Ivvestigator,
OR,
A. WWWWN \}\}, -
- of * -
The oppER, Goverwºſºvº & Ecoyº º
‘OF
THE UNITED society
CALLEED
SHARERS,
AGAINST
SºftDRY CHARGES & LEGISLATIVE PROCEEOINCŞ.
**a*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
.#ddressed to the Political World.
wºvºvº-tºº-º-º-º-º/***
BY THE SOCIETY OF PELIEVERS
AT PLEASANT HILL, KY.
- -
He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbºr
* - -
cometh and scarcheth himn.—Solomon.
*
LEXENGTON, K.
PRINTED BY SMITH & PALMER.
- - 1828.


*
4 º'
INTRODUCTION,
*
THE design of this small publication is to shed light on a sub-
ject which heretofore has been veiled in some obscurity; we mean
the form and order of the United Society in a civil or political point
of view. By a variety of copious publications, we have exhibited
to the religious world almost everything that leiates to our faith aud
manners as a religious society; but as there is an external form and
order in our association as a Church, related to the civil rights es-
tablished by the civil institutions of our country, in order that our
bivil rights be not violated either through ignorance or design, it
becomes necessary that all such of our social contracts, rules, man”
mers, laws or customs, as are in any respect connected with our
civil rights, should be explicitly known and correctly understood.
It is generally known that serious difficulties have, for some
time past, existed in this branch of the United Society, owing to
the withdrawal of certain members, who through the influence of
popular or interested connections, instituted claims on the Society
repugnant to all our.well known covenants, rules and customs.
Various were the means used to interest public sympathy on the
side of the withdrawing party, if possible to substantiate those
claims, which it seems could not be done under the present sys-
tem of civil law; hence a petition was presented to the legislature
at their last session praying for a special act to aid the party in
their intended enterprize. *
This act being obtained, almost the first notice we received of
its existence was from a display of its authorities on our house of
worship, the door being abused in posting up publick notices to the
. Society, of a character very unsuitable to the place. This, ‘in-
deed, appeared to us-Tsūrange--affair, knowing that we had ever
observed the greatest punctuality in our dealings with mankind and
with each other. We had constituted an office and trusteeship,
for the transaction of all matters of trade and commerce abroad,
and all our domestic concerns we considered as fully and finally
adjusted by sur own mutual contracts and articles of agreement,
k -
* iy
it did, therefore, appear to us a mysterious thing, indeed, for the
whole Society to be attacked, in away so imposing on our religious
character and sacred rights, as if the house of God had become a
den of thieves, that a subpoena must be stuck up on the door call-
ing us out, in a body, to answer the claims of justice.
From the abundant information contained in our religious publica-
tions, we could not have supposed that any respectable body of
well informed citizens could have conceived of us as a political es-
tablishment. The well known principles of faith and manner of
łife which we have adopted sufficiently negative the idea; and how
any legislative body could claim a right by special enactment to
intrude into the sacred asylum of our church order is to us a mys-
tery, seeing that, even “Congress shall make no law concerning
an establisſimant of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there-
of.”
In forming our religious association we have not consulted the civ-
il authorities of men, further than to see that we did not trespass up-
on their premises, Our faith and forms of devotion were not char-
fared by any legislative power of a political nature. As a commu-
mity of Belicver" we disclaim the right or privilege of suing or being
sued, in a body; our main policy is to keep out of the reach of the mu-
nicipal law, by strictly observing all its just requirements, and so ar-
* singing our social concerns as not to interfere with the rights and psi-
sileges of others. With this confidence we shrink not from the
scrutiny of the publick or the law, on any point relating to our civil
economy or social contracts, provided we be aot compelled into
such sorutiny by illegal and unconstitutional measures, requiring a
surrender of our impartial rights, and subjection to an authority
'not claimed by our National Government. p
The singularity of our religious profession has always dictated
to us retirement from the contentions of the political world, and
...the conscious innocence which we labour to maintain, forbids our
attention to the absurd and ridiculº harass-se-etton—Peddle
about through the country by those who wrongfully hate us. It is
not, therefore, the slanders of a few solitary individuals, nor the
popular clamours of a misinformed public that, at present, excites
our attention; but the voice of those civil authorities which we ever
respect, and which have been roused, by the cry of injustice, in
y:
< *
effect, to demand of us a statement of facts with corroborating evi-
dence from which the legality or illegality of our institution might
appear, and our claims to equal rights of toleration, as a religious
society, be legally decided. m
From these considerations we respectfully offer to the political
department of our country, whether professors of religion or non-
professors, such information relative to the points in question, as
we think, will come properly under their cognizance, including-
The aforesaid petition to the legislature—The Act of the legisla-
ture founded on said petition-Objections to said Petition and Act,
with reference to the decision of the legislature of Pennsylvania
on a similar case—Various details and statements concerning the
laws, customs and character of our Society—The decisions of sun-
dry Courts of Justice on all the important questions that relate to
our civil and social rights, &c. &c.
Petition of John Whitbey and others to the Legislature.
To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth
of Kentucky.
We the undersigned petitioners feeling ourselves much aggriev.
ed by the fraudulent conduct of those who hold the reins of gov-
ernment in a society of people called Shakers, residing at Pleas-
ant Hill; Mercer county, do respectfully implore your honourable
body to take our case into consideration, and if it is not inconsist-
ent with the powers confided to you by the Constitution, we hum-
bly pray that you may devise, in your wisdom, some plan where-
by our distresses may be alleviated. ... --!
Your petitioners do solemnly declare, that some years provisºstof,
this, from honest and conscientious views, they were induced to &
imite themselves to that Society on certain principles which they
°onsidered were best calculated to promote their happiness. We
were told by them that as the work of their institution was pro-
gressive in consequence of its members increasing in knowledge
and virtue, they had no creed or articles of faith, neither any writ-
ten laws by which their Society was governed. That no coercive
or arbitrary measures were gyer taken in the government of this
ºº: #rentirely free, that all required of
:* was always tº º honestly according to that doº.
s
****
Vl
gree of faith which he, or she should at any time possess: And
that usurpation of authority over the conscience, among them was
never known. That each individual had an indefeasible and equar
right to all property belonging to the Society, and that no mem-
ber was ever expelled from the society for any cause whatever,
The above stated conditions, with others of the same import, we
considered to be sufficiently liberal, and when we compared them
with their written publications sent abroad into the world we be-
lieved them to be true. e
t]nder these considerations and with these views we continued:
with the society for some years, and by an active and laborious
life, faithfully discharged what we believed to be our duty, by
a willing conformity to all the rules and orders of practical life
given to us by our leaders, and by these means secured to our-
selves much satisfaction, until our leaders began to deviate from
those principles on which we had joined them. Your petitioners
do further testify, that for no other cause than a private expres-
sion of certain opinions relative to moral sentiment, which we
most conscientiously believed to be not only true, but the strong-
est basis of pure morality, that some of us were publickly amathe-
matized, grievously misrepresented and most peremptorily order-
ed to leave the society or make a recantation of our sentiments;
and (to heighten the injustice of their oppression) sentiments too
that would not lead to the violation of one moral precept contain-
ed in the doctrines of the society, but remove many manifest er-
rors of which the society [i. e. the flesh] complained. The op-
pressive dealings towards some, and the severe threats of like
abusive treatment of others, rendered us so uncomfortable that
we could no longer enjoy satisfaction in the society, and were
almost forced to leave the place without any compensation for our
long and faithful services.
These, with many grievances too tedious to mention, have cre-
ated a determination in some of us to seek redress at law; but we
have been told by our counsellors that as the society of Shakers
are a body without any Act of Incorporation, and as many of
them stand in a very singular relation to each other in consequence
of a form of covenant established among them redress at law could
not easily be obtained, without first some provision being made, by
an Act of your honourable body,
wii
Therefore we humbly submit our case to your consideration, to
do, as you in your wisdom, may consider most prudent. That the
above statements are in substance true, we have no doubt, can
easily be made appear to the full satisfaction of any court of jus-
tice in this Commonwealth.
We the undersigned citizens residing in and near the vicinity of
Shakertown, being fully persuaded, according to all the informa-
tion we are able to collect, that the above stated petition contains
an impartial statement of facts, and feeling anxious that some law
may pass whereby justice may be administered to the petitioners,
do most cordially unite with those aggrieved in subscribing our
names.—Floyd Burks, H. T. Deweese, Lambert Banta, James
Lillard, Wm. Pherigo, Thos. Wood, Robert P. Steenbergen, jr.
Josiah Utley, Abraham A. Brewer, John Rinearson, Aaron Ri-
nearson, W. A. Bridges, Wm. T. Wood. Saml. Eccles, B.
Prather, J. Smedley, Thos. Allen, Sen. Philip T. Allen, Wm.
Tume, B. T. Hall.
Mr. Samuel Banta having stated to me (in which I have the ut-
Rhost confidence) that in leaving the Shakers he lacks complete
remedy to recover the property which he first and subsequently
took to them : That they refuse satisfactory accountability, he
enly demanding the original sums, waiving his pretensions to inter-
est and labor - And thinking this reasonable, if a remedy can be
constitutionally devised. My belief of the personal honesty and
Tiprightness of Samuel Banta, and that he would ask nothing im-
proper, induces me to sign his petition. P. Trapnall, Chr. Chinn,
Garret Banta, Wm. Ross, Wm. Edwards, John S. Chenowith,
John Eccles, Isaac Westerfield, James Burnett, Abram V. Brewer,
sºmºr
With much difficulty we obtained the foregoing documents;
they are without the principal signatures, we therefore add the
following extracts of a private communication from the au-
thor and principal instigator of the petition.—“Being called up-
on by one of the Shaker friends for a copy of the petition drawn.
by me, and which was presented to the Legislature, containing a
part of my grievances upon which a law was passed. My memo-
ry not serving me to gratify their wishes (not having reserved a
copy) I, with frankness, give them the substance of my objections
*
*
br grievances, so as to give them a fair opportunity of explaining to
me or the world the reasons for their conduet, which was then and
still is considered as oppressive and despotic.” [Here he gives
the detail of his treatment much as it is in the petition; and in al-
lusion to his being called to an account by the elders, observes]
“for the correcting and exposure of which error, I have been dis-
posed to set about an inquiry, and still to prosecute it, not so
much for the purpose of gain; but that a fair exposure of it shall be
made. The sum total of my objections to the society was the
spirit and manner of exercising this despotic oppression, through
a secret counsel of the leads and elders, &c.”—“The many things
to which my soul stands wedded in the Shakers need not nor have
time to name. JOHN WHITBEY.”
What a noble subject for legislation I Seventeen names it is
said were attached to the main petition, in union with this princi-
pal plaintiff, thirteen of whom had never been admitted into the
fellowship of the church, and of course could have no cause of
complaint except, like their leader, that they were not tacitly per-
'mitted to say and do as they pleased. As for those near neighbours
of ours whose names went to corroborate the petition, with the ex-
ception of three or four (who live within the distance of four
miles) they generally reside from seven to seventeen miles distant.
It may also serve as a memorial of the sagacity of the managers
of the affair, that no invitation was extended to us, to enter into
any investigation before the committee. A trustee of the church,
it is true, who happened to be present, presented a response, which,
it seems, was but little regarded. A plan so artfully construeted
was not to be frustrated with trifles. The bill, we are told, was
warmly opposed by members of the first respectability. But
popular prejudice l l who can penetrata its damps with the torch
of reason, or even the blaze of common sense ? However, we
must check those froedoms of thought; and respectful of the wis.
dom and talent that graced the political temple of the State, intro.
duce this singular act, and let it speak for itself.
