 
 joining any associations, the members whereof were 
 not of our religious communion. The Society was 
 evidently losing ground in relation to its testimony 
 against slavery. This being the case, some mem- 
 bers felt it to be their duty to hold up this testimony 
 more conspicuously and efficiently than it had been 
 of latter time, and the subject was several times in- 
 troduced to the attention of Friends in the Meeting 
 for Sufferings, and the Yearly Meeting. An effort 
 to bring the subject before these meetings was fre- 
 quently attended with much excitement, and without 
 any thing being done to advance the testimony. 
 
 Seeing that Friends as a body would not move 
 forward in this concern) and being unwilling to in- 
 terrupt the harmony of the Society, a few Friends 
 met in this city, and formed an Anti-Slavery So- 
 ciety, which they called " Tlie New-York Associa- 
 tion of Friends, for the relief of those held in slavery, 
 and the improvement of the free people of colour." 
 This Association was confined solely to members 
 of the Society. It moved on harmoniously within 
 
itself, and while it afforded an opportunity for 
 Friends to unite in its objects and purposes with- 
 out mixing witii those not members of the Society 
 of Friends, it could give no just cause of offence 
 to any. But we soon had evidence that could not 
 be misunderstood, that it was no less offensive to 
 many members of the Society, than the American 
 Anti-Slavery Society. We were deprived of the 
 privilege of holding our meetings in the Meeting- 
 houses ; and one Friend, in the station of a minis- 
 ter said, he would as soon go to the theatre as to 
 attend any of the meetings of our Association. At 
 another time, he said, that he w'ould as lief a politi- 
 cal meeting should be held in the Meeting-house, 
 as that this Association should be permitted to meet 
 in it. 
 
 The Anti-Slavery Societies were frequently al- 
 luded to in our public meetings in very harsh and 
 offensive terms. Believing that many had joined 
 these Societies from pure intentions, and that they 
 acted from motives the most conscientious, I often 
 folt it to be my duty to express my disapprobation 
 of such attacks, as they appeared to me to be a 
 gross infringement upon the civil and religious 
 rights of a large body of excellent individuals ; 
 hence I soon found myself placed among the pro^ 
 scribed. 
 
 It soon became very evident that a determination 
 existed in the minds of some members of the So- 
 ciety of Friends to discountenance, and, if possible, 
 
8 
 
 to crush every effort to carry forward the testimony 
 against slavery. An Anti-Abolition party soon ex- 
 hibited itself arrayed for battle, and various kinds 
 of contrivances v^^ere put in operation to accomplish 
 their purposes. Measures were taken, not only to 
 prevent individuals from bearing their testimony 
 against the traffic in human flesh and blood, but no 
 stone was suffered to remain unturned to dissuade 
 those who had been faithful to their convictions of 
 right and duty, to turn from their course and join the 
 ranks of proscription and persecution. 
 
 These efforts were not without a degree of suc- 
 cess. The character of the ministry soon gave 
 evidence of a change of opinion and feeling in regard 
 to the important testimony against slavery. One 
 Friend residing in the neighbourhood of the city of 
 New-York, who, though possessed of the gifts and 
 qualifications of a minister in quite a moderate de- 
 gree, yet had made herself useful and acceptable ac- 
 cording to her measure, for several years advocated 
 the cause of the oppressed in her public discourses ; 
 and would frequently advert to the example of Elias 
 Hicks to give force and sanction to her sentiments. 
 This individual attended a meeting for ministers 
 and elders in the city of Philadelphia, a few years 
 since, in which she bore her testimony against 
 slavery in a most unqualified manner, and entreated 
 her hearers with much apparent sincerity to embark 
 with renewed energy in the righteous cause. She 
 liad considerable intercourse with those who were. 
 
9 
 
 zealously engaged in the Anti-Slavery cause, and 
 earnestly pressed a distinguished Anti-Slavery lec- 
 turer, not a member of the Society of Friends, to 
 visit her at her house, and encouraged him to per- 
 severe in his labours. This individual suddenly 
 changed her opinions and conduct, and became, so 
 far as her abilities and influence would admit, a most 
 ardent opposer of the principles and cause which 
 she had so zealously laboured to support. Instead 
 of confining herself to the sphere which truth and 
 nature had designed for her, the character of her 
 once plain simple communications changed to what 
 seemed to be laboured imitations of sermons which 
 were likely to be popular, and which were fraught 
 with virulent attacks upon the Anti-Slavery cause, 
 and those engaged in it. The character of the min- 
 istry was thus ignobly disgraced and brought into 
 contempt. This friend, it is presumed, claimed 
 divine authority as her rule of action in these two 
 contrarient courses of conduct. As she could not 
 be right in both, there is no better way to decide 
 the matter than to look at their respective fruits 
 and their effects on the character and spirit of the 
 individual. 
 
 The zeal against the cause of Emancipation grew 
 warmer and warmer, and those who felt an interest 
 and whose duty led them to use their endeavours 
 to advance it, were denounced in our meetings for 
 worship in epithets and anathemas the most vile 
 and sarcastic, and which could alone proceed from 
 
10 
 
 a bitter spirit, and could be sanctioned only by a de- 
 praved and vulgar laste. A minister of the New-York 
 Monthly Meeting, whoso course has rendered him 
 somewhat conspicuous in the late agitation which 
 has taken place in the Society, was in the frequent 
 habit of indulging himself in this way. In his 
 communications, he would frequently denounce the 
 friends of human liberty as " servants of the devil," 
 "vile emissaries of Satan," "howling wolves, too 
 famished to bile," " contemptible reptiles," " house- 
 hold vermin," " too la^y to work, ashamed to beg, 
 and some of them afraid to steal ;" " that if they 
 could, they would raise up out of their graves the 
 dead bodies of the inhnliitants of old Babylon and 
 Sodom and (xomorrah, and receive them with open 
 arms as worthy coadjutors in their works of popu- 
 lar righteousness." In addition to these disgrace- 
 ful denunciations, which no well-regulated mind 
 could hear in a religious meeing without disgust, 
 there was much other indecent matter of a simi- 
 lar character, Views and sentiments were fre- 
 quently uttered by the same individual highly 
 injurious and immoral in their tendency, and of 
 course wholly irrational and unscriptural, and at 
 variance with the fundamental principles and opin- 
 ions advocated by the Society of Friends from 
 their first rise. This sort of preaching received the 
 most unmingled approbation of a large number of 
 the most active and influential members of the 
 Monthly Meeting of New-York, and was sanctioned 
 
11 
 
 by them as the fruit of immediate divine inspiration. 
 For, at this time, when this minister would ask for 
 a minute to visit distant meetings, it was furnished 
 to him, certifying that he was a minister in unity 
 — the Meeting thus endorsing all the extravagant 
 abuse and vituperation and fallacy alluded to. I 
 am aware that with many persons who are situated 
 beyond the limits of the agitation which has lately 
 befallen our portion of the Society of Friends, it 
 will be difficult to credit the statement, that such 
 preaching would be tolerated by people making a 
 religious profession ; but the facts are too notorious 
 to be denied. The friends of human liberty were 
 not the only objects of this kind of intolerance, per- 
 secution and virulent abuse. Temperance Socie- 
 ties, and those professing the principles of non-re- 
 sistance, were frequently included within the circle 
 of defamation and detraction, and were alike the 
 objects of ridicule, slander and misrepresentations 
 Statements were frequently made respecting these 
 persons and their associations, which were as far from 
 the truth as the spirit and disposition which dictated 
 them were beneath the legitimate functions of a pure, 
 enlightened, useful and dignified gospel ministry. 
 Our religious meetings, instead of being seasons of 
 quiet and useful meditation, affording means of spi- 
 ritual refreshment, became arenas for exciting and 
 violent communications, in which the most un- 
 provoked insult, wholesale denunciation, abuse, 
 irony, sarcasm, bitterness and misrepresentation 
 
12 
 
 seemed to vie wilh each other for the pre-eminence. 
 These meetings were attended by some, from long 
 habit ; by others, because of a species of infatuation 
 and man-worship admiration for the declaimer ; by 
 others, whose consciences received quiet and rest 
 from the palliations which were offered to sin and 
 iniquity ; and by many whose curiosity was excited 
 to witness for themselves, the extent to which these 
 fallacies and abominations could be carried in a 
 meeting of professing Friends. 
 
 This kind of preaching was continued for several 
 years. It rarely happened that a meeting was suf- 
 fered to pass over without the utterance of some of 
 these opprobrious allusions ; many of which were 
 frequently so pointed and personal, that it was readily 
 understood to whom they were intended to apply. 
 And it may easily be conceived how such a course 
 of conduct was calculated to affect the usefulness 
 of the Society and the harmony of its members. 
 
 So far as relates to myself, I may say, without 
 meaning to assume undue credit, that I have learn- 
 ed so many lessons in the school of persecution and 
 affliction, that I could patiently have borne these 
 most unrighteous and unprovoked inflictions, though 
 no one who felt an interest in the welfare of the So- 
 ciety of Friends, could be a witness of such disor- 
 der without fear and deep sorrow. It was evident 
 that unless this current of evil could be repressed, 
 much that was good in the Society would be lost in 
 the whirlpool, which bitterness, untempered zeal, 
 
13 
 
 wild and preposterous accusations, on the one hand, 
 and supineness and disaffection on the other, would 
 surely occasion. Here were large and unoffending 
 bodies of individuals, tinae after time, made the ob- 
 jects of censure and false representation, in meet- 
 ings which were open to all, and attended by a large 
 number of persons. In the Very nature of things, 
 it could hardly be expected that no effort would be 
 made by those who had thus been injured, to relieve 
 themselves from the effects of the slander and injury 
 heaped upon them. The Society of Friends are 
 the last people who should expect from others a 
 tame acquiescence under false accusations, not only 
 in regard to principles, but facts and motives. If 
 they will quietly permit their meetings to be thus 
 prostituted, they are among the last who should 
 look for an escape from correction and rebuke. 
 Where their motives or principles have been the 
 objects of misrepresentation or misconception on the 
 part of others, where they have been vilified either 
 by the pen or the tongue, or where the pulpit has 
 been made subservient to the unhallowed design of 
 falsehood and proscription, they have ever since 
 their first organization been bold in the use of the 
 tongue and the press, and have spared no effort to 
 rescue themselves and theji good name from the 
 fangs of the reviler. 
 
 In consequence of some of the misrepresentations 
 alluded to, a correspondence took place between 
 O. Johnson and George F. White, the minister to 
 2 
 
14 
 
 ivhom allusion has been made. This correspond- 
 ence was long, and was published by the former in 
 pamphlet form ; and as the excitement had by this 
 time progressed to other portions of the Society, 
 there was a most extensive demand for it. This 
 circumstance alarmed and greatly excited the ad- 
 herents of George F. White, as it placed matters in a 
 position not at all creditable to the defamer. It eli- 
 cited from Friends in different parts of the country 
 severe animadversion. Two documents were issued 
 from Ohio, severely censuring the spirit and con- 
 duct manifested by George F. White. One of these 
 was signed by about fifty individuals. 
 
 The Monthly Meeting of Peru, in this State, 
 issued the following Minute, addressed to the 
 Monthly Meeting of New-York. 
 
 " To New- York Monthly Meeting of Friends. 
 
 "Dear Friends. — This Meeting was dipped into 
 a feeling and painful exercise by the introduction of 
 a subject that appears to be fast spreading before 
 the public, through the medium of various periodi- 
 cals, as having transpired among you, and published 
 to the world in a pamphlet, recently put out by 
 Oliver Johnson, of the city of New-York, purport- 
 ing to be a correspondf^Aice between himself and 
 George F. White, a member of your Meeting, by 
 which our Friend is presented to the public in a 
 pcisition, (considering his standing and well-known 
 mfluence among us,) calculated to bring reproach 
 
15 
 
 upon Society, unless speedily refuted if false, or 
 disapproved if true. 
 
 "Which exercise, after a full and free expression 
 of sentiment had been feelingly engaged in, resulted 
 in a conclusion to transmit to you the foregoing 
 address. 
 
 " With the salutation of love, we remain your 
 Friends. 
 
 " Signed in and on behalf of Peru Monthly Meet- 
 ing of Friends, in the State of Nevvr-York, the 29th 
 of 4th mo. 1841. 
 
 " WiLLETS Keese, Clerk.^^ 
 
 When this document was read in the Meeting to 
 which it was addressed, such was the hostility felt 
 towards those who did not approve of the course 
 pursued by the object of their adulation, that an 
 elder proposed that it should be " thrown under the 
 table." 
 
 The " Correspondence " having had a very wide 
 circulation, it became necessar}^, in the opinion of 
 some of the members of New- York Monthly Meet- 
 ing, to do something to save George F. White 
 and his friends from the reproach which their con- 
 duct had brought upon them. To affect this pur- 
 pose as far as it was possible, a letter was pre- 
 pared in the city of New-York, which was signed 
 by Robert Hicks, and addressed to a Friend in Ohio. 
 This letter denies the correctness of the printed 
 " Correspondence," and says, in reference to it, that 
 
16 
 
 there are many alterations, omissions and additions, 
 but it did not specify what they were, nor has it 
 ever been shown since. Tliese assertions were 
 incorrect, and there is no foundation for the state- 
 ment. For a total disregard of truth, this letter, 
 perhaps, stands unequalled by anything emanating 
 from any individuals professing to be respectable. 
 It was circulated through the country pretty exten^ 
 sively for about five months before we were able to 
 procure a copy of it. As soon as a copy was ob- 
 tained, it was published in the National Anti-Slavery 
 Standard, and its many misstatements and perversions 
 exposed and refuted. In this letter, it is insinuated 
 that, although Oliver Johnson is ostensibly so, yet 
 James S. Gibbons and myself are the real authors 
 of the " Correspondence ;" and it is further said) 
 that it is not doubted that the former is a mere tool 
 employed by the latter, to do that which, as mem- 
 bers of the Society, they dare not do themselves. 
 These charges and insinuations, thus clandestinely 
 circulated, were as void of truth as they were cow- 
 ardly and malicious ; and, until they were refuted, 
 had some effect in exciting prejudice against us., 
 and particularly myself. Fo7' this letter, see Ap- 
 pendix A. 
 
 Some months after the "Correspondence" between 
 Oliver Johnson and George F. White was publish- 
 ed, the former attended Rose-street Meeting, of 
 which he thus speaks in an editorial article in the 
 Standard, of 3d mo. 25th, 1841. 
 
17 
 
 " On Wednesday of last week, we attended 
 Rose-street meeting. In his (G. F. White's) ser- 
 mon on lliat day, after stating the general principle, 
 that men are humbled and subdued by suffering, 
 and referring to the judgments of God upon Pha- 
 raoh as a case in point, he gave an illustration, 
 which we will repeat as nearly as we can recollect, 
 in his own words : — ' Just as a slave, recently, who 
 had suffered the effects of his criminal conduct, and 
 been thus led to calm reflection, chose to go back 
 into slavery with his master, and to endure all the 
 evils of that condition, notwithstanding his former 
 experience of them, rather than stay with those 
 hypocritical workers of popular righteousness who 
 had interfered in his behalf. For my own part, I 
 commend his choice. I had a thousand times rather 
 be a slave, and spend my days with slave-holders, 
 than to dwell in companionship with abolitionists.' 
 
 " This was an allusion, which every one present 
 miderstood, to the case of Thomas Hughes, for- 
 merly the slave of John P. Darg, whose history is 
 given in our columns to-day, by Isaac T. Hopper, 
 as No. xvi. of his ' Tales of Oppression.' It was 
 also understood and intended as a thrust at Isaac 
 T. Hopper, who went to Sing Sing to act the part 
 of the good Samaritan, by informing Tom that he 
 was free, and offering him protection. 
 
 " But it was not true that Tom Hughes went 
 back to the South as a slave. For this reason, we 
 deemed it our duty, at the close of the sermon, to 
 
18 
 
 rise and say — ' Tom Hughes, formerly the slave of 
 John P. Darg, on his release from prison recently, 
 returned with his master to the South, not as a 
 SLAVE, preferring slavery to freedom, but as a free 
 MAN, under a promise of being permitted to enjoy 
 his liberty and to live with his wife. I state this 
 to prevent misapprehension." 
 
 The article from which the foregoing extracts are 
 made, was headed, " Rare specimen of a Quaker 
 preacher," and was the ostensible cause of the pro- 
 ceedings against James S. Gibbons, Charles Mar- 
 riott and myself. See Appendix B. 
 
 My case (and also that of James S. Gibbons) was 
 introduced into the Monthly Meeting on the 7th of 
 4th mo. 1841. William C. White, Richard Crom- 
 well, Dobel Baker, and John J. Merritt, were ap- 
 pointed a Committee to treat with us severally. 
 This Committee met me at my house on the 13tb. 
 My wife was present at the interview. I admitted 
 that 1 was concerned in the publication and support 
 of the National Anti-Slavery Standard ; but I con- 
 tended that it was not of the character imputed to 
 it in the charge against me : and this I considered 
 the proper issue. 
 
 I informed them that I was a member of the Exe- 
 cutive Committee, who had the supervision of the 
 paper alluded to, but that supervision extended no 
 further than to procure the funds and select an 
 editor. That in making a selection, we were care- 
 ful to chose a person of good moral character, of 
 
19 
 
 adequate acquirements, and who was in principle 
 an Abolitionist ; but that we never undertook to 
 instruct or control hira as to what he should write, 
 and that his essays were never submitted to the 
 inspection of the Committee. One of the Com- 
 mittee then exhibited a copy of the Standard, con- 
 taining the article upon which the charge was 
 founded. I informed them that I had not read it 
 until I had been called upon by one of the over- 
 seers ; that soon after it appeared, I had read part 
 of it, and upon finding its character, I put the paper 
 in my pocket, took it home to my wife, and re- 
 quested her to read it, and put it away where the 
 family would not see it. I asked the Committee if 
 there was any thing in the article that was not true 1 
 One of them replied, there was. I desired him to 
 point out the part that was not true, for he was the 
 first person whom I had heard make such an alle- 
 gation. He said it was libelous ; that George F. 
 White did not exhibit ferocity in his manner, as 
 stated in the piece. I replied, that was a matter of 
 opinion about which people might differ, 
 
 I stated to them, that whatever disunity exist- 
 ed among us, was justly to be attributed to the 
 preaching of George F. White. That in his public 
 discourses, he applied epithets to Abolitionists and 
 others, that would not be tolerated in a political 
 meeting, and that it was unreasonable to suppose 
 the false charges he was in the habit of making 
 would pass without answer or rebuke. Three of 
 
 / 
 / 
 
20 
 
 the Committee expressed their full unity with the 
 speaker, and that they considered that he was di- 
 vinely inspired when he uttered the epithets and 
 denunciations complained of. Towards the close 
 of this interview, two of the Committee had left, 
 when one of those who remained remarked, that all 
 who supported the Standard ought to be disowned. 
 I rephed, that if that suggestion were carried out, 
 they would have to disown several hundred mem- 
 bers of the Society of Friends, among whom were 
 a large number of ministers and elders of high stand- 
 ing. He said he would disown them all, though 
 there should not be five left. It is due to the indi- 
 vidual to state, that subsequently he qualified his 
 assertion as to those whom he would have disown- 
 ed. I stated to the Committee, that while I had 
 no objections to the facts that actually occurred in 
 the Society of Friends being pubhshed in the 
 Standard, I had objections to their being accom- 
 panied by any invidious remarks. 
 
 On the 21st of the 5th mo. two of the Committee 
 called on me, and inquired if I wanted to see them 
 again ? I replied, that I had no business with them, 
 and of course no desire to see them ; but if they 
 wished to see me, I had no objection to their call- 
 ing on me. 
 
 After some desultory conversation on the subject 
 of their visit, I remarked, that I was much more 
 tried with some of the views and sentiments of 
 George F. White, as advocated in his public dis- 
 
21 
 
 courses, than I was with the epithets and denuncia- 
 tions which he so frequently apphed to Abohtionists. 
 That the latter were of but light impression, and 
 miglit pass off without harming any body ; but the 
 former were calculated, so far as they were re- 
 ceived, to do immense mischief. The balance of 
 the interview was consumed chiefly by one of the 
 Committee in expressing his most unqualified ap- 
 probation of George F. White's sentiments and 
 ministry. He said that he believed him to be di- 
 vinely authorized to make the statements which he 
 sometimes made in his preaching. And after fur-; 
 iher conversation upon much that was irrelevant to 
 the case, he stated that he thanked his Heavenly 
 Father that he had lived to the day and date that 
 George F. White preached. When this individual 
 was expressing himself so strongly as to the preacher 
 being divinely authorized to make certain state 
 ments respecting the Abolitionists and non-resist 
 ants, which, I observed, had been proved to be un- 
 true, the other remarked that he could not go quite 
 so far as that. 
 
 In the fifth month, the Committee made a writ- 
 ten report in my case. From what T could learn, 
 I believed it was not strictly correct in all its parts, 
 and I requested the clerk to ask the Monthly Meet- 
 ing, on my behalf, for a copy of it. He accordingly 
 made the application, but it was refused. Amos 
 Willets, Thomas Carpenter, and one or two others 
 objecting to it. The gross injustice of this denial 
 
22 
 
 is so palpable as to render any comment unne 
 cessary. 
 
 I may here pause in my account of the proceed^ 
 ings of the Monthly Meeting, after saying that upon 
 being informed that I was disowned, I notified the 
 Meeting that 1 should appeal ; when Richard Field, 
 George T. Trimble, Thomas Carpenter, Richard 
 Cromwell, Samuel Willets, and John J. Merritt, 
 were appointed to attend the Quarterly Meeting 
 with the minutes and proceedings of the Monthly 
 Meeting in my case. This Committee I shall call 
 Respondents.* 
 
 The case came before Westbury Quarterly Meet- 
 ing in the tenth month, 1841. A short time before 
 that meeting was held, I was informed that Friends 
 in the city of New- York had determined that no 
 jnember of the " Association of Friends for the re^ 
 lief of those held in Slavery," &c. should be per- 
 mitted to serve on the Committee in my case. I 
 discovered that the New-York Friends intended to 
 carry their own views into the Quarterly Meeting, 
 and spare no exertion to gain their point. 
 
 Before I was called into the Quarterly Meeting, 
 such a proposition was made, but was overruled by 
 the meeting. During the appointment of the Com- 
 mittee, one Friend asked to be excused from serving 
 
 * In proceedings upon appeals in the Society of Friends in 
 England, the term Respondents is used in this way. As it is a 
 convenient term, I shall adopt it here. 
 
23 
 
 on it, on the ground of bis being a member of the 
 Association which had been alluded to. I then in- 
 quired whether the meeting had concluded to reject 
 such ? After a short pause, Samuel Willets, the 
 clerk, rose and said : " As the organ of this meet- 
 ing, I think the meeting had better proceed with the 
 business." I was at a loss to determine how, as 
 the organ of the meeting, he could announce its 
 decision before any individual in it had expressed 
 an opinion upon the subject. The follow'ing Friends 
 were then appointed : — Samuel Mott, of Cowneck ; 
 William Willets, Isaac Rushmore, Jacob Valentine, 
 and Joseph L. Townsend, of Westbury Monthly 
 Meeting ; John Wilhs, Willet Robins, Selah Hubbs, 
 Samuel J. TTnderhill, and Williams Willets, of Jericho 
 Monthly Meeting ; Samuel Pearsall, Gilbert Law- 
 rence, Samuel Bowne, Silas Hicks, and James 
 Byrd, of Flushing Monthly Meeting ; and Thomas 
 A. Green, of Nantucket Monthly Meetings there 
 being no other Friend from that meeting present. 
 
