.03 Hfe 
 
f 
 
« 
 
 Digitized by tine Internet Arcliive 
 in 2015 
 
 i 
 
 littps://arcliive.org/details/reportoftrialoffOOIiill_0 
 
TRIAL OF FRIENDS 
 
 AT 
 
 STEUBENVILL.E, OHIO, 
 
 From thk 15th to the 26th of October, 1828, 
 
 Before the Hon. Jeremiah H. Hallock, Esq. President Judg 
 the 5th Judicial district of the state. 
 
 BV MARCUS T. C. GOUI.D, 
 
 STEWOGKAPHEK. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA : 
 
 JESPER HARDING, PRINTER. 
 
 1829 
 
Eastern Dist' icf of Penmylvania, to -vit .- ' 
 
 BE IT RKMEMBnkEO, That on the seventeenth day of 
 * SEAL » •f''n"ary, in the fifty-third yer,r of tiie independence of the 
 %■ ' I United States of America, A. I). 1829, 
 
 M.viirrs T. C. Gould, 
 of the Slid disti ict, ha? deposited m this office tlie-titlo of k book, the right 
 whereof lie cUiimslas proprietor, in the words follovviiig, to wit: 
 
 " Ueport of the Trial of Friends, at 'stenbenvdle, Ohio, from the 15th to 
 the 26th of October, 1828. before the Mon. Jerein ah H. Hailock, Esq. 
 President Judge oftlie j;h Judicial district of tlie state. By Mai-Ciis T. C. 
 Gould. Stenographer." 
 
 In confornnity to the Act of tJie. Congress of the United States, intituled, • 
 " An act foi' the Encouragement of Learning, bj securini;- the copies of nia|)s, 
 charts, and boic ;, to the authors anv! proprietors or such copies, during the 
 times therein rneationed." And aisd to tue act, entitled, " \n act supple- 
 menlary to an net, enlil-ed, "An act for the encoiirigcment ol learning, by 
 securing tiie copies of nuirjs, charts, and books, to tl'ie authors and ptoprie- 
 tors of sucU copies dunng tlie t:nies therein ir.en' loned," and extending the 
 beiu i.ts thereof to the arts of designing, engraving, and etching historical 
 and other prints." 
 
 D. CALDWELL, 
 
 . Clerk of the Eastern District of jfennsylra.nt'a. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Askewy I'arker, 
 
 examination, 
 Uarnavd, Itichard, 
 
 deposition, 
 Barnes, Josluia, 
 
 deposition. 
 Bates, Rlislia, 
 
 examination, 
 
 recalled, 
 
 reculleil, 
 Bates, Fleniino-, 
 
 dop liltlon. 
 Bates, \Vm. S. 
 
 examination, 
 Batten, Jolin, 
 
 examination. 
 Berry, Samiie], 
 
 examination, 
 Betlle, Samnel, 
 
 deposition, 
 Bevan, Stacey, 
 
 examination, 
 Braithwaite, Isaac, 
 
 deposition, 
 Branson, Isaac, 
 
 examination, 
 Carro!!, Br. Tliomas, 
 
 examination. 
 Cleaver, JoiVn, 
 
 examination, 
 
 83, 85 
 97 
 340 
 
 159 
 
 135 
 173 
 
 TAtiE 
 
 Coffin, Abel, 
 52 to 57 deposition, 
 defence, 
 97, 103 Deed of trust, 
 
 Dilworth, Abraham, 
 105, 106 ■ examination, 163, 165 
 
 Dilworth, Itiiodes, 
 7, 28 examination, 
 176, 178 Dilworth, Wm. 
 
 184 e.amination, 
 recalled, 
 80, 83 I'rench, Israel, 
 
 examination, 173, 176 
 184 Galbreath, Nathan, 
 
 examination, 160, 162 
 61, 62 Goodnow, John M. esq. 
 
 speech for state, 185, 222 
 159, 160 Hallock, Jeremiah II. esq. 
 
 decision, 335 
 68, 72 Hamilton, James, 
 
 examination, 
 91, 95 Hamilton, Dr. \^'^B. 
 
 exaMiinalioil, 
 72, 76 Ilairison, J(n'dan, 
 
 examination, 
 44 Heiild, James, 
 
 . examination, 179, 180 
 . 114, 122 Iloyle, John, 
 
 . examination, 185 
 157, 159 floyle, Joseph, examination, 168 
 
 152; 157 
 63, 55 
 37, 44 
 
iv 
 
 Index. 
 
 PAGB 
 
 Hubbard, Wm. B. esq. 
 
 speech for defendants, 222, 256 
 James, Isaac, 
 
 testimony of disownment, 37 
 kins, Wm. 
 
 deposition, 76, 30 
 
 Judkins, Dr. Wm. 
 
 examinatioD, 178, 179 
 Kirk, Caleb, 
 
 examination, 172, 173 
 Ladd, Benjamin W. 
 
 affidavit, 5 
 examination, 44, 52 
 
 recalled, 181, 183 
 
 Ladd, Thomas, 
 
 deposition, 85, 87 
 
 Lewis, Jehu, 
 
 examination, 165, 168 
 Magar, Wm. 
 
 examination, 106, 114 
 M 'Bride, James, 
 
 examination, 183, 184 
 Opening of the trial, 7 
 Peaslee, Amos, 
 certificate from Woodbury 
 
 Mcn(hly Meeting, 105 
 certificate from Salem Quar- 
 terly Meeting; . 105 
 deposition, 103 
 Pennington, S. _ 
 
 examination, 62, 63 
 
 Pickering, Levi, 
 
 examination, 124, 130 
 Pierce, Jonathan, 
 
 ex'amination, 169, 172 
 Scholfield, David, examinatioo, 139 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Scholfield, David, 
 
 testimony of disownment, 134 
 Sears, Peter, , 
 
 examination, 96 
 Sharon, Wm. 
 
 examination, 122, 124 
 Smith, fieorge, 
 
 examination, 95 
 Smith, John, 
 
 examination, • 184 
 Stanton, James, 
 
 deposition, . 87, 89 
 Steer, Davids 
 
 examination, 65, 67 
 
 recalled, 178 
 Tappan, Benjamin, esqi 
 
 speech for defendants, 257, 283 
 Tatum, Josiah, 
 
 deposition, 89, 94 
 
 Taylor, Jonathan, 
 
 examination, 28, 37 
 
 recalled, 180, 181 
 
 Tolerton,- James, , 
 
 examination, 162, 163 
 Updegraff, Joseph, 
 
 examination, 135, 144 
 Updegraff, Israel, 
 
 examination, 144, ■ 152 
 Walker, Lewis, 
 
 examination, 57, 61 
 
 Warrant against David Hilles 
 
 and Isaac James, 5 
 Wood, Nathan, 
 
 examination, 184 
 Wright, John C. esq. 
 
 speech for state, 283, 334 
 
AFFIDAVIT. 
 
 State of Ohio, Jcjftrson county, ss. 
 
 ,- , -) On the 9th clay of September, eighteen hundred 
 L'" ^'J and twenty-eight, personally came before me, Ben- 
 jamin W. Ladd, and on his solemn affirmation deposeth and 
 saith, that David Hilles and Isaac James, both of said county, 
 on the eighth day of September, instant, at Mount Pleasant, 
 in said county, did, with others, unlawfully, with great force 
 and violence, interrupt and disturb the Yearly Meeting of 
 the society of Friends, when met together for discipline — the 
 members of said Yearly Meeting, then and there being en- 
 gaged in the performance of a duty appertaining to them, as 
 members of said society of Friends. 
 
 Benjamin \V. Ladd. 
 
 Affirmed to and subscribed before me, the 9th day of Sep- 
 tember, A. D. 1828. 
 
 Jerkmiah H. Hallock, 
 President Judge of the ffth Judicial District of Ohio. 
 
 warrant. 
 
 To the Sheriff of the County of Jefferson, his deputy, or any Con- 
 stable in said County, greeting : — 
 
 Whereas, complaint has been made before me, President 
 Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, in the fifth judicial dis- 
 trict of the State of Ohio, upon the affirmation of Benjamin 
 W. Ladd, that David Hilles and Isaac James, both of said 
 county, did on the eighth day of September, instant, at 
 Mount Pleasant, in said county, with great force and violence, 
 unlawfully interrupt and disturb the Yearly Meeting of the 
 society of Friends, when met together for discipline; the mem- 
 bers of said Yearly Meeting, then and there being engaged in 
 the performance of a duty appertaining to them, as members of 
 said society of Friends. 
 
 These are therefore to command you, that you take the said 
 David Hilles and Isaac James, if they be found in your county, 
 or further jurisdiction, and them safely keep, so that you have 
 their bodies forthwith before me, to answer to the said com- 
 plaint, and to be further dealt with according to law. Given 
 under my hand and seal this ninth day of September, A. D. 
 1828. 
 
 [l. s.] Jeremiah H. Hallock, 
 
 President Judge of the fifth Judicial District of Ohio. 
 
 I 
 
September llth, 1828. Agreeably to the command of the 
 within writ, I have taken the bodies of the within named Da- 
 vid Hilles and Isaac James, and have them now here to answer 
 to the said complaint. 
 
 N. D. SwEARiNGEN, Deputy Sheriff. 
 
 Defendants were brought before me at the Court House in 
 Steubenville, September llth, and on motion of defendants, the 
 trial was adjourned to the 1 5th of October next, at 2 o'clock P. 
 M. to be held at the Court House in Steubenville — Defendants 
 consenting that depositions of witnesses on the part of the com- 
 plaint may be taken upon notice, and read upon the hearing. 
 
 Jeremiah H. Hallock. 
 
 1 
 
TRIAL. OF FRIENDS 
 
 AT 
 
 STEUBENVILLE, OHIO. 
 
 Steubenville, Ohio, Wednesday, 2 o'clock, P. M. 
 
 Oct. 15, 1828. 
 
 State of Ohio, Jefferson Co. sa. 
 State of Ohio ^ This was a prosecution against the de- 
 vs. fendants for disturbing the Ohio Yearly 
 
 David Hilles V»Meeting of Friends, under a statute for 
 
 and the punishment of disturbers of religious 
 
 Isaac James. J societies. 
 
 Tlie complaint was tried before the Honourable Jeremiah 
 H. Hallock, Esq., President Judge of the Fifth Judicial Dis- 
 trict of Ohio, sitting as a Magistrate. 
 
 Counsel for the Prosecution. 
 
 Humphrey H. Leavitt, Esq. State's Attorney, 
 John C. Wright, 
 John M. Goodnow, 
 Samuel Slokeley, 
 Daniel L. Collier, 
 James Collier, 
 Andrew Loomis, and 
 George W. Banks, Esqrs. 
 
 For the Defendants. 
 
 Hon. Benjamin Tappan, 
 William B. Hubbard, 
 William Kennon, and 
 Roswell Marsh, Esqrs. 
 
 Examination of tcitnesses on the part of the Prosecution, by Mr. 
 Wright. 
 
 Elisha Bates called and affirmed. 
 
 Are you the clerk of Ohio Yearly Meeting of Friends? Yes. 
 Have you the records of that Meeting? I have — they are 
 here. Witness was requested to read the opening minute ol 
 the late Yearly Meeting, but it was objected to by defendants' 
 counsel. Mr. Wright said the 8th of September was the time 
 
Trial of Friends 
 
 appointed for the meeting of Friends belonging to Ohio Yearly 
 Meeting; and, as he had been advised, the meeting assembled 
 at the usual time and place. About the time of organizing 
 the meeting, it being a meeting for discipline, and select in its 
 character, not for worship, or public in its character, the two 
 persons complained of, and others, took upon themselves to 
 organize another meeting, to the disturbance of the society of 
 Friends, and to the interruption of its business. 
 
 They proceeded, in furtherance of their design, to the dis- 
 placement of the clerk, who held his office by the regular de- 
 cision of the meeting, and took from him by force, the table 
 on which he wrote his minutes. 
 
 This violence went to such an extent, that it was impossible 
 for Friends to proceed in the transaction of their business, 
 and they were compelled to adjourn till another time, leaving 
 these two persons and others combined with them, in posses- 
 sion of the house. These are the leading facts: and to sus- 
 tain these we have thought it necessary to show that a meeting 
 was held; that it was a religious meeting; and that it was held 
 for purposes of worship and discipline connected with their 
 church government. 
 
 We suppose, that in the course of the examination, it will 
 be necessary to inquire whether the assembly that we call the 
 society of Friends, was, in fact, the society of Friends. We 
 do not know that it will be necessary to go to this extent, but 
 our idea is, that it will, in order to ascertain whether they were 
 a religious society, and whether, being such society, they were 
 assembled, and whether, being so assembled at their regular 
 and ordinary place, they were disturbed. With a view to this, 
 we offer the records of the meeting, to show that the society 
 who complain, and who were disturbed, were prima facie the 
 society of Friends, having in their possession the records and 
 offices of the society, and every thing which constitutes a body 
 of men, when assembled, a society, within the description of 
 the law. And I will go one step farther: we contend, that the 
 Yearly Meeting of the society of Friends is a society of re- 
 presentatives. For instance, the Yearly Meeting is a meeting 
 of representatives from the Quarterly Meetings that compose 
 the Yearly Meeting — the society consisting of Preparative, 
 Monthly, and Quarterly Meetings. 
 
 The Yearly Meeting of Ohio consists of five Quarterly 
 Meetings. The business which has been heretofore transact- 
 ed by the society, is to be seen by the records; which also show, 
 that it has been transacted by those who now have the records, 
 and who are in possession of the official functions and rights 
 of the society of Friends. 
 
 Mr. Tappan, for the defendants, said, if the gentlemen mean 
 to draw into the view of the honourable judge, the idea that 
 
ai Sieubenvillc, Ohio. 
 
 9 
 
 a part of this religious society ought to be excluded, it may 
 be necessary to decide whether the other part are the society 
 par excellence. To determine this, it would be necessary to go 
 into an examination ot" their doctrines and tenets. 
 
 This is a complaint against these men for disturbing a so- 
 cietyj and here is produced and offered in evidence, the record 
 of an antecedent meeting. We admit that the Yearly Meet- 
 ing of the society of Friends was held on the 8th day of Sep- 
 tember — that there was a meeting — that our clients are mem- 
 bers, and they also met. There is then no need of proof. 
 
 We are charged with a criminal offence, for disturbing a 
 meeting of which we are members. This court certainly are 
 not going to weigh in the scales of justice, the faith or reli- 
 gious opinions of these people. No matter if the prosecutors 
 were the greatest saints, and my clients the greatest sinners, 
 they have the same legal rights. My clients are not to be con- 
 demned for not coming up to the faith of the orthodox, but 
 they are to be tried for a criminal offence. 
 
 Mr. Wright understood the objection was to Elisha Bates 
 reading the minutes of that meeting. He did not know how they 
 were otherwise to prove that such a meeting was held, as there 
 was no other evidence of the fact. The gentleman says, he 
 admits the fact, but it can only be proved by the exhibition 
 of the records; then why is this evidence objected to? I know 
 not what their tenets are, and care not what they are. If the 
 court say we can introduce a less species of evidence in pre- 
 ference to this, I am content; I do not wish to take up time, 
 but to get at the subject as soon as possible. 
 
 Mr. Tappan. The gentleman wants to introduce this record 
 to show who are the members of the society. It has been 
 stated that they have the books, and that they have made the 
 entries there; but it does not depend on the entries which they 
 have made, whether they are members of the society. If they 
 have entered all their own names there and left out my client's, 
 what evidence is it, but that they have entered some and left 
 out others. 
 
 Mr. Wright thought the gentleman was out of his reckon- 
 ing. It was proposed to prove that this was the record of the 
 Yearly Meeting, not of those for whom he had the honour to 
 appear, nor those on the opposite side. 
 
 Mr. Tappan said the society was divided into two parties; 
 that each had evidence to offer; and he wanted to know if they 
 could be evidence for themselves. 
 
 Mr. Wright said if there were two Yearly Meetings, it re- 
 mained to be proven. 
 
 Judge Hallock thought it was very little difference where 
 they commenced. The prosecution must show that there was 
 a meeting, and that it was regularly organized. The tcstinio- 
 
10 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 ny of Elisha Bates was material, for he was acting as clerk. 
 What the effect of his testimony would be, could not be fore- 
 seen, but that it was important, there could be no doubt. 
 
 The witness then proceeded, with the records in his hand, 
 being questioned by Mr. Wright. 
 
 At what time did the meeting now in question convene? 
 On the 8th of Ninth-month last, at 10 o'clock in the morning. 
 Does the record show the names of the representatives? It 
 does — it is usual for them to be called, to organize the meet- 
 ing, and it is not considered as fully organized until they are 
 called. The original reports from the Quarterly Meetings 
 are also here. 
 
 Mr. Tappan. When was that record made? At the date 
 of it. Is it the original entry? No. It is a transcribed copy 
 from the rough minutes. Mr. Tappan said the original mi- 
 nutes must be produced. The judge thought it not material; 
 and the witness being interrogated as to David Hilles and 
 Isaac James, proceeded as follows. 
 
 I am not positive that I saw David Hilles till I saw him 
 standing on the seat of the ministers' gallery, not far from 
 the seat usually occupied by the clerk. But previous to that, 
 the business of the meeting had been completely interrupted 
 by a proposition from an individual present. 
 
 It was the meeting for business, that convened on the 
 8lh of the month, and the 2d of the week. There is no public 
 meeting on Second-day, but the meeting for business opens on 
 that day, to which members only have access. Who constitute 
 the members entitled to access? ' I understand they are all 
 those persons who are members by birth, or whose parents 
 are members, and all that are received by application, and 
 admitted by Monthly Meetings as members. Who con- 
 stitute the body of the society? The Yearly Meeting of Ohio, 
 in its territorial limits, emliraces the society on the west of the 
 mountains, as far as Muskingumj and it is understood that 
 all the members within those limits are included, and all 
 have the privilege of attending. But the Quarterly Meetings, 
 previous to the Yearly Meeting, appoint representatives to 
 the Yearly Meeting; and the discipline requires, that these 
 representatives, previous to the time of meeting at ten o'clock, 
 shall place the reports of their respective Quarterly Meetings 
 in the hands of the clerk of the preceding year, who holds 
 his place for one year. He is appointed on the second day of 
 the meeting, and holds his place till the same time at the next 
 sitting. They are required thus to place the reports in the 
 hands of the clerk, in order that by entering the names, time 
 may be saved. 
 
 It is usual for the representatives, and all others who are 
 privileged by the discipline to sit in these meetings, to com- 
 
at Steubenville^ Oliio. 
 
 11 
 
 mence at ten o'clock. It is also usual to pause till the meet- 
 ing becomes settled, at which time, the clerk of the preceding 
 year reads an opening minute, the same as is here — " at Ohio 
 Yearly Meeting;" and then proceeds to call over the represen- 
 tatives, and to minute their attendance or absence. It is like- 
 wise usual for those who are absent, to send reasons for their 
 absence, which are read, and notice taken of the same upon 
 the minutes; after which, it is understood the meeting is or- 
 ganized for the transaction of business. 
 
 The meeting commenced at the time, as is usual. On such 
 occasions they frequently come together considerably before 
 the hour appointed for meeting. On that day the weather was 
 inclement, and a considerable crowd had collected around the 
 house before the doors were opened. They were opened, by 
 my time, about three-quarters before ten, and the assemblage 
 continued till the house was filled, the lower part particularly. 
 
 After the lower part had become filled, there were a con- 
 siderable number of persons standing in the passages, though 
 considerable room was yet vacant in the upper galleries. A 
 minister present engaged in vocal supplication, and conside- 
 rable stillness spread over the meeting, though there had been 
 some agitation previous. After this individual was engaged 
 in supplication, a number of persons came into meeting, in 
 what I considered a disorderly manner, and persons whom we 
 considered not privileged to enter. There were some from 
 beyond the limits of the Yearly Meeting, who, we understood, 
 had been disowned by the society where they reside, and who 
 had, of course, no right to enter the meeting. This created 
 some disturbance. 
 
 But as soon as a little stillness was obtained, Jonathan Tay- 
 lor, who was clerk last year, and to whom it belonged to open 
 this year, being at the table, began to prepare, to open the 
 meeting. Whether he had formed the minute before, or not, 
 I do not know, but he was opening the papers in order to call 
 the representatives. Israel French observed, that it devolved 
 on him to state to the meeting, that since, or words to this 
 effect — since last year, our clerk had become disqualified for 
 opening the meeting, by trampling the discipline under foot. 
 He made some additional remarks, but his voice was so feeble, 
 that I could not distinctly understand; but he went on to pro- 
 pose that another be appointed in his stead. He stated no 
 particulars in which the clerk had violated the discipline. 
 Jonathan Taylor was at this time engaged in arranging the 
 papers to open the meeting, when a number of voices express- 
 ed, in a very unusual manner, their concurrence; a very con- 
 siderable number at once. From the clamour, it was difficult 
 to say what it was — I understood it to be an expression of 
 concurrence, but it was diflicult to say. From the sound of 
 
Trial of Friends 
 
 voice as it struck my ear, 1 thought a number of persoufs 
 spoke in rapid succession. 
 
 Several Friends objected to this proceeding, as being dis- 
 orderly. But David Hilles' name was mentioned in very quick 
 succession after this burst of voices, and some other person 
 was named as an assistant, but I do not know who named ihem. 
 
 The clerk, Jonathan Taylor, proceeded to read the opening 
 minute, (though there was considerable interruption while he 
 was reading) and to call the representatives from the Quarter- 
 ly Meetings, I think, in number 62. Fifty-seven of the repre- 
 sentatives answered to their names, and reasons were received 
 for the absence of two. It is usual in our meetings, for the 
 meeting to be opened and organized, before it is understood 
 that any subject is open for discussion, in any matter of dis- 
 pute, or any thing in which it is probable there will be a con- 
 trariety of opinions. It is understood that meetings of busi- 
 ness are opened by the clerk. 
 
 I have known instances in which messages have been re- 
 ceived from the women's meeting, informing of a prospect or 
 wish that a female may have, to visit the men's meeting. And 
 it is the uniform practice for the clerk to open the meeting 
 before the subject is open for discussion. 
 
 A number of individuals, I cannot say how many, expressed 
 their disapprobation, stating, that it was out of order. The 
 assistant clerk had probably proceeded so far as to read the 
 heading of the several reports, when the meeting was thrown 
 into such a situation as totally to disturb the business. Fre- 
 quent and loud calls were made on David Hilled to go to the 
 table, and a number of persons raised themselves upon the 
 benches, and some upon the backs of the benches. Some 
 cried out. Friends, will you suffer your clerk to be kept from 
 the table? thus urging Friends to make way for him in a loud 
 and boisterous manner; frequently many speaking at the same 
 time — it was with great disorder, by which the clerks were 
 prevented from proceeding. (Here, at. the suggestion of the 
 judge, witness described the situation of the raised seats, 
 ministers' gallery, 8cc.) Members called out indifferent lan- 
 guage, and one person being raised upon the bench, was en- 
 gaged in earnestly exhorting those to whom he addressed him- 
 self — Friends, will you suffer your clerk to be kept from the 
 table? and this was a disowned person, who had no right to be 
 in the meeting. 
 
 At this time there was a great deal of moving about in the 
 meeting house. I saw a number moving backward and for- 
 ward in the crowd, and a large proportion of those in the house 
 had raised upon their feet, and many on the benches. I saw 
 Israel French going from the position which he occupied when 
 he made the proposition, towai'ds the back part of the house. 
 
 .41 
 
at Steubenvilte, Ohio. 
 
 Vi 
 
 I saw him pressing- through the crowd, and returning towards 
 the gallery; and a number of persons pressed on towards the 
 clerk's table. 
 
 I think there are three ranges of benches rising in regular gra- 
 dation from the floor to the upper seat of the ministers' galle- 
 ry. Those who occupy these seats face the great body of the 
 meeting, and these seats were closely filled, and also the steps 
 leading up to the clerk's table were closely filled with persons 
 sitting upon them. The clerk's table stands at the upper end 
 of these steps in the ministers' gallery. Near the commence- 
 ment of these steps from the floor, stands a large stove, in 
 the middle ile, leading up to the clerk's table. There are 
 folding doors at the back of the clerks. A number of persons 
 proceeded on towards the clerk's table, but Friends who were 
 in their seats were not disposed to make v/ay for them, and 
 kept their places; and as the others pressed on, pretty gene- 
 rally, those who occupied these seats rose upon their feet. 
 The pressure soon became violent, but I frequently heard per- 
 sons exclaim, " don't use violence," and several stated that they 
 were hurt. I saw a stout young man spring upon the heads 
 of Friends who faced the meeting. I saw him erect above the 
 crowd, but he soon lost his balance, and fell back, and his 
 friends rushed on. 
 
 One young man raised himself upon the stove, and pro- 
 claimed that the God of love had left the gallery, and the god 
 of mammon had taken his place; and also added something 
 about taking the clerks to the table. The parties pressing to- 
 ward the table, had made their way, perhaps half the distance 
 from the floor to the table, when a suspension took place, 
 during which the assistant clerk called over the names of a 
 number of persons, and on calling them by name, desired them 
 to leave the house as disorderly persons. There was consi- 
 derable remonstrance against the proceedings during this sus- 
 pension of the bustle. But I heard it said in the crowd, they 
 have had time to surrender, it is time to press on, or some- 
 thing to this effect, and a violent pressure was made. 
 
 In the early part of this suspension, an individual in the 
 youths' gallery, facing where I sat, near the clerk's table, ob- 
 served, that those persons who occupied the gallery over the 
 ministers, or the persons sitting in the ministers' gallery, had 
 better move, as the gallery was so loaded that it might fall. 
 Some who sat near me were apprehensive of danger, but look- 
 ing up, saw no cause of alarm, and were quieted. A few mi- 
 nutes after, it was pronounced that it was time to surrender, 
 and the word was given, press on, and an alarm was given 
 that the galleries were coming down, the house was fall- 
 ing. It was reiterated with great vehemence, and created 
 great alarm and consternation, and those who occupied the 
 2 
 
14 
 
 Trial (if F riends 
 
 seats under lliis sound-board very i^enerally It'l'l their places- 
 1 rose upon my feet at the time, but immediately looked up^ 
 and discovering no occasion for alarm, it instantly occurred 
 to me that it was a stratagem. It produced dreadful conster- 
 nation, and a general rush, in which the noise might be a lit- 
 tle compared to thunder. I heard a number scream, and 
 distinctly heard persons shout. 
 
 At this juncture, I heard it pronounced in the crowd, "now 
 is the time, rush on." A number of persons did press through 
 with great violence. I saw Isaac James between the two upper 
 rails, within one bench of the ministers' gallery, struggling 
 with great violence in the crowd. I saw him in the attitude 
 of having his shoulder against some Friends, who were in his 
 Tvay, and from his position I concluded be had his feet against 
 the bench below him; and he was struggling with great vio- 
 lence in that position. I saw him afterwards making his way 
 round the clerk's table, where the clerks usually sit. The 
 struggling was to get forward to the clerk's table. He gained 
 his entrance at the opposite end of the table from where I 
 was. I had taken my seat by the clerk, and as he was passing 
 round the table, I heard him say, that he had used no violence; 
 but he was much out of breath. His breathing was very 
 much exhausted. 
 
 I saw in the ministers' gallery, but how he got there I did 
 not sec, the young man who mounted upon Friends' heads, and 
 a number of others, who came and laid hands on the clerk's 
 tal)le, to remove it, as appeared to me. One threw open the 
 door, a number laid hold to remove the table, and a number 
 look hold to jirevent its being moved. I do not recollect see- 
 ing James take hold of the table. The persons who had forced 
 their way to the table, as I have mentioned, made another 
 pause for a few minutes. During this time, a young man came 
 over from where the clerks had been sitting, but who were 
 displaced. I was at the time sitting, having been pushed out 
 of my seat, near my original seat: he came very deliberately 
 over the elbow of the ministers' seat, and took his position at 
 the end of the table. He very deliberately fixed himself hold 
 of the table, and whether at a concerted signal, I cannot tell, 
 but a simultaneous movement took place to remove the table. 
 An individual near me observed, that Jonathan Taylor was 
 crushed against the house; he gave notice that they were hurt- 
 ing Jonathan Taylor, and it was repeated several times; but 
 the attempt to remove the table continued. This young man 
 was using great exertion to press the table in that direction. 
 The individual who gave this alarm of injury to the clerk^ 
 stated that Jonathan Taylor would be killed unless they de- 
 sisted. 
 
 I was still sitting near, and apprehending that the life of a> 
 
at I'iieubeiiville, Ohio. 
 
 15 
 
 valuable IVierKl was in danger, I caughl hold of tlie arm of the 
 young man, and told him if he did murder, he would be ac- 
 countable for it; and pronouncing the word murder with a 
 strong voice, there was a relaxation. I understood at the in- 
 terval, Jonathan Taylor was released, having been seriously 
 injured, and crushed against the house. In a few moments 
 the table was crushed to pieces. I think Taylor was assisted to 
 extricate himself. 
 
 Very soon after the table was torn to pieces, a shout was 
 raised near it, on the opposite side from where I was, Huzza 
 for Jackson. 
 
 I saw David Hilles standing on the seat in the ministers' 
 gallery on the opposite side of the door from where I was. It 
 was proposed that he should proceed. I heard him read a 
 minute. The table was broken entirely to pieces. He pro- 
 ceeded to read "At Ohio Yearly Meeting," and mentioned 
 the date. I did not see him write it. I heard him also calling 
 the names of persons as representatives I suppose. Eight of 
 them were the same as those called by Jonathan Taylor— I 
 don't know of any more. 
 
 Did they answer to both calls? I think that five of them an- 
 swered to Jonathan Taylor; and I believe that three answered 
 to David Hilles who had not answered to Taylor, and I am not 
 very certain but a fourth answered Hilles who had answered 
 to Taylor. 
 
 In a short time after this, a Friend adverting to the extraor- 
 dinary proceedings which had taken place, proposed that the 
 meeting should adjourn. Several persons expressed a concur- 
 rence with the proposition, and it was proposed that the 
 representatives should be called to express their assent or dis- 
 sent to the adjournment. Their names were called. They 
 were generally still present though some did not answer, hav- 
 ing as was supposed left Ihe house during the tumult. Those 
 who did answer I think all expressed their concurrence with 
 the adjournment. I should consider that something like four 
 or five might have been absent; the proportion was inconsi- 
 derable. I should suppose that something like fifty answered. 
 Were they in favour or against the adjournment.^ All in favour 
 as far as I recollect. It was concluded to adjourn till 10 
 o'clock the next morning. Who was the one who acted in this 
 measure? Both the clerk and the assistant clerk. Information 
 of this conclusion to adjourn, was sent to the women's meeting. 
 The objection to the adjournment was very inconsiderable; 
 there might have been objections made by a few, but none by 
 the representatives, and the meeting adjourned. 
 
 The Yearly Meeting of ministers and elders had met on the 
 Seventh-day preceding, and had adjourned till 8 o'clock on 
 Third-day morning the 9th instant. 
 
16 
 
 Trial nf Friends 
 
 About tlic time to whicli the Yearly Meeting of ttiinisters 
 and elders had adjourned, I went with others, and found the 
 doors closed. At one of the doors a demand was made to 
 know who we were. We informed them that we wanted the 
 use of the house for the Yearly Meeting of ministers and 
 elders. We were informed from within that Ohio Yearly 
 Meeting had adjourned till 9 o'clock, till which time, the 
 house would be kept shut. We accordingly left the ground 
 without any further discussion on the subject. 
 
 At 10 o'clock, Friends again met on the ground of the 
 Yearly Meeting, that is, those with whom I associate; and a 
 Friend who had been particularly intrusted with the care of the 
 house by Friends for the time, and myself, with another repre- 
 sentative, went into the house, so far only as to be distinctly 
 heard. At this time David Hilles was at a table where the 
 clerk's table usually stands, and acting, as I understood, as 
 clerk for those that were met. A demand was made in the name 
 of the trustees, and on behalf of the representatives, for the 
 house, to hold the Ohio Yearly Meeting in; by James Heald, in 
 the first place, in the name of the trustees, and I, in the next 
 place, on behalf of the representatives. I was one of them. 
 Friends were kept out of the house, for the residue of the ternn. 
 
 It was mentioned that a paper which had just been made, 
 should be read as a reply to this demand. It was read, but I 
 did not attend a great deal to it, because it was the house, not 
 a paper, that we wanted. I understood it to be some report 
 that had been drawn up, proposing a compromise, and which 
 has since appeared in the newspapers. I repeated the demand 
 several times to bring their attention to the point, that it was 
 not a paper, but the house that we demanded. They gave in- 
 direct and evasive answers. One individual, who sat in the 
 ministers' gallery, observed, that Ohio Yearly Meeting was 
 then sitting, and did not wish to be disturbed. One or two of 
 their number brought the paper, and handed it to me. I told 
 them it was the house we wanted, and not the paper; for Friends 
 were then in the yard. They said there was no other reply, 
 and the clerk must go on with the business; David Hilles ac- 
 cordingly went to looking over the papers then before him. 
 
 I informed those in the house that Ohio Yearly Meeting 
 would be opened in the yard; the women's meeting in the west 
 end, and the men's in the east: and we withdrew. The meet- 
 ing was accordingly opened in the yard, without seats to sit 
 on, Friends generally standing, except a few on the fences. 
 At which time, as usual, the representatives reported that 
 they had conferred together, and agreed to propose me as 
 clerk, and the former as assistant, to be appointed. 
 
 The meeting was opened by the assistant clerk, Jonathan 
 Taylor being disabled fron\ performing that duly by the injury 
 
at Sleubenville, Ohio. 
 
 17 
 
 he Iiad sustained the day before. Tlie representatives were 
 generally in the yard, waiting for entrance, when the meeting 
 opened in the yard. I would say, that fifty-seven were present, 
 the number that first answered; they were not called, so that 
 I cannot say positively. 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Wright. — Was the proposition to appoint 
 David Hilles clerk, in the usual form.^ I consider that it was 
 not. I understand you to say, that the meeting, as such, did 
 not act on this proposition, but that those only who formed 
 the separate meeting acted on it? That was the case. Was 
 this meeting of the society of Friends a religious meeting? It 
 was; and it was generally considered a highly disorderly 
 movement — it was disorderly as to the time. 
 
 The usual course is for the representatives to confer to- 
 gether, between the first and second sitting, and propose to 
 the second sitting a person for clerk; and a clerk is appointed 
 on Third-day morning, which is the second day of the sit- 
 ting. And it is understood, that he holds his office till the 
 same time the next year. [See page 97 of the discipline.] 
 How long have you been a member of the society of Friends? 
 I had a birth-right, my parents were members; and my im- 
 pression was, that that meeting was the Yearly Meeting of 
 Ohio. There are five Quarterly Meetings, Redstone, Short 
 Creek, Salem, Stillwater, and New Garden. 
 
 Does every member in your meetings have a voice? The 
 practice is, for Quarterly Meetings to send representatives to 
 the Yearly Meeting; but every member, not under dealing, to 
 use a phrase of the society, within the territorial limits of the 
 Yearly Meeting, is understood as having a right to sit; and 
 those, also, who come from within the limits of other Yearly 
 Meetings, producing satisfactory credentials of fair standing 
 in society, have their rights acknowledged in these meetings, 
 and all other meetings of discipline in the society. Have 
 those persons who are permitted to visit, a right to vote? It 
 is understood that all persons privileged to sit in these meet- 
 ings, are privileged to express their sentiments in these meet- 
 ings. We never vote on any occasion; but I consider that the 
 society has, heretofore, been favoured with so much unanimity 
 as to get along without any serious difficulty, in deciding what 
 was the judgment of the meeting. But I consider, that the 
 representatives do substantially constitute the Yearly Meeting 
 in its official capacity. 
 
 I consider that if the representatives were to attend, and no 
 other persons, it would be a Yearly Meeting. And further, if 
 no representatives were to attend, no assemblage of persons 
 within the territorial limits of the Yearly Meeting could con- 
 stitute a Yearly Meeting. It is recpiired, that it shall be 
 known thry arc present; and they arc called, and required not 
 
18 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 xo withdraw without leave. The discipline says nothing 
 about how many sliould constitute a quorum for business. 
 
 The society existed for several years without any system 
 of church government; I think till the year 1672. The minis- 
 ters who had been active agents in propagating the doctrines 
 of the society, gathered them into a distinct form. They had 
 in a collective capacity held an annual meeting, it appears, for 
 several years, to take care of the various concerns of the so- 
 ciety. And it was proposed, I think in the year 1672, that 
 the Quarterly Meetings ^ould appoint representatives to con- 
 stitute a Yearly Meeting. It was discontinued, however, till 
 probably the year 1677. 
 
 The Yearly Meeting in its first institution was constituted 
 of representatives; and in their first constitution. Quarterly 
 Meetings were also understood as constituted of representa- 
 tives from Monthly Meetings, below which, the representative 
 system was not brought into operation. The practice of ap- 
 pointing representatives from Monthly to Quarterly, and from 
 Quarterly to Yearly Meetings, has continued, so far as my 
 knowledge goes, down to the present time. 
 
 When David Hilles was called on to go to the table, what 
 was done.^ A number of persons called out for our clerk to go 
 to the table, as theij called it: during this time, Jonathan Tay- 
 lor was going on with the business. Did you take notice of 
 the number who remained in the house? On Third-day, when 
 the demand was made for the house, near two of the doors 
 there was a considerable crowd that pressed in, some of whom 
 I knew were Friends, and I knew some that were not members 
 of society, in that part of the house. I should judge that 
 there were something like two hundred persons, and probably 
 about eight hundred in the yard. There might have been u 
 number of those about the doors, who acted in concert with 
 the meeting then going on. I should suppose that those who 
 continued to act with David Hilles, were about one-fourth. 
 
 Cross-examination by defendants' counsel. — Until two years 
 past the society was composed of a number of persons, who 
 are now divided into two parties, was it not.^ Taking the fact 
 of the meeting — (Counsel. W ell, they are facts, that we want. ) 
 in point of fact, a number of persons during the last Yearly 
 Meeting did combine to hold a Yearly Meeting, separate from 
 the Yearly Meeting of Ohio; and the Ohio Yearly Meeting 
 continued to hold its sittings after those persons had adjourn- 
 ed. We want to know, whether the persons constituting this 
 meeting, who continued to act with David Hilles, were a year 
 ago members of the society of Friends? I think thci e were, 
 on Third-day, some in the meeting, who were not members of 
 the society of Friends. Was David Hilles there on Second- 
 day? He was; he was there as a very unruly person. When 
 
at Steubenville^ Ohio. 
 
 Ohio Yearly Meeting is assembled for business, have not aU 
 the members an equal voice in the meeting? That would lead 
 to a more extensive answer. There is no prohibition from 
 expressing a sentiment in the meeting. Then in that meeting 
 you are what may be termed a democracy? No, we are a re- 
 presentative society. Has the person who is a representative 
 any more weight than one who is not a representative? As 
 to the weight, it would be difficult to answer. Some are re- 
 presentatives, and some are not, and is there a distinction in 
 these in their vote or voice in the meeting? We never 
 vote; we express our sentiments. Does the opinion of a re- 
 presentative weigh more than that of another member? It 
 weighs what it is worlh; and so with the opinion of every 
 member of the society, it weighs what it is worth. An ex- 
 pression of sentiment is estimated by what it contains orcon- 
 veysj there is no inequality as to what the meeting consider 
 the right of individual members to express their sentiments. 
 As to the general estimate, the clerk, it is understood, is to 
 collect and record what he understands, to be the prevailing 
 sense of the meeting. It amounts, in substance, to what in 
 other meetings would be determined by a chairman or presi- 
 dent. We do not vote, when assembled in a Yearly Meeting, 
 consisting of representatives and others. Is there any eccle- 
 siastical power over that meeting, superior to the power of 
 the meeting itself? Yearly Meetings are understood, in a qua- 
 lified sense, to be independent bodies. They have a right to 
 adopt rules and regulations operating within their own terri- 
 torial limits. When the members of Ohio Yearly Meeting 
 have met, is there any other body of men on earth that has 
 control over them? There is, in one point of view. These 
 different meetings, though acting in a judicial and legislative 
 capacity, and having complete power so to do, are still un- 
 derstood as parts of one society, embracing all other Yearly 
 Meetings; and the members of one of these possess rights in 
 all, on certain conditions, and these are known and recognised 
 by each other; and upon the understanding of being parts of 
 the whole, the members of each enjoy privileges in all. 
 Should any one of the Yearly Meetings, in the exercise of its 
 official character and power, adopt principles of faith or 
 church government, incompatible with those which have been 
 adopted by the society at large, it would be sufficient to break 
 the bond of christian fellowship. The fact would be declared 
 by the other Yearly Meetings, and they would stand separated 
 from the body, and of course the members could not enjoy 
 their former privileges: — in that sense, they arc not absolute- 
 ly independent bodies. As far as their ow.i members and 
 business extend, there is no rule of discipline binding on Ohio 
 Yearly Meeting, unless adopted by that meeting? No, 
 
20 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 When a question is raised in Ohio Yearly Meeting, with 
 regard to any of its oflicers, or any thing which concerns thai 
 meeting, is not the decision of the question exclusively in the 
 power of Ohio Yearly Meeting, when assembled? Yes. Yet 
 the Yearly Meeting, though in itself it may be understood as 
 a legislative body, is subject to some rules and regulations, 
 that operate upon its members and upon the body collectively, 
 unless the meeting should change their usages. 
 
 You have stated, that your society is composed of five 
 Quarterly Meetings. Is it not a fact, within your knowledge, 
 that four of these meetings are divided, and that they chose 
 two sets of representatives to the last Yearly Meeting? With 
 respect to what may be properly withifc my knowledge, I know 
 of only one division of a Quarterly Meeting. Do you not 
 know that there has been such a division? In the Quarterly 
 Meeting to which I belong, after the regular clerk had open- 
 ed the meeting, and called the representatives, the clerk stated 
 that there were a number present who had been disowned, 
 and some objections were raised to going on with the business 
 of the meeting. A number of disowned persons who were 
 there, proposed holding a Quarterly Meeting, and when they 
 withdrew, a number, who were not disowned, withdrew with 
 them. Does the majority usually disown, or the minority? 
 In some cases a minority may do it. If a meeting be compos- 
 ed of fifty members, is it in the power of ten to clisown forty? 
 Yes. Is it in the power of three to disown forty-seven? Yes; 
 a very small number may do it. In relation to the two sets of 
 representatives, you only know, as it respects Short Creek? 
 I heard David Hilles calling names. But you do not re- 
 member whether they were from all the five Quarterly Meet- 
 ings? I cannot tell. Do you not know, that there was a dou- 
 ble set of representatives? I do not positively; but I believe 
 there was, that is, of those whom they call representatives. 
 Which of these were the proper representatives to appear in 
 the meeting? One set was called by Mr. Taylor, and the other 
 by David Hilles, and both claim to be legal representatives. 
 Who could determine this question? — was there any other 
 authority but the Yearly Meeting? I do not know that I am 
 prepared to answer that question, as to the fact stated, because 
 I am not the proper person. Nothing was said as to two sets 
 of representatives? I heard no such fact stated in that meet- 
 ing. 
 
 Suppose a Quarterly Meeting should divide, and choose 
 two sets of representatives, and they should come forward to 
 the Yearly Meeting, would it not be the business of that meet- 
 ing to decide, which was legal, and which not? I suppose it 
 would be the duty of the clerk, to respect those, whose names 
 were placed in his hands according to discipline. Suppose 
 
ut StCuLe/iville, Ohio. 
 
 2J 
 
 the representatives from a Quarterly Meeliiig should both 
 place their reports in the hands of the clerk, at a proper time, 
 and in a proper manner — whose duly would it be to determine? 
 It is a question which has never occurred. Would it not be 
 a question to be decided by the Yearly Meeting, and by them 
 alone? I have never known such an instance. Have you any 
 other tribunal that could decide it, but the Yearly Meeting? 
 None, that I know of. 
 
 Were reports in the hands of Mr. Taylor, from all the 
 Quarterly Meetings? He can answer better than I can. Do 
 you know the fact? I do not. Did he receive the report 
 from the Redstone Quarterly fvleeting? It is here, and it is 
 signed by the assistant clerk. It was mentioned at the time, 
 that the report from Redstone had been handed in by the as- 
 sistant clerk. The other signed by the clerk, was not present- 
 ed. The assistant clerk, and the clerk also, were representa- 
 tives from Redstone, but the clerk did not hand in the report 
 to the clerk of the Yearly Meeting, nor answer to his name. 
 
 Previous to this meeting, had not Friends with whom you 
 act, appointed some persons to keep the doors shut, and to 
 exclude certain Friends from coming into the house? It has 
 been the practice for a number of years. I ask whether per- 
 sons were not appointed to keep the meeting-house and guard 
 the doors? The Yearly Meeting did not — the trustees of the 
 property, apprehending injury to the property, had placed 
 persons there to take care of it, I think on Seventh-day, and 
 to be in the house. It was not understood that the meeting 
 would convene in the night, and they staid there to prevent 
 injury. The Quarters had appointed persons to keep out, if 
 they could, by any moderate means, persons disowned, and 
 those under dealing, but not to exclude any individuals who 
 had a right, by the discipline, to attend. What Quarters ap- 
 pointed these door-keepers? I have not seen any official state- 
 ment, but believe all did except Redstone. I do not know 
 how many Short Creek appointed, nor how many acted at the 
 meeting. When did the meeting assembler Ten o'clock was 
 the time appointed, but people assembled earlier. Were any 
 excluded who were members of the society? None that I 
 know of. How many guards were stationed at the doors? I 
 do not know. Were any members excluded? I believe none 
 that had a right to enter. Did you ever know such door- 
 keepers appointed before? Yes, Short Creek has frequently 
 done it. Has any body ever been refused admission, till this 
 year, or have you ever before known any persons coming into 
 meeting, to be pushed back? Not that I know of — I never 
 knew any body to intrude or force in, when they had no right. 
 Was it not the duty of the door-keepers, to exclude all those 
 who were representatives, as well as members, not on your 
 
Trial of FrienJs 
 
 silk ol' tlie question? It was their duty, only to exclude tlio3e 
 who were under dealing, or disowned. Such an idea as ex- 
 cluding those who did riot unite with us, never entered the 
 mind of any of us. When Mr. French made his proposition, 
 had the meeting proceeded at all in business? No. Jonathan 
 Taylor was opening the books. Was not his proposition 
 pretty universally agreed to? A number of persons in a burst 
 of exclamation, appeared to approve. Was not the voice of 
 the meeting, strongly in favour of the measure? Yes, if we 
 judge by the noise. How do you judge but by the noise of 
 different voices? By the deliberate and audible manner. If 
 they speak together, it is disorderly. If the greater voice 
 appears to be in favour of the measure, is it not carried? No, 
 I never knew a question carried that way. Were there not 
 more voices concurring with French's proposition, than dis- 
 approving? I cannot tell, because some, spoke several times. 
 While this was going on, did not Taylor proceed? He did; 
 he requested them to be quiet, and many expressed their dis- 
 approbation. I did not speak to it myself, for the meeting 
 was not open, though I most heartily disapproved of the whole 
 proceeding. (No doubt of it, said the counsel.) While this 
 proposition was before the meeting, Taylor proceeded with 
 the opening minute, and the assistant clerk proceeded to call 
 the representatives? I think the clerk read them. I do not 
 consider that the meeting agreed to it. What number object- 
 ed? I cannot tell the number, but I think a number expressed 
 that it was out of order. 
 
 While this question was before the meeting, and not de- 
 cided, was it according to your mode of doing business, for 
 the clerk to proceed to calling representatives? It was ac- 
 cording to order. Was it in order for the clerk to go on with 
 his opening minute? It is understood that if the motion 
 
 made Has the clerk a veto, or is he subject to the order 
 
 of the meeting? Yes. You state that those seats near the 
 ministers' gallery, were full and crowded? Yes. Had not 
 Friends with whom you act taken that station previous to the 
 opening of the doors? I don't know that they had. When 
 the doors were opened, did you not then take those seats? A 
 number of those seats were occupied. It is a practice for 
 ministers, elders, and representatives, to face the meeting. 
 They were not all such, I suppose? No, elderly Friends and 
 active members of the society take those seats. [Here wit- 
 ness expressed a desire to recapitulate, for the purpose of giv- 
 ing some explanation. J Before opening the doors for general 
 admittance, a large committee who were sitting that morning, 
 at three-quarters before 10 o'clock, concluded to adjourn, that 
 the people might come in. One of the door-keepers came to 
 me and said, it would be desirable that the doors should be 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 23 
 
 opened, and I think it probable that those occupying these 
 seats, kept their places. Did not others take them? I was 
 not on them. It was a rainy day, and I went to a seat on the 
 ministers' gallery, and took a seat by the clerk. You speak 
 of the alarm as being a preconcerted plan; why did you think 
 it preconcerted? One reason was, the intimation given that 
 the place was likely to fall, while those pressing forward to 
 the clerk's table, by spreading it, created uneasiness, as a num- 
 ber of Friends afterwards said, they were made uneasy by this 
 suggestion; one reason further, was the violent exclamation of 
 those sitting opposite, repeating vehemently, the galleries are 
 coming down, the house is falling. I further had strong 
 apprehensions that it was a stratagem, from the fact, that at 
 the time those who occupied these seats under this place, were 
 rushing out of doors, those who were pressing their way up 
 the steps over Friends, called out, now is the time, rush on. 
 I know that it was at this time, that a number of those between 
 the body of the meeting and the clerk's table, left their places, 
 and there was a vacancy about the clerk's table, many were 
 thrown down and trampled on, and others pitched out of the 
 door. I heard shouts, not of alarm, but of exultation and 
 to increase the uproar; I heard, now is your time, rush on. I 
 do not know whether by members of the society or not. 
 
 When Mr. Hilles was brought forward, did not the people 
 refuse to give way, and keep their places? When the pres- 
 sure was made on tliem, to force through them, they pretty 
 generally rose on their feet. Did they not push those back, 
 who were approaching? I cannot tell, I was on the upper 
 seat. Did you not see those Friends, before you, push- 
 ing? I saw one elderly Friend who sat upon the steps, who 
 being rushed upon by a young man — I saw him lean forward 
 to preserve himself from being overset. Did you not see him 
 take hold with his hands? I did not. Who was this individual? 
 I think it was Benjamin W. Ladd. Would there have been 
 any disturbance, if they had let Hilles come to his place? I 
 think there would have been no violence. I think the violence 
 was by pressing upon those who were in the way, and who 
 did not get out of the way. Did they not push back towards 
 the stove? I saw no movement in that way. As to the table 
 you saw torn in pieces, who was the person who first took hold 
 of the table? I don't know. When he took hold to move it, 
 did not the orthodox Friends seize hold to retain it? I think 
 not. Where were you? I was within an arm's length of it. 
 I did not take hold that I recollect. It was pulled one way 
 by those who wanted to move it, and held down by Friends. 
 Do you not know, that the orthodox Friends were those that 
 broke it, in the first instance? I think that Jacob Richards 
 broke it. I saw him have hold of it, and heard it crack, You 
 
24 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 saw Taylor injured, was he not immediately behind the or- 
 thodox Friends? I believe that he was within the length of a 
 cane of me. Were there any of those persons on that side of 
 the table? I think Jacob Richards was, he had been. Were 
 any others there? Caleb Cope, I think, was on the opposite 
 side. Were they pulling towards Taylor, or from him? 
 Neither towards nor from him. Would it have been moved 
 towards him, had it not been for the struggle of Friends to 
 retain the table? I know that it was taken hold of, previous to 
 Caleb Cope's fixing himself with a steady press, and at the 
 time that I took hold of the young man, and gave him a pull, 
 and told him, that if he did murder he would be accountable 
 for it, I think some said, take it out of the house. Do you 
 know which of the orthodox Friends had hold of the table? 
 
 Jacob was one, and I think Joseph Steer was another. 
 
 There was a dense crowd on the two sides. Had Taylor hold 
 of the table? I can't tell, I don't recollect whether I saw him 
 or not. After the table was broken, there was a pause; there 
 Avasno other disturbance. David Hilles went on to read, but 
 we considered that Taylor was the regularly appointed clerk. 
 Were you not the regular clerk? I was appointed in the be- 
 ginning of the meeting, but was ill, and he was appointed pro 
 fern, or during my illness. How was that appointment made? 
 I was not present. Flow does the minute say? Witness reads 
 from the book of minutes, " our clerk being too much indis- 
 posed, Jonathan Taylor is appointed in his stead." Are re- 
 presentatives known as such, till their names are called? The 
 Yearly Meeting is not considered as organized till they are 
 called. Suppose the clerk of last year had been dead, or that 
 Mr. Taylor had been taken ill on the morning of Second-day, 
 so that you had no clerk ? I suppose the assistant would have 
 acted. Well, if there had been no clerk nor deputy, how 
 would you have got along with the business — suppose both had 
 been ill, or unable to attend on Second-day morning; would it 
 not have been in the power of the meeting to appoint a clerk, 
 and would not that have preceded the calling of the represen- 
 tatives? I snppose it would. Then the meeting could, under 
 certain circumstances, proceed to the business of appointing 
 a clerk, without calling the representatives ? If the clerks were 
 not present, none could have been called. Suppose the clerk 
 had been disowned by his Monthly Meeting? Then he would 
 have had no right to be present. And suppose there were no 
 deputy, could not the meeting proceed to the election of a 
 clerk? I think the meeting would name one, and proceed to 
 business. 
 
 Is it not disorderly to interrupt a minister in the discharge 
 of his functions? It is, to interrupt any minister in unity with 
 the society, where he is. Had not Mr. Taylor interrupted a 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 25 
 
 minister? He did; and any individual had a right to interrupt 
 Amos Peaslee. If he had been a regular minister, in good 
 standing, would it not have been irregular? It would, if he had 
 been introduced and his certificates received. I am supposing 
 that it is a regular minister, and if in that character, would 
 not such an interruption be sufficient to disqualify him; would 
 it not be disorderly? It would. If Peaslee were a regular 
 minister, then it was disorderly, and he did publicly oppose 
 him ? He requested him to sit down. Previous to any violence 
 being used, Mr. Hilles came forward to the stove? I have no 
 recollection of seeing him till I saw him in the gallery. Did 
 you not see him at the stove? I did not. 
 
 When you came forward on Third-day morning, were you 
 not tpld that the Yearly Meeting were sitting, and that you 
 were at liberty to come in and sit with them? William B. 
 Irish, I think, said that we might come and sit down quietly. 
 I shaped the inquiry — whether we could come in and hold the 
 Ohio Yearly Meeting? Was there any reason to suppose, that 
 you might not have gone in and occupied your seats? One 
 individual said the Ohio Yearly Meeting was sitting, and 
 wished not to be disturbed; another said, we might sit down 
 quietly, the doors were open; but we were not willing to sit 
 down with them, as the Ohio Yearly Meeting. 
 
 Have the trustees, till this year, ever shown any acts of 
 ownership? I don't recollect. We have considered the pro- 
 perty, as built and designed for Ohio Yearly Meeting in a col- 
 lective capacity. 
 
 Here the court adjourned till 9 o'clock next day. 
 
 Thursday the 16//«, 9 o'clock, A. M. 
 
 The examination of Elisha Bates resumed. 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Tappan. I wish to know the facts, in 
 relation to Amos Peaslee's being disowned? I know that Jesse 
 Thomas, who is said to be the clerk of the Woodbury Monthly 
 Meeting, objected to. — By what authority, did Jonathan 
 Taylor order him to sit down? It was, because he was under- 
 stood to have been disowned, that he requested him to sit 
 down. Is it according to the usage und discipline of the so- 
 ciety? It is. In the proceedings of the society heretofore, we 
 have generally been enabled to get along in the decision of 
 questions very harmoniously, and without serious difficulty, 
 as to discovering the sense of the meeting. We have no chair- 
 man in our meetings, but it is the business of the clerk to col- 
 lect the sense of the meeting, and, when necessary, to explain 
 questions. As I understand the proceedings in other bodies, 
 those duties which are usually divided between a chairman and 
 secretary, are here combined in the clerk, but subjects are not 
 put to vote. Any individual who has a right to be there, has 
 
26 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 a right to express his sentiments ; and after a subject has been 
 proposed and discussed, the clerk, according to his best judg- 
 ment, records what he conceives to be the sense of the meet- 
 ing. The minute is read, and if no objection is made, it is 
 understood to be the sense of the meeting. But, if objections 
 are made, they are attended to; the discussion may be renew- 
 edj the clerk corrects or changes his minute as he considers 
 the sense to be; and it is still subject to further discussion, and 
 so on till there is an understanding that the sense of the meet- 
 ing is settled. 
 
 You take then into the estimate the weight of character? 
 Certainly the weight of character is taken into consideration. 
 I understand that in the appointment of clerk, the subject be- 
 longs to the representatives. I did suppose, that when the 
 clerk was not present, it was' the duty of the representatives to 
 appoint. If a proposition were made, I should suppose it 
 would be considered their privilege to answer. It is their 
 privilege and business to name the clerk. But, in the propo- 
 sition to make David Hilles clerk, there was no application to 
 the representatives, though a member objected. Taylor was 
 appointed as a substitute for me, but the epistles were signed 
 by me, as clerk of the meeting. Do you know that there was 
 any objection to the appointment of Taylor, or to his continu- 
 ance as clerk? No. Here the witness stated, that when com- 
 piling a book some years ago, he addressed a letter to. the 
 society of Friends in London, requesting to be furnished with 
 authentic information'in relation to the society. The Meeting 
 for Sufferings acted upon this application, and furnished me 
 this book, (holding a book in his hand,) with others. This 
 book, was understood, to contain a history of proceedings in 
 the society, from 1681 to 1700 inclusive, from which the wit- 
 ness read some passages, which we arc unable to furnish, as 
 they were not recorded at the time, nor have we since found 
 access to them. 
 
 You speak of the Meeting for Sufferings, as being a branch of 
 the Yearly Meeting; have they power to establish articles of 
 discipline? No. Is there any discipline, not contained in your 
 book of discipline? No. Then you say the whole discipline 
 is contained in it? Yes, but there are some rules, which have 
 been adopted by the Yearly Meeting, since the book was pub- 
 lished, which are considered equally binding. You have 
 spoken of the weight of character; I want to know what you 
 mean by the weight of character? Are there degrees of cha- 
 racter in your society? Yes. Well, what determines the 
 weight of character? The religious usefulness of the indi- 
 vidual. Who determines and weighs the character? I sup- 
 pose it is taken into the estimate of every individual acquaint- 
 ed with the parties. In deciding a (luestion in the Yearly 
 
at Steubenville,, Ohio. 
 
 27 
 
 Meeting, who is to determine the weight of character? The 
 clerk is the judge of what passes before him. So, then, if 
 half a dozen of great weight, vote one way, and two or three 
 hundred vote the other, the clerk would consider it as carried 
 by the greater weight of character? Yes — I mean to be un- 
 derstood, that individuals of acknowledged experience, recti- 
 tude of conduct, and general usefulness in society, possess 
 more influence, than a boy, or stripling, who could not be un- 
 derstood as possessing religious experience, or usefulness in 
 society! there may be other cases in which they would 
 have no weight of religious character. You say there is a 
 difference; that some have greater weight than others: that is, 
 that the opinion of some individuals, will be received as out- 
 weighing the opinion of a number of less weight? I under- 
 stand it to be the case. There may be individuals who are 
 not under dealing, and yet very disorderly: to these would be 
 paid but little regard — they would have but little or no weight. 
 Do you find that in the discipline — is it a distinction that has 
 ever been made till recently? I believe it has always been 
 made. Then the majority do not govern, but the minority may? 
 Yes. Do you ever consider a question as carried in meeting, 
 if a majority express their opinion against it? I do not know 
 that I ever knew a case of the kind. Would you, as clerk, 
 make a minute, if the majority expressed their opinion against 
 it? There are cases in which it might be done consistently 
 and properly, if that expression was out of the order of socie- 
 ty. Would it be regular for the clerk of a meeting, to sit it 
 down as carried, if a majority expressed against it? There 
 might be cases in which it would be. Could you, as clerk, 
 set down a thing as carried, where there were a majority of 
 voices against it? I . could — if the general body of active 
 members of society, those who had been known to have the 
 concerns of society upon them, should express their opinionj 
 and a larger number of those who had not taken an active part, 
 and who are not considered as persons of religious experience, 
 should express a contrary opinion, the clerk would not be jus- 
 tifiable in taking this as the sense of the meeting. Do you find 
 that in your book of discipline — is it laid down by any of your 
 writers that promulgate the opinions of the society? I think 
 that Clarkson gives that opinion. Can you refer to it? I can- 
 not: it is a considerable time since I read it, but I believe he 
 gives that opinion. Was he a member of this society? He 
 was not. Do you receive such writings as faith and discipline? 
 It is considered that his writings were a faithful portraiture of 
 the manner of transacting business in the society. He had 
 access to the best writings of the day. Don't you know that 
 Clarkson says, "every member comes into the society with 
 equal rights?" I don't recollect. I will ask you, if the mem- 
 
28 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 bers of the society of Friends would not proceed to business, 
 if there were not delegates from all the five quarters, provided 
 the reports were sent in? I think they would. Would they 
 not if they had the reports, though there were no representa- 
 tives present? No, they could not, because they could not 
 know the reports to be authentic. Suppose they were brought 
 up by the representatives, and that the representatives should 
 then retire, would they not proceed with the business? No, they 
 could not. And yet you say the representatives«haveno more 
 voice in the meeting than the other members? I say that all who 
 have a right to attend have a right to express their sentiments, 
 and that the sense is collected by the clerk, who continues to 
 collect it, till it becomes, in his estimation, the sense of the 
 meeting. In taking the sense of the meeting, you do not take 
 the sense of the representatives separately? No. Has it ever 
 been done? I don't know that it has. Is there any thing in 
 the discipline which would sanction it? Yes, I think there is, 
 because the meeting is composed by representatives. Is it 
 not common for reports to be sent up? I do not recollect to 
 have seen such a case. Was Jonathan Taylor appointed by 
 the representatives? I don't know. Can you not see by the 
 minute how he was appointed? I was not there. 
 
 Jonathan Taylor, affirmed. — Were you present at the Mount 
 Pleasant meeting? I was. Were you the clerk? I was clerk 
 of the preceding year. I was appointed clerk in the place of 
 the old clerk. Did you open the meeting on Second-day morn- 
 ing? Yes, I did. Was it a religious meeting? I considered 
 it so. Was it disturbed? I considered that it was. Go on 
 to relate what you know. 
 
 I think, as was stated by the witness yesterday, that near 
 three-quarters of an hour before the usual time of assembling, 
 the doors were opened. After a number of persons had come 
 in, and taken seats, there appeared to be some objections 
 made at one of the doors, to the admission of those that were 
 not members. A violent rush was made, and a large num- 
 ber rushed into the house, and stepped forward, as I consider- 
 ed, with a countenance and carriage more like military men, 
 who had gained a conquest, and were pressing forward to the 
 attainment of another, than like men coming into a religious 
 assembly. A number pressed pretty far forward, and got to 
 the seats near the galleries, and others remained at the doors 
 on the inside, and assisted their party, by taking hold and pull- 
 ing them in, when they came to the door. 
 
 After the meeting-house was pretty well filled on the lower 
 story, a Friend appeared in supplication, at which time consi- 
 derable quiet was produced; and pretty soon after this, I pre- 
 pared my papers, to open the meeting. But whilst I was 
 making preparation, Israel French— Question hy the judge. 
 
at SleubenvUle, Ohio. 
 
 29 
 
 How long al'ter the doors were opened, did you make this 
 preparation? I should think near half an hour, but may be 
 not that long. Israel French said, that it devolved on him to 
 state to the meeting, that as the clerk had disqualified himself 
 by trampling on the discipline, he would propose that another 
 be appointed in his place. Did he state how he had trampled 
 upon it.'^ Not that I heard. 
 
 I considered the proposition out of order, in two points of 
 view. It was out of order to make a proposition of such a kind, 
 while the clerk was at the table; and inasmuch as the charge 
 was unfounded, it was additionally so. Were you under deal- 
 ing? No — I was under no disqualification, as I apprehended, 
 neither did my friends apprehend it. By the Judge. — W ere 
 there any expressions offered upon the subject, that were in 
 favour of appointing a new clerk? I believe not; though op- 
 position was made by several members as being out of order. 
 You then proceeded to read the opening minute, and to call 
 the representatives? Yes. I think it was before David Hilles 
 was proposed. Do you know who proposed Hilles? I do not. 
 Was it Israel French? I think not. My attention at the time, 
 was pretty closely occupied otherwise. I went on to call the 
 representatives from the different quarters. By the Judge. — 
 This proposition to appoint Hilles, was made while you were 
 calling the representatives? Yes. Were the expressions in 
 favour, or against? Some in favour, and some in opposition. 
 The party that had proposed him, spoke in favour, of course. 
 What was Jone, after you had done calling the representatives? 
 I got through calling the names of representatives, and all 
 answered, except five ; two of whom were absent and sent 
 reasons; the others, I believe, were present, but did not an- 
 swer. Then the assistant clerk, as is usual, took up the 
 reports, and read the introduction. And by the time he had 
 got through, there was considerable clamour, and some were 
 urging the new clerk to go forward. The report from Red- 
 stone Quarter had not been placed in my hands; but the 
 assistant clerk informed the meeting, that a duplicate had been 
 placed in his hands, which was signed by the assistant clerk 
 of the Quarter — the clerk not having harided the report to 
 me, as others had done, a day or two before. What number 
 of representatives answered? I cannot state; but believe it was 
 mentioned yesterday. 
 
 What preliminary is it necessary to take, before a meeting 
 is organized? It is common for the assembly to sit in silence 
 for a short time; and when it is believed to be a proper season, 
 the clerk, or some other person, makes a move to open the 
 meeting, and then the clerk proceeds to call the representa- 
 tives. The meeting is then organized for the despatch of other 
 business. The pressing at the door was before this? Yes. 
 4 
 
30 
 
 Trial of F'rimdi 
 
 After tlie assistant clerk got through reading, the confusion 
 increased, so that it was thought best to adjourn the meeting; 
 and a number of the name's of disorderly persons were taken 
 down. What was the disorderly conduct? It was urging the 
 clerk to the table. The disturbance continued to increase; 
 and when they appeared to be pushing him towards the table, 
 the way was obstructed; so that I did not see him, to distin- 
 guish him from others. A number (3f persons made them- 
 selves very active; and one threw himself, as a man going to 
 swim, upon the heads and shoulders of Friends, and went near 
 to the floor. The last I saw, Avas his heels above the heads 
 and shoulders of Friends. The next I saw of him, was at my 
 right hand. He came and took hold of the end of the table. 
 At the time, I did not know the young man, but was told his 
 name was Jacob Richards. He appeared to have exerted him- 
 self to a high degree; the sweat was rolling down his cheeks 
 on both sides. And aliout this time, Isaac James had made 
 his way near to the table, at my left hand. I do not know 
 whether it was before, or after Jacob Richards got there. He 
 appeared as if he had had a hard struggle. He said a number 
 of things in a very unbecoming tone of voice, for such a place. 
 Among other things, he said, he had been told, that was the 
 place he was to come to for redress — and you now prevent 
 our entering the house. He said he had as good a right to 
 be in the house as another person. He appeared to avoid 
 using his hands, but seemed to make use of his sides and 
 elbows, in pressing his way; and in a kind of taunting tone, 
 said, that he had used no violence, but several Friends had 
 used violence towards him. At the same time, I thought he 
 ■was using all the force he well could, to get to the table 
 through the crowd. 
 
 As to Hilles, I can't say much; only, that after the violence 
 had been so great that the table was broken, and he had got to 
 the table, I heard him read. While this young man, that I 
 was told was Jacob Richards, had taken hold of the east end 
 of the table, Eli Sidwell, near to him, had hold of it; and 
 some other young man at the right, had hold of it; and it ap- 
 peared, they were endeavouring to remove it to some other 
 place. A number of Friends, as well as myself, considered it 
 a duty for me to stay at the place near the table; which I did, 
 though I did not take hold of it. Those individuals had hold 
 of it, and a number of Friends; perhaps two or three leaned 
 on it, and endeavoured to keep it to its place. It was quick 
 broken — the legs were, several of them, broken out. Do you 
 know who broke it? It is hard for me to tell. I thought from 
 the cracking of the leg, that Jacob Richards was the one. He 
 was charged with it. I am not positive it was that side— two 
 legs were broken in pretty quick succession. Previous to 
 
at Steubenvilk, Ohio. 
 
 31 
 
 this, they had jerked the bar from tlic door, and burst it open. 
 1 believe it was done by Richards. It was either him or Sid- 
 wcll. But I think it was Richards. After the legs were 
 broken, they still kept hold of the leaves, pushing it violently; 
 and said, "let us put it out of doors." I do not know who 
 said it. But pretty soon after this, the violence of the press 
 increased, so that they got me pushed against the jamb of the 
 door. 
 
 Previous to the table being pushed, a Friend had come in 
 between me and the table, but he got rather out of that posi- 
 tion, and I got against the door, and the table came partly 
 against me. They got me in that position, and were pushing 
 violently. I was very apprehensive for a time, that I sJiould 
 have lost my breath. They had crushed my hat over my face, 
 so that I could not tell: but I think Sidvvell and Richards were 
 at my right hand. Was the press by the young men you 
 speak of? Yes it was. After Friends assisted in getting me 
 out, I was soon pushed out the door. And soon after I was 
 landed on the ground, I heard a voice of exultation, (when 
 Hilles got to the table, and myself removed,) huzza for Jack- 
 son! Did you see Hilles, when you were pushed out of the 
 door? I did not. There was a crowd at my right hand, and 
 I had sufficient to attend to. After I had recovered myself a 
 little, though I felt very much hurt, I thought it my duty to 
 go into the house again, as clerk of the meeting; which I did. 
 I went to the right of the seat, and soon after, a proposition 
 was made to adjourn the meeting. The assistant clerk called 
 the representatives, and they gave assent to the adjoiirnment 
 of the meeting; and shortly after, we adjourned till the next 
 day. Were you there the next day? I was not; I was in bed. 
 After I got out of the house, and the meeting had adjourned, 
 I went to Elisha Bates', and got bled, and had other medical 
 aid. And after staying an hour or two, I was taken home. 
 Was there any objection made to the adjournment? I do 
 not recollect that there was, there may have been. Who 
 made the proposition to adjourn? I believe it was Ben- 
 jamin W. Ladd. Can you tell the proportion that went, or 
 I'emained? I am not prepared to say. Do you know the num- 
 ber within the bounds of this Yearly Meeting, as assembled? I 
 did not make any calculation myself; nor did I observe how 
 many remained. Were you present the year before, when you 
 were appointed clerk, in place of Elisha Bates? I was. I think 
 it was mentioned by a Friend, that Elisha Bates was indisposed, 
 and not able to serve the meeting ; whether he mentioned my 
 name, or not, I do not know. But some one did, and it was 
 united in, unanimously. I think it was on Sixth-day. 
 
 Did you hear Isaac James say any thing about removing 
 from the table, persons that were there? At one period I hfard 
 
32 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 some person speak of removing them, but do not know that it 
 was Isaac James. It was said, that suflicient time had been 
 given ; and it was necessary to make way for the clerk to come 
 to the table. Was that immediately before the crowd pressed 
 upon you? I cannot state, but it appears to me, it was after I 
 came into the house again. 
 
 Cross-examination by Mr. Tappdn. 
 What arrangements, if any, were made by the orthodox 
 party, to guard the house, previous to the commencement of 
 the meeting; or to guard the entrance to the house, at the time 
 of the meeting? I believe that no improper arrangements were 
 made, to keep any body from entering, who had a right to en- 
 ter. A person was put in possession of the house on Seventh- 
 day. Were there more than one appointed to this charge? I 
 do not know the number. At what time was the meeting ad- 
 journed to on Saturday; and what was the regular hour of 
 meeting on Second-day? At 10 o'clock. I want to know,- 
 whether, before 10 o'clock, there had not been some arrange- 
 ments, out of the common order of discipline? I believe not. 
 It has been common, and we very frequently appoint persons 
 to attend at the doors, to keep the meeting select; to inform 
 those not members, that the meeting is only for the society ; 
 which was done at this meeting. What number is generally 
 supplied? I am not able to say — three or four, perhaps half a 
 dozen at each door. Were there more on this occasion? I 
 cannot state positively. Is it a fact, that the passages to the 
 doors, were entirely hemmed up, at the time of meeting? I was 
 inside, and could not observe. I could see that a considerable 
 crowd was at the door. At the time you first came in, there 
 were none in the house but orthodox? According to the con- 
 stant custom, there had been a committee on Indian concerns, 
 who met at 8 o'clock; but I was engaged, and did not come 
 till about 9. I had not been there more than a quarter of an 
 hour, before the press to get in, took place. Previous to that, 
 had not guards been placed upon the steps; and were not the 
 passages entirely lined? (Here was exhibited a plan of the 
 building, showing the situation of the doors, galleries, table, 
 &c.) Were not those steps, which lead from the ile to the 
 clerk's table, filled? I cannot say. Is it a common seat? It is 
 frequently occupied. After the meeting gathered, the steps 
 were very much crowded. Can you say, you do not know 
 that a combination was entered into, to prevent certain per- 
 sons from entering the meeting? There was no such combina- 
 tion, to prevent any, except those who were disowned or under 
 dealing. Then your understanding was, that all members of 
 the society, whether composed of orthodox or not, had a right 
 to come into the house? There certainly was no intention to 
 
 * 
 
at Sleubenville, Ohio. 
 
 prevent them. You say, tlicn. that the Quakers had a right to 
 come in, that is, any individual who had a right in the society? 
 Yes. Had any of those, whom you denominate Hicksites, a 
 right to come there? Certainly. Do you know, whether 
 thoge who attempted to come in, when they were shut out, 
 were, or were not, Hicksites or Quakers? Well, as to that, I 
 am not able to state what party they were of; only, that I sus- 
 pected they were a mixture; but from their actions, I suppose 
 they were Hicksites. What was the occasion for pulling them 
 in — who opposed them, so that it was necessary to help them 
 in? Those who were placed as door-keepers endeavoured to 
 prevent them. I understand you, that the party whom you 
 call Hicksites, all had a right there? Yes. Were not these 
 guards, and the Hicksites, the two parties engaged? Yes. If 
 they had equal rights, then every person ought to proceed ac- 
 cording to the rules and discipline of the church? Yes. [Is it 
 correct, for any one to submit a proposition, that the former 
 clerk has disqualified himself, if he believes it to be so? I sup- 
 pose any person would be at liberty to make such a statement; 
 but if the meeting did not think it in order, th-y would not act 
 upon it. If this were agreed to by a majority of those having 
 equal rights, would it not be thereby carried? I should not 
 consider that it would be. But I have not said, that all indi- 
 viduals had an equal voice. They have a right to come into 
 the house, and to sit there, and each has a right to discuss 
 any matter, and to give his opinion, when a question is un- 
 der discussion. Is it proper for the clerk to go on with business, 
 when a question is under discussion? I, as clerk, did not con- 
 sider there was any question under discussion. You made the 
 distinction, then, that the Yearly Meeting of Ohio consisted 
 of orthodox? There were members that belonged to the 
 Yearly Meeting, who were not considered as orthodox, that 
 were still members. The Yearly Meeting of Ohio consists 
 of five Quarterly Meetings ; will you state the names of them, if 
 you please? Redstone, Short Creek, Salem, Stillwater, and 
 New Garden. 
 
 You say, all the reports had been handed in, except the one 
 from Redstone? Yes. Do you know who was the regular clerk 
 of that Quarterly Meeting? I was at the Quarter, and I I)e!ieve 
 David Hilles was the clerk. The person who is here, as one 
 of the defendants? Yes. Who produced the paper from that 
 Quarter? It was not signed by David Hilles, but by the as- 
 sistant. Should not all those papers be signed by the clerk? 
 Yes— but there are cases in which it would do without. Did 
 you ever know a case, in which a copy, signed by the assistant 
 clerk, could take the precedence of that signed by the regular 
 clerk? I never did; nor did I ever know a case in which the 
 report was withheld by the clerk. Has there not been a divi- 
 
34 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 sion of those Quarters, which formerly constituted the society 
 of Friends? I cannot speak with certainty of any but our own, 
 I am not able to state any thing of New Garden, only from 
 hearsay. Is it not well known, that the representatives who 
 came from this Quarter to the Yearly Meeting, were seceders 
 from that Quarter? I do not consider that they were seceders. 
 Who signed the report from New Garden as clerk? I believe 
 it was Joseph Fisher. Was the person that signed that pa- 
 per the clerk? (This question was objected to, as the reports 
 and records were then present; and replied to; we expect to 
 show that all these are incorrect, and that we have the correct 
 ones, and we merely inquire, whether they have the names of the 
 clerks, as each report should have the name of the clerk; but it 
 is not found on record in the book.) Witness proceeds — I did 
 not see Hilles when this crowd was coming up, to know him, 
 at all, for I had removed to sorne distance, and there was a 
 considerable crowd between us. 
 
 At the time the proposition was made to appoint a new 
 clerk, had you opened your papers? It was before I read the 
 opening minutef but I was about preparing the minute. Was 
 this proposition agreed to by the meeting present? I did not 
 consider that it was, in a meeting capacity. There were a 
 number of voices uniting, but it was in a very unbecoming 
 manner; and many voices at once. It appeared to be an ap- 
 probation, but a number expressed together, which was very 
 disorderly. I think I began to read before the name of Hilles 
 was announced. The proposition was objected to. Was it 
 by more than two? I am not willing to say: it was not a large 
 number. It was considered so much out of order, that I went 
 on. If the same number of voices had come from the ortho- 
 dox side, and as few from the other side, .would you not have 
 suspended operations? I think not, if it had been done in the 
 same manner. Suppose there were grounds of accusation 
 against the clerk — suppose there had been just cause? In that 
 case, I suppose it would have been proper to have suspended 
 business. Well, does the clerk always judge, whether the 
 people have cause to act? Not exclusively. Suppose the 
 whole people had seen cause to appoint a new clerk, and you 
 had thought otherwise, would you have proceeded? No, I 
 would not. Even if you had thought there was no cause? No. 
 
 Have not the members, when assembled, power to appoint 
 a new clerk? Circumstances of that kind have seldom occur- 
 red; but I suppose it may be said, they would have the right. 
 Then the persons composing the Yearly Meeting, are really 
 the judges of the case? The representatives, it is generally 
 understood, have the appointment of clerk. But if the meet- 
 ing, in their collective capacity, saw fit, they would have the 
 right? Yes. You were appointed that way yourself, were 
 
al Steubenville, Oliio. 
 
 35 
 
 you? I was appointed by the meeting. At the time that 
 you were appointed, did the representatives act separately from 
 the meeting? No. Did they ever take to themselves, the 
 right to act separately from their brethren in attendance, on 
 any occasion? No, I never knew any need of it} we have 
 always got along without. 
 
 Now, as it regards the representative power; I understand 
 that the Yearly Meeting is composed of those who represent 
 the Quarterly Meetings, and all those within the limits of the 
 Yearly Meeting, and those from other parts who are in good 
 standing? It has been the usage of society, that the meeting 
 should be composed in that wayj but, notwithstanding, there 
 would be no Yearly Meeting except the representatives attend- 
 ed. And if they attended, and no other persons, they would 
 be qualified to hold a Yearly Meeting. Suppose that the re- 
 presentatives from four Quarters were present, and the repre- 
 sentatives from one not present, but their report there; would 
 not all the five quarters be represented, so that the proceed- 
 ings would be regular, and binding upon all? I cannot say 
 whether the meeting would .consider it legal; but they would 
 hold a Yearly Meeting. Suppose the reports from four Quar- 
 ters were sent up, but the representatives did not attend, and 
 the representatives did attend from the one quarter; would 
 there not be a Yearly Meeting? I think not. Is there any 
 thing in the discipline, or writings of the society, which goes 
 to show that? I believe not.. When the copy of a report from 
 Redstone Quarter was referred to, was the sense of the meet- 
 ing taken on that? I think there was an expression, that it 
 would be accepted. The clerk mentioned that the duplicate 
 was there. Who proposed its being accepted? I do not know 
 who made the statement; but some one said it, and no objec- 
 tion was made. Did not the pushing and crowding, about that 
 time, arise from persons arraying themselves in the ile, and 
 near the table? It was closely filled around the table. And 
 did they not move up to fill that place? I think it was pretty 
 full all the time, from the time the meeting gathered. 
 
 Was not the breaking of the table, in consequence of 
 resistance by power? I think the table would not have been 
 broken, if certain individuals had not taken hold of it — if those 
 disorderly persons had kept where they ought to have kept. 
 Did not the orthodox pull some? I did not discover that they 
 pulled; they leaned on it. At the time you got up against the 
 door jamb, was it not in consequence of your party pulling the 
 table towards you? It was pushed that way. Which party 
 occupied the galleries, and filled them? The galleries, a num- 
 ber of them, were pretty early filled by the committee on In- 
 dian concerns, and strangers from a distance, who had taken 
 their seats— it was a pretty large committee. Were they 
 
36 
 
 Trial of Friemh 
 
 not all orthodox? I think it probable they were. Of what 
 number did it consist? I am not able to ascertain the number. 
 Do you suppose there were two hundred? No, not the half of 
 it. Did not some one pull, you out of the door? I was not 
 sensible of any person behind me, but it was said that some 
 one pulled me. Was not this about the time the alarm was 
 given? No, the alarm was given before that — considerably 
 before that; for I looked up, and believed it to be a stratagem. 
 The alarm was over before that. When Hilles was requested 
 to take the clerk's seat, and the members began to move up 
 that way, did you see any striking? I saw Benjamin W. Ladd 
 raise up his hands, as if to prevent others from coming, but 
 the crowd all round was so thick I could not see. (He, the 
 witness, gave some explanation about the relative position of 
 those who surrounded him.) Did not you raise up your hands, 
 and say, "the gallery is falling?" I did not do any such 
 thing. 
 
 On Seventh-day, were not Belangee and others excluded 
 from coming into the meeting of ministers and elders? James 
 Belangee would not have been prevented had he applied. Was 
 not Belangee excluded? I believe he chose to stay out with 
 others. 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Wright for the prosecution. — Does not the 
 clerk act as the presiding officer in the Yearly Meeting; and 
 if difficulty arises, is it not the duty of the clerk to explain it? 
 Yes, if he understands it. Pufing this commotion, about 
 taking the table, was there any request made for you to ex- 
 plain the usage of the meeting? Not at all. As to the report 
 from Redstone Quarter; was there any request, that you should 
 vary your decision? I don't remember any. Is that the re- 
 port? (handing a paper.) It is, and it is signed by the assist- 
 ant clerk. Is the door, back of the clerk, used for entering the 
 house? No, it is kept shut, excepting in very warm weather. 
 There is, I think, no step: it is about two feet down. Is there 
 any gate leading to the yard, back? No, it is a secluded yard. 
 Who opened the door? I believe it was Jacob Richards. Af- 
 ter you were pushed out of the door, were the persons you saw 
 there Hicksites? I am not able to state. Were they proba- 
 bly persons who had been pushed out? I believe not. As to 
 the part that is called the ministers' gallery; is the ile leading 
 to it closed by a gate or door? No: there was no obstruction 
 in the way; nothing but the crowd of people. Were others 
 there, than those engaged in the Yearly Meeting business,before 
 the doors were opened in the morning? I don't know that there 
 were, except strangers — those that were guards and represen- 
 tatives being in the women's room. At the time the door was 
 about to be opened, they came in. I know of no preconcert. 
 I came into the committee about 9 o'clock, and took my seat. 
 
 1 
 
at Sluubtiiville, Ohio. 
 
 37 
 
 Do you suy llial all individuals have equal privileges and pow- 
 ers? I did not say powers: I consider that the representatives 
 are clothed with power, when it becomes necessary, but I 
 never knew an instance. Did you ever know a meeting to 
 appoint a clerk, except in the instance mentioned? I think 
 not. When I was appointed, there was not a dissenting voice. 
 
 Cross-examination resumed. — Have you not known instances 
 of the appointment of clerk by the Yearly Meeting ? The clerk 
 is usually appointed by the meeting, with the nomination of 
 the representatives. Were you not present at Indiana Yearly 
 Meeting, when the same thing happened? No. 
 
 Jordan Harrison affirmed. — Witness stated that he was clerk 
 of Short Creek Monthly Meeting. 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Wright. — Is Isaac James a member of the 
 Monthly Meeting of which you are clerk? He was a mem- 
 ber. (Here witness read from the records of the meeting, 
 dated the 22d of Seventh-month, 1828, a minute, respecting a 
 committee to prepare testimonies, &c.; and also a minute, 
 showing, that said committee had produced testimonies of dis- 
 ownment against Isaac James, &c.; that these were separately 
 read, approved, and signed; and also showing that a commit- 
 tee had waited on James, with a testimony of disownment, 
 and informed him of his right to appeal.) This testimony 
 was made out by the committee, and signed by me. Did you 
 deliver it to the committee? I did, and they returned it to 
 me, and I have it now. He did not appeal. Do you know 
 any way in which an officer, and member of the society, can 
 be disqualified, other than by dealing and disownment, by the 
 meeting to which he belongs? I do not. Could the clerk be 
 disqualified, except by disownment? He might if he had been 
 under dealing for a violation of discipline; but it must l)e in 
 the Monthly Meeting of which he is a member; and if he be a 
 transgressor in any respect, he is then consiilercd, in our 
 phrase, to be under dealing, and disqualified from sitting. 
 
 Mr. Wright here read the following testimony of disown- 
 ment. 
 
 " Isaac James, having had a right of membership among 
 us, but having associated himself with others, in resisting the 
 subordination of the Monthly, to the Quarterly Meeting, in 
 holding meetings contrary thereto; and having been treated 
 with, he not appearing in a suitable disposition of mitid to 
 condemn his deviation; we, therefore, disown him from being 
 a member of our religious society. 
 
 Signed in, and by order of, Short Creek Monthly Meeting, 
 held the 22d day of Seventh-month, 1828. 
 
 Jordan Harrison, Clerk." 
 
 Are you the clerk for the Meeting for Sufferings? Yes. 
 What constitutes this meeting? It consists of twenty-six 
 5 
 
'/')•/((/ of Friends 
 
 niemhers, appoii\(P(i by the Yearly Meeting, with an additiolf 
 oC four from each Quarterly Meeting, be the Quarters few or 
 many. Those coming from other Meetings for Sufferings, 
 and approved ministers, have a disciplinary right to sit with 
 us. What is the office of the Meeting for Sufferings? It is, 
 to act in the recess of the Yearly Meeting, as explained in the 
 discipline. The Meeting for Sufferings consists of active 
 members, and acts in place of the Yearly Meeting in their re- 
 cess. And when they think it adviseable, they have issued tes- 
 timonies of advice; they attend to all cases which they think 
 suffering, whether as to property or doctrine — if they are 
 liable to be prostrated, it becomes the duty of the Meeting 
 for Sufferings, to extend advice or assistance, and to call on 
 the treasurer of the Yearly Meeting for the expenses. It is 
 considered the duty of the represerttatives of the Yearly Meet- 
 ing, to take care of all suffering cases during the recess. 
 
 Were there any Hicksites in the Meeting for Sufferings of 
 Ohio Yearly Meeting? No, Were there any in the commit- 
 tee on Indian concerns? No. I am not aware that there were 
 any such in attendance. I think, that very few have ever be- 
 longed to that committee, since I became a member of it. Is 
 it among the duties of the Meeting for Sufferings, to appoint 
 committees to attend the Monthly, or Quarterly Meetings? I 
 do not know that it is stated in the discipline, that they should 
 appoint committees, but that they should extend carej and 
 committees have been the usual way, except by epistolary 
 advice. The general practice has been by committees, in the 
 Meeting for Sufferings for Ohio Yearly Meeting. It has, at 
 distant periods, appointed committees to attend Monthly 
 Meetings; and, in a more recent case, Quarterly Meetings. 
 How does this Meeting for Sufferings act, while the Yearly 
 Meeting is in session— Does it make a report when the Yearly 
 Meeting assembles? Yes. Does it report to the Yearly Meet- 
 ing? Yes. To which body did the Meeting for Sufferings report 
 this fall — Did they report to those who held their sitting, at 
 Short Creek house, after being expelled l)y Hilles and his 
 company? Yes. Does not the treasurer hold himself ac- 
 countable to this Meeting for Sufferings? Yes, he does. Did 
 any of the Meeting for Sufi'erings separate and go with the 
 Hicksites? Not one, I believe. Have not the members of 
 the Meeting for Suffei ings, for a long time acted in that situa- 
 tion, having been appointed before there was any division in 
 the society? Yes — 1 suppose a very large majority of them. 
 There is a provision, that, when any member of the meeting 
 shall greatly neglect the duties of the meeting, be removed by 
 death, or other removal; notice be given, and his place sup- 
 plied. Some by removal— some by disease — some on account 
 of neglect of attendance, have been supplied; still, the largest 
 
at Steubenvilie^ Ohio. 
 
 "9 
 
 wiunibcr arc of the old nieinbcis, who have continued, since 
 the cliange, al)out halt" a dozen years ago. 1 think, ten or a 
 tlozen would be all that have been changed. 
 
 To whom did visiting Friends from other Yearly Meetings 
 unite themselves — With this meeting, with Meeting for Suf- 
 ferings, or any other body? They sat with this meeting when 
 they did attend, although they did not attend every time. 
 
 Cross-examinalion by Mr. Kennon. — Does every Monthly 
 Meeting possess certain territorial limits? No other than the 
 local situation of those belonging to the subordinate meetings; 
 tliej-e is no geographical line. To which meeting did Isaac 
 James belong? To Concordj but that meeting had been laid 
 down. Were you present at the Quarter, at the time Concord 
 Monthly Meeting was laid down ? I think I was. Was thei-e 
 any opposition to laying down that meeting? I believe there 
 were some individuals who objected. Did you ever know a 
 Monthly Meeting — Here Mr. IVrigJit objected to the inquiry, 
 as to the regularity of the proceedings of Short Creek Quar- 
 terly Meeting, in laying down Concord Monthly Meeting. We 
 object to the introduction of such testimony for this reason; 
 that an appellate right exists in the Quarterly Meeting to the 
 Yearly Meeting, and in the Monthly Meeting to the Quarterly 
 Meeting. There is a connexion and dependence, provided by 
 the discipline, running from the lower branches up to the 
 supervisory control of the Yearly Meeting. I put it upon 
 the footing precisely, of a judgment in our courts of justice. 
 If the court have jurisdiction of the subject matter, the regu- 
 larity of the proceeding cannot be inquired into; but the judg- 
 ment must be esteemed as- binding, and obligatory upon every 
 person, till brought to the superior tribunal and reversed. It 
 is obligatory, and stands in full force till it shall be reversed. 
 I will refer to one single example within my recollection. 
 That is, where the proceeding is so palpably gross, as to make 
 it null and void. We will take the case of a justice of the 
 peace (to get one familiar to our common experience.) Should 
 it appear by the record of his docket, that he had proceeded 
 to try an action of slander; that, I apprehend, would be an 
 irregularity of proceeding, so gross, as to make it null and 
 void; it being a subject not embraced within his jurisdiction. 
 We will take another case, where it appears by reference 
 to the record, that a party never had any notice of the com- 
 mencement of a suit, or any day in court — in that case, the 
 subject matter is within the jurisdiction of the court — yet, it 
 is one among the fundamental principles of our jurisprudence, 
 that the parties shall have a day in court. And if that princi- 
 ple be a correct one, and this case is apposite, there appears 
 to be no difficulty. I therefore object to going into an ex- 
 
40 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 amination of tlie wilnehs, as to t}>c subject mailer, over wiiitii 
 the meeting had jurisdiction. 
 
 ilJr. Tuppan. — Wc take this position: thai a Quarterly 
 Meeting has no right to lay down a Monthly Meeting, without 
 their consent. Here Mr. Tappan read from the book of dis- 
 cipline, page 29, " no Quarterly Meeting should be set up, or 
 laid down, without the consent of the Yearly Meeting; no 
 Monthly Meeting, without the consent of the Quarterly Meet- 
 ing; nor any preparative or other meeting for business or 
 worship, until application to the Monthly Meeting be first 
 made ; and when there approved, the consent of the Quarterly 
 Meeting be also obtained. Also, no meeting for worship, in- 
 tended to consist of Friends, belonging to two or more Monthly 
 Meetings, shall be established, until the proposal be offered to 
 and approved by those Monthly Meetings, and the consent of 
 their respective Quarterly Meeting or Meetings be obtained." 
 We want to show, that a Quarterly Meeting had no right to 
 lay down that meeting; and we ask to know the manner in 
 which it was done, in order to show that they proceeded with- 
 out authority. It is claimed on the side of the orthodox, that 
 James was a disowned member. When a man belongs to a 
 religious society, he has certain rights, and can be deprived 
 of these rights, only, according to the rules of the society of 
 which he is a member. Whether a man .be raised in the 
 society, or admitted as a member, or any other way, when he 
 becomes a member, he has, according to the testimony which 
 you have heard, an equal right to attend and express his 
 opinion. 
 
 It is pretended here, that this Isaac James has been depriv- 
 ed of this right, which could only he, by regular proceedings, 
 • according to the discipline of the church. If then, it be impor- 
 tant for them to show that he has been regularly disowned, 
 and has no rights, it is important for us to show, that he was 
 not regularly disowned as a member; and that the meeting 
 which exercised this authority over him, had, by the disci- 
 pline, no such power to lay down that meeting, except by ap- 
 plication and consent. The discipline does not permit them 
 to lay down a Monthly Meeting, except by application. It is 
 not a matter of compulsion, but is a matter that follows from 
 the request of the subordinate meeting, and is only used, when 
 it is desirable to promote the convenience of a Monthly Meet- 
 ing. To exercise this power in the way that it has been ex- 
 ercised, by the orthodox, to destroy those whom they dislike, 
 is not authorized by the discipline of the church. In that 
 point of view, we deem the testimony material. The court 
 will recollect, that the other side have given evidence to prove 
 that James had been disowned; and we wish to show that the 
 disownment was illegal. ^Vc say thai it was altogether illc- 
 
at Steubcnville, Ohio. 
 
 41 
 
 gal from beginning to end. We wish to prove lo the court, 
 that Concord Monthly Meeting has continued to exist, and that 
 James is yet a member there. Mjourned till 2 o'clock, P. M. 
 
 Thursday, 2 o'clock, P. M. 
 
 The Judge said he understood it to be proven, that Concord 
 Monthly Meeting was laid down by the Short Creek Quarterly 
 Meeting; if that had been proven, the testimony in question 
 was unnecessary. 
 
 Mr. Wright said he understood, consent was neither asked 
 nor obtained; but in the Quarterly Meeting, when the Monthly 
 Meeting was laid down, there were only two or three voices 
 heard in opposition. Mr. James was in fact a member of Con- 
 cord Meeting, and the order laying it down, also attached the 
 members to Short Creek Montlily Meeting. 
 
 The Judge.— Go on with the witness. 
 
 Cross-examination resumed by Mr. Tappan.—Qefore this diffi- 
 culty arose in your society, did you ever know a Monthly 
 Meeting attached to any Quarterly Meeting without its con- 
 sent? I have known instances of meetings being laid dqwn for 
 certain purposes, and attached to other meetings. Have you 
 ever known of a Monthly Meeting being set up, without appli- 
 cation being made? I think not; but there are applications made 
 in different ways, and sometimes by request. It has been con- 
 sidered a rule of society, that there should be some request. 
 You say that you were present at the laying down of this 
 Monthly Meeting? Yes. Did Concord Meeting agree to it? 
 I think there was some objection, and I am glad to have an 
 opportunity to explain. One objected, and another said that 
 Friends had better be careful what they were doing. Was 
 there any application made for that Monthly Meeting to be laid 
 down? No, not in the character of a Monthly Meeting. Did 
 you ever know a Monthly Meeting attached to another meet- 
 ing, without its consent? There is discipline which shows 
 that no Monthly Meeting shall be laid down without consent 
 of the Quarter. Were you present at the Yearly Meeting of 
 Ohio? Yes. What time did you go in? About 8 o'clock. 
 Were you in when Israel French made the proposition? I was. 
 Was it before or ^fter Jonathan Taylor read the opening mi- 
 nute? He made the proposition, and then paused a little space, 
 during which interval, if my memory serves me right, Jona- 
 than Taylor opened the meeting. The proposition was then 
 renewed, and David Hilles named. When he said it devolved 
 on him, &c. were there any that concurred in the proposition? 
 I think not till Jonathan Taylor read the opening minute, and 
 then the voices were heard. I think he said it devolved on 
 him to state, that the clerks had so conducted since, or during 
 the last year, as to render them incompetent to open the meet- 
 
42 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 ing. Was the meeting (juiet? Itwas^ and, as I understand, 
 immediately after, Jonathan Taylor proceeded. Israel was jusi 
 before me, and I urged him to be quiet, and not disturb the 
 meeting. I told him to wait till the representatives brought 
 forth a name, and then would be the time to object. Jonathan 
 Taylor read the opening minute, and Israel added, that he had 
 trampled upon the discipline. Who nominated David Hilles 
 as clerk.'' After speaking to Israel, he passed into the crowd, 
 and I cannot say who named him. After he was named, were 
 there not a great many voices in favour of him? There were 
 a great many. Were there any against it? Yes — there were 
 not many that spoke. I did hear some speak.- Well, how many 
 do you suppose spoke in favour of it? I cannot say. Do you not 
 think there were as many as a hundred that spoke in favour of 
 it? There might have been. I suppose that all who continued 
 in meeting spoke. Can you form any idea of the number of 
 individuals? I cannot. If there had been no division, the 
 meeting remaining as before this division took place, and the 
 nomination had been made, and the same number of voices ap- 
 proved it, would you not have considered it binding? No, not 
 if it had been done in that disorderly manner. But if it had 
 been orderly? It could not be in order, because the meeting 
 was not organized. 
 
 Suppose that a few moments before the meeting was about 
 to be organized, Jonathan Taylor had committed murder; 
 would it have been proper for Jonathan Taylor to open the 
 meeting? Extraordinary cases produce extraordinary mea- 
 sures. Is there any other power that can put Jonathan Tay- 
 lor under dealing, except his Monthly Meeting? No. It 
 belongs to his own Monthly Meeting then? Yes. Are repre- 
 sentatives known as such till called by the clerk? They are 
 not fairly known, for they cannot be announced as representa- 
 tives, till the reports are received and their names called. Yet 
 it is always presumable in the gathering of the Yearly Meet- 
 ing, that the representatives are in the house. But how do 
 you ascertain that there are representatives there? By the 
 clerk's calling their names, and reading the reports; that is 
 the way we know them. Are they, by the meeting, consider- 
 ed in a representative capacity till they are called? They ap- 
 pear to be by the discipline, inasmuch as they are ordered to 
 perform an official duty. The clerk is in office from one year 
 to another. Is he acting as an organ of the meeting before 
 the meeting is called? It seems to be so by the discipline; so 
 far that he is to act previous to the opening of the meeting- 
 Suppose that just previous to the time he receives these re- 
 ports, he conducts so improperly, that the representatives are 
 not willing to put the reports into his hands? In such case, 
 1 think they would probably make a deputation, to announce 
 
at Steubenville) Ohio. 
 
 43 
 
 the circumstance to the meeting generally. Do you know that 
 Israel French did not do that very thing, for the representa- 
 tives? We have proof to the contrary from the clerk, who has 
 the reports. Were you in the meeting the day before that? I 
 was. Did you hear Jonathan Taylor tell any one to sit down? 
 I heard him request Amos Peaslee to doit: he did it not more 
 than once that I heard. Was Peaslee speaking as a minister? 
 He was speaking in the ministers' gallery, and had the ap- 
 paarance of one in that engagement. If he had been a regu- 
 lar minister of the society, would not that have been sufficient 
 to disqualify Jonathan Taylor? (Answer not heard.) Then, 
 because he may not be censured, except in his own meeting, 
 no matter how immoral he is? (Not understood.) Is not the 
 Yearly Meeting, in itself, supreme and independent of other 
 Yearly Meetings? It has the privilege of making certain laws 
 and rules of discipline for itself, yet acknowledging itself a 
 circumscribed branch of the general society, with whom it 
 holds correspondence, and receives epistles, with all other 
 Yearly Meetings established in the world. 
 
 Has not David Hilles been a member of the Meeting for 
 Sufferings? He had been, but was not at the time of the 
 Yearly Meeting. How was he deprived of his situation in that 
 meeting? Probably by his own Quarterly Meeting. A part 
 of the persons present, at the time of the Yearly Meeting, went 
 to Short Creek house? Yes, the society was excluded at Mount 
 Pleasant, and went to Short Creek house. That building is 
 stated to be 45 by 70, exclusive of the shedsj is it divided into 
 two parts for women and men? Yes, the length is divided in 
 half. The house was full. And how many were there outside? 
 I got in every day, and can't tell how many there were outside^ 
 I do not know whether the shed accommodated them. There 
 were seats arranged with boards. I do not recollect, but I 
 suppose they were 10 or 15 feet in length; and there were two 
 rows, the whole width of the house. Can you form any idea 
 of the number of men outside? I cannot. Should you suppose 
 there were fifty? Yes, I should suppose there were more than* 
 fifty. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. fVright. — Where your discipline fails to 
 provide a specific rule, how do you get along? I apprehend it 
 might be answered, that we are influenced by what we con- 
 ceive to be the spirit of the discipline. We endeavour to make 
 our acts in unison and accordance with other acts the most 
 similar. I understand you to say, that two persons spoke, 
 when the proposition for laying down Concord Monthly Meet- 
 ings was before the Quarter. About how many were there 
 probably present, from that meeting at the time — was it a large 
 meeting? No it was not very large. One objected, and tiie 
 other gave the caution I have mentioned. Do you know if the 
 
 •J 
 
44 
 
 Trial of Frieiiih 
 
 miuislers and elders, if there be any such in that meeting, 
 concurred in the measure? The elders did, and the overseers. 
 There were none of the ministers, acknowledged as such, that 
 concurred in the proposition. When the meeting was laid 
 down, did the representatives from Concord make any objec- 
 tion? (Answer not understood.) Did the representatives from 
 any other meeting make objection? No.. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Tuppan. — Did you say, that the 
 elders belonging to Concord united in it? I said so. Do you 
 know it, of your own knowledge? I think I do. Do you re- 
 collect that one of the members, not of that meeting, said that 
 the members of Concord Meeting had not a right to speak? I 
 do not. 
 
 Isaac Branson affirmed. — Witness testified to a paper which 
 he held in his hand, purporting to be a testimony of drsoArn- 
 ment issued against Isaac James, (a copy of which has already 
 been given.) Witness said he offered it to Isaac James, but he 
 refused to take it: could not state the exact time, but it was 
 before the Yearly Meeting at Mount Pleasant. Witness 
 told him he had better look at it, he might not know what it 
 was. He would not accept it. He was also informed of his 
 right to appeal. This duty was performed for the service of 
 the meeting. 
 
 Benjamin W. Ladd affirmed. — Are you a member of the so- 
 ciety of Friends? I am. Are you clerk to the Meeting for 
 Sufferings? No. I am clerk to the Yearly Meeting of minis- 
 ters and elders, and have been for a number of years. It is 
 considered as belonging to Ohio Yearly Meeting, and is known 
 as such, in the printed discipline of the Yearly Meeting, and 
 the time and place of meeting are known in the discipline. 
 Of how many members does it consist ? I hold in my 
 hand, a list of the names of the members composing that 
 Yearly Meeting. The whole number is one hundred and 
 thirty-ninej all belonging to this Yearly Meeting. Did you 
 assemble with the meeting? We assembled on the 6th day of 
 N'inth-month, which was the Seventh-day of the week preced- 
 ing the general meeting, and I acted as clerk of the meeting. 
 Is it the habit of that meeting, to receive reports from other 
 meetings? It is, to receive reports from the Quarterly Select 
 Meetings of the same character, that is, ministers and elders. 
 There were reports and representatives from all the Quarterly 
 Meetings. How long did you continue in session? Till as 
 late as the 15th or 1 6th of the month. I want to know whether 
 the ministers and elders went with those who retained the 
 meeting house? The great body of the society united after the 
 great disturbance, at Short Creek house; and aa near as I can 
 tell, only eighteen out of one hundred and thirty-nine united 
 with what we call the Separatists. 
 
at Steiif/enville, Ohio. 
 
 4b 
 
 Were you present at the Yearly Meeting on the 8lh of the 
 month? I met there with the committee on Indian concerns, 
 at 8, or about that time. The committee progressed with 
 business, I think, till a little after 9, perhaps a quarter. The 
 day was inclement, and the rain was falling. The people 
 were pressing and crowding outside, and on that account the 
 committee adjourned, that the people might get in. We ad- 
 journed I think about a quarter after nine, and two doors were 
 then opened. I think it was concluded that the two doors 
 would be sufficient, and they were opened, about a quarter 
 after nine, and the people assembled, and came into the house, 
 as I conceive, in a very disorderly manner. I observed them 
 coming in, in crowds, and distinguished among them some 
 that had been disowned. It was, by the time they were gene- 
 rally in, 10 o'clock. The meeting sat awhile, as it is usual 
 to have a retirement, or what we call a solemn pause, and 
 frequently preaching or vocal supplication. And that morn- 
 ing Thomas Shillitoe appeared in supplication; how long 
 he was engaged I cannot say; perhaps thirty minutes: soon 
 after he rose from his knees, and after a short pause, Jonathan 
 Taylor was preparing his papers to open the meeting, I dis- 
 covered Israel French. He began by stating that the present 
 clerk had disqualified hiraself, and he would propose that 
 another be appointed, or something to that effect; the true 
 words I will not undertake to repeat. By the time he had 
 finished, Jonathan Taylor was prepared to read our opening 
 minute, and stood up and read it; and proceeded pretty soon 
 to call the representatives. I am not sure, that it was while 
 he was engaged, that some person named David Hilles as 
 clerk, but the proposition was concurred with by a number of 
 persons. There was a burst of voices immediately uniting 
 with David Hilles being clerk of the meeting. I did not my- 
 self consider the proposition or motion to be at all in order, or 
 that it could at all be entertained. I did not speak to it, but 
 several spoke, and some said there was a clerk at the table. I 
 considered that it was out of order, and did not deserve to be 
 noticetl by the meeting. 
 
 About this time, the assistant clerk, Amos E. Kimberley, 
 read what we call the introduction, or address from the several 
 Quarterly Meetings, and the signatures of the clerks' names 
 from at least four of the Quarterly Meetings. I think he men- 
 tioned, that there was a copy of the report from Redstone Quar- 
 terly Meeting, signed by the assistant clerk. And the proposition 
 was made, whether that should be taken as the report; as the 
 one signed by the clerk, had not been delivered by him, as the 
 discipline directs, previous to the assembling of the meeting. 
 And there were, to my understanding, a number of voices in 
 the affirmative, concurring, that the report handed in by the 
 6 
 
46 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 ussisUnt clei k, should be received, to make it the act of the 
 meeting. And when the whole number were called, including' 
 those from Redstone Quarter, I think all answered but fivej 
 for two of whom, reasons were rendered, I think in writing. 
 And it was considered that the three were present, and de- 
 clined embodying themselves with the meeting. Did you 
 know any of those present? I think David Hilles was one, 
 and he was present I know. And at the time the assistant 
 clerk was reading the reports, or introductions and signatures, 
 those who favoured David Hilles becoming clerk, were urging 
 his coming to the table; and they continued to urge, that he 
 should come to the table ; and many of the members of the 
 meeting were put in motion. I observed David Hilles — I did 
 not see him when he started from his seat, but I saw him 
 coming up the passage towards the stove; and I did admire, 
 to see him use the exertion which he did, to work his way 
 through the crowd, for the passage, before that time, was very 
 much crowded with persons. 
 
