LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 897 658 7 
 
 HoUinger Corp. 
 pH8.5 
 
E 448 11/70 
 
 .N62 
 
 Copy 1 • 
 
 AMERICAN COLONIZATION SOCIETY. 
 
 A LETTER 
 BY REV. JOSEPH TRACY, D,D., 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 MEMORANDA 
 
 CONCEENINa 
 
 THE LATE APPEAL OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 
 
 OF THE NEW YORK STATE COLONIZATION 
 
 SOCIETY TO THE FRIENDS OF 
 
 AFRICAN COLONIZATION. 
 
 FrBLISHEB BY BEQUEST OF FRIENBS IN NEW YOBK 
 
 NEW YOKK : 
 
 PRINTED BY MACDONALD & PALMER, 733 BROADWAY. 
 1870. 
 

Colonization Office, 
 
 :Dodon, Sept. 21 ^870. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Orcutt : 
 
 Dear Sir : — I tliank you for sending me the iV. Y. Tnhme of 
 Aug. 2, containing the article addressed " To the Friends of African 
 Colonization," by the Executive Committee of the New York State 
 Colonization Society. I have read that article carefully and repeat- 
 edly. Your reply to it, published in the Tribune on your return to the 
 city, two or three weeks after, seems to me quite sufficient to neutralize 
 its influence. Yet, some of the errors in the Committee's article are of 
 such a character, that it seems expedient to place an exposure of them 
 on paper for future reference, if there should be occasion for it. As 
 their order is somewhat confused and repetitious, I shall not confine 
 myself to it, but will first notice their attack on me by tiame. 1 have 
 hitherto neglected it ; but it is renewed so persistently, and with such 
 increasing unfairness from time to time, that perhaps some notice of it 
 is due both to myself and to you. 
 
 You doubtless recollect the condition of the N. Y. State Coloniza- 
 tion Society in the beginning of 1867. Many Avho had been among its 
 most efficient members had become dissatisfied with its management, 
 and silently withdrawn from all participation in its doings. This dis- 
 aflection had so increased during a course of years, that, out of a Board 
 of thirty managers, and twenty-eight other officers entitled to act as 
 managers, "it was often difficult to obtain a quorum" at the meetings 
 of the managers for the transaction of business, though only seven out 
 of the fifty-eight were necessaiy to form a quorum. For nine years it 
 had contributed, according to their own showing, only $986.39 to the 
 funds of the Parent Society. Of that amount, only $336.84 had been 
 paid in cash into the Treasury at "Washington. Since 1863, it had 
 deliberately refrained from attempting to collect funds for colonization. 
 It had a Corresponding Secretary who was far away from New York 
 on other business than that of the Society, and who had said that he 
 did not intend ever to return to his former labors in the service of the 
 Society. His place in the Society's Rooms was occupied by one who, 
 so far as I can learn, had never been elected by the Society to any 
 
office, and who held no office provided for by their constitution. The 
 constitution required an annual meeting in May, for the election of 
 officers, receiving reports and other business. No annual meeting was 
 holden that year, no officers elected, no reports received by the So- 
 ciety. Evidently, the Society needed reorganizing. 
 
 As a Director of the Parent Society, having been one for about a 
 quarter of a century, I had long felt deeply the loss of the co-operation 
 of our friends in New York, and had done what I could to bring about 
 an arrangement by which you miglit labor for its restoration. I knew 
 that if the Hon. William E. Dodge and others, who, from dissatisfac- 
 tion with the management of the Society and unwillingness to be 
 engaged in controversy, had silently, one by one, retired from active 
 membership, would return in a body, resume their seats, and give their 
 votes, that co-operation woidd be restoi'ed ; for they, and those who 
 agreed with them in the main, but still continued to be active members, 
 were a decided majoi'ity, both in number and in weight of character. 
 I thought that this ought to be done, even if the minority should op- 
 pose it, quarrel about it, and in the end secede from the Society. 
 When the majority has right views and purposes, it is not only its 
 right, but its duty, to rule. 
 