 The Committee, with the exception of one mem- 
 ber, met on the same afternoon at the Meeting- 
 house in Flushing. After the Respondents and 
 myself had been fully heard, we left the Committee 
 to deliberate upon the case. They remained to- 
 gether a considerable time, and adjourned to meet 
 again in the city of New-York, on the afternoon of 
 the day preceding the next Quarterly Meeting. 
 
 It will be seen by a statement which I made to 
 the Yearly Meeting Committee, and which was not 
 
24 
 
 denied, that the overseers never laboured with James 
 S. Gibbons or myself, previously to our cases being 
 taken to the preparative meeting, other than merely 
 to question us as to the facts relating to our con- 
 nection with the Standard, &c. This being the 
 case, they were very fearful that the Committee of 
 the Quarterly Meeting would think the regular com- 
 plaint was of itself insufficient to justify their pro- 
 ceedings against us. Under this view of the case, 
 the overseers privately manufactured a document 
 which was read to several of the Committee of the 
 Quarterly Meeting while the cases were pending ; 
 and a copy of it was sent to one of their number on 
 Long Island, where all of them, except one, resided. 
 This document they called an " Explanation " of 
 our cases. It will be my duty to speak of it freely 
 hereafter, when I explain its character. I should 
 be glad were I able to insert it here ; but it was 
 most carefully, and with palpable and character- 
 istic injustice kept from me, though it was the woi'k 
 of the overseers, and declared to be official. 
 
 When the Quarterly Meeting met, the Committee 
 in my case made a report, confirming the decision 
 of the Monthly Meeting, which was signed by Samuel 
 Mott, Joseph L. Townsend, John Willis, Willet 
 Robins, Selah Hubbs, Samuel J. Underbill, Gilbert 
 Lawrence, Samuel Bowne, and Silas Hicks. The 
 name of Williams Willets was also attached to the 
 report. This was not done by himself, as he was 
 sick at the time, and did not attend the last meeting 
 
of the Committee ; yet his name was affixed as 
 though he had signed it with his own hand. 
 
 I am more than willing to leave those individuals 
 who signed the report to their own reflections. They 
 know best how far they acted in accordance with 
 their own convictions of right and justice. That 
 some of them would be glad of an opportunity to 
 undo what they have done, I have the best of all 
 reasons for believing. It will be proper to allude 
 to this subject hereafter. 
 
 While my case was under discussion in the 
 Quarterly Meeting, the members of New- York 
 Monthly Meeting claimed the right, and actually 
 exercised it, to take an active part in the proceed- 
 ings. Such conduct, 1 believe, was never before 
 countenanced, nor even tolerated in the Society of 
 Friends. The injustice and absurdity of it must be 
 plain to the most superficial observer. 
 
 At the succeeding Quarterly Meeting, informa- 
 tion was given that I intended to appeal ; when the 
 following persons were appointed, on its behalf, to 
 attend the Yearly Meeting as Respondents, viz. : 
 
 Nathaniel S. Merritt, Robert Seaman, John Leg* 
 gett, Richard Field, John C. Merritt, and Samuel 
 J. Underbill. 
 
 When the case came on at the next Yearly Meet- 
 ing in 5th month, 1842, the following friends were 
 appointed a Committee to hear the respective parties, 
 viz. Solomon Underbill, Samuel Bowne, Samuel 
 Halsted, David R. Carpenter, of Purchase Quarterly 
 3 
 
26 
 
 Meeting; Jacob Willets, Daniel E. Jereau, Alex- 
 ander J. Coffin, Josiah H. Quimby, of Nine Partners 
 Quarterly Meeting ; George G. Macy, Henry M. 
 Robinson, Thomas C. Stringham, Henry J. Powell) 
 of Stanford Quarterly Meeting ; Jacob Merrilt, Job 
 Wilbur, Stephen Dillingham, Aaron Rogers, of 
 Easton Quarterly Meeting ; Thomas Rogers, Arden 
 Barker, Joseph Rogers, Samuel Keese, of Fer- 
 risburgh Quarterly Meeting ; Abraham Leggett, 
 Joseph Gurney, Abraham Merritt, Job Wright, of 
 Saratoga Quarterly Meeting ; John Powell, Abner 
 Moore, Abraham Van Vleck, Jacob Gurney, of 
 Duanesburgh Quarterly Meeting ; James Crom- 
 well, John Townsend Hallock, H.ezekiah Fergu- 
 son, George Fritz, of Cornwell Quarterly Meet- 
 ing ; Morris Webster, Richard Brolherton, John 
 Corlies, James C. Moore, of Shrewsbury and Rah- 
 way Quarterly Meeting. 
 
 When the case came before the meeting, I asked 
 permission for James S. Gibbons to be present with 
 me, as his case would be called up soon after mine. 
 It was proper that he should be there to answer to 
 it, and state whether he intended to prosecute his 
 appeal or not | and I had motives for wishing his 
 presence. The request was simply made without 
 any reasons being given on my part. Immediately 
 a member of Westhury Quarterly Meeting objected 
 to and opposed the request. Upon this, I remarked, 
 that any interference from the members of the quarter 
 from whence the appeal came, was out of order, and 
 
27 
 
 I hoped the business would be left where it properly 
 belonged, and that the case would be conducted with 
 a dignity becoming the occasion. The request was 
 then granted. 
 
 The Committee, the Respondents, and myself 
 had several meetings — I think six in all, of about 
 two hours each. One of the Respondents, John C. 
 Merritt, attended the first, and perhaps the second 
 sitting, when he returned home, as he disapproved 
 of the whole proceedings on the part of the prosecu- 
 tion. At the first sitting of the Committee, I was 
 called upon to make my objections to the proceedings 
 of the subordinate Meetings. I did so, by reading a 
 document which I had prepared for the purpose. 
 I made a few additional remarks, when the Respond- 
 ents entered upon their reply. They then read parts 
 of several essays from the Standard. I requested 
 that they should read the whole of each essay which 
 they deemed proper to refer to, as the tenor of it 
 could not be appreciated or understood by reading 
 parts only, and one part would qualify another. 
 This they refused, and the Yearly Meeting Com- 
 mittee sustained them in this course. I think about 
 nine hours were occupied by the Respondents, and 
 perhaps about two by myself. I soon discovered 
 that the minds of many of the Committee were 
 fixed, so that nothing that could be said would 
 change them. It appeared to me that several of 
 them were particularly so, which they clearly mani- 
 fested by a degree of activity unbecoming those 
 
S8 
 
 who were intended to be impartial judges. The 
 Respondents consumed much time in reading from 
 the Anli-Slavery Standard, and the document which 
 had been prepared and clandestinely circulated by 
 the overseers of the Monthly Meeting of New-York, 
 and in making such statements as they thought 
 would influence the Committee. In doing so, there 
 was much bitterness of spirit manifested by some 
 of the Respondents, and the truth was not strictly 
 adhered to in stating facts. 
 
 I then endeavoured to show that the proceedings 
 of the Monthly Meeting were not warranted by the 
 discipline, nor supported by the facts of the case. 
 It was easy to perceive that many of the Committee 
 were deeply imbued with prejudice, and I did not 
 believe that much would be gained by my going 
 very fully or at large into the merits of the case. I 
 therefore satisfied myself with a simple statement 
 of it, and the views I entertained of the discipline 
 upon which the proceedings were founded, with lit- 
 tle or no comment, further than appeared necessary 
 to illustrate the positions which I assumed. Indeed 
 the state of my health at the time admitted of nothing 
 more ; and I felt little disposition to contend with 
 the spirit and disposition exhibited by my opponents 
 on the occasion. 
 
 After the hearing of the Respondents and myself 
 was over, the Committee, I was informed, occupied 
 about four hours in discussing the case as presented 
 to them by the parties. A report was then made 
 
29 , - 
 
 to the Yearly Meeting, of which I am told the fol 
 lowing is a copy. 
 
 " The Committee on Isaac T. Hopper's appeal 
 report, that after patient deliberation thereon, we 
 find that eighteen of our number are in favour of 
 confirming the judgment of the Quarterly Meeting, 
 fifteen for reversing it, and three declined giving 
 judgment in the case." 
 
 Upon this report there was considerable discus- 
 sion ; after which, the Meeting decided that the 
 decision of the subordinate Meetings should be 
 confirmed. 
 
 The Committee, I was informed, stood thus : — 
 For confirming the decision, Joseph Rogers, John 
 Powell, Abraham Leggett, Joseph Gurney, James 
 Cromwell, Morris Webster, James C. Moore, Solo- 
 mon Underbill, Samuel Halsted, David R. Car- 
 penter, Jacob Willets, Daniel E. Jereau, Alexander 
 J. Coffin, Josiah H. Quimby, Jacob Merritt, Stephen 
 Dillingham, Aaron Rogers, and Thomas C. String- 
 ham. 
 
 For reversal, Thomas Rogers, Arden Barker, 
 Samuel Keese, Abner Moore, Abraham Van Vleck, 
 Abraham Merritt, Job Wright, John Townsend 
 Hallock, Hezekiah Ferguson, Richard Brother- 
 ton, Samuel Bowne, Job Wilbur, George G. Macy, 
 Henry M. Robmson, and Henry J. Powell. 
 
 Those who declined giving judgment in the 
 case, were Jacob Gurney, George Fritz, and John 
 Corlies. 
 
 3* 
 
30 
 
 The Explanation, of which I have spoken as 
 having emanated from the overseers, I think stands 
 unparalleled in point of unfairness and deception. It 
 was incorrect in its statements, and invidious in its 
 whole bearing. Whatever there was in ii that had 
 the least origin in truth, was enveloped in a colour- 
 ing as false as the design was malevolent and vi- 
 cious. Probably most of my readers are familiar 
 with the case of the slave, Tom Hughes, or, as it 
 has sometimes been called, the " Darg case." My 
 accusers endeavoured to make it appear in this 
 document that the connection of James S. Gibbons 
 and myself with that case, was of a grossly reproach- 
 ful and immoral character. I shall withhold further 
 comment until I place the reader in possession of a 
 condensed statement of the facts of that case which 
 has been greatly perverted and misrepresented. 
 
 Thomas Hughes was a slave of John P. Darg, 
 whose residence was said to be at Helena, in Ar- 
 kansas. Said Darg was the adopted son of John 
 Darg of this city. Tom had been sold several times 
 before he came into the possession of Darg. Bis- 
 coming weary of his bondage, he determined to be 
 free. During the year 1838, his master contem- 
 plated a visit to his reputed father in New-York, and 
 was desirous that his slave should accompany him. 
 He inquired of him if he would not like to be free ? 
 He made this inquiry that he might form an opinion 
 whether it would be safe to bring Tom with him. 
 Tom was, in some respects, a shrewd fellow, and 
 
31 
 
 immediately understood his master's object in ask- 
 ing the question. He answered — No ; and said he 
 did not wish to be free. He would rather be a slave 
 and live with him. 
 
 Darg now concluded it would be safe to bring 
 him to New-York. Darg, his wife, and Tom, ac- 
 cordingly arrived in this city the latter part of the 
 8th month, 1838. Immediately upon their arrival, 
 Tom began to consider how he could get his free- 
 dom. In the course of two or three days he met 
 with Henry Clark, a colored man, who wa s a waiter 
 at a public garden in Broadway, a few doors below 
 my office. Tom made his case known to Henry, 
 and asked him if there was any way to get free. 
 Henry inquired of him if he had any money ? He 
 replied that he had none of his own, but that he had 
 the care of his master's. Clark proposed to him to 
 take his master's money and give it to him, and he 
 would return it on condition that he should be ma- 
 numitted. The plan appearing feasible, the same 
 evening Tom abstracted his master's money and 
 gave it to Henry Clark. Clark changed Tom's 
 clothes, and about 12 o'clock brought him to my 
 house. The bell was rung, when James S. Gib- 
 bons, who was then a member of my family, opened 
 the window, and inquired what was wanted ? The 
 answer was, ' Young Mr. Hopper.' My sons then 
 had their place of business nearly opposite to where 
 Clark was a waiter, and by that means he came to 
 a knowledge of them. My son John was called, 
 
32 
 
 who opened the front door, when Clark and Hughes 
 entered. 
 
 I heard the conversation, got up, and was told a 
 colored man wanted accommodations for the night. 
 Such a request was not unusual. Tom was ac- 
 cordingly furnished with lodging. I rose early the 
 next morning, and upon inquiry, was informed that 
 the stranger was a fugitive slave. I was aware 
 that my house would not be a safe asylum for him, 
 and left directions with my family that he should 
 leave as soon as he got his breakfast. He accord- 
 ingly did so, and went to Abraham Shoemaker's, 
 who lived near me. The next day I saw an adver- 
 tisement in a paper called " The Sun," offering a 
 reward of one thousand dollars for the apprehension 
 and return of a mulatto man, who, it was said, had 
 stolen seven or eight thousand dollars from a house 
 in Varick-street, or a proportionate amount for any 
 part of the money. 
 
 In consequence of this advertisement, I made in- 
 quiry where Tom could be found, and called to see 
 him. I told him of the advertisement, and inquired 
 whether it was true. He replied, it was not, and 
 said, it was very common for slave-holders to adver- 
 tise their runaway slaves as thieves. I believed 
 him, concluding it was a stratagem adopted by 
 Darg to recapture him. 
 
 About this time, Barney Corse called upon me, 
 and when I asked him what he thought of the ad- 
 vertisement in " The Sun," respecting a robbery in 
 
33 
 
 Varick-street, he replied, that he had not thought 
 any thing about it, and asked if there was any thing 
 pecuhar in it. I then observed that I did not be- 
 heve a robbery had been comnaitted ; upon which 
 he called in company with Horace Dresser, a re- 
 spectable lawyer, and D. Ruggles, upon the editor 
 of that paper, who told Corse he was satisfied that 
 the robbery had been committed, and added, " The 
 man who has lost his money will manumit the slave 
 in addition to the reward, if he can recover it ; and 
 if you will call upon him he will tell you so." Bar- 
 ney then called upon Darg, who fully confirmed 
 what the editor had said. Corse stated to Darg his 
 conscientious scruples respecting slavery, and said, 
 that he could have no agency in returning a fugi- 
 tive slave to his master, but was willing to render 
 what aid he could in recovering the lost money. 
 
 The information that Corse received from Darg 
 and others, and which he communicated to me, led 
 me to the conclusion, that the money had really been 
 taken ; and I felt desirous that it should be restored 
 to its rightful owner. Just after this interview with 
 Barney Corse, I was informed that Tom had said 
 he had given to some person one hundred and fifty 
 dollars, and had received but twelve dollars in ex- 
 change for it. I immediately took measures to find 
 who that person was, and ascertained it to be Henry 
 Clark, before mentioned. James S. Gibbons, stop- 
 ped incidentally at my office, and at my request 
 saw Henry Clark, and asked him to call on me, 
 
34 
 
 which he did. Clark was told that if his previous 
 character was good, and he wou d tell where the 
 money was, and use his exertions to assist in getting 
 it, he should not be exposed. He then admitted 
 that Tom had placed in his hands a sum of money, 
 but how much, he could not exactly say. 
 
 J. S. Gibbons accompanied him to his place of 
 residence, and obtained from him a roll of bank- 
 notes, which, with another sum subsequently ob- 
 tained at the garden, where it had been concealed, 
 amounted to five thousand eight hundred dollars. 
 He then told us, that a man, by the name of Bob 
 Jackson, had received one thousand twenty-five 
 dollars. I requested J. S. Gibbons to accompany 
 Henry in search of Jackson, and they soon returned 
 bringing him with them. Upon giving him the like 
 assurance we had given Henry, that he should not 
 be exposed, he acknowledged having received the 
 one thousand twenty-five dollars, as mentioned by 
 Clark, but said, he had placed it in the hands of a 
 friend of his, who resided in Albany, to keep for 
 him, and that his friend had taken it home. 
 
 I prevailed upon B. Corse to accompany Jackson 
 to Albany to get this money, in which he was suc- 
 cessful, and paid it to Darg the same evening that 
 he returned. 
 
 The particulars of this part of the business were, 
 in a former publication, related by James S. Gib- 
 bons, as follows : — " I suggested to L T. Hopper, 
 thai it would hardly be safe to trust him alone, and 
 
35 
 
 that some one ought to accompany him to prevent 
 further villany. Barney Corse was engaged by 
 Isaac T. Hopper for that purpose. He wished to 
 see Darg first, and have an exphcit understanding 
 of the conditions on which he would go. At his 
 request, I accompanied him to Darg's lodgings, and 
 an agreement was then made, providing for the 
 manumission of the coloured man, the payment of 
 his (Corse's) expenses, and the exoneration from 
 criminal prosecution, of any person or persons con- 
 cerned in the robbery, if it shovld he necessary to 
 secure the money. This agreement was subse- 
 quently reduced to writing and signed by Darg^ 
 On the next morning, Corse went to Albany with 
 Bob Jackson. 
 
 " On the same evening on which the five thousand 
 eight hundred dollars was recovered, I..T. Hopper 
 gave it into my possession for safe-keeping, and 1 
 stated to him my intention to place it in the bank, 
 and to inform some well-known individual thereof, 
 in order to protect my own character from any 
 charge of improper motives in retaining it. Ac-' 
 cordingly, the next morning, I informed Reuben 
 Withers, the cashier of the Bank of the State of 
 New-York, that the said money had been entrusted 
 to me for safe-keeping, and that it would be returned 
 to the proper owner, so soon as the measures then 
 in progress for the recovery of the balance should 
 terminate ; an unseasonable disclosure, it was fear* 
 ed, might defeat those measures^ 
 
3B 
 
 " On the 2d of the 9th month, Barney Corse return- 
 ed from Albany, having succeeded in obtaining from 
 Bob Jackson one thousand and twenty-five dollars. 
 He communicated to the Recorder of the city, who 
 was a fellow-passenger on the boat, the nature of 
 his business ; exhibited to him the money, and the 
 agreement with Darg, and received from him coun- 
 sel and advice relative to the best mode of carrying 
 out his purpose. In regard to this interview, the Re- 
 corder stated in evidence, when the case was under 
 legal investigation, that Corse's manner was frank, 
 and that he manifested no disposition improperly to 
 shield a criminal from justice. He admonished 
 Barney that the paper which he had was not a 
 manumission, but only an agreeynent to manumit^ 
 and that he should take care to have a manumission 
 properly drawn and executed. In the cross-exami- 
 nation, he was asked, if he had advised Barney to 
 get the manumission executed 7 to which he answer 
 ed, yes. The counsel for the prosecution then asked 
 him, if, before giving him that advice, he had read 
 the clause of the agreement which promised an ex- 
 oneration from criminal prosecution ? to which he 
 answered, * yes, I distinctly remember reading that 
 clause.' 
 
 " On the same evening that he returned from Al- 
 bany, Corse requested me to accompany him to 
 witness the return of the one thousand twenty-five 
 dollars. Darg declined receiving it, though Corse 
 offered it to him several times. This was in con- 
 
foi'mity with the advice of police officer Peck, whose 
 ■object was to Catch Corse loith the money on his 
 person, and then make it appear that he had feloni- 
 ous possession of it. Darg's father received it. ' 
 
 " After our return from Darg^s, L T. Hopper 
 requested me to hand over to Corse the five thousand 
 eight hundred dollars which had been entrusted to 
 my keeping. On comparing the notes with memo- 
 randa given by Darg, there appeared to be a defi- 
 ciency of ten or fourteen hundred dollars ; in con- 
 sequence of which, it was determined to confront 
 the parties implicated in the transation, to discover, 
 if possible, how this had been disposed of. On the 
 evening of the 3d, Tom Hughes, Henry Clark, and 
 Bob Jackson, were brought together at Isaac T. 
 Hopper's house, and Tom declared that he had 
 given a part of the money to another person, not 
 jpresent, and who was in company with Clark at 
 the time. Clark was finally induced to expose the 
 name of this individual, and agreed to meet any of 
 our number after 10 o^clock that night, to go in 
 quest of him. The object of the interview being 
 attained, the parties separated. T agreed to meet 
 Corse in the neighborhood of Darg's, at 9 o'clock, 
 to witness the return of the recovered money. We 
 met at the appointed hour, and Corse began count- 
 ing the money, in presence of Darg and several 
 other members of the family. While in the act, 
 and before he had delivered it into Darg's hands, 
 Merritt and Peck, well known to the citizens of 
 4 
 
^etv-Yoik as having been connected with llie polide 
 department, rushed into the room, snatched up the 
 money and papers, and arrested Barney Corse for 
 compounding a felony. They were followed im- 
 ftiediately by two or more other men, one of whom, 
 as it afterwards appeared, was Ambrose L. Jorda?i, 
 a lawyer, and counsel for John P. Darg. Corse 
 expressed his astonishment at such an outrageous 
 attack, and said he was willing to go before any 
 fnagistrate that might be named. Merritt replied, 
 he had made arrangements with Lov/ndcs, who was 
 then at Niblo's garden, but would be at home soon. 
 Either he or Peck asked how much money had 
 been recovered in all ? Corse replied, ' Nearly seven 
 thousand dollars.' Merritt, Corse, and myself, pro- 
 ceeded in company to Lowndes' dwelling, in Li- 
 berty-street. L-nmcdiatcly on leo.ving Darg's house, 
 Corse told Merritt, that he had the remainder of 
 the money that had been recovered, in his pocket, 
 and that he intended to give it to Darg ; but under 
 the altered circumstances of the case, he would give 
 it to Justice Lowndes. Merritt stated on oath, that 
 Corse said nothing about having any more money 
 in his possession, until he threatened to search him, 
 and that he then surrendered it. I feel bound in 
 justice to Barney Corse, to pronounce this untrue ; 
 and I speak positively, because I did not leave him 
 for an instant, up to the time when he gave the 
 money to Darg in Lowndes' house. Not a word 
 about search was uttered, until after Corse informed 
 
Merrilt, more than once, that he had the money m 
 his possession, and would give it to Justice Lowndes, 
 as soon as he would see him. Merritt wished to 
 become possessed of the money, that he might him- 
 self return it to Darg, and thus be entitled to the 
 reward ; and Corse suspecting his object, was not 
 inclined to favour it. 
 
 " These are the material facts of the case of which 
 I v/as cognizant ; they form but a small part of its 
 entire history. The outrageous assault of the police, 
 the clamour of a profligate press, and the anxiety of 
 the District Attorney to propitiate the popular sen- 
 timent, by convicting an Abolitionist, have given to 
 it a degree of notoriety to which its bare importance 
 does not entitle it. Nevertheless, this may have its 
 uses. I am much mistaken if the exposition now 
 offered will not prove the necessity of a rigid scru- 
 tiny into the conduct of our police officers. Cor- 
 ruption pervades every department of our police 
 system ; its first victims may be among the humblest 
 of our citizens, and those who are most odious in 
 the public eye ; but if aggression on these be suf- 
 fered to go unpunished, the community generally 
 must soon become exposed to inroads of reckless 
 marauders, whose official character may serve only 
 to shield them from the just sentence of the law, 
 
 " The parties who undertook to ferret out the 
 stolen money for the sole purpose of returning it to 
 its owner, have been charged with imprudence. It 
 is difficult to conceive how they could have acted 
 
40 
 
 with more prudence. The whole amount of money 
 recovered, was six thousand nine hundred and eight 
 dollars ; five thousand eight hundred dollars of this 
 was entrusted to my keeping, and I immediately 
 informed Reuben Withers of the fact, for the ex- 
 press purpose of protecting my own character from 
 a possible imputation of dishonest motives, B. 
 Corse procured one thousand twenty-five dollars at 
 Albany, of which he informed the Recorder of the 
 city. Was not this prudent 1 
 
 " What man in the community would not feel 
 safe in his integrity after confiding his purpose to 
 the guardian of one of the first financial institutions 
 of the city, or to its first judicial oflficer ? But be- 
 cause that confidence was not reposed in some petty 
 police ofi[icer in preference to those gentlemen, Mer- 
 ritt and Peck, aided by a speculator in slaves, and 
 Ambrose L. Jordan, a lawyer, determined on an 
 ambuscade which should involve the parties in the 
 liability of a criminal conviction ! And Jordan, 
 fearful that his adjuncts in the scheme might fail in 
 some essential point, proceeded to the house of 
 Darg, and superintended its execution in person." 
 