 After David Hilles got to the stove, I paid little attention 
 to him. My attention being to other parts of the meeting, I 
 did not know much of him, till I saw him in the ministers' 
 gallery, between me and where the table had stood. After 
 getting there — there was a time that he hesitated what further 
 to do. He did not immediately proceed to take upon himself 
 the office of clerk, but after a time, he did — after a person, I 
 think, had handed him the drawer of the table which had 
 been broken. And,^I think, I saw him writing some on it, 
 having his paper on the bottom of the drawer that belonged to 
 the table, before it was broken. I think he wrote some, but I 
 am not positive. He then stood up, and read a minute in the 
 usual form, " at Ohio Yearly Meeting, held at Mount Pleasant, 
 the 8th day of Ninth-month, 1828." I have heard something of 
 his reading a similar minute at the stove; but if he did, I did 
 not hear it. But I heard him distinctly read, after he had got 
 into the ministers' gallery; and I oljserved, that David Hilles 
 had become a disturber of the meeting, for he had undertaken 
 to become the organ of, what I considered, the greatest mob 
 I had ever witnessed. 
 
 Pretty soon after that, I inquired if Jonathan Taylor was in 
 the meeting, for I was standing on the seat where the minis- 
 ters and elders usually sit, and I knew he had lost his regular 
 situation. I inquired if Jonathan Taylor was in the house. It 
 was replied that he was in the house. I found that he was 
 something between his usual situation, and the women's part 
 of the house. After I found he was in the house, I think I 
 proposed, that the meeting should adjourn. And in order to 
 make it unquestionable, in that confused state, I believe I 
 proposed, that the representatives should be called, and an- 
 
at Sleubenville, Ohio. 
 
 47 
 
 Bwer, saying whether they united in the adjournment, or con 
 sented to the adjournment. I think they were called by the 
 assistant clerk. As far as I have any recollection, all that 
 answered concurred. Were there a considerable number that 
 did not answer? I can't say positively, but my impression is, 
 that a large majority answered and concurred. The meeting 
 was then regularly adjourned, by reading a minute to that 
 effect, to the 10th hour the next day. At the time there was 
 a contest about the table, a person at my left hand, mentioned 
 something like, let us surrender, or, had we not better sur- 
 render. I remember very well, that Samuel Bettle, from Phi- 
 ladelphia, spoke to him, and said he had better be quiet. 
 After that, I remained till the orthodox retired — I was among 
 the last, and observed that person continue with those that 
 remained, and that person was professing to be orthodox; but 
 he was, in fact, one of the party that was struggling for the 
 house, and he cemained with the company. 
 
 As to the number that withdrew, and remained, it is con- 
 jecture; but if I were to express an opinion, I should say, that 
 at least two-thirds retired. I went round and took a delibe- 
 rate view of the women that remained, and I saw them engaged 
 at the south-east part of their apartment; and there was not as 
 large a number of women as men. I do not think their num- 
 ber exceeded one-fourth. Did you feel any thing like alarm 
 at the galleries falling? I did; and I had as much right to be 
 alarmed as amy body, for I was sitting under the sounding 
 board. I felt some alarm and some consternation. But I 
 took as deliberate a view as could be expected, under such 
 circumstances, and saw nothing giving way; I removed very 
 little, and then remained till all was over. Did the body of 
 men move up simultaneously, at the time the great scuffle 
 took place? I had been shoved out of my place towards the 
 east, and was neap the centre, on a short bench that holds but 
 three persons. I will state how I lost my seat. I discovered 
 over the head of Thomas Shillitoe, who sat at my left hand, 
 Isaac James coming up, and when I saw him coming up over 
 the three seats below me, and over the heads of those that sat 
 on these seats, and when coming over the last, I stepped upon 
 my seat, and put my hands upon him, and did for a time en- 
 deavour to prevent him from coming over. He was sweating, 
 and seemed as it he had used great exertion; but his strength 
 was still sufficient to overcome mine, and he was soon over in 
 the ministers' gallery, and made his way to the table. I do 
 not know what become of him after that, for I could not see, 
 or know but little about it, as between me and the table, were 
 several periions that never before had a place in the minis- 
 ters' gallery, and they were striving to obtain the table. Did 
 they move simultaneously? They did, They appeared to have. 
 
48 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 ill view, to obtain the place that Jonathan Taylor had occupied 
 — that seemed to be the great object. I considered myself at 
 liberty to oppose Isaac James from coming into the ministers' 
 gallery, as he had no right in the house. He had no right 
 in the meeting, and no right to be there. I was acquainted 
 with the statute law, protecting religious societies; and knew, 
 that in our discipline, it is made the duty of elders, particu- 
 larly, to see that our meetings for discipline are select; and 
 that persons disowned, and those Avho have never had a right, 
 shall not be present in. these meetings. And I considered 
 myself justified, in opposing Isaac James in coming there; 
 and should have considered myself authorized, had I possessed 
 the power, to remove him out of the house. 
 
 How long have you been a member of the society? I was 
 raised a member. Was the conduct of these people accord- 
 ing to the usual mode of the society? I never saw any thing 
 of the kind; it was more like a mob, in character and appear- 
 ance, than like a religious assembly. Who are entitled to set 
 in the ministers' gallery? In the first place, we give place to 
 strange ministers; in the second place, to other approved 
 ministers; and if more room than that remains unoccupied, 
 the elders mix with them, in occupying the highest scat. Is 
 it not a universal observance, to go through the ile, instead 
 of climbing over the bench railings? I never saw a person in 
 a religious meeting, attempt to come up in that way before. 
 Was there no other question than that of Israel French before 
 the meeting? I did not consider that in order; neither did 
 the body of representatives consider it a subject submitted 
 to the meeting. Was it acted upon in the usual way? It was 
 not. I consider the whole proceeding entirely irregular. Do 
 you recollect whether Isaac James, or David Hilles, took hold 
 of the table? I do not, there were too many between us. 
 
 Cross-examination by Mr. Tnppan. — Do you not know, that 
 David Hilles did not take hold of the table? I do not. Did 
 you ever see the steps, leading to the ministers' gallery, occu- 
 pied by a dense mass of people before meeting — as thick as 
 they were at this meeting? I think I never did. I never saw 
 the house so much crowded. How many persons were engag- 
 ed in removing the table, on the part of those you call Hicks- 
 ites? I do not know particularly, because I did not attend to 
 the transactions at the table. When the attempt was made to 
 bring Hilles to the table, did not the orthodox rise up? I be- 
 lieve those who had taken their seats in the early part of the 
 meeting, on the stairs, generally rose up. Well, did they not 
 push back? I think they did at least stand firmly. Quite as 
 much as was proper for men of your religious sentiments? 
 Could Mr. Hilles have got up to the place of the clerk, with- 
 out removing some of these men? It would be almost impos- 
 
at Sieubenvllte, Ohio. 
 
 49 
 
 sible, and I admired at the attempt; the men standing in the 
 passage formed a body so dense, that it did appear to me al- 
 most impossible. You thought the fortification impregnable? 
 You did not know Hilles to be whefe they were engaged in re- 
 moving the table? I cannot say. Was it not about an equal 
 match for strength on each side, and was there not as much 
 force used in the gallery, as by those who made the attack? 
 I cannot say positively. 
 
 You have said, that you considered the motion made by Mr. 
 French out of order; was not Mr. French a regular member? 
 I did not think him a regular member. Though he was not dis- 
 owned nor under dealing? He had attended many private 
 meetings and conferences of what we call the Hicksite party. 
 He had become doubtful in his faith and practice? Yes, he 
 had in our meetings given frequent evidence, that he was 
 not exactly one with us. Is not a member of your society 
 considered a member till he is under dealing? Yes. Then he 
 was a member, and had a right to be there, and make a pro- 
 position? Yes, if in order; and if out of order, it must meet 
 that respect it might seem to deserve. In Ohio Yearly Meet- 
 ing, are not all the members on an equality, as to right, or 
 have you any set of men who have a right to dominion over 
 others? Not absolute dominion, but there is a certain prefer- 
 ence to be given towards years, and to some, more than to 
 others; for some do manifest that they have by life and con- 
 versation, attained to a higher religious growth; and they are, 
 of course, entitled to more respect than those who have walk- 
 ed disorderly. How do you determine this; have you scales 
 to weigh them? We weigh them in our own minds. As 
 to weight of character; you speak of your own estimate — 
 how is it with others? I have understood, that when a person 
 is a member of your society, he has aright to attend the Year- 
 ly Meeting, and a right to be heard there — I also understand 
 from you, that some members have move weight than others, 
 more religious experience, and that the sentiments of some 
 have more influence than others — Is it because they have 
 more influence with you, or is it their right? Is there a legal 
 right to more influence? As to the term legal, we do not ge- 
 nerally apply it in a religious point of view. 
 
 Are there any number of members, whose voices would have 
 more weight than the voices of an equal number of other mem- 
 bers? Certainly, in matters under consideration in a meeting 
 of discipline, the opinions or sentiments of some individuals 
 do weigh more than those of others. As in an assembly of 
 men of different ages, for any purpose, the aged men have 
 more respect shown them than others. I have described it in 
 a previous answer, that those who have attained to greater 
 religious experience, are entitled to more respect, and their 
 
50 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 opinions to more weight. How is this fact to be known by 
 the meeting? It is understood by their lives and conversation. 
 In taking a question, if there were twenty men, of great re- 
 ligious experience, whose lives had placed them on this con- 
 spicuous ground, opposed to forty others, would the twenty 
 outweigh the forty? It would depend upon who the forty were; 
 if they had no weight of character and experience, the twenty 
 would outweigh them, and were I the clerk, I should so con- 
 sider it. The clerks would pay more deference to the twenty, 
 than to the forty? The clerks are generally chosen for their 
 qualifications, to discharge the duties of the office. Would it 
 not then depend on the character and qualifications of the 
 clerk: if the clerk should be with the forty, then they would 
 have the greatest weight? If, in his opinion, they deserved 
 more respect. Then the clerk is not bound by the majority ? 
 Never in any instance. The clerk is never bound to respect 
 the majority of members in attendance. But when driven to 
 the necessity of deciding on any subject, in a religious meet- 
 ing? — That never has been the case until this unhappy differ- 
 ence; but when driven to that necessity, as clerk of the meet- 
 ing, I should look to the representatives; but we were never 
 driven to the necessity of calling the yeas and nays, but in the 
 one instance. If I understand you now, it is a matter that the 
 clerk has to judge of, and the clerk has the right to decide? 
 It has always rested with the clerk. He has a right to collect 
 the sense of the meeting in the best way he can, and to record 
 it. If it were necessary to decide upon a subject, I would 
 look to the representatives; and then, I do not see how 
 I could avoid looking to the numbers. The meeting has no 
 control over the clerk, about what the clerk sets down; whe- 
 ther agreed to by a majority or minority of members, it gOes 
 for the sense of the meeting. Did you ever know any case 
 carried, unless there was a clear majority in favour of it ? 
 As to majority, we have never looked to it. Did you ever 
 know a subject carried, when there appeared to be the great- 
 est portion disagreeing with it? I cannot speak of an instance 
 where a question w^s recorded as carried, when a majority 
 appeared opposed to it. I have hardly ever seen it the case, 
 where a number of respectable individuals, or persons of reli- 
 gious experience, expressed a sentiment, that members of less 
 experience would object to the opinion of such. They have 
 always heretofore acquiesced, or submitted, or condescended: 
 but still, if the majority should be in opposition, the clerk 
 must record against them. 
 
 When a man standing as Mr. French did — when a member 
 makes a motion in a Yearly Meeting, has it not been usual for 
 his proposition to be heard? I never knew a proposition so out 
 of order. Was that not a (juestion to determine, and how 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 bt 
 
 were the meeting to act? I suppose if a thousand persons had 
 been present, Benjamin W. Ladd would not have been the 
 whole body? If the Yearly Meeting assembles and has no 
 clerk, or the clerk is disqualified; is it not in the power of that 
 meeting to appoint a clerk? It may be allowed, that if the 
 clerk were not present, it might be proper for a member to 
 name a person for clerk, and if agreed to by the meeting, in- 
 cluding the representatives, he would be the clerk; but if a 
 difficulty occurred, it would require the representatives. Does 
 the discipline require any such thing, or was there any refe- 
 rence to representatives, when Taylor was appointed? I was 
 not at the meeting. Did you ever know a meeting to adjourn, 
 by calling over the roll of representatives, and taking their 
 sense upon the subject? I never did; but the reasonableness of 
 the thing occurred to me. I never before saw such necessity 
 for it. Here a proposition was made for an adjournment, the 
 representatives were named, and united with it, before the 
 clerk drew up, or read the adjourned minute? The clerk had 
 no power to do it, without being united in by the meeting. 
 
 If the clerk had not been present on Second-day morning, 
 and if no assistant clerk had been there, how would you have 
 opened the meeting? I suppose a person might have been 
 named, and if the proposition had been united with by the re- 
 presentatives in attendance, he might have acted. Are the 
 representatives ever called for, separate from others? There 
 never has been an instance of it, except in the case of clerks. 
 You say a clerk must be appointed, if none be present, and that 
 this must be the first act of the meeting — that they could not 
 proceed without a clerk, unless the representatives chose to 
 collect together, in some part of the house, or to retire, and 
 agree on some one? But suppose the great majority of the 
 meeting should be of opinion, that the clerk is disqualified to 
 act; is it not in the power of the meeting to determine the fact? 
 It is a matter of opinion; I have never seen such a case. Who 
 could determine it, and who is to decide but the meeting? I 
 should think in every instance of that kind, it must be for some 
 previous conduct or offence, and that something would be done 
 before; I have never known a Yearly Meeting to take cogni- 
 zance of such a case. 
 
 You admit that the Yearly Meeting^is the superior, govern- 
 ing power of the society within its own bounds, that it does 
 make its own rules and regulations, that it has the power as 
 the supreme ecclesiastical body of the society, that it is go- 
 verned by its own rules, and that these rules are in the disci- 
 pline: but it now appears there are some rules that have been 
 agreed on several years ago, which arc not embodied in the 
 discipline? But all rules of discipline, whether in the book or 
 not, are considered as binding on the society, and they are 
 
52 
 
 Trial of f riends 
 
 sent down to the subordinate meetings, only that they may 
 know the changes that have taken place. And I do not recol- 
 lect to have heard any objections. I have heard nothing of 
 the kind. Did it not create considerable disturbance for the 
 assistant clerk to go on calling the representatives, when a 
 proposition was before the meeting to make a new clerk? He 
 was reading, and kept on. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Wright. — When David Hilles was read- 
 ing, did he stand up or keep his seat? I have heard — (objected 
 to.) I suppose children have a right to attend, as soon as they 
 are capable of being introduced into the meeting? They may 
 attend all our meetings, from the least to the greatest. But I 
 have never known a case where children were requested to ex- 
 press an opinion; nor have I ever known young men to inter- 
 fere; although they are understood to have equal rights with 
 the rest. You would of course take the opinion of Judge 
 Tappan, sooner than that of one who has no experience? 
 (Reply not understood.) Did you hear Isaac James make any 
 request of the orthodox, to go out of the house? I did not. 
 
 Lewis Walker affirmed. — (Before this witness proceeded with 
 his testimony, it was stated that Parker Askew, a witness in 
 attendance on the part of the defendants, was under the neces- 
 sity of returning home, and it would- be a favour if his testi- 
 mony could be received at that time, which was agreed to.) 
 
 Parker Askew affirmed on the part of the defendants. — Witness 
 stated, that he was appointed clerk of Stillwater Quarter, at 
 its last meeting, the records of which he produced and iden- 
 tified. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Wright. — When were you appointed 
 clerk? At the last Quarter, on the 27th of Eighth-month last. 
 How long have you been a member of that Quarter? Ever 
 since it has been a Quarter, perhaps seven years, I am not 
 sure. Was Eighth-month last, the regular time for appoint- 
 ing clerk in that Quarter? Clerks arc removed at the pleasure 
 of the meeting; they are not stationary. I think it was not the 
 regular time; I cannot tell, as I had omitted to attend one or 
 two Quarters. W as not the meeting, having possession of the 
 records, then in session in the same house? I cannot say. 
 Was not a body of men then acting as a meeting, and did they 
 not claim to be the Quarterly Meeting? I was not in the meeting 
 till my name was called. I was upon the step, when my name 
 was proposed. I think the former clerk was there; I did not 
 see him; a number of persons were standing, s*o that 1 appre- 
 hend the view of the clerk was hid from me. Did you not 
 know that the clerk had been proceeding? 1 do not know that 
 there was any such thing. Was there not another Quarterly 
 Meeting organized in the house? We believed that they had so 
 far deviated from discipline, that they were not entitled to that 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 53 
 
 character. We occupied the south-east part of the house. 
 Then your Quarterly Meeting separated themselves from the 
 others? We did not mix witli them, more than they mixed 
 with us. Who has possession of the records? We have never 
 had possession of them, or, I have not. 
 
 Of what Monthly Meetings does that Quarter consist? It was 
 represented, I think, by Plainfield, Stillwater and Deerfield. 
 Were there no others? There was one called Somerset, but I 
 think it sent no representatives. Jlave you still the same 
 Monthly Meetings, or are there others added? I think there 
 were no others. Is there not a half Monthly Meeting, that 
 meets alternately at two places? There is such a meeting as 
 you allude to. Then the whole proceedings of your Quarterly 
 Meeting were in the corner of the room. The voices of those 
 that spoke to business, appeared to be generally in that part 
 of the house; and I think I may remark, that Friends were ex- 
 tremely cautious, and. rather more quiet than usual. I allude 
 to those that transacted business in the meeting of which I 
 was clerk. I do not know that I heard the representatives 
 called by the other party. In what way does a Quarterly 
 Meeting acknowledge a Monthly Meeting, when they meet? 
 Is it by their representatives? In setting them up they are 
 known by that medium, that is, by their representatives. Is 
 there any other way in which a Monthly Meeting can be repre- 
 sented? My opinion is, that if every representative should 
 fail, through high water, indisposition, or otherwise, the 
 Quarter could still transact its business, the reports might be 
 sent. Have you ever known a Quarter held in any other way 
 than by receiving reports through representatives? I know 
 there have been many omissions, and yet the Quarters have 
 been authorized to proceed. Your practice has been to ap- 
 point delegates? Yes. You had no delegates or reports from 
 Somerset? I believe not. Has any measure been taken to call 
 them to an account for neglect? In forming a minute, there 
 was mention made, that there was a Monthly Meeting not re- 
 presented. There was no call for delegates? I think not. To 
 what Monthly Meeting do you belong? I belong to Plainfield. 
 Do you know where Stillwater Monthly Meeting is held? I 
 do not know. Was Plainfield the only Monthly Meeting, or 
 were there not representatives from another? No, there is but 
 one meeting acknowledged there, by our orthodox brethren. 
 Have they not possession of the records kept in Stillwater 
 Meeting? We have them not. We know there is a division 
 in the society, Stillwater is divided, and the other party 
 have the records. Somerset was not represented. As to 
 Deerfield, I know not as a matter of fact, whether that meet- 
 ing is held by both parties in the same house. Which party 
 holds the meeting in the old place? I believe it is the orthodox. 
 7 
 
54 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 Those representatives who answered to your call, wera repre- 
 sentatives of that division of Quakers called Hicksites? (Re- 
 ply not understood.) When you met, did you examine the 
 minutes of the precedini^ meeting? They kept possession of 
 the minutes', and we made no inquiry. 
 
 When you were called to the place of clerk, did you call on 
 Garretson to give you the minutes? No — we proceeded in our 
 business; and never have made a demand for the records, as 
 yet. When I was appointed clerk, I heard no opposition at all. 
 Can you state the manner and circumstances attending the 
 division in this Quarter? I know that some measures have 
 been taken to get the census, but I am not in possession of the 
 facts myself; I do not know, only from common report; I did 
 not attend the Yearly Meeting. I never was clerk of a Quar- 
 terly Meeting before, but have been assistant clerk. Do you 
 know whether the society have, heretofore, put questions by 
 vote? My opinion is formed in this way — I have never seen 
 a measure carried, when two, or three, or four members, walk- 
 ing in good life and conversation, were opposed to it; and, I 
 believe, I never did, where one was opposed, and continued to 
 objectj but have known cases, where the business has been 
 laid over, to pay respect to such an individual. But have you 
 known it, where the individual was not of so respectable a 
 character? I do not know such a case ; we have respect to the 
 standing, and also to numbers; generally, there is submission. 
 I never knew the sense of a meeting taken by vote. I was be- 
 fore the step at the door, and it was announced, that they were 
 about going to business. I advanced from my position, and 
 stepped up on the step. The meeting appeared to be quiet; 
 and while on the top step, and partly in the house, my name 
 was proposed, and acquiesced in. The call was made for me, 
 and I advanced. The clerk is the one who had before acted, 
 and with whom I had transacted business. When your meet- 
 ings become select, the shutters are usually closed — Did you 
 see them opened or shut? (Reply not understood.) The disci- 
 pline requires, that they should be shut when the meeting goes 
 into business. I do not think they had proceeded in business, 
 when I entered. My brother came to me, and said the meet- 
 ing was going to business, and requested me to come in. I 
 went to the door, and my name was called. I believe the par- 
 titions were down. Did you not know, before your brother 
 called you, that a new clerk would be appointed, if they did 
 not acknowledge your rights? We certainly did intend to 
 maintain our rights. It was understood, by you, that if you 
 were not received, and acknowledged by the orthodox, you 
 would open a meeting of your own ? It was my understand- 
 ing, that if we were not acknowledged, we should go on to 
 open a meeting. We expected to be represented, if not 
 
 4 
 
at SteubenvilU, Ohio. 
 
 55 
 
 acknowledged by the former clerk. I heard mention made, 
 that there was a report, which it was supposed would not be 
 received by the orthodox clerk. It was also added, that if it 
 were not received by him, a clerk would be appointed that 
 would receive it. Did you hear mention of any report, ex- 
 cept that of Plainfield.'' I did not. Was there any reply from 
 the clerk? There was not. I think I h6ard no voice in 
 reply. Then that was the only thing done by the orthodox 
 party, to induce your meeting to set up another meeting? I 
 know of no other. They did not accept the report? No, for 
 we kept it in our possession. They did not get it? No, it must 
 have been refused. I do not know of its being handed. I 
 did not see the person, but heard words.. I did not hear the 
 motion. Was there any proposition made to the clerk, to re- 
 ceive the report, or was there any refusal heard, in reply? This 
 laying down of Plainfield Meeting, claimed by the orthodox, 
 is not acknowledged by us. Is it not required by the discipline, 
 that the reports of Monthly Meetings be handed to the clerk, 
 before the meeting commences, that he may enter them upon 
 the minutes.'' I think not — it frequently happens. I have been 
 an assistant clerk, and have seen them handed in at the table. 
 Is it not a common practice, to hand them in before the meet- 
 ing? I don't think it universal — it is frequently done; and I 
 have frequently seen them handed in by different representa- 
 tives. Do you know an instance, where the representatives 
 have arrived in time to hand the reports to the clerk, that 
 they have not done it? I have known it in a number of in- 
 stances. I think I do not recollect a single Quarterly Meeting, 
 where all have been handed in. I know that our clerk, gene- 
 rally speaking, form.s the summary to these reports in the 
 meeting, perhaps as often that way as any other way; and after 
 they are prepared, the meeting can either adopt or reject them. 
 You say, that you believe it would be desirable for the clerk 
 to have these reports? I think it has been as frequently other- 
 wise. Is there any difference between a common Quarterly 
 Meeting, and the one preceding the Yearly Meeting? There 
 are a number of queries read. We have three queries that are 
 answered quarterly, and nine annually. Was there any dif- 
 ference in the naming these queries at this Quarter, which 
 ■was the one preceding the Yearly Meeting, or did you not 
 know, it was the design of your party to go to the Yearly Meet- 
 ing, to depose the clerk, and take possession? I never under-, 
 stood so. 
 
 Were you present at the conference that was held at Plain«< 
 field, where Amos Peaslee and others attended? I was. Was 
 there any proposition there about taking possession? I think 
 there was something mentioned about the Yearly Meeting, but 
 whether it was the Yearly Meeting, or Quarterly Meeting, I 
 
56 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 cannot tell. The subject respecting our Quarterly Meeting 
 was agitatedjbut I am not sure that any mention was made about 
 the Yearly Meeting. Was there any preconcert about or- 
 ganizing this Quarterly Meeting? There were Friends there 
 from different parts of the Quarter; there was no arrange- 
 ment, farther than that we should go as heretofore, and that 
 ■we would maintain our rights; which is what might be expect- 
 ed; that members would maintain their rights and privi- 
 leges, being conscious that they had not departed from the 
 discipline. Were you present when Plainfield Monthly Meet- 
 ing was laid down.'' I was. Was there any resistance? There 
 was a strong opposition, and little acquiescence, except by 
 three or four. Then you count all those that did not speak as 
 on your side? Is it the practice in your society for any consi- 
 derable number to speak together? Frequently there are a 
 great many, and if there is no opposition, we take it for the 
 voice of the meeting. There was a minute made, certifying 
 that part of the order laying down the meeting, was, that it be 
 attached to Stillwater. I am not sure how many members went 
 to Stillwater, but they were a very small proportion. I can 
 speak pretty positively, that I think there were about a hun- 
 dred families in all, and I do not believe, that more than five or 
 six, or six or seven families, at farthest, went to Stillwater. I 
 should not think that one-tenth had gone there. Do you know 
 of any minute that you haA'e made, mentioning the separation 
 of the Monthly and Quarterly Meetings? I know of none. 
 Have you not entered a minute there, that you will not com- 
 mune with the orthodox, as they have separated from you? 
 We rejected, in toto, the whole arrangement of the Stillwater 
 Quarter. Is there any minute, to your knowledge, of the 
 decision of the meeting, as to those meetings which have se- 
 parated? When Peaslee was present, were there persons pre- 
 sent from the different meetings within the Quarter? I think 
 there were. Did you ever know such a meeting? No, I never 
 knew such a meeting before; but extraordinary cases require 
 extraordinary measures. We knew that things had been 
 adopted of which we did not approve, and this conference was 
 invited, in consequence of the imposition, and in anticipation 
 of future measures. What was the result of that conference? 
 The result was, that, in consequence of the situation of our 
 Monthly Meeting, and other Monthly Meetings, which were 
 not acknowledged by the Quarter, we would go to the Quar- 
 terly Meeting and maintain our rights. Was there any thing 
 that connected itself with the Yearly Meeting? I think not. 
 I believe it was advised to attend as usual. The object was, 
 as I have mentioned, to know the real sentiments of Friends 
 in our Quarterly Meeting. Did you hear Isaac James talk 
 any thing upon this subject? I never did. 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 57 
 
 (The examination of this witness continued for about twen- 
 ty minutes, but for the want of light, it being in the dusk of the 
 evening, we were unable to take notes during this part of the 
 examination. The prominent object of inquiry, however, 
 appeared to be, to establish the fact, that a conspiracy was 
 entered into by the Hicksites, previous to the Yearly Meeting, 
 in relation to the measures to be pursued on that occasion^ but 
 the fact was not estal)lished.) 
 
 Court adjourned to 9 o'clock to-morrow morning. 
 
 Friday the 1 7th, 9 o'clock. 
 
 Lewis Walker called. (This witness was. affirmed last even- 
 ing, but gave place to Parker Askew, as before stated.) 
 
 Questioned by Mr. JFrighi for the prosecution.— Are you trea- 
 surer of Ohio Yearly Meeting? Yes. Were you present at 
 Ohio Yearly Meeting? I was not present on Second-day, from 
 the time they met, till after they adjourned. To what party 
 did you render your account, or wliich do you esteem the Ohio 
 Yearly Meeting? (Objected to.) I was appointed, perhaps 
 six or' seven years ago, to the office of treasurer, and have con- 
 tinued ever since; and my settlement this year was with the 
 committee of those called orthodox. I am a member of the 
 Meeting for Sufferings, which belongs to the same party that 
 I profess to belong to. I am clerk of the committee on Indian 
 concerns. During the time of the meeting in 1826, there was 
 an alteration made as to the time of holding our meetings; and 
 it was concluded to meet on Second-day afternoon. I had 
 forgotten the time, and stated that it was 8 o'clock, and a num- 
 ber met with me under an impression that that was the time. 
 
 The Committee for Sufferings belong to the orthodox party 
 •—the Meeting for Sufferings to which I belong. I suppose 
 that all who are now members are of the orthodox party? Not 
 all, perhaps three or four out of forty-six are not. Did you 
 hear any thing of those persons, having no authority there, 
 being prohibited ? There were a number round the door, and 
 they were told that a committee was in session, and it would 
 not be convenient for them to come in. I went out before the 
 doors were opened. I do not know that any thing was done 
 to prevent individuals from entering. 
 
 How many belonged to the Indian committee? It is a com- 
 mittee of men and women — a large committee: there must be 
 of both sexes as many as fifty. What proportion belong to 
 the orthodox party? There are very few who do not belong. 
 Did any of the Hicksite party attend that committee? I be- 
 lieve not, that morning. Do you know that any of the Hicks- 
 ite party attended the Meeting for Sufferings? I should think 
 none, that had fairly attached themselves to that party. Do 
 you know to which meeting the Indian committee made their 
 report? To our meeting, and the Meeting for Sufferings also. 
 
58 
 
 Trial of Frieiids 
 
 Do you know the situation of the door back of the. clerk's 
 table? It is a double door, similar to this, in the court-house. 
 It formerly opened in, but it was found inconvenient to 
 open it while the rncctint^ was in session, because the seat and 
 table were close to it. It was, therefore, chani^cd, and hung 
 so as to open out; it was so during, the last Yearly Meeting. 
 There is a bolt that fastens one door at the bottom, and the 
 other is fastened with a kind of key and bar. • 
 
 Cross-examination. — You speak of the Meeting for Sufferings 
 belonging to the other parly; do you not know that your party 
 had undertaken to exclude from their meeting, those who 
 agreed with Elias .Hicks in sentiment.'' I don't think there 
 has been any case of exclusion, until they had been released 
 from the appointment by the meeting appointing them. There 
 have been none, that I recollect, excluded by the Meeting for 
 Sufferings. How did these members cease to be members? 
 Some were, according to discipline, released for non-attend- 
 ance; there were several of this description. David Hilles' 
 "was one whose name was brouglit forward, and released by 
 Redstone Quarterly Meeting. Who was appointed in his 
 place? I do not recollect. 
 
 You say this meeting reported to that part of the Ohio Yearly 
 Meeting that is called orthodox? Do you know, that ihe Ohio 
 Yearly Meeting chose their Meeting for Sufferings? I do not 
 know what was transacted in town, after they separated. 
 Don't you know that the Meeting for Sufferings, which re- 
 ported at Short Creek, were laid down by the Yearly Meeting 
 ■which met at Mount Pleasant? I do not. You know there 
 "were two bodies at Mount Pleasant, tliat went on and trans- 
 acted business as separate meetings? I was not at the house 
 in Mount Pleasant, from Third-day afternoon, till they ad- 
 journed; I was at Short Creek house. There was a body of 
 Friends that met there, and we considered that we were hold- 
 ing the Yearly Meeting. I saw a great many going to the 
 other house; but I do not know what was done, or what pro- 
 portion were at that place. I made no estimate. I know 
 there were more than could get into the house at Short Creek. 
 No reports were made by these committees till after the divi- 
 sion? No. If it had not been for this secession, they would 
 have been made to the usual ineeting? I expect that if the 
 meeting had been held as heretofore, at Mount Pleasant, the 
 whole would have been transacted there. It was the proper 
 place to make the reports? It has been the place, heretofore, 
 for making the reports. If they had not seceded, the report 
 ■would have been made to the whole body? To be sure, if we 
 had not divided, it would have been made to the whole. 
 
 Did you not make a report, as ti-easurer, to the Yearly 
 Meeting? A committee was appointed by our Yearly Meet- 
 
at Sltubenville, Ohio. 
 
 59 
 
 ing, to settle with the treasurer. If there were reports made 
 to the other meeting, I know nothing of it. Did you not meet 
 with a committee from the regular Yearly Meeting house to 
 settle? Not to settle — 1 might have had conversation with 
 individuals from there. Did they not call on you, as a com- 
 mittee from Ohio Yearly Meeting, to settl«? They did, but 
 I thought it would be a farce; I told them I was treasurer 
 of the Ohio Yearly Meeting ; and if it would be any great 
 satisfaction, I could tell thcni, that the Yearly Meeting were 
 indebted to me, and that none had a right to settle with me, 
 but the meeting to which I was attached, and the meeting that 
 appointed me. Were yoii not appointed by all the members 
 of both parties? Yes. What right had you to attach your- 
 self to one party as treasurer? 1 could not attend both, they 
 were both sitting at the same time. 
 
 Were you at Short Creek Quarterly Meeting on the 27th of 
 Eleventh-month, 1827? I believe I have attended all the Quar- 
 terly Meetings. I do not recollect when I was released from 
 being clerk of the Quarter. Were not the Hicksites excluded 
 from that committee? I do not recollect the particulars. Was 
 not Israel French excluded ? I recollect that Israel French 
 was named to some appointment, and his name was taken out. 
 I do not recollect the reasons advanced, but expect it was be- 
 cause he was not in unity with one parly in the society. I do 
 not think they were excluded from having a yoice in the meet- 
 ing. How far were they excluded then? By their names 
 being taken out. I think I was not there. What is the cus- 
 tomary way? Some one names an individual, and the clerk 
 takes his name down. Israel French was named to some com- 
 mittee, and after a time, his name was erased. Is it custo- 
 mary? It has been done a few times lately. I think I have 
 observed a few cases. Don't you in the meetings of the ortho- 
 dox, exclude those from acting with you, though not disowned, 
 who are inclined to the opinions 'of Elias Hicks? I don't know 
 how far to answer that. I want you to answer it, as far as 
 the truth goes. If persons are acting together, they can act 
 with more harmony. Therefore, that there may be harmony, 
 and that you may act with one mind, you silence those who 
 do not think with you ? Not exactly so. Do you not do it to 
 produce unity? A very few cases have presented, in which it 
 was considered necessary. But when it was necessary, you 
 have done it? To speak of facts, there have been a very few 
 cases where we have been tried in that way. 
 
 Question by the Judge. — Have any been excluded from your 
 meeting, because they were Hicksites? I don't know any case 
 where they have. 
 
 Were they not at that meeting excluded from having any 
 weight in the meeting? They were admitted to express their 
 
60 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 sentiments, but were not considered as having as much weight 
 as others. If they had been the greater number, would you 
 not have proceeded without their concurrence? L cannot say. 
 
 Question by the Judge.— How was it as to the fact of majori- 
 ties at that meeting? I do not know. 
 
 Was not advice given to the Quarterly Meeting, directing 
 it not to appoint any person suspected of being in unity with 
 Elias Hicks, on that committee? I do not recollect now. Who 
 compose your Monthly Meetings? All within certain limits. 
 You consider that all who are members, have a right to meet 
 and express their sentiments, upon a perfect equality as to re- 
 ligious rights? Yes. What composes your Quarterly Meet- 
 ing? It is composed of several neighbouring Monthly Meet- 
 ings, who choose delegates from each Monthly Meeting to at- 
 tend the Quarterly Meeting. All members are privileged to 
 attend. And when they do so attend, are.they all on an equality? 
 They are all privileged to express their sentiments. None 
 are privileged more than others? I do not know that they are. 
 We have nothing which we would call an aristocracy in our 
 society. 
 
 Is there any difference, in taking the sentiments of aQiiar- 
 terly Meeting, in those who are representatives, and those who 
 are not representatives? I think I never observed any differ- 
 ence. In conducting the Yearly Meeting, the representatives 
 from each Quarter, and all others who attend, when they do 
 attend, are on the same equality as in a Quarterly Meeting? I 
 should think so. When you have acted as clerk, it has been 
 your duty to take the voice of the meeting collectively? Yes. 
 And that is to govern? When I have been clerk, I never found 
 much difficulty in determining. Did you ever set any thing 
 down as the sense of the meeting, when the majority were 
 against it? I do not recollect it. If there was much oppo- 
 sition, I think it never has been set down as the judgment of 
 the meeting, when I was clerk. How do you choose represen- 
 tatives from a Quarterly to the Yearly Meeting? They are 
 nominated in the meeting at large. Any individual may name 
 one or more, and when one is named, the name is taken down, 
 and generally some person names another, and so on. Then 
 the names are read over, and if they answer, they are consider- 
 ed as representatives. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Wright. — In choosing representatives, 
 suppose twice as many should be named as are necessary, must 
 you take the sense of the meeting? It is a case which I 
 have never known to occur; I should suppose, that the meeting 
 would stop when they had enough. I think, in one instance, 
 after a person was named, he was objected to. It was the 
 case of French; the name was struck out, and another con- 
 tinued. Do you know what has been the practice of the 
 
at Steubeiiville, Ohio. 
 
 61 
 
 Yearly Meeting? In the appointment of Jonathan Taylor, 
 when the clerk, who had been previously appointed, was taken 
 sick, we were all met together, representatives and others, and 
 there was not a voice dissenting. Do you recollect whether 
 there was any opposition to erasing the name of Israel French? 
 I do not remember. 
 
 Do you say, that all have equal rights in Quarterly and 
 Monthly Meetings? I think all have equal rights in express- 
 ing sentiments. I never knew any distinction made, or appeal 
 to the representatives, particularly, as having more power than 
 other members. 
 
 Cross-examination resumed. — Do you consider, that the repre- 
 sentatives from the Quarterly or Monthly Meetings, have any 
 more power than others? And if they have more power, in what 
 does it consist? I should give it as my opinion, that they have 
 no more power than others. They have some particular du- 
 ties devolving on them, which do not devolve on others. If 
 no representatives attended, would you hold a meeting? I 
 suppose there never has been a case. 
 
 John Batton affirmed. — Were you at Ohio Yearly Meeting, 
 on Second-day morning? Yes. Did you see David Hilles 
 there? Yes, I saw him start from his seat, and go to take his 
 place as clerk. Did he start voluntarily? David sat at my 
 right hand, and there was an invitation for him to go forward. 
 I could not see who proposed it; but a man came and told him, 
 that he was proposed as clerk, and he wished him to go to the 
 table. He said no, he could not go to the table, but if they 
 would bring a table to him, he would open the meeting. The 
 man went off. David said it was impossible to get through 
 the crowd, and if he should get there they would not give up 
 the table. Presently James Cope and Jonathan Pierce came 
 to him. James came first, and said that he was named as 
 clerk, and they wished him to go to the table. David said it 
 would be of no use to attempt it, for he could not get there. 
 And while James was talking, Jonathan Pierce reached 
 over the bench, and took hold of him, and told him he was 
 named as clerk; and he wished him to go to the table. He 
 parleyed some, but Jonathan said, never mind that, come to the 
 table, and we will make way for you. Was the movement si- 
 multaneous? There had been a very great crowd, and they 
 had left several of the benches, in the back part of the house, 
 and had risen up upon the benches, all over the house, as high 
 as they could get; so that I could see no more of him. I was 
 in the south-cast corner of the house. Was this proceeding, 
 naming him, in the usual manner of doing business? I could 
 not hear, for the tumult and noise. At the time they said he 
 was named, there were many people upon the benches. I 
 heard several bovs and others crv out the same thing, but I 
 8 
 
62 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 could not tell what it was. Did you ever attend a meeting 
 before, where that clamour prevailed? I never did. 
 
 Cross-examination by Mr. Tappan.—\W \\o was it that made 
 this clamour: was it the orthodox or the Hicksites? They were 
 mixed together throughout the house. Was there not as much 
 disturbance produced by the old clerk's reading, as by any 
 thing else? I could not tell whether he was reading, or doing 
 any thing. I heard the assistant's voice amidst this clamour: 
 not regularly, but I could hear it once in awhile, and supposed 
 he was going on with the opening minute. 
 
 Did you see David Hilles use any violence, or hear him 
 make any noise at all? He conducted himself peaceably, just 
 as I say. Was the confusion before, or after David Hilles 
 got up to go to the table ? The clamour began when I heard a 
 voice, which I took to be that of Israel f'rench; then the cla- 
 mour began, and it continued till after Hilles went away from 
 me. What was the nature of that clamour? Was it assenting, 
 or in opposition? It appeared to me to be mostly assent- 
 ing, and some repeated it several times over. Did you 
 know any one person, who spoke more than once, in approba- 
 tion ? I could not tellj their backs were towards me. Do 
 you know that any one did it? I cannot identify any one. I 
 cannot tell what party or society they belonged to, because 
 there were those there, that did not belong to the society of 
 Friends. Did you hear them join in this clamour? I did not 
 distinguish any that were not members of the society, saying 
 any thing. I believe there were those under dealing, but I 
 could not tell. You say you heard the assistant clerk; did he 
 speak in a loud voice? He is a loud speaking man, and I heard 
 what I supposed was his voice, but I could not see him. 
 
 Jie-examined by Mr. TVright. —Witness stated that he heard 
 some one say (the name we did not understand) to David Hil- 
 les, when he started, " Go ahead as if there was nothing in the 
 way." " Go ahead with a steady step." " Go ahead or burst 
 your boiler." I could not tell much further, for he was soon 
 out of sight. The general cry was "go ahead." 
 
 Cross-examination resumed. — Do you know whether they 
 ■were members of the society who said go ahead, or burst the 
 boiler? No, I could not tell. 
 
 S. Pennington affirmed — Did you attend the late Yearly 
 Meeting of Ohio? I was there on Monday, and I saw a per- 
 son that was said to be David Hilles. - I was not in the house 
 till after the cry that the gallery was falling. I saw a man 
 who I was told was David Hilles. They were trying to get 
 him to the clerk's table. I don't know that he was making 
 use of any force more than submitting to be moved by those 
 who I supposed to be his friends. I went into the house after 
 the alarm, and they talked about David Hilles going to take 
 
a( Steuhciiville, Ohio. 
 
 63 
 
 possession of tlie table. The first I saw, he was going up the 
 steps into the ministers' gallery. Some were trying to take 
 him up, and some to keep him back, and after he got there 
 the table was broken. Some cried out violence, and some 
 said it was time to surrender; after that, some one said he 
 heard one voice, "surrender," but he wanted to hear one or 
 two more. 
 
 Cross-examination. — Was Hilles carried aloft, over the shoul- 
 ders of the people, or did he walk? He was rather down, not 
 up erect — sometimes down and sometimes up, as I thought. 
 As he was going up the steps, after the table was broken, I 
 know not what he did. I did not see him use any efforts, but 
 he submitted to what others did. I was about as far from 
 him as to that post (pointing to a post) say six yards. He was 
 carried forward by those that I understood to be his friends. 
 That party were trying to get him up to the seat; and he ap- 
 peared to submit, to be done with as they wished, who had 
 him. When I first saw him, he was a little farther than the 
 stove, going up the steps. What resistance was made? One 
 party was trying to keep him back — one party was pushing 
 back, and one forward. There was apparently as much force 
 on one side, as the other; for they kept him a great while there. 
 There were a great many standing about, so that I think no- 
 body could have got up through the pass way. Did you not 
 see the persons who were standing there, exerting themselves 
 to prevent his getting up? There were some there who op- 
 posed him. Was the door back of the clerk's table then open? 
 I think it was after the table was broken, that I noticed the 
 door open, and saw Jonathan Taylor at the door. The first 
 time I saw David Hilles, he was going up the steps, and I did 
 not see him again till he was in the ministers' gallery. This 
 was after the table was broken — it was after the violence, 
 and after some had cried surrender, and he was in peaceable 
 possession. But how was it when you first saw him? Some 
 were trying to put him up, and some were trying to keep him 
 down. The Hicksites were trying to push him up, and the 
 others down. Perhaps there was about the same number 
 pushing him down, as up; but those below, having a better 
 chance, gained the victory. When he was coming forward, 
 the people, many of them, were on the benches. 
 
 Ih: JVilUam Hamilton sworn, on the part of the prosecution. — 
 Witness stated, that he was at Mount Pleasant meeting house, 
 on the morning of Monday the 8th of September, 1828. 
 
 Questioned on the part of the prosecution. — Did you take 
 notice of the relative numbers, at the two houses, during tlie 
 week of the Yearly Meeting? I was frequently past the two 
 houses, and supposed from the appearance, that there was a 
 greater number at the old house, than at the house in town. 
 
64 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 At that time it was a pretty general observation, that there 
 were more at that meeting. I could not particularly say as to 
 the proportion. There ap])eared to be a considerable num- 
 ber more of females at the old house, than at the new meeting 
 house; as to the men, I am not able to say. The only way I 
 had of determining, was by viewing. Could you say, whe- 
 ther there were two-thirds, more or less? I thought that of 
 the females, there were near iwo to one, at the Short Creek 
 house, and I think there were more men. Of the females, I 
 am pretty well persuaded there were a considerable number 
 more; perhaps two to one; and as to men, it appeared to me 
 there were a greater number. 
 
 Were you present when the meeting assembled on Monday 
 morning? I went there on Monday, at a time when some per- 
 son was engaged in prayer. Did you observe any thing like 
 pushing.'' I saw some pushing in and out. Some stood at 
 the door, who stated that their business was to prevent those 
 from coming in who had no right, and others were pushing in, 
 who used considerable violence. I knew not who they were — 
 they were strangers to me — they were pushing past the door- 
 keepers. Were there a large number endeavouring to push 
 in? I saw one general rush, in which there were a considera- 
 ble number. I heard one of the guards say that he was fixed 
 there to prevent persons from coming in who had no right. 
 There were perhaps twenty in a body, at the time of the push. 
 There appeared to be a general move towards the door; and 
 a considerable push ensued. 
 
 Cross-examination. — It was raining a little, when the meeting 
 assembled on Monday morning? It was not very comfortable 
 standing out. Do you not know that in the assemlily at Short 
 Creek, or at the old meetinghouse, there were a great many who 
 belonged to Mount Pleasant, where they are principally ortho- 
 dox, that is, a greater proportion than at the new meeting 
 house? There appeared to be more, but I do not know what 
 proportion of these lived at a distance — I cannot tell. At 
 Short Creek house the number was considerably swelled, by 
 those of the neighljourhood? Considerably — I saw a great 
 many citizens — there seemed to be much the greatest number 
 at the old meeting house. 
 
 At what time did you enter the meeting house on Monday 
 morning? I did not go in till the door-keepers were gone. I 
 was invited to attend the Quarterly Meeting previous, and in- 
 vited to attend the Yearly Meeting, the day before. As to 
 Monday, I do not recollect whether I was invited or not. Who 
 invited you? The invitation was left at my house. It was a 
 pretty general practice, when strange preachers were in the 
 place. I believe I received a verbal invitation to attend the 
 Yearly Meeting — I think Mr. Crew invited me to attend. 
 
at Sttubcnviilt^ Ohio. 
 
 65 
 
 There was no objection made to my entering. There were no 
 door-keepers — the difficulties were removed. The twenty were 
 all in? Yes, long before that; I was near the last. I was not 
 there when the clerk was nominated: but I just heard this 
 respecting the clerk, although I was outside; I heard some 
 one observe, that the present clerks were not the clerks of the 
 meeting, and requested David Hillcs to take his seat. I did 
 not see David Hilles taken forward. I saw considerable move- 
 ment and stir, but 1 could not see how it was — I could not see 
 the clerk's table. 
 
 Did you see any violence there by either party? I could not 
 designate a single individual using violence at that place. 
 Part of the time, I had as much as I could do to take care of 
 myself. I was not in the meeting house after the orthodox 
 withdrew; I saw them gathering at different times, for I was 
 much engaged in practice, and frequently passed by, although 
 I was not again in eitlier house during their sitting. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. IVrighf. — Was not your invitation to 
 attend on Sunday? No, I believe it was on Monday; but who 
 gave it I cannot tell. I think Henry Crew gave me a kind of 
 general invitation to attend the select meeting. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. 7'oppan. — They have their public 
 days of worship, and meetings of business, which they call 
 select meetings, at which time they transact the business of 
 the society. Did you understand yourself invited to the meet- 
 ing on Monday? I was requested to go up, as it was said there 
 probably would be some difficulty. It was believed there 
 would be a fuss. Did you not know at the door, that it was 
 the intention of the orthodox, to keep out the Hicksites, and 
 that they did keep them out? No, I did not; nor did I know 
 that guards were there till I went; neither do I know that it is 
 a general custom. Were there any stopped from going in? 
 There were some stopped from entering; Owen Dewees was 
 told that he was disowned. He was slopped by Isaac Lloyd. 
 Mr. Dewees came up to go in, and Mr. Lloyd intercepted his 
 passage. He wanted to know why he could not go in; the 
 reply was, that he was disowned; that he had no right, as 
 he was not a member. I think 1 saw another stopped at the 
 south door, and the same reasons were assigned. Do you 
 know whether they gained admittance? I did not see them go 
 in. Do you know whether this individual was a member? I 
 do not know of my own knowledge, but have understood that 
 
 he was a member for Concord. I think B was stopped at 
 
 the south door by Henry Crew. 
 
 David Sleer affirmed on the part of the prosecution. — Were you 
 at the Yearly Meeting at Mount Pleasant? I was. Were you 
 one of the door-keepers? I was. What Quarter appointed you? 
 Short Creek. Did you attend to the duties of door-keeper? I 
 
CG 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 did. What duties were assigiHcI you? My directions were to 
 keep the meeting select, by endeavouring by all fair means to 
 keep out those who were disoAvned, or under dealing, according 
 to the discipline of the society. There were several of that 
 class who were disowned, and who came and endeavoured to 
 get in. I endeavoured to stop them, and told them they could 
 not be admitted. To one in particular, Isaac James, I said he 
 could not be admitted. He said he Avas determined to get in; 
 I said he would have to use violence if he did; for I should not 
 consider myself obliged to go out of the door for him. He en- 
 deavoured with all his strength to push me out of the door by 
 his own exertions; and finally, a company of others of the 
 same class, and different classes, succeeded in pushing us out, 
 perhaps ten or fifteen feet, in which rush Thomas White was. 
 There were Isaac James and Thomas White; and Isaac Walker 
 from Redstone. The rest were strangers. 
 
 W^ere you in the house when the disturbance took place 
 there? I was. Did you attempt to keep out the Hicksites? 
 No. I had no instructions to keep out any but those that were 
 disowned or under dealing. Was not your instruction to let 
 all in but those? It was. Did you make it known at the 
 door? I did by public outcry. Was Isaac Walker invited 
 in? He was, and refused to go in, and united with the com- 
 pany to make the press. 
 
 Is Thomas White a member? No, he has not been for a 
 number of years. He entered about the same time that Isaac 
 James did; they came in together. Does not Thomas White 
 belong to the orthodox party? I believe not. He has told me 
 he was in belief with that party; how long since he changed 
 his mind? I do not know that he has changed. How do you 
 know Isaac James is disowned? Because he belonged to the 
 same Monthly Meeting with me. Did he ever attend Short 
 Creek meeting as a member? I think not. Can a man be a 
 member of a Monthly Meeting without attending it? I do not 
 know what you may call it. Did he reside within the bounds 
 of Short Creek meeting? He did; for all Concord was annexed 
 to Short Creek, and he was disowned after that. Do you 
 know who laid down that meeting? It was laid down by 
 Short Creek. Did they apply to be laid down? There were 
 many members who applied, but not the meeting officially. 
 
 What was the object of laying down Concord meeting? I 
 am not prepared to answer that. The object I believe was, 
 that the Quarter considered us not in a situation to hold a 
 Monthly Meeting to the credit of society. I was one of the 
 members. Were your part of the meeting in the minority? 
 Yes. Then the minority applied to lay down t'le Monthly 
 Meeting? Yes— by the report of the committee in connexion 
 with the minority. And the Quarterly Meeting laid it down 
 
at Sleubenville, Ohio. 67 
 
 without a dissenting voice, but a majority of Concord were op- 
 posed. Was it not to get them where there was a majority of 
 orthodox, in order to disown them? I do not know — it led to 
 that. I can't say it was that particular object; it might have 
 been the object of some of the members, I do not believe it 
 was the ostensible object. I know that was the result, and it 
 was my impression that the meeting had better be discon- 
 tinued, because we were not in a situation to hold a meeting to 
 the credit of society. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Wright. — Did a committee from the 
 Quarterly Meeting visit your Monthly Meeting at Concord? 
 They did, and it was their sense, with a number in the meeting, 
 that we ought to express to Short Creek Quarter, the propri- 
 ety of our being laid down; and I do not believe there was a 
 dissenting voice. I can't tell whether the members generally 
 knew, but it was the regular time of holding the Quarter, and 
 it was the sense of the ministers and elders, that the meeting 
 had better be laid down. 
 
 Cross-examination. — Did you attend the Monthly Meeting 
 when it is said to have been laid down? I was at the Monthly 
 Meeting when the order was read for laying it down; and in- 
 stead of uniting in the conclusion of the Quarterly Meeting, 
 they made a contrary minute, disapproving of the proceedings 
 of the Quarter, in laying them down, and appointed a com- 
 mittee to seek refuge in some other Quarter. They re- 
 nounced allegiance to Short Creek Quarter. Did you get the 
 records of that Monthly Meeting? In part, but not all. We 
 got the records of the women's meeting, and of the men's 
 meeting till 1821. From 1821, the Hicksites held the papers. 
 Did you not stop Nathan Galbreath from going into meeting? 
 I did for a time; and I told him the reason of my stopping him 
 was, that I understood he was disowned. He said he was not 
 disowned. I told him if he would bring any person to give 
 me satisfaction that he was not disowned, I would admit him. 
 And while we were conversing, they gathered one of these 
 crowds, and carried us both into the house, probably fifteen or 
 twenty feet before I could recover myself. I was at the 
 north-eastern door. 
 
 Was there a large majority of the Hicksites at Concord? 
 There was a considerable majority. The meeting contains 
 about forty families. How many united with Short Creek? I 
 think eleven or twelve went to Short Creek. (Said Mr. Tappan, 
 this is what used to be called at the GVL%X.yfAvA gerrymandering.^ 
 The Concord Meeting is continued, notwithstanding its be- 
 ing laid down? I have never met with them since the meet- 
 ing was laid down; but I have seen them at the house — I 
 could not tell what they were about. 
 
68 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 Bepositmi of Samuel Settle. 
 Personally appeared before me, at the house of George W. 
 Banks, Esq., in Mount Pleasant, on the 15th clay of Septem- 
 ber, 1328, between the hours of 3 and 9, P. M., Samuel Bettle, 
 of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting; who being duly affirmed, 
 deposeth and saith, that he was at Mount Pleasant on the 
 8th instant, about 8 o'clock, A. M., to attend a committee on 
 the civilization and improvement of the Indian natives. The 
 Yearly Meeting for business was to convene at 10 o'clock, 
 A. M. A number of persons, however, gathered before the 
 time; and it was with difficulty the committee could proceed 
 with their business, from the frequent interruptions from with- 
 out. Finding this to increase, they adjourned to another day; 
 and the door-keepers took their station, and the doors were 
 opened before the hour appointed. It is the universal prac- 
 tice of our society, in all places,, to appoint committees to 
 attend the doors, to prevent the intrusion of strangers and 
 disowned persons, that the meeting for business, agreeably 
 to the direction of the discipline, may be held select. On this 
 occasion, it appeared, a number of persons, of this description, 
 presented themselves; and, notwithstanding the remonstrances 
 of the door-keepers, pressed forward, in a turbulent manner, 
 into the meeting. Several times, a number of these persons 
 combined, and with united force, bore every thing before 
 them; and rushed into the house. Friends inside, finding this 
 disposition to prevail, repeatedly called to those at the door, 
 not to oppose; but to let them come into the house, which soon 
 became exceedingly crowded, and an ancient Friend kneeling 
 in prayer, order and quiet was experienced: this, however, 
 was but of short duration, before noise at the doors, and un- 
 settlement and tumult again recuri'^d. When a person arose, 
 and after objecting to the clerk at the table, observed, that it 
 devolved on him, to propose to the meeting, the name of a clerk; 
 this, however, he did not then do. The meeting was then 
 opened by the clerk, and the representatives from the Quar- 
 terly Meetings were called: when some person called for the 
 naming of a person to act as clerk; and David Hilles was men- 
 tioned. Whether by the person who first introduced the sub- 
 ject, or some other, I do not know. Some cried out, they 
 approved of David Hilles as clerk; to which others objected, 
 stating, that the meeting had its clerk, and requested them to 
 be quiet, and permit the business to proceed. David Hilles* 
 was now urged to go to the table, and he, and a number of 
 others, endeavoured to open a way, by force, to place him 
 there — and in the effort, a scene of violence took place, dis- 
 graceful to any decent assembly. David Hilles and his parti- 
 zans, however, finding, that although Friends did not use fOi 
 to resist them, yet. that they would not voluntarily give way. 
 
at SlcubenvtUe, Ohio. 
 
 69 
 
 found lliat it would be very difficult to accomplish llicir ob- 
 ject. About this time, a cry was raised, that the galleries 
 were falling. I observed, it proceeded, at first, from one per- 
 son, and I was soon convinced it was a false alarm, purposely 
 made. A number, however, soon joined in it, and about this 
 time, a board cracking, gave some cause for the alarm. A 
 rush for the door took place, windows were broken, and the 
 confusion and outcry for a time was appalling. A number of 
 Friends, however, perceiving that it was without just cause, 
 endeavoured to prevent Friends leaving the house, and to re- 
 store order. At length, some degree of quiet was attained; 
 and many returned to the house. But soon the efforts, forci- 
 bly to place David Hilles at the table, were resumed. Finding 
 they could not displace Friends, individuals threw themselves 
 on the heads of those in the passage, and by holding up, and 
 pulling one another, endeavoured- to get the clerk's table. 
 They were frequently remonstrated with, but the violence and 
 clamour became excessive; and some of these disorderly per- 
 sons at length reached the table, and it was soon broken into 
 pieces and destroyed. In this desperate transaction, Jonathan 
 Taylor, the clerk, was so extremely pressed on, as to place him 
 in great danger of serious, if not fatal consequences; and one 
 Friend called to the rioters to beware, or they would commit 
 murder. David Hillcs taking the drawer of the broken table, 
 now opened a meeting. A person, soon after, mentioning the 
 violent interruption Ohio Yearly Meeting had experienced, in 
 the regular transaction of its business, proposed, that the re- 
 presentatives from the respective Quarterly Meetings should 
 be called upon to decide, whether it would not be necessary to 
 adjourn, and proposed ten o'clock next morning; and the re- 
 presentatives being very generally present, united in the pro- 
 posal. No objection being made in the meeting, an adjournment 
 took place, and, I think, at least two-thirds of the persons in 
 attendance, retired from the house, and assembled the next 
 day at the time appointed; when a formal demand was made 
 for the peaceable and undisturbed occupancy of the house, for 
 the use of Ohio Yearly Meeting. This not being attained, a 
 meeting was held in the yard, and subsequently adjourned to 
 Short Creek meeting house. The practice and discipline of our 
 society, in every Yearly Meeting, in choosing a clerk, is, that 
 the representatives, from the respective Quarters, meet after 
 the first sitting, and name to the meeting, when it next assem- 
 bles, the person to fill that station, who continues in office 
 until after the first sitting of the next annual assembly, unless 
 sickness, or some unavoidable necessity require a clerk to be 
 temporarily appointed by the meeting. 
 
 In answer to the interrogatories on the part of the state, this 
 deponent saith, that he has been clerk at least ten years, for 
 9 
 
70 
 
 'I'l iiil of Friends 
 
 the Philadelphia Yearly Meclinij, atid is clerk now of said 
 meeting. 
 
 When a question is before a meeting, and there appears a 
 difference of sentiment, after a siiflicient time is allowed, the 
 clerk records what appears to him the general sense of the 
 meeting, and reads the minute, and if there is a general ac- 
 quiescence, it is the conclusion of the meeting. But if many 
 Friends remain dissatisfied, it generally is further considered, 
 or postponed, and there is no other person who acts for the 
 meeting, oris authorized to attest and announce its decisions, 
 than the clerk. 
 
 Questioned by the defendants' counsel. — Are not the society of 
 Friends now divided into two parties? If so, what is the name 
 of each party? I do not consider that the society of Friends 
 are divided into two parties; I consider the society of I'riends 
 remains in its integrity, holding its ancient doctrines and disci- 
 pline. That a number of persons have sepai'ated from them, I 
 admit. What do the separatists call tliemselves? I would ra- 
 ther they would answer for themselves. By what name are 
 they generally known? They are frequently called by the pub- 
 lic, separatists or Hicksites. Do you know by what name 
 they designate themselves? I have not communication enough 
 with them to know their general views on that subject. Do 
 you belong to the Hlcksite party, or the party you call Friends? 
 I belong to no party. Are you what is called a separatist or 
 Hicksite? I do not know that I have ever been called a sepe- 
 ratist or Hicksite, I belong to the society of Friends. When 
 and where were the door-keepers appointed, that you spoke of ? 
 I understood from what passed in the meeting, they were ap- 
 pointed by their respective Quarterly Meetings, but have no 
 personal knowledge on the subject. Have the Quarterly Meet- 
 ings power to appoint door-keepers for the Yearly Meeting? 
 Yes, it is frequently done, and is the custom and usage of the 
 society. Have you understood for what purpose the door- 
 keepers were appointed at this Yearly Meeting? I have no 
 particular knowledge on the subject. I suppose they were ap- 
 pointed for the same purpose, for which they are generally 
 appointed. Did not more door-keepers appear at this Year- 
 ly Meeting, than is usual ? I never saw them together, 
 nor do I know their numbers. " At what time in the morning 
 did you go into the meeting house? About eight o'clock. 
 Were all the doors of the meeting house opened at the usual 
 hour? The front door and the side door were opened before 
 ten o'clock. Do you know by whom these doors were opened? 
 I do not. W^hat was your object in going to the meeting house 
 at so early an hour? .1 went to attend a committee of the 
 Y'early Meeting, for the civilization and improvement of the 
 native Indians. At or a!)out the time this committee ad- 
 journed, were there not arrangements made, that the seats in 
 
at Steubenvitlc, Ohio. 
 
 71 
 
 the gallery should be occupied by those in the house, before 
 the doors were opened for the admittance of Friends generally? 
 There was, to my knowledge, no such arrangement. What 
 were the objections made to Jonathan Taylor, as clerk of the 
 meeting? I did not hear the objections. Were there more 
 persons approved than disapproved of David Hilles as clerk? 
 The sense of the meeting on that subject was not taken. What 
 force did David Hilles use in going to the table? I cannot say 
 that he used any force, separately from those that were en- 
 gaged with him; and the force that was used, was described 
 in the forepart of my deposition as far as I know. Did you 
 see David Hilles himself, pushing any person, as he went to 
 the table? When he got near to the table, David Hilles made 
 considerable exertions to get there, and he could not do so 
 without pushing several persons. Did Friends use any force, 
 to prevent him from going to the table? They endeavoured 
 to keep to their places, and did not use any active means to 
 prevent him, that I saw. Did you see him push any person? 
 I am not able to answer that question in any other way, than I 
 have already done. Do you know who gave the alarm, that 
 the gallery was falling? I do not. How do you know, that per- 
 son knew the gallery was not falling? I do not know what was 
 his opinion. W^hat then did you mean, by saying the false 
 alarm was purposely made? My reason for it was, that there 
 appeared to be no foundation for it whatever. Did David 
 Hilles make a minute of his appointment as clerk? I do not 
 recollect that he did, while I was in the house; I was in but 
 a short time after he began to act. Do you know whether he 
 commenced making a m.inute of the opening of the meeting? 
 I do not know that he did; to the best of my recollection, he 
 read a minute, and called a number of names. Did you see Da- 
 vid Hilles take hold of the table forcibly? W^ith respect to 
 any force used by David Hilles, I have given all the informa- 
 tion I at present recollect. Were there not a number of per- 
 sons pushing and pulling David Hilles, until he arrived at the 
 table? I can give no further information than I have given, 
 respecting the force used by David Hilles and his friends. 
 Was not the table broken l>ef'ore David Hilles arrived at it? I 
 do not know whether the table was injured before or not; but 
 to the best of my knowledge, it was not broken up, before Da- 
 vid Hilles got there, or near there. When a demand of the 
 meeting house was made, in the name of the Ohio Yearly 
 Meeting, what was the reply of David Hilles? I can give no 
 other information on that subject, than what I have stated in the 
 forepart of my deposition; as I did not hear the answers that 
 were given in the house. Did you ever know any difficulty in 
 the Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia, respecting the choice of 
 a clerk? Yes. Did not the representatives, in the spring of 
 1827, disagree in the choice of a clerk; and did not the meet- 
 
72 
 
 Trial oj Friends 
 
 ing appoint one? No, tlicy disagreed, and in consequence of 
 the disagreement, the meeting continued tiie old clerks. Is 
 there not a Yearly Meeting in Philadelphia, in a new meeting 
 house, who call themselves the Yearly Meeting of the society 
 of Friends? I do not admit that there Is any Yearly Meeting 
 in the city of Philadelphia, except the ancient Yearly Meeting 
 of the society of Friends. Is there not a society of persons 
 there, besides the ancient Yearly Meeting, who call themselves 
 the Yearly Meeting of the society of Friends? I have no know- 
 ledge of any Yearly Meeting of the society of Friends, but the 
 ancient Yearly Meeting; but by report, there is a number of 
 persons who have called themselves by that name. Are not 
 these persons sometimes called Hicksites? Those persons are 
 sometimes called Hicksites. Has not the Yearly Meeting of 
 Friends held in Baltimore, acknowledged that society as a 
 Yearly Meeting, by corresponding with it? I know nothing of 
 my own knowledge; I have heard that the Baltimore Yearly 
 Meeting have received an epistle, from the description of per- 
 sons mentioned in my last answer, and have returned them a 
 reply. Is not the receiving an epistle by a Yearly Meeting, 
 and answering the same, the usual mode of one Yearly Meet- 
 ing acknowledging another? That is only one of the circum- 
 stances; and there are several, in my apprehension, necessary 
 to constitute a full acknowledgment; and besides, I am not 
 acquainted with the nature of that reply. 
 
 Qileslioned on the part of the State. — How near were you to 
 the table, when the disturbance of which you have testified, 
 took place? I suppose about ten or twelve feet. Have the se- 
 paratists, or Hicksites, as they are called, left the society; or 
 do they differ from the society of Friends avowedly, on matters 
 of discipline, or of doctrine and faith? I consider that they differ 
 from the society of Friends in faith and discipline. Were the 
 members of the society of Friends assembled, at the meeting 
 house in Mount Pleasant, at the time of the disturbance about 
 which you have testified, for the purpose of worship, or per- 
 forming any of the duties enjoined on, or appertaining to them 
 as members of such society? They were assembled to transact 
 the usual business of a Yearly Meeting. 
 
 (The last question was objected to by the defendants' counsel, 
 for the reason, that it ought to have been on the direct exami- 
 nation.) 
 
 Affirmed and subscribed before me, this 16th day of Sep- 
 tember, 1828. WiLi.i\n Smith, Justice of the Peace. 
 
 Deposition of Isaac Braithwaitc. 
 
 Personally appeared before me, this 15th day of September, 
 1828, between the hours of 8 A.M. and 9 P. M., at the house 
 of George W. Banks, Esq., in Mount Pleasant, in Jeffprson 
 
at Stcubcnvilie, Ohio. 
 
 7,-5 
 
 county, Ohio, Isaac liraithvvaitc, of Kendal, in the county of 
 Westmoreland, Great Britain, a member of the society of 
 Friends, belonging to the Yearly Meeting of London, a wit- 
 ness on the part of the state, who being duly affirnried, de- 
 poscth and saith, that on Second-day, the 8th instant, he 
 was in the meeting house in Mount Pleasant, soon after 
 S o'clock in the morning, attending with the committee 
 who have the civilization of the Indian natives under their 
 carej that before 10 o'clock, the hour when the Yearly 
 Meeting was appointed to assemble, the south door of the 
 house was opened, and he observed several Friends, whom 
 he took to be door-keepers, in attendance. During the time 
 the meeting was gathering, there was much noise about the 
 house, and the two doors on the east side of the house were 
 soon thrown open, and a great number of persons rushed in, 
 pushing others along in a very tumultuous and disorderly man- 
 ner. Several Friends remonstrated against such proceedings, 
 but without effect. About this time, our friend Thomas Shil- 
 litoe appeared in supplication; during which, and for a short 
 time afterwards, the meeting was tolerably quiet. This still- 
 ness was soon disturbed by a great number of persons rushing 
 in at the north-east door; and the part of the meeting house 
 near that door being already nearly filled, the bustle and con- 
 fusion were very great. After these persons were mostly seat- 
 ed, a man stood up, and said, that it devolved on him to inform 
 the meeting, that the present clerks had disqualified them- 
 selves from filling that office, and he thought the meeting would 
 do well to nominate suitable Friends to act as clerk and assist- 
 ant. Several voices were heard approving of this proposal, 
 and some person mentioned the name of David Hilles for clerk, 
 which was agreed to by. a number. Friends then informed 
 the meeting, that the regularly appointed clerk was already at 
 the table, and proposed that he should open the meeting. 
 This was united with by the Friends, and the clerk proceed- 
 ed to call over the names of the representatives from the re- 
 spective Quarterly Meetings. During the time the clerk and 
 assistant clerk were thus engaged, the meeting was frequent- 
 ly interrupted, by the jioise of those persons, who were anx- 
 ious to violate the order of the society, and David Hilles was 
 urged to proceed to the table. About this period, an alarm 
 was occasioned, by some person or persons calling out the 
 galleries are falling. As I was unable to sec any thing that 
 indicated such an occurrence, I concluded it was a false alarm. 
 The noise and confusion occasioned by this circumstance, 
 greatly alarmed the women Friends; and two Friends and I, 
 went into their meeting house, and iiiformcd them the alarm 
 was a false one. After remaining until this meeting was more 
 settled, wc proposed returning into the men's meeting; but 
 
74 
 
 7V((i/ of F r tends 
 
 wc were requested to renuiin, which we did until the meeting 
 adjourned. 
 
 Question by JUlorney for the State. — Is it, or is it not, the 
 usual practice of the Yearly Meeting of the society of Friends, 
 of which you are a member, to have door-keepers when trans- 
 acting the business appertaining to such meeting? If so, how 
 long has that practice continued, and what are the duties of 
 such door-keepers? It is the uniform practice of the Yearly 
 Meeting of London to have door-keepers. I do not know how 
 long such has been the practice, but from my own information, 
 it has been so upwards of twenty years. The duties of the 
 door-keepers are, to prevent any person or persons entering 
 the meeting house who are not members of our society, or if 
 any such should enter, to request them to withdraw, and in 
 case they refuse, to take them out. According to the rules of 
 society, was the motion for the appointment of a clerk, in or 
 out of order, when the regular clerk was present and at the 
 tal)le? It was a proposition altogether out of order, and in 
 direct violation of the discipline of our Yearly Meeting. Was 
 the meeting of Friends, above referred to, held on the 8th inst. 
 at Friends' meetinghouse in Mount Pleasant, a meeting for the 
 purpose of worship, or for performing any duties enjoined on, 
 or appertaining to the meeting of Friends, as members of such 
 society? The meeting held in Friends' meeting hpuse in 
 Mount Pleasantj. on the 8th inst. was for the purpose of trans- 
 acting the business of such meeting, agreeably to their disci- 
 pline, and intimately connected with their preservation and 
 welfare, as a religious society. But in my own country, such 
 meeting would not be considered exclusively as a meeting for 
 religious worship; though I do no-t remember ever attend- 
 ing any sitting of such meeting, either in this country or Great 
 Britain, but some one or other of our approved ministers, have 
 been engaged cither in the ministry or supplication. Were 
 you present at the meeting for worship, in the Friends' meet- 
 ing house in Mount Pleasant, the afternoon previous to the 
 8th inst.? if so, will you state what knowledge you have as to 
 any disturbance of that meeting, by whom, and in what man- 
 ner? I was present at the meeting house in Mount Pleasant, 
 on the afternoon of the 7th inst. The meeting was not fully 
 gathered, when a person, whom I afterwards understood to be 
 Elisha Dawson, stood up, and spoke for some time. Almost 
 immediately on his taking his seat, A. Peaslee stood up, and 
 spoke for a considerable length of time: during the time he 
 wasthusengaged, he was requested to sit down by two Friends, 
 but he paid no attention to their remonstrances; and whilst 
 Elisha Bates was thus requesting him to take his seat, a num- 
 ber of persons, in a disorderly manner, ordered Elisha Bates 
 to sit down, and I distinctly heard some say, that if Elisha 
 
at Stcubcnville, Ohio. 
 
 7S 
 
 Bates did not sit down, he should be carried out. Will you 
 state why A.'Peaslee was requested to sit down? It was well 
 known to many Friends in the meeting, that A. Peaslee was 
 not a member of the society ol" Friends; and it was, therefore, 
 •* considered highly improper. that he should be permitted to 
 interrupt the solemnity of the meeting. . 
 
 Questioned by defendants' counsel. — Is not the society of Friends 
 in this country divided into two parties? The society of 
 Friends in this country, I consider to be one in faith and prac- 
 tice. Is there not a division amongst its members? The so- 
 ciety of Friends is not divided: there are persons belonging 
 to some meetings who have separated themselves from the 
 society, but on whom the discipline has not yet had its full 
 operation. Do not those persons claihi to belong to the so- 
 ciety of Friends? I apprehend such persons do consider them- 
 selves as members of their respective meetings, until they are 
 disowned. Do you know what proportion of the Friends, at- 
 tending the Ohio Yearly Meeting, were of that description? 
 I do not know. Is not the Yearly INIeeting the highest legis- 
 lative body known to the society of Friends? The Yearly 
 Meeting is considered the superior meeting of the respective 
 Quarterly Meetings belonging to it, and beyond its decisions 
 there is no appeal. Has the Yearly Meeting power to make, 
 alter, and dispense with the discipline of the society? The 
 Yearly Meeting has power to make fresii rules of discipline, 
 or to alter those rules already in existence. 
 
 Question by Attorney for the State— Does the Yearly Meeting 
 of the society of Friends in London, acknowledge, or recognise, 
 as any part of the society of Friends, those persons who are com- 
 monly known in America as separatists, or Hicksites? The 
 Yearly Meeting of London, has expressly declared itself to 
 have no connexion whatever with any meeting or meetings al- 
 ready set up by these people, or which may be set up hei-eaf- 
 terj neither would that meeting, or any of its subordinate 
 meetings, acknowledge any person united or belonging to any 
 meeting so set up, contrary to the order of the society. 
 
 Question by defendants' counsel. — Who do you understand l)y 
 the separatists, or Hicksites? I am unacquainted with the con- 
 stitution of their meetings of discipline, if they hold any such 
 meetings: as to their peculiar tenets, it would be easier to 
 state what they do not believe, th-an what they do believe. In 
 general terms, I consider a man a Hicksite, who entertains 
 the opinions which Elias Hicks promulgates. Are they not 
 persons who belong to the society of Friends? Any persons 
 who entertain the opinions which E. Hicks promulgates, I 
 do not consider as belonging to the society of Friends. 
 
 And futhrer, this deponent saith not. 
 
 Isaac Bkaithwaite. 
 
76 
 
 'I'riiil of Friends 
 
 Aflfirmed ami subscriljed before me, a Justice of Peace, in 
 and for llie county of Jefferson, state of Ohio. . 
 
 Wm. Smith, Junr. 
 Court adjourned till two o'clock, P. M. 
 
 Friday the \7th, 2 o'clock, P. M. 
 Deposition of William Jenkins. 
 Personally appeared before me, at the same place, on the 
 15th of September, 1828, between the hours of 8 A. M. and 9 
 P. M., William Jenkins, of Providence, Rhode-Island, a mem- 
 ber of the Yearly Meeting of Friends of New-England, who 
 being duly affirmed, deposeth and saith, that he attended, with 
 others, the meeting of the committee of Ohio Yearly Meeting, 
 on Indian concerns, on the morning of tlie 8th of the present 
 month, at Friends' meeting house, Mount Pleasant, Ohio. 
 
 We assembled about 8 o'clock in the morning of that day, 
 and the committee proceeded to business. Before the hour 
 often had come, the time at which the Yearly Meeting was to 
 assemble, to proceed to the business of said meeting, it was 
 apparent that many had assembled in the yard, and the wea- 
 ther being very inclement, the business was suspended. Wo- 
 men Friends withdrew to their apartments, and Friends took 
 their seats, when the door-keepers were requested to open the 
 doors for the admission of Friends who were in the yard. As 
 soon as this was done, great numbers came in, and the house 
 in a short time became nearly filled. Before, however, it was 
 so, some disturbance appeared at the south front door, and 
 pretty soon a number of persons came rushing in; one or more 
 of whom in a hasty, boisterous manner, proceeded to open the 
 south-east end door, which had not until then been opened. 
 
 Not long after this, a great press of individuals was observ- 
 ed at the north-east end door. The noise and clamour of 
 voices were heard, and very soon a rush was made through 
 this entrance, by a considerable number of persons, whom I 
 did not know, with the exception of Amos Peaslee, who was 
 among them. At this time, the house became very full, and a 
 large number were standing in the alleys. 
 
 In a short time, Jonathan Taylor, the clerk of the Yearly 
 Meeting, made a movement preparatory to proceeding witii 
 the business of the Yearly Meeting, about which tiine a per- 
 son rose, and in substance stated, that it had devolved on him 
 to say, that the present clerk had disqualified himself from act- 
 ing as clerk of that meeting; and proposed that another should 
 be nominated. The clerk, however, proceeded with the busi- 
 ness of the Yearly Meeting; read the opening minute, and called 
 the names of the representatives from the several Quarterly 
 Meetings, who, with but few exceptions, answered to their 
 names. The assistant c lerk then i-ead, in an miditile voice, 
 
at Steulenvillcy Ohio. 
 
 the accounts from the several Quarterly Meetings, when the 
 meeting became organized, agreeably to the practice and or- 
 der of the society of Friends. It being the uniform practice 
 and discipline of our society, that the clerk appointed the pre- 
 ceding Yearly Meeting, should fill that station in the succeed- 
 ing Yearly Meeting, until the close of the first sitting, when 
 the representatives from the Quarterly Meetings are required 
 to name a clerk for the ensuing year, to the next sitting. Dur- 
 ing the time the clerk was proceeding with the business of the 
 meeting, some person proposed the name of David Hilles as 
 clwk, which was responded to by a number of voices, and he 
 was urged to go to the table; in violation of the established 
 order and discipline of the society, as above stated; many 
 Friends at the same time distinctly stating, that the clerk was al- 
 ready at the tabic, and the meetingorganized. The scene of riot 
 and turbulence which now ensued, I cannot describe; but which 
 was so violent, that the clerk suspended the business of the 
 meeting. I was seated on the west side of the alley leading 
 from the south front door to the ministers' gallery; I believe 
 on the second raised seat; so that I could only hear and see 
 the tumult, without being able to designate an individual con- 
 nected with it: nor did I know that any one had reached the 
 clerk's table, until I heard a person reading, what purported 
 to be an opening minute of a meeting. About this time, an 
 adjournment of the meeting was proposed, and the names of 
 the representatives from the Quarterly Meetings being called, 
 they consented to it. The minute of adjournment was read 
 by Jonathan Taylor, the clerk, and the meeting adjourned to 
 meet at 10 o'clock the next morning. 
 
 The next day, Friends met agreeably to the adjournment, at 
 10 o'clock. Many were there before me, so that I could only 
 hear a voice, which I believed to be that of Elisha Bates, de- 
 manding the undisturbed use of the meeting-house at Mount 
 Pleasant, from persons within, for the accommodation of Ohio 
 Yearly Meeting. I was not near enough to hear what reply 
 was given, and only heard E. Bates say something to this im- 
 port, that he understood them to say, that the occupancy of 
 the house was refused for the accommodation of the Yearly 
 Meeting of Ohio. When he came out. Friends assembled in 
 the yard, and the meeting was organized, and the representa- 
 tives proposed Elisha Bates for clerk, and Amos E. Kimberly 
 for his assistant, and after a solemn meeting, an adjournment 
 to Short Creek house was proposed, and united in by the meet- 
 ing. The minute of adjournment was read, and the meeting 
 separated. 
 
 Question by the Attorney for the State. — Was, or was not, the 
 meeting that you wei'e attending, a meeting for the perform- 
 ance of duties appertaining to them as members of the reli- 
 
 10 
 
Trial of yrinuh 
 
 j^ious society of Kriciuls? I met with Friends at the Friends' 
 house, to transact the usual business of the Yearly Meeting of 
 Ohio. 
 
 Question by defendants^ counsel. — At what time were the doors 
 opened, and how many were opened? Before or about 10 
 o'clock the direction was given for the doors to be opened, 
 and I believe the south front door and the north-east end door 
 were opened at that time. How many outside doors are there 
 to that part of the house? I think three. Were guards placed 
 at the doors when they were opened? if so, how many, and for 
 what purpose? I believe door-keepers were at the two daors 
 which were opened: how many I know not; and I believe they 
 were there to answer the usual purposes of door-keepers on 
 such occasions. Are not the persons composing the Yearly 
 Meeting of Friends in Ohio, now divided into two parties? I 
 consider the Yearly Meeting of Friends in Ohio as one body, 
 united in faith and jjractice. Is there not now a division in 
 that body? I am ignorant of any division in the Y'^early Meet- 
 ing of Friends in Ohio. Is there not a division amongst the 
 persons lately composing that body.^ Of my own knowledge 
 I am ignorant, but have been told that some persons have se- 
 parated themselves from the society of Friends. By what 
 name do these persons distinguish themselves? I cannot say. 
 Do they not claim to belong to the Yearly Meeting of Friends? 
 I do not know; I know not the appellation they have given 
 themselves. What proportion of the persons lately comprising 
 the Ohio Yearly Meeting of Friends, do those persons who 
 have withdrawn themselves include? The number of those 
 persons who have separated themselves from the society of 
 Friends, I am ignorant of. Were the door-keepers, who were 
 stationed at the doors, instructed to exclude those persons 
 from the house? I know of no instruction to exclude any in- 
 dividuals. Was not David Hilles nominated as clerk before 
 the old clerk had opened the meeting? My impression is, that 
 he was not. When he was nominated as clerk, did not a large 
 number of the meeting approve of that nomination? Num- 
 bers of persons did so approve; whether they were members 
 of the Y'early Meeting of Ohio, or not, I do not know. Did 
 any considerable number of persons object to that nomination? 
 A number of Friends did, at that time, state that the clerk was 
 already at the table, and the meeting was regularly organized. 
 Were there as many persons who objected, as there were who 
 approved of that nomination? I cannot say. Have the repre- 
 sentatives from the different Quarterly Meetings to the Year- 
 ly Meeting, power to adjourn the Yearly Meeting? I am not 
 sufficiently informed what would be the general understanding, 
 to answer that question. 
 
 Question on behalf of the State, — Is it, or is it not, the usual 
 
at SleubfnvilU\ Ohio. 
 
 79 
 
 practice of the Yeai iy Meetings of the society of Friends, of 
 which you are a member, to have door-keepers when transact- 
 ing- business appertaining to such meetings? if yea, how long 
 has that been the practice? It is our practice, and has been 
 so for many years. According to the rules of the society, was 
 the motion for the appointment of a new clerk, in, or out of 
 order, when the regular clerk was ofTiciating? It was a direct 
 violation of our order and discipline. Were you present at the 
 meeting for worship, the afternoon previous to the 8th? if so, 
 will you state what knowledge you have as to any disturbance 
 of that meeting, by whom, and in what manner? I was 
 at that meeting, in which a person, whose name, I after- 
 wards was told, is Elisha Dawson, made a public address, 
 commencing before the meeting was fully gathered, and when 
 he sat down, was immediately followed by Amos Peaslee, in 
 an address, which occupied, I think, nearly an hour; in the 
 course of which address, he was requested by Jonathan Tay- 
 lor and Elisha Bates to take his seat; to which request he paid 
 no attention, but continued to speak as long as he chose. At 
 the time E. Bates was speaking to A. Peaslee, a number of 
 persons pointedly told E. Bates to take his seat. Will you 
 state why Amos Peaslee was told to sit down? I believe it 
 was known by those persons who directed him to sit down, 
 that he was not a member of the religious society of Friends, 
 and of course not in unity with the body. According to the 
 usage and practice of the Yearly Meeting of Friends, so far as 
 you are acquainted with it, what is the ordinary duty of the 
 door-keepers? To protect the meeting from being intruded 
 on by those who are not members of our society, or who may 
 be under dealing in the Monthly Meetings, according to our 
 discipline. 
 
 By defendants' counsel. — Has Amos Peaslee been a preacher 
 in your society? He formerly was, but I do not now consider 
 him to be such. Do you know of what Monthly Meeting of 
 Friends he is a member? I do not believe him to be a mem- 
 ber of any Monthly Meeting of Friends. Do you know of 
 what Monthly Meeting of Friends he was a member? I have 
 been told, that he was formerly a member of the Monthly 
 Meeting of Friends at Woodbury, New-Jersey, but that he is 
 now disowned by them. Do you know at what time that sup- 
 posed disownment took place ? I do not know the precise 
 time he was disowned. Is it not a direct breach of the disci- 
 pline of the society, to direct a preacher to sit down, when 
 addressing a public meeting ? If such minister is not approv- 
 ed, or not in membership, it is no breach of discipline to re- 
 quest him to sit down; and I never knew an instance of an ap- 
 proved minister in our society so directed. 
 
 ^VII,LIAM Jl'.XlilNS. 
 
80 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 Affirmed and subscrLI)ed before me, a Justice of Peace of 
 the county of Jefferson, state of Ohio. 
 
 Wm. Smith, Justice of Ihe Peace. 
 
 Deposition of Fleming Bates. 
 
 Personally appeared before me, at the house of George W. 
 Banks, Esq. in Mount Pleasant, on the 16th day of Septem- 
 ber, 1828, between the hours of 8 A. M. and 9 P. M. Fleming- 
 Bates, of Hanover county, Va. who stated as follows: — 
 
 This deponent being first duly affirmed, deposeth and saith, 
 that he is a citizen of \'^irginia, and a member of the society 
 of Friends, belonging to the Yearly Meeting held in that state. 
 That he attended a public meeting for worship, held at Mount 
 Pleasant in the afternoon of First-day the 7th inst. Soon 
 after the meeting was gathered, an individual, whom this de- 
 ponent was informed was Elisha Dawson, got up and spoke 
 for a considerable timej a few moments after he sat down, 
 Amos Peaslee stood up, and in the course of his remarks, oc- 
 cupied much of the time of the meeting; while he was speak- 
 ing, Jonathan Taylor requested him to sit down, observing 
 that he thought it unbecoming in individuals who had no right 
 in the society, thus to intrude themselves, and impose on the 
 time and attention of the meeting, or words to that effect. To 
 this request the said Peaslee paid no respect, but went on 
 speaking; when Elisha Bates told him to sit down, and in- 
 formed the meeting that he, the said Peaslee, had no right in 
 the society of Friends, and that he had the day before been 
 furnished with a testimony of disownmeiit, by the clerk of the 
 Monthly Meeting to which he had belonged. This for a short 
 time excited much noise and confusion in the meeting, but 
 Peaslee went on and finished his harangue. 
 
 On the 8th inst. this deponent attended the meeting of a 
 committee of the Yearly Meeting of Ohio, on whom devolved 
 the care of attending to the concerns relating to the civiliza- 
 tion of the Indian natives. This committee met at 8 o'clock 
 in the morning; at that time there were a number of other 
 individuals in the house, who, this deponent was informed, 
 were representatives and door-keepers, appointed by the Quar- 
 terly Meeting. They did not occupy the same apartment with 
 the committee on Indian concerns. The business of the said 
 committee, was frequently interrupted by loud knockings at 
 the door, and by a tumult which seemed to be gathering in the 
 yard. They, however, continued their deliberation till near 
 half past 9 o'clock, when they adjourned to give place to the 
 Yearly Meeting, which was to convene at 10. Friends then 
 took their seats; the south door, and that toward the north- 
 east corner of the house, were opened, and the door-keepers 
 repaired to their places. From the noise and tumult in the 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 81 
 
 yard, it soon became apparent that a number of disorderly 
 persons were about to enter the house. At the south door, a 
 condensed crowd presented themselves, whose entrance was 
 for a short time opposed by the door-keepers within. 
 
 Friends, however, from the gallery, again and again called 
 to them, if violence is used, give way and let them come. 
 They gave way, and a crowd immediately entered, some of 
 whom ran and broke open the door near the south-east corner 
 of the house, with great violence; soon after this occurrence, 
 another violent pressure on the door-keepers stationed at the 
 door near the north-east corner, was made, and when they 
 gave way, Amos Peaslee and Elisha Dawson, preceded and 
 followed by a condensed crowd, entered, and in a few minutes 
 the floor of the house was crowded to excess. A Friend then 
 informed the assembly, that many of the seats in the youth's 
 gallery were unoccupied, to which they were requested to re- 
 pair; but this was an advantage, of which those who occupied 
 the spaces leading from the doors did not appear disposed to 
 avail themselves. A short pause of comparative quiet en- 
 sued, in which an aged Friend was engaged in vocal prayer. 
 Soon after that, Jonathan Taylor, the clerk of the meeting, 
 pursuant to his duty, prepared to open the meeting, when an 
 individual in the crowd, said it devolved upon him to state 
 that the clerks had become disqualified to serve the meeting, and 
 proposed that others should be appointed; this was assented 
 to in a clamorous manner, by a number of individuals speak- 
 ing at the same time, and others in rapid succession. Another 
 individual then proposed that David Hilles should be appoint- 
 ed to that service — this was also assented to by a number of 
 individuals in a manner unprecedented in any of the meetings 
 of the society of Friends, that this deponent had ever seen — 
 their assent resounded in acclamations from the floor to the 
 upper galleries, and, to the ear of this deponent, in divers in- 
 stances, seemed to be repeated by the same voices several 
 times. 
 
 In the mean time, the regularly appointed clerks, in whose 
 hands the reports from the Quarterly Meetings had been 
 placed, proceeded to call the names of the representatives, all 
 of whom answered to their names except five, for the absence 
 of ' two of whom reasons were given in. Loud and repeated 
 calls from different parts of the house were now made, to 
 bring David Hilles to the clerk's table. 
 
 A crowd, occupying the space before the gallery steps, above 
 which the table was placed, and the clerk's seat, was collected, 
 and several efforts were made to force their way through the 
 Friends who occupied the steps, but they standing firm in their 
 places, those efforts were defeated. In the meantime, a number 
 of those persons engaged in these disorderly and outrageous 
 
82 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 proceedings, were (•-ailed by the assistant clerk, and by hint 
 requested to leave the house. In this stage of proceedings, 
 the attention of this deponent was directed to an individual 
 in the youth's gallery nearly opposite to where he sat, who, 
 addressing himself to those who sat in the ministers' gallery 
 and on the benches below it, observed that the sound board 
 above them was loaded with an immense crowd; that it would 
 probably give way and crush to death all beneath it. The 
 individual who sat next this deponent, seemed alarmed, and 
 was about to leave his seat; but this deponent requested him 
 to be quiet, saying, that he believed there was no danger, and 
 that it was only a stratagem to gain possession of that part 
 of the house. A few minutes after, there was a crack of some- 
 thing apparently over our heads, similar to breaking a lath, 
 and instantly a cry was raised and resounded on all sides, 
 that the galleries were giving way; that the house was falling. 
 The consternation and tumult that ensued, were truly appalling. 
 This deponent sprang forward, over two of the benches, then 
 turned, and particularly observed the ceiling of the sound board 
 and of the galleries, and finding that nothing had given way, 
 was immediately assured that it was a false alarm. He saw, 
 however, the crowd pressing forward towards the clerk's ta- 
 ble, without the least loss of time. He saw individuals stand- 
 ing near it, in whose personal safety he felt a deep interest, 
 and determined to be as near them as possible. By crossing 
 the benches, he immediately entered the ministers' gallery, 
 and pressing through those standing in it, advanced to the 
 clerk's table. The door immediately behind the clerk was 
 then open. A number of individuals on both sides the table, 
 held it firmly, by whose exertions it was soon broken into frag- 
 ments. A violent pressure was then made from the gallery 
 steps, towards the door, in rear of the clerk's seat — this de- 
 ponent saw Jonathan Taylor yield to it until his back came in 
 contact with the post of the door. The crowd pressed on; I 
 saw his countenance change; and believing he was threatened 
 with instant destruction, cried aloud, give back, or Jonathan 
 Taylor will be crushed to death — others joined in spreading 
 the alarm, when the crowd gave way and released him from 
 his perilous situation. He was taken out of the house, and 
 when he returned, a proposition was made to adjourn the 
 meeting. The representatives being called, answered to their 
 names, and the meeting adjourned, to meet at 10 o'clock the 
 next day, without a dissenting voice. 
 
 Question by Attorney for the State. — According to the prac- 
 tice and discipline of the Yearly Meeting, was the motion in 
 order for the appointment of a clerk, when the regular clerk 
 was present and at the table? It was not in order, according 
 to the usage of the Yearly Meeting of Friends in Virginia. 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 83 
 
 Is it the practice at that Yearly Meeting, or any other which 
 you are acquainted with, to have door-keepers? It is the 
 practice in that meeting to appoint persons to see that order 
 is preserved — as to the practice of other meetings, I am not 
 acquainted with it. 
 
 Question by dcfenda7its' counsel. — Had you not expected, pre- 
 vious to the commencement of this Yearly Meeting, that there 
 would be some dissention amongst its members? If so, state 
 your reasons for that expectation? I am quite a stranger in 
 this country, and had no personal knowledge of the dissen- 
 tions that exist. Had you not learned from the members of 
 this Yearly Meeting, that there were disscntions among its 
 members? I had. Had you learned from any of them that 
 there would be an attempt made to exclude a part of the mem- 
 bers from the house? I never learned from any of the mem- 
 bers of this Yearly Meeting, that any attempt would be made 
 to exclude any individuals, who, under the discipline of the 
 Yearly Meeting, had a right to be there. Had you learned 
 from any of them that a difficulty was expected at the Yearly 
 Meeting? I believe those with whom I associated were not 
 in the counsel of those that produced difficulty. Are not the 
 members of this meeting divided by their dissentions into two 
 parties? I have understood that they were so. By what dis- 
 tinguishing names are these two parties generally designated? 
 Where a separation has taken place iu meetings, and more 
 especially within the limits of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, 
 I believe the followers of Elias Hicks are generally called 
 separatists-— where that disunion in meeting has not taken 
 place, they are generally denominated Hicksites — Friends 
 have not changed the name by which they were formerly 
 designated. What name do those of whom you speak, as be- 
 ing called separatists, or Hicksites, give themselves? I have 
 understood they called themselves Friends. Do they not claim 
 to belong to the ancient society of Friends? I have under- 
 stood they make such pretensions. What proportion of the 
 members of the ancient society Friends, within the limits of 
 the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, belong to this party? I 
 have no knowledge of the facts relating to that question. And 
 further this deponent saith not. 
 
 Flkming Bates. 
 Affirmed and subscribed before me, this 16th day of Sep- 
 tember, 1828. 
 
 William Smith, Justice of the Peace. 
 Deposition of Mel Coffin. 
 
 Personally appeared before me, at the house of George W. 
 Banks, in Mount Pleasant, on the 15th day of September, 1828, 
 between the hours of 8 A. M. and 9 P. M. in pursuance of the 
 
84 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 within notice, Abel Coffin, of Guilford county, N. C. who 
 being duly affirmed, deposeth and saith. 
 
 On the morning of the 8th inst. I attended Friends Yearly 
 Meeting, at Mount Pleasant, which met near the tenth hour in 
 the morning. Jonathan Taylor opened the meeting — Amos 
 E. Kimberly, assistant, called the representatives, but was in- 
 terrupted by a very disorderly club, or mob, who rushed for- 
 wards with great violence, pushing and crowding towards the 
 table, entirely contrary to all order of the society of Friends, and 
 got to the table. In trying to remove the clerk from the table, 
 or the table from the clerk, they broke the table in pieces, 
 and hurt Jonathan Taylor very seriously — he had to be taken 
 home, and kept his bed for a day or two. They having nomi- 
 nated their clerk, 'and by violence taken possession of the 
 clerk's place, Friends then adjourned to the 10th hour the 
 next day, and met near the time adjourned to; but were not 
 allowed the privilege of holding the Yearly Meeting of Ohio, 
 in Mount Pleasant meeting house — these same people still 
 holding the meeting house, and refusing to give possession to 
 Friends to hold their Yearly Meeting. They then assembled 
 in the yard — held a meeting, and then adjourned to Short 
 Creek meeting house. 
 
 Questioned by Attorney for the State. — Of what Yearly Meet- 
 ing of the society of Friends are you a member? Of North 
 Carolina. Is it, or is it not the usual practice of the Yearly 
 Meeting of that society to have door-keepers, when transact- 
 ing the business appertaining to such meeting? If so, how 
 long has that practice continued, and what are the duties of such 
 door-keepers? It is, and has been the practice ever since my 
 recollection. Their duties are to keep the meeting select, and 
 to prevent those who have not a right in the society of Friends, 
 from entering the meeting. According to the rules of the 
 society of Friends, was the motion for the appointment of a 
 clerk in or out of order, when the regular clerk was present 
 and at the table? Out of order, and contrary to the discipline 
 of the Yearly Meeting of which I am a member. 
 
 Questioned by defendants' counsel. — Did not those persons of 
 whom you speak, as a club, or mob, claim to be members of 
 Ohio Yearly Meeting? I do not recollect that I heard them 
 claim to be members of the Ohio Yearly Meeting; nmther do 
 I think they were. What were the acts of violence of which 
 you speak? They with force and violence pressed forwards to- 
 wards the clerk's table, and in attempting to take it broke it to 
 pieces. Did not these persons of whom you speak, proceed 
 to hold a Yearly Meeting in Friends' meeting house, and were 
 not the doors open at all times for the admission of Friends 
 belonging to Ohio Yearly Meeting? As to what they did, I 
 
al SteuLenvillt, Ohio. 
 
 85 
 
 did not witness, as Friends adjourned their meeting and left 
 the house, — the doors were open. Did you see any threaten- 
 ing gestures, or menaces of injury to any one, during the 
 transaction of which you have spoken? The conduct of many 
 was really alarming to me, and I did apprehend danger. I 
 think they would have soon committed further outrages. — 
 And further this deponent saith not. 
 
 Abel Coffin. 
 
 Sworn and subscribed before me, 
 
 William Smith, Jr. Justice of the Peace. 
 
 Deposition of Thomas Ladd. 
 
 The deposition of Thomas Ladd, of the city of Richmond, 
 and state of Virginia, taken this 16th day of September, 1828, 
 at the office of George W. Banks, in Mount Pleasant, Jeffer- 
 son county, in a suit now depending; wherein the state of 
 Ohio is complainant, and David Hilles and Isaac James are 
 defendants. 
 
 This deponent, being first duly affirmed, deposeth and saith, 
 that he is a member of the society of Friends, belonging to the 
 Yearly Meeting of Virginia — that he attended a meeting for 
 public worship at Friends' meeting house, in Mount Pleasant, 
 Ohio, in the afternoon, on First-day, the 7th inst. ; and soon 
 after, if not before the meeting was gathered, a person, who, 
 this deponent was informed, was Elisha Dawson, got up and 
 spoke a considerable time; when he sat down, Amos Peaslee 
 stood up, and also spoke a considerable time; when Jonathan 
 Taylor and Elisha Bates requested him to sit down, informing 
 the meeting that the said Peaslee was not a member of our 
 society; that he had been regularly disowned by the Monthly 
 Meeting to which he had belonged; and that a copy of his 
 paper of disownment had been delivered to him, I think, on 
 the day before, and this circumstance I suppose to be one of 
 the reasons that induced the said Taylor and Bates, to oppose 
 him so publicly as they did — such a course Ijcing perfectly 
 consistent with the rules of our society. This deponent also 
 attended a committee of the Ohio Yearly Meeting at the same 
 meeting house, on the following morning, about 8 o'clock, on 
 the subject of the civilization, &c. of the Indians. After being 
 there some time, a considerable gathering was heard about 
 the doors, and the committee adjourned to meet at another 
 time; soon after which, directions were given, but by whom 
 I know not, to open the doors; this was before the hour of 10 
 o'clock, the time of the meeting for transacting the business of 
 the society; the south door, and one of the east end doors were 
 then thrown open, through which the gathering was pretty 
 rapid. I distinctly understood that (loor-kec|)crs were placed at 
 the doors for the purpose of warning all those persons who 
 1 I 
 
86 
 
 Triiil ijf Friends 
 
 had no ri^hl of nu-nibersliip, or righl to come in, not to enter. 
 As the gathering continued, the rush appeared to increase; 
 from which circumstance, I concluded that persons who had no 
 right to enter were coming in, though 1, being an entire stranger, 
 could not tell w ho had not the right of entering, nor many who 
 had. During one of these rushes, some persons pushed with 
 great rapidity, to the other east end door, and opened it; but 
 who they were, I know not. At or about the same time, some 
 rushed with the like rapidity through the partition door, or 
 shutters, into the women's apartment, for the purpose, as I 
 supposed, of opening any out-door that might be there shut. 
 Finally, the different and violent pressures from without, lite- 
 rally filled the house. About this time an ancient Friend ap- 
 peared in supplication; soon after the close of which, a person 
 whom I did not know, rose and observed, that from the dis- 
 qualification of the clerk (from some cause which I do not 
 distinctly recollect,) the duty devolved on him, to propose the 
 appointment of some other person to act in his place, or words 
 to that import. The meeting was informed that the clerk was 
 at the table, or in his place; soon after, or about the same 
 time, Jonathan Taylor, the previous, regularly appointed clerk, 
 opened the meeting, and was regularly proceeding in tlie busi- 
 ness thereof, when David Hilles was named by some one as a 
 suitable person to act as clerk, which, by the voices of some 
 others, was approved, and he, David Hilles, was urged to go 
 to the table. But the passage way, as well as the benches 
 near, and towards the clerk's table, was closely filled with those 
 who were not disposed to give way for David Hilles to go to 
 the table; nevertheless, the advocates of his appointment, al- 
 most incessantly called out to persevere in getting him to the 
 table, which created a great uproar and confusion, which were 
 increased by an alarm being given that the gallery or house 
 was falling. These proceedings created in my mind sensa- 
 tions of utter dismay, and feelings truly appalling; and con- 
 stituted what I consider the greatest riot, I ever witnessed in 
 a large assembly of people of any description whatever, more 
 especially, an assembly collected for the performance of re- 
 ligious duty. Although most, if not all the other Yearly 
 Meetings on this continent (several of which I have attended) 
 are in the practice of appointing door-keepers, yet it has not 
 been found necessary for the Yearly Meeting of Virginia to 
 do so, as that Yearly Meeting is a small one, and held in 
 a country place; and has never, in my recollection, been in- 
 truded on by persons having no right of membership with us. 
 Were it otherwise, I have no doubt they would adopt the 
 practice. Neither in our own, nor in any other Yearly Meet- 
 ing of Friends, I ever attended, (except the present one here,) 
 did I ever know a motion made for the appointment of a 
 
at Stcubcitville, Oliio. 
 
 87 
 
 clerk, when the regular clerk was in his place; and such a pro- 
 cedure is entirely out of the regular order of the society. 
 
 Question by defendants' Counsel. — Was not David Hilles 
 nominated as clerk before Jonathan Taylor had opened the 
 meeting-? This question is distinctly answered in the body of 
 my deposition, that the nomination was afterwards. Did you 
 see any acts of violence, menaces, or threatening gestures on 
 the part of either of the defendants? I do not personally 
 know cither of them; of course, my answer must be in the 
 negative. If the clerk of the Yearly Meeting, appointed at a 
 previous meeting, had disqualitied himself for acting as clerk, 
 would it not be proper for the meeting to proceed to fill the 
 vacancy by the appointment of another clerk.' I never knew 
 a circumstance of this kind to occur in any Yearly Meeting 
 which I have attended; but the usual, if not the universal prac- 
 tice, of appointing the clerks of the Yearly Meeting, is, for the 
 representatives of the different Quarterly Meetings to confer 
 together, and bring forward the name of a suitable person to 
 act in that station. And further this deponent saith not. 
 
 Thomas Ladd. 
 
 Affirmed and subscribed before me, this 16th day of Sep- 
 tember, 1828. 
 
 Willi am Smith, Justice of the Peace. 
 Deposition of James Stanton. 
 
 Personally appeared before mc, at the house of George W. 
 Banks, in Mount Pleasant, on the 16th day of September, 
 1828, between the hours of 8 o'clock, A. M. and 9 o'clock, P. 
 M., James Stanton, of Warren County, State of Ohio, who, be- 
 ing duly affirmed, dcposcth and saith: 
 
 That he is a mem!)cr of the society of Friends of Indiana 
 Yearly Meeting, and that he attended at Mount Pleasant meeting 
 house, on the 8th of the present month, al)out 8 o'clock, A. M. 
 with a committee on Indian concerns. This committee adjourn- 
 ed a little before 10 o'clock, to give way to the Yearly Meeting, 
 when the doors were requested to be opened, and were so 
 opened for Friends generally. I discovered considerable dis- 
 order, and several young men coming in hastily and rushing 
 towards the gallery. One or more passed on and opened the 
 partition door, and went into the women's apartment in a 
 disorderly manner, as I supposed, to open a door or doors in 
 that apartment, to make way for persons to come in, who had 
 not a right to meml)ership in the society. I was accordingly 
 of the opinion, that it was premeditated to disturb the Yearly 
 Meeting. And although the confusion still seemed to increase, 
 our friend Thomas Shillitoe, from England, appeared in sup- 
 plication, which appeared to produce a stillness for awhile. 
 
88 
 
 Trial oj Friends 
 
 Soon after, a person, who, I have since understood, was Israel 
 French, said it devolved on him to inform the meeting, that the 
 present clerk had become disqualified for serving the meeting 
 as clerk, by his conduct the day before, and proposed that an- 
 other person should be appointed to fill that station, (or words 
 to that import.) About this time, Jonathan Taylor, clerk, 
 read the opening minute, and Amos E. Kimberly, assistant 
 clerk, called the names of the representatives, who, with few 
 exceptions, were present, and answered to their names. It is my 
 impression, that during the time the assistant clerk was calling 
 the names of the representatives, David Hilles was nominated 
 for clerk, which was approved of by some persons, and opposed 
 by others, who stated that the regular clerk was then at the ta- 
 ble. David Hilles was repeatedly urged to go to the table, and 
 violence was used by his party, to make way for him to get to 
 the table. And after great exertion by himself and party, he 
 arrived at the place near where the clerks were seated ; and 
 proceeded to read what I suppose they called an opening mi- 
 nute; soon after which, a proposition was made by Friends to 
 adjourn the meeting, until 10 o'clock the next day, which was 
 united with by the representatives and Friends, without a dis- 
 senting voice. 
 
 I have been a member of Indiana Yearly Meeting for several 
 years, and it has been the uniform practice of that Yearly 
 Meeting, to have door-keepers to keep the meeting select, that 
 is, to prevent persons who are not members, and such as are 
 under dealing in their respective Monthly Meetings, from in- 
 truding on the meeting. And being situated where I could 
 observe the door-keepers, it appeared impossible for them to 
 discharge the duties that devolved on them. 
 
 Questioned by Attorney for the State. — According to the rules 
 of discipline of your meeting, was the motion for the appoint- 
 ment of a clerk in order, when the regular clerk was present 
 and at the table? I did consider it entirely out of order, and 
 contrary to our discipline. 
 
 Questioned by defendants'' counsel. — Are the rules and disci- 
 pline of your Yearly Meeting binding upon the Ohio Yearly 
 Meeting? I do not think they are. In case of the death or 
 incapacity of the clerk of your Yearly Meeting, Avhat would be 
 the method of appointing a clerk, to open the Yearly Meeting? 
 I think the representatives would be requested to withdraw, 
 and bring forward the name of a suitable person. Are any 
 persons recognised as representatives to the Yearly Meeting, 
 until they have presented the evidence, of their being such, to 
 the Yearly Meeting? I do not suppose they would be known. 
 The names of the representatives arc carried forward in the 
 reports, from the Quarlcrly Meetings, and delivered to the 
 
at Stcubcnvilk, Ohio. 
 
 89 
 
 clerk. The clerk Uien reucls llicir names, and announces them 
 to the Yearly Meeting. Can the representatives be known to 
 the meeting, till their names have been called by the clerk? 
 They arc not generally known, until their names are called by 
 the clerk. Would the representatives have any authority to 
 nominate to the meeting, a clerk, until a minute had been made 
 in the records of the meeting, authorizing them to do so? I 
 think it would be proper for them to bring forward a name, if 
 there was no person to act as clerk. And further this deponent 
 saith not. 
 
 James Stanton. 
 Affirmed and subscribed before me, this 16th day of Sep- 
 temper, 1828. 
 
