Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

Examinations, &c. of witnesses, &c. in the above cause, on the part of the complainant Thomas L. Shotwell, and Stacy Decow, one of the defendants, taken at the house of William Ridgway, innkeeper, in Camden, in the county of Gloucester, and state of New Jersey, commencing on Monday the 15th day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty; pursuant to a notice, the due service of which is admitted by the adverse party and his counsel, in the presence of Eli K. Price, Esquire, of counsel with the complainant, and the said Stacy Decow, and Jeremiah H. Sloan, Esquire, of counsel with the said Joseph Hendrickson, and also in the presence of the parties, or such of them as would attend.

The counsel for the complainant and Stacy Decow opens the examination on their part by offering the following copies of notices, which, at the former examination, on the part of the said Joseph Hendrickson, and at the time of their dates respectively, were served upon the said counsel for Hendrickson, in the presence of the examiner, and are in the forms following, viz:

In Chancery, New Jersey.

First. THOMAS L. SHOTWELL, Complainant, and JOSEPH HENDRICKSON and STACY DECOW, Defendants.

Gentlemen, the minutes and records of the Yearly Meeting of Friends held in Philadelphia, having been traced to the possession of Jonathan Evans, who is of the same party of Friends distinguished in Hendrickson's answer as Orthodox, you are notified to have produced before the examiner the said records from the beginning, as affording the best legal evidence of the history and transactions of the said meeting.

Very respectfully, &c.

ELI K. PRICE,

Of counsel for Shotwell and Decow. ABRAHAM BROWN and JEREMIAH H. SLOAN, Esquires, Of Counsel for Hendrickson.

October 21, 1830.

Second notice.-In like form, and referring to the minutes and records of the Meeting for Sufferings held in Philadelphia, traced to the possession of Jonathan Evans and Thomas Stewardson, who are of the same party of Friends distinguished in Hendrickson's answer as Orthodox, &c. Subscribed and directed as the former, and bearing date October 23d, 1830.

Third notice. In like form as the other two, referring to the records of the Burlington Monthly and Quarterly Meetings, in the possession of John Gummere. Subscribed and directed as aforesaid, and dated October 28th, 1830.

VOL. I.-45

lower

Nower ABRAHAM LOWER, of the Northern Liberties, Philadelphia, a witness produced on the part of the said complainant and Stacy Decow, alleg. ing himself to be conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, and being duly affirmed according to law, on his solemn affirmation, declareth and saith, viz:

Question. What is your age?

Answer. Fifty-three and upwards; I am not yet fifty-four.

Q. Are you a member of the Society of Friends?

A. I am and have been a member more than thirty-three years. Q. Have you been engaged in the administration of the discipline of the society, and if so, how long?

A. I have been more or less so engaged, for more than twenty years. I might have said for thirty years.

Q. Has there been a separation of the members of the Society of Friends?

A. There has.

Q. Were you, previously thereto, a member of the Meeting for Sufferings, and of the select meeting for ministers and elders?

A. I was.

Q. Will you relate what you understand to have been the causes of the division in the society, as nearly as you can, according to dates?

A. The most prominent cause of a public nature, I consider to be, the public opposition or disrespect manifested by the members of Pine street Monthly Meeting, by the agency and influence of Jonathan Evans, in breaking up the men's meeting, or closing it, whilst Elias Hicks was, with the consent and approbation of that Monthly Meeting, engaged in the women's department, in the prosecution of his religious concern. It gave much concern, uneasiness, and dissatisfaction to a large part of the society, who became acquainted with the circumstances, as far as my knowledge extends.

Q. Was it an unusual circumstance?

A. Quite unusual; and understood to be a mark of disrespect.

Q. Was it so understood by prominent individuals, afterwards opposed to him?

A. I am satisfied it was. Because in a conversation I had with Samuel Bettle, he told me, that he had had an opportunity with Jonathan Evans, in which he communicated to him, the great dissatisfaction on account of it; that so great was the dissatisfaction, he said, that his son, (Jonathan's son, understood to be William Evans,) was treated with disrespect in consequence of Jonathan Evans' conduct on that occasion, when he was abroad. I understood at the Ohio Yearly Meeting. That I won't be certain of, but such was my apprehension.

Q. At about what period was this mark of disrespect shown to Elias Hicks?

A. I have no memorandum as to dates; it was a very notorious circumstance. I suppose it to be between 1819 and 1821.

Q. Were you a member of the Meeting for Sufferings in 1822?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you in that year requested to consider of, and propose a suitable person to represent the southern Quarter in that meeting, and if so, state the circumstances?