 As soon as it was ascertained that Tom had 
 stolen his master's money, and measures had been 
 taken to secure its recovery, he was left to pursue 
 his own way. Those who were willing to afford 
 him protection as a suspected fugitive slave, could 
 not conscientiously harbor him after they discover- 
 ed he was a felon ; and he seeing himself thus 
 
abandoned among strangers, by those whom he con* 
 sidered as his friends, after a few days, voluntarily 
 returned to his master. 
 
 It appears from Darg's account, that Tom had 
 been a trusty and faithful servant, had fully gained 
 his confidence, carried the keys of his trunk, and 
 was frequently sent to it to get money when it was 
 wanted. 
 
 I would not, under any circumstances, counte- 
 nance the act of Tom in abstracting Darg's money ; 
 but my sense of his guilt is not a little modified by 
 the reflection, that all the tendencies of Slavery are 
 calculated to blunt the moral sensibilities, and to 
 destroy that power of discrimination between right 
 and wrong, for which even educated slave-holders 
 themselves are so little remarkable. And, when I 
 consider also, the evil influence of Darg's example 
 upon Tom, (according to whose statements he is 
 one of the most reckless of gamblers,) I am still 
 less surprised at his perpetration of the act ; his 
 conduct truly verifies the adage, " Evil communi- 
 cations corrupt good manners." 
 ,. After suffering some time in confinement, Merritt 
 and Peck, uncle and nephew, and both police offi- 
 cers, told him, as appears by a statement made by 
 Tom, that if he would swear he was advised by 
 us, Ruggles, Corse, Gibbons and myself to rob his 
 master, &c., he should not be prosecuted, but used 
 as a witness. This was a trial upon his honesty 
 too great to be resisted, and I have been informed, 
 4* 
 
4a 
 
 he agreed to do so ; and the District Attorney iii^ 
 formed me, that application was made to him to 
 enter a nolle prosequi in his case ; but he dechned 
 doing so- 
 
 What higher bribe could be offered to any man, 
 than a manumission from slavery, (for a slave can- 
 not be a witness in such a case,) and an exemption 
 from prosecution for felony ? It cannot be supposed 
 that an individual^ who had all his life been a slave, 
 and, if his own account be true, and there is no 
 reason to doubt it, had lived a long time with gam-^ 
 biers, would have hesitated, under such induce- 
 mentSj to say any thing that might be required of 
 him. During the first six weeks after Tom return- 
 ed to Darg, he was taken out of prison at the plea- 
 sure of the police officers. Peck furnished him 
 with food, and had him at his house, which afforded 
 him an opportunity to tamper with, and prepare 
 him for any measures he might wish to pursue 5 
 and there is no doubt but he made good use of the 
 opportunity thus put into his power- As Tom could 
 not be released to testify as a witness, they then 
 endeavored to get him discharged from prisoUj 
 and take him to the South ; but in this they were 
 again disappointed, for he refused to go, saying, he 
 would take his own life first. This so enraged 
 Peck, that he attempted to strike him in his cell, 
 but was prevented by the keeper of the prison. 
 
 Tom Hughes returned to Darg on the 6th of the 
 9th month, 1838, and B. Corse had entered recog- 
 
iiizance to appear at the Court of Sessions three 
 days before. The grand jury were then in session, 
 and remained so nearly two weeks, but it does not 
 appear that the complaint was laid before them ; 
 neither was it submitted to the grand jury of the 
 next session, until the day they usually get through 
 their business and are dismissed. The reader will 
 be at a loss to understand why the business should 
 have been so long protracted ; more especially aa 
 Darg was a great distance from home, and was very 
 anxious to return. But the secret will be unravelled 
 when he is informed that overtures had been made 
 to E. Corse, to pay the balance of the lost money, 
 , and the prosecution against him and others should 
 be abandoned ; and his connexions being wealthy, 
 they no doubt flattered themselves with the hope 
 that this would be done. There was also another 
 reason why the business should be delayed. I had 
 found it necessary, in order to prevent Darg from 
 suddenly leaving the city, to commence an action 
 for the amount of the reward, and I was threatened 
 with prosecution, though not then indicted j but it 
 was frequently intimated to me, that if my suit was 
 withdrawn, no further proceeding would be had in 
 the case : and some time was required to effect this 
 object. At length, after the grand jury had been 
 in session about twelve days, and Darg and his 
 party found their overtures were rejected, the com- 
 plaint was laid before them, and on the 16th of 
 iOth month, 1838, a bill of indictment was found 
 
44 
 
 against Thomas Hughes for grand larceny, and 
 against Barney Corse, James S. Gibbons, Henry 
 Clark, David Ruggles and Isaac T. Hopper, for 
 that we " did feloniously receive, harbour, aid and 
 maintain, with intent and in order that the said 
 Thomas Hughes might avoid and escape from 
 arrest, trial, conviction and punishment." 
 
 On Tom's trial, it finally appeared, that he had 
 no other object in taking his master's money, than 
 to secure his own freedom ; and, under this view, 
 the court passed the mildest sentence upon him 
 that the law would allow, viz. two years imprison- 
 ment at hard labor.* 
 
 * Some weeks before Tom Hughes' sentence expired, Darg 
 took his wife to see him at Sing Sing, and told him that if, when 
 his time was out, he would go with him to the South, he would 
 manumit her ; and that he should not attempt to make a slave 
 of him. The day before Tom's sentence expired, I went to Sing 
 Sing, and informed him that I had come to make him acquainted 
 with the position in which he stood — that he was a free man, arid 
 might stay at the North, or go to the South as he pleased. 
 
 Darg and his friend Peck went to Sing Sing in the stage with 
 me. Soon after my interview with Tom, Darg saw him ; he 
 also had a conversation with him the next morning immediately 
 before ho was set at liberty. As soon as he was discharged, I 
 again informed Tom that he was a free man, and that I had come 
 there to protect liim. In consequence of the plausible overtures 
 made by Darg, Tom concluded to go with him. He accordingly 
 accompanied him as far as Baltimore, when he discovered that 
 Darg had sold his wife, and intended to make a slave of him. 
 Upon making this discovery, he embraced the first opportunity 
 that offered and left him, and now resides at the North. 
 
The police officers were stimulated in their exer- 
 tions by the hope of receiving the reward ; and to 
 accomplish their object, resorted to every stratagem 
 their ingenuity could invent, without regard to truth 
 or justice. I was informed that but six grand 
 jurors, out of eighty that were directed to be sum- 
 moned, appeared at court ; and it is believed that 
 very few, if any, of the absentees were notified. 
 The officers were ordered to summon others ; and 
 it may be supposed that they would select such 
 persons as would answer their own purpose. Many 
 of them were men of low character : such as rum- 
 sellers, tavern-keepers, &c. One thing is certain, 
 they found a bill of indictment against several re- 
 spectable persons without a particle of evidence. 
 
 James S. Gibbons never attended the court at 
 all ; and neither he nor myself was ever called upon 
 to answer to the indictments, though I often soli- 
 cited the court in person to bring our cases to trial ; 
 and finally they were dismissed as being wholly 
 groundless. Neither of us employed an attorney 
 in the case. 
 
 It will be proper to state the motives that influ- 
 enced me in bringing a suit for the reward. The 
 pro-slavery papers had greatly misrepresented the 
 case, and I thought it possible an indictment might 
 be trumped up against us ; and I was perfectly 
 satisfied from the first, that Darg would never have 
 the temerity to face either James S. Gibbons or 
 myself before a judicial tribunal ; and I was appre- 
 
46 
 
 hensive he would leave the city, and the cases never 
 receive a full and open investigation which I wished 
 to invite. I was determined to detain him until 
 that object was accomplished. After an investiga- 
 tion had had taken place, and the indictment against 
 James S. Gibbons and myself had been dismissed 
 as wholly groundless, I discontinued the suit against 
 Darg upon his paying costs. I ought to mention, 
 that soon after the suit was commenced, I announ- 
 ced in the public papers my intention not to apply 
 any part of the amount I might receive to my own 
 use, though I hardly thought the case would pro- 
 ceed so far as to be tried. 
 
 Last summer, when I viras at Farmington, a 
 person in the station of a minister, a member of 
 Genesse Yearly Meeting, and who had been to 
 Philadelphia professedly on a religious visit, and 
 spent a short time in this city on his way home, 
 stated in a large company that some individuals in 
 the city of New-York had paid eight hundred dol- 
 lars for me in this case, to save the reputation of the 
 Society. A friend who was present gave me this 
 information, and I immediately, in company with 
 two or three others, called upon the individual above 
 alluded to. He admitted that he had made the 
 statement, but declined naming the person, though 
 urged to do so, from whom he had received the in- 
 formation ; but said it was a friend of high stand- 
 ing in the city of New-York ; that he would write 
 to him, and that the friend would call upon me. 
 
It 
 
 No such friend has called. The statement was Uttei" 
 ly false. Neither James S. Gibbons nor myself, 
 nor any other person for us, ever paid one cent in 
 the whole concern. This person made several 
 other statements equally malicious and untrue. 
 
 I have now placed the reader in possession of a 
 faithful though condensed history of the facts con^ 
 nected with the " Darg case," which has given rise 
 to so much falsehood ; and for my connection with 
 which, I have received an almost unmeasured amount 
 of persecution from a number of individuals, who 
 have been so far carried away by their worldly, selfish 
 interests and pro-slavery prejudices, as to vilify and 
 injure me, for that which, in their own hearts and 
 consciences, they can not condemn. I have many 
 times reviewed every thing done by me in connec- 
 tion with the case, and in the retrospect, can most 
 truly say, that there was nothing in my course that 
 I would desire to change or undo. When I was 
 with the Respondents and the Committee appoint- 
 ed by the Yearly Meeting, I was refused a copy 
 of the slanderous Explanation, nor was I per- 
 mitted to take notes from it, that I might prepare 
 a refutation of its falsehoods. One reason alleged 
 for denying my request was, that if I should get it 
 into my possession, " lue shall see it in print in less 
 thanamonth.^'' During the sittings of the Committee, 
 I called on the late Recorder of the city, (who has 
 since been made Mayor) — he presided at the trial of 
 Barney Corse, during which every thing connected 
 
 ■•#» 
 
with the matter was fully developed — and informed 
 liim that an attempt had heen made to cast reflec- 
 tions upon my characterj in consequence of the part 
 I had taken in the *' Darg case," and requested from 
 him a certificate as to the position 1 occupied with 
 reference to it. He seemed indignant, and was 
 anxious to do any thing to serve me in the matter, 
 knd offered to go anywhere and give testimony in 
 J)erson as to my integrity. 1 thanked him, and in- 
 formed him that his simple certificate would satisfy 
 me. He was to me almost a stranger, as I had 
 never had any acquaintance with him, except what 
 arose from meeting him in court, as the Presid- 
 ing Judge during thd pendency of this case ; and 
 I could not but mark the strong contrast between the 
 kind, frank, and generous course exhibited by him, 
 knd that pursued by those upon whose kindness and 
 protection I had far greater claims. I was at once 
 furnished with the following certificate, written by 
 the Mayor himself, and which, it will be seen, was 
 fully concurred in by the prosecuting Attorney* 
 
 Mayor's OJice, May 26tk, 1842. 
 
 I hereby certify, that I was Recorder of the city 
 of New^York during the trial of the case in relation 
 to Thomas Hughes, the slave of John P. Darg ; 
 and also, that in the said trial and investigation, I 
 saw nothing in the least militating against the cha- 
 racter of Mr. Isaac T. Hopper, or that could be 
 considered reproachful. All that he exhibited was 
 
4« 
 
 a desire to procure the money for the master, and 
 the m.anumission of tlie slave. 
 
 Robert H, Morris, 
 " " Mayor of the city of New- York. 
 
 I fully concur in the above. 
 
 J. R. Whiting, 
 District Attorney, New- York. 
 
 May 26. 1843. 
 
 During the whole pendency of the case which I 
 have just narrated, I had never one moment's anxiety 
 as to the result. I knew very well that I had done 
 nothing wrong according to my own judgment, and 
 I availed myself of every means v>^ithin my reach 
 lo have the whole circumstances thoroughly inves- 
 tigated. I also knew that I had been actuated by 
 no other motive than to serve the cause of hu- 
 manity. I employed no counsel at any stage of the 
 proceeding. I felt in need of no legal assistance. 
 I had the offer of whatever professional aid might 
 be necessary in maintaining my defence, but I was 
 convinced that nothing would be required beyond 
 what I could myself accomplish, I had strong 
 reasons for believing that the indictments could 
 have been quashed, owing to technical informality J 
 but I was unwilling, so far as I was concerned, to 
 do any thing that would prevent an investigation of 
 the case upon its rg^rits, I was well aware that 
 in all that I had done, I had the full approbation of 
 many highly intelligent and excellent individuals ; 
 5 
 
50 
 
 and that my course was sanctioned and approved 
 by some eminent jurists, who had taken the trouble 
 to make themselves acquainted with the case. The 
 trial of J. S. Gibbons and myself was delayed by the 
 prosecution for many months, during which time I at- 
 tended court, mostly once a month, for the purpose 
 of demanding a hearing of the case. The court, 
 at last, seeing that there was nothing to sustain the 
 charge, were unwilling to grant further delay to a 
 flimsy prosecution; and ordered a nolle prosequi to 
 be entered, and the matter was dismissed. 
 
 The whole facts of this case, as I have detailed 
 them, had been published to the world, and my 
 persecutors were doubtless perfectly famihar with 
 them ; yet they were willing and anxious to torture 
 and pervert what I considered one of the best acts 
 of my life into an engine, that would, could they 
 carry out their purpose, crush me to pieces, and 
 blast my moral and religious character for ever. 
 
 The reader will be astonished when I mention, 
 that one of the Respondents of the Quarterly Meet- 
 ing entered into a recognizance for my appearance 
 at the time the trial should come on. He did so 
 apparently with great cheerfulness. He was an 
 overseer too, and yet he never expressed to me a 
 single word of disapprobation or dissatisfaction of 
 the course I had taken. The individual who enter- 
 ed into a recognizance for the appearance of James 
 S. Gibbons, was one of the Respondents of the 
 Monthly Meetmg, and had never made any objec- 
 
51 
 
 lion, or even expressed to the parties concerned 
 any unwillingness to continue his responsibility. 
 
 The overseers knew perfectly well that I courted 
 the closest investigation of the case from Darg and 
 the whole company of prosecutors. They also 
 knew that the action against Darg Vv^as commenced 
 with the view of obtaining an examination of the 
 whole case. I announced this in the public papers 
 at the time, and stated, that if the reward was re- 
 covered, not one cent should be appropriated to my 
 own use, but that it should be made over to some 
 benevolent society. Several of the overseers fur- 
 ther knew that overtures had been repeatedly made 
 to me to discontinue the action for the reward, and 
 the prosecution should be immediately abandoned 
 and dismissed. In the face of all these facts, this 
 " Explanation " contained the following paragraph 
 from the Book of Discipline, as being applicable to 
 to the connection of James S. Gibbons and myself 
 with the case. 
 
 " If any member of our Society should be guilty 
 of gross or notorious crimes, or such other disor- 
 derly and indecent practices as occasion public 
 scandal, he should be speedily labored with by the 
 Monthly Meeting ; and if he cannot be brought to 
 a proper sense of his misconduct, he should be dis- 
 owned." 
 
 My opponents discovered, that in alleging such 
 grossly immoral conduct on my part, they would 
 show their own inconsistency and neglect in not 
 
52 
 
 having long ago taken the case to the Meeting, 
 desired to relieve themselves from the dilemma. 
 To do this, they had the effrontery to say, that 
 they then would have taken my case forward ; 
 but as I was indicted as an accessory to a larceny 
 after the fact, they forebore out of tenderness to 
 me and my family, lest it should prejudice the 
 public mind, and be injurious to me on my trial. 
 This assertion was false, and grossly inconsistent 
 on the face of it. The " Darg case " was pending 
 for several months, and then dismissed without be- 
 ing bi-ought to trial. It certainly would not have 
 been out of season for the overseers to have taken 
 up my case then ; but so far from that, not a single 
 member of our meeting ever signified to me that 
 he thought I had acted improperly, or in any way 
 deserved censure in relation to that affair. It would 
 be diflicult for malignity to create a more mis- 
 chievous, false and scandalous story than was pro- 
 pagated by the overseers and their coadjutors, for 
 the purpose of destroying my reputation and carry- 
 ing out their own sinister purposes. In the whole 
 management of my case from beginning to end, 
 there was a finesse and low cunning exhibited by my 
 opponents I could not descend to meet. 
 
 The " Explanation" contained other false and 
 scandalous imputations, equally untrue, with the 
 attempt to distort and misrepresent my connection 
 with the " Darg case." But T fear that I liave al- 
 ready erred in going loo much into the detail of 
 
3d 
 
 what can afford but little interest to my readers. 1 
 %ink there can be required no stronger proof that 
 my persecutors were conscious of the turpitude of 
 this covert attempt to injure me by the production of 
 this document, than their unwilUngness and positive 
 refusal to give me a copy of it. They were ashamed 
 to expose their own conduct to the light of day. 
 
 With reference to this "■ Explanation," I may 
 further state, that there was no attempt on the part 
 of the Respondents of New-York Monthly Meeting 
 to read it to the Committee appointed by the Quar- 
 terly Meeting to hear my case in my presence ; in- 
 deed it appears that they did not intend we, J. S. 
 Gibbons and myself, should ever know there was 
 such a document in existence ; for when the Quar- 
 terly Meeting Committee was informed that it had 
 come to our knowledge, one of them observed, 
 " we have leaky vessels among us." The Com- 
 mittee of the Quarterly Meeting in James S. Gib- 
 bon's case, however, was called together at Cow 
 Neck to hear it read, when Samuel Leggett, 
 Henry Mott, and John C. Merritt, with an exem- 
 plary magnanimity and fairness, objected to its be- 
 ing read, unless the accused was present. It was 
 then proposed to meet in New- York, at six o'clock 
 on the evening of the day previous to the next 
 Quarterly Meeting, that he might have an oppor- 
 tunity of hearing it. But it was said that the docu- 
 ment was long, and they finally agreed to meet two 
 hours earlier, as it would afford more time to hear 
 5* 
 
54 
 
 it. The Committee, the Respondents, and James 
 S. Gibbons, met at the time adjourned to ; hut the 
 "Explanation" was not produced. Here is the 
 fact ; comment on such a proceeding is unnecessary- 
 So far, however, as regarded the purposes of the 
 traducersj it was entirely unnecessary that the docu- 
 ment should have been produced, as the design of 
 the authors had been already accomplished by its 
 clandestine circulation. It was secretly circulated 
 in different parts of the country embraced by the 
 limits of the Quarterly Meeting, and read in the 
 presence of a company, all of which were not mem- 
 bers of the Society of Friends, It must be recol- 
 lected too, that the actors in this design were indivi- 
 duals occupying the station of overseers, professing 
 to carry out the letter and the spirit of the discipline, 
 and to act under the influence of religious concern. 
 I am sure that such gross injustice is without paral- 
 lel in the annals of the Society of Friends. And I 
 do not believe there is in existence a religious So- 
 ciety that would knowingly countenance a proceed- 
 ing so entirely divested of Christian kindness, and 
 so marked at every step by falsehood and finesse^ 
 Since the introduction of my case into the Monthly 
 Meeting, infinite pains and labor have been taken by 
 my adversaries to give a false coloring to the whole 
 matter, by which the minds of numbers have been 
 prejudiced and poisoned. The facts which I have 
 so far communicated, can furnish the reader with 
 but a faint idea of the many unchristian devices 
 
used by my enemies and pursuers to achieve their 
 scandalous design. Their conduct is without one 
 single palliating feature. In vain can they seek 
 for a plea sufficient in the judgment of impartial 
 and disinterested minds, to justify them in their 
 course, or acquit them of gross and wanton injus- 
 tice, — of slander in its most aggravated form. 
 
 When the Yearly Meeting Committee, the Re- 
 spondents and myself were together, in alluding to 
 the conduct of the abettors in my disownment, I 
 endeavored to inculcate the view that the Discipline 
 was originally designed for the mutual benefit of all 
 the members of the Society ; and when administered 
 by exemplary, righteous men, in accordance with 
 the spirit indicated in the following extracts from 
 its pages, will continue to be, as it ever has been, 
 eminently useful in promoting the happiness and 
 welfare of individuals, itnd the prosperity of the 
 Society at large. But when its administration falls 
 into the hands of designing, crafty, worldly-minded 
 men, who would use it as an instrument to carry 
 out purposes stimulated by animosity and revenge 
 — then indeed has the time arrived when it had bet- 
 ter be committed to the flames, than thus to furnish 
 an engine of oppression and injustice. 
 
 I then quoted from the Book of Discipline as 
 follows : The reader will observe, that I have italic- 
 ised such parts as have been violated or neglected 
 by those concerned in my disownment. 
 
 " It is desired that overseers may treat with them 
 
56 
 
 [offenders] in the spirit of meekness and restoring 
 love, patiently endeavoring to instruct and advise 
 them ; but should their labor prove ineffectual, the 
 preparative meeting should in due season be in- 
 formed of the cases." The overseers " ought to 
 exercise a tender and vigilant care over their fellow 
 members." " Although those who transgress should 
 manifest a spirit of opposition, yet we ought patient- 
 ly and meekly to instruct and advise the?n." "In 
 the administration of the Discipline, it is our duty 
 to treat with offenders in tenderness and love, agree- 
 ably to apostolic advice. ' Brethren, if a man be 
 overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore 
 such an one in the spirit of meekness, considering 
 thyself lest thou also be tempted.'' And, according 
 to Gospel order, _' If thy brother shall trespass 
 against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee 
 and him alone. If he shall hear thee, then thou 
 hast gained thy brother ; but if he will not hear 
 thee, then take with thee one or two more,' " &c. 
 
 I then repeated such facts (which were not de- 
 nied) as went to show that the course prescribed 
 by the Discipline had been wholly disregarded in 
 my case. 
 
 The rule of Discipline under which the overseers 
 profess to have acted, will be found in the Book, 
 page 86, and is as follows : — 
 
 " Should any of our members print or publish 
 any writing against the advice of the Meeting for 
 Sufferings, or which tends to excite disunity and 
 
57 
 
 discord amongst us, they should be treated with ; 
 and if they cannot be convinced of the impropriety 
 of their conduct, and condemn the same to the satis- 
 faction of the Monthly Meeting, they should be dis- 
 owned." 
 
 I slated that I considered this clause as intended 
 to apply to the publication of Books only, and not 
 to ephemeral matter, such as may be published in 
 a newspaper. The rule is placed under the head 
 of " Books," and could not with reason or propriety 
 be brought to bear upon our case ; but even grant- 
 ing that my construction was not correct, the hasty 
 proceedings of the overseers were contrary to all 
 previous practice, and to the intent and spirit of 
 the Discipline. It was alleged that they considered 
 themselves bound to take the cases forward when 
 they did, and were not at liberty to exercise their 
 own discretion in the matter, because the Discipline 
 says, " Should any of our members print or publish 
 any writing, * * * which tends to excite disunity or 
 discord amongst us, they should be treated with ; 
 and if they cannot be convinced of the impropriety 
 of their conduct, and condemn the same to the satis- 
 faction of the Monthly Meeting, they should be dis- 
 owned." 
 
