wn? ~/.4 £ºs SPEECH OF ROBERT wickLIFFE, , IN THE SENATE OF KENTUCKY, On a bill to repeal an act of the General Assembly of the state of Kentucky, entitle “An Act to regulate civil pro- ceedings against certain communities having property in common.” p l Mr. W, said, that having been a mem. ber of the senate when the obnoxious bill passed, he did not think it due to the Sen- ate upon the former readings of the bill now under consideration, to trouble the Senate with any remarks upon the subject under discussion. And even on to night said Mr W. when the question was about to be taken on the passage of the bill, h thought it only due to the Senate to ex plain the necessity of the repeal, and to express my hopes that the bill would pass without opposition. But this solicitude briefly expressed, has drawn forth the Senator from Barren (Mr. Maupin) and he has called out the Senator from Nel- son, (Mr. Hardin) and who has shared the hardest fate, the poor Shakers or my- self, will be difficult for the Senate to de- cide. Their crime sir, is, that they have petitioned to be relieved from unconstitu- tional oppression and outrage under the form and semblance of Legislative author ity; and my offending is, that I have to- night expressed the same opinions of that most exceptionable measure of the Legis- lature, which I did in 1828, when it was on its passage through this Senate Yes, sir, I told you then that, that bill was un- constitutional, and that the Judges would so pronounce it to be: and I tell you now, that it is not only unconstitutional but a stain upon your statute book, which this Senate, where it originated, should hasten to wipe off. What I then told you, and what the gentleman from Nelson then de. pied, has happened—the Judiciary has pronounced the law unconstitutional and vok!. Bút that gentleman now tells us that if the Judge has so pronounced upon the act it only conduces to convince him of what he has had suspicions for sometime, that is, that the Judge is becoming a dotard. Sir, this is an easy way to meet an argu- ment. When I told the Senate three years since, that the law violated the Constitu. tion and the rights of conscience, and that the Judge who feared to pronounce it void would deserve to lose his office for his guilt or his ignorance—that gentleman, and those associated with him in forcing the passage of the bill, treated the idea that any judge would dare pronounce their bill unconstitutional, as a figment of iny fancy; and now, sir, when what was then opinion is fact—when a judge has dared to do his duty and to sustain the Constitution against your encroachments— wby the gentleman has an argument e. qually potent—the Judge is in his dotage. Does the gentleman believe this? It would not do for the gentleman to say the Judge is no judge of the subject—that his opinion on all subjects 18 too unimportant and trivial to entitle it to weight on this: nor could its strength be impaired by a reference to the character of the Judge as a jurist. No, sir; the Judge to whom the gentleman has reterence,has filled and adorned a seat in your Judiciary for more than a quarter of a century, and if report be true, is about to retire from the bench to enjoy life,in virtuous retirement, whiths er he takes the just applause of his nu, merous friends and enlightened contempo, raries. Sir, it did seem to me a little sur- prising that the gentleman from Nelson, should attempt to defeat the passage of this bill by a personal reference to the distinguished Judge who pronounced his }aw unconstitutional. I can but think the remark inadvertent, and such as he will on reflection take back, indeed, sir, were l to judge from the private opinion of the gentleman of the learned judge, from what I have heard him say,from my knowledge of his capacity-to-judge of the fitness and y ability of a lawyer, I would sooner expect they have a right to petition; ſor treat any thing from hia than an expression them wir as you have done, and I may do, disparagung the opinions of Judge Broad they are God's creatures, and like every nax upon a point of law, and H will now creature bearing the image of the Creator, appeal to that gentleman's sober reflec- are susceptible of feeling pain, sorrow and tion, and demand of him whether any one oppression and by you" laws you have op- judge does or ever did preside in our Cur, pressed them: yes, you have not only op- cuit Courts, entitled to more or so much of pressed them by your unconstitutional the gentleman's respect and confidence as laws, but by such laws you have attempted a jurist. to deprive them of the rights of conscience, Indeed, sir, I must protest against my set the pettiſoggers to work upon them, friend the Judge being $o Sooſ, consigned and sent constables, sheriffs and catchpoles to dotage. I saw him a few days since at to take and carry away from them the this place, in all the vigor of bodily health bread which they have earned by the and intellectual strength for which he has sweat of the brow. And it is petitioning ever been distinguished, and sure l am, a against these outrages upon the rights of suspicion of his dotage cannot arise. from conscience, the rights of property