 Such was the state of affiiirs April 9, 1867, about a month before 
 the annual meeting should have been holden, but was not, and there 
 was no reason to expect that it would be. On that day, it happened to 
 be my duty to acknowledge the receipt of a letter from you. I added, 
 in an off-hand style, on a single page of note-paper, an exhortation to 
 labor for the reorganization of that Society ; for the return of Mr. 
 Dodge, and others who had. withdrawn, to their former activity as 
 members, even if it should lead to a conflict with the minority whose 
 management had driven them into retirement, and the retirement of 
 that minority in their turn. 
 
 The thought of a controversy suggested a danger. That Society 
 holds in trust, for education in Africa, the proceeds of bequests to the 
 amount of some $60,000. A controversy ending in a disruption of the 
 Society might give rise to doubts as to the rightful custody of those 
 funds, and, in the end, for want of a clearly legal custodian, they mio-ht 
 be claimed by residuary legatees, or revert to the heirs of testators, 
 and thus be lost to the cause of education in Africa. I therefore 
 added a caution against this danger. 
 
 You approved of this advice, and sent the substance of it, sometime 
 afterwards, in a letter to Washington, with your endorsement. You 
 acted according to it, and the managers of the State Society approved 
 your action. Old members, who had been inactive, began to come 
 back and resume their places. A Secretary was appointed who was 
 
on tlie gi'ound, and the reorganization was as complete as it could be 
 made, till there should be an annual meeting for the election of officers. 
 There liad been no "quarrel," no "split." The identity of the So- 
 ciety under the charter had been preserved, so that the invested funds 
 were safe. The advice, given by me and approved by you, was good, 
 and had been executed to the letter, except that Mr Dodge, and per- 
 haps some others of the old members, had not yet resumed their places. 
 Tlie difficulty was made afterwards, and by others, who speak and act 
 as if they had been unwilling that " Dodge and others " of the old 
 members should come back, " assert their rights, and exert their 
 power." 
 
 In their official " Statement " they quoted my words thus : — 
 
 " Do try to reorganize the New York Society. Have a quarrel and 
 split if necessary, undesirable as that would be. Bring Dodge and others 
 to assert their rights and exert their poAver. Presei"\'e the identity of 
 the Society under the charter, for the sake of the invested funds. You 
 cannot do a better thing." 
 
 They quote this as proof of a design " to get control of the trust 
 fimds " Avhich the Society held. It was no such thing. The design 
 was, to save that Society from losing those funds, as in its disorganised 
 condition, above described, it Avas in danger of doing, and as it would 
 do, if the " identity of the Society under the charter " should not be 
 pi'esei ved. 
 
 Ill their Tribune article they quote as follows : — 
 
 " Do try reorganize the N. Y. Society. Have a quakrel akd 
 SPLIT, if necessary. Bring Dodge and others to assert their rights and 
 exert their power. Preserve the identity of the Society for the sake 
 On THE INVESTED FUNDS. You caiiuot do a better thing." 
 
 They quote this, to prove that you " wanted not only a change, 
 but a split, in the Society." It answers that purpose much more 
 plausibly, for the omission of the words, Avhich I wrote and you ap- 
 proved, " undesirable as that would be." If those words had been re- 
 tained, an honest reader might have found some difficulty in believing 
 that you " wanted," and was seeking to obtain, what you regarded as 
 " undesirable." "Whether those Avords Avere omitted deliberately, for 
 that reason, I do not knoAV. If they Avcre not, their omission shows 
 that the authors of the article Avere capable of such omissions. The 
 omission of the Avords, " under the charter," in the last sentence but 
 one, perhaps somcAvhat diminishes the precision Avith Avhicli the idea 
 is expressed, but does not alter its meaning. It still evidently refers 
 to the legal identity, which must be preserved, to save the funds from 
 going into the hands of heirs and residuary legatees. 
 
 There are other things that might be said, as you well knoAV, about 
 
that extract and their use, or rather, their abuse of it ; but I have 
 written quite as much as I wish to about myself. 
 
 The Tribune article alleges, as cause of complaint : — 
 
 " First. — The approval of the American Society of an act of it3 
 Executive Committee, in refusing to withdraw an agency from the city 
 of New York, conducted by its travelling Secretary in hostility to the 
 New York State Society." 
 