*
AN act to regulate civil proceedings against certain communitics
having property in common.
St Be it enaeted by the General Assembly of the Common-
#
*R
wealth of Kentucky, That it shalland may belawful for any person
having any demanārzceeding the sum of fifty dollars, founded on
any contract implied or expressed, against any of the communities
of people called Shakers, living together and holding their proper-
ty in common, to oommence and prosecute:suits, obtain decrees,
and have execution against any such community by the name or
description by which said community is commonly known, with-
out naming for designating the individuals of such community, or
serving process on them, except as is hereinafter directed, all such
suits shall be by bill in chancery in the circuit court of the county
in which such community resides; and it shall and may be lawful to
imake parties to such suits all other persons, by name, who may
have any interest in the matter in:cmtroversy, or who may hold,"
tiny property in trust:for said community or may be indebted to
them. g a *
§ 2. When any subpºena founded on any such bill shall be plac-
efl in the hants of any 'officer to execute, the shall fix a copy of
such subptena on the door of the meeting-house of such communi-
ty, shall deliver a copy to some known member of the communi-
ty, and shall read the subpena aloud at ~maxine of the dwellings
of said-communits-we-tetist ten days before the term of the court
at which said community are required to answer; and on those
facts being returned in substance on the subpoena they shall consti-
tute a good service of process on said community, so as to autho-
rise the court to require and compel an answer agreeable to the
rules and usages in chancery.
§ 3. Ali answers for and in behalf of such community may be
filed on the oath or affirmation of one orimore individuals of such
bommunity, who shall moreover swear or affirm that he or they
Have been nominated as the agents or attorneys of such commu-
ty to defend stich suit, and thereupon the individual so swear-
ing shah have full power and authority to manage and conduct
said suit, on the part of such community, or to settle and adjust the
same; and all notices to take depositions against such community
may be served on such agents, or left at their place of residence ;
provided, that for good cause shown, the .cnurt may at any time
'Permit such agents tote changed or substituted by others of the
community; provided, however, that the agents or defendants
X
shaft not be compelled to answer on oath to any charges or allegae
tions which are by the existing rules of haw and equity cognizable
alone in courts of common law-provided further, that in all such
cases as mentioned in the foregoing proviso, the defendants shall
be entitled to a jury if they or anyone of them shall signify their
desire to that effect any time before the trial shall be gone into;
and in such cases as above described either party.may require the
personal attendance of witnesses, and a viva voce examination as
though the suit were at common law, and the court shall direct
such process at the request of either party, or summons may issue,
as in other cases of the kind. -
§ 4. Be it further enacted, that nothing in this act contained
shall be so construed as to render the communities aforesaid, or ei-
ther of them, liable upon contracts entered into by any individual
or individuals not authorised by their laws and usages to contract
for such community; nor shall it be so construed as to give to
any person who having been a member of any such community,
has heretofore left it, or may hereafter leave it, any right in con-
sequence of such membership, which he or she would not have
had if this act had not-Paased, but such right shall depend upon
and be determined by the laws, covenants-iwsages of suqh so-
ciety, and the general laws of the land, except as to us--ede of
the suit. e
§ 5. Be it further enacted that any community which may be
sued under the provisions of this act, shall have the same right to
a change of venue as other defendants. Approved, Feb. 11th,
1828. - * * *
Having, now, presented, in full, the substance of this singular
prosecution; that the publick may not imagine that our Investiga-
tion or Defence is offered by a nameless and irresponsible set of
beings, such as the foregoing proceedings seem to be directed u-
gainst, the following names, of a few responsible characters,
are hereunto subscribed—in behalf of the the society. º
ABRAM WILHITE, JOHN R. BRY ANT.
FRANCIS WORIS, JAMES M. RANKIN,
EDMUND BRYANT, JAMES CONGLETON,
JACOB MONTFORT, WILLIAM SHIELDS Jr
Pleasant Hill, June 10, 1828.
INVESTIGATOR, &c.
“Printing presses shall be free to every person who undertakes
to examine the proceedings of the Legislature or any branch of
Government-and-vary àitizen may freely speak, write and print
Chany subject, being responsible for sc of that liberty.”
Constitution.
OBJECTIONS TO THE PETITION OF J. WHITEEY, &c.
It is objected to said petition, That its contents were not legiti-
mate subjects of legislation—that the supposed facts stated in if
are destitute of proof, and that it contains a variety of misrepre-
sentations.
1. To suppose, as this petitioner represents, that we have no
creed or articles of faith, neither any written laws by which we are
governed, is false. We hold out no such character of the society
to induce unprincipled men to join us; it is well known that we re-
ject human creeds and apticles of sectarian faith; but our belief in
all the essential doetrines of the gospel is no less public. We
have io system of laws of our own making, but we have the law
of Moses, and the laws of our country and the precepts of our an-
cestors and elders, which are all written and e-mmon in every fam-
ily, according to the spirit of which our-nons are regulated.
2. We hold indeed that conserenče is entirely free from human
control; but we have sever taught that under pretence of freedom
of conscience, every member of society might say and do as he
pleased secure from censure or blame: The rules and orders of
our institution have ever maintained all necessary control over
the words and actions of members, to preserve a respectful con-
formity to the principles of truth and virtue established both in ci-
vil and religious society, *
3. The insinuation, in said petition, that we force people to act
beyond or contrary to their faith is groundless. It is true, wo
admit of different degrees of faith, and hold each one justified, in
always acting honestly according to the degree of faith which he
has attained, but we do not approve of any member turning away
12
from the faith and adopting the opinions of Epicurus, Voltaire, or
Robert Owen, and usurping º, to disseminate those, or
any other opinions repugnant to our common faith, either publicly
or privately among the members of our society: and to reprove a
disorderly member sharply that he may be sound in the faith, we
have not eonsidered a crime worthy of a legal prosecution. In-
deed, the authorities of a just intarnal government adapted to
check evildoers and for the praise of them that do well, we rank
among our greatest blessings.
4. With regard to coercive or arbitrary measures, our public
testimony is, that “in the order and government or regulation of
the church, no compulsion or violence is either used; approved, Of
found necessary,” and the petitioner has proved nothing against
the church to the contrary. In the junior order where he was loºt.
cated such government is exercised as wisdom and prudence may
dictate and the law of the land justify.
5. Respecting the rights of property we are sorry, that the pe.
titioner so greatly erred on a subject of such importance, and that
in direct contradietion to his own public statements previously,
made. Perhaps nothing could be more foreign from the truth.
than to hold out the idea that each individual ever had an indefease.
ble and equal right to all the property belonging to the society.
This we can preve to be false from his own printed pamphlet
6. With regard tº expelling members. No compulsion or ar-
bitrary force has everbeek-seed in that case. What the petition-
er states, relative to his own case, asnnot be construed so as to im-
ply any act of violence. In his book, he details the circumstances
at large; in which he shows plainly that he was the first who de-
viated from the terms of membership,-That he announced his
belief in the system of Robert Owen; discarded the doctrine of
praise and blame, rewards and punishments, &c.—was admonished
by the Ministry and Elders not to propagate sueh doctrine-refus-
ed admonition,--became contumacieus and bold;-rejected all au-
thority, and was ordered to retract what the elders called vile stuff;
or leave the society. Admitting he was treated with some severi
ty as a catechumen, we cannot conceive that a Legislature was
the proper tribunal to dictate the means of redress*
* t
i8
OBJECTIONS TO THE FOREGOING ACT.
“Acts of the Legislature that are impossible to be perform-
ed are of no validity; and if there arise out of them any absurd
consequences manifestly contradictory to common reason, they are
with regard to those collateral circumstances void.” 1 B. p. 90.
Agreeably to this maxim we object to the description of our
society in said act, $ 1. as “living together and holding our pro-
Aperty in common.” We know of no public record, act, matter
or thing to authorise such a description, beyond the partial and in.
“correct statements given in the foregoing petition.
. 2. We object to the idea of prosecuting suits, obtaining decrees,
and having execution against the whole society by the name or
description by which we are commonly known. All bodies cog
nizable by law must, in our opinion, have a name or description
by which they are known in law. Vulgar names and descriptions,
..without any allusion to persons, we must consider a precarious
foundation for a legal process.
3. We object to the idea of making parties to such suits all
other persons by name, who may have any interest in the matter,
&c. however lawful this may be in common cases, considering
the ground on which we are placed, by this mode of forming
parties, too great a force may be enlisted against us, to afford us
any ground for a legal or just defence. t
4. We object to the mode of serving process described at
large in sec. 2, as incompatible with our religious rights. A meet-
ing-house known in law as “a temple or building consecrated to
the honor of God and religion,” we'deem an improper place for
setting up such public notices, calculated to arrest the attention of
the worshippers to improper subjects, and afford spectators occa-
sion of conducting disrespectfully toward us, as a people under
such legal impeachments. The British statutes debarred transac-
tions, inconsistent with the place, even from the church-yard; and
are our civil laws less respectful of religious rights? :
5. We further object to sec. 3, as exercising anºthority over
our community subversive of our common rights; that is, in eith-
er admitting, as defendants in any suit, persons not duly nominat-
14
ed according to our rules, or compelling us to make such nomina-
tion, which we could not consistently do, without acknowledging
this arbitrary act as constitutional, and the society obliged by it
to change their character, conformably to its definitions. The
proper persons, among us, for defending all causes actionable in a
court of justice, are already nominated and known by name, whe-
ther as private individuals or public agents. It does not therefore
appear tous consistent with sound policy, that we should, as a reli-
gious society, be obliged to enter into any measure not consistent
with our established rules and the constitution and laws of the
land.
These things considered, is it not to be regretted that the Le-
gislature did not act with caution similar to that of the Pennsyl-
vania Legislature at their last session in a similar case ? We al-
Jude to the petition of a number of inhabitants of the county of
Beaver, relating to the celebrated society at Economy, This case
was so perfectly similar to that before ps, that we deem it proper
'to adduce the report of that committee as a striking evidence of
the precipitance and partiality in the enactment against this socie-
ty, as well as the unconstitutionality of its bearings.
The following extract is copied from the Waynesburg Messenger
of Jan. 12th, 1828. “SENATE, Dec. 17th. Mr Hawkins,
from the committee of the judiciary, made report, which was read
as follows:--
“The judiciary committee, to whom was referred the petition
of a number of the citizens of the county of Beaver, relating to
the society at Economy, reported : That they have carefully ex-
amined the petitions and documents submitted to them, and have
heard the statements of the representatives of the parties interest-
ed, from which they have gathered a slight knowledge of the rise,
progress and present condition of the society. * * *
“With the objects of the society, or its police or regulations,
your committee have derived but a very limited knowledge, ex-
cept what is communicated in a document accompanying the peti-
tion of the complainants, which is altogether ex parte, and was
unsupported by the oaths of those who signed it. It seems to bo
admitted, however, and not denied by either party, that the joint
i5
M.
fábor and the property of the society is held, or was originally in-,
tended to be held and enjoyed in common; and that George Rapp,
the priest and patriarch of the company, has the supervision, con-
trol and management over all their concerns, both spiritual and
temporal.
“They have formed, at different times, two several constitutions,
the one at Wabash, the other at Economy, which contain provis-
ions very similar,except that the lastone is more favorable to persons
disposed to withdraw. It contains in substance, the following condi-
tions, viz. 1. That all holding property, who joined the society, put
it into the common stock; and when they leave the Society, they get
back what they put in, without interest. 2d. Those who put no
property into the society, and leave the society without leave, or
giving notice to the society of their intention, their services are to
be considered voluntary, and entitled to no compensation. 3d.