and the his age; if so, I may also hold my peace. rights of man, that has provoked the gen- I do not know the Judge's age, but I have tieman to apply in such unmensured strokes more grey hairs than he has, and judging the keenest edge of his satire against this by another standard of age, I am greatly humble and oppressed people, No one, his superior in antiquity: I am a father and I am sure, could have listened, to the ar- a grandfather, while the Judge is yet in guments of gentlemen against the repeal, single blessedness. Indeed air, if the num- and have imagined that many of the re- ber of grey hairs or wife and children, and marks which have ſallen from them are children's children shall make the age of applicable to the most inoffensive and uns the dotard, the gentleman from Nelson is pretending people under heaven. Indeed, not free from suspicion of dotage. No sir, gentlemen who on other subjects are ex- the gentleman will have to give some oth-haustless in metaphors and comparison#, er answer to the high authority from the seem on to night to have exhausted their Judiciary against this act of tyranny, than usual stocks, great as they are. They a replication that the Judge is doting. have, I trust, drawn from other sources Equally objectionable is the attempt of some of their figures than their own hearts the gentleman to turn a grave subject, a -some that have at least novelty to recom- question which involves the rights of per mend them. One gentleman is extremely sonal liberty and the sacred rights of con- distressed for a figure to represent these science, into ridicule, The society of re. Shakers; he however, in the fertility of ligionists called Shaking Quakers have his imagination, finds out that a society of with becoming dignity and in decent lan: Shaking Quakers is just like rabbits in a guage laid before the Legislature their briar patch [here Mr. Hardin said he had grievances and prayed relief. This they not said the Shakers were like rabbits in have done, it is true, in little books, have a briar patch..] I know, said Mr. W that ing, as the gentleman from Nelson says, gentleman did not say so, but he knows blue covers, and this it is that is so pecul who did; I did not allude to him, but to iarly offensive to that gentleman,who states the gentleman from Barren (Mr Maupin ) that he has for some times seen Shakers That gentleman says you might as weiſ passing from room to room and treading expect to catch rabbits in a briar patch on the heels of members, but for his part without traps, as these Shakers without he has held no communication with them; this bill, and the gentleman from Nelson that he has not read their blue book, and (Mr H ) says that extraordinary cases re- never will read it. quire extraordinary remedies, that with. Sir, said Mr. W., I regret extremely that out the bill this society would be insuffer: that gentleman has thought it his duty to able in the country. To these remarks H thus treat these unoffending petitioners, am sorry to he compelled to reply, that I what have they done? As human beings do not consider the first a very appropriate 3 } p one for either the Senate or the subject: and to the latter remark 1 can only say, that I feel astonished that the Senator should have spoken in such unqualified terms of the great public nuisance that this society is or would have been but for \his famous act; an act that has never been executed and never will be executed, be- fore A competent and upright judge—an act that has answered no other purpose but to ſeed the cupidity of pettifoggers and other maintainers of suits, at the expense of the repose of a religious and unoffen- ding society of Christians, can scal cely have done the wonders ascribed to it by the gentleman, Sir, is it not a little strange that the gen tleman should have hazarded the asser- tion after he in the outset of his argument boasted that he held no conferences with that is, that these people have existed in those states as they do here for forty years, and that no such acts are found necessary in any state hut this. So far from it sir, most of the learned Judges in the very luw minous opinions delivered by them, pass the highest encomiums upon the sobriety, industry and peaceable habits of these peo- ple, ſ'. the gentleman, learned as h is. that if he will only condescend to lº the little book it pos-ibly may induce him to reflect npon another book a little more, befor he again comes to the rash conclusion that he will not read a petition of any sort, offered to him as a Senator, that is, a book which recommends to us to hear ‘all thing; but to hold fast to that which is good.” think sir, that if that gentleman had read that little blue book he would have spared the Senate his remarks about my heated these people—that he read none of their zeal and sanguine temper upon this occas “little blue books?” . Whence, I would ask sion; and that instead of that gentleman as- the gentleman, has he derive his certain sisting to break down the rights of conv knowledge, that the society would but for science, and to oppress and run these peo; this act, be unsufferable? I regret, and ple, they would have had in his