 This charge is sufficiently i-efuted in the " Exposition " to Avhich you 
 refer. I may add, however, that the last clause in this complaint con- 
 tains a false accusation. As I have already shown, that agency was 
 commenced and conducted, not " in hostility to " that Society, but to 
 preserve its organization, secure its safety, and promote its efficiency. 
 
 As to their right to demand the withdrawing of that agency, they 
 have changed their ground remarkably. In tlieir "Memorial," pre- 
 sented at Washington, and laid on the table by the vote of their Pre- 
 sident and fourteen other Directors out of twenty ; in their official 
 " Statement" and semi-official "Synopsis," they base that claim on an 
 alleged " compact " and " pledge," contained in certain words skilfully 
 selected from the constitution of the American Society, adopted in 
 December 1838 and "carefully " observed for thirty years, and on re- 
 solutions of tbe Board of Directors, adopted in 1851 and in 1855. 
 The " Exposition " showed that those constitutional provisions were 
 never applicable to such a Society as theirs is now ; were relaxed by 
 mutual agreement made in 1842 and never rescinded ; and were wholly 
 repealed in 1846. In their present publication they abandon that 
 ground entirely. They say not a word about any " compact," dating 
 from 1838 and observed for thirty years. Nor do they refer to the 
 resolutions of 1851. They could not conveniently do it, for they con- 
 tain conditions which their Society has habitually disregarded, and 
 intends still to disregard. Of the Resolution of 1855, tliey conceal the 
 fact that it was only explanatory of those of 1851, and needs to be 
 compared with them m order to understand it, and quote only so much 
 of those j)roceedings as may be quoted plausibly for their purpose. 
 But see the " Exposition." 
 
 Another curiosity, before leaving this matter. The " Exposition " 
 quoted the mutual agreement of 1842, by which the constitutional pro- 
 visions of 1838 were relaxed, previous to their repeal in 1846. They 
 assert that it was quoted to prove that the Resolution of 1855 " is not 
 binding in 1869." It was not quoted for any such purpose ; nor does 
 the " Exposition " even once refer to it, in any discussion concerning 
 the resolutions of 1851 and 1855. The " Exposition" does not deserve 
 the discredit of using the bad argument thus ascribed to it. 
 
 Their second " cause of complaint " relates to the notice taken by 
 
the Executive Committee at "Washington, of the " revolution" effected 
 inj the N. Y. State Society, at its election of officers in 1868. They 
 complain also of the statement of the "Exposition," that, in 1869, the 
 revolution was completed, and " eight new men " were chosen as 
 members of the Board of Managers. 
 
 The Executive Committee had said : — 
 
 " We also understand that the Board of Managers of the New 
 York State Society was composed substantially of new men ; that there 
 had been what might be called a revolution ; that the old, long-tried 
 gi'eat men who had been members, had been turned out, and a new 
 set of men putin." 
 
 They say that these " allegations were without a shadow of truth. 
 Evidence was before the annual meeting to show that they 'were 
 groundless and calumnious. The Amei'ican Society refused to have 
 them struck from the report, and embodied them in its records." 
 
 The " evidence " here mentioned was a printed document, headed: — 
 
 " Officers of the New York State Colonization Society for 1865, as 
 published in the Keport of the thirty-third annual meeting, re-elected 
 in 1866 Avithout a single change, and holding over in 1867, there being 
 no election that year, are as follows." 
 
 This was accompanied with the assertion tliese officers had all been 
 re-elected in 1868, except a few who had died or resigned. This 
 document is copied into their official " Statement," preceded by the 
 following sentence : — 
 
 "A list of the officers elected in the years 1865, 1866, and 1868, is 
 here given, which shows that the allegation in the Executive Com- 
 mittee's report, that there had been a revolution and a change of men 
 in the government of the New York State Society, is without a sem- 
 blance of fact." 
 