 I mentioned that my confidence in the sincerity 
 of such an assertion was very limited, inasmuch 
 as Charles Marriott was given to understand, that 
 if he would not submit to a reappointment on the 
 Executive Committee of the Anti-Slavery Society, 
 
58 
 
 his case should not be taken forward at all ; and it 
 was postponed for one month on that account ; but 
 he having been subsequently reappointed on that 
 Committee, his case was taken forward. 
 
 I further contended that the charge was not well- 
 founded. My opponents had taken for granted the 
 very fact that they had failed to prove, and which, I 
 presume, could not be proved. The paper alluded 
 to, I conceive, has no such tendency as was imputed 
 to it. It was not calculated to excite disunity and 
 discord in the Society, as a very large number of 
 the most respectable friends, who were much more 
 familiar with its columns than my adversaries, and of 
 course much better qualified to judge, could testify. 
 
 In addition to the foregoing views of the case, I 
 presented others to the consideration of the Com- 
 mittee, some of which I have incidentally thrown 
 out in the preceding part of this narrative. I will 
 now, with as little repetition as possible, state the 
 reasons which have governed me in coming to the 
 conclusion, that the decision of the Yearly Meeting 
 in my case was erroneous. 
 
 In the first place, I consider that the rule of Dis- 
 cipline under which my case was taken forward, 
 was wholly misapplied ; believing that it was in- 
 tended to apply to Books, and not to such articles 
 as may appear in a newspaper. This, however, 
 may be considered as a matter of opinion, in which 
 I may be mistaken. And supposing me to be wrong 
 in this view, I considered, 
 
60 
 
 That it was not proved in any way that the Na- 
 tional Anti-Slavery Standard was calculated to ex- 
 cite disunity and discord in the Society. On the 
 contrary, it is a paper, the character of which for 
 puriiy of morals, excellence of taste, and intellectual 
 superiority, is certainly not exceeded, and perhaps 
 hardly equalled by any periodical extant. This is 
 attested by the fact, that it is supported by a large 
 subscription list, composed of the names of many 
 of the most exemplary and enlightened men and 
 women in the country, among whom are a gi'eat 
 number of the members of the Society of Friends 
 of both divisions, embracing numerous ministers, 
 elders, overseers, and others occupying prominent 
 positions in the Society. And the fact must also 
 be remembered that, as one of the Executive Com- 
 mittee, I had no control over the editorial columns 
 of the paper, having no right at any time to inspect 
 or interfere with matter which the regular editor 
 had prepared for it. It was a thing for which I 
 could not be held responsible, and over which I 
 could exercise no authority. 
 
 Again, I assume that there was error on the part 
 of the overseers in their omission to treat with us 
 according to Gospel order, which is so clearly 
 recognised and enforced by the Discipline. And 
 further, that the Preparative Meeting erred in re- 
 jecting the proposition which was made to return 
 the case to the overseers for reconsideration, and to 
 give such friends as felt interested an opportunity 
 
60 
 
 to confer with me on the subject : this proposition 
 being generally united with by the Meeting, but 
 some of the overseers refusing to have any thing 
 further to do with the matter, though they had not 
 treated with me on the subject of the complaint ac- 
 cording to Discipline. 
 
 I allege that there was further error in the mem- 
 bers of the Monthly Meeting of New-York being 
 permitted to take an active part in the proceedings 
 of the Quarterly Meetingj on the appeal from their 
 own decision. 
 
 There was also error in the conduct of my oppon- 
 ents, in preparing a slanderous document filled with 
 matter wholly out of the record of the Monthly 
 Meeting, which was sent by one of the overseers 
 to a member of the Committee appointed by the 
 Quarterly Meeting to hear the appeal, and other- 
 wise circulated for the purpose of injuring my cause 
 and character, without giving me an opportunity of 
 knowing anything of its contents. This document 
 was thus used v^^hile my appeal was pending, which 
 went to show that my accusers thought they had 
 not made out their case, and that they should fail, 
 without the introduction of false and extraneous 
 matter. 
 
 And I further suggest, that as a majority of the 
 Committee of the Yearly Meeting did not decide 
 in favor of confirming the decision of the subordi- 
 nate meetings, it was contrary to all precedent with 
 which I am acquainted, for the Yearly Meeting to 
 
61 
 
 sanction tlie confirmation ; as according to the prin- 
 ci])les upon which appeals are conducted in the 
 Society of Friends, the body of the meeting are 
 presumed to be ignorant of the facts, merits or de- 
 merits of the case. I ought to add, that the same 
 disorder was manifested in the Yearly Meeting that 
 was practised in Westbury Quarterly Meeting ; the 
 members of that meeting claimed the right, and 
 actually took part in deciding the case, notwith- 
 standing they had previously passed upon it. 
 
 I think tliere was a case in the Yearly Meeting 
 of Philadelphia a few years since, in which a report 
 was made by a Committee on an appeal, signed 
 by a majority of those present, confirming the dis- 
 ownmenl by the inferior Meetings. The Yearly 
 Meeting, on finding that some of the Committee 
 were absent at the time of signing the report, and 
 that it was not signed by more than half of the 
 whole number of the Committee, without any hesi- 
 tation agreed to reverse the decision, and the Ap- 
 pellant was reinstated a member of the Society. 
 And I presume such would be the course adopted 
 by any Yearly Meeting where every efTort had not 
 been made by means of out-door intrigue and mali- 
 cious misrepresentation to prejudice the minds of 
 the members of the body against the Appellant. 
 
 It may here be a suitable place to remark, that 
 
 the Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends in 
 
 London, in order to guard against abuses which 
 
 may be practised against the rights of the Appellant, 
 
 6 
 
62 
 
 and to give every fair opportunity to the accused, 
 require, in order to confirm a disownment by an in- 
 ferior Meeting, that the report shall be signed by at 
 least two-thirds of the Committee appointed to hear 
 the appeal. 
 
 When every thing connected with the case is 
 fully understood, the reader will not feel so much 
 at a loss to understand why the Quarterly and Year- 
 ly Meeting's Committees confirmed the decision of 
 the Monthly Meeting, and why it should have been 
 sanctioned by the Yearly Meeting itself, when a 
 majority of its Committee did not report in favor of 
 such a measure. 
 
 From the time of my disownment until the 
 Quarterly Meeting which decided my appeal, took 
 place, some of the Members of the Monthly Meet- 
 ing of New-York made freciuent and repeated threats 
 that they would withdraw from the Society if I 
 should be reinstated. Every possible means that 
 could be devised were put in operation to prevent 
 a reversal of the decision. In addition to the slan- 
 derous " Explanation " of which I have spoken, 
 and which was sent by one of the overseers of New- 
 York Monthly Meeting to a member of the Quar- 
 terly Meeting's Committee on Long Island, where 
 all the Members of the Committee resided, except 
 one who lived in New-Bedford : the subject was 
 made a matter of almost constant and exciting con- 
 versation, accompanied with the most invidious 
 aspersions of my character. Strenuous efforts were 
 
made to promulgate the idea, that the subject of 
 Abolition had nothing to do with the disownment 
 of James S. Gibbons and myself. This cannot be 
 believed by any one conversant with the prominent 
 features of the case. In addition to the proofs ex- 
 hibited in the official proceedings, it was frequently 
 asserted that every Abolitionist belonging to New- 
 York Monthly Meeting, should be disowned. As 
 far back as the autumn of 1840, two very respect- 
 able Friends, strangers, who had been spending 
 a few days in the city, called on me, and during 
 their short stay, one of them inquired of me if I was 
 aware that friends of the Monthly Meeting to which 
 I belonged intended that I should be disowned ? I 
 replied, that I was not acquainted with the fact, 
 and asked upon what ground the disownment was 
 to take place. He asid, " For thy Abolition ; but 
 they will not be able to do it for that, so they are 
 going to get hold of something else." I was well 
 aware of the hostility of many Friends in this city to 
 the cause of Emancipation ; but as I am not in the 
 habit of paying attention to floating rumors, I gave 
 but little attention to the suggestion, not then think- 
 ing that it was so soon to be realized. I have not 
 the least doubt that some excellent individuals of the 
 Quarterly Meeting's Committee really believed, that 
 in case the decision of the Monthly Meeting was 
 reversed, there would have been a disruption in the 
 Quarterly Meeting. In speaking of the subject, 
 one member of the Committee remarked that, of the 
 
64 
 
 two evils he chose the least. Although many, and 
 some among my adversaries seemed to think that the 
 decision would be reversed by the Quarter, yet I 
 never thought such would be the case. I was too 
 well aware of the character and extent of the means 
 ihat would be put into active and efficient operation 
 to eflect a different result. And 1 have the best 
 assurance that some of that Committee who signed 
 the report in favor of confirmation, have seen the 
 case in its true aspect, and most sincerely regret 
 the decision which they were induced to be instru- 
 mental in producing. 
 
 The subject was kept alive in the manner adverted 
 to until the Yearly Meeting. Through correspond- 
 ence and other means, every effort to prejudice my 
 case was continued. These efforts were not con- 
 fined within the range of New-York Yearly Meet- 
 ing. It was determined that every part of the 
 country that was accessible, should be trained and 
 prepared in such way as would exert all possible 
 influence against my case by the time the Yearly 
 Meeting should come round. In illustration of this 
 assertion, I will mention an instance, which must 
 inevitably reflect shame and disgrace on those con- 
 cerned in the measure. An embassador from 
 Flushing, on Long Island, who w^as one of the 
 Quarterly Meeting's Committee, and who signed 
 the report confirming my disownment, attended the 
 Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia, having in his keep- 
 ing a copy of the proceedings of the Monthly Meet- 
 
65- 
 
 ing of New-York against me, which was read in 
 companies when opportunity was presented, ac- 
 companied with such remarks as his resources 
 enabled him to make in support of tlie decision. 
 I venture to say, that si;ch conduct during the pen- 
 dency of an appeal, is witi:out parallel in the So- 
 ciety of Fiiends. / ivas /efrised b}^ the Monthly 
 Meeting a copy of the Committee's Report in my 
 case ; and yet a copy of that Report and the other 
 parts of the record, in the hand-writing of the clerk 
 of the Meeting, were thus permitted to go abroad 
 to effect ex-parte designs. I presume it was the 
 official copy used by the Respondents of the Month- 
 ly Meeting in my appeal. 
 
 After my case was given to the Committee 
 appointed by the Yearly Meeting to hear it, the 
 Respondents of the Quarterly Meeting pursued 
 such a course, as to extend the investigation through 
 the greater part of the week, thus furnishing an 
 opportunity for the action of those local influences 
 which were so sedulously kept in operation to affect 
 my case in the siiboRlinatc Meetings. Daring the 
 week of the Yearly Meeting, the subject was much 
 talked about at the houses of friends in the city, in 
 the presence of large companies. To say that the 
 measures adopted to injure my case were a species 
 of tale-bearing and detraction in virulent form, 
 would be but an inadequate definition of the conduct 
 pursued. 
 
 During the week of the Yearly Meeting, at a 
 6* 
 
66 
 
 Friend's house, where a considerable number of 
 persons were assembled, some gross misrepresenta- 
 tions were made respecting my character, which 
 would have shocked the sense of propriety of a 
 stranger belonging to another Yearly Meeting who 
 was present, only that his feelings had become some- 
 what inured to the impropriety, as he had, through 
 the week, frequently witnessed such gross miscon- 
 duct, and was convinced that it was one of the 
 means employed by my adversaries to accomplish 
 their design. Upon his showing his disapprobation 
 of such conduct, he soon discovered that he was 
 a " marked manP 
 
 It certainly is not at all astonishing that my 
 enemies should have succeeded in effecting their 
 purpose. Such a wicked, malicious, and wanton 
 scheme to carry out the determination of a fac- 
 tion — such an extensive plan, and the perseverance 
 in it, to slander, and if possible crush, individual 
 character, were never equalled, I believe, in any 
 proceedings since the first rise of the Society of 
 Friends.* 
 
 Knowing all this, it was not difficult to foresee 
 what would be the probable result of my appeal. 
 Still, I felt it to be my duty to carry it to the 
 
 * Tlicreader will please to bear in mind, that from the time of 
 my first interview with the overseers on third month, 29 th, 1841, to 
 the time of the disownmcnt, not a hint was given, either by them 
 or the Committee of the Monthly Meeting appomted in the case, 
 of any other complaint or charge than that already specified. 
 
67 
 
 Yearly Meeting, and place the responsibility where 
 it belonged. 
 
 James S. Gibbons, however, was unwilling to 
 continue a controversy with those who had con- 
 ducted the prosecution with so little regard for can- 
 dour and correct principle. When he was publicly 
 inqiiired of by the clerk of the Yearly Meeting 
 whether he intended to prosecute his appeal, he 
 remarked in substance as follows : — 
 
 " I cannot answer that question either satisfac- 
 torily to myself or intelligibly to the Meeting, with- 
 out some words of explanation. When the decision 
 of the Monthly Meeting that disowned me was 
 announced, my own judgment dictated that I should 
 quietly acquiesce therein, because I was well as- 
 sured that the contest would be of a personal cha- 
 racter — that there was no principle in the prosecu- 
 tion. Having no taste for such controversy, and 
 placing no value on the rights for which I should 
 contend, if at all, and having not the approval of 
 conscience, I should have retired, but for the ad- 
 vice of my friends, to whom I condescended so far 
 as to appeal to the Quarterly Meeting. I have now 
 had an opportunity to test my former judgment by 
 the light of experience, and it has been confirmed. 
 The contest has been wholly of a personal cha- 
 racter stimulated by prejudice. If I felt it to be a 
 conscientious duty to proceed, no considerations 
 personal to myself should deter me. But I do not. 
 I cannot conscientiously maintain a public religious 
 
68 
 
 connection with a body, which hke the Monthly 
 Meeting of New-York, has trampled upon the rights 
 of conscience, and despised the claims of humanity. 
 It is inconsistent with the faithful discharge of my 
 duties to my fellow-man to remain in such a con- 
 nection. Especially has that Monthly Meeting 
 repudiated the great testimony of Gospel freedom 
 which called the Society of Friends into existence. 
 Therefore I retire from it, and would request this 
 body to think seriously on the condition of a Meet- 
 ing which can act thus in repudiation of its own 
 professed principles, and give a purely personal 
 character to cases of appeal from its decision." 
 
 My adversaries seem to think that because my 
 disownment has been confirmed by the Quarterly 
 and Yearly Meetings, they are relieved from all re- 
 sponsibility in the matter, and that it is entirely unne- 
 cessary to give themselves any further trouble in de- 
 fending their course of conduct; or, in other words, 
 that they may safely rest and take shelter under 
 the " reputation of Society.''^ No one would more 
 heartily rejoice than myself, in the persuasion, that 
 that term carried with it the weight and significancy 
 which attached to it in former years. The time 
 was when the decision of a Monthl}^, Quarterly, or 
 Yearly Meeting, was entitled to great respect. To 
 say nothing of the weakness which has most la- 
 mentably characterized these bodies for the last 
 twenty-five years, and which has given rise to per- 
 secution, disorganization and disaffection ; the his- 
 
69 
 
 tory of the case now presented to the reader, must 
 convince every dispassionate observer of events, 
 that the character of the official acts of the different 
 meetings of the Society, has lost much of its dignity 
 and claim to respect, in consequence of the un- 
 faithfulness, worldly-mindedness and misconduct of 
 many of its members, who have assumed a posi- 
 tion to which neither their religious experience, nor 
 their attainments in moral excellence entitle them. 
 i\Iuch has occurred of latter times to show that 
 many of the proceedings in the Society are marked 
 by as much out-door contrivance and worldly policy 
 as are displayed in many of the movements in poli- 
 tical government, and are as totally void of sound 
 religious principle. The " reputation of Society,''^ 
 degraded and injured as it has been by such con- 
 duct as that of my persecutors, can furnish but a 
 flimsy veil for such obviously evil doings as this 
 narrative exhibits. Such a course as has been 
 pursued by my adversaries, particularly in relation 
 to the Explanation which has been alluded to, 
 was a most unparalleled conspiracy, not only against 
 private character, but also, so far as its influence 
 extends, against the peace, reputation, and harmony 
 of the Society at large. Well might we exclaim 
 in the pointed and expressive language of Job, 
 " Upright men shall be astonished at this, and the 
 innocent shall stir up himself against the hypo- 
 crite." 
 
 Whatever may be the opinion of my readers 
 
70 
 
 respecting my case, I think the fact must be very 
 obvious, that the state of our Society is much to be 
 deplored. Although the scheme of persecution 
 which has been carried into effect against me, has 
 doubtless been the work of a few individuals who 
 were bitterly inimical to the cause of Emancipation, 
 and were determined at all hazards to effect their 
 plan of extirpation, yet it is greatly to be regretted 
 that the prejudice against the cause of suffering 
 humanity should have extended itself somewhat 
 beyond the limits of New-York Monthly Meeting, 
 into regions where a more consistent course of con- 
 duct would be expected. In one meeting not far 
 from the city of New-York, some young men left 
 the house in a rude and disorderly manner, merely 
 because a respectable colored man in company 
 with one of their most estimable members, took a 
 seat on a bench near the preacher's gallery. And 
 a friend of excellent character and standing, at 
 whose house some colored children were boarding, 
 was requested by several prominent members to 
 take them up stairs when he took them to Meeting, 
 a part of the Meeting-house which was then, and 
 had been for a long time entirely unoccupied ; when 
 the congregation did not cover one half of the floor 
 below. These innocent children, clean, tidy and 
 respectable as they were, could not be permitted to 
 occupy even the back bench on the lower floor of 
 the Meeting-house without giving offence. We 
 have even heard it asserted in the Yearly Meeting 
 
71 
 
 that, \Ylien we ask llic dealers in human flesh to ma- 
 numit llieir slaves, we ought to pay them for their 
 property, for that tliey, the slave holders think they 
 have as good a right to their slaves as they have to 
 their horses and oxen. When such views are 
 tolerated, not to say sanctioned, and when mem- 
 bers are engaged extensively in business connections 
 with slave-holders, or trade largely in the produce 
 of slave-labor, we cannot marvel that those friends 
 who have followed their conscientious convictions 
 of duty in bearing a testimony against the evil of 
 slavery, should be made the victims of a most un- 
 relenting persecution. I am well aware that there 
 are many country friends who are not engaged in 
 this corrupt traffic ; but in consequence of their 
 frequent and familiar intercourse with the city, too 
 many have permitted their sensibility to its great 
 wrong, to become in some measure blunted, and 
 have remained disaffected in relation to the crying 
 sin of oppression. 
 
 It would have been supposed, that after my per- 
 secutors had accomplished their scheme, so far as 
 to succeed in having the decision of New-York 
 Monthly Meeting confirmed by the Quarterly and 
 Yearly Meetings, their efforts to slander my cha- 
 racter would have ceased. But far otherwise is 
 the fact. During a visit which I lately made in 
 some of the counties of Pennsylvania, I discovered 
 that the tongue of the traducer had been busy there. 
 Some individuals residing in and near the city of 
 
72 
 
 New-York, who had left their homes professedly 
 as messengers of Gospel love, so far forgot the 
 legitimate objects of their mission, as to spend too 
 much of their time in endeavouring to convey very 
 erroneous ideas in relation to my case and the cir- 
 cumstances connected with it. Such reprehensible 
 conduct is productive of but little satisfaction, and 
 generally recoils with redoubled force upon the 
 heads of the defamers. In the language of the 
 proverb, I would kindly remind such as are dis- 
 posed thus to labor in the prolific vineyard of de- 
 traction, that " he that is first in his own cause 
 seemeth just ; but his neighbor cometh and search- 
 elh him." 
 
 Had the movements in my case been commenced 
 and continued under a really honest concern for the 
 support and maintenance of the Disciphne and tes- 
 timonies of the Society, I should have quietly rested 
 under the result, however much I might have dif- 
 fered with my friends as to the propriety and cor- 
 rectness of their proceeding. But the whole con- 
 duct of my adversaries, in connection with my case, 
 and in other matters, impels me to a different 
 belief. Their extreme sensibility as to members 
 mixing with those not of the Society, seems to 
 receive its whole stimulus from their determined 
 hostility to the cause of Emancipation. It is true 
 that although friends of New- York Monthly Meet- 
 ing mix very little in social, moral, or religious in- 
 tercourse with other Christian denominations, yet 
 
h 
 
 in any thing pertaining to " the craft of wealth," 
 the shackles of sectarian exclusiveness fall to the 
 ground, and he by whom they were carried knows 
 nothing but the most free action. Is there a Bank- 
 rupt Act to be repealed, so that the creditor may 
 have a tighter grasp upon the body and goods of 
 his debtor ? Our public journals show who are 
 prompt and active in effecting the measure. Look 
 at the records of our Banking, Insurance, and Rail- 
 Road Companies, and see who are leading and 
 active directors. The regular trips of the Long 
 Island rail-road cars were not long since suspended, 
 that they might be employed in conveying persons 
 to the race-ground. And they were so employed. 
 The price of passage was reduced to a very low 
 rate, to induce a greater number to attend the races, 
 and many thousands of the most dissolute and licen- 
 tious were thus furnished with increased facilities 
 of conveyance to that scene of cruelty, dissipation, 
 immorality and riot. Sorrowful and surprising as 
 it may appear, several members of the Society of 
 Friends, prominent characters too, are now, or were 
 at the time, members of the Board of Directors of 
 this Company. The being concerned in the support 
 of such immorality may not have a tendency to 
 excite disunity and discord in the Society of 
 Friends ; but if it is not productive of a ten-fold 
 worse abomination, I am totally incapable of form- 
 ing any judgment upon matters in themselves self- 
 evident. - ■ ' "• - ' 
 7 
 
74 
 
 No one can more sincerely regret than I do, the 
 degenerate condition of any portion of the Society 
 of Friends; and these facts are alhided to mere- 
 ly with the view of sustaining the position, that 
 my disownment was effected to gratify the vin- 
 dictive feehngs of some bitter individuals whose 
 hostility to the cause of Emancipation far exceeded 
 their zeal for the welfare of the Society, the main- 
 tenance of its Discipline, or the support of its Tes- 
 timonies. Irrespective of my own persecutions and 
 trials, I deeply regret that the state of Society in 
 this Yearly Meeting should have been weak enough 
 to permit such a gross imposition to be practised 
 upon it, as the proceedings of my adversaries, who 
 were determined to carry out their own wills and 
 purposes at any hazard, and at every sacrifice. 
 William Penn most aptly says, " Have a care of 
 novelties and airy changeable people, the conceited, 
 censorious; and puit up, who atlast have always shown 
 themselves to be clouds without rain, and wells with- 
 out water, that will rather disturb and break the 
 peace and fellowship of the church, where they 
 dwell, than not have their wills and ways take place." 
 
 It has also been a cause of much sorrow, to see the 
 ministry among us so diverted from a practical cha- 
 racter into that which lias been the means of crea- 
 ting " discord a7id disunity in the Society^'' Had 
 it been directed against usury, extortion, detraction, 
 defamation and falsehood, instead of opposing the 
 cause of excellence and truth, its fruits might have 
 
75 
 
 been much more abundant in good. But the course 
 which has been taken in attacking the friends of 
 Humanity and Right, has given great cause of dissat- 
 isfaction throughout the country, as has been seen by 
 the many " Disclaimers''^ which have been issued 
 by the different bodies of Friends in this and other 
 Yearly Meetings. The condition of the other por- 
 tion of the Society of Friends in Indiana, which 
 has resulted in disorganization, should serve as a 
 warning to Friends in other places. 
 