That those who put no property into the common stock, who give
notice of their intention to leave the society, and behave well, will
be given something to begin the world with, the amount in the
discretion of the society. Before signing this, persons having a
desire for admission have a probation from six to nine months, dur-
ing which time, they are instructed in the principles, rules and
regulations of the society.
“Jacob Shriver (whose case gives rise to the present application)
states, that he entered into this association at the age of 17, and
remained among them about 20 years, when having made some
discoveries, which caused him to be dissatisfied, he left them,
When he entered the society, he contributed no property to the
common stock; so that his claim is wholly for services rendered.
He states in the petition, “that the inhabitants are now suffering
the greatest injustice and imposition, contrary to the spirit of the
constitution, &c.—but does not refer to the nature of the offence a-
gainst the constitution, or to any particular clause in the constitution
that is violated. He also sets forth, that numbers, through ignorance
have been drawn into the slavery of George Rapp, through the de-
lusion of being joint partners of the institution; but when they
wished to withdraw, they found they were mistaken, and were not
- allowed one cent for their services. Without presuming to affirm
º
•e- --iº,
*
#6
or deny the truth of these allegations, your committee are clearly
of opinion, that they are legitimate subjects of judicial inquiry; nor
have the petitioners pointed out any definite mode of relief, which
could be given by the legislature. If Mr Shriver has, voluntarily,
ontered into a contract with Mr. Rapp individually, there can
be no doubt of his obtaining redress in a court of law, if by the
terms or mature of his contract, he be entitled to it; but if his
agreement was with the society, whether it has been faithfully.
complied with or not, it is absolutely void. As a society, having
no charter of incorporation, they have no legal existence, they can.
make no binding contract, nor can they sue or be sued.
If Mr Shriver has made a contract which has turned out to his
disadvantage, it is his own fault; that contract can neither be can-
celled by the legislature, nor cap they create a new one for him. Be-
sides, a suit at law has been brought, and is now pending, in the court
of common pleas of Beaver county; and if no other difficulty was
presented, this would seem a sufficient one, at least, for a delay of
legislative interference. That he should have spent twenty years
in the prime of his life in the service of the society, and then leave.
it, may perhaps be regarded as a serious evik; but it was one
which was brought upon him by his own act. When he entered
into it, he entered with a knowledge that the forfeiture of his law.
bour would be the consequence of his withdrawal; and in conside-
ration of his services while thére, if he had remained, he was enti-
tled, by the terms of his contract, to shelter, food and other nces-
‘saries of life, and to be instructed in the religious opinions of their
priest and ruler, Mr. Rapp.
That a society thus formed, should spring up in the bosom of a
country, whose eonstitution and laws are based upon the equal
rights of man, may seem novel and extraordinary; but that they
have a right to associate in this way, by their own agreement,
while they commit no overt aets of transgression against the laws
of the country, cannot, perhaps, at this day be questioned. Wheth-
er the sum of human happiness is advanced, and the cause of re-
ligion and the Commonwealth promoted, by such associations,
your Committee deem it improper to inquire. Neitheºgoes it
scem to your Committee, to be within the scope of legislative du-
ties, to inquire whether the society has been brought together, as
has been suggested, either through superstition, ignorance or de
&
17
sign. If it be so, the true christian and philanthropist may lament,
but no power in this government can shackle the free operations of
the mind, in its religious exercises, or prevent any freeman from
disposing of his property or services as may seem to him right. * * *
Upon the whole, your Committee recommend the adoption of the
following resolution:
Resolved, That the Committee be discharged from the further
consideration of the subject.
The Senate of Pennsylvania have adopted the report delivered .
by Mr. Hawkins upon the petition, &c. complaining of injustice
being done by Mr. George Rapp and his society.” g
For want of a full understanding of all the circumstances at-
tending those two cases, it may be objected, that they were not
similar,<-that Shriver had already commenced an action, which
was still pending in the court of Common Pleas, -that the peti-
tioners pointed out no definite mode of relief, &c.--To which we
reply, that including these circumstances, the cases appear per-
fectly similar. It is well known that a-suit was instituted by the
party, nearly a year ago, which is yet pending. The defendants
having obtained a change of venue, it was moved from Mercer
county to Anderson, and there tried, at the last November Term, l,
but the jury differing with the judge and counsel, it was suspended
for another trial, and yet remains in suspense. As for the mode of
relief dictated to our legislature we can conceive nothing in it be-
yond what was suggested in Shriver's complaint. “He also sets
forth (says the report) that numbers through ignorance have becn
drawn into the slavery of George Rapp through the delusion of be.
ing joint partners of the institution, &c.” By recourse to the Watch
Tower of July 7, 1827, complaints of delusion perfectly similar, on
the part of our opponents, may be seen in full detail, equally imply-
ing that they thought themselves copartners of tho institution. “It
is true (say they) we contemplate legislative interference, in refer-
ence to the mode and manner of suit against the society, by the
adoption of a remedy commensurate to the existing rights of the
withdrawing member, which we ſlatter ourselves can be done"
without a stretch of legislative power; and this is deemed neces.
sary in consequence of the numbers of the society, say three or
four hundrod, their peculiar internal regulations that serves to em.
£º. g *
*
18
barrass a direct approach of them by suit, and a speedy judicial de-
cision upon the points in controversy between us.”
The learned amanuensis plainly shows that he was equally un-
der the same delusion, in supposing the whole community actu-
ally confederated on the principles of a copartnership; and sofar
carried the delusion into the legislature as to stretch their power
into a confirmation of it, without which no adequate remedy could
be hoped for. The question, whether a society having no char-
ter of incorporation, has a legal existence, or can either sue or be
sued, was promptly answered (and it appears very justly) in the
megative, by the Judiciary Committee, in the case of the Economy
Society; which principle, if generally correct, may well be said
to embarrass a direct approach by suit of three or four hundred
people, situated as we are, and known only by names and descrip-
tions, palmed upon us by the public. The society at Economy
and that at Pleasant Hill are equally based on the mutual agree-
ment of members, ratified by their signatures to a written covenant,
which covenant commits the one interest, designed for the oom-
mon benefit, to the entire control of certain responsible individu-
als, as trusted property, to be disposed of according to statutes
well defined. These are “the peculiar internal regulations” that
render a stretch of legislative power so necessary; and if the late
act can be so construed, as to nullify these internal regulations,
and constitute three or four hundred people a joint stock company
capable of suing and being sued, we must either be cited to some
maxim in law, of which we are wholly ignorant, or draw the irre-
fragable conclusion, that the foregoing act resulted from a stretch
of legislative power, beyond what the legislature of Pennsylvania
thought to exist in our national government.
But to determine the main inquiry, recourse must be had to facts
relating to the proper form, order and character of the society,+
whether it is a civil or religious association, and what are its arti-
cles of agreement, laws and customs, under which it may be cog-
nizable or otherwise by the civil institutions of the land. In order
to commence these general inquires, we shall first introduce the
public statements, deliberately given, by the scribe and principal
instigator of the aforesaid petition, willing, that from his own pen,
the grounds of complaint and the general character and order of
the society may be construed,
19 -
Statements of John Whitbey concerning the Society; extracted front.
his book entitled—4 short account of Shakerism,
“As liberty of the press has become a powerful means of dis-
seminating knowledge, many avail themselves of its wonderful'
advantages in communicating their theughts, views and experi-
ence to their fellow creatures. And if I, as a free citizen of the
American republick, claim this right, it is with-no other than anº
homest intention of communicating my own just, impartial and
candid views of a virtuous people, who have long been the object
of idle speculation to some, and of serious reflection, wonder and
astonishment to others.
“This people is that society known by the name of Shakers,
A people with whom I once lived in that degree of union and
comfortable feelings which language cannot express nor pen de-
scribe; and a people for whom I still feel a kind and tender re-
Spect. -
P. Many are the strange views, false notions and erroneous ideas
existing in the minds of strangers concerning that society, and
many are the ill-founded conjectures and mistaken opinions of the
mature of their system and their principle of government.--The
are, in fact, so completely secluded from the world in all their
ways, that it is impossible for strangers to form a correct idea of
that principle of government or uniting tie that holds them togeth-
er. It will also be a very difficult thing to give to the world, in
writing, just and correct views of the principles of their system
and the influence of their government:—But as I have been.well
acquainted with them as a member of their community for more
than seven years, I hope by a correct statement of a number of
well known facts to make myself understood on the subject, and .
give satisfaction to many who are anxious to know, by what un-
known art, º peculiar people are bound together as a distinct"
body.” p. 3, 4:
# finº, acquainted with the Shakers, at Pleasant Hill,
Mercer county, Ky, in the spring of the year 1818. On becom.
ing acquainted with them,' I found them very different from what
they were generally represented. Instead of that superstitious
gloom and religious melancholy which I expected to see-cheerful-
mess, satisfaction, peace and tranquillity appeared to reign
throughout their delightful dominions.—This was shortly after the
division of the society into the first and second orders; this sep-
aration being made for the comfort and advantage of both parties—
that the first might enter into the practice of such rules and orders
as might advance them in the spirit of their system, unmolested
y the young and inexperienced—and that the second might re-
main a while longer in their inexperienced state, undisturbed by
the galling yoke of such orders as they were not prepared as yet
to receive, * *
Žſ).
“The secondor (as it was called) young order, at that time con-
sisted of one small family.—There were several larger families in
the first or Church order, under the direction of such elders of
their own order as were chosen by the Ministry. The Ministry
was composed of three of each sex, who were the founders of that
society, and were originally from the East: of these there were
two, one of each sex, whom the society called Father and Moth-
er, who stood as a centre of influence to the others; but in all
their proceedings in government they were completely united.
Being a stranger, I was unable to form a correct idea of the prin-
ciples of government and practical regulations of their community,
but the visible effects of their system were very delightful.”—p.
4, 25. s
So much for the views of this writer, on his first acquaintance
with the society; the following contains the result of his seven
years experience and observation relative to the government, or-
der, economy and moral character of eaeh of the different classes
or the body collectively.
Government. “Their government is a kind of hierarchial mom-
archy, the legislative, judicial and executive powers belonging sole-
ly to the Priests or Elders. Among these are different degrees
of authority, according to their respective offices, rising in grada-
tion from the lowest to the highest or supreme power. * **
Each society is divided into families, commonly dwelling in
large and convenient houses.—There are in every well organized
family two of each sex called elders, who stand as general direct
tors or instructers to the family in every respect, but more espe-
cially in all their moral economy; they are also assisted by one or
more of each sex called deacon and deaconess, whose business it
is to superintend all the domestic [or temporal] concerns of the
family, according to their instructions from the elders.-And as eve-
ry private member is under the direction of his respective deacon;
the deacon under the elders, and the elders under the ministry,
they are enabled by that means to preserve a strict uniformity and
correct understanding of all general affairs throughout the whole
society. The interest of all the members in each distinct order of
the society is one (according to the practice of the first chris-
tians.)” p. 5. * * * * * e = * > *
“After coming into Church order, they live in one united inter-
est, altogether under the control of the ministry, elders, trustees
and deacons; securing all their previously acquired wealth to the
exclusive use of the church by signing a contract or form of covo-
nant to that amount. The case is something different before eti-
tering into church order; for when any person first joins the soci:
ety, an inventory is made of the amount of his property, and if
he leave the society before he sign the church covenant, his pro-
2f
perty of the amount of it is restored; but compensation för labour
is seldom made.” p. 20. º
Distinction of Classes, “Almost every society is divided into.
classes or orders, according to their experience; those who have
been gathered together for some years, and have gained a recon-
siliation and love to their manner of life, are separated from the
new beginners; as this class is not prepared, by previous habits,.
to yield that obedience to good order as is required of the older
members. After the commencement of a new society, it requires
several years' training of the members to prepare them for what is
called Church order; but what this order is, I am not able to ex-
plain in every respect, having never resided therein; yet I think
their rules are similar to those prescribed for the younger class,
though far more strict and numerous.” p. 11, 12.