 Certainly, "ahstof the officers elected in 1865, 1866, and 1868," 
 means, according to the ordinary acceptation of words, a list of all the 
 officers elected in either of those years ; and, cei'tainly, nothing less 
 than a complete list of all the officers elected in 1868, could show that 
 there had not "been a revolution and a change of men in the govern- 
 ment " of that Society. 
 
 I have before me an official Circular of eight pages, issued by the 
 N. Y. State Society about June, 1869. Its last page is headed : — 
 " Officers of the New York State Colonization Society." This heading 
 is followed by a list of twenty-four officers, the whole number provided 
 for in their new constitution. I take it, ^therefore, to be a true and 
 complete list of their officers elected in 1869. On this Hst I find, 
 among the "Managers," the names of Ashbel Gi*een, J. K. Kendrick, 
 D.D., E. B. Cleghoi-n, J. M. Goldberg, Lorenzo D. Yates, Stephen H. 
 Provost, M. J. FrankUn, and Joseph S. Peacock, neither of which is on 
 
the " list of the officers " elected in 1868, pfesentecl at Washington, and 
 reprinted in the "Statement," as proof that there had been no 
 "chan<Te of men in the government" of that Society. Yet, in their 
 Tribune article, they say that in 1869, "the Society did not appoint 
 ei"-ht new men as members of the Board. With three exceptions, the 
 whole number of officers and managers were foi-mer members of the 
 Board of Managers." 
 
 How is this ? Did the list presented at Washington, to prove that 
 there had been no " change of men," that the allegation of the Execu- 
 tive Committee concerning the election of " new men " in 1868, was 
 false, leave out the names of at least five " new men " Avho Avere 
 elected that year 1 By long and hard study, I have found out nearly 
 how it is ; and it is a very curious business. 
 
 I find from the semi official " Synopsis," that, in 1868, besides the 
 old officers on the list shown at Washington, five ncAV vice-presidents 
 were elected, of whom one had before been a manager, and four were 
 " new men." These were to fill vacancies from death or resignation, with 
 one exception. These vice-presidents were members of the Board of 
 Managers, ex officid, Avith the right to vote. J. M. Goldberg was 
 chosen Recording Secretary, and was manager, ex officio. W. IM. 
 \y Havermeyer, James Stokes, S. H. Provost, Ashbel Green, Rev. E. B. 
 Cleghorn, and Dr. James Warren, all " new men," were chosen 
 managers to fill two vacancies caused by death, two by resignation, 
 and two many years vacant. Here are the names of eleven "new 
 ' men " entitled to vote in the Board of Managers. 
 
 Wlien we recollect that any seven of these men might form a 
 quorum for the transaction of business, and that so many had become 
 disaffected and "never attended, so that it was often difficult to obtain 
 a quorum," it is evident that these eleven "new men" had the business 
 of the Society "substantially " in their hands, as the Executive Com- 
 mittee had been informed. Old members, if we may rely on these 
 documents, had not been " turned out," because vacancies from death 
 and resignation had, in the course of " many years," become numerous 
 enough to make room for all the " new men" needed. The " evidence " 
 which they say was before the Directors at Washington in 1870, 
 touches only one point in the statement of the Executive Committee 
 which it was brought to controvert. If admitted, it proves only that 
 old members had not been " turned out,"and leaves uncontradicted the 
 statements that the Board of Managers was composed substantially of 
 new men : that there had been what might be called a revolution, and 
 a new set of men put in. And yet, these were the main points which 
 it behooved them to disprove, and to disprove which they were under- 
 stood to produce that "evidence." 
 
There are some apparent discrepancies on this subject, which it 
 may be well to notice, though they do not affect the general conclusion. 
 On the list of officers exhibited at Washington as " evidence," two 
 managers are noticed as " deceased," and one " resigned," showing 
 only three vacancies to be filled. The " Synopsis " gives the names 
 of six, who were elected to fill vacancies on that Board ; two caused by 
 death, two by resignation, " and two many years vacant," On count- 
 ing the official list given as " evidence," it is found that it contains 
 only twenty-eight names ; and as their Constitution required thirty, it 
 seems there were two vacancies, of which it gave no notice, making 
 five in all. Where the " Synopsis " found the sixth — two resigned, 
 instead of one resigned — does not appear from anything'in my posses- 
 sion. But as it gives the names of the six, it is hard to suppose a 
 mistake. 
 