powerfu that sincerely, that the honorable gentle> talents an advocate worthy their defence, man hås not condescended to read one of But as the gentleman has chosen not to these “blue books.” If he had, I think he hear, and can find no better apology for would not now oppose the passage of this my feeble exertions in behalf of these op- bill. He would there have found, that pressed people than a heated imagination the causes which had given rise to this and a too sanguine temperament, I can on- bill had been considered by as able and il-ly submit it to that gentleman to consider, lustrious men as ever presided upon a if he has not permitted his own imagina bench of Justice, and had been decided all tion or that of others greatly to iºd ways in ſavour of the Shakers . He would him in the course of this debate. The gen- have seen too, that he has totally misap tieman has told us that he was induced to prehended the nature and objects of these enlist himself with the friends of the bill, religious people, from whom he appre- to force its passage through this body, be- hends such serious mischief if the law, be cause he was informed by a gentlemen of . repealed. From this book he would have high respectability, that this people were learnt sir, that some of the lawyers of New traversing the country up and down in- York. Vermont, New Hampshire, Massa- weighling proselytes to join them; separa- chusetts and Maine, as well as some of ting husbands, and wives, father and child, those of Kentucky, have had a penchant for brothers sisters and friends; and after thus the géods, chattels, lands and tenements of seducing and stripping them of their prop- the poor Shakers—that the Judases among erty, had reduced them to the condition of them there as the Judases here, have been absolute slavery. That they were in the stirred up to betray and sue this society as habit of contracting debts, and that they wommunities, on claims for labour or prop even refused payment for the common ar- etty deposited in the common fund;—and ticles of marketting. Now sir, that the he would have seen sir, that the learned gentleman was told all these things I have Judges in those cases gave to the Lawyers no doubt, and that the honorable gentle' and maintainers there the cold comfort man's informers believed what they cºme Judge Broadnax has given them here. He municated; I have no doubt; but that would have learnt another thing, sir, and these tales are highly exaggerated and most of them wholly untrue, I have as little doubt; and yet Sir, l could admit them all to be true, and still prove that they furnish no apology much less a reason for the law, for which they are made the pretext. But sir, as I belive that this law passed not only with too little reflection, but that it has its foundations in a spirit of prejudice and religious persecution, wholly upwor thy of the age we live in, I will not admit what I do not believe to be the fact, even to hang a prejudice upon; my acquaintance with the history of these people in Ken- tucky, Ohio, and elsewhere, and my perso- nal observations on them strongly negative these rumours collectively and in detail. 4 a single point to have corporate existence and powers to sue and be sued, defend & be defended, and to acquire estates, so that its rent toll does not exceed fifty thousand dollars annually, Sir, can you tell how many patents you have granted to reli- gious communities? How many have you granted this session, by which you author- 1ze them to turn out Preachers, to range up and down, as the gentleman will have it, after converts, lt was once the case, Mr. Speaker, that the authority to preach was declared to be derived from the mas. ter of our religion, who when on earth, bid his disciples to preach the gospel to all nations; and since his ascension, we be- Our constitution guarantees the right of lieve that he spiritually commands his dis- conscience and the right to not only found but to preach new doctrines of faith, and , if it be lawful for all to do so, unless the gentleman can prove to me that a Shaker is not a human being, the Shaker has this right. Do not Presbyterians, Baptists, Catholicks, Episcopaleans and Methodists, in the language of the gentleman, range the country up and down, diffusing their creeds, making converts to their respective churches. And dare you sir, to pass such a law as this to stop their proselyting? A. Campbell has his particular faith. It is not long since I witnessed him passing to and fro in quest of proselytes, and although some pious christians in this most pious town closed their rhurches against him, dare they or you propose such a bill as this, to stop him from proselyting? No Sir, no, we all know too well where Sampson's strength lies—we had as soon catch the forked lightning as to attempt such a meas ure against any other religious society but the Shakers, if one of those other reli- gious societies ask us for a charter to make ciples to do what he corporally command- ed when on earth. Pastors once ordained preachers of the gospel by and under the authority of their heavenly master alone —but now sir, they have your charters to make patent right preachers for