52

members of other Preparative, Monthly, or Quarterly Meetings have no right to combine together and appoint committees, and clothe them with authority to attend and give their voice on questions of disownment of members, or questions in regard to property arising in any Preparative or Monthly Meeting to which they do not belong. He denies, that in the meetings of the Society of Friends for discipline, or otherwise, any class or order of men have always been considered as holding a degree of authority not common to all the other members; but, on the contrary, he insists, that whatever is expressed by any member in said meeting, has weight or not, according as it has a tendency to produce conviction in the minds of the hearers-forcing, by its own conclusive evidence and clearness, the well disposed understanding to assent, or irresistibly moving it thereunto-not merely on account of station or rank, but the weight of evidence accompanying it. And if, at any time, in those meetings superior weight and influence have been awarded to the observations of any members of the society, it has been only in consequence of the conviction produced in the meeting, by the wisdom of their words and the rectitude of their sentiments, and the voluntary concession of their fellow members-having equal rights.

He denies that the Society of Friends to which he belongs, have seceded from the faith, the religious institutions or government of the ancient and religious Society of Friends, or from the ancient legitimate Yearly Meeting of the same, at Philadelphia. But the time of holding it has been changed, from the third Second-day in Fourth-month, to the second Second-day of the same. And this defendant insists, that at the Yearly Meeting of 1827, a clerk was forced upon the said meeting by the persons whom the said Joseph Hendrickson, in his original bill, calls the Orthodox party, in decided opposition to the voices of a large majority of the representatives, and openly declared judgment of a large body of Friends, expressed at the time. By this and their other party acts, they broke the compact which had long bound the members of the Yearly Meeting together, as a band of brethren. And the business that was done at that meeting was, mainly, the acts of that party, and not of the whole body-more especially, after having agreed in the opinion, that the Yearly Meeting was not then in a situation to consider and act upon divers important subjects contained in the reports from Quarterly Meetings, the said Orthodox party did, at the last sitting of the said meeting, appoint a large committee of their own party exclusively, to go down to the inferior meetings, to take care of their own members; although the appointment of a committee was strongly opposed, at the time, by a large number of Friends, and a majority of the meeting.

At this last sitting of the meeting, after Friends had fully ascertained that all their endeavours to have the business done as the acts of the meeting, not as those of the said party, were unavail

53

ing and after being told they had no right to be heard in that meeting, and having been deprived from participating in the business, they ceased their further endeavours to participate therein: and the adjournment which took place was the exclusive act of the said Orthodox party, and not of the body of the Society of Friends; and, therefore, not binding upon the meeting. But, if the adjournment which they made had been the act of the meeting, it will be seen by referring to the last words of the closing minute, to wit-"If the Lord permit"-that it was a contingent one, and not of the essence of their rights; appearing to contemplate in its phraseology, the very circumstance which afterward took place, to wit-"Friends not being again permitted to assemble at that time," inasmuch as the larger part of the members of said Yearly Meeting could not conscientiously consent to meet again in the same capacity with the said Orthodox party, and thus be subjected to the painful necessity of abandoning all their religious rights and privileges, which they held most dear; or else incur the risk of encountering or witnessing again those scenes of strife and contention so utterly at variance with the principles of the religious Society of Friends-and there being no constitutional time for the assembling of the Yearly Meeting, the time of holding it was changed to the time it is now held-to wit, "on the second Second-day of Fourth-month:" which the Society of Friends might lawfully do, without forfeiting their rights, by a mere variation in the time and place of meeting, which is legitimately subject to their control and appointment. And they can never properly be charged with being guilty of the anomalous proceeding of separating from itself. The subsequent course pursued by Friends was the act of the main body, in the exercise of the original powers vested in them, in order to the attainment of that peace and harmony, for which they had so long been distinguished-in pursuing which, the said Yearly Meeting assembled again on the said second Second-day in Fourth-month, 1828; and is now settled on its ancient foundation and principles, as set forth in the bill of interpleader, in which all the Quarterly Meetings previously composing it are now represented. This defendant denies, therefore, that it is a new Yearly Meeting, within the pale of one already in existence.