 William Smith, Justice of the Peace. 
 
 Deposition of Josiah Tatum. 
 
 Also at the house of the said George W. Banks, in Mount 
 Pleasant, on the 16th day of September, between 8 o'clock A. 
 M. and 9 P. M., personally appeared before me, Josiah Ta- 
 tum, of Gloucester county, New-Jersey, who, being duly af- 
 firmed, deposeth and saith. 
 
 That on the morning of the 8th inst. about 8 o'clock, I went 
 to Friends' meeting house at Mount Pleasant, to attend a com- 
 mittee of the Yearly Meeting, appointed for the civilization, 
 Sec. of the Indians. That committee adjourned to another 
 day, and towards 10 o'clock, the hour appointed for the Year- 
 ly Meeting to assemble, the front door and one of the end 
 doors were opened for the admission of members of our reli- 
 gious society. A great crowd was collected around the house, 
 and I frequently saw persons, whom I supposed to be door- 
 keepers, remonstrating with individuals. The noise and dis- 
 order increased, till, at length, I saw a person wedging himself 
 among the door-keepers, and breaking through them with 
 great violence. He forced himself into the house. After this 
 entrance, the disorder continued to increase, and rush after 
 rush was made into the house, overpowering and completely 
 throwing out of their ranks, the persons stationed at the doors, 
 to prevent such as were not members from entering. It is 
 always intended, that the meetings for business of the religious 
 society of Friends should be held select; that is, that they 
 should be attended only by such as are members of the socie- 
 ty: and I believe that those who were thus violent in their 
 attempts to enter the house, and who did thus violently enter 
 it, were such as had not a right to attend the Yearly Meeting. 
 Being a stranger, I did not know them personally, excepting, 
 however, Amos Pcaslec, whom I recognised in the house, and 
 who entered during this alarming tumult, and who has been 
 regularly disowned by the Monthly Meeting of which he was 
 
90 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 a member. The house became full to overflowing. A per- 
 son, whom 1 could not see, proposed that the meeting should 
 name a clerk; though, on the other hand, it was observed, that 
 the clerk of the Yearly Meeting was at the table. Jonathan 
 Taylor soon opened the meeting, and endeavoured to proceed 
 with its business, though obliged to stop, in consequence of 
 the clamour and uproar that prevailed. David Hilles was 
 named to go to the table; and now the great object of the 
 rioters was to get him there. I have said, the house was full; 
 the passages were apparently one solid coluinn, and as Friends 
 remained firm in their places, it was evident to the rioters that 
 David Hilles could not be got to the table without great diffi- 
 culty. An alarm was given that the galleries were falling; 
 this, however, did not succeed. Friends remained generally 
 in their stations, and a scene of tuTiiult and outrage ensued, to 
 which, perhaps, no religious society, quietly seeking the en- 
 joyment of their acknowledged religious rights, were ever be- 
 fore subjected, under a free government. Jonathan Taylor 
 was removed from the table; the table was broken to pieces; 
 part of it was shoved along under my feet; a person, whom I 
 supposed was David Hilles, commenced reading. Friends 
 perceived that the business of the Yearly Meeting could not 
 be prosecuted to advantage. Jonathan Taylor, and his assist- 
 ant, Amos E. Kimberly, again called the representatives, and 
 the meeting, without a dissenting voice, that I heard, adjourn- 
 ed to the next morning at 10 o'clock; about which time. Friends 
 gathered in the yard, but the house was found to be still in 
 the possession of these same rioters, as I believe. A demand 
 of the house was made, in the name of Ohio Yearly Meeting; 
 it was not, hoyvever, obtained. The Yearly Meeting was 
 opened in the yard, by the assistant clerk; for Jonathan Tay- 
 lor, the clerk, had been so seriously injured in the riot of the 
 preceding day, as to be unable to attend. It subsequently ad- 
 journed, to meet again the next morning, at Short Creek meet- 
 ing house, where it is still sitting. 
 
 Question by Attorney for the State. — Will you state what Year- 
 ly Meeting you are a member of, and whether it is, or is not, 
 the usual practice of your meeting, to have door-keepers sta- 
 tioned at the doors, when transacting business, appertaining 
 to such meeting? If yea, how long has that practice existed, 
 and what is the particular duty of the door-keepers? I am a 
 member of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting. Ever since my re- 
 collection, it has Ijcen deemed necessary to have door-keepers 
 in attendance; their duly is, to see that none enter but such as 
 are members of the society of Friends, and if any such should 
 enter, to remove them. According to the rules of the socie- 
 ty, was the motion for the appointment of a clerk, in, or out of 
 order, when the regular clerk was present, and at the table? 
 
at Steubenvillt^ Ohio. 
 
 91 
 
 I consider it in direct violation of the order of society: I never 
 knew of such a thing being- done in a Yearly Meeting. Were 
 you present at the meeting of Friends at Mount Pleasant, the 
 afternoon previous to the 8th instant? if so, will you state 
 what knowledge you have, as to any disturbance of that meet- 
 ing, by whom, and in what manner? I was present on the af- 
 ternoon of the 7th inst. The hour appointed for the assem- 
 bly to gather was 3 o'clock: five minutes before three, by 
 my watch, Elisha Dawson rose, and spoke a considerable 
 length of time; very soon after he sat down, Amos Peaslee 
 rose, and also spoke for several minutes, when he was request- 
 ed to sit down by Jonathan Taylor; he, however, disregarded 
 the request, and then Elisha Bates repeated Jonathan Taylor's 
 request. While Elisha Bates was speaking, there was great 
 disorder, and a number of persons cried out, in great rudeness, 
 " carry Elisha Bates out." Will you state why Amos Peas- 
 lee was recjuested to sit down? Because he was known not to be 
 a member of the society of Friends; and because it was consi- 
 dered an unreasonal)le imposition, that any person, not a mem- 
 ber, should be permitted to disturb our religious meeting. 
 
 Question by defendants' counsel. — Do you know whether, or 
 not, those persons who were refused admittance by the door- 
 keepers, were members of the society of Friends? \ am a 
 stranger in this part of the country, and knew, comparatively, 
 but few persons in the house. I never knew of door-keepers 
 in attendance in our meetings for business, to refuse admit- 
 tance to members of the society, if they were known to be 
 such, unless they had become offenders, and were, as such, 
 under the care of their Monthly Meetings. Was David Hilles 
 nominated for clerk, before or after the old clerk had read a 
 minute opening the meeting? I cannot be positive on this 
 point; my impression is, that he was not nominated till after 
 Jonathan Taylor had opened the-meeting. Was not his nomi- 
 nation approved by a large number of the meeting? There 
 was a loud clamour of approbation, but that it proceeded from 
 persons who had a right to be in the house, much less to give 
 a voice in the meeting, I should not, on the affirmation I have 
 taken, dare to say. Did any considerable number object to 
 that nomination? Yes, a large number objected; it was re- 
 plied, that the clerk was at the tal)le. Was there the greater 
 number who opposed or objected to that nomination? It is 
 impossible for me to say; the question was never before the 
 meeting. Do you know who gave the alarm that the galleries 
 were falling? I do not know. Do you know that the alarm, 
 that the galleries were falling, had any connexion with the 
 appointment of the clerk, which was going on in the meeting? 
 The appointment of clerk was not going on in the meeting. 
 He had been appointed the year before: the discipline of this 
 
92 
 
 Trial of I' riends 
 
 Yearly Meeting inukes it his duty to serve the first sitting of 
 the year after his appointment. That the alarm had connexion 
 with the circumstances, that were wished to be brought about 
 by those who raised the tumult, I decidedly believe. When 
 you say that the meeting, without a dissenting voice that you 
 heard, adjourned, who do you mean to be understood were the 
 meeting? I mean to convey the idea, that I have no recollec- 
 tion of hearing a dissenting voice from any person in the 
 house. Did the representatives from the different Quarterly 
 Meetings adjourn the Yearly Meeting, or did the body of the 
 meeting adjourn it? In the midst of the confusion that had 
 prevailed, a proposition was made to adjourn the Yearly Meet- 
 ing to the next, day; no objection was made; the names of the 
 i-cpresentatives were called, and they, I think, unanimously 
 confirmed the adjournment. Had not David Hilles opened 
 the meeting as clerk, before the adjournment you speak of in 
 your last answer? Yes, with the violence that was used, he 
 might have done any thing. Are not the members of the so- 
 ciety of Friends now divided into two parties? The members 
 of the society of Friends may have different views, but the so- 
 ciety itself retains its integrity, and is one united and undivid- 
 ed body. By what distinguishing names, are those, entertain- 
 ing different views, designated? The name of the society 
 of Friends, or Quakers, is well known. I do not know of 
 any other name in our society: the names, separatists, or 
 Hicksites, and to whom these names apply, are also well 
 known. Are not a part of the members of the society of 
 Friends, sometimes called separatists, or Hicksites? There 
 •was a general meeting in Philadelphia, in the Tenth-month 
 last, of individuals who had seceded from the society of 
 Friends; many, or most of whom, had, or have been disowned 
 by the society of Friends: this body are often called separat- 
 ists, or Hicksites. What proportion of the ancient society 
 of Friends, within the limits of the Philadelphia Yearly Meet- 
 ing, belong to the general meeting you spoke of in your last 
 answer? I have no means of ascertaining, with any degree of 
 precision. I have attended Philadelphia Yearly Meeting for 
 a number of years past: I attended it in the Fourth-month 
 last, and I believe it could not have lacked one-fourth of its 
 usual size. Do not the members of the general meeting you 
 speak of, claim to be the ancient society of Friends? I never 
 attended one of its sittings, having no right to do so, and am 
 unacquainted with its claims. Has not the Baltimore Yearly 
 Meeting of Friends, recognised it as a Yearly Meeting of the 
 society of Friends? I do not know that it has. What is the 
 relative proportion of those parties who attended the last Ohio 
 Yearly Meeting, on the 8th instant? I cannot say with pre- 
 cision, but after the Yearly Meelinghad adjourned, and Friends 
 
(It Sieubfiivillt, Ohio. 9J 
 
 had left the Iiouse, I should suppose generally, I went to the 
 door of the house, and took a survey of the persons then in it, 
 and taking them all, black and white, they might amount to 
 nearly one-third of the number who had at first assembled. 
 
 (Question by the Attorney for the State. — You have staled 
 that Amos Peaslee was disowned by the meeting of Friends, 
 of which he had been a member; will you state how you be- 
 came possessed of that information ? I am clerk of that meet- 
 ing, to wit, Woodbury Monthly Meeting, and have been its 
 clerk for several years, and of course am acquainted with all 
 its transactions, and am in possession of all its records; and 
 further, on the morning of the 6th instant, I put a copy of the 
 minute of his disownment by Woodbury Monthly Meeting 
 into his hands. 
 
 [The defendants objected to the last question and answer.] 
 Have you seen a paper, purporting to be a certificate from 
 the society of Friends, authorizing Amos Peaslee to travel as 
 a minister, issued from the Monthly Meeting of Woodbury, 
 dated 28th of Fourth-month, 1828; as also one from the Quar- 
 terly Meeting of Salem, bearing date the 1 5th of Fifth-month — 
 and if so, state when and where it was, and whether or not it is 
 what it purports to be — a certificate from the society of 
 Friends, or from another and distinct society? Such certifi- 
 cates, one of which is marked (N,) in the possession of Ros- 
 well Marsh, are now before me. I do not consider these cer- 
 tificates as proceeding from meetings belonging to the society 
 of Friends. Seth Matlack and Anna Peaslee, who have signed 
 one of them as clerks, having been disowned by the long esta- 
 blished Monthly Meeting of Woodbury, Avhich is on^ of the 
 constituent branches of the ancient Yearly Meeting of Phila- 
 delphia : and further, Samuel \Vebster is at this time, and 
 has been for several years, the clerk of Salem Quarterly 
 Meeting of Friends in New Jersey, and Salem Quarterly 
 Meeting was not held at Woodbui-y in the Fifth-month last, but 
 at Salem. The bodies who appear to have issued these certifi- 
 cates belong to that general association, spoken of above as 
 having assembled in Philadelphia in the Tenth-month, and with 
 this association the society of Friends have no correspon- 
 dence. What number of adults compose the Woodbury 
 Monthly Meeting? I am unable to say with precision. Are 
 there seventy ? No, I should not think there were, yet there 
 may be. Had not the great body of this Monthly Meeting 
 appointed as clerks of the meeting, the persons whose names 
 are signed as such, to the certificates you have above referred 
 to? No — the persons referred to are not members of that 
 Monthly Meeting. Do they not reside within its boundaries, 
 and claim to be members of that Monthly Meeting? They do 
 reside within its limits — the ccrlificates will show their claims 
 12 
 
94, 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 — claims are not always right. What number of the members 
 of that Monthly Meeting united in their clisovvnment, and in the 
 disownment of Amos Peaslee ? I never heard a dissenting 
 voice on the subject in the Monthly Meeting, that I have any 
 recollection of. What number attended at the Monthly Meet- 
 ing at which these persons were disowned, and what number 
 of members were disowned at that meeting? 1 am not able 
 to say. Were there ten present? I never, I believe, was at a 
 Monthly Meeting where there were so few present as ten. Is 
 the Woodbury Monthly Meeting, to which you allude, now 
 held at the same place at which it has heretofore been held 
 previous to any dissention in the meeting ? Yes. 
 And further, this deponent saith not. 
 
 JosiAH Tatum. 
 
 Affirmed and subscribed l)cfore me, this 16th day of Sep- 
 tember, 1828. 
 
 William Smith, Justice of the Peace. 
 
 Stacey Bevan affirmed on the part of the prosecution.— Witness 
 stated that he was at the conference held at Plainfield, and it 
 was agreed to meet in the usual way, at the meeting of Friends, 
 both Quarterly and Yearly, notwithstanding what might have 
 been done previously— that they would continue to hold their 
 meetings, regardless of the orthodox meetings. It was a 
 general conference from the Quarterly Meetings, constituting 
 the Ohio Yearly Meeting. There were a number of persons 
 who were considered as disowned persons. Borden Stanton 
 and Isaac James were present. Is there any order of society 
 for holding such a meeting? I think not; there were one or 
 two such meetings previous, preparatory to this great con- 
 ference. Do you know whether those who were present at 
 that conference, and entered into the agreement, were present 
 at the Yearly Meeting on Monday morning? 1 cannot say; I 
 got there late, and soon left the meeting. Were there any 
 orthodox Friends at Plainfield conference? Not one. What 
 was the agreement? The conclusion was, that they were 
 generally to attend the Quarterly and Yearly Meeting; and 
 then, whatever course was considered most prudent, was to be 
 adopted; and they were to hold a meeting at Barnsville, if 
 they were not received by Friends, as usual, altogether. It 
 was the Hicksite party that there assembled? Yes. 
 
 By Mr. Tappan. — Were you a delegate there? No. Were the 
 resolutions written down, and then read over, and approved by 
 the meeting? They might have been — I do not know. [Here 
 a paper was shown, purporting to be the minutes of the con- 
 ference, which were read by the witness.] He believed them 
 
(i( Slciihciivilh\ Ohio. 
 
 05 
 
 to be, ill sul)slanc(', an account of wliat passed there. They 
 agreed to go to the Yearly and Quarterly Meeting, and to use 
 no violence, even if opposed. It was understood tliat they 
 were to go and assert their rights, in a peaceable and orderly 
 manner? Yes. 
 
 Bi/ Mr. Wright.— ^Wns Borden Stanton there? He was, and 
 occupied the highest seat. 
 
 By Mr. Tappan. — Did you know that Borden Stanton was 
 disowned? I did not know it, oidy by hearsay — I am not cer- 
 tain that he was disowned, or whether it was upon the same 
 principle as the Concord members were disowned. 
 
 Peter Sears affirmed. — This witness gave place fdi- the ex- 
 amination of the following witness. 
 
 George Smith affirmed. — Witness was at the Yearly Meeting 
 at Mount Pleasant, Ohio, on Third-day morning — saw Eli 
 Townsend there, who said he had s,taid in the house all night 
 with others. (Objected to by Mr. Tappan.) 
 
 Mr. Wright said he wished to show that this party kept 
 possession of the house— that it was done in concert. That 
 though this charge was against Hilles and James, for disturb- 
 ing the meetitig on Second-day, he thought it proper to 
 show, that they went there with a view to disturb the meet- 
 ing; that they went with illegal and immoral views. 
 
 Mr. Tappan. — It is attempted to show that these men were 
 acting in concert with others, but it has not been shown, other 
 than at the conference, where there was no agreement to com- 
 mit a disturbance. The agreement was, to conduct themselves 
 in a peaceable and orderly manner, according to the usage of 
 the society. They meant to assert their rights as members of 
 the society, yet to do it in an, orderly manner. There can, 
 therefore, from this evidence, be no claim, that they entered 
 into an unlawful agreement. These parties, who, it is said, 
 were confederates, cannot be guilty, unless a confederacy be- 
 tween these men and those individuals could be made out. In 
 meetings of this kind, it must be apparent, that where fifteen 
 hundred persons, of different sentiments, are assembled, they 
 will have different feelings, as to the manner in which they 
 ought to assert their rights. They have different opinions as 
 to their religious sentiments and rights, in that meeting; and 
 it is probable in such a multitude, there were a great diver- 
 sity of opinions, as to the proper mode of proceeding. Some of 
 hasty temper, would be for proceeding in a more ardent man- 
 ner than others of a cooler temperament. Therefore, to make 
 what would be approved by the most hot-headed in feelings 
 and sentiments, a standard, and presume that all others were 
 of the same sentiments, would be upon the face of it unjust. 
 If any such concert existed bclwccn the prrsons charged, and 
 
9R 
 
 7V(a/ nf Fncii'ls 
 
 Others, why are not the others called to prove that concert? 
 Why this loose hearsay called up, when there is better evi- 
 dence in the power of the party to produce? They might ex- 
 amine any individual, who they think had entered into that 
 agreement. To this we would not object; but we do object 
 to the admission of hearsay, through a third person, and par- 
 ticularly as to what was transacted after the alleged offence. 
 
 The Judge. — Where you prove a confederacy, or concert, 
 the declaration of all tlic parties concerned at the time, are 
 evidence against each. And all the previous conduct — pre- 
 vious declarations, plans, &c. are evidence against the whole; 
 but it does not occur to me, that the doctrine has been carried 
 80 far as to say, where a part are under prosecution, that the 
 acts of others, after the prosecution, shall be evidence against 
 those on trial. 
 
 Mr. Wright. — We claim that the disturbance continued till 
 the next day. 
 
 Mr. Ta.ppan said the parties were tenants in common. Eli- 
 sha Bates had no more right to exclusive possession than 
 others. There is no proof that Hilles and his party attempt- 
 ed to expel the others — they never were driven out; they 
 abandoned the house, and went off without any compulsion. 
 There is nothing in all the evidence that will show the least 
 intention to expel them. There was nothing to hinder them 
 from taking their seats on Third-day. This is distinctly 
 proven. Those in the house had no objection to their co- 
 tenants coming in and taking possession. 
 
 The Judge confirmed the objection. 
 
 Peter Sears., who had been previously affirmed, read a mi- 
 nute from Stillwater Monthly Meeting, disowning Borden 
 Stanton, and also the report of the committee appointed to 
 visit him. They report, that he persists in his course, and a 
 committee were appointed to inform him of the decision of 
 the meeting. Witness also read a report of the committee 
 who waited on him on the 23d of Second-month, 1828, with 
 the testimony of disownnient. See. 
 
 Cross-examination. — (From some cause, not now recollected 
 by the reporter, this cross-examination was not very perfectly 
 recorded; nor can he discover from his notes, that it contains 
 any thing material in the case. The substance, as far as can 
 be found, goes to inake out an informality in the mode of pro- 
 ceeding against the individual above-mentioned; who, it ap- 
 pears, was disowned upon the same grounds as others of that 
 Monthly Meeting, with the addition of informality.) 
 
 Mr. H'right here read from the 28th, oTth, and 88th pages 
 of the Discipline of f)hio Yearly Meeting, and the prosecu- 
 tion rested. 
 
(U Steiihciivillr, Ohio. 
 
 01 
 
 K O R 1 H E U E K E N C E . 
 
 Mr. Marsh read, as the first item of evidence, llie deeds of 
 trust for the Yearly Meeting property at Mount Pleasant, 
 Ohio. See a future page.* 
 
 Imposition of Richard Barnard. 
 
 Personally appeared before me, this 16th day of September, 
 1828, between the hours of 8 o'clock A. M. and 7 o'clock P. 
 M. of said day, at the house of Israel French, in Mount Plea- 
 sant, Jefferson County, (to which place the taking of this de- 
 position was adjourned by consent of the attorneys,) Richard 
 Barnard, who being first duly affirmed, deposeth and saith, 
 
 On First-day the 7th inst. I attended a meeting for worship, 
 in the afternoon of that day, held by the society of Friends in 
 their meeting house at Mount Pleasant; Amos Peaslee, an ap- 
 proved minister of the aforesaid people, travelling with a mi- 
 nute of unity from the Monthly and Quarterly Meeting of which 
 he is a member, had proceeded some time in a solemn and 
 weighty address to the meeting, when Jonathan Taylor di- 
 rected him to sit down. He, however, continued his address. 
 Elisha Bates then rose, and called him by name, and directed 
 him to sit down; Elisha continuing to speak — he was, by sun- 
 dry persons unknown to me, requested to sit down. Not doing 
 so, I heard a voice from some person', saying, "carry him out." 
 Many then rose on their feet, whom Amos addressed in this 
 feeling language — " for the Lord's sake, be still." They im- 
 mediately took their seats; Elisha Bates also took his seat, 
 and made no further interruption. On the morning of the 8th, 
 the Yearly Meeting of Ohio met in the same house. As I was 
 going towards the meeting house, I saw a number of men who 
 were stationed by the doors of the house, and the gates of the 
 yard, as guardsj who attempted to stop some from going in. 
 I saw some make several attempts to go in, but were prevent- 
 ed by some of these guards, two of wholn attempted to stop 
 me, as I was about to enter the yard; continuing to walk on, 
 they proclaimed after me, we don't acknowledge thee." As 
 I entered the door of the house, I saw the guards of the door 
 trying to get between me and the door, but the crowd was so 
 great their attempts failed. After I took my seat, I had a full 
 view of the front seats; they were stowed entirely full, and 
 even standing at the foot of the steps which led to them. And 
 as some were coming into the house ihey beckoned to them, 
 and put them forward, and persons would rise and give a seat, 
 and come down to the common floor, and pass away. Before 
 I 
 
 * This imporluiit exliact, for wliicli w e expect to be indebted to the 
 politeness of the defendants' counsel, and the medium of the mail, though 
 not received in time for its proper place, will, we hope, be inserted in a 
 later pa^fe of Hie work, where it may be referred to by the index. 
 
91! 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 the meeliiig entered ou business, a Friend observed that the 
 recent conduct of the clerk had disqualified him from being 
 the organ, through which the meeting might transact its busi- 
 ness; he therefore thought it would be best for the meeting to 
 name a Friend, to act as clerk for the day, that he might come 
 forward and open the meeting ; to which k very general ex- 
 pression of unity was uttered' by the meeting at large. A 
 Friend then offered for consideration of the meeting, the name 
 of David Hilles, for that service, whirh was generally united 
 with, and not a dissenting voice heard by me. He was then 
 called to the table. Some person observed then, that the 
 meeting had a clerk, and directed him to proceed to open the 
 meeting, which Jonathan Taylor did, whilst many were en- 
 deavouring to get David Hilles to come to the table. As David 
 began to advance, some persons gathered into the passage and 
 obstructed the way. The young men assisted him. They found 
 much difficulty in getting him aloing. They met with much 
 difficulty in the passage, as many collected there and opposed 
 them; I heard some say, "be firm, Friends, but use no vio- 
 lence." One called for the sheriff to take such men out of the 
 house. On€ man called out, James Heald is using violence, 
 he is striking. At this instant one man was sti-iking, but I did 
 not know him, but took him to be one of the guards. About 
 this time, some person called out, " the gallery is falling;" 
 upon which considerable alarm and confusion ensued; when it 
 seemed to subside, I discovered the Friend who had been 
 called to the table, sitting on the seat near to it. Some of 
 those who had conducted him thither, endeavoured to persuade 
 Jonathan Taylor to give it up peaceably, as he knew it was 
 the meeting's wish that he should. He replied, " we will not, 
 while we are able to hold it;" and as he and some other per- 
 sons, were endeavouring to get it nearer to their side of the pas- 
 sage, others were engaged to get it nearer to David Hilles, 
 who sat on the other side of the passage. It being thus strain- 
 ed both ways, went to pieces, and is no longer a table. David 
 Hilles now opened the Yearly Meeting of Ohio, and some per- 
 son seemed to write the names of sundry persons, and warned 
 them to leave the house; stating, that they were intruders. 
 When the table went to pieces, the weight of the party pulling 
 on the side of Jonathan Taylor, fell against Jonathan, and 
 shoved him against the arm of the bench, and -jeemed to 
 squeeze him so hard, that some of the young men discovering 
 it, used endeavours to relieve him. Some person i"cad a minute 
 of adjournment, and those styled orthodox left the house. 
 
 Questioned by defendants' counsel. — Where is your place of 
 residence, and of what Yearly Meeting of Friends are you a 
 member.'' My place of residence is Chester County, Pennsyl- 
 vania, and I belong to the Yearly Meeting of Friends held in 
 
ul Sleubtnvdle, Oliio. 
 
 99 
 
 Pliilatlelphia, for Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and ihe 
 Eastern Shore of Maryland. Arc the members of the society 
 of Friends within the limits of the Philadelphia Yearly Meet- 
 ing divided into two parlies? There are eleven Quarterly 
 Meetings belonging to that Yearly Meeting, all of which are 
 divided except one, and in that there has been no division. 
 By what distinguishing names are the two parlies, into which 
 these meetings are divided, generally designated? Speaking 
 of the world at large, one party is generally styled orthodox, 
 while the other party is sometimes called Hicksites, and 
 sometimes separatists. Neither of those parties acknowledge 
 either of those names. Both claim the name of the society of 
 Friends. Are you acquainted with Woodbury Monthly Meet- 
 ing,, in the state of New Jersey? I attended that Monthly 
 Meeting, in the latter part of Twelfth, or the beginning of 
 First-month last. Did a division then take place between 
 the members of that meeting, of the parties you have above 
 spoken of? If so, state in what proportion, as to numbers, 
 they divided. A division that day took place in that Monthly 
 Meeting. There were, I think, seven adult persons, members, 
 besides the clerk and assistant, who withdrew from the meet- 
 ing, and the clerk took all the books and papers with him. 
 To which of the above parties did these persons who with- 
 drew belong? They were of those called orthodox. What 
 was the name of the clerk who withdrew? I do not recollect. 
 What number of adult members remained in the house, when the 
 above persons had withdrawn? I did not count them ; I sup- 
 pose there were between seventy and eighty. Did they proceed 
 to elect or appoint other clerks to this Monthly Meeting? 
 There was a friend called to the table to. act as clerk for the 
 day, and one to assist him. The meeting appointed a com- 
 mittee to bring forward a Friend for clerk, and one to assist 
 him. What is the relative proportion of the members of these 
 two parties, in the limits of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting? 
 Speaking of the members of that Yearly Meeting at large, the 
 most moderate calculation, which in my opinion can in truth 
 be made, is, that five-sixths of them are united in the attend- 
 ance and support of the Yearly Meeting as it is re-organized. 
 The one-sixth hold to what they term the old Yearly Meeting, 
 which must be understood, to be those styled orthodox. To 
 which of those parties does the undivided Quarterly Meeting 
 belong? That Quarterly Meeting is united with, and is a 
 branch of the Yearly Meeting that has been re-organized. The 
 Yearly Meeting of which I am speaking was held on^hc second 
 Second-day of Fourth-month last; the old Yearly Meeting 
 was" held on the third Second-day of that month, which those 
 styled orthodox claim. Have any other Yearly Meetings of 
 the society of Friends in America, recognised the re-organized 
 
ICH) 
 
 IViul of Frienils 
 
 Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia, as a Yearly Meeting of 
 the society of Friends? If so, state what Yearly Meetings 
 have so recognised it. In the Yearly Meeting in Fourth- 
 month last, an epistle was received, and read, from Baltimore 
 Yearly Meeting, addressed to the Yearly Meeting of the socie- 
 ty of Friends, to be held in Philadelphia, on the second Se- 
 cond-day in Fourth-month, for Pennsylvania, New Jersey, 
 Delaware and the Eastern Shore of Maryland. There was an 
 epistle received from the Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia, held 
 on the second Second-day in Fourth-rnonth last, which was 
 read and answered in the Ohio Yearly Meeting, held in Mount 
 Pleasant last week. 
 
 Questioned by Jittorney for the State. — Are not the society of 
 Friends commonly known as orthodox, and the society of 
 Friends commonly known as separatists or Hicksites, two se- 
 parate and distinct societies in Philadelphia, Woodbury, and 
 Mount Pleasant in Ohio.^ In Philadelphia, I mean the Yearly 
 Meeting held in Philadelphia, on the second Second-day in 
 Fourth-month last, there were several who sat at that Yearly 
 Meeting, that were of those styled orthodox; and it was known 
 to the meeting; there was no distinction made whatever. The 
 doors were open to any that were known to be members of the 
 society. Of W oodbury I can say nothing ; I have not been there 
 since the day I mentioned. At Ohio the doors were opened; 
 I heard a Friend declare in that meeting, that those styled or- 
 thodox were at liberty to come in when they should choose, 
 and when they should think right, in any of the meetings .of 
 discipline, within the limits of our Yearly Meeting. I have 
 never seen or heard any distinction held up by those who are 
 sometimes called separatists or Hicksites; and some of those 
 styled orthodox frequently attended there. Of those styled 
 orthodox, I know nothing about them. I never attended any of 
 their meetings, which they call meetings of business. I do 
 not know them to be two distinct societies. I have never seen 
 any thing that induced me to believe they were. There are 
 two distinct Yearly Meetings in Philadelphia — what consti- 
 tutes the distinction in those two Yearly Meetings.^ The one- 
 sixth part which I have mentioned, separated from the body, 
 and hold a Yearly Meeting distinct from it. Is this all the dis- 
 tinction you know of? It is my full meaning, by the word 
 distinction made use of, when I said there were two distinct 
 Yearly Meetings. Are you not a member of the re-organized 
 Yearly Meeting, assuming the name of Friends, and entertain- 
 ing the doctrines of Elias Hicks, and known as Hicksites or 
 separatists? In the first instance we do not assume; we think 
 we have a right to call ourselves the society of Friends. The 
 Monthly and Quarterly Meeting of which I am a member, are 
 branches of the re-organized Yearly Meeting. We know of no 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 101 
 
 doctrine published by Elias Hicks. We believe in those doc- 
 trines published by our primitive Friends. We own the same 
 discipline heretofore established, and long acted under by the 
 society. Was Elias Hicks present at the meeting; of the re- 
 organized Yearly Meeting held in Philadelphia, in the Fourth- 
 month last; and did he take part in the deliberations of that 
 meeting? He was there, and took some part, which is com- 
 mon for all Friends travelling in the ministry to take. Did 
 that meeting minute the attendance of Elias Hicks, with unity 
 and approbation.^ I am not quite so clear on that point as I 
 could wish, but my present recollection is, there was a minute 
 made, stating that his company and religious labours were 
 acceptable. At what house in Philadelphia was the re-orga- 
 nized Yearly Meeting held? In the Fourth-month last, men's 
 Yearly Meeting was held in Green street meeting house; that 
 of the women in one built on Cherry street. How long have 
 those meetings been held at those places? In the Tenth-month 
 last, the Yearly Meeting of women Friends was held in Green 
 street meeting house, and that of the men was held in a tem- 
 porary shed built for the purpose near said house; this was 
 the time, and this was the place in which Friends met in order 
 to re-organize the Yearly Meeting. What do you mean by re- 
 organizing the Yearly Meeting? I mean that Friends gene- 
 rally believed and considered the Yearly Meeting virtually 
 dissolved, that was held in the Fourth-month preceding. How 
 was that meeting dissolved? The meeting at the close of the 
 first sitting, directed the representatives to stay together, and 
 propose, at the next sitting of the meeting, a Friend to serve 
 the meeting as clerk, and one to assist him. When the meet- 
 ing came together, the representatives were still in session; 
 when the meeting was opened, one of them stated, that they 
 had not been able to agree; others stated, that it was their de- 
 sire that the meeting should adjourn, and let them have an 
 opportunity to agree; and it was the general sense of the 
 meeting so to adjourn. A Friend, however, stated to the 
 meeting, that it had been the practice of the meeting, when 
 its representatives could not agree, that the old clerk should 
 serve for the year; we have no evidence of that fact, how- 
 ever. The old clerk made a minute of his own appoint- 
 ment, contrary to the sense and judgment of much the 
 larger part of the meeting. On the morning of the next 
 day, at our next sitting, it was proposed for the meeting 
 to adjourn, without any time mentioned, in order for Friends 
 to try whether they could not come together at some future 
 time more united. This proposition was not acceded to; the 
 business of the meeting in some sort went on; several matters 
 of importance that came up, on the reports, were not acted on 
 in consequence of the disunity that appeared in the meeting. 
 13 
 
lot 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 Two women Friends came into the meeting with Information 
 that they had appointed a committee of women Friends, to at- 
 tend all the Quarterly Meetings and Preparative Meetings, 
 which constituted our Yearly Meeting, and stated, that it was 
 the request of their meeting, that men Friends should join 
 them in a similar appointment. This measure was opposed by the 
 general body of the meeting; it was, however, acted upon, and 
 such a committee appointed. The meeting then closed, and many 
 Friends left the place, never expecting to attend it again, and 
 therefore considered the Yearly Meeting virtually dissolved. 
 They went directly into the meeting house at Green street, in 
 order to confer together, what would be the most eligible way 
 to re-organize the Yearly Meeting. At what time and place, 
 was the meeting above referred to, held? It was held in the 
 meetinghouse in Arch street; the time, I suppose, was in the 
 Fourth-month of last year; it commenced the third Second- 
 day in that month. How many days was that meeting held 
 after the disagreement of the representatives about a clerk? 
 The meeting closed on Seventh-day morning of the same week 
 in which it comnrienced. Was that the usual time of holding 
 the meeting? It is seldom held later, and it often closed soon- 
 er. How long has the Yearly Meeting been held at the meet- 
 ing house in Arch street? I don't doubt that it has been held 
 there twenty years or more. Has the Yearly Meeting been 
 held there since you considered it dissolved? If so, when? I 
 cannot answer that question, for this reasi^i, I don't know it to 
 be the fact. You have spoken of two distinct meetings in 
 Philadelphia; where are those two held? I have told you- 
 where one of them has been held: at the close of the one that 
 I have spoken of, my wife was indisposed, and as I had a little 
 leisure, I went to the house of a family acquaintance, where I 
 thought some near relations were, if they came into town; 
 I supposed they had come up in order to attend the meeting of 
 ministers and elders held on that day. The friend told me they 
 were in town. They are, he said, in my house. I read publica- 
 tions issued from a Yearly Meeting held in the house on Arch st. 
 Who was the Friend you speak of, that first proposed the ap- 
 pointment of a clerk at the meeting house in Mount Pleasant, 
 on the 8th Instant? I have no knowledge of him. What part 
 of the meeting house were you in, when David Hilles first took 
 possession of the table? I have not stated that David Hilles 
 took possession of the table; I don't know that to be a fact. 
 How near were you to the person who first proposed the ap- 
 pointment of a clerk? I was some distance oif, but not so far 
 but that I heard him intelligibly; I cannot state the distance. 
 Did you see him? I did not. Which particular meeting of 
 Friends is it, you refer to, that recognised the re-organized 
 society of Friends in Philadelphia? was it the Hicksites or sepa- 
 
at Steub«niciUe, Ohio. 
 
 103 
 
 ratiBts; or, was it the orthodox of Baltimore or Ohio? I know 
 of no orthodox Yearly Meeting held in Baltimore, neither do I 
 know of any such meeting held at Mount Pleasant. Who was 
 the clerk of the meeting in Ohio, that recognised the re-organiz- 
 ed Yearly Meeting in Philadelphia? David Hilles. Have you 
 been at any time disowned by the meeting of Friends? If so, 
 when and where? I never have. Have you been at any time 
 disowned by any society or meeting calling themselves Friends? 
 I never have. Have you ever been notified of your disown- 
 ment, by. any religious meeting of which you were a member? 
 If so, by whom, and when was it? I never have. Did you re- 
 ceive notice in behalf of the trustees of the society of Friends, 
 constituting the Ohio Yearly Meeting, not to enter the meet- 
 ing house in Mount Pleasant? And if so, when, and was that 
 notice in writing, printed, or verbal? I did not receive any 
 notice whatever. Who was it that called out, the gallery is 
 falling? I do not know. The witness wishes to explain him- 
 self further as to the answer to the last question but one. The 
 witness states, as I walked toward the yard gate on the 8th in- 
 stant, I was met by two men, one of whom said he wished to 
 read a paper — I did not stop; the other said it would not de- 
 tain me long: neither of them told me any part of the contents 
 of itj they followed me into the yard of the meeting house, and 
 said, we do not acknowledge thee; this is all they said or did; 
 they did not notify me in any way not to enter their meeting 
 house. Will you state who these persons were, and whether 
 they belonged to the Friends' meeting? One of them I suppos- 
 ed was Abel Tovvnsend, the other I know nothing of. I had 
 not any doubt, at the time, but they were members. I don't 
 know the fact. And further this deponent saith not. 
 
 Richard Barnard. 
 Affirmed and subscribed before me, this 1 7th day of Sep- 
 tember, 1828. 
 
 William Smith, Justice of the Peace. 
 Deposition of Amos Peaslee. 
 
 Personally appeared before me, this 17th day of September, 
 1828. between the hours of 8 o'clock A. M. and 7 o'clock P. 
 M. of said day, at the house of Israel French, in Mount Plea- 
 sant, (to which place the taking of this deposition was adjourn- 
 ed, by consent of the attorneys,) Amos Peaslee, who being first 
 duly affirmed, deposeth and saith: I reside in the state of New 
 Jersey, in Gloucester county, in the town of Berkley, Upper 
 Greenwich township. I belong to Salem Quarterly Meeting, 
 Woodbury Monthly Meeting, and the Yearly Meeting of Phi- 
 ladelphia, for Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the 
 Eastern Shore of Maryland. I am travelling in the character 
 ©fan approved minister, in unity with the society of Fritnds. 
 
104 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 I have certificates in the regular order of the society, from 
 the Monthly and Quarterly Meetings aforesaid: — the certifi- 
 cates inside, attached to this deposition, and marked with the 
 letter N. I am well acquainted with Seth Matlack, who is 
 clerk of Woodbury Monthly Meeting, and he was directed by 
 the Monthly Meeting to sign said certificate. I am also ac- 
 quainted with Anna Peaslee. 
 
 Questio7i by defendants^ counsel. — Are you acquainted with her 
 hand-writing? If so, is her name signed to the certificate re- 
 ferred to, in her hand-writing? I am acquainted .with her 
 hand-writing, and it appears to be her hand-writing clearly; 
 beyond doubting it is. Is she the women's clerk of Woodbu- 
 ry Monthly Meeting? She is. When was she appointed clerk 
 of that meeting? In the First or Second-month of 1828. 
 When was Seth Matlack appointed clerk of Woodbury Month- 
 ly Meeting? In the First or Second-month of 1828. How 
 long has Woodbury Monthly Meeting been established? A 
 number of years. I have been acquainted with it near three 
 years; I have heard it said that it was established many years 
 before that. Have there been any dissentions in that Month- 
 ly Meeting, and have any members withdrawn from it? If so, 
 state how many, and who they were? There have been some 
 dissentions in that Monthly Meeting. In the First or Second- 
 month in 1828, Josiah Tatum, Joseph Whitall, and a few 
 others, from six, to twelve, or fourteen, in a disorderly manner 
 left the meeting, contrary to the general voice of the meeting. 
 Josiah Tatum had served the meeting as clerk, but at that 
 time would not serve the meeting according to the mind of the 
 meetin.g, and carried away the records, contrary to the mind 
 of the meeting. What number of adult members remained in 
 the meeting when those persons withdrew? I cannot be cer- 
 tain, but I think from seventy to ninety. Did they proceed, at 
 that time, to appoint the persons whose names are signed to 
 the certificates above referred to, as clerks of that meeting? 
 They did. Are you acquainted with Isaac Townsend and Ra- 
 chel C. Wainwright, whose names are signed to this certifi- 
 cate, of the Salem Quarterly Meeting of Friends, above re- 
 ferred to? Yes, I am acquainted with them both. Are you 
 acquainted with their hand-writing? Not perfectly. Were 
 you present at the Salem Quarterly Meeting, when the certi- 
 ficate above referred to, was directed to be granted to you? 
 I was. Did you at that time, or shortly after, receive the cer- 
 tificates above referred to, in pursuance of such directions? I 
 think it was the next day. Were Isaac Townsend and Rachel 
 C. Wainwright the clerks of that Quarterly Meeting at that 
 time? They were. When were Isaac Townsend and Rachel 
 C. Wainwright appointed clerks of that Quarterly Meeting? 
 Isaac Townsend was appointed in the Eleventh-month, 1827. 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 105 
 
 Was the other appointed at the same time? Yes. Who had 
 before been men's clerk of that Quarterly Meeting, and why 
 was he not still continued clerk? Samuel Webster: but he re- 
 fused to write according to the mind of the meeting, and, 
 with a few others, left the meeting abruptly. Are Wood- 
 bury Monthly Meeting and Salem Quarterly Meeting now 
 held at the same times and places at which they were former- 
 ly held, before the persons above spoken of withdrew from 
 them? Yes, they are. 
 And further this deponent saith not. 
 
 Amos Peaslee. 
 Affirmed and subscribed before me, this 17th day of Sep- 
 tember, 1828. 
 
 Wm. Smith, Justice of the Peace. 
 . [N.] 
 
 Our esteemed friend, Amos Peaslee, in a weighty manner, 
 opened in this meeting a concern that had accompanied his 
 mind for sorhe time, to pay a religious visit to the Yearly Meet- 
 ings of Friends in Ohio and Indiana, and most or all of the 
 meetings constituting said meetings; and to appoint some 
 meetings amongst those not of our religious society, and also 
 to attend meetings going and returning: and after a time of 
 weighty deliberation, this meeting fully unites therewith, and 
 he is left at liberty to pursue his prospect, as truth may open 
 the way, he being a minister in good unity amongst Friends. 
 
 Signed by direction of Woodbury Monthly Meeting of 
 Friends, in the state of New- Jersey, held Fourth-month 28, 
 1828, by Seth Matlack, Clerk. 
 
 Anna Peaslee, Clerk. 
 
 [N.] 
 
 At Salenx Quarterly Meeting of Friends, held at W^oodbury, 
 the 15th of the Fifth-month, 1828, Amos Peaslee, a minister 
 in good esteem with us, opened in this meeting his prospect 
 of paying a religious visit to Friends within the limits of Ohio 
 and Indiana Yearly Meetings, &c. as expressed in the within 
 certificate: under a deep and solid consideration thereof, much 
 unity and sympathy with him therein was expressed, and he 
 left at liberty to pursue his prospect, as truth may open the way, 
 desiring for him the blessing of preservation, and that he may 
 be favoured to return with the answer of peace. 
 Signed on behalf thereof, by 
 
 Isaac Townsend, Clerk of the Men's Meeting. 
 
 Rachel C. Wainwright, Clerk of the Women's Meeting. 
 
 Deposition of Joshua Barnes. 
 
 Personally appeared before me, on this 17th day of Septem- 
 ber, 1828, between the hours of 8 o'clock A. M. and 7 P. M. 
 
106 
 
 Trial of Fn$nd) 
 
 of said day, at the house of Israel French, in Mount Pleasant, 
 (to which place the taking of these depositions was adjourned, 
 by consentof the attorneys,) Joshua Barnes, who beingfirst duly 
 affirmed, deposeth and saith, my residence is in the state of 
 New Jersey, Salem county, Pilesgrove township. I was at 
 Salem Quarterly Meeting when Amos Peaslee opened a con- 
 cern, as expressed in a minute from the Monthly Meeting of 
 Woodbury, to pay a religious visit to Ohio and Indiana Year- 
 ly Meetings, and meetings in the compass thereof, and some 
 meetings in his way going and returning. And the Quarter- 
 ly Meeting united with him, and left him at liberty to perform 
 the same, and directed the clerk to give him a certificate. I 
 have seen a certificate marked N, attached to the deposition of 
 Amos Peaslee. I have seen Seth Matlack write his name. I 
 know that he was clerk of that Monthly Meeting, at the time 
 the above named certificate was obtained, and I believe the 
 name of Seth Matlack is in his hand-writing. 
 And further this deponent saith not. 
 
 Joshua Barnes. 
 Affirmed and subscriljed before me, this 17th day of Sep- 
 tember, 1828. 
 
 William Smith, Justice of the Peace. 
 
 William Magur affirmed on the part of the defendants. — Were 
 you at Ohio Yearly Meeting, on Second-day, the 8th of Sep- 
 tember? J attended at the Yearly Meeting house, at half past 
 8 o'clock. I had my lodgings in town; and a report came to 
 me that the meeting house was open, and that persons were 
 going in. I, with others, went over to the meeting house, and 
 found several in the yards, and about the doors; but the doors 
 were all shut. I went round to the women's end, and saw 
 persons nailing up advertisements. In a little time, word 
 came that the doors were open, and that the people were 
 going in. I went back again, and found the front door of the 
 men's side half way open. I think, perhaps, there were six 
 men standing on each end of the steps. . Friends came, and 
 passed promiscuously into the house. 
 
 In a little while, some collected about, and one from the 
 meeting to which I belong. They went and passed in. I 
 proposed to another that he should go in, but he was stopped; 
 upon what principles, I cannot tell. A short time after, a per- 
 son came out upon the steps, and in an audible voice, said 
 that all having a right to a seat might go in. I walked in, 
 and as soon as I was in, I was interrogated whether I was a 
 member, and to what meeting I belonged. I did not make 
 any answer, but walked on and took my seat. 
 
 I discovered then, that the galleries and seats under the 
 galleries, and perhaps one or tAvo of the facing seats, were 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 101 
 
 filled with men sitting upon them. A few minutes after I tooli 
 my seat, those at the door shut the door and barred it: the 
 body of the house was, generally speaking, vacant. There 
 may have been a few scattering individuals. The south door 
 was all that I saw open. When the door was shut, I felt 
 somewhat disagreeable at it, in a place where I had been 
 accustomed to attend; I went to the door and remonstrated. 
 I told them, as the door had been opened, it would be better 
 to let it stay open. Whether it was in tonsequence of what 
 I said, I do not presume to say, but one person present gave 
 me an invitation, two or three limes, something in this lan- 
 guage: "may be, thee had better walk out." I informed him 
 that I did not intend to go out; for I considered I had as good 
 a right in the house as he had. 
 
 I then withdrew, and took my seat again; and in a few 
 minutes after, there was a scuffle took place at the door. It 
 appears there were several came up, and those that I sup- 
 posed were guards, opposed them, and a scuffle ensued; and 
 I heard a man halloo, and I knew his voice, though I did not 
 see him. And I t,hink there were a few individuals inside, 
 who went to assist those at the door, to push back, but the 
 crowd without, appeared to be too strong for those within, 
 and they pressed in; and a considerable number of individuals 
 came into the house. After they came in, there were one or 
 more persons who went to the end doors; and although I am 
 not certain, yet it is my impression, that they opened both. 
 After the doors were opened, some individual in, or near the 
 gallery, got up, and proposed that the guards had better go 
 to the doors; and it appears that several went. In a short 
 time after, I heard a conversation between the guards and 
 those without; and there soon came in a crowd, who forced 
 their way in by pushing the guards back. It appeared to me 
 that the guards were pushing and endeavouring to keep them 
 out, but by the pressure of the others, were shoved into the 
 house; and it continued in this way, off and on, till the house 
 was filled as full as it could reasonably be. 
 
 After the house was pretty well filled, a Friend appeared in 
 supplication; and after that was over, there was a short pause. 
 I think a Friend then got up, and observed, that in conse- 
 quence of the conduct of the old clerks, he would propose for 
 the consideration of the meeting, that a clerk be appointed 
 for the day, for opening the meeting. There were a great 
 many voices united with the proposition. There was a pro- 
 position then made for David Hilles to be clerk; and there 
 was a large majority of voices expressing approbation; as 
 much so as I ever heard in a Yearly Meeting, at any period 
 whenever I attended. There were, as well as I recollect, 
 two or three voices objecting to his appointment as clerk. 
 
lOS 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 The old clerk proceeded to open the meeting — whether it was 
 before David ililies was proposed, or not, my recollection 
 will not serve. They proceeded in a greater hurry than usual, 
 in opening the meeting, and proceeding- to business: David 
 Hilles was called to go to the table — several voices requested 
 him to go forward. Where he was, I knew not; the first I saw 
 of him was near the stove, in the passage leading to the clerks* 
 table. When he came there, it appeared there was an oppo- 
 sition to his going up to take his seat. About that time, the 
 individuals sitting on the steps, rose on their feet; and' a great 
 many persons throughout the meeting house began to get on 
 their feet, and some on the benches. This hindered me from 
 seeing how he got to the table. 
 
 A number in the gallery rose up, and came towards the 
 passage. It appeared that there was a contest between the 
 two parties. After David Hilles got to the clerk's seat, I saw 
 him. I think he made a minute, in the usual way, and opened 
 the meeting. 
 
 About this time a proposition was made for an adjournment, 
 by those who have been designated the orthodox. And it was 
 so far united with, that the representatives, pretty generally, 
 agreed to adjourn till 10 o'clock the next morningj and a mi- 
 nute was made accordingly, and they withdrew and left the 
 house. 
 
 Are you a member of the society of Friends? Yes. To what 
 Quarter do you belong.^ Redstone. In what capacity were 
 you attending that meeting.'' In common with other members 
 of the society. I was a representative from the Redstone 
 Quarter, to the Ohio Yearly Meeting.. Was it according to 
 tne usual practice of Friends, to have such guards at the doors? 
 I do not recollect that I have ever seen guards placed in that 
 way. 
 
 Have you ever known persons prevented by violence from 
 entering such meetings? I never did. Was not the weather 
 very inclement? It was. Was it not very uncomfortable out 
 of the house? It was. How are your Monthly Meetings com- 
 posed? They are composed of all such as are considered 
 members of the society. When these members are gathered 
 for discipline, is there any distinction among them, as mem- 
 bers? I do not know of any. The members are all considered 
 to have equal rights, in my opinion. 
 
 How are questions determined? When a question is pro- 
 posed, as far as my knowledge extends, if it is of such a 
 nature as to require investigation, members are at liberty to 
 speak; and whichever way it happens to settle with the most 
 general satisfaction, it is received, and a minute entered. 
 When the minute is read, if it be not according to the views 
 of the members, they suggest alterations. After it is again 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 109 
 
 discussed, entered by the clerk, read and adopted, then it is 
 the order of the meeting. 
 
 Is there any difference between a Quarterly and Monthly- 
 Meeting in this respect? 1 do not know any. Of whom is your 
 Quarterly Meeting composed? It is composed of two or more 
 Monthly Meetings. A Quarterly Meeting for discipline is 
 composed of several Monthly Meetings, who appoint repre- 
 sentatives to attend at the Quarterly Meeting. Uo you mean, 
 that a Quarterly Meeting is composed wholly of representa- 
 tives? My idea is, tliat they have the care of taking up the 
 business of the Monthly Meeting, and of bringing back any 
 thing that may be necessary. That is, they are the organs 
 of the Monthly Meeting; but when assembled they are in com- 
 mon with tlie other members. 
 
 The Yearly Meeting is composed of a number of Quarters, 
 in a similar manner, as the Quarters are composed of Monthly 
 Meetings. My understanding is, that it is a general meeting 
 of the society. As a representative from Redstone Quar- 
 ter, did you suppose you had any more power, or right, in the 
 Yearly Meeting, than others? I did not. In the Yearly Meet- 
 ings, who has the power.to decide questions that come before 
 them; or who has a right to bring up, or make a proposition? 
 My understanding is, that any regular member in the society 
 has a right to offer a proposition to the meeting. Has the 
 clerk any power to determine the question? The meeting has 
 the power. The clerk is no more than a servant of the meet- 
 ing- 
 
 You have said, that previous to opening the meeting, a pro- 
 position was made to appoint a new clerk, as the old one had 
 disqualified himself? Yes. Is it in the order of society, for 
 the clerk to proceed, while a question is before the meeting? 
 When a proposition is before the meeting, it is usually dis- 
 posed of in some way. 
 
 Court adjourned till 9 o'clock to-morrow morning. 
 
 Saturday morning, 9 o'clock. 
 
 JViUiarn Magar, in continuation said, when a proposition is 
 offered to the meeting, it is usually discussed, and approved 
 or rejected before any other business is taken up. Is it order- 
 ly or disorderly, for a clerk to interrupt a subject of that kind, 
 by reading or making a noise? I should consider it his duty, 
 as faf as my knowledge has extended, as to the usage of socie- 
 ty, to wait till the subject was discussed, and a pretty general 
 conclusion come to, in the meeting. Have you ever known 
 any other course pursued, previous to this Yearly Meeting? 
 I think I never have. Will you describe the effect it had on 
 the meeting? It made a disturbance and inten-uption. Iiy the 
 noise and voice of reading, while a number of Friends were 
 14 
 
Trial of Friends 
 
 uniting; for the assistant clerk was reading;, and he has a 
 pretty strong voice generally. About this time, there was an 
 alarm given, which produced considerable disorder in the 
 meeting for a few minutes. Do you know who gave that 
 alarm? I do not. Are you a representative? I am a repre- 
 sentative from Redstone Quarterly Meeting. There was but 
 one set of representatives from this Quarter, for there had been 
 no division there. I did not Ijring forward the reports. When 
 the representatives were called, at the suggestion of Benjamin 
 W. Ladd, was your name called? It was. Did you answer? 
 I did not answer. My reason was, that a question had been 
 proposed to the meeting, and as the clerk was proceeding out 
 of the usual order of society, I did not think proper to answer 
 it. The proposition to appoint a new clerk, was very unani- 
 mously concurred in. 
 
 Cross-examination. — You say you are a member of Redstone 
 Quarterly Meeting, and of Westland Monthly Meeting; do you 
 know of any conference held in that Monthly Meeting? There 
 was, I think, probably in the Seventh-month, a conference held; 
 as to the objects I cannot say much, nor as to the conclusion. 
 I was informed, with others, that it was requested we would 
 meet at Redstone meetinghouse, to confer together upon the 
 state of society, and with regard to the present disturbance in 
 tiie society. It is my opinion, that was the occasion. The 
 general conclusion of the meeting was, to nominate certain 
 Friends to attend the conference at Plainfield. Jehu Lewis, I 
 believe, was one, and I think there were three or four. I be- 
 lieve there was no minute made, but they were merely nomi- 
 nated. I can't recollect, whether David Hilles was one or not. 
 There was no object explained, nor instruction given. I have 
 understood it was a general conference, from the different 
 Quarters. The object I have stated to be, to consult upon 
 measures for maintaining our rights and privileges. 
 
 Was not the object of that conference to bring about a con- 
 cert of action at the Yearly Meeting? I think not. You met, 
 and united in sending delegates to the general conference; and 
 yet had no object in view, as to the Yearly Meeting. Had you 
 any object in view, touching the proceedings of any other 
 meeting? I don't know that I had. I have said, that in the 
 present disturbed state of society, it was thought adviseable to 
 have an interchange of sentiments; but for one, I had no ob- 
 ject. Do you know of any determination of Redstone Quar- 
 ter, not to offer their report? I don't. Who had the report? I do 
 not know: but I have no doubt that the clerk had it, being a 
 representative, and from the same particular meeting. He 
 was not from the meeting to which I belonged. After the 
 Yearly Meeting was opened. David Hilles had it. Do you 
 know of any one of your colleagues offering it to the meeting? 
 
al SieubenviUe, Ohio. 
 
 I do not know who brought it. Was there any conference, as 
 to whether you would answer to the old meeting, or to the re- 
 organized meeting? I do not know that I ever heard a word 
 said, or any agreement entered into, upon the subject. I cer- 
 tainly heard nothing specific. I do not recollect that I heard 
 any thing about the report in particular. I did not know but 
 one that went over to the conference, and that was Joseph 
 John. I saw him start, but I think he was not a delegate. I 
 don't know that David Hilles went over at all. Was it ac- 
 cording to discipline, to hold such a conference? I do not 
 know that there is any discipline touching the subject. Was 
 it not unusual.^ I can't say it was unusual; though I never 
 knew an instance. How came you to answer David Hilles, 
 and not Jonathan Taylor? I have said, that I thought it out 
 of order; and I considered that David Hilles was appointed by 
 the meeting. I thought it in order to appoint David Hilles., 
 Does not the discipline require, that the representatives re- 
 port the name, at the second sittiny; of the meeting? My un- 
 derstanding is, that it is the duty of the representatives to re- 
 port a clerk at the second sitting — that is the common usage, 
 if there is no disability of the clerk. But the representatives 
 could not be known, till there was a person appointed clerk 
 for the day; and when their names were called over, it would 
 be their duty to name a clerk to be appointed at the next sit- 
 ting. 
 
 Until this Yearly Meeting, did you ever know any person act 
 for the meeting, but the regular clerk, or the assistant clerk? 
 No. Not where they were present, and nothing to disqualify 
 them? There is that in our discipline, which shows, that those 
 guilty of misconduct, ought not to attend the meeting. And 
 there might not be a meeting intervening, in which they could 
 be dealt with; and I know no better way, if the indi\idual 
 comes forward, than to have the objections made in the Yearly 
 Meeting. My understanding was, that in consequence of cer- 
 tain misconduct, he had disqualified himself. There was a 
 proposition for the appointment of a tiew one, in consequence 
 of this misconduct; and the proposition being united in, was 
 the decision of the meeting upon that misconduct. 
 
 Did you ever know a Yearly, Quarterly, or Monthly Meet- 
 ing to act upon a proposition, in the way that the Yearly 
 Meeting did, in relation to a clerk? I do not know any parti- 
 cular circumstance. I have known a number of instances, in 
 our Monthly and Quarterly Meetings, but I cannot designate 
 any in particular. I consider it the usage of society. How 
 can it be the usage, if you know of no particular instance? 
 There are propositions submitted to our meetings in a similar 
 way, sometimes in the Monthly, sometimes in the Quarterly 
 Meeting; the clerk being absent. I never have been present, 
 
Trial of Friends 
 
 when the cleik. and assistant clerk, were present, that such a 
 proposition was made. Did you ever hear any objection to 
 Amos E. Kimberly's serving the nieeting? I do not know that I 
 have. I have seen instances, where the clerk was absent, and the 
 assistant clerk present; and it is customary, in such cases, for 
 some individual to propose, that the assistant clerk open the 
 meeting, and proceed in room of the clerk, or otherwise some 
 Friend be appointed in his place. If you have seen an in- 
 stance of that kind, state when and where? I have seen it in 
 our meetings, but I can't slate when and where. I cannot al- 
 lude to any particular case. I have known such cases to occur, 
 agreeably to the best of my recollection, but I cannot cite any 
 particular case. Do you know what the objections were, 
 against Jonathan Taylor's being clerk? One reason I have 
 heard offered was, his ordering Amos Peaslee to sit down 
 when he was engaged in the ministry. It is an offence to of- 
 fer a contempt to a minister in public. I know not what was 
 submitted to the meeting; I heard no charges, I only heard 
 objections made to him. 
 
 Did you not know and understand, before the interruption 
 of Amos Peaslee, that a new clerk was to be made? No, I did 
 not. Did you not know before the meeting convened, that it 
 was proposed to have a new clerk? It was talked about, but I 
 live at a distance, and was not so well informed. There were 
 other charges agaitist the old clerk. One objection was, that 
 he had gone off with the separatists, at New York. I heard 
 David Hilles talked of as a suitable person, as coming from 
 an undivided Quarter, but there never was any agreement en- 
 tered into in my presence. As the other Quarters were divided, 
 we thought it would be more proper, that a clerk should be 
 appointed from a Quarter that was not divided, should it be 
 necessary. What was talked about the prospect of having to 
 appoint a new clerk? There was no agreement to appoint one, 
 but it was thought if it should be necessary, he would be a pro- 
 per person. 
 
 Did you know of any understanding, to appoint a clerk, in 
 consequence of Jonathan'Taylor's disqualification? No, I know 
 of no understanding. You say, that you heard a conversation, 
 that Jonathan Taylor had gone off with the separatists at New 
 York, and that he had disturbed Amos Peaslee, therefore Da- 
 vid Hilles was thought a suitable person for clerk, if necessary? 
 No, I never heard any thing mentioned, as being that which 
 would make it necessary to appoint a clerk. I may have heard 
 something said at the school house, on Seventh-day afternoon, 
 but I cannot explain the object. But I suppose the object was, 
 that in consequence of the present movements, and what had 
 been circulating, with regard to the meas-ures that would be 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 113 
 
 adopted to prevent Friends from getting into the house, a 
 number of Friends assembled to qonsult what was best to be 
 done. The conclusion was, according to my understanding, 
 to go to the meeting as usual, and if not prevented, to go in. 
 But if kept out, when met in a collective capacity, then to de- 
 termine what was to be done. 
 
 I do not know whether Isaac James was there, or David Hil- 
 les; I cannot say positively. I recollect his being mentioned; 
 it was said, that if it should be necessary to have a new clerk, 
 he would be a suitalile person. Do you not know, that he had 
 been consulted with, as to his acceptance ? I do not recollect 
 of hearing any thing about his accepting. It was expected, that 
 measures would be taken, to prevent Friends from getting into 
 the house, and they assembled to consider the subject, and 
 they concluded to assemble as usual, and as if nothing was the 
 matter; and if, when assembled, they were prevented from en- 
 tering the house, to use no violence. They were to determine 
 on measures when thus assembled. I heard nothing about re- 
 organizing the meeting, in case the orthodox should prohibit 
 our entering, nor of any preconcerted plan. 
 
 Were not the Meeting for Sufferings, and the meeting of 
 ministers and elders, bodies belonging to the Ohio Yearly 
 Meeting? Yes, they were members of the meeting. Did they 
 not belong as bodies to the Ohio Yearly Meeting? I do not 
 know, I never sat in their meetings. There are rules in the 
 discipline in relation to such bodies. Were not both these bo- 
 dies united with the orthodox party? I cannot answer, not 
 being acquainted in the different Quarterly Meetings. Was 
 there any Meeting for Sufferings belonging'to there-organized 
 meeting of Ohio? There was not under that name; but there 
 is that which amounts to about the same thing. Was there 
 assembled with the re-organized meeting, a Meeting for Suffer- 
 ings? There was not, till they were appointed by the meeting. 
 Was there any report from a body of that kind, to the re- 
 organized meeting? Not of the orthodox party. Was there of 
 the heterodox or Hicksites? I cannot answer fully, because I left 
 before the meeting was over. I was there till some time on 
 Sixth-day. There was no report till I left on Sixth-day after- 
 noon. There was a standing committee, governed by the same 
 discipline as the Meeting for Sufferings. Were there any re- 
 ports or proceedings of the last year, read by this committee, 
 in relation to the last year? I heard nothing concerning it. 
 Is not that a part of the duty of the Yearly Meeting, to read 
 the proceedings of the Meeting for Sufferings, the previous 
 year? It is the duty of the Yearly Meeting, to receive the re- 
 port of that committee. Did you receive such a report? I 
 recollect none. There was none. There was in your re- 
 organized meeting, no report of any thing which took place 
 
114 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 before you were re-organized? When the old clerk went off, 
 he took the books and papers with him. 1 do not recollect 
 any report in relation to th'e last year. 
 
 Was it not an understanding of your party, that they would 
 re-organize the Yearly Meeting? Not that I know of. Was a 
 demand made of the old clerk for the papers? 1 do not know. 
 Did you hear any objections to Amos E. Kimberly as assistant 
 clerk? I don't know that I did, he went off with the orthodox 
 party. I do not recollect whether the assistant clerk was ap- 
 pointed before Amos E. Kimberly went off or not. Was the 
 minute of the appointment read by Hilles? I can't answer. I 
 want you to say whether Jehu Lewis' name was not mentioned 
 before the orthodox adjourned? I cannot say. You have said 
 it was a conclusion, for Friends to go to the meeting as usual; 
 did they include any other than the Hicksites, or did they not 
 include those disowned? Nothing was said about them. Was 
 not Borden Stanton at your Yearly Meeting? There was a 
 person there, whom they called Borden Stanton. Did he take 
 part in the proceedings? He did. Was Amos Peaslee at the 
 school house, and at the Yearly Meeting? Yes, both. Did he 
 speak? He spoke in the preaching way. He did not recom- 
 mend any thing like going on with the business, in defiance of 
 the orthodox. Do you know of any other conference, in rela- 
 tion to this matter? No. 
 
 Do you know Jacob Griffith? Yes, in Washington county. 
 There were a few persons stopped there some time last sum- 
 mer, after a public meeting at the barn. Was there a letter 
 read there? I do not recollect. Amos Peaslee was there, 
 Elias Hicks was not there. 
 
 As to a concurrence with the appointment of David Hilles; 
 was there any of the orthodox who concurred? I did not know 
 of any, as I was pretty much of a stranger. I recollect one 
 voice, out of perhaps three, who made objections; the one 
 said, we have a clerk. Those that I have mentioned, were op- 
 posing or objecting to it. Was there any reply to these? Not 
 that I know of. They were made when others were uniting. 
 Did you not hear it staled, that it was the duty of the repre- 
 sentatives, to nominate a clerk, at the next sitting? I think 
 the representatives of the re-organized meeting, as is usual, 
 agreed to nominate David Hilles. The Meeting for Sufferings 
 was laid down, and a standing committee appointed, who were 
 to be governed by the same discipline. They took one for the 
 other. You know of no order from the Quai lerly or Monthly 
 Meetings, or any thing in the discipline, which would authorize 
 the holding these conferences? The new meeting have pub- 
 lished no new discipline. 
 
 Doctor Carroll affirmed, — Witness was at the last Yearly 
 Meeting on First-day, is a member of the society of Friends, 
 
at Sleubenville, Ohio. 
 
 115 
 
 belongs to Plainfield Monthly Meeting, and has never been dis- 
 owned, not even by the orthodox — and says: I was at Ohio 
 Yearly Meeting on First-day, at the first meeting. I was there 
 early, and the galleries were then filled. At a suitable time 
 Elias Hicks rose, and after speaking some time, sat down. 
 Elisha Bates then got up, and commenced an abusive discourse, 
 and after him, a female spoke to the same amount. After she 
 concluded, Elias Hicks rose to defend himself, but the ortho- 
 dox broke the meeting, and they would not allow him an op- 
 portunity to be heard in his own defence. As soon as they shook 
 hands, some of the boys got up, and with others, made so 
 much noise, that he could not proceed. He then shook hands, 
 with some near him, aijd said they might as well part 
 Friends. 
 
 The people were ordered out, but they would not go out 
 till they heard his defence; but when he went, most of the 
 people went away. In the afternoon, I was at Short Creek. 
 The leaders of the orthodox party were not there; therefore 
 there was no confusion — no opposition made. 
 
 On Second-day morning I went to the meeting house some 
 time before the usual hour of assembling; and when I got to 
 the gate, I saw some of the orthodox party, with notices in 
 their hands, and there were some sticking up along the walls. 
 I went through, and found door-keepers, or guards, stationed 
 at each door. They made no opposition. I went to the 
 north-east door of the house, and v/ent in, and found the gal- 
 leries filled— the steps were also filled leading to the table. I 
 sat down upon a bench near the stove, and sat some time. 
 After a little time the guards gave way, and many were shoved 
 in. Amos Peaslee came in in that way. He came near where 
 I was standing. I recjuested some to give him room, but they 
 leaned down, and told him not to come there, that he had no 
 business there. Before this a prayer had been made by Tho- 
 mas Shillitoe. It seemed very different from what is usual. 
 He appeared more disposed to pray for success than salvation. 
 The house was soon filled. 
 
 Israel French rose, and made a few observations. He said 
 the clerk had disqualified himself from being clerk, and pro- 
 posed that a person be appointed for the day, which was 
 generally united with. I think there were two or three voices 
 against it. About the time that French commenced speaking, 
 Taylor began fixing his papers, and as soon as he was pre- 
 pared, commenced reading. The proposition being agreed 
 to, David Hilles was nominated, and the nomination was united 
 in, very generally, as much so as I ever saw. He Avas not 
 near the table, and was asked to come forward; some said he 
 was not in the house. After some time, I was requested to go 
 after the clerk, and bring him up, as the passage was very 
 
116 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 much filled. I went down the passage slowly, till 1 saw 
 David Hilles coming from the corner of the house. When he 
 got near where I stood, I stepped hehind him, and told some 
 of them to press on, and we took him up slowly. But the 
 young men, orthodox, I suppose, opposed us violently. One 
 told me if I did not behave, I would be taken out of the house. 
 We moved on, notwithstanding we were opposed most vehe- 
 mently, till we got up near the gallery steps, where we calcu- 
 lated to make a place for him to write; but the orthodox 
 pressed so hard, that Hilles was pushed out of his course 
 towards the women's meeting: he, however, got back to the 
 stove, where he wrote an opening minute. 
 
 About this time there was a considerable force by the ortho- 
 dox, such as pushing and jerking. An orthodox young man 
 carried me off a piece, and another, who was an elder, jerked 
 me down. We seemed to stand our ground, although they 
 appeared to think they had a right, and wished to push us out 
 of it. One man said, I think he was on our side, he regarded 
 no man for his incivility. We offered to pacify him, but on 
 the other side they were going on in the same way. One said 
 he was the owner of the house. They were on both sides very 
 much alike, only they were principally young men who were 
 engaged on our side, and mostly old men among the ortho- 
 dox. 
 
 After they had pushed me about considerably I was very 
 warm, and got up on the bench. Joseph Steer and Amos 
 E. Kimberly were holding the table. I told them it did not 
 become their standing, particularly Amos E. Kimberly, a 
 minister. About this time a young man undertook to get up 
 to the table, and when he got near the ministers' gallery they 
 threw him back upon the people, like a squirrel from a tree. 
 But he got up again, and succeeded in getting to the gallery. 
 
 Just before the alarm, a couple of orthodox began to talk 
 to me. I told them I did not cacp about talking to small shot, 
 and when the alarm took place they ran and left me. I step- 
 ped back, and discovered that the gallery was not coming 
 down, although I was somewhat agitated. 
 
 They ran to the door, and some of them, I think Jonathan 
 Taylor, unbarred it, and a number went out. I intended to 
 shut the door,and bar it upon them. I stepped up to the table, 
 and laid my hand upon it, but they soon returned, and I did 
 not hold to it. The scuffle soon ensued of breaking the table. 
 William Planner, an orthodox young man, took hold, and 
 held the legs, and some others had hold, and it was soon 
 broken. An orthodox Friend got hold of the door, and jerk- 
 ed it against my leg, and hurt it some. After the table was 
 broken, I found that David Hilles was there, and I saw some 
 
at Steuhcnvillc, Oliio. 
 
 one hand him the drawer of the table to write on. lie was 
 upon the east side of the door. 
 
 About this time some of the. orthodox said they had surren- 
 dered, but others said they had not. It was proposed by the 
 orthodox, after they had consulted a little together, that they 
 would adjourn. And in a very formal manner, they sent into 
 the women's meeting, and got permission to adjourn. It was 
 the representatives, and I conclude the orthodox thought that 
 they were the Yearly Meeting. Soon after they came to this 
 conclusion they went off. We did not request them to go 
 away, nor were they interrupted in going. Very little was 
 said or done on our part, but we let them go off in peace, and 
 we went on with the business of the day, and convened at a 
 certain hour in the afternoon. 
 
 Did you ever know a Yearly Meeting to be adjourned by the 
 representatives? I never did : that was the first time. I never 
 heard of such a thing, till the orthodox undertook to put down 
 the society. Did you know any thing about the cause of that 
 alarm? I did not. I heard something crack about that time, 
 and supposed that was the cause of it. 
 
 Did you ever know Quarterly Meetings to appoint door- 
 keepers ? Not of my own knowledge. I have understood 
 that the Ohio Yearly Meeting decided some years ago that it 
 was not necessary. I have attended several Yearly Meetings, 
 and I never before saw such formidable arrangements. If a 
 man was not a member, he was invited away in a modest man- 
 ner. Was there any thing unusual in the proceedings of the 
 orthodox? 
 
 The Meeting for Sufferings, which is considered the head 
 of the orthodox party, had sent down some testimonies of ad- 
 vice, issued in a pamphlet form, as recognised by the Meet- 
 ing for Sufferings, and signed by Jordan Harrison, clerk. 
 This document was brought by a committee to the Monthly 
 Meeting at Plainfield. A committee came from the Quar- 
 terly Meeting, and offered a minute of their appointment, and, 
 at the same time, a number of these Indiana testimonies. The 
 subject was taken up in the Monthly Meeting, and discussed; 
 and it was generally concluded not to accept them, believing 
 that they contained untruths, and misrepresentations of the 
 views and principles held forth by what they called the 
 Hicksites. I stated for one, that I believed they contained 
 ]iositive falsehoods, and we sent them back to the Quarter. In 
 consequence of this, they laid us down. It was stated on our 
 minutes, that they should be sent back. 
 
 We conceived that we were not bound to receive any thing 
 which was not truth. And, as men of veracity, wishing to do 
 right in the presence of the Deity, we sent them back. The 
 subject was agitated in meeting, a minute was made, and they 
 15 
 
118 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 were sent back to the next Quarterly Meeting. This com- 
 mittee, tliat attended, stated that our Monthly Meeting was 
 in an insubordinate state, and that it should be laid down. 
 We opposed it, but Benjamin W. Ladd said, that we had no 
 right to a voice. Others said we had a right to be heard, not 
 having been disowned. We were, therefore, permitted to 
 speak, but no attention was paid to us, not being weiglity 
 members. There were a great many voices against it, but no 
 attention was paid to them, for it was observed by Benjamin 
 W. Ladd, that it was a spirit of ranterism, not worthy of no- 
 tice. But the Monthly Meeting was laid down, the clerk 
 taking the sense of the orthodox party, without regard to 
 numbers, or the voice of our members. 
 
 Does your Monthly Meeting continue to meet as usual? 
 We do continue to meet. Did they give directions as to the 
 property? They appointed a committee to attend laying it 
 down. We attended, and told them that we conceived we 
 were not laid down according to discipline, nor according to 
 the voice of the Quarterly Meeting; therefore, we could not 
 submit. I think there were but five voices against continuing 
 the meeting, and I suppose there are several hundred belong- 
 ing to it. I think there were more than one hundred present 
 in the men's end. They did not all speak, but more than I ever 
 heard in a meeting, objected to the proceedings of the ortho- 
 dox, as they thought it was not the voice of the Quarterly 
 Meeting. They then, at the Quarterly Meeting, joined the 
 members that went off to Stillwater Monthly Meeting. I 
 did not attend our Monthly Meeting at all, the preceding 
 month, when they were to take the papers, if we would not 
 acknowledge their right. We kept all the records and papers 
 of the men's meeting, and of the women's meeting in part. 
 There were a number from that Monthly Meeting at the Yearly 
 Meeting, probably half of the adult members. I can't be po- 
 sitive. 
 
 Were there any preparations made by the orthodox, previ- 
 ous to the Yearly Meeting, to hold exclusive possession of the 
 house? If so, what were they? On Second-day morning, 
 guards were at the door, there were four or five on each side 
 of the door. Do you know any thing of a general conference 
 of the orthodox from other Yearly Meetings? In the year 1827, 
 there was a meeting or conference appointed. And it was un- 
 derstood, the same was done by other Yearly Meetings, and 
 many delegates attended the last Yearly Meeting. There were 
 an unusual number of orthodox. 
 
 When a proposition is made in your meetings, is it not usual 
 to dispose of it, before another is offered? It is so considered. 
 When an exception is made to the clerk, and a proposition is 
 made to appoint another clerk, would it be according to usag6 
 
al Steubeuville, Ohio. 
 
 119 
 
 to interrupt the meeting? By no means. It would be out of 
 order. It is not in order; they ought to wait till a general ex- 
 pression of sentiment is given, and as soon as it is decided by 
 the general voice of the meeting, then the clerk forms a minute 
 and reads it. 
 
 Would there have been any disturbance, had it not been for 
 the conduct of the clerk, in disturbing the meeting? I think 
 not, for it appeared to be the voice of the meeting that David 
 Hilles should be clerk. Did you ever know any part of the so- 
 ciety of Friends, to embody themselves in a dense mass round 
 the clerk's table, at the opening of a meeting for discipline? I 
 never have. When a clerk is nominated and united in, he goes 
 to the table and goes on with the business? That is consider- 
 ed the proper way. Is it usual to oppose force to a clerk in 
 going to the table? I never knew any thing of that kind. Is 
 it not considered a departure from your fundamental princi- 
 ples, to use force? It is so considered. Was there anymore 
 force used by one side than the other? It is hard to tell. There 
 was, if any thing, the most on the orthodox side; for there were 
 more strong men, and they appeared to exert themselves as 
 much. 
 
 Who compose your Yearly Meeting? The members that 
 compose the Quarters, compose also the Yearly Meeting. 
 Have the representatives any more voice in your meetings than 
 other members? I think not. Has your clerk any more au- 
 thority than others? He has no other authority, than as a ser- 
 vant of the meeting. Is it according to the order of your 
 society, for the minority to govern the majority? No. You 
 have said that the orthodox withdrew, and sent a committee 
 to the women's meeting? Yes. In Ohio Yearly Meeting, was 
 there any thing like two separate parties, till they thus sepa- 
 rated? The Friends of Ohio Yearly Meeting were but one 
 meeting, till this separation; further than that the Quarters 
 had divided, owing to difficulties in the society. 
 
 Was any thing said or done by Friends at the Yearly Meet- 
 ing, to exclude the orthodox? On Third-day morning, when 
 Elisha Bates, and some others, came and demanded the house 
 for the use of Ohio Yearly Meeting, they were told, that the 
 meeting was then in session, and they were at liberty to come 
 in and take their seats as members of the Yearly Meeting. 
 He put the question in a kind of legal way, as if preparing to 
 go to law. 
 
 It was proposed to divide the time, so that both parties 
 might be accommodated. I tiiink Amos Pcaslec was speak- 
 ing at the time they came, but Elisha spoke so loud, that all 
 business had to be suspended. Then he interrupted the meet- 
 ing? Yes, a person was speaking. Did he domand exclusive 
 
120 
 
 Trial of Fricnris 
 
 possessiou? He dcnnancled possession fc.r the Ohio Yearly 
 Meeting, and he was told that it was then in session. 
 
 Were you at the conference at Plainfield ? I was. Does this 
 paper (handing him a paper,) contain the resolutions of that 
 conference? Witness reads the paper, and says it is the sub- 
 stance of the proceedings at that conference. How many 
 were probably at the Yearly Meeting, before the orthodox 
 withdrew ? I cannot say — perhaps twelve hundred : I did not 
 make a general estimate, as I was convinced that there was a 
 majority of Friends with us in sentiment, in the Yearly Meet- 
 ing, although the orthodox claimed a great many more. 
 
 Cross-examination. — You say that it is a fundamental prin- 
 ciple in your society to use no force or personal violence ? 
 Yes. At the time you advanced David Hilles, did you not 
 ask them to push forward ? Yes, and I helped a little. Was 
 not that the application of force ? Yes, it was the application 
 of force, but it was not violence. Then you proceeded to 
 place your clerk at the table, by the application . of force ? 
 Yes, by the application of force. Then there was strength 
 employed ? Yes, there was strength. Was not this applica- 
 tion of force in contravention of a fundamental rule, in your 
 society ? I conceive it was, in some degree, but I did not con- 
 ceive it any injury to remove a man in the passage. I was 
 determined to use no personal injury to any man. You had 
 determined to use just so much force as was necessary to 
 carry your point f It was my determination to move on with 
 sufficient force to get into the neighbourhood of the stove, and 
 there to have a table. I did not think of going into the gal- 
 lery, for fear of being hurt. I wanted to take up the clerk as 
 far as the stove, and he appeared to be quite passive. Did 
 you not know of similar force by your party to get into the 
 house? I heard some noise at the door, and an orthodox 
 Friend cried out, don't struggle. I saw the crowds rush in, 
 and there appeared to be some force. There were persons 
 there who wished to come in, and the young men pushed them 
 in, and many very contrary to their wishes. Were those who 
 rushed in principally composed of your party? They were, 
 because the orthodox had got in as a chosen few. Do you 
 know of any individual members being opposed in enter- 
 ing ? I do not know of any one in particular. Were you at 
 Updegraff's school house ? (a school house in Mount Plea- 
 sant.) Yes, it was on the Seventh-day previous to the Y'^early 
 Meeting. What was the object of that conference? It was 
 understood, that there would be obstructions to our getting 
 into the house, on Second-day, from the circumstance of their 
 having applied force at some of our Quarterly Meetings. And 
 the committee who were appointed at Plainfield, proposed to 
 
at Steubcnville, Ohio. 
 
 131 
 
 meet on Seventh-day, to consult what to do, and I went to the 
 conference at the school house at Mount Pleasant. In that 
 conference the conclusion was, to go to the meeting as at 
 other times, and if we could not get in without force or vio- 
 lence, it would then be a question, whether we would not go 
 somewhere else and hold a Yearly Meeting. There was some- 
 thing said that we should probably need a clerk, and it was 
 mentioned that David Hilles would be a suitable person. 
 
 It was proposed, by the most weighty part of the meeting, 
 that we should go there as if nothing had taken place, and do 
 as we should see best when we got there. It was supposed 
 from the past conduct of the clerk, that he would not act for 
 the meeting; and that they would order us out, and say that 
 we were disowned. It was my opinion before, that Jona- 
 than Taylor was not fit for clerk. He had gone off with the 
 separatists at New York, and held a spurious meeting at the 
 Medical Hall. Were there no other accusations against the 
 clerk, which induced you to suppose that your party would 
 appoint a new clerk ? I think of nothing more, nor was there 
 any conclusion come to upon the subject. Were Peaslee and 
 French there? They were. Was it not agreed, that, if it 
 should be found necessary to appoint a clerk, some person 
 should make the proposition, and was not French the person 
 proposed ? I think not. Is there any thing in your discipline 
 to warrant the course pursued ? It is always considered, that 
 a person who has been guilty of any immoral acts is not a 
 suitable person to be placed in business. 
 
 Have you ever known an instance like this ? In New Garden 
 Meeting, about ten or fifteen years ago, a clerk had been 
 guilty of improper conduct, and it was proposed, that, in con- 
 sequence of that improper conduct, he should leave the place 
 of clerk, and another person was appointed in his stead. The 
 fact was, that he left the table, and another one filled his 
 place. This was in consequence of his conduct between the 
 previous sitting of the Monthly Meeting, and the time alluded 
 to. Did any body wait on Jonathan Taylor, or had it been ad- 
 vised that the Monthly Meeting should take up the subject ? I 
 can't say. 
 
 The court adjourned till 2 o'clock. 
 
 Saturday the 1 8lh, 2 o'clock, P. M. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — Did the orthodox make a move 
 before your party advanced upon them ? The first opposition 
 was a few feet from where we started, by a young man who 
 knocked about pretty lively. Those occupying the ministers' 
 gallery used no exertion? We did not go to the gallery, but 
 when we were stopped, we concluded we would gel the table. 
 He was taken back to the stove, and there opened the meet- 
 
122 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 ing; but afterwards, he was taken into the gallery. Had he 
 the reports with him ? He had, previous to his coming to 
 the stove, and I understood they were jerked out of his hands. 
 
 After Hilles got to the stove, did you see any of the ortho- 
 dox party make use of violence to resist you ? One carried 
 me off a considerable distance — I was perfectly passive. One 
 got hold of me, and jerked me partly down — I think it was 
 Jonathan Stanley. I think there were but two or three voices 
 opposing David Hilles' appointment. How many were there 
 in favour of it ? There was a very large number. Do you 
 think there were as many as a hundred Yes, more than a 
 hundred. You think there were about twelve hundred present ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Of those that attended the meeting, was it not evident to 
 your senses, that the greatest number went with the orthodox ? 
 There were a great many in that meeting who were not mem- 
 bers, who went off with the orthodox, being probably nearer 
 related to them than to us. Were there probably fifty of 
 this class ? I should say more than that. How many do 
 you suppose remained at that meeting ? On Third-day I 
 suppose there were near four hundred, after the separation, 
 and the orthodox had gone to Short Creek house. Was Jona- 
 than Pierce present at the conference, at the school house in 
 Mount Pleasant ? It is my impression that he was. I did not 
 see Jehu Lewis nor Moses Metcalf. Here Mr. Tappan offered 
 a copy of the minutes of Plainfield conference, but it was ob- 
 jected to, and the judge decided that it was not admissible. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — Witness did not know of any 
 arrangement, that the reports should be returned to David 
 Hilles. It was mentioned at the school house, that the ortho- 
 dox had commenced barring the doors, but it was recom- 
 mended that we should be patient and not use violence; that 
 we should do our duty as members of a christian church. It 
 is a principle among Quakers not to pre-determine. We 
 agreed to nothing like breaking a lath, but that idea was pro- 
 bably suggested by the orthodox party. 
 
 William Sharon affirmed. — Are you a member of the society 
 of Friends ? I am not, but I was at Mount Pleasant, First, 
 Second, and Third-days. On First-day, Elias Hicks got up 
 and preached for some length of time. Elisha Bates then got up, 
 and stated that this man came into the Friends' meeting, con- 
 trary to the order of Friends, and that his doctrines were er- 
 roneous. Elias rose to reply; but Elisha Bates rose and said, 
 he wished the people to leave the house immediately. In 
 the afternoon Elias went somewhere else. I went to the meet- 
 ing in Mount Pleasant. Elisha Dawson rose and spoke for 
 some time, and was followed by Amos Peaslee. Elisha Bates 
 whispered to Jonathan Taylor, and Jonathan ordered Peaslee 
 
at Steubenville^ Ohio. 
 
 12S 
 
 to sit down, but he did not sit down. Many rose up and said, 
 "sit down. Bates." Two men went into the entry, and I 
 thought it was to take him out. But Amos Peaslee said, "for 
 mercy's sake, be still." Joseph Steer jerked him against the 
 wall, but he spoke on and delivered what he had to say. 
 
 Anna Braithwaite then got up and said, that Peaslee was a 
 disowned member. And when she sat down he said, "al- 
 though I am smitten, it does not become me to return the 
 same." (Objected to.) 
 
 Mr. Hubbard said, the court would recollect that one of the 
 reasons assigned for removing the clerk on Second-day was, 
 that he had been guilty of improper conduct the day previous, 
 by his rudeness to Peaslee, who was an approved minister. 
 And if in showing that, the witness repeats the language 
 which another has used, it cannot be said he shall not go on. 
 We introduce this person to show, that there was a disturbance 
 on Sunday, and that the orthodox party did conduct them- 
 selves towards Peaslee in such a manner as to violate the 
 rules of the church. We think, therefore, the witness has 
 a right, in this instance, to give the language that passed. It 
 is to show a transaction in which we conceive a party did dis- 
 turb the public worship of the society; and that this led to the 
 introduction of a proposition to remove the clerk. 
 
 Witness proceeded to state, that the ne's.t day he happened 
 to be at the meeting house at Mount Pleasant— he had no in- 
 tention to go in, or to intrude upon the society in any way, 
 but he discovered that guards were stationed at the doors, that 
 some were pushing in, and that others were kept out. Directly 
 there came a crowd along and pushed into the house. Pretty 
 soon after they got in, there was an alarm in the house that 
 the galleries were coming down, and they came out in a rush. 
 I stepped in, to see if the galleries had come down, and there 
 was nothing of it. The meeting appeared to be somewhat 
 composed, and they urged the clerk to \go to business, but 
 Benjamin W. Ladd said, he would not submit to such con- 
 duct. He said, that Hilles was a disturber of the peace. A 
 move was made to break up the meeting — some said it was 
 the orthodox only, and they withdrew and went off. 
 
 I thought they had separated, but on Third-day morning I 
 discovered them coming down again in a body, and as I was 
 close by, I stepped up. Bates stepped into the door and de- 
 manded the meeting house for the Ohio Yearly Meeting; he 
 was told that the meeting was then in session, and that they 
 might gome in and sit among them; but he wanted an explicit 
 answer. They stated something like a willingness to give up 
 the house half the day, but it was rejected. 
 
 On Monday morning I went there pretty early, perhaps an 
 hour before the alarm. You say there were guards at tlie door.^ 
 
124 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 Joseph Steer, and one other were outside, and I saw others in- 
 side whom I took to be guards. They stopped two or three. 
 I did not see any pushing, but their hands were placed across 
 the doors. Who were those that made the rush? There were 
 a great many there, who I presume did not belong to the so- 
 ciety. They pushed the guards in ; and I suppose, from what 
 I could see, that perhaps David Steer was pushed down. He 
 came out into the yard. I saw two women who said they had 
 been hindered from going in. He said he would see that they 
 were admitted. He went with them and after some discourse, 
 they were admitted. Was any thing said after the table was 
 broken? Yes, one man rose, and proposed that the house 
 should be divided between the two parties, so as to accommo- 
 date both parties. But Benjamin W. Ladd got up, and said 
 that this man was not a member. I think it was Halliday 
 Jackson, and that he came from over the mountains. Are you 
 a member of this society? No, I never was a member. 
 
 Levi Pickering affirmed. — Were you at Ohio Yearly Meeting? 
 I was. Are you a member of the society? I am. I went to 
 the meeting house on Second-day morning, somewhere near 
 10 o'clock. I was not there the day previous. I went near 
 the door, and several were standing in the door. I knew Da- 
 vid Steer, but did not know the others. There were a number 
 of Friends with me. One stepped to the door, and they put 
 up their hands, and said he could not go in, that he was not a 
 member. He said he was a member of Flushing Meeting, 
 that he had always been a member, and was never disowned, 
 that he knew of. As I had heard that it was only such and 
 such ones that were brought into question, I spoke a word in 
 his behalf, and they let him in. 
 
 By this time Amos Peaslee, Elisha Dawson, and a number 
 of others came up. When we went near the door, I heard 
 some one speaking as though in supplication. Amos Peaslee 
 said in a low voice, some one is speaking, we had better not 
 go in to disturb the meeting. We stopped perhaps three 
 minutes, and by that time a great many were round the door. 
 As soon as the voice ceased, we attempted to go in. There 
 was no opposition to my going in, but they said the others 
 could not go in. I asked why they could not go in. 
 
 I went to go in, and by this time they were pushing us. 
 Amos Peaslee said, " dear friends, don't push, be peaceable; if 
 we are not admitted we can't help it. If we can go in peace- 
 ably, well, and if not, we will go away." By that time they 
 pushed pretty hard against me; and I pressed back, deter- 
 mined not to go in. They kept pushing, till I was nearly 
 down. Elisha Dawson was also near falling, and I caught 
 hold to prevent him from going down. The pressure was so 
 great from without, that notwithstanding the pressure back, 
 
at Sleubenville, Ohio. 
 
 J25 
 
 by the guards and others, we went into the liouse. 1 was 
 sent ten or fifteen feet before I could stop. 
 
 After this the meeting was pretty quiet. It sat some little 
 time in stillness, as is usual at all times. This pause was 
 about the same as is customary, unless some one engages in 
 vocal prayer, or in the line of the ministry. 
 
 Israel French rose, and stated that owing to the circum- 
 stance of the clerk, since last year, so conducting, he thought 
 he was not qualified to open that meeting ; and I think he 
 stated some reason, but I am not positive. When he made the 
 proposition, there was a uniting of the meeting, the largest 
 uniting that I have been acquainted with; and I have attended 
 all the sessions of Ohio Yearly Meeting, and have been in 
 Baltimore Yearly Meeting. 
 
 After this, Jonathan Taylor proceeded to open the meeting. 
 Then some person, whom I believed to be a representative 
 from Redstone Quarter, proposed the name of David Hilles, 
 and it was also united with by a larger number than I had 
 ever heard unite with a proposition in a Yearly Meeting 
 before. And as it regards being done in an unbecoming 
 manner, I must say, if it was the case, it did not strike me so 
 then; nor had I heard it so stated, till I came into this house; 
 though they spake in quick succession one after another. 
 They spoke quick, though not quicker than I have known 
 before, but I never have known so many to speak. 
 
 Jonathan Taylor proceeded to read the opening minute, and 
 to call the representatives ; and as far as I recollect, they 
 mostly answered, though there was considerable confusion. 
 Those in favour of David Hilles acting as clerk, insisted on 
 his coming to the table. He was urged by several, that is, by 
 voices requesting him to come to the table. With that there 
 were a number who came along up the gangway from the 
 south door. I suppose David Hilles was in that company; 
 although I did not see him, that I know of, till he came to the 
 stove. There was then a pause, as if he was going to write 
 something. 
 
 I did not see David use any force, but there were eight, ten 
 or a dozen pushing him forward, and as many pushing the 
 other way. I stood eight or ten feet off upon one of the rais- 
 ed seats. There was considerable pushing on both sides. 
 When the cry took place, a number ran out, of both parties. 
 Being pretty well acquainted with Friends, I do not know 
 who ran the most. When it was first suggested, I did not 
 see much reason for apprehension ; but the second time, a 
 board broke, or split, or something like it, and somebody 
 said the galleries are falling, or words to that amount. It 
 would seem as though tliere were something like ten or 
 a dozen pushing and pulling. It appeared to me that tlic 
 16 
 
126 
 
 Trial of FrienJt 
 
 ministers next to Taylor were pulling towards him, and that 
 others were pulling towards Hilles. The first breaking of 
 the table was by one of the young Planners, who pulled one leg 
 off, next to Jonathan Taylor, and handed it along the ministers' 
 bench 5 and one of the orthodox Friends, from Philadelphia I 
 think, took it and put it under the bench- 
 There was a pushing and pulling, back and forth, this way 
 and that, till some one said they are hurting Jonathan Taylor. 
 Presently the table was pulled to pieces, and after it was 
 broken, I think Benjamin W. Ladd said. Friends, let us now 
 surrender, or, give up, I think we have contended long enough. 
 James Heald said, I will not surrender, this meeting-house 
 belongs to me. I think Benjamin W. Ladd, owing to this cir- 
 cumstance, proposed that the meeting should adjourn, and 
 some one inquired if Jonathan Taylor was in the house. It 
 was replied, that he was in the house. They then called over 
 the representatives, to see if they would adjourn the meeting; 
 and they answered, most of them, and agreed to the adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 It was remarked on the other side, that the meeting was 
 not adjourning, it was only the orthodox party. Perhaps 
 there were not more than two or three objections made to 
 their adjourning. At that time Halliday Jackson spoke, and 
 said that he hoped Friends would act like Christians towards 
 each other, and make some arrangement, by which both par- 
 ties could be accommodated with the house. It would be 
 much better on both sides, or words to that amount. Benja- 
 min W. Ladd said, that he was not a member; or that he was 
 an intruder there, and wished no notice to be taken of any 
 such proposition. After this, the orthodox party soon left the 
 house. 
 
 Were you present on Third-day morning? I was. How 
 many persons do you suppose were present on Second-day, 
 belonging to Friends, including all the different parties? I 
 did try in my own mind to make an estimate. I suppose 
 when they were all together, taking members and those who 
 were not members, that there were at least 1500 persons. It 
 is difficult to answer the question with correctness, but I sup- 
 pose it very possible from the best evidence I could get, that 
 one hundreiJ or more were not members, perhaps, more, per- 
 haps less. 
 
 After the orthodox withdrew, as I sat upon a bench facing 
 the meeting, with only three benches back of me, I attempted 
 to count, to see how they averaged upon the different benches; 
 and from that calculation, I concluded that about seven hun- 
 dred persons remained. I do not know of any who were not 
 members being in the house many minutes after the orthodox 
 withdrew. It was remarked that our meetings were usually 
 
at Sleubenville, Ohio. 
 
 held select, and that it would be desirable, and very kind, if 
 there were any present who were not members, that they 
 would withdraw, and some few v/ithdrew. I suppose that five 
 or six hundred remained. Some few of the orthodox remain- 
 ed, perhaps six, eight, or ten, and I believe James Heald was 
 one. 
 
 Are you acquainted with Israel French? I am. How long 
 have you been acquainted with him ? Perhaps six or seven 
 years. Israel French is a Friend that has always stood very 
 fair in our society. He is a man in good standing, and one 
 that has had a considerable of the business of society de- 
 volving upon him. 
 
 Do you, in your society, or in your meetings, acknowledge 
 an authority in any set of men over the others ? I never knew 
 it to be so. It is a society of perfect equality in theory. It 
 is true, that in our meetings of business, and out of meeting, 
 we have always considered that there was this difference, that 
 those who were exemplary and moral men, have stood higher 
 and have been more looked up to than others. The same as 
 it is in other societies. That is, men of more experience have 
 been looked up to, more than those of less. 
 
 By the practice of your society, has the clerk any authority 
 but to register the sense of the meeting? He has always 
 been considered the servant of the meeting, in any business 
 that the meeting might direct. It has been a uniform prac- 
 tice, for the clerk to be subject to the voice of the meeting. 
 Have you ever known a meeting to have the voice of the mi- 
 nority fastened upon it, when the majority opposed.'' I have 
 known a meeting to be a little divided, and the question to be 
 laid over till the next year. When Friends did not see alike, 
 it was thought best to continue till another year, and then bring 
 it forward again. 
 
 When a proposition is made, in any of your meetings, by a 
 member, for the discussion of the meeting, is it decent or or- 
 derly for the clerk to go on ? I never knew it before. I have 
 never seen a case where a proposition was before the meeting, 
 that it was not settled or laid over. The late instance is the 
 first deviation that I recollect. 
 
 What effect did the proceeding of the clerk have, as to dis- 
 order in the meeting? I do believe it had the effect to cause 
 considerable disturbance. I believe, that had the clerk waited 
 till the proposition was fairly decided, if the majority had been 
 opposed to the appointment of David Hilles, — if that had been 
 the judgment of the meeting, David Hilles would not have 
 been considered appointed ; and if the accusations against 
 Taylor were judged to be false, he would have been continued. 
 I believe that would have been the result of the meeting. 
 
 Have you ever known a Quarterly Meeting to choose guards: 
 
128 
 
 Trial of F riends 
 
 Yes, we have been in the practice of it for a number of years. 
 If any person appeared, who was not a member, we were not 
 willing that he should sit in a meeting of business; this has 
 been the case in Ohio Yearly Meeting. I do not think it has 
 been a uniform practice in all the Quarters. They have been 
 principally taken from Short Creek. I have never known 
 them to stand in the door, but to stand out, or sit down in- 
 side. I have been appointed as one of the number myself, 
 but I never found any thing to do. I have never seen it done 
 in the same order, as at the late Yearly Meeting. (In good order 
 said one of the counsel in an under tone j in disorder, said the 
 opposite counsel. Not quite so good order, said another, if I 
 may express an opinion, for I think, it was rather a disadvan- 
 tage to the society.) 
 
 Cross-examination. — Did you mean that Taylor's reading 
 disturbed the orthodox part of the meeting? I think it led to a 
 disturbance of both parties. Did it tend to interrupt the or- 
 thodox party? I think it did, by exciting those opposed to 
 Jonathan Taylor. These proceedings, you think, tended to 
 urge the Hicksites to advance? As I have stated before, 
 there was a proposition, which I thought had fairly came be- 
 fore the meeting,— I thought it in order; and I think if he 
 had not commenced reading, it would have been settled better. 
 Merely by calling to order? I do not know that I ever knew 
 Friends called to order. Did you ever see a motion out of 
 order ? I have seen that which I thought might better not have 
 been made. Did you ever know a motion out of the order of 
 discipline? I recollect no instance at present. 
 
 Do you suppose that there would have been any disturbance, 
 if the Hicksites had not proposed to appoint a new clerk? I 
 think there would have been no disturbance, except the first 
 difficulty of getting into the house. When I advanced to en- 
 ter the house, I took it that David Steer moved a little forme, 
 but intended to debar Elisha Dawson and Amos Peaslee. I 
 declined going in without they could be admitted. There 
 were, perhaps, twenty persons round the door. How long was 
 it after the first push, which you have spoken of, before it was 
 repeated? I think Peaslee had spoken a second time when the 
 press was made. Elisha Dawson was near falling, and I took 
 hold to raise him up as he was in the act of falling, but I did 
 not hold on. Did they say any thing to Dawson or Peaslee? 
 They did say, that they were not members, or something in 
 that way. 
 
 At what time is a proposition considered as decided in your 
 meetings? When a number have spoken, and the voices cease, 
 then it is considered the voice of the meeting, and the clerk 
 makes a minute. After reading it, if any part is not satisfac- 
 
at Steubenvillc, Ohio. 
 
 129 
 
 tory, any Friend has a right to object, and it may be amended. 
 Did you understand, that, after the proposition was made to 
 appoint David Hilles clerk, there was sufficient time, if the 
 clerk had been ready, to have entered a minute? He might 
 have written something, but I think there was hardly time 
 enough — there was a pause, but I would say there was hardly 
 time enough to enter a minute. Was there enough after the 
 proposition by Israel French? There was. There was no call 
 on the clerk? It is not usual; besides, it was thought he was 
 not qualified. Was it not requested several times, that Jo- 
 nathan Taylor should make a minute of his displacement ? 
 And when a new clerk has been appointed, has not the 
 old clerk usually made a minute, when present? (Answer 
 not understood.) Did you ever know an instance where 
 the minute of the appointment of a new clerk was not made 
 Tjy the old one, when he was present? (No answer heard.) Did 
 you ever know an attempt to carry a new clerk to the table, 
 giving to the old one no time to make a minute of the appoint- 
 ment of the new one, or to enter the decision of the meeting? 
 Never. When the proposition of Israel French was offered, 
 and before David Hilles was named, was there a pause suffi- 
 cient to enter a minute? I have said I thought there was not 
 sufficient time. 
 
 Is it according to the usage of the society to call the atten- 
 tion of the clerk to make a minute? I never knew an instance, 
 although I think it Avould be right so to do. Had David 
 Hilles any of the documents of the Yearly Meeting of Ohio? 
 I imagine he had not. He had some papers in his hands. Did 
 he get them from the clerk's table? I do not know. How long 
 •was it after his appointment was united in, before you saw 
 him have them? It was, I suppose, after he was proposed, not 
 half an hour. I felt much hurt with the proceedings, so much 
 so, that I was not capable of determining the time precisely, 
 or of describing all that passed. 
 
 Did you know any thing of an arrangement about propos- 
 ing David Hilles? I did not. 
 
 Questioned by the Judge. — After the proposition by French, 
 and his statement with respect to the clerk's disqualifying 
 himself, how much time was taken up in discussing the sub- 
 ject, or in expressing opinions? Probably from five to ten mi- 
 nutes, as much time as is usual. I think two or three gave 
 their dissent — I knew of only two, to the best of my know- 
 ledge. 
 
 How much time was taken up with the proposition to ap- 
 point Hilles? There was about the same time as with the 
 other proposition, and about the same number of voices. 
 
 Cross-examinationcontinued.— You do not think there was lime 
 sufficient for making a minute ? Hardly. How many voices 
 
130 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 did there appear to be expressing a unity with the proposi- 
 tions? There must have been more than a hundred, perhaps 
 two hundred. It was like the ayes and noes in a large 
 assembly. It might have been rather faster and more mixed 
 than usual} but then there were so many voices more than 
 is common, that it might have made it appear so to me. 
 
 Taylor did not appear like making a minute, he appeared 
 to be otherwise engaged. I understood that French's propo- 
 sition was, to appoint a clerk for the day — I never knew re- 
 presentatives to name apro tempore clerk. The representatives, 
 the next day, brought in the name of David Hilles, and report- 
 ed it to the meeting; they named David Hilles to serve as 
 clerk, and Jehu Lewis as assistant, and the meeting united 
 with the nomination. 
 
 David Scholfield affirmed. — Are you a member of the society 
 of Friends? I am. Were you at the late Yearly Meeting? I 
 was. I attended the meeting at Mount Pleasant on First-day 
 morning, as usual. About the usual time of gathering, and 
 after a little time of silence, Elias Hicks rose and spoke for 
 about forty minutes. I took out my watch and looked. After 
 he sat down, Elisha Bates spoke for the space of twenty-five 
 minutes in direct opposition. I did not consider it like preach- 
 ing, and I apprehend he did not himself. After he sat down, 
 Anna Braithwaite rose, a female minister or missionary from 
 England. She spoke forty-five minutes, pretty much after the 
 manner of Elisha Bates. It was not in the usual manner, but, 
 in my apprehension, rather disorderly. 
 
 After this, Elias Hicks rose to make some reply, and they 
 broke up the meeting in a very abrupt and disorderly manner. 
 I went to the meeting in the afternoon. They were unusually 
 long in gathering; the people kept coming in and going out. 
 After being there some time, Elisha Dawson rose and spoke 
 some time. Soon after him, Amos Peaslee rose, and ad- 
 dressed the meeting in a very feeling manner for a consider- 
 able time, when Thomas Shillitoe and Anna Braithwaite com- 
 menced whispering, and it passed to the next, and to the next 
 a second time, and extended down till it came to Elisha Bates. 
 He turned and whispered to Jonathan Taylor, and he back to 
 Elisha Bates. It passed back and forth several times, and at 
 length Jonathan Taylor rose, and requested Amos Peaslee to 
 please to take his seat, as he considered him a disturber of 
 the meeting, and that he had no right to speak there, not be- 
 ing a member of the society of Friends. 
 
 Amos Peaslee remained standing on his feet in silence, while 
 Taylor was speaking; and as soon as Taylor sat down, he re- 
 sumed speaking as if nothing had happened. In a short space 
 Elisha Bates rose in a very abrupt manner, and in a loud 
 voice exclaimed, " Amos Peaslee, M'ilt thou please to take thy 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 131 
 
 seat. Thou art an intruder, and hast no right to be in this 
 house." I thought it was the loudest voice I ever heard in a 
 meeting in my lifej and as Amos was only two or three from 
 him, if he had wanted to speak to him, he might have done it 
 in a lower voice. A person near by, rose and said, " Elisha 
 Bates, sit down;" and it was soon extended over the whole meet- 
 ing, Elisha Bates, sit down! Elisha Bates, sit down. It created 
 great confusion; many got up to see, some rose on the benches, 
 and some on the backs of the benches. There appeared to be 
 a little stillness, and Amos Peaslee said, " by the mercy of 
 God, I beseech you to be still." 
 
 The meeting became quiet, and Peaslee continued to speak 
 for twenty or thirty minutes, and took his seat. There was 
 some little whispering, back and forth, and Amos replied to 
 it. The next day, about half past nine, I was told the doors 
 were opened, and I went to the meetinghouse — it was raining 
 pretty smartly. I set my foot upon the door sill, and a person 
 put his hand to my stomach, and exclaimed: " thee is not com- 
 ing in here; I am set here to keep this door, and I shall keep 
 all such men as thee out." I immediately felt a press at my 
 back, shoving forward. I raised my foot again to step 
 into the door, but he clapped his hand to my breast, and se- 
 veral others in the house came to his assistance; and the pres- 
 sure behind shoved me on to him. They pressed my breast 
 so that I was scarcely able to get my breath, but I got to the 
 stove and leaned on it for some minutes. 
 
 While at the stove, I noticed that all the raised seats were 
 full, and the benches near by were fuller than I ever saw. I 
 looked around, and saw that about six benches facing the gal- 
 lery were also filled; not so crowded, but they were well filled. 
 After I had been standing some time, a person on the third 
 bench near the stove, beckoned me to come and sit down, 
 leaving one seat between me and the end of the bench, where I 
 remained till the confusion was all over, sometimes sitting 
 and sometimes standing on the bench. 
 