 In preparing this narrative, I have omitted many 
 facts which have a bearing on the proceedings of 
 my adversaries, and which would go to show the 
 true character of the controversy, and would place 
 my persecutors in a position that could not be mis- 
 conceived or misunderstood, but which I have pur- 
 posely withheld, and most sincerely hope circum- 
 stances may never render necessary for mc to 
 publish. 
 
 It is due to truth that I should say that there are 
 many honest-hearted friends who see and deplore 
 the state of things among us, without being able to 
 discover or apply a remedy. Some of the members of 
 the Monthly Meeting of New-York, who are in no 
 way connected with the Anti-Slavery movement, 
 condemn the proceedings in my case ; and there 
 are besides, many within the limits of the Yearly 
 Meeting, who sincerely regret the course taken 
 against Charles Marriott, James S. Gibbons, and 
 myself. 
 
76 
 
 What is the position now presented by the So- 
 ciety of Friends ? A few years ago they were 
 foremost in the cause of Emancipation, biit having 
 cleared their own skirts of the evils of slavery, too 
 many of them have settled down at ease, as though 
 there was nothing more for them to do. Some feel 
 a kind of sectarian pride, and seem to consider it a 
 disparagement to mingle with persons not con- 
 nected with their own religious denomination, in 
 works of philanthropy, while they have no scru- 
 ples in joining hands with such, in all schemes of 
 pecuniary emolument. Some again, are disposed 
 to do nothing, and settle down self-condemned for 
 their own unfaithfulness, while they witness the 
 faithfulness of others. 
 
 Another class of the Society feel themselves 
 bound to hold up the testimony against slavery, 
 and to labor in the cause of Emancipation, though 
 it must be through much contumely and reproach. 
 And what adds greatly to the trial of those who de- 
 sire to be honestly performing the measure of ser- 
 vice allotted to them, is, the opposition of those to 
 whom they have a right to look for help, counte- 
 nance and support, in this righteous cause. Why 
 will our brethren continue their opposition ? " Whe- 
 ther it be right, in the sight of God, to hearken unto 
 you more than unto God, judge ye." 
 
 In the best feelings of which my heart is suscep- 
 tible, I would warn my friends against persecuting 
 tender consciences. It is hateful in the sight of 
 
77- 
 
 God and good men. Cease your opposition to 
 those who conscientiously believe themselves called 
 upon to " Open their mouths for the dumb in the 
 cause of all such as are appointed to destruction," 
 and who have none to help them. As you love the 
 prosperity of truth, as you desire the peace of your 
 own minds, above all, as you desire the love and 
 favor of God, pause before you take another step in 
 this unholy warfare. 
 
 I must now draw to a close. I have written 
 plainly, and only with a view to set forth the truth. 
 I can truly say that I harbor no unkind or hostile feel- 
 ings towards those who have distinguished them- 
 selves as my persecutors, and have arrayed them- 
 selves in battle against me. It is true that I have been 
 placed among the perils of false brethren, and have 
 been hunted as a beast of prey ; yet I am more 
 than willing to leave my pursuers to the just wit- 
 ness in their own souls, who will never deceive 
 them, nor leave them at ease in their sins ; but 
 w'\\\ render judgment and justice according to their 
 works. Neither dissimulation nor hypocrisy will 
 cover their iniquity before that tribunal where jus- 
 tice is awarded, and where they and I shall appear. 
 
 Several months have elapsed since the decision 
 which I have reviewed, was made. During which 
 time, I have given the whole subject much patient and 
 calm reflection in all its bearings. I have honestly 
 examined my own heart and motives, and have never 
 for a moment wavered in my opinion as to the acts 
 7* 
 
7S 
 
 which have been the ostensible ground of the pro- 
 ceedings against me. I have felt, and now feel, 
 nothing but the most vmmingled satisfaction and 
 peace of mind in taking a retrospect of the course 
 which I have pursued. I have meditated in the 
 cool of the day, and I would hope, free from im- 
 proper excitement. I have reached that point in 
 my earthly pilgrimage, at which the force of the 
 passions becomes much abated, and wherein my 
 aspirations to the Giver of all good become stronger 
 and stronger, that I may be preserved in the path 
 which will confer upon me true peace. My already 
 multiplied years give me significant intimation that 
 it cannot be long before I shall cease to be affected 
 by earthly vicissitudes ; for, at farthest, " When a few 
 years are come, then I shall go the way whence I 
 shall not return." In view of this, my disfranchise- 
 ment as a member of New- York Monthly Meeting 
 can be of but little consequence as regards myself 
 personally. 
 
 It cannot be expected, in the present condition of 
 that Meeting, and my views in relation to it, that 
 I could be benefited by being connected with it, 
 or that I could render any service to its mem- 
 bers. And although my enemies have succeeded 
 in obtaing a confirmation of their proceedings by 
 this Yearly Meeting, I cannot feel that I am separated 
 in spirit or feeling from the great body of the 
 Society of Friends. In my extended intercourse 
 with Fricndd in different p^rts of the States of New- 
 
79 
 
 York, and Pennsylvania, and other places, I have 
 had copious and irresistible testimony to the con- 
 trary. I feel and know that the bond of fellowship 
 is not broken. And as regards the mere external 
 connection or right of membership, I have had 
 assurances which cannot be mistaken, that it is at 
 my service at any time when I may think proper to 
 request it. How or when I may accept of this 
 kindness, is matter for future consideration. While 
 I have sorely felt the wrongs inflicted upon me by 
 my adversaries, I have received many unexpected 
 evidences of sympathy, kindness and regard, for 
 which I feel deeply grateful. They have strength- 
 ened my resolution not to be deterred from following 
 the course of duty, while they have served as a re- 
 buke to the wrong-doing of my enemies and perse- 
 cutors. 
 
 One thing, however, I am free to confess. Con- 
 duct such as has been pursued in my case, has very 
 naturally had a tendency to create disaffection on 
 the part of many Friends, particularly in the minds 
 of the young, and has caused them to err in at- 
 tributing to the Society as a body, that which 
 has been the unhallowed work of a faction of mis- 
 guided individuals. This I sincerely deplore. 
 Although I have had meted out to me "false burdens 
 and causes of banishment," yet one consideration 
 has given me greater anxiety and concern than any 
 thing else connected with my disownment. I 
 greatly feared that the unchristian conduct toward^ 
 
80 
 
 me would have a tendency to unsettle the minds of 
 my children and grandchildren, and weaken their 
 attachment to the Society of Friends, which I have 
 so long and studiously endeavored to cultivate and 
 confirm ; but which the doings of ray adversaries 
 has been so pre-eminently calculated to diminish. 
 Towards guarding against this evil, I feel that I 
 have faithfully done my part. 
 
 I cannot close, without embracing the present 
 opportunity to declare my unqualified attachment 
 to the Society of Friends. My admiration for its 
 great leading principles, my faith in its simple, but 
 elevating doctrines, my love for its inward and ex- 
 ternal testimonies, my confidence in the efficacy 
 and usefulness of its discipline, when administered 
 with pure hearts and clean hands, remain whol- 
 ly unabated and imshakcn. I have ever looked 
 upon them as calculated to accomplish much for 
 humanity. In taking a retrospect of my past life, 
 in looking at its vicissitudes — which have been 
 various in kind, and almost without limit in number — 
 my most cherished recollections, my sweetest asso- 
 ciations, unnumbered incidents that iiave heightened 
 my joy, and have lessened the bitterness and poig- 
 nancy of many a cup of sorrow, have bound me in 
 close affection to that religious communion which 
 was the choice of my early days, and the principles 
 of which shall be the strength, support, and gladness 
 of my latter years. I have spent much time in its 
 service, as the records of all its disciplinary meet- 
 
SI 
 
 ings amply attest. In its brighter days T have re- 
 joiced in its prosperity ; in its more depressed 
 condition, when clouds have lowered, and storms 
 have threatened, I have never for a moment turned 
 my back, but have gladly hazarded every thing 
 personal to myself, in its defence. And now, 
 although excluded from its Meetings for Discipline 
 at home, yet I have never felt at liberty to alter my 
 liabits of diligently attending those for worship. 
 My inclination, my sense of duty, my views of 
 proper example, all forbid my making any change 
 in this respect. Whatever good I have attained in 
 the Society, or in following my convictions of duty, 
 has not been the work of my adversaries, nor can I 
 conscientiously permit them to take it away. My 
 sincere desire is to know what is right for me to do, 
 and then to raise my eyes to the Hills from whence 
 Cometh all our help, for grace and strength to enable 
 me to perform it, regardless of fear, favor, or affec- 
 tion on the one hand, or persecution and bitter re- 
 viling on the other. 
 
 I most ardently desire that my friends and brethren 
 who have been called to labor for the redemption of 
 those who are held in captivity, may not be alarmed 
 or intimidated at what has befallen others who have 
 felt it their duty to engage in the work of liumanity. 
 Steadily pursue the path that may be opened before 
 you, and permit nothing to turn you aside from it. 
 The Society of Friends have it in their power to do 
 much, without in the least departing from their 
 
82 
 
 principles or testimonies. In what better, nobler, 
 or holier work can they engage ? Some efforts 
 have been made in times past which liave been 
 blessed, and I cannot persuade myself that this people 
 will turn a deaf ear to the cry of oppression. And 
 however much we may feel discouraged at the 
 course taken by those of whom better things should 
 have been expected, let us hope for the dawning of 
 a brighter day. Let every one do his part in the 
 great reform for which we hope, and not turn away 
 from the field of labor. " Let us not be weary in 
 well doing : for in due season we shall reap, if we 
 faint not." 
 
 In the language of a modern writer, I would say, 
 " With every endeavor to introduce a more active 
 spirit of virtue amongst us, I deeply sympathize. I 
 hold that all the physical and intellectual powers 
 we possess should be dedicated to the furtherance 
 of good, and the very ' possession of them is an 
 obligation upon us to exercise them — that our un- 
 derstandings are amongst the noblest gifts of our 
 Divine Father, and that we are bound to employ 
 them at all hours and at all times, in his service. 
 It is a false, and has been a most pernicious notion, 
 that because " the carnal mind is enmity against 
 God" — i. e. the carnal state of the mind — therefore 
 our minds in their natural capacities, are unfit to 
 serve him. The maxim of "not running in our 
 own will to do good," has done infinite harm. If 
 we run with a desire to do good, we shall run well ; 
 
83 
 
 for the very desire of good springs from the source 
 of good. My opinion, therefore, is, that " to be 
 instant in season and out of season," is the law and 
 the obhgation of the Christian ; and our daily ex- 
 perience shows that obedience to that law is largely 
 blessed. I say, therefore, that I deeply sympathize 
 with all endeavors to introduce a greater tendency 
 to virtuous action in our Society. I would have 
 none leave it — I would have none lopped off who 
 hold with us the few real essentials of Christian 
 association ; but would have us all stand together 
 in the spirit of an enlarged love, for the cause of 
 religion and of man." 
 
 ISAAC T. HOPPER. 
 New-York, 5th mo. 1843. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 [See page 16.] ' - 
 
 THE SOCIETY OP FRIENDS. DEVELOPMENTS. 
 
 To the Editor of the Standard : 
 
 " Strike ! but conceal the hand !" was the favorite max- 
 im of one who formed the vain and impious resolution to ex- 
 terminate Christianity, and to " crush" its Divine Founder. 
 The spirit which dictated this maxim, however, was not pe- 
 culiar to its author ; nor are there wanting those, even at the 
 present day, who, if less daring than the Infidel philosopher, 
 and less capable of doing injury to society, are nevertheless 
 governed, in their warfare upon truth, by the same assassin- 
 like policy. An example is now before me, which I am re- 
 luctantly constrained to notice. 
 
 It is known to most of the readers of the Standard, that 
 during the last winter, I published a pamphlet, entitled, 
 '* Correspondence between Oliver Johnson and George F. 
 White, a Minister of the Society of Friends ; with an Ap- 
 pendix ;" the object of which was to refute certain charges 
 brought by G. F. White, in his public ministrations, against 
 abolitionists and others. As this pamphlet has been exten- 
 sively circulated, I need only say here, that it furnished the 
 most ample evidence, from his own pen and lips, and from 
 other sources, that, under a profession of Divine inspiration, 
 he had made statements, which, on investigation, were 
 proved to be untrue ; and that, in other respects, his deport- 
 ment to say the least, had been very extraordinary. 
 
 Hitherto, there has been no open attempt, either on the 
 
66 
 
 part of G. F. White or his supporters, to impeach the truth 
 or fairness of the statements contained in the paaiphlet ; 
 although if his conduct had been capable of vindication, the 
 excitement created by the publication, and the effects it has 
 produced in the Society, would seem to have rendered the 
 motives for a defence peculiarly strong- When nothing 
 available cari be said, it is surely the part of wisdom to be 
 silent. 
 
 But while there has been no open and manly attempt to 
 reply to the pamphlet, the tongue and i\\epen have Been em- 
 ployed, in private, to diminish, as far as possible, the influ- 
 ence it is calculated to exert, by assailing the character and 
 motives of the author. Although I had been frequently ad- 
 vised of the false reports which the supporters of G. F. 
 White had put in circulation, they did not reach me in a 
 shape sufficiently tangible to call for a defence, until I receiv- 
 ed from a friend a copy of a letter, purporting to have been 
 written by ROBERT HICKS, of this city, to Samuel Grif- 
 fith, of Mount Pleasant, Ohio. This letter having been ex- 
 tensively circulated, in private, in various parts of the coun- 
 try,* where it was impossible for those who saw it to know 
 what I might say in reply, has excited jjrejudices not only 
 unfavorable to myself, but injurious to the Anti-Slavery 
 cause. I have been assured by Friends, in whose judgment 
 I have great confidence, that I ought, by all means, in justice 
 to the cause of truth no less than to myself, to publish this 
 letter, with a suitable reply to its numerous misstatements. I 
 therefore send it to you with some reluctance, for insertion in 
 the Standard.! ^y reply is subjoined in the form of notes. 
 
 * I am told that a relative of the writer took a copy to the Genesee 
 Yearly Meeting, w here it was read in various circles, in vindication of 
 G. F. White, and to destroy confidence in me ! 
 
 f A copy was sent to Robert Hicks, in proof, in order to afford him 
 an opportunity to point out any errors of the copyist. As the proof 
 was not returned, I take it for granted that he admits it to be a correct 
 copy. 
 
97 
 
 LETTER OF ROBERT HICKS TO SAMUEL GRIFFITH. 
 
 New- York, 3d. mo. 26, 1841. 
 
 Esteemed Friend, Samuel Griffith. 
 
 In reading the correspondence between Oliver Johnson 
 and Georjje F. White, &c., I perceive thy name is brought 
 into notice by Oliver Johnson, and in such a way as possibly 
 to subject thee to censure in the minds of some, who judge 
 of the case as it is presented by him, without being acquaint- 
 ed with the source from which it emanated. I address thee 
 under a belief that thou wouldst be willing to learn something 
 of the estimation in which he is held by Friends in this 
 city.(i) 
 
 It may be proper to premise that there are in our monthly 
 meeting a few individuals, (numbering, perhaps, five or six 
 male adults.) of whom Isaac T. Hopper, and James S. Gib- 
 bons, his son-in-law, are the most active, who have been labor- 
 ing with great zeal to draw our Society into modern abolition- 
 ism, but have failed. They consider George F. White to be 
 one of their principal obstacles, and against him are directed 
 their greatest efforts. They have, until recently, professed 
 warm friendship for him, and high esteem for his ministry ; 
 while one of them has at the same time been defaming him 
 by misrepresentations privately circulated. (2) 
 
 Oliver Johnson is ostensibly the sole author of the pam- 
 phlet ; but it is not doubted by Friends here, that he is a tool 
 of these parties, employed by them to do that which they, as 
 members of society dare not do themselves ; and he appears 
 to be a pliant instrument for their purposes. (3) A short time 
 prior to the correspondence, he was first noticed as a stranger, 
 apparently between 30 and 40 years of age, attending our 
 meeting in Rose street ; not known by us, with perhaps one 
 or two exceptions — not even his name. When George F. 
 White received his first letter, he had no knowledge of him, 
 and first supposed him to be an honest inquirer ; but he soon 
 discovered that the object was to entrap him. (4) Of this cor- 
 respondence, being now public, I have little to say. (With 
 regard to its correctness, George F. While says he cannot 
 say, as he never read it, (5) though one of the pamphlets was 
 sent him ) In reading the two last letters, I became suspi- 
 cious that there was something wrong, and requested George 
 to let me have the originals of Oliver Johnson's letters, togeth- 
 er with the copies of his own in reply. On examining and com- 
 
88 
 
 paring them with the pamphlet, I find many alterations, omis- 
 sions, and additions.*(6) It would probably have been betier, 
 had Georjje requested a personal interview, as he then could 
 have judged of the motives of the inquirer and acted accord- 
 ingly. Where both parties are known, it will do George no 
 harm ; but it is not improbable that in son.e places it may lead 
 to a prejudice in the minds of Friends against hun. It is 
 here considered, that he followed the advice of a wise man 
 formerly, " Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be 
 wise in his own conceit."(7) 
 
 The last letters, as published in the correspondence, are 
 a review of the previous ones, and were designedly not sent 
 to George until sent in a pamphlet form. They, with the 
 appendix, abound in misrepresentations and falsehood. (8) 
 
 On the non-resistance case, I need make no comments, 
 as thou art better acquainted with it than I am. 1 will now 
 pass to that of the Anti-Slavery case. In the communica- 
 tion alluded to by Oliver Johnson, [i. e. the sermon at Rose 
 street,] George F. White did not charge the whole body of 
 abolitionists with maintaining tlie opinion that the only hope 
 of the slave was not in God, &c., but in the Anti-Slavery 
 Society. He stated that an anti-slavery society had passed 
 such a resolution; (9) and he pronounced such a sentiment flat 
 blasphemy. And can it be denied that it is so ? Can it be 
 questioned that such a sentiment is an indignity to God ? I 
 think it cannot ; but bear in mind, that although George 
 calls this sentiment plasphemy, he calls no man a blasphemer. 
 I have long sat under his ministry, and have travelled with 
 him from home, and have never heard him do so. He says 
 he never did it ; neither did he ever call any man a 
 sinner. (10) He holds that a man may write or speak blas- 
 phemy, and not be a plasphemer in the sight of his Maker; 
 as, on the other hand, a man may swear that the Lord liveth, 
 and therein swear falsely. Almost immediately on George's 
 closing, Oliver Johnson arose and said — I believe that the 
 Spirit of God(II) requires me to say, that what you have 
 heard in relation to the Anti-Slavery Society, is untrue, &c. 
 
 * I have been informed that Robert Hicks shows a paper purporting 
 to be a true copy of the correspondence between Oliver Johnson and 
 George F. White ; as far as that paper differs from the pamphlet, it is 
 incorrect. The original letters are in my possession, and I will show 
 then) to any person wishing to examine them. I. T. H. 
 
After Oliver Johnson took his seat, George acjain arose and 
 stated, that he had vouchers to prove the truth of what he 
 had asserted, and if any one would call at his house or store, 
 he would show them, &c. Did this invitation include 
 O. Johnson] I think not, certainly; it was to those wlio 
 had heard him charged with falsehood, to come and judge for 
 themselves, whether he or 0. JohiT^on had to'd the un- 
 truth. (12) One important ptrt of the interview at George's 
 house is entirely omitied in O. Jol.nsori's account of it. 
 Believing that they wjuid r.^.ake such a report of it is to 
 suit their design, before they left his house, George told 
 J. S. Gibbons, that he was about to ask him one or two 
 questions, which he desired him promptly to answer, to wit : 
 whether he had seen anything in his manner, or heard any- 
 thing in his language, during the interview, which he thought 
 was unbecoming a minister of our religious society ? — if he 
 haii witnessed anything in his manner, or in his language, 
 that evinced bad temper ?( 13) James was embarrassed, 
 and George pressed him for an answer. He repeated the 
 question again. The only reply was, "Thee will not receive 
 my friend" — " I can understand thee" — " I know how to 
 take thee." Although George repeatedly requested Oliver 
 Johnson to withdraw from his premises, (14) he remained 
 with James S. Gibbons in the house for nearly an hour. (15.) 
 
 The proof of George's assertion in relation to the anti- 
 slavery resolution is to be found in the report of the proceed- 
 ings of a meeting of the Junior Anti-Slavery Society, held 
 at Temperance Hall, 1st mo. (Jan.) 3d, 1840, published in 
 the Pennsylvania Freeman of 1st mo. 9th, 1810. As the 
 paper may not be within thy reach, I will transcribe the 
 full account, viz : 
 
 " James G. Birncy delivered a powerful address, showing the 
 sin of slavery under all circumstances. The following preamble 
 and resolutions, offered by J. L. Hallowcll, were advocated by 
 Gcrnt Smith, in an impressive speech. 
 
 " Whereas, it is the belief of the members of this Society, that 
 the plan proposed by the American Anti-Slavery Societ}-, and 
 its au.xiiiurics, is the only one by which American slavery can be 
 abolif^hcd ; therefore, 
 
 " Resolved, That, in the language of our esteemed friend from 
 New-York, we believe that the peaceful and bloodless termination 
 of American slavery is not to be expected without a more entire 
 consecration of property, and a more self-sacrificing spirit, than 
 now characterizes Anerican abolitionists. 
 
 " Resolved, That, as we believe the only hope of the slave is in the 
 
 s* 
 
90 
 
 anti-slaverz/ society, the abolitionists of the present day must con. 
 tribute more hberally of their funds, if they expect to accomphsh 
 their most glorious object, — the liberation from their chains of 
 tliree millions of their fellow-countrymen. 
 
 " The resolutions were unanimously adopted. Pledges were 
 received to the amount of ^100, and -^45 86 additional 
 collected, 
 
 " Thomas S. Cavender, Secretary." 
 