 The Tribune article denies that " eight new men " were ap- 
 pointed members of the Board in 1809, and says: "With three ex- 
 ceptions, the whole number of officers and managers were former 
 members of the Board of Managers." As I have already shown, the 
 Board elected in 1869 contained eight, whose names are not on the list 
 of old membei's presented at Washington, and were, therefore, " new 
 men " in the sense in which that term has all along been used in these 
 discussions. The assertion that five of them — all but three — " were 
 former members of the Board," must, therefore, mean that they had 
 been elected in 1868. But, of the six named in the " Synopsis " as 
 elected in 1868, only three — Messrs Provost, Green and Cleghorn, 
 were re-elected in 1869. Mr. Goldberg, who was elected Recording 
 Secretary in 1868, ard thus became a member of the Board ex officio, 
 makes a fourth. That there was a fifth, is not verified by anything 
 before me. He may have been appointed sometime during the year 
 by the Board of Managers, to fill a vacancy. But it matters little. 
 All the eight Avere -'new men," introduced by the "revolution," begun 
 in 1868, and completed in 1869. 
 
 The word "revolution " never was applied more correctly than to 
 those proceedings of 1868. A member of the Society, for the purpose 
 of controlling the election, placed thirty dollars in the hands of a can- 
 didate for office, who was to find and bring In thirty friends to vote as 
 the giver wished. On this ground, twenty-eight men, none of whom 
 had ever given or subscribed a dollar to the funds of the Society, as 
 the Constitution required in order to membership, came In, took con- 
 trol of the meeting, and, with less than half their number of old mem- 
 bers, elected whom they pleased. They elected, according to the 
 " Synopsis," eleven " new men " to office, all entitled to votes in the 
 Board of Managers, of whom seven formed a quorum ; and, from that 
 
10 
 
 time, these " new men," and some old members who were re-elected 
 by the same unlawful votes, had the bushiess of the Society " substan- 
 tially " in their hands. 
 
 The report of the Executive Committee at Washington was, there- 
 fore, " substantially " true and just ; and the pretense of disproving it 
 by " evidence " that has no bearing except on a single unimportant 
 point of it, is eminently sophistical and futile. 
 
 Perhajis I ought, in justice to say, that, since reading the " Tribune " 
 article, and re-examining the " Synopsis," I have been able to dis- 
 cover, in the official " Statement," and even in the list of old officers 
 re-elected and its appendages, viiiual admissions of the elections of 
 "new men " in 1868 ; though I have not been able to reconcile those 
 admissions with the purpose for which that list was made and present- 
 ed, or Avith the inferences Avhich it was claimed to sustain, or Avithsome 
 other statements in the " Statement." 
 
 But, if there Avere vacancies, had not the Society a right to fill 
 thera ? Certainly ; and would naturally fill them Avith old members 
 of the Society, knoAvn to be interested in its objects. But it should 
 have been done at a laAvful meeting, laAvfuUy conducted, and by the 
 votes of men Avho had a right to vote, and those only. Such was not 
 the election in 1868, as has been shoAvn. 
 
 The Tribune article says, that the " Exposition " " mentions the 
 election of the Kev. Dr. Pinney, Corresponding Secretary, in a manner 
 that can be regarded in no other light than an assault." I regret that 
 they did not quote the Avords, and point out Avherein the assault con- 
 sisted. But, perhaps, I ought to excuse them, as the attempt Avould 
 have taxed their ingenuity severely, and the charge against the " Ex- 
 position " Avas needed, as an apology for an enumeration of the many 
 and valuable services Avhich Dr. Pinney has rendered to the cause of 
 Colonization. 
 
 They deny that they ever before heard that the building of the 
 Setb Grosvenor " was remonstrated against, or disapproved by the 
 American Society." They add : — " It Avould have been a gi'atuitous 
 assumption of supervision over the New York State Society to have 
 done so." 
 