 After some time Thomas Shillitoe from England went to 
 prayer, and his prayer was very singular, such as I never heard 
 before. Instead of praying for the salvation of souls, he prayed 
 for victory that day. He hoped the Lord would give his ser- 
 vants victory that day. After this there was a bustle, or burst of 
 others coming in, and I saw among them Elisha Dawson and 
 Amos Peaslee. The meeting then seemed to get into a quiet 
 state, and remained so for some time, as long perhaps as is 
 usual before proceeding to business. Israel French rose and 
 observed that a painful duty devolved on him, inasmuch as the 
 conduct of the clerks had been such, since the last year, that 
 in his opinion, they had rendered themselves incompetent to 
 
132 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 serve the meeting acceptably. He said it was painful, but Tie 
 esteemed it to be his duty. Although it was very trying^ for 
 him to do it, yet it was his opinion, that the meeting had bet- 
 ter appoint another clerk for the present sitting, which was 
 united in by many voices, and not a word objected as I heard, 
 and I was paying particular attention. 
 
 A pause ensued, and sufficient time was given for objections, 
 if any were to be made. Some one named David Hilles to serve 
 the meeting as clerk, which was united with by a great many 
 voices. And if my recollection serves me right, soon after, 
 some one proposed Jehu Lewis as assistant clerk. This was 
 not the same voice that named David Hilles, nor in the same 
 place. Soon after Jehu was named, Jonathan Taylor rose and 
 read an opening minute, which occasioned a greater burst of 
 voices than there otherwise would have been. 
 
 After this, Jonathan Taylor proceeded, on the part of the 
 orthodox, to call the names of the representatives, some of 
 whom answered, and some did not. At the same time there 
 were several voices, requesting David Hilles to come forward 
 to the table. Some time ensued, and I discovered a company 
 moving very slowly from the south door, towards the clerk's 
 table. When they came near, I discovered David Hilles in 
 the fore part, and others were pushing him forward. He 
 appeared to use no exertion, except to move his feet. One 
 young man, a neighbour of mine, I saw jerking,'and jamming, 
 and striking with his elbows; and they pushed David Hilles 
 along up to the gallery steps. 
 
 As he was coming along, I saw many rise up in the galle- 
 ries, and come towards the clerk's table, where they formed a 
 solid column. And when the two columns met, as it were, 
 there was pretty violent pushing on both sides. James Heald 
 stood on the first raised step, and said something like this: that 
 the house was in his possession. I saw him shove several peo- 
 ple; and when they would not stand back, he jerked them out 
 of the ranks, and others were assisting him. They continued 
 moving on, till at length the crowd became so dense that I saw 
 them shoved at one jostle as much as two or three feet, and 
 then they rather desisted. Some proposed that they should 
 not attempt to go to the table, but would open the meeting in 
 some other part of the house. I saw them spread some papers 
 on the stove, and soon after this, Hilles commenced reading, 
 and they said he wrote a minute there. 
 
 About this time, Jonathan Taylor was reading a minute. 
 And as I looked round, I saw young Richards getting over the 
 bench, and Joseph Steer jerked him down on the floor, as I 
 thought pretty severely. About the same time, I saw Isaac 
 James going into the gallery; Jacob Richards was on the west 
 side, and Isaac James on the other; he appeared to be carried 
 
at Sleubcnville, Ohio. 
 
 133 
 
 by the two parties clear from the floor, one party pushing one 
 way, and the other, the other way. It appeared to be with 
 about equal violence, and very doubtful who would gain the 
 victory. Benjamin W. Ladd pushed against him as he was 
 getting over the railing, and jammed him up with as much vio- 
 lence as I ever saw used by one man towards another. I cried 
 out, Benjamin Ladd, thou art committing violencej and he de- 
 sisted. 
 
 Soon after this, I heard a noise like something breaking in 
 the gallery, and some one cried out, the youth's gallery is fall- 
 ing. The first man I heard was in the ministers' gallery, half- 
 way from the table to the women's meeting, and a rush to get 
 out of the house immediately ensued. They rushed out of the 
 doors and windowsj it was such a rush as I never saw any 
 where. During this time, the door back of the table, which 
 had been kept shut, was opened, and the people in tlie galle- 
 ries ran out that door, as fast as they did out of the other doors. 
 By this means there were a great many more of the party 
 called orthodox who got out than there were of tlie other party; 
 because they had that door exclusively to themselves. 
 
 The alarm was soon discovered to be a false one, and the 
 people of both i)arties having, many of them, gone out, left 
 considerable room upon the scats. It was observed, now is a 
 favourable time for him to get to the table. Another scuffle 
 ensued much more violent than the other. I saw James Heald 
 
 and Nathan lleald have hold of . He twisted himself 
 
 round in their arms, and by great exertion broke their grasp, 
 and got away, and went up through the crowd to the table. 
 This sci^ffle I think was after Ililles had got up to the 
 seat at the end of the table, and perhaps two or three feet 
 from it, I cannot say with precision. I saw him going up to 
 the table, but did not see that he used any force. He was 
 carried back and forth across the passage-way two or three 
 times, before they got him into the gallery. They had him 
 about breast high, or something like it. 
 
 The crowd gathered round the table so dense, that I could 
 not discover any thing in particular, only Amos E. Kimberly 
 rather lying upon the table, in that way. (Witness shows the 
 position.) I heard something like breaking, and some one 
 said, there goes one leg of the table. Directly there was a 
 great cracking with the table; and I saw pieces in the hands of 
 several persons. One piece I think was in the hand of Joseph 
 Steer, I could not identify any other. At your meetings, is 
 there any one set of men who have power over the others? I 
 have always considered the society of Fi iends as being a com- 
 plete democracy, all having equal rights and privileges. 
 
 When a proposition is made to the meeting, have you any 
 17 
 
134 
 
 Trill I of Friends 
 
 uniform practice upon the subject? The general practice is, 
 that any Friend feeling a concern to make a proposition, is per- 
 mitted to do so; Friends then consider it, and when the judg- 
 ment of the meeting is expressed, the clerk makes a minute to 
 that effect. Is it considered decorous and civil to interrupt 
 when a person has laid a proposition before the meeting? It 
 is indecorous, uncivil, and out of order. 
 
 Was there any thing improper or unusual in the motion of 
 Israel French? I did not discover any thing out of order, or 
 unusual, other than the novelty of the occasion. Have you 
 ever known a clerk to proceed with the reading, to call the 
 names of delegates, or to do any other business, when such a 
 proposition Avas before the meeting? I never did. I never* 
 heard of such a thing until this unhappy disturbance com- 
 menced. 
 
 Cross-examinatio7i. — Do you consider it according to disci- 
 pline for a disowned member to attend your meetings? I do 
 not. Do you consider it in order to make a proposition in the 
 way that French's proposition was made, and to carry it in the 
 way that was attempted to be carried? I have said that the 
 proposition was made to the meeting in the usual vvay, and that 
 Hilles was proposed in the usual way; but as to their agreeing 
 to the proposition, it was rather quicker than usual. Did you 
 ever know a clerk appointed in that way? I have in the subor- 
 dinate meetings, with the exception of the clerks being 
 present. 
 
 Did you ever know a proposition for appointing a clerk to 
 be united with in that way? I have said, I thought there was 
 nothing unusual in uniting with it. Did you ever know a pro- 
 position for appointing a clerk to be united in, and carried into 
 execution, in the way this was? "What do you mean?" said the 
 witness. I mean, was it, or was it not, according to the usage 
 of the society? I say it was according to the usage of society, 
 taking into consideration the novelty of the occasion. You 
 believe that it was according to the order of the society? Yes, 
 I do; because the discipline is silent on that subject. Have you 
 been disowned by the society? Only by the orthodox party. 
 Have you been disowned by them? I have received a paper 
 purporting to have been issued by their Monthly Meeting. 
 Did yoi^ attend with the committee? There was no commit- 
 tee appointed according to discipline. I did not attend with 
 the committee, because I did not consider them appointed in 
 the order of the society. Here witness produced the testimo- 
 ny of disownment issued against him, which was read by Mr. 
 Tappan, and is in the following words: 
 
 *' David Scholfield having a right of membership in the so- 
 ciety of Friends, but giving way to the spirit of dissention, 
 
at Steubeiiville, Ohio. 
 
 135 
 
 hath charged the Yearly Meeting of Indiana, and the Meeting 
 for Suflerings of Ohio Yearly Meeting, with making wrong re- 
 presentations in their testimony and epistles of advice, 8cc., 
 and also said he had read a book of sermons, attributed to Elias 
 Hicks, and saw no impropriety in the doctrines therein con- 
 tained; and he being laboured with, and it not having the de- 
 sired effect, we disown him from being a member of our 
 religious society, until he becomes sensible of his misconduct, 
 and condemns it to the satisfaction of Friends. 
 
 " Signed in, and by order of Salem Monthly Meeting, the 
 19th day of the Third-month, 1828. 
 
 Joseph Shreve, Clerk." 
 
 William Dilworth affirmed.— Were you at Ohio Yearly Meet- 
 ing on Second-day, the 8th of September? Yes. Do you 
 know who gave the alarm that the galleries were falling? Yes, 
 it was William Judkins of Mount Pleasant. Were you near 
 him? Yes, I was next to him. He warned the people to 
 move away from about the door, us the galleries were coming 
 down. He ran to the window, and knocked two panes of glass 
 out, and the people began to run down. 
 
 Cross-examination. — How do you know that was the first 
 alarm ? It was the first I heard. It was when they were try- 
 ing to put the clerk to the table. I was on the stairs pretty 
 near to the head of them. Did Doctor Judkins mention to 
 you that the galleries were coming down? No, he hallooed 
 out at large. Had he a lath in his hand? No, he had no 
 lath in his hand — I did not see him have any thing in his 
 hand. What produced the cracking? I understood it was a 
 board broke, somewhere about the meeting-house. 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Tappan. — Did you say Judkins was stand- 
 ing on the stairs? He and I were sitting on the stairsj and 
 many were leaning over the railing. He said, I believe the 
 railing will come down; and when the board broke, he jumped 
 out of the window, and as the people were running down stairs, 
 they threw me over the railing. 
 
 The Court adjourned till Monday morning. 
 
 Monday morning, Oct. 70th, 9 o'clock. 
 
 Joseph Updegraff affirmed. — Are you a member of the 
 society of Friends? Yes. Did you attend the Yearly Meet- 
 ing at Mount Pleasant? I did. I attended the meeting on 
 First-day morning as usual. After the meeting had gathered, 
 Elias Hicks delivered a discourse of considerable length. 
 Immediately after this, Elisha Bates rose, and observed that 
 he believed it his duty to inform the meeting, and particularly 
 those of other societies who were present, that he had no unity 
 with Elias Hicks' doctrines, or with the sentiments that he 
 
136 
 
 Trial of F rumh 
 
 had delivered there. He went on at considerable length, 
 against what had been said. He said that Elias was an intru- 
 der, and had no right to be there. 
 
 Pretty soon, Anna Braithwaite rose, and expressed her sen- 
 timents pretty much to the same purpose. This is all that I 
 recollect in relation to the fore part of the day. I attended 
 meeting at the same place in the afternoon; and shortly after 
 the meeting convened, Elisha Dawson rose and made a short 
 speech. Soon after him Amos Peaslee rose, and had spoken 
 some little time, when there appeared to be a whispering at 
 the head of the meeting. They were holding their heads to- 
 gether, as if in conversation on the subject. 
 
 Jonathan Taylor then rose, and requested him to take his 
 seat, and not interrupt or take up the time of the meeting. 
 When he sat down, Elisha Bates rose, and in a loud tone of 
 voice, ordered him to sit down — that he was imposing on the 
 meeting, and taking up the time of the meeting improperly. 
 Amos stood quietly, and a number of persons told Elisha 
 Bates to sit down. A number rose up, and some stepped 
 towards the gallery, and Elisha Bates took his seat. Amos 
 Peaslee, in order to quiet the meeting, said, I beseech you, 
 Friends, by the mercy of God, to be quiet; and proceeded 
 without any opposition to the end of his discourse. There 
 was no further disturbance of any consequence in the meeting. 
 
 On Second-day morning, I went to the meeting about half 
 past9 o'clock. The east doors, where we generally go in, were 
 shut, and I walked round to the south side of the house. I saw 
 the steps were full, except a narrow passage. There were 
 men standing on each end of the steps. At this time it was 
 raining pretty hard. I think there are four steps, and there 
 was a person on each end of every step. There were a num- 
 ber stopped, some at the bottom, and some part way up, of 
 those that I took to be Friends. I stood, perhaps ten minutes, 
 thinking what was best to be done, whether to go in, or not. 
 
 I finally concluded to go in, and walked up without opposi- 
 tion, till I got just in the door. I saw some persons a few 
 steps from me, having a scuffle with the guards, and one being 
 disengaged, turned round and laid hold of me, and pushed me 
 back a little; I however walked on for perhaps six or eight 
 feet, with him hanging to me, and he then let me go. There 
 were very few then in the back part of the house. But the 
 raised seats were all filled, and two or three near them were 
 pretty well filled, and also the steps leading to the gallery. 
 
 About this time a great many came in, and some went to 
 the eastern doors, and they were opened. I then walked out 
 of the house, and found no guards at the doors. I thought, 
 perhaps the women were in the same situation. I went round, 
 and found a number standing at the door; it was half-way 
 
at Sleubenvillc, Ohio. 
 
 137 
 
 open. Some of the women said, ihey were not permitted to 
 go in, whilst others were going in. I did not stay long, but 
 went to the east end of the house, and found that guards were 
 stationed at both doors. A number were endeavouring to go 
 in, and the guards were endeavouring to keep them out. 
 
 Persons frequently came up, whom I then knew to be mem- 
 bers of the society; but they were prevented, and told that they 
 could not come in, unless they forced themselves in. Others 
 gathered around them, and pushed them in. 
 
 About ten o'clock, Amos Peaslee, Elisha Dawson, and a 
 number of others, proceeded to the north-east door. I went 
 with them: and when we came to the door, they made a halt, 
 and I was informed that some one was speaking in the house — 
 I was told, it was Thomas Shillitoe. They soon went in, 
 but I was kept some time waiting. About this time a num- 
 ber collected round us, and began to shove, and I, with the 
 rest, was shoved a considerable distance into the meeting 
 house. Every place was then full, the benches, passages, and- 
 between the benches. 
 
 A short time after this, perhaps ten minutes, the meeting 
 appearing to be pretty quiet, Israel Fr£nch observed, that the 
 painful duty devolved on him of objecting to the clerk at the 
 table. He said that Jonathan Taylor had, by recent transac- 
 tions, disqualified himself for serving the meeting accept- 
 ably. This proposition was concurred in, by from one to two 
 hundred at least, saying, I unite, I unite. 
 
 Did you ever know a question carried with greater unani- 
 mity? I never heard so ma«y voices on any question. Was 
 this concurrence immediate? The general voice was in a very 
 short time ; though a number of voices continued to be heard 
 uniting. Before this was gone through with, I heard some 
 person saying, that the clerk had better proceed to open the 
 meeting. This was very soon done, by Jonathan Taylor's 
 reading an opening minute. Did he read it in the usual man- 
 ner? I believe he did. Just about that time there was a Friend 
 proposed the name of David Hillcs for clerk. I believe it was 
 William B. Irish, as I was standing not far from him. This 
 proposition was also united in by a great many voices, and 
 David Hilles was requested to come to the table and take his 
 seat. Some objections were made — it was said the regular 
 clerk was at the table. 
 
 Was there any opposition to the appointment of David 
 Hilles as clerk? There were two or three, who said they 
 had a clerk at the table, and he had better proceed. In sub- 
 mitting questions in your society, is it usual for the whole 
 meeting to express an opinion? As many as see proper — 
 sometimes a large proportion, and sometimes less. 
 
 Those wlio cxpi-ess no voice, are considered as uniting in 
 
138 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 1 
 
 the measure ? Yes. Is it universal? It is so considered by 
 me. If members are opposed, they must express their oppo- 
 sition.^" Yes. David Hilles was frequently requested to come 
 to the table, but the clerks proceeded to call the names of the 
 representatives, and they nearly all ansvcered to their names. 
 After they had answered to their names, it was frequently 
 said, that David Hilles had better come and take his seat, as 
 he had been appointed and united with. 
 
 I saw nothing of David Hilles till he came near the stove. 
 I was near by, and there appeared to be so much opposition 
 to his going to the table, I told him he had better make a 
 minute on the stove. A number of coats were taken off and 
 spread upon the stove, and he made an opening minute on the 
 stove, and read it, and was preparing another, when the alarm 
 of the galleries' falling took place. 
 
 Just before the alarm, I saw persons handing papers to him, 
 which I believed to be the reports of Quarterly Meetings. 
 Were they handed by the same person ? No, by different per- 
 sons. This was about the time the alarm was given; though 
 just before, there was something like the breaking or splitting 
 of a board. It was said the galleries were falling, and it was 
 repeated by a number. It caused great confusion, and the 
 meeting rose pretty generally. They made their way to the 
 doors and windows to get out of the house. I was not much 
 alarmed, as I was standing by the stove, and not under the 
 gallery. I soon discovered the alarm was groundless. I look- 
 ed round, and saw persons opening the door back of the 
 clerk's table. When the bars were taken out, and the doors 
 opened, a number of persons went out; the passage had been 
 very much thronged, but it was now pretty much cleared. I 
 saw that we could go up quietly, as I supposed, and Hilles 
 took up the reports, and I took the inkstand myself, and we 
 walked towards the steps. 
 
 About this time the people were returning, and just as we 
 got to the bottom of the stairs, eight or ten feet from the 
 stove, they were just coming into the house, and we were re- 
 pulsed, and pushed back several feet. I can't identify any 
 particular persons who opposed. I myself succeeded in 
 walking up the steps, and when I got near the top step, and 
 had hold of the top rail, I discovered a number who had hold 
 of the table, Joseph Steer was leaning on the table, with his 
 arms around it, like. Amos E. Kimberly and some others also 
 had hold. 
 
 I walked up into the gallery, and there stood observing 
 what was going on. A short time after I was there, I recog- 
 nised David Hilles at the foot of the steps. Some were urging 
 him to go up, some took hold and lifted him, and, as I was 
 standing on the top scat, I reached over and took him by the 
 
at Steubenv'ilk, Ohio. 
 
 139 
 
 arm, and assisted him in getting up. While we were assisting 
 in getting him up, some persons took hold of his legs, and 
 held him for some time, but we succeeded; and while he was 
 going up, a man snatched the papers from his hands — I 
 think it was John Hoyle. As he was going up, several said, 
 John Hoyle has snatched the papers out of his hand. He 
 turned round, and, thinking he had the reports^ I took hold 
 of him and looked in his hands and under his coat, but did not 
 discover them. I then looked on the floor between him and 
 Benjamin W. Ladd, and there I saw the reports. I picked 
 them up and gave them to David Hilles, and observed to 
 Benjamin W. Ladd that John Hoyle had robbed Hilles. Ben- 
 jamin W. Ladd replied to me, Joseph, thee has thy redress. 
 There was then considerable parleying near the table. I 
 could hear them say, are you going to let David Hilles have 
 the table? While others said, no, we will not give it up while 
 we can hold it. Some were pulling one way and some another, 
 and the table went to pieces. Benjamin W. Ladd said, that's 
 enough, that's enough, we'll surrender. He was standing 
 close to me. Another person, that I took to be James Heald, 
 observed, that they had not surrendered, that the property 
 belonged to him — he had the deed of the property. 
 
 Some person proposed the propriety of adjourning the 
 meeting, and at that time an inquiry was made, whether Jona- 
 than Taylor was in the house. It was soon ascertained that 
 he was in the meeting. It was then proposed that the repre- 
 sentatives should be called, to know whether they would unite 
 in an adjournment. Their names were called, and as many as 
 answered to their names agreed to it, and, I believe, most of 
 them answered. 
 
 David Hilles, about this time, or just before, had read the 
 opening minute again; the meeting having been in such con- 
 fusion, we thought it proper to read it again. 
 
 About this time a Friend got up on the bench, I believe it 
 was Halliday Jackson, from near Philadelphia, and proposed 
 that Friends should come to some amicable arrangement in 
 relation to the house, so that both parties might be accommo- 
 dated. There was a reply immediately made that Halliday 
 Jackson was an intruder in that meeting — that he was not a 
 member of the society. I think this was by Benjamin W. 
 Ladd, but I am not positive. Very soon after this, the ortho- 
 dox part of the meeting withdrew. It was understood that it 
 was only the orthodox party that had adjourned, and not the 
 meeting. However, just before that, some one observed, that 
 the women had better be informed of the conclusion, and some 
 persons were accordingly sent to inform them; and the ortho- 
 dox part of the women soon withdrew and left the house. 
 When Israel French made the proposition, was tljc meeting 
 
140 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 in a quiet state? It was quite silent. Were you present when 
 Taylor was appointed clerk the year before? I was. Was he 
 appointed before or after the opening minute was read? [An- 
 swer not heard. 3 When the proposition was made by Israel 
 French to appoint another clerk, was there any disturbance in 
 the meeting, till Taylor began to read the opening minute? I 
 believe not. Did or did not the reading of the old clerk, occa- 
 sion disturbance? . Immediately, when he proceeded to read the 
 minute, a number of persons said, David Hilles has been ap- 
 pointed clerk. 
 
 When a proposition is offered to your meeting, is it the 
 usual course to decide that, before any other proposition is of- 
 fered? It is usual, if it is worth discussion, to have it done, and 
 the sense of the meeting taken upon the subject, before any 
 thing else is taken up. Did you ever know a meeting to ad- 
 journ by calling the representatives, and asking their consent? 
 I never did. 
 
 In the Yearly Meeting of Ohio, did the representatives ever 
 exercise any control over the meeting till last year? Not any 
 more than other members. Are they considered as any thing 
 more than messengers from the Quarterly Meetings? I never 
 understood that they were any thing other than common mem- 
 bers. What is the particular duty and office of representa- 
 tives from the Quarterly Meetings? Their duty is to bring up 
 reports from the Quarters to the Yearly Meeting; and to take 
 back any thing that may concern their particular Quarter from 
 the Yearly Meeting. 
 
 Has Benjamin W. Ladd any more authority in your meet- 
 ing than any other man? I should not think he would presume 
 to take any more authority. Is the clerk of your meeting a 
 person having any more authority than any other member? 
 The object of a clerk, I believe, is, to act for the meeting, to 
 take down and make notes of what transpires in the meeting, 
 according to the understanding of the meeting. Would it be 
 regular for the clerk to enter as the sense of the meeting, what 
 was evidently only the sense of a minority of the meeting? By 
 no means. In your Yearly Meeting, do you acknowledge that 
 any set of members have any authority over the others? Not 
 at all. All stand on equal grounds. 
 
 Is there a fixed time in the day for the Yearly Meeting to as- 
 semble? Yes, 10 o'clock. Who are allowed to attend your 
 Yearly Meetings? All may attend who belong to the Yearly 
 Meeting; and those who may be present from other Yearly 
 Meetings are at liberty to attend, and when they do attend, 
 they may express their opinion; but they have no right in 
 making up the sense of the meeting. There were in attend- 
 ance a number of persons from other meetings, perhaps from 
 20 to 50, a much larger number than usual. Do you know to 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 141 
 
 which party they belonged? I know no other than that they 
 went off with the orthodox. 
 
 Were you at Short Creek Monthly Meeting just before the 
 Yearly Meeting? I was. Was Thomas Shillitoe there? He 
 was. Was any thing said aljout excluding from the meetings 
 of the society any of the members? At the close of the meet- 
 ing, there was something said by Thomas Shillitoe by way of 
 advice, with respect to shutting the doors of the meeting 
 house. He said that it was very obvious, that a division 
 would take place in the Yearly Meeting, as a division had taken 
 place in the Quarter; and his advice to Friends at the time 
 was, that they should use all prudent measures, to lock and bar 
 the doors and windows of the house, so that if the Hicksites, 
 or, otherwise, heretics, should go off and leave the Yearly 
 Meeting house, they would have no refuge to go to at all; that 
 the world might see that we had no unity with them. This 
 was united with by some of the leading characters and elders 
 of the meeting, by saying, I think it right that it should be 
 so — I unite in that sentiment. 
 
 Were you at the conference at the school house in Mount 
 Pleasant, on Seventh-day afternoon? I was. My object in go- 
 ing there was, to consult what would be the best measures to 
 pursue, if we did not get peaceable admittance into the house, 
 and where we should hold the meeting. What reason had you 
 to apprehend, that you would not gain a peaceable admittance 
 into the meeting house? By the advice which had been given 
 in the meeting previous, and by the measures that I had seen 
 taken, in locking and barring doors, in an unusual way from 
 what I had ever seen before. 
 
 W^hat was the conclusion come to at that meeting? It was, 
 that we would attend the Yearly Meeting as usual, and if no 
 opposition was made, we would go in quietly as at other times; 
 but if much opposition was made, so that we could not get in 
 without force and violence, it was thought best not to go in; 
 anil then, when assembled, we could determine what further 
 steps would be necessary and proper. These are the conclu- 
 sions come to at that conference, as far as I know them. 
 
 Cross-examination. — What was said about David Hilles at 
 the school house? I think it was said that David Hilles would 
 be a suitable person for clerk; and if we could not hold our 
 meeting in the house in a quiet and peaceable way, we must go 
 somewhere else — in which case, David Hilles would be a suit- 
 able person. 
 
 \ ou have spoken of David Hilles reading an opening minute 
 at the stove? Yes. It was about the time of the cry that the 
 galleries were falling. He read the opening minute about the 
 time of the alarm. You say that William B. Irish was near 
 18 
 
142 
 
 Trial of F riends 
 
 you? He was. Did yon not hear him unite in hia own nomi- 
 nation? I did not. 
 
 After the society was organized, was there a report received 
 from the Meeting for Sufferings, or any of the committees ap- 
 pointed by the Yearly Meeting? I believe not. Can you tell 
 whether the Yearly Meeting that was organized, (I suppose I 
 must not say re-organized,) were in possession of any of the re- 
 cords of the Yearly Meeting? I do not know that our repre- 
 sentatives had any records, other than the reports. Do you not 
 know of all the Quarters setting up a separate society? No. 
 You were not excluded from the house? I was taken hold of, 
 but not told to stay out. Was it not according to the usage of 
 society, to ask a man to sit down, if he had no right to preach 
 there? That would be proper. Did you not know that Amos 
 Peaslee had been disowned? No. It was said in meeting that 
 he was disowned. Did he reply? He made no reply. You 
 think he had no voice in the decision of the house — how was 
 it with Halliday Jackson? He made a proposition, and some 
 one said he was an intruder in the house; and it dropt, and 
 nothing more was said at the time. Now was not that as 
 much out of order, as the conduct of Thomas Shillitoe — he 
 had no right there, neither fiad Shillitoe? But the meeting 
 united with it. There was no minute made of it? Things that 
 are not worth minuting are never minuted. Does not the disci- 
 pline require it? There was no minute made about Shillitoe's 
 advice, and I consider them both out of order; the clerk 
 could not have taken the subject up, because it came from one 
 not a member: the difference is, one was acted on, the other not. 
 
 What Monthly and Quarterly Meeting do you belong to? 
 To Short Creek. Do you not know of a new Quarterly Meet- 
 ing held there, without delegates from the Monthly Meetings? 
 I know of no representatives having been sent from Monthly 
 Meetings within that Quarter. Yet you held a Quarterly Meet- 
 ing? Yes. You say some persons ordered Elisha Bates to sit 
 down? Yes, but I did not know any of the individuals. Do 
 you know of any persons having been kept out of the house 
 who had a right there? I can't identify any. I saw persons 
 prevented, who, I believe, had all the rights they ever had — 
 Owen Dewees was one. I knew them to be members then, for 
 their faces were familiar to me. Do you know of Owen De- 
 wees ever attending a meeting at Short Creek? I have heard 
 he was disowned there, but I do not know it. 
 
 Have representatives any greater right in your meetings 
 than others? They have other duties to perform. They bring 
 up the reports from the Quarterly Meetings; and it is usually 
 laid on them to name a clerk. Did you hear any thing about 
 the appointment of an assistant clerk? I think I did hear the 
 nomination, but I do not know by whom it was made. Was 
 
al Sleubanville, Ohio. 
 
 14S 
 
 there any objection to Amos E. Kimberly? I do not know of 
 any. Was not the proposition of Israel French received in 
 rather an unusual manner? There were a great many voices; 
 I never heard so many at once. 
 
 After the main part had expressed their approbation, I heard 
 a number of voices distinctly saying, I unite with it — I unite 
 with it. Did you ever know in a Quarterly or Yearly Meeting 
 a proposition agreed to in the way that was? I never did. 
 There was no discussion took place? There was no time given 
 for any, for the clerk went on. 
 
 Is it not usual for the clerk to make a minute, or is it consi- 
 dered the decision of the meeting till a minute is made and 
 read? I say there was no time after the last uniting. How long 
 after French made his suggestion before David Hilles was re- 
 quested to take his place? Perhaps ten minutes alter the first 
 proposition. Did you ever know a case when there was not 
 twice that time given? I have generally seen more time. I 
 never before knew a clerk undertake to read \yhile a discussion 
 was going on, but he proceeded. Was he called on to decide? 
 I do not know that he was. The assistant clerk, immediately 
 after the uniting with David Hilles, went on to call the names 
 of the representatives. I never knew a case before, in which 
 the clerk did not call the representatives. Do you know of any 
 of the orthodox party acting upon that proposition? They 
 said they had a clerk at the table, and that he had better pro- 
 ceed, as the proposition was out of order. 
 
 When David Hilles was invited by you to go to the clerk*s 
 table, he did so? Yes. Why did David Hilles read an 
 opening minute the second time? I can't tell David Hilles' 
 reason. I know my reason. It was, that there had been so 
 much confusion, the people could not understand. Was there 
 time between the ceasing of the clamour after the proposition 
 by French, and the nomination of David Hilles, to make a mi- 
 nute? There was not time, after they had done uniting, for the 
 clerk to make a minute, nor was there any demanded. There 
 was no decision come to, then, that Taylor had disqualified 
 himself? We always consider a question carried when there 
 is no opposition. Did you ever know the decision of a meet- 
 ing before, that was not minuted, and even read, before it was 
 esteemed the decision of the meeting? I never did. But we 
 considered it carried, as there was no objection to it ; and there 
 was no clerk to minute it at the time. Why did not Amos 
 E. Kimberly make the minute? Because he had no right to 
 make it. It is his duty to read minutes after they are made. 
 He has no business to act as the clerk. He acts in no case as 
 clerk, even in the absence of the clerk, without a apecial ap- 
 pointment by the meeting. 
 
144 
 
 Trial of Friinds 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Tappan. — Did Peaslee deny being disown- 
 ed ? (Objected lo.) 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Wright. — Was there any objection to the 
 adjourunieiit? I believe there was no opposition to the ortho- 
 dox adjourning. 
 
 Israel Updegraff affirmed. — Are you a member of the society 
 of FriendsP 1 am. Did you attend the late Yearly Meeting at 
 Mount Pleasant? I did. I do not recollect any important 
 circumstances which have not been fully detailed by other 
 witnesses. T went to the meeting at an early hour, perhaps 
 half past 9 o'clock, and went in at the north-east door, without 
 opposition from any body. I expected to meet with opposi- 
 tion, but I think there was nobody there to oppose me. I turn- 
 ed my eye towards the gallery, and discovered one seat vacant, 
 and went and occupied it. I intended, if possible, to place 
 myself in a conspicuous situation, believing there would pro- 
 bably be an attempt to exclude me. I did not intend to be 
 excluded, except by physical force. 
 
 The proposition by Israel French, to appoint a new clerk, 
 in consequence of the disability of the former clerk, was pretty 
 generally united in, as has been stated. At the time the pro- 
 position was made the house appeared to be cjuiet; and it was 
 united in more generally than is usual; and after this general 
 assent, I believe William B. Irish named David Hilles, which 
 nomination was also very generally united with. There were 
 some two or three voices in opposition, but I do not recollect 
 the nature of their objections. Several persons expressed a 
 wish, that David Hilles would come forward, after this gene- 
 ral approbation of his appointment. I felt a good deal of 
 anxiety myself, and thought it a long time before any move- 
 ment \yas made towards his approaching. 
 
 I was afraid, in consequence of the organization that was 
 known to exist in the society, that he would not approach the 
 table. But I at length discovered that they were progressing 
 up the walk, but it was some time before they got to the stove. 
 I discovered that David Hilles was coming forward by the aid 
 of some others. 
 
 My seart was in the gallery, pretty near to the north-east 
 corner of the house, as far as I well could be, from the clerk's 
 table. I rose and made my way towards the steps leading to 
 the clerk's table, and soon saw that a number were organized 
 upon the steps, as I supposed, to prevent the approach of 
 Hilles to the table. I went up with a view to help him to get 
 to the tal)le; and when I got there, I found four immediately 
 before me, one of whom had his arm round the banister, and 
 they had their arms round each other, forming a solid body, 
 as if they did not intend to be removod by any force. 
 
 I had not much physical force, but I used what little 1 had, 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio 
 
 145 
 
 to help open the way. I was fronting them, and there was a 
 shove came against me, and pushed me against a man that 
 was called James Heald. It shoved him considerably for- 
 ward, towards the clerk's table. I had not proceeded far 
 forward, till another shove brought me back, against the end of 
 the bench, so that I could not extricate myself without the re- 
 moval of some Friends. They appeared unwilling to remove, 
 and I got off with as little injury as possible. This threw me 
 out of the crowd, and I made use of no exertion afterwards. 
 David Hillesj directly after, made an opening minute at the 
 stove. 
 
 I think Jonathan Taylor did not read an opening minute 
 till some time after the appointment of Hilles. Not knowing 
 what would be proposed, I had made some preparation, and 
 furnished myself with blank paper, pen and ink, which I 
 thought might be otherwise unprovided. During the pushing 
 that took place, I lost the paper, but furnished the pen and 
 ink. I do not recollect whether I furnished a scrap of paper 
 from my pocket book, or whether somebody else did it. 
 
 I did not see the manner in which David Hillgs got to the 
 gallery, having got into conversation with one of the opposite 
 party. I heard the table break, and saw occasionally a piece 
 held up, but did not know the persons engaged. As to the 
 proposition by French, and the uniting in it; and the propo- 
 sition that David Hilles should be clerk, and the uniting in it — 
 were they in the usual manner of doing business? I saw no- 
 thing out of order; I have known such motions for removing 
 clerks in subordinate meetings. Did the clerk proceed to enter 
 a minute? He did not. 
 
 Would there have been any confusion or disturbance in the 
 Yearly Meeting, had it not been for the opposition to David 
 Hilles as clerk.'' I think it probable there would have been; for 
 there had been a combination entered into, long before the 
 Yearly Meeting, to exclude certain individuals. I presumed 
 that I was one of the number, ai»d I had determined not to 
 leave the house. I supposed the orthodox intended to have 
 the house exclusively, judging by their arbitrary conduct and 
 despotism for a long time previous. 
 
 In your Yearly Meeting is there any particular body, or 
 number of Friends, who have exclusive privileges? None. I 
 believe it to be a meeting of perfect equality as to right. I 
 consider it a perfect democracy. Has the clerk any authority 
 other than to register the proceedings of the meeting? He is 
 a mere servant of the meeting, to make a minute when a con- 
 clusion is come to, and is liable to be removed whenever the 
 meeting conclude on it. Were you ever clerk of a meeting? 
 I have been clerk of a Monthly Meeting. Did you ever con- 
 sider, while acting as clerk, that you could enter any thing 
 
146 
 
 Trial of Friend* 
 
 that was not concurred in by a majority ? I never thought that 
 I could use my own opinion, without expressing it, and having 
 it concurred in by the meeting. Did you ever know the re- 
 presentatives, or delegates, to be called on to decide a question? 
 I apprehend the thing was never thought of before. Have not 
 all propositions for adjournment, 8cc. usually been made to the 
 meeting generally? They are always made to the meeting. 
 
 Who purchased the ground, and built the meeting house, at 
 Mount Pleasant ? The members composing the Yearly Meet- 
 ing. The money was principally raised by the Quarterly and 
 Monthly Meetings, and partly by voluntary subscription. The 
 property cost more than was contemplated, and the sum being 
 found insufficient, there was afterwards, in the Yearly Meet- 
 ing, atone time, a voluntary subscription raised, for defraying 
 some of the expenses. Were you a part proprietor? I con- 
 tributed and paid money towards defraying the expenses. 
 
 Were those men who were attempted to be excluded as 
 much proprietors as those who attempted to exclude them? 
 (Objected to.) 
 
 Mr. Tappan said, when persons unite together and erect a 
 house, where they are not an incorporated society, they be- 
 come tenants in common in that house, and they have a sub- 
 stantial and equitable, if not a legal title in the property, as 
 tenants in common. And being such tenants, one party has 
 no right to exclude the other party. It appears to be a ques- 
 tion directly involved, and if those excluded were co-tenants 
 in common with those who attempted to exclude them, it is 
 right to show it. And for others to attempt to bar the doors, 
 and shut them out, is committing the first wrong, and assum- 
 ing that in which the law will not protect them. I would con- 
 tend, that when twelve men unite in building a meeting house, 
 as twelve proprietors, if eleven should excommunicate the 
 twelfth, and turn him out of the society, it would not transfer 
 his right. But we do not admit that any attempted to attend 
 that meeting, who were properly excluded by the discipline 
 of the society — we claim that the parties who were attempted 
 to be excluded, had an equal right there; and in order to say 
 that the evidence is not proper, you must take the question for 
 granted, that they were lawfully excommunicated. 
 
 The Judge did not think it necessary to pursue the inquiry. 
 
 Mr. Tappan said, it was important, to show that these two 
 individuals were regular members of the society of Friends. 
 He supposed it would be admitted that the house was built 
 by the Ohio Yearly Meeting; and that it was in possession of 
 the members of that meeting. 
 
 Mr. Wright said, the title to real estate could not be made 
 out by parole evidence. That there was a legal estate there 
 was no doubt, for that was shown by the deeds. 
 
at SteubenvilUf Ohio. 
 
 147 
 
 Examination continued. — Are you a member of the society 
 of Friends? I had a birthright in the society, and have con- 
 tinued a member ever since. What constitutes a Quarterly 
 Meeting? It is usually composed of two or moreMonthly Meet- 
 ings. I should suppose that two Monthly Meetings, at least, 
 would be necessary to constitute a Quarterly Meeting. I 
 never knew a Quarter without two. Have you ever known 
 a Quarterly Meeting to lay down a Monthly Meeting without 
 its consent? I have not, and I believe it has not the power. 
 
 At the time Concord Monthly Meeting was attempted to 
 be laid down by Short Creek Quarter, as a representative, I 
 thought the report of the committee so much out of order, 
 that it was not considered by me as worthy of notice. I was 
 at Concord Monthly Meeting, and I suppose, that probably 
 one-fifth part assented to the conclusion of the Quarter, and 
 that four-fifths were opposed to it. Did Concord Monthly 
 Meeting own the meeting house and burying ground? They 
 were in possession of that property. Did the laying down 
 that meeting affect their subsequent meetings? No further 
 than it subjected them to being visited by committees, &c. 
 from the Monthly Meeting at Short Creek, and from the 
 Quarterly Meeting. 
 
 According to what you have known of the proceedings of 
 the society before this, it seenas you have never known a 
 Monthly Meeting laid down without their consent ? I never 
 have. I never knew that it was supposed possible by any 
 body, or that the idea had ever been entertained, that it could 
 be done, till lately. Can a Monthly Meeting disown any but 
 their own members? They cannot. How do persons become 
 members of a Monthly Meeting? By birthright, or by appli- 
 cation to be received, and being received on that application. 
 Did you ever know a man or woman to be attached to a 
 Monthly Meeting without their consent? I never did. It is 
 the duty of a Monthly Meeting, when a member removes, 
 without requesting a certificate, to forward one. It may be 
 with or without his consent, and in that way they become 
 members of the Monthly Meeting in whose vicinity they re- 
 side. Has the Monthly Meeting at Concord a burying ground? 
 [Objected to.] 
 
 Mr. Tappan said, that Short Creek Quarterly Meeting had 
 assumed the power of laying down Concord Monthly Meeting, 
 and he wished to show that this Monthly Meeting was in pos- 
 session of real estate ; and to show the nonsense of those 
 people in attempting to lay down a Monthly Meeting, without 
 their consent, being thus in possession of real estate. A 
 meeting house and burying ground, are, in some instances, of 
 great value, and it is absurd to suppose that any other body 
 
148 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 than the proprietors of this real estate, can control it in any 
 way. I would say, that Short Creek Quarterly Meeting could 
 not lay down that Monthly Meeting, and transfer it to Short 
 Creek— though they may attempt to transfer the members, 
 they cannot transfer the real estate to another body. They 
 cannot do it—they are not incorporated bodies. This will go to 
 show, I apprehend, at once, that it is a new and absurd method, 
 adopted by the orthodox party to break up this Concord 
 Monthly Meeting — that it cannot be sustained in a legal point 
 of view, as well as that it is inconsistent with the discipline 
 of the society. 
 
 Mr. James was a member of Concord Monthly Meeting, 
 which they have undertaken, four-fifths being opposed, to lay 
 down, and annex to Short Creek Monthly Meeting. It is of 
 impoi-tance then, to show, that it was by a species of leger- 
 demain, that this Monthly Meeting was laid down ; that those 
 who were not members might gain jurisdiction over James,, 
 and in this way disown him. If we show that he was a pro- 
 prietor of Concord, and that they undertook to transfer per- 
 sons and property to Short Creek, it is making the case 
 rather more difficult on the sideof those transferrers, and show- 
 ing that the thing could not be so easily done. 
 
 Judge Hallock did not conceive that he had any thing to do 
 with this legal question. 
 
 Mr. Hubbard. — This inquiry is not to determine as to the 
 legal right of property, or in whom it is vested. The object 
 of calling the attention of the court to this subject, is, to arrive 
 at a more correct understanding of the discipline; and as an 
 item connected with the proper rule of discipline, we consi- 
 dered it an important question. It was presumed, that all 
 matters which would throw light upon this, and aid us in 
 coming to a right conclusion, would be proper testimony. 
 And we supposed it would become more important, inasmuch 
 as the other party might attempt to show, that two or three 
 hundred others are disowned members; or all those on whom 
 a notice may have been served, after this Monthly Meeting 
 was said to be laid down, and attached to another, to which 
 they owed no allegiance — but from which, a committee may 
 have waited on them, taken them into their power, and disown- 
 ed them. We suppose the discipline is abundantly sufficient, 
 but we are disposed to bring all these matters to view, be- 
 cause others think they have all the right and power practised 
 by an ecclesiastical tribunal. 
 
 The way, in which Monthly Meetings arc created, is, by 
 the applicalion of niemljers to come in, and bo participators 
 in certain religious rites: and there are certain rights, of 
 which they expect to avail themselves, together with the 
 
ut SleubeiivilU^ Ohio. 
 
 149 
 
 whole body of the society. It therefore becomes all impor- 
 tant, to have a proper understanding of the rule of discipline. 
 In the case lately tried at Philadelphia, they tried this kind of 
 testimony, for the purpose — [Objected to by the Judge.] 
 
 Witness proceeds. — Is it customary for a Monthly Meeting 
 to hold property ? I believe they uniformly hold property, ex- 
 clusively their own, in the same way that the Yearly Meeting 
 has property. It may be separate from the Yearly and Quar- 
 terly Meetings both. 
 
 Question by the Judge. — Have you any presiding officer in 
 your meetings.'' None, except you call the clerk such. Sup- 
 pose that a disorder happens in your meeting, who would take 
 it upon himself to see to it? Every individual would have an 
 equal right. We consider that every member has a right to 
 remove a person from the house, if he is disorderly; but we 
 have no officer for that purpose — we have no umpire. 
 
 When a motion or proposition is made to the meeting, if I 
 understand your rules, there is no putting the question? No, 
 the clerk sits still, and the members express their opinions ; he 
 then records what he conceives to be the sense of the meeting 
 upon the subject; I mean, the opinion of the majority — but it 
 is not often urged, unless all submit. 
 
 Suppose a proposition should be made in your meeting, 
 every thing being quiet and nothing unusual attending, and 
 twenty should express a concurrence with the proposition, and 
 ten, for reasons which they should state, should express their 
 non-concurrence — is it usual in such cases, or would it not be 
 the duty of the clerk to obey the majority? No; the subject is 
 still open for discussion, and it is expected, that before he en- 
 ters the minute, there will be submission by one party or the 
 other. The usual mode is by the submission of one party or 
 the other. I never knew a division called for. Suppose that 
 twenty be for, and ten against the proposition, and the clerk 
 should make his minute and read it, as passed and acceded 
 to ? Then it is open for the meeting to say whether it is cor- 
 rect. And if the ten still persist in disagreeing, would you 
 conceive it the duty of the clerk to let the record stand? No, 
 I should think it his duty to erase it, as not being carried or 
 concurred in. You proceed then upon the principle of gene- 
 ral concurrence ? Such has been the uniform practice in the 
 society, when there was no division. 
 
 When a proposition is made and discussed, is it customary 
 for the clerk to make a minute of the making of that proposi- 
 tion, if it be not concurred in? He does nothing about it till 
 the conclusion is come to, and if it is not concurred in, no 
 entry is made. You have said, that the proposition of French 
 was concurred in, generally? I meant, that there was a more 
 general concurrence than is usual. 
 19 
 
15(J 
 
 Trail iij Friends 
 
 By Mr. fVright. — WluU nuiuber clo'you suppose concurred 
 in it ? I cannot say as to the number, perhaps more than a 
 hundred. I considered that, though there was a great concur- 
 rence, still there was a very great opposition felt by those 
 termed orthodox — they no doubt felt great opposition, though 
 they made but little. 
 
 By Mr. Tappan. — If a member of your Monthly Meeting 
 should make a proposition to remove you as clerk, would you 
 think it decorous to read a minute, or any thing else ? If he 
 were a member whose opinion was entitled to any respect, I 
 should think it entirely out of order. Would it not in your 
 meeting tend to create a great deal of confusion? I think it 
 would meet with opposition, as being out of order. 
 
 Did you consider the proceedings of the clerk of the late 
 Yearly Meeting in order ? I did not. 
 
 There is one circumstance which I would mention, in rela- 
 tion to the meeting at the school house in Mount Pleasant. I 
 was informed that such an assemblage would take place, but 
 I could not learn the object till the time of assembling. But 
 I went there with a direct view, to form some combination to 
 counteract the measures of the other party. I made no pro- 
 position openly, but I expressed my views to some individuals, 
 but I found no countenancej I soon learned that their general 
 object was to be pacific, though my own object was to assert 
 our rights and maintain them. 
 
 Ry Mr. Wright.- — I belong to Concord Monthly. Meeting, 
 and a few days before the Yearly Meeting, had been served 
 with a testimony of denial, as they call it. I have already ob- 
 served, that I thought the proposition by French, and the 
 nomination of Hilles for clerk, were entirely in order. 
 
 I knew a case, in the Monthly Meeting to which I belonged, 
 of a similar nature — the appointment of a clerk, when the old 
 one was present, and not under dealing; no objection had been 
 made but what was made in that meeting. The grounds of 
 objection were known, but I do not know that they were 
 stated. Was there any objection to the new clerk's being 
 appointed ? Not from the clerk himself. The reasons for the 
 measure were of such a nature as to be known to the members 
 of the meeting, though they were not given in meeting, nor 
 were they of general or public estimation, though contrary to 
 the discipline of the society. It did not occur in meeting, but 
 out of meeting. Did it relate to the tenets or government of 
 the meeting? It was a circumstance at variance with the dis- 
 cipline of the society. Was it disputing the authority of the 
 meeting? I say the clerk was disqualified by circumstances 
 out of the house, and that the proposition was submitted while 
 he was in the house, that his place should be filled by another. 
 
 As clerk of the meeting, if a question should be submitted 
 
at Stcubenville, Ohio. 
 
 151 
 
 to the meeting, which you considered out of order, would you 
 say it was so to the members? I would. It would be in order 
 for me, as clerk, to object to entering the minute, if it were out 
 of order. If you were called on to make a minute which you 
 considered out of order, would you make it? If I thought the 
 subject did not require a minute made, I would forbear till 
 the meeting instructed me to do it. Suppose any one should 
 think it had been decided, would he have a right to propose 
 to the clerk to enter it? He would. Suppose a dispute should 
 arise as to what the proposition was, should not the clerk ex- 
 plain it? He may explain it, and if he is supposed to mistake 
 the sense of the meeting, he may be corrected. 
 
 Was there any objection to your entering the house? There 
 was no opposition made? When I entered, all the raised seats 
 were filled, except one vacant place. When you advanced 
 you found these men linked together, near the table ? I did; 
 and I used what physical force I was capable of to open the 
 way. I have stated the reasons — that there had been a com- 
 bination formed, and I knew the sentiments of the clerk; but 
 I concluded we were as great a number, and I, for one, was 
 not disposed to be excluded. 
 
 I believe there was no understanding at the school house in 
 relation to this subject, although my object was to endeavour 
 to effect an understanding, and to move in concert: for I 
 thought we had lost much by being scattered, and not acting 
 in concert. I thought in the house we were moving in con- 
 cert, although I have never seen, in any meeting, so great a 
 degree of excitement. 
 
 The voices expressing unity were more rapid than usual, 
 were they not? From what has been said, I presume it was 
 so, although I did not mind it at the time. Seeing the par- 
 ties, as you did, did you not take into consideration, that the 
 entire orthodox party were opposed? I am satisfied that I 
 should have acted perhajis as the clerk did then at the table; 
 for I acknowledge myself attached to a party. I believe there 
 were two or three dissenting voices, but what the nature of 
 their dissent was, I do not know. 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Tappan. — Did you ever know this method 
 of guarding a meeting house adopted till tliis year? I have 
 known one or two persons appointed. 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Wright. — Wherein consisted the differ- 
 ence? In the additional number, and in the manner of ap- 
 pointing them. It is, in my opinion, entirely out of order for 
 subordinate meetings to appoint door-kccjicrs to the Yearly 
 Meetii\g. Do you know whether it is the praciii e in other 
 Yearly Meetings? I never have attended any,ox( e|)l the Yearly 
 Meeting of Pliiladelphia, and there were door kccpci s. 
 Court adjourned till 2 o'clock. 
 
152 
 
 7"i lal of Friemh 
 
 Monday, 2 o'clock, P. M. 
 
 Israel Updegraff called again. Questioned by Mr. Tappan.— 
 Are you acquainted with William B. Irish? 1 became ac- 
 quainted with him during the week of the Yearly Meeting. 
 Is he a member of the society? I believe him to be so. Are 
 you acquainted with William Judkins, of Mount Pleasant? 
 Yes, I am. To what party does he belong ? I suppose him 
 to belong to the orthodox party, in consequence of his being 
 appointed by Short Creek Quarterly Meeting, to wait on me 
 as a member of Concord Monthly Meeting. 
 
 Question by Mr. Wright. — Did you see any body in the mi- 
 nisters' gallery who had not, by the rules of the society, a 
 right to sit there? No, I think not. 
 
 James Hamilton affirmed, for the defendants.^ Ave you a mem- 
 ber of the society of Friends ? I am considered such, by at 
 least one party: although I have been informed since I came 
 here, that a disownment was preparing for me. I had a birth- 
 right in the society, and have hitherto lived in unity with my 
 brethren. Were you at the Yearly Meeting ? I was, as a re- 
 presentative from New Garden Quarterly Meeting. I was not 
 there on First-day, but arrived on Second-day between the 
 hours of nine and ten o'clock. Being informed that the meet- 
 ing house was ope<i, I went up, expecting to meet with some 
 oljstruction, as I had understood, previously, that a number 
 of guards were appointed, by the orthodox, who intended to 
 keep out all such as were disowned, or complaints entered 
 against. I was one of that kind ; a complaint, as I understood, 
 having been made against me to our meeting, although I was 
 a representative from our Quarter. I saw some of the guards, 
 but got in at the door. None obstructed me, and I walked in 
 as usual. The house, about the galleries, and near by, was 
 pretty well filled. As 1 walked along, looking for a seat, I 
 found the alley was closed up; and I observed a number upon 
 the steps, in front of the clerk's table. When I got down 
 nearly under the gallery I asked a Friend if there was 
 room above, and we both went up, and took our seats near the 
 front railing, where we sat for a considerable time, as usual, 
 composed for the most part. Once in awhile there appeared 
 to be a little disturbance, as I supposed, at the north door. 
 When there was a disturbance of this kind, I endeavoured to 
 keep as still as possible. After we had been there some time, 
 an aged Friend from England appeared in supplication. Soon 
 after he sat down, I heard a voice say, that all the Quarterly 
 Meetings had forwarded their reports. Then Israel French, 
 as I supposed by the voice, stated, that in consequence of the 
 conduct of the clerk or clerks, he felt it a painful duty that 
 devolved on him, to object to their serving the meeting. 
 
 ■ t. 
 
at Steubenville^ Ohio. 
 
 153 
 
 There wet e soon a great number of voices expressing unity, as 
 has been stated before: I thought more than was usual. 
 
 About this time Jonathan Taylor read an opening minute, 
 and I think the name of David Hilles was proposed as clerk, 
 instead of the one at the table, which was pretty generally 
 united in, as the previous proposition had been. I think there 
 was some little opposition; but not more than two or three per- 
 sons expressed themselves on this wise — that the clerk had 
 better proceed; which he did, without giving any further time 
 for the expression of sentiments, or decision of the question. 
 He proceeded to call the representatives, most of whom an- 
 swered. Some from Redstone, I think, did not. While they 
 were calling the representatives, there were a number of ex- 
 pressions, requesting David Hilles to come to the table. I 
 heard one voice on this wise — "I protest against the clerks at 
 the table proceeding any further." 
 
 I looked to see whether any body was coming, and it seemed 
 as if there was a pretty general press towards the passage; and 
 the idea struck me, that the clerk was somewhere back, and 
 that this press gathered into the passage to prevent him from 
 getting to the table. At length I discovered a person about 
 the stove, that I expected was David Hilles, from his appear- 
 ance ; and soon after, I saw that he had some papers in his 
 hands. I was rather dissatisfied with the proceedings, and 
 think I walked back, and did not pay particjular attention for 
 some time. After a little space, there appeared not quite so 
 much strife, and I heard some one urging him to go up to the 
 table. But he appeared disposed to still the people, and to 
 remain where he was. 
 
 About this time the alarm took place; and there was a great 
 press against the railing. Some said there was danger of its 
 coming down. It was my idea, that the noise started on the 
 south side galleries, and it struck me that it was a boy, and 
 that it was probably done for mischief. I did not think there 
 was any danger. I was in a situation where I could not see 
 the door by the clerk's table, till I moved a little. After a 
 short time the people returned. I did not take much notice 
 about David Hilles, where he was. When they came in, the 
 strife still continued about the steps of the gallery, near the 
 clerk's table. I did not pay a great deal of attention to it ; but 
 it seemed like a general press. I could not see any persons 
 doing more than others. One party was pushing very hard 
 towards the gallery, and the other as hard to keep them down. 
 That was about the impression I had, when I was looking 
 down at them. 
 
 After some time, David Hilles appeared to have gotten into 
 the gallery. During part of the time, being much hurt by the 
 proceedings, I was walking back and forth in the passage. 
 
Trial of Friends 
 
 The table was pulled back and forth; one party appeared dis- 
 posed to pull it towards David Hilles, and on the other side, 
 they were striving to get it towards Jonathan Taylor; and in 
 the strife it was soon pulled to pieces. I think when the table 
 was fairly broken to pieces, and the pieces were handing away, 
 I heard a voice say, " it is enough, I am willing to quit. " It was 
 somewhere about the table, but the strife continued a little 
 longer. I heard one Friend say, " Amos, don't strive any long- 
 er; let us go; it is enough." It was Joshua Cope. 
 
 I have attended Yearly Meetings before ; but never saw 
 doors guarded as on this occasion. Was the Yearly Meeting 
 pretty quiet and still, when Israel French made the proposi- 
 tion.'' It was, considering the circumstances under which we 
 met, quite as quiet as could be expected. Was there any op- 
 position to Israel French's proposition to choose a new clerk? 
 I do not recollect that I heard any particular opposition to that; 
 but to the appointment of David Hilles, there were two or three 
 who made a very little opposition, merely observing that the 
 clerks had better proceed. I should have had no doubt, from 
 the voices that were heard, had I not known that there was an 
 opposite party in the meeting — had I been a visiting stranger, 
 I should have taken it to be a clear expression of the meeting's 
 voice. 
 
 All that are members within the territorial limits of the 
 Yearly Meeting, have a right to go in and participate in the 
 business of the meeting? They have. Have representatives 
 from the Quarters there, any more right than others? I never 
 considered that they had any other, further than to bring up 
 and carry back business; or any other than is stated by the dis- 
 cipline: to name a clerk, merely to do away the necessity of 
 appointing a committee for that purpose. Do the representa- 
 tives ever adjourn a Quarterly or Yearly Meeting? I never 
 heard of such a thing. Did you ever hear a proposition made 
 to the representatives, and not to the whole body? They are 
 known only as common members in the meeting; they have no 
 more authority in the meeting than others. 
 
 Have you ever known a Monthly Meeting to be laid down, 
 without their consent, except by these orthodox people? I 
 never did know a Quarter to lay down a Monthly Meeting. Is 
 there any power in your society superior to the Yearly Meet- 
 ing? It is the supreme power, over its members. Is there any 
 authority or power in the society, to enforce any discipline, 
 but that of the Yearly Meeting? None. What is the business 
 of a Meeting for Sufferings? Nothing further than is given in 
 the discipline. I never have been a member of that body, and 
 know nothing of its transactions. Have you in your Quarterly 
 and Yearly Meetings any presiding officer? We do not consi- 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 155 
 
 der lhat we have: the clerk is the servant of the meeting, to 
 record facts, and has no more authority than any other indi- 
 vidual. ■ 
 
 Is it considered proper, or do meetings ever exercise the 
 liberty of removing one clerk, and appointing another? I knew 
 a circumstance which might be considered as such. It was 
 the case in New Garden Meeting, in Fifth-month last. The 
 regular clerk, who had been regularly appointed, and was pre- 
 sent, about opening the minutes, was objected to, as a com- 
 plaint was against him, in the Monthly Meeting. A number 
 present said, that there was no such complaint. This created 
 some confusion, and, during this confusion, a Friend was 
 named to serve as clerk; but the confusion continued to exist. 
 Some said there was a complaint, and some said not ; and he 
 was urged strenuously by some to proceed. There was then 
 a proposition made by Benjamin W. I^add, that it was not the 
 clerk, nor the records, that constituted the Quarterly Meeting, 
 but the representatives and the reports ; and if the representa- 
 tives were there, with the reports, they could hold the Quar- 
 terly Meeting, if no others were present. And he proposed 
 that they should withdraw and name a clerk. There appeared 
 an evident division. One party were in favour, and the other 
 were opposed to it. Those whom we supposed to be represen- 
 tatives, although their names had been called, went out, and 
 when they came in, said they had agreed on a Friend ; he had 
 been previously named. He approached the table, but the 
 other being at it, he said it was of no great consequence — he 
 could withdraw to the other side. He stepped to the other 
 side, and very soon commenced reading an opening minute. 
 The clerk, as I might say, on our «ide, was proceeding with the 
 business ; and their clerk proceeded — both were sometimes 
 proceeding at the same time, and two or three speaking. 
 
 I rose and observed, if the two parties were determined to 
 proceed in their own way, it would be better for one party to 
 do their business first. Another proposed that our clerk 
 should be silent, and then, when they were through, we could 
 do our business, which was done. 
 
 Cross-examination. — What number withdrew from the meet- 
 ing ? I could not tell, but the larger number withdrew of the 
 men. Was your name called by Jonathan Taylor at the Yearly 
 Meeting? It was not. I was not called on for adjourning 
 the meeting. It had been called before the adjournment, by 
 David Hilles. There was an understanding that your party 
 should keep still, till the others had adjourned? David Hilles 
 was about proceeding, when Elisha Bates said, be still a little 
 time, and we will adjourn and leave you. How did you know 
 that that was the understanding? I understood it, because it 
 was suggested, and no objection made. When I went to the 
 
156 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 Yearly Meeting, the general expectation was, that there 
 would be a division, and as a representative on one side, I 
 meant, if there was no obstruction, to get in: but if exertions 
 were required, I should use none. Why did you not offer the 
 report to the old Yearly Meeting? was it because you belong- 
 ed to the new line? I belong to what is son^etimes called the 
 Hicksitc party. Did you ever attend a Yearly or Quarterly 
 Meeting, where a question was put and acted upon as that 
 was, in relation to David Hilles ? I have been at meetings 
 whei'e propositions were made, and acted on in a similar way, 
 I think very little different. I think, in the case of our new 
 Monthly Meeting, of course there was no new clerk; but after 
 the meeting was assembled, a proposition was made for a 
 Friend to go to the table, and serve the meeting. Do you say, 
 that the uniting was in the same rapid succession? Not alto- 
 gether, because there were not so many present. I don't 
 think it was as rapid. Was it twice as rapid at the Yearly 
 Meeting? I think it was more than twice as rapid. 
 
 Did you ever before know several to speak at orice? In our 
 Monthly Meeting, where there has been considerable excite- 
 ment, I have known as many as three speak at once. 
 
 There was a Monthly Meeting in Baltimore, laid down by 
 Baltimore Quarterly Meeting, by the direction of the Yearly 
 Meeting. There was a difference between the Monthly Meet- 
 ings, as to property. One meeting considered that its rights 
 were infringed upon by the other, and there was a complaint 
 carried up to the Yearly Meeting, for its decision. The 
 Yearly Meeting directed, that the meeting complained of, 
 should'place the ground in the same situation that it stood in, 
 previous to the act complained of; and in case of failing to do 
 so, ordered the Quarterly Meeting to lay it down. It is pre- 
 sumed that the Monthly Meeting did not consent? I believe it 
 did not hold to its rights. 
 
 I was present at two or three sessions of the Baltimore 
 Yearly Meeting, and at one of the Quarterly Meetings, when 
 that subject was under consideration; but was not present 
 when the Yearly Meeting ordered it to be laid down, nor in 
 the Quarterly Meeting when it was laid down. The dispute 
 was about a burying ground. I was a member of one of the 
 Monthly Meetings at the time, and for a considerable time after- 
 wards, but removed to this state before it was laid down. The 
 Quarterly Meeting acted so far, as to appoint a committee to 
 take the subject under consideration, and the committee re- 
 ported, that a decision could be had to better satisfaction from 
 the Yearly Meeting, than from the Quarter. Did the Quar- 
 terly Meeting unite in the report? and did they direct that 
 the advice of the Yearly Meeting should be requested ? (An- 
 swer not heard.) The Yearly Meeting gave a decision, and 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 the judgment was handed down through the Quarterly to the 
 Monthly Meeting. The substance of their decision was, that 
 the Monthly Meetings had equal rights. They persisted in not 
 complying with the decision of the Yearly Meeting, and then 
 the Yearly Meeting ordered the Monthly Meeting to be laid 
 down. 
 
 Did you ever know a clerk appointed or elected in a Quar- 
 terly or Yearly Meeting of Friends, in the way that David 
 Hilles was ? I know of no case nearer than that of Jonathan 
 Taylor, the preceding year. After a clerk had been appoint- 
 ed in the usual way, named by the representatives, and agreed 
 to by the Yearly Meeting, he was indisposed, and did not 
 come to the meeting; it was proposed, as the clerk was not 
 present, that Jonathan Taylor should be appointed in his room, 
 and he took his seat. I cannot state what the minute set 
 forth. 
 
 There were no reports from the Hicksite party, delivered 
 to Taylor? I believe not. David Hilles called the represen- 
 tatives from three Quarters, which might be called Hicksite, 
 and those from Redstone Quarter, which was not divided. 
 
 Questioned by. Mr. Tappan. — You have mentioned what Ben- 
 jamin W. Ladd had to say in your Quarterly Meeting — 
 was he a member of that Quarterly Meeting ? He was not. 
 In what character did he appear? I do not recollect that he 
 offered any credentials to distinguish him from any other 
 member. At one of our Quarters, there was a committee at- 
 tending, but I did not understand that he appeared there, as 
 any thing more than Benjamin W. Ladd. 
 
 John Cleaver affirmed. — I went to the meeting house about 
 9 o'clock, after seeing a number of people gathering about the 
 house. The doors were all fast, except one, through which 
 they were passing. I attempted to go in, and was stopped. I 
 asked the reason why I should not go in, as it was raining 
 very hard, and I wished to go in. They said the Indian com- 
 mittee were sitting. I saw a number going in, who were not 
 of that committee: and gave them to understand this. They 
 then said, that the representatives were also going in. I 
 finally told them that there were members going in, who were 
 not members of that committee, nor representatives. They 
 then informed me that it was a conference, and they wished 
 not to be disturbed: but that the doors would be open before 
 ten. As near as I can recollect, about half past 9, I went 
 again, and proclamation was made, at the south-east door, 
 that the doors were open, and all who had a right to go in, 
 might go in; there were perhaps ten or fourteen standing 
 about the door. There was one on each end of each step, and 
 as many as three upon the door-sill, sheltering themselves 
 from the rain. I then attempted to go in, and they asked me 
 20 
 
158 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 if I was a member. I replied, that I was. They gave way 
 then, and I went up towards the stapa. I wa3 again interro- 
 gated whether I .vas a member: but I made no reply. Isaac 
 Walker, a member of the meeting from which I came, called 
 out, and said, " he is a member; let him go in." They gave 
 way, and I moved up till I came to the door-sill. There were 
 three men on the door-sill, and two of them, when I came to 
 the step, collared me, and ordered me to stop, and at the same 
 time ordered the door to be shut, which was then but half-way 
 open. As I had been a considerable time in the rain, and 
 was wet and uncomfortable, I took one under each arm, and 
 before the door was bolted, took them in. In the bustle, they 
 knocked my hat off, and trampled it in the mud considerably. 
 When I got in, they resumed their stand about the door. I 
 heard Isaac Walker call out to one of the guards to let me 
 go. He was coming up the steps. I looked round, and Ed- 
 ward Carroll, from New Lisbon, was in a scuffle with them. 
 He had his great coat on, and two or three, who had hold 
 of him, had nearly pulled it off his shoulders: but he extri- 
 cated himself, and kept on. I have been informed that he Was 
 a member. 
 
 Did you ever see a house guarded like that? I never did. I 
 was born a member of the society, and have been a member 
 of Redstone Quarter for about fourteen years. My right of 
 membership was never called in question by either party, for 
 any misconduct whatever. 
 
 The Judge tbought it unnecessary to pursue this species of 
 inquiry any further. 
 
 Mr. Tappan. — We think it important to establish, that at 
 the Yearly Meeting, each member has equal rights and privi- 
 legesf that they all stand on a level, a pure democracy. • We 
 consider this point a taaterial one in the defence; because we 
 believe the statute law does not extend to any altercation be- 
 tween the members of a religious society, as to the manner of 
 conducting their business. If we establish the position, that 
 the persons complained of, were members of the society, and 
 were entitled to equal rights with any other members of that 
 society, and to equal consideration, respect, and regard, we 
 make it a case where the statute law does not reach them, for 
 *ny altercation or difference between themselves and other 
 niembers of the society, with regard to the transaction of their 
 business. And it is with that view of the subject, that we 
 wish to establish clearly and indisputably, the right, to be 
 there, to make motions, to declare their assent to, or dissent 
 from, any proposition in the meeting; and that there was no 
 memb.er, or number of members, or individuals, who had a 
 right to control any of these defendants, or either of them. 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 1S9 
 
 The Judge thought there was evidence enough upon the sub- 
 ject, and that the discipline of the society must settle the 
 question. 
 
 Mr. Tappan proceeded with the examination of the vritness. 
 A meeting has been spoken of as having been held in a barn? 
 Yes: the meeting house had been burnt, and there was no 
 convenient place to hold a meeting; and it was thought it 
 would be most convenient to hold it in a barn. It was a pub- 
 lic meeting for worship. I am personally acquainted with 
 William B. Irish. He is considered to be a member of Red- 
 stone Quarterly Meeting. 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Wright.— W&s Elias Hicks at the barnP 
 He was not. Was Amos Peaslee there? Yes. Was there not 
 a conference after the close of the meeting ? A number of 
 Friends stopped. Were there any letters read there ? I be- 
 lieve not. Was there a letter read there froril any quarter ? 
 Yes, I believe there was a letter read. Who was it from? I 
 believe it was from Israel French. Was it, or was it not, to 
 invite a conference, to determine how you should conduct 
 your Hicksite affairs ? I do not think it was. I think It wa« 
 not to call a conference for any thing. It was a narration of 
 occurrences, that had transpired at Mount Pleasant. Were 
 there any delegates appointed there, to go to Plainfield? There 
 were, at another place, some Friends nominated to go to 
 Plainfield, to advise upon measures in relation to the disorder- 
 ed state of the society. "V^^^ David Hilles there ? He was 
 there. He belongs to the same Monthly Meeting, though not 
 to the same Preparative Meeting, that I do. I have under- 
 stood that David went to Plainfield. 
 
 Rhodes Dilworth affirmed. — I went to the m«eting house 
 somewhere about ten o'clock. I went to the north-east door, 
 and as I was about to to go in, John Hoyle, who was standing 
 near the door, said, " Rhodes Dilworth, thee is not permitted 
 in here:" but I went in. 
 
 Samuel Berry affirmed. — Are you a member of the society 
 of Friends ? Yes, I am a member. I was at Mount Pleasant 
 on Second-day morning. I got there about ten o'clock, or 
 near that time. I walked up to the door, and there was a 
 man whom I took to be Isaac Jaekson. He told me, " Samuel 
 Berry, thee has no right to come into this house." There were 
 a great many coming up, and pushing forward. I twrned 
 away, and. went to another door. There were several guards 
 there. The door was full of men. They told me there was 
 no room in the house. The one who spoke, I took to be one 
 who holds to the orthodox side of the question. T did not get 
 in till several were pushed in, and after the guards had left 
 the doors. At the time, I knew of no complaint against me, 
 
160 
 
 Trial of Friendt 
 
 I wa» at the door when there was a nomination of clerk, but 
 I cannot state any thing in particular about it. 
 
 Pretty soon I got in, and pushed along in the crowd. I 
 went quietly a considerable distance up the main ile, from the 
 south door. But when the alarm took place they crowded 
 me out door again. I was not much alarmed; all parties were 
 endeavouring to get out. 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Wright. — Are you a Hicksite? They have 
 called me one ever since the name originated in the society. 
 I was not alarmed, and not scared. I did not think the hou«e 
 was going to fall on me. 
 
 Nathan Galbreath affirmed. — Are you a member of the society 
 of Friends? I am. I was present at Ohio Yearly Meeting, at 
 the time Israel French made a proposition for a new clerk. 
 I was a representative appointed by New Garden Quarterly 
 Meeting. The meeting was as still at the time when the 
 proposition was made, as at any time before or after; and it 
 was sanctioned by a great number of voices, as many as I ever 
 heard on a similar occasion, or on any occasion. I consider- 
 ed that it was very decided, that the voice of the meeting was 
 in favour of appointing a new clerk. 
 
 Did you hear the proposition to appoint David Hilles ? I did, 
 and it was also sanctioned by a great number of voices. What 
 prevented his taking his seat as clerk? It was called out for 
 him to come to the table. I could not see him, but I supposed 
 he was prevented by the crowd in the passage where he was 
 coming from. I could tell nothing, only by the crowd moving 
 back and forth. James Heald told him several times, " don't 
 come here," (putting his hands out) "I am in possession of 
 this property." Pretty soon after this, the crowd became so 
 dense that I could not see, for some were upon the benches, 
 and some upon the backs of the benches, so close that I could 
 not see. The old clerk, pretty soon after the proposition for 
 a new clerk, commenced reading. I was with my back to- 
 ward him. I think he began about the latter part of the 
 assenting to the appointment of David Hilles as clerk. I con- 
 sidered that it disturbed the meeting, as it always does when 
 a proposition is offered before another is decided. Did you 
 ever know a clerk, previous to this, to go on reading, while 
 there was a proposition before the meeting? It may be possi- 
 ble that it was the case in New Garden, where I was, and 
 where the representatives to the Quarter reported another 
 clerk, and the orthodox assented to it; otherwise, I believe, I 
 never saw the like. 
 
 Would there probably have been any confusion, if Mr. Tay- 
 lor had performed the regular duties of his office, according 
 to the ordftr of the society? I do not think there would. Are 
 
at Steubenville^ Ohio. 
 
 161 
 
 you an elder in the meeting to which you belong? I am an 
 elder, and have been a member of the Meeting for Sufferings. 
 
 Cross-examination. — Are you not under dealings? It would 
 be unprecedented, if a complaint has been offered to any meet- 
 ing except my own ; and there never has been a complaint 
 against me in any Monthly or Preparative Meeting to which I 
 have belonged. The orthodox have left the New Garden 
 Quarterly and Monthly Meetings, and they may have disown- 
 ed me — they say they have, but I have the records of the 
 Monthly and Quarterly Meetings with me in' this building. 
 The overseers came to me before, and made some opposition, 
 and said I had told other members to sit down, and let the 
 meeting act on its own responsibility. They asked me, if I 
 believed in the doctrines of Elias Hicks? I told them, if 
 they would cite any part of the doctrines, I could then answer 
 them. I asked then, of them, what particular part of his 
 doctrines they found fault with, as they were now tested by 
 his printed sermons and letters. They said, they had heard 
 certain things. I asked them to show me what they were; 
 as there were twelve of his sermons then lying on my mantel- 
 piece. They could not refer to any thing, but remarked, 
 that he had said, the Scriptures were a most mischievous 
 thing. They parted with me, saying they were entirely 
 satisfied. A few days after, one of them met me, and told 
 me that a complaint would go against me; but it never has 
 come to the Preparative, Monthly, or any other meeting for 
 discipline. 
 
 Was the Preparative Meeting then divided? No. When it 
 did separate, these men went to the orthodox meeting? They 
 went into the old house, and left us. They visited you, accord- 
 ing to the usual mode on such occasions, I suppose ? They 
 had no complaint. I showed them the discipline, and request- 
 ed them to show me any thing that I had done, contrary to 
 the order of the society ; but they did not show me any thing. 
 How was that Quarter divided, as to numbers? I think it was 
 about equally divided; — when they separated, the most nume- 
 rous party went off, because they had a great many visiters. 
 I think our meetings would be found about equal. Setting 
 aside the visiting Friends, I do not think the most numerous 
 party did go off. I think there were about one hundred in at- 
 tendance from other meetings; and throwing them out, we 
 were about equally divided. 
 
 HoiW many Monthly Meetings belong to your Quarter ? 
 Three. Are all those meetings divided? I think not all. To 
 whom did those meetings report? Our meeting reported to 
 Friends — the others, having orthodox clerks, went the other 
 way. Which way did the representatives go, from New Gar- 
 den Quarter? The representatives went with the clerks. The 
 
162 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 representatives to New Garden Quarterly Meeting, went with 
 the orthodox? The representatives of New Garden Monthly 
 to New Garden Quarterly Meeting did not, but the other two, 
 Carmel and Sandy Spring, retained their reports, and would 
 not give them up to me; therefore, I could say nothing what 
 they would do; and the orthodox part of New Garden Month- 
 ly, refused to give up their reports. Then two of the Monthly, 
 and the orthodox part of New Garden Monthly Meeting, re- 
 ported to the orthodox? Yes. 
 
 James Tolerton affirmed.— Were you at the Yearly Meeting 
 at Mount Pleasant, when French proposed the appointment 
 of a new clerk? Yes. Was the meeting quiet ? I considered 
 it as quiet as common. What was done with that proposi- 
 tion? It was united with by a large majority. Was there any 
 opposition? I think there were two dissenting voices: one 
 said they had a clerk, and the other, that the clerk had better 
 proceed with the business. I think it was after Hilles was 
 nominated. How did the meeting receive that nomination? 
 I think they acceded to it, by as large a majority as I ever 
 heard in a meeting: by perhaps 150 or 200 voices assenting 
 to it. 
 
 When a proposition is made, is it not usual to decide it, be- 
 fore you proceed to other business? I understand it to be the 
 orderly method of proceeding -—that it should be decided be- 
 fore any thing else is entered upon. Had they done uniting, 
 before Taylor commenced reading? I think it was while they 
 were expressing their unity, that he opened the meeting. The 
 clerk, after reading a minute, read over the names of the re- 
 presentatives, and the reports, till he came to the Redstone 
 report, when Amos E. Kimberly remarked, that that report 
 was not signed by the clerk, but by the assistant. I think 
 their reading created part of the disorder. If that had not 
 taken place, the disorder, I think, would not have been so 
 great. If the old clerk had given way to the meeting, to let 
 the question be decided, I think the confusion would have been 
 less. If I understand, you say the conduct of the clerk was 
 out of order? I think it would not have been orderly for me to 
 do it. Has the clerk of a Yearly Meeting any more power 
 than others? No more. He may give his voice, and then 
 leave it, or I may give my voice, and leave it for the decision 
 of the meeting. He has no more voice than others. 
 
 I am clerk to the Monthly and Quarterly Meetings of Salem, 
 and was a representative from that Quarter: and had the re- 
 ports in my pocket, when Taylor called the representatives. 
 The Friends' representatives did not answer to him. 
 
 Cross-examined. — You belonged to the Monthly and Quar- 
 terly Meetings of Salem before the separation? Yes: but I got 
 uneasy with the conduct, and ti'ansferred my right to New 
 
 I 
 
at Steubeavilk, Ohio. 
 
 163 
 
 Garden. Did you take a certificate of your membership? 
 No. Did they ask any? No. But I was certificated back 
 to our Monthly Meeting. Did you not set up a new Monthly 
 Meeting? A separation took place, and I Avas certificated 
 back. To those that continued the old Monthly Meeting? 
 I considered that we constituted the old Monthly Meeting. 
 Was not the old Monthly Meeting in being? Yes; I say 
 it was — we considered that we continued the old Monthly 
 Meeting. 
 
 Did you join the same meeting that you left? Yes, if Friends 
 constitute the meeting — the house does not constitute the 
 meeting. The same Friends that I was united to, before I 
 went away, I was united to when I came back. Did you re- 
 tnrn and unite with the same brethren? Yes. 
 
 [A fev,' other questions and answers passed, but they were 
 so rapid and indistinct, that we were at the time unable to 
 understand, or record them, with accuracy — It is believed, 
 however, their omission is not material.] 
 
 Abraham Dilworth affirmed. — Were you present at the Yearly 
 Meeting, at the time Israel French proposed the appointment 
 of a new clerk? I was. Was the meeting quiet? It was as 
 quiet as usual. How was that proposition received and treat- 
 ed by the meeting? W^hen he made the proposition, a great 
 number of voices united with it as their sentiment. How was 
 it with the nomination of Hilles- for clerk? Soon after the pro- 
 position to change the clerk was united in, W^illiam B. Irish 
 mentioned the name of David Hilles, and it was sanctioned by 
 a great number of voices, and in the same instant the assistant 
 clerk was named and sanctioned, in the same way. About this 
 time, or before, Jonathan Taylor got up, and read, as I suppos- 
 ed, an opening minute. He began to call over the representa- 
 tives, beginning at Short Creek, although it has been usual 
 heretofore, to call from Redstone first. After going on some 
 time, it was observed that they had a report from Redstone, 
 signed by the assistant clerk; and some one observed, that the 
 representatives did not answer to that, as it was not signed by 
 the clerk. Some were calling out for David Hilles to come to 
 the table; and some voices were heard, saying, they would 
 not have a clerk that would not serve the meeting. 
 
 After a while, I saw a company, or several persons, pro- 
 gressing up the passage along the middle of the meeting; and 
 by this time the crowd was considerable. As a number had 
 got on the benches, I stepped up on a bench, and observed, as 
 David Hilles was coming forward, some were standing in front 
 of the table, and some came' forward towards the table in the 
 gallery. As the crowd in front seemed to climb still higher, 
 I got upon the tops of the benches, with one foot on each, so 
 that I could see pretty distinctly. There was some pushing 
 
164 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 about the table, but I did not obeerve much till I saw Jacob 
 Richards scrambling over the shoulders of the people. Some 
 pushed him down; others were stooping, whether to help him 
 up or down, I could not tell; but it seems they were bearing 
 him down. I saw him have hold of the bench, and pushing; 
 and I heard a crack distinctly, coming from the back of the 
 bench, and in half a minute there was a general alarm, that 
 the galleries were coming down. It was first said that the 
 gallery over the preachers was coming down; and they ap- 
 peared to be retreating from that part of the house. Directly 
 it was observed, that the galleries were falling ; and as I looked 
 round, under the youth's gallery, they were aiming for the 
 doors. I hallooed as loud as I could, that it was a false alarm; 
 but still they did not pay much attention, but rushed out. The 
 doors were blocked up, so that they could not get out fast 
 enough, and a number dashed through the windows. Some 
 opened a way into the women's apartment. 
 
 About this time, I looked at the clerk's table, and the crowd 
 there was considerably less dense than before. I thought that 
 Hilles might then be got to the table. I observed Amos E. Kira- 
 berly have hold of the table, partly holding it down; and after 
 some little contest, I saw David Hilles in the preachers' gallery. 
 I observed that he had papers, and a person snatched them out 
 of his hand. Some one close by, seized him, and I saw no 
 more concerning it. The back door Avas opened, about the 
 same time of the alarm: and I observed, through the door, 
 some orthodox young men, as I considered, have hold of the 
 table, pulling ; and some of the other party on the opposite 
 side; and the table went to pieces. Directly after this, I heard 
 some one in the west end of the gallery, saying, we will con- 
 tend no longer. They repeated the observation, once or twice, 
 and there was a general suspension. Directly after that, I went 
 home. 
 
 What was it that created the disorder in the meeting, and 
 the pushing about the table? The most general disorder was 
 occasioned by the alarm. Was it in order, for the clerk to 
 read an opening minute and call the representatives, as it was 
 done in that meeting? I should suppose, while one pi'oposi- 
 tion was before the meeting, it would not be correct to do any 
 other business, according to the usual order of the society. 
 Did it not create confusion? I suppose it did create some dis- 
 order; for some were calling out for Hilles to come forward, 
 and stating that the clerk at the table was not the clerk of the 
 meeting; and they would not have one that would not serve the 
 meeting. He could not have gofup, without crowding away 
 some of the orthodox. Did you see any who had politeness 
 enough to give way at all? I did not. 
 
 Cr(m-examination.' — You say the disturbance arose from two 
 
at Sleubenville, Ohio. 
 
 165 
 
 sources; first, from the general alarm; and second, from Tay- 
 lor's reading the opening minute? Yes. Was the reading of 
 the opening minute previous to Hilles' coming to the table? 
 I did not see Hilles distinctly, till they were going forward; 
 and I heard several call out for the old clerk to leave the table; 
 and one voice called for Taylor to leave the table. Is it in or- 
 der to submit propositions, before an opening minute is read? 
 And did you ever see a proposition offered and acted on, in a 
 similar manner? I think I have ; but it is not general, to see it 
 in so rapid a manner. There are occasionally cases, pretty 
 much like it. Did you know of any of the orthodox uniting 
 in it? I did not. Would there have been any disturbance, if 
 Taylor had been permitted to go on? I cannot say. 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Tappan. — Do you know any thing about 
 taking down the names of some individuals in the meeting ? 
 Between the time that French's proposition was offered to the 
 meeting, and the appointment of Hilles, the names of several 
 were called, and they were ordered out of the house. They 
 called over the names of several that belonged to Concord 
 Monthly Meeting; William Hoyle and others. To what 
 Monthly Meeting do the Hoyles belong? To Smithfield. 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Wright. — When they were ordered out of 
 the house, were there no reasons given for it? None, at the 
 time their names were called; but they were ordered to go out 
 of the house. Has not any member a right to request a per- 
 son to go out who has no right in the meeting? The usual 
 practice is, to mention that persons are in the meeting who 
 do not belong; and if they do not go, some one usually goes 
 to them, and requests that they should leave; but I never heard 
 any ordered out in the way practised at Mount Pleasant. 
 
 Court adjourned till 9 o'clock to-morrow morning. 
 
 Tuesday the 2\st of October , 9 o'clock, .3. M. 
 
 Jehu Lewis affirmed. — Witness is a member of the society of 
 Friends, and of Redstone Quarterly Meeting, and has been 
 ever since it became a Quarterly Meeting, which was previous 
 to the establishment of Ohio Yearly Meeting, and when it 
 belonged to Baltimore Yearly Meeting. This was the first 
 Quarterly Meeting established west of the mountains, which 
 was about thirty years ago. It consisted of two Monthly 
 Meetings, Westland and Redstone, which were all the meet- 
 ings established in this state till Redstone became a Quarterly 
 Meeting. In 1801 or 2, Concord was established as a branch 
 of that Quarter, and so on, till Quarters were established in 
 this state, by the Yearly Meeting of Baltimore. After Quar- 
 terly Meetings were established in this state, Redstone con- 
 tinued a branch of Baltimore Yearly Meeting till 1 8 1 7 or 1818, 
 and is now composed of three Monthly Meetings. 
 21 
 
166 
 
 Trial o/ Frien ls 
 
 Cros3-examined.--\ was at the conference at Plainfield. I 
 do not know that I am able to state the object of the confe- 
 rence. We were informed that a conference was to be held at 
 Plainfield ; but I believe that no specific object was stated. 
 We had received information through some source, that a 
 certain part of the society, in this country, were about disown- 
 ing many of their members; all who could not consent to re- 
 ceive the Indiana epistle, were to be disowned. Friends 
 considered it an unconstitutional ground, and that they had 
 been adopting discipline which they had no right to adopt. 
 Friends were invited to come together to consult, and to see 
 what would be the best measures to take to maintain our rights: 
 but I never heard of any thing like infringement on the rights 
 of others in any conference, nor a sentiment dropped in any 
 conference, with a view to encourage an infringement of the 
 rights of any of the members of the society. This was the ob- 
 ject of the conference, according to my understanding. 
 
 Was there any thing said about the appointment of a clerk, 
 at any of your conferences? At the school house in Mount 
 Pleasant, I think it was represented that measures had been 
 taken to keep a certain part of the society out of the house, 
 and perhaps a division would take place; and if so, it would 
 be necessary to have a clerk. David Hillcs was mentioned as 
 a suitable person, in case it should be found necessary. I think 
 aTiother name was mentioned. I was not named as assistant 
 clerk. I heard nothing of it. Was David Hilles there ? I 
 think he was. Did he make any ol>jection to being clerk.^ I 
 think he did. There was no conclusion come to. Were you 
 a representative from Redstone Quarter? I was. And you 
 refused to answer to Jonathan Taylor's call, and answered to 
 the other clerk ? I did. How many representatives were ap- 
 pointed from your Quarter ? Eight. IIow many answered to 
 Taylor? I think five answered to Taylor, and one of them af- 
 terwards answered to Hilles. Joel Oxley was the one that an- 
 swered to Taylor. There is no division in Redstone Quarter. 
 
 Were you at the confei'ence in the barn? I was. I know of 
 no letter being read there. I think that John Cleaver's me- 
 mory failed him. I think I can state positively, that none was 
 read. I do not recollect any thing in the shape of a letter. 
 
 Do you know where Elias Hicks, Amos Pcaslee, and Halli- 
 day Jackson, had their lodgings during the Yearly Meeting? 
 Some of them made their home at Israel French's, but Halli- 
 day Jackson did not. I came into Mount Pleasant on Seventh- 
 day afternoon, and was informed that the members of the 
 select meeting had been locked out, and among others, the 
 representatives from Redstone select meeting to the Yearly 
 Meeting ; and that they had to hold their meeting out doors 
 in the yard. From this we presumed we should be excluded. 
 It was reasonable to expect that like measures would be taken 
 
ut SteubenvlUc, Ohio. 
 
 167 
 
 on Second-day, to keep all out who did not think with them. 
 There were several things talked of at the school house, but 
 nothing agreed to, but to go to the meetinghouse at the usual 
 time. This was mentioned by some one present — if we were 
 locked out of the house, that we should use no violence, but 
 wait quietly in the yard till the members were pretty generally 
 assembled, and then determine what course to pursue. I be- 
 lieve no other agreement was come to. 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Tappan. — Is Israel French a member of the 
 society? I believe he is. I never knew his character impeach- 
 ed. I never knew but Friends had liberty to put up with their 
 friends. It has been the practice, heretofore, to put up where 
 convenience suited. Then Friends have not been considered 
 as under any obligation to go to a tavern? Not as I have ever 
 known. Was there any agreement that a new clerk should be 
 elected? Not that I know of. 1 did not understand any such 
 thing. It was contemplated, that we should be shut out of 
 the house, and that there would probably be a division : and 
 if so, that we should want a clerk. It was not determined 
 on ? No agreement was come to. I do not recollect any. It 
 appeared to be the settled conclusion, to go on at the usual 
 time, and if shut out, then to conclude what to do. 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Wright. — There were several things pro 
 posed, in case the orthodox did so and so? Several proposi- 
 tions were made; but it was finally concluded, that we could 
 come to no agreement, till we knew what the orthodox would 
 do. And, therefore, we did not come to any agreement. And 
 you left the conference, impressed with the idea that there 
 was no agreement, or understanding, but to go on at the usual 
 hour? Yes. But if shut out, you concluded to act in concert 
 with others who were shut out — but if let in? I had nothing 
 in my mind, farther than to go there. I had not come to any 
 conclusion. I was not prevented from entering. I was not 
 an eye-witness, that any were rejected who had a right. After 
 I got into the house, there was no consultation upon measures, 
 that I know of. I do not know that I ever knew a question 
 carried as that was : although I have often known questions 
 carried with great eagerness. The voice of approbation was 
 very great. How much time passed, after the proposition by 
 French, before the nomination of Hilles? I think not much 
 time, between the uniting with that proposition, and the nomi- 
 nation. All that we could tell, was by the voice of the people: 
 and it appeared to be carried by a large voice. We do not 
 expect that every body will speak. I think, as near as I can 
 recollect, after the nomination of David Hilles, and while the 
 voice was going in favour of it, the opening minute was read, 
 and the clerks went on to read. Was not the opening minute 
 read between the time of French's proposition, and the nomi- 
 
168 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 nation of David Hilles? I think it was about the time David 
 Hilles was named. I was not prevented from going in. I 
 went in alone, I think about twenty minutes before 10 o'clock. 
 I went to one door, and the guards were standing there, con- 
 tending with somebody, and I went to another door, and en- 
 tered without any interruption. 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Tappan. — Do you not know, that there 
 had been a conference of the orthodox on Saturday? I know 
 that they had a select meeting on Seventh-day, which is ac- 
 cording to discipline. Do you know of any being present, not 
 ministers and elders ? It was their meeting. Who were the 
 select memb&rs from your Quarter, that were locked out ? 
 Joseph Johns, Elizabeth Mills, and Mary Hall. Do you know 
 any thing of a meeting on the 27th? I knew there was to be 
 a meeting. My understanding was, that each Yearly Meet- 
 ing was invited to appoint a committee, to meet in general 
 conference at such place as they should appoint. But this 
 measure was not united in, by our Yearly Meeting. There 
 was a very considerable opposition to the appointment of such 
 a committee. When French made his proposition, was the 
 meeting in order? I considered it so. It was quiet. There 
 had been some bustle, a little before: but I was back, and did 
 not see it. It was as still as could be expected, in so large a 
 crowd. 
 
 Joseph Hoyle affirmed. — Are you a member of the society of 
 Friends? I am a member of Smithfield Monthly Meeting. 
 (Here the witness related the circumstances of a case, in which 
 the clerk of a Monthly Meeting had been removed by the meet- 
 ing, and his place filled by another, although the clerk was 
 in his place at the time, and had not been previously under 
 dealing.) It was announced to the meeting by an individual, 
 that the clerk was disqualified, and a new one was immedi- 
 ately named and approved. He went up, and took his seat, 
 and the old one went out of the house. I should suppose it 
 was from ten to thirteen years ago. I could mention the name 
 of the old clerk, if necessary. 
 
 Mr. Wright. — Give the name. Robert Ritchie was the old 
 clerk. Who was the new one? I do not remember; but he 
 was appointed, and a minute entered. 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Tappan. — Do you know any thing of a con- 
 ference, held at Smithfield? The first conference that I recol- 
 lect, was at Smithfield. There were present several members, 
 and some who were not members. The leading object seem- 
 ed to be, that such as were on the Hicksite side, should be 
 kept out of the meeting, and that the law should be put in 
 force. I had not then come out. My views were not known. 
 Benjamin W. Ladd seemed to insist, that the civil law should 
 be put in force, to keep such out of the meeting house. I ob- 
 
 I 
 
at Sleubenville, Ohio. 
 
 169 
 
 jected to it, as being contrary to our discipline. It was pro- 
 posed by Laddj he told me, that he had been at Stillwater, 
 and that he met with considerable opposition, from those of 
 the Hicksite side: and that there was no other way, but to put 
 the law in force, and to keep the Hicksites out of the house. 
 I do not recollect that he stated any thing about barring the 
 doors. After about two hours, they broke up, without agree- 
 ing on any thing. It all went to nothing. 
 
 Cross-examined. — Where was that conference held? It was 
 held at William Blackiston's stpre, in Smithfield. Was any 
 effort made to get a select party there, to attend this confe- 
 rence of the orthodox? I was there. My sentiments were not 
 known. They thought I was orthodox. They wished to put 
 me forward in the society; and one Friend said, that he would 
 rather give me ten dollars, than that I should turn on the 
 other side. But it did not make much impression on me. 
 At the Monthly Meeting before spoken of, Robert Ritchie 
 left the chair. It was not known to the meeting what he had 
 -done. Do not the members of the Monthly Meeting know 
 which of the members of that Monthly Meeting are under 
 dealing? It had not come to the knowledge of the meeting, 
 being a thing that had lately happened. I did not know, and 
 I heard a great many after meeting, wishing to know what 
 had discjualified him. He left the chair. I think I learned 
 what it was afterwards. It was drinking to excess. There 
 had been no complaint entered, in any meeting for discipline. 
 Had any committee waited on him? I believe not any. 
 
 Jonathan Pierce affirmed. — Are you a member of the society 
 of Friends? I am. Were you at the Yearly Meeting? I was. 
 Did you see any body obstructed in entering the meeting? I 
 saw a number obstructed at the door; I was not obstructed, be- 
 cause I had made a contract with the orthodox, the evening 
 before, that I should not be interrupted; but I saw a number 
 obstructed, and I believe John Cleaver was one. After I got 
 in, I was not satisfied, as I saw considerable obstruction at 
 the men's door, and thought it might be the case at the wo- 
 men's door. 
 
 I went round to the west end of the house, and saw a great 
 many women standing out in the rain and mud. My wife was 
 standing on the door-sill ; she beckoned to me, and said she 
 had been repulsed twice by men, who said, that she had no right 
 to be admitted. I went and informed several men, and we 
 went round. I saw several women repulsed, though I was not 
 acquainted with them. We waited a reasonable time, to see 
 whether they would let them in or not. At length several of 
 us took a walk round, and asked them by what authority they 
 kept the women out in the mud and rain. They said they did 
 not wish to keep any out, except those who were not mem- 
 
170 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 bers. I told them that they had done it, and that my wife 
 was one of the number. One woman, as I came up, was 
 pushed off the door-sill, nearly down on the ground. I told 
 them the women should go in, and spoke in pretty positive 
 terms. I spoke to one woman, who had once lived in our 
 family, and told her, she ought to know better than to keep 
 my wife out, who had as good a right as she, or any one of 
 the rest. About this time, eight or ten went in. I then turn- 
 ed, and went to the other end of the house, and when I came 
 
 to the door many were trying to get in. S — — D was 
 
 trying to get inj he was a member himself, and his grandson 
 assisted. 
 
 At about this time I heard David Hilles called for; I went 
 to David, and told him, he was requested to come to the table, 
 that there was an inquiry for him. David said it was impos- 
 sible to get to the table, there was so great a crowd. I told 
 him we would endeavour to make way for him. I requested 
 the people to give way, and they did so, till we came near the 
 stove. There the crowd was so dense, and the opposition so 
 great, that we stopped ; while I stood there, I saw some peo- 
 ple very much pulled about. I did not know which party they 
 were of. 
 
 Being acquainted with Amos E. Kimberly, I thought I could 
 persuade him to desist, as I had had a conversation with him 
 before I left home. I pushed up, although there was consider 
 able opposition, as many as three having hold of me at once, 
 and at length got up where I could speak to Amos. About 
 this time they said the galleries were coming down, and many 
 retreated. I remonstrated with Kimberly about giving up tht- 
 table. I told him, that his party had become the aggressors, 
 that they had pushed females out in the rain, and that my wife 
 was among the number. He said, they would not give up the 
 table while they were able to hang to it. Soon after, several 
 had hold of it, and among the rest a young man by the name 
 of Planner. Some one had hold of my coat tail, and I took hold 
 of the table. Some one on my left hand asked me what my 
 name was. I told him what it was, and where I lived. I then 
 asked him his name. He said it was none of my business. 1 
 told them they were orthodox, and the table was soon pulled 
 to pieces. 
 
 Cross-examination. — When the table was broken, did not a 
 part stick to your hands.'' No. You were determined not to 
 surrender at the first jerk at your coat tail? That is your con- 
 struction, said the witness. Do you know of any of your party 
 having a part of the table.? I do not, except the drawer, after 
 the table was broken. I advanced through the ile without 
 much opposition, except by three men, John Heald, Jonathan 
 Stanley, and Nathan Heald. What was your object? I wanted 
 
at Steubenvilkj Okia. 
 
 171 
 
 to get within speaking distance of Amos E. Kimberly. I made 
 use of no force other than I would use in any dense crowd. I 
 intended to use so much force as to get through the crowd 
 peaceably if I could, and not without. Did you not advance 
 with a determination to get to the table by force? No, I did 
 not. What do you mean by force then? I meant to use so 
 much force as to take me up peaceably to the table. But sup- 
 pose that men were knowingly and designedly opposing your 
 advance? It was not my intention, I say, to force my way. 
 What were you doing at the time they were pulling your coat? 
 When somebody liked to have pulled me down, I reached 
 over toward the table to keep from being pulled down. I did 
 not take hold of the table till my coat was seized. I had hold 
 of the banister with one hand. 
 
 How did you make your way through this thick crowd? I 
 opened the way with my hands, as I would in going to my seat 
 in the meeting house. I do not know that I pushed any aside; 
 but it would bother John C. Wright himself to remember all 
 the minutiae. Do you belong to the same Monthly Meeting with 
 
 D , and do you not know that he was under dealing? I may 
 
 have heard that he was under dealing; it was possible, but I can- 
 not tell. That was not the reason given for keeping him out of 
 the house. I did not inquire of the guards who obstructed 
 
 him. I went in to make Avay for the old man . I told 
 
 them to make way, and let him in. I had no partiality for one 
 man more than another; for when in the gallery, Thomas 
 Shillitoe came along, and as I pushed back, and said let the 
 old man come, he looked up and told me not to give way a jot, 
 and I told him I would not till orthodoxy was put down. Why 
 did you go out of the meeting so soon after you first entered? 
 I went out because I thought the women might be treated in 
 the same way that I saw some of the men treated. 
 
 I saw them opposing doctor Isaac Lamborn, a member of 
 Baltimore Yearly Meeting. I saw several have hold of him. 
 I never attended a Yearly Meeting before, where there were 
 guards at the doors; the object of guards, as I have considered 
 it, is to persuade persons who are not members, not to intrude. 
 And if you had been appointed a guard, you would not have 
 performed your duty? I would not stand guard to a meeting 
 house. Not even if you had been appointed? No. Did you 
 know of any persons Ijcing kept out, unless they had been dis 
 owned? Doctor Isaac Lamborn was opposed because he be 
 longed to Baltimore Yearly Meeting; that was the only reason 
 I heard offered. He told me himself, that he was a member 
 of that meeting. I do not know that I can mention any other 
 who was kept out, except John Cleaver. But Cleaver and 
 D , did enter the house? I believe they did. 
 
 Did you use any threats to the guards, to induce them to 
 
172 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 give way? I do not know that I did. Did you not use threats 
 to the guards at the women's door? I said that the women 
 must go in — I merely put out my hands, and said, these women 
 must go in, for they have a good right in: there were perhaps 
 four or six, standing as guards at the women's door; they ad- 
 mitted some, and rejected others. I never knew a woman's 
 guard before; nor a man's guard at the women's door. I have 
 seen individuals stationed near the door, and if any persons of- 
 fered to go in, who had not a right, they would go to them, 
 and persuade them otherwise. Was not the meeting on Second- 
 day a meeting for discipline? Yes. 
 
 Caleb Kirk affirmed. — Witness stated, that he was at the 
 Yearly Meeting on the day of the commencement of business. 
 He made an estimate of the men remaining after the orthodox 
 withdrew, and he thought there were about six hundred. 
 
 Cross-examination. — It was after the body of the orthodox went 
 away. I knew of but one remaining of that party. I knew of 
 none present, who were not members. I was not disowned, 
 but was under dealing. I think I had a right to be there, when 
 it was undertaken to deal with me only under a spurious dis- 
 cipline. I was not under dealing, according to the established 
 discipline, and I think I had a right to be there. 
 
 Did you ever know a case, in which a man would have a 
 right to force his way, contrary to discipline? I don't know 
 that I have. I made my objection to the meeting, and they 
 said they were acting according to discipline, but some part 
 of the meeting thought otherwise. The decision of the ortho- 
 dox party was to proceed against me. Was there a division? 
 There was no division, only in sentiment. Did you not hear 
 the minute read.-" I was not there when the decision was made. 
 Does not the discipline state, that members under dealing are 
 not to be admitted to a seat? Yes, but they ought not to be 
 under dealing without a violation of discipline. After this 
 time, and when you made your statement, did you receive a 
 testimony of disownment? Last week I did. The complaint 
 was perhaps two months ago. The trial did not take place 
 till since the Yearly Meeting. I was informed of my right to 
 appeal, but have not yet appealed. 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Tappan. — Were you served with a testi- 
 mony of disownment.'' Yes. Witness produced the testimony, 
 but it was not read. The Monthly Meeting to which I be- 
 long, is now divided into two Monthly Meetings. 
 
 Cross-examination. — I belong to Smithfield. Have they not 
 set up a new Monthly Meeting there.'' Yes. When was their 
 first meeting held? Yesterday. I cannot tell what number 
 constituted the Monthly Meeting before the division, nor how 
 many were there yesterday. How many do you suppose were 
 there yesterday? I presume not more than a dozen males, and 
 
ut Sieubenville, Ohio. 
 
 173 
 
 about as many females. How many do you think there were 
 in the Monthly Meeting before the division — were there sixty 
 or seventy families? Thei-e may have been sixty, within the 
 limits of the Monthly Meeting before the division. 
 
 William Dilworth recalled. — Witness stated that he heard a 
 person cry out, huzza for Jackson. It was a black man, by the 
 name of Thomas Nelson. He went away with the orthodox. 
 I believe he is a Jackson man; he was when he lived with me. 
 He was in the gallery at the time, directly behind me. Was 
 there a rush out of the house previous to Dr. Judkins giving 
 the alarm that the galleries were falling ? I think there was 
 not. 
 
 Israel French affirmed. — Did you attend the last Yearly Meet- 
 ing at Mount Pleasant? I did. Are you a member of the 
 society of Friends? I am a member. You made a proposi- 
 tion in relation to displacing the old clerk; was the meeting 
 quiet at. that time? I thought so; as much so as at any other 
 time. What was that proposition? I will give the words as 
 nearly as I can. I stated that a painful duty devolved on me, 
 to object to the clerks at the table; that their conduct since 
 last year had been such, as in my opinion had disqualified 
 them for serving the meeting acceptably. Did you say clerk 
 or clerks? I said clerks. How was it received by the meet- 
 ing? It appeared to be approved by a large number of voices. 
 Is it usual for any proposition to be more united in than that 
 was? I think not. Much inquiry has been had here as to 
 concert and agreement — was there an understanding that this 
 proposition should be made? No — I am free to say that I 
 knew of no concert. It was made from my own sense of duty. 
 
 Cross-examination. — Did you state that the clerks were dis- 
 qualified to serve the meeting acceptably, or even to open it ? 
 My objections were divers: I considered that Jonathan Taylor 
 had attached himself to a party in the society, which appeared 
 to me to be a small minority in the United States ; and that 
 party had put a course of measures into operation to ex- 
 clude a majority from membership; and he was active in 
 those measures. I felt aggrieved at it, and also with his con- 
 duct the day previous, of which I had been informed. I was 
 not present, but I had it from such evidence as I could be- 
 lieve. I considered Amos Peaslee a regular and approved 
 minister of the society of Friends; and I considered that our 
 discipline had been violated by Jonathan Taylor, in opposing 
 Amos Peaslee. 
 
 I belong to the same Monthly and Prepartive Meeting to 
 which he belongs: and as to that transaction, there had not 
 been time, as in some other cases, to speak to him on the sub- 
 ject. I had previously had couversations with him, and had 
 written to him, endeavouring to persuade him to keep out of 
 21 
 
J74 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 party spirit. I do not wish to belong; to any party. My 
 testimony has been against party spirit. My sentiments are 
 in arxorclance with those that are termed the other party. 
 Had you no conversation with any body in relation to mak- 
 ing that proposition? I believe I had not. I do not recol- 
 lect that a proposition had ever been made that the clerk 
 should be objected to. It is difficult to recollect all the con- 
 versations that have passed. I have talked with many of my 
 neighbours on the subject, and we thought that members in 
 office should serve the meeting. For a considerable time 
 previous, we had exchanged sentiments, but I cannot iden- 
 tify any particular time. Had you not had a conversation 
 with Halliday Jackson and Amos Peaslee on the subject? I 
 think not. Were they not at the school house? I believe 
 they were, but nothing was talked there about removing the 
 clerk. It was generally believed ai the time, that there would 
 be a separation, but we could not tell in what way. The 
 movements of the orthodox Friends had been so mysterious, 
 that we could not tell what course to take. We could not 
 come to any conclusion how to act. It was talked of, that it 
 might be necessary to appoint a new clerk. If we were kept 
 out, we calculated to try to hold a meeting in the yard, or 
 somewhere else. It was mentioned in this way: as the Quar- 
 ters had all become divided, except Redstone, it would be 
 proper, if a clerk should be necessary, to take him from the 
 undivided Quarter ; and David Hilles was thought of as a 
 proper person. His name was mentioned, and I think some 
 others. We thought that Quarter was more upon the ground 
 of Friends' principles than where party spirit had run higher. 
 We thought that Friends there were not so much in party 
 spirit as in some other places. Was it not spoken of as a 
 matter that would happen? We were in hopes that a recon- 
 ciliation might take place among Friends. Did you advance 
 with Hilles to the table? I did not. Was not the succession 
 of voices, and the manner of uniting, unusual? They were in 
 rather more rapid succession than usual; but I think I have 
 heard them as much so on some occasions. It is generally so 
 on occasions where there is much excitement; I have heard 
 as many, but it is not usual in the society in times of peace 
 and quiet. We have not hud such turbulent times till within 
 a few years past. Was there time for the meeting to pause 
 and reflect? At first it appeared to be in a rapid way, as has 
 been mentioned; and when this subsided, there were a number 
 of voices, one by one, till it rather died away; and then the 
 proposition for David Hilles to be clerk was made. That was 
 united in; but before the voices were fairly uttered, and at the 
 time when the expression of sentiment appeared to be in fa- 
 vour of David Hilles, I think one person in the gallery ob- 
 served, we have a clerk; and another said, go on, and open the 
 
(U Steubenvillcy Ofiio. 
 
 175 
 
 meeling. At this juncture I think it was that the clerk rose 
 to go on, g-iving- no time for a decision of the question. He 
 went on to open the nrieeting, over the heads of those who had 
 united. 
 
 It is fixed on my mind, that it was after David Hilles was 
 named and united in, by this union of voices, that Taylor pro- 
 ceeded to open the meeting. Did any of the orthodox unite 
 in these propositions? I could not tell, in looking over so 
 large a meeting, many of whom were strangers; but I did not 
 get the idea that any of the orthodox party united. When 
 Hilles was nominated, I think all that I heard in opposition, 
 was one voice, saying, we have a clerk; and another one, or 
 two, said, go on with the business. 
 