Moral Rules. “The instructions, or rather requisitions of the
elders not only embrace the general outlines and principles of ac-
tion, but descend to the more minute or details of practice, com-
prehending their whole economy. These orders certainly contain
a collection of the best and purest of morals, including the whole
duty of man, and are not excelled by any people on earth.” p. 13.
“They are a people of excellent morals, very industrious, and
in cleanliness, decency, temperance and good order unequalled;
and as a body, remarkably kind and benevolent; commonly speak-
ing and acting towards each other in the most respectful manner.
And though they are a people of deep humility, keen sensibility
and modest deportment, yet they are cheerful, affable and uncom-
monly soeial.” . p. 5. f
“Every one has his own peculiar place or office assigned him,
not only in occupation, but in meeting, at table and in all other
respects; the whole-presenting a delightful scene of good order"
and uniformity.” p.19.
Spirit gf Government, “Although the powers of government
belong solely to the priests, they generally govern in the mildest
manner possible.--The elders often meet with great difficulty in
training and bringing beginners into proper order. Some are la-
zy-some are fractious—some are stubborn, &c. &c. These tu-
multuous scenes of imperfection and counteraction are generally:
borne by the elders with great patience; but not without the ut-
most exertions, , in the exercise of such means, as they consider
best calculated to bring each one into proper order; exhorting
them to depend, entirely on the gift of God for that...power which
will subdue all the evils of a depraved mind, and enable them to
gain that purity, love and union, in the spirit of holiness that will
consummate their happiness. This manner of conduct becomes
a powerful incentive to good order; for all must acknowledge,
that the orders and requisitions of the elders are generally found-
ad in strict propriety.” p. 15. “Thus, by the influence of the
olders, and their assistance to each other, they advance from one
º
*e 22.
sº
| *
degree to another, becoming more and more reconciled to their
manner of life, as habit renders it agreeable, and better and better
prepared to receive and practise more orderly rules. Having cut
themselves off from nearly all sociability, friendship and com-
munications, with the world, by renouncing its practices, they
have no other source of social enjoyment, than the exercise of
kind feelings, union and love among themselves; and to this they
gradually attain, to a degree (I believe) exceeded by no society on
earth.”—p. 17.
Moral Virtue. “The common idea among strangers, that the
Shakers live in fornication, adultery and, debauchery is too ab-
surd and ridiculous, and betrays such ignorance of the nature of
their system, that I think it unworthy of notice, The same may
be said of their bondage and slavery so much spoken of; as though
people of common sense would suffer, themselves to be bound in
a free country contrary to their own-choice.” p. 20.—“Almost
every thing favourable may be said of the Shakers, respecting
their moral virtues, the practice of which is produetive of great
peace, comfort and tranquillity.” p. 21.-‘Although the Shakers
are a misrepresented and persecuted people, I well know they
hold a superior place among the various societies of the world in
practical virtue.”
Temporal Living. “Their co-operative' industry produces the
comforts of animal life in abundance, and they excel any people
with whom I have been acquainted in the art of cookery. But
as they are by no means satisfied with a mere negative virtue, or
the bare removal of the causes of animal sufferings, their greatest
exertions are directed to that cultivation of intellect and purifica-
tion of mind which will raise them to the highest state of mental
enjoyment.”—p. 21. e
Religious Tenets. “The shakers have made several publica-
tions of their own faith, ably supported according to their peou-
liar manner of reasoning.” p. 5.-‘They believe that the Scrip-
tures were written by inspiration;–They believe, that salvation
from sin and redemption from misery are to be gained, through
and by Christ.—They have no faith in the resurrection of the ani-
mal body after death, but they consider the soul the proper subject
of the resurrection. Neither do they eat bread and drink wine
in commemoration of an absent Christ, for they declare that Christ
has returned, and has taken up his abode in and with them, and of
course, is always present. . As they believe that the forbidden fruit
which caused the fall and depravity of man is the flesh, they of
course believe that it is impossible for any one to be saved from
the effects of the fall while living in the flesh. And as they be:
lieve that the forgiveness of sins belongs to God in Christ, and
in Christ alone, and as Christ, on earth, is no where to be found
but in his own church—they think it highly necessary; that all whº
become members of their community, should honostly confoss all
23
their sins to God in his living temple, [the priests] receive for.
giveness, and be prepared thereby to enter on the work of regen-
eration.”—p. 6 to 12. w
The sum of the foregoing statements (which in the main
are admitted as correct) is, that the Society in this place was
originally founded by a Ministry from the east, two of whom the
society, called Father and Mother. That the government intro-
duced was, confessedly, a theocracy or divine government, in
which the parentage was first in point of authority and ministerial
influence: That Trustees, Elders, and Deacons were appointed
to various lots of care, spiritual and temporal. That after the ex-
ample of the primitive christian church, all that believed came to-
gether, disposed of their property, and were confederated and
united in one interest, in all things. That the consecration of the
property, thus united, was to pious and charitable purposes, and
that proper persons were authorised, by mutual agreement, to ex-
ërcise control over it as trusted property, to be appropriated to
the use and benefit of the church. That many years’ training is
deemed necessary to prepare for entering into such an order.
That the grand object of the society is, the promotion of virtue,
goodness and mutual happiness. That their rules are founded
in strict propriety, and are conducive to peace, love and harmony.
That, in a temporal sense, they live well--are industrious, meat
and cleanly. That they believe the Scriptures—believe in Christ
-in the resurrection--confession of sin-r-regeneration and other
christian doctrines, &c. Now what is there,in all this, so essentially
variant in point of form, from other religious communities, or
charitablo institutions, that it should be declared lawful to prose-
pute suits, &c. against this particular society, in a manner distinct
from all others Are not the official characters, authorised to
make and fulfil contracts sufficiently plain and manifest ? No in-
dividual is admitted into membership with the society, but in a.
greement with the spiritual lead; nor is any contract made or im-
plied, relating to property, otherwise than with an agent, or some
individual, personally responsible for the same, and against whom
an action could be brought, provided the case was, in itself, ac-
tionable. But as the author of the foregoing statements was but
a catechumen, admitted, at an advanced period, into the junior
class, and mever initiated into church order, it will be proper, for
al
$24
the more perfect understanding of all things from the begiming,
to give a circumstantial. detail of facts, founded on the certain
knowledge and experience of those who have been members of
the society, from its early commencement to the present date.
*
The origin and progress of the United Society at Pleasant Hill.
It is sufficiently manifest, in all our publick writings, that the
people known by the name of Shakers originated from a Testi-
mony ºpened in Europe about the middle of the last century,
and brought over to America, in the year 1774. That, according
to said testimony (which is, that Christ has made his second ap-
pearance) the church is constituted, in the order it is, and the
practical rules and orders thereof adopted, as a bond of union,
throughout the different branches of the community, wherever
they may be situated. In the year 1805, the Testimony was first
opened in this part of the country, and received by a few.indivi-
duals. The year following the number of Believers became con-
siderable, and continued to increase, until the number became
sufficient to promise the establishment of a society in the place.
When the poeple began to gather together in a congregated
capacity, at this place (now Pleasant Hill) the first thing that was
done, by each one, was, to procure and continue a sustenance for
himself and family, upon land of his own purchasing, or land rent-
ed from the neighbors, according to his choice and ability. Such
as purchased land, took the titles in their own names, and each
one, himself, was the freeholder of his lands and whole estate,
real and personal. • ,
The first germs of unity of interest commenced, in this stage
of things, by young persons and others, of both sexes, who were
single, coming and residing in those scattered families, and associ-
ating with them, for the benefit of religious society and instruction.
These agreed, mutually, to labor together, for their common sup-
port, in each separate family, without any expectation of other
wages. These scattered families, constituting a religious neigh-
bourhood, assembled, statedly, for the purposes of divine worship
and the benefit of each other, in their religious experience.
$25
ºn this stage of things, no différence existed, in the tenures
by which they held their property, from the rest of the world.
'But this was very far short of what was expected by all; accord-
ingly, in a short time, preparations were made to draw into a clos-
er connection, both in respect to things spiritual and temporal;
which began by several of the aforesaid families joining together,
and residing in one house—selecting such places as were most
central and convenient, and leaving some of the places, where
they had formerly resided, as vacant and out-tenements.
They now began to assume the form and appearance of a vil-
lage, and each of these, now large families, cultivated its share of
those neighbouring farms, from which they derived a part of their
support. This state of things rendered it necessary that some
change and order should take place, in the management of their
property; but nothing like a dedication of property as yet took
-place. Each one still retained, as formerly, the fee simple of his own
real estate; the personal and perishable property of each individual
was valued, article by article, and inventoried, the use of which,
together with the rents, issues and profits of the land, was freely
devoted to their general family purposes, including their own
support. And for the better régulation of the general concern,
managers were appointed, to see to the general distribution and
idisposal of all temporal matters.
During the continuance of this order, any one who thought
proper, could withdraw from the society, and receive again the
whole of his or her property, on giving the necessary previous no-
tice of such intention. In this way the whole connection could
dissolve their relation, at pleasure, and the tenures and titles of
their property be in themselves unimpaired, as those of other
men. This, however, by no means satisfied the community. ... It
was viewed by the members as being far short of what they fiad
set out for; a full and entire union in all things, in perfect imita-
tion of the primitive gospel church, had, from the beginning, been
contemplated; and to this point they progressed, in the manner
they did, for the purposes of gathing experience and knowledge,
in matters relating to a final and decisive compact. That such
a course of deliberation should be adopted, niust be viewed, even
by the worst enemies of the society, as an ev'd moe of its up-
rightness and purity of intention; especially when it is considered
3
26 *
* * *
that this novitiate state was maintained for the term of Šx or so-
ven years, during which time persons might come and go, at plea-
sure, carrying with them their property, as their own, without
having either incurred debt or sustained loss or damage.
This much being said concerning the society in its preparatory
-state, for the final adoption of church order, we will now consid-
ef the steps taken in constituting the order of the church. After
the society became fully satisfied of the practicability of union in
all things, having, by long experience, tested its general princi-
ples, they determined to enter into an explicit covenant, to estab-
lish a permanent foundation, for the support of all who chose to
dedicate and devote themselves to that manner of life, independ-
ent of the personal claims of individuals.--Agreeing, that each
member should now make an irredeemable sacrifice of his person-
al or private interest, his time and talents, without any possibili-
ty, on his part, of even an equity of redemption in future. Ac-
cordingly, an article of agreement was prepared, carrying all these
important features and provisions, the signing of which was fa-
miliarly called by the mentbers, “finally shutting the door.”