 I am informed that the American Society did disapprove, and ex- 
 press its disapproval ; and I presume that the correspondence of the two 
 Societies, if thoroughly examined, would shoAv it. At least, I presume 
 their oavu records would shoAv that they formally applied to the Ameri- 
 can Society for its co-operation ; and that the Executive Committee of 
 the American Society decided that it was " inexpedient to enter into 
 the enterprise." As for a *' gratuitous assumption of supervision," 
 they should consult the resolutions of the Directors of the Parent So- 
 
11 
 
 ciety in 1851, which they have quoted abimdantlj in their former 
 pubhcations, though they now abstain from touching them, as if they 
 were pieces of very hot iron. They will there find thiat it was their 
 duty, as an auxihary, to obtain the consent and *' co-operation " of the 
 Parent Society, before engaging in any such enterprise. Their own 
 records will show tliat they asked for that co-operation, and did not ob- 
 tain it. Tiiey will find, too, that the surplus funds of auxiliaries, after 
 defraying their own domestic expenses, were due to the Parent Society, 
 to be paid into its treasury, or expended in " co-operation with' its 
 Executive Committee ; so that tlie Parent Society had some right of 
 " supervision " over such matters, and would have had, even if its co- 
 operation had not been requested. 
 
 They say again, speaking of the " Exposition " : — 
 
 " The pamphlet contains a very sophistical and exceedingly lame 
 attempt to show that some twenty-six thousand dollars, acknowledged 
 in the African Repository as received from the New York State 
 Society from February 1859 [a misprint for 1849] to 1863, were not 
 received." 
 
 It contains no attempt whatever, " lame " or sound, to show that. 
 On the contrary, it shows when, where and how those several amounts, 
 $26,213.74, were received. An assertion, so diametrically opposite to 
 the fact, is not justifiable, even as a rhetorical trick, or a pettifor^in"- 
 artifice. The facts are the Travelhng Secretary had said : — 
 
 " The amount the Parent Society has received in cash from the 
 New York State Colonization Society since 1849 — nearly twenty 
 years — is less than $12,000; and the entire amount claimed by the 
 State Society as a basis of representation, has not averaged $1000 a 
 year for the last fifteen years or more." 
 
 The second clause plainly refers to amounts not "received in cash " 
 by the Parent Society, but expended by the State Society in such 
 ways, that, under certain resolutions of the Directors, they might be 
 claimed -as a basis of representation. The " Statement " of the State 
 Society omits the words " claimed by the State Society as a basis of 
 representation," and thereby makes the passage read as if the whole 
 referred to amounts received by the Parent Society "in cash." 
 
 If they had seen fit to deny the fairness of thus singling out the 
 payments made " in casli " to the Parent Society, when the State So- 
 ciety had expended larger amounts by which the Parent Society had 
 been benefitted, and which it had acknowledged, they might have made 
 out a plausible argument, and the Secretary would have needed to 
 show the propriety of the discrimination which he had made. Put 
 they choose to pursue a different course. They choose to say that his 
 "allegation" was " simply untrue." They thus made it a question 
 
12 
 
 of veracity, and bound tliemselves to prove that the amount received 
 by the Parent Society from tliem, "in casJi, " nnd '■^ since 1849," \va« 
 not '• less than $12,000." To prove this, they quote acknowledgements 
 of amounts received from the State Society since 1848, not since 1849. 
 In not one of these acknowledgements is it said that the amount was 
 ^^ received in cash;" and, therefore, not one of them is admissable as 
 evidence. In a large proportion of them, it is expressly stated that it 
 was received otherwise than "in cash." The " Exposition " showed 
 in what other way than " in cash " many of those amounts were re- 
 ceived ; and that the remainder of them, which may, or may not, have 
 been " received in cash since 1849," amounted to only $9116.13, being 
 $2883.87 "less than $12,000." They no-w represent the " Exposition " 
 as denying that those sums had been received at all, and assert that 
 they all were " raised by the New York State Society a7ul its officers, 
 and paid to the American Society at Washington, or for its account at 
 New York and Liberia." This, if perfectly correct, would not sustain 
 their assertion that the Secretary's " allegation " was " simply untrue." 
 But it is not perfectly correct. Two, at least, of the amounts were not 
 paid " in cash " anywhere, but in orders for goods at Monrovia. Others 
 Avere not paid to meet any liabilities of the Parent Society, as the 
 phi-ase, " on its account," seems to imply ; but were expended in the 
 business of the State Society, and then reported to the Parent Society, 
 and acknowledged in the Kepository. 
 