 I know not whether or no Oliver Johnson's assertion is 
 true, " that this society is composed principally of minors, 
 and memoers, too, of the Society of Friends." The liutli 
 or falsehood of this assertion has no bearing on the truth of 
 George's statement. But thou wilt notice, that there were 
 present, and participated in the proceedings of the meeting, 
 two of their most prominent men in the whole Union, James 
 G. Birney and Gerrit Smith. The former delivered a 
 powerful address, and the very resolution in question was 
 advocated by Gerrit Smith, in an impressive speech, and 
 passed unanimously. On examining the resolution, thou wilt 
 find that George might have called attention to another part, 
 to wit : " their most glorious object" of the anti-slavery 
 society was to be accomplished by a more liberal contribution 
 of funds ; a clear distinction between their glory and the glory 
 of the Creator.(lG) 
 
 The attack made by O. Johnson, upon George F. White, 
 was a premeditated one. (17) Isaac T. Hopper was cogni- 
 zant of this fact; (16) and on the morning when it was 
 made, several members of his family were at the meeting, 
 (19) (not the one to which they belong, and which they 
 usually attend,) (20) apparently with the view of witnessing 
 the outrage. Isaac professes to disapprove of the disturbance 
 of the meeting, and to be exceedingly grieved at the pub- 
 lication of the correspondence, and entirely denies having 
 had anything to do with it; but (). Johnson says that Isaac 
 furnished him with the cases he has cited ("21) to prove that 
 early Friends unlawfully disturbed the meetings of other 
 denominations ; and thou canst bear witness that he has 
 endorsed Oliver Johnson's character, (22) (as a respectable, 
 worthy man,) for the very purpose of assisting him in 
 obtaining materials that are used in his publication. O. 
 Johnson's home is at Isaac T. Hopper's house, and they 
 occupy the same office. The information, that Isaac received 
 a salary for his services, was given by himself — the amount 
 stated, six hundred dollars. 
 
n 
 
 In letter No. 12, Johnson seems to demur to the charj^o 
 of hypocrisy and cant, on the ground that the proof brought 
 by George is not sufficient to sustain it ; but those who are 
 acquainted with the foUowing circumstance, will not deem 
 that George was very wide of the mark in making the 
 charge; as I think it will be difficult to find stronger proof 
 of hypocrisy and canting. A short time since, a worthy 
 Friend, who is far advanced in years, very infirm in body, 
 and still more infirm in mind, had a good deal to say in one 
 of our public meetings, at which were many strangers, in 
 is such a way as to be exceedingly trying to all who have a 
 concern for the good ordering of our meetings. During the 
 course of his remarks, O. Johnson was repeatedly observed 
 to exhibit lightness of behaviour, &c. In a person feeling 
 in no degree the importance of the occasion on which we 
 were convened, and having no concern for the good order of 
 our meetings, this conduct was not to be wondered at, as 
 the discourse was calculated to lead to such a result. But 
 the unpleasant feature of the case is this : At the close of 
 the meeting, as the aged Friend was passing from the house, 
 ^ person introduced him to O. Johnson, at the same time 
 saying something that was not fully understood ; but it was 
 believed to be, that O. Johnson was a warm friend of the 
 slave, &c. The aged Friend shook him heartily by the 
 hand, saying, that in that thing he had full unity with him. 
 Here was a chance to make capital, too good to be lost ; 
 and how was it improved ? Why, O. Johnson replied, — 
 
 Mr. , I am glad to be introduced to you ; it gives me 
 
 much pleasure ; and I feel best satisfied to say, that your 
 communications, both this morning, and on former occasions, 
 have been very edifying to my feelings, and comforting to 
 my spirit, &c. Now I have not the slightest objection to O. 
 Johnson's being edified and comforted by such a communica- 
 tion ; but his conduct during its delivery did not comport 
 with such a state of mind. 
 
 Regarding his accusation of the founders of our Society 
 disturbing the worship of other denominations, he might, 
 with equal justice, accuse Wiiliain Penn and William Mead 
 of a breach of the peace, in addressing a jury, at the Old 
 Bailey, in 1670, under the tyrannical government of Charles 
 2d, and urging upon them to maintain their rights, and the 
 rights of all Englishmen, under their great charter or con- 
 etitution. Fi lends acted under the same necessity, in sup- 
 porting their legal and religious rights, when they entered 
 
92 
 
 the churches of which they were members, and at which 
 they were required bv law to attend, and there spoke to the 
 people after the regular service. ('24) There may be one or 
 two exceptions, in which Friends interrupted the service, 
 which was only a breach of the church renulations ; and in 
 all the commitments and imprisonments in that day, I have 
 found none for the breach of any law agamst disturbing per- 
 sons assembled for divine worship ; ("25) but very many for 
 refusing to take an oath for holding unlawful assemblies, or 
 conventicles, and speaking therein, and for non-attensance 
 at the church, and for not paying the fine for non-attendance. 
 I know of no instance on record of their attending at the 
 church for any purpose, after they became a Society. (26) 
 How different was the conduct of O. Jobnson, in coming 
 into the meeting of a Society in which he had no right, (27) 
 and slandering that Society, in the presence of its members 
 others, (28) in justification of bis own outrage in asserting 
 that one of its ministers had declared that which was un- 
 true. (29; 
 
 P. S. Since the foregoing was written, I perceive that 
 the last " Anti-Slavery Standard," published in this city, (on 
 5th-day last,) contains a violent attack upon our Society. 
 (30) This paper is the official organ of the American Anti- 
 Slavery Society, and is under the management of the Ex- 
 ecutive Committee of said Society, the Committee consisting 
 of some eight or ten persons : James S. Gibbons, (Chair- 
 man,) Charles JMarriott, (Secretary,) Isaac T. Hopper, 
 (Treasurer,) of their Society, — the three being members of 
 our Monthly Meeting ; and they, with one exception of a 
 person not a member of our Society, are the only residents 
 of the Executive Committee in the city. (HI) The parties 
 admit tbat they are the Acting Executive Committee ; the 
 others {occasionally attend when in town ; and they support 
 and direct the publication of the paper. By this thou wilt 
 perceive that the paper is supported and directed by mem- 
 bers of Society, they being three out of four of the acting 
 part of the coimnittee. 
 
 T Uese persons, after having made efforts to introduco 
 their agents and lecturers among Fiiends in this vicinity, 
 and having utterly failed, have now commenced an attack 
 upon us ; and it is to be feared that Friends living at a dis- 
 tance., not being acquainted with circumstances that tran- 
 spire here, have written letters, perhaps confidentially, which 
 are liable to be made use of to their injury, and the injury of; 
 their services in Society. 
 
93 
 
 I send thee a copy of the paper. I presume no (public) 
 notice will be taken of this attack, or of the correspondence — 
 I mean by way of reply to it. (Si) 
 
 P. S. 2d \'.h mo — The cases of Isaac T. Hopper and 
 James S. Gibbons were this day reported to the preparative 
 meeting, and referred to the monthly meeting, charged with 
 being concerned in the support of a paper having a tendency 
 to create disunity and discord amongst us. 
 
 Thee is at liberty to make any use of this letter, if it will 
 be of any advantage to thee. (33) 
 
 NOTES IN REPLY TO THE FOREGOING LETTER. 
 
 (1.) Was it ingenuous to attempt to impair confidence in 
 the truthfulness of what I had said in the pamphlet, by state- 
 ments respecting the " estimation " in which I was held by 
 those whose circumstances rendered them peculiarly liable 
 to imbibe prejudices against me ■? Certainly it would have 
 been very remarkable, if the warm supporters of G. F. 
 White had not been offended with me for publicly contra- 
 dicting, in a manner however unexceptionable, statements 
 made by him under a profession of Divine inspiration. 
 Theij would not be likely, under such circumstances, surely, 
 to hold me in better " estimation " than were the early Friends 
 by those whose doctrines and practices they so pointedly 
 condemned. Suppose, that, instead of replying directly to 
 the Statements of Robert Hicks, I were to attempt to impair 
 confidence in his character, by reporting the "estimation" 
 in which he is held by those who are bitterly prejudiced 
 against him : would not every candid person say, that such 
 a course was unfair, and that it furnished presumptive evi- 
 dence that I was in the wrong 1 So it appears to me. I 
 submit whether the rule will not work both ways. 
 
 (2.) The writer of this letter is an overseer of the New- 
 York Monthly Meeting. If he can substantiate what he here 
 asserts, why has he not dealt with the individual alluded to 
 as the discpline requires ] Why is such a charge " privately 
 
94 
 
 circulated " within the limits of three or four yearly meet- 
 ings ? 
 
 (3) Perhaps all this is " not douhted " by those " Friends 
 here,'' who believe George F. White to he divinely inspired ; 
 but others, I apprehend, will not estimate very highly the 
 candor of one who can accuse such men as Isaac T. Hop- 
 per, Charles Marriott, and James S. Gibbons, of employing 
 " a tool," to do that which they " dare not do themselves." 
 So far as the imputation relates to myself, I simply deny 
 that it has any foundation in truth. 
 
 (4.) Those who have read the correspondence must, I am 
 sure, acknowledge that on my part it was at least charac- 
 terized by manly frankness, and the absence of design to 
 " entrap " any one. Of that, however, others must judge. 
 
 (5.) Those who listened to his denunciations of " hireling 
 writers," on the next Sabbath after the appearance of the 
 pamphlet, and heard him declare (with a vehemence and agi- 
 tation of manner peculiarly his own, and in singular contrast 
 with the usual indications of peace of mind,) that he enjoyed 
 a " REST " which could not be disturbed by " reptdes " and 
 " household vermin," will be likely to suspect, that if he had 
 not read it himself, he had at least heard it read by some 
 one else. 
 
 (6.) Immediately on receiving a copy of this letter, I ad- 
 dressed to the ostensible author the following note : — 
 
 New-York, July 31, 1841. 
 Robert Hicks : 
 
 I have in my possopsion a copy of a letter written by you, and 
 addressed to Samuel Griffith, of Jefferson county, Ohio, under 
 d?te of " 3d mo. 26th, 1841 ;" in which, alludmg to the published 
 correspondence between George F. White and myself, you say : 
 
 9 " In reading the two last letters, I became suspicious that there was some- 
 thing wrnngr, and requested George to let me have the originals of Oliver John- 
 son's letters, together vvith (he copies of his own in reply. On examining 
 and comparing them with the pamphlet, I find many alterations, omissions, 
 and addition." 
 
 As your letter has been circulated privately, to a considerable 
 extent, and is calculated to make an impression, where its state- 
 ments are beUcved, that I have printed George F. White's let- 
 
96 
 
 ters, as well as my own, incorrectly, I am desirous of j)]acinfr tho 
 ratittei: in its true light before all whom it concerns. For this 
 reason, I request you to opecif)/,pnrticulfirl>/, all the "alterations, 
 omissions, and additions," to which you allude. If you will jrive 
 me such a specification, I hereby pledg-e myself to publish it as 
 extensively as I did the correspondence, and to furnish j-ou, gra- 
 tuitously, with 100 copies, if you desire them. 
 
 I wish also make to you the following proposition, which, if it 
 suits 3-ou better than to comply with the foregomg request, you 
 can accept. If you will call at the Anti Slavery Office, 143 
 Nassau-street, with any friend, or number of friends, whom vou 
 maj' choose to have with you, and bring the originals of my let- 
 ters to George F. White, I will produce the originals of his to mc ; 
 and the whole may be freely examined in the presence of both 
 your friends and mine. Any " alterations, omissions, and addi- 
 tions," which may be discovered on such an examination, I will 
 publish as before stated, and furnish you with lOO copies of the 
 same, if you desire them. If you prefer some other place to the 
 Anti- Slavery office, I will meet you with one or two friends at 
 any place in the city, and at alniost an}- time which you may 
 choose. 
 
 I deem it proper, in conclusion, to apprise you, that I shall feel 
 at liberty to publish your letter to Samuel Griffith, with such 
 comments as it appears to me to require. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 Your friend, 
 
 Oliver Johnson'. 
 
 Could I have made a fairer proposition, or furnished more 
 Conclusive evidence that the charge against me was unfound- 
 ed ? But did the author accept the proposition, and embrace 
 the opportunity thus afforded to establish, if possible, by the 
 only ftiir means, an accusation, which, if true, must ne- 
 cessarily destroy the confidence of the public in my honesty ? 
 Or did he retract the charge ? He did neither. Like the 
 man in the gospel, conscious that he had not the garment of 
 truth for a covering, " he teas speechless .'" 
 
 Here I might dismiss this calumny as unworthy of further 
 notice ; but, in order to put it for ever to rest, and to satisfy 
 even suspicion itself, I offer the following 
 CERTIFICATE. 
 
 The imdersigned, members of the Society of Friends, as an 
 act of simple justice, hereby certify, that Oliver Johnson has this 
 
96 
 
 day placed in our hauds certain manuscript letters, which we 
 have satisfactory reasons for believing, and which, we do not 
 doubt, are the original letters of George F. White, published in a 
 pamphlet, entitled, " Correspondence between Oliver Johnson 
 and George F. White, a minister of the Society of Friends ;" 
 and that, on a careful and rigid comparison, we find the same 
 printed in the said pamphlet with scrupulous accuracy and fideli- 
 ty, without " omissions, additions, or alterations," except in the 
 following trifliiig and unimportant particulars, viz. : 
 
 1. In the pamphlet, p. 15, (line 13 from bottom,) the word 
 " have" is erroneously printed for had ; so as to read, " I have 
 long looked upon," &.c. instead of, " I had long looked upon," &c. 
 
 2. The phrase, " thy informant," on p. 16 of the pamphlet, 
 line 18 from bottom, reads in the original, " thy thy informant." 
 
 3. In three instances, in the last letter of G. F. W., in order 
 to correct a mistake, (which is fully explained by a note in the 
 pamphlet itself,) the word "implements" is substituted for its 
 synonym, *' materials." 
 
 4. The name of the person, who gave the information which 
 led to the correspondence, is written in the original, but omitted 
 in the pamphlet for the reason stated in a note on p. 10. 
 
 5. In four or five instances, Oliver Johnson has corrected the 
 orthography of G. F. W. 
 
 6. In several cases, Oliver Johnson has made proper Correc- 
 tions in punctuation, and in the use of capital letters. 
 
 Not one of these mistakes, or corrections, affects, in the least 
 degree, the meaning of the writer, as expressed in the original 
 letters. 
 
 We have been induced to give this certificate, not only as an 
 act of justice to Oliver Johnson, but from a belief that those who 
 have honestly imbibed impressions unfavourable to him, will be 
 glad to have them corrected. 
 
 John Ketcham, 
 Henry Willis, 
 Joseph Post, 
 Mary W. Post. 
 Jericho, L. I., 8th mo. 9, 1841. 
 
 The signers of this certificate are members of the Monthly 
 Meetings of Jericho and Westbury, and all well known to 
 Robert Hicks, as persons whose character for veracity is 
 unimpeachable. I might have obtained the signatures of a 
 score of Friends, of equally high standing, if I had deemed 
 it necessary. 
 
 It has been suggested, that my accuser may attempt to 
 
97 
 
 substantiate his cliarge, by declaring, that the insertion of a 
 comma or a semicolon, where it was manifestly required by 
 the common rules of punctuation, is an " addition ;" that 
 leaviiig out either of these marks, for a similar reason, is an 
 
 " omission ;" and that the substitution of a for the name 
 
 of the informant, and a correction of false orthography, are 
 " alteiu-tions," &c. &c. A resort to such a subterfuge, how- 
 ever, would be tantamount to a confession of gross hypocrisy 
 and an intention to deceive ; for what reader of his letter 
 would suppose that he alluded in his charge to the common 
 corrections of punctuation and orthography, which the printer 
 is expected to make in nearly every manuscript that is put 
 into his hands ? The letters of George F. White were treat- 
 ed by me as I would treat those of a personal friend. They 
 were as well prepared for the jn^ess as manuscripts generally 
 are ; and if I had refused to make the corrections which are 
 demanded in ninety- nine cases out of every hundred, of a 
 similar character, I should have been charged with an in- 
 vidious eftbrt to make him appear illiterate. If any one 
 should still suspect that I have done him injustice, or doubt 
 the fidelity of the examination made by the signers of the 
 certificate, the letters are open to inspection. 
 
 It may be asked, whether the " omissions, additions, and 
 alterations," do not pertain chiefly to my own letters 1 Re- 
 specting this, I only need say, that, with the exception of a 
 single word, I am confident the printed letters will be found 
 to correspond exactly with the originals, as they do with the 
 copies which I retained. The word to which I allude is, 
 " unworthy," which, if I had followed the original, I should 
 have inserted before " member," on p. 6, line 20 from top. 
 I omitted it, that I might not appear to proclaim my own 
 humility. 
 
 I waive all comments upon the motives of my accuser, as 
 well as upon the insidious nature of the charge itself. It is 
 enough for me that I have shown the latter to be groundless. 
 9 
 
98 
 
 (7.) There is another rule, given by one " greater than 
 Solomon," by which the conduct of both G. F. W. and my- 
 self must be tested — " Whatsoever ye would that men should 
 do unto you, do ye even so unto them." 
 
 (8.) In answer to this general charge, I can only say, that 
 it is untrue. So far as the WTiter has ventu ed to specify 
 what he is pleased to term " misrepresentations and false- 
 hood," my reply will be found in subsequent notes. 
 
 (9.) This statement may deceive those who live at a dis- 
 tance, but it will have no other effect here, than to impair 
 confidence in him who makes it. It is perfectly notorious, 
 and, so far as I know, has never before been denied, either 
 by friend or foe, that on the occasion referred to, George F. 
 "White attributed the " blasphemy " to " abolitionists," with- 
 out qualification, and without allusion to anj'^ Society, or re- 
 solution of a Society. It was in this light that I replied to 
 the charge, denying its truth ; and remarking, at the same 
 time, " that it was not unlikely, that out of 1500 or 2000 
 Anti-Slavery Societies, scattered in every part of the free 
 States, one or more might Iiave used unguarded language on 
 this point " G. F. W. did not pretend that I had misunder- 
 stood or misconstrued his remaiks, but immediately reiterated 
 the charge ; and in the interview, at his own house, with 
 James S. Gibbons, he contended that the resolution of the 
 Philadelphia Society fairly implicated the whole body of 
 abolitionists. So far from complaining that I had misunder- 
 stood him, in supposing that he referred to abolitionists ge- 
 nerally, he even ridiculed the argument by which J. S. G. 
 endeavoured to convince him that the Philadelphia Society 
 was alone responsible for its resolutions. On this point I 
 confidently appeal to hundreds, in Philadelphia and else- 
 where, who have often heard him make the same charge in 
 the most unqualified terms. Indeed, he rarely, if ever, uses 
 qualifying terms, but almost invariably speaks in the superla- 
 tive degree. Of course, if he had only said that an Anti- 
 
99 
 
 Slavenj Society had adopted a '• blasphemous" resolution, I 
 should have been relieved from the unpleasant duty of a pub- 
 lic reply. A private request to be furnished with the nams 
 of the Society would, in that case, have been sufficient. 
 
 (10.) In this the writer is probably correct. George F. 
 White rarely, if ever, uses so mild a term as " sinner." 
 " Hypocrites," " vile hypocrites," " hypocritical hirelings," 
 " hypocritical workers of popular* righteousness," " emissa- 
 ries of Satan," " servants of the Devil," " wolves," " reptiles," 
 " household vermin," — -these, and such as these, are the epi- 
 thets he is wont to apply to members of his own religious 
 society, and to others equally worthy of esteem and confi- 
 dence. And yet, he calls no man a sinner ! As if it were 
 possible for men to be " hypocrites," and not at the same 
 time "sinners!" As if "hypocrisy" were not the most 
 aggravated of all sins ! 
 
 (11.) I did not use this expression ; but simply said, that I 
 rose "from a sense of duty." 
 
 (12.) The object of denying that the general invitation to 
 " any body" included me, is to furnish an apology for the 
 treatment which I received at the house of G. F. W. The 
 distinction may pass for what it is worth ; but suppose I was 
 not invited ; is that a justification for turning me out of doors 1 
 Is that such treatment as the gospel would sanction, even 
 when awarded to an enemy ■? " If ye salute [extend the rites 
 of hospitality to] your brethren only, what do ye more than 
 others ? Do not even the publicans the same ?" Let those 
 who think I acted improperly in going to the house of G. F. 
 White, for the purpose of asking him, in a respectful manner> 
 to let me see the " vouchers" which he said he was willing. 
 
 * " Popular !" This is certainly a very singular adjective to be used 
 in such a connection. Would it not be more consistent with truth to 
 say, that those who thus denounce abolitionists are "workers of popu- 
 lar wirighteousness ?" Many offences have been charged to the aboli- 
 tionists, but G. F. White is the only one, I believe, who has accused 
 {hem of being engaged in a. popular work. 
 
100 
 
 to show to " any body," and who are ready to excuse or 
 
 palliate his conduct in ordering me out of the house, read the 
 
 following, from Besse's Sufferings of the Quakers, vol. i., p. 
 
 5S3 : 
 
 "About this time (1658/ it happened, that Elizabeth Tucker, 
 a zealous woman of liminster, went to the house of James Strong, 
 Priest of that place, and exhorted him, in the name of the Lord, 
 to give over deceiving the people, where he was set up and owned 
 as a minister, and no longer to make a piey upon the innocent by 
 his covetous practices. The priest, uttgry at rcjn-oof, thrust her 
 out, and shut the door after her, before she had fully expressed 
 her mind." 
 
 True, the priest above mentioned used physical force to 
 eject the woman from the house ; and in this respect his 
 conduct was different from that of George F. White. But, 
 then, it must he considered, on the other hand, that the priest 
 did not profess to be a Quaker, and that the woman visited 
 him not by invitation, nor in defence of her own character ; 
 ■while her language was peculiarly calculated to provoke him. 
 
 (13.) Did not the asking such questions betray a con- 
 sciousness of having acted improperly 1 Is it natural for a 
 man, when feelings of kindness are uppermost in his heart, 
 and the " voice within" conveys no reproof, to inquire what 
 others think of his conduct ? 
 
 (14.) This is incorrect. No such request was made 
 during the conversation with J. S. G. 
 
 (15.) During this time, James stood with his hat in his 
 hand, ready to depart. He regarded himself as excluded 
 from an honorable reception by the treatment awarded to me. 
 Under such circumstances, can I be blamed for not with- 
 drawing alone 1 
 
 (16.) I hardly know how to express, without seeming 
 harshness, the disgust I feel, and which I am sure must be 
 excited in every enlightened mind, by this effort to charac- 
 terize as blasphemous the resolutions of the Philadelphia 
 Junior Society, which, understood according to their obvious 
 intent and meaning, are perfectly consistent with the highest 
 
101 
 
 sense of dependence upon God. Think of a minister of tho 
 Society of Friends, at this period of the Christian era, in a 
 country where one-sixth of the people are slaves, whose 
 sighs and groans are home to his ears on every breeze, turn- 
 ing coldly away from the tale of their agonizing sorrows, 
 justifying his cold-hearted indifference to their wrongs, by 
 the impious declaration that God can send them relief in his 
 own good time ! and then fastening an evil eye upon the 
 benevolent action of others, and torturing their very " mercy 
 into crime /" Shade of Fox, and Penn, and Woolman, and 
 Hicks ! Was such your testimony against oppression ? Did 
 ye suffer the giant iniquities of your generation to go unre- 
 buked, and turn a deaf ear to the cries of suffering humanity, 
 that ye might hurl your denunciations at those whose names 
 were " cast out as evil" for their fidelity to God and truth 1 
 Did ye listen to the generous outpourings of sympathy for 
 the down-trodden, from hearts consecrated, in the face of re- 
 proach and persecution, to the work of their deliverance, as 
 the Scribes and Piiarisees listened to Jesus, that ye might 
 find whereof to accuse them ? Was such your spirit — such 
 the example which constitutes the inheritance of those who, 
 while they garnish your sepulchres, defame and persecute 
 the messengers whom God has raised up to proclaim to this 
 generation the truths which fell with such burning eloquence 
 and power from your lips ? 
 
 (17.) This is not true. There was nothing of arrangement, 
 preparation, or concert M'ith others, in relation to the 
 matter. Not until his denunciations reached a point at which 
 it seemed strange that the very stones did not cry out, nor 
 until I felt that I could not innocently refrain, did I open my 
 mouth ; and then I said as little as would satisfy my con- 
 science, and much less than might have been deemed justifi- 
 able on the jjrinciple of self-defence. 
 
 (IS.) This is untrue ; but I will leave Isaac T. Hopper to 
 speak for himself. - 
 
 9* • / 
 
102 
 
 (19.) This is also untrue. Only one member of his family- 
 was present, and he affirms that he did not even know that I 
 was going to be there — much less that I would speak. 
 
 (20.) The only member of Isaac T. Hopper's family 
 present on that occasion was in the frequent habit of attend- 
 ing that meeting. James S. Gibbons and his wife were also 
 there, but without my knowledge. They, too, frequently 
 attended the Rose-street meeting, as they do still. 
 