This transaction produced an important change, in point of titles
to the property, which had formerly been held personally by the
members now including the order of the Church. The Church
covenant, as it was called, was intended and understood to be a
firm obligation for the legal conveyance and actual delivery of all
and singular the property and estate real and personal of the indi-
vidual who signed it; and by the signing.of this article, the sole
rights, titles and claims, in a legal point of view, were intended to
be vested in trustees, who were named in said covenant, to be
held by them, in trust, for the use and benefit of this newly con-
stituted body called the Church. And thus the individual titles
and claims of members, on the ground of private interest, were
forever extinguished, and the whole placed, as trusted property,
in the hands of trustees, the execution of whose trust, was direct-
ed by the covenant. Accordingly such as held real estate, pro-
ceeded without delay, in conformity to the aforesaid covenant, to
execute regular deeds of conveyance, by which they set over the
entire fee simple of their lands, to the trustees aforesaid; moreo-
ver, all goods, chattels, household furniture, and property of eve-
ry description, specified on the inventories of individuals or oth-
97°
grwise-claimed by them, were surrendered, and under the Superin-
tendence of the trustees, distributed and apportioned to the differ-
ont households and individual members as every one had need;
while the members respectively entered into their different lots
and employments, improving their time and talents for the mutual"
benefit of all; and so it has continued to the present date.
It is needless to, recapitulate the object of those proceedings.
It only remains to inquire into their legality arid moral honesty.
And first, Was the plan of thus constituting the church a legal
one Ans. It is certainly entitled to the free toleration and pré-
tection of the law. “No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or
support any place of worship, against his consent,” but a voluntary
contribution to any society cannot be prohibited. Perhaps this
inquiry could not receive a better answer than the following extract
of a private letter, written by William Plumer, Governor of New *
Hampshire, and published in the Intelligencer of Lancaster (Pa.)
dated Feb. 28, 1818.
“My sentiments on that subject, (Religious Freedom) have
not changed with time, but every revolving season has added new
proofs in my mind, to the fitness and propriety of leaving every
—individual to the full and entire liberty of choosing his own reli-
gion, and of giving or withholding his property, as he pleases, for
its support. Human laws cannot make men religious, but they
may and often have made bad men hypocrites. Civil govern-
ment was instituted for earth, not for heaven, and it ought never to
intermeddle with religion, except to protect men in the free enjoy-
ment of their religious sentiments.”
Q. But is it consistent with moral honesty, to hold the property
of an individual who has thus conveyed it to the use and bene-
fit of the church, after he has withdrawn from the community ?
A. We deemit perfectly so, nor could any thing be more sacrile-
gious or dishonest, than for any one to attempt the recovery of
property thus solemnly and confidentially devoted, in union with
others, to the support of an institution, by which all are generally
benefitted. w
Q. Provided the withdrawing member has failed in receiving
those benefits which he expected. What then A. The blame
is his own; he has to abide the consequence. Q. Would it not
consist with moral honesty, at least, to refund the principal, or
4.
ſ
|
*
* 28
the amount of what he put in the general fund 7 A. Not as s
debt; because he has no claim, on any just principle; and moreo-
ver, by the terms.of his covenant, he has put it out of the power
of the trustees ever to refund it to him, they being bound to ap-
propriate it to the use and benefit of the church and the poor, and.
to no personal or private end. or purpose whatever. Neverthe-
less, this does not prevent his receiving any charitable donation
which the church may think proper, provided his situation and de-
portment render him worthy. It never was the design of the church
to get away people's property from them, nor is it from any lack.
of honesty or liberality that any such property is withheld. Every
well informed mind must see the path of rectitude in this affair,
without any mistalke. The contributors to a pious or charitable
fund necessarily divest themselves and their heirs, of all private
or personal claim to such contributions; but they are not divested
of their proper authority, as trustots, to compel an execution of
the trust; hence it is repugnant to the plainest principles of both.
law and equity, for the trustees to dispose of such property, oth-
erwise than as directed by the covenant. It is further inquired,
whether the church is not bound in conscience to afford a gener-
ous patrimony to the children of withdrawing members. To this
we reply, that all, before signing the church covenant, have full
liberty to make any reserve of property for their children that they
choose. Such reserves are deposited in the church, free from in-
terest, until the heir becomes of age and demands and receives it,
otherwise signs the covenant and becomes a member; in which
event all private claims relating to such estate are forever extin-
guished. Therefore as the execution of the trust relating to all
such devoted property is restricted to the benefit of the church
and the poor, the child of a contributor can have mostronger claims
on the property than other persons in similar situations; if it be
an object of charity, a gift can be extended, but not otherwise.
Having considered the claims of withdrawing members and their.
natural heirs, we shall next consider the claims of those members
who maintain a good standing and continue to be held in union
with the body. But to enter fully into this subject, embracing
overy important question that might arise, relating to the differ-
ent lots and offices of members, may not be necessary. It must,
| however, be cbserved, that by virtue of the church covenant, a
, 29
tetal transför of all legal title and claim to the property has been
made, from each and every member of the church, to certain indi-
, viduals as agents or trustees, who are bound to use it for the pur-
poses specified above: Hence the only right or claim remaining
in individual members, is to their equal and daily dividends off
food, clothing and other necessaries, in sickness, health and old
age, according to their respective needs. The trustees, also be-,
ing members, have a right to manage and dispose of it, as directed,
so long as they are held in office, and act in union with the body;
and no longer. It might be further inquired, whether the trus-
tees do not, some how or other, hold a personal claim, superios
to other members. This, by no means, is implied in the cove-
nant. The property of the trustees; real and personal, is as sub-
stantially conveyed and consecrated to the benefit of the commu-
nity, as the property of any-other member, and they are equally
subject to the same governing influence with others. *
It may also be inquired, whether the control and manage-
ment of this property is so confided to the trustees, that no pri-
vate member can trade or speculate upon it, under pretence of an
individual right? Ans. As to individual right, that point, we pre-
sume, has been fully settled; and should individuals assume a right
to make any disposal of it, without authority from the trustees,
any such contract would be deemed illegal, and property thus
perverted recoverable by law, to its proper use and appropriation.
Now from all that has been said, it is easy to infer the falsity and
absurdity of the common charge of dishonesty so frequently cast
upon the institution. Does it belong to the character of knaves
and swindlers to consecrate and devote all they possess to a com-
mon use and benefit? If fraud was intended, would the eandi-
date for church membership be allowed seven years probation;
and afforded every, possible privilege of examining, the subject
to the bottom before he signs the covenant of consecration? It
is truly a matter of deep regret when any one enters into the
bonds of the covenant, and proves unfaithful to his solemn ob-
ligations; no sacrifice of property on the part of the church could
repair the incalculable damages that result from the withdrawal of
such. - We do not mean in personal abuse or private injuries, but
in disseminating false, reports and accusations, dishonoring thé
gospel, sowing discord among neighbours, and disturbing the peace
3* *
86°
and happiness of society. The mature and obligations of the church.
covenant are so plainly taught among us, and so well understood
by all, that we have no reason to believe, that any one ever at-
tempted to give up and consecrate his property with any expec-
tation of ever receiving it again; nor can any church member
have the smallest reason to expect wages for his work when it is
so well known, that each individual is his own employer, and re-
ceives the services of others as freely as he bestows his own.
We the undersigned, having, at an early period, become mem-
bers of the United Society, in this place, and as such maintained.
our standing to the present date, do cheerfully subscribe to the
foregoing statement of facts as correct, and the reasons offered in
support of them consistent with our faith and the well known prin-
ciples of the institution.
E. Thomas, J. Voris, J. Runyon, B. Burnett,
J. Dunlavy, H. Banta, P. Voris, F. JMontfort,
S. JManire, J. Vanclave, V. Runyon, JM. Bur-
mett, J. Congleton, G. R. Runyon, J._Shields,
W. Runyon, J. Fite, JM. Thomas, J. Coony,
J. L. Ballance, J. Lineback, D. Woodrum, J.
Shane, S. Harris, J. Badget, T. Shane, J. Voris,
jr., S. Badget, W. Verbrike, J. JMedlock, P.
Hooser, P. Lineback, W. JHamire, G. D. Rum-
yon, L. Wilhite.
It has not been uncommon for individuals to withdraw from the
junior order of the society, who rarely make any difficulty in set-
tling their accounts, the terms being so well understood. And al-
though there have also been various instances of members with-
drawing from the church,' there has never, as yet, been a case in
this country, in which the legal force of the church covenant has
been tested before a court of justice. In other States it has been
somewhat different, as will appear from the following documents.
To the United Society of Believers in Kentucky.
Having understood that your rights as citizens, or the legality of”
our covenant, is about to be put to the test at a court of law, and
that you wish to know how such cases have been decided in Mas-
sachusetts, we are able to assure you, that the covenant, as well as
our legal rights, has been several times put to the test before the
sppreme judicial court (or the court of appeals as you call it), aftd
31
*
that our society has been declared from this bench to be a legal'
compact, and our covenant a legal instrument—and that before
this court there never has been a decree given against us, nor has
it, in any instance, invalidated the legality of our institution-and
that having been an eye and ear witness of these transactions for
upwards of thirty years, I hereby certify, that I have heard it pro-
nounced by Francis Dama, Chief Justice of said court, that it was
as illegal to trespass on our rights, as on those of any other socie-
ty whatever; and other judges have decided in the same way.
We have always faced those unjust and illegal demands or charg-
es with confidence and perseverance, so that we have never lost
a case, and our prayer is that the same success may attend you on
these occasions, &c.
ASA BROCKLEBANK.
Among the various communications we have received from dif:
ferent quarters affording light on the subject, three cases in par-
ticular seem to merit special notice—two containing the opinion of
the supreme judicial court in the State of Maine, the other the re-
port of an action tried in the county of Grafton, State of New
Hampshire, in 1810, which-cases furnish such special light on al-
most every point that can come into controversy relating to our
civil rights, that we think them worthy of a place in the present
publication. The first two may be found at large in 3rd and 4th
Greenleaf, Reporter for Maine, and the latter in the New Hamp-
shire law case, published in the National Intelligencer of Decem-
ber 1st, 1827. '
e=meº
State of Maine, Alfred, April Term, 1825.
ANDERSON ET AL. vs. BROCK.
In trespass quare clausum by the trustees of the society of sha-
kers for an injury done to their common property. The members
of the same society are competent witnesses on releasing, &c.
This was an action oftrespass for breaking the close of the plain-
tiffs. They sued as deacons or overseers of the society of Sha-
kers, and so amended their writ, which was objected to by the
defendant, but sustained by the court, . The competency and in-
oompetency of the witnesses were argued at length on both sides.
The court decided in favour of their competency.
The plaintiff's counsel then read a deed from Barbara Brown to
Gowen Wilson, &c. conveying the locus in quoto them and their
successors and assigns, intrust for the use of the Society, the sup-
port of the Gospel among them, &c. and then showed from the
book of Records of the society that the plaintiffs were then regular
Successors,
—r
3%
The defendants contended that no title had passed to the plain-
tiffs, and therefore they had no right to maintain the action.
. The objection was overruled by the court and a verdict under
its instructions, was returned for the plaintiffs, subject to the opin-
ion of the Court.
At the succeeding term in Kennebeck, Weston, J. delivered the
opinion of the court, in which it holds the doctrine that the trustees
of the Shakers have a right to, as such, and can maintain an ac-
tion against a wrong doer to the common property of the Shakers.