 The facts concerning one of these items are so curious and instruc- 
 tive, as to demand particular notice. 
 
 The "Exposition" sail, of $1800 raised by Gerard Ilallock, for 
 
 the Rogers' slaves : — 
 
 " The money was handed to Eev. J. B. Pinney, May 10, to be paid 
 to JMr. McLain, and Avas paid over the same day. It was never the 
 property of the State Society, nor in its treasury, nor at its disposal." 
 
 This they deny. They say : — 
 
 "It Avas paid to the treasurer of the State Society, and by him 
 through Dr Pinney transmitted to the American Society." 
 
 If this were true, it Avould not afiect the conclusion. It would only 
 shoAv that the amount received by the Parent Society, in cash, since 
 1849,was only $1083.87 "less than $12,000," instead of being $2883.87 
 less ; and the Secretary's " allegation " Avould still be shown to be true_ 
 But was that money ever "paid to the Treasurer of the State So- 
 ciety'?" "Was it ever " by him transmitted " as alleged? Happily, 
 the facts are ascertainable. 
 
 Mr Hallock began his efforts by an appeal in the " Journal of ' 
 Commerce," of May 2, 1850. In the "Journal " of the next morning 
 he announced six donations of $100 each. May 4, $900 had been 
 
13 
 
 given ; May 6, $1000 ; May 7, $1100; May 9, $1300 ; May 10, $1500. 
 May 11, he announced that the whole $1800 had been raised, and 
 paid over the day before. He annexed copies of two receipts. The 
 first read: — ''Ncav York, May 10, 18o0. — Received of Gerard Hal- 
 lock, for the use of the American Colonization Society, eighteen liun- 
 dred dollars," &c. It was signed "J. B. Pinney, Cor. Sec , &c., &c." 
 Observe, he received the money, not from the Treasurer of the State 
 Society, but from Gerard Hallock ; and not /or the State Society, but 
 for the American. The other receipt reads : — " New York, May 10, 
 1850. — Received of Rev. J. B. Pinney, Secretary of the New York 
 State Colonization Society, eighteen hundred dollars, contributed by 
 eighteen persons in New York," &c. It is signed, " Wm. McLain, 
 Sec. & Treas., A. C. S." In all this, there is no reference to the 
 Treasurer of the State Society, as there should and Avould have been, 
 if the money had ever been in his hands. The documents show that 
 it never was in his hands, but passed directly from the hands of Gerard 
 Hallock to those of J. B. Pinney, and from his to those of William 
 McLain. Besides this, the cii'cum stances show that it was paid over 
 without any vote of the Board of Managers, without which the Trea- 
 surer had no right to pay out any of the funds of the Society. 
 
 The very authority to which they refer as proof, contradicts their 
 claim. They claim in their " Statement," as acknowledged in the Re- 
 pository, " Feb., June, July, $7300." Turning to "Feb.," we read: 
 "From the New York State Col. Soc, $4000." In "July," we read: 
 "Appropriation by the New York State Col. Soc. — $1500." And so, 
 always, when money received from the State Society is acknowledged, 
 it is acknowledged as I'eceived //'om t/ictt Society. The $1800 in ques- 
 tion was acknowledged in " June," not as received from the State 
 Society, but as received from eighteen donors, who are named. 
 They themselves recognize this distinction in their official " Statement ;" 
 for, immediately after their list of " moneys received from the Treas- 
 urer" of their Society, they subjoin a list of " legacies and donations" 
 from various sources in the State of New York, not passing through 
 their treasury. This $1800 clearly belonged in this second list, and 
 not in their first. The acknowledgement concludes with the words — 
 "To the credit of the N. Y. Society;" Avhich would have been utterly 
 inappropriate, if the money had beQn received from the treasury of 
 Society ; but was perfectly appropriate Avhen the money was paid by 
 others, who desired that it should count to their " credit," as a " basis 
 of representation." 
 