 (21.) That is to say, he was guilty of lending me, at my 
 own request, the Journal of George Fox ! A grave offi^nce, 
 certainly, and worthy of being whispered through Ohio and 
 Western New-York, as a proof that he was at the bottom of 
 the whole affair, and was only using me as his " tool ! " 
 
 (22.) As I was a stranger to Samuel Griffith, I. T. H., 
 at my request, added to my letter of inquiry a note, designed 
 to introduce me to him. Was there any thing wrong in 
 this? 
 
 (23.) This story, so confidently related, for the purpose 
 of branding me with insincerity and hypocrisy, is marked by 
 the grossest misrepresentation. The aged Friend alluded to 
 is WiLLETT Hicks, an approved minister of the Society, 
 who, when his health allows him to be present, sits at the 
 head of the preachers' gallery in the Rose-street meeting. 
 Nothing could be more unjust than the statement that his 
 communications, at the time alluded to, were calculated to 
 produce disorder. To me, they seemed to partake, in a high 
 degree, of that tenderness of spirit, and that childlike trust 
 in God, which can alone be felt and exhibited by a man of 
 deep religious experience. If there was a quaintness in some 
 of his expressions, calculated to produce a smile, there was 
 much more to move the soul to tears. I confess I was highly 
 delighted with his spirit, and solemnly impressed by what he 
 said. He evidently spoke from the depths of his own expe- 
 rience ; and there was in his communications a fervent cha- 
 rity, and a warmth of benevolence, which charmed me the 
 
103 
 
 more because thev were in such delightful contrast with the 
 sweeping- denunciations and scornful invective, which had 
 characterized most of the preaching to wliich I had listened 
 in that place. George F. White was absent ; and many who 
 had been drawn there by a desire to hear abolitionists abused 
 and vilified, were doubtless disappointed, and not a little 
 chagrined, to hear a good old man declare that he loved 
 every body, " blacks as well as whites," and that no man 
 who was a Christian could either slander his neighbour or 
 hold human beings in bondage. Preaching like this did not 
 suit the admirers of G. F. White ! It was too much like 
 that of the prophet Nathan, and came home too closely to 
 their own consciences. The assertion that I was " observed 
 to exhibit lightness of behaviour," is no more true, than that 
 "the discourse was calculated to lead to such a result." I 
 was pleased, and my countenance may have exhibited the 
 pleasure I felt. Friends, I know, on such occasions, are 
 more strict than others ; and if I suffered the emotions of the 
 mind to be more visibly expressed by the counlenancej than 
 is usual with them, my apology is, that I have not been edu- 
 cated in their Society, but in one which regards it as no 
 breach of decorum when individuals are seen even to smile 
 at the expression of a sentiment that is peculiarly quaint or 
 pleasing. I am confident, that on the occasion alluded to, I 
 did not do this ; but whether I did or not, it is the height of 
 injustice to represent me- as having spoken insincerely in 
 what I said at the time I was introduced to Willett Hicks. I 
 told him, what I deeply felt, that I had been edified by what 
 had fallen from his lips, and that I rejoiced to see him, on 
 the verge of life, enjoying in so high a degree the consola- 
 tions of religion. It is recollected by members of the family 
 with whom I lived, that on returning from the meeting, I 
 expressed, with much enthusiasm of manner, the same feel- 
 jngs which I communicated to him. 
 
 (24.) This is mere dust-throwing. Every one who has 
 
104 
 
 read the early history of Friends, must be aware, that they 
 did not go to the " steeple-houses " because the law required 
 them to do so, nor merely to support their own legal and re- 
 ligious rights ; but in obedience, as they believed, to the 
 Spirit of God, to rebuke the priests and the people for their 
 sins, and to bear testimony in favour of pure Christianity. 
 Besides, their visits were not confined to the " steeple- 
 houses " of the Established Church. For example : 
 
 " Thomas Bond, being at an Tnde-pendent meeiiwg in Great 
 Yarmouth, (1G55,) after their preacher had done, found a 
 necessity upon him of speaking to the assembly, which he 
 began to do, when one of their Elders, or Deacons, inter- 
 rupted him, by thrusting him down over a high seat," &c. 
 " He was taken and sent to prison, where he lay among 
 felons." — Besse''s Sufferings of the Quakers, vol. i. p. 487. 
 
 In the same work, (vol. i. p. 190,) it is stated that James 
 Parnel, in 1655, when only 18 years of age, " went to Cog- 
 geshall, where the Independent professors had appointed a 
 fast.'' He " stood still till the priest had done," when he 
 entered into a discussion with him. " On his coming out of 
 the steeple-house, he was apprehended, and after examina- 
 tion, committed to Colchester castle," on a charge of having 
 entered the church " in a riotous manner," &c. He was 
 afterwards tried, found guilty, " fined jC40, and sent again to 
 prison till payment." 
 
 Of course there was no law compelling Friends to go to 
 the meetings of the Independents. 
 
 (25.) I have before me the Journal of Richard Davies, a 
 work well known among Friends. On p. 37, after stating 
 that he went to the " steeple-house," in Welch Pool, in 1657, 
 where he addressed the assembly, he says : 
 
 " But I spoke but a little while, ere I was taken away to 
 
 prison, with the young man before mentioned We 
 
 were committed to prison on that LAW", tnade in Oliver''s 
 days, that none were to speak to the priest or preachers, 
 neither at their worship, nor coming and going." 
 
105 
 
 As the following cases of imprisonment, for speaking in 
 the " steeple-houses,''^ occurred during Cromwell's reign, 
 there is little doubt that they were for violations of the law 
 above referred to. 
 
 " In this and the foregoing year, (1G54-5,) Joseph Cole, 
 Dorothy Wangh, George Adamson, Hannah Mills, Thomas 
 Curtis, and Anne, his wife, weie imprisoned at several times 
 for offering to speak, by way of Christian exhortation, to the 
 priest and people, when assembled in their place for public 
 worship at Reading." — Basse's SuJ'erwgs of the Quakers, 
 vol. i. p. 11. 
 
 " About this time, (1650,) several persons were committed 
 to Newgate, in Bristol, for bearing testimony to the truth in 
 the place of public worship there, viz : — Thomas Kobinson, 
 Josiah Cole, John Smith, John Waring, Henry Waring, Mar- 
 garet Thomas, Elizabeth Marshall, Temperance Hignell, 
 George Harrison, Christopher Birkhead, Benjamin Maynard, 
 John Ware, and John Bezer." — lb. vol. i. pp. 41 — 2. 
 
 " Mary Fisher, James Lancaster, and John Cunningham, 
 for giving Christian exhortations to the priests and people, 
 when assembled in the places for public worship, were com- 
 mitted to prison," (in 1H55.) — lb. p. 75. 
 
 " George Fox, for preaching the truth in the great worship- 
 house at Carlisle, (1653,) after the priest had ended his 
 sermon, and for witnessing a good confession before the 
 magistrates and people there, was imprisoned seven weeks, 
 sometimes among thieves and murderers." " Peter Head, 
 for testifying to the truth in the steeple-liouse at Deane, was 
 imprisoned fourteen weeks." — lb. p. 127. 
 
 I might quote scores of similar cases, but the above will 
 be deemed sufficient. 
 
 (20.) This is a very reinarkable statement, and shows 
 either great ignorance, or a disposition to deceive. It appears 
 by Gough's history, that meetings of Friends " begun to be 
 settled" as early as 164S ; in 1050, they were called Qua- 
 kers ; and in 1652, the historian informs us that " THE SO- 
 CIETY increased under their sufferings," and that every ob- 
 stacle " proved ineffectual to check the progress of this SO- 
 CIETY." Of course the Society could not have made 
 
106 
 
 " progress" before its existence ; and hence we may conclude 
 that Friends " became a Society" at least as early as 1652. 
 Now all the cases of imprisonment for speaking in the church, 
 quoted in the preceding note, occurred after this date ; and 
 there are hundreds of a similar character on record. 
 
 " 1657. William Callow was detained eight weeks in pri- 
 son, for pul)lioly reproving a priest whom he heard abusing 
 the Quakers* in his sermon to the people." — Besse's Suffer- 
 ings, vol. i. p. 209. 
 
 On p. 303, of the same volume, I find no less than '28 cases ! 
 But let me give a few instances from the history of Friends 
 in our own country : 
 
 1657. " Christopher Holder and John Copeland, being at 
 Salem, went to the place of public worship there, and after the 
 priest had ended his service, Holder spake afew words, but was 
 presently pulled backward by the hair of his head, and had a 
 glove and handkerchief thrust into his mouth, and so was 
 turned out, and with his companion carried to Boston next 
 day, where each of them received thirty stripes with a knot- 
 ted whip of three cords, the executioner measuring his ground, 
 and fetching his strokes with all his strength, which so cruel- 
 ly cut their flesh, that a woman at the sight of it fell down aa 
 dead." — Besse''s Sufferings, vol. ii. p. 183. 
 
 ]b57. " Sarah Gibbons and Dorothy Waugh, being come 
 to Boston, after a public lecture there, sj)ake a few words to 
 the people, for which they were sent to the House of Cor- 
 rection, where, after being kept three days without any food, 
 they were cruelly whipj)ed." — 16. p. 184. 
 
 1658. " About this time Thomas Harris, from Rhode 
 Island, came to Boston, and in the public meeting-place there, 
 after the priest had done, warned the people of the dreadful, 
 terrible day of the Lord, which was coming upon that town 
 and country. He was presently haled by the hair of his 
 head, and sent to prison. Next day he was cruelly whipped." 
 — Id. p. 185. 
 
 Here are several instances, which occurred at a period 
 
 • Could he have abused them worse than G. F. White abused 
 the atiolitionists, or given a more just cause for reproof? He must 
 have l)eBn unoo.iimonly skilled in the art of vituperation, if he could. 
 
107 
 
 when no one will doubt that the Friends had " becoime a So- 
 ciety." ' ■ . 
 
 10fi3. " Thomas Newhousc was whipped through the ju- 
 risdiction of Boston, for testifying' against the persecutors in 
 their niceting-house there ; at which time he, in a prophetic 
 manner, having two glass bottles in his hands, threw them 
 down, saying, ' So shall you be dashed in pieces.' " — Besse^s 
 Sufferings, vol. ii. p. 232. 
 
 1G()5. " Thomas Newhouse, being in Boston on a lecture- 
 day, went into the worship-house, and stood silent till the 
 preacher had done, and then would have spoken, by way of 
 exhortation to the people, but was inuuediately haled away to 
 prison, and the next day whipped in the market-place with 
 ten stripes, and then out of town with ten more, which pun- 
 ishment he again underwent at Uoxbury and at Dedliam." — 
 Il>. p. 237. 
 
 liJ77. " Margaret Brewster had a foresight given her of 
 that grievous calamity called the black-i)ox, which afterward 
 spread there, to the cutting off many of the people. Where- 
 fore she was constrained, in a prophetic manner, to warn 
 them thereof, by entering into their public assendjly, clothed 
 in sackcloth and ashes, and with her face made black." — Jb. 
 p. 2GU. 
 
 The question may well be put to the author of the letter, 
 " Are thou an" Overseer "in Israel, and knowest not these 
 things ?" 
 
 (27.) True, T had "no right" in the Society, but I had 
 right in the meeting, in common with every one who chose to 
 attend. If it be said that I had no right to speak, in vindica- 
 tion of myself and others, when we were grossly abused and 
 slandered by the minister, then I ask what right had early 
 Friends to defend themselves, when they were assailed in 
 sermons by the priests 1 What right had James Parnel, for 
 instance, to " vindicate himself and brethren against the op- 
 probrious misrepresentations" of the minister of the Independ' 
 ent Church in Coggeshall ? [See Gough's History, vol. i. p. 
 183.] 
 
 (28.) I have furnished evidence, in the preceding notes, 
 
108 
 
 that so far from slandering the Society, I only stated a fact, 
 •which no one acquainted with its history can deny. 
 
 (29.) Was it an "outrage" to deny that abolitionists were 
 guilty of " blasphemy," and to challenge an examination of 
 their official documents in proof of innocence \ The sensi- 
 tiveness of some persons in their relation to what I said 
 on that occasion, reminds me of the man who gave as a 
 reason for being angry when another called him a liar, that 
 " the rascal proved it !" If there is not a conviction that what 
 I said on that occasion was true, why this effort to excite 
 dium against me for having spoken ? The fact of speaking 
 is of itself of little consequence, and would have been passed 
 by as the idle wind, if I had not uttered unwelcome truth. 
 
 (30.) The paper in question contained nothing which, by 
 any possible construction, can be regarded as an attack upon 
 the Society of Friends. The conduct of G. F. White, and 
 of the " governing influences of the Rose-street meeting," is 
 indeed spoken of with great plainness ; but they are not the 
 Society of Friends ; nor do I beli«ve that the Society will 
 sustain them in their course. 
 
 (31.) This is a mistake. There were tivo members of the 
 committee, residing in the city, who were not Friends. 
 
 (32.) " No public notice." The answers were to be pri- 
 vate, so as to deprive me, if possible, of the' power of reply. 
 I leave it for others to judge, in view of the facts, why dark- 
 ness was thus preferred to light. 
 
 (33.) The use which has actually been made of the letter 
 shows how much was intended by the liberty here given. It 
 was to be handed about to individuals, and read in private 
 circles — and not published. 
 
 I have thus replied to a;ll those parts 6f the letter of Robert 
 Hicks, which appeared to me to demand notice. It was with 
 reluctance that I entered upon the task ; and the readers of 
 the Standard will not regret more sincerely than I do, that 
 
109 
 
 the letter and reply occupy so much room. The latter I have 
 
 endeavored to make as brief as was consistent with its object. 
 
 Isaac T. Hopper has made a brief answer to those parts of 
 
 the letter which relate particularly to himself, which I annex. 
 
 " Without concealment, 
 
 Without compromise," 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 OLIVER JOHNSON. - 
 
 STATEMENT OF ISAAC T. HOPPER. 
 
 After what Oliver Johnson has written, there seems but 
 little left requiring my attention ; as I think every one, who 
 carefully examines the subject, will see, that the bold and 
 positive assertions of the writer of the letter he has reviewed, 
 are entitled to no credit ; and yet there are a few points in it, 
 that appear proper for me to notice. 
 
 The writer of the letter says, that " Oliver Johnson is os- 
 tensibly the sole author of the pamphlet ; but it is not doubt- 
 ed by Friends here, that he is a tool of these parties, employ- 
 ed by them to do that which they, as members of Society, 
 dare not do themselves." The plain English of this, accord- 
 ing to my understanding, is, that Friends here believe that 
 myself, with some other members of the Society, are the real 
 authors of the pamphlet entitled, '' Correspondence between 
 Oliver Johnson and George F. White," &c. That great 
 efforts have been used by some individuals in this city to make 
 such an impression, is unquestionable ; verifying the truth of 
 the Scripture declaration, " An evil man, out of the evil 
 treasure of his heart, bringeth forth evil things." 
 
 The publication of Oliver Johnson's pamphlet produced an 
 agitation and angry feeling, wholly incompatible with that sta- 
 bility and settlement of mind which is the invariable attendant 
 of those who have experienced, in any considerable degree, a 
 settlement upon that foundation, against which the rains and 
 the floods beat in vain; and as he is not a member of the So- 
 10 
 
110 
 
 ciety of Friends, some individuals appear to have sought for 
 other objects on whom to pour out their vengeance. 
 
 The writer of the letter asserts, that Oliver Johnson says, 
 I " furnished him with the cases he has cited, to prove that 
 early Friends unlawfully disturbed the meetings of other de- 
 nominations," and that I " endorsed his character as a re- 
 spectable, worthy man." Here is the evidence upon which 
 Friends found their belief, if ihey really do believe, that I 
 and some other Friends, are the real authors of the pamphlet. 
 Rather flimsy grounds upon which to accuse us of falsehood. 
 
 To the former of these charges I will just say, that, at his 
 request, I lent him George Fox's Journal, which abounds 
 with such instances. To the latter I would reply, — T did so, 
 and feci no regret for having done it ; and with all the dis- 
 position which the writer of the letter under notice manifests 
 to render him odious, he has entirely failed to fasten a stain 
 upon his reputation, or to show that he is unworthy of the 
 character I have given of him. This is all I had to do in 
 getting up the pamphlet, though at the time I had no idea that 
 a pamphlet was to be made. 
 
 There is another part of Robert Hicks' letter that is still 
 more extraordinary than those above quoted, where he says, 
 " The attack made by Oliver Johnson upon George F. White 
 was a premeditated one, Isaac T, Hopper was cognizant oj 
 this fact; and on the morning when it was made, several 
 members of his family were at the meeting, (not the one to 
 which they belong, and which they usually attend,) appa- 
 rently with the view of witnessing the outrage." Here is a 
 positive assertion without even a shadow of evidence to sus- 
 tain it. It is not true. But one member of my family was 
 present at that time, and he was in the frequent practice of 
 attending ; but he did not even know that Oliver Johnson ex- 
 pected to be there on that day. James S. Gibbons and his 
 wife were there, it is true ; but they are not members of my 
 family, and they both declare, that [they had no knowledge 
 
Ill 
 
 ol" Oliver Johnson's intentions of being at Rose-street at 
 that lime. They were both in the habit of frequently attend- 
 ing that meeting. 
 
 In speaking of James S. Gibbons, Charles iMarriott, and 
 myself, the writer of the letter says : ''These persons, after 
 having made efforts to introduce their agents and lecturers 
 among Friends in this vicinity, and having utterly failed, 
 have now commenced an attack upon us." Here is another 
 charge as groundless as the preceding. We never did make 
 any efforts to introduce " agents and lecturers " among 
 Friends in this vicinity, or any where else. Oliver Johnson 
 delivered two lectures in Friends' meeting-house at I\IarI- 
 borough, Ulster co., in this State, by the invitation of some 
 Friends there ; and he also lectured twice on Long Island, 
 at the request of some members of the Society of Friends 
 in the neighbourhood where they were delivered. But he 
 was not sent by us, neither did he, or any other person, ever 
 deliver a lecture " among Friends " at our request ; neither 
 is it true that we have ever " commenced an attack upon 
 Friends." 
 
 I have never wished to conceal the fact, that I receive a 
 salary of six hundred dollars per annum for my services. 
 At the annual meeting in the 5th mo. 1840, I was appointed 
 Treasurer of the American Anti- Slavery Society- I was 
 also solicited to take charge of the sale of the books in the 
 office, and attend to such other matters as might require at- 
 tention connected with the establishment. I consented to do 
 60. These objects occupy my whole time, and I feel per- 
 fectly at liberty to receive a compensation for it. I have 
 devoted a large portion of my time for many years, and have 
 spent much money, without any other reward than that aris- 
 ing from having been instrumental in relieving many of my 
 coloured brethren from cruel oppression. The Society of 
 Friends have always, since I have known them, been in the 
 practice of paying for transacting their secular concerns, 
 
H2 
 
 precisely the same in nature with those in which I am en- 
 gaged ; but I have never heard it charged as a crime. 
 
 I will now leave Robert Hicks to settle this matter with 
 his own conscience and with his friends, whom he has so 
 grossly abused by misrepresentation, not to say downright 
 untruth. I have spoken plainly — the circumstances of the 
 case require it — and I regret the occasion which has made 
 it imperative that I should do so ; but I have no hostility to- 
 wards the individual with whom I have dealt so plainly. 
 
 ISAA.C T. HOPPER. 
 
 B 
 
 [See page 18.] 
 
 RARE SPECIMEN OF A QUAKER PREACHER !* 
 
 *'Tho prophets prophesy LIES in my name ; I sent them not, neither 
 have I commanded them, neither -spake unto them: they prophesy unto 
 you a FALSE vision and divination, and a tlung of nought, and the deceit 
 of their heart." — Jer. liv. 14. 
 
 " Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame." — Jude 14. 
 
 We have placed these graphic and terrible quotations from 
 the Inspired Volume at the head of this article, not in a mo- 
 ment of excitement, to gratify a censorious or retaliatory 
 disposition, but because, after calm and mature deliberation, 
 we believe them to be strictly and fearfully applicable to the 
 
 * NOTE TO THE .\BOVE. 
 
 It is with much regret that I place this article before the reader. It 
 is necessary, however, that it should be done, in order to complete 
 the narrative of the proceedings in my case ; and to withhold it, would 
 be doing injustice to my adversaries, as it is the alleged cause of ac- 
 tion against me. It is mournful that such a state of things as it re- 
 veals, should ever have existed in the meeting alluded to. And, how- 
 ever much we may regret the exposure of such impropriety, it must 
 be borne in mind that the facts contained in the statement have not 
 been controverted or disprored. 
 
 The members of the Monthly Meeting could quietly listen to the viru- 
 
individual of whose conduct we are about to speak. The 
 grounds of this opinion will be seen from the statements 
 which follow. 
 
 On the 8th of November last, the writer of this, having 
 understood that Thomas M'Clintock, (an active abolitionist, 
 and a highly esteemed minister of that division of the So- 
 ciety of Friends not called Orthodox,) 'would be present, 
 was induced to attend the Rose-street meeting of Friends in 
 this city. On that occasion, Thomas M'Clintock spoke 
 against slavery and other national sins with great plainness 
 and fidelity, as a genuine Friend might be expected to do. 
 His communication was received with evident marks of dis- 
 satisfaction by many, and he was several times disturbed, 
 when alluding to slavery, by the shuffling of feet I An oc- 
 
 lent abuse which was so freely poured out upon an unoffending class 
 of individuals, and instead of discountenancing the slander, and oliject- 
 ing to such a prostitution of the sacred functions of the ministry, they 
 seemed to evince every indication of entire approbation. But as soon 
 as a revelation of such misconduct is made, as soon as the light of 
 day shines upon their doings, agitation and alarm become apparent ; 
 and a course of the most flagrant persecution ensues ; and every one 
 who raises a voice against such unchristian attacks, is proscribed. 
 
 I had no hand whatever in preparing the article, nor had I the au- 
 thority to suppress it, and my attachment and regard for the credit of 
 the Society of Friends, have frequently induced me to regret that 
 such an exposure was ever made. But jt plainly shows the condition 
 of a body that could sanction such proceedings. It is cause of sorrow 
 that the state of any Monthly Meeting should be so weak and low ; 
 and 1 greatly fear, froni present indications, that it is becoming weaker 
 and weaker. It is, however, the natural and inevitable result of such 
 conduct as has been too long pursued by those whose general course 
 of life, pursuits, habits, thoughts, and interests, but little qualify them 
 to take [lart in concerns of a religious and disciplinary' character. 
 Had there not existed in the Monthly Meeting of New- Fork, this in- 
 herent weakness- — had it been composed of the elements essentially 
 necessary to constitute a sound, enlightened, judicious, and dignified 
 body of Friends, I assert with confidence, that the cause of the difTi- 
 culty narrated in these pages would never have existed, or would have 
 been checked in its incipient budding; and the whole train of mourn- 
 fully disorganizing consequences would have been averted, and tho 
 Society at large saved from their inauspicious influence. This 
 opinion, I believe, will be sustained by Friends generally. " Be not 
 deceived ; God is not mocked : for whatsoever a man soweth, that 
 shall he also reap." 
 
 I. T. H. 
 
114 
 
 Currence so extraordinary, in a meeting of Friends, could 
 hardly fail to excite attention, and lead to an inquiry for the 
 cause which produced it. Having learned that GEORGE 
 F. WHITE, a minister belonging to that meeting, was in 
 the constant practice of denouncing abolitionists in the most 
 offensive and opprobrious terms, we were at no loss to account 
 for such disgraceful conduct ; and accordingly, in the Stand- 
 ard of Nov. 12, after stating the fact of the disturbance, we 
 made the follov/ing remarks : 
 
 " Nor is such conduct much to be wondered at, when it is 
 considered that the most prominent minister in the meeting 
 is in the habit of denouncing, not only anti-slavery, but tem- 
 perance societies, in the most reproachful terms, in his pub- 
 lic communications. This rude pro-slavery demonstration 
 •was made, however, by a small portion of the assembly, and 
 •will meet the disapprobation of many who are not abolition- 
 ists. If the young men who thus disgraced themselves had 
 not been nursed in a pro-slavery atmosphere at home, and 
 felt themselves sustained by the opposition to the anti-slavery 
 enterprise, which generally prevails in the meeting, they 
 ■would not thus have presumed to disturb the ' quiet ' of their 
 fellow- worshippers." 
 