The court seems to be under a strong conviction, that the trus-
tees can maintain an action declaring upon their own possession,
and seisin without setting forth their official character—where a-de-
fendant can show no title in himself, he may not rely on the weak-
mess of the trustees’ title, and judgment for damages at the Šuit of
the trustees must be rendered against him, declaring upon their
own rights. * º
The doctrine was urged by" the counsel for the plaintiff, that
where a regular deed of trust was made to the plaintiffs and their
successors, so long as the succession was susceptible of proof, the
successors would take at common law, Newhall vs. Wheeler, 7th
Mass. Rep. p. 179. 4
The court in giving their opinion hold out the following lan-
guage: “But religious toleration, which is the vital principle of pro:
testantism, and which is effectually secured by the constitution and
laws of our own State, as well as that from which we have separa-
ted, has produced and is producing many modifications of discip-
line and doctrine in bodies associated for spiritual and ecclesiastical
purposes. The sect with which the plaintiffs are connected have-
been för some time known among us, and their peculiar tenets
and modes of discipline havc been embodied and settled by their
teachers in regular and, among them, well established forms. Al-
though once persecuted by the mistaken zeal of former days, they
are now permitted-under more favourable auspices to keep the
peaceful tenor of their way, unmolested. They are in general
quiet, $ober and industrious; and the fruits of these commendable
qualities are exhibited to the public eye in their beautiful villages
and cultivated grounds; and in the apparent comfort and abun-
dance with which they are surrounded. If the persons who ac-
quire authority and influence among them, should be found to abuse
these powers, they are answerable both civilly and criminally, for
their misconduct. Like all other citizens they are amenable to
the laws by which they are protected; and from obedience to
which their seclusions afford them no immunity or exemption.”
After much luminous argument in support of their opinion, tho.
court gave judgment upon the verſlict, -See 3d Greenleaf. 243.
r
33
* ,
WAIT vs. MERRIL AND AL,
Júblien, C. J. *. 4. * > -
This case presents two questions for consideration. , 1... Were"
John Coffin, Levi Holmes and Elisha Pate properly admitted as
witnesses?’ and 2d, were the instructions of the Judge to the jury.
correct?' \ g &
1. The objection to the admission of the above mentioned wit”
nesses seems to have been effectually removed by the releases
given at the trial. A question of the same nature was settled by
this court, in the case of Anderson and al. vs. Brock, 3 Greenleaf :
The only difference is, in that case the witnesses were introduced.
by the plaintiff, and they and the witnesses executed mutual re-
leases. This objection therefore is overruled. sº
2d. The second deserves more consideration. Under the in".
structions which the jury received, they have found that the plain-
tiff knowingly signed the covenant; and, by the report, it appears
that he was a man of common natural abilities and understanding,
and sometimes taught and exhorted in the religious meetings of
‘the society; and he was more than twenty one years of age
when he signed it. By thus signing, he assented to all the terms
and conditions specified in that covenant, made its stipulations.
his own, and agreed to conform to the rules and regulations of the
society in relation to its spiritual and temporal concerns. By the
covenant, it appears, and also from the testimony of the plantiff’s
own witnesses, that community of interest is an established and
distinguishing principle of the association:-that the services of
each are contributed for the benefit of all, and all are bound to
maintain each in health, sickness and old age, from the common
or joint-fund, created and preserved by joint industry and exer-
tion—and each one by the express terms of the covenant, engages
"never to bring debt or demand against the said deacons, nor
“their successors, nor against any member of the church or com-
“munity, jointly or severally on account of any service or pro-
“perty, thus devoted and consecrated to the aforesaid sacred and -
* charitable use.”
Such are the facts, as to the contract into which the plaintiff
entered, when he subscribed the covenant. It is an express con-
tract. The plaintiff, in the present aetion, however, does notº
profess to found his claim on an express promise; but he contends
the law implies a promise on the part of the defendants, to pay
him for his services, although they were performed for the society
of which the defendants are officers, and not for them in their prº-
vate capacity; and although such an implied promise is directly
repugnant to the covenant or written contract. Besides it is clear,
from all the evidence in the cause, that whatever services the
plaintiff performed while he was a member of the society, and
remained and labored with them, he performed in consequence of:
his membership and in pursuance of the covenant, and in virtué.
Y
that upon the facts proved, and disclosed in the report before us, 31'
º
34.
of which he became a member. Now it is a principle perfectly
well settled, that where there is an express contract in force, the
law does not recognize an implied one, and where services have
been performed under an express contract, the action to recover
compensation for such services must be founded on that contrack,
and on that only, unless in consequence of the fault or consent of
the defendant. In the present case there is no proof that the
covenant has been violated on the part of the society, or that the
plaintiff had any right to waive the covenant and its special provi-
sions, and resort to a supposed implied promise, on which to main-
tain his action. But as the covenant refers to the order of the
church and their peculiarities of faith, and as at the trial both
parties, without objection, went into an examination of witnesses,
and thus obtained all those ficts, in relation to the society which
are detailed in the judge’s report, the argument of the counsel has
been founded on all the evidence in the cause, received in a body;
and, of course, in forming our opinion we shall place it on the
same broad foundation, without reference to technical objections
if any should present themselves. We are perfectly satisfied,
that the covenant was properly admitted as proof to the jury, to
show on what terms and considerations, the services were per-
formed by the plaintiff, for which he is now seeking compensation.
We are also of opinion that the instructions of the judge to the
jury were correct, if the covenant signed by the plaintiff, taken in
connection with those facts in the cause which are considered on
this occasion as a part of it, is a lawful covenant, one which the
law will sanction, as not being inconsistent with constitutional
rights, moral precepts or public policy. This leads us to the ex-
amination of the covenant, the principlés it contains and enforces,
and the duties it requires of the members of the society. The
obunsel for the plaintiff contends that the covenant is, forcertain
reasons, void, and to be pronounced by this court a nullity. It is
said that it is void, because it deprived the plaintiff of the consti-
tutional powers of acquiring, possessing and protecting property.
The answer to this objection is, that the covenant only changed
the mode in which he chose to exercise this right or power. He
preferred that the avails of his industry should be placed in the
common fund or bank of the society, and to derive his maints;
nance from the daily dividends which he was sure to receive.
this is a valid objection, it certainly furnishes a new argument a-
gainst Banks, and is applicable also to partnerships of one de-
scription as well as another. It is said that the covenant or con-
tract is contrary to the genius and principles of a free government
and therefore void. To this it may be replicd, that one of the
blessings of a free government is, that under its mild influences
the citizens are at liberty to pursue that mode of life and species
of employment best suited to their inclinations and habits, unani-
barrassed by too much regulation; and while thus pencembly ot.
cupied, and without interfering with the rights or onjoyments ºf
\.
35
y " .
others, they surely are entitled to the protection of so good a gov-
ernment as ours; then, perhaps all these privileges and enjoyments
might be contrary to the genius and principies of an arbitrary
government. But in support of this objection, it is contended
that the covenant-is a contract on perpetual service and surrender
of liberty. Without pausing to inquire whether a man may not
legally contract with another to serve him for ten years as well as
one, receiving an acceptable compensation for his services, we
would observe that by the very terms of the fourth and fifth arti-
cles, a secession of members ſrom the society is contemplated,
and its consequences guarded against in the fifth, by the covenan-
tors never to make any claim for their services, against the socle-
ty; and the fourth article speaks of a compliance with certain
rules, so long as they “remained in obedience to the order and
government of the church, and holden in relation as members.”
Besides, the general understanding and usage for persons to leave
the society whenever they incline so to do, the plaintiff him-
self has, in this case, given us proof of this right, by withdrawing
from their fellowship; and now, in the character of a stranger to
their rules and regulations, demanding damages in consequence of
the dissolution of his contract.
It is said the covenant is void, because it is in derogation of the
inalienable right of liberty of conscience. To this objection the re-
ply is obvious. The very formation and subscription of the co-
wenant is an exercise of the , inalienable right of liberty of con-
science; and it is not easy to discern why the society in question
Inay not frame their creed and covenant as well as other societies
of christians, and worship God according to the dictates of their
•own consciences. We must remember that in this land of liber-
ty, civil and religious, conscience is subject to no human law; its
rights are not to be invaded or even questioned, so long as its dic-
‘tates are obeyed consistently with the harmony, good order and
Peace of the community. With us modes of faith and worship
-must always be numerous audvariant, and it is not the province
40f either branch of the government to control or restrain them,
when they appear sincere and harmless. Again, it is urged that
the Corenant is void, because its consideration is illegal, that it is
against good morals and the policy of the law. We apprehend
that these objections cannot have any foundation in the covenant
itself for that is silent as to many particulars and peculiarities
which the counsel for the plaintiff deems objectionable. The co-
yemant only settles certain principles as to the admission of mem-
bers; community of interest; mode of management and support;
requisition and use of the property; stipulations in respect to ser.
viºs. and claims; professions of a general nature, as to the faith
of the society, and the solemn renewal of a former covenant and
*PPointment of certain officers. This is the essence of the cove-
manº, signed by the plaintiff, and on this the defendants rely as a l
*ritten contract of the plaintiff under his hand and seal, never to
!
-36
'make the present claim, and also a complete bar to it. Now what
is there illegal in its consideration, or wherein is it against good
‘morals and the policy of the law? It does not contain a fact or a
Zyrinciple which an honest man ought to condemn; but it does con-
tain some provisions which all men ought to approve. It distinct-
ly inculcates the duty of honest industry, contentment with com,
Jetency, and charity to the poor and suffering. sº
In this view of the subject these objections vanish in a moment.
But if we consider them as founded on the covenant and all
the evidence in the cause together, the result of the examination,
will not, in a legal point of view, be essentially varied. It is cer-
•tainly true, that some articles of faith, peculiar to the society, ap-
pear to the rest of the world as destitute of all scriptural founda-
tion, and several of their consequent regulations unnatural, whim-
sical, and in their tendency in some respects, calculated to weaken
the force of what are termed imperfect obligations. Professing to
“exercise a most perfect command over those passions which others
are disposed most cheerfully to obey; they, perhaps, in so doing
may chill some of the kindest affections of the heart, gradually
lessen its sensibility, and to a certain extent, endanger, if not se-
riously wound, “the tender charities of father, son and brother.”
Perhaps celibacy, out of the pale of this church, has often the
“same tendency. It is true, the mode of education and govern-
ment may be too restrictive, and the means used to preserve
proper submission to authority may be deemed artful, severe, and
in some particulars highly reprehensible, especially in their pre-
tended knowledge of the secrets of the heart. On the other hand,
it appears as before stated, that benevolence and charity are vir-
tues enjoined and practised, and the plaintiff’s witnesses, who had
formerly belonged to the society for several years, testified, that
“all vice and immorality are disallowed in the society, and integri-
“ty, uprightness and purity of life are taught and enforced among
“them; and that the precepts of the gospel, as they understand
“and interpret them, constitute, as they conceive, the foundation
“of their faith, and the rules of their practice.” As for their
faith, it would seem, from the volumes which they have published,
that it extends to unusual lengths, and leads to what others at once
pronounce to be absurdities; but this is not within our controul; it
is rightfully their own. gº tº
But it is contended, that, according to the faith and principles, and
usages of the society, which are considered as referred to, in the
covenant as a part of it, the covenant amounts to a contract ne-
ver to marry, which public policy will not sanction. We have be:
fore observed that it is not a perpetual one, of course, at most, it
is a contract not to marry while they continue members of the so-
ciety; but their faith does not require so much as this, their princi.
ples condemn marriage in certain cases only; that is, where it is
contracted with earnal motives, and not purely with a view of con-
plying with the original command “increase and multiply.”