 What were the objections to Amos E. Kimberly? They 
 were pretty much of the same character as those against Tay- 
 lor. I attended a meeting where he was, at which meeting 
 Elisha Dawson and Amos Peaslee also attended. He got up 
 at the close of the meeting, and said the meeting had been 
 imposed on, and intruded on, by those from another society. 
 He said he had no unity with them, nor with their preaching: 
 whilst I believed it to be the gospel, and that they were in 
 unity with our society. They are Hicksites I suppose? I do 
 not know that they acknowledge themselves Hicksites. One 
 thing I know, that they have been shut out of meeting houses 
 by the orthodox. I do not think they are opposed to any body: 
 but are disposed to spread the power of the gospel among 
 mankind. I heard one of them say, that he liked a good or- 
 thodox, better than a bad Hicksite. They had attended what 
 has been called the Hicksite meeting in Philadelphia; and 
 that is all the charge I have heard brought against them. I 
 know that the orthodox oppose them. Are they received and 
 understood by the Hicksite party to oppose the orthodox, and 
 to agree with the Hicksites? They are willing to go to every 
 part of the society, and they do go where they are received. 
 I do not know of their opposing the orthodox party. I be- 
 lieve they defend what they think to be the principles of the 
 society: and I received them as gospel ministers. I received 
 them as uniting with those with whom I have been associated 
 since the unhappy difference. They are received I)y us as be- 
 longing to the society of Friends: and 1 have never known them 
 to be objected to by any on our side. They both told me, 
 that for a long time, they had been claimed by both sides, till 
 they attended the Yearly Meeting in Philadelphia. There 
 might have been objections before; but that was the first com- 
 plaint against them. Are they not received by the Ilick'-.itc 
 party, as if thry Mere of that party? 1 suppose they arc. I 
 know nothing to the contrary; and \vc are willing to have 
 them 
 
176 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Tappan. — At the time Hicks and Peaslec 
 came to this country, had it been determined in the Yearly 
 Meeting of Ohio, which Yearly Meeting in Philadelphia they 
 would recognise? Not that I know of. Could there be an 
 attempt made to bring a meeting to order but by stopping 
 them? I know of no other way. It is my impression, that 
 the clerk went on before the close of the uniting in the ap- 
 pointment of David Hilles. 
 
 Elisha Bates called again. Question by Mr. Tappan. — How 
 long have you been acquainted with Israel French? [This 
 question was objected to by counsel for the prosecution, as 
 being irrelevant.] 
 
 The Judge said that the character of French had not been 
 impeached, and until it was attacked, it was improper to in- 
 troduce evidence in favour of it. 
 
 Mr. Tappan said he asked the question, because, in the ex- 
 amination of Benjamin W. Ladd, in answer to an interroga- 
 tion, whether one question was not usually settled before 
 another was taken up in the meeting, he said it was, if the 
 proposition was made by a member of any weight: and the 
 object of this question was, to show that French was a man of 
 high standing in the society. But if this be admitted, it is suf- 
 ficient. 
 
 Mr. Goodnow said, they had not endeavoured to impeach 
 the standing of Mr. French, as a member of the society, or a 
 gentleman of veracity. He therefore thought there were no 
 grounds for this inquiry. If it were made in relation to 
 French, it might be important as to every other member of 
 the society who had taken a part in this affair. His honour 
 would see that it would open a wide door: and Mr. G. thought 
 it incorrect. If correct, he should not object, because he did 
 not think it important. 
 
 The question was waived. 
 
 Elisha Bates, in continuation. — Mr. Tappan exhibited to the 
 witness the printed minutes of the Ohio Yearly Meeting. 
 Witness stated that the minutes had been printed for a num- 
 ber of years past, but not always upon the same plan. They 
 had been sometimes published at large, and sometimes 
 abri<lged. 
 
 Mr. Tappan. — We want to know if these are the minutes, 
 as they purport to be, of Ohio Yearly Meeting: is that your 
 type, and was this printed at your office? I believe it was 
 printed at my office. Was there not a meeting previous 
 to First-day, by that part of the members of the society of 
 Friends with whom you act, and whom we call orthodox? Was 
 there not a conference upon the subject of the ensuing Yearly 
 Meeting ? Not that I know of, except the conference of the 
 general committee of committees from the Yearly Meetings. 
 That was held on Fiflh-day. I was there a short time, but do 
 
at Steubenville^ Ohio. 
 
 177 
 
 not know what was determined at that meeting. The objects 
 of this general committee were not defined. It was called in 
 consequence of an invitation from our Yearly Meeting to all 
 the Yearly Meetings in the world, Indiana, Carolina, New- 
 England, &c. appointed committees. The Yearly Meeting in 
 Ireland, entered into the measure, but did not send delegates. 
 There was nothing said about excluding Hicksites, in that or 
 any other meeting that I ever attended. I say clearly and de- 
 cidedly there never was. Did all those strangers belonging to 
 the orthodox attend on Second-day? I presume most of them 
 did. They withdrew with us from the meeting. It is my im- 
 pression, though I am not positive, that they all withdrew, 
 and that they continued to attend with us. 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Wright, — Are you positive as to the time 
 when Jonathan Taylor began to read? I am not very positive. 
 I think he read the opening minute after Israel French made 
 the proposition. I think, but am not positive, that it was be- 
 fore David Hilles was named. Did you see Dr. Carroll and 
 Jonathan Pierce advancing? I don't think I did. I saw Car- 
 roll, after the pressure had been made, standing upon one of 
 the raised seats in the lower part of the ministers' gallery. 
 As to filling the ministers' gallery, did any thing unusual 
 take place? There was nothing unusual. At the time when 
 the Indian committee rose, and the doors were opened for the 
 admission of the members generally, I think the representa- 
 tives, and the committee on Indian concerns, and the mem- 
 bers of the general committee from the different Yearly Meet- 
 ings, and some ministers, were there, with their companions 
 attending. I think the number of men was about a hundred; 
 and they took such seats as it is usual for such persons to 
 occupy. Have you stated the number of persons that remain- 
 ed after the separation took place? I did state, that, from the 
 best observation that I could make, those in the meeting on 
 Third-day, when I made a demand for the house, were about 
 one-fourth of the whole, or one to three of the meeting held in 
 the yard. 
 
 Questioned by Mr, Tappan. — Were there any person* in the 
 yard who were not members? I did not know of any, except 
 when I went to go into the house, some came rather out of 
 the door into the yard. I know of no others that were in the 
 yard. The committee on Indian affairs were in the house, 
 were they? Yes; and the representatives and door-keepers 
 were in the other apartment; and when the committee arose, 
 a message was sent about the same time, that the committee 
 had concluded to rise and open the doors, requested that the 
 doors might be opened. The representatives were in the 
 house, sitting with closed shutters, and as soon as tlicy knew 
 that the committee had adjourned, they came in and took 
 
178 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 their seats. Do you not know that it had been determined to 
 exclude certain members of the society? I believe I was not 
 with the committee of door-keepers; but I know it isa senti- 
 ment that has long prevailed, that those who are disowned, 
 or in any way under dealing, have no right to be admitted. 
 If they had been disowned on any ground, it was your opinion, 
 that they should be excluded from admittance? Not from 
 the mere matter of disownment. 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Wright. — Witness never saw a Yearly 
 Meeting at that place without the steps being crowded, and 
 some old men, being hard of hearing, were in the practice of 
 taking their seats on the steps. He had seen persons take their 
 seats on the steps a considerable time before meeting opened. 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Hubbard. — Is it customary to fill the galle- 
 ries and high seats, as in this instance? Did you ever before 
 know persons to get seated, as in this instance? There were 
 a large number from other Yearly Meetings, who took their 
 seats; perhaps something like thirty men; the high scats were 
 not exclusively occupied by orthodox. I saw Israel Updegraff 
 there, and T think I saw him endeavour to push a Friend off 
 the steps in the early part of the contest. 
 
 David Steer recalled by the prosecutors. — Witness stated, that 
 he did not refuse John Smith admission into the house, nor 
 did he recollect seeing him that day. He was positive that 
 he did not stop him. 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Tappan. — Did you not attempt to stop 
 him, or did you not put your hands across the door? I did 
 not see him that day. I allude to John Smith, of Flushing 
 Monthly, and Short Creek Quarterly Meeting. 
 
 Dr. William Judkins affirmed, for the prosecution.- — Were you 
 at the Yearly Meeting? I was. We wish to know if you rais- 
 ed the alarm that the galleries were falling? I did not raise 
 any alarm, to my recollection. I had no idea connected with 
 the falling of the galleries; for I was in a situation, where it 
 was impossible to see the galleries, or the railing around 
 them; and my attention was so taken up, that I had not the 
 most distant idea of such a thing. It had not come into my 
 imagination, till I heard the alarm above: but, after I heard 
 it, and the crowd was rushing down, I might have mention- 
 ed it. Do you recollect seeing William Dilworth on the 
 stairs, at the time of the alarm? I was knocked out of the 
 window from the stair steps, in a minute's time after the 
 alarm was given. I heard a board crack, or something of the 
 kind, and some one called out, the galleries are falling, and in 
 a moment, the crowd was coming down upon us, and carried 
 nie out of the window. I was standing on the steps, and had 
 been most of the time previous to the alarm. 
 
 Cross-examination. — Did you not say that the railing was 
 
at Steubenville^ Ohio. 
 
 \79 
 
 sprung? T went to the place, on the day before yesterday, and 
 I find, from the position whicli I had occupied,! could have 
 seen neither the galleries, nor the railing; it might have been 
 mentioned, as they were rushing down upon me — it is possi- 
 ble I might have said, the galleries are falling. When the 
 crack was heard, the alarm was instantaneous. If there had 
 been no voice connected with the crack, I should not have 
 taken it for any thing serious. I was pushed out instantly, 
 and had my hand cut with the glass of the window. Did you 
 jump out? I did not jump; I think I was pushed out, by the 
 crowd coming down. Did you light upon your feet? I had a 
 cloak on, and as I was going down, some of the crowd step- 
 ped upon it, so that it was drawn nearly off, before it gave way, 
 and when it slipped, I came down, cloak and all together. 
 
 James Heald affirmed. — I was at the Yearly Meeting, and 
 was placed in the station of guard, by the trustees of the pro- 
 perty of the Yearly Meeting. I do not know that they gave 
 me any special direction. My business was to take care of 
 the house, and see that it was not injured. 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Tappan. — Did you stay in the house all 
 night previous to Second-day morning? I did, with a little 
 exception, Avhile I took supper. How many were with you? I 
 think there were twelve or fourteen, perhaps sixteen. What 
 was the object? was it to keep the Hicksites from breaking in, 
 and taking forcible possession? Yes. You meant to keep pos- 
 session for the orthodox? We meant to keep possession for 
 the society of Friends. Then you call the orthodox, the so- 
 ciety of Friends? (Here, the witness appearing to hesitate, Mr. 
 Wright told him to say. Yes or No, and the witness answered. 
 No.) Do you consider the orthodox, as the society, or not? 
 Not exclusively. I include all that are not regularly disown- 
 ed or on the minutes of the meeting, according to discipline. 
 How did you know who were on the minutes of other meet- 
 ings than your own? I did not know, I did not expect to ex- 
 clude those that I did not know. Whom were you ordered to 
 exclude? Such as I have mentioned, such as were disowned, 
 or under dealing, and such as never had a right in the meet- 
 ing. Had you a list of all these ? I had a list from our Month- 
 ly Meeting, but not from the other meetings. 
 
 You made proclamation in the meeting, that you were the 
 owner of the house ? I do not recollect making a proclama- 
 tion, that I owned the house. Who were the trustees, or 
 men, who put you in charge of the house? Jonathan Taylor 
 and James Kinsey. Did you exclude James Tolerton, or pre- 
 vent his entering the house? I did not stand at the door my- 
 self; being put in possession of the property, I left the door. 
 Did you order James Tolerton out? I do not recollect saying 
 any thing to him. Did you stay, through the whole sitting of 
 
180 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 the Yearly Meeting? Yes, I stuck by it. Did you ever know 
 a meeting house garrisoned on any former occasion ? No. 
 Did you stay there all night, during the sitting of the Yearly 
 Meeting? No, I did not, after First-day night. What instruc- 
 tion did the trustees give you ? I have answered that before— 
 they gave me no instruction. 
 
 Jonathan Taylor recalled. Questioned by Mr. Wright. — Can 
 you tell who it was that opened the door in the gallery? I am 
 pretty positive it was Jacob Richards. When Isaac James 
 was getting over the railing-, into the ministers' gallery, Ben- 
 jamin W. Ladd may have pushed him a little, but I do not 
 think it was very forcibly. If he had attempted to force him 
 down, I think I should have seen it. As well as I can recol- 
 lect, after the short pause which has been mentioned, I began 
 to prepare my papers, and while in that act, Israel French 
 made a proposition, and I believe, whilst they were speaking 
 on that subject, 1 proceeded to read the opening minute. I 
 think it was before Hilles was named that I read the opening 
 minute, and went on to call the representatives ; but perhaps, 
 before I was through calling the representatives, they went on 
 with that proposition. 
 
 Was there any request or proposition for you to surrender, 
 to give up the papers, or for the meeting to come to order? 
 I believe I should not have withdrawn from the table, if Israel 
 French or any of those people had requested me to go from 
 it. If the meeting had taken up the subject, and decided it 
 was proper for me to leave the table, I should have done it. 
 Are you one of the grantees of the Yearly Meeting property? 
 I am. 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Hubbard. — I know that I commenced 
 reading the opening minute before 1 heard the sound of Hilles* 
 name. There was a conference, or committee from the dif- 
 ferent Yearly Meetings on this continent. There were two or 
 three meetings of that committee at Mount Pleasant Yearly 
 Meeting house. There was no understanding, other than has 
 been stated to this court with regard to those persons who 
 were disowned, or under dealing — that it would be proper 
 they should be kept out. At what meeting was it resolved to 
 garrison the meeting house over night ? It was at no meeting, 
 further than a few individuals, who thought it would be best. 
 ! believe I was one, and Elisha Bates another. Was Benja- 
 min W. Ladd one? I can't tell, but I expect he was in unity 
 with it. From previous conduct, we supposed the house 
 would be broken open. Have you any knowledge of the 
 Hicksites ever attempting to bar others out? I do not know 
 that I have ever seen or heard any thing of the kind. Has it 
 not been the case on the other side? I never knew an instance 
 where members of the society have been excluded, unless they 
 
at Steubenvitle, Ohio. 181 
 
 were disowned, or under dealing. Where this division ex- 
 tends through the Quarterly and Monthly Meetings, so that 
 they have separate meetings, are not those who do not meet 
 with the orthodox, pretty generally excluded? I believe not, 
 except they have been disowned by their own meetings. 
 
 At the time the meeting house was garrisoned, it was not 
 expected there would be an attack? It was strongly suspected. 
 Although you had never known an instance of attack? Yes. 
 Was it not in order to have possession, and to keep out the 
 other party? That was not my understanding. 
 
 Court adjourned till 2 o'clock. 
 
 Tuesday, October 21s/, 2 o'clock, P. M. 
 
 The examination of Jonathan Taylor continued by defendants' 
 counsel. Witness is positive, that it was Jacob Richards who 
 opened the door. He saw nobody else put a hand there, 
 but him. He was near by, and with his back to the door. 
 Richards came over his left side. Is not positive that some 
 other might not have taken hold of it. Cannot be pasitive 
 whether it was before or after the alarm. Witness Avas alarmed 
 for the moment, but it was soon over. He was not out of the 
 house, to see how many there were outside. The alarm ap- 
 peared to be pretty general. Did you not know that the kneel- 
 ing board was broken or cracked? No, I did not — I took it to 
 be a board nailed to the back of the second seat. Witness did 
 not recollect hearing any thing of the kind in the gallery. He 
 believes the discipline provides that members shall not sue one 
 another, and go to law. He thinks David Hilles was a regu- 
 lar member of the society, at the time this suit was brought. 
 Do you know whether this suit is carried on at the expense of 
 the witnesses? I know nothing about any regulation in relation 
 to the costs. Did the representatives from all the Quarters an- 
 swer to your call? Yes, from all the Quarters. 1 think there 
 were five from Redstone. 
 
 Benjamin W. Ladd recalled by counsel for the prosecution.—' 
 The Judge wished to know what was to be proved by this 
 witness. 
 
 Mr. Wright said, the object was to show from the records of 
 the meeting, that the representatives called by Taylor were 
 the proper delegates from their respective Quarters, as ap- 
 peared by the reports from the Quarters, which had been 
 adopted by the meeting. 
 
 The Judge did not think it necessary to go into testimony 
 upon the subject. It had never been disputed, that all the re- 
 presentatives who appeared, were representatives from those 
 who sent them. 
 
 Witness proceeds. — Isaac James clambered over the bench 
 rails, and came up near to me. He was the first person who 
 23 
 
182 
 
 7 Via/ nf Friends 
 
 t^ot into tlu' ministers' q^alleiy. The proposition was made to 
 adjourn, and was united wiili, by a number of persons, not 
 confining it to the representatives. Then, there was a distinct 
 proposition made, to call over the representatives, to see 
 whether they united or not, after it had been agreed to by a 
 number of voices. I am not clerk of the Meeting for Sufferings, 
 but a member of it. I was one of the committee to visit all the 
 Quarterly Meetings. It had been represented to the Meeting 
 for Sufferings that some opposition had been made to advice 
 from the Meeting for Sufferings, embracing a part of the Indi- 
 ana epistle, and more particularly to the preface. It was not 
 considered by the Meeting for Sufferings, as discipline, but ad- 
 vice, as it was represented to be. I stated in my evidence, that 
 when Isaac Jam^s came to the last raised seat, and got part of 
 his breast over, that I did there meet him, and oppose his 
 coming over, but after ho came over, if I put my hands on him, 
 I must have lost my senses — I do not believe that I put my 
 hands on him after he came into the gallery. 
 
 According to the settled order of the society, Isaac James 
 had no right to come into the meeting, and much less into the 
 ministers' gallery, being neither a minister nor elder, and being 
 a disowned person. I should suppose, that the constitution 
 and discipline governing the Meeting for Sufferings, would 
 give them power for the appointment of committees to visit the 
 Quarters. Here the witness referred to llie 46th and 47th pages 
 of the discipline, and said he could state, in addition to the 
 rules of discipline he referred to, that there were others, which 
 seemed to give a general power to represent the meeting in 
 general, during the recess of the Yearly Meeting; and on a for- 
 mer occasion, committees had been appointed to visit Quarterly 
 Meetings, and it had been approved by the Yearly Meeting. 
 This appointment was some years ago, and the objects of the 
 appointment arc stated in the minutes of the Yearly Meeting. 
 I attended as a member of the committee, after the testimony 
 of advice had been sent down, and we heard there was a dis- 
 position not to comply with the advice issued by the Meeting 
 for Sufferings. 
 
 Mr. Hubbard proceeded to explain as follows: — We suppose 
 that when we come to examine the book of discipline, wc shall 
 find by the whole construction of the Friends' society over the 
 whole world, it has been a fundamental principle, that there 
 should be existing a unity of religious feeling in all its parts, 
 and in all tha various connexions, from the Monthly up to the 
 Yearly Meeting. And such a unity and connexion existed at 
 the time of the Yearly Meeting in 1827; embracing all those 
 members who have been lately turned out, and who have be- 
 come a separate party. In the year 1827, the Yearly Meeting 
 of Ohio received an epistle from the Yearly Meeting of New 
 
at Sleulietivillc, Ohio. 
 
 183 
 
 York, at which time these Yearly Meetings were altogether 
 undivided, and this perfect unity still existed. 
 
 But after that, owing to some conduct in another part of the 
 United States, the Meeting for Sufferings belonging to Ohio 
 Yearly Meeting, with more zeal than discretion, adopted an 
 epistle, issued by another Yearly Meeting, which goes to de- 
 stroy the unity existing between this Yearly Meeting and the 
 Yearly Meeting of New York. And what is worse, this same 
 advice is in direct contravention to principles contained in the 
 book of discipline; and being sent round to the Monthly and 
 Quarterly Meetings, where they would not agree to it, it has 
 been the means, in every instance, of destroying that unity 
 which had previously existed among the members of this so- 
 Qiety, and which is known to have continued till 1827. And 
 many have been thrown overboard, which has produced the 
 division now existing in the society. 
 
 Tlie examination continued. — Can you state how many minis- 
 ters and elders attended the select meeting on Sevenlh-day? 
 About one hundred. Do you not know that others, who did 
 not believe with you, were barred out? None, that had a right 
 to attend, were hindered. Was there no hinderanco? None, 
 of any kind whatever. I believe that some of the eighteen who 
 staid out had a perfect right to go in, but there were some 
 who had lost their stations, by the laying down of meetings to 
 which they belonged. 
 
 Questioned by Mr. Wright. — Are you a member of Smithfield 
 Monthly Meeting? I am. How many members are there be- 
 longing to that Moiilhly Meeting? 1 think between eighty 
 and ninety families. How many families seceded ? I do not 
 know an individual family in Cross Creek Preparative Meet- 
 ing, but in Smithfield there may be between ten and twenty. 
 
 James M''Bride affirmed. — Witness was at the Yearly Meet- 
 ing on Second-day. Was there any opposition to John Clea- 
 ver's going into the meeting? There was no opposition made 
 to those who had a right; but some would not go in, unless 
 others could go also, who were in their company. Jonathan 
 Peirce and some others came up in a body, about the lime 
 that Cleaver was at the door, and forced us all out of the door. 
 Among those who came up, M'as Thomas While. He had a 
 large cane or slick, which he held up in an erect position, 
 when he was coming to the door; I think he did not carry it 
 into the house, when he went in. 
 
 Cross-examination. — I think Cleaver was inquired of, whether 
 he had a right, and it was said that he had a right, and wc 
 opened the way; but there were some persons inside, who 
 attempted to shut the door. How did you know who had a 
 right? By those from their own Quarterly Meetings. They 
 were not stopped, except one man I put my hand on him, to 
 ask him if he had a right. The doors were closed, or at- 
 
184 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 tempted to be closed — can you tell the object? I catihot. 1 
 do not know that they were barred. Did you not leave guard- 
 ing the door, to help about the table ? I went to the steps — I 
 had not been sitting, during the meeting. And you went there 
 to sit down? I do not know that I went there to sit down; but 
 I went near, because I had a desire to see what was doing. 
 You went out of curiosity? I cannot say that it was curiosity, 
 but I wished to see the movements. Did you strip off your 
 coat, and prepare for battle? I did not. 
 
 William S. Bales affirmed. — I was not far from William B. 
 Irish. I heard him nominate David Hilles for clerk, and in a 
 short time afterwards, I heard some one unite with the pro- 
 position. I turned and asked who it was, and was told that 
 it was William B. Irish. Do you say that you sav/ him when 
 he united, or did you judge only by the sound of his voice, 
 that he united more than once? I heard him make the nomi- 
 nation, and thought by the sound of the voice, it was the same 
 one, and was told that he was the one. 
 
 Nathan Wood affirmed. — Were you at the Yearly Meeting on 
 Second-day morning? I was not in, early, but went in when 
 there appeared to b« a little pause. Witness saw Joshua Cope 
 unite with some proposition three times; but did not know 
 what it was. He also saw another man unite three times — it 
 was Daniel Burt. He was looking at one, he did it three 
 times; and then another came and inquired what it was, and 
 united with it. Witness supposed it was uniting in a clerk; 
 but did not himself unite, not knowing positively what propo- 
 sition was before the meeting. 
 
 Elisha Bates again called. — Have you the cai-c of the Yearly 
 Meetinghouse? I had, previous to the Yearly Meeting. I 
 was present when the trustees agreed to put James Heald in 
 possession. I know the house had been frequently broken 
 open previous to the Yearly Meeting. Bolts had been broken, 
 and one of the shutters had been repeatedly broken open. I 
 know that a few weeks previous to the Yearly Meeting, I went 
 into the meeting house pretty late in the evening, and I saw 
 two persons come up to the meeting house; they shook the 
 doors, and inquired of me if any additional fastenings had 
 been put to the house — these were the reasons for supposing 
 that they would attempt to break it open. 
 
 Cross-examma/ion.— There are five trustees; three agreed to 
 it, one is beyond the limits of the Yearly Meeting, and the 
 other is paralytic and disabled. Do you know Daniel Burt? 
 I do. Is he a member of the society? I have never heard of 
 his being disowned. 
 
 Mr. Wright read in evidence part of the deed of trust. 
 
 John Smith affirmed. — Were you at the Yearly Meeting? 
 Yes, Was it attempted to prevent your entering the house? 
 
at Sieubenville, Ohio. 
 
 18S 
 
 It was. I was prevented by three persons. David Steer was 
 one of them. He reached forward and catched me by the 
 shoulder, and said, "thou hast no right here." What was 
 your reply to him ? I had no time to reply, before I was shoved 
 in. I do not know whether Amos Peaslee was there, or not. 
 I think Elisha Dawson was there. The principal opposition 
 was from David Steer. Do you know Daniel Burt ? I do. Is 
 he an orthodox member ? I am told that he is. 
 
 John Hoyle affirmed, — According to the witness just up, he 
 must have come to the door, when Peaslee and Dawson came 
 up. Thomas Shillitoe was in supplication. Here witness 
 described the circumstances of a rush into the house at the 
 time Peaslee and others were shoved in. He explained his own 
 position at that time, and the manner in which his hat was 
 squeezed over his face, by Peaslee's passing partly over him. 
 The rush was half-way across the house in a minute; but, said 
 the witness, there was no such talk as has been just mentioned 
 by the last person up, not a word. Witness did not stop Joseph 
 Hoyle, but saw him at a considerable distance, and wished to 
 tell him not to come in; but he pushed through, and came 
 right in. 
 
 Here the testimony closed. 
 
 Speech of John M. Goodnovt, Esq. 
 
 May it please your honour; It is allotted to me, to open the 
 argument, in this case, on the part of the prosecution; and I 
 presume, in opening this argument, it will not be thought 
 amiss for me to consider the subject somewhat at large. The 
 case is a very novel one, and has become very interesting to 
 the community. It is novel, because those persons concerned, 
 either as witnesses on the part of the state, or on the part of 
 the defendants, and the defendants themselves, have hereto- 
 fore been unused, and almost entire strangers to courts of 
 justice. This circumstance, too, places your honour, as well 
 as the members of the bar who are concerned, in a new 
 attitude, in respect to the matter to be investigated. It is 
 interesting, as it develops, in the course of its proceeding, 
 a division, which, for some time, has been known to exist to 
 a considerable extent, in a society that has for 180 years, near 
 two centuries, existed as an ornament to every community in 
 ■which it has been located; a society that has been dislinguislied 
 not only for purity of principles, but as universally for the 
 rectitude of their lives; living and governing themselves 
 almost exclusively without resort to the civil tribunals of the 
 country, settling, in a most amicable manner, according to the 
 rules of their great leader, or Saviour, whom they endeavour 
 to follow in precept and discipline, all disputes which may 
 have arisen in the society; so much so, that it had become a 
 
186 
 
 Trial of Friendi- 
 
 standing, and invariable rule, in all their society, that to go to 
 law for injuries done to each other with regard to temporal 
 concerns, was sufficient cause for exclusion from the society. 
 
 The parties, and when I speak of parties, the gentlemen 
 will understand me, (and I ought here to remark, peradven- 
 ture I may be misunderstood, except I caution my brethren 
 against receiving, and the court also, any thing other than 
 is intended; for it is evident, and I shall not deny it, that 
 this society is divided into two parties:) I say then, as to 
 these parties, whether they be witnesses for or against the 
 prosecution, or spectators barely, they are highly respectable; 
 and although their testimony may be considered as conflict- 
 ing, in some instances, I venture to say, it is almost entirely 
 upon matters of opinion, or with regard to the discipline of 
 which they speak, and their views upon the subject, and not 
 in matters of fact. So far it is a pleasant reflection to the 
 court, and all concerned. There is, and will be found, dis- 
 crepancy as to time, and exaggeration, in some instances, as 
 to facts themselves: but of the main and important transac- 
 tions testified to, there is nothing to lessen the credit of any 
 of the witnesses. 
 
 I say, then, this society, and all concerned, are highly re- 
 spectable ; and the names which are necessary for us, in 
 this investigation, orthodox and Hicksite, are used barely as 
 names of distinction, and are to be taken with no disrespect 
 to either of the parties. I feel it my duty here to remark, 
 with regard to myself, that although I have heretofore had 
 some little discussions with some of the Friends, it was upon 
 one tenet, and one tenet alone, of that society, which has no- 
 thing to do in this case. When it has been remarked, that 
 I add nothing to the society, I repel such insinuations witli 
 indignation. I stand here^ on the part of the state, in support 
 of the rights of the society; and I am happy here to say, that 
 I glory in the privilege, both in a religious and political point 
 of view. Were I the umpire, every man should enjoy his opi- 
 nions unmolested, uninjured, free and absolute, beyond all 
 control. I am bound to say, also, in the introduction of this 
 case, and it must be manifest, and 1 wish your honour to con- 
 sider the remark, this suit is not prosecuted from vindic- 
 tive motives; neither for love of wealth, nor love of power. 
 It is prosecuted solely and entirely to establish the position, 
 whether a religious society, having met according to their 
 usual manner of doing business, are subject to a re-organiza- 
 tion, to use the term employed on the other side; whether 
 they are subject to a revolution, by power and force, and that 
 beyond any redress or restoration of their rights. 
 
 I have no doubt, sir, that the party who are called the Hicks- 
 iles, as well as the party called the orthodox, have approached 
 this trial, with pure sentiments, and not with a disposition 
 
at Sieubenville^ Ohio. 
 
 187 
 
 existing in their bosoms to create disturbance, to create revo- 
 lutions and disasters in our community. But it has been 
 known from the earliest ages of our Christian system, and 
 long before, as it respected religious comrnunities, that in the 
 party strifes of religious persons, zeal, frenzy, and heat, are 
 carried to the very highest pitch : and the reason is as appa- 
 rent as any other by which the human mind is operated. The 
 feelings, principles, and devotional considerations of man, to 
 his Maker, are seated in the heart : they come from the warm- 
 est part of the system; and when he feels himself there injured, 
 he feels himself more deeply injured than in any other way. 
 The zeal, therefore, with which either of these parties may 
 have acted, may be a zeal not correctly and judiciously guided. 
 »■ I shall now consider the state of the question: and shall, in 
 
 the course of my investigation of this matter, endeavour to 
 consider it in six points of view, or, rather, under six positions. 
 
 1. The broad consideration, what is the state of the ques- 
 tion before your honour? 
 
 2. In the next place, I shall inquire into the ecclesiastical 
 polity of this society. 
 
 3. In the third place, were they regularly assembled, within 
 the meaning of the statute, for worship, or duties pertaining 
 to them, as members of a religious society? 
 
 4. If so assembled, were they disturbed and molested? 
 
 5. By whom were they disturbed? 
 
 6. Were these defendants engaged in the disturbance? 
 
 I will say now, to prevent misunderstanding, as I shall pass 
 over these different positions, that I may be subject to the 
 reflection, that I have passed over testimoniy that I ought 
 to have mentioned, as a great part of the testimony has no- 
 thing to do with the question now to be decided. I shall, 
 thei-efore, throughout my whole view, do it rather in the 
 general, leaving it for the counsel on the other side to apply 
 the isolated facts, which they shall consider most conducive to 
 their exculpation. I will therefore read without comment, 
 the 8th article, 3d section, Ohio constitution, (22d vol. Ohio 
 statutes, 24.) 
 
 " That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty 
 God according to the dictate of conscience; that no human authority can, 
 in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; 
 that no man shall be compelled to attend, erect, and support any place of 
 worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; and that no pre- 
 ference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious society or mode of 
 worship, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any 
 office of trust or profit." 
 
 In vain have the framers of our constitution placed this 
 provisional limit, in vain do we refer to it, in vain boast of 
 it, except, by the legislative power of the state, provision has 
 
188 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 been made to secure the benefits and rights of conscience 
 to those over whom the government spreads its shield. I 
 consider that the law, under which this act is to be tried, i& 
 framed und^r that section of the constitution. 
 
 "If any person or persons shall at any time interrupt or molest any reli- 
 gious society, or any member thereof, or any persons when meeting' or met 
 together for the purpose of worship, or performing any duties enjoined on,, 
 or appertaining to them, as members of such society, the person op person* 
 so offending, may be arrested on warrant, legally issued, or by the order o£ 
 some civil officer within the county, on view or hearing," &c. — (22 Ohio- 
 Statutes, 196.) 
 
 It may be necessary, for one moment, to inquire who are 
 embraced in this section, as constituting a religious society. 
 Although it may not be necessary to the present question, 
 nevertheless it may be necessary, should a doubt exist, whether 
 this society, under these circumstances, and existing by the 
 polity that it does, comes within the meaning of the section I 
 have quoted. My view of it is, that it was intended not only 
 to protect all and every religious society in their public wor- 
 ship and discipline, but that it was to meet the cases or acts 
 not provided for in our other criminal statutes. We have a 
 statute, immediately preceding this, for the punishment of 
 crimes, and another for the punishment of minor offences. 
 There are divers statutes that seem, at first view, to cover the 
 whole ground of evil, that necessarily exists in our civil state: 
 but those in fact, like the one now before the court, were not 
 embraced by any of our statutes. Our legislature had some 
 object in view when they enacted this law. They thought 
 that cases might possibly arise in the stale, to which the ex- 
 isting laws did not apply. There were laws against assault 
 and battery, riots, maiming, housebreaking, and against every 
 kind of evil that may be committed towards the community, 
 except some certain immoral practices embraced in this sta- 
 tute; and this, it may be remembered, reaches the case of 
 blasphemy; and it reaches divers other cases, such as nine-pin 
 alleys, billiard playing, 8cc. ; — it was meant to meet all those 
 cases which other laws did not meet. And I cannot imagine 
 a case, myself, in which this section could be applied, and 
 correctly applied, if it be not just such a case as happened at 
 Mount Pleasant. When I say this, I do not say that this sta- 
 tute was intended to meet these defendants. But there was a 
 disturbance; there was a religious society met there for dis- 
 cipline: — there was a disturbance, and some person is wrong; 
 some one has committed a crime which this statute intended 
 to embrace and punish. 
 
 To ascertain then, what a religious society is, may be a 
 matter for inquiry. It is, in this case, of vast importance to 
 ascertain what constitutes this religious society. I venture to 
 
at Steubeiii-ille, Obir. 
 
 189 
 
 say, that our inquiry is directed at large — what will consti- 
 tute a society? And how we are to know the rules and regula- 
 tions by which they govern themselves? We have in our 
 community, various denominations of Christians, who have as- 
 sociated themselves together, and established their code of 
 law, and who consider themselves bound as much by that 
 code of law, in the transactions in which they are engaged, 
 as they do by the municipal laws of the laud. It is then of no 
 consequence what the society is called : you may call it by the 
 name society, congregation, church, or what you please, and 
 the very idea implies law and regulation — no matter whether 
 that law be a written or an unwritten code. It may be the 
 more difficult, when unwritten, to ascertain what it is; but if it 
 be ascertained, it is the same, whether written or unwritten. 
 It must be consistent with the laws of the state and the con- 
 stitution. It cannot be binding on individuals, if it be not 
 consistent with the constitution and laws of the state. But 
 their discipline, when conformable to these, is as binding and 
 obligatory as the laws themselves; and when thus constituted, 
 the law does protect them. 
 
 I have presented the constitution, which is the paramount 
 rule and protection. Every person is protected in the rights 
 of conscience, and in the right of worshipping, according to 
 his own mind and pleasure. He never could enjoy that privi- 
 lege unless the laws guaranteed it to him, by protecting him 
 and his associates in any system, no matter what, not incon- 
 sistent with those laws. And when they are formed consist- 
 ently with the statute, it is the duty of the government to 
 protect them, or their right is a nugatory and useless one. It 
 has been supposed by some, — and I was once in a place where 
 I was publicly accused of wishing to blend church and state. 
 Now, it is directly the contrary system which I advocate ; for 
 wherever the rights of conscience are protected ; wherever civil 
 society secures to any number of individuals their free mode 
 of worship, there the state can never blend itself with the 
 church. There it will never seek to blend itself. It is where 
 religious societies are not protected, that they seek protection 
 under the arm of power. In this instance, they are not seek- 
 ing ])rotection against the privileges of any other. They are 
 not seeking the arm of the state in reference to any other. 
 But they are seeking protection of equal rights. It is all they 
 ask. 
 
 Now we know, to illustrate the position which we have 
 taken, that, till about the close of the third century of the 
 Christian era, and the reign of the Constautincs, the church 
 was not connected with the state, and that all difhculties then 
 existing in the Christian church were reconciled among 
 themselves. We know that a diversitv of faith and tenets, 
 24 
 
190 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 tlid not create a diversity of discipline. It was only where 
 the Coiistantines seized the power of the bishops, that the 
 Christian society was split. It was then, and it will always 
 be the case, whenever the power of the state undertakes to 
 control the aftairs of the church, that a connexion will be 
 formed. Is it not then clear, to every person, who will reflect 
 for a moment, that the protection of every individual in his 
 own way, is the best means possible, to prevent the blending 
 of civil and religious concerns ? 
 
 And I would observe, since I have alluded to the early state 
 of the Christian church, that we owe a debt of gratitude, that 
 we should never cease to contemplate and remember, to our 
 ancestors. For it is in this country alone, upon the face of 
 this globe, that the rights of conscience are known. It was 
 by that revolution — it was that arm of human power, under 
 the auspices of heaven, which severed our government from 
 that of England, and secured to us our rights. It was by that 
 revolution that the people of this country were restored, not 
 only to their political rights, but to their religious freedom. 
 I wish and desire, and shall pray, while I have the power of 
 prayer, that no decision shall be made, by this or any other 
 court, that shall ever impair these rights. I hope I shall 
 never live long enough to see the day, when an inquisition 
 shall be established, or when any man shall be asked, in a 
 court of justice, before he receives his just due, to what sect 
 or tenet he belongs; whether to the trinity or unity. And I 
 say, the question before the court does not involve the tenets 
 of this people; we have only to do with their discipline. And 
 here let me repeat, that an ecclesiastical polity or system of 
 discipline, to govern a body of Christians, is one thing: it is 
 entirely distinct from their tenets. It is like the regulations 
 of a corporation or association. It is for the management of 
 the temporal concerns of the society. And no society, con- 
 gregation, or community, can exist, except they have these 
 regulations. 
 
 I will then inquire, what is the polity or system of disci- 
 pline of this society. We must go up to the source, before we 
 can determine the question, whether a religious assembly was 
 there convened. It is necessary to go into the inquiry, what, 
 in fact, constitutes the Yearly Meeting. And to do this, we 
 must mount up to the source of this society, to its first or- 
 ganization, to the foundation stone. For each of those socie- 
 ties which compose this Yearly Meeting, has its officers, has 
 its rules and its regulations — has its distinct code of govern- 
 ment, or rather a code of government not distinct from the 
 main body, but has rules by which its affairs are governed. 
 And every branch or subordinate society which helps to con- 
 
at Steubtnville^ Ohio. 
 
 191 
 
 stUute this Yearly Meeting, is as distinctly and clearly regu- 
 lated as any corporation in the community. 
 
 In the first place, I will inquire what is a Monthly Meeting; 
 for we have been informed that the Monthly, Quarterly, and 
 Yearly Meetings, are the great bodies of the Quaker commu- 
 nity. I would then refer your honour to the first volume of 
 Clarkson, whose work is considered a faithful delineation of 
 the principles and discipline of the society: and as this is a 
 novel subject, perhaps I do not waste time in examining the 
 organization and discipline of this society at large, that we 
 may be more clearly satisfied in the opinions which we already 
 entertain, while we may possibly acquire some ideas that we 
 have not. 
 
 ■"The Quakers usually divide a county into a number of parts, accord- 
 ing to the Quaker population of it. In each of these divisions there are 
 usually several meeting houses, and these have their several congregations 
 attached to them. One meeting house, however, in each division, is usually 
 fixed upon for transacting the business of all the congregations that are 
 within it, or for holding their Montlily Courts. The different congrega- 
 tions of the Quakers, or the members of the difterent particular meetings, 
 which are settled in the northern part of the county, are attached of course 
 to the meeting house which has been fixed upon in the northern division 
 of it, because it gives them the least trouble to repair to it on this occasion. 
 The members of those again which are settled in the soutliern, or central, 
 or other parts of the county, are attached to that which has been fixed in 
 the southern, or central, or other divisions of it, for the same reason. The 
 different congregations in the northern division of the county appoint, each 
 of them, a set of deputies once a montii, which deputies are of both sexes, to 
 repair to the meeting house which has been assigned them. The different 
 congregations, in the southern, central, or other divisions, appoint also, each 
 of them, others, to repair to that which has been assigned them in like 
 manner. These deputies are all of them previously instructed in the matters 
 belonging to the congregations which they respectively represent. At 
 length the day arrives for the Monthly Meeting. The deputies make 
 ready to execute the duties cominitted to their trust." — (1 Clarkson, 206, 
 7,8.) 
 
 There are also Preparative Meetings, which are subdivisions 
 of a Monthly Meeting. The court will understand it, more 
 distinctly, by seeing the connexion between the two. And 
 here I will read from the discipline. 
 
 "The connexion and subordination of our meetings for discipline are 
 thus: Preparative Meetings are accountable to the Monthly; Monthly to 
 the Quarterly; and Quarterly to the Yearly Meeting: so that if the Yearly 
 Meeting be at any time dissatisfied with the proceedings of any inferior 
 meetings; or a Quarterly Meeting with the proceedings of either of its 
 Monthly Meetings; or a Monthly Meeting with the proceedings of either of 
 its Preparative Meetings; such meetings ought, with readiness and meek- 
 ness, to render accounts thereof when required; and correct or expunga 
 any of the minutes, according to the direction of the superior meeting." — 
 {Book of Discipline of Ohio Y. M. 28.) 
 
 I will now call your attention to Clarkson upon Quarterly 
 Meetings. 
 
192 
 
 7\ial of Friends 
 
 '•In the same manner as the different congregations in a small division 
 oTa county have been shown to have sent deputies to the respective Montlily 
 Meetings within it; so the different Monthly Meetings, in the same county, 
 send each of them deputies to the Quarterly. Two or more of each sex are 
 generally deputed from each Monthly Meeting. The=e deputies are sup- 
 posed to have understood, at the Monthly Meeting where they were chosen, 
 all the matters which the discipline required them to know relative to the 
 state and condition of their constituents. Furnished with this knowledge, 
 and instructed moreover by written documents on a variety of subjects, 
 they repair at a proper time to the place of meeting." — (1 Clarkson, 214.) 
 
 I also will read from the discipline of the Ohio Yearly 
 Meeting. 
 
 " It is directed that a suitable number of Friends be appointed, in each 
 Monthly Meeting, representatives, to attend the service of the Quarterly 
 Meeting, with such reports in writing, signed by the clerk, as may be given 
 them in charge: also, tliat at least four Friends be appointed for the like 
 service, in each Quarterly Meeting, to attend the Yearly Meeting. And 
 it is earnestly advised and desired, that all Friends who submit to these 
 important services, may be punctual in their attendance; or if prevented by 
 sickness, or any other unavoidable occurrence, that they be careful to send 
 information thereof; also, that those wlio are under appointments to attend 
 meetings as representatives, do not withdraw therefrom before the conclu- 
 sion of such meetings, without obtaining the consent thereof." — {Book of 
 Discipline, 30, 31.) 
 
 This shows the chain of supervisoi y power in each superior, 
 over the subordinate meetings. And to show that the system 
 is a full and complete system of civil government, with re- 
 spect to themselves, I will read to the court one thing further. 
 
 "The clerk of the Quarterly Meeting, when they come to this part of 
 the business, reads tlie first of the appointed queries to the members pre- 
 sent, and is then silent. Soon after this, a deputy from one of the Monthly 
 Meetings comes forward, and producing the written documents, or answers 
 to the queries, all of which were prepared at the meeting where he was 
 chosen, reads that document which contains a reply to the first query, in be- 
 half of the meeting he represents. A deputy from a second Monthly Meet- 
 ing then comes forward, and produces his written documents also, and an- 
 swers the same query in behalf of his own meeting in the same manner. A 
 deputy from a third, where there are more than two meetings, then pro- 
 duces his documents in his turn, and replies to it also; and this mode is ob- 
 served, till all the deputies from each of the Monthly Meetings in the county 
 have answered the first query. When the first query has been thus fully 
 answered, silence is observed through the whole court. Members present 
 have now an opportunity of making any observations they may think pro- 
 per."— (1 Clarkson, 219.) 
 
 I would observe, however, as I may not refer to it in the 
 book, that in England, where there is but one Yearly Meeting, 
 there are queries sent down to the Quarterlies, and so down 
 to the Monthly Meetings, by and through which, they ascer- 
 tain, officially, of the compliance or non-compliance of sub- 
 ordinates and members with the discipline. To different 
 meetings, there are different inquiries; different in number, 
 different in object, and requiring different answers. 
 
at Steuhenville^ Ohio. 
 
 193 
 
 Here I would remark, that the discipline of the Yearly 
 Meeting at Mount Pleasant, is perhaps, in some particulars, 
 not in exact accordance with the views of Clarkson. But in 
 the main, it is the same. For instance, they may not require 
 or observe the exact regularity of reading the queries — read- 
 ing one, and requiring an answer. But the discrepancy, if any, 
 is barely in some of the details of doing business. 
 
 It may be well here to say, that Clarkson speaks as every 
 other man would speak, who is not a member of the society, 
 or who has not accustomed himself to their language. He 
 speaks of these meetings as courts, and they are to be taken 
 and treated as courts, in which we shall see, by and by, that 
 there are duties devolving on the representatives, constituting 
 the great court of the Yearly Meeting. And we shall also see, 
 by referring back to another page of Clarkson, that the names 
 of the representatives are always entered in a book in the 
 men's meeting, and the same in the women's meeting. The 
 names are first entered in a book, and until this takes place, 
 the meeting for discipline is not to be considered as consti- 
 tuted. 
 
 " In the men's [Monthly] Meeting, and it is the same in the women's, the 
 names of the deputies before mentioned are first entered in a book, for until 
 this act takes place, the meetinb for discipline is not coNsiDsnED to be 
 coNSTiTtiTED." — (1 Clurlison, 208.) 
 
 There is another question arising upon this discipline, which 
 it is necessary that we should fortify with authorities^ al- 
 though the gentlemen have found themselves in the need of 
 acknowledging to us, that these meetings for discipline were 
 always considered as select, to which none but members in 
 standing, not disowned, or not under dealing, were admitted 
 to attend. This is provided for in the book of discipline. 
 
 " It is the judgment of the Yearly Meeting-, that elders, overseers, and 
 others concerned for the support of the discipline, exercise a care that our 
 meetings for business be kept select, not permitting those who have not a 
 right of membership among us to sit in those meetings." — {Book of Dis- 
 cipline, 30; see also page 80, same book.) 
 
 I shall now, as I am approaching the Yearly Meeting, ex- 
 amine, if the court please, to see what authority and power 
 the representatives of that meeting hold. It has been con- 
 tended on the other side, and will be urged, that that meeting 
 is a pure democracy; that no one member has a preference 
 over another as to the decision, rule, and government of the 
 meeting: that there is no power existing in any shape, in any 
 one member, whether representative, clerk, minister, aged or 
 young, over another. We will inquire, because it is only by 
 reference to the long established usages, or the statutes or 
 ordinances adopted by this meeting, or by the mouth of wit- 
 nesses, that we are to establish these facts. And there is a 
 direct accordance between the testimony before you, and the 
 
194 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 statutes and ordinances of the society, as to what does consti- 
 tute a Yearly Meeting, and whether a representative has any 
 authority in the incipient stages, result, or ulterior resort. 
 
 Now, Clarkson has some remarks upon the subject, although 
 I must say, we find in him, as we find in our law books often, 
 a question, almost self-evident in itself, never agitated, but 
 presenting itself to the reason of man, connected with the 
 nature and general scope of the discipline, which has never 
 been disputed, never spoken of as a disputed point. 
 
 "The deputies, who are now generally four in number for each Quarterly 
 Meeting, that is, four of each sex (except for the Quarterly Meetings of 
 York and London, the former of which generally sends eight men, and the 
 latter twelve, and each of them the like number of females,) having received 
 their different documents, set forward on their journey. Besides these, 
 many members of the society repair to the metropolis. The distance of 
 three or four hundred miles forms no impediment to the journey. A man 
 cannot travel at this time, but he sees tlie Quakers in motion, from all 
 parts, shaping their course to London, there to exercise, as will appear 
 shortly, tiie power of deputies, judges, and legislators in turn, and to 
 investigate and settle the affairs of the society for the preceding year."— 
 (1 Clarkson, 222. See also book of Discipline, 30, cited anti.) 
 
 " This meeting [the Yearly Meeting of London] is constituted of re- 
 presentatives deputed from each Quarterly Meeting in England, from the 
 Half-Year's Meeting in Ireland, and sometimes from other parts, yet without 
 restraining any member in unity with the society from attending." — (2 
 Gough'a History, 164.) 
 
 " To show that they [the Friends] are people that love order and good 
 government, they carefully practise it themselves. For if there be twenty 
 meetings of worship in a county, they peradventure make three or four 
 Monthly Meetings of business: and these Monthly Meetings are resolved 
 into a Quarterly Meeting for the county, by such members as they severally 
 appoint to constitute it. And all the Quarterly Meetings in the nation, by 
 chosen men out of themselves, do constitute one Yearly Meeting; unto 
 which, the meetings of those people, in all parts of the world, have their 
 recourse, by chosen messengers or by epistles." — {Penn's works, 687.) 
 
 It does seem to me, if the court please, that we have pro- 
 duced ample and sufficient authority for the position which 
 we took in the opening of this case, that the representatives 
 do, in fact, substantially constitute the Yearly Meeting. In 
 accordance with these authorities we have offered to the court 
 the testimony of Bates, Ladd, Taylor, Stanton, and others, as 
 worthy of credit as any men in the community, who have been 
 trained up from their birth in the discipline of this society, 
 and who have not now, and never have had, cause for saying 
 to this court, other of their discipline than the truth. And 
 they pronounce to you, that the Yearly Meeting is constituted, 
 substantially, of the representatives from the Quarterly Meet- 
 ings: for I may well inquire what means the word represen- 
 tative — what means the word deputy? They arc those who are 
 instructed, says the book, and who are supposed to under- 
 stand, and are charged with, the interests of their constituents, 
 
u( Steiibenville, Ohio. 
 
 195 
 
 or those whom they represent. Could language be more plain, 
 except it were to say, that a representative means one who is 
 charged, and required to execute his charge, as an agent, as 
 an attorney, as a delegate from one meeting to a superior one. 
 No explanation could be added to it. Their own witness, 
 Askew, expressly says, that Monthly Meetings are represent- 
 ed in the Quarter by their representatives. If Monthly Meet- 
 ings are represented by their representatives, by whom else are 
 the Quarters represented? It appears to me, the gentlemen 
 have mistaken the pole of their system. Now, each individual 
 may represent himself in the meeting; — that we do not deny. 
 He may be there to make his complaint, or to oppose mea- 
 sures; or, for the cause of truth, he may be there a sentinel for 
 his own rights; but he is not there as a representative for a 
 subordinate meeting : he is there in an individual capacity, 
 and in such, he has a right to be heard. But of the interests 
 of the Monthly or Quarterly Meetings, 1 do say, and dare re^ 
 futation, that the representatives do represent those meetings, 
 and are to be consulted, as respects the Quarterly Meeting. 
 I may ask, as in the present instance, of Mr. Hilles, a repre- 
 sentative from Redstone Meeting — he never appeared, he did 
 not answer, he did not represent his meeting, and that neglect 
 was a neglect wittingly — of him I may ask, would he not be 
 subject to be dealt with: would he not be subject to disown- 
 ment, unless he condemned that conduct, and restored himself 
 to unity in the society? Surely he would. And why, if he had 
 no right there, other than other members? 1 do think that the 
 gentlemen have not made the proper distinction between the 
 representation of meetings, and the representation of indivi- 
 duals. 
 
 The Quarterly Meeting, as a society, is no ideal thing. It 
 is in itself a little state; and as such a state, is a body which 
 can only be represented, in the Yearly Meeting, by its depu- 
 ties or representatives, who, as Clarkson says, are supposed 
 to be acquainted with the affairs of the society, and charged 
 with its interests. If, then, 1 have a correct view of the sub- 
 ject, there is no mystery or difficulty about it. Any individual 
 would have a right to attend any conference, any synod, or any 
 assembly of a society to which he belongs, so far as I know the 
 societies of this country, and this society is not dissimilar from 
 others, upon that subject, except they have special rules to 
 the contrary. He might propound a subject, and be heard; but 
 can it be supposed that he would have the same authority as a 
 presiding officer; as ministers, or elders? 
 
 We are led, very often, to misunderstand a question, by not 
 i)eing acquainted with the terms which are used. The society 
 of Friends have, from the time of George Fox, separated 
 themselves from the world, and, as he who has read their his 
 
196 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 tory will be satisfied, have adopted a system, nearer to the 
 church system during the three first centuries, than that of 
 any other church. They have adopted rules by which they 
 will not go to law: they will not be concerned in the sports of 
 the day, which will lead to a dissipation of mind and proper- 
 ty; and with this distinctiveness of character, they have as- 
 sumed a different language. And herein is probably the dif- 
 ficulty of understanding their rules. They have used different 
 terms in their courts: for instance, the term disownment. 
 We never pronounce anathemas, we never issue bulls, or con- 
 demnations of character to the world. We only say, thy con- 
 duct has rendered thee disunited with us. I say, in the use 
 of terms, we mistake very often — in the term clerk; — it is sup- 
 posed by the gentlemen, because he is called clerk, and they 
 do not say that they invest him with the power of moderator, 
 chairman, speaker, or president, that he does not possess 
 those powers. But when the subject comes to be examined, 
 I think we shall satisfy the court, that he does possess these 
 powers, not in their full extent, but in all the extent necessa- 
 ry, on their theory, to the entire extent. 
 
 1 come then, to the third point, whether this meeting, this 
 society, were assembled. 
 
 (The Judge. Do you wish to be understood that members, 
 other than representatives, have no vote?) 
 
 I consider representatives to the Yearly Meeting, as repre- 
 senting the society; as representing the Quarterly Meelings. 
 Any member within the Quarterly Meeting, who is not a repre- 
 sentative, may attend, but he does not attend, having charge 
 of the concerns of the meeting. He may speak and propound 
 questions, he may represent his grievances; and as they never 
 call the ayes and noes, or never have done, for almost two 
 hundred years, the weight of that member's opinion goes for 
 what it is worth; and 1 am sure, that your honour must have 
 understood what they mean by this — that, in separating them- 
 selves from the world, they would not adopt the forms and 
 ceremonies of the world; and had they done it, they would soon 
 have become a debating, noisy society, which would have 
 swelled their records, and led to dis-unity. But they have 
 always conducted and sustained themselves, under the mutual 
 confidence which they have placed, in the first instance, in Him 
 who rules over all; and secondly, in their brethren. First, a 
 question is not carried by yeas and nays. It is not carried by 
 votes, but the clerk hears all, and collects the sense; and, in 
 the language of every witness, if there be an uninformed mem- 
 ber, an illiterate member, a member that might, in fact, be of 
 too loose, or liberal sentiments, if he should make his remarks, 
 they would go, I repeat, for what they arc worth, but not for 
 the same value as those of an aged man, who had grown gray 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio 
 
 197 
 
 in the service of the society. The simple member has no voice, 
 only in that way. Cases might be put, where his voice would 
 be liilly heard. If there were one hundred representatives, 
 composing the Yearly Meeting, and five hundred ordinary 
 members, I would not say but a question might be agitated 
 there, in which the sentiments of a majority of representatives 
 would not prevail. It might occur, but it would be where a 
 question would not be made, whether the overruling of the re- 
 presentatives was legal, lawful, or consistent with their system. 
 For there might be two hundred, equally learned in their dis- 
 cipline, equally worthy, those who had established a character 
 for godliness and usefulness, to whom equal attention m.ight be 
 paid — they would not contend, but go upon the doctrine of 
 utiity ; — we yield when we find ourselves in a minority, or op- 
 posed in a proposition, which appears to be supported by the 
 better and abler sense of the community. 
 
 You have heard it repeatedly stated, that they never decide 
 by yeas and nays, except in the ulterior resort; and that never 
 has been necessary, till the last Yearly Meeting. They put 
 that as the only case, where the yeas and nays have been called. 
 As the Yearly Meeting possesses the supervisory power over 
 the Quarterly Meeting, language has become useless, and 
 changed its nature and its office, if the representatives from 
 the Quarterly Meetings do not compose the Yearly Meeting; 
 for the Yearly Meeting is a meeting of the Quarterly Meet- 
 ings, when they meet for discipline. Let me go back, and ask, 
 what is the use of a Monthly Meeting? It is not necessary for 
 worship, for they can worship in the Preparative Meetings. 
 What is a Quarterly Meeting? It is not necessary for worship, 
 as the Monthly Meetings have power over the preparatives, as 
 meetings of discipline. It is purely a meeting of discipline 
 over the preparatives; and so is the Quarterly over the Monthly 
 Meetings; but not over the individual members. For the books 
 and witnesses tell us, that each member is accountable to his 
 own Monthly Meeting; the Monthly Meeting administers 
 justice, and the Quarter is only a court of appeal, presiding 
 over the Monthly Meeting; and the Yearly Meeting is a court 
 of appeal, or supervisory court, over the Quarterly Meetings — 
 not over the members. Strictly speaking, there is no member 
 of a Quarterly Meeting, for every member belongs to a Monthly 
 Meeting; and there he must be arraigned, tried and condemn- 
 ed. It is, then, only in their ecclesiastical polity, that these su- 
 perior meetings preside over the conduct of the lower meetings. 
 Language is of no use, if the Yearly Meeting is not constituted 
 of those who represent the Quarterly Meetings. 
 
 I have said that this society has rules and regulations for all 
 the exigencies of the society, and for the complete control and 
 government of the members, as relates to their moral conduct, 
 2.5 
 
198 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 and all that need not come within the purview of the munici- 
 pal and civil laws of the state. They have a more specific and 
 more unequivocal mode, than any other society of Christians 
 on earth. It appears to me, there can be no discrepancy of 
 sentiment, when the subject is brought home to reason and 
 common sense. 
 
 I think I have established the position, that the Yearly 
 Meeting does consist of representatives. I think this is set- 
 tled by good authority ; by the books of the society, and other 
 unequivocal testimony. And the claim which the gentlemen 
 have set up, and which they will contend for, that this is a 
 democracy, is a claim that I think is not well founded — that 
 the Yearly Meeting, when assembled at Mount Pleasant, was 
 a pure democracy, without a head. It cannot so be. They 
 have resorted to testimony, and sought to bring up prece- 
 dents and usages — to bring up the course which has been 
 pursued heretofore, to estaljlish the fact; and I have yet to 
 learn that they have produced a single instance. They have 
 produced cases of disorder, and where clerks have been ap- 
 pointed when none were present, or, where those present have 
 been accused of any thing contrary to the rules of the society; 
 yet in no instance have they brought before your honour a sin- 
 gle isolated item, to show that any regular meeting of Friends, 
 in their monthly, quarterly, or yearjy capacity, have ever de- 
 posed the existing, or present clerk, without his consent, or 
 some known or established charges against him. 
 
 The testimony is, that Jonathan Taylor was appointed at 
 the last year's Yearly Meeting, 1827, in the stead of Mr. 
 Bates, who had been appointed regularly at the opening of 
 the meeting, but being unwell could not serve, and Taylor was 
 appointed in his stead. The minute of appointment we have 
 here, before us. There is no question, and I suppose none will 
 be made, that Taylor was the clerk of the meeting when it 
 met. I may ask then, when that meeting had assembled, and 
 the clerk had taken his seat, if it was not a religious meeting 
 duly assembled? Without going further, I would advert, at 
 this moment, to refresh your honour's recollection, to the sta- 
 tute which has been read. 
 
 But it will be necessary to go further, and inquire if Taylor 
 was not the proper organ, as clerk of the meeting, to open it. 
 From all the usage, which has been testified to here, and from 
 the knowledge of the most aged and venerable members in 
 the society, they uniformly say, that such has been the cus- 
 tom, from the first constitution of the meeting down to this 
 time. The clerk, in the first instance, makes aminute, which 
 they call an opening minute, and reads it. He then proceeds 
 to call the representatives, and when he has called them, and 
 they have answered, the meeting is opened. It cannot cer- 
 
at Steubenviile, Ohio. 
 
 199 
 
 tainly be consistent with the principles of their discipline, or 
 their proceedings known to us, of a deliberative kind, when 
 persons are assembled together, that any proposition or mo- 
 tion can be made or sustained regularly, until the meeting is 
 organized, unless it be for the purpose of its organization. If 
 a motion be made before it be organized, it must be for its 
 organization. The clerk was in his place, and was in no way 
 disqualified. He had a duty to perform, and with as much 
 expedition as his ability would enable him, he proceeded to 
 perform it. There was supplication;' after which, as is usual, 
 there was silence for a short time, and the clerk then pro- 
 ceeded to make a minute, and to read it. Some said the meet- 
 ing was opened J others, that it was not. Whether then, the 
 clerk, who was in his place, was the organ of the meeting for 
 the purpose of opening the meeting, depends on their disci- 
 pline; of that, it seems to me, we cannot dispute. We may 
 argue and talk, but there is no ground for disputation. I will 
 refer your honour to the discipline. 
 
 " The Yearly Meeting of Ohio was set off from the Yearly Meeting of 
 Baltimore, and is composed of Friends west of the Allegheny Mountains. 
 The Yearly Meeting in Ohio was held at Short Cr^ek, in the year 1813. 
 It is now established at Mount Pleasant. 
 
 " The Yearly Meeting is now held on the first First-day of the Ninth- 
 month. A public meeting for worship at the tenth hour in the morning, 
 and another at the third hour in the afternoon. The meeting for discipline 
 is opened at the tenth hour on Second-day morning. The Yearly Meeting 
 of ministers and elders is held on the Seventh-day of the week preceding, 
 and now concluded to be opened also at the tenth hour in the morning. 
 
 " The representatives from the Quarterly Meetings, both men and wo- 
 men, are annually to choose a clerk, and an assistant, at the close of the 
 first sitting of the meeting for discipline; whose names are to be reported 
 at the opening of the next sitting," — (Book of Discipline, 97.) 
 
 Now, notwithstanding the criticism attempted, on the other 
 side, to show that the representatives had the power barely of 
 nominating the clerk, the discipline is express and unequivo- 
 cal, that the representatives shall choose a clerk at the close of 
 the first sitting, who is to be announced at the first sitting 
 after. If then the clerk is chosen in that way, what is his 
 office, and how long does it continue ? It is till the close of the 
 sitting, and till a successor is appointed. If this be a fact, 
 then Taylor was the clerk, and in his place. He proceeded 
 to make the entry, according to the direction in the disci- 
 pline, and by the aid of the assistant clerk, proceeded to call 
 the names of the representatives, and they answered. The 
 meeting was then opened. 
 
 The fact that Mr. Taylor was in the chair, and the fact 
 that the representatives had placed in his hands their reports, 
 together with the principle laid down in the discipline, that 
 the representatives are to choose the clerk, it does seem to 
 me, must remove and rob the gentlemen of their argument, 
 
200 
 
 Trial nj Friends 
 
 that he was not the proper, regularly constituted clerk. And 
 against this position, I will venture to say, they will have 
 candour enough not to contend. For they must show, before 
 they can undertake to allege that he was- not the clerk in pro- 
 per person, they must show that he had become incapacitated, 
 impeached, or removed; and no such thing is attempted to be 
 shown. I shall say further, as I have said before, that the 
 meeting was not opened until the names of the representatives 
 were called. And, I say again, they will not undertake to 
 gainsay, that Taylor was the regular organ of the meeting, 
 there in his place; and that it was his absolute duty to open 
 the meeting; and for any neglect of that duty, he was liable to 
 impeachment. 
 
 Let us now inquire if there was any disqualification— there 
 certainly was none. All the witnesses concur to show, that 
 there was no circumstance, fact, or matter, on which the 
 meeting could act, to remove him. For if he had been guilty 
 of any offence, the regular tribunal is, the Monthly Meeting to 
 which he belongs. No matter whether it be the clerk of the 
 Yearly Meeting, or any body else, the power belongs to the 
 Monthly Meeting, and that meeting has jurisdiction of his of- 
 fence, and that meeting alone. 
 
 I shall, for the present, pass over the proposition of French, 
 and the nomination of Hilles, and inquire whether this meet- 
 ing was duly assembled for thv purpose of public worship, or 
 to perform certain duties enjoined on them, as members of 
 this society. The witnesses^ Ladd, Bates, Stanton, and Tay- 
 lor, testify, that the meeting was opened by Taylor as clerk — 
 that it was in the regular manner and form of opening a meet- 
 ing. We have also the testimony and support of Updegraff and 
 Askew, who say, that he opened the meeting^, and that the re- 
 presentatives were called. The question next is, were they 
 disturbedP There is no doubt they were disturbed; but the 
 question is, whether the proposition of French and the nomi- 
 nation of Hilles caused it. And here, I need scarcely make an 
 argument. — Yet, notwithstanding the plain and positive asser- 
 tions of Messrs. Pickering and Updegraff, and one or two 
 others, that had not Mr. French made the motion, or submit- 
 ted the proposition, there would have been no disturbance, it 
 seems the disturbance came from the other side. I do not 
 know how strangely men may argue upon facts, so directly 
 staring them in the face. Taylor was the regular clerk, pro- 
 ceeding according to the ancient and known usage of the so- 
 ciety. They declare, if French had not made the proposition, 
 no disturbance would have taken place. It remains, then, only 
 to ascertain, and we say it is ascertained, that the proposition 
 of French was directly out of order. We are told that it was 
 the case, by the most aged and respectable individuals in the 
 
at Sleubcnville, Ohio. 
 
 201 
 
 society; and we may refer, for confirnialion, to tlie tesiimony 
 of Tatum, Braithwaite, Coffin, Stanton, and Ladd of Virgi- 
 nia, who all pronounce to you, that the proposition by French 
 was out of order, and ought not to have been sustained. I say, 
 in the face of any man, that it was out of order. Who was 
 there to take cognizance of that proposition, to a meeting 
 without a head? Did he assume to be the head? It was not, 
 in the first instance, a proposition to appoint a clerk, in con- 
 sequence of the other being incapable, or absent; but it was a 
 proposition, indignant to him, and to the meeting: "It de- 
 volves on me to state to this meeting, that the conduct of our 
 clerks has been such," Sec. 
 
 Should I liken this to any other deliberative body on earth, 
 the fallacy would appear at once, in its most glaring colours. 
 And why should there be a rule applied to this meeting, which 
 has never been adopted in any other deliberative society, and 
 which, if adopted, would strike at the foundation of all order, 
 and demolish the strongest society on earth? Why should it 
 be applied to them? Is it because there is a division in the so- 
 ciety — because there were a majority of the members who 
 wished the proposition to prevai? I say, each member, whether 
 a representative or an individual, was bound, and pledged, in 
 that instance, as strongly as I am bound, before your honour, 
 to comply with the ordinary rules of court. 
 
 Had Taylor no rights? Was he to be treated, in that in- 
 stance, as a culprit, as a criminal, as a convict? That propo- 
 sition involved in itself a condemnation of Taylor, without 
 alleging to Taylor, or the world, the causes of it. That pro- 
 position contained an impeachment of his conduct, without 
 carrying with it any kind of specification, wherein the mis- 
 conduct existed. That proposition involved in itself an utter 
 condemnation, without any opportunity of being heard, or any 
 chance of trial, or even the opportunity to say, I am innocent. 
 For if a removal, if your honour please, could be, at that time, 
 consistent with their discipline; if it could be imagined, for a 
 moment, consistent with any deliberative assembly on earth, 
 it must be on the hypothesis, that he was a culprit, that 
 he had been guilty of an offence, and was unworthy of the 
 community of civil, saying nothing of religious, society. 
 There was another place, where he might have been arraign- 
 ed and tried — there was another time, when he might have 
 been arraigned and tried, and there was another, who might 
 have pronounced sentence, if he were found guilty. 
 
 Then, in that proposition, I again say, there was an indig- 
 nity thrown on every member of the society, by this allega- 
 tion, in the presence of fifteen hundred people, as one witness 
 says. The clerk had merited approbation, and a place, and 
 promotion, and had been placed in the highest scat in the 
 
202 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 synagogue; and there was, in this proposition, an allegation 
 against this venerable man, that took fi om him his justly ac- 
 knowledged character. If this proposilioit of French was, 
 in itself, out of order, and an untenable proposition, saying 
 nothing of tlie innocency of Taylor, then the nomination of 
 Hilles, which was predicated upon the removal of a clerk, 
 was also out of order. 
 
 But we have gone so far as to satisfy your honour, that 
 '."aylor was not guilty — that he was not obnoxious to censure, 
 tnat he had done nothing which could bring upon him the 
 animadversion of society. And from the mouth of their own 
 witnesses, we have shown, that the Monthly Meeting was the 
 proper tribunal to animadvert upon his conduct. It was al- 
 leged, to be sure, that they had understood he had violated a 
 rule of discipline, l)y calling on Peaslee to sit down; but French 
 does not embody that allegation in his proposition; he only 
 says, that his conduct, the year, preceding, had been such as 
 to disqualify him. Etc.; evidently including, and intending to 
 include, not only the dereliction of duty in calling Peaslee to 
 sit down, but in separating from the society (as it is called) 
 at New York, last summer. Does it lie in the mouths of the 
 Hicksites, here, to condemn Jonathan Taylor for leaving the 
 Hicksites in New York? That is the ostensible object, but it 
 is not true. They allege, that the orthodox have treated them 
 wrongfully — that they maltreat them, because they are Hicks- 
 ites. I mean no disrespect by the term, for, as men, I respect 
 them as much as I do the orthodox. But, I say, it does not 
 lie in their mouths to accuse Mr. Taylor, and make that the 
 foundation of his disownment, of his degradation, impeach- 
 ment, and condemnation, that he disagrees with them in sen- 
 timent; for it is on that ostensible ground that they proceeded. 
 I ask, then, if it be not altogether a fetch? It is a subject of 
 apology, thought of at the moment, to effect the object which 
 those conferences had in view, of which I shall soon speak. 
 
 If Mr. Taylor called on a minister to sit down, when he 
 ought not to have done so, it was a subject of animadversion 
 for the ministers and elders. But it was manifest to the 
 Hicksites, that Taylor, in calling Peaslee to order, did ho- 
 nestly and sincerely suppose, that he was a person who ought 
 not to speak, and that he was in duty bound to request him to 
 sit down. Grant, for a moment, that it was not true — that 
 Peaslee had not been disowned, that he had not been excom- 
 municated for preaching doctrines contrary to the tenets of 
 the society of Friends — that nothing should have authorized 
 any member to request him to sit down : when Taylor 
 thought, and had been advised and informed, that he had not 
 a right as a minister, and ought not to preach and exhort, he 
 then was innocent, in calling him to order, for he thought he 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 20.1 
 
 was doing his duty, whether right or wrong. But the propo- 
 sition of French deprived him, and cut him off, without an 
 opportunity of redeeming his character, merely upon the 
 ground of charges that had been whispered against him 
 out of doors, even the rumour of which, only existed among 
 the Hicksites. 
 
 That there was a disturbance, is a matter beyond dispute; 
 and it is unpleasant to the feelings of every citizen, who has 
 heard the testimony, to be informed that it was a disturbance 
 of the character which has been represented. It has been re- 
 presented in various strong terms; some have called it a riot, 
 some a disorder, some a tumult; it was so great, that the be- 
 holders fek awful — it was painful and distressing; it was an 
 appalling scene! Well, it must have been, when there was 
 heard from different parts of the house, in an assembly for dis- 
 cipline, where it was to be presumed there were none but 
 members of the society, one saying, "go ahead, or burst your 
 boiler!" another one, "huzza for Jacksonf" And yet, it is 
 said, all this is to be tolerated — that it is no infringement of 
 our laws; that we have no power to restrain such proceedings, 
 and prevent their recurrence. But surely there is, there must 
 be somewhere a corrective power. 
 
 Our next inquiry will be, to identify these defendants. 
 
 Court adjourned till 9 o'clock to-morrow morning. 
 
 Wednesday, October 22, 9 o'clock, M. M. 
 Mr. Goodnow in continuation. — If your honour please : at 
 the time we adjourned last evening, I had arrived at the sixth 
 division of my argument, which was the identification of the 
 defendants in this disturbance. In order clearly to under- 
 stand how they are identified, to the extent of their co-opera- 
 tion with that party who created the disturbance, it will be 
 necessary for me to take a view of the anterior and subsequent 
 movements of that party; not extensively, but in brief. And 
 I shall repeat some of the circumstances and facts which I 
 urged yesterday, as to the proposition of French, and the 
 nomination of Hilles. We have seen, that the appointment 
 of Hilles, as well as the previous proposition of French, were 
 not questions before the meeting; the regular clerk of the 
 Yearly Meeting being then in existence, and in his place. And 
 here I will add, with a view of calling the attention of the 
 court, what I then omitted, that Joseph Updegraff, and divers 
 others, on the part of the defence, have expressly said to the 
 court, that there was no time for the discussion of either of 
 the propositions. And it has been said by Tatum, on the 
 part of the prosecution, and the inference is clear, and must 
 be evident, from the facts and the opinions on the part of the 
 defendants, that there was no approval or disapproval of 
 
204 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 either of those propositions; and this opinion is certainly 
 corroborated by every fact connected with the case. It ac- 
 cords with what unquestionably was the sense of the meeting; 
 and it certainly will be preposterous for gentlemen on the 
 other side to contend, and equally preposterous for me to re- 
 sist, the legality of the nomination of Hilles, and the proposi- 
 tion of French. It is in vain to disguise the fact, that these 
 measures were for the sole purpose of opposing the orthodox. 
 It is in vain to contend that there was a uniting in the meet- 
 ing, with the nomination of Hilles, or that there was an ac- 
 cordance with the proposition of French. It is an assump- 
 tion against the fact, and against the common sense of every 
 Friend, and every individual present. With a view to show 
 that accordance, they have gone into testimony to prove a ma- 
 jority; but we have shown that there was a large majority 
 on the part of the orthodox. They, with a view to the re- 
 moval of Taylor, the peculiar friend and officer of the or- 
 thodox, assert, that the proposition was supported by an over- 
 Avhelming majority; and that it ought to be considered the 
 sense of the meeting, that Taylor shouH be condemned and 
 removed ; and that the sense of the meeting was, for Hilles to 
 be elected over his head. It is preposterous; for the witnesses, 
 Updegraff and French, very respectable witnesses, say the un- 
 derstanding was, that the orthodox dissented and disapproved. 
 It was then, — and I submit it to the candid opinion of every 
 one, if it does not solve itself into this position — it was by a 
 breath of acclamation, by a noise, by a wind, and not by the 
 good feeling, not by the sound feeling, not by the open, solemn 
 sense of the meeting. There was a confusion of voices, like 
 that of Babel, more like a political caucus than any thing else 
 I can name; in which, amid the tumult, was heard, "huzza for 
 Jackson." I say it would, in our political caucusses, disgrace 
 any political party. And this is the way the proposition of 
 French was carried, to rob a respectable old Friend of his 
 good character — to destroy the meeting, and to mount Hilles, 
 the leader, the head of a mob, as one of the witnesses has 
 called him. It was unjust; it was unwarrantable; it was un- 
 lawful; it was an indignity to the meeting, and could only be 
 supported by spirits capable of caucussing in the house of 
 God. 
 
 Upon this proposition of French, I would say, to prevent 
 cavil, that we view it as immaterial at what time it was made, 
 whether before or after the opening of the meeting by the 
 presiding clerk. If before, it must have been solely on the as- 
 sumption, that there was no such clerk or officer in existence, 
 or in his place; which was untrue. If after the opening of the 
 meeting, then, to have been in order, it must have been a pro- 
 position to the meeting, and must have been recorded by the 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 205 
 
 clerk. He must have collected the sense of the meeting. He 
 must have read it; and there must have been an approval, before 
 it could become binding. That is the testimony of Magar and 
 others, as to a proposition becoming binding. As to the time, 
 it is immaterial ; and I might well ask, to show the character — 
 to show to the Hicksites, who amalgamated with the defend- 
 ants, the absurdity of the proceeding ; I might show, if I had 
 time, a delineation of the circumstances, as they took place, 
 and how they would read. At a Yearly Meeting, held the 8th 
 day of September, 1828, Israel French rose in his place, and 
 made a proposition, and thereupon, one or two hundred voices 
 sung out, " I unite, I unite:" thereupon, W m. B. Irish, or Eng- 
 lish, or somebody else, nominated Hilles; and it was carried 
 in the same way — and all in the course of so many minutes. 
 And where would the Yearly Meeting be? and what would 
 become of the records? what would become of the clerk? — We 
 must be convinced that this is all a farce: and not only a farce, 
 but most unchristian. It is totally immaterial as to the time 
 when Hilles's nomination was made; whether before Taylor 
 read the opening minute, about the time, or afterwards. It 
 is totally immaterial, because it rests upon the adoption and 
 approval of the proposition of French. 
 
 About this Mr. Wm. B. Irish, it will be well to notice, that 
 he is a member of Redstone meeting; that he is from the 
 same Quarter with Hilles and Lewis — a pretty trio: and in 
 this point of view, it will be well to bear in mind, that he is 
 from the same vicinity — an associate and neighbour of Hilles. 
 And as to this nomination of Hilles, I repeat, there was no 
 minute made, nor read — no time given for discussion — no 
 time for approval or disapproval; and in this, as in the pro- 
 position of French, the meeting did not concur. There was a 
 tumultuous sound of voices, and reiteration after reiteration, 
 by some individuals, in the usual expression of the society, 
 " I unite." But that the sense of the meeting was with it, is 
 clearly and unequivocally denied, by the facts and testimony 
 in the case. And for these proceedings, the counsel in their 
 ingenuity, and the witnesses for the party, with all their vigi- 
 lance, have been unable to find a single precedent. It stands 
 an anomalous proceeding — more anomalous than has ever 
 taken place in the Christian churches, from the beginning until 
 this day, amidst all the blood, and turmoil, and revolution, 
 which have been occasioned by enmity to the church, or the 
 over zeal of the church. There has been no instance of such 
 outrageous conduct; and I charge it home, as being marked 
 with an intolerant and unchristian zeal. 
 
 In this very transaction they stand self-condemned — yes, I 
 say they stand self-condemned by their own measures. They 
 have stated some cases, and have pretended, and the counsel 
 26 
 
206 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 may insist, lliat they are precedents, or examples, which they 
 are entitled to follow; but there is not one which does not di- 
 rectly oppose the positions which they assume. They have 
 spoken of the appointment of a clerk in Philadelphia Yearly 
 Meeting; and there they show, that the representatives exer- 
 cised the power, but they divided in opinion. They have 
 brought to your view also, the Yearly Meeting of Indiana, and 
 there they are defeated; for in this instance, you will find, that 
 there was a disability on the part of the clerk— he was unable 
 to attend. 
 
 I am told, at the bar, that the opposite counsel will rely on 
 that precedent. In reply, I only say, we do not deny that 
 where there is a case, in which no clerk is present, or if pre- 
 sent, is incapable of acting, it is in the power of the meeting, 
 in that exigency, to supply a clerk. I have not asked, nor 
 inquired, any further than the testimony has come out, but I 
 mention it, as the only course which could be adopted with 
 some consistency. They have cited New Garden. In the 
 meeting at New Garden, there was a proposition to appoint a 
 clerk instead of the one in his placej and I have just said, the 
 Hicksites stood self-condemned, in their opposition to the or- 
 thodox, at Mount Pleasant. What was the case at New Gar- 
 den? Benjamin W. Ladd was present, on his duty as one of 
 a committee, and he was one of the leading orthodox at Mount 
 Pleasant. He then proceeded in the same course, which we 
 now contend is right. It is to be recollected the clerk was 
 under dealing. The same course, which we now contend for 
 as the correct one, Mr. Ladd and his friends there pursued; 
 the representatives withdrew, and made their nomination. 
 And the court will remember, that by the discipline, commit- 
 tees are appointed in the lesser meetings for that purpose. 
 That is the established discipline. What did the Hicksites 
 do? They contended, and used the same language used by the 
 orthodox at Mount Pleasant. They said, "let the clerk pro- 
 ceed, we have a clerk at the table." Certainly they will not 
 be permitted, one day to take one course, and the next day 
 another course, and yet claim the honour of consistency. 
 
 The clerk, at that meeting, was in the situation which did 
 not authorize him to sit there. He was under a disability, 
 ■which we have uniformly acknowledged would disqualify him 
 for filling that office. And the course pursued by Ladd and 
 his party, w^as that authorized by the discipline. And the 
 course which they pursued, from their own hypothesis, that 
 the clerk was capable, and not disqualified, was the same 
 course that we pursued at Mount Pleasant; the only discre- 
 pancy is, that at Mount Pleasant the clerk was not at all dis- 
 qualified, and the orthodox wished him to continue. At New 
 Garden, the clerk was disqualified, and the Hicksites wished 
 
at SUubcnville^ Ohio. 
 
 him to act. In one point of view, they acted consistently, for 
 they consider all men alike; all on a level; and at Plainfield 
 they recommended all to go to meeting, as heretofore, disre- 
 garding all the disownments which have been passed against 
 them. 
 
 Again, they have introduced Woodbury, as a precedent, 
 and we will see how they stand there. They tell you, that a 
 committee was appointed to make the nomination, and it is 
 in unison with this book of discipline, though this does not 
 reach there. The meetings here, less than the Yearly Meet- 
 ing, appoint committees, who make the nomination; and so 
 they did at Woodbury; and yet they bring that up as a pre- 
 cedent. But there is one remarkable piece of testimony, which 
 it will not lie in their mouths to deny or dispute; it is from 
 the mouth of Hamilton, the old veteran from New Garden. 
 He says, the represetitatives propose, or are required to pro- 
 pose, a clerk, in order to do away the necessity of appointing 
 a committee for that purpose. Well, now, he is correct. See 
 how the Hicksites fortify every position we have taken. In 
 the inferior meetings, committees are appointed, and it is to 
 be sure some little trouble, and occupies some time; and, says 
 the witness, at the Yearly Meeting, the representatives are 
 required to propose a clerk, instead of choosing a committee 
 for that purpose. This unites with our positions, it supports 
 and fortifies them. 
 
 I have brought these positions before your honour, for the 
 purpose of presenting the defendants in their true light; and 
 I revert to the position, and ask the gentlemen to meet and 
 deny it, if they suppose it bears upon the case at all, that 
 every member of the society is charged with a knowledge of 
 its laws and discipline, and that your honour is bound to re- 
 ceive them, as possessing this knowledge, and to treat them 
 and decide upon them, as possessing a knowledge of their 
 discipline. They are bound in the same way as other men 
 are charged with a knowledge of the law; there is nothing in 
 this, which is inconsistent with common sense and reason. If 
 I unite in partnership with half a dozen individuals, am I not 
 charged with a knowledge of the obligations imposed by the 
 articles of co-partnership? I cannot plead ignorance. And 
 every jurist, if not every Christian disciplinarian, will see 
 and understand what I am at — that every member is bound to 
 know the discipline, and when charged with an offence, must 
 meet and receive the full measure of that rule. Then your 
 honour will perceive, why I reviewed that testimony; because 
 if Hilles and James have taken an active part, they must in- 
 evitably be guilty of an offence; for they knew — the law says it. 
 reason and common sense say it — they knew, they wcie vio 
 lating the discipline, and by violaiiiig the discipline, they 
 
208 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 caused tliat disturbance. They must at least have caused a 
 disturbance, if they did not break the discipline. I make the 
 remark, that I may not be misunderstood, or my words inter- 
 preted beyond their true sense; they were particeps criminis, or 
 they were concerned in this transaction. To show this the 
 more clearly, we must travel back to the caucusses, and confe- 
 rences. We have heard considerable, though we had to drag 
 it out, as you would extract a tooth. It came reluctantly, and 
 coming reluctantly, it was almost impossible to determine 
 the distinct motives that led to these meetings, or what was, 
 in fact, their real result. In speaking of the result, your ho- 
 nour will see, that the members of this society adopt, both in 
 their religious exercises and discipline, and by habit carry into 
 their lives, the principle of being governed by the motions of 
 the Spirit, or, as at the time they may be given to understand 
 is the correct course. I mention this, that the court may un- 
 derstand what they call the result of their conferences. 
 
 The first of these conferences, conversations, confabulations, 
 or whatever you may please to call them, was held in a barn. 
 I do not speak of the barn, as derogatory to the meeting; but 
 it happened at a barn. There was some interchange of senti- 
 ment on the division of the society. The next was at Red- 
 stone, at the Quarterly Meeting house. At Redstone conference, 
 delegates were appointed to the Plainfield conference, in Bel- 
 mont county; and there were delegates I think from all the 
 Quarters. The next conference was at UpdegrafF's school- 
 house, in Mount Pleasant, on Saturday, before the sitting of 
 the Yearly Meeting. 
 
 It will be necessary here, to inquire into the object and de- 
 termination of these conferences at these several places. One 
 of the witnesses speaks of the desperate state of the society 
 which they were to take into consideration. What desperate 
 state? We are -informed what they considered a state of des- 
 peration. We are informed by Israel Updegraff, that there had 
 been much dissatisfaction excited by the disownmen'ss which 
 the orthodox were carrying on, as respected themselves. It 
 is called a high-handed measure. I do not use Mr. Upde- 
 grafF's language, but his sentiment. Herein consisted, as 
 they apprehended, the state of desperation that led to those 
 conclaves or consultations, for devising ways and means to 
 seek redress. Here was David Hilles, and in all but one con- 
 ference, Isaac James also ; and this reverend clergyman, Mr. 
 Peaslee, for the calling of whom to sit down, Mr. Taylor is 
 charged with having violated the discipline of the society. A 
 minister from abroad, without showing his credentials, which 
 every minister is bound to carry when he travels abroad, at- 
 tempts the duties of his otTice, and is requested to sit down; — 
 and these conferences were to seek redress of wrongs and 
 grievances. I have alluded to the wrong; it was disownment 
 
at Steubcnville^ Ohio. 
 
 209 
 
 on the part of the persons whom they call orthodox. The dis- 
 ownments could be from none but the society. The disown- 
 ments must come from the society, the regularly organized 
 society, and the regularly conducting society. They could 
 come from no other source. This was their grievance, and it 
 rendered their situation desperate. 
 
 And I may be under the necessity of informing your honour, 
 that this book of discipline points to them, the road to seek 
 redress — it points out the means how, and where, to seek re- 
 dress. And that state of desperation must have existed in the 
 mind, and not in the reality of the thing; for if disowned in 
 their own meeting, they could appeal to the Quarterly; for 
 disownments are only in the Monthly; and from the Quarterly 
 they could appeal to the Yearly Meeting. There was another 
 grievance, which it was pretended was one cause of this des- 
 peration; it was, that they had understood the orthodox were 
 making preparations, and endeavouring to arrange their pro- 
 ceedings, so as to exclude these persons from the Yearly Meet- 
 ing. This was one of the grievances of which they complained. 
 But the rule always has been, and always will be, to exclude 
 all improper persons, — all those who do not belong to the 
 society, including those who have been disowned. The ortho- 
 dox are the society; for when they speak of the orthodox, they 
 speak solely of the "meeting, — of those who have in control 
 the meeting. And the orthodox never did pretend, in any of 
 their consultations or conferences, to keep out — they never did 
 keep out any but thosowho ought to be kept out: For it is 
 fully shown, that those who are not members should not be 
 admitted into their select meetings. This complaint was 
 altogether imaginary. The other, that they had been dis- 
 owned, might have been well-founded; but the latter was un- 
 founded in every particular; for there was no design to exclude 
 any body who was entitled to attend. But Mr. Magar says, 
 one object of their movement was, to heal the breach. Let me 
 ask, what breach? And I make this inquiry, to meet what I 
 suppose will be urged by the other side, that they were seek- 
 ing redress in a lawful way. They were endeavouring, says 
 Mr. Magar, to adopt measures to heal the breach ; that is, 
 the disownments, and the cosduct of the society in the laying 
 down of Monthly Meetings, and protecting its select meeting 
 from intrusion. Were these the breaches which had brought 
 about that state of desperation, of which they speak; and 
 which would authorize them to call conferences, and with the 
 strong arm of flesh take possession of the synagogue ? Surely 
 not. 
 
 Again, we have shown the character of these conferences, 
 and, as I think I am bound to say, a very unjustifiable charac- 
 ter; for invitations were sent abroad from Plainfield, to the 
 
210 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 brethren, wherever they might be, to attend that conference, 
 and to attend to the Yearly Meeting, embracing all those who 
 had been disowned, as well as others. They were not contetit 
 with seeking what they conceived to be a redress of their 
 wrongs, in the way pointed out by the discipline; not content 
 with making complaint to the heads and fathers of the society, 
 and within their own pale, and under their own vine and fig- 
 tree. They were not content with this, but went to holding 
 conferences, unknown and strange to the society. And in 
 these conferences they invited disowned persons, who, they 
 knew, were not entitled to a seat in the meeting. Two or 
 three of the witnesses have placed great emphasis on these 
 two words— peaceable and quiet; and there are but one or two 
 who have come out openly, without shaping their words to 
 the best advantage; and they will say, that when recommend- 
 ing to go to the house, as heretofore, it was to be in a peace- 
 able and quiet manner. To acknowledge more than this, would 
 be to acknowledge a revolutionary spirit under the rose — that 
 they were broiling under anger; and that this was a proposition 
 to go, as heretofore, with persons disowned, who should not go 
 at all; that is, go and make your way into the house, and into 
 the society, as before you were disowned. This was their in- 
 tention; that disowned persons should array themselves- at the 
 doors of entrance, and if admitted, well and good, but if not, 
 then wait till you shall be moved what to do. Go, as hereto- 
 fore, disregarding the disownments of the society, for you have 
 been wronged. • 
 
 Peaslee and Hilles had travelled through the country, preach- 
 ing, and instilling into the minds of the people a revolutionary 
 spirit; and these were the officers lo lead the re-organizing 
 force. If we got in, says Dr. Carroll, we had concluded to 
 do what should seem best. 
 
 Now, in the language which these witnesses have used, we 
 are left very much in the dark. We did not determine on any 
 thing, say the witnesses, but if we got in, \ve were to do what 
 seemed best. If they intended to do nothing which was not 
 in accordance with the discipline of a pious and Christian 
 people, there need have been nothing said on the subject; but, 
 on the contrary, their language would have been that of un- 
 dissembling, pious Christians — if we get in, we shall be satis- 
 fied; if we get in, and are permitted to participate with our 
 brethren, it is all we ask. But I say there was something 
 under the rose. If we get in, we will do what seems best; we 
 will not submit to the authority and discipline of the society, 
 as peaceable and quiet members, in unity with our brethren; 
 hut we will do vv hat shall seem best. And for that purpose 
 was David Hilles mentioned for clerk. 
 
 But the Updcgrafts and French do, in pretty plain Ian- 
 
at Stfubenville, Ohio. 
 
 211 
 
 guage, say, that they contemplated a division of the society. 
 They pretend that the society was in a desperate situation; 
 and instead of seeking to heal it, and unite with their neigh- 
 bours, and not quarrel with them on questions of faith or 
 tenets, not satisfied to unite and worship God, without dis- 
 sention on minor points, they did contemplate a division. And 
 why? If they wished to divide, they were at liberty to with- 
 drawj there is nothing in the book of discipline that detains 
 them for a moment after they lose their unity of feeling. There 
 is nothing to prevent their withdrawing — and they might stay 
 away from the meeting if they could not accord with their 
 brethren. 
 
 It was a desperate state of feeling, when they could contem- 
 plate a division at Mount Pleasant, where strangers were as- 
 sembled from across the water, and pious and good Christians 
 from all quarters of our country, to commune upon the inte- 
 rests of the society, and to worship God. How was it possible 
 for pious Christians to contemplate such a division, to array 
 themselves, and create a disturbance, which was to assume 
 such an appalling, distressing, and awful aspect. If they did 
 not intend a division, if they did not intend to make a disturb- 
 ance, if they did not intend to seek a re-organization, which 1 
 am entitled to call a disorganization, why name a clerk, why 
 talk of him, and of what should be best, when they should get 
 in? They had it in view, and they need not conceal it, if they 
 did not get in, they were to re-organize the meeting. But I 
 am bound to say, that the idea, if they did not get in, was alto- 
 gether gratuitous; it must have existed only in the cunning and 
 designing minds of Peaslee, Hilles, and their associates, for 
 there never has been to this day, a single bar or latch against 
 them ; it is an assumption of fact. A persecuting spirit, on the 
 part of the orthodox, has not been manifested in a single in^ 
 stance; and the idea is thrown out to the world, only to create 
 sympathy, and to bring around themselves a phalanx of dis- 
 owned and disorganizing people. And I call on them to say, 
 where there has been one single manifestation of a persecuting 
 spirit, of an unjust, unchristian, ungodly spirit, on the part of 
 the orthodox, towards their brethren who call themselves 
 Friends. 
 
 There is, however, something lurking beneath all these pro- 
 ceedings, which, peradventure, ought to have mollified my 
 language a little towards the;Hicksites. I cannot believe that 
 it is altogether a disorganizing spirit, but I much incline to 
 think, that the thing which is said to be the root of all evil, is 
 at the bottom of it. And I am fully authorized to say, it is an 
 avaricious spirit in part, it is a love of money, that has urged 
 them on to the measures which they have pursued. For, even 
 here, it was supposed, in the outset of the defence, that they 
 
212 
 
 Trial of Fi-ienJs 
 
 were entering into a contest about property. It is their belief, 
 that they are contending about property. They have talked 
 about property at Concord, and about the Yearly Meeting 
 house and property at Mount Pleasant; and it has been in 
 evidence, and before the world, that the first and most impor- 
 tant measure of the Hicksites, was, a proposition to divide the 
 property. Now I did not suppose that there existed an asso- 
 ciation of Christians in our country, especially the Friends, 
 who would ever get into a contention about parochial proper- 
 ty. It is not merely the devil; it is the root of all evil, that has 
 excited them to this course of conduct. 
 
 Did they go in a peaceable, quiet manner, as Christians should 
 go ; or did they go with those who had been disowned, as they 
 had done heretofore? They went with persons like James, who 
 had been disowned — a testimony of disownment had been 
 issued against him, and delivered to him. He went under an 
 invitation from Plainfield, disregarding the discipline and dis- 
 ownment of his own Monthly Meeting. 
 
 But Hilles is said to be a member. Hilles' conduct, as a 
 member of the society, is tinged with a very dark hue, and, 
 it seems to me, by a plodding, calculating design. We see him 
 in all these conferences; and, as a representative from Red- 
 stone, attending the Yearly Meeting for discipline. He sees, 
 and he knows his duty; for he is learned and shrewd. The 
 discipline says, it was his duty to lodge the reports, which he 
 had with him, in the hands of the clerk. The discipline re- 
 quired him to answer to his name; but he did not do it. He 
 neglected his duty as a representative, and as a member. And, 
 I ask your honour, wherefore? It was because he knew in his 
 own mind, that it had been determined to disorganize the 
 meeting, and to trample upon its discipline. He is sly and 
 cunning. He was playing the game of an arch-demagogue. 
 He is entitled to these remarks, from the course which he has 
 pursued. 
 
 We see him, when waited on, after his nomination had been 
 carried by acclamation, hanging back, and pretending that he 
 would rather not; though, I say, the previous design was, that 
 he should be the clerk, and he knew it. He objected; he was 
 so modest that he could scarcely receive the honour. When 
 waited on, he was reluctant; and you are told by all the wit- 
 nesses, that he was the most passive being that ever was — a 
 mere child or babe in the hands of his friends. But he went 
 with them through the crowd, and then could take to himself 
 the old drawer of the table, to write on — could call the meeting, 
 and act as their organ and principal man; and yet, it is said 
 that he took no part, that he had nothing to do — modest, pious 
 soul! Not at all concerned, but was driven to promotion, just as 
 the demagogue is always shoved along. When you look round, 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 213 
 
 there is not a single individual that did shove — nobody shoved, 
 but all were shoved; there were no shovers in the business; 
 they were all shovees. I do say, the thing is a perfect farce; 
 and I put it to him, who has ever felt that he had *a soul to be 
 saved, who ever felt it possible for him to be blessed in a future 
 state, or who believes in a future state of happiness or misery, 
 if he could, at such a moment, in the presence of his God, con- 
 duct in such a manner. It is a scandal upon the religion which 
 we profess. And the Mr. Pierce who has testified, seems to 
 me to have never thought that he had a God. It must be im- 
 possible, that those guilty of such conduct ever felt the spirit 
 of religion; if so, I hope I never shall be tainted with it. 
 
 But James was not a member of the society; he had once 
 been; but whether he was once humble, and truly religious, 
 and holy in his walk and life, I know not. If he has been, 
 he certainly is a fallen spirit. He has been disowned, as is 
 shown by the testimony ; and I can view him in no other light 
 than as a real valiant lad, ready to enlist in any crusade where 
 he might chance to better his situation; for worse could not 
 be; and he enlisted under Peaslee and Hilles. They called in 
 the scattered tribes; and under these banners he was going 
 up to seek redress; for after he got to the highest seat in the 
 synagogue, he said, "I was told this was the way to get re- 
 dress." By whom was he told that that was the way to get 
 redress, in that tumultuous way, in the house of God, press- 
 ing forward, and taking the highest seat.'' Was that the way 
 for a Christian to seek redress? and is it pretended that he 
 was a follower of Elias Hicks? I fear the doctrines of Elias 
 Hicks lead to such piety as that. I cannot fathom Elias Hicks' 
 doctrine any more than I can deism. 
 
 All who have heard this investigation, have anticipated 
 something of the defence which will be set up by Hilles and 
 James. But, from the course already pursued by the oppo- 
 site counsel, I can hardly flatter myself with any thing like a 
 reasonable conjecture of what course they will pursue in fu- 
 ture. But it does become me, out of courtesy to the gentle- 
 men, to state what I suppose will be their defence, that they 
 may understand how I, as one, would resist the position which 
 the prosecution has taken. I shall, therefore, notice some of 
 the prominent grounds which the gentlemen v/iil take, to show 
 that their clients are innocent, and not obnoxious. 
 
 I suppose they will rely on the fact, that Hilles is a member of 
 Redstone Quarterly Meeting ; that he was a representative, and 
 therefore entitled to all the rights of a regular member,in the ex- 
 ercise of those rights. James, they would probably say, though 
 disowned, was irregularly disowned. But that, it seems to 
 me, is not a matter for discussion. I think the relation of 
 Hilles to the society, renders him far the more culpable of the 
 27 
 
Tridi of F ritiiJs 
 
 two iiidiviJuals. And il' I am correct, that there was a dis- 
 turbance of the meeting, acting- under the clerkship of Taylor, 
 and if, in thai disturbance, Hilles and James were participa- 
 tors, were 1 silting as a judge, clothed with plenary power, I 
 should inflicl double punishment on Hilles. There is a mani- 
 fest difference between aiv ignorant, unlearned man, (and I be- 
 lieve James to be such a one,) acting under a belief that he 
 had been wronged and injured, and one who is learned, talent- 
 ed, and shrewd; in full communion with a large society, acting 
 knowingly against their discipline, and against the peace and 
 harmony of the society, and evidently willing to prostrate its 
 best interests. Such, it appears to me, has been the conduct 
 of Hilles; for he knew the discipline; he knew that he was 
 wrong; he knew the course pursued must have a tendency to 
 widen the breach, and render desperation more desperate. 
 He knew that it would have a tendency to throw the society 
 into still greater confusioi>; and the most common capacity 
 must allow, that such a course would have a tendency to make 
 the division irreconcilable. It was like opening a wide and 
 broad gulf between brethren of the same faith, impassable in 
 this world ;-— in the next, there are no gulfs to pass! 
 
 James claims no distinction ; he was once an ordinary and 
 humble member belonging to the society; but he has been 
 disowned, and, in his zeal and blindness, he may have been 
 led to suppose, unjustly disowned. He had been advised, and 
 under the feelings of remorse, disappointment, or mortifica- 
 tion, he may have supposed that he was in the right way to 
 restore himself to his privileges. In Hilles, we might have 
 well looked for a different course. But I think it irkvmaterial 
 whether one or both were members of the society. It is a 
 matter of total indifference in this stage of the question, whe- 
 ther they were members or not. 
 
 I have understood, the common opinion is, abroad, that, as 
 Hilles is acknowledged to be a member, if James were in a 
 like situation, this prosecution must faij. That opinion, it 
 seems to me, is illegal, and irrationally founded. I will sup- 
 pose, for a moment, that I am a member of one of the socie- 
 ties in this town, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or Methodist, in 
 full communion with them; and that, during divine worship, 
 I should get up and undertake to make a preachment, sermon, 
 or exhortation, and in that way (Jisturb the people, so that 
 they would necessarily disperse, and should manifest a deter- 
 mination and design to disturb the meeting, and assert that I 
 had a right to do it — would not the statute punish me? Is it 
 not preposterous to suppose, that a statute should be so framed 
 as to have no power over those belonging to the society, to 
 say to them, that they shall not disturb the society? It is 
 preposterous to suppose that a member is not capable of dis- 
 
at Sleubenville, Ohw. 
 
 515 
 
 turbing the body, because lie has a right of membership. I 
 should be as capable of disturbing the society to which I be- 
 long, as the utmost stranger. 
 
 Hilles, being a member, was under a double obligation; I 
 might say under a threefold obligation. He had pledged him- 
 self, in as solemn a pledge as he could make; he had agreed 
 to be governed by the discipline; he was under an obligation 
 to submit, and not create disturbance. He was under another 
 obligation, from the fact that he professes godliness of life. 
 And in a third respect, as holding a conspicuous station in 
 the society. On all these accounts he was bound, by every 
 principle that binds us in this life, to have conducted in a 
 mild and Christian manner. 
 
 I have heard much said, as to the majority at the late 
 Yearly Meeting, and the majority of the society at large; but 
 what has that to do with the case? I have, I think, satisfied 
 your honour, that these defendants have not the excuse, for 
 acting as they did, in acquiescing in the proposition of French, 
 or the nomination of Hilles, that there was a majority on their 
 side; for it has been shown that the majority was on the or- 
 thodox side. It is a well known fact, that thetr feelings were 
 opposed to these proceedings; and yet they talk about ma- 
 jority. 
 
 But there is one position, taken by Peter Askew, that 
 it seems the defence will not agree to, in relation to laying 
 down Concord Monthly Meeting against its consent. He 
 takes it, that all those who do not speak in favour of a propo- 
 sition, are against it. And if that rule is to apply to Hilles, 
 his appointment was lost by about twelve hundred. This is 
 a rule which Peter Askew takes for correct; for he says, in re- 
 lation to Concord, that there were only four voices in favour 
 of the measure, and all the rest were to be taken of course as 
 against it. So that I know not what is to be understood by 
 majorities. By their arithmetic, it would seem that they have 
 a majority in the United States, and in the world; and that, 
 therefore, they had a right to enter the house contrary to dis- 
 cipline. Do they say they had a majority in that house ? 
 Then I rgfer to the facts, as established by Dr. Hamilton and 
 others, to show that they had not a majority. Dr. Carroll 
 calculated their numbers at about four hundred. But, it is 
 said, they had a majority of voices. We have only to answer, 
 that the noise was altogether in their favour; the disturbance 
 ■was in their favour; and, if they please, they may take all that 
 was said; "Go ahead, or burst your boiler:" "Hurra for 
 Jackson," &c. They may take the whole. But this only shows 
 the blindness or evil design of the defendants, in the course 
 they have pursued. 
 
 1 hat they were seeking redress for grievances, is another 
 objection to be made; and upon this, wc have but little to say. 
 
216 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 But it is a little remarkable, that so many men of standing and 
 information, and with such counsel as they have, the first in 
 the country, and the oldest at the bar, should contend that 
 these defendants are suffering under wrongs, originated by 
 the discipline, yet, never have sought redress by the disci- 
 pline. They declare that they have, throughout the country, 
 a majority; and insist that the society is a democracy; and 
 yet, they can seek redress in no other way, but by force; in no 
 other way, but by trampling on the discipline, and getting 
 into power, as Hilles took his seat. If they are a majority, 
 and they have suffered wrong, let them wait with patience, 
 like humble, pious Christians — the day is coming, when they 
 must have power, in every Preparative, Monthly, Quarterly, 
 and Yearly Meeting. It argues against their principles, wis- 
 dom, and character, that they have not gone to the fountain 
 head — but they have not waited; they have shown themselves 
 ten times more disorderly, and ten times more ungovernable 
 than the Jacksonians are charged to be, for the Jacksonians 
 have waited till the polls came round; and why did not the 
 Hicksites wait till the polls came round? Why have they not 
 pursued the course, which the discipline, which common 
 sense, and the law point out? It is no excuse that they have 
 suffered wrong, by disownments, and the laying down of 
 Monthly Meetings. This is all a stratagem; and their pro- 
 clamations to the world, about disownments and the laying 
 down of meetings, is only to create a fervour of feeling in the 
 community in their behalf, and to bring around them every 
 disaffected member, who may chance to come within the 
 sound of the proclamation from Plainfield. Come hither, all 
 ye disowned, and we will seek redress in our very sanctuary, 
 in the Yearly Meeting — in the most important meeting of the 
 society. 
 
 They have again raised another hue and cry agiainst the 
 orthodox, on account of door-keepers, and pretend they have 
 discovered something unusual. They pretend that these door- 
 keepers were to prevent the Hicksites from the enjoyment of 
 their lawful rights; but it is altogether a fetch. You are told 
 that the appointment of door-keepers is a usage of long stand- 
 ing, and that there is nothing new in this instance, except it 
 be in the number. And this is easily accounted for, by the 
 larger number of people from all quarters. It was thought 
 necessary to increase the numbers, because they were more 
 liable to be imposed on — as they have been. It was necessary 
 for them, when they saw the course that was pursuing by the 
 other party, to send door-keepers from different quarters; be- 
 cause those from Short Creek would not know who to admit 
 or reject. And I should suppose that a satisfactory reason to 
 any man. And, perhaps, there is no better way than to test 
 
at Sleubenville^ Ohio. 
 
 217 
 
 the thing by what occurs afterwards, as rtspects a design, 
 when we cannot know the motive. We know there were at 
 this Yearly Meeting an unusual number, striving to get, in, 
 who were disowned, and not entitled to admittance. We see 
 by this, that the anticipations of those in office were well 
 founded, and that they had good reason to make arrange 
 ments5 and their proceedings cannot extenuate the conduct of 
 the defendants. And how do they stand excused or palliated 
 in their conduct, from the fact, that those whose business it 
 was, anticipated difficulties, and took the necessary precau- 
 tion? It might answer where no other excuse could be had: 
 according to the old adage, "a poor excuse is better than 
 none." If there were dissatisfaction existing, why not seek 
 the proper redress by appealing from one meeting to another? 
 They were bound so to do. And if they did not do it, they 
 have no cause for grumbling. 
 
 I am aware, from the manner in which the gentleman has 
 examined Mr. Scholfield, and read his testimony of disown- 
 ment, that he will indulge in some remarks upon it. And as 
 a subject of remark, it may be proper for me to suggest a few 
 ideas, against what I conceive to be the course which will be 
 pursued by the gentleman. I recollect the emphatic manner 
 in which he pronounced some of the words in Scholfield's tes- 
 timony. 
 
 I beg leave simply to remark, that this society, like all 
 others, is founded on some certain known or established 
 tenets or doctrines of faith. And when a member unites with 
 a society, he pledges to them his faith, and his belief as a 
 Christian. To act in harmony and Christian love, the members 
 of a society should be of one faith and belief. It is the true 
 foundation on which they unite. And it can be no cause — 
 and I am yet to learn that any rational being should sup- 
 pose it a cause, of resentment or ill will, when they charge 
 a brother with having denied the faith, and he having assented 
 to it, that they should disown him. I would not go into an in- 
 vestigation — but the gentleman has offi;red this, and read 
 that part which relates to a book of sermons attributed to 
 Elias Hicks, in that emphatic manner, which will lead to the 
 supposition that there had been a disownment, because the 
 member did not conform to every one of their particular 
 tenets — which is not the fact. There is a book of sermons 
 that contains doctrines directly the reverse of the doctrines in 
 the discipline^ as diverse as Unitarianism is from Trinita- 
 rianism. And the attempt, to which they will be led, to place 
 the orthodox party in the light of inquisitors, will fail before 
 an enlightened public, though it may gain credit in the chim- 
 ney corner. There is a text in this discipline which I feel 
 bound to read, as it is one of the grounds on which members 
 
218 
 
 Ti iat of Friends 
 
 arc subject to disownmenl. 1 am bouiul lo read it in defence 
 of my clients. 
 