 One more proof The N. Y. State Society, that year, published 
 its receipts in the African Repository, about quarterly. In the Re- 
 pository for August there is a Ust, headed — " Donations received at 
 
14 
 
 the office of tlie Colonization Society of the State of New York, from 
 3Ia7 1, to July 15, 1850." If this $1800 was ever in their treasury 
 it ought to appear on this list, as received May 10, the day on which 
 Mr riallock paid it to Mr Pinney, and he to Mr McLain. But it is 
 not there. No sum is acknowledged as received that day. There is, 
 May 8, '' A Friend, $10.00." The next is May 12, " Eev. G. Mather, 
 $10.00." And so the acknowledgements go on in regular order, 
 through May and June, to July 10, " Buffalo — Jesse Ketchum, $10.00 ; " 
 and they are footed up, "$221.10." Plainly, up to July 10, this 
 $1800 had not been received into their treasury. After that footing 
 up we read : — " May 8 — For Rogers' slaves, from eighteen donors, 
 before reported, $1800;" and then, "Total, $2021.10." But this 
 entry is not true. May 8, the money had not been raised. May 9, 
 $500 was wanting, and $300 on the morning of May 10, the day on 
 which the business was completed. It is not an entry made by the 
 Treasurer at the time of the transaction, but a report made about 
 two months afterwards by somebody who had no trustworthy memory 
 ofthe facts. 
 
 The mode of payment was really as follows : — Mr. Ilallock, 
 May 10, gave Mr. Pinney his own check for the $1,500 which he had 
 in his hands that morning, and three checks of other persons, of $100 
 each, for the three additional donations received that day. Mr. Pinney 
 paid over those four checks to Mr. McLain that same day, May 10 ; 
 and Mr. McLain deposited them. May 14, in the " Bank of Wash~ 
 ington," where the deposit of those four checks is on record to this 
 day. 
 
 Their assertion, therefore, that this money " was paid to the trea- 
 surer of the State Society, and by him through Dr Pinney, transmitted 
 to the American Society," is conclusively shown to be contrary to the 
 facts ; and the statement which they expressly deny, viz., that the 
 money was collected by Mr Ilallock, handed by him to Mr Pinney, 
 who paid it over to Mr McLain, and that it was never in the treasury 
 of that Society, or at it disposal, is strictly true in every particulax'. 
 
 I notice their declaration that " the American Society has dissolved 
 all possible friendly relations with the New York State Society, and 
 compelled it to prosecute its work in such manner as it may deem 
 the most judicious." After this declaration, Ipi-esume it will no longer 
 claim to be " auxiliary to the American Colonization Society," as its 
 Constitution declares that it " shall be." I do not find that their Ex- 
 ecutive Committee has power to annul that clause in their Constitu- 
 tion. Nor am I sure that the Society will ratify that annulment. If 
 it should, I do not know how such a radical change in the essential 
 character of the Society might affect its legal identity, and thus its 
 
15 
 
 competency to hold its " invested funds." This they would do well to 
 consider. 
 
 If they think that " the"raost judicious " manner in which that Society 
 can " prosecute its work," is by such attacks on the American Society 
 as they have been making for more^than a year past, I think they mis 
 judge. I think it would be more "judicious " for them to found their 
 claims to public approbation and support on the merits of their own 
 work, and not on the alleged demerits of others. 
 
 There are other matters for criticism in their Tribune article, 
 but I have written quite enough for me. I have written some three 
 times as much as I intended when I began, being tempted along by 
 the inclination to give one point after another a thorough treatment. 
 I wished to have such an exposition of certain matters in my letter- 
 book, for future reference. If you find it worth keeping on file for a 
 similar purpose, I shall be twice paid for the labor. 
 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 JOSEPH TKACY. 
 
1 IBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 mi 
 
 011 897 55B ' 
 
 \ 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 897 658 7 
 
 HoUinger Corp. 
 pH8.5