37
s
.*Tis true they do not believe that marriage is contracted, ex-
.cept in some ** instances, without mótives £ar less worthy
anºdisinterested, . As it regards those members of the society
-who are married, though they may ºve separate without cherish-
ing the gentle affections, still such conduct yiolates no human law;
and however lightly, they may esteem the blessing cf matrimony,
their opinions do not Jesseå the legal obligations created by mar-
riage. Surely they play agree to live in different houses and with-
gut any communication with ēaoh other. Contracts of separation
between husband and wife are not unfrequent, neither are they
illegal when mºde with third porjons. This objection cannot a-


‘vail, nor that which refers toºthe relation between father and son.
Their principles require the circle of benevolence and *...* to
be enlarged, but not that Yarental or filial tenderness should be
destroyed or lessened, w; must not overlook theºdistinction be-
-tween duties, of perfºgº and imperfect ºbligation; the neglect of
the former is a violation of, law, which will render the Helinquent
-liable in a court of justice to damages, penalties or punishment,
but the performance, of the latter is never the subject of legal
&oercion. A man may be punished for defrauding his neighbour;
but not for indulging feelings of unkindness towards him; or in
“the hour of sorrow withholding,from #in the balm of sympathy,
consolation and relief, Though we may disapprove of many of
the sentinents of this souiety in respect to the subject of educa-
•tion, and discipline; yet as i. steadily'íngulcate purity of mor-
als, such a society has a perfect right to claim and receive, and
-enjoy the full blessings of legal protection.
ut for the sake of the argument, let us suppose that the con-
tract or covenant is illegal and void, for the reasons which have
-been urged by the plaintiff's counsel ; what, then, will be the legal
consequences? Will the action, then, stand on any firmer ground 7
Though in the present case, the plaintiff does not demand of the
defendanta, the re-payment of a sum of money paid to them, on
the ground that they have no legal right to retain it, yet his de-
mand is, in principle, the sqmººthing; it is a demand of compen- .
sation for services readered, bm the ground, that as the contract
was unlawful and void, the walue of those services may be recov-
cred; that is, tº he had increased the funds of the society by a
&um of mºney instead' df his personal tailors, and services, the
right to recover back the money, or recover the value of those ser-
tices in "money, must be settled by the same principles of law in
both cases, . Now what are those principles Before stating
them, let it be again observed, that the jury have found, that the
plaintiff knowingly signed this covrºmant, which we are now consid-
ºring in the light of an illegal and zoid contract, and voluntarily
joined the society and remained several years a member, cngaged
with all the other members in all the transactions of it, and all of
them in pari delicto; for if the fººm. is illegal and void, it is


W
$8
because the society who formed and signed it is an unlawful sociº-
*/, and united for purposes which the law condemns.
'If a wiger be made on a boxing match, and on the event hap-
“Pening, the winner receives the money; it cannot be recovered
back by the loser, for whereone knowingly pays money upon a
‘Contract executed which is in itself immoral and illegal, and
where the parties are equally criminal, the rule is, in paſſ delieto,
‘potiorest conditio defendentis.’, 2 Com. Gon. 120. Bull. n, ºp.
132, Cowp. 179. Lord Kenyon there says, “There is no caset
be found where, when money has been actually paid by aneo
: two parties to the other, on an illegal contract, boths being par.
‘ticeps criminis, an action can be maintained to recover it back
again. There the money was not paid on an immoral though illº;
* gal consideration; and though the law would not have enforced
‘payment of it, yet, as having paid, it is not against conscienge fo
“the defendant to retainit.” fº. J. adds “In Smith v. Brom-
ley, Lord Mansfield said, that when both parties’are equally criminal,
against the general laws df public policy the rule is pottorest conditie
defendentis, better is the condition of the defendant.” “See Smith
v. Bromley, Douglas 696, See, also, Engar and al. v. Fowled 3.
Esp. 222, it was determined that an underwriter could not main,
thin an action against brokers to recover premiums of reassurances
declared illegal by statute, Lord Ellenboro' C.J. says, “We
will not assist an illegal transaction in any respect: we leave-mat-
ters as we find them, and so an action will not liete recover-back
money deposited for the purpose of being paid to one for his ine
terest, and soliciting a pardon for a person under sentence of
death.”—3 Esp. 253. !
“No implied promise rises out of an illegal transaction,” Ro-
bertson v. Tyler, 2 H. Bi. 379. See also Aubert v. Moor, % Bes.
and Pul. 371. And McDane in his abr: il vol. 194, says, “And
on the whole, the sound principle is, the law will not raise or imply
any promise in aid of a transaction ºf rbidden by the flaw of the
land.” With these authorities it would seem impossible for us to
sustain the present action, even allowing the corenant and the
society, by whom and for whose use it was formed, to be of the
jº. and illegal character which has been given them.
On the whole, we are all of opinion there is a total failure on the
part of the plaintiff; and accordingly there must be a judgment on
the verdict.
State of Maine, County of York, Alfred, June 18, 1827.
The above is the opinion of the Supreme J. Court in the State
of Maine, delivered at Portland, in the County of Cumberland, in
May, 1826, and will be reported in the next volume of Greenleaf’s
reports, not yet published. s
DANIEL GOODENOW,
Counsellor at Law in said Court,
*
59
state of New Hampshire, Sup, Court, ‘Grafton County, October
* Term, 1810. ſº
joiiN HEATH vs. NATHANIEL DRAPER.
Assumpsit for $1000 money had and received, &c. and 2d
count for labor and service, per account annexed to writ for 13
years and 11 months—on quantum meruit; amount, $2016. La-
bor ended 17th August, 1809—alleged to have been performed
at defendant's request and for his benefit. Plea, non assumpsit.
It was admitted that defendant was a deacon, and had the charge
of the temperal concerns of the family of Shakers at Enfield in
this State; and that the plaintiff’s father, Jacob Heath, and his
mother, with their children, joined the society in 1784. The
plaintiff"was then about 14 years old. The father never was a
inember of the church, but of the society only.
The plaintiff in 1793–5, after he became of age, joined the
church, and signed the covenant. After that time, the father put
what he considered as the plaintiff's share of his estate into the hands
of the then deacons of the society, 8th December, 1798, the dea-
cons (defendant and Lyon) paid the amount to the plaintiff, $175.
Plaintiff then returned the money to the deacons, agreeably to the
covenant he had entered into with the church in 1793. 26th Oc-
tober, 1801, plaintiff renewed the covenant, as did the other mem-
bers of the church with some small additions.
It was admitted that the plaintiff had labored faithfully in and
for the º from the time mentioned in the writ, till he with-
drew in 1809; and had been clothed and supported out of the
joint stock, as others were.
On the part of the plaintiff several witnesses were examined be-
fore the jury. The object seemed to be, to prove that the prin-
ciples and practice of the society were narrow, exclusive, strict,
and severe-unfriendly to learning, having little regard to natural
ties, and domestic relations;–that professing equality in the mem-
bers, they were governed by a few, and held to the doctrine of
passive obedience, and non resistance, contrary to the constitution,
The defendant gave in evidence the covenant, as it was called,
and the renewal of it by plaintiff. The execution was admitted.
wº was substantially the same as that stated in the book called
“The testimony of Christ's second appearing, &c. p. 505, chapter
sili.” They also called several witnesses, who gave a more fa-
vourable, account of the prineiples and practice of the society,
than that given by plaintiff's witnesses—all agreeing that no co-
ercion was used, members may go away from the church when
they please; but in such case, it has always been considered, they
have no claim to the property given, and dedicated by them, nor to
maintenance in future. In such cases the church has, on some
occasions, given them such sums as they thought groper, but now
thing as debt or matter of right.
}
43
Admission into the church is treated as a matter of solemn:
consideration-not done hastily, but on full deliboration, and not.
while the party is under age. No persuasionsare used, much less
any misrepresentations, as to terms, principles, consequences, &c.
All is set down in writing. Steady, but moderate labor, is requir-
ed, according to the ability of the party. The government and
discipline of the society is mild and gentle. &
The counsel for the defendant gave an historical account of the
society from its origin, a short summary of the doctrines and prinr
ciples of the sect: in substance, the same as stated, in the book
ealled “The Testimony of Christ's second appearing,” &c. 2d
edition printed at Albany 1810; from which he read various pas-
sages. The testimony was not summed up by the jº Oºt
either side; it was thought unnecessary. Defendant’s counsel
briefly stated the grounds on which, in point of law, a recovery
was resisted—That here was no implied promise to pay wages, but
an express agreement that plaintiff was not laboring for hire or
wages: and as to the money put into the joint stock by the plain-
iñº was gibce, the gift was complete and effectuałºpossession
delivered :-it was not in the power of the donor to retract or re-
claim it: that there was no consideration; if such were in fact the
case, would only show that it was a gift, -when there is a conside-
ration it is a grant. By our law the owner may freely give his
property, or he may make a worse use of it--if he so please-
waste it in riotous living. He may surely bestow his money and
labour in support of charity, and what he thinks religion. ,
Some suppose a donor has an equity to recover back a gift ; but
the rule is the same in equity as at law—no bill lies–the party
merely has the right to ask for a gift in return. It is .admitted.
that to make the gift effectual and binding, the donor must give
.freely, understanding what he is about-must be under no legal
incapacity, such as infancy, coverture, insanity, duresse :-there
must be no circumvention or fraud practised upon him : On these
points defendant cheerfully submits the cause, on the evidence
àefore the jury. Even plaintiff’s testimony does not so much as tend
to prove any such things. As to the labor, it was not done for
defendant or at his request; but he is willing to waive all objeg-
tions to form; and indeed to substance as it respects this point. He
is willing the case-should be considered in the same way as if the
whole of this church or the society were the defendants on the
record. Here was no labor done for the society, under an expect-
ation of wages, but the contrary. Labor gratuitously performed
gives no cause of action any more than a gift of money or other
thing. To make a contract there must be an agreement-tºgrer
gatio mentium ; an agreement of both partień, that plaintiff was
laboring for lire, to be paid by defendants

##" *
The circumstances of the case exclude all implication of cons'
tact: The promise implied by law is a metaphysical notion--the
law in truth makes no promise; it is the parties that make all the
contract. When A says to B labor for me, it is the understanding
of both, where the contrary is not expressed, that he is to be
paid a reasonable sum, .or adequate compensation, where no par-
ticular sum is named. *
Implied contracts or promises exist only where there is no ex-
press stipulation between the parties. Here there was an express
stipulation, that plaintiff was not to be paid. It is a matter of faith.
with this sect not to claim anything for property bestowed or serº-
vices dome to their community. Each. freely gives, and in their
belief is bound to give his time and talents, as brethren and sisters
for the mutual good, one of another. This action is a breach of
faith as well as of contract. When plaintiff agreed to dedicate
his property and his services to this society, he did not suppose he
was giving beyond what he received. He was admitted a mem-
ber and entitled to all the privileges annexed to membership. The
consideration has not failed through any cause out of himself. He
made a contract—defendants have performed and are ready to per-
form, Plaintiffalone is dissatisfied and wishes to be off on a new
contract of his own making. He has proved himself not so good
a man as he professed and they believed him to be. But they are
willing still to use their endeavors to reclaim and reform him. s
His right in this action to recover is much the same as that of
a wife would be, after she had committed adultery and abscond-
ed from her husband's family. There might in this case, be an
equity in plaintiff, if he had been ill used by defendant or the fami-
ly, and so, as it were, driven away; but the evidence gives no col-
our for this, Going away was his own voluntary act. If he acted
under a mistake of fact or law, in joining the society and entering
into the covenant, it would be a different thing, but the evidence.
negatives any such pretence. g
It has been hinted, and only hinted, that this dedication of
property and labour was to superstitious uses, to a false religion and
so not binding. No one can see the improvements made in hus-
bandry and manufactures by this sect, and at the same time believe
the existence of the sect to be against the policy of the law.