 " If any in inetnbershii) with us shall blaspheme, or speak piofanelj' of 
 Almighty God, Christ Jesus, or tlie Holy Spirit, they ought to be timely 
 and earnestly treated with for the convincement of their understandings, 
 that they may experience repentance and forgiveness; but should any, 
 notwithstanding such brotherly labour, persist in their error, or deny the 
 divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the immediate revelation of 
 the Holy Spirit, or the authenticity of the Scriptures; as it will be thereby 
 manifest that they are not one in faith with us, the Monthly Meetings 
 where they belong, ought, after the aforesaid earnest and religious en- 
 deavours without effect, to declare the same, and issue their testimony ac- 
 cordingly." — (_Ohio Discipline, page 22.) 
 
 Ellas Hicks, in speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ, says: 
 " He was only an outward Saviour that healed their outward diseases, 
 and gave them strength of body, to enjoy that outward good land." " It was 
 the soul that wanted salvation; but this no outward Saviour could do, no 
 external Saviour could have any hand in it." In another place: " If we be- 
 lieve that God is equal and righteous in all his ways, that he has made of 
 one blood all the families that dwell upon the earth, it is impossible that \ 
 he should be partial; and therefore he has been as willing to reveal his 
 will to every creature, as he was to our first parents; to Moses and the 
 Prophets; to Jesus Christ and his Apostles. He never can set any of these 
 above us; because if he did, he would be partial." — {Hicks' Sermons, 
 Parker's edition, pp. 50, 292.) 
 
 Without saying who is right, or who is wrong, of these 
 Friends, in relation to tenets, which they hold so near and dear 
 to their souls, I see not how they could retain unity with a man 
 who professes the sentiments of Elias Hicks. Yet, for these 
 disownments, secret conclaves are held, and re-organizing 
 conferences; and the synagogue itself is to be turned into a 
 den of thieves. And these men are said, and will be said to 
 have been, persecuted. 
 
 There is another objection upon which that gentleman may 
 enlighten the court, if not amuse it — it is thought worse than 
 all, the laying down of Monthly Meetings, without the consent 
 of their members. Upon this subject, I remark, barely to do 
 away the false impressions that may at first view arise from 
 the Monthly Meeting's being laid down, without the consent 
 of those that compose it, especially of a pure democracy — I 
 will show, that there is nothing in the discipline, which re- 
 quires a Quarter to have the assent of those composing the 
 Monthly Meeting. 
 
 "No Quarterly Meeting should be set up, or laid down, without the 
 consent of the Yearly Meeting; no Monthly Meeting, without the consent 
 of the Quarterly Meeting; nor any Preparative, or other meeting for busi- 
 ness or worship, until application to the Monthly Meeting be first made; 
 and, when there approved, the consent of the Quarterly Meeting be also ' 
 obtained." — {Book of Discipline, 29.) 
 
 Now the court will perceive, according to the legal con- 
 struction, that the consent of the Monthly Meeting is not 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 219 
 
 necessary, on account of the previous clause. It is not to be 
 found in the whole discipline, that a Monthly Meeting cannot 
 be laid down without the consent of its members. [Here Mr. 
 Goodnow spoke of the Philadelphia discipline, as being dif- 
 ferent from that of Ohio, in relation to the power of Quarterly 
 over Monthly Meetings; but having evidently received a wrong 
 impression upon the subject, the statement was corrected by 
 his colleague, Mr. Wright, and the similarity of the two dis- 
 ciplines acknowledged by Mr. Goodnow.] 
 
 We have from Baltimore an example given on the part of 
 the defendants, in which a Quarterly Meeting has laid down 
 a Monthly Meeting without its consent, and against its con- 
 sent. If there be any objection to this position, it must he for 
 the reason, that the Quarterly Meeting was advised by the 
 Yearly Meeting. Because by the discipline, there and here, 
 the Yearly Meeting is not the tribunal — the Yearly Meeting 
 cannot lay down. And, I say, if the Quarterly had refused, 
 the Yearly Meeting could not have laid down the Monthly 
 Meeting in that instance. It would have been a departure 
 from the correct order of proceeding, a violation of the first 
 principles of their known civil and ecclesiastical polity; be- 
 cause the Monthly Meetings are constituents of the Quarters, 
 and the Quarterlies of the Yearly Meeting; and it is not in the 
 power of the Yearly Meeting to jump over a Quarter, and 
 prostrate a Monthly Meeting. But it is in the power of a 
 Quarterly Meeting to lay down a Monthly Meeting. What, 
 I ask, would be the converse of this proposition? If a Quarterly 
 may not lay down a Monthly, it might become most disorderly 
 and inconsistent in its practices, there might be an entire 
 departure from the established order of the society — and yet» 
 it is said, the Quarterly, which is the supervisory power, 
 could not lay it down. Such an idea is preposterous. 
 
 But in answer to both positions, the complaint against dis- 
 ownments, and laying down of Monthly Meetings, is all pro- 
 vided for by going to the Quarterly and Yearly Meetings. 
 When a Monthly Meeting is laid clown, he who suffers a 
 grievance has a right of admission into the Yearly Meeting, and 
 q. right to make his grievances known. This is the known, 
 uniform, and established usage of the society. Any member 
 feeling aggrieved, no matter whether he l)elong to the Meet- 
 ing for Sufferings, the meeting of ministers and elders — if he 
 belong to the Yearly Meeting, he has a right to be heard. 
 Such is the language of all the witnesses, and such we con- 
 cede. There was, then, a way pointed out for redress ; and, 
 I think, neither of these questions can form any legitimate 
 part in the merits of this case. First, disownments are in 
 the ecclesiastical court, and this court has no supervisory 
 power in those cases, I will not say that no case could be 
 
220 
 
 Trial of Friendi 
 
 named, in which this court might not have such power. I 
 may liken it to a jtidgment incidentally brought into view; it 
 must stand good while on its face it is fair, and cannot be inci- 
 dentally impeached ; so, if the laying down of a Monthly 
 Meeting, except from the book of discipline, the court could 
 be advised, that the society, or its laws, come under the pro- 
 tection of the municipal law of the state: and your honour 
 would be bound to abide by it, unless some rule be brought to 
 show that they have been wrongfully laid down; — there cannot 
 be a question in any shape, unless it can be shown that these 
 were members of the society, that they have suffered wrong, 
 and that they are seeking redress in a law-ful manner, accord- 
 ing to the discipline. Here, then, it seems to me, sufficient 
 has been shown to make it a clear case, that it was these de- 
 fendants, in connexion with their associates, who carried on 
 the disturbance in the Yearly Meeting on the eighth of Sep- 
 tember. If that be the fact, they must fall under the animad- 
 version of the statute. That spirit which, on the part of the 
 Hicksites, manifested itself at Redstone, Plainfield, and at the 
 school house in Mount Pleasant, that combination does not, 
 and cannot receive credence and sanction in this court, at the 
 hands of your honour, so as to exculpate the individuals 
 charged. Their crime is not lessened in consequence of the 
 number engaged with them. If two had made the disturb- 
 ance, so far as two could have created so much disturbance, I 
 ask, if the case would not have been palpably clear? Then do 
 numbers lessen the guilt, or excuse the defendants, in the acts 
 of uniting, pressing forward, taking the drawer of the table, 
 and proceeding, as they did, to open a meeting? Certainly 
 not. 
 
 It is a combination which seems composed, not only of dis- 
 cordant materials, but knit together by no sentiments of unity. 
 Their actions manifest a spirit of revolution and re-organiza- 
 tion, and a determination to seek a participation in the pro- 
 perty and meetings composing this large society. And when 
 they pretend that a clerk has no authority, other than any in- 
 dividual member, how strange do their actions appear. Their 
 whole struggle was to get a clerk. They thought, if they 
 could get a clerk of their stamp, they were safe; and yet. they 
 say the clerk is no more than an ordinary member. 
 
 If they had no views but those of passive, quiet members of 
 society, why such combinations, such consultations, pomp, 
 and preparations; why so much parade, as if going to vvar.^ I 
 say, if there was no oijject but the support of the society upon 
 pure principles — to maintain the society in its integrity, why 
 not take their seats quietly, and then there would have been no 
 dislurbance. If it had not been for the proposition of French, 
 all agree there would have been no difficulty in the meeting. 
 
at SteiibenviilK, (JIiid. 
 
 221 
 
 If their object were such as is pretended, why seek to remove 
 the clerk, and why pursue the course they did? There was 
 nothing to prevent their entering; they had not been denied, 
 they had not been threatened, they had not been ill-treated. 
 
 To say the most, those who had followed Elias Hicks, in 
 some of his doctrines, directly contrary to the discipline; those 
 who had manifested, by their lives and conversation, a dis- 
 union with the body of the society, have been treated, not 
 as culprits, not as wicked men, not as infidels, not as pa- 
 gans| they have been treated as men en joying the same rights 
 and, privileges as the orthodox. They are only told, in a spi- 
 rit of Christian love, your doctrines are in discordance with 
 ours, and you have broken the bond of union, and, by the dis- 
 cipline, you stand condemned. And we only testify to the 
 world; and, to preserve our society from the scandal and slan- 
 der of the world, we are bound to publish far and near, 
 that we have no unity with you. We pronounce no anathe- 
 mas, we give you no evil name; wc only ask you to leave us, 
 and establish yourselves where you please, and unite with 
 whom you please. We have nothing to do with those who do 
 not unite with us. This is all that has been said upon the 
 subject. 
 
 In conclusion, I would suggest, that if these defendants are 
 not within the statute, as disturbers of that meeting, it does 
 seem to me, we can hardly imagine a case in which the sta- 
 tute would apply. And if there is not in the statute sufficient 
 to meet this case — if a case like this, as testified to by the 
 witnesses, where the disturbance was so great as to be painful 
 and appalling to the spectator — if our laws have no provision 
 or protection, no means furnished to magistrates to control 
 such proceedings, I ask, what is the state of our society.^ 
 There is not a church in this village, nor in the United States, 
 that may not experience the same. And this revolutionary 
 spirit may ride triumphant from Maine to Georgia. For what 
 is there to do, what is there wanting, in those who happen to 
 be disowned, those who happen to become alien to the faith 
 which they have espoused, but to organize, and march in solid 
 columns, and depose the presiding officers? 
 
 If the law will not protect societies against abuses of this 
 kind, there is no safety or protection in the laws of the land. 
 Liberty of conscience is at once at an end. And we do appeal 
 to your honour, for the necessity, if this case be within the 
 statute, of exemplary punishment. And if the defendants 
 would seek redress of their supposed grievances in the society, 
 they must seek it according to the ecclesiastical polity, which 
 they have been instrumental in establishing. 
 
 This storm has been for some time rising and raging. It 
 has been gathering in the horizon for some time; it is now 
 28 
 
I'l idl of I'riemls 
 
 one in tlic courts above. It is to this that they allude. When 
 assembled together, they first sit in silence, looking to the 
 all-seeing eye of their gracious Lord above. Thus unity is 
 all-important to be preserved; it is on this union, and a right 
 understanding of this union, this one democratic power per- 
 vading each body, that we are to understand, and by which 
 only we can understand, how this society could be kept to- 
 gether for the time they have. If questions were carried by 
 majorities, if representatives could legislate upon them, re- 
 gardless of the rest of the meeting, if they did not profess 
 to require the unity or concurrence of the whole meeting, 
 in laws Avhich are to operate upon the society, instead of 
 being united from 1671, or for more than 150 years, from 
 the foundation down to the present time, they would have 
 split into as many pieces as Joseph's coat was torn into. 
 It is on that principle that the society is to be considered, 
 in its Monthly, Quarterly, and Yearly Meetings. To show 
 that I am right, I will beg leave to refer the court to some 
 of the authorities, showing that these meetings were origi- 
 nally Monthly, and in process of time Quarterly, which were 
 composed of Monthly Meetings; and members who were 
 within a convenient distance, were expected to attend the gene- 
 ral meeting. And here is a matter of some kind of importance 
 in the progress of tHis suit. The general meetings had their 
 origin, not from any representatives at all. The first and 
 largest meetings that took place, were Meetings for Suffer- 
 ings. Owing to the peculiar stat«e of concerns in England, it 
 was deemed necessary to have these meetings. They met, 
 therefore, frequently; and of them we hear frequently; but 
 previous to these. Quarterly Meetings had given their epis- 
 tles, which being agreed on, these meetings took place. The 
 first meetings therefore that were had, were meetings called 
 together for general consultation, upon all the matters relating 
 to the society. 
 
 We find a general meeting in 1659, another in 1671-2, but 
 not in any degree of order till 1677. And in America, the first 
 general meeting, 1671-2, in^Rhode Island, personally superin- 
 tended by George Fox, at Pawtuxet; and thence removed to 
 Baltimore. From looking into the origin of these meetings, 
 and I refer to Gough vol. 2, page 163, and Fox's Jour- 
 nal, vol. 2, page 144, 150, we find that these assemblies, 
 took place originally, without deputies ; or if they attend- 
 ed, they were persons bringing epistles from their friends 
 at large, stating their concerns. And here we shall find 
 that the real object of the assembling of these people, by 
 way of general meeting, was, the promotion of greater har- 
 mony and unity in the society all over the world. When they 
 
 4 
 
at Steubcnvilic, Ohio. 
 
 225 
 
 first commenced establishing Yearly Meetings, vvc find by 
 their books, that deputies were sent up, charged with con- 
 cerns. The term deputies was used indifferently with that 
 of representatives, as the writer happened to think of the one 
 or the other. At that time, and I undertake to show, that 
 down to this time, they were liut the organs of communication 
 between the two meetings. I think the court will agree with 
 me, that my construction is the true one, from the authority to 
 which the gentleman has referred us. I take the first volume 
 of Clarkson, page 208. 
 
 "At length the day arrives for the Monthly Meeting. The deputies 
 make ready to execute the duties committed to their trust. They repair, 
 each set of them, to their respective places of meeting. Here a number 
 of Quakers, of different ages, and both sexes, from their different divisions, 
 repair also. It is expected that all, who can conveniently attend, should 
 be present on this occasion. 
 
 "When they are collected at the meeting house, which was said to have 
 been fixed upon in each division, a meeting for worship takes place. All 
 persons, both men and women, attend together. But when this meeting is 
 over, they separate into different apartments, for the purposes of the disci- 
 pline; the men to transact by themselves the business of the men, and of their 
 own district; the women, to transact that which is more limited, namely, 
 such as belongs to their own sex." 
 
 Also, pages 2 1 0 and 2 11 . 
 
 "In transacting this and other business of the society, all members pre- 
 sent are allowed to speak. 
 
 "The poorest man in the meeting house, though he may be receiving 
 charitable contributions at the time, is entitled to deliver his sentiments 
 upon any point. 
 
 " He may bring forward new matter. He may approve or object to what 
 others have proposed before him. No person- may interrupt him while he 
 speaks. 
 
 " The youth who are sitting by, are gaining a knowledge of the affairs 
 and discipline of the society, and are gradually acquiring sentiments and 
 habits that are to mark their character in life. They learn, in the first 
 place, the duty of a benevolent and respectful consideration for the poor. 
 In hearing the different cases argued and discussed, they learn, in some 
 measure, the rudiments of justice, and imbibe opinions of the necessity of 
 moral conduct. In these courts they learn to reason; they learn also to 
 hear others patiently, and without interruption, and to transact business, 
 that may come before them in maturer years, with regularity and order. 
 
 " I cannot omit to mention here, the orderly manner in which the Quak- 
 ers conduct their business on these occasions. When a subject is brought 
 before them, it is canvassed, to the exclusion of all extraneous matter, till 
 some conclusion results. The clerk of the Monthly Meeting then draws up 
 a minute, containing, as nearly as he can collect, the substance of this con- 
 clusion. This minute is then re.^d aloud to the auditory, and either stands 
 or undergoes an alteration, as appears by the silence or discussion upon it, 
 to be the sense of the meeting. When fully agreed upon, it stands ready 
 to be recorded. When a second subject comes on, it is canvassed, and a 
 minute made of it, to be recorded in the same manner, before a tliird is al- 
 lowed to be introduced. Thus each point is settled, till the whole l)usiness 
 of the meeting is concluded." 
 
 13ut, still further to exemplify my position, that the rrprc- 
 
Trial of Frienda 
 
 041C in the courts above. It is to this that they allude. When 
 assembled together, they first sit in silence, looking to the 
 all-seeing eye of their gracious Lord above. Thus unity is 
 all-important to be preserved; it is on this union, and a right 
 understanding of this union, this one democratic power per- 
 vading each body, that we are to understand, and by which 
 only we can understand, how this society could be kept to- 
 gether for the time they have. If questions were carried by 
 majorities, if representatives could legislate upon them, re- 
 gardless of the rest of the meeting, if they did not profess 
 to require the unity or concurrence of the whole meeting, 
 in laws which are to operate upon the society, instead of 
 being united from 1671, or for more than 150 years, from 
 the foundation down to the present time, they would have 
 split into as many pieces as Joseph's coat was torn into. 
 It is on that principle that the society is to be considered, 
 in its Monthly, Quarterly, and Yearly Meetings. To show 
 that I am right, I will beg leave to refer the court to some 
 of the authorities, showing that these meetings were origi- 
 nally Monthly, and in process of time Quarterly, which were 
 composed of Monthly Meetings; and members who were 
 within a convenient distance, were expected to attend the gene- 
 ral meeting. And here is a matter of some kind of importance 
 in the progress of this suit. The general meetings had their 
 origin, not from any representatives at all. The first and 
 largest meetings that took place, were Meetings for Suffer- 
 ings. Owing to the peculiar stat«e of concerns in England, it 
 was deemed necessary to have these meetings. They met, 
 therefore, frequently; and of them we hear frequently; but 
 previous to these, Quarterly Meetings had given their epis- 
 tles, which being agreed on, these meetings took place. The 
 first meetings therefore that were had, were meetings called 
 together for general consultation, upon all the matters relating 
 to the society. 
 
 We find a general meeting in 1659, another in 1671-2, but 
 not in any degree of order till 1677. And in America, the first 
 general meeting, 1671-2, in^Rhode Island, personally superin- 
 tended by George Fox, at Pawtuxet; and thence removed to 
 Baltimore. From looking into the origin of these meetings, 
 and I refer to Gough vol. 2, page 163, and Fox's Jour- 
 nal, vol. 2, page 144, 150, we find that these assemblies, 
 took place originally, without deputies ; or if they attend- 
 ed, they were persons bringing epistles from their friends 
 at large, stating their concerns. And here we shall find 
 that the real object of the assembling of these people, by 
 way of general meeting, was, the promotion of greater har- 
 mony and unity in the society all over the world. When they 
 
 4 
 
at Stcubcnvillc, Ohio. 
 
 225 
 
 first commenced establishing Yearly Meetings, we find by 
 their books, that deputies were sent up, charged with con- 
 cerns. The term deputies was used indifferently with that 
 of representatives, as the writer happened to think of the one 
 or the other. At that time, and I undertake to show, that 
 down to this time, they were ljut the organs of communication 
 between the two meetings. I think the court will agree with 
 xne, that my construction is the true one, from the authority to 
 which the gentleman has referred us. I take the first volume 
 of Clarkson, page 208. 
 
 "At length the day arrives for the Monthly Meeting. The deputies 
 make ready to execute the duties committed to their trust. They repair, 
 each set of them, to their respective places of meeting. Here a number 
 of Quakers, of different ages, and both sexes, from their different divisions, 
 repair also. It is expected that all, who can conveniently attend, should 
 be present on this occasion. 
 
 " When they are collected at the meeting house, which was said to have 
 been fixed upon in each division, a meeting for worship takes place. All 
 persons, both men and women, attend together. But when this meeting is 
 over, they separate into different apartments, for the purposes of the disci- 
 pline; the men to transact by themselves the business of the men, and of their 
 own district; the women, to transact that which is more limited, namely, 
 such as belongs to their own sex." 
 
 Also, pages 2 1 0 and 211. 
 
 "In transacting this and other business of the society, all members pre- 
 sent are allowed to speak. 
 
 " The poorest man in the meeting house, though he may be receiving 
 charitable conti'ibutions at the time, is entitled to deliver his sentiments 
 upon any point. 
 
 " He may bring forward new matter. He may approve or object to what 
 others have proposed before him. No person- may interrupt him while he 
 speaks. 
 
 " The yo>ith who are sitting by, are gaining a knowledge of the affairs 
 and discipline of the society, and are gradually acquiring sentiments and 
 habits that are to mark their character in life. They learn, in tiie first 
 place, the duty of a benevolent and respectful consideration for the poor. 
 In hearing the different cases argued and discussed, they learn, in some 
 measure, the rudiments of justice, and imbibe opinions of tiie necessity of 
 moral conduct. In these courts they learn to reason; they learn also to 
 hear others patiently, and without interruption, and to transact business, 
 that may come before them in maturer years, with regularity and order. 
 
 " I cannot omit to mention here, the orderly manner in which tiie Quak- 
 ers conduct their business on these occasions. When a subject is brought 
 before them, it is canvassed, to the exclusion of all extraneous matter, till 
 some conclusion results. The clerk of the Monthly Meeting then draws up 
 a minute, containing, as nearly as he can collect, the substance of this con- 
 clusion. This minute is then re.id aloud to the auditory, and either stands 
 or undergoes an alteration, as appears by the silence or discussion upon it, 
 to be the sense of the meeting. When fully agreed upon, it stands ready 
 to be recorded. When a second subject comes on, it is canvassed, and r 
 minute made of it, to be recorded in the same manner, before a third is al- 
 lowed to be introduced. Thus each point is settled, till the whole business 
 of the meeting is concluded." 
 
 But, still further to exemplify my posilir)n. thai tl\c rcprc- 
 
226 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 sentatives are but the organs of communication between the 
 meetings, and that the society is a pure democracy, I read 
 Clarkson, vol. 1, page 232. 
 
 " This government, however, notwithstanding its power, has, as 1 ob- 
 served before, no president or head, either permanent or temporary. There 
 is no first man through the whole society, neither has it any badge of office, 
 or mace, or constable's staff, or sword. 
 
 " It may be observed also, that it has no office of emolument, by which 
 its hands can be strengthened; neither minister, elder, clerk, overseer, nor 
 deputy, being paid : and yet its administration is firmly conducted, and its laws 
 better obeyed, than laws by persons under any other denomination or go- 
 vernment. The constant assemblage of the Quakers at their places of 
 worship, and their unwearied attendances at the Monthly and Quarterly 
 Meetings, which they must often frequent at a great distance, to their own 
 personal inconvenience, and to the hinderance of their worldly concerns, 
 must be .idmitted in part, as proofs of the last remark." 
 
 And page 233. — " This singular obedience, however, to the laws of the 
 society, may be accounted for on three principles. In the first place, in no 
 society is there so much vigilance over the conduct of its members as in 
 that of the Quakers, as this history of their discipline must have already 
 manifested. Tliis vigilance, of course, cannot miss of its effect. But a 
 second cause is the following. The Quaker laws and regulations are not 
 made by any one person, nor by any number, even of deputies. They are 
 made by themselves; that is, by the society in Yearly Meeting assembled. 
 If a bad law, or the repeal of a good one, be proposed, every one present, 
 without distinction, has a right to speak against the motion. The proposi- 
 tion cannot pass against the sense of the meeting. If persons are not pre- 
 sent, it is their own fault. Thus it happens, that every law passed at the 
 Yearly Meeting, may be considered, in some measure, as the law of every 
 Quaker's own will; and people are much more likely to follow regulations 
 made by their own consent than those which are made against it. This, 
 therefore, has unquestionably an operation as a second cause. A third may 
 be traced in the peculiar sentiments which the Quakers hold as a religious 
 body. They believe that many of their members, when they deliver them- 
 selves publicly, on any subject, at the Yearly Meeting, are influenced by 
 the dictates of the pure principle, or by the spirit of truth. 
 
 " Hence the laws of the society, which are considered to be the result of 
 such influences, have with them the sanction of spiritual authority. They pay 
 them, therefore, a greater deference on this account, than they woijld to 
 laws which they conceive to have been the production of the mere imagi- 
 nation or will of man." 
 
 Here it appears, in direct terms, as clearly as language can 
 convey the idea, that the laws are made by a//, in Yearly 
 Meeting assembled: and that there is no such thing as sepa- 
 rate power, devolving upon the representatives, to be exercised 
 over any other portion of the community. It is the act of 
 the whole, because each individual's will is incorporated in 
 the law passed. 
 
 I read from Gough, pages 162-3, 2d volume. 
 
 " These were termed Monthly Meetings, because in the most general 
 way, they were appointed to be held once a month; yet, as exigency, and 
 multiplicity of business, in large cities particularly, pointed out the neces- 
 sity of shorter intervals, some are lield every two or three weeks, and some 
 at greater intervals. 'I'hey are also, in such places, composed sometimes of 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 227 
 
 the members of one particular meeting only; but most generally through 
 the counties, consist of several contiguous meetings; and in this case, it ii 
 the practice in many places, for Friends of each particular meeting, to hold 
 a Preparative Meeting, to inquire into the state of the society in that meet- 
 ing, in respect to want, to general conduct, or to the sufferings of their 
 members; and to appoint representatives, to report what may appear need- 
 ful to the Monthly Meeting. Four or six particular meetings, usually com- 
 pose a Monthly, or general men's meeting." 
 
 '•These Monthly Meetings are fewer or more in number in each re- 
 spective county, as the number, situation, and circumstances of the mem- 
 bers in each might render most expedient." 
 
 " The setting up of Monthly Meetings, did not occasion the abolition of 
 Quarterly Meetings; but the former, taking upon them the executive part 
 of the discipline, which had before employed the latter, it appeared con- 
 ducive to general benefit, that the Quarterly Meetings should still continue, 
 as superintendent and assistant by advice to the Monthly Meetings. It was 
 therefore agreed, that all the Monthly Meetings in a county, should, by their 
 representatives, and other members, constitute the Quarterly Meeting for 
 that county." 
 
 Here is authority as direclly in point, as that which the 
 gentleman wishes to rely on. 
 
 Now, having seen what is the opinion entertained in England, 
 it may be well to see what is the opinion here. And really, I 
 should not have gone into this examination, or produced these 
 authorities, if the opposite party had adhered to their own 
 discipline. For it is said here, pretty plain, that the Yearly 
 Meeting of Ohio is composed of Friends west of the Allegheny 
 Mountains. — {Discipline, page 97.) 
 
 " The Yearly Meeting of Ohio, was set off from the Yearly Meeting of 
 Baltimore, and is composed of Friends west of the Allegheny Mountains. 
 The first Yearly Meeting in Ohio, was held at Short Creek, in the year 
 1813. It is now established at Mount Pleasant." 
 
 "The Yearly Meeting is held on the first First-day in the Ninth-month. 
 A public meeting for worship at the tenth hour in the morning, and another 
 at the third hour in the afternoon. The meeting for discipline is opened 
 at the tenth hour, on Second-day morning following. The Yearly Meeting 
 of ministers and elders is held on the Seventh-day of the week preceding, 
 and now concluded to be opened also at the tenth hour in the morning. 
 The representatives from the Quarterly Meetings, both men and women, 
 are annually to choose a clerk, and an assistant, at the close of the first sit- 
 ting of the meeting for discipline, whose names are to be reported at the 
 opening of the next sitting." 
 
 " Representatives having the care of the reports from the Quarterly 
 Meetings, are to put them into tlie hands of the clerk to the meeting for 
 the preceding year, before the opening of the meeting for discipline, in 
 order that time may be saved to the meeting." 
 
 We must take the language of the Discipline as it is, and 
 as it reads. We find in it, that the Yearly Meeting is not 
 composed of representatives from the Quarterly Meetings, but 
 is composed Friends in unity and in membership; that they 
 have the power, that they have the right to act. 
 
 Here, upon this subject, it might be well to call the atten- 
 tion of the court to the fact, that the testimony of all the wit- 
 
228 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 iiesses, exWept that of Bates, is, that they know of no power 
 that the representatives have, over any other member. All 
 lay it down as correct and true, that each member has an equal 
 right to speak; and that his voice in speaking, whether to sug- 
 gest, discuss, or oppose measures, is to be taken into con- 
 sideration, equally with the rest; always making allowance for 
 age over inexperience and youth, giving to wisdom its proper 
 place; not a preference to persons, for their persons are on an 
 equality. 
 
 A good deal has been said, in order to further the idea ad- 
 vocated by the opposite side, that it is a representative system, 
 because there is a clerk, and he is appointed at a particular 
 time, the Third-day of the week, or the Second-day of the 
 Yearly Meeting, and continues till the next year. Now, a few 
 words, I think, will place this subject in its proper light. The 
 court is a^yare that the clerk has no business to perform out 
 of the meeting. He is — and to show it, I shall call the atten- 
 tion of the court to some authorities — he is not the head, but 
 the mere servant of the meeting. The representatives havo 
 no power whatsoever, except that which originates from the 
 meeting, and is given them expressly. I am aware, that be- 
 fore this court, it will be contended that the representatives 
 have power to appoint the clerk. But tlie counsel cannot be 
 borne out in it, for the Discipline, page 98, has a different 
 understanding. 
 
 " The representatives from the Quarterly Meetings, both men and wo- 
 men, are annually to choose a clerk, and an assistant, at the close of the 
 first sitting of tlie meeting for discipline, whose names are to be reported 
 at the opening of the next sitting." — {Discipline, page 98.) 
 
 The true construction is, that they choose a person at the 
 instance of the meeting, to be reported to the meeting — not to 
 serve it. — This is not in the discipline. It is not to serve the 
 meeting, it is to choose a clerk to be reported to the meeting — 
 and they receive, or object. Such is the language and uniform 
 course that has been pursued, according to the minutes. On 
 Second-day, that is, the first day for discipline, and I wish the 
 court to understand the case; by reference to the minutes, it 
 will be found, that the uniform course, at the close of the first 
 sitting, is, that at the instance of the meeting, the representa- 
 tives are required to report the name of a suitable person to 
 serve the meeting as clerk, for the ensuing term or residue of 
 the annual sitting. The minutes upon this subject will bear 
 me out. 
 
 At Ohio Yearly Meeting, held at Mount Pleasant, from the 2d day of 
 the Ninth-month, to the 9th of the same, inclusive, 1816. 
 
 " Third of the month. — .Jonathan Taylor, on behalf of the representatives, 
 reports, that they h:ive conferred together, and agreed to propose Isaac 
 Wilson to serve this meeting as clerk, and Joseph Fisher assistant; which 
 is united with, and they appointed to the service." 
 
at SteubenvUle^ Ohio. 
 
 229 
 
 A similar minute will be found in pages, 5, 20, 29, 40, 56, 
 72, 94, 105, 106, 114, 126, 139, 149, 157. 
 
 The court will see that the meeting move the consideration 
 of the matter; that is, at the second sitting on the first day of 
 the meeting for discipline, or Second-day of the week, they 
 move, and the representatives the next day make report; — all 
 by the motion of the meeting — the whole body. They report 
 a clerk or person, and the report is submitted to the meeting. 
 If the meeting does not unite in the name, there is an end of 
 it. Now, through the whole transaction, the representatives 
 have travelled out of the original intent and meaning of their 
 office, which was, to carry up and back, communications to 
 and from the different meetings. Why? Because it is evident 
 that it was done for the purpose of expediting business. And 
 from being a practice, it was at length entered upon the book 
 of Discipline, that the representatives should report a nanae. 
 But the rule is still sovereign, that the society is a perfect de- 
 mocracy. The meeting, the whole voice of the meeting, and 
 nothing but the whole voice, is sufficient for making a clerk, 
 or other officer, for it cannot be done by the representatives, in 
 their representative capacity. 
 
 The minutes to which I have previously referred, will be 
 sufficient to show the uniform tendency of this society to do 
 no act, except by the general concurrence of the whole meet- 
 ing. But it is also urged, that the representatives have 
 another power given them at page 98 of the Discipline, from 
 which they act, and by which they are said to derive this con- 
 trol over the business of the Yearly Meeting. A declaration 
 is made, that, 
 
 " Representatives having the care of the reports from the Qiiai terly Meet- 
 ings, are to put them into the hands of the clerk to the meeting for the pre- 
 ceding year, before the opening of the meeting for discipline, in order that 
 time may be saved to the meeting by a pre\ioiis entry of the names of re- 
 presentatives. No representative ougtit to withdraw from the Yearly 
 Meeting before it ends, without leave being first requested and grant- 
 ed." — {Ohio Discipline, page 98.) 
 
 Here, is a mere declaration and recommendation of what is 
 best to be done to save time. But it gives no power to the 
 representatives. And in addition to this, if the court please, 
 it might be well to consider for a moment, that, as we have 
 seen here, in this case, the representatives have no power, 
 only to act as the servants or agents of the meeting: so, in 
 another important point, they have no power; that is, in the 
 appointment of all the various committees, through which the 
 business of the meeting is done, (and all the business is done 
 in and through committees.) These committees are never 
 appointed by the representatives, or out of the representatives; 
 but they arc taken indiscriminately out of Friends attend- 
 ing the Yearly Meeting: those who will make the best niem- 
 29 
 
230 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 bers are chosen to serve. The appointments are never made 
 by these representatives, but by the meeting at large; because 
 the same unity is equally important there, as in every other 
 stage. 
 
 Then, on what ground can the opposite party contend, that 
 the Yearly Meeting is composed of representatives from the 
 Quarterly Meetings; and that the power is in the representa- 
 tives? The authorities which I have read, with the discipline 
 and minutes of Ohio Yearly Meeting, prove the doctrine fal- 
 lacious. 
 
 There remains now the other position taken by the counsel; 
 and if this be no more tenable than the one which we have 
 been considering, I should suppose the case at once decided. 
 His other proposition is, that the clerk is the head of the 
 meeting — a kind of moderator; perhaps hierarch or bishop — 
 I cannot tell what ideas they entertain on this subject. I beg 
 leave to call the attention of the court to an authority or two. 
 In the first volume of Clarkson, p. 228, we read, 
 
 "The other remarkable circumstance is, that there is no ostensible pre- 
 sident or head of this great assembly, nor any ostensible president or head 
 of any one of its committees, and yet the business of the society is conducted 
 in as orderly a manner as it is possible to be, among any body of men, where 
 the number is so great, and where every individual has a right to speak." 
 
 And the passage I before cited from page 232, is still more 
 plain to the point: — 
 
 " This government, however, notwithstanding its power, has, as I ob- 
 served before, no president or head, either permanent or temporary. There 
 is no first man through the whole society, .neither has it any badge of of- 
 fice, or mace, or constable's staff, or sword." 
 
 And in Gough's history, vol. 2, p. 167: — 
 
 "Yet they have a clerk in each meeting, who generally undertakes the 
 office voluntarily at the desire of the meeting, whose business is, to take 
 down minutes of their proceedings." 
 
 The language is very plain. From these authorities it ap- 
 pears, that it is not a representative power, but a democratic 
 form of government. It further appears, contrary to the ar- 
 gument of the opposite counsel, that there is no such thing as 
 a head, chairman, or moderator. 
 
 Having thus disposed of Mr. Goodnow's representative 
 system, and his head also, as it regards representation, I will 
 proceed to a consideration of this case. 
 
 No man can more cordially agree with another, than I do, 
 with the opposite counsel, as to the importance of the 3d sec- 
 tion of the 8th article of the constitution. At the same time 
 that I do this, however, it becomes my duty to remind the 
 court, that there is another important section; that is, section 
 10, which says, 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 " No person arrested or confined in jail sliall be treated with unnecessary 
 rigour, or be put to answer any criminal charge, but by presentment, in- 
 dictment, or impeachment." 
 
 Now the present prosecution is under a statu t& making cer- 
 tain acts criminal, and making the party committing them, 
 subject to be arrested, tried, and fined, without the interposi- 
 tion of any jury. The judge, in such cases, is both judge and 
 jury. We conceive, if the court please, that the act of the 
 general assembly of Ohio, page 197, was intended to secure 
 those liberties, that is, the liberty of conscience — those rights 
 recognised in the article of the constitution read by the gen- 
 tleman. But we do not believe, (and therein consists the dan- 
 ger) — we do not believe that this law was intended as a 
 means for one sect to climb into power over the heads of an- 
 other, and thus become dominant through the arm of the civil 
 law. The statute itself is one, that, it seems to me, should have 
 been made, under great doubt and hesitation; lest while en- 
 deavouring to preserve the rights of religious societies, truly 
 so, they might furnish means through courts of justice, for 
 the more aspiring to trample upon the rights of their fellow 
 creatures, and upon those great and imperishable principles 
 on which our government rests. It appears to me, that when 
 a case of this kind is brought before a judge who reflects upon 
 it, he must consider it a statute, which, while it guards on 
 one side, is open to great abuse on the other. 
 
 In the decision that is to be made, he is in danger of wreck 
 from either Scylla or Charybdis. There is imperious danger. 
 So much of this statute as is necessary for our purpose, is 
 comprehended in three lines: 
 
 *' If any person or persons shall, at any time, interrupt or molest any re- 
 ligious society, or any member thereof, or any persons when meeting or met 
 together, for the purpose of worship, or performing any duties enjoined 
 on, or appertaining to them, as members of such society," &c. 
 
 Now this act appears to have been passed in 1824; but I 
 think it was passed in 1 8 1 6. It was for the prevention of low, 
 vulgar individuals, disturbing camp meetings. They passed 
 this law — and the true object is, not at all, or in any case, to 
 hear and determine cases arising between people of the same 
 denomination, who may be disputing about various opinions, 
 and upon different subjects. But the true object is, to punish 
 him, who, without excuse, for the purpose of the act, either wil- 
 fully, or by his determination, separate from guilt, interrupts, 
 molests, and disturbs: such as idle persons going about to 
 camp meetings, selling whiskey, for the purpose of intoxicat- 
 ing; or causing intrusion, by the shooting of guns, and en- 
 gaging in plays, which might tend to disturb the meeting; 
 or any other thing of a similar nature. The reason is obvious. 
 Where an individual acts against a society, to disturb its 
 
252 
 
 Triut of Friends 
 
 peace, he is subject to the punishment that is attached by this 
 statute, to instances of the kind. It is obvious, from the 
 summary manner in which it proceeds, that it was never in- 
 tended to be used as a means of persecuting those who may 
 differ in opinion. While the offence is warm, and the parties 
 are at hand, complaint may be made before a justice of the 
 peace, and no recognisance can be taken, if they plead not 
 guilty. But even for a petty assault and battery, where the 
 defendant pleads not guilty, he shall have his trial by his peers. 
 But this is an instance in which all these rights are taken 
 away. This act was passed in a sudden manner, in conse- 
 quence of injustice done to a particular class of individuals; 
 and its language was not so guarded as it ought to have been. 
 But I hope it will not be strained, or made to bear beyond the 
 true use and purpose of it. 
 
 What is the inquiry, and what is necessary to be established 
 under this complaint? It is necessary that there should be 
 the Yearly Meeting of Ohio. It must be assembled — it must 
 be engaged in the performance of its duties. The Yearly 
 Meeting thus assembled and engaged, must be interrupted by 
 these defendants. If the Yearly Meeting of Ohio, of itself, 
 gets disordered — if they themselves become divided — if they 
 get into collision; — nay,if they go so far as to commit breaches 
 of the law, by assault and battery, (as was the case in the in- 
 stance of one reverend old gentleman, who is charged with 
 assaulting one of his brethren,) if that be the case, this statute 
 is inoperative, as I conceive. 
 
 As counsel for the defence, I consider this an important 
 point in this question. Not but that a member of the society 
 may become obnoxious to the penalties of this law ; — not that 
 individuals may not commit such acts as to make themselves 
 liable ; but in such cases the acts must appear to be wilful, and 
 must be for the purpose of creating a disturbance, and doing 
 an injury, or molesting those engaged ; and not in the dis- 
 charge, or under the colour of discharging duties as a mem- 
 ber, however the member is greatly mistaken in his views, and 
 has acted erroneously; yet if he be pursuing an object, which 
 he conscientiously believes to be right, in that meeting, to 
 carry this law into effect against him, wouKI be worse than 
 placing the Spanish inquisition over him. It is a great thing, 
 that the mind and motive should be that which may be ex- 
 pected of a member, though, in itself, ever so erroneous. For 
 if the society is, in itself, disordered, no one can say to an- 
 other, that he has offended. There is no party that should 
 have a law against the other. Each one, before the court, is 
 on a par. 
 
 One of the members may disturb the body; but being dis- 
 turbed, it cannot complain against itself, nor have redress 
 
 ■.i 
 
at Steubenville^ Ohio. 
 
 2.13 
 
 against itself, thougb that part may become such, as to require 
 to be cut off, and cast from the body. 
 
 In the examination of this case, then, we conceive these con- 
 siderations important. And keeping the following; positions 
 in view, we feel a confidence in resting this case with your 
 honour. On these positions, or rather on each one of these 
 positions, the conclusion will be found in favour of the de- 
 fendants. 
 
 First. That the defendents were members, and constituent 
 parts of Ohio Yearly Meeting. 
 
 Second. That the Yearly Meeting itself became divided and 
 disordered on First and Second-days. 
 
 Third. That there was no individual act of disturbance, or 
 molestation, by the defendants. 
 
 Fourth. The disorder was caused by the orthodoxj or by 
 both parties, and the peculiar state of Friends' society. 
 
 Fifth. The complaint is not supported by the facts, as 
 proved, or by the provisions of the statute. 
 
 As to the first position, that the defendants were members, 
 and constituent parts of the meeting, so far as regards Hilles, 
 I presume there can be no objection. He was a representative 
 from Redstone Quarter, attending there, not disowned, nor 
 under dealing. There can of course be no dispute about him. 
 The main inquiry is, as it regards Isaac James. Here, when 
 proceeding to this inquiry, I am well aware it must appear to 
 this court, that in judging of his membership, the court does 
 not ask nor care, whether the orthodox Monthly Meeting, or 
 the other, is the correct one. It is sufficient to the court, that 
 there are two sets of Monthly Meetings throughout the whole 
 district, with the exception of Redstone, which is undivided, 
 and occasional cases where the whole are Hicksites, and there- 
 fore also undivided; with some others, where the orthodox are 
 the dominant party. I take it, the court will receive and re- 
 cognise all such as Concord, which Monthly Meeting does now 
 exist — that if, de facto, that meeting is in existence, the court 
 will recognise the members in this investigation. That, in a 
 criminal prosecution, the court will not inquire into the le- 
 gality, or technicality of the right of membership at all. They 
 all appear, in a trial of this kind, as members. If the ques- 
 tion were on the deed of trust, making them cestui que trusts, 
 the question of rightful membership should be examined. 
 But now it is not necessary; yet, inasmuch as the coun.sel has 
 given the court an argument, in favour of disownments in that 
 disorderly way, I shall trouble the court with a few observa- 
 tions on that question. 
 
 The doctrines contended for by the plaintiffs, I was going 
 to say, — by the state, (perhaps more correctly it is the plain- 
 tiffs;) the doctrine contended for, is, that they have power, in a 
 
234 
 
 Trial (if Friendi 
 
 summary way, in and through the Quarterly Meetings, to lay 
 down those Monthly Meetings which are obnoxious to the 
 views and tone of the weighty orthodox. And they thus turn 
 the whole out by one general excommunication. I am satisfied 
 they will not maintain this doctrine; it is untenable; they can- 
 not get along with it. And the opposite counsel has made a 
 more general assertion. For it appears, that a Monthly Meet- 
 ing, without its consent, has been laid down by a Quarterly 
 Meeting, and attached to another Monthly Meeting, and the 
 individuals have been disowned. He contends that that is 
 sufficient for all purposes, and that the proceedings stand 
 good, the same as do the proceedings had in a court, and re- 
 main good and binding, till the aggrieved get a hearing before 
 a higher tribunal, and a reversal of judgment. I conceive the 
 comparison is no way applicable. If this court should under- 
 take to lay down a justice's court, or if the supreme court 
 should undertake to abolish this court, there might be some 
 kind of parallel. Again, it is said, that it is like a judgment 
 in force; but it cannot be likened, as is claimed, to any thing 
 found in our books. If so, it works directly against the pro- 
 secution. For if a proceeding is of itself perfectly void, it 
 follows that there is nothing to reverse: nothing of which the 
 superior can take cognizance, or jurisdiction. So, if it should 
 appear, in this investigation, that the meetings thus laid down, 
 have no way of being heard, no such thing as a regular mode 
 provided, which can give them a hearing, or any way by 
 which they can come up to the superior, then the gentlemen 
 have a case, where they have legislated without authority; and 
 the whole proceeding is void. 
 
 We conceive that the proceeding is void from the Discipline 
 itself. 
 
 " No Quarterly Meeting should be set up, or laid down, without the con- 
 sent of the Yearly Meeting; no Monthly Meeting, without tiie consent of 
 the Quarterly Meeting; nor any Preparative or other meeting for business 
 or worship, until application to the Monthly Meeting be first made." — 
 ( Ohio Discipline, p. 29.) 
 
 Here it appears necessary that application be made from 
 the Monthly Meeting, and that the Quarterly may assent to, or 
 reject the application. If the cotivenience of the members of 
 the Monthly Meeting, requires that it should be laid down, 
 and the members attached to another meeting, at a different 
 place, they are the best judges of the fact. And where the 
 Monthly Meeting makes application for such purpose, the 
 Quarterly has the right to withhold, or give its assent. But 
 this never can give them power, to do what they have at- 
 tempted in the case under consideration. It never was intend- 
 ed. It cannot be. It has nevertheless been claimed, that at 
 page 28, there may be some right of the kind conferred. 
 
at Steiibenville, Ohio. 
 
 235 
 
 " The connexion anil subordination of our meetings for discipline, are 
 thus: Preparative Meetings are accountable to the Monthly; Monthly to the 
 Quarterly; and Quarterly to the Yearly Meetings : so that if the Yearly Meet- 
 ing be at any time dissatisfied with the proceedings of any inferior meet- 
 ings; or a Quarterly Meeting, with the proceedings of either of its Monthly 
 Meetings; or a Monthly Meeting, with the proceedings of either of its Pre- 
 parative Meetings; such meetings ought with readiness and meekness to 
 render accounts thereof, when required; and correct, or expunge any of 
 the minutes, according to the direction of the superior meeting." — (_Okio 
 Discipline, p. 28. ) 
 
 This is a provision for the acting and doing of these sepa- 
 rate inferior meetings. Their reports should be sent up, from 
 Monthly to Quarterly, from Quarterly to Yearly Meetings. 
 And whatever is repugnant to the discipline of the society, or 
 that which is not decorous before the eyes of the world, or 
 which is liable to any other similar objection, they may direct 
 to be expunged from the proceedings of that meeting; but 
 they cannot lay the meeting down, because there would be no 
 way for it to get up. It could not appeal, because it could not 
 be a party present. There is no way of appeal. Then the 
 clause of Discipline in question, must apply to the different 
 acts and doings of the inferior meetings, in the transaction of 
 their business; it cannot relate to an act that is of such sove- 
 reign power as the annihilation of Monthly Meetings; and 
 for this reason — they could not appeal. It is clear, for the 
 language is express and direct, that no Monthly Meeting shall 
 be laid down without its own assent. And the laying down 
 must be on its own request. Shall the power then be gathered 
 from mere construction, when the language on the other side 
 is express and direct? Had such authority been intended, 
 would it not have been expressly provided by the Yearly 
 Meeting, that Quarterly Meetings should have power to put 
 down and set up Monthly Meetings? The express declara- 
 tion to the reverse, is proof positive of the true understanding 
 that the framers of the Discipline had. 
 
 Another consideration is, that the book of Discipline pro- 
 vides for each individual; for he is accountable to his own 
 Monthly Meeting, and if he is aggrieved, he has a right of 
 appeal. He may appeal to the Quarterly Meeting, and from 
 the Quarterly to the Yearly Meeting. We see that great care 
 has been taken, that no injustice shall be done to a single in- 
 dividual, from the lowest, and most inferior meeting in the 
 society, up to the Yearly Meeting. If that assumption of 
 power could have been contemplated, would there not have 
 been some provision for these Monthly Meetings, by which 
 they could have redress? I do not know that a lawyer would 
 express himself thus ; for how could a Monthly Meeting ap- 
 peal, when out of existence? How appeal, when the body of 
 its members is gone? They are appertaining and belong- 
 
236 Trial of Friends 
 
 ing to another meeting. There is no provision in the book of 
 Discipline by which an appeal could be made. 
 
 There is another reason why the construction cannot be as 
 suggested by the counsel. There is a list of annual queries, 
 addressed from the Yearly Meeting to the different Quarterly 
 and Monthly Meetings. Here Mr. Hubbard referred to the 
 Discipline, from page 76 to 79. 
 
 Now, I would agree, if this Discipline were like the London 
 Discipline, in which power is given to set up and lay down, 
 there would be some way to get hold of the subject, for there, 
 the power to lay down, is founded upon an express stipulation 
 in their Discipline. There is an express stipulation to that 
 effect. They found an evil — those who wished to rule and to 
 arrogate power, found others not agreeing with their great 
 and sovereign will. And there was a provision made, by which 
 the Quarterly could laydown: and the right was assigned them 
 to put down or set up. Hence follow the queries, requiring 
 the Quarters to state the number set up and put down. And 
 it may be a matter of useful history, to refer to the case which 
 led to the alteration in that respect. But before I leave this 
 subject, I will just state, that so important a matter, not hav- 
 ing been stated in the Ohio queries, it must be evident, from 
 that consideration, that the framers of this Discipline never 
 dreamed of such a thing. And I infer, that it would be an out- 
 rageous provision, and that it would g-o counter to a funda- 
 mental principle, in this government, by seeking to destroy a 
 united body of people, to gratify some arbitrary views. As it 
 regards the individual rights of members of the society, from 
 the highest to the lowest, as well as the right of usurpation 
 by these people, of the power to lay down a Monthly Meeting, 
 I will refer the court to an extract from an old book, published 
 1761: 
 
 " The 24th, we visited those under our profession at Coterhill-head, 
 called a Monthly Meeting; but, alas! upon inquiry, we found but very 
 little done of the business proper to a Monthly Meeting; neither was it held 
 in due course, but rather occasionally, for some particular purposes; and 
 when the state of the members appeared, we did not marvel thereat, seeing 
 most of them were unfaithful in regard to tliat important testimony against 
 tithes, and other anti-christian demands of that nature: other great disor- 
 ders also had crept in, nor can any other be reasonably expected, where 
 persons are so void of a right understanding as to sacrifice that noble testi- 
 mony; they have not strength to maintain other brancliis in a consistent 
 efficacious manner, so that where this defection hath prevailed, we have 
 observed the most essential part in religion (amongst us as a people) has 
 fallen with it: meetings for worship and discipline are neglected, and if 
 sometiines held by sucii, they are to little good purpose; plainness and 
 self-denial are dejiarted fi oni: this hard, dark, litiie-paying spirit is so blind 
 as to see but little in any brand) of our testimony, wherein there is a cross 
 to the carnal mind. Upon solid consideration, we did not think, that using 
 endeavours to regulate that meeting, in its situation at that time, would 
 
at Stevbeitville, Ohio. 
 
 answer any t,''ood purpose; but tlie great thing pointed out to us in the 
 light of truth, was, its being dissolved, and tliat tlie members thereof might 
 be joined to Hertford Monthly Meeting, which iiad been endeavoured for 
 several years, both by their Quarterly Meeting, and also several committees 
 of the Vearly Meeting, which had not, till now, proved successful, as the 
 consent of most of the members could not be obtained: but this meeting, 
 through divine favour, was wonderfully overshadowed with a solemn weight 
 of heavenly power, wiiich awed and tendered their spirits, and at the same 
 time mercifully enabled us clearly to demonstrate, that they contended 
 only for the name of a Monthly Meeting; seeing the service of such a meet- 
 ing was not answered, scarcely in any instance, they at length geneially 
 yielded, and a minute was made to propose a junction with Hertford, which 
 is since effected, to the great ease and satisfaction of Friends." — Juhn {Grif- 
 fith's Journal, p. 313, 314, 315.) 
 
 It seems they tried for three years, but they could not doit, 
 till they persuaded the Monthly Meeting to make a minute ; 
 and that is the true old constitutional form, which shows, con- 
 clusively, that the Monthly Meetings should agree, and make 
 the application. This book ol' Discipline, then, has never in- 
 terfered with these old constitutional rights. — In page 29, 
 they have recognised them; for it is only on tlie application 
 of the Monthly Meeting, that it shall be laid down. 
 
 Another consideration shows the absurdity of the position. 
 A Monthly Meeting exists, first, by the general unity of those 
 who compose it| secondly, tliey have a place of worship, pro- 
 perty, grave-yard, Sec, and when Friends are entered, or cen- 
 tred in such a place, purchased by their own property and 
 money, it may be entirely separate and distinct from the Quar- 
 terly and Yearly Meetings. Then it is proper to be consider- 
 ed, if such tremendous power existed, as to lay down and 
 attach it to another, it lessens their interests there, by putting 
 others in common with them, and making other cestui que 
 trusts equal with themselves. Consider for one moment, if 
 they had the power to lay down Concord and attach it to Short 
 Creek, if Short Creek should happen to be as offensive as 
 Concord, they would go still further; if three miles would not 
 answer, they might send them a hundred miles; the power 
 would have no limit. And v, e sec, that great and dangerous 
 evils would be attendant on the exercise of it. We sec from 
 the whole constitution of this society, that the INIonlhly 
 Meeting must be agreed. At Concord, so far from their 
 being agreed, four-fifths were against it. There was no unity 
 in the measure. It w as not carried, nor attempted to be car- 
 ried in that meeting. There is still one other consideration, 
 independent of those which I have stated. A case may arise, 
 for there is nothing to prevent it, of a Quarterly Meeting's 
 being composed of two Monthly Meetings. Redstone was, for 
 a long time, composed of but two Monthly Meetings; now if 
 the Quarterly had a right to lay down, they would make a 
 great sacrifice, for by laying down one they would lay down 
 30 
 
t 
 
 358 Trial of Friends 
 
 tlie two, Monthly and Quarterly bolli. This, in connexion 
 ■with the other consideration, must place the question beyond 
 doubt. The proceeding in reference to Isaac James, then, 
 was altogether void ; and his rii^ht of meml)ership has remain- 
 ed as entire, and a? good as ever. And he is as much in unity 
 with his meeting, as if they had not taken one single step to- 
 wards the matter. 
 
 We now proceed — having established the position, that the 
 meeting at Concord has continued to exist, since these trou- 
 bles commenced — that that Monthly Meeting could not be laid 
 down, without its consent — that the same meeting, de facto, 
 has e>ver since continued; — we now proceed to see what was 
 the division and disturbance at the Yearly Meeting — to see if 
 that meeting was not itself disordered. I think I shall be 
 Ijorne out in the assertion, that the difficulties of that day had 
 their origin at a distance; that the situation of the society 
 was a remarkable one; that to a large extent, they were, in the 
 place of unity, getting to be in disunity ; and that estrange- 
 ment had got into the society. It is no matter who was right, 
 or who was wrong, in the consideration of this court ; but it is 
 evident that something had got so far spread over the minds 
 of the people, and over the whole society, that it was ready 
 and ripe, of itself, to divide and crumble to pieces. An old 
 author, I think DoBglas is the name, in treating of the society 
 of Friends, has said, that he had no doubt they would become 
 a very large and numerous body of people. He was speaking 
 of the doctrines of Friends in a most creditable.manner. One 
 reason which he assigned, was, that they had no creed, or 
 standard, laid down, from which a deviation could be charged. 
 He states that their system is purely democratic; that no law 
 could pass while any of the members were opposed to it. He 
 thought it might endure to the latest posterity, and become a 
 very large society. 
 
 It is supposed by some, and probably not without cause, 
 that one great reason of this split, is, an attempt to force the 
 opinions that some entertain upon others; and a determination 
 that they shall adopt them. One thing is certainly evident; 
 that it has been accelerated by the high-handed measures of 
 putting down Monthly Meetings, and of keeping the commit- 
 tee for sufferings in almost constant sitting, s£nding its mem- 
 bers from meeting to meeting, to further the views of a domi- 
 nant party. This has been no uncommon occurrence. It is, 
 furthermore, in evidence, that a certain publication from In- 
 diana, called " A Testimony and Epistle of Advice," has caused 
 a great deal of the distraction. As I understand the evidence, 
 the party called Hicksites never wished to control the opinions 
 of others, or that others should adopt their opinions; but 
 they wished to enjoy their own opinions. As the descendants 
 
al Sleulieiivillt, Ohio. 
 
 239 
 
 of Fox, they wished to entertain their own opkiioni, and let 
 thcni be adjudged between theniBelves and their Maker. 
 
 This epistle, containing a written direction in the iritro- 
 ductory part, from the Meeting for Sufferings of Ohio, insist- 
 ing that the Quarterly and Monthly Meetings shSuld adopt it, 
 was supposed to be in contravention to the Discipline, which 
 says, the committee for sufferings shall not adopt any article 
 of faith or discipline, not determined on by the Yearly Meet- 
 ing. This document was sent out too, at a time, just after 
 this meeting had expressed ftnity with those whom it seeks to 
 condemn. I mean the Yearly Meeting of 1817, in whrch all 
 the members of this society, and those who met at the Yearly 
 Meeting in Mount Pleasant, were in unity with the sam£ man, 
 and set of men, whom, by the Indiana epistle, it was sought 
 to condemn, I take it, and those who will examine, will find 
 it so, when the Yearly Meeting of Ohio is in unity with an- 
 other Yearly Meeting, it is in unity with all the regular minis- 
 ters and elders of that meeting. Now, we see, that previous 
 to this affair, the same doctrines preached in this house, and 
 preached elstwhere, by this same Elias Hicks, were adopted 
 and received, all in perfect unity. 
 
 A proceeding had taken place in the city of New York, in 
 which a portion of the members had become opposed to the 
 great body of the meeting, and had seceded, and gone off to a 
 jnasonic hall, or a medical hall. A small minority had gone 
 off} the rest remained upon the ancient principles of the so- 
 ciety; ^nd among them was Elias Hicks. In the spring of 
 this last year, without waiting for Ohio Yearly Meeting to 
 assemble, and to consider the subject, according to the old 
 rule, certain individuals, who had become parties to a reli- 
 gious warfare, had determined, it appears from the evidence, 
 to espouse the cause of those who had seceded, and unite with 
 them as many as they could, to carry the day here. Such, I 
 believe, is the history of this matter ; and hence it is that we see 
 such great assiduity to keep deputies from the committee for 
 sufferings, constantly travelling. For, go where you will — to 
 New Garden, Short Creek. Salem — the prosecutor, Benjamin 
 W. Ladd, is there, ready to urge and push down; and if 
 he could not do that, he would resort to the law, and sec what 
 he could do then. This is what appears to mc to be the true 
 state of the case. 
 
 I his Indiana epistle has been considered, by a great portion 
 of the society, and I speak on testimony, when I say, that a 
 majority of tlic Yearly Meeting — I do not speak of those who 
 divided at the meeting house at Mount Pleasant— I speak on 
 testimony, when I say, tluu a majority have considered it a 
 breach of discipline, and a matter of conscience, so much 
 so, thai they ' ould not recognise it. Consequently, where 
 
240 
 
 Trial of Frie.nds 
 
 they could not agree, without waiting; for the sense of the 
 Yearly Meeting, without any time being allowed — immedi- 
 ately follows the destruction of Monthly Meetings, and the 
 turning out of every body who could not bow to this unau- 
 thorized dictation of the Meeting for Sufferings. 
 
 I take it upon me to say, that the observation of my friend 
 Goodnow, on the opposite side, was a very strange one, and 
 one which struck me at the time, as entirely out of the case, 
 and not necessary to be brought in here, for the purpose of 
 producing an effect. " I can no more understand the doc- 
 trines of Elias Hicks, than I can those of deism." Now, I sup- 
 posed he had never examined the doctrines of Elias Hicks, 
 and I feel convinced that he never has. Indeed, he acknow- 
 ledges that he has not. 
 
 Now, concerning the matter that has been read by him, from 
 the "Testimony and Epistle of Advice," in a work printed 
 by Elisha Bates, in relation to a periodical work called the 
 Berean, I must say, that although I have heard a great deal 
 about garbled doctrines, spurious doctrines, Sec, yet, I never 
 saw so outrageous and garbled a statement as is there exhibit- 
 ed. In the one short extract that we have heard, there is a 
 quotation of parts of a sentence, and parts of expressions, 
 taken from three different pages of the book, far separate, not 
 showing the context, connexion, or dependence. I was un- 
 dertaking to show that the same Indiana epistle, being spu- 
 rious, was one cause why it would not be good authority here; 
 and another cause is, that it quotes third-handed from the 
 Berean. Tiie sentence thus garbled, is such as no Christian 
 could take exception to. I have read the article through 
 carefully, and the Berean, from which it is quoted, will not 
 sustain any such position. When a person undertakes to quote 
 an author, and puts words into his mouth, a? conveying his 
 meaning, for the purpose of condemning him, he is without 
 excuse. And this is the way they have done towards Elias 
 Hicks, and the v/hole society. I wish the court would examine 
 this matter; for a more garbled piece of business I never saw. 
 
 This piece of testimony to which I have alluded, was the 
 cause of doors being barred, and of meetings being laid down. 
 They could not receive it. They said it was untruth. That 
 ■was the opinion entertained by Concord Meeting. The con- 
 sequence was, the laying down of that Monthly Meeting, and 
 the barring of doors. Was not the objection a good one, and 
 such as all members ought to make, when they were in unity 
 with the same author, who, by a garbled quotation of his sen- 
 timents, was sought to be condemned? Now the Discipline 
 has stated distinctly — and it is a very good thing as a precau- 
 tionary measure — that this Meeting for Sufferings shall adopt 
 no rule of discipline, or article of faith, unless first sanctioned 
 
at Slcuhevville, Ohio. 
 
 241 
 
 by the Yearly Meeting. But the act which they undertook 
 was one of supererogation, and most likely arose from a spirit 
 of ambition. I undertake to say, that there has been ambi- 
 tion in this, as well as in politics. When the court comes to 
 take this, and look at it, particularly at the address at the fore- 
 part of it, signed by Jordan Harrison, clerk, his honour will 
 find that it is contrary to the book of Discipline, and in con- 
 travention to the provision that has been read. 
 
 I know, and perhaps I ought to advert to it, that the gentle- 
 man has taken up the book of Discipline, where it is said, no 
 individual shall blaspheme, or deny the divinity of our Saviour. 
 To this, let jne say to the court, and to the world, that I have 
 been well acquainted with that portion of the society of Friends, 
 to which these defendants belong, and never did I, in a single 
 instance, hear one of them say aught against it, or advance any 
 doctrine repugnant to it. Nor, in the reading that I have 
 past, in the doctrines of Elias Hicks, did I ever see a doc- 
 trine contrary to it. This much I have said in reference to 
 the use that has been made of this provision in the book of 
 Discipline. I have heard that old gentleman preach; and in 
 his discourse, heard him acknowledge the divinity of our 
 blessed Saviour, and encourage it on his hearers, as much as 
 I ever heard any one, in all my intercourse with Christian 
 professors. — Wliy put this at us.'' Because the society is di- 
 vided, and one division is loaded with opprobrious epithets, 
 this is thrown in here, to add to the unpleasant feelings al- 
 ready existing. 
 
 This Indiana epistle, I say, has created great disturbance, 
 and I think it is not warranted by the Discipline; besides, it 
 has been shown to be untrue. Yet this document has been 
 urged against those who were born members, and have con- 
 tinued to sustain irreproachable characters among their bre- 
 thren. They have been turned out, because they had read the 
 sermons of Elias Hicks, with whom they and the whole Yearly 
 Meeting were, but the year before, in strict unity, as well as 
 at the time of such reading. But, having read this book, and 
 not seeing the evil which it contained, they have been turned 
 out, because they had not the ability to discover as much as 
 Benjamin W. Ladd could. 
 
 Then, if the court please, the state of the society had 
 become such, that a great deal of unpleasant feeling and 
 estrangement had spread itself over the whole extent of the 
 society, and over the United States, with the exception of Bal- 
 timore Yearly Meeting, the whole of which is yet in unilv with 
 the old New York Yearly Meeting, and was at that time in unity 
 with those who afterwards went off from the old Yearly Meet- 
 ing house. This estrangement had extended itself so gene- 
 rally, that it may account for the occurrences in Ohio, without 
 
'I'riul of' F 1 tends 
 
 supposing a conspiracy, which the gcnllcnien wish to make 
 out. The dealing unfairly and improperly with these persons, 
 may have been the reason why their feelings were in that 
 state, that they were not proper nor fit subjects to meet to- 
 gether, as members are wont to do, in peace and harmony. I 
 take it, that on this ground, the intimations of conspiracy are 
 entirely unsupported by proof. The whole thing is explained. 
 One party was resorting to these arbitrary measures, while the 
 other resorted to none. The party named Hicksites, whatever 
 opinions they might have entertained, have exhibited a life and 
 conduct, worthy of the descendants of Penn. They have not 
 barred their doors, nor undertaken to exclude men, because 
 they had not knowledge enough to understand where the evil 
 was, in a book which they had read. It is not the mode re- 
 sorted to, or ever likely to t)e pursued by them, to carry one 
 single point, for all are by their life and conduct directly op- 
 posed to it. But in this respect, the distinction between them 
 and the other party is such, as may account for the division in 
 the body. 
 
 Then I proceed very briefly to the consideration of the third 
 position, as it regards the individuals themselves. There is 
 no individual act connected with them, as disconnected with 
 the others, iti the meeting. When the orthodox were pushing 
 one way, and these the other, and also those who had no busi- 
 ness in the meeting, and who went off with the orthodox — 
 such as Jacksonmen and orthodox people not members, is it 
 not time to look lor a cause in the other party? 
 
 But, taking the incipient stages of it, and through the whole 
 transaction, we cannot discover any single act, proved against 
 either Hilles or James. From the testimony of those who ap- 
 pear against Hilles, B. W. Ladd and Jonathan Taylor, even 
 from the testimony of those nearest to him, it appears that it 
 was against his will, or submissively, that he walked up the 
 alley; and whenever he found any resistance, he stopped. He 
 slopped at the stove, and wrote an opening minute; for the 
 people had got into such a state, that no man could keep his 
 place ; they were shoved here and there. When Hilles was 
 found, he was quietly seated on a bench, in the back part of the 
 house. He is a man of unblemished character, so far as his 
 Christian character and connexion with the world may be here 
 considered. In a criminal case, suspicion is not to take the 
 place of proof. He is without reproach. He was perfectly 
 quiet and inoffensive in proceeding as he should do, in dis- 
 charge of his duty, as clerk of the meeting, when the drawer 
 was brought to him. 
 
 So, in the rase of Isaac James; lliere was no act proved upon 
 liini, for disturbing the meeting. He was one who was there 
 with the rest, and one who, from the tcsliraony, differed from 
 
al Steubetivilli'., 0/iio. 
 
 243 
 
 the orthodox; but as it regaHcls any movement or procedure 
 as touching this complaint, he is not a party to it. It is in 
 evidence that he vvoi ked his way along, and was found getting 
 over the railing; but this was at a time when the whole assem- 
 bly were in perfect confusion. He attacks nobody, he uses 
 violence to nobody; but even Benj. W. Ladd seizes hold and 
 gives him a push. Now in the whole transaction there was 
 not so much of a departure from what is right in James, as in 
 B. W. Ladd. I therefore put all this out of the question; for 
 this happened during the tumult. The disturbance of mak- 
 ing a new clerk was over before that; and as the disturbance 
 was over, before James was seen climbing over the bench rail- 
 ing, I say he was not a party. 
 
 If French was a party, in a conspiracy connected with 
 Hilles, and that was to disturb the Ohio Yearly Meeting, or 
 any act connected with them as members of the society, it 
 would be a difl'erent case. But not only is such inference un- 
 true; but is disproved by French himself. He says, there was 
 no understanding or connexion between h'lm and the rest — 
 neither Peaslee nor any other distinguished person on their 
 side. There is no individual act touching him. We must 
 then look elsewhere, and in so doing, we must refer to the 
 proceeding as it took place, by which we shall find, that others 
 were the ones acting in person, who were executing such 
 duties as they conscientiously thought devolved on them, as 
 members of Ohio Yearly Meeting. Then, in addition to the 
 state of the times, was the feeling of which individuals were 
 possessed; feeling more or less of unfriendliness towards 
 others who came together on the first day of the week. There, 
 Peaslee, an approved minister of the gospel, one who has en- 
 joyed, and still enjoys a very high standing in the Christian 
 world, was, on the afternoon of that day, violently opposed by 
 Taylor. Taylor had been one of the two hundred, who seceded 
 from the society in New York. He opposes Peaslee, and tells 
 him to sit down ; and, at one time, these ministers and elders 
 had so little unity, that Elisha Bates and others broke up the 
 meeting and went off. 
 
 Now this is a matter of serious import. Elisha Bates testi- 
 fies, that if Amos Peaslee had been a regular minister, and no 
 disownnient, or cause of disownment existed, and had been 
 treated in the way he was, in any other state of times than 
 these, the act would have been very disorderly, and Taylor 
 would have probably been displaced. This was while inquir- 
 ing of him, upon his cross-examination, as t® the conduct of 
 Peaslee. A great portion of the assembly, at least six hun- 
 dred of them, thought it unwarranted, and altogether disor- 
 derly. The book of Disripline says, page 5:1, 
 
Trial of Friemis 
 
 "As the occasion of our religious meetings is solemn, a care should be 
 maintained to guard against uny thing that would tend to disorder or con- 
 fusion therein; when any think they liave aught against what is publicly 
 delivered, they should speak to the part)' privately; and if anv shall oppose 
 a minister, in his or her preaching, or exhortation, or keep on the hat, or 
 show any remarkable dislike to such, when engaged in prayer, let them be 
 speedily admonished." 
 
 What was it that should induce one side to a deviation from 
 this advice, for difference of opinion, the meetinfj not being 
 otherwise divided? What could induce one side not to ex- 
 tend the same charity, that was extended towards them by the 
 other parly? They did not undertake this course, to put 
 down persons who did not think with themselves. 
 
 Then this disturbance commenced on First-day. No indi- 
 vidual that is charged here, was a party to that disturbance; 
 they merely sat there in silence, no doubt feeling aggrieved, 
 that such an attack was made on so worthy a man as Peaslee. 
 
 It seems, that on the niglit previous to the day on which the 
 members of this Yearly Meeting had been accustomed to meet, 
 the house was garrisoned — they liept watching; they kept up 
 their nightly vigils, until the hour should come round for the 
 meeting to convene. And not on,ly so, but the Indian com- 
 mittee must take possession early in the morning, although 
 they had adjourned, to meet in the afternoon of that day. Not- 
 withstanding this formal adjournment, by some strange mis- 
 take, they met and took possession of the house at eight 
 o'clock in the morning. 
 
 What was done all this time by the other Friends? They 
 have been examined, and cross-examined, with all the inge- 
 nuity for which the opposite counsel are so remarkable; and 
 from all this, it appears that they held their meetings and con- 
 ferences, in which they concluded to go to meeting, as they 
 had done heretofore. They knew that a Meeting for Suffer- 
 ings had been gathered from all parts of the world, and they 
 met to consider their desolate situation. It was desolate, 
 certainly, to be turned out of doors, barred, and locked out. And 
 from appearances, they were afraid the same result would hap- 
 pen the next day. Had they not grounds then, when this whole 
 train of evils was brought upon them, for consultation with 
 each other, as to what was best to be done? Not what they 
 would do against others; for they were not disposed to do any 
 thing against them. It was thought best to assemble in the 
 yard, and there, to consider what further should be done. 
 And if they could not gain admittance quietly and peaceably, 
 they would retire to the old meeting house, and there worship 
 their (iod, according to the dictates of their own consciences, 
 in quiet. And this is nothing but what any citizen may do. 
 For the constitution says, that people shall have a right to 
 
 ki 
 
at SteubtiivilU, Ohio. 
 
 £45 
 
 meet together; and if politicians may meet, it is strange if 
 religious individuals are to ha denied this inestimable privi- 
 lege. This, by the by, was not the view of the whole party; 
 there were some one, two, or three, who were disposed to 
 pursue a difterent course. They talked of it with no secrecy, 
 but their design was expressly negatived; for Friends were 
 determined that no violence should be offered. 
 
 W ell, Second-day arrives. Very early the house is filled ; 
 and after much hinderance and difficulty. Friends get in. But 
 all the high places are previously occupied. Nathan Gal- 
 breath and others, venerable men, who had been accustomed 
 to sit upon the higher seats, finding that all these seats were 
 occupied, sat down quietly, upon other seats. Having got 
 into the house, the meeting, according to usual form and 
 order, became quiet and calm. It was then a proper time 
 for any motion to be made. 
 
 Israel French, a man of high standing in the society, one who 
 had never been disowned, and against whom naught can be 
 said, rose and made a proposition. It was properly made, as 
 we have seen, heretofore, from good authority, and the rea- 
 son of the case. We have also seen that the clerk is but a 
 mere servant of the meeting, that he only executes the mind 
 of the people. We have seen, from the Discipline, that his 
 term of service cannot arise, except from the next day. This 
 proposition, on the part of Israel French, was at a time when 
 the meeting was in order. It was made in order, on his part, 
 and was properly before the meeting. I know it has been 
 contended, that this was disorderly. I am not certain but 
 that one, or perhaps more, of the witnesses on the opposite 
 side may have said that it was out of order. But we have 
 from fifteen to twenty witnesses saying, it was not out of order. 
 And I venture to say, that neither this court, nor any other 
 person, can hesitate for a moment to pronounce that it was in 
 order. 
 
 A supreme body, being there assembled, with supreme pow- 
 er, to all intents and purposes, a perfect democracy, had a 
 right to carry their will into execution. And any individual 
 member had a right to submit a proposition for the considera- 
 tion of this meeting. Here, I will now ask, lest I forget it, 
 notwithstanding all that has been said, and can be said by the 
 other party, as to its being erroneous: can that proposition, 
 under the law of this state, be considered a proposition to dis- 
 turb that meeting, by reason of its irregularity.'' If so, and if 
 that is to be a precedent, must not every member take care, 
 at the peril of fine and imprisonment, how he brings forward 
 a proposition not technically right, before lawyers and a court? 
 We contend it was altogether proper. We contend that it 
 was so, not only for the reasons that I have stated, but, from 
 31 
 
246 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 precedent. The case in Indiana was one in which the clerk 
 was present, andxhe proposition was made to appoint another, 
 on account of the disability of the clerk. It Ijas been suggest- 
 ed that the clerk himself requested it. But that does not alter 
 the cage — it does not alter the case a whit; for the power and 
 the right are the same. That incident in Indiana shows 
 clearly and conclusively, that the appointment of a clerk was 
 the act of the meeting, and that they Vcre the proper persons. 
 It shows the truth of the position, that if there is a disquali- 
 fication on the part of the member, or the clerk, it is proper 
 to propose another in his stead. It is proper, if there be any 
 disqualification; for, it is a legitimate matter for the meeting. 
 The position of the meeting's having jurisdiction, is, there- 
 fore, correct, and the opposite counsel cannot escape it. 
 There was an instance in this Ohio Yearly Meeting, where the 
 power was exercised in the same summary manner. The 
 clerk was not present, and the meeting had the power to ap- 
 point another, and exercised it. But we have other cases — one 
 in Smithfield. There, there was a disqualification not known 
 to the great body of the meeting. It appears that the persons 
 who acted upon this question, were not at the time acquainted 
 with the nature of the disqualification, but found out after- 
 wards the charges alleged against the incumbent, who was 
 superseded. But there is another case testified to, by the wit- 
 nesses for the prosecution. 
 
 In Philadelphia Yearly Meeting a proposition was made for 
 the meeting to appoint a new clerk, and having considered the 
 proposition, there was a division of sentiment in the society, 
 so that they could not agree — there not being unity, the old 
 clerk continued. This is in perfect accordance with, and 
 goes to exemplify, what I have stated — that the opinion of the 
 society is gathered by unity of expression ; that is, by the 
 number of voices uniting in the affirmative; those who say 
 nothing are also considered as in the affirmative. Here, then, 
 in Ohio, if there had been a general objection to French's 
 proposition, they all tell you, there would have been no uproar, 
 because it would have passed off a,s other propositions have, 
 in the Yearly Meeting. It was, therefore, tlie duty of those 
 opposed, to rise and object to the measure, to have given their 
 voice against it. But instead of that, they did not, as we shall 
 see. 
 
 But if a further instance be wanted, I will call the attention 
 of the court to the case at Concord, (or New Garden) where 
 the clerk was superseded. There the clerk was seated at the 
 table — was in full membership; and a member rose and moved 
 that another be appointed in his place. Will the gentleman 
 now undertake to make a disti'iction whether the clerk be in 
 the house or not; if so, it will be exploding the idea, that the. 
 
 i 
 
at Sieubenville^ Ohio. 
 
 247 
 
 clerk is the head of the meeting; though that idea was explod- 
 ed long ago. Then, if the clerk was at the table, and was 
 about to read an opening minute, or had read an opening 
 minute, and a proposition was made that the old clerk should 
 be displaced, and a new clerk appointed in his place, and this 
 was united with by the meeting, the right to do so was ad- 
 judged by that meeting. 
 
 From all these cases that have happened, from the considera- 
 tion of the supreme power of this meeting, and the democratic 
 form of it, which all go to prove, that there was no impropriety 
 in submitting that proposition, we do conceive, that it was 
 regularly submitted, and properly before the meeting, when 
 it proceeded to business. 
 
 The next inquiry is, by whom was that proposition made? 
 It was made by Israel French. The proposition was received 
 by the meeting. What meeting was it.'' It was the Ohio 
 Yearly Meeting; for up to that time Ohio Yearly Meeting was 
 not divided. Being received by Ohio Yearly Meeting, how 
 did they dispose of it? They united with it, according to the 
 usage of the society. I am aware that one of our own wit- 
 nesses testified very feelingly and honourably, that he supposed 
 at the time, none of the orthodox did concur in the sentiment. 
 We have not that to judge of. We, sitting here, are only to 
 say that it was, as appertaining to th« members of Ohio 
 Yearly Meeting — the opinion of the great body of the people, 
 so far as expressed, was altogether in favour of this proposi- 
 tion. Was there any objection.'^ Most of the witnesses did 
 not hear any. The objection, if any, was so small, that the 
 unity was as great as was ever known to be expressed in the 
 Yearly Meeting. It was entirely carried fairly and regularly, 
 aacording to the usage of the society, before the second pro- 
 position was made. 
 
 Who was the second proposition made by? By one of the 
 regular members of Ohio Yearly Meeting, who had never been 
 disowned by even the belligerent party. He named David 
 Hilles as a suitable person to supply the place of Jonathan 
 Taylor. This was received in like manner, according to the 
 custom and usage of the society, by voices uniting in it. And 
 there was no objection except by two or three. The opinion 
 was full as great as ever was known in that meeting. As I 
 understand their proceedings, when there is a small objection 
 to a large expression, it is considered a unity, unless those 
 objecting are determined not to give up; or insist on advo- 
 cating the converse of the proposition. But further, Mr. Israel 
 Updegraft' was mistaken, when he said that none of the ortho- 
 dox united: for it is in testimony that Daniel Burt did unite 
 with the others, in the nomination of David Hilles. Nothing 
 is more reasonable than this: for, notwithstanding the angry 
 
248 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 feelings that prevail, yet there will be found, on both sides, 
 those who are willing to do something for restoring peace. 
 The day before, Taylor had done much against Peaslee; and 
 it was perhaps Burt's wish, to heal, if possible, the difference 
 in the society. I see that some smile at this affair, as though 
 there were no charitable feelings existing in those of the or- 
 thodox party, during the pendency of this strife and division. 
 Surely it would have been better, if they had all been influenced 
 by the same feelings: for the way was open to the appoint- 
 ment of David Hilles, a reputable member from Redstone, a 
 Quarter not divided, thus to reconcile their difficulties in 
 peace and unity. There is no doubt that under these feelings 
 Burt did unite. Elisha Bates himself, the leader of this party, 
 says, that Burt has always been known to be a Friend. And 
 we know by that, that he is known to be .orthodox. Smith 
 proves the same thing. Here then was a unity composed of 
 persons of both sides, and others than those termed Hicksites. 
 There is not a particle of testimony before this court, that goes 
 to prove that' it was only the Hicksites, or anti-orthodox, that 
 supported this proposition. The court cannot judge except 
 by and from the testimony. It is evident that there was a 
 general unity all over the house. Now the witnesses that tes- 
 tify go along with my position. Observe that, of the old steady 
 members, and it will be found that the proceeding was per- 
 fectly in order. Take the testimony, for instance, of Levi 
 Pickering, a man of age and experience. He says he paid 
 particular attention; and that the manner of saying " I unite," 
 " I unite," was orderly. Sometimes there were several voices 
 heard together, as it was a large assembly, and many were 
 agreeing to it. But none repeated it over, but two, one of 
 whom, as it is stated by his orthodox brother, repyeated it three 
 or four times. He just came in and went out. We could not 
 say whether he thus united in but one, or in the various pro- 
 positions. The testimony designates two persons, and Daniel 
 Burt is one of them. 
 
 Levi Pickering and Elisha Bates cannot say, whether it was 
 before or after they had done uniting in the nomination of 
 Hilles, that Taylor, disregarding the usage of the society, and 
 the feelings of those assembled in the house, whose feelings 
 had been lacerated by the course put in operation against 
 them, commenced a disorderly reading of the opening minute. 
 Thence one thing followed another. Those who considered 
 the meeting as having united-— those who considered that the 
 meeting had, in a quiet and orderly manner, united in the 
 nomination of Hilles, conceived that Taylor was acting disor- 
 derly and improperly : and it so appears in the testimony. It 
 was from one thing to another that the disturbance arose. 
 And I say the commencement was on the part of Taylor. Let 
 
 I 
 
al Steubenvillc, Ohio. 
 
 2.19 
 
 us reverse the thing, and place the Hicksites in the galleries, 
 and the others down below; and suppose then that the Hicks- 
 ites had undertaken to read an opening minute, Benjamin W. 
 Ladd 8c Co. would not have waited to go to Steubcnville. 
 They would have sued out an action before the first magis- 
 trate they could find; and they would have sustained it. And 
 if the clerk had done as Jonathan Taylor did, they would have 
 done right to prosecute. " There would have been greater 
 ground than there is in this instance, and so it would have ap- 
 peared to all these orthodox people, because their prejudices 
 would all have been enlisted on their own side. 
 Court adjourned till 9 o'clock, A. M. to-morrow. 
 
 Thursday, October 23, 9 o'clock, A. M. 
 
 Mr. Hubbard in continuation. — At the time of the adjourn- 
 ment, I was proceeding to show, that the proposition, as sub- 
 mitted by Israel French, and the nomination of Hilles, were 
 in regular order, according to the usages of the society : and 
 that, being propositions made according to the usages and cus- 
 toms of the society, by a portion of that society, before the 
 separation, their adoption was an act of the Yearly Meeting. 
 In addition to the reasons I have given, why this proposition 
 was correct, I will at this time refer the court to the witnesses 
 who paid the most attention, and who have thrown the most 
 light upon the subject. These are Levi Pickering, David 
 Scholfield, Israel Updegraff, Israel French, James Tolerton 
 and Jehu Lewis, all of whom testify that the proposition was 
 made previous to reading the opening minute: that it was 
 made when there was nothing else before the meeting: that it 
 was received by the meeting, and there can be no separation 
 of parties at this time: that it was united in by the meeting 
 in the usual way. These witnesses all testify that before the 
 meeting had quite done uniting, and while some voices were 
 still saying, "I unite," the old clerk commenced reading the 
 opening minute. 
 
 I am aware that Joseph Updegraff and Elisha Bates have 
 both testified, that they are not certain, whether the opening 
 minute was read just before, or after. Taylor feels pretty 
 confident, that he had commenced reading the opening minute, 
 at the time the nomination of Hilles was made. There is 
 another point of view that I consider material. It is this. 
 That all make out the position undeniably, that the meeting 
 had united in the proposition to displace the old clerk, and to 
 substitute another, before the opening minute was read. And 
 that proposition having been united in, the old clerk was en- 
 tirely out of order, in proceeding, even if he read at the time 
 Taylor himself says he did read. But, in my view, as there 
 is but one witness, and thai Mr. Taylor, who thinks that the 
 
250 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 opening nainute was read previous to the nomination; and as 
 there are so many other witnesses of great candour and under- 
 standing, who say, he read it while they were uniting in the 
 nomination of Hilles; I am inclined to adopt the testimony of 
 these numerous witnesses, rather than that of Taylor, as he 
 must have been discomposed at the time. From my know- 
 ledge of Mr. Taylor, I have no doubt he is a quiet, honest, 
 inoffensive man: and that while they were uniting, others said 
 to him, go on; and if the truth were known, he probably went 
 on, contrary to his own will, being urged to proceed, by Bates 
 and others who sat near by him. 
 
 Now the proposition for displacing, on the ground of dis- 
 qualification, be the cause good or bad, should be disposed of 
 before any thing else is taken up, as is shown by the testi- 
 mony, and the nature of the society. We are supported in 
 this position by the authorities I have read, but to which I 
 will refer the court again. — (2rf vol. Gough, 167. Clarkson, 2d 
 vol. 210, 211, and 228.) 
 
 Now these authorities are in support of the testimony of 
 the witnesses, and show this point clearly; that when a pro- 
 position is brought before this meeting, which is a clear de- 
 mocracy, it must be disposed of, before any thing else can be 
 introduced, or taken up. This, then, being the case, it must 
 be evident, from the usages of the society, as testified to, and 
 from the authorities, that Taylor was the one in error, in read- 
 ing the opening minute. I know it has been asked in relation 
 to this point, how was it to be done? How was this proposi- 
 tion to be entered, if the clerk were displaced ? This is easily 
 answered, from the very nature of the transaction: the clerk 
 being put in, makes the minute, that such an individual being 
 indisposed, or disqualified to act as clerk, A. B. was put in 
 his place. And this is confirmed by the minutes of the Yearly 
 Meeting. I refer to page 9, of the printed minutes. "Our 
 clerk being indisposed, Jonathan Taylor was appointed in his 
 place." — Here the clerk was indisposed, and the meeting 
 wanted a clerk. Some one probably proposed, and the meet- 
 ing appointed a clerk. And Taylor, when he gets there, 
 makes an entry. It is evident he made it, because there was 
 no other clerk there. The other clerk was out of the house. 
 It shows that he succeeded him. He comes there, and makes 
 the entry of what the meeting had done. The conclusion is 
 inevitable. The opposite party cannot escape from it. I hope 
 the opposite counsel will not attempt to urge that the assistant 
 clerk could have done it. It would be in the face of every bit 
 of the- testimony. The assistant clerk is, so far as regards 
 clerkship, a perfect cipher. The title of assistant clerk has 
 grown up by courtesy; but he never makes an entry, record, 
 or minute. The assistant clerk could have no power to act in 
 
at Sleubenvillc, Ohio. 
 
 251 
 
 this thing. Again, the assistant clerk is altogether dependant 
 on the clerk. A clerk collects the proceedings or sense of 
 the meeting. When created, creates an assistant, ipso facto. 
 In this case, as is stated, Israel French moved the displacing 
 of the clerks. He had his reasons, and has given his reasons, 
 that some way he understood the expression to be clerks, though 
 not confident; but keeping in view, that the assistant was al- 
 together dependant on the other, the removal would compre- 
 hend both. And by the meeting's uniting in the proposition, 
 both were absolutely removed. That being the fact, the con- 
 duct of Taylor and Kimberly was absolutely void, and a mere 
 nothing, except the means of creating the uproar that followed. 
 And we see what followed. " Friends, are you going to let 
 your clerk be kept from the table?" " Why don't the clerk 
 come to the table?" Others say, he shan't come; we have got 
 it all arranged. The high seats are filled, and the alleys lined 
 with big and brawny men prepared for combat. Disorder is 
 introduced and made, on the part of those who went contrary 
 to the usages and customs of the society. As I have said 
 before, and as we now see the operation of it, there was great 
 disunity throughout the Yearly Meeting. And we find it 
 more strongly marked on the part of the complainants, than 
 on the part of the others. The proposition is this: notwith- 
 standing this disunity over the Yearly Meeting — notwithstand- 
 ing the parties came with repulsive feelings, one towards the 
 other, and were as guilty, the one as the other; yet, at the 
 same time, up to the period of a clear expression of the Yearly- 
 Meeting, composed of all of them, disunity did not exist, ex- 
 cept bet^^een the members forming constituent parts of this 
 Yearly Meeting. Here is a principle that I laid down before, 
 that although they approached this meetingin a slate in which 
 one member was embittered against another, Hicksites would 
 not answer orthodox, and orthodox would not answer the other 
 party: one stating, that he did not answer to his name, be- 
 cause he considered it disordeHy, and the clerks having been 
 removed, Kimberly had no business to call over the names; 
 yet, as regards union, up to the time of this division, they were 
 constituent parts of the same Yearly Meeting. But that their 
 minds were so discomposed, that they were ready to separate 
 and divide, is evident. On this point, there is nothing more 
 strongly marked, than the testimony in relation to Thomas 
 Shillitoe at the Quarterly Meeting. He introduces a resolu- 
 tion, and makes a statement, that it is best for them to take 
 decisive measures, to bar out all the Hicksites. This is a reso- 
 lution, without reference to the rights of membership, civil as 
 well as religious: to bar and exclude all, except those who 
 agree with the orthodox in sentiment. Here it may be al- 
 leged, that Shillitoe, being not within the bounds of the 
 
252 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 Quarterly, had no right to make that suggestion ; or otherwise, 
 that the clerk of the Quarterly Meeting, in ascertaining the 
 sense of the Quarter, ought not to have taken into considera- 
 tion the voice of Shillitoe. To this, I agree. But if any 
 member out of the limits, make a suggestion, it is right; he 
 may give his view, and if the meeting unite in It, there is 
 nothing improper. If the meeting that the strange member 
 meets with, unite in his suggestion, it is the act of the meet- 
 ing. We see the effect, from the testimony in relation to Hal- 
 liday Jackson, who was from the neighbourhood of Philadel- 
 phia. He made a proposition, which was probably suggested 
 by the good old book, "agree with thine adversary quickly, 
 while thou art in the way with him." Yet he was abruptly 
 ordered to sit down; because he was, in the language of the 
 person who spoke, an obtruder. If the proposition made by 
 Halliday Jackson had been united in, then it would have been 
 the act of the meeting, correctly expressed, although coming 
 from a stranger. But we see from the whole course of the 
 testimony, that the sentiments of the Englishman were car- 
 ried into effect; and that the party called orthodox, were com- 
 pletely organized. I am not going to use any epithets, as 
 thrown out on the other side, that they were in a disorganizing, 
 revolutionizing spirit; but, I say, that they had a complete 
 understanding among themselves, agreeable to Shillitoe's ad- 
 vice. And we prove it, by showing that every one of these 
 left the meeting together. And at that period of time, there 
 was the first division of the Yearly Meeting, with an under- 
 standing, and without the interference of the other party. It 
 was because the orthodox had united together, and because 
 others would not unite with them, they had agreed to disagree, 
 with all those, who, with themselves, formerly composed the 
 Yearly Meeting. See the language of Elisha Bates, " keep 
 still a little while, and we will withdraw and leave you." This 
 was the language of a chief. This was said by one, having 
 great weight in the society; and they agree, and go away; and 
 by going together, they show that they had agreed to dis- 
 agree. 
 
 On this point I will say a few words in answer to the obser- 
 vations which have been made as to majorities. Which way 
 the majority is, is of little consequence, though perhaps it may 
 be necessary to meet the argument on the other side. From 
 the testimony of those interested, there is a colouring given, 
 to be accounted for, only by the zeal and prejudice by which 
 they were actuated. The leaders of the orthodox party think, 
 that two-thirds went with them, and I am not going to dispute 
 the affirmation of those gentlemen ; for it makes no difference 
 whether more or less. But when you come to refer to an- 
 other witness, you will find that the division was about equal, 
 
 4 
 
at Steube.n-o'ille. Ohio. 
 
 253 
 
 settinti; aside citizens, and members not belonging to Ohio 
 Yearly Meeting. And he says, he could not say which party 
 w<M-e the largest number; they seemo<l to be about equal. 
 'I'he best testimony is to be found in those who counted the 
 benches, and the persons seated on them, and at the time esti- 
 mated the Huml)er. From these, it wiil be found, that from 
 six to seven hundred remained after the orthodox, had with- 
 drawn, and after the strangers had left the house. I allude to 
 this, only to show, that there was a great division in the 
 Yearly Meeting. 
 
 Those who conduct the prosecution, and their witnesses, 
 have endeavoured to show, that there was some kind of sys- 
 tem of 0|)eration, or connexion of events, all dependins: on a 
 preconcerted plan. On this subject I will say a few words in 
 relation to the testimony of Bates and Ladd, who endeavour 
 to give an idea that the alarm was made, and advantage taken 
 of that alarm; and that those who said, "let us surrender," 
 were Hicksitcs, and also those who huzzaed for Jackson. They 
 have tried to create an impression that there was a iire-concert 
 and understanding upon the subject, but we have shown that, 
 previous to the meeting, there was no concert. Israel French, 
 with whom Amos Peaslee and some other ministers stopped, 
 testifies that there was no such thing. The same is proved by 
 Bevan and Updegraff. And as to tumult, it is evident that 
 the alarm was altogether accidental, and could have been no 
 part of the alleged plan, as is proved by the testimony of Dr. 
 Carroll and others. When the people left the house, Cari'oll 
 walked up and put his hand on the table; and the clerk might 
 have then taken possession. But all parties rushed out of 
 the house, Hicksiies as well as orthodox. Several calls were 
 made on the people, not to run; and it is shown, that thesa 
 c alls came from those denominated Hicksites. As soon as they 
 discovered that the galleries were not falling, they mentioned * 
 it, and tried to stay the multitude. Then, in point of fact, we 
 have the testimony of William Dilworth, that the first alarm 
 he heard was from William Judkins. Judkins says he got 
 the first alarm from tlic gallery. Hamilton heard a remark, 
 that the railitig was giving way; and we see how it might 
 have spread; for .Judkins gave the alarm, and out of the win- 
 dow he went. The noise of which Taylor testifies, instead of 
 being the breaking of a lath, was the breaking of a foot-i)oar(l 
 in the ministers' gallery, among the orthodox, which was the 
 cause of so much uproar, which is endeavoured to be charged 
 upon the other party. Abraham Dilworth concurs in this. 
 The alarm spread at once, and no doubt many cried out that 
 the galleries were falling. In a criminal prosecution, no such 
 thing can have weight. 
 
 As to the other accusation, made by Benjamin W. Ladd, 
 32 
 
254 
 
 Trial of FnenJs 
 
 what art: the facts? lie slates that he he^ud some one, in the 
 ministers' gallery, say, now let us surrender, the table is gone. 
 He delayed a little in going out, to make observations. He 
 was a kind of rear guard. He discovered that this person, 
 who made the proposition for surretidcring, remained in the 
 house. Now he, it seems, made the expiession himself. It 
 was Benjamin W. Ladd himself. And yethc was so confused 
 that he thought it was somebody else. 
 
 Then, having adverted to all the positions that the opposite 
 party can present, I say, the case is one which was Tievei in- 
 tended to be embraced by this statute. The Yearly Meeiing 
 was composed of all its members, up to the time that Elisha 
 Bates said, " keep still, and we will withdraw and leave you." 
 The members still cotitinue to hold their civil rights in this 
 property. The meeting, therefore, could not have been dis- 
 turbed in the manner contemplated by the statute. 
 
 There needs but one reflection, to understand the affidavit of 
 Benjamin W. Ladd. When Elisha Bates and Benjamin W. 
 Ladd testify, in speaking of Friends, they mean those only 
 with whom they associate. They, in their testimony, know 
 no other Monthly, Quarterly, or Yearly Meeting. That affi- 
 davit meant, at the time, that they, that is, the orthodox, were 
 the Ohio Yearly Meeiing; and its purpose was, to get a deci- 
 sion of the law, that they were the Yearly Meeting of Friends. 
 The whole meaning of this, as taken from the whole testimony 
 together, is, that they intended to get a decision of the court, 
 that they were the Ohio Yearly Meeting. It is true, the court 
 and every lawyer must know, that it will not have the effect 
 which they supposed it would have. It will not decide the 
 right of property; Jior will they have hold of the property so 
 easily as they think. But that such was their intention, is 
 evident; — there can be i\o doubt. And the question is placed 
 on the ground, whether the party who went off' under the ad- 
 vice of Elisha Bates, were the Yearly Meeting, and those who 
 remained under his friendly advice, " keep still, and we will 
 withdraw and leave you," disturbed them while they were 
 solely constituting the Ohio Yearly Meeting? There is where 
 it comes. 
 
 If all, except these chosen orthodox, were mere interlopers 
 and intruders — if David Hilles, a member and representative 
 from Redstone Quarterly Meeting, had no right there — if Isaac 
 James had no right there, though a member of Concord Month- 
 ly Meeting, and that meeting could be laid dow n, and the pro- 
 ceedings are not all void — if those six hundred persons, with 
 a great majority of the society, in Ohio and other states — if 
 they are to be treated as intruders, and Benjamin W. Ladd 
 and Eli-sha Bates are to be considered immaculate, why let the 
 decision go against these defendants. But if they constituted 
 
at Sieiibeiiville, Ohio. 
 
 255 
 
 a pai t of llie Ohio Yearly Meeting, wlio were thus warring 
 between themselves, then this proceeding cannot stand, nor 
 be supported by the statute; because the statute must be ap- 
 plied to some person wiio interrupts and disturbs a society^ 
 and the society is not complete, till you take the whole into 
 consideration. And taking it so, they are not disturbed under 
 the meaning of the act, if there is a quarrel among them- 
 selves. 
 
 We see the effect, if we take the reverse. The whole law 
 becomes perverted, and becomes an engine to establish a stand- 
 ard of religion throughout our country. Suppose those per- 
 sons who were in this house, who have been, by way of deri- 
 sion, called Hicksites, had been led into an error of the head, 
 and not of the heart, and being engaged in that which usually 
 pertains to this society, had made a proposition, which they 
 had adjudged, though erroneously, to be on the strongest 
 ground; are they then to be put down, because their head is 
 not as wise as that of a technical lawyer, and their hearts dic- 
 tated that which turns out to be incorrect? It cannot be. It 
 would be giving one part of the society leave, of their own 
 accord, to set themselves up as being better and more correct 
 than the others: one party to set itself up in array against an- 
 other, calling into use the arm of the law, to establish them- 
 selves in authoi ily over others, who have equal rights with 
 themselves. 
 
 But the gentleman may say, that this law shall embrace 
 a case where members of a society interrupt others of the 
 same society. I should not object to admit this, with proper 
 caution; but this is a position which i-equircs the utmost care, 
 because Scylla is on one side, and Charybdis on the other. It 
 would be an interference of the law, between the religious 
 rights and some members of a religious community — a case 
 in whirl) the membei's conduct was such, as to leave no 
 doubt of the intent being to disturb and molest a religious 
 society, in which he is a member, and who acted wilfully and 
 maliciously. There may be a case of that kind; but it is not 
 here. James did not do so. When David Hilles received the 
 nomination, in the usual ordei- of the society, and after a time, 
 when it was said that violence had been used, James says, I 
 have used no violence, but I have been violently treated by 
 Ladd. The malicious intent is altogether wanting. It is evi- 
 dent, on the solemn affirmation of numerous witnesses, that 
 their sole object and intent was, to carry into execution the 
 proper objects of the society, if they gained admittance; but 
 if violence were offered, they were determined not to return 
 violence for violence, but to retire to another house, and wor- 
 ship their Maker in the good old way. The object of propos- 
 ing a change of the clerks was a virtuous and Christian one, 
 
256 
 
 Will/ of Friemh 
 
 by a man whose cliaracler cannot be atiacked — wliose word is 
 immutable as eternal truth, on this subject. It was with re- 
 gret, with painful feelings, ihat he witnessed this stale of Uie 
 society — his oljjection was, that the clerk had become a vio- 
 lent party man, and peculiarly offensive, as he had been con- 
 cerned in putting down his bretlireiv and in enforcing the 
 reception of the Indiana epistle; and he had seceded from the 
 large portion of Friends in New York, with whom this meet- 
 ing had perfect community. Israel French acted under the 
 most honourai)le and virtuous feelings, which ever animated 
 the human breast. 
 
 Now, are these defendants to be put in bonds for trying to 
 harmonize the two parties? Or because a clerk was proposed 
 wh,o did not prove acceptable to the more orthodox.' Let the 
 orthodox be right or wrong, being a portion of this society, it 
 does not lie in their mouths to say that this was to disturb that 
 meeting. It was an act to which the others did not object; 
 and it was carried according to the usages of the society. 
 
 One word in conclusion. It is not this party that either bars 
 doors or brings suits. It is not this party that can be truly 
 charged with taking an unfriendly course. It is not this party 
 that has made a breach of the discipline, in bringing this suit 
 and putting themselves to this enormous expense. It is not 
 they, who are trampling the discipline under foot, by going 
 into courts of law to sue their brethren. They have endeavour- 
 ed to act as Christians and brethren should act. They made a 
 proposition against a man, who, the other side say, is correct 
 and orthodox. That is the great sin. And that is a matter of 
 opinion, between members of the same society. It is not a 
 matter on which this court will undertake to decide. No. 
 The Ohio Yearly Meeting was never disturbed, but by Ohio 
 Yearly Meeting. B. W. Ladd, and others will see it, meant, 
 by Ohio Yearly Meeting, the orthodox. 
 
 I say, the Yearly Meeting was disturbed by the Yearly Meet- 
 ing. The disorder being among themselves — the disturbance 
 being before they nret, what occurred in the meeting, was but 
 an eruption. The Indiana epistle was the entering wedge, 
 which, with other things, caused the division — this unhappy 
 schism, in tiiis great and once peaceful church. The members 
 came in collision, and could not agree. They were discordant. 
 The unity was gone. They were broke into divisions, and 
 they separated. The disturbance was among the members of 
 the Yearly Meeting. It was the members who made it, and 
 the members alone, are subject to the consequences. No reli- 
 gious society, in the contemplation of the law, was ever dis- 
 turbed by itself. And on that point I rest this case, with 
 perfect assurance of the acquittal of these defendants. 
 
 i 
 
at Slrubenville, Ohio. 
 
 '257 
 
 Spekch of Benjamin Tappan, tsq. 
 
 In operiiiiij ihis case, the counsel, on the other side, appear 
 desirous to exculpate themselves from this charge. It seemed 
 to be taken.for granted, that a charge being made, guilt was 
 to be presumed. And the inquiry was, whether there was 
 sufficient evidence to exculpate themselves. I take it, the case 
 stands on entirely different grounds: that the prosecution is, in 
 name, a prosecution by the state, against these two individuals, 
 for a breach of the statute law of the state. And in order to 
 establish their guilt on this trial, it is necessary to make out 
 by evidence, clearly and beyond all reasonable doubt, that they 
 are guilty of the facts alleged against them. This is a trial; 
 and whether there be an appeal from his honour or not, it is, 
 in form and substance, a trial of the truth of the charge against 
 these men, and is to be determined as all other criminal cases 
 are tried and determined. The prosecution must make out 
 clearly the offence, or the defendants are acquitted. We do 
 not stand here to make out our exculpation, but to see whether 
 the charges have been supported. 
 
 This is a question, undoubtedly, of great interest; and that 
 interest is not inference. Whether two men have been guilty 
 of disturbing a religious society, and are to be subjected to a 
 fine of twenty dollars, is a matter of very little consetiuonce in 
 itself. But it is of consequence, when you consider that this, 
 instead of being a prosecution by the vigilant and skilful pro- 
 secutor for the state, is brought forward, guaranteed, and nia 
 naged by other persons. The dispute is between members of 
 a large and respectable religious society. If it were a prose- 
 cution wherein the public interest was concerned, do you 
 suppose the public pi-osecutor would abandon it to others.^ 
 That he would not feel that his duty rccjuired him to attend to 
 the interests of the state, whose officer he is? 
 
 If there is any one point, on which the society of Friends' 
 have always been united more than another, (and their prac- 
 tice is obvious to the whole world,) it is this, that tiiey are 
 prohibited both by their principles and practice from suing 
 each other at law. They not otdy avow this principle of ac - 
 tion, but they have uniformly acted upon it. VVe have never 
 seen them come into a court of justice, except on extraordi- 
 nary occasions. We have Jiever seen them come into courts 
 of justice with pvoset: nlions ngamst ench other, civil oi- criminal. 
 If they have any thing to complain of among themselves, iliey 
 settle it among themselves. They have always done it before 
 But how is it now? In the midst of their Yearly Meeting, at 
 a time when their brethren were all assembled, some few of 
 them hasten away from the meeting, rome up here, and enter 
 this prosecution. They also enter a ( ivil suit, and another cri- 
 
2j8 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 minal prosecution, before a magistrate of this towTi — all for 
 what occurred on Monday, the 8th of September — all for 
 one single transaction. And these tnen who come up to enter 
 prosecutions against iheir brethren, have the matchless impu- 
 dence to come befoi e your excellency, and claim to be the only 
 true Friends — the only members having regard to the faith and 
 practice of the society. They claim in all their testimony and 
 acts, to be the exclusive Friends, the exclusive orthodox, and 
 genuine Quakei s. It is a singular circumstance — a most sin- 
 gular circumstance; and it shows the extreme length to which 
 hypocrisy will carry men — to which a love of dominion will 
 carry men, in persecuting their fellows — to what evil, and ini- 
 quity, and disregard of their own principles — to what turning 
 courses on their own faith, it will carry them. When ope- 
 rated on by love of their own aggrandizement, what miseral)le 
 lust of power and dominion takes possession of them. 
 
 This, then, is not a prosecution in which the state has any 
 interest. It is not conducted on behalf of the slate. The 
 prosecution is instituted and conducted, alone, by members 
 of the society of Friends, against their brethren — by one part 
 of this religious community, against the other part of this re- 
 ligious community. 
 
 The gentleman has stated, in the opening argument, that 
 this suit was not prosecuted from vindictive motives. He felt 
 thai the reverse must appear evident to the mitid of every man 
 who has attended this prosecution. And he saw, at once, that 
 it was necessary for him to disavow, on behalf of his clients, 
 any vindictive motives. Pray, what motives had they, if they 
 had no vindictive motivesf What motives had they, who here 
 rush fi-om the Yearly Meeting up to Stcul)enville,to commence 
 these three suits, two criminal and one civil f ^V'e^e they in- 
 tent on the worship of their God? Were their feelings those 
 which actuated Friends from the beginning? — the feelings of 
 Ijrolherly love and unity? When they started from Mount 
 Pleasant, it must be obvious, their motives were clearly vin- 
 <liclive. It cannot be concealed from the world — they can 
 hai'dly conceal it from themselves. Were any attempts made 
 to settle it with Friends? were any conversations addressed to 
 Hilles or James? any message of love sent them? any exertion 
 to settle it by the appointment of committees? any measures 
 usual in the society? No, not one of them. They rush into a 
 court of law, contrary to the established principles and max- 
 ims which they say govern them, more strictly than those of 
 the other parly. And if, then, ihey sue other members of the 
 society, I say it is false; and hypocritical is llieir pretence. 
 
 Having come to this court in this way, and standing here 
 as we do, it is necessary for us to inquire who these people 
 are? What is the Yearly Meeting? If we look back to the ori- 
 gin of the socicly, we shall find that George I'ox, a man who 
 
at SUubenville, Ohio. 
 