us We out do the Yankees two to one. They plough and sow, and make paper for Bank notes under patent rights. We can do all this, and what is more have our relig- ion taught and then preached to us by pat- ent right. Sir, you know that this is the pitch to which you are bringing the reli, gion of the state, although you have dis’ guised and masked your charters to con- vents and synods, conferences and associa- tions, under the title of college bills. It is true, the Baptists and Methodists have not come up to the full measure of the Pres- byterians and Catholicks yet, in obtaining charters for theological schools--but they are not far behind them, and a few more short years will place them side by side with them. This is church and state Sir, in high style for you —What is an estab. patent right preachers, we have a scuffle for lished religion, but a religion that works the floor, and he is the most fortunate that or operates under a charter from a state? can make the first and prettiest speech in The charter granted by the act of settle- behalf of religion and letters chartered to ment of the English crown is not more a gether.--Yes, sir, your bills incorporating grant of exclusive religious privileges than such religious societies as ask for thfm, your grants to St. Joseph's and Centre Col. pass by acclamation. It is who shall first leges are The sovereignty of the state get the floor to obtain leave to bring in is pledged and granted away in every case, the bill, and who shall then be the fortu. and every religious sect that you have set nate mover to dispense with the constitu to work under such charters as you have tional readings of the bill. But wo to him granted to Centre College and St. Joseph's that dare to doubt the constitutionality or will mort main your real and personal es- propriety of permitting a single church at tates to such an extent as at no distant day & | will produce a severance between church absolutely void. That the lands on which and state, and give to our descendants a their churches statid and on which they lesson which we have been taught by our labour for the common food and rament fathers, but which we have not had spirit of the votaries of religion, are private to profit by. property, held by individuals as individu- One gentleman falls out with the Sha als, and not as corporators Sir, he will kers because they will not ask of you an act tell you that even the food and rainent of incorporation He says he will give them earned by the labour of the hands of the one if they will accept of it, Sir, that is Shakers, are not the property of the what you have no right to do, although community nor held by them as such; but you have done the same thing for other that they are provided for the society and religious societies The Shaker denies such as shall be added to the church, or that his society is associated for the pur- sojourn amoug them; a fundamental princiº pose of accumulating wealth, but contends ple of his faith, he will tell you is, that the that they associate for objects of piety and Society as such, is never to connect itself benevolence; that they labour as the ear, with the world, but that they are to sepa. ly apostles did to sustain nature only, that rate themselves from the world and its the food and rament when provided, is concerns, deriving by their habprs from the like Peter's fish when taken from the net, earth, food and rainent. These are the for common sustenance and the property of views and professions of these people; and, no one. If this be the Shaker's faith, well how ever strange and absurd, however ſoo. may he scorn your charter to gather lish it may appear to gentlemen, I would church wealth under. But if they are real remind them that all christianity was once ly the mercenary wretches they are rep- foolish to the Greeks l admit, Sir, that as resented to be, grant them your charter far as I can comprehend,the i eligious faith to accumulate property, give them perpet- of these people, my mind rejects it, But ual succession, give them the right to sue what have I, to do with their religious and be sued, defend and be defended, in faith? Who made me a judge over any all courts: and my word for it, they will man's conscience, that I should say to him in time, divide Mercer county with Centre you do not worship your God acceptably College, if they do not mortmain the whole or conformably to his word. This is a mat. of it. These people, with their habits of ter between the Shaker and his God. Let industry would,thus chartered, be terrible, and soon threaten the well being of society And yet gentlemen wish to force Shakers to become;incorporated speculators, patent- ed absorbents of the wealth and substance of the state, This condition the Shaker refuses; and you are attempting to force it upon him—you tell him, that it is not poli tic and wise for Shakers to hold property in common and not sue and be sued as a cor- poration. The Shaker replies that Sha kers have no community of property—that like the early Christians, they worship tos gether and have all things in common; but us not atte.npt Mr. Speaker, to regulate this matter by our Legislature: but, Sir, even on this head these people have been greatly misrepresented | Sir, once felt shocked at the thought that there was a sect so far sunk in idolatry as to offer supreme worship to Ann Lee, and greater was my surprise when I recognized among them some whom I had once known as learned and pious divines in other denominations. But Sir, a better acquaintance with these people satisfies my mind that they offer worship to God alone—that they only ass cribe to the founderess of their sect the in- that they do not claim to hold as a commu spiration which other christians have done inity any thing. That as the followers of to distinguished light in their churches lin | Christ dwelt together,and worked for their their worship they have no barbarous rites daily food and raiment’ſor the use of them- and cruel sacrifices. They pray to one su- selves and such as were added to the preme God, and sing night and morning church, so do the Shakers. He will tell anthems to him and his Christ. With the you what you all well know—-that as a religion of this people I again repeat we , community they have no rights. That a have nothing to do—over it we have no divise or grant to the society of Shakers is constitutional controul—not have we a 5 right to regulate the temporal economy of bodies to take by purchase. The charter the society,only so far as that may violate must enable the body to take and hold some known law of the state. property. This was fully proven in Peart's They do not profess to hold property will. There F. Peart devised his estate to real or personal as a community. They the county of Woodford, for the benefit of do not profess to exist as a community— a school. The 'devise and the use were but for religious and pious purposes. They declared by the Supreme Court to be void, deny that they constitute a company or a for the want of capacity in the County of corporation for any temporal purpose or Woodford to take and hold lands. I ap- end-–they detly that they have by their eal to the gentleman from Nelson to bear religion or conduct failed in their allegi- testimony to the Senate that this is the ance to the commonwealth and claim the law. I call upon him in candor to say that protection from the government, which is the Shakers can neither hold property nor due for allegiance. They deny that they maintain suits as a community—to admit have by their religion or conduct forfeited that however great the outrage may be, any one of their hatural rights of suing and that shall be committed against the socie- being sued, of defending and being defend- ty, no action in the name of the Society, ed, in all courts as other men are, and they can be brought—to say, if a band of tuffi- complain that you have by your laws inter ans were to enter a Shaker village an fered with their rights of conscience, and drive off every cow, hog and horse they deprived them of their natural rights as found in it, whether any action in the name. citizens. They say that no one is author- of the Society could be brought for such ised by them to contract or be contracted outrage The gentleman knows that these with, so as to charge them as a company people, as a community, have for such out- or community. That for all crimes. mis- rages no redress. He knows too, that if demeanors or contracts Shakers are res- some swindler should inveigle these peo- ponsible as other men are, and by the laws ple out of their entire property and stores of the land, should, when charged in court of provision, by executing his bond to the have the same opportunities afforded them community of Shakers, that the bond will of making their defence. Against these statements neither of the advocates for disfranchising these people has attempted a refuſation. One gentle- man says that a man may fraudulently con- ceal his property by transferring it to the Shakers or joining their society. The argument founded on these suppositions must be unsound when the suppositions are not based on fact. I have already shewn that a transfer to the Shakers as a commu- nity is absolutely void, and the property would, notwithstanding such transfer, re- main liable to be taken by the sheriff. You be void, and these people be without re- dress. When your laws do not allow this soci- ety to take and hold property as a commu- nity, when the law does not allow them the privilege of suing as a community for any contract, however fair on their par or any outrage committed against their rights, however flagrant; is it not too cruel to be borne with, that you disable them to defend as individuals in courts of justice and allow suits to be brought against them as a community,and allow Judgments upon such suits to pass on which not only the may transfer property to natural persons joint labor of the men,women and children or artificial bodies, provided the artificial bodies are created by charter, with power to hold property. A transfer to the Sha- ker society is void,but a transfer to Centre College is good. In the first case the prop- erty would not by the sale be covered from the Sheriff--in the latter case it would pass to Centre College; because that Col lege can by its charter buy and hold