A. I was so requested, in conjunction with my colleague in that appointment, Caleb Pierce. We conferred together on the subject. We each had a man; I proposed my man, a Friend I thought suitable. He

disapproved of him, and proposed another himself; being not very tenacious myself, I acquiesced with the person he proposed. He suggested that as himself, Jonathan Evans, Samuel Bettle, and myself, had an appointment just at hand, that we should mention the circumstance to them; I agreed to it. And after we had accomplished the business we were all convened for, the matter was opened to them, that I have related. I stated the situation that my colleague and myself were in, my having acquiesced in my colleague's nomination-Jonathan remarked, that he was a very unsuitable person; he was not initiated into the concerns of society, but he had thought of Ezra Comfort; I objected, that the object of the southern Quarterly Meeting, in the appointment of a representative out of their Quarter, (that is, one who is not a member of their Quarter,) was, that they might be represented on a sudden emergency, in case of a call of the Meeting for Sufferings at a short notice; that as Ezra Comfort lived so far from the city their design would not be answered; and, therefore, I could not consent to the naming of him. Caleb Pierce and myself conferred together again on the subject, and he suggested, that we had better write them word, or write Joseph Turner, who was our colleague, that we could not agree or unite, I won't be certain as to terms, on the name of a suitable person, and we thought they had better look in their own Quarterly Meeting for a person to represent them. Caleb Pierce wrote a letter to Joseph Turner to that effect. I read it and signed it, after he had put his name to it-that is, I put my name to it after him; which letter I of course understood, and had no reason to think otherwise, than that it would be forwarded to Joseph Turner, for, I can't say how long, I suppose some weeks after; when, I hav'nt a clear and distinct recollection, but to the best of my knowledge and recollection, Caleb Pierce showed me a letter that he had written to Joseph Turner, informing him that Abraham Lower and himself, had "conferred together on the subject, and the name of Ezra Comfort was mentioned." I was surprised, disappointed-it was done; to the best of my recollection it was a copy of what he had written and sent to Joseph Turner, after the letter was agreed upon and signed by both of us, as I have related. Joseph Turner received a communication to that import; but on conferring with his colleague and colleagues in the appointment on the selection of this member, being not satisfied with the suggestion of Caleb Pierce, respecting Ezra Comfort, they concluded to report to the Quarterly Meeting, that they were not prepared with a name.

Q. Do you speak of Caleb Pierce and Joseph Turner as colleagues, because you and they represented that Quarterly Meeting in the Meeting for Sufferings?

A. Yes.

Q. What year was this in?

A. I think it was in 1822.

Q. Were you, among other members of the Meeting for Sufferings, about the Eighth or Ninth-month of that year, invited to remain after the close of the sitting-if so, state the manner of the invitation, and the circumstances which took place?

A. I was about to enter the meeting house at the time appointed for our convening, when Samuel Bettle, who stood at the door, or just outside, desired me in a low tone of voice so that I could understand it, to "stop at the rise of that meeting." I left him there, and passed in as usual. At the close of that meeting, a number, I suppose ten or twelve of us,

[ocr errors]

were convened,-after sitting a little while, quiet, Jonathan Evans rose, as I understood, and stated the object of the meeting pretty much in these words, to the best of my recollection: "It is understood that Elias Hicks is coming on here, on his way to Baltimore Yearly Meeting. Friends know that he preaches doctrines contrary to the doctrines of our society; that he has given uneasiness to his friends at home, and they can't stop him; and unless we can stop him here, he must go on." Joseph Whitall remarked, in corroboration of that assertion of the unity of his friends at home; of their difficulty of stopping him, I should say; that his own Monthly Meeting and Quarterly Meeting, and two-thirds of the Yearly Meeting were with him. Jonathan Evans called upon Joseph Whitall to state what he had heard him say; Joseph did not promptly state, but expressed his unwillingness to relate what passed between them in private; but said he was willing to state what he heard him say, or preach, in public. Some remarks were made by him, designating the character of what he had heard Elias say, which, if true, all who heard them would say he was no christian. I myself said so; if what he charged him with was true, he was no christian. He went on further, and stated some position or doctrine which, he said, Elias held; I remarked that I had always thought that that was the doctrine of the Society of Friends; and made a quotation, which I attempted as one of the apostles' sayings in confirmation of the truth of the doctrine, which was clear to my mind, and which went to show, that what Joseph Whitall charged him with, was not false doctrine. John Cox was present, checked me, as I understood, by saying come, come, or using such manner as would be expected from him towards a junior member as I was. Jonathan Evans stated, that he understood Elias Hicks had ordered a book or books in New York, to be sent to the westward; and which he considered as evidence of his unsoundness. I recited in defence of the good old man what I had heard, touching that matter; that a young man had been in the store, and was informed, that the books were ordered by him at the request of a correspondent, or his correspondent; and as was understood, any bookseller applied to for them would have complied with the order; and therefore, no imputation of blame on the character of Elias Hicks. Doctor Samuel Powell Griffitts, who was present, stated, that he had never heard Elias Hicks preach false doctrine. It was suggested, that a committee be appointed to take an opportunity with Elias Hicks, on his way in the prosecution of his visit that proposition obtained. I myself named Samuel Powell Griffitts, whose character then stood fair, and having made that declaration, that he had never heard him preach false doctrine, I thought myself justified in naming him as the best that could be done in such a case. Thomas Wistar was named as one of the committee. I think he hesitated about serving on the appointment; I urged him to submit to it, I think, because I had confidence in him as an bonest Friend, concerned for the welfare of society; being my coadjutor in the Yearly Meeting, in opposing a convention of delegates from the dif ferent Yearly Meetings; the weight of that opposition was sustained, as to the public opposition to it, by him and myself mainly; and he made a noble opposition to a project, which we conceived would be a dangerous institution in society, as well as in other matters; we frequently harmonized in our views of matters, that were frequently subjects of consideration in the meetings that we were members of. After the meeting closed, I sought an opportunity, and obtained it, to enjoin Thomas Wis

« PreviousContinue »