 259 
 
 rose at a (ime tlie most interesting in English history; at a 
 time wlien tiie rights of men besjan to be unclerstood. and the 
 tyrani\yof the house of Stuart bej^aii to be cftVctually resisted — 
 a man cotemporary with Hampden, Milton, Sydney, and the 
 patriots of that day; he first established the society, of which 
 these parties are members. It was when civil and religious 
 liberty began first to be understood in Eticjland, and when men 
 first beyan to exercise their riy^htsof self-(^overnment. Then 
 was the society of Quakers established ; called so first in de- 
 rision. Then was the society of Friends established, on prin- 
 ciples of perfect eciuality. From a small begiiinini^, they 
 increased and extended over the kingdom; and it became ne- 
 cessary, in the transaction of business, and for the resistance 
 of tyranny, to have something of combined action ; and they 
 formed Monthly, Quarterly, and Yearly Meetings. At first, the 
 Yearly Meeting was of the representative form, and the Quar- 
 terlies were probably first attended by few, except representa- 
 tives. But it presently became, as described by Clarkson, the 
 practice for the brethren to go up to London from all parts of 
 the kingdom, not delegates, but all the brethren and sister*! 
 who could conveniently attend. And this assembly became 
 the grand legislative and judicial power of the society — of the 
 whole society, and by the whole society. In accordance wiih 
 this, we find the discipline of Ohio Y'early Meeting: and in 
 accordance with this, you find the practice of Ohio Yearly 
 Meeting. Here are five Quarterly Meetings composing this 
 Yearly Meeting. They choose delegates. The delegates 
 atnount to about fifty, and they go up to Mount Pleasant an- 
 nually with communications froni the Quarterly Meetings; 
 and if there are communications to go back to the Quarterly 
 Meetings, they take them back. The parties communicate 
 and act for the particular interests of the Quarters they repre- 
 sent. And if any su!)jects come up in the Yearly INleeting. 
 which more particularly relate to tlie Quarter they re|)restM\t, 
 it is their duty to sec to that interest in the Yearly Meeting. 
 
 But it is said here, that this Meeting is composed exclu- 
 sively of these representatives: and I understand the counsel 
 on the other side, as founding the whole prosecution on that 
 basis: — that the meeting is composed exclusively of represen- 
 tatives — that they are not merely the nucleus of the meeting, 
 but the entire Yearly Meeting. Now, it is a matter of history 
 and of common observation, and what you, yourself, must have 
 seen, that they go up in gi-eat numbers. Do they go from curi- 
 osity, to see the delegates consult — to hear them harangue, and 
 determine the matters that come before them? Or do they go 
 up to be efficient and active meml)ers of that meeting? What 
 is the fact.- Take the testimony of Flisha Bates, the arch- 
 bishop of this orthodox party. When the question is put to 
 
Ttinl of Friends 
 
 lum, have the delegates any more voice than any other mem- 
 bers? He tells yon they have not; at\d so fays every one of the 
 witnesses. They ail come to the same point. They tell 
 you, il is the duty of delegates to bring up communicatioTis 
 from the different Quarters, and to take back cominutiications: 
 that, by custom and discipline, thoy nominate the clerk, yet 
 they have no power in the meeting more than any other mem- 
 bers: that there is not any man, or numlier of men, either 
 ministers or representatives, who have any authority, power, 
 or weight, any further than that of personal character, the same 
 as we find in every other asseml)lage of men. For there is no 
 assemblage where there is not some difference, as in that so- 
 ciety ; no assemblage where a man of exemplary conduct, and 
 superior wisdom and experience, known and admitted by all, 
 would not have greater weight than his brethren. There is 
 no other difference in this society, pointed out l)y the testimo- 
 ny, and 710 other than this can exist, by their constitution and 
 principles. William Penn, in his account of the Rise and 
 Progress of the People called Quakers, speaking of their 
 Yearly Meetings, says: 
 
 " At these meetinfjs any of the members of the churches may come, if 
 they please, and speak their minds freelv, in the fear of God, to any mat- 
 ter: But the mind of each Quarterly Meeting, therein represented, is 
 chiefly understood, as to particular cases, in the sense delivered by the per- 
 sons deputed, or chosen for that service, by the said meeting." — (p. ~71, 
 fol. vol. ) 
 
 Here is the description given of the Yearly Meeting in its 
 first constitution. The representatives were to be specially 
 heard, as it related to the business of the Quarterly Meetings. 
 But the members all met, and composed the legislative and 
 judicial power of the society. 
 
 Thei e is another fact — there is no authority superior to this 
 Yearly Meeting. The whole evidence has established that 
 fact beyond controversy. It is not accountable to any other 
 Yearly Meeting or assemblage of men on earth. As to pro- 
 ceedings in its own affairs, it is supreme and absolute. And 
 a Yearly Meeting — this Yearly Meeting, is composed of the 
 whole body of Friends, within its limits, who choose to as- 
 semble — the whole number, whether born, or admitted mem- 
 bers of the society, unless they are disowned or under dealing. 
 Thei-e is no other exception in the discipline; — there is no 
 other exception in their practice. There is no one set of these 
 people, who have any right or authority over others, unless 
 they hold it by usurpation. The delegates themselves have 
 no authority or control over the Yearly Meeting. Their opi- 
 nion is never taken against that of the rest of the Yearly Meet- 
 ing; but they are there, in the Yearly Meeting, as members of 
 the whole body, with no more authority than other members, 
 
cU Sleubenvilkf Ohio. 
 
 261 
 
 and are distinguished only as messengers from the Quarterly 
 Meetings, through whom the Quarters communicate, more 
 directly, to this great body, and this body communicates 
 back to the Quarters. 
 
 It does appear to me, that, to suppose the fifty representa- 
 tives from the Quarterly Meetings, attending the Yearly Meet- 
 ing, can control in any way or instance the twelve or fifteen 
 hundred members, who are there assembled, is altogether a 
 gratuitous supposition; that it has no foundation whatever in 
 ancient practice, or in modern practice. But, if your honour 
 please, if it has been otherwise in England, and you are satis- 
 fied that, in England, it is a representative body exclusively, 
 and that those who attend, other than representatives, have 
 no authority, it is not so at Mount Pleasant. And whatever 
 may have been the practice of any other Yearly Meeting in 
 existence, that practice cannot rule or control the Yearly 
 Meeting of Ohio; — because this fact is undeniable and indis- 
 putable, that Ohio Yearly Meeting, when assembled, make 
 their own rules and regulations. They have made a book of 
 Discipline, and can abrogate it at their pleasure. It is that 
 power, and that alone, which can make and change the rules 
 of discipline. They are not governed by any other power on 
 earth; — they are neither amenable nor accountable to any body 
 of men existing. — Clarkaon, vol. 1, page 210. [See page 225 
 of this work.] 
 
 The same course of proceeding is had in all their meetings. 
 You see then, that in this Yearly Meeting, or in the meetings 
 of the society of Friends, there is not, in their constitution, , 
 any thing like an aristocracy in civil affairs. But it is a most 
 perfect and pure democracy. Every member, rich or pooi- — 
 no matter whether he has the purse of Benjamin W. Ladd, or 
 whether he is receiving charitable contributions from him and 
 other members — he stands upon the same ground of equality. 
 He has a right to make amotion, and to be heard; he may op- 
 pose any proposition, and be heardf as much as any other 
 member in the meeting; and when a proposition is made by 
 any one member, it must be discussed and settled, before any 
 other business can be proceeded in: and any attempt to pro- 
 ceed, is disorderly, and contrary to the rules of the society. 
 The position is established clearly by Clarkson, and by all 
 the testimony in the case, that such are the rights of indivi- 
 dual members, and such the usual and orderly course of pro- 
 ceeding in this society. 
 
 Now, I will ask, whether, from the evidence, it is not clear 
 and indisputable, that these defendants had a right in that 
 meeting? Whether it is not clear and indisputable, that they 
 were members of that meeting? First, as to David Hilles. 
 He is a member of the society of Friends. He was a delegate 
 
262 
 
 Triitl of Fyitnds 
 
 from Redstone Quarterly Meeting- — the oldest Quarter in this 
 Yearly Meeting — the one from which all the others have 
 sprung. He came there with reports from Redstone Quarter- 
 ly Meeting. He was the clerk of that meeting, and appeared 
 in the Yearly Meeting, according to their own principles, 
 with the most perfect right of membership. I do not under- 
 stand this to be disputed. 
 
 How was it with Isaac James? He was a member of Con- 
 cord Monthly Meeting. He has been disowned by Short 
 Creek Monthly Meeting. But, how disowned? Short Creek 
 Quarterly Meeting, to which Concord Monthly Meeting be- 
 longs, has laid down Concord meeting, and attached its mem- 
 bers to Short Creek Montiily Meeting; and Short Creek, in 
 this way claiming jurisdiction over the members of Concord, 
 has disowned James. The question here arises, and must be 
 decided, whether the Quarterly Meeting could have laid down 
 that Monthly Meeting. It is clear that Concord Monthly 
 Meeting never assented to this. They never applied to the 
 Quarterly Meeting to do it. It never was done by consent of 
 {he Meeting at Concord, or by that of many members com- 
 posing the Quarter. But it has been done by an unwarrantable 
 usurpation of power and authority — by a gross act of tyranny 
 in the Quarterly Meeting, without the consent and concur- 
 rence of the Monthly Meeting. 
 
 Now, if I have taken a correct view of the principles of this 
 society — of the principles on which their laws are founded — 
 nothing like arbitrary power is admitted in the society; no 
 question in any of their meetings can be carried in that way. 
 There is no such thing as compulsion — there is no authority 
 of one meeting over another. It may be said that the Yearly 
 Meeting, being the supreme legislative and judicial power, 
 would have authority in laying down a Monthly Meeting. But 
 admitting, that as the supreme power of the society, they 
 would have this right and authority, we must at once perceive 
 the very great difference. In this Yearly Meeting they would 
 be all together, and acting in unity with their brethren upon 
 the interests of the whole society, and, if found necessary, this 
 supreme authority might do this act. But there is no such 
 authority in the subordinate meetings; — no such authority in 
 the Quarterly over the Monthly Meeting. Because a Quar- 
 terly Meeting may be composed of two Monthly Meetings, 
 and if it can be exercised by a Quarterly, in laying down a 
 Monthly Meeting, then one Monthly Meeting may lay down 
 another, and attach the members to itself, and compel them 
 to attend at any distance, thus perpetrating the most ridiculous 
 act of tyranny imaginable, without consulting the other meet- 
 ing. Such an act of tyranny would be inconsistent with the 
 fundamental principles of the society. Friends never allow a 
 
at Steubenville, Okto. 
 
 26S 
 
 question to pass, e -lii in the Yearly Meeting, if there be much 
 opposition. In a Monthly or Quarterly Meeting, when a mo- 
 tion is made and discussed, it is not decided by a majority, 
 but there must be what they emphatically call a unity. When 
 a measure is proposed, they never take a vote, nor count num- 
 bers. There must be a general unity in sentiment, in order 
 to have a proposition adopted as the act of the society. Well; 
 how will this apply to laying down a Monthly Meeting by a 
 Quarterly, or, if you please, one Monthly by another? It is in 
 direct contravention to their principles; it is directly hostile 
 to them. It goes to establish the principle, that one part may 
 disown and lay down the other, without consulting them about 
 it. It is therefore a principle altogether inconsistent, and in- 
 admissible. Here Mr. Tappan referred to the book of Disci- 
 pline, pages 28, 29. [See pages 234 & 5 of this work.] 
 
 The court will see, that this arrangement is to be wholly 
 governed by the view of what will be most likely to promote 
 the convenience of those who compose the meeting, and the 
 society in general. 
 
 Now, the way in which a Monthly Meeting can be set up, 
 is evidently by application from those members of the society, 
 who are inconveniently situated to attend any established 
 Monthly Meeting. If it will conduce to the convenience of 
 such individuals to form a new Monthly Meeting, they have a 
 right to apply to be set up; and if the Quarterly Meeting con- 
 cur, they will be established as a new Monthly Meeting. And 
 in no other way can they be established. It is not in the 
 power of the Quarterly Meeting to say, to a part of the society 
 who are accustomed to associate together, you shall divide; 
 you shall form two Monthly Meetings; one part shall meet 
 here, and another part there. They have no such authority 
 given to them, in practice or in discipline. But it is to be 
 exercised, on application, and for the convenience and benefit 
 of the society. When it suits their convenience, the Quar- 
 terly, on application from those members, forms a new meet- 
 ing. But there is not a hint, in any of their books, or in the 
 Discipline, that a Quarterly Meeting can divide, and make two 
 out of one, without application, or regard to the convenience 
 of the parties. 
 
 The same principle applies in laying down. If, from the 
 discretion of the members, they are found to be too few to 
 continue a Monthly Meeting; or, if they have moved nearer 
 to another, so that it would conduce to the convenience and 
 benefit of the society to lay down the Monthly Meeting — if it 
 be thought not proper longer to hold a meeting in that place, 
 and this being represented to the Quarter, they consent to it, 
 the Monthly Meeting disposes of its property, and the mem- 
 bers are attached to another meeting. But there is not to be 
 
264 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 any force nor coercion in this society, in any part of it. But 
 they are to proceed on principles of brotherly love and unity, 
 arranging their affairs in a friendly manner, so as to conduce 
 to the convenience and interest of individuals and the whole 
 society. They are not to breed ill-will and contention, but to 
 promote brotherly love and unity. 
 
 Beside, how careful are they to provide for appeals, where 
 individuals are aggrieved. In all cases, individuals have the 
 right of appeal, from the Monthly to the Quarterly, and from 
 the Quarterly to the Yearly Meeting. But would they have 
 given such enormous power to the Quarterly, and provide no 
 appeal to the Yearly.** And yet there is no appeal. There is 
 nothing in the Discipline, to give the Monthly Meeting the 
 right of appeal. If the Quarterly Meeting use this power, it 
 is irrevocable — final and conclusive. What then becomes of 
 the property of the Monthly Meeting? The meeting in ques- 
 tion, have a burying ground; they have vested civil rights. 
 Can the Quarterly, by laying down and attaching this Monthly 
 Meeting to Short Creek, attach the property? Can they trans- 
 fer the real estate of Concord Monthly Meeting, to persons 
 composing Short Creek Monthly Meeting? They can do no 
 such thing. It is obvious, therefore, from every view, whe- 
 ther we refer to principle or practice; whether we are governed 
 by their practice, or the facts of their situation, as owners of 
 real estate, a Monthly Meeting cannot be laid down and dis- 
 solved, but by their own consent and approbation. I think it 
 is, then, clear and indisputable, that the laying down of Con- 
 cord Monthly Meeting, was an act of pure tyranny, and for 
 all the purposes of this society, was nugatory. The Quarterly 
 and Monthly Meetings of Short Creek, proceeded beyond their 
 authority and power; and what they did, is a nullity. And 
 no one member is bound to respect, or pay any regard to that 
 act. And I would not ask your honour, in a complaint of this 
 kind, to determine a question of this sort, under the discipline 
 of this society, if it were not absolutely necessary, in my view, 
 to determine it — if it were not necessary to take up and ex- 
 amine the power of a Quarterly Meeting, to lay down a 
 Monthly Meeting, in order to determine, whether James was 
 a member of that Monthly Meeting or not. If the Quarterly 
 Meeting of Short Creek could not lay down Concord, then the 
 Monthly Meeting of Short Creek had no jurisdiction over 
 James. They might as well disown me as James. They 
 have as much right over one as the other. For no man can 
 be disowned, but by the Monthly Meeting to which he belongs. 
 And I do not myself see, how a man can be made to belong to 
 any religious society, without his consent — take it among 
 Friends, or any other religious society. Is it not, in this 
 country, a matter of personal consent and choice, whether you 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 265 
 
 •will belong to a society of Friends, Baptists, Presbyterians, 
 or any other society? Are you going to force men to become 
 members of a religious society, or community, to which they 
 do not voluntarily attach themselves? 
 
 It is said, that from this decision of the Short Creek 
 Monthly Meeting, James had a right to appeal. Appeal! — 
 to whom? Not to his own Monthly Meeting where he be- 
 longs ! But he had a right to appeal to his tyrants — to those who 
 had assumed an illegal power over him — who had undertaken 
 to disown him without authority, and contrary to the disci- 
 pline and principles of the society. He must have become a 
 voluntary member of that meeting, before they could have 
 authority over him — before they could have it in their power 
 to hear a complaint against him, or in their power to disown 
 him. Their disowning him was a nugatory act; and one to 
 which he, as a member of this free commonwealth, and as a 
 member of the society of Friends, is not bound to pay any re- 
 gard. 
 
 James then was a member of the society of Friends. I go 
 here, further than it is necessary to go, to establish his right 
 to be at that Yearly Meeting. If he believed, and if a num- 
 ber of members of the society believed, that the laying down 
 of this Monthly Meeting was an irregular act, and nugatory; 
 then it was improper and unavailable, to attempt to exclude 
 them from the Yearly Meeting. For they had a right to at- 
 tend, and to lay this suljject before the Yearly Meeting for 
 their decision. They had no regular mode of appeal, pro- 
 vided in the Discipline, from the Quarter laying them down. 
 And if there was no mode pointed out in the Discipline, to 
 revise the transaction in the superior tribunal, it was a sub- 
 ject which interested the whole society deeply, and one which 
 they had an undoubted right to bring before the supreme 
 legislative and judicial authority of the society. They had a 
 right to appear there for that purpose, on the day of the 
 meeting for discipline, to have the question l)rought up, dis- 
 cussed, and settled. 
 
 When this Yearly Meeting thus assembled, on the morning 
 of the 8th of September, it was composed of all those mem- 
 bers of the society who had not been disowned, and who were 
 not under dealing according to the regular discipline of the 
 society. If there were any who had been disowned irregularly, 
 or who were under dealing for not obeying the mandate of the 
 Quarterly Meeting, illegally made, they had a right to be 
 there, to lay the subject of complaint before the Yearly Meet- 
 ing. This meeting was composed, I say, of those not dis- 
 owned, and those who had not been dealt with : and secondly, 
 of those who had been illegally dealt with. And when so met, 
 may it please your honour, — when so assembled, on the 8th 
 of September, they composed but one society. There might 
 
266 
 
 Trial of Frieitils 
 
 have been division in sentiment; some might have held to one 
 opinion in matters of faith, and some to another. But the so- 
 ciety met as one society, and as a body, possessing in them- 
 selves, the whole legislative and judicial power within the 
 limits of the Yearly Meeting. And, according to the vievv 
 given by Clarkson, each member had a right to propose, for 
 discussion, any thing which he thought proper to bring for- 
 ward ; and when proposed, it was not in order, for any other 
 matter to be taken up, till that was settled. 
 
 This being the situation of the meeting — tlie meeting being 
 quiet, a member of the meeting, unexceptionable in character, 
 against whom no complaint had been made, one in as good 
 standing as any member of the society, of the orthodox party 
 at least, arose and made a motion to the meeting. He proposed 
 that the old clerk be removed, and that a new clerk should be 
 appointed for the day. When this motion was made to the 
 meeting, the meeting proceeded to act in their usual manner. 
 They proceeded to deliver their sense in the usual manner. 
 Something has been said of their speaking in quick succes- 
 sion, and some individuals two or three times over; and of 
 some confusion and clamour in acceding to this proposition. 
 But what is this, in a large meeting house, in which there is 
 an assemblage of more than a thousand people.-* When a pro- 
 position is made to them, and it is stated that the clerks have 
 incapacitated themselves for doing the business of the meet- 
 ing acceptably — when a proposition is made, that the clerks 
 be displaced; in taking the question, in the way they did, in so 
 large a crowd or meeting, there would necessarily be some 
 confusion, whether you take the question by ayes and noes, or 
 as Friends take it. In expressing their opinions, there would 
 be necessarily more or less confusion ; and the confusion would 
 generally be in proportion to the excessive numbers of the 
 meeting. 
 
 Was there any thing unusual in this? and if so, what has it 
 to do with the question before the court? The manner in 
 which they chose to transact their business, is not to be called 
 in question here. If they indecorously express their concur- 
 rence, whether orthodox or not, — which it is not very clear 
 they did, — if they did do this — if there were some members, 
 who were not governed by the same principles which lawyers 
 would be governed by, and were noisy in expressing their ap- 
 probation of this measure, it does Rot at all affect this question. 
 The proposition was before this meeting. It was made by a 
 member who had a right to make it: and it niust first be dis- 
 posed of before another could be made. The proposition was 
 understood, Iiy the meeting, to be disposed of. It is stated that 
 there was a great concurrence. Why, then, did not Ladd, and 
 those with whom he acted, suppoi t it? Why not express their 
 
at Steubenville^ Ohio. 
 
 267 
 
 unity with it? He tells you he did not think it worth observ- 
 ing. He was so much more elevated in his station than Mr. 
 French, that he did not think the proposition from French 
 worth notice. This is a comfortable degree of spiritual pride: 
 a very comfortable degree of it! 
 
 But when you come to look at Clarkson and other writers, 
 you find that,if a man, who is a pauper, subsisting on the charity 
 of the meeting, dependant on daily alms for a livelihood, had 
 made the proposition, it should have been attended to, heard, 
 and decided, before they could proceed, according to their 
 principles and rules, to other business. And it did not be- 
 come Mr. Ladd, or any other man in that meeting, to say he 
 did not think it worth regarding. The discipline and rules do 
 not give Mr. Ladd power and right to judge the purity of mo- 
 tives. They give no man authority, who feels more sancti- 
 fied than his brethren, to turn up his nose to a proposition, 
 and say it is not to be regarded. The proposition was made 
 and agreed to. If the orthodox felt hostility to this pro- 
 position, they did not express it. The question was carried, 
 clearly and indisputably. The former clerks were functus 
 officio. They had nothing more to say in that meeting, except 
 as members at large. A proposition is made, then, to ap- 
 point another clerk. That is acceded to. Whether Taylor 
 began before or after, I hold to be immaterial. It is clear and 
 indisputable, that when a proposition is made, it must be acted 
 on, before it is proper to bring forward any other business. 
 And Mr. Taylor, in reading, in this instance, whether at the 
 instance of Ladd or Bates — I care not at whose instance he 
 did it— the reading was both impudent and disorderly. It is 
 a great piece of impudence for any man, in any assembly, to 
 set up his voice in opposition to the voice of the assembled 
 multitude. When the proposition was before that meeting, 
 Taylor undertook to interrupt the discussion and decision of 
 the question which was raised. 
 
 And here, may it please your honour, if you are seeking 
 for the cause of disturbance in this meeting, you have it. 
 When a proposition is laid before the meeting, and the meet- 
 ing are acting upon it, the clerk proceeds to read, and his as- 
 sistant to call, in a stentorian voice, the names of the delegates; 
 you want no proof that this would produce confusion. It shows 
 where the confusion originated. Clarkson shows you, that it 
 originated in direct contravention to the rules of the socie- 
 ty; — in direct hostility to the usual order and method of con- 
 ducting business. 
 
 I know not how this view of the subject can be avoided. I 
 know not how this view of the subject can at all be questioned. 
 The proposition which the gentleman has taken, is false and 
 untenable, though unquestionably the only base on which he 
 
268 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 can rest his claim at all, as to the power and authority of his 
 clients; and that is, that these men, who call themselves or- 
 thodox, who consider themselves the only true church, who 
 consider themselves as saints par excellence, are the real socie- 
 ty of Friends; and that all the rest of this rabblement, who 
 assembled there, though formerly members of unquestionable 
 character, morals, and piety, but who did not come up to their 
 orthodox standard of piety, were not to be regarded in the 
 meeting. On no other principle can they apologize for this 
 breach of decorum — this disorderly measure, of going on with 
 opening the meeting, when a proposition was under considera- 
 tion. 
 
 For let them have been a majority or a minority, numerous 
 or few, still the question that came before the meeting, was 
 brought forward by a regular member of that meeting. It was 
 a question before the meeting for the discussion and decision 
 of the meeting. And for any member to interpose while it was 
 so before the meeting, unsettled and undetermined, was clearly 
 disorderly. This is the opinion of all the witnesses, except 
 Mr. I^add and a few others. Thus we see the conduct of the 
 persons who are charged here with disturbing the meeting. 
 They were members of the meeting. They voted on this ques- 
 tion. They were there with others. The meeting determined 
 the question; and it was decided that the clerk should cease to 
 act. The nomination was made, and another clerk was chosen 
 in his place. They had a right then, to place the clerk in the 
 chair. The voice of the meeting had been expressed: the old 
 clerk displaced: the new clerk elected: and the silence of the 
 orthodox had given consent, agreeably to the usage of the 
 meeting. If they dissented, they were bound to express it in 
 the usual manner. But they did not. When a person is 
 silent, he is considered as acquiescing. 
 
 No one man spoke against the displacing of the old clerk, 
 or the appointing of Hilles. It was suggested by one or two, 
 " we have a clerk;" but no other word was objected. The 
 meeting had created a vacancy, and it was then right for Hil- 
 les to take his seat. And to prevent or interrupt his going to 
 the table, was an interruption of the meeting, by whomsoever 
 it was done. His going to take his seat, was in perfect order 
 and regularity. 
 
 Well, when this is done, is there any attempt here, to tyran- 
 nize over the orthodox, or to force them into measures contrary 
 to their will? Or to carry measures against their will, unless 
 first fairly proposed in open meeting, and concurred in by the 
 united voice of the meeting? Was there any confusion raised? 
 When this opposition arose, seeing the hostility, confusion and 
 opposition, a Friend proposes to make an amicable adjustment. 
 He proposes to the orthodox, and to those with whom he is 
 
 .1 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 269 
 
 acting, to come to an amicable asjreemenl. to divide the house 
 or the time, so that there should be no collision between them. 
 It is the proposition of peace. But it is repelled by these 
 saints with indignity. No. They will do no such thing. But 
 by the direction of the lord of the society, they call over the 
 names of the representatives, and take their sense upon an ad- 
 journment, a thing without precedent in the society. They did 
 what no man ever thought could be done — they adjourned 
 themselves. But what did the others do.'' Did they disturb 
 them? No. They sat quietly, and saw them transact their 
 business. They did not interrupt them. There was no inter- 
 ruption to their calling over their delegates and marching off, 
 in any order they chose. 
 
 And when, on the next day, they came and demanded exclu- 
 sive possession of the house, there was no attempt to keep ex- 
 clusive possession. The doors were opened, and no guards 
 were placed. They were told that the Yearly Meeting was 
 sitting, and that they had right and liberty to come in. If they 
 knew they had a majority, they had right and power to come 
 in, and form component parts of the meeting. If they did not 
 like Hilles, their remedy was plain. They might liave moved 
 to displace him for an irregularity. They might have dis- 
 placed him, by a majority of the voices of the Yearly Meeting. 
 There was nothing that could prevent. 
 
 We see no claim to set up, by these men for whom I appear, 
 over their fellows — no claim but their equal and undoubted 
 rights in the society. They never wished to control their 
 brethren, nor do they now wish to control their brethren. How 
 is it with the other side? How is it with the orthodox? In the 
 first place, you find, that a committee of the Meeting for Suffer- 
 ings bring forward an epistle of advice from Indiana Yearly 
 Meeting. They consider on it, in the Meeting for Sufferings, 
 and pass some resolutions: then recommending it to the Quar- 
 terly and Monthly Meetings, choose committees, withLadd at 
 their head, who go round to the Monthly Meetings to cram 
 it down them: thus disowning in that epistle at one blow fifty 
 thousand members — a great majority of the society. And the 
 committee for sufferings, without any authority derived from 
 any source, appoint sub-committees to go round and insist on 
 this being received — not as disciplinei they did not attempt 
 to force it upon them as discipline; but it must be received as 
 advice, and acted upon. When it comes to the Monthly Meet- 
 ing, it is opened and read there, and is recommended to the 
 members. It gives what it calls extracts from the Berean, and 
 extracts from the sermons of Elias Hicks; and one thing and 
 another as a representation of the opinions and doctrines which 
 they pretend to condemn, in all those that receive them, and 
 exclude them from the society. When the Monthly Meeting 
 34 
 
270 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 examine this, they find that in the extracts from the Berean, 
 there is a sentence made up by taking parts of paragraphs from 
 three or four different pages — patching them up, so as to give 
 neither the sense of the writer of the Berean, nor the sense of 
 Elias Hicks, but their own construction and interpretation. If 
 your honour will observe, it will be found that it is throughout 
 patched up in that way: containing not a true representation 
 of the sentiments of the Berean or of Elias Hicks, but such 
 kind of garbage as they think fit food for the minds of the or- 
 thodox, with a false new-fangled system of the sentiments that 
 they attempt to combat. So that many members of the Month- 
 ly Meeting could not conscientiously approve of itj and they 
 rejected it; and some, perhaps, though disapproving, submis- 
 sively receive it. Here originates the whole of the quarrel. 
 Here originates the disturbance in Ohio Yearly Meeting, and 
 among the Friends composing the same Monthly Mesting, 
 some will, and some will not receive the testimony. Monthly 
 Meetings are then laid down. They laid down Concord, and 
 made an attempt at Plainfield; but Plainfield was too stubborn, 
 and the meeting still stands in spite of their tyranny. 
 
 Now, may it please your honour, the members of this so- 
 ciety had a right to judge of this Indiana Yearly Meeting testi- 
 mony: because Indiana Yearly Meeting had no control over 
 the members of this society. It may have over its own mem- 
 bers, to make them believe that nine-tenths of the society have 
 departed from the ancient principles of Friends, and that they 
 are more enlightened than all the world upon this subject. 
 They may say, you shall believe this, and exclude all who will 
 not: you shall believe our garbage, as a true statement of the 
 sentiments of the Berean and Elias Hicks. Now they may 
 impose all this upon their own society; but when they come 
 into the state of Ohio, to cram this down the necks of the peo- 
 ple here, I do trust, the people have a right to look at it, and 
 see whether it is proper aliment for them or not, and receive 
 or reject it, as they think proper. Pray, where did the Meet- 
 ing for Sufferings get the right to pick up epistles from Indi- 
 ana or Dublin, or any where else, and say you shall swallow 
 this for gospel; and send Ladd &nd others to cram it down 
 their throats, whether or no? I can see no authority for this. 
 In a society where the poor man has as much authority as the 
 rich, I say there is no such power. It appears to me to be a 
 pure and simple act of tyranny and oppression, as the first step 
 made by the orthodox to obtain exclusive dominion over their 
 brethren. 
 
 This was the pretence for laying down Concord Monthly 
 Meeting. They would not receive the epistle. They had ex- 
 amined for themselves, and had formed an opinion that it was 
 not binding on them. They imagined that the Meeting for 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 271 
 
 Sufferings had not the authority over them, and they did not 
 bow to the idol erected by Ladd and his Indiana Friends — to 
 the image of clay and brass. They rejected it, and therefore 
 they were laid down. They were not asked, whether they 
 would consent to be attached to another meeting, but, by com- 
 pulsion, were declared out of existence, and annihilated, as a 
 Monthly Meeting. And for what? For rejecting the Indiana 
 epistle. No other reason under heaven. 
 
 Well, the next proceeding is, you find them assembling at 
 Mount Pleasant from Dublin, from Rhode Island, from Caro- 
 lina, and every where else, where they could get delegates. 
 You find all these attending in numbers that never attended 
 the Yearly Meeting before, to aid in this work of oppression, 
 in order to carry into effect the advice of the Indiana epistle. 
 To exclude all those who were refractory, by the slow pro- 
 cess of complaining of individual Friends, and bringing them 
 before a Monthly Meeting, to be there condemned and ex- 
 cluded, would not do. It was necessary to exclude by hundreds 
 and by thousands. And they came together for consultation. 
 Shillitoe, the representative of John Bull, on this occasion, 
 proposes to exclude all the Hicksites — all who had read the 
 sermons of Elias Hicks, and given an opinion upon the sub- 
 ject. Not because they were disowned members, not because 
 they were not in unity with the whole society, but because 
 they had expressed some sentiments, which, according to their 
 garbled opinions, were not in unity with the sentiments of the 
 society, though in unison with Fox, Penn, and all the ablest 
 writers, yet with this new-fangled divinity, which they have 
 got up, they do not agree. The proposition came from a 
 foreigner, a man who is here to enforce the dominion that 
 they exercise, for aught I know, in England, in the society. 
 Whether they do, or not, is immaterial. The proposition is 
 agreed to; guards are appointed ; an unusual number are ap- 
 pointed ; and lest the heterodox should get wind of this, and 
 those who do not altogether disbelieve in the doctrines of the 
 fathers of the church, should by some possibility get into the 
 house, they garrison the building. They put in Mr. Heald, 
 a pretty able bodied man, as commander-in-chief of the gar- 
 rison, and he collects into the house a sufficient force to main- 
 tain it. Against whom? Was the Yearly Meeting house ever 
 garrisoned before? And for what purpose was it? what object? 
 The object had been disclosed by Shillitoe. The proposition 
 was made by him, and concurred in by the orthodox, to hold 
 exclusive possession — that before they would admit a man, he 
 should pass the ordeal of the door keepers. They have lists 
 furnished them of such persons as are to be excluded. Each 
 person has one, and at every door is a man from each Quar- 
 terly Meeting, with a list to exclude, they say, those disowned: 
 
272 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 they say they do not wish to exclude any others; but was 
 that the proposition ; was it the fact? Had Dawson been dis- 
 owned — and numbers of others who were pushed back and 
 stopped? Not a word of it. Was Mrs. Pierce disowned, who 
 was kept out in a manner which I need not speak of.' It must 
 be evident to every body, what the assembly must have been. 
 How devoid of justice and respect for themselves, and every 
 body else, to keep women out in the rain and mud, as they 
 were kept out. Those who had a right, an equal right, to be 
 there, v.'ere thrust back and shoved out, to endure the pelting 
 of the storm, while the orthodox were holding exclusive pos- 
 session of the house. 
 
 We are told it has been usual to place guards at the doors 
 of the Yearly Meeting ; to place persons there, to whisper and 
 tell those not members that they ought not to come in; but 
 never before, does any member of the society tell you, that he 
 ever saw such guards placed there; no member ever saw 
 guards pushing back with all their might, against members 
 who had a right to be there — as good a right as any in the 
 house. 
 
 While these transactions were arranging for the meeting on 
 Monday, they also prepare for holding a meeting of the commit- 
 tee on Indian affairs, though not at the fixed time for their meet- 
 ing. They now pretend that they had mistaken the time. They 
 get together early in the morning, with many not members of 
 that committee, and all these foreigners, these hundred from 
 other societies — they get possession, and form a solid column 
 round the clerk's table. They take possession of the high seats 
 exclusively. When Israel Updegraff goes in, there is but one 
 solitary seat vacant, where he can get a place, and not only 
 were the benches filled, but the steps in front of the table are 
 crowded full of these people. They have formed, as they 
 imagine, an impenetrable phalanx, to guard the sanctum sanc- 
 torum, which they occupy. Suppose you had gone in at the 
 moment when the doors were thrown open, and found all the 
 seats vacant, except at this end of the house, and persons 
 crowded, as thick as they could be upon the seats, and not only 
 the seats but the steps, occupied by chosen men, and the 
 neighbouring seats well crowded in this quarter of the house, 
 •would you pronounce this the usual mode of taking possession 
 of an assembly, going in and occupying all the honourable 
 seats in a dense mass, under the pretence of holding a meet- 
 ing for Indian affairs, entirely out of order — at a time when no 
 such committee could assemble? It was not a matter proper 
 for their discussion. It was evident that all these foreign de- 
 legates who had collected together for consultation, had not 
 much benevolence for these poor Indians. 
 
 The doors are thrown open; the people come in; and the 
 
at Stcubenvillc, Ohio. 
 
 273 
 
 house fills up. Then appears Thomas Shillitoe, in supplica- 
 tion. But what kind of supplication? There is John Bull 
 praying for victory. Yes. Not in supplication to his heavenly 
 Father, for an extension of brotherly love and good will among 
 the brethren — not in supplication for the benefit of the church j 
 but praying stoutly for victory! It is all of a piece; there is 
 the same hostile attitude from the commencement. They 
 carry it on until the meeting assembles, then place themselves 
 in a hostile attitude, and pray for victory! as though Shillitoe 
 was the chaplain of a regiment, going to battle! 
 
 Of a piece with this, is the spirit in which they proceed to 
 disown their brethren. What says the Discipline? If a mem- 
 ber of the society conduct improperly, and deny the funda- 
 mental principles of the society, he shall be dealt with, 
 brought up before the Monthly Meeting; and if found guilty 
 by the Monthly Meeting, he may be disowned. But is there 
 any power to disown, short of a Monthly Meeting as such, not 
 a minority, composed of two members? It must be done by 
 the majority, or must be united in by the meeting. And it 
 must be his own meeting, of which he becomes a voluntary 
 member, to whose rules and discipline he has attached him- 
 self. Now, what says the archbishop of the society? He 
 says, if a meeting be composed of fifty members, twenty may 
 disown thirty. He is asked, whether ten could disown forty. 
 Yes, undoubtedly, says bishop Bates. Can three disown forty- 
 seven, Mr. Bates? I do not know how far it might be carried, 
 but a very few can disown a great many. This is the ortho- 
 dox principle, declared by one of their leading men, although 
 unknown to their discipline, and to the former practice of 
 Friends under that discipline. It originated in views of am- 
 bition, in devising ways and means to tyrannize over their 
 brethren; and on this principle, they effect the act of disown- 
 ment. They do not look to the discipline, or complaints to 
 Monthly Meetings, but to two or three of these saints, par ex- 
 cellence. I suppose Elisha Bates, Benjamin "W. Ladd, and 
 John Street, could disown the whole society, and take pos- 
 session of the whole property. You will, perhaps, find, that 
 Ladd and Street are pretty good speculators. I should be in 
 no way surprised, if these three should get possession, and 
 then Ladd should disown the other two, upon the principles 
 they have adopted. It would be carrying these principles to 
 their ultimate result, and it is what they naturally lead to. 
 
 We have, may it please your honour, a sample of orthodox 
 disownments. We find by the Discipline what members may 
 be disowned for. But here we have the disownment of David 
 Scholfield, a respectable member as there is in the society, 
 and a man of unquestionable morals; but he would not receive 
 the epistle from Indiana; and they have disowned him. It is 
 
274 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 necessary to pay particular attention to tliis disownment, to 
 show the nature of that spirit by which these people are ac- 
 tuated. It is an extension of the cloven foot of these orthodox 
 to the noon-day light. 
 
 " David Scholfield having a right of membership in the society of friends, 
 but giving way to a spirit of dissension, hath charged the yearly meeting of 
 Indiana, 8c the meeting of Sufferings of Ohio yearly meeting with making 
 rong representations in their Testamony & epistle of advice, &c., and also 
 said, he had read a book of sermons attributed to Elias Hicks, and saw no 
 impropriety in the doctrines therein contained, & he being labored with 
 & it not having the desired effect. We disown him from being a mem- 
 ber of our religious society, untill he becomes sensible of his misconduct, 
 & condemns it to the satisfaction of friends." 
 
 Signed in, & by Order of Salem monthly meeting, the 19th day of 
 the Third-month, 1828." 
 
 "Joseph Shbeve, Clerk." 
 
 I know not how far the orthodox think they can trammel the 
 human mind, or hogw^ much authority they suppose can be 
 exercised; but here, they say, is a man who has given way to 
 a spirit of dissention, because he questions the accuracy of the 
 epistle from the Indiana Yearly Meeting. He questions the 
 authority of the Meeting for Sufferings, in attempting to cram 
 it down the necks of all the Monthly Meetings. And for 
 calling in question the correctness of these representations, he 
 is disowned. It would be ludicrous to suppose, that in this 
 country, in a government like this, a man can subject himself 
 to any society whatever, that shall deny him the right of pri- 
 vate judgment altogether. The question would answer itself. 
 There is no such society here, unless it is the Free Masons ; 
 and that I know nothing about. Certainly there is no such, 
 that is open to the eye of the world. There is nothing like 
 it among Quakers. There is nothing in the book of Disci- 
 pline, or in their practice, which can hinder them from express- 
 ing themselves freely, especially in the Yearly Meeting of 
 Ohio. Is it not clear and indisputable, that Mr. Scholfield 
 might have expressed his opinion in the Yearly Meeting, with 
 the utmost freedom and order? It is so, unquestionably. And 
 if he might have done it in the Yearly Meeting, might he not, 
 at his own fire-side? Is there any thing to prevent a Friend 
 from expressing his opinion on this subject? There is not. 
 
 There 'is not to be found in the records of any church, not 
 even the' Roman Catholic, in its worst day, an attempt more 
 tyrannical, an attempt more absurd and ridiculous, to control 
 the minds and consciences of men, than this attempt of the or- 
 thodox to turn men out of the society, because they call in 
 question the correctness of a forged and garbled document. 
 For the purpose of my argument, though the epistle be cor- 
 rect, yet it is imnuitcrial whether it is or not — it is present- 
 e-d for the acceptance of ihc Monthly Meeting, and they arc 
 
at Steubenville^ Ohio. 
 
 275 
 
 asked to unite with it. A member hesitates to unite in it, and 
 expresses an opinion that it is incorrect: he does not charge 
 it, as I do, with positive falsehood ; but, with the utmost mo- 
 deration, doubts the correctness of it : and expresses an opi- 
 nion that the representatives vary from the truth in some par- 
 ticulars. And for that expression of opinion, they undertake 
 to disown him. Now they have no such authority in the dis- 
 cipline : for the why and the wherefore that they may expel a 
 member, is laid down in the discipline. There is no authority 
 to disown a member for any other matters than those spe- 
 cified by the discipline. And if they undertake, by ex post facto 
 regulations, to make that an offence, which was not so at the 
 time it was committed, the act is as illegal there, as in civil 
 society. They cannot undertake to say that the opinion ex- 
 pressed is worthy of expulsion, unless that opinion is recog- 
 nised by the discipline of the society, as being worthy of ex- 
 pulsion. 
 
 But this is not all : the disownment is not on this single 
 charge. He also said he had read a book attributed to Elias 
 Hicks, and saw no impropriety in the doctrines therein con- 
 tained. Well, was there any impropriety in the doctrines 
 therein contained? What sermons were they? There had been 
 published a great number of sermons by Elias Hicks. What 
 improprieties were there? He might have read the book has- 
 tily: he might have overlooked them, without noticing them. 
 Without stating that they contained any one doctrine contrary 
 to the faith that they held to, he said he had read the sermons, 
 and could see no impropriety. If the human mind were to 
 exert itself to find out something absurd and ridiculous, it 
 could not light upon a case more palpably absurd than this. 
 No ingenuity could go lower than this. But is it within the 
 Discipline? Had they any right to disown for this? The gen- 
 tlemen undertake to read from the Discipline something in 
 support of it. But what is the inference from it? It shows 
 you that their proceedings are according to the advice of Shil- 
 litoe — that they have been proceeding according to the ad- 
 vice of Elisha Bates, and not according to the usual practice 
 in the society: not according to the ancient and received max- 
 ims of the society; and that they are introducing a new sys- 
 tem of coercion and tyrannical power over their brethren. 
 And if they have not reason, within the discipline of the 
 church, to disown a member, then, rather than not disown 
 him, they will assign reasons, the most absurd and ridiculous. 
 
 The keen sighted Mr. Ladd can see an error in Hicks' ser- 
 mons, from the most garbled extracts. And here is a man 
 who has read the sermons, and judged for himself, but is less 
 keen sighted than Mr. Ladd: he has not the sagacity that 
 Ladd has. Instead of proceeding, according to the order of 
 
2r6 
 
 Trial of FrienJs 
 
 the society, to point out, with brotherly love, the errors, and 
 to show him that he had overlooked this assertion, which is 
 not according to our faith, and this insinuation, which is 
 against our belief — instead of pointing out these, they attempt 
 to disown the man, because he himself said, without any thing 
 of the kind being pointed out, that he saw no impropriety — 
 because he himself has not sagacity enough to see as far as 
 these people think they can see. It is an evidence, clearly and 
 conclusively, that these disownments are a piece of the most 
 ridiculous and absurd tyranny ever attempted to be exercised 
 over the mind of man. 
 
 I have said, that the Friends for whom I appear, claim no 
 more than their equal rights in this society. And I ask your 
 honour, whether any thing can be shown to contradict this 
 position? I know it has been said, that they are claiming pro- 
 perty: and said very gratuitously by the gentleman on the other 
 side. But there is no foundation for this in the evidence. 
 They contributed to the purchase of ground, and to the erec- 
 tion of a meeting house. They are the proprietors of that 
 house and. ground — equally so with the orthodox. The pro- 
 perty is vested in trustees. And whether the statute of uses 
 transferring these trusts into possession, is in force in this 
 state, is a question yet undecided, and upon which the judges 
 of the supreme court are equally divided. Whether the statute 
 is in force, and such use and possession is in the persons for 
 whom it is vested or not, still these individuals have the use 
 by custom; and the power, by possession and use. The 
 trustees have never interfered till this time. And the defend- 
 ants have as much right to possession, use and occupancy, as 
 those men who claim to be orthodox. Many have not been 
 disowned at all: and many have been disowned in this irregu- 
 lar way. They have paid their money, and, in equity and law, 
 have an equal right. They claim no exclusive possession or 
 right in any one instance. 
 
 But we are told that we have had conferences with each 
 other: that we have met in a barn: that we had a conference 
 at the meeting house in Plainfield, and at the school house in 
 Mount Pleasant. And, it is said here, in this country, that 
 men who have civil and religious rights have met to consult 
 upon the best measures for asserting those rights; and it is 
 charged as a crime, that they have so met and assembled, and 
 held conferences. I would not undertake to argue to this 
 court, that any number of individuals have a right to assemble 
 on such occasions. It is a power that no court will ever at- 
 tempt to control. It is a power which has been exercised by 
 all citizens; and, whether of this society or any other, it is 
 proper for them. In our political affairs, who ever imagined 
 it illegal or improper, to meet and consult on measures to be 
 
at Steubenville^ Ohio. 
 
 277 
 
 pursued in furtherance of lawful objects? If there is notliiiig 
 unlawful or treasonable — if there be no conspiracy against the 
 government, the assemblage is as much under the protection 
 of the law as any religious assemblage whatever; because citi- 
 zens stand on a perfect equality of right, as to the manner in 
 which they shall conduct themselves, so long as they avoid a 
 breach of the public peace. 
 
 In Washington county, Friends met in a barn. They had 
 public worship; and after the meeting, they had some con- 
 sultation with each other. At Redstone they had a meeting, 
 and appointed delegates to Plainfield. Why was this general 
 conference? I will tell you why there was a general confe- 
 rence. The Meeting for Sufferings had appointed sub-com- 
 mittees to go to all the Monthly Meetings, to force them 
 to receive this testimony, as a rule to govern their conduct as 
 members. But they would not receive it, and called in ques- 
 tion its accuracy. The orthodox then proceed to disown 
 them: to purify the church, forsooth, they turn out every man 
 who will not bow down and worship the graven image, which 
 they have set up. Those Friends w ho were not content to 
 succumb to this tyranny and oppression, thought proper to 
 meet together, and consult on what should be done: but did 
 they agree to any thing unlawful? I care not whether a letter 
 from Israel French were read or not. It was lawful, and cor- 
 rect, and proper for them to consult. Men are not compella- 
 ble to stand still, and be trodden under foot. They have a 
 right to combine for the protection of their known and ac- 
 knowledged rights. They did meet and consult. And if, may 
 it please your honour, you and I had met and consulted, we 
 should not have come to the conclusion that these people did, 
 not to use violence in asserting our rights. We would have 
 gone a little further, and asserted our rights by force, if neces- 
 sary. But these people, instead of any idea of force, or of 
 going beyond their ancient order and Discipline, determined 
 to attend the meeting, but to go quietly, and act as circum- 
 stances might require, and as was always customary with the 
 society. They conformed strictly to the principles of Friends, 
 not to form determinations beforehand, but to be governed 
 by the inspiration or impulse of the moment — by v/hat ap- 
 peared at the time, to be correct and proper. All the evidence 
 shows that they went forward, with these views and princi- 
 ples, to the meeting. They found, when they got there, that 
 the advice given by Shillitoe, and which they knew had been 
 concurred in by the orthodox, and by which they were to be 
 excluded, one and all, was about to be acted on, and they met 
 in the school-house to consult. It was a lime of grief; it was 
 a time of great pain and distress. The society had existed near 
 two centuries in peace and harmony. They found that a part 
 35 
 
Trial of Friends 
 
 »)f ihcii' Iji etliieii, from whom tliey had no disposition to di- 
 vide, were assuming the exercise of dominion over them, and 
 I lie right to he considered exclusively the society, and to bar 
 them out of the house, which they had themselves helped to 
 erect. They had been garrisoning the house for the purpose 
 of excluding them by force. The preparations were obvious. 
 And even here, when the question was, whether they should 
 attempt to go to the meeting — when the question was dis- 
 cussed, and when, if they had any idea of force, it would have 
 been the time to determine on it, it was agreed not to use any 
 force. They agreed to go to the meeting, and if they could 
 get in peaceably, to go in; but if excluded, if they did not ob- 
 tain peaceable admittance, they agreed that they would hold 
 the Yearly Meeting by themselves; that they would choose a 
 clerk, and organise themselves as a Yearly Meeting, and pro- 
 ceed to business; but not unless they were excluded by force. 
 They did not seek a division; they did not want a division. 
 'I'hey were willing to be placed on a common level with the 
 orthodox, and to let the majority in the Yearly Meeting — the 
 great legislative and judicial power of the meeting, decide. 
 They wanted no exclusive possession. They claimed no such 
 possession. Nor is there any one fact proven, showing that 
 any such attempt was made on the part of these Friends, 
 either singly or collectively, in any one instance, after they 
 had carried the vote for clerk. But a proposition, for the al- 
 ternate or equal use of the house, was made, and indignantly 
 rejected by the orthodox. 
 
 There has been so much said with regard to the right of 
 tiie old clerk to his station, and the irregularity of displacing 
 him, that it would seem the old clerk was appointed by the 
 representatives for a certain period of time, and that he had 
 somewhat of a freehold title, till that time expired; and that 
 it is not competent and proper to displace him. But your 
 honour has been shown, by the testimony, that the clerk is the 
 servant of the meeting; that he has no rights there; that he 
 is a mere servant, and tiiat the society have no presiding officer 
 in their meetings. It has been shown also, that the manner 
 in which Hilles was appointed, was not altogether novel in 
 the society. A similar course had been pursued in appoint- 
 ing Taylor, in the first instance, the former clerk being absent, 
 or disqualified by sickness. In my view of the subject, it is 
 \ery immaterial, whether the old clerk was appointed for a 
 particular time, or not; immaterial, whether or not he be con- 
 sidered as analogous to a chairman, appointed by the mem- 
 bers of a legislative body of representatives. They appoint 
 their speaker and clerk; but suppose, while you were a mem- 
 ber of the house of representatives, that the speaker had dis- 
 qualified himself from acting acceptably; suppose he had come 
 in, and taken the chair drunk, and rather than to have him 
 
lit Steubenville, Ohio, 
 
 279 
 
 there drunk, you had made a proposition to remove him, 
 would it not have been in the power of the house to remove 
 him? What person on earth would question it ? Who would 
 say that they should sit there, day after day, with a drunken 
 fellow in the chair, because there was no authority to remove 
 him? Nobody would have the face to pretend it. There could 
 be no question about it. You would have had the authority, 
 and would have exercised it. 
 
 Well, here, may it please your honour, is Ohio Yearly 
 Meeting, possessing all power, legislative and judicial! they 
 meet together^ they have a clerkj let him be a presiding officer 
 or not. A member of the meeting thinks the meeting cannot 
 proceed with this clerk. He is of opinion that the clerk has 
 disqualified himself, and makes the proposition to the meet- 
 ing; the proper tribunal to decide. If there never had been 
 a precedent — if no such thing had ever occurred, they had a 
 right to make the precedent. They had the power assigned 
 them by the Discipline. Like the legislature of a state, they 
 had made their rules, and they could abrogate those rules. By 
 one vote they can make a ruk for thcVr own government, not 
 for others who may succeed them. If any new case occur, 
 it is to be acted on according to necessity or propriety. They 
 are the supreme legislative powei-; they can look no whfere 
 else for these rules, for there is no other power to give them; 
 they make and adopt them themselves. When such a proposi- 
 tion is made to this meeting, this supreme power, to displace 
 a clerk, it is made to the proper power to decide it. And 
 even if it be contrary to all the discipline in the book, the.y 
 have the right to do it, because they have the power and right 
 of abrogating and changing the whole. The Discipline is 
 made for the Quarterly and Monthly Meetings; it contains 
 rules which, so long as the Yearly Meeting choose to adhere 
 to, they will adhere to. But a discipline made last year can- 
 not command actual authority in the Meeting of this year, 
 any more than any legislature of this year can make rules for the 
 next year ; because the legislature of the next year might adopt 
 them or reject them. This arises from that power which is 
 inherent in the assembly, from the positive and absolute 
 power which they have over their own concerns. Whether 
 the clerk be appointed for life, or for one hour — whether his 
 duties were to continue by his first appointment for a day, or 
 for life, he was their servant, not their master. They had a 
 right to displace him, and say that he was an unfaithful ser- 
 vant, and put another in his place — in the place of this " vene- 
 rable Friend," as Mr. Goodnow says. He is a venerable man, 
 undoubtedly. I have the utmost respect for Mr. Taylor, and 
 I am sorry that so good a man as he is would suffer himself to 
 be used in the way he has born : I am sorry that ho would not 
 
20O 
 
 Trial of Fricndt 
 
 exercise his own judgment and discretion, and not be govern- 
 ed by such men as Benjamin W. Ladd. Your sympathy is 
 not to be awakened here about an old and venerable man. It 
 is a question of right, not of feeling: aquestion as to the right 
 of displacing- him ; and his being old or young, does not affect 
 that right. It makes it neither stronger nor weaker. The 
 right exists fully and entirely. It was the meeting, not a few 
 members, that was to decide upon that question. It was not 
 for Ladd, or any other man, to say, that the proposition was 
 not worth regarding. It was not for one, or any number, to 
 decide. It was before the meeting — the supreme tribunal — 
 and to be decided by that tribunal. And it was a breach of 
 discipline, and out of order, to interrupt them in the decision 
 of that question. , 
 
 Well, then, if I have taken a correct view of this subject, 
 there was a meeting of the society of Friends at Mount Plea- 
 sant. Here were men entertaining different sentiments as to 
 faith. Some thought Elias Hicks as bad as Satan, and there 
 were others who could not see that he was any worse than 
 some of the orthodox ministers in their church. They met 
 together. They were one body — one legislature. They had 
 not divided. The meeting was disturbed — a ^reaMisturbance 
 occurred; but who occasioned that disturbance? You do not 
 find, by the discipline of the church, that Israel French pro- 
 ceeded contrary to order; there is no pretension that Israel 
 French occasioned the disturbance. Yet, if the clerk proceeded 
 correctly, then Israel French was the disturber of the meeting. 
 He was the only disturber, if it was out of order to displace 
 the old clerks, and to appoint the new ones. James had no 
 agency in that, neither had Hilles. There is not a shadow of 
 evidence, that they had any agency in it, other than that 
 Hilles' name was mentioned; but he did not make that mo- 
 tion. If you look to that motion as the origin, these men were 
 not guilty of the disturbance. These men were as passive as 
 any other members of the meeting. 
 
 If you look to the discipline of the church, and to the order 
 of proceeding in this society, you will find that the disturbance 
 was made by the old clerk, who, being displaced, proceeded, 
 contrary to uniform practice, to act in an office, from which 
 he had been removed according to the usual mode of deciding 
 such questions. And this created a great deal of disorder 
 and confusion. Much will, no doubt, be said as to the haste 
 with which it was done. Is it not accounted for, when we 
 consider that the old clerk determined to pay no attention to 
 the voice of the meeting, M'hen the meeting had determined 
 that a new clerk should be appointed, to take his place.^ 
 Was there no cause for confusion.'' They themselves prevent- 
 ed the deliberation which usually takes place. They were the 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 201 
 
 cause why it was so hastily decided. And can they come here, 
 and charge their opponents with having made a disturbance 
 ■which they, themselves, caused? 
 
 Suppose, from the evidence you have before you, that Tay- 
 lor had not proceeded to read the opening minute, but he and 
 his assistant had remained silent — and when it was said that 
 the question was carried to appoint another clerk, these or- 
 thodox men, instead of ordering Taylor to go on, had told 
 the meeting that there was great disimion with the proposi- 
 tion, and that it would be proper, before the question should 
 be considered as carried, that it should remain open for dis- 
 cussion, till they could deliver their sentiments calmly, and in 
 the usual method against the proposition — would there have 
 been any disturbance? Can you learn any thing of the kind 
 from the evidence? If, then, I say, instead of taking this dis- 
 orderly course of compelling Taylor to go on, they had risen, 
 in the order of the society, and opposed this proposition; dis- 
 cussed its propriety; defended Taylor's conduct; and agitated 
 the subject properly, before the meeting, would there have 
 been any such conduct as that which is complained of? If 
 there would not have been such disturbance, what right 
 have they to charge the disturbance upon us ? Is it not most 
 clear and evident, that they made it themselves? That it was 
 made by their clamour, and will, and determination to bear 
 down every thing, to call themselves the exclusive church,- and 
 their opponents heterodox, and without the church? 
 
 I have never known more than one or two instances of a 
 similar nature with this proceeding; they were in the eastern 
 states, where a man may complain of himself, and get lined ; 
 even to a justice of the peace, he may enter a complaint, in 
 order to be beforehand. In that way, I have known the great- 
 est aggressors to be the earliest to complain; to be the persons 
 complaining, instead of complained of. The proceedings of 
 these prosecutors, are exactly similar. They have made a 
 disturbance; and judging others by themselves, were afraid of 
 being complained of and prosecuted; and hurried away from 
 the Yearly Meeting, post haste, to enter complaint before 
 your honour. Why quit their Yearly Meeting with such 
 eagerness, as was evident in their faces and manner, if not 
 afraid that their brethren would be before them? They were 
 afraid the saddle would be put on the other horse ; and to pre- 
 vent this, they make all this haste. 
 
 I will not take up much more time in this discussion, for I 
 think it is clear, that it is a case not within this statute. It 
 has been stated, and it is true, that this statute was to pre-' 
 vent disturbances from without — camp meetings might be 
 disturbed by a rabble from without; and if so, they might be 
 protected under this statute. They might be disturbed from 
 
282 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 what might arise within the meeting. Here I speak from no 
 experience. But, from what I can learn, several preach at 
 once; and if some such man as Elisha Bates should get up, 
 and preach with a stentorian voice, above all the rest, would 
 not this be a disturbance? But would the law interfere, and 
 say, you preach too loud, or pray too loud, and disturb others? 
 Could you go into the internal policy and regulations of that 
 society — or those of the congregationalists — a society which 
 is on a perfect equality; like the Quakers, a pure democracy? 
 Suppose, in their conference, a clergyman is chairman. Sup- 
 pose a proposition be made to displace the chairman, stating 
 that his conduct has been such as to render it improper for 
 him to sit, and recommending that some other one be ap- 
 pointed; and, thereupon, a vote should be taken. Suppose that 
 some should rise and ask the meeting to vote, and great dis- 
 order should arise, great clamour of voices, and a great ma- 
 jority should determine that he ought to be removed. Some 
 laying hands on the new chairman, take him up to the desk; 
 others oppose, and amidst bustle and noise, push with all their 
 might to prevent it. Nov/, I ask, was it the intention of the 
 statute law that a judge should go into these matters, as to 
 right and wrong in this religious society? It appears to me 
 not. It appears to me, that whatever may be the conduct of 
 these meetings, however irregular, and however they may 
 have departed from their discipline and practice; however 
 much clamour may have been made, and even Benjamin W. 
 Ladd made himself liable for an assault and battery, as he un- 
 doubtedly has, and many others, yet they are isolated offences; 
 ihey did not go to affect the meeting; and what occurred be- 
 tween different members of the society, under their mode of 
 doing business, is a question purely of their own cognizance; 
 and neither side can resort to the laws of the country, and by 
 criminal complaint get a judgment of your honour upon it. 
 It was not the intention of the statute. It is not within the 
 regular sphere of judicial duties, to go into the order, dis- 
 cipline or faith of a particular religious society, and weigh 
 one against the other, and determine between them. If they 
 have a dispute among themselves, a disturbance of the meet- 
 ing, the law never intended to regulate the manner in which 
 they should proceed among themselves; but it has said, if 
 you disturb these people when worshipping, or when quar- 
 relling, you shall be liable to this statute. If a man had gone 
 into this meeting drunk, making a great noise, so as to pre- 
 vent them from going on with the business, he would have 
 been liable to the penalties of this statute. But men standing 
 there, as my clients stood there, doing no act which they had 
 not a right to do there, arc not liable. The (juestion is not, 
 in relation to those who claim to he exclusively orthodox, and 
 
at Steubcnville, Ohio. 283 
 
 exclusively religious — whether they are so pious and virtuous — 
 whether they have monopolized all to themselves, or left some 
 small modicum to the others ; — it was not the intention of the 
 legislature, by this statute, to call such points in question. 
 
 It does appear to me, that the policy of our government will 
 never permit a judicial tribunal, to interfere with any eccle- 
 siastical controversy. And in this case, the controversy is 
 not one in which the state is interested, but it is a controversy 
 between members of the society of Friends. And we think, 
 your honour would do well, to tell these gentlemen to settle it 
 among themselves. 
 
 Speech of John C. Wuight, Esq. 
 
 Under all the considerations connected with this subject, if 
 no other duties devolved on me, I could not advert to the multi- 
 tude of the people assembled, during the nine days continuance 
 of this trial; I could not advert to the polite audience now as- 
 sembled here; I could not advert to the powerful talents mani- 
 fested on the other side, without feeling that to be able to 
 engage the attention of this audience, would require of me an 
 effort that is unusual: without feeling that to be able to throw 
 any additional light upon this subject, I shall be more fortunate 
 than has generally fallen to my lot, in addressing a court. Yet 
 with these things pressing upon me, and having the influence 
 that they have, I must proceed to the discharge of the duty. 
 However wearied may be your patience, and the patience of 
 the audience, I must proceed to the discharge of it, having an 
 eye to the weight, power, influence, and extraordinary sar- 
 casm, which have emanated from the other side. 
 
 In my view of the subject, I shall endeavour to embrace all 
 that has been said on the other side. I shall have to call on 
 your patience, for a considerable length of time. I am un- 
 willing to do so; but my duty presses me to the performance. 
 I will strive not to overlook what I ought to say, and not to 
 hurry it; but I will strive for one thing above all others, that 
 is, to avoid much of the vituperation and abuse, which the 
 counsel on the other side have heaped upon this case. I will 
 try to proceed to the investigation of the case, as it is, not as 
 it is colouredly represented by the opposite counsel. I will 
 strive, amid the multitude of chaif, to gather the few grains- 
 of wheat in this case. 1 mean not to disparage the merits of 
 the case, when I speak of the few grains of wheat in it — but 
 the arguments -which have been adduced. For, according to 
 my understanding, at least eight-tenths of the evidence, and 
 perhaps I may go further, and say nine-tenths of the arguments 
 of the opposite counsel, have been uttered with no pertinency 
 to ih** case. They could be pertinent only, as being thought 
 
284 Trial of F riends 
 
 necessary by the counsel to take, having previously interested 
 himself for that party in the county, and not only in the coun- 
 ty, but in the whole union, and perhaps the world; without 
 which interest, doubtless, he never would have been concerned 
 in the cause. He, adverting to this consideration, was led to 
 submit views upon the subject, which might not otherwise 
 have been pressed upon your consideration. 
 
 But, sir, I apprehend it will be necessary to proceed to an or- 
 derly investigation, of what constitutes the society of Friends; 
 whether the party assembled were the society of Friends, or 
 in the exercise of privileges, supposed by them to pertain to 
 members of the society of Friends, and entitling them, so as- 
 sembled, to the protection of the laws of the land. To do this, 
 before I go into an investigation of the evidence as to the par- 
 ticular transaction, and the acts of disturbance complained of, 
 as committed by the defendants, it may be necessary to advert 
 to some documents, to show what the society of Friends is, and 
 to show its organization and structure, as connected with 
 this transaction. 
 
 What, then, is the society of Friends? It is not, as my bro- 
 ther Hubbard supposed, a society circumscribed and known 
 only by its territorial limits. It is a community of persons, 
 acting in unison, in religious faith, worship, and discipline, for 
 the government of its members; not the unison in faith and 
 worship, of one particular meeting of Friends, but, in its ge- 
 neral aspect, embracing ali the Yearly Meetings in the Uni- 
 verse; united in faith, in action, and discipline. I need only 
 advert to the universal custom of the society, from its organi- 
 zation to this period, of sending epistles, containing statements 
 from the particular societies, from which they are sent, to all 
 the other societies and Yearly Meetings in unison with them; 
 by which they become acquainted with the concerns, spiritual 
 and temporal, of other societies in unison with them; seeking 
 to bring forth concerted action in the world, and with all par- 
 ties who are engaged. • 
 
 I say, sir, that all the Yearly Meetings in the world, who 
 profess the faith, and follow the doctrines of the society oT 
 Friends, are embraced in that general description; and I need 
 not go further, than to advert to the writings of Geo. Fox, to 
 show that the society of Friends, in its inception, and from 
 that period to this, has been a society of Christians, properly 
 so called ; and I mean by this term, those who believe in the 
 Divine character and vicarious agency of Jesus Christ. I am 
 perfectly aware, that at an early period of this church, or of 
 the society of Friends, as well as in the early part of the 
 establishment of the Christian religion, there were those who 
 attempted to attack the Divine character of our Saviour, and 
 sought to build up to themselves a society, professing to rest 
 
at Steubcnvillc, Ohio. 
 
 285 
 
 their faith on the hypothesis, that he was a mere Jiian, good, to 
 be sure, but lower than the angeis: — a mere man, hardly gifted 
 Avith the spirit of prophecy. But these were not the doctrines 
 of the society of Friends, of George Fox and William Penn. 
 They are not the doctrines of the society of Friends at this day. 
 
 The society of Friends are Trinitarian in their notions. And 
 I know well, too, that even in the first and second centuries 
 of the Christian era, there were the Gnostics, and others, who 
 defended the doctrines now advanced by the other side. If any 
 will advert to the early church history, to those to whom I 
 have adverted, they will find a remarkable coincidence, even 
 in the words of doctrine set forth by some of those distin- 
 guished persons, and those now claimed to be the genuine doc- 
 trines of Friends — I mean those inculcated in the revolutionary 
 spirit of- Elias Hicks, which doctrines my brother Hubbard 
 thinks no man ought to dispute — doctrines inculcated in ser- 
 mons, concerning which, he thinks it adviscable to sneer at my 
 colleague, because he could not see the difTcrence between 
 them and Deism. 
 
 Well, sir, whatever may be the feelings of the counsel on the 
 other side, it matters not with me, and, I apprehend, not with 
 your honour, in our search after truth. I say, this society, as 
 a Christian society, believes and professes, and did from its 
 foundation, in the divinity of Christ. And I need not go, cer- 
 tainly, at the first step, beyond the Discipline itself, to deter- 
 mine the fact.— O/iw Discipline, p. 22. [See page 218 of this 
 work.] 
 
 Now, can there be any thing more explicit than this? Surely 
 there is Yiot. But this is not all the evidence I have upon the 
 subject. The following was published by order of the Yearly 
 Meeting of Ohio, as containing the doctrines of the society. 
 
 "The society of Friends, from the beginning, have believed in the di- 
 vinity and humanity of Christ. The history ot" his miraculous conception, 
 birth, life, sufferings, death, resurrection, and ascension, as recorded by the 
 Kvangelists, w e fully believe." — (Bules' Doctrines of Friends, p. 76.) 
 
 " G. Fox, in iiis journal, vol. 1, p. 4. says: " Tiiis priest Stevens asked 
 nic, why Christ cried out upon the cross: 'My God, my God, wliy hast 
 thou forsaken me'' and why he said, 'If it be possible, let this cup pass 
 from me: yet not my will, but thine be done.' 1 told him, at tliat time, the 
 sins of all matikiiul were \.\\)0\\ him, and their iniquities and transgressions, 
 wth which he was wounded, which he was to bear, and to be an offering' 
 for, as he was man, but died not as he was God: so, in that he died for alt 
 men, tasting death for every man, lie was an offering for tlie sins of the 
 whole world. This I spoke, being at that time, iii a measure, sensible of 
 Ciirist's sufferings." — {Bates' Doctrines of Friends, p. 76.) 
 
 " G. Fox, and others, in an address to tlie Governor of Barbadocs. {x-idr 
 Journal, vol. 2, p. l.'!9,) says, " We own anrl believe in .Icsus Christ, hi* 
 beloved and only begotten Son, in whom he is well pleased: who was con- 
 '■eived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary, in whom wc have 
 redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins, w ho is the ex- 
 
 .36 
 
Q86 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 press iniivge of tlie invisible God, tlie first-born of every creature, by whom 
 were all tilings created, that are in heaven and in earth, visible or invisible, 
 whether they be thrones, dominions, principalities, or powers, all things 
 were created by Him. And we own and believe, that he was made a sacri- 
 fice for sin, who knew no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: that 
 he was crucified for us in the flesh, without the gates of Jerusalem; and 
 that he was buried, and rose again the third day, by the power of the Fa- 
 ther, for our justification, and that he ascended up into heaven, and now 
 sitteth at the right hand of God. This Jesus, who was the foundation of 
 the prophets and apostles, is our foundation, and we believe tliere is no 
 other foundation to be laid, but that which is laid, even Christ Jesus: who 
 tasted death for every man, shed his blood for all men, is the propitiation 
 for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 
 ' He is, (as the scriptures of truth say of him,) our wisdom, righteousness, 
 justification, and redemption; neither is there salvation in any other, for 
 there is no other name under heaven given amongst men, whereby we may 
 be saved.' " — (Bates' Doctrines nf Friends, pp. 77, 78.) 
 
 Now, after reflecting on the doctrines set forth in that 
 book, recognised as it has been, and published as it has been, 
 by the society of Friends, with what face could the counsel 
 say, that the society is founded on such principles that it 
 would become a large society, giving, as a reason, that they 
 have no creed, no belief or touchstone, by which to ascertain 
 the faith of its members. There was a principle in the forma- 
 tion of this society, deeper than could be established by any 
 of the authors to which he may resort, either Douglas or any 
 other. And they cannot gainsay or shake the foundation, 
 which we have shown was the foundation and practice of the 
 society of Friends. Sir, is it necessary to go further.^ I ap- 
 prehend it is Tiotj for surely we ought not to multiply proofs 
 on a subject which has already been demonstrated. Though 
 1 might multiply proofs, till I should weary your patience with 
 the reading of them. I will say, then, once for all, that though 
 some maintain that the society of Friends is a society of Ari- 
 ans or Socinians, yet they maintain that for which no authority 
 can be found, in their early history, or in any of their testimo- 
 nies or records. 
 
 What, then, is the character of the society called the Yearly 
 Meeting of Friends of Ohio? It is necessary to solve this ques- 
 tion. Its territorial limits, when established, embraced all the 
 Friends, west of the mountains. It was separated from the 
 Yearly Meeting of Baltimore. Is it representative? As a 
 meeting for worship, it is general; but for business or disci- 
 pline, it is representative in character. And if the gentlemen 
 like the term, so far as it respects worship, it is a pure de- 
 mocracy; but for business, it is a representative democracy. 
 And I will produce authorities for this assertion. And the 
 first, is an extract from the records or minutes of the society 
 itself. 
 
at Steubenvitle^ Ohio. 28^ 
 
 At Ohio Yearly Meeting of ministers and elders, for the 
 state of Ohio, Indiana territory, and the adjacent parts of 
 Pennsylvania and Virginia, first opened and held at Short 
 Creek, the 14th of the 8th month, 18-13: 
 
 It appears, that the proposal for a division of Baltimore 
 Yearly Meeting, which was united with, and forwarded for con- 
 sideration by the Quarterly Meetings on the west side of the 
 Allegheny mountains, having obtained deliberate attention, 
 the following report was adopted: 
 
 " The committee appointed to unite with women Friends, in a further 
 consideration of the interestinij subject of a Yearly Meeting' to be held in 
 the state 6{ Ohio, report, tliat we have several times met, and have had the 
 company of several brethren of the Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia and 
 Virginia; and believing-, that, in our deliberations, we have been favoured 
 with a degree of solemnity, we are free to propose, that the Quarterly Meet- 
 ings west of the Allegheny mountains, within the veige of this Yearly 
 Meeting, be at full liberty to convene together at Sliort Creek on the 
 tliird First-daj' in the 8th month next, in the capacity of a Yearly Meeting, 
 agreeably to their prospect and desire, as expressed in their reports to the 
 meeting last year, which was united With; and the Quarterly Meetings to 
 the westward of the Allegheny mountains, which have hitherto belonged 
 to this Yearly Meeting, are at liberty to send representatives, and to for- 
 ward their contributions and reports thereunto, accordingly." 
 
 If this does not give power to the Quarterly Meetings to 
 constitute this Yearly Meeting, I do not know what would. 
 But I do not wish to confine myself, on the subject, to the mi- 
 nute which I have just read. I propose to probe it to the bot- 
 tom. And, with that view, I will call your attention to the 
 reports and epistles of the Yearly Meeting of Friends, from 
 1681 to 1800, inclusive, with an introduction to sustain the 
 representative character of the meeting. 
 
 "The Yearly Meeting of Friends, held in London, is, at present, as for a 
 long time past, constituted of representatives from Great Britain and Ire- 
 land, and it maintains a correspondence and connexion with the Yearly 
 Meetings of the same denomination, now seven in number, in North Ame- 
 rica. Its records reach back to the year 1672, in which year a general 
 meeting was held for the affairs of the society. 
 
 " In 1672 we find a representative constitution adopted. The regula- 
 tions on the subject begin thus. At a general meeting of Friends, for the 
 nation, held at Devonshire House, London, the 29th of the 3d month, 1672, 
 it is concluded, agreed and assented unto by Friends there present, that, 
 for the better ordering and regulating of the public affairs of Friends, re- 
 lating to tiie truth and the service thereof, there be a general meeting of 
 Friends held in London once a year, in the week called Whitsun-week, to 
 consist of six Friends for tlie city of London, three for the city of Bristol, 
 two for the town of Colchester, and one or two from each and every of the 
 counties of England and Wales respectively." — ji. 4. 
 
 In the next year, 1673, at a "general meeting at London, the 20th and 
 21st days of the 3d month," the following conclusions were recorded. 
 "Agreed, that the general meeting, consisting of two Friends from each 
 Quarteily Meeting, about public businrss, appointed on the 29lh of 3d 
 
Trial of Friends 
 
 uiontli, 167'2, till fuilher ui\ler, be Jiscontimied, till Frieiuls, in God't wis- 
 dom,- shall 3es a further occasion. 
 
 " That the general meeting, of Friends who labour in the work of the 
 ministry, do continue as formerly appointed." — p. 5. 
 
 We see, then, that though the Yeafly Meeting of repre- 
 sentatives was, in 1673, discontinued, till Friends should see 
 fit to re-establish it, yet the Yearly Meeting of ministers and 
 elders was to continue as usual. You see that they were ap- 
 purtenant to the first meeting: and when the meeting of repre- 
 sentatives was discontinued, as a matter of expediency, the meet- 
 ing of ministers and elders was continued as formerly. I now 
 refer to pages 9 and 10. It is important, as showing the re- 
 vival, (after the discontinuance in 1673,) of a general Yearly 
 Meeting for the affairs of the society on the'basis of repre- 
 sentation. This minute shall, therefore, be subjoined at length. 
 
 " Then agreed, that the Yearly Meeting of one or two from each county 
 (as formerly agreed upon at u general meeting, in London, upon the 29th 
 of the 3d month, 1672, appointed yearly to meet about public affairs of 
 Friends, sometime in the week called Whitsun-week, until further order, 
 and afterward agi'eed to be discontinued from the 21st of the 3d month, 
 1673, till Friends, in God's wisdom, should see a further occasion for it,) 
 be again revived, and begin this time twelve-month. 
 
 *• And it is desired that the Friends who shall come up out of the several 
 counties, be such as understand the sufferings and affairs of their respec- 
 tive counties." 
 
 I think, after this, there cannot be a doubt as to the repre- 
 sentative character of this meeting. Its discontinuance and 
 revival, after a lapse of that period, being ascertained, it can- 
 not be disputed that the society, in its original form, was, and 
 in its revival in 1677, continued to be, not a pure democracy, 
 but a representative democracy. 
 
 I now ask the attention of the court to Gough's History, 
 which was quoted with such an air of triumph and exultation 
 by the opposite counsel, who thought he had cut off the head 
 of this case — not that he read one part, and omitted the other, 
 by design; yet, it would appear, that such was the fact. He 
 "was reading of the very identical period, during the continu- 
 ance of the suspension. Here Mr. Wright read from vol. 2, 
 Gough's History, pages 163 and 164. 
 
 " Sometime after Monthly and Quarterly Meetings were established, viz. 
 in the year 1 669, it was found expedient, and agreed upon, to hold a gene- 
 ral meeting in London, representative of the whole body in England, 
 .and all other ])arts where any of the society were settled; which, having 
 been thenceforward held annually, is denominated the Yearly Meeting in 
 London. 
 
 " This meeting is constituted of representatives dci)med from each Quar-' 
 terly Meeting in F.ngland, from the Half Year's Meeting in Ireland, and 
 sometimes from other parts, yet without restraining any member in unity 
 with the society, from attending. And such places in I'.urope and America, 
 as by their remote situation cannot conveniently send representatives there- 
 to, keep up a correspondence with this meeting by epistles." 
 
at Steitbenville, Ohio. 289 
 
 And page 166. 
 
 " From these meetings of discipline, no members of the society ara 
 excluded; but every one in unity, hath liberty to attend, and express his 
 sentiments with freedom, in the fear of God, upon the subject matters of 
 tleliberation; but the sense of the subordinate meetings, in particular cases, 
 is generally understood by the representation of their deputed representa- 
 tives." 
 
 Here, notwithstanding all, in unity, are at liberty to attend 
 and express their sentiments, yet the sense of the meeting is 
 generally understood to be determined by the representatives. 
 If there be any difficulty or doubt remaining, after all this 
 light has been shed upon the subject, it is determined by the 
 representatives deputed from the different meetings. This is 
 the answer which the historian gives, and this is the point, 
 which my friend, Mr. Hubbard, thought it material to omit. 
 I will now cite Penn's Select AVorks, fol. vol. p. 771. 
 
 " Now, the care, conduct, and discipline, 1 have been speaking of, and 
 whicii are now practised among this people, is as foUoweth: 
 
 " This godly elder, in every county where he travelled, exhorted them, 
 that some, out of every meeting for worship, should meet together once in 
 the month, to confer about the wants and occasions of the church. And 
 as the case required, so those Monthly Meetings were fewer or more in 
 number, in every respective county: four or six meetings for worship, 
 usually making one Monthly Meeting for business. And accordingly the 
 brethren met him, from place to place, and began the said meetings: viz. 
 For the Poor Orphans, Orderly Walking, Integrity to their Profession, 
 Births, Marriages, Burials, Sufferings, &c. And that these Monthly Meetings 
 should, in each county, make up one Quarterly Meeting, where the most 
 zealous and eminent Friends of the county should assemble, to communi- 
 cate, advise, and help one another, especially when any business seemed 
 difficult, or a Monthly Meeting was tender of determining a matter. 
 
 " Also, that these several Quarterly Meetings should digest the reports 
 of their Monthly Meetings, and prepare one for each respective countv, 
 against the Yearly Meeting, in which all Quarterly Meetings resolve; which 
 i.s held in London, where the churches In this nation, and other nations and 
 provinces, meet, by chosen members of their respective counties, both mu- 
 tually to communicate their church affairs, and to advise, and be advised, 
 in any depending case, to edification. Also, to provide a requisite steck for 
 the discharge of general expenses, for general services in the church, not 
 needful to be here particularized^ 
 
 "At these meetings, any of the members of the churches may come, if 
 they please, and speak their minds freely, in the fear of God, to any matter: 
 but the mind of each Quarterly Meeting, therein represented, is chiefly 
 imderstood, as to particular cases, in the sense delivered by the persons de- 
 puted or chosen for that service, by the said meeting." 
 
 I think I have proven, conclusiviy, from the writings. of 
 early Friends, that the Yearly Meeting is a representative de- 
 mocracy, when assembled; and it does not meet rhis argument, 
 or this fact, to say, that, by the tolerance of this society, other 
 persons than representatives have been permitted to unite and 
 vote. The very assertion, that each individual has exercised 
 the riglii, and voted upon questions, is cut up by their own 
 
290 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 position. For, in one part of their defence, they say, the society 
 do not determine propositions by the number of voices, and 
 by vote. Why, then, all this objection to our position, that 
 those who are not representatives have no other authority 
 than that of attending and aiding by suggestions and counsel? 
 I ask, why is all this? It is because there, they follow the 
 penchant of those witnesses who were travelling without the 
 limits of the discipline of the society, while urged forward 
 by that zeal which tramples it under foot. They had not dis- 
 covered it? but when they come to call deliberate counsel, 
 they find where it is they have erred;, now they press with 
 all the counsel that can be raised, that this government is a 
 simple democracy, and not representative. We need not go 
 to ancient times to find cases analogous to this. Look at the 
 representative assembly of this nation. We have men there 
 who are permitted to introduce subjects, to shed all the light 
 upon them of which they are capable, and yet they are not 
 entitled to vote upon the subject. And whenever a subject 
 becomes difficult or doubtful, the speaker determines it. Then 
 these persons have to be silent — I mean the delegates from our 
 territories. They stand in a situation analogous. They come 
 by virtue of a special legislative actj and is there any more vir- 
 tue in a special legislative act than in the customs and laws of 
 a society governing themselves? No man will pretend it, who 
 relies upon history to sanction him in the assertion. Clark- 
 son was' cited on the other side, but I will not trouble your 
 honour by referring to it, for in my opinion there is no one 
 single passage that militates, in the slightest degree, against 
 the position I have taken. Take that which my friend has 
 just now urged, and brought to your own knowledge and ex- 
 perience. What does he say-^ Why, at the periods of these 
 Yearly Meetings, you see the Quakers throwing aside all bu- 
 siness, and gathering to the place appointed. And when 
 there, they are satisfied with the proceeding of the meeting, 
 and acquiesce in it, because they esteem it their own act. But 
 how does this militate against position, that they are a 
 representative democracy? In the shedding of light in the 
 meeting, by eagh individual member; as that satisfies them, 
 their own presence has been carried into the consideration. 
 The man goes to this assembly, and mixes with the members; 
 and when there, if he is moved to discuss a proposition of 
 others, or to suggest one himself, there Is liberty to do so. He 
 goes into a discussion, raises arguments against what may be 
 advanced on the other side, and then the decision is gathered. 
 By what? Not by numbers, but as the weight of argument in 
 the case appears to be. That is the reason given in all the 
 l)ooks; it is the only mode by which they gather tjie sense. 
 I am told here, by the other side, that it is precisely in ac- 
 
at SieubenvilU, Oliio. 
 
 291 
 
 cordance with the mode of all the deliberative assemblies in the 
 world. It is not so. If there be doubt, in many deliberative 
 assemblies, they call the ayes and noes; and the Friends unite, 
 not by the rule of the society itself, but- by its original organi- 
 zation. It is a matter of historical truth. You count in the 
 house of commons, in England, whence we derive our princi- 
 ples of government— you cannot, there, call the ayes and noes. 
 They are unknown by parliament, by their own rules, or any 
 other foundation on which they have acted. They decide, not 
 by weight of argument, but by count of numbers. Is that the 
 way in which Friends settle their questions? It is not. His- 
 tory says otherwise — every witness says otherwise — the gen- 
 tlemen themselves have been pressed, and compelled to say 
 otherwise; and yet they advance this argument. Well may it 
 then be urged as a reason — (for it is well understood that 
 Clarkson was only giving a portraiture,) why there is so little 
 disturbance; every man feels that his voice has been carried 
 into the making of their laws. He has been permitted to go 
 forward to the general assembly, where the legislative and ju- 
 dicial powers are concentrated, there to express his own views 
 and opinions. This is all that is meant by it; and I think it 
 in vain to appeal to it. 
 
 This society of Friends, being representative in its charac- 
 ter, consists of certain other parts. For the purpose of wor- 
 ship, it is generally public, not only for members, but for the 
 world at large. But for the purpose of discipline, it is select. 
 This is enjoined, not only in this Discipline, but in the Dis- 
 cipline of other Yearly Meetings. It has a clerk, and as it has 
 a clerk, it has a head. And as a head, the clerk, in that po- 
 sition, is not contradicted in opinion. 
 
 No democracy, however simple and pure it may be, can 
 transact business, except through some organ who collects 
 the sense of it, and communicates that sense to the multi- 
 tude for acquiescence or rejection. This society cannot trans- 
 act business without some organ of commuuicaiion. It chooses 
 a clerk; and my friend Mr. Hubbard has read to show, that 
 the clerk stands on an equal footing with other members, be- 
 cause he gets no pay for his services. That is all his authority. 
 The president of a public meeting receives no pay: but does 
 he not collect and pronounce the opinion olT the meeting? And 
 who does that in the Yearly Meeting of Friends.'^ I care not 
 what name you give him. Here^ in the language of the Dis- 
 cipline, they wait on the great Head of the church. But they 
 must have an organ of communication and decision, and that 
 is the clerk of this society. What say the witnesses? When 
 the discussion has ceased, the clerk makes a minute of what 
 he thinks is the sense of the meeting, and reads it. It is then 
 subject to the revision and control of the meeting. Your 
 
.292 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 honour, silting as president judge, gives your decision, as 
 the opinion of the court; and yet is not that decision subject 
 to the revision of your associates? The decision is communi- 
 cated to the clerk, and when the minutes are read, are they 
 not subject to control and revision? There is no one will ques- 
 tion it. Will it then be said, because your honour has entered 
 a decision, and it is subject to the revision of the court of which 
 you are a component part, therefore the court has no head? 
 The dissimilarity is not in the power that is exercised ; it is 
 in the number of persons employed. If I were to indulge 
 myself, in the employment of terms used on the other side, I. 
 would say that the assumption of the other side is ridiculous, 
 supremely ridiculous. Their own instance, which they cha- 
 racterize as orderly, is strikingly illustrative of the necessity 
 of having in all meetings some organ or head. They tell you 
 that which will not stand the test of truth. It is at war witlv 
 the whole practice of the society, with reason, and with com- 
 mon sense. Do they not tell you, in another breath, that there 
 is no power to pronounce the judgment of the meeting, but the 
 clerk ; yet, say they, he has no more power than any body else. 
 Now. how supremely ridiculous it would be, for a person in the 
 organized meeting of Ohio, to get up and say, the sense of this 
 meeting is so: and not wait for the clerk's minute. But if all 
 are equal, and the clerk has no more power than any other 
 member, then it would be perfectly right and decoroxis. Yet 
 the most aged of those Friends on the opposite line, never 
 knew of such an instance. This is all idle — it is worse than 
 idle: it is to pervert the interests of society for the purposes 
 of a parly. Levi Pickering, who testified with .great moderation 
 and candour, said, that the clefk was the only person known 
 to the meeting, who should gather the sense of the meeting; 
 and that this occurrence was unlike any thing ever before seen. 
 I am not sure that he knows any thing about it: but as he is 
 brought by the counsel on the other side, I suppose his testi- 
 mony will not be disputed. The clerk, then, was the organ, 
 according to this evidence. If you look to the testimony on 
 our side, you will find additional light. When a meeting is 
 uncertain what a proposition is, Mr. Bates, whom the gentle- 
 man sneeringly calls the archbishop, says, , it is the business 
 of the clerk to decide. Is it not so in every other assembly? 
 If a person rise to speak upon a proposition not under con- 
 sideration, the presiding officer calls him to order. Any man 
 may call him to order; but the presiding officer is to deter- 
 mine. So it is with the clerk: if there be a diiVerencc, it is in 
 words, and no where else. Every power that is exercised by 
 the presiding officer of any meeting, is exercised by the clerk 
 of this meeting: and superadded, is the power of making the 
 
at Steubenville^ Ohio. 
 
 29S 
 
 minutes of his own decisions, and pronouncing them to the 
 meeting. 
 
 I think I h^ve shown, notwithstanding Mr. Hubbard has 
 cut off the head of our case, that the society has yet, not only 
 a head, and cleric, but it has, appurtenant to it, a meeting of 
 ministers and elders. This is ameeting which exercises various 
 functions, executive, legislative, and judicial. It exercises 
 power during the recess of the Yearly Meeting. And the 
 Yearly Meeting has now, appurtenant to it, another thing, 
 which, the gentleman says, has brought this society into 
 all its differences — I mean, a general conference. That con- 
 ference was proposed to the society of Friends before the 
 division in 1827. Before the separation, Ohio Yearly Meet- 
 ing adopted a minute, inviting a conference from all the other 
 societies in the world, to attend their meeting. My friend Mr. 
 Tappan says, it was a combination entered into, to tyrannise 
 over, and put down the Hicksites. He uses this, as an in- 
 stance to prove that it was a combination — that there were 
 foreigners, and among the rest, a subject of John Bull, wha 
 was ready, not only to engage in fight, but in prayer to the 
 God of battles, to insure a victory. If he had looked to the 
 minutes of the Yearly Meeting — if he had looked to his case, 
 and not to his clients, he would have found it to be an error. 
 The Hicksites and orthodox were united in 1827. They were 
 all exercising their functions, and while thus united, they in- 
 vited this conference. For what? To put down the Hicksites? 
 To exercise a tyranny over those who had as good a right as 
 the orthodox, who are, par excellence, called saints? This is the 
 language used towards those invited by both parties. They 
 are now pronounced a combination, who have confederated 
 themselves with a little knot of Friends here, to put down, and 
 tyrannise over, those members of the society who are crying- 
 out for liberty of conscience. Sir, this remark is gratuitous; 
 it is unworthy of investigation, in this case, or in any other. 
 Whether worthy of the Hicksite party — of the counsel and 
 their employers, is not for me to say. 
 
 Nothing was done by these men, here, but what was in 
 strict accordance with the discipline and the duties which de- 
 volved upon them. I shall, by and by, advert to the testimony 
 of the good Mr. Scholfield; and the John Bull, Mr. Shillitoe. 
 What did they do? It is tried to make us believe, that they 
 attended and entered into a combination, to devise ways and 
 means to organize and garrison the church, to exclude those 
 not in unity with them. Judge Tappan* goes so far as to say, 
 that tlve proposition was made by Shillitoe, and agreed to. 
 Now, I say, there is not one scintilla of evidence — not one wit- 
 ness has said any such thing. Not the good Mr. Scholfield, 
 * Formerly Judge in Oliio. 
 
 37 
 
'294 Trial of Friends 
 
 even his reminiscrnce would not carry him to that extent. 
 On whom did they then rely? No name is given. The gen- 
 tlemen think they can get along, without naming any witness. 
 A combination, indeedl Men unite in inviting foreigners. 
 They had an undoubted right to assemble with them; for all in 
 the world had a right to attend this meeting; yet when they 
 got here, having left their homes, regardless of weather and 
 roads, and come up to this meeting and joined their brethrenj 
 why then, it is an unholy combination, a nest of hypocrites, 
 endeavouring to exercise tyranny over the large mass of 
 Quakers in the United States. And what act of tyranny? No 
 act has appeared here. Have they proved this proposition? 
 Not at all. Unless by the light shed, in relation to Shillitoe's 
 proposition, at Short Creek Monthly Meeting. Moreover, 
 that proposition never was made. I care not who asserted 
 it; the proposition was never made. Those have testified 
 who were present, who were engaged, and who have the re- 
 cords and minutes of the meeting: and they say, that nothing 
 of the kind happened. Who has told it? A man says he was 
 there; they not knowing that he was of the other side. A man 
 who could so far forget his dignity, as to go to a meeting of 
 another party, to get what all eaves-droppers get — that which 
 is not good for them — such a man I do not believe. The man 
 who is mean enough to descend to such measures to obtain 
 knowledge, is vile enough to falsify the truth. 
 
 But we are told that the ancient doctrines are in accordance 
 with the views of the party denominated Hicksites. There is 
 much more authority for this, than for some of their asser- 
 tions. 1 will refer to the same collection of the early records 
 of the society, page 1 1. [The extract could not be found.] 
 
 This epistle goes on describing with wonderful accuracy the 
 party now existing, in which it bears testimony against them, 
 and leaves them to stand or fall upon their own might and 
 strength. I think this does afford much stronger testimony. 
 The parly separated themselves, I do not know for how long 
 a time. History does not tell us that they endeavoured to en- 
 ter the meeting. History does not tell us that they reorga- 
 nized in a column, and rushed with the power of a military 
 wedge, over the heads of ancient Friends assembled at the 
 altar. 
 
 It has been said, that the society of Friends, or the orthodox, 
 have assumed the exercise of power, not conferred on them 
 by the discipline of the society; that they exercise tyranny, 
 and carry it into operation by force, and strive by hypocrisy 
 to screen its purpose. Before I proceed to examine this part 
 of the case, I would make a remark upon the name conferred 
 on these Friends. Though no doubt accidentally conferred, in 
 this case, as in others; still there is much propriety in the ap- 
 plication. The party who adhere to the ancient doctrines, 
 
at Steubenville^ Ohio. 
 
 295 
 
 are called orthodox, by way of derision. Who are the ortho- 
 dox? Those of the true faith. Here, the term orthodox is 
 rung in their ears, as if the whole burthen of offence rested in 
 the opprobrium carried in the name. They are the ones in 
 the true faith. I say it is in this as in other cases; the name 
 selected in derision, indicates the true character of Friends. 
 Those who are its leaders, and who have maintained its order, 
 in peace and purity, are sneeringly called orthodox, by way 
 of showing that they have no right, and that the others are 
 those who maintain and hold to the true faith and purity. 
 They could not have chosen a name more favourable. They 
 who are truly orthodox are of the true faith. It is the very 
 thing on which we lay the foundation of our claims. If we do 
 not now maintain the principles of the society, from its incep- 
 tion down to the present time, then let my clients be trampled 
 in the dust, with all the tyranny that designing demagogues 
 would exercise, if they once possessed the power. They are 
 the true, genuine society of Friends, deserving the name or- 
 thodox. 
 
 We have assumed power, and made ourselves tyrants; by 
 doing what? By laying down the Monthly Meeting of Con- 
 cord. This warrants the gentleman in heaping abusive epi- 
 thets, till he has exhausted the vocabulary of reproach, on those 
 venerable individuals who have come here, to testify on behalf 
 of the state. They have laid down the meeting of Concord. 
 Who are they, that have done this? John Street, Ladd, Tay- 
 lor, and Bates. They are the arch-hypocrites, who are seeking 
 all the property and power of the society, and trampling the 
 Discipline under foot. What have they done? Ladd and 
 others were deputed by the Meeting for Sufferings, or the 
 meeting of ministers and elders, to visit the different Quar- 
 terly and Monthly Meetings in the Yearly Meeting. They 
 saw the state of this meeting, and have attended to their duty. 
 Was here an assumption of power? Does not the Discipline 
 provide for it? 
 
 (Here Mr. Wright read from the book of Discipline, pages 
 56 and 57.) 
 
 I may be told that these passages do not, in direct terms, re- 
 quire the appointment of committees. The Meeting for Suf- 
 ferings consists of 46 members. They could not all attend. 
 They have hitherto acted through the intervention of com- 
 mittees. It is manifest from their records, and from the whole 
 history of the society. They have appointed committees to 
 wait on the different constituent parts. There is no prohibi- 
 tion. They were only to collect information, and report to the 
 meeting for its action. Benjamin W. Ladd has gone forward 
 in discharge of that duty, and therefore he is an arch-hypocrite, 
 for doing what the Meeting for Sufferings required him to do! 
 
2% 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 Now, on the subject of abuse. He has acquired considerable 
 information, as well as Bates; and, therefore, they are coupled 
 together, for the abuse of those who are envious. But what 
 else.'* Does any other act show him a tyrant? When Isaac James 
 was advancing, filled with anger and fierce with rage, over 
 the heads of those who filled the high seats, the ministers and 
 aged servants of the meeting — Ladd put his hand out against 
 his breast, and opposed his approach. And he is for that 
 called a tyrant, an arch-hypocrite, by counsel who never use 
 abuse when they have solid argument. What else has he done? 
 He believes in the divinity of Christ; and therefore he is to be 
 abused. When the opposite party were advancing, so that no 
 remonstrance of his could prevail, he retires from the house> 
 Does this constitute tyranny? If there is any thing more that 
 he has done, I am ignorant. Even my friend Mr. Hubbard, 
 who is very cautious never to say any thing indecorous, must 
 sneer a little at Benjamin W. Ladd, for tyrannising over his 
 brethren. But there is not one word, that fixes upon him 
 even the shadow of tyranny. Why, then, call him a tyrant? 
 Why, if they can excite public prejudice against the most 
 learned, and the most influential members of the society, they 
 think they will carry their case with the multitude, if they fail 
 with the court. These men are to be degraded, and rendered 
 obnoxious to injurious vituperation out door, and to every spe- 
 cies of abuse. I do not suppose that Mr. Hubbard designed 
 to produce that effect, or that Judge Tappan designed itj yet I 
 do believe that such is the tendency of their arguments. And 
 I do believe, there are some of the prompters behind the scene, 
 who also know it, and who desired it to produce that effect. 
 
 Well, here are Mr. Taylor and Mr. Street. Why, there are 
 not men to be found in the community who walk with more 
 humility. Mr. Taylor a tyrant! Mr. Hubbard could not go 
 that. He had great respect for him. He thought him an 
 honest man, but that he was made a fool of by the archbishop. 
 He has a great respect for him, because he is too big a fool to 
 act for himself! This may answer where these men are not 
 known. But it will not affect them, where they are known. 
 There is, in the daily walk of all of them, a beauty which is 
 calculated to excite the envy of those who know themselves to 
 be beneath them, and who know that they can never attain 
 their height. Unless we suppose, that none of the feelings of 
 human action remain in bosoms that are uninfluenced by re- 
 ligion, we should not feel surprised that this malignity mani- 
 fests itself towards these individuals. It is as natural as life. 
 But it falls harmless at their feet. It will not affect them where 
 they are known. It cannot affect them where they are not 
 known; for the antidote goes forward, with the poison. Look 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 297 
 
 at their testimony. Do you find there, a zeal, which, in the 
 language of Mr. Hubbard, runs ahead of their discretion? A 
 desire to be forward, to force themselves? If you do, you have 
 the astuteness to find that, which, I venture to say, never had 
 root in their hearts. 
 
 I would, with great satisfaction, contrast Elisha Bates, 
 Benjamin W. Ladd, and Jonathan Taylor, with other persons 
 who have testified here — with David Scholfield, Mr. Tolerton, 
 and Mr. Magar, on the other side. The good Mr. Scholfield! 
 I have known him for many years, and have known him to 
 possess extraordinary zeal. I do not say that he is not honestj 
 but I will say this, that he came to the Yearly Meeting, with a 
 determination to trample under foot the discipline of the 
 meeting to which he belonged. That we see, because it comes 
 from his own mouth; and out of his own mouth I will convict 
 him. He was disowned, and, by the discipline of the society, 
 had no right to attend. Yet, what do we find? At 8 o'clock 
 in the morning, such is his zeal, at Mount Pleasant, that he 
 is seeking to find his way into the house, where he knew 
 that the discipline forbid him to enter. He is put up in con- 
 trast with Ladd, Elisha Bates, and Taylor. He was all meek- 
 ness and charity; not the least hypocrisy about him in the 
 world: and I believe he felt most " awfully" — lest he should 
 say something, which might, by possibility, make against the 
 side to which he belonged. I do not believe that he was alarm- 
 ed, lest what he should say might be untrue; but I believe it 
 was, lest he should let slip something which might make 
 against hi« party. 
 
 Let us leave him, then, with his disownment upon his back, 
 and with Mr. Tappan's remarks, and proceed to Mr. Tolerton, 
 who is from the same Monthly and Quarterly Meeting. From 
 Mr. Tolerton not a word of truth could come, without his 
 twitching and being flushed with anger. He was hardly able 
 to restrain his feelings. He is from the same Monthly Meet- 
 ing with the good Mr. Scholfield. He could unite in set- 
 ting up a new Monthly Meeting, and could say, when there 
 were but five persons united in that Monthly Meeting, that it 
 was the old Monthly Meeting, having the rights and immu- 
 nities of the Monthly Meeting of Salem. And where was the 
 house, the records, and every thing belonging to a Monthly 
 Meeting, which identified it, and gave it a name and charac- 
 ter, when he went away, and attached himself to New Garden? 
 He "was certificated back" to Salem, and there united, with 
 four other persons, to set up a new meeting at Salem! 
 
 What shall I do with Mr. Magar? I do think he has had 
 pam enough already. I never saw a witness at the stand more 
 pained to get out the great truth. No, I never saw a snake 
 more pained in swallowing a toad, than he was in getting out 
 
298 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 the truth. As for Mr. Magar, why, he knew nothing, nor 
 how to tell any thing, without turning round and coaxing him- 
 self. He] did not understand the simplest question, without 
 repeating it to him a dozen times. And I do think all that 
 was said by him, would not weigh a feather. Now, I have 
 given the gentlemen an account of the three witnesses ; and 
 they are welcome, and I give them liberty, to contrast them 
 with the persons abused on the other side. If they had for- 
 borne their attack, whatever I might have thought, I would 
 have said little of these persons. 
 
 We are charged with tyranny, with an assumption of power, 
 in laying down Concord Monthly Meeting. And here, Mr. 
 Hubbard, with a view to overwhelm us with mist and smoke, 
 about this business, reads a book about laying down a Month- 
 ly Meeting. And what does it say? Mr. Griffith, being moved 
 to go abroad in the ministry, travelled into Europe, and visit- 
 ed a number of societies, and found one like those of Elias 
 Hicks. The Quarter had tried for a considerable time, to 
 bring them to voluntary submission. The superior meeting 
 had forborne to exercise its power over them, till they got the 
 consent of the members to be laid down. But they at length 
 generally yielded. (See Griffith's Journal, 314; or 236 of this 
 book.) Now, the gentlemen say, this is according to the 
 usage of the society, where any hold out, or feel uneasy with 
 the measure — it cannot be done without the agreement of 
 the members. They at length yielded, and the meeting was 
 laid down. Carry this along, and compare it with Concord. 
 It was laid down in the Quarterly Meeting. When the pro- 
 position was made, there was a general acquiescence in it. 
 The representatives, with one single exception, united. Was 
 that not a general accordance? Yet it is said to be against their 
 consent; it is said there is no power without consent. I think 
 this not the true interpretation of the Discipline. [Here Mr. 
 Wright referred to page 28 of Discipline. See 235th page of 
 this book.] 
 
 If this language mean any thing, it means that they are in a 
 state of subordination. If the supervisors cannot act over 
 them, how are they to act? The Discipline is silent. And as 
 the Discipline imposes no restraint, the power is granted. 
 Look at the next paragraph. 
 
 " No Quarterly Meeting should be set up or laid down without the con- 
 sent of the Yearly; no Monthly Meeting without the consent of the Quarterly 
 Meeting," &c. 
 
 The gentleman (Mr. Hubbard) read this as if reversed. 
 
 No Monthly Meeting should be laid down without the con- 
 sent of the Quarterly. I pray you, was not the Quarterly 
 Meeting consenting to lay down Concord? I should not sup- 
 
 ■ 
 
at Steubenville. Ohio. 
 
 299 
 
 pose, that counsel so learned would fall into such errors as 
 this. This clause does not apply to laying down Preparative 
 Meetings, within the bounds of a Monthly Meeting. It does 
 not apply to that subject. The Discipline goes on to say, 
 that no Preparative Meeting, or other meeting for business or 
 worship, shall be set up or laid down, until application to the 
 Monthly Meeting be first made, and when approved there, the 
 consent of the Quarterly Meeting is to be also obtained. You 
 shall not set up within the limits of a Monthly Meeting, any 
 Preparative or other meeting for worship, without applica- 
 tion to the Monthly Meeting. But that does not go back and 
 attach itself to the other clause, so as to require the consent 
 of the Monthly Meeting, to the setting up or laying down of 
 the Monthly Meeting. As well might you say that no member 
 shall be disowned without his own consent. If an individual 
 sets up a meeting for worship under Roman Catholic disci- 
 pline, subordinate to the Monthly Meeting to which he belongs, 
 the Monthly Meeting must have power, not for laying down 
 only, but for testifying a disunity. Those joining in Catholic 
 worship have no right to unite with them in the Discipline^ 
 because they ought to have different objects in view. Now, 
 would any one say, that in such a case, it would be held rea- 
 sonable, that the consent of the Roman Catholic meeting should 
 be sufficient to establish itself, or if the Catholics should get 
 a majority within the Monthly Meeting, that there is no power 
 in the superior to protect themselves from those who deny 
 their faith and worship.'' It must, ex necessitate rei, have the 
 power. You shall not set up a Monthly Meeting without con- 
 sent of the Quarterly, as the one controlling the subordinate, 
 the Monthly. It is absolutely necessary that it should have 
 cognizance of the inferior meeting set up, to know its limits, 
 so that if there is any thing to complain of, it may be known 
 where to direct the complaint. Therefore, you cannot set up 
 a Monthly, without consent of the Quarterly. The language 
 is not, you shan't set up without consent of the Monthly. It 
 is absurd, that a thing not yet in existence, should require 
 its own assent to be set up. The reasoning upon this sub- 
 ject reminded me of an anecdote upon the bench, which I 
 mention, not out of the slightest disrespect. When Mr. Upde- 
 graff went on to draw his conclusions, it reminded me of a 
 case in a court of justice, where one judge, after examining 
 a paper, handed it to the other, saying, " you will perceive 
 there is a syllogism in this case." The reply was; "I dis- 
 covered the silly^ but never have been able to discover the 
 gism." I think they have, in this case, manifested the silly, 
 but not the gism. 
 
 No Monthly Meeting, Avithout consent of the Quarterly, 
 shall be laid down. That Quarter, having the supervision 
 
300 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 and jurisdiction, did, by its solemn act, lay it down. The con- 
 sent of the Quarter was had to that act — the Discipline acts 
 directly upon it, and this express provision of the Discipline 
 is sought to be thrown aside, by the passage read from the 
 travels of John Griffith. There can be no act properly called 
 an assumption of power, in determining to lay down this 
 Monthly Meeting. 
 
 The gentlemen are impressed with the idea, that they should 
 have carried it up to the Yearly Meeting. Mr. Tappan was 
 so far pressed with it, that he found occasion to interpose an 
 apology, by assuming that there was no other way of appeal, 
 but to attend at the Yearly Meeting, to bring forward this 
 subject for the revision of the Yearly Meeting. This is the 
 proposition and the application ; but how foreign is the fact in 
 the case. But it is said that a meeting, in its congregated 
 capacity, cannot appeal; that a Monthly Meeting, as such, has 
 no power to appeal. I ask, why not? Is there a prohibition 
 in the book? No. But, on the contrary, there is a provision 
 for an appeal, in the 8th page. But I am told, that this is an 
 appeal from a Monthly Meeting to the supervisory power. 
 The appeal from the meeting in a subordinate state is expressly 
 provided for; and it is provided, that when an examination 
 into the proceedings takes place, they shall furnish records, 
 though it is not expressly said that a meeting may appeal. 
 But it says that any one may appeal. 
 
 Judge Tappan has carried his clients forward to the Yearly- 
 Meeting, for the purpose of bringing up this business. It i» 
 said, that the right of appeal provided, is for individuals, and 
 not for the aggregate mass. Now, I apprehend, that, if the 
 law, recognising supervisory power, requires of the subordi- 
 nates to make a copy of its records, and carry them to the 
 superior, the right of appeal is perfect. And if the appeal 
 extends only to those under individual grievances, without 
 subjecting the party to be trammelled by any particular rules, 
 yet there must be an appeal, and notification, that the appeal 
 will be entered, and that the superior meeting will be called 
 on to revise: and I care not whether it be an individual or 
 otherwise. The general character of the supervisory power 
 of the superior meeting, and subordination of the others, is 
 provided for in the 28th page of the Discipline. To what end, 
 I pray you, would the legislative body have provided for re- 
 vising the proceedings of subordinate meetings, if it were not, 
 that they have the power of bringing the question before 
 them? If any thing else be wanted, here we have it. [Here 
 Mr. Wright read from the 28th page of the Discipline. See 
 page 235 of this work.] And yet it is said, there is no right 
 of appeal; and we are told, that the supervisory power is nu- 
 gatory. I do not believe in such doctrine as this;, that the 
 
 SI 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 SOI 
 
 Yearly Meeting' of Ohio is subject to be tainted by the decision 
 of men who differ from them, in faith and belief, and who say, 
 that the act of the subordinate tribunal is null and void, be- 
 cause of an omission to make, by special legislative provision^ 
 a rule for carrying up the appeal. 
 