prop- erty. It is not enough that the law creates or allows of political bodies, to enable such may be seized and sold, but the indi- vidual property of both adults and helpless infancy. Yes sir. your law, if it amounts to any thing, entails upon women and chil- dren, born and to be born, debts to the ex- tent of their joint interest in the common stock, and when that fails to the extent of their property, which they may acquire by descent or purchase, as individuals, in any period of their existence. There is another feature in the bilſ, sir 7 \ of still deeper and blacker malignity, from for such community. Now, Sir, contrast which it inanifestly appears,that its drafts- the condition of these Shakers with all man feared that the Court of Appeal would other religious sects, and see if you find a get hold of his measure, in which he most parallel for this act any where, warily attempts to exclude the Shakers By our law, by the universal law of na- from prosecuting an appeal or writ of erº lure, no man can be condemned unheard, ror against any judgment obtained under and no man can be brought before the this act, Do not understand me as saying Judge but by and through personal sum- that because a right to prosecute a writ of error or an appeal is not given to the Sha- kers by this act, that they will be without remedy for outfages committed upon thern under cover of this law. I refer to the fact, to test the motives which are display ed on the face of the bill, and to expose its context to the indignant frown of the Senate and the whole people of the State. I will, Mr. Speaker, that the Senate may have a full view of this act, read it: (here Mr W.-read the act, and continued.) The first section, Sir, provides that a bill in chancery may be filed by any person hav- ing a demand above $50 upon any contract express or implied against any of the com munities of people called Shakers, &c.- Sir, here is a plain and obvious deprivation of common right, by our law on most con tracts expressed or implied. The remedy is at law, and not in chancery, where the tnons, or its equivalent—this Sir, is com- mon law. If two men are sued on their joint bond, or ten men on their joint as- sumpsit or contract, personal service is re- quired on all,and if some be infants, guar. dians are necessary also, before judgment can be rendered, and if it be rendered without service, it is as to all on whom pro- cess is not served, void, and as to those on whom it is served voidable—because all proper parties were not before the court., But this act makes a service on any memº ber, male or female, adult or infant, ser. vice on all, on which a decree passes against all infants,ſeme coverts,and adults, in every other case even where a free ne- gro shall be a party. The right of infane, cy is so far respected as to appoint a guar- dian ad litem to defend. This law allows no such right to the infant Shaker. But the language of the act is still more defendant is not made a witness against insulting to humanity & the rights of man. himself, and where he hath the benefit of In the 3d section the act prescribes the on- all legal pleas—and our boasted trial by ly possible mode of defence to these peo-” Jury—of these invaluable rights, dear to ple when attacked with this famous bill in every freeman, the first section of this act chancery. And what is that? Why that deprives the Shaker The 2nd section is the bill may be answered by agents or at- if possible, still more insulting and degra torneys, provided such agents or attorneys. ding to the feelings of freemen. The pro- shall do what the draftsman of the bill- cess upon this bill is to be served by stick- what this Senate know it is morally impos: ing a copy of it to the door of the meeting sible for them, with truth to do;-that is, house, and delivering another copy to some swear that he or they have been nominated known member and reading it aloud at by the society to answer. Now it is obviº some one of the dwellings of the communi ous if no answer is put in that the bill is to ty. If this is done, ten days before court, be taken for confessed, & the debt claimed it is to be a good service upon every ſnan decreed as matter of course. To produce woman and child, if there be five thousand this state of case for the Shakers the drafts- belonging to the society; and will author- man has carefully forbid an answer in the ise a decree by default against all and each usual way, and has required that none but on a bill taken pro confesso, But the ini an agent or attorney shall be permit- quity of this law is yet to be unfolded in ted to answer,and that such agent or at- another provision. It provides that all an’ torney shall first swear before the answer swers for and in behalf of the community is received, that he or they have been may be filed on the oath or affirmation of nominated by the society. Sir, I would ask, ine or more individuals of such community how is this nomination to be made?' Must who shall moreover swear that he or they it be by each individual man, woman and \ave been nominated as agent or attornles' child signing, sealing, and delivering at power, or will a majority do? is it to be