Whatever we may think of their faith, their works are good, and
charity bids us think well of the tree when the fruits are salutary.
We cannot try the question which religion, theirs or ours, is the
better one-Each may prefer his own. Theirs is equally under
the protection of the law, as ours. To try this question it would
be but fair to empannel a jury de medietate. Suppose this small
sect had a court, and our religion, opinions and practice should
Rome. on trial before it, what sºld we think of the correctness of
*
º
4%
*
a verdict finding out religion an absurd one and tending to im-
mºrality?. In matters of faith we are incompetent te judge each.
other. . There certainly are some reasons for saying that the reli-
gion of this seet of christians, bears a greater resemblance to that
of the primitive church than ours does. Their discipline is more
strict, perhaps, than ours, but not more so than that of the first
churches of New England, the Presbyterian church of Scotland in
former days, or the Methodists a short time ago.
Chief Justice Livermore, (Evans and Steele, Justices, agree-
ing) summed up in favour of defendant, on the grounds stated
above, and the jury found accordingly.
W. H. Woodward and D. Webster for plaintiff.
B. J. Gilbert and J. Smith for defendant.
p
To the foregoing may be added, the following remarks, in the
instructions of the judge to the jury, in the case of Wait vs.
Merril, in the court below. After making some remarks on the
bitter spirit of prejudice that was in circulation, against the Shak-
ers, he cited them to look back on former ages, and see how many
innocent people had suffered for the free exercise of faith and con-
science. “We will (said he) only go back to the time when chris-
tianity was first introduced into the world, by that, then, despised
man, Jesus Christ. There were, them, a few, who separated them-
selves from the common course of the world; these were despis-
ed, and all manner of evil spoken of them-treated with the great-
est cruelty, by professor and profane. Now all we who profess
the christian faith, are obliged to acknowledge, that they were the
people of God,
“Now I warn you to beware what you do against these people call-
ed Shakers. God forbid that I should raise my hand or voice a-
gainst them, as it respects their institution and doctrine of celibacy
of which you complain; for it has been proved before us to-day from
the highest authority on earth, that the doctrine of celibacy and
community of goods, are agreeable to the precepts and example
of Christ and the primitive Church,
“This people is not to be crushed: I am not placed on this
bench to judge people's consciences, but to see that they are kept
free. If any person goes to live with that society, under a profes-
sion of their faith, if they never sign any covenant, they cannot
recover wages, nor is it right they should. If you ket prejudice
rule and give this cause against the defendant, it will not avail”-
43
tſpoil a review of the foregoing matter, it would seem, that eve-
ry thing worthy of being called an objection against the order,
government and economy of the United Society, has been fully
obviated. However, should any professor of either law or gos--
pel, in a spirit of candor, point out any thing illegal or immoral,
in the view that has been given of the institution, the society
stands ready and willing to pursue the investigation, till reasona-
ble satisfaction is rendered to the candid public: but should persons
who acknowledge no test of truth but their own fancy, light up .
their lanthern of criticism, to shed a false light on any thing that
has been stated, no attention from the society need be expected.
Any thing flowing from malice or self interest, will be treated as,
eharity and forbearance may dictate.
Our object has not been to stimulate but to administer a seda-
tive to the passions of a selfish nature : not, indeed, to protract,
but to bring to a rational decision, a disagreeable contest : for
this reason we have avoided as much as possible, any contro-
versy on those moral sentiments, so highly applauded by our op-
ponents. We are willing that the converts to those sentiments
should enjoy their mental liberty, only not try to force their sentia
ments or themselves into an unnatural association with our sen-
timents and our Society.
That the celebrated compiler of those newly arranged senti-
ments selected many good ideas from our Testimony, relative to
tommunity principles, needs no other proof than his pamphlet-on
that subject published in England, and presented to the king and,
parliament: His candor towards ºur society, manifested in that
work, merits respect; but his taking our wine to mix with his
water lays us under no obligation to mix his water with our wine,
seeing the source from which his water is drawn, is so generally
disgusting to civil and religious society, and especially so infatuat-
ing to some, who, from certain circumstances, have adopted our
name and profession.
With regard to the names subscribed to some of the foregoing
articles, they imply nothing more than a simple attestation of facts
and not a formal defence, on the principle of joint tenancy, which,
43'
according to law, would require the names of the whole society
to be inserted. There are many at Pleasant Hill, whose names.
are not written in this book, who stand equally ready to give tes-
timony to the truth, and “justify the way of God to man.”
Extract from Dr. Holley's Review of Professor Silliman's Jöure.
mal. Western Review, vol. 3, p. 203.
“The account of the Shakers near New Lebanon in New-York,
is written, in the main, with a benevolent and anapologetical spirit,
We were however sorry to see the word, ‘blasphemous' applied,
by so intelligent a casuist as our author, even with the softening
note of interrogation that accompanies it. The essence of blas,
phemy is in the intention, in the state of the mind; and Mr. Si!.
himan can have no design to děmy the reality of a sincere Shaker's.
piety when he is singing his sacred songs.--The writer does not
appear to us to have read the large work, called ‘Christ's Second.
Appearing,” or ‘Dunlavy's Manifesto,” an octavo volume, whent
he says in reference to the Shakers, “They rarely publish any
thing respecting their own principles and habits.” They have, in
fact, given very full statements of their principles, and have la-
boured, like other believers, to fortify their creed, by numerous.
quotations from the Bible, and even by criticisms on the Hebrew,
and Greek originals. They do not differ so much, as is supposed,
from the other followers of Christ, when we go beyond their ezo-
terical faith, and enter fully into the esoterical. Their Christ is
the redeeming, anointing, and consecrating operation of the spirit
of God upon human . nature, and is not limited to either sex, non
to any age or country. They believe that the Divine Being im,
parts this blessing, in greater or less degrees, to all the truly reli-
gious; and they worship Christ, apparently with great sincerity
and zeal, wherever they find satisfactory manifestations of the
Divine Gift or Operation. They do not consider the sex affecting
this question, nor do they attempt or wish to justify any of the
acknowledged errors or sins of Ann-Lee. While she was without
the anointing grace of God, she was like other persons in the
flesh, and served the world in the same manner. Her marriage
and her children only prove, that she was once the property of
45
Antichrist, but afterwards she was turned to God, and received
the First Gift granted, during her life, to any individual on earth.
The Divine Spirit is not contaminated by taking any portion of
human natured which it may select, into union with itself. Even
unregenerate persons may be used by God as instruments to ac-
complish his purposes, to convey his truth, to work miracles, to
utter, prophecies, and to show his power. Those, who were
once wicked, may be sanctified, and may furnish a fit residence
for a heavenly guest. Ann Lee was thus hallowed and honored.
She is called Mother, not merely because she was a woman, but
because she had the First Gift of the Holy Spirit at the time, and
because the Holy Spirit, in its sanctifying influences, as distin-
guished from the creative or productive power of God the Father,
is considered as maternal, as sustaining a character analogous').
to that of the Mother of the faithful. Properly speaking, God as
creator is our Father, but as sanctifier and cherisher, is our mother.
The Shakers do not appear to believe that God is actually and .
literally male and female, but that he has the affections and per-
forms the offices both of Father and Mother in regard to his chil-
dren. Jesus, being a male, and united to God, was a son, while
Ann, being a female, and enjoying a similar union, was a daugh-
ter. Jesus however, when considered in relation to his disciples
whom he has spiritually begotten in his church, may be denomina-
ted Father, as Ann, when considered in relation to her disciples,
whom she has brought forth in her church, may be denominated
Mother. The highest sense, in which a Shaker uses Father, car-
ries him to God as creator, while the highest sense, in which he
uses Mother, carries him to God as sanctifier. It is not our duty
to defend these ideas and distinctions, but to state them as an ar-
ticle of justice, towards the singular people, to whom they relate.
Mr. Silliman seems not to have been perfectly initiated into the
esoteric of their faith.
Another point in their creed, which it is somewhat interesting
to know, is this, that New Lebanon in New-York is destined to
he always the Metropolitan See, and its church the Vatican of
Shakerism. The head or Pope, the individual or individuals
having the First Gift on earth, enjoying the most intimate union.
M
45
with God, and appointed to give infallible directions to therpec-
ple of the true faith, must always reside at New Lebanon. This
person, when the Gift falls upon one, may be either male or fe-
male; when the Gift falls jointly and equally on two, as it may,
and they are of different sexes, they are then the Father and
Mother of believers. The common idea, that there is always any
Elect Lady, who is the lawful successor of Ann Lee, is errone-
ous. It happens at this time that Lucy Wright of New-Lebanon*
is the Elect Lady, or has, as it may be otherwise expressed, the
First Gift. But where the Gift is bestowed jointly and equally.
upon a male and a female, and the female should die first, the
male would then be the Elect, and the will of Christ would be made
known, by way of eminence, through him. Christ may be called.
it, as well as he, or she iſ and it depends on the circumstances
of the particular application of the term, whether one of these
pronouns, or another, shall be used. When the reference is to:
Jesus, it is proper to use the pronoun he for Christ; when to
Ann, the pronoun she; and when to the operation of the Holy
Spirit, without including any individual person as the instrument,
the pronoun it.
We do not suppose it to be necessary for us as reviewers to go into:
further details upon this mystical subject. We only wish to furnish,
clue to carry such of our readers through this theological labyrinth
as may desire to gratify their curiosity in so great an extent. No
faith is more easily misunderstood and misrepresented than that of
the Shakers. The metaphysical explanation of it is so different
from popular apprehension, that great pains, and some talent in
conducting a moral analysis, are necessary to do justice to this re-
markable sect. We may be in an error in what we have said, but
we have given our impressions fairly, after having read their books
T and talked much with their teachers. We might easily go on to
show that the doctrine of the Trinity is considerably modified by
them in comparison with the common form in which it is held, and
that several other doctrines of theirs are not strictly orthodox; but
we have no time to follow out such a plan of exposition. We cats
only say that we admire the industry, temperance, neatness, syste-
raatic arrangement, and efficiency, of the clusters of Shakers
which we have visited
47
by sº.
POETRY. *
.53 Zion arise like a beautiful morning,
And let thy fair brightness extend far abroad;
– ‘For all shall confess it, on earth and in heaven,
That thou hast descended from home else but God;
Tho' many may rage and remonstrate against thee,
"Thy holy foundation for ever shall stand
Unsullied by slander, reproach or by envy,
*Upon this fair soil. of America's land.
‘Here liberty reigns as the standard of Union,
And all are invited to gather around,
And share in the blessings prepared by heaven,
For no other good like to it can be found;
All kindreds, all colours, āll nations and people, ,
No order or sect are rejected at all;
but all whé are willing to give up their idols,
‘Upon this fair Zion of God they may call.
Here’s a home for the widow and fatherless orphan,
A place where the wayfaring man can abide,
But all who would enter this beautiful city,
All carnal affections they must lay aside;
The ties of old nature must all be dissolved
By those who would walk in the strait narrow road;
‘For no carnal creature, who lives in pollution,
£an.ever.abide in the Zion of God.
"Then come out, Believers, and be separated "
From all that’s offensive to this holy cause, "
And follow Christ's footsteps and live his example,
Regardless of all other precepts or laws;
Tho' ye may meet trials, temptations and conflicts,
And sore tribulation upon you may fall,
Yet Zion shall conquer and her faithful children
Shall come off victorious over it all.
1-4