 These remarks, as might have been expected, created 
 some excitement among the leading individuals in the Rose- 
 street meeting, which was increased by their subsequent 
 appearance in the Pennsylvania Freeman, accompanied by 
 the following appropriate observations by the editor of that 
 journal : 
 
 " Shame on Them. — Our readers will be surprised to 
 learn — as they will, by an article which we copy below from 
 the National Anti-Slavery Standard, that an approved and 
 highly estimable minister of the Society of Friends has been 
 interrupted in the midst of a religious discourse in a regular 
 meeting for worship at one of the Friends' meeting-houses 
 in New-York city, by such tokens of dissatisfaction as ought 
 to be regarded as disgraceful even to the political caucus ; — 
 that conduct was witnessed in an assembly of this quiet and 
 orderly denomination, which we venture to say would not 
 have occurred, — and certainly would not have been tolerated 
 
115 
 
 in a religious meeting of any other sect in the country. And 
 why was this outrage upon the rights of the preacher, and 
 the quiet of llie assembly to which he had come as a messen- 
 ger of God's truth 1 For no other reason, it appears, than 
 his noble faithfulness in maintaining, and honest plainness of 
 speech in setting forth one of the greatest testimonies of the 
 Society. 
 
 Has it come to this ] Has this glorious testimony already, 
 by reason of the growing tendency among the great body of 
 its members to conform to the corrupt public sentiment and 
 WTong customs of the world around, so far lost its excel- 
 lency in the eyes of its professed upholders, that they can 
 no longer abide its promulgation in its purity, simplicity and 
 unabated fulness ? 
 
 If Friend M'Ciintock had qualified his righteous condemna- 
 tion of slavery with a liberal share of abuse and calumny 
 and bitter denunciation lavished upon those of other sects, 
 who concur with him in holding, and are fliithful in pro- 
 claiming the same testimony, would he have been thus in- 
 sulted, and his rights as a man and a minister of the Most 
 High been so trampled on in that meeting ? 
 
 We are far from believing that the minister alluded to by 
 the Standard, as being 'in the habit of denouncing not only 
 anti-slavery, but temperance societies,' would himself ap- 
 prove the indecorous behaviour we have had occasion to 
 comment on : — this most unquaker-like, unchristian, unmanly 
 and indecent outrage upon propriety and the good order of a 
 religious assembly." 
 
 Whether George F. White deserved the charitable excul- 
 pation, with which the editor of the Freeman closes his re- 
 marks, will appear from the history of his subsequent con- 
 duct. That he would openly justify the disturbance, we do 
 not believe ; nor have we ever learned that he deemed it 
 worthy of public censure. That we were right in speaking 
 of it as the natural effect of his furious denunciations, no 
 one who has attentively watched the progress of the anti- 
 slavery cause, or who understands the workings of human 
 nature, can for a moment doubt. The worst mobs which 
 abolitionists have ever encountered, were excited by the 
 misrepresentations and falsehoods of " hireling " editors and 
 
116 
 
 preachers, who professed to be " as mucli opposed to slavery 
 as any body," and who, when the responsibility of such out- 
 breaks was laid to their charge, were wont to repel the im- 
 putation with scorn, and to exclaim, in the indignant language 
 of the messenger of the proud king of Assyria, when the 
 Hebrew prophet told him of the crimes which he would 
 commit on his accession to the throne of his master, " But 
 what ? is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great 
 thing?" It is certainly no wonder, that those who are not 
 restrained by high moral and religious principle, and whose 
 minds are filled with that vulgar prejudice against our colour- 
 ed population which so extensively prevails, should be led, 
 by such passionate and sweeping denunciations as those of 
 G. F. White, to imbibe that kind of hostility to abolitionists, 
 which would naturally find vent in rude and indecent beha- 
 viour, Avhenever anti-slavery principles are advocated in their 
 presence. Their spirit and conduct are but the counterpart 
 of his. They deserve commisseration, on account of their 
 ignorance, being deluded by those whom they have been 
 taught to regard as models of Christian forbearance and 
 charity ; while he, and his more intelligent supporters, are 
 worthy of indignant rebuke, as in the sight of God the real 
 authors of tlie disgraceful conduct in question. 
 
 On the 15th of November, we went again to the Rose- 
 street meeting. We will not conceal, that, in doing so, we 
 were influenced, in some measure, by a painful curiosity, 
 very natural to us as an abolitionist, to listen to the preach- 
 ing of a man, the vituperative character of whose ministry 
 had become so notorious. It v/anted a more vivid imagina- 
 tion than ours, to conceive how a Quaker preacher would 
 look at this period of the Christian era, and at this advanced 
 stage of the anti-slavery enterprise, breathing out wholesale 
 denunciations of abolitionists and their measures, in a style 
 so coarse and vindictive as might well put the New-York 
 Courier and Enquirer and the Washington Globe to tUa 
 
117 
 
 blush ! Such a character was so incongruous with all our 
 ideas of Quakerism, so inconsistant with all that we had 
 ever seen of that moderate and imperturbable sect, that we 
 listened with involuntary incredulity to the statements of 
 others, and determined to see and hear for ourselves. 
 
 On the occasi(m above alluded to, we witnessed the 
 "anomalous" exhibition, a description of which had failed to 
 make any well-defined impression upon our mind, so difficult 
 was it to believe that the description was not greatly exag- 
 gerated. It was the Sabbath next succeeding that on which 
 Thomas M'Clintock had borne his solemn testimony against 
 slavery. George F. White delivered a discourse, (if we may 
 call it by that name,) which, for incoherency of argument, 
 misrepresentation and caricature of the sentiments of others, 
 abusiveness of style, and passionate ferocity of manner, ex- 
 ceeded any thing which we had ever heard from a man pro- 
 fessing to be a minister of the gospel. To say that we 
 listened with painful surprise to such a discourse, in such a 
 place, would be too faint an expression of our feelings. Our 
 emotions were those of utter astonishment — nay, almost of 
 horror ! We were reluctantly compelled to acknowledge, 
 that the half had not been told us, and for a time we could 
 hardly believe the testimony of our own eyes and ears. But 
 for the outward peculiarities of a Quaker assembly, which 
 we saw about us, we should have been ready to conclude 
 that we had missed our way and gone to a political caucus, 
 and that we were listening to the harangue of some unscru- 
 pulous demagogue, who supposed that his only chance for 
 preferment depended upon the facility with which he could 
 blacken the reputation of his neighbors. The expressions, 
 "hireling lecturers," "hireling editors," " hireling printers 
 and book agents," " servants of the devil," " emissaries of 
 satan," " hypocrites," " blasphemers," " hypocritical workers 
 of popular righteousness," " coming up out of the bottomless 
 pit," &c., were used with an indiscriminate frequency no less 
 
118 
 
 shocking to a charitable mind than repugnant to a relined 
 tasle. Of the manner of the speaker it is enough to say, 
 that it corresponded with liis matter. The tones of his voice 
 were harsh, and his countenance and gestures (parlicularly 
 the former) were indicative of a high degree of morbid ex- 
 citement and vindictive passion. It was apparent, notwith- 
 standing his frequent asseverations tliat he was required by 
 God to speak as he did, that his " inspiration" was mainly 
 derived from his strong displeasure on account of the anti- 
 slavery preaching of the previous Sabbath, and his anxiety 
 to remove any favorable impressions it might have made upon 
 the assembly. As an illustration of the manner in which he 
 caricatured the sentiments of those who were the objects of 
 his attacks, we may observe, that he accused the friends of 
 the temperance reform of impugning the wisdom of God in 
 their warfare against intoxicating liquors, alcohol being one 
 of the " good things" intended for the benefit of man ! In- 
 stead of candidly and truly stating their real position, viz : 
 that the use of alcoholic stimulants as a beverage is contrary 
 to the laws of health and animal life, and therefore sinful, he 
 represented them as holding the absurd doctrine that sin was 
 inherent in the alcohol itself! On this ground he charged 
 them with " blasphemy," and with assuming to be wiser than 
 God ! That he knowingly and wilfully misrepresented their 
 sentiments, we will not take it upon us to say ; but, that such 
 a statement, at this day, is the fruit of honest ignorance, 
 seems almost too incredible to be believed. Nevertheless, 
 we will be as charitable as possible. 
 
 Soon after the time above mentioned, a highly respectable 
 member of the Society of Friends informed us, that on a 
 subsequent day, when we were not present, the same preacher 
 had charged members of a society professing non-resistance 
 principles with threatening to enter a meeting house by force. 
 Being a member of the society to which he was understood 
 to refer, we addressed hira a respectful note, askmg to be 
 
119 
 
 informed on what anthority he had made this serious state- 
 ment. Instead of frankly complying with our request, as he 
 was bound in honor to do, and as he would have done if he 
 had been sustained by a consciousness that his charge was 
 well founded, he sought to evade the question, and to shield 
 himself from responsibility by making false issues upon im- 
 material points ; and when he could no longer withhold tha 
 information we sought, without inflicting upon himself posi- 
 tive disgrace, he accompanied it with a tirade of personal 
 abuse and low sarcasm, such as it had never before been our 
 lot to receive at the hands of any man professing to be 
 governed by the principles of the gospel. 
 
 On the 19th of November, while this correspondence was 
 in progress, we went again to the Rose-street meeting. At 
 this time, he not only repeated his ^lsual denunciations, but 
 charged the w^iole body of abolitionists, without exception or 
 qualification, with holding the doctrine, that the only hope of 
 the slave loas not in God, nor in truth, hut in themselves. 
 This doctrine he pronounced "FLAT BLASPHEMY.'' 
 If he had contented himself with general denunciation, we 
 should have been silent ; but here was a definite charge 
 brought against abolitionists, in the presence of 800 people — 
 a charge which we knew to be false, and which, if left un- 
 contradicted, might do no small amount of mischief. As one 
 who had been identified with the anti-slavery enterprise from 
 its commencement, and especially as a member of the 
 Executive Committee of the Amei'ican Anti-Slavery Society, 
 we felt it to be our duty, in the most unequivocal and explicit 
 terms, to deny its truth. This we did as briefly as justice 
 to the accused would allow, and in a tone and manner with 
 ■which the warmest supporters of George F. White have 
 liever ventured to find fault, although they were much dis- 
 pleased with us for presuming to ward off a blow thus cruelly 
 aimed at us and our associates. It was one of those acts of 
 efelf-defence which haughty sect never can forgive. At the 
 
120 
 
 conclusion of our remarks, we expressed the hope, that the 
 members of a society whose early founders had often felt 
 themselves called upon to address the religious assemblies of 
 other sects, not only contrary to the rules of those sects, but 
 even to the laws of the land, would not judge us harshly or 
 uncharitably for venturing to speak under such extraordinary 
 circumstances. 
 
 After we sat down, George F. White arose and declared, 
 that he had ample vouchers for all that he had said, which 
 he would exhibit to any body who would call at his house or 
 store. He also (strange infatuation !) charged me with 
 falsehood for saying that primitive Friends had violated the 
 laws of the land by speaking in the meetings of other sects ! 
 This charge certainly displayed great ignorance of the early 
 history of the Society, or an utter recklessness of truth. On 
 the next evening, availing ourselves of the invitation thus 
 publicly given, we went to his house, in company with James 
 S. Gibbons, and asked for the privilege of looking at the 
 vouchers for his charge. Will the reader believe us when 
 we say, that he not only refused to exhibit them, but ordered 
 us, in a haughty and imperious tone, to leave his house, and 
 heaped upon us the grossest personal abuse ? Incredible as 
 it may seem, such is the fact. To James S. Gibbons, how- 
 ever, he showed his proof, which consisted of a resolution 
 passed by the Junior Anti-Slavery Society of Philadelphia ! 
 On a palpably strained and false interpretation of that resolu- 
 tion, he persisted in charging the whole body of abolitionists 
 with uttering "blasphemy." Certainly, this is not less un- 
 just than it would be for us to make the whole body of Friends 
 responsible for his uncharitable aspersions. Who would 
 hesitate to say, if we were to avow a principle so absurd, that 
 we were either strangely deluded, or knowingly guilty of 
 bearing false witness ! 
 
 The charge against non-resistants was no better substan- 
 tiated than the other. After tracing it to its source, it was 
 
121 
 
 found to be " a false vision and divination, a thing of nought, 
 and the deceit of the heart." It was nothing, in fact, but a 
 piece of gossip and scandal, which, falling in with his bitter 
 prejudices, and feeding the fire of his implacable hoptility to 
 a philamhropic association, he had tiie folly and pres'unption 
 to deal out in a religious discourse, under the sanction of 
 Divine inspiration ! Our conespondence with hira in relation 
 to this charge is before the public, and to it we refer the 
 reader for additional information. The same pamphlet also 
 contains a refutation of the charge of blasphemy against the 
 abolitionists, and ample proofs, from the Journal of George 
 Fox, that our statement respecting primitive Friends was 
 strictly and incontrovertibly true. It is certainly a matter of 
 wonder, that a minister of the Society, (and one, too, of the 
 pretensions of G. F. White !) should be either superficial or 
 hardy enough to deny the truth of our remark on that subject. 
 Let no one say, that we have attached undue importance 
 to the accusations of such a man, or suppose for a moment 
 that any motive of a personal nature has drawn us into a con- 
 flict with him. By his standing in that division of the So- 
 ciety of Friends to which he belongs, and by his reputation 
 as a preacher, he has done much to poison the minds of 
 others, and to keep the Society itself from taking the posi- 
 tion in relation to our cause which its principles demand ; 
 and hence, a thorough exposure of his conduct will exert a 
 beneficial influence. Multitudes in the Society, who are 
 extremely pained and mortified on account of his course, 
 heartily rejoice that such an exposure has been made ; and 
 the information which we have received from various quar- 
 ters where the pamphlet has been read, leaves no room for 
 doubt liiat it will do great good. A highly esteemed minis- 
 ter of the Society writes to me as follows : — 
 
 " I will just state, that I have lately read a correspondence 
 between ihee and a member of our Society, and that my soul 
 has been brought into near sympathy with thee on account 
 11 
 
122 
 
 thereof. The subject needs no comment of mine. The lan- 
 guage and spirit of thy opponent are enougli to satisfy me, 
 and I think tliey must satisfy every one who truly loves God 
 and his creature man." 
 
 Another minister of the Society, in a letter enclosing an 
 order for 25 copies of the pamp Irlet, says — 
 
 "In view of all the circumstances, I approve of the publi- 
 cation of the correspondence, find I cannot see any thing in 
 the part thou hast acted to which I can object ; but I am 
 astonished and mortified at the course of G. F. White. 
 Whether the Friends of Rose-street meeting can, hereafter, 
 receive his ministry, I shall leave for them to determine. 
 Upon reading his last letter, I said to those around me, that 
 I had much rather have made the threat in question, [to 
 break into a meeting-housej than to have put my name to a 
 document of the style, and breathing the temper of that let- 
 ter. It would give me great pleasure to know that he had 
 discovered his error, and promptly condemned it. But let us 
 forgive him, supposing he knew not what he did.'' 
 
 I have seen a letter from another minister, of high stand- 
 ing in the Society, expressing his disapprobation of G. F* 
 W.'s conduct in still stronger terms. A friend in Philadel- 
 phia writes : — 
 
 *' George F. White's part of the correspondence, as far as 
 my knowledge goes, finds no defenders, and few apologists. 
 Those who are free from sectarianism in the Society think 
 lum in a very unpleasant predicament, and I guess his warm- 
 est friends could wish his letters had never come to light." 
 
 An individual of great worth, who is extensively ac- 
 quainted with Friends, writes thus : — 
 
 " A person of my acquaintance, who at first jiearing of 
 your difficulty with G. F. W., (I suspect partly at least from 
 him,) thought you much in the wrong, called you in effect 
 ungentlemanly and unmannerly, to say no worse, has since 
 read your correspondence, and says George is a sad speci- 
 men of a Quaker preacher, and that he has no kind of excuse 
 for his shameful treatment of you, while you have given full 
 evidence of your veracity, gentlemanly manners, and Chris- 
 tian forbearance." 
 
123 
 
 These are but specimens of numerous testimonies, of a 
 similar character, which we have received from persons liv- 
 ing out of the pro-slavery atmosphere of New-York ; and 
 there are those even here who will rejoice to see them. 
 George F. White and his supporters may read in them the 
 verdict of the great body of the Society in relation to his 
 course. 
 
 Friends abroad will be interested to learn what effect the 
 publication has had in the city, and whether G. F. W. still 
 continues to denounce abolitionists and others as formerly. 
 We are sorry to say, that he has " waxed worse and worse,'' 
 having added to his former list of epithets those of " wolves," 
 " reptiles," and " household vermin." His discourses abound 
 even with gross personal allusions ! On Wednesday of last 
 week we attended Rose-street meeting. In his sermon on 
 that day, after stating the general principle that men are 
 humbled and subdued by suffering, and referring to the judg- 
 ments of God upon Pharaoh as a case in point, he gave an 
 illustration, which we will repeat, as nearly as we can recol- 
 lect, in his own words : — " Just as a slave, recently, wb.o 
 had suflfered the effects of his criminal conduct, and been 
 thus led to calm reflection, chose to go back into slavery with 
 his master, and to endure all the evils of that condition, not- 
 withstanding his former experience of them, rather than stay 
 with those hypocritical workers of popular righteousness 
 who had interfered in his behalf. For my own part I com- 
 mend his choice. I had a thousand times rather be a slave, 
 and spend ray days with slaveholders, than to dwell in com- 
 panionship with abolitionists." 
 
 This was an allusion, which every one present understood 
 to the case of Thomas Hughes, formerly the slave of John 
 P. Darg, whose history is given in our columns to-day, by 
 Isaac T. Hopper, as No. XVI. of his " Tales of Oppres- 
 sion." It was also understood and intended as a thrust at 
 Isaac T. Hopper, who went to Sing Sing, to act the part of 
 
124 
 
 the good Samaritan, by informing Tom that he was free, and 
 offering him protection. That the pro-slavery press should 
 speak of this act of disinterested benevolence in contemp- 
 tuous and reproachful terms, and exult over the weakness of 
 the unfortunate colored man in placing himself in the power 
 of a gambling slaveholder, was no more than might have 
 been expected ; but, that a Quaker preacher should seize 
 upon such an occurrence, with an avidity which would not 
 allow him to wait for a proper understanding of the facts, for 
 the purpose of inflicting a wound upon a worthy and vene- 
 rable member of his own religious society, (the latchet of 
 whose shoes he is unworthy to unloose,) and to bring the 
 anti- slavery cause into contempt, is a fact which may well 
 excite both our astonishment and indignation, and lead us 
 almost to conclude, that his own expression of his feelings is 
 indeed too true, and that he is far better qualified to asso- 
 ciate with slaveholders, than with the humane and conscien- 
 tious portion of community. If a man may be known by 
 the company he prefers, what shall we say of such a 
 preacher ? 
 
 But it was not true that Tom Hughes went back to the 
 South as a slave. For this reason we deemed it our duty, 
 at the close of the sermon, to rise and say — " Tom Hughes, 
 formerly the slave of John P. Darg, on his release from pri- 
 son recently, returned with his master to the South, NOT 
 AS A SLAVE, preferring slavery to freedom, but AS A 
 FREE MAN, under a promise of being permitted to enjoy 
 his liberty and to live with his wife. I state this to prevent 
 misapprehension."* This was all I said. If I had uttered a 
 falsehood, the Lords Spiritual of the meeting would have 
 cared very little about it ; but, as my statement was TRUE, 
 and could not be contradicted, it gave great offence, and led 
 to a determmation to exclude me hereafter from the meeting. 
 Accordingly on Saturday last, I was waited upon by George 
 
 * See note on pago 44. 
 
125 
 
 T. Trimble and Nathaniel Merritt, who announced to me 
 ofRcially, that the door-keepers had been instructed to pre- 
 vent my entrance in future. I informed them that, previous 
 to their visit, I had concluded that my mission to that meet- 
 ing was ended, at least for the present ; and that, if they 
 could tolerate a ministry so false, abusive and corrupt, I could 
 only say I deeply regretted it. 
 
 It may well be supposed, from this statement of facts, that 
 the governing influences of the Rose-street meeting are no^ 
 very deeply imbued with the genuine spirit of Quakerism. 
 The character of too many of them, we fear, may be accu- 
 rately described in four scriptural words — "GREEDY 
 OF FILTHY LUCRE." And these men, whose ''godli- 
 ness is gain,''^ have the effrontery to charge abolitionists 
 with being actuated by pecuniary and sinister motives in all 
 that they do to promote the anti-slavery cause I The cen- 
 sure of such men is more to be desired than their approba- 
 tion : the latter we should feel as a stain, but the former we 
 regard as one of the strongest evidences that we are doing 
 right. We rejoice to be "counted worthy" of suffering 
 reproach and denunciation from such a quarter- " If they 
 have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much 
 more shall they call them of his household V 
 
 We have given this exposition of the intolerance which 
 prevails in one division of the Society of Friends in this cityi 
 because the peculiarly aggravated form which it has as- 
 sumed appeared to require it at our hands. It is due to 
 Friends abroad that they should know the facts, that they 
 may duly weigh their own responsibility for these exhibitions 
 of tyranny. 
 
 We have only to add, that the columns of the Standard are 
 open to George F. White and his friends, if they should 
 wish to make any reply to the foregoing statements and 
 remarks. We court investigation in respect to all that we 
 have said, and have no committee of vigilance to exclude 
 
126 
 
 any one from the platform on which we stand. We do not 
 claim a right to make statements implicating the character 
 of others, and then to prevent them from opening their 
 mouths in their own defence. 
 
 P. S. This seems to be the proper place to state, that we 
 have been visited by two leading Orthodox Friends of this 
 city, who expressed their regret, that, in the correspondence, 
 we had not been careful to state, distinctly, to which division 
 of the Society of Friends George F. White belonged. We 
 had supposed that he was so generally known, and the sepa- 
 ration so well understood, that no one would be led into error 
 on this point. They assured us, however, that many did 
 not make the proper distinction, and that they and their 
 friends were therefore liable to suffer from the disgraceful 
 conduct of G. F. W. In these circumstances, justice would 
 seem to require us to state, distinctly, thai he does not belong 
 to the Orthodox Society. It is right that responsibility 
 should rest only where it belongs. 
 
 ->> 
 
 *» 14 01 
 
I 
 
■^^', \ ^' ,vA:^ 
 
 '^' V 
 
 
 ^' •>:, 
 
 "b^r 
 
 .'o- * ^>'' "^, °M[. 
 
 
 
 '*-<> r.O' ..• '^% "o ,,V 
 
 ;m%'' ^-'-^ . ^ '>rf«^% -^..^ .•<■* -■ 
 

 
 
 iC^^ ^ 
 
 
 <Jy^ ,o«o 
 
 ,-J^ . 
 
 
 ^•° /■% °fX%" -^' '- •-^^. 
 
 ■^.^^^' 
 
 § •* 
 
 
 1^ -^- ¥'^^- 
 
 r^^iH^ ^^ 
 
CON' 
 
 GB&SS 
 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 jt 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1