done by writing or parol? Ought not your act to prescribe some mode—some rule by which the society can act and these agents swear, so as to avoid a prosecution for per. jury or a decree pro confesso? Surely it should But your act blazes the way plain and obvious, by which the creditor and champerning lawyer are to reach the goods and chattles, lands and tenements of the Shakers, and leaves the Shakers in utter ignorance of what you mean when you 8 suit and judgment without giving them remedy for their rights, and that it at- tempts to deprive them of a writ of error or an appeal against the errors or oppres- sions of ignorant or prejudiced Judges, practiced under the cover of this law. I have shewn you beyond contradiction,that not only adults but that even helpless in- fants, are deprived of the privileges ex- tended to every other class of citizens, by this law, for no other cause,s for no other crime, but that it has been their choice to speak of agents and attorneys answering profess the religion of a quaker, or the lot for them by nomination. Sir you use terms of infancy to derive its existence of Shaker wholly unknown to the law, or the vocab- parents. If any doubt that I have shewn ulary of the Shaker,appointed by the com all these things, I would ask them, if this munity. Who made them a community ? act apply to any but Shakers, would they Not your charter,not your constitution, not consider themselves free and independent the Shakers, for they have no power if citizens, with their rights frittered down, they had the wish. to establish a separate nay Sir, taken from them as these people community from the mass of the people. have theirs? Civilly and politically,they are no commu- Sir, with this view of this act, does a nity—religiously they are a society of Just and high minded Senator need any Christians. Sir, no one will pretend to say other rule than his own breast--does any that the decree is against the Shakers cor- friend to the equal rights of man, require porally or as a civil body. Indeed I un- a constitution to incline him to restore derstand the gentleman to admit that it is these people to their equal rights as free against them individually, and reaches men and free women? If there be any their individual property and partnership property, as a decree against partners in trade in ordinary cases does. Sir, what is the right of every partner when the firm is sued? Is it not to defend for himself, to plead, answer, or demur, jointly with his other partners, or separately for himself? And yet your act although it proceeds on the idea of a partnership, refuses the part- such, I will now shew him, that he is bound to restore the Shakers to their rights, by the oath he has solemnly taken to support the constitution. In the 3d section of the 10th art. of your constitution it is among other things provided, that no human au. thority ought in any case whatever, to controul or interfere with the rights of conscience, and by the 4th section it is ners collectively or individually to appear provided that the civil privileges or ca- and defend. It provides that no defence pacities of any citizen shall in no wise be be received for them but from sworn a- diminished or enlarged on acconnt of his gents or attorneys, who are, before they religion. How dare any Senator to stand can in safety take the oath,to have a power forth, and in presence of his God, say you from every living partner, infant as well have not diminished the civil rights and as adult. capacites of the Shaker on account of his Sir, I will not trouble the Senate with religion? None has pretended to do sò-- further remarks upon this act, to shew but the effort, the feeble effort is made to that it is in its letter and design without its draw a distinction between the body of the parallel in error or iniquity—that it is church and the individuals of the church. nothing less than a warrant and a cover Sir, does not this exist, with all sects as to champerners and maintainers to harrass plainly as it does with the Shakers? "The rob, and ruin these unoffending people. The society of Presbyterians constitute I have shewn that it takes from them their a body of christians, oot a civil body-so natural rights; I have shewn that it at does that of the Methodist; as individuals tempts to make them corporators against and not as a church, they are suable art! their consent—that it subjects them to able to sue. This privilege is what you 9 | take from the Shaker, in express viola in the Roman Catholic Church, not only . tion of the 1st section of the 10th article working and accumulating and put taking of the constitution. O, but says the gen in common, but that many of the pious tleman, these Shakers hold their property members of these societies or churches in common. This I deny--and he on re. have made vows which exclude them from flection must see his error, They can by holding civilly any property whatever? law hold but as individuals; although as And yet sir, let any Senator attempt to Christians they may partake in common, force such a bill as this on that portion of and this partaking in common as Christians that gentleman's constituents. & we