In the intermediate time, between the Yearly Meeting of 1827 and 1828, the said Orthodox party, having turned their attention towards grasping the whole property of the society, and acting under the advice of lawyers; and as a party, and for party purposes, commenced a system of proceedings totally at variance with the fundamental principles and practice of the society, designed to consummate that object.

And this defendant, further answering, admits, that there may have been cases, in which the Yearly Meeting in England took advisory cognizance of cases of appeal from the decision in the Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia; but they were cases of consent

54

merely. And even such cases have long since ceased: and moreover, they were contrary to the fundamental principle of the origin of the Yearly Meeting in this country, which was independent of any other meeting, and so continues. And although it may be true, that the Yearly Meeting in London refuses to correspond with the Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia,―to which this defendant belongs he insists that it is a circumstance of no importance, as it cannot have any possible effect or bearing upon the rights and privileges of the said members of the Yearly Meeting of Friends of Philadelphia. But as the society to which this defendant belongs still professes to be the ancient Society of Friends, or people called Quakers, and to hold the true and legitimate Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia, they for that cause, addressed an epistle to the Yearly Meeting of London, and most or all of the other Yearly Meetings; and perhaps misrepresentation made by those interested, to create dissentions, may have prevented, for a time, a further correspondence with some of them.

And this defendant further answering saith, that he has been compelled reluctantly to come into this court to defend the property of his brethren. And although he admits that there may be some difference of opinion as to the true faith and discipline of the society, between the great majority of the Society of Friends, to whom he belongs, and the party called by themselves the Orthodox party,-the Society of Friends heretofore hath been willing to consider it as an honest difference of opinion, uncontaminated by feelings of avarice or greediness for property: and the Society of Friends have therefore proposed to them heretofore, as they are a minority, and have withdrawn from communion with them, and seem desirous to remove and separate altogether, to take no advantage of them on that account, in relation to the property; but are willing and disposed to say unto them, as of old, Abraham said to Lot,-We were brethren previously to your separating from Friends; and the whole of the property which we held while in unity, is before us, and there is enough for us and for you. And in order that there should be no strife between them on that account, the Monthly Meeting of Chesterfield, consisting of the members of the Chesterfield Preparative Meeting, and others, made the proposition alluded to in the bill of interpleader, for an amicable adjustment, in relation to the rights of property, conformably to the principles of justice and equity; thereby maintaining a disposition to do unto others as they would others should do unto them which this defendant regrets was refused and the more especially, as the refusal is coloured with the pretence of conscientious motives: and he leaves to the said Joseph Hendrickson the full benefit of his mode of escaping from the obligations of the rules of the society, violated in the institution of this suit.

And this defendant denies all and all manner of unlawful combination and confederacy, wherewith he is by the said bill of in

55

terpleader charged-without this, that there is any other cause, matter, or thing in the said complainant's said bill of interpleader contained, material or necessary for this defendant to make answer unto, and not herein and hereby well and sufficiently answered, confessed, traversed, and avoided or denied, is true to the knowledge or belief of this defendant-all which matters and things this defendant is ready and willing to aver, maintain, and prove as this honourable court shall direct—and humbly requests to be hence dismissed, with his reasonable costs and charges, in this behalf wrongfully sustained.

GARRETT D. WALL, Sol. of Deft.

NEW JERSEY, TO WIT: Stacy Decow, the above defendant, who allegeth that he is conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, being duly affirmed according to law, on his solemn affirmation, saith that the matters and things set forth in the foregoing answer, so far they relate to his own acts and deeds, are true; and so far as they relate to the acts and deeds of any other person or persons, he believes them to be true and further saith not. STACY DECOW.

Affirmed at Mount Holly, this 9th day of February, 1830, before me. B. R. BROWN, M. C. C.