 If I am correct in this, the whole weight of argument on 
 the other side, falls prostrate to the ground. There was a de- 
 cision of the Quarterly Meeting — it may be erroneous. It 
 may have carried into it the seeds of tyranny. It may have 
 contained within itself that which should have called on the 
 superior meetings in imperative language, to reverse that 
 proceeding; yet it stands unreversed and unrevised, on the mi- 
 nutes of the Quarterly Meeting, where it possesses all its 
 obligatory force in operating on the membei's. I agree, and 
 most heartily, that if an inferior tribunal, ecclesiastical or 
 temporal, proceeds to judge a case without its jurisdiction, 
 the judgment rendered is a nullity. The party sought to be 
 operated on by it, need not regard it, because it is a nullity. 
 
 But it is shown by the discipline, that the Quarterly Meet- 
 ing had power and control over the Monthly. The Monthly 
 Meeting may be laid down by consent of the Quarterly, either 
 by the exertion of the power of the Quarterly upon its sole dis- 
 cretion; or by the exertion of it, upon the expressed desire of 
 a Monthly Meeting, seeking to be laid down. If I have con- 
 strued this matter rightly, then this judgment of the meeting 
 stands good — there is tio assumption of power. We have in- 
 stances cited to us in such a manner, as to induce us to 
 believe them conclusive — for instance, the Quarterly Meet- 
 ing in Baltimore laying down a Monthly. But let us look at 
 that case. It is brought forward to show that we had no 
 power to lay down Concord Monthly Meeting. A Monthly 
 Meeting sought to maintain a separate interest in property, 
 and the Quarterly sought to reconcile all the brethren in so- 
 ciety: they had tried ineffectually to do this. Each party 
 maintained themselves in the power which they had, or sup- 
 posed they had. In that state of the question, the Quarterly 
 applied to the Yearly, for advice. The Yearly Meeting said 
 the Quarter had power to lay down the Monthly Meeting, and 
 advised them, that unless the Monthly complied with the in- 
 structions of its superior, the Quarter should proceed to lay it 
 down. Such was the advice — it recognised the power of the 
 Quarterly, and the Monthly Meeting was laid down. And, 
 if Hamilton's testimony is worthy of credit, it was by the 
 power which the Quarterly Meeting had; for the Yearly Meet- 
 ing did not interfere further than to give advice. The Yearly 
 Meeting of Baltimore had determined, as I have determined, 
 that the Quarterly, had power to lay down a Monthly Meeting, 
 38 
 
302 
 
 Ti iiil ijf t'rieiith 
 
 and that without their consentj and the testimony of advice 
 was given, so to proceed. 
 
 Againj this part of the discipline never could be maintained 
 or carried into execution on any other construction: for you 
 never can get the consent of the power which you wish to an- 
 nul. You can disunite yourselves from them by disownments; 
 but the censure of the church, called the society of Friends, 
 operates only admonitorily. It works by way of admonition, to 
 disownment. It undertakes to impose no pecuniary penalty. 
 If you set up a faith, foreign to the faith which the church ac- 
 knowledges, you must go from our union, yqu are no longer 
 one of us. You are not in unity with us. The power of 
 churches is limited to this. They must ahvays be limited 
 when church and state are not connected. And I hope we 
 never shall arrive at the day in this country, when they will 
 be connected. The whole church history, in all its forms, 
 shows no instance, where they have not been connected, of any 
 pecuniary mulct imposed, for worshipping with those not in 
 unity with the church. I do not feel disposed to enlarge upon 
 this subject. I think the fact of power in the Quarterly, is 
 indubitably established, by the nature of the discipline. 
 
 Well, we have been guilty of an assumption of power in an- 
 other instance, in relation to that false and forged documentj 
 which was thought to be, to use the language of the opposite 
 counsel, crammed down the throats of the Hicksites. Well, 
 what is this testimony from Indiana? ' It is in evidence, that 
 it is a testimony against certain errors in the land, which have 
 taken root, and deep root, in the Yearly Meeting, over which 
 this committee preside. It is sent from the Yearly Meeting 
 of Indiana to the Yearly Meeting of Ohio — to the members of 
 the Yearly Meeting of Ohio, denominated the Meeting for Suf- 
 ferings. They had the power of publishing granted to them: 
 they had the right of publishing this. They exercised this 
 power during the recess of the Yearly Meeting: and they de- 
 termined further, that they would send it to the Quarterly and 
 Monthly Meetings with a testimony of advice. [Here Mr. 
 Wright referred to the testimony from the Meeting for Suffer- 
 ings.] Well, if this be an act of tyranny, it is the most hum- 
 ble and unassuming ever witnessed. Does it seek to cram any 
 thing down the Hicksites, or any other people? It does not. 
 It is earnestly recommended to the serious attention of the 
 members of the society. Suppose it were false. Suppose its 
 arrangement were unfair. Did it force upon the people doc- 
 trines which they disbelieve? Does it seek or require of them 
 a subscription to this, as an article of faith? It does no such 
 thing. It gives advice in a spirit of brotherly love and affec- 
 tion, to the different meetings within their Yearly Meeting. And 
 
ul Sleubenville, Ohio. 
 
 303 
 
 in that advice it earnestly exhorts all those who seek after truth 
 to read it, diligently and seriously: not to believe it, without 
 they do believe it. Here we are told, that it originated all 
 this disturbance: that it is an act of tyranny, enforcing upon 
 the society that which is forged and false. If this be tyranny, 
 then I ask, what is the lawful exercise of power? If this be 
 tyranny, then what is advice? If this be called cramming, 
 then'what was that rush that went into the meeting house, 
 and forced the members from their places? 
 
 But it is false, says the gentleman: it is forged. He gives 
 himself ^reat credit for not saying what he says: yet it would 
 puzzle him or his associate counsel, Mr. Hubbard, to find out 
 where the falsehoods are. They speak of a quotation, said to 
 be made in this testimony, which they say is false. - The writer 
 has quoted, from memory, the passage from the Berean: "In 
 vain does any man quote the scriptures as authority for his opi- 
 nions;" which the epistle quotes thus: "In vain does any man 
 quote the scj'iptures as authority to maintain his opinions." 
 Your honour sees the difference. There is no difference in 
 the substance, as to citing scripture for his opinions. There 
 could be no other meaning attached to it. Again, the gentle- 
 man says that the latter member of the sentence is left out: 
 viz. "for if they have not been immediately revealed to his 
 own mind, by the Holy Spirit, they deserve no better name, 
 as it respects him, than speculations." Does that help the 
 case? If the scriptures of truth have not been specially re- 
 vealed to a man, they deserve no better name to him than spe- 
 culations! If I had been drawing up the Indiana testimony, 
 I should have quoted that. Sir, are the scriptures of truth 
 to take the character of speculations? to take no authority,. be- 
 cause they have not been specially revealed to every Hicksite? 
 I place not the scriptures of truth on such a foundation as that. 
 They are revealed for our use; if not to us, individually, 
 who arc to have the benefit of them? I do not think it neces- 
 sary to look to any thing further on this subject, but will re- 
 mark, that, when Mr. Hubbard and Mr. Tappan took occa- 
 sion to pronounce upOti this paper, that it was unequivocally 
 false and forged, containing a testimony of lies, the promulga- 
 tion of which is tyranny on the part of those who issued if, 
 they show that they have assumed a position which they can- 
 not maintain; as Mr. Tappan did also in relation to cramming 
 it down the throats of the Hicksites. Yet this book or testi- 
 mony, has been held up as the origin of the qiiariel. My 
 friend has been engaged in setting it before you in an unwar- 
 rantable manner. 
 
 We have been asked, here, to show what there is in the- doc- 
 trines of Elias Hicks that militates against the doctrines of 
 the society of Friends, ftlr. Goodnow said he could not swal- 
 
304 
 
 Trial of FrimJs 
 
 low the doctrines of Elias Hicks. — I can say, that he is a Deist, 
 and that his doctrines are deistical, if deism consists in a de- 
 nial of the divinity of Christ. 
 
 Court adjourned till 9 o'clock to-morrow morning. 
 
 Tuesday, October 2^th, 9 o'clock, A. M. 
 
 Mr. Wright, in continuation. — At the time the court adjourn- 
 ed, I was proceeding to answer the challenge which was thrown 
 out on the other side; to show, that, from the doctrines and 
 public discourses of Elias Hicks, he maintains what I under- 
 stand to be deism. And to vindicate and support this much 
 abused and vilified testimony of Indiana, I will read from the 
 book of Sermons. 
 
 " Who was his Father? He was begotten of God. We cannot suppose 
 that it was the outward body of flesh and blood that was begotten of God, 
 but a birth of the spiritual life in the soul. We must apply it internally 
 and spiritually. For nothing can be a Son of God, but that which is Spirit; 
 and nothing but the soul of man is a recipient for the light and Spirit of 
 God. Therefore, nothing can be a Son of God, but that which is immortal 
 and invisible. Nothing visible can be a Son of God. Every visible thing 
 must come to an end, and we must know the mortality of it. Flesh and 
 blood cannot enter into heaven. By the analogy of reason. Spirit cannot 
 beget a material body, because the thing begotten must be of the same na- 
 ture with its father. Spirit cannot beget any thing but Spirit; it cannot 
 beget flesh and blood — No, my friends, it is impossible." — (Hicks' Sermom, 
 1825 ed. p. 10 & 11.) 
 
 " So, here, we see Jesus made lower than the angels, on account of his 
 suffering death. He was tempted in all points as we are. |;Now how could 
 he be tempted if he had been flxed in a state of perfection, in which he 
 could not turn aside? Can you suppose, as rational beings, that such a be- 
 ing could be tempted? No, not any more than God Almighty could be 
 tempted. Perfection is perfection, and cannot be tempted. It is impossi- 
 ble. And here it is proved to a demonstration, that he came to be an exam- 
 ple to the children of men; a great High Priest and teacher, in those things 
 which concern the salvation of the children of men. And here he did his 
 office, as a great High Priest of the Jewish covenant, in that outward dis- 
 pensation, in which he was limited to the Jewish people as a child of Abra- 
 ham; to sum up all the righteousness of the law, by faithfulness to it." — 
 (Hicks' Sermons, 1825 ed. p. 253.) 
 
 " Therefore, he told his disciples, " It is expedient for you, that I go 
 away, for if I go not away, the comforter will not come." He speaks no- 
 thing but the truth: for so long as the Jews had him to look at, they never 
 could rise any higher — while he was bodily with them. That part must be 
 entirely taken away. It must be dissolved, and be so no more. We must 
 have no remembrance of it; because, if we did worship it, it would be the 
 worship of an image." — (Hicks' Sermons, 1825 ed. p. 261.) 
 
 " For, as I have observed, we are not now to look to an outward law, for 
 it is inconsistent with the last dispensation of God to the children of men, 
 which is, to gather all souls to himself, that he may have communion with 
 them, without any thing intermediate, as he had with our first parents. 
 This was their condition — there was then no mediator between God and 
 ■man; for there was no necessity for it." — (Quaker, vol. 4, p. 21.) . 
 
 "I cannot help you on your way, only to recommend you to the right 
 
ai Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 305 
 
 mea.ni, which is the light in your own souls, and here I must leave you. 
 And that has been tlie case with all the ministers, that the Lord has sent 
 into the earth, even his beloved Son." — {Quaker, vol. 4, p. 26.) 
 
 " It wont do to look back to him as an outward man, because the true 
 Saviour never was to be seen in an outward way; but we must look forward 
 to that which is spiritual, to ' Christ within, the hope of glory.' It speaks 
 nothing of Christ without, tlie hope of glory; and for us to go to the learned 
 of the world, to translate these doctrines, what folly, when the light of truth 
 in our own hearts will interpret them better than all the learned men in 
 the world. Indeed, how can they do it, since they deny revelation, thus 
 taking the effect for the cause; what an inconsistencv." — (Quaker, vol. 4, 
 p. 48.) 
 
 " What is the Son of God, and where is he ? Do the professors of Chris- 
 tianity think that that Jesus, born of the virgin Mary, is the only Son of 
 God, that can give us a knowledge of the Father? They must be dark in- 
 deed — he can do nothing for any of us. It is nothing but the birth of God 
 in the soul that can give us any knowledge of God — it was the birth of God 
 in Jesus, that light and life that was in him, that revealed tl>e Father in 
 him and to him." — (Quaker, vol. 4, p. 64.) 
 
 " Here we learn that in his external manifestation, he was not truly and 
 properly a Saviour of souls; for he had been born and had lived under the 
 shadowy dispensation, which from the beginning to the end was nothing 
 but a figure, as it respects the soul and its salvation. He was an external 
 Saviour to the Israelites, and to the Israelites only, except in an instance or 
 two. He saved them from their pollutions, and their diseases of various 
 kinds that attended them; such as the leprosy, blindness, deafness." — 
 (Quaker, vol. 4, p. 7'4.) 
 
 "Jesus Christ, the Savioui- of the soul, never was seen by the eyes of 
 •men, and for ever will be the same power of God, and same divine anoint- 
 ing with which Jesus was anointed." — (Quaker, vol. 4, p. 84.) 
 
 For instance, the doctrine of original sin, and of our being made holy 
 by the righteousness of another! Now can any rational being — any man or 
 woman believe in such doctrines as these." — (Quaker, vol. 4. p. 137.) 
 
 " And what is Christ the true Saviour' Nothing else, and never was any 
 thing else, in regard to the salvation of the soul, but this light and life of 
 God in the soul, which comprehends the wisdom and power of God." — 
 (Quaker, vol. 4, p. 234.) 
 
 There is one other extract from Elias Hicks, which I will 
 read for the benefit of the counsel. 
 
 " Oh! that men of science might be aware what a curse they are to the 
 inhabitants of the earth; what a great curse. But tliey will not believe it 
 till they turn to this comforter — this Spirit of Truth, that leads into all 
 truth."— (Hicks' Sermons, 1825 ed. p. 53.) 
 
 After looking to these extracts, I think we shall see, tliat we 
 have not gone too far. I do not wish it to be understood, that 
 I think all those who follow Elias Hicks, entertain the same 
 notions that he does, or that they entertain the belief that he is 
 a deist. 1 believe, if we go through the book, we shall find the 
 same sentiments, covered with a species of clothing, to blind 
 the understanding, till persons shall be drawn sufficiently to 
 carry his doctrines into execution. I have thought proper to 
 refer to this, to vindicate the testimony from Indiana, which 
 >ias been so reviled and abused^ and set forth by tlue opposite 
 
306 
 
 1 ruil of Friends 
 
 counsel as the origin and root of evil — ol the quarrel which 
 has taken place in this, church. This outraged document has 
 been represented as a palpable falsehood and forgery — that 
 it was intended, to aid in carrying into execution the designs 
 of the orthodox party, in tyrannising over their fellows. I will 
 read from Evans' Exposition the following passages. 
 
 " George Whitehead being questioned by a priest as to his belief in the 
 Trinity, gives this reply: — 
 
 " I answered him in terms, in terms of Holy Scripture, viz. That I really 
 own and believe the Father, tlie Son, and the Holy Ghost, are the three 
 which bear record in Heaven; the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost; 
 and these Three are One, according to the docti'ine of John the Evangelist. 
 1 John v. 7."— (Works, p. 168.— 1659.) 
 
 " The Holy Scripture Trinity, or Three thereby meant, we never ques- 
 tioned, but believed, as also the unity of Essence, that they are one sub- 
 stance, one Divine Infinite Being: and also we question not, but sincerely 
 believe, the relative properties of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, according 
 to Holy Scripture testimony. Matt, ssiii. 19.; and that these Three are One, 
 1 John V. 7."— (p. 195.— 1659.) 
 
 " In order that the different denominations of protestants might avail 
 themselves of the benefit of the act of Toleration, they were obliged to 
 subscribe to a declaration of their Christian belief. The form required by 
 the committee of parliament, not being agreeable to Friends, they propose 
 a substitute. George Whitehead, speaking of the subject, says: 
 
 " Yet to prevent any such from being stumbled or ensnared, by some 
 expressions in the aforesaid profession or creed, (which appeared unscrip- 
 tural) in the said bill, we, instead thereof, did propose and humbly offer, as 
 our own real belief of the Deity, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, viz. 
 * I profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ, his etetnal Son, the 
 true God, and in the Holy Spirit, one God, blessed for ever; and do acknow- 
 ledge the Holy Scriptures of tlie Old and New Testament, to be given by 
 divine inspiration.' 
 
 " Which declaration, John Voughton and I delivered to Sir Thomas 
 Clergis, who, with some others, were desu-ous we should give in such con- 
 fession of our Christian belief, that we might not lie under the unjust im- 
 putation of being no Christians, nor thereby be deprived of the benefit of the 
 intended law for our religious liberty. We were, therefore, of nccessltj-, 
 put upon offering the said confession; it being also our known, professed 
 principle, sincerely to confess Christ, the Son of the living God, his divinity, 
 and as he is the eternal word, and that the three which bear record in hea- 
 ven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost are one, one Divine Being, 
 one God, blessed for ever." — (page 635. — 1689.) 
 
 I think a reference to these authorities will establish the 
 opinion, that the faith of Friends is Trinitarian, predicated 
 on the divinity of Jesus Christ; and that the faith and doc- 
 trines of Elias Hicks are contrary to that. And^that those who 
 setup a church founded on his doctrines, cannot l)c styled the 
 society of Friends. 
 
 There is in the forepart of this book, [Evans' Exposition,] 
 a catalogue of 125 authorities, maintaining the doctrine, that 
 Friends are Trinitarians. Here Mr. Wright, at the sugges- 
 
at Slenbenvilie, Ohio. 
 
 307 
 
 lion of Mr. Hubbard, read from the 13lh and 14th pages of 
 Penn's Select Works, the following: 
 
 "Refuted from Right Reasm. — 1. If there be three distinct and se- 
 parate persons, then three distinct and separate substances, because every 
 person is inseparable from its own substance. And as there is no person 
 that is not a substance in common acceptation among' men, so do the scrip- 
 tures plentifully agree herein: and since the Father is God, the Son is 
 God, and the Spirit is God, (which their opinion necessitates them to con- 
 fess.J then, unless the Father, Son, and Spirit, are three distinct nothings, 
 they must be three distinct substances, and, consequently, three distinct 
 Gods. 
 
 " 2. It is farther proved, if it be considered, that either the divine persons 
 are finite or infinite. If the first, then something finite is inseparable to the 
 infinite substance, whereby something finite is in God: if the last, then 
 three distinct infinites, three omnipotents, three eternals, and so three Gods. 
 
 "3. If each person be God, and that God subsists in three persons, then 
 in each person are three persons or Gods, and from three they will increase 
 to nine, and so ad injiiiitutn. 
 
 " 4. But if they shall deny the three persons or subsistences to be infinite, 
 (for so there would unavoidably be three Gods,) it will follow that they 
 must be finite, and so the absurdity is not abated from what it was; for that 
 of one substance having three subsistences, is not greater, than that an infi- 
 nite being should have three finite modes of subsisting. But though that 
 mode which is finite cannot answer to a substance that is infinite; yet to 
 try if we can make their principle to consist, let us conceive that three 
 persons, which may be finite separately, make up an infinite conjunctly: 
 however, this will follow, that they are no more incommunicable or sepa- 
 rate, nor properly subsistences, but a subsistence; for the infinite substance 
 cannot find a bottom or subsistence in any one or two, therefore jointly. 
 And here, I am also willing to overlook finiteness in the Father, Son, and 
 Spirit, v/hich this doctrine must suppose. 
 
 " 5. Again, if these three distinct persons are one, with some one thing, 
 as they say they are with the godhead, then are not they incommunicable 
 among themselves; but so much the contrary, as to be one in the place of 
 another. For if that the only God is the Father, and Christ be that only 
 God, then is Christ the Father. So if that one God be the Son, and the 
 Spirit that one God, then is the Spirit the Son, and so round. Nor is it pos- 
 sible to 6top, or that it should be otherwise, since, if the divine nature be 
 inseparable from the three persons, or communicated to each, and each 
 person have the whole divine nature, then is the Son in the Father, and the 
 Spirit in the Son; unless that the godhead be as incommunicable to the 
 persons, as they are reported to be amongst themselves: or that the three 
 persons have distinctly allotted them such a proportion of the divine nature, 
 as is not communicable to each other; which is alike absurd. Much more 
 might be said to manifest the gross contradiction of this trinitarian doctrine, 
 as vulgarly received; but I must be brief." 
 
 I think we shall be able to prove, notwithstanding the pas- 
 sages which have been shown on the other side, that these do 
 not militaie at all against the position which I have taken: 
 That the doctrines of Elias Hicks are not the doctrines of the 
 society of Friends, and that they are deistical doctrines. That 
 a passage found in this book, accords with Elias Hicks in a 
 certain degree, only goes to establish the faith and doctrines 
 of all the authorities that I have read, when it is known that 
 
308 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 an isolated passage only, appears to agree with the doctrines 
 of Elias Hicks. I had mentioned to me yesterday, as in uni- 
 son with the doctrines of Elias Hicks, " Sandy Foundation 
 Shaken." It seemed to be triumphantly mentioned, as though 
 it would sweep away all that had been said on the opposite 
 side. Now, what was that work? It was a controversial 
 work of William Penn's, written for the purpose of refuting 
 the arguments of others, in which he pushed his doctrine to 
 the utmost limit; not having, for his object, to give his own 
 faith, or the faith of those in belief with him. 
 
 Now, need I go out of this house, to find instances as strong 
 as need be found, to prove, that arguments, pushed to their 
 utmost limits, ought not to be used. How was it with my 
 friend, Mr. Hubbard, and friend Tappan, in their arguments? 
 I think that either will furnish clear proof, that arguments, 
 pushed to the extreme, are not to be relied on, in fixing the 
 faith of a society. AVilliam Penn, in speaking of the charges 
 brought against the society of Friends, as not believing in the 
 divinity of Christ, says, 
 
 " Sectioh 5. — Of the Holy Three, or Scripture Trinity. 
 " Pervers. ' The Quakers deny the Trinity.' 
 
 " Princip. Nothing less: They believe in the Holy Three, or Trinity of 
 Father, Word, and Spirit, according to scripture. And that these three 
 are truly and properly one: of one nature as well as will. But they are 
 very tender of quitting scripture ternns and phrases for schoolmen's; such 
 as ' distinct and separate persons,' and ' subsistences,' &c. are; from whence 
 people are apt to entertain gross ideas and notions of the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost."— ( JFm. Penn's Select Works, fol. vol. p. 682.) 
 
 " Section 8. — Of Christ Jesus, his Death and Sufferings. 
 
 " Pervers. 12. ' The Quakers expect to be justified and saved by the light 
 within them, and not by the death and sufferings of Christ. ' 
 
 " Princip. This is both unfairly and untruly stated, and charged upon us. 
 But the various sense of the word justification, obliges me here to distin- 
 guish the use of it: for in the natural and proper sense, it plainly implies, 
 making men just, that were unjust; godly, that were ungodly; upright, 
 that were depraved: as the apostle expresseth himself, 1 Cor. 6 ch. 2 v. 
 ' And such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, 
 but ye are justified, in the name of our Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our 
 God.' In the other use of the word, which some call a law-sense, it refers 
 to Christ, as a sacrifice and propitiation for sin, as in Rom. 5 ch. 9 v. 
 ' Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from 
 wrath through him:' and 1 John, 2 ch. ' If any man sin, we have an ad- 
 vocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous, and he is the propitia- 
 tion for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole 
 world.' Which, though a great truth, and most firmly believed by us; yet 
 no man can be entitled to the benefit thereof, but as they come to beheve, 
 and repent of the evil of their ways; and then it may be truly said, ' that 
 God justifieth even the ungodly, and looks upon them through Christ, as 
 if they had never sinned; because their sins are forgiven them for his beloved 
 son's sake.' 
 
 "Not that God looks on people to be in Christ, that are not in Christ,- 
 that is, that are not in the faith, obedience, and self-denial of Christ; nor 
 sanctified, nor led by his spirit, but rebel against it; and, instead of dying 
 
at SUubenville,,Ohto. 
 
 309 
 
 to sin; through a true and unfeigned repentancr, live and iiidulg'e them- 
 selves daily in it; "for they that are in Christ become new creatures; old 
 things are parsed away, and all things (with them,) become new." Where- 
 fore, we say, that whatever Christ then did, both living and dying, was of 
 great benefit to the salvation of all that have believed, and now do, and 
 that hereafter shall believe in him unto justification and acceptance with 
 God; hut the way to come to that faith, is to receive and obey the mani- 
 festation of his divine light and grace in their consciences; which leads men 
 to beheve and value, and not to disown or undervalue Christ, as the com- 
 mon sacrifice or mediator. For we do affirm, that to follow this Holy Light 
 in the conscience, and to turn our minds, and bring all our deeds and thoughts 
 to it, is the readiest, nay, the only right way to have true, living, and sanc- 
 tified faith in Christ, as he appeared in the flesh, and to discern the Lord's 
 body, coming and sufferings aright, and to receive any real benefit by him, 
 as their only sacrifice and mediator, according to the beloved disciple's 
 emphatical passages, "if we walk in the light, as (God) is in the light, we 
 have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, 
 cleanseth us from all sin." And because this people sny, that Christ's out- 
 ward coming and sufferings profit not to their salvation that live in sin, and 
 rebel against this divine light; some have untruly and uncharitably con- 
 cluded, that they deny the virtue and benefit of Christ's coming and suf- 
 ferings in the fiesh as a sacrifice for sin. Whereas, we only deny and op- 
 pose a false and dangerous application of them in and to, a disobedient 
 state."— (PTot. Penn's Select Workf, fol. vol. p. 683—4.) 
 
 "Sections. — We do believe that Jesus Christ was our holy sacrifice, 
 atonement, ^nd propitiation; that he bore our iniquities, and that by his 
 stripes we were healed of the wounds Adam gave us in his fall; and, that God 
 is just in forgiving true penitents upon the credit of that holy offering 
 Christ made of himself to God for us; and that what he did and suffered, 
 satisfied and pleased God, and was for the sake of fallen man, that had dis- 
 pleased God: and that, through the offering up of himself once for all, through 
 the Eternal Spirit, he hath for ever perfected those (in all times,) that were 
 sanctified, 'who walked not after the flesh, but after the spirit.' Horn. 
 8th ch. 1st V. Mark that."— ( Wm. Penn's Select Works, fol. vol. p. 799.) 
 " Concerning Jesus Christ. 
 
 " Because we believe, that the word which was made flesh, and dwelt 
 amongst men, and was and is, the only begotten of the Father, full of grace 
 and truth; his beloved Son, in whom he is well pleased, and whom we 
 ought to hear in all things; who tasted death for every man, and died for 
 gin, that we might die to sin; is the great light of the world, and full of 
 grace and truth; and that he lighteth every man that cometh into the world, 
 and giveth them grace for grace, and light for light, and that no man can 
 know God and Christ, (whom to know is life eternal,) and themselves, in 
 order to true conviction and conversion, without receiving and obeying this 
 holy light, and being taught by the divine grace; and that without it, no 
 remission, no justification, no salvation, (as the scripture plentifully testi- 
 fies,) can be obtained: and l)ecause we, therefore, press the necessity of 
 people's receiving the inward and spiritual appearance of this divine word, 
 in order to a right and beneficial application of whatsoever he did for man, 
 with respect to his life, miracles, death, sufferings, resurrection, ascension, 
 and mediation, our adversaries would have us deny any Christ without us. 
 First, as to his divinity, because they make us to confine him too within us. 
 Secondly, as to his humanity, or manhood, because as he was the son of 
 Abraham, David, and Mary, according to the flesh, he cannot be in us, and 
 therefore we are heretics and blasphemers; whereas, we believe him, ac- 
 cording to scripture, to be the son of Abraham, David, and Mary, after the 
 39 
 
310 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 Reth, and also God over all, blefised for ever. So that he that is within u«, 
 is also without us, even tlie same that laid down his precious life for us, 
 rose again from the dead, and ever liveth to make intercession for us, being 
 the blessed and alone mediator betwixt God and man, and him by whom 
 God will finally judge the world, both quick and dead: all which we as 
 sincerely and steadfastly believe, as any other society of people, whatever 
 may be ignorantly, or maliciously, insinuated to the contrary, either by our 
 declared enemies or mistaken neighbours." — (Wm. Penn'a Select Works, 
 fol. vol. p. 809.) 
 
 " Concerning the Father, the Word, and the Spirit. 
 " Because we have been very cautious in expressing our faith concerninjf 
 that great mystery, especially in such school terms, and philosophical distinc- 
 tions, as are unscriptiiral, if not unsound, (the tendency whereof hath been 
 to raise frivolous controversies and animosities amongst men,) we have, by 
 those that desire to lessen our Christian reputation, been represented as 
 deniers of the Trinity at large: whereas, we ever believed, and as con- 
 stantly maintained, the truth of that blessed (holy scripture) 'three, that 
 bear record In heaven, the Father, the Word, and tlie Spirit, and that these 
 three are one;' the which, we both sincerely and reverently believe, ac- 
 cording to 1 John, 5th ch. 7th v. And this is sufficient for us to believe and 
 know, and hath a tendency to edification and holiness; when the contrary 
 centres only in imaginations, and strife, and persecution, where it runs high, 
 and to parties, as may be read in bloody characters, in the ecclesiastical 
 histories." — ( Wm. Perm's Select Works, fol. vol. p. 811. ) 
 
 " Of Christ's being our Example. 
 " Because, in some cases, we have said, the Lord Jesus was our great 
 example, and that his obedience to his Father doth not excuse ours; but as. 
 by keeping his commandments, he abode in his Father's love, so must we 
 follow his example of obedience, to abide in his love; some have been so 
 ignorant (or tliat which is worse, ) as to ventm-e to say for us, or in our name, 
 that we believe our I-ord Jesus Christ was, in all things but an example. 
 
 " Whereas, we confess him to be so much more than an example, that 
 we believe him to be our most acceptable sacrifice to God his Father; who, 
 for his sake, will look upon fallen m;m, that hath justly merited the wrath 
 of God, upon liis return by repentance, faith, and obedience, as if he had 
 never sinned at all." — ( Wm. Perm's Select Works, fol. vol: p. 811.) 
 " Of Christ's Coming both in Flesh and Spirit. 
 " Because the tendency (generally speaking,) of our ministry, is, to press 
 people to the inward and spiritual appearance of ('hrist, by his spirit and 
 grace in their hearts, to give them a true sight and sense of, and sorrow for, 
 sin, to amendment of life and practice of holiness; and because we have 
 often opposed that doctrine of being actually justified by the merits of 
 Christ, whilst actual sinners against God, by living in the pollutions of this 
 wicked world, we are by our adversaries rendered such, as either deny or 
 undei-value, the coming of Christ without us, and the force and efficacy of 
 his death and sufl'erii)^s, as a propitiation for the sins of tiie whole world. 
 
 " Whereas we do, and hope we ever shall (as we always did) confess, to 
 the glory of God the Father, and the honour of his dear and beloved Son, 
 that He, to wit, Jesus Christ, took our nature upon him, was like us in all 
 things, sin excepted: that he was born of the Virgin Mary, went about 
 amongst men doing good, and working many miracles: that he was be- 
 trayed by Judas into the hands of the cliief priests, &c. That he suffered 
 death under Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, being crucified between 
 two thieves, and was buried in the sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathea: rose 
 again the third day from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sits at 
 God's right hand, in the power and majesty of his Father; and that by him, 
 God the Father will one day judge the whole world, both of quick and 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 311 
 
 dead, according to their works." — (^JVilliam Penu't Hekct Work*, fol. voi. 
 p. 812.) 
 
 " Vour fifth charge is, 'that we deny the Trinity.' But you should, in 
 justice, have added, of persons, with all the school-niceties and distinctions 
 that belong to that sort of ex])lication of Scripture; for to that only it is 
 your first proof refers, viz. W. P. 's Sandy Foundation, p. 12. ' For the scrip- 
 ture nowhere calls God the Holy Three of Israel, but Holy One of Israel.' 
 And if he had said Imagined Trinity, p. 16, as you cite, which he does not, 
 in the copy we have, it ought not to be so heinous with you, since Three 
 Persons are not to be found in the Bible, which you exalt for the only rule 
 of faith." — {William Perm's Select Works, fol. vol. p. 6/2.) 
 
 I do not know, that it would be profitable for a right under- 
 standing of this subject, to consume more time in reading au- 
 thorities. The vast number of authorities cited in the book 
 that I have referred to, [Evans' Exposition,] and the great 
 number of passages quoted from Elias Hicks' Sermons, 
 cloaked and covered up as they are, are such, that it does seem 
 to me, the mind cannot hesitate in coming to a conclusion 
 about the doctrines maintained on the one side by Friends, and 
 those entertained on the other side by Elias Hicks and his fol- 
 lowers. I may misinterpret it, for I pretend to no perfection 
 in the matter; but to my understanding there can be no doubt 
 or question, but that the doctrines promulgated by Elias 
 Hicks are the doctrines of deism. If they are so, and if I am 
 right in the position on which I have based my argument, 
 that the society of Friends is a society of Christians, who wor- 
 ship and believe in the divine personage of Jesus Christ, and 
 his vicarious agency; am I not right in drawing this conclu- 
 sion, that Elias Hicks is an opposer of these doctrines, and 
 at enmity with them; and, that sustaining him and his prin- 
 ciples, must tend directly to the subversion of the ancient faith 
 and belief of this society. 
 
 I draw a distinction between the indisputable faith and be- 
 lief proclaimed by both these parties, and the colourable 
 passages interspersed throughout the writings of those, as I 
 understand it, who are labouring to subvert the ancient princi- 
 ples of the society. There is nothing new in this. It has 
 been the case ever since the creation of the world. It has not 
 been confined or limited to religious controversy. It embraces 
 all classes of men in the world, as to controversial points. If 
 there be established order, upon settled principles, there arises 
 a revolutionary spirit, which seeks to subvert that order, and 
 to erect u|)on its i-uins a different order of things. This is 
 precisely the mode adopted by Elias Hicks; colouring words, 
 and deluding by false lights: pretending to be one thing, and 
 meaning another, till he has increased in strength and power 
 sufficient to withstand you. No other course has ever been 
 pursued, or will be, unless men be moTed by different motives 
 than those hitherto known. If Elias Hicks were to come for-. 
 
313 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 ward, in broad day, and own, in terms, that he is a disbeliever 
 in the divinity of Christ, there are very few of those who now 
 sustain him in his course, that would stick to him any longer. 
 They would reject him; and they would reject his ministry; 
 as being the work of the devil. I say this, because I believe 
 that a large majority of tliose who are now sustaining him, 
 are doing it under a mistaken notion of his doctrines. I en- 
 tertain the belief, that they are mistaken, because they are cover- 
 ed, to answer his purpose, of shaking the understanding and 
 belief, of those to whom he addresses himself. 
 
 Then, how does this opinion affect the question of the 
 much abused testimony that I hold in my hand.'' It is, says 
 Judge Tappan, the foundation of all these disturbances: the 
 work of the archbishop; the work of tyranny and impudence: 
 of those who would force it down the throats of others. It 
 not only bears testimony in humility, but_in sincerity. Of 
 what? It bears testimony against those doctrines which are 
 now taking deep root in our country, jeoparding not only this 
 church, but all others, that believe in the divinity of Christ. 
 They cautioned those of their belief against giving heed to 
 these doctrines, exhorting them to pray for strength from the 
 Almighty, to enable them to resist their influence. This is 
 the abused testimony, and the advice coming from the Meet- 
 ing for Sufferings, no part of which is deserving of the epi- 
 thets which have been applied by the other side. We hear of 
 cramming. Let us hear the language of this advice. 
 
 [Here Mr. Wright read the advice of the Meeting for Suf- 
 ferings of Ohio Yearly Meeting, introductory to the Indiana 
 epistle.] 
 
 Now, if this be cramming doctrines down the throats of 
 unbelievers; and if it be a matter of persecution, that should 
 call for all this excited feeling, that this testimony has been 
 printed and disseminated among them, then I know of nothing 
 in the work of love, or admonition, or invitation, that could 
 be sent forth from ministers and elders, in the Meeting for 
 Sufferings, exhorting the people to unite with them in faith, 
 and stick to the ancient principles of the society, which would 
 not be persecution and cramming. We are told that the 
 Yearly Meeting for Discipline prohibits the Meeting for Suf- 
 ferings from imposing any new faith. There is no attempt 
 here to do any such thing. There is an exhortation to abide 
 by the ancient faith; and I have shown that tlve ancient faith 
 is, indeed and in truth, the same as here set forth. 
 
 Who has been required to believe what is herein stated? 
 No man. The counsel, in all their ingenuity, advancing with 
 testimony, and without testimony, have not found it in their 
 power to identify an individual who has been operated on, or 
 coerced by the testimony from Indiana. Was David Schol- 
 
 V 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 313 
 
 field disowned for that? The good David Scholfield! The tes- 
 timony of disownment, that called forth so much sarcasm 
 from the gentleman at my right, does not show any sMch fact. 
 For what was he disowned? For uniting in belief with Elias 
 Hicks ; denying the divinity of the Saviour of men, contrary 
 to the belief and doctrines of the society. Are we to presume 
 that the society to which the good David Scholfield belonged, 
 disowned him, and declared him disunited with them in be- 
 lief, for no reason? It will do for my friend to presume this. 
 But they bore testimony against him for some purpose. We 
 have been told that it was because of this book, [the Indiana 
 testimony.] But there is not a word of it, in the testimony of 
 disownment. It refers to the doctrines of Elias Hicks, as 
 contained in the book from which I have read some passages. 
 And if David Scholfield did entertain the doctrines contained 
 in this book, the overseers, and ministers and elders, would 
 have been negligent of their duty, and recreant, if they did not 
 bear testimony against him. 
 
 Is David Scholfield one of the defendants? No. Is he 
 complained of as one of the parties? No. He has appear- 
 ed here as a make-weight. And he is relied on as one of 
 the. principal witnesses. And although we have shown that 
 he has been disowned, and disowned lawfully, yet he is brought 
 here as a witness to whom credit is to be given, against the tes- 
 timony of those on the other side. And this David Scholfield 
 has introduced this saving clause: that he did not wish to speak 
 very positively as to any particular points. This makes him 
 a most capital witness; for he kept a saving clause for any 
 little aberration. It is worthy of remark, that of all the wit- 
 nesses who have borne testimony in relation to Thomas Shil- 
 litoe, David Scholfield stands alone, in establishing the fact, 
 which is here made the burthen of half the argument of Mr. 
 Tappan, as to the character of the supplication of Shillitoe. 
 Whether this is one of the points on which he would not be 
 understood as speaking positively, I cannot tell: but I think 
 it would be well for David and the counsel to include this; for 
 this reason, that in this, he stands unsupported by other wit- 
 nesses. It is contrary to the testimony of Levi Pickering, 
 who says, an aged Friend was engaged in supplication, while 
 he and his colum.n were advancing; and they were struck with 
 awe, and stopped their movements: and that he was suppli- 
 cating the throne of grace for military victory, is what I can- 
 not credit, even from the mouth of the good David Scholfield. 
 
 Judge Tappan has said that the Concord meeting was laid 
 down because of their disbelief in this Indiana testimony; and 
 for no other cause, except to sustain the tyranny of the arch- 
 bishop. Now, what is the fact as to Concord? How did they 
 accept this paper? It was sent in the ordinary mode of dis- 
 
314 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 tributing papers, by the Meeting for Sufferings of Ohio Yearly 
 Meeting. It is a testimony of the Yearly Meeting of Indiana, 
 and not of the archbishop, and the ministers and elders. It was 
 sent in the usual way: not by Benjamin W. Ladd, or any of 
 his co-committee-men. The meeting declared this paper to 
 be a forgery, and a falsehood; and that they would not unite 
 with it. They would not unite with it, though in accordance 
 with the discipline of the society. I have been asked if the 
 decree of the archbishop and his co-tyrants, is irrevocable, or 
 revocable? The testimony was advanced, and if we look to 
 the discipline of the society, we shallfind that it was one in force 
 during the recess of the meeting. The proceedings ofc the 
 Meeting for Sufferings, are submitted to the Yearly Meeting, 
 and if approved by them, they are the acts of the meeting. If 
 disapproved, they are null and void. 
 
 What was the course to be pursued at Concord, when they 
 were advised by the testimony from Indiana, sanctioned by 
 those clothed with the authority of discipline to advise? I 
 say, what was their proper course.*" — Why, to have let the 
 testimony be entered upon their book of minutes ; let them 
 entertain all the feelings they might entertain in relation to it; 
 and then attend the Yearly Meeting, and there obtain .the 
 order of the Yearly Meeting, annulling that advice. It would 
 have been harmless — hurting no one on earth. Then they 
 could have gone, according to the discipline of the society, to 
 the Yearly Meeting, and exerted what power they had, to pro- 
 duce a denial. But did they take that course? No. They 
 thought it did not accord with their views: and now they are 
 persecuted, and crammed, and borne down by a nest of tyrants; 
 therefore they are justified in bidding defiance to the rule 
 of the church, and in trampling the discipline under foot; 
 and setting up an order of things to suit themselves. I do 
 not know where gentlemen are to go, if they will acknowledge 
 no rule; if they are to take such a testimony as this, and pre- 
 tend that it is crammed down, and then make that the founda- 
 tion of their cause, for trampling authority under foot, and 
 making a minute of disunity with the society, and henceforth 
 holding no communion with it; and going forth with force, to 
 depose officers, and set up their own authority, upon so slender 
 a foundation. I say, it is not warranted by the evidence — not 
 one scintilla of it. On the part of the Meeting for Sufferings, 
 the lestimoHy only expresses the belief of the society, from 
 George Fox, down to this day. They were required, by the 
 discipline, to receive that testimony according to its provi- 
 sions. They were not to drive it out of the house, or to burn 
 it by the common hangman; and in doing so, they did draw 
 down the censure of the church and the community. 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 315 
 
 And has any thing furtlier been done? They rejected this 
 authority in their superior meeting, for exerting this power 
 to intrude a testimony ! The Quarterly Meeting thus proceed- 
 ed to laying it down, and transferring its members to another 
 meeting. This is said to be an act of tyranny, that should 
 warrant them in doing any thing: in holding conferences at 
 the barn, at Redstone, at Plainfield, and at the school house in ' 
 Mount Pleasant. 
 
 As connected with this subject, my friend. Judge Tappan, 
 brings up a discussion about the co-tenancy of the members 
 of the society, in the property of the society; and supposes 
 that the order for laying down the Monthly Meeting, and de- 
 claring its disunity with its head, is for the purpose of appro- 
 priating to the meeting, or to some of the tyrants of the 
 meeting, the property of the society. It is not so. The gen- 
 tleman has gone further, and given vent to his sneering, in- 
 sinuating, that Ladd and John Street had their minds upon 
 the property. [Mr. Tappan here signified his exemption of 
 John Street from the charge of tyranny.] John Street is not 
 a tyrant, but a speculator! The testimony of Elish'a Bates, he 
 says, establishes a tyranny beyond doubt, in the doctrine, that 
 a minority can disown a majority: — three or nine, can disown 
 fifty thousand, is the comparison of the gentleman ; and that 
 they can proceed with disownments till they get the whole 
 property. Is this not strictly true? Is it not so in this, and 
 every other society? I apprehend it is. What is a disown- 
 ment, but a testimony of one or more individuals, of disunity 
 in faith and society, with another individual.^ Nothing else. 
 Those who remain in unison, may proceed to disown any 
 number of those not in unison, because religious society is one 
 thing, and religious dissention is another — and this is not an 
 irrevocable decree. • That is the course; the orderly and de- 
 corous course which ought to be observed. Does Bates pretend 
 to say, that the authority of the Yearly Meeting is not com- 
 petent? He has advanced no idea of the kind. But those 
 who formed the society had power to act; and any individual 
 may exert the power, so long as clothed with it, according to 
 the constitution of the church. The gentleman is welcome to 
 all the epithets that he has heaped upon Bates, and all the 
 asperity he has cast on Benjamin W. Ladd. It does not affect 
 their testimony, or character, abroad. 
 
 But as to the property, it is said we are co-partners, because 
 the meeting house was erected by subscription. Now, this is 
 not so. It may be convenient doctrine, but it is not sound. 
 It has no foundation, except it be the sandy foundation. You 
 subscribe to erect a presbyterian church. You are rot subject 
 to the action of that society. In whom is the properly vested? 
 I do not belong to the society. If I am a tenant in common, 
 
316 
 
 Trial of Friendi 
 
 and if I get in debt, an execution may be levied upon my por- 
 tion of the property. This cannot be. The subscribers are 
 not tenants in common. Take this court house. To whom 
 does it belong: to you? no — it does not. It belongs to the 
 county, in its aggregate capacity, and corporate power: and so, 
 the property of the society of Friends. If that meeting house 
 were built by subscription, it belongs to the society. No in- 
 dividual capacity or title, is carried along with individual 
 members. So, the gentleman's argument cuts up itself. If 
 he does not go on some other principle, he cannot sustain 
 himself on this — his whole argument falls to the ground. 
 Why, then, all this talk about property.** If the separatists, or 
 Hicksites, are the society, then the property is theirs. If the 
 orthodox are the society, then the property is theirs. But 
 we have never taken any step in severing ourselves from those 
 disowned, which is depriving them of their rights ; but have 
 known, from the beginning, that the property was not in- 
 volved in this inquiry. 
 
 I think, if we look to any other seceding party, we shall find 
 no parallel instance, like the attempt to crowd the orthodox 
 party out of the building, and to establish a church according 
 to their own tenets and views. This, I believe, is the first 
 instance on record, of an attempt to drive those in possession 
 of the building and records of the church, out of possession, 
 and to introduce heterodox doctrine. I think they deserve 
 credit for their ingenuity in mingling things, naturally dissi- 
 milar; things which never can unite. 
 
 I repeat the question. What has the property to do with 
 the disturbance, that liked to have taken place at Ohio Yearly 
 Meeting? It has nothing to do with it at all. Well, that this 
 was a predominant feeling in them, is manifest; and a proposi- 
 tion was made, not by John Bull, but by Jackson, just as much 
 of a foreigner. What right had he to make a proposition? 
 He had none. He was as much from abroad as Shillitoe, and 
 equally as obnoxious. It is pronounced tyranny, on the part 
 of the orthodox, that Shillitoe should have ventured, in a pub- 
 lic meeting house, to invoke and supplicate the throne of grace. 
 I may as well say, it was tyranny on the other side, that Jack- 
 son should propose a division of the pi-operty. Jackson is just 
 as much a foreigner as Dawson, or Peaslee,or any of the retinue 
 with v.'hom Hicks passed through this country. The fee of 
 that property is vested in the old man who sits yonder. The 
 others possess no right to that property. The right of Taylor 
 is indisputable. It cannot be questioned. The right of Pierce, 
 of the good Mr. Scholfield, and Mr. James, is not paramount 
 to the right of Mr. Taylor. They are neither of them grantees 
 of the fee of the property. It cannot be doubted, that the 
 grantee of that fee, who has it in trust, has a perfect right to 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 317 
 
 use and control it, so far as to reg;ulateils applicatLon — so far 
 as the trust goes. 
 
 How stands the case? The trustees have authorized James 
 Heald to keep possession; that, they cannot pronounce an act 
 of tyranny. They have called it an act of usurpation. What 
 was he to do? Suppose a band of robbers had designed enter- 
 ing the house, and carrying on their depredations. Had they 
 not a right to take measures to guard the property, to protect 
 the fee, for the purposes and uses of the grant? No man can 
 question it. What did Taylor and the other trustees do? 
 They gave the authority to a person who is empowered by 
 grantees for the purpose of the trustj and the grantees had a 
 right so to do. And he went into possession in obedience to 
 that trust and grant. And while there, enjoying his rights, he 
 is interrupted by those whom the gentlemen call co-tenants of 
 the property, having equal rights. Come, all you that have 
 been disowned, and we will unite with you, and carry our de- 
 signs into, execution, until we have supplanted and put down 
 those whom we denominate tyrants and usurpers. 
 
 I have attacked, in succession, the different outposts put 
 forth by the gentlemen, and have advanced near to their line. 
 I now come to their case. But what is their case? It embraces 
 several distinct propositions. They bring up a thing, altogether 
 unknown in criminal prosecutions — an offset. The main thing 
 on which they rely is, that Street, and Ladd, and Bates, and 
 Taylor violated the laws. What if they did? Does that prove 
 that David Hilles and James are to escape? If Ladd, and Tay- 
 lor, and Bates, and Street are obnoxious to the criminal laws, 
 prosecute, and punish them, from the rising of the sun, until 
 the going down of the same. It operates as no excuse. Many 
 are as obnoxious to the punishment of the law as a few. No 
 criminal, since the creation of the world, ever invoked the guilt 
 of others, in order to sustain the assumption of his innocence. 
 It is a course unknown in criminal proceedings. 
 
 Take the propositions of the defence in the order in which 
 they have been advanced. It is asserted by Mr. Hubbard, 
 and sustained by Mr. Tappan, that the appointment of David 
 Hilles was according to the discipline and order of the society; 
 regular and decorous. Now, we must shut our eyes to all 
 perceptions of reason and common sense, if we can believe 
 it, taking it in its broad, abstract position. Ask the wit- 
 nesses. You are told on one side, that it was in order. ^Vhy? 
 Was it provided for in the Discipline ? No. Was it accord- 
 ing to the Discipline? No. But necessity drove us to it, and 
 that made it in order. The necessity of the case impelled 
 them forward to take such a coufse: and that is to establish 
 and sustain the proceeding. To justify it, three or four cases, 
 said to be analogous, have been selected, as occurring during 
 40 
 
 J 
 
ilS 
 
 Tnul of Frie/tJs 
 
 the two liundttd years lliat this society has been in existence. 
 I want no stronger argument to satisfy me, that it was disor- 
 •lerly and unknown to the society, than is found in the fact, 
 thai with all their industry, but four or five instances have 
 been found and brought forward, as precedents to sustain this. 
 And some of these arc instances brought from Monthly and 
 Quarterly Meetings, to sustain the appointment of Hilles; 
 notwithstanding they have no analogy to the appointments in 
 this meeting, being entirely different and provided for by the 
 Discipline. " A committee should be annually appointed, in 
 each of our Quarterly and Monthly Meetings, to nominate 
 clerks." — Discipline, page 32. 
 
 Let it be remarked, that this does not embrace any thing 
 in connexion with the clerk of the Yearly Meeting. Commit- 
 tees are appointed in the Monthly and Quarterly Meetings, to 
 nominate clerks, having in view a change of those officers. 
 Let us look to the 98th page of the Discipline, and see under 
 what provision it is, by which the representatives choose. In 
 the subordinate meetings, the Discipline recognises the power 
 of the meeting to choose clerks, having for its object the ex- 
 ercise of different individuals. But in the Yearly Meeting, 
 the representatives are enjoined to choose a clerk. [See 98th 
 page of the Discipline; or page 228, of this work.] The time 
 for the choice; the period for which the party chosen shall 
 serve, are alike designated. It embraces both males and 
 females. And here, let me remark, that Friends are much 
 more gallant than other societies, in leaving to the females 
 the choice of their o\vn officers and clerks. But the injunc- 
 tion of the Discipline, not only devolves the power on the 
 representatives, but fixes the period when they shall exercise 
 that power, and the term for which the officer shall hold his 
 authority. In the inferior meetings, the duty devolves on the 
 meetings; in the Yearly Meeting, on the representatives. In 
 them, the nominations by committees, must be confirmed by 
 the meetings. The committees have no power and authority 
 to choose. — I am met with this objection; that the Yearly 
 Meeting have treated the power of the representatives as a 
 nominating power; and have acted on their nominations. If 
 there be any doubt or ambiguity, as to the meaning of the 
 Discipline, let us resort to the Yearly Meeting to solve the 
 doubt; but if the meaning be clear, we ask only the application 
 of the legal rule, and that the construction should be put on 
 this by the law of the land — not i)y the erroneous entries 
 which may have been made by clerks; and I ask it, in no way 
 foreign to the ordinary usage of courts of justice, and the well 
 established usages of the law. If we advert to these minutes, 
 it will be found, that the representatives have been requested 
 to do — what? A duty that devolves on them. Is that saying 
 
nt Steuhcnville, Ohio. 
 
 that the power is inherent in the meeting? No such thing. 
 The representatives have been desired to do or to propose, 
 what is aside from the Discipline, and not to the point. Well, 
 what then is the determination of the power that has been 
 vested in them ? Do the minutes show that this grant has 
 been repealed or annulled ? They have used the term pro- 
 pose," and not appoint. There was nobody astute enough to 
 correct the error, when a name has been reported to the 
 meeting, and the meeting has united in the appointments. It 
 has been said, on the other side, that the representatives have 
 no power to appoint. The meeting united in the persons that 
 the representatives proposed. The meetings have united in 
 such appointments the world over; but does that show that 
 the representatives have not the power? It is just one of those 
 errors that would be perfectly natural for a meeting, or the 
 body of society, to slide into. The appointments in Quarterly 
 and Monthly Meetings, are, by the Discipline itself, devolved 
 on the meeting. The Discipline advises these meetings to 
 call in the intervention of committees, but devolves not the 
 duty on any body elsej because the meetings asseml)le more 
 frequently. And the practice of these meetings is carried 
 into the Yearly Meeting; and not looking with the astute eye 
 of a lawyer, they go and make a request, and use the word 
 '^propose," instead of appoint. And this thing is relied on, in 
 opposition to the doctrine of the book of Discipline, which is 
 published. 
 
 I may be called on to answer another objection — Whether 
 there is not inherent in the Yearly Meeting of Ohio, power to 
 appoint a clerk. It is an indisputable proposition. A power, 
 without which, no society could exist. I am willing to take 
 the case of the speaker of the Ohio house of representatives. 
 The speaker comes to the chaii-, so di iink that he cannot per- 
 form the duties of his office. I am asked, whether there is not 
 power in that assembly, which made ils own rules, to appoint 
 another speaker? I say there is. And when tiiey bring me 
 a parallel case, occurring in the Yearly Meeiing of Ohio, I 
 will not dispute the power. Was Jonathan Taylor drunk, or 
 incapacitated from performing the dulies of clerk to that meet- 
 ing? Let any man answer this query, and answer it in the af- 
 firmative, if he can. 
 
 What are the reasons given for removing Taylor? It was 
 rumoured abroad, that he, in New York, had gone to a meet- 
 ing in a medical hall, with those separating from the society 
 of Friends. And what of thus? And this charge comes from 
 a party, too, claiming that they are persecuted by a band of 
 tyrants. A man distant five or six hundred miles from liomr, 
 cannot go with a part of the meeting, to an assembly, with- 
 out being considered, as being an a par .wiili a man in such a 
 
320 
 
 Trial of Frimdt 
 
 state of inebriety, as to have none of his senses about him. 
 Here is a true spirit of intolerance, a true spirit of persecu- 
 tion. And here are found those seeds of tyranny which they 
 seek, with such assiduity, to fix upon the aged Friend who sits 
 here in my eye. Well, this offence, mighty as it was, when 
 discoloured by the jaundiced optics of those who urge it, is so 
 trivial, that you would not whip a dog for such a thing, much 
 less proceed to displace, in a solemn assembly of religious 
 people, the officer of that assembly, and that, too, without 
 having communicated to him the nature of the charge, frivo- 
 lous as it was. 
 
 What else? Taylor, on Sunday, the day before this meeting 
 for discipline, when a man within the meeting, or place of 
 worship, was preaching doctrines at war with the faith of the 
 society, and subversive of its foundation, got up and asked 
 him to sit down: and said, we do not own you, as united with 
 our church. This is the whole of itj strip it of the colouring 
 which has been thrown over it; strip it of the vituperative epi- 
 thets with which the counsel have clothed it. Now this is a 
 party thing. Look at those who complain of this tyranny; 
 look at the language of that party, and see what it was at the 
 school house on Saturday. Hear Mr. Magar, who could not 
 recollect any thing. He had attended the conference on Satur- 
 day. Was there any thing agreed on there? No. Was there 
 any proposition submitted? No. What w?.s the understand- 
 ing? All were to go to the Yearly Meeting as usual. Was 
 there no conversation about the appointment of a clerk? We 
 did not agree to any thing. Was there no conversation about 
 a clerk? Thei e was no agreement there. Was there no talk 
 about a clerk? The rneeting came to no resolution. Was 
 there nothing said about David Hilles as clerk? We agreed 
 we would go to the Yearly Meeting as usual. Was nothing 
 determined on about Hilles? All agreed to go to the meeting 
 as usual. Was there no agreement come to, about a clerk? 
 We did not agree to any thing. The meeting agreed to go 
 to meeting as usual. 
 
 Why did they have such an agreement? Why leave their 
 homes, and come to Mount Pleasant? Why was there a ne- 
 cessity to go to a conference, and covenant to go to meeting 
 as usual? 
 
 Now let us look at the testimony of Israel UpdegralT, who 
 testified with apparent fairness. Did the meeting at the school 
 house come to any agreement ? No. I made a proposition 
 myself that thev should go to meeting, with a determination 
 to exert force, to maintain their rights in the society. But 
 the meeting would not come to any agreement. He did not 
 make the proposition in meeting, but took a chance to hint it 
 to his friends, and the conference is screened from liability, 
 
at Steubenville^ Ohio. 
 
 321 
 
 because he just suggested it privately, that is, hitited it all 
 around the house, and the meeting did not unite in it. Why 
 not unite in it? Because of the fear of the weight and influ- 
 ence it would have, in case they should commit any violence, 
 and become obnoxious to the law. That is the answer. It is 
 vain to believe they did not know what they were about; that 
 they did not come to an understanding. Mr. Updegraft'was 
 displeased that they did not. 
 
 Look at what passed, and see whether they did not under- 
 stand one another, as to what they were to do, and whether 
 there was not, as stated in the testimony, a conversation about 
 the appointment of a clerk. Why? Because Jonathan Tay- 
 lor had gone off to the medical hall, in New York. Thus he 
 had disqualified himself. It certainly Avas not asserted in Sa- 
 turday's conference, that his interrupting Hicks and Peaslee 
 was the cause: for that had not happened. These are the only 
 two reasons, ridiculous and contemptible as they are: and 
 these are the only reasons advanced, why Taylor, an aged and 
 amiable servant of the society, should be routed from his seat, 
 and disgraced and published to the world, as a man guilty of 
 a dereliction of duty. And these reasons come from a party 
 complaining of tyranny and persecution. 
 
 Well, extraordinary as it may be, and it is truly extraor- 
 dinary, after all the conferences on this subject, at the barn, 
 at the meeting house, at Redstone, after sending delegates to 
 Plainfield, and afterwards holding another conference at the 
 school house, where no agreement was come to, or under- 
 standing entered into, except to go to the meeting as usual; 
 this party approached the temple for their worship. Now'let 
 us look af them a little there. Did they not act in concert? 
 And did it not originate in the different conferences, where no 
 agreement is said to have been come to? It seems to me, no 
 man can doubt for a moment, that these conferences were the 
 foundation of that concerted action, manifested in all their 
 measures. " If we were opposed in going into the meeting, 
 we were then to form and organize a meeting outside; there- 
 fore," said Updegraff, " I prepared myself with paper for the 
 clerk." Whether he expected to be clerk himself, and was 
 disappointed in not being appointed to office, I need not in- 
 quire. But he was prepared with paper for the clerk. They 
 went to the meeting house, and were not opposed. And my 
 friend here, who has as much ingenuity as any other man I 
 ever saw, and about as much ability, laboured with as much 
 ability as I ever knew him to labour with, to show that this 
 party were excluded. Why? Because he felt impressed with 
 the opinion, that if they could not say they were kept out, the 
 case would not warrant the violence of their entering. Well, 
 in order to sustain this part of his case, he has, with all his 
 
322 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 ingenuity and power, laboured to excite our prejudices, on 
 account of some ladies being kept out by violence, exposed to 
 weather and mud; a species of indecorum and indecency (1 
 believe I employ liis language) worthy of the archbishop and 
 his graceless band of tyrants. I now ask, what the archbishop 
 and his tyrants had to do with it? Have they been able to 
 trace the garrisoning of the house to Bates and Ladd? The re- 
 sult of every inquiry is, that no instruction was given to ex- 
 clude the Hicksites from their assembly. Such is the evidence. 
 Why, then, introduce this proposition? Why, Jonathan Pierce 
 got out of temper, because his wife was not permitted to enter 
 at the door. Pierce, carrying with him the controlling sense 
 of decorum, left the meeting house, and went round to the 
 women's apartment, and, very decorously, shoved away four 
 or five ladies, who were standing on the door-sill, command- 
 ing them to let his wife in. 
 
 This is decorum and decency; regard for orderj not from 
 the archbishop, but from the sovereign will and pleasure of 
 Jonathan Pierce. Well, I wish you to remember, that Pierce 
 went into the meeting for a short time, then left it, and went 
 out. He could not sit there, waiting on the great Head of the 
 church, till meeting should open; but like a restless spirit, 
 walking to and fro, he went out, not to seek whom he might 
 devour, but who might aid him in shoving into the meeting 
 house ; and this, we are told, is evidence, that fixes itself home 
 upon a nest of tyrants; and is to justify taking possession 
 of the meeting by force. Now, if Pierce had not gone forward 
 conformably to an agreement, which was no agreement in the 
 conference, he would have sat down, and entered into solemn 
 communion with himself: ["And let his wife stay. out in the 
 rain," said Mr. Tappan:] he would have communed with him- 
 self: lie would not have been throwing his eyes round, to see 
 whether Halliday Jackson and others were in the house. And 
 the very fact, that he looked round,. and then went out, shows 
 that he did not go with the spirit that usually actuates those 
 that go to these assemblies. What was done in the case of 
 Mrs. Pierce? How long had she been- standing out door when 
 he found her there? Pierce went and found her, and said to 
 those who had charge of the door, "I know this woman has 
 a right to enter." They made way, and she did enter. They 
 made way on his assertion that she had a right to enter. I do 
 not know whether she had a right to enter or not. We arc not 
 looking to the discipline in relation to the female department. 
 I venture this assertion, that no exertion was made to keep her 
 out, till Pierce was unusually moved to go round to the door 
 of the female apartment, to see whether any of his command- 
 ing authority was necessary. Well, now, if you look at Pierce's 
 testimony, you will find what was the cause of his action, from 
 
ul Sleubenville^ Ohio. 
 
 323 
 
 the time he came from Columbiana. He came from home 
 filled with anger: resolved, peaceably, if he could, forcibly, if 
 he must, to carry his points, and those of the Hicksites, 
 against the orthodox. 
 
 Well, let us look a little further. When Thomas Shillitoe, 
 an aged Friend, was engaged in supplicating the throne of 
 grace, what says Levi Pickering? He advanced to the front 
 door, and was restrained by the solemnity of the occasion, and 
 exerted himself to keep back the crowd. And the moment 
 the last word was out of the mouth of Shillitoe, that moment, 
 in attending the Yearly Meeting as usual, they formed into a 
 military wedge, and rushed into the house, and forced the 
 guards some twenty or thirty feet within the walls of the 
 house. Was that attending, as usual, with a design to be 
 peaceable, and only proceed to resist tyranny, as they should 
 be instructed? When this column was at the door, there were 
 Dawson and Peaslee, the travelling companions, attending the 
 Yearly Meeting as usual; some were refusing to pass in, unless 
 others could pass along with them. Even Pickering was struck 
 with awe, and could not go in alone, because that would not be 
 attending the Yearly Meeting in the usual way. He could take 
 his friend by the arm, and Peaslee could invoke them, in the 
 name of God, not to do so ; and then the whole could be 
 crowded in. That was attending tiie meeting as usual. When 
 they were in, another exhortation could be made, in the love 
 of the God of peace, not to crowd so, till the requisite num- 
 ber were there; and then love was to give way. The recur- 
 rence of this column of men, like the recurrence of succeed- 
 ing waves, crowded in the mass of people, those who had a 
 right, and those who had no right to be there, till the house 
 was filled to overflowing. Then, I suppose, the Yearly Meet- 
 ing, having been assembled, as usual, it was determined what 
 should take place, in a meeting assembled as usual. 
 
 Well, what do we find? We find Israel French, an aged and 
 respectable member of the society, I admit. We find him get- 
 ting up in the meeting wiiiiout lapse of time, without solemn 
 communion, without waiting upon the great Head of the 
 Church, without waiting for the clerk to open the meeting, 
 and saying — what? An unpleasant duty has devolved on me, 
 to say, that I think the clerk, or clerks, at the table, have dis- 
 qualified themselves for serving this meeting acceptably. This 
 is the proposition of Israel French, with whom Elias Hicks, 
 Amos Peaslee, and others, lodged. He is aged and respectable, 
 I admit. Israel French is the companion of the revolution- 
 izers, and one who had attended the several conferences. So 
 soon as the house had been filled with blacks, who could 
 "hurra for Jackson;" disowned members, and others who 
 had never been members; it devolved on him to act as if the 
 
324 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 meeting were select, and in a capacity to transact business 
 according to discipline; although the discipline specially en- 
 joins, that the meeting should be kept select; and even Judge 
 Tappan admits, that it should be kept select, though not by an 
 organized garrison put in possession, not by guards, but by 
 persons stationed to whisper to those who are going into the 
 house. Is it possible to suppose that Israel French, aged and 
 respectable as he is, could be so ignorant as to be unacquainted 
 with this regulation of the Discipline? I propound to you, and 
 to every man; if Israel French had, himself, felt that he was 
 proceeding in the usual method, would he not have looked to 
 see whether that meeting had been made select, before he pro- 
 pounded any thing concerning that meeting? I think the 
 answer is inevitable: that no man would have made any propo- 
 sition to the meeting, connected with the discipline, without 
 first seeing that none were present but those who had a right 
 to be there. 
 
 Israel French, having no regard to discipline, rose in the 
 assembly, as no man ever before rose; and made a proposition, 
 the like of which never before had an existence in any assem- 
 bly: a proposition to disgrace a regular officer, made out of 
 time, and in an unusual manner. I do not say that it sprung 
 from Elias Hicks, or in the family of French, with Elias Hicks, 
 Amos Peaslee, and others. But I have known greater violence 
 done, to inference from facts, than to say that it did spring 
 from Elias Hicks. What follows? It is not a clangour of 
 trumpets, but a clangour of voices. Did you ever know such 
 a quick succession of unity in any meeting before? No. Was 
 there time given for the dissenting party to make objection to 
 the proposition? No. The society of Friends, that had become 
 famous for their moderate, orderly, decent uniting in proposi- 
 tions, became as clamorous as a political caucus. And this, 
 we are told, is the usual order of the society. And the party 
 who went there, without design, without concert, as usual, 
 were not satisfied with uniting in the common way, but must 
 repeat it in the same voice: "I unite; I unite;" in order to give 
 it the appearance of a vast number uniting. Well, what was 
 the result? There were 1500 assembled: and there were per- 
 haps two hundred voices, taking all those that came from the 
 same mouth, that united in the proposition. By this very 
 small minority of the assembly, it was thought best to submit 
 another proposition; that Hilles should be appointed clerk. 
 It did not devolve on him, to tell the house, of which Taylor was 
 one of the grantees, sitting in all humility, waiting upon the 
 great Head of the church till order should be found in the 
 house, that he might proceed to open the meeting. 
 
 But we are told that he started, and went to reading in an 
 unusual way. Is it according to the natural interpretation of 
 
 M 
 
at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 325 
 
 the acts of men, to put an unfavourable construction on his 
 conduct? I say that the Discipline enjoins him to wait, and 
 commune with himself, before he proceeds to business. Find- 
 ing that this waiting and communing could not obtain peace 
 and quiet, what was Taylor to do? Take his books and papers 
 and go out of the house? Surrendering to those that had come 
 in, in waves — members disowned; those not members; blacks 
 and whites? What was he to do? If he regarded his duty, he 
 was to proceed in the best manner that he could, and discharge 
 the duties which devolved on him. Did he do more? He got 
 up, as we see, before the nomination of Hilles was made, and 
 read an opening minute. And I beg you to remark, that the 
 opening minute embraced, as connected with it, the names of 
 the representatives, from the Quarters making the Yearly 
 Meeting, which he was previously to receive and enter upon 
 the minutes, to save time. This opening minute, as the usage 
 of the society will show, contains the names of the representa- 
 tives. They must have been handed to him, or he could not 
 have had them in his minutes; and he was proceeding in the 
 discharge of his duty, when this clamour of voices from all 
 manner of persons, and a repetition from the same voices, pro- 
 posed deposing him and appointing David Hilles. 
 
 I say this is unusual — the motion is out of order: and I 
 say it with perfect recollection of what has been before said, 
 as to proceeding to the appointment of a clerk. The necessity 
 did not occur. The cause did not exist, because the ordinary 
 course of things was there, and within their reach. The clerk 
 was there. True, he had been to a meeting, in the medical 
 hall, in New York. True, he had called down from his place, 
 a man who was denying the divinity of Christ, the day before. 
 He is there, orderly, discreet, meek, lowly, and ready to per- 
 form any duty, or to take upon himself any trial, any suffering, 
 which the exigency of the case might require. 
 
 But he was in combination with those tyrants: he sat at the 
 clerk's table with some of those gentlemen that claimed ex- 
 clusive right. Why, he went there, only according to the 
 usual manner. Well now, turn the tables; suppose my friend 
 Fox, or James, or the good David Scholfield, or Tolerton and 
 Magar, had gone, and taken their seats there, would that have 
 been a reason for the Hicksites to have gone there and driven 
 them from their places? W as any man in the gallery, who had 
 not a right to be there? No. 
 
 But the assemblage was unusual; they had taken the seats 
 farthest removed from the door, so that when Israel Upde- 
 graff entered, there was but one vacant seat; and Israel, in all 
 humility, and in the usual manner, took that seat to himself: 
 he who tells you that he went there to use force — he went there 
 determined to place himself in a conspicuous station, where 
 
326 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 he could observe what was going on, and take his part as one 
 of the leaders. Israel, with this avowed feeling, this sense of 
 injury rankling in his bosom, took with him the requisite 
 quantity of paper, and went and found a seat vacant, and took 
 possession of it, for what purpose, we shall see, by and by. 
 That very act of Updegraff shows that it is usual: it is the 
 usual mode of assembling, for every person to crowd nearest 
 the speaker. Near the door there is never a crowd. And 
 are we usurpers: coming here in an unusual manner? No, 
 sir. I venture to say, that in no meeting, where seats are not 
 appropriated to individuals and families, do you find any dif- 
 ference in the mode of proceeding. These persons went and 
 filled the seats farthest from the door, from a sense of deco- 
 rum, that they might not interpose a barrier to others; and 
 they filled the seats in order, commencing in the remotest 
 parts of the house from the entrance. 
 
 The steps were also filled by the orthodox party. I cannot 
 give the emphasis of the other counsel. Was that unusual? 
 We have it from aged Friends, that there is no Yearly Meet- 
 ing, where they are not filled in that way. And by whom 
 were they now filled? By the aged and feeble. Such persons 
 take those seats, because nearest the place where the busi- 
 ness is to be transacted, that they may hear and enjoy their 
 rights, in common with the rest of the meeting, interposing 
 objections, or adding assent to propositions before the meet- 
 ing. That is the whole of it. No attempt was made to hin- 
 der any man; no exertion of power to intercept, or interrupt 
 any man. And it is in vain for the counsel to press to the 
 consideration of the court, a proposition that rests, as this 
 does, on no foundation whatever. 
 
 I will not advert to the uproar that took place in the house. 
 It is, indeed, lamentable, that such an uproar should have 
 taken place in that house, or in any other place of worship. 
 It was no credit to those who made the uproar, I care not 
 who they were, Hicksites or orthodox; members of the so- 
 ciety or not. The uproar was discreditable to the assembly, 
 and to the age in which we live. And yet we are told that it 
 is according to the usages and ancient customs of the society. 
 The case must indeed be extraordinary, and foreign from the 
 usages of the society of Friends, that can rest its hope upon 
 the position, that this assembly and uproar was according to 
 the usage of the forbearing and long-suffering society of 
 Friends. 
 
 While the clerk was so reading, there arose the clamour of 
 voices uniting in the appointment of David Hilles. If the 
 meeting had conceived that, according to the usual custom 
 and practice of the meeting, this measure was in order, and 
 had been united in by the assembly, they would have asked. 
 
at Steubenville^ Ohio. 
 
 327 
 
 in the spirit of meekness, and tqlerance, and moderation, that 
 have marked the course of the society, that Taylor, who had the 
 papers and records as clerk, should give place to him who was 
 appointed to supersede him. I ask you, if that would be in 
 accordance with the usage of the society of Friends? Look 
 through the whole mass of testimony, and find where such a 
 request was ever made. There is no evidence of such a thing. 
 And is not the absence of it an item of proof, that those who 
 were the actors were impressed with a belief that they could 
 not repel — that they were not acting in the order of the society, 
 but with the violence of a mob ? Not in the order of a religious 
 assembly? It seems to me that these are the inevitable conclu- 
 sions. 
 
 They would have made this request of Taylor, if they were 
 orderly, proceeding in the usual custom of the society; if they 
 were convinced that they had settled it according to custom, 
 and that they were the society of Friends, acting in unison 
 with its discipline and belief. It was not forgotten, as is ma- 
 nifest from the whole evidence of the proceedings, and from 
 the discipline obligatory upon all those found within the limits 
 of the Yearly Meeting. No such request was made. No 
 Friend, aged like French, or turl)ulent and eager like Irish — 
 no, not the good David Scholfield could ask for the papers 
 and documents belonging to the society. This conduct could 
 have resulted from nothing on earth, but the conscious con- 
 viction that makes cowards of men: that it was unrighteous 
 and wrong; that they had no right to do it; no right to the 
 place, whence they sought to drive the incumbent. 
 
 This seemed'to be the impression of the meeting, till Israel 
 Updegraff", moderate and cunning as he is, with a clump of • 
 paper in his hand, rushed from one end to the other of the gal- 
 lery, over the limbs of the ministers and elders, up to the 
 clerk's table. Israel Updegraff was not violent, but meek ; 
 yet could make this move to get there — for what purpose, I 
 ask? According to the usage of the society, to take posses- 
 sion of the table and documents? When he got there, he asked 
 no such thing. For what pui'pose? Was he expecting to be 
 the clerk? No — he was not even expecting that, if he maybe 
 credited. He might have thought, that if David Hilles had not 
 nerve enough to get up, or to submit to the nerve of others, 
 that he would be in the vicinity of the table, with paper, so as 
 to go into action. He may have thought of this. I do not 
 say it. It may be suspected of one, who advanced rudely and 
 indecorously, as he did. He was there, where he found Isaac 
 James, who had no more right in that meeting than I have. 
 Were they requesting of the clerks to surrender? No; but 
 James was clambering with all the violence of a tiger, over 
 the heads of ancient Friends, who were occupying the galle- 
 
328 
 
 Tricl of Friends 
 
 ries. There is where he is found. And the counsel tell us 
 this was orderly and decorous,: no disturbance: and they ask 
 you to go further, and s'hy that Ladd is a tyrant, because he 
 was occupying a seat in the gallery, and raised his hands 
 against the breast of James, who was trampling his brethren 
 under foot, to restrain him in hi,s rude, savage, and beastly 
 advance. This they ask you to do. 
 
 What next? Why, David HiIles,who had attended the con- 
 ferences, where they did not agree to do any thing, is in the 
 room, remote from the clerk's place. Dr. Carroll goes to 
 him, and calls on him to take his place. He says, I can't get 
 there. Follow me, and we will carry you there. Some orga- 
 nization resulted from an agreement at the caucus. The 
 military wedge was again formed, and when Dr. Carroll had 
 got his clerk, David Hilles, at the head of this column, it is 
 said, "rush on, go ahead, or burst your boilerj" and this is 
 said to be an orderly procedure. There never was a grosser 
 libel than this very allegation. Well, they advanced to what 
 my friend Judge Tappan is pleased to call the orthodox, im- 
 pregnable fortress, partly by force and violence, and partly 
 by an alarm that the galleries were falling. They were re- 
 pulsed. James had before advanced, and maintained his po- 
 sition upon the platform of the citadel. They advance in 
 column with the new clerk, and Israel UpdegrafF was standing 
 ready to supply the clerk with paper. The invulnerable 
 forces, as they have been called, endeavoured to protect them- 
 selves from being trampled upon. Tread on a worm, and it 
 will turn; or tread on a Friend, and he will resist the pressure 
 upon him, and endeavour to throw it off ; though it is enjoined 
 by the discipline of the society to use no violence. Well, what 
 ■were these Friends to do? Were they to fall prostrate, and 
 make a bridge of bodies for this advancing column? This 
 would hardly be requested. They could not mix with the 
 crowd now, because it was a vast military wedge, advancing 
 with irresistible impetuosity. Then what could they do? 
 Nothing but use their four limbs to protect themselves from 
 the advance of the hostile party, and the destruction that seem- 
 ed to await them. And yet they are rioters, disturbers of the 
 peace, and tyrants. And what is the party so repulsed; and 
 repulsed by a party who had no power of action to repel? 
 David Hilles showed no unwillingness to be carried forward 
 to the seat of power. We are told that he was passive; that 
 he did not desire the power about to be conferred on him; 
 that he had no ambition, but they led him forward — no lust of 
 power. Csesar put by the crown that was first offered him; 
 again he put it by, a little less forcibly; an acclamation of the 
 multitude, endeavouring to stimulate him forward to accept 
 the bauble, gave spirit to Csesar. The imperial purple and 
 
at Steiibenville, Ohio. 
 
 329 
 
 the diadem, dazzled his vision, and the third time he yielded 
 his most reluctant assent. Passive, no doubtj entertaining 
 not the slightest particle of ambition, never having indulged 
 in the lust of power, or the insignia of it, that were tendered. 
 So, too, with David Hillcs; passive, never lusting for power, 
 never agreeing to be an instrument of interruption to the 
 meeting; but, borne along, not by the shouts of the multitude, 
 but by the application of the physical force of the multitude. 
 No thirst of power: but meek and humble. There were found 
 in his hands the papers to enable him to exercise the functions 
 of clerk. But when the column was resisted, at the stove, an 
 unusual place, where no man ever attempted to perform the 
 duties of such an office — when he got there, he was so eager, 
 that he could stop — so eager to perform the duties of his sta- 
 tion, that he could take a scrap of paper from a pocket book, 
 and seek to write an opening minute; as if this act would sanc- 
 tion his authority and power, and every improper act. 
 
 Sir, this gives an interpi-etation which cannot be mistaken. 
 There was a lust of power and ambition; and there was the 
 cunning of a Jesuit, to seek to avoid the appearance of it. It 
 speaks a language which cannot be misunderstood. If he had the 
 people on his side, why not wait till he got to the clerk's place.'' 
 He feared that the power might be wrested from him. No 
 other interpretation can be given. What did he do next? He 
 read an opening minute, eager to establish the right which he 
 Ijad to that power. The column,was reformed; a young man 
 was found climbing over the heads of the aged Friends, who 
 clung to their fastnesses, but were driven by irresistible force 
 to yield; yet not till the clerk had been driven from the table, 
 where he ordinarily wrote. David Hilles got there, altogether 
 passive; and sought, with remarkable avidity, for the drawer 
 of the table which had been broken into ruins, and turns it up 
 to write another opening minute; feeling conscious that the 
 act at the stove would not be tolerated by a religious society ; 
 he does it over again ; he seizes the only vestige of the clerk's 
 table, eager in proclaiming to the astonished multitude, that 
 coming in, in an unusual manner, and being elected clerk in 
 an unusual manner, in an unusual manner he would discharge 
 his duty. 
 
 Well, what follows? This speculator, and matchless, impu- 
 dent tyrant, Ladd, says, we will contend no more. Let the 
 Yearly Meeting adjourn. Did David Hilles say, I am clerk 
 of the Yearly Meeting? did any man say aught against Ladd's 
 proposition? Not a syllable is heard. AH was quiet. Con- 
 science spake to David Hilles, a language which he could not 
 restrain or misinterpret, at that moment — I will be silent, and 
 let this orderly society of Friends adjourn ; and when they are 
 gone, we will proceed with our meeting, and proclaim to the 
 
330' 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 world, that we are the society of Friends; and that we have 
 been disturbed; and we will rely on this act of forbearance, to 
 bear us out in this assumption. The representatives were 
 called. The Yearly Meeting, that was assembled there, and 
 had possession of the records, and was in unison with the faith 
 and practice of Friends, was adjourned, and no opposition was 
 made. 
 
 Well, who went off? Ask Levi Pickering who went off — 
 and he is not a witness on our side. He replies, the majority; 
 a considerable majority went away. Now, take this fact, and 
 make another inquiry. Were the Yearly Meeting united, in 
 weight of character or numbers, to appoint David Hilles? 
 There can be but one answer. No man has said that there 
 was an approval by the orthodox, except by one, who was 
 picked up in the crowd, uniting in the proceeding, uniting in 
 the appointment of David Hilles. No others were considered 
 as uniting in the acts of opposing Taylor and elevating Hilles. 
 I then put the inquiry: was that the sense of the Yearly Meet- 
 ing of Ohio? The whole face of the transaction, and every 
 thing connected with it, shows conclusively, what is not only 
 apparent to our senses, but to their senses, that it was not the 
 voice of the meeting. I know there have been some efforts 
 made to show, that there was nearly an equal number; but 
 look at the testimony of Dr. Hamilton. What was the usual 
 conversation of the village? It was, that three-fourths of the 
 women Friends, and a large majority of the men Friends, went 
 off with the orthodox. This was a matter of common noto- 
 riety; and it accords with the testimony of Pickering himself, 
 who, I believe, designs to tell nothing but the truth; and who 
 has told you, that a majority went off with the orthodox. Is 
 it not, then, worse than idle, to pretend that this was the act 
 of the Yearly Meeting? I think it is a wilful perversion of 
 that, which appears as manifest as the light of the sun at noon- 
 day. There was a majority that had assembled there, and 
 was permitted to go off. 
 
 I will show one fact, to prove, that the party remaining, did 
 not consider themselves the Yearly Meeting of Ohio: and that 
 they are not in fact, and in law, the Yearly Meeting. You 
 will find it stated, even in the testimony of one in the retinue 
 of Elias Hicks, that that party reorganized the Yearly Meet- 
 ing. What is the reorganized Yearly "Meeting of Ohio? It 
 must have been disorganized, and broken up, before it could 
 be reorganized. Yet the Yearly Meeting had orderly and de- 
 corously adjourned, and gone out of the house. They were 
 impressed with this consideration; and thus the witnesses 
 testify, that they reorganized, not lo do the business of the 
 Yearly Meeting, but of the reorganized meeting. Therefore 
 it is, that the representatives of the separating party, refuse 
 
at Steubenville^ Ohio. 
 
 331 
 
 to give their reports to the clerk. This separating party, who 
 had set up oppositions in the Quarterly and Monthly Meet- 
 ings, remained there, and gave their reports to the newly ap- 
 pointed clerk. Does not this speak volumes, that cannot be 
 misunderstood? Halliday Jackson was there, as a representa- 
 tive of the reorganized meeting of Philadelphia, and conspired 
 with those who sought to reorganize the Yearly Meeting of 
 Ohio. Here, finding kindred spirits, he seeks not to commune 
 with the others; he does not attend the ofiicial conferences 
 and meetings, according to order, but attends the caucusses 
 and cabals, held at the meeting house, and is with those who 
 surround the house, when the Yearly Meeting is assembling. 
 I care not, therefore, whether Barnard speaks of reorganized 
 meetings, such as the one in Philadelphia — it is the same 
 thing — for this party claim to be in unison and correspon- 
 dence with the reorganized meeting in Philadelphia, and not 
 with the old Yearly Meeting of Pennsylvania. They acknow- 
 ledge, and boast of it, that they are in correspondence with 
 Baltimore Yearly Meeting, where the majority are Hicksites, 
 and where they have the control. But this does not alter the 
 casej it is, as I said before, an attempt to set up a reorganized 
 society of Friends, not united in principle with the established 
 society, but professing the principles of deism, while the so- 
 ciety of Friends profess the principles of Christianity. Well, 
 let them have the benefit of it. 
 
 But, I have one other item, to which I will call the attention 
 of your honour. The discipline makes it the duty of the 
 Yearly Meeting to keep records of its proceedings, and we 
 have exhibited the records from the first meeting, down to this 
 period, for the inspection of the court. Is there any thing on 
 record, showing the appointment of Hilles, as clerk? No. Is 
 there any other record of the fact.'^ The legal course is, to 
 presume, that if exhibited, it would afford evidence against 
 the party. We then ask, why is this important item of evi- 
 dence withholden? I know a case might exist, where papers 
 and records of a society might be carried off, and the society 
 be divested of possession, so that it would not be in its power 
 to exhibit them in court. But, I know, where records are 
 kept in possession, they might be exhibited — so they might 
 be here. If these records had been exhibited here, ten to one, 
 it would have appeared, from the examination, that no entry 
 was made of the appointment of David Hilles, as clerk, to su- 
 persede Taylor. Well, if there is a record, affording evidence 
 o-f this fact, they have withholden it, or neglected to exhibit it. 
 I ask, is it not a legal conclusion, that, exhibiting on one side, 
 and withholding on the other side — those who have them and 
 show them, are in fact th^ society of Friends? I think it is; 
 I may err, but such is my belief. 
 
332 
 
 Trial of Friendi 
 
 It is said, on the part of the defence, that no individual act 
 can be charged upon these defendants. That this is a case of 
 an ordinary difference of opinion, where the parties were pro- 
 ceeding to establish their superiority upon a proposition be- 
 fore the meeting. Now, is this so? It is said that men 
 proceeding ever so disorderly, and having a right in these 
 meetings, cannot be considered as chargeable by the statute 
 of Ohio for disturbing that meeting. Is it so? I put this 
 question. Suppose a man comes into a religious assembly, and 
 proposes that an individual in it shall be hung by the neck 
 till he is dead, and excites those about him, by his clamour, 
 io unite in that proposition, and proceeds to carry his design 
 into execution, under the pretence that it was the decision of 
 the meeting. Would that be a disturbance of the meeting? 
 He, that in such case pretends that the meeting had cogni- 
 zance of the subject, and were proceeding decorously, and 
 that the individual deprived of enjoying life, ought to be exe- 
 cuted publicly, is to be justified. The doctrine of the gentle- 
 man goes to say, that he should not be considered a disorderly 
 person^ though violence may extend to the shedding of blood, 
 taking the life of a fellow creature, or any other species of 
 violence. And if you have the matchless impudence to come 
 into court, and say, that it was within the scope of your power, 
 as a constituent member of the meeting, you are not amenable 
 to the laws. I do not believe it. 
 
 But there was no individual act as to James. Surely there 
 can be no question that he advanced, individually, and clam- 
 bered over the heads of Friends. David Hilles was the will- 
 ing instrument} not repelling those, who pressed upon what 
 they call his passive disposition and pliable nature. He is 
 then guilty, as a participator in the act of those concerned in 
 the outrage and disturbance of that assembly. I believe I am 
 right, and that this is sustained by the common principles of 
 law. Look at Hilles. Did he individually act, when Dr. Car- 
 roll went to him? He proceeded along with Carroll, to place 
 himself in a position to be shoved. He put himself in pos- 
 session of paper, to proceed. And when did he efl'ect his ob- 
 ject ? On the destruction of the table, that was there, ordinarily 
 written on. When Taylor, one of the most venerable members 
 of the society, was thrust from his place, and trampled upon 
 with violence, hardly leaving him breath in his body; and it 
 was nothing but an audible tone of voice, about commit- 
 ting murder, which induced them to stop. David Hilles 
 was at the head, and was a leader of the mob, passively pushed 
 on by the exertion and physical force of those who attended 
 the meeting, with the intention to do no unreasonable act. — It 
 was through God's mercy, that this aged, pious and respecta- 
 ble individual was spared. It is an evidence, and a strong 
 
(U SteuhenvlUe, Ohio. 
 
 333 
 
 evidence, that there was a superintending- Providence there, that 
 arrested this brutal force, and prevented the accomplishment 
 of such an act. And it must I)e considered the mercy of Cod, 
 that instead of being now charged with a disturbance, the 
 defendants are not charged with the murder of one of their 
 fellow creatures! 
 
 Here, I think, taking this view of the subject in relation to 
 these individuals, enough attaches to them; and so, if you 
 please, to every other one who united with them in the forma- 
 tion of this mob, and in moving them to the accomplishment 
 of it. Still, this does not affect the question of their guilt; they 
 are to stand convicted or acquitted on their own guilt, no 
 matter how many may have been concerned with them, and 
 equally guilty. I say, if they are not guilty, let them be ac- 
 quitted. Let them not be punished for the guilt of others, but 
 for their own guilt and acts. And for those acts of others, 
 they are entitled to claim individual distinction, when a deci- 
 sion concerning them shall take place. 
 
 It is said that by the constitution and laws of Ohio, a reli- 
 gious assembly, assembled for the purpose of worship or bu- 
 siness, is^no more under the protection of the law than a po- 
 litical or other assembly of persons. I apprehend this is not 
 true. • All persons, legally and lawfully assembled, even the 
 caucusses of the Hicksite party — all persons have a right to 
 assemble themselves together, and to consult on their own or 
 the common good, and the law protects them in it. Yet not 
 to the same degree as it would protect a religious assembly. 
 It is the general and natural right, which attaches to all per- 
 sons in a state of community with each other, that protects 
 those not of a religious character. But how is it in this state? 
 The legislature thought it of sufficient consequence, under a 
 provision of the constitution securing this protection to all, to 
 make this a subject of special legislation. And this prosecu- 
 tion is under an act thus made. 
 
 It has been said by one gentleman, that no man can be put 
 on his trial, except by the intervention of a grand jury. Why 
 not? For, surely the law provides specially for this court. 
 And is it to be said that this is unconstitutional? Has it not 
 obligatory force? The law having obligatory force, provides 
 a special protecting shield over religious assemblies. It can- 
 not be disputed. They have a right to protection when as- 
 sembled: and while assemljling, individuals have their rights 
 secured to them. 
 
 Now, I ask you, sir, were these people that .assembled in 
 the society of Friends a religious assembly? I ask you, whe- 
 ther, being a religious assembly, assembled or assembling, 
 they were within the protective scope of the shield of the law, 
 to which I have adverted? I think there can be no hesitation 
 42 
 
334 
 
 Trial of Fricmh 
 
 ill uusweriiig eacli of these propositions in the affirmative^ 
 Were tliey disturbed r Why, it would outrage every reason- 
 able consideration, to say that they were not disturljed. 
 
 They were a religious assembly, and were disturbed — by 
 whom? Did not James disturb them? Did not Hilles disturb 
 them? If any man can say that these two persons did not dis- 
 turb them, then surely the law does not apply to them. But 
 if the response is, that they did disturb that meeting, and 
 with a design to interrupt its harmony, they then are culpa- 
 ble. And they are to be rendered obnoxious to the provisions 
 of tliis law, whether held out to the world as a persecuted 
 party, or not. I ask nothing but the application of the law to 
 themj I think them guilty, and I think no man, looking at this 
 case, and taking it with all the allowances that can be made, 
 for those who were engaged — giving all the indulgence that 
 the law authorizes to be given lo the influence of the uncon- 
 trollable passions of man, can come to any other conclusion, 
 than, that these men did disturb the meeting, and that they 
 went there with an intention to disturb it, and to take control 
 by violence, if necessary. If so, I think the decision that shall 
 follow this investigation, and apply to these men, js one ex- 
 ceedingly important to this community. I think it one that 
 will settle, and perhaps for centuries, the propositionj that 
 looks to the orderly and quiet assemblage of religious meet- 
 ings, and the transaction of their business under the protec- 
 tion of the law. 
 
 The gentlemen tell us, that it is enjoined on the members of 
 this society, not to go to law, and that we have been trampling on 
 the discipline of the society. Has this argument been maintain- 
 ed? Are these people to be thrown ofl',as outcasts, and trampled 
 under foot, their lives jeoparded and sacrificed, rather than 
 appeal to the laws of the land for protection? Let him who 
 holds a doctrine of that kind, advance it. Neither you nor I 
 will maintain it. What were they to do? Were they to rise 
 and use violence for violence, and repel aggression by force ? 
 No, sir, the spirit that actuates their assemblies — the spirit 
 breathed into their early associations, of meekness, love, for- 
 bearance, long-suffering and endurance, answers this proposi- 
 tion; that they were not to meet violence with violence; revil- 
 ing with reviling, force with force. And it is commendable 
 that, instead of using these, their physical powers, to repel ag- 
 gression, they sought to put themselves under the shield of 
 the law — to appeal to the laws of the land: and rest, as they do 
 rest, with a perfect consciousness of their own right, and a 
 perfect conviction that they will have extended to them, the 
 law, under which this complaint has been laid; if in your judg- 
 ment they shall have made out a case which entitles them to 
 that protection. 
 
((( Sieuhenville, Ohio. 
 
 335 
 
 Decision of the Honourablk Jeremiah H. Hallock, Esq. 
 Stale of Ohio vs. David Hilles and Isaac James. 
 
 This complaint is founded upon the third section of the sta- 
 tute for the '•^Prevention of Immoral Practices " which enacts 
 " that if any person or persons shall, at any time, interrupt or 
 molest any religious society, or any member thereof, or any 
 persons when meeting, or met together, for the purpose of 
 worship, or performing any duties enjoined on or appertaining 
 to them as members of such society, the person or persons so 
 offending may be arrested," 8cc. Sec. 
 
 The defendants have pleaded not guilty. 
 
 In order to a proper understanding of this case, it is neces- 
 sary to notice the circumstances that led to the transaction, 
 which is complained of as a disturbance of the Yearly Meet- 
 ing of the society of Friends. It appears that the society of 
 Friends had become divided into two parties, in consequence 
 of difference of opinion as to some doctrinal points. The one 
 party (from Elias Hicks, who has been considered a leader) 
 have been called " Ilicksites." The other have been generally 
 distinguished by the name of " Orthodox." These names I use, 
 for the purpose of distinction, merely, and to avoid circumlo- 
 cution. Each party claim, that they hold to the ancient doc- 
 trines of the society, and that their opponents have departed 
 therefrom. 
 
 The orthodox, in several of the Monthly Meetings, where 
 they had the control, have proceeded to deal with some of 
 their members for maintaining doctrines contrary to the dis- 
 cipline of the society, as was claimed. Some had been dis- 
 owned. One Monthly Meeting had been laid down, without 
 its consent, by the Quarterly Meeting to which it belonged. 
 These proceedings, on the part of the orthodox, were claimed 
 to be oppressive, and contrary to the discipline of the society. 
 Great excitement prevailed. The disowned members had 
 refused to submit to their sentences, but had not appealed 
 from them, as they had a right to do, by the discipline of the 
 society. Separate Quarterly Meetings were established, in 
 four, out of the five Quarterly Meetings of which the Yearly 
 Meeting is composed. The same was done in many of the 
 Monthly Meetings. Each society claimed to be the true so- 
 ciety of Friends. 
 
 In this state of the society, both parties looked forward witli 
 anxiety to the Yearly Meeting, expecting tiuu there would Ik-, 
 at that meeting, a trial of strength. 
 
 Tho. orthodox seem to have apprehciulod that/ti/ i,c would be 
 used, to i)rocure admittance for those who were \indei' dealing, 
 or had been disowtied. They accordingly increas(;d the num- 
 ber of guards stationed at the doors, to prevent the admittance 
 
336 
 
 Trial of Friemln 
 
 of persons having, by the discipline of the society, no right to 
 be present, to wit, members under dealing, or disowned per- 
 sons. 
 
 The other party resolved, that all should attend, as usual, 
 without regard to having been disowned, or being under deal- 
 ing. They claimed that the proceedings of the orthodox, in 
 dealing with, and disowning members, had been unjust and 
 irregular — not according to the discipline of the society. It 
 does not appear, that any general resolution to use force had 
 been adopted, but, on the contrary, the leading members dis- 
 couraged the idea. 
 
 The parties assembled on the day of meeting. The guards, 
 who attempted to keep out the members under dealing, were 
 forced, and the disowned members entered the house, which 
 was filled to overflowing, twelve or fifteen hundred persons 
 being present. 
 
 As soon as the meeting had become somewhat composed, 
 and while Jonathan Taylor, the clerk of the Yearly Meeting, 
 was preparing to open the meeting in the usual form, Israel 
 French, a member of the " Hicksite" party, stated, that a pain- 
 ful duty devolved upon him — that of objecting to the clerks 
 at the table. That such had been the conduct of the clerks 
 since the last Yearly Meeting, that they had become disqualified 
 to serve the meeting acceptably, or even to open it, and pro- 
 posed that new clerks should be appointed. No specific charge 
 was made. About one hundred persons, or more, expressed 
 their assent, by saying " I concur," in rapid succession, some- 
 times several speaking at once. Immediately, or very shortly 
 after this expression of concurrence had ceased, William B. 
 Irish, another member of the "Hicksite" party, proposed 
 David miles, as clerk. This was concurred in, in the same 
 way. About this time, either.just before Irish's motion, or 
 while members were expressing their concurrence, Taylor 
 rose in his place, at the table, and read an opening minute, and 
 he, or the assistant clerk, proceeded to call the representa- 
 tives from the Quarterly Meetings, who all answered ex- 
 cept five — two of whom sent excuses — the number answering 
 exceeding fifty. Hilles was called upon repeatedly, by indi- 
 viduals, to take his place at the clerk's table, in order to act 
 as clerk of the meeting. 
 
 The clerk's table is placed in the middle of the raised seat, 
 appropriated to ministers and strangers, at one side of the 
 house. The seats appropriated to the elders, are situated in front 
 of the ministers' seat, and next to it, and are raised above the 
 seats in the body of the house. These seats were occupied by 
 the ministers, elders and strangers, as usual, nearly all of whom 
 were of the " orthodox" party. Other members of that party, 
 had stationed themselves in those seats, and in the passage 
 
at SteubenvilUy Ohio. 
 
 3,37 
 
 that led to the clerk's table, so that Hilles could not get to the 
 table, without forcing his way through them, unless they 
 would give place. 
 
 Hilles was disposed not to attempt this, but wrote an opening 
 minute at the stove, near the centre of the ile, in the body of 
 the meeting house. His friends, however, insisted that he 
 should occupy the clerk's table, and offered to make way for 
 him. A column was soon formed, who proceeded to force 
 their way to the table — the " orthodox" party opposing. The 
 contest was doubtful for some time. — While the parties were 
 warmly engaged, a cry was raised, that the gallery over the 
 ministers' seat was falling. This cry, although unfounded, 
 created great alarm — a rush to the doors and windows took 
 place, and a great many got out of the house. This alarm 
 suspended hostilities for a moment, but as soon as it was 
 generally perceived to be without cause, the contest was re- 
 newed. The passage to the clerk's table, which for a moment 
 had been left, in a measure, unobstructed, was filled up again 
 by the "orthodox" party. The " Hicksites," however, ad- 
 vanced to the table. Here a contest took place for the pos- 
 session of it. Taylor was pressed between the table and door, 
 and considerably injured. The table was soon broken to 
 pieces. The tumult then died away. One of the leading 
 "orthodox" cried out, "that is enough — we surrender." 
 Shortly after this, one of the " orthodox" party proposed, that 
 they should adjourn until the next day. This was agreed to; 
 and to render it more formal, they called the representatives, 
 who nearly all answered, and agreed to the adjournment. The 
 " orthodox" accordingly left the house. The party leaving 
 the house, being more numerous than those who remained. 
 The "Hicksites," remaining in possession, proceeded with 
 their business. The next day, the " orthodox" came forward, 
 in a body, and demanded possession of the house, which was 
 refused ; but they were told that they might come in, and unite 
 with the " Hicksites," who were in possession. 
 
 The " orthodox" adjourned to another place, and held their 
 Yearly Meeting. 
 
 The question on these facts, is, was this proceeding on the 
 part of the friends of Hilles, a disturbance of the meeting, 
 coming within the statute? It is to be observed, that not all 
 the " orthodox," or " Hicksites," took part in this violence. 
 Probably much the greater part of both parties, were inactive 
 spectators. 
 
 In considering this question, it is necessary to inquire, was 
 this election of Hilles, regular, *nd binding upon the meeting r 
 Or did Taylor continue the regular clerk of the meeting? The 
 objections to this appointment of Hilles arc several. The pro- 
 position of Frpnch, that the clerk had become disqualified, 
 
338 
 
 Trial of Friends 
 
 was not founded on any fact disclosed to the meeting. It pro- 
 posed to condemn him, withoiit giving him any information 
 as to the offence of which he was accused, and of course un- 
 heard — without giving him any opportunity of making 3. 
 defence. This was contrary to the first principles of justice. 
 
 The reasons for the motion, assigned by French in his tes- 
 timony in this case, do not show any actual disqualification of 
 Taylor, or Kimberly, the assistant clerk. The true reason 
 seems to be, that the old clerks belonged to the " orthodox" 
 party. 
 
 The proposition to elect a clerk was not in order, being 
 before the meeting was open, and ready to proceed to busi- 
 ness — and unprecedented, at any rate, in any body Avhose 
 proceedings would have the authority of precedent for that 
 meeting. The witnesses called in this case, on the part of the 
 prosecution, have uniformly pronounced this motion irregular, 
 and out of order. The witnesses on the other side, have as 
 uniformly pronounced it regular, and in order. I must be per- 
 mitted to judge for myself, as to that point, from the facts. I 
 think I may safely venture to say, that in no deliberative assem- 
 bly in the United States, would a motion be in order, until the 
 assembly was opened and organized, unless that motion were 
 necessary for its organization; unless we except the society of 
 Friends, their mode of proceeding being somewhat peculiar. 
 
 This motion was not in order, according to the established 
 mode of proceeding in the Yearly Meetings of that society. 
 
 By their mode of proceeding, the Yearly Meeting for dis- 
 cipline, is not opened, until the clerk reads an opening minute, 
 and it is not organized until the representatives from the Quar- 
 terly Meetings are called — the Yearly Meeting being consti- 
 tuted, in part, of those representatives. 
 
 In case there be ho clerk of the meeting present, a motion 
 to appoint a clerk is in order, that being necessary for the or- 
 ganization of the meeting. In this case there was a clerk at 
 the table, qualified and ready to do his duties. The motion of 
 French, then, to pronounce sentence of disqualification upon 
 the old clerks, and to appoint others, was not in order, ad- 
 mitting that the meeting, when duly organized, had a right to 
 do so, of their own will and pleasure. 
 
 Further: — admitting that this irregularity might be got 
 over, and the proceedings of the meeting would have been re- 
 gular enough, in case no objection had been made — it is a fatal 
 objection, that this proposition was not in fact concurred in 
 by the meeting, a majority being dissentients. It is true, that 
 the witnesses on the part of Mic defendants, state, in general 
 terms, that there was a general concurrence of the meeting in 
 the proposition, and some say, even more general than is usual 
 in that meeting. And here, 1 must be pcrmitlod to judge for 
 
at Sltuhenvdle^ Ohio. 
 
 339 
 
 myself, whcilier the concurrence was such as to make it the 
 act of the meeting. 
 
 The witnesses, who express their opinion, that the motion 
 was concurred in, go upon the supposition, that, although not 
 more than one-tenth of -the members of the meeting expressed 
 their concurrence, and that in an extraordinary manner, the 
 remainder of the members are bound by it, as they kept si- 
 lence — that silence on such an occasion gives consent. 
 
 It is true, that, in the ordinary course of business, when a 
 portion of the members, although very small, express their 
 concurrence, and none oppose, it is considered the sense of 
 the meeting; and if this motion had been made after the meet- 
 ing was duly organized, and had proceeded to business in the 
 usual way, and had been concurred in by even twenty mem- 
 bers, and none opposed, the motion would have been carried, 
 and the clerk would have been bound to enter it on his mi- 
 nutes, and read it to the meeting. And then, if still unob- 
 jected to, it would have been the act of the meeting. 
 
 But, in this case, the motion was so out of order, and the 
 whole proceeding so irregular, that the opponents of the 
 motion were not concluded, by their silence. They did not 
 understand, at the time, that by their silence, they were con- 
 curring in the measure. French, himself, in his testimony, 
 says, that he did not understand that the " orthodox" united 
 in the measure. It could not have been the understanding of 
 any one present. 
 
 If I be correct, thus far, it follows, that the proceedings, by 
 a part of the meeting, to expel Taylor, and put Hilles in his 
 place, were not warranted; and that the use of force, was a 
 disturbance of the meeting; and, therefore, a violation of the 
 law of the land; for the law abhors violence, and will not per- 
 mit any one to use it, even to assert his rights, except in ex- 
 treme cases, which are cases of necessity. All those, who 
 gave their countenance to it, or encouraged it by any means, 
 are equally guilty. I do not mean to be understood, that all 
 the " Hicksitc" party were guilty; for it appears, but a small 
 portion of them approved the use of force. 
 
 With respect to these two defendants, it is proved that 
 James took an active part. — Hilles, by permitting himself to 
 be made use of, countenanced the transaction, and is equally 
 guilty. 
 
 The view I have taken of the case, renders it entirely unne- 
 cessary, that I sAo7//rf examine into the other questions which 
 have been made in the argument, or to take notice of a great 
 deal of the testimony which has been given. Judgmeni , thai 
 each of the defendants pay a fine of fivo dollars. 
 
340 
 
 Trial of Friends at Steubenville, Ohio. 
 
 The fullijiviii!^ exfraci should have been iimerttd in page ^7 <if this work. 
 
 This inJentare, made tlie 5lh day of Ninth-month, 1817, witnesseth that 
 Henry Beeson and Mary his wife " do grant, bargain, and sell, unto Jona- 
 than Taylor, Uowse Taylor, Isaac Parker, James Kinsey and Horton How- 
 ard, or the survlvers of them, the following described property:" [here 
 follows the description] " to have and to hold, the said described lot of 
 ground to the said Jonathan Taylor, &c., and the survivers of them, and 
 the heirs at law of such one of them as shall survive all the rest, for the 
 uses and purposes following, viz : For the use of the Society of Friends 
 constituting the Ohio Yearly Meeting, as a site for Friends' meeting house, 
 or for such other purpose, as the said meeting shall at any time direct; and 
 it is the express understanding, and the intent of .this^rant, that the said 
 Jonathan Taylor, he, or the survivers of them, or the heir at law of such of 
 them as shall survive all the rest, shall hold the said described property, 
 subject to any disposition which the said meeting shall make of the same; 
 and the said grantees above named, or the survivers of them, or tke heir 
 of such of them as shall survive all the rest, shall at any time, when re- 
 quested by said meeting, make all, and every necessary and proper deed, 
 or other assurance, for transferring the title to the said described pro- 
 perty, to such persons, and upon such terms and conditions, as the said 
 meeting shall, in a regular manner, according to the rule of proceedings in 
 said meeting, direct." 
 
 " In testimony whereof the said Henry Beeson, and Mary his wife, have 
 hereunto set their hands and seals, the day and year above written." 
 
 HENRY BEESOIJ, [i. s.] 
 MAIiV BEESON, [t. s.] 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 The preceding work is presented to the public, as a full and faithful 
 report of the proceedings, in the case of David Hilles and Isaac James, 
 before the honourable Jeremiah H. Haltock, Esq., at Steubenville, from 
 the 15th to the 26th of October, inclusive, 1828. It will be found to con- 
 tain, as far as practicable, the language employed by witnesses, counsel, 
 and court, together with all the authorities quoted, and such other matters 
 as are necessary to a proper understanding of the subject. 
 
 The peculiarly interesting circumstances attending the origin and pro- 
 gress of the suit, and the numerous and highly respectable individuals, 
 directly or indirectly, implicated in the question at issue, suggested as the 
 only proper course, a publication of the entire proceedings without note 
 or comment. . 
 
 The distance of several hundred miles, has entirely precluded the co- 
 operation, or aid, of any individuals who attended that trial, other than 
 extended by the politeness of the Judge, in furnishing his decision, and 
 of counsel, in furnishing at the close of the trial, a reference to authorities. 
 For these, and the kind attention of the court and counsel, during the con- 
 tinuance of the trial, wc tender our respectful acknowledgments. 
 
 MARCUS T. C. GOULD.