would or religionists of the food and raiment of then see the difference between that gen- the church is perceivable in every church tieman's vote on a bill to disable Roman that tiames the name of Christ. In some Catholicks having property in common, they partake more, and in some less in and Quakers having property in common. common. And no one ever until now I know the gentleman's constituents hol- thoughtofmaking themcorporators orpart ding property in common have in some ners. To illustrate this difference between instances obtained charters; but that they a common of property civilly,and a parta have done in every instance but one, since Ring in common, you have only to recur to the disfranchising law passed against the the Lord's Table, where all commune or Quakers; and convents and nunneries ex. partake, but none have either a Joint or isted long before and at the time the bill separate property in the bread and wine. passed, where the votaries held, as far as 1n the davs of the Disciples not only did I understand the matter, precisely as these the Christians partake in common of the Shakers do. But they were parts of a Ilord's Suppet, but in all things necessary persuasion of christians, powerful in num- to sustain nature. The gentleman from bers, wealth and talents, zealous of their Nelson, however, seems to rely on the civil rights, who would have chasticed right to deprive these religionists of their through their right of suffrage, any who civil rights. upon the fact that, their com- had the temerity to propose a law so de- mon stock goes beyond provisions,and that grading to them & violatory of their rights apparel, manufactures and beasts of bur- as citizens. . The Shakers are the poor den are used in common, and that these penple make for themselves the civil disa: bilities of which they complain. Very gond Sir. If they are so disabled, why pass your law? The answer is, that the very fact that you have attempted to dis. franchise them by your law, proves that they have not disfranchised themselves. The gentleman thinks that the privilege of thus acquiring and using property ought not to be tolerated. l answer, the law does not recognize this plan of life, but it does not forbid it, and therefore leaves the votary to pursue it or not. If the gentle. man or any other in the Senate is for put- ting down this primitive mode of life a- mong Christians, why not come out on principle? Why not make the law gener- ,al, to embrace all societies or communities that use property in common? Why nail the poor Shaker with your bill? Does not the gentleman know that even in his own county, and in other counties in the State, of man——against the constitution. there have existed convents and nunne and despised. They exercise no right of suffrage--they have no member herºe to vindicate their rights--there is no proud aspirant after popularity dreads their re- sentment; and helice it is that we take from them their civil rights with as little apprehensions of punishment, as we con- sign our free negroes to the whipping post for keeping a ferry-boat or striking a white [Dºdſ). if these Shakers would only vote Sir, it would be amusing to see what wonders ment, what concernment our would be- members of Congress and governors would express that such a bill as this ever pas- sed. Nay, Sir, the worthy chief who sign- ed the hill would have sooner cut off his hand, than have committed such violence against the rights of man, of religion, aud against his own tender conscience. Mr Speaker. I will not further attempt to prove that this bill is against the rights I think the majority of the Senate must feel con ries,societies and communities of Christians vinced that it grossly violates both, I can B re 1 (). only then beg of gentlemen not to let a affair and be treated as such. If the Sena desire to banish this sect-rnot to let their ate however do not retrace its steps this own pride of consistency, to vote as they time, I shall sincerely deplore it; and I have heretofore done, prevent them this think that I hazard little in saying that night from recording their votes on the soine who hear me will live to repent it. side of justice in favour of the rights of There is one further subject, that (late Conscience. as it is) I will not forbear to call the atten- Sir, suppose to ascertain the extent of tion of the Senate to, it is the high pen’ this nuisance, that gentlemen are so anx ally imposed on those that join the society ious to get rid of you raise a committee to of Shakers by the act of 1842 At that inquire how much Pleasant Hill was worth early period of this society the spirit of when owned by old Samuel Woods, how persecution against them seems to have much revenue he paid for it, and then to been aroused. By that act you make it ascertrin how much it is now worth, and cause for instant divorce of man and wife, what the trustees of the Shakers now pay if either party shall join the Shaker socie’ into the treasury and in county levies. I ty, conferring an ability of a second mar- presume the gantleman would hardly con riage on the party who does notjoin them, sent to test the merits of their bill by the Against tiris.